Proof that God exists

[organofcorti]

How dense of you. The chemical reactions in both cases are way more complex than the results.

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. How are you measuring the change in complexity? Or are you just making an assumption>

When somebody has found a way to track all the electrons, protons, and neutrons in a chemical action, plus all the energies involved in the reaction, you might get the answer to your question. Nobody tracks it. We can't, although we might track a little of it sometime. Just because we have figured out how it works, doesn't mean that we can track the parts as they are doing their thing.

So, In summary:

Either the examples I gave -- Copper sulphate solution precipitates copper sulphate crystals and wood burning to create smoke -- have the following unmeasureable pathways:

Complex material -> Complex reaction -> Simple material or;
Simple material -> Complex reaction -> Complex material

So using your explanation, in at least one of the cases something complex comes from something simple.

Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.

Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.

This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.

Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?

Which is more complex, ice or water?

Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.

So you're not sure if ice or water is more complex? Then how can you say that some level of complexity is only a result of something more complex?

[BADecker]

Hey BADecker, you still never explained why carbon datation was not reliable!

Not only carbon but all and any radioactive datation in fact.

I am not up on the reason why. But research it and you will find the data that shows that they are unreliable.

[BADecker]

In there or out there doesn't matter. You haven't been able to refute the science I show.

Okay, okay. You talk more, so your political science might "refute" the science I show.

When have you ever shown anything that even resembled science?

All you do is blather on and on about off-topic bullshit that nobody wants to read

As I said, whatever you have been smoking has nearly burned your brain out. You wouldn't recognize science if it came up and bit you in the left eye.

Science is solely about facts that can be substantiated via experimentation and evidence... show me some of this science you claim to have

You mean the kind like Big Bang Theory, and Black Hole Theory, which are not even part of the scientific process, because nobody can begin to duplicate them, because nobody can afford to use CERN?

You want to believe those theories are truth, when they can't even be duplicated, and when they are self contradictory, and when nobody but nobody can even go back then or out there to check.

What are you babbling about now?  What is this about CERN?

Are you trying to say CERN is too expensive or something?  Or that nobody else can build a particle accelerator?

I hope you realize CERN is not the only particle accelerator around, and they are building bigger ones already

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

Hell, there are a dozen different varieties of particle accelerator... why do you think they just make this shit up like you do?  Not everyone is full of shit... only you...

You are like the rabbit that hides its head, but doesn't realize everyone can see it's whole body... because it is dark for the rabbit, the rabbit thinks it is hiding...

What are you going on about particle accelerators for? An extremely few people ever get to use the giant particle accelerators that might prove or disprove parts of BB and BH theory. Thus, even the little bit of science in those theories that might be true, cannot be reproduced by other than a few, select scientists... if you want to believe them. No duplication, no science, right?

But if you believe them, they are your gods, since you can't do it.

[BADecker]

How dense of you. The chemical reactions in both cases are way more complex than the results.

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. How are you measuring the change in complexity? Or are you just making an assumption>

When somebody has found a way to track all the electrons, protons, and neutrons in a chemical action, plus all the energies involved in the reaction, you might get the answer to your question. Nobody tracks it. We can't, although we might track a little of it sometime. Just because we have figured out how it works, doesn't mean that we can track the parts as they are doing their thing.

So, In summary:

Either the examples I gave -- Copper sulphate solution precipitates copper sulphate crystals and wood burning to create smoke -- have the following unmeasureable pathways:

Complex material -> Complex reaction -> Simple material or;
Simple material -> Complex reaction -> Complex material

So using your explanation, in at least one of the cases something complex comes from something simple.

Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.

Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.

This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.

Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?

Which is more complex, ice or water?

Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.

So you're not sure if ice or water is more complex? Then how can you say that some level of complexity is only a result of something more complex?

Here's how. Since entropy pervades everything, ultimately everything that is made out of something else is at least slightly less complex than the thing that made it, due to entropy.

Are you trying to go for a swim inside ice, or what

[organofcorti]

Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.

Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.

This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.

Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?

Which is more complex, ice or water?

Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.

So you're not sure if ice or water is more complex? Then how can you say that some level of complexity is only a result of something more complex?

Here's how. Since entropy pervades everything, ultimately everything that is made out of something else is at least slightly less complex than the thing that made it, due to entropy.

Are you trying to go for a swim inside ice, or what

If you don't know which is more complex in that case, how can you be certain which is more complex in any arbitrary case? I will accept answers other than "Because that's the way I think it is".

[eon89]

That must have hurt.

[BADecker]

Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.

Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.

This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.

Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?

Which is more complex, ice or water?

Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.

So you're not sure if ice or water is more complex? Then how can you say that some level of complexity is only a result of something more complex?

Here's how. Since entropy pervades everything, ultimately everything that is made out of something else is at least slightly less complex than the thing that made it, due to entropy.

Are you trying to go for a swim inside ice, or what

If you don't know which is more complex in that case, how can you be certain which is more complex in any arbitrary case? I will accept answers other than "Because that's the way I think it is".

If you really want the answer to the complexity of ice and water, do the research.    

[organofcorti]

Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.

Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.

This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.

Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?

Which is more complex, ice or water?

Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.

So you're not sure if ice or water is more complex? Then how can you say that some level of complexity is only a result of something more complex?

Here's how. Since entropy pervades everything, ultimately everything that is made out of something else is at least slightly less complex than the thing that made it, due to entropy.

Are you trying to go for a swim inside ice, or what

If you don't know which is more complex in that case, how can you be certain which is more complex in any arbitrary case? I will accept answers other than "Because that's the way I think it is".

If you really want the answer to the complexity of ice and water, do the research.    

You still haven't actually defined what complexity is. According to the wikipedia article on complexity "there is no unique definition of complexity" so if you don't provide your definition no one can know what you're talking about.

[craked5]

Is the 8 week old baby more complex than 2 weeks old baby?  Answer Yes or No please.

You understand the question, don't you?

... But I will answer it anyway. Yes. ...

Thank you.

You proved yourself wrong.   2 week old baby is less complex than 8 week old baby.
More complexity from less complexity.  There goes your "proof" of God, out to the dumpster.

Your Honour, I rest my case.  Witness is excused.

Nah, we already tried that.

I tried with evolution theory and fusions and simple tree growth but he just says yes then go like it was a no, won't work mate!

That's just it. Evolution = theory. Cause and effect = fact/law. Cause and effect = programming = if evolution is true in any way, it was programmed into nature.

It's cool how what's supposed to prove God is a fact/law and the thousands of things that refutes his existence are just mere theories. And it's funny how no scientist know it hmm?

[craked5]

Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.

Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.

This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.

Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?

Which is more complex, ice or water?

Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.

So you're not sure if ice or water is more complex? Then how can you say that some level of complexity is only a result of something more complex?

Here's how. Since entropy pervades everything, ultimately everything that is made out of something else is at least slightly less complex than the thing that made it, due to entropy.

Are you trying to go for a swim inside ice, or what

If you don't know which is more complex in that case, how can you be certain which is more complex in any arbitrary case? I will accept answers other than "Because that's the way I think it is".

If you really want the answer to the complexity of ice and water, do the research.    

You still haven't actually defined what complexity is. According to the wikipedia article on complexity "there is no unique definition of complexity" so if you don't provide your definition no one can know what you're talking about.

Already tried to make him define his terms but he doesn't give a fuck about this neither :/

[Moloch]

It's cool how what's supposed to prove God is a fact/law and the thousands of things that refutes his existence are just mere theories. And it's funny how no scientist know it hmm?

That's literally the definition of delusional

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

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

100 Renowned Academics Speaking About God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De6j01DCsZM

[Moloch]

Why Christianity is Impossible to Believe (Christopher Hitchens)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbOUBUVLvKw

Christianity is False and Immoral. (Christopher Hitchens)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA55jGyq2C8

[Moloch]

Disproving Gods with History and Science (Dr. Richard Carrier)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFGTu-OxFpU

Dr. Richard Carrier – 'Did Jesus Even Exist?'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

"Are Christians Delusional?" Richard Carrier Skepticon 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28PjVaW4kKI

[Moloch]

Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan & Arthur C. Clarke agree that religion is bullshit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDf-AbOTNDA
(though they mostly talk about the cosmos, the big bang, aliens, physics and fractals)

[Moloch]

Stephen Hawking: There Is No God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj0NL2r6cnU

[valta4065]

It's cool how what's supposed to prove God is a fact/law and the thousands of things that refutes his existence are just mere theories. And it's funny how no scientist know it hmm?

That's literally the definition of delusional

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

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

100 Renowned Academics Speaking About God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De6j01DCsZM

Well anyway he doesn't really care about reason. He just gives his opinions like they were facts rock solid!

[mainpmf]

Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.

Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.

This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.

Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?

Which is more complex, ice or water?

Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.

So you're not sure if ice or water is more complex? Then how can you say that some level of complexity is only a result of something more complex?

Here's how. Since entropy pervades everything, ultimately everything that is made out of something else is at least slightly less complex than the thing that made it, due to entropy.

Are you trying to go for a swim inside ice, or what

If you don't know which is more complex in that case, how can you be certain which is more complex in any arbitrary case? I will accept answers other than "Because that's the way I think it is".

Damn, you ask for logical reasoning and constructive thinking? What the hell man? 

[BADecker]

Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.

Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.

This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.

Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?

Which is more complex, ice or water?

Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.

So you're not sure if ice or water is more complex? Then how can you say that some level of complexity is only a result of something more complex?

Here's how. Since entropy pervades everything, ultimately everything that is made out of something else is at least slightly less complex than the thing that made it, due to entropy.

Are you trying to go for a swim inside ice, or what

If you don't know which is more complex in that case, how can you be certain which is more complex in any arbitrary case? I will accept answers other than "Because that's the way I think it is".

Damn, you ask for logical reasoning and constructive thinking? What the hell man? 

But he wouldn't know how to use the information, how to interpret it, just like he doesn't know how to search for it. I mean, consider. He tells me on a regular basis, right in this thread, in various ways, that my thinking is flawed. Then he asks me for scientific information. Is that logical?

So, if he really thinks my scientific thinking is flawed, shouldn't he go search somewhere where he might expect to find accurate data? No! of course not. Why not? Because he doesn't really want accurate info. If he did, he would realize that science proves that God exists, and wouldn't keep suggesting that it doesn't.

Fickle like a fickle woman. Thinks my thinking is flawed. Then asks me for science. Goofy.

[BADecker]

It's cool how what's supposed to prove God is a fact/law and the thousands of things that refutes his existence are just mere theories. And it's funny how no scientist know it hmm?

That's literally the definition of delusional

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

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

100 Renowned Academics Speaking About God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De6j01DCsZM

Well anyway he doesn't really care about reason. He just gives his opinions like they were facts rock solid!

There is so much knowledge and information that is not yet knowledge, that a thousand academics, or a million of them, would never know it all. And even if they did know it all, they would never be able to think about it all. Not in this lifetime.

So, if they are against the existence of God, why would they want to speak ideas that suggest God exists? Especially if they have not thought in the directions of the ways that prove that God exists?

Needle in a haystack. Can you find the needle? And if you pretend to be looking, but really don't want to find, will you express your find if you find it by accident? Of course not. You will go off and ignore the fact that you did find.



EDIT: Just to show how flawed the video is (which I am not going to watch, btw), the title beneath the video in Youtube is "100 Renowned Academics Speaking About God." But the title inside the video itself is, "50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God." If the joker who put the video up on Youtube can't get it right, it's because he fits right in with the 50 renowned academics.

[mainpmf]

Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.

Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.

This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.

Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?

Which is more complex, ice or water?

Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.

So you're not sure if ice or water is more complex? Then how can you say that some level of complexity is only a result of something more complex?

Here's how. Since entropy pervades everything, ultimately everything that is made out of something else is at least slightly less complex than the thing that made it, due to entropy.

Are you trying to go for a swim inside ice, or what

If you don't know which is more complex in that case, how can you be certain which is more complex in any arbitrary case? I will accept answers other than "Because that's the way I think it is".

Damn, you ask for logical reasoning and constructive thinking? What the hell man? 

But he wouldn't know how to use the information, how to interpret it, just like he doesn't know how to search for it. I mean, consider. He tells me on a regular basis, right in this thread, in various ways, that my thinking is flawed. Then he asks me for scientific information. Is that logical?

So, if he really thinks my scientific thinking is flawed, shouldn't he go search somewhere where he might expect to find accurate data? No! of course not. Why not? Because he doesn't really want accurate info. If he did, he would realize that science proves that God exists, and wouldn't keep suggesting that it doesn't.

Fickle like a fickle woman. Thinks my thinking is flawed. Then asks me for science. Goofy.

Your thinking is not only flawed. It's irrelevant and insulting.