Eleven Year Old Genius Sets Out to Prove Existence of God

[Opoponax]

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...ants-to-prove-scientifically-that-god-exists/

Eleven-year-old William (Vasilios) Maillis is one of the youngest people ever to graduate from a public high school–at the ripe old age of nine–and will soon have his associate’s degree from St. Petersburg College in Florida. His long-term goal is to earn a doctorate in astrophysics and ultimately prove scientifically that God exists.

I for one, wish the young lad the best of luck. But really, this is gonna go one of two ways:

1. Future atheist

2. Tortured genius with damaged psyche consults Kirk Cameron for philosophical advice; ends up as curator of Ark museum in Kentucky; found dead of potassium overdose after eating 300 pounds of bananas in 15 hours.

 

[Trausti]

I wish him well. It would be nice if there really was an all loving God. That'd be swell.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Hey, as long as he’s not sitting around all day playing Minecraft, he’s better than most 11 year olds. I wish him well.

It would be awkward if he ends up proving the existence of Ganesha, though, because I would not feel comfortable worshipping someone with an elephsnt’s year, even if that’s justified by the scientific data.

 

[Lion IRC]

In science, aren't all hypotheses tentative until DISproven?
So even when he 'proves' the (apparent) existence of a thing called God he will still be vulnerable to claims by skeptics that his evidence doesn't really show what he claims it to show or that he's merely proven the existence of an alien life form.
...an archangel or a demon or ET

It would be awkward if he ends up proving the existence of Ganesha, though, because I would not feel comfortable worshipping someone with an elephant's ear, even if that’s justified by the scientific data.

Big ears? How about if he discovers this guy?

 

[braces_for_impact]

Hey, Yoda had some good words of wisdom to live by at times too, just like the bible. Plus, he could move an X-wing fighter with his mind. I didn't see Jesus flying any starships out of swamps. Hell, Yoda even came back from the dead too as a force ghost. Yoda -2, Jesus -1.

 

[Juma]

In science, aren't all hypotheses tentative until DISproven?
So even when he 'proves' the (apparent) existence of a thing called God he will still be vulnerable to claims by skeptics that his evidence doesn't really show what he claims it to show or that he's merely proven the existence of an alien life form.
...an archangel or a demon or ET

It would be awkward if he ends up proving the existence of Ganesha, though, because I would not feel comfortable worshipping someone with an elephant's ear, even if that’s justified by the scientific data.

Big ears? How about if he discovers this guy?

View attachment 15527

Hypotesis explains complex facts by simpler terms.
God isnt a simpler term.

 

[Lion IRC]

God answers why questions.
Occam says unanswered questions do not give rise to the simplest explanation.

 

[bilby]

God answers why questions.
Occam says unanswered questions do not give rise to the simplest explanation.

'God' doesn't answer any questions. It's just a way of pretending to have an answer when all you actually have is a meaningless label. It's a weaselling way of saying 'I have no fucking clue'.

If someone's answer to any question includes the word 'God', replacing their answer with 'I have no fucking clue' gives the exact same information and is precisely as useful.

 

[Opoponax]

In science, aren't all hypotheses tentative until DISproven?
So even when he 'proves' the (apparent) existence of a thing called God he will still be vulnerable to claims by skeptics that his evidence doesn't really show what he claims it to show or that he's merely proven the existence of an alien life form.
...an archangel or a demon or ET

Or Cthulu. Can't forget about Him. A child opening the gateway to Hell is the stuff of... of cheesy 1980s horror movies I think.

It's also interesting that at such a young age he wants to prove that his parents' god exists. At some point, the conversation came up wherein something along the lines of "Some people think God doesn't exist" was said, which sparked this idea in his little noggin. So at this point there's already some doubt and insecurity in his head.

I wonder if he knows about the whole Santa Clause thing yet. Maybe he should've started with that less ambitious project.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

God answers why questions.
Occam says unanswered questions do not give rise to the simplest explanation.

Then maybe this kid is just out to prove the existence of "Why."

 

[remez]

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...ants-to-prove-scientifically-that-god-exists/

Eleven-year-old William (Vasilios) Maillis is one of the youngest people ever to graduate from a public high school–at the ripe old age of nine–and will soon have his associate’s degree from St. Petersburg College in Florida. His long-term goal is to earn a doctorate in astrophysics and ultimately prove scientifically that God exists.

I for one, wish the young lad the best of luck. But really, this is gonna go one of two ways:

1. Future atheist

2. Tortured genius with damaged psyche consults Kirk Cameron for philosophical advice; ends up as curator of Ark museum in Kentucky; found dead of potassium overdose after eating 300 pounds of bananas in 15 hours.

Science cannot prove God exists.
Science is the search for only natural explanations.
However science can support reasoning that God does exist.

Likely he will come to understand this and ajust his goals.

 

[Copernicus]

I find it sad that he does not have a loftier goal, e.g. proving the existence of a room-temperature superconductor.

 

[Poppa Popobawa]

I wish him well. It would be nice if there really was an all loving God. That'd be swell.

But if there were, and it exists, it must be powerless in many ways, not at all like the kind of omnipotent, omniscient god that lots of people like to define into existence.

Stephen Fry put it well . . .




And also :-

. . .

. . .
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...ants-to-prove-scientifically-that-god-exists/
. . .

. . .
Science cannot prove God exists. *
Science is the search for only natural explanations.
However science can support reasoning that God does exist.

Likely he will come to understand this and ajust his goals.

* Science cannot prove God exists. [sic]
But science can prove that "God" does not exist.

First you have to define "God" well enough for science to approach the question.

If "God" has a recognisable influence in the real world, that influence can be investigated by science.
In other words, if in the definition of "God" there is something testable, then it can be tested.

If in no way can any element of this "God" be tested, (scientifically), then "God" is surely entirely of
the mind, (the human mind), is "he" not?

My observations of how "God" is in fact defined, is that the definition may vary tremendously or less
so, from one person to the next, and/or one religion to the next.

This suggests that "God" is at the least, partly made-up by people, and quite possibly entirely made-up
by people. I'd say there is a good likelihood that "God" is fictitious, and even an all-loving god, were it to
exist, is not much value, if it can't apply that love, (refer to Stephen Fry above).

 

[Learner]

* Science cannot prove God exists. [sic]
But science can prove that "God" does not exist.

First you have to define "God" well enough for science to approach the question.

If "God" has a recognisable influence in the real world, that influence can be investigated by science.
In other words, if in the definition of "God" there is something testable, then it can be tested.

If in no way can any element of this "God" be tested, (scientifically), then "God" is surely entirely of
the mind, (the human mind), is "he" not?

My observations of how "God" is in fact defined, is that the definition may vary tremendously or less
so, from one person to the next, and/or one religion to the next.

This suggests that "God" is at the least, partly made-up by people, and quite possibly entirely made-up
by people. I'd say there is a good likelihood that "God" is fictitious, and even an all-loving god, were it to
exist, is not much value, if it can't apply that love, (refer to Stephen Fry above).

To clarify ... are you saying "there can be no such thing as God and science can prove it?" Not even R.Dawkins will make the claim otherwise it becomes your "burden of proof".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...ants-to-prove-scientifically-that-god-exists/

Eleven-year-old William (Vasilios) Maillis is one of the youngest people ever to graduate from a public high school–at the ripe old age of nine–and will soon have his associate’s degree from St. Petersburg College in Florida. His long-term goal is to earn a doctorate in astrophysics and ultimately prove scientifically that God exists.

I for one, wish the young lad the best of luck. But really, this is gonna go one of two ways:

1. Future atheist

2. Tortured genius with damaged psyche consults Kirk Cameron for philosophical advice; ends up as curator of Ark museum in Kentucky; found dead of potassium overdose after eating 300 pounds of bananas in 15 hours.

Well, he would hardly be the first incredibly intelligent person in science to go about doing so. Most of the greatest minds in the 19th Century put forth a large effort to prove their god existed. None of them did. One can't even demonstrate through science if "God" has been encountered in a face to face.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

* Science cannot prove God exists. [sic]
But science can prove that "God" does not exist.

First you have to define "God" well enough for science to approach the question.

If "God" has a recognisable influence in the real world, that influence can be investigated by science.
In other words, if in the definition of "God" there is something testable, then it can be tested.

If in no way can any element of this "God" be tested, (scientifically), then "God" is surely entirely of
the mind, (the human mind), is "he" not?

My observations of how "God" is in fact defined, is that the definition may vary tremendously or less
so, from one person to the next, and/or one religion to the next.

This suggests that "God" is at the least, partly made-up by people, and quite possibly entirely made-up
by people. I'd say there is a good likelihood that "God" is fictitious, and even an all-loving god, were it to
exist, is not much value, if it can't apply that love, (refer to Stephen Fry above).

To clarify ... are you saying "there can be no such thing as God and science can prove it?" Not even R.Dawkins will make the claim otherwise it becomes your "burden of proof".

He's saying that if you define "God" scientifically then it appears most likely that god is a made-up concept that can be shown to not be real.

So it is necessary to give this "God" real, testable attributes. If that cannot be done then "God" is just words.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

* Science cannot prove God exists. [sic]
But science can prove that "God" does not exist.

First you have to define "God" well enough for science to approach the question.

If "God" has a recognisable influence in the real world, that influence can be investigated by science.
In other words, if in the definition of "God" there is something testable, then it can be tested.

If in no way can any element of this "God" be tested, (scientifically), then "God" is surely entirely of
the mind, (the human mind), is "he" not?

My observations of how "God" is in fact defined, is that the definition may vary tremendously or less
so, from one person to the next, and/or one religion to the next.

This suggests that "God" is at the least, partly made-up by people, and quite possibly entirely made-up
by people. I'd say there is a good likelihood that "God" is fictitious, and even an all-loving god, were it to
exist, is not much value, if it can't apply that love, (refer to Stephen Fry above).

I'd disagree. Science can help eventually tell us a god is not necessary (as has been done up to this point with countless observations of everything showing natural and predictable causation), but it'd be hard to prove that a god does (or can) not exist.

 

[Speakpigeon]

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...ants-to-prove-scientifically-that-god-exists/

Eleven-year-old William (Vasilios) Maillis is one of the youngest people ever to graduate from a public high school–at the ripe old age of nine–and will soon have his associate’s degree from St. Petersburg College in Florida. His long-term goal is to earn a doctorate in astrophysics and ultimately prove scientifically that God exists.

1. Apparently, I was much more intelligent as an 11 years old. I thought about it one day and somehow decided that God obviously didn't exist but then I never imagined I could prove that.

2. It's easy to prove God exists. You just have to define what you mean by God: God exists, it's Me.

3. It's easy to prove an omnipotent God exists as long as He wants you to know. Otherwise, good luck. So, me, I wouldn't bother.

4. If God wants you to know, you're still free to deny Him, if free will is really something He wants you to have.

Where we should be sorry for him is that now that he set out to prove God he is likely to be bothered by all sorts of idiots and nuts for the rest of his life. And he'll see by himself if there's any god to protect him from the sheer stupidity of many of his less fortunate fellow human beings.
EB

 

[LordKiran]

Fitting: the anthropomorphic concept of god as existing in a physical space has always been a childish idea. Like santa: Something you teach your children because they aren't yet old enough to understand the more sophisticated ideas entrenched within that anthropomorphism. But we all have to grow up someday. We all have to learn that the importance of saint nick isnt who is is or isn't but what he represents to us all. Some people can't handle that burden of knowledge and so refuse to grow up.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Room temperature superconductor? I just want him to invent a coat zipper that will STAY ZIPPED. That won't start to come unzipped from the bottom up. If I could find one of those on a new coat, I just might start to believe in intelligent design.