Using Science to prove that God EXISTS!!!
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:18:20 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Using Science to prove that God EXISTS!!!
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Using Science to prove that God EXISTS!!!  (Read 5004 times)
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2005, 07:32:10 PM »
« edited: December 02, 2005, 07:35:19 PM by phknrocket1k »

Science and God come from opposite angles. Inductive vs Deductive.

God is simply a matter of faith, whereas science is usually experimented with over and over and over again; rather you force itself to prove itself and you can actually see it with quantitatve/qualitative data.
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,808
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: December 02, 2005, 07:32:16 PM »
« Edited: December 02, 2005, 07:37:08 PM by Preston Caldwell »

So, you are like the scientist you quoted – when your idea runs contrary to current scientific understanding, you claim current theories are wrong and that you will be proven right when science replaces its current theories.

Let me tell you a little story about something called "The Law of Gravity". It was previously thought that we knew everything about the behavior of gravity, so it was thought of as a scientific law. Later it got booted down to theory, because it turned out that gravity behaves differently in certain circumstances, and we don't know everything about it after all. The lesson - 'current scientific understanding' is not absolute and all knowing, so it's foolish to pretend otherwise.

Again, you're basing your argument on presumption of undiscovered theories that will prove current theories wrong.  Basically, your basis is nothing more that "hope" itself because your ideas contradict every single scientific observation made by man.
What we percieve in the everyday has little to do with what reality could be like.

Now in our current cosmological theories the universe was once very small.  Amazing things can happen on the very small level, and those quantum effects we have confirmed.  Don't make overarching statements like "every single scientific observation made by man."  Most likely what you mean is the common sense view of the world you know.  Now that works most of the time, but when dealing with the exotic, early universe, those laws break down.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: December 02, 2005, 07:36:48 PM »

I'm not quite sure what the debate is about. jmfcst has summarized two points, supported by data that describe the universe as we know it today. To within about 1% accuracy the weight of scientific opinion is that the universe is 13.7 Gyr old, and was initiated by a single burst of energy (the Big Bang).

What science does not measure is what may or may not of occurred before the Big Bang. Our measurements are consistent with the Big Bang being the beginning of time. There are speculations about a series of universes that may have preceded this one, but they are just speculation.

The view that God created the Big Bang is consistent with data. I personally would not consider this to be proof in a scientific sense, but there are plenty of strong arguments made in other fields that the oldest theory that remains consistent with the data should be given credence. Thus, there may be more than one view about the cause of the Big Bang, and there is nothing inconsistent saying that God was the cause.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2005, 08:19:01 PM »

So, you are like the scientist you quoted – when your idea runs contrary to current scientific understanding, you claim current theories are wrong and that you will be proven right when science replaces its current theories.

Let me tell you a little story about something called "The Law of Gravity". It was previously thought that we knew everything about the behavior of gravity, so it was thought of as a scientific law. Later it got booted down to theory, because it turned out that gravity behaves differently in certain circumstances, and we don't know everything about it after all. The lesson - 'current scientific understanding' is not absolute and all knowing, so it's foolish to pretend otherwise.

Again, you're basing your argument on presumption of undiscovered theories that will prove current theories wrong.  Basically, your basis is nothing more that "hope" itself because your ideas contradict every single scientific observation made by man.

You keep saying 'your ideas' as if I've expressed a belief in them. I'm only expressing that you're not proving squat. You have yet to use science to prove God exists, and since science is incomplete your 'proof' is incomplete to begin with.

As muon2 mentions, just because there was probably a big bang does not necessarily say there was nothing before the big bang. All energy that exists now may have existed in a previous universe, or it may be that this is the first universe and God created it. Either way, you lack proof as science is incomplete on this subject.
Logged
Inverted Things
Avelaval
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,306


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2005, 09:13:05 PM »

The first law of thermodynamics is conservation of energy. Energy is actually stored in a vacuum. Therefore this energy can turn into matter (quantum mechanical process, happens all the time). While this appears to be in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it is not. The 2nd law only says that entropy will PROBABLY increase.

So, we can get something from nothing, even after heat death. Therefore jmfcst has been pwned.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2005, 09:30:46 PM »

So, you are like the scientist you quoted – when your idea runs contrary to current scientific understanding, you claim current theories are wrong and that you will be proven right when science replaces its current theories.

Let me tell you a little story about something called "The Law of Gravity". It was previously thought that we knew everything about the behavior of gravity, so it was thought of as a scientific law. Later it got booted down to theory, because it turned out that gravity behaves differently in certain circumstances, and we don't know everything about it after all. The lesson - 'current scientific understanding' is not absolute and all knowing, so it's foolish to pretend otherwise.

Again, you're basing your argument on presumption of undiscovered theories that will prove current theories wrong.  Basically, your basis is nothing more that "hope" itself because your ideas contradict every single scientific observation made by man.

You stated that your premises and conclusions were "undisputable", which is to say that there is no doubt that could possibly be raised about them and that they will never, ever be proven wrong at any time in the future.  Needless to say, this is a very, very strong assertion, and is not one that any scientist worth his salt would ever make.

Either way, even if the universe is indeed finitely old, this does not prove that the God in the Bible is its creator, nor does it prove that nothing existed before this universe.  Nobody really knows anything beyond the Big Bang.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: December 03, 2005, 01:18:55 AM »

Either way, even if the universe is indeed finitely old, this does not prove that the God in the Bible is its creator, nor does it prove that nothing existed before this universe.  Nobody really knows anything beyond the Big Bang.

I would be careful with your statement. It is easy to confuse scientific knowledge with the many other types of reason and knowledge that exist. It is safe to say that science provides no answers to question of what existed before the Big Bang. That does not imply that there can be no knoledge at all, just not scientific knowledge.

Logged
Citizen James
James42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,540


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: December 03, 2005, 03:12:05 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: December 03, 2005, 03:13:04 AM »
« Edited: December 03, 2005, 03:19:58 AM by Senator Gabu »

Either way, even if the universe is indeed finitely old, this does not prove that the God in the Bible is its creator, nor does it prove that nothing existed before this universe.  Nobody really knows anything beyond the Big Bang.

I would be careful with your statement. It is easy to confuse scientific knowledge with the many other types of reason and knowledge that exist. It is safe to say that science provides no answers to question of what existed before the Big Bang. That does not imply that there can be no knoledge at all, just not scientific knowledge.

Well, obviously there can exist speculation to that end, and there are certainly things that would appear more logical than others (such as the notion that, say, giant dogs on pogo sticks set off the big bang by jumping on a bomb).  However - correct me if I'm wrong - there is nothing in science that touches on what predated the Big Bang.  Evidently, as proven through history, what science thinks is true and what is actually true can certainly not be the same thing; however, it is nonetheless the case that science is much more adept than anything else at solving mysteries.  Without a rigorously tested scientific theory, it seems to me that it can scarcely be said that you know something to be true, unless it is the most mundane of things.

Of course, with a rigorously tested scientific theory, you still can't say that you know something to be true, but you can certainly say that you are more sure that it is true, and that any consequences of its being true are more likely to be reality.

I don't mean to downplay the effectiveness of speculation, as it certainly has formed the backbone of many, many breakthroughs in the past; I'm just cautioning jmfcst against saying that something is "undisputable".
Logged
KEmperor
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,454
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: December 03, 2005, 10:42:46 AM »
« Edited: December 03, 2005, 11:48:15 AM by KEmperor »


Makes about as much logical sense as the OP.  The logical jump between not understanding something and presupposing supernatural involvement is of course a primitive attitude.  Yours is a classic "god of the gaps" explanation.  I'm sure the thunder god Thor would be proud.
Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: December 03, 2005, 01:46:37 PM »

As far as I can tell the argument does not prove or disprove the existence of god. Belief in god remains a matter of faith, not science. However I think that science may one day prove that life as we know it could not have come about purely by evolution. There are some scientists who currently believe that mutations caused by random chance alone could not produce the incredibly complex organs that make up living creatures today. I tend to agree that there seem to be quantum leaps along the way which cannot be explained by gradual evolution of more primative parts. Of course that does not prove that god did it, but it seems to imply a constructive hand in the process.
Logged
Speed of Sound
LiberalPA
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,166
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: December 03, 2005, 07:48:28 PM »

Oh crap, someone let Jmfsct out of his cage again. I bet it was Joe since hes so buzzed right now. Tongue
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2005, 01:22:12 AM »

I'm not quite sure what the debate is about. jmfcst has summarized two points, supported by data that describe the universe as we know it today.

Thanks for this comment, along with everything else you added.  I was hoping you would join this thread.

My argument is rather straightforward, but I probably should add a caveat:

Undisputable Fact Number One (assuming one stays confined to what is currently known about the laws of the universe):  Based on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, the universe is NOT infinitely old, rather it had a beginning.

Undisputable Fact Number Two (assuming one stays confined to what is currently known about the laws of the universe):  Based on the 1st law of Thermodynamics, energy within the natural universe is conserved; it can NOT be created by natural forces.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2005, 01:34:16 AM »

Now in our current cosmological theories the universe was once very small.  Amazing things can happen on the very small level, and those quantum effects we have confirmed.  Don't make overarching statements like "every single scientific observation made by man."  Most likely what you mean is the common sense view of the world you know.  Now that works most of the time, but when dealing with the exotic, early universe, those laws break down.


The four laws of therodynamics do NOT depend on the details of the interactions or the systems being studied, no matter how exotic. Therefore, they can be applied to systems about which one knows nothing about.

That is how Einstein predicted spontaneous emission at the quantum level.


Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: December 04, 2005, 01:52:14 AM »

I'm not quite sure what the debate is about. jmfcst has summarized two points, supported by data that describe the universe as we know it today.

Thanks for this comment, along with everything else you added.  I was hoping you would join this thread.

My argument is rather straightforward, but I probably should add a caveat:

Undisputable Fact Number One (assuming one stays confined to what is currently known about the laws of the universe):  Based on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, the universe is NOT infinitely old, rather it had a beginning.
We don't know much about the physics of the instant the big bang occured, so that is an unreasonable assumption.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2005, 02:59:47 AM »
« Edited: December 04, 2005, 03:01:48 AM by jmfcst »

I'm not quite sure what the debate is about. jmfcst has summarized two points, supported by data that describe the universe as we know it today.

Thanks for this comment, along with everything else you added.  I was hoping you would join this thread.

My argument is rather straightforward, but I probably should add a caveat:

Undisputable Fact Number One (assuming one stays confined to what is currently known about the laws of the universe):  Based on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, the universe is NOT infinitely old, rather it had a beginning.
We don't know much about the physics of the instant the big bang occured, so that is an unreasonable assumption.


Well, how much time, exactly, do scientists think this "instant" is going to add to 13.7 billion years?
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2005, 07:25:14 AM »

the most this might possibly, possibly prove is the invalidity of the big bang theory; but what about cicular time?
Logged
nlm
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,244
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: December 04, 2005, 12:51:25 PM »

Not all that long ago, according to best thinkers of the time, it seemed entirely logical based upon the information that they had at the time that the sun was dragged across the sky by a super natural human like being in a chariot. It was the conventional wisdom of the day. They were, of course, wrong. But they couldn’t be proven wrong at that time. I believe it is human nature to credit things that we do not yet fully understand to super natural human like beings. After all, we have done it as a species for as long as there is a historic record and we continue to do it to this very day.
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: December 04, 2005, 02:19:49 PM »

LOL, funniest post of the year!
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2005, 10:14:24 PM »

Not all that long ago, according to best thinkers of the time, it seemed entirely logical based upon the information that they had at the time that the sun was dragged across the sky by a super natural human like being in a chariot. It was the conventional wisdom of the day. They were, of course, wrong. But they couldn’t be proven wrong at that time. I believe it is human nature to credit things that we do not yet fully understand to super natural human like beings. After all, we have done it as a species for as long as there is a historic record and we continue to do it to this very day.

How do you know they were wrong, and we are right?
Logged
nlm
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,244
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2005, 10:31:08 PM »

Not all that long ago, according to best thinkers of the time, it seemed entirely logical based upon the information that they had at the time that the sun was dragged across the sky by a super natural human like being in a chariot. It was the conventional wisdom of the day. They were, of course, wrong. But they couldn’t be proven wrong at that time. I believe it is human nature to credit things that we do not yet fully understand to super natural human like beings. After all, we have done it as a species for as long as there is a historic record and we continue to do it to this very day.

How do you know they were wrong, and we are right?

Are you seriously asking how I know a super natural human like being isn't pulling the sun in a chariot from horizon to horizon? I'll gladly explain it to you if you're being serious. But I would first need to ask why you believe a super natural human like being is pulling the sun across the horizon in a chariot. (P.S. I only check up on this site from time to time so be patient if you’re serious.)
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2005, 10:33:35 PM »

all i'm saying is that humans have a remarkable tendancy to presume that they are always right-as you pointed out. But who says that we are right today? In a few thousand years, there is every possibility of our bliefs being presented in a similar way.
Logged
nlm
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,244
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: December 04, 2005, 10:42:55 PM »

all i'm saying is that humans have a remarkable tendancy to presume that they are always right-as you pointed out. But who says that we are right today? In a few thousand years, there is every possibility of our bliefs being presented in a similar way.

I agree 100%. Who is to say we are correct today? People who live today? My point isn't that people were wrong yesterday, but they are right today. It's let learn a little patience - we could be as wrong today as they were yesterday, we don't know everything, let us learn from our mistakes - can we not just admit that and keep working on learning in an honest fashion.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: December 05, 2005, 01:23:11 AM »

all i'm saying is that humans have a remarkable tendancy to presume that they are always right-as you pointed out. But who says that we are right today? In a few thousand years, there is every possibility of our bliefs being presented in a similar way.

I agree 100%. Who is to say we are correct today? People who live today? My point isn't that people were wrong yesterday, but they are right today. It's let learn a little patience - we could be as wrong today as they were yesterday, we don't know everything, let us learn from our mistakes - can we not just admit that and keep working on learning in an honest fashion.

Well, if everything science thinks it now knows is going to change, then scientists should keep their mouths shut because that would mean they know nothing at all.

You can’t have it both ways folks.

Here is the situation I find myself in:  If I attempt to play on my own home court by quoting scripture, I hear “That book is just a bunch of myths”….ok…So then I decide to give up home field advantage by quoting science, but now I am hearing “We scientists don’t know what we’re talking about, after all, we have a history of being blown to and fro by every theory which masquerades as knowledge, and we’re sure to jump on the next fine sounding bandwagon that comes along.”

So, what shall we conclude?

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe…For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.  (1Cor 1:20-25)
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: December 05, 2005, 01:34:35 AM »

So then I decide to give up home field advantage by quoting science, but now I am hearing “We scientists don’t know what we’re talking about, after all, we have a history of being blown to and fro by every theory which masquerades as knowledge, and we’re sure to jump on the next fine sounding bandwagon that comes along.”

I don't know where you're hearing that.  All you're hearing is that you can't conclusively, indisputably prove anything with science, which is absolutely true, just as you can't conclusively, indisputably prove anything with anything else.  What science shows is what is more likely to be true - often to such an extent that speculation about its potential falsity seems pointless.  There's a difference between being certain enough that something is true that you can apply the consequences of its being true to real life and being absolutely, 100%, positively certain of something.  Science can and has provided the former level of certainty in a manner that nothing else has.  However, nothing in the history of the world has ever provided the latter, much as many would like to think it has, and indeed it is doubted that anything ever will, at least in this world.

The problem is that you keep trying to state that something is true, which makes the scientists remind you that nothing is known with absolute certainty.  If, on the other hand, you stated that something is more likely to be true than its alternatives given what is currently known, that would probably be more productive.

If you're looking for absolute truth, you just aren't going to find it.  That's just the way things are.  It certainly may and, indeed, is quite likely to exist, but whether we can ever know that we have it is another story.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.077 seconds with 12 queries.