Is there any proof God exists?

Post Reply New Topic

'Spergics are supposed to be "high functioning autistic". Narcissists are merely non-functional "Black Holes".

Your Majesty has no subject here.

I suppose that the only face-saving option left for you is to try to get me banished (banned).

Before I get the flick I'll re-present a layman's view of the "evolution" hoax. This bod is an avowed non-Christian.

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html

I don't expect that any card-carrying anti-theists will read it but maybe some bystanders will.
There's much more... and much more very scientifically specific objections to the fantastic superstition of no cause for everything. Try this if you're the least bit fair-minded:

http://www.detectingdesign.org/?page_id=2

That's only a sample of some of the contra-evidence of the Materialist view. There is much more, often very sectarian, objection to the fashionable Materialism.

Nope, please provide me evidence of Mosis's existence there is no documentary of his death so it leaves a real loop hole in the bible! This fact makes you mad that is why the same person who held the ten commandments possibly not existing on a grand scale, it is like telling a 4 year old the Easter Bunny does not exist, same reaction.*awaits frantic illogical rage posts and tries to hold back from laughing*

Let us not forget that Noahs Ark never happened it was a fairy tale as well!

i studied thermodynamics, i'd think i know what enthropy is.

as for your electron example; bad example, as the "electron", as such, doesn't exist, not as a particle. rather, it's a probability wave.

your "law of morpholgy"; that is why DNA has self-repair; yes, things go wrong all the time, but double-strands fix that problem, largely.

Legos can actually form themselves; given some initial atoms (not "pure energy", but initial materials, as the big bang implies), enough energy and enough time, something resembling a lego block could assemble.

It might also speed up discussion if you stopped mixing sciences around; you have used thermodynamics, physics, biology and astronomy together for a single point, they aren't supposed to be mixed in that way.

also, when do apologists get it into their heads: even *if* you manage to prove the current scientific ideas wrong, this still doesn't prove a god, so most arguments are invalid to the discussion (albeit some are still valid points, just irrelevant).
"I dont know, therefor god" is just a bad argument, like pascals wager, it only applies if there are only 2 options: science or god, but science isn't the answer, but the search for the answer.

I read it. Did you? He does not think that evolution is a hoax. Rather, he is unable to wrap his head around the view that (like izzeme said) science is the search for answers, not the answer itself. If you study chemistry (as he did), it's possible to have an entire career without encountering an unanswered question (if you stay out of academia and stick to industrial chemistry). Not so much in biology, of which the study of evolution is a subset.



This is why he gravitated to chemistry. He wanted clear, unambiguous answers which is possible (now) in chemistry if you stick to the known. But it was not always so. In Kekule's time, chemistry was as full of unanswered questions as biology is now. This blogger just takes it all for granted (he never took a History of Science course?). If something is mysterious you don't just throw up your hands or default to God. You try to figure out possibilities and figure out ways to test those possibilities. This means there will be constant changes in understanding. These changes are a feature, not a bug.

Oldavid, before you align yourself too closely to this blogger, consider this paragraph:


Ultimately this guy became a journalist, not a chemist. He has interviewed scientists (froma variety of fields) and it really aggravates him when two different scientists will give two diferent answers or will say "that's unknown". As a journalist who also studied chemistry, it makes sense he would be given science interview assignments. He would be familiar with the terminology and many of the principles. But here is something he never got:



"Disguised"? How are you supposed to even formulate hypothesis if you never speculate? And of course the speculations never end. You can't ever move forward if you don't speculate. Kekule based a speculation of the structure of benzene on a dream. Didn't he know that? He interviews doctors and biologists and then gets irritated when they give him ambiguous and conflicting answers. If he took a time machine back 150 years he'd get conflicting and ambiguous answers from chemists too.

I LOVE yOur honesty besTEST of all..

That is also a quality missing, 'these days', for sure..

Emotions can be an incredible challenge to regulate;

They certainly are for me for decades, for sure;

but truly THAT IS possible.. at least for 'Yoda'..

for now.. with.. smiles..

Is this conversation still essentially David talking about thermodynamics without mentioning enthalpy?

I do not align myself with Fred Reed at all. I merely quoted him to show that even a muddle-brain like him can see the inherent contradictions in the "evolution" hoax.

Physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology and all the rest are intimately connected and overlap extensively. They are all studies of physical reality and all conform to the same Natural Laws. Without consistent Natural Laws any attempt at science is completely futile. Science becomes indistinguishable from magic and Voodoo... like the "evolution" hoax.

An hypothesis is not mere speculation. It is a serious possible explanation for some observation to be tested by experiment. If experiment (and/or reason) shows the hypothesis to be impossible then it is eliminated from the list of possibilities. I am wasting my time trying to teach you magic addicts even the most basic elements of a scientific method.

You "studied thermodynamics" and apparently imbibed a muddle of impossible conjectures that are intended to defy Laws of Thermodynamics that are always and everywhere easily demonstrable.

I am not suggesting "science or God". That is a con-trick devised by your gang of magicians to deceive the simple. Real science is impossible without a consistent order governed by consistent Natural Laws. God is not only consistent with natural science but is, ultimately, indispensable to a consistent natural order that makes science possible.

Neither am I trying to prove "current scientific ideas" wrong. I am proving that current ideological fads masquerading as "science" are not science at all.

It's you lot who are invoking Pascal's Wager. You dogmatically assume that God doesn't exist therefore the impossible "evolutionary" paradigm is true and any fantastic speculation consistent with that assumption is, ipso facto, therefore, also true... even if it contradicts well known Natural Laws.

Still whistling in the wind...

What wind? Do you mean the gale of nonsense fads?

Evolution, potassium argon dating and actual scientific data and facts makes you mad davy.Biology, genetics and the fossil record debunk the bible time and time again.

The Earth is not a closed system so keep trying with the thermodynamics and such!

All that just demonstrates that "the thinking Atheist" does not think any more than the thinking consumer thinks that "Things go better with Coke".

Just a bunch of bland, silly gratuitous assertions that are mainly just plain false or irrelevant to the issue.

Radiometric dating is based on some unjustifiable assumptions that are completely ignored and which, in a genuinely scientific investigation, would render the process completely unacceptable. To make predictions based on that you would need to know what were the starting conditions (compositions) of the source materials. Having said that, C14 dating is reasonably accurate in the short term where atmospheric C14 levels can be assumed to be similar to present levels. However, an equilibrium between the rate of formation of C14 in the atmosphere and its rate of decay is not yet reached.

Stupid! The more you fellas protest the more you reveal that you don't know what you're talking about.
Just an example of more ideological nonsense being proposed as "science".

Update your snark. That slogan was retired 40 or so years ago.



Straw man. C14 really is just used within the short-ish limits of its accuracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating



Other isotopes are used for the older samples.