Science is UNPROVABLE but God is TRUTH

originally posted by: MykeNukem

a reply to: neoholographic
I make these scientific or metaphysical arguments but at the end of the day it comes down to belief and faith that Jesus died for your sins and the sins of the world. This isn't a head issue but a heart issue.

This is what it boils down to.

Though, I base my faith on evidence, that evidence is personal.

Heb 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I agree! This is what it boils down to!

So again, atheist are asking you to prove the existence of God but they put their faith in science that's unprovable.

God doesn't have any objective evidence. Science does. And while many things in science aren't 100% provable, that doesn't mean such things have no evidence to support a theory.

Ideas of God are purely subjective, while ideas of science are focused on objective evidence. Sure, science is always changing and being disproved. But what else is there ?

There are a million Gods and holy doctrines out there. Which one is correct and the truth? There is no way to determine that.

They are two differn't things. Faith and science.

originally posted by: Romeopsi
a reply to: neoholographic

This is interesting because I recently watched some videos about metaphysics and possible worlds. It will be interesting to see if anyone can come up with a possible world where transcendent truth isn’t necessary.

They can't come up with a possible world where transcendent truth isn't necessary. That's obvious to see by the responses. Transcendence is already well known. We have transcendental numbers vs. algebraic numbers where transcendental numbers are more fundamental to the universe and seem to be buit into the universe like Pi and algebraic numbers would be a shadow of transcendental numbers that allows us to discover contingent truths about the universe. Here's a good lecture on this topic:



So like I said, Transcendent Truth is necessary in all possible worlds. You can have a possible world of all truth but you can't have a possible world that's all false because of basic truths like 2+2=4 but even if you had this hypothetical all false world it would be TRUE that this world is all false so you can't escape Transcendent Truth in all possible worlds.

Start at 4:04 and Roger Penrose is talking about Godel's Theorem and talks about how our understanding of a mathematical proof transcends the proof itself and it's this transcendent understanding that knows it's true.



Let's look at E=MC2.

What Godel's theorem says is this is true but unprovable. This means the truth of the equation transcends the equation and can be known by our understanding which comes from Transcendent Truth. So we can say, if this means mass can be converted to energy and if you convert a small amount of mass to energy it will create an explosion of energy. If you do this many times, you will have a chain reaction and a huge explosion and if you put that into a bomb you would have a dangerous weapon.

So the truth of E=MC2 is unprovable in the equation because the tuth transcends the equation. Also, it's a contingent truth. In another possible world it could be E=MC4 and the speed of light has a different value. When Adam was given the breath of life, he was given understanding and then he named the animals. This is knowledge that transcends the physical. That's why the Bible talks about the knowledge of good and evil.

Like I said, this is a heart issue and not a head issue:

Philippians 4:4 Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! 5 Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. 6 Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. 7 And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

a reply to: noonebutme

There is zero evidence to that statement. And if God gave us that ability, why is is so flawed, so small, so under developed?

Evidence?
Where did this:

Very true, using the scientific method devised over hundreds of years of critical thinking and logical thought.

Come from?
Why?
Could it be from our want, our NEED to create?

A tool to try to understand the physical world around us, the observable.

As I said, to understand how God made everything. To do so, we must observe.
We have a want, a need to understand. This drives our creativity. It leads to all the wonderful inventions we see all around us.
You don't have to believe in God, you still are made in His image. You still have that need or want to create. It is what separates us from all other animals.
We have the ability to create the most beautiful things or the most evil.

However, with science, we can evaluate the world around us. Seems weird your made up God would create a tool which cannot prove he exists.

That all boils down to your perception.
You can not understand unless you want to.
The old saying "you can't see the forest for the trees" comes to mind.

Insecure as it is, atheism simply is a baseless opportunist stealing the milk of a dead cow never born.

originally posted by: BetweenTheDitches
It's called epistemology. For the same reason we cannot prove God exists the atheist cannot claim that He doesn't. It comes down to metaphysics.
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

If we can conceive of a maximally great being then by definition He must exist in all possible worlds. We live in a possible world.

Because an infinite regress (actual infinite) would result in this universe having already ceased to exist we can know that there is an uncaused first cause.

What the OP is going for is the Moral Argument.

1. If absolute moral values and duties exist, there must be a moral law giver.
2. Absolute moral values and duties exist.
3. Therefore a moral law giver exisits.

Shrodinger's supreme cosmic arbiter, both absolutely in control of the karmic economy and the fabric of reality and yet utterly nonexistent until someone collapses the colloquial wave function by opening the box and exposing him to sunlight. I love epistemology. It's all just witches and ducks, to borrow from Monty Python.

Science is the method by which we observe and test reality. It expands our understanding of reality. No scientist will waste their professional time arguing whether God exists or the Bible is true*. Those are questions of Philosophy, Theology and History. Not science.

I think you should have purchased and consulted a dictionary before writing this.

*They might in their free time address some of the proposed "scientific facts" the bible lays out and are often peddled by creationists who tend to hold political ambitions. A simple task since near everything the book says about the nature of reality is demonstrably false. Which doesn't lend much credence to it's overall credibility.

originally posted by: BetweenTheDitches
It's called epistemology. For the same reason we cannot prove God exists the atheist cannot claim that He doesn't. It comes down to metaphysics.
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

If we can conceive of a maximally great being then by definition He must exist in all possible worlds. We live in a possible world.

Because an infinite regress (actual infinite) would result in this universe having already ceased to exist we can know that there is an uncaused first cause.

What the OP is going for is the Moral Argument.

1. If absolute moral values and duties exist, there must be a moral law giver.
2. Absolute moral values and duties exist.
3. Therefore a moral law giver exisits.

I actually take issue with both those assertions because they claim a certain cause as absolute.

God certainly resolves the infinite regress paradox (unless you demand god have a cause), but so does a scaler field. What says there isn't a primordial state of potential energy locked up in cosmic superfluidity?

Weirdly enough, spontaneity may not violate laws afterall...

Since they are created spontaneously without a source of energy, vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles are said to violate the conservation of energy. This is theoretically allowable because the particles annihilate each other within a time limit determined by the uncertainty principle so they are not directly observable.

The zero point field underlying reality may not even need a causal agent. Which also resolves the infinite regress paradox. It may be acausal.

This universe doesn't speak to the multiverse. It assumes a single universe is all there is. Perhaps there are an infinite number superpositional variations to consider.

In string theory "every variation of laws of physics" and "all possible initial conditions" are like length, width, and time in the manifold.

I can narrow down my superpositional multidimensional location as follows:

• X, Y, Z axis +Timestamp
• In the universe with this specific universal history
• In a plane of all realities with the same initial conditions
• In a plane of all realities with all possible initial conditions
• In a plane of all realities with all possible universal histories from all possible initial conditions
• In a plane of all realities with all possible universal histories from all possible initial conditions and all possible laws of physics.
• In a plane of everything you can think where all is covered.

And then attached to a membrane if your theory of everything goes up to 11. Or sometimes 26.

Point is, 'logically' god is covered, per string/m theory. God's omnipotence to do anything and create specific universes resides in 10 dimensions, before you refine the cosmic position.

It's understood why people may just say, "Okay, so god still sounds better to me."

It's just not the only possible alpha as it were.

The absolute morality one may just as easily be explained by pragmatic instinctual evolved survival mechanisms. Not much more needed to say.

Both exclude other possibilities. They are fallacies.

a reply to: neoholographic

Thanks and I didn’t know about transcendental numbers so I’m going to check out that video. Your E=MC2 example also answered some questions I had.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Evidence? Where did this: (snip, my quote) Come from? Why? Could it be from our want, our NEED to create?

Absolutely it came from our need to create. And where did that come from? You claim it came from God but you have no evidence to show that. Whereas, we can see human history and how we evolved and how our behaviour is mimicked in other animal societies. Our need to survive, look out for each other, progress — if we didnt do that as a species we’d be extinct. It has nothing to do with God, and all to do with our evolutionary history.

As I said, to understand how God made everything.

That’s your prerogative to believe in the absence of evidence. I don’t believe God made everything or anything as I have not seen any evidence for a being as you claim. I have to the contrary.

You don't have to believe in God, you still are made in His image. You still have that need or want to create. It is what separates us from all other animals.

Yet plenty of animals build and create: a-z-animals.com...

So how does that stack up to your ‘us and them’ stance?

That all boils down to your perception. You can not understand unless you want to.

Very true. I guess I just prefer to perceive what’s real versus what is fantasy and made up, like human religion and Gods.

a reply to: neoholographic

Let me shorten what you are trying to say: Math cannot define things for what they are. Math is simply an expression of a THING moving through a plane (vectorization) in an specific a period of time. But Math will never be able to define what the THING is. In other words, Math will tell you how to arrive to X, but will never tell you what X is.

E=MC2 is a perfect example of this, because even though they have this equation, they still haven't been able to define what Energy, Mass and the "Speed of light" actually are or come from... and math will NEVER answer that.

Don't worry, all honest mathematicians and physicists know this, that's why they'll never even dare to question the existence of God. Atheism or agnosticism (as all the other branches of nihilism, just like the western view of Buddhism) are NOT honest positions. Worry not for the dishonest clowns, truth will always prevail.

a reply to: ltrz2025

I think you'll find that the majority of scientists and mathematicians are either atheists or agnostics. Those that aren't and who speak about it typically say they have to compartmentalise their spiritual belief from their work. Which is fine and dandy.

God is an intellectual dead end in science. When one asks the question "Why is X?" and is given the answer "God did it" this does not expand our understanding of reality at all.

"I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer in science of course. Since this leaves open the possibility whatever it is may be better understood in the future when knowledge & technology allow us to do so.

a reply to: Ohanka

What you "think" the "majority" of an specific "group of people" around the world "think" or "say", is not really something I can address, it's your personal subjectivity and have nothing to say about that.

From a metaphysical point of view, God is an intellectual dead end in general, not just in science. Our puny little human minds (which are most of the time focused on completely stupid things) cannot define nor understand something as absolute as the origin of the universe. It's like asking an ant to explain the engineering process which built the pyramids of Egypt.

Then, when it comes to "science", first you are making the mistake of putting everything in the same bag. Second, "science" is a method, a tool, and there are numerous and very different disciplines that utilizes "it". Expecting that "science" can give us an answer about God is literally like expecting that a sledgehammer will one day tell us if the Universe is finite or infinite. This is why such a position it's not a honest position.

Then, in the case that you are talking about the particular discipline of Physics, again, today it's basically math (that's why nothing makes sense). And, as explained before, math doesn't DEFINE anything, it simply expresses a vectorization across a period. Math is like watching a film with no end credits. You can watch it all you want, but you'll never know who was the director, the production studio, the editors, the movie set staff, which techniques and equipment they've used, etc. This is why is also a DISHONEST position to try to understand who all these people "behind the scenes" are, by just watching the movie with no credits. It's dishonest to expect math to give us an answer about God, just as like expecting truth from a sledgehammer.

I think I have explained this quite shortly and simple, and twice, so I won't explain it again. I know that today we live in times where most of the people are super materialistic, worship this thing they call "science" (although not many seem to know what that means), and have absolutely no idea of metaphysics. I know that for many it's VERY difficult to understand what I'm saying, even if I put it in layman's terms. Those who have ears, let them hear...

a reply to: Ohanka

When no God, then what?

DNA? But wherefrom?
Earth? But wherefrom?
The universe? But wherefrom?

Science is the observation of that which is there, but wherefrom is it!?

If not "God", then what source?

When no source, then nothing.

Don't look for the source in the past, the source must be omnipresent eternaly so accessible at any time thus also the very present. The present has its source not in the past cause the past is gone.

The source is the source of the present time so where is it found!

a reply to: Untun



God is the Absolute Present, theAbsolute Now. Materialistic minds looking at a clock (math) will never understand this. It's a realm that you can approach with the mind (metaphysics), but can only access with the heart. The spiritual masters of India and ancient Egypt arrived to the same conclusion after thousands of years of study and reflection.

DNA? But wherefrom?

Evolution & Abiogenesis

Earth? But wherefrom?

Gravity & stellar gas formations

The universe? But wherefrom?

Big bang

If not "God", then what source?

Don't currently know.

Don't look for the source in the past, the source must be omnipresent eternaly so accessible at any time thus also the very present. The present has its source not in the past cause the past is gone.

The source is the source of the present time so where is it found!

Prove it.

a reply to: ltrz2025

This is just complicated sophistry to say "God did it".

Science doesn't try to answer if God does or does not exist. It's not a scientific question. Nor a mathematic one for that matter.

You are just using God to fill the gaps in human knowledge. That sort of thinking is what led to the dark ages & is inherently one of stagnation.

a reply to: Ohanka

But wherefrom?

a reply to: neoholographic

So science is unprovable and incomplete.

So the next time you're debating an atheist or materialist that's asking you to prove God exists and they're trying to use their lack of understanding of science to support their arguments, let them know it's them that believe in what's unprovable.

I find it unlikely an atheist or materialist would be asking for proof of God but rather asking why you have blind faith in a God.

I also think science that can be repeated with the same outcome is then an observational truth - that we can all agree is a reality. Whereas blind faith in a God without proof is just that blind faith and should require no proof because proof can never be had unless one is open to the spiritual experience. Some truths are only believed through personal experience. Theoretical science is just that theory and it is a journey and challenge of the intellect to seek that which we do not know.

a reply to: Untun

The collapse of the Precursors' Birch World that took out the previous universe due to a failure of the Novae Reclaiment bridge that sustained it. The supermassive black hole at the heart of the Birch World was converted to a white hole. The new supermassive white hole expelled such a vast amount of matter that it caused gravity to pull in the previous universe akin to a "big crunch". This created a hypermassive black hole which through omni-directional quantum bending consumed the supermassive white hole. Eventually the singularity caused by this event triggered the big bang that is why our universe exists today.

Yes I just made all of that up. Scientifically it is as valid as "God did it".

The actual and honest answer is "I don't know". And neither does anyone else. They have theories & hypotheses.