Does God Exist? Scientific proof!!

A PRACTICAL MAN'S PROOF OF GOD

The existence of God is a subject that has occupied schools of philosophy and theology for thousands of years. Most of the time, these debates have revolved around all kinds of assumptions and definitions. Philosophers will spend a lifetime arguing about the meaning of a word and never really get there. One is reminded of the college student who was asked how his philosophy class was going. He replied that they had not done much because when the teacher tried to call roll, the kids kept arguing about whether they existed or not.

Most of us who live and work in the real world do not concern ourselves with such activities. We realize that such discussions may have value and interest in the academic world, but the stress and pressure of day-to-day life forces us to deal with a very pragmatic way of making decisions. If I ask you to prove to me that you have $2.00, you would show it to me. Even in more abstract things we use common sense and practical reasoning. If I ask you whether a certain person is honest or not, you do not flood the air with dissertations on the relative nature of honesty; you would give me evidence one way or the other. The techniques of much of the philosophical arguments that go on would eliminate most of engineering and technology if they were applied in those fields.

The purpose of this brief study is to offer a logical, practical, pragmatic proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective. To do this, we are assuming that we exist, that there is reality, and that the matter of which we are made is real. If you do not believe that you exist, you have bigger problems than this study will entail and you will have to look elsewhere.

THE BEGINNING

If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). Most atheists maintain that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief.

The way we decide whether the atheist is correct or not is to see what science has discovered about this question. The picture below on the left represents our part of the cosmos. Each of the disk shaped objects is a galaxy like our Milky Way. All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day. If we had three galaxies located at positions A, B. and C in the second diagram below, and if they are located as shown, tomorrow they will be further apart. The triangle they form will be bigger. The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/universe.gif

Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! At what scientists call a singularity! In 1999, it was discovered that the galaxies are accelerating in their expansion. Any notion that we live in an oscillating or pulsating universe has been dispelled by this discovery. The universe is not slowing down, but speeding up in its motion.

A second proof is seen in the energy sources that fuel the cosmos. The picture to the right is a picture of the sun. Like all stars, the sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion. Every second that passes, the sun compresses 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy. In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence. This incredible furnace is not a process confined to the sun. Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way. Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. Just think about it! If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left?

Suppose I attempt to drive my automobile without putting any more gas (fuel) into it. As I drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen? I am going to run out of gas! If the cosmos has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago! The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe! Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21-cm line in the spectrum--a piece of light only given off by hydrogen. This could not be unless we had a beginning!

A third scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more. Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan was so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.

The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct.

THE CAUSE

If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question--was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause (a creation) but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.

The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is also incorrect. The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.

THE DESIGN http://www.doesgodexist.org/images/sun.jpg

If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer--what was the cause? The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God is "through the things he has made." The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance. Julian Huxley once said:

We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents.

The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance. Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.

A HELP IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT GOD IS

To help the reader comprehend the nature of God, I would like to borrow an analogy from the book Flatland by Edwin Abbott.* Abbott was a mathematician and the model is geometric in nature. It was originally written in the 19th century for the purposes we are using it for here. Flatland is the story of a man who lives in a two dimensional world--like a sheet of paper. In the surface of the paper there is only length and width-there is no such thing as thickness. You and I are three-dimensional beings-we have length and width and frequently considerable thickness. You cannot get me, a three-dimensional being, into a two-dimensional sheet of paper. You can draw a front view of me (a portrait), but that is not the whole me. You can draw a top view of me which because I am bald, ends up being three concentric circles, but that is not the whole me. If you and I were to look at the man in Flatland, we would see him as a profile (see figure 1). He would be outlined but have no thickness.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/flat1.gif

Figure 1: The man in Flatland.

One day the man in Flatland is visited by a sphere. The sphere is a three-dimensional object just as we are, and it just so happens that it crosses Flatland right in the man's living room. Now if you will think about that for a moment, you will realize that for the man in Flatland a rather incredible thing has happened. A dot appears on the man's floor with no cause that the man in Flatland can understand. A dot in Flatland is matter! In figure 1, the man, himself, is made up of a series of dots. Just as a tennis ball dipped in paint and touched to a sheet of paper would produce a dot on the paper, so too has our dot which the man in Flatland calls matter appeared out of nothing (see figure 2). As the man in Flatland watches, the dot becomes a circle which continuously grows in size (see figure 3). You will see if a plane truncates (or slices) a sphere, it will produce a circle; and the deeper the sphere sinks into the plane, the larger the circle will become.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/flat2.gif

Figure 2: A sphere tangent to a plane produces a dot on the plane. The man in Flatland sees only the dot.


http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/flat3.gif

Figure 3: A plane truncating a sphere. The man in Flatland sees a circle.


The circle becomes so large it is about to fill the living room of the man in Flatland. He is terrified because he does not understand what is happening. All of the laws of science which state that matter cannot be created nor destroyed are being violated. What he sees is for him a true miracle. Just as he is about to run in panic from the room, the sphere reaches its equator, passes its equator, and gradually sinks out of the plane. So what happens to the circle in Flatland? It begins to shrink, and it becomes smaller and smaller until finally it is just a dot on his floor and then it is gone! Another violation of the laws of science! Matter cannot be destroyed and yet the man in Flatland has seen it happen. The man in Flatland is being confronted with miraculous and ghost-like events which violates his science and his common sense.

Let us suppose now that the man in Flatland begins talking to the sphere, and he says to the sphere: "What is it like to be a sphere? The sphere says, "I'll tell you what it's like; draw a circle on your floor." This is not easy for the man in Flatland to do. His perception of a circle is a constantly curving line that returns to its origin, but he cannot see all of the circle at once. He can only see the side of the circle facing him. The only way he could see a whole circle would be to be inside the circle, and if he got inside he could never get out. People in Flatland commit suicide by drawing circles around themselves that they can never get out of. Because of this it takes along time for him to draw the circle. The sphere is most impatient with all this because he could have done it instantly. Finally the circle is completed and the sphere says, "Now what I want you to do is to rotate the circle! What he has in mind is that the man in Flatland will rotate the circle about its diameter producing a sphere, but what the man in Flatland does is to rotate the circle about its circumference, spinning it like a record on a record player. "No, no--rotate it the third way,' says the sphere. "There is no third way you fool," cries out the man in Flatland, and for him this is true. There is no third way, no up and down in a thickness direction, and absolutely no way for him to comprehend what the sphere is talking about or what the sphere is. The only thing that he can understand is the world or dimension in which he lives.

Now the reason that I have told you this little story is to give you a foundation by which you can understand God. When you read, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1), you are reading a description analogous to Flatland. The concept is that, a God, who is in a higher dimension than are we, a God who has the same kind of relationship to us which the sphere had to Flatland, that, this kind of being touched our little "Flatland," so to speak, and in violation of all of our laws of science created matter out of nothing. God is so superior to us, he exists in such a higher dimension than do we that what is natural and ordinary to him is miraculous to us. The Bible recognizes this concept and uses it in every single description of God.



WHO CREATED GOD?

It is easy to make an argument for Godâ??s existence from a cosmological standpoint. As the years have gone by, a growing amount of scientific data has accumulated which negates atheistic assumptions about how matter and the cosmos came into existence and how it has arrived at its present condition. As a science teacher and public lecturer on the compatibility of belief in God and science, I have been impressed with an increasing awareness on the part of many scientists and theologians that science and religion are symbiotic disciplines.

One question which inevitably comes up in a discussion of this nature is what the origin of God is? If God created matter/energy and designed the systems that have propelled matter into its present arrangement, who or what accomplished that for God? Why is it any more reasonable to believe that God has always been than it is to say that matter has always been? As Carl Sagan has said, â??If we say that God has always been, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always been?â?� (Carl Sagan, Cosmos, [New York: Random House, Inc., 1980], p. 257).

From a purely scientific standpoint, it is easy to demonstrate that matter cannot be eternal in nature. The universe is expanding from what appears to be a beginning point in space/time, which appears to be a one time event. Hydrogen is the basic fuel of the cosmos, powering all stars and other energy sources in space. If the fuel of the universe has been used eternally, that fuel will eventually be depleted; but the evidence is that the cosmological gas gauge, while moving toward â??empty,â?� is yet a long way from being thereâ??a condition incompatible with an eternal universe. The second law of thermodynamics insists that the cosmos is moving toward a condition of disorder, sometimes referred to as â??heat death.â?� Even in an oscillating universe, things ultimately run out of energy and â??die.â?� All of these evidences, and several others we have not made reference to, show that matter cannot be eternal, as Dr. Sagan and his associates would like to believe. However, this does not mean that we automatically accept the hypothesis that God is the Creator. Why is it not equally invalid to suggest that God has always been?

The problem here is that many people have a mistaken concept of God. If we conceive of God as physical, anthropomorphic (like man) being, the question of Godâ??s origin is valid. However, such a concept of God is alien to the Bible and to common sense. Consider the following descriptions of God from the Bible:


John 4: 24
God is a Spirit: ...

Matthew 16:17
... for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven.

Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should ... ;

Obviously, the descriptions and concepts of God given in these passages are that God is a spiritual entity. He exists outside of the three-dimensional physical world in which we live. The Bible further supports this concept of God in the following passages:

Jeremiah 23:23-24
Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? ... Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

2 Chronicles 2:6
But who is able to build a house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him? ...

Acts 17:28
For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; ...

Not only is God described as being outside space, but He is also described as being outside of time. Consider the following:

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Psalm 102:27
But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.

Acts 1:7
...It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his power.

If God is a being that is unlimited in time, and if He has access to every piece of time as if it were now, the question of who created God is an invalid question. The problem is like asking a student to draw a four-sided triangle. The terminology is self-contradictory.

When asked â??Who or what created God?â?� we are making the assumption that God was created. If God exists outside of time and space, and if He is the Creator of time and space, He obviously was not created! God began the beginning! This is why He says, â??I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the lastâ?� (Revelation 22:13).

God created time. The statement of Genesis, â??In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,â?� is making reference to the creation of time. The reason that things like heat death, the expansion of the universe, and the depletion of hydrogen do not apply to God is because He is outside of time. God has always been. He did things before time began (see 1 Corinthians 2:7). He not only began time; He will also end it. When time ends, all matter and all mankind will enter eternityâ??a timeless condition free of the negative things that time brings upon us now.

2 Peter 3:10-11
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness.

Revelation 21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

The agnostic position that there is nothing that can be said to support Godâ??s existence that cannot be said against that existence cannot, in the opinion of the author, stand in the face of this evidence.



What Was the Cause of the Beginning?

It is assumed that the reader has read before this point, one titled A Practical Man's Proof of God and the other A Help in Understanding What God Is. In these readings, we have established that all scientific evidence supports the fact that there was a beginning, and that the beginning was caused. We have also shown that the creator of time, space, and energy has to be something that is outside of time, space, and energy. The nature of the cause cannot be in the three-dimensional physical world in which we live and must be outside of time to have created time. That does not automatically mean that God is the creator, because recent studies in quantum mechanics have shown that there are many things that apparently function outside of the three-dimensional world that we are familiar with. The purpose of this discussion is to show that a dominant property of the cause of the creation is intelligence which radiates purpose in the creation and eliminates chance as a cause of the beginning. There are several different kinds of evidence that show the nature of intelligence in the creation. We would like to briefly review these with the hope that the reader will pursue other writings that explore and expand each of them.

Intuitive Design
Intuitive design simply means to look at the world around you without the prejudice of science, philosophy, or religion. It is difficult to observe the birth of a child and not be impressed with the incredible complexity of that process. Standing on a mountain or in a spaceship and looking out at the cosmos in which we live is a wonderful, awe-inspiring act. Snorkeling in a reef and watching the interplay of hundreds of living things is exhilarating. Watching the incredible migrations of birds, whales, eels, turtles, caribou, and fish fills us with wonder and amazement. All around us we see evidence of incredible intelligence, which poets and religious writers have extolled for centuries. The Bible writers were a part of this as they said things like, "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1). "Go to the ant, thou sluggard, consider her ways and be wise ..." (Proverbs 6:6). "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made ..." (Romans 1:20).

Atheists and skeptics will respond that there are natural ways of explaining all of these things, and we would agree. The problem is that the number of things that have to be explained is staggering and growing as our knowledge expands. Offering a possible natural explanation is not a proof any more than maintaining that God did it.

Architectural Design
In the creation there are a vast number of artistic and architectural functions that radiate incredible beauty, but have no biological or physical necessity to exist. The Fibonacci ratio, for example, exists throughout every aspect of the creation--from the shape of galaxy arms to the DNA helix. This ratio and the spiral structures it produces offer no functional advantage--it is not stronger than other structures and it does not improve the probability of survival. There is no reason for it to exist and especially not to exist in the thousands and thousands of different applications where it is found.

What the Fibonacci ratio and its structures do offer is incredible beauty. The whole creation is teeming with examples of beauty that are not essential to function, but have appeal to minds that can comprehend and appreciate it. Attempting to ascribe such beauty to chance and the interpretation of the human mind falls woefully short of supplying a satisfactory explanation.

Mathematical Design
Over recent years, we have seen a number of new terms evolve to describe attempts to ask if chance is a mathematical possibility in explaining what we see in the cosmos. Irreducible complexity and the soft anthropic principle have been heavily promoted at the start of the 21st century by all kinds of scientists and philosophers. The problem is that, as mankind has come to understand the processes seen in nature, we realize that there are many parameters that are necessary for things to exist as we see them. Chaos theory has helped us learn that things we thought were chaotic in many cases are just so complex that our calculating skills and tools did not allow us to see the design that is there.

How many variables are there in producing a carbon atom? Any high school student knows that this list is huge--the gravitational coupling constant, the strong nuclear force coupling constant, the weak nuclear force coupling constant, the electromagnetic force coupling constant, the ratio of electron to proton mass, the expansion rate of the cosmos, the entropy level of the cosmos, the mass density of the universe, fine structure constant, the decay rate of a proton, just to name a few. Similar lists can be given for the producing of a life-supporting planet or for life itself. (Note: lists are available upon request.)

Late in the 20th century, scientists and mathematicians began to apply mathematics to these kinds of lists. The problem is that when you have a large number of independent variables and each of them has a finite probability, the total probability becomes astronomical. If you draw a card from a deck of cards once, the odds of getting an ace of spades is one in 52. The odds of drawing an ace of spades twice in a row back-to-back is one in 2,704 (1/52 x 1/52). The odds of doing it four times in a row is one in 7,311,616. This same technique has to be applied to all of the variables necessary to produce an atom, a planet, life, etc., if the calculation is done on a purely chance basis. The probability figures come up with numbers like one chance in ten to the 800th power! Even famous atheists like Francis Crick and Antony Flew have agreed that chance is not a valid means of explaining these numbers. They suggest that aliens or some other intelligence is responsible, which does not answer the question but just pushes it back one level.

Another response to our argument is to maintain that the cosmos is so vast and so old that, no matter what the odds are, it will happen. The problem with this explanation is that, as scientists examine the cosmos, they do not find it to be infinitely old or infinitely big. If the big bang theory is accepted in any of its versions, the cosmos is finite in both size and age. Textbooks will estimate the number of baryons in the cosmos as ten to the 78th power, and that is not in the range of the probabilities that exist. The cosmos is not big enough nor old enough to allow chance to be an operating mechanism. Proposals of parallel universes and virtual existence are not supported by evidence and appear to be desperate attempts to avoid the admission of intelligence in the creation.

What About Imperfection?
I am the father of a son born blind, mentally retarded, with cerebral palsy and a form of muscular dystrophy. For centuries philosophers and skeptics have maintained that any argument for intelligence in the cosmos is negated because of the imperfections seen in everything around us. The miracle of the birth of a baby is blunted when that baby has enormous congenital problems. Many people see the violence of a supernova or a volcano or earthquake as a negation of any suggestion of intelligence and design in the creation. Some of the problem here is ignorance of the scientific purpose in things we see as violent. Volcanos and earthquakes are positive natural forces that benefit life on earth. Without them, new land to replace eroding continents and new minerals to sustain life would not exist. In other words, life would not be possible. Even hurricanes have a positive function in the overall ecosystem of this planet. What we consider to be imperfection is sometimes a function of our ignorance.

The other variable that has to be included in this discussion is the purpose of the existence of man. If your view of man is that he is simply the apex of evolutionary process, then finding any real purpose for our existence is problematic at best. As pollution, war, and overpopulation create havoc on the planet, the value and justification for man's existence becomes blurred at best.

The biblical explanation of man is that man is created in the image of God. That means man is primarily a spiritual being, not a physical one. The Bible also indicates that God's purposes in creating man have no physical significance. Passages like Ephesians 6:12, Ephesians 3:9-11, and Job 1 and 2 make it clear that man is a part of something far grander and more magnificent than those things that happen in space and time. Imperfection in this physical world is far less significant if you understand that this world is not the sum total of our existence. It is hoped that the reader will want to pursue what the nature of that existence is and how we play a significant role in the battle between good and evil. It is also hoped that in doing this the reader will find meaning and value in life that will lead to a better, more fulfilling, and more peaceful life here than has been experienced before.

I have more, but this is just to get you started.

Well that was very lengthy. But it was not scientific proof of any kind. :wtf:

Blue, I expect you read through everything?

If you are a logical being and exist, then you must have come in to existence from some form of intelligence.

I am using a scientific point of view combined with pure logic to come to this. Scientific proof would fall in the category of not everything in this world could possibly be by pure chance.

Say there was a big bang, what motivates energy to do what it does, to cause actions and reactions? Without some form of intelligence, how did the universe and the earth with everything we need to live all in one shot end up here, perfect distance from the sun to sustain all sorts of living things, the makeup of the way the human body works, the human brain, thoughts, emotions, earth tilting on a perfect axis so we don't freeze, or burn up. The moon which gives us our tides so we have a good circulation of water all the time.

Science cannot account for where life itself originates, and the fact that we are made up of everything in the ground, but in a different much more complex form.

You simply say, I have no scientific proof. Look around you, proof is everywhere. Fact that you can manage to post online in an online bulletin shows some sort of intelligence. Which I might add doesn't come by a series of natural coincidences.

Everything being mathematically perfect to sustain all forms of life all in one spot, in which they all rely on a food chain to survive must be a pure miracle in your eyes I assume? How convenient it is that we have a generous supply of water to stay alive as well, thanks for giving me my brain science!

A quote that I particularly enjoy:

Evolution works best when it is guided. If a blind man tried to solve a Rubik's cube, and he made one move a second, the Universe would be over before he got it solved. But if a sighted man who knew how to solve it, stood behind him and told him what moves to make, it could be solved in a few minutes. Unguided evolution would take too long to create a Life form as sophisticated as a Blue Whale or a Human. The Universe would be over first, but if evolution is guided it can be done.

Check this out, more evidence in a video:

YouTube - Scientific Proof of God

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THContent

Blue, I expect you read through everything?

---

No I didn't read it all. I could see that this was not scientific proof. It is "logic" preceding from the idea that if there was a beginning to the universe, some intelligence must have been behind it. This is not provable any more than the big bang theory is provable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THContent

If you are a logical being and exist, then you must have come in to existence from some form of intelligence.

---

This is opinion and nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THContent

I am using a scientific point of view combined with pure logic to come to this. Scientific proof would fall in the category of not everything in this world could possibly be by pure chance.

---

See science doesn't work by posing a theory that can't be proven or dis-proven and then saying "well that seals it then." Science works by posing a theory and rigorously testing it by trying to prove it is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THContent

You simply say, I have no scientific proof. Look around you, proof is everywhere. Fact that you can manage to post online in an online bulletin shows some sort of intelligence. Which I might add doesn't come by a series of natural coincidences.

---

The proof you speak of is not scientific proof, but rather opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THContent

Everything being mathematically perfect to sustain all forms of life all in one spot, in which they all rely on a food chain to survive must be a pure miracle in your eyes I assume? How convenient it is that we have a generous supply of water to stay alive as well, thanks for giving me my brain science!

---

No the evolution of life on this planet is not a miracle in my eyes. It is the result of millions of years of biological trial and error that has seen the mass extinction of the dominant form of life as part of that process.

Here is some real logic.

Why doesn't god just reveal him/her/itself to us all individually in a way that is clear straight forward and unequivocal?

That would eliminate our free will Western religion tells us. Wouldn't scientific proof of god be that same thing? If god existed, than it would be simplicity itself for god to be revealed to god's creation in a way that allowed no doubt. Supposedly this has happened in the past to hundreds of people. Why wasn't their free will important? If it didn't eliminate their free will, then why doesn't god show him/her/itself to people today in a real scientifically verifiable way?

I think this is just a biased opinion rather then being scientific proof. What blueblazer is saying is correct, you can't just say god did something just because man hasn't found a way to. Prove it yet. I do believe in god though, I'm just a bit of a critic also

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlueBlazer

Why doesn't god just reveal him/her/itself to us all individually in a way that is clear straight forward and unequivocal?

---

God reveals through science, the pursuit of truth.

Give this video a chance, it is easier to understand and is better explained than what I typed. It has alot more science backing it up than my simple sentences. I would like to hear what scientific evidence points away from intelligent design after watching this and taking in some knowledge and valid scientific proof.



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppIgFEFUpjw[/YOUTUBE]


Some people just simply will not accept that they came from an intelligent life form, no matter what type of evidence is given.

I agree that questioning under a fine tooth comb will reveal whats really there, with no dispute. Science is our only fundamental way to discern truth from theory. You are both right, getting facts, and proof that can be verified is the only real way to get a definite answer. Which is apparent in that video I posted, not opinions in any way. A video I think even Blue will appreciate :)


And just for the record, I do not believe in religion or the bible (anything man-made cannot be trusted). God, well, that's a different story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THContent

God reveals through science, the pursuit of truth.

Some people just simply will not accept that they came from an intelligent life form, no matter what type of evidence is given.

---

My point is that god could remove any ambiguity by simply revealing his/her/it's existence in a way that is totally beyond question.

As it is, the scientific and rational exploration of the Bible, Torah, and Koran reveal books that are basically fairy tales.

You say you are of the opinion that god exists, however, all religions have it wrong. If this being exists, but chooses to remain hidden to us then what practical purpose in believing in god?

Some people just simply will not accept that there is no directing intelligent life form, no matter what type of evidence is given.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlueBlazer

My point is that god could remove any ambiguity by simply revealing his/her/it's existence in a way that is totally beyond question.

As it is, the scientific and rational exploration of the Bible, Torah, and Koran reveal books that are basically fairy tales.

You say you are of the opinion that god exists, however, all religions have it wrong. If this being exists, but chooses to remain hidden to us then what practical purpose in believing in god?

Some people just simply will not accept that there is no directing intelligent life form, no matter what type of evidence is given.

---

Your first point is a good one, but then again just because someone does not pick up their phone does not take them out of existence. You are asking a fellow man, if I were God I bet I could answer that but since I am a man, it's not really for me to say why it doesn't reveal itself to us all just for us to know, my personal opinion though would be that I am able to comprehend everything around me and at least notice that I am alive, a living thing and not just some minerals and gasses that by chance came together to form me. Life is driven by intelligence, if it were not, then humans would cease to exist.

Your second point I also agree with 110%, people/men created those - therefore cannot be trusted. Just because religions are false does not mean that we did not come from an intelligent creator.


Some things in life simply cannot be explained or answered by religion. I have kids so to me, God has already answered me. For some people I guess it is different.



Also:

Albert Einstein is on record as saying that he did not believe in a personal God. They keyword is personal. Einstein did not believe that god knows or cares about you on a personal level, that he hears your prayers or interferes in anyway in response to prayers. Instead, he believed that there was a God that maintained and created the harmony of the universe.

"I'm not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what that is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the most intelligent human toward God."

That deeply emotional conviction of a presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

we live then die end of story

THContent, I misjudged you and I apologize. I see now where you are coming from and as it turns out we are no so far apart. I am really not an atheist, nor am I a believer. I do believe there is a force creating order out of chaos as I stated in other threads. Einstein's vision of god is actually pretty similar to mine. To yours as well it seems.

Albert Einstein is on record as saying that he did not believe in a personal God. They keyword is personal. Einstein did not believe that god knows or cares about you on a personal level, that he hears your prayers or interferes in anyway in response to prayers. Instead, he believed that there was a God that maintained and created the harmony of the universe.

"I'm not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what that is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the most intelligent human toward God."

That deeply emotional conviction of a presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
__________________


Amen!
And well said.

I find no deep truth in any current, or past "religion".

And petitioning the "lord" with prayer, borders on insanity.

Our whole concept of addressable "gods" is a human fantasy.
(It's just not that kine sing.)

How arrogant to think that we are the end result of evolution.

I feel we are one very small step, very early on, and as such could not comprehend "the plan" if it was spoon-fed to us.


Jus' my opinion fellow trilobites.:D
Da Wee 'zard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlueBlazer

THContent, I misjudged you and I apologize. I see now where you are coming from and as it turns out we are no so far apart. I am really not an atheist, nor am I a believer. I do believe there is a force creating order out of chaos as I stated in other threads. Einstein's vision of god is actually pretty similar to mine. To yours as well it seems.

---

I knew we were lol, just making sure haha.

I strongly oppose religion because it is man-made/written twisted reasoning that is used to control people. Using the un-comprehensible force to scare the shit out of people to get them to do the things desired within their beliefs.

Religion in my book is the furthest thing from God and the truth, talk about ironic.

Very interesting! I like that quote from Einstein especially

Is this an intelligent design argument? If so, where did the designer come from? Did (s)he create her/himself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by halfassedjedi

Is this an intelligent design argument? If so, where did the designer come from? Did (s)he create her/himself?

---

Man, I love a good infinite regression.

"Turtles all the way down..."

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THContent

I knew we were lol, just making sure haha.

I strongly oppose religion because it is man-made/written twisted reasoning that is used to control people. Using the un-comprehensible force to scare the shit out of people to get them to do the things desired within their beliefs.

Religion in my book is the furthest thing from God and the truth, talk about ironic.

---

Amen Brother!!:thumbsup:

The truth is that most free thinking adults have likely done some seeking.

At this point, if a proof about God can't be reduced to something very short, then it is worthless - no offense intended (really).

Further, the Bible (and I could ramble about this at length) is no better a source than the Iliad for constructing metaphysical views. Worse, for unlike the Iliad, or any number of things, the Bible went through the Constantine years.

But I said I wouldn't ramble about it, and I won't.

There is no proof that God must exist, simple as that.

If it makes you happy though, and makes you be a better person, then more power to you, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bikeTripper

Man, I love a good infinite regression.

"Turtles all the way down..."

:D

---

im not catching your witty point.

What if there are just infinitely larger organisms? that control or influence those smaller than them? Every step we take we make huge changes to microscopic lifeforms.. and hell, if atoms were somehow conscious, we rock their world every time we breathe or blink!

Something that always gave me a headache when I was a kid was thinking about the end of space, and what comes after the boundary if space were to end somehow. It has to be an infinite expansion, but how do you create anything infinite? and if space is currently expanding, than what is it expanding into! nothing? how did the nothing get there? where is the nothing going?


Sides, god cant show him or herself.. anyone else seen dogma? If it spoke we would explode:jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antipas

The boundaries that make up our existence are space time and matter.
God must exist beyond the thing that He has created, outside that circle that gives you a headache when you think about it.

If God exists, He must be above all things, He must be single or simple, not divided or in parts, He must also be beyond space, and matter and motion, or what we know as "time".
-This doesn't mean He can't interact in existence. In fact, given the nature that He must be if He exists, He would be the one who continually sustains us through our time (matter in motion). He could not start us at one point in time and then not be there the rest of the time because it would require Him to be existing in time,-which is a part of our circle of existence, space time and matter. The Ontos of the Creator must be outside that circle. He can "get into the car and drive it" so to speak, but He must exist beyond it.

So then what can God be likened to that is not space time and matter? We are left with "nothing" when we deduct everything in our existence.
Do we say that God is nothing? It is irrational to think that "nothing" can produce our existence. There something beyond our existence that we can only observe as "nothing" from where we stand, but we know He must be there by the fact of our existence. "Nothing" didn't make us. "Something" did. Let's call this "something" God, so as to better describe the "something" that we can only observe as "nothing" from where we stand.

Deductive arguments can give us a better understanding about what is real. How does smoking pot work on those headaches you get from thinking on the Ontos of God?

---

Pot helps :D

I only meant infinite is a hard thing to comprehend. If there is a god, and he exists outside of our bubble, who made his bubble? another god? Or does his bubble go on forever? And why is it that his bubble can continue forever?

infinitely larger organisms is one of the answers my poor little brain pulled out after being cooked by the questions of how the hell can things just keep going forever as a kid :)

not to throw this thread off topic.. but what if we only exist in our own circle? That handles the infinite problem.. just take range of vision as an example.. It's not perfect, but it'll work I think for what I'm trying to say.. We could shoot through space in an infinite distance assuming we don't die first, and of course never find the end no matter what speed we traveled, were it even greater than the speed of light... impossible.. i kno, that's not the point.. But, only a small bubble of space exists to us without communication to others far away, we know what we can see, and that's about it.

What if that is all that exists at that point? our bubble of vision, Then while we could travel infinitely and experience constantly different sights and locations, we still are only in the center of our bubble.

Our bubbles move with us.

sort of a self centered way of seeing things :P my mother nearly slapped me once when I told her that one.. That I effectively thought I was the center of the world.

Do I believe in an Ultimate Being? Yes

Do I even come close to trusting organized religion? Ya, sure, about as far as I can throw Manhatton!

Other than that this is an awesome thread. Good debate on both sides.

I get what you're saying Antipas, however, the question of god requiring a creator is a logical question.

The complexity of life is generally used as "proof" of a creator. Why then does this infinitely complicated being not also require a creator for the same reasons? That spirit is different than mass and motion and somehow works by different rules is a statement of faith not logic.

Ultimately it boils down to an argument of faith against the argument of logic.

However one justifies that we require a creator, the same logic can be applied to god. If you have to take a leap of faith to presume that god needs no creator, what is the logical reason for not just simplifying and saying we need no creator?

Many believers call this arrogance. I say that it is the arrogance of man that demands that he be a special creation of some all-perfect being. The idea that man is the result of random chance is humbling rather than a source of arrogance.

"I say that it is the arrogance of man that demands that he be a special creation of some all-perfect being"

Well said, BB.:cool:

Applies to recursive Turtles as well, yah?:D

Aloha thinking man.

Weeze

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weezard

Applies to recursive Turtles as well, yah?:D

---

lol, I love a recurring theme . . . :D

"behold the turtle of enormous girth
upon his shell he holds the earth
his thought is slow, but always kind
he holds us all within his mind
if you want to run and play
come along the beam today"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bikeTripper

Man, I love a good infinite regression.

"Turtles all the way down..."

:D

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by halfassedjedi

im not catching your witty point.

---

:D

HERE

I had to Wiki it myself...

very fitting, indeed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlueBlazer

"behold the turtle of enormous girth
upon his shell he holds the earth
his thought is slow, but always kind
he holds us all within his mind
if you want to run and play
come along the beam today"

---

YA BOOOOOOOOOIIIIIIII!!!

LOL

I used to work at Petco. Every time I had to fug w/ the turt/torts I though of this :D

Antipas you're very eloquent and it's obvious you've thought on this deeply.

Only problem I can see is this, if I agree that matter, motion, time, and space (sounds like the lead-in to a TV show) needs to come from "somewhere" and is expanding into "something" doesn't necessarily mean that somewhere and something is god. That conclusion requires faith, not logic.

Indeed, everything we know could exist within the science kit of a nerdy adolescent, whose universe exists within the science kit of a nerdy adolescent, etc, etc, etc. All I know for sure is a turtle is heavily involved somewhere . . . :wtf:

Quote:

---

I'd say it requires just as much "faith" and logic to believe that there isn't a God, as it does to believe that there is a God.

---

OK. I can live with that. :D

It can't be proven either way.


Edit ~ I'm not a real big fan of Hawkings either for what it's worth.

The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds

I hate when people say this. It was true for cave men, but now we know better.

Even if there is a god, you still have to prove he hates gays, abortion and wants us to worship him.
And then you need to prove Jesus existed before you start proving he's the son of god.

Or you could realize that they were made up stories from people of limited understanding of the universe or from governments meant to control people.


Not vast at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jtingler

The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds

I hate when people say this. It was true for cave men, but now we know better.

Even if there is a god, you still have to prove he hates gays, abortion and wants us to worship him.
And then you need to prove Jesus existed before you start proving he's the son of god.

Or you could realize that they were made up stories from people of limited understanding of the universe or from governments meant to control people.


Not vast at all.

---

'god' doesn't hate gays, s/he just doesn't condone the bisexual/homosexual 'lifestyle'. as a person with no relisious faith, i have to acknowledge the scriptures i have read literally, and i there is no writren word of 'hate' towards homosexuality, just a disbelief.
i am not religious, but i have studied theology in college a bi,so i know a little. i wish i had a religion, but im far too skeptical of them all. the opiate of the masses has eluded me.. quite possibly unfortunate, but i think im ok with that.

I don't know dude . . . you should see some of my dreams. [attachment=o259949]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlueBlazer

I don't know dude . . . you should see some of my dreams. [attachment=o259949]

---

Them damn teddy bears again, BB?:D

"Not vast at all." -Jtingler

I beg to differ.
It's at least half-vast.:D

'sa good ol' world, in fit's n starts.
'til Dumbo shrugs or Yertle farts.
One can not expect the fates to be fair.
And one can not petition the lord with prayer!

So, what's a tiny 'zard to do?
Toss us a bone, throw us a clue.
Tell us what it's all about.
I not smart 'nuf fo' to figure him out.

"blinded by the light, of god, and truth, and right.
I wander in the night, without direction." - Paul Simon

No offense intended in any direction.
I'm jus' havin a li'l fun.;)

"Just be good humans" -Ms. B

Aloha, Ya'll
Wee, itty, T90, 'zard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weezard

Them damn teddy bears again, BB?:D

---

Yep, and I don't trust 'em . . . Don't trust 'em at all. :wtf:

Last night I watched a documentary on History Channel International titled Apocalypse Island. And if you haven't seen it, its about a rock formation on an island off the coast of western South America, that this guy believes is a monument built by and for a Mayan King out of a volcanic formation, and will be a place where the end of time will be visible. It involves this Mayan king, the decline of the Mayan culture, the Mayan calendar, and the alignment of the earth, Venus, the sun, and the middle of the Milky Way (Black Rift) which is considered the center of our universe.

There is more to it then this, and it is an interesting theory. But, it truly is a stretch that it will be the end of the world. Some scientists have equated some catastrophic events in time, that are cyclic and involve nature and natural events and this celestial alignment, but I doubt the world will end.

Can't wait until Dec 21, 2012 when this big show is expected to happen. The eclipse that is supposed to occur and the alignment can only be seen from this area on the Pacific, will it prove god? I doubt it because god doesn't exist. Watch the documentary if its your thing. Apocalypse Island, Channel 271 Direct TV. You be the judge. :smokin: