Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Evidence of God?

  1. Aug 25, 2003 #1
    Now there are a great many things in this Universe that we don't know about. But that does not mean they don't exist. There are "factual things" which we do know, and there are "factual things" which we don't know. Which is to say, a fact remains a fact, irregardless.

    And yet it's entirely possible for one person or, perhaps a whole group of people (due to the "fact" we're all part of the human condition -- this is the key here :wink:), to ascertain a certain fact (or facts) that others are incapable of. And so the real issue becomes, at what point does a fact become knowable?

    Indeed, it would be much easier if it could be accepted uniformly and by everyone. Then there would be no point to disagree. But what if there was a fact that only "one" person knew about, nor do I mean a fact specific to that one person, but a general fact that affected everyone? Does this mean the fact is unknowable or, not ascertainable by anyone else? Should it? If one person can ascertain it, then chances are others can ascertain it as well.

    And yet what if it were one of those things which are not readily ascertainable, say like the notion of God? Of course this is probably why it's not widely accepted by everyone -- or, in the case of many who have accepted it, they may have accepted it "blindly" -- but should that have any bearing on whether or not God exists? Should it? The fact is, He either exists or He doesn't exist.

    If this is the case, and God does exist, then there should also be "characteristic evidence" to support it. Or how else could you identify it? And yet the problem is, that unless you make the discovery yourself, being that it's not readily ascertained, you may not be able to associate the evidence with the facts. Although it's still evidence! In which case you may have all the evidence in the world -- which I suggest we do if we're speaking about God by the way -- but, unless one is able to make the association, nothing is going to happen.

    So what does it mean? Especially when one person presents the evidence and another charges that there is no evidence, when it's really a matter of not being able to make the association? Hmm ... Is it anybody's fault really? I wouldn't think so. So why all the accusations then? Could it be because it has something to do with the notion of God, where the evidence could very well be right under our noses? ... Now that is a distinct possibility! :wink:
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 25, 2003 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Thats a good question. What exactly are we associating this evidence with? We have no clue. How can we possibly make the association, when we've only got 1 part of the equation?

    Honestly, short of God himself coming to us and saying "I'm god, check me out and all my omnipotence" I don't think there is much in the way of evidence.

    I couldn't deny gods existance, but more so point out that there has been thousands of gods explained away by science, or just a better understanding of nature. As you said, there are things in the universe that we do not yet know of. Honestly, until we truly understand what a God would want from us, I think it would be premature of us, and insulting to him, to worship him in some form that does not exist.

    I mean face it, when it gets down to it, you just don't know. You may have reasoned out that god exist, simply by saying he has to in order for things to be, or have manipulated the numbers of an ancient text to reflect your wishes, but honestly, you just don't know. I don't know, nobody knows.

    And a saying I've like is "Any decision based on ignorance is usually wrong"

    Of course some things in life you just have to guess at. But what is the difference between a persons guess and evidence?

  4. Aug 25, 2003 #3
    Invisible pink unicorns come to mind.

    Yes, for instance, it is a fact that it doesn’t matter whether invisible pink unicorns actually exist or not, for we will foot-slog our way through this life just the same. This is certainly true for me, so I don’t want to be blamed if someone finds they are simply incapable of ascertaining the facts…

    If what you are saying is ‘acknowledged by all’ (instead of knowable), then in that case I would say: When we all see the unicorn.

    There is another fact; ‘we’ don’t know the answer.

    It means you will have to make up your mind for yourself, and I hope you will allow me to do the same.

    What association?...that someone else makes an assertion, they cannot be wrong, and therefore I should simply believe whatever they do?

    Could it possibly be God’s fault?
    Nah, couldn’t be.

    What accusations, that your word isn’t good enough for me?
    That isn’t an accusation, that’s a fact.

    Could be anything, that’s the problem.

    How about an extinct possibility!
    At any rate, possibilities aren’t enough cause to get me excited, sorry.
  5. Aug 25, 2003 #4
    Of course if God really does exist, then we might want to consider the fact that "we" are the evidence, and that this is the only way we'll really be able to solve the puzzle. In other words by having it communicated to us on a "personal level." :wink:

    Neither am I saying it's necessary for God to make a cameo appearance by the way!
  6. Aug 25, 2003 #5
    If such things do exist, then yes it becomes a fact. Of course a lot of that might depend on the definition as well.

    This is where I bring up the notion of a specific fact versus a general fact, which affects all of us.

    No, but isn't a fact knowable when at least one person can acknowledge it?

    Then that means there must be at least two of you. :wink:

    If science has a right to its own opinion, and enforce it in a way that it's going to affect me directly, then yeah, I have a right to voice my opinion.

    People make assertions all the time, right or wrong.

    Who's that? Well just don't go pointing your finger at me, Okay?

    What you're telling me is you don't like to be told what to do (or how to think). Who does?

    Or, it could even be the air that we breath.

    Actualy I'm more into probabilities myself. :wink:
  7. Aug 25, 2003 #6
    Person A has an extrordinary ex-
    perience that person B has never

    Person A reports the experience to

    B finds it impossible to believe.

    Person A is miffed.

    Person A accuses B of being closed

    Is B actually closed minded or
    merely inexperienced?
  8. Aug 25, 2003 #7
    Well bring ‘em on and I’ll ascertain them.

    You tell me because there are, after all, insane people living in this world who believe all sorts of things to be fact.

    ‘We’ means simply you and me. You might know something but if I don’t know it too, than We do not know it.

    Is this the old persecution complex I smell?
    Science doesn’t have an opinion, people do. Anyway, is ‘science’ affecting you so negatively that you must complain?

    Yeah, and some of them might be scientists. Who cares?

    Like I said, that’s the problem.

    Me too, but only when I subjectively deem them to be >0.$hit.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 25, 2003
  9. Aug 25, 2003 #8
    Or, person A is not miffed, but person B insists that person A is full of crap, in order to try to get person A really miffed, and then continue to blame the whole thing on person A. In which case was it "right" for person A to bring it up in the first place?

    Neither does this discount the possibility that person B just doesn't understand.
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2003
  10. Aug 25, 2003 #9
    Or person A either.
  11. Aug 25, 2003 #10
    I doubt it, besides that's not the point of this thread anyway.

    Well, I suppose it is possible to imagine things. :wink:

    Except that "we" doesn't have to imply "you and me."

    Sure it does, otherwise it wouldn't exercise it by publishing the results.

    Then again maybe it's not science I have a problem with, but with what people do with the science that I have a problem with?

    Am I saying somebody has the right to assert their view over someone else's? No, not really.

    In what way?

    Are you trying to tell me something that I don't already know?
  12. Aug 25, 2003 #11
    But doesn't anybody know anything around here? Or, do we have to rely on Science for the answers? That's my whole point! :wink:
  13. Aug 25, 2003 #12
    Here person A might start to
    realize the problems inherent in
    having had an extrordinary exper-
    ience (knowledge of God, for
    instance) that no one else of
    his acquaintance has had.

    How do you communicate it and be
    taken seriously without being
    able to cause B to experience the
    same thing?
  14. Aug 25, 2003 #13
    Well, I think you misunderstood what I was implying.
    That is why you cannot simply take someone’s word, understand me?
    You can run with it anyway you please but it was me who first said ‘we’ and it is me now explaining how I meant it to be understood.
    Well, I don’t believe that part about science having an opinion, but you on the other hand are certainly entitled to yours. In this case, and believing as I’m sure you do that we all have a right to an opinion, why should it bother you at all?
    Well then, you’ll have to make up your mind who or what to be upset with. Why not start a new post when you have it sorted out and tell me all about it?
  15. Aug 25, 2003 #14
    Basically you just learn not to expect a whole lot. :smile:
  16. Aug 25, 2003 #15
    Well correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to have some answers not provided by science don’t you?
    In fact, the majority of people on this planet would seem to be religious. Doesn’t that sound like people don’t have to rely on science to you?

    Rephrase your question and I’ll give you a better answer.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 25, 2003
  17. Aug 25, 2003 #16
    It is possible. :wink:

    If I didn't say it, then I should have said at some point in this thread. I think it's there somewhere?

    Yeah, but what gives you the right to lump me in with you? Comprender?

    Sort of like ripples in a pond I guess? :wink:

    Actually I never said I was incapable of getting upset, but when I do get upset I don't stay upset for very long. :smile:
  18. Aug 25, 2003 #17
    The same thing that apparently allows you to do it with me;
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 25, 2003
  19. Aug 25, 2003 #18
    Was a rhetorical question. Doesn't require an answer. In which case we don't have to answer back.

    Do you know what, there's something about your ideology that seems well suited for twisting everything that I say into something that was never implied -- which, I really don't care for. Got it! ...

    You see this is another trick and it's called subversion.
  20. Aug 25, 2003 #19
    Stop wasting time with rhetoric.

    My ideology???
    Really, I thought you were the one doing the twisting, not me. At any rate, it is a fact that the author of a statement has a responsibility to make his/her thoughts as well written and coherent as possible, so don’t shuck that responsibility off on the reader. As I was attempting to touch on, you changed your gripe from science to what people do with science. I am merely trying to find out what your actual argument is so I can respond accordingly, that is all.
  21. Aug 25, 2003 #20
    Listen, I made a perfectly valid point. If you don't want to accept it for I'm trying to say that's fine. And if I say we, it doesn't necessarily include you, Okay?

    I'm not going to argue with you okay?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook