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 7
nephili

Can science prove or disprove "God"?

665 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I guess I can understand the extension of response...

After all, it truly is a fundamental question we all have in mind.

 

Edited by pallidin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
On 8/26/2017 at 3:01 AM, Crazy Horse said:

I think I am  beginning to understand your point of view.

Our conversation is an objective fact, what was said, how it was said, the intention behind it, the actual words written down without the "non-verbal" body language communications, all of these types of things could be seen as subjective. 

But even if you get two or 3 other guys to give you their opinion, thats still all subjective. 

The way I understood your posts were something like, 'this chat is subjective and I really need another person to verify it for me'. When in fact this conversation was real, only what was said was up for interpretation.

So there is the objective truth and the subjective truth here?

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution."
-Albert EinsteinWhat Life Means to Einstein (1929)

Yes, exactly, I think you have it correctly. :D  :tu:  

I mean, to bring up my fav "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" I often reflect on the impression of that saying (question) and think in the end, it probably does make a sound, because of well you know........ physics. (or something akin to what I'm saying here about sound coming from an action. *shrugs*) 

But, again, that's my subjective look on that. (yeah, ............... noooooooot helpful. :o ) 

On 8/26/2017 at 4:58 AM, Crazy Horse said:
On 8/26/2017 at 3:52 AM, jmccr8 said:

Well for many of us evidence is what is needed to show others of the potential or reality for something, a memory an experience is all that they can be to the individual an evidence only unique to them. For the rest of us here need documentation of peer reviewed, credible material that factually demonstrates the evidence.

Yes I do see your point, I am only trying to help clarify your use of evidence, and sometimes some people look outside of their personal experience to see if it needs validation, and is the validation based on the assessment of credible sources.:)

jmcr8

That all well and good if we want weigh and measure something pertaining to the physical world. But we have been talking about more spiritual matters, NDEs and OBEs for example.

Living in the moment, observing, feeling, creating, this is how humanity is supposed to live in my experience. The sense of freedom, joy and of truly feeling is what makes life worth living in my opinion.

Whats the point in being able to measure the speed of light if we cannot stop for a moment and appreciate the warmth, the wonder of life?

The only way to bridge this gap, between the physical and the spiritual is via the mind. Once an individual has made a conscous decision to walk this spiritual path, via thoughts, feelings and actions, then it is a purely subjective matter, until you are at such a high vibration as to be able to actually manifest spirit. 

Its at this point the world shall look up from their TVs, smart phones and X boxes and synchronise their thoughts and actions and its at this point that everything shall change. Its coming, people are feeling it.

Can I prove it?

Here's the interesting spin I see with this. Can you prove it? And here's another thought or question with that thought, what's the reason you want to prove it, to prove the subjective thought processes you are advising everyone to do? Now, I'm not saying I disagree with you on the added on reasoning in seeing it in one's own creative point of view. I think that bring's ways of inventing, and I think that's how we got our inventions, our constant engineering, and such that has made our world grow. The thing is, is seeing a subjective point of view into being accepted in an objective, all around point of view. 

I think, that sometimes, varying degrees of points of views, can help see wholeness in something. What one person sees, another wont, but see it differently. So, what one person doesn't see, someone else will, and catch something that might be harmful. So, despite that this wont help bringing out into a more objective viewpoint, I do feel that subjective viewpoints are just as helpful in the long run. So, I don't think it's wise to push one particular thing into a simple point of view, because another differing could be just as helpful, if the first wants to deny it. (I hope I made sense.) 

Granted, it would have to take ways to make it into objective, (like how to convince an invention will help all in the long run) but I do feel differing subjective points of views seems to make things refreshed to see it differently for a positive reason. 

(Again, I hope I made sense.) 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 You can't create something from nothing. Neither can something just will it's self into existence. Therefore, science is only able prove the existence of a Creator. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ogbin said:

 You can't create something from nothing. Neither can something just will it's self into existence. Therefore, science is only able prove the existence of a Creator. 

If there is no-thing, then is only no-thing. If there is some-thing, then some-thing exist. If god existed before some-thing, then god is no-thing. If god is no-thing then god doesn't exist as any-thing. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

If there is no-thing, then is only no-thing. If there is some-thing, then some-thing exist. If god existed before some-thing, then god is no-thing. If god is no-thing then god doesn't exist as any-thing. 

Oh, bravo, Xeno. Now tackle that chicken or egg thingie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Oh, bravo, Xeno. Now tackle that chicken or egg thingie.

The question of what came first, the chicken or the egg, was answered long ago. Its the egg.

Once upon a time something that was almost a chicken laid an egg that had a slight mutation, thus producing the first chicken.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

The question of what came first, the chicken or the egg, was answered long ago. Its the egg.

Once upon a time something that was almost a chicken laid an egg that had a slight mutation, thus producing the first chicken.

A presence of nothing laid an egg. Containing BB, time, space and eventually human. Like a flying magic carpet unrolling the chicken we know as life. It is still hatching.  :-)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God is like us, just bigger; if we exist, then God can exist. That's not science, but it's fair logic.

To put it another way, if anything could prove God didn't exist, God is so obviously a projection of us that that same proof would prove we didn't exist.

And of course, if we don't exist then we can't prove we don't exist! :rofl:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, PersonFromPorlock said:

God is like us, just bigger; if we exist, then God can exist. That's not science, but it's fair logic.

To put it another way, if anything could prove God didn't exist, God is so obviously a projection of us that that same proof would prove we didn't exist.

And of course, if we don't exist then we can't prove we don't exist! :rofl:

We don't need to prove that we exist because we know we do.  Maybe we can question the nature of our existence, like Descartes did so famously, so long ago.  Wouldn't the fact that we are interested in proving things exist be proof enough of our existence in and of itself?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

The question of what came first, the chicken or the egg, was answered long ago. Its the egg.

Once upon a time something that was almost a chicken laid an egg that had a slight mutation, thus producing the first chicken.

A non-chicken ancestor laid the first chicken egg which produced the first chicken.  And this chicken ancestor then matured and mated with another non-chicken ancestor so that it could produce another chicken egg.  Is that about right?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Guyver said:

A non-chicken ancestor laid the first chicken egg which produced the first chicken.  And this chicken ancestor then matured and mated with another non-chicken ancestor so that it could produce another chicken egg.  Is that about right?

Broadly speaking yes.

Of course no two chickens are excatly alike so who is to say which chicken is the more chickenly chicken. :P

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I blame the turtle Maturin. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Broadly speaking yes.

Of course no two chickens are excatly alike so who is to say which chicken is the more chickenly chicken. :P

Or maybe that chicken just tastes like fruity pebbles?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Guyver said:
15 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Broadly speaking yes.

Of course no two chickens are excatly alike so who is to say which chicken is the more chickenly chicken. :P

Or maybe that chicken just tastes like fruity pebbles?

And thus, the first KFC was born!!!! :D  

PFK, if you're in the Eastern part of Canada, (if I got that right) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

19 hours ago, XenoFish said:

If there is no-thing, then is only no-thing. If there is some-thing, then some-thing exist. If god existed before some-thing, then god is no-thing. If god is no-thing then god doesn't exist as any-thing. 

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever encountered. It's so simplistic that it's beautiful :cry:

I want it on a tee shirt over a random picture of like an Egyptian statue or Shiva or the post renaissance European Jesus to really confuse the heck out of people.

Edited by nephili

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 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.