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

[Masoom]

Quote by: rez WHY, he asked. Your english is not that good man.

Does it matter why he asked? what i said is the truth.

[rez]

Quote by: Masoom Does it matter why he asked? what i said is the truth.

haha, there are a lot more atheists then theists and we established that, however, the question is why is there more atheists then theists on this forum?

[Masoom]

TG, I wouldn't bother with atheists as they have no logics. Only answer they will give you is proving it...

When 80% evidence and logic prove God exist and 20% not proven how can you say god doesn't exist!! You have no proof at all and what you use as proof is nothing more then explaining the existence of this universe etc and that also is a theory. If you’re right that, this world existed from chemical reactions, then where did that chemical came from? How many coincidences happened and not at once but over and over again, hold on! How come we don't see such coincidence anymore? We should have some super man in the 21st centaury from chemical reactions!!

[rez]

Quote by: Masoom TG, I wouldn't bother with atheists as they have no logics. Only answer they will give you is proving it...

That is how things work. When I write a paper I follow certain standards, or when I design a website for someone I follow certain standards. None of what theist's say follow any type of reasonable standards. To me, you guys are handing in math homework with all the wrong answers.

[Yasa]

Why can't people realize that the answer is unknown? Strange enough that is a subjective view, just like both extremes.. sigh.. These debates always seem to end conclusively (that is sarcasm). When dealing with the limits of our fathomability the "truth" cannot be prooved because proof is subject to humanity and human perspective--ironically this might seem beyond comprehension. How do we know what is "truth" and was is not, anyways? We are dealing with coulds, mights, maybes, probablies and doubtablies. Even if we come accross a 'truth', 'is', etc, how do we know the true validity this? I guess the answer is that because we have to. We must because we are bound by our humanity. It makes me uneasy.

[gallo]

At this point, you have pretty much been shown to be wrong in your ideas about science. You are, indeed, outnumbered by many, many people who are much more educated in this topic than you. In fact, you began with pure nonsense, whether through ignorance or dishonesty I don't know.

Quote by: The_Genius At the time of Newton, science and the concept of God were not considered as conflicting notions.

True. But Newton worked at the end of the period, now called the Scientific Revolution, that began with Copernicus and ended with Newton. This period was marked by the rise of empirical science that broke free from domination by the church. Copernicus withheld his work ( De revolutionibus orbium coelestium) from publication because he knew that it would be regarded as heretical. Half way through the revolution, Galileo was forced to recant under threat of death for his assertion that the earth moved, i.e., that the earth was not the unmoving center of the universe. But still, Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton all believed in God, even if Newton's God wasn't exactly the orthodox Christian God.

Nevertheless, the important point is that during that period the pursuit of science was freed from the imposition of religious dogma. It was, of course, during this time that modern, empirical science was defined. However, the church has never broken away from Aristotelian practices of thinking about questions without first acquiring empirical data.

Quote by: The_Genius However, after amateur naturalist Chares Darwin examined cells with his primitive microscope and promoted the theory of evolution, people were forced to choose between science and God.

How many errors can you cram into a single sentence? First of all, the man's first name was Charles. Second, he was by no means an amateur. Aside from the fact that he and his brother, Erasmus, were avid collectors of insects as children, he studied medicine at Edinburgh University. While there he became a member of the Plinian Society, an academic group interested in the study of natural history. He also took classes from Robert Grant, a renowned naturalist who specialized in aquatic zoology. He also studied under Robert Jameson, where he was introduced to geology and plant taxonomy. When Darwin decided that medicine was not his calling, he enrolled at Christ's College, Cambridge in a Bachelor of Arts with the intent to qualify for education as a parson in the Church of England. While studying there, he was introduced to John Henslow, professor of botany and a respected naturalist. Darwin became Henslow's assistant, devoting more time to the study of natural science than to his arts degree. Nevertheless, Darwin graduated. Henslow recommended Darwin to Adam Sedgwick as a field assistant in his geological surveys. It was while Darwin was working with Sedgwick that the opportunity for a naturalist aboard the Beagle became available. Henslow recommended Darwin for the position.

This was during a time when scientists who studied nature were known as "naturalists." Darwin, mostly through his own efforts, had acquired a superior scientific education. After his graduation, he was working as an assistant to Sedgwick. In other words, a professional scientist in a time when most scientists in England were ordained Anglican priests (Grant, Henslow, and Sedgwick). The clergy had the time to devote to frivolous pursuits like natural history.

So Darwin wasn't an amateur when he set sail aboard the H.M.S. Beagle in 1831. And he certainly wasn't an amateur when he returned in 1836. When he returned he was famous in scientific circles because his letters had been published. He was admitted to the Linnean Society, a society of the most respected scientists of the time. Darwin never worked at any job other than scientist from 1831 until his death in 1882. He was most respected for his work on a variety of subjects. Darwin was the most eminent expert in orchids, coral reefs, earth worms, and barnacles, to name several. All of those before 1859 when he published his theory of evolution by natural selection.

Just count the years between 1831 and 1859. During those years Darwin, although independently wealthy, actually made money with his scientific publications. Science is what Charles Darwin did. To claim that he was an amateur is stupid, ignorant, or dishonest.

Quote by: The_Genius The split between science and God was not only subjective but also ideological.

You mean the split between science and dogma. You are also incorrect in your assertion that it was subjective and ideological. Observations of reality are what they are and religious dogma can't change that.

Quote by: The_Genius Atheist scientists – who were influenced by materialist and positivist philosophies - conditioned themselves to prove that God does not exist.

Now you have crossed into stupidity. Perhaps it is because you don't understand what science is or how it works. Science cannot, and does not try, to prove that your little god does not exist any more than you can or try to prove that the tooth fairy does not exist.

Quote by: The_Genius Their hypothesis were atheistic; any true scientist should have come up with a hypothesis such as “DOES God exist?” instead of “God does not exist”.

Unbelievable ignorance. Science does not consider anything for which there is no evidence, one way or the other. Scientists make no such hypotheses. Science does not ask whether your god, or any other god, exists; nor does it assert that any god does not exist.

In short, if you wish to assert the existance of your little god, then you need to present the evidence.

The rest of your OP falls below this level, so I won't bother. It has already been answered most adequately by others. I can't debunk your nonsense any more than already done.

[another day]

Quote by: Masoom TG, I wouldn't bother with atheists as they have no logics. Only answer they will give you is proving it... When 80% evidence and logic prove God exist and 20% not proven how can you say god doesn't exist!! You have no proof at all and what you use as proof is nothing more then explaining the existence of this universe etc and that also is a theory. If you’re right that, this world existed from chemical reactions, then where did that chemical came from? How many coincidences happened and not at once but over and over again, hold on! How come we don't see such coincidence anymore? We should have some super man in the 21st centaury from chemical reactions!!

You must be a magician because your really great at pulling things out of your ass.

If you’re right that, this world existed from chemical reactions, then where did that chemical came from?

Where did god come from? Oh right, he's eternal, I forget, you theists believe in a concept that is BUILT to be inpenetrable by logic, to stave off rational thought.

You want to know why more atheists frequent debate sites then theists? Because atheists, scientists, are CONSTANT CHALLENGERS of there own believes and ideas. Theists do not like to challenge their own cemented cultist mindframes and therefore, avoid rational thought and conversation like the plague. The ones who do come here do so to preach propaganda.

Everything you say is propaganda. There is no logic, evidence, or thought behind it. You simply declare things as truths. "80% of evidence and logic prove god exist"...pfft..Get off this debate site and go find a soapbox to preach from because your baseless propaganda has no place in an intellectual conversation.

[Jack]

Second, he was by no means an amateur.

To be honest, I've seen the phrase amateur naturalist applied to Darwin on a number of sites and other references. I've think the word amateur in this context means unpaid, not supported by a university or the government. Sort of like an amateur athlete.

[another day]

Quote by: Isherwood To be honest, I've seen the phrase amateur naturalist applied to Darwin on a number of sites and other references. I've think the word amateur in this context means unpaid, not supported by a university or the government. Sort of like an amateur athlete.

amateur does and should always mean unpaid as opposed to professional ...its only misuse that has fueled the use of amateur as an equivalent to mediocre or incompetant.

[gallo]

Quote by: Isherwood To be honest, I've seen the phrase amateur naturalist applied to Darwin on a number of sites and other references. I've think the word amateur in this context means unpaid, not supported by a university or the government. Sort of like an amateur athlete.

OK. Then from the time he graduated from Christ's College, he wasn't an amateur. He was paid by Sedgwick, and he was paid for his service aboard the Beagle. After his return, he was paid for his scientific publications. After 1831 until his death, Darwin did nothing but science, and earned money by doing so. His scientific education was superior to most, through his own efforts. Darwin was one of the most respected scientists of his day. To state that he was an amateur in 1859, when On The Origin Of Species was published ignores reality. Because he was so well known and respected as a scientist, Wallace sent his theory of natural selection to Darwin. Darwin passed it on to Joseph Hooker, who recognized it for the theory that Darwin had revealed to him in 1844. Thus, Wallace and Darwin were co-published in a paper before the Linnean Society in 1858 and Darwin published On The Origin Of Species in 1859.

To say that Darwin was an amateur is about the same as saying that Einstein was an amateur about relativity when he published in 1905.

[Masoom]

Quote by: rez haha, there are a lot more atheists then theists and we established that, however, the question is why is there more atheists then theists on this forum?

Why do you we have more dumb people on earth? that should answer your questions.. Ooooops, no it wouldn't!!!

[loser]

To claim that he was an amateur is stupid, ignorant, or dishonest.

I agree that Darwin was no amateur. He was, however, as you say, stupid, ignorant, and dishonest.

[loser]

amateur does and should always mean unpaid as opposed to professional ...its only misuse that has fueled the use of amateur as an equivalent to mediocre or incompetant.

Yes, but Darwin used deceit to garner funds from the Christian university and to be included among the 'team' aboard the Beagle. He did have professional backing and should not be considered an amateur.

Note: Darwin did not come up with the idea of common ancestry, he built upon what his grandfather (and others) had already begun. He was descended from rich atheists (of Wedgewood fame) and just pretended to still be religious for monetary gain (typical rich tactic, using OPM). In fact, he was atheistic like his father and grandfathers before him. In short, Darwin had an axe to grind.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: loser In short, Darwin had an axe to grind.

Please.

Stating Darwin or any atheist has an axe to grind is like calling a jaywalker a murderer.

The church has set the standard of "axes to grind".

Where was Darwin's agenda? Where in the origins of species did he declare himself a heretic and encourage people to cast off the shackles of religion? Where did he tell people to disobey the clergy and stop going to church?

You have no evidence at all.

[Athena]

Quote by: Masoom TG, I wouldn't bother with atheists as they have no logics. Only answer they will give you is proving it... When 80% evidence and logic prove God exist and 20% not proven how can you say god doesn't exist!! You have no proof at all and what you use as proof is nothing more then explaining the existence of this universe etc and that also is a theory. If you’re right that, this world existed from chemical reactions, then where did that chemical came from? How many coincidences happened and not at once but over and over again, hold on! How come we don't see such coincidence anymore? We should have some super man in the 21st centaury from chemical reactions!!

Until this is acknowledge by religious people, I will continue to bring up the fact that Hebrews translated Sumerian stories about many God and that means Judaism, Christianity and Islam are based in myth.

The super man has already arrived. It is the result of cumlative knowledge over many centuries. If a wizzard of old could make light in a house and water come from faucets in the wall, he would be estatic. We bring people from the brink of death with our medicines, and heal the lame. Why do you lack awe and reverence for what we have acheived? Keep in mind, God didn't build the ark and fill it with animals, Noah did. Why not see all the rest we have achieved as the works of God humans have done and they have achieved with their own effort not by praying to a God to take care of them? By working together we have realized the super man- collective intelligence, and you deny that which is most obvious, while clinging to a belief in supernatural beings of good and evil that we can prove.

[Jack]

When 80% evidence and logic prove God exist and 20% not proven how can you say god doesn't exist!! You have no proof at all

Did you even notice you contradicted yourself within two sentences? You say there's either 20% proof against or none, which is it?

Are you ever going to support your 80% evidence claim? That much evidence should be pretty convincing.

[Fonceai]

ONE piece of actual evidence is all that's really required.

[Athena]

Quote by: loser I agree that Darwin was no amateur. He was, however, as you say, stupid, ignorant, and dishonest.

How dare you!:( Who do you think you are to claim such a learned man stupid and ignorant? What are your qualifications as a person with knowledge and good judgement? Why should anyone pay attention to your opinion?

Darwin could quote from the bible, and was not ignorant of its teachings, nor the teachings of religions around the world. He questioned why one belief should be considered more true than another, and so do I. Why would a God give only a handful of people his truth, and speak with all people?

Darwin gives an excellent for explanation of why natural selection would result in more pleasure than suffering, and therefore, the idea of being blessed by a God.

I really like his explanation of why we choose to be good rather than bad..

Charles Darwin: Religious belief A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. A dog acts in this manner, but he does so blindly. A man, on the other hand, looks forwards and backwards, and compares his various feelings, desires and recollections. He then finds, in accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the social instincts. If he acts for the good of others, he will recieve the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives; and this latter gain undoubtely is the highest pleasure on this earth. By degrees it will become intolerable to him to obey his sensuous passions rather than his higher impulses, which when rendered habitual may be almost called instincts. His reason may occasionally tell him to act in opposition to the opinion of others, whose approbiation he will then not recieve; but he will still have the solid satisfactionof knowing that he has followed his innermost guide or conscience. -- As for myself I believe that I have acted rightly in steadily following and devoting my life to science. I feel no remorse from having committed any great sin, but have often and often regretted that I have not done more direct good to my fellow creatures. My sole and poor excuse is much ill-health and my mental constitution, which makes it extremely difficult for me to turn from one subject or occupation to another. I can imagine with high satisfaction giving up my whole life to philantropy, but not a portion of it; though this would have been a far better line of conduct.

Although many of us believe holy books to be good reasoning based on misconcepts and myth, we desire with all our hearts to benefit humanity. Until all religious people recognize this truth, they are working with a false belief that is very harmful to our relationships, and results in the exploitation of humans and wars. The worst wrong of their religious belief, is not what they believe of a God, but what they believe of human nature.

[The_Genius]

Quote by: Zhavric 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.

It doesn't really matter whether Penrose was speaking hypothetically or not. We both know that without a Creator, a huge amount of luck was needed for such complex design to create itself. The Anthropic Principle makes more sense than simply saying, "hey, it's all mere chance dude." That's a pathetic argument. There are billions of galaxies working in a harmony as we notice the 'order' that exists in the universe. 'Mere chance' theory is pretty much bullshit...

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.

That's what I mean when I say 'atheistic understanding of science'. What is "theistic-friendly scientists"???

God is not physical and thus Physics can't find God. But Physics make us understand how nature works, how the universe began and how complex Intelligent Design is. Just because you are conditioned to disbelieve in God, it does not mean you are right. You are only throwing the "mere chance" phrase to deny the truth.

[The_Genius]

Quote by: Athena Until this is acknowledge by religious people, I will continue to bring up the fact that Hebrews translated Sumerian stories about many God and that means Judaism, Christianity and Islam are based in myth. The super man has already arrived. It is the result of cumlative knowledge over many centuries. If a wizzard of old could make light in a house and water come from faucets in the wall, he would be estatic. We bring people from the brink of death with our medicines, and heal the lame. Why do you lack awe and reverence for what we have acheived? Keep in mind, God didn't build the ark and fill it with animals, Noah did. Why not see all the rest we have achieved as the works of God humans have done and they have achieved with their own effort not by praying to a God to take care of them? By working together we have realized the super man- collective intelligence, and you deny that which is most obvious, while clinging to a belief in supernatural beings of good and evil that we can prove.

The reason why it would be wrong to call Abrahamic religions "myths" is, these religions did not suffer the same fate as ancient Greek / Egyptians religions. Prophets came to mankind repeatedly and after they died, many stories were changed orally and they became myths. However, it would be ridiculous to compare Christianity, Judaism and Islam with Greek mythology. They all received revelations but people distorted them.

We have no historical evidence that Zeus or Hercules or any other "Gods"...

But we have Mohammed (saw)'s grave in Saudi Arabia, we all know Jesus existed...