First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Science proves that God exists?
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 1/14/09

leviathan343 wrote:



My point was just because there are laws that hold apparent for all things we are able to understand to this point, does not mean it will still be true when we move to things that are yet undiscovered. Which led me to point out that things might indeed come into existence from nothing, as well as things might move with no force acting on it. Just because there's a law stating it can't happen, doesn't mean it actually can't happen. It just means we have not seen it happen yet.

As for time, imagine time as a line, all things are continually moving from the past to the future regardless of whether they change or not. No forces we have yet to observe are needed to set an object in motion from the past to the future, the movement, not in the 3rd dimension, but in the 4th.
335 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / pinas
Offline
Posted 1/14/09 , edited 1/14/09


What do you mean "what proof do you have"? Religion came mostly about and was heavily involved during the dark ages. The science era, or called the "enlightenment" era, came significantly later in history. Do I have to go and find a history textbook for you? Although I despise K-12 textbooks, it should be adequate enough for you.


ill just repeat my other answer...

well i believe that science is the search for truth based on observable facts/evidences. were our ancestors not trying to search for truth before, too? even the cavemen apply/know science.. since they also tried improvising tools like for food and other stuff. science was implied eversince.. if you're pertaining to the renaissance era, it's just the era wherein science had major developments...but whichever came first does not matter.what matters most is our purpose in this world.
3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 1/15/09 , edited 1/15/09

aristotel wrote:



What do you mean "what proof do you have"? Religion came mostly about and was heavily involved during the dark ages. The science era, or called the "enlightenment" era, came significantly later in history. Do I have to go and find a history textbook for you? Although I despise K-12 textbooks, it should be adequate enough for you.


ill just repeat my other answer...

well i believe that science is the search for truth based on observable facts/evidences. were our ancestors not trying to search for truth before, too? even the cavemen apply/know science.. since they also tried improvising tools like for food and other stuff. science was implied eversince.. if you're pertaining to the renaissance era, it's just the era wherein science had major developments...but whichever came first does not matter.what matters most is our purpose in this world.


No, people weren't always looking for the truth. The whole aspect of the epistemology or attempting to prove the truth wasn't a large effort in the early civilizations.. simply because people were most focused on important things, such as surviving. Once the hunter-gatherer model was thrown out with the development of agriculture, science was somewhat possible (which wasn't necessarily modern science, but involved the traditional scientific process of observing). You wouldn't necessarily consider the discovery of agriculture a form of science just because they did it. Obviously I can't say this in the most accurate terms since this goes back way too far in time, but I can confidently say that understanding agriculture wasn't possible without the founding of biology. Simply put, for the early humans, agriculture was: Plant seed, water, watch grow. Same thing with soil turning. Going further into my point, science wasn't available or possible without being able to settle down. So to answer your question, cavemen did not know science. They could observe and make judgements off of it, but wasn't science. People saw that plants grew more abundantly near rivers and lakes which leads to the conclusion that plants like water. People observed that when they rotate crops in the same fields, they could farm on it longer than if they simply stayed with one crop. Agriculture can be explained with photosynthesis, which the early users of agriculture did not know of. Soil turning can be understood by chemistry and biology; certain plants harvested specific resources from the soil; rotating crops gives the soil time to regenerate some of its resources.

"Whichever came first" has to do a lot with the pertaining argument in religion vs science. I'm not criticizing religion in the idea that they're at fault; there is no possible way for the people who created religion during the dark ages to even consider the idea of physics, chemistry, or biology. In example, say in 200 years from now we discover some new field of science that gives a greater depth to physics and makes some of our modern physics obsolete. There's no possibly way our earlier physicists could have predicted for the new discovery to come. So in this analogy you can consider the old scientist as the religious founders and the new scientists as the opposite of religious leaders. To the people of the dark ages, religion was their science. Obviously as science grew, scientists were confronted with much resistance from the traditional religious leaders since the ideas of science directly violated what they preached; in result would cause a loss of revenue and followers for the church. Keep in mind that the church and religious figures held a tremendous amount of direct power, not only influence, on the members of its societies. Losing basis and trust would mean losing power.

It's a convenient method for today's theists to simply brush aside this significant historical detail. Science and logic has already disproven many established religious theories, not only Christianity. The foolish aspect of this controversy is not that science disproving a higher being or power, but more accurately defying an old and obsolete system of belief. The agnostic view was generated out of this: Science is proving only so much. Science has already disproven the old religions, but does nothing to verify the existence of a possible higher force. Don't simply dismiss any anti-Christianity, anti-Muslim, or anti-whatever as being all directly confrontational. Sure, there's atheists who simply go against any form of higher power, but not all anti-christian are athiests. The concept of "I don't know" shouldn't be reacted with "DON'T YOU DARE DISPROVE MY GOD". Just because a person states that he doesn't believe in Christianity doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't believe in a higher power or powers. He simply doesn't believe in your God; and well frankly, history shows how close-minded people are when their imaginary friends are disproved or challenged.

So hopefully this answers your question of "history doesn't matter'. It matters a lot since religions such as Christianity had no means of predicting carbon dating, fossils, or other discoveries which directly violate the "historical texts" in the Bible. Of course when there's scientific proof that God's work can be disproven, the convenient argument would go something like this: "God is omnipotent and omnipresent. There's no way you can understand his work." Blah blah blah.

Let's say a new religion is made in this era and isn't completely BS like Scientology or Mormonism and can exist without contradictions to scientific evidence. Chances are, with further development of science, this religion alone will most likely become obsolete, just as Christianity did, as science change. I guess in a very rare 1 in a (million^million^million) chance, this new religion may just be the actual answer, but I highly doubt it.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 1/15/09

excalion wrote:

My point was just because there are laws that hold apparent for all things we are able to understand to this point, does not mean it will still be true when we move to things that are yet undiscovered. Which led me to point out that things might indeed come into existence from nothing, as well as things might move with no force acting on it. Just because there's a law stating it can't happen, doesn't mean it actually can't happen. It just means we have not seen it happen yet.

As for time, imagine time as a line, all things are continually moving from the past to the future regardless of whether they change or not. No forces we have yet to observe are needed to set an object in motion from the past to the future, the movement, not in the 3rd dimension, but in the 4th.


That's assuming we base physical laws on pure empirical observation. We don't.

Time only occurs because things are changing from one state to another. A world of 3 dimensions would remain in one particular state. The arrow of time doesn't apply to all scientific theories of physics.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 1/15/09

tweety_cool wrote:

But as long as things have mass, they will have attraction force to each other, so being exist itself will bring change. Are we talking nothingness here? lolz.

Is there something concrete that can exclude mass in its property?

btw, Hello... nice to meet you again.


Matter =/= properties of matter

Where have you been?

20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 1/15/09

leviathan343 wrote:







Would you mind telling me how exactly is that we do not base all our physical laws on empirical observation?
In other words, do you think a blind and deaf person, with no sense of smell, touch or taste could come up with a physical law? Because that's what it means to not be empirically based, not using anything you obtain from the senses to construct a law of how things work.

Secondly, the arrow of time must apply to all scientific theories of physics, see follows:

P1 All scientific theories are empirically based. (From wiki definition of empirical)
P2 All scientific theories of physics are scientific theories. (By definition) //
C All scientific theories of physics are empirically based. (1,2 modus pollens)

P1 All scientific theories of physics are based on empirical evidence.
P2 We have no empirical evidence that time does not effect everything.
P3 All scientific theories of physics must state that time effects everything, or be empirically baseless. //
C And since all scientific theories of physics must be empirically based, it must also state that time effects everything. (1,2,3 Constructive dilemma)
Posted 1/15/09
I've never believe in the Big Bang or the theory of Evolution. Are they really supposed to make me believe that the world was created with this giant explosion and life just evolved on it's own?

So yeah, I understand what you're saying. Something had to create us, but here's the bigger question:

If God created the world, who created God?

559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / Feminism is made...
Offline
Posted 1/15/09
So with that, God cannot be proven with science, as of now, since science is based on experiments and observations that can be proven. Just like the String Theory; it is, at this time, impossible to experiment or observe so it is still a theory.
The existence of God, at this point, can only be an idea. It does not even have a good claim behind it for Gods to exists. The descriptions of Gods by different religions are so different that it just seems they are the same as dragons in a way that some people believe they exist or are interpreted as symbols for a greater power which are the people who want control over others. They seem to be just part of legends with varying powers.
Greek definition of Gods is an immortal that has human weaknesses but has control over some type of events such as wars and weather. Monotheistic definition is an all-knowing, all-powerful, and capable of existing everywhere superhuman. At first, the monotheistic God is a ruthless God who just wanted attention. Later on, that God gained universal love. These varying definitions are too different from each other that the existence of Gods seems to be the same as just any other mythical creature. The monotheistic God does not even have an appearance so he does not have any more chance of existing than Hades.
This does not mean that God is just a myth even though comparing him to myths makes him appear like one. It just appears that a God is merely an attempt to explain what we do not know. An escape goat. Or just a fad that is used for too long that it became engraved to people's brain that it is just too hard to forget and move on.
Posted 1/15/09

LemonyPanda wrote:

Ok, think back to the beginning of chemistry class where you learn your first chem law

The conservation of mass, which means matter cannot be created nor destroyed (altho einstein proves this wrong but i'll get to that in a sec)

According to this law, then there wouldn't be anything here today, scince nothing can be created nor destroyed.

Here's another law, but from physics.

Newton's first law states that an object cannot move unless acted upon an outside force, and an object in motion will stay in motion unless again acted upon an outside force.

So imagine, if somehow mass WAS created, it would be simply just floating around not moving at all. There would have to be someone to give a little push, to cause this enormous chain of reaction for us to be living.

Here's another famous equation E=mc squared. (E stands for energy, m stands for mass, c stands for the speed of light) This means that all mass, every single atom CAN be created, if there are enormous amounts of energy and extremely high speeds, but again, you can't have that unless you have Newton's first law of physics, NOTHING can move unless there is some kind of force.

So who started all of this? Some kind of outside force to push first domino and create a spectacular chain of events to create this present day? Not to mention creating life and humans who can rationalize, think, have morales for themselves, and to CREATE life as well. (and btw Einstein believed there was a God but didn't believe in christianity)


Agree with me? or think im just a procrastinator who should be working on his massive amounts of homework right now but is too lazy and decided to post his lame ass thoughts on the internet?

comment and discuss


EDIT: for those saying that God should be believed through faith yes i agree with you too. You guys aren't getting my point. The reason why i created this thread was to show that there has to be some outer force not following the rules of physics. Can it be the Christian God? I believe so but that is up for the individual to decide. All i'm proving is that there IS a god out there, not saying that it was Jesus did all this


very good point there, but difficulty with that theory would occur when u consider forces as exchange particles. (The Four Fundementals Forces: Weak Nuclear Force, Strong Nuclear Force, Electrostatic, Gravity) so we're talking about gravitons, W bosons etc

first of all, we cannot detect these particles, we use mathematics to work backwards and prove existence of such particles. And you quoted Newton and Einstein way too often, they had no ideas of existence of such particles. Newtons laws are also wrong, they are a good estimate and not the definite law which defines the universe, not even close, nor was Einstein (who was too stubborn to accept quantum for the following reason).

Most now believe the universe is governed by not Newton's or Einstein's laws, but by probability (chaos theory). Every freaking thing is defined by probability, even evolution and quantum mechanic proves to us that fundemental importance of probability.

Your model of a mass "magically" appearing is not realistic not one bit, have u consider something called "vacuum energy" that would be a good source of energy for your "magical mass" not divine intervention. Don't judge Newton's or Einstein's or anyone else's ideas are absolute true, newton and einstein are no better than us, what they did was good guess work with the information that was available to them. To be honest, i don't think we ever will have enough information to disprove god to stubborn minds, but religion has been on it's knees for the last two hundred years, it's on it's deathbed now. As much as we thought we were the centre of the universe few hundred years ago, the future generations will think the same way about the few who still believe in the so called "god"
Posted 1/15/09
Who know , but it's mystery , it doesn't mean that God exist . (Maybe there something scientists haven't find out yet .)
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 1/15/09

excalion wrote:

Would you mind telling me how exactly is that we do not base all our physical laws on empirical observation?
In other words, do you think a blind and deaf person, with no sense of smell, touch or taste could come up with a physical law? Because that's what it means to not be empirically based, not using anything you obtain from the senses to construct a law of how things work.

Secondly, the arrow of time must apply to all scientific theories of physics, see follows:

P1 All scientific theories are empirically based. (From wiki definition of empirical)
P2 All scientific theories of physics are scientific theories. (By definition) //
C All scientific theories of physics are empirically based. (1,2 modus pollens)

P1 All scientific theories of physics are based on empirical evidence.
P2 We have no empirical evidence that time does not effect everything.
P3 All scientific theories of physics must state that time effects everything, or be empirically baseless. //
C And since all scientific theories of physics must be empirically based, it must also state that time effects everything. (1,2,3 Constructive dilemma)


If we based all scientific theories of physics purely on empirical observation, then there would be no point in applying them to situations where we cannot directly observe them. You can't accept them as being fact by the very problem of empirical observation. You have to rationalize that they apply in any comparable situations. You're getting worked up over a minor matter of observation.

The arrow of time itself is evident in cases such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the expansion of the universe. For most systems, cause and effect assumes that one happens after the other. The problem is you're associating time as this entire separate entity that "affects" our universe and physical laws. Our universe creates time through its own nature.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 1/16/09

leviathan343 wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:

But as long as things have mass, they will have attraction force to each other, so being exist itself will bring change. Are we talking nothingness here? lolz.

Is there something concrete that can exclude mass in its property?

btw, Hello... nice to meet you again.


Matter =/= properties of matter

Where have you been?



well, how can we observe matter if we can't observe its property?

I've been... taking a break... my brain got burned last semester... hahahaha.
375 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 1/16/09
god should exist
how else would life appear, there had to be a source
Posted 1/16/09

UnsureSakura wrote:

god should exist
how else would life appear, there had to be a source


here's a friendly hint, try reading the posts above. *whispers* "thats they are meant for"
375 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 1/16/09

tonster906 wrote:


UnsureSakura wrote:

god should exist
how else would life appear, there had to be a source


here's a friendly hint, try reading the posts above. *whispers* "thats they are meant for"


you think im stupid?
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 1/16/09
She can post her opinion, the posts above are just other's opinions and their arguments.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.