Has science proved there is no God?

[Boss]

But I am perceiving it in the present, so therefore I must exist in the present or I wouldn't be perceiving it.

In short...at the time I am perceiving something, I exist.

But you're not perceiving it in the present, you only believe you are.

Anything you perceive, whether it is sight, sound, taste, smell or touch, is perception of something that has already happened. You perceive the past which has just happened.

 

[sealybobo]

Sorry we can't scientifically disprove your "something" greater than self theory. Too vague. You are irrelevant in the god debate

You should start a thread called "prove " something" doesnt exist.

But when you think about it, it's rather difficult to prove anything exists.

Well, sure. DesCartes broke it down to cogito ergo sum a long time ago.

"I think, therefore I exist." Descartes has one flaw he has overlooked. It takes time to think. The more accurate anecdote would be, "I thought, therefore I believe I existed." Sorry Descartes!

Again, the challenge... Prove anything exists in the present? You can't. By the time you observe or sense it, time has passed, whatever was observed is an image from the past. We don't know if it exists in the present. We can't sense the present, it's not physically possible. Our perception of the present is an illusion. We're really perceiving the immediate past.

But I am perceiving it in the present, so therefore I must exist in the present or I wouldn't be perceiving it.

In short...at the time I am perceiving something, I exist.

We rely on faith much more than you think. Everything we perceive is in the past. By the time you have sensed it and your brain has registered it, time has elapsed, the 'thing' is from the past. You have no evidence it exists presently or will exist in the future... if there is a future.

Now we run into the problem of different nuances of faith. I can't show I'm not a brain in a jar. I can't show any of my senses or memories are correct. But it's a matter necessary assumption that I act as though these things were true.

Insisting on the reality of something that cannot be demonstrated is a differrent kind of flying altoghether.

No, we are talking about the same faith. Faith is Faith! Again... You cannot "show" me anything in the present. Anything you "show" me is something from the past. You can show evidence it existed in the past and I can have faith that it still exists in the present.

Correct. But that does NOT mean that all things are equally likely to exist or not exist. I can't prove I have a house, and I can't prove that I have an invisible pink unicorn. That doesn't mean both can be equally dismissed or accepted.

The reality of human spiritual connection can be demonstrated. All things rely on faith.

No, because you would first have to define what you mean by spiritual connection and that it has a distinct meaning and existence.

It does have a meaning and exists. Otherwise how would preachers sell it?

 

[pinqy]

Dear pinqy
instead of comparing "proof of horses" to "proof of Pegasus"
Why not compare "proof of God's laws" to "proof of laws of gravity."

Because those are two different uses of the word "law," and are not comparable. "God's laws" are proscribtive" while "laws of science' are descriptive.

We can agree what laws we are talking about, without 100% proving where these came from or if they could change, etc.

Can we? Christians, Jews, and Muslim's believe in the same god, but they don't agree on "God's laws." Hindus have different rules altogether as do all theistic religions that have laws.

Or comparing "proof of people talking to God" with "proof that people have dreams at night"
We can use science to show there is a change or process in the brain activity, that is similar for different people,
though we may never prove the CONTENT or validity/meaning of what visions were experienced in that state of mind.

True enough. But I'm missing your point.

What is missing is we TRUST that when people say they dreamed something, then that is valid.
But because of cultural conflicts over religion, we DON'T TRUST when people say they had a vision or message from God.

I certainly trust that when someone says they had a vision or message from God that they had an experience. Which is the same as accepting a dream.
Now, if you're asking why people don't accept or trust the message allegedly from God, well, how do you determine who is right between two people claiming messages from Go who are saying conflicting things? And do you equally trust a dream claimed to be prophetic but not by God...or from some other god.

 

[sealybobo]

But I am perceiving it in the present, so therefore I must exist in the present or I wouldn't be perceiving it.

In short...at the time I am perceiving something, I exist.

But you're not perceiving it in the present, you only believe you are.

Anything you perceive, whether it is sight, sound, taste, smell or touch, is perception of something that has already happened. You perceive the past which has just happened.

You're tapping into the same "spirituality" preachers use. There is someting greater than self. Its called the cosmos.

What evidence do you have this thing you call god is also the thing that created the universe? The spiritual energy thing you talk about might not have anything to do with a creator. I think we must ask if this thing you talk about even qualifies.

 

[sealybobo]

But I am perceiving it in the present, so therefore I must exist in the present or I wouldn't be perceiving it.

In short...at the time I am perceiving something, I exist.

But you're not perceiving it in the present, you only believe you are.

Anything you perceive, whether it is sight, sound, taste, smell or touch, is perception of something that has already happened. You perceive the past which has just happened.

Never mind me answer pingys questions. Maybe he will have better luck pointing out how you are wrong. Happy easter.

 

[pinqy]

But I am perceiving it in the present, so therefore I must exist in the present or I wouldn't be perceiving it.

In short...at the time I am perceiving something, I exist.

But you're not perceiving it in the present, you only believe you are.

Anything you perceive, whether it is sight, sound, taste, smell or touch, is perception of something that has already happened. You perceive the past which has just happened.

But when are you perceiving it? I'm not talking about the origin of the signal, I'm talking about receipt of the signal. You are perceiving a signal at the moment you are perceiving it, regardless of whehter or not the originator of the signal still exists.

 

[Boss]

But that does NOT mean that all things are equally likely to exist or not exist. I can't prove I have a house, and I can't prove that I have an invisible pink unicorn. That doesn't mean both can be equally dismissed or accepted.

You can't 'prove' anything that I am not willing to believe. You can offer evidence and I can subjectively evaluate it and if I am willing to accept it as evidence, I might believe you have proven something.

What we constantly run into with this never-ending question of "god existence" is our personal comprehension of terms. You don't comprehend a spiritual existence, the term makes no sense to you. Existence can only be physical because no other kind of existence exists.

To understand a spiritual concept of god, you have to be willing to comprehend spiritual existence and that requires you believe in spiritual nature. Now, we can establish that our devout human spirituality which has persisted strongly throughout our species history, means there is at least a little evidence that something beyond physical nature exists and humans connect with it in a profound way. If that were not the case, the attribute wouldn't exist... it makes no sense... it totally defies anything Darwin said.

Does this PROVE something? NOPE! Never will! You FIRST have to be willing to believe in the possibility of spiritual nature. Once you're able to do that, then you can find plenty of spiritual evidence to support a spiritual existence of a spiritual god.

But whatever you do... Requires FAITH!

 

[sealybobo]

I'm watching Interstellar with mathew mccaunnaghy. When this planet dies and eeverything on it just like every other star planet and living creature in the cosmos, no heaven is waiting for you. Happy easter. Enjoy. You only get 100 of them if you are lucky.

 

[Boss]

But I am perceiving it in the present, so therefore I must exist in the present or I wouldn't be perceiving it.

In short...at the time I am perceiving something, I exist.

But you're not perceiving it in the present, you only believe you are.

Anything you perceive, whether it is sight, sound, taste, smell or touch, is perception of something that has already happened. You perceive the past which has just happened.

But when are you perceiving it? I'm not talking about the origin of the signal, I'm talking about receipt of the signal. You are perceiving a signal at the moment you are perceiving it, regardless of whehter or not the originator of the signal still exists.

Even the receipt of the signal. Do you think you can physically explain how the signal is instantly processed by the brain with no elapse in time? Don't think you can, but go for it Hawking!

Bottom line, we cannot perceive the present. It's not physically possible.

 

[sealybobo]

But that does NOT mean that all things are equally likely to exist or not exist. I can't prove I have a house, and I can't prove that I have an invisible pink unicorn. That doesn't mean both can be equally dismissed or accepted.

You can't 'prove' anything that I am not willing to believe. You can offer evidence and I can subjectively evaluate it and if I am willing to accept it as evidence, I might believe you have proven something.

What we constantly run into with this never-ending question of "god existence" is our personal comprehension of terms. You don't comprehend a spiritual existence, the term makes no sense to you. Existence can only be physical because no other kind of existence exists.

To understand a spiritual concept of god, you have to be willing to comprehend spiritual existence and that requires you believe in spiritual nature. Now, we can establish that our devout human spirituality which has persisted strongly throughout our species history, means there is at least a little evidence that something beyond physical nature exists and humans connect with it in a profound way. If that were not the case, the attribute wouldn't exist... it makes no sense... it totally defies anything Darwin said.

Does this PROVE something? NOPE! Never will! You FIRST have to be willing to believe in the possibility of spiritual nature. Once you're able to do that, then you can find plenty of spiritual evidence to support a spiritual existence of a spiritual god.

But whatever you do... Requires FAITH!

Now I got it. We can't prove to you something you dont want to believe and god exists because for people who want to believe. The guy you're talking to just got you to admit the truth.

 

[sealybobo]

But I am perceiving it in the present, so therefore I must exist in the present or I wouldn't be perceiving it.

In short...at the time I am perceiving something, I exist.

But you're not perceiving it in the present, you only believe you are.

Anything you perceive, whether it is sight, sound, taste, smell or touch, is perception of something that has already happened. You perceive the past which has just happened.

But when are you perceiving it? I'm not talking about the origin of the signal, I'm talking about receipt of the signal. You are perceiving a signal at the moment you are perceiving it, regardless of whehter or not the originator of the signal still exists.

Your questions and replies were very effective in getting boss to admit its real because he believes its real. The end.

 

[Boss]

I'm watching Interstellar with mathew mccaunnaghy. When this planet dies and eeverything on it just like every other star planet and living creature in the cosmos, no heaven is waiting for you. Happy easter. Enjoy. You only get 100 of them if you are lucky.

Sorry, but I also watched this movie and it didn't make any sort of gestures toward heaven or god. It DID have a lot of very interesting stuff about our perception of space and time.

But boob... This was a MOVIE... not Science!

I'll be celebrating Easter sipping on margaritas on the beach. Heading out the door to Gulf Shores as we speak! Happy Easter to you too, boob... Hope they don't hide the eggs too hard for you this year!

 

[emilynghiem]

1. Because those are two different uses of the word "law," and are not comparable. "God's laws" are proscribtive" while "laws of science' are descriptive.

Can we? Christians, Jews, and Muslim's believe in the same god, but they don't agree on "God's laws." Hindus have different rules altogether as do all theistic religions that have laws.


2.

Or comparing "proof of people talking to God" with "proof that people have dreams at night"
We can use science to show there is a change or process in the brain activity, that is similar for different people,
though we may never prove the CONTENT or validity/meaning of what visions were experienced in that state of mind.

True enough. But I'm missing your point.

What is missing is we TRUST that when people say they dreamed something, then that is valid.
But because of cultural conflicts over religion, we DON'T TRUST when people say they had a vision or message from God.

I certainly trust that when someone says they had a vision or message from God that they had an experience. Which is the same as accepting a dream.
Now, if you're asking why people don't accept or trust the message allegedly from God, well, how do you determine who is right between two people claiming messages from Go who are saying conflicting things? And do you equally trust a dream claimed to be prophetic but not by God...or from some other god.

Hi pinqy
1. RE: laws
I am talking about starting with laws we agree are UNIVERSAL, and then building from there.
You can call them laws of science or nature, but as long as they are UNIVERSALLY agreed upon, that is the same as what other people call "God's laws," ie naturally inherent and not "made by man."
Ex: we agree that murder is wrongful. So does it matter if one person calls this God's laws, Buddhist teaching against killing, or civil/criminal laws against wrongful death or murder. The fact we AGREE makes that a universal principle.
We start with where we agree, then resolve conflicts and either build from there, or agree to separate out if we disagree (similar to how the Protestants separate from the Catholics where they disagree, but are still under God's laws as a whole)
so where you would follow science and another group would follow "proscriptive" justifications, those remain separate, like separate languages or cultures. But the agreed laws are the same, such as agreeing against murder.

Note: You mention some examples of different cultural tribes: these religions are like different languages for universal laws. Like the 50 states all have different codes and penalties/process for addressing murder. We have both the LOCAL laws and also the "laws of the land" that unite all states under the Constitution. These are not supposed to be in conflict, but in harmony, where neither state law imposed on federal or federal on states. Where there is conflict, this should be resolved.

2. RE: how can you tell what is true or not
Why does it have to affect other people? If it works for that person, that is their own personal experience and right to follow.

Where it affects other people, then AGREEMENT is necessary.
This is true whether for church or state laws: people must agreely freely and consent in order for that law to be enforced equally in the spirit of truth, justice and peace "for all people." (If you EXCLUDE people or impose on people, that isn't equal protection of the laws, ie not universally inclusive and agreed upon as representing the public interest and greater good for ALL.)

Only if people commit a crime or abuse and IMPOSE or deprive someone else of right to life liberty property or principle
then such person can be compelled to answer and may require restitution to correct the wrong, ie lose some liberty.

People and groups have the right to follow their own beliefs, but where this affects other people and groups,
ideally there should be consensus on what the policy is between them. That is just natural law of civil relations.

All people are under natural laws by our human nature.

We all want free will (free exercise of religion, beliefs, values and interests), free speech and press (right to speak and establish our opinions, judgment and beliefs/values), but with respect to the right to assemble PEACEFULLY in society and to petition to redress any grievances, conflicts or objections (ie democratic due process so we all have equal representation and protection/security).

I have not found a single person whether Atheist or follower of religion or philosophy
who didn't follow these natural laws on human rights, freedom and justice.
If we agree on the basics, then we can work out the rest, and separate the groups if they have different beliefs
or philosophies, like separating political parties so they quit imposing their agenda on each other and the rest of the nation.

We have equal right to exercise and establish beliefs on our own, within our own groups.

Nobody has the right to take religious or political beliefs, and force that on others by majority rule or court ruling.
This is just as wrongful to do with organized religion as with organized political parties. We need to recognize this.

The same questions YOU ask about how to tell what is truth, what is justice what is universal for all people of the nation
requires CONSENSUS so that policies reflect the consent of the public, and represent all people of all groups and beliefs EQUALLY. The true policy should NOT be decided by the LOUDEST group FORCING its way/opinion on everyone else!

What you ask about religions should be asked about politics as well!

pinqy if it's REALLY "God's laws" or UNIVERSAL truth,
then by definition, all people would naturally recognize and agree with it. It would be "self-evident" and "inherent" in our nature.

Otherwise, if it only represents one group over others, that's not universal and it isn't God's unifying truth.

 

[PostmodernProph]

"I think, therefore I exist." Descartes has one flaw he has overlooked. It takes time to think. The more accurate anecdote would be, "I thought, therefore I believe I existed." Sorry Descartes!

if an existentialist says something without thinking do they still exist?......

 

[BreezeWood]

.
response through vision is thoughtless, when pure of heart. something other beings than humanity seem naturally endowed by including physiologically similar Fauna.

without thinking do they still exist?......

by thinking, they become mortal.

.