Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

statistics show that scientists do believe far less in god than the general population.
statistics show that scientists do believe far less in god than the general population.
statistics show that scientists do believe far less in god than the general population.

This statistic shows that you are generation statistics.

 

[1715222649]

1715222649

[1715222649]

1715222649

[1715222649]

1715222649

[BADecker]

Oh really? Who are the brightest researchers then??
The brightest researchers like Pasteur, Wallace, Godel, Turing, and many others all rejected materialism.

We don't know who they are. In fact, their families didn't really know them. Since they are dead and gone, nobody will ever know who they really are.

[BADecker]

Scientist usually dont believe in god because they have explanations on things that occured. They like to explain it using scientific terms. But some of them connected the bible and their smart guess creating that GOD really exists.

Many great scientists did believe that GOD was a sound explanation, see for yourself:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers

He said usually. The survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.

So obviously scientists do believe less in god than the general population and so does people who are highly educated. According to Gallup's 2002 Index of Leading Religious Indicators*, 88% of those with postgraduate degrees believe in God or a universal spirit, compared to 97% of those with a high school education or less. More dramatically, postgraduate degree holders are less likely than those with a high school education or less to believe that religion can answer today's problems, by a margin of 51% to 68%. And those with a high school education or less are more likely than their postgraduate counterparts to say that religion is "important" or "very important" in their lives (65% to 53%). All this would seem to confirm that highly educated individuals put less emphasis on the role of religion than less educated individuals do.

Hopefully in the future people will be educated enough to make religion disappear.  

You refuse to educate yourself on the evidence and you have no scientific rebuttal to the same.
The brightest researchers recognized the truth about materialism and GOD. Science is not based on popular vote but on relating one phenomena to another. The brightest minds in science recognized that there was evidence for a higher power and that materialism is not a rational philosophy. Their claims are all based in evidence but you will not even consider their ideas, what good is science if you are expecting an outcome and refuse outside information?
You have not recognized any truth from my posts, not because I am lying about the evidence, but because your beliefs will not allow you to open your eyes to even a single truth. Prove me wrong!

Not the brightest just some scientists. I never denied that but statistics show that scientists do believe far less in god than the general population.

Consider the horse or ox. For many years people used these beasts as beasts of labor, to do the bidding of the common man. Now we have cars, trucks, bulldozers, ships and planes, etc.  The beasts and machines of labor are not the brightest of creatures. In fact, the machines aren't bright at all!

That's okay, though. We Christians are getting the benefit of those so-called bright scientists. And the benefit is in this life, where there is sin and mistake making. Those so-called bright boys and girls who don't become Christians will miss out on eternal glory and joy in Heaven with God.

[BADecker]

Im not sure god has to be seen as something to provide for material needs.

More something to train spirit to be less dependent on materialism.

Im for one encouraging the practice of fasting to train the body to be less driven by needs.

I saw a video last time showing the tibetan kids, walking with bare foot for kilometers in the Mountain, all smiling & all, and they were like look at those chinese Kids they are lazy they cant walk a Mile without crying like babies lol

Kinda show something too ..

It's funny also to see on my facebook as i have friends from all over the world

French : always complaining,  never happy, always needs more.

American : more or less same.

Drama drama.

Money money.


The only who are just chilling with familly & friend and being smiling and happy not complaining about politics & economy are the one from south africa, or hispanics lol and they have not really much money or food lol

Even if you travel to islands like reunion or new caledonia, even burma, people live with very little and they are much less miserable than when moving back to big cities like Paris london or new York.


As long as you focus on your material needs and fear of lacking your always going to be scared of everything, anxiety & co.

Specially in developed country,  it's not like there is really that much scarcity of anything.

And nature already provide enough food .

Cause and effect shows that God is the source of all things. It works like this:
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.

[BADecker]

As a scientist it is impossible to disprove the existence of God but current evidence is non-existence. If God does exist though, what a bastard they are for letting children die of illness, famine and poverty.

Well said.

This is why I am Agnostic

All people die. It isn't the fault of God. It is the fault of people. How do we know? God provided a way into eternal life through Jesus salvation... believing in Jesus.

Why didn't God simply do the salvation thing for this life? The answer is because of what He made people for.

People are so deeply embedded into this universe, that a new universe called Heaven is way better and easier to do that adjusting this universe.

[Astargath]

Im not sure god has to be seen as something to provide for material needs.

More something to train spirit to be less dependent on materialism.

Im for one encouraging the practice of fasting to train the body to be less driven by needs.

I saw a video last time showing the tibetan kids, walking with bare foot for kilometers in the Mountain, all smiling & all, and they were like look at those chinese Kids they are lazy they cant walk a Mile without crying like babies lol

Kinda show something too ..

It's funny also to see on my facebook as i have friends from all over the world

French : always complaining,  never happy, always needs more.

American : more or less same.

Drama drama.

Money money.


The only who are just chilling with familly & friend and being smiling and happy not complaining about politics & economy are the one from south africa, or hispanics lol and they have not really much money or food lol

Even if you travel to islands like reunion or new caledonia, even burma, people live with very little and they are much less miserable than when moving back to big cities like Paris london or new York.


As long as you focus on your material needs and fear of lacking your always going to be scared of everything, anxiety & co.

Specially in developed country,  it's not like there is really that much scarcity of anything.

And nature already provide enough food .

Cause and effect shows that God is the source of all things. It works like this:
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.

You said cause and effect doesn't prove god in an earlier post. We don't know that everything needs a cause, maybe some events happen spontaneously. There is actually evidence that some sub-atomic particles form and disappear for no reason, with no cause. The universe might not need a ''cause'' either, time might not be viewed as a vector quantity, but rather a scaler one. Under this, there are no beginnings, and the universe was the start of time itself. There was no time when the universe began to exist, because there is no 'before' time itself didn't exist. Just because something caused the universe, doesn't mean a god did so. Also, there is a jump between 'something happened' and 'a man sits on a cloud watching humanity and rewarding good people with eternal life, meanwhile controlling everything' that the first cause argument fails to solve.

Finally, and perhaps most damningly, the argument has a serious loophole. One of the premises is everything needs a cause, yet the argument fails to say where God came from. (Which you never explained)

[IadixDev]

Cause and effect shows that God is the source of all things. It works like this:
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.

Cause and effect can be seen as operation in a space, their actual effect and the logic built on them depend on the nature of space itself, it's what riemann demonstrate

It's funny that you try to take on newton thermodynamics which is for me one of the worst system to understand god

Liebniz or riemann > newton  


When getting into the Riemann habilitation theory , it's easy to see all newtonian physics based on euclidian space is actually a sort of mirage



https://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/963A_lieb_rieman.html

Briefly, the significance of Riemann's discovery, is this. Consider the form of algebra introduced to the Seventeenth century by the founder of the "Enlightenment," the atheistic Servite monk, and follower of William of Ockham, Paolo Sarpi. Consider the expression of this in the work of such Sarpi lackeys and followers as Galileo Galilei, Thomas Hobbes, and René Descartes. The proximate source of the Enlightenment forms of algebra, employed by René Descartes, Isaac Newton, and their devotees, is derived from an "Ockhamite" reading of what is most widely recognizable as that modern classroom parody of Euclid's geometry embedded in the mathematics curricula generally, as presented, still, in secondary and higher education during the time of this writer's youth, and earlier.

The fallacies of this algebra, are the starting point of Riemann's dissertation. His point of departure there, is that in the form of algebra derived hereditarily from the work of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, et al.: Discrete events, and their associated movements, are situated within a Cartesian form of idealized space-time. This point has been presented by the present author in numerous earlier locations, but, on pedagogical grounds, it must be stated again here, this time in a choice of setting appropriate to the connection we are exposing, between the ideas of Riemann and his predecessor Leibniz.

Riemann opens his dissertation, with two prefatory observations. First, that, until that time (1854), "from Euclid through Legendre," it was generally presumed that geometry, as well as the principles for constructions in space, was premised upon a priori axiomatic assumptions, whose origins, mutual relations, and justification remained obscure. The second general point of his plan of investigation, which he restates in the conclusion of the dissertation, is that no rational construction of the principles of geometry could be derived from purely mathematical considerations, but only from experience.9 He concludes his dissertation: "We enter the realm of another science, the domain of physics, which the subject of today's occasion [mathematics] does not permit us to enter." Riemann, thus, refutes the presumption on which a Newton devotee, of Prussia's Frederick II, Leonhard Euler, depended absolutely, for the entirety of his attack on Leibniz's Monadology.10

On grounds of the principles of Classical humanist, or cognitive pedagogy,11 the prudent course of action, now, is to reconstruct the conceptions at issue from the initial standpoint of simple, deductive theorem-lattices. This pedagogical approach leads us by the most direct route, to the central issue of Riemann's discovery: the validation of an axiomatic-revolutionary quality of discovery of universal principle, by reason of which we are obliged to construct a new mathematical physics, to supersede that erroneous one previously in vogue. Later, continuing that process of construction, to the point of examining the writer's own original discovery in physical-economy, we identify the cognizable feature of the individual person's mental life, in which we may then locate the significance of Riemann's revolution in mathematical physics.

[foreverpattlys]

Why would science would help religion? they work the opposite way.

[crypto.classroom]

God is a children's story.  If an adult believes in God then they got brain damage

[BADecker]

Cause and effect shows that God is the source of all things. It works like this:
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.

Cause and effect can be seen as operation in a space, their actual effect and the logic built on them depend on the nature of space itself, it's what riemann demonstrate

It's funny that you try to take on newton thermodynamics which is for me one of the worst system to understand god

Liebniz or riemann > newton  


When getting into the Riemann habilitation theory , it's easy to see all newtonian physics based on euclidian space is actually a sort of mirage



https://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/963A_lieb_rieman.html

Briefly, the significance of Riemann's discovery, is this. Consider the form of algebra introduced to the Seventeenth century by the founder of the "Enlightenment," the atheistic Servite monk, and follower of William of Ockham, Paolo Sarpi. Consider the expression of this in the work of such Sarpi lackeys and followers as Galileo Galilei, Thomas Hobbes, and René Descartes. The proximate source of the Enlightenment forms of algebra, employed by René Descartes, Isaac Newton, and their devotees, is derived from an "Ockhamite" reading of what is most widely recognizable as that modern classroom parody of Euclid's geometry embedded in the mathematics curricula generally, as presented, still, in secondary and higher education during the time of this writer's youth, and earlier.

The fallacies of this algebra, are the starting point of Riemann's dissertation. His point of departure there, is that in the form of algebra derived hereditarily from the work of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, et al.: Discrete events, and their associated movements, are situated within a Cartesian form of idealized space-time. This point has been presented by the present author in numerous earlier locations, but, on pedagogical grounds, it must be stated again here, this time in a choice of setting appropriate to the connection we are exposing, between the ideas of Riemann and his predecessor Leibniz.

Riemann opens his dissertation, with two prefatory observations. First, that, until that time (1854), "from Euclid through Legendre," it was generally presumed that geometry, as well as the principles for constructions in space, was premised upon a priori axiomatic assumptions, whose origins, mutual relations, and justification remained obscure. The second general point of his plan of investigation, which he restates in the conclusion of the dissertation, is that no rational construction of the principles of geometry could be derived from purely mathematical considerations, but only from experience.9 He concludes his dissertation: "We enter the realm of another science, the domain of physics, which the subject of today's occasion [mathematics] does not permit us to enter." Riemann, thus, refutes the presumption on which a Newton devotee, of Prussia's Frederick II, Leonhard Euler, depended absolutely, for the entirety of his attack on Leibniz's Monadology.10

On grounds of the principles of Classical humanist, or cognitive pedagogy,11 the prudent course of action, now, is to reconstruct the conceptions at issue from the initial standpoint of simple, deductive theorem-lattices. This pedagogical approach leads us by the most direct route, to the central issue of Riemann's discovery: the validation of an axiomatic-revolutionary quality of discovery of universal principle, by reason of which we are obliged to construct a new mathematical physics, to supersede that erroneous one previously in vogue. Later, continuing that process of construction, to the point of examining the writer's own original discovery in physical-economy, we identify the cognizable feature of the individual person's mental life, in which we may then locate the significance of Riemann's revolution in mathematical physics.

People understand Newton. They know about him.  Let us know when they invalidate Newtons Laws.

[BADecker]

Why would science would help religion? they work the opposite way.

They totally work together.   

[BADecker]

God is a children's story.  If an adult believes in God then they got brain damage

Children are God's story. That's why He always seeks to protect the young, whether it's people, or animals.

[IadixDev]

People understand Newton. They know about him.  Let us know when they invalidate Newtons Laws.

They are already invalid since the beginning liebniz mechanics is more accurate and relativity totally obsolete it, not even speaking of quantum mechanics.


http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=767326

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Newton-generally-considered-a-better-mathematician-than-Leibniz

Ironically, we use Leibniz's notation, and the calculus we learn today is essentially Leibniz's (e.g. dx/dy etc.), and both Bernoulli and later Euler championed Leibniz's formalism over Newton's, relatively speaking, messy and incongruous work. Dx/Dy is straight from Leibniz.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57495/einstein-gravity-versus-newtons-gravity

Riemann is the mathematics behind relativity, newton is completely obsolete by it.

Newton is not physics.

They teach newton at school probably because it's easier to understand, but liebniz was already better since the beginning.



https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-theories/#4.2.1



4.2.1 Absolute Space vs. Galilean Relativity

Newton's proposal for understanding motion solves the problems that he posed for Descartes, and provides an interpretation of the concepts of constant motion and acceleration that appear in his laws of motion. However, it suffers from two notable interpretational problems, both of which were pressed forcefully by Leibniz (in the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, 1715–1716) — which is not to say that Leibniz himself offered a superior account of motion (see below). (Of course, there are other features of Newton's proposal that turned out to be empirically inadequate, and are rejected by in relativity theory: Newton's account violates the relativity of simultaneity and postulates a non-dynamical spacetime structure.)

[BroganBloodstone]

As a scientist it is impossible to disprove the existence of God but current evidence is non-existence. If God does exist though, what a bastard they are for letting children die of illness, famine and poverty.

Well said.

This is why I am Agnostic

What a bastard you are for letting all those children die of starvation

Huh? 

[BADecker]

Im not sure god has to be seen as something to provide for material needs.

More something to train spirit to be less dependent on materialism.

Im for one encouraging the practice of fasting to train the body to be less driven by needs.

I saw a video last time showing the tibetan kids, walking with bare foot for kilometers in the Mountain, all smiling & all, and they were like look at those chinese Kids they are lazy they cant walk a Mile without crying like babies lol

Kinda show something too ..

It's funny also to see on my facebook as i have friends from all over the world

French : always complaining,  never happy, always needs more.

American : more or less same.

Drama drama.

Money money.


The only who are just chilling with familly & friend and being smiling and happy not complaining about politics & economy are the one from south africa, or hispanics lol and they have not really much money or food lol

Even if you travel to islands like reunion or new caledonia, even burma, people live with very little and they are much less miserable than when moving back to big cities like Paris london or new York.


As long as you focus on your material needs and fear of lacking your always going to be scared of everything, anxiety & co.

Specially in developed country,  it's not like there is really that much scarcity of anything.

And nature already provide enough food .

Cause and effect shows that God is the source of all things. It works like this:
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.

You said cause and effect doesn't prove god in an earlier post.<- You misquote me. I said that C&E alone doesn't prove God. We don't know that everything needs a cause, maybe some events happen spontaneously.<- Haven't found a spontaneous event that we know factually is spontaneous. But we have countless billions of C&E events. There is actually evidence that some sub-atomic particles form and disappear for no reason, with no cause. The universe might not need a ''cause'' either, time might not be viewed as a vector quantity, but rather a scaler one. Under this, there are no beginnings, and the universe was the start of time itself.<- Have you read Peter Pan and the Wizard of Oz? There was no time when the universe began to exist, because there is no 'before' time itself didn't exist. Just because something caused the universe, doesn't mean a god did so.<- Under the circumstances of the universe, where C&E, entropy, and complexity exist as they do, show me something that fits the definition of "God" but is not God. Also, there is a jump between 'something happened' and 'a man sits on a cloud watching humanity and rewarding good people with eternal life, meanwhile controlling everything' that the first cause argument fails to solve.<- God is not man. Man may have some of God's attributes. When God understands and controls everything, He does it in ways that man barely understands at all. Or have you been tracking a molecule of wind as it travels around the world?

Finally, and perhaps most damningly, the argument has a serious loophole. One of the premises is everything needs a cause, yet the argument fails to say where God came from. (Which you never explained)

Actually, you never seem to listen - or is it comprehend - when I tell you about where God came from.

"Things" are of this universe. Since God is not of this universe, He is not a thing. But if He takes on the quality of a thing to some extent, He still maintains his quality of NOT being a thing. C&E isn't something that effects God unless He wants to be affected by it.

Like we barely know any details about the universe, in the same way our limitations keep us from knowing anything about that which is outside of the universe. Questions about the details of the things that make up God are not even things that we can ask, because God is so extremely different than us.

You are wasting your time with this constant questioning, which does not apply to God even as a question.

[IadixDev]

said cause and effect doesn't prove god in an earlier post. We don't know that everything needs a cause, maybe some events happen spontaneously. There is actually evidence that some sub-atomic particles form and disappear for no reason, with no cause. The universe might not need a ''cause'' either, time might not be viewed as a vector quantity, but rather a scaler one. Under this, there are no beginnings, and the universe was the start of time itself. There was no time when the universe began to exist, because there is no 'before' time itself didn't exist. Just because something caused the universe, doesn't mean a god did so. Also, there is a jump between 'something happened' and 'a man sits on a cloud watching humanity and rewarding good people with eternal life, meanwhile controlling everything' that the first cause argument fails to solve.

Finally, and perhaps most damningly, the argument has a serious loophole. One of the premises is everything needs a cause, yet the argument fails to say where God came from. (Which you never explained)

Things can exist as unmanifested "pure potential" before they "exists" as in manifesting themselves.

It's not because we dont understand the cause or reason that there isnt one.

Time is one dimension in the 4d  space according to relativity, and is affected by the nature of space itself.

God is not "sitting in the clouds" but exist as idea in the sky = mental plane = realm of idea.

[qwik2learn]

said cause and effect doesn't prove god in an earlier post. We don't know that everything needs a cause, maybe some events happen spontaneously. There is actually evidence that some sub-atomic particles form and disappear for no reason, with no cause. The universe might not need a ''cause'' either, time might not be viewed as a vector quantity, but rather a scaler one. Under this, there are no beginnings, and the universe was the start of time itself. There was no time when the universe began to exist, because there is no 'before' time itself didn't exist. Just because something caused the universe, doesn't mean a god did so. Also, there is a jump between 'something happened' and 'a man sits on a cloud watching humanity and rewarding good people with eternal life, meanwhile controlling everything' that the first cause argument fails to solve.

Finally, and perhaps most damningly, the argument has a serious loophole. One of the premises is everything needs a cause, yet the argument fails to say where God came from. (Which you never explained)

Things can exist as unmanifested "pure potential" before they "exists" as in manifesting themselves.

It's not because we dont understand the cause or reason that there isnt one.

Time is one dimension in the 4d  space according to relativity, and is affected by the nature of space itself.

God is not "sitting in the clouds" but exist as idea in the sky = mental plane = realm of idea.

I have heard some lucid explanations for how "infinity became aware"; consider this:

The One Infinite Creator
The Law of One states that there is only one, and that one is the Infinite Creator (4.20), which Ra also calls “Infinite Intelligence” and “Intelligent Infinity.” It is impossible to describe the “one undifferentiated intelligent infinity, unpolarized, full and whole,” but It can be activated or potentiated (28.1). Each portion of the creation contains, paradoxically, the whole (13.13).

Illusion
Since all is one, all manifestation, or appearance of many-ness, is an illusion (1.6, 106.23). According to Ra, it is an illusion carefully engineered in order to give the Creator the opportunity to know Itself (27.17).
http://www.lawofone.info/synopsis.php

Philosophical Materialism is the philosophy of atheist scientists. I also claim that all rational atheists are humanists and that humanism is false based on readily available evidence.

"I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical. "

[IadixDev]

I have heard some lucid explanations for how "infinity became aware"; consider this:

The One Infinite Creator
The Law of One states that there is only one, and that one is the Infinite Creator (4.20), which Ra also calls “Infinite Intelligence” and “Intelligent Infinity.” It is impossible to describe the “one undifferentiated intelligent infinity, unpolarized, full and whole,” but It can be activated or potentiated (28.1). Each portion of the creation contains, paradoxically, the whole (13.13).

Illusion
Since all is one, all manifestation, or appearance of many-ness, is an illusion (1.6, 106.23). According to Ra, it is an illusion carefully engineered in order to give the Creator the opportunity to know Itself (27.17).
http://www.lawofone.info/synopsis.php

Philosophical Materialism is the philosophy of atheist scientists. I also claim that all rational atheists are humanists and that humanism is false based on readily available evidence.

Those principle come from platonism or neo platonism.

Like plotinus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus

"Materialism" is more or less aristotle metaphysics / natural science / empirism.

"Rationalism" is more or less socratic/platonic/euclidian .

The thing of the illusion of changing appearence vs permanent truth is from parmenides.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides

All conceptions of reality are the result of a mental process, no more no less.

Cultivating the mental process of understanding  ( aka rationalism ) is more important than cultivating memory of facts ( aka empirism ).


The concept of true or false can be interpreted both in term of factual evidence, or in the context of rational analysis like euclidian axiomatic reasoning.  

In the context of axiomatic reasoning, truth is not about "factual evidence" but  about logical deduction from axioms.


There is no "factual evidence" that 1+1=2, arithmetics, or to euclidian geometric principle, just logical deduction from axioms.


Riemann show very well the problematics of finding the good axiomatic model or geometry / space to describe physics, as there is no manner to demonstrate which geometry or axioms are true or false in themselves as far as physics is concerned.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemannian_geometry

http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319260402
On the Hypotheses Which Lie at the Bases of Geometry.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

Relativity is special case of riemannian geometry, and show to be the more accurate model of space that correspond to physics so far.

Before riemann it was assumed euclidian geometry and axioms were more or less same than truth or physics.


Humanism is quite subjective concept, but it would be often considered platonic or socratic model are more humanist, they lead to republic in politics,  "science" derived from empirism, aka interpretation of facts lead to oligarchy, as long as this interpretation cannot be demonstrated rationally.


For plato truth is deeply related to good or justice, and concerned with humanism.

"I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical. "

There are some good demonstration of this problematics in this book.

Between Leibniz, Newton, and Kant: Philosophy and Science in the Eighteenth

https://books.google.fr/books?id=D5fcBQAAQBAJ&lpg=PT118&dq=leibniz%20mechanics%20vs%20newton&pg=PT21#v=onepage&q&f=false

[IadixDev]

Cause and effect shows that God is the source of all things. It works like this:
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.

I will quote from valerian as i just saw it lol

Love without limit, very cheap is the love that can be counted


This can apply for god too 

[Astargath]

Im not sure god has to be seen as something to provide for material needs.

More something to train spirit to be less dependent on materialism.

Im for one encouraging the practice of fasting to train the body to be less driven by needs.

I saw a video last time showing the tibetan kids, walking with bare foot for kilometers in the Mountain, all smiling & all, and they were like look at those chinese Kids they are lazy they cant walk a Mile without crying like babies lol

Kinda show something too ..

It's funny also to see on my facebook as i have friends from all over the world

French : always complaining,  never happy, always needs more.

American : more or less same.

Drama drama.

Money money.


The only who are just chilling with familly & friend and being smiling and happy not complaining about politics & economy are the one from south africa, or hispanics lol and they have not really much money or food lol

Even if you travel to islands like reunion or new caledonia, even burma, people live with very little and they are much less miserable than when moving back to big cities like Paris london or new York.


As long as you focus on your material needs and fear of lacking your always going to be scared of everything, anxiety & co.

Specially in developed country,  it's not like there is really that much scarcity of anything.

And nature already provide enough food .

Cause and effect shows that God is the source of all things. It works like this:
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.

You said cause and effect doesn't prove god in an earlier post.<- You misquote me. I said that C&E alone doesn't prove God. We don't know that everything needs a cause, maybe some events happen spontaneously.<- Haven't found a spontaneous event that we know factually is spontaneous. But we have countless billions of C&E events. There is actually evidence that some sub-atomic particles form and disappear for no reason, with no cause. The universe might not need a ''cause'' either, time might not be viewed as a vector quantity, but rather a scaler one. Under this, there are no beginnings, and the universe was the start of time itself.<- Have you read Peter Pan and the Wizard of Oz? There was no time when the universe began to exist, because there is no 'before' time itself didn't exist. Just because something caused the universe, doesn't mean a god did so.<- Under the circumstances of the universe, where C&E, entropy, and complexity exist as they do, show me something that fits the definition of "God" but is not God. Also, there is a jump between 'something happened' and 'a man sits on a cloud watching humanity and rewarding good people with eternal life, meanwhile controlling everything' that the first cause argument fails to solve.<- God is not man. Man may have some of God's attributes. When God understands and controls everything, He does it in ways that man barely understands at all. Or have you been tracking a molecule of wind as it travels around the world?

Finally, and perhaps most damningly, the argument has a serious loophole. One of the premises is everything needs a cause, yet the argument fails to say where God came from. (Which you never explained)

Actually, you never seem to listen - or is it comprehend - when I tell you about where God came from.

"Things" are of this universe. Since God is not of this universe, He is not a thing. But if He takes on the quality of a thing to some extent, He still maintains his quality of NOT being a thing. C&E isn't something that effects God unless He wants to be affected by it.

Like we barely know any details about the universe, in the same way our limitations keep us from knowing anything about that which is outside of the universe. Questions about the details of the things that make up God are not even things that we can ask, because God is so extremely different than us.

You are wasting your time with this constant questioning, which does not apply to God even as a question.

So because god is outside the universe he doesn't need a cause? How did you determine that?