Nobody created God. God created the universe. God is different than the universe.
The "physics" of God is different than the physics of the universe.[...]
So BADecker, pray tell, how can any of your "proofs" (which are, by definition, based on the physics of the universe) tell us anything about a god which doesn't abide by those laws of physics?
Your "proofs" are ridiculous, both scientifically and philosophically.
That's exactly the point. The thing that the proof does is prove that God exists. Why? Because the laws of physics don't explain where they come from. The proofs do... Something that is outside of physics.
No no no, you cannot claim that evidence, (they're not proofs really, as I said earlier the only true proofs are things like mathematical proofs, so from now on I will call them evidence), based on the laws of physics, can tell us anything about a being that doesn't follow the laws of physics. How can you not understand this?
All the science we know was written by man, under the influence of the standard laws of physics. Therefore any scientific theories, laws or even proofs that they observed, can only be valid on an entity that is under the influence of those same laws.
If god isn't under the influence of these laws of physics, or has "different physics" to the universe, then none of that science can prove or disprove him, because the science was formulated under different conditions.
Physics shows that it exists by something that is so extremely powerful, and intelligent, and full of knowledge, and full of understanding, etc., that we can't even imagine what It is like. Even our term "God," in all of the best of the glorious descriptions wherein many people have described Him, falls way short of the glorious thing that He is.
All of this is proclaimed by physics showing us the greatness of itself (physics), without any explanation at all of where it comes from.
To put it simply, stuff like physics simply doesn't come into existence through itself, or through any means we have been able to find. God is outside of physics, but He is the only way physics can have come into existence.
Someone might say that the thing I am talking about is not God. What else can it be? It has to be God, because It is intelligent like people, It has strength like people, It is emotional like people (where else did emotion come from?). It is somewhat people like, yet It is way greater. That's what God is.
Aaand the rest of your post was incoherent babbling... I think what you're trying to say is "physics is so great, it had to have been made by god". Not a valid argument I'm afraid, you're making claims with zero evidence. Also even if you do believe that "god made physics", it could have been any god, nothing to suggest it was your Christian god.
I have absolutely no problem with you having faith in god, you're free to believe what you want and that's fine.
But there is, and probably never will be, any scientific proof of his (or her, or it's) existence. If you believe in god you need to rely on your faith in him, not in some pseudoscientific "proofs" of his existence.
And your claims of this proof is not only tedious, it strikes me that maybe you do not have as much faith as you think you do.
Maybe that's something you could bring up with your vicar/bishop/pastor/cult leader.
Ouch!
With a burn like that, BADecker...... i suggest this cream.
No wonder you jokers believe in science or atheism. Like brute beasts, you do and live the things you learned earlier in life, and can't even think on your own.
Oh dear, I post something that
absolutely and meticulously refutes your flawed logic, and you turn to what seems like psychological projection...
Saying you posted something that does this or that, doesn't necessarily do this or that. You talk.
My flawed logic is based on accepted science law and common understanding. You have refuted none of this science law and common understanding... or where is the rutation?
No my friend, it may be hard to accept but it is you, a person that was probably indoctrinated into a Christian belief system when you were young, who has trouble with critical thinking and developing an open mind to changing your beliefs.
Religious beliefs might have something or even a lot to do with religion. But you are the one who is talking about religion, here. And I am the one who is talking about science law: cause and effect, complex universe, entropy. It might be fun posting back and forth with bunches of words, but show the clear refutation of science law if you have it.
Story time: I used to believe in a lot of weird things, for example when I was younger I read some books written by individuals who were high ranking USA military officials, and they convinced me that aliens had visited Earth and were in cahoots with the American government. After a few years, and some critical thinking, I realized that I had been a victim of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy, and that there really wasn't much evidence to support this hypothesis.
You still are a victim if you think science theory is greater than science law. It is simply a different batch of weird things. Until you understand that science theory has not been proven factual, but that science law has been proven factual, and that fact overcomes theory because of this, you will always be in a position of succumbing to belief in weird things.
So I changed my opinion. I decided that to "believe" something was really just a silly concept, everything has an element of probability and we can only make rational opinions on things that have a certain amount of evidence. These "alien stories" that I read simply didn't have enough concrete evidence for me to consider them plausible. That may change in the future, perhaps if some solid evidence comes to light i might change my mind again. Until then, it is illogical for me to believe that aliens have visited Earth, as it is illogical to believe in angels or god.
Solid scientific theories or laws, such as evolution or the laws of gravity, do have huge amounts of concrete evidence behind them. And they all point to life evolving from single-celled organisms into the human beings we see today, and an Earth that is 4.5 billion years old.
A solid theory is something that is solidly a theory. It is not a law. Evolution is a theory, an unknown. Gravity is a law, but the Theory of gravity (why gravity works the way it does) is a an unknown. In the face of the law of cause and effect, anything called evolution is programmed change. Even many of the scientists who have suggested the age of the earth have written right in their papers and books that the age is really unknown, and the suggested age is there only as a base for organized examination of what is really happening.
How these single-celled organisms came into being is still a bit of a mystery in scientific terms, but that's something great about science - if there is not enough evidence for a hypothesis it's fine to say "We don't really know exactly how that happened yet, but we're trying to find out."
This is really great. You know evolution happened. You just don't know how. You completely ignore the scientific law of cause and effect which has been found all over the place, and put pure random in its place, a thing that has never been found anywhere.
It's incredibly illogical and naive to assume that anything we don't fully understand must have been made by some god, when no solid evidence of that god exists. Don't post your series of links again please, because as I said earlier they are not only misleading, but invalid as they are based on the laws of physics we experience here on Earth.
Again, cause and effect almost proves God all by itself. But if you research the stuff found here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16803380,
you will find that according to the laws of science, God DOES exists, and that ideas to the opposite are flawed.
There are countless examples of people saying "god did it" throughout the whole of human history: The sun, stars, diversity of life, seasons, rain, lightning, tornadoes, rocks and precious stones, the list goes on.
The vast majority of these "anomalies" have been so thoroughly explained by the scientific method, that their origin and behaviour is rightly assumed to be fact. And that will be the case until opposing evidence is put forward that disproves these theories. Until that day, we should look to the scientific evidence as the most logical way to interpret the world around us.
But all the explanations of these anomalies are in the form of theory... unknown to be factual. Just because there is a consensus among some scientists, does not make unknown things to be factual. It's completely stupid to think this way.
Consider the EMDrive. Standard physics consensus says that it is impossible to turn magnetics directly into a driving force in the way the EMDrive does it. Yet it works. Now physics will have to be rewritten.
Of course, nothing can ever be proven 100% (other than logical and mathematical concepts). But when something has been proven 99.999% then it's logical to assume it's a fact, until solid evidence opposing it is shown.
Otherwise we start going down rabbit-holes where anyone can make
absolutely anything up, write it down, and claim it as irrefutable fact cough..bible.cocough...
Yet, when you examine all the facts about how the Bible came into being, you will find that it is impossible for it to exist. Yet, it is here. Time for you to change your "physics" about the existence of God. You are losing your battle against the knowledge of His existence.
