How can science prove God's existence? are they trying?

Question

God, in the bible is desrcibed as "light" by several that say they seen Him.

I think if science tried to understand what "God" is, it is only logical, that God would be a form of energy, because all things that have life have energy.

If you do not believe in "God" because you need proof of existence, would you be open to the fact that "God is an energy", would you be willing to start there as theory?

Science uses 'theories" as a foundation for most experiments in which the results are unknown.

Answer 1

Mathematics can. Mathematicians have demostrated that the odds that everything would evolve out of nothing, that the earth would be the exact needed distance from the sun to support life, etc., are so great that they constitute what is called a statistical impossibility.

Mathematically / Statistically, it is more possible that an intelligent creator created the Universe then it being all created by random chance. (By the way, God is not energy, He is Spirit and therefore cannot be detected by the five senses or by science.)

To " salient2" : If you are such a great mathematition, why are you in Yahoo right now instead of teaching at some University somewhere?
Right now, I'm at work in Emeryville, CA making 20 bucks an hour. I fiddle around in Yahoo when there is nothing for me to do.

Answer 2

There is a difference between theories and beliefs. Theories make testable predictions, so just saying "God is an energy" doesn't really cut it unless you have some idea as to how to go about finding that "energy" and some way to distinguish it as God and not something more mundane.

Anyway, although I have great doubts that science will ever prove the existence of God, my doubts are equally as great that science will ever disprove Its existence as well. The reason is that science makes models to describe reality and we feel that the better those models become, the closer to describing the "real world" we get. However, there will be no point at which we can say "we have modeled reality as it actually is" because this would require us to be able to state "there is nothing we do not know." The issue there is that it is inevitably the case that we do not know what we do not know so we can never make that statement with any sort of validity.

That being the case, there will always be room for uncertainty in these models for reality we have made, there will always be room for those who want to have a cozy explanation for everything to say "God did it."

Answer 3

Why should Science HAVE to prove God's existence? So that those who refuse to believe or accept something without scientific evidence can believe in Him? What about various Scientists who are also Believers: if they are content to believe without their genre confirming their belief, then why do some other folks require MORE?

There are some Things, some Realities, which I'm convinced CANNOT be proven by Science (or, at least, not by our current understandings and applications of Science). Take Dark Matter or even Dark Energy, for example: most astrophysicists are convinced that these things DO exist, even though they can't find hard and fast physical EVIDENCE (like a "dark particle") that PROVE their existence. And yet, when something huge like 60-70% of the Matter in the Universe can't be accounted for any other way, they KNOW something like that MUST exist; but they haven't been able to nail it down.

There are Mysteries that elude Science: what about the Soul? Do you believe in a Soul? Do you "feel" your Existence beyond and beneath the firing of the neurons in your brain and the beating of your heart? If not, I'm sorry that nothing has ever allowed you to experience something so Deep; but Science surely can't PROVE the Existence of a Soul...does that mean we don't have one? I know a lot of you think that, and I understand why, but WOW, it's kinda sad.

As a person of Science myself, I understand the need/desire to have everything PROVEN completely by Science. As a Spiritual Being, I KNOW within the depths of my Existence that there are SOME things which Science will NEVER reveal to me, and yet are still REAL.

Each of us gets to choose whether to limit ourSelves and our understandings to that which can be PROVEN in the physical Scientific realm, or whether we will open ourSelves to the Mysteries beyond...

Peace.

Answer 4

Q: If you do not believe in "God" because you need proof of existence, would you be open to the fact that "God is an energy", would you be willing to start there as theory

A: Good question. I don't believe in God in the personal sense normally applied. But I'd have no problem with the hypothesis you've offered up.

Answer 5

The problem with your hypothesis is that not all energy is life.

Science is one thing, and scientists are another. They will often resort to "unscientific" methods to cover what they either do not understand or refuse to know.

They refuse to understand that life can only come from life.

They refuse to understand that matter cannot, of its own, "pop" into existence.

They refuse to acknowledge that the evolutionary model is impossible, especially when you take into consideration the several total extinction events that have occurred over time, where "life" would have had to start all over from bacteria.

It is a "philosophy" in denial. It is a belief system with gaping holes.

.

Answer 6

That is fine. Just tell us where that energy is and we can look.

The problem here is that science has looked for things that religion predicts. There have been some pretty sophisticated tests done trying to isolate the energy that you call a soul, there have been large studies done looking for prayer working, and so on. They have all come up empty.

Until there is evidence to back it up, you are only scientifically talking an untested hypothesis, and one that whatever tests we have come up with it has failed. So until you can point to energy and say that is god, you have nothing worth considering.

Answer 7

God cannot be described. He is OMNIPOTENT.

He would be said as an amalgam of infinite information that exists beyond laws of time. He need not be of any form because all things is a part of him/her/whatever "it" is.

Theories can be given to show how he made stuff and how laws works but never tell how he makes laws.

If you said GOD is energy, then, all things would be considered Gods. Wouldn't you think so?

*Of course this all is an opinion*

Answer 8

It isn't valid simply to redefine the word 'god'. If energy is all that is meant by it, why bother calling it god?

But in general, yes, god hypotheses can be tested, as long as they make testable claims. For example, the Bible claims that anything asked in Jesus name will be granted. We can test this claim, and see that it fails, so that particular wish granting god does not exist.

Answer 9

A MODERN GENIUS HAS ACHIEVED UNITY SETWEEN REAL SCIENCE AND HOLY WRIT:

let me tell you something real straight:

There would not be an entire course anything as good in all that I have seen in creationism that is anywhere as good as this one ABSOLUTE genius discovery and book by Denis Towers:

The Brilliant, Adam and Eve Prover:
Book, TWO BIRDS ... ONE STONE!!, by genius Kinesiologist, Denis Towers, [Xulonpress.com], 2007??

Upon a 9 year study, the author writes this work, which scientifically illustrates that Man and the snake are diametric opposites - both, 'functionally-anatomically ... and behaviourally.
It is a Master-work among the books that have been written!
An absolute MUST for believers and Creationists alike.

If you want that elusive SCIENTIFIC proof of Adam and Eve and God, this is it!!!
A Powerful, Powerful book!

Answer 10

As a Mathematician myself I resent the insinuation that we would be so ignorant as to fall for CatholicCrusader's obvious false dichotomy. Not to mention his obvious inability to understand selection mechanisms and how they effect probability estimations.

Catholic Crusader I see you love logical fallacies. You cannot argue the facts so you try to attack the individual. I see no point in responding to your ridiculous attempt at an ad hominem attack.

"Nothing evolves from nothing". Did anyone ever claim reality evolves from nothing? Certainly not me, I believe reality results from mathematics which is certainly not nothing. 'Evolving from Nothing" and Gods form a false dichotomy.

This actually raises a serious point which is the widespread inability to understand selection effects in our society. Does the fact falling snowflakes always find themselves in snowstorms prove the existence of snow pixies? Does the fact a puddle's hole always fits the puddle perfectly somehow prove the hole was designed specifically for the puddle? Of course not and neither should the fact that we find ourselves in a region of reality conducive to our existence imply a designer. The region we find ourselves in is simply a selection effect.