What would be proof that God exists?

[Gokul43201]

Dear RAD and David,

In your attempt to try and speak "scientifically", you picked the one quote of Einstein's that is in fact known to be erroneous...at least in essence.

Quoting does not amount to reasoning or proving !

 

[DavidSF]

Which one?

Regarding proof, There are some in this forum, whom, if I said that sometimes the sky is blue, they would tell me I don't know what I am talking about.

These people don't want proof, and would not recognise the truth, even if it fell from a great height and knocked them six foot underground.

David

 

[RAD4921]

Scientific theory

David
I often wonder whether a "physical theory" of the universe can explain consciousness. If we unite the 4 known forces of nature will this explain all?
Albert Einstien once said that he wanted to know the thoughts of God and the rest is details.
Bob

 

[eureka]

I can still remember what my adviser in thesis told me.
Einstein believed that quantum mechanics is still young, so he didn't support the idea of uncertainty principle. thus "God doesn't play dice with the world" something is still missing. If Einstein were to be alive until today, he might have proven it. Just my two cents about Einstein.

 

[DavidSF]

Rad4921,
The uniting of the four known forces of nature, requires an understanding of 4 dimensional space, and to understand 4 dimensional space requires an understanding of the nature of the fourth dimension of time itself.

The usual concept of space is 3 dimensional and they say that time itself somehow is the fourth dimension.

Time is easily understood if you don't call it time, but call it the reciprical of velocity.

When we measure one metre length over one second we refer to the SI value system.
But what is not considered is the massive velocities we travel at galactically, as this covers the length of that metre in a time period 1 metre / 641,000 metres / second

This value is close to atomic wavelength time periods. In this way an atom does not see the length of the metre the same as we do.

In one second the atom can see a wavelength of 641,000 metres.
Or 1 metre in a time period 1 metre / 641,000 metres / seconds.

This is the reason for the foundation of the theory of relativity.

The question you need to ask yourself is, is all matter moving by induction? or did it just happen to be moving correctly by chance?, by chance means that every planet within the universe has by chance been exceedingly lucky, or if you conclude that it is by induction you must conclude that something is inducing it.

This something is the very subject of this part of the forum, Proof of God's existence,
This something that is inducing matter into motion is electromagnetic energy, the carrier of light and any electromagnetic propagation, this something can be called the Holy Spirit, or otherwise called God.

Under these circumstances God can be said to exist.

Conciousness is an existence within this inducing electromagnetic energy field, and it can be logical to suspect that the mind which is made of atomic structure, can tune into this energy source, hence the purpose of 'Prayer' although I suspect many tune in and receive without being conscious that they are receiving. For this very reason we have a sixth sense.

I hope this may help resolve the questions that you are asking.

David

 

[Gokul43201]

Rad4921,
The uniting of the four known forces of nature, requires an understanding of 4 dimensional space, and to understand 4 dimensional space requires an understanding of the nature of the fourth dimension of time itself.

You must mean 4 dimensional space-time. Also current string theories say that space has 10 dimensions, not 3 or 4.

Time is easily understood if you don't call it time, but call it the reciprical of velocity.

But it is not. It is the reciprocal of frequency or velocity per unit length.

When we measure one metre length over one second we refer to the SI value system.
But what is not considered is the massive velocities we travel at galactically, as this covers the length of that metre in a time period 1 metre / 641,000 metres / second

Where did the 641,000 m/s come from ?

This value is close to atomic wavelength time periods.

For what wave ? For EM radiation (light, etc.), this time period has a wavelength of about 500 meters - hardly atomic scale !

In this way

In what way ? There is no reason why the preceeding statements (even were they accurate) should lead to the following conclusion.

an atom does not see the length of the metre the same as we do.

Sure it does, so long as it is in the same inertial frame as us (or at least approximately). It just counts a \lambda^{-1} number of waves, and voila, it has a meter !

In one second the atom can see a wavelength of 641,000 metres.

Then so can I. The perceived wavelength only depends on your relative velocity - and has nothing to do with your size.

Or 1 metre in a time period 1 metre / 641,000 metres / seconds.

This is the reason for the foundation of the theory of relativity.

Accoring to who ? DavidSF ? Surely not Einstein's reasoning...nor any other phycisist ! The Theory of Relativity (at least the Special Theory) is based on observations from different inertial frames not from different size scales !

No sane person will accept this as a sensible line of reasoning. I strongly suggest you refrain from attempting "scientific argument" lest you end up weakening the argument for the existence of God.

 

[dschouten]

No sane person will accept this as a sensible line of reasoning. I strongly suggest you refrain from attempting "scientific argument" lest you end up weakening the argument for the existence of God.

Exactly. David SF has a persecution complex about people refusing to accept his "scientific arguments" for "the truth". The point is, regardless of the truthfulness of his conclusions, his arguments are completely off kilter and reveal an understanding of nature consistent with that of a three year old child, or one whose neural development is seriously inhibited.

Seriously, the "main spiral path" ? I got a couple of people in my office laughing for about 5 minutes when I relayed that hogwash to them. What a joke!

 

[RAD4921]

To Gokul

I cannot understand as to why you quoted "scientifically" since I never mention the word. I am only quoting Einstein. If you don't like Einstein's sayings I would suggest taking it up with him but he is dead.

 

[Gokul43201]

I cannot understand as to why you quoted "scientifically" since I never mention the word. I am only quoting Einstein. If you don't like Einstein's sayings I would suggest taking it up with him but he is dead.

I have nothing against Einstein's words. It just happens that Einstein, at the time, could not accept a non-deterministic universe and this is what he meant by those words. At the time, anyone would be shocked by the concept. What followed was one of the most sparkling and prolonged scientific jousting matches took place between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein. The latter, who could never accept the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, produced a series of gedanken experiments (thought experiments) designed to disprove the new theory. Bohr would then attempt to show where Einstein had gone wrong. In one of Bohr's successful attempts at this, he was especially pleased to note that Einstein had forgotten that according to his own theory of general relativity clocks run more slowly under the influence of a gravitational field. Einstein eventually did accept the Quantum Theory.

Anyway, here's how those discussions went ...

Einstein: "God does not play dice."

Einstein: "God is not malicious."

Bohr: "Einstein, stop telling God what to do."

Also, I was referring to DavidSF's discourses when I used the word "scientifically". If I incorrectly included you in that statement, I apologize.

 

[RAD4921]

To Gokul

Oh you were referring to the "dice" quote. I understand your reply now. Sorry for the isunderstanding:)

 

[DavidSF]

To all,
Velocity is a length per second, as is wavelength. In fact our velocity is the direct result of our frequency conditions.

The Approximate value of 641,000 m/sec is calculated from predominately the two values of 600,000 m/sec and 225,000 m/sec, stir that grey matter and work it out for yourself, after all your all cleverer than me, you may even be able to tell me what these two values represent.

When we discuss wavelength resonance we refer to a single wavelength resonant cycle, an atom does not count waves as you so cleverly put it.

Try defining the second, what is its length? width? and height, because it is part of space time, or do you deny that too.

David.

 

[Gokul43201]

To all,
Velocity is a length per second, as is wavelength.

Wavelength is NOT a length per second. It is a length. Won't you even stop to think before you write stuff ? And if you want to try to be consistent, say length per time or meter per second.

In fact our velocity is the direct result of our frequency conditions.

What are our frequency conditions ? This is not a physical description. And please understand what a dimension is and what a unit is. Quantities have dimensions which are measured in units. A unit does not have dimension. It's bad enough comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing the taste of an apple to the word 'happy'.

I really can't find the time to read through all the errors and unphysical statements in yor writing. It would be like looking for a way past all the water in the ocean. Wait, someone HAS does that !

I throw in my towel here.

 

[DavidSF]

Gokul43201,
Your not even trying to be co-operative just insultive, For you the world is so clean cut, You think the Dopler effect only occurs relative to the velocity of other galaxies, and you could not in your wildest dreams think that it may be occurring a little closer to home, like within your own little world under your own nose.

The Dopler frequency shift effect is caused by velocity, and links velocity with frequency wether you can accept that or not. No sir I don't compare the taste of apples with happy..Just discussing something you haven't yet considered.

You ask me what our frequency conditions are, and yet not one question I have asked in this forum has been answered, all I have received are insults..
You deserve from me what you have given me.. Nothing.. I will accept your towel..

And leave you to exist within your own little world.

Good luck David

 

[dschouten]

Wavelength is NOT a length per second. It is a length. Won't you even stop to think before you write stuff ? And if you want to try to be consistent, say length per time or meter per second.

What are our frequency conditions ? This is not a physical description. And please understand what a dimension is and what a unit is. Quantities have dimensions which are measured in units. A unit does not have dimension. It's bad enough comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing the taste of an apple to the word 'happy'.

I really can't find the time to read through all the errors and unphysical statements in yor writing. It would be like looking for a way past all the water in the ocean. Wait, someone HAS does that !

I throw in my towel here.

Throwing in your towel is about the only thing you can do with this DavidSF character. Just look above at his description of the "main spiral path". This guy is either trying to upset a great many people by playing the fool (to perfection), or he is consistently hopped up on mushrooms. Take your pick.

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul43201,
Your not even trying

Oh, I tried, all right !

to be co-operative just insultive,

Please show me which statement of mine you find to be insulting.

For you the world is so clean cut, You think the Dopler effect only occurs relative to the velocity of other galaxies,

Of course not. Show me where I have given such an impression.

and you could not in your wildest dreams think that it may be occurring a little closer to home, like within your own little world under your own nose.

I don't need wild dreams to be aware of Doppler shifts occurring closer to home. I can easily hear the frequency shift in the siren of a fire truck. If I see a police car parked by a higway, I know that the cop's speed gun uses the Doppler shift to determine vehicle speeds. When I'm doing X-ray diffraction analysis on my newly synthesized samples, I know that the Compton Effect is a result of the Doppler shift.

The Dopler frequency shift effect is caused by velocity, and links velocity with frequency wether you can accept that or not.

In fact, I was the one that brought this up...in objection to your claim that frequency shifts are causing by scaling.

No sir I don't compare the taste of apples with happy..Just discussing something you haven't yet considered.

You ask me what our frequency conditions are, and yet not one question I have asked in this forum has been answered, all I have received are insults..
You deserve from me what you have given me.. Nothing.. I will accept your towel..

And leave you to exist within your own little world.

Good luck David

Yes, Good luck, David

 

[dave19903652]

The minute that you try to measure and record God he deserts you. If you try to justify why God is here then you don't actually believe in God. A quote from Jesus "Believe in me" that's all you have to do. Anyway to prove that God exists in my way and a slightly scientifical way say this to yourself.

THE COINCIDENCE OF LIFE
How did the big bang happen to happen in exactly the right way, how was relativity 'created' to be perfect for us? How was the sun made just big enough and us far enough enough away to not be fried or freezed? How did that chemical reaction come across that created water that in turn somehow created life? How did we manage to evolve perfectly? Ask those sort of questions and if you can't believe now, there is no point on reading this board because you are a confirmed athiest

 

[Bobert]

Proof

There is no proof. God was created by man because of our fear of death. those that choose to believe may be wasting time but if there is a god than those that don't believe will have hell to pay. I personally don't believe for many personal reasons but i advise u to make your own.

 

[naz]

Every time I read something like that, I just want to laugh and cry. A book written by men, that isn't even internally consistant, which claims to be teh truth, should be taken as such because it claims to be true.

Go on, pull the other one, it has bells on.

ur absolutely right, the bible is full of contradictions, one question
have you ever tried reading the quraan

 

[Ethanol]

Proof of God?

Naz is right bible has many contradictions but that is because humans modified it into the form it is in(that is what I think). Let's remember how the world is running and how it originated, because all the relativity and Laws we study did not just arise on their own. we should remember a boat is not made without a carpenter. Someone powerful and mighty has to apply some force to do work. To propel a whole universe, a big, no, really big God is there. and if we say that the universe is too big for a God to Handle then it depends upon how big a God we believe in.Do try to read Quraan i believe anyone in doubt will be answered. Here is a little Part of the Holy Book I'm telling about.

"In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

IT IS the Merciful who has taught the Koran.

He created man and taught him articulate speech. The sun and the moon pursue their ordered course. The plants and the trees bow down in adoration.

He raised the heaven on high and set the balance of all things, that you might not transgress that balance. Give just weight and full measure.

He laid the Earth for His creatures, with all its fruits and blossom-bearing palm, chaff-covered grain and scented herbs. Which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?"

 

[olde drunk]

Ethanol: Those are very nice words. Unfortunately, they serves no purpose in this thread.

those words could be muttered by a believer in mother Earth as a god. it simply means that regardless of what we do, we should do it with reverence. in fact, an atheist can respect creation.

again, believing or not believing in a god is a matter what an individual wishes to accomplish at any given point in time. i am referring to a spiritual purpose. yes, i do believe that an atheist would be an atheist to fulfill his spiritual purpose.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Gokul43201]

If you try to justify why God is here then you don't actually believe in God... Anyway to prove that God exists in my way and a slightly scientifical way say this to yourself.

As you are now trying to justify why God is here, you don't actually believe in God.

CTHE COINCIDENCE OF LIFE
How did the big bang happen to happen in exactly the right way,

In "exactly the right way" ? The Big Bang is a space-time singularity, meaning that there is no 'way' involved in its happening.

how was relativity 'created' to be perfect for us?

'Relativity' is a theory. It explains phenomena such gravity and motion. There's nothing about it that makes it perfect for us. You could have said the same about Newtonian Mechanics, and it would take until the 20th century to figure out that that was wrong in the first place.

How was the sun made just big enough and us far enough enough away to not be fried or freezed?

Actually, the number of planets in the Universe where this is likely to be true is astronomical. It's not even vaguely resembling of a coincidence that the Sun was 'made just right', if you are aware at all of something called 'probability'.

How did that chemical reaction come across that created water that in turn somehow created life?

Again, the probability of this happening in some planet in the Universe, is not small at all. And it would be far more likely in a planet where water is in the liquid state, so that explains the temperature too.

How did we manage to evolve perfectly?

This statement is so vague, I really shouldn't be trying to answer. What do you mean by 'perfectly' ? There is no such thing as evolving 'perfectly'. What makes you think that we have evolved perfectly. Had we evolved into a different looking being, would you have still not said this ?

Ask those sort of questions and if you can't believe now, there is no point on reading this board because you are a confirmed athiest

But, by your own admission, in the first paragraph, you are a confirmed atheist...

PS : I'm not an atheist, and wish you had stopped with your first 3 sentences, for you have just crippled the argument by proceeding beyond.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ethanol: Those are very nice words. Unfortunately, they serves no purpose in this thread.

those words could be muttered by a believer in mother Earth as a god. it simply means that regardless of what we do, we should do it with reverence. in fact, an atheist can respect creation.

again, believing or not believing in a god is a matter what an individual wishes to accomplish at any given point in time. i am referring to a spiritual purpose. yes, i do believe that an atheist would be an atheist to fulfill his spiritual purpose.

love&peace,
olde drunk

I completely agree. Too often, atheism is construed as 'being in opposition to religion'. This stems from the common misconception that religion involves an acceptance of the existence of God.

Consider this : Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

 

[Ethanol]

In response to both Gokul43201 and olde drunk

Yes, well i got a bit carried away and started preaching. Actually the point i wanted to make wasn't clear enough from my last message. It is right that we humans do not consider God but the last resort to everything. If someone is atheist he is surely not believing in God because he has some earthly profits from that and i say most of us who r not atheists pray to God, go to church,pray in a temple or a mosque just because we want people to trust us and know us as honest and saint people. I think Gokul43201 somewhere said that he was not an atheist.May i ask a question? Why r u so doubtful about the existence of God? Kindly tell me about ur religion and i will study about it too.

 

[michelle s]

"faith"

If you believe that there is no such thing as God what would it take to change your mind

I believe the definition of "god" to be "the creator."
I do not know what else "god" does. It may not be the same "god" that christians believe in and worship faithfully.

I believe that to have "faith" means to have a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

My point is, if you are christian and you have "faith": you believe in "god"- full stop. Where as an atheist denies the existence of "god" completely. A "believer" can never convince an atheist to believe in "god" purely because to believe in "god", one must have "faith" and atheists will never have "faith" because atheists rely on logical proof and material evidence that "god" exists. There is no logical proof.
There is no material evidence.
But if there was, then Christianity would not be the same. People would not have "faith" only knowledge. This defeats the purpose of belief. "Faith" is one of the main basis' of the christian religion.

 

[Mk]

I believe the definition of "god" to be "the creator."
I do not know what else "god" does. It may not be the same "god" that christians believe in and worship faithfully.

I believe that to have "faith" means to have a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

My point is, if you are christian and you have "faith": you believe in "god"- full stop. Where as an atheist denies the existence of "god" completely. A "believer" can never convince an atheist to believe in "god" purely because to believe in "god", one must have "faith" and atheists will never have "faith" because atheists rely on logical proof and material evidence that "god" exists. There is no logical proof.
There is no material evidence.
But if there was, then Christianity would not be the same. People would not have "faith" only knowledge. This defeats the purpose of belief. "Faith" is one of the main basis' of the christian religion.

Oooh sounds like a loyal beliver in a bible-istic sort of way. Well, Michio Kaku's refrence to Issac Asmov's story about the creator is great, "Hyperspace" (read it, awesome)

Well, I'd have to say that the proof of the 2nd God/God of Miracles comes from Saint Thomas Aquinas, Troubled by the inconsistencies in the church ideology, he, in the 13th cntury, decided to raise the level of theological debate from the vagueness of mythology to the intense rigor of logical thinking. He proposed to solve the questions of God's existence. He even put it in an easy to remember poem!

Things are in motion, hence there is a first mover.
Things are coused, hence there is a first cause
Things exist, hence there is a creator
Perfect goodness exists, hence it has a source
Things are designed, hense they serve a purpose

"The first three lines are variations of what is called the cosmological proof, the forth argues on moral grounds; and the fifth is called the teleological proof. Moral proof is by far the weakest, because morality can be viewed in terms of evolving social customs"

-page 192, Before Creation, Proofs of the Existance of God

If you were to argue these points, in the poem, there are many things you could say.

When scientists, refer to God in a non-theological way, they are referring to the 1st God/The God of Order. Einstein, when writing he fondly called him "The Old Man." :)

I sure do believe in the God of Order

 

[kellykea]

Mk...
i see from some of your posts, that you are a very intellectual person.
i don't mean to question your superior intelligence, but could you possibly answer the following question
"what is the meaning of life?"

Could anyone else have a go at answering that for me?
is it something to do with God?

 

[olde drunk]

Mk...
i see from some of your posts, that you are a very intellectual person.
i don't mean to question your superior intelligence, but could you possibly answer the following question
"what is the meaning of life?"

Could anyone else have a go at answering that for me?
is it something to do with God?

IMHO, each person has an individual purpose that is not dictated by any god.

life is and/or will be what you make it. there are no limitations or idealized purpose.

all wise writings and commandments were meant as guides for enjoying an uncomplicated peaceful life. i view life as a game, a game to be played respectfully.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Ethanol]

In response to michelle

Your Definition of God is incomplete.
G- Generator
O- Operator
D- Destroyer
I like the rest of your words. Faith really has no material evidence, but that is the difference between a believer and nonbeliever. A believer won't ask where the God is and will he ever materialize in front of us. May be we certainly cannot prove the existence of God but i don't want to throw the sponge without trying.

 

[kellykea]

IMHO, each person has an individual purpose that is not dictated by any god.

life is and/or will be what you make it. there are no limitations or idealized purpose.

all wise writings and commandments were meant as guides for enjoying an uncomplicated peaceful life. i view life as a game, a game to be played respectfully.

love&peace,
olde drunk

i don't really see how life can be considered as a game. all games have a purpose, something to accomplish. I can, i suppose, see why you think it is a game; life has a beggining and an end. like all games. Like a game, life can be short or long. but why would God create us to be pawns in his chess game. games restrict free-will. you have to abide by the set rules. You can't choose a path like you can in life. In a game you only get a set route eg. snakes and ladders, monopoly. personally i don't agree to your statement life is a game.

anyone share my opinion?

 

[olde drunk]

i don't really see how life can be considered as a game. all games have a purpose, something to accomplish. I can, i suppose, see why you think it is a game; life has a beggining and an end. like all games. Like a game, life can be short or long. but why would God create us to be pawns in his chess game. games restrict free-will. you have to abide by the set rules. You can't choose a path like you can in life. In a game you only get a set route eg. snakes and ladders, monopoly. personally i don't agree to your statement life is a game.
anyone share my opinion?

gee, i never realized the full implications of my comment until you introducted the similarities to sports.

you see, i don't consider us as 'pawns'. the rules we abide by, are only the agreements we have made to be physical (accepting the laws of physics, etc).

freewill allows us to break rules and enjoy the consequences, as with all games. those that are more adventurous can 'play' within the rules and continually stretch them. i enjoy bending and stretching all rules.

my original intent was that we should not take life too seriously and PLAY more. we seem to get caught up in societal input as to what is important, rather than thinking for ourselves and making ouselves happy, first.
what good is it if we satisfy whatever understanding we have of god's intent, our family's, employer, community, etc if we are not happy with what we are doing.

personally, i feel i spent the first 25-30 years addressing what i thought was important and the last 30+ years trying to correct my ideas.

IF, we are happy and love self, then we can love others and life becomes a fancyful game without any losers.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[michelle s]

i don't really see how life can be considered as a game. all games have a purpose, something to accomplish. I can, i suppose, see why you think it is a game; life has a beggining and an end. like all games. Like a game, life can be short or long. but why would God create us to be pawns in his chess game. games restrict free-will. you have to abide by the set rules. You can't choose a path like you can in life. In a game you only get a set route eg. snakes and ladders, monopoly. personally i don't agree to your statement life is a game.

anyone share my opinion?

I agree with that statement because it would in theory restrict god's gift of free will to us humans. But your statement about god is not valid because god was not part of olde drunk's theory.

IMHO, each person has an individual purpose that is not dictated by any god.

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul43201 somewhere said that he was not an atheist.May i ask a question? Why r u so doubtful about the existence of God?

Did I give the impression that I doubt the existence of God ? Surely, I never said this in words.

But that does not mean I won't object to the so called "scientific arguments" that are really ignorant concoctions of the scientifically uneducated. Moreover, they only weaken the argument for the existence of God, so I don't see why all the believers give such people a free reign, when they are really doing a disservice to the faith.

Finally, I must admit that I do doubt the existence of God. This is not to say that I'm convinced of His non-existence...but until something happens to change my opinion one way or the other, I will remain open.

Okay, now I've said it in words, but not before now.

 

[Gokul43201]

michelle s,

I think you're looking for 'bases' which is the plural of 'basis'.

Gokul

 

[marcus]

michelle s,

I think you're looking for 'bases' which is the plural of 'basis'.

Gokul

Yes, Michele said

"Faith" is one of the main basis' of the christian religion.

In English the apostrophe is not used to form the plural. Isnt that true?
I'm no great shakes on grammar or spelling for that matter.
One says that something has three baSEEZ (spelled bases) instead of
three baSISSes. It does seem to sound better, to say "one of the main bases of Christianity"


If one has a deep reverence for nature and the physical universe then I suppose that the Christian and Mohammedan idea of Jehovah or whatever it is may seem somehow disrespectful, frivolous, even in a certain way blasphemous, I guess.
I am getting a bit discouraged by all this Fundamental religiosity among Bible-thumping Christian and Koran-thumping Muslim.
I wish people could just try to respect and honor the world without thinking they must tell each other exactly who should get the credit for making it.

 

[michelle s]

In English the apostrophe is not used to form the plural. Isnt that true?
I'm no great shakes on grammar or spelling for that matter.
One says that something has three baSEEZ (spelled bases) instead of
three baSISSes. It does seem to sound better, to say "one of the main bases of Christianity".

I am sorry! I really do apologize!

I shall bear that in mind for future reference...

 

[marcus]

I am sorry! I really do apologize!

I shall bear that in mind for future reference...

dont feel bad, no problemo
I did not mean any severe criticism! I make all kinds of
grammar and spelling mistakes myself, constantly and without regret,
but also do not mind being corrected

Maybe we just need to make little perfunctory efforts at correct English
now and then to remind ourselves that it does have rules
above and beyond sheer habit, or so I sometimes think.

BTW michelle, I just came here by accident and was curious about the topic of discussion

It would seem more natural to me to turn the question around and say

"what evidence would show that the assumption of some sort of supernatural divine power is FALSE?"

You would formulate some kind of Supernatural Being Hypothesis (it would probably need to be more definite than simply saying "God exists" but anyway some precise version of that)
and then you would derive predictions from that hypothesis, which would follow if the hypothesis is true. and then you would check to see if
these predictions are born out by observation.

 

[michelle s]

"what evidence would show that the assumption of some sort of supernatural divine power is FALSE?"

i agree it would be a much better way to phrase the question.

 

[Gokul43201]

There's always the "If God exists, and He can do anything, then can He make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it ?" kind of paradox - and many more - that fit the bill. But of course, that's only a logic argument, not a desciption of evidence.

On the other hand if you hypothsize the existence of something that does not interact with us, the observers, in any way, is it meaningful to talk about such a something ? The counter-argument could be that it interacts with us, only after we are dead, or some such thing...

 

[omin]

A God That Makes Sense

All humans have five senses. Three are vision, sound and touch. The other two are chemical: smell and taste. Humans may only have thought one way and that is through the five senses. All thoughts represent one or more of the five senses. All senses represent something in the objective environment.

There is no thought on something that may not be sensed, unless it is a thought created by the mind that is simply a reordering of one or more of the five senses that represent empirical sense. For example, a fiction novel is a taxification only of the five senses, but is a order that represents a fantasitic order of the five senses. Another important detail is that each word summons different images and magnitudes of the images of the words of a novel, so everyone sees a similar (because of common language) but different story based upon form of the commonly sensed image and the intensity of the particular image. Just think about the possibilities of what the term God evokes across humankind. One, the personal word value of each individual, and two, the form of the theories presented over time that build the concept, oh yeah, the personal reordering has an impact too based upon the determination of their mind.

Every element of thought you have is based upon something you have experienced in the environment. It is a memory only. And again, when it represents something that doesn't exist, it's simply those memories put in another order that wasn't experienced.

God is mixture of elements you have experienced in you life. All the elements have been experienced by you. But the order is something you have not experienced.

God is a fantastic theory, but represents nothing we sense, except the elements that make up the concept.

So, when you can present to me a God that may be sensed by my five senses, instead of a God that is only known by a fantastic theory which is merely a reordering of thoughts of empirically sensed things, then I will not believe in God, I will know God.

Do you have the force to summon the master?

 

[olde drunk]

OMNI - can you 'know' magnetism with your senses? NO! you can witness the effects of magnetism. you also witness the effects of god. life is that effect.

so, you can take all the chemicals and all the sources of energy and use all the scientists in the world and you will not create 'life'. so, is the concept of god any more difficult to accept than magnetism?

the problem that i see is that we get lost with the traditional definitions. i don't care what god is or isn't, in this area of discussion. but i do believe that there is a 'something' that creates life or provides the life force. using the term god is simply for easy of communication.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Gokul43201]

All of current string theory or any theoretical high energy physics is really about things that have never been sensed and probably won't be, for many years to come.

 

[marcus]

There's always the "If God exists, and He can do anything, then can He make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it ?" kind of paradox - and many more - that fit the bill. But of course, that's only a logic argument, not a desciption of evidence.

On the other hand if you hypothsize the existence of something that does not interact with us, the observers, in any way, is it meaningful to talk about such a something ? The counter-argument could be that it interacts with us, only after we are dead, or some such thing...

Gokul we must try to do better than the business with the rock.

I have constructed two divinity-hypotheses that might be testable (that is falsifiable by observation). I do not have much hope that they are testable---that either could actually serve as a basis for making predictions which could be checked. But I'll put them out to examine, just in case someone might see how to test one of them.

A. the manipulative alien with intentions

At the present time there is a powerful alien able to manipulate events in the universe so that things happen which do not follow from the laws of probability and physics. Not infrequently, things happen that we wouldn't expect simply from natural laws, and this shows the alien's intentions.

B. the non-interfering designer

An alien intelligence designed the universe and set it in motion according to plan. The alien who did this is no longer in evidence and does not intervene----indeed may no longer be around or be interested. But the creation goes on working as designed.

Probably everybody (atheist and theologian alike) would be happy if we could disprove hypotheses A and B! they do not sound very nice. If everybody dislikes them, then why shouldn't we be able to disprove them scientifically?

But to disprove them we would first need to derive predictions from them about some future observation or measurement! I do not see how to do this.

Perhaps somebody else will come up with a more predictive hypothesis of this sort

 

[Gokul43201]

My sister once came up with the theory that Jesus Christ was really an alien. Was quite interesting, I thought.

Oops, have I just blasphemed ?

And yeah, the rock thing doesn't go far...but I've really not heard a response to that from a believer, and I'm curious what they'd say !

 

[omin]

OMNI - can you 'know' magnetism with your senses? NO! you can witness the effects of magnetism. you also witness the effects of god. life is that effect.

so, you can take all the chemicals and all the sources of energy and use all the scientists in the world and you will not create 'life'. so, is the concept of god any more difficult to accept than magnetism?

the problem that i see is that we get lost with the traditional definitions. i don't care what god is or isn't, in this area of discussion. but i do believe that there is a 'something' that creates life or provides the life force. using the term god is simply for easy of communication.

love&peace,
olde drunk

In logic, there is denotation and connotation. That's it. Denotation represents a symbol which represent something physically existing as a whole and connotation represents a part or aspect of that. Connotation may also abstract things which means multiply or divide them and form a 'idea concept' or mix and match of that aspect. God is a mix and multiply of real things sensed (connotations).

Gravity is still sensed, even if it's just a property which is understood through displacement. It exists, even if I only see a property, rather than what I believe may be something else to it, but havn't sensed. I have only sensed the elements that makes up the idea God, not the picture that the elements form. The difference is gravity is obviously a objectively sensed thing, but God is only a subjectively sensed thing formed out of objective elements. They are not equally believable or knowable. I know gravity of what I've sensed. I used to believe in God, but know science does not allow me to believe things I think over empirically.

Determination is creation said in a more accurate way. Creation assumes time travel may occur in the mind in the smallest of moments. We are who we are and we cannot change a thing. We say we make choices out of convience for language, but we really, really don't mean it. We are not really stopping the flow of physics, then deciding. The flow is stopping us and deciding for us. We don't decide the flow.

We watch ourselves unfold in this life. We watch ourselves born once. We watch ourselves exist in one place at a time the whole time we are here in human life. We watch ourselves make only one choice at a time (never two and never no choice, because Rush already convinced me that is a choice too). Then we watch ourselves die, one death, one second at at time.

If you are not the only one of you, one minute at a time, then who else are you?

There can only be one. -Highlander

 

[omin]

All of current string theory or any theoretical high energy physics is really about things that have never been sensed and probably won't be, for many years to come.

It's amazing. The physics forums on this site has a few people, (although fully knowledged in facts and said theories) who still don't get Newtons laws fully. To sense anything requires a chain reaction of physically existing things touching each other along that chain at some point.

I don't know anything about string theory, but I can say this about it confidently as a criteria before I do study it at some time. If string theory is not just pure imagination, but derived from things that do exist, then we have sensed whatever it represents indirectly, if it only be through instruments or extended physical mathematics of some sort. Sensing properties of existing things indirectly means they do exist.

There is probably more to this...

 

[Ethanol]

Rock?

Gokul , i read that rock thing of yours. It's very funny, I thought that u were sensible and a powerful rival to convert. Surely God can do anything but if He makes a rock so heavy that even he can't lift isn't that going to question His authority. I think a universe and so called parallel universes were big enough rock and He lifts them all fine enough.

 

[Gokul43201]

It's amazing. The physics forums on this site has a few people, (although fully knowledged in facts and said theories) who still don't get Newtons laws fully.

How does your argument make use of Newton's Laws ? Yes, I think there are people that don't get Newton's Laws...

To sense anything requires a chain reaction of physically existing things touching each other along that chain at some point.

"Touching" ? If you wish to use words with non-standard connotations, perhaps you should define them. Maybe an example would help.

I don't know anything about string theory, but I can say this about it confidently as a criteria before I do study it at some time. If string theory is not just pure imagination, but derived from things that do exist, then we have sensed whatever it represents indirectly, if it only be through instruments or extended physical mathematics of some sort. Sensing properties of existing things indirectly means they do exist.

If using some consistent framework of rules amounts to 'indirectly sensing', then yes, string theories make use of indirect sense.

You speak of the existence of "pure imagination." Can you provide an example of pure imagination ?

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul , i read that rock thing of yours. It's very funny, I thought that u were sensible and a powerful rival to convert.

Sensible, I like to think of myself as. Powerful - no ...I'm not especially fond of being powerful.

Surely God can do anything but if He makes a rock so heavy that even he can't lift isn't that going to question His authority.

The question may seem silly and laughable...but it is for exactly this reason (that you've provided responses which do not answer the question) that I brought it up. God does not have to demonstrate this task to all the people lest they question His authority. Simply for His own amusement, can He or can He not do it ? That's different from whether He chooses to.

Let's stick to the question.

I think a universe and so called parallel universes were big enough rock and He lifts them all fine enough.

So does that mean He has not the ability to control the size of the Universe ? But if He can, you still have not aswered whether He can make the rock big enough to satisfy the second condition.

All I'm saying is that assumption of the 'ability to do anything' leads to logical inconsistencies.

 

[dschouten]

Blah.

Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah. Blah blah blah-blah, blah; blah blah!

Blah?

 

[Gokul43201]

Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah. Blah blah blah-blah, blah; blah blah!

Blah?