Can science prove or disprove "God"?

[Stubbly_Dooright]

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 Einstein, What Life Means to Einstein (1929)

Yes, exactly, I think you have it correctly.     

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.  ) 

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.) 

 

[Ogbin]

 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. 

[XenoFish]

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. 

[+Hammerclaw]

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.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

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.

[Skirnum]

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.  :-)

[PersonFromPorlock]

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!

[Guyver]

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!

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?

[Guyver]

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?

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

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. 

[XenoFish]

I blame the turtle Maturin. 

[Guyver]

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. 

Or maybe that chicken just tastes like fruity pebbles?

[Stubbly_Dooright]

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. 

Or maybe that chicken just tastes like fruity pebbles?

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

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

 

[nephili]

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

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 September 3, 2017 by nephili

[YHWH Allah]

G = Newtonian constant of gravitation
D = Descartesian gravitation density
https://yhwhallah.wordpress.com/
 
UMR Formulae
frequency=[(G*D)^1/2]
force=[(G*D)^1/2]momentum
energy=[(G*D)^1/2]hbar
power=[(G*D)^1/2]energy
current=[(G*D)^1/2]charge
G*power=c^5
G*force=c^4
power/force=c

Dark Energy
energy=[(G*D)^1/2]hbar
energy=[(G*D)^1/2]e^2*z0
energy=[(G*D)^1/2]e^2/e0*c
energy=[(G*D)^1/2]e^2*u0*c
energy=[(G*D)^1/2]h*2alpha
G=c^5/power
G=c^4/force
force=power/c

Dark Matter
mass=[(G*D)^1/2]hbar/c^2
mass=[(G*D)^1/2]e^2*z0/c^2
mass=[(G*D)^1/2]e^2/e0*c^3
mass=[(G*D)^1/2]e^2*u0/c
mass=[(G*D)^1/2]h*2alpha/c^2
power=c^5/G
force=c^4/G
power=force*c

UMR 20 March 2018
Tuesday 16:15 UTC

YHWH Allah

[Truthseeker007]

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 6:51 AM, Hammerclaw said:

Life itself is their purpose, as it is of all who live. They neither see nor seek anything beyond it and live it to the full. Thus was the stance of much of humanity prior to the Christian era. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

I totally disagree with that statement. You are forgetting about Hinduism which is far older then the "Christian Era". You also have the Native Americans, Aborigines and countless Indigenous peoples not to mention Zoroastrianism.

[Truthseeker007]

On ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 10:58 PM, 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.

Fish and Reptiles lay eggs. So maybe the chicken was a mutation of a reptile.

[Truthseeker007]

I just think the Creator or God would be the vibration and frequency, from which all other frequencies emanate. I think Quantum physics is providing the science behind finding this out. So yes I do think science can prove God but not in the way people would like. Most people don't like to think of God as a vibration and frequency. From my experience most think of God as some entity in heaven granting prayers,throwing people in Hades,making laws and rules and on and on.Creating chickens.lol!

[+Hammerclaw]

5 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

You are forgetting about Hinduism which is far older then the "Christian Era

Yes, that's what prior to the Christian Era refers to. Also, much of humanity does not mean all of it. Too, I'm not overly impressed by your pseudo-scientific, quasi-philosophical ramblings that constitute your personal designer religion. You're just whistling in the dark, like everyone else.

[Truthseeker007]

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Yes, that's what prior to the Christian Era refers to. Also, much of humanity does not mean all of it. Too, I'm not overly impressed by your pseudo-scientific, quasi-philosophical ramblings that constitute your personal designer religion. You're just whistling in the dark, like everyone else.

What you said was "Thus was the stance of much of humanity prior to the Christian era. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." You are assuming before the Christian era that is all they did. But yea maybe you are right that people were a lot more merry before the Christian era. After that it was all fire and brimstone and fear based religion.

I don't follow any religion so you implying that I do is not factual at all. I do love studying them though. Which is why I no better then to be a part of a religion.

 

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

What you said was "Thus was the stance of much of humanity prior to the Christian era. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." You are assuming before the Christian era that is all they did. But yea maybe you are right that people were a lot more merry before the Christian era. After that it was all fire and brimstone and fear based religion.

I don't follow any religion so you implying that I do is not factual at all. I do love studying them though. Which is why I no better then to be a part of a religion.

 

 

7 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

I just think the Creator or God would be the vibration and frequency, from which all other frequencies emanate. I think Quantum physics is providing the science behind finding this out. So yes I do think science can prove God but not in the way people would like. Most people don't like to think of God as a vibration and frequency. From my experience most think of God as some entity in heaven granting prayers,throwing people in Hades,making laws and rules and on and on.Creating chickens.lol!

This constitutes a theology, a designer religion, tailored personally to you as a unique individual, among other things you have stated you believe.

[Truthseeker007]

10 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

 

This constitutes a theology, a designer religion, tailored personally to you as a unique individual, among other things you have stated you believe.

What do my beliefs have to do with what you said? You are merely trying to change and completely ignore that your statement was ignorant..And you don't think the Christian religion is a designer religion? They borrowed off of many concepts to create a unified belief system. Not to mention those concepts that were plagiarized by this new religion called Christianity labeled the original producers of the concepts as heathen.But this was only after the stories had been stolen.

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

What do my beliefs have to do with what you said? You are merely trying to change and completely ignore that your statement was ignorant..And you don't think the Christian religion is a designer religion? They borrowed off of many concepts to create a unified belief system. Not to mention those concepts that were plagiarized by this new religion called Christianity labeled the original producers of the concepts as heathen.But this was only after the stories had been stolen.

Honey, you're the one that started this exchange--if you can't stand the heat, you should have stayed out of the kitchen. Now for want of a coherent reply you resort to insults, the last refuge of the incompetent debater. If you feel free to scrutinize dissect and disparage the posts of others, you should know you can only expect the same for your own, with your scientific pulls from left field to back up your fantasies. Your guessing isn't any better than anyone else's, so you can climb down from that paper horse you're riding.

Edited December 30, 2017 by Hammerclaw

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

What do my beliefs have to do with what you said? You are merely trying to change and completely ignore that your statement was ignorant..And you don't think the Christian religion is a designer religion? They borrowed off of many concepts to create a unified belief system. Not to mention those concepts that were plagiarized by this new religion called Christianity labeled the original producers of the concepts as heathen.But this was only after the stories had been stolen.

Truth seeker, Hammer isn't against you, he is saying that to one degree or another many humans have designed their religion, or lack there of, in otherwords, have constructed their own personal Jesus ( in a broad sweeping sense). He includes himself in this, for him,  your beliefs, (he is giving his opinion) which is he isn't impressed with them, he isn't impressed with his either, if you followed his posts you would have read that he follows a dead guy, who was nailed to cross, and is due for an appearance any day now, while it does sound kooky, for him it works, just like your vibrational god works for you. 

You posted he was wrong, yet, did not offer a counter or evidence, it basically comes off as you  are saying he is wrong cuz you say so, over semantics, citing he kept people out, well much of means to a large extent, he picked "much of" to allow for those he didn't name. 

Edited December 30, 2017 by Sherapy

[White Unicorn]

On 12/30/2017 at 7:11 AM, Truthseeker007 said:

I just think the Creator or God would be the vibration and frequency, from which all other frequencies emanate. I think Quantum physics is providing the science behind finding this out. So yes I do think science can prove God but not in the way people would like. Most people don't like to think of God as a vibration and frequency. From my experience most think of God as some entity in heaven granting prayers,throwing people in Hades,making laws and rules and on and on.Creating chickens.lol!

I agree with you about the one  emanation that exists everywhere and producing other vibrations and frequencies. 

The religious aspects are born and vary on different perceptions of our senses and intellectual comprehension of things seemingly not understood by science. 

I totally believe that there are other intelligent life forms not like us and are energy like  beings or projections of an intelligent forms of life that have been in contact with us through the ages to form a lot of myths and religions. 

The gods, angels etc are not god anymore then we are. They may have learned and made the effects through the frequency emanations to appear as gods etc to us in different cultures. They just had a better understanding to use the emanations and frequencies to appear as gods because of effects witnessed and communication with them. When there is talk by them of one god the creator and sustainer, it would be the life giving essense to all other emanations of the one true source of existence.