Wishing it to be science does not make it so. Same with religion.
Wishing doesn't make anything. Things are what they are.
Agreed. Crazy people are crazy. That's just how it is.
Topic: Proof that God exists - page 32. (Read 62273 times)
Wishing doesn't make anything. Things are what they are.
Agreed. Crazy people are crazy. That's just how it is.
Wishing it to be science does not make it so. Same with religion.
Wishing doesn't make anything. Things are what they are.
Wishing it to be science does not make it so. Same with religion.
Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.
Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.
This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.
Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?
Which is more complex, ice or water?
Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.
So you're not sure if ice or water is more complex? Then how can you say that some level of complexity is only a result of something more complex?
Here's how. Since entropy pervades everything, ultimately everything that is made out of something else is at least slightly less complex than the thing that made it, due to entropy.
Are you trying to go for a swim inside ice, or what
If you don't know which is more complex in that case, how can you be certain which is more complex in any arbitrary case? I will accept answers other than "Because that's the way I think it is".
Damn, you ask for logical reasoning and constructive thinking? What the hell man?
But he wouldn't know how to use the information, how to interpret it, just like he doesn't know how to search for it. I mean, consider. He tells me on a regular basis, right in this thread, in various ways, that my thinking is flawed. Then he asks me for scientific information. Is that logical?
So, if he really thinks my scientific thinking is flawed, shouldn't he go search somewhere where he might expect to find accurate data? No! of course not. Why not? Because he doesn't really want accurate info. If he did, he would realize that science proves that God exists, and wouldn't keep suggesting that it doesn't.
Fickle like a fickle woman. Thinks my thinking is flawed. Then asks me for science. Goofy.
Your thinking is not only flawed. It's irrelevant and insulting.
There you go again, sporting the only science that can prove my thinking is wrong... political science. How does political science work? Two basic ways. It supports lying when beneficial to its cause, and it supports using continued media-like blabbering to drown out the truth.
You're not doing science.
The first step of any scientific reasoning is to define the terms your using. You never defined neither entropy nor complexity. Hence you never made any reasoning, you're just speaking believing it makes sense.
Disproving Gods with History and Science (Dr. Richard Carrier)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFGTu-OxFpU
Dr. Richard Carrier – 'Did Jesus Even Exist?'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U
"Are Christians Delusional?" Richard Carrier Skepticon 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28PjVaW4kKI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFGTu-OxFpU
Dr. Richard Carrier – 'Did Jesus Even Exist?'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U
"Are Christians Delusional?" Richard Carrier Skepticon 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28PjVaW4kKI
Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan & Arthur C. Clarke agree that religion is bullshit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDf-AbOTNDA
(though they mostly talk about the cosmos, the big bang, aliens, physics and fractals)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDf-AbOTNDA
(though they mostly talk about the cosmos, the big bang, aliens, physics and fractals)
Why Christianity is Impossible to Believe (Christopher Hitchens)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbOUBUVLvKw
Christianity is False and Immoral. (Christopher Hitchens)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA55jGyq2C8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbOUBUVLvKw
Christianity is False and Immoral. (Christopher Hitchens)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA55jGyq2C8
Part of the reason that these guys do research and make Godless theories is because they don't want to believe in God.
They neither prove that cause and effect, complex universe, universal entropy, don't exist, nor that their combined existence doesn't proves God. Rather, these guys do everything that they can to make theories that attempt to disprove Him.
Their theories haven't been proven. But the laws of nature listed above are being proven all around us, regularly, on a daily basis. These scientific jokers are foolish when they try to prove that God, Who science has proven to exist, doesn't exist.
No but it proves that you still have no clue about the scientific definition of entropy which has, for the 58th times, nothing to do with complexity, complexity being not even a precise term.
Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.
Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.
This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.
Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?
Which is more complex, ice or water?
Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.
So you're not sure if ice or water is more complex? Then how can you say that some level of complexity is only a result of something more complex?
Here's how. Since entropy pervades everything, ultimately everything that is made out of something else is at least slightly less complex than the thing that made it, due to entropy.
Are you trying to go for a swim inside ice, or what
If you don't know which is more complex in that case, how can you be certain which is more complex in any arbitrary case? I will accept answers other than "Because that's the way I think it is".
Damn, you ask for logical reasoning and constructive thinking? What the hell man?
But he wouldn't know how to use the information, how to interpret it, just like he doesn't know how to search for it. I mean, consider. He tells me on a regular basis, right in this thread, in various ways, that my thinking is flawed. Then he asks me for scientific information. Is that logical?
So, if he really thinks my scientific thinking is flawed, shouldn't he go search somewhere where he might expect to find accurate data? No! of course not. Why not? Because he doesn't really want accurate info. If he did, he would realize that science proves that God exists, and wouldn't keep suggesting that it doesn't.
Fickle like a fickle woman. Thinks my thinking is flawed. Then asks me for science. Goofy.
Your thinking is not only flawed. It's irrelevant and insulting.
There you go again, sporting the only science that can prove my thinking is wrong... political science. How does political science work? Two basic ways. It supports lying when beneficial to its cause, and it supports using continued media-like blabbering to drown out the truth.
Disproving Gods with History and Science (Dr. Richard Carrier)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFGTu-OxFpU
Dr. Richard Carrier – 'Did Jesus Even Exist?'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U
"Are Christians Delusional?" Richard Carrier Skepticon 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28PjVaW4kKI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFGTu-OxFpU
Dr. Richard Carrier – 'Did Jesus Even Exist?'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U
"Are Christians Delusional?" Richard Carrier Skepticon 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28PjVaW4kKI
Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan & Arthur C. Clarke agree that religion is bullshit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDf-AbOTNDA
(though they mostly talk about the cosmos, the big bang, aliens, physics and fractals)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDf-AbOTNDA
(though they mostly talk about the cosmos, the big bang, aliens, physics and fractals)
Why Christianity is Impossible to Believe (Christopher Hitchens)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbOUBUVLvKw
Christianity is False and Immoral. (Christopher Hitchens)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA55jGyq2C8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbOUBUVLvKw
Christianity is False and Immoral. (Christopher Hitchens)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA55jGyq2C8
Part of the reason that these guys do research and make Godless theories is because they don't want to believe in God.
They neither prove that cause and effect, complex universe, universal entropy, don't exist, nor that their combined existence doesn't proves God. Rather, these guys do everything that they can to make theories that attempt to disprove Him.
Their theories haven't been proven. But the laws of nature listed above are being proven all around us, regularly, on a daily basis. These scientific jokers are foolish when they try to prove that God, Who science has proven to exist, doesn't exist.
Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.
Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.
This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.
Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?
Which is more complex, ice or water?
Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.
So you're not sure if ice or water is more complex? Then how can you say that some level of complexity is only a result of something more complex?
Here's how. Since entropy pervades everything, ultimately everything that is made out of something else is at least slightly less complex than the thing that made it, due to entropy.
Are you trying to go for a swim inside ice, or what
If you don't know which is more complex in that case, how can you be certain which is more complex in any arbitrary case? I will accept answers other than "Because that's the way I think it is".
Damn, you ask for logical reasoning and constructive thinking? What the hell man?
But he wouldn't know how to use the information, how to interpret it, just like he doesn't know how to search for it. I mean, consider. He tells me on a regular basis, right in this thread, in various ways, that my thinking is flawed. Then he asks me for scientific information. Is that logical?
So, if he really thinks my scientific thinking is flawed, shouldn't he go search somewhere where he might expect to find accurate data? No! of course not. Why not? Because he doesn't really want accurate info. If he did, he would realize that science proves that God exists, and wouldn't keep suggesting that it doesn't.
Fickle like a fickle woman. Thinks my thinking is flawed. Then asks me for science. Goofy.
Your thinking is not only flawed. It's irrelevant and insulting.
It's cool how what's supposed to prove God is a fact/law and the thousands of things that refutes his existence are just mere theories. And it's funny how no scientist know it hmm?
That's literally the definition of delusional
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion
Quote
A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.
100 Renowned Academics Speaking About God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De6j01DCsZM
Well anyway he doesn't really care about reason. He just gives his opinions like they were facts rock solid!
There is so much knowledge and information that is not yet knowledge, that a thousand academics, or a million of them, would never know it all. And even if they did know it all, they would never be able to think about it all. Not in this lifetime.
So, if they are against the existence of God, why would they want to speak ideas that suggest God exists? Especially if they have not thought in the directions of the ways that prove that God exists?
Needle in a haystack. Can you find the needle? And if you pretend to be looking, but really don't want to find, will you express your find if you find it by accident? Of course not. You will go off and ignore the fact that you did find.
EDIT: Just to show how flawed the video is (which I am not going to watch, btw), the title beneath the video in Youtube is "100 Renowned Academics Speaking About God." But the title inside the video itself is, "50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God." If the joker who put the video up on Youtube can't get it right, it's because he fits right in with the 50 renowned academics.
Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.
Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.
This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.
Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?
Which is more complex, ice or water?
Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.
So you're not sure if ice or water is more complex? Then how can you say that some level of complexity is only a result of something more complex?
Here's how. Since entropy pervades everything, ultimately everything that is made out of something else is at least slightly less complex than the thing that made it, due to entropy.
Are you trying to go for a swim inside ice, or what
If you don't know which is more complex in that case, how can you be certain which is more complex in any arbitrary case? I will accept answers other than "Because that's the way I think it is".
Damn, you ask for logical reasoning and constructive thinking? What the hell man?
But he wouldn't know how to use the information, how to interpret it, just like he doesn't know how to search for it. I mean, consider. He tells me on a regular basis, right in this thread, in various ways, that my thinking is flawed. Then he asks me for scientific information. Is that logical?
So, if he really thinks my scientific thinking is flawed, shouldn't he go search somewhere where he might expect to find accurate data? No! of course not. Why not? Because he doesn't really want accurate info. If he did, he would realize that science proves that God exists, and wouldn't keep suggesting that it doesn't.
Fickle like a fickle woman. Thinks my thinking is flawed. Then asks me for science. Goofy.
Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.
Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.
This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.
Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?
Which is more complex, ice or water?
Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.
So you're not sure if ice or water is more complex? Then how can you say that some level of complexity is only a result of something more complex?
Here's how. Since entropy pervades everything, ultimately everything that is made out of something else is at least slightly less complex than the thing that made it, due to entropy.
Are you trying to go for a swim inside ice, or what
If you don't know which is more complex in that case, how can you be certain which is more complex in any arbitrary case? I will accept answers other than "Because that's the way I think it is".
Damn, you ask for logical reasoning and constructive thinking? What the hell man?
It's cool how what's supposed to prove God is a fact/law and the thousands of things that refutes his existence are just mere theories. And it's funny how no scientist know it hmm?
That's literally the definition of delusional
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion
Quote
A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.
100 Renowned Academics Speaking About God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De6j01DCsZM
Well anyway he doesn't really care about reason. He just gives his opinions like they were facts rock solid!
Stephen Hawking: There Is No God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj0NL2r6cnU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj0NL2r6cnU
Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan & Arthur C. Clarke agree that religion is bullshit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDf-AbOTNDA
(though they mostly talk about the cosmos, the big bang, aliens, physics and fractals)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDf-AbOTNDA
(though they mostly talk about the cosmos, the big bang, aliens, physics and fractals)
Disproving Gods with History and Science (Dr. Richard Carrier)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFGTu-OxFpU
Dr. Richard Carrier – 'Did Jesus Even Exist?'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U
"Are Christians Delusional?" Richard Carrier Skepticon 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28PjVaW4kKI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFGTu-OxFpU
Dr. Richard Carrier – 'Did Jesus Even Exist?'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U
"Are Christians Delusional?" Richard Carrier Skepticon 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28PjVaW4kKI
Why Christianity is Impossible to Believe (Christopher Hitchens)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbOUBUVLvKw
Christianity is False and Immoral. (Christopher Hitchens)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA55jGyq2C8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbOUBUVLvKw
Christianity is False and Immoral. (Christopher Hitchens)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA55jGyq2C8
It's cool how what's supposed to prove God is a fact/law and the thousands of things that refutes his existence are just mere theories. And it's funny how no scientist know it hmm?
That's literally the definition of delusional
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion
Quote
A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.
100 Renowned Academics Speaking About God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De6j01DCsZM
Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.
Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.
This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.
Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?
Which is more complex, ice or water?
Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.
So you're not sure if ice or water is more complex? Then how can you say that some level of complexity is only a result of something more complex?
Here's how. Since entropy pervades everything, ultimately everything that is made out of something else is at least slightly less complex than the thing that made it, due to entropy.
Are you trying to go for a swim inside ice, or what
If you don't know which is more complex in that case, how can you be certain which is more complex in any arbitrary case? I will accept answers other than "Because that's the way I think it is".
If you really want the answer to the complexity of ice and water, do the research.
You still haven't actually defined what complexity is. According to the wikipedia article on complexity "there is no unique definition of complexity" so if you don't provide your definition no one can know what you're talking about.
Already tried to make him define his terms but he doesn't give a fuck about this neither :/
Is the 8 week old baby more complex than 2 weeks old baby? Answer Yes or No please.
You understand the question, don't you?
... But I will answer it anyway. Yes. ...
Thank you.
You proved yourself wrong. 2 week old baby is less complex than 8 week old baby.
More complexity from less complexity. There goes your "proof" of God, out to the dumpster.
Your Honour, I rest my case. Witness is excused.
Nah, we already tried that.
I tried with evolution theory and fusions and simple tree growth but he just says yes then go like it was a no, won't work mate!
That's just it. Evolution = theory. Cause and effect = fact/law. Cause and effect = programming = if evolution is true in any way, it was programmed into nature.
It's cool how what's supposed to prove God is a fact/law and the thousands of things that refutes his existence are just mere theories. And it's funny how no scientist know it hmm?
Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.
Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.
This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.
Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?
Which is more complex, ice or water?
Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.
So you're not sure if ice or water is more complex? Then how can you say that some level of complexity is only a result of something more complex?
Here's how. Since entropy pervades everything, ultimately everything that is made out of something else is at least slightly less complex than the thing that made it, due to entropy.
Are you trying to go for a swim inside ice, or what
If you don't know which is more complex in that case, how can you be certain which is more complex in any arbitrary case? I will accept answers other than "Because that's the way I think it is".
If you really want the answer to the complexity of ice and water, do the research.
You still haven't actually defined what complexity is. According to the wikipedia article on complexity "there is no unique definition of complexity" so if you don't provide your definition no one can know what you're talking about.
Jump to: