Will String theory eliminate God ?

And who wrote the 'law of nature'? What forest was it printed in? What language was it first published in? When was it first published? Schizophrenia would be better used to dictate belief in what other people such as scientists tell you are existing but cannot show a single example of some of those things that they declare to actually exist.

 

Such as the Pink Panda?

 

You have a difficulty with provable science and would prefer to go with an unproven belief in so fictitious being.

The law of nature is written on all we see. A tree seed falls on the ground it is covered by falling leaves dirt and gets itself into the earth. It always grows up the branches and leaves do not sprout under ground. That is a law of nature.
When water freezes it floats it just doesn't change one day and sink. That is a law of nature.
When moisture builds in the sky it turns into a cloud. When the cloud is laden with moisture it rains. That is a law of nature. It does not change.
The laws of nature are visible.
The earth rotates it moves around the sun the moon moves around the earth. That is the way it is and has been. That is a law of the nature of the cosmos.
It does not take a guide book to know these things just from simple observation they are truths. You have a problem with all of the laws of nature and require some unproven guiding hand? That is a delusion.
I wake in the morning or whenever. One day I will not. The body ceases to function. You are asking me to believe that I will morph into some being and live happily ever after in some imaginary place. That makes no sense at all. If one exhumes a body it's still there or whats left after the laws of nature decay the corpse.
All natural and all in good order as we can all see.
It will never rain at -50 degrees. A law of nature.

 

You seemingly have a problem with making presumptions. As a result you make statements that are muddied by the application of 'ignorance of the subject matter'... subject matter being me and my attitude about provable science. Can science 'prove' anything? The answer to that question has already been given by several non-theists on this forum, so be careful how you answer. So, as everyone can see, you are placing your reliance on 'provable science', then I would challenge you to prove the existence of a single electron. How much does one weigh; what are the dimensions of an electron; Have you ever seen a single electron? Have you ever held a single electron between your fingers so that you could make a visual inspection of that single electron?

Well, that is mighty strange. I have numerous objects sitting in front of me and you are declaring that " The law of nature is written on all we see.", yet I cannot see any writing on any of those items that declare "Laws of Nature", other than when I type those words and they appear on my computer screen; but my computer screen is not "all" that I "see". Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

I suppose then that the 'cosmos' has the law of nature written on it also?

Well, I am observing and I don't see that claim written on anything. What type of drugs have you been using?

Your problem with presumption is showing again. I have no problem with the laws of nature, but I still cannot find them 'written on all that " I "see". And NO! I don't need an unproven guiding hand, unless it is yours so that you can show me where those laws of nature are written on all that I see.

Yep! I would also agree that you are being delusional with your declaration about the laws of nature being written on all that I see.

OK

Wrong again. I have not asked you to believe in anything. You truly are delusional.

Again, I agree with you that it makes no sense for you to say that the laws of nature are written on all that I see.

First of all, I don't have a license to exhume any body. So again, you are making a presumption of what I do.

If a body were to be exhumed, I would think that the person exhuming that body would not find that 'all is in order'. The very fact that the body has started decaying, shows that the body is no-longer 'in order'.

Is that a -50 degrees perpendicular to the normal 90 degree angle of fall for any given object that is not being affected by external forces? Would that negative 50 degree fall be to the right or left?

 

Bump this one for Bishadi.

 

String Theory isn't a good theory. For one you would need a particle accelerator with the diameter of the milky way galaxy smashing particles to produce strings.

 

You have a problem coming up with evidence of god. When you do that maybe you have something to debate about. I have things to say you have an empty cup and a meaningless book. Come up with something to debate on. You have stated nothing. Here is a question that you will not answer. Show me proof of god? How hard is that if you believe prove it is more than delusion. Prove it!

 

How sad you must be. It is you that cannot come up with any evidence either for or against God. I personally don't need any evidence as you call it. The evidence I need is already here, present and accounted for. It is regrettable that you are so far into the backwoods that you cannot see the sunshine.

I have stated things in refutation to the left field arguments that you wanted to assert and all you could do is cry about me allegedly talking about things that were not relevant to the things that you integrated into the discussion. The proper discussion was whether or not string theory would eliminate God. It has already been disclosed by other members of this forum, both Theist and non-theist, that the string theory is garbage, therefore the proper answer to the question formulating this thread would be NO. String theory will not eliminate God.

Because of the title of the thread, there is a presupposition that God does exist. God would have to exist at the least as a presupposition in order for the thread title not to be a flame bait thread. So, if you want evidence of God, look back at the OP... and the Thread title. There is your proof.

Further more, as pointed out in the link that I provided in another thread ( http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ientific-proof ), there is no valid thing called 'scientific proof' of anything. So, would you like to see some Ecclesiastical proof of the existence of God?

 

If the string theory and/or one of her followers would be a true theory (more exactly: a modest theory what is able to produce views on facts what are able to interact with the nature all around and what is able in this way to ask the nature itselve via everywhere reproduceable experiments) then we have to ask ourselve why everything in this multiverse(s) - what will maybe replace or expand our knowledge about this special universe here - is following the 'human' logos - athough this multiverse(s) is for sure not produced from our own minds. For sure I don't know anything about that I ever produced any multiverses(s) so it has to follow my laws. So why should be anything from me or any other human being be a part of any explanation about a/the uni/multi/verse(s) at all? Why should there be in general any explanation at all? Nihilism - as senseless and deadly as nihilism is - could be another explanation. There's only one problem in this case: Why should anyone prefer deadly and destructive ways to find explanations if he's also able to use ways for explanations what are full of life and love?

If we are asking metaphysically ourselve today for example "Is mathematics the language of nature?" then we are asking this because we believe that the world is full of it's own logos (=word of god) and not full of the logos of human beings - although mathematics is nothing else than only an expression of human thoughts.

http://youtu.be/lMxBpPcoWf0

 

Have i once used the word science in my posts. No I haven't. You have nothing to offer. You have no leg to stand on. Until you come up with some evidence it serves no purpose to discuss the topic. Your empty cup is empty.
If you have evidence come up with it. If you don't you're like the rest of the believers delusional.
There is no proof of god nor evidence you have nothing. Your like a beggar on the street picking at scrapes. It's really pathetic how believers do everything they can to hide behind deflection and will never state the real true. There is no proof of or evidence of god. The position you take is that of nonsense you might just as well believe in Thor. Same thing only a myth under a different name. Let me know if you are ever ready to answer even one question I asked.

I'll give one other opportunity. What card do I have on my desk? Hey god should be able to give you the answer so you can save face. LOL laughable the entire idea of god is laughable and for adult to believe that is even funnier. Somewhere in the bible it eave says something about putting away childish things. Time for you to do that with fairy tales.

 

Prove god. One shred of evidence. Put up or shut up. Actual evidence.

 

OK, so you did not use the word "science".. Yet you demand 'proof'... what type of proof do you demand? I offered you evidence and you don't even acknowledge that offer. You I do believe are maniacal. You don't know what you want. So answer my question. What kind of evidence do you want? Be specific. Or can you?

Evidence was offered. Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21 . You refuse to specify what type of evidence you require so I gave you the generic version of evidence which happens to be Ecclesiastical. Anything else would be construed as scientific evidence and scientific evidence is not PROOF of anything. But if you are going to take that scientific route, then you must also deny the Ecclesiastical evidence, as it too is physical and would therefore be scientific.. you cannot win ... because you cannot define the evidence that you are seeking.

As I stated before, science has no proof of anything, but there is evidence of everything.

Ahh! You are desiring spiritual evidence. Desiring me to look across time and space and tell you what card you have on your desk. Silly boy... regardless of what I were to say, you would simply deny my answer as being incorrect... thus PROVING nothing... You want spiritual evidence... I don't believe you do... I believe all you want to do is cry and moan and groan, because your science has been put to shame by others of the scientific community in declaring that science has no proof of anything. You poor little thing you. Should we call your mommy and have her come dry your eyes and give you a bottle before bedtime. Perhaps she should also tuck you in and tell you a bedtime story.

 

Whatever your (anti-)religion is - it is for sure not my religion. And more than this: I could understand someone who would just simple shoot you immediatelly down if this is the normal way how you are speaking with other human beings, Prussian.

http://youtu.be/61PL3KJFPss

 

We have to folks! The empirical verifiable evidence that proves god w/o a shadow of doubt: 2 guys playing musical instruments!!!!!

 

The theist doesn't have any evidence, they have 'truths' :rolleys:

The problem with truths is, tell a lie long enough and that lie becomes a truth.

 

The bold is evidence of nothing. It is a book written by who knows who and has no collaborative evidence. The book is hear say.
Anyone can write a book just like that and have it be as ridiculous.

Here is an example Two thousand people saw Incorporeal today walk on water. Incorporeal denies this by the two thousand people who saw it know that Incorporeal is such and such... Who can dispute that. No one and that is the same with the bible it is proof only that it was written thousands of years ago. That is not a proof at all. You have no idea what a proof is.
I have had a card laying on my desk now for hours. If there is a god tell me what that card is. It should know and tell you what it is. Is your god so weak it can't guess a card.

I am not crying over this. I feel sorry for you . You're pathetic attempt to make and argument when you have nothing is a diversion from my work. I enjoy how well you deflect and have no clue whatever what you believe. Good luck with that.
The other thing I find funny is you are the one attacking me it shows just how shallow you are. When all else fails attack your opponent.

 

You are not even able to prove that I am existing. Or do you think the rectangle full of light in front of you with some confusing streaks is a human being? Do you really think if you would put your monitor under a microscope you will be able to find me there? Even if you would be in front of me you could give me no evident prove that I am existing what is satisfying for a real philosopher. Everyone could call you a crazy person because you are speaking your whole day long with people where you don't have any idea how they are really existing if they are existing. But it would be indeed crazy to doubt about my existance - although I am for you only an object of your own sensation and imagination. There are even lots of things you don't have only a little idea about what you could ask me because you are not able to know something about. But if I'm right then you like to tell me that god is not existing and all Christians are idiots because science is the only true religion. Do you have any idea about natural science - and what it is able to prove and what it is not able to prove?

http://youtu.be/4WBmqz_qh_o

 

Come back when you have some empirical verifiable evidence. I don't care about your philosophical nonsense.

What are you John Cena? You can't see me

 

If you look at your monitor long enough do you see god. If so you're as delusional as the rest of your god bodies.

 

Heres a good excerise on how the eyes deceive you:

 

Good grieve - there's someone who has no idea about religion, no idea about natural science and someone who likes to explain an origOnal german barbar that he's a cheap copy of a barbar. Be happy that I don't know who your mother is.

http://youtu.be/U5bxT-j9UOQ

 

Good grief is right! You respond to smileyfaces request of putting up some actual evidence for 'god' with a you tube video of a guy playing a guitar with an accordionist. And now Im the one that doesnt have a clue?

 

Tell me something about the string theory and what it is able to prove and what it is not able to prove and the reasons why it is so. Tell me something about god and his reasons and his love. And tell me something about the fight between the string theory and god and tell me something about realism and the good way what leads from hateful confusion to a lovely clearness.

http://youtu.be/Yqa82hSWohc

 

Note; These are excerpts of Bishadis reply in some cases.

YES Jesus taught!

I may not fully agree with that assessment. Sure there are false prophets, and those that claim to be Christian but are in reality wolves. Maybe they are so naive they think gods gift to men. If that is what you mean by being illiterate I can agree with you.

I think I have been reading too much into your replies my friend. Are you asking why one should read the bible if they know they should just keep the commandants to be a good Christian? If that is the question allow me to answer with an analogy? Its like a freshman in highschool asking why should I have to take all those other courses, eight to ten years of schooling when all I want to learn about is being a doctor? I hope that helps.

RevA

 

No one denies that the senses deceive but so does empirical science, sometimes unlike the eyes maliciously so, read on please.

Is Scientific empirical evidenced infallible? I dunno' maybe we should ask someone who should know, that would be a Piltdown man! Oops! There are no Piltdown men! But the (*)(*)(*)(*) near infallible non testimonial, reliable empirical evidence was there! How many puffed up scientists ridiculed religious folks primitive rejection of human evolution proudly pointing to the proof of Piltdown man as evidence for it! How many science minded people and eminent scientists attended never ending (over 40 years of them!) conferences espousing the merits of Piltdown man? How many academics wasted their lives on such a lie? Lastly how many serious Piltdown lectures were suffered by unknowing fools to uncountable hours discussing the validity of Mr Piltdown? The worst part of this rant? Piltdown was one of many scientific truths that turned out not to be!

So forgive me. I haven’t the faith you do in empirical science opinion being nearly infallible or 100% reliable. That’s I abide by my sig generated by the genius of the great theist and metaphysicist Kurt Godel to wit;." I don't believe in empirical science. I only believe in a priori truth." Well said Kurt, and thanks for loving God, I am sure you are with him now.

RevA