Post proof a god exists.

Right.
All we have is the Science which says, a "Creator" must have existed in order to observe the wave functions collapse during the Big Bang.
We merely have evidence for the Creator as stated in Gen 1:1.

 

We now have Scientific EVIDENCE for the collapse of the Wave Function.
Get caught up on this recent work

The Wave Function gets real
http://www.newscientist.com/article...-real-in-quantum-experiment.html#.VNJXsNX3-iy

 

Repeat after me: The bible isn't evidence the bible isn't evidence the bible isn't evidence....


I just created lunch, somebody writes that down in a book , so now I am god...is that how it works?

Yeast creates bread, is it a god?

 

No, science DOES NOT SAY THIS. Your FALSE interpretation of the Copenhagan Interpretation says this.

 

Yeast does not create bread. Yeast is only a leavening agent/ingredient which causes the bread mixture to become filled with pockets of gas which causes the bread mixture to 'rise' during the baking process. Unleavened bread (bread without yeast) was a staple in the Jewish community.

 

I know you're looking for scientific proof, however, I think people have experienced something tangible that seems to go beyond coincidental. The experience they have is an emotional, physical and psychological renewable that is beyond explanation and I suppose happens with an open heart and open mind towards a Godly force. I can't conceive true followers of religion continuing without real experiences that keep them engaged and loyal. I don't think they probably care about physical proof of something that they are blissfully experiencing emotionally, mentally, physically and psychologically that's coming from within as a consequence of their "spiritual" experience. I suppose at the end of the day, science cannot explain the spiritual. I could be wrong.

 

Here is the proof:

Why is a muffin round?

Ken

 

Well, sure science can't explain the purely spiritual, science only deals with the material Universe. However, you're claiming that the spiritual universe and material Universe are somehow combining and interacting, and we SHOULD be able to observe this in a controlled setting. But we haven't. All we have are hearsay stories that are often times contradictory. Let me pose another solution to you: the spiritual world doesn't exist and people are believing what they want to believe in because it gives them some sort of tangible satisfaction in their lives.

 

At the highlighted text above: Then science has failed in its attempts to do what PEOPLE can do.

 

So you claim without any proof.

 

"and we SHOULD be able to observe this in a controlled setting. But we haven't."

Well, I believe that should be PROOF enough.

 

OK...from Cupid Dave's link...



Wave function gets real in quantum experiment
16:00 02 February 2015 by Michael Slezak
For similar stories, visit the Quantum World Topic Guide
It underpins the whole theory of quantum mechanics, but does it exist? For nearly a century physicists have argued about whether the wave function is a real part of the world or just a mathematical tool. Now, the first experiment in years to draw a line in the quantum sand suggests we should take it seriously.

The wave function helps predict the results of quantum experiments with incredible accuracy. But it describes a world where particles have fuzzy properties – for example, existing in two places at the same time. Erwin Schrödinger argued in 1935 that treating the wave function as a real thing leads to the perplexing situation where a cat in a box can be both dead and alive, until someone opens the box and observes it.

Those who want an objective description of the world – one that doesn't depend on how you're looking at it – have two options. They can accept that the wave function is real and that the cat is both dead and alive. Or they can argue that the wave function is just a mathematical tool, which represents our lack of knowledge about the status of the poor cat, sometimes called the "epistemic interpretation". This was the interpretation favoured by Albert Einstein, who allegedly asked, "Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it?"

The trouble is, very few experiments have been performed that can rule versions of quantum mechanics in or out. Previous work that claimed to propose a way to test whether the wave function is real made a splash in the physics community, but turned out to be based on improper assumptions, and no one ever ran the experiment.

What a state
Now, Eric Cavalcanti at the University of Sydney and Alessandro Fedrizzi at the University of Queensland, both in Australia, and their colleagues have made a measurement of the reality of the quantum wave function. Their results rule out a large class of interpretations of quantum mechanics and suggest that if there is any objective description of the world, the famous wave function is part of it: Schrödinger's cat actually is both dead and alive.

"In my opinion, this is the first experiment to place significant bounds on the viability of an epistemic interpretation of the quantum state," says Matthew Leifer at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada.

The experiment relies on the quantum properties of something that could be in one of two states, as long as the states are not complete opposites of each other: like a photon that is polarised vertically or on a diagonal, but not horizontally. If the wave function is real, then a single experiment should not be able to determine its polarisation – it can have both until you take more measurements.

Alternatively, if the wave function is not real, then there is no fuzziness and the photon is in a single polarisation state all along. The researchers published a mathematical proof last year showing that, in this case, each measurement you make reveals some information about the polarisation.

Get real
In a complicated setup that involved pairs of photons and hundreds of very accurate measurements, the team showed that the wave function must be real: not enough information could be gained about the polarisation of the photons to imply they were in particular states before measurement.

There are a few ways to save the epistemic view, the team says, but they invite other exotic interpretations. Killing the wave function could mean leaving open the door to many interacting worlds and retrocausality – the idea that things that happen in the future can influence the past.

The results leave some wiggle room, though, because they didn't completely rule out the possibility of some underlying non-fuzzy reality. There may still be a way to distinguish quantum states from each other that their experiment didn't capture. But Howard Wiseman from Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, says that shouldn't weaken the results. "It's saying there's definitely some reality to the wave function," he says. "You have to admit that to some extent there's some reality to the wave function, so if you've gone that far, why don't you just go the whole way?"

Check out this part.......

Now, Eric Cavalcanti at the University of Sydney and Alessandro Fedrizzi at the University of Queensland, both in Australia, and their colleagues have made a measurement of the reality of the quantum wave function. Their results rule out a large class of interpretations of quantum mechanics and suggest that if there is any objective description of the world, the famous wave function is part of it: Schrödinger's CAT ACTUALLY IS BOTH DEAD AND ALIVE.

Again.......

Schrödinger's CAT ACTUALLY IS BOTH DEAD AND ALIVE.

Now Dave....do you understand what this means???

It means that THE CAT AND THE MATTER, ENERGY AND QUANTUM PARTICLE/WAVE FORMS COMPRISING THE PHYSICAL BODY OF THE CAT......

...............EXIST BEFORE....BEFORE....BEFORE.....BEFORE!!!!!!! OBSERVATION OCCURS!!!!

Not only do the Quanta exist BEFORE Observation occurs but even MORE.....THE QUANTA COMPRISING EVERY VERSION OF THE CAT EXISTING IN ALL INFINITE IN NUMBER ALTERNATE DIVERGENT STATES OF REALITY WITHIN A MULTIVERSAL SYSTEM......ALL QUANTA COMPRISING EVERY POSSIBLE ALTERNATE DIVERGENT VERSION OF THAT CAT EXIST AS WELL!!!!

BEFORE SUCH QUANTA IS OBSERVED!!!!

This is what I have been trying to eplain to you over and over again and I hope you understand me now.

Quantum Particle/Wave Forms DO NOT NEED OBSERVATION TO EXIST!!!!

The ONLY thing that OBSERVATION does is LOCK IN VALUE AND FUNCTION of such Quanta.

This is what the Cat in the Box is not only in a state of being both ALIVE and DEAD....until it is OBSERVED....but it is also in EVERY POSSIBLE STATE THAT CAN OR COULD EXIST LIVING OR DEAD!!!!

UNTIL OBSERVED!!!

But OBSERVATION IS NOT NECESSARY FOR QUANTA TO EXIST!!!

Observation is and was not necessary for the BIG BANG TO OCCUR!!!

Observation is not necesary for Quantum Particle/Wave Forms to arrange themselves into Hydrogen!!

Observation is not necessary for Hydrogen Gas...or H2....to be in such an etreme state of GRAVITIC COMPRESSION THAT HYDROGEN FUSES INTO HELIUM AND THUS A STAR IS BORN!!! LOL!!!

OBSERVATION IS NOT NECESSARY for the collected via Gravity Gas and Material that was once spread out throughout our Solar System orbiting our newly born star or sun TO GATHER VIA GRAVITY AND BECOME THE EARTH AND ALL OTHER PLANETS!!!

Observation was not necessary for the reminents of ungathered via Gravity left over Hydrogen and Oxygen and other Elements which after undergoing a Chemical Reaction and the deep cold of space created the ORT CLOUD AND THE BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS OF COMETS that a great number would eventually crash into and impact the Earth, Mars and all other planets in the Solar System which resulted in the creation of MASSIVE OCEANS UPON EARTH AND MARS!!!

Observation was not necessary when a Mars Sized Planet crossed into Earth's Solar Orbital Path and SLAMMED INTO THE PLANET EARTH!!!

And Observation was not necessary when that impact of a Mars sized Planet upon Earth would increase the mass of Earth by about a 1/5th as well cause so much at one time material of the Earth to fly off and away into space to settle into EARTH ORBIT around the Earth at around 360,000 Miles away and come together via Gravity to create something that Billions of years later would be called....THE MOON!!!!

And Observation was not necessary for this massive planetary collision and Earth's subsequent absorption of it's mass that SUPERHEATED THE SPINNING INTERNAL LIQUID METAL CORE of the Earth of which it's spin generates EARTH'S PROTECTIVE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD!!

And Observation was not necessary for Earth's MUCH HOTTER THAN MARS' DUE TO THE COLLISION Internal Spinning Liquid Metal Core to still to this day BILLIONS OF YEARS LATER....STILL be Spinning because it's still hot and this is unlike Mars' which has STOPPED SPINNING because it's Inner Core has cooled down to the point it is no longer a Liquid Molten Metal....THUS NO SPIN....NO GENERATION OF A PROTECTIVE ELECTROMAGNET FIELD!!!

And Observation was not necessary when all of Mars' Ocean Water was bombarded by Cosmic and Solar Radiation that at that time and still is DIRECTLY IRRADIATING THE SURFACE OF MARS....because Mars no longer has a Hot Molten Liquid Metal Spinning Internal Core generating a Protective EM Field......BECAUSE....unlike Earth...Mars was not impacted by another Planet.

AND....and.....and.....

Well I hope you get the point.

That point being....

OBSERVATION....is NOT.....necessary for THE EXISTENCE OF QUANTUM PARTICLE/WAVE FORMS.

When they are OBSERVED....this forces them to ONLY EXIST....within ONE of an infinite in number....Divergent Universal States of Reality.

ONLY ONE!!!

But PRIOR to OBSERVATION...the Quanta EISTS IN ALL INFINITE IN NUMBER DIVERGENT UNIVERSAL STATES OF REALITY.

I really HOPE you understand this now.

AboveAlpha

 

This Topic was created because on a number of other Topics there was a number of members claiming that Scientific Evidence EXISTED that could PROVE a GOD existed.

So after hearing such claims one time too many....I created this Topic to allow those members making such claims to POST their supposed SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

No one has provided even the tiniest bit of scientific evidence that a GOD exists but of course I and everyone else knew this going in.

Personally I could care less what another person believes in as long as such beliefs are not harmful to people and are NOT forced upon me or anyone else.

If a person want's to believe in a GOD...or 10 GODS....or the proverbial FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER....I could care less and I could also care less about trying to convince them otherwise...as that is their belief and they have a right...at least in the United States...to believe whatever they want.

But as I stated....a number of members here kept posting again and again they had SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that would PROVE the existence of a GOD.

So far...nothing...nada....nyet...nunca....neba....nottafreakinthing!!! LOL!!!

Nor will there ever be.

AboveAlpha

 

Gee AA what is all the internet screaming about. I might be wrong, but I believe that most everyone on this forum can read the standard size text without the need of your gross amount of amplification of graphics. Just my opinion.

 

I was taking about the claim you made that human beings can somehow do what science cannot do. I'm assuming your meaning, correct me if I'm wrong, is that humans can detect God. But science is simply a method for garnering knowledge through observations that humans use.

Also, I'll get to your other post later on, hard to respond to longer posts on a phone. Hold tight!

 

Though your assumption is correct this time, I have seen where many of your assumptions are not in the least bit reliable.

 

And how are those other times relevant? Now, why don't you come back to my point about science. You claimed that people can do something that science cannot do, right? Let me ask you how that is possible, considering that science is a simply method used by people to verify observations that they've made?

 

Yes! I made that claim. In answering your second question, I must also ask you a question. Why is external verification being required for a spiritual experience? In answering that question you will be required to admit that you are attempting to force a person to cause the spiritual to become material. Observations are not limited to the physical realm. In fact all observations are made via the subjectivity of mind. Even though physical things are detected with physical sensors (such as the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and touch) they are all processed through the subjectivity of mind. Does your mind exist?

 

Who said it was required?

I'm not forcing anything on anybody. I'm asking you how people can detect spiritual entities, or whatever you claim they can detect, but "science" can't. Considering that science is literally just human observation in controlled settings by PEOPLE.

But of course you also make numerous claims without providing any proof for them. Which, again, hypocrisy.

 

You are. By asking or demanding a response, you are requiring it for the purpose you have for being engaged in this discussion.

That is an understatement... because you cannot force anything on anybody.

You and everyone else do it everyday, but you prefer to ignore it and when confronted about it, you deny it ever happened. Voices in the head..... Does that ring a bell? Psychologists and Psychiatrists like to place differing labels on the same event, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.

There you go making a claim without any PROOF. Calling me a hypocrite without any PROOF. What does hypocrisy? Provide the definition of 'hypocrisy': Never mind, I will provide it for you.
"hy·poc·ri·sy
(hĭ-pŏk′rĭ-s&#275n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies 1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

2. An act or instance of such falseness."



Can you show proof of my beliefs, feelings, or virtues? Or a lack thereof?

 

No worries, now understand the gist of your thread. Faith based on personal experience should remain the basis for people's beliefs in any instance one would think. Looking for physical evidence tends to fly in the face of believers basic theological foundation, especially in the instance of Christianity. The relationship between followers and God should fundamentally be a spiritual one, which I suppose has physical outcomes. Anyway, I certainly do not have scientific evidence, but wouldn't discount evidence of sorts in the future, if at all there is a God. If mans knowledge advances to this extent, you would have to think the end would be near.

 

Yes...Faith.

Faith is all about believing in something when there is no indication....no evidence...and no proof to back your belief.

And THAT is why no one should be throwing around the idea that there exists some SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that a GOD exists because no such evidence exists.

Those who are religious should leave the SCIENCE to the SCIENTISTS and NOT attempt to include issues of FAITH into SCIENTIFIC REALITY.

AboveAlpha

 

Those who are scientific minded should leave Religion to the Theists and NOT attempt to include issues of belief in assumptions (pertaining to objective reality) into spiritual reality.

 

i don't got a proof neither do i believe in god, but i have a line of thought that suggest to me that god seems to be a decent possibility.

if we believe in the law of causality (important concept to science especially, i think most people believe in it) and if we also believe that nothing existed forever/ something who's existence had no beginning (i think that is an accepted view, not certain tho i admit); if we believe those things to be true and think about the creation of the universe we come to an event that must have happened that has a "supernatural" cause, because if at some point there is nothing and then there is something an event must have happened that had a certain cause (if law of causality is correct), but there WAS nothing that cud have caused this event.
so imo we either have to believe that:
i) there is something that existed forever, the law of causality can be true and we need no "god" for explanation;
ii) the law of causality is not 100% correct, meaning there has been at least one event that had no cause, we don't need god for explanation and we also do not need to believe that something existed forever;
iii) or we cud believe that nothing existed forever, that the law of causality is true and that something "supernatural" or god helped in creating the universe.

so it seems to me that a) the notion that nothing existed forever and b) the law of causality can't be both true without c) god, i admit that there might be other scenarios where the former two might be true at the same time without "god" being needed, but i find it quite hard to think of any and they seem at least intuitively even more unlikely; one that comes to mind cud be that the effect-cause relationship and/or time are circular.

so my conclusion is that either something has existed forever, or the law of causality is not 100% true, or that god exists (, or something at least seemingly very unlikely like my example)
i personally cudnt say what of these three i want to believe in, not saying god wud be my favorite option, but i think its a decent possibility.

i wud appreciate a take on this, feel free to correct me on this dilemma.

ps: i know one cud ask: but where does god come from? but i don't think its an issue, its only relevant if we suppose that something supernatural/god exists, and if we wud believe that why wud we expect to understand or know how supernatural entities work or what laws apply to them? (at least right after establishing the existence of such an entity it wudnt seem reasonable to expect that understanding i think)

 

Well said!

Have you ever ran into the idea of a being or Being or beings composed of a more fundamental energy planning and engineering an infinite number of Big Bang type events previous to that major Big Bang of 13.72 or so billion years ago?

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation04.html#a05