New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

[Youwerecreated]

I cannot think of a greater waste of time than arguing with somebody's FAITH.

I don't understand why believers bother with it, and I especially don't understand why non-believers bother with it.

In order to really debate something, the debaters have to have enough COMMON GROUND to even have the debate.

In this case there is no common ground because one is coming at the discussion based on FAITH and the other is not.

Really...what's the point?

Well said both sides believe their evidence,both sides need faith to believe their evidence,but one side admits to it and the other does not.

 

[Si modo]

You know what? I've really tried to avoid these "scientific Proof" arguments... but I just want to say something.

To me, it shows a lack of faith on the Christians' part to be constantly trying to prove something. I believe with my heart, not my head. I believe simply because I do. I don't need to justify my faith to anyone. If someone else does not believe, it's no skin off my nose. I'll simply pray for them to someday come to God. But it has to be their epiphany, their choice. I, nor anyone else can FORCE them to come to God.

I don't need to prove anything,it just reinforces what i believe,but you could say that about evolutionist because look how many of them are here verses, well ,me.

And if we don't show the threasons to doubt the theory our children rebell against God. Would you not wish to save the children that are headed down the wrong road ?

See, this post about sums it up about your science skills: There is only one side in science - expanding knowledge and finding the truth. No 'sides'.

 

[edthecynic]

Sorry to jump into this so late, but I just read some of the article linked in the OP.

From what I gathered, the so-called scientific evidence for god is someone pretty arbitrarily deciding that the big bang equates to the existence of Jesus. That isn't just ridiculous, it's laughable.

The author used the argument that, because no other holy book describes god as creating the universe outside the bounds of time, if time was created at the big bang, the bible must be correct. Perhaps, if the only possibilities were the current holy books of mankind, that would make some sense. Since that is obviously not the case, the argument fails utterly.

What this actually seems to be is someone taking a discovery and doing every kind of mental gymnastics he can to make it fit into his religious beliefs. If the big bang is proven to be how our universe began, it neither proves nor disproves the existence of a god(s).

And as I've said on this board before, unless god is first defined in scientific terms, it is pretty futile to try to compile evidence of such a being's existence. If god is a supernatural being not bound by the physical laws of the universe, how could science, which deals with the physical universe, provide evidence of god? The discussion looks to have evolved (pun intended! ) past the OP, but I felt the need to throw in my two cents.

No, it shows the universe had a beginning, that the matter that was seen was the matter used to create. The universe is not infinite as it was once believed.

It was not just one Christian Astrophysicist that believed what he said there were atheistic Astrophysicists that agreed it was an argument for God.

No, it shows time had a beginning. Energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed according to the proven First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy.

 

[Si modo]

I don't need it to be anything,but it shows you were wrong and it doesn't support your claim.

....

It does nothing of the sort.

It does not support what you were saying. if it does please explain how it does ?

I think you're a tad bit confused. I'm not making a point, I'm refuting yours.

You said nothing [scientific] explains 'macro-evolution'. Something does - horizontal gene transfer. You posted some random facts about HGT in some sort of effort to say that HGT does not refute 'macro-evolution' because the coding for proteins common across most organisms are transferred less. I tell you that obviously they don't need to be.

So, you've done nothing of the sort.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Frankly I'm amazed YWC is bragging about his degree from Arizona.

Evolution

Some great podcasts on their website on the following subjects;

Biological Evolution

Cosmic Evolution

Social Evolution

Animal Evolution

Human Evolution

and the one I've already addressed that YWC blindly dismissed because he was too lazy to read about it, Disease Evolution



I'm surprised he would brag about getting his education from an institution that teaches so many "crazy" theories that YWC has already totally debunked.

Because i was young at the time, like many here. Then i grew up,And i think a pac-10 school is not exactly a fly by night school. I had people insulting my views on science and making comments and talking to me like i don't understand what they were taught.They didn't understand i was once one of them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You know what? I've really tried to avoid these "scientific Proof" arguments... but I just want to say something.

To me, it shows a lack of faith on the Christians' part to be constantly trying to prove something. I believe with my heart, not my head. I believe simply because I do. I don't need to justify my faith to anyone. If someone else does not believe, it's no skin off my nose. I'll simply pray for them to someday come to God. But it has to be their epiphany, their choice. I, nor anyone else can FORCE them to come to God.

I don't need to prove anything,it just reinforces what i believe,but you could say that about evolutionist because look how many of them are here verses, well ,me.

And if we don't show the threasons to doubt the theory our children rebell against God. Would you not wish to save the children that are headed down the wrong road ?

See, this post about sums it up about your science skills: There is only one side in science - expanding knowledge and finding the truth. No 'sides'.

Really,you can't be more wrong, there has always been two sides.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You know what? I've really tried to avoid these "scientific Proof" arguments... but I just want to say something.

To me, it shows a lack of faith on the Christians' part to be constantly trying to prove something. I believe with my heart, not my head. I believe simply because I do. I don't need to justify my faith to anyone. If someone else does not believe, it's no skin off my nose. I'll simply pray for them to someday come to God. But it has to be their epiphany, their choice. I, nor anyone else can FORCE them to come to God.

I don't need to prove anything,it just reinforces what i believe,but you could say that about evolutionist because look how many of them are here verses, well ,me.

And if we don't show the threasons to doubt the theory our children rebell against God. Would you not wish to save the children that are headed down the wrong road ?

See, this post about sums it up about your science skills: There is only one side in science - expanding knowledge and finding the truth. No 'sides'.

Look up the definition of presuppositions we are affected by our previously held views and beliefs,it's human nature.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Frankly I'm amazed YWC is bragging about his degree from Arizona.

Evolution

Some great podcasts on their website on the following subjects;

Biological Evolution

Cosmic Evolution

Social Evolution

Animal Evolution

Human Evolution

and the one I've already addressed that YWC blindly dismissed because he was too lazy to read about it, Disease Evolution



I'm surprised he would brag about getting his education from an institution that teaches so many "crazy" theories that YWC has already totally debunked.

Because i was young at the time, like many here. Then i grew up,And i think a pac-10 school is not exactly a fly by night school. I had people insulting my views on science and making comments and talking to me like i don't understand what they were taught.They didn't understand i was once one of them.

I see, so when i get older and wiser I will then believe that T-Rex was a leaf eater and fitting every dinosaur and animal that's ever lived on to a 450 foot wooden boat is perfectly rational?

Well, maybe I will if Alzheimer's ever kicks in.

It's too bad you take the opinion of philosophy bloggers more seriously than the facts from your own university's scientists.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry to jump into this so late, but I just read some of the article linked in the OP.

From what I gathered, the so-called scientific evidence for god is someone pretty arbitrarily deciding that the big bang equates to the existence of Jesus. That isn't just ridiculous, it's laughable.

The author used the argument that, because no other holy book describes god as creating the universe outside the bounds of time, if time was created at the big bang, the bible must be correct. Perhaps, if the only possibilities were the current holy books of mankind, that would make some sense. Since that is obviously not the case, the argument fails utterly.

What this actually seems to be is someone taking a discovery and doing every kind of mental gymnastics he can to make it fit into his religious beliefs. If the big bang is proven to be how our universe began, it neither proves nor disproves the existence of a god(s).

And as I've said on this board before, unless god is first defined in scientific terms, it is pretty futile to try to compile evidence of such a being's existence. If god is a supernatural being not bound by the physical laws of the universe, how could science, which deals with the physical universe, provide evidence of god? The discussion looks to have evolved (pun intended! ) past the OP, but I felt the need to throw in my two cents.

No, it shows the universe had a beginning, that the matter that was seen was the matter used to create. The universe is not infinite as it was once believed.

It was not just one Christian Astrophysicist that believed what he said there were atheistic Astrophysicists that agreed it was an argument for God.

No, it shows time had a beginning. Energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed according to the proven First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Another theory.

 

[Si modo]

I don't need to prove anything,it just reinforces what i believe,but you could say that about evolutionist because look how many of them are here verses, well ,me.

And if we don't show the threasons to doubt the theory our children rebell against God. Would you not wish to save the children that are headed down the wrong road ?

See, this post about sums it up about your science skills: There is only one side in science - expanding knowledge and finding the truth. No 'sides'.

Really,you can't be more wrong, there has always been two sides.

No, there is not. Obviously, you were not trained in the sciences so you are speaking for a group to which you do not belong. That's pretty silly of you.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I don't need to prove anything,it just reinforces what i believe,but you could say that about evolutionist because look how many of them are here verses, well ,me.

And if we don't show the threasons to doubt the theory our children rebell against God. Would you not wish to save the children that are headed down the wrong road ?

See, this post about sums it up about your science skills: There is only one side in science - expanding knowledge and finding the truth. No 'sides'.

Look up the definition of presuppositions we are affected by our previously held views and beliefs,it's human nature.

Like when someone reads a Bible, and tries to fit every aspect of science into those presuppositions.

Oh the irony.

 

[edthecynic]

No, it shows the universe had a beginning, that the matter that was seen was the matter used to create. The universe is not infinite as it was once believed.

It was not just one Christian Astrophysicist that believed what he said there were atheistic Astrophysicists that agreed it was an argument for God.

No, it shows time had a beginning. Energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed according to the proven First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Another theory.

The FLoT is not a theory, it is a PROVEN law, PROVEN by a REPEATABLE experiment.

 

[Dr.Drock]

No, it shows the universe had a beginning, that the matter that was seen was the matter used to create. The universe is not infinite as it was once believed.

It was not just one Christian Astrophysicist that believed what he said there were atheistic Astrophysicists that agreed it was an argument for God.

No, it shows time had a beginning. Energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed according to the proven First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Another theory.

Scientific Laws and Theories

Not that there's anything wrong with scientific theories as they have to be backed by facts, but please do yourself a favor and the learn the difference between scientific laws and theories.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It does nothing of the sort.

It does not support what you were saying. if it does please explain how it does ?

I think you're a tad bit confused. I'm not making a point, I'm refuting yours.

You said nothing [scientific] explains 'macro-evolution'. Something does - horizontal gene transfer. You posted some random facts about HGT in some sort of effort to say that HGT does not refute 'macro-evolution' because the coding for proteins common across most organisms are transferred less. I tell you that obviously they don't need to be.

So, you've done nothing of the sort.

So you moved the goalposts.

Trust me you can't refute anything i am saying it is subject to opinion.

My question still stands i don't see an answer to it.

So am i correct to assume, that no form of communication could come in to existence without a brain,a thinking, reasoning, process?

 

[Si modo]

No, it shows the universe had a beginning, that the matter that was seen was the matter used to create. The universe is not infinite as it was once believed.

It was not just one Christian Astrophysicist that believed what he said there were atheistic Astrophysicists that agreed it was an argument for God.

No, it shows time had a beginning. Energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed according to the proven First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Another theory.

Yes, a scientific theory and, by definition, a falsifiable theory.

Your theory, that God created life/the universe/whatever, is not falsifiable, thus it is a theory that is non-scientific, by definition.

You really should read Popper. Your foolishness in science is now showing like a cheap slip.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I cannot think of a greater waste of time than arguing with somebody's FAITH.

I don't understand why believers bother with it, and I especially don't understand why non-believers bother with it.

In order to really debate something, the debaters have to have enough COMMON GROUND to even have the debate.

In this case there is no common ground because one is coming at the discussion based on FAITH and the other is not.

Really...what's the point?

Because science is being drug into it, science of course never proving or disproving the existence of a god.


The reason YWC hates science, is because many different scientific fields have proven parts of the Bible to be impossible and downright crazy. So he's going to continue his own personal war against science until he's pushing up daisies.

Hold on a second pal,don't speak for me, you speak for yourself.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It does not support what you were saying. if it does please explain how it does ?

I think you're a tad bit confused. I'm not making a point, I'm refuting yours.

You said nothing [scientific] explains 'macro-evolution'. Something does - horizontal gene transfer. You posted some random facts about HGT in some sort of effort to say that HGT does not refute 'macro-evolution' because the coding for proteins common across most organisms are transferred less. I tell you that obviously they don't need to be.

So, you've done nothing of the sort.

So you moved the goalposts.

Trust me you can't refute anything i am saying it is subject to opinion.

My question still stands i don't see an answer to it.

So am i correct to assume, that no form of communication could come in to existence without a brain,a thinking, reasoning, process?

It was answered multiple times why a god isn't necessary for DNA, just go back and read through the thread or if you like I can copy and paste posts already made.

 

[Si modo]

It does not support what you were saying. if it does please explain how it does ?

I think you're a tad bit confused. I'm not making a point, I'm refuting yours.

You said nothing [scientific] explains 'macro-evolution'. Something does - horizontal gene transfer. You posted some random facts about HGT in some sort of effort to say that HGT does not refute 'macro-evolution' because the coding for proteins common across most organisms are transferred less. I tell you that obviously they don't need to be.

So, you've done nothing of the sort.

So you moved the goalposts.

....

That is untrue.

.... Trust me you can't refute anything i am saying it is subject to opinion.

....

I don't trust anyone's word for anything. I trust objective evidence and you've produced none that can support your claim that macro-evolution is unexplained by science.

I, and others, on the other hand, have produced plenty of objective evidence.

.... My question still stands i don't see an answer to it.

....

I am pretty sure most of us here understand why you don't see.

.... So am i correct to assume, that no form of communication could come in to existence without a brain,a thinking, reasoning, process?

No.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I cannot think of a greater waste of time than arguing with somebody's FAITH.

I don't understand why believers bother with it, and I especially don't understand why non-believers bother with it.

In order to really debate something, the debaters have to have enough COMMON GROUND to even have the debate.

In this case there is no common ground because one is coming at the discussion based on FAITH and the other is not.

Really...what's the point?

Because science is being drug into it, science of course never proving or disproving the existence of a god.


The reason YWC hates science, is because many different scientific fields have proven parts of the Bible to be impossible and downright crazy. So he's going to continue his own personal war against science until he's pushing up daisies.

Hold on a second pal,don't speak for me, you speak for yourself.

I can speak on your view of science based on all the posts of yours I've read, it's why you're constantling battling against science.

 

[editec]

I cannot think of a greater waste of time than arguing with somebody's FAITH.

I don't understand why believers bother with it, and I especially don't understand why non-believers bother with it.

In order to really debate something, the debaters have to have enough COMMON GROUND to even have the debate.

In this case there is no common ground because one is coming at the discussion based on FAITH and the other is not.

Really...what's the point?

Because science is being drug into it, science of course never proving or disproving the existence of a god.

When one encounters a believer who is SO CLUELESS about their OWN belief system that they truly imagine that they NEED science to justify it?

Seriously, debating the science with THEM? A total waste of time.

Not only do they not understand science, they don't understand FAITH, either.

The reason YWC hates science, is because many different scientific fields have proven parts of the Bible to be impossible and downright crazy. So he's going to continue his own personal war against science until he's pushing up daisies.

Sounds to me like that is his problem, not yours.

Hey if it amuses you to debate the SCIENCE, then by all means go for it.

But speaking as some kind of believer, these debates have always stuck me as something only the truly deperate dogmatic believers and dogmatic desperate atheists get involved with.

There is NO conflict between FAITH and SCIENCE.

These two thought systems actually live in totally different universes.