Scientific Reasoning Confirms God's Existence.....

[Athena]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Don't you mean the part of democracy that we used in our Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Representative Republic?

No I mean in accepting the lessons of classical education and notion of democracy that far predates you Constitutionally limited, democratic representive republic. The traditions which sprung from Greece are older even than the rivaling dogma of the church and religion. The historical achievement of the Enlightenment consisted not so much in having discovered the possibilities of reason but in having converted such a large part of the ruling classes of the time to its tenents. There was room for feeling and emotion (what religion caters too) in the age of Enlightenment but they were subordinated to the primacy of reason. The pursuit of happiness meant pursuing knowledge, not the pursuit of sensational pleasures and pultry amusements in which our decadent society is preoccupied with today. When you increase your understanding of democracy, which was popular in Europe among those engaging in philosophical ideas, before your beloved republic existed, it will be a big improvement.

[jmkelley]

This crap was dredged up by the conservative Christians and should be banned from everything but their premises.

[Eclipse]

Quote by: Athena Ouch, we can imagine how everything came out of nothing. A subatomic particle spun in the opposite direction and there was an explosion manifesting a duelist reality. From there things slowly evolved.

I don't think that's what he meant. No one, as of now, can explain everything out of nothing. Although it sometimes seems to actually happen, or so I've seen physicists say so.

Quote by: Athena No one knowing this science would think a God spoke and there was an earth and stars, and creation is that simple.

What you try to explain seems just as simple as God. Your claim is an infinite existence. Then again, so it is with God. When someone says something out of nothing I think before that particle came into existence. How did it get there? Scientists seem to have named up to 100 pieces that make up an atom, including neutrons, protons, electrons and there make-ups and so forth. If someone could explain how just one of those came into existence from nothing, all answers would seem so easy.

I do believe it is a possibility. But what you suggest here is an infinite and omni-present existence. As far as I'm concerned though, infinite and omni-present existence is not something out of nothing.

@The Genius - Science has not revealed to us that existence came from nothing. The Big Bang is a commonly mistaken theory for explaining such a case.

[Athena]

Intelligent design Whatever the atheist argument is, they cannot deny that the design of the universe has no flaws. It is a design of the most superior caliber. Many other delicate adjustments make this planet ideal for human life. E.g.: the size of the sun, its distance from the earth, the unique physical and chemical properties of water, the wavelength of the sun’s rays, the way that the earth’s atmosphere contains the gases necessary to allow respiration, or the Earth’s magnetic field being ideally suited to human life. We can conclude that there is indeed a plan and a perfect design in place for the survival of humanity. Astrophysicist W. Press insisted it in the simplest manner when he wrote, "there is a grand design in the Universe that favors the development of intelligent life." Again, I will ask the obvious question… who is behind this intelligent design, an intelligent Designer or random co-incidences? You may say that forces that we understand (strong and weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force, gravitational force) the universe but that is another excuse to deny the Creator. Did these forces – part of the intelligent design - create themselves?

How does this go with the idea that God destroyed the earth with a flood? Which one of us would create a perfect earth and then throw in volcanos, earthquakes and tidal waves, disease and draughts that cause famines? If any of us created something that caused so much harm, wouldn't we be called criminal? What perfection are you talking about? If we can not find fault with our violent planet, there is a problem with our thinking. No one thinks heaven will be exactly as our planet.

Perhaps when the poles shift again, people might notice we live despite everything nature can throw at us.

[Athena]

Quote by: Eclipse I don't think that's what he meant. No one, as of now, can explain everything out of nothing. Although it sometimes seems to actually happen, or so I've seen physicists say so.What you try to explain seems just as simple as God. Your claim is an infinite existence. Then again, so it is with God. When someone says something out of nothing I think before that particle came into existence. How did it get there? Scientists seem to have named up to 100 pieces that make up an atom, including neutrons, protons, electrons and there make-ups and so forth. If someone could explain how just one of those came into existence from nothing, all answers would seem so easy. I do believe it is a possibility. But what you suggest here is an infinite and omni-present existence. As far as I'm concerned though, infinite and omni-present existence is not something out of nothing. @The Genius - Science has not revealed to us that existence came from nothing. The Big Bang is a commonly mistaken theory for explaining such a case.

All those subatomic particles are like the gods. They don't really exist, they are words we use to explain phenomena, just as people named gods to explain phenomena. Keep in mind, I am not atheist. :) I just do not accept the bible as a good explanation of anything.

Where is Kuldeep? We need him in this discussion.

[Athena]

Here is something I would use to prove there is a God. This energy field can also be detected with crystals, and our planet is largely crystal. The possibility for understanding God, when we get away from culturally limited and biased holy books, is truly awesome.

The New Age - An Age of Healing & Joy Biologists have discovered a phenomenon that is mind-boggling. They call it a morphogenetic field, or M-field. This is an energy field of consciousness. They have discovered energy fields of consciousness exist not only for animals but also for objects we think of as inanimate, such as crystals. A biologist named Lyall Watson coined a term having to do with this phenomenon. That term is the "hundredth monkey effect." This is the story of how the term came about, as related in Beyond The Quantum by Michael Talbot. Watson relates an unusual incident that allegedly occurred in the 1950s in a population of Japanese monkeys known as Macaca fuscata on the island of Koshima just off the east coast of Kyushu. It seems that while studying the local population of these monkeys, researchers started feeding them sweet potatoes and would dump truckloads of them on the beach for the monkeys to retrieve. The problem was that although the monkeys had developed elaborate feeding habits for all of their indigenous foods, they had never seen sweet potatoes before. Their dilemma was not that they did not like the new treat, but that the sweet potatoes were covered with sand and grit - an unpleasant problem that the monkeys had never before confronted. As Watson tells the story, the monkeys struggled with the problem for awhile, like picnickers assailed by ants, and then an eighteen-month-old female, a sort of monkey genius the researchers knew as Imo, solved the dilemma. Imo discovered that if the gritty sweet potatoes were dunked in the ocean, not only did it remove the sand, but it added an interesting new flavor. Imo next taught the trick to her mother, then her playmates, and slowly the new habit gained a small following in the Koshima colony. Then something remarkable transpired. As Watson relates, the details of what happened next have not yet been published because the primate researchers involved knew that what they would be disclosing was too heretical for general scientific consumption. It seems that one morning the number of monkeys that had learned Imo's washing technique reached a sort of critical mass, and then, suddenly, by that evening, every monkey in the colony was washing potatoes in the surf. Not only that, but researchers reported that troops of monkeys on other islands and even a troop on the mainland at Takasakiyama also suddenly and spontaneously began practicing Imo's washing technique. Although the researchers on Koshima had not observed at precisely what number of monkeys this critical mass was reached, for the sake of speaking about it Watson refers to the monkey individual that put the entire population over the threshold as the proverbial "hundredth monkey." Biologists found that principles which were known to apply in physics also applied in biology in certain ways. An electromagnetic energy field can only accept a certain amount of energy of a reversed polarity - that is, if the energy is positive it can only accept so much negative and vice-versa - until it reaches a decisive point that is called critical mass. When a negative energy field reaches critical mass it reverses and the whole field goes positive. What these biologists discovered is that an energy field of consciousness existed for these monkeys, and that when enough of the monkeys, the "hundredth monkey," had adopted a new survival technique, their energy field of consciousness reached a point of critical mass and altered to make that new technique, that new survival tool, available to all of the monkeys of that species

[Eclipse]

Very interesting. I've noticed the same phenomenon in my lifetime although I never thought much of it until I read that.

Quote by: Athena All those subatomic particles are like the gods. They don't really exist, they are words we use to explain phenomena, just as people named gods to explain phenomena. Keep in mind, I am not atheist. I just do not accept the bible as a good explanation of anything.

This sentence is contradictory. I bolded the parts that are.

Anyway, your post, no matter how interesting it is, can be explained without a god and with a god. Therefore it is not proof for a god, or a lack there of. But this is for a different discussion in a different thread.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: The_Genius who is the creator of science? Man. Man uses science to understand how God has created nature. Atheistic understanding of science has not had much of a success anyway.

Actually, you have it backwards: god is a fiction created by men. Science is what helps us understand the universe.

The evidence is everywhere. Intelligent Design for example. I guess you are sitting in your room. Look at your PC, your books, your shoes, your pen, and of course, yourself… Someone has created them, with a purpose. Same logic applies to the universe.

Horrible analogy. We know through evidence that complex systems can & do come about naturally. There is ZERO evidence of intelligent design. There are simply ignorant ID supporters who ignore / cannot find evidence and assume "goddidit".

Coming from someone who believes we should replace moral values with every single “crazy instincts”?

I can see you aren't able to offer any rebuttal to this aspect of the argument. Kindly craft a valid rebuttal or do not bother addressing it.

[Kamehameha34]

Perhaps when the poles shift again, people might notice we live despite everything nature can throw at us.

I don't get it. This may be off topic, but how does everything go to hell just because we have to flip over compasses for them to work correctly?

[The_Genius]

Isherwood said, Then how was the planet formed so perfectly for human life, as you claim it was? It was formed to support something that wasn't around yet? Were freeways built before there were cars to use them?

There are many places on earth where we do not see freeways OR cars. But having no freeways, does that affect the sustainability of human life? Is that a threat to human life? I must say your argument is very shallow. You argument will only work if you can show me something like “there is not sufficient amount of oxygen on earth”, which would obviously threaten our existence.

Do you accept the reality of Zeus? If not, why not? Humans have been creating and then dismissing gods since they first started to question their world. Atheists go one step further and reject the whole notion of gods.

Zeus is a TV character. Even on TV, he walks, talks and acts like a human. He also has sexual intercourse, which obviously led to the birth of Hercules and other little “gods”. I am actually surprised you couldn’t come up with a decent example. I mean, you would only pose such a question to a polytheist. :)

But if the gods created this world for us, if it's perfect for our lives, why are there any regions at all that are not habitable by man?

This is earth, not heaven. I’m sure you are not experiencing any problem living here. Before you mention global warming I must say, it’s we humans, raping this planet.

And through all this you've still failed to offer any evidence of the " Scientific Reasoning (that) Confirms God's Existence". You've failed to support your own contention. All I see is that you don't value or understand science much at all.

It only proves that you have an atheistic understanding of Science. What type of evidence do you want though?

[The_Genius]

Athena said, However, from a good start, you rapidly decline into biased writing. How many professional naturalist existed in the day of Darwin? Where did they get their degree in naturalism, and who paid them for their research? Who at the time had a better microscope than Darwin's and what made his microscope inferior to the task? Do you recognize the bias of saying Darwin was an ametuer and used a primitive microscope? Those words infer inferiority, but neither is truly important to his work. Darwin based his theory on his observations of nature, not exclusively what he saw through a microscope, and we have learned so much since then, I think anyone who argues against evolution is seriously lacking in knowledge of science.

1. Darwin was not a biologist but a naturalist.

2. The microscope Darwin used was indeed primitive. The structure of a cell seemed very, very simple, which allowed him to guess, “Random chemical reactions formed the first living cell.” In his time, people hardly knew anything about DNA or genes and its complexity. It was very easy to guess wild things…

3. Darwin hoped that in future we would find the fossils that would solve his little puzzle, which would be of intermediate species. Now Athena, show me an ‘undoubted fossil of intermediate species’ such as half-bird/half-snake… If you can, I will believe in evolution.

[The_Genius]

rez said, I thought Newton was a "mathematician","physicist", and "natural philosopher" who studied nature and the physical universe. Anything that he himself as a scientist could not explain was attributed to god. Two hundred years later, scientist's have made more discoveries that further explained Newton's questions.

and your point is?

Too bad Mohammed did not make the prediction of Natural Selection in your magical book, "The Quran" because you would of used that science just like how you used the Big Bang as evidence. Maybe you should tell a Christian why the Big Bang actually occurred, because even though they believe in the same "confirmed" god as you, they do not agree that the Big Bang occurred. If the Big bang is real, then why not evolution? God made the big bang and consequently evolution. No religious nut is forced to choose between science and god because they, like you, can just say "god designed science".

Lol… Keep on brainwashing yourself. You see, evolutionists would never find a fossil of a mythological half-bird / half-snake aka ‘intermediate species.’ I guess you are still waiting for evidence…

There you going using that word "true" again. How exactly can a scientist go about testing god? Do you know what science is? Science studies how things in nature work. God is above nature, therefore, impossible to study. Do you actually think science should follow your method of discovery? For instance this...

That’s the same thing I was telling Zhavric. Science can’t find (as in physically finding) God but yes, scientific reasoning shows there is a Creator with a plan. It sounds lame when you keep on using the word “chance”. Please… we would have needed millions of lucky chances (we both know how illogical that sounds) for us to get where we are today.

A being that could create a computer would have been unimaginable by the human mind 1400 years ago. A being that could create a machine that could fly like a bird and transport hundreds of people would have been unimaginable by the human mind 1400 years ago. It would have been impossible for any human to explain such phenomenon back then. Thus, it was really god who invented such grand objects.

Pathetic argument I must say. You can’t simply compare the invention of computer with the creation of the universe.

[Eclipse]

Quote by: The_Genius Isherwood said, Then how was the planet formed so perfectly for human life, as you claim it was? It was formed to support something that wasn't around yet? Were freeways built before there were cars to use them? There are many places on earth where we do not see freeways OR cars. But having no freeways, does that affect the sustainability of human life? Is that a threat to human life? I must say your argument is very shallow. You argument will only work if you can show me something like “there is not sufficient amount of oxygen on earth”, which would obviously threaten our existence.

You missed the entire analogy my dear friend.

Freeways were built FOR cars.

According to you, as it seems to be argued by Isherwood (forgive me if I'm mistaken), the earth was created FOR life.

What Isherwood is trying to get at here is that in order for something to be built FOR something else there must be the something else in the first place.

If A is built FOR B. Then A~B.

Zeus is a TV character. Even on TV, he walks, talks and acts like a human. He also has sexual intercourse, which obviously led to the birth of Hercules and other little “gods”. I am actually surprised you couldn’t come up with a decent example. I mean, you would only pose such a question to a polytheist.

You missed the point again. Reread the post and answer the question. Zeus was beleived as a real God. Why do you not believe in him. Don't be sarcastic when you answer. Be truthful please.

It only proves that you have an atheistic understanding of Science. What type of evidence do you want though?

Interesing claim. I never knew there was different scientific views. Just honest science and work-with-me science.

2. The microscope Darwin used was indeed primitive. The structure of a cell seemed very, very simple, which allowed him to guess, “Random chemical reactions formed the first living cell.” In his time, people hardly knew anything about DNA or genes and its complexity. It was very easy to guess wild things…

Get your facts straight. Did you even read my post?

3. Darwin hoped that in future we would find the fossils that would solve his little puzzle, which would be of intermediate species. Now Athena, show me an ‘undoubted fossil of intermediate species’ such as half-bird/half-snake… If you can, I will believe in evolution.

That's exactly what he did! He found fossils of ancient horses that were different the horses today! He studied the fact that Leonardo Da Vinci found fossils in the N. Italy mountains (lombardy) that were similiar (not exact, but the predating species) to those of the sea 250 miles away!

Have you ignored our posts entirely?

[Eclipse]

I erased my long post. Here's a simple link for you. Human Evolution: Summary, sources & Dating Tools, by L. Evans

Lol… Keep on brainwashing yourself. You see, evolutionists would never find a fossil of a mythological half-bird / half-snake aka ‘intermediate species.’ I guess you are still waiting for evidence…

Oh? Umm okay. It must be mythical if fossils exist. Try this. This site has plenty of information for you.

[Yasa]

Quote by: The_Genius That’s the same thing I was telling Zhavric. Science can’t find (as in physically finding) God but yes, scientific reasoning shows there is a Creator with a plan. It sounds lame when you keep on using the word “chance”. Please… we would have needed millions of lucky chances (we both know how illogical that sounds) for us to get where we are today.

Reasoning does not mean truth. Because something seems beyond our fathomability doesn't mean there must be a god/creator. Because it seems like there is intelligent design doesn't mean that there is. It's all reasoning (personal), like you said.

[Zhavric]

One other thing...

Scientific Reasoning Confirms God's Existence.....

Many atheists simply say, “Show me evidence of God’s existence or why doesn’t He show himself?” It is understandable that skeptics want evidence, but if we take the definition of God into account, He is not forced to do something whenever billions of his creatures want him to do something. A servant does not challenging his/her master; in this case, it is the Creator of all things.

So, which is it?

Or are you just here to troll?

[rez]

Quote by: The_Genius Lol… Keep on brainwashing yourself. You see, evolutionists would never find a fossil of a mythological half-bird / half-snake aka ‘intermediate species.’ I guess you are still waiting for evidence…

interesting how you would think that a half-bird half-snake fossil would dictate the validity of evolution. This just shows that you do not have a basic clue of what biology is, why should anybody in the 21st century take you serious?

Quote by: Eclipse He found fossils of ancient horses that were different the horses today! He studied the fact that Leonardo Da Vinci found fossils in the N. Italy mountains (lombardy) that were similiar (not exact, but the predating species) to those of the sea 250 miles away!

Have you ignored our posts entirely?

Quote by: The_Genius That’s the same thing I was telling Zhavric. Science can’t find (as in physically finding) God but yes, scientific reasoning shows there is a Creator with a plan.

My point was, science would not physically find this god or be able to find logical reasons as to why it should exist. Science deals with the how and not the why. You never obtain answers when you ask why, therefore, scientific reasoning does not confirm god's existence.

Quote by: The_Genius It sounds lame when you keep on using the word “chance”. Please… we would have needed millions of lucky chances (we both know how illogical that sounds) for us to get where we are today.

what are these millions of lucky chances you speak of?

Quote by: The_Genius Pathetic argument I must say. You can’t simply compare the invention of computer with the creation of the universe.

A complete contradiction to what you say in the first thread. You truly are a genius.

Quote by: The_genius The evidence is everywhere. Intelligent Design for example. I guess you are sitting in your room. Look at your PC, your books, your shoes, your pen, and of course, yourself… Someone has created them, with a purpose. Same logic applies to the universe.

[The_Genius]

Scientific and Logical reasoning helps us in many ways to prove that a Creator had created the universe…

1. Isherwood, like typical atheists, had made it abundantly clear that there is no Creator and the formation of the universe, its precise expansion rate is a result of “mere chance” or “co-incidence.” Now I will tell you why your argument is not only illogical but also mathematically unsound. Sir Roger Penrose – a prominent British mathematician who has won numerous awards for his contributions to physics – considered physical variables in order to determine the possibility of a universe that supports human life coming into existence by mere chance. He had calculated that the universe began at a point constituting approximately 1 part in 10 raised to the 10th power raised to 123rd power of the entire phase space volume of all possible universes. In simple words, the possibility of the universe being created by chance is 1 in 1010123 (couldn't type it properly). In mathematical terms, this means, “zero probability.” Regarding this number, in his book The Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose said,

“This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.”

Roger Penrose concluded that the universe could not have been created by chance. If you do not agree, I suggest you attempt to prove his calculation wrong. Keep in mind that Roger Penrose is not a Theist. :)


2. The theist argument for the possibility of God has goes hand in hand with the Law of Causality. Now, what is the definition of causality?

“Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B is called the effect.”

According to the law of cause and effect, every material effect has to have a sufficient precursor cause. The universe is an effect, a dependent entity since it cannot account for its own being. In his book Not A Chance, R.C. Sproul said, “Logic requires that if something exists contingently, it must have a cause. That is merely to say, if it is an effect it must have an antecedent cause.” The question is, of the universe is an effect, what is the cause? Again, we come to the same conclusion. The universe was created according to the specific plan of its Creator. In The Creator and the Cosmos: How Greatest Scientific Discoveries of The Century Reveal God, Astronomer Hugh Ross commented,

“By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. …It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.”

[The_Genius]

I will get back to all of you but apparently I'm outnumberd, it's gon take time.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: The_Genius 1. In simple words, the possibility of the universe being created by chance is 1 in 1010123 (couldn't type it properly). In mathematical terms, this means, “zero probability.”

Penrose was speaking VERY hypothetically. As long as we're speaking hypothetically we have to take into account other hypotheticals and scale. There is a line of thought that argues our entire universe is one of many. An analogy would be a foam of soap bubbles where each bubble represents an independent universe. If the chances of a universe with life like our own developing are (for the sake of argument) 1 in 1,000,000,000 and we have 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 then one billion of those 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 universes should have life like ours somewhere in them.

I anticipate you'll attempt to dismiss this claim outright on no grounds / the grounds it's a "what if?" Be aware that Penrose's work is no different so if you toss out this point, you also toss out your original assertion.

2. The theist argument for the possibility of God has goes hand in hand with the Law of Causality. Now, what is the definition of causality?

Please.

I'm amazed that anyone still uses this playground logic.

"Everything has to have a cause. God doesn't have a cause. Neener!"

No theist has ever been able to justify this glaringly self-contradictory argument. We are dealing with a regress: we look at ourselves and ask how did we get here? We evolved? Okay how did we do that? We live on a planet? How did it get here? How did the sun get here? How did the big bang happen? Etc. etc.

We're looking for the beginning point. The god hypothesis (the notion that god terminates this regress) is completely untenable. Aside from being absolutely without evidence, it simply trades one regress for another. The question then becomes "what made god?" The 'answer' to this question is a cop-out of tremendous proportion from theists.

I'm sorry, TG, but you've thus far failed to prove science supports religion or the notion that god exists. So far, all you've done is try to evade responsibility for providing evidence and quote mine a few theistic-friendly scientists.