scientific evidence of God

That statement makes no sense whatsoever. No-one in this conversation has been speaking about "Dave". Stay on topic.

 

I already told you that Facts do this for us.

You seem unable to accept that (1) Reality is described by the (2) Facts from experiments which are then used to form a picture of the (3) Truth.

Facts from experiments are seen as True because everyone see them, and they reveal a Reality.

 

"fact: something believed to be true or real.

You seem unable to accept that "fact" is something believed to be true or real. Believing does not have a dependence upon experimentation. Learn the facts about words.

Not everyone "see them". Many experiments conducted within the arena of science have not been seen by "everyone". You see, using absolutes gets you into a log jam... In short I can honestly say that you are stretching the imagination a tad [potentially a little prevarication] when you reference "everyone".

 

By WHO'S definition????

You might define a GOD this way but there are many other's who think that a GOD is some old guy waiting for you on a cloud.

AboveAlpha

 

This I might agree with if, I had no knowledge of CupieDave's past posting. He is simply trying to equivocate to shoe horn in his deity.

 

Regarding the OP and various responding posts, some ideas have merit and some do not.

1. God is not hidden. Difficulty in seeing what’s in murky waters is not due to the degree of evasiveness therein. That which is created does not necessarily contain the creator, but we can sort out valid clues to his doings. As already mentioned, the transcendent being is outside of our reality (or at least extends beyond it). Obviously, there must be other realities beyond ours. The big picture includes more than our physical reality.

2. Evidence for the supernatural does not amount to zero evidence. Traditional scientific evidence is lacking for several reasons. Paranormal/Psi phenomena are part of a larger reality in which ours is but a subset. Attempting to grasp the nature of the larger reality entirely in terms of the smaller one does not work very well.

Ordinary scientific scrutiny rigorously applied to Psi phenomena comes up befuddled because of focus restricted to physical reality and the insistence that our objective reality is the only reality. Moreover, the lack of demonstrable repeatability is due to the higher consciousness restricting incidents to high uncertainty and elusiveness; otherwise the shock and disruption in the present form of our physical learning environment would be too severe. High-tech rocket science is not taught in kindergarten.

Other investigative methodologies have been developed and applied scientifically with apparent success. Some parts of the mainstream scientific establishment have started to catch on. It’s long overdue in view of the impact that the double slit experiment should have had many decades ago. Slow to wake up, aren’t we?

3. The brandishing of the entropy theme can be viewed as authoritative dogmatic bullying. Prestigious engineering statements make it sound so convincing, but again it’s nothing but preoccupation with the little picture.

The supposedly inescapable rundown to high entropy applies only to inanimate things. Life keeps finding ways to evolve towards ever-increasing complexity, diversity, energy, and quality consciousness, in other words, low entropy, something that probably shouldn’t be written off as just a left wall numerical anomaly.

The latter is just another denial mechanism in the establishment’s myopial mindset. We can hardly afford to proclaim that the universe is full of mostly dead matter when we have such a hard time detecting the major portions of it.

Our universe is expanding and growing. Contrary to what scientists are able to grasp, it was probably not dropped, abandoned, and left here to fizzle out. It is probably as much alive as other universes out there that are also part of the same colossal organism.

Are we part of an endless succession, another crop of cosmic undergraduates, or are we just another of the creator’s self-sacrificial recycling into the bottomless pit of evil and drama, eventually coming out smelling like a rose, all for the sake of entropy reversal to keep the system from winding down? These questions seem as important as what was happening in the first tiny fractions of a second into the big bang. Anyway, the creator is in a different time frame than ours; his is much faster. He is pushing his progenies thru cosmic kindergartens faster than we turn out M&Ms from a candy plant.

 

I don't think that is even remotely 'obvious'.

Assuming this 'larger reality' is indeed real at all, how would we find reliable evidence of it that did NOT involve this 'smaller' reality in some way?

Its "due to the higher consciousness restricting incidents to high uncertainty and elusiveness"? That doesn't really make grammatical sense. Can you explain what you just said?

OK, I'll bite. What are these other investigative methodologies you speak of? What successes have they had that are relevant to the supernatural?

An increase in localised complexity does not contradict the idea of cosmic entropy, and neither is it limited to living things. Snowflakes, crystals, and the like - they are more complex than the matter that went into making them.

 

If it's outside our reality, then it is obvious. It won't be obvious if the scope of consideration is totally confined to this objective reality.

To that extent one would have to leave this reality and return with the data. Is it possible and subject to verification by acceptable scientific process? Those who have done so say the subjective yields to their controlled efforts.

Our reality is a virtual reality setup with various constraints. Otherwise the paranormal could run rampant and wreak havoc on the learning process. One must become proficient and stable in the physical world before admission into the realm where consciousness is allowed more freedom and power as warranted by its level of development.

Since I am far from being finished with the works of Tom Campbell, I can hardly give definitive details on the actual track records. You should dig into it too.

I'm not an ace on the ramifications involving entropy, but life and evolution perpetuate a reduction of entropy, whereas the inanimate substances in the cosmos do not. The fractals, etc., indicate that some organizational tendencies are inherent even where randomness is extreme, but only life has access to the potentials of consciousness.

Cosmic entropy is perceived as an absolute, but it is just an artifact calculated on the basis of the physical reality. Not to worry: the Omegapoint Superbeing has entropy under control.

 

No, I don't agree that anything outside of this reality could be called 'obvious' with a straight face.

"the subjective yields to their controlled efforts"? Again, you're not making yourself very clear. What does that even mean?

I see. And how does one measure 'proficiency in physical reality'?

Thanks for bringing him to my attention. I did a bit of light reading but unfortunately most of it talks about his book and I dont know the precise details of what he says there. It seems though, that he says a lot of stuff about consciousness and subjectivism and entropy that makes a lot of sense, but then jumps into 'entropy is love' and talking about god. Without paying money for the book it's hard to critique exactly how he makes that connection but it seems highly suspect to me and I'm not shelling out cash for something that I expect will be complete bunk for the latter half. If you can tell me more then I'm interested.

Cosmic entropy is perceived as an absolute, but it is just an artifact calculated on the basis of the physical reality. Not to worry: the Omegapoint Superbeing has entropy under control.[/QUOTE]

Life and evolution reduce localised entropy, thanks to an input of energy and/or matter from elsewhere. I will happily concede that our understanding of entropy may be flawed, but on all the evidence examined so far it stands up to scrutiny perfectly well. That's all we need it to do at the moment. As soon as there is good evidence of the supernatural, I'm sure science as a whole will study it quite gladly.

 

OK....although I appreciate your attempt to present a logic based post to furnish possible evidence to support your ideology.....in the end....AND I READ YOUR ENTIRE POST THOROUGHLY...in the end all you have done is provided completely illogical and theist based concepts in your attempt to at the very least make it seem as an argument could be made to question the criteria, standards and even directly question the SCIENTIFIC METHOD as somehow being TOO INADEQUATE to be used to take on a question of this magnitude...that question being....DOES AND EVIDENCE OR PROOF EXIST TO PROVE A GOD EXISTS.

I think you seem to have ignored the reality that I myself a person who stands fast to the tenets of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD as this method IS NOT BIASED....IS NOT BIGOTED....and will work no matter what question is being asked as the SCIENTIFIC METHOD simply uses OBSERVATION, EXPERIMENTATION, ACCUMULATION OF ALL DATA....and NEVER EVER makes a determination that something is a FACT as the SCIENTIFIC METHOD takes into account that unless a SYSTEM OF PROOF exists....such as in Mathematics when in addition a person might state 6 + 7 = 13....the answer is not determined to be a FACT until the SYSTEM OF PROOF in this case being SUBTRACTION as 13 - 7 = 6....DEFINITIVELY PROVIDES PROOF that 6 + 7 = 13 is a FACT.

Thus if the question is does a GOD exist....specific parameters of just what is being defined as a GOD.

In this case and topic a GOD is being defined as the creator of the Universe or Multiverse and all life and matter and energy within it....as well as this GOD has complete control of all actions and reactions in this Universe or Multiverse as well as not being limited by LINEAR TIME thus creating, controlling and planing all actions and reactions in past, present or future.

Under those parameters of what a GOD is in this question....there has not as yet been a single solitary piece of evidence never mind a presentation of PROOF to support such a GOD existing.

At the same time there does not exist any PROOF that such a GOD does not exist however there does exist PROBABILITY.

In calculating degrees and percentages of Higher and Lower PROBABILITY in this question calculations of PROBABILITY must be based upon any VIABLE evidence existing that would support such a GOD existing and one would first have to look at UNIVERSAL NATURAL PHYSICAL LAWS....and compare it to determine if such a GOD could exist or if such a GOD'S existence would be in some way consistent with such Natural Universal Laws.

Looking at this we find that the Natural Physical Laws of the Universe do NOT support the existence of such a GOD...but they do not rule it out entirely if such a GOD existed within a MULTIVERSAL SYSTEM as improbable as that might be but it is not 100% ruled out.

Then we would have to look at all existing RELIGIOUS TEXT existing in the world that would support such a GOD existing but even though such Religious Text such as the Bible, Koran and Torah might detail out such a GOD existing the method and history of such Religious Text has been proven to be EXCEPTIONALLY FLAWED and so contradictory that such Religious Text can not be used as evidence.

Then we would have to investigate any living EYE WITNESS OR WITNESSES TESTIMONY...but since such Testimony whether it is fact or not could be attributed to any number of Highly Intelligent Alien Life Forms or Entities....it means such testimony could NEVER be known for certain what level of a GOD or ENTITY that may or may not have given such people these experiences...thus this must be ruled OUT.

Thus the only thing left is POSSIBLE EVIDENCE....of POSSIBLE EXISTENCE...based upon such a GOD existing within a MULTIVERSAL SYSTEM.

At this point we can calculate an EXCEPTIONALLY EXTREME LOW PROBABILITY that such a GOD exists.

And we can calculate an EXCEPTIONAL EXTREMELY HIGH PROBABILITY....basically 99.9^896% that such a GOD as specifically defined by the parameters set forth and determined NOT EXISTING.

THAT...is the reality.

So thus although a tiny in the extreme probability exists that allows a POSSIBILITY that such a GOD exists.....the incredibly high level of probability existing that such a GOD does NOT EXIST....is so extreme that one can all but rule out such a GOD as defined by our parameters existing.

HOWEVER....that does NOT mean a LOWER CAPABILITY GOD....with less exceptional capabilities defined...might not exist.

It might be entirely possible that Highly Intelligent Alien Life Forms might have visited the Earth and in an attempt to guide the Human Race helped us to set down some basic laws that would allow us to become less primitive.

Such Alien Beings would have without a doubt been considered as GODS or a GOD and when we analyze such things as ancient cave paintings and Chilean and North American Rock carvings that depict what appears to be Alien Beings and Flying Craft....this does lend evidence to such a thing happening.

AboveAlpha

 

Alas, what follows is a laundry list of assertions which are quite meaningless outside of an arbitrary and imaginary context. But it's nonetheless instructive that gods require such a context.

 

There is only one Reality which we confirm by using Truth to describe it.

This the basis for Trinity.

 

You only differ with me when I say,...

"Truth is the son and image of Reality,"... and shows that sexual promiscuity leads to Child abuse.

 

After awhile I get tired of some members attempting to make excuses that the reason that the Scientific Method has not shown any viable evidence or proof to support the existence of a GOD is because such a GOD is beyond the reach of such a method.

BULL S#!%!

The reality is that anything that could effect matter and energy within this Universe will have a tangiblle and measurable effect even if the cause cannot be determined.

Because of this it allows the Scientific Method to be used.

Some Religious Members argument is akin to..."See that ball sitting on the table? GOD is right now effecting that ball!!"

My response is..."How could you possibly know that never mind prove it? The ball is not moving...and when it does every time it moves we know exactly what is causing it to move."

Their answer..."Because GOD works in mysterious ways!"

My reply..."WHAT WAYS!!? Show me one single example of something happening that cannot be explained."

Their answer..."The work of GOD cannot be understood by Man!"

My reply..."WHAT WORK!!!???"

AboveAlpha

 

That sure seems to be a self defeating claim.

cause = anything that could effect matter and energy

So, if the cause cannot be determined, then how can the cause have a "tangiblle and measurable effect"? Read your statement again.

 

people believe in God for no other reason than they want to.

Take your ball on the table, for instance. You don't believe that some magical force made it stay there, you understand the theory of motion, "an object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force"-Einstein

You don't want there to be anything else. There is no reason for it in your mind. That is perfectly fine. I don't understand why religious peoplewant to get in your business about that. But that goes both ways. I personally believe in God. I don't believe I have to explain it.

 

I'm not sure that's true in all cases. Often in my life I have really wanted to believe in God. Things would be better if God were real - well, at least, the feel-good modern day version, not the actual God in the bible. But I just could never bring myself to believe in any god - it's just too fantastic. Like they say, "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is".

 

You obviously didn't want to bad enough.

Than you obviously never really wanted to.

 

Save it. So predictable.

 

Cuz it's true.

 

Yes, yes, so the script goes, every single time the same song. I'm not sure how I could have "wanted it more", of course, unless I abandoned critical thought entirely. And tell me, how much do you think is "enough"?

 

There is always the possibility that you simply might be a glutton for punishment.

 

as much as it takes.

 

Cambell claims that his investigations along with those of numerous collaborators have been conducted using proper scientific methods.

I would suggest an assessment of attributes ranging from survivability and quality of life for individuals and groups, altruism, and beyond to, say, Michio Kaku’s type 3 civilization.

The fact that entropy reversal is functional in a localized way is significant. It may be more encompassing in other realties that are subjective relative to ours.

The creator is said to have divided his substance into myriad forms to facilitate dualities, interactions, and exploration of all possibilities for productive enterprise. Support is withdrawn from experiments (evolutionary paths) that don’t work out, allowing them to fall by the wayside. Perhaps entropy is the default mechanism. Opinion (observation) given is that he must have done something right in our case, having kept us around this long, and we compare favorably with other types of physical realities. Campbell suggests that our reality was derived from the nonphysical to compensate for some unavoidable stagnant features. Thus we are obligated to be of value and to succeed for the benefit of the system. That is a cosmic-sized incentive for us to get with it.

There is no getting around a compelling reassessment of our perception of reality due to the revelations generated by the double slit experiment. A new paradigm shift is under way, and it will eclipse the present one just as Einstein eclipsed Newton. As in past paradigm shifts, habituated mindsets put up stubborn wrongheaded resistance despite the shortcomings of Einstein and others being pinpointed.

I see a startling commonality of certain concepts across new works and recent “relics” such as The Two-State Universe, The Physics of Immortality, The Philosophical Scientists, Ancient Myth and the Science of Continuous Creation, Dark Energy, and The Starmaker’s Apprentice. Yes, it’s all starting to come together.

 

Don't you think it rather odd that the amount of desire required varies from person to person? Why do I need to want it so very much more than, say, my brother in law, who believes in god despite the fact he barely gives it a second thought?