Why is physics suppressing George Hammond's Scientific Proof of God?
110011
"Physics" isn't an organization or a person, it's a scientific discipline.  Saying "physics is suppressing him" is like saying "the color red is suppressing him" - the statement is meaningless.\n\nAs far as I can tell, his "proof" isn't actually a proof at all - it's merely a series of statements that do not add up to his conclusion.  Like all bad science, it is not being suppressed - it is simply being ignored.
33005
To demonstrate that He is One-in-the-Father. People are finicky and tend to believe their eyes more than their other senses, or even reason.\n\nBringing a known long-dead person back to life is something that neither ancient nor modern science can explain. He knows that, and worked miracles such as that to offer evidence of His true Nature.\n\nHeck, He tried to TALK and REASON with them and they still ran Him out of town on a rail (or cross!)\n\nSome people still don't believe in miracles because "they can't be proven." Well, the theory of scientific proof is based on proving something CAN'T be done, not on proving something CAN be done. To each their own!
1156995
You're right, there is NO scientific basis for god. If you keep thinking the way you are, you might end up being agnostic or atheist, so be careful!\n\n"I believe that until there is solid proof there never will be a true interpretaion of something you can't even prove."\n\nExactly, without proof (or evidence based on facts), there is nothing but interpretation. And since everyone interprets things differently, no one can be right or wrong, therefore no one can be right or wrong about god. Because of this, no one can say anything is true or false about god, because everyone sees it differently.
1054757
It is because the prospect of a god is fundamentally incorrect. It seems that the most prevalent choice of incorrect logical assumptions used to prove that god exists is, "But everything is so fine-tuned for life."\n\nEvolution explains that 1000 times better than religion. If only they wouldn't refuse to listen.  Believe it or not, the COSMOS is NOT fine-tuned to life, LIFE is fine-tuned to the COSMOS.  This is EXACTLY what evolution proposes.\n\nOf course, I guess the easier idea to believe would be religion.  I wouldn't expect more from all those people with IQs under 100.\n\nBy the way, the person above who stated that a fish fossil on mount Everest is evidence of noah's flood is completely wrong.  The reason that is there is because Mount Everest used to be underwater.  Then the tectonic plates started moving into each other and formed the mountain.  Also, the claim that the dinosaur's footprints are with a man's turned out to be a fraud.  Look it up.
657946
Definitely.  It cannot work against science as science is a measure of our tangible universe.  However, if there was a God I'm pretty sure it could over-ride the observations of current science and science would have to adapt. Regardless, its actions would have to be measureable and governed by some rule that could be converted into an equation.
838226
i think this person is trying to say that science (physics) and religion (10 commandments) are opposing forces and that while most people order their world around science, this person prefers to use religion...now why they think the 2 can't coexist is beyond me
871763
I also fail to see the correlation.  But this is definitely not the first time something like this has happened.  When we discovered the Earth was round or that it evolved around the Sun, the Church was afraid these discoveries somehow threatened the faith of Christ's followers.  They seem, however, unshaken.  I suppose it has something to do with God being placed into every "unknown."  So when science answers our question, God seems to become unnecessary.
811412
Isn't this the same logic used to deny the God of the Bible?
1082718
The existence of god cannot be proved or disproved. It is a matter of belief, not of science which is only concerned with provable events.
499614
Excellent post.\n\nI get quite tired of the strawman versions of evolution and the scientific method trotted out by creationists.\n\nFor example, the big bang has nothing to do with evolution.  Zero.  \n\nWhere the first life form came from has nothing to do with evolution.  Zero.\n\nA theory is simply the best explanation for observable data.  We witness the diversity of life around us, and we must explain it somehow.  It is NOT meant to be proven.  Theories, in general, are not intended to be proven.\n\nFor example, gravity is a theory.  Is gravity false?  No.  Does gravity follow certain rules?  Absolutely!  Yet it is still a theory, and there ain't nothing wrong with that.\n\nYou well noted that some mechanisms of evolution are still not completely understood.  The theory, while perfectly valid, is not completely explained (just like gravity).  However, what creationists must keep in mind is that if any theory is going to replace evolution, it must explain ALL the evidence and data we have collected.  Genetics, fossil record, geological record, geographic isolation and allele frequency shift.\n\nAt the very best creationism (or ID) only points at the parts that science has not explained.  It offers no real alternative theory.\n\nLastly, the idea of "proof" for a "miracle" (meaning God's flooding of the earth) is oxymoronic, at best.  If there is proof (meaning observational data we can see today) then there is a natural explanation and God had nothing to do with it.  If it was a miracle, then there would be no evidence (since God suspended natural laws to make it happen).  Silly Christian fundamentalists, they want to have their cake and eat it too.
342516
I'm an atheist.  I'll be the first person to admit that I could be wrong.  Science is constantly changing as we learn more about our reality.  That may be why scientists are reluctant to state more than "I believe, it is possible, I claim that", etc.\n\nFor what it's worth... you shouldn't be convinced of your hubbie's arguments without proof (or at least a solid rational/logical framework).  That's what is so great about science!  You can prove every aspect.  If you find evidence that contradicts a theory, you are more than welcome to come up with a new theory that explains all the evidence!!\n\nFor what it's worth, young earth creationism is not science and does not explain all the evidence.
36695
O.K. admiralbob! I'm glad your not in charge of everything. Everyone wants to prove how things work, but they can't answer the question as to who made it all happen.....Anyway I've got broadband but the download is taking a minute so based off of others speculation and the website that I observed, I would say SURE THING. God is intelligent so why wouldn't he use science he created it? But yeah! They should use it to teach if they have found that proof! It would really back up the bible too.
122948
Debunking Medical Prayer Studies\nLet Us Pray That People Stop Praying\nBy James W. Williamson, M.D.\nThis article can be found in the April 2002 Vol. 19 No. 3 issue of Freethought Today on pp 8-9\n\nSince the terrorist attacks on September 11, already keen interest in prayer has increased as part of the frenzied upsurge in religion in general. Topping The New York Times’ bestseller list is a small book called The Prayer of Jabez, with “its message that lives in can be profoundly changed by the power of prayer.” Images bombard us on television regularly of masses of humanity kneeling in supplication, praying to some all-powerful deity. These images only increase the perception that prayer is a potent force in dealing with the world’s problems that is endorsed by almost all of humanity.\nMany religious people want to cling to the ancient belief in the supernatural, including prayer, and yet accept the conclusions and benefits of modern science. They can’t have it both ways. To study the natural world, scientists must have in an implicit assumption that it operates only by natural, predictable processes, which cannot be affected arbitrarily by an all-powerful deity.\nOne of the major ways that scientists provide proof of theories is through well-designed studies, of which the “gold standard” is the large, randomized, prospective, controlled, double-blind type. If such a study could be influenced by a personal god who responded to prayers to change the results, science would be in shambles. There would be no way ever to do a valid experiment since investigators couldn’t be sure that someone, somewhere, hadn’t uttered a specific or generic prayer that would affect the study. In short, science by its very nature, rejects any influence of prayer on the physical world.\nEven though prayer is an irrational concept, could it nevertheless be tested scientifically? Francis Galton, the brilliant and eccentric cousin of Charles Darwin, thought so and gave the idea scientific legitimacy. Galton was the father of biometry and the central figure in the founding of modern statistical analysis. He argued that regardless of how the prayers “may be supposed to operate, the efficacy of prayer . . . is a perfectly appropriate and legitimate subject of scientific inquiry” because it can be tested statistically. He then proceeded to set up such studies.\nIn one statistical study, Galton examined the longevity of clergy. He reasoned that clergy should be the longest lived of all since they were the most “prayerful class” of all and among the most prayed for. When Galton compared the longevity of eminent clergy with eminent doctors and lawyers, the clergy were the shortest lived of the three groups. In this study of the clergy, he cited a pervious study by Guy (Galton wasn’t the first to think of analyzing prayer statistically but usually gets the credit) where Guy found prayer did not protect royalty, who were much prayed for, when compared to other members of the aristocracy. In analyzing the data on royalty, Galton concluded: “Sovereigns are literally the shortest lived of all who have the advantage of affluence.” \nGalton looked for other statistical data. He examined the insurance rates for ships. He reasoned that ships carrying missionaries and pilgrims should have lower rates since frequent praying by the occupants should decrease the number of accidents. He found that the rates were the same; ships carrying missionaries and pilgrims sank just as often as other ships.\nFollowing up on Galton’s statistical studies on prayer, Rupert Sheldrake, a Cambridge-trained plant biologist, did one of his own, examining the effects of prayer in India. Most people there prefer having a son, and a tremendous amount of praying goes into the effort to produce one. Sheldrake examined statistics of live male births in India and used data from England as a control where the preference for sons was less strong. He found that in both
913496
Your proposal was getting interesting until you introduced a gratuitous element into it - "God". I've seen this argument before and it actually works against the concept of a god, or gods. Rupert Sheldrake has proposed a less ambitious, but interesting, theory wherein human mentation is necessarily projective - a bit like a classical field in ordinary physics. The point is that if it were true, then humanity can be seen as more intimately integrated to some essential character of the universe - but this essence needs no supernatural characteristics. Indeed the concept would be diminished by it.\nFor example, in his proposals there are empirical parameters for detection of this characteristic or its manifestations - again, just as if you were talking about, say, electromagnetism.\n\nI'm not saying I buy the theory. I am saying that the substance of the theses points away from the supernatural. Of course if the theory has any success, it may provide a basis for talking about what humans have disguised, or abstracted, as god or gods.
31381
The "just look around you" argument is not a proof, but a restatement of faith. You could equally easily use the same argument to 'prove' the seeding of life on Earth by intelligent extra-terrestrials.\nThe great-great-great-great grandfather argument is not convincing either: for sure I can't prove that he existed back then, but how would that help me prove that God exists right now?\n\nThis is the 'ontological' proof:\n\n1. We humans have this idea of an infinitely perfect being that we call God. \n2. Existence is one of the perfections. \n3. Therefore, being infinitely perfect, God must exist. \n\nIs this convincing? Descartes - who proves his own existence simply by demonstrating his ability to doubt (I think therefore I am) - says: \n\n"How would I understand that I doubt...unless there were some idea in me of a more perfect being, by comparison with which I might recognise my defects?"\n\n"It would be impossible for me to exist, being of such a nature as I am (namely, having in me the idea of God), unless God did in fact exist"
1142893
Basic logic dictates that material, mortal, 'local gods' of sorts, that came about by natural processes, MIGHT be possible, though NOT possibly covering all areas, and if existent, then most likely very rare... but that a universal god (as is the common definition of 'god') is impossible, due to being a specific entity, and therefore incompatible with abstract principles, such as 'everything' (i.e. the universe). Saying that there is a universal god is thus no less illogical than using, say, the number '2', as a principle in the derivation of a mathematical theorem.\n\nThat's not even counting the vast observational evidence against creationism and in favor of naturalism.
126342
There is hard, physical evidence that the Big Bang happened. There is NO hard, physical evidence that the god of the Bible existed, exists, or will ever exist.\n\nBUT..! Belief in a supreme being of some kind is a logical belief that can exist right along with the Big Bang. Most physicists and cosmologists agree that there are no physical (as in physics)constraints that can disallow a Big Bang. Something from nothing happens constantly in the vacuum of space!!!!! At sizes smaller than a proton, so-called virtual particles pop into existence all the time. Quantum physics has shown that at these infinitesimal sizes immense amounts of energy exist which can easily "produce" new matter from nothing. The bottom line is that these physical laws exist, and the next question any reasonable person would ask is who or what made these laws, the same physical rules that make a Big Bang possible?