Has science proven that God exists?

Question

Experimental results have proven that:

The fundamental constituent of nature is an all pervasive energy field

Matter is formed when consciousness acts on this energy field and the probability wave function is collapsed. Therefore consciousness did not arise from matter but existed before matter was formed

Everything in creation is fundamentally connected, nothing is separate from anything else

Every possibility exists simultaneously and what we actually experience as "reality" is co-created by the observer

So I ask, whose consciousness and energy forms reality if not God's? Isn't it logical to conclude that God is the "E" in E=mc2?

Answer 1

The Qur'an and Science: Testimony of the Scientists

http://www.islamdoor.com/viewart.php?id=29

Answer 2

No, while you use a number of "fancy" terms, your statements do not connect and are not substantiated.

Science has not clearly defined matter and energy to an extent you can say #1.

Matter is not formed when conciousness acts on any energy field. No credible individual would make such a claim.

Of course everthing is connected ... I've been saying that for years, but as an argument AGAINST the concept of religious beliefs, not for them.

Every possibility does not necessarily exist simultaneously (only hypothetically) and the only factor an observer plays in "creating reality" is that the observer creates their own illusionary conceptualization of reality that is always flawed.

Please make a trip to your local library and read what science actually says. Or, if you copied this from some book or website, please notify the author to cease dispensing invalid proofs ... whoever authored these statements was convinced of the existance of God prior ... otherwise they'd not try to pass it off as intellectually sound.

Answer 3

The flaw in this 'proof' of course, is that your fundamental axioms are in error.

Because of the relativistic equivalence, E=MC^^2, energy and matter are the same thing. An electron can be described as a wave, a beam of light as a collection of particles. So to say that the fundamental constituent of nature is an 'energy field' is in error. For lack of any other word, let us call this matter-energy 'quintessence'.

The assertion that matter is formed when consciousness acts on the energy field cannot be scientificially verified. To test it experimentally, you would have to show the creation of matter in the presence of 'consciousness' (which science can't even define yet) or prove the inability to create matter from quintessence without the use of consciousness (again, unprovable -- someone has to be there to understands the results). Therefore, you cannot assert consciousness is required for the creation of matter.

Everything in creation is fundamentally connected, but only after the inflationary era. During that time, the universe was expanding at a speed greater than light, so particles light-cones (the combination of all things that could have affected them and they could effect) are disjoint from the pre-inflationary era. This means that any initial connection has been lost. All quintessence IS, however, still connected within the framework of relativity -- depending on your definition of 'connected'. No information can travel faster than light, so if you have two particles separated by any distance, any interaction by them will necessarily take time. Conservation of certain knowledge-pairs (the typical spin of quantum entangled electrons) requires instantaneous transmission, but the ultimate effect is that there is enough randomness to this effect that information cannot be transmitted via this route.

The concept of 'every possibility exists simultaneously' is called the multiple-worlds hypothesis / Copenhagen Interpretation (note, not theory). It is only one of many possible interpretations of the mathematical effects of quantum physics. There are numerous systems that directly contradict the concept of the divergent universal state yet are consistent with all we know of quantum physics.

*IF* your axioms were correct, you still could not assert it was a deific being's 'field' that is the initial field. The presence of a thing is not enough to deduce aspects of the thing. Prove that a god exists and you are still unable, in that one fact, to prove anything about that god -- is it male or female? omnipotent? omniscient? Does it consider action XYZ a sin? What if situation UVW is a mitigating factor?

In short, there is no scientific way to prove the existence of a deific force. The fundamental axiom of science disregards the possibility of supernatural effect. It does NOT say the supernatural does not exist, only that its methods are not capable of probing the supernatural, if the supernatural exists.

Answer 4

Science is constantly proving that God exists. They just don't want to give the credit to a higher power, or else it wouldn't be called science but religion. When they come to the result of an experiment, They usually call it probability or moving energy some b's like that. But since there has to be a scientific explanation for everything they just create a logical answer, or some bogus formulas so that their ignorance does not shine through.

Answer 5

Science does not have to prove the existence of any god. The burden of proof falls on the believer, and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Carl Sagan).

For the record, science, like atheists, does not make the claim "there is no god".

Also, please tell me more about how it was proved that matter is formed when consciousness acts on the energy field.

Answer 6

I'm not even going to try to refute your claim partly because i do not have knowledge of quantum physics and mostly be cause you are basing it purely on speculation and have no evidence to support it.

Science... REAL science that is, has not even come close to "proving" god... as a matter of fact there have been several studies conducted that have given more credence to the nonexistence of god. Studies where a devine presence was manifested in the minds of subjects by manipulation of the brain. Tests to disprove NDEs, statistical studies on prayer... all have shown that anything supernatural that we claim is a byproduct of our senses.

Answer 7

pointing out that something is obtainable does not propose that this is a actuality, or that this is clever to undertake the placement. If I suggested this is obtainable that there is an ice cream production facility on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a place properly worth adopting only in view this is a threat? not at all. basically claiming a threat in step with no longer something extra desirable than it being a obtainable decision, in spite of how distant, isn't sufficient grounds for atheists to declare viability of their atheism. they ought to arise with extra desirable than the "there is not any data for God." assertion. in any different case, there fairly ought to be an ice cream production facility on Jupiter, and the atheist ought to step up on the band wagon and initiate protecting the placement that Jupiterian ice cream exists. See the place i am going, right here?

Answer 8

God is not falsifiable so science cannot have proven or disproven him.

Anyone who claims otherwise is either a liar or simply doesn't know what the word falsifiability means in the context of science.

Answer 9

Sorry. Nice try though.
Science deals with reality. God belongs to the realm of fantasy and mythology. See the difference?

Answer 10

The Force be with you.... All science is from God...thus all science is good.

It is man's mucking about with science that causes all of the bad that happens to man from that mis use of God's Science

If Science was used as God intended it, All mankind would be living in peace and plenty