Please use science to prove God exist

[Cephus]

The universe has a beginning, and it makes sense to me that was it brought into existence through intentional planning and intelligence. This would explain why our universe is ordered, beautiful & fine-tuned.

But it's not. The universe is anything but fine tuned. Only a fool believes that it is.

Can you objectively verify that our universe is not a computer simulation?

Nope, but I don't have to prove that it isn't anything, only that it is. The burden of proof is on the positive claimant, in that case, the person who claims that it is a computer simulation. They need to demonstrate that their position is factually true by presenting objective evidence. If they fail to do so, I have no obligation to take their claims seriously. The only claims that are credible are the ones that can be rationally defended and objectively supported. Religious claims do not fall into that group.

 

[Firestorm77]

But it's not. The universe is anything but fine tuned. Only a fool believes that it is.

Well that is your opinion, but there are many scientist who also think that our universe is fine tunned. The famous physicist Fred Hoyle, once said it was as if "a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature"

Let me cite this published paper on fine-tuning of stars for the existence of life as an example.They investigate the consequences of changing the quark mass and the fine-structure constant with regard to stellar processes that produce the elements of life.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4181

The paper concludes:

" We find that the formation of carbon and oxygen in our universe would survive a 2% change in the light quark mass or a 2% change in the fine structure constant. Beyond such relatively tiny changes in the fundamental parameters, we find that the anthropic principle appears necessary to explain the observed reaction rate of the riple-alpha process."

Nope, but I don't have to prove that it isn't anything, only that it is. The burden of proof is on the positive claimant, in that case, the person who claims that it is a computer simulation. They need to demonstrate that their position is factually true by presenting objective evidence. If they fail to do so, I have no obligation to take their claims seriously. The only claims that are credible are the ones that can be rationally defended and objectively supported. Religious claims do not fall into that group.

" The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence "

Just because we lack evidence, it doesn't mean our universe can't be a computer simulation.

 

[Cephus]

Well that is your opinion, but there are many scientist who also think that our universe is fine tunned. The famous physicist Fred Hoyle, once said it was as if "a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature"

Um, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramsinghe didn't believe in God, they thought life came to Earth via space seeds.

 

[viole]

The universe has a beginning, and it makes sense to me that was it brought into existence through intentional planning and intelligence. This would explain why our universe is ordered, beautiful & fine-tuned.

An example of fine tunning of low-entropy at the beginning of universe by Roger Penrose

I believe the problem of these assumptions are that they arbitrarily extend the fact that we need work, intelligence and effort to tune things in THIS universe in order to reverse, locally, the trend towards "lack of order". We need to think and work hard to make a car, because we know that if we do not do anything, the materials of that car will not magically produce a car, with extremely high likelhood. I believe that is the fallacy of composition: things that are required within this universe do not necessarily apply to the universe itself. They might, but it is question begging to assume that it is necessarily the case.

In other words, they arbitrarily extend the need of tuning and intelligence in contexts where it might not be needed at all. Because we do not know if extra universal environments, if they exist and whatever they are, have also the need to beat the trend to "lack of order" we experience here.

Unless God lives in an environment whose entropy is increasing as well and that needs intervention to tune things up

Ciao

- viole

 

[rrosskopf]

I believe the problem of these assumptions are that they arbitrarily extend the fact that we need work, intelligence and effort to tune things in THIS universe in order to reverse, locally, the trend towards "lack of order". We need to think and work hard to make a car, because we know that if we do not do anything, the materials of that car will not magically produce a car, with extremely high likelhood. I believe that is the fallacy of composition: things that are required within this universe do not necessarily apply to the universe itself. They might, but it is question begging to assume that it is necessarily the case.

In other words, they arbitrarily extend the need of tuning and intelligence in contexts where it might not be needed at all. Because we do not know if extra universal environments, if they exist and whatever they are, have also the need to beat the trend to "lack of order" we experience here.

- viole

You have a good point; is isn't like we have multiple disparate universes to compare with one another. The whole concept of a "uni"-verse is that there is just one; it includes everything that exists and assumes that something has always existed. The idea that an unknown intelligent being created the universe is a contradiction; if the universe includes everything that exists, and God exists, then God couldn't have created the universe. Of course, this is all just problems with definitions; if we define universe to represent one of several galaxy-systems, then the problem goes away. A whole host of other problems appear in its place. There is no conclusive evidence, or even accepted religious testimony that such is the case. It is all incredibly speculative.

I would argue that there are logical problems with an everywhere-present all-powerful invisible god, that do not occur with a definition that is less philosophical. The closer the definition of God resembles the definition of man, the more probable it becomes.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

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?

The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the 'promise' of a precise, predefined, predictable and repeatable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His Command, paving the way for access to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof as the justification of faith.

Thus 'faith' becomes an act of trust in action, the search along a defined path of strict self discipline, [a test of the human heart] to discover His 'Word' of a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our mortal moral compass with the Divine, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." Thus is a man 'created' in the image and likeness of his Creator.

So like it or no, and many won't, a new religious teaching, a wisdom not of human intellectual origin, empirical, metaphysical and transcendent, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious/spiritual revolution is getting under way. So who has the courage to crack open history? To test or not to test, that is the question?
More info at http://www.energon.org.uk

 

[McBell]

The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the 'promise' of a precise, predefined, predictable and repeatable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His Command, paving the way for access to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof as the justification of faith.

Thus 'faith' becomes an act of trust in action, the search along a defined path of strict self discipline, [a test of the human heart] to discover His 'Word' of a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our mortal moral compass with the Divine, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." Thus is a man 'created' in the image and likeness of his Creator.

So like it or no, and many won't, a new religious teaching, a wisdom not of human intellectual origin, empirical, metaphysical and transcendent, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious/spiritual revolution is getting under way. So who has the courage to crack open history? To test or not to test, that is the question?
More info at http://www.energon.org.uk

This is nothing more than a big pile of wishful thinking presented in double speak.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is nothing more than a big pile of wishful thinking presented in double speak.

Thats putting it blunt

 

[Janardena]

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?

God is the original cause of all causes.

An invisible car is nothing more than a car we cannot see.
As we can see cars, it is reasonable to conclude that such a thing doesn't exist in reality.
But it only works because you know what a car is.

With regards to God (as defined), He is not invisible, as He must necessarily be the source of everything.
The decision we make about God, rests purely on our perception of God.

To ask for a scientific proof of God (I'll assume you mean natural science), is to assume that God can be proven by such methods. It also assumes that if such a development came to be, you would somehow know that this is God. Meaning you already have a conception of God.
So I ask you, what is your perception of God?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Invisible car as in there is no car. Nothing.

How do you test a car that is not there? Where do you start?

Claims the car exist does not make it exist.

Claims that miracles that "suggests" this car's existence does not proove its there.

A person/s testimonies of this car no mstter how many doesnt make it exist.

Faith and trust in this car does not make it poof into existence.

Watching the moon phase or go around the sun has no connection to a non existent car.

We walk through the empty space to which that car exist all the time but here is no physical barrier.

This car was told by millions that it has different colors some say blue others orange. Some say its a sports van others a toyota. How do you know?

God is
the original cause of all causes.

An invisible car is nothing more than a car we cannot see.
As we can see cars, it is reasonable to conclude that such a thing doesn't exist in reality.
But it only works because you know what a car is.

With regards to God (as defined), He is not invisible, as He must necessarily be the source of everything.
The decision we make about God, rests purely on our perception of God.

To ask for a scientific proof of God (I'll assume you mean natural science), is to assume that God can be proven by such methods. It also assumes that if such a development came to be, you would somehow know that this is God. Meaning you already have a conception of God.
So I ask you, what is your perception of God?

If God is not invisible how is he formed? What are his physical attributes that all people who believe in one Creator can agree on?

My perception of God? Life itself.

I have no external perception of God; its not in my vocab. Anything internal, I call Buddhanature because it comes from my mind. All what drives me are from the spirits (more than one), who gives me love, my family, my ancestors.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There are cosmological models in which the universe can be created by quantum tunneling from literally "nothing" ie no space, time & matter. Although "nothing" is still subject to the laws of quantum mechanics.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982PhLB..117...25V

If you are right, since I cant understand whst you said, how does the existence of amything proove God. Thats like watching a baby convienced and see God. I see life. I dont see the God described abrahamoc religions.

To me: God is life.

 

[Sundance]

If you (like myself) deify the creative and destructive powers of the Sun, the Moon, and the Four (or Five, depending upon your specific belief system) Elements, then it's undoubtedly obvious that Deity exists. Anyone wish to offer refutations?

 

[notexceling]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12....
Our numerical system has potentially a never ending amount of numbers. The more you count, the more we can plus another one.
Potentially an infinite amount...
But in truth....
Only one number does exist
The number "1"
E.g 1 + 1 + 1 = 3
That is because "1" explains itself and every other number.
In fact, every number is a repetition (more precisely a reproduction) of the number "1".
Not only does it explain every whole number but it also explains every type of number.
For example a fraction or a decimal point is a "part of "1"".
50% =
1/2 =
0.5 OF 1

What's so special about "1" is it is also complete
1 = 100%
In maths, when something is complete It MUST have a bound and an end.
In maths this is signified with brackets ( )
( <------bound, beginning
) <------end, finish
*****(We do not use the brackets because we consider it common knowledge.)
In maths we rarely use it but Brackets explain grouping pairs or completion in maths. That is why brackets are done first in arithmetical equation
e.g
(3+2) x (3+1) = 20
or
(5) x (4) = (20)
5 x 4 = 20
One is 100% completely bounded and ended to itself.
(1) or (100%)
Hence this instantly means "(1)", the number "1" is the finite because of is finite restriction.
ANYTHING that can be calculated is.
Instantly our universe becomes finite (1) even if it has potentially infinite possibilities (∞).
∞ = infinity.
A concept not a number meaning boundless/endless
Unrestricted (beyond brackets)
This is what has come to be known as potential infinite, even though it's just studying the ∞ possibilities within (1).
If we accept (∞) as anything more it would be the greatest oxymoron in the history of mankind.
There is also another restriction of the number (1)
That is because by itself can not do much.
It needs a medium or a language to communicate.
multiple, divide, square root Etc are all fancy and group methods of doing the core symbols of maths.
Addition and subtraction
+ -
Just like (1),
(+|-) addition and subtraction can explain themselves and every other type of calculations.
Example
(1+1+1) + (1+1+1) = (1+1+1+1+1+1)
So inside every (1) we have (+|-).
E.g
Man = (1)
And he has (+|-) within himself.
Think of anything Positive and negative, Addition subtraction, Time space, Proton electron, Good Bad, Right Wrong, Light Dark
We can even say
Yin Yang for good measure
All we have is equal and opposites and one can not exist without the other. Black exists because of white and vice versa.
Think of anything, chemistry, biology, physics even non scientific subjects like morale; you can even say from a materialistic morale point of view, water is our greatest asset, the reason for life yet, our greatest restriction.
Anything from a positive and a negative within a finite position can be explained quite easily.
(+ -) within (1)
Now to make it interesting..........
Scientifically we know we are living in 1 x (E=mc2), we are restricted.
My question is say we calculated everything that exists in our (1) universe.
Hypothetically lets say
everything = (100)
What would be
1 + (100) = ?
It can not be 101
Reason
Everything has already been calculated and it equalled (100)
Let me rephrase the question
from my brief explanation above what would be
1 + (finite)
1 + (maths)
1 + (1)
1 + (universe)
1 + (everything)
1 + (100%)
1 + (E=mc2)
1 + (+|-)
????
It must be something outside of the bound and end (brackets)
Our concept of this is called
Absolute (meaning 100%)
Infinity
∞
A CONCEPT (NOT A NUMBER) beyond all bounds "(" and ends ")"
So in an equation
1 + (1) = ∞
Or as explained before the core language of (1) is maths (+|-)
The theory of Absolute Infinity
1 + (+|-) = ∞
Even though I have not surpassed our laws of mathematics, it displays something beyond mathematics.
What so special about this equation?
LETS GET INTO SCIENCE:
__________________
Quote: "If an object tries to travel 186,000 miles per second, its mass becomes infinite, and so does the energy required to move it. For this reason, no normal object can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light."
So if something exceeds this limit (1) its mass becomes infinite.
1 + (1) = ∞
__________________
Mathematics studies the (+ | - ) laws to understand the (1) value.
Science studies the (1) value to understand the ( + | - ) laws.
__________________
Quantum Mechanics states for nothing to create something, laws must be in place for nothing to produce something.
The equation covers this aspect quite easily.
A law is something that governs its subjects. It is not an actual physical entity and can not be expressed as the value 1.
It is however an addition which must preexist our mathematical restrictions, as quantum mechanics states.
+ ( + | - ) This is the equation of Quantum mechanics,
And this (+|-) is what governing physics studies
__________________
RELIGION
It explain outside of our brackets
God is complete 1
100%
Yet he is incomprehensible
∞
It explains that we have the option of either choosing a + path or - negative
If on the day of judgment "=" (The day of TOTALLING/Tallying/equal sign)
our good deeds out way our bad
1 + ( + > - ) = + ∞
You will end up in eternal positive or heaven
Respectively
1 + ( + < -) = - ∞
Hell
God 1 = ∞
Created +
Everything (+ - )
and he only gives + "good" to all creation
and everything (1) was made in pairs (+ - )

__________________
Prisca Theologia
+(+|-) Atheist, understand natural law exist and Quanta
(∞)=∞ Pantheist, the universe is God
(1)=∞ Buddha said, look within yourself (1) and find your personal (∞) nirvana.
( 1 + (+|-) = ∞) Christianity,
father 1=∞
holy spirit +
son (+|-)
Exterior brackets trinity
(holy spirit is the deliverer of the law, the son is earthly bound (+-) son)
Even though Jesus can have potentially have an (∞) possibilities within him, he can never be God. That is why he always said the father ∞ is greater than I (1)
Islam
Surah 112
Say he is one
1
on all whom depend +
he begets not, (+)
nor is begotten (-)
(+|-)
and none is like him ∞
---->It is everywhere (on every page in every Surah) in the Quran .<--------

Cantor actually coined the word “transfinite” in an attempt to distinguish the various levels of infinite numbers from an Absolute Infinity 100% ∞ , an incomprehensible concept beyond mathematics itself, which then Cantor effectively equated with God (he saw no contradiction between his mathematics and the traditional concept of God)
I'm merely saying the same thing. It doesn't matter if you call this concept Allah, God, Absolute Infinite. Whats important to understand is that a concept beyond anything calculable (including all the potential infinities) does exist, as Cantor proclaimed.

For those who want to argue in regards to zero

We need to define what is zero first
What is 0?

Cause if we mean something was there and then wasn't then it never can be 0 and if it never existed we wouldn't know the 0 of it exists

Something that exist can not "not" exist because it has existed.

If the entity is removed it is the absence of an existence, not uncreated.

Nothing can only exist because it was something.

Something can never become nothing because it was once something and nothing can not be subtracted unless it becomes an additional something.

As soon as we label it nothing, it becomes something even if there is nothing there. The reason is when we identify its nothing, we give a no value (even if its nothing) within mathematical laws.

This doesn't only apply to physical or tangible entities.

For example we can create (or add on) using our imagination. The unique imaginative something that we created exists at a certain time within your space so even if forgotten and never remembered again, it can never become nothing, only the addition it supplied is removed.

However even this imaginative something is still restricted and can only be created because of our experiences.

We can not imagine what someone else imagines nor can we conjure up something unimaginable because everything you imagine is subject to your experiences or, your moment in time within the space of your life.
E.g

Say I dreamt of monster in my childhood.

Did that monster ever exist?

Actually yes, even though I just imagined it subconsciously it existed and was definable at that present time, even if none of the details can be remembered or is totally forgotten.
I.e it must be recorded for that particular time of my space

More so, for me just to give the above example I am creating something.

I've defined a nonexistent for example purposes so even if I never had any dreams of a monster in my life, it still exists because of my example.

Hence we can never identify "Absolute Zero" for as soon as we label "it" , "it" becomes the absence of something rather than becoming from nothing.

And for those who want to argue about irrational numbers eg Pi

Pi is limited to numbers where as ∞ is a concept beyond the governing laws of mathematics.

Pi can't explain the beyond the speed of light.

Pi can't even explain another number, the number 4.
It is 3 complete 1s with a remaining
0.969518.. away from being a complete 4.

I'm not saying pi is not a wonderful calculation, I'm just trying to say Pi is limited to time space and the only truth we know, mathematics.

Pi is irrational but will be rational when we add 0.9695....
And a complete new number.
Hence, it remaining distance from always being a complete number 4, means it's remainder is only potentially an infinite amount of decimals and must have an end.

 

[Janardena]

Invisible car as in there is no car. Nothing.

How do you test a car that is not there? Where do you start?

Claims the car exist does not make it exist.

Claims that miracles that "suggests" this car's existence does not proove its there.

A person/s testimonies of this car no mstter how many doesnt make it exist.

Faith and trust in this car does not make it poof into existence.

Watching the moon phase or go around the sun has no connection to a non existent car.

We walk through the empty space to which that car exist all the time but here is no physical barrier.

This car was told by millions that it has different colors some say blue others orange. Some say its a sports van others a toyota. How do you know?

I assume that everyone who reads this, agrees with what it says. But I don't understand the correlation you are trying to make with God.

If God is not invisible how is he formed? What are his physical attributes that all people who believe in one Creator can agree on?

What makes you think God is formed?
What makes you think God has physical properties?
Is this your of concept of God? If so why?

My perception of God? Life itself.

That's good. So do I.

I have no external perception of God; its not in my vocab. Anything internal, I call Buddhanature because it comes from my mind. All what drives me are from the spirits (more than one), who gives me love, my family, my ancestors.

If God is the supreme cause of all causes, where did ''Buddhanature'' and ''mind'' come from?