Proof there is a God

[Xelasnave.1947]

You don't know the extent of the laws of nature, so you're not in a position to comment on 'beyond the laws of nature'

Hi Jan you have made an interesting point which would seem to close the door on any speculation about the existence of God.

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Hi Jan you have made an interesting point which would seem to close the door on any speculation about the existence of God.

Alex

Why?

Jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Why?

Jan.

Think about it. You could not have been clearer on the point you made.

Alex

 

[Sarkus]

You don't know the extent of the laws of nature, so you're not in a position to comment on 'beyond the laws of nature'. It is however, beyond the limitations of modern science to detect.

One doesn't need to know the extent of the laws of nature, as that would be much like the colour of the celestial teapot. It is enough to know that they are laws, that they cannot be broken, and that they are universal for a given set of conditions.
The argument goes that if God operates within these confines then God is indistinguishable from the natural state. Not just to science but to everyone and anything.
The only way God can be recognised as distinct is to operate outside of the natural laws: and we have a word for that.

IOW whatever can be (modern) scientifically verified, is all that can be said to exist.

No, that is patently not true and no scientist would agree, as you (should) well know. Modern science is quite aware that there are likely countless things that have not been verified that almost certainly exist. But we can not say that they definitely do exist until they have been verified (and science is a reasonable tool for the verification of such). Hence agnosticism.

Anything that can be verified has to be termed natural.

Well, yes. What are you suggesting exists, that has been verified to exist, that can be considered not natural? Ghosts? Bigfoot? Angels and demons (not the awful book)? Consciousness? Humans?

Hence you get a serpent eating it's own tail scenario, ergo, God can never exist, by default.

The default would simply be that God cannot be said to exist, but that is different to saying that God can never exist. Science can not confirm nor deny the existence of God.
It is the subjective opinion of people that, for some, turn the agnosticism of science into a worldview of believing in the non-existence of God. But that is for each individual to express and explain themselves: there is no single explanation for it, and indeed many do not hold that belief.

 

[exchemist]

One doesn't need to know the extent of the laws of nature, as that would be much like the colour of the celestial teapot. It is enough to know that they are laws, that they cannot be broken, and that they are universal for a given set of conditions.
The argument goes that if God operates within these confines then God is indistinguishable from the natural state. Not just to science but to everyone and anything.
The only way God can be recognised as distinct is to operate outside of the natural laws: and we have a word for that.
No, that is patently not true and no scientist would agree, as you (should) well know. Modern science is quite aware that there are likely countless things that have not been verified that almost certainly exist. But we can not say that they definitely do exist until they have been verified (and science is a reasonable tool for the verification of such). Hence agnosticism.
Well, yes. What are you suggesting exists, that has been verified to exist, that can be considered not natural? Ghosts? Bigfoot? Angels and demons (not the awful book)? Consciousness? Humans?
The default would simply be that God cannot be said to exist, but that is different to saying that God can never exist. Science can not confirm nor deny the existence of God.
It is the subjective opinion of people that, for some, turn the agnosticism of science into a worldview of believing in the non-existence of God. But that is for each individual to express and explain themselves: there is no single explanation for it, and indeed many do not hold that belief.

Sarkus that is very well put indeed.

One might add that there are people who have, or have had, subjective experiences or feelings that dispose to them to belief in God, even though this cannot be corroborated objectively. Hence what we call religious faith, I suppose.

 

[DaveC426913]

You don't know the extent of the laws of nature, so you're not in a position to comment on 'beyond the laws of nature'. It is however, beyond the limitations of modern science to detect.

They are our laws, describing nature.

IOW whatever can be (modern) scientifically verified, is all that can be said to exist. Anything that can be verified has to be termed natural. Hence you get a serpent eating it's own tail scenario, ergo, God can never exist, by default.

There is nothing in our natural world requiring a supernatural influence, and no mechanism by which it might operate, so there is nothing to explain.

 

[Write4U]

One doesn't need to know the extent of the laws of nature, as that would be much like the colour of the celestial teapot. It is enough to know that they are laws, that they cannot be broken, and that they are universal for a given set of conditions.

IMO, those laws are purely mathematical in essence.

The argument goes that if God operates within these confines then God is indistinguishable from the natural state. Not just to science but to everyone and anything.

IMO, it is the seemingly mysterious ways these mathematics functioned which prompted the *imaginings* of the existence of *intentional* Gods (God)

The only way God can be recognised as distinct is to operate outside of the natural laws: and we have a word for that.

*Supernatural*, or *not of this world*.

Well, yes. What are you suggesting exists, that has been verified to exist, that can be considered not natural? Ghosts? Bigfoot? Angels and demons (not the awful book)? Consciousness? Humans?
The default would simply be that God cannot be said to exist, but that is different to saying that God can never exist. Science can not confirm nor deny the existence of God.
It is the subjective opinion of people that, for some, turn the agnosticism of science into a worldview of believing in the non-existence of God. But that is for each individual to express and explain themselves: there is no single explanation for it, and indeed many do not hold that belief.

For me it is the purely mathematical function, which (according to Tegmark) consists of relatively few mathematical laws and if we could measure all the mathematics involved in dynamical events, we could predict the result every time. There is no mystery attached to any of it, we are still discovering new apects of the mathematical nature of the universe

We already do this on a far simpler (smaller) scale than the universe. Just look at our current expanded knowledge of mathematical functions. Higgs predicted a boson and we worked out the maths which might reveal the existence of the Higgs boson. It cost us a lot of time and money to *simulate* forces and functions at a universal level, but the subsequent experiments at Cern proved the existence of the boson. All of this was applied mathematics.

Therefore, IMO, as every thing and dynamic action can be explained by maths alone, by Ockham's razor, the addition of a *supernatural* causality is not required. Everything the universe needs to function as it does is already contained within the universe itself. The universal Potential.

IMO, the concept of a *supernatural* causality (God) is just a mistaken attempt to identify the mathematical essence of universal potential and its expression in reality. This is not all that surprising. The very consistency of certain recurring events, might well indicate a *hidden* but *intentional* causality to people with little knowledge of the more sophisticated mathematical functions of the universe.

At that time who could have imagined that a simple equation of E = Mc^2 could yield the *miracle* of an atom bomb.
Who could have imagined electro/magnetic fields and their functions. People in those days were not stupid, just unaware of these *hidden* phenomena. How could they know otherwise? So they came up with their best explanation at that time in history.

This is why the earliest gods were associated with *natural phenomena*. There was just no other explanation available in those days. Today we know more and all those gods have been replaced by mathematical equations, and now there is only the God of the gaps. Not unlike the process of evolution, which is still disputed because there are gaps in fossil evidence of organisms that existed hundreds of thousands of years ago.

 

[exchemist]

IMO, those laws are purely mathematical in essence. IMO, it is the seemingly mysterious ways these mathematics functioned which prompted the *imaginings* of the existence of *intentional* Gods (God) *Supernatural*, or *not of this world*. For me it is the purely mathematical function, which (according to Tegmark) consists of relatively few mathematical laws and if we could measure all the mathematics involved in dynamical events, we could predict the result every time. There is no mystery attached to any of it, we are still discovering new apects of the mathematical nature of the universe

We already do this on a far simpler (smaller) scale than the universe. Just look at our current expanded knowledge of mathematical functions. Higgs predicted a boson and we worked out the maths which might reveal the existence of the Higgs boson. It cost us a lot of time and money to *simulate* forces and functions at a universal level, but the subsequent experiments at Cern proved the existence of the boson. All of this was applied mathematics.

Therefore, IMO, as every thing and dynamic action can be explained by maths alone, by Ockham's razor, the addition of a *supernatural* causality is not required. Everything the universe needs to function as it does is already contained within the universe itself. The universal Potential.

IMO, the concept of a *supernatural* causality (God) is just a mistaken attempt to identify the mathematical essence of universal potential and its expression in reality. This is not all that surprising. The very consistency of certain recurring events, might well indicate a *hidden* but *intentional* causality to people with little knowledge of the more sophisticated mathematical functions of the universe.

At that time who could have imagined that a simple equation of E = Mc^2 could yield the *miracle* of an atom bomb. Who could have imagined electro/magnetic fields and their functions. People in those days were not stupid, just unaware of these *hidden* phenomena. How could they know otherwise? So they came up with their best explanation at that time in history.

This is why the earliest gods were associated with *natural phenomena*. There was just no other explanation available in those days. Today we know more and all those gods have been replaced by mathematical equations, and now there is only the God of the gaps. Not unlike the process of evolution, which is still disputed because there are gaps in fossil evidence of organisms that existed hundreds of thousands of years ago.

It is a myth that E=mc2 yielded the atom bomb. That equation describes the mass-energy conversion that occurs in any energy conversion process, be it nuclear fission or chemical combustion or anything else. The equation provides no useful information at all about what is involved in making a fission or fusion bomb:
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/atombombe

 

[Write4U]

It is a myth that E=mc2 yielded the atom bomb. That equation describes the mass-energy conversion that occurs in any energy conversion process, be it nuclear fission or chemical combustion or anything else. The equation provides no useful information at all about what is involved in making a fission or fusion bomb:
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/atombombe

I was NOT trying to explain how a A-bomb works. I was trying to explain that the equation itself indicates the inherent potential energy contained in matter (transformation of matter into energy), which was basically unknown until Einstein came along.

In context of the OP, look at it this way; suppose we could go back in time 10,000 years ago and drop an A-bomb from the sky. What would people think of such an event, at that time? This would have to be the work of an angry god, no?

 

[exchemist]

I was NOT trying to explain how a A-bomb works. I was trying to explain that the equation itself indicates the inherent potential energy contained in matter (transformation of matter into energy), which was basically unknown until Einstein came along.

In context of the OP, look at it this way; suppose we could go back in time 10,000 years ago and drop an A-bomb from the sky. What would people think of such an event, at that time? This would have to be the work of an angry god, no?

Yes OK Write4U, don't worry, I get your point all right. I just get a bit irritated by this commonly repeated canard about E=mc² and the atom bomb. .....This being a science forum, and all that.....

 

[Write4U]

Yes OK Write4U, don't worry, I get your point all right. I just get a bit irritated by this commonly repeated canard about E=mc² and the atom bomb. .....This being a science forum, and all that.....

I agree and apoogize for my *sloppy* references. I can only hope that my understanding of the OP question is correct and the *gist* of my arguments are logically sound. I always appreciate being corrected on details. That makes me actually do a more in-depth reading on the subject and learn.

 

[Jan Ardena]

One doesn't need to know the extent of the laws of nature,

To claim that something is ''beyond the laws of nature'' means one does.

The argument goes that if God operates within these confines then God is indistinguishable from the natural state. Not just to science but to everyone and anything.

So are you indistinguishable from Sarkus?

The only way God can be recognised as distinct is to operate outside of the natural laws: and we have a word for that.

Do you operate outside the laws of the cyber world you inhabit as Sarkus?

No, that is patently not true and no scientist would agree, as you (should) well know. Modern science is quite aware that there are likely countless things that have not been verified that almost certainly exist. But we can not say that they definitely do exist until they have been verified (and science is a reasonable tool for the verification of such). Hence agnosticism.

So science cannot
verify God.
Isn't waiting for verification of something, from some process of verification which cannot deliver, a waste of time for those who are unaware of this outcome, and probably a good position to hold for those who are aware of it?
Like Dave, and perhaps yourself?

Well, yes. What are you suggesting exists, that has been verified to exist, that can be considered not natural? Ghosts? Bigfoot? Angels and demons (not the awful book)? Consciousness? Humans?

My point is science cannot get evidence of God Himself, neither can it account for the mind of God.
It can only account for God's effects, which are attuned to the nature of this world.
So why ask for evidence from a process that cannot deliver?

The default would simply be that God cannot be said to exist, but that is different to saying that God can never exist. Science can not confirm nor deny the existence of God.

Only if science is your ultimate authority. But you said earlier that things exist that science cannot verify. So what would convince you of God's existence?
I open this question up to anyone.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

They are our laws, describing nature.

So when you talk of ''beyond the laws of nature'' you mean beyond your knowledge of nature''.

There is nothing in our natural world requiring a supernatural influence, and no mechanism by which it might operate, so there is nothing to explain.

Another claim about something you clearly have no knowledge of.

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

So when you talk of ''beyond the laws of nature'' you mean beyond your knowledge of nature''.
Another claim about something you clearly have no knowledge of.
jan.

Should we develop theories about the infinite number of things that we have no knowledge of?
We have no knowledge of norbs that emit flooz rays. As far as we can tell, there is no effect on our natural world.

Do you think we should develop a theory about them?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Should we develop theories about the infinite number of things that we have no knowledge of?
We have no knowledge of norbs that emit flooz rays. As far as we can tell, there is no effect on our natural world.

Do you think we should develop a theory about them?

Not if we think they don't exist.
In that sense it pointless discussing them as well.

jan

 

[DaveC426913]

Not if we think they don't exist.
In that sense it pointless discussing them as well.

Well unless someone on a forum asserts that they do exist, and can't see why others don't feel the same way.
Feedback about assumptions and flaws is a good experience. It may even cause them to take a more neutral stance, such as the possibility that norbs might be explainable in other ways.

 

[Sarkus]

To claim that something is ''beyond the laws of nature'' means one does.

I have explained my reasoning for asserting that one does not need to know the extent of the laws, and all you have come back with is "you're wrong". Do you have anything meaningful to add?

So are you indistinguishable from Sarkus?

I am Sarkus. What is your point?
If you feel that God is distinguishable from nature yet operates within the confines of the natural laws, here is an example to clarify what I am saying:
There is a natural number sequence: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. You may be familiar with it.
Now I can add numbers to it, but must do so in accordance with the natural order. I will of course have to write both the natural ones and the ones I add in, and all you have to do is distinguish which are the ones I am putting in, and which ones are merely the result of the natural order... Okay?
Here goes:
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

Did you spot the ones I put in while staying in accordance with the natural order?

Do you operate outside the laws of the cyber world you inhabit as Sarkus?

I do, Jan. Indeed I do. So you are saying God operates outside of the natural laws? Fair enough, I am not saying one way or the other, but we have a word for it: supernatural.
So you are claiming God to be supernatural. Thank you.

Yet when I interact with others in this cyber realm it is in a manner that, while in accordance with the laws as we know them, is distinguishable from other interactions, they are measurable, and because of our knowledge of the laws that operate outside of the cyber realm we can logically and rationally conclude I exist.
What rules operate outside of the universe's natural laws, Jan? Unless you can answer that your analogy surely appears to break down?

And how does this supernatural God interact with our realm, given that any interaction will be observed to be in accordance with the natural laws and indistinguishable from them?
If you claim that they will be interactions that are distinguishable then you should note that such interactions will surely be observable, and measurable, to science.

So science cannot verify God.

Correct. Nor can anything if it is supernatural (as in being outside the laws of nature). Can you name me one other thing that operates outside the laws of nature that you think is verifiable?

Isn't waiting for verification of something, from some process of verification which cannot deliver, a waste of time for those who are unaware of this outcome, and probably a good position to hold for those who are aware of it?
Like Dave, and perhaps yourself?

I'm not waiting. I'm happily going about my life, thanks. And I am certainly not expecting science to investigate, let alone come up with an answer on the matter of God. My position has always been that the question of God's existence is unscientific. Why would I wait? If God is capable of speaking to me, he knows where I am.

My point is science cannot get evidence of God Himself, neither can it account for the mind of God.
It can only account for God's effects, which are attuned to the nature of this world.
So why ask for evidence from a process that cannot deliver?

I'm not asking for evidence from science. I'm asking for evidence from you, and I will assess the evidence upon delivery. You have some?
As for accounting for God's effects, there is nothing to suggest that they are God's effects, other than your belief that they are. The nature of your evidence of these effects relies upon you believing that God exists. After All, if God exists and created the world, then the existence of the world is surely evidence of God's existence, right?

Only if science is your ultimate authority. But you said earlier that things exist that science cannot verify. So what would convince you of God's existence?

I said that it was almost certain, but we can not say that they definitely do. To say that specific things do exist, without verification, is done so on faith. Can you name one thing that definitely does exist that science can not verify? Celestial teapots, perhaps?
As to what would convince me: the same as would convince me of the existence of anything else I do not know exists or not: the necessity for their existence.

I open this question up to anyone.

Let me ask you one: what would convince you that God does not exist? And remember, you have previously stated in this thread that you are open to the possibility that God does not exist (not that I believed you then).

 

[Jan Ardena]

I have explained my reasoning for asserting that one does not need to know the extent of the laws, and all you have come back with is "you're wrong". Do you have anything meaningful to add?

Saying one doesn't need to know the extent of the laws of nature is not an explanation of anything.

Secondly if one speaks of what is beyond the laws of nature, as part of an explanation of something, then it should be expected that one knows what lies beyond the laws of nature. Otherwise don't lie.

I am Sarkus. What is your point?

So you are the actual words I am looking at now. Are you?
My point is, you aren't Sarkus. Sarkus is nothing but a word associated with the agent that produces this writing (from my perspective).

There is a natural number sequence: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. You may be familiar with it.

So numbers are natural are they?
Apart from the minds of humans, where in nature do you find numbers?

If being generated by (natural) humans make them natural, then what else is natural that is generated from humans?

I do, Jan. Indeed I do. So you are saying God operates outside of the natural laws? Fair enough, I am not saying one way or the other, but we have a word for it: supernatural.
So you are claiming God to be supernatural. Thank you.

God is supernatural from our perspective, no one has any problem with that.
But if you say God cannot operate in this world because He is supernatural. It only means that He operates in a way that modern science cannot comprehend.

Yet when I interact with others in this cyber realm it is in a manner that, while in accordance with the laws as we know them, is distinguishable from other interactions, they are measurable, and because of our knowledge of the laws that operate outside of the cyber realm we can logically and rationally conclude I exist.
What rules operate outside of the universe's natural laws, Jan? Unless you can answer that your analogy surely appears to break down?

Yes, it's natural and common sensical.
We don't need to know the intricacies of the cyber, or natural world to make distinction

How does my analogy breakdown without answering your question. Unless you're claiming God does not exist.

The argument goes that if God operates within these confines then God is indistinguishable from the natural state. Not just to science but to everyone and anything.

What do we know about God, in order to confidently make that argument?
I myself am okay with that argument because I know the perspective. But it is a narrow perspective.

The only way God can be recognised as distinct is to operate outside of the natural laws: and we have a word for that.

Where did you get the idea that you are correct in this line of thinking?

Modern science is quite aware that there are likely countless things that have not been verified that almost certainly exist. But we can not say that they definitely do exist until they have been verified (and science is a reasonable tool for the verification of such). Hence agnosticism.

Has it occurred to you that science cannot verify those things because science can't, or that it is not an effective tool in that regard?
Why does science matter when it comes to God?

Well, yes. What are you suggesting exists, that has been verified to exist, that can be considered not natural? Ghosts? Bigfoot? Angels and demons (not the awful book)? Consciousness? Humans?

I don't have a problem with the concept of what is natural. I'm not the one claiming there is no evidence of God because modern science can't find Him/It.

The default would simply be that God cannot be said to exist, but that is different to saying that God can never exist. Science can not confirm nor deny the existence of God.

I don't agree with that default at all.
You're right about science though. This is why asking for scientific evidence of God, is either silly, or a strategy.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Saying one doesn't need to know the extent of the laws of nature is not an explanation of anything.

That wasn't the explanation. The explanation that was given was as follows: "It is enough to know that they are laws, that they cannot be broken, and that they are universal for a given set of conditions.
The argument goes that if God operates within these confines then God is indistinguishable from the natural state. Not just to science but to everyone and anything.
The only way God can be recognised as distinct is to operate outside of the natural laws: and we have a word for that."

Secondly if one speaks of what is beyond the laws of nature, as part of an explanation of something, then it should be expected that one knows what lies beyond the laws of nature. Otherwise don't lie.

Then provide evidence for what you think you know about what lies beyond the laws of nature. You are the one claiming that there is something, namely God. I'm making no such claim, Jan. I am merely pointing out that if God operates within the confines of our Laws then God is indistinguishable from those laws. And if God is distinguishable, i.e. operates outside, the laws of nature then God would be considered supernatural.

So you are the actual words I am looking at now. Are you?
My point is, you aren't Sarkus. Sarkus is nothing but a word associated with the agent that produces this writing (from my perspective).

As far as you are concerned those words are Sarkus. You have no other knowledge of the agent, and the only word you have to identify the agent from any others is by the name. So to all intent and purpose those words are Sarkus. Since those words you see are mine, I am thus Sarkus.
You had another point to make?

So numbers are natural are they?
Apart from the minds of humans, where in nature do you find numbers?

If being generated by (natural) humans make them natural, then what else is natural that is generated from humans?

Everything. What do you think wouldn't be? Do you think humans are in any way unnatural? Or in any way defy the inherent laws of this universe????

God is supernatural from our perspective, no one has any problem with that.
But if you say God cannot operate in this world because He is supernatural. It only means that He operates in a way that modern science cannot comprehend.

I'm not saying that he can not operate - but we must surely establish the means by which he does if we are to identify God and prove God to exist, right?
Simply playing the "God works in mysterious ways" cards isn't really going to fly.

Yes, it's natural and common sensical.
We don't need to know the intricacies of the cyber, or natural world to make distinction

You need to know that there are differences, though, if not the detail, otherwise you could not conclude that I operate outside of one (as myself) while inhabiting the other (as Sarkus). If there was no difference in the rules then how could you possibly separate one from the other

How does my analogy breakdown without answering your question.

Because you are not providing any means of distinction, a distinction that exists within the analogy you provided. Without being able to provide that distinction for reality, the conclusion in the analogy that relies upon the distinction is invalid for shedding light on reality.

Unless you're claiming God does not exist.

Eh? How on earth did you reach this as an alternative, other than as a knee-jerk response to anything you don't either understand or agree with?

What do we know about God, in order to confidently make that argument?

If God operates within the confines of the natural laws then that is all we need to know about him... logic does the rest. Refer back to the analogy I gave previously with the numbers (and whether you agree the numbers are natural or not is a red-herring as it is simply an analogy for the way the natural laws work and how God would be indistinguishable).

I myself am okay with that argument because I know the perspective. But it is a narrow perspective.

You're okay in that you agree with it? Or simply that you understand the argument?
Because if you agree with it then you surely know you can not know anything about God - and any claim you make to know God is thus a lie on your part, one that you make in full awareness that you are lying?

Where did you get the idea that you are correct in this line of thinking?

Which part, that if God works outside the laws of nature that it can be referred to as supernatural? Or the part which says that if God works within the confines of the laws of nature then God is indistinguishable from everything else that operates as such? Yes, I am distinguishable from you, we both operate within the confines of the universe's laws. But neither of us claim to operate outside of them, or are known to operate outside of them.
So which part?
If the first - I got that from the dictionary.
If the second - logic.

Has it occurred to you that science cannot verify those things because science can't, or that it is not an effective tool in that regard?

Can you name something objective that exists that science hasn't verified?

Why does science matter when it comes to God?

To God? It doesn't, as personally I think God is outside the remit of science. But science matters when it comes to the proof of God's existence - i.e. the subject matter of the thread - as the scientific method is the best way I know to verify anything objective.

I don't have a problem with the concept of what is natural. I'm not the one claiming there is no evidence of God because modern science can't find Him/It.

I'm not saying there is no evidence simply because modern science can't find it, but because God is outside the remit of science. Do you disagree? Can you provide any evidence that rationally leads one to conclude that God exists? Can you name any scientific evidence that would possibly be available, not just to modern science but to any science ever?

I don't agree with that default at all.

Of course you don't, Jan. You believe. And in the absence of evidence that is what you rely on. Whereas I, and others, merely say "I don't know".

You're right about science though. This is why asking for scientific evidence of God, is either silly, or a strategy.

It's not silly - as it is that which would generally convince a great deal many people - and not everyone holds the view that God is unknowable.
But of course it is a strategy - a strategy to tell you what would suffice to persuade someone that God exists.
If at any time you can provide some non-scientific evidence that rationally leads to the conclusion that God exists... please feel free. We've been waiting a long time for it, though.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That wasn't the explanation. The explanation that was given was as follows: "

Then it was irrelevant to the point you responded to.

Then provide evidence for what you think you know about what lies beyond the laws of nature. You are the one claiming that there is something, namely God.

Firstly, I've made no claim that God lies beyond nature.

Dave claimed he knew what was beyond the laws of nature. Question him.

I'm making no such claim, Jan. I am merely pointing out that if God operates within the confines of our Laws then God is indistinguishable from those laws.

The effects may be indistinguishable from what is understood to be the law of nature, just as your writing in English is indistinguishable from other writings in English (unless one becomes well acquainted with your style and character).
But the agent is distinguishable.

As far as you are concerned those words are Sarkus. You have no other knowledge of the agent, and the only word you have to identify the agent from any others is by the name. So to all intent and purpose those words are Sarkus. Since those words you see are mine, I am thus Sarkus.
You had another point to make?

These words are merely symbols which you use to express yourself. If you remove "Sarkus" and replaced it with "Mr. Shoitypants" the writing wouldn't change, and neither would you.
I know there is a you, that exists regardless of the name you assign yourself.

Everything. What do you think wouldn't be? Do you think humans are in any way unnatural? Or in any way defy the inherent laws of this universe????

Do numbers physically exist?

(and whether you agree the numbers are natural or not is a red-herring as it is simply an analogy for the way the natural laws work and how God would be indistinguishable).

The numbers you inserted were as they are meant to be.
Are you the numbers?
You could have made up your own sounding numbers. Couldn't you?
But you decided to put the right ones in.

You are still distinguishable from the numbers, and making the decision to put those numbers in, makes you distinguishable.

You made it known, which also make you indistinguishable from the normal numerical layout.

You're okay in that you agree with it? Or simply that you understand the argument?

I understand it.

You're okay in that you agree with it? Or simply that you understand the argument?

I understand the perspective.

Because if you agree with it then you surely know you can not know anything about God - and any claim you make to know God is thus a lie on your part, one that you make in full awareness that you are lying?

I don't agree with it, but I understand why people do.

So which part?
If the first - I got that from the dictionary.
If the second - logic.

You claimed that "The only way God can be recognized..." What do you know about God, to make that claim?

Can you name something objective that exists that science hasn't verified?

Ask yourself. You're the one who said there are countless things that exist, that science hasn't verified.

My point is that it's pointless waiting for science to find evidence of God (as defined in the text I quoted).

To God? It doesn't, as personally I think God is outside the remit of science. But science matters when it comes to the proof of God's existence - i.e. the subject matter of the thread - as the scientific method is the best way I know to verify anything objective.

Why does it matter, especially as God is outside the remit of science?

I'm not saying there is no evidence simply because modern science can't find it, but because God is outside the remit of science. Do you disagree? Can you provide any evidence that rationally leads one to conclude that God exists? Can you name any scientific evidence that would possibly be available, not just to modern science but to any science ever?

You're confused.
What is God?
Let's take my quote from the Ishopanishad, and the quotes from the Brahman comprehension.
How can science find evidence of that.

Science is well within that, not outside of it.

You have to rely, ultimately on your own intelligence.

Of course you don't, Jan. You believe. And in the absence of evidence that is what you rely on. Whereas I, and others, merely say "I don't know".

The thing is you don't sound as if you don't know. You sound as if you are defending your position of God's non existence.

It's not silly - as it is that which would generally convince a great deal many people - and not everyone holds the view that God is unknowable.

Nonsense. Modern science cannot prove God's existence. Period.
So any such claims would be suspect.

Jan.