Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 444. (Read 845809 times)

So you are saying that if a person subscribing to religion A does not believe in the god of religion B then they are being atheist toward religion B? I think you misunderstand the words.

To be theist you need subscribe to at least one "god" doesn't matter which one, even if it's a brand new one like the flying spaghetti monster. To be "religous" that god must be acknowledged by at least one other person.

Atheism or Theism, both are closing ones mind without enough evidence.

I think the builder/s of a simulated universe would tick all the boxes of being "god/s".

You cannot be certain that we don't exist within a simulation. If you are then you are making claims beyond the scope of your perceptions ( a leap of faith ) and you are stood on ground as weak as any theist.

Not quite!
I believe many if not most are Agnostic towards God/s generally speaking.
But the God/s humans talk about, like the Abrahamic God, you would need to be retarded to believe on it. It doesn't even qualify for any sort of God as it is a powerless God, often using humans to do the dirty jobs.

Keeping it logic and objective, there a few requirements a God must fill to be a God or a possible God. And none of the religions that have God/s I know actually speaks about a qualified creature.

If unintelligent processes, without purpose, evolved into intelligence, how can we then say that we trust our intelligence to tell us how un-intelligence and randomness brought us here?

Plato's Timaeus speaks of "citizens of nine thousand years ago"; the story has "the very great advantage of being a fact and not a fiction".

The Bible remembers "a single deluge only, but there were many previous ones".

maybe slightly off topic, but there seems to be growing problems with the big bang theory. And no big bang theory means more likelihood a supreme creator in my books.

1) Black holes may not exist. This is due to conflict between einstein theories on gravity vs quantum
www.uncnews.unc.edu/2014/09/23/carolinas-laura-mersini-houghton-shows-black-holes-exist/

2) surface brightness issue if universe were expanding / Geometry issue
www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

3) red shift could have alternative explanations (therefore no explosion no big bang)
www.nature.com/news/cosmologist-claims-universe-may-not-be-expanding-1.13379

I would have to agree with BADecker here.

A truly logical and objective person can't draw any 100% conclusions from sensory input that is presented to their conscious mind.

For example we might be living in a simulation. Nobody can argue against the possibility of that. In fact most philosophical arguments would favor that we actually do.

The creator of said simulation would be for all intents and purposes godlike.

Any long drawn out purely logical debate will always lead to this conclusion.

If you want to say "I'm logical and objective" then you must say "I am agnostic"

I completely agree with emergent complexity through evolution, and it is awesome, but who is to say that's not just a program running in a simulation?

Since atheism can't be proven to be correct, it is a religion in the way it is being handled. Once it is proven (if it is), then it will no longer be a religion.

Cute.   

for the uninitiated

It was a joke.  Seriously.  Oh well. . . .

dexterity requires a decent amount of dedicated cortical area I believe, and selective pressures called for other adaptations in our (man's) developing environment. I don't know how much flexibility a millipede's poda lends it, versus our use of own appendages, for example.  

http://www.amareway.org/holisticliving/06/sensory-homunculus-cortical-homunculus-motor-homunculus/

Completely off topic, but I saw a quote today that should solve the question of evolution at least! 

"If evolution is true, how come mothers still have only two hands?" 

Saying atheism is a religion is like saying nothing is a flavor of icecream.  Nobody convinced me of anything, I've read up on the science and drawn conclusions

This is exactly what you've been doing judged by reading your posts.
Random doesn't exist because humans claim that it doesn't exist and yes your 2nd point makes no sense at all.

Since you like this 'machine theory', maybe we are all just part of a Big simulation run on a machine (i.e. computer) by some smarter beings maybe even Gods?  

As long as you keep a narrow mind, or limit yourself to simple thinking, you won't ever understand.

Since you obviously don't understand, who is the leader of your religion that has convinced you into believing the things that you DO believe? I mean, you obviously don't know it through understanding it. So you must have someone who has convinced you of it without understanding. Is he/she your high priest(ess) of your religion?

1: No it doesn't, if the universe wasn't in a state to support life the way it happened then we wouldn't be here to comment on it.  Fine-tuned universe fallacy

2: Doesn't make any sense

3: No they don't, they suggest that we are conscience

Not a simple machine, no. Not even a machine like a complicated car engine, or a computer. Rather, machines upon machines using all the machines and lever actions of machines, inside one gigantic machine we call the universe.


Random numbers are not random. There is no such thing as random. For example, a computer that generates random numbers does so based on the identification number of the computer. But even if it doesn't, there are certain charges across the chips that CAUSE certain activity, resulting in a number that we call random. It is all cause and effect, action and reaction. We think that it is random because we don't see the forces at play causing the reaction.

Right back to the beginning of the universe, something CAUSED the universe to exist. This CAUSE set up the actions which would cause reactions which would cause other reactions, right down to the present. In other words, the whole universe is programmed.

All science looks at why things happen, what causes them to happen the way they do. The greater the scientist, the more he is able to figure out the cause behind the "things" or reactions that he is examining.

It is mind boggling, I know. But everything is pre-programmed.

Whatever programmed this universe, THAT is God. Is it the Big Bang? Is it a Being/Entity? Science hasn't told us yet, what God is. The universe is too complex. We need to go somewhere else for the answer, like, maybe God has left us a message.


The way that consciousness and conscience prove God, is something that is detailed. If you seriously want to see how it works, study more on the subject.

This thread is really growing. 

I just don't think those premisses are true.
The universe is in no way machine like. At the small scale it is super weird and follows none of the physical laws that govern machines.
I don't understand the non-random comment? Are random numbers not random?
Lastly, I see no suggestion that because I am conscious there must be a God?

It doesn't mean there is no god, but that's like saying that a dinosaur might live under my bed. He is a disappearing dinosaur, so when you look at him he vanishes. Now, try proving that a disappearing dinosaur is NOT under my bed.

See "Talk Origins" posts bellow.