pkwn888
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 19
Merit: 0
|
 |
November 04, 2017, 05:00:41 AM |
|
Interesting to research  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This isn't the kind of software where we can leave so many unresolved bugs that we need a tracker for them." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
November 04, 2017, 12:20:05 PM |
|
The consensus response is that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic formal systems (e.g. mathematics). Theology is not a formal system. Therefore, Gödel's incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to theology. Of course religious people would apply it because that's what you do with every single ''proof'' of god which always turns out to be false. Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science. What does that leave us with? Religion... and God.  I don't know if you have reading comprehension problems, It's a difficult life, isn't it, not knowing many things. I didn't say anything about any rebuttals. Ah! You recognize a little of what you didn't say! Good work. I said that you cannot apply godel's theorem to theology.
Ah! You recognize a little of what you DID say. Good work. Perhaps sometime you will move on to even greater work, by recognizing that, "Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science." Could be true yet my point has nothing to do with the godel's theorem being wrong or right, my point was about applying the theorem to theology which is just not possible. You have had this kind of problem before with entropy, applying it incorrectly because you didn't know the definition. As long as you continue to deny the definition of entropy as you have been, why would anybody care what you think about entropy? ?? Provide an example of what you mean. You have not only used entropy to ''prove'' god but also used entropy to ''disprove'' evolution. You were wrong in both of them as I pointed out, yet you don't acknowledge that. The law states any isolated system will increase its total entropy over time. An isolated system is defined as one without any outside energy input. Because the universe is an isolated system, the total disorder of the universe is always increasing. To claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also grounded in a misunderstanding of where the law applies. Nobody has ever figured out how to apply the second law to living creatures. There is no meaning to the entropy of a frog. The kinds of systems that can be analyzed with the second law are much simpler. The earth is not a isolated system since large amounts of electromagnetic radiation reaches earth from the sun, visible light, infrared and ultraviolet mainly. Some is reflected back out into space. How many different things do you want to express about entropy? How many different ways do you want to say them? You can get out loads of books right on the Internet, and copy and paste all kinds of things about entropy. But as long as you don't state the way that the entropy things that you are talking about apply to the point that entropy is a simplifying of complexity, perhaps you should start an entropy thread. Complexity is breaking down. Entropy is what is doing it. The time when complexity was the greatest is the beginning time. Throw cause and effect into the mix, and you prove that there is a God. As far as evolution goes, there are so many flaws in the evolution idea, that it should not even be considered a theory. Damn, you are truly good at avoiding my arguments. '' But as long as you don't state the way that the entropy things that you are talking about apply to the point that entropy is'' I have been trying to understand this sentence for a while now, still nothing. You have been wrong about entropy applying to the earth the same way that applies to the universe and you have been wrong in saying, intelligence can't form or (humans can't be more intelligent) because of entropy which I demonstrated to be wrong again because the earth is not an isolated system. ''As far as evolution goes, there are so many flaws in the evolution idea, that it should not even be considered a theory.'' That may be but then again, you have used entropy to try to disprove it and you were wrong, for the things mentioned before. I know it's hard to admit when you are wrong but you would look a bit less dishonest if you did. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1367
|
|
November 04, 2017, 01:53:53 PM |
|
The consensus response is that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic formal systems (e.g. mathematics). Theology is not a formal system. Therefore, Gödel's incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to theology. Of course religious people would apply it because that's what you do with every single ''proof'' of god which always turns out to be false. Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science. What does that leave us with? Religion... and God. I don't know if you have reading comprehension problems, It's a difficult life, isn't it, not knowing many things. I didn't say anything about any rebuttals. Ah! You recognize a little of what you didn't say! Good work. I said that you cannot apply godel's theorem to theology.
Ah! You recognize a little of what you DID say. Good work. Perhaps sometime you will move on to even greater work, by recognizing that, "Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science." Could be true yet my point has nothing to do with the godel's theorem being wrong or right, my point was about applying the theorem to theology which is just not possible. You have had this kind of problem before with entropy, applying it incorrectly because you didn't know the definition. As long as you continue to deny the definition of entropy as you have been, why would anybody care what you think about entropy? ?? Provide an example of what you mean. You have not only used entropy to ''prove'' god but also used entropy to ''disprove'' evolution. You were wrong in both of them as I pointed out, yet you don't acknowledge that. The law states any isolated system will increase its total entropy over time. An isolated system is defined as one without any outside energy input. Because the universe is an isolated system, the total disorder of the universe is always increasing. To claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also grounded in a misunderstanding of where the law applies. Nobody has ever figured out how to apply the second law to living creatures. There is no meaning to the entropy of a frog. The kinds of systems that can be analyzed with the second law are much simpler. The earth is not a isolated system since large amounts of electromagnetic radiation reaches earth from the sun, visible light, infrared and ultraviolet mainly. Some is reflected back out into space. How many different things do you want to express about entropy? How many different ways do you want to say them? You can get out loads of books right on the Internet, and copy and paste all kinds of things about entropy. But as long as you don't state the way that the entropy things that you are talking about apply to the point that entropy is a simplifying of complexity, perhaps you should start an entropy thread. Complexity is breaking down. Entropy is what is doing it. The time when complexity was the greatest is the beginning time. Throw cause and effect into the mix, and you prove that there is a God. As far as evolution goes, there are so many flaws in the evolution idea, that it should not even be considered a theory. Damn, you are truly good at avoiding my arguments. '' But as long as you don't state the way that the entropy things that you are talking about apply to the point that entropy is'' I have been trying to understand this sentence for a while now, still nothing. You have been wrong about entropy applying to the earth the same way that applies to the universe and you have been wrong in saying, intelligence can't form or (humans can't be more intelligent) because of entropy which I demonstrated to be wrong again because the earth is not an isolated system. ''As far as evolution goes, there are so many flaws in the evolution idea, that it should not even be considered a theory.'' That may be but then again, you have used entropy to try to disprove it and you were wrong, for the things mentioned before. I know it's hard to admit when you are wrong but you would look a bit less dishonest if you did. Sounds like you want to make this a topic about entropy. Essentially, entropy is the breaking down of complexity, even if people don't often express it that way. The idea that greater complexity arises from lesser is wrong. The fact is that at times greater simply appears to arise from lesser. Why does it appear this way? Because of our lack of ability to recognize the way things work. We are far too simple to recognize enough of the operations behind the break-down of complexity, to understand how complexity always breaks down, even though things seem the opposite at times. What are you attempting to do with all your entropy talk? Entropy shows that there was a beginning, simply because, if the universe always existed, simplicity would abound so greatly because of entropy, that we wouldn't exist, and this whole conversation wouldn't exist, either. Since we exist and converse, there was a beginning, and that not too far in the past, because entropy hasn't had the time to break down the complexity that we are. Since complexity doesn't arise from simplicity (there is no known example of such, but only assumptions that it might), complexity can only come from greater complexity. The fact of cause and effect in everything shows how great this greater complexity is... complex beyond understanding, or really, even a hint of true understanding. That is part of the description of God. C&E, with entropy, with complexity, prove the existence of God. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
November 04, 2017, 02:30:50 PM |
|
The consensus response is that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic formal systems (e.g. mathematics). Theology is not a formal system. Therefore, Gödel's incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to theology. Of course religious people would apply it because that's what you do with every single ''proof'' of god which always turns out to be false. Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science. What does that leave us with? Religion... and God. I don't know if you have reading comprehension problems, It's a difficult life, isn't it, not knowing many things. I didn't say anything about any rebuttals. Ah! You recognize a little of what you didn't say! Good work. I said that you cannot apply godel's theorem to theology.
Ah! You recognize a little of what you DID say. Good work. Perhaps sometime you will move on to even greater work, by recognizing that, "Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science." Could be true yet my point has nothing to do with the godel's theorem being wrong or right, my point was about applying the theorem to theology which is just not possible. You have had this kind of problem before with entropy, applying it incorrectly because you didn't know the definition. As long as you continue to deny the definition of entropy as you have been, why would anybody care what you think about entropy? ?? Provide an example of what you mean. You have not only used entropy to ''prove'' god but also used entropy to ''disprove'' evolution. You were wrong in both of them as I pointed out, yet you don't acknowledge that. The law states any isolated system will increase its total entropy over time. An isolated system is defined as one without any outside energy input. Because the universe is an isolated system, the total disorder of the universe is always increasing. To claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also grounded in a misunderstanding of where the law applies. Nobody has ever figured out how to apply the second law to living creatures. There is no meaning to the entropy of a frog. The kinds of systems that can be analyzed with the second law are much simpler. The earth is not a isolated system since large amounts of electromagnetic radiation reaches earth from the sun, visible light, infrared and ultraviolet mainly. Some is reflected back out into space. How many different things do you want to express about entropy? How many different ways do you want to say them? You can get out loads of books right on the Internet, and copy and paste all kinds of things about entropy. But as long as you don't state the way that the entropy things that you are talking about apply to the point that entropy is a simplifying of complexity, perhaps you should start an entropy thread. Complexity is breaking down. Entropy is what is doing it. The time when complexity was the greatest is the beginning time. Throw cause and effect into the mix, and you prove that there is a God. As far as evolution goes, there are so many flaws in the evolution idea, that it should not even be considered a theory. Damn, you are truly good at avoiding my arguments. '' But as long as you don't state the way that the entropy things that you are talking about apply to the point that entropy is'' I have been trying to understand this sentence for a while now, still nothing. You have been wrong about entropy applying to the earth the same way that applies to the universe and you have been wrong in saying, intelligence can't form or (humans can't be more intelligent) because of entropy which I demonstrated to be wrong again because the earth is not an isolated system. ''As far as evolution goes, there are so many flaws in the evolution idea, that it should not even be considered a theory.'' That may be but then again, you have used entropy to try to disprove it and you were wrong, for the things mentioned before. I know it's hard to admit when you are wrong but you would look a bit less dishonest if you did. Sounds like you want to make this a topic about entropy. Essentially, entropy is the breaking down of complexity, even if people don't often express it that way. The idea that greater complexity arises from lesser is wrong. The fact is that at times greater simply appears to arise from lesser. Why does it appear this way? Because of our lack of ability to recognize the way things work. We are far too simple to recognize enough of the operations behind the break-down of complexity, to understand how complexity always breaks down, even though things seem the opposite at times. What are you attempting to do with all your entropy talk? Entropy shows that there was a beginning, simply because, if the universe always existed, simplicity would abound so greatly because of entropy, that we wouldn't exist, and this whole conversation wouldn't exist, either. Since we exist and converse, there was a beginning, and that not too far in the past, because entropy hasn't had the time to break down the complexity that we are. Since complexity doesn't arise from simplicity (there is no known example of such, but only assumptions that it might), complexity can only come from greater complexity. The fact of cause and effect in everything shows how great this greater complexity is... complex beyond understanding, or really, even a hint of true understanding. That is part of the description of God. C&E, with entropy, with complexity, prove the existence of God. Well I didn't expect you to admit that you were wrong anyways. ''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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1367
|
|
November 04, 2017, 02:46:55 PM |
|
''God’s own complexity implies that He also had a designer.
Sounds like you are trying to ignore Kurt Gödel's stuff. Anyway...
A hole bigger than New Brunswick has opened up in Antarctic ice pack "You could imagine you're in the middle of the Antarctic winter and essentially there's sea ice as far as you can see and then, suddenly, if you're walking along, you come across this huge expanse of open water," Kent Moore, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Toronto Mississauga, told As It Happens host Carol Off. The sea ice hole, known in the scientific community by the Russian term polynya, measured 80,000 square kilometres at its peak ?" a little bigger than New Brunswick and a little smaller than the island of Newfoundland.
...
'Something's going on, but we just don't have enough data yet to really pin it down.' - Kent Moore, University of Toronto Mississauga Read more at https://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.ca/2017/11/a-hole-bigger-than-new-brunswick-has.html.
Do you really think that science has enough info to pin down entropy divisions throughout the universe when all the evidence points to the fact that entropy is universal? |
|
|
|
andohyeb
Member
Offline
Activity: 287
Merit: 10
|
|
November 04, 2017, 03:09:19 PM |
|
Prove or no Prove, the universe itself is more evident that God really exist.
|
|
|
|
|
dale123
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 11
Merit: 0
|
|
November 04, 2017, 03:17:31 PM |
|
Scientific proof that God exists ? ang bases kasi nila kaya nd sila naniniwla na may Diyos is to see is to believe, But what about the wind ? nakikita ba natin to ? pero naniniwla tayo, our common sense ? di ba hnd nmn natin nakikita to pero naniniwala tayo na nag eexist ito As a christian kasi you must believe first and you will see it. that is Faith  |
|
|
|
|
MueeZa
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 9
Merit: 0
|
|
November 04, 2017, 03:23:14 PM |
|
If I think that God really exists but depends on their respective beliefs and personal beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Sk Garcia
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 7
Merit: 0
|
|
November 04, 2017, 03:40:55 PM |
|
I also believe God existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
November 04, 2017, 03:44:35 PM |
|
''God’s own complexity implies that He also had a designer.
Sounds like you are trying to ignore Kurt Gödel's stuff. Anyway...
A hole bigger than New Brunswick has opened up in Antarctic ice pack"You could imagine you're in the middle of the Antarctic winter and essentially there's sea ice as far as you can see and then, suddenly, if you're walking along, you come across this huge expanse of open water," Kent Moore, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Toronto Mississauga, told As It Happens host Carol Off. The sea ice hole, known in the scientific community by the Russian term polynya, measured 80,000 square kilometres at its peak ?" a little bigger than New Brunswick and a little smaller than the island of Newfoundland.
...
'Something's going on, but we just don't have enough data yet to really pin it down.' - Kent Moore, University of Toronto Mississauga Read more at https://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.ca/2017/11/a-hole-bigger-than-new-brunswick-has.html.
Do you really think that science has enough info to pin down entropy divisions throughout the universe when all the evidence points to the fact that entropy is universal?Seems like you are trying to apply kurt stuff to theology again? And completely ignoring the arguments because you know they are right, you know complexity does not prove god existence whatsoever, you can't even refute any of it, you are a joke. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1367
|
|
November 04, 2017, 05:13:34 PM |
|
''God’s own complexity implies that He also had a designer.
Sounds like you are trying to ignore Kurt Gödel's stuff. Anyway...
A hole bigger than New Brunswick has opened up in Antarctic ice pack"You could imagine you're in the middle of the Antarctic winter and essentially there's sea ice as far as you can see and then, suddenly, if you're walking along, you come across this huge expanse of open water," Kent Moore, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Toronto Mississauga, told As It Happens host Carol Off. The sea ice hole, known in the scientific community by the Russian term polynya, measured 80,000 square kilometres at its peak ?" a little bigger than New Brunswick and a little smaller than the island of Newfoundland.
...
'Something's going on, but we just don't have enough data yet to really pin it down.' - Kent Moore, University of Toronto Mississauga Read more at https://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.ca/2017/11/a-hole-bigger-than-new-brunswick-has.html.
Do you really think that science has enough info to pin down entropy divisions throughout the universe when all the evidence points to the fact that entropy is universal?Seems like you are trying to apply kurt stuff to theology again? And completely ignoring the arguments because you know they are right, you know complexity does not prove god existence whatsoever, you can't even refute any of it, you are a joke. If you ever stopped talking religion, you might finally see that cause and effect, complexity, entropy, and Kurt Gödel's stuff, all have to do with science. Science proves God exists. |
|
|
|
|
soupyyo
|
|
November 04, 2017, 05:36:17 PM |
|
" We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." – Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
burky156
|
|
November 04, 2017, 07:24:05 PM |
|
There is no way to proof God for me. I believe the God is inside us and always stays with us. The biggest power that we don't need to proof..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
November 04, 2017, 10:37:47 PM |
|
''God’s own complexity implies that He also had a designer.
Sounds like you are trying to ignore Kurt Gödel's stuff. Anyway...
A hole bigger than New Brunswick has opened up in Antarctic ice pack"You could imagine you're in the middle of the Antarctic winter and essentially there's sea ice as far as you can see and then, suddenly, if you're walking along, you come across this huge expanse of open water," Kent Moore, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Toronto Mississauga, told As It Happens host Carol Off. The sea ice hole, known in the scientific community by the Russian term polynya, measured 80,000 square kilometres at its peak ?" a little bigger than New Brunswick and a little smaller than the island of Newfoundland.
...
'Something's going on, but we just don't have enough data yet to really pin it down.' - Kent Moore, University of Toronto Mississauga Read more at https://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.ca/2017/11/a-hole-bigger-than-new-brunswick-has.html.
Do you really think that science has enough info to pin down entropy divisions throughout the universe when all the evidence points to the fact that entropy is universal?Seems like you are trying to apply kurt stuff to theology again? And completely ignoring the arguments because you know they are right, you know complexity does not prove god existence whatsoever, you can't even refute any of it, you are a joke. If you ever stopped talking religion, you might finally see that cause and effect, complexity, entropy, and Kurt Gödel's stuff, all have to do with science. Science proves God exists. Gravity, evolution have to do with science and science proves zeus exists, what the fuck are you even talking about. I already talked about how godel's theorem cannot be applied to theology (or to prove god in any way, therefore meaningless to the conversation) I already proved you didn't know how to apply entropy. And I just argued about complexity, which you just ignored like you did now saying I'm talking about religion, because that's what you do, ignore arguments. ''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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1367
|
|
November 05, 2017, 01:10:27 AM |
|
''God’s own complexity implies that He also had a designer.
Sounds like you are trying to ignore Kurt Gödel's stuff. Anyway...
A hole bigger than New Brunswick has opened up in Antarctic ice pack"You could imagine you're in the middle of the Antarctic winter and essentially there's sea ice as far as you can see and then, suddenly, if you're walking along, you come across this huge expanse of open water," Kent Moore, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Toronto Mississauga, told As It Happens host Carol Off. The sea ice hole, known in the scientific community by the Russian term polynya, measured 80,000 square kilometres at its peak ?" a little bigger than New Brunswick and a little smaller than the island of Newfoundland.
...
'Something's going on, but we just don't have enough data yet to really pin it down.' - Kent Moore, University of Toronto Mississauga Read more at https://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.ca/2017/11/a-hole-bigger-than-new-brunswick-has.html.
Do you really think that science has enough info to pin down entropy divisions throughout the universe when all the evidence points to the fact that entropy is universal?Seems like you are trying to apply kurt stuff to theology again? And completely ignoring the arguments because you know they are right, you know complexity does not prove god existence whatsoever, you can't even refute any of it, you are a joke. If you ever stopped talking religion, you might finally see that cause and effect, complexity, entropy, and Kurt Gödel's stuff, all have to do with science. Science proves God exists. Gravity, evolution have to do with science and science proves zeus exists, what the fuck are you even talking about. I already talked about how godel's theorem cannot be applied to theology (or to prove god in any way, therefore meaningless to the conversation) I already proved you didn't know how to apply entropy. And I just argued about complexity, which you just ignored like you did now saying I'm talking about religion, because that's what you do, ignore arguments. ''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.'' Sounds like you are trying to ignore Kurt Gödel's stuff, which is science stuff that applies to this conversation. As long as you keep bringing religion into it, you are showing that you are trying to deny Gödel's stuff, which as you admit above, doesn't have anything to do with religion. Simply because God has intelligence that is greater than ours, doesn't have anything to do with the fact that He doesn't necessarily have to rely on it, or that intelligence is one of his Personal fundamentals. In fact, Gödel's Theorem suggests the opposite about God regarding any need He might have for anything in the universe. God doesn't need any of this, or rely on it or anything like it. Scientifically, Gödel's Theorem suggests this. God Himself isn't scientific or religious. But science shows that He exists, just as religion does. As long as you try to beat around the bush rather than talk directly about this, you are showing that you don't really have a response. As for design, no matter what we find on earth, be it something man-made or something not man-made, when we get down to the fundamentals of it, it is extremely complex. Matter is composed of extremely complex energies in combination, that react upon each other to produce that which we call matter. Cause and effect show that everything came about by a cause that produced an effect. Complex effects are design. There is nothing that we find that is opposite to this. Even simple rocks are complex at their atomic level. All is complexity. Complexity comes about via design. Since it all works together in the universe, the whole universe was designed. |
|
|
|
Vod
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3682
Merit: 3053
Licking my boob since 1970
|
|
November 05, 2017, 01:48:56 AM |
|
God Himself isn't scientific or religious. But science shows that He exists, just as religion does.
If that were true, every scientist would believe in gods, with atheists obviously labelled as fools. The science, and therefore the scientific proof, exists only in your fairy tale. |
https://nastyscam.com - landing page up https://vod.fan - advanced image hosting - coming soon! OGNasty has early onset dementia; keep this in mind when discussing his past actions.
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1367
|
|
November 05, 2017, 02:11:17 AM |
|
God Himself isn't scientific or religious. But science shows that He exists, just as religion does.
If that were true, every scientist would believe in gods, with atheists obviously labelled as fools. The science, and therefore the scientific proof, exists only in your fairy tale. Many scientists understand from science that God exists. And, atheists are fools, whether or not anyone wants to label them as such. The "gods" that you speak of are simply people. Most people - even scientists - believe that people exist. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
November 05, 2017, 11:47:14 AM |
|
''God’s own complexity implies that He also had a designer.
Sounds like you are trying to ignore Kurt Gödel's stuff. Anyway...
A hole bigger than New Brunswick has opened up in Antarctic ice pack"You could imagine you're in the middle of the Antarctic winter and essentially there's sea ice as far as you can see and then, suddenly, if you're walking along, you come across this huge expanse of open water," Kent Moore, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Toronto Mississauga, told As It Happens host Carol Off. The sea ice hole, known in the scientific community by the Russian term polynya, measured 80,000 square kilometres at its peak ?" a little bigger than New Brunswick and a little smaller than the island of Newfoundland.
...
'Something's going on, but we just don't have enough data yet to really pin it down.' - Kent Moore, University of Toronto Mississauga Read more at https://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.ca/2017/11/a-hole-bigger-than-new-brunswick-has.html.
Do you really think that science has enough info to pin down entropy divisions throughout the universe when all the evidence points to the fact that entropy is universal?Seems like you are trying to apply kurt stuff to theology again? And completely ignoring the arguments because you know they are right, you know complexity does not prove god existence whatsoever, you can't even refute any of it, you are a joke. If you ever stopped talking religion, you might finally see that cause and effect, complexity, entropy, and Kurt Gödel's stuff, all have to do with science. Science proves God exists. Gravity, evolution have to do with science and science proves zeus exists, what the fuck are you even talking about. I already talked about how godel's theorem cannot be applied to theology (or to prove god in any way, therefore meaningless to the conversation) I already proved you didn't know how to apply entropy. And I just argued about complexity, which you just ignored like you did now saying I'm talking about religion, because that's what you do, ignore arguments. ''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.'' Sounds like you are trying to ignore Kurt Gödel's stuff, which is science stuff that applies to this conversation. As long as you keep bringing religion into it, you are showing that you are trying to deny Gödel's stuff, which as you admit above, doesn't have anything to do with religion. Simply because God has intelligence that is greater than ours, doesn't have anything to do with the fact that He doesn't necessarily have to rely on it, or that intelligence is one of his Personal fundamentals. In fact, Gödel's Theorem suggests the opposite about God regarding any need He might have for anything in the universe. God doesn't need any of this, or rely on it or anything like it. Scientifically, Gödel's Theorem suggests this. God Himself isn't scientific or religious. But science shows that He exists, just as religion does. As long as you try to beat around the bush rather than talk directly about this, you are showing that you don't really have a response. As for design, no matter what we find on earth, be it something man-made or something not man-made, when we get down to the fundamentals of it, it is extremely complex. Matter is composed of extremely complex energies in combination, that react upon each other to produce that which we call matter. Cause and effect show that everything came about by a cause that produced an effect. Complex effects are design. There is nothing that we find that is opposite to this. Even simple rocks are complex at their atomic level. All is complexity. Complexity comes about via design. Since it all works together in the universe, the whole universe was designed. ''As for design, no matter what we find on earth, be it something man-made or something not man-made, when we get down to the fundamentals of it, it is extremely complex.'' However my point was and it's clear that you didn't read it, that something complex doesn't mean something designed. ''Complex effects are design.'' Because you say so? ''There is nothing that we find that is opposite to this'' Opposite to what? There is nothing that we found that is not designed by humans or animals so far either. ''Even simple rocks are complex at their atomic level. All is complexity. Complexity comes about via design.'' Prove it. You can't say, rocks are complex, all is complex, complex is design. How the fuck did you come up with that conclusion lol. I already argued with you on how we know things are designed, we compare them with nature, we don't look to see if they are complex or not necessarily. '' 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.'' Again, we don't know if simple rocks also have a designer, you are just assuming that. Also would you mind explaining how kurt godel incompleteness theorem applies to god because I would love to have a laugh on that as well. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1367
|
|
November 05, 2017, 01:54:30 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
kolyn04
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 9
Merit: 0
|
|
November 05, 2017, 02:03:14 PM |
|
What do you think? Please share your opinion about this article. 101 Proofs For God A growing list of common sense Proofs for God. Proof for God, #65 Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam Genetic scientists seem to be in general agreement that we are all descendants of one woman and one man. This research was fairly recent, starting about 1978. They, of course, do not believe in the creation story of Adam and Eve in the Bible, but their conclusions are getting closer and closer. In case you have not heard about this, it makes very interesting reading. But I think it raises a number of profound challenges to the Theory of Evolution. The scientists base the above conclusions on the known facts of human reproduction, specifically on properties of the sperm and egg. ..... Full article read here: http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/07/65-mitochondial-eve-and-y-chromosome.htmlThe only proof that God really exists is when you BELIEVE. |
|
|
|
|
|
