Science proving the existence of God?

Hmmm. Some have said that if there was proof of god then you would remove faith from the equation, and without faith there is no god (that's my understanding as far as christian theology goes). Not so sure if that applies to other 'gods'.

Interesting question. If there was proof of God's existence then I'm pretty sure someone would think of a way of making money out of it.

Oh, and welcome to A2K!

I believe in evolution, but not a God.

I'm not sure what I believe, but I don't believe that evolution excludes the possible existence of God.

I believe i'll have another chocolate . . .

Blasphemer!!!!

Re: Science proving the existence of God?


God is different things to different people. How can science ever prove that.

You are wise to realize that the fact of evolution does not preclude the possibility of God (in whatever form).

The reason some people don't realize this is that science reveals facts about the natural world which conflict with aspects of religious dogma. And many people confuse their dogma with their deity.

The probability of a god with super powers poofing into existence out of nothing is improbable. In one case I assume that there is no god as he cannot be proven to exist so I use 0/0 which is really undefined or indeterminate. But logically it is true, you obtain 'nothing' from 'nothing'. As there is nothing there is no god.
But if I assume that a god exists as it cannot be proven that he does not exists then I get 1/0 which is infinity. Logically it is false as you cannot get 'something' out of 'nothing'. So it is improbable for a god to poof into existence out of nothing.

Thanks for the feedback. I think that it would be very hard to gain proof of the existence of God because it is hard to grasp the concept of there being something without a beginning.

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy is neither created nor destroyed. Creation theory means creation of energy which is a violation of this law. The Universe has always existed.

It depends primarily of your definition of God.

If you define God as a Creator, a definer of morality, or as an entity in charge of Paradise you will not find It. You will probably find Science. Science can most simply and properly be defined as an attempt to find out what is not imagined.

If you define God as an embodiment of collective human imaginations similar to the collective memories of a society then you will probably find religion. Religion can most simply and properly be described as an attempt to find out what is collectively imagined.

Science and Religion combined result in Politics, which can be most simply and properly be described as an attempt to reconcile those two views of the Universe. This conflict will probably always be a part of the human condition. Perhaps it is even necessary from an evolutionary standpoint

The available scientific evidence points rather clearly to the finiteness of the universe, both in time, and extent. The visible universe began approximately 16 billion years ago, according to science.

To prove that the universe is not infinite in either space or time, it is sufficient to observe that the night sky is dark. A universe that "always existed" would be in thermal equilibrium and the night sky would be as bright as the surface of the sun.

If one contemplates the harmony and complexity of the universe, and accepts the scientific consensus that it is finite, then I believe a much greater leap of faith is required to doubt the existence of a creator than to accept it. Does one suppose the universe came into existence out of nothing? If so, the universe is god.

Shirley, you can't be serious.

All jokes aside, there's no way to possibly know this. The extent and origin of the universe are beyond what the human mind can comprehend, in my opinion. Just remember, you are using something the size of a cantaloupe to explain something as vast and complicated as the universe. Try to keep things in perspective.

Please demonstrate that the Law of Conservation of Energy is false then there need be no invasion of Iraq for their oil and also the Perpetual Motion Machine can be built at last.

George,

I am sorry but I cannot accept that the night sky is dark. It is only dark becase of the mechanical nature of light and our eyes. ie. an optical illusion!

An infinite Universe must have a star every line of sight. This has been shown to happen by the various Cosmic Microwave Background Expeditions. (CMBE)&Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Emission (CMBRE) probes.

We can not "see" the microwaves but CMBRE showed that they exist within very close values all over the sky.

I suspect that the microwave background emissions are merely light from celestial objects which have been redshifted to the microwave spectrum due to the effects of space-time. Space-time is a function of gravity and distance.

It seems that the difficulties in arriving at a value for (describing) the "Hubble Constant" may stem from the fact that it does not exist except as an optical illusion. Theology has a similar problem in describing God.

If you maintain that a "Big Bang" occurred when light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation itself has been shown to "red shift" simply due to the effects of gravity and distance then lets look for the pot of gold that is reputed to exist at the end of the rainbow.

Another objection that the "Big Bangers" have is the fact that an infinite Universe would be very hot. My answer to this is the existence of "Black Holes". They have been fairly well shown to exist, simply as a result of interactions between gravity and mass, and in effect they would act as huge repositories of mass and energy (interchangable on this scale {E=Mc squared}) .

Frankly IMO the Big Bang-Expanding Universe theory has very little more to commend it than the "Creation" or "Intelligent Design Theories".

Since we have no good evidence of either a beginning or an end to the Universe at this point I (and talk 7200) are forced to conclude that it may well be infinite and eternal.

Happy Thoughts

John,

I doubt that the Universe is complicated. It's just big in relation to us but all interactions in the Universe conform to a fixed number of laws of Physics and Quantum Mechanics.

Finding out what they are is the trick

What the hell does Iraq have to do with this?

This may be true, but how does this prove that the universe has always existed?? In my view, the universe had to come from somewhere.

For the record, I don't know much about this subject, but I did learn in astronomy class that the universe did have a beginning, about 16 billion years ago, like George said.

John,

According to the "Big Bang" theory the Universe came into being some 12 to 16 billion years ago.
According to other theories there are different time frames ranging from the 6400 years of Christian Theology to the infinity (IS) of the Buddist.

When the BB theory discounts the effect of gravity on the appearance of light to an observer IMO it severly restricts the theory.

One very telling flaw in the BB theory is that of Quasars that can be observed interacting with galaxies when the red shift shows that they are too far apart to be doing so.

Since the "Red Shift" and the "Doppler" effect have both been shown to happen I suspect that the red shift is more a gravitational (space-time) effect than a relative motion effect at intergalactic distances. The converse is true when the State Trooper aims a "Doppler" gun at your car zipping down the highway (Cost me $127.00 US a couple of years ago to find that out)

If the observed "Red Shift" is adjusted to allow for the effects of "space time" between the emitter and the observer I suspect that the "Expansion of the Universe" will disappear. When the expansion disappears so will the "Big Bang".

If you are good at math, and interested, I would be happy to explain the "mechanics" of the problem to you. I have been chasing this for some time but am not mathematically adept enough to have "faith" in my figures