Scientific proof that God exists? - page 455.

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Quote from: username18333 on October 02, 2014, 03:29:49 PM

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 02, 2014, 03:10:49 PM

Quote from: username18333 on October 02, 2014, 03:05:15 PM

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 02, 2014, 03:00:42 PM

Boil glass of water, colouring will stick to sides.

By what means shall you boil such that you do not introduce "new disorder" into yourself (as per the requirements)?

Ok, I'll sit it out knowing the water will evaporate, and leave the colouring behind. I promise not to touch it Wink

That introduces new disorder into the environment, the diffusion of the water molecules through the atmosphere.

You introduced this disorder, not I, I just sat and fell asleep watching it.. remember your up against someone who will get to the truth of the matter, in that you chose water, knowing it would evaporate of it's own accord, I had no say in this scientific fact, I merely debunked the question, using nothing.

Edit: twas a good question, you had me thinking, but it is also an invalid question with regards to your point, due to the fact you forgot water is constantly changing.

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 02, 2014, 03:10:49 PM

Quote from: username18333 on October 02, 2014, 03:05:15 PM

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 02, 2014, 03:00:42 PM

Boil glass of water, colouring will stick to sides.

By what means shall you boil such that you do not introduce "new disorder" into yourself (as per the requirements)?

Ok, I'll sit it out knowing the water will evaporate, and leave the colouring behind. I promise not to touch it Wink

That introduces new disorder into the environment, previously non-existent transfers of energy.

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Quote from: username18333 on October 02, 2014, 03:12:21 PM

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 02, 2014, 03:00:42 PM

Boil glass of water, colouring will stick to sides.

Something about a flame:

A flame in itself does not exist, what we see is the colour of the heat. We can see the heat, but cannot touch it, for it exists at the point of non-existance.. which is why it gets so hot. Now since the water has heat, I would not be adding any external source, only increasing that which, by your definition, already exists.

Photons exist as vibrations within a field. Those vibrations are disorder that is extrinsic to the system and new to it's environment.

Git back to the water, beat my last answer.. again, based on your lab set up, the water will evaporate of its own accord through time, leaving the colouring behind

You know I got ya here huh?

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 02, 2014, 03:00:42 PM

Boil glass of water, colouring will stick to sides.

Something about a flame:

A flame in itself does not exist, what we see is the colour of the heat. We can see the heat, but cannot touch it, for it exists at the point of non-existance.. which is why it gets so hot. Now since the water has heat, I would not be adding any external source, only increasing that which, by your definition, already exists.

Photons exist as vibrations within a field. Those vibrations are disorder that is extrinsic to the system and new to it's environment.

Long story short, you aren't allowed to create any new information (id est, do anything).

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Quote from: username18333 on October 02, 2014, 03:05:15 PM

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 02, 2014, 03:00:42 PM

Boil glass of water, colouring will stick to sides.

By what means shall you boil such that you do not introduce "new disorder" into yourself (as per the requirements)?

Ok, I'll sit it out knowing the water will evaporate, and leave the colouring behind. I promise not to touch it Wink

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 02, 2014, 03:00:42 PM

Boil glass of water, colouring will stick to sides.

By what means shall you boil such that you do not introduce "new disorder" into yourself (as per the requirements)?

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Boil glass of water, colouring will stick to sides.

Something about a flame:

A flame in itself does not exist, what we see is the colour of the heat. We can see the heat, but cannot touch it, for it exists at the point of non-existance.. which is why it gets so hot. Now since the water has heat, I would not be adding any external source, only increasing that which, by your definition, already exists.

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 02, 2014, 02:53:41 PM

Water purification tablets supplied by armies in ration packs Wink

That is assuming of course, that the surrounding environment is the glass containing said liquid?

The glass and everything else in the known universe and beyond (including, without limitation, your own self [and your tablets]).

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Water purification tablets supplied by armies in ration packs Wink

That is assuming of course, that the surrounding environment is the glass containing said liquid?

We could also filter water so many times through a pair of jeans, which will absorb the colour, even more the more you times you do so?

It's like imagine being in a field, and you just got hit with a massive cloud of tear ags, most folks would luagh at pissin on a cloth then placing cloth over face..

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 02, 2014, 02:40:38 PM

Quote from: username18333 on October 02, 2014, 02:35:40 PM

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 02, 2014, 02:32:26 PM

This is the definitive answer to the question, mines not to question where I got that statement, for once known, it is true.

There is NO answer.

Again, your reply is neither scientific nor evidence.

My "plagiarized" (these are not academic works, and, therefore, improper citation should not be held to constitute plagiarism) restatement of a fundamental determination within limakasidian entropism was based upon not only science but evidence thereof.

Ok, provide proof dude, scientific proof that can be measured, touched, seen, you name it.. all man will ever do is argue about it, this is WHY people question it in the first place, because GOD cannot be scientifically proven, just as we cannot prove what we dream. We know we do, but we cant.

37 = esoteric truth, that which we know, but cannot prove
27 = truth revealed, that which we know and can prove

Hence, there is NO answer

Barring this:

We can go round and round forever debating it using any means necessary to get a point across, but it is NOT the answer, for their is NONE.

Scientific "proof" cannot be proof, for science employs inference.

However, for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, mix food coloring into a glass of water, and, then, try to take it out without introducing any new disorder into the surrounding environment (including, without limitation, your own body).

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Quote from: username18333 on October 02, 2014, 02:35:40 PM

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 02, 2014, 02:32:26 PM

This is the definitive answer to the question, mines not to question where I got that statement, for once known, it is true.

There is NO answer.

Again, your reply is neither scientific nor evidence.

My "plagiarized" (these are not academic works, and, therefore, improper citation should not be held to constitute plagiarism) restatement of a fundamental determination within limakasidian entropism was based upon not only science but evidence thereof.

Ok, provide proof dude, scientific proof that can be measured, touched, seen, you name it.. all man will ever do is argue about it, this is WHY people question it in the first place, because GOD cannot be scientifically proven, just as we cannot prove what we dream. We know we do, but we cant.

37 = esoteric truth, that which we know, but cannot prove
27 = truth revealed, that which we know and can prove

Hence, there is NO answer

Barring this:

We can go round and round forever debating it using any means necessary to get a point across, but it is NOT the answer, for their is NONE.

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 02, 2014, 02:32:26 PM

This is the definitive answer to the question, mines not to question where I got that statement, for once known, it is true.

There is NO answer.

Again, your reply is neither scientific nor evidence.

My "plagiarized" (these are not academic works, and, therefore, improper citation should not be held to constitute plagiarism) restatement of a fundamental determination within limakasidian entropism was based upon not only science but evidence thereof. (As well, it was an [implicit] answer.)

Explicitly stated, my answer is the following: "Yes, there is scientific evidence that God exists in that same way there is scientific evidence that everything exists - maximization of entropy."

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

This is the definitive answer to the question, mines not to question where I got that statement, for once known, it is true.

There is NO answer.

Edit: However, I'd also like to continue.. but that is the answer to the question Wink

A hint: Notice no-one contradicts the answer?

Arguing the subject was more fun than finding the answer huh?

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 02, 2014, 02:26:54 PM

That there is NO answer, yes.

"There is no answer" is neither scientific nor evidence.

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

That there is NO answer, yes.

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 02, 2014, 01:43:25 PM

Look out the window.

That exists.

The rest is un-required, for it does not interest any other living thing, and in fact, is quite useless information.

However..

When you get drunk.

Has the OP received satisfactory "proof" (evidence beyond a reasonable doubt)?

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Look out the window.

That exists.

The rest is un-required, for it does not interest any other living thing, and in fact, is quite useless information.

However..

When you get drunk.

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 02, 2014, 01:28:46 PM

Yeah, I said something along the lines of:

A: stop plagarising wiki I think, and

B: could you please make more sense, in your own words?

Here you are.

Quote from: username18333 on September 27, 2014, 11:44:35 AM

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on September 27, 2014, 04:17:40 AM

Quote from: Rassah on September 26, 2014, 11:48:39 PM

we now know things like light can be both a wave and a particle. No need for ether since particles can travel through vacuum.

And what is the explanation behind that?

If you dare to think about it (you're not really supposed to), you have to believe one of the following things:
A Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics

So... have we figured out what is the explanation behind all of that? Parallel universes to infinity?

Bonus QM links (maybe I post some more later!):
“orchestrated objective reduction” identifies discrete conscious moments, explains precognition
Electric permittivity is not constant but rather a function of the local zero point energy vacuum fluctuations
Your existence was predicated on an almost absurdly finely tuned universe
Actually, you don't exist--especially if you are an atheist

> "...an almost absurdly finely tuned universe"
You have no bases whereby you may make such relative determinations for your ignorance of everything else.

> "Actually, you don't exist"
Limakasidian entropism states, "For an absolute tendency to become less orderly, the sum of existence is absolute entropy."

For that, it cannot be said that anything does not exist, nor that anything does not exist in any particular way.

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Yeah, I said something along the lines of:

A: stop plagarising wiki I think, and

B: could you please make more sense, in your own words?

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 02, 2014, 01:15:54 PM

Post it again to remind me, in case you have'nt noticed, I been highlighting a scammer all day?

Here you are.

Quote from: username18333 on October 01, 2014, 08:35:33 PM

By thermodynamics, existence, which is an isolated system, would "spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the configuration with maximum entropy" (Wikipedia).

Nothing, then, is lost to everything.

Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 455. (Read 845654 times)