Thread 16739467

Is there a scientific experiment which could prove the existence of God?

ya prob

>>16739467 (OP)
You first have to define what god is

>>16739467 (OP)

Easy. The Elijah vs Baal prophets experiment.

>>16739467 (OP)
prayer has already been studied and found to not be useful again. Though one could argue that God ignored those specific prayers to throw off the reseachers

>>16739473
The first thing to ever exist.

>>16739467 (OP)
Easy, instead of the schrödinger cat-experiment,
let's try the innocent-baby-experiment.

If there is a all-good, all-powerful, almighty God, he wouldn't let an innocent baby die.

>>16739467 (OP)
First you boil an egg. Then put it in a freezer. If it hatches, there is a god.

>>16739473
This theres just too much to unpack. I mean for all we know we've already proved God or disproved God and just didnt recognize it

>>16739467 (OP)
Die and report back

>>16740588
No, this >>16739929 would be quite obvious if it had been definitively proven.

>>16740574
He would if he knew that baby would grow up to be the next Hitler. There's no such thing as an "innocent" baby.

>>16739929
So you're saying God is bounded by the contingencies of space-time?

>>16739467 (OP)
Define the word Scientific first

>>16740861
No, by the definition provided, the things you call space and time and the collective space-time are bounded by the contingencies of god since god existed first, by definition.

>>16741247
Any process of inquiry and/or discovery that conforms to the scientific method.

>>16739929
>The first thing to ever exist.
some ideas about the universe suggest that the universe is cyclical or that empty space can create a universe from nothing, so its possible that space existed before the initial singularity that formed our universe. since space is the realm of quantum physics, then your best bet to look for the divine through science might be there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

on the religious/philosophical front, it kind of jives with the concept of aristotle's "unmoved mover" too. where the divine that sets everything into motion is an "eternal unchanging immaterial substance". if space is more closer to being an eternal substance than the universe, then it could be the closest thing to the divine that we are currently aware of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.12.xii.html

christianity also explored the "unmoved mover" concept under aquinas, where he based his logical arguments for god off of aristotle's arguments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)

>>16739929
what if the first thing to exist was a normal rock
would you start worshiping it as a god or something?

>>16741300
That god would be powerful than your god because it could make a rock that even it couldn't lift since its the only to exist and lift has no meaning in that context.

>>16741296
>empty space can create a universe from nothing, so its possible that space existed before the initial singularity that formed our universe
Nope, by your definition nothing is the first thing to exist and create, so nothing is your god in that scenario.

First of all, what is your definition of "GOD"?

Is it like like the underlying "semi-Sentience" of the Omniverse that indiscriminately creates and destroys in a "Clockwork Omniverse," with some set of rules?

Without a Practical Definition a proper test can't ever be set up and it's human nature to hold bissis that can always interfere with the Scientific Method
Also there is the problem of What if "GOD" doesn't want to be found? Could bend the laws of Nature to hide It's presence and the Test show up negative

>>16741314
>nothing is your god in that scenario
if space is nothing, then it could be god? i think it was spinoza that argued that existence itself is god. and as far as space being nothing...it's not actually nothing. it has fields and fluctuations going on, which the universe from nothing model originates from. that would make space the mover of the universe...it set the universe into motion. if so then maybe space is the area where we could run experiments to find the existence of god.

>>16741329
>if space is nothing, then it could be god?
Space is not nothing, though, its unitary and has metrics like magnitude and direction that can be scaled and measured, its a certain amount of meters instead of nothing.

>>16739467 (OP)
it was real in my mind roflmao

>>16741300
If that rock was the seat of consciousness then yes.

>>16741329
>which the universe from nothing model originates from. that would make space the mover of the universe
No, in the nothing model, space comes from a dimensionless spaceless infinitely dense point of nothingness.

>that would make space the mover of the universe
No, it would make space the action potential of the universe, not the prime mover.
>it set the universe into motion
No it played out the motion that was originally set by nothing which spread out into emptiness which then had potential which then manifested action which we called space.

>>16739467 (OP)
Yes, it goes like this:

>hypothesis: if god real then bad thing not happen
>if bad thing happen, then no god
>if good thing happen, then god
>observation: good thing and bad thing happen
>conclusion: god and no god

>>16741383
>>hypothesis: if god real then bad thing not happen
That isn't OP's hypothesis, though, you just made up stuff that was easier to discredit.
>>if bad thing happen, then no god
Nope, it bad thing happen, then god is somewhat evil.
>if good thing happen, then god
is somewhat good

>>16741394
>anon be able to tell the difference between a joke and a serious post challenge (impossible)

>>16741396
It would have to have been funny to be a joke, if you want people to be able to tell when you have made a joke, you need to make sure what you said was humorous.

>>16741405
Well gee anon, if you don't have a sense of humour that's really a you problem

>>16741406
see
>>16741396
Did you think that was a serious post, did you fail your own challenge?

>>16741407
see
>>16741405

>>16741352
this

>>16739491
Wrong. Prayer is useful, just like any positive thinking. You can't imagine how much our health depends on our thoughts and prayer is good way to influence it

>>16741416
I find this specific prayer to really boost my religion xp bar, it goes like this:
>the stepfather
>the stepson
>the holy cuckerino
>amen
I feel really empowered and filled to the brim with the holy spirit. If I'm feeling a bit too holy I'll go for a visit to the church and have a great time with the pedo-homo priests. That never fails to balance my mood.

>>16740574
Personally I would go with "any means necessary with complete disregard for political or financial backlash"

>>16739467 (OP)
>>16741296
The entire point of God being immaterial, i.e. existing outside spacetime, is that it makes it impossible to "observe" or "detect" God directly

>>16741442
No, every major denomination on earth believes god is something real, there isn't a single holy book of an organized religion that claims god is just some entirely immaterial idea that can't directly influence reality.

>>16741451

retard. most theist dont think God is a physical being except for the son part of the trinity in Christianity. you dont know what you're talking about.

>>16739467 (OP)

argument from design or math i guess? can science prove science? can empiricism justify empiricism? can sense data verify sense data?

God is the nessacary precondition of math, logic, meaning, morality, intelligibility etc.

>>16741462
>durr most people don't think he is a material being except that they do

>>16741462
>can science prove science?
Yes that is why physicists are constantly trying to prove claims of chemists and biologists.

>can empiricism justify empiricism? can sense data verify sense data?
Empiricism and sense data is the same thing and yes that is how it works, when one person senses something, they check if someone else can also sense it to verify its existence.

>>16739467 (OP)
No.
If such a thing as "God" did exist, it would be so far beyond the understanding of the the human mind we can't even begin to explain it

>>16741479
So because you can't understand anything, you blame it on being human instead of being retarded?

>>16741421
kek

There are many experiments that, if succesful, would entail the existence of God but it only goes in one direction, it's not an if and only if.
Asking God if he exists and receiving a voice from the sky would be a succesful proof, as long as you control for human or alien interference.

>>16740857
>Every baby has a chance to grow up into the next Hitler

You retards don't even know how Hitler came into power and why he was liked during the shittest economics times of human history