# Did science prove "God"?



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

therandomsciencegirl said:


> No one can ever prove or disprove the existence of god, that's just the nature of "god" whether or not you believe in one.
> 
> Now back to a slow descent into solipsism...


It's funny how people argue like this. Absolutely nothing in the universe is provable or unprovable.. The word "proof" is a meaningless word and has no real concern in the realm of science. Science is about probability, not proof. When you observe a pattern over and over, you scientifically conclude that the pattern is probably permanent. But, at any point, the pattern could break. Reality is only ever guessed, never proven. 

On the subject of God (creator), it can easily be scientifically concluded that there is a creator because science is based on probability. If you simply present evidence of there being a time before the universe was created, then the most probable cause of inflation is from a creator - in the video it is said that this creator is the laws of nature. What's more scientific? Believing there is a creator (the most probable) or believing that everything that exists JUST EXISTS for no reason (where is the science in that??) At this point not believing in a creator is like believing the wind blows just because, and not as a consequence of other actions. Science = declaring consequences from actions - so the consequence of the existence of the universe comes from ____? Pre-universe creation! What is not scientific is thinking you know that a being created the universe, but God doesn't have to be a being.


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

Stoneburg said:


> Is this a definition religious people are willing to accept?



I do. I linked the video in my evidence of God thread.

Often the problem we see from atheists is a definition problem with God. Very often they get stumped at, "What would God even be?" Without a way to define him, they can't believe in him, and since they neglect to see most religious people defining God it confuses them I think.

Pretty simple from my viewpoint, God is truth, among other things.


----------



## Misaki (Feb 1, 2015)

Stoneburg said:


> I was a bit surprised too but I have some previous experience of judeo-chrsitian mysticism so it wasn't a complete shocker. I think he tied it together well, and did it very diplomatically. It's obvious that he does not believe in the "God of Abraham" in an exoteric way. Whether it in the end boils down to a sort of pantheism or not is unclear of course since he kind of finishes his point before getting into that, and leaves the question of how this unmanifest entity interacts with the manifest universe. But since he doesn't get into that I also find nothing to attack or criticize in what he says, as far as I am concerned his argument is pretty elegant as well as being seemingly water proof.


If that's true, then what he said becomes more defensible, but a bit misleading nonetheless. I would not claim to have proven the existence of the biblical god while failing to address much of how he is depicted in the Bible. He's addressed certain of this god's alleged characteristics, yes, but perhaps not all, and certainly not many of his actions. 

That aside, we seem to agree that many of the details and implications of this view aren't fleshed out (understandable, given that it's a 5 minute video). His physics is fine. I think this ultimately comes down to semantics: what is god? He's argued for the biblical god, but does the Bible have a monopoly on defining this being? We could look into alternative concepts that don't line up in the same way. The problem, as I see it, is that we're dealing with an idea so elastic that it can adapt to anything, no matter what we learn about the universe - a problem in the sense of struggling to unify people around the idea, convincing them that this truly is god. It seems to me that no matter what the nature of the world is or could be, one could always engage in these gymnastics, taking everything we know and trying to salvage god from that body of facts.


----------



## Passacaglia (Sep 24, 2015)

Stoneburg said:


> Pffft. What he did was connect a modern scientific insight to an old mystical tradition to reconcile the two, and he did it beautifully.


He certainly is a charming chap, but he's hardly the first person to think "Hey, the Big Bang is an answer that begs other questions...thus, god!" In fact, a 17 year old Muslim just used this same exact argument in an effort to convert me.



Stoneburg said:


> Your resentment is emotional and based on a (healthy) aversion to religious dogma in my opinion. There are a few very valid points to be found in spiritual scripture, we didn't just start thinking about these things yesterday, humans have been using their minds to investigate this for many thousand years and believe it or not, people figured out some pretty cool shit way back in the day without access to particle accelerators or even microscopes.


Yes, there are a few useful tidbits in scripture. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you," for example. There's also a lot of nonsense, and outright terrible bits in there. Feel free to post or PM me if you ever want to discuss philosophical arguments for/against god(s), dogmatic religion, why you made the inverse mistake that many atheists make, or why you see fit to make assumptions about the emotional state of others.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

No.

Theism is false.


----------



## Stoneburg (Jul 24, 2013)

Catwalk said:


> No.
> 
> Theism is false.


It is a really good idea to read and understand what has been said before commenting, and to add something of value with your comment rather than just throwing out an unsupported statement. You added nothing to this conversation with your post, which means it was a missed opportunity to share or learn something. If you just want to state your opinion you can write it on a post it note and then throw it away, I'm not conducting a poll here.


----------



## Stoneburg (Jul 24, 2013)

Passacaglia said:


> He certainly is a charming chap, but he's hardly the first person to think "Hey, the Big Bang is an answer that begs other questions...thus, god!" In fact, a 17 year old Muslim just used this same exact argument in an effort to convert me.
> 
> 
> Yes, there are a few useful tidbits in scripture. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you," for example. There's also a lot of nonsense, and outright terrible bits in there. Feel free to post or PM me if you ever want to discuss philosophical arguments for/against god(s), dogmatic religion, why you made the inverse mistake that many atheists make, or why you see fit to make assumptions about the emotional state of others.


Not really interested in that, no.


----------



## Monteskiusz (Sep 16, 2015)

Human mind always made something funny. They always when saw something they couldn't explain called it God. Rain. Earth. Sun. Big Bang. ETC.

But if He does tell truth. Then i surely doubt the existence of any Bibilical God. 
Deism all the way!


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Stoneburg said:


> It is a really good idea to read and understand what has been said before commenting, and to add something of value with your comment rather than just throwing out an unsupported statement. You added nothing to this conversation with your post, which means it was a missed opportunity to share or learn something. If you just want to state your opinion you can write it on a post it note and then throw it away, I'm not conducting a poll here.


OK.

Give me a day or two to disprove / debunk the entire video. 

In the meantime, you can refute theism.


----------



## NewYorkEagle (Apr 12, 2015)

There is no way that science can prove that God, also known as a RELIGIOUS figure, can exist. If people seriously think that, then they should evaluate on what they said to the public. You can go and praise any god that you want, but you can't tell people to scientifically prove a God. It's not worth it.


----------



## Sophidophie (Jul 30, 2013)

Well, I used to imagine God as energy but a force that exists indefinitely makes so much more sense. It's essentially what manipulates energy. I just don't care to romanticize the idea of God.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Another Lost Cause said:


> Where did God come from? How did the physical laws that govern God's existence come about, who created those? How did God exist in "the black", the nothingness where there isn't even a vaccuum before the creation? Did an infinite, all powerful being somehow exist for all time without a beginning? The concept of God just seems too incredible for me to believe.


But something coming out of nothing is more plausible to you?


----------



## ZZZVader (Oct 1, 2015)

A lot of people who are religious use the argument of design to prove the existence of god.

"How can something so complex such as life emerge from nothing?"

But that question doesn't give you an answer. Just more questions.

"What proof is there that there was something to begin with? Why does that something have to be a creator with advanced knowledge that makes humanity looks like a bunch of shithead primates?"

Tbh, I like to admit to what I don't know and keep my options open when it comes to all these beliefs. I personally don't believe in the god with the cross or whatever religion frames and backgrounds it has. From what science has given us to deduce from (and some reasoning from philosophy), I myself am more convinced that there isn't a god; and even if there was one, it shouldn't be made a big deal out of.

Why? Because if there was a creator to care about, then that creator would make it evident with their 4th dimensional powers or whatever-the-fuck that they exist. If they wanted us to do something for them, then they would make their existence known and tell us straight to our face what they want from us or why they created us. If none of that shit is happening now, which there is no evidence of currently, then there isn't likely to be a creator _to care about_. And if that creator is a big-ass troll, not willing to make his existence known, but expecting us to do his shit without any solid clue whatsoever (other than a vague book full of contradictions), THEN I DON'T CARE IF YOU OWN THE MOTHERFUCKING UNIVERSE. I AIN'T WORSHIPING NO PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE BITCH (BE CLEAR WITH WHAT YOU FUCKING WANT). I'D RATHER GET TURNED UP WITH SATAN IF YA'LL GONNA BE STANDING THERE EXPECTING ME TO KNOW WHAT YOU WANT.

Otherwise, it's just some big quiet invisible man in space stalking us and probably masturbating to us walking our dog. He's there behind the fucking bushes but none of us know and he doesn't really mind just being the audience to this little bew orb named after 'dirt' in a solar system nobody gives 2 shits about. Maybe 1 shit is given, but that's only from us.

Anyways, I think that us existing was just all a random occurrence. Many people (and this is common for humans to feel) think there should be a purpose or reason for everything, or that coincidences line up to create this sort of prewritten story called fate. I call that fate stuff confirmation bias. We can find connections within everything to fit within a frame of a belief we have, and more things continue to fall into place just because we see it that way and act on that belief. I guess I can discuss more on how coincidences are just coincidences and nothing more, but this guy explains it all better than I do:





I listen to him when I do my homework.

Anyways, my belief summed up nice and ASDFEJFBERFIUFUCKER:

-I believe in a metaphysical world
-We are, as beings, nothing special and are a series of chemical reactions and bodily functions that are stimulated and affected by external stimuli. It's the external stimuli and genetics that make up who we are personality-wise and as people. No wonder we can all be categorized into 16 types with 8 cognitive functions. In other words, external stimuli is the input, and we spit out a result/reaction like a calculator. It just doesn't seem that way because the way we comprehend things is limited.
-We all exist because we lucked out through evolution.
-Life doesn't have a reason
-The heat death of the universe is inevitable
-Nothing you do matters in the cosmic (significant) scale
-WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE AND END THAT WAY

Do take note though that this is my *current* belief and perception of the universe. Things are bound to change and be discovered further down in the road, and my beliefs will adjust with that. I just don't want to put my blind faith in a deity and waste my hours believing something I don't have proof for and aren't sure of.

Anyways, that's my two cents.
Mah two big FAT cents
Ka-ching

;D


----------



## Ziwosa (Sep 25, 2010)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> But something coming out of nothing is more plausible to you?


It's not just plausible, it's actually been proven that it does happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect


----------



## Ziwosa (Sep 25, 2010)

Stelliferous said:


> It's funny how people argue like this. Absolutely nothing in the universe is provable or unprovable.. The word "proof" is a meaningless word and has no real concern in the realm of science. Science is about probability, not proof. When you observe a pattern over and over, you scientifically conclude that the pattern is probably permanent. But, at any point, the pattern could break. Reality is only ever guessed, never proven.
> 
> On the subject of God (creator), it can easily be scientifically concluded that there is a creator because science is based on probability. If you simply present evidence of there being a time before the universe was created, then the most probable cause of inflation is from a creator - in the video it is said that this creator is the laws of nature. What's more scientific? Believing there is a creator (the most probable) or believing that everything that exists JUST EXISTS for no reason (where is the science in that??) At this point not believing in a creator is like believing the wind blows just because, and not as a consequence of other actions. Science = declaring consequences from actions - so the consequence of the existence of the universe comes from ____? Pre-universe creation! What is not scientific is thinking you know that a being created the universe, but God doesn't have to be a being.


Fully agree with the first paragraph.
The second though ... not so much.

Why do the laws of the universe exist? Why does anything exist at all? There is no reason. 
Something exists, because it's possible. And we know it's possible because the question exists.
Not-existing is possible too, but in ALL those 'variants' if there are, there won't be anything there to question its existence.

Other 'existing' than this 'existing' will exist as well. And in some of those there might be communication possible between the two. And in some it won't. 

Everything that can happen. Will happen.
And mind you, that phrase alone already implies the existence of time.
And perhaps realities without time can exist too. No one knows.

The concept of God or some other 'mystery' that science will never be able to explain is mostly just there to make your life seem easier or more bearable to you. Unknowns are scary and what is scary is threatening because of evolution programming you to stay alive. So it makes evolutionary sense to 'believe' in something more than what science can provide because it provides an emotional comfort blanket hushing the fears of death.

Knowing or believing there is someone or something watching over everything with a purpose is much easier than knowing there's no reason or point to anything. That everything can happen for no good reason whatsoever. There will be a reality where I'm being tortured. Raped. Dying of cancer. Getting shot. Teased. Where I'm high on heroin. All of it.

I just happen to be aware of just this one where I'm typing out this post sharing my thoughts.
And the "I" is just a persistent delusion created by evolution and driven by evolution.

So why stay alive? Rather, why wouldn't you? There's no point in killing yourself because sooner or later you'll die anyway. So why not just sit back, relax and enjoy the show? Life is definitely a show for those who've realized this.

A very enjoyable one.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Ziwosa said:


> Fully agree with the first paragraph.
> The second though ... not so much.
> 
> Why do the laws of the universe exist? Why does anything exist at all? There is no reason.
> ...


"There is no reason" has never been a scientific conclusion.


----------



## Ziwosa (Sep 25, 2010)

Stelliferous said:


> "There is no reason" has never been a scientific conclusion.


because in the end, science means jack shit and it all comes down to philosophy which isn't a science

science isn't about providing a 'why' only a 'how'

why is the universal speed constant 299 792 458 m/s ? and not 310 147 785 m/s ?
there is no reason, we just observe or conclude it to be like this

the laws of the universe just are, there is no reason other than that this set of laws is apparently possible


----------



## mark anthony (Aug 20, 2011)

*Did science prove &quot;God&quot;?*

Well not real God Discovered In 5 Min is an argument and a bit of a lazy argument.

Let's begin with the End in mind.

The largest part of the Cosmoses life cycle after all has broken down in to its most basic form what is left is two forms of microwaves long bent ones that came from the Big Bang and microwaves that came from the decay of every thing that was ever manifested into creation.

Two forms of microwaves flowing and floating in deep space. And it is posable that they are held within a membrane. Two types of microwaves vibrating as if the vibrating microwaves where the Membranes DMA and RNA. Perhaps advertising its self in an order of evolutionary process to attract a compatible Membrane to co create another Cosmos.

Like Corel seeds in an ocean of deep space floating and seeking an evolutionarily compatible mate. Vibrations communicating information about compatibility. And when two are comparable (Perhaps they attract towards each other or are moved towards each other by a Hosing Influence Force and as the two Membranes collide the microwaves from both membranes are drawn to a central convenient point of singularity and ""BANG" another Big Bang takes Place and a new cosmos is co created. Within the Field of a new membranes skin created from the. Two membrane boundaries forming as one.

Perhaps between the singularity point and the membrane boundary is bark matter that will in time seep into and between that witch is being created.

If there is a negative and a positive and a neutral within both membranes then the long bent microwaves could be thought of as one of the three and the other microwaves as the second of the three and the membrane and space as the third of the three.

Dose God exist within this model or out side of this model or is God all the model that exist within and beyond the membrane that Hosts or existence if membrane thorny is the correct theory?

Who knows they are ideas.

If Host and all that exist as that, that has been created is what is thought to be God then science observes God as a living thing and as Host and comes up with Idea as to the Nature Of God. 

Individual people prove God in there own minds because the word science men's Knowledge. 

For me host or the hosting life force is God or the God force. I prefer the term Greater Nature it seems more healthy and less political loaded.

Cheers.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> But something coming out of nothing is more plausible to you?


*No one*. I repeat, *no one* with sense argues that. :dry:

''Nothing'ness'' is not possible. Btw, ''nothingness'' is _physically_ impossible insofar as --> (re) Noether's theorem + quantum uncertainty / quantum field theory..

If there is no 'potential' for something to come about (e.g .. _nothingness_) then something is impossible. _QED_.

Btw, the universe is not a 'black hole'.


----------



## Blue Soul (Mar 14, 2015)

This isn't proof of anything but manipulation of semantics.


----------



## Act of Sensation (Apr 19, 2010)

.


----------



## Act of Sensation (Apr 19, 2010)

.


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 30, 2011)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Can you please explain what you're talking about through something like an analogy like I did, because I can't understand what you're talking about.


I'd rather not to use analogies at this point because they would only muddle the conversation even more. 
A sustaining efficient cause would be something that doesn't just start off the effect, it also maintains it in existence while a generating efficient cause would be something that just starts it off.
If we're talking about the former, your arguments can sort of work, if we're talking about the latter, they can't: they're either misrepresentations of what an infinite chain of events is (it is _not_ just like a finite chain of events with the first cause removed) of or they beg the question.


----------

