Topic: Proof that God exists - page 31. (Read 62273 times)

Ahah! Well that's actually a rather good way of proving there can't be more than one God!

i like that.
it makes a lot of sense too if you reference the question of if our "reality is a simulation".

Science could never proof anything outside of our reality which a godlike entity would be.

Well, I'm too paranoid to say on public forum that the elected president of the USA is misguided.
I will though say that given his book collection it is likely that I'll have some opinions which differ from his.

"In our household the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology."
-President Barrack Obama

One property of propagation-of-consequences miracles which I concluded only from thinking [so you can say it is just my opinion] is that as soon as you have more than one entity making miraculous quantum tweaks, they might well start dropping disasters on one another's followers and so we don't want multiple gods all lobbing disasters at one another.  Bertrand Russell's equating lesser gods to the God of the Old Testament is, in my view, unfounded, so any conclusions which he draws from that presumption of equal probability are liable to be false.

No one needs to prove that God does not exist. To quote Bertrand Russell:

“I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.”

Your claim is that God might exist and control universe via quantic adjustment. It's a reasonable claim. Why not?
There are still thousands of things we don't understand. It's still totally impossible to be sure that God doesn't exist, on this I can easily agree with you.

That some of the alleged miracles which are impossibly improbable by all normal rules of science could have been brought about by exceedingly well-planned use of a subatomic tweak here and there does not prove that God does exists.  It merely claims that
i) God could exist in a world of well-defined immutable laws of physics which we only found out quite recently
ii) That such a God could accomplish miracles by much smaller adjustments than theology people had previously thought
iii) Proof that God does Not exist becomes more difficult for atheists

Also, I'm not claiming total divine control of every detail of every quantum state; just a very occasional few, enough to pick the least bad history.


Now blackbird307, I don't know the game beer pong to look at the odds of your getting the ball in first try by ordinary luck.  I am not aware of any divine purpose for "arranging" that you miraculously do, as you seem to be of the militant atheist mindset who would refuse to be converted by such an event if it did occur.  In any case, landing a ball in a pint glass is not improbable enough for the class of events which I notice.

David getting a history-changing hit on Goliath is improbable enough.  Did it actually happen ?  Well, that is a long time ago.  Could it happen by beer-pong luck ? probably not.  Could that have happened by propagation-of-consequences miraculous luck ?  Well I'm saying that it could have, and very well might have happened.  xslugx, I stop short of saying that it must have happened, because it was a long time ago and there are all sorts of flaws in records of that age.

yes , i believe in all the shittiest magical thing on this earth... because i want to do that..

If I play beer pong and get the ball in from the first try am I lucky or is it some proof of divine intervention?

If it happened than it was possible. Don't get the fact that it was lucky in there to brag about god. It's not because the chances were incredibly thin that it's a miracle if it happened.
And is it me or are you talking about David and Goliath like they were true?

Oh me I am going to argue with that one.

What you're saying is that every action is the result of others. That everything has its own causes; Fair enough, it means that the way the first atom of hydrogen was send into that precise direction with this precise number of quanta or energies decided everything.
And so? How does it prove the existence of God in any way? It just explains how an omninious and omnipotent being could be... Omninious and omnipotent? Whaou, what a demonstration...

For you to say that requires presumption that the scriptural record of David and Goliath must be untrue, as it was an impossibly lucky shot with a huge consequence upon all subsequent history.
Now, why should we believe your assertion ?

Still - There is no God, and until real evidence it will remain so.

Presumption that a photon is both a countable particle and a wavelike splurge is testable with the two-slits experiment and photon counting photomultiplier equipment.  I got the hang of those before postulating about how much could depend on a fortuitous particle state.  There remains a gaping hole between my saying that such does happen occasionally but influentially, and yourselves seeing an example of such a tiny miracle leading to an observably big miracle.  There remains a second gaping hole between observably big impossibly improbable events occurring and those being a part of a divine plan.  There remains a third gap between noticing a miraculous anomaly and finding out whether its cause was divine or satanic.

That's one hell of a presumption.

I did my science degree to "find out all of the rules which are known to be exactly true, and to learn the methodology of test by which those were discovered, and how to apply honest test for anything else which we are not quite sure about yet".
I regarded questions of theology and the origins of the universe to be much more important than mere details of the next commercially viable technology.
Whilst there are plenty of hoaxes, nonsenses, and blatant political and commercial exploitations to provide examples of purportedly holy claims which are certainly untrue, there remain a handful of miraculous events which do seem to have happened, and which do seem to be the work of God.  The way which I reconcile present day science with the appearance from time to time of miracles is to say that present science gives every particle a quantum mechanical uncertainty.  If God gets to choose whether an atom was Left or Right, and is omniescent about propagating all future consequences of such a choice, that sort of very tiny subatomic tweak, sometimes years in advance of the main event, can be chosen to pick which trouser-leg of history we end up following.  So by tweaking the right quantum state a few years beforehand, God really could have set the best wind speed on the day when David hit Goliath with an inaccurate primitive projectile weapon. 

Now, who's going to argue against that one ?

Already tried so many times to make him give a definition...
But he won't. He know the moment he gives his definition we'll simply counter him.

Scientists don't care about God because they cannot observe it or built mathematical model for it.
God is not even a serious topic for discussion.

They do talk about God when asked by non scientists.

If you think scientists have some sort of anti-God agenda, you are delusional.

You want people to put on bronze age 'God' glasses to see everything through them.  If we did that, we would still be in the bronze age.

Don't be afraid to watch the video.  God will not punish you if you do.

You are refusing to accept any new information that would contradict the Bible because you are afraid that God will kill you and send you to Hell?  Is that it?

BTW, where is HELL?  Don't you need unlimited supply of oxygen for it to work?  Or is that also imaginary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2LSLv8_Gvs

Hey BADecker, you missed this: