SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD! ... Athiests might cringe.. | |
seraph User ID: 851849 ![]() 01/07/2010 04:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 467395 ![]() 01/07/2010 04:03 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
ThePatriotMind User ID: 577234 ![]() 01/07/2010 04:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Sir.Kalin User ID: 858971 ![]() 01/07/2010 04:08 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | In spite of the way it may appear to some, I am not actually an atheist. The inclinations of my personal beliefs at this point are probably much more towards those of a Deist, like Thomas Paine. Added to favorites for future reference. Last Edited by Lord.Kayle on 01/07/2010 04:10 AM :LordKayleSig4: - "Your best investment is ammo, because it's going to weird quickly." - AC 1196210 - "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God" - Thomas Jefferson's Personal Seal |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 684270 ![]() 01/07/2010 04:09 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If nothing can be proved then all of your assumptions including your incompleteness theorem cannot be proved as well. Thats like saying "all statements are false except this one." Science works because it's not about proving things. Science is about finding out how things work for practical purposes. It may or may not be able to prove deep philosophical questions which may or may not have answers. God can never be disproved as much as pink unicorns can't be disproved. You made quite a few assumptions to make god exist completely negating your whole argument about the incompleteness theorem. |
Bleeding Thoughts User ID: 859077 ![]() 01/07/2010 04:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So if you put the circle around "god" then what is out side the circle? How can you say "god" is the one thing you can't put within a circle if you can't really define "god"? If "god" has to be a conscious being then who created "god"? Last Edited by Bleeding Thoughts on 01/07/2010 04:23 AM |
ThePatriotMind User ID: 577234 ![]() 01/07/2010 04:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So if you put the circle around "god" then what is out side the circle? How can you say "god" is the one thing you can't put within a circle if you can't really define "god"? Quoting: Bleeding ThoughtsFighting and triggering liberals and SJW's in the trenches of their safe spaces since 2014 Signed, The Patriot Mind |
Wraithwynd User ID: 717743 ![]() 01/07/2010 04:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So if you put the circle around "god" then what is out side the circle? How can you say "god" is the one thing you can't put within a circle if you can't really define "god"? If "god" has to be a conscious being then who created "god"? Quoting: Bleeding ThoughtsHmm, that was my thought too. Sinkhole list: Thread: Sinkholes Updated 28 Dec 2010 find a sinkhole, add it to this thread, please. "Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." (1 John 3:15, NKJV). |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 808006 ![]() 01/07/2010 04:30 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So if you put the circle around "god" then what is out side the circle? How can you say "god" is the one thing you can't put within a circle if you can't really define "god"? If "god" has to be a conscious being then who created "god"? Quoting: Bleeding ThoughtsYou cannot put a circle around God because "God" is an "uncaused cause" God was not created he creates and is neither here nor there but is. I really liked this. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 684270 ![]() 01/07/2010 04:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So if you put the circle around "god" then what is out side the circle? How can you say "god" is the one thing you can't put within a circle if you can't really define "god"? If "god" has to be a conscious being then who created "god"? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 808006You cannot put a circle around God because "God" is an "uncaused cause" God was not created he creates and is neither here nor there but is. I really liked this. Can't argue with that logic! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 808006 ![]() 01/07/2010 04:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
OP (OP) User ID: 467395 ![]() 01/07/2010 04:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 684270If nothing can be proved then all of your assumptions including your incompleteness theorem cannot be proved as well. Thats like saying "all statements are false except this one." Science works because it's not about proving things. Science is about finding out how things work for practical purposes. It may or may not be able to prove deep philosophical questions which may or may not have answers. God can never be disproved as much as pink unicorns can't be disproved. You made quite a few assumptions to make god exist completely negating your whole argument about the incompleteness theorem. You've mede a few assumptions here. First I am not the author of this article. I posted it for reference. Second, you did not comprehend the reasoning behind the article because it has the same logic and reasoning used by the scientific community. Science relies on proof and not just 'how things work for practical purposes'. Yet, there are scientific theorems (as mentioned above) that are solidy relied on without proof. As a non-believer (athiest) one is expected to accept that the universe (world) just came into being without a source for its inception. Yet daily, in life, every change (creation, destruction, altercation) in a state of being or entity or atom has specific reasoning due to science. Basically, scientific laws exist that cause things to happen a certain way...but when it comes to the question of why do these laws exist? The answer generally in most cases ends up being "because they exists and that's that." No definitive proof of the 'why' is every addressed. Looking at it scientifically as a believer in God (supreme being) the reason is simple. Because the world/universe works, changes/alters in a certain way due to interaction with other elements and scientific laws, it stands to reason that every change has purpose for the causality. Keeping that in mind, it is rather strange for me to just accept the fact that the universe/life came into being without a specific originator and a purpose and reason of origin. The universe life all exists based on complex scientific laws and theorems yet why these laws exists and not to address the question of who originated them is rather 'unscientific' in my view. |
nomuse (NLI) User ID: 834029 ![]() 01/07/2010 04:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Man...you start of stealing from Hofstadter and you finish off with the most blurry and confused version of the Strong Anthropic Principle. As an atheist who has been a science-watcher for decades, these are old ideas to me. Mossy, mouldering, decrepit old. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 684270 ![]() 01/07/2010 04:57 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary. Quoting: OP 467395If nothing can be proved then all of your assumptions including your incompleteness theorem cannot be proved as well. Thats like saying "all statements are false except this one." Science works because it's not about proving things. Science is about finding out how things work for practical purposes. It may or may not be able to prove deep philosophical questions which may or may not have answers. God can never be disproved as much as pink unicorns can't be disproved. You made quite a few assumptions to make god exist completely negating your whole argument about the incompleteness theorem. You've mede a few assumptions here. I'm not anti-assumption First I am not the author of this article. I posted it for reference. I assume you agree with the article indirectly if you are posting it. Your opinions stated below agree with that assumption Second, you did not comprehend the reasoning behind the article because it has the same logic and reasoning used by the scientific community. Science relies on proof and not just 'how things work for practical purposes'. Yet, there are scientific theorems (as mentioned above) that are solidy relied on without proof. nothing is absolutely certain in science As a non-believer (athiest) one is expected to accept that the universe (world) just came into being without a source for its inception. Yet daily, in life, every change (creation, destruction, altercation) in a state of being or entity or atom has specific reasoning due to science. Basically, scientific laws exist that cause things to happen a certain way...but when it comes to the question of why do these laws exist? The answer generally in most cases ends up being "because they exists and that's that." No definitive proof of the 'why' is every addressed. science doesn't attempt to answer the why. only the how. The existing laws work because they haven't been proven not to work (in practical uses).Science does not have all the answers. There may or may not be a theory of everything that explains everything Looking at it scientifically as a believer in God (supreme being) the reason is simple. Because the world/universe works, changes/alters in a certain way due to interaction with other elements and scientific laws, it stands to reason that every change has purpose for the causality. Keeping that in mind, it is rather strange for me to just accept the fact that the universe/life came into being without a specific originator and a purpose and reason of origin. The universe life all exists based on complex scientific laws and theorems yet why these laws exists and not to address the question of who originated them is rather 'unscientific' in my view. science only attempts explaining how things work. It doesn't know (yet or maybe ever) the original conditions of how things were. I'm sorry your ideas of science were misguided.Science does not know all of the laws or theorems. Your version of god was handed down to you by religion. Religion was mostly made up. Therefore, god has little to no meaning. It only exists as this quasi-supreme being, as you put it, in your mind. If this allows you to function and be happy, I'm very happy for you. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 467395 ![]() 01/07/2010 05:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Man...you start of stealing from Hofstadter and you finish off with the most blurry and confused version of the Strong Anthropic Principle. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 834029As an atheist who has been a science-watcher for decades, these are old ideas to me. Mossy, mouldering, decrepit old. As an atheist you seem to pay very little attention to basic details like the fact that I did not write this article. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 856752 ![]() 01/07/2010 05:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 662708 ![]() 01/07/2010 05:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Your version of god was handed down to you by religion. Religion was mostly made up. Therefore, god has little to no meaning. It only exists as this quasi-supreme being, as you put it, in your mind. If this allows you to function and be happy, I'm very happy for you. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 684270You dont need to believe or follow any religion to beleive in God. A lot of atheists struggle with this concept. You can quite happily believe in God and reject all religions if you so choose. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 848282 ![]() 01/07/2010 05:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 467395 ![]() 01/07/2010 05:09 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Your version of god was handed down to you by religion. Religion was mostly made up. Therefore, god has little to no meaning. It only exists as this quasi-supreme being, as you put it, in your mind. If this allows you to function and be happy, I'm very happy for you. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 684270Yet another assumption. The question of spirituality (existance of supreme being) on a personal level, is not based on 'god was handed down to you by religion'. Organized religion and what it teaches is not what is at debate here. The point is at a personal level, one has to address the reason for life and one's existance and how the world works. These are addressed by delving into spirituality. The problem here i feel is that existance or non-existance of God is always turned into a debate on the lowest common denominator. Assume all believers of God are square, organized religion followers who care little about science and logic. And it is fairly cool to be an athiest in comparison, because I am in company of scientists and intellectuals who do not believe in God. This stream of thought and belief within all societies and is rather assinine. And therefore it is a waste of time to have a real open-minded debate. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 281126 ![]() 01/07/2010 05:17 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
nomuse (NLI) User ID: 834029 ![]() 01/07/2010 05:30 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Man...you start of stealing from Hofstadter and you finish off with the most blurry and confused version of the Strong Anthropic Principle. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 467395As an atheist who has been a science-watcher for decades, these are old ideas to me. Mossy, mouldering, decrepit old. As an atheist you seem to pay very little attention to basic details like the fact that I did not write this article. Ah, sorry. Let me rephrase, then. Man...you start off plagarising a guy who stole from Hofstadter, and you ended up with a confused and meandering blur in the direction of the Strong Anthropic Principle. Well, at least you spent the six seconds it must have taken to scroll to the end of the article before you hit "Copy." So that makes you better than the chaps who post a YouTube link and offer no comment on it. (But really, what's the point of borrowed words? Why can't you have your own ideas? Why can't you speak them in your own words? If you have ideas you think are controversial, don't you owe it to your audience, to yourself, and to the author to stand behind them? What sort of mealy-mouth excuse is it to say "Hey, I didn't write this, so don't ask me?" You COPIED it, didn't you? So it means something to you, right?) |
Global Village Idiot User ID: 836118 ![]() 01/07/2010 05:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
OP User ID: 513483 ![]() 01/07/2010 05:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Ah, sorry. Let me rephrase, then. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 834029Man...you start off plagarising a guy who stole from Hofstadter, and you ended up with a confused and meandering blur in the direction of the Strong Anthropic Principle. Well, at least you spent the six seconds it must have taken to scroll to the end of the article before you hit "Copy." So that makes you better than the chaps who post a YouTube link and offer no comment on it. (But really, what's the point of borrowed words? Why can't you have your own ideas? Why can't you speak them in your own words? If you have ideas you think are controversial, don't you owe it to your audience, to yourself, and to the author to stand behind them? What sort of mealy-mouth excuse is it to say "Hey, I didn't write this, so don't ask me?" You COPIED it, didn't you? So it means something to you, right?) Once again, I have to you don't really pay attention, do you? For starters, this article was received via email and I decided to post it in full because there was no link available. Second, the Author's name is mentioned mentioned at the bottom of the article. Go have a look. Third, plagarism would be a debate, if I was trying to sell this article as my own. Fourth, if you had taken the time to skim through some of the replies, you would have seen my opinions/points of view. Needless to say, I am not surprised by your replies to this thread. It seems, (and is believed by most) that the easist form of showing one's own intellect is by demeaning someone else's point of view. Debate with you on this issue is clearly a waste a time for me. Because as clearly evident by your replies, had a definitve argument you would have addressed it towards the author of the article or with the theory of Kurt Godel. You even after my initial reply continue to jump the gun and accuse me of plagarism. To me it proves that for you it is personal issue rather then a healthy exchange of opinions. Learn to differentiate between arrogance and confidence. By debating me here on any level, does not prove your intellect or impresses any one that you seem to have a clearer view of reality. You have just proven your attitude to be uncivil and generically mediocre just like a lot of quick rant, close-minded people here. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 684270 ![]() 01/07/2010 05:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Your version of god was handed down to you by religion. Religion was mostly made up. Therefore, god has little to no meaning. It only exists as this quasi-supreme being, as you put it, in your mind. If this allows you to function and be happy, I'm very happy for you. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 467395Yet another assumption. The question of spirituality (existance of supreme being) on a personal level, is not based on 'god was handed down to you by religion'. Organized religion and what it teaches is not what is at debate here. The point is at a personal level, one has to address the reason for life and one's existance and how the world works. These are addressed by delving into spirituality. The problem here i feel is that existance or non-existance of God is always turned into a debate on the lowest common denominator. Assume all believers of God are square, organized religion followers who care little about science and logic. And it is fairly cool to be an athiest in comparison, because I am in company of scientists and intellectuals who do not believe in God. This stream of thought and belief within all societies and is rather assinine. And therefore it is a waste of time to have a real open-minded debate. ok, let me paint a picture for you. Assume all knowledge is infinite or finite. Science only knows so much. It doesnt know or claim to know everything. Human's in general want to know the answers the basic deep philosophical questions no matter what. Some use science as a rough logical jump to make a guess at the answers. Sometimes you "feel" the answers. And then there are pre-packaged answers for you based on a mixture of the 3. At the end of the day, you don't know for certain those answers and that's why there is a wide range of debate. Opining on something is not the same as knowing it to some degree of certainty. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 564424 ![]() 01/07/2010 05:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 848282 ![]() 01/07/2010 05:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
OP User ID: 513483 ![]() 01/07/2010 06:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ok, let me paint a picture for you. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 684270Assume all knowledge is infinite or finite. Science only knows so much. It doesnt know or claim to know everything. Human's in general want to know the answers the basic deep philosophical questions no matter what. Some use science as a rough logical jump to make a guess at the answers. Sometimes you "feel" the answers. And then there are pre-packaged answers for you based on a mixture of the 3. At the end of the day, you don't know for certain those answers and that's why there is a wide range of debate. Opining on something is not the same as knowing it to some degree of certainty. I agree with you completely. For me the point is to source and seek the truth as a personal endevour. To be open to ideas and other points of view to contemplate the answer (as close as one can get to it) based on the information you can access. For some, it is certainty on 'how things are'...it could be science ONLY enthusiasts who discount all spiritual aspects/studies/philosophies on the issue OR it could be religion ONLY enthusiasts who cling to only a specific version of reality as they are indoctrined to do. My purpose for highligting this article was specifically to present an example of another opinion. There are many interpretations, studies, theories and opinions out there and we owe it to ourselves to be open to reading and understaning them rather than close our selves off to other views. My pursuit of truth continues (at whatever level it may be) but the point is to continue to invesigate as much as one can to come to clearer understanding even if it is not definitive conclusion. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 826427 ![]() 01/07/2010 06:10 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 859118 ![]() 01/07/2010 06:13 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The universe not explaining its self and being infinite doesnt prove god. the sentences: - All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings. - Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being. are made up imaginary sentences which prove nothing this post is stupid. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 513483 ![]() 01/07/2010 06:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |