No scientific proof of god

June 26, 2013

As do I. Theory in science is a higher level than "fact". Theories unite and explain facts. Gravity is a fact. The Gravity Theory however is something different. Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is something else.

There is no fact that will ever be discovered that will cause us to change "Gravity Theory" into "Gravity Fact".

And as I keep saying I agree with you on this. It is where you go FROM that point that I have been disagreeing with. Such as the false equivalence (intended or otherwise) you establish off the back of it that the proposition is therefore somehow equally believable as unbelievable - or in fact contains any credibility at all.

And I agree again with you but it then comes to a possibilities game and I am no gambler with knowledge...

June 26, 2013

I just keep loving the new atheist rants... it proofs my point about how it has become a new religion they feel offended when attacked... For people who claim not making any claim they get pretty frustrated when their claims get contested...

Bull. It has nothing to do with atheism. Or religion. Or your false idea that atheism is a religion. It is simply that when people see patently nonsense things being espoused they often feel compelled to correct it.

Spewing nonsense that they are getting all religious and offended is just a tactic to avoid dealing with what they actually said at the time. If one finds it easier to straw man the speaker rather than reply to the actual content of their post - many find themselves doing just that.

The fact is the user is quite right to point out that this new age religionist tactic of simply linguistically redefining things to be "god" in order to define "god" into existence is ridiculous. It is a sign of desperation and their redefinition say nothing at all.

Clearly "If I want to call my cake god therefore god exists" is an argument that says nothing. They are just engaged in linguistic bafoonery. There is a new age thing where people often claim they simply think "Nature is god" or "The universe is god". Then in the back door they simply slip in things like "And that god incarnated itself in flesh and appeared before us in human form as Jesus" or "Therefore your consciousness survives the death of the body and exists without it" or "That god judges you morally after death" and so forth.

June 26, 2013

Bull. It has nothing to do with atheism. Or religion. Or your false idea that atheism is a religion. It is simply that when people see patently nonsense things being espoused they often feel compelled to correct it.

Spewing nonsense that they are getting all religious and offended is just a tactic to avoid dealing with what they actually said at the time. If one finds it easier to straw man the speaker rather than reply to the actual content of their post - many find themselves doing just that.

The fact is the user is quite right to point out that this new age religionist tactic of simply linguistically redefining things to be "god" in order to define "god" into existence is ridiculous. It is a sign of desperation and their redefinition say nothing at all.

Clearly "If I want to call my cake god therefore god exists" is an argument that says nothing. They are just engaged in linguistic bafoonery. There is a new age thing where people often claim they simply think "Nature is god" or "The universe is god". Then in the back door they simply slip in things like "And that god incarnated itself in flesh and appeared before us in human form as Jesus" or "Therefore your consciousness survives the death of the body and exists without it" or "That god judges you morally after death" and so forth.

But is it not the same than saying that physic laws can't be applied to the previous time to the Big Bang to dismiss any kind of scientific proof that Theist and creationist are trying to give??? You are implying definition of something (or lack of definition) when it doesn't exist.

When two people discuss about something both use their knowledge and put their best effort to defend their ideas about the topic that is being discussed, some of the information that people use is facts and they can't be refuted, some people may have more information than other ( this seems to be your case) and other people can expose their ideas based on the information they have and based on the information received in the same discussion. When you speak about a subjective topic as God, there are no facts that can be used as God is an individual concept (you like it or not), even people with a bigger knowledge about a concrete theme can't make any kind of assert that is more or less wise than anyone else because as there is no evidence of God it can't be defined either... if you believe in a definition of God you need to base that definition on the Knowledge that someone knows what is God right? If someone knows what is God then I guess that person has evidences of its existence.

I don't think you have seen any claim about religion in any of my posts... and saying that my posts are moronic or verbal diarrhea does not help anyone to proof their point further than being rude and pointless...

There is a new age thing where people often claim they simply think "Nature is god" or "The universe is god". Then in the back door they simply slip in things like "And that god incarnated itself in flesh and appeared before us in human form as Jesus" or "Therefore your consciousness survives the death of the body and exists without it" or "That god judges you morally after death" and so forth.[

If you want to discuss the Judeo-Christian God then you better go and discuss it with a Jew or a Christian... since I am a person who does not believe in God my first challenge is to define it... If you guys take offense on it I am sorry but that is what I think ... and you know what you can't proof it wrong because there is no definition of God that can be proof

Edited June 26, 2013 by therhythm

June 26, 2013

Firstly the most important thing to note is that the above is a question. Questions are _not_ evidence. So this is _not_ an exception to me saying "there is zero evidence at all of any type for creationism.".

I said one possible exception.

It is a question - an open one - and a good one. Evidence however it is not. Open questions are evidence for nothing but open questions.

What we have now is not evidence for a God. But it is a question that leaves the door open. At the moment science has NO explanation for this. No model predicts it. So it isn't just an open questions such as does the proton decay. It is a fundamental question that we can't even touch. So it is possible [if a god exists] that this will one day produce evidence for a God. That is why I said it is one possible exception.

However it is also worth nothing that the question contains an assertion. You said if the values were different life could not exist. How do you know this? Have you built and modeled every single other possible combination of the universal constants and tested them for this? Have you then built every possible combination of those constants with OTHER constants this universe does not have?

This is common knowledge in physics. There may be another set of constants that would result in a reality we don't understand, but the values of nature are tightly constrained. Even a slight alteration in one value and atoms could not exist. We know this from Quantum Mechanics.

We simply do not know what other kinds of universes are possible.

True, but we know what it takes for an atom to be stable.

[And I have not once discounted the possibility. Of course it is _possible_. But simply pointing out it is possible says nothing at all. It is also possible that the universe only existed right now and it was created only 1 second ago with everything in place - all our memories - objects - universe - everything - never existed before 1 second ago and it was just invented now.

And now you are reaching for nonsense. That has nothing to do with the laws of physics. That is philosophy.

It is fun to say what is _possible_. It plays with our minds - gives us fun things to think about - especially while drinking. But we are simply churning out unsubstantiated hypotheses.

But the fact is that this is a fundamental mystery that goes beyond known science. So all bets are off. If you want to make a leap of faith and assume that science will explain this, you are perfectly entitled to do so, but it would be as much as statement of faith as is the belief in a god.

The answer thus far appears to be a firm "No, there is not".

Nor can science explain what we see. So put your faith in science if you're going to be religious about it.

June 26, 2013

Put another way, it could be evidence for a god but we don't know that yet.

June 26, 2013

But the fact is that this is a fundamental mystery that goes beyond known science. So all bets are off. If you want to make a leap of faith and assume that science will explain this, you are perfectly entitled to do so, but it would be as much as statement of faith as is the belief in a god.

Nor can science explain what we see. So put your faith in science if you're going to be religious about it.

Amen :lmao::lmao:

That was my point from the very beginning !

I wish I could express myself more correct in English to be able to put my ideas as well put as you just did!

Edited June 26, 2013 by therhythm

June 26, 2013

I think it is stupid and somewhat elitist to think that God would reveal himself specifically to scientists anyway.

This conversation doesn't even make sense.

Take care,

Eve x

June 26, 2013

You seriously need me to copy and paste to you everything from his death masks and busts to pictures of his palace and commissioned buildings, and insignia ring to historian accounts, legal documents from the time and his own books/treatises?

Ohh but I can print you the same things for God... statues of all kind of Gods have been built around the world (many more than of Julius Caesar). Churches and temples have been also built for many different Gods around the Globe, There are thousands of books who speak about God and The Bible, Coran, are claimed to be dictated by God it self.... There are much more historic references to one of other God's that of any political or martial personage you want to proof...

Those evidences are not scientific... someone in the time of Julius Caesar could have made him up... so please can you please provide me with the empiric studies that proof the existence of Julius Caesar?

When people try to use einsteins quote about Spinoza without realizing what Spinoza even believed, it's quite clear what they are implying. Spinoza was killed for not being religious as the Greeks wanted sheesh...

You again fail to comprehend that I am not defending any religion... I am agnostic .... Einstein was not religious (at list not in his adulthood) but he made many assertions of believing in a superior being (same as Spinoza!).

If I would be you just to don't look very pathetic I would check the facts that I add to a post when claiming someone else is an ignorant... you say that Spinoza was killed because of his lack of religion... maybe you need to explain me a bit more as he died of Tuberculosis.... Baruch Spinoza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ahh and he was Dutch not Greek... just so you know it

Einstein said he believed in the God of Espinosa who defended the bellow:

Spinoza's Ethics

In the universe anything that happens comes from the essential nature of objects, or of God/Nature. According to Spinoza, reality is perfection. If circumstances are seen as unfortunate it is only because of our inadequate conception of reality. While components of the chain of cause and effect are not beyond the understanding of human reason, human grasp of the infinitely complex whole is limited because of the limits of science to empirically take account of the whole sequence. Spinoza also asserted that sense perception, though practical and useful for rhetoric, is inadequate for discovering universal truth; Spinoza's mathematical and logical approach to metaphysics, and therefore ethics, concluded that emotion is formed from inadequate understanding. His concept of "conatus" states that human beings' natural inclination is to strive toward preserving an essential being and an assertion that virtue/human power is defined by success in this preservation of being by the guidance of reason as one's central ethical doctrine. According to Spinoza, the highest virtue is the intellectual love or knowledge of God/Nature/Universe.

In the final part of the "Ethics", his concern with the meaning of "true blessedness", and his explanation of how emotions must be detached from external cause and so master them, foreshadow psychological techniques developed in the 1900s. His concept of three types of knowledge – opinion, reason, intuition – and his assertion that intuitive knowledge provides the greatest satisfaction of mind, lead to his proposition that the more we are conscious of ourselves and Nature/Universe, the more perfect and blessed we are (in reality) and that only intuitive knowledge is eternal. His unique contribution to understanding the workings of mind is extraordinary, even during this time of radical philosophical developments, in that his views provide a bridge between religions' mystical past and psychology of the present day.

Given Spinoza's insistence on a completely ordered world where "necessity" reigns, Good and Evil have no absolute meaning. The world as it exists looks imperfect only because of our limited perception.

Bottom line: there is not a SINGLE historian of Jesus' day to confirm his existence, the closest we can get us over a 100 years after his supposed death and its proved to be a forgery! The other doesn't even mention Christ, merely Christians! We don't have a single possession of his, not a single historical document, no tax record, no birth certificate, no land holdings, NOTHING. I can find from documents what the cost of wheat was in all the providences of Rome but not a single family member who is said to be on census?!?! Baloney!

Moreover, a good deal of biblical claims about Jesus' life and death at demonstrably false. From his joke of a six hour crucifixion on a holy day that got 2,000 years suspended capital punishment to the insane claim the dead woke up and wandered around like zombies... That bible is ludicrous, if you actually read it cover to cover you'd know...

Lady if you want to discuss Jesus you better go and discuss with a Judeo-Christian follower... I am NOT!

Well... at the end... if you want to have a healthy discussion about God (but not religion), I am open to listen to your ideas... if you come here calling someone ignorant the least you need to do is validate what you are writing are true facts... just to not embarrass yourself...

Have a nice day

Edited June 26, 2013 by therhythm

June 26, 2013

In response to an earlier post made by you to me, I never claimed what I said was scientific (when I said "Wrong. That is all.") or even logical. I just stated that you were wrong. I can't always be bothered to elaborate on why you are wrong, when google is available, if you care to actually verify what is said.

Thanks... I didn't know Google existed that added lots of value!

Atheism and evolution (and any science for that matter) are not linked. They stand on their own, and as such, any scientific claims made are not necessarily atheist in nature, considering many religious people accept evolution (for example) so I'm not entirely sure what our new religion would really look like. Care to explain how you arrived at the conclusion that atheism is a religion, other than atheists are people, too, and sometimes get heated in discussions like theists?

Evolution is the only counterpart to Creationism... without evolution there would not be any doubt that the universe was created and therefore the need of a God to to do so... Atheism without evolution would be a joke.
Evolution is the dogma of the Atheists.

Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. And yes, if I were to walk into a room, declare that vampires are real, without supporting my claim with evidence, the people in that room would be free to dismiss my claims with nothing more than "go away."

As I said before ... if extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is a fact and a Universal rule then please present the evidence of that as it is in itself an extraordinary claim.

You don't believe in god, but you don't disbelieve either? That sounds incredibly confusing to be you.

No... it is pretty simple... I don't care
If one or other is true I am fine with both.

Edited June 26, 2013 by therhythm

June 26, 2013

No, it is not the dogma of atheists. Please explain how come not only atheists, but THEISTS accept evolution if your point is remotely valid. No, evolution and creationism are not the two only options. If evolution were overturned tomorrow, it would no further prove we were created (whilst that would be an option) and would no further prove god. Thinking atheism and evolution are one and the same just furthers my earlier point of how little you understand atheism.

There are, gasp, atheists who do not accept evolution. They are rare, I'll grant you, but they do exist.

Creation and Evolution Are the Only Valid Alternative Theories of Origins
Evolutionists often assert that creationists have constructed a false dichotomy between creation and evolution, that there are actually many theories of origins. However, all theories of origins can be fitted within these two general theories. Thus, Futuyma, an evolutionist, states:

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence"

I would like to hear the arguments of an Atheist who do not believe in evolution :lmao:

There is no theist that believe in the whole concept of evolution, they believe the evolution of the species but not evolution as the theory that explains the creation of the world and life...
Evolution is a theory of the origins as it is creationism.

June 27, 2013

That's why the bible isn't considered a historically accurate document but the logs written about councils such as nicene and Trent are considered true reflections of what occurred.

By whom? I can assure you that billions and billions of judeo-christians have believed the bible to be truthful and historically valuable... Since judeo-christians are the biggest religion of today I guess many still do

June 27, 2013

But is it not the same than saying that physic laws can't be applied to the previous time to the Big Bang to dismiss any kind of scientific proof that Theist and creationist are trying to give??? You are implying definition of something (or lack of definition) when it doesn't exist.

No. The two things are entirely different.

What they are doing is taking something we know exists - relabeling it "god" - just so they can say "god exists".

What I am doing is pointing out a simple fact of science.

The two things are not even remotely similar.

June 27, 2013

I said one possible exception.

If you say so. Suffice to repeat however: The one you gave was _not_ an exception. It was a question. And open questions are not evidence. They are just open questions.

What we have now is not evidence for a God.

I know. That is what I said.

But it is a question that leaves the door open.

I also said that too. If you want to get me to acknowledge that there _possibly_ is a god then give up now because I already have. My interest is whether there is any reasons - even one - to get past that postulation into the realm of credibility and substantiation. Seemingly there is not. Much less from this thread.

This is common knowledge in physics.

No. It is not. It might be a common misrepresentation of physics by the lay man. But it is not within the scientific community. We simply do not know how many other possible stable combinations of our constants there are. Let alone how many possible stable combinations of OTHER constants there might be.

True, but we know what it takes for an atom to be stable.

Nope. We know ONE possible combination of constants that allow atoms to be stable.

And now you are reaching for nonsense. That has nothing to do with the laws of physics. That is philosophy.

My point _exactly_. Thanks for making it for me.

But the fact is that this is a fundamental mystery that goes beyond known science.

Agreed. It is an open question that science has not yet (and may never) answer. But just because there is an open question - this does not license us to simply make up anything we like and act like it is credible. Making stuff up is making stuff up - regardless of whether you are making it up about something we have an answer for already - or do not.

If you want to make a leap of faith and assume that science will explain this, you are perfectly entitled to do so

Thank you for your permission as to what I can do with my own mind - but I neither want it nor require it. I am not assuming anything. All I am saying is we have no answer now - and IF one is ever to come then the best candidate at this time to produce one is science. More than that I have not said, assumed, or implied.

Edited June 27, 2013 by TaxAHCruel

June 27, 2013

No. The two things are entirely different.

What they are doing is taking something we know exists - relabeling it "god" - just so they can say "god exists".

What I am doing is pointing out a simple fact of science.

The two things are not even remotely similar.

Fist and foremost I have not defined God as anything... my whole point is that you can't define something you don't understand... I have said that this definition is uni-personal and as such can't be refuted by a general rule... if you have problems with people who call God to a Plasma TV then you need to address those problems to them... if you have problems with me not defining God then you can address that to me.

Answering the bold marked part of your post ... the thing is that science is not facts... science has been wrong before..

Theories of science are real given the knowledge we have of the universe today... but tomorrow everything can change...

Any theory based on the fact that is "unlikely" that proof against it may arise is just subject to be wrong even when it is only 0.0000001% chances that it happen... it is already a leap of faith.

Please see (Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong) - Toptenz.net)

With the knowledge we have today the only thing we can say is that something can't be proven wrong at this moment ( that is what Theists do with God)... maybe in 1000 years they will find key elements that proof that 1+1 does not equal 2 and they will laugh about our scientific efforts as we laugh about the guys who though that the Earth was plain...

You can't use the fact of the unknown to proof your point but then disqualify other theories that use that same fact....

For what we know the scientific arguments could even only apply to our solar system and not to other galaxies thus not even to the whole Universe...

The wisest statement I have ever read from a scientific or from a philosopher is "I only know that I know nothing" from Socrates... it reflects the need of knowledge that men have and the fact that the knowledge we have about the universe is so small and conditioned that is better off to be described as nothing.

Edited June 27, 2013 by therhythm

June 27, 2013

Is it? Why? If you look at things like the RNA origins hypothesis they lay out quite clearly how one can get from random proteins to self replicating cells in a series of minor steps. It is not as fantastic a notion as you think.

Two prominent "origin-of-life" researchers have laid out their vision of how life arose from chemicals:

1. Start with a molecule capable of copying itself. "The first protocells contained RNA (or something similar to it) and little else".

2. A fatty acid bubble forms around the self-copying molecule, which then makes a copy of itself with nucleotides that filter through the bubble. "Molecules as large as nucleotides can in fact easily slip across membranes as long as both nucleotides and membranes are simpler, more 'primitive' versions of their modern counterparts."

3. The double-strand RNA separates into single strands if it is heated just right. That might happen in an icy pond next to a volcano, where the bubble could circulate between the ice and the hot rocks. "The sudden heating would cause a double helix to separate into single strands. Once back in the cool region, new double strands, copies of the original, could form". At the same time, the bubble is picking up fatty acid molecules and growing. Adding fatty acids makes the membrane grow longer, and a little shaking breaks the bubble into some smaller bubbles, each with some of the self-copying molecules inside, so you have "cell division".

4. "At some point some of the RNA sequences mutated, becoming ribozymes". The "ribozymes (folded RNA molecules analogous to protein-based enzymes) arise and take on such jobs as speeding up reproduction and strengthening the protocell's membrane. Consequently, protocells begin to reproduce on their own." "Other ribozymes catalyze metabolism -- chains of chemical reactions that enable protocells to tap into nutrients from the environment."

5. "Next, the organisms might have added protein-making to their bag of chemical tricks." "Complex systems of RNA catalysts begin to translate strings of RNA letters (genes) into chains of amino acids (proteins)." "Proteins take on a wide range of tasks within the cell."

6. "Protein-based catalysts, or enzymes, gradually replace most ribozymes." "Proteins would have then taken over RNA's role in assisting genetic copying and metabolism."

7. Later, the organisms would have 'learned' to make DNA". "Thanks to its superior stability, DNA takes on the role of primary genetic molecule. RNA's main role is now to act as a bridge between DNA and proteins."

8. "Organisms resembling modern bacteria adapt to living virtually everywhere on earth and rule unopposed for billions of years, until some of them begin to evolve into more complex organisms." --Ricardo, Alonso, Jack W. Szostak. September 2009. Life on Earth. Scientific

They are currently working on steps 1 and 2 in the laboratory.

So how is the research going? Science journalist John Horgan, a former senior writer at Scientific American (1986-1997) and regular columnist for Scientific American online summed it up after an Origins Project conference at Arizona State University. Here is part of what he wrote in a Scientific American online blog on February 28, 2011: "cientists don't have a clue how life began." "Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life." "RNA, DNA's helpmate, remains the most popular answer to this conundrum". "But the 'RNA-world' hypothesis remains problematic. RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize under the best of circumstances, in a laboratory, let alone under plausible prebiotic conditions. Once RNA is synthesized, it can make new copies of itself only with a great deal of chemical coaxing from the scientist." "The RNA world is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to much more far out -- literally -- speculation."

Let's compare the "origin of life" vision to the vision of children making a spaceship out of a cardboard box:

1. Get a large box. Draw controls and gauges on the inside. Cut out a door and round windows. Attach cardboard fins to the sides.

2. Put a chair in the box, sit down and start the countdown.

3. Launch the spaceship towards the Moon. Using the Moon's gravity, fling the spaceship to the outer reaches of the solar system, constantly accelerating with the impulse engines.

4. After passing the Oort Cloud, engage the warp drive. Proceed in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the Milky Way galaxy to avoid gas and dust in the outer bands.

The children are currently working on steps 1 and 2, and are as close to demonstrating their vision as the "origin-of-life" researchers are.

Source Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality; the false science of evolution

June 27, 2013

Fist and foremost I have not defined God as anything

So you keep saying - and I am not sure why - because nothing I have written has suggested you have.

you can't define something you don't understand

Tell that to the people doing it. Not to me. My point is, was, and remains simply that the people relabeling things we already have labels for - in order to define their god into existence through linguistics - are engaged in nothing more than linguistic bafoonery.

the thing is that science is not facts... science has been wrong before..

Yes it has. That does not change the simple fact I am pointing out in my post though. Which is that all of our laws break down just before the big bang. We know this to be true.

And as I said there is a massive difference between playing with words - and stating a fact - which is why the two things are - as I said - not comparable.

June 27, 2013

in a Scientific American online blog

You would be better off reading what actual scientists have to say about it rather than what a journalist says on his blog.

The point again merely is that if one wants to declare that the RNA theory is fantastical and improbably I would like to hear why.

June 27, 2013

Yes it has. That does not change the simple fact I am pointing out in my post though. Which is that all of our laws break down just before the big bang. We know this to be true.

Can you please provide the empiric studies that proof that? I am looking forward to see how people can proof that all our laws break down before the big bang when there is not even proof that there ever was a big bang :eek:

June 27, 2013

A logical fallacy-argument ad populam (SP?) Just because many people believe something does not make it so.

Nor it does proof them wrong

June 27, 2013

You would be better off reading what actual scientists have to say about it rather than what a journalist says on his blog.

The point again merely is that if one wants to declare that the RNA theory is fantastical and improbably I would like to hear why.

There is anything false in the bellow?