Science WILL eventually prove the existence of God

Depends on what one considers what is an actual god.

Is it a man that spews laser beams from his eye, or farts then rips the sky apart with thunder from his throne, and that the life giving rain is actually gods pee.

I think whomever came up with that the universe is a simulation, might have meant that it's like a simulation, when it isn't. Like Einstein describing that reality is an illusion (say he wouldn't know what a simulation is, would he?), all the while being a persistent one.

And if there was one, would he/she/...it!?!...would want to be found? To what end would that lead?

If we are living in a simulation, that means something created the simulation and the simulation was created for a reason. What is the reason, it is a test to assess our worthiness. Most of the supposed people in this simulation are not real, they are part of the program, many of us are being tested to see our response. If we flunk we will not be allowed to participate in reality, we will not be born or allowed to live in a society that is above our comprehension. We will be doomed to be reside in an area with a real lot of bad people and bugs that bite us and illnesses that torture us. Sounds like America to me.

The creator of the simulation would be god, the aathors or angels oversee the program. This reality is real to me, no matter if it is real or not. We would never be able to tell if this reality is real or a simulation because we can not possibly be able to comprehend the reality from being born in the simulation. Just as scientists cannot possibly ever know how the Universe was created, it is impossible from this point in the universe to positively prove how it was made. Believing in the big bang theory is worse by far than believing there is a supreme collective consciousness of the universe and beyond.

I believe there is something controlling our reality. I have lived long enough and have witnessed things that make me believe that science is far from being correct many times and belief in science alone is irrational, I read too much opposing evidence of things, if something was real, then everything would fit together, that is not happening in science, science is hijacked strongly by belief and by desire for prestige and wealth.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Perhaps mathematical certainties, and scientific proofs, are still not absolute truths?

Some versions of Simulation Theory state that the conclusion is that we already must live in a simulation.
Someone on ATS posted a few months ago that one must necessarily believe in Materialism, to believe in Simulation Theory.
Can't remember whom, sorry.

So outside of Materialism: still plenty of possibilities, so don't worry about it.
Never any use worrying about the future anyways, right?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

If you can use mathematics, science and logic to deduce the existence of "god" then it was never God to begin with, just a higher being. There's a huge fundamental difference that an alarming number of people just don't get.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I'm agnostic, but spiritual.

Meaning, I don't claim to know the answer to the age old question of how did we get here, but I do believe we all have a spirit, or something separated from our minds.

That said, I guess it goes without saying after proclaiming I'm agnostic, I wouldn't be surprised to whatever science finds...

All I know is no matter what it is, many scores of people will be disappointed, or deny the findings.

Through the ages, man has fought, died, and sacrificed for the gods they worship... I don't see that changing anytime soon.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I'll leave this to The Man , Douglas Adams ...

The Final Proof of the non-Existence of God was proved by a Babel Fish.

Now, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some have chosen to see it as the final proof of the NON-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

unfortunately, science, latin for knowledge and religion, latin for mythology never really mesh. In an infinite universe all things are infinitely possible.....

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Just the facts of unbreakable laws in math and physics prove there was intelligent design.

If anyone here wants to rise above the level of word-spaghetti that boils over and spills out whenever the debate between science and religion heats up, study the rigorous, pioneering research at
smphillips.mysite.com...
where mathematical proof of the hidden isomorphism between certain sacred geometries of the world's religions is presented. This analysis has the irrefutable inference that a universal, mathematical template exists for "holistic systems" embodying the divine archetypes, as represented in these sacred geometries. It proves that E8xE8 heterotic superstring theory is the realisation of this mathematical blueprint, as are the seven types of diatonic musical scales. You don't need to wait for eternity until science proves the existence of God (it cannot in principle because God is not an object in the physical universe that science studies). You will find the "proof" at the given link in the form of a huge body of evidence for the existence of transcendental design that links theories in theoretical physics to the sacred geometries at the heart of the mystical traditions of three ancient religions.

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

We are God we are everything and everything is us we are a collective . Imagine the tiny cells in our blood or the bacteria that lives within us . We are its Universe.

Ones body is a universe that helps to define our personality/individuality. We are to God what our individual cells are to our body. We are God defining Itself.

originally posted by: Nothin
Perhaps mathematical certainties, and scientific proofs, are still not absolute truths?

Absolutely, my point here isn't that god exists.

Just that there will be a point where science turns its back on the atheists.
The "mathematical certainty" I speak of would be incorrect, provided we're in Reality #1.

originally posted by: rickymouse
If we are living in a simulation, that means something created the simulation and the simulation was created for a reason. What is the reason, it is a test to assess our worthiness.

Why would you assume you're the reason for the simulation.
Couldn't we be part of a simulation to test star formation, black holes etc. etc.
Infinite possible reasons but perhaps we are an unnoticed and irrelevant side effect of a simulation looking for something else.

originally posted by: rickymouse
If we are living in a simulation, that means something created the simulation and the simulation was created for a reason. What is the reason, it is a test to assess our worthiness.

Why would you assume you're the reason for the simulation.
Couldn't we be part of a simulation to test star formation, black holes etc. etc.
Infinite possible reasons but perhaps we are an unnoticed and irrelevant side effect of a simulation looking for something else.

originally posted by: Specimen
Depends on what one considers what is an actual god.

That's very true, I consider god a creator that lives outside of time as we know it.
I'm running with that definition so that could very well be the flaw in my thinking.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: rickymouse
If we are living in a simulation, that means something created the simulation and the simulation was created for a reason. What is the reason, it is a test to assess our worthiness.

Why would you assume you're the reason for the simulation.
Couldn't we be part of a simulation to test star formation, black holes etc. etc.
Infinite possible reasons but perhaps we are an unnoticed and irrelevant side effect of a simulation looking for something else.

If we are part of a huge complex computer program, then why is this program even formed, what is the reason for it. Why assume your just a tiny part of it, to me being part of it means I need to do it correctly to the best of my knowledge. Whatever created the program would have to be so superior in intelligence to our reality at the time that we could not even comprehend how complex the program is. Even if it is a future man that is creating this program they would be a thousand fold more advanced than we are now, maybe we are just living in a history experiment if that is the case.

I would say that this collective consciousness controling this reality we live in could be called god. To me this is real, but then again how would I even know if this was real being that the fact I have always been in this reality. It is like a bunny living in a cage all it's life, it does not know how or can comprehend living in the wild if they have always been in cages for thousands of generations, they will be scared of the woods, yet curious to some extent.

I do not believe this reality I live in is the only option or is the whole picture.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Nothin
Perhaps mathematical certainties, and scientific proofs, are still not absolute truths?

Absolutely, my point here isn't that god exists.

Just that there will be a point where science turns its back on the atheists.
The "mathematical certainty" I speak of would be incorrect, provided we're in Reality #1.

Not sure, but don't think that 'science' cares about Atheism, either way.

We don't know anything about the future, so here we apparently are...

Do you believe in any flavour of certainties?

a reply to: Specimen
Definition for "prove" as given by google is:

1. demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

2. demonstrate to be the specified thing by evidence or argument.

To some people, the truth/reality/certainty/fact of God's existence has already been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. And some of those are aware that they came to that conclusion based on the evidence (the facts) discovered in the sciences (the various fields of science/knowledge), comparing them with the claims regarding a Creator in the Bible.

In the words of Sir Isaac Newton, who has been termed “the greatest scientific mind the world has ever seen”:

How came the bodies of animals to be contrived with so much art, and for what ends were their several parts?
Was the eye contrived without skill in Opticks, and the ear without knowledge of sounds?...and these things being rightly dispatch’d, does it not appear from phænomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent...?

Yes it does Mr. Newton, it sure does. Even more so today with the latest discoveries in cell biology:

Molecular Machinery of Life

Real science does not back up or has never backed up atheism or atheists as incorrectly claimed or assumed by some commenting in this thread as if that is or was ever the case. All the pretense in the world won't make it so:

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Perhaps mathematical certainties, and scientific proofs, are still not absolute truths?

1+1=2

You can take that to the bank, both literally and figuratively. As I'm sure you do whenever they make a mathematical error (the antonym of a truth/fact/certainty) that is not in your favor.

Contradictory use of language is too popular these days. And true- or false-questions in IQ-tests or questions with only 1 correct/true/factual/conclusive answer are also still valid in IQ-tests no matter how often people repeat the mantras and philosophies that:

Science will never prove that God exists...
[and]
Of course, proving that anything does not exist is not in the realm of science since the negative can never be proven.

Quoting pheonix358 earlier. 2 myths, especially the latter often promoted by atheists in distracting discussions with theists about the burden of proof. Which should not be the main issue in such discussions I feel, it's distracting from discussing the actual evidence that demonstrates the truth/reality/fact of God's existence, especially to people that are willing to use inductive reasoning or plain old common sense (even when it's rarer than that term implies*).

*: Common sense seems to be so lacking in today’s world that an observant man once noted, ‘Common sense, in truth, is very uncommon.’

Back to Newton:

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

“When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ...”

Such as the “established facts” or “certain Truths” that 1+1=2 or that natural forces on their own have never been observed to produce systems of machinery capable of feats such as replication, reproduction and proofreading, error-correction and self-maintenance, from individual atoms or molecules by chance (or a coincidental arrangement of atoms or molecules). To name but a few examples of the abilities of the systems of machinery that make up lifeforms.

We have observed another cause capable of producing systems of machinery though, primitive as they are in comparison.

Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? 1 of 2

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
As an atheist I really don't like saying this but I'm curious where the flaws in my thinking are.

The idea that we are living in a simulation seems to be perfectly accepted as a valid theory (or hypothesis for you nerds).
We are not there yet, but when we can make a simulation that is indistinguishable from reality we will make another.
Then another, then another...

If it's indistinguishable from reality then once the first one is created then the chances you are in reality is 50%, after the 2nd one is made it drops to 33.3%, after the 99th you're down to a 1% chance that you were not created by an interdimensional being that lives outside time.

Even if you're lucky enough to be in reality #1, there will be a point when you're a fool if you believed that to be the case.
Maybe not at 1%, what about 0.1%, or 0.00000001%.

Is it possible that we've been born into a world without a god and have the potential to make it a mathematical certainty?

The flaw in your thinking is you have not defined what 'God' is.

Is there a 'supreme being'? Is there a hierarchy of beings in the known Universe?

What is the point of 'proving' that there is a hierarchy? Personally, I'd be more interested in the number two top being, since it might be something we could understand.

Bear in mind what would happen if you met the Christian God. You would be overwhelmed, you would not be able to look away or think of anything else. Who wants that? Not me.

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

The second coming will probably occur first.

Science will never prove that God exists, they can only point to such ideas as intelligent design.

Of course, proving that anything does not exist is not in the realm of science since the negative can never be proven.

P

The null hypothesis says that by default, any two factors or phenomena are assumed to be unrelated until compelling evidence is introduced to suggest the contrary. Take vaccines and autism, for example. Studies show they are not correlated but good luck explaining that to strongly opinionated folks.