Why cant we scientifically prove god?

Zulf

Peace!,

Personally I don't think faith, as in blind faith, is very reasonable... because you never know how accurate or astray that faith is.
I think that it has nothing to do with whether or not G-d wants us to be able to prove its existence scientifically or not... it is not like a chap (God) has decided for or against the proveability when creating everything. The impossibility of science to prove G-d lies in the very nature of science and all reality. I believe it is like when atheists ask whether God would be able to create a stone so heavy that even "He" cannot lift it, or whether God can delete "himself". These questions are not logical, clever or wise... they are impossible. They would only make sense a bit if you have a rather materialistic, limited and "scientific" image of God.

This is my take on it atleast.

Cheers!

hawk99

Peace,

Why cant we scientifically prove god?
God is outside of science, God created science There is no encompassing God.

There is only our relationship/dependecy on God. God has no need of us!

021.023
La yus-alu AAamma yafAAalu wahum yus-aloona
YUSUFALI He cannot be questioned for His acts, but they will be questioned (for theirs).
PICKTHAL He will not be questioned as to that which He doeth, but they will be questioned.
SHAKIR He cannot be questioned concerning what He does and they shall be questioned.
KHALIFA He is never to be asked about anything He does, while all others are questioned.

Nontheless let's entertain the question.
If we prove the existence of God imperically, that would nullify the test

Are they waiting until GOD Himself comes to them in dense clouds, together with the angels? When this happens, the whole matter will be terminated, and to GOD everything will be returned.

Those who possess no knowledge say, "If only GOD could speak to us, or some miracle could come to us!" Others before them have uttered similar utterances; their minds are similar. We do manifest the miracles for those who have attained certainty.

Some of us have been blessed with certainity while others need more proof while still others
have been blocked out altogether

We showed Abraham the marvels of the heavens and the earth, and blessed him with certainty.

Are they waiting for the angels to come to them, or your Lord, or some physical manifestations of your Lord? The day this happens, no soul will benefit from believing if it did not believe before that, and did not reap the benefits of belief by leading a righteous life.* Say, "Keep on waiting; we too are waiting."

It does not matter to some if it were possible for science to prove the existence of God,
they would just think that science has betrayed or tricked them!

They said, "No matter what kind of sign you show us, to dupe us with your magic, we will not believe."

The people of the scripture challenge you to bring down to them a book from the sky! They have asked Moses for more than that, saying, "Show us GOD, physically." Consequently, the lightning struck them, as a consequence of their audacity. Additionally, they worshiped the calf, after all the miracles they had seen. Yet, we pardoned all this. We supported Moses with profound miracles.

Peace O0

good_logic

Peace all.

For those who believe there is proof. They will attain certainty about GOD and HIS message.

For those that do not believe there is no proof.

As simple as that.

Peace.

hawk99

Peace all.

For those who believe there is proof. They will attain certainty about GOD and HIS message.

For those that do not believe there is no proof.

As simple as that.

Peace.

Peace,

Yep! "As simple as that."

Peace O0

StopS

Why do we have a word explaining religion and god faith?
We also have a tool, just like a hammer is a tool, called science, which is responsible exclusively to observe, measure, experiment with, test and explain the natural environment we live in. Science in no way addresses or is in any way concerned with the super-natural.
Science is based on facts and reality, religion is not. To believe a god exists and test people requires faith, science requires anything but.

Even after studying Islam for so long and living with Muslims on a daily basis, somehow I think I will never understand the obsession and common misunderstanding of science.

Those who believe and those who don't will have the ultimate proof - when they die. Why can't we all just wait until then and get along here on Earth in the meantime?

Zulf

The reason we cannot get along here meanwhile, has nothing to with religion. It has to do with the minds of human beings. Religion is just one of many reasons for not getting along, but it is a very large reason, simply because people invest lots and lots of identity into their religion (more than in nationality or sport team).
When you invest identity into religion, it means religion is part of your identity, and of course people get emotional when their identity gets questioned in different ways. People usually also never tend to question things they derive their identity from... so naturally we are up for trouble. The mind will furiously defend its identity, no matter what, but we almost never see this... the mechanics of the mind.
Yes, science deals with theories, trial n error, reasoning, logic etc in systematic and structured ways. But to say that science is based on facts and reality is ignorant (sorry) and shows we don't understand what science is. Science attempts to find facts and reality. It is a systematic tool to get to facts and reality, but it is just a tool. And the tool is only as good as the people who use it. Science is not a living being who spits out information that is true! Someone has to use the tool of science, which is just an approach to understand the surrounding world. So whatever someone finds, after using scientific methods, can be true or false. Let's not make science an infallible religion. People have already done that with religion, and the results are anything but enlightening or freeing.

Please do not equate science with truth and reality, and religion with the opposite. This is just simplistic. Reality is reality whatever science or religion says. Science and religion is only as good as the sincerity of those who practise them. If religion shows itself to be rigid, ignorant and non-advancing, then so be it. Many things the religions say may then be taken as fairy tales, especially if they go against science. But science is also not exact. It's theories change, and science certainly doesn't know it all. Science can see some of reality, but not all. Some things it got wrong, due to people's limited comprehension. And of course, religion is many times not a deep well of facts, agreed, but to dismiss everything in religion, is simplistic, ignorant and un-wise.

There may be stories in religion that are not meant to be taken literally (like the members of the sect of science always do). Taking everything literally is very limiting. Just look into various sayings of Jesus, or Buddha, and see what these saying could actually mean. They are not meant to be taken literally. Then you miss the point.

If religion to a large extent (whatever that means) is full of fairy tales and nonsense, it doesn't imply that there is no Creating Source. One may of course reject the various images of God in different religions, but this may be a good thing, as an image will only take you away from its reality. Allah says in AQ that we should not associate anything with it. It is because associating some image with it will result in an illusion, a mental construct, pointing away from reality.
Like I said, Creative Source must be experienced, not figured out or understood. Our minds cannot grasp it, and we should not be so simplistic to think that God doesn't exist just because our minds, which are just thinking and feeling tools, cannot grasp it. Inability to see is not same as 'doesn't exist'. Let's at least be realistic enough to admit that since some people report having experienced Creative Source, then it just might be true, even if we haven't experienced it for ourselves as yet. We should not be over confident. Let's leave a window of opportunity open.

Peace, and warm regards

StopS

In general, I agree and don't mind the change of whether facts and reality are the base or the goal or the base AND the goal.

But I do need to object to the claim that reality is what you make it. I need to appreciate that no matter how much I dream about it or how much I wish I could, I can't jump off a building without at least getting hurt. I have to accept that I can't fly. That is reality. I can demonstrate it. I can prove it. I can show this to someone who does not believe it. That is reality.

Science is not based on faith - religion is. Religion is centred on the spiritual not reality. If a religion claims unicorns exist or ants can communicate with humans I do not need to accept that as reality.

Science is based on accuracy and precision. Theories change to accommodate increasing accuracy. It explains our natural environment.

WHAT? Of course science will attempt to examine everything. We don't yet have all the answers and never will, but our knowledge is ever increasing. To associate human failings with a negative view of science is a lot worse than simplistic. And what uncovered that shortfall of cheating humans? Religion or science?

As long as proponents of a particular faith are trying to kill me because I don't believe what they believe I have to take this very literal and very serious.

What on Earth is a "sect of science"?

Some people have seen ghosts, aliens, Bigfoot, Nessie, unicorns, ..... the list is endless. Should I believe all of them, because some lunatic claims they exist? Or do I ask for proof?

No, I go with believing where I have a reason to believe it.

If a god would be all-knowing, it would know what proof I require.
If a god would be all-powerful, it would be able to provide that proof.
If a god would be all-merciful, it would provide it.

inquisitivetrini

I think we actually can scientifically prove God exists. Check out this article, which attempts to prove God's existance without any religious texts at all. Only scientific theory.

http//www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/finding_god_%28P1180%29.html

Zulf

Hey StopS,

I also generally agree with what you say. I makes sense no doubt, but there is much more to it.
As far as I see it, there is no duality or opposition between science and religion. A person can be living in reality to different extents. This person can also engage is all sorts of hobbies, such as science or religion. While there are some gold nuggets in religion, they are usually misunderstood in absurdum. As far as science (which is physical science) is concerned... it can only go so far. There are domains where science cannot go, but which is verifiable and reproducible by whomever takes that path. Just because you cannot hook some aspects of reality up to a gel electrophoresis device or describe it with some differential equation, it doesn't mean they are not real. Well, in some way it does. If there is something a person cannot see or feel, then that thing actually doesn't exist TO THAT person, but there is no need to claim non-existence in totality.

If a god would be all-merciful, it would provide it.

I disagree with this idea. This is your assumption, as good or bad as pink unicorns.
This is based on the idea that things are not fair in the world, and misses the point of what all-merciful means and how things work.
God, in lack of a better word, will not silver spoon feed you. I think this is a black-and-white type of reasoning, like "either you're with us or you're against us". People usually conclude that God doesn't exist simply because they are not living in a all perfect and blissed out paradise. I think this way of seeing it comes from the distorted and deluded image of God that has come from the abrahamitic religions, where God is seen as some authority that dishes out happiness, or punishment, or whatever, as per his wishes and ways.

Anyhow, peace and take care!
All the best

StopS

I think we actually can scientifically prove God exists. Check out this article, which attempts to prove God's existance without any religious texts at all. Only scientific theory.

http//www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/finding_god_%28P1180%29.html

Oh dear, just a warmed up version of the "First Mover" or cosmology argument. No science, just pseudo-science and an appeal to emotion and ignorance.

StopS

I also generally agree with what you say. I makes sense no doubt, but there is much more to it.

I disagree with this idea. This is your assumption, as good or bad as pink unicorns.
This is based on the idea that things are not fair in the world, and misses the point of what all-merciful means and how things work.
God, in lack of a better word, will not silver spoon feed you. I think this is a black-and-white type of reasoning, like "either you're with us or you're against us". People usually conclude that God doesn't exist simply because they are not living in a all perfect and blissed out paradise. I think this way of seeing it comes from the distorted and deluded image of God that has come from the abrahamitic religions, where God is seen as some authority that dishes out happiness, or punishment, or whatever, as per his wishes and ways.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Science is like a hammer. A tool for a purpose. And that limits it right from the word go.
And yes, I agree there is more out there than we can even imagine. We only scratched the surface and given that science has only been around ~250 years, it's come a long way.

Well, the black-and-white thinking is what has been instilled into me by what I read in scripture, regardless of which one. No, with your reasoning I would immediately send you to the Euthyphro dilemma which is perfect here.

May I ask what your definition of a super-natural deity is? Or is that unwelcome here?

Zulf

Dear StopS,

Well, the black-and-white thinking is what has been instilled into me by what I read in scripture, regardless of which one.

I don't blame you. It happens quite easily.

May I ask what your definition of a super-natural deity is? Or is that unwelcome here?

You may ask anything you wish. All sincere questions should always be welcome and encouraged.

I don't have any special definition for IT. Often it is more beneficial to see what it is NOT. Labels, classification and images will only lead away from it. In any case, it is not super-natural. It is very natural. It is the only natural. It is not separate from us, even though we cannot sense it most of the time, but at the same time as we are part of it, it is also infinitely larger than us. Anyone can find it, if so desired, but it will be experienced, not described or figured out. The mind will not grasp it. I don't expect anyone to understand what I'm writing. But since you asked...

The Euthyphro dilemma

I'm just a simple person who knows just a little, but I think that the dilemma spoken of, smells like the typical case of an image of a separate deity in the sky sending books n commands. I think this is a very mechanical and greek god type of concept...

Kind regards,
Peace

StopS

You may ask anything you wish. All sincere questions should always be welcome and encouraged.

Well, I don't intend to offend......

I don't have any special definition for IT. Often it is more beneficial to see what it is NOT. Labels, classification and images will only lead away from it. In any case, it is not super-natural. It is very natural. It is the only natural. It is not separate from us, even though we cannot sense it most of the time, but at the same time as we are part of it, it is also infinitely larger than us. Anyone can find it, if so desired, but it will be experienced, not described or figured out. The mind will not grasp it. I don't expect anyone to understand what I'm writing. But since you asked...

From what I CAN understand it sure sounds more interesting than most accounts where a meta-physical being without definition does something and everything merely poofs into existence from nothing by mere thought control justified through highly developed anthropomorphism.

I'm just a simple person who knows just a little, but I think that the dilemma spoken of, smells like the typical case of an image of a separate deity in the sky sending books n commands. I think this is a very mechanical and greek god type of concept...

Indeed, it is, so had I known what I know now, I would have canned it

boricuaboi85

Or even better why doesnt he just show himself to us?? Im really struggling with my religion at the moment and it probably hasnt helped watching all those atheist youtube clips challenging my faith!

But I really can not understand why god doesnt just prove himself to me like he did to the rest of the prophets? Is it not unfair that the prophets got 1st hand evidence which I will not get and the prophets only believed in god once they did receive this special evidence (e.g. moses and muhammed who werent believers until they received the word of god)?

Even if God did show Godself to you, you would not be able to see God. God is infinite spirit. God does not have a body to be seing. God's being is not bound by flesh to be seen.

Also, God cannot be proven by science for this very reason. God is not scientific, because God cannot be viewed with the senses. Without this ability to observe and exmperiment on God, God cannot be scientific. Science can only work with finite things that have matter and are observable.

GODsubmitter

Very well said @boricuaboi85.

And then, doesn't Qur'an start with

" ...who believe in the unseen, observe the Contact Prayers (Salat), and from our provisions to them, they give to charity."

... belief in the unseen (not perceptible by the senses) being the prerequisite of the religion?

hawk99

Peace All,

Before we forget that science is not the end all to be all let's remember that science has it's limitations.
Science comes up short in answering question in many fields

Mankind has never devised a better tool for solving the mysteries of the universe than science. However, there are some kinds of questions for which scientific problem solving is unsuited. In other words, science has limitations.

There are three primary areas for which science can't help us answer our questions. All of these have the same problem The questions they present don't have testable answers. Since testability is so vital to the scientific process, these questions simply fall outside the venue of science.

The three areas of limitation are

Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?" And of course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the element gold, but if what you need is something to build a skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way to scientifically determine value.

Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us solve the dispute over abortion all a scientist can tell you is what is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and social rules--in other words, morality. The science can't help here.

Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from consideration of the moral issues surrounding what they do. Like all humans, they are accountable morally and ethically for what they do.

Finally, science can't help us with questions about the supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach. In view of this final point, it's interesting how many scientists have forgotten their own limitations. Every few years, some scientist will publish a book claiming that he or she has either proven the existence of a god, or proven that no god exists. Of course, even if science could prove anything (which it can't), it certainly can't prove this, since by definition a god is a supernatural phenomenon.
Peace O0

Flame_Master

Let me try to humbly express my opinion, I do not intend to offend anybody. If my language does seem offending, I apologize for the ill effect.

shadowpuppet

So.. if God isn't a human, and is really more of an "it" than a "he" or a "she" ....then, one might make the
conclusion that God is simply the force(s) of nature and the laws which govern them/it.

Isn't this god more or less subjective to "objects" it can interact with? Since "natural laws" cannot exist by themselves without an entity to act on or draw meaning from such as mass or charge.
The natural laws we observe were coupled (GUT) at the time of Big bang and science cannot project it before the singularity, granted, an argument can be made to a "grander" law that sets off universe(s) with some kind of programming to include all the "laws we observe today" and a "much grander law" that initiated the "grander" one, in-essence we are almost making the "grandest law" as God (though this sounds elegant, we do not know of a law that by itself generates the entity it acts on - maybe that law could be God).
As for the "poetification", I guess its useless to speculate about what we do not know exactly (although the descriptions of heaven as gardens beneath which rivers flow does give an allegory). Taking everything poetically works too, but in a different way. Like taking the law of gravity to be poetic about Love and mass as the "Spiritual essence" of some kind, does paint a picture but one that is different from the reality intended. I am not speculating that God is measurable as in gravity! Our daily laws as god would mean that god is able to be manipulated to suit our selfish acts as we please (or maybe ascribing intelligence to laws as Paulo Coelho does in Alchemist could work too).

Student of Allah

I dont know if that makes any sense, but thats the kind of idea I got from Physics. If all that sounds too complex, that means 2 things,

I failed to explain
I wrongly assumed that you might be familiar with the background of that particular field of physics.

I agree. Could the whole "Experience of God" be subjective and hence everyone needs it to be verified for oneself?

Same here, I never expected Bill gates to come and run all the codes himself on my windows machine. I never expected Bill and his team to show up in my house on every windows update. They dont need to, they are smart programmers. If Bill can be that smart, Allah is logically supposed to be smarter. He would have absolute control without physical interference.

Indescribable intelligence given any unknown, is able to solve for it and hence "nothing" is hidden, no matter what! Would we be able to understand at least the working of our Universe and the paradoxes we encounter when we meet him on Day of Judgement? or are we doomed to ignorance no matter what?

uq

Personally, I believe - based on certain verses - that all things have knowledge of God, though I can't yet conclusively prove this. This presumed knowledge, combined with the infinitesimal improbability of the universe's self-assembly, serve to give us, as humans, ample proof that God is one.

Could humans by evolution (design) be God cautious (some more than others)? - could that explain why we feel "awesome" "beauty"etc when we recognize something we can attribute as "work of God" or "Divine Intervention"? Could it also explain why there have been so many religions worldwide through history? Could God have authored most of them?

Amm

...why doesnt he just show himself to us??...

Maybe he is obvious enough for us to understand somehow and yet we are unable to do so?
Being "shown" to us cannot always work in our human selves.
eg We cannot "see" God, because our eyes cannot "see" anything above or below visual wavelength unless aided somehow.
Maybe the only show we can have are revelations or scriptures and anything above can only be subjective. Like how God showed his signs to People of Moses or through Jesus and they were indeed subjective evidence and lost in time. Maybe you need to ask God to send you a personal sign so that you could be sure , and assuming you are not "arrogant" enough to "reject" "every(obvious/non-obvious)" "sign"! (maybe like how Abraham did in Qur'an 2260)

God Within

It is that state of energy at rest

Okay! At rest compared to what? Is there a notion of absolute motion or absolute motionless? What about "matter" at "rest" since it too is actually "energy" at "rest"?

MUNZIR ALI

One was horus which preceded jesus. I wonder why the quran only mentions jesus and claims that it was a miracle.

Where did you find out Horus had virgin birth? (Zeitgeist?) Ises was not a Virgin when she became pregnant!
Qur'an only mentioned prophets and their stories that are relevant or will become relevant. Which could be the reason why a lot Hebrew prophets and people we do not even know of are not mentioned.
Parthenogenesis is indeed plausible as was in the case of Mary Mother of Jesus.

Zulf

I think we cannot prove God thru science partly because we have the wrong idea of what God is. What are we looking for? Some dude in the sky? Some other poster said that the quran seems to talk about that everyone and everything already knows God (or whatever word we should use not to get into a wrong idea)... and then goes on saying and putting emphasis on that God is one. So the quran is not mainly talking about the existance of God, but rather its oneness and how accurate our belief is. I really liked this observation, and I'm sure there are more great posts in the thread, but I really haven't gone thru the thread.

Indeed I agree with you! In-order for Mathematical Modeling to be applied we need black and white facts and this is not possible with the case of God especially when we are looking for something which we don't know exactly as to what!
And our evolutionary developments do not allow us to have a fully objective view of the universe either. Sometimes I think the whole idea of trying to prove God is like trying to prove String Theory - Its elegant and M theory does help in accounting for a TOE although invoking 11 to 26 dimensions in the process, whole thing just sounds too good to be true but has no experimental evidence as of yet (to my knowledge)! And not to even start about the Multiverse hypothesis!

noshirk

So believing in GOD without seeing him or having a scientifc proof is central in faith.
However there numerous signs but never an incontestable proof.

This brings us back to "purpose of our creation" in religious terms. Are we being really arrogant by asserting that we need a "Scientific proof"? Could we be comparable to Helio-centric ancients who debate on God about the same proofs while their state of knowledge was poorer still to understand God? or Are we proposing that there is a need to believe in an entity that our rational process might not be able to comprehend (easily or not at all)? Could Religion be proof enough (the so called "atleast one of the religion is true argument&quot?

StopS

Before we forget that science is not the end all to be all let's remember that science has it's limitations.

Science observes, describes, measures, tests, ..... nature.

Mankind has never devised a better tool for solving the mysteries of the universe than science. However, there are some kinds of questions for which scientific problem solving is unsuited. In other words, science has limitations.

There are three primary areas for which science can't help us answer our questions. All of these have the same problem The questions they present don't have testable answers. Since testability is so vital to the scientific process, these questions simply fall outside the venue of science.

The three areas of limitation are

Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?" And of course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the element gold, but if what you need is something to build a skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way to scientifically determine value.

Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us solve the dispute over abortion all a scientist can tell you is what is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and social rules--in other words, morality. The science can't help here.

Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from consideration of the moral issues surrounding what they do. Like all humans, they are accountable morally and ethically for what they do.

Finally, science can't help us with questions about the supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach. In view of this final point, it's interesting how many scientists have forgotten their own limitations. Every few years, some scientist will publish a book claiming that he or she has either proven the existence of a god, or proven that no god exists. Of course, even if science could prove anything (which it can't), it certainly can't prove this, since by definition a god is a supernatural phenomenon.
Peace O0

I have to disagree here. Science CAN measure and explain what flower is deemed prettier and explain why the human brain will take that very decision. It has been demonstrated and tested.

Science CAN explain morality. It is measurable, demonstrable, quantifiable and has been tested in animals of different species.

THIS is true. Science does NOT concern itself with the supernatural, as it is based not on nature, but faith, a human brain construct. We can see what areas in the brain are stimulated and why this gives us pleasurable feelings and provides comfort, but not why some humans have had and still have this tendency towards the occult.

Just as an aside you can't prove a negative, so any attempt at proving something does not exist is futile and nonsensical. Anyway, the claimant is required to prove the claim.

GODsubmitter

Interesting video on the subject

"Many do not realize that their God does not communicate with them because BY DEFINITION, it does NOT EXIST! How/Why the Hellenized Academics Defined G-d into non-existence and could no longer hear his voice. Obviously, if something does not exist, it cannot communicate."
(from the description of the video)

THE NATURE OF GOD

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=24HOUNSyTC4&feature=plcp

hawk99

Science observes, describes, measures, tests, ..... nature.
I have to disagree here. Science CAN measure and explain what flower is deemed prettier and explain why the human brain will take that very decision. It has been demonstrated and tested.

Peace Stop S,

You cannot measure prettiness, it's a matter of taste. Some people like red some like yellow,
people value different things for different reasons.

You said
Science CAN explain morality. It is measurable, demonstrable, quantifiable and has been tested in animals of different species.

Explain morality? It appears you are confusing explanation (opinion) with proof. One
cannot measure, demonstrate, or quantify abortion.

I like you have a fondness for science and use it as a tool for reason and the compiliation
of empirical data, but I also recognize the invisible and the incalculable.

Peace O0