Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-25-2019 11:34 AM
32 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF, Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,394 Year: 15,430/19,786 Month: 2,153/3,058 Week: 11/516 Day: 11/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 493 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 313 of 2138 (721130)
03-03-2014 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Stile
02-27-2014 12:27 PM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
We have looked everywhere anyone has ever said to look for God. No God is ever there. No sign of God, no shred of God, no God is ever found, anywhere... ever.

This is "lots and lots of evidence" that God does not exist.

Bs'd

You really think that if you cannot see it, then it doesn't exist??

Science tells us that lots and lots of things we cannot detect with out senses really exist.

So not being able to see God does not mean He isn't there.

Now, you just have to decide if you're the sort of person who thinks "following the evidence, when there is lots and lots of evidence" is something that helps lead us towards reality.

It's certainly known to make mistakes.
But it's also certainly known to be the best method we've ever used for understanding the way things really are.

What science is telling us, is that that what we experience as "the material wold", simply doesn't exist.

It is telling us that mind is at the basis of matter, and not the other way around.

Science also gives us the anthropic principle, which strongly points to God:

Nowadays there is strong irrefutable scientific proof that God exist, in the form of the anthropic principle, the fine tuning of the universe.

The laws of nature which govern the universe, and the set up of the universe, in order to enable the possibility of life, must be so extremely critically fine tuned, that it is impossible to say that the universe came into existence by pure chance. Scientists are discovering more and more constants in the universe that must be set up in an extremely precise way, in order to make life possible in the universe.

In 1961 just two of those constants were known, of which the most sensitive was the ratio of the gravitational force to the electromagnetic force. If that varies more than one part in 10^40 (that is 10 to the power of 40, = a 1 with 40 zero's = 10,000 trillion trillion trillion), no life will be possible.
Today, the number of known cosmic characteristics recognized as fine-tuned for life — any conceivable kind of physical life — stands at thirty-eight. Of these, the most sensitive is the space energy density (the self-stretching property of the universe). Its value cannot vary by more than one part in 10^120, and still allow for the kinds of stars and planets physical life requires.

In order to get an idea of the size of these numbers, something about the observable universe: It has a width of about 156 billion light years, that is about 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 miles. It contains about 50.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 stars in about 80 billion galaxies. The total amount of atoms in this observable universe is 10^80.

The chance that our universe came out the way it did, so that life, any life, would be possible, is only 1 in 10^173.

For more information on this subject look here: http://www.reasons.org/...ic-principle-precise-plan-humanity

A mathematician, Borel, calculated that the probability of something happening that has a chance of happening of only 1 in 10^50, is zero, meaning, something with odds of 1 in 10^50, will never happen: http://boards.fool.com/...ding-this-other-than-22202050.aspx :
"It was Dr. Emile Borel who first formulated the basic Law of Probability which states that the occurrence of an event where the chances are beyond 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power (the 200th power is used for scientific calculations), is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, regardless of the time allotted or how many opportunities could exist for the event to take place.(Emile Borel, Probabilities and Life, Dover 1962, chapters 1-3)"

As everybody can see, the fine tuning of the universe is way above that. This points irrefutably to intelligent design, and with that to an Intelligent Designer.

About this anthropic principle Stephen Hawking, arguably the greatest scientist now alive, said: "Most sets of values, would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no-one able to wonder at that beauty. One can take this either as evidence of a divine purpose in creation and choice of the laws of science, or as support for the strong anthropic principle."
A brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, page 139

Ibid page 140: "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

His book "A Brief HIstory of Time" can be found online here: http://alleeshadowtradition.com/...g_a_brief_history_of_time

My quotes can be found in chapter 8.

So there we have it, the anthropic principle which provides the proof that God exists.

.
.
.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Stile, posted 02-27-2014 12:27 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Pressie, posted 03-04-2014 2:18 AM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 316 by Stile, posted 03-04-2014 10:30 AM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 319 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-04-2014 1:40 PM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 323 by Pressie, posted 03-05-2014 1:08 AM Eliyahu has responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 493 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 315 of 2138 (721144)
03-04-2014 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by Pressie
03-04-2014 2:18 AM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
Luckily nobody claims that the Universe came about by pure chance.

Bs'd

Either it was pure chance or it was intelligent design. Do you see other possibilities?

About this anthropic principle Stephen Hawking, arguably the greatest scientist now alive, said…

A God is not necessary.

Why do you ignore and delete what he said about the anthropic prinicple?

The anthropic principle is a fact.

Stephen Hawkin never said that the AP doesn't exist anymore.

And anyway, with of withoud SH, the anthropic priniciple is a fact:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science."
(27)Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc.Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.

1. Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.
2.. Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.
3. Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.
4. Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.
5. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.
6. Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.
7. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.
8. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
9. Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc.
10. Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483.
11. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52.
12. Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116.
13. Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175.
14. Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.
15. Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57
16. Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.
17. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167.
18. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.
19. Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant 20. supernovae Nature 401: 252-254.
20. Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992).
21. Sheler, J. L. and J.M. Schrof, "The Creation", U.S. News & World Report (December 23, 1991):56-64.
22. McIver, T. 1986. Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism. The Skeptical Inquirer 10:258-276.
23. Mullen, L. 2001. The Three Domains of Life from SpaceDaily.com
24. Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew at Biola University (PDF version).
25. Tipler, F.J. 2007. The Physics Of Christianity. New York, Doubleday.

.
.
.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Pressie, posted 03-04-2014 2:18 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-04-2014 12:23 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 318 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-04-2014 1:24 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 320 by Tangle, posted 03-04-2014 2:01 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 321 by Pressie, posted 03-05-2014 12:17 AM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 322 by Pressie, posted 03-05-2014 12:43 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 493 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


(1)
Message 328 of 2138 (721661)
03-11-2014 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Stile
03-04-2014 10:30 AM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
I totally agree that just because we cannot see something then this doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

However... if we look for something where it is supposed to be and cannot find it... ever... then this is evidence that it doesn't exist.

Do you understand this concept?

Bs'd

No. Don't understand at all.

If we don't find what we're looking for, it might just mean that we don't have the necessary instruments to perceive what we are looking for.

Of course it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


"According to scientific rules, in order for critics to disprove the Torah codes, they would have to find fatal flaws in each of the six papers presenting a different approach and a different code. This happened five years ago, and to date not a single flaw was found in any of these papers. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over."
Harold Gans, mathematician and professional code breaker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Stile, posted 03-04-2014 10:30 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-11-2014 11:47 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 338 by Stile, posted 03-11-2014 12:24 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 348 by Taq, posted 03-11-2014 1:20 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 493 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 329 of 2138 (721663)
03-11-2014 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by Dr Adequate
03-04-2014 1:40 PM


Re: Borel
You can prove that it's not true yourself. Take a pack of cards and shuffle them thoroughly. The chances of you getting that particular outcome is 1 in about 8 * 10 ^ 67.

Bs'd

The above statement is totall nonsense and totally wrong on several levels.

Both the mathematics and the logic is totally off.

Try again.

If the creationist lie was true, you have just done something "that will never happen". But it did.

Perhaps you could base your arguments on something that isn't obviously a lie. Or perhaps not.

See above.


"According to scientific rules, in order for critics to disprove the Torah codes, they would have to find fatal flaws in each of the six papers presenting a different approach and a different code. This happened five years ago, and to date not a single flaw was found in any of these papers. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over."
Harold Gans, mathematician and professional code breaker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-04-2014 1:40 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Pressie, posted 03-11-2014 1:15 AM Eliyahu has responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 493 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 330 of 2138 (721664)
03-11-2014 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Pressie
03-05-2014 12:17 AM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist doesn't exist
1. Using a logical fallacy such as an argument from authority tends to give others the idea that you can't think locically and also that you are either uneducated or not very intelligent.

I said this before on this forum, and it looks like I have to repeat myself:

quote:
One hopes you realize that no one person personifies the science of evolution and that using quotes is making the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.

Greater idiocy than your above statement I haven't seen in a long time.

You say that relying on authority is a "logical fallacy". Well that statement of you is the logical fallacy. Or you must be of the opinion that it is better to rely on laymen in scientific issues...

No, I didn't think so.

So let's stop talking nonsense and let's get down to the facts.


"According to scientific rules, in order for critics to disprove the Torah codes, they would have to find fatal flaws in each of the six papers presenting a different approach and a different code. This happened five years ago, and to date not a single flaw was found in any of these papers. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over."
Harold Gans, mathematician and professional code breaker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Pressie, posted 03-05-2014 12:17 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Pressie, posted 03-11-2014 3:02 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 493 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 332 of 2138 (721666)
03-11-2014 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by Pressie
03-05-2014 1:08 AM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
Nowadays there is strong irrefutable scientific proof that God exist, in the form of the anthropic principle, the fine tuning of the universe.

Nope. That is an argument for a deist God existing more than 14 billion years ago. That's it.

Bs'd

It's more than an argument, it is strong proof. Order just doesn't come out of nowhere, on the contrary, it disappears into nowhere, see the law of the entropy.

It's defiitely not an argument for a personal God existing today.

If such a personal God existed then, it seems as if it has disappeared somewhere between 14.5 billion years ago and today.

It might seem so to you, but for the vast majority of the world population who are religious, it doesn't seem like that.

So your seeming doesn't prove anything. And since there is no other evidence of God expiring in the last 14 billion years, the reasonable approach is to assume He is still around.


"According to scientific rules, in order for critics to disprove the Torah codes, they would have to find fatal flaws in each of the six papers presenting a different approach and a different code. This happened five years ago, and to date not a single flaw was found in any of these papers. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over."
Harold Gans, mathematician and professional code breaker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Pressie, posted 03-05-2014 1:08 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 493 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 333 of 2138 (721669)
03-11-2014 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by Pressie
03-11-2014 1:15 AM


Re: Borel
Really? You do know that Dr Adequate has a PhD in mathematics, don't you?

Bs'd

I checked it out, the math is correct, but the second assumption, that something happened with a chance of 1 in 8 x 10^67 is simply wrong.

When you shuffle a deck of cards, and every one of the 1 in 8 x 10^67 possible combinations you can get is acceptable, like in the example given by Adequate, then your chances are 1 in 1, or 100%.

The only time when you get a chance of 1 in 8 x 10^67, is when you in advance state what combination you want to get, and then start shuffling, and then you get the forementioned order, then a miracle happened.

But of course, that will never happen. Just try it.

And the other option, that when you shuffle you'll get some kind of order, will always happen, just try it. Your chances are 1 in 1, a hundred procent.

This is so basic, so elementary, that it looks much more like Adequate is a primary school drop-out than a mathematician.


"According to scientific rules, in order for critics to disprove the Torah codes, they would have to find fatal flaws in each of the six papers presenting a different approach and a different code. This happened five years ago, and to date not a single flaw was found in any of these papers. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over."
Harold Gans, mathematician and professional code breaker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Pressie, posted 03-11-2014 1:15 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-11-2014 11:59 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019