# What would be proof that God exists?

Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member

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 !

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 dont know what I am talking about.

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

David

Last edited:
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

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.

Last edited:
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 dont 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 existance,
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 existance 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 recieve without being concious 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

Last edited:
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
DavidSF said:
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 dont 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.

Gokul43201 said:
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!

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
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
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." :grumpy:

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

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

To Gokul

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

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
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
DavidSF said:
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.

Last edited:
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 dont compare the taste of apples with happy..Just discussing something you havent 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 recieved 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

Last edited:
Gokul43201 said:
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
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
DavidSF said:
Gokul43201,
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 occuring 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 dont compare the taste of apples with happy..Just discussing something you havent 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 recieved 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

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

Proof

There is no proof. God was created by man because of our fear of death. those that choose to beleive may be wasting time but if there is a god than those that dont beleive will have hell to pay. I personally dont believe for many personal reasons but i advise u to make your own.

naz
Zero said:
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

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). Lets 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?"

Last edited:
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
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
dave19903652 said:
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.

Last edited:
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
olde drunk said:
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.

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 existance of God? Kindly tell me about ur religion and i will study about it too.

"faith"

Laser Eyes said:
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 belive 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
michelle s said:
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 belive 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 existance. 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 refering to the 1st God/The God of Order. Einstein, when writing he fondly called him "The Old Man." :)

I sure do belive in the God of Order