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

[Zhavric]

TG, how ever "huge" the luck necessary for a universe without a creator, the amount of luck needed for a creator is many orders of magnitude larger. Acknowledging the tremendous cop-out that is "god always existed", we are left with two options:

God is irreducably complex. What intelligence made god? What intelligence made the intelligence that made god? And so on.

God is not irreducably complex? What process lead to god coming into being? How did that process begin?

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

I know... kind of an oxymoron isn't it? Like "military intelligence"...

God is not physical and thus Physics can't find God.

Horrible, horrible assertion. Simply because one discipline of science cannot account for a phenomenon doesn't mean science is unable to.

Remember that the god hypothesis* is like any other scientific hypothesis and requires evidence & support. Thus far, you have presented none.





*there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us

[Zhavric]

Quote by: The_Genius 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...

You have absolutely ZERO evidence any of your alleged holy men were anything EXCEPT charlatans / liars / tale tellers / etc. Why do you continually argue as though this is not the case? It's very dishonest.

[The_Genius]

I'm giving my PC to a repair shop. It should be back by monday. So I won't be online for a few days...

[The_Genius]

Quote by: Zhavric You have absolutely ZERO evidence any of your alleged holy men were anything EXCEPT charlatans / liars / tale tellers / etc. Why do you continually argue as though this is not the case? It's very dishonest.

and I think you are deliberately denying the truth. Of course, you couldn't prove they were unholy...

[Destroyer]

Quote by: Zhavric Acknowledging the tremendous cop-out that is "god always existed", we are left with two options: God is irreducably complex. What intelligence made god? What intelligence made the intelligence that made god? And so on. God is not irreducably complex? What process lead to god coming into being? How did that process begin?

Laughably absurd.

"god always existed" is a "cop-out", why? Because Richard Dawkins says so? Please.

Theists have believed that God always existed long before Dawkins wrote his silly book. And unless you believe the absurd proposition that there exists an infinite regress of events, you too believe that something exists eternally - you just may not think that thing is God. "God existing eternally" follows from the logical deduction that an infinite regress of events is absurd/impossible and that for there to exist anything, something has to have existed forever. For various reason, theists believe this "thing" to be God. Atheist either believe the universe popped into existence out of nothing, "don't know", or believe in an infinite regress of events.

You aren't seriously advocating an infinite regress of events, are you Zhav?

I'm reminded of this parody of Dawkins:

To say that it took a Darwinist to do the screwing in of the lightbulb is to explain precisely nothing. The obvious question becomes: Who did the screwing to create the Darwinist screwer? And who did the screwing to create that screwer? There would have to be an infinite regress of screwers. And if you invoke some invisible, mystical Unscrewed Screwer (for which we have no credible evidence) to start the whole thing off, why not just say that the lightbulb screwed itself in and be done with it?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Destroyer "god always existed" is a "cop-out", why?

You posted that wrong. What you meant to ask was "God always existed!?!?" Why?

Atheist either believe the universe popped into existence out of nothing, "don't know", or believe in an infinite regress of events.

The bolded bits are straw man arguments. No atheist I know holds these positions. The truth is that we don't know and that the god hypothesis is horribly flawed.

Understand that the concept of god is at least as sophisticated & complex as our own universe if not more so. Thus, god in no way terminates the regress of questions we're faced with. God is a needlessly "complex" answer in that it raises more questions than it solves. Who made god? What process lead to god's formation? If the god hypothesis involves a god that always existed, why can't we have a universe that always existed?

I was looking forward to something of substance to debate after your impotant parody, but that's where your post ended. :(

[Zhavric]

Quote by: The_Genius Of course, you couldn't prove they were unholy...

This is a fallacy called "shifting the burden of proof". It's your job to prove they were holy using valid logic / reason / evidence.

[xyzer]

Wouldn't it be better to just conclude there is no absolute consensus among scientists or religious proponents! After all they are human?

Because we have no absolute metaphsical proof, humans can rationalize almost any theory of creation and why we are here, that can be imagined? Because we can only theorize the 'big bang' and the workings of the observable universe there is room here too for varying theories? Religions are humanly conceived and thus subject to human flaws of logic and invention? Science if also humanly driven resulting in humanly conceived conclusions?

Thus, arguments border from the absurdities of human thinking. to the hypothetical results of scientific study and observation? Neither of which are absolutely accepted by all..Neither of which will result in absolute consensus?

Why fight it? Why not accept scientific theories that conform to your version of reality...and accept religious beliefs, or disbelifs, whether you believe the same way or not? If humans kept from getting upset about differences we could live in harmony?
Some religions(Islam comes to mind) object to disbelievers and condemn them to expulsion from society? Or to be subjected to a jihad? Crazy humanly flawed world we live in, is it not?

[Fonceai]

That makes three now... Yasa, xyzer, and myself... at least as far as I've seen lately... who state that it's still up in the air and really up to you what you choose to believe.

[gallo]

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

Aren't you afraid that such remarks might reflect negatively on your own intelligence, education, and honesty?

Quote by: loser Yes, but Darwin used deceit to garner funds from the Christian university and to be included among the 'team' aboard the Beagle.

Is that lie your own or are you just a dupe parroting what you heard from your preacher? First of all, Darwin's father paid for his education at both Edinburgh University and at Christ's College, Cambridge. Darwin spent two years at Edinburgh University studying medicine, where he also studied natural science with Robert Grant (marine biology and invertebrate zoology), and Robert Jameson (botany and geology), both very respected scientists of the day. It should be noted that Darwin also acted as Jameson's assistant in the Natural History Museum at the University.

I already mentioned that Darwin's course at Christ's College was in preparation to become a parson in the Anglican church. He decided on this course because the Anglican clergy had considerable free time to pursue other interests, many of them were scientists. Darwin studies under two at Christ's College, first John Henslow and then Adam Sedgwick, the first an Anglican cleric and the second the son of an Anglican cleric.

It was while Darwin was assisting Sedgwick on a survey of the geology of Wales (I think) that Captain FitzRoy of the H.M.S. Beagle asked if he could recommend a young gentleman and qualified naturalist to accompany him aboard the Beagle. Henslow recommended Darwin.

Quote by: loser He did have professional backing and should not be considered an amateur.

Actually, Darwin didn't have "professional" backing since it was his father who had paid for his education. However, after his graduation in 1831 Darwin never worked at anything else but science. He even made enough money by doing so that he could have supported himself, unusual in that day. While he was inexperienced and young in 1831, he had acquired an outstanding scientific education. When he returned to England in 1836, Darwin found that he had become a famous and very respected scientist. In the next 20 years Darwin became a world authority on orchids, barnacles, coral reefs (from his Beagle studies), and earth worms, as well as a respected pigeon breeder.

Quote by: loser Note: Darwin did not come up with the idea of common ancestry, he built upon what his grandfather (and others) had already begun.

Actually, it was the idea that lineages of organisms change over time that was not original with Darwin. But that is just one of the theories in On The Origin Of Species. The others are original with Darwin. For example, gradualism, population speciation, and of course, common descent. But his most famous theory was that of natural selection.

Quote by: loser He was descended from rich atheists (of Wedgewood fame) and just pretended to still be religious for monetary gain (typical rich tactic, using OPM).

So my suspicions about why so many christian evangelists are rich are correct? I know that religion is big business in this country, but I wouldn't have thought that it would have been all that profitable in Darwin's time. Perhaps you can tell us about all the money Darwin made by pretending that he was religious. Perhaps you can tell us how you know that Darwin was pretending, since he didn't actually mention his religion much in his writings.

Quote by: loser In fact, he was atheistic like his father and grandfathers before him. In short, Darwin had an axe to grind.

Really? What axe? How do you know that Darwin was an atheist? People who have studied his life and writings aren't sure. Some agree that after 1851 he was agnostic, and others think he was atheistic. Darwin didn't say much about it, and from what he did say it seems that he was agnostic. Of course, he was pushed in that direction when he realized how useless prayer was as he watched his 10 year old daughter die slowly.

But I guess Darwin fooled them to the end since he is now buried at Westminster Abby in the Nave along with Newton, Kelvin, Maxwell, Lyell, Rutherford, and others.

[Destroyer]

Quote by: Zhavric You posted that wrong. What you meant to ask was "God always existed!?!?" Why?

I explained why, weren't you paying attention? I mean, in the very next spot you quoted me, you quoted the tail end of where I addressed this:


"God existing eternally" follows from the logical deduction that an infinite regress of events is absurd/impossible and that for there to exist anything, something has to have existed forever. For various reason, theists believe this "thing" to be God. Atheist either believe the universe popped into existence out of nothing, "don't know", or believe in an infinite regress of events.

The bolded bits are straw man arguments. No atheist I know holds these positions.

I'll give you 2. The atheist philosopher Quinten Smith holds that the universe sprang from nothing. And GodlessSkept from ODN hold to infinite regress. If you really want to make an issue of this, start another thread and I'll give plenty of other examples with many links. Right now though, I'm tempted to call "red herring". Not seeing what this has to do with your initial assertion at all.

Understand that the concept of god is at least as sophisticated & complex as our own universe if not more so.

Nope. You're applying conditions to unconditioned realities. You're trying to hamstring the cause of the universe into following all of the laws OF this universe when, whatever "created" the universe is not bound by the laws of this universe in the first place, by very definition.

Furthermore, who says God has to be "complex". Many throughout history have argued that God is in fact, very simple.

But let's go with your assertion for a moment, in what way would God be "complex"? Is it that he would have to have many parts working together? If so, then your challenge still fails as the traditional understanding of God is a being WITHOUT parts, ie a non-corporeal spirit.

Thus, god in no way terminates the regress of questions we're faced with. God is a needlessly "complex" answer in that it raises more questions than it solves. Who made god?

Already answered, see above. You erroneously label "God always existed" as a "cop-out", without giving ANY justification and then ignore my explanation as to why God always existed. In fact, your silly questions apply to ANYTHING creating the universe - "Who/What made X?". So, it it's merely more questions your afraid of, you shouldn't be wondering about the origin of the universe.

If the god hypothesis involves a god that always existed, why can't we have a universe that always existed?

Hypothetically, the universe COULD have always existed. Unfortunately for you, all the evidence we have, suggests the universe is finite.

I was looking forward to something of substance to debate after your impotant parody, but that's where your post ended.

Funny that you'd say that as your whole "argument" is a silly and almost childlike objection ("Who made God") - questions that are debated in the halls of elementary schools.

I'm also curious as to how the parody is "impotant", when it's almost EXACTLY what Dawkins is doing. Summarily dismissing something out of hand because it might bring up another question. What he doesn't realize (or simply ignores) is that this silly logic applies to any non-God hypothesis you think of as well. ALL the evidence points to the universe BEGINNING at some point and that it's finite - so the question becomes "What started the universe?". Anything you think of is going to bring up other questions, "where did X come from", "is X eternal" etc. etc.

In fact, that's normally how scientific inquiry goes. You discover the cause of a particular effect and then you need to account for the cause of the cause that you just discovered.

[Masoom]

Charles Darwin Video

Darwin!! lolzzz

[Jack]

Nothing biased about that site, eh Masoom?

If we are willing to accept the Bible as containing truth, then we know the answer to "where did we come from?" According to the ancient scriptures, we were created by God. So the next question is…why? After all, He’s God, and as such, He certainly doesn't need us for anything -- so why did He create us? Who is God really? What does He see in us, really?

I have a real issue with religious sites that discuss science.

[rez]

Quote by: Masoom Charles Darwin Video Darwin!! lolzzz

Masoom, I actually watched that show too! I even made a thread about it some time ago.

irreducible-complexity

[Yasa]

Most of you fail to realize that your fathomability is limited. Your humanity is your flaw and in being human your logic need not apply when dealing with these questions. As such, nothing can be concluded.

[Jack]

Most of you fail to realize that your fathomability is limited. Your humanity is your flaw and in being human your logic need not apply when dealing with these questions. As such, nothing can be concluded.

That's been noted. We are still permitted to question what we can perceive within the obvious limitations. If you allowed the fact that we cannot escape the limitations of our humanity to discourage you from questioning and wanting to learn more, that would be unfortunate.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Isherwood That's been noted. We are still permitted to question what we can perceive within the obvious limitations. If you allowed the fact that we cannot escape the limitations of our humanity to discourage you from questioning and wanting to learn more, that would be unfortunate.

Touché Isherwood, touché.

[Kuldeep]

Athena, I had some personal work and was out of station for few weeks. I did went through the full five page unconclusive discussion over God or nor God!

But nothing interested me other than it ran into five pages which might approach 10...15...

I have already posted my views many a times on various threads relating to God. For those who might have missed, my feeling, in summery, is that God is unconceivable identity framed by human mind. This whole universe is one of the infinite properties of that unconcievable identity. Universe is eternal and so is the unconcievable identity.

Material and its related functions, biology, physics, chemistry are all the the physical sub-properties based on cause and effect funda. to me even meta-physical phenominas are also govened by cause and effect say emotions, feeling..... etc. Funniest property is the consciousness which dewells in both living and non-living matter, grossly in animals, humans in particular. Duality exists due to individual mind consciousness. When individuality Ego is erased the absolute consciousness predominates which is that unconcievable identity.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Destroyer I explained why, weren't you paying attention? I mean, in the very next spot you quoted me, you quoted the tail end of where I addressed this: "God existing eternally" follows from the logical deduction that an infinite regress of events is absurd/impossible and that for there to exist anything, something has to have existed forever.

I always pay attention to posts as entertaining as yours.

The bolded bit is completely without support and nonsensical.

I'll give you 2. The atheist philosopher Quinten Smith holds that the universe sprang from nothing.

Support or retract. I don't see anything in Smith's writings of the sort. Clearly, you have made a gross oversimplification.

And GodlessSkept from ODN hold to infinite regress.

LOL hahahahaha GodlessSkept from ODN? So, we have some quote mining in the works and a less than 500 post count wonder from a website as your "evidence"? Amazing. Clearly, you've demonstrated your point beyond any shadow of a doubt by not linking to a credited individual and pointing to a non-credited one.

You're smarter than that, nan.

Nope. You're applying conditions to unconditioned realities. You're trying to hamstring the cause of the universe into following all of the laws OF this universe when, whatever "created" the universe is not bound by the laws of this universe in the first place, by very definition.

What are you talking about?

What evidence do you have the laws OF the universe then were different? Since when do claims not require evidence? Why do you think the god hypothesis gets a free ride?

Furthermore, who says God has to be "complex". Many throughout history have argued that God is in fact, very simple.

Probably the same people who argued the earth was flat. Regardless, appealing to popular opinion & tradition cannot change the fact the god hypothesis is a shoddy one.

But let's go with your assertion for a moment, in what way would God be "complex"?

"Complex" simply means it's an answer that raises more questions than it answers. Take the question "Where are my car keys?"

Simple - Between the sofa cushions.

Complex - Stolen by 'key gnomes'.

Even though there are many steps in the process of losing one's keys in the sofa, it's still "simple" because it leaves us with a clear understanding and doesn't cause more questions than it answers.

Already answered, see above. You erroneously label "God always existed" as a "cop-out", without giving ANY justification and then ignore my explanation as to why God always existed.

You never gave an explanation of why god always existed. You copped out. Again.

Hypothetically, the universe COULD have always existed. Unfortunately for you, all the evidence we have, suggests the universe is finite.

You don't want to start looking at evidence because you'll start to see there isn't any for a tri-omni god or the god hypothesis.

Funny that you'd say that as your whole "argument" is a silly and almost childlike objection ("Who made God") - questions that are debated in the halls of elementary schools.

You're so wrapped up in your theistic dogma that you can't even examine the issue honestly, thus your appeal to ridicule (a fallacy).

I'm also curious as to how the parody is "impotant", when it's almost EXACTLY what Dawkins is doing. Summarily dismissing something out of hand because it might bring up another question.

Straw man. Dawkins isn't "dismissing out of hand".

Dawkins is giving honest evaluation to the god hypothesis and finding it sorely lacking.

In fact, that's normally how scientific inquiry goes. You discover the cause of a particular effect and then you need to account for the cause of the cause that you just discovered.

Right. What you don't do is invent a cause for an observed affect and declare that cause to be off-limits from rational inquiry / immune to the burden of proof. That would be a dishonesty of theistic proportions.

[Masoom]

Quote by: Kuldeep Athena, I had some personal work and was out of station for few weeks. I did went through the full five page unconclusive discussion over God or nor God! But nothing interested me other than it ran into five pages which might approach 10...15... I have already posted my views many a times on various threads relating to God. For those who might have missed, my feeling, in summery, is that God is unconceivable identity framed by human mind. This whole universe is one of the infinite properties of that unconcievable identity. Universe is eternal and so is the unconcievable identity. Material and its related functions, biology, physics, chemistry are all the the physical sub-properties based on cause and effect funda. to me even meta-physical phenominas are also govened by cause and effect say emotions, feeling..... etc. Funniest property is the consciousness which dewells in both living and non-living matter, grossly in animals, humans in particular. Duality exists due to individual mind consciousness. When individuality Ego is erased the absolute consciousness predominates which is that unconcievable identity.

Lol.. where did you get this information from that this world is infinite Reading your post I don't think I would waste my time with you, every post you made you repeated this world is infinite, this is laughable.

Even Hinduism that have man made gods and goddesses don’t sound so ridiculous as you.