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.

 

Impossible for science to prove the existence of God

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   
I thought of this some time ago, but for not very long, mind you, so if it sounds unreasonable, then it just might be. But let's say for the sake of the point I'm going to try to make that there is indeed one sentient God who preceded everything, who created everything, and who is omnipotent and omniscient. Secondly, for added simplicity, let's also say that every human being in this hypothetical scenario is an atheist. To begin the scenario, humanity advanced to the point where scientists finally developed a singular theory that explained how everything was set in motion (e.g., String theory, Quantum Mechanics, etc.). You often hear and read about scientists discussing the idea of a unifying theory; a theory for all theories, if you will. So, they have this theory, with overwhelming evidence to support it, that explains exactly how the universe was set in motion, but unbeknown to them, they were merely describing God. Please bear with me. These scientists would have absolutely no way of knowing they were observing God (or an aspect of God) because it is not the nature of science to derive intention from what is. Let me put it this way: evolution seems to have an intention, but to say it did would imply sentience (or that it came from an intelligent source). However, talk to any scientist, and they would tell you that couldn't be further from the truth. Evolution just is. It just so happens to do what it does and what it does is, among other things, increase the chances of survival for species in their respective habitats. But to iterate, as far as science is concerned, evolution has no intent. Remember, science is primarily concerned with observing reality, finding out how it happened, how it works, and what will happen--not if there's an intelligence behind it. The only possible way the scientists in this hypothetical scenario could conclude that their unifying theory may actually be God is if He cooperated by unequivocally demonstrating His sentience. That would be all up to God though.

Now, what would some religious and some philosophers do with the knowledge of such a unifying theory? Well, they'd inject meaning into it of course. They may say they believe that the unifying theory is actually sentient! Or that the unifying theory is a grand tool of God! And then the atheists will # all over them and say they're making a leap of faith, without realizing that science has its limits, and that sometimes you're left with no choice but to leap.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by ChickenPie]




posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Maybe not scientifically but mathematically as is the Fibonacci_number



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   
M-theory (which is not proven) supports the premise of infinite configurations within an infinite spectrum of membranes.

Theoretically, the possibility of god; as well as a great many other things, is there. Unicorns, faeries, gods, reptilian space pirates with a penchant for glassing planets.

However, in contrast, it also supports the existence of universal states where these things are NOT at all present.



-----
You may be right to aver that science will not acknowledge sapience in the creation of universes; unless, you reduce the whimsical state of god to something that science can appreciate.


For instance, a civilization or technology that is advanced enough to aid in the assortment and keeping of a universe.


In this sense, science IS capable of acknowledging some sort of "god". It just depends on what your definition of "god" is. Certain definitions are too incorporeal to have any real basis other than that of willful submission and/or faith.
-----

[edit on 26-6-2010 by SentientBeyondDesign]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign

You may be right to aver that science will not acknowledge sapience in the creation of universes; unless, you reduce the whimsical state of god to something that science can appreciate.


For instance, a civilization or technology that is advanced enough to aid in the assortment and keeping of a universe.


Of course science would be able to acknowledge something like that... which is why I specifically defined God the way I did. When I say God, I mean it literally. God: all-knowing, all-powerful, sentient, eternal, and preceded everything. I'm not talking about the nutjob idea that we're an ET's science project. The instance that you gave is just a straw man that distracts from my point.

Thanks for the reply though.

My point being that science is not equipped for proving the existence of God. God would have to come down and take credit for what science has revealed. However, even then... it'd still take a degree of faith to believe in a being who claimed He created everything.

Btw, your avatar is freaking me out.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by ChickenPie]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ChickenPie
 


You sure science wouldn't just want to study God and try to establish that there is a perfectly rational explanation for it?

All-knowing, omniscient, omnipotent are well within reason if you give technology sufficient time to evolve.

Counting only this universe, you have billions upon billions of years to work with.

Assuming there is more to it than just this universe, there are theoretical arguments that support the case of timelessness.


My point is ... that God as described by religions, for the most part, is well within reason ... given the right technology.



-----
I believe that we have great potential in this regard. I say that I believe because I cannot yet say with certainty that this is true. But I have great hope and ambition.
-----

The only cases in which science would NOT be able to comprehend a "so-called" god, is cases in which the fundamental data is incorporeal and therefore bares little relevance.

It is much in the same way that science cannot aver that a "Metallic Grizzly Bear made of Ghost Money and Liquid Sparkles -- A being that can never be comprehended, seen, or understood by definition" is the sole commander and ruler of the Omniverse.


-----
If science comes across a "source" that can either prove it had a hand in our beginning, or be examined and show results that link to this "god" concept that so many take as apodictic truth; then science will acknowledge it as, "the thing that was understood to be god".

And then proceed to try to learn how it works and demystify it.
-----

[edit on 26-6-2010 by SentientBeyondDesign]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SentientBeyondDesign
 


Like I had written previously, if given enough time, science may be able to describe everything about God. But they'd never call it "God" in the sense that it is a sentient being who chose to create everything. Much like how scientists would never call evolution a "God," even though it is one of the fundamental reasons for how we got here. Eventually, I think science could find the first cause, but it'd never be acknowledged as sentient, UNLESS, it unequivocally demonstrated sentience. It'd be completely up to God to let us know that there is a mind behind what science has observed for hundreds of years. Otherwise, science would just classify the unifying theory as an "is," much like how evolution just is. Science would see what God did and what God is doing, but not know if it had any meaning behind it. To be more precise, it wouldn't be looking for any meaning behind it. Science is not about finding meaning or intention; it's about observing what is and finding out how things work.

Now, what would the religious and some philosophers do with such a unifying theory? Well, they'd inject meaning into it of course. They may say they BELIEVE that the unifying theory is actually sentient! And then the atheists will bitch them out and say they're making a leap of faith, without realizing that even science has its limits. That's just the nature of science though!

[edit on 26-6-2010 by ChickenPie]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Well. You could be right. I'll give you that.

Evolution has nothing to do with nature strengthening species.
Evolution is more like the lucky ones that manage to survive.

Strength could be useful. But it won't save an elephant from a hunter. Lots can happen where the best fit lion suddenly lost it to a mouse.

When all has been stable for a while and every niche is filled by highly specialized creatures.... BAM ! Disaster strikes.

When disaster strikes all those useful adaptations and handy talents are worthless. WTSHTF it is best to be tiny and omnivores.

Although evolution does show a lot of signs it have been kicked of by a creator.
The Fibonacci sequence is a good example of that.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

Evolution has nothing to do with nature strengthening species.
Evolution is more like the lucky ones that manage to survive.


The end result of the process of natural selection is that species have a greater chance of survival. And I'm not using the word "strengthen" as literally as you seem to think I am.


Although evolution does show a lot of signs it have been kicked of by a creator.
The Fibonacci sequence is a good example of that.


Exactly... it does. However, no evolutionary biologist would say evolution has a purpose, even if there is a strong indication that there is one. Science can only observe what's happening, explain how it's happening, and speculate what will probably happen.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ChickenPie
 


Not that what I'm about to say is going to matter much, since I'm sure you've heard it before but ... I believe your analysis is great.

I've basically become comfortable with this idea, seeing as I'm an existentialist.

I know that there is no true substantial meaning in any belief system, according to science, other than that which has been manifested by the mind. That isn't to say that these things aren't true ... but, you know the deal.


So, I maintain a set of beliefs and whatnot, based on ... you name it. Experiences, disposition, circumstances, whateva'.



-----
A "cute" way of putting the conclusion you've come to is that science establishes the boundaries or rules of the game. Whereas our human ingenuity, or creative engine, serves to take the canvas and fill it with emotion and direction.


The same as how we build and create things, things that by themselves had no particular affinity to one another, nothing other than ... existing, and interacting as the dynamics of their science allows.


And then we came long, and for some reason or another, we began to put this bipartisan elements together and made things happen.
-----

Unfortunately, not everything we come up with is positive for us ... But I think we're still in the process of getting things sorted out.


[edit on 26-6-2010 by SentientBeyondDesign]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

Evolution has nothing to do with nature strengthening species.
Evolution is more like the lucky ones that manage to survive.


The end result of the process of natural selection is that species have a greater chance of survival. And I'm not using the word "strengthen" as literally as you seem to think I am.


Although evolution does show a lot of signs it have been kicked of by a creator.
The Fibonacci sequence is a good example of that.


Exactly... it does. However, no evolutionary biologist would say evolution has a purpose, even if there is a strong indication that there is one. Science can only observe what's happening, explain how it's happening, and speculate what will probably happen.


The first part :
No I didn't think so. I did think you have the idea that evolution happens for a reason as if it has an ultimate goal.

My idea about evolution is that there is only one goal. Development without any influence outside of a pretty face, nifty talent and some luck.

With the most perfect design ever.
What can there better then a creation that can adapt and evolve by it self and maybe one day somewhere there are a few from that first creation that actually lucky enough to reach a point they can meet their creator.

[edit on 6/26/2010 by Sinter Klaas]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   
off course God exists

but what does God mean?

God could mean a computer scientist that created this universe in some super computer, it could be an event that created this universe with these laws, we could be part of some giant being or some giant system, well ... use your imagination

God doesnt mean an old man in the sky, looking to this planet ... thats just madness



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   
It may be impossible for science to prove the existence of God. But a theoretical physicist has now demonstrated that it is possible for mathematics to provide so much evidence that it amounts to proof, although not of the formal kind. Study his research articles and material here:
smphillips.8m.com...
Dr Phillips' new book "The mathematical connection between religion and science" is a challenge to read. But it provides so much hard, amazing evidence of transcendental design that it lays to rest the perennial question of the existence of God.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Faiol
 


That idea freaks me out too much!
Starred you though I like being freaked out. Great thread.

I think science will get itself to a brick wall soon enough in terms of the origins of the universe, and 'God' whatever your interpretation might be, will fill the void for most people. But the hardcore scientists will continue on there personal quest for the truth and fair play to them.

The beardy dude in the sky does not sit right with me, neither do the concepts of heaven and hell. I look around and all I see in this universe are examples of cycles, maybe something created all this, set it in motion, and then buggered off to create something else.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
No, science have already proven the existence of God. The problem is that we dont see the proof within the scientific knowledge we have gathered.

If you put the right pieces together you would understand to.

There is a lot of scientific knowledge out there, but finding and putting the right knowledge in its proper place, is our biggest problem. There is so much knowledge we dont know how or care to do the work to actually figure this out.

Infinity is a constant dimension. And infinity is also the first dimension,and its also the biggest dimension. Every finite exist within the infinite dimension. But the main thing to notice is that the infinite is a constant. A constant wont change, unless it wants to. The finite dimensions must change because they differ from the infinite dimension. We call this expansion. Now, if things are expanding now. They must have been compressed in the beginning. The only dimension that could of created a compressed finite existence is the constant. The infinite.

When Genesis chapter 1. verse 3. Talks about: Let there be light. That light must be a result of a compression of energy. This compression was initiated when Gods spirit moved upon the face of the waters. A massive compression of energy would create light.




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ChickenPie
 


Why are people still trying to prove the existance of God?

We are not equipped to understand the concept of God. Not you, not me or anybody else on this planet. Those who claim to "know" God are the delusional ones.

In order to understand the creator, once must first understad all of creation. Until we are at that point, which we clearly are not, then there is no point in contemplating God or his/her/it's wishes.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by ChickenPie
 


Why are people still trying to prove the existance of God?


~Keeper


Well if we give up, we will never understand it. And saying that nobody is even close to knowing, is stating that they them selves know more than others about God.


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Hi what a great post !!!

I've always thought the same thing about Bigfoot! it goes like this biologists find a ten foot tall hairy humanoid in Canada. They have him alive displayed in a zoo the whole thing, they call him Australopithecus Republicanus

and then a headline in a small local paper publishes Bigfoot sighting!,! what mystery ape is this!


science can actually find what it's looking for and not see it at all


having said that whether or not GOD exists depends on what YOU think God is,in other words what are you looking for?



disclaimer> MrsBlonde does not think a Bigfoot will ever be found but would jump up and down with joy if it happens



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join