Mad Scientist
Feels Good!
- Sep 15, 2008
- 24,196
- 5,431
- 270
- Thread starter
- #201
That's not the main question of this thread. If you want, ask that question in your own thread.Prove that the universe exists at all!
Fail.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's not the main question of this thread. If you want, ask that question in your own thread.Prove that the universe exists at all!
That's not the main question of this thread. If you want, ask that question in your own thread.Prove that the universe exists at all!
Fail.
This is just a slight twist on what was written earlier.What I am interested in is seeing some indication that you understand and acknowledge the difference between asking for evidentially supported conclusions, and insisting on absolute proof that can never possibly exist. If you are interested in the former then that is something we can certainly delve into greater detail on. If you only want the latter however you are going to be waiting an eternity. It doesn't exist, it never will, and science has never laid claim to it.
I believe God created the Universe yet I have no absolute proof. Guess what? Neither do you!
The atheists here still haven't given me any evidence that God didn't create the Universe.
So once again PROVE that the universe exsits.
"I guess you can't! I guess you can't!" Who are you, Judge Smails? You think I live on this board? Start a thread of your own if you want that discussion.I guess you can't.
Glad you could finally admit that you could never prove who or what or how the universe was created.That is an incredibly meanngless statement.
Allow me to provide a list of other things for which I lack "absolute proof":
1. That pluto orbits the sun.
2. That I was born on the day my birth certificate lists.
3. That you exist at all.
4. That space fairies aren't responsible for the moon's orbital trajectory.
And, well... the list is effectively endless but let's just deal with those four for now.
I Lack absolute proof of the first item.
I lack absolute proof of the last item.
Does that make both propositions equally valid or equally plausible?
Because you are making an impossible request. Something you might eventually figure out if you give a little more thought to the nature of evidence and of scientific inquiry. "God created the universe" is something we call an unfalsifiable hypothesis.The atheists here still haven't given me any evidence that God didn't create the Universe.
Glad you could finally admit that you could never prove who or what or how the universe was created.
So once again PROVE that the universe exsits."I guess you can't! I guess you can't!" Who are you, Judge Smails? You think I live on this board? Start a thread of your own if you want that discussion.I guess you can't.
Glad you could finally admit that you could never prove who or what or how the universe was created.That is an incredibly meanngless statement.
Allow me to provide a list of other things for which I lack "absolute proof":
1. That pluto orbits the sun.
2. That I was born on the day my birth certificate lists.
3. That you exist at all.
4. That space fairies aren't responsible for the moon's orbital trajectory.
And, well... the list is effectively endless but let's just deal with those four for now.
I Lack absolute proof of the first item.
I lack absolute proof of the last item.
Does that make both propositions equally valid or equally plausible?
Because you are making an impossible request. Something you might eventually figure out if you give a little more thought to the nature of evidence and of scientific inquiry. "God created the universe" is something we call an unfalsifiable hypothesis.The atheists here still haven't given me any evidence that God didn't create the Universe.
All you non-religious types could do is try to change the question.
I suspect some people understood the intent of this thread: That both Science and Religion are really similar in that they both can't be positively proven though they may have just been lurkers. Kitten Koder hit the nail on the head and said it all a lot better than I ever could. And for that I thank her. Read her posts in this thread and you may actually learn something.
I consider this topic to be closed. I will not answer anymore posts. But please feel free to continue the discussion, anyone, if you'd like but I think this thread has run it's course.
Thank you all for participating, it's been very interesting.
Sorry I missed your question but I wasn't trying to evade you either. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.Mad Scientist... perhaps you missed this again, let me try this one more time. That link there? It's to some questions I asked you earlier. Would you care to respond to them or are you uninterested in seriously discussing this issue?
From your link:
Faith does the very same thing.Science doesn't prove things, it reaches provisional conclusions based on the preponderance of available evidence.
I can make my own conclusions based on what I see and understand correct? The religion haters of this world act as if we've never heard of science. Well guess what? We grew up in the same society as you did but we came to different conclusions as you. We took the same courses in Biology, Astronomy, Math, History, Language as you did. Is it so hard for you to comprehend that different people would come to different conclusions after "preponderance of the same evidence?
Why is that so hard to understand?
Do all Police Detectives reach the same conclusions based on "preponderance of the evidence"? No! Training, Maturity, Experience, any number of variables could come into play in the decisions they reach.
It's the same for all people. Yes, groups of people may come to the exact same conclusions but that doesn't make them correct does it?
Atheists have come to the conclusion after "preponderance of the evidence" that God doesn't exist. But those same Atheists don't seem to understand that other people can come to different conclusions based on the preponderance of that very same evidence!
What massive arrogance a person must have to believe that their viewpoint is the one and only truth!
To be an atheist requires more faith than to believe in a deity.
Epistemology clearly supports the latter of the former.
Of course there is evidence. There is thousands and thousands of years of hundreds of millions of personal and social experiences among a thousand denominations. Is it objective, verifiable proof scientifically. Of course not. That is why it is called faith, but it cannot be dismissed. Whereas, atheism is easily dismissed. No one has ever looked in every nth place in the universe in the same nth portion of a second. Epistemology clearly supports my reasoning.
Of course there is evidence. There is thousands and thousands of years of hundreds of millions of personal and social experiences among a thousand denominations. Is it objective, verifiable proof scientifically. Of course not. That is why it is called faith, but it cannot be dismissed. Whereas, atheism is easily dismissed. No one has ever looked in every nth place in the universe in the same nth portion of a second. Epistemology clearly supports my reasoning.
How do those gasses "know" how to coalesce into stars?Are you just pretending to be dense?
The stars are formed by gravity from gases that coalesce into stars.
Planets are formed from gravity as well, but bringing rocks and stuff together.