Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 77. (Read 845587 times)

The argument is simple, how do you know that all complex things require a designer? You claim that complexity shows that everything is designed but how do you know? We only know our things are designed because they are made by us, humans and we know these things are designed by us by comparing them to nature.

This argument, by the way, is a well known flawed argument, discussed plenty of times.

''The argument from design, also known as the teleological argument, is an argument for the existence of God (or life-engineering aliens) that may be summarized as follows: When I see a complex object such as a watch, I know it has been designed: therefore, when I see a complex object such as a tiger, I should infer that it has been designed. This act of comparing two objects and drawing similar conclusions based on similarities (while ignoring important differences) is a prime example of a false analogy.''

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design#Problems_with_the_above
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-schwartz/intelligent-design-watchmaker_b_1730878.html

Did you notice that all you showed was the writings of someone else who doesn't have anything concrete to back up what he says? Rather, the exact things that he is trying to use to show lack of intelligent design in complexity are the things that uphold intelligent design in complexity.

Did you forget that I already showed you that complexity does not show design? It's right here:

''assumes humans determine whether or not something is designed by seeing if it has an accurate adjustment of parts—that is, if it shows complexity.  But this is certainly mistaken.  We know that something is designed not by its complexity, or even the degree to which it appears to serve a purpose, but by looking for ways in which it differs from nature.  In other words, nature is the benchmark against which we compare an object to see if it is designed.

For example, many naturally occurring rock fragments just happen to have a sharp edge that is well-suited for serving the purpose of chopping meat, though this does not lead us to believe that these fragments were designed.  Yet, we have found clearly manufactured prehistoric chopping and cutting stones that were designed.  How do we know they were designed and not just examples of fortuitous rock fractures?  Clearly it is not because they are sharp, since naturally occurring rocks are also sharp; and not because they are complex, since they have neither parts nor complexity; and not because they serve a purpose, since obviously random events can make a rock very sharp.  We know these stone hand axes were designed because they have markings on them that differ from what one would find in nature—that is, they have signs of manufacture.

Because the proper criterion for establishing design is difference from nature, and not complexity or apparent usefulness, we can know that something was designed even when it is both extremely simple and has no identifiable purpose at all. ''

''we don’t know something is intelligently designed because it shows complexity; we know it is designed because it shows signs of manufacture, and the only way we know something is manufactured is by comparing it with nature or by having direct experience of its manufacture.  Now, if the criterion for determining design is comparison with nature, then it makes no sense to apply that criterion to nature itself since nature provides the very benchmark for making the comparison.''

Did you forget the complexity already? Our examples of machine making show us that the weaker thinkers among us don't really design the more complex machines. Yet all the machines and "levers" that we make come from nature and examples in nature. Nature, being full of machines that are way more complex than the machines of man, were made by Someone way smarter and more capable than man.

Machines and their complexity and the greatness/intelligence of those who make them is one of the greatest examples that God exists.

Perhaps you fit into my previous post along with VOD.

In my above, previous post, I talk about AI. The makers of AI don't quite understand how AI works. I don't follow it, and neither do you. We all do what we can do and work where we can work.

The fact that we can't understand AI is not a bad thing. It is simply the way we are. Some of us understand some things better than others of us. This is not a thing that makes any of us better or worse than any other of us. It's simply the way we are.

We need to work and think with the abilities that we have. You might have great political science abilities. You might not be so good at figuring the physical sciences. Because of this, you have strong faith in living, just to get along in life, since you don't seem to understand much of the way things work.

Faith is exactly the thing that God is looking for in a person. You could become a great person for the Lord. Turn, now, and accept Him, and become a mighty one for the Lord... and He will reward you greatly for the work you do for Him. Your position in the afterlife could be a high one if you work for Him in powerful ways. Think of it. Everlasting greatness in the hereafter.

You didn't answer at all here. I asked you how do you know that everything is designed or made by a sentient being. Yes we know our machines are designed by us, obviously just like we know a watch or a chair is designed by humans because nature does not produce such things. You are claiming that trees, rocks, planets, everything is designed by something else, my question is, how do you know?

Consider AI. It is a machine made by mankind. Yet it can teach itself to play chess better than a human, even in ways that a human can't match. Our crude AI isn't really alive, doesn't really have sentience. Yet it acts in ways that seem uncontrolled... at least as far as we are concerned. But the work that it does is not controlled directly.

AI is a machine made up of many smaller machines, doing work that is not controlled by us directly - not even entirely understood by us. Yet the Master Machine Maker understands every, last erg of energy and force in a volcano, via cause and effect. He set it up. He also understands every last working of our AI. None of this means that He has to focus on all of it all the time, with the essence of His "I AM."

You have in no way debunked the idea that everything is designed. What you are doing is debunki9ng yourself. Soon you will be gone forever... if you do not change and take hold of the offering of eternal life from God.

Then all the other religions are also true and their gods are also true. Muslims are willing to die (and they suicide currently) for their god, so allah beats jesus christ by your own logic.
''Humans will die for what they believe to be the truth'' Believe is the key word. There is no evidence that jesus christ existed, maybe as a person but not as a god. What history book talks about jesus and his miracles?

There is strong evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular history and in the Bible. Probably the greatest evidence that Jesus has existed is literally true that thousands of Christians in the last century, including twelve disciples, were ready to give their lives as human beings. martyrdom for Jesus Christ. Humans will die for what they believe to be the truth, but no one dies for what they know is deceit.

This is the same argument as ''everything is designed'' which I already debunked. You told me to look for the definition of machine: ''an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work:'' Now if the universe can be a machine, then so can a volcano, for example. Now how do you know a volcano has a maker? We don't. We only know ''machines'' have makers because those makers are humans, all the machines that have makers are humans, that doesn't prove god or that all machines have makers, it only proves, in any case, that all machines have human makers.

Badecker claims to have some, but he won't share it with anyone else.  :/

God exists, no one can verify the accuracy. But in the world there is a lot of scientific evidence that God exists

Even if God didn't exist, super programmers need one.

Inside the First Church of Artificial Intelligence







Read more and click the links at https://www.wired.com/story/anthony-levandowski-artificial-intelligence-religion/.

In the same way that you don't know that there are machines that don't have makers.

However, in the vastness of the machine world, the evidence that all machines have makers is so great, that you would have a difficult time finding a machine without a maker.

I'll help you. There is that ancient Greek machine that turns out to be the oldest computer in the world - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/ancient-computer.html - that was found on an ancient Greek galleon. Just because it was found there, on a sunken Greek galleon, doesn't mean we know that it had a maker. But try to tell that to any scientist, and they will laugh you right into a funny farm.

Except for how I debunked them. You ended up resorting to calling the universe a ''machine'' and that all ''machines'' have makers. How do you know all machines have makers?

A theoretical scientist will like science theory better, because he gets paid for making theory. Anybody else might like science law better, because there is a solid understanding in science law.

Science theory can be refuted by other science theory. Science theory isn't as sound as science law.

I did want to thank you for your little video. It explains exactly the thing that I am talking about. A science theory is not known to be science fact. The video says it over and over, albeit in other words. Even though science theory may be set up with all kinds of facts arranged in a new way, that new arrangement is not known to be fact.

With regard to the scientific proof that God exists, combining the 3 scientific laws, cause and effect, complexity, and entropy, we see that there is no other way for these laws to exist other than something called God. If what you are trying to do is prove that these laws are faulty, this forum isn't really the place to do it.

What about Big Bang, you might say. Big Bang simply works with some of the mathematical laws of the universe, and with other scientific theories. It is not nearly complete, since it assumes evolution theory (maybe without even saying it, and among other theories), which is, again, contradictable. This leaves so many holes in BB theory with regard to reality, that BB theory is simply a play thing.

Since evolution theory has so many holes in it that is laughable, BB theory is entirely flawed and useless. Why? Because BB theory is depending on evolution theory to fill in a bunch of gaps regarding life. All this theorizing does is to make money for those who work with it, and to distract "laymen" from reality.

Play with science theory. But do not advertise it. It is a distraction from reality.

No one has ever proved that god exist, because it doesn't exist. Science says so.

No, the website i listed, and you seem to have problems reading, says ''There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory'' After proving to you that a scientific theory is actually better than a scientific law you keep saying the same shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyN2RhbhiEU

AND by the way, some scientific laws were wrong, so thinking that a scientific law is 100% true is also wrong. There’s plenty of laws that have been shown to vary depending on what scale you’re looking at. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation works fine unless you get close to a massive object, or start looking at things at galactic scales

Short or long, you don't seem to understand that science uses Quantum to determine what is impossible. Quantum is probability. If something is improbable enough, science say that it is impossible.

Science law IS more sound than science theory. It simply is not free as science theory is. There is no freedom to play in science law. Science theory allows one to play all over the place. That is why science law is more solid than science theory.

The science theory might be the best tool that we have, but revelation from someone who understands is better than science.

Also, the website you listed starts out stating the idea that a "scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory." But a scientific law can be found without using a scientific theory. For example. Something might be an absolute fact observed by millions of people without a scientific application. Then some scientist makes a scientific observation, and the law is made without the theory.

The point is, scientific theory can be rebutted with other scientific theory. A scientific law cannot. When there is no shadow of a doubt that a scientific theory is correct, it becomes a scientific law.

Answer your own question by finding something that has reached absolute zero.