Is there proof God exists?

God is not supernatural - it is a myth. The ability to prove or disprove love has no bearing on the existence of god.

baddog1 wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Love a supernatural event? When does Merriam-Webster give that definition?

There are many supernatural events. Love is only one.

MW def of supernatural (as applicable): "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe".

Let's break this down.

"of or relating to an order of existence" (Q) Is 'love' an order of existence? (A) Of course it is.

"beyond the visible observable universe" (Q) Has anyone ever seen love? (A) Of course not.

Hence: Love is a supernatural event - by definition!

Rubbish. Love is clearly observable, otherwise you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a couple that's in love, a couple that hates each other and a couple that's indifferent to each other.

...----- well, they just give science a (very undeserved) bad name.

Science is extremely useful, but many who style themselves 'scientifically minded' these days are anything but...

USAFHokie80 wrote:

God is not supernatural - it is a myth. The ability to prove or disprove love has no bearing on the existence of god.

It has everything to do with it.

Science is based on observation, experimentation, replicable results, falsifiability, etc

Most things in life CANNOT be proven scientifically.

You cannot prove scientifically:

--what you ate for dinner last Tuesday

--what color socks you wore a month ago on the 22nd

--what you got for your birthday when you were 15

--how much hair you had when you turned 50

--how fast the car you owned in high school could go from 0 to 60

--that you had a crush on Susie Q in 10th grade

And we could go on.

Science is very limited what it can prove. The example of love is a great one.

Science cannot prove love EVER existed, much less that it exists in any particular case (i.e. my Mom loves me).

It's simply beyond the realm of science.

The existence of God is a question beyond the realm of science, and the jokers who continually demand 'evidence' (and they usually mean scientific evidence) of God ---

----- well, they just give science a (very undeserved) bad name.

Science is extremely useful, but many who style themselves 'scientifically minded' these days are anything but.

They were poorly trained in logic and science by government schools staffed by teachers who often couldn't pass the exams they gave to students.

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Many careerists in the science field are adept at collaring grant money but short on producing anything worthy of the name 'science'.

Why? Because they waste money pretending that everything under the sun can be determined and proven by science.

Much of the junk science produced today takes away from the valid research that can and should be done looking for legitimate scientific answers to mankind's real needs.

It's a shame.

Your examples are completely ridiculous. Science may not be able to prove which socks I wore, but my socks still exist. And they certainly don't claim to have created the entire universe.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Your examples are completely ridiculous. Science may not be able to prove which socks I wore, but my socks still exist. And they certainly don't claim to have created the entire universe.

How long have you & your socks been talking Hokie?

Diest TKO wrote:

BD - You confuse immaterial with imaginary.

Post a photo of time.

T
K
O

Again - we agree. Like posting a photo of love. Is love imaginary, immaterial, real, believable?

Most things in life CANNOT be proven scientifically.

You cannot prove scientifically:

--what you ate for dinner last Tuesday

--what color socks you wore a month ago on the 22nd

--what you got for your birthday when you were 15

--how much hair you had when you turned 50

--how fast the car you owned in high school could go from 0 to 60

--that you had a crush on Susie Q in 10th grade

And your description of science (scientists & related) is exactly why the most successful scientists are those who remain open-minded about issues like God, creation, etc. The numbers of scientists who are open to all possibilities is growing, so perhaps science will become even more useful as time goes on.

Actors pretend to be in love everyday in movies, theatre etc

How can you tell the difference between one who acts as if he/she is in love, and one who really is?

If I put two couples in the park, one a set of actors and the other the real thing, how could you determine which were fakes?

P.s. - I've told a few of my psychology friends about this thread, and they were rolling on the ground. Even the Christians thought this was a terribly misguided effort to prove god exists.

Baddog1 wrote:

And your description of science (scientists & related) is exactly why the most successful scientists are those who remain open-minded about issues like God, creation, etc. The numbers of scientists who are open to all possibilities is growing, so perhaps science will become even more useful as time goes on.

This is also false. You are defining successful scientists based on your own beliefs, not on actual scientific merit...


T
K
O

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43

All poetic language aside...

Albert Einstein wrote:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43

T
K
O

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

God is not supernatural - it is a myth. The ability to prove or disprove love has no bearing on the existence of god.

It has everything to do with it.

Science is based on observation, experimentation, replicable results, falsifiability, etc

Most things in life CANNOT be proven scientifically.

You cannot prove scientifically:

--what you ate for dinner last Tuesday

--what color socks you wore a month ago on the 22nd

--what you got for your birthday when you were 15

--how much hair you had when you turned 50

--how fast the car you owned in high school could go from 0 to 60

--that you had a crush on Susie Q in 10th grade

And we could go on.

Science is very limited what it can prove. The example of love is a great one.

Science cannot prove love EVER existed, much less that it exists in any particular case (i.e. my Mom loves me).

It's simply beyond the realm of science.

The existence of God is a question beyond the realm of science, and the jokers who continually demand 'evidence' (and they usually mean scientific evidence) of God ---

----- well, they just give science a (very undeserved) bad name.

Science is extremely useful, but many who style themselves 'scientifically minded' these days are anything but.

They were poorly trained in logic and science by government schools staffed by teachers who often couldn't pass the exams they gave to students.

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Many careerists in the science field are adept at collaring grant money but short on producing anything worthy of the name 'science'.

Why? Because they waste money pretending that everything under the sun can be determined and proven by science.

Much of the junk science produced today takes away from the valid research that can and should be done looking for legitimate scientific answers to mankind's real needs.

It's a shame.

Your examples are completely ridiculous. Science may not be able to prove which socks I wore, but my socks still exist. And they certainly don't claim to have created the entire universe.

Diest TKO wrote:

All poetic language aside...

Albert Einstein wrote:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43

T
K
O

From Einstein's book entitled; 'The World As I See It':

"It is therefore easy to see why the Churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees. On the other hand, I maintain that cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest incitement to scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion which pioneer work in theoretical science demands, can grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labour in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics!"

. . . The point is that most ordinary events of life cannot be scientifically proven. . . .

Einstien found wonder in the universe, and often refered poetically to his experiance with nature being a religious one. To understand this, you'd have to release or at least relax your personal concept of "religion."

Posto scripto - As scientists, we should strive to be greater than Einstein, we should aim not nessisarily to exceed his work, but instead simply an loyally work.

Diest TKO wrote:

Einstien found wonder in the universe, and often refered poetically to his experiance with nature being a religious one. To understand this, you'd have to release or at least relax your personal concept of "religion."

Einstein also realized that in order to excel as a scientist - he would need to look past the immediate & present 'evidence' and consider that there may be something unexplainable (supernatural perhaps?) out there.

Diest TKO wrote:

Posto scripto - As scientists, we should strive to be greater than Einstein, we should aim not nessisarily to exceed his work, but instead simply an loyally work.

I am unsure what you're saying completely here. However I agree that we should strive to be greater than Einstein. In order to do so though - we must be open-minded to possibilities that are unexplainable and/or without scientific evidence - as Einstein did.

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Einstien found wonder in the universe, and often refered poetically to his experiance with nature being a religious one. To understand this, you'd have to release or at least relax your personal concept of "religion."

Einstein also realized that in order to excel as a scientist - he would need to look past the immediate & present 'evidence' and consider that there may be something unexplainable (supernatural perhaps?) out there.

Diest TKO wrote:

Posto scripto - As scientists, we should strive to be greater than Einstein, we should aim not nessisarily to exceed his work, but instead simply an loyally work.

I am unsure what you're saying completely here. However I agree that we should strive to be greater than Einstein. In order to do so though - we must be open-minded to possibilities that are unexplainable and/or without scientific evidence - as Einstein did.

I don't really see any evidence of your first assertion. I don't think it is valid.

Einstein also realized that in order to excel as a scientist - he would need to look past the immediate & present 'evidence' and consider that there may be something unexplainable (supernatural perhaps?) out there.