Correlations between science and religion

[spreadingthewrd]

I am trying to scientifically prove god's existence. I recently came across a free book that is attempting to do the same and I was wondering if there was any truth to what was being said in the book.

ofgrandeur.com

Is it foolish to try to prove God's existence scientifically?

 

[Avatar4321]

Not sure what the point of proving God scientifically is. Seems like a waste of time to me.

If you want to know whether God exists, Talk with Him. Do His will. You'll know He is there before long.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Science is rarely foolish if used properly.

 

[Avatar4321]

Science is rarely foolish if used properly.

Unfortunately, people misuse it all the time.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I am trying to scientifically prove god's existence. I recently came across a free book that is attempting to do the same and I was wondering if there was any truth to what was being said in the book.

ofgrandeur.com

Is it foolish to try to prove God's existence scientifically?

The current scientific method does not, and in many way, CANNOT prove such an existence. The blog you posted makes up random senseless equations that may look scientific if you don't actually read them, but are in actuality crap. Take for example his equation that happiness divided by sadness = 1. How do depressed people fall into that? How can he possibly boil down all of humanity into such a simplistic idea?

The heart of the matter is that god has been used as a catch-all to explain things that are otherwise not explainable. Science seeks to explain things, and so therefore pushes back the boundaries of what societies deem as divine. For example, ancient people believed the sun was god because it was mysterious. We now know what it is and suddenly it's not so holy anymore.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am trying to scientifically prove god's existence. I recently came across a free book that is attempting to do the same and I was wondering if there was any truth to what was being said in the book.

ofgrandeur.com

Is it foolish to try to prove God's existence scientifically?

The current scientific method does not, and in many way, CANNOT prove such an existence. The blog you posted makes up random senseless equations that may look scientific if you don't actually read them, but are in actuality crap. Take for example his equation that happiness divided by sadness = 1. How do depressed people fall into that? How can he possibly boil down all of humanity into such a simplistic idea?

The heart of the matter is that god has been used as a catch-all to explain things that are otherwise not explainable. Science seeks to explain things, and so therefore pushes back the boundaries of what societies deem as divine. For example, ancient people believed the sun was god because it was mysterious. We now know what it is and suddenly it's not so holy anymore.

Actually, science could prove that God exists, but if it does it will not be the way this guy is doing it. He is not using science.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Well, yes. If the divine left some reproducible evidence that could be identified and studied, then theoretically the scientific method has the capacity to prove it.

No such evidence has been found. Ever.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, yes. If the divine left some reproducible evidence that could be identified and studied, then theoretically the scientific method has the capacity to prove it.

No such evidence has been found. Ever.

Yet.

Up until a few years ago no evidence had been found of extra solar plants, yet everyone believed they existed.

 

[Hister]

Not sure what the point of proving God scientifically is. Seems like a waste of time to me.

If you want to know whether God exists, Talk with Him. Do His will. You'll know He is there before long.

That's called schizophrenia.

 

[american chaos]

Not sure what the point of proving God scientifically is. Seems like a waste of time to me.

If you want to know whether God exists, Talk with Him. Do His will. You'll know He is there before long.

That's called schizophrenia.

How would one know that they are talking to God or to the Devil or to some dis-embodied spirit that is having a little fun?

 

[THE LIGHT]

Well, yes. If the divine left some reproducible evidence that could be identified and studied, then theoretically the scientific method has the capacity to prove it.

No such evidence has been found. Ever.

You are desperate.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Well, yes. If the divine left some reproducible evidence that could be identified and studied, then theoretically the scientific method has the capacity to prove it.

No such evidence has been found. Ever.

Yet.

Up until a few years ago no evidence had been found of extra solar plants, yet everyone believed they existed.

I'm going to assume you meant planets and not plants.

We draw conclusions based on evidence. Sure you can point to something we believed was there based on theory, and I could point to several others which didn't quite pan out, such as "ether" and alchemy. Once again, no reproducible evidence has been found on the divine.

Well, yes. If the divine left some reproducible evidence that could be identified and studied, then theoretically the scientific method has the capacity to prove it.

No such evidence has been found. Ever.

You are desperate.

lucky for me, name calling doesn't refute my well formed point. run along now.

 

[rdean]

I am trying to scientifically prove god's existence. I recently came across a free book that is attempting to do the same and I was wondering if there was any truth to what was being said in the book.

ofgrandeur.com

Is it foolish to try to prove God's existence scientifically?

Foolish is believing in "magical" spirits.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, yes. If the divine left some reproducible evidence that could be identified and studied, then theoretically the scientific method has the capacity to prove it.

No such evidence has been found. Ever.

Yet.

Up until a few years ago no evidence had been found of extra solar plants, yet everyone believed they existed.

I'm going to assume you meant planets and not plants.

We draw conclusions based on evidence. Sure you can point to something we believed was there based on theory, and I could point to several others which didn't quite pan out, such as "ether" and alchemy. Once again, no reproducible evidence has been found on the divine.

Thanks for not making fun of my typing.

I was not trying to claim that any reproducible evidence has ever be found, or even that it will be. I am just making the point that just because no evidence has been found it does not mean it does not exist. A number of people think that just because something has not been found, it never will be. While I do not believe you actually fall into that group, you are talking like people in that group.

Evidence of God's existence is out there if people look. Whether science will ever prove it conclusively is open to debate, but science is not the only valid way to look at the universe.

Science is trying to define and quantify love. I recently watched a report on the news where a scientist was trying to use fMRIs to determine if love could be measured by brain activity. While I applaud the attempt, I do not believe that it can entirely succeed.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I was not trying to claim that any reproducible evidence has ever be found, or even that it will be. I am just making the point that just because no evidence has been found it does not mean it does not exist. A number of people think that just because something has not been found, it never will be. While I do not believe you actually fall into that group, you are talking like people in that group.

Fair enough, but this is true about anything. It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist. But it sure is easy to say "as far as we can tell at this point, it has no reproducible effect on the physical world that has ever been demonstrated". You can't prove Daffy Duck doesn't exist. But when it comes to this particular topic, regarding a divine force which is allegedly everywhere and constantly affecting things, you would have to draw the conclusion that there is some reproducible evidence.

Evidence of God's existence is out there if people look. Whether science will ever prove it conclusively is open to debate, but science is not the only valid way to look at the universe.

This is where you start making unsubstantiated claims. What evidence? Reproducible? If not, how is it evidence or any different than simple chance? Science IS the only valid way to look at the universe if you want evidence based reasoning. What other way is there? Psychics? Wishing on a star? Magic? There are many ways to look at a piece of art, but that's not what is being examined here.

 

[Kalam]

I am trying to scientifically prove god's existence. I recently came across a free book that is attempting to do the same and I was wondering if there was any truth to what was being said in the book.

ofgrandeur.com

Is it foolish to try to prove God's existence scientifically?

Not foolish, but pointless. You won't find God in a science book.

 

[Hister]

science is the bone in the cup-o-soup of religion.