Can God be defined scientifically?

Originally posted by badmedia

Why believe in god? Let me put it to you this way. Do you know what it is "to be"? I think therefore "I AM"?. Do you know and observe what it is to exist? As a conscious being - if there is no god, then you are god. The "observer" of creation. That which is not of this universe of action/reaction. You can not get randomness out of action/reaction - not even a computer can generate a truly random number.

Fine, then I am god. Why do I need to create someone bigger and smarter and more powerful and better than me that I can only attribute things too which I have yet to learn the truth aout?

What does it mean to be? To what and to whom are the images your eyes bring in presented to? What does it mean to "feel"? Sure, it's a way of telling you something is contacting you, but what is it to actually "feel"? To what is this reality being presented to? What are YOU?

You are getting rather exsistential here and you know that is philosophical, not scientific. Since when is the stufy of biology or physics about pondering the meaning of what it is for the things that are the way they are to understand how they became to be what they are.

Consciousness is eternal, can't be created or destroyed, it is that piece of god inside you and if you tap into that, you will find your connection to god. But you sure aren't going to find it in this external universe looking in Science that only knows action/reaction.

and here it is...the religious statement passing itself off as some fact. How do you know consciousness is eternal? What tests have been done to demonstrat that? How do you know it is a piece of god?

I believe in god because of experience. And the only way to explain it is not through science, but through philosophy.

because a philosopher can sit in front of you and successfully argue that they are not really there. What does that say about going that route to find a truth?

Originally posted by zamolxis
One problem with this kind of topics is that "God" doesn't necessarily have the same meaning for everyone.

I will take Zeus, Mumbaba, Lucifer, some random sun god, whatever.

Prove a god, any god.
Step right up.
Prove a god win a doll for the lady!

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by zamolxis
One problem with this kind of topics is that "God" doesn't necessarily have the same meaning for everyone.

I will take Zeus, Mumbaba, Lucifer, some random sun god, whatever.

Prove a god, any god.
Step right up.
Prove a god win a doll for the lady!

I don't believe anybody has ever claimed proof of God, much less in this thread. Of course nobody can prove God, your calling people out on a known stump of science.

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by zamolxis
One problem with this kind of topics is that "God" doesn't necessarily have the same meaning for everyone.

I will take Zeus, Mumbaba, Lucifer, some random sun god, whatever.

Prove a god, any god.
Step right up.
Prove a god win a doll for the lady!

That's not what I meant! "Zeus, Mumbaba, Lucifer" are again just "lables" - what exactly is the one concept behind all these labels ... Can you fully define that, so that it leaves nothing out and satisfies all?!

[edit on 13-12-2008 by zamolxis]

Originally posted by blowfishdl
I don't believe anybody has ever claimed proof of God, much less in this thread. Of course nobody can prove God, your calling people out on a known stump of science.

You will be the first person to go on my ignore list if you do not start reading the stuff you respond to.

Where did I say someone claimed to have proof of god, please quote me.

I asked in the OP if anyone thought it was possible to scientifically prove a god. It was an open question, NOT a supposition. Feel free to not read it if you do not like it. I am a little sick of wasting posts re-explaining he previous post to you.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


To answer your OP pretty bluntly... You can define god scientifically... IF you accept a pantheistic or Deist approach...

I've brought this point up before: Given the chance to define the word "god" however one might want to define it... it IS possible for an Atheist to state "I believe in god" without this being contradictory in nature...

However the problem comes into play when the stalwart believers refuse to allow any definition of the word but their own...

edit: Just saw your post above mine... Don't get discouraged mate! lol any time you bring up a subject such as this, people will interject their own definitions and jump to the wrong conclusions... Don't let the trolls win! Stick to your guns... just keep a copy/paste of your original intent handy





[edit on 13-12-2008 by nj2day]

Technically, yes. God can be defined 'scientifically.'

It's just the inherrant contradictions in Maths and Science ensure that His (Her) gravity around points of specificity. Linguistically, Ecomunically, God contradicts Him(Her)self. Divinity, Lucidity, Dominically, Please.......

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
There is more Scientific proof for GOD than Evolution, that is a fact.

Nope, that is a fiction.
There is more scientific proof for evolution than God. That is a fact.

reply to post by nj2day


It's as I've said before - God is in the eyes of the beholder.

I made a post awhile back on the "Evidence in Scripture disproving god once and for all" thread which couldn't be more relevant to this God V Science thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

God- logical fallacy

We don’t know some things – it’s a god. Well I mean that’s sort of veneer intellectual respectability that’s cloaked around religion, that’s based on the idea that you fall for a logical fallacy and here’s why:

If you have a god, there’s two things, it’s epistemological and it’s metaphysical. Metaphysics is studying not physical matter but the nature of reality and the nature of how that matter integrates into stuff like that….

So metaphysics would state that it’s something supernatural, like if you say there is a god, you have to define that god, because I could say – I got a shmee, oh believe in shmee and most atheists make the mistake and say ok prove shmee and they say well it rained last week of course there is a shmee. Well that’s utter nonsense because you haven’t defined what a Shmee is……

So first you have to start proving that a god exists, which requires you know what a god is….So, it’s a supernatural being and that falls under epistemology where you go and supernatural being are anything that isn’t governed by natural laws – and the natural laws are causality.

Like when you go to sit in your Cadillac it doesn’t melt around you and sprout tentacles and grab you – This would be very supernatural seeming thing and if it had no cause it would be supernatural and you wouldn’t be in the universe, like we wouldn’t exist in the universe that we do. Because there are consistently, there are reasons in sciences that things are knowable.

Epistemology would be like well what is knowable and so god is unknowable, so how would one know if you bumped into a god – if you came across it how would you know? – like if it was totally unknowable where would you get the evidence that it existed? – You can’t, you just backed yourself into a logical corner….

It’s believed god can’t be described by these things, to some degree this god is unknowable, its nature is unknowable and beyond mankind – that’s shared by theists everywhere, that is the one common binding factor is that it’s supernatural that it isn’t like a space alien that created the universe or what ever. What theists are really arguing for is something supernatural.

There’s a logical fallacy in something supernatural because of it’s supernatural it can not be described and if it’s described it’s got natural properties, there’s a cause of relationships there you can understand, that your mind can process – it’s in your brain, so obviously it has properties. It’s got physical properties because it’s manifesting itself in a physical world where you are perceiving it - not supernatural

So if it was supernatural you’d never know it was there, there’d be no way for you to know, it wouldn’t impact you because if was impacting you it would be following physical laws and physical rules and it would be natural and it wouldn’t be a god.

- that’s why I know god doesn’t exist…………

Why don’t you try and break a logical fallacy, that a supernatural being can affect our universe which is causal…it can’t because if it can its causal, it’s natural, anything that is. It’s like saying nonexistence, it doesn’t make sense.


[edit on 13-12-2008 by andre18]

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Fine, then I am god. Why do I need to create someone bigger and smarter and more powerful and better than me that I can only attribute things too which I have yet to learn the truth aout?

Only if you are foolish enough to assume you are the only consciousness would you think of yourself as "god", and as you have no conscious memory of creating this universe or the people in it, then obviously there is something bigger, smarter and more powerful and better than you behind it, even if just a deeper part of yourself.

You are getting rather exsistential here and you know that is philosophical, not scientific. Since when is the stufy of biology or physics about pondering the meaning of what it is for the things that are the way they are to understand how they became to be what they are.

Which is why Science is ill suited to handle the question. I showed you why it can't handle the job you ask it to, and then I show you what does the best job of doing so. If you want to pigeon hole yourself into a scientific dogma, go right ahead, you're only boxing yourself into it.

and here it is...the religious statement passing itself off as some fact. How do you know consciousness is eternal? What tests have been done to demonstrat that? How do you know it is a piece of god?

I am a programmer, I design systems and things for a living. I make my living off of logic. It's something that is called Critical Reasoning, and is older than the bible or science. What you are asking for is external proof in the universe for something that the external universe can not provide. It's like asking me to have a computer generate a random number for you, when a computer can not do it.

Maybe if you had actually tried to answer the questions for yourself you wouldn't be asking me for proof.

because a philosopher can sit in front of you and successfully argue that they are not really there. What does that say about going that route to find a truth?

Ironically, you try to argue that anything not in your perception is not really there.

Everything is a matter of perception. You can either try to expand your perception by looking at other peoples perception. Or you can just keep on the arrogant attitude that anything not included in your perception isn't real. Your choice - which ironically goes against science, as choice is not a factor in a universe of action/reaction.

reply to post by badmedia


You attack those who refuse to believe that which can not be proven...

Why does asking for evidence make one an enemy?

Do you believe in unicorns?

Originally posted by redled
Technically, yes. God can be defined 'scientifically.'

It's just the inherrant contradictions in Maths and Science ensure that His (Her) gravity around points of specificity. Linguistically, Ecomunically, God contradicts Him(Her)self. Divinity, Lucidity, Dominically, Please.......

Care to expand on that?
Not being a jerk, I am genuinely curious what you mean.

reply to post by andre18


Thanks for all that. I had read that other thread some. The title certainly brought me there. I might be able to kill everything you said though if I could take you back in time to the Cadillac I inherited when I turned 16.

Originally posted by badmedia
Only if you are foolish enough to assume you are the only consciousness would you think of yourself as "god", and as you have no conscious memory of creating this universe or the people in it, then obviously there is something bigger, smarter and more powerful and better than you behind it, even if just a deeper part of yourself.

Um what? Even if it is a deeper part of me? Wouldn't that make my arrogance correct? Anyway, all you did was repeat that you need something bigger to explain what you do not know. I guess I just do not need explanations as badly.

Which is why Science is ill suited to handle the question. I showed you why it can't handle the job you ask it to, and then I show you what does the best job of doing so. If you want to pigeon hole yourself into a scientific dogma, go right ahead, you're only boxing yourself into it.

Right, that would be the point of having a specific thread about a particular topic.

I am a programmer, I design systems and things for a living. I make my living off of logic. It's something that is called Critical Reasoning, and is older than the bible or science. What you are asking for is external proof in the universe for something that the external universe can not provide. It's like asking me to have a computer generate a random number for you, when a computer can not do it.

Thanks for the resume. I guess I better put mine up in my profile since everyone is offering theirs to me as if they matter. Anyway, as usual, that is a whole bunch of words that get to "i dunno" very slowly.

Maybe if you had actually tried to answer the questions for yourself you wouldn't be asking me for proof.

I did not really ask you to begin with but whatever, who says I have not looked? Maybe I just need your guidance. You are not being very good about it.

Ironically, you try to argue that anything not in your perception is not really there.

When did I ever argue that? Please quote me.

Everything is a matter of perception. You can either try to expand your perception by looking at other peoples perception. Or you can just keep on the arrogant attitude that anything not included in your perception isn't real. Your choice - which ironically goes against science, as choice is not a factor in a universe of action/reaction.

I am plenty ooen to other people's perceptions. It is just when they are rude, obnoxious punks, I am not as receptive I suppose.

Originally posted by nj2day
You attack those who refuse to believe that which can not be proven...

Why does asking for evidence make one an enemy?

Do you believe in unicorns?

It can be proven, it just can't be proven to you by another person because the answers can't be found in the external universe, the evidence is internally within yourself, not externally. It's like trying to prove love exists, you can't prove love actually exists because it is internal, you can point to signs of love and so on, but you can't actually prove it because it is internal, not external. Of course, for those who have experienced being in love, they don't go around asking for proof do they? So only from experience can it be proven to you.

Why is it that anyone who believes in god is attacked as being ignorant? How about I start highlighting all the ignorant people in the world that don't believe in god? Would you think it was a fair assessment of you?

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Um what? Even if it is a deeper part of me? Wouldn't that make my arrogance correct? Anyway, all you did was repeat that you need something bigger to explain what you do not know. I guess I just do not need explanations as badly.

As you haven't the faintest clue as to what you are, you also have no clue what would be the deeper you.

I have no interest in arguing with an ostrich.

Originally posted by badmedia

It can be proven, it just can't be proven to you by another person because the answers can't be found in the external ............... blah blah blah blah

= NO

Originally posted by badmedia
As you haven't the faintest clue as to what you are, you also have no clue what would be the deeper you.

I have no interest in arguing with an ostrich.

Terribly sorry that I pulled you at gunpoint into my thread where I forced you to engage with me. Here, I will untie the ropes now and you can feel free to wander off if you like.

Originally posted by badmedia
It can be proven, it just can't be proven to you by another person because the answers can't be found in the external universe, the evidence is internally within yourself, not externally.

Individuals who suffer from mental problems have internal evidence that they are speaking to voices... does this make those voices real?

I can't prove to you that I have a dragon in my garage... but he speaks to me personally in my mind... does this make me delusional? or does this make your disbelief in invisible dragons incorrect?

It's like trying to prove love exists, you can't prove love actually exists because it is internal, you can point to signs of love and so on, but you can't actually prove it because it is internal, not external. Of course, for those who have experienced being in love, they don't go around asking for proof do they? So only from experience can it be proven to you.

The fields of psychology have come a long way... and can actually prove that humans feel the emotion of love. However, you're taking an abstract thought such as an emotion, and attempting to use that on a non-abstract such as god... Unless you are saying your god is abstract, which would mean, not real.

Or perhaps you're saying that god is an emotion... which would make him powerless to change anything but the person who's feeling the emotion...

This argument doesn't hold water.

Why is it that anyone who believes in god is attacked as being ignorant? How about I start highlighting all the ignorant people in the world that don't believe in god? Would you think it was a fair assessment of you?

Believers aren't attacked as ignorant for believing... they're hailed as ignorant because of the denial of facts... and the asinine arguments they use to try and prove their point.

Would you consider someone who believed in unicorns, dragons or invisible pink elephants to be ignorant?

How about if they argued with you about the existence of such things every time they talked to you...