Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 333. (Read 845654 times)
BADecker: The problem with your argument's for/against whatever, is that you alienate folks from whatever it is you think you are trying to do here by preaching your book instead of providing proof from it.. people from your own faith have spoken less and done more, you have done most, and lost most.. your continued mis-use of your gods book is just crap mate, you use it to attack and spread fear, only we know this, you are blind to it.. you are a scaremonger, and a cruel twat.. your own tribesmen are tellin you off, and you still cant get the hint.. you do yours more damage than good.
-snip-
One of the main reasons that this type of political science is used is, it is easy. Non-scientific types of people (but scientists as well) can easily use political science to bash and trash anyone. Why? Because knowing the language, and being able to use it, are often easy, compared with learning the other sciences. After all, people learn the language at a very young age simply by listening to their parents. And when they use the political science of "lying" rather well, it is often because they were trained into it by parents and other family members. This shows that their whole family line was/is a bunch of liars.
The sad thing about it for people who use political science in this way is, nothing that they say can change the facts. Sooner or later the facts prove themselves out. Often it is to the hurt of the people who would lie about the facts by trying to hide the truth. In this case, there will come a time when XinXan and LaudaM (along with any of the folks who act and talk like they do) will stand before God in the judgment. If they haven't changed their ways prior to that, they will be damned to Hell. I hate to see something like that happening. But, oh well, they asked for it.
On top of it, when these political science users actually believe their lies, what they are doing is forming or practicing a religion. They are attempting to believe something that doesn't have much of any real backing to it. And they do it as a process, making it a religion just like any other religion.
Okay, kids. You have done your bashing and trashing. Let's see some logic that disproves the proof that God exists. Do you have anything more than slander, lies, deceit and attempts to hide the truth?
This whole post is bullshit. Yes I must have been using this political science gibberish (which I didn't even know it existed) to get you.One of the main reasons that this type of political science is used is, it is easy. Non-scientific types of people (but scientists as well) can easily use political science to bash and trash anyone. Why? Because knowing the language, and being able to use it, are often easy, compared with learning the other sciences. After all, people learn the language at a very young age simply by listening to their parents. And when they use the political science of "lying" rather well, it is often because they were trained into it by parents and other family members. This shows that their whole family line was/is a bunch of liars.
The sad thing about it for people who use political science in this way is, nothing that they say can change the facts. Sooner or later the facts prove themselves out. Often it is to the hurt of the people who would lie about the facts by trying to hide the truth. In this case, there will come a time when XinXan and LaudaM (along with any of the folks who act and talk like they do) will stand before God in the judgment. If they haven't changed their ways prior to that, they will be damned to Hell. I hate to see something like that happening. But, oh well, they asked for it.
On top of it, when these political science users actually believe their lies, what they are doing is forming or practicing a religion. They are attempting to believe something that doesn't have much of any real backing to it. And they do it as a process, making it a religion just like any other religion.
Okay, kids. You have done your bashing and trashing. Let's see some logic that disproves the proof that God exists. Do you have anything more than slander, lies, deceit and attempts to hide the truth?
So thinking for myself will bring me to Hell? I'd rather not hang around with that "god" of yours.
I've never really said that God didn't exist, I'm just saying that the ones that people believe in don't.
All of his posts are bullshit he posts a lot of stuff but nothing that he posts is proof of anything, he often uses terms like: that points that god exists or there must be a god or how would that exist if there was no god, just because we dont know or we cant explain why or how doesnt mean its made by god for fuck sake
-snip-
One of the main reasons that this type of political science is used is, it is easy. Non-scientific types of people (but scientists as well) can easily use political science to bash and trash anyone. Why? Because knowing the language, and being able to use it, are often easy, compared with learning the other sciences. After all, people learn the language at a very young age simply by listening to their parents. And when they use the political science of "lying" rather well, it is often because they were trained into it by parents and other family members. This shows that their whole family line was/is a bunch of liars.
The sad thing about it for people who use political science in this way is, nothing that they say can change the facts. Sooner or later the facts prove themselves out. Often it is to the hurt of the people who would lie about the facts by trying to hide the truth. In this case, there will come a time when XinXan and LaudaM (along with any of the folks who act and talk like they do) will stand before God in the judgment. If they haven't changed their ways prior to that, they will be damned to Hell. I hate to see something like that happening. But, oh well, they asked for it.
On top of it, when these political science users actually believe their lies, what they are doing is forming or practicing a religion. They are attempting to believe something that doesn't have much of any real backing to it. And they do it as a process, making it a religion just like any other religion.
Okay, kids. You have done your bashing and trashing. Let's see some logic that disproves the proof that God exists. Do you have anything more than slander, lies, deceit and attempts to hide the truth?
This whole post is bullshit. Yes I must have been using this political science gibberish (which I didn't even know it existed) to get you.One of the main reasons that this type of political science is used is, it is easy. Non-scientific types of people (but scientists as well) can easily use political science to bash and trash anyone. Why? Because knowing the language, and being able to use it, are often easy, compared with learning the other sciences. After all, people learn the language at a very young age simply by listening to their parents. And when they use the political science of "lying" rather well, it is often because they were trained into it by parents and other family members. This shows that their whole family line was/is a bunch of liars.
The sad thing about it for people who use political science in this way is, nothing that they say can change the facts. Sooner or later the facts prove themselves out. Often it is to the hurt of the people who would lie about the facts by trying to hide the truth. In this case, there will come a time when XinXan and LaudaM (along with any of the folks who act and talk like they do) will stand before God in the judgment. If they haven't changed their ways prior to that, they will be damned to Hell. I hate to see something like that happening. But, oh well, they asked for it.
On top of it, when these political science users actually believe their lies, what they are doing is forming or practicing a religion. They are attempting to believe something that doesn't have much of any real backing to it. And they do it as a process, making it a religion just like any other religion.
Okay, kids. You have done your bashing and trashing. Let's see some logic that disproves the proof that God exists. Do you have anything more than slander, lies, deceit and attempts to hide the truth?
So thinking for myself will bring me to Hell? I'd rather not hang around with that "god" of yours.
I've never really said that God didn't exist, I'm just saying that the ones that people believe in don't.
The bible people are stupid, they believe the earth is 6000 years old because their book says so when there are thousands of proofs that state the earth is much older.
I dont know if you are talking about a God as: A superior Being or God as God in the bible, wich one?
This thread is becoming a nuisance even for the off-topic section. The problem with religious people is that they won't give in even though they can't win the discussion whilst presenting a valid argument.
If you want to believe in fairy tales, fine, just don't annoy the rest of us.
If you want to believe in fairy tales, fine, just don't annoy the rest of us.
Here is an example of a couple of commenters who are using science to refute the truth that God exists ^^. The are using the only science that possibly has a chance to scientifically refute the existence of God. Which science are they using? They are using political science.
Part of political science is seeing how much you can out talk your opponent who logically uses other forms of good science. The particular kind of political science they are using is called "bash 'em and trash 'em."
The "bash 'em and trash 'em" method works by using the "bash 'em" part first. This part is where you attempt to talk around the good science that your opponent uses. You attempt to bring up things that are not really part of what the good science talks about, rather than find holes in the good science itself. Then you attempt to badmouth the person of your opponent, attempting to make HIM look bad, with the idea that you can place his good science in a bad light by detracting from his character.
The "trash 'em" part picks up where the "bash 'em" part leaves off. Now that you have distracted from the good science, and made the opponent look bad on top of it, your next goal is to more or less sweep the good science along with its proponent under the rug... sort of move him and his good science out of sight.
Using political science is a good plan. It seems to bring success out of the ashes of failure and defeat. The interesting thing about political science is, it is the only science that employs downright lies and deceit inside of its scientific methodology. All the rest of the sciences are about finding the truth.
One of the main reasons that this type of political science is used is, it is easy. Non-scientific types of people (but scientists as well) can easily use political science to bash and trash anyone. Why? Because knowing the language, and being able to use it, are often easy, compared with learning the other sciences. After all, people learn the language at a very young age simply by listening to their parents. And when they use the political science of "lying" rather well, it is often because they were trained into it by parents and other family members. This shows that their whole family line was/is a bunch of liars.
The sad thing about it for people who use political science in this way is, nothing that they say can change the facts. Sooner or later the facts prove themselves out. Often it is to the hurt of the people who would lie about the facts by trying to hide the truth. In this case, there will come a time when XinXan and LaudaM (along with any of the folks who act and talk like they do) will stand before God in the judgment. If they haven't changed their ways prior to that, they will be damned to Hell. I hate to see something like that happening. But, oh well, they asked for it.
On top of it, when these political science users actually believe their lies, what they are doing is forming or practicing a religion. They are attempting to believe something that doesn't have much of any real backing to it. And they do it as a process, making it a religion just like any other religion.
Okay, kids. You have done your bashing and trashing. Let's see some logic that disproves the proof that God exists. Do you have anything more than slander, lies, deceit and attempts to hide the truth?
At least Bible people, who accept that the universe was set up as it is, by God, starting 6,000 years ago (like the Bible says), might be a little closer to understanding God.
Pssst.. I've heard a rumour that the earth is flat, but keep it to yourself. 
This thread is becoming a nuisance even for the off-topic section. The problem with religious people is that they won't give in even though they can't win the discussion whilst presenting a valid argument.
If you want to believe in fairy tales, fine, just don't annoy the rest of us.
If you want to believe in fairy tales, fine, just don't annoy the rest of us.
And that is absolulty no proof of god, you proved that humans use ''machines'' and that ''machines'' that already existed are far more complex than the ones we make. You saying that nothing is random and everything has been made by someone, well where does God come from then?
Did you miss the part in life that humans don't only use machines, but that they make them as well? If people didn't make cars, and boats, and cellphones, televisions, and rocketships, like we do, these things probably wouldn't be in existence like they are. Machines have makers. Whoever made the machines of nature that are greater than the machines that mankind makes, must be a greater machine maker than mankind. Since the greatness of the machines of nature is far greater than the greatness of the machines of mankind, the Maker of the machines of nature fits one or more of the definitions of the word/term "God."
God always existed. People don't have the ability to understand the true nature of someone/something like God. How can anyone understand the One Who made cause and effect go from a Big Bang 13 or 14 billion years ago, to something like the complexity we see in nature around us? God is beyond understanding.
At least Bible people, who accept that the universe was set up as it is, by God, starting 6,000 years ago (like the Bible says), might be a little closer to understanding God. Why? Because the cause and effect process doesn't have to be as great for only 6,000 years - just like the pool shark has to only do a succession of 6 balls rather than 12 million balls (or whatever it would be for Big Bang times).
But don't feel bad. Even the jury people in a court trial don't understand the evidence in the same way. But they might if there was such a preponderance of evidence like there is for the existence of God.
It's all in the definitions of "proof" and "God." But people are so stubborn that, as I have said before, they can keep themselves from believing the evidence even if it jumps up and bites them in the left eye.
The bible people are stupid, they believe the earth is 6000 years old because their book says so when there are thousands of proofs that state the earth is much older.
I dont know if you are talking about a God as: A superior Being or God as God in the bible, wich one?
And that is absolulty no proof of god, you proved that humans use ''machines'' and that ''machines'' that already existed are far more complex than the ones we make. You saying that nothing is random and everything has been made by someone, well where does God come from then?
Did you miss the part in life that humans don't only use machines, but that they make them as well? If people didn't make cars, and boats, and cellphones, televisions, and rocketships, like we do, these things probably wouldn't be in existence like they are. Machines have makers. Whoever made the machines of nature that are greater than the machines that mankind makes, must be a greater machine maker than mankind. Since the greatness of the machines of nature is far greater than the greatness of the machines of mankind, the Maker of the machines of nature fits one or more of the definitions of the word/term "God."
God always existed. People don't have the ability to understand the true nature of someone/something like God. How can anyone understand the One Who made cause and effect go from a Big Bang 13 or 14 billion years ago, to something like the complexity we see in nature around us? God is beyond understanding.
At least Bible people, who accept that the universe was set up as it is, by God, starting 6,000 years ago (like the Bible says), might be a little closer to understanding God. Why? Because the cause and effect process doesn't have to be as great for only 6,000 years - just like the pool shark has to only do a succession of 6 balls rather than 12 million balls (or whatever it would be for Big Bang times).
But don't feel bad. Even the jury people in a court trial don't understand the evidence in the same way. But they might if there was such a preponderance of evidence like there is for the existence of God.
It's all in the definitions of "proof" and "God." But people are so stubborn that, as I have said before, they can keep themselves from believing the evidence even if it jumps up and bites them in the left eye.
And that is absolulty no proof of god, you proved that humans use ''machines'' and that ''machines'' that already existed are far more complex than the ones we make. You saying that nothing is random and everything has been made by someone, well where does God come from then?
Prove it.. Show us this picture you speak of, since you seem to have a grasp of a truth you cant prove..
The word "picture" was used in allegory fashion. Read the post above your above post to get a "picture" in your mind of the fact that God exists.
Of course, you are only playing with words. Probably jealous that you didn't figure this out on your own.
Prove it.. Show us this picture you speak of, since you seem to have a grasp of a truth you cant prove..
But yet again you still didnt provide any proof at all, you are just saying that god has to exist, there must be a god. Well why dont you tell us why there ''must'' be a god? Because scientists proved that everything has a cause? So what? In what way does that prove that God exist?
Then again, proofs, show me the proofs.
Then again, proofs, show me the proofs.
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof?s=t:
Quote
proof
[proof]
noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7. an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
8. Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.
9. a test to determine the quality, durability, etc., of materials used in manufacture.
10. Distilling.
the arbitrary standard strength, as of an alcoholic liquor.
strength with reference to this standard: “100 proof” signifies a proof spirit, usually 50% alcohol.
11. Photography. a trial print from a negative.
12. Printing.
a trial impression, as of composed type, taken to correct errors and make alterations.
one of a number of early and superior impressions taken before the printing of the ordinary issue:
to pull a proof.
13. (in printmaking) an impression taken from a plate or the like to show the quality or condition of work during the process of execution; a print pulled for examination while working on a plate, block, stone, etc.
14. Numismatics. one of a limited number of coins of a new issue struck from polished dies on a blank having a polished or matte surface.
15. the state of having been tested and approved.
16. proved strength, as of armor.
17. Scots Law. the trial of a case by a judge alone, without a jury.
adjective
18. able to withstand; successful in not being overcome: proof against temptation.
19. impenetrable, impervious, or invulnerable: proof against outside temperature changes.
20. used for testing or proving; serving as proof.
21. of standard strength, as an alcoholic liquor.
22. of tested or proven strength or quality: proof armor.
23. noting pieces of pure gold and silver that the U.S. assay and mint offices use as standards.
verb (used with object)
24. to test; examine for flaws, errors, etc.; check against a standard or standards.
25. Printing. prove (def 7).
26. to proofread.
27. to treat or coat for the purpose of rendering resistant to deterioration, damage, etc. (often used in combination): to proof a house against termites; to shrink-proof a shirt.
28. Cookery.
to test the effectiveness of (yeast), as by combining with warm water so that a bubbling action occurs.
to cause (especially bread dough) to rise due to the addition of baker's yeast or other leavening.
[proof]
noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7. an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
8. Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.
9. a test to determine the quality, durability, etc., of materials used in manufacture.
10. Distilling.
the arbitrary standard strength, as of an alcoholic liquor.
strength with reference to this standard: “100 proof” signifies a proof spirit, usually 50% alcohol.
11. Photography. a trial print from a negative.
12. Printing.
a trial impression, as of composed type, taken to correct errors and make alterations.
one of a number of early and superior impressions taken before the printing of the ordinary issue:
to pull a proof.
13. (in printmaking) an impression taken from a plate or the like to show the quality or condition of work during the process of execution; a print pulled for examination while working on a plate, block, stone, etc.
14. Numismatics. one of a limited number of coins of a new issue struck from polished dies on a blank having a polished or matte surface.
15. the state of having been tested and approved.
16. proved strength, as of armor.
17. Scots Law. the trial of a case by a judge alone, without a jury.
adjective
18. able to withstand; successful in not being overcome: proof against temptation.
19. impenetrable, impervious, or invulnerable: proof against outside temperature changes.
20. used for testing or proving; serving as proof.
21. of standard strength, as an alcoholic liquor.
22. of tested or proven strength or quality: proof armor.
23. noting pieces of pure gold and silver that the U.S. assay and mint offices use as standards.
verb (used with object)
24. to test; examine for flaws, errors, etc.; check against a standard or standards.
25. Printing. prove (def 7).
26. to proofread.
27. to treat or coat for the purpose of rendering resistant to deterioration, damage, etc. (often used in combination): to proof a house against termites; to shrink-proof a shirt.
28. Cookery.
to test the effectiveness of (yeast), as by combining with warm water so that a bubbling action occurs.
to cause (especially bread dough) to rise due to the addition of baker's yeast or other leavening.
Definition #1 above will suit our purposes quite well.
Machine-like nature of the universe.
All around us, in nature and the universe we see machine-like operations. These operations are extremely complex inside life and the cells. Machines have makers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMn319zkZ2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id2rZS59xSE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyUtbn0O5Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao9cVhwPg84
Machine usage is in progression.
Animals use simple machines. Some primates (apes, chimps, monkeys) use rocks and sticks to work their food. The leverage they provide with the rocks and sticks is machine use.
People use simple machines. People make and use complex machines. All machines that people and animals make and use come from examples of machine operations in the universe.
The progression is that, as the machines that people make and use are far more advanced than the ones that animals make and use, so are the machines that exist in nature far more advanced than the ones that people make and use. The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker - God. Machines have makers.
Cause and effect, action and reaction.
Perhaps there is quantum math that proves that pure randomness can exist. (Pure randomness is happenstance that is entirely spontaneous, without a cause.) Quantum math is such that, whatever can be proven by using it, the opposite can also be proven by using it. The reason for this is that quantum mechanics is merely probability, no matter how complex it may be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo
Thus far in nature, we haven't been able to find any pure randomness. All actions in nature - even our thought processes - are produced by causes, whatever the causes may be. This means that the machinery of the universe, including mankind and his thinking, was designed by a Great First Cause, Which set everything in motion.
A simple example of this is billiards, the game of pool. A master pool shark hits a ball that strikes a second ball that strikes a third ball that strikes a fourth ball that strikes a fifth ball that knocks a sixth ball into a predetermined pocket.
In an almost infinitely more complex and complicated way, whatever the Great First Cause that started the actions and reactions of the universe going is, He (She/It) built people and their complex thinking by innumerable cause and effect operations down through the ages. We see nothing else, no other methodology in the universe.
The older the age of the universe, the more complex and far greater the Great First Cause must be. Why? He had to set up a much more complex chain reaction of causes and effects that lasted over a longer period of time to get the complex results we see today in nature and the universe.
The nations look for God.
The vast majority of people recognize the greatness of the universe, naturally. They recognize that Something very great must have caused the universe and nature to come into existence. They know it is not themselves, because try as they might, they can't affect nature except in extremely limited ways. They can't stop themselves from aging and dying.
People recognize that as they can think, there must be Something that can think far beyond what they can. This is instinctive, natural knowledge. That is part of the reason that people throughout the world look for God. That's part of the reason that there are religions. People know in their hearts, inner minds, and spirits that God must exist.
Usually it is the frustration of certain people in being unable to determine much of anything about God, that they simply throw in the towel, so to speak, and give up on the idea of God. Way down deep in their hearts they know that God exists. But because of circumstances and their inability to find Him, they attempt to entirely push Him out of their lives. And many of them succeed to a great extent.
----------
There you have it. The evidences for God are in the machine-like qualities of the universe (machines have makers), the fact of cause and effect as the example of design, the evidences of the majorities of people being at least religious, and the fact of the strength of frustrated people who embrace the religion of atheism.
Such strength of faith you have! You are willing and able to push the untold quadrillions of pieces of evidence for the existence of God out of your life, and embrace the extremely fewer pieces of evidence that suggest that God doesn't exist. God would like to have people of your strength of faith in His Kingdom.
God is our friend. Come and join us in seeking Him, so that we can find a clarification of the reasons He has caused us to exist.
EDIT: By the way, thank you for prompting me to write this so that our readers will have a clearer picture of the fact that God exists.
But yet again you still didnt provide any proof at all, you are just saying that god has to exist, there must be a god. Well why dont you tell us why there ''must'' be a god? Because scientists proved that everything has a cause? So what? In what way does that prove that God exist?
Then again, proofs, show me the proofs.
Then again, proofs, show me the proofs.
Well i dont know what you mean that evolution includes inanimate materials becoming alive, evolution is not the theory of HOW LIFE WAS FORMED IN THE BEGINING, it is exactly what you said, evolution is change. I let you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Evolution is anything but random.
From http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml:
Quote
When did life originate?
Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago. This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure — the stromatolite.
Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago. This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure — the stromatolite.
That sure sounds to me that life came from non-life. the word "inanimate" means not alive.
Now, I don't blame you evolutionists. If I believed that there wasn't any God, and if some joker called "BADecker" came along and proved to me that the very sequence of happenings that I had been using to suggest that there couldn't be any God, was the exact thing that was showing that God absolutely had to exist, I'd be upset, too, and would want to get off track of the idea.
Didnt you just ask your own question? You ask how is it possible that life came from something not alive, well there is the explanation : This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure.
You really just asked your own question and you dont even notice haha
Certainly, I don't believe in your God - the Big Bang/Evolution Process as it is explained. It is so full of holes that it couldn't hold any water at all.
In the first place, nobody has been able to take all of the observations about change, and put them together in a truly organized fashion that could be used to show that no-life-to-mankind is actually plausible. Some sections of it might be plausible. But we don't have a whole, even plausible set of examples where we can say, "It definitely could have happened this way." There are still too many holes, too many unknowns in the process.
However, if we had a plausible process, we still don't know if that is how it happened. There are too many variables of the suggested billions of years to say that we absolutely, irrefutably know that this is the way it actually did happen.
When you ad in cause and effect in all of it, there is no way that the idea of "God" can be left out.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not assigning any religious qualities to this God at this time, except that He (She/It) is very Great. I'm simply saying that cause and effect that can produce the elements of higher thinking in man, and that can produce what looks like design way greater than anything that man can almost dream of, certainly fits the term/word "God."
Once we accept the truth that there is God behind this thing, then we need to start examining to see if He is talking to us in some way. If we can find a way to communicate with the Great First Cause, why do all this crazy research? Let's ask God?
EDIT: If God explained His process for making the universe in all its complexity, do you think that we have enough brains to understand it? Perhaps we haven't been built into the Universe for understanding how it works. Maybe our purpose is something else.
You are trying to prove that evolution and other theories are bad or they are a failure, even if that was the case that still doesnt prove in any way that God exists, you say there is no way the idea of God can be left out, why? You still didnt give any proof of God at all, you are just trying to prove wrong other theories but proving wrong other theories dont make God real.
You are trying to tell me what I am trying to do? Evolution and similar ideas are NOT a failure. Scientists are a failure at using them to prove much of anything.
Like I said earlier, you are powerful enough that if you want to deny the multitudes of evidence for the existence of God, you can do it, even if it jumps up and bites you in the left eye.
Nothing makes God real or not real. However, if God doesn't exist, then nothing exists, because the highly complex universe operations - including the complex thinking that man has - just don't happen by accident because they "feel" like it today. Science shows that there are causes for everything that exists, and that the causes have to be at least as great as the things that they cause.
You are simply trying to deny yourself right out of existence. And that will happen when you die.
Thank you all, great to see that some bitcoiners are philosophers too. What do you guys think about "universe as computer simulation" theory? http://io9.com/5950543/physicists-say-there-may-be-a-way-to-prove-that-we-live-in-a-computer-simulation this could mean that God is a programmer and the Universe as well as us are "just" complex programs.. Paper: https://www.fat.bme.hu/student/pub/Programozas3/SimulationArgument.pdf
I actually asked my computer science professor about this today and from his point of view (he is researching AIs/ fractals/ chaotic systems etc.) and he told me that it's pretty obvious that the universe is computing "something".. he is atheist though.
I actually asked my computer science professor about this today and from his point of view (he is researching AIs/ fractals/ chaotic systems etc.) and he told me that it's pretty obvious that the universe is computing "something".. he is atheist though.
If there is any God, like in God being a superior being it wont be the God from the bible or any other religion.
Yeah, that's exactly what I think.
Thank you all, great to see that some bitcoiners are philosophers too. What do you guys think about "universe as computer simulation" theory? http://io9.com/5950543/physicists-say-there-may-be-a-way-to-prove-that-we-live-in-a-computer-simulation this could mean that God is a programmer and the Universe as well as us are "just" complex programs.. Paper: https://www.fat.bme.hu/student/pub/Programozas3/SimulationArgument.pdf
I actually asked my computer science professor about this today and from his point of view (he is researching AIs/ fractals/ chaotic systems etc.) and he told me that it's pretty obvious that the universe is computing "something".. he is atheist though.
I actually asked my computer science professor about this today and from his point of view (he is researching AIs/ fractals/ chaotic systems etc.) and he told me that it's pretty obvious that the universe is computing "something".. he is atheist though.
If there is any God, like in God being a superior being it wont be the God from the bible or any other religion.
Thank you all, great to see that some bitcoiners are philosophers too. What do you guys think about "universe as computer simulation" theory? http://io9.com/5950543/physicists-say-there-may-be-a-way-to-prove-that-we-live-in-a-computer-simulation this could mean that God is a programmer and the Universe as well as us are "just" complex programs.. Paper: https://www.fat.bme.hu/student/pub/Programozas3/SimulationArgument.pdf
I actually asked my computer science professor about this today (he is researching AIs/ fractals/ chaotic systems etc.) and he told me that it's pretty obvious that the universe is computing "something".. he is an atheist though.
I actually asked my computer science professor about this today (he is researching AIs/ fractals/ chaotic systems etc.) and he told me that it's pretty obvious that the universe is computing "something".. he is an atheist though.
Well i dont know what you mean that evolution includes inanimate materials becoming alive, evolution is not the theory of HOW LIFE WAS FORMED IN THE BEGINING, it is exactly what you said, evolution is change. I let you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Evolution is anything but random.
From http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml:
Quote
When did life originate?
Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago. This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure — the stromatolite.
Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago. This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure — the stromatolite.
That sure sounds to me that life came from non-life. the word "inanimate" means not alive.
Now, I don't blame you evolutionists. If I believed that there wasn't any God, and if some joker called "BADecker" came along and proved to me that the very sequence of happenings that I had been using to suggest that there couldn't be any God, was the exact thing that was showing that God absolutely had to exist, I'd be upset, too, and would want to get off track of the idea.
Didnt you just ask your own question? You ask how is it possible that life came from something not alive, well there is the explanation : This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure.
You really just asked your own question and you dont even notice haha
Certainly, I don't believe in your God - the Big Bang/Evolution Process as it is explained. It is so full of holes that it couldn't hold any water at all.
In the first place, nobody has been able to take all of the observations about change, and put them together in a truly organized fashion that could be used to show that no-life-to-mankind is actually plausible. Some sections of it might be plausible. But we don't have a whole, even plausible set of examples where we can say, "It definitely could have happened this way." There are still too many holes, too many unknowns in the process.
However, if we had a plausible process, we still don't know if that is how it happened. There are too many variables of the suggested billions of years to say that we absolutely, irrefutably know that this is the way it actually did happen.
When you ad in cause and effect in all of it, there is no way that the idea of "God" can be left out.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not assigning any religious qualities to this God at this time, except that He (She/It) is very Great. I'm simply saying that cause and effect that can produce the elements of higher thinking in man, and that can produce what looks like design way greater than anything that man can almost dream of, certainly fits the term/word "God."
Once we accept the truth that there is God behind this thing, then we need to start examining to see if He is talking to us in some way. If we can find a way to communicate with the Great First Cause, why do all this crazy research? Let's ask God?
EDIT: If God explained His process for making the universe in all its complexity, do you think that we have enough brains to understand it? Perhaps we haven't been built into the Universe for understanding how it works. Maybe our purpose is something else.
You are trying to prove that evolution and other theories are bad or they are a failure, even if that was the case that still doesnt prove in any way that God exists, you say there is no way the idea of God can be left out, why? You still didnt give any proof of God at all, you are just trying to prove wrong other theories but proving wrong other theories dont make God real.
Well i dont know what you mean that evolution includes inanimate materials becoming alive, evolution is not the theory of HOW LIFE WAS FORMED IN THE BEGINING, it is exactly what you said, evolution is change. I let you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Evolution is anything but random.
From http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml:
Quote
When did life originate?
Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago. This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure — the stromatolite.
Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago. This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure — the stromatolite.
That sure sounds to me that life came from non-life. the word "inanimate" means not alive.
Now, I don't blame you evolutionists. If I believed that there wasn't any God, and if some joker called "BADecker" came along and proved to me that the very sequence of happenings that I had been using to suggest that there couldn't be any God, was the exact thing that was showing that God absolutely had to exist, I'd be upset, too, and would want to get off track of the idea.
Didnt you just ask your own question? You ask how is it possible that life came from something not alive, well there is the explanation : This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure.
You really just asked your own question and you dont even notice haha
Certainly, I don't believe in your God - the Big Bang/Evolution Process as it is explained. It is so full of holes that it couldn't hold any water at all.
In the first place, nobody has been able to take all of the observations about change, and put them together in a truly organized fashion that could be used to show that no-life-to-mankind is actually plausible. Some sections of it might be plausible. But we don't have a whole, even plausible set of examples where we can say, "It definitely could have happened this way." There are still too many holes, too many unknowns in the process.
However, if we had a plausible process, we still don't know if that is how it happened. There are too many variables of the suggested billions of years to say that we absolutely, irrefutably know that this is the way it actually did happen.
When you ad in cause and effect in all of it, there is no way that the idea of "God" can be left out.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not assigning any religious qualities to this God at this time, except that He (She/It) is very Great. I'm simply saying that cause and effect that can produce the elements of higher thinking in man, and that can produce what looks like design way greater than anything that man can almost dream of, certainly fits the term/word "God."
Once we accept the truth that there is God behind this thing, then we need to start examining to see if He is talking to us in some way. If we can find a way to communicate with the Great First Cause, why do all this crazy research? Let's ask God?
EDIT: If God explained His process for making the universe in all its complexity, do you think that we have enough brains to understand it? Perhaps we haven't been built into the Universe for understanding how it works. Maybe our purpose is something else.
Well i dont know what you mean that evolution includes inanimate materials becoming alive, evolution is not the theory of HOW LIFE WAS FORMED IN THE BEGINING, it is exactly what you said, evolution is change. I let you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Evolution is anything but random.
From http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml:
Quote
When did life originate?
Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago. This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure — the stromatolite.
Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago. This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure — the stromatolite.
That sure sounds to me that life came from non-life. the word "inanimate" means not alive.
Now, I don't blame you evolutionists. If I believed that there wasn't any God, and if some joker called "BADecker" came along and proved to me that the very sequence of happenings that I had been using to suggest that there couldn't be any God, was the exact thing that was showing that God absolutely had to exist, I'd be upset, too, and would want to get off track of the idea.
Didnt you just ask your own question? You ask how is it possible that life came from something not alive, well there is the explanation : This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure.
You really just asked your own question and you dont even notice haha
Jump to: