Has science proved there is no God?

[pinqy]

And all he's really saying is that "something" must have made all this. That it seems irrational that this all happened by chance.

Not that it "seems" irrational... it IS irrational. .

If I took you out to a golf course and showed you my golf ball sitting on the one blade of grass dyed pink on the whole course (fairway of the 4th hole) and told you that I hit exactly that blade when I teed off from the 4th hole, would you say it was irrational to say it happened by chance?

First of all, I totally don't understand your analogy. The odds of a randomly created universe with the fine tuning in evidence is enormous. Much greater than the odds in your analogy, or any analogy your mind can imagine.

I like the debate tactic....you don't like or don't understand my point so you ignore it to just restate your own point. Nice dodge...I'm sure not many people noticed.

But try my analogy again. I promise I'll explain. Forget about the differences in scale, it's not important at this stage. It's pretty straight forward......Is the probability of a golf ball landing on one particular blade of grass so low that it couldn't happen by chance, or could it happen by chance?

 

[Boss]

Sorry we can't scientifically disprove your "something" greater than self theory. Too vague. You are irrelevant in the god debate

You should start a thread called "prove " something" doesnt exist.

But when you think about it, it's rather difficult to prove anything exists. We rely on faith much more than you think. Everything we perceive is in the past. By the time you have sensed it and your brain has registered it, time has elapsed, the 'thing' is from the past. You have no evidence it exists presently or will exist in the future... if there is a future.

God can't be scientifically proven or disproven, but nothing really can. It's a misnomer to think science proves and disproves, it can only evaluate to posit predictions of probability and potential. We can use that to draw conclusions but the instant we definitively conclude, the works of science are over. We now have faith in a conclusion.

 

[Boss]

And all he's really saying is that "something" must have made all this. That it seems irrational that this all happened by chance.

Not that it "seems" irrational... it IS irrational. .

If I took you out to a golf course and showed you my golf ball sitting on the one blade of grass dyed pink on the whole course (fairway of the 4th hole) and told you that I hit exactly that blade when I teed off from the 4th hole, would you say it was irrational to say it happened by chance?

First of all, I totally don't understand your analogy. The odds of a randomly created universe with the fine tuning in evidence is enormous. Much greater than the odds in your analogy, or any analogy your mind can imagine.

I like the debate tactic....you don't like or don't understand my point so you ignore it to just restate your own point. Nice dodge...I'm sure not many people noticed.

But try my analogy again. I promise I'll explain. Forget about the differences in scale, it's not important at this stage. It's pretty straight forward......Is the probability of a golf ball landing on one particular blade of grass so low that it couldn't happen by chance, or could it happen by chance?

I'm not trying to dodge anything. Your analogy was sort of confusing and I didn't understand your point. I think I now get what you are trying to say, so let me give you this...

Prof. Michio Kaku asks his theoretical physics students the following question:
Calculate the probability of you waking up on Mars tomorrow?

I think his point is virtually your point, that anything is possible. In this example, you would have to count for longer than the universe has existed, but there is a calculable probability, even for something seemingly so unrealistic and unbelievable.

It is possible the universe as finely tuned as it is, happened by chance. Was that what you were after? I am a proponent of possibilities. Most of my arguing with Atheists amounts to an argument about possibility. When I challenge so-called "facts of science" it is on the basis of possibility, including the very stark reality that science can be wrong. Most of our breakthrough scientific achievements are evidence of that, I shouldn't have to point this out to people of science (supposedly).

 

[Hollie]

Sorry we can't scientifically disprove your "something" greater than self theory. Too vague. You are irrelevant in the god debate

You should start a thread called "prove " something" doesnt exist.

But when you think about it, it's rather difficult to prove anything exists. We rely on faith much more than you think. Everything we perceive is in the past. By the time you have sensed it and your brain has registered it, time has elapsed, the 'thing' is from the past. You have no evidence it exists presently or will exist in the future... if there is a future.

God can't be scientifically proven or disproven, but nothing really can. It's a misnomer to think science proves and disproves, it can only evaluate to posit predictions of probability and potential. We can use that to draw conclusions but the instant we definitively conclude, the works of science are over. We now have faith in a conclusion.

Actually, your gawds have been proven not to exist. Prove they haven't.

 

[pinqy]

And all he's really saying is that "something" must have made all this. That it seems irrational that this all happened by chance.

Not that it "seems" irrational... it IS irrational. .

If I took you out to a golf course and showed you my golf ball sitting on the one blade of grass dyed pink on the whole course (fairway of the 4th hole) and told you that I hit exactly that blade when I teed off from the 4th hole, would you say it was irrational to say it happened by chance?

First of all, I totally don't understand your analogy. The odds of a randomly created universe with the fine tuning in evidence is enormous. Much greater than the odds in your analogy, or any analogy your mind can imagine.

I like the debate tactic....you don't like or don't understand my point so you ignore it to just restate your own point. Nice dodge...I'm sure not many people noticed.

But try my analogy again. I promise I'll explain. Forget about the differences in scale, it's not important at this stage. It's pretty straight forward......Is the probability of a golf ball landing on one particular blade of grass so low that it couldn't happen by chance, or could it happen by chance?

I'm not trying to dodge anything. .

Then why aren't you answering the question but instead changing the subject? No, my point was not that anything is possible, because that's not a true statement.

It is possible the universe as finely tuned as it is, happened by chance. Was that what you were after?

Not quite. You see, I made the analogy for a reason. Don't assume you're more clever than I am and skip my actual point to what you think is my point.

Try again. Is the probability of a golf ball landing on a particular blade of grass so small that you would not believe it was chance. (see, I'm changing it up for you.). It's a simple question. I'll even give you the probability of 1 in 7 billion. First hit from the tee, lands on the one pink blade. Would you think that was chance or "fine tuned?"

 

[Hollie]

And all he's really saying is that "something" must have made all this. That it seems irrational that this all happened by chance.

Not that it "seems" irrational... it IS irrational. .

If I took you out to a golf course and showed you my golf ball sitting on the one blade of grass dyed pink on the whole course (fairway of the 4th hole) and told you that I hit exactly that blade when I teed off from the 4th hole, would you say it was irrational to say it happened by chance?

First of all, I totally don't understand your analogy. The odds of a randomly created universe with the fine tuning in evidence is enormous. Much greater than the odds in your analogy, or any analogy your mind can imagine.

I like the debate tactic....you don't like or don't understand my point so you ignore it to just restate your own point. Nice dodge...I'm sure not many people noticed.

But try my analogy again. I promise I'll explain. Forget about the differences in scale, it's not important at this stage. It's pretty straight forward......Is the probability of a golf ball landing on one particular blade of grass so low that it couldn't happen by chance, or could it happen by chance?

I'm not trying to dodge anything. Your analogy was sort of confusing and I didn't understand your point. I think I now get what you are trying to say, so let me give you this...

Prof. Michio Kaku asks his theoretical physics students the following question:
Calculate the probability of you waking up on Mars tomorrow?

I think his point is virtually your point, that anything is possible. In this example, you would have to count for longer than the universe has existed, but there is a calculable probability, even for something seemingly so unrealistic and unbelievable.

It is possible the universe as finely tuned as it is, happened by chance. Was that what you were after? I am a proponent of possibilities. Most of my arguing with Atheists amounts to an argument about possibility. When I challenge so-called "facts of science" it is on the basis of possibility, including the very stark reality that science can be wrong. Most of our breakthrough scientific achievements are evidence of that, I shouldn't have to point this out to people of science (supposedly).

There is no evidence to suggest the universe is "finely tuned".

You insist on repeating that slogan which is furthered by your religious authorities but never offer objective evidence.

 

[Boss]

Not that it "seems" irrational... it IS irrational. .

If I took you out to a golf course and showed you my golf ball sitting on the one blade of grass dyed pink on the whole course (fairway of the 4th hole) and told you that I hit exactly that blade when I teed off from the 4th hole, would you say it was irrational to say it happened by chance?

First of all, I totally don't understand your analogy. The odds of a randomly created universe with the fine tuning in evidence is enormous. Much greater than the odds in your analogy, or any analogy your mind can imagine.

I like the debate tactic....you don't like or don't understand my point so you ignore it to just restate your own point. Nice dodge...I'm sure not many people noticed.

But try my analogy again. I promise I'll explain. Forget about the differences in scale, it's not important at this stage. It's pretty straight forward......Is the probability of a golf ball landing on one particular blade of grass so low that it couldn't happen by chance, or could it happen by chance?

I'm not trying to dodge anything. .

Then why aren't you answering the question but instead changing the subject? No, my point was not that anything is possible, because that's not a true statement.

It is possible the universe as finely tuned as it is, happened by chance. Was that what you were after?

Not quite. You see, I made the analogy for a reason. Don't assume you're more clever than I am and skip my actual point to what you think is my point.

Try again. Is the probability of a golf ball landing on a particular blade of grass so small that you would not believe it was chance. (see, I'm changing it up for you.). It's a simple question. I'll even give you the probability of 1 in 7 billion. First hit from the tee, lands on the one pink blade. Would you think that was chance or "fine tuned?"

I am done trying to figure out what you are trying to say. This isn't a seminar where you are the teacher and I am your student, we're not playing school here. If you want to make an intelligent point, make it and I'll respond, that's how this is going to work. We are equals having a conversation, I will not be patronized or talked down to by anyone. It's not about me being more clever, it's about respecting each other and you will respect me in this conversation or you can have a conversation with yourself.

No, my point was not that anything is possible, because that's not a true statement.

Except that it IS a true statement. Unless you somehow KNOW all there is to know or ever will be to know, then who are you to say anything is impossible? On what authority do you make such a bold claim?

 

[Boss]

There is no evidence to suggest the universe is "finely tuned".

You insist on repeating that slogan which is furthered by your religious authorities but never offer objective evidence.

Shut up stupid.

Scroll back 3-4 pages and you'll find the list of all the constants, ratios, weights and forces which had to be a precise way or physics says a material universe can't exist.

You're too stubborn and boneheaded to listen, you just keep repeating the same tired old slogans over and over, flood the page with absolute trollery and obfuscation, then challenge me to present it all again.... same thing happens all over again, like the movie Ground Hog Day. I'm done with your silliness. If you want to engage in an intelligent conversation, bring it on! But stop pretending like no one has given you evidence.

 

[pinqy]

If I took you out to a golf course and showed you my golf ball sitting on the one blade of grass dyed pink on the whole course (fairway of the 4th hole) and told you that I hit exactly that blade when I teed off from the 4th hole, would you say it was irrational to say it happened by chance?

First of all, I totally don't understand your analogy. The odds of a randomly created universe with the fine tuning in evidence is enormous. Much greater than the odds in your analogy, or any analogy your mind can imagine.

I like the debate tactic....you don't like or don't understand my point so you ignore it to just restate your own point. Nice dodge...I'm sure not many people noticed.

But try my analogy again. I promise I'll explain. Forget about the differences in scale, it's not important at this stage. It's pretty straight forward......Is the probability of a golf ball landing on one particular blade of grass so low that it couldn't happen by chance, or could it happen by chance?

I'm not trying to dodge anything. .

Then why aren't you answering the question but instead changing the subject? No, my point was not that anything is possible, because that's not a true statement.

It is possible the universe as finely tuned as it is, happened by chance. Was that what you were after?

Not quite. You see, I made the analogy for a reason. Don't assume you're more clever than I am and skip my actual point to what you think is my point.

Try again. Is the probability of a golf ball landing on a particular blade of grass so small that you would not believe it was chance. (see, I'm changing it up for you.). It's a simple question. I'll even give you the probability of 1 in 7 billion. First hit from the tee, lands on the one pink blade. Would you think that was chance or "fine tuned?"

I am done trying to figure out what you are trying to say.

You didn't have to figure it out before I actually made my point. I would have explained it clearly. But there was a necessary set-up.

If you want to make an intelligent point, make it and I'll respond, that's how this is going to work.

That's what I was trying to do, but you refused to respond to what I was saying. I asked a simple question necessary to set up my point. It was a necessary demonstration, but you showed no courtesy or respect. I set it up for a particular reason that would assist in my point, but you showed me no respect and refused to answer. I can guess why.

No, my point was not that anything is possible, because that's not a true statement.[/qutoe]

Except that it IS a true statement.

Oh? Describe to me what a square circle is like then. Or how the simulataneous existence of an immovable object and a unstoppable force would work. These are impossibilities. There are many others.

 

[Hollie]

There is no evidence to suggest the universe is "finely tuned".

You insist on repeating that slogan which is furthered by your religious authorities but never offer objective evidence.

Shut up stupid.

Scroll back 3-4 pages and you'll find the list of all the constants, ratios, weights and forces which had to be a precise way or physics says a material universe can't exist.

You're too stubborn and boneheaded to listen, you just keep repeating the same tired old slogans over and over, flood the page with absolute trollery and obfuscation, then challenge me to present it all again.... same thing happens all over again, like the movie Ground Hog Day. I'm done with your silliness. If you want to engage in an intelligent conversation, bring it on! But stop pretending like no one has given you evidence.

You have provided no evidence of any " fine tuning". Stop pretending you have have made anything but a religious claim. You haven't. You are so desperate to force your gawds on others, you will lie and attempt to deceive.

 

[sealybobo]

Sorry we can't scientifically disprove your "something" greater than self theory. Too vague. You are irrelevant in the god debate

You should start a thread called "prove " something" doesnt exist.

But when you think about it, it's rather difficult to prove anything exists. We rely on faith much more than you think. Everything we perceive is in the past. By the time you have sensed it and your brain has registered it, time has elapsed, the 'thing' is from the past. You have no evidence it exists presently or will exist in the future... if there is a future.

God can't be scientifically proven or disproven, but nothing really can. It's a misnomer to think science proves and disproves, it can only evaluate to posit predictions of probability and potential. We can use that to draw conclusions but the instant we definitively conclude, the works of science are over. We now have faith in a conclusion.

Do you know how many times I'm agreeing with what you wrote then you fuck it up towards the end? You didn't this time. Nice post

 

[pinqy]

Sorry we can't scientifically disprove your "something" greater than self theory. Too vague. You are irrelevant in the god debate

You should start a thread called "prove " something" doesnt exist.

But when you think about it, it's rather difficult to prove anything exists.

Well, sure. DesCartes broke it down to cogito ergo sum a long time ago.

We rely on faith much more than you think. Everything we perceive is in the past. By the time you have sensed it and your brain has registered it, time has elapsed, the 'thing' is from the past. You have no evidence it exists presently or will exist in the future... if there is a future.

Now we run into the problem of different nuances of faith. I can't show I'm not a brain in a jar. I can't show any of my senses or memories are correct. But it's a matter necessary assumption that I act as though these things were true.

Insisting on the reality of something that cannot be demonstrated is a differrent kind of flying altoghether.

God can't be scientifically proven or disproven, but nothing really can.

But they're not equal. I have reasons to believe horses exist, but I do not have reason to believe Pegasaus existed as an actual flying horse. But you're saying that we equally can't be sure either exists. And that's just not true.

Read Isaac Asimov's essay: The Relativity of Wrong. I believe it applies to your case.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sorry we can't scientifically disprove your "something" greater than self theory. Too vague. You are irrelevant in the god debate

You should start a thread called "prove " something" doesnt exist.

But when you think about it, it's rather difficult to prove anything exists.

Well, sure. DesCartes broke it down to cogito ergo sum a long time ago.

We rely on faith much more than you think. Everything we perceive is in the past. By the time you have sensed it and your brain has registered it, time has elapsed, the 'thing' is from the past. You have no evidence it exists presently or will exist in the future... if there is a future.

Now we run into the problem of different nuances of faith. I can't show I'm not a brain in a jar. I can't show any of my senses or memories are correct. But it's a matter necessary assumption that I act as though these things were true.

Insisting on the reality of something that cannot be demonstrated is a differrent kind of flying altoghether.

God can't be scientifically proven or disproven, but nothing really can.

But they're not equal. I have reasons to believe horses exist, but I do not have reason to believe Pegasaus existed as an actual flying horse. But you're saying that we equally can't be sure either exists. And that's just not true.

Read Isaac Asimov's essay: The Relativity of Wrong. I believe it applies to your case.

Dear pinqy
instead of comparing "proof of horses" to "proof of Pegasus"
Why not compare "proof of God's laws" to "proof of laws of gravity."
We can agree what laws we are talking about, without 100% proving where these came from or if they could change, etc. We don't have to reject it just because we can't answer everything.

Or comparing "proof of people talking to God" with "proof that people have dreams at night"
We can use science to show there is a change or process in the brain activity, that is similar for different people,
though we may never prove the CONTENT or validity/meaning of what visions were experienced in that state of mind.

What is missing is we TRUST that when people say they dreamed something, then that is valid.
But because of cultural conflicts over religion, we DON'T TRUST when people say they had a vision or message from God.

What if science can show there is a process going on with prayer and with healing?
Why can't we accept what is going on, as a natural process, and not get freaked out.
When people have dreams we don't freak out. When will prayers and spiritual processes be considered
natural, universal, and mainstream and not something to politicize or reject as some kind of religious agenda?

 

[Boss]

Oh? Describe to me what a square circle is like then. Or how the simulataneous existence of an immovable object and a unstoppable force would work. These are impossibilities. There are many others.

We were discussing physics probabilities and possibilities, not semantics contradictions and oxymorons. That being said, you don't know that circles can't be square inside a black hole, in another dimension or alternate universe. In physics, there is no immovable object or unstoppable force, those are things you've already drawn a conclusion on what is possible. My guess is, if we could ever observe the meeting of what is thought to be immovable and what is thought to be unstoppable, we'd find that at least one of these is invalid. But we have no proof that anything is immovable or unstoppable.

 

[Boss]

Sorry we can't scientifically disprove your "something" greater than self theory. Too vague. You are irrelevant in the god debate

You should start a thread called "prove " something" doesnt exist.

But when you think about it, it's rather difficult to prove anything exists.

Well, sure. DesCartes broke it down to cogito ergo sum a long time ago.

"I think, therefore I exist." Descartes has one flaw he has overlooked. It takes time to think. The more accurate anecdote would be, "I thought, therefore I believe I existed." Sorry Descartes!

Again, the challenge... Prove anything exists in the present? You can't. By the time you observe or sense it, time has passed, whatever was observed is an image from the past. We don't know if it exists in the present. We can't sense the present, it's not physically possible. Our perception of the present is an illusion. We're really perceiving the immediate past. Now, we can have reasonable faith that if it existed when light reflected off it in the recent past, it's probably still there in the present. But we can't prove it is.

We rely on faith much more than you think. Everything we perceive is in the past. By the time you have sensed it and your brain has registered it, time has elapsed, the 'thing' is from the past. You have no evidence it exists presently or will exist in the future... if there is a future.

Now we run into the problem of different nuances of faith. I can't show I'm not a brain in a jar. I can't show any of my senses or memories are correct. But it's a matter necessary assumption that I act as though these things were true.

Insisting on the reality of something that cannot be demonstrated is a differrent kind of flying altoghether.

No, we are talking about the same faith. Faith is Faith! Again... You cannot "show" me anything in the present. Anything you "show" me is something from the past. You can show evidence it existed in the past and I can have faith that it still exists in the present.

The reality of human spiritual connection can be demonstrated. All things rely on faith.

God can't be scientifically proven or disproven, but nothing really can.

But they're not equal. I have reasons to believe horses exist, but I do not have reason to believe Pegasaus existed as an actual flying horse. But you're saying that we equally can't be sure either exists. And that's just not true.

Read Isaac Asimov's essay: The Relativity of Wrong. I believe it applies to your case.

Pegasus is a mythological fable, something man created from imagination. Now we can get into the philosophy of what is "exist" ...Do you deny that the mythical creation of Pegasus exists? Certainly it must, you knew what it was, right?

 

[pinqy]

Oh? Describe to me what a square circle is like then. Or how the simulataneous existence of an immovable object and a unstoppable force would work. These are impossibilities. There are many others.

We were discussing physics probabilities and possibilities, not semantics contradictions and oxymorons.

Where was that specified? You said anything was possible, with no qualifications.

That being said, you don't know that circles can't be square inside a black hole, in another dimension or alternate universe.

Actually, I do know that.

In physics, there is no immovable object or unstoppable force,

How do you know that? Weren't you pointing out that science can be wrong? Now you're citing science to claim something doesn't exist. Please try to stay consistant. My point was that it is impossible for both to exist.

those are things you've already drawn a conclusion on what is possible.

Which things? Things that are logically impossible? That's not a conclusion.

 

[Boss]

Where was that specified?

In the context of the conversation we were having which you obviously weren't following.

 

[Boss]

Actually, I do know that.

Have you ventured into a black hole or another dimension/universe?

Then how can you know?

What you know is the parameters of THIS universe and THIS dimension. You don't know what is beyond it, no one does.

 

[Boss]

Which things? Things that are logically impossible? That's not a conclusion.

Yes, that is a conclusion. In this case, based on your faith in logic possibility.

 

[pinqy]

Sorry we can't scientifically disprove your "something" greater than self theory. Too vague. You are irrelevant in the god debate

You should start a thread called "prove " something" doesnt exist.

But when you think about it, it's rather difficult to prove anything exists.

Well, sure. DesCartes broke it down to cogito ergo sum a long time ago.

"I think, therefore I exist." Descartes has one flaw he has overlooked. It takes time to think. The more accurate anecdote would be, "I thought, therefore I believe I existed." Sorry Descartes!

Again, the challenge... Prove anything exists in the present? You can't. By the time you observe or sense it, time has passed, whatever was observed is an image from the past. We don't know if it exists in the present. We can't sense the present, it's not physically possible. Our perception of the present is an illusion. We're really perceiving the immediate past.

But I am perceiving it in the present, so therefore I must exist in the present or I wouldn't be perceiving it.

In short...at the time I am perceiving something, I exist.

We rely on faith much more than you think. Everything we perceive is in the past. By the time you have sensed it and your brain has registered it, time has elapsed, the 'thing' is from the past. You have no evidence it exists presently or will exist in the future... if there is a future.

Now we run into the problem of different nuances of faith. I can't show I'm not a brain in a jar. I can't show any of my senses or memories are correct. But it's a matter necessary assumption that I act as though these things were true.

Insisting on the reality of something that cannot be demonstrated is a differrent kind of flying altoghether.

No, we are talking about the same faith. Faith is Faith! Again... You cannot "show" me anything in the present. Anything you "show" me is something from the past. You can show evidence it existed in the past and I can have faith that it still exists in the present.

Correct. But that does NOT mean that all things are equally likely to exist or not exist. I can't prove I have a house, and I can't prove that I have an invisible pink unicorn. That doesn't mean both can be equally dismissed or accepted.

The reality of human spiritual connection can be demonstrated. All things rely on faith.

No, because you would first have to define what you mean by spiritual connection and that it has a distinct meaning and existence.