A Scientific Test for God's Existence

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

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. 

You are correct. I really don't know how much plainer I could make my request. So far no one one has responded in any way to defend their definition of God or to prove his/her/its non-existence with scientific evidence. I am concluding that the declaration that science proves God does not exist cannot be a scientific statement, and as we say in Washington is just a bunch of unripened kimchee.

[Gray]

37 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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?

No, as I said, how we define God is subjective. I can no more prove that my model for God is objectively correct than I can prove that the White Album is objectively good. 

Does God, as I define the term, exist? Yes, we can all observe that. Would scientists be able to confirm that existence itself should be called God? No. That part is a theological determination, not a scientific one. 

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, as I said, how we define God is subjective. I can no more prove that my model for God is objectively correct than I can prove that the White Album is objectively good. 

Does God, as I define the term, exist? Yes, we can all observe that. Would scientists be able to confirm that existence itself should be called God? No. That part is a theological determination, not a scientific one. 

I can get onboard,  somewhat, with that idea. 

I define God as the most supreme kind of being in all of existence, so to my mind any person who is that kind of being is God.  Even if that person is only a little bitty baby and not as mature or perfect as he or she can be, as long as he or she is the most supreme kind of being in all of existence,  then he or she is God.  And the kind of being I have in mind when I say that is the kind of being we are.  Meaning we, or all people, are God.

So now that I have defined the word God, so that you know what I am talking about,  how do you suppose a scientist would set about to prove that what I know as God really exists?  Or that our kind of being is the most supreme kind of being in all of existence?  

Or if you want to tackle it from the other direction, that we do not exist,  or that we are not the most supreme kind of being in all of existence? 

I know that not all scientists would agree with me or my definition of God but I don't see any way that any of them would be able to prove that I am wrong, because it just so happens to be that our kind of being is the most supreme kind of being in all of existence,  with some of us having a LOT more intelligence than some others of us.

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I can get onboard,  somewhat, with that idea. 

I define God as the most supreme kind of being in all of existence, so to my mind any person who is that kind of being is God.  Even if that person is only a little bitty baby and not as mature or perfect as he or she can be, as long as he or she is the most supreme kind of being in all of existence,  then he or she is God.  And the kind of being I have in mind when I say that is the kind of being we are.  Meaning we, or all people, are God.

So now that I have defined the word God, so that you know what I am talking about,  how do you suppose a scientist would set about to prove that what I know as God really exists?  Or that our kind of being is the most supreme kind of being in all of existence?  

Or if you want to tackle it from the other direction, that we do not exist,  or that we are not the most supreme kind of being in all of existence? 

I know that not all scientists would agree with me or my definition of God but I don't see any way that any of them would be able to prove that I am wrong, because it just so happens to be that our kind of being is the most supreme kind of being in all of existence,  with some of us having a LOT more intelligence than some others of us.

First you'd need to define what you mean by supreme. If you mean the person with the highest IQ or the tallest person, you could measure that and a researcher could positively identify your supreme being. If supreme is subjective a judgement call of various qualitative attributes (humility, goodness, mercy, etc), then you'd have a harder time finding a scientist who could hone in on that. 

Any model for God based on something tied to the observable "real" universe could of course be subject to scientific study. 

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

First you'd need to define what you mean by supreme. If you mean the person with the highest IQ or the tallest person, you could measure that and a researcher could positively identify your supreme being. If supreme is subjective a judgement call of various qualitative attributes (humility, goodness, mercy, etc), then you'd have a harder time finding a scientist who could hone in on that. 

Any model for God based on something tied to the observable "real" universe could of course be subject to scientific study. 

The glory of God is intelligence so I would lead out with that idea.

... already knowing that less intelligent people often don't see or comprehend someone with greater intelligence even when observing them face to face.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

No, as I said, how we define God is subjective. I can no more prove that my model for God is objectively correct than I can prove that the White Album is objectively good. 

Does God, as I define the term, exist? Yes, we can all observe that. Would scientists be able to confirm that existence itself should be called God? No. That part is a theological determination, not a scientific one. 

I'm sorry, but your definition of God makes no sense. If science cannot prove it exists, then it just takes its place in back of the queue of Gods atheists say science science has proven do not exist. Sorry for your loss.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[TheSkepticChristian]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

No intelligent atheist I know wants proof, and I am not interested in proof and I am  not interested in the God of Spinoza. 

The God of Spinoza was simply an example. Define God please. 

Edited May 24, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[mfbukowski]

Bernard.

Welcome to my state of frustration

[Meadowchik]

Science cannot prove God's existence. Suppose there we are, in Heaven at God's feet. We all genuinely believe so, but some stranger comes along and questions God being God. How do we prove it?  How does God prove it?

If this life is any indication,  He doesn't. The "proof" is a personal, spiritual, mutual process. And faith never becomes outdated.

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

First you'd need to define what you mean by supreme. If you mean the person with the highest IQ or the tallest person, you could measure that and a researcher could positively identify your supreme being. If supreme is subjective a judgement call of various qualitative attributes (humility, goodness, mercy, etc), then you'd have a harder time finding a scientist who could hone in on that. 

Any model for God based on something tied to the observable "real" universe could of course be subject to scientific study. 

Yet infinity cannot be measured. It is provable as existing within given theoretical constructs, but measuring it is another matter.

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm sorry, but your definition of God makes no sense. If science cannot prove it exists, then it just takes its place in back of the queue of Gods atheists say science science has proven do not exist. Sorry for your loss.

My position is a little stronger than that. Science cannot verify the existence of the mainstream Christian God. Science has not detected the presence of the mainstream LDS God. We can all directly observe the existence of "my" God. My God is you, me, the earth, the solar system, the stars, the computer you're reading this on... the entire system is divine. While theology is always full of abstractions, the God I worship is concrete and observable. And as gods go, what could be greater than the sum total of all existence? You can't draw a circle around it.

No atheist worth his salt would claim science proves God doesn't exist, though. They would say that there is no good evidence to convince them that God exists.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Gray

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

No atheist worth his salt would claim science proves God doesn't exist, though. 

Exactly 

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Science cannot verify the existence of the mainstream Christian God.

but simple Math and logic shows the Trinitarian God doesn't exists. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Exactly 

but simple Math and logic shows the Trinitarian God doesn't exists. 

The trinitarian God is a supernatural entity outside of space and time and the universe itself. I'm not sure a simple formula for addition really applies. 

[salgare]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

You are correct. I really don't know how much plainer I could make my request. So far no one one has responded in any way to defend their definition of God or to prove his/her/its non-existence with scientific evidence. I am concluding that the declaration that science proves God does not exist cannot be a scientific statement, and as we say in Washington is just a bunch of unripened kimchee.

There are some amazing scientific tests spoken of here:

 

[Atheist Mormon]

15 hours ago, Ahab said:

The glory of God is intelligence so I would lead out with that idea.

If that was the case how come God lacked the knowledge basic configuration of Solar system and let Galileo locked the rest of his life?

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

If that was the case how come God lacked the knowledge basic configuration of Solar system and let Galileo locked the rest of his life?

You're spouting nonsense.  Where did you get the idea that God lacked knowledge of the basic configuration of the solar (no need to capitalize it as Solar) system? 

That bit about Galileo is incoherent. 

[Atheist Mormon]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You're spouting nonsense.  Where did you get the idea that God lacked knowledge of the basic configuration of the solar (no need to capitalize it as Solar) system? 

That bit about Galileo is incoherent. 

That is what Galileo also said "incoherent"....There was nothing nonsense there. I stand by everything I said, you need to explain what part is nonsense.

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

That is what Galileo also said "incoherent"....There was nothing nonsense there. I stand by everything I said, you need to explain what part is nonsense.

I challenged you first.  Where did you get the idea that God lacked knowledge of the basic configuration of the solar system? 

[Atheist Mormon]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I challenged you first.  Where did you get the idea that God lacked knowledge of the basic configuration of the solar system? 

Well, first thing God would do is free Galileo and throw that arrogant sob cardinal asunder, but of course since he is an imaginary entity the darkness won, not only that example the history of the world is filled with genocidal Catholic deeds...(heck, I don't know if humanity should not be thankful to them otherwise we'd have 13-14 billion humans on the planet now).

 

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, salgare said:

There are some amazing scientific tests spoken of here:

 

Well, sorry, it is amazingly hot air blown there. You know it is OK to have hypothesis of these wild imaginations but mixing it with real/proven science/scientists turn me off completely

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

No intelligent atheist I know wants proof, and I am not interested in proof and I am  not interested in the God of Spinoza. 

The God of Spinoza was simply an example. Define God please. 

How about  some unintelligent atheists, then? I will accept whatever definition of God you wish to propose. Come up with one, and then provide a scientific test that will prove it. That has been, is, and will be the focus of this discussion. If you wish to challenge the Mormon concept of God with science, feel free to start a new thread with that purpose, and suggest a test that will be sufficient.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Science cannot prove God's existence. Suppose there we are, in Heaven at God's feet. We all genuinely believe so, but some stranger comes along and questions God being God. How do we prove it?  How does God prove it?

If this life is any indication,  He doesn't. The "proof" is a personal, spiritual, mutual process. And faith never becomes outdated.

Yet we are constantly reminded that science has proven God does not exist. How?

[Bernard Gui]

As I review Internet thingies thar claim science disproves the existence of God, the almost invariably resort to logical rather than experimental science for proof. For example:

 

But what if God doesn't care if he can be proven not to exist?

[TheSkepticChristian]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

How about  some unintelligent atheists, then? 

No one cares about internet atheists. 

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I will accept whatever definition of God you wish to propose

I already did, I disproved the existence of the Trinitarian God. I can't talk about all of them, that is why I am asking for your definition. 

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 If you wish to challenge the Mormon concept of God with scienc

Which Mormon concept of God? I believe in the alien God, his existence is highly probable. 

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

For example:

No one know who he is, but here is a better video, Sean Carroll is much more intelligent. He is a scientist and a philosopher.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, salgare said:

There are some amazing scientific tests spoken of here:

 

Sensationalized pop sugar coated ..... but what has been said for 200 years starting with Kant

Reality is created by intelligence.  We are the "simulators"- there IS no "simulation, but we look out at the universe and see our own intelligence looking back at us.  

I have been trying to get this across here for years