Can Science Disprove The Existence Of God?

baddog1 wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
observed fact

whats yours? Wishful thinking?

So only if a person 'sees' something - it is fact? How about we use Merriam Webster's thoughts on the definition of evidence? Does that suit you?

Steve:

Still waiting.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

real life wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
observed fact

whats yours? Wishful thinking?

Steve,

Does either dark matter or dark energy exist?
Probably. And before you say well how do we know if we cant "see" it, I would suggest there is much in the Universe we cant directly perceive with our 5 senses, but nontheless we accept as a fact that they exist. Either by direct observation through instruments, or by observing the affects on a third party. e.g. the "observation" that air exists. (And you certainly know, for a short time anyway, if it doest exist!)

How does 'love' fit into your criteria for existence.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
real life wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
observed fact

whats yours? Wishful thinking?

Steve,

Does either dark matter or dark energy exist?
Probably. And before you say well how do we know if we cant "see" it, I would suggest there is much in the Universe we cant directly perceive with our 5 senses, but nontheless we accept as a fact that they exist. Either by direct observation through instruments, or by observing the affects on a third party. e.g. the "observation" that air exists. (And you certainly know, for a short time anyway, if it doest exist!)

How does 'love' fit into your criteria for existence.

love is an abstract noun. like beauty or wisdom. I'll accept god exists if you are only talking in the abstract, i.e. people have an idea of God therefore God exists as an idea. But we are not talking ideas here, you want evidence to support the proposition that God, the creator of all things, exists. There is none. I await your reply.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

real life wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
observed fact

whats yours? Wishful thinking?

Steve,

Does either dark matter or dark energy exist?
Probably. And before you say well how do we know if we cant "see" it, I would suggest there is much in the Universe we cant directly perceive with our 5 senses, but nontheless we accept as a fact that they exist. Either by direct observation through instruments, or by observing the affects on a third party. e.g. the "observation" that air exists. (And you certainly know, for a short time anyway, if it doest exist!)

Neither dark matter nor dark energy can be proven to exist.

These are made up terms.

Galaxies are moving away faster than we think they should.

Why ?

We don't know.

So someone says , well maybe there is some sort of energy that propels them. Let's call it 'dark energy' and see if it exists.

But it is simply a hypothesis. Not a bad one, mind you. But one with scant if any proof.

Your view of 'Probably' is wwwwwwaaaaaaayyyyyyyy premature.

This is an indication that your standard of scientific proof is too low.

Yes, obviously 'something' causes the effect we see.

But is it an 'energy' , or something else?

We don't know, and we don't even 'probably' know.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
real life wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
observed fact

whats yours? Wishful thinking?

Steve,

Does either dark matter or dark energy exist?
Probably. And before you say well how do we know if we cant "see" it, I would suggest there is much in the Universe we cant directly perceive with our 5 senses, but nontheless we accept as a fact that they exist. Either by direct observation through instruments, or by observing the affects on a third party. e.g. the "observation" that air exists. (And you certainly know, for a short time anyway, if it doest exist!)

How does 'love' fit into your criteria for existence.
love is an abstract noun. like beauty or wisdom. I'll accept god exists if you are only talking in the abstract, i.e. people have an idea of God therefore God exists as an idea. But we are not talking ideas here, you want evidence to support the proposition that God, the creator of all things, exists. There is none. I await your reply.

No, we're talking 'observed fact'.

That was your criteria.

Love is not an observed fact.

Baddog's example is an excellent one, because it cuts to the chase with folks who think that scientific proof (observation) is the only way we can know something exists or is true.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
real life wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
observed fact

whats yours? Wishful thinking?

Steve,

Does either dark matter or dark energy exist?
Probably. And before you say well how do we know if we cant "see" it, I would suggest there is much in the Universe we cant directly perceive with our 5 senses, but nontheless we accept as a fact that they exist. Either by direct observation through instruments, or by observing the affects on a third party. e.g. the "observation" that air exists. (And you certainly know, for a short time anyway, if it doest exist!)

How does 'love' fit into your criteria for existence.
love is an abstract noun. like beauty or wisdom. I'll accept god exists if you are only talking in the abstract, i.e. people have an idea of God therefore God exists as an idea. But we are not talking ideas here, you want evidence to support the proposition that God, the creator of all things, exists. There is none. I await your reply.

No, we're talking 'observed fact'.

That was your criteria.

Love is not an observed fact.

RL's correct Steve. Your criteria for the definition of evidence is an "observed fact". Do you wish to alter your criteria?

0 Replies

You can hook someone up to an MRI or brain scanner and observe a different pattern of neurons firing when someone is feeling afraid or amorous. Love and fear are still abstract nouns, but love or fear as indicated by different and distinct patterns of stuff going on in the brain is an observed fact.

Its just not good enough to say I believe in the tooth fairy or santa claus or giant green lizards or God for that matter to make the existence of those things a fact.

0 Replies

I'll take any definition of the word "evidence" that you care to chose but you wont find any of them saying "belief or faith or gut feeling" qualify.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

You can hook someone up to an MRI or brain scanner and observe a different pattern of neurons firing when someone is feeling afraid or amorous. Love and fear are still abstract nouns, but love or fear as indicated by different and distinct patterns of stuff going on in the brain is an observed fact.

Its just not good enough to say I believe in the tooth fairy or santa claus or giant green lizards or God for that matter to make the existence of those things a fact.

You can hook someone up to an MRI or brain scanner and observe a different pattern of neurons firing when someone is thinking about God as well. Therefore, by your criteria - God exists.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

You can hook someone up to an MRI or brain scanner and observe a different pattern of neurons firing when someone is feeling afraid or amorous. Love and fear are still abstract nouns, but love or fear as indicated by different and distinct patterns of stuff going on in the brain is an observed fact.

A lot of research has been done on the physiological effects of meditation -- changes in brain waves, metabolic rate, etc. -- and this has been correlated with mystical states of self-transcendence, or the experience of pure consciousness. The experience of Self as radiant pure consciousness, silent awareness, or still presence during meditation is precisely the experience of the impersonal aspect of God which is no different than the Self. God is not some entity in the sky controlling everything. That's religious nonsense.

0 Replies

The burden of proof lies on the one(s) making the claim so I don't know why science would even need to concern itself. Looks like Setanta and others more than covered that idea.

In the meantime, even if it went the other way and we instead somehow proved god does exist, would that really change the goals of science? Or do we think once we find out where he's been hiding it'll be outta the bag and he'll just spill the beans on reality.

"OK, OK YOU GOT ME, christ you people nag, nag, nag. You'd think after creating the cosmos a god could get some chill mode in. I mean, the least you could do is try to think for yourselves. Just for this, mebbe I'll turn gravity off for a bit and see how you like that."

0 Replies

Hamal wrote:

The burden of proof lies on the one(s) making the claim so I don't know why science would even need to concern itself.

Right. Those who make the claim of no scientific proof = no god share the burden. However they are conspicuously absent from this thread.

Hamal wrote:

In the meantime, even if it went the other way and we instead somehow proved god does exist, would that really change the goals of science?

Quite the opposite - I imagine.

Hamal wrote:

Or do we think once we find out where he's been hiding it'll be outta the bag and he'll just spill the beans on reality.

"OK, OK YOU GOT ME, christ you people nag, nag, nag. You'd think after creating the cosmos a god could get some chill mode in. I mean, the least you could do is try to think for yourselves. Just for this, mebbe I'll turn gravity off for a bit and see how you like that."

Do you mean like here in 1975: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006CD/finalprogram/abstract_103434.htm

or more recently here:

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/GRACEqke.htm

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2560562#2560562

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2561024#2561024

Hi BD,

Not one of those quotes showed someone concluding that God does not exist due to the lack of evidence. And that was my original point.

Ros (and mesquite):

Here is the quote from the above link stated by member cyracuz: "Extropy is wrong. There is no proof whatsoever that there is any god."

and from member CalamityJane: "You personally believe that there is a God, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever!"

Both members clearly conclude that there is no proof of a God. None! (This would include a "lack of evidence".)

I am not sure why this is so difficult for you baddog.

Your original quote to which I objected uses the term cannot.

baddog1 wrote:

Most on here make emotion-laced claims that god cannot be scientifically proven therefore cannot exist.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2885663#2885663

The fact that someone declares that there is no current evidence to support the belief in a god is a far cry from declaring that God does not or cannot exist.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Those who make the claim of no scientific proof = no god share the burden.

This isn't true. I don't need to prove that unicorns don't exist, nor do i need to prove god doesn't exist.

I make a claim that everything in existence comes to be and functions systematically withing natural means. I support that science is a tool to better understand those systems. The only burden I have is refining those tools.

T
K
O

0 Replies

I was thinking more like the Sun and planets flying off into cosmos and everything on the surface of them being flung like rain drops off of my spinning umbrella (A drastic over simplification of course).

Those events you linked are interesting for sure, but I'm not quite ready to say that was god having a little fun. I had read a bit on the Indian Ocean quake and the changes to earths spin and gravity, but not the Mt. Baker story. So thanks, that's pretty interesting! I don't see it as all that unusual though, gravity over the surface of the earth is not uniform.

Gravity map

Honestly I think that even if we knew there was a god of some sort we'd still take the same approach to figuring things out. It would depend on how much we actually interacted with the god, but unless it lays everything out for us we'd want to know how things work.

0 Replies

Get yourself cooler
Lay yourself low
Coincidental murder
With nothing to show
With the judge's constipation
Will go to his head
And his wife's aggravation
You'll soon end up dead

It's the same old story
Same Old Song And Dance, my friend
It's the same old story
Same Old Song And Dance, my friend

Sorry, RL, that you feel I can't have multiple assumptions not CONCLUSIONS with which to start my hypothesis. But by the data coming in I can see my hypothesis is looking good so far. Same misrepresentations same B.S.

B.D.
I kind of figured you would not like the way I put things. But I gave you five posts worth of information including one with a ton of specific questions that we have all been waiting for answers on and...NADA...zilch...just more B.S.

I do have one thing to thank you for. Since I am on my third successful career and am pushing 50 its been a long time since someone called me a young guy! I kind of like the notion!

I guess its good that I have started turning down requests by colleagues to teach classes as adjunct. No sense in needlessly indoctrinating those students to real science. Bohr, Wheeler, Heisenberg, Salaam...just a bunch of pikers after all. It is B.D who is king and R.L. who is queen.

So you just keep up that Feynman-like integrity that everyone can see in your every post. It's good for comic relief, if nothing else.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

Those who make the claim of no scientific proof = no god share the burden.

This isn't true. I don't need to prove that unicorns don't exist, nor do i need to prove god doesn't exist.

First, who or what is God? Not the creator God of the bible or other religions. That God is just a metaphor for that which is beyond words. Here's the truth: God is silence, an immense awake space. The most real thing is the most quiet thing. It is the quiet thing in which everything else is happening. That is why it is easy to miss because we are used to looking for what is noisy, flashy, big. But this consciousness, this nothingness, is not noisy, big, flashy. It's the space in which everything else occurs. God is NOT known by the mind. That is why the mind will never be satisfied, until reality dawns and then you no longer look for truth in thoughts. An un-awake individual constantly references his thoughts and feelings to tell him what is true. As awake individual is no longer referencing his thoughts and feelings to tell him what is true. Looking for ultimate reality in the mind makes as much sense as looking for it in your computer. Its not there. It is known when the mind is quiet.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
baddog1 wrote:

Those who make the claim of no scientific proof = no god share the burden.

This isn't true. I don't need to prove that unicorns don't exist, nor do i need to prove god doesn't exist.

First, who or what is God? Not the creator God of the bible or other religions. That God is just a metaphor for that which is beyond words. Here's the truth: God is silence, an immense awake space. The most real thing is the most quiet thing. It is the quiet thing in which everything else is happening. That is why it is easy to miss because we are used to looking for what is noisy, flashy, big. But this consciousness, this nothingness, is not noisy, big, flashy. It's the space in which everything else occurs. God is NOT known by the mind. That is why the mind will never be satisfied, until reality dawns and then you no longer look for truth in thoughts. An un-awake individual constantly references his thoughts and feelings to tell him what is true. As awake individual is no longer referencing his thoughts and feelings to tell him what is true. Looking for ultimate reality in the mind makes as much sense as looking for it in your computer. Its not there. It is known when the mind is quiet.

In the good words of the Virgin Mary "come again?"

Who or what is God?
God as a metaphore?
Being awake?
Being asleep and relying on thoughts and feelings?

Either you're here to prove a unicorn or not. Filibustering only contributes to the entropy of the universe.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Either you're here to prove a unicorn or not. Filibustering only contributes to the entropy of the universe.

Let's try it from a different perspective. The question is whether science can disprove the existence of God. Science has its limitations. For example, science can say nothing about death, except that it is the cessation of life, so we pretend that there is nothing to say at that point, and scientists move into radical denial. Science has nothing to say about what is non-material. Does the brain wave create consciousness or does consciousness create the brain wave? To know the ultimate Reality, Truth, or God, science is completely powerless. You can't test spiritual Truth and its not repeatable. Truth also has nothing to do with belief. Truth is the arrow that goes straight through the heart of the scientist. How can you test that which is doing the testing?

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Science has nothing to say about what is non-material.

Pschology? Economics? Political science?

IFeelFree wrote:

You can't test spiritual Truth and its not repeatable. Truth also has nothing to do with belief.

Sounds conclusive to me. There is no spiritual truth avalible.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Can Science Disprove The Existence Of God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know