- Religion and Philosophy»
- Exploring Religious Options
I Can Scientifically Prove God Exists.
To start off we need to understand the terms, the meanings of the words.
Supreme- Greatest in power, authority, or rank; paramount or dominant. 2. Greatest in importance, degree, significance, character, or achievement.
Being- 1.the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence). 2. conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night. 3. substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear. 4. something that exists: inanimate beings. 5. a living thing: strange,exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea.
God- The best, the greatest form of life in existence, The Supreme Being.
Deity- 1.a god or goddess. 2.divine character or nature, especially that of the Supreme Being; divinity. 3. the estate or rank of a god: The king attained deity after his death. 4. a person or thing revered as a god or goddess: a society in which money is the only deity.5. the Deity, God; Supreme Being.
Life Form- an entity or being that is living or alive.
Existence- is the world we are aware of through our senses, and that persists independently without them.
Science- (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.
If there are more than one forms of life and they are not identical, then one must be the lesser. If there is a lowest form of life, then there must be a highest form of life.
The highest form of life (whatever that is) is the Supreme Being... humanity has come to call that form of life, God.
If there is in existence only one example of life, that being would be the Supreme Being. Therefore: The only way for there to not be a supreme being, is for there to not be any beings.
I have been told I am promoting logical fallacies
If it is a simple logical fallacy, like a belief that the inability to scientifically prove something exists is proof that it doesn't, then someone should have no problem pointing out/explaining that fallacy. So far no one has been able to do so.
My critics seem to believe stating something is a fallacy proves it is a fallacy. It doesn't.
Proof of the fallacy I listed: DNA has existed since a time long before humanity existed. Recently humanity has discovered and proven the existence of DNA. That proof did not bring DNA into existence, DNA existed before it was proven to exist. Therefore things that cannot be scientifically proven to exist, do indeed exist.
What makes God...God?
What quality or characteristic makes the supreme life form supreme?
I don't know, and I don't care. That information has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of that supreme being. That information is not required to support the proof of the Supreme Beings existence.
In this hub I'm not deciding which description of God is better or more accurate.
I'm only stating God exists, and here is the proof.
There are greater and lesser forms of life. The inability to agree on what quality makes one greater and one lesser does not make the proof inaccurate or false.
Emile R wrote: "If your conclusion is that there is a highest form of life, therefore God exists; you'd have to point to which form of life is the highest. It would have to be agreed upon. I doubt you'd get an agreement from a believer. You would get agreement from some non believers, so the conclusion would still be; no real God exists."
Emile, that is Pure Fallacy.
The only way for there to not be a supreme being, is for there to not be any beings.
Your Fallacy is in the erroneous belief that a consensus of what qualities constitute a supreme being as supreme, brings that being into existence, and that without that consensus a supreme being cannot exist. The consensus does not create nor destroy a supreme being, therefore a consensus is irrelevant to the existence or non-existence of a supreme being. Believing or not believing a thing is the supreme being does not make it the supreme being. Being the supreme being makes it the supreme being.
I don't have to prove that a man has blond hair in a proof that the man is a man. I just have to provide proof that he has the correct chromosome. That information alone is enough to prove the man is a man. Saying that unless I also prove 'it' has blond hair, a beard, 435 freckles, two dogs, 7 inches of manhood, and the ability to reproduce and anything less than that means the chromosome proof isn't proof, is fallacy. That is what your asking for and that I won't provide.
My critics seem to believe that in order to prove God exists, I must first provide a list of God's attributes. Where in the pecking order of life forms every entity fits and why they are greater or lesser than the entity above and/or below them in that pecking order.
“I don't know what the pecking order is nor do I care."
The values that I hold as more dear/greater/better determine the placement listing in MY pecking order, as it will in everyone else's personal listing. Those lists will undoubtedly be different for every individual. None of which dis-proves the existence of a pecking order.
Belief does not bring something into existence. If believing something created it then the world would be flat, because the vast majority of humanity at one time believed it to be flat. Being round makes it round, even if no one believes it.
I do not believe mere humans have the ability or objectivity to create and catalog a pecking order of life forms. Which does nothing to dis-prove this proof. The only attribute that really has to be agreed upon is that God is the Supreme Being. The definition of Supreme Being has been supplied. So God is God even if no one believes that God is God. Being God makes God, God.
Which doesn't mean "God" is not a true life form, or a made up character of one's imagination and beliefs. No. Being God makes God, God. Being the best makes one the best, even if no one knows it or believes it.
Having an opinion does not make the opinion a fact. Being a fact makes it a fact.
Not knowing who God is does not destroy God. Not knowing who or what is the best does not mean there isn't one. Not knowing which thing is best does not mean a best does not exist.
DoubleScorpion wrote: There are no facts without proof. We wasn't there, so we follow our beliefs on who, what or how the universe was created. So the creation, either Big Bang or God created, is based in beliefs.
Mikel, “No. Facts are facts even if they haven't been proven by humanity. A Fact is a fact even if every person in existence denies the validity of that fact. Facts are facts even if humanity doesn't know the fact exists. Believing a fact incorrect does not make it incorrect. The act of being a fact makes it a fact.
The belief that scientific discoveries have somehow disproved the existence of God is incorrect. Science is not the path to proof that God does not exist.
Science is the discovery of how God did some of what God does.
Discovering that there was a Big Bang and that humanity evolved from a lower life form, does not dis-prove the possibility that God created that Big Bang. It hasn't been proven that it was one or the other. At humanities current level of understanding both Creation and Evolution are completely compatible ideas and both are possible.
God is whatever God is in spite of all our diverse unproven opinions, most of which will probably be incorrect. An individual's opinion of what the pecking order should be, based on their subjective rating system, is not what determines the "true" pecking order. I do not believe humanity is capable of determining the "actual" pecking order. However the pinnacle of that actual pecking order is by definition the supreme being, commonly called God. That entity exists regardless of and unaffected by, all the beliefs/dis-beliefs and opinions of humanity.
This and only this is God
Since no one really agrees to a single definition of God. By that I mean everyone seems to believe their version of God, "This and only this is God" is the true definition of that entity.
During my research of the various definitions of God. I found one main recurring theme common to them all. That recurring theme is the definition of God I used in this Hub. Since there is no way to prove or dis-prove each and every possible characteristic God may or may not have. I decided to proceed using the lowest possible common denominator in all the various definitions. Much like my example of using chromosomes to prove a man is a man.
Here are several definitions so you can decide for yourselves whether or not my description/definition of God is accurate.
The definitions of God:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the term "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism. For the general polytheistic concept, see Deity. For God in the context of various religions, see an index of pages beginning in "God in". For other uses, see God (disambiguation).
God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.
God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.
God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent". These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides, Augustine of Hippo, and Al-Ghazali, respectively. Many notable medieval philosophers and modern philosophers have developed arguments for and against the existence of God.
1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.(lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
Definition of GOD
1: the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe bChristian Science: the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically: one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler
Tao, the subtle reality of the universe cannot be described, That which can be described in words is mearly a conception of the mind. Although names and descriptions have been applied to it, the subtle reality is beyond the description.
Tao The Ching - beginning of chapter 1
The subtle essense of the universe is elusive and evasive.
It is the subtle origin of the whole of creation and non-creation. It existed prior to the beginning of time as the deep and subtle reality of the universe. It brings all into being.
Tao The Ching - portions of chapter 21
"There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not, O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed.
"Since, O monks, there is an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, and unformed, therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed."
The Gospel of Buddha - Sermon at the bamboo grove at Rajagaha
Neither the multitude of gods nor great sages know of my origin, for I am the source of all the gods and great sages.
A mortal who knows me as the unborn, beginningless great lord of the worlds is freed from all delusion and all evils.
The Bhagavad-Gita - The tenth teaching, verses 2 & 3
There is One, only One Supreme Being, Truth Eternal, Creator of all seen & unseen, Fearless, Without hatred, Timeless Being, Non-Incarnated, Self created, Realized by the Grace of Guru (Perfect Master Only.)
Guru Granth Sahib Page 1
You are the Absolute Existence which causes (our) transient (existences) to appear.
Masnavi - Book 1 - Creator and Creation
God is the indescribable, uncreated, self existent, eternal all knowing source of all reality and being.
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.
Many have expressed a disappointment with this proof. Saying it doesn't prove anything at all. What they mean by that is it doesn't prove one group is right and another group is wrong about the nature of God. It doesn't provide support of what they believe to be the true nature of God. Their adamant stance (In long debates on the forums*) is unless I prove everything that God has ever been attributed to be, the proof is meaningless.
*links included here:
They say it doesn't force a consensus therefore it is useless. There is no power in the proof to make that group of people over there shut up about what they believe is true. That disappointment stems from them not getting what they were wanting, Power over other people.
They wanted this proof to give them the power of righteousness over another group of people. They wanted to be able to use the proof of God's existence to enforce their view of right and wrong. They were expecting it to make it so everyone would have to conform to an absolute standard of conduct and belief.
It is true, this proof does not do any of that, it merely proves the existence of God.