Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend 257 Replies latest watchtower bible

OldSoul

One of the most fundamental laws of physics, the law of conservation of energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form to another (including matter). This would preclude it having a beginning within the laws of our universe.

Now, funkyderek is absolutely correct. This is a fundamental law of physics. What an EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM. Extraordinary claims require ... it is encumbent upon the claimant to establish proof of the claim ... absence of proof to the contrary is not positive proof.
Isn't it interesting when we find hypocrisy and articles of faith in the places we least expect? Not that funkyderek or anyone else of a scientific bent would be hypocritical for believing this article of faith, but without positive proof of its validity it is an article of faith. One I agree with, by the way, but I know it for what it is.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
stevenyc

A hypothesis
In five years time the scientists and philosophy professors at MIT produce an amazing computer. It uses 3 million individual processors; all connected together, each one connected to all the others. Each processor starts as a rudimentary connection device with the ability to create its own internal logical circuits. Each circuit, both internal to each processor, and throughout the collection of processors is self generated based on what the whole collection finds to be the best path for getting the desired result. It is a giant neural network.
This methodology is nothing new as scientists have been using neural networks for years. Many commercial and governmental databases have used them. Even cell phones use them for anticipating and completing words typed by the phone keypad.
Neural networks have to be taught how to get to a result. An example is voice recognition. The database will record patterns of a spoken word. Told the sound pattern it’s hearing is the word 'cat’. Say twenty people say the word 'cat’; the network will learn the sound pattern and build the connection circuits. When a new person says 'cat’, it will be able to make a pretty good assumption based on the networks it has created.
This network is different though, in its simplicity.
So the scientists and professors start to teach this connection machine. More and more circuits are created for the networks to make assumptions. It soon became good at making the correct assumptions.
A few years go by. The computer now was not only answering questions, but had started asking questions. It had realized that this was a good way to resolve some issues where the connections gave close but different assumptions.
It had also decided to use a synthesized voice for itself. One scientist asked the computer why, and it responded 'I find it an easier method for communication with the humans. It creates empathy’.
One Sunday afternoon, an MIT student, nursing a hangover, asked the computer;’ Does God exists?’
The computer responded 'Yes.’
funkyderek

OldSoul:
Stating a law doesn't logically preclude anything. It only precludes it from the standpoint of working paradigm. I could state a similar law and prove that God has always existed and can never be destroyed. Would consensus prove me right? Would consensus preclude another possibility?

Consensus has nothing to do with it. In experiments, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Theoretically sound laws of physics support this viewpoint. They may be wrong, but they're the best working models we have, and until there is good reason to overturn them, we would be foolish to do so.
Is energy aware? Is it conscious? How would you know? How could you measure that? We can't even measure that with great effectiveness in humans by anything more than monitoring brain waves. Where would energy's "brain waves" be, if they exist? How would you monitor for their existence?
There's no evidence that energy is aware or conscious, and certainly, everything we know about the nature of consciousness (incomplete as it is) would suggest that it can only be found in complicated interconnected networks with feedback mechanisms. Energy simply does not have these properties, nor does it behave as if it were conscious. It could be, in some completely new way we've yet to discover, but in the absence of any evidence for a phenomenon or any known way by which it could occur, it's more parsimonious to tentatively assume otherwise. Of course, if you can think of a way of testing for this, then we'll have more information and can revise our body of knowledge.
So if I assert an (unfounded) law that energy is a manifestation of God in our perceptible dimension and I can get consensus agreement, have you proven that God has always existed and, through energy, can be observed and measured? I mean, after all, we already know that everything we are aware of is energy.
Consensus isn't worth a damn if it's not based on reality. You can declare energy to be a manifestation of God, but that doesn't make it so.
Why is there a law of conservation of energy, stating that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form to another (including matter)? Upon what is that law based, beyond consensus? I know the standard lines and we both know that at its core is a basis of consensus and nothing more concrete.
Nonsense. It's based on well-tested scientific theories and vast amounts of experimental evidence. The law could perhaps be more correctly stated as: "There is no known way in which energy can be created or destroyed, nor any evidence that it ever has been, nor any useful theory that supports or requires the creation or destruction of energy." It's not certain, but it appears in every observable and measurable way to be so.
Scientific laws aren't just picked arbitrarily and voted on by a group of high priests in lab smocks. They're accepted because they accurately describe the observable universe.
Energy is observable? Yes, I agree. But measured? Measured against what? Arbitrary rulers created arbitrarily by men.
The numbers and names used are certainly arbitrary, but the measurments themselves are not. If we were to encounter a suitably advanced alien race, once we got past translating the terms used, we would find that they measure the same value as us for the speed of light, or the amount of energy available from a hydrogen atom. Once they measured the various bodies of our solar system and their movements, they would predict (for example) solar eclipses at the same dates and times as we would predict them. And this is not just consensus, because in a very real and important sense, they (and we) would be right. The time predicted would match the actual time the eclipse occurred. This would not be expected if the laws used were arbitrary.
Because of the known limitations of the observer (humanity) an incorrect definition is much more likely than a correct one. But these arbitrary measures cluster together to form a known deceit of a body of knowledge. I say "a known deceit" because we are frequently changing the measures, changing the definitions, and thereby changing the body of knowledge.
The measures change when the old ones are shown to be inaccurate. We can predict solar eclipses to the second. We can harness the energy of the atom. We can send men and machines into orbit around our planet. We would not be able to do this if the laws we used were inaccurate in any functional sense.
So, thoughts? Hopefully thoughts independent of the Papacy of Science or Religion? Mandates from on high don't sit well with me anymore, no matter who dons the funny looking clothes (lab smock, papal hat).
I hope you have come to understand the difference between science and religion. While both may have complex rules and laws that may be incomprehensible to outsiders, the difference is that science describes the real world, the universe we actually live in. There is no obvious correlation between the tenets of any religion and reality.
Abaddon

Kenneson
If some atheists do not make an assertion that they have proof of a negative, are there not at the same time others of them who sound (at least to me) very dogmatic?

Dogmatic?
1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant
2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises
I have to admit I see no problem with someone expressing positiveness in assertion of opinion, whether I agree with them or not PROVIDED they have an argument.
And therin lies a problem.
I use a scientific paradigm; there is no possibility of agreement on many topics with someone with a paradigm that holds religious doctrine as the final say-so, either of me with them or them with me.
A belief-based argument without substansiation is, to me, not an argument. Example; "The earth is flat, it says so in the Holy Book of Bowiter". That, to me, is no arguement.
Then there is the second problem. I can point out any number of threads where people have asserted that 'evolution is wrong'. In the course of the discussion it becomes apparent that although the person might be making statements like that, they actually have huge gaps in their knowledge of the topic or complete misconceptions about what evolution even is. Their opinions are "unwarranted or arrogant", as they quite simply don't know what they are talking about, and are normally not willing to learn enough about the subject to be able to make the statements they make with confidence. Instead they express a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises.
I'm certainly not trying to intentionally lie about atheists and I apologize to the exceptions.
Thank you... and in all truth, the number of atheists who would NOT be an exception to your statement is a massive majority. I have never seen an atheist assert that you can prove something that doesn't exist, as this is something you learn on the way to becoming an atheist.
It's simple logic. Look for key, find key, wave key in air and say 'I have the key, it exists'. You HAVE the key; proof.of existence of key. Look for key, don't find key, wave empty fingers in air and say 'look, there is no key'. But maybe the key is somewhere you didn't look? Your empty fingers don't prove there is no key
So, in the final analysis, which is a better explanation, a causeless universe or a causeless God? Or do we need to look for another explanation?
Now that is a good question. It's one I spent a lot of time on.
I first asked myself what I would expect if there was a god that cared. The answer boils down to clarity. I have yet to see one decent answer to the lack of clarity. What purpose could a caring god have in making itself unprovable (as if there is a god it would have had to be a deliberate choice on god's part to make its existence unprovable)?
What would your answer to that question be?
OldSoul

funkyderek: the difference is that science describes the real world, the universe we actually live in.

Science attempts to describe the real world, and occasionally acknowledges that it fails to adequately do so. Usually, science agrees with your statement and dares anyone to dispute their superior understanding. Before anyone will be heard they must first prove loyalty to the founding principles, they must adopt the edicts and dogma of the church. Then, if they have differing opinions that don't stray too far from accepted dogma these might be entertained with suspicious curiosity. If their views diverge sharply, they are treated like Nikola Tesla, figuratively burned as heretics.
Mechanical flying devices heavier than air cannot exist.
Sounds downright Papal to me.
As I see it, there is more in heaven and earth ... and science is largely a philosophy preached as reality. Keep in mind, that in arguing in this thread I have already disclaimed agreement with what I write. (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/91573/1541945/post.ashx#1541945)
CinemaBlend presented the challenge without setting a requirement that those who accept the challenge actually believe or agree with what they write. While strictly speaking God cannot be proved to exist, strictly speaking, energy cannot be proved to exist. A cursory study of high-energy physics can quickly enlighten anyone to the inability of science to adequately quantify and define what energy is. Your simple definition is great for an 11th grade classroom, but energy must be more than capacity to do work. Tesla pioneered many proofs of that statement, and clergy of science deemed him heretical.
funkyderek: If we were to encounter a suitably advanced alien race, once we got past translating the terms used, we would find that they measure the same value as us for the speed of light, or the amount of energy available from a hydrogen atom.
Well, there is no way to argue against the understanding possessed of an advanced hypothetical race that reasons exactly as modern human scientists reason. What if this race understand the nature of light better and more accurately describes it as static? Your certainty of dogma does not allow for any possibility that this may be so, while any physicist readily admits we do not yet fully comprehend what light is. We can make nothing more concrete than best educated guesses about its properties (including speed).
I'm not putting static light forth as a theory of mine. I am saying that to imagine that how humans quantify properties of various elements of reality would be the same in 2000 years is a little megalomaniacal, in terms of the species, especially given how much our quantification has changed in the last 100 years.
Since everything we quantify is in relation to our perceptions of other things we have quantified, we would further have to assume that the race we encounter perceives all of our quantifiable (perceptible) reality in the same way we do. Highly unlikely, at best. It may be that a more advanced species would see no point in quantification of every discernible reality. It may be that our concept of energy from an atom is infantile and that your conclusion regarding it potential (based on fairly young human sciences) is incorrect.
An interesting book I thoroughly enjoyed is "Lost Science" by Gerry Vassilatos. I have not independently verified the factuality of all his claims, but I have verified many of them. Unfortunately, the work requires a capacity for reading long-winded, sometimes pointless, comments. Basically, if you stomach my posts you should be able to enjoy the book.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
tetrapod.sapien

elderwho: What does the above have to do with proving there was and are atheist that hold government office?

it has everything to do with the point i was making. i thanked you for two reasons. one, you did answer my question. two, you helped me prove my point. in our time and society, atheists and non-theists of all sorts are over run in the government sector by people mixing their religion with their work. their implicit assertions in with policy and enforcement of policy.
Old soul: Science attempts to describe the real world, and occasionally acknowledges that it fails to adequately do so.
unlike religion which already perfectly understands the "real world". and religion, of course, never has to admit failure because they never fail.
compare the two if you wish! but, don't expect people to let you get away with it.
Before anyone will be heard they must first prove loyalty to the founding principles, they must adopt the edicts and dogma of the church.
if you are describing science, then that is not so, i'm afraid. the way you word it is straw-man. it sounds like you are not taking into consideration one of the basic foundations of science and critical thought. the implied assertion in all arguments and explanations made by religion is that god exists. the implied assertion in science is only to gain knowledge about nature. this is a neutral position. neither positive or negative. every description and theory goes from there. scientific method, unlike religious method, is open. all that is required to turn a theory on it's head is is a better theory that explains existing data and evidence better than the old theory, and makes better predictions of future data. sure, perhaps the discoverers of the losing theory might fight the change, but they never win out, because unlike religion, science cannot exist without the continual acquirement of new and better knowledge.
but, if you want to make changes to scientific theories you must first be a scientist with a neutral implied assertion. you must know the existing data and evidence and theories inside-out. you must have gained the respect and trust of your peers by publishing peer reviewed scientific papers showing your neutrality to data. if this wasn't the case, then any tom, dick or harry could come along and mess up the work of scientists who have searched long and hard for new accurate theories. (see: Intelligent Design - still yet to provide any peer reviewed papers to the bio or paleo communities).
yes, science makes mistakes and moves on. science revels in this ability to be self-correcting.
comparing science to religion is a fallacy, sorry.
While strictly speaking God cannot be proved to exist, strictly speaking, energy cannot be proved to exist.
how strict do you intend to get? i always thought albert einstein was strict enough on the subject? what happens when matter " disappears "? does it leave the universe? jeepers.
and God should not have to rely on us folk to prove he exists should he? a strict proof in the scientific sense would be nice, but so would other ones that are entirely reasonable:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/91573/1546446/post.ashx#1546446
Your certainty of dogma does not allow for any possibility that this may be so, while any physicist readily admits we do not yet fully comprehend what light is.
funkyderek is not being dogmatic, as per Abaddon's definition. he stating that not all scientific theories are bound to be over turned just because we are dumb apes. it's pure speculation to say that all current knowledge will be over turned by "new truth". do you await the alien race that will provide a better definition of light, while pointing the fingers at scientists now warning them not to be pretentious? how could we develop any new technologies unless we act on the acquired knowledge? as i asked in another thread: "do you await new truth on the fact that DNA consists of two helix's?"
surely we will make advancements in the future that seriously challenge existing theory, and surely there are dogmatic scientists out there more concerned with their reputations than with the acquirement of newer and better knowledge. but that does not make it a papacy with clergy. a conspiracy of scientists to enslave the human tribe like religion has!
tetrapod.sapien

I'm not putting static light forth as a theory of mine. I am saying that to imagine that how humans quantify properties of various elements of reality would be the same in 2000 years is a little megalomaniacal, in terms of the species, especially given how much our quantification has changed in the last 100 years.
i guess we'll just have to see when the time comes around. until then: the acquiring of data and evidence. the compiling of knowledge. the testing. the hypothesizing. the re testing. the writing of peer reviewed papers. the peer reviews. the publication. the application. - is all hard enough without gratuitous obstacles of philosophy thrown in our way! straw men arguments describing science as a papacy with clergy gets in the way of real progress.
stevenyc

OK my little story didn't get anywhere.
So, let's try this:
Prove to me that God exists
Well, you can't.You can niether prove or disprove the existance of God.
The request is metaphysical.
The athiest and the agnostic, by definition, cannot respond to the request other than 'No, I cannot'.
The believer can respond. However, as it is metaphysical, the response will be the same 'No, I cannot'.
steve
LittleToe

Steve:
That would about be the sum of it
OldSoul

tetrapod.sapien: the implied assertion in science is only to gain knowledge about nature. this is a neutral position. neither positive or negative.

The implied assertion and the practical application of the assertion in the real world are very different things.
tetrapod.sapien: all that is required to turn a theory on it's head is is a better theory that explains existing data and evidence better than the old theory, and makes better predictions of future data. sure, perhaps the discoverers of the losing theory might fight the change, but they never win out, because unlike religion, science cannot exist without the continual acquirement of new and better knowledge.
And this idyllic scientific community of people who are only interested in improved understanding of reality can be found where? History is riddled with scientists who died in ignominy, publishing their findings from obscurity if they could get published at all, being read in obscurity, only to have their discoveries rediscovered decades later by someone who eventually gets credit for their ideas.
Science can exist with limited, restricted, and sometimes directed pathways of acquiring new and better knowledge. And your premise that all that is required is a better theory that explains existing data and evidence is completely flawed when examined against what actually happens as opposed to what is supposed to happen. Have you studied Nikola Tesla's life? Have you ever chanced upon any references to the work of one, Thomas Townsend Brown (high-school graduate, reknowned physicist/electrical engineer) and how his scientific discoveries turned out?
Science does not recognize everyone that brings forward a better explanation. Science does not generally pursue fields of study that encourage discovery of better explanations if those fields of study fall outside a relatively narrowly defined boundary. Science is not about discovery anymore. It is about marketability. It is a business. History is not a strawman. History proves that what is claimed by science is different than what is practiced by science.
For instance, if I wished to start proving the existence of God scientifically, what would I need? First, I would need a hypothesis through which such proofs could be potentially established. I would also need funding. Since I am not a scientist in a field that would be trying to discover the existence of God, I would also need to convince a scientist who was in that field (preferably a scientist of good repute in the scientific community) that my hypothesis for arriving at proofs was sound enough to proceed with investigating it. I could finally try to scientifically prove the existence of God. But that wouldn't mean I could prove the existence of God to anyone beyond myself. Unless I was able to convince enough people to listen to the arguments in favor of my proofs, I would still be unable to publish them.
I used a search for God as the premise because of the thread title, but this fairly depicts the struggle to get any new idea accepted by the scientific community. Usually there is a large outlay of the researchers own funds unless the hoped for discoveries have market potential, and not rarely even then.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
P.S. CinemaBlend wanted this argument, everyone else is doing his arguing for him. I disclaimed my posts in this thread already.

Prove to me that God exists

Share this