God does nor exist nor do gods exist!

Post Reply New Topic

Love it!!

Thanks hehe lately I got into a Pheonix Wright hype and figured this would be the right place to express it! Now as we celebrate knowing there is no god we shall throw a party with beers on me! I Suppose I should call Stephen Hawking to the Stand on his Idea about god though since he is the most Intelligant man in the world!There ya have it god doesnt exist! YAY!! !!

You lost light-years ago you never won, if you think you did you are dillusional and suffer what I call A.I.R Accute Intellectual Retrogression your god and many other before hand have been disproven time and time again it is enough proof to show your god is made up since it was borrowed from the ideas of older pegan religions which is also why your thread failed and why mine has continued! Which is why Oldavid has filled your spot as a mindless creationist as he desperately fights to try to prove there is a god but just like you fails! Enjoy wallowing in your eternal failure it was fun indeed but you were never a challenge I play people like you like a marionette on a daily basis!

He doesnt exist....

Like I said way back... your Materialism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Voodooism or whatever, is a purely ideological prejudice divorced from reason and science. So far you are completely occupied with merely parroting popularised glib assertions that are convenient to your ideology without even coming close to addressing the science and logic of the issue.

I am only addressing the scientific (philosophical) aspects of the question, but you lot have gone into a frenzy of religious sloganing apparently hoping to intimidate me.

I say again: Darwinism is logically and scientifically impossible. It is a preposterous superstition (an unreasonable belief) that is sold to the public with a relentless saturation marketing campaign. Its sales slogan of "science" is no more scientific than "scientifically proven" washing powder advertisements.

It is impossible;
Philosophically: "A thing that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist"
Physically and chemically: entropy; best described by its expression as the Second Law of Thermodynamics... "all ordered systems, left to themselves, tend toward maximum randomness and lowest energy (differential)"
Biologically: the Law of Morphology (really entropy applied to biological systems) "the more complex an organism and the more often it is replicated the more likely it is that something will go wrong in the (replication) process"
Mathematically: the probability that even one simple protein will form by random accident is so infinitesimally small that it is, in practice, impossible. Even if one did form, the very conditions that created it would destroy it.

Stephen Hawking is no less inclined to indulge his egomania than anyone else on the planet. Nonsense doesn't become science just because he says it all padded up in obscure formulas. If it contradicts a certain premise then it's wrong no matter who says it.

Biologists know that mutations are often bad. That is where natural selection comes in, as the individuals born with the crappy DNA are less likely to survive and less likely to produce offspring. The rare good mutations have an advantage here and will be more likely to produce offspring. It's similar to capitalism: most businesses will go bust some day, just like most species. I've heard similar rates for businesses and species: 99% extinction rate.

That's the position I held for many years. But I read deeper, investigated, soaked up the snippets of understanding that came my way... and over time all those hurdles were knocked over. I wasn't dragged kicking and screaming, but close to it. I fought against the illogical theories of evolution, Big Bang and their like, using the same principles of entropy, complexity and mathematical probability. I was smug in my disbelief of science's answers, but part of me still remained open to being wrong. I think I was also convinced that the people who believed science's answers were like lemmings. Oh god how wrong I was. lol

You can have your journey, David. I have mine, and I'm enjoying the new direction. And now I can enjoy science without chasing phantom agendas and all that bs.

At last! Someone who will attempt to address the issue! Thanks, trollcatman.

Mutations are invariably "bad". As a stock breeder with a long line of stock breeder antecedents we know perfectly well that you cannot turn a sheep into an elephant with selective breeding. The only thing a stock breeder can do is to eliminate "undesirable" characteristics from the gene pool which may (if you're lucky) allow a recessive or "hidden gene" to be expressed or exposed.

Many years ago geneticists claimed that 95% of DNA was "junk" because it didn't appear to do anything. However, as years go on, it seems that the "junk" is only potential that can be accessed as needed. Clever, forward thinking design, I recon.

You are really strong at clinging to intelligent design arent you and dismiss all of sciences discover after all if its not in the bible it is incorrect? Remember the bible says that bats are birds, so are you implying bats are birds? Ahh yes the second law of thermodynamics is a very common argument but you see the Earth is not a closed system there is no entropy the more time leading to more chaos only works in a closed system where no energy can enter or escape. The Earth not being closed receiving outside heat and light from our suns nuclear fusion simple organisms so that they can become more complex by consuming other forms of life and non living materials, what are the other laws of thermodynamics?

I am no proponent of the "intelligent design" evolutionary model. I am the one trying to get this discussion on a rational and scientific base. You guys are trying to avoid the issues with any kind of frantic diversion you can come up with. I am not interested in Bibles or your opinions about any of them.

Didn't I address the "open/closed" system business already? Anyhow, Let's say The Universe is a "closed system". Let's say that Earth is a "closed system" within the Universe (which, of course, it's not), but anyway,
none of that can preclude the observation that effects are the results of causes.

I better stop there. I'm inclined to get a bit carried away with more than the listener can bear sometimes.

Ok Entropy. I really did not think you were going to turn into a creationist, I had hoped your views were more deistic rather than theistic. But oh well. first up lets look at the threee classes of a thermodynamic system


i. A closed system is a system that engages in exchanges of energy with the surroundings, but does not engage in exchange of matter with the surroundings

ii. An isolated system is a system that engages in no exchanges of energy or matter with the surroundings

iii. An isolated system is a system that engages in no exchanges of energy or matter with the surroundings

As far as we can tell Isolated system most likely do not exist, and we clearly live in an open system which receives more useful energy than gets turned into non useful (ie turned into heat and sound etc) This energy not only come to us in the energy eg the sun it also comes in the form of matter eg Meteorites.

The small amount of energy harnessed by the living systems on this planet is sufficient to increase complexity over time. Rigorous papers have been written on the subject since 1922 I would provide links but David I doubt you will even look at them let alone read them.

Anyhow off to work, will continue this later

A classic experiment called the Miller-Urey experiment shows that under certain conditions, amino acids can form "by random accident". The caveat is that these conditions have to be met, but once they are, the "random accident" of chemicals bumping into each other and creating amino acids (building blocks of protein) shoots up to near certainty. The conditions are an abundance of certain chemicals in the presence of considerable energy flying about. The very active young earth had these conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2% ... experiment

<the last sentence being my justification for saying "near certainty"

You would think that "the very conditions that created it would destroy it" but there is this:

He isn't real and quoting the bible is not going to get you anywhere!

Orrite. Let's try to be more specific about what entropy is. As in the Second Law of Thermodynamics expression of entropy it is the tendency of order toward chaos and the tendency for potential to be dissipated.

Nothing will happen in nature unless there is a process from a higher potential to a lower potential. All our machines and natural phenomena only work because of that. Even a thunderstorm is ultimately a dissipation of energy from the Sun that is collected in the atmosphere. Even the Sun is "using up" her potential by dissipating enormous amounts of matter and energy into space. Nature runs on entropy.

Order is more interesting "stuff" as it a metaphysical "thing". Any wonderfully diligent home manager will tell you that disorder and chaos happen automatically and naturally, and that it takes constant effort, intellect and will on her part to restore or maintain order. Nature (gradually) "eats up" and dissipates order that can only be created by the intellect to conceive it, the power to do it and the will to want it.

(There, that should be another cat in the pigeon coop).

It's not going to get you anywhere either, cobber.

Ahh another creationists nightmare yet another living transitional species in our midsts whatever should we do? *gasps* could it be more proof of evolition?