Scientific Proof of God (SPOG)
To open a discussion on this article, please use the contact page to provide your comments.
In my opinion, the question of the existence of a supreme being is not answerable. It is not possible to prove or disprove a god exists. Not all agnostics make this claim, some do think the question can be answered.
Contrary to my assertion that the question cannot be answered, a George Hammond claims to have found scientific proof of God's existence. According to Hammond, "God is a curvature of Psychometry Space" which he modestly claims is equivalent Einstein's theory of relativity.
Hammond says, in one of the "simpler" versions of his proof:
Because the 3-Axis geometry of the body is caused by the 3-Axis geometry of real-space, the curvature in Psychometry space is obviously caused by the curvature in real space, which is known to be "Gravity". Hence, "Gravity causes God" and the whole theory of God is identical to the theory of Relativity. The Metrical identity [XYZt]=[ENPg] immediately yield's God=Guv. QED, there is a real God.
I'm sure that makes perfect sense to someone, somewhere.
For those who want to tackle the more advanced versions of Hammond's proof, he conveniently provides a multiple choice test so you can determine for yourself if you are qualified to understand what he has written. Reviewing these questions could lead one to suspect this is a parody site of some kind. There are some genuine mathematical questions, some where the answer can only be "none of the above, which is not an option, and some which are pure psychobabble. And most seem irrelevant to a proof of god. Is it really possible that not agreeing with Hammond on the number of god's in the Greco-Roman pantheon will make you incapable of understanding his proof.
Hammond claims his scientific proof of god cannot be wrong. He writes:
the "discovery" is not in the nature of there being any "other possibility", to a trained scientist, it is "prima facie" correct... there is absolutely NO POSSIBILITY that the scientific proof of God is wrong. The amazing fact that we now have to face, is that Religion is correct, there actually is a God!
And that particular statement is why, even though I cannot understand Hammond's work, I firmly believe that Hammond's Scientific Proof of God is wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. If he makes such a statement, then his proof is certainly not scientific, nor is it a proof.
If anything, Hammond is presenting an untested and unverifiable theory, not a proof. He effectively acknowledges this when he compares what he has done to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The difference is that Einstein's work is testable - and indeed is tested every day by ongoing experiments in physics, in astrophysics, and cosmology. Hammond's theory is not empirically testable. It is not provable nor disprovable. It is meaningless manipulation of mathematical symbols.