The Real Scientific proof of GOD

Originally posted by Thill
Nice post with interesting conclusion , but I have to disagree with conclusion 4. The universe is not all knowing , it only contains all the information , but in order for it to be all knowing it would have to be conscious, self aware and intelligent , which it is not . It is like saying that the computer chassis that holds all the components of your PC is super smart , because it has access to the internet . No it is not super smart , it only has access to the information but on its own it is just a piece of metal with wires

Good remarks about #4, I was thinking the same thing before I read your post. That's probably the biggest problem.

But #1 is also a problem. Matter and energy aren't created or destroyed according to current physical laws, so that might apply up to about 13.6 billion years ago, but what about before that? Can you say the universe had no beginning? Was there no big bang? The scientific consensus is that there probably was a big bang, which is a beginning, is it not?

So if God has no beginning and our current universe began at the big bang then our current universe isn't God.

2 and 3 I don't really have as big a problem with, though I think the term "power" or "powerful" needs to be examined in context and not in isolation. In my interpretation at least, the "power" of God would be a directed kind of power to purposefully make things happen according to the consciousness we discussed regarding item 4. While the universe seems to have nearly endless power, I'm not sure that it's necessarily like the power that God is claimed to have used to part the red sea, is it?

reply to post by catwhoknowsplusone



No just because she needs the help. Money is not the best of motivations but it can get things done.

Originally posted by kaleshchand

God is everywhere. The universe is everywhere, God is everywhere, simple.
Conclusion, the Universe is God.

This would be the holy spirit no? The 3rd member of the Trinity.
Then you would be correct in a sense

Why is this thread in the S&T forum? It's philosophy, there isn't one ounce of scientific proof in this thread.

OP, you make good points...however, here is the flaw (in your OP) -

So we are looking for "someone" or "something" with those qualities.

God isn't someone or something...So, where does it go from there ?

Here is some supporting proof which is along the same lines as yours my friend.

Proof of God

Some will say that the Torah, Bible, and Quran must be wrong then.

Absolutely not. The followers of those faiths are wrong, but not the Prophets who described God. They all stated that God was beyond description. In fact, it is considered wrong to even make an Icon of God or even a name for it is beyond human comprehension to do so.

What the religions fight over is their own inferior understanding of the incomprehensible.

LOL

They will learn.



Good job OP

With Love,

Your Brother

Um, your entire premise is built upon the opinion that god equals energy. So in essence, anything that requires energy is actually the work of god - from the wind blowing through the trees to a toddler taking his first step to the innocent victims instantly vaporized by the blast of a nuclear bomb.

You may want to rethink your premise.

ED beings sound very likely in this scenario. I'm going to bring some science fiction into this, and attempt to rationalize it to some degree.

As a child, I was a fan of K.A. Applegate's "Animorphs" book series. She wrote several spin off novels, in order to chronicle the minor characters with major roles. One of these characters is "The Ellimist" who's story is explained in the "Ellimist Chronicles".

The story is about the Ellimist's ascension to an extra-dimensional being. He begins as a bio-form, eventually spreading his consciousness among a fleet of starsips, as multiple mechanical life forms with a shared consciousness. (which is theoretically possible) Eventually the fleet is drawn into some sort of space-time rift. Inside this new realm, the Ellimist could physically see, and manipulate the strings of time, and as a result, can directly affect all matter and fundamental forces. The being was eternal, because in the realm he stumbled upon, time was only a very physical, itemized "substance, and had none of the properties of actual time. The end result being that the Ellimist was essentially a god.

Another idea is that of Stargate, (which I'm sure most people know of.)
In which through intense meditation, beings are able to ascend to another realm of existence and control the universe



Whether or not likely, it is food for thought.

reply to post by kaleshchand


This is not scientific proof of anything. All you've done is redefine "universe" as "god" and then try to apply the qualities of omniscience and omnipotence to it.

Congratulations. You've given your case for panentheism. Please come back again when you have actual scientific proof and something beyond a redefining of terminologies.

Originally posted by Fuzzy Wabbit
Um, your entire premise is built upon the opinion that god equals energy. So in essence, anything that requires energy is actually the work of god - from the wind blowing through the trees to a toddler taking his first step to the innocent victims instantly vaporized by the blast of a nuclear bomb.

You may want to rethink your premise.

Actually, your description is pretty accurate, You are missing all the forms of energy we have yet to discover, but what you have is a pretty good start.

Why rethink it?

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by marsend
Deities, help keep the masses amused, I have never understood why man is the only one that prostrates itself before a deity, one would think, that animals would have it hard wired to also do this. Maths is maths, religion is religion, neither are two useful for getting a cow out of the
bog.

Math can help get a cow from a bog. Levers and pulleys and the like all use math to function.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Actually, your description is pretty accurate, You are missing all the forms of energy we have yet to discover, but what you have is a pretty good start.

Why rethink it?

Don't get me wrong it's certainly an interesting premise, but one based on a personal opinion and not on any concrete fact.

By working on the idea that god equals energy takes the entire concept of sentience or any aspect of consciousness out of the equation. Therein lies the problem.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Why rethink it?

Because it doesn't rule out energy sources that are directly attributable to human or natural sources.

Also, pretending the the universe and its functions are god does not make the universe and its functions god.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Because it doesn't rule out energy sources that are directly attributable to human or natural sources.

Also, pretending the the universe and its functions are god does not make the universe and its functions god.

Again we are hung up over the word "God". Oh well, you cannot teach a drop of water within a glass of water that there is a glass of water it is within and that the same water is within the drop. Particularly when that drop is obsessed with being a drop unto itself.

Perhaps one day.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by Fuzzy Wabbit
Don't get me wrong it's certainly an interesting premise, but one based on a personal opinion and not on any concrete fact.

By working on the idea that god equals energy takes the entire concept of sentience or any aspect of consciousness out of the equation. Therein lies the problem.

One cannot define the whole because one will never have evidence of the whole for the observer cannot observe itself.

God is simply known by trace evidence. Such as the precise order of all in this existence which defies any chance of random design.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by Garfee
Please enlighten us all why an all knowing, all powerful god would bother testing us? Why not just love us and share with us?

Or, on a more basic level, if this entity is all encompassing, why does it do anything? What is its motivation? Action implies need, need implies deficiency. Why perform a test when you already know the result?

There's something very wrong with the OP's basic definition. That's always what it boils down to.

Most people, when you get them right down to it, understand God on a personal level as a "feeling." It's a mildly euphoric feeling of vastness, like when you're standing on a high cliff ledge. It's the agitated feeling they get when they don't know something, when they get to the end of knowledge. It has essentially nothing to do with vague concepts of infinity or omniscience. It has to do with a feeling that they have been taught as children to associate with a concept of an entity, an Old Man in the Sky.

Once again, the argument fails because nobody can define -------------------------------------.

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Because it doesn't rule out energy sources that are directly attributable to human or natural sources.

Also, pretending the the universe and its functions are god does not make the universe and its functions god.

Again we are hung up over the word "God".

Correct. Because the case is being made that the universe itself is "god" and also serves as the "scientific proof" of "god".

Words matter. Their definitions matter.

Originally posted by kaleshchand
Definition of God
Lets face it, we cant prove/disprove something that has an unlimited number of definitions. So for this thread God will be defined by "generally accepted" qualities of God. So what are the qualities of God?

1. God has no beginning or end. (i.e. God was never "born" and can never die)
   
2. God is everywhere.
   
3. God is all powerful.
   
4. God is all knowing.
   

What exactly validates these qualities of the alleged "god"? How do you know these qualities fit the definition of a god and are not, say, just some arbitrary qualities you made up?

Could I not do the same thing? I could, for example, define god as a cylinder of wood with graphite at its center. Then I could look for something fitting this definition, say... a pencil, and simply call it god.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by kaleshchand
Definition of God
Lets face it, we cant prove/disprove something that has an unlimited number of definitions. So for this thread God will be defined by "generally accepted" qualities of God. So what are the qualities of God?

1. God has no beginning or end. (i.e. God was never "born" and can never die)
   
2. God is everywhere.
   
3. God is all powerful.
   
4. God is all knowing.
   

What exactly validates these qualities of the alleged "god"? How do you know these qualities fit the definition of a god and are not, say, just some arbitrary qualities you made up?

Could I not do the same thing? I could, for example, define god as a cylinder of wood with graphite at its center. Then I could look for something fitting this definition, say... a pencil, and simply call it god.

Are you within that pencil? Is that pencil within you?

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by IAMIAM
One cannot define the whole because one will never have evidence of the whole for the observer cannot observe itself.

God is simply known by trace evidence. Such as the precise order of all in this existence which defies any chance of random design.

No, the concept of a higher power is rooted in faith and personal belief. It is impossible to provide evidence for something that resides in the hearts and minds of men.

That doesn't lessen the opinions of those that choose to believe in a higher power. It simply doesn't provide proof.