Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 401. (Read 845569 times)

Fair enough This is a much more appropriate context for the topic of this debate.

You know how you said in your previous post that you will try to do better with the reasoning?  Well, this post gives you a good opportunity to do so.

The machine argument isn't a good argument, and it's worth considering that by using the machine argument you are actually using a kind of inductive reasoning similar to what's employed in the scientific method.  You are acting similar to a scientist here in that you are taking a set of observations (i.e. you have observed that machines are made my makers, and since you imply the Universe is also like a machine, you conclude that it, too, has a maker).  But, you are acting different from a scientist in that your conclusion is unfalsifiable.  There is no possible test or experiment you could conduct that would be able to test your conclusion.  So, even though you criticize science due to its inability to comprehensively explain the universe due to the limitations of inductive reasoning, it is you that are committing the egregious error by concluding with an absolute statement that results from inductive reasoning.

This is one example of what I meant earlier when I said that every time you debate you end up defeating your own argument.  In this case, you defeat your own argument by condemning the inadequacies of inductive reasoning and then using inductive reasoning yourself to form your conclusion.

The joint, although I agree with what you say, I must take exception to your generalization.

Actually, I have asserted the position that God transcends evidence based on pure reason. These quotes are not exact but are close enough:


I showed that the survival hypothesis is the simplest explanation for these events; that is a separate conversation, but maybe it is important to have it in this thread because it could elucidate the nature of life and God.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9491770

Look at it this way. We build machines. We build cars, computers, rockets, or simple wheels. The "levers" we use in our machines are found somewhere in nature. All - 100% - of the kinds of levers we use in our machines are being used, and have been used for thousands of years, in nature. So, why would anybody NOT think of nature as a highly complicated and complex machine... since the machines in nature are where we get all of our ideas for the machines we build?

Machines have makers. The machine of the universe has a Maker.

I'm sorry that it is detracting from your personal faith. But then again, you sound like you didn't have much faith in the first place... if any. But there are others who have expressed that they are in the faith, even though they may not post a lot here.

However, thanks for the tip. I will try to do better. There isn't much better evidence for God than the machine-like quality of the universe. Machines have makers.

You should probably be more concerned about the truthfulness of the information that leads a person to believe one way or another.   If some people become stronger believers in God as a result of this thread, I can tell you that it wasn't because you provided them good reason to do so.  Your arguments and reasoning are horrific.

Yes, but. Through the things written in this thread, some people are going to become stronger believers in God. Hopefully some others will be saved. That makes this thread of ultimate importance.



EDIT: This thread isn't about proving the Christian God, necessarily. The fact that some people can't get away from the idea of a FSM or teapot, simply shows how ingrained in their lives God is!

It doesn't matter that there is no evidence for God because there cannot possibly be any.  Evidence lends to the category of a posteriori knowledge which is by definition knowledge based upon evidence/experience.

Instead, God must be debated in terms of a priori knowledge which is knowledge that is independent of evidence/experience.

This entire thread is essentially a bunch of irrelevant arguments attacking opposing-but-equally-irrelevant arguments.  Everyone here is asserting a position based upon evidence, and accordingly everyone is having the wrong discussion.  Evidence shouldn't even be introduced except as corollary support for conceptual proof.

Basically, what I'm trying to get across is that it is not a good position for an atheist to take to claim that there is no evidence to prove God.  Rather, it's one of the worst because the argument is totally inapplicable to the context of the debate even though the argument itself posits a correct assertion, i.e. there is no evidence to prove God exists.  That's why the arguments of the FSM and teapot and otherwise continue to thrive -- it's true there is no evidence to prove God's existence, but it completely doesn't matter.

Don't you see? The thing that you call "a high stakes game" is God giving us the essence of God.

He can't coerce God any more than you or I can. That's why He doesn't take our freedom to choose away from us, but rather, He upholds it. Yet He offers us as much evidence for Himself as He can, without at the same time removing our freedom to choose as would a god - as He, Himself, has the freedom to choose.

I mean, you can't get much fairer than that.

I give up... You're obviously way too brainwashed for any logic to change your mind.  If your god is all powerful he could just say 'we cool' and not torture anybody, but instead he makes it a high stakes game where you only win if you believe in something with no evidence, and if you do you can be a horrible person and still make it to heaven.  

There is no evidence for a god, repeating it a lot doesn't make it true.

Nothing conclusively proves or disproves God. But my above info offers a universe full of evidence more in favor of God than against Him - and in favor of Him over anything else.

But why do you hate God so much? He is trying to save you from your own self-destruction. Now if it were salvation so that He could torture you, I would fight Him, too. But it isn't. It is salvation to a far better life than you or I could ever imagine for ourselves. Your call, though. I, certainly, wouldn't attempt to take your freedom from you. God doesn't even do that.

Hey cooldgamer, not to detract from your point, but I was wondering what you think about evidence in favor of correspondence with the dead, as in my above post. Maybe it could be an interesting discussion.   

For the 100th time, a complex universe does not prove a god.  Your god is fucked if he doesn't care about what you actually do and only if you believe in his son.

Hey the joint, I hope that you see what I am getting at here, and hopefully you agree that the assumptions that Rollans is a liar is very far from a simple explanation of the evidence. 

Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living.

You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours.

As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U -  is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.

Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.

If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.

Not quite.  You are correct that I'm differentiating between God and god, but the distinction I'm making isn't the same as you suggest.

Specifically, I'm making the following points:

1)  There is a difference between polytheistic and monotheistic gods.  

2)  There is a different standard of proof between polytheistic and monotheistic gods.  Specifically, empirical proof is required for a polytheistic god, but not for a monotheistic one.  Instead, conceptual proof based upon a priori knowledge is required for a monotheistic god; this is not required for a polytheistic god.

3)  The FSM and the teapot constitute invalid counterarguments to the existence of a monotheistic god because they ask the opponent for information that is irrelevant and unnecessary to the existence of a monotheistic god, i.e. they ask for empirical evidence when empirical evidence is in no way required to prove a monotheistic god.

4)  Any counterargument to the existence of a monotheistic god must instead attempt to demonstrate why a monotheistic god is a logical impossibility based upon a priori knowledge.  I have never seen a sound argument of this type before.

Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..

Wow, Decky. You are getting just like the atheists.

Make a hand. Can't? Well make a blade of grass. No, I don't mean grow one. I mean formulate and manufacture one, and set life to it. Can't? Well, what can you do that is marvelous? Anybody can yammer.

Modern medical research has found methods to manipulate the healing abilities of the body to some extent. They can cut out cancers. They can help bones grow better and stronger after they are broken. They actually have some vaccines that really work. But modern medical science hasn't come close to making a real live hand from scratch. They haven't even found a way to regrow a new one on a person who lost an original.

Why hasn't modern scientific medicine been able to make a hand? So far, it's because the process is way too complicated. In fact, they don't really have a working, feasible process for doing it in mind at all!

Look at the prosthetic hands science has created. The computer controlled prosthetic hands are wonderful. There are even methods coming into being where real bionic hands can feel pressure and heat. Marvelous stuff. Costs billions to develop... especially if you consider all the past research that makes the present research possible.

Yet, an average, healthy person is born with two hands that he/she received for free. Modern science can't make them. But they are given free, naturally.

Nature is way smarter than medical science. In fact, nature is so smart that modern science goes to it just to find out what questions they should ask, so that they can properly review nature to look for answers.

So, how did nature get so smart? I mean, if blades of grass, or even hands, were all the smarter that nature had become, nature would still be smart beyond understanding. After all, science still hasn't fully understood how blades of grass and hands come into being entirely.

But nature didn't stop with blades of grass and hands. Nature was so extremely smart that it produced eyes, and brains, and thousands upon of thousands of species of plants and animals, all of them having marvelous reproductive systems, things that the smartest people are only starting to emulate in the machine shop a little bit today.

How smart is a rock? How smart is entropy? A rock has no smarts or non-smarts. And entropy is the breaking down of the things that smart nature has produced. And we, the product of smart nature, because our brains and minds themselves are products of nature, don't even really know if we won't destroy ourselves off the face of the earth before we have the chance to find out all the marvels of smart nature.

How "dumb" can you smart people get? Here's smart nature doing all kinds of fabulous things that smart people can't even come close to doing, and the smart people are dumb enough to contradict their own dictionary definition of "God," even though they work with the super-smart things of nature that God has produced.

It's gotta be entropy that has made these smart people of science so stupid.

Meaning your word's mean nothing, not just to me, but everyone.. you have zero argument's for the proof of god, consideing your evidence is nothing more than a cleverly written peice of science fiction.. that's so out of date, I'm surprised you aint got food poisoning..

Denying the existence of god does not make you a god. Your attempt to do semantic gymnastics in order to assert that an atheist not believing in god actually confirms god makes absolutely no sense. That's one of the most absurd lines of logic that has been posted in this thread.