Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 388. (Read 845654 times)

Thanks for the advice. And, how can I NOT remember that Jesus never put pen to paper. You remind me all the time.

A question about that though. In the Gospel of John, when the Pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus, what was it that Jesus wrote on the ground that scared them away one by one?

I'm sorry you are having a bad day. But, judging from many of your other posts, it may be a bad life in general.

Most of us use descriptive, often idiomatic, inexact language to get our points across. The language is, itself, built this way. For example, you drive on the parkway and park in the driveway.

Among those who use descriptive language that is not grammatically accurate, and may include some idioms, is bl4kjaguar. In fact, he/she/it uses such language quite frequently. My response was for him/her/it.

Sorry that you are getting mixed up through it. Realize that it is a language for bl4kjaguar and not necessarily for you. However, I think that you can determine what I was trying to say if you take a step back and look at the picture. I mean, if you look at a Picasso too from about a millimeter away, you won't have a clue about anything that he was trying to depict.

By the way, the fact that there are logical and illogical things that happen and exist, doesn't mean that there are no "unlogical" things that more or less happen and more or less exist. Just ask bl4kjaguar.

BADecker,

Anyone lacking knowledge had best keep an open mind and get on with his/her studies.

You are not supposed to be attacking your brother with words like "foolishness".

Where is the proof for your claim that the Bible is the only recorded word of God?

How can you be sure that you have Christ's authentic teachings if your book was not written by Christ?

How can you be sure that Paul wrote down Christ's authentic teachings if Paul was never a "follower of Christ"?

I am fed up with your attacking my beliefs; you have no right to speak anything to me unless it happens to be an apology.

It's clear by your statements you still have no idea what the scientific method is.

The emboldened statement demonstrates your confusion.  There is one scientific method -- it isn't plural.  From the scientific method we can devise many *experimental* methods, but that's a different topic.

Moreover, the scientific method isn't a means of creating, it's a theory about how we gain knowledge as a result of empiricism.

To say that "God hasn't explained the scientific methods He used for doing..." simply doesn't make sense.

Instead, you seem to be saying, "We haven't yet been able to fully explain all natural processes via the scientific method."  I agree with this statement.

But, then your confusion continues when you say, "Some of what He has done may be beyond science."  And then you talk about...angels?  What the hell?

Brief logic lesson:  Anything that is real exists within the Real Universe.  There cannot be anything real outside of the Real Universe because, if it is actually real enough to impact the Real Universe, then it must be  in the Real Universe.  This includes God, angels, or whatever other phenomena you believe is real.   There is no possibility of "outside intervention."  Again, this is because if something were real enough to intervene from outside the Real Universe, then it would already be in the Real Universe.  Conversely if something is not real, then it cannot intervene in the Real Universe (because it would need to be real).

Because someone can't explain something now, doesn't mean that he won't be able to explain it in the future. A hundred years ago, there wasn't enough technology around to go to the moon. Now we can explain how it is done, and also do it.

God hasn't explained the scientific methods He used for doing most of the things He has done. Some of what He has done may be beyond science. The Bible shows that God uses angels to get things done at times. Anyone who doesn't happen to know where the angel came from, yet sees the angel do his work, might call it outside intervention.

Might be fruitful to check out this theory of theories:

our understanding of understanding, further analyzed

What about the scientific anomalies that Darwinists, Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents alike are unable to explain?

Evidence for Creation by Outside Intervention

@the joint Oh wow I wasn't expecting you to come out with soooooo many questions lol It would take me ages to write about all the stuff that's coming to my mind as I read your text. Patience is definitely not one of my strongest suits but no matter, I'll address all of them  I'll answer 1 or 2 questions per day depending on how I feel at the time. Also I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from asking more questions until I finish this batch 
 
From the get go let me tell you this, I will not be discussing Langan's theory further after I answer your first question. My original assessment of his text stands and I do not wish to refute it claim by claim because it would no longer be an environment for learning, instead it would be a battle of egos. I steer clear of those and would rather be called a faker if it comes down to that. The only reason I'm responding to you is because I feel your comments are not motivated by pure ego. A clash of egos is a dead end from which nothing constructive can emerge 
However, if you've somehow integrated some elements from his original idea into your own theory, I'll make an exception, as long as you're not defending his stance but your own.

I've had this message window opened like forever lol, if I find some time later I'll answer your first question, else I'll do it tomorrow for sure. Hope you're more patient than I am 

Yes, I have a few questions:

1)  You generally mention all these inconsistencies and assumptions, but I haven't seen you mention a specific one.  Would you?

2)  You mention that you don't want to study a theory of this nature if it isn't perfect.  Well, empiricism runs into the fallacy of induction, and mathematics runs into the problem of indeterminism (i.e. there's no good way to distinguish between two or more equally-valid theories given a set of conditions).  Philosophical induction isn't perfect in the same way that empirical induction isn't perfect, and philosophical deduction at such a high level of generality generally relies on axioms which are incapable of proving themselves.  If these other approaches don't work, what else do you have in mind?  The point I'm getting at here is that, based upon what you claim you're looking for, it seems there will never be any scientific or purely mathematical theories comprehensive enough to describe reality, and so you'll never spend time studying anything unless you come across a different type of theory.  So, what kind of theory would it need to be in order to compel you to study it?

3) Would you agree that 'ratio' is the root word of 'rationale'?  If so, would you also agree that any rational statement necessarily invokes relativism, i.e. that there is no such thing as a purely objective statement?

4) Stemming from #3, if you answered "yes" to both questions, would you also agree that, while there is no such thing as a purely objective statement, objectivity still exists in the sense that any relationships between two or more conditions are bound by a higher-order relational syntax?  As an analogy, consider the relationship between cognition and metacognition whereby the latter objectifies the former.

5) If you've answered "yes" to all questions contained in #'s 3-4, what then is wrong with a self-referential theory of reality whereby a metalanguage is used as an objective descriptor of the language of reality?  For example, if language A₁ is capable of acting as an objective descriptor of languages A₂, A₃, etc..., then why can't we invoke a new language, A', to act as a descriptor of A₁?

@the joint  Ok, I've followed your link and have gone over " Introduction to the CTMU " briefly. I'll tell you this, he doesn't know what he is talking about, it's that simple. His theory is full of loopholes and in no way describes an all-inclusive reality. Any theory that makes use of even a single assumption does not deserve to be acknowledged, his is riddled with them. You'd do well to look elsewhere for your inspiration. His theory can certainly be perfect but for that he would have to give himself up completely for it and even then, it would be perfect only for him.
And that would just take us full circle back to this reality as it is without bringing anything new to the table. The fundamental/fatal flaw with the most all-encompassing human science, mathematics, is that it cannot handle infinities. It simply breaks down into incoherencies at that point. A lot of work has been done in an attempt to patch up this ginormous hole and make it look like it's holding but it's all just that, a cover-up. We have not reached deep enough in our everyday use/application of mathematics to feel the effects of this flaw but it's there. The reason I bring this up is because the universe/reality is made up entirely of infinities. I parted ways with sciences early on while still in high school and have since never looked back. There is no way I'm spending my life studying something that I know is not perfect.

Side note:

I've noticed something that is common with 'intellectuals', they tend to make extensive use of obscure words/terms. I think that's a real shame. If I were to ever write a 'theory of everything' I would make sure that it is as easy to understand as possible. Why? Well simply because it would be a far bigger challenge that way. I would want to have as many people as possible to read and understand it so that I can get as many refutations as possible to test myself. I don't believe in a strict definition for intelligence. People who've never studied any sciences can sometimes come up with thrilling counter arguments. Langan's text will only ever appeal to a minute portion of the world's population. That these select few deem themselves to be the brightest minds on earth is not nearly enough for me. Ideally I would want every living human to have a go at refuting my theory.


Regarding this, you either have not paid careful attention to my words or you didn't understand what I meant. After reading everything you say here, my statement still stays true.

Ok I think that's it. I don't believe we can reach any further than we already have with this discussion and I'm starting to get bored with the topic. If you have a specific question you would like to have my view on, feel welcome to ask, otherwise I will consider this discussion closed.

Oh one last thing, I've enjoyed this little sparring session, I think you're a nice guy and pretty humble too  

@ the joint, thanks for your detailed explanation, you make some very valid points. While I agree that the concept of a "theory of theories" would indeed constitute a priori knowledge from which we could properly investigate the nature of reality (and whether a god exists), I'm not sure that such a concept could ever practically exist. You've certainly given me something to think about though!

It is the impacting of the nation that is one of the most important parts.

Pick up any school or college textbook that talks about evolution. If the textbook has any info about evolution as being a simple possibility that has not been proven, such info is relatively scant. Rather, the textbooks attempt to turn the idea of theory regarding evolution into "We know evolution is true; we just don't know how it happened." That's lying. Evolution has NOT been proven true, and the machine-like qualities of the universe as I have explained them, throw the ideas of evolution into a much weaker position than many people have understood before.

In other words, it is the idea of evolution that is negatively impacting government and tax dollars, and, through these, your life.

Notice the little snippet that you are using as an example. You use the lab experiments as example, while I have shown over and over, the way that the "little snippet" of the complexity of the whole universe suggests God. What method do you have? At least I have a method that includes the whole universe. And you want to call that a snippet?

You are a faster typist than I, right?

Wrong! It is the scientific validation of the history of the Bible from scientific standpoints that I am talking about.

All the science that can clearly be used to validate evolution, can also be used to validate simple change based on programming due to changes in climate and environment.

Completely wrong. I keep comparing the the simple machinery that some of the more intelligent animals use, with,
the extremely complex machinery that man makes, with,
the fantastic, ultra-complex machinery of the universe, and,
extrapolating.

The extrapolation suggests that the more complex the machinery is, the more intelligent the maker must be. And yes, there must be a maker, since the only highly complex machinery we see outside of the ultra-complex machinery of the universe, is the complex machinery that man makes.

We take and make our machinery from the examples of the universe. We are not as complex by a big margin as the universe. Therefore, the universe (or the God) must be supremely intelligent, since even our highly complex bodies and minds come through the universe.

Nowhere in nature do we see stupidity and simplicity developing complex machinery, except the complex strength that some atheistic scientist have that they would deny God in the face of all the complexity evidence.

This is my last response to you since we just seem to be going in circles now x.x

You keep making the assumption that there being complexity means that there is a higher power.  There is absolutely no backing to this claim, and what you claim as backing just goes into the watchmaker fallacy (the watch had to have had a maker because it is so complex, universe is the watch), but something had to have created the watchmaker.  We haven't seen any smoke yet, because if you claim complexity as smoke then fire is impossible to exist.  Terrible analogy.

*facedesk*

Science has validated evolution OVER and OVER and OVER, waaaaay more than any claims you're making about the bible being impossible to exist.  Your methods of validating the bible are not scientific, and really have no way of being proven.  A lot of people being in a cult doesn't make it true.
Again, you're taking a little snippet and saying that because it doesn't show the whole picture there is room for something else.  Look at everything we've found and it all points towards evolution, the lab experiments are just one piece of the puzzle.

You are correct about the definition of atheism, which is why I describe myself as a agnostic atheist.  I don't know if there is a god, but I choose to not believe until presented with what I consider to be enough proof.  You can't paint us all with one brush, we have different levels of disbelief.

I really don't care if you call atheism a religion or not, seems like a pretty irrelevant point.  If not believing in something is a set of beliefs then not eating icecream is a flavor.  I'm not going to stop expressing my disbelief, because you poor people trapped in your cults need to see logic and the world for what it is.  I give 0 fucks about your beliefs, but when it impacts my government, my tax dollars, and my life then it goes too far.

Maybe if we start finding out about math, we can start to prove or disprove God, and a whole lot of other things.

From http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/167014-2014-11-26-the-baffling-and-beautiful-wormhole-between-branches-of-math.htm
For further info see http://www.wired.com/2014/11/eulers-identity/ .

I didn't mean to use different standards. And I don't know that I did. The evidences existing in the universe suggest that God exists way more than they suggest that He doesn't exist. It isn't because I say it. It is simply found in the ways that the universe works.

A simple allegory might be, if you saw smoke way off in the distance, it would suggest that there was fire way off in the distance. But it might be a volcano. Or it might not be smoke, but only a dust cloud that happened to look like smoke. Evidence for fire, but no proof of fire.

However, as the smoke was simply stated above, it would suggest fire way more than a lake. There might be a lake there. But the smoke doesn't suggest it. Until we get there, we won't really know. But if we want to surmise about it, the conclusion would be fire.

In my previous posts about the machine-like quality of the universe, all I am saying is that machines have makers. The machine-like quality of the universe suggests a maker way more than anything else. And the maker of anything as great as our universe would fit the definition of "God." Until we get there, we won't know proof positive.



Yes. Now if you could only apply that kind of thinking to yourself. I mean, how much bigger can the picture get than the universe?



Perhaps there is no way to validate the Bible. But there are methods that have been used to almost validate it. And the methods used validate the Bible way more than scientific experiments validate evolution. Why? When you consider all the historical and traditional info surrounding the Bible, you come up with a book that can't exist as the Bible exists. Yet the Bible exists all over the world, in many translations, and is believed by millions. No other religious writing carries anywhere near that kind of combined strength.

Scientific experiments that seem to validate evolution, either validate other ideas that are non-evolution ideas as well, or they are completely non-practical for fitting in the way the universe operates, making them lab experiments only.

There are so many strange and marvelous things in the universe, that something like Spiderman might exist, even though the comic books don't prove him.



Someone might say, "I don't know if God exists, and I don't know if He doesn't exist." This isn't atheism. Atheism is believing God doesn't exist. Check out http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t for the definition.

Since we don't have scientific proof that God DOES exists, and we don't have scientific proof that He DOESN'T exist, believers IN God, and believers IN NO God are simply opposed religions.

If you don't want to be in a religion, stop believing that God doesn't exist. Simply don't believe either way. At least, stop expressing that you believe that God doesn't exist. Atheism is a religion even though the atheists don't realize it.

You're incorrect when you state it's not possible to prove that a limit of theorization exists and what it might be.  We've already demonstrated it's possible.  As an analogy, draw a tesseract on a sheet of paper and you gain insight into the limits of 3-dimensional spacetime.  The method for exploring these limits involves invoking a higher-language to discuss lower-order languages.  This higher-order language would be hologrammatically the same, but with total syntactic precedence over all lower-order languages.  The reason we can draw a tesseract at all as a model of a 4th-dimensional object is because we invoked our own higher-order language.  In other words, we assumed the vantage point of a 5th-dimensional being observing a 4th-dimensional object in the same way that a 3rd-dimensional being observes a 2nd-dimensional model of a 4th-dimensional object.

So a theory of theories requires a 'prime' language, so-to-speak, which would be hologrammatically the same as all lower-order languages but infinitely greater in that all lower-order syntax conforms to syntactic precedents set by the 'prime' language.

First, if anything is real enough to be considered real, then it must be a part of the real Universe.  To that extent, reality is the only thing relevant to us and the only thing we should care about, and it's nonsensical speculation to discuss what, if anything, could exist beyond the real Universe that could provide sufficient explanatory power to explain the real Universe.

So, what choice do we have other than to describe reality in terms of itself?  Consider that we are real beings theorizing about reality as a whole or about real parts of the whole.  Accordingly, all theories are already self-referential in terms of reality, but only vary in terms of their level of generality.

The theory posited by Langan (simplified) is that the Universe is essentially a self-reifying theory.  So far as I've been able to explore it, it's a sound theory.  You can find it at www.ctmu.org.