Quote from: BADecker on October 05, 2017, 09:50:56 PM

Quote from: protokol on October 05, 2017, 05:22:41 PM

Quote from: protokol on October 03, 2017, 07:02:53 AM

Quote from: BADecker on October 03, 2017, 03:25:08 AM

Quote from: protokol on October 02, 2017, 09:57:39 PM

And I stand by my point that a supernatural being cannot be proved by science, because by its nature it is supernatural, and therefore does not follow scientific laws. This renders the being's existence impossible to prove scientifically. I'm still baffled that some people don't understand this simple concept...

How do you prove that empty space/nothing/outerspace exists? After all, you can't really grab hold of space/nothing/outerspace and analyze it chemically or electronically or something. You prove it is there by analyzing the material things within it or that it is inside of.

Same with God. We see no source for the complexity of the universe. Such complexity can't exist... except for the fact that it does. Whatever God is, the fact that the universe exists proves that God exists.

Cool

You can easily show scientific evidence that empty space/nothing exists, I already mentioned one example - adding sodium chloride to water causes the volume of water to decrease.

You can use things like vacuum chambers to electronically or chemically analyze the vacuum, for example by measuring how quickly light passes through it. Quantum theory is another example of evidence for empty space in between subatomic particles - we can predict exactly how atoms will behave, based on our knowledge of their structure (i.e. a nucleus, with electron clouds very far away, and a huge amount of empty space between).

I don't know where you've got this idea from, you don't need to be able to grab hold of something to show it exists... Roll Eyes

So BADecker, you understand that you can prove the existence of empty space?

The focus isn't proving that empty space exists. The focus is the way we prove that empty space exists. How do we prove that empty space exists?

We don't prove that empty space exists is by "grabbing hold" of empty space and analyzing it. We don't really even have a way of doing this "grabbing hold." Well, if not by "grabbing hold," then how do we prove empty space exists?

Here's how. We analyze material and energy, and the relationships between material and energy, and we can prove that empty space exists by this analysis, right?

Same with God. We analyze the relationships between material and energy in cause and effect activity, and we prove that God exists through this analysis. Complexity simply shows that God is definitely a Supreme Being. And Entropy shows that there was a beginning, which rules out that this is the way things always were.

The word "God" and its definitions are a weak word to use when considering the Supreme Being scientifically. As I have said in other posts, use "The Great First Cause," "Supreme Being," "Almighty Power," or any one of a number of words that better describe the Supreme Being.

But understand one thing. Whatever He/It is, He/It is an entity that is supremely (probably infinitely) far advanced and capable beyond what we are.

Cool

There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.

With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.

Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".

Your move...