Scientific explanation for the existence of God

[Ginkgo]

I invite Immanuel Can (or anyone else) to come up with a scientific explanation for the existence of God

[Immanuel Can]

I invite Immanuel Can (or anyone else) to come up with a scientific explanation for the existence of God

It's a big topic, because there's actually a lot. Fortunately we don't have to talk them all through laboriously here. The work has been done, and done well, by others.

But the best source you can probably locate, and certainly the most scholarly, would be The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, 698 pgs.) Anybody who picks up that volume will not be disappointed.

For those who want some quick summaries of some of the many available arguments in a very entertaining video form, I recommend this playlist:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKGnXgH ... DHdx6v8xl5.

[Dontaskme]

I invite Immanuel Can (or anyone else) to come up with a scientific explanation for the existence of God

Science can only deal with what it can tangibly measure with the materials that are already available for experiment.

So God is always a problem for the human thinking mechanism. . ( aka mind)

The problem with human existence is that it evolved to speak a language, which was able to split reality into two, into a subject and object divide. The mind then evolved to be able to Identify with thought, and it was that mental capacity that actively gave birth to a knower and known. Humans then started to believe their thoughts as being real, but they were only apparently real, and not literally real. And so what happened with the mind is it became a believing entity, even though this entity was only a thought in the brain that the brain believed to be real. So the literal thinking mechanism that was the mind, really took off, launching itself off it's own self made platform. It then wanted to KNOW it's creator, not realising it was already the knowing that wanted to know. And that there was no other knowing outside of it's own self made knowing.

The mind started to believe in it's own existence as an object in time and space, it also believed that as an object it must have had a creator, never realising that an object cannot know anything, because it's already being known by the subject. And so any thing created cannot know it's a created thing because both the creator and created are one in the same instant of creation. Even though the illusory belief they are separated is very strong and real.

And that's the only reason why humans invented God, because they wanted to know their creator. They became swept away in their own man made hallucinatory trance created from their own believing brain as and through the illusory sensation of feeling like separated entities. Even though the whole idea of separated entities is an illusion, they still today believe the separation is real...but it's not, and never is, was, or ever will be.

.

[Ginkgo]

I invite Immanuel Can (or anyone else) to come up with a scientific explanation for the existence of God

It's a big topic, because there's actually a lot. Fortunately we don't have to talk them all through laboriously here. The work has been done, and done well, by others.

But the best source you can probably locate, and certainly the most scholarly, would be The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, 698 pgs.) Anybody who picks up that volume will not be disappointed.

For those who want some quick summaries of some of the many available arguments in a very entertaining video form, I recommend this playlist:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKGnXgH ... DHdx6v8xl5.

Actually, I was hoping you might provide your version of a scientific argument. However, it is the case that scientific arguments for the existence of God invariably are nothing more than pseudoscience.

BTW your youtube clip is mainly about objective theories of morality, not about science.

[Immanuel Can]

... it is the case that scientific arguments for the existence of God invariably are nothing more than pseudoscience.

You'll find that's not the case. But you'd have to look in order to know that. And you haven't looked. I can tell, because you write...

BTW your youtube clip is mainly about objective theories of morality, not about science

.
Well, in the first place, it was not one clip but a bunch, a playlist...and they are on different topics, some very scientific indeed. But you didn't watch the playlist. If you did anything, maybe you "bounced off" the first video, and made your comment. But you can go back and see that you were wrong. Watch more of the playlist.

And as for the book I recommended, it's the best thing you'll find on the subject, I would say. It's very scholarly, very well-documented indeed. And there's certainly no way you had time to read 698 pages before responding.

So if you are sincere about your question, you have good answers in hand. But I can't make you look at them, so that will be up to you.

[DPMartin]

I invite Immanuel Can (or anyone else) to come up with a scientific explanation for the existence of God

if its worshiped its a god. but revelation of the Living Creator and Judge known as the Lord God of Israel is the knowledge thereof. and since He is Living therefore its at His will.

so scientific explanation of what you can't prove unless God sees fit to reveal that He is with you to others, seems pointless. without the ability to prove, there's nothing scientific about it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If there was a scientific explanation then the paradox is that that it would put 'god' out of existence.
Of course, religious nuts like Immanuel Can't are not capable of grasping this obvious truth.

[Terrapin Station]

I invite Immanuel Can (or anyone else) to come up with a scientific explanation for the existence of God

I invited him to suggest a black hole that we could all move to.

[Ginkgo]

... it is the case that scientific arguments for the existence of God invariably are nothing more than pseudoscience.

You'll find that's not the case. But you'd have to look in order to know that. And you haven't looked. I can tell, because you write...

BTW your youtube clip is mainly about objective theories of morality, not about science

.
Well, in the first place, it was not one clip but a bunch, a playlist...and they are on different topics, some very scientific indeed. But you didn't watch the playlist. If you did anything, maybe you "bounced off" the first video, and made your comment. But you can go back and see that you were wrong. Watch more of the playlist.

And as for the book I recommended, it's the best thing you'll find on the subject, I would say. It's very scholarly, very well-documented indeed. And there's certainly no way you had time to read 698 pages before responding.

So if you are sincere about your question, you have good answers in hand. But I can't make you look at them, so that will be up to you.

I have seen the playlists in one form or another many times before and all of them fail.

[Immanuel Can]

I have seen the playlists in one form or another many times before and all of them fail.

Yeah, then I'm thinking you didn't see this one. And you most certainly didn't read the Blackwell Companion. If you had, you would know that what you're saying just isn't so.

But as the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but..."

[Ginkgo]

I have seen the playlists in one form or another many times before and all of them fail.

Yeah, then I'm thinking you didn't see this one. And you most certainly didn't read the Blackwell Companion. If you had, you would know that what you're saying just isn't so.

But as the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but..."

I haven't read the Blackwell Companion but I don't see that making much difference, I'm familiar with most of the arguments. The problem with all of these theories is in trying to prove the existence of something that doesn't exist. You run into all sorts of problems and contradictions.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm familiar with most of the arguments.

I can tell by the way you're speaking about them that as much as you may suppose you know, you don't actually know the arguments at all. But again, it's more than I can do to convince you of that if you won't look at them.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

See what I mean?

[Ginkgo]

I'm familiar with most of the arguments.

I can tell by the way you're speaking about them that as much as you may suppose you know, you don't actually know the arguments at all. But again, it's more than I can do to convince you of that if you won't look at them.

Actually, I do know the arguments. Also, I had a look at the playlist and there are 15 videos, do you expect me to look at all 15 ?

[Immanuel Can]

I had a look at the playlist and there are 15 videos, do you expect me to look at all 15 ?

I think it would be a good idea if you looked at some of them...if you're interested in the OP, that is. I can't tell you how interested you should be. That's up to you, of course. But they do give a tidy little introduction to some of the arguments that are expanded to full-academic levels in the book.

But if you really intended the OP to be a question, and you cared about it, then I think you'd want to look at them.

You could always read the book, of course...

Or, if you just want to accept that there ARE such answers, but don't want to look at them, then I guess that's another alternative. But since the material is there, I don't think it's reasonable any longer to say "there are no scientific arguments." That's the one thing that's clearly untrue.