It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can Modern Science Prove The Existence Of God?

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


Now to say that hypothesis and speculation are unscientific is laughable. Without it we would still live in the stone age. You have to look beyond in order to have a better understanding of how to get there. There are numerous unproven hypothesis used in science, everything from the formation of energy and mater before the big bang, to the interactions of proteins and phospholipids within cell walls are still highly speculative yet still excepted by scientist until disproven or better understood.

Most things people consider to be “scientific fact” are merely logical explanations of the natural world. Many will be disproven or rewritten in my lifetime. The “Fact” of the matter is that nothing can truly be “proven” or “Disproven”, all things observed by man are speculative by our understandings of the natural world and our ability to perceive it.

Now I have several times said throughout my proposal (and this whole thread) that this is only (what I perceive to be) the most logical and reasonable explanation, but that I cannot prove any of it, which is another way of saying “I Don’t Know, but here is what I have deduced through my reasoning and observation."

I have used the term “Prove” several times but intended it in the socially understood way, not the analytical/literal way of using it. So I can understand the confusion. I am quickly learning from many people that I cannot use social dialect along with scientific discussion without causing confusion. I suppose it may confuse me as well, and I will try to be more careful in the future.

Lastly; I understand the complexities of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution very well, and even though Chemistry and mathematics are not my strong points, I understand enough to equate them to biology, and biological functions, (Atomic Bonds, Composition of biological molecules etc.) and genetics/inheritance is one of my strong points so I can’t understand how you can to that conclusion.


[edit on 20-7-2009 by NRA4ever333]




posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NRA4ever333
 



Now to say that hypothesis and speculation are unscientific is laughable.


Correct... but hypothesis and speculation are not proof either.


There are numerous unproven hypothesis used in science, everything from the formation of energy and mater before the big bang, to the interactions of proteins and phospholipids within cell walls are still highly speculative yet still excepted by scientist until disproven or better understood.


This is because Science deals with mechanisms.

Our understanding of science is based upon observation... and in this, some sciences are nearly impossible to directly observe.

For example, the conditions during the big bang are "Educated" speculations, mainly because we don't have any time machines lying around.

Science, in lue of Proof, uses its best educated guess to model reality.

This does not mean that it is simply a guess... it means that it is an actual Theory that has (Through lack of observation, or impossibility to test) has not borne the weight of the peer review process.

The theory still has to bear the weight of testability...

I.E. it still has to have made some predictions, and still must (Through its hypothesized mechanism) reliably explain the process that it describes.

You are correct, that we do not *KNOW* the conditions in the big bang.... but the theories that we have, are the BEST explinations that we currently posess.

If we happen to find another theory that explains observable reality better than our current theory, then the current theory will be discarded, or modified to bring it into line with the new, *Better* understanding of reality.


Most things people consider to be “scientific fact” are merely logical explanations of the natural world. Many will be disproven or rewritten in my lifetime. The “Fact” of the matter is that nothing can truly be “proven” or “Disproven”, all things observed by man are speculative by our understandings of the natural world and our ability to perceive it.


Yes, you are correct, but basing your understanding of the universe on a reality that has no observable mechanism, no proof, and no logical reason to be presumed true... is, for all intents and purposes... Completely useless.

We COULD be liing inside a computer program...

But debating whether we are or not, or trying to explain the unierse in terms of Uniersal Memory Buffers, Deific CPU's, etc, etc, etc... does not actually explain anything, makes no predictions, does not expand our knowledge, and gies us no additional capabilities.

The purpose of Science, is to advance knowledge.

The purpose of expanding knowledge, is to increase our capabilities.

Thusly, science is "Trapped" within the parts of reality that we are capable of observing.

This is all science can ever explain, and science makes no concession about things that we cannot obsere.... it effectively ignores them.


I have used the term “Prove” several times but intended it in the socially understood way, not the analytical/literal way of using it. So I can understand the confusion. I am quickly learning from many people that I cannot use social dialect along with scientific discussion without causing confusion. I suppose it may confuse me as well, and I will try to be more careful in the future.


Yeah... that'll happen...



Lastly; I understand the complexities of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution very well, and even though Chemistry and mathematics are not my strong points, I understand enough to equate them to biology, and biological functions, (Atomic Bonds, Composition of biological molecules etc.) and genetics/inheritance is one of my strong points so I can’t understand how you can to that conclusion.


I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.... what conclusion of mine are you referring to?

-Edrick



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


(Sorry for how long this is)

I think we are at last beginning to understand one another, but we just need some fine tuning. We will probably never agree, but if curious minds where one directional we would not have made it very far. So I do respect you own sovereign opinion, and everyone else’s. I just thought I would try and explain it from a different view point.

Like you mentioned any intelligence behind creation cannot be (at our current level of understanding) directly observed, or measured. We cannot be sure of any conclusion based on our observations, but we can stand by one idea or the other as most probable based on the given information. (At least until a better hypothesis is formulated or more information becomes available.)

The two hypotheses before me are this (I will use the If/Then hypothesis format for simplicity):

1. If the universe was created by a random act of chance, then the current state of the universe is a probable or possible outcome.
2. If the universe was designed by intelligence, then the current state of the universe is a probable or possible outcome.

In order to make a choice about which hypothesis is most likely to be “true” we have to look at their potential effects on the variables.

It would seem to be impossible to measure such a beings influence verses randomness, we can however, observe potential interactions with the universe and such being(s) verses randomness. While this is not “undeniable truth” it can be used as evidence when considering which hypothesis to choose as most probable.

(I will just give a quick example of both)

First we can measure the predictability/unpredictability of randomness with an experiment commonly used for genetics. Take two pennies, label them #1 and #2 or just flip them separately to keep track. Next flip both pennies 32 times as a pair. Record/tally each penny and how it landed. Then find the ratio for both as heads: heads and tails: and both tails. The mean ratio is 8:16:8 or 1:2:1. Do this as many times as you feel it necessary, you will find that randomness is fairly predictable and that unpredictability through randomness is uncommon.

Now even if you do not agree with me I am sure you can see how I find it unlikely for randomness to be the driving force in the universe. The sheer number of insurmountable odds that had to be overcome for our present existents, I believe, lends evidence towards the idea of an intelligent designer.

Next let’s examine the “Flynn Effect” combined with what we know of genetics. The I.Q. mean is increasing linearly throughout the world, yet the number of people with alleles for above average I.Q.s does not match this growth. Nor do the areas of growth match the likely explanations. As this goes against our current understandings of genetics and evolution there must be an unseen variable in the equation. I find it a perfectly acceptable possibility (but not the only possibility) that some unseen force is guiding our evolution, and see this as potential evidence toward intelligently orchestrated/designed evolution.

Looking at the mechanisms, rates, values, and variations of the universe from beginning to present (as best as can be understood presently)we come to the conclusion most logical to us as the most likely hypothesis by our own viewpoint, or simply, we pick the one that makes the most sense to us.

Some people will pick #1, believing that the probability of a higher intelligent being is more improbable than random chance.

Others (like myself) will pick #2, believing that the probability of our current outcome is too unlikely to be chance and randomness, so must be the product of design.

Still others, (after researching the data for the above hypotheses) will think neither is appropriate and will formulate new hypotheses based on the recovered information.

There is no way to prove which hypothesis is better, and their probably never will be. But my purpose here is to show that even while using the scientific method, and reviewing all we now understand through science about the universe to date, there is still room (and reason) based on data, to believe in a creator of some kind.

Of course any way of viewing that being(s) such as through Christianity, Buddhism, and Agnosticism etc. is pure faith. It is in this that I agree with you; given the currently available information no religion deity or related spiritual views can be proven or even rationalized by scientific means.



[edit on 21-7-2009 by NRA4ever333]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I enjoyed your case for ID, Im glad there are some people who are still able to post a well thought out thread. Id say im in the ID camp also.

Im a multiverse believer. I also believe in infinite dimensions containing every possible outcome of everything down to the quantum level. When we choose or "react" to the world we live in we alter reality. Therefore we create our own reality. In addition, The multiverse itself creates inifinite unverses which inevitable gives birth to the one that we are in right now. So you see these two theory compliment one another its preety and orderly like we all love to see.

Now for human evolution, thats just how the cookie crumbled in our universe. We are not special, there are infinite universes with people like us.

As for the origin of the multiverse, the multiverse is eather is a simulator created by ID or the multiverse is god in itself, creating and consuming universes infinitely as it is.

I dont think we could definitively prove the existance of an ID because we are only able to infer what occurs around us. (unless you believe that psychedelics are a piece of the puzzle) We can only speculate and become bogged down in a "turtle all the way down" scenario.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
You know, you bring up Charles Darwin. What a lot of people don't realize about him is that he doubted his own theory!! He wasn't certain that he was correct in his assertions. Yet, everyone assumes that he was just so certain he was right.

I personally view evolution as the natural mechanism the creative force used to create life. So, I really have no conflict with the theory of evolution. Never have. I don't even understand the debate between creationists and evolutionists.

In regards to science, yeah, you're right. It has never been the goal of science to disprove the existence of a creative force in the universe. As a matter of fact, if you look at physics, they have really tried to do the opposite.

Yet, everyone, especially in the religious community, runs around in a frenzy bantering about how science is "anti-God." Honestly, they couldn't be further from the truth. Good post.




top topics
 
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join