Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 96. (Read 845650 times)

There is no way to proof God for me. I believe the God is inside us and always stays with us. The biggest power that we don't need to proof..

"    We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." – Albert Einstein

If you ever stopped talking religion, you might finally see that cause and effect, complexity, entropy, and Kurt Gödel's stuff, all have to do with science. Science proves God exists.

Seems like you are trying to apply kurt stuff to theology again? And completely ignoring the arguments because you know they are right, you know complexity does not prove god existence whatsoever, you can't even refute any of it, you are a joke.

I also believe God existence.

If I think that God really exists but depends on their respective beliefs and personal beliefs.

Scientific proof that God exists ? ang bases kasi nila kaya nd sila naniniwla na may Diyos is to see is to believe, But what about the wind ? nakikita ba natin to ? pero naniniwla tayo, our common sense ? di ba hnd nmn natin nakikita to pero naniniwala tayo na nag eexist ito  As a christian kasi you must believe first and you will see it. that is Faith

Prove or no Prove, the universe itself is more evident that God really exist.

Sounds like you are trying to ignore Kurt Gödel's stuff. Anyway...

A hole bigger than New Brunswick has opened up in Antarctic ice pack







Read more at https://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.ca/2017/11/a-hole-bigger-than-new-brunswick-has.html.

---

Do you really think that science has enough info to pin down entropy divisions throughout the universe when all the evidence points to the fact that entropy is universal?

Well I didn't expect you to admit that you were wrong anyways.

''God’s own complexity implies that He also had a designer.  Either the theist is arguing for an infinite regress of God-designers and designers of God-designers, etc., or he is contradicting his own assumption that complexity requires design.  By using God as an “explanation” the theist is doing nothing more than explaining complexity (in living things) with complexity (God’s).  But this amounts to assuming what one is trying to explain, which is no explanation at all.  It just moves the mystery back a step.''

''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.''

Sounds like you want to make this a topic about entropy. Essentially, entropy is the breaking down of complexity, even if people don't often express it that way.

The idea that greater complexity arises from lesser is wrong. The fact is that at times greater simply appears to arise from lesser. Why does it appear this way? Because of our lack of ability to recognize the way things work. We are far too simple to recognize enough of the operations behind the break-down of complexity, to understand how complexity always breaks down, even though things seem the opposite at times.

What are you attempting to do with all your entropy talk? Entropy shows that there was a beginning, simply because, if the universe always existed, simplicity would abound so greatly because of entropy, that we wouldn't exist, and this whole conversation wouldn't exist, either. Since we exist and converse, there was a beginning, and that not too far in the past, because entropy hasn't had the time to break down the complexity that we are.

Since complexity doesn't arise from simplicity (there is no known example of such, but only assumptions that it might), complexity can only come from greater complexity. The fact of cause and effect in everything shows how great this greater complexity is... complex beyond understanding, or really, even a hint of true understanding.

That is part of the description of God. C&E, with entropy, with complexity, prove the existence of God.

Damn, you are truly good at avoiding my arguments. ''But as long as you don't state the way that the entropy things that you are talking about apply to the point that entropy is'' I have been trying to understand this sentence for a while now, still nothing.

You have been wrong about entropy applying to the earth the same way that applies to the universe and you have been wrong in saying, intelligence can't form or (humans can't be more intelligent) because of entropy which I demonstrated to be wrong again because the earth is not an isolated system.

''As far as evolution goes, there are so many flaws in the evolution idea, that it should not even be considered a theory.'' That may be but then again, you have used entropy to try to disprove it and you were wrong, for the things mentioned before. I know it's hard to admit when you are wrong but you would look a bit less dishonest if you did.

Interesting to research 

Trying to define science before I argue it with you. 

If it is observable and repeatable, it is scientific proof.

It is not just proof because you keep posting it is. 

Your non-scientific religion is working fine for you. Of course, it will destroy you. But as long as you are happy in your destruction.

How do we know your stuff is a non-scientific religion? Because you don't bring anything scientific up at all.

You're in the wrong thread, buddy.

But you prove it only to yourself.

If you were able to prove it the masses, the debate would be over.

How many different things do you want to express about entropy? How many different ways do you want to say them? You can get out loads of books right on the Internet, and copy and paste all kinds of things about entropy. But as long as you don't state the way that the entropy things that you are talking about apply to the point that entropy is a simplifying of complexity, perhaps you should start an entropy thread.

Complexity is breaking down. Entropy is what is doing it. The time when complexity was the greatest is the beginning time. Throw cause and effect into the mix, and you prove that there is a God.

As far as evolution goes, there are so many flaws in the evolution idea, that it should not even be considered a theory.

?? Provide an example of what you mean. You have not only used entropy to ''prove'' god but also used entropy to ''disprove'' evolution. You were wrong in both of them as I pointed out, yet you don't acknowledge that. The law states any isolated system will increase its total entropy over time. An isolated system is defined as one without any outside energy input. Because the universe is an isolated system, the total disorder of the universe is always increasing. To claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also grounded in a misunderstanding of where the law applies. Nobody has ever figured out how to apply the second law to living creatures. There is no meaning to the entropy of a frog. The kinds of systems that can be analyzed with the second law are much simpler.
The earth is not a isolated system since large amounts of electromagnetic radiation reaches earth from the sun, visible light, infrared and ultraviolet mainly.  Some is reflected back out into space.

Same thing I say - as long as you continue to have your own definition of scientific proof, why would anyone care if you have scientific proof?

As long as you continue to deny the definition of entropy as you have been, why would anybody care what you think about entropy?