Proof that God does not exist...

[Yasa]

God is an excuse for the unknown.

[Jagged]

Quote by: Yasa God is an excuse for the unknown.

Didn't your parents teach you not to argue about religion? Its mannerless.


Anyways, I read somewhere that a plausible theory was that after awhile, the universe stops expanding and begins to contract, and i guess when space is done contracting another Big Bang occurs. This is all speculation, but it is a pretty thoughtful possibility.

[agustine]

To Yasa. With respect to your comment

"God is an excuse for the unknown."

How can you know the unknown? Your comment is self-defeating....

Augustine

[Yasa]

Quote by: agustine To Yasa. With respect to your comment How can you know the unknown? Your comment is self-defeating.... Augustine

lol that's the point, I don't. I'm saying that the answer is unknown and therefore is well.. um.. not known. It means that God is not a certain answer and that it is just a theory of what is unknown.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Jagged Didn't your parents teach you not to argue about religion? Its mannerless. Anyways, I read somewhere that a plausible theory was that after awhile, the universe stops expanding and begins to contract, and i guess when space is done contracting another Big Bang occurs. This is all speculation, but it is a pretty thoughtful possibility.

I too read that astronomers have recently found an increasing acceleration in expansion of universe. That means there can never be start of contraction in future now on, which makes Big Bang Theory very much doubtful.

To my mind, whole universe is eternally existing and runs in cycle with no begining or end like a large wheel. All events take place due to properties of matter and space.:(

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Jagged Didn't your parents teach you not to argue about religion? Its mannerless. Anyways, I read somewhere that a plausible theory was that after awhile, the universe stops expanding and begins to contract, and i guess when space is done contracting another Big Bang occurs. This is all speculation, but it is a pretty thoughtful possibility.

My father and his sons loved to argue about religion. It's only "mannerless" for those who wish not to be challenge or think their right to believe some absolute is superior to someone else's right to disagree. However, how we argue about it is crucial. Often the more of a control freak someone is, no matter what their beliefs, the more they demand we not talk about any given topic. Being an absolutist doesn't help, either, and that includes atheists to fundamentalists. Ego also plays a role, when it offends because agreeing to disagree is not an option. If someone wishes to consider religion too personal, I respect that, but to demand that others do the same is a little to control freak-ish for me.

Just to be clear, I'm not referring specifically to you with that rant, just the general idea that there are certain topics we shouldn't talk about. Of course there are forums where such conversations may be considered inappropriate from time to time.

[samsara15]

Ken Carman; Quantum Tunneling is when you shoot an electron towards a barrier it cannot possibly pass through, but an electron emerges on the other side nonetheless. It's used quite a lot in electronics. The electron that emerges is surely not the original electron, but since all electrons are identical, it doesn't matter. For it to work, there must be some basis to Vacuum Energy and all the Probabilty theory that makes up Quantum Mechanics. A more serious problem with Vacuum Energy is that the vacuum has (theoretically) far more energy than is possible.

Augustine said: Belief in God is properly basic and thus we are entirely rational in holding such as belief. To affirm your premise would be tantamount to suggesting it is irrational for me not to believe that I am a brain in a vat of chemicals being stimulated by a mad scientist to think that I am posting this comment on the internet; or that it would be irrational for me not to believe in the existence of other minds, or that three dimensional objects do not have back sides when not being observed. These are all examples of properly basic beliefs, yet they cannot be affirmed to a certainty.

To Augustine: Wow! I'm going to give you back ten points in the frankness / honesty category, for saying something cannot be ascertained!

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: samsara15 Ken Carman; Quantum Tunneling is when you shoot an electron towards a barrier it cannot possibly pass through, but an electron emerges on the other side nonetheless. It's used quite a lot in electronics. The electron that emerges is surely not the original electron, but since all electrons are identical, it doesn't matter. For it to work, there must be some basis to Vacuum Energy and all the Probabilty theory that makes up Quantum Mechanics. A more serious problem with Vacuum Energy is that the vacuum has (theoretically) far more energy than is possible. Augustine said: Belief in God is properly basic and thus we are entirely rational in holding such as belief. To affirm your premise would be tantamount to suggesting it is irrational for me not to believe that I am a brain in a vat of chemicals being stimulated by a mad scientist to think that I am posting this comment on the internet; or that it would be irrational for me not to believe in the existence of other minds, or that three dimensional objects do not have back sides when not being observed. These are all examples of properly basic beliefs, yet they cannot be affirmed to a certainty. To Augustine: Wow! I'm going to give you back ten points in the frankness / honesty category, for saying something cannot be ascertained!

Re: tunneling... very interesting. Of course, if what you say is true that every electron is exactly the same... (I have my doubts that any two things are absolutely the same, by the way.) ...how do we know it's not the same electron? I know "theory" says it's not, but theory isn't always correct. I would bet the bank on scientific theory before I would on any one "leap of faith," or intuition, or almost anything else... if I had to.

The other option is the possibility that it is bumping another electron out of that supposedly pure vacuum.

Once again... interesting.

In regard to "properly basic," simply because any group of humans have any belief that they collectively consider either "proper" or "basic" doesn't mean it can't be irrational or even quite mad. One micro-example of this might be Jonestown, I suppose. How many people attended, and enjoyed, lions vs. christians... or any other group for that matter? Societies based, in part, on human sacrifice or humans as food? "Proper" and "basic" are very subjective terms, either apart, or put together as a catch phrase or some supposed commonly held concept.

BTW, I am not claiming anyone, or any group, is actually "irrational" by asserting that. It's hypothetical. :rolleyes: No need in climbing back onto that rhetorical spider web where someone's claiming I'm saying something that I am not.

[agustine]

To Yasa. With respect to your comment

"lol that's the point, I don't. I'm saying that the answer is unknown and therefore is well.. um.. not known. It means that God is not a certain answer and that it is just a theory of what is unknown."

The manner in which you constructed the former proposition was self-defeating. However, with the additional qualification I think I understand what you are suggesting. I think you have taken the position that we should be agnostic about the facts instead of positing God as an explanation. Two points.... One, I think, epistemologically, belief in God is properly basic. Two, I think we have good reasons for positing God as an explanation of the facts.

Augustine

[Castle]

Quote by: dthmstr254 In the lack of actual proof of evolution, the most reasonable inference is the existence of a God.

Argument from ignorance. Even if evolution is false, that implies that "we don't know", not that "God did it".
In the lack of any explanation for lightning, was the most reasonable inference that Zeus existed?

Quote by: dthmstr254 Bringing that to the debate at hand, I have never tested God's existence, but from my own personal and extensive research into experiments done in an attempt to bolster evolution, and the resultant failures of them to significantly, to my own standards, prove evolution, I reasonably infer the existence of a supernatural being Whom I, from other research, believe is the God of the Bible.

First off, there's no reason to make the jump from intelligent designer to Christian God.
Secondly, as noted above, evolution being false does not imply that intelligent design is true.
And thirdly, evolution is far from being proven false.

Quote by: dthmstr254 Pardon the quote, but to presume the nonexistence of God without substantial proof of such would be illogical.

Of course. Who's doing this?

Quote by: dthmstr254 Remember, the ID theory is much older and sound than the botched attempts of scientists to prove a naturalistic cause for matter's creation.

Right...
Remember, the Zeus theory is much older and sound than the botched attempts of scientists to prove a naturalistic cause for lightning.

It's much easier to posit a magical being to remove ignorance than to actually seek real explanations. Unfortunately, the latter historically tend to be right (and considerably more useful as well).

Quote by: dthmstr254 PS:What evidence does God imply that evidence is detectable by X?

I actually started a thread on that a little while back:
Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence

[Castle]

Quote by: Ken Carmen I would say that if there is no evidence that something exists in any given area that is a stronger case for non-existence in that specific area of "God," "purple martians..." whatever. Closer to "proof..." although I'd have to think long before ever agreeing with you.

Fair enough. On my part, I see no distinction between this and finding physical evidence of something's existence.

Quote by: Ken Carmen Once again, how do we know for sure unless we are able to see, taste, sample... etc.

Because we define something in that manner. We define, for instance, our universe-pervading green gas so that it can been seen.

Quote by: Ken Carmen Simply because we cannot measure, sample, or test something right now, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Naturally. Hence theoretically testable.