Proof of God

[Josefina1110]

Science is just science. Scientists are just trying to justify their theory. Most often sciences start with a theory. And most likely remain a theory unless it produces tangible inventions like the invention of airplanes and rockets and many other things for the benefit of man. The theory of relativity is only a scientific language. Honestly, I don't even understand it. But something must be right if there ever is anything that is wrong. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." A truth is the only thing you cannot dispute. Everything that Jesus did is beyond our human comprehension that is why we call them "miracles." Then he said that He did miracles to prove that He is God.

[Ranvier]

Science is just science. Scientists are just trying to justify their theory. Most often sciences start with a theory. And most likely remain a theory unless it produces tangible inventions like the invention of airplanes and rockets and many other things for the benefit of man. The theory of relativity is only a scientific language. Honestly, I don't even understand it. But something must be right if there ever is anything that is wrong. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." A truth is the only thing you cannot dispute. Everything that Jesus did is beyond our human comprehension that is why we call them "miracles." Then he said that He did miracles to prove that He is God.

I absolutely agree in great respect for every religion, including General Relativity. Both Theology and Theoretical Physics are sciences based on beliefs. It's a matter of perspective on our reality, where both can bring tangible benefit. The photoelectric effect and General Relativity allowed us to generate applicable knowledge that gave rise to solar panels, fiber optics, and nuclear weapons. As did Christianity give us the concepts of good and evil as the basis for our legal system in spite of crusades.

-- Updated February 28th, 2017, 12:13 am to add the following --

I also believe that both right and left hemispheres of the brain should be used to fully appreciate our reality.

[Sy Borg]

I absolutely agree in great respect for every religion, including General Relativity. Both Theology and Theoretical Physics are sciences based on beliefs.

Do you think that the average person on the street - but who believes - is more credible as a source on a topic than a scientist who has studied and worked for years based on bodies of knowledge developed by geniuses over centuries of hard work?

My scratch impressions from being a regular online is that an increasing number of people believe ignorance to be a virtue, an advantage over "book learning" (as though people who study never socialise, have relationships, play sport, play instruments etc). That kind of hubris leads to only one place - the ceding of authority to those who are prepared to work for their empowerment rather than delude themselves that they are already empowered and somehow better than those who put in the work.

[Ranvier]

I'm absolutely sinful of pride and hubris and I'm trying to work on that but it comes across as opinionated skeptic with good intentions. I will quote this from my other writing:

“The wisest are those who understand that they don’t know but they keep asking the right questions
Those who pretend to be wise and only think that they know but they don’t know and keep asking the wrong questions
Those who don’t pretend and admit that they don’t know but give up asking any questions
The silliest are those who don’t know that they don’t know and are not smart enough to even ask questions
I’m a selfish human who wants to believe that I’m wise in admitting that I don’t know enough about anything because this world does not make sense to me".

I do have a great respect for the genius of Newton, Einstein, Steven Hawking, as well as Buddha, Maria Theresa, or Dali Lama. However, it doesn't materialize my understanding of gravity, how our solar system was created, or how our Universe came to existence. I'm left in my own wisdom in meditation of mind to make sense of my reality.

One can ask what is seen:

=
= =
= = =

Our minds want to see patterns, that's what we do. Now, we can use Pythagorean theorem to calculate the area of what we might have perceived. Someone looking from the right side <---- may ask "hey guys, what are you talking about?". We would reply that we are calculating the area of a right triangle, when the guy replies "what triangle, I see a line". It's all a matter of perspective, especially if we zoom in more and see that these lines are actually made of pixels that are also not connected. Religion is the same thing, if we keep zooming in we'll find "hols" that don't make sense to us.

[Platos stepchild]

Does appealing to miracles make sense, in order to prove God's existence? Surely it's prudent to first understand just what miracles are, before answering this question. A believer in miracles might well say that God must get involved in anything miraculous. But, what would that actually look like?

Suppose you're flipping a coin. Further suppose that your life and fortune depend on getting heads. Now, lo-and-behold, you get heads; and, you proclaim a miracle! But, this scenario is clearly impossible to evaluate. What if, instead we define miracles as the least probable event which can happen in a given situation?

On January 26th, 1972 a woman named Vesna Vulovic fell from a height of over 33,000 feet. She holds the Guinness world record for surviving the highest fall without a parachute. If the given situation is surviving a fall, and if the least probable event is surviving a fall from 33,000 feet, then by definition, Ms. Vulovic experienced a miracle.

But, before we declare that Ms. Vulovic indeed experienced a bone fide miracle, first consider the implications as we examine the Bell Curve of such events. Maybe Vesna Vulovic does represent the extreme edge of all improbable events, as we've defined them. But, there's another extreme edge which we need to consider.

So, let's consider a sidewalk which dips a fraction of an inch. A clumsy person steps off this height, and twists her ankle, thereby falling and breaking her neck. By tweaking the dip, along with any other relevant factors, we can make this event as improbable as surviving a fall from 33,00 feet.

If one extreme improbability is a miracle, then so must be the opposite extreme. But, who would praise God and say that the poor woman who broke her neck is proof of God's existence? Whereas the one miracle is grandiose, the other is just, well downright sad. And yet..., and yet it must be so.

How else might we define miracles? While we can, of course simply believe that God gets involved, we're stuck defining the signature by which miracles can be recognized. And, if we can't rigorously define miracles, then we can't use them as proof of God's existence. An even more intractable question now arises: what exactly is God's signature?

[Ranvier]

If I walk in to a lounge to meet a friend that tells me "hey, let me introduce you to a gorgeous 26 year old girl". We talk, I find that she's intriguing, smart, and most of all graceful. I also find out later that she's actually 33 yo. In my mind, I don't care because I already found her very attractive. Same with Theory of Relativity, it works even if it's impalpable or not entirely true.

Miracle, is something that would be otherwise theoretically impossible. As if a man giving birth or that we don't exist.

-- Updated February 28th, 2017, 2:05 am to add the following --

Sorry, *improbable...funny how mind works

-- Updated February 28th, 2017, 2:33 am to add the following --

An even more intractable question now arises: what exactly is God's signature?

We are God's signature, our solar system, galaxy, the entire vastness of the Universe. This is a broad topic and I continue to take thoughts out of my other writing that may not have the same effect when fragmented. However, let me share this thought:

"We all know Rene Descartes’s phrase “I think, therefore I am”. I will go even further to say "If I can think of something, therefore it must be possible to exist... "Therefore, if I exist to give rise to my thoughts about Divine, it must be as true as God’s thought that had created me". Or just as true as someday we’ll be able to create an artificial intelligence sealed in the PC hard drive and given by us the physical reality in that AI’s perception..."

In my mind, God is a fact but what varies may be our description of what God actually means based on individual perception.

-- Updated February 28th, 2017, 2:59 am to add the following --

Einstein's mind had created the Theory of Relativity and it was a realty for over hundred years and will be for some time even when "tweaked". The same is true for every religion that may also require to be "tweaked" as our understanding of reality changes.

[Dolphin42]

Dolphin42:

Why dig up this dead topic just to state "I don't know what General Relativity is about therefore it's a religion"?

Ranvier:

On the contrary, I claim that General Relativity is wrong therefore it's a religion.

A scientific theory either succeeds in correctly describing and predicting a subset of all possible observations or it doesn't. General Relativity does this. Newton's theory of universal gravitation also did this. Nevertheless Newton's theory of universal gravitation was superseded by General Relativity. This does not mean that Newton was suddenly "wrong" and Einstein was "right". It means that Newton's theory is a subset - a special case - of Einstein's theory which applies to a more limited set of observations. It hasn't suddenly stopped successfully describing and predicting those observations, as the Apollo astronauts (for example) will tell you. Likewise, Einstein's theory will no doubt be superseded and will in its turn become a special case of a still more general theory.

This is the basis on which science works.

Ranvier:

Look at the post above and ask yourself if there can be such a thing as zero mass at rest or zero momentum at rest? E = mc2 must equal 0

The concept of a "zero mass or momentum at rest" particle is either useful at describing and predicting observations or it isn't. Actually, zero mass particles are not at rest. They travel at the speed of light. In fact, "speed of light" is a bit of a misnomer. It is more accurately described as "speed of zero mass particles".

I emphasise again: The above is only deemed to be true because it is, in fact, useful for describing and predicting observations. The concept of a zero mass particle is either useful or it isn't. If you think that it isn't useful then it is up to you to invent another concept which successfully describes and predicts the observations currently associated with it.

Ranvier:

The field equations do not account for the accelerating and expending Universe either, otherwise there would be a decrease in Gravity with time.

If this is true then it is an example of a possible set of observations that are not covered by General Relativity.

Ranvier:

Mathematics can prove anything because reality isn't an equation, we must make assumptions to formulate an equation.

Mathematics, in itself, says nothing whatsoever about the observed world. Mathematical proofs are tautologies. They are certain to be true, by definition, because they are about defining the relationships between symbols, not about empirical observations. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are never certain because they contain generalisations from specific observations, written in the language of mathematics. So you're right in saying that reality isn't an equation in the same sense that reality is not the words in a book. Nobody with any sense thinks that they are. The book called "Moby Dick" is not a whale - it's a book!

Science is constantly self-correcting because it is a basic part of its character that everything is provisional; everything is subject to test against observation. This is the part of science that you have characterised as "notoriously wrong throughout history".

[Josefina1110]

When I talked about miracles it only pertained to the miracles that Jesus did to prove himself as God. I don't mean any other circumstances that may be considered a miracle that happened to anybody. Yes, there are unusual circumstances that cannot be explained that happens to anybody. But I am only referring to the miracles that Jesus did to prove that He is God. He said it Himself in the book of John 10: 37-38,". . . .Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son?' Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
Talking about Einstein's Theory of Relativity, he himself wasn't really 100% sure about it. A lot of times, scientists discovers better theory than their predecessors which debunks previous related theories. Einstein was concerned about this theory. One thing about scientific theories is that only the scientific world is serious about it but not to the common populace because it doesn't affect their way of life whether they know it or not. It is not a basic need to sustain life. Many don't want to believe the Bible because it is written by man. But the gospel was written because of Jesus and what He had done while He was on earth. He said things as a man.

-- Updated February 28th, 2017, 4:29 pm to add the following --

We are talking here about "Proof of God."

[Ranvier]

This is a very well written response to the thoughts offered in my post. My assertion through analogies was that theories arising from the scientific method equate to religious theories, both as beliefs. There is a certain level of certainty in one's theory regardless of the method used to obtain such theory. A scientific mind will think in terms of logic and deduction, offering mathematical equations as proves that are able to predict the reality. Similarly, a religious messiah or the originator of specific religious belief has such certainty from direct communication with God or deep level of thought, predicting outcomes of human behavior proven by results in reality from those who adhere to such beliefs. Both are appealing but to different brain hemispheres, where the left side of the brain is typically more focused on detail and logic and the right side is more focused on the general big picture and abstract thought.

A scientific theory either succeeds in correctly describing and predicting a subset of all possible observations or it doesn't.

Let me use this analogy to demonstrate the clash of the two sides of the brain, the logic and abstract thought, both unable to address sufficiently the question at hand:

(A) is a subject holding consciousness
(B) is a subject holding consciousness
A=B or may not be equal
If A and B are both good, they will produce good
C = to frequency of good
Love is good

Love = A+B/C

Some people may be satisfied with such equation as the prove of love, while others may feel that such equation is insufficient or even incorrect. In any case, ether true or false, such equation doesn't bring us any closer to understand what is love.

The concept of a "zero mass or momentum at rest" particle is either useful at describing and predicting observations or it isn't. Actually, zero mass particles are not at rest. They travel at the speed of light. In fact, "speed of light" is a bit of a misnomer. It is more accurately described as "speed of zero mass particles".

This is precisely the "gibberish" that causes average people to lose any sense of what's particle and mass. One can only "believe" that this is correct but doesn't generate understanding of what's energy, gravity, electron quantum "behavior", or quantum entanglement. It's as if describing a footprint on send attempting to understand the being that left that print. Understandably, one may respond to this, stop being ignorant and prove something else or be silent. I'm working on that in my spare time, equations took a considerable amount of time even for Einstein. Even then, I don't think I'll be able to prove the existence of God, other than the thought that brought matter to life.

-- Updated February 28th, 2017, 5:29 pm to add the following --

When I talked about miracles it only pertained to the miracles that Jesus did to prove himself as God. I don't mean any other circumstances that may be considered a miracle that happened to anybody. Yes, there are unusual circumstances that cannot be explained that happens to anybody. But I am only referring to the miracles that Jesus did to prove that He is God. He said it Himself in the book of John 10: 37-38,". . . .Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son?' Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
Talking about Einstein's Theory of Relativity, he himself wasn't really 100% sure about it. A lot of times, scientists discovers better theory than their predecessors which debunks previous related theories. Einstein was concerned about this theory. One thing about scientific theories is that only the scientific world is serious about it but not to the common populace because it doesn't affect their way of life whether they know it or not. It is not a basic need to sustain life. Many don't want to believe the Bible because it is written by man. But the gospel was written because of Jesus and what He had done while He was on earth. He said things as a man.

-- Updated February 28th, 2017, 4:29 pm to add the following --

We are talking here about "Proof of God."

I'm trying to write thoughts as fast as I can to publish as cohesive view of "reality". I want to share but without the proper chronological flow of thought, taken out of context of "correct" or at least tangible understanding of our physical reality, it will not be sufficient to adequately describe God. One must temporarily separate from everything one knows, in meditation, to imagine how one could explain organic chemistry to a seven year old. God exists in multiple dimensions and can't simply interact with us without focused energy in our reality as physical being, Jesus if you wish to believe, was the "embodiment" of that energy. Now, you ask how can Jesus prove that he was a God? It's the same as you trying to prove to a seven year old that you exist as energy, whom may actually accept that quite easily but without an absolute understanding. It's as with quantum entanglement, when one could be theoretically "teleported" as physical expression of energy over extremely long distances beyond the speed of light, to another arguably the as same physical expression of energy. If you wish for prove, you must tune out everything you know and focus your thought on the Jesus's message (organic chemistry) to understand the presence of more than the human consciousness.

[Josefina1110]

I will never interpret Jesus' words because it is so plain and simple. It doesn't need interpretation. I take it literally as coming out from his own mouth most especially the passage I have quoted above. He may have said other things that would need to be thought of differently. But this one is very simple. Even a little child who can read will understand it. In my humble opinion, God doesn't need to be described. He needs our belief. He has described Himself as only He can. There is no need for quantum entanglement blah blah or organic chemistry, etc. with those words. Jesus was a human being saying and proving and telling us that He is the Son of God. That simple. Why make it complicated? Talking about quantum entanglement even prove strongly that God is everywhere as close as the mention of His name.

[Ranvier]

I will never interpret Jesus' words because it is so plain and simple. It doesn't need interpretation. I take it literally as coming out from his own mouth most especially the passage I have quoted above. He may have said other things that would need to be thought of differently. But this one is very simple. Even a little child who can read will understand it. In my humble opinion, God doesn't need to be described. He needs our belief. He has described Himself as only He can. There is no need for quantum entanglement blah blah or organic chemistry, etc. with those words. Jesus was a human being saying and proving and telling us that He is the Son of God. That simple. Why make it complicated? Talking about quantum entanglement even prove strongly that God is everywhere as close as the mention of His name.

I applaud you for you wisdom in belief and conviction. I wish that more people could be so certain of the right and wrong in their actions without becoming complicit, then perhaps wars would never take place again. However, many people don't have such certainty and they "need" to put their finger through the wound.

-- Updated February 28th, 2017, 10:36 pm to add the following --

You should also remember that God gave us our mind for a reason. If God wanted us to simply obey, then we would continue to be primates till judgement day.

-- Updated March 1st, 2017, 12:53 am to add the following --

Also, do you think that there might be something to be learned from other religions and science or is Christianity the only true religion? Would you condemn everyone else just because they had a though luck of being born to different parents or geographical location? What is the difference between Moses, Jesus, or Buddha for that matter? Why would three prophets be born in the middle East? Were other places on the planet Godless and forsaken? Why do Christians refer to priests as "father" when African-American Christians refer to each other as "brother and sister" and Muslims do so even with strangers. Do you think that a family should consist of two parents or just the Love of Father? Or perhaps God's Love is actually pure mother's love? One can certainly observe that for South American Christians and certain parts of Europe Holy Mother is also gifted with prayer. Do you suppose that the religious stubbornness of inflexibility and exclusion is preventing humanity from evolving, just to continue to reincarnate without learning from the previous existence? The questions are endless...

[Josefina1110]

Unbelievers have a problem. They just cannot swallow the fact that the Bible is God's words. Therefore they do not have direction in their lives. Someone has said that life is a journey and not a destination. If life is a journey, where is your destination? You have two choices -- to heaven or to hell. A great philosopher Michel De Montaigne said, "The archer must first know what he is aiming at, and then set his hand, his bow, his string, his arrow, and his movements for that goal. Our plans go astray because they have no direction and no aim. No wind works for the man who has no port of destination."

[Ranvier]

Wise words, which to me describe that we all should have a common goal. The brain may have the destination in focus but what to do when hands do not comply?

-- Updated March 1st, 2017, 1:50 am to add the following --

The greatest gift from God is our consciousness, where the greatest sin is to become a static word. I wrote in another post that even the most precise directions won't be of help of how to learn to walk. I live my life in honesty of doing my best, ready to end my journey without being embarrassed of who I am.

[Dolphin42]

Ranvier:

There is a certain level of certainty in one's theory regardless of the method used to obtain such theory.

There is never certainty. That is a defining feature of the scientific method.

Ranvier:

A scientific mind will think in terms of logic and deduction, offering mathematical equations as proves that are able to predict the reality.

No, as models for modelling reality. Physical laws, expressed in the language of mathematics, are models of observed reality. Like all models they are more accurate in some areas than others. Like all models they are not intended to reflect every aspect of reality.

Ranvier:

Similarly, a religious messiah or the originator of specific religious belief has such certainty from direct communication with God or deep level of thought, predicting outcomes of human behavior proven by results in reality from those who adhere to such beliefs.

I don't know whether religious messiahs have certainty. I've never met one.

Ranvier:

Both are appealing but to different brain hemispheres, where the left side of the brain is typically more focused on detail and logic and the right side is more focused on the general big picture and abstract thought.

I've no idea to what extent this is true because it's not my field of expertise. I've read in popular science articles that this old idea of the functions of the brain's two halves is over-simplistic. But I wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions without specialist knowledge.

Dolphin42:

The concept of a "zero mass or momentum at rest" particle is either useful at describing and predicting observations or it isn't. Actually, zero mass particles are not at rest. They travel at the speed of light. In fact, "speed of light" is a bit of a misnomer. It is more accurately described as "speed of zero mass particles".

Ranvier:

This is precisely the "gibberish" that causes average people to lose any sense of what's particle and mass. One can only "believe" that this is correct but doesn't generate understanding of what's energy, gravity, electron quantum "behavior", or quantum entanglement.

Why do you put the word gibberish in scare quotes?

The thing to bear in mind is that a statement such as "there are particles with zero mass" does not stand on its own. It has beneath it a large body of knowledge. I studied physics to degree level but I am still not qualified to fully explain why the concept of zero mass particles is considered useful in physics for describing and predicting observations. So if it is gibberish to somebody who has not studied the subject, then that is for the same reason why any piece of knowledge at the advanced end of a specialist subject might seem like gibberish to somebody who has not studied it.

Question: In order to understand a subject (not just physics but any subject) do you think that it is necessary to study that subject?

-- Updated March 1st, 2017, 10:08 am to add the following --

By the way: If anybody thinks I'm straying too much from the subject of the OP, that subject was pretty much dispensed with in post #2. So I take this to now be a general discussion about related subjects that is free to gradually drift and occasionally mutate.

[Platos stepchild]

There's no such thing as a proof of God. A proof makes a statement of certainty about a given proposition. Now, in turn this proposition will ultimately make a statement about something, which has the characteristics pertinent of a group, or set to which the something belongs. An example is the syllogism: Socrates is a man. All men are mortal; therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Consider how a proof of God's existence might be constructed: God belongs to a set, or group such that X is the characteristics, or attributes of the set. To belong to such a set, and have the attributes of X means to exist. Therefore, God exists. So, what then is the set with attributes X? The problem is, God is what philosophers call sui generis. What this means is, there's no set to which God belongs, such that God then has the attributes X, pertaining to the set.

What if Someone says that God is love? Therefore, God belongs to a set whose attributes are love; problem solved. But, God has many characteristics attributed to Him: justice, wrath, mercy, as well as love. The erstwhile argument that God is love must somehow accommodate all of these other attributes. When does love become wrath? Whatever set we construct with all of the characteristics attributed to God is, at best ad hoc. Whan then does this say about God?

The problem with finding a set to which God belongs is best revealed by the following argument: God is all powerful. To be all powerful means being able to do the very most with the very least. To not exist is the very last; therefore, God does not exist. God reminds me of Bertrand Russell's conundrum the barber of Seville. The barber is, in fact a non sequitur. I believe the same holds true of God.