A Scientific Test for God's Existence

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Again, I said that Math proves the Trinitarian God doesn't exists. God in three persons is not possible. 

Simple logic, Math, and Science show that the Trinitarian God can't exists.  

I don't care about the Trinitarian God. And I don't think your facile declaration is definitive. What scientific experiment proved to you the Trinitarian God does not exist?

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Again, I said that Math proves the Trinitarian God doesn't exists. God in three persons is not possible. 

Simple logic, Math, and Science show that the Trinitarian God can't exists.  

Incredibly simple minded.  I want to remain silent but I just can't. Your hubris is monumental.

You really think that Thomas Aquinas, one of the most brilliant men to ever walk on the face of the earth, could not count to three?

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don't care about the Trinitarian God

Give me a break, I am begging you to define God, you refuse to do it, and now this? 

It's your fault, you refuse to give me a definition. 

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 What scientific experiment proved to you the Trinitarian God does not exist?

1 + 1 + 1 = 3, not 1. Three persons can't be a being. 

Math is also a science. 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You really think that Thomas Aquinas, one of the most brilliant men to ever walk on the face of the earth, could not count to three?

3 ≠ 1

Tell me how the Athanasian Creed does not contradict Math and Logic. 

"we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. 5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit....13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. 14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. 15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; 16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God...26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal." 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Bernard Gui]

 

Quote

Give me a break, I am begging you to define God, you refuse to do it, and now this? 

It's your fault, you refuse to give me a definition. 

I'm not sure how I am at fault, but to honor your plea and for the sake of discussion I will accept your man Spinoza's definition. Please demonstrate how science will verify or falsify it. A good repeatable experiment should be easy to come up with. The number 2 may be useful.

 

I hope it is more coherent than the cartoon. Are you of the Lutheran persuasion?

Edited May 22, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I hope it is more coherent than the cartoon. Are you of the Lutheran persuasion?

 I am not! I don't believe in the Trinity!

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm not sure how I am at fault, but to honor your plea and for the sake of discussion I will accept your man Spinoza's definition. Please demonstrate how science will verify or falsify it.

I already proved the Trinitarian God doesn't exists, but you ignored that! I am losing my patience. 

I told you to do some research on the God of Spinoza, the God of Spinoza is "God is no longer the transcendent creator of the universe who rules it via providence, but Nature itself, understood as an infinite, necessary, and fully deterministic system of which humans are a part. Humans find happiness only through a rational understanding of this system and their place within it."

There are some theoretical models (theoretical physics) that explain our observable universe as part of an infinite system. There you Go! I just demonstrated that God of Spinoza is highly probable! 

Now you define what you mean by God or I am done with you 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 I am not! I don't believe in the Trinity!

I already proved the Trinitarian God doesn't exists, but you ignored that! I am losing my patience. 

I told you to do some research on the God of Spinoza, the God of Spinoza is "God is no longer the transcendent creator of the universe who rules it via providence, but Nature itself, understood as an infinite, necessary, and fully deterministic system of which humans are a part. Humans find happiness only through a rational understanding of this system and their place within it."

There are some theoretical models (theoretical physics) that explain our observable universe as part of an infinite system. There you Go! I just demonstrated that God of Spinoza is highly probable! 

Now you define what you mean by God or I am done with you 

Oh my!  NOT THAT!  What a horrible fate!

Would you please do that for ME?

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 I am not! I don't believe in the Trinity!

I already proved the Trinitarian God doesn't exists, but you ignored that! I am losing my patience. 

I told you to do some research on the God of Spinoza, the God of Spinoza is "God is no longer the transcendent creator of the universe who rules it via providence, but Nature itself, understood as an infinite, necessary, and fully deterministic system of which humans are a part. Humans find happiness only through a rational understanding of this system and their place within it."

There are some theoretical models (theoretical physics) that explain our observable universe as part of an infinite system. There you Go! I just demonstrated that God of Spinoza is highly probable! 

Now you define what you mean by God or I am done with you 

I am so glad you found Spinoza.

Now, from your same article, linked above, would you please explain this?  Clearly it must be based on science since you would have nothing to do with silly assumptions which were not scientific.

Quote

 

Among the eight definitions that open Book One of the Ethics, the following four are most important to the argument for substance monism:

ID3: By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself, that is, that whose concept does not require the concept of another thing, from which it must be formed.

This definition has two components. First, a substance is what exists in itself. This is to say that it is an ultimate metaphysical subject. While other things may exist as features of a substance, substance does not exist as a feature of anything else. Second, a substance is what is conceived through itself. This is to say that the idea of a substance does not involve the idea of any other thing. Substances are both ontologically and conceptually independent.

 

I am glad to have someone who's God depends on that assumption, to explain that to me, especially from a believer in true science!!

Now how do we experimentally show the existence of "substance" exactly?

I am so glad to have found a God which is provable by science!!

I like this perfectly logical and scientifically provable statement even better!

Quote

 

ID6: By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, that is, a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence.

God is an infinite substance. By this Spinoza means both that the number of God's attributes is unlimited and that there is no attribute that God does not possess. As we make our way through the Ethics, we learn that only two of these attributes can be known by the human mind. These are thought and extension.

 

How do we construct an experiment to prove this?  I missed that part

Edited May 22, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I am so glad you found Spinoza.

Now, from your same article, linked above, would you please explain this?  Clearly it must be based on science since you would have nothing to do with silly assumptions which were not scientific.

I am glad to have someone who's God depends on that assumption, to explain that to me, especially from a believer in true science!!

Now how do we experimentally show the existence of "substance" exactly?

I am so glad to have found a God which is provable by science!!

I like this perfectly logical and scientifically provable statement even better!

How do we construct an experiment to prove this?  I missed that part

This is precisely what I am asking. OK. I stipulate that Spinoza's God of substance is the true God and that it is the only one provable by science. What experiments prove it?

Edited May 22, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 I am not! I don't believe in the Trinity!

I already proved the Trinitarian God doesn't exists, but you ignored that! I am losing my patience. 

I told you to do some research on the God of Spinoza, the God of Spinoza is "God is no longer the transcendent creator of the universe who rules it via providence, but Nature itself, understood as an infinite, necessary, and fully deterministic system of which humans are a part. Humans find happiness only through a rational understanding of this system and their place within it."

There are some theoretical models (theoretical physics) that explain our observable universe as part of an infinite system. There you Go! I just demonstrated that God of Spinoza is highly probable! 

Now you define what you mean by God or I am done with you 

Yet you used a Lutheran cartoon to discredit the LDS priesthood. 

I said the Trinitarian God is not relevant to my question because some atheists claim science proves the non-existence of any and all gods. I applaud your destruction of the Trinitarian God. Well done!

Then you say, "No. Science proves Spinoza's God exists." I know there is some debate over exactly what he meant by saying God is nature, but again, that is beside the point. He gives us a substantial definition of God.

To humor you I accept this definition, and simply want to know what scientific experiments have verified this notion for you. You say there are theoretical models in physics that support this. That is not definitive verifiable scientific evidence founded on scientific experimentation, but it does sound a whole lot like religious faith. If there is no evidence, how can you say it has been proven scientifically?

 

 

Edited May 22, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Gray]

On 5/21/2016 at 0:47 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Don't we all. 

Would you agree that the existence of God is not something that science is capable of proving or disproving? 

Science cannot define what God is. But for those of us who believe in God as being everything that exists, science can definitely prove the existence what we would call God.

In fact even if you are the only thing that exists and the universe is an illusion (a silly idea, but not disprovable), you would be God by default.

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yet you used a Lutheran cartoon to discredit the LDS priesthood. 

What? LOL wrong video. 

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I said the Trinitarian God is not relevant to my question because some atheists claim science proves the non-existence of any and all gods.

No intelligent atheist I know claims that, and no one is interested in that. If God is love, then yes, love exists. 

Here is the video 

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am so glad you found Spinoza.

LOL but I am not glad that you just ignored my response when you told me "You really think that Thomas Aquinas, one of the most brilliant men to ever walk on the face of the earth, could not count to three?" You instead replied to a response that wasn't for you. Nice one. 

Listen, I am just having a conversation with Bernard Gui, of course theoretical models are not scientific. To me the God of Spinoza is simply the Theory of Everything, which has not been confirmed by science yet. Now let's move on. 

How about you and me have another discussion. 

Why is Theism better than Agnosticism? Please 

Edited May 22, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This is precisely what I am asking. OK. I stipulate that Spinoza's God of substance is the true God and that it is the only one provable by science. What experiments prove it?

None, nada, zip, zero.  Ain't no such thing as "substance" unless its a KIND of substance like metallic, oily, powdery, gaseous etc.   It's a catch-all word with no independent meaning for itself.  It's an argument without substance.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

LOL but I am not glad that you just ignored my response when you told me "You really think that Thomas Aquinas, one of the most brilliant men to ever walk on the face of the earth, could not count to three?" You instead replied to a response that wasn't for you. Nice one. 

Listen, I am just having a conversation with Bernard Gui, of course theoretical models are not scientific. To me the God of Spinoza is simply the Theory of Everything, which has not been confirmed by science yet. Now let's move on. 

How about you and me have another discussion. 

Why is Theism better than Agnosticism? Please 

I already answered that twice.on other threads and you didn't listen then either.

Short term memory problems?  You ask it about monthly.  The answer is teleology, which is life changing.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

Science cannot define what God is. But for those of us who believe in God as being everything that exists, science can definitely prove the existence what we would call God.

In fact even if you are the only thing that exists and the universe is an illusion (a silly idea, but not disprovable), you would be God by default.

God is existence?  Sounds kind of circular and vague to me then.  It's a little hard to imagine believing that things exist makes my life any better.

How is that different from atheism?  I mean to oppose that position you would have to believe that nothing exists which I think is a little tough to even imagine.

I mean there would not even be "science" if nothing existed- it's a little hard to say that science proves things exist- it kind of assumes that from the beginning.  Can it prove the existence of nothing?

Edited May 22, 2016 by mfbukowski

[TheSkepticChristian]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I already answered that twice.on other threads and you didn't listen then either.

Short term memory problems?  You ask it about monthly.  The answer is teleology, which is life changing.

Agnosticism is also changing my life. Please tell me why Theism is better than Agnosticism? 

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Agnosticism is also changing my life. Please tell me why Theism is better than Agnosticism? 

Thank you so much.  I actually thought I might speak to you more, but that settles it.  I wonder how much more time I will have in my life now?  

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

What? LOL wrong video. 

No intelligent atheist I know claims that, and no one is interested in that. If God is love, then yes, love exists. 

Here is the video 

 

Sorry. I'm not wasting any more time watching your inane videos. You can't even keep them straight. How about in addition to the experiment that proves Spinoza's substantial god exists you now provide one that proves love exists and that it is God. Consider these requests an official CFR. 

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, Gray said:

Science cannot define what God is. But for those of us who believe in God as being everything that exists, science can definitely prove the existence what we would call God.

In fact even if you are the only thing that exists and the universe is an illusion (a silly idea, but not disprovable), you would be God by default.

That's quite a convenient definition of God. By your admission, however, you must still have faith to believe it, so it is no better than any other non-provable concept. Perhaps you could suggest a scientific test that would verify your belief that God is everything that exists?

[TheSkepticChristian]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 you now provide one that proves love exists and that it is God. Consider these requests an official CFR. 

Define God or I am done! Your wasting my time. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thank you so much.  I actually thought I might speak to you more, but that settles it.  

 Next time give me good answers or don't bother. 

Edited May 23, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Gray]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

God is existence?  Sounds kind of circular and vague to me then.  It's a little hard to imagine believing that things exist makes my life any better.

It's pretty simple. The total of everything that exists is God. God is existence. God is, in fact, the only thing that exists. 

What is more important than existence? Existence isn't a genie that grants wishes, but neither is a personal God (at least, more mature formulations of the personal God model).

 

Quote

How is that different from atheism?  I mean to oppose that position you would have to believe that nothing exists which I think is a little tough to even imagine.

It's similar to atheism in that there is no central controlling authority. It's very different from both atheism and traditional monotheism in that it invites a sense of sacredness into all aspects of life. There is no division between divinity and every day life. In some ways it's closer to atheism, and in some ways it's actually much further away from atheism than more popular modes of worship. 

Quote

I mean there would not even be "science" if nothing existed- it's a little hard to say that science proves things exist- it kind of assumes that from the beginning.  Can it prove the existence of nothing?

"Nothing" is a logical impossibility, right? If nothing existed it would be something. Existence just is Is, capital I. 

Edited May 23, 2016 by Gray

[Ahab]

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Define God or I am done! Your wasting my time. 

Just in case you missed what he said when I suggested or asked him to define God from the outset, he said he wanted to leave the definition of God open to any idea anyone had while saying God doesn't exist because he wanted to understand THEIR idea of God and be shown any scientific evidence THEY had to show that THAT version of God does nit exist.

So if you don't have any evidence that any version of God doesn't exist then you might as well bow out of this thread since you would not have anything to offer on this issue. 

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Define God or I am done! Your wasting my time. 

For the umpteenth time, I accept your Spinoza definition. Prove it scientifically. I suspect you are not able to do it, correct?

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

It's pretty simple. The total of everything that exists is God. God is existence. God is, in fact, the only thing that exists. 

What is more important than existence? Existence isn't a genie that grants wishes, but neither is a personal God (at least, more mature formulations of the personal God model).

 

It's similar to atheism in that there is no central controlling authority. It's very different from both atheism and traditional monotheism in that it invites a sense of sacredness into all aspects of life. There is no division between divinity and every day life. In some ways it's closer to atheism, and in some ways it's actually much further away from atheism than more popular modes of worship. 

"Nothing" is a logical impossibility, right? If nothing existed it would be something. Existence just is Is, capital I. 

So you define God as everything that exists and then simply declare that definition is correct. Can you prove your definition is correct not by definition and assertion but by a scientific proof? After all, that is the topic of this discussion. How does science prove that God is everything that exists?