Is there any scientific proof that a god exists?

Is there any scientific proof that a god exists?

Other urls found in this thread:

strawpoll.me/11881019
goodreads.com/book/show/14743.The_God_Delusion
sheldrake.org/research/sense-of-being-stared-at
youtube.com/watch?v=Ant5HS01tBQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Is there any scientific proof that you exist?

No. Dumb thread

Yes.
pic related

Gay thread. Go back to /x/

is there scientific proof that your consciousness exists?

There is scientific proof that he doesn't exist

wrong question

science is not the foundation of understanding

>The supreme task of the physicist is the discovery of the most general elementary laws from which the world-picture can be deduced logically. But there is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance, and this Einfühlung [literally, empathy or 'feeling one's way in'] is developed by experience.

-Einstein

Faith surpasses science. So no

retarded

yes

we have memes

strawpoll.me/11881019

So is there any proof of a god then?

already voted

of course not. everything around you come from nothing and has been created by nothing, its very coherent. try to debate me

Even if intelligent design were real

Do you think that some presence or force is acting in this world today?

The fact that there is something (atoms, universe, order) rather than nothing is proof of God. What the nature of God is another matter

thanks

*tips*

would you please use Sup Forums for this dumb shit?

These digits

Peter the deleter memes should have at least had a nomination

please provide an argument, achmed

god is an idea that exists

lrn2metaphor

Can you imagine what scientific proof would have to look like?

ok I just dont understand how that proves that there is a god

Wouldnt that image just explain that the law of conservation of energy?

What's harder, proving non-existence or proving omnipotence?

Fuck you're right

this isn't proof for god you are just inserting god in here

Nice strawman, idiot.

wew pic related

What?

Yeah, evidence that something exists. Like race.

>This chain cannot be infinitely long.
I start at the beginning of a room. I am potentially at the end of the room. But in order to realize this potential I must begin the chain to actualize this potential, by being half way across the room. From there in the chain, I move half way across again, and then half way again, and again, etc. An infinite number of times. If it is not possible to do an infinite number of times, it is impossible that I could traverse any room.

>ask for a scientific proof for a non-scientific claim
t. fedora-fag

If god is all powerful and all good, then he should be able to reveal himself to everyone to confirm his existence.

That's not an argument.

not a complete argument

This does not prove god exists. This only proves that there is "something" that caused the universe to exist, but so far, we do not know what that "something" is.

fail

this is a very simple fact you can t deny, leaf. stay degenerate
>he unironically believes pic related is the creation of no one and a pure hasard

...

Right, science doesn't explain everything. Science measures something different than if God exists.

If God created the universe he probably isn't in it in the same way that Todd Howard isn't in Skyrim.

I agree with this. If anything we can be certain "something" exists. Unless, of course, you are all figments of my imagination.

No, but what do we know. I'd say the Christian god probably doesn't exist.
Yes there is omg just kys senpai.

There is no assertion everything came from nothing, that is the important factor you're missing that's making your retarded argument retarded.

Your scenario can't play out except in abstraction. Your body is larger than the decreasing units of length. It is therefore not possible for you to traverse the infinitesimally small unit without moving beyond the terminus of that unit and into and beyond the next units. Furthermore, an incorporeal being wouldn't be bound by this type of limitation anyway.

these digits are proof that kek exists

consider that newton, leibniz, oersted, and even einstein believed in god. einstein believed in "spinoza's god", which is to say the entire, connected, ordered universe

>I weave for God the Garment You see Him by

>he believes there is a creator without evidence

you are the one claiming knowledge, I have not made any claim

is there an astrological proof how computers work?

The whole potential/actual thing is bullshit though. A few kg of plutonium is a potential nuclear bomb and it don't need anything but itself to become an actual bomb

There's no scientific proof that OP is a FAGGOT but everyone know he is, with god is the same you dont need proof you only know it's real.

Solution: Stop walking half of the rooms remaining length and just walk to the end of the fucking room

Not only is it not a complete argument, but you can also explain the first mover problem using infinity.

More importantly though, that isn't a scientific argument it's a philosophical one. Science is about pragmatic models of reality that can be developed through empirical research and used for practical purposes.

Science != Ontology you tards.

Are their any bonafide scientist that will accept the evidence as proof? Nope.

quantum physics, consciousness and sacred geometry proof something exists, whether you call it god or not.

>Kek has proven himself multiple times already
>there are still unbelievers

>A few kg of plutonium is a potential nuclear bomb and it don't need anything but itself to become an actual bomb
Are you fucking retarded? Think about what you just said.

It means the universe couldn't have created itself as something that does not exist cannot into existence.

If the universe has always existed and universe into man and everything that currently exists how is Universe different from God?

This. It's a bad model of causality, but you CAN make the same argument with a different model.

Is it possible to maintain consciousness and personality outside of our biological framework once we die? Proving that true would make me more likely believe in God.

Nice argument burger

Monotheism BTFO

Okay, instead, we put an infinitesimally small marker (like those markers for golf). In addition we have an arbitrarily powerful microscope. The same issue results. None of this involves any incorporeal beings. The only thing that matters is that space itself is continuous.

We have no idea whether the universe is a singleton, whether it is infinite in space or time, and where it came from.

Whether causality is foundational (there is a first mover) or coherent (causality forms loops) depends on whether infinity exists.

>can a method developed by humans to observe the natural world prove the existence of something that is supernatural
Not likely and who cares, can't see or feel half the shit we believe in

Could you (or anyone else) point to consciousness and personality WITHIN your biological framework, please?

Is there any spiritual proof there is no god?

In order to walk across the remaining length. I must have walked past an infinite amount of halves.

My proof for an all powerful good god is that my dick is over 7 inch

no

/thread

Thanks for agreeing with me user. We need more people like you in society.

I should add that the theory of potentiality and actuality is itself an abstraction. So if you reject the notion that one could move an infinitesimal amount, you should also reject the notion that things can potentially or actually do things. If they are mere models of reality, and not actual reality, they are both wrong.

Nope, other than saying "I exist" you can't prove that anyone else besides yourself exists.
And to op, of course there isn't, you can't prove or disprove something that we can't observe and conduct studies on.
Kinda similar to why we look for carbon based life in space, we only know that carbon based life exists, so we only know that as the only possible way for life to exist. When in reality, there could be thousands of variations of life on other planets, we just don't know because we're incapable of studying it.
/thread, really.

The part of the bomb that is the mass of plutonium needs to be triggered by the other part of the bomb. In the sense that it's an actual bomb because it can explode it is already actualized, in the sense that it's an actual bomb WHEN it explodes then one part of the bomb causes the other part to become a bomb.

Not defending actualization as a model of causality, I think it's dumb, but it does work.

Yes.
These digits prove Kek is real

Hmm Interesting. Have you ever looked out the window of your house? One look at the beauty of the world and it's obvious that there's no god.

Have you even read the atheist bible?
Here I'll give you the link:
goodreads.com/book/show/14743.The_God_Delusion

You pseudo-spiritualists don't understand the first thing about the supernatural (there isn't one).

Go with no god my friend.

You have a cat, it is in a box with a flask of poison and a radioactive source. The radioactive source has a 50% probability of decaying by the end of the hour (the duration of the experiment). If the radioactive source decays, then a geiger counter detects it and breaks the flask, killing the cat. If the radioactive source does not decay, then the cat lives.
The theory of potentiality and actuality cannot explain this. As there is are two potentialities (the cat is dead, or alive). But there is no cause for it, since there is no cause for the radioactive material to decay. Hence the cat remains in a superposition of both potentialites: the cat is dead and alive. This doesn't make sense, as Schrodinger points out. Is there a problem with quantum mechanics? Or is there a problem with the theory of potentiality and actuality? I have my money of the latter case.

dmt

Reading this post makes me want to be in a superposition of dead and alive

Wrong. Anything you pick to be the "mover" in your scenario, unless it is incorporeal, must have a certain size. As the units of length become infinitely smaller, at some point they must become smaller than the "mover" itself. Beyond this point, the scenario breaks down completely. Potentiality and actuality are abstract concepts, but they can both be observed in physical reality. The words are adverbs. They describe how things do things.

also its been proven that humans can detect people staring at you

how many times have you turned your head subconsciously and someone is looking at you? that is real and not always connected to visual senses

sheldrake.org/research/sense-of-being-stared-at

>As the units of length become infinitely smaller, at some point they must become smaller than the "mover" itself
It you do take into account the size of the mover, this ignores the fact that the mover itself is comprised of infinitely many halves as well. Meaning the mover itself is made up of infinitesimal parts of a mover. Hence the mover can experience Zeno's paradox still.
An infinitesimal mass density of the mover is not incorporeal, it is an arbitrarily small part of the whole.

Dawkins literally admits that he is a fraud

youtube.com/watch?v=Ant5HS01tBQ

Either Schrodinger's an idiot or you're misrepresenting his argument. If the potentialities are either a dead or living cat, the cause for either actuality is either a broken or intact flask (not to mention a host of other contributing factors). Where does anyone get off simply asserting that there is no cause?

Bullshit

>Dawkins literally admits that he is a fraud

Well nobody's perfect

The broken flask is the cause, what causes that?
The geiger counter detecting it, what causes that? The radioactive source decaying.
That is what has no cause.
Nothing causes it to decay. It just does or doesn't. In the Copenhagen interpretation that is.
There are alternative interpretations, the Pilot Wave theory suggest that there is a pilot wave we can't observe that causes it.
The many worlds interpretations suggests that the universe splits into two, one universe where the particle decayed and one where it didn't, and we can't tell which universe we are in. In any case, this means there is either no cause, or that if there is a cause it is not observable. However if the cause is not observable, then we can't ever know that there is indeed a cause for sure. It would just be wishful thinking.

Nope. You don't get to make the "mover" smaller and smaller. It has a boundary that, if moved, extends beyond the decreasing units of length. You can't have real, physical units of measure and also not have real, physical units of measure at the same time and in the same relationship.

>It would just be wishful thinking.

It's wishful thinking either way.

Ignorance of the cause doesn't mean there is no cause. If the cause is not observable, then we can't ever simply assert there is no cause just because we, on a personal level, really, really hate God.

No.

/thread

Notice I never made the mover smaller and smaller, I just said that the mover is made of infinitesimally small parts. Parts of the mover can decrease as much as the decreasing units of length. This would lead to an analogous problem as making the mover itself infinitesimally small.
This is all okay as long as space is continuous, since this means the space and matter the mover occupies is continuously divisible.
We might not be able to measure arbitrarily small units of measure, but that doesn't mean that an object can't be of that size.
Moving objects are not rigid. Due to the uncertainty principle the electrons mass is smeared around the nucleus of an atom. Likewise the electron itself, or the proton or neutron, have their respective masses spread out over a range (the electron cloud, for example), since they are both waves and particles. We can divide this smooth and differentiable range to get back to the Zeno's paradox case.

just so you know, people don't take the copenhagen interpretation because they hate real particles. They take it because it makes it easier to do science.

People also like the Copenhagen interpretation because of Occam's razor. It makes fewer assumptions by not asserting that there are hidden variables.

people like occam's razor because it makes it easier to do science.

>medieval philosophy that not eveb christian apologists take seriously
>science

Pick one you dumb faggot

>sheldrake

Man, unless the proton or neutron can itself become infinitely smaller and smaller ((take up infinitely less and less space) which it absolutely fucking cannot), it's boundary, as it moves, will spill over beyond whatever the next half measure is. If it is moving, the hindmost boundary must advance. This means the foremost boundary must also advance. Even if these boundaries in flux they are still not infinite. At some point, moving the hindmost boundary requires the foremost boundary to reach the end of the room. A physical object cannot MOVE without moving. Fuck.

DMT

Their never will be, you fedoralord.
Science is at its core, observing the natural world around us and recording what we find. Science cannot prove or disprove anything outside the realm of the natural.

How much of a retard you must be to take that as a scientific evidence?

Yes, there is, we can measure and map the brain activity. Hell, we can now directly control stuff with our brains are closer to be able to read minds.

Scientists don't dismiss hidden variables because of ignorance or because they hate god or some dumb shit, but because the hidden variables you invoke are not compatible with contemporary understanding of physics. See Bell's theorem

The proton and neutron have their mass spread over a range, meaning a part of the proton can have smaller mass. There isn't really even a boundary, since they have particle like behavior and wave like behavior. But that's not relevant for Zeno's paradox.
What matters is that the mass is evenly spread through a range of locations. Which means we can take an infinitesimal part of the range where the proton occupies and "follow" that "spot." We track a point of mass mdV, where m is the mass density of the proton (smeared across a region) and dV is an arbitrarily small unit of volume.
Note: that if the pilot wave theory is correct, for example, and we restore point particles, that particle does indeed occupy an infinitesimally small region of space (definition of a point particle as per the definition of a point), and Zeno's paradox is restored.
Even in the Copenhagen interpretation, it doesn't matter since the mass (or energy, if you prefer) is "smeared" across a range, and we can track a infinitesimal unit of volume that is a part of the particle.
Zeno's paradox being correct is necessary for calculus to work. It isn't a bizarre concept that indeed we do do infinite tasks all the time.