Questions of curiousity rather than debate

[Unveiled Artist]

If we used science (whatever the definition is??) to proove God exist, where in the hills would we start looking? Where would scientist start to test anything to make a conclusion of his existence?

They can't use the Bible. It just says that god exists.

They can't use artifacts. That just gives proof that people existed and maybe their claim not proof of his existence

Can't use nature of design. If we never heard of the word god, what in nature would give the scientist an idea that something supernatural is behind the design of, say, creation of a flower other than planting and watering seeds?

It cant be psychology. Humans believe a lot of things that don't exist physically but internally.

I could go on.

This would kinda put a hamper on saying "because we have the natural world, we know god exists". If that is the case, couldn't scientist be able to proove this true?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There is no way to prove God exists, it's a matter of faith and always will be.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There is no way to prove God exists, it's a matter of faith and always will be.

I know. I keep reading these posts about science and proof of God. Im asking, where would we start rather if we could, though.

Even if we used our imagination, where would a scientist start?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Even if we used our imagination, where would a scientist start?

More research on people who claim to talk to God. Are they really communicating with something external or are they just delusional? It would be a difficult thing to test though.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

More research on people who claim to talk to God. Are they really communicating with something external or are they just delusional? It would be a difficult thing to test though.

Oh gosh. I have vision problems they dont know the cause. They sent me to a psychiatrist who did a four hour test on me. That's just for my eyes..can you imagine?.....

 

[Town Heretic]

If we used science (whatever the definition is??) to proove God exist, where in the hills would we start looking? Where would scientist start to test anything to make a conclusion of his existence?

I remember once a fairly aggressive anti-theist friend of mine asked for evidence of God. He meant by that some empirical, objectively demonstrable evidence. I asked him what standard, if met, would objectively settle the question.

It's a conversation killer when you stop and think about it.

They can't use the Bible. It just says that god exists.

To be fair it says a great deal more, whatever you think about what it says. It speaks to the nature of man, the nature of God and the enormous gulf between the two by virtue of their natures. It speaks to a first and uncaused cause, to end the listing of a few things that are rather significant. But I suspect the only proof/evidence that can matter or satisfy is found within the experience of God.

They can't use artifacts. That just gives proof that people existed and maybe their claim not proof of his existence

Can't use nature of design.

Well, if you want to begin without a particular religious design to God I think you can begin with causality, which is part of the natural fabric of being and existence. I think that is a good beginning for God.

If we never heard of the word god, what in nature would give the scientist an idea that something supernatural is behind the design of, say, creation of a flower other than planting and watering seeds?

Logic, eventually. Causality and necessity and time would have us moving toward Him, I suspect.

It cant be psychology. Humans believe a lot of things that don't exist physically but internally.

And some of those things are real, like love.

This would kinda put a hamper on saying "because we have the natural world, we know god exists". If that is the case, couldn't scientist be able to proove this true?

How? And we're back to that impossible standard.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I remember once a fairly aggressive anti-theist friend of mine asked for evidence of God. He meant by that some empirical, objectively demonstrable evidence. I asked him what standard, if met, would objectively settle the question.

It's a conversation killer when you stop and think about it.


To be fair it says a great deal more, whatever you think about what it says. It speaks to the nature of man, the nature of God and the enormous gulf between the two by virtue of their natures. It speaks to a first and uncaused cause, to end the listing of a few things that are rather significant. But I suspect the only proof/evidence that can matter or satisfy is found within the experience of God.

They can't use artifacts. That just gives proof that people existed and maybe their claim not proof of his existence


Well, if you want to begin without a particular religious design to God I think you can begin with causality, which is part of the natural fabric of being and existence. I think that is a good beginning for God.


Logic, eventually. Causality and necessity and time would have us moving toward Him, I suspect.


And some of those things are real, like love.


How? And we're back to that impossible standard.

I understand most of what you said from a christian view, but what standard what a scientist use to prove the existence of God? I mean, a Christian can start from causality and conclude that the first cause has to be someone (rather than something? or anything? or anyone?). They start with the standard of god and move from there.

A scientist, on the other hand, just has "there is a cause and there is a result of that cause" but even if it's logical to have a cause, where would they find one for God?



To a Christian, of course, the Bible would have so much more; that's a given. Objectively, what it says is what it says. We choose individually if we want to look more into it spiritually. However, from a scientific perspective, I guess, that perspective would not work. They would hear the testimonies of believers--both in the BIble and today--but they are just that, testimonies.



I agree, there needs to be a standard. I keep seeing these science/god proof debates. When I ask, where to start--I'm also asking, by what standard should a scientist use to proove God? Is it even possible without going outside of science rather than looking at it through faith or practice?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It really just comes down to what your definition and standards for a "god" are. Because it is probable that our universe is a smaller part of something bigger (as smaller parts being part of a larger system is something we see universally throughout nature and the cosmos), it really becomes a question of how far do we have to go before there is nothing bigger. Is this something god? Is it something that naturally occurred on its own? Might we even be a "cell" or "atom" of something that is so far beyond our comprehension we'll never know or understand it? If I had the answers, I wouldn't be human and I wouldn't be typing this now.

 

[psychoslice]

Exactly, he doesn't existence, so why worry about him ?.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It really just comes down to what your definition and standards for a "god" are. Because it is probable that our universe is a smaller part of something bigger (as smaller parts being part of a larger system is something we see universally throughout nature and the cosmos), it really becomes a question of how far do we have to go before there is nothing bigger. Is this something god? Is it something that naturally occurred on its own? Might we even be a "cell" or "atom" of something that is so far beyond our comprehension we'll never know or understand it? If I had the answers, I wouldn't be human and I wouldn't be typing this now.

What I see is (which isn't directly related to your post comment) that we, as humanity, are obsessed with "mystery" and the "unknown." We call it from god to cosmos and every other word. Even scientists are looking into mystery seeing if they can find out more about life. However, the difference lies in the culture and language of believers compared to science, which isnt based on that.

In other words, scientist would call it a mystery.
Believers would call it god.

Scientists know that it is hard to solve a mystery and they dont claim full knowledge of something they dont know about.

Believers (some) on the other hand claim full knowledge (example the bible) of something they say dont know about. Which is a contradiction in terms, really: I know God is a fact and God is unknownable.

How could scientists work off of that claim? There's nothing "larger" or "higher power" or anything like that. It's just a mystery. Like trying to find the end of the universe. Scientist may not find it but they don't claim it is X because their predecessor says it is. A believer would.

That aside, though, even though a scientist cant solve a mystery, what facts do they go off of to attempt it? Christians use the BIble. (and so forth).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Exactly, he doesn't existence, so why worry about him ?.

Haha. We just like asking questions that go no where, that's all. I learn new things someimes.

 

[psychoslice]

Haha. We just like asking questions that go no where, that's all. I learn new things someimes.

Hey, that's good, but with God you will never learn anything, he just doesn't existence, simple as that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What I see is (which isn't directly related to your post comment) that we, as humanity, are obsessed with "mystery" and the "unknown."

Humans also have a strong need to find a meaning for things. The idea that there is no meaning apart from the one we make is quite scary for some people.

 

[Town Heretic]

I understand most of what you said from a christian view, but what standard what a scientist use to prove the existence of God?

I wasn't at that point attempting a particularly Christian answer though I am a Christian. I'm also a rationalist. And my answer was that empiricism has to fail. The moment you begin to seriously attempt to cobble a standard that begins to become self-evident. Can't be done.

I mean, a Christian can start from causality and conclude that the first cause has to be someone (rather than something? or anything? or anyone?). They start with the standard of god and move from there.

But at that point it's not even much more than a deist's proposition. The particulars come in examining the nature of that uncaused cause.

A scientist, on the other hand, just has "there is a cause and there is a result of that cause" but even if it's logical to have a cause, where would they find one for God?

They logically couldn't. The first cause can't be a band-aid for an infinite regress, which is as miraculous as ex nihilo creation given there's no precedent for it or explanation, as is the suggestion of eternality of something inherently that conforms to our present experience of what exists around us. Or you could go the route of contingent and necessary being. Aquinas started that curious ball rolling.

To a Christian, of course, the Bible would have so much more; that's a given.

It has more to anyone who reads it, whatever you think of the truth of its founding principle. It speaks to moral truth, human nature, the divine.

Objectively, what it says is what it says. We choose individually if we want to look more into it spiritually. However, from a scientific perspective, I guess, that perspective would not work. They would hear the testimonies of believers--both in the BIble and today--but they are just that, testimonies.

Testimony is evidence. Whether the evidence rises to proof is a question we each can engage as the trier of fact for ourselves.

I agree, there needs to be a standard. I keep seeing these science/god proof debates. When I ask, where to start--I'm also asking, by what standard should a scientist use to proove God? Is it even possible without going outside of science rather than looking at it through faith or practice?

I don't believe empiricism can address the question, which is why I tend to ask for that objective, settling standard to be met. Because if someone doesn't know what they're asking for, can't define what would sate the point objectively, they're really not asking a question at all. They're really making a statement with peculiar punctuation.

 

[Town Heretic]

Humans also have a strong need to find a meaning for things.

We have a real native genius for pattern finding and imposing...like seeing faces in wood grain and animals in clouds.

The idea that there is no meaning apart from the one we make is quite scary for some people.

It should be scary for any rational being. If you aren't motivated by your fundamental biological imperative to survive you should probably be in therapy. I don't mean you, I mean anyone...that said, there are all sorts of inconvenient truths (real and imagined) that we make peace with by necessity and as creatures of reason. I think it's dangerous to assume the single most unifying thought in the history of man is nothing more than a universal whim wrapped around a primal fear. It's possible, but it's also possibly not. And therein lies the most interesting and fundamentally important examination imaginable.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think it's dangerous to assume the single most unifying thought in the history of man is nothing more than a universal whim wrapped around a primal fear.

I think it's more dangerous to assume it isn't.

Even the Archbishop of Canterbury is having doubts: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc...e-of-God-admits-Archbishop-of-Canterbury.html

 

[wizanda]

If we used science (whatever the definition is??) to proove God exist, where in the hills would we start looking?

Take it you didn't bother looking at what posted by Dr Michio Kaku, explaining how science would prove it, the last time you posted this?

Can't use nature of design. If we never heard of the word god, what in nature would give the scientist an idea that something supernatural is behind the design of, say, creation of a flower other than planting and watering seeds?

Because a flower is mathematically designed, the petals are evenly spaced using the Fibonacci sequence, which we find integrated into most of natures design.

The plant turning salts from the soil, into sugars using sunlight is magic.

“If we could see the miracle of a single flower clearly, our whole life would change.”

There are loads more things that can be shown with a single flower; yet if the seeker isn't looking, why bother showing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

“If we could see the miracle of a single flower clearly, our whole life would change.”

The natural world is wonderful and awesome but I don't see what God has to do with it.

 

[Iti oj]

If we used science (whatever the definition is??) to proove God exist, where in the hills would we start looking? Where would scientist start to test anything to make a conclusion of his existence?

They can't use the Bible. It just says that god exists.

They can't use artifacts. That just gives proof that people existed and maybe their claim not proof of his existence

Can't use nature of design. If we never heard of the word god, what in nature would give the scientist an idea that something supernatural is behind the design of, say, creation of a flower other than planting and watering seeds?

It cant be psychology. Humans believe a lot of things that don't exist physically but internally.

I could go on.

This would kinda put a hamper on saying "because we have the natural world, we know god exists". If that is the case, couldn't scientist be able to proove this true?

first it depends on how and what you mean by god,
prayer studies !? and or things of that nature .

 

[Town Heretic]

I think it's more dangerous to assume it isn't.

I didn't say you had to assume anything, though I spoke against the negative. That said, if the love of God drives you to harm others you're doing it wrong and need a better instruction manual or understanding.

Even the Archbishop of Canterbury is having doubts: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc...e-of-God-admits-Archbishop-of-Canterbury.html

About where God was in the midst of those horrible acts. Human enough, imperfect enough. Everyone who meets suffering at some point asks for the why of it. The Christian walk isn't about having all of the answers at every point in your life or being confident and serene in the face of evil. It's about the context you choose for meeting that evil and the meaningful questions of existence.