Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscientific

[theStudent]

The length of the thread, in the link below, is largely due to repeated questions.on the contained information. The following is open for debate.
Belief in the existence of God is scientific. Denial - unscientific.

For those who disagree with the above, please state why, and/or provide evidence for the following:

• God does not exist.
• God exists only in the mind of the believer.
• Miracles do not happen.
• The Bible is a book of myths.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 170 by theStudent]

What you're doing there is a post-hoc justification in order to avoid theft charges. Can I do the same if I'm caught by the police taking something that in any other context would be regarded as theft? "But officer, it can't be theft! These objects CLEARLY belong to me!"
If this wasn't Jesus in question, would you allow for these mental gymnastics?

[Bust Nak]

This is good.

I'll apply it to us humans for clarity.
Suppose you wrote a book. It's a deep book, because you are a deep thinker.
People buy your book, and different people get different thoughts, that could throw your conclusions way off.
These people are from all parts of the world, and getting in touch with you is not easy.
Suppose your book was to a degree, quite important. It probably could affect their lives either positively or negatively.
Some persons may try hard to locate this author. others may not bother too much. Still, others may just like the idea they got from it, and may even enjoy a bit of argument with those who got a different idea.
I know you probably will say you would try to make the book easier, or get in contact with the people, etc., but I don't want us to dwell on that just yet.
Where does that leave those who may never locate you?

With their own personal interpretation of the text. Some maybe more literal than others.

To use another example.
When the man Jesus Christ walked the earth, according to the Bible, he performed many powerful works/miracles.
Some people believed, some didn't.
In fact, one man said that it is impossible for a man to perform such works, if God is not with him.
Jesus himself said that the works he performed, should be evidence that he is from God.
If Jesus, and that man who believed, were correct...
Where does that leave those who never believed the miracles?

A ticket to hell?

Could you explain please how they are able to detect dark matter.

The explanation was right there in his post: "by measuring the effects of its gravity."

This is what NASA says "In addition to the Chandra observation, the Hubble Space Telescope, the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope and the Magellan optical telescopes were used to determine the location of the mass in the clusters. This was done by measuring the effect of gravitational lensing, where gravity from the clusters distorts light from background galaxies as predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity.

The hot gas in this collision was slowed by a drag force, similar to air resistance. In contrast, the dark matter was not slowed by the impact, because it does not interact directly with itself or the gas except through gravity. This produced the separation of the dark and normal matter seen in the data. If hot gas was the most massive component in the clusters, as proposed by alternative gravity theories, such a separation would not have been seen. Instead, dark matter is required."

[RonE]

[Replying to post 162 by theStudent]
I've included my last post below, not sure how I could be more direct or clear in my request.

[Replying to post 111 by theStudent]

When I was reading your last reply to my earlier posts it was obvious that you were still trying to twist science into your own meanings & means as witnessed by your new manifesto linked to in the OP.

In this and other postings you have, and continue, to make claims of your god. Your god is supposed to have supernatural powers. He/she/it is supposed to be the creator of the universe. Supposed to be the intelligence behind "intelligent design". Since YOU make these claims I am challenging you to provide evidence, scientifically credible evidence, of your god. The rules of this forum state that you must provide evidence of your claims.

I tried to get you to clarify your previously stated beliefs in my current post #39:

I have challenged you several times to provide evidence of your god.
Maybe I have misunderstood you:
1) Do you claim that god exists?
2) Do you claim that your god is the intelligence behind ID?

Since your answer to this was evasive I must assume your views haven't changed so I feel justified in repeating my challenge. This is the same challenge that I made in your, now abandoned, topic "What does intelligent design prove?". That challenge goes unanswered. Just for the record here's that post:

[Replying to post 95 (in What does intelligent design prove?) by theStudent]

You made an extraordinary claim of intelligent design, with your god as the creator, your god who supposedly has supernatural powers, another extraordinary claim. I asked you to provide evidence that your creator exists.
You've claimed him to have supernatural powers. That the claim is to supernatural powers doesn't excuse your inability to provide the evidence. You must either provide the evidence or retract both claims.

I fully understand if this post escaped your attention before, but I am by this post repeating my challenge, either prove your god claims or withdraw your claims.

There are many ways for you to format your response to provide evidence that meets my request. I would prefer that you make your own reply however, if your stuck on how to setup your response I would be willing to show you by creating a demo of a response that uses evidence that would be acceptable.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 171 by rikuoamero]

I'm not following you rikuoamero.
You've got me confused.
Whom did the donkey belong to?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 167 by Divine Insight]

Then I turned to an ancient fable of a God and showed that by applying the same methods of logical proof there we can demonstrate that the fictitious God character in those fables cannot be true because the existence of that God character leads to a logical contradiction.

In short, what I have done is prove, using logic, that the God described in the Biblical fables cannot exist in reality. Of course, it's always possible to write contradictory stories, so I'm not proving that the Biblical fables can't exist. Only that the God Character they describe cannot exist.

All you did was say that if A exists then it cannot not exist.

And from that you conclude that God must exist.

That is not even remotely logical because you need to first show that your God exists before you can conclude that it cannot exist. But you haven't done that.

So no, Student, you haven't even remotely done the same thing I did at all. And the fact that you can't see the difference reveals that you don't even understand the logical reasoning behind the argument I've given.

I've shown that the fictitious Biblical God Character cannot be real.

You have not show that your God exists. And therefore you are in no position to proclaim that he cannot not exist. Yet that is your claim.

Let me just reasure you that I understand you fully, on your views on God, and respect that.
I understand that the Judeo-Christian God, is not the God you favor.
Actually I believe you know that you are not alone. Many scientists are on your side, as I am sure you know.

You have been told repeatedly on this site the different between evolution and abiogenesis for many weeks now. Yet you refuse to study the difference and acknowledge i

Where did I just say abiogenesis?
Why is it that every time I mentioned evolution this is said?

You have been told repeatedly on this site the different between evolution and abiogenesis

I don't even want to know.

Evolution has a motor. It is driven by the second law of thermodynamics called entropy. The Earth is not a closed system, it receives energy from the sun and therefore it must evolve in complexity. So that is what powers evolution.

The natural laws of chemistry could actually be said to be the "motor" which is driven by the energy of the sun.

So you are wrong to say that evolution has no motor. That conflicts with known science.

I don't care how many theories and hypotheses they come up with for their little worm... or new idea... plant (A New Physics Theory of Life).
Nor do I care who chooses to hold on to their god-of-the-chasms in their bid to support Darwin's religion.
The truth will always prevail, no matter how they try to hide the truth, that they so desperately don't want to accept - that science proves life was created by an intelligence.

When do you suppose they will get this one patched?

The second law of thermodynamics applied on the origin of life is a far more complicated issue than the further development of life, since there is no "standard model" of how the first biological lifeforms emerged; only a number of competing hypotheses. The problem is discussed within the area of abiogenesis, implying gradual pre-Darwinian chemical evolution.

Hey, there's that "a word" again.
At least I didn't mention it.

Even though atheist and evolutionists enjoy these theories, I enjoy them just as much - in a different way.
I sit and laugh at the desperate scramble to cover up the truth, and the miserable blunders that result. And I sit back and wait for the next comic to come out, to see what they come up with next.
I know I am one guy that gets a lot of face exercise.

How Does Life Come From Randomness?


After all, why be make a fuss when people choose to build their house on sand, not because they are ignorant, but because the prefer to, because they hate the the rock that others build their houses on.

[benchwarmer]

I'll say one thing theStudent, you come up with the best emoticons. If there was a prize for sprinkling your posts with the coolest animated faces, I would vote for you for sure. We may not agree, but you bring a smile to my face with these my friend.

You have been told repeatedly on this site the different between evolution and abiogenesis for many weeks now. Yet you refuse to study the difference and acknowledge i

Where did I just say abiogenesis?

Exactly. You haven't. That's the problem.

Why is it that every time I mentioned evolution this is said?

Because you have yet to acknowledge the difference between the two.

You have been told repeatedly on this site the different between evolution and abiogenesis

I don't even want to know.

And that is the root of the problem. You don't want to know. This is the Science and Religion sub forum so you have to expect scientific definitions. If you refuse to acknowledge them it's hard for us to talk the same language.

I get it if you don't believe any of the theories that have been proposed under abiogenesis so far, but we can't even discuss the topic with you since you refuse to acknowledge this field of science and the fact that it has nothing to do with the separate field of biological evolution.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 176 by benchwarmer]

I'm glad I can at least bring a smile to your face.
I think you and I have an understanding...

And that is the root of the problem. You don't want to know. This is the Science and Religion sub forum so you have to expect scientific definitions. If you refuse to acknowledge them it's hard for us to talk the same language.

at least in some things.
I hope you realize what it is

I don't even want to know.

[Divine Insight]

How Does Life Come From Randomness?

It doesn't because this universe isn't random. If it were random there would be no organization to it at all.

And besides, you act like this type of question suggests that there must then be some intelligent designer behind thing. But it has already been demonstrated that this idea if extremely flawed. If you hypothesize the existence of an intelligent designer as being necessary for things that are complex and intelligent, then that hypothesis would need to also apply to your imagined "God".

Finally, even if you could provide a logically sound argument for the irrational conclusions you have proposing this still wouldn't point to Christianity anyway. To the contrary, there is nothing intelligent about the Biblical God so it wouldn't qualify as an intelligent designer in any case.

Just think about it for a brief moment. According to the Bible its imaginary God has commanded that men are to cut off the foreskins of their penises. This would imply a designer God who was a completely idiot and had made a mistake that requires men to correct it for him.

Clearly the Biblical narrative of a God does not qualify as an intelligent designer anyway. So if the universe requires an intelligent designer Hebrew mythology (i.e. the Bible) would clearly not be a viable candidate. So other religions like Buddhism, for example, would be far more likely to be the correct description of an intelligent designer anyway.

So your arguments don't even support the Bible.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 178 by Divine Insight]

That's not my question.
It's a link to a video you might enjoy, and agree with.
So I suggest you look at it, before coming to a conclusion.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 178 by Divine Insight]

That's not my question.
It's a link to a video you might enjoy, and agree with.
So I suggest you look at it, before coming to a conclusion.

I watched the video link you had provided. It's not impressive. I have studied physics enough to know that this universe is not entirely random. If it were there wouldn't even be any laws of physics because everything would just behave randomly which it clearly does not.

Also, contrary to your incorrect assumption there is no need for any intelligent designer just for things to not be random.

You may find this shocking but other people have already studied these sorts of questions and have realized that an intelligent designer is simply not required.

Other people on this forum and even in this thread have attempted to explain these things to you but you don't seem to be interested in hearing the truth. You appear to be completely ignoring every point they have made.