What Would Be Proof Of A God Or Gods Running The Universe?

[Moontanman]

I have often been asked what would it take to make me believe in a God, Gods, or Goddesses and i usually use the flippant answer of make the sun stand still in the sky or move planets around but if you really think about it advanced technology could conceivably do that.

 

Another idea is that if the universe really turns out to be not only life friendly but actually allows for FTL space travel but being life friendly and allowing for FTL space travel is also not proof of the divine.

 

But what if we find out that space travel is easy, FTL is easy, say some unknown zero point type energy allows for it and we find that not only are Earth like planets common but that they are truly Earth like down to the species of plants and animals we see on the Earth or have fossils of on the Earth and humanoid beings most of which are as human as we are dominate all those planets, much like the Star Trek Universe!

 

Now that to me would be, if not proof, then suggestive enough for me to believe there is a divine hand guiding the universe. The Star Trek Universe is a creationist universe!!!

 

What say you?

[Buffy]

I have often been asked what would it take to make me believe in a God, Gods, or Goddesses and i usually use the flippant answer of make the sun stand still in the sky or move planets around but if you really think about it advanced technology could conceivably do that.

 

Throughout human history, "supernatural feats", "miracles" and other apparent occurrences "beyond human ability or reason" have been used to "create belief" in the rulers and later religious leaders as religion and government slowly bifurcated. When you think about this, this is incredibly simplistic though, and as our society has evolved to a state where we have begun to think about thinking about God within the context of a much much much larger creation, we've begun to be conscious of the fact that things "just enough beyond human ability" really isn't all that impressive.

 

It's getting harder for "faith healers" to gain converts simply through "miraculously" "curing" cancer or disabilities as was common even a generation ago (and does still go on today, thanks to Barnum).

 

But turn this on it's head and think about the fact that *anything* that smacked of an anthropomorphic God lowering himself to performing "magic tricks" to gain converts is, well, kind of demeaning to the concept of any really impressive God. I mean, for me at least, the idea that God even *cared* about us as individuals to the point of answering our prayers or punishing us for "sins" seems awfully petty.

 

To tell you the truth, the thing that moved me permanently away from being traditionally religious was really thinking about the implications of this dude whingeing to Moses, "I am a jealous God."

 

"Jealous?" Really? REALLY?!? Petty, whiny, spiteful hard *** who turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt just because she heard the biggest explosion ever and looked? The guy is totally misogynist! No, that kind of God is the kind that some dude would make up just to get you to do something for him for free (under the threat that "God" would strike me down if I didn't). That's not spirituality, that's extortion. The human kind.

 

Another idea is that if the universe really turns out to be not only life friendly but actually allows for FTL space travel but being life friendly and allowing for FTL space travel is also not proof of the divine.

 

So, aliens whipping around in their "Chariots of the Gods" would have been certainly godlike a while back, but since the advent of manned spaceflight, UFOlogy, and SF geniuses from Arthur C. Clark to Phillip K. Dick, we need something much, much more, which has led you to this argument that it's not that there *are* aliens, but that "God has allowed aliens and FTL to happen at all" that is the new "miracle." It's Meta in a certain sense, but it's also really just One Step Beyond our rapidly expanding knowledge.

 

That is, God is still "just beyond what we know."

 

That's what's really led me to "jump out of the system," and see God as being "beyond what we CAN know."

 

As such, really God ends up having to be something that cannot be perceived--because magic is always about altering perceptions of reality--and cannot be reasoned--since we can use logic in such an abstract way that if "God can be logically proven" then we "can know about God", thereby violating my one axiom!

 

That is, God *must* be "believed in" and cannot be "proven or demonstrated."

 

To quote the big Jesus dude, "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's..."

 

Smart guy.

 

So....

 

The Star Trek Universe is a creationist universe!!!

 

Pshaw! Bunkum and balderdash!

 

Excuse me, I’d just like to ask a question: What does God need with a starship? :phones:

Buffy

[Moontanman]

I'm not going to argue with you on what you've typed so far, mainly because I agree, but my point was, at least as I remember it this morning, (tequila last night) we move out into the universe because we find out that space travel and interstellar travel is easy (not next to impossible like it is now) and on other planets we find life that is identical to earth life, pine trees are pine trees, sycamore trees are sycamore trees and oak trees are oak trees, zebras are zebras and so on, both in appearance and genetically and like in Star Trek we can not just mate with aliens but are cross fertile with most and the rest can be cross fertile with just a little technological help. The DNA is not just the same but results in the same plants and animals we see on the earth... :blink:

 

Actaully i think that if aliens look enough like us to be sexually attractive would be weird in of it's self... :rolleyes:

 

Wouldn't that suggest a divine hand guiding the universe, misogynist or not.... :unsure:

[maddog]

I have often been asked what would it take to make me believe in a God, Gods, or Goddesses and i usually use the flippant answer of make the sun stand still in the sky or move planets around but if you really think about it advanced technology could conceivably do that.

Uh huh... Ok, a "disbeliever"...

 

Another idea is that if the universe really turns out to be not only life friendly but actually allows for FTL space travel but being life friendly and allowing for FTL space travel is also not proof of the divine.

It is as Buffy was pointing out, "God" and "proof" live in two different domains.

 

God in the domain of Faith while Proof in the domain of Logic (which by some is worshiped - similar, ....)

 

It is now understood that universe having formed as it has which now appears virtually flat locally to the tune of 10^500 to 0. If being a betting man, only God might take that bet. Still this does NOT Prove God's existence. I wished you had shared some of that Tequila with me... :D

 

But what if we find out that space travel is easy, FTL is easy, say some unknown zero point type energy allows for it and we find that not only are Earth like planets common but that they are truly Earth like down to the species of plants and animals we see on the Earth or have fossils of on the Earth and humanoid beings most of which are as human as we are dominate all those planets, much like the Star Trek Universe

The Sci Fi Author, David Brin had a concept sometimes written by others in which he labeled "first ones". Such beings could have been maybe even a Billion years older than our civilization. If such a species were to have evolved with much time dedicated to setbacks or catastrophe, a Billion years of advancement would as Arther C. Clarke called "magic". In a book by Clarke, called "Childhood's End", his example aliens turned out were already in our myths, having evolved from Bats, with horns, wings and a tail.

 

Now that to me would be, if not proof, then suggestive enough for me to believe there is a divine hand guiding the universe. The Star Trek Universe is a creationist universe!!! What say you?

We aspire to the lofty notions of a Star Trek Universe, where "money" didn't exist yet we didn't miss it. Where everybody could anything they wished for due to no cost involved. Still, God is only found there by the believers as always.

 

If you read the first chapter of Genesis from the point of view introduced in the Scopes trial that a day to God is about a billion years, then he created "the universe" in less than a week or 7 billion years. In high school, I came up with an alternative though. At that time (which it is still close to) this solar system formed with the birth event of our sun igniting. It is thought (even then) that this event took about 6.52 billion years ago. This in turn means that now is only Saturday evening, so God has not rested yet!

 

maddog

[belovelife]

interesting, i would think that a "GOD" would be a concept, but spirituality as a concept also

 

where god is one being, spiritual are multi beings

 

now, i've heard one theory that god is everything, then we are all a part of god trying to figure out who they are

interesting,

 

did "god" like godself?

 

mabe we are symbolic of the innerturmoil of the mind, gods mind

 

but anyway, it is an interesting subject

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

as far as startrek humanoids and similar species goes,

 

well, last generation cell phones looked like the communicaotr in star trek

 

so i guess anything is possible

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

[Buffy]

Actaully i think that if aliens look enough like us to be sexually attractive would be weird in of it's self... :rolleyes:

 

Wouldn't that suggest a divine hand guiding the universe, misogynist or not.... :unsure:

 

Oh hardly. Gene Roddenberry invented an imaginary "Hodgkin's Law of Parallel Planetary Development" precisely to ensure that he could explain his low makeup/special effects budget.

 

Even then though, he managed to come up with the shag rug and tupperware Horta.

 

OTOH, Rick Berman and company went the other direction and came up with a Panspermia-like theory with the Changelings (although Gene obviously "seeded" the idea with "A Piece of the Action" and "Patterns of Force" (outbound)and of course "Who Mourns for Adoniais?" (inbound)).

 

When you think about it of course, simple physics and chemistry come into play--two-sided symmetry seems natural and fewer even-numbered limbs are obviously favored as well as the quirks and attributes of molecules and compounds in our universe--so Parallel Development would hardly be surprising.

 

But I know what you mean. Heck, this is what made me a trekkie:

 

 

Must be something you assimilated, :phones:

Buffy

[Moontanman]

I just watched that episode on netflixs... :lol:

[CraigD]

I have often been asked what would it take to make me believe in a God, Gods, or Goddesses and i usually use the flippant answer of make the sun stand still in the sky or move planets around but if you really think about it advanced technology could conceivably do that.

My answer is essentially the same, minus the flippancy.

 

I’d switch my staunch atheism with a specific theism if I witnessed firsthand, and was allowed to satisfy myself of the absence of stage magic trickery or my mental derrangement, any of the several old testament biblical magic tricks: Exodus 4’s staffs to snakes, Exodus 13:21’s pillar of fire, or even Numbers 22:28’s humble talking donkey. It would be pointless to argue with an entity with abilities beyond ones comprehension that straightforwardly demonstrated such abilities, regardless of whether it’s due to divinity or sufficiently advanced technology. Clarke’s 3rd law applies

 

I’m an atheist because I don’t believe the many-generations handed down accounts of such demonstrations in nearly all religious scriptures are factual, and don’t, personally, accept the argument of the good myth – that it is beneficial to accept a falsehood as true because doing so can have good consequences. While I can enjoyably play at religion, my doing so is akin to enjoyably playing an FRPG. I don’t for the same reason I’m uncomfortable playing D&D with a group of gamers most of whom believe the game’s shared fantasy universe is physically real: I find such folk disturbingly wrong-minded.

Title question addressed, the OP raises 2 other good questions which focus more on the “created everything” divine quality than the above mentioned “all (as far as anyone can tell) powerful” one:

• The laws of physics “friendlily” allowing FTL travel
  
• Other planets having intelligent life with whom we can not only communicate, but with little or no medical tweaking, interbreed.
  

What we might call “Star Trek-like” conditions.

 

Ignoring for a moment whether a universe that permits STrek-like FTL travel and communication really would be a friendly one ...

... well, not ignoring, but only brushing the surface. Most of what we do know about physics tells us that

CTCs

and their attendant causation violations would be easy in such a universe, so trips back into our pasts to fix mistakes would presumably be either commonplace, or severely illegal. Neither the prospect of paradox or just plain information overload from an unlimited number of messages or in-the-flesh visits from future selves and associates, nor the control of all FTL technology by an iron-fisted time police (quis custodiet ipsos custodies, anyone?), strikes me as a nice place to live – more like the scary, dystopian (and little beloved by fans) “

Temporal Cold War

” from (the also little beloved by fans) ST:Enterprise than the warm utopian visions of ST:TOS and NG.

 

Upon long reflection, I’ve come to appreciate the upside of laws of nature that seems to have built-in blocks against paradoxes of these sort...

... discovering that we’re actually in a STrek-like universe, especially if consequences of CTCs were somehow just … not there, as they’re not in the less grim STrek storylines would push me toward accepting Nick Bostrom’s argument affirming the simulation hypothesis – in other words, if reality seems like a mechanically convenient space opera computer game, it likely is.

 

If the simulation hypothesis is true, the real final frontier isn’t warping about fake space fraternizing with hot green-skinned guys and gals, but, reminiscent of the movie The Thirteenth Floor, getting the hell out of it into the real world running the simulation – assuming we are as bold and un-sheepish as we like to think ourselves.

 

Where all the usual cosmogonical, theological, and scientific questions would be waiting.

[Glenn Lyvers]

I suspect that most scientists would not trust empirical evidence if they met God and spoke with Him. Maybe the next day they would scratch their heads but as the days marched on, they would eventually conclude it did not happen as they perceived it because they cannot "prove it."

 

I think many aspects of the God question comes down to what one considers proof. What constitutes proof?

 

Imagine if you walked home from the store and found a grape on the ground. Nobody is looking and it looks tasty, so you eat it. Then you meet a bunch of scientists and you tell them, I found a grape and I ate it. They say to you, prove your claim or shut the hell up and be thought a liar. What can one do? How can one prove it to such men?

 

Imagine hundreds of people who witness some miracle and pass the story to the next person until it eventually makes it way into written letters and books. It is found in numerous archeological digs for many many centuries. One man reads them, compares so many letters by so many authors and concludes, surely this must have happened. Another man overhears him and says that's not enough proof to constitute what "I" think of as proof. So prove your claims or shut the hell up and be thought a liar. What can one do? How can one prove it to such men?

 

The amount of proof all people need cannot ever be satisfied. There will always be another man who will say, but that's not what "I" think of as proof.

[blamski]

 

Imagine if you walked home from the store and found a grape on the ground. Nobody is looking and it looks tasty, so you eat it. Then you meet a bunch of scientists and you tell them, I found a grape and I ate it. They say to you, prove your claim or shut the hell up and be thought a liar. What can one do? How can one prove it to such men?

 

 

when you eat a grape, the grape doesn't just disappear taking all evidence of its existence with it. there will be traces of grape on the tongue and in the teeth, and at some point in the future a faecal examination will most likely also reveal a certain essence of grape.

 

proof is a tricky concept, and scientifically speaking 'proof' will signify a very near certainty rather than a 100% certainty in the majority of cases. in this case for me to be convinced to within a low enough percentage of doubt that there is a god or gods running the universe i would need to see something, or things, which is or are pretty spectacular.

 

if we are talking about creator gods and not 'custodian' gods then i wold definitely need to see them create. i would demand an armadillo in front of me and expect to see it fairly promptly.

[sman]

I suspect that most scientists would not trust empirical evidence if they met God and spoke with Him. Maybe the next day they would scratch their heads but as the days marched on, they would eventually conclude it did not happen as they perceived it because they cannot "prove it."

 

I think many aspects of the God question comes down to what one considers proof. What constitutes proof?

 

Imagine if you walked home from the store and found a grape on the ground. Nobody is looking and it looks tasty, so you eat it. Then you meet a bunch of scientists and you tell them, I found a grape and I ate it. They say to you, prove your claim or shut the hell up and be thought a liar. What can one do? How can one prove it to such men?

 

Imagine hundreds of people who witness some miracle and pass the story to the next person until it eventually makes it way into written letters and books. It is found in numerous archeological digs for many many centuries. One man reads them, compares so many letters by so many authors and concludes, surely this must have happened. Another man overhears him and says that's not enough proof to constitute what "I" think of as proof. So prove your claims or shut the hell up and be thought a liar. What can one do? How can one prove it to such men?

 

The amount of proof all people need cannot ever be satisfied. There will always be another man who will say, but that's not what "I" think of as proof.

 

 

I know what you mean. I preach & promote the benefits of, and the need for, skeptical scrutiny in our daily lives of the information being made available to us - to the annoyance of most everyone who’s heard it - but I’ve noticed that some people are eternally skeptical about certain things. Namely, about evolution. :shrug:

 

These people are unwinable. Explain it to them, they say there’s no evidence. Show them the evidence, they claim it is tainted, or incomplete, or was planted. :rolleyes: On & on… there’s no end. There’s nothing you can do.

 

BTW, none of these people, in my experience, are employing anything like this kind of skepticism toward Relativity or Thermodynamics or any other scientific paradigm, or anything else, even trivial, that I can tell. It’s very targeted.

 

So, although I didn’t at first, after some thought I admit I agree with you about your demonized “scientists”, because I’ve met some of them. I just don’t think “scientist” is the right label. In fact, I think science is the cure.

 

And that is my answer to the OP: If the god hypothesis were to pass the same scientific scrutiny - experiment and observation, with a keen eye on human biases - as evolution, relativity & thermodynamics have, then I would believe in God in the same way I believe these other things. Most “scientists” would too.

[Moontanman]

I suspect that most scientists would not trust empirical evidence if they met God and spoke with Him. Maybe the next day they would scratch their heads but as the days marched on, they would eventually conclude it did not happen as they perceived it because they cannot "prove it."

 

If you can say a prayer to a specific god and have something impossible happen every time you say that prayer and it can be repeated the same each time that would constitute proof, something as simple as a grape appearing on the table in front of you would be a powerful proof...

 

I think many aspects of the God question comes down to what one considers proof. What constitutes proof?

 

See above for what constitutes proof, but in scientific terms what you are asking for is evidence, repeatable empirical evidence...

 

Imagine if you walked home from the store and found a grape on the ground. Nobody is looking and it looks tasty, so you eat it. Then you meet a bunch of scientists and you tell them, I found a grape and I ate it. They say to you, prove your claim or shut the hell up and be thought a liar. What can one do? How can one prove it to such men?

 

Finding a grape is hardly in the same league as God, comparison of the two is simply not reasonable.

 

Imagine hundreds of people who witness some miracle and pass the story to the next person until it eventually makes it way into written letters and books. It is found in numerous archeological digs for many many centuries. One man reads them, compares so many letters by so many authors and concludes, surely this must have happened. Another man overhears him and says that's not enough proof to constitute what "I" think of as proof. So prove your claims or shut the hell up and be thought a liar. What can one do? How can one prove it to such men?

 

Eye witness testimony is the weakest form of evidence, in this case you are referring to religious texts, your first task is to determine whose religious text is truth and whose is just stuff made up, do that and you would be one step closer to showing some evidence the text might be true. but in reality can you are anyone else actually show that something claimed by people 2500 years ago and written down is actually what was seen or even written down the first time? If the text was claiming that a space craft came from the sky and showed everyone how to masturbate the correct way would you still be asserting it's veracity? I doubt it, your assertion is strongly colored by your belief, it has no basis in anything but your belief, to be evidence it cannot be belief, really really believing in something does not equal knowledge...

 

The amount of proof all people need cannot ever be satisfied. There will always be another man who will say, but that's not what "I" think of as proof.

 

Science is specifically designed to account for that, if I can show that hydrogen and oxygen always combine in specific amounts to form water and that experiment can be repeated by anyone who can follow directions the person who refuses to believe it must either show it to be false or be shown to be less than truthful... His belief or refusal to believe does not figure into it...

[sigurdV]

Why not?

Def: x is god iff x is the cause of existence.

 

1 for every x there is a cause of x (basic scientific principle)

2 existence is (just check)

3 there is a god(conclusion)

[Moontanman]

Why not?

Def: x is god iff x is the cause of existence.

 

1 for every x there is a cause of x (basic scientific principle)

2 existence is (just check)

3 there is a god(conclusion)

 

 

That great big if in the middle of your assertion pretty much says it all, if frogs had wings they wouldn't bust their little slimy butts every time they jump...

 

Existence is proof of nothing but existence... We have no idea if existence has a cause and if it does then why does that cause have to be a god? And if the cause of existence is a god then what caused god? If god needs no cause then why not cut out a step and just say the universe has no cause?

[lawcat]

huh, interesting,

 

you are asking specifically about indirect proof, a scientific inference.

When we talk about inference, we are dealing with degrees or strength of facts. And this already exists, every individual, like a juror, weighs life facts and forms an opinion. This is called religion.

Edited September 6, 2012 by lawcat

[Turtle]

the question posed in the title is not even wrong. inasmuch as "god" and/or gods is/are by definition supernatural, there is no valid scientific assessment let alone a proof. discussing the question as if it is valid is an exercise in futility. and i'm in no small measure somewhat vexed -if not bemused- that it was moonmantan that proposed it. what were you thinking mick!?

[Buffy]

the question posed in the title is not even wrong. inasmuch as "god" and/or gods is/are by definition supernatural, there is no valid scientific assessment let alone a proof.

 

You got it! :cheer:

 

discussing the question as if it is valid is an exercise in futility.

 

Oh I think Mr. Moontan was dealing with a common situation and being a good scientist by questioning! :drums:

 

Always good to remind people that the arguments of the charlatans are easily dispatched when they errantly venture onto Logic and Reason with tales of pinheads and proportionate angels.

 

A multitude of words is no proof of a prudent mind, :phones:

Buffy