Can Modern Science Prove The Existence Of God?

The only way they do it is to use frequencies to see if someone being spiritual mode is open to certain frequencies, and where and what are those frequencies for.

I think something like the montauk project has already been done here on earth, and this project opened up man to vast knowledge, that they do not share.

Dangerous knowledge, indeed.

reply to post by NRA4ever333


It's funny. I was writing a post similar to what you wrote just now, but I decided I hadn't had enough coffee yet and was less than lucid.

I do respect your beliefs. I myself used to be Christian, but the hipocrisy of all of the organized religions, Abrahamic or not, really got on my nerves. I just consider myself a universalist (or Gaiaist) these days, although philisophocially I could be labaled a pantheist. *shrug* They are all just labels.

I strongly believe that whatever creative entity may be out there, it would absolutely use the tools at had (i.e. natural processes) to create and change things. As such, it would be nearly invisible to us until we got a really good grasp on the whole process involved across multiple disciplines of study.

Given that, I think that someday science can determine that there is a sentient force at work. Hopefully humans will have advanced enough by then to realize that they don't have to worship such things. The biggest thing humans need to do is learn their place in the universe, accept that position, and grow and learn to become better than they are. Hope will always exists, either in the form of faith or wishfullness. I think dogmatic points are extrenuous and merely distract us from the goal of advancing as induviduals and as a group.

reply to post by rogerstigers


Wonderfully put. Although I cannot share all of your opinions, it is obvious that they are well thought out. For that you have my respect.

Too many people these days hold beliefs purely on impulse or due to social and peer pressures. If more people actually took time and put thought into their ideas and beliefs, and then kept an open mind in respect to others, there would not be the amount wars, bigotry, and hate that have soured so many mainstream belief systems.

It is (in my opinion) wrong to believe something just because we are told to. If there is no thought put behind it, then I cannot imagine any higher being giving any credit for it. Beliefs and Ideas should not be static, but ever growing and expanding based on experience, knowledge, and understanding of the world around us.

Originally posted by NRA4ever333
squabbling over semantics is a childish argument and a waste of my time...

...yes I am a creationist.

Thank you. I have no desire to squabble over semantics either.

Did you check out those other ATS threads I linked to? They're making exactly the same aguments as you.

reply to post by Astyanax


I find it interesting that you use labels, and other peoples failed arguments to try and write-off my proposal. Yet you are still not able to provide any scientific data to refute my claims, the only thing you are capable of doing is pushing your own beliefs without evidence. You are in the same caliber as the critics of Galileo, Einstein, and Darwin.

The problem with the arguments of creationists is they try to dispute ideas, backed up by scientific data. I have in no way done this. In fact I have given evidence to the claims of evolution, and the big bang. As well as noting some of the accomplishments of Abiogenesis chemists. I fully understand that these mechanisms were used in the creation of the universe, and I endorse them.

So to say that my proposal is disputable by the same arguments used against creationists is absurd. Once again your inability to carry on a discussion of this type is shocking. Your halfcocked, diluted understanding of the scientific process is truly uncanny.

If you do not have any opinions on the proposal itself then you are a waste of time, flesh, and white matter. By stabbing in the dark, at the idea as a whole, you look ridiculous, and your amateur nature becomes obvious.

Just because your notions come from science does not make your argument (or lack of one) scientific. They still come from a fanatical misunderstanding of an ideology, much like that of religious zealots.

If all men were bound by preprogrammed ideology like you, we would no doubt be stuck in the Iron Age.

reply to post by NRA4ever333


I understand your irritation NRA4ever, but attacking will not do anything but rile up Astyanax and will derail this thread. I think you have been given some serious consideration and this is turning into a good conversation about some of the interesting biological mechanisms in play.

So here's my advice, what I actually use myself, for dealing with sceptics who don't actually participate in any meaningfull way to the conversation.... Ignore them. Their ramblings will get lost in the conversation as people skim forward to read the posts with relevant content.

reply to post by rogerstigers


Thank you very much rogerstiger.

In my zeal against his ignorance I forgot what this was all about. I am used to face to face interactions, when discussing such things with my peers. I guess I am just used to dealing with minds more capable of open minded debate, such as other science majors, and professors.

If he has anything relevant to say I will answer him though.

reply to post by NRA4ever333

Yet you are still not able to provide any scientific data to refute my claims... You are in the same caliber as the critics of Galileo, Einstein, and Darwin.

If you want detailed, fatal rebuttals of your claims from me, just have a read through a few of my posts on other threads in this sub-forum. Don't expect me to repeat myself yet again.

Just to be sure I hadn't missed some spark of original thought, I went back and read every word of your four opening posts again. There is not one 'argument' (thus to dignify your apologetics) in them that has not been kicked to pieces on this forum a dozen times already. It's just the same tired old creationist rubbish. You even repeat the tired old lie-by-selective-quotation from Darwin about the evolution of the eye. How many times has that been shown up?

Believe me, the instant you come up with something worthy I'll be on to you like a whippet. But going by what I've read so far, I don't think you're in any danger of that happening; you needn't fash yourself.

***

reply to post by rogerstigers

Attacking will not do anything but rile up Astyanax and will derail this thread.

Don't worry, lad, I don't rile up so easy.

Originally posted by NRA4ever333

You then have to understand that, if this being (who or whatever it may be) is so far above us that we will never be able to truly comprehend its existence.

Let me explain why that's not logical. For you to say their is a designer you're saying their is purpose. But you aren't able to say what that purpose is because you've already said we can't understand what purpose god gave us because he's above our understanding. So, even if god does exist you still can't expect people to believe in ID because we'll never know if he really exists in the first place. You can't pove ID is true because you can't prove god is real because he's above our understanding.

Also, It doesn't matter how many scientists believe in god, that's irrelevant. Unless they can provide scientific evidence for him, he simply doesn't exist. If you believe in something like god, in the scientifically progressive world we live in today you can't simply say god exists and expect the scientific world to accept it without giving scientific evidence. Now you may say, well, it's a matter of faith. Ok sure, if you believe in god apparently that's enough to convince other people he's real by just believing. Well ok hmmm.

If you expect scientists to accept something like god as a reality, you have to define what god is. What is god composed of etc. You then have to show how he created the universe, how he designed everything etc. If you can't do that then there's simply no point expecting scientists to accept god as a scientific possibility.

When choosing how to see and serve (or not serve) this intelligent designer purely depends on faith. Faith cannot be proven, neither can religious merit, but I am fairy sure that I can prove the existence of an Intelligent designer.

Wait, listen to what you've just said. "this intelligent designer purely depends on faith...Faith cannot be proven.....but I am fairy sure that I can prove the existence of an Intelligent designer."

So you've said you cannot believe in god without faith but faith cannot be proven as evidence. So how can you prove god exists if he can only be believed through faith when faith can't be proven? Without faith, being the only way to believe in god, how else can god be accepted as real if faith is the only way to believe in him?

If you said god exists and i say prove it, you could just say it's raining so of course god exists. But, you still haven't defined what god is so how can you say god caused it to rain if you can't even define what you say is causing it to rain?

In the exact same way, if you said god exists and i say prove it, you could just say everything looks intelligently designed so of course god exists. But, you still haven't defined what god is so how can you say god intelligently designed everything if you can't even define what you say intelligently designed everything?

Do you understand this simply logic?

[edit on 3-6-2009 by andre18]

reply to post by andre18


(First off I have to correct your using the term logic. (this is a pet peeve of mine) Logic has absolutely nothing to do with fact. If I were to say that “the moon were made of cheese, and mice live on the moon. Thus craters on the moon are from mice eating the cheese.” That is a sound logical argument. All logic means is A+B thus C is a probable outcome. So my argument being what it is, having the existence of an intelligent designer is a perfectly logical outcome of my proposal.)

You have entirely missed the point. I never said that an intelligent designer was a matter of faith, I said the way you see it would have to be. I also never stated that there was a purpose; my statement never lets on to the nature of this being. For all you know based on my proposal the intelligent designer is a child playing with clay. Any purpose or understanding about this being are speculation only.

The point I was making by saying scientist believe in God, was in no way supposed to imply that as evidence for its existence. But in modern times it is a common misconception that scientists are atheist. This was something I had to dispel, lest my argument fall on deaf ears.

Lastly; to say that we need to understand what this being is composed of for it to be scientifically accepted is preposterous beyond imagination. The only evidence we have of dark matter is in seeing how it affects space time. We do not understand its composition or purpose, but accept its reality based on evidence. Nor do we completely understand quark-gluon plasma,(although we are getting close) but without it the big bang would not have been possible. So we accept it as a scientific reality. oh yes, and photons, lets not forgwet about photons. the only evidence of them is based on observation and reaction.

No more taking phrases out of context please. That does nothing for your argument but make you look desperate.


[edit on 3-6-2009 by NRA4ever333]

[edit on 3-6-2009 by NRA4ever333]

Originally posted by NRA4ever333
reply to post by andre18

 

Logic has absolutely nothing to do with fact. If I were to say that “the moon were made of cheese, and mice live on the moon. Thus craters on the moon are from mice eating the cheese.” That is a sound logical argument.

No it isn't. A logical argument is when it's based on some kind of evidence to make the point. Eg, "the moon were made of cheese" well that's not logical because the moon isn't made cheese. It's logical if it makes sense. When something makes sense it's because of the amount of information me know about it so we can understand it and determine whether it's true or not.

Because we know the moon isn't made of cheese because of how much we know about the moon, it isn't logical to say the moon is made of cheese. This is like grade school stuff man. And so to finish up, mice don't live on the moon, to say mice do isn't logical and of course craters on the moon are not from mice eating cheese because the moon isn't made of cheese and there are no mice living on the moon. So, that is obviously not a sound logical argument. It's actually one of the most illogical examples of a logical argument i've ever heard.

All logic means is A+B thus C is a probable outcome. So my argument being what it is, having the existence of an intelligent designer is a perfectly logical outcome of my proposal.).

No, because in you're example A (The moon is made of cheese) + B (mice live on the moon) is not probable. You can't say two things that aren't logical, that aren't true, as logical and as true. It is like me saying the earth is made of ice-cream and ice-cream creatures live in the earth. Because that's not true, it's not logical. There's no reason for that to make any logical sense. It's not probable in any way.

en.wikipedia.org...

Logic is the art and science of reasoning which seeks to identify and understand the principles of demonstration and inference.

mice and cheese on the moon is not reasonable.

I also never stated that there was a purpose; my statement never lets on to the nature of this being.

You impose their is purpose when you say the universe is intelligently designed. ID implies purpose. If god created the universe he would have to of had a reason of some sort for doing it. And again, if god created humanity intentionally - giving us rules and laws to abide by, then he created us for a purpose. ID implies purpose.

So as i said before, "for you to say their is a designer you're saying their is purpose. But you aren't able to say what that purpose is because you've already said we can't understand what purpose god gave us because he's above our understanding. You can't pove ID is true because you can't prove god is real because he's above our understanding. "

For all you know based on my proposal the intelligent designer is a child playing with clay. Any purpose or understanding about this being are speculation only.

Yes that's true, what the purpose is, isn't relevant. But you're still implying purpose by design, because saying something is designed means god chose to create, he willed it for some reason. God could not be a child playing with clay because the universe isn't made up of clay. You can't say god is a kid because you haven't provided evidence or even reasoning for why he is a kid. How do you know god's a kid if you can't even define what god is in the first place.

Lastly; to say that we need to understand what this being is composed of for it to be scientifically accepted is preposterous beyond imagination. The only evidence we have of dark matter is in seeing how it affects space time.

EXACTLY! "seeing how it affects space time" There are no affects of god that are scientifically measurable. The evidence for dark matter is the effect. So there is evidence. And there are no affects of god that are scientifically measurable because you don't even know what god is in the first place, so you can't search for its affect if you don't even know what you're looking for.

We do not understand its composition or purpose, but accept its reality based on evidence.

And the difference between dark matter and god is the evidence. You can't say god exists without the evidence.

Nor do we completely understand quark-gluon plasma, but without it the big bang would not have been possible. So we accept it as a scientific reality.

We accept it as a reality because of the scientific evidence. God can not be accepted as a reality without scientific evidence. So.....we both know there is no scientific evidence for god and we both know something requires scientific evidence for it to be accepted as scientifically plausible. So, why then did you say that you "are sure that (you) can prove the existence of an Intelligent designer." when you know there's no scientific evidence for one?

lets not forget about photons. the only evidence of them is based on observation and reaction.

Yep and guess what, that's still evidence. Photons 1 god 0......

[edit on 4-6-2009 by andre18]

reply to post by andre18


I have taken several courses in the field of Logic during my studies, you simply don’t know what you are talking about. Wiki does not prove anything, next time dig little deeper. Most importantly never be afraid to admit when you are wrong, defending your own misunderstandings weakens your argument.
www.philosophypages.com...

I am going to try and explain this again, only this time I will try and make it simpler for you.
(the following is a common example used in elementary logic which is why I chose it.)

“the moon is made out of cheese” (this is the first proposal, it is not true, but logic cares only about the truth of the argument presented as a whole, not the truth behind its statements.)

“Mice live on the moon” (this second proposal is still in line with the argument because I still commenting on the moon. once again, an untrue fact but that is irrelevant.)

“Thus craters on the moon are from mice eating the cheese.” (The conclusion considered here is logical, because it is in line with the two proposals leading up to it, and is a possible outcome if they were true.)

Once again, this is an elementary example of logic, ripped from one of my text books, and used by logistician professors the world over.


As for my comments on the Intelligent Designer, you have once again missed the mark. Photons, Dark mater, quark-gluon plasma, you were perceptive enough to notice that they required evidence, in order for modern science to accept them. But you failed to realize that my entire above proposal is based on the idea that the natural universe is filled with “evidence” of a creator being. So no, science will not accept something without evidence, which was the whole point for my proposal, and the discussion about it. (or lack of discussion it appears).

Another skeptic unable to refute any of my claims is resorting to picking apart my phrasing in the vain hope of confounding me. If you comments have no actual bearing on the conversation (Scientific evidence for or against my hypothesis) then don’t write back.


[edit on 4-6-2009 by NRA4ever333]

Once again, this is an elementary example of logic, ripped from one of my text books, and used by logistician professors the world over.

Ok i see where i lost the plot there. But still that doesn't matter because, you're implying a set of logical arguments in defense of god. But the logic you've so far have used isn't logical in any sense. I understand that Moon cheese example now but that still doesn't explain how your argument is in any way logical.

You don't know anything about god because you don't even know what god is so you can't make a logical argument about him. In your example you say that 'logic cares only about the truth of the argument presented as a whole...the conclusion considered here is logical, because it is in line with the two proposals leading up to it, and is a possible outcome if they were true'

There's no logical outcome that god intelligently designed and created the universe.

But you failed to realize that my entire above proposal is based on the idea that the natural universe is filled with “evidence” of a creator being.

and that evidence is? If there was any actual evidence scientists would have found it by now.

[edit on 4-6-2009 by andre18]

Would not a principle, the first basis to initiate a study be, a WHAT IS GOD?

If you can get an principle fact/form of WHAT is GOD? do you think you could begin a brian storm , Not adding in the most fatal aspect of this stdy, which is WHAT IS GOD TO ME? view.

I would come to think with the proper tools and functions we could figure in a scientific approach of the angles of What GOD is, rather than being caught in a water funnel of personal reflections and emotions of the subject.

KUDOS

reply to post by andre18


Alright now we are breaking some ground.

Let me try to explain my proposal in a logical equation.

(First proposition) We cannot understand what this being is, or it’s true nature. (this proposition leaves an open end in order to interoperate the data.)

(Second proposition) The current evolutionary state of our planet is an extreme mathematical improbability without help. (this means it could be a mystical God, an intelligent energy force of natural process as of yet not understood, intelligent beings occupying a higher level of existence, etc.)

(Third proposal) Abiogenesis has never been sufficiently proven, making it irrelevant. (although I have considered leaving this out, as depending on the nature of this being, our ability to recreate Abiogenesis could help prove the existence of the intelligent designer(s). Or, in other words; if we can do it, that increases the chances of something greater than ourselves doing it.)

(Fourth proposal) Mater and energy need a source of creation. (Even QGP and atoms need to come from somewhere, and energy can only change form, it cannot be created or destroyed.)

(Fifth proposal) The incredible odds put forth be natural law that should prevent the existence of life have been overcome in a precise way. (Universe overall mass, proton levels, total expansion rate etc.)

(Conclusion) With all of the inconsistencies given, an intelligent designer is a probable source for the universe. (it is not the only possible outcome of the argument, but it is a possible one making it logical.)

Like dark matter only being seen by its effect on space time, the evidence of an intelligent designer is the Creators effect on the natural universe, and in the inconsistencies science has given us.

reply to post by tumache


You have a good point, but with all the scientific data available, what would we use as the parameters? Without a better understanding of this being, how would we know what is impotent to the attributes?

It is these problems that left me at the notion that; we cannot understand the nature of this being(s) with our current understanding of the universe, and current evolutionary brain capacity.

So all we can do is speculate.

Thanks for the reply, Let me know if you can think of something that has eluded me.

Originally posted by NRA4ever333
reply to post by andre18

 

...(Second proposition) The current evolutionary state of our planet is an extreme mathematical improbability without help. (this means it could be a mystical God, an intelligent energy force of natural process as of yet not understood, intelligent beings occupying a higher level of existence, etc.)...
..(Fifth proposal) The incredible odds put forth be natural law that should prevent the existence of life have been overcome in a precise way. (Universe overall mass, proton levels, total expansion rate etc.)...

The odds against winning the lottery are astronomical. Yet people win it. What are the chances in a nearly infinite universe, that something of such incredible odds could happen somewhere? Why not here?

I acutally agree with what your saying, but I like to play devil's advocate.

reply to post by War Otter


I absolutely agree with you 100%. Strange things happen, and odds are broken. The problem comes in when you consider all of the odds given combined, with the Idea that we do not have infinite time since the universe began.

I can understand why people would see it this way when this bigger picture is not closely examined. It is also possible for all these odds to be broken perfectly, in order for life to occur. I just think it is far more probable to consider that we are not just that lucky, and there is some mind behind it all.

You can flip a coin a million times, and all the results could come up heads. But I wouldn’t bet on that out come without something more behind it.

I think i can prove that Science can prove that there is something out there that has intelligence.
Its just that thinking is to common for us to understand intelligence.

Again Science can't prove anything without having intelligence!! Right. The scientist has to be smart. He needs to know and understand the instruments designed by humans.
A scientist need to know about the measurement system we have created as well, So he can measure and observe what he studies. And its all based on our measurement system.

What people dont think to much about is our own measuring system. How accurate is it really?

How do we really know the real speed of light! If our time is of.
Time is probably the most adjusted aspect of our measuring system?

We can observe changes. But to measure or count them... we still have to use our original measuring system. It will never change. It will only be adjusted.

Now why does science prove that there is a intelligence without really seeing it?

Well he doesn't see that matter and energy combined gives a function. Because it's to common to him.

Illustrated like this:

Human = Energy and Matter combined to have a specific function?

Human = function

( Human = Energy + Matter combined = A function)

Function = A idea ++++



Now here is the bugger:

A scientist wants to build a house?

You can actually build a equation out of this.

Like this:

1. A scientist = Matter + Energy (combined) = A function

2. Matter + Energy = function

3. Matter + energy + function = Idea

4. Matter + Energy + function + idea = A image of a house

Now what are the odds of a combination of Matter and energy that is different then our own to have the same function to image a house like we do?

The odds are:

Our combination of matter and energy combined to every other piece of energy and matter that is combined in the same space/time dimension.

Randomness of Matter and energy:

Matters + energies = What???? It will = what ever?

A random combination of matter and energy will never have the function to build a house.

Only a certain combination of Energy and matter that gives a specific function can build a house out of random materials.

So how was the scientist built?

Randomly or by a idea?

Equation:

Energy + Matter = A scientist ??? How ???

reply to post by spy66


Another wonderful thought provoking equation, and wonderfully put. If I understand you correctly what you are saying (in simplified form) is something like this.
No designer = Randomness
Randomness = Chaos
Form and Function = Existence
Chaos cannot = Form and Function
Thus, No designer cannot = Existence

Like I mentioned in another post, mathematical theorem is not one of my strong points so please let me know where I am wrong, and thank you for the excellent reply.