• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scientific Proof of God

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Your belief shouldn´t. Cosmology is a real interest of mine. I don´t discount it, but neither do I put a lot of stock in just plain ideaś with no evidence. interesting, but mean little

Something creating itself depends upon your definition of what creating is.

The steady staters said the BB was something creating itself. They went crazy over the first cause, believing the universe had just simply existed eternally.
I find it all fascinating as well, though I do not have as much time to devote to following the work as closely as I once did.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
It is not true! I have no circular argument! Prove the accusation of me in scientific stupidity once and for all or stop trolling!
I am not trolling you or accusing you of anything. I am pointing out the obvious logical flaw in your syllogism. Your premises assume the existence of God that you are trying to show is the logical conclusion of those premises. It is a circular argument.

Though flawed, I respect your attempt at trying this. Something can be learned from it, even though it is not a good argument.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Randomness is very unpredictable, that is why it is random.
That is why the occurrence of individual events are unpredictable, but not the outcomeof natural processses that are determined by the Laws of nature..

There are a whole variety of mathematical formulaś regarding the likeliness for the existence of the universe, the likliness of a planet to support life in the universe, and the likliness that abiogenesis would take place on that planet.

Likeliness, by definition does not equate to randomness. It is a layman's word, not used in math, but refers to probability. Probability is a concept in statistics, and measures the probability of outcomes and not causes. It remains the causes of the outcome of cause and effect events is the Laws of Nature.

Many are formulated by atheists. Look them up, very interesting.

Not meaningful and without references.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Something creating itself depends upon your definition of what creating is.

The concept of self-creation is not science. In science the cause of our physical existence is the Laws of Nature.

The steady staters said the BB was something creating itself.

The hypothesis of steady state universe died along time ago. No the proponents of Steady State never equated the Big Band as something creating itself.

They went crazy over the first cause, believing the universe had just simply existed eternally.

No, no one went crazy over the first cause. You have creative imagination.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I have written word "thesis", not "premise" in the thread. Look up their meaning in Webster Dictionary!
Definition of thesis. 1 : a dissertation embodying results of original research and especially substantiating a specific view especially : one written by a candidate for an academic degree.

2a : a proposition to be proved or one advanced without proof : hypothesis.
b: a position or proposition that a person (such as a candidate for scholastic honors) advances and offers to maintain by argument
Definition of THESIS

It is definition 2 that is relevant to your use of thesis. Proposition is another word for premise.

A thesis in this context is a premise.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
So, the set of Laws is as much complex as the Nature itself. Where the design of Laws came from?
The laws are formalized statements of observations that are consistent and, to our knowledge, universal.

You should check with Polymath257, he is a local physics expert, and perhaps can offer much more informed answers of the possible origin of the physical laws of nature. Though there are probably a few others that can help too. Subduction Zone is another that has insight into those things.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Definition of thesis. 1 : a dissertation embodying results of original research and especially substantiating a specific view especially : one written by a candidate for an academic degree.

2a : a proposition to be proved or one advanced without proof : hypothesis.
b: a position or proposition that a person (such as a candidate for scholastic honors) advances and offers to maintain by argument
Definition of THESIS

It is definition 2 that is relevant to your use of thesis. Proposition is another word for premise.

A thesis in this context is a premise.
Position (proposition) is not Premise. The premise by definition in Dictionaries is simply CONDITION. As example: if I am ill, I am staying in hospital. Here word ill - premise to stay in hospital.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Position (proposition) is not Premise. The premise by definition in Dictionaries is simply CONDITION. As example: if I am ill, I am staying in hospital. Here word ill - premise to stay in hospital.
premise
noun
prem·ise | \ ˈpre-məs \
variants: or less commonly premiss
Definition of premise
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: a proposition antecedently supposed or proved as a basis of argument or inferencespecifically : either of the first two propositions of a syllogism from which the conclusion is drawn
b: something assumed or taken for granted : PRESUPPOSITION
2premises also premisses plural : matters previously statedspecifically : the preliminary and explanatory part of a deed or of a bill in equity
3premises also premisses plural [ from its being identified in the premises of the deed ]

a: a tract of land with the buildings thereon
b: a building or part of a building usually with its appurtenances (such as grounds)
Definition of PREMISE

Note definition 1a and the use of proposition for premise. We are drifting off point into a semantic argument that does not free your syllogism from the burden of being circular.

Let us try it this way and perhaps it will become clear. Below I have copied your syllogism. To each premise and the conclusion I am adding explanation to reveal the circularity.

Thesis: X knows everything. (In order to know everything God is already assumed to exist by this premise.)

Corollary: X knows about the existence of himself. (In order to know Himself and that there is a Himself to know God is already assumed to exist by this premise.)

Conclusion: The existence of X is proven. (What this conclusion essentially states is the existence of God is proven by the existence of God.)

I hope you are aware that failure of your syllogism does not mean the obligate acceptance of a default position that God does not exist. It only means the syllogism was flawed and nothing else.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Thesis: X knows everything. (In order to know everything God is already assumed to exist by this premise.)
Your are malicioulsy twisting my proof. Why are you replacing word Thesis with Assumption ("premise")? Did I write:

Premise: X knows everything. ???

No. I have written:

Thesis: X knows everything.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
So, the set of Laws is as much complex as the Nature itself. Where the design of Laws came from?

The Laws of Nature are what science describes, such as the Law of Gravity, Laws of Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, and the natural properties that form the basics of chemistry.

"The design of Laws come from?" There is no known element of design known in nature. If you are a Theist God Created our physical existence. God is not an engineer, God is a Creator. None of the scripture of the world's religions mantions God fesigning anything. They describe God as the Creator.

If you are Ontological Naturalist the Laws of Nature simply have always existed.

There is no objective verifiable evidence that could determine if either is true.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Your are malicioulsy twisting my proof. Why are you replacing word Thesis with Assumption ("premise")? Did I write:

Premise: X knows everything. ???

No. I have written:

Thesis: X knows everything.
Your wording does not change anything. Premise is the better word when used as a logical argument as you presented it. It remains the problem of being circular, because you assume God exists, which is the conclusion as I previous specifically described and defined with references.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Wrong. The Nature has started, there was Virtual Big Bang. Thus, laws have origin. Who is it?

There is absolutely no falsifiable hypothesis that Nature or the Laws of Nature began with the expansion of our universe. Actually some hypothesis for the origins of our universe propose a cyclic universe. The possible beginning of our physical existence is fundamentally unknown.
 
Last edited:

shmogie

Well-Known Member
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?
The concept of self-creation is not science. In science the cause of our physical existence is the Laws of Nature.



The hypothesis of steady state universe died along time ago. No the proponents of Steady State never equated the Big Band as something creating itself.



No, no one went crazy over the first cause. You have creative imagination.
How many biographies of the steady staters of the early twentieth century have you read ? I think none.

I suggest you look at Hubble, in particular, as one who began destroying the steady state idea, pay particular attention to his received correspondence from other Astronomers. You will find he was roundly criticized and condemned. When the BB theory was first postulated, those presenting the idea were accused of defining a universe that created itself.

The laws of science are big on observation, recreation and evidence too.

You state flatly everything exists as a result of the laws of nature. That is faith in something that hasn´t been observed ( though there may be some evidence). Never recreated, though Cern might make a mini universe, though I doubt it.

Here is the major problem with your faith, the laws of nature, the laws of science, all physical laws exist within the universe. They are products of the creation of the universe.

There is much speculation about what existed before the universe, or outside of it now. ( if there is an outside). There is little evidence to confirm any of these concepts, there is little evidence to prove whether our laws within the universe exist outside of it. They may be totally different, or there may be none at all.

It is a little chauvinistic to state that universal laws existed and are at play outside of the bubble we are in as we hurtle through space.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
How many biographies of the steady staters of the early twentieth century have you read ? I think none.

I suggest you look at Hubble, in particular, as one who began destroying the steady state idea, pay particular attention to his received correspondence from other Astronomers. You will find he was roundly criticized and condemned. When the BB theory was first postulated, those presenting the idea were accused of defining a universe that created itself.

Please cite and do not use third person hypotheticals.

The laws of science are big on observation, recreation and evidence too.

Big on observation and evidence, but nothing in terms of recreation (?).

You state flatly everything exists as a result of the laws of nature. That is faith in something that hasn´t been observed ( though there may be some evidence). Never recreated, though Cern might make a mini universe, though I doubt it.

The only thing that has been observed as objectively verifiable evidence is attributable to the Laws of Nature. If you believe there is objective verifiable evidence of anything else please cite the reference.

Here is the major problem with your faith, the laws of nature, the laws of science, all physical laws exist within the universe. They are products of the creation of the universe.

This is an assertion base don faith without any objective verifiable evidence to support anything else beside the Laws of Nature being the cause. If you can cite anything else please do.


There is much speculation about what existed before the universe, or outside of it now. ( if there is an outside). There is little evidence to confirm any of these concepts, there is little evidence to prove whether our laws within the universe exist outside of it. They may be totally different, or there may be none at all.

Not totally speculation the science of Quantum Mechanics supports the Multiverse hypothesis, and so does the cyclic universe hypothesis.

What you say is possible, and an open question, but there is absolutely no objective verifiable evidence that the beginning of our universe is the beginning of anything more than our universe. The cyclic universe hypothesis fits the the existing evidence as well as the beginning as a singularity.

Your assertion depends on the beginning of our universe being the beginning of everything, and it is an assumption based on faith with no supporting evidence.


It is a little chauvinistic to state that universal laws existed and are at play outside of the bubble we are in as we hurtle through space.

No, not chauvinistic at all. There is no other objective verifiable evidence other than the the existence of the Laws of Nature at play anywhere or everywhere.
 
Top