Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[mainpmf]

... And what will happen once the universe reach final entropy which means everything is equal?

My guess is BADecker thinks Jesus and Moses will drop down from heaven and Mohammed will fly down on his white horse and the three will do the Armageddon thing.
My money is Mohammed.  He will chop Moses head off in no time and make Jesus his bitch.

The two will live happily forever, fucking each other five times a day (in the direction of Mecca of course).

Long before entropy will have come close to being complete, Jesus will come with His Heavenly Hosts, send the devil and Mohammad to Hell, and you along with them if you will not turn and accept Jesus as your Savior.

See I was right.  I can read his tiny brain like an open book.

What is really amazing is that somebody as intelligent as you can be so right about me and so wrong about God.

Again, you are assuming that I'm wrong about God. 

I fail to see any scientific (or any other) evidence of any God. 

One of us is right.  The other, well, is delusional.

No need of proof. He just give 3 "laws" of physics while ignoring the other hundreds of them then give it to you as a proof.

Same thing as flat earth believers ^^

[1714029491]

1714029491

[mainpmf]

There is a whole little section that you are missing in this. Quantum, being probability, is always only probability. Probability can be very precise, depending on how much probability a scientist wants to put into it. The interesting thing about probability is, you can prove anything with quantum.

Let's say that you set out to use quantum to prove that evolution is true. You could do it. At the same time, let's say that the scientist in the next room set out to prove that evolution could never happen because of cause and effect. He could do it as well.

Quantum can prove anything, even very precisely. Quantum can even be used to prove the likelihood of evolution to be higher or lower, depending on the way the scientists uses quantum. At the same time, the scientist next door can use quantum to prove various levels of evolution improbability.

Essentially, quantum gives a scientist direction for testing his ideas and theories, and the encouragement to not give up until he has proven that his ideas are true or false... proven through other methods than quantum/probability, since probability alone proves nothing.

DAMN YOU'RE SO IRRITATING!!!!!!!!!!!!

For the last fucking time: Quantum theory is NOT probabilities!
It's a very precise and simple explanation of how the world works!!!

From THIS explanation, we can conclude that any observation on a very tiny little part of our universe (nanoscale) is IMPOSSIBLE because when it gets too small the only thing you can get are probabilities!

Can't you see the difference???

I am not trying to be irritating or to upset you in any way.

The fact that quantum is probability is not my idea. It is the idea of scientists that work with quantum. However, tiny is what quantum is all about. And your explanation of tiny becoming probability is probably correct, except where you say that it is impossible. In fact, this is exactly what quantum is all about... tininess that gets so small that all that is left of it is probability.

But don't take my word for it. Listen to Brian Cox .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo.

Yeah sure listen to the 60 seconds of Brian Cox where he can explain correctly for sure!!!
Here is an article summing up the thing correctly. And please next time you try to get a point give a REAL proof, not the only time where a scientist had so little time (60 seconds IS short) he couldn't make the distinction between the theory and the application.

"In 1900, physicist Max Planck presented his quantum theory to the German Physical Society. Planck had sought to discover the reason that radiation from a glowing body changes in color from red, to orange, and, finally, to blue as its temperature rises. He found that by making the assumption that energy existed in individual units in the same way that matter does, rather than just as a constant electromagnetic wave - as had been formerly assumed - and was therefore quantifiable, he could find the answer to his question. The existence of these units became the first assumption of quantum theory."

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/quantum-theory

Okay. I don't work with quantum theory. And I don't want to get into it. But Brian Cox is accepted worldwide. So probably, if you carry what Max Planck was doing to its limit, you would wind up with what Brian Cox is saying.

Notice one thing about this whole quantum area. It is right in the site address you listed above. It is quantum THEORY. When you have one science theory trying to prove another science theory, you are writing a science fiction story. If either of them happened to be a law of science, then you might have something.

Science theory is based on probability. Quantum theory is, therefore, the theory of theories. Probability fits this description to a tee.

Ahahah xD

I think you'll kill us of frustration xD
Brian Cox had 60 seconds in your video and COULD NOT separate the theory and the application. He didn't talk about the quantum theory but about what we're using it for, which is different.

"Notice one thing about this whole quantum area. It is right in the site address you listed above. It is quantum THEORY. When you have one science theory trying to prove another science theory, you are writing a science fiction story. If either of them happened to be a law of science, then you might have something."
Notice how it's the same thing for everything else.
You're talking about laws but you're the only one.
The worldwide scientific community is talking about entropy theory, not entropy law!

Scientists separate the theory (the whole explanation) and the law (precise part of the explanation) because one theory is most of the time composed of many laws! That's absolutely not hos you use the word law.

[BADecker]

... And what will happen once the universe reach final entropy which means everything is equal?

My guess is BADecker thinks Jesus and Moses will drop down from heaven and Mohammed will fly down on his white horse and the three will do the Armageddon thing.
My money is Mohammed.  He will chop Moses head off in no time and make Jesus his bitch.

The two will live happily forever, fucking each other five times a day (in the direction of Mecca of course).

Long before entropy will have come close to being complete, Jesus will come with His Heavenly Hosts, send the devil and Mohammad to Hell, and you along with them if you will not turn and accept Jesus as your Savior.

See I was right.  I can read his tiny brain like an open book.

What is really amazing is that somebody as intelligent as you can be so right about me and so wrong about God.

Again, you are assuming that I'm wrong about God. 

I fail to see any scientific (or any other) evidence of any God. 

One of us is right.  The other, well, is delusional.

No need of proof. He just give 3 "laws" of physics while ignoring the other hundreds of them then give it to you as a proof.

Same thing as flat earth believers ^^

The other hundreds mostly don't apply. The few that do, also confirm the existence of God.

Some of you jokers just don't like reality. Why not?

[BADecker]

There is a whole little section that you are missing in this. Quantum, being probability, is always only probability. Probability can be very precise, depending on how much probability a scientist wants to put into it. The interesting thing about probability is, you can prove anything with quantum.

Let's say that you set out to use quantum to prove that evolution is true. You could do it. At the same time, let's say that the scientist in the next room set out to prove that evolution could never happen because of cause and effect. He could do it as well.

Quantum can prove anything, even very precisely. Quantum can even be used to prove the likelihood of evolution to be higher or lower, depending on the way the scientists uses quantum. At the same time, the scientist next door can use quantum to prove various levels of evolution improbability.

Essentially, quantum gives a scientist direction for testing his ideas and theories, and the encouragement to not give up until he has proven that his ideas are true or false... proven through other methods than quantum/probability, since probability alone proves nothing.

DAMN YOU'RE SO IRRITATING!!!!!!!!!!!!

For the last fucking time: Quantum theory is NOT probabilities!
It's a very precise and simple explanation of how the world works!!!

From THIS explanation, we can conclude that any observation on a very tiny little part of our universe (nanoscale) is IMPOSSIBLE because when it gets too small the only thing you can get are probabilities!

Can't you see the difference???

I am not trying to be irritating or to upset you in any way.

The fact that quantum is probability is not my idea. It is the idea of scientists that work with quantum. However, tiny is what quantum is all about. And your explanation of tiny becoming probability is probably correct, except where you say that it is impossible. In fact, this is exactly what quantum is all about... tininess that gets so small that all that is left of it is probability.

But don't take my word for it. Listen to Brian Cox .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo.

Yeah sure listen to the 60 seconds of Brian Cox where he can explain correctly for sure!!!
Here is an article summing up the thing correctly. And please next time you try to get a point give a REAL proof, not the only time where a scientist had so little time (60 seconds IS short) he couldn't make the distinction between the theory and the application.

"In 1900, physicist Max Planck presented his quantum theory to the German Physical Society. Planck had sought to discover the reason that radiation from a glowing body changes in color from red, to orange, and, finally, to blue as its temperature rises. He found that by making the assumption that energy existed in individual units in the same way that matter does, rather than just as a constant electromagnetic wave - as had been formerly assumed - and was therefore quantifiable, he could find the answer to his question. The existence of these units became the first assumption of quantum theory."

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/quantum-theory

Okay. I don't work with quantum theory. And I don't want to get into it. But Brian Cox is accepted worldwide. So probably, if you carry what Max Planck was doing to its limit, you would wind up with what Brian Cox is saying.

Notice one thing about this whole quantum area. It is right in the site address you listed above. It is quantum THEORY. When you have one science theory trying to prove another science theory, you are writing a science fiction story. If either of them happened to be a law of science, then you might have something.

Science theory is based on probability. Quantum theory is, therefore, the theory of theories. Probability fits this description to a tee.

Ahahah xD

I think you'll kill us of frustration xD
Brian Cox had 60 seconds in your video and COULD NOT separate the theory and the application. He didn't talk about the quantum theory but about what we're using it for, which is different.

"Notice one thing about this whole quantum area. It is right in the site address you listed above. It is quantum THEORY. When you have one science theory trying to prove another science theory, you are writing a science fiction story. If either of them happened to be a law of science, then you might have something."
Notice how it's the same thing for everything else.
You're talking about laws but you're the only one.
The worldwide scientific community is talking about entropy theory, not entropy law!

Scientists separate the theory (the whole explanation) and the law (precise part of the explanation) because one theory is most of the time composed of many laws! That's absolutely not hos you use the word law.

In the case of quantum, when you get down to the tiniest of tiny, there is no separation of theory and application. In fact, that is the whole idea of quantum.

In the scheme of things, a scientific law might be found to be false. The fact of the law is that many people have found it to be true in many ways, but nobody has found it to be false.

Theory, on the other hand, fits all the other possibilities that are outside of law.

For example, cause and effect/action and reaction is law because it exists in everything that everyone works with and understands. Science might come up with a theory that suggests that cause and effect is wrong, but if they do, it is complicated enough that nobody can say for certain that it can not be contradicted. So, it remains theory. and the law remains law.

All this is simply you and me talking about stuff. Cause and effect, at least in the form that Newton expressed it in his 3rd Law, has never been contradicted successfully. And you certainly aren't going to tell me that the universe is not complex. And at its base and core, entropy simply explained is the dispersal and diffusing of all complexity into its simplest form throughout all space and time.

Combining these proves the existence of God.

[BADecker]

There is a whole little section that you are missing in this. Quantum, being probability, is always only probability. Probability can be very precise, depending on how much probability a scientist wants to put into it. The interesting thing about probability is, you can prove anything with quantum.

Let's say that you set out to use quantum to prove that evolution is true. You could do it. At the same time, let's say that the scientist in the next room set out to prove that evolution could never happen because of cause and effect. He could do it as well.

Quantum can prove anything, even very precisely. Quantum can even be used to prove the likelihood of evolution to be higher or lower, depending on the way the scientists uses quantum. At the same time, the scientist next door can use quantum to prove various levels of evolution improbability.

Essentially, quantum gives a scientist direction for testing his ideas and theories, and the encouragement to not give up until he has proven that his ideas are true or false... proven through other methods than quantum/probability, since probability alone proves nothing.

DAMN YOU'RE SO IRRITATING!!!!!!!!!!!!

For the last fucking time: Quantum theory is NOT probabilities!
It's a very precise and simple explanation of how the world works!!!

From THIS explanation, we can conclude that any observation on a very tiny little part of our universe (nanoscale) is IMPOSSIBLE because when it gets too small the only thing you can get are probabilities!

Can't you see the difference???

I am not trying to be irritating or to upset you in any way.

The fact that quantum is probability is not my idea. It is the idea of scientists that work with quantum. However, tiny is what quantum is all about. And your explanation of tiny becoming probability is probably correct, except where you say that it is impossible. In fact, this is exactly what quantum is all about... tininess that gets so small that all that is left of it is probability.

But don't take my word for it. Listen to Brian Cox .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo.

Yeah sure listen to the 60 seconds of Brian Cox where he can explain correctly for sure!!!
Here is an article summing up the thing correctly. And please next time you try to get a point give a REAL proof, not the only time where a scientist had so little time (60 seconds IS short) he couldn't make the distinction between the theory and the application.

"In 1900, physicist Max Planck presented his quantum theory to the German Physical Society. Planck had sought to discover the reason that radiation from a glowing body changes in color from red, to orange, and, finally, to blue as its temperature rises. He found that by making the assumption that energy existed in individual units in the same way that matter does, rather than just as a constant electromagnetic wave - as had been formerly assumed - and was therefore quantifiable, he could find the answer to his question. The existence of these units became the first assumption of quantum theory."

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/quantum-theory

Okay. I don't work with quantum theory. And I don't want to get into it. But Brian Cox is accepted worldwide. So probably, if you carry what Max Planck was doing to its limit, you would wind up with what Brian Cox is saying.

Notice one thing about this whole quantum area. It is right in the site address you listed above. It is quantum THEORY. When you have one science theory trying to prove another science theory, you are writing a science fiction story. If either of them happened to be a law of science, then you might have something.

Science theory is based on probability. Quantum theory is, therefore, the theory of theories. Probability fits this description to a tee.

Ahahah xD

I think you'll kill us of frustration xD
Brian Cox had 60 seconds in your video and COULD NOT separate the theory and the application. He didn't talk about the quantum theory but about what we're using it for, which is different.

"Notice one thing about this whole quantum area. It is right in the site address you listed above. It is quantum THEORY. When you have one science theory trying to prove another science theory, you are writing a science fiction story. If either of them happened to be a law of science, then you might have something."
Notice how it's the same thing for everything else.
You're talking about laws but you're the only one.
The worldwide scientific community is talking about entropy theory, not entropy law!

Scientists separate the theory (the whole explanation) and the law (precise part of the explanation) because one theory is most of the time composed of many laws! That's absolutely not hos you use the word law.

In the case of quantum, when you get down to the tiniest of tiny, there is no separation of theory and application. In fact, that is the whole idea of quantum.

In the scheme of things, a scientific law might be found to be false. The fact of the law is that many people have found it to be true in many ways, but nobody has found it to be false.

Theory, on the other hand, fits all the other possibilities that are outside of law.

For example, cause and effect/action and reaction is law because it exists in everything that everyone works with and understands. Science might come up with a theory that suggests that cause and effect is wrong, but if they do, it is complicated enough that nobody can say for certain that it can not be contradicted. So, it remains theory. and the law remains law.

All this is simply you and me talking about stuff. Cause and effect, at least in the form that Newton expressed it in his 3rd Law, has never been contradicted successfully. And you certainly aren't going to tell me that the universe is not complex. And at its base and core, entropy simply explained is the dispersal and diffusing of all complexity into its simplest form throughout all space and time.

Combining these proves the existence of God.

If the theory is too complicated for you it does not mean that is not valid.  It just means that you don't understand it.

I think the biggest issue you have is with the word theory.  You don't understand how scientific theories are established and what they mean.  Theory is not the same as story.

Quite the opposite. I am well aware of how some scientists have twisted the word "theory" to suggest that if the theory is strong enough, it is truth, even when it is not known to be truth.

However, the laws still remain laws. This means that science proves that God exists. I don't prove that God exists. The scientific laws do.

[Moloch]

...This means that science proves that God exists. I don't prove that God exists. The scientific laws do.

Why don't you post a link to your source for science proving that God exists?

When I google, "theory of God", I see no such result... I only find articles contradicting your statement, like:
http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/

Hawking now explained: "What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn't. I'm an atheist."

He added: "Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."

[BADecker]

...This means that science proves that God exists. I don't prove that God exists. The scientific laws do.

Why don't you post a link to your source for science proving that God exists?

When I google, "theory of God", I see no such result... I only find articles contradicting your statement, like:
http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/

Hawking now explained: "What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn't. I'm an atheist."

He added: "Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."

If that's the only way you do your research, you might as well forget it and go to bed or something.

[mainpmf]

There is a whole little section that you are missing in this. Quantum, being probability, is always only probability. Probability can be very precise, depending on how much probability a scientist wants to put into it. The interesting thing about probability is, you can prove anything with quantum.

Let's say that you set out to use quantum to prove that evolution is true. You could do it. At the same time, let's say that the scientist in the next room set out to prove that evolution could never happen because of cause and effect. He could do it as well.

Quantum can prove anything, even very precisely. Quantum can even be used to prove the likelihood of evolution to be higher or lower, depending on the way the scientists uses quantum. At the same time, the scientist next door can use quantum to prove various levels of evolution improbability.

Essentially, quantum gives a scientist direction for testing his ideas and theories, and the encouragement to not give up until he has proven that his ideas are true or false... proven through other methods than quantum/probability, since probability alone proves nothing.

DAMN YOU'RE SO IRRITATING!!!!!!!!!!!!

For the last fucking time: Quantum theory is NOT probabilities!
It's a very precise and simple explanation of how the world works!!!

From THIS explanation, we can conclude that any observation on a very tiny little part of our universe (nanoscale) is IMPOSSIBLE because when it gets too small the only thing you can get are probabilities!

Can't you see the difference???

I am not trying to be irritating or to upset you in any way.

The fact that quantum is probability is not my idea. It is the idea of scientists that work with quantum. However, tiny is what quantum is all about. And your explanation of tiny becoming probability is probably correct, except where you say that it is impossible. In fact, this is exactly what quantum is all about... tininess that gets so small that all that is left of it is probability.

But don't take my word for it. Listen to Brian Cox .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo.

Yeah sure listen to the 60 seconds of Brian Cox where he can explain correctly for sure!!!
Here is an article summing up the thing correctly. And please next time you try to get a point give a REAL proof, not the only time where a scientist had so little time (60 seconds IS short) he couldn't make the distinction between the theory and the application.

"In 1900, physicist Max Planck presented his quantum theory to the German Physical Society. Planck had sought to discover the reason that radiation from a glowing body changes in color from red, to orange, and, finally, to blue as its temperature rises. He found that by making the assumption that energy existed in individual units in the same way that matter does, rather than just as a constant electromagnetic wave - as had been formerly assumed - and was therefore quantifiable, he could find the answer to his question. The existence of these units became the first assumption of quantum theory."

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/quantum-theory

Okay. I don't work with quantum theory. And I don't want to get into it. But Brian Cox is accepted worldwide. So probably, if you carry what Max Planck was doing to its limit, you would wind up with what Brian Cox is saying.

Notice one thing about this whole quantum area. It is right in the site address you listed above. It is quantum THEORY. When you have one science theory trying to prove another science theory, you are writing a science fiction story. If either of them happened to be a law of science, then you might have something.

Science theory is based on probability. Quantum theory is, therefore, the theory of theories. Probability fits this description to a tee.

Ahahah xD

I think you'll kill us of frustration xD
Brian Cox had 60 seconds in your video and COULD NOT separate the theory and the application. He didn't talk about the quantum theory but about what we're using it for, which is different.

"Notice one thing about this whole quantum area. It is right in the site address you listed above. It is quantum THEORY. When you have one science theory trying to prove another science theory, you are writing a science fiction story. If either of them happened to be a law of science, then you might have something."
Notice how it's the same thing for everything else.
You're talking about laws but you're the only one.
The worldwide scientific community is talking about entropy theory, not entropy law!

Scientists separate the theory (the whole explanation) and the law (precise part of the explanation) because one theory is most of the time composed of many laws! That's absolutely not hos you use the word law.

In the case of quantum, when you get down to the tiniest of tiny, there is no separation of theory and application. In fact, that is the whole idea of quantum.

In the scheme of things, a scientific law might be found to be false. The fact of the law is that many people have found it to be true in many ways, but nobody has found it to be false.

Theory, on the other hand, fits all the other possibilities that are outside of law.

For example, cause and effect/action and reaction is law because it exists in everything that everyone works with and understands. Science might come up with a theory that suggests that cause and effect is wrong, but if they do, it is complicated enough that nobody can say for certain that it can not be contradicted. So, it remains theory. and the law remains law.

All this is simply you and me talking about stuff. Cause and effect, at least in the form that Newton expressed it in his 3rd Law, has never been contradicted successfully. And you certainly aren't going to tell me that the universe is not complex. And at its base and core, entropy simply explained is the dispersal and diffusing of all complexity into its simplest form throughout all space and time.

Combining these proves the existence of God.

Hey, you wanna talk about cause and consequences?

Well if quantum physics is not true, then cause and consequences is not true either!

You're just too dumb to understand physics guy.

[valta4065]

Quite the opposite. I am well aware of how some scientists have twisted the word "theory" to suggest that if the theory is strong enough, it is truth, even when it is not known to be truth.

However, the laws still remain laws. This means that science proves that God exists. I don't prove that God exists. The scientific laws do.

The laws are not laws...
You talk about laws but they're not proven, they' just haven't been proven wrong that's all...

[ctlaltdefeat]

i dont know,i am not atheis,and i never meet people who dont admit that god was exist,and i never meet people who dont have religion or hate religion,we all life on peace world,must be have one decision and rules.

[BADecker]

i dont know,i am not atheis,and i never meet people who dont admit that god was exist,and i never meet people who dont have religion or hate religion,we all life on peace world,must be have one decision and rules.

Much easier for governments and slave makers to control us this way.   

[BADecker]

There is a whole little section that you are missing in this. Quantum, being probability, is always only probability. Probability can be very precise, depending on how much probability a scientist wants to put into it. The interesting thing about probability is, you can prove anything with quantum.

Let's say that you set out to use quantum to prove that evolution is true. You could do it. At the same time, let's say that the scientist in the next room set out to prove that evolution could never happen because of cause and effect. He could do it as well.

Quantum can prove anything, even very precisely. Quantum can even be used to prove the likelihood of evolution to be higher or lower, depending on the way the scientists uses quantum. At the same time, the scientist next door can use quantum to prove various levels of evolution improbability.

Essentially, quantum gives a scientist direction for testing his ideas and theories, and the encouragement to not give up until he has proven that his ideas are true or false... proven through other methods than quantum/probability, since probability alone proves nothing.

DAMN YOU'RE SO IRRITATING!!!!!!!!!!!!

For the last fucking time: Quantum theory is NOT probabilities!
It's a very precise and simple explanation of how the world works!!!

From THIS explanation, we can conclude that any observation on a very tiny little part of our universe (nanoscale) is IMPOSSIBLE because when it gets too small the only thing you can get are probabilities!

Can't you see the difference???

I am not trying to be irritating or to upset you in any way.

The fact that quantum is probability is not my idea. It is the idea of scientists that work with quantum. However, tiny is what quantum is all about. And your explanation of tiny becoming probability is probably correct, except where you say that it is impossible. In fact, this is exactly what quantum is all about... tininess that gets so small that all that is left of it is probability.

But don't take my word for it. Listen to Brian Cox .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo.

Yeah sure listen to the 60 seconds of Brian Cox where he can explain correctly for sure!!!
Here is an article summing up the thing correctly. And please next time you try to get a point give a REAL proof, not the only time where a scientist had so little time (60 seconds IS short) he couldn't make the distinction between the theory and the application.

"In 1900, physicist Max Planck presented his quantum theory to the German Physical Society. Planck had sought to discover the reason that radiation from a glowing body changes in color from red, to orange, and, finally, to blue as its temperature rises. He found that by making the assumption that energy existed in individual units in the same way that matter does, rather than just as a constant electromagnetic wave - as had been formerly assumed - and was therefore quantifiable, he could find the answer to his question. The existence of these units became the first assumption of quantum theory."

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/quantum-theory

Okay. I don't work with quantum theory. And I don't want to get into it. But Brian Cox is accepted worldwide. So probably, if you carry what Max Planck was doing to its limit, you would wind up with what Brian Cox is saying.

Notice one thing about this whole quantum area. It is right in the site address you listed above. It is quantum THEORY. When you have one science theory trying to prove another science theory, you are writing a science fiction story. If either of them happened to be a law of science, then you might have something.

Science theory is based on probability. Quantum theory is, therefore, the theory of theories. Probability fits this description to a tee.

Ahahah xD

I think you'll kill us of frustration xD
Brian Cox had 60 seconds in your video and COULD NOT separate the theory and the application. He didn't talk about the quantum theory but about what we're using it for, which is different.

"Notice one thing about this whole quantum area. It is right in the site address you listed above. It is quantum THEORY. When you have one science theory trying to prove another science theory, you are writing a science fiction story. If either of them happened to be a law of science, then you might have something."
Notice how it's the same thing for everything else.
You're talking about laws but you're the only one.
The worldwide scientific community is talking about entropy theory, not entropy law!

Scientists separate the theory (the whole explanation) and the law (precise part of the explanation) because one theory is most of the time composed of many laws! That's absolutely not hos you use the word law.

In the case of quantum, when you get down to the tiniest of tiny, there is no separation of theory and application. In fact, that is the whole idea of quantum.

In the scheme of things, a scientific law might be found to be false. The fact of the law is that many people have found it to be true in many ways, but nobody has found it to be false.

Theory, on the other hand, fits all the other possibilities that are outside of law.

For example, cause and effect/action and reaction is law because it exists in everything that everyone works with and understands. Science might come up with a theory that suggests that cause and effect is wrong, but if they do, it is complicated enough that nobody can say for certain that it can not be contradicted. So, it remains theory. and the law remains law.

All this is simply you and me talking about stuff. Cause and effect, at least in the form that Newton expressed it in his 3rd Law, has never been contradicted successfully. And you certainly aren't going to tell me that the universe is not complex. And at its base and core, entropy simply explained is the dispersal and diffusing of all complexity into its simplest form throughout all space and time.

Combining these proves the existence of God.

Hey, you wanna talk about cause and consequences?

Well if quantum physics is not true, then cause and consequences is not true either!

You're just too dumb to understand physics guy.

Now, now. Just because you can't tell the difference between the truth of QP and the falseness in the way many people express the things they use it for, doesn't mean you have to go out and show how unthinking you are.

But, since you do it, I'll agree with the fact that you do it. Don't need any QP to understand your expression of self-foolishness.

[Betwrong]

This thread is awsome. I just looked here and there and now I'm going to read it more carefully.

As for me, I don't think that scientists have proved that God exists but I don't think anyone can really prove the opposite. That's why IMO atheists and religious people shouldn't be 100% sure about their views.

[af_newbie]

This thread is awsome. I just looked here and there and now I'm going to read it more carefully.

As for me, I don't think that scientists have proved that God exists but I don't think anyone can really prove the opposite. That's why IMO atheists and religious people shouldn't be 100% sure about their views.

You don't need to prove that something does not exist.  No need.  Just like there is no need to prove that cyclops or Zeus does not exist.  Most rational people consider these claims to be myths, i.e. not true.

Atheists are not making any existential claims.

[Moloch]

This thread is awsome. I just looked here and there and now I'm going to read it more carefully.

As for me, I don't think that scientists have proved that God exists but I don't think anyone can really prove the opposite. That's why IMO atheists and religious people shouldn't be 100% sure about their views.

You are correct. You cannot prove God does not exist because the claim that God exists is not falsifiable... Which means it is not science... All scientific claims must be falsifiable... It is required for science...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments. Under modern interpretations, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested

[Moloch]

...This means that science proves that God exists. I don't prove that God exists. The scientific laws do.

Why don't you post a link to your source for science proving that God exists?

When I google, "theory of God", I see no such result... I only find articles contradicting your statement, like:
http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/

Hawking now explained: "What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn't. I'm an atheist."

He added: "Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."

If that's the only way you do your research, you might as well forget it and go to bed or something.

I didn't expect a religitard like you to actually post a link to a source... probably because no source would/could ever back up your claim that science has proven God exists...

If you cannot provide a source, the obvious conclusion is that you pulled the claim straight out of your ass


How do you do your research if not via Google?  I'm curious now... what am I doing wrong?

Somehow I only seem to find articles that agree with consensus reality, not your fantasy land claims

[BADecker]

...This means that science proves that God exists. I don't prove that God exists. The scientific laws do.

Why don't you post a link to your source for science proving that God exists?

When I google, "theory of God", I see no such result... I only find articles contradicting your statement, like:
http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/

Hawking now explained: "What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn't. I'm an atheist."

He added: "Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."

If that's the only way you do your research, you might as well forget it and go to bed or something.

I didn't expect a religitard like you to actually post a link to a source... probably because no source would/could ever back up your claim that science has proven God exists...

If you cannot provide a source, the obvious conclusion is that you pulled the claim straight out of your ass


How do you do your research if not via Google?  I'm curious now... what am I doing wrong?

Somehow I only seem to find articles that agree with consensus reality, not your fantasy land claims

You will have to do your own research on this one. However, you have one obvious point going for you. Since you can't even do your own research, there probably isn't much of any way that you would understand it if you found it. And there isn't any way that you could think enough to understand anything on your own.

[Moloch]

...This means that science proves that God exists. I don't prove that God exists. The scientific laws do.

Why don't you post a link to your source for science proving that God exists?

When I google, "theory of God", I see no such result... I only find articles contradicting your statement, like:
http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/

Hawking now explained: "What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn't. I'm an atheist."

He added: "Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."

If that's the only way you do your research, you might as well forget it and go to bed or something.

I didn't expect a religitard like you to actually post a link to a source... probably because no source would/could ever back up your claim that science has proven God exists...

If you cannot provide a source, the obvious conclusion is that you pulled the claim straight out of your ass


How do you do your research if not via Google?  I'm curious now... what am I doing wrong?

Somehow I only seem to find articles that agree with consensus reality, not your fantasy land claims

You will have to do your own research on this one. However, you have one obvious point going for you. Since you can't even do your own research, there probably isn't much of any way that you would understand it if you found it. And there isn't any way that you could think enough to understand anything on your own.

Why am I not surprised you continually choose to insult me rather than post a fucking link? (argumentum ad hominem)

Way to represent Christ... WWJD?

If you can't be arsed to provide evidence for your claim... nevermind... you probably wouldn't understand even if I explain it to you...

[BADecker]

...This means that science proves that God exists. I don't prove that God exists. The scientific laws do.

Why don't you post a link to your source for science proving that God exists?

When I google, "theory of God", I see no such result... I only find articles contradicting your statement, like:
http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/

Hawking now explained: "What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn't. I'm an atheist."

He added: "Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."

If that's the only way you do your research, you might as well forget it and go to bed or something.

I didn't expect a religitard like you to actually post a link to a source... probably because no source would/could ever back up your claim that science has proven God exists...

If you cannot provide a source, the obvious conclusion is that you pulled the claim straight out of your ass


How do you do your research if not via Google?  I'm curious now... what am I doing wrong?

Somehow I only seem to find articles that agree with consensus reality, not your fantasy land claims

You will have to do your own research on this one. However, you have one obvious point going for you. Since you can't even do your own research, there probably isn't much of any way that you would understand it if you found it. And there isn't any way that you could think enough to understand anything on your own.

Why am I not surprised you continually choose to insult me rather than post a fucking link? (argumentum ad hominem)

Way to represent Christ... WWJD?

If you can't be arsed to provide evidence for your claim... nevermind... you probably wouldn't understand even if I explain it to you...

Chuckle. The fact that you get bent all out of shape, shows that you wouldn't be able to understand it if it were given to you. But, I'll help you. Google search:
1. "Cause and effect;"
2. "Complex universe;"
3. "Universal entropy."

By the way, Googling these things won't help much if you don't get into some of the sites and read what is said.

Also, watch the Illustra Media videos at https://www.youtube.com/user/IllustraMedia.

[Moloch]

Chuckle. The fact that you get bent all out of shape, shows that you wouldn't be able to understand it if it were given to you. But, I'll help you. Google search:
1. "Cause and effect;"
2. "Complex universe;"
3. "Universal entropy."

As others have previously mentioned... stating this proves nothing to anyone... I fully understand these concepts and in no way does it imply or require God

If you wish to convince anyone... you MUST stop with the personal attacks and provide some fucking evidence to support your claim... otherwise you are simply a troll

By the way, Googling these things won't help much if you don't get into some of the sites and read what is said.

Also, watch the Illustra Media videos at https://www.youtube.com/user/IllustraMedia.

I have watched some of these videos, and like most Christian propaganda (yourself included), they do not understand the basics of what they are talking about... so of course they reach incorrect conclusions...

For example... in this video:
Case for a Creator - Biological Information Clip

Illustra Media makes the claim that DNA is simply too complicated to have been assembled out of nothing... therefore God...

Now, in reality, DNA did not come from nothing... so they are partially correct... DNA had several predecessors, which were simpler in form and function (RNA for example)

They also make the claim that "theories proposing that this information arose through the self-organizing power of chemicals in a primordial soup have repeatedly failed"... this is simply ignorance here... The Miller-Urey experiment proved this in 1952, and has been duplicated and verified many times since then...

Most recently, http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-ames-reproduces-the-building-blocks-of-life-in-laboratory

We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, cytosine, and thymine, all three components of RNA and DNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space

If this is the of source of your misinformation, I understand why everything you say is so completely wrong