Scientific Proof of the Existence of God

Heh, me too. I figured it was something like that.



Yep. See above, where I rant at Aliasi.

-Ghoti

Ghoti, what you are talking about bears absolutely no relation to scientific experimentation.
A scientific experiment results from the observation of phenomena. You interpret these phenomena, and construct hypotheses in the form of if...then reasonings, which make predictions. If my hypothesis is correct then by performing this experiment, I will achieve these results. On top of that, science isn't about blindly experimenting. There is a huge body of theory and prior results that should be taken into account. If your hypothesis contradicts a significant amount of previously accepted theory, it is highly unlikely that your hypothesis is correct, because you being right would imply that thousands of people way smarter than you were all wrong for god knows how many years.
Soliciting peer review of an undisclosed result is silly. If you do not state what is the hypothesis you want us to test, and your predicted results, we won't even know what to look for.
Besides, I think it's fairly obvious that not everything is in the domain of science. Science will tell you in great detail how the universe works, but it's simply not interested in the metaphysical whys and wherefores of its existence.

I'm sorry if anyone read into this (because it clearly does not state it openly) that it was in any way a highly structured scientific experiment. If I'd known I had to file for my dissertation and get peer reviewed I would not have even bothered trying to engage in a little fun experimentation.

Sure enough though, I'm sure in following posts I prolly insinuated that, but only after I started getting the run around.

Thanks, and sorry for not following the scientic method. Y'all can go about your business.

-Ghoti

lol

True, not everything is in the domain of science. Not only that, science can't give great detail how the universe works. It can give a little detail to how we see the universe through our limited senses and tools. Maybe one day science will tell in great detail how the universe works, but at this point we are hardly ready to claim we have a real handle on the interworkings of the universe.

No, I was referring to Mr. Goswami.

In any case, lots of people think L. Ron Hubbard is a "frickin' genius", too. By no means am I claiming you are attempting to prove the existence of god; however, a thread called "A Scientific Proof Of the Existence of God" does seem kinda fishy; they're telling you right from the start they're playing with a stacked deck. (There are no proofs in scientific thought, save for mathmatics and liquor.)

So, while your meditation on the nature of observations is interesting, I can't say much for the argument that kicked off the thread; it's intriguing philosophy but, sadly, not very scientific. And that's okay! Eggy said it right there; science has limits. If you can't repeat it, if there aren't a multitude of examples, it can't help you very much.... and we've just got the one universe, and we've yet to figure the trick to making more.

... and I have come across as an ass.

Now, while I'm somewhat aware of the arguments given - I wasn't playing the "wasn't invented here" card - I just came back from the movie rental shop, and on a lark I picked up "What the Bleep Do We Know?" While I would prefer reading his book, this movie has been mentioned as a sort of Cliffs' Notes to Amit Goswami's ideas. I have, therefore, resolved to watch it with an honest, open mind. No fooling.

I'll let you know how it turns out.

Your first statement is true. Pseudoscientific and supernatural theories such as the existence of God are outside of the domain of science because theories are untestable and unrepeatable.

Your second statement is false. Science gives excruciating detail on the function of the universe. Cosmology and remote sensing are very active fields, having in our lifetimes answered some of the greatest questions of the previous 2000 years. Educate yourself.

Your posts seem to demonstrate your personal limitations rather than scientific limitations. I would suggest that you leave this type of arguments to someone a little more versed on the sciences. As is, it's just a sad slap-down fest.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika, I love you, but the idea science has a good hold on the reality of the universe is far-fetched at best.

History teaches us that every generation thought it had a handle on reality. But with each passing generation we learn the passed generation was far behind.

Wait a few decades and then tell me we even have a clue today.


Just read a little about quantum physics and understand we just started understanding the tip of the iceberg in the last several decades.

The fact you insist there is no God shows your mind has been locked from any possible introspection.

To say there is no God is to say you are positive there is no God. That is the biggest leap of faith to have, even greater than the leap required to believe in a creator of all seen.



hugs

I am positive there is no God. So there.

Careful Luke, the force is strong with this one

Can't we all just get along?

"There is no God!" is the most untestable theory of all.

According to religion our view of the universe hasn't changed one bit in the last two thousand years. What you're acknowledging is the successful march of the scientific method. I find this ironic (and enjoyable).

I do believe in god as a mythology but not as an entity that participated in the creation and maintenance of the Universe. There is just no testable and repeatable evidence to show otherwise.


As an aside, all your arguments are based on the logical fallacy known as the appeal to ignorance. It involves brushing aside current achievements and knowledge (I love how you gave quantum mechanics, something of which you are utterly ignorant, a one-sentence brush off) and embracing that which is unknown as a justification for an irrational belief (ghosts, gods, vampires, leprechauns, compassionate conservatives, etc.). "I don't understand what's beyond the microwave background therefore god exists."

~Ulrika~

However, its counterpart, "there is no evidence of god(s)" is rock solid.

~Ulrika~

It is up to those who posit there is a God to prove it. It is not necessary to prove there is no God. No evidence of such a being exists.

I didn't suggest I can prove there is a God to your satifaction. If one can look at a leaf or baby and not see the fact these perfections require acreator, just as a watch requires a creator, then I can't help.

The article offers some very interesting facts within nature, that suggests all matter is based on something more than what can be touched.

He clearly has an education in these matters beyond anyone in this forum. So I won't dismiss him out of hand.

I love the fact he tries to speak to all with plain English, rather that what I see as common in the scientific community, using as many complex explainations as possible, excluding everyone but the few who studied that field exclusively.

My point in all this... It takes more faith to believe everything you see came about due to huge accident than it does to believe there is a creator.

I will not suggest you are ignorant for your beliefs. But please remember, we are talking beliefs, not facts when discussing the notion of a creator. Claiming to know the truth either way is an act of faith. You believe there is no God is the honest statement.

Given an infinite amount of time, I'm quite positive that a watch could evolve without a creator.

Seen another way -- How can you be sure the watch didn't create mankind so that it might one day exist?

Claiming there is no evidence is another untruth. You need to qualify it - no evidence, collected by physical means, duplicated, peer-reviewed in scientific journals, and eliminating all reference to individual or historical experience by labeling it myth, delusion, or anecdote.

Burden of proof lies with they that assert.

Watches have had as much time to evolve as life, yet every single one I have seen was made by someone.

Exactly --The burden of proof is with you. Not me. You assert there is a God. I don't have to prove that something you made up doesn't exist.

Doesn't answer my question. Prove to me that watches didn't create mankind.

Show me a watch that man didn't create and I'll believe watches might have created man.

I've asserted nothing of the sort. You stated earlier, "I'm positive there is no God."

For me, this is simply an unknown. I don't happen to believe in a personal God.

Well, view it with a grain of salt. You're going to see alot of theories presented pretty sensationalistic and in rapid-fire fashion.

I dunno that I would say WTB does a good job of Cliffnotes of Goswami's ideas... well, maybe in a very superficial way. In the movie you get alot of people's ideas mashed up together.

I suggest using the movie as a vehicle to discover who to read further.

-Ghoti