ANSWERS: 60
  • First of all, it should be noted that science proves NOTHING. Science disproves. The way the scientific method works, is that we observe the world around us. Based on these observations, we formulate theories (ideas about how things work). We then devise tests to determine if the theory is valid. If the test go as the theory predicts, then we say that they support the theory. However, if even one of the test does not go as predicted, then that one instance (assuming that the test itself was performed correctly) disproves the theory and we have to go back to the drawing board and figure out what went wrong. In order to PROVE a theory, we would have to test every possible situation in which that theory might apply. Even if we do test evey possible situation that we can think of, there may still be other ones that we haven't thought of. We can never be sure that we have tested all of the possiblities. Therefore, we can never prove anything. So, how does this apply to the question of God? God, being an all-powerful, all-knowing being, is beyond our ability to test. Whatever test we may devise to prove that He exists, He can manipulate to give an ambiguous answer. What one person looks at and sees as proof of God's existance, another can look at and say, "That is just coincedence." Let me illustrate this with a story. A college professor got up in front of his class and says that he will disprove God's existance. He then procedes to curse and rail against God and dares Him to knock him off the stage. After several minutes of this, one of his student (a big, burly marine) walks up onto the stage and shoves the professor off. The professor exclaims, "Why did you do that!?!" The marine replies, "God was busy. So, He sent me." The professor was knocked off the stage by someone claiming to be an agent of God. Does this prove that God exists? The marine may or may not have actually been working under the direction of Him. We really can't prove one way or the other. Even if nobody had pushed the professor and he had stayed on the stage, does that prove the God does not exist. No, He could have just decided to not respond to that self-important twit. It does not matter what tests we divise, or how sophisticated they are, God will always be at least one step ahead of us. There is no scientific test that we can conduct that will either prove or disprove His existance. The only proof is that which comes to the hearts of those that are open to Him and have at least a desire to believe. I write this as both a trained scientist and a man of faith. ******************************** Dawni_D, Prayer is a way to talk to God and to open the conduit to feel the influence of the Holy Ghost. However, these are not things that you can "prove scientifically". Therefore, they are beyond the scope of the question. ******************************** "Anonymous: science does prove things. Why else do we have equations like e=mc^2 ? This is a proof." No. it is not. It is a equation that seems to describe a characteristic of the universe. Sir Isaac Newton came up with a number of other such equations. We thought that his equations were correct for a round three centuries. Then along comes Einstein and shows us that Newton's equations don't work at velocities approaching the speed of light. At these high velocities Newton's equations need to be modified by adding relativistic terms in order to get accurate results. We accept E=mc^2 as fact because we have not found any evidence to disprove it as of yet. That does not mean that we won't in the future. I am not saying that we will, but you never can be sure. As I wrote above, the only way to prove a scientific theory true is to go to every possible point in space and time and test the theory in every possible way. Have you done this with Einstein's equation? If not, then you can't say that it has been proven. ******************************* "Anonymous: e=mc^2 proves how much energy can be obtained by converting mass to energy. This is a PROOF that is true." Rewording the assertion does not make it true. Just because we can come up with a mathematical equation that describes some aspect doesn't mean that we correctly understand that aspect. Anonymous, I hold a Master of Science degree in geology. Therefore, I have been thoroughly educated in the scientific method. I know whereof I write on this. Your continued insistence that science proves things shows that you don't understand how science works. Therefore, I suggest that you, and everybody else who thinks like you, go to the following web sites: http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/Plants_Human/scimeth.html http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html http://www.selu.edu/Academics/Education/EDF600/Mod3/sld001.htm ******************************** Anonymous, I have stated and restated why I say that science doesn't prove anything. I have stated the authority by which I make this statement. I have also given other authoritative sources that support my side of the argument. You have not done either of the latter two. You just keep stating the same thing over and over again without telling us why we should believe you and without any sources to back you up. Therefore, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. I am obviously not convincing you and you are not convincing me. Therefore, I think it is time that you and I agree to disagree and let it go at that. ******************************* "Joe-Speedy: Well spoken, but doesn't an experiment that fails to meet the theory, prove that the theory is wrong?" That's the point I made in my original answer. It is easy to prove something wrong because you only have to show one instance where it is wrong. An experiment that does not meet the theories expectations proves the theory wrong. ******************************* dieboldM in an answer below, "glenn i am a firm believer in that god does exist! theres no doubt bout that but im wondering if u could help me wit some questions.. "1) if god loves us so much how come he didnt protect the 6 million jews in the hollicost... "2) if god knows all how come he let the devil turn the a serpant and let adam take eat the apple? "3) before Jesus was sent to save us, was everyone else sent to hell? "4) God created equations in science...? because he created the people and gave them the knowlage to do so, essentally he created science then? or am i wrong?" All of these questions have been dealt with elsewhere. So, let me just give you the links instead of writing out new answers. 1. http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/382991 2. http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/43722 (When reading this answer, also keep in mind that free will is an important part of God's plan for us. Without opposition, there is not choice and, therefore, no free will. 3. http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/948300 4. I would agree with you on this. God created all that is and all truth ultimately comes from God. So, those truths that we know about God's creation ultimately came from Him.
  • Science can never prove the existence of God UNLESS something is proven that disproves scripture. For example, if other gods were discovered (I'm not saying they exist), then the idea of a solitary and all-powerful god would be refuted, correct? The idea of God and religion in general is all based on faith. One accepts religion on faith. The scientific mind takes religion on faith as well. However, he or she knows that the religion they or they follow may be false, but they continue practicing it. Why? The answer is faith. In essence, religion is a grouping of ideas that is practiced by followers. One of the main reasons people do not follow religion or discontinue to follow religion is because they no longer have faith in it.
  • Nothing can absolutely prove or disprove the existence of God or any similar figure. That's why so many people like it (it being the concept of a god).
  • Scientific methods only really apply to the natural world. Most concepts of God are "supernatural" meaning outside nature. Science has no methods or tools for testing the truly supernatural. If science found some way to quantify or measure the "spiritual" dimension (whatever that might turn out to be) we could begin to discuss and formulate experiments. Until then, the answer is simply: science can neither confirm nor disprove the existence of the supernatural, including God. ______ The "experiment" suggested in the feedback is irrational. How could science confirm a message came from God? There is no test or mechanism to set up the "experiment." If you answer "the message is from God because the predicted event happens" your argument is circular and therefore meaningless.
  • Nice work, Mr. Blaylock. I think we might add, though, that science might certainly indicate that there is a God, or a Creator. Science has not been able to demonstrate the existence of any creative force or principle in physics. And to simply declare that science can make no reference to a god, and here we are, so there must be such a force (which quite frankly is what often passes for origins science), is unsatisfactory. Science can demonstrate that the probability of all the chance atomic interactions required to create life from non-living matter is so small as to be non-existent. It then requires more faith to blieve there is not a God than to believe there is. Glenn is right in his comment below, of course. And I want to be clear that my answer had just that point behind it. The question as stated "How would science prove the existence of God?" assumes the that science COULD prove the existence of God, a faulty premise in my mind. All science can really do is show that explanations for our natural world that disallow the existence of God have big holes in them. Origins science is not truly empirical, and none of the theories has the necessary scientific property of falsifiability. Therefore, I do believe it is scientifically valid to hold to the one with the stronger probability--that there is a Creator God. To put it another way: belief in God does not require me to become unscientific, but it does require me to recognize inherent limitations in science. We have to be careful about our definition of "science". Most people assume it is an unbiased search for truth, as it should be. But I think we will find that it frequently means "the search for a naturalistic explanation for all things, without reference to a god". Phillip E. Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" did a nice job of revealing that supposedly naturalistic science sometimes takes on trappings of a religion.
  • Why does science need to prove the existence of God when you can do it yourslef. All I did was begin to talk to Him. I told him my worries and my fears, he took care of them. I can't see oxygen, but It is exists I can't see God but I know he is there. He has shown himself to me through miracles, answered prayers, healing, etc... Why would He show me and not you? If you begin to talk to Him He will begin to show himself to you through miracles and so on... Tell Him that you feel silly talking to the air. Tell Him you have doubts, He already knows anyway. He wants to have a relationship with you. If He wants you to believe in Him he will have to show himself to you, there is no other way. Seek Him and you will find Him. I believe you need a period of about 3 months can't be certain, perhaps it can be different for everyone, but for me, it took about 3 months before I started to notice changes in my life. I think God wants to see that we are serious about finding Him. If there is one thing everyone should do before they depart this earth that's try to find God on their own. He wants you to look for Him. I found Him 15 years ago, and I haven't stopped talking to Him because whatever is out there can hear me and He is powerful. Why go another day without experiencing His power? God may have made Himself invisible to us while we are on the earth, but by no means has He made Himself UNAVAILABLE to us. He is very available to us. Continue to talk to Him, and He will show himself to you, not in the phsyical, but why does everything need to be in the box so to speak. take a look at the complex world we live in. Take a look at the duck bill platypus. God is a lot more complex then that. We don't need to see him with our phsyical eyes in order to know that he is there. Some scientists already know this, and others refuse to seek after something they can't see. It's time you start to think outside the box. Not everything is black & white, and you can Thank God for that! Science, itself cannot prove the existance of God. Science itself cannot even prove how the world began, it just offers a theory. However, I have a found a proven method that supports the existance of God. The method itself is rather simple. First you need to start by having an open mind. Everything you have heard, read or learned about God is not necessairly truth. Talking to God is KEY. Of course it sounds silly to talk to something you can't see. However if you really want to know for yourself if he exists, then you need to do it. In science when you are trying to prove something you run lots of tests. When you are trying to prove the existance of God you too, run lots of tests. Here's a test that I preformed. I was in need of $5,000, and had no idea how I was going to get it. I talked to God and told him what was going on and pleaded for help. One week later a woman who was new to our church came over to our house and told us she had been talking with God about what to do with the rest of her settlement money, and she said that she felt like God told her to give us $5,000, and she did. She had no knowledge of our financial situation. Sure you could chalk it up to coinsidence, but at some point you have to say this can't be coinsidence anymore. If God answers 2,000 of your prayers (and that's just a number I am throwing out there) at what point do you say OK. Maybe there is something out there that can hear me. I am not at liberty to share my entire method at this time. You can look for it in my book soon to be out. It's called, "Finding God Isn't Rocket Science." I am a person who believes in the existance of God. My belief is not based on what I hear, read or have been taught. I believe because of what I have seen. God is constantly answeing my prayers. I recently had a conversation with an atheist, and he said to me, "Ok if there is a God why don't you ask your God to create a 10th planet." He thought it was funny! I did exactly that, and about a month later I hear on the news that we have discovered a 10th planet. Coinsidence or God?
  • science can never prove or disprove god because god is an unknown,he/she /it is a theory as is any other god and he/she /it/they are theorys of origin nothing more,nothing less.If "God" created man,and the earth and the known universe and everything contained within,tell me who or what created God? I will tell you who,MAN. Why?To explain what he will never know the answer to:The true genisis. Even the big bang can only explain our universe back to the moment of the big bang,but what about before the the big bang? What was before the big bang. We will never know,as we will never know for sure how life originated on earth.It is generally excepted that we are 1 planet of at least 9(a subject of debate in itself) around 1 star of at least a billion stars in 1 galaxy of at least a billion galaxies. Most people including people of faith except the idea that life must surely exist elsewhere in the universe. To think otherwise would seem extremely arrogant.I would liken it too the time not to long ago when the scholars of the world proclaimed that the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it.It is not! That in itself proposes a question- Why when god created the sun and the heavens and everything that we know to exist for our benifit would he not put us at the center of it all?It just doesn't make sense. If there is life out there on one millionth of a percent of the infinate number of other planets that surely exist. Then why would he create us and us only in his image? If life exists elsewhere in the universe and it surely must,(but that is theory also) why would god expend energy needlessly on something that we will never know?And if life is present no matter what form it takes on other worlds,then it is obviosly not impossible for it to be created under the right circumstances.Because we haven't figured out a way to do it yet,does that make it impossible? I think not! That is just man's arrogance talking. "God" exists because we need him to exist to explain that which we will never know about the beginning of our existance.We will never truly know because hey, WE WEREN'T THERE! Now I am no scientist and i am not religeous except for religion being a good guide as to how to best live a long and fullfilling life,but i am not stupid either.And whether god exists or whether his existance can be proven or not really does not matter.It is a waste of energy to even try Because we weren't there! And nobody knows except for what they feel(Faith) and their feelings might be misunderstood.What is important is how we treat one another and how we get the most fulfillment from our brief existance in life.Nobody knows what awaits us when we die but I imagine it is the same as it was before we were born. Forgive me for rambling on and i apolagize if i offended anyone.My thoughts may not be agreed with but they are I feel something to think about, and who is to say that i am any less correct than the rest of you ? NOBODY KNOWS OR EVER WILL!
  • The practice of science is a way of describing the world around us. The practice of religion is a way of explaining the world around us. And, the way I see it, the tools of science can aid one very little in the practice of religion; logic, however, is very useful in both endeavors. One poster cites the complexity of life as proof of god's existence, which is in no way a scientific aproach to the question, i.e. evidence? analysis? Consider this: you have a very large chandelier, on which the lights blink on and off randomly each second. So every second you have a new formation of lights. This creates an infinitely long sequence of random configurations. Surely, at some point one configuration in the sequence will resemble a smiley face - this is part of the nature of randomness, not something I have imposed [edit: I'm uncertain if this assumes something that results in the argument being circular. If we assume true randomness exists, then are we assuming that God does not?]. I submit that the appearance of a seemingly organized formation from a random system is no evidence of intelligent intervention. So the fact the our eyes are highly complex structures is not evidence of God's existence. I also suggest that interested parties read up on the anthropic principle. The (very) basic idea is that we exist here in the universe because this is the time and place where complex organisms like ourselves could exist. As I see it, science and religion are two ways of overcoming fear of our environment. Science gives a sense of undestanding that is backed by its practical applications, and, drum roll please, Religion gives a sense of undestanding that is backed by its practical applications. Science and technology make it possible to do necessary tasks quickly and easily. Religion generally makes people feel good about themselves and helps promote an enjoyable family life, et cetera - well, at least most religions do. It seems to me that a lot of people ignore one or the other, and fail to see that both are important and beneficial. If there is a single omnipotent being, and that being is truly benevolent, it probably has some degree of respect for both. Glenn Blaylock: To extend your point: John Locke said that science cannot prove something because proof requires a degree of precision that induction cannot provide. A classic example was throwing a brick through a window. In the past the window broke and the brick went through. That's the way it has always worked. But that doesn't mean a thrown brick will always go through a window. Try throwing a brick at a bank teller. A rural farmer of the 1700s has probably never been to a bank where the tellers are behind bullet proof barriers which resemble windows. We can't say something is true in all places and at all times, because we don't have knowledge of all places and all times. We lack good inductive evidence. Therefore, science can only be used to disprove theories.
  • There is no need to prove God exists. One just knows. Man has an eternal soul & when we leave this Earth, we go to God forevermore.
  • God is the answer of everything Human race cannot explain. Science will never prove the existence of God. This statement only apply while God mentioned as God the creator, all mighty, as prime cause. God mentioned above was originated from ancient believe of supernatural being above human race. God as all mighty one and as prime cause are developed from ancient Sumerian religion and become strong / main Influence of present Middle East origin religion. In which Oriental Religion Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism do not embrace to this kind of vision. God the creator, are a simple answer for somebody questioning, who create universe, who create human etc. God All Mighty is a simple answer for somebody questioning who create destiny, who direct the nature, etc (all unseen power beyond human capability). We talk about God are answer for scientically unanswered question. For sample, before everybody believe rain, storm, thunder is God creation and now science explain what cause rain, storm and thunder, so the devense of theology are goes deeper, who create all those mechanism, while science explain, Theology questioning further. Many thing works like this between Theology and Science. So since God are the answer for which science can not explain (yet). What should be questioned is "Is God created by Human to answer unexplained phenomena or to satisfy the curiosity of other human?"
  • Science doesn't seem to prove or disprove God, even if every creationist accepted evolution as true and every evolutionist accepted the existance of a higher power, that would not prove nor disprove God or his/her/it's/their hand in evolution/our creation. (though it'd make me wonder LOL we're not likely to agree on much are we?) I just think that this isn't something science can solve either way, and I am not sure if science will ever be the right tool for this..
  • Actually, God has promised that he can & will visit us individually & eventually collectively. I doubt that science could prove or disprove the existance of God because even if they broke down the very tinyest molecule it wouldnt answer the question of WHY things exist? There have only been a precious few, who have saught diligently & lived worthy enough to have God himself visit the Earth to show himself to them & it was NOT through science. I have nothing against them looking. They have helped with mans understanding & prolonging of life emencely. Its just a shame many of them think they are more intelligent than the faithfull because they know how a cow converts grass into milk! Who is of greater intellegence the man searching for God within or the man searching for God in the Dust? But how many ask themselves why does the cow exist? if its the theory of survival of the fittest why is the COW still around? & if man evolved from apes then were are the inbetweenies? & why are there still apes? I for one, will not be searching for God, through science. But Best Wishes Gentlemen.
  • I think Glenn pretty fairly hit the nail on the head, but I'd just like to add that scientifically, there are only what, 6 or 7 things we can truly "prove" beyond a shadow of a doubt about our universe? Just because the sun has always risen doesn't mean it always will. Saying the sun will rise tomorrow is simply a theory. To truly "know" something you must be able to disprove every single possible alternative. This means all those things we take for granted can't be taken for granted. So you see, to prove the existence of God we have to be able to disprove any alternate possibilities. But we know only a handful of the most utterly general things about our universe! We don't even know for sure that we're really in this reality or whether it's a dream or weird state of consciousness where nothing is truly real! How then are we going to prove or disprove something so all-important and specific as God's existence? This is why the word "theory" is truly so important to science. If you want to know whether the existence of God is likely, try listening to some of the stuff Ravi Zecharias says. One of the points he'll hammer on is that for any true morality to exist in the universe there must have been a God to institute such a moral Law. And if there were no moral Law then all would be permissible including rape, genocide, and murder. God is also needed as the embodiment of such a moral Law for if no one meets a law how then can it exist? But we are more then mere computers, we have a yearning for justice, a tendency towards thoughts of morality, and feelings (at least in some of us) that places an emphasis on other people above their usefulness to us. Therefore, for a person to deny the existence of God, Ravi would say they then deny ultimate morality, a reason to treat others with said morality, and that they themselves are moral.
  • Science is the process of using observation and measurment to accuratly determine future and past events. Since God is beyond measurment and observation, he cannot be proven to exist scientificaly. God can never be used in a fomula, and can never be and end result of a question in science, because using God would never actually answer your question, and science would never progress. i.e. If you climbed to the top of a mountain and saw sea shells, you would find this very strange, and perhaps through not understanding, allocate a supernatural force to their presence on the top of the mountain. But this has not answered the question of why they are there in the first place. Scientific study would show that continental shift pushed two plates together, raising ground that was previously under the sea level to 5000ft above sea level. The actuall answer did not require the supernatural.
  • your answer is good but incorrect and you even admitted it in the answer when you said god is...by what logic can you say that god is something when you admit that it cannot be proven?
  • god cannot be proven. faith in god takes many forms and is only limited to perspective, or frame of reference. each frame of reference is unique and cannot be shared. nor will any frame of reference ever be repeated. the concept of god is a good one if he does exist and has enabled man to lead the race of life in the the quest for finding god if (he) does exist.
  • There is absolutely no way science can prove that the good Lord exsits. There is only 1 way top prove it & that is through people who love you.
  • Well as far as we know you can look at the smallest things, like atoms and electrons and yet there may still be smaller things. Also you can look at the biggest thing like the universe and it is probably part of something bigger. If you can go infinitely in both "directions" them I’m sure there is a "God" or something, and possibly we are “Godz”.
  • Which God are we referring to? If I understand correctly, there are quite a few Gods. I think its necessary to specify which one.
  • The universe around you, your life, the design of the human body, the design of nature; all of these things had to have had an intelligent Designer; a Creator. There is a common atheistic theory of how life began that I call "the Soup Theory". This theory states that all life came from an inorganic soup, or basicly, that life arose from non-life. However, wouldn't this be Spontaneous Generation which was disproved quite some time ago? Wasn't it proven that life only comes from other living things? This "Soup Theory" also claims that amino acids became concentrated in a primordial "Organic Soup" and then linked together to form proteins, the principle ingredients of living cells. Then, suppossedly, these proteins got together with DNA to form cells. I have done some reading on this and I've read that amino acids will not "link together" to form proteins. Living cells are the only places in nature where proteins are made because they contain the information to put amino acids in the write order for each individual protein, and have tiny machines that link them together. No proteins ever form outside of already living cells. I read this in a booklet by Thomas F. Heinze called "In the Beginning...Soup?", it's quite interesting. In conclusion, I believe that science can prove that there is a God, but if I am to choose the side of either faith or science, I choose faith over science because the Bible teaches us that without faith it is impossible to please God. Also, as one person who made a comment to one of the answers to this question stated: "if you need proof, then you lack faith." I don't need what skeptics may call "proof" to believe in God, I have faith in Jesus Christ and Him saving my soul is enough proof for me that He is real and that He is God. I hope that this helps. Thank you and God bless you!
  • Doubt it. It could prove Biblical events though.
  • No not really
  • I believe you've put your finger on the problem. If science could prove the existence of God, then THAT could not be GOD. Quite the conundrum.
  • The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." - "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED" - "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p. 50
  • Answer with a question: If god can create anything and everything, can god create something too heavy for god to lift?
  • I hadn't really thought about it til the 8th grade, but the basic idea of existence makes no sense to me unless there was some force that defied all laws of science (that created matter in the first place). If the universe started as nothing, not even blank space (as how could that exist without being created), then (in my mind) there must be some type of being who created it. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein Call it whatever you like: the Christian God, Hindu God, the Muslim God or something entirely different, everybody has their own ideas about how things got started and I don't know why there's such a fuss.
  • No I don't think it can. I don't even think it can explain regular things all that well in some cases.
  • This question has already been pretty thoroughly discussed here (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/16188).
  • A. Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder? ___ YES ___ NO B. Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter? ___ YES ___ NO C. Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker? ___ YES ___ NO Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and they randomly fell into 10 columns and 5 rows? The logical conclusion is that someone with an intelligent mind put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall by accident into a straight line are mind-boggling, let alone five rows of ten. man cannot make anything from nothing. We don't know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop . . . but we cannot create even one grain of sand from nothing. George Gallup, the famous statistician, said, "I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity." Not to scare you but what if there were a heaven and hell? Some mathmatician said that we dont know one millionth of one percent of anything. Wouldnt you say that there is some possibility you could be wrong about there being no God?
  • Science does not believe in the existence of God; thus, why would science (Or anyone else in the same boat for that matter) attempt to prove the existence of something they're absolutely sure doesn't exist?
  • Since God is an idea developed to explain those things that man does not have the ability to explain through sceince his existance as an actually being can not be proven. Trying to do that is like proving a charecter in a fictonal book was actually a real person when they never really existed at all. They were just an idea someone had in their head. And that's what faith is. It's believing in the existance of something that can't be proven except in one's own mind. In reality God will only exist so long as man needs him too. Once that time has passed sceince will be all that is left to believe in.
  • While I was getting my Bachelors degree in physics and my Doctorate in math, my physics teacher wanted us to tackle that exact same question ... the best that we could do was to co-author the now famous paper called, "The Fundamental Laws of Chaos Dynamics" ... in which we proved that there is no such thing as Chaos, only increasingly complex order ... the entire universe is highly ordered, and when we think something is random, it is NOT random, we just do not recognize the complex patterns ... we were able to use math and physics equations to prove this. ... based on our work on the neat order of chaos dynamics, others have developped fractals and random number generators and all sorts of encryption algorythms that use precise order to simulate chaos ... ... but we were unable to prove that this order exists because God made it that way, or maybe the universe is just one big ordered coincidence.
  • It can't.. No matter the proof. Whatever "is" proved will always be up to interpretation. Which is why the request of the atheist is highly illogical.
  • glenn i am a firm believer in that god does exist! theres no doubt bout that but im wondering if u could help me wit some questions.. 1) if god loves us so much how come he didnt protect the 6 million jews in the hollicost... 2) if god knows all how come he let the devil turn the a serpant and let adam take eat the apple? 3) before Jesus was sent to save us, was everyone else sent to hell? 4) God created equations in science...? because he created the people and gave them the knowlage to do so, essentally he created science then? or am i wrong?
  • glenn i am a firm believer in that god does exist! theres no doubt bout that but im wondering if u could help me wit some questions.. 1) if god loves us so much how come he didnt protect the 6 million jews in the hollicost... 2) if god knows all how come he let the devil turn the a serpant and let adam take eat the apple? 3) before Jesus was sent to save us, was everyone else sent to hell? 4) God created equations in science...? because he created the people and gave them the knowlage to do so, essentally he created science then? or am i wrong?
  • there are things that we cant understand at least for the time being, understanding is also based on the human imagination, hence if we cant imagine heaven which was described in my religon by the prophet Mohammed that no eyes have seen or ears have heared, which in the deep meaning means that it's beyond the human imagination, how ever butiful it is in your mind it's far more than that, if we couldnt understand that, could we unerstand the scientific proof to the existence of God?
  • Actually the existence of God has been proven mathematically. If your not up on the current info that is your problem.
  • Can't (yet) yo...
  • Precisely like this (though I don't know if there be other ways to prove it, but certainly this leaves answers begging left right & centre): PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS SIMPLE, YET ASTOUNDING, BREAKTHROUGH DISCOVERY WORLDWIDE! THANK YOU. EVOLUTION?? For myself, I do not just Believe ‘Biological Evolution of the Species’ NOT to be true, I have literally and uniquely PROVEN that it is NOT - Scientifically! There are 2 "animals" that specifically and comprehensively disprove evolutionary theory beyond all doubt: Snake & Man. ‘HOW??’ you may ask … or ‘WHY THEM??’ They are Precise opposites in everything - both behaviourally and anatomically!! As a Specialist Anatomist and Kinesiologist, I undertook a comparative study over nearly 10 years, firstly discovering, then proving, this great, yet simple, phenomenon. ‘WHY DO YOU SAY THEY ARE OPPOSITE??’ you may ask. You may also query, "Well, if they are precise opposites, Why do they both have backbones and breathe air, and have many other apparently similar internal organs?” In answering this, it needs to be both - recognized and acknowledged that "kinds" of organism [or species] cannot simply defy the Higher overall laws of nature itself, in order to, simply, accent differentiation of the species. That is the number 1 rule of comparative science. The very rule of life itself takes priority. What I am saying here is that because of their size, and land-dwelling nature, etc., they are, necessarily, Both vertebrate, and require some similarity in overall alimentary system, etc., simply to live efficiently and to satisfy the requirements of effective survival according to their overall land-dwelling nature. (Most specifically, I speak particularly of venomous ground snakes in this study.) There, after satisfying the fundamental laws of survival nature and of effective and satisfactory existence itself, their 'similarities' completely end! Thereafter, they are total opposites in everything – in terms of all possible differentiating factors among the beasts that exist. In fact, a very close examination will reveal that snakes cannot be more unlike other beasts, either, if they tried! For that matter, neither could Man be more different than everything else!! ... and that is, despite all the claims of genetics, etc., that various species [of ape, etc.] possess 99% similarity with the DNA of Man. Despite all this supposed similarity, there is nothing that really well compares to Man at all among the beasts that exist. Now this extraordinary discovery of total opposites tends to disprove random chance mutation – per evolutionary theory in defining the types of life that exist. It also confirms a deliberation in Creation – it tends to most powerfully support that there is a God in nature – determining the nature of matters and designing them for His own specific purposes. Similarly, it also powerfully supports the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, wherein it was the very serpent, itself, in fact, which was used by Satan to oppose God to Eve. As you may recall, as a result of this act by the serpent, God cursed all things – changing them – but none so greatly as the snake!! [See Holy Bible – Genesis, Chapter 3] Obviously, as this study shows, among all the changes that were made was the symbolic representation re the snake that epitomized this very act – its Opposition to Man and to God!! … all the more so when we consider, as well, that that same record declares that Man was created in the express image of God. [Genesis, Chapter 1] This recognition and acknowledgment makes the whole proposal of expressed symbolic opposition between Man and snake all the more significant, given the Biblical history. A Master Achievement re early Biblical Proofs … would you not think?? God, only, can be thanked for it, under His direction, guidance and revelation! ALL His acts and inspiration are Masterly – hence, His Great name: “The Master”. OBJECTION BY ANOTHER ANSWERER RE MY DISCOVERY: You don't appear to understand the math involved in evolution or genetics. We may have 99% similar DNA to a Chimpanzee, but we also have 80% similar DNA to a banana. MY RESPONSE: Well, really, I DO believe I understand the maths in genetics! As a mathematician myself, what you're saying is precisely what I am saying. The whole concept of opposites is purely mathematical. The claims by geneticists that we all (Man and Beast, more particularly) spring from the same evolutionary derivatives/tree/chain simply because our DNA's are so alike - especially, chimps and humans being so close is my particular point – is precisely why I say that that % DNA similarity does not make us similar or of the same background – especially when you consider the considerably close % of the banana, as well – at 80% simlarity. Despite the DNA similarity, the point is that this DNA similarity has to actually evidence properly in nature – Both, behaviourally and anatomically. Bananas?? I don’t think so! The similarity re DNA merely proves that ALL life has to have certain characteristics and similarity of feature simply in order to satisfactorily survive alive in nature – so that it exists and operates efficiently. After all, God is a God of law and order. Snakes and Man, therefore, share DNA similarities, so does the banana, but only so far as to make them live effectively within nature. There, the similarity totally ends! Specie-wise, Man and snake are precise Opposites – even among their similar survival features – lung/s, heart, mouth, alimentary canal, etc. – there is great opposition between the two. LET’S JUST SIT BACK AND ENJOY A BRIEF LIST RE OPPOSITION BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE FROM THE BOOK, “TWO BIRDS … ONE STONE!!” (Denis Towers) SNAKES VS MAN: Horizontal flat ambulation vs upright, vertical. Lies flat along the ground vs. stands erect Indented penis (lies pushed into the inside of the body when ‘flaccid’) vs external in Man Forked divergent tongue vs convergent [narrowing] While on the tongue: no apparent taste buds vs Yes…. Tongue: Much external time vs mostly within mouth Flattened head vs domed high skull No appendages vs greatest appendicular/axial skeletal ratio of all vertebrates In rest: human - supine, straight, or zig-zagged position vs coiled, etc In movement: snake – zig-zagged, random vs direct, deliberate Ears? Has none vs … External nose? Has none vs … Vocalization? Has none – is a ‘hiss & a byword’ vs… Eyes? Venomous groundsnakes: mainly monocular vs binocular Food & living practices? Nocturnal vs diurnal Hibernates & seasonal vs all year around performer… Dormant hidden lifestyle vs active [!], healthy[!] open Almost still sex copulation for hours vs acceleratory [in health & vitality] Eyes covered-hidden by own skin [that is, internal, weak] vs momentary eyelid, direct contact with external… Audio: internal & almost non-existent vs eternal entry – prime means of communication Smell: internal, powerful vs external [weak, by comparison with beasts, generally] Touch: thick scaly skin - insensitive vs great sensitivity… TASTE?? Apparently, non-existent vs opposite… Multi-coloured vs…uniformity Also tremendous variation in size [6” – 30’] vs…comparative uniformity [in health] Copulating penis? Hooked & downward pointing vs. upward & erect, etc. Only erectile structure/s [fangs] initiate death vs only erectile structure in Man initiates life 2 peni vs singular penis Mainly [deadly groundsnakes, that is] oviparous vs viviparous birth to young Consumption? All in 1 great gulp vs boundless chewing & into small pieces Head 1st consumption of victim vs. rarely eat heads Retractible, curved, sharp teeth, pulling long-ways vs fixed, non-curved, mostly molar teeth, which effect direct up & down crushing effect on food Food totally meat – eaten alive vs mainly ‘picked’ and cleaned fruit & veges, etc. meat is killed, prepared and cooked. (Note that even among other carnivorous beasts, most include some vegetation) And the hits just keep on coming between the opposition of Man & snake!! VESTIGIAL APPARATI: Some snakes have miniscule, Internal, unobservable pelvises. In typical opposition, a man’s (woman’s in particular) is more outwardly obvious, and forms part of the system of the leg. In similar opposite manner, snakes possess outwardly-displayed, tails; Man’s is vestigially ‘buried’ in nature: I almost quite forgot, MvL, thanks for your inadvertent extra point for my cause (He was actually trying to introduce a point for the opposition camp), concerning snakes being opposite Man: re the “Vestigial structures” you point out; I hadn’t thought of it previously. So, Very good ... very good for my cause: Yes; I must admit, I originally pointed out in my ‘work’ that in Opposition to snakes, humans have no tail - and certainly, in outwardly visual terms, this is so. However, I'm glad you highlighted these structures vestigially. You'll note, accordingly [that is, in terms of ‘Opposition between Man and snake’], that the vestigial structures of the snake - its pelvic - lie laterally across its body, whereas, in complete opposition, Man's – his vestigial tail bone – lies vertically, along his longitudinal plane. So, Good point, MvL ... Good inadvertent point for my cause! Further [Behavioural consideration re your observation now]: Man's vestigial apparatus here, assists his "REST" Mode in life – that is, sitting. Snake, in the true Opposition that he seems to epitomize across every feature, uses his vestigial apparati for active purposes – balance in movement and assistance in the sexual act. As most simply curl or coil up in rest, his miniscule pelvis is obviously, not needed for his rest periods! SO ONCE AGAIN, IN DECISIVE MANNER, THE SNAKE HAS PROVEN HIMSELF QUITE OPPOSITE MAN IN ALL THINGS! Good ol’ MvL, God bless him, then proposed that he could also prove that pigeons or dogs were also ‘opposite humans’. I responded in the following manner: You are right, MvL. One thing I learned from all my 9 year research into this matter is that animals are quite unlike humans - if not, opposite humans in so many aspects themselves! In like manner (re my hypothesis), however, snakes appear to be even more unlike anything else that exists on earth than even humans do!! ... including their [supposed] ‘nearest cousins’ (lizards), if you really study them very closely, that is. They are at considerable variation with one another. Whereas, if you made a comparative study of the oppositeness of feature between [say] a cow and a bird, or a snail and a dog, you would not access nearly as many opposites by comparison. Perhaps, somewhat surprising, but true nonetheless! For further clarification, you might try the Book, mentioned above. JUST A SPAT RE A FEW MORE OPPOSITES BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE: Ratio of Brain size to mouth: extremely low – only a fraction vs. most pronounced of all known creatures [a case of mind over matter, I believe] Sheds its ‘skin’ in 1 whole piece vs. in opposition, not so Snake sleeps with open eyes vs. shut-eye Arrangement of internal organs: Mostly in single file vs. paired Accordingly, lives mostly alone vs. in pairs/families Desserts its young even before birth [eggs] vs. constant nurture and parental nourishment Cold-blooded vs. warm… Head in dirt vs. head nearest the heavens, etc. Here, you have but a mini-list of the all-encompassing complete opposition: Man vs. snake! May God Bless You ALL PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS SIMPLE YET ASTOUNDING DISCOVERY WORLDWIDE! THANK YOU.
  • First of all DO NOT use Deductive reasoning. Use inductive reasoning, initially. From what is, determine what did not create it. Take Japan, I didn't make it, did you? Is there really a Japan? What proof is there? Is this a George Bush inspired hoax to defray tax dollars? My point being, use science to prove the most micro level and the most macro level. DON'T deal with the intermediaries that will throw you off. If you chose to look at the macro level, try stuart clark's book DEEP SPACE. It blew me away. If we don't have a powerful god, we better find one SOON!!!! Good luck
  • It could be said that science shows the way in which God works, and how he built the universe.
  • If science was not science, but instead some kind of stupid, pointless thing that means nothing.
  • There is a 10 x 10 matrix, which I have named THE UNIVERSAL MATHEMATICAL MATRIX: The Primum Mobile. Pythagoras, Moses, Dante Alighieri and others knew of this matrix. THE UNIVERSAL MATHEMATICAL MATRIX can be GOOGLED. This matrix constellates on its own. It is not an invention of man. The scribes of antiquity used it to write the sacred scriptures of the world. There are many geometrical patterns in this matrix and they have been coded to the literature of antiquity. This matrix is a missive from the transcendent and the foundation of all creation: thus the existence of God is estabished scientifically. This matrix is a manifestation of the MONAD.
  • As Blaylock admits, there is no way to prove the existence of god(s). God, by definition, is "supernatural," outside the realm of human perception. This places God alongside leprechauns, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Puff the Magic Dragon. They all 'exist' (in your mind) if you BELIEVE they exist. . Science is knowledge. Religion is merely belief. You can believe anything you like. . ● "God is as real as I am," the old man said. My faith was restored, for I knew that Santa would never lie. . ● "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." ~Philip K. Dick . ● If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
  • since i've read none of the other answers, this one may already have been mentioned. if so, i am apologizing in advance for the redundancy. but then duplicate answers could mean we were on to something more significant than spouting arrogant bullshit: since scientific proof requires an observer, and by most religions' definition of god (he) is inclusive of everything that exists, it seems unlikely that the scientific method could ever be used to prove that there is god. i mean, if god really is (ALL), then there is nothing outside of god to observe his existence. and just like a scientist who works alone and claims he can prove anything that hasn't already been proved by others, (without detailing his methodology for others to observe), is unlikely to be believed, god can't prove his own existence outside of his...well, existence. i think you get where i'm coming from... and then there's the idea that science has no use for "faith without proof", while religion is built on "faith without proof". could destroying its opposite (as in science destroying religion by proving god's existence) really make something more meaningful? or would it just make both ideas meaningless? i'm just saying that both science and religion both gain their significance (or existence) by virtue of each others existence. i think sometimes we must be careful what we wish for, because we may just get it.
  • it wudnt-full stop. science cant prove that god exsists, thats our job as people of him.
  • >> How would science prove the existence of God? The same way that scientists would prove the existence of Superman, The Hulk, or Godzilla. They would gather all the evidence they could find, analyze it, and publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal. In general, scientists don't deal with supernatural phenomena or imaginary creatures. (Imaginary means something for which no evidence is available.) For example, a legitimate doctor doesn't examine a sick patient for the presence of evil demons. However, a Christian might perform an "exorcism." If you find brightly colored eggs around the house on Easter Sunday, you probably won't get a scientist interested in proving or disproving the existence of the Easter Bunny. However, Christians believe that a man who had been dead 3 days came back to life on this day, and levitated into the sky. If you find gift-wrapped boxes under your Xmas tree on Dec. 25, you probably won't get a scientist interested in proving or disproving the existence of Santa Claus. However, you can find thousands of pious believers who claim a baby born on this day saved us all from sin-- although you won't find two people who agree on what a "sin" is. :) Some high school students who were partying in the woods saw smoke coming out of a cave and they thought they had proved the existence of Puff the Magic Dragon. On closer inspection, however, it turned out to be some lost hikers warming themselves at a campfire. But don't let reality dampen your spirits. Lots of people spend their lives trying to prove the existence of god(s). Just keep looking for evidence. :)
  • Organize a wrestling match between a Bishop and an atheist. Two falls, two submissions or a knockout would decide, infallible.
  • If scientific technology is accepted by all people because they can physically see and understand the evidence, then science can prove that God exists. Using scientific technology I can prove that God exists! This is no idle claim, this is fact; challenge me and fall.
  • You have to think "beyond the beyond" here. Maybe in a few hundred, thousand, or millions of years (or maybe even never), when we evolve sufficiently enough to develop the biologocial equipment, starts to be able to resonate with the multiverse that is kind of being proven today, AND
  • Sorry, I hit the back arrow accidently. AND we become worthy of communicating with the creative force of the Universe, will we even have a slight chance. I do however, strongly believe that religion is nonsense and has absolutely nothing to do with so-called God. Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, Hunduism, all just junk that has separated humanity from each other since the very first time anyone postulated the existence of "god", or "his son", or his "prophet". All garbage, all just ancient refuse that hurts people. I've developed a new saying, and it goes like this: If you want to imagine what it feels like to be in Gods presence, then feel Love. Because Love is all you need. If you want to imagine God thinks about when creating things, study quantum physics, mathematics, science, and anything else scientific. There is also the possibility that it's all nonsense and that we're here for nothing else than the reason that we're lucky to exist, and that's it. And that's what I truly feel, and believe.
  • No.But the more science understands about our world,the less power god has.
  • Not at the momoent but as the Time magazine article and several others have stated, More and more scientists are leaning towards intelligent design as the only logical explanation for the universe.
  • No, because the symbol "God" has no rigorous definition. As far as science is concerned that symbol is either without referent, or has too many referents- either way it's useless for constructing hypotheses or for any sort of clear thinking on the subject.
  • No, but at the same time, I don't think it can DISprove the existence of God. Hope that makes sense...I mean, you can never prove that something does not exist.
  • First you have to define: Which one? http://www.godchecker.com/ Then you'd have to formulate a way to detect the God. How would you do that? Highly unlikely. http://godisimaginary.com/
  • Only if Christianity is correct and not another religion.
  • That would be God's choice. He/she/it/they could, if they exist, perfectly well choose to demonstrate their presence in a way that science could prove. The fact that science has not done so show that either God does not exist, or God has chosen not to be discoverable.
  • It is possible depending on a couple conditions. - First off, assuming god exists. If there is no god, one cannot be proven. - Secondly, it is dependent upon the qualities of that god. For instance, if we are talking about a personal god (like the Christian god) who is involved with the goings on here on earth, it would be (hypothetically) possible to detect when god changes something in the world. Perhaps it is not possible with today's technology, but it is hypotheticaly possible.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy