Has science found God?

[1213]

As Bible suggests, this world is like a computer simulation. And now some have found evidence this could be true, world may be like a computer simulation. What say you, have science found God, the programmer of the universe?

"Simulation theory is a theoretical hypothesis that says what people perceive as reality is actually an advanced, hyper-realistic computer simulation, possibly overseen by a higher being".
https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory

"Do you ever experience something and think to yourself, “This can’t be real.” To some people who have bought into the notion that our reality is currently being simulated, there are examples all around us, that demonstrate glitches in the Matrix. Deja Vu? Ghosts? The Mandela Effect? These could all be direct examples of flaws in the simulation."
https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... ion-theory

"MIT Theoretical physicist James Gates has made a discovery that allegedly caused Neil deGrasse Tyson to sit down in shock. Now for the uninitiated, superstring theory is a concept that could unify all aspects of physics if proven right. While working on his superstring theory, he made an odd discovery. Gates claims to have identified what appears to be actual computer code embedded in the equations of string theory that describe the fundamental particles of our universe. In short, he found “error-correcting codes,” the same error-correcting codes that you might find on the web browser you are using right now."
https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... ion-theory

[The Barbarian]

You say I am failing to prove God. Are you unaware that God cannot be scientifically proven or disproven by anyone?

Of course I am aware of that.

To be accurate though, none of the available god concept can be proven, including the one you prefer, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
You seem to be arguing that your god is just as unprovable as all the others. Did you think this through? Perhaps clarification is needed?

Do you acknowledge that all things that don't exist cannot be proven or disproven?

You admit that there are a massive number of things in life that cannot be proven yet you still mock Christians for not proving the God that everyone knows cannot be proven. Your mockery is unjust.

To be clear, we were talking about gods, not whether or not everything in life can be proven or not (what that would have to do with proving the Christian God is lost on me anyway).

Please try to leave your emotions out of this and stick to debating.
The debatable points are above in bold.

God can no more be proven than can evolution, global warming, abiogenesis, or the big bang.

One can point to directly observed evolution, including macroevolutionary events. One point out the data showing the Earth's atmosphere is warming. So those, at least, are provable. It shouldn't bother you that God is not provable in the sense that physical phenomena like evolution are probable; if faith won't confirm God for you, science can't help you.

[marke]

The evidence from abiotic organic materials such as amino acids, peptides, etc. Indicate that the earth brought forth living things. Since God also says that's what happened, it seems perverse to deny it, even if you can't prove it. Truth is a stronger thing than proof.

Abiotic materials such as amino acids do not disprove God in favor of some as yet unidentifiable natural or unnatural force.

This is somewhat amusing to watch. You are blindly flailing around assuming everyone here is trying to 'disprove God'. Do you realize your interlocutor above is also a God believer? They just happen to also understand the science involved and have reconciled that the facts we observe must have somehow originated with their God.

I have a lot of respect for theists like this because they are aware of the material being discussed and realize that science is not out to 'disprove God'.

Ironically, if God is ever to be 'proven' (or at least observed in a repeatable process) it will likely be scientists that have done it. What will the anti science crowd do then? Those that understand science will simply accept the results as long as they are repeatable and pass peer review.

To head off the question: Does this mean they will jump to the existing holy books and all of a sudden believe in one of the faith based god concepts? No, they will only stick to observable facts just like today. If we discover a god exists, then we base anything further on what we observe. Picking one of the thousands of existing religions would be ridiculous if faced with the facts.

To be pro science is to be pro Bible and pro God. Anti God is anti science. Anti God is anti wisdom and knowledge. Anti God is pro wickedness.

[benchwarmer]

To be pro science is to be pro Bible and pro God. Anti God is anti science. Anti God is anti wisdom and knowledge. Anti God is pro wickedness.

That's demonstrably false. I'm pro science. While the Bible is an interesting read from a historical point of view, I find much of what's between its covers to be morally bankrupt, contradictory, or just plain wrong.

I'm also not 'pro God'. While a god may exist, I'm certainly not a fan of the one portrayed in the Bible. I imagine if a god does exist it would be absolutely insulted with some of what gets attributed to it in the Bible. Ironically, one of the reasons I deconverted was that I would not want to insult a god that may exist by believing some of the obviously immoral material in that religion. I would rather be wrong and explain my reasoning than simply believe what some humans wrote down. If a god exists, I'm using my god given senses, logic, and sense of what 'good' morals are and thus reject a lot of what the Bible condones (slavery, rape, ridiculous laws about things like mixed fibers all the while condoning the previous items, etc).

[marke]

To be pro science is to be pro Bible and pro God. Anti God is anti science. Anti God is anti wisdom and knowledge. Anti God is pro wickedness.

That's demonstrably false. I'm pro science. While the Bible is an interesting read from a historical point of view, I find much of what's between its covers to be morally bankrupt, contradictory, or just plain wrong.

I'm also not 'pro God'. While a god may exist, I'm certainly not a fan of the one portrayed in the Bible. I imagine if a god does exist it would be absolutely insulted with some of what gets attributed to it in the Bible. Ironically, one of the reasons I deconverted was that I would not want to insult a god that may exist by believing some of the obviously immoral material in that religion. I would rather be wrong and explain my reasoning than simply believe what some humans wrote down. If a god exists, I'm using my god given senses, logic, and sense of what 'good' morals are and thus reject a lot of what the Bible condones (slavery, rape, ridiculous laws about things like mixed fibers all the while condoning the previous items, etc).

Disbelief in Biblical facts and belief in false science assumptions is essentially blindness and ignorance.

[brunumb]

Disbelief in Biblical facts and belief in false science assumptions is essentially blindness and ignorance.

This is just preachy rhetoric which is a hallmark of the ideologically captured. Try making a reasoned case for your position, preferably supported by some sort of evidence.

[marke]

Disbelief in Biblical facts and belief in false science assumptions is essentially blindness and ignorance.

This is just preachy rhetoric which is a hallmark of the ideologically captured. Try making a reasoned case for your position, preferably supported by some sort of evidence.

Would you be willing to consider scientific evidence that contradicts evolutionist narratives?


Six Biological Evidences for a Young Earth | The Institute for Creation Research (icr.org) 4-30-19
Six Biological Evidences for a Young Earth
BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * |
TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2019

What does the Bible tell us about the age of the earth? Not only does the Bible describe how God created Earth and its life forms in six days, Genesis also contains detailed genealogies and chronologies. Based on the Hebrew Masoretic text, one can deduce Earth’s age to be about 6,000 years.1,2 In contrast, evolutionists believe Earth is 4.6 billion years old and that life here got going about 3.5 billion years ago.
While the evolutionary story is just naturalistic speculation, the Bible gives a fairly complete history and timeline that provide the basis for what is often called a young-earth creationist view. But do the scientific facts demonstrate a young age for Earth? This article will show that a young earth is well supported by the biological data.

A young earth is well supported by the biological data.

1. Soft Tissues and Biomolecules in Fossils
Soft tissues and decay-sensitive biomolecules that are still intact and not degraded shouldn’t exist in fossils that are supposedly millions of years old—but they do. The most famous case of this evolutionary enigma was the discovery of soft, stretchy tissue in the bones of a T. rex, along with visible blood vessels, blood cells inside the vessels, and bone cells with delicate finger-like projections called osteocytes.3,4 Collagen proteins were also found in the T. rex bones. Similar finds have been discovered in other dinosaur fossils, including a hadrosaur and a Triceratops.5,6
ICR research scientist Brian Thomas has compiled a list of 41 different journal papers describing the amazing soft tissues and biomolecules discovered in the fossils of many different types of land and sea animals and plants.7 Many of these findings were made and documented by secular scientists. Some of these discoveries involve fossils alleged to be 250 to 550-plus million years old. Because it would be impossible for these highly degradable compounds to last for more than a few thousand years, the evidence clearly points to a young age for Earth and to the global Flood that produced the fossilized remains, burying them quickly in sediments about 4,500 years ago.

[benchwarmer]

Disbelief in Biblical facts and belief in false science assumptions is essentially blindness and ignorance.

This is just preachy rhetoric which is a hallmark of the ideologically captured. Try making a reasoned case for your position, preferably supported by some sort of evidence.

Would you be willing to consider scientific evidence that contradicts evolutionist narratives?

If you had any actual scientific evidence to share (i.e. peer reviewed, actual science) then sure.

Six Biological Evidences for a Young Earth | The Institute for Creation Research (icr.org) 4-30-19

Ya, pseudo science doesn't count, but nice try.

[marke]

Disbelief in Biblical facts and belief in false science assumptions is essentially blindness and ignorance.

This is just preachy rhetoric which is a hallmark of the ideologically captured. Try making a reasoned case for your position, preferably supported by some sort of evidence.

Would you be willing to consider scientific evidence that contradicts evolutionist narratives?

If you had any actual scientific evidence to share (i.e. peer reviewed, actual science) then sure.

Six Biological Evidences for a Young Earth | The Institute for Creation Research (icr.org) 4-30-19

Ya, pseudo science doesn't count, but nice try.

Honest researchers do not reject scientific evidence they do not like.

[brunumb]

Honest researchers do not reject scientific evidence they do not like.

Biblical narratives are not scientific evidence. You need to establish that the genealogy contained in the Bible is factual and accurate. Just being in the Bible is not sufficient, in fact it's somewhat circular as far as reasoning goes.

[marke]

Honest researchers do not reject scientific evidence they do not like.

Biblical narratives are not scientific evidence. You need to establish that the genealogy contained in the Bible is factual and accurate. Just being in the Bible is not sufficient, in fact it's somewhat circular as far as reasoning goes.

Unbelievers refuse to accept clear evidence of a universal flood because of their animosity toward God and the Bible.