There can be no scientific proof of God

radarmark said:
If we refine the experiment to collect data for the first hours of the universe's existence (I am not an expert here, and do not know how far we see back is forward from the big bang) and show a "collapse" is there from and even earlier time (we see that now at that 14.7 billion years), then there must be a consciousness...
Click to expand...

Radar - does modern physics agree with Einstein's notion of the big bang that:

"For every one billion particles of antimatter there were one billion and one particles of matter. And when the mutual annihilation was complete, one billionth remained - and that's our present universe."

Is this the sort of collapse you are referring to?

Also, what would explain the fact that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating? Why would it be accelerating after 13.7 billion years? Will it keep expanding forever?
 
The problem with such presumption is that it closes the door of the mind, to imagination and potential. And is contrary to scriptural itself. Certainly I can agree that 'proof' will never come from the scientific community nor for that matter from any theological discourse as both are products of natural reason. But to say that God cannot provide an 'absolute' accessible by faith, subject to the same criteria of testable, evidence based insight which science uses to confirm knowledge is a dangerous intellectual position to hold. Just how dangerous, history is about to judge.

The first wholly new interpretation of the moral teachings of Christ for two thousand years is spreading on the web. [titled: The Final Freedoms] Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new 'claim' is predicated upon a precise and predefined experience, a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, command and covenant, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." Like it of no, a new religious claim testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment, evidential criteria now exists. I'm testing the material now myself! And if this proves to be authentic, Nothing short of a religious revolution appears to be getting under way.
 
IG I was referring to "the collapse of the wavefunction". Two (or more) quantumly entanged systems propigate as a "possibility" (think of the Schrodinger Cat paradox) until some "measurement" (observation) is made, when they emerge or manifest as a particular system. If we got back in time (the farthur something is away the further back in time it is) far enough, we should get to a point where our current observations do not matter (the universe was so chaotic it could have evolved into what we see now in a billion different ways). If we percieve structure (a "measured" system) some consciousness must have caused it very early in the history of the universe.

To your questions. Einstein's statement was meta-physics and may well be true. One really popoular theory of cosmology explains the structure we see as the result of the .000000001% of matter that was not annihilated in matter-antimatter collisions. As for accelerating expansion... we do not know. Could be gravity is getting weaker. Could be that by some unknown way the energy that was released in the big bang and the huge number of matter-antimatter collisions "coalesced" into matter a long, long way out there and is not exerting an additional gravitational force.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt.
 
IG I was referring to "the collapse of the wavefunction". Two (or more) quantumly entanged systems propigate as a "possibility" (think of the Schrodinger Cat paradox) until some "measurement" (observation) is made, when they emerge or manifest as a particular system.
Click to expand...
Suppose that if there were no one to observe this universe, that our version of the universe would never have become concrete. (I am not speaking of science at all, but speculating.)

Speaking of Schrodinger's wave function, does this site have the capability to display math formulas?
 
I have problem equating measurement with observation by a consciousness.

A measurement involves interaction. It would seem to me then that as long as there is an interaction, whether with something animate or inanimate, there will be a "collapse" of the wave function.

Besides, for most people, observations are observations at the level of classical objects rather than observation at the level of quantum objects. Yet it would be observations at the quantum level that "collapse" the wave function.
 
Well look up Ghirardi's "Qauntum Collapase Theories" on Stanford's Encylopedia of Philosophy. Not easy reading but beeter than http://de.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0611/0611212v3.pdf or Decoherence and the appearance of a ... - Google Books or http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_PHYS455/RevModPhys.v75p715y03.pdf

It gets tricky... try Chapter 15 of "Quantum Enigma" by Rosenblum and Kuttner (a lay level book by two very sharp physicists), which I believe onr of the two best general intos to the Quantum (the other is "Cosmic Code" by Pagels)--local library should have both.

I am sorry this topic is so difficult, I will draft something in word to post.
 
I have had a realisation:
The formation of creation is due to the principle of “Enjoyment”.
Thus, an atom is created by elements seeking “Pleasure” ---yes, instant gradification.

Electrons and protons etc interact because it is pleasurable & enlivening to do so ---even if such Pleasure is sought by way of ‘animal instinct’. In contrast, Adult Humans seek Pleasure by way of “regulated administration” ---IOW, hard work first . . . Pleasure later.

So, Pleasure prompts the acts of works/acts/motion/generation . . . and conversely, Sloven stupidness prompts antropy.

Science codifies the methods required for formulas to beget fruitful seeds of pleasure . . .
whereas, chaos is un-codified and requires the presence of pleasure-seeking scientific methods.

So even the built-in data tha governs a typical hand-held calculator is designed to be ergonomic and to output useful data ---all in concert with the “Desirable” goal ---set out upon by the Pleasure-seeker.

Having said this, I wanted to cite one small sanskrit term, “ananda-mayo 'bhyasat” ---but upon searching the Web for a citation, I found the following inre to “Pleasure as the nature of the Soul”:

Best regards,
Bhaktajan

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The spiritual entities are meant for enjoyment, as stated in the Vedaanta-sootra (1.1.12): ananda-mayo 'bhyaasaat. By nature and constitution, every living being — including the Supreme Lord and each of His parts and parcels — is meant for eternal enjoyment. The living beings who are encaged in the material tabernacle are constantly seeking enjoyment, but they are seeking it on the wrong platform. Apart from the material platform is the spiritual platform, where the Supreme Being enjoys Himself with His innumerable associates.
On that platform there is no trace of material qualities, and therefore that platform is called nirguṇa. On the nirguṇa platform there is never a clash over the object of enjoyment. Here in the material world there is always a clash between different individual beings because here the proper center of enjoyment is missed.
The real center of enjoyment is the Supreme Lord, who is the center of the sublime and spiritual rāsa dance. We are all meant to join Him and enjoy life with one transcendental interest and without any clash. That is the highest platform of spiritual interest, and as soon as one realizes this perfect form of oneness, there can be no question of illusion (moha) or lamentation (śoka).

http://vedabase.net/iso/7/

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

The section of the Sutras in which the jiva is differentiated from Brahman appears in the first adhyaya beginning with sutra 1.1.12: anandamayo 'bhyasat, “Brahman is joy.” Sutra 1.1.13 states that Brahman is not made of joy (a creation), but rather possessed of an abundance of joy. Evidence for this is offered in 1.1.14, which states that since Brahman is designated elsewhere as the cause of joy (Taittiriya Upanisad 2.7) he must be full of joy.
Sutra 1.1.15 states that the scripture of joy (Taittiriya Upanisad) also celebrates Brahman as being joyful. Following this in sutra 1.1.16, that which is Brahman and joyful is distinguished from the individual soul. The Brahman who is joyful is also described in the scripture as being the creator. Thus it is Brahman who is described as joyful, and not the individual soul, for only Brahman is described as possessing the ability to create the world.
Sutra 1.1.17 then states that the individual soul and Brahman are declared to be different, bhedavyapadesac ca. Even Sankara himself admits that sutras 1.1.16-17 are concerned with the difference between Brahman and the individual soul. However, Sankara adds his own comment, declaring that the difference only exists on a lower level of reality (vyavaharic), whereas in ultimate reality (paramarthic) this illusion of difference ceases to exist.
However, nowhere in Brahma sutra is there any reference to Sankara's two levels of reality, i.e., two levels of Brahman—a provisional manifestation of the Absolute (Krsna/the avatara/isvara) and an ultimate reality (unmanifest indeterminate Brahman). Thus Sankara appears to have attached his own doctrine to the Sutras. In this doctrine he calls his provisional manifestation of Brahman “saguna Brahman,” or Brahman with material adjuncts.
http://www.swami.org/pages/sanga/2002/2002_17.php
 
Just as "The Supreme Personality of Godhead in His Transcendent Abode" can only be known by direct revelation by the same Personality of Godhead as He wills when He wills, and even if He will, and even if we are absent during that revelation; just as that is true, similarly . . . we cannot know anything about the Personality of "Rybo the Rybot" unless Rybo the Rybot reveals it.

BTW, similarly, who are the Guru(s) that you have received the knowledge that you are passing along?
 
wil said:
rather than getting into it and derailing another thread.....
Why is that?

If science suddenly found a worm hole that they were able to peer into and see all these white clouds, folks walking around in robes, a fellow on a thrown with his son at his feet and an escalator leading upto a pearly gate and streets paved with gold and a selection of virgins.... and they were able to continue to peer into this hole, peer reviewed, published in journals, all of us watching 'Heaven live at Seven' the new reality show....

You'd deny it?

Or what if the theory of everything indicated the web of connectedness of all things and discovered we are all one being interacting with ourcellves, would not the panentheist be validated?
Click to expand...

We are in the process, presently, of discovering that our physical being is connected to the energy of Creation in a very real and constant way. We actually have instrumentation which detects other levels of Creation - but they do not realize it yet....
what is Dark Matter but the firmament of another level of Creation? ( hold onto that one and see if it doesn't turn out to be true - you heard it from me first... :) )

There will come a time when it is realized that the Human Being is all that is required to see such spheres... Then science will REALLY take off.....

Science is man's attempt to understand the Laws in existence which make the Wheels go 'round in Creation - we are destined to understand them very well - but no time soon..... we will continue to fill in the details until we realize that we may approach the questions from the opposite direction - where the answers come FIRST - and one must look for the question....

Science IS PROOF of God - because, Duh, it all makes sense....... Order is God. Wherever Truth is uncovered - there is an Angel standing by smiling on us...
 
OAT said:
There is no agreement on what God is and is not. So it is not possible even to begin talking about proofs, scientific or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Scientific proof of God, maybe not but, "...otherwise" I don't think so. Otherwise is too general and I have Logic to fill in the blank. How's that so? Thus:

1. First premise: The universe is composed of matter and this fact is verifiable.
2. Second premise: Matter cannot cause itself to exist which is verified by Logic.
3. Resultant premise: The universe was caused to exist which is a fact confirmed by the first two premises.

What could have caused the universe to exist if not some thing of the supernatural "size" of the Primal Cause?

There. It did not take too much or too long to prove that God exists. Dare to refute? If you try, please, show the proper evidences with reference to the syllogism above.
 
wil said:
rather than getting into it and derailing another thread.....
Why is that?

If science suddenly found a worm hole that they were able to peer into and see all these white clouds, folks walking around in robes, a fellow on a thrown with his son at his feet and an escalator leading upto a pearly gate and streets paved with gold and a selection of virgins.... and they were able to continue to peer into this hole, peer reviewed, published in journals, all of us watching 'Heaven live at Seven' the new reality show....

You'd deny it?

Or what if the theory of everything indicated the web of connectedness of all things and discovered we are all one being interacting with ourcellves, would not the panentheist be validated?
Click to expand...
Would those virgins be male or female?
Would they hve to be robes, or could tey be business suits?
 
Shibolet said:
Scientific proof of God, maybe not but, "...otherwise" I don't think so. Otherwise is too general and I have Logic to fill in the blank. How's that so? Thus:

1. First premise: The universe is composed of matter and this fact is verifiable.
2. Second premise: Matter cannot cause itself to exist which is verified by Logic.
3. Resultant premise: The universe was caused to exist which is a fact confirmed by the first two premises.

What could have caused the universe to exist if not some thing of the supernatural "size" of the Primal Cause?

There. It did not take too much or too long to prove that God exists. Dare to refute? If you try, please, show the proper evidences with reference to the syllogism above.
Click to expand...
Matter causes matter to exist...routinely. Matter impacts on the existence of matter...routinely. Therefore the second premise is flawed, within the syllogism provided. Evidences: mating animals beget other animals (carbon based life creating carbon based life); chemical reactions are composed of one form of matter affecting another. Point being all that was required for the Big Bang was an immense amount of matter and intense heat.

BTW...there are more esoteric examples of evidence where matter (element) filters like matter/element from dislike matter/element.
 
Basic logic, it is impossible to "prove" the "non-existence" of something. For any self respecting scientist, such would be a ludicrous claim. Any self respecting atheist would have to come to terms with the same fact. There is no way to "prove" invisible pink unicorns don't exist.

Using basic logic, which presumably underlies the scientific method, either something can be verified or falsified by whatever is already known. The burden of proof is on the person claiming something exists, since it is impossible to "prove" something doesn't exist.
 
*If* G!d could be proven, the scientific method would be precisely the tool we would have for doing the proving. Presuming G!d does exist, it then becomes a matter of finding the correct instrument to measure G!d with.
 
juantoo3 said:
Matter causes matter to exist...routinely.
Click to expand...

Well not exactly. Matter does not cause matter to exist. All matter that exists, has ever existed, and will ever exist was created in the Big Bang. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed; only its state can change (to energy).

I agree the syllogism is deeply flawed never the less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top