Can Science Disprove The Existence Of God?

neologist wrote:

My first impression of this thread was that it is a fruitless pursuit.

I thought the same thing about your "Spiritual Truth" thread.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
My first impression of this thread was that it is a fruitless pursuit.

I thought the same thing about your "Spiritual Truth" thread.

Snivel.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
My first impression of this thread was that it is a fruitless pursuit.

I thought the same thing about your "Spiritual Truth" thread.
Snivel.

Hey, but I answered your question anyway. On a discussion forum, even a fruitless pursuit is still a pursuit Wink

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
My first impression of this thread was that it is a fruitless pursuit.

I thought the same thing about your "Spiritual Truth" thread.
Snivel.

Hey, but I answered your question anyway. On a discussion forum, even a fruitless pursuit is still a pursuit

OK

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

If we take literally the definition of the Hebrew word commonly pronounced in English, Jehovah; it means "He who causes to become."

I always thought the hebrew word for jehova was jahwe(spelling?). Correct me if I'm wrong.

0 Replies

Spelled in Hebrew from right to left: YHWH: Yod Heh Waw Heh

http://www.independentartistscompany.com/spotlight/symbols/159.jpg

0 Replies

What about Elohim?

0 Replies

I would have thought it obvious that science can't disprove the existence of a creator God.

From that perspective, those that don't believe in such a God do so out of personal belief, and the act of living without believing in such a God is a act of Faith (with said faith needing no justification)

0 Replies

...grumble...

The burden of proof does not fall on those trying to disprove god, it falls on those trying to prove god. Done and done.

Science has no need to disprove something that does not affect anything.

What IS very real is the construct of god which is used as a tool. The effect the construct can have on people is very real and quite frightening. The constuct ultimately is not god though but just a collection of other things. This is present through all of ancient mythology and continues today with modern mythologies such as Christianity etc.

God is not real, but a individual's fear of something called a god is very real. The strong emotions many sincerely claim come from something they call a god is real. The emotions are real, the god is not.

I used to fear the monster under the bed. My fear was real, the monster was not.

and so on...

T
K
O

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

What about Elohim?

The Hebrew word elohim, the plural of eloha, simply translated, means "gods". It sometimes refers to a number of gods, but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, (Think of the royal 'we'). It is used in the Scriptures with reference to the true God himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men. [1Samuel 5:7b (Dagon); 1Kings 11:5 ("goddess" Ashtoreth); Daniel 1:2b (Marduk).] When preceded by the definite article ha, it refers to the true God.

0 Replies

Hello All:

While I know that Setana has already smoked out Baddog1's post as being pure bait, called him on it, got him into a corner, and made him look like a fool. I thought everyone might like to know how this topic (in my opinion) came about. While I'm sure he had a few people in mind that continually call him on his B.S. but I have a feeling this was aimed at me. I am going to do it in a series of posts for readability. For some of you I will be stating the painfully obvious, so I apologize in advance, but what was I to do?

Based on Baddog1's ridiculous posts I assumed that he had no background in science and told him so. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duckThis was more than his ego could stand and he went apoplectic.

Quote:

Your assumption(s) reek of arrogance - and between you & I; I hold a degree in mechanical engineering, solely own three (3) U.S. utility patents, each of my design; two of which are assigned to companies in the automotive industry. On a daily basis I deal with metallurgical issues, air flow measurement & management projects and manage a $5M company. So the next time you feel the need to call someone out on a 'web post', you might want to ask a few questions first!

He basically posted his C.V. (resume). I assumed he was telling the truth, not because I'm trusting but because it suited my purposes. I also assume this was supposed to impress me or frighten me into silence. It did neither. Rather as I pointed out to him here:

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2885493#2885493

I expected to get science-based answers rather than semantic summersaults as would the other people on these threads. My reason was as follows.

If you have had training in science or are just a relatively intelligent person and are dealing with someone who you think has been indoctrinated all their life to a particular belief system, has been taught science is the enemy, and who it appears hasn't had formal training in science it is easier to give their ludicrous statements a pass. You generally try to explain to them why what they are saying is so obviously wrong and can understand why it may take a long time for them to come around to the fact that what were mislead.

It's another thing entirely when you know that someone HAS been trained in science and KNOWS what they are spouting is pure rubbish with which they are trying to mislead those who don't know any better. Those are people who you DON'T give a pass. It is not only those who don't know any better they are trying to mislead. It becomes clear that they think YOU are a fool and their GENIOUS can easily provide misinformation in such a clever form that you could not possibly unravel it to show them for the charlatans that they really are.

Apparently after some thought Baddog1 seemed to have realized that it wasn't his most brilliant post and needed to head off any "issues" his pronouncement may have caused him. It appears he thought that: just as discretion is the better part of valor, so cowardice is the better part of discretion, and he valiantly hid himself away on a new post where he could post a ridiculous statement that had been answered numerous times before and their imply that this was what (another poster: me) implied, not he. He also, once again misstates my position:

Quote:

As some A2K members have reminded me: Science cannot prove or disprove anything. I've also been told that science uses no conclusions - only conjecture. Conjecture does not prove or disprove anything.

Unfortunately for him Setana came along and after some Baddog1 beating around the bush, which Setana was not about to allow

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2885657#2885657

pointed to the culprit: me.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2885837#2885837

Setana proceeded to cut him to shreds. And that is how (I think) this topic post got started, the reader can judge for themselves.

Please see my next thread to see the lengths this guy will go in his ridiculous assertions.

0 Replies

While "Real Life" is taking the implied tactic that if you can disprove a natural theory (evolution for example) this means that you've demonstrated the inevitability of the supernatural. Baddog1's implied tactic is that science and religion are based on the same logical methodology so if we allow science we must allow the supernatural. To do this the semantic summersaults he performs are worthy of the Flying Walinda's.

Let the gymnastics begin!

First he uses terms that have very specific meaning in science. Not in that way, but as they are used colloquially. "Proof" is a good example. Colloquially we often use the term proof as meaning true in a sense of metaphysical certitude. In an absolute way that science doesn't nor could it ever use it.

To be clear, proof in math means there is no logical inconsistency and you didn't make a mistake in the math. In science we add that it means that based on the given assumptions the hypothesis can be demonstrated to give useful predictions that cannot be disproved within the current state of knowledge. THAT IS IT! Of course, this limited meaning has brought us the basis for the computer you are using, the MRI at the local hospital, the Mars rover, and everything in between.

But Baddog1 takes it to the next level of the absurd. He states that in science we START with conclusions. TKO was one who called him on this absurdity. This is nonsense on so many levels. We ACTUALLY make assumptions. In fact the normal verbiage demonstrates this. We say: "given a vector field on a Hilbert space", or "assuming a racemic modification of the solution at standard temperature and pressure." I doubt that anyone here can remember anyone saying: "CONCLUDING an asteroid with a mass of 1 million kilograms orbits the sun."

So Baddog1 then takes it to the NEXT level, he reinvents grammar. He first implies "conclude" and "assume" means exactly the same thing! Then offers me a definition with an AND/OR conjunction. So I choose one that works in the context I am talking but he insists that I must meet both definitions of the word. Imagine going to a dictionary and finding a word that has seven meanings and not being able to pick the one that meets the context in which you want to use the word but have to pick a context in which ALL definitions are simultaneously correct! WOW!

It gets better. Science uses terms defined VERY specifically. If you are working in physics and want a definition of work or energy you don't go to Webster's you go to a physics dictionary. Even more specifically work and energy are the same in classical physics they are NOT the same in particle (Quantum Mechanics) physics. So if you want to look up the terms relative to QM, you don't even go to a physics dictionary you go to one that deals specifically with particle physics.

As Baddog1 shows, when you are trying to defend a big lie you need to dig deep.

Please see my next post in regards to my comments that Baddog1 is trying to mislead regarding the accepted epistemology of science.

0 Replies

The Current Generally Accepted Epistemological Basis of Science
(What do we know, how do we know what we know, and what are the limits of our Knowledge)

Because I said that the way he is using terms, science cannot prove anything, he states I said (in an implied absolute sense) science can't prove anything Setana wastes no time in knocking THAT one out of the park.

Quote:

Next, you link another post by TCR, in which he writes: For the upteenth time science NEVER proves ANYTHING or comes to any CONCLUSIONS in the way use use the terms proof and conclusion. On an assumption that he meant to write: " . . . in the way you use the terms proof and conclusion," there is no reason for you to assert that TCR has claimed that science uses no conclusions, but only conjectures.

One of the things that Baddog1's use of the term proof, et all does is to misrepresent the epistemological basis of science. So I though that I would state what I was taught that basis really is; first some history.

After Newton and especially after Einstein scientists were very confident of what they knew. They thought all that remained was to fine tune a few things and that was that. Then with the implications of the work that was being done on the quantum theory scientists got the shock of their lives. The utter disbelief in the (physical) scientific community and deep angst of many of its members regarding the implications of QM is hard to overstate. What was thought to be a "clockwork" universe was appearing more and more to be a Marx brother's movie universe.

Finally in 1927 a great conference was called to provide a statement of the basic epistemology of scientific inquiry and the scientific method. As the conference was held in Copenhagen it has forever after been referred to as the "Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics." This conference has been described as a gathering of the greatest scientific minds (or human minds) in the history of man. Their conclusions can be briefly summed up as follows.

Science can never tell you what is going on "behind the scenes." There are things that are unknown and forever unknowable to science. With science you can make assumptions, create a hypothesis based on these assumptions, and test the hypothesis against observations. If after these tests the hypothesis can be shown to consistently make useful predictions that cannot be disproved the hypothesis stands as proven. It is always open to new tests and ultimately being disproved. But until then, it is considered proven.

It was concluded that attempts at anything beyond this were a waste of time and a futile effort. 80+ years later this still stands for virtually all as the basis of the scientific method. There are certainly some who don't subscribe to this but they are, in my experience, rare. Born-agains accepted, of course. And as far as I know no one has come up with anything better.

P.S. Virtually all scientists go through their entire careers without ever having to consider this to do their work but it can be fun to think about, they usually only think about them seriously when someone is trying to mischaracterize science.

Please see my next post on integrity.

0 Replies

Quote:

Since you asked: I have agreed & disagreed w/RL as have others on here. My overall & overwhelming experience has shown rl to be one of integrity - very much unlike you.

I'll wait for the laughter to die downFor me the Nobel Physicist R.P. Feynman is the standard for integrity.

I'll let Feynman describe it to you in his own words. This comes from his book "Surely you're Joking Mr. Feynman", in a section titled Cargo Cult Science. By the way Cargo Cult Science is, in my opinion, what Real Life and Baddog1 are peddling.

Quote:

"But there is one feature that is generally missing in cargo cult science It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty - a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid - not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked - to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt in your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can - if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong - to explain it. If you make a theory, for example and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contributions; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, to advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil doesn't soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest; but the thing I'm talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will -- including Wesson. So it's the implication which has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with."

I'll leave it to the individual reader to determine if Baddog1 has show "Real Life" like integrity in his posts or Feynman like integrity.

Please see my next link to see the questions we can now get answers to in a scientific form. Yea Riiiiight!

0 Replies

So Baddog1:

Is the second law of thermodynamics valid? If not disprove it and show your work.
If valid does it disprove evolution theory? If so demonstrate that and show your work.
Is evolution a valid theory? If not disprove it and show your work.
Theory says the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, is this correct? If not how old is it and demonstrate how you came to your conclusions.
Do you accept the Copenhagen Interpretation of the quantum theory as the general epistemological basis of science? If not demonstrate where it is incorrect and provide better.
Can you prove that there is the supernatural other than as your opinion? If so demonstrate it and show your work.

I'll leave you with a hypothesis.

Starting with these ASSUMPTIONS not CONCLUSIONS:

I assume that Baddog1 has no integrity or shame.
I assume that he will continue to misrepresent what others have said and spin things to suit his needs.
I assume that he is psychologically incapable of doing anything else.

My hypothesis is he will go along as he always has, dodging direct questions while accusing others of doing this, using semantic gymnastics rather than the scientific method to defend his statements, and insisting that it is HE who knows science not the experts that have created it and the people who taught it to you and me.

The great thing is this time I can sit back and let Baddog1 do the heavy lifting of providing the evidence to PROVE my hypothesis so that I can CONCLUDE that it has been PROVED.

Sorry this was so long but my client has fixed thier internal issue so I'll be busy working this week and not be able to get to A2K as often as I was.

0 Replies

You fingers must hurt. I'm somehow reminded of a live performance of "Rapsody in blue" I once saw. The entire 12 minutes was impressive. Cheers to your typing.

T
K
O

Posto scripto - You're points are valid too. I know you haven't been around very long on these forums, but the shame is that you have just posted TOO much information to possibly be replied to. This is kind of like dropping an atom bomb on an enemy troop. A single enemy troop.

Since science is on your side, and you have plenty of it, just put little bits out at a time, allow for a responce and continue.

posto scripto dupla - Also, as for the ad homonims, RL earns them, but baddog1 and Neo are sincere. I don't argee with their beliefs, but I believe they are only acting as they believe honestly.

In the grand scheme of things, the winners are neither science or religion but instead our societies when we find comprimise and respect for each other. TCR, you seem incredibly intellegent, but your line questioning seems to create more losers than winners. Try and cool it down, your posts read more intellegently without all the angst. Your points are strong enough to stand on their own, you don't need to cut into others.

0 Replies

TKO:
Thank you for your reply and opinions. I did it all at once so that my posts couldn't be interrupted by non-sequitur posts or posts that misrepresented what I had to say to drag one off the subject.

I only assumed that those who had the same old B.S. would bother to reply so I wasn't interested in making it easy on them, nor did I particularly care what they had to say. I am actually surprised that you responded.

While I respect your opinions I don't see someone who over and over intentionally misrepresents what I have said as Baddog1 has done as someone who is acting honestly.

I don't suffer fools gladly and when I think I am being played for the fool I feel free to react. It may be one of my short-cummings, I have many. How others see me is inconsequential what is important is how they see science.

I also don't think dealing with someone who has ridiculous personal beliefs they are trying to pass off as science by stroking their ego as a useful strategy. I am often asked to teach as an adjunct prof but now refuse. Over the years it seems that more and more of the students that I see don't come to class to learn they come to class to argue. And I think its people like some of those here on A2K that they learn this from. I don't think its a coincidence that more and more of our scientists and engineers are foreign rather than Americans.

Thanks again for your opinions and time.

0 Replies

Here is a simple logical argument I have done a year ago:

It requires only a simple understanding of probabilty ratios.

In Math 0/0 means it is indeterminate but in real life it is true. "Nothing comes from nothing" immortalized by Julie Andrews in the Sound of Music when singing to Georg Von Trapp in the gazebo.

1/0 is infinity i.e. it is infinitely difficult to get something out of nothing. It is improbale that you can get something out of nothing.

Assuming a zero state it is improbable for a Universe or a God to appear out of nothing. So we can from observation state that Universe is here and therefore must have always existed.

It is easier to produce an inanimate object than a complex being like a god. Therefore it is improbale that a god exists.

However, we have limited abilities and our knowledge is also limited so based on our current state of knowledge and abilities we can say that god is an improbabilty.

The argument that quarks appear and disappear doesn't apply as all the quantum mechanics are done in a disturbed energy field as an accelerated particle/s aimed at another particle/s or plate thus creating an unstable environment just like at the bottom of a waterfall. Besides matter and anti-matter quarks are produced so there is a null factor.

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

Assuming a zero state it is improbable for a Universe or a God to appear out of nothing. So we can from observation state that Universe is here and therefore must have always existed.

As far as I know, scientists have no idea if the universe existed before the Big Bang.

Quote:

It is easier to produce an inanimate object than a complex being like a god. Therefore it is improbale that a god exists.

God is not a complex being. That is religious nonsense. God is the higher Self, pure consciousness, silent awareness, pure intelligence, absolute Being.

Quote:

However, we have limited abilities and our knowledge is also limited so based on our current state of knowledge and abilities we can say that god is an improbabilty.

God is not know through the intellect, so our state of intellectual knowledge is irrelevant. God is known when we the heart is open and we are completely surrendered to what IS.

Quote:

The argument that quarks appear and disappear doesn't apply as all the quantum mechanics are done in a disturbed energy field as an accelerated particle/s aimed at another particle/s or plate thus creating an unstable environment just like at the bottom of a waterfall. Besides matter and anti-matter quarks are produced so there is a null factor.

Virtual particle/anti-particle pairs appear and disappear everywhere continuously since they are properties of the quantum mechanical vacuum state. It is not necessary for any matter, energy, or excited states to be present.

0 Replies

The supposition that there was nothing before the Big Bang is a violation of the Conservation of Mass and Energy. It is theory and a good one but violates the law without which we have rest of science invalid. It could be that prior to the Big Bang the Universe collapsed having spent its energy with all hydrogen gas consumed and exhausted stars' to be sucked into a giant black hole thus the beginning of the new Big Bang. Demonstrate that the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy is invalid.

The net result is zero sum of particles and anti-matter particles forming so it is indicates the universe might be so stable as these phenomena indicates.

To suggest that god is not complex is an absurdity as god has been described as omnipotent, omnipresent and omnipotent. To claim that God, who has the capability to create a complex universe such ours, is not complex is the height of absurdity.

0 Replies

Can Science Disprove The Existence Of God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know