Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

YH8

Has Science Proven the Existence of God?

Has Science Proven the Existence of God?  

52 members have voted

  1. 1. Has Science Proven the Existence of God?

    • 1) Yes.
      4
    • 2) No, but it (science) can/has the ability to.
      6
    • 3) No, and it (science) can't/doesn't have the ability to.
      35
    • 4) I don't know.
      3
    • 5) Other (please explain below).
      4


Recommended Posts

Elihu/Nepheye/seeryou claims the following (from: No One Here Can Prove the BOM False, Try as you might . . .; Oct 7 2004, 07:52 AM):

Science has proven beyond reasonable doubt that a Creator who exists outside of all known physical world attributes created all that is in the physical world from nothing. It is a proven fact. Hundreds of proven facts to back it up. Hundreds of proven facts that show what you were taught as fact was actually known to be lies.

______

I believe there is "evidence" out there, but given what it means to know and the realities of faith and agency how can this be?

Thus, I say #3 - No, and it (science) can't/doesn't have the ability to.

Share this post


Link to post

YH8:

There are plenty of scientists of faith. But I know of no scientist who would even attempt to even try to quantify God using the "Scientific Method".

TheSomeTimeSaint

Share this post


Link to post
YH8:

There are plenty of scientists of faith. But I know of no scientist who would even attempt to even try to quantify God using the "Scientific Method".

TheSomeTimeSaint

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post

I think there are lots of evidences. I've developed into a pretty tough sceptic and still find a lot of evidence for a creator. Not a 6 days creator, mind you, but a devine plan nonetheless.

There's really nothing to argue against a creator. Nothing that's not subjective, that is. I mean, I understand the 'if there's a God why does he let so many bad things happen' argument. But nothing concrete to hang a sceptic hat on. How can there be? Really, all science can do is chip away at religion - not at God. Science can say "We know the world was not made in 6 days or 6 thousands years or otherwise". OK - it's chipped away at a lot of poeple's religions there. But all you have to say is "Fine - that says nothing about God - just about that religion".

Share this post


Link to post

However, I do believe in a "Tao," the "way" the universe functions.

Even C.S. Lewis loved to use the term Tao.

But Tao does not inherently imply supreme being or self-awareness qualities.

And we are all part of Tao and expressions of Tao.

(It's complicated.)

Share this post


Link to post
I chose other.

My position is: "No, and science may or may not be able to "prove" the existence or non-existence of G-d.

"G-d"

Are you trying to cover your bases?

Talking out of both sides of your mouth?

Share this post


Link to post
(It's complicated.)

I'm sure it is.

Share this post


Link to post

There are serious contradictions in the existing theories because we do not have enough information available to us. The only elements we can truly investigate are earth bound, we have yet to develop the technology to even explore significantly the other planets in our solar system. Proving god created the world is like proving all the ingredients and measurements in a recipe while only being able to observe a bit of flower that is spilled on the kitchen floor. Because God does not dwell on earth there is no way to prove his existence. We have evidence that might suggest his involvement but this is simply conjecture.

Share this post


Link to post
I chose other.

My position is: "No, and science may or may not be able to "prove" the existence or non-existence of G-d.

"G-d"

Are you trying to cover your bases?

Talking out of both sides of your mouth?

Don't strain at a gnat here. :P

"G-d" is not my term.

I think you draw too many conclusions based on your own inner judgments.

In fact, take Carl Jung's test: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

Then return and report.

Share this post


Link to post
1. Proving god created the world is like proving all the ingredients and measurements in a recipe while only being able to observe a bit of flower that is spilled on the kitchen floor.

2. Because God does not dwell on earth there is no way to prove his existence.

1. Proving Big Bang is a little easier. :P

2. Oh? "He" does not dwell on earth? Did he tell you this or this merely conjecture? <_<

Share this post


Link to post

Read the book The Physics of Immortality. There is a theory out there held by some physicists of the Omega Point Theorem (the ultimate, perfect everything). This particular physicist claims that this OP is God, the personal one of the Christian/Judeo/Islamic tradition. He claims he has the math to prove this and that resurrection will take place, the afterlife being of the quality talked about in most major world religions. No need to appeal to the spirit or any unmeasured energy source or anything we are not currently aware of, the only necessary is the assumption that life is infinite IIRC. I haven't finished the book yet so my summary is lacking. It is very interesting so far.

Share this post


Link to post

Other - The word of God has repeatedly proven science.

Science, the theoretical explanation of phenomena, can never "prove" something that is already true.

Rather, science demonstrates the fact that truth is consistent and universal, and therefore true.

Share this post


Link to post
I chose other.

My position is: "No, and science may or may not be able to "prove" the existence or non-existence of G-d.

"G-d"

Are you trying to cover your bases?

Talking out of both sides of your mouth?

Don't strain at a gnat here. :P

"G-d" is not my term.

I think you draw too many conclusions based on your own inner judgments.

In fact, take Carl Jung's test: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

Then return and report.

The other side of your mouth.

Share this post


Link to post

Current trends in certain areas of science -- notably in cosmology, but possibly also in molecular biology -- have made belief in some kind of God much more easily defensible on scientific grounds than it has been since the ascent of Darwinism.

Share this post


Link to post
Current trends in certain areas of science -- notably in cosmology, but possibly also in molecular biology -- have made belief in some kind of God much more easily defensible on scientific grounds than it has been since the ascent of Darwinism.

But only to the extent that it makes the existence of God a plausible option to consider. If fact, all the evidence provides is the implication that a greater intelligence may have been involved. But this can be explained by extraterrestrial mortals, or even a fluke in the grand scheme of things. When we consider that there are trillions of solar systems and all we can effectively observe is one planet in one of the solar system, no amount of evidence we uncover would be conclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
But only to the extent that it makes the existence of God a plausible option to consider. If fact, all the evidence provides is the implication that a greater intelligence may have been involved.

I didn't say that either cosmology or molecular biology can prove the existence of some sort of God. But I do believe, yes, that arguments constructed on the basis of such disciplines can make the existence of an immensely powerful super-intelligence plausible. And the power and intelligence indicated seem so great that it's scarcely a stretch to call such a being divine.

But this can be explained by extraterrestrial mortals, or even a fluke in the grand scheme of things.

They would be truly remarkable "extraterrestrial mortals," particularly if they somehow managed to fine-tune the Big Bang. (How did such extraterrestrial mortals manage to pull that off at a "time" before time, when there were no extraterrestrial locations -- in this universe, at least -- from which they could work? And how would such extraterrestrial mortals have survived the Big Bang, anyway? Mortals tend to die in infinitely smaller explosions than that one.)

The "fluke" explanation has its defenders, obviously. A notable approach is the "many universes" hypothesis. So far as I'm concerned, thus far, it represents the only serious scientific argument against cosmic design. But it can't be disproven (other universes being, on the whole, by definition, beyond our capacity to examine), and, so, it remains a possibility. Of course, for identical reasons, it can't be proven, either.

When we consider that there are trillions of solar systems and all we can effectively observe is one planet in one of the solar system, no amount of evidence we uncover would be conclusive.

I've never suggested that the arguments are conclusive. (See above.)

Incidentally, current cosmological theories have little if anything to do with observations of our planet and our solar system. They rely on deep space observations such as those provided by the Hubble Telescope. And, obviously, on highly sophisticated mathematics.

Share this post


Link to post
Incidentally, current cosmological theories have little if anything to do with observations of our planet and our solar system. They rely on deep space observations such as those provided by the Hubble Telescope. And, obviously, on highly sophisticated mathematics.

Nevertheless, it is by observing from a distance and analyzing according to primitive tools and knowledge. I am sure that scientist used your same arguments 1000 years ago. Today, with what we know, we recognize how na

Share this post


Link to post

Are you aware of a book called Physics of Immortality by Frank Tipler? Tipler does not merely draw parallels between quantum mechanics and religion as others have done, he advances "scientific proof" that God does indeed exist. Further he "proves" that this God will one day resurrect us all and that we will enjoy eternal life. Not surprisingly, given the nature of the times, Tipler's "God" is, for all intents and purposes, a universal computer. Given our quasi-religious faith in science, our deep-seated longing to believe that death is not the end, and the inability of the average layman to comprehend the intricacies of scientific argument, Tipler's thesis is extraordinarily seductive. Built carefully on predictions one can easily understand - exponential increases in computing power based on nanotechnology, self-replicating machines and Von Neumann probes that will help life expand its reach throughout the visible universe - The Physics of Immortality evolves into a complex, technical argument postulating the creation of a universal intelligence at some point fractions of a second before the end of the universe. This being will not only have the power to prevent that final moment from ever actually being reached, it will also, in its desire to know itself, generate a simulation of all that has gone before, a simulation that will necessarily bring back to life everyone who has ever lived.

Frank Tipler is no mad scientist. His credentials are impressive, his work widely respected in scientific circles. A Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University and a major theoretician in the field of global general relativity, Tipler claims to have arrived at his proofs of God and immortality in exactly the same way physicists calculate the properties of the electron. According to Tipler, the fact that all universal history, past, present, and future, converges in the Omega Point means that the Omega Point itself is infinite. Everything that has ever happened, is happening, or will happen, happens all at once in the Omega Point. Forever. If the Omega Point is the end of time then it is also the beginning. If all histories lead into the Omega Point then all histories necessarily emanate from that same point. In other words, the Universe was created by the Omega Point. And the Omega Point is God.

The current expansion of the universe will eventually slow down and then reverse itself. Ultimately, this contraction will create unbelievably large pressures and temperatures, and the universe will collapse. This is the Omega Point. The point where all worldlines converge, where all matter converges, where all of history itself is reduced to a single, infinitesimally small blip in the continuum. Even the most advanced civilization, a civilization that draws its sustenance from the galaxies, a civilization with the power to manipulate space and time, a civilization as powerful as any God we could ever imagine, even such a civilization would be unable to escape the final cataclysm. Or will it?

On the universal scale of time, life's conquest of the universe will proceed quite quickly. Technology will continue to grow exponentially throughout the future, constantly accelerating relative to existing technology. Even without ways to subvert the speed of light, colonization of most of the known universe might take only a few billion years. Intelligent beings, according to Tipler, will send millions of small Von Neumann probes into the galaxy at near-light speeds to find suitable star systems for settlement. Once a suitable site has been located, these probes will generate self-replicating machines which will rapidly construct a habitable settlement and seed it with human and other life synthesized from cells carried by the probe. Meanwhile, technology will continue to become increasingly sophisticated, and the process will gather momentum over the millennia. Ultimately life will engulf and control the universe. And life will use its power to prevent the final collapse.

Progress naturally includes computing power. And, by even the most conservative estimates, the amount of computing power available in 100 billion years will far surpass the number of particles in the Universe. In other words, the computers at the end of time will have the power to reproduce all possible universes down to the quantum level. Which, of course, means they can reproduce everyone and everything that has ever lived.

Certainly Tipler's theory is possible. But he does not ask us to accept its possibility. He ask us to accept it as proven fact. For instance, the quantum fluctuations at the final singularity - the Omega Point - which most scientists assume will wipe out life are obviated with the Omega Point Boundary Condition, because in this case the universe continues to exist because life itself does; quantum fluctuations large enough to destroy life cannot occur because they are prevented by the boundary condition from forming.

Share this post


Link to post
Are you aware of a book called Physics of Immortality by Frank Tipler? Tipler does not merely draw parallels between quantum mechanics and religion as others have done, he advances "scientific proof" that God does indeed exist. Further he "proves" that this God will one day resurrect us all and that we will enjoy eternal life. Not surprisingly, given the nature of the times, Tipler's "God" is, for all intents and purposes, a universal computer. Given our quasi-religious faith in science, our deep-seated longing to believe that death is not the end, and the inability of the average layman to comprehend the intricacies of scientific argument, Tipler's thesis is extraordinarily seductive. Built carefully on predictions one can easily understand - exponential increases in computing power based on nanotechnology, self-replicating machines and Von Neumann probes that will help life expand its reach throughout the visible universe - The Physics of Immortality evolves into a complex, technical argument postulating the creation of a universal intelligence at some point fractions of a second before the end of the universe. This being will not only have the power to prevent that final moment from ever actually being reached, it will also, in its desire to know itself, generate a simulation of all that has gone before, a simulation that will necessarily bring back to life everyone who has ever lived.

Frank Tipler is no mad scientist. His credentials are impressive, his work widely respected in scientific circles. A Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University and a major theoretician in the field of global general relativity, Tipler claims to have arrived at his proofs of God and immortality in exactly the same way physicists calculate the properties of the electron. According to Tipler, the fact that all universal history, past, present, and future, converges in the Omega Point means that the Omega Point itself is infinite. Everything that has ever happened, is happening, or will happen, happens all at once in the Omega Point. Forever. If the Omega Point is the end of time then it is also the beginning. If all histories lead into the Omega Point then all histories necessarily emanate from that same point. In other words, the Universe was created by the Omega Point. And the Omega Point is God.

The current expansion of the universe will eventually slow down and then reverse itself. Ultimately, this contraction will create unbelievably large pressures and temperatures, and the universe will collapse. This is the Omega Point. The point where all worldlines converge, where all matter converges, where all of history itself is reduced to a single, infinitesimally small blip in the continuum. Even the most advanced civilization, a civilization that draws its sustenance from the galaxies, a civilization with the power to manipulate space and time, a civilization as powerful as any God we could ever imagine, even such a civilization would be unable to escape the final cataclysm. Or will it?

On the universal scale of time, life's conquest of the universe will proceed quite quickly. Technology will continue to grow exponentially throughout the future, constantly accelerating relative to existing technology. Even without ways to subvert the speed of light, colonization of most of the known universe might take only a few billion years. Intelligent beings, according to Tipler, will send millions of small Von Neumann probes into the galaxy at near-light speeds to find suitable star systems for settlement. Once a suitable site has been located, these probes will generate self-replicating machines which will rapidly construct a habitable settlement and seed it with human and other life synthesized from cells carried by the probe. Meanwhile, technology will continue to become increasingly sophisticated, and the process will gather momentum over the millennia. Ultimately life will engulf and control the universe. And life will use its power to prevent the final collapse.

Progress naturally includes computing power. And, by even the most conservative estimates, the amount of computing power available in 100 billion years will far surpass the number of particles in the Universe. In other words, the computers at the end of time will have the power to reproduce all possible universes down to the quantum level. Which, of course, means they can reproduce everyone and everything that has ever lived.

Certainly Tipler's theory is possible. But he does not ask us to accept its possibility. He ask us to accept it as proven fact. For instance, the quantum fluctuations at the final singularity - the Omega Point - which most scientists assume will wipe out life are obviated with the Omega Point Boundary Condition, because in this case the universe continues to exist because life itself does; quantum fluctuations large enough to destroy life cannot occur because they are prevented by the boundary condition from forming.

QUite a creative thinker. THis reminds me of mathematical psychology trying to predict human behavior. Nice and seductive proposition, but impossible.

Share this post


Link to post

i'm not much of a believer in god, but if i were to believe in him at all i would think that he is a being who set in motion a string of evolutionary events. but i also think that those who don't believe in evolution at all, just don't understand natural and sexual selection.

Share this post


Link to post
Nevertheless, it is by observing from a distance and analyzing according to primitive tools and knowledge. I am sure that scientist used your same arguments 1000 years ago. Today, with what we know, we recognize how na

Share this post


Link to post
Read the book The Physics of Immortality.  There is a theory out there held by some physicists of the Omega Point Theorem (the ultimate, perfect everything).  This particular physicist claims that this OP is God, the personal one of the Christian/Judeo/Islamic tradition.  He claims he has the math to prove this and that resurrection will take place, the afterlife being of the quality talked about in most major world religions.  No need to appeal to the spirit or any unmeasured energy source or anything we are not currently aware of, the only necessary is the assumption that life is infinite IIRC.  I haven't finished the book yet so my summary is lacking.  It is very interesting so far.

It's a good read. I read it years ago but don't think I have it in my library any more. Provocative, but some of the physics is hard to understand. I came away thinking well I don't full understand what he's saying but he believes it anyway. Just as good a read is Darryl Reanney's The Death of Forever.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0...9307277-9271058

The interesting thing about Reanney is that when he started writing the book he was atheist, and by the time he finished it some ten years later he had moved to theism. He wrote another book titled Music of the Mind, by which time people thought he had gone from a hardcore scientific worldview to being too speculative. He thought so himself but felt he had to write it. He died not long after writing both books.

Share this post


Link to post

My background is I have had no religious upbringing and my main exposure to religion is the internet. I've been exposed to more info on Mormonism than any other religion. The last few days I've been reading posts on this site, I have read many posts on exmormon board as well.

I answered 'other' in the questionaire. And my explanation is that the question is nonsense because science only addresses what is observable or testable. So science does not attempt to prove god (and yes I don't observe english written protocol of capitalizing... I typically sign off whereever I write with non capitalized names, it's a quirk I have) anymore than science attempts to prove any other concept which is non observable or for no data has been collected. The Big Bang may be a theory which one could use to speculate a god/creater is involved but many other speculations are possible..and suggesting a god as a creator only complicates matters further, it doesn't answer any question instead it adds another one. The question one must ask if they speculate a god ..is then what created god.

What I would like to impress is that the question is meaningless. # 1) in order for science to set about proving god, there must be some objective testable evidence for god. There is no universal consensus of what god is..absolutely nothing upon which science can devise tests. A concept in science is that a theory must be falsifiable. To be falsifiable there must be some sort of data presented. There is no data presented for a god. #2) Whatever science addresses as far as the existence of something (not a theory) there must be universal consensus of what it is to begin with. There is no universal consensus by objective individuals of god, other than the concept 'god' is used as an explanation for the 'Unknown' on how the universe and life began. In other words god is a '?' mark representing what we don't know regarding the universe and beginnings of life.

Share this post


Link to post

Science routinely extrapolates from the visible to the invisible, proposes hypotheses to account for observable data, and reasons from tangible effects to theorized causes. Nobody has ever seen a muon, nor observed life originating from inorganic materials in a warm pond, nor touched the curvature of space-time, nor watched a Grand Canyon form. The existence of far distant planets and other celestial objects has been deduced from the perturbation of visible stars. The Big Bang hasn't been seen. It has been deduced from, among other things, Edwin Hubble's observation of the red-shift in distant galaxies and from the discovery of dim radiation that is thought to be a remnant of the original explosion.

I, too, chose "other," because I don't think science has proven the existence of God and because I don't think it's capable of doing so. However, I think, as I said above, that some elements of contemporary science provide striking support for the possibility of someone or something that could reasonably be called "God." And reasoning from puzzling natural phenomena to such an explanation is not irrational.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...