Please use science to prove God exist

[Unveiled Artist]

Fortunately... God is not a car....Wow... If I could count the cars I've owned... Hmmm...You ever heard of that old TV show "My Mother the Car"?

and uhhh... How many times have science textbooks been rewritten? In my lifetime alone? Several times.

It seems to me though that this is posed as some kind of debate.. one side verses the other.

Kind of like when Moses contended with the priests of Pharaoh or when Elijah called down a fire on Mount Carmel.... Prophet Muhammad was asked to bring down a table from heaven and Baha'u'llah was asked to perform a miracle for the Mullahs. Baha'u'llah suggested to them that He would perform the miracle if (1) they agreed on the miracle and (2) when the miracle was performed they would become His followers. Well those Mullahs would have none of that...

But looking back over the revelations of the past in human history for what oh the past three thousand years or so... it's hard to find something as consistent and as persistent as the interaction between the Divine and the human.

I was reading earlier today about the survivors of the holocaust and how many of them never lost their faith... even going through that hell .. to me that would be close to a miracle. But one of the statements I read impressed me and I think it responds rather well to the question being asked here:

A Hasidic master once said, “A God who limits himself to actions that we humans can understand couldn’t possibly be God.”

Baha'u'llah also revealed the following in a book called Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah p. 46-47 the following:


To every discerning and illuminated heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the Divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress. Far be it from His glory that human tongue should adequately recount His praise, or that human heart comprehend His fathomless mystery. He is, and hath ever been, veiled in the ancient eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men. "No vision taketh in Him, but He taketh in all vision; He is the Subtile, the All-Perceiving."...

Um.. I dont know how to reply. I cant tell if you're answering the post or telling me I'm wrong. Step from the religious point of view and look to the person asking for the proof. If you are asking for proof given that you know God and Bahuallah does not exist about God, I ask you, how do you define God as a non God believer? It would make no sense to use my proof as a religious person. What objective proof would you use to find God?

People who ask for proof about God usually use religious proof and believe in God by filling in the blanks (God of the gaps? I think its called). That doesn't make sense. They also define God the same as a believer does. However, that doesn't make sense because there are many Gods not just one.

So how does the questioner define God and, based on that definition, what tests would he use to proof his existence?

If he doesnt have his own definition and tests, why ask the question.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The scientific method cannot be used to examine God.

If that were the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Fact is: the majority of people who believe in God are wrong, necessarily. This is obvious if we consider that there is no religion that represents the absolute majority of the population that lives or that ever lived. No matter what God you believe in, the majority of people does not or did not believe in your God. So, only a minority can be right, at best.

And is so many theists are so obviously wrong, why should we take seriously their related claims of a supernatural realm?

Ciao

- viole

Truth isnt decided by majority polls. The ancient philosophers had a very good understanding of god.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Truth isnt decided by majority polls. The ancient philosophers had a very good understanding of god.

This is a strange statement - do you think that the ancient philosophers had the same view of god? If they did not have the same view, how could they be generally characterized as having a good understanding of god?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The ancient philosophers had a very good understanding of god.

Maybe they were just more superstitious.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

This is a strange statement - do you think that the ancient philosophers had the same view of god? If they did not have the same view, how could they be generally characterized as having a good understanding of god?

it was the most logical one. i dont think the christian view makes much sense, where god intervenes in the world and where there is no destiny.

 

[viole]

Truth isnt decided by majority polls.

My point really. The facts that are so many theists does not mean a lot, does it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

My point really. The facts that are so many theists does not mean a lot, does it?

Ciao

- viole

it is funny though that many people have noses. so that means there is something to smell in the world. like there are many people who have faith. so there is something to have faith in.

 

[viole]

it is funny though that many people have noses. so that means there is something to smell in the world. like there are many people who have faith. so there is something to have faith in.

It would be correct to say that many people have noses. so that means there is something to smell in the world. like there are many people who have different faiths. so there are different things to have faith in.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Cephus]

The scientific method cannot be used to examine God.

If that were the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Then what objective method can be used to determine God? And if none exist, why should anyone believe God exists?

 

[Firestorm77]

If there is no definition from the other side (not the religious), an idea of some sort so that scientific test can be used, how do you expect to find god with proof?

The very notion of a “scientific proof of God” is nonsense since God is an immaterial being, and science deal with the physical.

For the Universe to exist from nothingness requires the existence of "platonic" objects in the form of "laws" that predates the universe as we know it. Once we admit the possible existence of abstract objects - we have a foot in the door of a transcendental sphere, where God may reside.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

What happens inside of an atom clearly proves God.

Yupppppppppieeee!!! I am regaining my belief back.

I will never listen to the news about fanatics,I clearly know that they have nothing to do with religion. They are just maniacs.

So, I'm curious then.
What does happen inside an atom?
Please be as specific as you can, this is a learning experience for me.

 

[Unification]

Um. Define God so we know "and" start or test on what we are trying to find proof for.

If there is no definition from the other side (not the religious), an idea of some sort so that scientific test can be used, how do you expect to find god with proof?

Ex. If there is no car in front me, then that car does not exist. What car? Are there properties of this invisible car that I can use to start my investigation that it doesnt exist regardless the claims that it does?

Whether there is "God" or isn't, one cannot use science. History has shown that over and over that what is accepted in theory, in many ways and in every generation, has been misleading and scrapped for new "accepted in theory's." Rinse, recycle, repeat. It's really not "science's" error, it is "scientists" error. Also, regardless of external knowledge of something, what exists... will still continue to exist latently regardless of its evidence, proof, or discovery. Only under compulsion, a form of control, and satisfaction of a particular system or individual is proof "required." Ultimately, nothing is required unless an individual feels the need to try and satisfy and appease someone else's system of demand.

Your example is not very good. It's like saying that nothing exists until it's shown to exist, that everything is false until proven true. Gravity has existed for billions, if not infinite years.... yet using your logic, no it didn't exist for those billions of years... It has only existed for a few hundred years at its discovery.

How can one prove anything using a system that is continuously wrong, misleading, and scrapped in many ways?

Also, knowledge of something external doesn't compare with knowing/direct experience internally, whether there is "God" or isn't.

 

[Cephus]

The very notion of a “scientific proof of God” is nonsense since God is an immaterial being, and science deal with the physical.

For the Universe to exist from nothingness requires the existence of "platonic" objects in the form of "laws" that predates the universe as we know it. Once we admit the possible existence of abstract objects - we have a foot in the door of a transcendental sphere, where God may reside.

How do you know God is an immaterial being? How did you determine this? How did you test it to see if it is true? Religion spends a lot of time making empty and unsupportable claims about things, specifically so they cannot be objectively verified, specifically because they know that if science could examine their claims, science would reveal just how empty and absurd religion really is.

 

[Unification]

How do you know God is an immaterial being? How did you determine this? How did you test it to see if it is true? Religion spends a lot of time making empty and unsupportable claims about things, specifically so they cannot be objectively verified, specifically because they know that if science could examine their claims, science would reveal just how empty and absurd religion really is.

If there is or isn't "God," how do you know "God" and religion must be intertwined and the same? Have you asked "God" if "God" is about religion? Maybe religion spends a lot of time making empty and unsupportable claims about "God" if there is "God."

Have you checked "God's" driving license and under characteristics, it says, "how religions define me?"

Also, the thought and idea would be revealed/manifested within the mind of a scientist before it is revealed externally.

 

[FearGod]

God does exist without any doubt, to me at least
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/verses-of-the-quran-proves-gods-existence.181199/

 

[Unveiled Artist]

For the Universe to exist from nothingness requires the existence of "platonic" objects in the form of "laws" that predates the universe as we know it. Once we admit the possible existence of abstract objects - we have a foot in the door of a transcendental sphere, where God may reside.

You got me up to here. The universe cannot exist from nothingness. Something doesnt pop up from nothing. Something cannot disapear into nothing. Universe (space as a whole) has already exist because there was always something here to define it as such.

There is no abstract knowledge in science. No God. That sounds like an attempt to find God where there is no God "outside of our wants and needs for purppse, origin, and so forth". Once we realize "we are Not special" , we stop clinging to finding an origin and just Be. Live how your nature tells you without trying to make something what it is not.

Trying to find stories by clouds shaping the sky.

Just because "we" see stories and attrubute them to God, does not mean in "reality" a part from what we see, this true.

As long as we can accept we have Beliefs and nit Facts, we would be open to others views. As long as you mistake beliefs for facts, thats where friction starts.

 

[Unification]

You got me up to here. The universe cannot exist from nothingness. Something doesnt pop up from nothing. Something cannot disapear into nothing. Universe (space as a whole) has already exist because there was always something here to define it as such.

There is no abstract knowledge in science. No God. That sounds like an attempt to find God where there is no God "outside of our wants and needs for purppse, origin, and so forth". Once we realize "we are Not special" , we stop clinging to finding an origin and just Be. Live how your nature tells you without trying to make something what it is not.

Trying to find stories by clouds shaping the sky.

Just because "we" see stories and attrubute them to God, does not mean in "reality" a part from what we see, this true.

As long as we can accept we have Beliefs and nit Facts, we would be open to others views. As long as you mistake beliefs for facts, thats where friction starts.

I like that, but it's also hypocritical to your thread.

Whether there is "God" or not, science isn't all that there is.

One can just be and live peaceably without the need to prove anything to anyone, without the need for external scientific knowledge of something, without the need for facts or facts of the past. We stop clinging to this worthless compulsive drive to appease others demands and system requirements. Your own wants and needs has been just that for yourself and system. . but a demand from others. One doesn't need to find or seek for "God" externally or find or seek for scientific knowledge of something externally or prove anything.

Accept others as they are, friction starts not by confusing fact with belief, but by mankind's ego and necessity to defend their habitat and by telling others what they must do, and can and can't do. When in reality, most of mankind cannot discern fact from belief... even the intellectuals.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Four pages and we haven't we found a way to do it yet? I'm going to ask Saint Dawkins, he is sure to have an answer.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Then what objective method can be used to determine God? And if none exist, why should anyone believe God exists?

Belief in God has never been 'objective.' We can observe nature objectively, but the human experience of God is thoroughly subjective - it reaches beyond what science can do, just like our experience with art and music.