Scientific Proof of the Existence of God

Well, I'm insulted and hurt.




nah... not really, I'm just having fun. bbl for more

See all you little cells later

So I'm not the only one with pan-dimensional beings in my shoe? There's scientific proof of their existence, you know. God does not exist any more than pan-dimensional beings who live in shoes do.

~Ulrika~

You're so cool. ... and so fool.

~Ulrika~

Not nearly as cool as you. Not nearly as cool as Ulrika's demented monocle-wearing doppleganger baby.

What I wanna know is this:

Go look in a mirror. With both eyes open, look at the reflection of your left pupil in the mirror. Without blinking, switch your gaze to the reflection of your right pupil. The movement is so small, you don't even see the eyes move.

Now repeat the experiment but have a friend watch your eyes.

It was asked in the abstract else-thread... but here's a good testable case...

What I wanna know is, whose observations are reality?

-Ghoti

Ghoti gives a mean lecture.

I'm not being mean, I'm asking a question.

-Ghoti

Ghoti gives a stern talking to. Better?

LOL. Did you try the experiment?

-Ghoti

I only have me one good eye. Arggg

Spoken like a true Pastafarian.

-Ghoti

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Ben Franklin

Dwell on that for a bit.

LF

I usually get a headache within half an hour of drinking beer. Does that mean I'm going to hell?

That leads me to suspect that Ben may have been an alcoholic theist.

What??? No takers?? The scientists are letting me down.

-Ghoti

It's unclear what you are asking, really. In this case, the difference in empirical evidence is easily seen by the fact that you are observing that movement with your own eyes; trying to catch your own eyes moving is a bit like opening a box with the crowbar inside, or touching your right elbow with your right hand.

BWHAHAHHAHA!! FUTURAMA

I got one for ya meatbags Go visit god for yourselves, just die for no cause and go meet your maker, when ya get there, ask him to send me to hell for this post ^_^

Fish, why are you so confused about the material world and puny human observations thereof?
Whether the world exists or not is independent of how you see it. It doesnt matter.

Not so.

Try the same experiment but this time instead of looking eye to eye, keep your gaze on your eyes in the reflection but first turn your head one way as far as it will turn (but keep eye contact), then turn in the other direction. You will clearly see your eyes move within your eye sockets (in relation to the head surrounding them).

Your box analogy makes no sense in this context (what are your eyes confined in, that is restricting your access to them to observe themselves?) and the hand/elbow analogy has no bearing on observation. If I was asking about articulation, maybe, but not when I'm asking about your abilty to observe.

What I am asking people to do is get right up on a mirror so you can very clearly see your eyes, and then do the experiment, and then report back the results.

If you do not want to participate in this experiment then don't do it. If you see a problem with the method of testing my question then state it in terms that concretely reveal the problems you see with the experiment.

My question is:

Based on the observations gathered in the experiment, what is the truth of the reality being observed?

-Ghoti

this assumes a definition of reality. In truth neither, because they are just observations. Each is different. But make enough observations, find some consistency, repeatability and predictions and you will have a theory. This theory may be a suitable building block for other theories.

Never moind that this is not what is. That is a question for the buddhist, not the scientist. And from a zen buddhist standpoint the entire excersise is flawed. becase mere sight does not reveal true reality.

I'm fairly certain the scientists will agree a consensus reality exists from which to run this experiment.

-Ghoti

I'm not sure what you're getting at Ghoti. What is this supposed to prove, that the angle at which you view something with your visual organs depends on their position in space relative to the object being viewed? That your eyes move in their sockets? The way your eyes work doesn't change your reality, it only dictates how you're able to observe it. On a related note, when you close your eyes, other people can still see you.

However, your eyes never move in relation to your eyes, if that isn't too much of a tautology. Looking into a mirror, you will never see your eyes from any angle but dead on (whatever manner you see the surrounding head).

Another aspect that complicates this is the fact that the pupil of the eye lets in only a very tiny hole of light; your field of vision is built up by the eye makign very tiny movements. The reason for my box analogy is simple and direct; observing something with the very thing making the observation is prone to error.



Damn if I know.

True, this. Can a blind man not have reality since he cannot see?

I'm going to go with "reality" as just a signifier we use to describe consensus descriptions of experience. It's not really a tangible thing itself (how big is reality?, how much stuff can fit inside it?, can I trade it for a box of cookies?), just a way of talking about a shared reaction. There are other words like this that we use- deviance, for example. Nobody is actually socially deviant; "social deviance," in actuality, describes our shared negative reactions to what someone else does, not of the thing itself (there is no such thing itself).

Based on that, does it even make sense to ask questions to prove the existence of reality?

[Edit:] What the hell, I might as well add that "God" is another one of these words that describes a shared reaction and a shared set of beliefs. But it doesn't really make sense to ask if God exists or not; a better question would be to ask why do these people believe in (and personify) God?