13 of 28
13
will freethinkers accept god if they find evidence?
Posted: 28 April 2013 08:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 181 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4721
Joined  2007-10-05
Mriana - 28 April 2013 07:57 PM

The only answer is that humans created god.  There is no other answer, esp given that the universe is made up of atoms that bonded together.  The psychology of belief makes it clear that people choose to believe in Casper the Holy Ghost even when science shows no evidence of a deity.  They want something to cling to, something to fill in the holes, even live in the holes, refusing to climb out of the holes, because it’s so much easier to cling to an invisible friend than to face reality head on.

Especially when one has such a tenuous grip on reality.

Adonai still has not addressed my refutations of his cosmology and planetary science. I guess it is easier for him to ignore his errors than to think about them.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2013 08:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 182 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7540
Joined  2007-03-02
DarronS - 28 April 2013 08:01 PM
Mriana - 28 April 2013 07:57 PM

The only answer is that humans created god.  There is no other answer, esp given that the universe is made up of atoms that bonded together.  The psychology of belief makes it clear that people choose to believe in Casper the Holy Ghost even when science shows no evidence of a deity.  They want something to cling to, something to fill in the holes, even live in the holes, refusing to climb out of the holes, because it’s so much easier to cling to an invisible friend than to face reality head on.

Especially when one has such a tenuous grip on reality.

Adonai still has not addressed my refutations of his cosmology and planetary science. I guess it is easier for him to ignore his errors than to think about them.

Probably because the burden of proof resides with him, not with us and he can’t take it.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2013 08:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 183 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5996
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 28 April 2013 06:20 PM

When the diverging views seek to solve the riddle of existence and support two completely incompatible viewpoints, one must be wrong.  In science you don’t get to pick a divergent viewpoint without proof. In theism?  Just look around and see the divergence among theist scripture. And each adherent is absolutely certain their “knowledge” of their god is infallible.

YOu keep making the same mistake. Trying to compare science with theism. They are two different things. The debate is here about if God exists, or not. We have not come yet to the matter, if it is the God of the bible, or a other God.

I am sorry, but it is you who keeps making the same mistake. You keep invoking an supernatural intelligent designer, without any explanation of what its properties are or how it functions, other than scripture. You are talking science, not spiritual moral concepts.
As long as you insist that god is the intelligent creator, the burden falls on you to provide proof.

This is the title of the thread: “will freethinkers accept god when they find evidence?”.  That is a scientific challenge and it is up to you to provide the evidence to convince me.

God is necessary for what?

As soon, as you can provide good positive evidence for philosophical naturalism, you can cancel God out of the equation. So far, you have not.

No, God is not in the equation to begin with. The burden of proof rests on you to provide evidence. If you include God in your equation, it’s your equation and your proofs are required. Research by theists in the field of Theism is not exempt from the scientific method.

No, nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately for theism, science has shown that scripture is wrong in so many areas

I don’t think so

Strange, the Vatican seems to think that scripture is in error and have admitted as much.

Pope John Paul II, on the 23rd of October, 1996, while speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences plenary session at the Vatican, declared the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin to be fact, tacitly acknowledging that man evolved from the apes, and reducing the biblical account of Genesis to that of mere fable!....  http://www.biblelight.net/darwin.htm

And if it was not for secular law, scientists would still be burned at the stake. Look up Hypatia as a small early example of theist acceptance of science in a world full of magic and demon posession.  Have you ever stopped to think about the hubris of an exorcism?  Shaman anyone?

It seems you have not studied history of science.

Kennedy and Newcombe also argue that science has it roots in Christianity. They point out that other world religions may express a worldview of fatalism (everything is fatalistically determined) or of illusion (that the physical world is an illusion). Science could not have arisen from these worldviews.Christianity on the other hand, is based on the notion that there exists a rational God who is the source of rational truth. This, they argue, gave rise to the possibility of scientific laws.
Evidence for this view is that nearly all the founders of modern science were Christians. These include men such as Keppler, Boyle, Pascal, Pasteur, Newton, etc….  ...http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t343-the-impact-of-christianity

No, it seems you have selective memory. The practice of book burning (along with the author) is a religious pastime, just like witch burnings, full with pomp and “public messages”.

From the Creed of the Inquisition:

Purpose

The 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur. Translation from the Latin: ”... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit.”[7]

The Dark Ages were dark because no knowledge of any kind was tolerated by the church, except to Clergy of the church (and of course the divine Royalty)

But, that is a side issue.

Check out David Bohm. 

Id rather like to see what you do understand with it

OK, we can start here,

It’ll please you to know that Bohm’s theories are formed in accordance with proper science (Bohm was an eminent physicist) identifies the various plena between the meta-physical worlds and the physical worlds.

Bohm believes that if intelligence is an “unconditioned act of perception,” then the intelligence cannot be grounded in “structures such as cells, molecules, atoms, and elementary particles.” The operation of intelligence, for Bohm, has to be beyond any factors that can be included in any knowable law. The “ground of intelligence must be in the undetermined and unknown flux, that is also the ground of all definable forms of matter.” For Bohm, intelligence has always been at the very core of the Implicate Order! ...
http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/plenum/plenum_3.html

You see, the Implicate Order is formed in the even larger condition of pure potential (the Potential Field)

Your God does not exists

How do you KNOW ? thats not much more than wishful thinking. Scientific evidence tells another thing in my view…..

I KNOW god does not exist by the same standard (wishful thinking) that allows you to KNOW that god does exist.

Again you are being selective in interpretation. This is what I said, “I KNOW god does not exist by the same standard (wishful thinking) that allows you to KNOW that god does exist. Lack of evidence!
If that sentence confuses you, think again and see where the value difference lies.

I have not made this assertion. I just believe in Gods existence…...

I respect that, but that cannot be used as evidence for the existence of a god.

However, I KNOW for sure that scripture is definitely not scientific evidence of anything except human imagination.

The bible is not a scientific book. But if you search for scientific evidence for Gods existence, just look around you. Whatever you see, is hardly the product of chance, of physical necessity. The evidence points overwhelmingly to a intelligent creator. But when your wish God not to exist is predominant, your mind and thinking is darkened, and you interprete everything to fit your preconveived world view.

Then do not cite scripture in support of the existence of a god. No atheist will accept scripture as “divine truth”, ever, because it isn’t.
There is another way out of this dilemma. Read Bohm, it’s good theoretical meta-physics! It is probably the “somewhat different religion” of Einstein in his famous quotation (Bohm and Einstein spent a lot of time together)

[ Edited: 29 April 2013 12:49 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2013 02:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 184 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Mriana - 28 April 2013 07:57 PM

  There is no other answer, esp given that the universe is made up of atoms that bonded together..

Why should that be evidence that there is no God ?

I’d rather say, atoms and the atomic forces are finely tuned , which is one more evidence for a fine tuner :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t31-the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

The strong force: (the force that binds nucleons (= protons and neutrons) together in nucleus, by means of meson exchange)

if the strong force constant were 2% stronger, there would be no stable hydrogen, no long-lived stars, no hydrogen containing compounds. This is because the single proton in hydrogen would want to stick to something else so badly that there would be no hydrogen left!
if the strong force constant were 5% weaker, there would be no stable stars, few (if any) elements besides hydrogen. This is because you would be able to build up the nuclei of the heavier elements, which contain more than 1 proton.
So, whether you adjust the strong force up or down, you lose stars than can serve as long-term sources of stable energy, or you lose chemical diversity, which is necessary to make beings that can perform the minimal requirements of living beings.


“How is it that common elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen happened to have just the right kind of atomic structure that they needed to combine to make the molecules upon which life depends? It is almost as though the universe had been consciously designed.”

Richard Morris, The Fate of the Universe, 1982, 155.


“Without such accidents water could not exist as a liquid, chains of carbon atoms could not form complex organic molecules, and hydrogen atoms could not form breakable bridges between molecules”

Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe,1979, 393.


ratio of mass of proton to mass of electron (1,836)

If this ratio were slightly different there would be no chemistry, and no life. S. Hawking cites this example as one of the many fundamental numbers in nature, and he says
“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”.

S. Hawking, A Brief History of Time,1988, pg 125.

 

the magnitude of each of the four fundamental forces


“The bulk of the carbon in our universe is produced in the triple-alpha process in helium-burning red giant stars. We calculated the change of the triple-alpha reaction rate in a microscopic12-nucleon model of the 12C nucleus and looked for the effects of minimal variations of the strengths of the underlying interactions. ... We conclude that a change of more than 0.5% in the strength of the strong interaction or more than 4% change in the strength of the Coulomb force would destroy either nearly all C or all O in every star.

H. Oberhummer, A. Csoto, H. Schlattl, SCIENCE 289, July 7, 2000, pg 88.

“Every one of these forces must have just the right strength if there is to be any possibility of life. For example, if electrical forces were stronger than they are, then no element heavier than hydrogen could form. ... But electrical repulsion cannot be too weak. If it were, protons would combine too easily, and the sun. ... (assuming that it had somehow managed to exist up until now) would explode like a thermonuclear bomb.”

Richard Morris, The Fate of the Universe, 1982, pg 153.


“If the strong nuclear force were even 0.3 % stronger or 2% weaker the universe would never be able to support life.”

Barrow and Tipler, Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 318-327, 354-359.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2013 03:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 185 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5996
Joined  2009-02-26

There never was nothing, there was a static zero energy caused by opposing potentials.

Einstein showed that mass and energy are equivalent, by E=mc2. So, if the universe started from “nothing,” energy conservation would seem to have been violated by the creation of matter. Some energy from outside is apparently required.

However, our best estimate today is that the total energy of the universe is zero (within a small zero point energy that results from quantum fluctuations), with the positive energy of matter balanced by the negative potential energy of gravity. Since the total energy is zero, no energy was needed to produce the universe and the first law was not violated.

The second law of thermodynamics requires that the entropy, or disorder, of the universe must increase or at least stay constant with time. This would seem to imply that the universe started out in a greater state of order than it has today, and so must have been designed.

However, this argument holds only for a universe of constant volume. The maximum entropy of any object is that of a black hole of the same volume. In an expanding universe, the maximum allowable entropy of the universe is continually increasing, allowing more and more room for order to form as time goes by. If we extrapolate the big bang back to the earliest definable time, the so-called Planck time (10-43 second), we find that universe started out in a condition of maximum entropy—total chaos. The universe had no order at the earliest definable instant. If there was a creator, it had nothing to create. (edit: except energy)
Note also that one cannot ask, much less answer, “What happened before the big bang?” Since no time earlier than the Planck time can be logically defined, the whole notion of time before the big bang is meaningless.

Furthermore, within the framework of Einstein’s relativity, time is the fourth dimension of spacetime. Defining this fourth dimension as ict, where t is what you read on a clock, i = sqrt(-1), and c is the speed of light, the coordinates of time and space are interchangeable. In short, time is inextricably intertwined with space and came into being “when” or “where” (language is inadequate to mathematics here) spacetime came into being.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

I believe this supports my layman’s argument and suggestion that not only time comes into existence along with space, but cosmic creative intelligence is also an evolving emergent ability and expression of universal spacetime, just as human intelligence is an evolving emergent ability of organic life.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2013 03:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 186 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
DarronS - 28 April 2013 08:01 PM
Mriana - 28 April 2013 07:57 PM

The only answer is that humans created god.  There is no other answer, esp given that the universe is made up of atoms that bonded together.  The psychology of belief makes it clear that people choose to believe in Casper the Holy Ghost even when science shows no evidence of a deity.  They want something to cling to, something to fill in the holes, even live in the holes, refusing to climb out of the holes, because it’s so much easier to cling to an invisible friend than to face reality head on.

Especially when one has such a tenuous grip on reality.

Adonai still has not addressed my refutations of his cosmology and planetary science. I guess it is easier for him to ignore his errors than to think about them.

what errors ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2013 03:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 187 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Mriana - 28 April 2013 08:10 PM
DarronS - 28 April 2013 08:01 PM
Mriana - 28 April 2013 07:57 PM

The only answer is that humans created god.  There is no other answer, esp given that the universe is made up of atoms that bonded together.  The psychology of belief makes it clear that people choose to believe in Casper the Holy Ghost even when science shows no evidence of a deity.  They want something to cling to, something to fill in the holes, even live in the holes, refusing to climb out of the holes, because it’s so much easier to cling to an invisible friend than to face reality head on.

Especially when one has such a tenuous grip on reality.

Adonai still has not addressed my refutations of his cosmology and planetary science. I guess it is easier for him to ignore his errors than to think about them.

Probably because the burden of proof resides with him, not with us and he can’t take it.

If you propose philosophical naturalism, you have also the burden of evidence to back up your claim.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2013 04:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 188 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 29 April 2013 03:26 AM

There never was nothing, there was a static zero energy caused by opposing potentials.

Einstein showed that mass and energy are equivalent, by E=mc2. So, if the universe started from “nothing,” energy conservation would seem to have been violated by the creation of matter. Some energy from outside is apparently required.

However, our best estimate today is that the total energy of the universe is zero (within a small zero point energy that results from quantum fluctuations), with the positive energy of matter balanced by the negative potential energy of gravity. Since the total energy is zero, no energy was needed to produce the universe and the first law was not violated.

The second law of thermodynamics requires that the entropy, or disorder, of the universe must increase or at least stay constant with time. This would seem to imply that the universe started out in a greater state of order than it has today, and so must have been designed.

However, this argument holds only for a universe of constant volume. The maximum entropy of any object is that of a black hole of the same volume. In an expanding universe, the maximum allowable entropy of the universe is continually increasing, allowing more and more room for order to form as time goes by. If we extrapolate the big bang back to the earliest definable time, the so-called Planck time (10-43 second), we find that universe started out in a condition of maximum entropy—total chaos. The universe had no order at the earliest definable instant. If there was a creator, it had nothing to create. (edit: except energy)
Note also that one cannot ask, much less answer, “What happened before the big bang?” Since no time earlier than the Planck time can be logically defined, the whole notion of time before the big bang is meaningless.

Furthermore, within the framework of Einstein’s relativity, time is the fourth dimension of spacetime. Defining this fourth dimension as ict, where t is what you read on a clock, i = sqrt(-1), and c is the speed of light, the coordinates of time and space are interchangeable. In short, time is inextricably intertwined with space and came into being “when” or “where” (language is inadequate to mathematics here) spacetime came into being.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

I believe this supports my layman’s argument and suggestion that not only time comes into existence along with space, but cosmic creative intelligence is also an evolving emergent ability and expression of universal spacetime, just as human intelligence is an evolving emergent ability of organic life.

http://thereforegodexists.com/2012/08/something-nothing/

this is just an misrepresentation of contemporary science. The quantum vacuum is a causal process that is contingent upon the universe. Physicists do not know what the precise cause of its’ affects are, but it is incredibly presumptuous to say that it offers an example of something spontaneously generating from nothing. To offer a quote from philosopher of science, Bernulf Kanitscheider:
“Vacuum fluctuation models are far from being a spontaneous generation of everything from naught. The origin of that embryonic bubble is really a causal process leading from primordial substratum with a rich physical structure to a materialized substratum of the vacuum. This process includes that causal dependence peculiar to every quantum mechanic process.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2013 04:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 189 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5996
Joined  2009-02-26

So, where does that prove a scriptural god?

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2013 04:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 190 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 29 April 2013 04:47 AM

So, where does that prove a scriptural god?

1. i am not here to prove something. Rather to present evidence for a creator God.

2. i am not presenting evidence in first stance for the God of the bible.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2013 05:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 191 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4721
Joined  2007-10-05
Adonai888 - 29 April 2013 03:48 AM
DarronS - 28 April 2013 08:01 PM
Mriana - 28 April 2013 07:57 PM

The only answer is that humans created god.  There is no other answer, esp given that the universe is made up of atoms that bonded together.  The psychology of belief makes it clear that people choose to believe in Casper the Holy Ghost even when science shows no evidence of a deity.  They want something to cling to, something to fill in the holes, even live in the holes, refusing to climb out of the holes, because it’s so much easier to cling to an invisible friend than to face reality head on.

Especially when one has such a tenuous grip on reality.

Adonai still has not addressed my refutations of his cosmology and planetary science. I guess it is easier for him to ignore his errors than to think about them.

what errors ?

See what I mean, folks? Willful ignorance. Is clicking a link too difficult for you Adonai?

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2013 05:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 192 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
DarronS - 29 April 2013 05:11 AM
Adonai888 - 29 April 2013 03:48 AM
DarronS - 28 April 2013 08:01 PM
Mriana - 28 April 2013 07:57 PM

The only answer is that humans created god.  There is no other answer, esp given that the universe is made up of atoms that bonded together.  The psychology of belief makes it clear that people choose to believe in Casper the Holy Ghost even when science shows no evidence of a deity.  They want something to cling to, something to fill in the holes, even live in the holes, refusing to climb out of the holes, because it’s so much easier to cling to an invisible friend than to face reality head on.

Especially when one has such a tenuous grip on reality.

Adonai still has not addressed my refutations of his cosmology and planetary science. I guess it is easier for him to ignore his errors than to think about them.

what errors ?

See what I mean, folks? Willful ignorance. Is clicking a link too difficult for you Adonai?

rather than ask to click to a link, and then have to read a bunch of things, that have nothing to do with the matter, i recomend, you select as i do, the relevant part, that you think makes your point clear, copy and post it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2013 05:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 193 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7540
Joined  2007-03-02
Adonai888 - 29 April 2013 02:34 AM
Mriana - 28 April 2013 07:57 PM

  There is no other answer, esp given that the universe is made up of atoms that bonded together..

Why should that be evidence that there is no God ?

I never said it was.  I just said the idea of a deity is a human concept.  Any definition you give of a deity is your concept of one and not a deity at all.

I’d rather say, atoms and the atomic forces are finely tuned , which is one more evidence for a fine tuner :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t31-the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

The strong force: (the force that binds nucleons (= protons and neutrons) together in nucleus, by means of meson exchange)

You get your alleged evidence from a religious website?  oh oh

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2013 05:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 194 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7540
Joined  2007-03-02
Adonai888 - 29 April 2013 03:50 AM
Mriana - 28 April 2013 08:10 PM
DarronS - 28 April 2013 08:01 PM
Mriana - 28 April 2013 07:57 PM

The only answer is that humans created god.  There is no other answer, esp given that the universe is made up of atoms that bonded together.  The psychology of belief makes it clear that people choose to believe in Casper the Holy Ghost even when science shows no evidence of a deity.  They want something to cling to, something to fill in the holes, even live in the holes, refusing to climb out of the holes, because it’s so much easier to cling to an invisible friend than to face reality head on.

Especially when one has such a tenuous grip on reality.

Adonai still has not addressed my refutations of his cosmology and planetary science. I guess it is easier for him to ignore his errors than to think about them.

Probably because the burden of proof resides with him, not with us and he can’t take it.

If you propose philosophical naturalism, you have also the burden of evidence to back up your claim.

Really?  Have you pulled out a legitimate science book lately?  I really don’t need much to back up my claim.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2013 05:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 195 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4721
Joined  2007-10-05
Adonai888 - 29 April 2013 05:16 AM

rather than ask to click to a link, and then have to read a bunch of things, that have nothing to do with the matter, i recomend, you select as i do, the relevant part, that you think makes your point clear, copy and post it.

There is no need to copy and paste a discussion from earlier in this same thread.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
   
13 of 28
13