Science and God (One and the same?)

Except that logic does not fail. Everything can be proved by logic: that's what science is.

If God exists, He can choose whether the universe operates in such a way that you can prove that he does-or doesn't.

So even if you prove he doesn't, he might. And if you happen to prove that he does, it's possible he might not, with the first instance being that he did, but has since died (which would seem to contradict the idea of being God, but the Catholic church resolved this long ago-if something disproves the existence of or otherwise contradicts God, then that's the way God designed it, the end, no explanation or reasoning required), so if God wanted to he could die, which brings us to if God wanted to he could not exist.

Imagine that: God creates the universe and then decides not to exist.

The point is that the entire concept of a God, a higher being for which there are no other higher beings, defies logic, in more ways than one. It may or may not exist, but it can't be proven (or disproven, for that matter).

In fact its impossible for us to use science to prove god exists, because based off the religiouse beleifs about God such a being would have to exist outside of our dimensions. God is supposed to be omnipresnent; and exsist in and see all time at once. This is a belief held by ancient faiths long before science began to understand our 4 (known) dimensions. All science depends on (currently) things that exist in our 4 dimensions.

It is interesting to note that before the universe was created there was no time or space. Time and space exist with matter. Outside of our universe theoreticaly there is no dimensions. Today scientist know that space is continuing to expand one day space will expand so much atoms will break apart and even the most basic subatomic particles will fall apart. So along with the expansion of matter in our universe there is an expansion of dimensions so out side of our universe there cannot be dimensions.

The point is: its possible for things to exist outside of the 4 dimensions. its just impossible for our brains to fully grasp as we are dependent upon them. Religion seemed to have a grasp on things outside of our Universe long before science did. Just an interesting thought. It doesnt prove God exists it just shows it might be possible for an exta-dimensional being to exist that is not confined by our science.

Another thought

Matter cannot be created or destroyed. The Universe is comprised of matter and it exists despite a law that says it should not.

Scientist have traced it back to when it was the size of pin head. All the matter in the universe compressed to the size of a pin head should have been held by gravity. yet it expanded...

Im not trying to use these things to say God exists but im just saying its... interesting

Im not trying to use these things to say God exists but im just saying its... interesting

[/quote]

I have taken tests when I tried to trick the teacher in giving me more information; they never gave me anything more.

The choice is left to men. You can't prove or disprove Him; you can only go by faith.

Quoting b0rsuk,

reply 12

Reduced 62%

Original 894 x 700

In general, it's much harder to prove that something doesn't exist than to prove than it exists.

I say Invisible Pink Unicorn exists. How do you disprove that ? Furthermore, I can quote two proofs:

Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.

You aren't supposed to try and prove something doesn't exist. You assume something doesn't exist until evidence proves otherwise.

Believing in things that you have no evidence for is pretty much the definition of insanity. We are just more lenient if those things are deities or prophets instead of pink elephants.

Quoting Overseer,

reply 2

In fact its impossible for us to use science to prove god exists, because based off the religiouse beleifs about God such a being would have to exist outside of our dimensions. God is supposed to be omnipresnent; and exsist in and see all time at once. This is a belief held by ancient faiths long before science began to understand our 4 (known) dimensions. All science depends on (currently) things that exist in our 4 dimensions.

It is interesting to note that before the universe was created there was no time or space. Time and space exist with matter. Outside of our universe theoreticaly there is no dimensions. Today scientist know that space is continuing to expand one day space will expand so much atoms will break apart and even the most basic subatomic particles will fall apart. So along with the expansion of matter in our universe there is an expansion of dimensions so out side of our universe there cannot be dimensions.

The point is: its possible for things to exist outside of the 4 dimensions. its just impossible for our brains to fully grasp as we are dependent upon them. Religion seemed to have a grasp on things outside of our Universe long before science did. Just an interesting thought. It doesnt prove God exists it just shows it might be possible for an exta-dimensional being to exist that is not confined by our science.

Another thought

Matter cannot be created or destroyed. The Universe is comprised of matter and it exists despite a law that says it should not.

Scientist have traced it back to when it was the size of pin head. All the matter in the universe compressed to the size of a pin head should have been held by gravity. yet it expanded...

Im not trying to use these things to say God exists but im just saying its... interesting

Last I knew there was a debate wether or not on the quantum level if matter wasn't actually appearing and vanishing constantly all around us.

Likewise the big bang is hardly surprising. You can crush so much matter to only so far before it reacts extremely violently.

Also there is no reason to believe that existence hasn't always existed, indeed dark matter is currently the best (I've seen) explanation for various phenomena in space. For all we know is that at a certain point on the extreme expansion of the universe this unseen material might act like a coil and yank it all back into an almost infinitely small point. This processess happening an infinitely many times across an infinitely long time.

I find that much more reasonable than assuming that we or the Earth is somehow special. Especially since they've recently found Methane on mars (A short lived gas that almost guaruntees life at least at the microbial life) and water on Io (and I believe an Atmosphere on Eurorpa might have those backwards). So basically at this point in our very close proximity we've likely already found life, and in the case of Io we are likely to discover a vibrant ocean beneath the ice. In the unfathomably large expanse all around us there is surely at least microbial life and I'd say almost certainly larger organisms.

But people like being special, so obviously some sort of all seeing deity is a handy tool to cope with. Even if it becomes a chore trying to explain the various problems associated with there being one.

As for why God and Science are not and cannot ever be one in the same: http://www.islesofscion.net/2009/01/30/does-god-negate-existence-or-at-least-natural-law/

Then for funsies: http://www.islesofscion.net/2009/03/10/adam-and-eve-god-was-a-terrible-parent/

Then finally if you want to look into various issues I have with the topic: http://www.islesofscion.net/?s=god

too many posts to read them all this late. here is my opinion. God(/devil for bad things depending on religeon) is whatever cannot be explained by science. Since the study of science almost always creates more questions than it answers, there will always be room for god. in the past people didnt know why miscarrages happened....umm... its the devil. how was everything made? God. where is god? Up, we cant go up so god must be up. Now we know a lot more, we can say as certainly as possible that god is not "up", if you want science how about out of sync with our time. now we know how people die, cancer, diabetis, etc. now we ask why do certain people die and others live, god knows. in the beginning there was the big bang. what about before the big bang? umm god. That is my theory anyway.

Also a quote similar to the "the greeks would consider us gods" line in the op.

"sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" imagine the effect of a firecracker in ancient greece.

Quoting DalzK,

reply 18

Thats why I said the following in my post:
Note: You must agree with the definition of God above if this theory is to be valid. Most people who agree that is the definition of God.

Even if you accept that as the definition, it doesn't mean you are accepting that the thing being defined actually exists. I could accept the definition of "Unicorn" as "A magical horse with a horn on its head", but that doesn't mean I am agreeing that unicorns actually exist. Even if the definition specifically calls out existence as a trait, it doesn't mean you are agreeing that such a thing actually exists when you say you understand the definition of the word. I could say I understand that the definition of "Existant Unicorn" is "A unicorn that actually exists", but that doesn't mean I agree that unicorns actually exist.

Yes its a hard word to define, buts its meaning is really quite accepted by everyone.

Really? Because I'd think thousands of years of violence and war done in the name of religious, political, and ethical opinions prove that absolutely no one agrees on what's great and what's not.

Just because its hard to define it doesnt make it invalid. Great can be subjective in certain circumanstances (e.g. whats the greatest sandwhich) but in the Onotlogical argument context, its not really.

But it is. You can't just hand wave it and say "Nah, we all agree on what makes a great god". What makes a great god? What do you say to people who disagree and think that your version of god is awful? I, personally, think most versions of god that I've heard about sound like prudish, psychotically intolerant fascists... not really great at all.

You can "imagine God". You just cant imagine A LOT of his qualities (if not all) as they are out of our world/experience. I can tell you now that I am imagining him now - for a fact. Although I cant actually know for sure a lot of things about him, i can still "imagine" him.

I'd say that you can't. If you can't imagine what god is like, and you can't say what qualities makes him great, then you can't use logic to prove anything that rests on this idea that you have an actual definition of the word "God". The word "god" is fairly meaningless as long as those using it refuse to give it any actual qualities.

Still, if you disagree with my points above, just replace the step "Imagine God" with "Imagine Something" and "God exists in the mind only" and "Something exists in the mind only" and the argument will still work.

It doesn't, for the reasons above; it's a base assertion fallacy. "Something exists in the mind" and "It would be rad if it actually existed" doesn't imply "Something actually exists." The only way you can get that is if you start off saying "Assume that Something exists..." and if you do that, the argument (any logical argument, really) is pointless... of course if you assume something exists you can prove it exists under that assumption.

Would you rather exist in the mind only, or in the mind and reality?

I, personally would like to exist. But I would say a George W Bush that existed only in the mind would be "greater" than a GWB that actually exists.

And with God specifically, a God that existed in the mind and reality would be superior and have more control than the God that just existed in the mind (which is the point of the argument).

I'd say that's fine, but like I said, this part of the argument doesn't really matter that much. The fallacy is in thinking that because you have proved that existance would need to be a part of the definition you are creating for a word, that it proves that the thing represented by the word actually does exist.

Quoting DalzK,

reply 21

For what it's worth, I read the ontological argument, or at least this thread's phrasing of it, as a logical proof that you can't prove that God exists since it (supposedly) uses logic to prove that he in fact does, and as an extension of that, that in some things logic need not apply for the job-which I understood to be the original intent of DalzK's post.
Bingo.

My point of the Ontological Argument is that it uses only Logic. And my point was that Logic fails on many levels. And so using Logic to dissprove God isnt really that viable.
And to the people who dont believe in God, you worked this out by logic? I think logic is very unreliable in itself. Example on how to prove God's existence with logic:
Insert Ontological Argument Here

The logic only "fails" because it's faulty logic. That's like showing someone the equation "2 + 2 = cow" and saying "Clearly, mathematics is useless for figuring out the area of a circle." Just because some people are bad at math doesn't mean math itself is faulty.

Quoting Sole Soul,

reply 1

The point is that the entire concept of a God, a higher being for which there are no other higher beings, defies logic, in more ways than one. It may or may not exist, but it can't be proven (or disproven, for that matter).

Again, I think this comes down to linguistics. I would say that "lacking all qualities of existence, like provability or physicality" is exactly what the word "nonexistant" means. You're saying that there is this thing which, in every possible way, is exactly the same as a lack of that thing. A thing that in every way appears to be nonexistant. That's what nonexistant means. You can't say that this thing "exists", because that renders the word "exists" completely meaningless. What would be the difference between a sandwich that doesn't exist, and a sandwich that exists but has absolutely no qualities of existence?

The logic only "fails" because it's faulty logic. That's like showing someone the equation "2 + 2 = cow" and saying "Clearly, mathematics is useless for figuring out the area of a circle." Just because some people are bad at math doesn't mean math itself is faulty.

For the time being ill put aside the Ontoligcal Argument - it was just one example I thought would be valid to bring up and shows the possible flaws in logic. I dont have time to quote all of makeshitwings counter-quotes and post reasons why I disagree with each one.

Logic is limited. Its a human attribute, and humans are limited to only understanding some things in the 3 dimensional world. I think its very,very limited and cannot explain A LOT of things in the universe. If it cant explain so many, many things I think it would be illogical to use it as the only viable basis of our understanding of the universe and how it was created/made/etc.

Actually, logic is limited, but it works anywhere in this universe. The only place it may break down would be another universe/dimension where the basic laws of how things work do not apply. Even then, most of it would remain the same.

Quoting makeshiftwings,

reply 8

Again, I think this comes down to linguistics. I would say that "lacking all qualities of existence, like provability or physicality" is exactly what the word "nonexistant" means. You're saying that there is this thing which, in every possible way, is exactly the same as a lack of that thing. A thing that in every way appears to be nonexistant. That's what nonexistant means. You can't say that this thing "exists", because that renders the word "exists" completely meaningless. What would be the difference between a sandwich that doesn't exist, and a sandwich that exists but has absolutely no qualities of existence?

I'm saying that the major religions have decided that if God is playing hide and seek that, being God, and being all powerful and all that jazz, he's allowed to do that, and no one would know the difference.

It's not so much that the sandwich has no qualities of existence-it's just that we aren't permitted to observe any of them.

This isn't even my opinion. Personally, I dispute the "all powerful" clause. But that's beside the point. This is what they've said God is. This is what they choose to believe in. If you see it as nothing, you can choose to believe that.

There are going to be cases where we know certain statements are True, yet they would be unprovable.

Worship the mathematicians! The language of maths is bajilion miles ahead of those biologists/chemists/physicists! It holds truths we have yet managed to translated into the messy natural spoken languages. (like the one I'm typing in now!)

Good to be on top

Actually, logic is limited, but it works anywhere in this universe. The only place it may break down would be another universe/dimension where the basic laws of how things work do not apply. Even then, most of it would remain the same.

1. mathematics and logic (science can't prove them because science presupposes them),
2. metaphysical truths (such as, there are minds that exist other than my own),
3. ethical judgments (you can't prove by science that the Nazi's were evil, because morality is not subject to the scientific method),
4. aesthetic judgments (the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven), and , ironically
5. science itself (the belief that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by the scientific method itself)

And there is this:

http://www.impactlab.com/2006/11/28/13-things-we-cant-explain/

Actually string theory shows that there are possible dimenision behind our 3rd dimenision (hence 3-D). As one of the greatest Scientist of all time had said 'Mathematics should always be proving what science is saying.' Philosophy is very mathematical (one of the reason why I study it/both). Actually both are very logical (well until you get into Quantum physics then it seems that logic has kind of departed).

Evolutionary biologist have a hard time explaining how the following were able to do their special tactics (not that they don't have any explanations): Sepia officinalis and Nezara viridula. When I lived in Greece/Turkey I saw a Sepia Officinalis. Well, actually I almost missed it! To see it change color so rapidly (they can actually change color faster than a chamelon) and I've been told that they can even change their skin texture. As for the nezara viridula, they produce a mixture of 5 Alkalines. As you know Alkalines can produce chemical burns. The nezara viridula, produces a spray that burns and has a foul ordor.

Either G-D exists in all possible worlds, or HE exists in some but not others, or HE exists in no possible worlds.

1. It is possible that G-D exists.

2. If G-D existed in some possible worlds, but not others, then why? Some factor would be causing this change, which would make G-D's existence dependent on that factor. By definition, G-D is not dependent on anything else for existence.

3. So G-D must exist in every possible world, which includes ours.

I would expect everything in the universe to be explained by science. God created a rational universe that runs off laws and constants he put into place. So even if you could explain why everything in the universe happens and why. You still dont prove God doesnt exist. In fact this would reinforce a religous belief about God.

If God created the Universe and determined the laws and principles it operates on then he knew how every particle would interact, therefore he he knew the Universe would eventually yeild intelligent creatures.

look at it this way God is the greatest scientist of all.

Also an interesting note, hiddenranbir has the diagram of fields arranged by purity. More mathematicians believe in a higher power than any other field. Actually the more to the right you go the more likely you are to believe in a god.

Side note: there are 4 dimensions

1 left and right

2 up and down

3 back and forth

4 time

Quoting DalzK,

reply 9

Logic is limited. Its a human attribute, and humans are limited to only understanding some things in the 3 dimensional world. I think its very,very limited and cannot explain A LOT of things in the universe. If it cant explain so many, many things I think it would be illogical to use it as the only viable basis of our understanding of the universe and how it was created/made/etc.

Logic's not limited in the way you're implying; it can apply to anything you want it to. And we're not using logic alone to explain the universe: logic in a vacuum is useless. Logic is a method for inducing new truths or falsehoods based on existing ones. We are using science foremost to understand the universe; logic is just one of many tools that science can use.

For most of these examples:

1. mathematics and logic (science can't prove them because science presupposes them),
2. metaphysical truths (such as, there are minds that exist other than my own),
3. ethical judgments (you can't prove by science that the Nazi's were evil, because morality is not subject to the scientific method),
4. aesthetic judgments (the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven), and , ironically
5. science itself (the belief that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by the scientific method itself)

you could use logic to induce facts based on existing ones. The problem with some of these things is that using logic and science leaves people with answers they don't like. You are right, there is no "proof" that any particular aesthetics or ethics are "true", but that IS the correct answer. Science and logic isn't failing here. There's nothing there to prove. Likewise, there's no need to try to prove that logic or science are "true", since they are not statements in and of themselves. They are both methods for determining things about the universe. The only thing we should be concerned with is whether they work correctly on the given domain (understanding the universe), not whether or not they are "true" in a vague metaphysical sense of the word. As for metaphysical truths - these things don't exist. Metaphysics is more or less defined as the study of things that are unprovable and have no evidence - it's all just opinions, there is no truth there to try to prove.

Quoting Sole Soul,

reply 11

I'm saying that the major religions have decided that if God is playing hide and seek that, being God, and being all powerful and all that jazz, he's allowed to do that, and no one would know the difference.

It's not so much that the sandwich has no qualities of existence-it's just that we aren't permitted to observe any of them.

This isn't even my opinion. Personally, I dispute the "all powerful" clause. But that's beside the point. This is what they've said God is. This is what they choose to believe in. If you see it as nothing, you can choose to believe that.

But that's not really what the major religions have said God is. It's what a very small subset of modern-day theological philosophers have said God is. For the vast majority of people, they are saying that God is an actual physical guy floating around, using magic to perform miracles, making it sunny when they want to have a picnic, and sending gay people to hell.

Aside from that, there are a lot of logical problems and vaguery around the term "all powerful", which you probably see as well. I guess even if we ignore that, if we define God as this thing that COULD physically effect something or have a quality, but chooses to eternally never actually physically do anything or have any qualities, then I'd say even thinking about that "God" thing is a waste of time. It's not able/willing to actually affect us in any way, and it's impossible for anyone to know anything at all about it, so there's very little point in spending an entire lifetime making up rules that you think it wants you to follow and structuring your government / church / holy war around these arbitrary rules.

I'll never believe in God!! lol I used to but there are too many terrible things in this world for a God, so loving as the one Catholics/Christians worship, to exist.

If there was a God...(fill in the blank).

If there was a God...why did my beloved cat, Banjo, die at age 7 of heart disease while suffering with a urinary tract infection? God couldn't save, nor could medicine for we found out about heart disease the day he died.

Yeah so I am in a predicament though...a girl likes me and I her...however she's really religious. I'm athiest but have no problem with people practicing religion. I don't know how she would take it if she knew I didn't believe in God. Thoughts, advice haha?

-Phal

Well, well, well. (why is it 3 'wells' satisfies that configuration?) I see that I am here with a bunch of fallen men with questions about where, when and who they might be. Why hasn't God given us these answers so that we might know what to do with ourselves? The Christian religion says that He has done that in the Spirit-breathed book they call the Bible. One of the certain aspects of the Bible is the disclosure of hell, and that many are on the broad road to that place because of their rejection of the indisribable gift of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. In human terms, and I suppose that is to say in 'scientific' terms, this is the only explanation that can satisfy all of humanity. This 'thread' could and might go on till the end of time, with a constant changing of contributors as we all die off, one by one or all together, come what may. Be aware however, that God, the everlasting Father ( a concept we all understand) has painted a flawless picture of who we are in the life of His only begotten Son, the Lord of Lords, the King of Kings, the Light of the world, the Prince of peace, the Redeemer of mankind, the Saviour of the world, the Way, the Truth, the Life...oh, my poor fellow 'users'; I need to go to work. I leave you with this thought, that comes from way back; "God made you so that you might know Him so that you might love Him and that you might serve Him." He call you unto Himself. You either come or you don't. Towards Him is light; away from Him is darkness. Towards Him you will come to Christ. You would be smart come to Christ, for He alone knows what to do with you and the mess that you are. He is from everlasting to everlasting (how scientific can I get?) so He'll get for you all the answers you all might be looking for. For Christ's sake, smaten up. Oceanspray.

Quoting forefather1,

reply 19

Well, well, well. ...

The weirdest part of that whole ramble was how at the end you find out it's an ad for Ocean Spray fruit juice. I like the new tag line though: "For Christ's sake, smarten up. Ocean Spray." and then there's an x-treme camera closeup on the juice bottle.

PS - you spelled "smarten up" wrong.

Actually string theory shows that there are possible dimenision behind our 3rd dimenision (hence 3-D). As one of the greatest Scientist of all time had said 'Mathematics should always be proving what science is saying.'

Typical a scientist would say that. Mathematics is not proving science. Science is based on observable data. Observations prove their hypothesis. That's it, science should be proving what it is saying with observation. It is just so very convenient and coincidental that mathematics can be so naturally applied.

Mathematics needs no observational data. It can break the limitations of our sensory capability and truly present truths to us. Truths we have yet to prove, or may never prove - but we'll still know they are true!

The James Clerk Maxwell's field equations established the existence of radio waves before there was any observable proof that science so demands. What the James Clerk Maxwell did was establish mathematics as the arbiter of physical reality and the first to accept in a real sense that language is reality.

Oooh, I feel like making a thread on language's role in reality now!

In antiquity everybody had their Gods for everything.

In modern times every religion have their own Gods for everything.

Yet nobody as ever seen or touched or seen anything writting by a GOD, as far as I know of course. The bible was written by a man or men. I am a christian that's why I use this exemple. I find it remarkably funny that an all powerful being creates all this and then just dissapears. What's the point? When I hear the answer you just have to have faith, I'm sorry that's a bogus answer to a legetimate question. Faith and trust is earned not given away. If you want my faith then you must earn it. When I see all the wars and conflicts Religion as made in all of the history of Humanity I find it hard to believe that if there is a GOD and with a simple action like giving proof of his existance all this could of been avoided. Because this as not happened I surmised that god does nto exist. Day after day technology disproves most of what was thought to me in the bible. God did not create man as it is said in the book. The only time he supposedly came to earth was when there was no way to proove his existance. It's pretty lame.

So I think that the OP as a good point. I do think that in time we will understand how everything came about. There is no limit to our potential, I think in time we will be the gods.

PS seriously it's all pointless there is no answer right now. Only suppositions. it's like sombody stating there is 1 billion stars in the universe. Nobody can say for sure anyway. So why bother with it. If there is a GOD he does not want us to know.

some of the points in this thread speak more about the need for further education than for the existence of God.

Spurious Logic, or good Logic based on outdated or false presumptions can only lead to inaccurate and ill fated conclusions.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle will preclude Man from ever fully understanding the Universe. Man is part of the Universe, and his very observations will sckew the results. For God to Omnipotent, he would have to exist outside the Universe (and therefore not exist IN it) So if God exists, he still doesn't.. even if he does..cause he doesn't

Exactly.

You guys should try just picking up the Bible and reading it. You all talk about reading all this stuff about how God can't be real, well I think that to be a good scientist you must hear and study all sides of the arguement. There are many things in the Bible that make sense. If you guys do a study you will realize that the bible has a lot of stuff in it that explains things that we thought could only be explained by technology. Consider that.

The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.