scientific evidence of God

This post is quite possibly the single most idiotic ideology I have ever read in my entire LIFE!

What is pathetic about it is that it attempts to use Physical Laws and apply them to Theology.

One very HUGE HOLE in this stupidity is the stated ideology of a Closed Universal System which we know is an IMPOSSIBILITY as a Black Hole is a perfect representation and evidence that our Universal Reality is NOT a Closed System as well Quantum Mechanics tends to dictate a Multiversal System is in play.

The author of the OP somehow again confuses logic by making the illogical assumption that there is any evidence at all a GOD exists when in fact there does not exist a single solitary iota of evidence to support the existence of a GOD.

Hey...I WISH there was!!!

I wish I could relax knowing that someone was watching over me and as long as I prayed and worshiped this GOD that all my problems and life would be solved and my prayers would be answered.

But then I WOKE UP.

Or actually I turned 10 years old....looked at the world's death and destruction and violence and saw that bad things do happen to good innocent people.

So....if there IS a GOD running things this way....it is time for us to FIRE HIS ASS!!!

AboveAlpha

 

I debunked it and I only had to use one example.

There are probably 100 things written in your OP that are flawed scientifically .

AboveAlpha

 

Understood. Yet that does not address how man came into being. I appreciate your explanation and effort. It speaks to the existence of the universe if I understand you correctly but does not speak to a point where or how began. Would that be accurate? Also, I started looking around the internet using 'how did the universe begin'. I could not find anything definitive or conclusive. Stephen Hawking has a lecture that he put up and concludes that the question still remains on how the universe was formed. Due to strict copyright rules we cannot post any of the lecture but here's the link..........

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

- - - Updated - - -

You imagined you debunked it. Shaking your head left to right is not a refutation.

- - - Updated - - -

Would you like a time out?

 

This attempt is a repeatition of an old 'start' arguement. Science will never be able to answer the question 'why it all started?" The science came close to a start. Present theories are able to explain everything that happened a fraction of nanosecond after the start of big bang. Once the starting point started to explode there appeared space and time, but what can science tell about the times when there was time and a space which hasn't located anywhere? Nothing. Religion can. But strictly speaking this is not a scientific proof of God's existence. Science cannot prove existence or non-existence of God. God cannot be a subject of a natural science.
The attempts to prove God's existence look as naive as an attempt of scientific arguements of moralty. Religion and science have no contradictions. They are two diferent sides of one body, two different spheres of knowledge. It's like music and literature. everything is art but you cannot play a melody of a roman and it is impossible to compose a text of notes. Which is not needed to learn one of these arts, both or to ignore every of their rules.

But I had fun reading. Thanks.

 

Check posts #2, #7, #11, and #29. And next time, perhaps you could read your own thread and understand it instead of needing me to hold your hand.

You could not possibly be any more wrong than you are about that.

The other day someone tried to break into my car. If someone claimed that it was my wife, I would be able to debunk that claim by pointing out that my wife was with me at the time that it happened. I wouldn't be able to answer who DID do it, but I know that the claim is wrong.

Same thing here. I am honest enough to admit that there's a lot we don't know about the universe. I will even admit the remote possibility that I'm wrong and there really is a god. But one thing IS for certain: if there is a god, then the tripe in the OP is not proof of her existence.

 

That's correct, the argument I provide is not an explanation of how the universe started or how humans appeared. It is merely a response to arguments that it is impossible because of the conservation of energy.

It is true that the beginning of the universe is a mystery. We have no method for accurately probing the beginning of the universe, we don't know of a reliable way to find out exactly what happened. We can be fairly certain that there were some incredible relativistic effects there, and probably a whole lot of quantum effects, and quite possibly even higher level theories that we don't know about yet, but we'd be telling ourselves a comfortable falsehood if we said we know what happened. However, that should not be seen as an argument that it could not have happened, it is a limitation of our knowledge of physics, not of physics itself.

The dawn of man is similar. We know that evolution is a viable explanation of man's complexity. We also know that the building blocks of life can be created from non-inert matter under some circumstances. We don't know exactly in what order it happened, but there is nothing indicating that it could not be the case. Again, our lack of explanations seems to be a result of our limited knowledge, not of limitations to biology.

 

I appreciate your insight and analysis. The question of where/when/how we came into existence will never be answered IMO. And these types of discussions, evolution v creation, will never end. I prefer this type of colloquy in furtherance of the discourse as opposed to the viciousness form those who simply wish to rage one way or the other. Thank you for that.

 

How about answering questions in a thread you started?

WHY would proof of a god or gods HAVE to be so COMPLICATED ???

I F there were gods or was a god it would not need all that goobledygoop to prove it...

If "god" wanted christians constantly and desperately trying to prove he exists why doesn't he help them out a little? Where is he?

 

I put up my 'proof'. Put up yours to the contrary.

 

There is no conflict between a persons belief in a GOD and Scientific Data and Realities that we have painstakingly been accumulating over 1000's of years.

Science is simply a METHOD as the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is defined as a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

It is NOT a Religion as some unfortunate highly religious members have stated and the point at which a SCIENTIFIC THEORY....can reasonably or even DEFINITIVELY be proven to be a FACT....is when a PRACTICAL APPLICATION can be created using this scientific theory.

As example EVOLUTION is no longer a Scientific Theory as we can actually create the necessary conditions and OBSERVE actual Biological Evolution happening right before our eyes.

All a person needs to do this is a cheap microscope...$75....a few glass slides a person can buy at any Toy and Hobby Shop....$3....at least 2 pre-prepared Glass Slides with a Commonly existing Bacteria upon them...$5....some Sugar...$2....and either by a few tools which usually come with the Microscope for harvesting Bacteria or just use a razor blade...single.....and you need some BLEACH.

In just a few hours you will be able to VISUALLY SEE EVOLUTION OCCURRING VIA NATURAL SELECTION AND SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.

The prepared Bacteria slides....one you use as a Control Group....the other you use to grow bacteria and you need a pack of clean slides and these are like $1 for 10.

You take a 12 oz coffee cup or plastic cup and make sure it's very clean....sterilize it with bleach first then rinse it out....then add 4 tablespoons of Sugar to the water and stir.

Use an eyedropper...25 Cents and such up some sugar water into it and place a drop on the prepared Bacteria slide and place another drop of sugar water on the other prepared bacteria slide.

Wait about 5 to 10 minutes and look at each slide under the microscope and you will see each slide TEAMING with living bacteria.

Now take these two slides and on one slide using another eye dropper drop a small drop of pure BLEACH onto the slide and on the other bacteria slide drop a very small amount of Sugar water as this is your CONTROL GROUP and you need to make sure the slide does not dry out and you must continue to feed the bacteria every time you drop Bleach on the other slide.

Now after a minute place the bacteria slide you just poisoned with bleach on the scope and look at the bacteria.

You will notice that most are dead and not moving but some will be alive so you will take the Harvesting Tool or use a single edge razor blade and carefully remove a sample by scrapping carefully and place this bacteria sample on a NEW SLIDE by simply sliding the tool or razor under the bacteria on the slide and then putty or wipe them off and on to the new clean slide.

Take a drop of Sugar Water and drop it on the Bleached Bacteria sample and wait 10 minutes and REPEAT THE ENTIRE PROCESS.

After 10 Minutes the almost all dead bleached Bacteria after being fed sugar water will GROW IN NUMBER VIA MITOSIS and you once again with have two slides one that has never had it's bacteria bleached and another that after waiting 10 minutes to regrow bacteria that has been killed by the bleach you will now do it again and drop another drop of bleach just on the same one you bleached before.

Keep repeating this entire process say once every 10 minutes and do it at LEAST 7 times.

You will notice that the more times you keep attempting to kill off the bacteria in one slide with bleach...each time you will see less and less bacteria will die or be effected from being bleached until after about 7 to 10 Times of repeating this process the Bacteria you continued to kill off and then you HARVESTED ONLY THE STRONGEST STILL ALIVE BACTERIA AND CHOSE TO REGROW THEM THAT EVENTUALLY THIS BACTERIA WILL NOT DIE AT ALL AS IT WILL HAVE EFFECTIVELY EVOLVED ON A GENETIC LEVEL TO BE RESISTANT TO BLEACH.

You will at the last time you do this then drop a large drop of bleach upon both Bacteria slides and you will then see how the slide of Bacteria you kept bleaching and then after for the last time you drop a large drop of bleach the Bacteria will hardly be effected by the Bleach.

The other Bacteria slide you have feed the whole time with sugar water when you look at it under the microscope is TEAMING with life but you then drop a large drop of Bleach upon it and you will watch how the Bacteria in your control group almost if not completely DIES.....while the Evolved Bacteria Flourishes.

THAT....is being able to watch EVOLUTION occur right in front of you.

AboveAlpha

 

And the responses from those who claim to have 'proof' to the contrary are no more valid. People take a stand and offer their best effort argument. To think that one argument supersedes the other is naive since neither one is an absolute. The naivety is yours in that regard based on the above observation you have offered. And there can be a scientific argument for morality. Consider those who feel no empathy or feelings of any kind because of a neurological condition. No sense of tight or wrong. Note also that there are many reputable refutations of your big bang theory also. Naivety can be 'universal'.

 

how to fail sixth grade science in three pages
May 23, 2009 — 2 Comments
messenger approaching mercury

When you encounter something profoundly inane on the internet, you have to ask yourself whether it’s a hoax, an elaborate Poe, or if someone really thinks that proselytizing ignorance is the way to go and is willing to associate his name with it. Such is the case with Spike Psarris, an engineer turned evolution debunker armed with clumsy falsehoods about astronomy and the physics of planetary formation in a texbook case of what’s known as The Salem Hypothesis. To find out whether he really means what he says, I did a search and came up with a facepalm-inducing article he wrote for Answers In Genesis. Turns out that unbeknownst to us, the planet Mercury poses such an evolutionary dilemma, scientists might as well shelf the whole theory, take their ball, and go home.

Again, you might be wondering what physics and astronomy have to do with biology. But remember that we’re talking about a publication for a group controlled by a man who thinks that the world could only be 6,000 years old, the Flintstones was a documentary of sorts, and that it all came to an end when a snake enticed a woman to eat an apple. Little things like making sure the right scientific discipline is being critiqued aren’t exactly a big priority here. And being published in magazines ran by Answers In Genesis means you’re serious in perusing at least a part time career in being a public ignoramus. So, in order to live up to the expectations of this bizarre profession, Psarris tries his first assault on modern science thusly:

… Mercury is so dense that its thought to have an iron core occupying some 75% of its diameter. This extraordinary density has generated much turmoil and confusion in evolutionary astronomy. Evolutionists mostly agree on models of planetary formation but their models say Mercury cant be anywhere near as dense as it actually is.

Mercury is about as dense as the Earth and its core is really thought to be 75% of the planet’s diameter. This was known before the first flyby of the planet with Mariner 10, so how exactly it caused so much turmoil for the astronomical community is kind of hard to pin down. I’ve also never heard of evolutionary astronomy. Maybe he means astrobiologists, but I’m not sure how they would be rattled either. Finally, I don’t know how the density of Mercury somehow defies astronomical models. We know that heavier materials will clump closer to stars during solar system formation, so Mercury being composed of 60 to 70% metals in an orbit just a bit under 58 million miles from the Sun isn’t exactly an invalidation of astronomical theories.

Funny enough, in his reference, Psarris says that the high density is a fact, regardless of whether the model is correct or not. Wait, it doesn’t matter if the model he’s trying to disprove is right or wrong, all that matters is the density? So his argument is what exactly? That Mercury is dense? Or maybe that he’s about as dense as the planet’s core? And this isn’t the only bizarre argument he unleashes on his readers.

After decades of struggle, astrophysicists have given up and admitted that Mercurys high density cannot be accommodated within slow-and-gradual-development models. Instead, the preferred explanation now is that billions of years ago, a large object crashed into Mercury, stripping away its lesser-density material, and leaving behind the high-density planet seen today.

Wait, what? Since when? Psarris’ reference of this claim is a meaningless out of context quote from a popular science book on the solar system. The quote itself mentions a hypothesis about a large impact but provides no details on what kind of impact is being talked about. Mercury had a lot of impacts from all sorts of meteors and comets, like any other body in the solar system. Giving us a page and a snippet with no detail, makes no sense whatsoever and can only be used as an example of poor citing skills. But since Spike found himself a line of attack, he’s going to continue with it, citing creationist literature as his support.

He goes on to accuse astronomers of fabricating planetary collisions, invoking some other imaginary event in which Venus’ rotation stopped because of a monster impact, dismissing that Uranus’ tilt could be caused by a gravitational disturbance and rejecting the fact that solar wind strips planetary atmospheres without adequate magnetic fields to protect them. And somehow, the fact that Venus spins very slowly around its axis, that Mars has a thin atmosphere and that Uranus is on its side, are all detrimental blows to the theory of evolution and the concept that it took our solar system 4.6 billion years to coalesce. Mind you, none of this has anything to do with Mercury. It’s just the rant of a zealot foaming at the mouth with indignation while spouting off inanities that should’ve been cleared up for him in middle school.

Psarris also doesn’t even hint at trying to provide any explanations for why any of the anomalies he highlights happen. He just declares them as a problem for astronomy and moves on. And that makes me wonder if he’s just painfully aware of the fact that he doesn’t know enough to pursue this topic and decided to gloss over it, or if he went so far off into his polemics that he didn’t even notice the three claims he made along the way. Space is chaotic. Very large objects in our solar system move at very high speeds. The Sun, like all stars, gives off radiation which interacts with the atmospheres and magnetospheres of planets in relatively predictable ways. What does he want to tell us with clumsy and backhanded criticism of investigating these phenomena? I don’t know and I honestly don’t think he does either.

Next, he tries to convince us that only a 6,000 year old solar system could possibly explain how planets would have active, molten cores that produce magnetic fields. Apparently, since other ignoramuses on Ken Ham’s payroll said so, a 4.5 billion year old planet would cool down and there would be no magnetic field. The facts that rock is a great insulator, that gravitational tugs and pulls help keep cores warm and that sextillions of tons of molten rock don’t exactly cool overnight, managed to evade Psarris who then goes on to smugly pat himself and his fellow Young Earth kooks on the back, ending the whole thing with a Biblical quote and a declaration of how Mercury has science on it’s back and crying for mercy as is required of a good Ken Ham underling.

What I really want to know is what space oriented project hired him as an engineer, as his biography says. I’m really curious how many times an astronomer or physicist talking to him ended up groaning in frustration and storming out the door while muttering something not fit to print in a family-friendly forum…

LINK....http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/05/23/how-to-fail-sixth-grade-science-in-three-pages/

AboveAlpha

 

Thank you. I agree, this type of conversation is much more pleasant.

I think there is still a lot of interesting revelations to be made in all these subjects. We'll never get a videotape of the first organism or a recording of the big bang, but we unravel little pieces all the time. I don't think we'll ever get a full explanation, after all, one can always go "why?" repeatedly, like a child, and the last step, whatever it is, has to be arbitrary or circular. No part of nature, or even God can solve that riddle, I can't see any way that there logically could be an answer. However, striving to find out both gives us a lot of food for thought along the way and provides many other goods, such as inventions and discoveries.

 

I agree for the most part. Science is a good thing and can benefit mankind greatly but isn't equipped to answer the question of whether God exists or not. Science is what it is just like mathematics or history. There are some questions it will never answer which is why it seems so silly when atheists make claims and try to use science to back them up.

 

To all the above, I say amen

 

If the definition of God is " something not totally understood" then this argument may indeed prove the existence of God. This type of argument for the existence of God has been around probably as long as humanity.