Does science prove the existence of god? (Jesus, ritual, beliefs)

[Orthodox]

Deut,

you said

I have zero interest in assuming your burden of proof, nor in being baited into attempting to prove a negative.

How convienient. All I am asking for is some scientific model that demonstrates how numerous highly specified and complicated conditions can be understood to be of natural origin beyond reasonable doubt. Give me a mechanism that stands up to scientific scrutiny. How is this my burden of proof? You're the one who says I am wrong, aren't you? If you believe I'm wrong you must have some reason, right?

At the same time, you have shown no bases for equating complexity with design.

Yes I have. Here is another. I am going to give you two number sequences. One of them will be generated by a random thumping of my fist into the keyboard while the other I will plan in advance. Ready here are the two examples.

1. 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293 0
2. 714852912

Here are the big questions! Ask yourself which number sequence is more specific (ie seems to be moving in a certain direction), and which one is more complicated. The correct answer for these two questions is sequence number one. I'm going to assume you considered the question and choose number one. Amazingly sequence number one is the sequence I planned! Is it a cooincidence thatanyone who can count would probably select sequence number one?

Anyway, don't bow out of the debate yet. You obviously think I am wrong. Please demonstrate how.

orthodox

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

Given some thing {T}, what diagnostic characteristing would verifiably classify {T} as not designed?

Please answer the question.

[meogi]

Originally Posted by orthodox

Quite simply you have admitted the validity of my argument but denied that it is sound and now you must show why. You weren’t just assuming so were you?……..

It's not sound because we don't agree on the terms being used. It's not helping your argument to be basing conclusions based on assumptions that not everyone agrees upon. So until you present a convincing model that the universe is indeed blueprinted/planned, then you're 1, 2, 3 logic argument isn't gonna get us anywhere.

Originally Posted by Marc Moffett

When people argue they disagree over something. Moreover, when someone gives an argument they intend to resolve the disagreement one way or the other. Consequently, it does you no good to give an argument containing a premise that is at least as controversial as the claim you are trying to establish. Rather, when you give an argument, your premises should be “common ground” between you and your opponent. That is, when you give an argument, your premises should all be claims upon which you and your opponent agree. Therefore, you should seek to give arguments that are sound and that your opponent agrees to be sound.

Originally Posted by orthodox

Give me a mechanism that stands up to scientific scrutiny.

How about something that uses the scientific method? And I find it funny, that you ask for one, but the one you actually believe has no way of being scrutinized by the scientific comunity... or at least when it is (like here) you get defensive and try to devert attention away from that fact.

Originally Posted by orthodox

How is this my burden of proof? You're the one who says I am wrong, aren't you? If you believe I'm wrong you must have some reason, right?

I have a cat that can float and shoot mind bullets (telelkinesis). (Lets assume) you say I'm wrong. Would it suit you if I answered, "You don't believe me? Bah, why should I have to prove it to you? You're the one who doesn't think so."

Originally Posted by orthodox

1. 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293 0
2. 714852912

Here are the big questions! Ask yourself which number sequence is more specific (ie seems to be moving in a certain direction), and which one is more complicated.

#1 is more specific. #2 is more complicated. Why? Because #2 doesn't have an obvious patern. We obviously don't see complication as the same thing...

You're not convincing me the universe is planned... so your argument is still not sound.

[Orthodox]

Meogi,

Please pay attention. You have missed the point.

It's not sound because we don't agree on the terms being used. It's not helping your argument to be basing conclusions based on assumptions that not everyone agrees upon.

An unsound argument is one that is logical but not factual. Here is an example.
1. All planets are square shaped.
2. Earth is a planet.
3. Therefore, Earth is square shaped.

This argument is valid. However, it is not sound. How can you prove me unsound? By showing me the scientific prooof that the earth is spherical in shape. Do you understand? You already declared my argument valid but unsound. Where is your factual basis for this.

Just for the record. Making my argument adhere to your idea of sound might help us agree but it will by no certain means prove anything truthful. I dare you to prove my permises wrong.

How about something that uses the scientific method? And I find it funny, that you ask for one, but the one you actually believe has no way of being scrutinized by the scientific comunity... or at least when it is (like here) you get defensive and try to devert attention away from that fact.
.

Do you even know what the scientific method is? My theory makes great use of the scientific method and it can be scrutised by science. Have you read my evidence for God about 3 pages back? Why don't you show me how the Big Bang started without positing something supernatural.

So far you have not scientifically scrutinised my theory at all. That is why I am frustrated. So far my theory has been attacked (falliciously) on the grounds of logic and (ridiculously) on the grounds of grammer. You haven't ventured into science at all. Why don't you? I dare you to prove my premises wrong.

I have a cat that can float and shoot mind bullets (telelkinesis). (Lets assume) you say I'm wrong. Would it suit you if I answered, "You don't believe me? Bah, why should I have to prove it to you? You're the one who doesn't think so."

I have supplied evidence of the scientific nature of my claims. I have supplied the proffessional opinions of scientists qualified in the fields in question. I have provided evidence to support my premises. In the case of your cat there is nothing to go on but your word. In the instance you detailed above it would be idiotic to charge me with finding evidence that your cat does not exist. However, this instance has no relation to my idea that there is scientific evidence for God. I have presented evidence which you must fault if you want to prove my theory unsound and false.

#1 is more specific. #2 is more complicated. Why? Because #2 doesn't have an obvious patern. We obviously don't see complication as the same thing...

number two doesn't have a pattern. #2 is far smaller a number and is henceforth less complicated. Is that simple enough to understand?

Seriously, try and fault my science. You obviously don't understand the the concepts of valid and sound.

orthodox

[Orthodox]

Hey duet,

Given some thing {T}, what diagnostic characteristing would verifiably classify {T} as not designed?

A scientific study that shows that chance and/or natural phenomena (by the use of this word I by no means identify myself with Kantian agnosticism) can reasonably account for {T}.

An example would be a small pot plant falling over on a very windy day. We don't need to look much further than the wind to arrive at the reasonable conclusion that the wind blew the pot over. This is believable beyond reasonable doubt.

A counter example would be a pot, which sits in a secure airtight case on top of an unshakable stool which lies in an earthquake safe room, being smashed. Natural chance mechanisms cannot account for this event.

Is that what you wanted. I must admit, the question was a little confusing to me.

Orthodox

[meogi]

Originally Posted by orthodox

An unsound argument is one that is logical but not factual.

The premises are under question about their factuality. Things are not assumed true until proven false. It's not sound until the premises are accepted and not under question.

Originally Posted by orthodox

How can you prove me unsound? By showing me the scientific prooof that the earth is spherical in shape.

No, I can show you unsound by stating that not all planets are square (you're the one who needs to come up with a reason for me to believe that they are all square). I don't have to prove your conclusion wrong, I just have to bring doubt into your premise. Please re-read the quote by Marc Moffet.

Originally Posted by orthodox

You already declared my argument valid but unsound.

If we assume your premises true, then there is no rational way I can show your conclusion invalid. But I don't, and that's why I don't find your argument sound.

Originally Posted by orthodox

Making my argument adhere to your idea of sound might help us agree but it will by no certain means prove anything truthful.

It's not 'my idea of sound' - it's how soundness works. Nothing will be solved/agreed if we don't have common ground.

Originally Posted by orthodox

So far you have not scientifically scrutinised my theory at all.

I havn't been trying to, I've been scrutinizing your assumption that the universe is planned, and your conclusion drawn from that. If you want me to, I will. (In a later post, I'm off to do some stuff in a bit).

Originally Posted by orthodox

I have provided evidence to support my premises.

Tell me, did you come to your conclusion about your premises after you looked at the evidence, or before? And did you have 'knowledge' of a god before this decision or not? This part is important. It'll help with my later scrutinizing of your theory.

Originally Posted by orthodox

#2 is far smaller a number and is henceforth less complicated.

Complication does not come from the size of a number (I'm thinking this is where we differ on our definitions). Here, I'll choose two numbers (one planned, one random) and you tell me which is more complicated, and which is planned: #1 --- 8675309, #2 --- 9546812.

Originally Posted by orthodox

Seriously, try and fault my science.

I will, don't worry.

Oh, and thanks for the ad-hominems.

[Orthodox]

Linwood,

Sorry it took me a while to write back to this post. I didn’t see it because there were quite a few that I had to answer.

Anyway, I do appreciate the fact that your post contained not only logical objections to my assertions but also scientific ones.

You quoted my syllogism.

1. An infinite number of days will have no end.
2. However, today is the end of history (history being a collection of days).
3. Therefore, there were not an infinite number of days before today. (ie. time had a beginning)

In response to this you said

#1.Correct
#2. Today is the end of nothing but mans concept of history, on a cosmological scale nothing has ended today. There will always be another tomorrow whether we are here or not.
#3. You first must prove that time is anything other than a man made concept before you can come to this conclusion

I have a number of things to say about this.

1. I’m glad we agree about number one.
2. What is history? History is defined as a chronological record of events or an aggregate of past events. So if we say that history has its end at the present moment we are exactly right, any projected, future event (ie the tomorrow, next week) is not yet an actual event and is therefore not yet history. So, premise 2 stands.
3. Asserting that I must "first prove that time is anything other than a man made concept before {I} can come to this conclusion" is meaningless. Your very suggestion that time could be a man made concept presupposes its existence. You said "first you must….before you can come to this conclusion". The ideas of first and before presuppose the existence of time. Try and re-word your question to include no reference to any time scale or any cause effect relationship (the CE relationship requires a temporal dimension). You cannot. It is impossible. Your contention that time is human invention is null and void. My point stands.

You also attacked this syllogism of mine.

1. Anything that is not eternal must have a cause.
2. The universe is running out of useable energy (meaning it had a finite quantity in the past).
3. It is a fallacy to suppose that the universe could have existed forever due to the absurdity of an infinite series of events.

You said

#1.Sounds good to me.
#2. Doesn`t sound too good to me.
#3 .Really not good, the universe in one form or another, with or without matter must have always existed because it could have been no other way.
#4.Why do I have to read this stuff at least once a week?

Again, I have a few things to say about your objections.

1. Thankyou again for agreeing.
2. Why not? Are you calling into question the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Do you have a scientific problem with this or just an ideological problem. Can your please explain the basis for your objection.
3. Why must it have always existed? Is this a scientifically or ideologically grounded observation? Why could it not have been any other way?

I said:

The universe cannot be eternal and must therefore have had a beginning and a cause.

You replied to this by saying

Wrong AND Illogical .
If the universe is defined as "space and everything within it" then it isn’t possible that it never existed.
It has always existed if defined in this way.

Why is this wrong (I assume you mean scientifically flawed) and why is this illogical? I think that all of my syllogisms are valid and therefore logical. Your pseudo-scientific claim that "If the universe is defined as "space and everything within it" then it isn’t possible that it never existed" is completely wrong. Why could it have never been nonexistent? What scientific law would suggest this? Again, I think that you have confused your ideological problems with the beginning of the universe with scientific ones.

Still, thanks for not just simply continuing the unsuccessful contention that my argument is logically flawed.

orthodox

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Orthodox

The universe cannot be eternal and must therefore have had a beginning and a cause.

Orthodox, have you read anything by Hawking or others about 'imaginary time'?