...
Well, thanks for confirming that you can't find anything to prove that the 3 laws of science that I have provided don't prove God. Because of these pages and pages of posts where you completely avoid that point, you are adding your strength to the proof that God exists.
BADecker,
I replied to your "3 laws" argument many times, but here it goes again:
1. cause and effect - You did not provided a cause for God so your argument is not valid.
Like as you don't have to personally follow the laws of a computer program that you write, even so God doesn't have to follow the laws that He created for some universe He engineered. God is outside of cause and effect, even though He uses them directly at times.
2. complexity of the universe - It has no correlation between existence of God and complexity that I can see.
A. We see nothing that is more complex coming from something that is less complex without some still greater complexity causing it. The complexity that causes a simple thing to become more complex than the simple thing is, may not be seen or understood clearly, but in every case it is there.
B. The fact of universal cause and effect eliminates any and all truly random action. This means that all complexity was caused to be. And again, only something more complex can produce complexity. Thus, the produced complexity is less than the complexity that caused it.
C. Since everything is an effect of some cause, the thing that set the causes in place long ago must have been super-complex to have been able to "toss" a bunch of materials and energies out there so accurately that they could produce, after countless quadrillions and quintillions of cause and effect actions, the complexity that we see in the universe today.
NOTE: The Bible suggests a less than 7,000 thousand year history for the universe. The older you suggest that the universe is, the greater God must be to produce the complexity from a set of beginning causes and effects. It's like a pool/billiards player who gets a ball into the pocket through a string of 5 balls. If he can do it through a string of 10 balls, he is a much better pool player.
3. entropy argument - complexity and randomness are two different things. even if one accepts your argument that the universe is devolving in complexity, the shear fact that we evolved from a less complex life form is enough to refute that argument
Complexity exists. Nobody has found pure randomness. Scientists are great, based on how well they can find causes, not randomness. A scientist searching for pure random has a difficult time even understanding what he is looking for.
There is no scientific evidence for complexity coming from simplicity without greater complexity causing the the action of simple to complex.
The devolving universe term might be mine, but the fact of it is what entropy is all about. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and all material is essentially energy. The thing that the energy can do is disperse and diffuse. Dispersing and diffusing of energy is well described by complexity becoming more simple.
You might have an excuse for what you are doing to yourself/yourselves. It's in the first sentence of your post I am quoting here... "I don't see any evidence for God." Since you can't stick to science, you are showing your lack of ability, thereby strengthening the science.
Thanks, again, for your confirmation that God exists.
I'm sticking to science. Not sure I lack the ability to process new information. I did graduate from a top engineering school so I don't think I lack ability to understand science. I did a bit of bio-engineering, clinical research in my 4th year of my EE program, so I'm sure I would understand a proof of God if it was presented to me.
Anyway, if you have a mathematical proof of God, please post it here. I don't think you will be able to provide data for any other type of proof as God is not observable entity so you cannot collect any data on him/her/it.
The thing that we are attempting to do is to stick to science. Since you graduated from an engineering school, you know that engineering science is quite different from theoretical science. Engineering science is the science that proves theoretical science in a practical way.
In this post, I have explained how to put the scientific laws together to prove God. I haven't done it in as detailed a way as it could be done. But I have done it a bit more detailed than many of my other posts.
So
you are assuming that God exists and does need to follow your cause & effect argument.
Perhaps you can find some tools of your trade that you use for certain things. That does not mean that you yourself, in your personal body and mind, are affected by the laws of those tools you use.
Just because God uses His tool of cause and effect, doesn't mean that He is bound by them personally.
What is the point of your argument again? Wasn't it to prove God existence?
Actually, no. It was to give folks the laws that they can go out and study and use to prove the existence of God to themselves. My statements regarding that the laws prove God exists, are the impetus to get interested people to go out and prove it for themselves.
Not all people are interest. Not all people will be smart enough to prove God easily.
What? Did you think that I was trying to get the whole world to change their minds about the existence of God by what I post here?
Engineering does not prove theoretical science. Not sure who told you so.
Not sure what you mean by the way you stated it.
Often, engineering something predicted in theory proves that the theory was accurate.
Engineering is simply an applied science. We use science to build things.
While this is totally true, often the engineer uses scientific theory to try to build something that works according to theory. Often in the building of it, he actually creates all kinds of assumptions about the theory, even mini theories, just to get the thing he built to work.
It is true that much engineering into the unknown is done simply because the engineer has a hunch, and is not following some theory made by some theoretical scientist.
You seem to have a very superficial knowledge of science (and engineering), and are still struggling with basic definitions. That is ok.
We (atheists) are here to help you understand it a bit better.
You seem to not understand what it is that you are actually often suggesting by the words you use.
If you are invoking science in your proof of God existence you should start by ignoring ALL holy books as they have no meaning in science and will not help you in deriving scientific proof of God existence. They are literary works of questionable quality, IMHO. But I'm not a historian or a literary critic.
This is precisely the thing that I have been saying all along. Almost the only time that I have used the Bible or "religion," is in response to someone else who used it first. Posting answers or responses with other than the scientific-proof-God-exists theme, is when I have answered others.
Now, why is it that you haven't been able to show flaws in the scientific proof? Why is it that you continually drag the conversation in other directions, often which are subtle attacks on my character, and just as often are expressing that I said something that I didn't say or mean, essentially calling me a liar thereby?
