Why cant we scientifically prove god?
-
Peace,
Getting back to the thread,
Peace,
THE PREMISE Part 3
The fact, for instance, that every human culture - no matter how isolated - has communicated through language suggests that our species' linguistic capacities constitute a genetically inherited trait. Since our capacity for language represents a cognitive function, there must exist some very specific cluster of neurons within the brain from which our linguistic capacities are generated.
As we know such "linguistic" sites do exist in the human brain and include the Wernicke's area, Broca's area, and angular gyrus. Damage incurred to any one of these "language" specific sites will impair some very specific part of one's language capacities. What this clearly demonstrates is that our linguistic capacities are directly related to our neurophysiological makeup. Furthermore, this supports the notion that for every cross-cultural behavior our species exhibits there must exist a specific part of the brain from which that behavior is generated.
If it's true that this principle applies to all of our cross-cultural behaviors, should we not also apply it to spirituality? Every known culture from the dawn of our species has maintained a belief in some form of a "spiritual" reality. Wouldn't this suggest that human spirituality must represent an inherent characteristic of our species, that is, a genetically inherited trait? Furthermore, being that spirituality, just like language, represents a cognitive function, wouldn't this suggest that our "spiritual" instincts, just like our linguistic ones, must be generated from some very specific physical part within the brain? I informally refer to this site as the "God" part of the brain, a cluster of neurons from which spiritual cognitions, sensations, and behaviors are generated.
THE "GOD" PART OF THE BRAIN Author Matthew Alper
Recall that your Lord summoned all the descendants of Adam, and had them bear witness for themselves "Am I not your Lord?" They all said, "Yes. We bear witness." Thus, you cannot say on the Day of Resurrection, "We were not aware of this."
God bless,
peace
Based on cross cultural behaviors that are common to all humans, we can conclude that some things are true
or real and are a part of our existence, our very essence. If we consider anthropology a field of science, could
we not conclude that according to science God does exist? Of course if one were to conclude that anthropology
is not science but pseudoscience then my conclusion can be taken off the table. Some don't believe in love, but
many do believe so, likewise music is universal but some have no need for it. God or spirituality is universal but
some are nonbelievers. Please feel free to give opinions in this regard.God bless
peace
-
Peace, hawk99.
Based on cross cultural behaviors that are common to all humans, we can conclude that some things are true
or real and are a part of our existence, our very essence. If we consider anthropology a field of science, could
we not conclude that according to science God does exist? Of course if one were to conclude that anthropology
is not science but pseudoscience then my conclusion can be taken off the table. Some don't believe in love, but
many do believe so, likewise music is universal but some have no need for it. God or spirituality is universal but
some are nonbelievers.Personally, I think anthropology is a field of science, to a degree at least. And yes, I think that we can conclude scientifically that God does exist. However, the problem lies in the literary perspective rather than the scientific. Any scientist would say that God definitely exists, depending on how you define the word "god". That's where the issue comes in. If someone came out and said, "I am God" (e.g. one who possesses power, influence, knowledge, or anything else he/she uses to define the term), then scientists would absolutely agree; although they may differ on the magnitude of the mentioned qualities, THAT "god" absolutely exists in the real and natural world, and that's something that's undebatable.
The same thing applies when 'scientific pantheists' state that "God" is synonymous with the Universe (in the absolute sense). Again, scientists can't argue with that notion. They can't prove that a pantheistic god doesn't exist, since that would be tantamount to stating that the Universe (e.g. reality, nature, energy, etc.) doesn't exist. It all depends on how we define the word "god". On the same note, if someone stated that God is literally a giant, invisible man in the sky, then those same scientists would probably laugh you out of the conversation.
Both figures are called "God", and both are philosophical notions. One philosophical concept is also a physical (material) concept, though, which means that it can be tested, measured and assessed. The other, being a 'spiritual' (supernatural) concept, can't be tested or analyzed at all. You can have knowledge of one, while the other can only be believed. That's where the scientific line is drawn. If something can be accepted without proof, then it can also be dismissed due to the lack of proof.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
Peace,
Ahmad
-
I appreciate your tinkering, brother Ahmad. You surely add to the topic.
Be of one with God
-
Peace, hawk99.
Personally, I think anthropology is a field of science, to a degree at least. And yes, I think that we can conclude scientifically that God does exist. However, the problem lies in the literary perspective rather than the scientific. Any scientist would say that God definitely exists, depending on how you define the word "god". That's where the issue comes in. If someone came out and said, "I am God" (e.g. one who possesses power, influence, knowledge, or anything else he/she uses to define the term), then scientists would absolutely agree; although they may differ on the magnitude of the mentioned qualities, THAT "god" absolutely exists in the real and natural world, and that's something that's undebatable.
The same thing applies when 'scientific pantheists' state that "God" is synonymous with the Universe (in the absolute sense). Again, scientists can't argue with that notion. They can't prove that a pantheistic god doesn't exist, since that would be tantamount to stating that the Universe (e.g. reality, nature, energy, etc.) doesn't exist. It all depends on how we define the word "god". On the same note, if someone stated that God is literally a giant, invisible man in the sky, then those same scientists would probably laugh you out of the conversation.
Both figures are called "God", and both are philosophical notions. One philosophical concept is also a physical (material) concept, though, which means that it can be tested, measured and assessed. The other, being a 'spiritual' (supernatural) concept, can't be tested or analyzed at all. You can have knowledge of one, while the other can only be believed. That's where the scientific line is drawn. If something can be accepted without proof, then it can also be dismissed due to the lack of proof.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
Peace,
Ahmad
Peace Ahmad Bilal,
I tend to agree that at least the biological/behavioral science branch of anthropology is indeed science
however, my point of view may be biased due to my religious beliefs, having said that, I would not conclude
what scientist would say in regards to the existence of God because there is no unilateral agreement.
The confusion of whether God is physical versus supernatural, is a non starter because scientist
of the empirical persuasion have no input due to the fact there is nothing to measure! Therefore we must leave
the sciences that require measurement and repeatability out of the discussion and discuss the subject
as supernatural where it clearly belongs, and that is within the human brain like other non tangible characteristics.
That only leaves the sciences of observation followed by conclusion like in post #133. The attempt at defining God
in actuality quite easy, because men have wrote about God in many texts, and these texts should be examined to
bring us to a reasonable conclusion about who or what God is.God bless
peace
-
Peace, Man of Faith.
I appreciate your tinkering, brother Ahmad. You surely add to the topic.
Thank you, sir. I appreciate your perspectives as well. They definitely give me new ideas to consider.
Be of one with God
Indeed! You do the same, sir.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace, hawk99.
I tend to agree that at least the biological/behavioral science branch of anthropology is indeed science
however, my point of view may be biased due to my religious beliefs, having said that, I would not conclude
what scientist would say in regards to the existence of God because there is no unilateral agreement.
The confusion of whether God is physical versus supernatural, is a non starter because scientist
of the empirical persuasion have no input due to the fact there is nothing to measure! Therefore we must leave
the sciences that require measurement and repeatability out of the discussion and discuss the subject
as supernatural where it clearly belongs, and that is within the human brain like other non tangible characteristics.
That only leaves the sciences of observation followed by conclusion like in post #133. The attempt at defining God
in actuality quite easy, because men have wrote about God in many texts, and these texts should be examined to
bring us to a reasonable conclusion about who or what God is.I apologize for the late reply...
I highlighted the portion of your post that I tend to have some skepticism about... I agree that, when it comes to any supernatural power (e.g. gods, angels, demons, spirits, etc.), there is nothing to measure. However, that also illustrates why I say that many scientists would scientifically reject those ideas. If something can't be tested or measured, then we can't prove that it actually exists. We can only speculate and believe. And, needless to say, that doesn't fit into the realm of scientific thought because, of course, we can believe in Santa Claus and his band of elves too - that doesn't make them real.
Concerning the books, particularly with regard to what people have written about God(s), I can agree with you to an extent on a philosophical level. However, that's also dependent on preconceived notions. For starters, people have written books on many different gods and divine figures, not just the Islamic concept of God (e.g. ALLAH). A simple trip to a local library will uncover thousands of documents about Brahma, Vishnu, Ahura-Mazda, Mithra, Amun-Ra, Yahweh, Zeus, Apollo, and many others. And, even worse than this, these deities aren't all related philosophically - Brahma is a pantheistic god, Vishnu is a force of destruction and desolation, Ahura-Mazda is a dualistic god ("evenly matched" against the evil god Ahriman) of light, Mithra is a messianic god, Amun-Ra and Apollo are solar gods, Yahweh is a physical (and anthropomorphic) national god, and Zeus is a material god atop a large mountain who is the "chief" of a group of other gods. In other words, they can't reasonably be talking about the same figure in all of them, especially due to the striking differences between them. And, again, this is a very small list.
Hypothetically, if we did sit down and read through ALL of those books concerning the various gods and goddesses throughout the world and its history, what conclusion would we come up with? Which god would be perceived as the "right" one? Well, that's not difficult to address either. As the saying goes, "The proof is in the pudding!" The fact is, nearly every society in the world, throughout history, has possessed and revered a solar deity. This dates back to the ancient Nubians, Egyptians, Indians and Mesopotamians, which are considered the oldest of the world's (religious) civilizations. Even the Central and South American societies, which some contend are just as old, had a solar god (e.g. Viracocha). Why? Because the existence of the Sun is something that nobody can deny. If people need evidence for the existence of their divine figure(s), all they have to do is look up in the sky! That alone tells me that, if knowledge and belief of all deific figures was somehow lost, and people were searching for a 'new god' to worship, they would probably look toward something physical - and the Sun would be the primary candidate (the Universe as a whole, or Nature, would probably come in at a close second-place)!
To sum it up, personally, I think that, if people objectively read about every deity and studied every "holy book" throughout the world, basing their conclusions on the validity of the arguments therein, very few people would believe in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic deity. The Bible doesn't provide any ideas concerning the validity of the "god argument" at all, for example. It builds on the foundational principle that these people (e.g. the Israelites) already know that God exists and have supposedly physically seen all of the things that He's done for them. The Qur'aan actually does expound on the concept of divinity in a rational method, which is great and sufficient to many - but it does this on the premise that people already believe in ALLAH and acknowledge His existence. Instead of saying, "This is how you know I'm real," it opens on the basis of, "You already know that I'm real, and this is what I've done (and do), and this is what I want you to do!"
And, by the way, this isn't including the originating functions of the messages themselves! Outside of the concepts relayed in Judaism, all of the other facets of revelation are completely limited. In other words, they were all revealed to ONE MAN in an isolated area when he was all by himself, with nobody else present to witness the event. For some unknown reason, the other inhabitants of the land in which the man dwelt (and possibly throughout the rest of the known world) are expected to blindly believe and follow him based on abstract ideals, such as his "moral character" or his "great piety", etc. Again, the only religious philosophy in which I'm aware that steers away from this premise is the Judaic one, since ALL of the Israelites (supposedly) heard God speak to them collectively at Mount Horeb, or Sinai. All of the other guys had dreams concerning God's plan and commands, they heard "voices" inside their heads, they spoke to Him secretly when nobody else was around, they had visions of His majesty, etc. - which are all things that can't be objectively verified or substantiated. Sure, some of these people performed fantastic 'miracles' to validate their divine mission; but these can't be substantiated either. At the end of the day, it's all based on hearsay.
What's your view concerning that?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
If you say God is an elephant, and believe the existence of an elephant can be scientifically proven, then yes.
It always depends on your criteria, and what you believe can be scientifically proven, and if that is what you call God.
I believe my God is logically necessary, so in that sense can kind of be "scientifically proven" in a way, but maybe it doesn't count.
Another easy way is to say "there is stuff" "whatever is Ultimately moving the "stuff", the Ultimate most whatever at all, the Ultimate cause or determiner is what I consider God", so that can be called "Chance" "Probability" "Animation" "Power" or whatever.
-
The Sustainer is so close to people to perceive that in their very existence they can prove the Sustainer. It takes some abstract thinking, but it is quite easy to figure out that there is a background intelligence to all this. The universe is simply intelligent in itself, even a scientist in their delusion could figure that out if they reflected. Just check on how all this matter in the universe could even assemble itself and then gradually develop biological lifeforms. The one who thinks the evolution is not guided by a more sophisticated intelligence is not thinking enough. I call it illogical to be not believing in some form of "deity" even if it is pantheism or panentheism and everything is included and not separate from it.
I had not even encountered Quran or the Bible in any particular way but I still begun to acknowledge the Sustainer as the ultimate truth after I was contemplating at home over my own existence. The same year as I had those "realizations" I also made my so far strongest prayer in my life begging (with tears) "the one that can listen even if I do not know who you are" and prayed for a wife and I wanted a family before I turn 30 since I had a deluded conception of failure not to having established a family yet. I made detailed wishes of how my wife should be. Believe it or not, two years later I meet a woman coincidentally without actively looking or even intending go for her but she begun to make approaches. The point is that I did not know her, but I found out later that she has been exactly the woman in my prayer, and my prayer was fulfilled before I turned 30 and I had a son before I turned 30.
Obviously and ironically I now when I am 33 regret that I made that prayer, but I have to stand my ground. It appears that no matter what I do I am stuck with this woman. At least now she lets me work on the reinterpretation of Quran peacefully after heavy turmoil. I have to eat up what I prayed for because I prayed for a traditional woman with "old-school" views and this was exactly what I got too, because I did not want the women that simply can leave a man over no valid reasons. Now my problem is I cannot get rid of the woman no matter I want it or not instead. It makes me laugh at myself. I brought a curse upon myself.
If looking at things from the positive side, it tremendously boosted my faith and today 2015 I am beyond doubt certain that the Sustainer exists and I am also insisting that I have insight into the "realm".
But whatever you do, if you have faith, do not pray for what is bad for you...
All my prayers from a period of 10 years and perhaps even more are gradually coming true and it is scary actually and I realize I must be careful.
-
Obviously and ironically I now when I am 33 regret that I made that prayer, but I have to stand my ground. It appears that no matter what I do I am stuck with this woman. At least now she lets me work on the reinterpretation of Quran peacefully after heavy turmoil. I have to eat up what I prayed for because I prayed for a traditional woman with "old-school" views and this was exactly what I got too, because I did not want the women that simply can leave a man over no valid reasons. Now my problem is I cannot get rid of the woman no matter I want it or not instead. It makes me laugh at myself. I brought a curse upon myself.
If looking at things from the positive side, it tremendously boosted my faith and today 2015 I am beyond doubt certain that the Sustainer exists and I am also insisting that I have insight into the "realm".
But whatever you do, if you have faith, do not pray for what is bad for you...
All my prayers from a period of 10 years and perhaps even more are gradually coming true and it is scary actually and I realize I must be careful.
Quran 2155
"Be sure we shall test you with something of fear and hunger, some loss in goods or lives or the fruits (of your toil), but give glad tidings to those who patiently persevere,"Quran 4731
"And We shall try you until We test those among you who strive their utmost and persevere in patience; and We shall try your reported (mettle)."
Quran 292
"Does mankind think that they will be left to say, "We believe", and that they will not be tested?"Quran 3949
"Now, when trouble touches man, he cries to Us But when We bestow a favour upon him as from Ourselves, he says, "This has been given to me because of a certain knowledge (I have)!" Nay, but this is but a trial, but most of them understand not!" -
But whatever you do, if you have faith, do not pray for what is bad for you...
All my prayers from a period of 10 years and perhaps even more are gradually coming true and it is scary actually and I realize I must be careful.
You accept the power of prayer? But yet you deny salaat as a form of prayer because, as per you, such a God / creator would not require it.
-
Just check on how all this matter in the universe could even assemble itself and then gradually develop biological lifeforms.
Would this help answer your query?
Quran 4111
"Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come , willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly."
We DO know today 'scientifically' that there exist massive clouds in the galaxy that are there for the only reason as to create new stars. These massive clouds collapse to form stars and planets.
-
Hi OnlyOneGod,
You accept the power of prayer? But yet you deny salaat as a form of prayer because, as per you, such a God / creator would not require it.
I deny "salat" because the word does simply not refer to prayer, at all.
Prayer men and women of all ages have been practicing with or without physical exercise. Although they are not absolutely necessary because the Sustainer knows what you need before you have even opened your mouth. The Sustainer does not require it.
The only thing that is expected by the Sustainer is that a man becomes perfect. But I suppose the Sustainer does not expect too many actually achieve that considered the magnitude of the illusion. The Sustainer planted seeds and is waiting for harvest from a cultivation planted in a harsh environment, but there is a refuge...
Would this help answer your query?
Thanks, but what I wrote was a rhetorical remark and not a query. The topic of the thread is "Why cant we scientifically prove god?"
Be well
-
Peace,
Why can't we scientifically prove god?
The issue is on the phenomenon to be proven and the methodology.
How do we define god and what is scientific method?Let's put it that the conceptual definition of god=the supreme intelligent "it", creator of all beings and its information embedded as knowledge which we are able to sense and understand empirically and logically (logical empiricism position). Is such "it" exists.
My operational test General statement from many people that the Quran contains message created/written by god. Is it true?
My position after careful study Yes i positively and logically concluded with certainty that the book contains messages from my creator and the creator of all beings.
Once i understand what god is from the quran, i can only get to the Truth of its existence via knowledge.
Zone.
-
Peace,
Why can't we scientifically prove god?
The issue is on the phenomenon to be proven and the methodology.
How do we define god and what is scientific method?Let's put it that the conceptual definition of god=the supreme intelligent "it", creator of all beings and its information embedded as knowledge which we are able to sense and understand empirically and logically (logical empiricism position). Is such "it" exists.
My operational test General statement from many people that the Quran contains message created/written by god. Is it true?
My position after careful study Yes i positively and logically concluded with certainty that the book contains messages from my creator and the creator of all beings.
Once i understand what god is from the quran, i can only get to the Truth of its existence via knowledge.
Zone.
Do you claim that there are some words or works which are not from God?
-
The atheists do not believe in a God because science cannot prove it to them. But the scientists of just a few hundred years ago would have called bullshit if anyone said that there are invisible rays in the air which man can control and command to his will. Would that scientist have accepted that people across the globe could talk to each other, or have things like televisions or xray machines. Of course not. Because they speak within the confines of the limited knowledge that they have.
A scientists will talk all day about his belief in the laws of science and then casually accept the fact that the laws of science (as we know them today) collapse within a black hole or at the time of singularity of the universe. If laws of science CAN collapse in such scenarios then it is not a big stretch to imagine that these physical laws are not the absolute truths that the atheists make them out to be.
They also argue as to why there is evil in the world if their is a God deity overseeing everything? I think that the existence of evil is itself a proof of a God. To begin with, every man is somehow born with an innate sense of right and wrong. Religions do not create the good and the bad, they simply enforce the importance of being good. Even an atheist knows that love and charity are good things, while murder and rape are bad. Evil has its own purpose and so does disease and inequality.
People do not see intelligent design in the creation and working of the universe but I see it all around me and it amazes me.
If God wanted man to be able to prove his existence beyond a shadow of a doubt then the very purpose of mans existence on this planet would become null and void.
-
They also argue as to why there is evil in the world if their is a God deity overseeing everything?
I come across that a lot. Funny how some scientific people don't realize that this world is nothing but a test ground for humans. Our lives are temporary for a reason. And Allah has given us the power to eliminate evil. But our lazy bones don't want to get up and do it. Instead we work for it. Imagine what would happen if people of the world unite and rise against the elite. But nope, its not gonna happen, for we believe in whatever the media says and that keeps us divided quite perfectly.
-
I come across that a lot. Funny how some scientific people don't realize that this world is nothing but a test ground for humans. Our lives are temporary for a reason. And Allah has given us the power to eliminate evil. But our lazy bones don't want to get up and do it. Instead we work for it. Imagine what would happen if people of the world unite and rise against the elite. But nope, its not gonna happen, for we believe in whatever the media says and that keeps us divided quite perfectly.
The laws of good and evil have been ordained, they are as much laws as the physics laws of cause and effect, or the positive and the negative poles of a magnet. They each play their own part within what Allah (swt) has created. It is up to us to choose which side we join (free will).