Scientific proof of God?

reply to post by jessieg


You are scientifically correct. According to quantum mechanics, an "observer" can greatly change the outcome of a scientific experiment by simply watching it. I liked the tree in the forest analogy, I would have used it myself. Yet I think the oldest is "a watched pot never boils". I honestly believe we control our world through thought. Yes, on a very small level. but never the less in some way. The question being, what if we could convince large groups of people to think the same thing at the same time? Could we actually alter our physical world simply through thought and obsevation?

I do not think that you will be able to convince anyone, other than those who already believe, that God exists unless you have a pic of him or a youtube video. Even then, I doubt you will convince many at all.

I know quite a few Christians that do not think there is a physical God. They believe in the man Jesus, but God is a "physical energy" that flows within us all. Therefore, there would never be a way to prove that God exists physically. I think that if this is true, it would explain the power of prayer.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


I agree and dissagree, If you convince all the scientists, most of the world will follow suit. How ironic would it be for the scientists of the world to be preaching the existence of God, to non believing christians?

If you want to see mathematical evidence that confirms superstring theory (also pointing towards a d-brane generalization of it) and which reveals the transcendental design of God, then spend the next three months (yes - you will need that length of time) to study the 51 research articles and voluminous material at
smphillips.8m.com...

Dr Phillips' new book "The mathematical connection between religion and science" reveals for the first time how superstring theory is embodied in the sacred geometries of religions and in the well-known Platonic solids. It establishes how the ancient Hebrew Godnames mathematically prescribe holistic systems like superstrings and the seven musical scales. It reveals the mathematical nature of the map of physical and superphysical reality and how it is represented in certain sacred geometries, such as the Sri Yantra. It shows how superstring physics is related to this map in an amazing way. It shows the mathematical equivalence of five sacred geometries separated by thousands of miles and years in origin. This has no plausible conventional explanation. It is evidence of the existence of God, whose nature was revealed in analogous ways across continents and time.

reply to post by micpsi


I run a swimming pool supply store, and it is The middle of my season. Although I promise come this winter i will spend the "full three months" investigating and reading this. I truly thank you for the post! the link is in my notes as of now. For all those who have the time right now, I suggest you read this link NOW and take notes on everything it says. It may change your world, or at least give you a different point of view.

THANK YOU POSTER!!! star for you!

You know, I might just read some of those articles. I am very interested in physics in general. I know I will never make a career of it, or even begin to understand much of it, but I am still interested. I wish I had a mind to understand it more.

I guess I feel what a lot of scientist must feel, as if the answer was right there in front of me, and yet so complex and also simple at the same time, that I can't quite grasp it.

I still think in the end you just need faith. You need faith for science or you need faith for God.

I think science and God can exist together.

Science explains the What, when, where, how questions we have.

With science alone we can learn a lot. But some of us want to ask "Why?" The more we understand about what is happening, when and where and how it is happening, we still don't know why.

I am not satisfied that it is happening "just because."

Some people are satisfied with that as an answer.

For me, that seems like a really weak answer.


For the scientist, it just happens because that is how it happens. They fully understand how and when and where it happens. Then they call this a law. Then they say it just happens that way because that is how it works.

But sometimes things don't always behave as they should. Sometimes a photon can be influence by the observer. Sometimes we, the observer have an impact on the results of the experiment.

Sometimes "That is just how it works" isn't always the answer.


Although I am very interested in what they may learn from the large Hadron Collider and with other experiments, I think this will only lead to more questions. I am hoping they finally get some more why questions.
I am hoping that they get stunned by something that can't just be explained away.

Surely they will learn something very fascinating, and very complex.

For me, the DNA molecule is very complex and fascinating. Even the fact that we have consciousness should be something to ask why about.

Maybe there is something more. Maybe there is something wonderful and even more complex than the DNA molecule. I hope they find that.

reply to post by jessieg


Once again I agree and disagree. Yes the duty of science is to look for facts, "the how, why, what and where", but if you look, especially at modern day science, it has gotten to a point where 90% of science is just theory, although based on scientific fact. There are very few "laws" today and mostly "theories". You need about as much faith today in science, as you do in religion.

reply to post by dreamwalker74


Could you ever really convince ALL scientists? Even if science could prove through physics or math that there is a God, would scientists even call it God?

I think that the term God only apples to those who believe in a, for lack of a better word, supernatural being. Science would call it a creator or architect of life. The word God is completely based on faith and denotes a religious entity.

So in that respect I do not think science will ever find God. They may find the creator of life, the singularity, but religious implications will be left to each religion itself.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Yes, I do believe that if proven all the majority of scientists could be convinced. Scientists like to throw the word God around quite a bit, the "God Particle", "God reaction" and what not. If it were scientifically proven that the base energy that creates the entire universe and all existence was in-fact intelligent, then yes they would all call it "God".

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Follow up. If we went back in time just 10,000 years, with a fraction of the technology we have today, we would be considered "supernatural" beings. I believe there are many, many different alien races throughout the universe that with their technology could definitely be called "super natural entities". I believe many of our ancestors likely came into contact with one or many of these beings and at the time called them "Gods". That is beyond the point though. We are not talking about a group of superior species that are so far advanced to us they would be considered "supernatural". We are talking about the essence of reality itself, being self aware and intelligent. There are bound to be millions of races throughout the Universe, so far beyond us, that we would call them "Gods". The end all question is what created them, and us, and everything?

Originally posted by dreamwalker74
If in fact the Super-String theory is correct, I believe that this in itself is scientific proof of God.

The basic problem, as always, is trying to define "God." I have yet to find a good definition of God that doesn't involve some inherent paradoxes and contradictions. If you can't even adequately describe or define what you're trying to prove, then you're just cherry-picking data and concepts that support your own position.

For instance, many people see God as encompassing the entire universe, yet God is also a specifically defined personality/entity that is subset of that universe. That's a bit of a paradox. Then there's the notion of motivation. Would a supernatural entity, which encompasses the entire universe in space and time, have any needs or wants? No, it would be complete. Yet, supposedly, God has a need to create. Create what, though? More of the universe? Infinity plus one? And yet this transdimensional superbeing is still interested in who wins the World Cup? Or how you do on your math test?

So you can take various attributes of other concepts, and say, "This is like a component of God," but until you can adequately define God, then your comparisons will always be lacking and inaccurate.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by Blue Shift]

reply to post by Blue Shift


This is the whole point of the post. You are correct in both regards. If true, God does in-fact encompass the entire universe, because God would in fact BE the entire universe, and threfore also a single entity. I don't see how a paradox exists in that theory. If a "supreme being" entity ever came to Earth I would immediately be sceptical, and would immediately ask "Ok, so you say you created us, who created you?"

Heres something that maybe of interest to all,some or one of you? Depends which way you look at it i suppose, or should i say hear it.

Everything suposedly has a vibration limit?right? Frequencies effect the vibrations? i think, so if im right to assume what i have just typed then why would the LHC and the recent news of the sounds created finding the god paricle and also the news regarding the sounds of the sun have to do with your thread?
Could there be a connection?

reply to post by dreamwalker74


I agree that in the end we may find that alien visitors from long ago were the basis of everything we know as "God". What science is looking for is the creator of all life, I think.

String theory, and science in and of itself, may prove alternate realities, dimensions and times but how can a mathmatical equation prove the existance of a single being that sparked life in the universe? How can it prove who created the universe?

Sounds to me like its just science trying to prove faith.

reply to post by jazz10


All forms of energy, light, sound, magnetism, nuclear, both weak and strong, create vibrational harmonic signatures. not much to do with the post other than the fact that these harmonic signatures affect the base strings of reality and can alter them. (see former quote "what if god has an itch?" Thank you for your post.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


It wouldn't be a matter of math. It would be a matter of proving that the energy which creates all matter in universe was intelligent, and able to create matter at will, (which it apparently has) hence you and I.

reply to post by dreamwalker74


I understand and agree, but don't scientists in these sorts of fields use math equations to prove or disprove their theories? I may be behind the times a bit on this one but I thought it all boils down to being mathmatically feasable.

Also, how can science prove that an "energy" is intelligent? Science has a hard time comprehending the intelligence of Earth-bound creatures, let alone an entity or "energy" of something that we can't find, touch or see. Even more important, how do we know that we could even begin to comprehend a being whos intelligence would be so far beyond our wildes imagination?

I just think that there will not be a great scientific discovery that claims they have found the creator of the universe. It will not happen. If, and when, we are lucky enough to figure out where we came from, it will most likely be because we were told the truth by other beings in the universe.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


It is actually extremely easy and extremely difficult. The difficult part would be reducing matter to a point where it was only the base "string energy itself, at that point containing that energy, and building upon that energy over a period of time. The easy part would be to observe and record that energy over a long period of time. At that point if that energy "created" any form of matter period, it would take years of studies to analyze what type of matter was created and how it was done so. Although it would be far more entertaining if it immediately spit up a tea cup, or a kitten.

reply to post by dreamwalker74


LOL! I admit it would be pretty cool to see that happen.

That process would take a very long time to unfold. That's why I believe we will be told by other intelligent beings how the universe works and where we came from, long before we figure it out on our own.

reply to post by sheepslayer247



You have been an asset to my post sheepslayer247, and it has been down right fun talking to you. I will keep an eye out for your future posts and will try to give you the same run for the money you've given me.

Thank you- Dreamwalker74