Does science prove gods existence?

[PRmerger]

Meaning that posters are free to express dissenting opinions from an atheistic, scientistic or “evolution” point of view on any topic that comes up. The ban merely means that anyone, without prejudice, should refrain from discussing those specific topics (evolution, atheism) from any point of view.

I think there may be some confusion here because the word “banned” can refer to a poster who violates CAF rules, or to a topic which is prohibited from being discussed.

I was using it in reference to the former.

I was not referring to any prohibition on discussing topics.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It’s sad that you actually buy into that.
That actually makes me think of an old Soviet joke I heard once.

“We have freedom of speech,” said the American, “I can come to the fence of the White House and say: ‘Down with Reagan, he is no good.’ The Soviet man replies: ‘It’s the same here. I can come to Red Square and say: ‘Down with Reagan, he is no good.’”

That kind of doublethink in real life is frightening.

Well, no actually. The ban on topics is not the way you portray it. It is more like, “Everyone is banned from discussing Reagan at all because the whole discussion of Reagan being good or bad is pointless. If you wish to discuss politics, fine, but leave Reagan out of your discussion.”

Similarly, we are free to discuss whether the existence of God can be substantiated or not, but not free to promote or denounce -]Reagan/-] atheism.

Your point would be that we ought to be free to promote or denounce atheism, yes?

Why? What would that achieve, over and above discussions of whether God exists or not?

 

[tonyrey]

God is beyond the scope of science but science points to omnipotence.

The lack of scientific explanations for the co-ordinated complexity of the universe is evidence that it is not the result of purposeless combinations of molecules. As Pascal remarked, we** know **the universe exists but the universe doesn’t know we exist. Both our power of reason and the **intelligibility **of the universe require explanation. In conjunction with the achievements of science they are overwhelming evidence that the universe has a rational origin.

 

[Jasbir_T_Singh]

The problem with science is that it refuses to comment on anything outside of space and time. Traditional science in academia stays within the realm of observation which leads to hypotheses or theories that stay within space and time only. For this reason it can’t prove that God exists with any kind instrumentation that relies on our senses.

Where science fails, I think intelligent design (ID) is the greatest hope of proving the existence of God without any religious or philosophical argumentation. Intelligent design interprets existing science to arrive at more reasonable and probable theories. For example, Stephen Meyer, from the Discovery Institute, has convinced me that information theory (information embedded within DNA) is strong evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer (without saying that it is God - intentionally). I discuss some of Stephen Meyers work in some detail in my blog post “The beauty and mystery of a butterfly”. The link is at the end of this post.

I think Dr. Meyer provides a strong argument for the existence of an intelligent creator that believers would identify as God. Science does point to an intelligent mind with the simple fact that DNA contains information.

In DNA, “We have information, we have a program, maybe there’s a programmer.”

jasbirtsingh.blogspot.ca/2014/02/the-beauty-and-mystery-of-butterfly.html

 

[KidCatholic1]

worldnewsdailyreport.com/german-scientists-prove-there-is-life-after-death/

everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

strangenotions.com/god-exists/#19

realtruth.org/articles/140710-001.html

listverse.com/2014/02/15/10-reasons-there-might-be-an-afterlife/

independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largestever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-neardeath-experiences-may-actually-be-real-9780195.html

huffingtonpost.com/richard-schiffman/why-people-who-pray-are-heathier_b_1197313.html

patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2014/08/14/is-there-evidence-jesus-was-a-real-person/

It is not concrete evidence in a deity, but it should get you thinking of the existence of a God, or at least the spiritual parts of all things. At any rate, God exists outside the physical boundaries of our universe so testing him scientifically is out of the picture.

 

[PRmerger]

At any rate, God exists outside the physical boundaries of our universe so testing him scientifically is out of the picture.

Egg-zactly.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

As for string theory, I have never thought much of it because, after 40 years, there is still not a single iota of observational scientific evidence for it (the lack of evidence from even the new Large Hadron Collider is especially worrisome for string theory), and after having read the book The Trouble with Physics (available at Amazon) by Lee Smolin who himself is a distinguished physicist and once was a fan of the theory, I have come to believe string theory is bunk.

Dear Al,

First off, ‘science does not prove gods existence’. Now as for the above mentioned quote of yours, I’d like to share with you the following:

Superstring Theorist at University of Florida Wins 2015 Heineman Prize for Mathematical Physics

*Washington D.C., October 23, 2014 --The American Physical Society (APS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP) announced today, on behalf of the Heineman Foundation for Research, Educational, Charitable, and Scientific Purposes, that theoretical physicist Pierre Ramond, director of the Institute for Fundamental Theory at the University of Florida, has won the 2015 Dannie Heineman Prize for Mathematical Physics – one of the highest honors for scientific investigators in that field.

In recognizing Ramond, the two organizations cited his “pioneering foundational discoveries in supersymmetry and superstring theory, in particular the dual model of fermions and the theory of the Kalb-Ramond field.”

“Since the days of ancient Democritus, philosophers and scientists who pondered what makes up the fundamental building blocks of matter have thought about point-like particles – first atoms then subatomic particles like electrons or quarks,” said H. Frederick Dylla, executive director and CEO of AIP. “But by initiating superstring theory in the early 1970s, Pierre Ramond generalized to all particles the notion that the basic building blocks are not point particles at all, but tiny string-like objects that vibrate to form the particles.”

The prize consists of a certificate and a $10,000 award, which will be presented at a special ceremony during the April 2015 APS meeting in Baltimore, Md.*

. . .]
aip.org/news/2014/superstring-theorist-university-florida-wins-2015-heineman-prize-mathematical-physics
I hope you had a blessed Christmas. I hope to return to some of your other comments on this topic later. Thanks!

 

[AtheisticTatska]

Help! I’m on the VERGE of losing my faith. I try to look for evidence through philosphy and science but only come up with more questions! The string theory for example, seems like it replaces god! Is it logical to believe god exists!? I’ve looked up EVERY SINGLE PAGE! Please help me!

Why is it a bad thing?

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

There are some interesting Comments on the Thread Catholics and UFO’s

 

[Al_Moritz]

Dear Al,

First off, ‘science does not prove gods existence’.

Where precisely did I claim that it does?

Now as for the above mentioned quote of yours, I’d like to share with you the following:

Superstring Theorist at University of Florida Wins 2015 Heineman Prize for Mathematical Physics

Big deal. Still no Nobel Prize for string theory. The Nobel prize is only given for verifiable data. Take the Higgs boson: Nobel Prize 2013 just one year after discovery 2012. Now that particle is a big deal. String theory on the other hand after 40 years, nothing. And yes, like many others I believe that string theory is still bunk.

I hope you had a blessed Christmas.

Thanks, I did. I hope you too.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

 

[tonyrey]

everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

It will be fascinating to observe how those unpalatable facts are ignored and/or evaded…

 

[tonyrey]

The problem with science is that it refuses to comment on anything outside of space and time. Traditional science in academia stays within the realm of observation which leads to hypotheses or theories that stay within space and time only. For this reason it can’t prove that God exists with any kind instrumentation that relies on our senses.

Where science fails, I think intelligent design (ID) is the greatest hope of proving the existence of God without any religious or philosophical argumentation. Intelligent design interprets existing science to arrive at more reasonable and probable theories. For example, Stephen Meyer, from the Discovery Institute, has convinced me that information theory (information embedded within DNA) is strong evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer (without saying that it is God - intentionally). I discuss some of Stephen Meyers work in some detail in my blog post “The beauty and mystery of a butterfly”. The link is at the end of this post.

I think Dr. Meyer provides a strong argument for the existence of an intelligent creator that believers would identify as God. Science does point to an intelligent mind with the simple fact that DNA contains information.

In DNA, “We have information, we have a program, maybe there’s a programmer.”

jasbirtsingh.blogspot.ca/2014/02/the-beauty-and-mystery-of-butterfly.html

A warm welcome to the forum!

 

[ChainBreaker]

Help! I’m on the VERGE of losing my faith. I try to look for evidence through philosphy and science but only come up with more questions! The string theory for example, seems like it replaces god! Is it logical to believe god exists!? I’ve looked up EVERY SINGLE PAGE! Please help me!

Do you experience the meaning of guilt?

Yes you do.

A purely naturalistic reality has no objective meaning or moral value.

The meaning that we experience as Guilt exists.

The existence of this experience only makes logical sense if human behavior has different values in respect of what they give or take away from human dignity.

Human dignity is a reflection of how we perceive ourselves in relation to how others treat us and it is something we discover.

It makes no rational sense for meaningless atoms to have feelings one way or another about life, much less have a concept about being a person and having a life.

Therefore the most rational explanation is that an objective moral law exists and we naturally have some sense of it to varying degrees, however imperfect it may be, because we have personal natures.

Therefore a moral law giver exists.

 

[antmauri]

Here is what ill say first science does not disprove there is a God. Now The big bang is a theory on how the univers was created, it says that our univers is expanding and is still expaing today. in this thoery that was made amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html this is who made the theroy a choithoc priest. now in this theroy we dont know what was before it and what started it. Now the Cholco faith pretty wells explanis this by saying that God did both these things. So that theroy that is accepted by a lot of the sciencest. Which also means this theory is very credit and will hold up agisnt most qustioning because seicne now adys points to a God than no God.
Sorry for spelling and grammer errors ive never been good on writing but im great at talking

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

Here is what ill say first science does not disprove there is a God. Now The big bang is a theory on how the univers was created, it says that our univers is expanding and is still expaing today. in this thoery that was made amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html this is who made the theroy a choithoc priest. now in this theroy we dont know what was before it and what started it. Now the Cholco faith pretty wells explanis this by saying that God did both these things. So that theroy that is accepted by a lot of the sciencest. Which also means this theory is very credit and will hold up agisnt most qustioning because seicne now adys points to a God than no God.
Sorry for spelling and grammer errors ive never been good on writing but im great at talking

Making logical sense as you are , you can talk to me anytime ,and I’l Listen.

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

Help! I’m on the VERGE of losing my faith. I try to look for evidence through philosphy and science but only come up with more questions! The string theory for example, seems like it replaces god! Is it logical to believe god exists!? I’ve looked up EVERY SINGLE PAGE! Please help me!

I’v never really found evidence of the existence God , something in black & white that could be laid out on a table for all to see , something that can be dissected bit by bit and explained by rational thinking , The existence of God I believe is something each individual must search for and discover by themselves ,it’s a spiritual experience , sometimes a mortal experience, I discovered God in neither a Microscope or a telescope, but rather I found God by taking a Journey within myself , a self analysis of sorts , an observation of those around me , those that have faith and those that have not , it’s a thing that surrounds us all, it’s a thing that you can easily find , once you open your being to the possibility

 

[ChainBreaker]

Where precisely did I claim that it does?

Big deal. Still no Nobel Prize for string theory. The Nobel prize is only given for verifiable data. Take the Higgs boson: Nobel Prize 2013 just one year after discovery 2012. Now that particle is a big deal. String theory on the other hand after 40 years, nothing. And yes, like many others I believe that string theory is still bunk.

Thanks, I did. I hope you too.

String theory is verifiable. Go to any factory that make strings. Some are made out of cotton.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

String theory on the other hand after 40 years, nothing. And yes, like many others I believe that string theory is still bunk.

Al, I have addressed this issue with you here and elsewhere. I most definately don’t think string theory is bunk:

**The Galileo Galilei Institute for Theoretical Physics **
Arcetri Florence

**Training Week

Tools for String Phenomenology – with applications to Particle Physics and Cosmology**

The Galileo Galilei Institute

Organizers:

Riccardo Argurio (ULB), Marcus Berg (Karlstad), Matteo Bertolini (SISSA), Gabriele Honecker (Mainz), Enrico Pajer (Utrecht), Diderik Roest (Groningen), Sakura Schafer-Nameki (King’s College)

Period: from 19-10-2015 to 23-10-2015
ggi-www.fi.infn.it/index.php?page=schools.inc
Jasbir T Singh stated, "Where science fails, I think intelligent design (ID) is the greatest hope of proving the existence of God without any religious or philosophical argumentation. Intelligent design interprets existing science to arrive at more reasonable and probable theories. For example, Stephen Meyer, from the Discovery Institute, has convinced me that information theory (information embedded within DNA) is strong evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer (without saying that it is God - intentionally). I discuss some of Stephen Meyers work in some detail in my blog post “The beauty and mystery of a butterfly”. The link is at the end of this post.

I think Dr. Meyer provides a strong argument for the existence of an intelligent creator that believers would identify as God. Science does point to an intelligent mind with the simple fact that DNA contains information."

Jasbir, there has been a court ruling against the Discovery Institute’s Intelligent Design. It is not science.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Al, I have addressed this issue with you here and elsewhere. I most definately don’t think string theory is bunk:

**The Galileo Galilei Institute for Theoretical Physics **
Arcetri Florence

**Training Week

Tools for String Phenomenology – with applications to Particle Physics and Cosmology**

The Galileo Galilei Institute

Organizers:

Riccardo Argurio (ULB), Marcus Berg (Karlstad), Matteo Bertolini (SISSA), Gabriele Honecker (Mainz), Enrico Pajer (Utrecht), Diderik Roest (Groningen), Sakura Schafer-Nameki (King’s College)

Period: from 19-10-2015 to 23-10-2015
ggi-www.fi.infn.it/index.php?page=events.inc&id=213
http://ggi-www.fi.infn.it/index.php?page=events.inc&id=213
Jasbir T Singh stated, "Where science fails, I think intelligent design (ID) is the greatest hope of proving the existence of God without any religious or philosophical argumentation. Intelligent design interprets existing science to arrive at more reasonable and probable theories. For example, Stephen Meyer, from the Discovery Institute, has convinced me that information theory (information embedded within DNA) is strong evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer (without saying that it is God - intentionally). I discuss some of Stephen Meyers work in some detail in my blog post “The beauty and mystery of a butterfly”. The link is at the end of this post.

I think Dr. Meyer provides a strong argument for the existence of an intelligent creator that believers would identify as God. Science does point to an intelligent mind with the simple fact that DNA contains information."

Jasbir, there has been a court ruling against the Discovery Institute’s Intelligent Design. It is not science.