Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
How would you falsify it? What tests could you apply that if being right would prove guided evolution wrong?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science can say nothing about existence of God
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
Anyone else feel like they're kind of waiting for a "therefore.." And the rest of the OP?
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Most likely, "therefore you can't tell me I'm wrong as long as I use the word 'God' in my statements."
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
Science cannot prove the existence of something that may not exist. It can only work with that which is observed.
However if my physics is correct then perhaps it may prove a "GOD" cannot have existed (yet). If by GOD one assumes the normal definition as "There at the beginning" ie at the big bang, All powerful, All knowing type of creature that by definition must be extremely complex.
When I teach my students science I explain it this way.
The universe is very large and has many intriguing questions to be answered. We will probably never know all and see everything. So the Universe can be divided into that which we do know and that which we don't. So "GOD" could exist it that part of the Universe we do not know yet.
If we further define known knowledge, then we can make a sort of Venn Diagram of nested subsets. Mathematics is universal irrelevant of location it is the language of the universe. A subset of Mathematics is Physics, a subset of Physics is Chemistry, a subset of Chemistry is Biology, a subset of Biology is Psychology, a subset of Psychology is Consciousness, a subset of Conscious is poetry etc etc etc.
Science and reasoned thinking has "cracked" many of the universe's mysteries. While the universe is huge and we certainly do not know all, we can see that these scientific principles seem hold across the vastness of the visible universe. When we look at distant objects we see the spectral signatures of the same chemistry and physics as we have in our own backyard. As such we have found some reasonably secure axioms such as the speed of light limitations, E=mc^2, PV=nRT, conservation of matter, energy and momentum, the gravitational equation, coulomb equation, the relation between Enthalpy, Temperature and Entropy, the atomic and subatomic nature of matter.
One of the properties of the Universe is Entropy, a measure of disorder. Its inverse is complexity and order. Entropy is generally observed to increase ie tends to disorder. eg A beautiful castle built in the middle ages is now a pile of rocks.
The Universe started as a very hot soup of seething particles (quarks) in a small volume (The Big Bang). It had little structure ie very low complexity as soon as any structure is formed the extremely high temperature instantly disrupts it. As the universe expanded and cooled protons, neutrons, electrons coalesced out of the quark soup and complexity increased as these structures became stable. It is thought at this stage both matter and antimatter were formed simultaneously, instantly annihilating each other generating a vast amount of light (gamma radiation) and what remained was a small excess of normal matter that we now observe as our universe. As the early universe expanded stars coalesced predominantly out of the hydrogen (Element 1) that pervaded the early universe under the influence of gravity. As they grew in mass their nuclear reactions ignited under the huge gravitational pressure and formed new elements as atomic nuclei were smashed together giving us elements up to element 12 Carbon (in a star such as our Sun), larger stars can produce up to element 26 Iron. Eventually the star runs out of fuel and dies. However if the star is larger than a certain mass (>5xsuns) it burns its fuel
faster and when it runs out it collapses and explodes. This explosion is called a Super Nova, during this massive explosion elements are formed up to element 92 Uranium and beyond. Most elements above 92 were unstable and rapidly decayed to lighter elements leaving Uranium as the heaviest stable element in our current environment.
Planets such as earth must have formed after the initial series of supernovae because the planet is made of elements up to 92. As the earth cooled oceans formed, life originated..blue green algae...plants..fish...animals...man ..civilization...written word...electronic information...digital age... quantum computing.....
In other words as the universe cools and expands over time, it becomes more complex ie what appears to be anti-entropy. In fact when complexity increases locally then there must be a greater (because of inefficiencies) amount of matter nearby being disordered such that Entropy always increases in a closed system.
eg burning a block of coal in air, the solid structure of the coal is destroyed increasing in entropy as the hot gases of water vapor and CO2 escape, but the energy generated can be used to create order such as fabricating a integrated circuit.
So overall when I look at my universe I see an increase in complexity with time and decrease in temperature. This complexity is at the expense of the surrounding environment which becomes more disordered.
Given the above I would suggest at the "beginning", the universe was not complex enough for an all knowing all powerful super being GOD. From my observations it
may still be billions of years before there is enough complexity in the universe to support such a beast as "GOD".
Cheers
DawudTalut
Peace be upon you.
Peace be on you.
God did not stop us to think, ponder, discover and invent. On the contrary God likes and commands to do so. In Ahmadiyya Muslim understanding:
[Holy Quran ch 2 - v 165]"Verily, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and in the alternation of night and day, and in the ships which sail in the sea with that which profits men, and in the water which Allah sends down from the sky and quickens therewith the earth after its death and scatters therein all kinds of beasts, and in the change of the winds, and the clouds pressed into service between the heaven and the earth — are indeed Signs for the people who understand."
Source:https://www.alislam.org/quran/searc...0&swaootw=ان+فى&search=ابحث+/+Search&slang=AR
HOLY QURAN ALSO SAYS:
[16:11] He it is Who sends down water for you from the clouds; out of it you have your drink, and there (grow) from it trees on which you pasture your (cattle).
[16:12] Therewith He grows corn for you, and the olive and the datepalm, and the grapes, and all kinds of fruits. Surely, in that is a Sign for a people who reflect.
[16:13] And He has pressed into service for you the night and the day, and the sun and the moon; and the stars too have been pressed into service by His command. Surely, in that are Signs for a people who make use of their reason.
[16:14] And (He has pressed into service) the things He has created for you in the earth, varying in colours. Surely, in that is a Sign for a people who take heed.
[16:15] And He it is Who has subjected (to you) the sea that you may eat therefrom fresh flesh, and may take forth therefrom ornaments which you wear. And thou seest the ships ploughing through it, (that you may thereby journey) and that you may seek of His bounty and that you may be grateful.
[16:16] And He has placed in the earth mountains so that (they) provide means of food for you, and rivers and routes that you may take the right way.
[16:17] And, (other) marks (too); (by them) and by the stars they follow the right direction.
[16:18] Is He, then, Who creates like one who creates not? Will you not then take heed?
Source: Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth
Last edited:
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Why on earth would science wast its time talking about god ????
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Why would on earth Atheists eulogize science for not finding God while science does not claim to find God or not to find God?
Regards
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
Because being an atheist doesn't make you a scientist.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Is it?
A (world without God) is different from a (world with a God) and if you agree, then by scientific test (?) we can establish whether that God exist or not.
Initially, we define what is a God is. What its made of, what can it do? Much like when we test if an electric circuit is complete or broken. If the test light (meter) lights, then the circuit is complete or else it is not.
Now, this God, he can do anything possible, he is loving, and he answer prayers.
Now imagine a world WITH God, and in this world there is an developing typhoon very much like Yolanda in the Philippines, the people are afraid of devastation, so they pray to God. Can we, from the result of prayers conclude that we can test the existence of God in the same manner that we tested the existence of electricity in a complete electric circuit?
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Yes, being an atheist does not make one a scientist.
An ignorant person is perfectly suited to be an atheist.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Ignorant of what?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
How would you have a test for God who is only attributive?
He is neither physical/material nor spiritual.
Regards
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
Is there even a point to your thread?
Or did you just make it to get around to casting insults?
What is your actual point?
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
An ignorant person is suited to all manner of belief.
You don't seem to have any idea what my post means. Its like you completely forgot YOUR comment that made me respond and now you are re-purposing my words to fit your agenda. That, my friend, is ignorance manifest.
By godmeter, i guess.
Seriously, we test it by its attributes, like the electric current. Does it care so much so that it willl answer prayers in order to save potential victims?
if an entity is neither this nor that, then what is that stuff? And if you admit it cannot be tested, how can you claim its existence?
Last edited:
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Because that is ALL he's doing. Attributive merely means associated with something. It's a tautology.
X is attributed to Y. Why? Because X is attributed to Y.
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
Well, then what is he?
Not physical, not spiritual, what's your option 3 you're going with?
Also, what is your method for defining what exists vs what doesn't exist?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
The One-True-God has been defined in the truthful religion like this:
[59:23] He is Allah, and there is no God beside Him, the Knower of the unseen and the seen. He is the Gracious, the Merciful.
[59:24] He is Allah, and there is no God beside Him, the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of Peace, the Bestower of Security, the Protector, the Mighty, the Subduer, the Exalted. Holy is Allah far above that which they associate with Him.
[59:25] He is Allah, the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner. His are the most beautiful names. All that is in the heavens and the earth glorifies Him, and He is the Mighty, the Wise.
The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online
As one could see the above are absolute attributes of One-True-God; and are neither physical/material nor spirits.
He has created everything physical/material and spirits; but He himself is none of them.
Regards