Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
bendigger0

Can God's existence be scientifically proved?

633 posts in this topic

There's way too many people shouting "prove it!" on this forum. What's wrong with free flowing speculation? The search for answers leads to lots of interesting questions. To simply shout a demand for "proof!" is infantile and beyond the scope of a speculative forum. Scientific inquiry is not the arbiter of truth. Can you PROVE God exists?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My theory is that God exists. So far science has not proved me wrong..

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He does, some one just give me a ruler big enough to measure him, a camera lens wide enough to photo him and the power to hold him in one place :)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one knows one way or another . . . all you can have is faith that god either does (theism) or does not (atheism) until there is actual evidence.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The short answer: No.

Think about it, you can't "prove God exists" due to the very nature/definition of God.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The short answer: No.

Think about it, you can't "prove God exists" due to the very nature/definition of God.

Of course, you are right. Science is relevant only to the tangible. Therefore the quest for "proofs" in realms of the etheric and/or spiritual are pointless.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one knows one way or another . . . all you can have is faith that god either does (theism) or does not (atheism) until there is actual evidence.

What if god only appears to those who want him to and the many mental decisions of his non existence by people, are distancing them selves from him. People may not physically be distancing them selves from god ( if he created everything, then he cant be apart from anything because he is everything), just mentally not allowing them selves to have a relationship with him. We can say we have never had a previous experience of god and that is enough of a reason not seek an experience with him and leave it at that, grow old, have many wonderful and heartbreaking experiences and then die. your memories of life gone, your impacts on earth forgotten. Not existing wouldn't hurt, you did it before you were born and didn't suffer for it.

What if life is a choice, what if god allows those to die who don't consider a life after death, that cant see the blessings in life, the bountiful resources that we have when shared, the riches in moderation. what if he lets you die because he made you with a mind that can comprehend more than you have, that can contemplate god but choose not too. If your not happy with life, maybe your life from a baby to a wrinkly old person is your chance to make that decision to live in the next life or die in this one. Maybe every one no matter what ideas they contemplated in life, chooses life at the end. Every one of us has thought life is unfair, that if god existed then why is their so much bad in the world but when your last moment comes, when you feel your last breath and every thing fade to black, will your last thought be 'God id like some more please'?

And then its given to you

Edited by Ever Learning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one knows one way or another . . . all you can have is faith that god either does (theism) or does not (atheism) until there is actual evidence.

God cannot be "proven", yet there is such a thing as "direct knowing". It goes beyond mere belief or conviction, into an abiding certainty. An abiding principle that is the motivating force within all that is. I would assert that a daisy, or a squirrel, with absolutely no education has certainty about "gods" existence. It's only rational (haha) mankind that can muster the temerity to question god's existence.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, you are right. Science is relevant only to the tangible. Therefore the quest for "proofs" in realms of the etheric and/or spiritual are pointless.

Not really. There are proofs in the form of logical argument that could be presented - except there are no logical arguments for god that could serve as a proof.

What this would seem to imply - the fact there can be no proofs of any kind for god - is that god is undefinable, unknowable. The natural consequence of this would be that all the various religions which have claimed to define god, haven't. And all the believers in the world who claim to know god, don't.

Edited by Leonardo
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. There are proofs in the form of logical argument that could be presented - except there are no logical arguments for god that could serve as a proof.

What this would seem to imply - the fact there can be no proofs of any kind for god - is that god is undefinable, unknowable. The natural consequence of this would be that all the various religions which have claimed to define god, haven't. And all the believers in the world who claim to know god, don't. - is what some one would think if they hadn't had any experiences them self. which is logical.

But there may in the future, as past experiences don't always set the precedence for the unexpected future, be an experience that gives you suspicion to consider the existence of a deity. then the people who once falsely claimed to have had an experience, might of actually had an experience. and the people who haven't had experiences wont be able to recognize you. your non believing self ceases to exist and then you end up arguing with a guy, who used to sound exactly like you, has the beliefs you had but you wont be able to tell him hes wrong because he already knows he right.

and you know theres no way to make him belief, because personal experience out weighs any other.

Edited by Ever Learning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is what some one would think if they hadn't had any experiences them self. which is logical.

But there may in the future, as past experiences don't always set the precedence for the unexpected future, be an experience that gives you suspicion to consider the existence of a deity. then the people who once falsely claimed to have had an experience, might of actually had an experience. and the people who haven't had experiences wont be able to recognize you. your non believing self ceases to exist and then you end up arguing with a guy, who used to sound exactly like you, has the beliefs you had but you wont be able to tell him hes wrong because he already knows he right.

Why would you presume people who don't believe in god haven't had the same sort of experiences as those who do believe in god - but they arrived at a different conclusion as to what those experiences were of/represent?

This argument about the believer's "god experience" is simply a case of special pleading.

Edited by Leonardo
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't proof mostly demanded by those who don't believe? And for those who believe, their reasons for believing would probably be rejected as proof. It's all pretty subjective, really. I have had what I consider to be direct experiences, up until then I was skeptical. But in no way would me relating my experiences & thoughts & conclusions about those experiences be considered proof. I think we all pretty much believe what we believe until something happens that causes us to reconsider our world view and the nature of reality. And some people never have that kind of experience, or epiphany, or do but reach different conclusions. I gave up a long time ago explaining or justifying or trying to provide proof or evidence. Either you get it or you don't, either you will or you won't, either way, what's most important to me is not a belief systm, but whether we live ethical lives, which can be done with religion or spirituality.

Edited by Beany
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you presume people who don't believe in god haven't had the same sort of experiences as those who do believe in god - but they arrived at a different conclusion as to what those experiences were of/represent?

This argument about the believer's "god experience" is simply a case of special pleading.

What experiences of mine have you shared? and can you tell me how you arrived at that conclusion.

Edited by Ever Learning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't proof mostly demanded by those who don't believe? And for those who believe, their reasons for believing would probably be rejected as proof. It's all pretty subjective, really. I have had what I consider to be direct experiences, up until then I was skeptical. But in no way would me relating my experiences & thoughts & conclusions about those experiences be considered proof. I think we all pretty much believe what we believe until something happens that causes us to reconsider our world view and the nature of reality. And some people never have that kind of experience, or epiphany. I gave up a long time ago explaining or justifying or trying to provide proof or evidence. Either you get it or you don't, either you will or you won't, either way, I'm not sure it's as important as whether we live ethical lives, which can be done with religion or spirituality.

That is a rather speculative thing to claim about other people. As I said previously, how do you know these people have not had the same quality of experience, or epiphany, that led you to believe in god - except it led those people to explore psychology or neurology, etc?

Would those people be wrong to conclude their experience was born of their brain/mind just because you believe yours was born of god/deity? Can you be sure those experiences are actually qualitively different?

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What experiences of mine have you shared? and can you tell me how you arrived at that conclusion.

I didn't say I had shared any of your experiences. All I said was the claim of believers that "god experiences are something non-believers haven't had" is special pleading. You cannot know the experiences others have had and whether they are of the same quality as your own - but they arrived at a different understanding of what those experiences were.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say I had shared any of your experiences. All I said was the claim of believers that "god experiences are something non-believers haven't had" is special pleading. You cannot know the experiences others have had and whether they are of the same quality as your own - but they arrived at a different understanding of what those experiences were.

How could some one arrive at a different understanding of some one elses experience if they hadnt shared the same experience? you can have an opinion of some one elses experience but you cant have a true understanding when you havent experienced it yourself.

Edited by Ever Learning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God was "proven" to me years ago. But it's not scientific proof. It was personal, and thus non-transferable. But that's not actually answering the thread question. The thread is discussing scientific evidence. The Scientific Method exists to test the natural world, right? So is it equipped to even begin a hypothesis on God? The Scientific Method is necessarily limited to the natural world, so thus is incapable of proving or disproving supernatural concepts such as "god".

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could some one arrive at a different understanding of some one elses experience if they hadnt shared the same experience? you can have an opinion of some one elses experience but you cant have a true understanding when you havent experienced it yourself.

None of us "share the same experience" with the degree of certainty you imply. The only "sharing of experience" we have is through explanation - language.

People can agree a similarity of experience based on this communicating of concepts and emotions, but they can never know those experiences are of the same thing. Please note that I am speaking of experiences which are totally subjective, with no physical component.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we existed in 1d, would we be able to prove the existence of 2d? and then prove the existence of 3d? how can we prove god exists, we cant, we can only individually ask him to show him self in this dimension so we know that there is one, as we cant perceive any further than our own experience

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. There are proofs in the form of logical argument that could be presented - except there are no logical arguments for god that could serve as a proof.

What this would seem to imply - the fact there can be no proofs of any kind for god - is that god is undefinable, unknowable. The natural consequence of this would be that all the various religions which have claimed to define god, haven't. And all the believers in the world who claim to know god, don't.

I don't agree with your surmise (the implication that god is unknowable). Undefinable, yes. The "knowing" of god goes beyond mere belief. Nor can the "knowing" be articulated lucidly, or quantified in any way. The concept i'm working with is "direct knowing", the term gnosis may apply. This "knowing" requires stepping away from logic and reason, and simply resonating with what is. Of course people can be deluded about themselves and what they "know". But, i think God is a self-evident truth to all consciousness, save the petty ego on mankind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's way too many people shouting "prove it!" on this forum. What's wrong with free flowing speculation? The search for answers leads to lots of interesting questions. To simply shout a demand for "proof!" is infantile and beyond the scope of a speculative forum. Scientific inquiry is not the arbiter of truth. Can you PROVE God exists?

When I specifically ask someone....can you prove x, y, z....it's not a literal challenge, but more of a cue to stop and think a moment about what it is they are claiming they believe (i.e. God) is real (spiritually speaking).

People will generally say, I believe because of a personal experience I've had. And while that experience is very real to them, it isn't real to me, because I didn't have the experience. It's all subjective to our perspectives. While I've never had any proof of God in my life personally, I've had proof of other things spiritually, which if I shared with this community, 99% of people would call bull****, because it hasn't happened to them.

Now, that's my motivation and intention when I ask someone to conjour proof, but I can't speak for others. I've seen some skeptics get angry at believers, or insult them. My philosophy is, If that's what helps you get through your day and make you feel better about life, go for it. Just realize it's your truth, not my truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with your surmise (the implication that god is unknowable). Undefinable, yes. The "knowing" of god goes beyond mere belief. Nor can the "knowing" be articulated lucidly, or quantified in any way. The concept i'm working with is "direct knowing", the term gnosis may apply. This "knowing" requires stepping away from logic and reason, and simply resonating with what is. Of course people can be deluded about themselves and what they "know". But, i think God is a self-evident truth to all consciousness, save the petty ego on mankind.

If something cannot be defined, then it cannot be known. If you have a proof which contradicts that I would be happy to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of us "share the same experience" with the degree of certainty you imply. The only "sharing of experience" we have is through explanation - language.

People can agree a similarity of experience based on this communicating of concepts and emotions, but they can never know those experiences are of the same thing. Please note that I am speaking of experiences which are totally subjective, with no physical component.

so its possible that the experiences of a deity that some people have had are true because other people have had similar experiences of a deity. These People can agree a similarity of experience based on this communicating of concepts and emotions.

Edited by Ever Learning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a rather speculative thing to claim about other people. As I said previously, how do you know these people have not had the same quality of experience, or epiphany, that led you to believe in god - except it led those people to explore psychology or neurology, etc?

Would those people be wrong to conclude their experience was born of their brain/mind just because you believe yours was born of god/deity? Can you be sure those experiences are actually qualitively different?

This is a good argument, and 100% valid, to my mind. But this conviction of "knowing" God goes far beyond belief. It's not a matter of having had experiences. It's a matter of being. Resonating with a primary source. An undeniable fact. I won't assert God's existence, 'cause i know it doesn't matter at all what man/woman believes. It's what God believes that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so its possible that the experiences of a deity that some people have had are true because other people have had similar experiences of a deity. These People can agree a similarity of experience based on this communicating of concepts and emotions.

How does one person know another had an experience that was "of a deity"?

Does this deity appear to them both as they are discussing the experience, to speak to them simultaneously and confirm their assumption?

Or do they simply agree on a similarity of emotional response to the experience and conclude from that the experiences were "of the same thing"?

How do those people who have concluded their experience was "of a deity" know their experience was in fact different to another person who had an experience with the same similarity of emotional response, but concluded a psychological/neurological cause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.