Scientific Reasoning Confirms God's Existence.....

[Jack]

One of the problems is that I don't know what definition of God to use.

One possibility, work through the deductions that would support a god then see what sort of god you wind up with. What godly characteristics can you support with science?
Or: pick one and run with it.

[Fonceai]

Then I'd be playing the "what if" game.

[Jack]

Just checking back to see if any of that Scientific Reasoning (that) Confirms God's Existence has been presented yet.

Hmmm, still don't see any... :rolleyes:

[Osborn F Enready]

Me neither Ish, you aren't alone.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: loser None of that matters. God is either real, which makes Him the Creator of all people, or He's not and a lot of us are being deceived by myth and superstition. His existence does not depend upon our beliefs. Untrue. Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. This verse specifically refers to those "who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." Rev. 19:3: And again they said, Alleluia. And her [the great whore] smoke rose up for ever and ever. I wonder how they get "The torments of the damned shall last forever and ever" from this verse? Rev. 20:10: And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. This verse explicitly names ONE (the devil) and possibly implies two more (the beast and the false prophet) that shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. That's it. Why? Because they are IMMORTAL beings, already...they CANNOT die! Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. To a casual reader, this might seem to imply eternal torment. But it doesn't. It would be better phrased, "...into punishment lasting forever. The punishment (death) lasts forever, not some punishing (torture, torment) for eternity. Well, He WON'T be released from hell and he WON'T be admitted to eternal happiness. He will stay DEAD! FOREVER! The Bible EXPLICITLY contrasts the TWO possible destinations of men. Here I present two of the most common and well-known verses of the Bible: Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Destination 1: Eternal life Destination 2: Death Eternal punishment is death without resurrection. (LITV)Mar 9:43 And if your hand offend you, cut it off. For it is profitable for you to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go away into Hell, into the unquenchable fire, Mar 9:44 where their worm does not die, and the fire is not put out. Once again, CAREFUL reading of the text shows a completely different meaning than commonly intepreted. Notice the contrast between "your, you" and "their". Obviously, the 'you' above is the person being talked to but who is the 'they' whose 'worm' doesn't die? Here's the answer: Mat 25:41 Then He will also say to those on His left, Go away from Me, cursed ones, into the everlasting fire having been prepared for the Devil and his angels. It is the ETERNAL CREATURES whose "worm doesn't die", the devil and his angels (demons). Not sinners, not humans. The reference in Isaiah refers to the dump below Jerusalem in the valley of Hinnom. From Answers.com (Columbia University Press): "Hinnom (hēnōm') , valley, W and S of Jerusalem. Its ill repute in the Bible emanated from the worship there of foreign gods, including supposed child sacrifice to Molech at Tophet. In later Jewish literature it was called Ge-Hinnom [Heb.,=valley of Hinnom] and in the Greek of the New Testament, Gehenna. A place for burning refuse in later Israelite times, it provided imagery for a fiery Hell in the Books of Isaiah and the New Testament. It appears as Jahannam in the Qur'an." The bodies of dead animals and criminals/enemies were burned there and the presence of maggots (worms) were never ending. It is a literal place where a future Lake of Fire (pool of lava) (Gehenna) will surface due to the continued rifting between the African and Arabian (tectonic) plates. Also, "unquenchable" is not the same as "eternal". Just because you can't put a fire out doesn't mean that it won't eventually burn out. Ask any firemen. The rest of that crap isn't worth replying to...it's the same Catholic garbage that has perverted true Christianity since the 1st century. What the RCC says and what scripture says is miles apart. Once again, one of the very main reasons why Christianity has such a bad reputation and name. I'll give them another chance later (the second batch of pies). This time, they'll have no such excuse. Faith is all any of us have. Scientists can't prove "billions of years" or even "millions of years". You accept their words and 'knowledge' (and even your own) at face value; there is no proof of anything. You can just as easily (and logically, too) put your faith in God as you can evolution. In my POV, even easier, because God makes a lot more sense (than evolution) to me. In the context of the POV of an eternal, immortal being. All we have is reason and logic and those things that defy both. Each person has to draw his own conclusions. Since our life experiences are as diverse as our looks, a consensus is not likely to be found.

Good post!

I disagree with your assessment of science in terms of what is proof and the nature of knowledge. It can easily be assumed that nothing can be proved, but the scientific view of the history of the world (billions of years) and evolution carries a great deal of credibility in the evidence to the point that 95% plus scientists endorce it, and 99%+ of the scientists in related fields endorse it. This degree of concensus cannot be found in any religon.

There is more to life than just 'faith', and despite our diversity (considering this diversity over the vaste time and place creates a problem for those who propose that there is one truth, which one?), concenus is overwheming in science but not in 'faith'.

Yes, each person must draw their own conclusion, but this is simply a 'sky is blue statement' and lacks substance. On what basis does one draw their conclusions?

[Fonceai]

@Ish
@Os

For what it's worth, there is not a single scientific form of reasoning I know of that can confirm God.

You would have to be committing a serious Redefinition Fallacy to establish a type of God that scientific reasoning could confirm.

[Jack]

there is not a single scientific form of reasoning I know of that can confirm God.

<whiny little voice> But he promised...
If I seriously thought gods could be supported through reasoning, I wouldn't be an atheist. But when someone says they know something, I'm willing to give them the chance to prove they know it. Opportunity provided, opportunity not seized. Phooey.

[Fonceai]

Yeah.

I actually went to see if I could do it.

You just can't... at least... not without establishing definitive facts about things we don't know yet as definitive.

[Duke1985]

I'm going to throw in my very simplistic two cents.

I've seen no proof that God exists, nor proof he doesn't.

I personally choose to believe in a higher power, I consider myself to be Agnostic, but since I can't prove, nor disprove his existence I'll just believe its there since it seems to be a comforting thought at the very least.

And thats about all I got on that one.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Isherwood Just checking back to see if any of that Scientific Reasoning (that) Confirms God's Existence has been presented yet. Hmmm, still don't see any... :rolleyes:

One worldview that has not been responded to in this debate is the Baha'i worldview that you mussed over in a previous post as not heard from lately, which does in reality still very much exist, but you must take the intiative your self. The Baha'i is not likely to hit you over the head with a leather bound leathal weapon, or post their views in neon signs.

The more ancient worldviews of God make easy targets for atheist and agnostic demands to meet scientific standards, therefore we get perpetual similar threads from two sides that lob screaming cats over the walls from egocentric catapults, and do not communicate at all.

The Baha'i view is that science will discover the natural witness of God through science and since this is the image of God it will be neutral to any rational human proof of an ancient worldview of God that only has a reference to the ancient worldview that does not know science as we do today. The ancient Biblical hands-on God will be apparently 'silent', because it exists only in the ancient human worldview.

If there is an argument for God from this perspective it would be how well revelation can provide a predictive value and understanding of the human journey. I believe the Baha'i revelation is capable of this in a universal manner in harmony with science. I posted this in another thread and no one responded to this argument. Apparently from the two extremely polarized views of the atheist/agnostic worldview and the the Judeo/Christian/Islamic worldviews which prefer debating each other from a safe distance than addressing a viable universal vision like the Baha'i worldview.

From the thread "I don't know" - Is that so hard to comprehend? started by Kamehameha34

Agnostism has many faces, but I do not particularly endorse indecision, because the evidence appears to be inconclusive. I agree the scientific evidence is neutral and may be interpreted both ways to justify the existence of God or the non-existence of God. Unfortunately the ancient culturally overburdened religions revealed in one place and time in the vasteness of time and place lack justification for a reasonable argument for a universal 'Source' some call God, because what we know to day of our history and the nature of the physical existence has a vision far greater than the narrow scope of any single ancient religion. If there is a universal omniscience, omnipresent, omnipotent God it would be absurd to believe it reflected just one of these ancient worldviews. If I were an intelligent alien beamed down into today's world with a relatively unbiased worldview, it would be hard to convince me of the justification any single worldview as the only true one.

Despite all these apparently absurdities and culturally moribound conflicts people still believe, and the agnostic pauses to cite reason to say maybe, or there is no evidence either way. If this is as far as we go in the argument, there is little or no reason to believe in God, and atheism is in fact the bottom line choice, but I did not chose atheism. Why, because Despite this apparent contradictory witness of an absurd world that resemble more a rational and emotional conflageration, based on little more than fear and a cultural obligation, there is a thread of wisdom, enlightenment, compassion, and human purpose that flows through all human cultures and religions that has merit, beyond the simple self justification of one belief over another by reason, emotion or force. This again may offer some support, but the agnostic and atheist will respond so what? Human nature may inherently have these atributes naturally with survival that contribute to the cohession of the family and community necessary for human survival.

The question revolves around the need for evidence for a 'Divine cause from a 'Source' to justify a theistic belief. Is there sufficient evidence that the spiritual and physical advancement of human civilization is rooted in creation and revelation from a 'Source'? I believe there is evidence for this in the 'Baha'i Revelation', which began our modern era in the mid-1800s. The evidence comes in the form of the nature of the Baha'i Revelation and how it impacted the modern world and brought together the purpose, role and vision of all the religions of the world in a unified cohesive picture that fits the constantly evolving dynamic progressive nature of the universe we see today. The Baha'i Faith did indeed reveal many moral and ethical standards that have become the aspiration and goal of many in the world today to achieve, but the key to the 'Baha'i Revelation' is the revealing of the universal nature of of knowledge as 'Relative' from the human perspective, and the dynamic progressive relative nature of the human journey in both the spiritual and physical realms of existence. The concept of the harmony of science and religion elevates the nature of science as revelation and the revealer of the nature of physical existence in a progressive, relative and dynamic way. In this vision religion also becomes the progressive nature of spiritual existence as seen through the eyes and words of humans and not some static fixed truth in time and place held by ancient religions. The Independent search for truth', becomes the standard for this age and not the obedience to one static unchanging measure of truth. The nature of existence itself becomes a greater witness to the nature of God and revelation, than any one limited worldview.

The religions of the past have all held to some sort of static limited vision of spiritual and physical knowledge that reflects their own ancient worldview, and becomes more absurd with time, to the witness of an ever changing evolving dynamic world of today.

'If you split the atom you will reveal a sun' from the 'Seven Valleys and Four Valleys' by Baha'u'llah

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: shunyadragon The Independent search for truth', becomes the standard for this age and not the obedience to one static unchanging measure of truth.

I do not agree with this statement. I feel the idependent search for truth has always been the standard of all times of civilisation. Truth to my mind is like the sweetness of sugar, or bitterness of chillee, or sourness of lemon. Each and every person has to taste the sugar, chille and lemon to perfectly feel and realize what sweetness, bitterness and sourness respectively is like. Even if 99 persons out of one hundred know what sweetness, bitterness and sourness are like still, hundreth person has to himself taste the stuffs to know what is each feel and taste like. No volumes of books, surmons, philosphical talks, religions, faith and beliefs would help him to know what sweetness, bitterness and sourness are like. One simple tasting the stuff would do!!!!!!!!

Exactly the same fashion God is like an abstract common property of this universe which some religions have termed as CONSCIOUSNESS. It can be felt only when one's ownself Ego of individuality is erased. Till that is done, this universe can conveniently be considered as gross physical property of that ultimate Consciousness.

The nature of existence itself becomes a greater witness to the nature of God and revelation, than any one limited worldview.

I have nothing to add as regards this statement since this is falling within my feeling of existence of COMMON CONSCIOUSNESS as the ultimate reality which one can name God or, higher power or, anything else!!!! Though, I do not want to call "The nature of existence" a witness but simply a gross physical property of ultimate. Witness is needed in some sort of court, which we do not have in this debate.:eek: :( :)

[pandaz xx]

A random (since atheists deny God’s plan) and miraculous (since normal explosions never bring order) explosion called ‘Big Bang’ had brought order and then the universe began expanding at a perfect pace (just too precise)… and then forces created themselves as well and made earth habitable. The intelligent design is everywhere, starting from the solar system to human eyes to genes and DNA. This design is also random since there is no Designer…

I like how you made ( )'s around things that don't make sense to you about Atheists.

Personally, I am not atheist.
I'm agnostic. I'm not sure what to believe in yet. But with all the things I'm learning, I'm turning towards Atheist.

a. why was the explosion too percise?
b. and i know we always ask to show evidence.

but I've always been told.
Believe none of what you hear, & only HALF of what you see.

[namguy69]

Quote by: pandaz xx A random (since atheists deny God’s plan) and miraculous (since normal explosions never bring order) explosion called ‘Big Bang’ had brought order and then the universe began expanding at a perfect pace (just too precise)… and then forces created themselves as well and made earth habitable. The intelligent design is everywhere, starting from the solar system to human eyes to genes and DNA. This design is also random since there is no Designer… I like how you made ( )'s around things that don't make sense to you about Atheists. Personally, I am not atheist. I'm agnostic. I'm not sure what to believe in yet. But with all the things I'm learning, I'm turning towards Atheist. a. why was the explosion too percise? b. and i know we always ask to show evidence. but I've always been told. Believe none of what you hear, & only HALF of what you see.

An agnostic, a true agnostic doesn't deny the possiblity that God exists. An atheistic person doesn't believe in God. It's your call and your business.

[Jack]

One problem is that theists consider us to be the end result of creation. To them, the universe and this planet were created with the sole purpose of supporting human life.

Atheists and non-theists look at it the other way around. The universe and planets came into being without plan or purpose. Things worked out as they did because only one reality can be a reality at a time. The fact that life occurred on this planet is the result of just the right elements in just the right combinations, as far as we can tell a truly unique happening. The odds were against life from the start. Indeed, had conditions been slightly different, no life or life unlike that we know might have developed. The uncertainty and ultimate purposeless nature of life offends most theists.

[pikatore]

I should comment that it would be arrogant thinking we were divinely inspired, or 'special' in any manner. Different life forms capable of intellegent thought could be thinking the same thing light years away.

[namguy69]

Quote by: Isherwood One problem is that theists consider us to be the end result of creation. To them, the universe and this planet were created with the sole purpose of supporting human life. Atheists and non-theists look at it the other way around. The universe and planets came into being with plan or purpose. Things worked out as they did because only one reality can be a reality at a time. The fact that life occurred on this planet is the result of just the right elements in just the right combinations, as far as we can tell a truly unique happening. The odds were against life from the start. Indeed, had conditions been slightly different, no life or life unlike that we know might have developed. The uncertainty and ultimate purposeless nature of life offends most theists.

It really comes down to this, there're are those that solely believe in science and those who believe in creation, it all comes down to that.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: pandaz xx A random (since atheists deny God’s plan) and miraculous (since normal explosions never bring order) explosion called ‘Big Bang’ had brought order and then the universe began expanding at a perfect pace (just too precise)… and then forces created themselves as well and made earth habitable. The intelligent design is everywhere, starting from the solar system to human eyes to genes and DNA. This design is also random since there is no Designer… I like how you made ( )'s around things that don't make sense to you about Atheists. Personally, I am not atheist. I'm agnostic. I'm not sure what to believe in yet. But with all the things I'm learning, I'm turning towards Atheist. a. why was the explosion too percise? b. and i know we always ask to show evidence. but I've always been told. Believe none of what you hear, & only HALF of what you see.

Why you believe at all that BB has actually taken place since your self say explosion can never be so precise and acurrately perfect. At least I have full doubt about occurence of BB. At sametime, I do think there is any intelligent designer behind the creation of this universe. I only think this universe existed eternally and goes on and on as in a cyclic order having many misteries hidden as properties. These infinte mysterial properties are being revealed one after another with help of tool "Science" by human mind. even obivious ocurring evolution is also one the properties of living beings.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Isherwood One problem is that theists consider us to be the end result of creation. To them, the universe and this planet were created with the sole purpose of supporting human life. Atheists and non-theists look at it the other way around. The universe and planets came into being with plan or purpose. Things worked out as they did because only one reality can be a reality at a time. The fact that life occurred on this planet is the result of just the right elements in just the right combinations, as far as we can tell a truly unique happening. The odds were against life from the start. Indeed, had conditions been slightly different, no life or life unlike that we know might have developed.

Ish, you are trying to analyse rationally. I like that but if we try to find creator then we have to find his purpose, begining of creation, creator's creator...and the like. That is very tedious path!:(

Therefore, to remove all that confusion I feel universe is eternally existing as it is before us and is just a property of unconceievable power, we have named that God.

[pandaz xx]

Quote by: namguy69 An agnostic, a true agnostic doesn't deny the possiblity that God exists. An atheistic person doesn't believe in God. It's your call and your business.

I didn't say that I didn't possibly think that there was a god.
but where is your proof.
honestly.

it's turning towards atheist real quick.
& I'm not bashing on christians or people who believe in a god.
I just don't believe it.

[namguy69]

Quote by: pandaz xx I didn't say that I didn't possibly think that there was a god. but where is your proof. honestly. it's turning towards atheist real quick. & I'm not bashing on christians or people who believe in a god. I just don't believe it.

" True education makes for inequality of individuality, the inequality of sussess; the glorious inequality of talent, of genius; for inequality, not mediocrity, individual superiority, not standardization, is the measure of progress of the world." - Felix Emmanuel, American educator and scholor. 1858 - 1945