Scientific Proof of God

[Dan From Smithville]

At least I know what 'cromulent' means without having to look it up again. This time.

I like that word, though it has a different flavor to me than its actual, defined meaning. I think I like it more for the way it sounds than what it means, though it is a good word for that reason also.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

IOW sneaky.

That cuts down to the bone and removes all the gristle, but yes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My favorite neologism origination ever....

Despite its humorous origin and a definition that may be still in flux, that word has entered my lexicon. It should be included as part of the English language.

You are the only person I know that regularly uses that word, but I knew what you meant the first time I saw you use it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Despite its humorous origin and a definition that may be still in flux, that word has entered my lexicon. It should be included as part of the English language.

You are the only person I know that regularly uses that word, but I knew what you meant the first time I saw you use it.

Definition in flux?
How so?

 

[shmogie]

Where is the evidence that it is a claim that the universe created itself. I am unfamiliar with this outside of the repetition of it by creationists. It makes no logical sense that something could create itself. It would have to exist in order to create and if it has to create itself, it cannot exist. It is a logical impossibility. Something originating from nothing is not the same thing as something creating itself. I do not know that something can originate from nothing either, but they are two different statements. It appears that this may be the source of the creationist straw man about something creating itself.

Hmmmm, if there is nothing from which to create something, yet it gets created, what created it ? I suggest you look at some of the variety of cosmological hypotheses out there.

Even the standard model BB theory has absolutely no evidence that the rapid expansion began with an alleged singularity.

Mathematically the expansion can be explained, the alleged singularity cannot. Mathematically, the bang came from nothing.

The alleged singularity is simply an idea, nothing more, ideas aren´t evidence of anything.

 

[shmogie]

The objective verifiable evidence is the universe began as a result of natural processes, and the Laws of Nature. There is no concept of self Creation in science. Also, randomness does not cause anything. Life arose caused by Natural Laws and suitable environment. Natural processes based on Natural Laws are not random anything.

How many times is your cracked record going to repeat this nonsense You keep throwing these jellyfish against a slippery slope, and they do not stick.

The objective verifiable evidence does not reflect that the universe began naturally, else the various hypotheses would be theories.

So, the laws of nature have no relation to randomness, and randomness does not cause anything. That is pure illogical nonsense. A bolt of lightning kills someone, that wasn´t random. it was death was preplanned in the laws of nature.

Some ballooning baby spiders land in the fire of a fire pit in someoneś back yard, not randomness, planned by nature.

So, in the alleged primordial world the water ran down the rocks and not randomly, but planned by nature, leached out the correct chemicals, in the right proportions, to come together at the right spot, to create life in an unknown way, all planned by nature.

Your slippery elocution is summed up thusly.

Randomness is a law of nature.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Definition in flux?
How so?

I have seen it defined as meaning acceptable or legitimate as well as definition considering it to indicate irony, suggesting that the object being referred to is, in fact, unacceptable and illegitimate.

It may not be flux of much extent and would depend on how widely the different definitions are communicated and accepted. Of course, words can have more than one definition or usage, so any dichotomy may be irrelevant.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hmmmm, if there is nothing from which to create something, yet it gets created, what created it ? I suggest you look at some of the variety of cosmological hypotheses out there.

Even the standard model BB theory has absolutely no evidence that the rapid expansion began with an alleged singularity.

Mathematically the expansion can be explained, the alleged singularity cannot. Mathematically, the bang came from nothing.

The alleged singularity is simply an idea, nothing more, ideas aren´t evidence of anything.

My knowledge of Big Bang cosmology suggests that what was prior to the Big Bang is unknown and recognized as such.

If what you say is your understanding, how you have arrived at something creating itself makes no sense in relation to that either.

Lack of evidence of a singularity is not "something created itself" or a statement to that effect. Likewise with the rest of your statements. Extending this to something created itself and then alluding or alleging it comes from science is erroneous on those grounds.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The objective verifiable evidence does not reflect that the universe began naturally, else the various hypotheses would be theories.

So, the laws of nature have no relation to randomness, and randomness does not cause anything. That is pure illogical nonsense. A bolt of lightning kills someone, that wasn´t random. it was death was preplanned in the laws of nature.

Some ballooning baby spiders land in the fire of a fire pit in someoneś back yard, not randomness, planned by nature.

So, in the alleged primordial world the water ran down the rocks and not randomly, but planned by nature, leached out the correct chemicals, in the right proportions, to come together at the right spot, to create life in an unknown way, all planned by nature.

Your slippery elocution is summed up thusly.

Randomness is a law of nature.

You are attributing intelligence to nature by belief, since there is no evidence that the occurrence of the events is anything more than random. You are making the same circular argument that got this thread started off. Your premises and your conclusion assume intelligence that is not demonstrated. You are in effect, trying to get something to create itself.

 

[shmogie]

You are attributing intelligence to nature by belief, since there is no evidence that the occurrence of the events is anything more than random. You are making the same circular argument that got this thread started off. Your premises and your conclusion assume intelligence that is not demonstrated. You are in effect, trying to get something to create itself.

LOL, I was responding to someone who said there was no randomness in nature, and characterizing what must be his beliefs. Do you know what satire is.

 

[shmogie]

My knowledge of Big Bang cosmology suggests that what was prior to the Big Bang is unknown and recognized as such.

If what you say is your understanding, how you have arrived at something creating itself makes no sense in relation to that either.

Lack of evidence of a singularity is not "something created itself" or a statement to that effect. Likewise with the rest of your statements. Extending this to something created itself and then alluding or alleging it comes from science is erroneous on those grounds.

Mathematically, the universe came from nothing, as physical laws, thus math, breaks down in retrograde about one Planck time before the bang.

There is no verifiable evidence of anything before the bang. The verifiable evidence is that it came from nothing.

You and I both believe it was caused, of course by different causes, yet there is no evidence for this in the hypothesis.

 

[LuisDantas]

The question of WHETHER God Is...cannot (at least at the moment) be proven one way or the other.

Oh, it sure can, both ways even. And it can not. It depends entirely on which conception of God is presented for consideration.

Ultimately, "God" by itself is just a word. It has no inherent meaning.

 

[shunyadragon]

The objective verifiable evidence does not reflect that the universe began naturally, else the various hypotheses would be theories.

You cannot tell the difference from hypothesis and theories.

So, the laws of nature have no relation to randomness, and randomness does not cause anything. That is pure illogical nonsense. A bolt of lightning kills someone, that wasn´t random. it was death was preplanned in the laws of nature.

The randomness of the strike of the death. The Laws of Nature and the environment are the cause of the death by lightning strike

Some ballooning baby spiders land in the fire of a fire pit in someoneś back yard, not randomness, planned by nature.

Nature is not planned the randomness of a single event is not a cause. The Laws of Nature and the environment are the cause.

So, in the alleged primordial world the water ran down the rocks and not randomly, but planned by nature, leached out the correct chemicals, in the right proportions, to come together at the right spot, to create life in an unknown way, all planned by nature.

Nature is not planned, The chemicals and environment that exist at any point in time are caused by the Laws of Nature.

 

[shunyadragon]

LOL, I was responding to someone who said there was no randomness in nature, and characterizing what must be his beliefs. Do you know what satire is.

@Dan From Smithville, and I are both referring to that randomness only refers to the unpredicability of the occurrence of a single event. The cause of the events and the possible range of outcomes of the events is the Laws of Nature.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL, I was responding to someone who said there was no randomness in nature, and characterizing what must be his beliefs. Do you know what satire is.

I do know what satire is. Perhaps when you have some, you can show me your version of it. What I saw was a standard creationist response to statements based in evidence.

I read the post you were responding to. I did not see a statement that there was no randomness in nature. In fact, I saw the opposite and a good explanation of how randomness is not a cause, but a condition.

Exactly what part of your post was satire?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Mathematically, the universe came from nothing, as physical laws, thus math, breaks down in retrograde about one Planck time before the bang.

There is no verifiable evidence of anything before the bang. The verifiable evidence is that it came from nothing.

You and I both believe it was caused, of course by different causes, yet there is no evidence for this in the hypothesis.

Nothing you say here indicates something creating itself. That conclusion cannot arise from what you have stated.

The conclusion about events before the Big Bang can best be summed up by the statement "we do not know". Not knowing or having evidence does not default to a claim that something came from nothing. That something could come from nothing would require evidence to base that conclusion on. We do not have evidence that says that.

My belief does not preclude the use of science in observing, analyzing and understanding what did happen.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville, and I are both referring to that randomness only refers to the unpredicability of the occurrence of a single event. The cause of the events and the possible range of outcomes of the events is the Laws of Nature.

Exactly. I am not sure what the basis of the alleged satire was, but not anything I read in your post.

 

[lukethethird]

The objective verifiable evidence does not reflect that the universe began naturally, else the various hypotheses would be theories.

So, the laws of nature have no relation to randomness, and randomness does not cause anything. That is pure illogical nonsense. A bolt of lightning kills someone, that wasn´t random. it was death was preplanned in the laws of nature.

Some ballooning baby spiders land in the fire of a fire pit in someoneś back yard, not randomness, planned by nature.

So, in the alleged primordial world the water ran down the rocks and not randomly, but planned by nature, leached out the correct chemicals, in the right proportions, to come together at the right spot, to create life in an unknown way, all planned by nature.

Your slippery elocution is summed up thusly.

Randomness is a law of nature.

Thanks for clearing all that up for us.

 

[KelseyR]

God knows all. Thus, He knows, that He exists.

Thesis: X knows everything.
Corollary: X knows about the existence of himself.
Conclusion: The existence of X is proven.

Do you know why it is impossible for humankind to come to a common opinion about the existence of God? Because there are two Gods and the second one does not exist.

We mostly get un-natural un-compassionate feeling, when somebody tells us, that God exists and he knows it for sure. Such human makes us at least try hard to debunk him or to make him sound ridiculous by twisting and corrupting original wording his proof. But it is because there are two basic options among all religions (including Atheism): Existing God and Non-existing god (idol). We are stuck with lust to the second one, thus, we intuitively know, that our “god” is non-existing one. But keep in mind, that a thesis in Scientific Community is not premise and not assumption.

 

[KelseyR]

The argument is unreasonable, and evidence is completely absent. I'd hesitate to call this scientific proof.