Is there any proof God exists?

Post Reply New Topic

Evidence of matter and energy being its own cause please.

You give me evidence of nothing turning itself into something then I will show you God himself.

Plenty out there, start reading up on particle physics. And anyhow how is this even relevant. We have no knowledge what is outside this universe. The only people who seem to think they do are the religious who somehow think they can have a free pass with an uncaused first cause.

Let me tell you something. You have VERY LITTLE KNOWLEDGE of what is within this solar system, forget about this universe and what is outside this universe.

I said evidence, not something I'd have to invest my life in to supposedly understand.
When science thinks it has a free pass to completely guess on things they can't possibly understand, it becomes irrelevant to try and make an effort to prove God.
When a stranger asks a you how to get to the hospital, you don't tell them get a map do you?
No, you give them directions, or at least lead them in the right direction by telling them who would know and how to get a hold of them.
I could say the same thing, read the bible, but we both know you find that as ridiculous as I find string theory ridiculous.

@ sophisticated Agreed, but of the little knowledge we have, NON was not brought to us via religious doctrine.

Thankyou I am literally laughing aloud. So because you dont understand something, then neither can anyone else.

What takes a lifetime to study is not the same as the results. There are a large amount of books which present the results of many peoples lifetimes of research, all you need to do is pick them up and LEARN.

Regarding your map analogy, yes I have suggested people get a map, and I have also gone to my car and grabbed my own. Sometimes directions are far too complicated to be communicated in a few sentences. Particle physics is such a case, go grab a book and learn. I will admit getting your head around particle physics is not easy, after all it goes against most of our prejudices regarding what we think of as common sense, but it is worth the effort, once you get a rough handle on it the discoveries are simply awe inspiring. Why the preoccupation with string theory, I have never once suggested it, most scientists disregard it, and the scientific method has nothing to do with it

Oh and in case you were wondering I have read the bible, very interesting collection of short stories I must say. I have heard some people actually believe them, cant for the life of me understand why.

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 15 Mar 2015, 10:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.

It was brought to us by God.

Since it is God that gave us the ability to understand nature.

Of course he did, now don't forget to put your christmas stocking out, otherwise santa wont give you any presents

If you understand particle physics so much, I'd rather you teach me than a book I have to buy. Come on, tell me what you know.

Pathetic.

But to help you here are some books you may find helpful

Lawrence M Krauss "A Universe from nothing"

Stephen Hawking "a brief history of time"

Stephen Hawing "Grand Design"

Brian Cox and Jeffrey Foreshaw "Why does E=MC2 and why should we care"

Then I would look at the great courses series ( I listen to audio books) Literally hundreds of hours of lectures on the subject. Listen to some, get a grasp on the subject then we can discuss it

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 15 Mar 2015, 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Really? I'm genuinely asking you to illuminate my world to your way of thinking and that is all you have to say?
I was actually hoping to learn something. It would mean a lot to me if I understood your beliefs.

He's directing you to the con artists that conned him.

Basically, in their world "nothing" is not nothing, it actually real and it exists. ROFL.

Then by all means externally verify it WITHOUT using any kind of empirical observation. Demonstrate that science is pure reasoning and completely non-circular.

To anyone else "observing" this, note the inherent trap here. Dent is making the assertion--unsubstantiated, I might add--that the scientific method is not logically flawed. This presupposes a few things. For one, it's the baseless assumption that science is rational. Science in and of itself is NOT rational. Not in the sense that Dent is describing it, anyway. Science demands a standard of falsification. Now, one could falsify the method itself as a theory or hypothesis, which is ironic, because Dent just said there is no need to falsify the method. For the sake of time and brevity, I let that fish go. So in a way, you COULD say that the method is externally verifiable (falsifiable) and can be independently observed, both in action and through artifacts such as computers and the internet. The problem, however, is in order to do that, one must use fundamental elements of the method itself--peer review or independent verification, and human observation. This requires the scientific method to prove itself by using itself, i.e. assuming what it is trying to prove. This is not how logic works. Science eschews circularity. This is a logical flaw. Dent's position is untenable.

That's only one side of the trap. Now let's look at the other side.

What would defeat the circularity would be if there were something beyond scientific observation that would render it externally verifiable using some principle not directly or indirectly borrowed from it. As we understand it, the idea of non-observational means to externally verify science would be absurd. Why? Because this requires observation on some level. In other words, this is inescapable in any sense that we mere mortals are aware of.

But let's suppose that such a thing could exist and isn't absurd. This would necessarily require something outside science, quite possibly beyond the physical universe or at least beyond the physical universe as we understand it. If Dent is solely relying on science and insists on its rationality, he is unable to reach beyond the universe as we know it to find that answer. He would be forced to admit that something else exists and empiricism in the way he understands it is insufficient. This is something Dent can't afford to admit.

Short of admitting faith in God is just as rational as science, the safest conclusion is that science contains a logical flaw that we can accept without negatively impacting science's usefulness to us. A corollary to that is that if one can accept SOME irrationality enough to accept the physical world and observational explanations for it, then one can also accept SOME irrationality that allows for the reality of God.

We can't even scientifically verify the existence of such intangibles as love and hate, yet we see the effects of these emotions in the world around us all the time. We cannot "prove" them yet we can observe them as real.

Not quote true. We can observe the changes in body chemistry involved with such emotions.