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.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 235 by theStudent]

Why can't a sandcastle form without an intelligence, but a sand dune can form from natural processes?

Ok.. glad you asked.

We actually DO know how sand dunes happen.
The wind, the sand.. how that works to make very regular shapes.

Sure.. it can look even "designed"... because of the regularity...
Nature forms a WHOLE lot of regularities...

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.

You want to know about how sand dunes get their regular looking shapes?

Is the wind intelligent ?
Is the sand intelligent ?
Is gravity intelligent ?

That's all it takes to have sand dunes.

Where IS the intelligence?

Now, a sand CASTLE we know takes a human. A designer.. no sand castle will ever come about by wind and sand and gravity alone..

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".

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.

We look at the sand dune, and we say to ourselves "Look at the beauty of that.. I know it was designed because I know someone must have thought it up before building it. And I know it also had to be a human being that did it."

We know that human beings create things and design things and plan for things and have meanings and care and love and hate and are jealous and all of that.

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.

But that's a mistake. Scientists can also explain how most of our weather patters happen. Heat, humidity, the earth spinning... the air.. the water... cold.. all of it. And yes, gravity.. I forgot gravity.

But more specifically about sand dunes...

http://www.desertusa.com/geofacts/sanddune.html

There are great pictures there showing you just how they happen, and there is no designer ...

So.. sand dunes happen naturally.. no god required..

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

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.

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?

Sand dunes are assembled by natural forces that selectively move grains of sand of specific sizes into specific locations in a rather predictable fashion. The selective factors result in a dune rather than a castle. To expect the forces that produce dunes to produce castles is as foolish as to expect the selective forces that produced mammals to have, instead, produced motorcycles.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 224 by 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.

I still find it interesting that in a topic headed "Belief in existence of god scientific..." that you have yet to provide any credible evidence of your god.
Instead of 45 minutes you've now had 4 days to form your response. Is that where this topic dies? You claim something is scientific, fail to provide any evidence and then just quit the debate. Sounds like you lost.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 247 by Blastcat]

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.

I'm sorry, Blastcat.
I didn't realize the question was that complicated.
I'll give you an hour and some.
I'll be right bact... after dinner.

[theStudent]

Sorry, I'm a bit late.
I couldn't get a hold of the youngsters.
And I see, neither did I get an answer.

I'll be using three lines of evidence which demonstrate the existence of God.

Oh, and I am glad that these came up.

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

The second line of evidence will consider these.

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." 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.[/quote]

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".

I am using the above information which is not unaceptable in science.

First off [Evidence 1], to say that an intelligence is required for certain complexities (i.e. sandcastle), makes sense. It is logical, sensible, reasonable, and please don't miss this, scientific.

You say, it does not require an intelligence to make a snow flake.
I think it required an intelligence to set the laws, and processes that make a snow flake.
So let's reason on it.

To answer my queston

Why can't a sandcastle form without an intelligence, but a sand dune can form from natural processes?

Hebrews 3:4 provides the most logical answer.
It can be explained by a law - the law of cause and effect.

The simplest of houses is constructed by someone - a cause, also a complex sandcastle.
It is impossible for nature, even its elements to be responsible for constructing these. In fact, we observe the opposite - ruin.

Complex design requires deliberate thought - including knowledge and understanding. Hence an intelligence.
Is there a cause of the universe, and all within it?

If a sandcastle requires an intelligent mind to build it, as a house does, then what of the other complex things in the universe? Would they not require a intelligent designer - the first cause?

So to correctly answer the question - Does God exist? We cannot only stop at what we see as natural.
For example.
When the apple fell from the tree, Isaac Newton did not say, "Ah, that's a natural occurrence." fullstop. What caused the effect? It was discovered - the law of gravity.
In the same way, what is the cause of the universe, and everything in it?


Is that it?
And we are supposed to sit down and accept that? I don't think so.
No. Let continue our reasoning...

How is a snow flake made?
A snowflake begins when a tiny dust or pollen particle comes into contact with water vapor high in Earth's atmosphere. The water vapor coats the tiny particle and freezes into a tiny crystal of ice. This tiny crystal will be the "seed" from which a snowflake will grow.

To get a snow flake, you need water. So where did water come from?

The origin of water on Earth, or the reason that there is clearly more liquid water on Earth than on the other rocky planets of the Solar System, is not completely understood. There exist numerous more or less mutually compatible hypotheses as to how water may have accumulated on Earth's surface over the past 4.5 billion years in sufficient quantity to form oceans.

Water (chemical formula: H2O) is a transparent fluid which forms the world's streams, lakes, oceans and rain, and is the major constituent of the fluids of organisms. As a chemical compound, a water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms that are connected by covalent bonds. Water is a liquid at standard ambient temperature and pressure, but it often co-exists on Earth with its solid state, ice; and gaseous state, steam (water vapor). It also exists as snow, fog, dew and cloud.

How does water form?
Water is formed when energy causes hydrogen and oxygen molecules to fit together. The process of creating water is very turbulent, making it very difficult for scientists to safely create water in a laboratory

Where Did Earth's Water Come From?

If the Earth's oceans were formed from water on our own planet, rather than asteroids, that would solve a couple of problems for planetary scientists. One is why Earth seems to have so much water in the first place. Another is why life, which as far as anyone knows requires water, seems to have appeared so quickly once the Earth had a solid surface.

Complicating the picture, neither of these hypotheses is mutually exclusive. Asteroids could deliver water while some could come from the Earth's interior. The question is how much each would deliver — and how to find that out.

So this mystery will remain one, at least for a little while longer.

Mystery of Earth's Water Origin Solved

Instead of arriving later by comet impact, Earth's waters have likely existed since our planet's birth.

The water that makes Earth a majestic blue marble was here from the time of our planet's birth, according to a new study of ancient meteorites, scientists reported Thursday.

Where do the oceans come from? The study headed by Adam Sarafian of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, found that our seas may have arrived much earlier on our planet than previously thought.

The study pushes back the clock on the origin of Earth's water by hundreds of millions of years, to around 4.6 billion years ago, when all the worlds of the inner solar system were still forming.

Scientists had suspected that our planet formed dry, with high-energy impacts creating a molten surface on the infant Earth. Water came much later, went the thinking, thanks to collisions with wet comets and asteroids.

"Some people have argued that any water molecules that were present as the planets were forming would have evaporated or been blown off into space," said study co-author Horst Marschall, a geologist at WHOI.

For that reason, he said, scientists thought that "surface water as it exists on our planet today must have come much, much later — hundreds of millions of years later."

"The planet formed as a wet planet with water on the surface."

If this is true, then it adds another piece of evidence to the truthfulness, and reliability of the Bible. Genesis 1:1, 2
More on that later.
However... They are uncertain as to how, and where water originated.


To say that a snow flake did not require an intelligence, is the same as saying that a leaf, or flower, or baby, did not require an intelligence.
When really, the "natural" processes all take place because of an intelligence.
Water did not form itself, it required an intelligence, and the laws that govern the processes to form a snow flake, required an intelligence.
A tree did not form itself, it required an intelligence, and the laws that govern the processes to form a leaf, or flower, required an intelligence.
A cell did not form itself, it required an intelligence, and the laws (in the form of a "blueprint") that govern the processes to form a baby, required an intelligence.

We don't reason, "Oh, the leaves swaying in the wind is a natural process." fullstop.
Our experience tells us something is responsible for the wind - and the trees. We reasonably come to that conclusion.

Another example.
You probably wear a wrist watch. Does it work? Of course it does, and you dont have to interfere with it for it to work except put a battery in, after a few years (if you have a good watch).
You could say the process "happens naturally".
Why?
Because the designer made it, and started the process. So now the watch functions on its own.
The point is clear.

"Natural" processes are all governed by laws, which logically, sensibly, and reasonably, and scientifically require an intelligent lawgiver.
Complex forms require an intelligence to construct them.

So what is the most complex object, in the known universe?
The brain is the 'most complex thing in the universe'

"We won't be able to understand the brain. It is the most complex thing in the universe," says Professor Sir Robin Murray, one of the UK's leading psychiatrists.

That's right.
Did the brain create itself?
Did if form naturally?
If we are to continue in the same vein of logic, reasonableness, sensibility, and true science, the conclusive, and factual answer is No. It was designed by an inteligence.

Since we acknowledge the existence of humans who invented devices such as airplanes, televisions, and computers, should we not also acknowledge the existence of the One who gave humans the brain to make such things?
No other answer makes sense, nor is in line with scientific facts.

Hence, why we say, there is scientific evidence for the existence of God. To deny that evidence is going against logic, reasonableness, sensibility, and of course, scientific evidence.

Let continue to reason...
Mathematics does require logic and intelligence, doesn't it?

Henry Shaefer, a professor of chemistry

The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it!’

Why would he say such a thing?
Science does much to help us understand the natural world, revealing a level of order, precision, and sophistication that points, in the eyes of many, to a God of infinite intelligence and power. In their view, science reveals not just details of the natural world but also facets of the mind of God.
That point of view finds abundant support in the Bible, which says that God'sinvisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.
It also factually says that the heavens are declaring the glory of God; and of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.
Despite all its wonders, however, the natural world reveals only some aspects of the creator.

Science is limited.
Many truths about the creator - God - are beyond the scope of science.
To illustrate, a scientist may be able to describe every molecule in a chocolate cake, but will his analysis reveal why the cake was made or for whom? For answers to questions like that, which most people would regard as the more important ones, he needs to consult the person who baked the cake.
Similarly, according to Austrian physicist and Nobel laureate Erwin Schrödinger,

[science] gives a lot of factual information, but it is ghastly silent about all . . . that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. [This includes,] God and eternity.

For example, science fail to provide answers to such questions as

• Why is there a universe?
• Why does our planet have an abundance of life, including intelligent life?
• If God truly is almighty, why does he permit evil and suffering?
• Is there hope beyond the grave?

Only the creator can answer such questions, and he does so - through his word, the Bible.
And it has been shown that the Bible can be trusted.


The Bible does harmonize with scientific truths about the natural world. In fact, the two fields of study are more than compatible — they beautifully complement each other. To disregard either one is to leave unopened a door to the knowledge of God.
So, The first clear, logical, sensible, reasonable, and scientifical evidence, that God exists, is creation - the natural world.

[Neatras]

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." 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".

I am using the above information which is not unaceptable in science.[/quote]

What I love is how you take whole chunks of definitions from wikipedia, and often they are straight up objections to what you're trying to insinuate. Quote mines are usually unacceptable, though I find a special irony in how even out of context, they still provide no support for your conclusions. This is a recent development in your tactics: Charging in with a block of text which is effectively valid, as if that provides evidence of your claims being true. The problem is you still haven't connected your claims with the definitions you provide.

First off [Evidence 1], to say that an intelligence is required for certain complexities (i.e. sandcastle), makes sense. It is logical, sensible, reasonable, and please don't miss this, scientific.

I'm not gonna let this one pass without adding nuance. You might think I'm trying to pull this in unrelated directions (or tangents), however it's important that we find the root of your meaning in order to properly dissect your words and find any flaws. If we are not allowed to understand the meaning behind your words, it would effectively be a sermon.

To do so, I will begin by making my own observations about the definitions of words you use, and trying to point out any inconsistencies in your speech. Then, feel free to either critically analyze MY words, or compare them with how you would define them and we can find discrepancies.

I state that to be "scientific" is to be methodical, and to provide reasonable explanations for phenomena in reality. The observation that intelligence is required to create sandcastles is an observation, not an explanation. An appropriate "scientific" statement about this would be an explanatory, and predictive statement such as: "Sandcastles are too complex to form under natural processes without also including intelligent processes."

I would then define "intelligence" and "intelligent processes" as "behaviors associated with the accumulation and application of knowledge and skills."

I also define "complex" phenomena as complicated, interconnected systems of intricate parts or elements; that is, they are distinct from simple phenomena. However, I reject your notion of prescribing an adjective as a noun for different occurrences in nature. That can lead down a rabbit hole of terminology that presents many misconceptions in language. Objects can be simple under certain contexts, while appearing complex in others. It depends on intelligence not only to "create" sandcastles, but also to "believe" that they are "complex." Would you have us defining it as a noun that asserts it is complex under all scenarios?

When you group it all together, it seems reasonable on the surface, however there are some glaring flaws. You've stated that "certain complexities" require intelligence; yet I find no distinction between the complexities you supposedly speak of, and instead use broad strokes to assert that "therefore, everything exists because of a supreme intelligence." But you haven't demonstrated that. You've only made an observation that intelligence is involved in certain complexities. Certain, meaning specific, defined, and known. You cannot therefore apply the term "certain" to all of reality, since you do not have justification for that. In fact, snowflakes, which can be considered complex but created by unintelligent processes (by my definition) are one possible case that completely frames your argument for what it is: repackaging reality to suit your loaded terms.

You say, it does not require an intelligence to make a snow flake.

That was me, yes.

I think it required an intelligence to set the laws, and processes that make a snow flake.
So let's reason on it.

You... You claimed you would be using evidence, but this is your first strike. You did not provide evidence at all, you made an assertion, and this is supposed to be UNDER your first chain of evidence! You should be supporting this claim WITH evidence, not trying to define your assertion AS evidence. This is exactly what started this whole mess of you making empty assertions in the first place.

To answer my queston

Why can't a sandcastle form without an intelligence, but a sand dune can form from natural processes?

Hebrews 3:4 provides the most logical answer.
It can be explained by a law - the law of cause and effect.

Don't jest, you haven't actually justified it as "the most logical answer," you've asserted it. There exist yet other answers for why sand castles "require" intelligence, and why sand dunes form from natural processes. We've even answered that using entirely secular terms, but you've instead swept all that aside and stated, flatly, that your holy book is "most" logical answer. I'm getting really tired of you deciding that your answers are unconditionally better than ours. This is a bad habit.

The simplest of houses is constructed by someone - a cause, also a complex sandcastle.
It is impossible for nature, even its elements to be responsible for constructing these. In fact, we observe the opposite - ruin.

I observe snowflakes. Are they ruinous?

Complex design requires deliberate thought - including knowledge and understanding. Hence an intelligence.
Is there a cause of the universe, and all within it?

Dude, complexity is a label given by humans to describe phenomena. Some things might be simpler or more complex depending on who is looking at it. Additionally, you make the loaded phrase "complex design requires deliberate thought", but we both know that you're asserting all of reality is designed. That is the point up for contention. You haven't demonstrated a "design." Non-theists point out that reality existing is not evidence for design. You need to do more than make assertions to get there.

If a sandcastle requires an intelligent mind to build it, as a house does, then what of the other complex things in the universe? Would they not require a intelligent designer - the first cause?

That does not logically follow! You cannot REASON a god into existence, especially with such faulty logic.

So to correctly answer the question - Does God exist? We cannot only stop at what we see as natural.
For example.
When the apple fell from the tree, Isaac Newton did not say, "Ah, that's a natural occurrence." fullstop. What caused the effect? It was discovered - the law of gravity.
In the same way, what is the cause of the universe, and everything in it?



Is that it?
And we are supposed to sit down and accept that? I don't think so.
No. Let continue our reasoning...

You know what's also frustrating? The fact that you think any answer is automagically the right one if it convinces you and you alone. Just because theology made up an answer millennia ago doesn't mean it's the right one. Scientists are still working to find answers, and you know where we've NEVER found a single, compulsive answer about the nature of reality? Your holy book.

I don't know how the universe started, but I'm not foolish enough to claim I do simply because the lack of an answer scares me, or goes against my preconceived notions of what a god is.

How is a snow flake made?
A snowflake begins when a tiny dust or pollen particle comes into contact with water vapor high in Earth's atmosphere. The water vapor coats the tiny particle and freezes into a tiny crystal of ice. This tiny crystal will be the "seed" from which a snowflake will grow.

To get a snow flake, you need water. So where did water come from?

The origin of water on Earth, or the reason that there is clearly more liquid water on Earth than on the other rocky planets of the Solar System, is not completely understood. There exist numerous more or less mutually compatible hypotheses as to how water may have accumulated on Earth's surface over the past 4.5 billion years in sufficient quantity to form oceans.

Water (chemical formula: H2O) is a transparent fluid which forms the world's streams, lakes, oceans and rain, and is the major constituent of the fluids of organisms. As a chemical compound, a water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms that are connected by covalent bonds. Water is a liquid at standard ambient temperature and pressure, but it often co-exists on Earth with its solid state, ice; and gaseous state, steam (water vapor). It also exists as snow, fog, dew and cloud.

How does water form?
Water is formed when energy causes hydrogen and oxygen molecules to fit together. The process of creating water is very turbulent, making it very difficult for scientists to safely create water in a laboratory

Where Did Earth's Water Come From?

If the Earth's oceans were formed from water on our own planet, rather than asteroids, that would solve a couple of problems for planetary scientists. One is why Earth seems to have so much water in the first place. Another is why life, which as far as anyone knows requires water, seems to have appeared so quickly once the Earth had a solid surface.

Complicating the picture, neither of these hypotheses is mutually exclusive. Asteroids could deliver water while some could come from the Earth's interior. The question is how much each would deliver — and how to find that out.

So this mystery will remain one, at least for a little while longer.

Mystery of Earth's Water Origin Solved

Instead of arriving later by comet impact, Earth's waters have likely existed since our planet's birth.

The water that makes Earth a majestic blue marble was here from the time of our planet's birth, according to a new study of ancient meteorites, scientists reported Thursday.

Where do the oceans come from? The study headed by Adam Sarafian of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, found that our seas may have arrived much earlier on our planet than previously thought.

The study pushes back the clock on the origin of Earth's water by hundreds of millions of years, to around 4.6 billion years ago, when all the worlds of the inner solar system were still forming.

Scientists had suspected that our planet formed dry, with high-energy impacts creating a molten surface on the infant Earth. Water came much later, went the thinking, thanks to collisions with wet comets and asteroids.

"Some people have argued that any water molecules that were present as the planets were forming would have evaporated or been blown off into space," said study co-author Horst Marschall, a geologist at WHOI.

For that reason, he said, scientists thought that "surface water as it exists on our planet today must have come much, much later — hundreds of millions of years later."

"The planet formed as a wet planet with water on the surface."

If this is true, then it adds another piece of evidence to the truthfulness, and reliability of the Bible. Genesis 1:1, 2
More on that later.
However... They are uncertain as to how, and where water originated.

Saying "they don't know, therefore I know" is a weak argument, and falls to scrutiny. You cut and pasted several definitions and articles you found on google, yes, but none of them support your conclusion. That's not evidence.

To say that a snow flake did not require an intelligence, is the same as saying that a leaf, or flower, or baby, did not require an intelligence.

Loaded phrase, and doesn't necessarily follow; personally, I believe that the processes of life are undirected and unintelligent, but that's just me. You still haven't justified that snowflake formation is the SAME as the development of biological organisms. Those are leagues apart, both in complexity and in the processes involved. You are making a false equivalency. Second strike.

When really, the "natural" processes all take place because of an intelligence.
Water did not form itself, it required an intelligence, and the laws that govern the processes to form a snow flake, required an intelligence.
A tree did not form itself, it required an intelligence, and the laws that govern the processes to form a leaf, or flower, required an intelligence.
A cell did not form itself, it required an intelligence, and the laws (in the form of a "blueprint") that govern the processes to form a baby, required an intelligence.

We don't reason, "Oh, the leaves swaying in the wind is a natural process." fullstop.
Our experience tells us something is responsible for the wind - and the trees. We reasonably come to that conclusion.

No, YOU claim that "my book says it is the result of intelligence" and then, fullstop, decide it is truth. But you know what you did? You didn't actually justify anything of what you've said! Anyone can see the dishonest tactics you've employed here. You've begged the question by stating that intelligence is required for a process, therefore it is evidence of intelligence. Begging the question is yet another logical fallacy. Strike three.

Another example.
You probably wear a wrist watch. Does it work? Of course it does, and you dont have to interfere with it for it to work except put a battery in, after a few years (if you have a good watch).
You could say the process "happens naturally".
Why?
Because the designer made it, and started the process. So now the watch functions on its own.
The point is clear.

Equivalence fallacy, again. The placement of gears, pendulums, and other internal components in a watch are not at all similar to the function of the universe. A watch is an arrangement of molecules in a specific pattern. Humans originally found a use for that pattern, and so employed it in watchmaking. However, universes are a different beast. We have not created any universes, nor matter. We've simply arranged existent matter. Strike four.

"Natural" processes are all governed by laws, which logically, sensibly, and reasonably, and scientifically require an intelligent lawgiver.
Complex forms require an intelligence to construct them.

No. You have come to this conclusion entirely by your own failed logic, and in order to justify your holy book. You haven't arrived at this conclusion using anything other than loaded phrases and a misunderstanding of what science is. Don't try to peddle your nonsense here when your claims can so easily be torn apart. Do better.

So what is the most complex object, in the known universe?
The brain is the 'most complex thing in the universe'

"We won't be able to understand the brain. It is the most complex thing in the universe," says Professor Sir Robin Murray, one of the UK's leading psychiatrists.

"I don't know" is the correct answer here, because we don't know if more complex items exist in the universe. It's probably the most complicated object we know of, but you still haven't proven that all complexities require intelligence, merely certain ones. And because you've changed your definitions in the middle of your post to suit your argument, you've therefore used bad logic; inconsistent premises result in unreliable conclusions.

That's right.
Did the brain create itself?
Did if form naturally?
If we are to continue in the same vein of logic, reasonableness, sensibility, and true science, the conclusive, and factual answer is No. It was designed by an inteligence.

Your tactics, I see, have incorporated using "logic, reasonableness, sensibility, and true science" repetitively in order to make authoritative, sweeping statements. But this is just a variation of your old tricks, which I've very readily torn apart your flimsy assertions. You can't just claim you have authority on an issue by using buzzwords, you need to actually demonstrate it. You have only the most basic form of respect granted to you here; if you want respect associated with expertise, you'll have to earn it.

Since we acknowledge the existence of humans who invented devices such as airplanes, televisions, and computers, should we not also acknowledge the existence of the One who gave humans the brain to make such things?
No other answer makes sense, nor is in line with scientific facts.

Hence, why we say, there is scientific evidence for the existence of God. To deny that evidence is going against logic, reasonableness, sensibility, and of course, scientific evidence.

NO. That is not at all a conclusion supported by ANY scientific study, experiment, or experts on the subjects, except for fringe elements already presupposing your god exists. You've used your authoritative buzzwords to try and slip another assertion in without justifying it.

Let continue to reason...
Mathematics does require logic and intelligence, doesn't it?

Henry Shaefer, a professor of chemistry

The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it!’

Why would he say such a thing?

Because he doesn't understand everything about science, and has already formed a conclusion that his god exists and is responsible for the things he works on? I have a number of ideas as to why he would say that, and none of them conclude that your deity exists.

Science does much to help us understand the natural world, revealing a level of order, precision, and sophistication that points, in the eyes of many, to a God of infinite intelligence and power. In their view, science reveals not just details of the natural world but also facets of the mind of God.

You thought you could slip that one in without me catching it, didn't you? "In their view" is not evidence of a god.

That point of view finds abundant support in the Bible, which says that God'sinvisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.
It also factually says that the heavens are declaring the glory of God; and of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.
Despite all its wonders, however, the natural world reveals only some aspects of the creator.

Imagine that, presupposing a god causes you to believe a god exists. Masterful. But have you considered the notion that just assuming gods exist doesn't justify belief in them? You can use armchair philosophy all you like (and that's really all you've been doing), but that won't make a god exist. And you haven't demonstrated a single one here. Or, really, made an internally consistent argument. So your entire post could've been dismissed at strike one.

Science is limited.
Many truths about the creator - God - are beyond the scope of science.
To illustrate, a scientist may be able to describe every molecule in a chocolate cake, but will his analysis reveal why the cake was made or for whom? For answers to questions like that, which most people would regard as the more important ones, he needs to consult the person who baked the cake.
Similarly, according to Austrian physicist and Nobel laureate Erwin Schrödinger,

[science] gives a lot of factual information, but it is ghastly silent about all . . . that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. [This includes,] God and eternity.

You know what the most hilarious thing is? Anyone can make claims about the cake's purpose, but it takes either faith or reason to decide which claim about the cake is correct. Was it Mrs. McCready who made it for her niece on her birthday? Or Mrs. Rose, who says she made it to eat herself later tonight? If we go with faith, which instructs us to disregard evidence or an absence of evidence for claims, we are left with no means of making rational conclusions about reality. Sorry, theStudent, but you're right back where you started. Your argument remains dead in the water.

For example, science fail to provide answers to such questions as

• Why is there a universe?
• Why does our planet have an abundance of life, including intelligent life?
• If God truly is almighty, why does he permit evil and suffering?
• Is there hope beyond the grave?

Only the creator can answer such questions, and he does so - through his word, the Bible.
And it has been shown that the Bible can be trusted.

I wish I had the patience to go through your Member Notes, but you made it intentionally long and full of detours, to the point where addressing all of them would take hours upon hours. I'm at least confident that you haven't got anything in this post worth considering, because it's already late enough for me.

The Bible does harmonize with scientific truths about the natural world. In fact, the two fields of study are more than compatible — they beautifully complement each other. To disregard either one is to leave unopened a door to the knowledge of God.
So, The first clear, logical, sensible, reasonable, and scientifical evidence, that God exists, is creation - the natural world.

There you go again with that "logical, sensible, reasonable, and scientific" nonsense. But when all of your claims are left without a leg to stand on, suddenly your desperate attempt to cram credibility in your posts seems so... trivial. You can't justify your own assertions, so you hide behind labels you placed there yourself. How arrogant... and sad. You so badly want your ideas to be considered scientific, but because you're unwilling to actually use the scientific process correctly, you have to scrabble together a facsimile of authority, authority you acknowledge by giving science such a profound place among your labels.

Science is not your shield, nor has it ever been.

[H.sapiens]

theStudent does set a new mark in wholesale wiki quite mining. I too am amazed at how he can quote away and then ignore the fact that the quote destroys his argument.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 254 by theStudent]

!


[center]WHERE IS YOUR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?[/center]



[Replying to post 254 by theStudent]

I am using the above information which is not unaceptable in science.

Well, thanks for not copying the whole internet in here...Maybe next time.. just the links.

First off [Evidence 1], to say that an intelligence is required for certain complexities (i.e. sandcastle), makes sense. It is logical, sensible, reasonable, and please don't miss this, scientific.

What science?
If you invoke science, you have to give us a reason to think so.. otherwise, it's an empty claim. And experienced debaters demand evidence for claims. I didn't miss your claim that your statement was scientific. I missed your EVIDENCE for the claim. You quoted some text about some words.. that's not how science is done. Not even close. You demonstrate an utter lack of knowledge about what "science" means, or how it works.

You say, it does not require an intelligence to make a snow flake.
I think it required an intelligence to set the laws, and processes that make a snow flake.
So let's reason on it.

Forget your reasoning.. GET SOME EVIDENCE or drop the claim.
You have scientific evidence that what humans call the laws of physics were designed by A GOD?

Or are you claiming that the laws of physics were designed by HUMANS? Do you even know what the laws of physics ARE?.. They are DESCRIPTIONS.. designed by GUYS and GALS.. mostly guys. You should learn what the heck you want to lecture people about. This is way past ridiculous.

To answer my queston

Why can't a sandcastle form without an intelligence, but a sand dune can form from natural processes?

Hebrews 3:4 provides the most logical answer.
It can be explained by a law - the law of cause and effect.

The passage reads:

"For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything."

If you notice, when it says that "God is the builder of everything", it doesn't offer scientific evidence for that.

It's just another empty claim that you try to offer as evidence for another empty claim.

You claims are EMPTY of evidence, let alone any "scientific" evidence.

Your failure at this is spectacular.
Someone's got to win the prize.. I think you might have won it.

The simplest of houses is constructed by someone - a cause, also a complex sandcastle.
It is impossible for nature, even its elements to be responsible for constructing these.

Is it impossible that your argument doesn't make any sense?

In fact, we observe the opposite - ruin.

What we can only observe here is the ruination of reason.

Complex design requires deliberate thought - including knowledge and understanding. Hence an intelligence.

Is there a cause of the universe, and all within it?

Is there?
Please provide scientific evidence that there is, and what it might be.
Otherwise, just admit that you don't know what you want to talk about.

If a sandcastle requires an intelligent mind to build it, as a house does, then what of the other complex things in the universe? Would they not require a intelligent designer - the first cause?

I'm pretty sure you could not explain what you meant by "complexity". Is a subatomic particle complex? Is it more complex than a sand castle, and why?

Please demonstrate complexity scientifically.
We want evidence, not verbiage.

So to correctly answer the question - Does God exist? We cannot only stop at what we see as natural.

Some people don't stop at all and include imaginary beings of all sorts.
But what you are trying to GIVE US is scientific evidence.


[center]WHERE IS YOUR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?[/center]

For example.
When the apple fell from the tree, Isaac Newton did not say, "Ah, that's a natural occurrence." fullstop. What caused the effect? It was discovered - the law of gravity.
In the same way, what is the cause of the universe, and everything in it?

You must be imagining that gravity isn't natural.
Could you please give us your scientific evidence for that?

You have a question about the cause of the universe... lots of people do. Some of them are scientists in high regard.

[center]
WHERE IS YOUR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?[/center]

"The planet formed as a wet planet with water on the surface."[/size]

If this is true, then it adds another piece of evidence to the truthfulness, and reliability of the Bible. Genesis 1:1, 2

[/quote]


We aren't discussing the reliability of the Bible.

[center]WHERE IS YOUR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?[/center]

If you are imagining that what the Bible says is scientific evidence, you are sadly ( very sadly ) mistaken.

More on that later.
However... They are uncertain as to how, and where water originated.


To say that a snow flake did not require an intelligence, is the same as saying that a leaf, or flower, or baby, did not require an intelligence.

Right.

Exactly.

What is your scientific evidence that there was an intelligence behind leaf, flower, baby?


[center]WHERE IS YOUR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?[/center]


Your incredulity isn't scientific evidence.

When really, the "natural" processes all take place because of an intelligence.

When, really, you haven't given any scientific evidence for that claim, either.


[center]WHERE IS YOUR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?[/center]

Water did not form itself, it required an intelligence, and the laws that govern the processes to form a snow flake, required an intelligence.
A tree did not form itself, it required an intelligence, and the laws that govern the processes to form a leaf, or flower, required an intelligence.
A cell did not form itself, it required an intelligence, and the laws (in the form of a "blueprint") that govern the processes to form a baby, required an intelligence.

Where is your so called "scientific evidence" for those claims?


[center]WHERE IS YOUR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?[/center]

We don't reason, "Oh, the leaves swaying in the wind is a natural process." fullstop.
Our experience tells us something is responsible for the wind - and the trees. We reasonably come to that conclusion.

No, YOUR experience does that.. your experience, your bias and your profoundly illogical reasoning. But more importantly,


[center]WHERE IS YOUR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?[/center]

Another example.
You probably wear a wrist watch. Does it work? Of course it does, and you dont have to interfere with it for it to work except put a battery in, after a few years (if you have a good watch).
You could say the process "happens naturally".
Why?

Example of what... your faulty reasoning?

[center]Humans make watches happen. [/center]

Because the designer made it, and started the process. So now the watch functions on its own.
The point is clear.

The only point you made with this watch analogy is to point out the obvious.. humans make watches. NOT GODS.


[center]WHERE IS YOUR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?[/center]

Ok, enough of this nonsense fo
r now.

I think we got the point... you don't have any scientific evidence and if you DID, you wouldn't know it. You don't know what scientific evidence is.. and that's very plain.

[Bust Nak]

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

Exactly.

Do you mean "Exactly", as in they are not the same, or they are the same?

"Exactly" as in, I think you got the right idea with you question, but perharps I was jumping to conclusion. They are not the same, that's why you cannot conclude sand dunes are designed from the premise that sand castles are designed.

And I don't understand what you are saying here.

I am saying you cannot conclude "an intelligent mind designed the intelligent minds of humans" from the premise "an intelligent mind designed the intelligent minds of robots" because robots and humans are as different as sand castle and sand dunes.

Kindly explain, and also an observed experiment may help.
Can this be built without an intelligence?

No. But this can be built without an intelligence:

[Bust Nak]

Show me this experiment then?

I already showed you, with the heavy balls, remember? What's more, I told you how you could do it in your own home so you can show yourself.

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.

I've seen the experiments for gravity with my own eyes, done them with my own hands. The simplest can be performed by school children. The cartoons are not the experiments but illustrate the experiment.

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?

Both are moving away form the each 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?

They all are.

Come on, you said it's simple.

Well, I think it is simple.

Show me, find the experiments and show me?

You came up with that experiment yourself, you do it.

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??

Of course. That's science for you.

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?

You might learn new stuff? I think that's a rather good reason for talking to me.

NONE of those things were observed, but dreamed up by religious men.

Kinda ironic given what you said about "repeating the same old lies."

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?

Zero.

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?

No idea what you are talking about, sounds like the typical conspiracy theory. Stick to the science please.

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?

I am not religious, remember? An afterlife is what you believe in.

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

Nah, that's just your fantastical take on history. I am great at discerning reality from fantasy.

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.

Don't know how you came to that conclusion. I enjoy a good sci-fi myself.

Spock to Capt. Kirk: "Captain, I don't hear, smell or see anything ahead of us millions of light years away...

There are more senses than your eyes and nose you know.

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

That's plainly false since I believe I am a mindful animal with a brain that is reacting on its environment, yet God is easily deniable.

BB-universe and this Evolution-universe is unrelated?

More accurately cosmology and biology is unrelated.

So your one universe stopped evolving after 9 billion years?...

Your questions made no sense, you are mixing biology up with cosmology.

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)

That's a problem only you can fix.

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!

Not sure where you got the idea that big-bangs "should be happening in nothing all the time" from.

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

No, you just need to have empirical evidence.

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?

No, you just need to know what you are looking for.

expanding exponentially, .. while colliding into each other??

Each other as in other universes? Well they might, which is how scientists are proposing to test for the existence of other universes.

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?

Only you can answer that mystery.

When has an explosion organize things?

Entropy wise, never.

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.

That you used the word "faith" is enough to conclude that no, you do not understand.

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?"

The current size is pretty good and will have to do for now.

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.

Lucky many people just have their priority set right and don't treat the fundamental question about existence as "a waste."

So you believe the hand too, over the millions and billions of years evolved a mind of it's own, right?

No, that's the very opposite of what I just said. I wonder how much of your problems with science is the result of simply misreading what people wrote.

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.

You say that like the thieves wouldn't mind having their hands chopped off as long as their hands cannot reason or have desires like the brain.

So how does nature influence our reasoning?

1) By providing our brain via evolution in the first place and 2) provide data for our brain to reason about.

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.

Why would you suggest such a thing?

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!?

What does that have to do with leaves moving or standing on metal or birds flying by?

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.

Well it is not a very reasonable suggestion. What is the mechanism for a bird to affect your brain?

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!

Because I understand infinity enough to realise that material things can also be infinite.

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

Well no. I believe our brain evolves the mind by outside influence but nothing like what you just explained above. You attempt at explaining was frankly awful.

If you "understand Infinite", can you give me an example of it?

Natural numbers.

Or do you believe it's just a concept, like Peter Pan is?

No. And for the record, Peter Pan is not just a concept. There is a huge difference between "just a concept" and "fictional."

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

But I do understand Infinite, just like I said I did.

Finite has boarders, a size, and Infinite is?

Infinite is unbounded and a size.

... 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.

So you don't understand infinite, somehow you feel qualify to argue against someone who understands it better than you?

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?

Yes, that's pretty easy to imagine.

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...

No idea where you got that idea from. Our brains is literally lighting fast.

That's what I said.

No, it wasn't. Read more carefully next time.

I was talking about what you believe, that some muscle in your head is you, .. your mind, your soul.

And you were wrong about what I believe.

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.

I have a mind, a meteorite don't. That you have to remove my mind from the equation to making the analogy is why the analogy fails.

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.

Well it's about time you change you expectations. It is what a reasonable person would expect from a human.

Don't you know the difference?

Yes. Don't you?

So you believe you have a mind, not just some residue of the brain?

I believe I have a mind, that is the function 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 are jumping to conclusion. What we see in these "hundreds and hundreds of years of scientific inquiry into the brain" is entirely consistent with the mind being a function of the brain.

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.

That's called embracing humanity, YOU are the one who is denying humanity.

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.

No, that's just the infinite being infinite. Pretty easy concept for people who understand infinity.

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.

I think you'll find that scientists are explaining why the philosophical "absolute nothing" does not exist in reality.

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.

We can chalk that down as you not understanding what "God-haters" are saying.

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.

That's your fantasy talking again. Come back to reality.

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...

Clearly that's not the ONLY way, since I can deny "I Am" without making myself God nor denying anyone's their humanity.

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

Yes, I do mean that.

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?

That's quite a jump you made there. I would stay away from conspiracy sites if I was you, them sites can't be doing anything good for your ability to discern reality from fantasy.

[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