Is there proof God exist?

[durangodawood]

Is there proof God exist?

Oh gosh no.

 

[Silmarien]

I believe that near death experience accounts fit amazingly well with String Theory.

Higher and higher invisible dimensions of space and time that operate at greater and greater levels of energy are what Dr. George Ritchie was shown back in 1943 long before we knew anything about String Theory.

We still don't know anything about string theory. That stuff's so theoretical and unfalsifiable that it's bordering on pseudoscience.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Plenty of proofs of God and proofs that leave no doubt about his existence.

 

[durangodawood]

We still don't know anything about string theory. That stuff's so theoretical and unfalsifiable that it's bordering on pseudoscience.

Its a sort of grand conjecture. No one intends for it to be taken as fact..... Not yet.

 

[Silmarien]

Its a sort of grand conjecture. No one intends for it to be taken as fact..... Not yet.

I think some of the string theorists do.

They're interesting. But the critics who point out that they've had decades to turn their grand conjecture into something more and have produced nothing but failure might have a point too.

 

[durangodawood]

I think some of the string theorists do.

They're interesting. But the critics who point out that they've had decades to turn their grand conjecture into something more and have produced nothing but failure might have a point too.

I dont even know how youd go about investigating for actual evidence of additional spatial dimensions. When the background idea of the "atom" was proposed, it was another 2000+ years before that conjecture could be properly verified. Lets give strings another 20 before we pull the plug and cut our losses.

 

[Silmarien]

I dont even know how youd go about investigating for actual evidence of additional spatial dimensions. When the background idea of the "atom" was proposed, it was another 2000+ years before that conjecture could be properly verified. Lets give strings another 20 before we pull the plug and cut our losses.

Hey, string theorists can spend as much time as they want working on their theories. Until they can come up with some real criteria for falsifiability, though, it's pretty much by definition not science, and certainly not within the sphere of things we have knowledge of.

 

[durangodawood]

Hey, string theorists can spend as much time as they want working on their theories. Until they can come up with some real criteria for falsifiability, though, it's pretty much by definition not science, and certainly not within the sphere of things we have knowledge of.

The scientific endeavor can propose future falsifiability for its conjectures. We dont need to be greedy and demand everything all at once.

 

[Silmarien]

The scientific endeavor can propose future falsifiability for its conjectures. We dont need to be greedy and demand everything all at once.

Well, the Intelligent Design theorists will sure be happy to hear that one.

 

[durangodawood]

Well, the Intelligent Design theorists will sure be happy to hear that one.

String theory has several "legs up" on ID.

For one, its mathematically consistent with other well established scientific observations. Also, it doesnt contradict firmly established and well understood science, like ID does.

ID has a much bigger hill to climb.

Essentially, youre right tho. They are both currently-unfalsifiable conjecture. They differ by degree in their reasonableness. I'd say ID goes too far.

 

[Silmarien]

String theory has several "legs up" on ID.

For one, its mathematically consistent with other well established scientific observations. Also, it doesnt contradict firmly established and well understood science, like ID does.

ID has a much bigger hill to climb.

Essentially, youre right tho. They are both currently-unfalsifiable conjecture. They differ by degree in their reasonableness. I'd say ID goes too far.

Some of those IDers like to use mathematics and probability to argue that design is a more likely prospect than fully naturalistic development. And ID doesn't contradict evolution--it just introduces intentional design as an additional factor. There's nothing about the idea of design that's inconsistent with the data; it's just a completely unfalsifiable inference.

And seriously, I think you're in a very strange position if you think that intentional design is a larger hill to climb than a whole sea of unobservable parallel universes.

Either they're both science or neither is. The criterion of falsifiability isn't something that you can introduce and then discard at will. Either we have a demarcation criterion between what does and doesn't count as science, or we're treating it like a popularity contest, and string theory qualifies as scientific only because it's shiny and fun.

 

[durangodawood]

Some of those IDers like to use mathematics and probability to argue that design is a more likely prospect than fully naturalistic development. And ID doesn't contradict evolution--it just introduces intentional design as an additional factor. There's nothing about the idea of design that's inconsistent with the data; it's just a completely unfalsifiable inference.

And seriously, I think you're in a very strange position if you think that intentional design is a larger hill to climb than a whole sea of unobservable parallel universes.

Either they're both science or neither is. The criterion of falsifiability isn't something that you can introduce and then discard at will. Either we have a demarcation criterion between what does and doesn't count as science, or we're treating it like a popularity contest, and string theory qualifies as scientific only because it's shiny and fun.

Parallel universes dont suppose an entirely different order of reality. Its just regular old reality, but "next door" so to speak. So its not such a leap.

I absolutely do see falsifiability as a rule for what applies as "science". But the nature of the scientific endeavor, as a human enterprise, ought to allow for a little bit of flexibility as to when it ought to apply.

I applaud scientists for proposing conjectures and speculations in advance of falsifiability, so long as they are "backwards compatible" and well integrated with understood scientific fact. We just need to acknowledge them as speculations, and apply a little judgement as to whether they are even required to even explain anything. I mean, string-theory, right or wrong, actually proposes to fill an explanatory gap. ID isnt necessary at all to explain anything and is totally superfluous and clearly ideologically motivated.

 

[Silmarien]

Parallel universes dont suppose an entirely different order of reality. Its just regular old reality, but "next door" so to speak. So its not such a leap.

How does ID require an entirely different order of reality? All you actually need to make it work is extraterrestrial overlords.

I absolutely do see falsifiability as a rule for what applies as "science". But the nature of the scientific endeavor, as a human enterprise, ought to allow for a little bit of flexibility as to when it ought to apply.

I applaud scientists for proposing conjectures and speculations in advance of falsifiability, so long as they are "backwards compatible" and well integrated with understood scientific fact. We just need to acknowledge them as speculations, and apply a little judgement as to whether they are even required to even explain anything. I mean, string-theory, right or wrong, actually proposes to fill an explanatory gap. ID isnt necessary at all to explain anything and is totally superfluous and clearly ideologically motivated.

Why should we be more flexible as to when falsifiability should apply? Until you have a falsifiable theory, what you're dealing with is closer to metaphysical speculation than scientific speculation. There is nothing wrong with the extra-scientific pursuit of truth (I would in fact say that it's necessary and more fundamental than empirical science), but we should be very careful about delimiting between what is currently science and what is not. Otherwise people will wander around thinking falsely that there's genuine evidence for string theory just because it has the label "science" attached to it. That's irresponsible.

 

[durangodawood]

How does ID require an entirely different order of reality? All you actually need to make it work is extraterrestrial overlords.

That just takes the same question (how did life come come about) and pushes it beyond reach. It doesnt actually answer the question. Who designed them?

Why should we be more flexible as to when falsifiability should apply? Until you have a falsifiable theory, what you're dealing with is closer to metaphysical speculation than scientific speculation. There is nothing wrong with the extra-scientific pursuit of truth (I would in fact say that it's necessary and more fundamental than empirical science), but we should be very careful about delimiting between what is currently science and what is not. Otherwise people will wander around thinking falsely that there's genuine evidence for string theory just because it has the label "science" attached to it. That's irresponsible.

Even if there were a conceivable falsifiability test for ST, that wouldnt stop uninformed people from wandering around thinking there's actual evidence for it.

To me, what makes ST a scientific speculation rather than a metaphysical speculation is that its presented entirely in the language of scientific physics: mathematics, and its tightly integrated into established scientific models. Thats enough to allow for some flexibility with the falsifiability schedule, imo.

Contrast that to metaphysical speculations which are integrated into known reality on basically a poetic level only.

 

[AskTheFamily]

There is robust proofs that prove God and his Oneness in Quran beyond all doubt.

 

[Silmarien]

That just takes the same question (how did life come come about) and pushes it beyond reach. It doesnt actually answer the question. Who designed them?

How is this a problem? All scientific exploration ever seems to do is push questions a couple of steps further beyond reach. Quantum physics certainly doesn't answer questions about what is actually going on there.

You're not really going to find good reasons to disqualify ID as science if you toss out falsification as the criterion. You can assert that it's more of a jump than string theory, but even if we go with the theistic version of it, a lot of people are going to disagree that deities are a bigger stretch than unobservable parallel dimensions.

Even if there were a conceivable falsifiability test for ST, that wouldnt stop uninformed people from wandering around thinking there's actual evidence for it.

To me, what makes ST a scientific speculation rather than a metaphysical speculation is that its presented entirely in the language of scientific physics: mathematics, and its tightly integrated into established scientific models. Thats enough to allow for some flexibility with the falsifiability schedule, imo.

Contrast that to metaphysical speculations which are integrated into known reality on basically a poetic level only.

But that's a terrible way to demarcate science from non-science. It's entirely possible to present metaphysical speculation in scientific language--in some philosophical circles, this is so common that the scientific language starts turning into another form of obscurantism. You shouldn't judge whether or not something is scientific by the way it's presented; there are reasons why falsifiability was proposed as the demarcation criterion. (One very big reason, and its name is Marxism.)

As far as metaphysics being poetry, have you actually looked at any contemporary metaphysics? I suspect people are mostly just ignorant about what it actually is. The questions involved are pretty serious, and not a matter of flowery language at all. (Honestly, if string theory doesn't qualify as metaphysics, it's more because it doesn't present any answers to genuine metaphysical questions. But it is still somewhere in the grey area between science and metaphysics.)

 

[AskTheFamily]

People limit themselves to think in the way the system makes you think, but the Quran provides clarification, and makes the good people seeking to believe in the meeting of their Lord, with clear proofs of that, and clear proofs of God and his oneness, as well to his Angels and Prophets, and towards the position of his books and the leaders who guide by his command, and the rope and handhold he keeps connected in that regard, and the family of the reminder who mortal words are to be sought but so is their guidance in the highest realm to be asked for, for they are the stars of guidance that God has adorned for those who look towards the true kingdom of the heavens and the earth, by which his authority is established primarily through.

There is no doubt a proof for all Prophets and their form in chosen households and houses which God's Name is remembered therein, and these chosen houses and their form, was perfected for humanity, through a recitation that is protected from an honorable Prophet and manifestation of it from God and his proofs and enough inherited words of the message to clarify all that and keep the light alive though the sorcery to cover the light and the morning star we await from the final family chosen by God, is immense in these days.

We will uncover and show what they try to veil and hide in that regard. No doubt every soul true existence and every personality true nature is only existing in God's vision and nothing else can or has the right to establish judgment in that respect, and he makes actions cleave to us, and chained to us, and we cannot escape his vision though people may deceive themselves through deceiving eyes of Iblis and his forces.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Without God or his vision defining our exact person form, we would be an illusion (premise 1)
We aren't an illusion (premise 2)

Therefore God exists and his visions defines our exact form. (conclusion)

This is the syllogism, and for these two premises, there is a lot of proofs and reminders. I thought 2 didn't have anything but a properly basic fact, but it has a lot of proofs.

The holy books because this was the easiest to see proof have emphasized on the most, and the system of education including all universities religious or otherwise, have not mentioned, because it's the clearest and firmest of proofs in that regard.

"Worship God as if you see him for if you do not see him, then surely he sees you" - seal of the Prophets.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Of course, holy books also present the moral argument in the best and firmest way, and paraphrased it in many ways, so there is many versions of the moral argument, but what we get is such a simple form in education system. This has to be some sort of joke that we can understand so much things, but not these simple arguments in the holy books!

 

[DennisTate]

We still don't know anything about string theory. That stuff's so theoretical and unfalsifiable that it's bordering on pseudoscience.

But these paragraphs from a high school level English article on String Theory sure sounds to fit nicely with what Dr. George Ritchie saw back in 1943.

"It was not until 1920 that the idea of linking electromagnetism and
gravity resurfaced. At that time a new theory of gravitation had been proposed by Albert Einstein (1879-1955), called the general theory of relativity. It was a replacement of Newton's theory, which had stood unchallenged since 1687. Inspired by Einstein's work, a young German mathematician named Theodore Kaluza was seized by a curious idea. The theory of relativity links space an time together to form a four-dimensional space-time continuum. What would happen, mused Kaluza, if general relativity were formulated in five rather than four dimensions? This is what Kaluza did, and to everyone's astonishment it was discovered that five-dimensional gravity obeys the same laws as
four-dimensional gravity as well as Maxwell's laws for the electromagnetic field. In other words, gravitation and electromagnetism are automatically unified in five dimensions, where electromagnetism is merely a component of gravity!"

The only drawback of the theory concerns the extra dimension. Why
don't we see it? An ingenious answer was provided by Oskar Klein. A
hosepipe viewed from afar looks like a wiggly line, i.e. one- dimensional.
However, on closer inspection it can be seen as a narrow tube. It is, in fact,
two-dimensional, and what was taken to be a point on the line is actually a
little circle going around the tube. In the same way, reasoned Klein, what we normally regard as a point in three dimensional space could in reality be a little circle going around a fourth space dimension. Thus Kaluza's extra
dimension might well exist, but be impossible to detect because it is closed
(circular) and rolled up to a very small circumference. In spite of
these bizarre overtones, it seems probable that in future a "theory of everything" will make use of the idea of unseen higher dimensions."
....

"Although nature manifests four distinct forces, physicists believe that
each may be part of a smaller number of more primitive forces. At high energy, the electromagnetic and weak forces appear to merge into a single "electroweak" force. Some "grand unified theories" suggest that a further amalgamation takes place between the electroweak and strong forces at as yet unattained energies. The most ambitious unification schemes envisage an amalgamation of all four forces into a single "superforce" at ultra-high levels of energy."...

"The real burden in the next three centuries will not be the development of fancy mathematics, but the experimental testing of these ambitious theories. All current thinking about total unification assumes that the effects of linking all the forces and particles together will only become manifest at energies that are some trillion times greater than those currently attainable in particle accelerators. Probably we shall never reach such energies directly" ( A Theory of Everything" Volume 21 of "The World of Science)