Can science ever prove the existance of God?

Jump to Last Post 1-18 of 18 discussions (143 posts)

55
Obscure_Treasuresposted 12 years ago
In this advanced era Science has been able to invent new things....bt a above mentioned question still remains on back of my mind...
reply report
1. 86
  wayseekerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As a christian believer, I would agree with Stump Parrish in the fact that God cannot be proved by science, but for obviously different reasons. This world is composed of the physical and the spiritual. God is a part of our spiritual world, and, while God has influence over the physical world, He is not a direct part of it. By definition, science deals with the physical world. It is not interested in God.
  
  That said, science is discovering new wonders of His creation all the time, and there is plenty of evidence there that supports His existence. Faith, however, is a key component, of course, so I have no doubt that Stump Parish will simply think I'm deluding myself, which is fair. I spent many years there myself. God works in His time.
  
  wayseeker
  reply report
  61
  Dave Mathewsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Science can prove the existance of God. Science simply wants to take the acknowledgements for everything for itself. Where did the scientist get his thought or idea from to begin with, if not from God?
  reply report
  52
  zhangxiaoposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  dear sir,This is Zhang from China,I totally agree the opinion of Holly Bible and the words.but whatever I cant let me believe the wonder in it that Jesus fed 5000 people and walk on the wave and so on.Is it really?
  reply report
  60
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ni hao little Zhang ! You should not let yourself get taken in by a story that was only created to control people when you have far better ways to live life, the Tao for instance is far superior in many ways, and does not require belief in a load of la Ji.
  reply report
  52
  zhangxiaoposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  呵呵，很多东西讲的是有道理的。说他控制老百姓未免太偏激。毕竟这也是一种世界观。同时，现在的人好像信仰缺失，没有精神的生活
  reply report
  60
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Spitituality is little to do with religion, religion is just how others would like you to see your own spirituality. I can agree that in China there is a need for more of it in the face of commodification - but christianity would seem to be just another layer of control that is not needed - and it goes with a hierarchical structure of society, it keeps you looking upward while our leaders stand in the imagined light pretending they have spiritual backing for their actions.
  
  Please reply in English, this is an English language forum and whould be open to everyone to read what is said.
  reply report
  52
  zhangxiaoposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  yes,sir.but sorry I am poor at English.Much I cant express by English. I think the human is a reactor---educated,surroundings.....most of people will be always controlled by few.FREE and INDEPENDENT soul is very hard for a man.you say?
  reply report
  60
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think you are right - and the closest we may come to freedom is to be able to see the controls that rule us.
  
  Good luck here - I must go and find good food in Nanning that does not cost a weeks wages
  reply report
  80
  earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You make a good point.
  
  People born in some countries will be muslim, some born in other countries will be hindi, others christians etc.
  
  Most people simply follow their own culture with religion or have the same belief as their parents and do not want to know anything else.
  reply report
  52
  zhangxiaoposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  thank you,sir.I want to translate an old Chinese sayings by Li Si--an powerful officer in Qin dynasty.That is "国无敌国，民无四方" means there is no enemy countries in the world and the people under the sun with no difference.I hope it is the correct meaning, people under the sun should know the thing of people for we are all human being.
  reply report
2. 69
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Can Science Ever Prove The Existence of God?
  
  What god?
  
  There is only assumption of the existence of a god. Science is about determining things based on and in reality. With that said, all available knowable knowledge already proves no god exists in reality.
  reply report
  86
  wayseekerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Cagsil,
  
  Fair enough. I certainly agree with you that science is about determining reality based on observable fact--at least, using facts that are as objective as possible given human limitations. That said, what exactly are the ways in which science has proven that God does not exist? I have never seen such evidence, and I need to know what it is if it's out there.
  
  wayseeker
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Wayseeker,
  
  I've said this before on the forums and I'll gladly repeat it for you.
  
  Life doesn't require any knowledge of a god, to be understood.
  Life doesn't require any knowledge of a god, to be lived.
  
  The highest authority any individual can have is self. No other authority is actually required for understanding one's own life, nor is it require to live one's life.
  
  Therefore, no god.
  
  Every single person has to the power to be their own individual authority. A conscience that should have been shaped by individual parents and accumulated knowledge of humankind, which is how each person learns about morals(our conscience).
  
  When a person truly understands discerned wisdom, it brings about a universal truth they are able to recognize, when they put their ego aside. The subjective nature of humankind's individual perspective/perception is mostly based on the ego.
  
  Science IS the accumulation of all knowable knowledge available. Every aspect of anything you can learn and discern wisdom from is in fact, all any individual needs.
  
  Again, no god required.
  
  You can create your own purpose. Thus, you give meaning to your life. No god required to obtain either.
  reply report
  86
  wayseekerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Cagsil,
  
  Thank you for taking the time to explain. This clearly lays out your perspective and I understand and respect why you believe what you believe.
  
  wayseeker
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's not something I believe. Please do not attempt to bring up my beliefs. I do not discuss my beliefs with people on a forum, if at all possible. However, if you would like to know one of my beliefs- it would be that the Boston Redsox will Win a World Series Title.
  
  That is something I believe. I hold very few beliefs, btw.
  
  What I explained to you, isn't a belief. It's actually what I have discerned from the wisdom I have gained over the course of living and learning.
  reply report
3. 72
  getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A better question is: can science ever prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
  
  This question still remains perplexing.
  reply report
4. 61
  Dave Mathewsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Excuse me! BUT, every step every advancement,that man and science takes, is proof positive of God. Mankind could not possibly do any of the things it claims to have accomplished, if it were not for God. The knowledge is His every invention is His creation. Mankind simply wants to think that it is man who did it all when infact it was God.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Excuse me! BUT, every step every advancement that man and science takes, is proof positive of Mans abilities. God could not possibly do any of the things believers claim He accomplished if it were not for Man. The knowledge is theirs every invention is their creation. Believers simply want to think it is God who did it all when in fact it was Man.
  
  Sound familiar? It makes about as much sense, too.
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  0
  Sherlock221bposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm glad that it was God who invented everything, because my telly is on the blink, and I cannot afford a TV repairman. Hopefully God could pop around and have a quick look at it.
  reply report
  86
  wayseekerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hah! I love light humor in places where folks seem to feel the need to take it all so seriously. Nice.
  
  wayseeker
  reply report
5. 55
  Obscure_Treasuresposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks evryne fr sharing such useful informations....Bt wht I really want to knw that If god was only assumption and non existant then y do we beleive in him sepcially when we r crestfallen?
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Please do try to accurately type your words. Your above post is horrendous to read.
  
  As for why people believe? It's a need for them.
  
  As for "crestfallen"? That word is actually meaningless and has no true baring on living life or understanding of one's own life.
  reply report
6. 60
  mathsciguyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I used to hate the philosophies of Karl Popper. I thought he was a cliched, anti-establishment, post-modern, intentionally-controversial, regurgitating hack. Until I realized that, from a certain perspective, he was absolutely right. Well, that is, as right as one can be when looking at things through Popper-vision.
  The idea is basically that the inductive approach to science is not really the way to do things. Now, as a mathematician, I strongly disagree. STRONGLY. DISAGREE. After all, the Principle of Mathematical Induction is one of the most powerful tools a mathematician has when trying to prove something. However, the inductive method requires a beginning point - a thing which is demonstrably true, and from which the theorem will be extrapolated, so to speak, to more general cases.
  
  This is a problem, since there are precious few things which can be assertive with non-relative certainty. Therefore, it is more economical, more accurate, more honest to instead say of a theory, "this theory is substantiated by evidence and withstands falsification, but is not an absolute certainty." In this way, it is not a contradiction when the scientific community must accept an alternative description of the universe from the status quo. It is foolish to think that a theory is so sure that it will never be changed or (help us!) be proven entirely incorrect. After all, what we thought before was only good until something came along and showed it wrong. And that is science.
  reply report
7. 60
  TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No.
  
  And it isn't because He isn't there.
  
  It is because He is so much further advanced then us. I think even if he were to show up right now, His tech would still look like magic to us.
  reply report
8. 0
  klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The real question is...
  
  If Science proved the existence of God, would the atheists believe it?
  reply report
59
Stump Parrishposted 12 years ago
In the entire history of mankind no god has been proven to exist for a very good reason. These beings exist only in the minds of believers. Science can do a lot of things but proving that the non-existent, exists isn't one of them.
reply report
1. 55
  Obscure_Treasuresposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Stump Parrish-Do u mean to say that God is non existent.....So science cant prove it??
  reply report
  67
  tamronposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My mom use to make me go to church and I hated it as a kid plus I went to a private school which was baptist. I resented that school because they would come with a bus on sundays to pick me up for sunday school. That was the last thing I wanted to do is go to school on sundays.
  
  One of my moms favorite preachers came to town for a revival. Mom dragged me to the revival.
  
  All these people where falling on the floor. Mumbling and some where crying laughing the preach prayed for people then they claimed to be healed.
  
  I thought these people were crazy. I was scared! I also thought these people were getting paid specially the ones who claimed they were healed.
  
  I felt stupid being the only one siting so I stood up raised my hands. Nobody could hear me but I sayed God if this is real and your real heal my teeth.
  
  Nothing happened! I was getting ready for school the next day so I had to brush my teeth. I noticed I had no cavities. My mouth was full of cavities I was always getting fillings.
  
  To this day I do not have any cavities.
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This is the exact kind of "science" that proves, irrefutibly, that God exists!
  reply report
2. 61
  Dave Mathewsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Excuse me BUT if God is only a figment of some man's over active thought process only a figment of our imagination, then why is there so much discussion over God. Look around at all the beauty created in this world. Look and see all of the technology. Take a look at the intricacy of the Human Body how all of the parts and organs work together look at how bones and other parts miraculously heal themselves, how man's immune system manages to keep us going day in and day out. You are probably an atheist but even you cannot deny God's hand or the hand of some supernatural being in all of this.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There is so much discussion because religious nuts such as you insist in sticking it in everyone's face. If you shut up about it - there would be no discussion. I can deny all the nonsense you like.
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  True dat! Clearly a severe and rigid mental sickness.
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Because, over 2/3 of the population has the similar or same belief that a god exists and each of them makes the claim based on their faith. The irrationality of it is what is discussed.
  It's not proof a god exists.
  Also isn't proof a god exists.
  Again, not proof.
  Sure, it can be denied, considering the availability of knowable knowledge already tells humankind all of which you described. Supernatural being? Pure conjecture and assumption.
  reply report
  86
  wayseekerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Cagsil,
  
  I am not sure that describing the arguments for God as "pure conjecture" and "assumption" is really fair. The work of thousands of theologians across the millennia, while I'll grant you are only incidentally based in historical and scientific fact, can hardly be reduced to simple assumption. There is a great deal of sound reasoning and logic behind what they are suggesting, however much you may disagree with the foundations of the ideas.
  
  wayseeker
  reply report
3. 86
  wayseekerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Stump Parish,
  
  You are right. No one can prove that God exists. No one can prove that He does not, either. So that leaves us here discussing theoretical ideas that no side will be able to "prove". Great fun, but I expect we should not plan on arriving at a definitive answer. You will believe what you will believe, and I will believe what I believe. We might give one another some food for thought, however.
  
  wayseeker
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are certainly convincing me that you are incapable of rational thinking. I guess this "food for thought," is one of the reasons I reject your impossible god.
  
  Prove the tooth fairy does not exist. Because if you cannot - I assume you "choose" to believe in it. And this is exactly as rational as me not believing in it. Right?
  
  This is one of the reasons your religion causes so many conflicts. Your inability to use rational thought.
  reply report
96
thooghunposted 12 years ago
There are several ways of addressing this question. Two common for-and-against arguments are as follows:

1) You cannot prove or disprove that which does not exist. (a common atheist postulation)

2) Many theists and deists belief science IS proof of the existence of God, namely intelligent design and irreducible complexity. They argue that some organisms (including examples of tissues, animals, organs e.t.c) are far too complex to have simply evolved.(a common faith-based argument)

There are many reasons why I feel the second reasoning is wrong, but we'll leave that for another day
reply report
1. 86
  wayseekerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thooghun,
  
  You make some interesting points. I actually had a discussion about your second point with someone just a few days ago that piqued my curiosity. I'd be very interested in hearing about why you disagree.
  
  When you find that day where you have time to discuss it, let me know!
  
  wayseeker
  reply report
  96
  thooghunposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Anytime you like Wayseeker, we could setup some sort of structured debate, I adore formal socratic debates *wink*.
  
  In any case, my reasoning stems from the examples I have been given, for instance I'm commonly presented with the human eye as an example of irreducible complexity.
  
  Our eyes are anything but miraculous in their design, in essence they are wired "backwards", with light having to pass through the nerves first. The vagus nerve, or the tube (I forget the name) that connects the testes to the phallus are prime examples. Why must travel all the way past the kidneys?
  
  All these inconsistencies are easily explained by evolution (the eye because we were underwater, the tube because our testes were previously inside our body, the vagus nerve (especially in giraffes) because of how our nerves are formed to begin with).
  
  The point is, I have yet to find a single thing that IS in fact divinely intelligent in it's design. Our bodies are a perfect demonstration of how flawed we actually are.
  
  If you can chalk me up something you deem an example of irreducible complexity I'd love to have a bash at it
  reply report
  86
  wayseekerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thooghun,
  
  While I'd love to go there with you, I'm quite certain I'm not qualified. I'm fairly new to all of this, so I don't have a lot of "facts" to bring with me. Still, it might be worth trying. Where would we do such a thing?
  
  Also, here's the basic outline of what I discussed with someone earlier this week (it will be extremely general):
  
  An engineer friend of mine, who is also a christian, talked about the concept of entropy. I'd heard the word, but didn't really know what it meant. Apparently it is a concept in science that everything tends towards a state of disorder and simplicity--that is--it moves towards the state of lowest complexity. If this is so, then how is it that evolution is consistently moving towards a state of higher complexity?
  
  You mentioned eyes: the human eye, while perhaps not all that complex, is certainly more so than that of a dog, and far more complex that anything a single cell organism would have.
  
  If entropy is a generally accepted and universal scientific concept, as I understand it to be, then what's up with this?
  
  I'm curious to hear your response.
  
  Thanks!
  
  wayseeker
  reply report
  96
  thooghunposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're getting at regarding entropy, and how it discords with evolution. Perhaps you could elaborate on that?
  
  Regarding complexity, I don't find this line of reasoning to be true -- this idea of a "great chain of being" with Humans on top. An eagle's eye is more complex than man's because it needs to be. A dog relies on far better hearing and smell than we do, thus its eye is less efficient. Nature provides limited resources (food and energy) and evolution accounts for these discrepancies by calling them trade-offs.
  
  Evolution is about survival. Some single-cell beings live longer than mammals, does this mean they are less successful? Evolution is not a race for complexity, it is a means of survival. Humans developed larger brains because it gave us a survivalistic comparative advantage.
  
  Take a Cheetah for instance, it is the fastest land animal because it has to catch another fast animal in order to survive. Because it has a limited supply of food, it can't develop stamina as well as strength, so its plan is to catch its prey in a burst of speed in the 30 seconds it has before it wears out.
  
  You can't have it all! Dogs and wolves on the other hand are built to outlast, and not outrun. These strategies of survival happen because only fast cheetahs and fit wolves will survive, thus only these genes carry-on through the gene pool.
  
  Let me ask you this though, if complexity is an indication of divine intervention, why create so many flaws? There's a reason half the human race wears glasses
  reply report
  86
  wayseekerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A pat religious answer to this question would simply be that the flaws are part of the results of the fall of man--consequences so to speak--but I'm not convinced it's anywhere near that simple.
  
  A more interesting response might be that we need to clearly define flaws. Who is to say that the need to wear glasses is necessarily a flaw. Certainly it interferes with the traditional uses of sight, but how does this flaw influence the greater character--or other aspects--of the person. Is a blind person flawed, or merely different? Is their experience of the world any more or less complex?
  
  I follow what you are saying about the progress of evolution as changes that result from necessity and natural selection. That all made sense to me long ago, and still does. I am simply beginning to explore the reasoning behind other possibilities with more serious attention. With that in mind, I would point out that I think it's fair to suggest that humans are vastly more complex in at least one sense--our intelligence--over any other animals. If this is a result of natural selection, why are we the only ones to have achieved it? Should there not be lizard men, or some such thing, around as well?
  
  Thanks for the discussion--these are all very interesting ideas to consider.
  
  wayseeker
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds to me like you already know all the answers and are using nonsense to defend an irrational belief system.
  
  I have never heard a religionist claim that not being able to see properly is not a flaw and that lack of lizard men proves that evolution is a lie.
  
  This is why your religion causes so many conflicts. Lies. It is a pity your religion does not teach ethics. What a shame it teaches you to lie instead. wayseeker? Sure.
  reply report
  86
  wayseekerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Evolution Guy,
  
  I have decided what I believe, that is true. Clearly you have as well. My question to you is this: you say much, but you explain little. Can you clarify exactly how what I have said is a lie?
  
  Thanks,
  
  wayseeker
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are lying when you make arguments that your beliefs and no more or less rational than some one not believing the nonsense you believe. This lie comes from lying to yourself in the first instance because you need to believe.
  
  Your chosen user name is a lie. You are not seeking a way. You already have all the answers.
  
  This self deception then causes you to argue with pother people and insult them by telling them that they are not capable of making a rational decision based on logical thought. This need to have to bring every one down to your level of "blind belief," is an insult.
  
  I accept that you need blind belief. Why the need to bring me down to your level? I think if you take a look inside you will find that you are simply defending what your rational mind is telling you is a wholly irrational, nonsensical belief.
  
  This is why your religion has caused so many conflicts - and continues to do so.
  reply report
  60
  mathsciguyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If I may interject? Please feel entirely free to ignore me completely.
  
  Entropy refers to the energy lost in a system due to various causes (for instance when friction causes kinetic energy to be transferred into heat, which is another form of energy, but isn't typically as useful as the motion of kinetic energy), but has also taken on a sort of unofficial definition as well. This popular connotation of entropy refers to the idea that a series of random "steps" taken by a system will result in disorder in the system. An example of this is to imagine a very carefully arranged pattern of stones which will be slightly moved around at random over time. The pattern will descend into "disorder".
  
  The problem with this definition is that, in this sense, "disorder" is not defined in any quantitative sense. Consider that if you did not know that the stones had been moved randomly, you could just as easily assume that the random "disorderly" result of "entropy" was the actual beginning pattern which was later to be disorganized! Phew! I hope that made some sense. Your engineer friend (though he may be a highly intelligent and capable individual) is misusing the concept of entropy. It doesn't really apply to evolution in that way (ie, entropy is not a counter-argument to evolution).
  reply report
  86
  wayseekerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for intervening, mathsciguy! This gives me a much clearer understanding of the concept. As you explain it here, I can see how it does not really serve as a counter-argument to evolution. This will give me some questions to bring back to my friend.
  
  For my part--at the moment--I am simply trying to explore all angles on the topic, remaining open to all viewpoints both "scientific" and "spiritual" so as to gather information for making a better-informed determination myself. This certainly gives me more to chew on. Thanks!
  
  wayseeker
  reply report
59
Stump Parrishposted 12 years ago
Obscure. yes in my opinion that is the reality of the situation. I do believe wayseeker expressed my thoughts on it a little better than I did.

That was a fair assessment wayseeker. Thank you for keeping it civil. I went the other way in my life, I sort of believed early, tried to strengthen my beliefs after that and finally ended up not believing. I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs as long as those beliefs don't harm another. I would rarely use terms like delusional in a civil conversation. Unfortunately I don't get to have many of those. I am an atheist living in the bible belt. Not a hot bed of tolerance, lol.
reply report
1. 86
  wayseekerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What a wonderful response. I appreciate your civility as well, Stump Parrish! I am unsure as to why, but this topic tends to get people very riled up. In the end, the only way to further our thinking is by making an honest attempt to understand where other people are coming from. In order to do that--believer or atheist--it has to start with respect.
  
  Thanks for your thoughts,
  
  wayseeker
  
  P.S. My apologies for the lack of tolerance among some of my fellow believers. Apparently they have not read that part of the Bible yet.
  reply report
  68
  IntimatEvolutionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Kudos!
  reply report
0
Sherlock221bposted 12 years ago
It is not the job of science to prove that God exists. Science has as its objective the understanding of how the universe and everything in it works and how it came into being. The early scientists were believers in God, however, it just happens that the discoveries of science have pushed God out of the picture, because whilst there is a great deal of evidence from geology, physics, chemistry and biology to prove how things came into existence, there is none to support the belief in God. It should be evident by studying the physical if there is a designer behind it. Yet there is only evidence of the development of the universe and the evolution of species upon our planet. The need for God as an explanation is no longer necessary, and therefore can only ever be a matter of faith. There is nothing that can be examined by physical means to find the answer to the question of whether God exists or not.

Religion understands this, and that is why Christian fundamentalists invented the notion of Intelligent Design. Knowing that simply saying 'God done it' is no longer good enough in the face of scientific evidence, this pseudoscience was created as an attempt to give the impression that religion was meeting science on its own ground, although in reality it does nothing of the kind, even though those who have no understanding of science believe that it does.
reply report
95
wildernessposted 12 years ago
Yes. No. Maybe.

There are several assumptions that must be made, however.

God must exist for science to find Him. If He does not then obviously He won't be found.

God must be detectable to be found. As believers say that they can "feel" Him this should not be a problem if those claims are true. Science has produced detectors that will find anything the human body can detect and hundreds of others as well - there is no reason to think that it can't build a detector that can duplicate this "feeling" unless that feeling is simply imagination.

God must be defined. Not necessarily as a physical definition of what He consists of (energy, mass, plasma, something else we haven't found yet?) but what His attributes are. As an example of my meaning, assume science finds another universe with an intelligence that claims it created our universe. That intelligence even takes six days and builds a third universe, complete with new intelligent beings, as a gift for us. But it then says that it doesn't answer prayers and isn't omnipotent. Is it God? We must know what God is before science can claim to have found Him and there are currently about as many definitions as there are believers.

Wayseeker says God exists in the spirit world and therefore is not of interest to science, but I would disagree. Call Gods home the "spirit world" or "another dimension" or "a different universe" - name it whatever you will - but everything that exists is the world of science. Science already discusses and considers the existence of "other universes" and even "other dimensions" and there is some small evidence that they exist. They will be searched for and, just perhaps, we will find in them the intelligence that built our universe. Whether that hypothetical intelligence will then declared to be God remains to be seen.
reply report
1. 86
  wayseekerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  wilderness,
  
  I sincerely appreciate the comprehensiveness and thoughtfulness of your response here. You do not merely say things, you explain them, which contributes a great deal to my understanding and the movement of the discussion. Thanks.
  
  I can see how you disagree with my statement about the spiritual. I have two responses to this:
  
  1) I would argue that the spiritual world is not another physical "dimension", it is something all together different from our physical reality. It is something that is, in fact, beyond the human capacity to know.
  
  2) This leads to my second response. Assuming that God does in fact exist in the way that Christians believe he does (I recognize that this is a HUGE assumption for those who do not believe, but--for the sake of following my line of reasoning--allow it for the moment), then he is, in fact, omnipotent and all knowing. It is, to my mind, illogical to believe that we, with our limited understanding, are capable of understanding anything about him other than what he chooses to make comprehensible to us. Quite simply, our minds cannot contain the consciousness of God, so how could we possibly fully understand him?
  
  Furthermore, I have recently (via this discussion) come to a belief that he has purposefully arranged it so that we cannot "prove" his existence. Why would he do this? Because if he were to "prove" his existence, then our relationship with him would no longer be one built on love and faith and choice. By proving his existence, then everyone would end up following him because they had no real choice, not because they chose him.
  
  Jesus came to us to tell us about his Father, and he asks us to choose him out of love. Because god is fundamentally relational and just, he respects the freedom of will he has given us to reject him. This is simply another piece of that puzzle.
  
  What do you think?
  
  wayseeker
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  See the contradiction here? You claim not to be able to understand this Invisible Super Being - then you tell us what it fundamentally is.
  reply report
  86
  wayseekerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I only claim to understand what I believe He has chosen to make clear to me. There is no contradiction.
  
  wayseeker
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You claim to not be able to understand - then claim to know what this god thing fundamentally is. See how you are lying to yourself - and me - again?
  reply report
68
IntimatEvolutionposted 12 years ago
I feel it is only a matter of time b before sciences find proof of God. Be it an ET of some sort. The older I get the more I am inclined to think that nothing just happens by chance. But I have no basis for this opinion.
reply report
1. 0
  Sherlock221bposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If an ET was discovered, this would only prove that there was life on another planet, not that that life was created by God. I understand why getting older makes people believe that nothing happens by chance. I too once tried to force myself to believe in the most illogical ideas, because getting closer every day to the inevitable, made be rather desperate. However, I unfortunately was unable to throw rationality out of the window, and I came to realise I was being dishonest with myself by dragging myself around Spiritualist churches or reading pseudoscience books, or begging a God, who didn't answer my prayers. Now, in those fearful moments, when I feel my mortality hanging around my neck like a millstone, I turn to another kind of spirit, one that comes with tonic and ice and a slice.
  reply report
91
Rock_njposted 12 years ago
I doubt it, but if proof of God passes the scientific method, then it will be undeniable.

My personal feeling is that mankind has evolved to the point where they can contemplate that there could be a creator (God), so therefore we have spent thousands of years trying to fill in the blanks to prove God exists. But there is no scientific proof as of yet that God exists. Who knows what developments in science or technology could someday provide proof of the existence of God? So, it is wrong to dismiss the existence God out of hand.
reply report
1. 86
  wayseekerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Here, here! The tricky thing about spirituality is that you can't prove it, but you also can't disprove it. We can argue all day, but we'll never get to a definitive, objective answer. That's why it's called faith, and the bible actually has a lot to say about that
  
  Hebrews 11:1 (NIV) "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."
  
  God is not very concerned about the fact that science cannot prove He exists. In fact, I think he prefers it that way.
  
  wayseeker
  reply report
  61
  Dave Mathewsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The very fact that HISTORY records what is written in the Bible and it is verified though other Historic documents proves it. The very existance of every plant and animal as well as man proves it. The fact that man could not make anything without some divine knowledge of how to make it is proof. The one thing for sure is that God can not be disproved.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Please stop lying. Or at least show the HISTORY that proves the garbage in the bible. What HISTORICAL documents show Jesus walking on WATER?
  
  THanks
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely! The historian that witnessed and recorded the formation of plants, animals and Adam did a wonderful job. What was his name again?
  
  And we surely know that it is only through Gods providing of knowledge that we understand anything. After all, that's why it only took 50,000 years to understand the earth wasn't flat - God's a little slow on the uptake and therefore man is too.
  reply report
60
Peter Owenposted 12 years ago
Hi Evolution - I'm with Wayseeker.
You have been blustering on this thread how people are lying and dilusional and you have not offered one damn thought worth the keystrokes. So let these guys discuss and stay out of it unless you have something that at least took some thought.
reply report
1. 59
  Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I made a reasonable point and attempted to explain why these nonsensical religious beliefs cause so much conflict. And all you can say is that? Why not address the points I made instead?
  
  I think I made a reasonable, rational argument. I made no personal attacks. Instead of telling me to shut up - why not deal with the arguments I made?
  reply report
60
Peter Owenposted 12 years ago
Accusing people of lying is not a personal attack?
And as for the points you made, I just re-read your posts and still have no idea what rational explained points you are making. Maybe I'm not reading between the lines enough.
reply report
1. 59
  Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lying to self leads to:
  Lying to others.
  Arguing that the decision not to believe is as rational as the decision to believe is an insult to other's intelligence.
  This causes conflict.
  
  Address these points instead of telling me to shut up.
  reply report
2. 86
  wayseekerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My thanks, Peter, for your support. As for Evolution Guy, I apologize if I have offended you, but my beliefs are what they are. I will defend them just as you do. That said, I'm afraid it's clear that this particular thread of discussion is no longer productive for either of us, so I will now move on.
  
  My thanks for the spirited discussion.
  
  wayseeker
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Awesome job on avoiding anything I said other than to reduce my statements to factless beliefs again. Just the same as yours are huh? No basis in fact or reality, therefore just as valid as yours.
  
  Odd - I thought I told you that was offensive? Then you apologize and do it again. Any one would think you were insincere in your apology.
  
  Yes - your beliefs are what they are and you have no regard for other people. Oh well. I tried.
  
  Peter will be back to address my points I am certain. Good to know you have support from a fellow believer in fighting for Jesus.
  reply report
58
MelissaBarrettposted 12 years ago
Science cannot prove the existence of anything that is not concrete. That includes God. It also includes love, honor, beauty, etc.

That is the limitation of science.

There is a whole world of things out there that a completely reasonable and rational person will never experience... and how sad that must be for them.

On the flip side, a person who chooses to ignore the scientific/tangible world will spend their lives cowering and praying every time that lightning strikes. They will also miss the thrill of discovering how things work and the millions of "miracles" that come only from knowing how things interact with each other. And that must also be sad for them.

All the arguing is just a bad joke that no one has gotten yet.
reply report
1. 59
  Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Science is "limited," because it only deals with reality? Crikey!
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Science is limited because it only deals with concrete. Concrete is not the same as reality. There are plenty of things that exist that are intangible.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No. There are not. Subjective concepts do not exist in reality. You have invented a special invisible intangible realm in order to defend your ridiculous beliefs.
  
  Unless you are now agreeing that "god" is a concept that does not exist out side of your imagination?
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am perfectly willing to admit that God may only exist within my mind.
  
  Now, are you saying that science can prove love, or that it doesn't exist?
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No - I am saying that love is a subjective concept that does not exist anywhere other than someone's mind. Just like your god. Science rarely deals with subjective concepts although we are learning that this is becoming possible. Sam Harris explains here:
  
  http://blog.ted.com/2010/03/22/science_can_ans/
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, well lets go from there while your video is buffering (he's kinda cute btw, looks like a young jeff goldblum)
  
  We'll assume, for the moment, that God is a concept rather than an actual being. And belief in him/her/them is subjective and personal. In that case would feelings of belief be as valid and inarguable as feelings of love? Why or why not?
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There is no denying these feelings. Belief is subjective and personal. That is why I argue that sharing it and insisting on defending it with nonsensical "logic," causes so many fights.
  
  Keep it to yourself and we do not have a problem. Knock on my door to sell it at me, or argue with me (as most religionists do) that it is "Real," and "Logical" and "True," and you will cause a fight because this is nonsense.
  
  Most religious people do not accept god as a concept. To them - it is a majikal being that exists outside of reality. This is impossible. Then they try and argue that their beliefs have some basis in reality. Which they do not.
  
  Cognitive dissonance.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, but as these beliefs ARE completely subjective, you of course understand that attacking the validity of those beliefs is both insulting and pointless.
  
  As it would be if you told me, for example, that my love for my children did not exist. My reality includes that belief, whether it exists outside of my head or not. As I'm sure that your reality includes that non-rational non-scientifically provable emotion for someone or something. So... If someone told you that you that love did not exist, would you defend it?
  
  In many cases, EG,--and I'm just pointing this out--your actions may be seen as going to THEIR door to argue about their subjective beliefs.
  
  Anyway, just remember that two separate realities really do exist. The reality of the world and the reality of self. Non-tangibles exist in at least one of those .
  
  Anyway, I'll grab this later if I've missed anything or rambled... It's 6:02 a.m. on my side of the pond and I haven't been to sleep yet.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They deny that these beliefs are subjective and insist I need to believe as well. If they accepted them as subjective and stopped insisting they are logical and real - I STFU.
  
  Your analogies are poor again. If you insisted that I love your children as you do - this would be a better analogy. But - as you seem incapable of doing anything other than defending your nonsensical beliefs - I don't expect you to see that.
  
  Why would you insist I accept that the love exists and I need to do it as well? You would not. Poor analogy. Very poor. Better than "you can't see oxygen, therefore god exists," but not by much.
  
  I only have one reality. You insisting that I do not will not make it so.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm replying to this again to keep two convos separate.
  
  I listened and I found it fascinating. I agree with many things that he said. What I disagree with is the assumption that certain viewpoints are inherently detrimental to human flourishing. If you want to start a thread, I will argue point by point (after 8 hours of sleep) but basically, I feel that--by coming from an obvious western viewpoint--his objectivity is compromised. I also feel that each individuals interpretation of morality is as valid as any others. As I start with that viewpoint, you will understand how my opinion diverges from his
  reply report
0
Sherlock221bposted 12 years ago
I think maybe God should be the one to prove the existence of God. Instead of human beings fighting and killing each other in the name of their faith, this whole problem could be solved, if God were to appear to humanity. He could appear to the whole planet at once, and show us all that he really exists. It would save the deaths of so many people.
reply report
1. 95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  God is on record as declaring that anyone that believes in him shall go to heaven. Should He provide proof of His existence I daresay that you would find a lot more people believing and therefore going to heaven.
  
  This would mean that God could not then send the little ants He created to Hell to be tormented forever. It would also mean that heaven could fill up in a hurry and He doesn't want to expand it. Take your choice.
  reply report
59
Stump Parrishposted 12 years ago
I found a solution to spelling problems. I downloaded google chrome and I now have spell check in my comments. It;s also a lot faster than IE9
reply report
0
Sherlock221bposted 12 years ago
Science cannot prove the existence of God. However, the more science discovers, the less God is needed as an explanation, because everything can be explained in a natural way, rather than a supernatural one. It is for this reason that most scientists are atheists, even though most people who know little or nothing of science are believers in one deity or another. And it is up to them to fight between themselves about whose god is the best.

http://richarddawkins.net/videos/642336 … -about-god
reply report
85
Sneha Sunnyposted 12 years ago
I don't think science would ever prove the existence of god. In fact science don't believe in god. Science is based on logic and evidences. But god and religious views are just what you believe but cannot give the explanation. For example, science give the complete account of evolution of humans but religious views says that god created this world and humans. He created Adam and Eve. But there is no proper logic or explanation. It's just like "magic" that god created humans. So, I think god and science are the two opposite sides of a river which will never meet.
reply report
1. 0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Out of curiosity-
  How do you prove the existence of your chair?
  Or can you prove your chair exist?
  reply report
  85
  Sneha Sunnyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  of course. It is a matter and it occupies spaces. That proves it exist.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How does that prove the existence of your chair?
  You only said matter exists.
  By the way does heat, cold, time and energy exist? They are not matter.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, we could get all Descartean or try to figure out what it is we're sitting on if not a chair.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How does that "prove" it?
  What is the evidence that it is a chair? Which is the experiment/equation that prove that her chair exists?
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A-B=C
  
  A = Your butt.
  B = Chair
  C = Landing on the Floor
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How does A=B=C proves the existence of the chair?
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You misread. Your butt MINUS the chair = landing on the floor.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So what ever I'm sitting on is a chair?
  How does that prove the existence of Sneha Sunny's chair?
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No idea, maybe you're already sitting on the floor because you can't prove your chair exists.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nobody can prove something exists. Maximum you can do is show a picture or explain the properties and attributes of things.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Is that a fact? Hmmm... seems to me we are moving more into the realm of providing "evidence" rather than "proof".
  
  Which do you prefer?
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Neither.
  If the chair exists, it exist by definition. All you can do you is explain, my chair exists hence........
  Existence exist. It need no belief or proof or evidence, that is, it is not subjective but objective.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Are you saying you're not interested in evidence? What are you doing in the Education and Science forum, then?
  
  If evidence is irrelevant to you, there is nothing more to say, you'll just go on believing whatever you want.
  report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Which part you didn't understand?
  Evidence and proofs are to persuade people, to bring in followers, to persuade a jury. Evidence and proof require an interpreter and hence subjective. Existence is objective(Science too is objective). It does not depend on whether You or I believe it or not, or whether there is any proof is there or not. Didn't pulsars existed before they were discovered? Did my non-belief make god non-existent , if indeed he exist?
  In science we make assumptions and then explain.(existence is about objects and beliefs/proofs on concepts.)
  So in hypothesis stage you assume, your chair exists... or god exists. Now you form a theory based on that.
  God exists hence.....
  My chair exists hence......
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The part where you said you're not interested in evidence. How can anyone understand that?
  
  You seem to have a lot of strange beliefs about evidence and are not too familiar with science. I really have no idea what you're talking about.
  report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  OK. Tell me what is the evidence of black hole, or dark matter or dark energy? [Except that, what one sits is always a chair(if nobody sit on it, it will cease to be a chair?) you haven't proved your chair exists]
  
  Please enlighten me.... Which is the science that asks for evidence?(The so called science-relativity bullshit is not science)
  When was the last time you heard a scientist asking for evidence?(or was that in a court of law?) Science is not about persuading, but explaining natural phenomenon.
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I believe that is what is called a Strawman argument.
  
  Those phenomena have not been shown to exist, like your chair, for example.
  
  Again, you have some very strange notions about evidence.
  
  Relativity is bs and not science? How does a GPS work, then?
  report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Those phenomenon not even exist.You need to read a lot, before commenting!
  GPS works not on relativity, you need to study a little relativity too, before arguing for it!
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Please explain how a GPS works and then please explain why all GPS units are built and programmed using relativity to correct for both the effects of velocity and gravity?
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hello jomine? Anyone out there? No explanation?
  report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  First, there is nothing called time dilation. Time is not a thing to dilate.
  The 'clocks speed' changes when it moves(As proved by HK experiment, but it is neither consistent or predictable) as everything in this universe is connected by gravity(as gravity is not the only factor affecting a clock). It has nothing to do with relativity. In fact "clock" is not "time" as claimed by relativists.
  Then the relative position predictions based on relativity is so small(less than 15cm, which is less than the predicted accuracy of gps), relativistic time though always said,never taken into account.
  GPS, if based on relativity, has to take longitude and altitude in calculation, which then needs so many complex calculations, which are never taken into account.
  In fact the continuously needed relativistic corrections are not done still gps works fine. It only need that the satellite times are synchronized and it is not in large difference with that of earth.
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Have no idea what you're talking about and I doubt anyone who builds GPS units does either.
  
  You can see for yourself the accurate calculations of both velocity and gravitational relativistic effects taken into account when GPS units are built. There are no secrets or conspiracies present with this now very common device.
  
  And no, GPS will ever work fine without the necessary relativistic calculations.
  report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  GPS works on Newtonian principles and not on relativity.
  
  Relativity - relative to observer - itself is idiotic as physics is OBJECTIVE - irrespective of observer!!
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So, you are in complete denial. Cold, hard facts do not phase you in the least.
  report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Go and read a little relativity before commenting.
  Relativity is dealing with concepts and treat them as objects- reification.
  Physics is the study of objects.
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! What does that have to do with the fact that all GPS units are programmed using calculations derived from both Special and General relativity?
  
  Yes, do go and read a little before commenting.
  
  report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No GPS unit is programmed using relativity, its just a myth perpetuated by the establishment. All it is done is ,synchronizing the clocks. If it did really happen, then the famous failed experiment, the HK experiment wouldn't have failed.
  In case of GPS they only use SR and GR to explain. If it was another number they might as well have added Lorentz and Sagnac(or other names as they please) as they did in case of HK. But both are the same experiments, you should ask why only SR and GR in GPS and why the additional ones in HK.
  
  Again as you claim to know so much about relativity, tell me
  What is "time" and how it dilate...
  What is "space" and how it warp to contain objects...
  What is "mass" and how does it increase...
  What is "length" and how does it contract...
  What is "energy" and how it is transferred...
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What's funny about that is you argue with believers in the religion forum, yet you blatantly deny the cold hard facts of reality yourself.
  
  Sure, believers have their arguments about gods, but it isn't a debate in which non-believers can just show believers that their gods do not exist.
  
  But, you are denying the cold hard facts of the calculations of relativity being programmed into GPS units. Still, there are other areas of science in which relativity is observed daily, such as in particle accelerators, and I'm sure you'll deny those facts too.
  
  Now, you claim it's just a "myth perpetuated by the establishment" - a conspiracy theory. What possible reason in the world would the "establishment" (whoever they are) do such a thing? Don't you think anyone can see and do the calculations themselves if they want?
  
  I am in tears and stitches.
  
  report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You missed my argument entirely.
  GPS is touted as a proof of time dilation. But the first experiment the "HK" experiment yielded entirely different values, hence they used so many different effects to explain it. In GPS the value is different and they use only SR and GR to explain it. According to relativity the clock needed constant adjustment but is not done. The only prerequisite for the GPS is the clocks need to be synchronized, they just use SR and GR to explain the lag of time. If it yielded another number when the first GPS was used they might as well added or substracted some effects to get the required number to say it proved relativity.
  I am not contending the fact that clocks change with velocity. Clocks are made of matter and all matter is connected to other through gravity, hence velocity and gravity affect clocks(CLOCKS only, NOT TIME)[for example, if my watch slowed in a high speed train or plane, will you say watch slowed, or time slowed?]. There are other things also that affect the atomic clocks, again no contention, but relativity has nothing to do with it.
  Now coming to experiments, you do an experiment and it yield some result. What a scientist does is explain the result rationally. Where in relativity they does that(Is there any rational explanation in relativity?)? What are they trying to find out with the acceleraters? Remember, nobody really knows what an atom look like or how the particles in atom are arranged, yet.
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You don't have an argument, you have denial.
  
  Gobbledegook and denial. You're done here. Credibility = Zilch.
  
  Bye.
  report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Instead of ever bothering to study what relativity say, you are just parroting the words of the idiots of relativity that GPS proves relativity, yet you know nothing about HK experiment.
  
  Hilarious!
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  GPS doesn't show relativity works? Even though every single GPS unit built MUST rely on relativity to work?
  
  Who cares about HK experiment but those who still believe in an aether?
  
  report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why both did the same thing, took atomic clocks around the earth. Why omit HK, Oh! it doesn't suit your purpose, eh?
  
  GPS works fine without relativity. Technology is based on trial and error. With trial and error the they found out the exact time interval need to be synchronized. The relativists just say its all based on relativity, based on SR and GR and while conveniently forgetting, the clock offsets, inospheric delays...If the required number is more than the one now, they would have just added Lorentz or Sagnac or..if its less than the original they might have subtracted some, just to reach the got data, as they did in case of HK. GPS proves no relativity, but only proves technology work.
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! There's no need to make up stories just because you have a bee in your bonnet. Is that how far you'll go with your state of denial?
  
  More gobbledegook, more denial. GPS does not need to prove anything, it already works without your gobbledegook.
  report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Any person with some working brain can understand religion is all idiotic, but how many sees that? The priests of religion never think they are doing harm, but they think they are doing some service.
  Same with relativity. It doesn't matter whether somebody is a scientist or not, people want to believe in something.
  
  [I'm not mentioning about the millions of tax payers money pumped for the stupid experiments of relativity(including the accelerators), and you are asking how they are going to benefit?]
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! Particle accelerators would be built and working despite your hilarious conspiracy theory.
  
  Like I said, religious believers have better arguments than you.
  
  report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They will be built and working...the question is what for?
  
  They built the gravity probe to check whether "space" is warped, with out knowing/defining what space is in the first place!!
  
  Just like you, the idiots of relativity also "believe". They are no different from the people who confer sainthood's in Vatican(after thorough research, of course!).
  Religion, people voluntarily give money, relativity its taken away as tax, that all!
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! Now it's a tax?
  
  Seriously dude, you got a bee in your bonnet and are in a major state of denial over something that is now common place throughout the world.
  
  Just because some guy came up with an explanation and math formula's that work and provide us with accurate GPS technologies shouldn't be considered a problem. Why is that problem for you?
  
  Astonishingly mind boggling but still very funny, jomine.
  report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Just because somebody came up with a technology to find position doesn't mean relativists can usurp it and tout it as proof of relativity! There are so many technologies, and it is not that they can take what suit there purpose and omit that do not.
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! There is no such thing as a relativist.
  report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Don't insult true scientists saying the relativity practicing bunch of morons as scientists!
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Please stop trying to help non-believers with their arguments, it's embarrassing.
  report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That is what is called denial!!
  
  All priests(except a few), thinks by spreading the bible they are creating a better society. (It won't create a better society is entirely another matter). What we are discussing is only the motive.
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, and how does your denying of cold hard facts make a better society?
  
  report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How does mis-representing facts make a better society?
  
  Here are some hard facts,
  Majority in this world believe in some god and religion(excluding relativity).
  Majority in this world derive their morals from some god and religion.
  Majority in this world get some comfort from some god and religion.
  
  Majority once thought that earth is flat.
  Majority once thought earth is the center of the universe.
  
  These are some common place stuff, you accept it?
  Just because the majority accepted it, made the earth flat?
  
  Physics is a rational explanation of the interaction of objects in this nature. Relativity is also an explanation, but irrational. It doesn't matter, in physics, whether it is the majority's will(its not democracy, nor there is a voting), it only matter whether the explanation is rational.
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Going off on some unrelated tangent to support your gobbledegook?
  
  Denial.
  report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Kneel in front of your god einstein and pray for more gps.
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses accurate, stable atomic clocks in satellites and on the ground to provide world-wide position and time determination. These clocks have gravitational and motional frequency shifts which are so large that, without carefully accounting for numerous relativistic effects, the system would not work. This paper discusses the conceptual basis, founded on special and general relativity, for navigation using GPS"
  
  http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Art … rr-2003-1/
  
  "Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than dedbed above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45xlO-'O (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 kmlsec.
  
  http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf
  
  "When first proposed, the general Theory of Relativity had no direct experimental underpinning. Now, many of us use equipment that could not work without using the General Theory. For example, the Global Positioning System (GPS) must use the predictions of the Special and General Theories."
  
  http://astro.physics.sc.edu/selfpacedunits/Unit57.html
  
  There are pages and pages of websites explaining GPS and relativity by scientists who know what they're talking about. They show you exactly how it works and the necessary calculations. You can call Garmin or Magellan or any other GPS manufacturer and tell them they're a bunch of morons and you'll set them straight.
  
  report
  91
  melporposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Calculations for the correction of the clock speed is built into all 32 GPS satellites since time moves faster up there in space compare to the time on the Earth's surface. The mass of Earth put a drag on time since space is curve more at the surface than it is away from the surface. So time flows a little slower at the Earth's surface. It is a little difference but that is all it takes for the GPS system up there to sent us incorrect location readings on the Earth's surface. Black holes clearly illustrate this effect because it is so massive with respect to the rest of space. This why time slows down and ultimately stop as you get closer to it and if the object was a clock it will stop ticking if it could stand the forces from the strong gravitional forces coming from it.
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  From the earths surface, a clock on a satellite appears to be ticking slower according to Special Relativity (velocity) and ticking faster according to General Relativity (gravitational), so both calculations must be done and combined for the GPS to provide correct locations.
  report
  91
  melporposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are correct Troubled Man, both effects must be taken into consideration to correct the error. Yes, because the satellites are also moving at high velocity so time slows down. Thanks.
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The way I understand it is that if you have two observers, one is looking at his clock on earth while the other is riding the satellite looking at it's clock.
  
  Both observers will see that their clocks are ticking perfectly normal.
  
  It's when the earth observer looks at the satellite clock and compares it with his clock does he see the satellite clock ticking slower. So goes for the satellite observer who looks at the earth clock and compares with his clock does he see the earth clock ticking slower.
  
  For both observers, they see the others clock as ticking slower when compared to their own clocks.
  
  With gravitational effects, they view each others clock as ticking faster.
  report
75
alancaster149posted 12 years ago
The problem with science is it cam't actually DISPROVE the existence of ANY gods, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever. Science CAN go a long way to explaining the origin of species - although it took Darwin a number of years before he published his findings as they conflicted with his Christian beliefs - and it can crunch the numbers, but what it can't do is tackle the metaphysical. That's for US to do. In the current climate of the political versus religious dialogue - pushed along by religious fundamentalism - there is little chance of God/Allah/Buddha fading away, forgotten, into oblivion. There are scientists who have gone so far in their research that they have come out facing the opposite direction! Even when man went to the moon powered by scientific engineering as much as rocket fuel, he still stood on the lunar surface, kicking up dust and ruminating on 'God's great works'. Makes you think, don't it?
reply report
91
melporposted 12 years ago
Not until there is evidence of God, for now this thinking people continue to carry since the beginning of humanity. This way of thinking about the world still exist because there are many people who still to this day refer to a super being to explain things that they do not understand even when there is an overwelming set of facts to explain it. Remember people once believe the Earth was the center of the universe because this was their way of thinking. We know better now. This is how the belief in God and other organized religions got started in the beginning because early civilizations did not understand much about the world back then. Stephen Hawking tried to explain this to the TV audience on a recent episode of the TV show "Curiosity". As he said, there is simply no evidence to support the existence of a God or some other super being. Just enjoy this life you have and the wonders of the universe while you are here.
reply report
61
andur92posted 12 years ago
Man I love it when people debate on "science and god"...! Keep it coming!
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Can science ever prove the existance of God?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Can science ever prove the existance of God?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies