Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 498. (Read 845654 times)

i'm not sure what you're trying to prove by this.

There simply can't exist a proof that god exists! It just doesn't work that way. God can only exist for people who believe he/she/it does. All those 'scientific' proofs are bogus, if you ask me!

we were not discussing the implications of what would happen if there would be a god or gods, we were discussing the existence of one.

so apparently you do agree there is a god, even if you refuse to call it god.

Yeah, there will be nothing to lose if you believe.

obviously no 3. that chemistry combination will ultimately out compete other more mundane chemistry, even if that random combination occuring is tiny it will spread because it has advantage once it exists, that is the process of life.

Ah ah
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman


Seriously, wtf
Aminoacids (more than a dozen atoms in each!) have been detected in deep space.
Three possibilities:

• God plays a joke on us, there is no aminoacids in space
• A god made them
• One by one the atoms reacted together and eventually made those complex molecules

You chose 2, I chose 3. I guess we will never agree.

I'm missing what point? Whose point? Your point? 

One could call the simulation programmer/s gods, why not. Doesn't get you anywhere though and I shouldn't think it would gain any favors from the programmer/s any more than an ant in a colony within a tanks on a childs desk.

To assume gender (he) in the programmer/s is assumption on your part.

The programmer/s would probably not be answering "prayers" but they may take notice or wind back to a system backup if we destroyed our biosphere because we fucked up (nukes, nanotech, bioweapons etc). Our time is the system tick of the simulation, if the simulation were paused, fast forwarded, stopped, rewind, etc then the simulants would be unaware.

A simulated universe would probably be fairly simple code (describing fundamental quantum laws) running on a very fast system, think "computronium".

everything "emerges" from it following the evolutionary process. It's not like our bodies are designed in a 3D modelling tool, instead it's more likely that we are complex "self aware" cellular automata. The evolution process itself would still be "real".

Another point that upholds this theory is the fact that Self correcting code structures (ALA Claude Shannon information theory) have been found at the heart of quantum mechanical laws, It seems these codes underpin the very fabric of our reality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1LCVknKUJ4

Then don't ever claim you base your beliefs on science.

You are religious, and you believe in abiogenesis, and possibly the Greek god Gaia.

The Ancient Greeks believed that living things could spontaneously come into being from nonliving matter, and that the goddess Gaia could make life arise spontaneously from stones – a process known as Generatio spontanea.

Are you dense or trolling?

1) I have the belief there's no god.
2) Science doesn't prove nor disprove its existence. It doesn't suggest it either.

Those two things are completely unrelated.



I insist though
You claim I said science disproves god, where did I do that?

You seem to believe there is no god, while claiming you only believe in things that have been proven by science.

Ergo, you make an unspoken claim that science proves the absence of god.

Show me the proof or the logic behind your claim.

If you fail to do this, than you must agree that there is, or at least might be a god.

You can not say with certainty that there is no god, where is your proof?

Also, in all the years we have observed earth, did you ever see a rock produce life? Or some other inanimate object? Surely we can conclude by now that inanimate objects do not produce life. Has it ever been observed?

Where did I do that??

How could that be even possible? God is exactly used to explain things where science doesn't have any clue.

Wait what?

You say science points to there being no god, I show you otherwise, and you suddenly say science does not speak about what it doesn't know.

Who's sticking their head in the sand now?

It's easy to win arguments from religious fanatics who just copy with ever their priests tell them, but this is probably the first time you argue with a sensible theist who can think for himself. How does it feel to get your ass handed to you by a theist who actually has his shit togheter?

Please do some research and come back here when your arguments make sense. I don't have time to waste on trolls.

You miss the whole point of science: when we don't know how something happens, we say so. That's the point of proofs.
When we didn't know what composed atoms, we didn't say this was god's place, we just said that we didn't know. And eventually, we found out.

Same goes for the apparition of life. We don't know, no need to think our granpa is floating around and made that.

PS: "evidence points to B)"
LMFAO

PPS:Oh. Where are your proofs?

PPPS: "You claim science disproves god, and that logic dictates there is no god."
Damn, I didn't realized it's Troll O'clock
I just never said so

You'll watch it on TV within the next 10 years.

Science is going to allow us to do things your gods never could.  7 days to create a world?  
Within the next century, we will be doing it in 7 minutes:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsr-XtuKuSw

Oh, please enlighten me.

When did abiogenesis become a proven fact? When did scientist observe spontaneous creation of lif from non-life?

The fact that this hs never happened is proof enough.

Either

A) life can be created from non-life (it's an universal law like speed of light and gravity), and we can observe it all around us all the time.

B) life can not be created from non-life, but life only comes from life. (I.e. Living organisms giving birth to living organisms). The origin of life was a one time miracle and for that reason can not be observed.

The  absence of observable evidence points to B).

Show me a single event where life was spontaneously created from non-life.

You claim science disproves god, and that logic dictates there is no god.

But please, show me scientific evidence that even gives so much as a hint that god does not exist. Show me a logical hypothesis or even philosophical thought that shows a logical answer to the absence of god that would be more logical than there being a god.

Don't you realize how ridicous you sound, claiming science supports you, while you don't give a single piece of evidence to back you up?

Nice theory, but you're missing the point.

These simulations must have had makers, makers more advanced than us.

So no matter if the universe is an advanced hologram or other piece of machinery, or an actual universe. Someone or something must have created it. Something that existed before the simulation or the real thing ran. Most likely something outside of our dimensions.

It's very likely that heaven is somewhere outside our 4D world, say heaven is 5D or even higher.

Is it so weird to call the creator of this reality (or simulation) our god? For whoever wrote the 'program' wrote the rules, would that not make him able to bend the rules at will? Performng miracles in our eyes? He can even change the rules permanently.

The universe is like an advanced computer program, we are part of it, god is the programmer, as well as the PC manifcturer. The angels are system admins and the devil and his demons are crackers.

You don't cease to amuse me

I prefer having faith in something I have proofs* of than in some little invisible guy with a beard rotating around the Earth. 
Even if I must suffer until the end of times.


* Proofs backed by scientific rigour. Not some crazy nonsense like "oh lord the universe is huge, it must have a creator!"
Truth has nothing to do with feelings. It's based on hard facts. And not knowing isn't equal to "it's god lol".

The simulation hypothesis certainy does imply that it is more like that we exist within a simulation than not.

Basically it goes like this:

[1]
Do you think (extrapolating current technology) that we will ever be able to create realistic VR, say we could learn to jack into our nervous system, or maybe even transfer our conscious mind (scan it) into a machine? The point being do think it is possible to simulate a universe such that the observer/user would never know, the sensory input banwidth needed is not that great even by todays standards.

If you think yes, then proceed to [2], else leave.

[2]
Do you think that if some civilization somewhere ever does reach true VR technology then they will for some reason kill themselves shortly afterward. In other words do you think there is some universal barrier that will dissalow simulation universes from being created/ran. If you think that civilizations will develop them and run them then goto [3], else leave.

[3]
Do you think we "humans of planet 3 of sol" are the most advanced in the universe (technology wise), if not then goto [4], else leave.

[4]
If just 1 simulation was running in the "real" universe then the chance of us living in a simulated one is 0.5 (50/50).

[5]
How many simulations are running out there, take a guess, call it N, the chances of us living in a real universe is 1/N. for all we know simulated universes of the complexity we perceive may be quite common.

Of course the creators of our simulation might themselves be simulants, perhaps in a higher than 3 dimension universe, asking the same questions, it may be simulations all the way down.

Now that God has virtually been proven to exist, you are reading part of the next step - some of what God has revealed to us about Himself and what He wants us to do.