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.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 219 by RonE]

And as you posted recently in the topic "What does Intelligent Design prove? post #10 ":

I'm not following you.
What is the point to this reference?

This time it is you who is shutting their eyes to the evidence and the same goes. The scientific community accepts the evidence of evolution. Do you think that "everyone is out of step but Johnny"?

Who is the scientific community, and who's Johhny?

You have several unanswered calls for evidence of your claims. Mine in post #212 goes all the way back to post #183 has been requested several times. Others in post # 213 & post #215. I know it's really inconvenient to keep getting hounded for evidence but YOU made claims and on this site you must be prepared to provide the evidence to support your claim or to withdraw your claim.

You have gotten your answer.
Also, if you are following the thread, you are getting added information.
I don't know why you are not replying to any of it, but keep repeating your request.

[Neatras]

I can't tell you how frustrating this is.

I want to highlight exactly how theStudent operates; he does it in a way that prevents moderators from taking action.

But I want you to listen to me for just a while, and try to see the damage theStudent is causing. As long as he is on this forum, actual discussion cannot take place, because he has put a block on reason and logic, and is simply turning the entire science subforum into a repetitive cycle of rhteoric.

[Replying to post 185 by Bust Nak]

So where does that leave people who don't have that vitally important information, when there are three camps all claiming to have contradicting "vitally important information straight" provided directly by God via the holy spirit? Nothing you said has changed my point: It's just your words against theirs.

Your point hasn't changed, neither has mine. There are winners, and there are losers. There are rules.
That's being played out in Rio, right now.

The laws of logic:
identity - A is A.
non-contradictory - A cannot be A, and yet not be A.
excluded middle - A is either A, or it is not.

The above is an evasion tactic. It is verbosity utilized to assert dominance in a discussion without supplying evidence. The "laws of identity" are unrelated to the topic at hand, but it is apparently allowed because even if it is reported, the moderators refuse to evaluate it.

Reason and logic tells us that a mere explosion doesn't produce such results. (although they claim there was no bang, just expansion - expansion from what? A speck smaller than the smallest part of an atom. How do they know this? The same way they "know" there was a LUCA. Spec-spec-speculation... as usual.)
Hence, there is scientific evidence that a lawgiver would be the source of the laws, and order, that govern the universe.
There is therefore, a wealth of scientific evidence that supports an intelligent creator/designer.

This is two-fold. In on sweep, he has mischaracterized the theories made by actual scientists. And then he asserted, without providing evidence, that "a lawgiver would be the source of the laws, and order, that govern the universe."

However, he has not supplied evidence for this, merely claimed that to be the case.

Strike 1, theStudent. You have NOT provided evidence for your position. When you claim that the above is a 'fact', you are lying.

However, in our view, we do have scientific evidence of a creator.
It's of course, not my intention to change the views of others who hold to a different view.
The FACTS show that we do.

theStudent, a Newsweek article, and one written to be favorable to Christianity, is not evidence. It is not a "fact", it is just as much speculation as you accuse scientists of presenting. You are so warped in your ideology that you have a double standard to defeat all others. Where everything that supports your position is a fact, regardless of what it actually is, while everything to the contrary is speculation.

We do not know how the first cause always existed. Nor do we need to know imho, and I believe, nor can we know, because that would mean that we are no longer human. Since we would need super intelligence to comprehend.
So scientists, imo, are "chasing the wind".
Imo, they should accept the facts.
The facts are, the first cause is, and it is the source of dynamic energy, responsible for our existence. Now they should move on.

This demonstrates everything wrong with your methodology. Do you know what I, blastcat, benchwarmer, Divine Insight, and others actually see when we consider science? We see a method for finding new information. But what do you suggest?

"They should accept the facts... now they should move on."

But once again, you haven't presented facts. You've merely made the fallacious assertion that the facts are on your side. I'm still waiting to see these facts. And as long as you fail to present them, we are NOT moving on from this, because science will eventually find a lot more to say about it.

It is because, the Bible, which is available to +90% of the world's population, and which people came to trust, because of it proving to be reliable, said "God did it."

Congratulations, a book says your god did it.

And you know what? I don't care. Actual science cares about what we can learn from the universe, and how we can use what we've learned. But you're content with stopping all inquiries, stopping all discoveries in favor of your precious presuppositions not being challenged. You have stated that scientists should accept the read: your "facts" and move on. Your kind of thinking is a disease that spoils everything good about scientific discussions, and I won't stomach it.

I have already demonstrated that the Bible is credible, by using two major kinds of sources, to establish the facts and information that represent the most accurate version of events.
These are the primary sources - accounts of people who were there, and secondary sources - documentation and analysis of primary sources and other relevant information after the fact.

Those "facts" are still disputed. And you have no method for actually giving them any backing. Rather than risk having them scrutinized and challenged, you elevate them to some nebulous realm of being beyond reproach, stating "they are facts, accept them and move on." Do you realize how dangerous it is, what you're doing?

Imagine if a snake oil salesman employed the same techniques as you. He would be lying, pure and simple, and by your logic, there would be no method for debate, we would have to accept and move on from there. When the only methods we have for exposing lies is the existence of conflicting evidence and the absence of evidence for the lie, telling us to move on and accept something uncritically is about the most dangerous thing. You are weaponizing domination tactics in your rhetoric.

I will now begin on your next post.

Let me know which of these are unaceptable in science.

Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system. Traditionally, neuroscience is recognized as a branch of biology. However, it is currently an interdisciplinary science that collaborates with other fields such as chemistry, cognitive science, computer science, engineering, linguistics, mathematics, medicine (including neurology), genetics, and allied disciplines including philosophy, physics, and psychology. It also exerts influence on other fields, such as neuroeducation, neuroethics, and neurolaw. The term neurobiology is often used interchangeably with the term neuroscience, although the former refers specifically to the biology of the nervous system, whereas the latter refers to the entire science of the nervous system (thus can include elements of psychology as well as the purely physical sciences).

Dualism (philosophy of mind)
Argument from neuroscience
In some contexts, the decisions that a person makes can be detected up to 10 seconds in advance by means of scanning their brain activity. Furthermore, subjective experiences and covert attitudes can be detected, as can mental imagery. This is strong empirical evidence that cognitive processes have a physical basis in the brain.

Psychology is a Hub Science

Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. The term was probably coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – c. 495 BC). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument and systematic presentation.[

Psychology is the study of behavior and mind, embracing all aspects of conscious and unconscious experience as well as thought. It is an academic discipline and an applied science which seeks to understand individuals and groups by establishing general principles and researching specific cases. In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is called a psychologist and can be classified as a social, behavioral, or cognitive scientist. Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and biological processes that underlie cognitive functions and behaviors.

Psychologists explore concepts such as perception, cognition, attention, emotion, intelligence, phenomenology, motivation, brain functioning, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships, including psychological resilience, family resilience, and other areas. Psychologists of diverse orientations also consider the unconscious mind. Psychologists employ empirical methods to infer causal and correlational relationships between psychosocial variables. In addition, or in opposition, to employing empirical and deductive methods, some—especially clinical and counseling psychologists — at times rely upon symbolic interpretation and other inductive techniques. Psychology has been described as a "hub science", with psychological findings linking to research and perspectives from the social sciences, natural sciences, medicine, humanities, and philosophy.

Psychologists take an empirical approach to causality, investigating how people and non-human animals detect or infer causation from sensory information, prior experience and innate knowledge.

[quote][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w ... ve science is the interdisciplinary, scientific study of the mind and its processes. It examines the nature, the tasks, and the functions of cognition. Cognitive scientists study intelligence and behavior, with a focus on how nervous systems represent, process, and transform information. Mental faculties of concern to cognitive scientists include perception, language, memory, attention, reasoning, and emotion; to understand these faculties, cognitive scientists borrow from fields such as psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics, and anthropology. The analyses typical of cognitive science span many levels of organization, from learning and decision to logic and planning; from neural circuitry to modular brain organization. The fundamental concept of cognitive science is that "thinking can best be understood in terms of representational structures in the mind and computational procedures that operate on those structures."

Cognition is "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses."[1] It encompasses processes such as knowledge, attention, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and "computation", problem solving and decision making, comprehension and production of language, etc. Human cognition is conscious and unconscious, concrete or abstract, as well as intuitive (like knowledge of a language) and conceptual (like a model of a language). Cognitive processes use existing knowledge and generate new knowledge.

Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information. It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art and is normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature. Reason, or as aspect of it, is sometimes referred to as rationality. And a distinction is sometimes made between discursive reason, reason proper, and intuitive reason.

Reason or "reasoning" is associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect. Reason, like habit or intuition, is one of the ways by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea. For example, it is the means by which rational beings understand themselves to think about cause and effect, truth and falsehood, and what is good or bad. It is also closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs, attitudes, traditions, and institutions, and therefore with the capacity for freedom and self-determination.

A thought experiment considers some hypothesis, theory, or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. Given the structure of the experiment, it may or may not be possible to actually perform it, and if it can be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question.

The common goal of a thought experiment is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question: "A thought experiment is a device with which one performs an intentional, structured process of intellectual deliberation in order to speculate, within a specifiable problem domain, about potential consequents (or antecedents) for a designated antecedent (or consequent)" (Yeates, 2004, p. 150).

Famous examples of thought experiments include Schrödinger's cat, illustrating quantum indeterminacy through the manipulation of a perfectly sealed environment and a tiny bit of radioactive substance, and Maxwell's demon, which attempts to demonstrate the ability of a hypothetical finite being to violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Discovery (observation) is the act of detecting something new, or something "old" that had been unknown. With reference to sciences and academic disciplines, discovery is the observation of new phenomena, new actions, or new events and providing new reasoning to explain the knowledge gathered through such observations with previously acquired knowledge from abstract thought and everyday experiences. A discovery may sometimes be based on earlier discoveries, collaborations, or ideas. Some discoveries represent a radical breakthrough in knowledge or technology.

History of anthropology
There was a tendency in late eighteenth century Enlightenment thought to understand human society as natural phenomena that behaved according to certain principles and that could be observed empirically. In some ways, studying the language, culture, physiology, and artifacts of European colonies was not unlike studying the flora and fauna of those places.

Anthropology, that is to say the science that treats of man, is divided ordinarily and with reason into Anatomy, which considers the body and the parts, and Psychology, which speaks of the soul.

Waitz defined anthropology as "the science of the nature of man". By nature he meant matter animated by "the Divine breath"; i.e., he was an animist. Following Broca's lead, Waitz points out that anthropology is a new field, which would gather material from other fields, but would differ from them in the use of comparative anatomy, physiology, and psychology to differentiate man from "the animals nearest to him". He stresses that the data of comparison must be empirical, gathered by experimentation. The history of civilization as well as ethnology are to be brought into the comparison. It is to be presumed fundamentally that the species, man, is a unity, and that "the same laws of thought are applicable to all men".

[/quote]

This is another tactic you've employed. When your unsubstantiated claims are pointed out, you hide behind walls of text, and reference real science.

I'm going to make this very clear.

Making claims, and then referencing real science, without connecting the two, does not give your original claims credence. In your article quoted about Dualism, they even state the exact opposite of your position.
"This is strong empirical evidence that cognitive processes have a physical basis in the brain."

Your quote-mining has no place here.

I want the moderators to know that theStudent is not providing evidence for his claims when he does this sort of thing.

He will do the following with machine efficiency:
A. Make a claim with no backing.
B. Claim, without evidence, that his position is backed by some scientific field.
C. Quote from that field (and will invariably do so in a way that shows the field in question does NOT support his argument)
D. Use the quote to argue that people challenging him are actually arguing against science itself, when that isn't the case. They are arguing against his original claim, protected by a wall of verbosity and grandstanding.

Whatever the case, we are concerned with truth, and facts, which I have already presented, but will conclude with another example.

And this is exactly what we have seen for dozens of pages in this thread alone, ignoring all the other examples in this forum. theStudent has, without hesitation, stated that he has provided facts. Anyone reading can agree with me when I say he has not.

I know one thing for sure.
There is scientific, Biblical, rational and logical evidence, that an intelligent mind designed the intelligent minds of humans. Hence, with regard to how life came to be, for sure - God did it.[/color]
That is a lot of evidence.

But the "scientific evidence" is just a repeated assertion by theStudent. He has fallen so far into his own rhetoric that he believes, somewhere, somehow, there IS scientific evidence. And so he no longer sees a reason to actually bring that evidence into discussions, and merely claims that he already has. So this new assertion falls flat.

theStudent, when you make assertions one after the other, and they all rely on the previous assertions to work, when each and every individual assertion is brought over, what happens to your most recent ones? They clatter and fall like dominoes.

Next.

On the contrary, scintific discoveries establish or verify the truthfulness or reliability of the Bible.

With all your previous assertions called into question, you're going to actually have to provide evidence for this statement. And by evidence, I don't mean claiming you have evidence. I mean providing the evidence you claim you have.

Creation of the universe and the earth, and all life on it, has been demonstrated, and is therefore verifiable, and solidly based on facts. Logical, reasnable, and sensible people are inclined to that evidence.

Facts you have not presented, but have pretended to present. You're lying. The "facts" are just repeated assertions that you HAVE facts.

Next.

You have gotten your answer.
Also, if you are following the thread, you are getting added information.
I don't know why you are not replying to any of it, but keep repeating your request.

RonE, I hope your question has been answered. theStudent has confused facts for assertions. He has decided that rhetoric can be used in place of studies, in place of evidence, in place of actually substantiating his claims.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 221 by theStudent]

[Replying to post 219 by RonE]

And as you posted recently in the topic "What does Intelligent Design prove? post #10 ":

I'm not following you.
What is the point to this reference?

If you had posted that quote & read again what you wrote you might see… actually you probably do and you probably remember the debate. But, here is it again:

No.
The evidence has been demonstrated.
Just because someone shuts their eyes to evidence, does not nullify it.

So, for our other readers this was theStudent slamming another debater, claiming he’d been ignoring the “evidence� theStudent had been providing. So now theStudent is ignoring the evidence of evolution that has been presented, repeatedly by various other debaters. So I’m just using his own words, back to him in this case.

This time it is you who is shutting their eyes to the evidence and the same goes. The scientific community accepts the evidence of evolution. Do you think that "everyone is out of step but Johnny"?

Who is the scientific community,

Scientists, everyone in fact, should be skeptical of all claims made, and a careful examination of the evidence should be the norm. So what? This doesn't say that any of these folks are claiming anything more than to be skeptical of claims of evolution, it doesn't say they are claiming it to be false. How do we know who these people are, what their credentials are, are they knowledgeable, 21st century scientists? When/where did these people consent to having their names added to this list.

Are you claiming who these people are and the circumstances of this list? Please, provide your evidence.

and who's Johhny?

Let’s see if you can figure out who Johnny is.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 221 by theStudent]

I decided to break my response to your post #221 into two parts because it was getting rather long.

You have several unanswered calls for evidence of your claims. Mine in post #212 goes all the way back to post #183 has been requested several times. Others in post # 213 & post #215. I know it's really inconvenient to keep getting hounded for evidence but YOU made claims and on this site you must be prepared to provide the evidence to support your claim or to withdraw your claim.

You have gotten your answer.

Well, no, I haven't because you have still not provided any credible scientific proof of your god.

Also, if you are following the thread, you are getting added information.

Extra? I don't see you've provided anything other that what I asked for and only some of that

I don't know why you are not replying to any of it, but keep repeating your request.

Please send me any post #'s where you've asked for something that I've not responded to.

In the mean time I assume you will get right on that list of your credible evidence of god to backup your extraordinary claims of your supernatural god. Since you gave me less than 45 minutes before you hit the impatient button I'll give you an hour before sending you a reminder.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 217 by Bust Nak]

First, let me say that as I said before, I am against no man's choice, whether it concerns God, religion, chocolate...



Religious views of Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being".

That is the view of science you should stick to.

Thank you.
I'm sure you'll let me know when I don't.

The word "create" implies a creator. You are already predispose towards a god with that claim.

Are you applying this to the scientists that speak of the creation of the universe, who don't even believe in a God creator?

Yes.

How can scientists not believe in a creator God, and at the same time be predispose towards a god creator?
Isn't that against the Laws of logic?

But the universe has became more and more chaotic as time passes.

Could you provide evidence of this please.

That's easy - look up any experiment designed to test the second law of thermodynamics. You can do some in your own kitchen without any specialist equipment.

The evidence I have do not show a universe becoming chaotic.
It is still ordered. Hence astronomers continue to plot their travels throughout space.
So I say you have no evidence of what you claim, hence why you can't provide any.
Isn't that because, again scientist speculate that the universe is a closed system, when it really isn't?
And isn't it a known fact that entropy takes place both in the universe as well as the earth?

A speck smaller than the smallest part of an atom. How do they know this? The same way they "know" there was a LUCA. Spec-spec-speculation... as usual.)

Spec-spec-speculation, backed up with empirical evidence. That's what makes it scientific.

Where is the empirical evidence?
I'd be happy to see it. Could you show it to me please?

How about I show you to the literature instead? Testing the expansion of the universe isn't exactly something you can do in you own home. Here is an easy to read educational piece to get started on.

How does Red Shift show that the universe was a speck? There is no evidence here.
Speculation.

I was trying to explain how Zeus, Hercules and Thor are not supposed to be creator gods, you were comparing apples to oranges when you compared non creator gods to creator gods. Try comparing other creators such as Ptah to God instead.

So now you are sending me back to the chicken-egg dilemma - "Which came first" - in this case, the created, or the creator?
That's a hillarious question, isn't it?

There were many creatures the Egyptians venerated as sacred.
These included the bull, the cat, the cow, the crocodile, the falcon, the frog, the hippopotamus, the ibis, the jackal, the lion, the ram, the scarab, the scorpion, the serpent, the vulture, and the wolf.

The frog was a symbol of fertility, and the book The Gods of the Egyptians tells us that “the Frog-god and the Frog-goddess were believed to have played very prominent parts in the creation of the world.�
The god Ptah, according to the “Memphite theology� devised by the priests of Memphis, was the creator (sharing this distinction with other gods such as Thoth, Ra, and Osiris), and his mythological activity apparently was modeled on the actual role of the Pharaoh in human affairs. Classical historians describe the temple of Ptah at Memphis as being periodically enlarged and beautified. Enormous statues adorned it.
The Apis bull, a specially marked live bull, was kept at Memphis and worshiped as the incarnation of the god Osiris, though in certain legends it is also connected with the god Ptah. At its death, public mourning was carried on, and an impressive burial of the bull was made at nearby Saqqara. (When the tomb there was opened in the 19th century, investigators found the embalmed bodies of over 60 bulls and cows.) The selection of a new Apis bull and its enthronement at Memphis was an equally elaborate ceremony.

Another one of the Egytian deities. What is the difference between this and the others?

Ptah, God of Craftsmen, Rebirth and Creation

The Apis bull was regarded as the Ba of Ptah while it was living. The bull's main sanctuary was near the temple of Ptah in Mennefer, near the bull's embalming house where he became linked to Osiris after death. Herodotus wrote that the Apis bull was conceived from a bolt of lightning, it was black with a while diamond on his forehead, the image of a vulture on his back, double hairs on his tail and a scarab mark under his tongue. The lightning was thought by the Egyptians to be Ptah in the form of a celestial fire, who mated with a heifer. With a creation god as his father, the bull was believed to be a fertility symbol. The heifer that produced the bull was venerated as a form of the goddess Isis. There was only one Apis bull at a time, and the cult of the Apis bull started at the beginning of Egyptian history. While alive, the bull was known as the 'Spokesman' of Ptah and his 'Glorious Soul'.

He was married to either Bast, Sekhmet or Wadjet. His union with Bast was thought to have produced a lion-headed god called Maahes, while Nefertem was his son by either Sekhmet or Wadjet. Different towns believed that Ptah was married to their goddess, and thus the confusion with his family ties. Mennefer had a triad consisting of Ptah, Sekhmet and Nefertem. The architect of the Saqqara Step Pyramid, Imhotep, after he became deified came to be regarded as the son of Ptah. As father and creator of the gods, the deities he created first were Nun and Naunet and the nine gods of the Ennead. The nine were Tem, Shu, Tefnut, Geb, Nut, Osiris, Isis, Set, and Nephthys who were considered to be both the teeth and lips of the mouth of Ptah and the semen and the hands of Tem.

In Egyptian mythology, Ptah (/pəˈtɑ�/; Egyptian: ptḥ, probably vocalized as Pitaḥ in ancient Egyptian) is the demiurge of Memphis, god of craftsmen and architects. In the triad of Memphis, he is the spouse of Sekhmet and the father of Nefertum. He was also regarded as the father of the sage Imhotep.

demiurge

In the Platonic, Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic, and Neoplatonic schools of philosophy, the demiurge (/ˈdɛmiˌɜ�rdʒ/) is an artisan-like figure responsible for the fashioning and maintenance of the physical universe. The term was adopted by the Gnostics. Although a fashioner, the demiurge is not necessarily the same as the creator figure in the familiar monotheistic sense, because both the demiurge itself plus the material from which the demiurge fashions the universe are considered either uncreated and eternal, or the product of some other being, depending on the system.

The word "demiurge" is an English word from demiurgus, a Latinized form of the Greek δημιου�γός, dēmiourgos which was originally a common noun meaning "craftsman" or "artisan", but gradually it came to mean "producer" and eventually "creator".

Please note the difference between the mythological gods, and the God of the Bible.

Dualism and Philosophy.

Could you show me where science does not acknowledge and use philosophy.
That seems to be conflicting with the information I have.

Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. The term was probably coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – c. 495 BC). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument and systematic presentation.[

Psychology is the study of behavior and mind, embracing all aspects of conscious and unconscious experience as well as thought. It is an academic discipline and an applied science which seeks to understand individuals and groups by establishing general principles and researching specific cases. In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is called a psychologist and can be classified as a social, behavioral, or cognitive scientist. Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and biological processes that underlie cognitive functions and behaviors.

Psychologists explore concepts such as perception, cognition, attention, emotion, intelligence, phenomenology, motivation, brain functioning, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships, including psychological resilience, family resilience, and other areas. Psychologists of diverse orientations also consider the unconscious mind. Psychologists employ empirical methods to infer causal and correlational relationships between psychosocial variables. In addition, or in opposition, to employing empirical and deductive methods, some—especially clinical and counseling psychologists — at times rely upon symbolic interpretation and other inductive techniques. Psychology has been described as a "hub science", with psychological findings linking to research and perspectives from the social sciences, natural sciences, medicine, humanities, and philosophy.

Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system. Traditionally, neuroscience is recognized as a branch of biology. However, it is currently an interdisciplinary science that collaborates with other fields such as chemistry, cognitive science, computer science, engineering, linguistics, mathematics, medicine (including neurology), genetics, and allied disciplines including philosophy, physics, and psychology. It also exerts influence on other fields, such as neuroeducation, neuroethics, and neurolaw. The term neurobiology is often used interchangeably with the term neuroscience, although the former refers specifically to the biology of the nervous system, whereas the latter refers to the entire science of the nervous system (thus can include elements of psychology as well as the purely physical sciences).

That is not scientific at all, like I said in my very first response to you, you've crippled yourself by limiting your topic as a scientific enquiry.

What is not scientific?

It is also a fallacy. "It takes intelligence to build a sand castle, sand dunes are also made of sand like sand castle, therefore it someone intelligent build that sand dune." Tell me you can see how that is not rational.

How is a sand dune the same as a sand-castle?
Can Mount Rushmore National Memorial be compared to these?
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150205 ... -landforms
https://sites.google.com/site/thegeogra ... zyyling-4a


Its obvious where the fallacy lies.

[Bust Nak]

How can scientists not believe in a creator God, and at the same time be predispose towards a god creator?
Isn't that against the Laws of logic?

They can't, yes, it is against the laws of logic. How is that not completely obvious?

The evidence I have do not show a universe becoming chaotic.
It is still ordered.

Still ordered but less so than one second ago.

Hence astronomers continue to plot their travels throughout space.
So I say you have no evidence of what you claim, hence why you can't provide any.

Boil a cup of water and watch it cool. The evidence is right there.

Isn't that because, again scientist speculate that the universe is a closed system, when it really isn't?

Scientists haven't settled on that issue yet.

And isn't it a known fact that entropy takes place both in the universe as well as the earth?

Yes. What exactly is your point?

How does Red Shift show that the universe was a speck? There is no evidence here.
Speculation.

It shows it's bigger now than it was a second ago obviously. Science.

So now you are sending me back to the chicken-egg dilemma - "Which came first" - in this case, the created, or the creator?

No idea where you got that impression from. That's not what I am saying at all. You claimed that Zeus is a lesser deity than God because Zeus did not create the world. In respond I said duh, that's obvious because Zeus is not a creator God, try comparing like with like with other creator gods.

There were many creatures the Egyptians venerated as sacred.
These included the bull... The god Ptah, according to the “Memphite theology� devised by the priests of Memphis, was the creator (sharing this distinction with other gods such as Thoth, Ra, and Osiris)...

Another one of the Egytian deities. What is the difference between this and the others?

This one is a creator god.

Please note the difference between the mythological gods, and the God of the Bible.

No can do. All I see is difference between mythological gods.

Could you show me where science does not acknowledge and use philosophy.
That seems to be conflicting with the information I have.

Science is a subset of philosophy, where it differ from other branches is that science insist of empirical evidence.

What is not scientific?

Arguing from philosophical arguments.

How is a sand dune the same as a sand-castle?

Exactly.

Its obvious where the fallacy lies.

Good, it's called hasty generalization. Now swap out sand dune/sand castle with human/artificial intelligence, do you see why that your claim is fallacious?

[Justin108]

How does Red Shift show that the universe was a speck? There is no evidence here.
Speculation.

Give me an argument that concludes the existence of God that contains zero speculation

[arian]

Oh yes, .. do you know how many forces (electromagnetic) are present while your doing that?

We know it moves so at least one, and we know one force is enough to explain the moving weight so lets just say it's one force.

How about this?
Take a very sensitive scale with exactly one pond of weight on it... and whala, proof that the moon is rotating around the earth held by gravity.

Not sure what you are trying to get at but sure, these are all ways to test the effect of gravity. What about them?

Show me this experiment then?

Oh, .. and video this for Creationists like me. I know it works with animated graphics, .. you know like they have the evidence for "time dilation" by one car standing still and a plane going overhead, .. lol. Cartoon can prove anything, even a BB.

Well no. Cartoon can't prove anything. The actual experiments depicted by said cartoons is what proves time dilation.

Lol, .. the cartoons are the experiment, and the movies too, and Carl Sagan documentaries, that's what I'm talking about my friend, all presented as facts.

Just like creating a wax sculpture of a half ape half human female all from a dried up jaw bone of a pig, .. the Peleoartist is the one doing the experiment, and the done sculpture is the proof of evolution, .. I know, I know, I read it in the papers and watched the news. It was Big-News too, to actually see speciation like that on video was very convincing to the MK-Ultra minded.

It's funny, because they claim that the one object standing still while the other which is moving away from it is experiencing the special relativity effects. In fact there is absolutely no way to distinguish which of the two objects is actually moving...

The basic part of relativity is simple to understand, what seems to be so funny about that?

Space, the Final frontier, .. you have two ships moving away from each other at 0.1 C, I give you 3 perspectives, one on ship A, the other on ship B, and another a space station nearby.

Which ship is moving away from the other?
ON ship A, .. you see ship B disappearing out of view.
ON ship B, you see ship A disappearing
ON the Space Station you clock the two ships distancing away from each other at 0.1 C

Q. Who is time dilating?

Come on, you said it's simple.

Hmm, .. so let's put a bunch of tiny steel bearings under a handkerchief, than take a huge magnet, and slowly move over the handkerchief and see how the magnet pulls up the bearings on the far said of it, .. that should prove the second smaller tide, right?

When calibrated to scale so the force of the magnet on the bearings, and the forces between the bearings matches that of the moon, the Earth and the ocean, sure that would prove it. You are not helping your case here are you? You are coming up with ways of proving gravity when your original point is that it's not provable scientifically.

Show me, find the experiments and show me?

Hmm again! What is the scientific significant of a story based on "assuming things" (like a massive collision between two large clusters of galaxies millions and millions of LIGHT YEARS away) happening based NOT on observation, but someone's "assumption" that gravity exists and does certain things, but not other "things"?

No idea what you are getting at here, since all of it is based on observation.

The universe Big-banging in nothing, .. expanding by observing galaxies colliding, .. species speciating, .. black holes, .. dark matter, .. Higgs bosons triggering a quantum sized 3.325 gazillion degrees hot universe to Big-Bang, .. all observed phenomena??

You will say anything to keep the evidence of God out of mans mind, even calling man an animal, and since this is just a debate site, you keep repeating the same old lies. So what's the use talking with you? NONE of those things were observed, but dreamed up by religious men.

Tell me, how many parallel universes have they "observed" at 666CERN that they are trying to create a parallel universe to ours in the LHC?

Never mind, you'll just pull up a 666CERN article where one of the scientists disappeared into one of those universes one night as the LHC finally created a black hole, thus opening a Stargate, so there is my proof, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNGkv35W2SY

This is exactly how the entire BB theory and the Evolution theories are evidenced, by fantastic sci-fi stories. Twinkle, twinkle little star Carl Sagan, now that you have gone to be one with the stars/universe.
You think he met Marshall Applewhite and his crew up there yet?

And what would we call spending billions of dollars stolen from "dark-skinned sub-human" countries which is then blamed on them for overpopulating and becoming unsustainable, then building thousands upon thousands of other assumptions based on that assumption?

Lunacy, .. religious fantasy.

Sure, we can call it that if you like, since it only happening in your mind and not in reality.

History my friend, it's all there in the history books, and there are better, more accurate accounts that God keeps in His books.

Really, what does this sound like: "We can detect something that does not absorb or emit light, millions and light years away but we cannot detect God who is as close to everyone as their mind is", .. huh Bust Nak?

Sounds like a nail in the coffin for God as a scientific enquiry. Why? What does it sound like to you?

To me, .. that Sci-Fientists claim that they can detect something that does not absorb or emit light, millions and light years away? Well, sounds really Star Treky if you ask me!?
But if that is the nail in the coffin for God as a scientific enquiry to you, it shows just how seriously you take science, where even sci-fi addicts would find it ridiculous.

Spock to Capt. Kirk: "Captain, I don't hear, smell or see anything ahead of us millions of light years away, it must be a 2.7 billion year old black hole sir! I say we turn around and cut short our 5 year mission Captain!"

Scotty: "Sir, I don't know how much more of this 'no light millions of light years away' the engines can take, .. I'm giving her all she got Captain, even flashed our headlights out there and still nothing, .. I say do as Spock suggested, lets go home man!"

The rest of the crew starts to panic, shining their I-Phone lights out there to see if they could detect the black hole, or whatever may be out there millions of light years away!!

Kirk: "Guys, Guys, .. we are headed into the unknown, where no man has EVER gone before, .. we will detect many more something's that does not absorb or emit light millions of light years away, so calm down!"

Acts 17:27
so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

Well there you go. God is supposed to be easily detected according to the Bible, but there is no empirical evidence of his existence. Like I said, a nail in the coffin.

Only if you make yourself believe you are a mindless animal with a brain that is reacting on its environment, otherwise God is undeniable.

Oh yeah, the BB story is backed up with another story supported by many cave paintings and a lot of skull and bones and fossils called Evolution, which clearly states that humans no longer have a mind or free will, that we are evolving mindless animals, no different than apes, .. actually we ARE apes, the ones still evolving, .. lol.

Correction, 1) "BB story" and "evolution" are unrelated and do not serve as support for each other. 2) humans do have a mind, we are evolving mindful animals, namely apes.

BB-universe and this Evolution-universe is unrelated? So your one universe stopped evolving after 9 billion years? Where is it? Oh yeah, that must be that "parallel universe" you guys talk about!?

That means this Evolution Universe is only 4.2 billion years old, right? I always thought these two were related, actually I thought they were the same one?? I guess I have not read all the ever changing updates on science, .. (science, lol)

Like when this Catholic Priest got a Divine Insight from the supernatural realm of our universe Big Banging in nothing 13.75 billion years ago, then expanding to the "size" of infinite, and this is a good enough story to print millions of books on, labeling them science books at that, and billions and billions of much needed dollars on forcing it down every human beings throat...

Well, that's a privilege one gets when he can come up with empirical evidence for his claims.

Ah what I would give to see a Big bang in nothing!? Or just a Big-bang anywhere, I mean it should be happening in nothing all the time, only how would we observe it, it's not there from the outside, so even if we had billions of universes big-banging, no one would ever notice it!

yet God is right there, in your head, your MIND, .. making you an individual, a reasoning, creating intelligent being that separates us from animals, but that obvious fact you deny evidence for!?

And that's what you get for failing to provide empirical evidence for your claim. Try learning from the "Catholic Priest" you are referring to, if you want your claims to be accepted.

Do I have to pray the Rosary and whip myself to get my evidence approved??

No thanks. Besides, the Pope already announced who is their god, I have posted them videos a lot here, no thanks to that either, I will stick with my uncreated heavenly Father and His son Jesus Christ.

First, how would you measure Infinite who has no boarders?

With telescopes.

Yeah, but if it has no borders, and it is not made of anything, won't it strain my eye balls starring through the telescope looking for it?

Oh yeah, this is where the Rosary and the whipping comes in till I see stars and big-bangs, I bet I'll start seeing it then too like old Georges.

Second, .. you Sci-Fientists claim that there is no "outside, no middle" to your universe, yet it is claimed to be expanding exponentially (lol there too) while galaxies collide at the same time.

Yes, what of it?

expanding exponentially, .. while colliding into each other?? Oh never mind, it was a Big-Bang after all, right? So it's an expansion combined with chaos-theory after the explosion, .. in nothing, fluctuating in and out of nothing, so of course they would be banging into each other, what was I thinking? When has an explosion organize things?

Third, .. there is NO OUTSIDE to the universe, so you cannot define a size to it, .. not until a few seconds after the BB where it was measured (in a religious trance) to be first the size of a pinhead, then a grapefruit, than a bowling ball, the Poof! vanished, or fluctuated back into nothing.

That's the observable universe you are referring to it, i.e. the part that is small enough for light to cover within the time we have, as opposed the whole universe

Oh, so it was the "observable universe" that was the size of a grapefruit, .. I see now. So yeah, like that the whole universe couldn't be an inch more than infinite, an expanding infinite, right? .. I think I understand your faith.

Sci-Fientists are stumped about their existence, they ask: "Why is there something instead of nothing?" because they believe we are IN, and amount TO nothing (+- charge cancels itself out, remember?)

Yes, I do remember. What of it?

Well, it's just that they've spent billions and billions of $$ on this HUGE LHC, and there is a lot of instruments, and a lot of Big Things there, .. and to wonder why is there something rather than nothing just don't make sense? I mean have you seen this thing, it is HUGE, and they say they need that to detect the very, very tiny particles.
So I'm just wondering, how big of a LHC would they need to detect the invisible, like 'nothing"? You know, where they would have their answer to: "Why is there something rather then nothing?"

Where they could find nothing and say: "Well there it is, that's all we need, we don't need this big stinking universe, .. it's all right here, .. that's everything we ever needed, right here; the nothing! See my fellow scientists, look at it, .. so why do we have all this something when we have it all right here, the "nothing"!? Can anyone see a reason why we have all this something's when here is the answer to everything, the nothing!?"

See, now that would justify the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" because they would have scientifically observed nothing, and found it satisfactory to answer existence. So why have all this something's, right? I mean what a waste, and that would prove that an intelligent Creator does not exist, because He would have never created something when "nothing" is satisfactory, ..; is all we need.

Yeah I used to use that same excuse in my younger days about my hand wondering. But she slapped me anyways, .. in my face too not my hand!?

I told her it was my hand, not me, but no, she blamed "me". Isn't that why they cut off thieves hands, because they blame the hand, like you claim the brain creates the mind, right?

No. It is because they thought it was a suitable punishment for the thieves.

So you believe the hand too, over the millions and billions of years evolved a mind of it's own, right? I mean if the environment can influence the brain to reason and think, why not the hand, and heart and other organs and extremities, right?
Yes then, that would of been a suitable punishment. If organs and extremities can reason like the brain, then I agree.

Like if we want to build something, the hand sends this desire up to the brain so the info can get to the whole body, and everyone can pitch in.

Yes, your brain wonders, especially after meteor showers, tectonic continent floating off, a heavy dinner, etc. can cause that, right? It's like the radio dial hooked to our environment, right? When the continents float off a little, it changes the station, .. our thoughts, .. I get it.

Well no, it's not a very good analogy at all.

So how does nature influence our reasoning? The brain has been fine tuned by billions of years of environmental changes, so even a tiny thing like the leaves moving a certain way could be influencing our thinking. I mean have you seen how one person can just go berserk and say and do all kinds of crazy things, while the other people just a few feet away just stare at him all confused!?
He could be standing on some metals down there that the other people are not standing over, and that's how it influenced his brain to react!?

Why, how else does the evolving brain think and reason? The environment is doing everything, look how she put all them atoms and cells together to form our whole body, so delicately. This is why I say that maybe even a bird flying by me, but not by you, and wham, we disagree.

What, .. it's not hard to understand Infinite? You guys keep limiting it to a size, how is that understanding Infinite?

Not sure what you are referring to here by "limiting it to a size." But yes, it's not hard to understand infinity, at least it's not hard for me.

Then how could you refuse to accept that the ONLY thing that proves Infinite is our mind? It is the ONLY and perfect example of Infinite!

Or do you believe that our brain evolves the mind by outside influence like I just explained above?

If you "understand Infinite", can you give me an example of it? Or do you believe it's just a concept, like Peter Pan is?
You do believe and can show an example of 'finite' right? Well the same should go for Infinite.

If you even remotely understood Infinite, you would right away find the ONLY example of it, your mind. Your mind is the only thing, actually the only existence that is beyond any "thing", and contains all "things", all the universes you want, and expanding as fast as you want, right there in your mind.

Well, I wouldn't put it that way, but sure, our mind can comprehend the infinite. Also the universe may be infinite, like I pointed out earlier.

So you don't understand Infinite, .. I thought you just said you did.

Finite has boarders, a size, and Infinite is? ... exactly, no size, no border's, it cannot expand, and there is no finite part of Infinite, because if that is part of Infinite, that would be a border.

Now obviously every finite thing is IN Infinite, created by Infinite, but is NOT any part of Infinite. It cannot become any part of Infinite because like I said, if any finite thing would be part of Infinite, it would no longer be Infinite.

The same with "nothing", it stands alone as a "no-thing", and exists exactly as that, a no-thing.

Where do you think reasoning and dreams and the desire to create comes from, .. your brain, .. with your hand sending info to it wanting to make something?

Yes, our brains is where reasoning and dreams and the desire to create comes from.

No, because you don't understand Infinite, thus you don't understand the mind. The mind sends info to the brain, and reads info from the brain. Info like outside senses.

Can you imagine a brain trying to figure out the millions of various tiny electrical signals it has to send to all the muscles throughout the body, then read and interpret what the eye sees, ear hears, to speed up the heart, tense these muscles while relax the dozens of other ones and react in split seconds with all that precise information to the entire body to run, jump, duck defenders and make a basket in basketball?

It would take your brain years to figure all that information out and we would have to put it on paper, you could never do it just with the brain, it would take you years. But because the mind is Infinite AND Eternal (outside of time) it could do it effortlessly instantly.

The delay is the muscle reaction time. Problems can arise if the brain is damaged, or on drugs/alcohol, the info your mind sends the brain which is already impaired by the drugs will not react as the mind sent it. It can't.

Drunks know what they want to say, and they also know that it is not coming out the way they intend it to. If the brain was it, it would not realize this, especially if the brain evolved the mind over millions of years from the influence of its environment, alcohol would be just another influence.

But look, you don't even believe you have a mind, only some chemical reactions of your brain as it is influenced by your environment and the food you eat.

Incorrect. You have been told repeatedly that I do believe I have a mind, one that is the result of "reactions of my brain as it is influenced by my environment and the food I eat."

That's what I said.

So it's like explaining to a Muslim that this black meteor is just that, not something to worship for it cannot speak or see, just like your brain. All it is is a complex control panel our mind reads off of, and sends info to other parts of the body through.

That's another bad analogy. I can speak and see, pretty much the opposite to a black meteor that cannot speak or see.

I was talking about what you believe, that some muscle in your head is you, .. your mind, your soul.
Just like that rock, your spongy brain is no different once your mind leaves. So to think/believe it is a lot more than that is just like the meteorite analogy.

Exactly, we are all walking miracles and don't even realize!

Well those kinds of mundane miracles don't require any gods.

I would expect a response like that from an animal that lives by instinct and relies on it's environment for survival, but not from a human. Don't you know the difference?

Why do you think God-haters go all out to deny the mind of man, to deny man himself, his humanity turned to an animal, an ape, a rat!? And deny Infinite and make it something finite and call nothing "not nothing anymore"??

Loaded question cannot be answered. "God-haters" do not deny the mind of man, nor deny man himself or his humanity. Nor do "God-haters" deny the infinite and make it something finite, nor call nothing "not nothing anymore."

So you believe you have a mind, not just some residue of the brain? Over hundreds and hundreds of years of scientific inquiry into the brain, and the brain has NEVER been shown to be anything more then just a muscle. After the body dies, we can keep everything alive, the heart beats, we can pump air into the lungs, the brain gets what it needs, and it has never produced the mind, or show even the remotest sign of wanting to reach out, to communicate. So your version of a mind is NOT the mind we have, you believe your brain is your mind, it's simple as that.

You do deny mans humanity, you teach people that man is an evolving animal, nothing special except he can reason a little better than OYHER animals.

You said the universe may be Infinite, so you believe that something finite (stars, planets, moons, people and animals) can become Infinite, so yes, you do make Infinite out to be finite.

And yes, nothing is not accepted as truly and absolutely "nothing", but claim that an entire Universe can expand IN IT. So as Sci-Fientists have already claimed is that nothing is not nothing anymore.

That's the whole idea of God-haters, to say one thing, but believe, and react to it "upside down", or opposite of what they say.

Look at how they are dividing people even of the same race, all in the name of "equality", calling them to "Coexist", a One World, so they can butcher us easier. Look at Agenda 21 and 2030, can it be any clearer than that as to what the God Haters are doing to those they label sub-human animals? That is denying humans their humanity.

Because once they admit they have a mind, the proof of our Infinite, Eternal "I Am" would be undeniable. So they have to constantly change the obvious with fairytales of "long, long time ago before time, .. " oh well, you know the rest.

It is clearly a falsehood since I readily affirm that we have a mind and still have no problem denying the great "I AM" that you refer to.

Your brain is your mind, and the ONLY way you can deny "I Am" is by making yourself God, and denying others you deem under you their humanity. So you tech evolution, so those you marked unsustainable would be easier to control. God Haters create religions and gods like ISIS, then terrorize people out of their own country to cause more hatred and dissention, all while claiming this One World dung-heap.

Anyways, as I have shown, "belief in God IS scientific..."

Well, tried and fail to show...

It is a constant battle using scientific distortions, and straight out lies, and have to be there to force other scientists by intimidation and even the threat of death to support these lies.

I will agree with you on that much. Where we disagree is which side is using distortions, lies, intimidation and threats. The great thing about science is that empirical evidence will always win.

It is the most difficult thing in the world to deny God, and Satan is working on that 24/7, no rest. Why do you think we have all these different religions huh? It is to keep everyone satisfied, so they don't actually go out there and look for God.

I think I will stick to the scientific answer rather than your guess. There are many different religions because we are wired by evolution to have a predisposition to see intention where there is none.

Scientific? You mean like the Big-bang and Evolution facts? Your funny.

Intention where there is none, so what, we should just give up and accept we have cancer and learn how to inject the poison given to us? It is futile to resist, it's just your "predisposition", evolution crying out that's all, .. relax, stay in line and be calm, after the showers you can go back to your work and your children! Animals are animals, and should not resist those who rule over them, right?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 227 by Justin108]

How does Red Shift show that the universe was a speck? There is no evidence here.
Speculation.

Give me an argument that concludes the existence of God that contains zero speculation

I give very little in the way of probability to his answering that all too direct question. Let's say.... 0.0000000000000000000001 probability. Because he is at least CAPABLE of writing in here. I'm taking bets.

10 to 1 odds... and I'm offering tokens.
So, place your best bets, ladies and best gents.

He thinks that the red shift isn't evidence for an expanding universe. He must think that all the cosmologists are idiots. His epistemic method seems to be "Holding on tighter than ever".

That's pretty sad.
But then again, he won't soon FORGET his beliefs, if that was his goal.

[otseng]

I want to highlight exactly how theStudent operates; he does it in a way that prevents moderators from taking action.

Moderator Clarification

Moderators do not have the responsibility of making sure everyone makes sound arguments. If someone attempts to present evidence, then that's all we can ask for. It is the responsibility of debate participants to point out flaws in logic and evidence.

______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.