No scientific proof of god

[therhythm]

If I was trying to tell you that I would have said that.

 

What I was trying to tell you was what I actually said.

 

I weary of this metaphorical tooth pick I have needed for page after page now to keep picking out of my teeth the words you have been continuously shoving into my mouth.

 

Again: The laws we have related to the universe have mathematical components. Those mathematical components - and hence the laws themselves - can not be applied to the Big Bang.

 

What are the mathematical components of the "mater doesn't get created nor destroyed but just modified"? I think is a totally universe related law.

 

But lets play with what you have actually said... The fallacy of your theorem is that you call the Big Bang moment 0 and I call it infinite as it is part and continuation of what ever was... you can divide by infinite and the result is infinite!

[therhythm]

It is not so much false as over simplified and parts left out. That is the general tactic creationists employ too. They over simplify what things like Evolution actually claim in order to make it sound a lot more ridiculous than it actually is.

 

The most famous example of this is the "Junkyard argument" which tries to equate evolution to a tornado entering a junk yard and by a miracle constructing a fully working Jet Plane.

 

However the point is being derailed by you (once again) as I am not actually defending RNA theory. I am merely pointing out the different between a substantiated hypothesis (which RNA theory is regardless of whether it turns out to be true or not) and an entirely pulled out of thin air nonsense hypothesis (such as saying there is a god).

 

If you recall the whole reason it was brought up was you were declaring "the fact that every life has always been created by another life." and I was simply pointing out that we do not know that to be true. You are just assuming it.

 

Can you please look to this link (it is only 80 seconds video) and tell me what do you think about it?

 

Disproving Atheists in 82 seconds! - YouTube

[austyre]

I am going to ad my 5 cents worth here when I served in Iraq(twice) and Afghanistan I find it quite amusing when people I served with mentioned God and Church especially in the military however the few atheist I know ended up saying prayers whenever they went out on patrols and when the proverbially hit the fan don't blame them really when put into life or death situations the human mind will believe in anything its true there is no atheist in a fox hole

As to there being a God or not no one really knows faith vs science is just a circular argument it seems , IF you believe in God or not does not really matter to me but what really matters is ''how'' we treat one another

[TaxAHCruel]

What are the mathematical components of the "mater doesn't get created nor destroyed but just modified"?

 

Theres a few of them. E=MC2 is the most well known for example which is a relationary theory between energy and matter. It shows us that we can change it from one form to the other, but the equation always balances.

 

But it has elements that if you try to apply that equation to the Big Bang result in your dividing by zero. The C2 part has a time element you see. And since you can not divide by zero we can not use that law/equation at the Big Bang point.

 

The fallacy of your theorem is that you call the Big Bang moment 0 and I call it infinite

 

You can call it what you want but it will achieve nothing more than to make it abundantly clear you have no idea what you are talking about. But I will tell you what - go sell your idea to Stephen Hawking and then make sure the pair of you remember to come back and say hi on the way to picking up your Nobel Prize for physics for creating a whole new branch of physics based on taking one thing and simply pretending it was another. Good luck with that.

[therhythm]

Then this whole you being on this discussion seems rather redundant if you ask me...

Ohh but there is a point as there are people claiming here both positions I am defending the no possition stand (which is a possition by itself).

There are not Theists really participating in the thread else I would have been more than happy to discuss their points as much as I am enjoying and learning while discussing yours and TaxAHCruel.

 

While you guys seem to take much offense for some of my points I don't feel offended by what you say, I actually learn from everything you gusy say... it is just not enough to make me change my possition (or lack of possition if you wish)

 

 

 

ETA: The Atheist Experience #818 Part 2 Jeff Dee Matt Dillahunty Caller Patrick Quebec Canada - YouTube I think this adequately sums up some of my points made earlier.

 

Nice and this is what I mean..

 

 

I agree with you that Atheism is not a religion... I may have use that words but I actually I agree with you in that part and I retract myself as I don't think it is a correct assessment but it is a new class of fanaticism.. and that is a fact! I don't imply all atheists are fanatics but more and more are...

 

The below video is very interesting for you too... It is only 80 seconds and very instructive!

 

Disproving Atheists in 82 seconds! - YouTube

[TaxAHCruel]

Can you please look to this link

 

Nope. I have no facility for doing anything with sound here at the moment.

 

If it is so short however I am sure you will have no trouble adumbrating the argument therein for me - at which point I can comment on it.

[therhythm]

 

You can call it what you want but it will achieve nothing more than to make it abundantly clear you have no idea what you are talking about. But I will tell you what - go sell your idea to Stephen Hawking and then make sure the pair of you remember to come back and say hi on the way to picking up your Nobel Prize for physics for creating a whole new branch of physics based on taking one thing and simply pretending it was another. Good luck with that.

 

Can you please instead of calling my ignorance (that I have already agreed in previous posts) explain where is the flaw of my thinking on the Big Bang moment infinite and not 0? It would be much more valuable and for me to understand where I made a mistake that you just telling me I made one without any further argument...

[TaxAHCruel]

Can you please instead of calling my ignorance (that I have already agreed in previous posts) explain where is the flaw of my thinking on the Big Bang moment infinite and not 0?

 

Because the time measurement in the equations is for time that has actually passed. Not all time everywhere. You do not simply get to stick infinity in because you do not like 0.

 

And the problem for such equations as that is that time is the divisor and you can not divide by zero.

 

It would be much more valuable and for me to understand where I made a mistake that you just telling me I made one without any further argument

 

I cant. Because I do not know where you made the mistake. You simply came in and said you have decided to call it "infinity". No explanation as to how you came to that conclusion. You just asserted it. As such I have nothing to work with on WHERE you made the mistake. It is the same as if you came into a room and said "I got the answer 47, where did I go wrong" without actually telling anyone what it was your were calculating in the first place, or how.

 

If all you do is tell me you want to put infinity into the equations instead of zero then all I can say in response is tell you you are being ridiculous. Until I know WHY you want to do it I can not tell you WHERE and HOW you were wrong. Just _that_ you are wrong.

Edited June 27, 2013 by TaxAHCruel

[therhythm]

Nope. I have no facility for doing anything with sound here at the moment.

 

If it is so short however I am sure you will have no trouble adumbrating the argument therein for me - at which point I can comment on it.

 

It comes down to this:

 

No matter how many molecules you can produce you are still nowhere near to produce a living cell and here it is how I know:

 

If I take a sterile test tube and I put in a little bit of fluid with the perfect solution for a living cell and the perfect temperature and I put in one living cell (this cell is alive and it has anything in it that needs to live).

Now I take a sterile needle and I poke that cell and all the stuff licks out in the text tube, we have in this text tube all the molecules that you need for a living cell.. not just the pieces of the molecules but the molecules themselves and you cannot make a living cell out of them

You can't put humpty dumpty together again !

Edited June 27, 2013 by therhythm

[TaxAHCruel]

It comes down to this:

 

That is essentially the same argument as the Junkyard one I laid out above. You - like they - are simply pointing out that you can not put all the parts of an airplane in a pile and jiggle them about and magically turn them into a plane.

 

You are saying that if you get a perfect cell - take it apart - and put it back together again - it is not alive. Of course not.

 

A cell is more than just it's parts. It is the sum total of a long list of chemical reactions which built up from a base. You can not simply stop and restart those reactions. They have to be done again - from base.

 

When you take a cell apart and then stick it back together again you are not just moving pieces around. You are eradicating a long history of build up to a point that sustained and sustains that cell in what it is and what it does.

 

A living cell is not just what it is in the current moment. It is the sum total of everything it was since it was first formed.

[therhythm]

Because the time measurement in the equations is for time that has actually passed. Not all time everywhere. You do not simply get to stick infinity in because you do not like 0.

 

And the problem for such equations as that is that time is the divisor and you can not divide by zero.

 

Well since we can't quantify the amount of time previous to the big bang your supposition of it being the 0 moment is not less as a leap of faith than mine as calling it infinite and then believing that no laws changed with the Big Bang. This is all definitely theoretical thinking and I have not source to back it up... it is my own rational mind telling me that you deciding the Big Bang is 0 has as much evidences as me telling you the Big Bang was part of the infinite time that existed before it happened.

 

Regarding your claim that the time measurement in the equations is for time that has actually passed... how do you explain the Algebraic Riccati equation?

 

An algebraic Riccati equation is a type of nonlinear equation that arises in the context of infinite-horizon optimal control problems in continuous time or discrete time. In such a problem, one cares about the value of some variable of interest arbitrarily far into the future, and one must optimally choose a value of a controlled variable right now, knowing that one will also behave optimally at all times in the future. The optimal current values of the problem's control variables at any time can be found using the solution of the Riccati equation and the current observations on evolving state variables. With multiple state variables and multiple control variables, the Riccati equation will be a matrix equation.

A typical algebraic Riccati equation is similar to one of the following:

the continuous time algebraic Riccati equation (CARE):

 

or the discrete time algebraic Riccati equation (DARE):

 

X is the unknown n by n symmetric matrix and A, B, Q, R are known real coefficient matrices.

The name Riccati is given to the CARE equation by analogy to the Riccati differential equation: the unknown elements of X appear linearly and in quadratic terms (but no higher-order terms). The DARE arises in place of the CARE when studying discrete time systems; it is not obviously related to the differential equation studied by Riccati.

The algebraic Riccati equation determines the solution of the infinite-horizon time-invariant Linear-Quadratic Regulator problem (LQR) as well as that of the infinite horizon time-invariant Linear-Quadratic-Gaussian control problem (LQG). These are two of the most fundamental problems in control theory.

A solution to the algebraic Riccati equation can be obtained by matrix factorizations or by iterating on the Riccati equation. One type of iteration can be obtained in the discrete time case by using the dynamic Riccati equation that arises in the finite-horizon problem: in the latter type of problem each iteration of the value of the matrix is relevant for optimal choice at each period that is a finite distance in time from a final time period, and if it is iterated infinitely far back in time it converges to the specific matrix that is relevant for optimal choice an infinite length of time prior to a final period—that is, for when there is an infinite horizon.

 

 

I cant. Because I do not know where you made the mistake. You simply came in and said you have decided to call it "infinity". No explanation as to how you came to that conclusion. You just asserted it. As such I have nothing to work with on WHERE you made the mistake. It is the same as if you came into a room and said "I got the answer 47, where did I go wrong" without actually telling anyone what it was your were calculating in the first place, or how.

If all you do is tell me you want to put infinity into the equations instead of zero then all I can say in response is tell you you are being ridiculous. Until I know WHY you want to do it I can not tell you WHERE and HOW you were wrong. Just _that_ you are wrong.

 

Well I did explain you that it came to me from the idea of the continuity of time rather than from taking the Big Bang as the 0 moment of time.... and you did quite good explaining where I could have made a mistake in this post without being pedantic and insulting...

 

I actually like you, and I am not trying to offend you or to prove you wrong... I am trying to get all the knowledge I can from you and I ask for the doubts that you answers open in my mind... maybe my approach is too assertive but I can't only explain it with my lack of capacity to express better in English. I hope you can appreciate that I actually like you and appreciate the time you take to explain my doubts.

Edited June 27, 2013 by therhythm

[therhythm]

That is essentially the same argument as the Junkyard one I laid out above. You - like they - are simply pointing out that you can not put all the parts of an airplane in a pile and jiggle them about and magically turn them into a plane.

 

You are saying that if you get a perfect cell - take it apart - and put it back together again - it is not alive. Of course not.

 

A cell is more than just it's parts. It is the sum total of a long list of chemical reactions which built up from a base. You can not simply stop and restart those reactions. They have to be done again - from base.

 

When you take a cell apart and then stick it back together again you are not just moving pieces around. You are eradicating a long history of build up to a point that sustained and sustains that cell in what it is and what it does.

 

A living cell is not just what it is in the current moment. It is the sum total of everything it was since it was first formed.

 

Maybe it is still my own ignorance but I still fail to see how your leap of faith on the chemical reactions (that have not been replicated by any scientific) has more evidences than the lifegiver explanation that it is explained by a key Biological rule...

[TaxAHCruel]

Maybe it is still my own ignorance but I still fail to see how your leap of faith on the chemical reactions (that have not been replicated by any scientific) has more evidences than the lifegiver explanation that it is explained by a key Biological rule...

 

The sentence above makes no sense to me. Perhaps you could restate it another way.

 

There is no leap of faith in what I said. Again what I said is a scientific fact. If you pull a cell apart - then put it together again - it will not "work".

 

What this has to do with "Disproving Atheists in 82 seconds" I simply have no idea whatsoever. Do you?

[TaxAHCruel]

Well since we can't quantify the amount of time previous to the big bang

 

It has nothing to do with "previous" to the big bang. Right now we do not even have any good reason to think "previous" even means anything in this context. What do words like "before" and "after" mean when time is not an attribute?

 

We are talking about "AT" the big bang and for what is called "planck time" "AFTER" it.

 

You are so desperate to keep typing the phrase "leap of faith" that you are barely even reading what it is I write at you.

[therhythm]

The sentence above makes no sense to me. Perhaps you could restate it another way.

 

There is no leap of faith in what I said. Again what I said is a scientific fact. If you pull a cell apart - then put it together again - it will not "work".

 

What this has to do with "Disproving Atheists in 82 seconds" I simply have no idea whatsoever. Do you?

 

Ohh but that is the title of the youtube video... nothing to do with me, I just wanted to point out that scientific evolutionism as theory of the origins have as much evidence as Creationism.

 

Lifegiver explanation has for me as much evidences as the RNA theory.

[therhythm]

It has nothing to do with "previous" to the big bang. Right now we do not even have any good reason to think "previous" even means anything in this context. What do words like "before" and "after" mean when time is not an attribute?

 

We are talking about "AT" the big bang and for what is called "planck time" "AFTER" it.

 

You are so desperate to keep typing the phrase "leap of faith" that you are barely even reading what it is I write at you.

 

But that is my point to proof that there was not before you need to call the Big Bang moment 0 and while it is definitely a possibility there is also a possibility that the Big Bang was just one moment of time in a infinite flow of time where the Big Bang didn't change any of the existing laws at that moment. Both assertions have the same evidences (non).

[therhythm]

Synthesizing sth living is not impossible, but it will take much more time.

 

Can you proof that? how?

[therhythm]

Can't prove it, obviously, because it hasn't been done yet. But ability to synthesize a virus is a suggestion it can be done.

 

Well, a life has been created in some way and a few steps of that process are already known. We now have ability to synthesize amino acids -> DNA -> entire virus from scratch. We haven't got to full cell unit yet. Those who do that will be showered in Nobel Awards, I'm pretty sure. Indeed, it is moving forward:

 

JCVI: Research / Projects / Synthetic Bacterial Genome / Press Release

Synthetic cell created in lab - Health news - NHS Choices

 

With all due respects to the advances of the science ... there is a huge difference between creating amino acids and a full cell unit...

 

Creating amino acids is not to be taken lightly but it is just creating something without life... the difference between that and a living cell is enormous ...

 

As I pointed before I don't think the complex part is to create the molecules you can puck a living cell and you have them all ... is getting a living cell from it what is the kid of the question

[therhythm]

But that is my point to proof that there was not before you need to call the Big Bang moment 0 and while it is definitely a possibility there is also a possibility that the Big Bang was just one moment of time in a infinite flow of time where the Big Bang didn't change any of the existing laws at that moment. Both assertions have the same evidences (non).

 

After re reading this post I realize is very poorly written so I will try to do it better.

 

My point is that The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory and is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram for Type Ia supernovae. The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, and the formation of galaxies—are derived from these and other observations that are independent of any cosmological model. As the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, it is inferred that everything was closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment in such conditions, resulting in further development of the model. On the other hand, these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.

 

Since the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition I don't think you can call it 0 and thus your theory is as leap of faith (not to annoy you but to make my point) as to the Lifegiver theory or the unmoved mover one.

[therhythm]

The bible isn't regarded by actual scientists as historically accurate. Laymen oft believe wrong things and thus elicit the help of experts when they want results instead of mere hope.

 

You are guilty of such behavior as well. I'm sure when you have heart problems you go to a hospital to seek out the expertise of scientists instead of your neighbor the car mechanic...

 

Going to an expert on matters of politics or religion is no different.

 

You want to know the reality behind religion you ask a theologian, not some biased Internet dofus who has yet to read any religious scripture or take even a single course in theological linguistics or history...

 

I don't know what part of "I AM NOT A JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BELIEVER" you don't understand... if you want to proof the bible wrong go to them for what I care!

 

Nor I deny medicine as a helpful science although is not perfect either which is my point (there are many things that medicine can cure).

 

I am still expecting you to explain me how Spinoza died for his believes killed by the Greeks by the way... I haven't seen any answer from you related to that topic...

[therhythm]

You make it sound like all it was created is just single, isolated amino acids. Not even close to being the case... Cliffs for those who can't open those links:

 

-Entire polio virus was created from scratch, with commonly available chemicals. Over ten years ago. Whole process took two weeks.

 

That's not quite creating life from scratch, because as we know from biology classes, viruses aren't quite alive.

 

So what else was done? Entire genome of bacteria was also recreated from scratch, and inserted into already alive bacteria which kept on living. So basically we can already create a genetic stuff from scratch and insert it into a cell with working "machinery".

 

Matter of time before we'll be able to actually create ENTIRE cell (with that machinery) from scratch. I'm betting it will be done in 20 years. Maybe sooner. Who knows when?

 

I guess you fail to get my point...

 

I am not diminishing the science findings, they are actually amazing and I human hunger for knowledge is one of the things that define us as humans.

 

But what you don't want to understand is that even when you can find a way to build from the scratch each of the elements of a living cell... you still can't create a living cell!

 

If you puck a living cell you already have all the elements... no need to create them from the scratch... still with all those elements you still can't replicate the living cell...

 

You are as close to crate life as a child is to get to the moon with a paper made rocket!

Edited June 27, 2013 by therhythm

[TaxAHCruel]

Ohh but that is the title of the youtube video... nothing to do with me, I just wanted to point out that scientific evolutionism as theory of the origins have as much evidence as Creationism.

 

You can point it out all you like but it will not stop being false. There is plenty of evidence, arguments, data and reasoning substantiating Evolution. There is none at all substantiating Creationism.

 

You are also making the school boy error of conflating evolution with abiogenesis. The two things are entirely different. The video you showed has nothing at all to do with Evolution. As with "leap of faith" it just seems you did not care what you were saying so long as you had the chance to write the nonsense word "Evolutionism".

 

But that is my point to proof that there was not before you need to call the Big Bang moment 0 and while it is definitely a possibility there is also a possibility that the Big Bang was just one moment of time in a infinite flow of time where the Big Bang didn't change any of the existing laws at that moment. Both assertions have the same evidences (non).

 

I have read the above many times now and it makes no grammatical sense to me whatsoever. I know every single word you wrote but together they amount to nonsense. Perhaps you can re-write it.

 

However no, there is no assertions here. Time is an attribute of this universe. The equations relating to that time can only apply to it. As such when you go back in time to the point where that attribute arose the equations require that you divide by zero. You can not do this, therefore our science fails us at this point.

[therhythm]

You are also making the school boy error of conflating evolution with abiogenesis. The two things are entirely different. The video you showed has nothing at all to do with Evolution. As with "leap of faith" it just seems you did not care what you were saying so long as you had the chance to write the nonsense word "Evolutionism".

 

Ok we have already let clear two things:

 

a) I am an ignorant in science and trying to learn

b) My English is terrible

 

Can we move on with our discussions without you needing to point those two points anymore? I made a mistake with the "Evolutionism" term and I didn't know abiogenesis and evolution try to point different things (can you explain me the difference?)

 

 

 

I have read the above many times now and it makes no grammatical sense to me whatsoever. I know every single word you wrote but together they amount to nonsense. Perhaps you can re-write it.

 

Yes I saw id didn't make any sense and I already did create another post (see bellow), you probably didn't see it

 

After re reading this post I realize is very poorly written so I will try to do it better.

 

My point is that The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory and is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram for Type Ia supernovae. The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, and the formation of galaxies—are derived from these and other observations that are independent of any cosmological model. As the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, it is inferred that everything was closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment in such conditions, resulting in further development of the model. On the other hand, these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.

 

Since the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition I don't think you can call it 0 and thus your theory is as leap of faith (not to annoy you but to make my point) as to the Lifegiver theory or the unmoved mover one.

 

 

I was also thinking and trying to document some of the information that you gave me (as it is new for me) and I came across with the fact that E=MC2 is not the equation that explains the Fist law of thermodynamics but the Mass–energy equivalence... you can find the equations that describe the first law of thermodynamics in the bellow link, there are two and were expressed by Claussius and there is no time on them (if there is please point it to me because I don't see it)

First law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Regarding E=MC2 the only time that is included in that formula is as part of the light speed (fore which we have a numeric value and it is not zero).

[therhythm]

LOL! I don't write it to intentionally be mean, but I'm having pretty similar problems with my mini-thread. I'm not quite sure, what the main counterpoint of opposing side is:

 

At first I thought you are talking about not being able to create life from scratch. I equated it to creating entire cell from scratch - because cell is considered to be alive, indeed bacteria and stuff like that are single cells and are alive. So single alive cell would be enough.

 

But now you're saying creating from scratch is not necessary when you already have cell machinery ready (called organelles). What is that you're suggesting?

 

1. That you cannot separate those organelles then put them back together to get a working cell again?

2. Or that you cannot use those organelles to create different organism with different genes etc?

 

Because 1) hasn't been done yet, and would be a final step in creating a cell from scratch. But 2) has already been done many times by genetic engineers and cool stuff (like oil-eating bacterias) have come out of it:

 

Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Yes I understand my English is very bad and when we get to specific terms then it gets even worse so I will try to be more clear.

 

My suggestion is actually point 1, I don't need you to create all the organelles from scratch, I believe science can do that (after all it would not be the first time that science can create something inert (lifeless) from the scratch)... it is making a living cell from it what I am sure you can't achieve!

 

Look to this video (82 secs) if you don't understand me yet

 

Disproving Atheists in 82 seconds! - YouTube

[therhythm]

Creationism has NO evidence. Rinse. Repeat.

 

Creationism is wrong. Simple. It just is. I do not need to look at yet another video on creationism to know that it is flat out wrong. It may seem close-minded-and maybe it is, but I've really heard so many of their arguments to know it's BS.

 

Also, when you keep mentioning that start point, where it all began with the first cell, you're confusing abiogenesis with evolution. They are two different things.

 

yes it is... I guess you won't get annoyed if when you present me any argument i don't look to it and I tell you that atheists are wrong and I don't need to read anything more about that because is like that ....

 

Can you explain me the basic differences between abiogenesis and evolution as explanation of the origins?

 

We all can see that a bird has changed of color or that an elephant has become bigger or stronger that it was ... if that is what you call evolution... well then I am also a believer... but that doesn't compare with a fish (the common ancestor) becoming a lizard ... from a form of living to another form of living... I am very curious to see evidences of that

 

I understand the abiogenesis as part of the evolution theory but then again I may be wrong... as I have said before I never even ended my high school...