What would "god" need to do in order to prove that she really existed?

[Roger Ramjets]

Yes, I can certainly understand your reasoning. It doesn't convince me that she is a he, but I like the way you think, and thanks.

Thanks. I think of God as being like cosmology. Current evidence - if we are to believe scientitsts - suggests that the Universe began with a Big Bang. However for this to be true ~95% of the matter in the matter in the Universe has to be 'dark' matter that doesn't interract with normal matter - making it effectively supernatural. But our telesciopes are getting better and giving us more data that calls into question the prevailing theory. The math isn't working out, and the more data we collect the more defined the anomaly gets. One answer to that is to simply modify the formula until it fits the data, but this hasn't worked because no modification fits all the data.

This may be how we discover that the Big Bang isn't exactly what we thought it was. In the same way, more data may help us discover more about the true nature of God. While many theists still cling to the vision of a testosterone-fueled tyrant as described in the Bible, the evidence for it has evaporated - to the point where today's Christian God is all about peace and love. It's almost like God has been undergoing gender reassignment, and will soon announce that (S)he is a woman.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The other problem with the proofs that reduce to a miracle is that the miracle has to point *only* to God. It has to be the type of miracle that aliens couldn't do, and how can we ever know what aliens *can't* do?

Aliens don't exist, so they can't do miracles.

The far more logical explanation is that the 'miracles' were actually just magic tricks. And in fact we know this to be true. Remember the story about the three wise men? They were actually 'magi' ie. magicians. Turns out that magicians were very popular around the time of Jesus, and he himself may have been one. Over time stories of his magic tricks morphed into being 'miracles', where he actually did walk on water or turn water into wine, as apposed to just entertaining the crowd. The more you study the archeological evidence and culture of the people of those times, the more things like this break the narrative to reveal what the Bible was actually based on.

What we think of as 'The Bible' is actually a collection of manuscripts from many disparate sources, sometimes with additions or modifications to make it seem more consistent. By comparing copies penned at different times we can often identify where changes have been made, and even why they were modified in certain ways to fit the desired narrative. From this it becomes obvious that the authors were not interested in recording actual history, just telling a story that furthered their agenda. Anything that fit that - however dubious it might be - was included, while stuff that didn't was discarderd.

They also weren't agin simply lifting stories directly from other places and changing the names. Take Jesus and the empty tomb for example. Turns out that was a common trope in Greek mythology. The bits about Jesus raising zombies etc. and appearing to the disciples with puncture wounds were added later, in an attempt to give it more credibility. The silly part is that they didn't even try to hide it. One account just says he disappears (presumably rising to Heaven), while onother says all the spooky supernatural stuff happened.

But here's where it gets weird - the people of the time knew many of those stories were pinched from other sources, so they knew that they had to be fiction. It's like the Bible was their equivalent of the Star Trek canon, and they were just cosplaying. "Oh yeah", says one, "I totally saw Jesus walk on water. Just like he made that statue disappear last week!". And they all LOL, never thinking that 2000 years later billions would believe it was real.

 

[Darat]

Limitations of the scientific method
The scientific method is based on observation and experimentation. For something to be considered scientific, it must be observable and measurable. As God is often conceived as a transcendent being and not directly accessible to sensory experience, its existence cannot be tested or measured empirically

Most of the gods people believe in are gods that the believers say directly interfere with the world around us, these transcendent gods are not what the vast majority of the people who claim gods exist believe in.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's a basic problem with fan fiction. When there are lots of people contributing you get all sorts of borrowing of existing stories and scenarios with your protagonist inserted as the hero, and when it later gets edited together by other people, who do of course take it incredibly seriously, they try hard to keep it all canonical but the early stuff in particular is all over the place and the protagonist does stuff the later stories would never allow. Retcon only papers over the cracks so far.

 

[Darat]

Thanks. I think of God as being like cosmology. Current evidence - if we are to believe scientitsts - suggests that the Universe began with a Big Bang. However for this to be true ~95% of the matter in the matter in the Universe has to be 'dark' matter that doesn't interract with normal matter -
making it effectively supernatural. But our telesciopes are getting better and giving us more data that calls into question the prevailing theory. The math isn't working out, and the more data we collect the more defined the anomaly gets. One answer to that is to simply modify the formula until it fits the data, but this hasn't worked because no modification fits all the data.

This may be how we discover that the Big Bang isn't exactly what we thought it was. In the same way, more data may help us discover more about the true nature of God. While many theists still cling to the vision of a testosterone-fueled tyrant as described in the Bible, the evidence for it has evaporated - to the point where today's Christian God is all about peace and love. It's almost like God has been undergoing gender reassignment, and will soon announce that (S)he is a woman.

Not to totally derail this thread but that really isn't a good example, dark matter is a proposed explanation for empirical observations. It is a proposed solution because it does interact with the likes of "ordinary" matter and energy, just very weakly via gravity, if it didn't react with ordinary matter then it wouldn't have an explanatory power and it wouldn't be given serious consideration. Whether it is a correctish explanation is what many scientists are trying to determine using combinations of empirical evidence and theory.

 

[Ziggurat]

Thanks. I think of God as being like cosmology. Current evidence - if we are to believe scientitsts - suggests that the Universe began with a Big Bang. However for this to be true ~95% of the matter in the matter in the Universe has to be 'dark' matter that doesn't interract with normal matter - making it effectively supernatural.

Bwahahahhaha!

No. Dark matter interacts with ordinary matter, that’s one of the primary pieces of evidence for it, its gravitational interactions. It interacts very weakly if at all via electromagnetic forces (hence the dark part), but there is nothing supernatural about that. In case you didn’t know, neutrinos are dark matter. So we know for certainty that dark matter exists.

 

[Thermal]

Bwahahahhaha!

No. Dark matter interacts with ordinary matter, that’s one of the primary pieces of evidence for it, its gravitational interactions. It interacts very weakly if at all via electromagnetic forces (hence the dark part), but there is nothing supernatural about that. In case you didn’t know, neutrinos are dark matter. So we know for certainty that dark matter exists.

From Astronomy.co. and literally every scientific source I have seen: no, neutrinos are not and *can not* be dark matter.

Ask Astro: Are neutrinos dark matter?

Astronomy.com is for anyone who wants to learn more about astronomy events, cosmology, planets, galaxies, asteroids, astrophotography, the Big Bang, black holes, comets, constellations, eclipses, exoplanets, nebulae, meteors, quasars, observing, telescopes, NASA, Hubble, space missions...

www.astronomy.com

 

[Darat]

From Astronomy.co. and literally every scientific source I have seen: no, neutrinos are not and *can not* be dark matter.

Ask Astro: Are neutrinos dark matter?

Astronomy.com is for anyone who wants to learn more about astronomy events, cosmology, planets, galaxies, asteroids, astrophotography, the Big Bang, black holes, comets, constellations, eclipses, exoplanets, nebulae, meteors, quasars, observing, telescopes, NASA, Hubble, space missions...

www.astronomy.com

Ziggurat was using an example of a known type of particle that also is dark in the sense that we use dark in the description of "dark matter". He was not saying "dark matter" in the theories that use it are neutrinos.

 

[Thermal]

Ziggurat was using an example of a known type of particle that also is dark in the sense that we use dark in the description of "dark matter". He was not saying "dark matter" in the theories that use it are neutrinos.

That kind of thinking doesn't fly. Try it with literally anything:

"In case you didnt know, Andre the Giant was a very short man".

Compared to the Collasus of Rhodes? Sure. But the statement, stated so baldly and without the necessary qualifiers, is factually false in every sense.

 

[theprestige]

That kind of thinking doesn't fly. Try it with literally anything:

"In case you didnt know, Andre the Giant was a very short man".

Compared to the Collasus of Rhodes? Sure. But the statement, stated so baldly and without the necessary qualifiers, is factually false in every sense.

We know that dark matter exists. Neutrinos interact with other matter via gravity, but are almost entirely undetectable otherwise. That's exactly the kind of thing we're talking about: Matter that, like neutrinos, interacts via gravity but is undetectable (so far) otherwise. We know that our current theory doesn't permit neutrinos alone to account for all of the dark matter in the universe. So we posit there must be other massy particles that share certain dark properties with neutrinos.

 

[AmyStrange]

Not to totally derail this thread but that really isn't a good example, dark matter is a proposed explanation for empirical observations. It is a proposed solution because it does interact with the likes of "ordinary" matter and energy, just very weakly via gravity, if it didn't react with ordinary matter then it wouldn't have an explanatory power and it wouldn't be given serious consideration. Whether it is a correctish explanation is what many scientists are trying to determine using combinations of empirical evidence and theory.

That could be a problem, but in order to underail this possible derailing, let's look at what would happen if god came down and explained ALL the mysteries of the Universe, including dark matter. Would that convince anyone?

I have a feeling that skeptics would either say she was a great scientist, but not god, or that she was a fake.

On that note, what mystery of the Universe would she need to explain (and how would she have to prove it) in order for you to believe that she really was god?


-

 

[Darat]

That kind of thinking doesn't fly. Try it with literally anything:

"In case you didnt know, Andre the Giant was a very short man".

Compared to the Collasus of Rhodes? Sure. But the statement, stated so baldly and without the necessary qualifiers, is factually false in every sense.

It isn't thinking at all, it is simply the facts.

 

[Darat]

That could be a problem, but in order to underail this possible derailing, let's look at what would happen if god came down and explained ALL the mysteries of the Universe, including dark matter. Would that convince anyone?

I have a feeling that skeptics would either say she was a great scientist, but not god, or that she was a fake.

On that note, what mystery of the Universe would she need to explain (and how would she have to prove it) in order for you to believe that she really was god?


-

Again, god simply makes me believe they are god. There is nothing else needed.

 

[AmyStrange]

Again, god simply makes me believe they are god. There is nothing else needed.

Again, that would work for you, but that's not the only proof that would work for me, and if taking everyone's free will away is the only answer, then becoming like the mindless maga weirdoes would be the result. I don't think that should be the only answer.

Would she take everyone's free will away in order to prove she's god? No, that would be stupid, and if she does exist, I doubt god is stupid

As a matter of fact, why don't you just shut this thread down if that's the ONLY answer that anyone should be allowed to give?


-

 

[Thermal]

It isn't thinking at all, it is simply the facts.

That's what I said. The statement was factually untrue in every sense.

"He meant the opposite of what he said, in a sense" is absolutely, as you say, not thinking at all.

 

[Darat]

That's what I said. The statement was factually untrue in every sense.

"He meant the opposite of what he said, in a sense" is absolutely, as you say, not thinking at all.

No, you misunderstood what he said.

 

[Thermal]

No, you misunderstood what he said.

Claim: "Neutrinos are dark matter"

Science: Neutrinos are not, and can not be dark matter.

No, the understanding is pretty straightforward.

If you are proxy representing the poster, please philosophize about your poetic interpretations in speech to the Arts and Literature subforum?

 

[Lithrael]

Claim: "Neutrinos are dark matter"

Science: Neutrinos are not, and can not be dark matter.

Is this a fish/trout thing? The theorized dark matter out there doing stuff to the universe with gravity is not composed of neutrinos. But don't neutrinos behave that way?

 

[Ziggurat]

From Astronomy.co. and literally every scientific source I have seen: no, neutrinos are not and *can not* be dark matter.

Ask Astro: Are neutrinos dark matter?

Astronomy.com is for anyone who wants to learn more about astronomy events, cosmology, planets, galaxies, asteroids, astrophotography, the Big Bang, black holes, comets, constellations, eclipses, exoplanets, nebulae, meteors, quasars, observing, telescopes, NASA, Hubble, space missions...

www.astronomy.com

What do you think dark matter is? The defining feature of dark matter is that it interacts with electromagnetism so weakly that we cannot see it. Neutrinos are, by definition, dark matter.

Now, as far as we can tell there aren't enough neutrinos around to constitute a significant fraction of the mass of dark matter that we think is out there. So neutrinos don't solve the dark matter problem. But that's a completely different issue from whether or not they are dark matter. And they absolutely are. Again, by definition.

 

[Ziggurat]

Claim: "Neutrinos are dark matter"

Science: Neutrinos are not, and can not be dark matter.

Science doesn't say that. Some individual guy said that. And he's wrong.