scientific evidence of God

he is not able to do so, because no such science exists.

 

Add 1 part science... 1 part theology... mix it all together with fuzzy logic = a logical fallacy... not proof of God.

Faith begins where reason ends as there is no empirical proof of the theological intangible known as God.

 

everyone loves spaghetti, that's scientific proof that the FSM is our God.. he imprinted that in our genetics, if you do not love spaghetti it cause the devil has already gotten to ya, there is no hope for you

 

Hello, kurtz, can I call you kurtz?

What you have presented is an attempt at logic. It is strictly not a type of science, but logic is still a valid attempt at getting at a truth. Science requires testable predictions, whereas logic can be applied without experiment and still work. As long as the inputs are correct and the logic sound, something does not need to be scientific to be good reasons for belief.

I honestly appreciate your willingness to approach the subject with these kinds of arguments very much. It'll be nice to have someone on the forum who will produce arguments. Many objections have already been raised, but I feel all objections so far have been flawed (well, the argument that total energy in the universe can be large isn't directly flawed, but I find it a bit unintuitive).

There are many types of energy, but most of them can be boiled down to kinetic energy, potential energy and mass energy (there are other ways of boiling them down, mass is usually combined in one of the other categories, but I have separated them for simplicity). Mass energy is the energy which exists in mass, as per the famous E=mc^2 formula. It is positive for all known particles. Kinetic energy is the energy of things that move about. It is also positive for all known particles.

Before we go on, let's take a look at the law of conservation of energy. Conservation of energy states that total energy cannot be created or destroyed. Note how I added the word "total" into the phrasing. This implies that when one talks about energy shifting forms, one should add up the different energies present at any time for the rule to make sense.

This brings us to the last type of energy, potential energy. Potential energy is harder to define or even describe than the other types, but it includes things like a ball lying on a table having higher energy than a ball lying under the table. The interesting thing about potential energy for our purposes is that potential energy can be negative. The potential energy associated with a force between two objects is positive if the force pulls the particles apart and negative if it pulls the two together. It is also stronger the closer to one another the two objects are and since objects that are being pulled together tend to be closer to one another, the negative energy massively outweighs the positive energy. The two most common examples of this are gravity which acts on very large scales, and electromagnetism, which acts on a roughly atomic scale (at least for our purposes). Gravity holds many astronomical objects together, which, since it deals with huge amounts of matter, provides the universe with enormous amounts of negative energy. Similarly, all contained matter, solid objects, liquids, gases and so on, are held together by the electromagnetic force. When these two negative energies are added to the kinetic and mass energies of the universe, they roughly cancel (and as mathematical physicists point out, it would make perfect sense if the "roughly" comes from our methods of measuring, rather than reality itself).

So, when one adds up all these energies, we add positive to negative and they cancel out. Thus, the universe arguably has a total energy of 0, which would be perfectly compatible with the law of conservation of energy and a universe which does not exist before the beginning of time.

 

What you posted has been debunked already, several times. Admittedly the tone of some of the replies was rather off, but you haven't responded to any of the many fatal flaws that have already been pointed out.

 

When he responds with, "you haven't disputed the science of my argument...blah..blah..blah..."....don't be surprised.

 

WHY WHY WHY would proof of a god or gods HAVE to be so COMPLICATED ???

I F there were gods or was a god it would not need all that goobledygoop to prove it...

If "god" wanted christians constantly and desperately trying to prove he exists why doesn't he help them out a little? Where is he?

 

Funniest thing would be if 'god' actually did make an appearance and they were a black lesbian.

 

OH if only!!!

 

perfect!

and she has 14 children, born of 14 different supernatural sperm donors.

- - - Updated - - -

she's busy with her 14 bastard children.

 

Include a couple of abortions in there and the a la carte chrstians would be dropping like flies .. but hang on, if that happened they would just claim 'god' was a false one.

 

Well, I'll wait until he does before I pass judgement.

 

I like the mental image created

another of my pet funnies is that jesus turns up as the long-haired, bearded, liberal socialist hippie the bible tells us he was. a very semitic looking hippie. with no underpants beneath that kaftan!

 

Your opinion and you are wrong.

 

We have a winner!

 

I can actually remember (which is quite an achievement on the wrong side of 40) the "that's just your opinion" phase. I think it was around age 11-12? it seemed like the ultimate put down, at the time. And the perfect invocation for those awkward moments when you're backed into a corner

 

Pot meet kettle.

 

Even if science could prove an external "supernatural" creator (and I, for one, think the evidence that our reality is a digital simulation is overwhelming, which requires a creator of some kind), it doesn't then follow that YOUR version of "God" is that creator.

 

as the occupational therapists say to 90 year olds with macular degeneration and loose carpets "that's a trip point!"

 

No offense, but I have absolutely NO idea what this means.

 

if you're 90, have bad eyesight, and loose carpets, you're gonna trip. if you're a Christian and maintain that some element of science/physics proves god, you trip on the fact that while this it may or may not prove A god, the chance it's YOUR god is about 50 squillion to 1.

 

Gotcha. And completely agree. In fact, if my simulation theory is correct, and all available evidence says it is, it completely destroys the idea of a buybull gawd.

 

Instead of one line non-posts why don't you answer my questions?

WHY WHY WHY would proof of a god or gods HAVE to be so COMPLICATED ???

I F there were gods or was a god it would not need all that goobledygoop to prove it...

If "god" wanted christians constantly and desperately trying to prove he exists why doesn't he help them out a little? Where is he?

 

Thank you.

- - - Updated - - -

Was that a scientific refutation of the science I posted?

- - - Updated - - -

If there is another one, please post it.

- - - Updated - - -

And of course you can scientifically prove that.

 

Who debunked it and how? And what were the flaws? And BTW, trying to debunk what I have posted while offering nothing that is an absolute alternative truth means nothing.