The all-in-one Christian Web Site Community - Praize.com
Skip to Content

Can science disprove God?

Quote Reply
Can science disprove God?
How can science be used to determine that the christian deity does not exist..or exists?



Bankson recently posted a reply to another topic that included this from him:



<<Science is limited to the physical (material) world and therefore has no knowledge, function or authority outside those bounds.>>



This is true.



But...God is said to interact with the material world all the time and in specific ways, some of which are documented by scripture and current testimony. If God does this, then science should be able to observe and test the interactions in our material world, should it not?



How could we set up a test of said interactions so that it could be proved..or disproved...that God is doing so?



In using the term "God" it is meant the deity of christianity, Yahweh, the deity of the OT and NT...and only that God. If God needs to be defined further, it will have to be settled by its believers what that definition is.
Quote Reply
Re: Can science disprove God? In reply to
Jeanne

Greetings; Can I be just as frank with you as you are with me?

What are you after? Another way to downplay believers ? You and I both know you don't have to do that some of us(believers) do quite well at it on our own.

You know by now I really don't care what you say about me because I know where my center is and who he is and you can't take that no mattter what!my center of course is Jesus.

You can use science to manufacture whatever circumstances you want and some will believe you have proven God dead or never existed.

Does that make Jeannne the Queen of debaters or some other vain title? No not really , If you honestly are looking for truth that you can accept,it is there whether or not you want it or not. The next thing will Jeanne accept it and that is the whole thing here. Are several hundred foolish people going to try to preach to Jeanne while she sits in the corner and ridicules or is this that one unbelievable time when Jeanne is truthfully searching for an answer.

jmoss32757@aol.com- write me and we will talk. I don't debate ,I listen and what ever you feel will be heard by me and no one else

You will not be preached to but I will express my thoughts and you are free to reject them ;it won't be the first time and it won't cause me to go away and die.

Jeanne Iam here but if this online is a debate in mask I won't be part of it.

Jeanne; Deb and I send you our deepest heart love to a woman of great depth,integrity and wisdom

Jim
Quote Reply
Re: Can science disprove God? In reply to
Im sorry Jeanne, i should never have posted....i didnt mean to offend, just to let you know im here for you.....
Quote Reply
Re: Can science disprove God? In reply to
Some posts have been hidden due to being off topic, or even worse directing the post directly at the one posting and making it personal. This will not be tolerated. While much latitude is given in the debates are there are still rules to be followed by ALL members. If you have an issue personally with a person posting, and/or also wish to speak with them in depth on your concerns, do it privately by email, text message or IM. Thank you.



Shell D - SingPraiz4Hym/Forum Mod
Quote Reply
Re: Can science disprove God? In reply to
does atheism really need to disprove god?

i mean shouldn't the religious people need to prove he exists rather than vice versa?

i quote Hawkins' spaghetti monster or teapot on this one.
Quote Reply
Re: Can science disprove God? In reply to
sorry i meant Dawkins not Hawkins
Quote Reply
Re: [Jeanne Shockley] Can science disprove God? In reply to
Jeanne: Hi.

Why should 'science' want or try to disprove 'God'? I submit that science does not have the tools or equipment to undertake such a project. Neither would the effort and expense be likely to have a 'pay off' in terms of technological and economic progress.

* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *


On an otherwise deserted beach two people watched as the sun slowly set. As darkness deepened they observed a light flashing on the horizon. One of them, being an enthusiastic scientist, was keen to know what this might be, so he rushed back to his car and analyzed the light with the equipment he had with him. He did a spectral analysis. He measured it’s luminosity. Triangulated its approximate position and noted the frequency and rhythmic repetitions of its characteristics. When he was satisfied that he had discovered all that he was able regarding the flashing light, he went home to his wife because it was time for his dinner.

When he got home his wife said to him, “Did you see anything interesting at the beach today darling”. “Yes” he replied. “I saw a light, way out at sea”. “It was obviously from a powerful quartz-halogen lamp of about 1,000,000 candle power, at a distance of nearly 10 miles on a bearing of 129 degrees and flashing in a repeated sequential fashion”. “How interesting”, his wife replied. “Dinner’s ready right now”.

The other person who observed the light also returned home for dinner and his wife asked him exactly the same question. He replied. “Yes, I saw something quite exiting. I noticed someone on a boat was flashing an SOS signal, so I called the coastguard and they went out and rescued him from a sinking yacht".

Science is a very good method of examining the workings of the universe. Religion and Philosophy are better methods of trying to discover the meaning of what we have observed.

Don’t confuse the two or think one is superior to the other in obtaining answers to the questions it is suited to dealing with.

http://www.outsideecho.com/...st-Lucas-Genesis.mp4



Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Apr 2, 2017, 5:35 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] Can science disprove God? In reply to
Hi Chris.

Digging through the archives are you? Smile

I see Jim as always is the same one we love and respect today. And I am often, as not, blamed for being full of hubris or something...

I have no idea where this topic traveled, but it was started ...nearly 10 years ago... for a purely intellectual debate. Laugh

However, you ask:

<<Why should 'science' want or try to disprove 'God'? I submit that science does not have the tools or equipment to undertake such a project. Neither would the effort and expense be likely to have a 'pay off' in terms of technological and economic progress. >>

How much progress has been and still is limited by Religion? Would the world be better off if Allah was disproved? How about if science actually proved that ONLY the God of Christianity existed?

How many lives have been utterly ruined in the name of a deity or by the religious adherence to a pious belief? How many non-believers have been destroyed by each dominant religion of the era...of this era?

Proving there are no deities that control human life would mean that those devout to that deity would never enter humanity into another Dark Age.

How much time, money and human energy has been wasted by adhering to religious beliefs? Some may complain that Christians do not waste their time, money and energy ....but believers in a false deity do. Same problem, just add one more deity belief.

For atheists who think like me, any of that pays off in beneficial terms for all of humanity.

You missed the point of your story; the first person was stupid and totally lacking in common sense. The second person was a realist living in the present tense. A third person could have been a philosopher, who felt the Universe was speaking directly to him or a religious fanatic who thought God was speaking directly to him.

Which do you think got it right? I am for the realist. I am not confusing anything, despite what that little tale was meant to convey about science.

As for science not being able to measure or study or define when God interacts with our material world; would it matter. You say God's Will and I say the Universe. If a person prays and a storm passes them by, it is God who willed it. If a person prays and a storm passes them by, it is God who willed it.

There will always be believers, theists, and there will always be non-believers, atheists.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Can science disprove God? In reply to
Jeanne: Hi

Quite like old times eh?

How much progress has been and still is limited by Religion? Would the world be better off if Allah was disproved? How many lives have been utterly ruined in the name of a deity or by the religious adherence to a pious belief? How many non-believers have been destroyed by each dominant religion of the era...of this era?

You speak of ‘religion’ as if all ‘religions’ are one and the same thing. This arises, I surmise, out of a contempt for what is considered by some to be ‘delusional behavior’. That however is nothing but an unfounded, prejudiced and rather ignorant assumption. The same kind of blind prejudice that religious people are often accused of by atheists. Pots calling kettles black. There are just as many violent and immoral atheists as there are violent and immoral theists. Atheistic humanists might like to compare themselves favorably on similar moral standing with the Christian saints of old but are they willing to die for their lack of faith as the saints did for their faith in God and their loyalty to the moral code of their leader Jesus Christ?

Most atheists died for the cause of Communism not for the cause of atheism.

Although other Religions opposed to Christianity were responsible for many Christian martyrs, the 20th century saw more martyrdom inflicted by atheists upon Christian believers than any other century, partly because of the meteoric rise in atheistic ideology. Atheist states such as Stalin's USSR, Communist China, North Korea etc set out to eradicate ‘religion’ in the mistaken belief that it was a barrier to ‘progress’. When we examine these atheistic regimes today we see the kind of ‘PROGRESS’ they have achieved by their efforts. Compared to most religious countries, (particularly genuinely ‘Christian’ ones), atheist countries have seriously REGRESSED in every human aspect except efficiency of cruelty, domination and control.

The fact remains that science has so far signally failed to disprove anything other than the straw man gods that atheists themselves set up. Richard Dawkins and his ilk have nothing to offer in place of 'religion' other than a brief, randomly, meaningless existence in an obliviously purposeless, uncaring and inexplicably existent universe, leading irrevocably to inevitable, universal oblivion.

By what line of reasoning would you call that an encouraging philosophy or 'Progress '?

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Apr 1, 2017, 2:48 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Can science disprove God? In reply to
jeanne: Hi.

You missed the point of your story; the first person was stupid and totally lacking in common sense. The second person was a realist living in the present tense.

It was not I who missed the point. Parables are notoriously difficult for some to grasp.

I was the author of that version, so what I declare is the point has some authority. What you say it means, on the other hand, is conjecture based upon your unaided interpretation of the text.

The point of the story was to illustrate the difference between a scientific approach to phenomenon, and an holistic appraisal and value judgment of the evidence in a search for MEANING, not just the listing of material effects.

For instance the scientific approach is exclusively analytical, critical, experimental, deductive, materialistic. Overlaid, in some instances and individuals, by the assumption, that there is no higher meaning behind existence and phenomenon than mere existence itself. Not all scientists are atheists however and so they sensibly accept the limitations of the scientific method and its unsuitability for examining theological and philosophical questions.

The holistic approach however, in its search for meaning, assumes that there is meaning to be made of phenomena. The assumption that meaning can be found is taken for granted and not assumed to be absent by default.

The scientist analyzed the phenomenon but did not understand Morse code, so did not understand the meaning of the phenomena. The young Sea Scout, on the other hand knew nothing about the nature of light, it’s frequency in the visible spectrum or it’s relative intensity. He just saw it and happened to know Morse code.

The difference between the salvation of the yachtsman, (end result of Sea Scouts actions) and an interesting but otherwise uneventful diversion before dinner, (end result of enthusiastic amateur scientist), had nothing to do with intelligence. It had to do with the method of interpretation of the same data.

From the yachtsman's point of view which method of interpretation produced the desired result? Though in less extreme circumstances he could probably appreciate the usefulness of both methods.

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Apr 2, 2017, 5:50 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] Can science disprove God? In reply to
Hi Chris.


The human beings that died under Communist agendas died because of Communism, not for its cause. Communist leaders such as Stalin and Mao were insane, whether they were atheists or not. No belief or disbelief holds the corner of insanity.

Deity beliefs and the religions that are spawned by their followers are all one in the same thing. Each religion is biased toward their own.

The non-Christians who died under the Roman Church's war on all not adhering to that catholicism, were killed by insanity.

All nations who conquered others destroyed the others deity beliefs and religion by slaughter, re-education or co-opting their religious practices into the conqueror's.

I agree it is improbable that anyone can disprove a negative. You asked what benefit I thought humanity would gain by disproving of deities and I told you what I thought.

Here you sell humanity short:

<<a brief, randomly, meaningless existence in an obliviously purposeless, uncaring and inexplicably existent universe, leading irrevocably to inevitable, universal oblivion. >>

That is your opinion and not that of people who do not believe in any deities. Life is meaning enough, procreating the species is meaning enough, moving forward as long as the species is able and oblivion within the matter of the Universe is as meaningful to us as anything conjured up by believers.

Your view of atheists is colored by your need to believe in something other than reality. Yet you refuse to allow me a smattering of faery belief, as if you know all that does and does not exist. Membrane Theory would certainly allow for faeries.

As for the parable; of course I "got" the simplistic message intended by it. I am not an idiot.

You failed to "get" the additional person that I added, while denigrating scientists as simpletons who fail at life because of their scientific minds and we both know that is a cliched view of scientists and science. Then you further suggest that scientists who are not atheists may not fall into this category. Can you admit that the third person that I offered up may exist and would be just as clueless to the SOS?

And like all parables, it gets changed with every telling and its interpretation varies according to the individual.

Why did you bring up this archived topic? I am now in hot water, which I realized only early this morning as I lay wakening. My fault entirely, as I failed to remember that this forum has greatly changed.

Again, you sell me short:

<<out of a contempt for what is considered by some to be ‘delusional behavior’. That however is nothing but an unfounded, prejudiced and rather ignorant assumption. >>

I have a contempt for deity beliefs and the religious dogma that destroys individual human beings and humanity, as a whole. That is not unfounded or ignorant and given my history, not prejudiced.

But as many have before, you deal with the person, Jeanne, far different that with the atheist that is me. For some reason, the two cannot be reconciled in a true believer's mind. I will admit that it is difficult for me to do the same with many here. I have often wrote that it would be best if a person's deity belief were kept private and we moved through the world merely as fellow human beings.

Why did you bring up this archived topic, my friend? Why not just start a new one that lead in a less confrontational manner?

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Can science disprove God? In reply to
Jeanne: Hi.

The human beings that died under Communist agendas died because of Communism, not for its cause.

Not those millions who died to further the cause of atheistic communism in the world and establish it as a dominant political and social system? They died to fulfill an ideal which included the spread of an atheistic ideology. Atheism is still seen by Communist regimes as being essential to the ‘progress’ of their agenda, that is why they treat all religion universally as ‘superstition’ and seek to suppress it, even eradicate it. It is the same spirit of control and enslavement that infected the established church after 360 AD, but now the boot is merely on the atheist foot of human kind, rather than the religious one. The fault is with the human psyche, not with religion as such. The Christian faith is one among few that recognizes the true seat of the problem. While atheists try to lay the blame squarely on ‘Religion’, ‘ALL religion’, ‘Every religion’, they do not understand the underlying nature of the problem. It is as much in themselves as anywhere else

Communist leaders such as Stalin and Mao were insane, whether they were atheists or not.

At least we seem to agree that ‘insanity’, in a person in power is an ‘evil’ best avoided if possible. Nevertheless, the repressive policies they pursued against ‘Religion’ were not a result of their insanity. They were a result of Rational Atheistic Thought. They were merely sufficiently insane enough to believe that eradicating religion was a good thing to do and had no inhibitions doing it. Most atheists agree with their objective, but are a bit squeamish about their methods.

All nations who conquered others destroyed the others deity beliefs and religion by slaughter, re-education or co-opting their religious practices into the conqueror's.

Exactly. Atheist Communism does exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons, with exactly the same rationale, e.g. domination.

However not ALL religious people seek to conquer. Not all religious people seek to destroy. Not all religious people seek to slaughter. And what is so wrong with re-educating? Isn’t that what peace loving atheists want to do in their patronizing sort of way with us ‘delusional’ believers?

To be fair, between you and me, I know that not ALL atheists seek to dominate or are for that matter Communists. Am I correct? Laugh

<<a brief, randomly, meaningless existence in an obliviously purposeless, uncaring and inexplicably existent universe, leading irrevocably to inevitable, universal oblivion. >>

That is your opinion and not that of people who do not believe in any deities.
Here you sell humanity short:

Atheists are convinced that the universe does not result from a purposeful creative act. It is random and unplanned.
Atheists do not believe themselves to have been placed here to fulfill any particular purpose. Any sense of purpose they may have is entirely of their own making and simply a quality of their character.
Atheists do not believe that the universe is even aware of their existence, let alone ‘cares’ about them.
Atheists cannot, nor do they feel the need to seek, any ‘explanation’ for the ‘existence’ of the universe they live in. They just have to accept that they DO exist in a universe.
Atheists have a stoic and courageous conception of what happens after death, based upon empirical evidence alone. They believe that to be the ONLY trustworthy evidence.

So, yes I think there are many atheists that are of the opinions I have outlined. I do not criticize them for that, nor do I intend to imply they are wrong to hold those opinions, (I don’t KNOW, I can only believe), nor do I object to them explaining to others WHY they have reached these conclusions. (But atheists don’t KNOW either, they can also only believe). So they, just like fervent believers, may be mistakenly propagating a lie. We can only honestly declare what we believe to be true.

I have a contempt for deity beliefs and the religious dogma that destroys individual human beings and humanity, as a whole. That is not unfounded or ignorant and given my history, not prejudiced.

I agree with you on this, rather surprisingly. Jesus Christ took a whip of cords and drove the money changers from the temple precincts contemptuously, calling them a gang of thieves. We should be contemptuous of anyone who ‘destroys individual human beings and humanity as a whole’. What IS unfounded about your universal contempt of ‘Religion’ is the fact that you make no distinction between the ‘thieves in the temple’ and ‘The one who drove them out’. All ‘Religion’ is BAD you say. That is not prejudiced? Oh but it is Jeanne, no matter what your history. That is prejudiced.

Again, you sell me short:
<<out of a contempt for what is considered by some to be ‘delusional behavior’. That however is nothing but an unfounded, prejudiced and rather ignorant assumption. >>

When we express ourselves in generalities, sniping at universal targets such as ‘Religion’, ‘Politics’, ‘Education’, we loose sight of the fact that individuals are individually different and they as individuals may or may not fit comfortably into one or more of these ‘Big Categories’.

When an atheist insists that all religious people are delusional, (as Prof. Dawkins is on record as openly stating), they are behaving no less irrationally and arrogantly than believers who insist that all who do not accept unequivocally ALL the necessary tenets of their particular ‘Religion’ are damned to eternal perdition. Both opinions and attitudes I find to be indefensible.

You and I, hopefully can avoid generalizations and have gone beyond such superficial assessments of character to be able to treat each other as rational human beings with valid but conflicting points of view, even if they may seem at times to be diametrically opposed.

But as many have before, you deal with the person, Jeanne, far different than with the atheist that is me. For some reason, the two cannot be reconciled in a true believer's mind.

I would like to think of myself as a ‘true believer’ but I will have to wait until I hear the words “Well done, good and faithful servant.” spoken by my Master Jesus Christ when I finally stand before him, only then I may be sure of it. Nevertheless I feel that the person Jeanne and the atheist Jeanne are ‘reconciled’ satisfactorily in my mind. Without your ideals you would not be the person you are. The person you ARE is the person Christ loves and died for. Perhaps my acceptance of that may result in me not hearing those comforting words “Well Done”. Then again perhaps I shall hear them because of accepting you just as you are, like Christ himself presumably does. If you are right about it all, then it won’t matter for either of us, we will both rest in peaceful oblivion. If you are wrong about it all then I’ll put a good word in for you and rejoice with you at the heavenly banquet.

Thanks for responding in kind to this resurrected thread. It quite brought back a nostalgic replay of 'old times' when Praize was buzzing with 'life' and the debating threads were actual debates.

My kindest regards : Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Apr 3, 2017, 3:42 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] Can science disprove God? In reply to
Ah well...

We disagree on much. We agree on much.

On the topic of atheism and the track of religion over humanity, we will most likely never agree.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [Jeanne Shockley] Can science disprove God? In reply to
[quote jeanne53]How can science be used to determine that the christian deity does not exist..or exists?
<BR>
<BR>Bankson recently posted a reply to another topic that included this from him:
<BR>
<BR>&lt;&lt;Science is limited to the physical (material) world and therefore has no knowledge, function or authority outside those bounds.&gt;&gt;
<BR>
<BR>This is true.
<BR>
<BR>But...God is said to interact with the material world all the time and in specific ways, some of which are documented by scripture and current testimony. If God does this, then science should be able to observe and test the interactions in our material world, should it not?
<BR>
<BR>How could we set up a test of said interactions so that it could be proved..or disproved...that God is doing so?
<BR>
<BR>In using the term "God" it is meant the deity of christianity, Yahweh, the deity of the OT and NT...and only that God. If God needs to be defined further, it will have to be settled by its believers what that definition is.[/quote]

As far as Science being used to determine if God does or does not exist, science provides and backs up claims, they aren’t in the business of refuting claims so I don’t think you are going to find science refuting any religious claims. But science does have a history of the study of non-material/spiritual worlds, I believe what they call “[i]Anthroposophy[/i]” is an attempt at this. Duncan MacDougall even went as far as weighing bodies upon dying to see if the body decreases weight after the soul leaves the body (thought I’m not sure his experiments could be categorized under the study of Anthroposophy) but I think it is an error to suggest science only limits itself to the study of material world, they just haven’t been able to get any results from the study of things outside the material world.

Ken
Quote Reply
Re: [kennyj] Can science disprove God? In reply to
Hi Kenny.

I am sorry that I missed your post.

How old is this topic? Oh well...time passes when you have too full a plate. Wink

You write:

<<As far as Science being used to determine if God does or does not exist, science provides and backs up claims, they aren’t in the business of refuting claims so I don’t think you are going to find science refuting any religious claims. But science does have a history of the study of non-material/spiritual worlds, I believe what they call “Anthroposophy” is an attempt at this. Duncan MacDougall even went as far as weighing bodies upon dying to see if the body decreases weight after the soul leaves the body (thought I’m not sure his experiments could be categorized under the study of Anthroposophy) but I think it is an error to suggest science only limits itself to the study of material world, they just haven’t been able to get any results from the study of things outside the material world. >>

Of course science is in the business of refuting claims. That is what scientists do. It is how science advances. We no longer think it to be a fact that the sun revolves around the earth as was "claimed" by the learned people of an earlier era. That claim has been refuted by scientists.

Well there is this from google: "a formal educational, therapeutic, and creative system established by Rudolf Steiner, seeking to use mainly natural means to optimize physical and mental health and well-being" and this from Wikipedia: "Anthroposophy is a philosophy founded by Rudolf Steiner that postulates the existence of an objective, intellectually comprehensible spiritual world that is accessible by direct experience through inner development."

The last sounds a bit like deity belief to me, but also rather of new-age clap-trap too. Nobody submits to Primal Scream Therapy anymore.

I know somebody who spent lots of money and time with special recorders in haunted houses and grave yards to capture the communications of souls not able to pass over. He just heard stuff that nobody else did because he wanted to hear it.

Right. Scientists just haven't been able to get results from experiments studying the non-material world. That is because there is not any interaction with a non-material world.

I was asking people who believe there is if there might be a way to prove it through a test of what actually occurs and how a non-material entity caused it. Can it be observed? Can the interaction be tested in some way?

Energy expended as a force upon nature? Sudden input of matter to that which is finite? I have no clue...just wondering aloud about how such stuff could be tested.

The 21 grams that is supposedly lost when the soul exits the body is bunk. There are biological reasons why a dead body weighs less than it did living.

From an article on Snopes:

<<MacDougall’s results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more.

An interesting counterpoint to this item is another widespread belief of those long-ago times, one which held that the human body gained weight after death — the exact opposite of what Dr. MacDougall was attempting to prove.>>

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

The article goes into depth with the controversy and is interesting to read.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Can science disprove God? In reply to
Jeanne: Kenny: Hi.

Of course science is in the business of refuting claims. That is what scientists do. It is how science advances. We no longer think it to be a fact that the sun revolves around the earth as was "claimed" by the learned people of an earlier era. That claim has been refuted by scientists.

Quite rightly too. It is the responsibility of sentient beings to analyze situations and make rational and wise decisions based upon the known facts. However there are many areas of human experience where there is insufficient material evidence to form a definitive judgment. Emotionally driven responses, in their own way, are often as valid as logically derived ones, hence the frequent confrontations between McCoy and Spock in the original Star Trek.

It has long been recognized that there seems to be a spiritual dimension to human experience. Whether this arises from merely the way our consciousness works or whether there are actually other dimensions of existence inaccessible to us by material scientific means, remains yet to be proven.

As to the weight of the soul, I would compare the attempt to quantify it as analogous to an experiment to see if an iPad weighs more or less and by how much, when it is in operation compared to when it is powered down with flat batteries. Does the fact that a program is running have any effect upon its overall weight? Does the program have any mass or weight? Is there a qualitative difference between a working iPad and a 'dead' one, in spite of the apparent material lack of a change in mass whether the iPad is running or completely 'dead'. We all would accept that a working iPad is preferable to a mere 'dead' chunk of bits. There is certainly a difference in performance, one cannot 'interact' with a mere material 'chunk of bits'.

Consciousness appears to be an emergent quality, not a quantity in itself. Whether that emergence is utterly dependent on its material environment and all attendant 'design' requisites, (as is the functionality of an iPad) or whether perhaps human consciousness can continue independently of its biological environment, i.e. the body and its physical properties, has not yet been scientifically established beyond doubt. What can be established beyond doubt though is that there is a point in time when every human being becomes as materially nonfunctional as an irreparable iPad.

How we view and cope with this fact is a matter of faith, but belief in an afterlife is only a minor aspect of theology in general. The existence of God does not hinge on whether or not there may or may not be an afterlife. Making a definitive judgment on the existence of a creator is as impossible as defining with absolute certainty, reality itself. Nobody's perceptions are infallible, no matter how scientifically accurate they may seem. At the quantum level even the act of observation affects and possibly alters the perceived result.

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] Can science disprove God? In reply to
Hi Chris.

Kudos for the iPad analogy! I like it.

You write:

<<It has long been recognized that there seems to be a spiritual dimension to human experience. Whether this arises from merely the way our consciousness works or whether there are actually other dimensions of existence inaccessible to us by material scientific means, remains yet to be proven. >>

Well...it has more recently been recognized that there is not a spiritual dimension to human experience, but what seems to be is the result of different influences within the material brain.

Try this article: https://www.wired.com/1999/11/persinger/

<<Michael Persinger, a neuropsychologist at Canada's Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario. His theory is that the sensation described as "having a religious experience" is merely a side effect of our bicameral brain's feverish activities. Simplified considerably, the idea goes like so: When the right hemisphere of the brain, the seat of emotion, is stimulated in the cerebral region presumed to control notions of self, and then the left hemisphere, the seat of language, is called upon to make sense of this nonexistent entity, the mind generates a "sensed presence.">>

<<Persinger goes one step further. His work practically constitutes a Grand Unified Theory of the Otherworldly: He believes cerebral fritzing is responsible for almost anything one might describe as paranormal - aliens, heavenly apparitions, past-life sensations, near-death experiences, awareness of the soul, you name it.>>

For the believer, it is a short hop to "this is so because the Creator made it this way" so I am not looking to de-convert anybody, as this would be pointless.

Just an interesting study, which supports the idea that everything is material.

Chris, you continue:

<<What can be established beyond doubt though is that there is a point in time when every human being becomes as materially nonfunctional as an irreparable iPad. >>

Not at all, my friend, and this is what makes "Life, The Universe and Everything" so marvelous. As long as there is matter, there is function. It is a mistake to assume that if the brain is no longer aware and the body no longer functioning in a human capacity, that the matter that was a human being is materially nonfunctional.

Reminds me of what I tell my kids an grandkids when the point of "wasting something" is brought up. "Nothing is ever wasted; it is human arrogance to think that if it is not consumed by humans in some manner, that it is wasted."

The way we cope with bodily death is not a matter of faith, but a matter of psyche, which includes all dimensions of the mind, including the soul or spirit.

And...

<<The existence of God does not hinge on whether or not there may or may not be an afterlife. Making a definitive judgment on the existence of a creator is as impossible as defining with absolute certainty, reality itself. Nobody's perceptions are infallible, no matter how scientifically accurate they may seem. At the quantum level even the act of observation affects and possibly alters the perceived result. >>

Agreed. We each make judgments based upon our individual reality, however, and my reality includes no deity experience. Why that is so is another matter.

-Jeanne

p.s. Thanks for not bringing up the old posts in this topic. Had I read them, I might not have replied to Kenny.
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Can science disprove God? In reply to
jeanne: Hi.

Not at all, my friend, and this is what makes "Life, The Universe and Everything" so marvelous. As long as there is matter, there is function. It is a mistake to assume that if the brain is no longer aware and the body no longer functioning in a human capacity, that the matter that was a human being is materially nonfunctional.

By using the term nonfunctional I meant to imply that a dead human being is not performing the function that a living human being is capable of, i.e. being a fully functioning human being. It is therefore from a fully human point of view 'dysfunctional', not a human being but a corpse, the remains of a human being.

Of course the 'remains' perform according to biological and physic laws in a functional manner, according to the laws of physics, and are 'reclaimed' by the material world for further recycled use. That does not however mean that the corpse functions any longer as a 'human being' any more than an irreparably smashed iPad functions any longer as an iPad. The remains of the irreparably, nonfunctional iPad can be recycled, some parts even incorporated into another fully functioning iPad with all the attributes of the original iPad but the original has not had ITS 'functionality' restored, the eventual outcome, if fully functional, would be in fact a 'new creation'. 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15.

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Sep 16, 2017, 2:43 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] Can science disprove God? In reply to
Of course. I understand. I like to think of our material selves as more than just human beings and let myself respond on that basis.

There will never be another Chris or Jeanne, which makes life very worthwhile and precious.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Can science disprove God? In reply to

Greetings,
Just a couple of ‘hit & run’ comments on this revived thread. Jeanne is right that each individual is ‘one-of-a-kind’ and that in itself is a miracle that no two people are alike nor are 2 snowflakes, 2 leaves on a tree, 2 cows on a farm or even 2 identical twins who came from the same egg. Science has explanations of how this occurs naturally but still doesn’t know why, since they are unable to test beyond the tangible. Jesus was astounded that learned Nicodemus didn’t understand that humans have both a physical body and a spirit just as he is today at those who deny the spirit realm even though, like Jeanne, they personify an object thereby deifying it: “.. but the Earth is patient”.
God’s existence is completely & historically proven by the death, burial, resurrection AND ascension of Jesus. Everyone desires/wants to believe that there is an ‘afterlife’. Even Jeanne's statement, "The way we cope with bodily death is not a matter of faith, but a matter of psyche, which includes all dimensions of the mind, including the soul or spirit." reveals her acknowledgement that she believes that her soul/spirit will 'live' after her physical body dies. Jesus' body parts weren’t cannibalized into a new “i-Pad” and it wasn’t his ‘legacy’ that lived on. He was dead & buried in a Roman-sealed tomb. God resurrected his physical body & the disciples visibly watched his physical body ascend into the clouds. Just as Jesus was recognized at the tomb and by the disciples after the resurrection by his wounds, we, too, will be recognized by our physical features. I believe, but can’t prove, that we will all look like we are 33 years old since science has said (proved?) that a human’s physical body continues to grow until reaching around 33 & then starts to deteriorate. I don’t believe that an aborted baby or infant would be bound in that condition for eternity.

Always a blessing to see people posting on Praize for the 150 to 200 others from all over the world that are always on the site.

PraizeOP

"I wish that you may prosper & be in health even as your soul prospers"
Quote Reply
Re: [praizeop] Can science disprove God? In reply to
Hello Praizeop.

I appreciate the reply, as it is nice to have someone else write of their opinions.

While there are apparently many who must know the why of life, I am not one of them. I don't find many like me who care a bit for the "why" of life, because it is a peculiarly theistic problem that seems to demand an answer, which they find in faith of a creator deity and the religions that surround such an entity.

Life is, period, and science has revealed how it operates, but has yet been unable to determine exactly and positively how it began, but although there have been hypotheses, none are accepted. Atheism is the lack of belief in any deities. It does not speak to abiogenesis or to the beginning of the creation of matter/energy. It rather accepts matter/energy as always being in some form and as a constant .

My quote is merely an acknowledgement that nature operates on its own schedule and what human activity that may seem important to humans is not to it. There are many subtle thoughts I have about this quote, but deifying the Earth is not one of them. Although I do consider nature and all existence to be a sort of creator, which I must honor simply because without it I would not be alive.

No, you misunderstand. I do not believe or think or accept that there is any such entity as a "soul" but that term describes what others believe and is useful in discussions. It means something that I know as the collection of my feelings, experiences and hopes all rolled into one word, and communicates to another a sense of being that is more than my brain/body connection. I suspect that if deity belief and religion and spirituality had never influenced humanity, that we would never use that term.

God's existence cannot be proved by anything within the Bible. Those are words from ancient peoples and of questionable veracity. What you may believe does not prove anything about a creator deity or the mythologies surrounding such an entity that is outside of the material realm, but is capable of acting within and upon the material realm. While I may grant that it is possible, it is not probable. And as I have often stated within the forums of Praize, if there was any entity that acted to create the whole of existence in our material realm is not such an entity that would actually be the God of Christianity or any deity invented by human imagination, but something so alien to all and any life that exists that neither could it be imagined, nor found, nor understood, nor would it be interested in what is cast off from itself that became all existence, all matter, all energy. This is as close as I can come to believing that there is anything more than that which is matter/energy.

As for when our bodies start to "deteriorate" for healthy people in current times, the bone mass of the body is at its peak at around 14 years of age and goes down from there. Also a woman's supply of ova starts to erode as soon as she starts to ovulate, which can be quite early for some at about 10 years old. When we actually think carefully about the body, we understand that our cells of all organs, including the brain, have replaced themselves over and over again, because they are constantly deteriorating and the body is constantly making new cells. I don't know where you read that the body stops growing at 33 and that is the age true believers will become in the Christian heaven, but even the mythological Jesus is said to have been anywhere from his late 20s to his early 40s because of differences in his alleged birth date.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."