2006-11-27 23:02:42 · 18 answers · asked by . 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Logically? Possibly. Scientifically? Doubtful. But how in the heck can he prove them mathematically? I would like to see that information...and please none of that alphabetical/ numerical correspondence garbage.
Don't get me wrong, it wont change my religious views, but it would be an interesting read.
2006-11-27 23:05:58 · answer #1 · answered by nuthnbettr2do0128 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yeah i heard this before, you use a series of alogorythyms and basic principles to come to the conclusion that god does in fact exist.
Two things though, One principles are thought up by mind and are due to interpretation based on circumstances. Last time i checked i God didn't take time to register to vote for Bush or anyone for that matter. We are left with nothing more than assumptions of Christ. Christianity was endorsed and enforced by the Roman's to further their greed!
Two: Scientifically what proof does your brother have? A book called "The Book" decifered by the Romans to only include portions and wording gospels of just a few of the appostles. Got DNA? Got a Birth Certificate? Got a Tomb? Man kind has always been searching for whatever reason and the outcome is the same... NOTHING! Yet science explains so much more, like time before man. If it could be proven i say do it! Either way the world would still be devided and would probably errupt in choas! So many religions damning the others! If you have a idea of god and put faith into it, safe bet! But having faith and not having any ideas into it sounds like a dictatorship to me!
2006-11-27 23:14:20 · answer #2 · answered by jls1znv9999 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
you're impressive is declaring that God isn't /scientifically/ falsifiable, yet purely because it really is a classification blunders to say that God is even subject to medical inquiry. Being that God is (by definition) transcendent of our realm of life there are not any /organic/ equipment for use to instantly "come across" God. Or as Eugenie Scott of the nationwide midsection for technology preparation once talked about "we haven't any 'theometers.'" What technology can do (and does do with regularity, IMO) is educate that what we see in nature is compatable with the conception of a author/fashion designer truly than incompatable with the idea of God. Logical falsifiability is a thoroughly distinct element. If order for something to surely be logically falsified it should be shown that the idea is self contradictory (like scientifically finding out for God - sorry i could not help yet to point that out). Logical arguments are otherwise no longer provable previous a element of doubt. What we finally end up with are the burden of the aurguments. the purely logical argument hostile to God that has any legs is the Argument from Evil. there are countless arguments for God's life. The Cosmological Argument and the moral Argument are 2 very reliable arguments for God. Arguments aside; God -as a non secular being - can purely be percieved on a non secular element. those who've the international-view of materialism provide no idea to something no longer of a materialistic nature (additionally they ask for "medical information" for God, or a minimum of discuss there is none.) although, that's been proven that a purely materialistic international-view (once referred to as Verificationism) is really one of those self contradictory philosophies. Materialism's different large flaw is First reason. remember/ability are literally not self generative or self needed and require a transcendent reason. the stunning element of your question asks "..then why do the honest insist on PROVING his life?" i do not comprehend that I actually have ever met a "honest" who tries /information/ of God's life. i comprehend many who strongly assert and argue for God's life. and many that verify God's involvement in lives. Arguments and testamonies for something are literally not information tries, although they could seem able to others.
2016-11-29 21:20:37 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a scientifically proven god would manifest worship and obedience out of fear not love. this is called oppression. humans do not like to be oppressed, nor do they like their oppressors. this would create egocentric worship, because if god were scientific, mathematical, or logical law, our will to obey or disobey god would hold no ground. we do not have the choice of whether or not to adhere to the law of gravity, therefore, if we scientifically proved god, the only reasonable thing to do would be to worship god because of your own self-interest. loyalty and love would have no meaning. this is why faith is essential.
2006-11-27 23:28:05 · answer #4 · answered by alex l 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you really can, then I'd say you won't do it because you have a vendetta against atheists, since the reason most atheists don't believe in God is lack of logical proof.
2006-11-27 23:06:51 · answer #5 · answered by angk 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Excellent Scientific Site, pl visit.
http://www.hyahya.org/
2006-11-27 23:06:10 · answer #6 · answered by A2Z 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Usually when Christians try to prove that God exists they use cyclical logic in their proof. For example: God exists because we can't possibly exist without him. Or: God exists because, Wow, OMG just look around you!!!
It's rather ridiculous!
2006-11-27 23:09:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Right now, he's too busy with an even more important question - how do they get that white goop inside twinkies?
His latest theory is that they start with the white goop, and then build the twinkie walls around it.
2006-11-27 23:14:48 · answer #8 · answered by Lunarsight 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You are probably 11yr old kid bunking the classes at the moment. Can't spell mathematically can ya?
Jerk!
2006-11-27 23:10:26 · answer #9 · answered by DTA 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
why not say: "my brother SAYS he can prove......
becuz tha facts are, he can no more prove god, than I can disprove the deity.
most monotheists are scared sh it less by the possiblity that we are alone.
Try to spell mathematics can u , please. And btw, check out the fosill record, because they never lie; unlike your proposition in your other Q.
2006-11-27 23:07:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋