Scientific proof that God exists?

[optimus_primeus]

But what created god then? Since he is so complex as you claim, then something even more complex must have created him, right?

[etalon_bazda]

So I'm guessing the creator of god has to be much more complex as well, right?

[atomat_thomson]

Again, I have to point out this is his fairy tale science.  Don't confuse it with actual reality science.

[evaelblackwinds]

I just believe god exist in my heart, those evidences you shown can be easily fake.

[george3010]

Come on you can't see God, you just can feel him.. The biggest power that you don't see but you believe. You can't see his miracles but you still believe. What a big think.. I am lucky to have this feelings to god. Id i get richer in cryto business i will share some of it, i gave my promise to the God..

[aurorabitcoin.96]

i am not sure how to proof God in scientific way. I am know in religion and it doesnt have any relationship with science

[Astargath]

i like to scroll this thread to see how many times my buddy BADecker
posts these links....

One of the greatest things that science is proving is that the universe is way beyond us and our feeble minds to understand.

One of the things that science proved long ago is that God, who understands the whole universe, exists:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

 everytime he does... i drink..
dude!! it's been 10 pages or so!!  come on man  WTF??... i got a six pack waiting!!

For now there is no 100% scientific proof of God existence, but I believe even science will lead us to God existence.

Cause and effect exists in everything. There is no pure random. The thing we call random or probability arises from our inability to see tiny details, like which molecules move a leaf as it twists in the summer breeze.

Cause and effect are like programming. Cause and effect all by itself almost proves that God exists, and programed everything to be what it is.

When you add complexity and entropy to the way things exist and operate, the only way they could exist and operate is through God. If God didn't exist, none of the universe would exist as it does.

None of this explains what God is in detail. We can draw some conclusions about the nature of God from science and observation of nature. But the details are limited without direct revelation from God, Himself.

Whatever brought the universe into existence, no matter what form or qualities He has, It is still God.

if I had a nickel for every time BADecker mentions "cause and effect" and "entropy" without fully understanding the concepts of them I'd be a millionai... Oh wait I own some bitcoin.

Nice.

Tell me about it. After explaining to him several times that those things do not prove god, he just ignores my posts. His delusion wont let him see the truth.

In all your so-called explaining, you have essentially said nothing. You have not explained why and how those things do not prove God. You have only said over and over that I am wrong.

Yet, I have explained over and over how and why they do prove God. Standard examples are listed here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Come on. You can do better than that. If you can't, all your nay-saying is political science, and worthy of no review at all.

Holy mother of mythical invisible sky fairy!!.... dude!!!
i take a break from here and come back
a few billion pages later and you are still posting your boilerplate links??
damn ... you need to do an update or something!
but that's ok my friend!!

i get to drink!!! lmao

Those links contain the information that proves that God exists. Obviously the info can be written in many different ways. Do me a favor, and write it all up for me in a different way.

Btw, Astargath has proven that he is full of political science... not understanding of the science that proves or disproves that God exists. If he knew anything about science, he would state his points rather than just copying and pasting links to other peoples' work.

''God’s own complexity implies that He also had a designer.  Either the theist is arguing for an infinite regress of God-designers and designers of God-designers, etc., or he is contradicting his own assumption that complexity requires design.  By using God as an “explanation” the theist is doing nothing more than explaining complexity (in living things) with complexity (God’s).  But this amounts to assuming what one is trying to explain, which is no explanation at all.  It just moves the mystery back a step.''

''assumes humans determine whether or not something is designed by seeing if it has an accurate adjustment of parts—that is, if it shows complexity.  But this is certainly mistaken.  We know that something is designed not by its complexity, or even the degree to which it appears to serve a purpose, but by looking for ways in which it differs from nature.  In other words, nature is the benchmark against which we compare an object to see if it is designed.

For example, many naturally occurring rock fragments just happen to have a sharp edge that is well-suited for serving the purpose of chopping meat, though this does not lead us to believe that these fragments were designed.  Yet, we have found clearly manufactured prehistoric chopping and cutting stones that were designed.  How do we know they were designed and not just examples of fortuitous rock fractures?  Clearly it is not because they are sharp, since naturally occurring rocks are also sharp; and not because they are complex, since they have neither parts nor complexity; and not because they serve a purpose, since obviously random events can make a rock very sharp.  We know these stone hand axes were designed because they have markings on them that differ from what one would find in nature—that is, they have signs of manufacture.

Because the proper criterion for establishing design is difference from nature, and not complexity or apparent usefulness, we can know that something was designed even when it is both extremely simple and has no identifiable purpose at all. ''

''we don’t know something is intelligently designed because it shows complexity; we know it is designed because it shows signs of manufacture, and the only way we know something is manufactured is by comparing it with nature or by having direct experience of its manufacture.  Now, if the criterion for determining design is comparison with nature, then it makes no sense to apply that criterion to nature itself since nature provides the very benchmark for making the comparison.''

Badecker: ''Scientifically speaking, I don't know what the Creator really is''

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390


'Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause. (You have failed to explain this problem over and over)

There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph which represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism. (You yourself say that machine have makerS with S)''



''If you get a bunch of engineers together, and manufacturers, etc., they build a car. A car might last a long time if it is not used. But without replacing parts, it might last only 20 years.

The point is that this is the best the combined will of a bunch of people can do.

When we are talking about component parts of God, we could be talking about many spirits and minds working together. But, if this is the case, jointly, they are one God, just as there is one Ford or one GMC.''



You don't answer at all here, the point is simple, even if all your arguments were true you still don't know what the first cause is, there is no evidence pointing to anything. You have failed to address this question like 10 times by now.

The other huge problem as I mentioned is that when you say everything has a cause and then you say God did it the most immediate and obvious reply is to ask, “But what caused God?”. The standard answer is, “Ah, but God has no cause, god is an exception to that rule”. So essentially, an entire layer of pointless complexity called God is invented and then declared to be an exception to the rule that everything has a cause. If you want to get into the game of deciding that there is no cause for the first cause, then it would be far simpler to simply decide that the universe itself has no cause, there is no need to invent additional and utterly pointless layers of complexity, especially when there is no credible objective evidence that can justify such a leap. So you see, you basically say that everything has a cause and then you are saying that not everything has a cause, you understand this?

[VirginMary]

The best proof of the existence of God us to ask his mother if he exists. Here I am. My answer: I am not sure.

[TheOneYeah]

What Science do is it answers the questions "What"
E.g.
What is the composition of an organism? or
What is the origin of man?
Religion on the other hand answers the question "Why"
E.g.
Why are we designed this way?
Why do we exist?

To answer your question, the scientific proof that God exists are the questions that Science has no answer. Science cannot create a method to answer the question "Why do we exist?". The answer to what is the purpose of life comes from a higher being which is God. There's a limit to what Science can give an explanation, that's where Faith comes in.

[Astargath]

What Science do is it answers the questions "What"
E.g.
What is the composition of an organism? or
What is the origin of man?
Religion on the other hand answers the question "Why"
E.g.
Why are we designed this way?
Why do we exist?

To answer your question, the scientific proof that God exists are the questions that Science has no answer. Science cannot create a method to answer the question "Why do we exist?". The answer to what is the purpose of life comes from a higher being which is God. There's a limit to what Science can give an explanation, that's where Faith comes in.

No it doesn't. It makes it up. Faith doesn't give any explanation, it just states thing for no reason.

[BADecker]

(Astargath https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg25715577#msg25715577)

''God’s own complexity implies that He also had a designer.  Either the theist is arguing for an infinite regress of God-designers and designers of God-designers, etc., or he is contradicting his own assumption that complexity requires design.  By using God as an “explanation” the theist is doing nothing more than explaining complexity (in living things) with complexity (God’s).  But this amounts to assuming what one is trying to explain, which is no explanation at all.  It just moves the mystery back a step.''

God was outside of the universe to have been able to make it.
If He was the same as the universe, the universe would have already been there in God.
Entropy shows that there was a beginning, so God was/is not of the universe.
Because of this, we don't know if complexity and designing apply to the nature of God at all.


''assumes humans determine whether or not something is designed by seeing if it has an accurate adjustment of parts—that is, if it shows complexity.  But this is certainly mistaken.  We know that something is designed not by its complexity, or even the degree to which it appears to serve a purpose, but by looking for ways in which it differs from nature.  In other words, nature is the benchmark against which we compare an object to see if it is designed.

This is an example that shows God. God, being different than humanity, designs differently. God's machinery is different than the machinery of mankind. Yet it is similar in the fact that approximately 100% of man's machinery uses the machines of God, and uses examples of the way the machines of God work to make mans' machinery work.


For example, many naturally occurring rock fragments just happen to have a sharp edge that is well-suited for serving the purpose of chopping meat, though this does not lead us to believe that these fragments were designed.  Yet, we have found clearly manufactured prehistoric chopping and cutting stones that were designed.  How do we know they were designed and not just examples of fortuitous rock fractures?  Clearly it is not because they are sharp, since naturally occurring rocks are also sharp; and not because they are complex, since they have neither parts nor complexity; and not because they serve a purpose, since obviously random events can make a rock very sharp.  We know these stone hand axes were designed because they have markings on them that differ from what one would find in nature—that is, they have signs of manufacture.

One of the purposes why God designed sharp rocks was so that man could use the example of them for cutting... for learning how to cut.
Another was for the beauty in the blending of their complexity... multitudes of atoms and molecules blended in all kinds of ways in each rock, always moving as machinery works - because absolute zero isn't quite attainable that we know of.
The markings on mans' tools are often different from those on God's machines, because the goals and usages are for different purposes, even though the general appearance of the tools may be similar.


Because the proper criterion for establishing design is difference from nature, and not complexity or apparent usefulness, we can know that something was designed even when it is both extremely simple and has no identifiable purpose at all. ''

There is really no simplicity in nature. The appearance of simplicity may seem to be there at first glance. But detailed scientific examination is proving that simplicity doesn't exist. In fact, the universe is so complex that to the simple minded there is simplicity, but to the complexly minded there is complexity.
The fact that mankind is not able to separate anything of the universe, to be a self-enclosed universe unit, completely separate from the universe, thereby making it to be its own universe that is the same as this universe but not part of it, shows that every part of the universe is complex with regard to the whole that it is part of.


''we don’t know something is intelligently designed because it shows complexity; we know it is designed because it shows signs of manufacture, and the only way we know something is manufactured is by comparing it with nature or by having direct experience of its manufacture.  Now, if the criterion for determining design is comparison with nature, then it makes no sense to apply that criterion to nature itself since nature provides the very benchmark for making the comparison.''

The whole structure of the universe is the sign that it was designed. An art museum proves that people design differently among themselves. Certainly the Designer of all things is going to design differently than people can even imagine at times. Complexity certainly shows design.


Badecker: ''Scientifically speaking, I don't know what the Creator really is''

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390

Nice quote. I like it.


'Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause. (You have failed to explain this problem over and over)

That is the problem with modern science. It is so weak at this stage that it is unable to dabble with things outside of the universe. In fact, it can barely determine that something outside of the universe can even exist.


There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph which represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism. (You yourself say that machine have makerS with S)''

We are aware of only one universe, and, therefore, only one first cause. Nobody can tell if there were or weren't many first causes. We barely even know a little about our universe. Do you expect us to be going beyond it?
Note that it is "machineS," not "machine." Note that there isn't just one person who makes a machine. Rather there are many people who have made machines.
Polytheism, when the gods join entirely together, becomes monotheism. Is this part of the scientific proof for the existence of God, or are we getting into religion?


''If you get a bunch of engineers together, and manufacturers, etc., they build a car. A car might last a long time if it is not used. But without replacing parts, it might last only 20 years.

The point is that this is the best the combined will of a bunch of people can do.

When we are talking about component parts of God, we could be talking about many spirits and minds working together. But, if this is the case, jointly, they are one God, just as there is one Ford or one GMC.''

Nice.



You don't answer at all here, the point is simple, even if all your arguments were true you still don't know what the first cause is, there is no evidence pointing to anything. You have failed to address this question like 10 times by now.

Thank you. But you are slightly mistaken. Not knowing what the First Cause is, has to do with not knowing what He is scientifically. One of the attributes we can apply to Him is that He is God. So from an extremely general, scientific standpoint, we know what He is. He is scientifically God.


The other huge problem as I mentioned is that when you say everything has a cause and then you say God did it the most immediate and obvious reply is to ask, “But what caused God?”. The standard answer is, “Ah, but God has no cause, god is an exception to that rule”. So essentially, an entire layer of pointless complexity called God is invented and then declared to be an exception to the rule that everything has a cause. If you want to get into the game of deciding that there is no cause for the first cause, then it would be far simpler to simply decide that the universe itself has no cause, there is no need to invent additional and utterly pointless layers of complexity, especially when there is no credible objective evidence that can justify such a leap. So you see, you basically say that everything has a cause and then you are saying that not everything has a cause, you understand this?

Imagine that you were in God's "realm," completely aware of God. If God has a cause from the standpoint of His realm, you might know it, and maybe even know what it is. But you would be entirely different than what you are now if you were in God's realm. Why? Because if you were the same as you are now, you would be part of the universe, and God's realm would be this universe.
From the standpoint of our knowledge in the universe, scientifically we probably can't know if God has a cause or not. The word "cause" is of this universe. The cause concept didn't necessarily exist until the universe existed. I don't see how science in its limited ability could have determined if cause could have existed or not before the universe existed. Even the concept of "before" might not have existed "before" the universe.
Causation is an integral part of the universe. Perhaps it the universe DID come about without a cause. Such a concept would go a great deal further in making God scientifically "palatable" to us.
Do you understand that when we talk about subjects or concepts that are outside of our ability to comprehend, that the talk isn't always going to be clear?

[BADecker]

What Science do is it answers the questions "What"
E.g.
What is the composition of an organism? or
What is the origin of man?
Religion on the other hand answers the question "Why"
E.g.
Why are we designed this way?
Why do we exist?

To answer your question, the scientific proof that God exists are the questions that Science has no answer. Science cannot create a method to answer the question "Why do we exist?". The answer to what is the purpose of life comes from a higher being which is God. There's a limit to what Science can give an explanation, that's where Faith comes in.

No it doesn't. It makes it up. Faith doesn't give any explanation, it just states thing for no reason.

Actually, faith is the only answer. Why? Because we are entirely faith beings. We may think we know a little way into the future at times. But we really don't. Part of the evidence that shows this is the testimonies of people who were in accidents, or soldiers in war. You can find many testimonies of these people stating that they certainly thought they were going to die, but they didn't. You don't get much more serious about life than when you expect that you are going to die in the next moment or two.

The point is that the whole life of all people is lived by faith. The fact that the universe and earth are so stable in many ways, is the reason why people think they can predict something with accuracy, and why predictions come true. However, at any moment, predictions can fail because of some unknown occurrence "hitting" the predictor.

People are entirely faith beings.

[BADecker]

I have to commend you, Astargath. You do extremely well with English for a person whose first language is not English.

Whatever language you came from, it must be a difficult job to both learn English, and to, then, become proficient in science as spoken by English natives.

Most scientifically minded India Indians have a difficult time of becoming as good as you are with English.

[Astargath]

''God’s own complexity implies that He also had a designer.  Either the theist is arguing for an infinite regress of God-designers and designers of God-designers, etc., or he is contradicting his own assumption that complexity requires design.  By using God as an “explanation” the theist is doing nothing more than explaining complexity (in living things) with complexity (God’s).  But this amounts to assuming what one is trying to explain, which is no explanation at all.  It just moves the mystery back a step.''

God was outside of the universe to have been able to make it.
If He was the same as the universe, the universe would have already been there in God.
Entropy shows that there was a beginning, so God was/is not of the universe.
Because of this, we don't know if complexity and designing apply to the nature of God at all.

It doesn't matter that god was outside the universe, being outside the universe doesn't automatically make you have no cause. My argument still stands


''assumes humans determine whether or not something is designed by seeing if it has an accurate adjustment of parts—that is, if it shows complexity.  But this is certainly mistaken.  We know that something is designed not by its complexity, or even the degree to which it appears to serve a purpose, but by looking for ways in which it differs from nature.  In other words, nature is the benchmark against which we compare an object to see if it is designed.

This is an example that shows God. God, being different than humanity, designs differently. God's machinery is different than the machinery of mankind. Yet it is similar in the fact that approximately 100% of man's machinery uses the machines of God, and uses examples of the way the machines of God work to make mans' machinery work.

I don't know if you understood my point here. My point was that your method to determine whether something is designed or not is flawed.

For example, many naturally occurring rock fragments just happen to have a sharp edge that is well-suited for serving the purpose of chopping meat, though this does not lead us to believe that these fragments were designed.  Yet, we have found clearly manufactured prehistoric chopping and cutting stones that were designed.  How do we know they were designed and not just examples of fortuitous rock fractures?  Clearly it is not because they are sharp, since naturally occurring rocks are also sharp; and not because they are complex, since they have neither parts nor complexity; and not because they serve a purpose, since obviously random events can make a rock very sharp.  We know these stone hand axes were designed because they have markings on them that differ from what one would find in nature—that is, they have signs of manufacture.

One of the purposes why God designed sharp rocks was so that man could use the example of them for cutting... for learning how to cut.
Another was for the beauty in the blending of their complexity... multitudes of atoms and molecules blended in all kinds of ways in each rock, always moving as machinery works - because absolute zero isn't quite attainable that we know of.
The markings on mans' tools are often different from those on God's machines, because the goals and usages are for different purposes, even though the general appearance of the tools may be similar.

How do you know that god designed the rocks?

Because the proper criterion for establishing design is difference from nature, and not complexity or apparent usefulness, we can know that something was designed even when it is both extremely simple and has no identifiable purpose at all. ''

There is really no simplicity in nature. The appearance of simplicity may seem to be there at first glance. But detailed scientific examination is proving that simplicity doesn't exist. In fact, the universe is so complex that to the simple minded there is simplicity, but to the complexly minded there is complexity.
The fact that mankind is not able to separate anything of the universe, to be a self-enclosed universe unit, completely separate from the universe, thereby making it to be its own universe that is the same as this universe but not part of it, shows that every part of the universe is complex with regard to the whole that it is part of.

No one said there is simplicity in nature. My point is that the method for establishing design is difference from nature and not complexity. The fact that something is complex does not always indicate design, hence the rock example.

''we don’t know something is intelligently designed because it shows complexity; we know it is designed because it shows signs of manufacture, and the only way we know something is manufactured is by comparing it with nature or by having direct experience of its manufacture.  Now, if the criterion for determining design is comparison with nature, then it makes no sense to apply that criterion to nature itself since nature provides the very benchmark for making the comparison.''

The whole structure of the universe is the sign that it was designed. An art museum proves that people design differently among themselves. Certainly the Designer of all things is going to design differently than people can even imagine at times. Complexity certainly shows design.

How is the whole structure of the universe a sign that it was designed? An art museum proves nothing because we know people made the paintings/art. We don't know whether someone designed the universe or not. My whole argument is to show that complexity does not show design, hence again, the rock example and many many more.


Badecker: ''Scientifically speaking, I don't know what the Creator really is''

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390

Nice quote. I like it.


'Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause. (You have failed to explain this problem over and over)

That is the problem with modern science. It is so weak at this stage that it is unable to dabble with things outside of the universe. In fact, it can barely determine that something outside of the universe can even exist.

So you agree with me?

There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph which represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism. (You yourself say that machine have makerS with S)''

We are aware of only one universe, and, therefore, only one first cause. Nobody can tell if there were or weren't many first causes. We barely even know a little about our universe. Do you expect us to be going beyond it?
Note that it is "machineS," not "machine." Note that there isn't just one person who makes a machine. Rather there are many people who have made machines.
Polytheism, when the gods join entirely together, becomes monotheism. Is this part of the scientific proof for the existence of God, or are we getting into religion?

One universe can have more than one cause. Just like a mountain forming has different causes and all of them play an important role.


''If you get a bunch of engineers together, and manufacturers, etc., they build a car. A car might last a long time if it is not used. But without replacing parts, it might last only 20 years.

The point is that this is the best the combined will of a bunch of people can do.

When we are talking about component parts of God, we could be talking about many spirits and minds working together. But, if this is the case, jointly, they are one God, just as there is one Ford or one GMC.''

Nice.


You don't answer at all here, the point is simple, even if all your arguments were true you still don't know what the first cause is, there is no evidence pointing to anything. You have failed to address this question like 10 times by now.

Thank you. But you are slightly mistaken. Not knowing what the First Cause is, has to do with not knowing what He is scientifically. One of the attributes we can apply to Him is that He is God. So from an extremely general, scientific standpoint, we know what He is. He is scientifically God.

''can apply to Him '' Why to him, how do you know the first cause is a him, how do you know the first cause has awareness?


The other huge problem as I mentioned is that when you say everything has a cause and then you say God did it the most immediate and obvious reply is to ask, “But what caused God?”. The standard answer is, “Ah, but God has no cause, god is an exception to that rule”. So essentially, an entire layer of pointless complexity called God is invented and then declared to be an exception to the rule that everything has a cause. If you want to get into the game of deciding that there is no cause for the first cause, then it would be far simpler to simply decide that the universe itself has no cause, there is no need to invent additional and utterly pointless layers of complexity, especially when there is no credible objective evidence that can justify such a leap. So you see, you basically say that everything has a cause and then you are saying that not everything has a cause, you understand this?

Imagine that you were in God's "realm," completely aware of God. If God has a cause from the standpoint of His realm, you might know it, and maybe even know what it is. But you would be entirely different than what you are now if you were in God's realm. Why? Because if you were the same as you are now, you would be part of the universe, and God's realm would be this universe.
From the standpoint of our knowledge in the universe, scientifically we probably can't know if God has a cause or not. The word "cause" is of this universe. The cause concept didn't necessarily exist until the universe existed. I don't see how science in its limited ability could have determined if cause could have existed or not before the universe existed. Even the concept of "before" might not have existed "before" the universe.
Causation is an integral part of the universe. Perhaps it the universe DID come about without a cause. Such a concept would go a great deal further in making God scientifically "palatable" to us.
Do you understand that when we talk about subjects or concepts that are outside of our ability to comprehend, that the talk isn't always going to be clear?



[/quote]

[COTInetwork]

Science and religion are two opposite things. Science is hard proven data. Religion is faith into something that can't be proven or disproved.

[BADecker]

''God’s own complexity implies that He also had a designer.  Either the theist is arguing for an infinite regress of God-designers and designers of God-designers, etc., or he is contradicting his own assumption that complexity requires design.  By using God as an “explanation” the theist is doing nothing more than explaining complexity (in living things) with complexity (God’s).  But this amounts to assuming what one is trying to explain, which is no explanation at all.  It just moves the mystery back a step.''

God was outside of the universe to have been able to make it.
If He was the same as the universe, the universe would have already been there in God.
Entropy shows that there was a beginning, so God was/is not of the universe.
Because of this, we don't know if complexity and designing apply to the nature of God at all.

It doesn't matter that god was outside the universe, being outside the universe doesn't automatically make you have no cause. My argument still stands

All it does is shows that if cause exists outside the universe, it is different than cause for one inside. Therefore, universe cause doesn't apply outside the universe. If it were cause as exists within the universe, it would be part of the universe, and not outside.

''assumes humans determine whether or not something is designed by seeing if it has an accurate adjustment of parts—that is, if it shows complexity.  But this is certainly mistaken.  We know that something is designed not by its complexity, or even the degree to which it appears to serve a purpose, but by looking for ways in which it differs from nature.  In other words, nature is the benchmark against which we compare an object to see if it is designed.

This is an example that shows God. God, being different than humanity, designs differently. God's machinery is different than the machinery of mankind. Yet it is similar in the fact that approximately 100% of man's machinery uses the machines of God, and uses examples of the way the machines of God work to make mans' machinery work.

I don't know if you understood my point here. My point was that your method to determine whether something is designed or not is flawed.

You have a nice opinion, there.

For example, many naturally occurring rock fragments just happen to have a sharp edge that is well-suited for serving the purpose of chopping meat, though this does not lead us to believe that these fragments were designed.  Yet, we have found clearly manufactured prehistoric chopping and cutting stones that were designed.  How do we know they were designed and not just examples of fortuitous rock fractures?  Clearly it is not because they are sharp, since naturally occurring rocks are also sharp; and not because they are complex, since they have neither parts nor complexity; and not because they serve a purpose, since obviously random events can make a rock very sharp.  We know these stone hand axes were designed because they have markings on them that differ from what one would find in nature—that is, they have signs of manufacture.

One of the purposes why God designed sharp rocks was so that man could use the example of them for cutting... for learning how to cut.
Another was for the beauty in the blending of their complexity... multitudes of atoms and molecules blended in all kinds of ways in each rock, always moving as machinery works - because absolute zero isn't quite attainable that we know of.
The markings on mans' tools are often different from those on God's machines, because the goals and usages are for different purposes, even though the general appearance of the tools may be similar.

How do you know that god designed the rocks?

By the fact that rocks are made up of machines... if in no other way than the fact that their parts move within them with ambient heat, according to set laws, just like all machines. Machines have makers.

Because the proper criterion for establishing design is difference from nature, and not complexity or apparent usefulness, we can know that something was designed even when it is both extremely simple and has no identifiable purpose at all. ''

There is really no simplicity in nature. The appearance of simplicity may seem to be there at first glance. But detailed scientific examination is proving that simplicity doesn't exist. In fact, the universe is so complex that to the simple minded there is simplicity, but to the complexly minded there is complexity.
The fact that mankind is not able to separate anything of the universe, to be a self-enclosed universe unit, completely separate from the universe, thereby making it to be its own universe that is the same as this universe but not part of it, shows that every part of the universe is complex with regard to the whole that it is part of.

No one said there is simplicity in nature. My point is that the method for establishing design is difference from nature and not complexity. The fact that something is complex does not always indicate design, hence the rock example.

That's a wonderful but faulty assumption on your part.

''we don’t know something is intelligently designed because it shows complexity; we know it is designed because it shows signs of manufacture, and the only way we know something is manufactured is by comparing it with nature or by having direct experience of its manufacture.  Now, if the criterion for determining design is comparison with nature, then it makes no sense to apply that criterion to nature itself since nature provides the very benchmark for making the comparison.''

The whole structure of the universe is the sign that it was designed. An art museum proves that people design differently among themselves. Certainly the Designer of all things is going to design differently than people can even imagine at times. Complexity certainly shows design.

How is the whole structure of the universe a sign that it was designed? An art museum proves nothing because we know people made the paintings/art. We don't know whether someone designed the universe or not. My whole argument is to show that complexity does not show design, hence again, the rock example and many many more.

The universe is machinery. Machinery is designed.

Badecker: ''Scientifically speaking, I don't know what the Creator really is''

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390

Nice quote. I like it.


'Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause. (You have failed to explain this problem over and over)

That is the problem with modern science. It is so weak at this stage that it is unable to dabble with things outside of the universe. In fact, it can barely determine that something outside of the universe can even exist.

So you agree with me?

About what? Seems like you are disagreeing with yourself.

There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph which represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism. (You yourself say that machine have makerS with S)''

We are aware of only one universe, and, therefore, only one first cause. Nobody can tell if there were or weren't many first causes. We barely even know a little about our universe. Do you expect us to be going beyond it?
Note that it is "machineS," not "machine." Note that there isn't just one person who makes a machine. Rather there are many people who have made machines.
Polytheism, when the gods join entirely together, becomes monotheism. Is this part of the scientific proof for the existence of God, or are we getting into religion?

One universe can have more than one cause. Just like a mountain forming has different causes and all of them play an important role.

In a small way, perhaps. But the complexity, and the fact that it is all acting together, eliminates anything more that one First Cause.

''If you get a bunch of engineers together, and manufacturers, etc., they build a car. A car might last a long time if it is not used. But without replacing parts, it might last only 20 years.

The point is that this is the best the combined will of a bunch of people can do.

When we are talking about component parts of God, we could be talking about many spirits and minds working together. But, if this is the case, jointly, they are one God, just as there is one Ford or one GMC.''

Nice.


You don't answer at all here, the point is simple, even if all your arguments were true you still don't know what the first cause is, there is no evidence pointing to anything. You have failed to address this question like 10 times by now.

Thank you. But you are slightly mistaken. Not knowing what the First Cause is, has to do with not knowing what He is scientifically. One of the attributes we can apply to Him is that He is God. So from an extremely general, scientific standpoint, we know what He is. He is scientifically God.

''can apply to Him '' Why to him, how do you know the first cause is a him, how do you know the first cause has awareness?

If you would rather play with words, you are really falling apart fast. However, I have gone far beyond the simple proof for the existence of God. I have proof that God is "He," and I have provide glimpses of it in other posts. You will have great difficulty determining things about God if you can't even understand that He exists.

The other huge problem as I mentioned is that when you say everything has a cause and then you say God did it the most immediate and obvious reply is to ask, “But what caused God?”. The standard answer is, “Ah, but God has no cause, god is an exception to that rule”. So essentially, an entire layer of pointless complexity called God is invented and then declared to be an exception to the rule that everything has a cause. If you want to get into the game of deciding that there is no cause for the first cause, then it would be far simpler to simply decide that the universe itself has no cause, there is no need to invent additional and utterly pointless layers of complexity, especially when there is no credible objective evidence that can justify such a leap. So you see, you basically say that everything has a cause and then you are saying that not everything has a cause, you understand this?

Imagine that you were in God's "realm," completely aware of God. If God has a cause from the standpoint of His realm, you might know it, and maybe even know what it is. But you would be entirely different than what you are now if you were in God's realm. Why? Because if you were the same as you are now, you would be part of the universe, and God's realm would be this universe.
From the standpoint of our knowledge in the universe, scientifically we probably can't know if God has a cause or not. The word "cause" is of this universe. The cause concept didn't necessarily exist until the universe existed. I don't see how science in its limited ability could have determined if cause could have existed or not before the universe existed. Even the concept of "before" might not have existed "before" the universe.
Causation is an integral part of the universe. Perhaps it the universe DID come about without a cause. Such a concept would go a great deal further in making God scientifically "palatable" to us.
Do you understand that when we talk about subjects or concepts that are outside of our ability to comprehend, that the talk isn't always going to be clear?

Just curious. Have you been diagnosed with Alzheimer's? Or at least dementia? After all, you seem to forget that you have asked your questions multiple times in the past, and received my answers multiple times in the past. You need to start keeping notes.

[IfixTchenTchen]

I see a lot of human projections here. It can be logically understood that God is an antropomorphism.

[Astargath]

It's just a matter of believing, not proof-concept of existence.

Believing in things just because you want to is stupid and illogical. If faith was a good pathway to truth we wouldn't have thousands of different gods, everyone would have picked the right one by now.

[Vod]

BADecker has got to be the biggest idiot on the planet.

He claims to have proof that his god exists, but he wants to keep it to himself.   

Sheesh - he could end the religious debate for once and for all, and unite the globe in peace.

What a selfish, inconsiderate idiot.

[Astargath]

BADecker has got to be the biggest idiot on the planet.

He claims to have proof that his god exists, but he wants to keep it to himself.   

Sheesh - he could end the religious debate for once and for all, and unite the globe in peace.

What a selfish, inconsiderate idiot.

Yeah, he keeps teasing us with words but never shows the scientific proof. I think he is waiting for the next years nobel prizes to get some.