Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Qur'anic studies today
Today at 11:57 AM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
Today at 10:44 AM

New PM incoming
by zeca
Yesterday at 11:23 PM

Lebanon protests
by zeca
Yesterday at 11:06 PM

Are Hijabs really a choic...
by zeca
Yesterday at 10:45 PM

Iran uprising - is the en...
by zeca
Yesterday at 10:23 PM

Protests in Iraq
by zeca
Yesterday at 08:11 PM

Anti-imperialism and the ...
by zeca
Yesterday at 07:43 PM

Arabs without God - new e...
by zeca
Yesterday at 07:03 PM

Book burning in Norway
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:27 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Yesterday at 04:18 PM

Saudi air force member ...
by zeca
Yesterday at 01:47 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist

 (Read 21109 times)
  • 12 3 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     OP - August 07, 2015, 11:37 AM

    I would like to use this topic to put across what I believe is the scientific evidence of God. I think the first thing that should be clarified is who/what I believe God to be.

    God is an all powerful living, real being who created everything that we know and things that we don't know of. This not only includes the creation of physical entities but subjective things such as languages, numbers, dreams, emotions, intellect, etc.

    Everything that we know of that we know of that we can perceive is a creation.

    God is all knowing. Because God created everything he knows everything about it.

    As humans we can never know truly know the extent of God as we have limited capabilities. There many things which we will simply never know about God.

    So if absolutely everything is a creation of God then how do we get to know that God really exists using science?  How can we tell the difference between something created by God and not created by God if in fact everything is created by God? I will try to explain this and show what the scientific evidence of God is in this topic.

  • Is there scientific evidence that proves the existence God?
     Reply #1 - August 07, 2015, 11:45 AM

    How you do know that this God Allah the Islamic one and not any other gods.

    I am curious do you understand what "science" is and what it means to you?

    Edit : Opss I don't know this thread is a one on one match just noticed it. I don't plan to take part in it
  • Is there scientific evidence that proves the existence God?
     Reply #2 - August 07, 2015, 11:46 AM

    You can post comments on the thread here. http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=29151.0

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Is there scientific evidence that proves the existence God?
     Reply #3 - August 07, 2015, 12:17 PM

    Are you happy with my concept of God so far?
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #4 - August 07, 2015, 01:24 PM

    Sure, carry on.

    Edit : Opss I don't know this thread is a one on one match just noticed it.


    No worries. Smiley

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #5 - August 07, 2015, 09:34 PM

    The next thing we need to clarify is the understanding of "science". I don't want to get into petty, meaningless, misguided arguments about "proofs" and "prove" and certainty in science. Some atheists are simply deluded and not living in the real world when they come out with crap like "you can't prove anything in science". It's just so damn annoying. God knows how they live their lives or work.

    I like the Wikipedia definition of science - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

    To clarify, when I am talking about proving something scientifically I am talking about being able to do experiments and make real observations in order to verify explanations, ideas, hypotheses, etc. I fully understand that what we currently observe could turn out to be false later on or change so we can never know the absolute truth of something. However I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that we can be certain of things based on the observations we have made.

    For example we are certain that the earth orbits the sun based on the modern observations we have. Later on that may turn out to be false (and most likely it will when geocentrism is proven to be correct) but it's reasonable to assume that based on or current understanding that the heliocentric model is correct as it explains a lot of things.

    When I use words such as "prove", "proof", "certain", etc. I am using the meanings/definitions as described in the public dictionaries. I tend not to use personal private meanings which some deluded individuals use who think that you can't prove anything in science.

    So if you're happy with the above then we can continue. If not then there's no point in going any further as I don't want interrupted with "but you can't prove anything in science" argument every time I cite/explain physical phenomena.







  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #6 - August 07, 2015, 09:51 PM

    .

    Edit: Oops, was meant to post this in the ringside seats thread... apologies.


    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #7 - August 07, 2015, 10:44 PM

    Scientifically, you can't prove anything with science. Let me give you an example of a statement.

    On a day with no clouds in the sky, people, excluding the blind and some with colour blindness, look up and see blue.

    Now I'll make a truth statement. The sky is blue to our eyes.

    This is something that can be proven within the realm of observation, however it cannot be proven using the scientific method. Outside of the scientific method most people would happily say that my truth statement is fact, and raising their eyes upward and seeing blue sky is proof.

    However, proof only exists in the realms of mathematics and logic, which the above falls under. Mathematics and logic are both closed self-contained systems of propositions. Science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.  The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof, but theories for which exists more/better evidence to theories for which there is less/worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science. This is why everything in science is either a hypothesis or a theory.

    There is no such thing as a scientific proof.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #8 - August 07, 2015, 11:25 PM

    I think the problem is with understanding word usage/meaning. If you look up the definition "prove" in the common dictionary it simply means to demonstrate the truth of something using evidence.

    If someone said to you that they have proven an hypothesis in a scientific lab experiment would you become confused or would you understand that what they mean is that they have gathered sufficient evidence to prove their hypothesis?
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #9 - August 07, 2015, 11:54 PM

    Only in the realms of mathematics and logic which I explained above.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #10 - August 08, 2015, 12:00 AM

    Does that mean you would become confused?
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #11 - August 08, 2015, 12:06 AM

    If I was having a drink down the pub and a fellow drinker randomly said he had a theory about something, I'd know what he meant, but it's not a valid thing to say in the context of science. In a scientific context he wouldn't have a theory, he'd have at best a hypothesis.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #12 - August 08, 2015, 12:17 AM

    OK so when I explained what I meant by using scientific evidence to prove the existence of God and provided a reference to what definition of science I wanted to use and what definition of prove and proof I want to use you'd become confused because you'd be expecting me to cite scientific terms that may be used in labs by some people who have hardly seen the light of day? Or you'd get confused between mathematical theorems?

    Is it too confusing for you to use the everyday usage of science that is used to brainwash millions of people daily.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #13 - August 08, 2015, 12:29 AM

    You're mistaking it for observational proof. which falls under mathematics and logic, which is a source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation (I'll be checking the comments section to see if Qtian objects to this). I can observe and prove under these conditions that grass is green, water is wet, and gravity dictates that if I throw something into the air it will fall back down again. This is mathematics and logic, which as I said are closed self-contained systems of propositions. Scientific theory is evidence.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #14 - August 08, 2015, 12:43 AM

    The sky is blue to our eyes.

    This is something that can be proven within the realm of observation, ----- Outside of the scientific method most people would happily say that my truth statement is fact, and raising their eyes upward and seeing blue sky is proof.


    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #15 - August 08, 2015, 12:51 AM

    You're mistaking it for observational proof. which falls under mathematics and logic, which is a source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation (I'll be checking the comments section to see if Qtian objects to this). I can observe and prove under these conditions that grass is green, water is wet, and gravity dictates that if I throw something into the air it will fall back down again. This is mathematics and logic, which as I said are closed self-contained systems of propositions. Scientific theory is evidence.


    Sorry, I'm mistaking what for "observational proof"? and how does "observational proof" fall under mathematics and logic?

    I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #16 - August 08, 2015, 12:54 AM

    Well I did quote part of my own post above showing where proof can be used. I've tried to be clear in my posts.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #17 - August 08, 2015, 01:25 AM

    It might be better to just stick with what you believe is evidence for the existence of the god of your belief system and go from there. Are you happy to do that so we can move along?

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #18 - August 08, 2015, 10:04 PM

    OK, I shall begin. My apologies for taking so long to start. I keep getting diverted into other discussions. I'm going to try to put all my focus on this topic from now. I'll deal with all the questions later.

    One of the most obvious evidence of God is the scientific fact that life cannot be created by humans from scratch, from atoms and molecules. Numerous scientific experiments have been done are being done and have been planned to create life from scratch.

    Generally it is considered that life is a "naturally" occurring phenomena, especially by atheists. However there is a bit more to this which most people don't consider. Life is not a natural phenomena. When I say it is not a natural phenomena I mean it is not something replicated by humans using natural processes. For example we know that if we combine hydrogen and oxygen we get water. This is an example of a natural processes. We are also able form other more complex molecules by using our understanding of chemistry and physics. These complex molecules and structures are created using the natural laws of physics and chemistry that we know of.

    However the creation of life has proven to be extremely difficult. Numerous experiments show that forming the simplest known living organism is not possible using the current technology and understanding we have. Experiments show that certain structures are simply not stable or just don't behave the way we expect them to. Now if life was truly a naturally occurring phenomena then it should be straight forward to replicate it just as we can replicate complex molecules.

    Now I know some will say that we may be able to create life in the future from scratch and that is a valid point. However the fact still stands today that humans are not able to create life from scratch. This also needs to be taken a step further to investigate why it's not possible to create life.



  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #19 - August 09, 2015, 05:30 AM

    I don't understand most of what you've said. To say life isn't natural doesn't make sense to me because life is a part of the natural world. I'm also not sure why you stated we can't create life with our current level of technology. No one can possibly know this for the simple fact that we don't know for sure how life happened. If we knew how it happened we'd know if our current technology is up to the task, If it wasn't, then knowing how life began, we would know the technology we need to develop to create it.

    Quote
    When I say it is not a natural phenomena I mean it is not something replicated by humans using natural processes.


    So if someone figures it out tomorrow will it be natural then?

    Quote
    Now if life was truly a naturally occurring phenomena then it should be straight forward to replicate it just as we can replicate complex molecules.


    Why do you say that? I'm not sure what you're basing it on.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #20 - August 09, 2015, 09:56 AM

    "To say life isn't natural doesn't make sense to me because life is a part of the natural world"

    I understand. It's something that's difficult to understand at first for both blind following believers and atheists. I will try my best to explain. Please bear with me.

    As a believer in God I have to accept that God created absolutely everything. The earth, heavens, gravity, light, "nothing", animals, water, humans, plants, trees, etc. Problem is if everything is created by God then how do I distinguish between what is creation and what is not creation. I can't do that since there is no such as a non created entity or concept in my reality. Yet God says look around and learn to know that God exists and that he created everything.

    In order to find evidence of God most people are looking for something supernatural. Something that does not conform to our known understanding of the universe or what we refer to as "natural". So for example if I drop a pen it will fall until it hits the ground. We give that phenomena a name. We call it gravity and can do all sorts of experiments to learn more about it. As a believer I understand that it's God who created gravity (as well as the pen...more on that later). Another less thoughtful believer may just say it was the will of Allah which made pen hit the ground and if you don't believe it then you are going to hell.

    However if I drop a pen and it becomes suspended in mid air or maybe even goes up then we'd consider that as being supernatural or very unusual since it doesn't conform to what we see and know around us. This will be confirmation for the believer that yes God exists and they have just witnessed a miracle, especially if I had said something like "God will suspend this pen in mid air". Some weak agnostics or weak non-believer may be convinced that yes they have just observed a miracle and that God really does exist. They then may incorrectly go about blindly following the believers and accept everything they say and begin to call themselves Sunnis, Shias, Salafis, Christians, etc. However there may be more cautious, skeptical atheists who will want to investigate more to make sure there isn't a "natural" explanation or that it's not some kind of David Copperfield stunt.

    Now if the phenomena of the pen being suspended in air only happened once even though it had been witnessed by thousands/millions of people there would still be some doubt in the non-believers mind that there could have been a natural explanation or that it was a hoax. This is perfectly reasonable thinking. So let's assume we witnessed pens being suspended mid air all over the world at random times or even during certain times of the day. We did thousands of experiments to figure out why but were not able to figure out why the pens suspend themselves in mid-air and are not able to replicate the phenomena.

    For the first generation of observers this is a new phenomena and is strange. For subsequent generations this would be classed as a natural phenomena since it has been happening for ages and it's nothing special for them. They've grown up seeing and knowing about this and it has become a part of the natural world.

    So, the dilemma is how do we determine whether something is part of the natural world? How do determine life is part of the natural world we know.

    For me it comes down to determining the base line. About distinguishing what we have power to do and what is beyond our capability. This is the tricky part. It's tricky because history has shown that humans have progressed to learn more about the universe they live and things which were deemed impossible/unimaginable are now possible and have come into existence. This I believe is one of the areas we need to understand and convince ourselves of in order to have tangible evidence of God.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #21 - August 09, 2015, 10:38 AM

    I'm not sure I understand how being a believer makes you object to life being natural. Life exists within nature (evidence: here we are). Life is in agreement with the make-up of the universe (evidence: we're in the universe).

    I'm baffled by your post.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #22 - August 09, 2015, 11:06 AM

    Try thinking about whether life is made up of mysterious elements that we have no knowledge of or control over.  Science shows we know exactly what we are made of and up to a certain point how it works.

    So given what we know and what we have control over should it be possible to create life?
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #23 - August 09, 2015, 11:10 AM

    No.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #24 - August 09, 2015, 11:21 AM

    Why should it not be possible for us to create life?
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #25 - August 09, 2015, 11:27 AM

    Because we don't know how life started. You can't say that we should be able to create life when there are gaps in our knowledge. It would be like having an expansive knowledge of paint and colour and trying to create green when you have no idea of the existence of blue. Once you realise blue is what you've been missing you can then mix it with yellow and viola! You can make green. Without the knowledge of blue you cannot do this.

    If we were to have the missing piece of the puzzle and the means to do so then it should be possible to create life, but not before this.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #26 - August 09, 2015, 03:11 PM

    I agree, it could very well be that we are missing something important and we just haven't discovered it yet.

    But I think we can go further and be able to get to point where we can say that it's very unlikely for life to have come into existence through natural processes. On top of that we can also reach a point where we can say that it's not possible to create life through artificial means with the current technology we have.

    Having the argument that something may be possible to do in the future is not scientific and is just conjecture. We need to deal with the here and now. Whether we accept the current science and conclusions is up to the individual considering it. Some may be convinced easily others may never be convinced and die with those thoughts and opinions.

    Like I said before, the interesting point is not that we can't create life it's why we can't. What is it we have done so far, why have they failed, what is life, what is it made up of, etc.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #27 - August 09, 2015, 03:20 PM

    A related point is how do you confirm that being who claims to be God is in fact God. You see a being covered in light, with billions of angels around him. Are you convinced that he is God or do you need some further evidence? Assuming you know that you're not hallucinating how do you confirm that this being has infinite power and knowledge? How do you measure those things given that you have limited capabilities? There either needs to be a level of reasonable observations that you can make and be convinced or you will never be convinced.



     
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #28 - August 10, 2015, 07:29 AM

    You're making certain leaps in logic, I think. You can study diamonds and realise they're made of the same thing as coal and do numerous studies verifying it while still being unaware of the precise conditions to transform coal to diamond. The same can be applied to sand becoming glass. Going back to my colour example, in that situation you can know how to create green, have the means to do it, yet still not be able to without knowledge of blue. Once you fill that gap, you can now create green. Knowing how 99% of something happened is still not knowing 100%. If I have just that 1% missing I cannot create green, diamonds or glass. Add in that 1% and I can.

    Saying life is unlikely is something I'm not sure about. On this planet at least, life, or at least life as we know it, would not exist without water. In our own solar system, just off the top of my head, we have water on Earth, Mars and Titan, and I believe ice on the moon, though I'd have to double check that. So it doesn't exactly seem rare. There's also just how close/far we are in the orbit of the sun. Too close, and the planet is too hot. To far, and the planet is too cold. Earth is in just the right place, what's called the Goldilocks zone. If you simply go onto google and type in "Earth like planets" or "Goldilocks zone" you should see that we're finding a surprising amount of planets that qualify.

    This is also making the assumption that Earth is the origin of life on this planet. It might not be. Maybe these early microbes were brought here from somewhere else. We know other planets, stars and solar systems exist. We know meteorites, bits of other planets, do fall to Earth. I remember the first time I heard that if there was a nuclear war that wiped us out cockroaches would survive. Why this was I didn't know. Upon further reading it seemed that cockroaches would be able to survive the cold and radiation of space. Which begs another question. Why would a creature from this planet have the ability to survive in space? Maybe they aren't originally from this planet.

    And now I've been reminded of that, I really need to ask a biologist. lua, you're the nearest one. Any answer on the cockroach thing? I will be checking the comments thread.

    You're made a giant leap with your comment on a being covered in light, with billions of angels around "him" from your definition on your opening post. We've gone from a definition of god that we could happily call the universe or even the sun to a distinct description that seems very jewish/christian/islamic. Not that I'm complaining about this, but the argument for a god and the argument for your specific god is not one and the same. I could use every statement you've said so far as an argument for the existence of Vishnu,

    But to answer your question, if I saw a vision of a god that conformed to this particular ideology I would be very suspicious. I was born and raised in England, a historically christian country. Just by virtue of birth I'm more likely to have a certain biased view of god. If I were born into Viking society and someone said that to me I might think of Odin and his ravens, or the Valkyries, because that would be my bias due to my upbringing and surroundings. This isn't to say that alone would falsify it, but I would say just because of natural human bias it's reasonable grounds for suspicion.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #29 - August 10, 2015, 12:11 PM

    So Ted, I think it'd be a good idea to clear something up of the benefit of the readers, as some of your posts make little sense. Some of the words and terms you're using don't mean what you think they mean. Natural for instance. You stated before that when you say something is not a natural phenomena you mean it is not something replicated by humans using natural processes. On page 6 of the comments thread you clarified.

    Natural is something we have control over.


    This is wrong. Something natural is something existing in or caused by nature, Why you think something "natural" is only something made or caused by humans I don't know.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • 12 3 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »