As you probably know, what the first thing everyone is required to do when becoming a scientist is disprove the existence of God. There is the traditional disproof (“Can God create a rock He cannot lift?”), but we like people to be creative and come up with their own proofs (a popular one today is, “If God is so perfect, how come He didn’t patent the iPhone?”). While it is understood that God and Science! conflict, not everyone understands why.
In Science!, there is the “observer effect”, which is that observing anything in nature also affects it. God is omnipresent, which means He’s observing everything. So, in effect, God is screwing up all our experiments. So, there are two ways around this: Disprove God or come up with same way to keep Him from watching and corrupting our experiments.
Disproving God is the easiest option, but there are some efforts to do experiments in ways to negate the God bias. Hell is supposed to be farthest from God’s influence, so doing experiments there may be less corrupted. Of course, then we have to deal with that Satan guy always looking over our shoulders. He creeps us out. I mean, he’s bipedal and has cloven hooves; that makes no evolutionary sense whatsoever.
Science!
Heh. You’re my daily inspiration and the funniest guy on the webs; but I need to assure that “science’s” actual tenets are not lost in the joke. Science and logic do not try to prove the non-existence of God. First, science avoids postulating the existence of God as a going-in assumption (see also: magic). Second, one cannot logically prove that God does not exist, given a sufficiently flexible definition of God.
[You can neither scientifically prove nor disprove an infinite God. Science! -Ed.]
Sure you can disprove the existence of God. Just take a vote among liberal scientists, and if you reach a “consensus” amongst everyone in the room, it’s called “settled science” and can never be questioned again. Geez, I thought everybody knew that.
God has an intinerary. So you could, conceivably, do the experiments when he’s not looking. Unfortunately, God gave the itinerary to the Christians, and they won’t share it because science! is always making fun of them.
[Then Christians need to man-up. -Ed.]
The Bible says that not one sparrow falls from the sky without God knowing it. Maybe He also gives them baguettes to drop on the LHC.
Frank, if there is a God, how do you explain present hussein and algore?
Here is semi-related question why is far-left culture so across the board suicidal? Abortion kills their voting ranks. Small eco-friendly families kills their ranks and leaders. Immigration to compensate for the unborn voters will heavily shrink there culture influence. Why are they all on-board this Kevorkian culture bus? That would be make a hilarious photoshop picture. Kavorkian driving a bus full of greens (hippies), reds (socialists), blues (unions).
I really liked this post!
My personal favorite disproof of God’s existence is that our eyes are wired “upside down”. That would probably be a better argument if we saw things upside down, though.
So the left frets about “disproving god” while the right frets about a “disapproving God”. Seperated by naught but a single vowel. Which is is 250$ on wheel of fortune right?
I think my favorite way that God messes with Science is how He always manages to cancel the International Globull Warming Conferences on account of snow.
Can’t you just see Him up there: “Nuh uh! I’m the one who controls the heavens and the Earth! And don’t you forget it!” Followed by a well-deserved cosmic wedgie to the offenders.
I’m not sure hiding from God is a good idea. What happens if we are the cat in the box and God doesn’t look? Science! isn’t satisfied with blasting us to atoms or looking for some Bosun’s Mate named Higgs; now they want non-existence!
Tell you what. I still haven’t gotten all my money out of social security yet, how about holding off on that experiment for a couple decades.
I’m pretty sure God kind of invented the whole Science thing… I know…he can’t possibly be as smart as a Harvard Biology Prof. but he could probably hold his own in a debate with one…
See the problem is that God likes to mess with us, every religion knows that.
See The Odyssey for a good example.
Heck, the Norse had a god whose job was to mess with us.
Or just read the Bible. He messes with people all the time, why wouldn’t he give us Science! and then mess with it?
Did you ever think that maybe we’re in a new book of Job, and Satan is winning the bet this time?
Look at how much he pissed off Einstein by throwing dice.
And we usually crap out.
Questions, questions, and no answers.
What if, just for fun God creates this little thing called the universe. Something that didn’t exist before. Creating all the laws of nature and science at the same time, sort of like a six year old kid with an ant farm, except he creates the ants and the sand and everything else too. Now all this is good and well except what fun is it really? Everything has to follow the rules you created, and most of the ants are just ignorant lizards with walnut sized brains. So scratch the dinosaurs, and start again with something a little more complicated, give them enough brains to understand you, but not enough to BE you, if they fail the test of temptation. Ah now we have an interesting project, the game is ON.
There, you happy now, I have told you the whole story of God.
I feel so cheap.
God is omnipotent; He has infinite power. A finite-sized rock fails the question, because God can surely lift any finite-sized rock.
Consider, then, an infinite-sized rock. An infinite-sized rock will occupy the whole, vast, entirety of space. With the whole, vast, entirety of space consisting of nothing but this infinite rock, there is no longer any concept of “lift”.
Therefore, by creating an infinite-sized rock God can create a rock He cannot lift. The so-called “disproof” fails.
Not bad, ss396.
My favorite take on this is what I just found a bit ago – the PJTV Klavan on the Culture : Find God in 60 Days video.
http://wbx.me/l/?p=1&u=http://www.pjtv.com
I just had a fish fillet from Mcdonalds that totally proved the existence of salt.
Proverbs 24:3-4
“By wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established;
by knowledge the rooms are filled with all precious and pleasant riches.”
God would bless us more if he could trust us not to screw it up.
You don’t give a loaded gun to a drunken monkey.
Heck, we haven’t even figured out how to use fire with 100% safety yet!
I leaned that if I can’t come up with a spiffy quip within 5 minutes, just give up and back out.
I agree fully, Corona. I find myself, by the way, unable to come up with any Clint Eastwood quotes. Therefore, I must retire.
The election of one Barack Obama to the Presidency of these United States proves that statement to be false.
What does God need with a
starshipuniverse?Can God make a rock he can’t lift? Umm…he made the entire Universe! But rather than being in awe of that, humans come up with a dweep question like that…to which God should probably start smoting and shunning! Smoting and Shunning…just for being a dick!
No need for God to create the infinite rock, for He IS the Infinite Rock. The LORD is my Rock and my Salvation. God Rocks!
If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there. If I make my bed in Hell, behold, thou art there.
Sorry, no hiding from God.
How come He didn’t patent the iphone?>>> The earth is the LORD’s, and the fullness thereof. He owns it all, though some of it is destined for the Lake of Fire.
When Satan starts creeping you out, ask him to transform himself into an angel of light.
That, or the Eye of Sauron, that way he can keep a eye out forthat God guy.
Never trust a god who needs a starship – God doesn’t need to travel, he’s already there.
That’s not even the problem with your deity. This silly question is in no way a “disproof.”
There is not need to “disprove” anything here.
People that make claims are the ones that should bring up evidence. If I said that there is a gnome in my basement,
you would probably ask me for evidence. In that situation, it would be stupid of me to ask you to disprove the existence of my gnome.
The fact of the matter is, you can not disprove *anything*. You can, however, prove (or at least convince someone with a high degree of certainty) that something exists. There has been no proof for god and I suspect there will there ever be.
Matthew 7:7
“Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.”
I’ve never understood why some people believe that Science! and G-d cannot co-exist. Science! is just our easter egg hunt of understanding.
Or something.
Proof That There Is A God
Or
Proof that God has not kept Himself hidden
A, Properties of a Whole Thing
If at the beginning there was something at all, and if that something was the whole thing, then it can be shown that by logical necessity that something will have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. This is by virtue of that something being the whole thing. Something is the whole thing means there cannot be anything at all outside of that something; neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor anything else. It is the alpha and omega of existence. But, if it is the whole thing, then it must have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. Otherwise it will be merely a part of a bigger whole thing. Now let us denote this something by a big X. Now, can this X be in any space? No, it cannot be. If it is, then where is that space itself located? It must have to be in another world outside of X. But by definition there cannot be anything outside of X. Therefore X cannot be in any space. Again, can this X have any space? No, it cannot have. If we say that it can have, then we will again be in a logical contradiction. Because if X can have any space, then that space must have to be outside of it. Therefore when we consider X as a whole, then we will have to say that neither can it be in any space, nor can it have any space. In every respect it will be spaceless. For something to have space it must already have to be in some space. Even a prisoner has some space, although this space is confined within the four walls of his prison cell. But the whole thing, if it is really the whole thing, cannot have any space. If it can have, then it no longer remains the whole thing. It will be self-contradictory for a whole thing to have any space. Similarly it can be shown that this X can neither be in time, nor have any time. For a whole thing there cannot be any ‘before’, any ‘after’. For it there can be only an eternal ‘present’. It will be in a timeless state. If the whole thing is in time, then it is already placed in a world where there is a past, a present, and a future, and therefore it is no longer the whole thing. Now, if X as a whole is spaceless, timeless, then that X as a whole will also be changeless. There might always be some changes going on inside X, but when the question comes as to whether X itself is changing as a whole, then we are in a dilemma. How will we measure that change? In which time-scale shall we have to put that X in order for us to be able to measure that change? That time-scale must necessarily have to be outside of X. But there cannot be any such time-scale. So it is better not to say anything about its change as a whole. For the same reason X as a whole can never cease to be. It cannot die, because death is also a change. Therefore we see that if X is the first thing and the whole thing, then X will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness by virtue of its being the whole thing. It is a logical necessity. Now, this X may be anything; it may be light, it may be sound, or it may be any other thing. Whatever it may be, it will have the above four properties of X. Now, if we find that there is nothing in this universe that possesses the above four properties of X, then we can safely conclude that at the beginning there was nothing at all, and that therefore scientists are absolutely correct in asserting that the entire universe has simply originated out of nothing. But if we find that there is at least one thing in the universe that possesses these properties, then we will be forced to conclude that that thing was the first thing, and that therefore scientists are wrong in their assertion that at the beginning there was nothing. This is only because a thing can have the above four properties by virtue of its being the first thing and by virtue of this first thing being the whole thing, and not for any other reason. Scientists have shown that in this universe light, and light only, is having the above four properties. They have shown that for light time, as well as distance, become unreal. I have already shown elsewhere that a timeless world is a deathless, changeless world. For light even infinite distance becomes zero, and therefore volume of an infinite space also becomes zero. So the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
Another very strong reason can be given in support of our belief that at the beginning there was light. The whole thing will have another very crucial and important property: immobility. Whole thing as a whole thing cannot move at all, because it has nowhere to go. Movement means going from one place to another place, movement means changing of position with respect to something else. But if the whole thing is really the whole thing, then there cannot be anything else other than the whole thing. Therefore if the whole thing moves at all, then with respect to which other thing is it changing its position? And therefore it cannot have any movement, it is immobile. Now, if light is the whole thing, then light will also have this property of immobility. Now let us suppose that the whole thing occupies an infinite space, and that light is the whole thing. As light is the whole thing, and as space is also infinite here, then within this infinite space light can have the property of immobility if, and only if, for light even the infinite distance is reduced to zero. Scientists have shown that this is just the case. From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light even infinite distance becomes zero, and that therefore it cannot have any movement, because it has nowhere to go. It simply becomes immobile. This gives us another reason to believe that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
I know very well that an objection will be raised here, and that it will be a very severe objection. I also know what will be the content of that objection: can a whole thing beget another whole thing? I have said that at the beginning there was light, and that light was the whole thing. Again I am saying that the created light is also the whole thing, that is why it has all the properties of the whole thing. So the whole matter comes to this: a whole thing has given birth to another whole thing, which is logically impossible. If the first thing is the whole thing, then there cannot be a second whole thing, but within the whole thing there can be many other created things, none of which will be a whole thing. So the created light can in no way be a whole thing, it is logically impossible. But is it logically impossible for the created light to have all the properties of the whole thing? So what I intend to say here is this: created light is not the original light, but created light has been given all the properties of the original light, so that through the created light we can have a glimpse of the original light. If the created light was not having all these properties, then who would have believed that in this universe it is quite possible to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless? If nobody believes in Scriptures, and if no one has any faith in personal revelation or mystical experience, and if no one wants to depend on any kind of authority here, and if no one even tries to know Him through meditation, then how can the presence of God be made known to man, if not through a created thing only? So, not through Vedas, nor through Bible, nor through Koran, nor through any other religious books, but through light and light only, God has revealed himself to man. That is why we find in created light all the most essential properties of God: spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness.
Footnote: If the universe is treated as one whole unit, then it can be said to be spaceless, timeless. I first got this idea from an article by Dr. Lee Smolin read in the internet. Rest things I have developed. This is as an acknowledgement.
B. CLIMAX
I think we need no further proof for the existence of God. That light has all the five properties of the whole thing is sufficient. I will have to explain.
Scientists are trying to establish that our universe has started from nothing. We want to contradict it by saying that it has started from something. When we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that there was something. We are not saying that there was some other thing also other than that something. Therefore when we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that at the beginning there was a whole thing. Therefore we are contradicting the statement that our universe has started from nothing by the statement that our universe has started from a whole thing.
I have already shown that a whole thing will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness, immobility (STCDI). This is by logical necessity alone. It is logically contradictory to say that a whole thing can have space. Let us suppose that the whole thing is having space. Then the so-called whole thing along with the space that it is having will constitute the real whole thing. If my arguments that I have offered so far to show that the whole thing will always have the above five properties by virtue of its being the whole thing are sound, and if they cannot be faulted from any angle, then I can make the following statements:
1. In this universe only a whole thing can have the properties of STCDI by logical necessity alone.
2. If the universe has started from nothing, then nothing in this universe will have the properties of STCDI.
3. If the universe has started from a whole thing, then also nothing other than the initial whole thing will have the properties of STCDI. This is only because a whole thing cannot beget another whole thing.
4. But in this universe we find that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, is still having the properties of STCDI.
5. This can only happen if, and only if, the initial whole thing itself has purposefully given its own properties to light, in order to make its presence known to us through light.
6. But for that the initial whole thing must have to have consciousness.
7. So, from above we can come to the following conclusion: the fact that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, still possesses the properties of STCDI, is itself a sufficient proof for the fact that the universe has started from a conscious whole thing, and that this conscious whole thing is none other than God.