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.

[OnceConvinced]

arian has posted yet another strawman. Move along.

I can't help but wonder WHY he's allowed to get away with this kind of derailing. We've torn apart his strawmen countless times, stating explicitly that the things he says have no basis in logic; he's also extremely uncharitable to his opponent's arguments, twisting them to form the most absurd statements. He has no debate ethic I can actually discern.

Moderator Warning


There are no rules against strawman arguments or posting things that have been debunked time and time again. There are however rules against focusing personally on another member, which you are doing in this post here.

All you need to do is report posts that you think break the rules.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 236 by Blastcat]

That's a lot, just to answer "why".

You said something abot planning. Is that the answer?
Are you saying that the reason the sandcastle needs an intelligence is because it needs to be planned out, and certain qualities, like love may have to go into it, otherwise you may get some crazy looking abstract thing, if some uncaring crazy guy did it?

That's a start i can agree with.
Before I present my summary, I want to get the opinion of a few 9 year olds I know, so I'll do that tomorrow.

Thanks for your input.

[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

How does one know if this is true history, or mere speculation, even going furthur back in history?
http://www.biography.com/people/cleopat ... 4#synopsis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_Kingdom

Red Herring. I'll repeat: Give me an argument that concludes the existence of God that contains zero speculation

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 239 by arian]

!

Hi arian, your argument seems to me to go something like this:

" I can't imagine that God didn't design everything, so therefore, God must have designed everything. And those "naturalist" fellows sure have laughable ideas."

In any case, that's what I understood from your post. No in those words, of course.

But there is nothing about a sand dune or a wave on an ocean or a snowflake or tree leaves or flower shapes or even cloud formations that require any thing else but the laws of physics to explain how they happened.

Oh come on, .. where is your faith in "natural selection", .. huh? This sand particle goes here, then that one goes there and in a few thousand years "sand castle".

I have yet to observe a naturally occurring sand castle.
I don't know of any.. have you?

If so, please let us know.
It would be an important discovery.

Nature can't create a sand castle, BUT, it can take a sweating rock, starting with a single celled bacteria and through "natural selection" make a human out of it, but a sand castle? Never, .. lol.

You are laughing ( "lol" is laughing, I presume ) at your own joke.

As I stated above, show me a naturally occurring sand castle and I will be hugely interested in discussions about it.

Until then, I have no reason to even imagine such a thing.

When it thunders.. and we have destructive weather.. we could say something like "Oh my.. SOMEONE is angry up there" , and many people did in the past and many people still do.

Oh yeah, it's not God, but that careless Mother Nature, she can create the most complex things all she needs is her husband Father Time.

If an atheist doesn't believe in "God", why would he believe in "Mother Nature"?

I don't know of any intentional "Mother Nature".
The universe, or "nature" doesn't seem to have it's own intelligence.

What we call "nature" or the "cosmos" or the "universe" is the complete set of what exists. We have no way as yet to determine if the hypothesis that this set can have consciousness of any kind is a true one. We currently have no evidence to support the hypothesis. ID proposes a hypothesis, and cannot demonstrate any evidence.

It offers.. analogies as evidence.
And that simply is not science.

ID presents a hypothesis that is completely unverifiable.

The ID hypothesis is not verifiable, and cannot be known to be true ... and it relies on methodology that is not scientific.

And that is why most scientists simply reject the hypothesis AND the methodology.
And that's why I do as well.

Like a scientist, Mother nature can create the scientists, but she can't create a robot like ASIMO, now how is that?

As far as I know, robots like ASIMO were created by humans.

I am not aware of any evidence of a "Mother Nature" creating things. I am also not aware of any evidence for a Tooth Fairy, putting coins under children's pillows either.

You would have to bring us some evidence for either of these "beings".

We can invent beings in our imagination, we can even invent intentionality where it isn't to be found. But inventing an idea isn't the same as demonstrating that it actually exists. Our imagined Mother Nature hasn't been demonstrated as a real intentional entity, in the real world, and therefore cannot be said to have a plan and then designed humans in the real world.

Sorry.

As far as we know, there is no natural "creation", no intentionality in the universe other than in certain kinds of animals. But we sure can imagine it, can't we?

Oh yes, we can !
"ID" is imagining it.

Not only that, but it took over a hundred years for Intelligent Design to make a simple robot to walk up the stairs, so I guess there is no way "I.D." could create an entire human body, and give it life of it's own, .. not the I.D. programmed kind, but one that can reason on his own, with its own free will.

Are you trying to prove that humans design things?

I'm going to guess that you are trying to be ironic in your statement.. trying to ridicule what I was writing, or something like that. I'm not too sure what your intent was.

If so, I admire your efforts at being funny. It's hard to tell, because you don't make yourself particularly comprehensible. But I will try to address what I have to imagine are your concerns. If I guess incorrectly, please don't hesitate to correct me.

If I were to take your statement seriously for a moment:
You don't seem to understand what "ID" is actually trying to demonstrate. Nobody is asking for proof that humans can design and create things. We all pretty much agree that humans do.

Intelligent Design want's to demonstrate something ELSE than human designs.

Intelligent Design proposes that whatever isn't designed by humans is designed by something else. Intelligent Design wants to prove that natural events ( those that are not man-made ) were intended and designed, or planed, and then created by an intentional "something" or "someone" ELSE than humans.

Sandcastles are human creations..
In your opinion, is ID trying to prove that HUMANS create, or something ELSE ?

The components of sand dunes happen naturally, too. No god required... no "Intelligent Design" required or demonstrated, either.

We can explain how all of that happens.

Then explain 'how' "sand castles" don't happen?

I can't explain how they don't, because they DO happen, but they seldom "happen" unless humans make them happen.

And we can explain how humans make sand castles happen .

We can explain a lot of how natural events happen, too.
We have YET to discover a "designer" at the end of those rainbows.

Nor, pots of gold.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 239 by arian]

So your entire argument is "nature can create life, but not a sand castle - I find that absurd".

This is no different from saying
"Charles Babbage could invent a computer, but he couldn't perform a simple appendectomy - I find that absurd"

"Spiders can construct complex web structures, but they can't even roll dung balls - I find that absurd"

Just because one task is less complex than another doesn't mean that task is more likely to happen. Sand is simply not prone to form shapes that happen to resemble man-made structures. Living organisms, however, are prone to develop and evolve. You don't even need to believe in evolution to witness this. Plant a seed and watch it grow. Within a few months, it will develop from a relatively simple object to a complex structure all on its own. No agency needed. This idea that complexity only comes from design is a circular argument. I can easily point to complexity with no design.

[Clownboat]

There is scientific, Biblical, rational and logical evidence, that an intelligent mind designed the intelligent minds of humans.

Why did he create psychopath minds?
Why did he create schizophrenic minds?

Creating failed minds is not rational nor logical.

Either way, if we are to trust your words that an intelligent mind designed the intelligent mind of humans, then a psychopathic mind designed the human psychopathic mind and a schizophrenic mind created the human schizophrenic mind.

You're not going to offer some special pleading now are you?

How is this remotely rational or logical?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 242 by theStudent]

That's a lot, just to answer "why".

Yes, sometimes even a partial answer can be longer than one word.
I hope that you aren't saying that points are wrong just because they are long.

You said something abot planning. Is that the answer?

I'm not sure what you mean by that question. Could you clarify?
I did, however, say "something about planning", yes.
I did.

Are you saying that the reason the sandcastle needs an intelligence is because it needs to be planned out, and certain qualities, like love may have to go into it, otherwise you may get some crazy looking abstract thing, if some uncaring crazy guy did it?

No, I'm not saying that.
Some sand castles are not planned out at all.

Some crazy looking abstract things are extremely planned out.

I suppose that uncaring crazy guys can make uncaring crazy plans. I don't know what point you are trying to get at.

That's a start i can agree with.

Unfortunately, if you do, you will be in agreement with yourself.
Not with me.

Before I present my summary, I want to get the opinion of a few 9 year olds I know, so I'll do that tomorrow.

Thanks for your input.

Always a joy to respond to an honest question
You are welcome.

However, I'm not at all convinced that you can summarize my position accurately. You haven't demonstrated that ability in this post. I doubt that those 9 year olds will, either.

It would be best if you understood my position before you attempted to knock it down.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 246 by Clownboat]

!

[center]A schizophrenic psychopath walks into a bar and says: "I killed God and so are we"[/center]

Why did he create psychopath minds?

He needs SOMEONE who can relate.

Why did he create schizophrenic minds?

I really don't know, and neither do I.

[Kenisaw]

The Bible is only an arms length away, and we don't have to wait years to get solid reliable facts, that do not change, over time. Christians know full well, why that is the case.
They have the evidence.

This is a blatant lie, and you ought to apologize to everyone for making it...

Wow, sure has become an "upside-down" world where people have to apologize for saying the truth!

There is nothing of supernatural content that can be called "reliable fact" from any religion or dogma, Christianity included. The volumes of threads at this website alone attest to that. So to claim that Student has said the "truth" is either intentionally dishonest, or shows an incredible lack of understanding of everything written and presented in every thread you have ever participated in, Arian...

Man walks in a Ladies Rest Room, looks around and storms out of there, calls the manager and complains that there are no urinals! The Target store Manager then apologizes; "sorry sir, it is rather a new law allowing men to visit the little girls-room, but we'll get to it ASAP!"

Man: "Sir, .. did you just refer to me as a sir, as a male just because your religion defines a male separate from a female!? Are you going to throw some homophobic Bible verses at me now too!! This is an outrage, I demand equality! I am suing your store for a formal public APPOLOGY!"

So yep theStudent, you better apologize to us all here, .. you did mention the "B' word!

Nice off-topic tangent. But since you bring it up, you have probably gone into a public restroom and done your business next to a murderer, rapist, drug dealer, drug user, spousal abuser, child abuser, child molester, tax cheat, thief, etc without even knowing it. Statistically speaking it is practically guaranteed that you have been next to at least one such person in your life. Is going #1 or #2 next to a woman dressed as a man REALLY the worst person who will use a public bathroom at the same time you do?

[Kenisaw]

Fine, then prove that "gravity" exists, scientifically I mean?

Easy enough, get three heavy lead balls and mount two on the ends of a bar, then balance the bar by hanging it from a fishing line. Wait until the hanging balls settle down and stop moving. Move the last lead ball close to one of them without touching. Observe the twisting movement of the hanging apparatus.

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

And since lead is not magnetic, and any valence electron potential is nothing compared to the mass (not to mention the air resistance would cancel it anyway) and you've presented everyone with a pointless objection.

How about this?
Take a very sensitive scale with exactly one pond of weight on it, through the Switzerland tunnel (where it goes through the biggest mountain) and there should be a significant "pull" of the overhead mountain to prove gravity, right?

Significant? No. Is there less gravity though because of the mass over your head? Yes. Just like climbing to the top of Mt Everest yields a slightly weaker gravitational pull than if you were at ocean level.

But I am sure they took two lead spheres into space, and placed them just far enough from each other where they start to pull each other together, then pushed one just so slightly, and watched as it orbits around the other, .. right?

The orbit would have to be so slow that you probably couldn't see it just by watching. And since all orbiting craft have to make small adjustments to their orbit from time to time, those exterior forces would contaminate such an experiment. You could have discovered all that with a little Google search...

I mean they know exactly how much gravitation a 10lb. lead ball has, then place the distance needed to keep it in orbit when moving around the other lead ball, and whala, proof that the moon is rotating around the earth held by gravity.

Theorectically, yes. Not an actual practical experiment though.

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.

Such a cartoon is not "proof". It would be a presentation of what is going on based on repeated experiments to those seeking to understand the phenomena but who do not engage in verifying the data themselves.

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, .. but we already covered this in my "Theory of Relativity post" with no answer to many questions, .. other than "Your stupid, your are ignorant, you should take a class in physics arian etc." .. which I just lol off as usual.

No they don't claim that one object is standing still. They state that one is still RELATIVE to the other. That's why it is called relativity.

If relativity was wrong then the GPS system in people's phones, cars, and other devices would not work properly. They were adjusted for relativistic effects before they were launched. Relativity is proven every single day by hundreds of millions of people using Google maps and MapQuest...

Gravity?
The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's "gravity" were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time?

With simple science, the tide near side is caused by the moon pulling on water, the tide far side is caused by gravity from the moon being weaker due to the extra distance. That's why one tile is higher than the other one in the same day.

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?

So Arian wants to prove gravity by using magnetism, using ball bearings instead of a fluid (water). Your amount of basic science illiteracy here is astounding, Arian. If you really need it explained why your proposition is useless, let me know and i will detail it out for you...

OR, scientific evidence for dark matter?

A team of researchers has found the first direct proof for the existence of dark matter, the mysterious and almost invisible substance thought to make up almost a quarter of the universe.

Dark matter does not absorb or emit light. So far, astronomers have inferred its presence only indirectly by measuring the effects of its gravity.

Well there you go. Rhetorical questions works better if you don't give away the answer

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"?

None.

Because it is gravity, Arian. Every single prediction made about it is verified. It's the most studied force in the universe. If you think gravity is NOT a constant, then show us why. Where's your empirical data supporting the claim? Because the millions of man-hours spent on the topic has yet to find anything to refute it. If gravity wasn't a fundamental force of the universe, there's no way it could have been verified countless times in so may different ways.

Stop making baseless assertions about gravity not being real, and try proving your speculation.

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.

Lovely off-topic rant...

NOT God, because no signature of a Creator could be found in ANYTHING science has observed so far, .. BUT, .. a massive collision between two large clusters of galaxies millions and millions of LIGHT YEARS away, astronomers have detected what they say could only be the signature of dark matter

Doesn't look good for God, does it? We can detect something that does not absorb or emit light, millions and light years away but we cannot detect God.

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?

So are leprechauns and Santa Claus and unicorns. Just because people can imagine it in their mind doesn't make it true. We have measurable, empirical evidence for dark matter. We have....nothing....for the supernatural.

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.

Oh look, Arian thinks the Big Bang and evolution are related, even though he knows they aren't. We see a lot of cultists do that on this site. Pray tell, Arian, why are you aping what they do?

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, 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!?

You got one thing correct in that entire rant. Your god is most definitely in your mind...

Oh, .. and there is no Infinite either, .. no evidence. Just because we have gazillion galaxies out there does not mean it is IN Infinite.

Actually, we don't know that. The universe could be infinite.

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

His point is that science doesn't claim finite or infinite, because no one knows for sure.

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.

Why can't galaxies collide in an expanding universe, Arian? I'd love to see your explanation for that...

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.

Can you scientifically define what your "Poof!" is supposed to be? Please try to use grown up words when posting so that we can attempt to have an intelligent discussion with you...

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?)

The universe does add up to nothing. It's been shown countless times.

How about: If you can believe in any "thing", you have to believe in a "Conscious Infinite Creator God" first. If you can "observe, reason anything", you have to believe you have a mind behind it all. Our brain, like our Gluteus Maximus will not wonder about anything, never did, and never will.

How about no. Our brain can and does wonder about stuff all the time

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?

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.

Bizarre off-topic rant here.

Sure, .. all you have to do is come to know, .. come to understand what Infinite IS by what Infinite means? I mean how many boundless, borderless immeasurable Infinites are there anyways, .. right? You guys understand "gravity", and how it reacts on galaxies millions and millions of light years away that creates dark matter, so what is soo darn hard about understanding such an obvious existence as you mind, .. Infinite??

It's not that hard to understand infinity. So where is your definition of a scientifically testable God?

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

Your mind is not infinite, Arian. It cannot store an infinite amount of information, it cannot contain everything. Since our lifetime is limited we never appear to use our
brains full storage capacity.

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?

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. 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.

It's all chemical reactions, quantum fluctuations, and physical structures like neurons. That's where it comes from, where it is stored, and how we do what we do.

Miracles? if anyone who done robotic or CNC programming, watching an illiterate high school dropout play basketball will attest to a miracle, especially knowing that he done no arithmetic, no calculation on how much electricity he should send to the hundreds of muscles before he threw the ball, but that this guys mind sends all the millions of information through his brain through his bodies nervous system in matter of split seconds, and makes that basket swoooshh, every time, nothing but net, .. now that to me (who done CNC/robotic programming) is a miracle!

Already addressed that point, and I quote "Well, those kinds of miracles happens every day. Why would you expect us to provide evidence that they do not happen?"

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

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"?? 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.

Minds are not evidence of anything infinite or eternal. Your repeated failure to prove otherwise is testiment to your continued pattern of claiming something without providing supporting documentation or data.

Anyways, as I have shown, "belief in God IS scientific, and unbelief is scientific ignorance which is by denial of millions of scientific observations, and making up millions of fantasies like the BB-Evolution stories and build on them. 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.

Where did you show that? Your tangent about sub-continent humans? You've made baseless claims which aren't supported by anything discovered in science. Oh, you no doubt think what you write is true, but you've totally failed, once again, to prove it...

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.

Or maybe man keeps making religions that just happen to fit the society and culture that they currently live under. What a coincidence how they always seem to match up...

"Here, look at our temple, our mega-church, we have this and that many millions of members, .. come and join us! Oh, we are more Biblical than those others, we have two Bibles and thousands of other supporting religious books, which answers any question you have on our religion." Anything BUT God, and He is right there with you.

Sure. All cultists know they have the right sect. It is amazing how all of you are sure of your personal conjecture...