I can prove God exists

[numinus]

If your talking about the Law of Thermodynamics. It doesn't contradict evolution. It says that entropy is unreducible in a closed system. Evolution, chemistry, and biology are not closed systems.

Thus they are not affected by that Law.

Entropy relates to the population distribution of organisms, no?

And if you wish to confine entropy exclusively to thermodynamics, then the only absolutely closed thermodynamic system is the whole universe, no?

And if one subjects human evolution to scientific rigor, one must go back to the beginnings of the planet, the solar system and the entire universe, no?

And what does entropy say about cosmology?

 

[numinus]

i think the real issue is, if god exsists or an actual heaven does as a result in believing in one particular god or another. All god exsistence of the major religions surrounds one passing into a heaven after

they ultimately die.

That is the fundamental question to the nature of being. Metaphysics.

Regardless of the reason. As long as they have agreed that person X or reason Y is the difference in going to heaven or hell. That is something they all have in common.

Am I the only one who sees right through this?

That is the fundamental question of the nature of right and wrong. Ethics.

Religion is a mask. A mask for raising considerable amounts of wealth, and political power throughout history that these theories based on things that could not be explained at the time people had questions for. Why do we exsist? What put us here?

Religion is a RIGHT OF THOUGHT. Thought is an inalienable part of the human person.

As I recall, the early christians were being tortured and fed to the lions for their particular right of thought. The jews have been enduring this since forever, it seems. The buddhists have been living in austerity for just as long.

I advice you to make opinions on the things you actually know.

The truth is, we are probably a very rare occurance in a very large area of space. There is nothing at all similar to an even remote eco system that supports intelligent life, that humans are aware of.

Actually, bacteria have been known to survive extreme conditions - from the vacuum of space to the tremendous impact of interstellar debris.

And if you are entertaining the notion that human life could have started from some rudimentary form of organism like bacteria, then it is most probable that intelligent life can exist elsewhere.

Either way, scientists are averse to accept randomness as an explanation of certain phenomena. Anything that is beyond the laws of nature is simply beyond the field of scientific inquiry.

Withholding conspiracy theories, Humans are the only creatures in the known world who are able to actually be able to be objectionable about the creation of thier exsistance and what happens to them after they die.

How did it happen? I dont have a good answer to that.

It's called REASON.

Could a superior power have made that happen? I dont know.

The reasoning faculty is a function of superior beings.

I do know this much. If a heaven exsists, only those who have passed away can confirm or deny heaven or hell's existence.
Once they have passed they are unable to spread that message among living people. I dont believe in ghosts.

Reason can 'pass' between the material world and the ideal world.

Mathematics and most branches of philosophy are not exactly part of the physical world, are they?

Therefore, humankind, will never probably be able to agree on the existence of God, Heaven, Hell, or whose prophet were true, despite any evidence to the contrary.

All humans agree on the operations of logic.

Therefore, I guess I would consider myself an agnostic.

I respect agnostics who are so as a consequence of some imperative to know and understand.

Your agnosticism comes, it seems, from an unwillingness to utilize the gray matter which god, in his wisdom, conferred on you.

 

[9sublime]

So Numinus, you are basically saying that when it comes down to religion, its fine to jump the gaps of knowledge in the name of reason???

 

[invest07]

PoliticalGrrrl
So whoever Kathleen Hunt is, she knows more about this than Steven Jay Gould?
So who do you believe: Kathy or Stevey?

 

[invest07]

numinus

Regardless of how the Darwinistas contort entropy, any physicist will tell you there are NO exceptions that have ever been discovered of violations to the entropy law of thermodynamics.

My truck was new in 1992. The paint was shiny, the engine compression was precisely within factory specs and the clutch and brakes were tight. Today, 15 years down the road, the paint is dull, the compression varies 25% from #1 to #4 cylinder, the clutch chatters and the brakes squeal. This is the natural order of things. My truck is wearing out.

My body is slowly aging. The sun is using up it's fuel. The earth's rotation is gradually slowing. Comets are losing mass with each pass around the sun. Saturn's rings are becoming increasingly more unstable.

The amount of energy available to do work in the universe peaked at the Big Bang and has been going downhill ever since. The natural order of the universe is for things to run down (become less organized) over time.

MacroEvolution most certainly does violate the entropy law of thermodynamics. MacroE requires life to get more organized over time. MacroE also volates the First Law of Biogenesis.

Most Darwinistas will say intelligent design is not a scientific belief system. However a belief in ID does not require one to accept any violations of natural laws.

 

[Jazzratt]

I can prove God exists

No, you can't. Nor can I disprove it, in the same sense. We've got a draw there, mate.

You can disprove my statement by citing just one example of a code or language that arose naturalistically, without intelligence. If no such code or language exists it proves that DNA was the result of design.

DNA was judged at first by the chemical reactions resulting in emotion and various other traits. Then it was passed down and perhaps altered slightly due to the fact that TWO PARENTS HAVE DIFFERENT DNA (duh) and therefore combined into another set, and move hereditarily. Yes, DNA was intelligently designed. By our inner intelligence, our brain, and the amazing machine that is the human body. You have to realize: **** happens. Humans are pretty advanced. Yay.

 

[9sublime]

Most Darwinistas will say intelligent design is not a scientific belief system. However a belief in ID does not require one to accept any violations of natural laws.

A belief in ID requires you to make a leap of facts and logic. I could accept that DNA was too complicated to evolve in the way that we believe it did, and also that we do not know the origins, but I cannot just fill this in with an intelligent creator, when their are other possibilites our science and knowledge cannot comprehed at the moment.

Did you really believe you could better some of the greatest philosiphers of all time when you arrogantly stated in the title of this thread 'I can prove God exists'?

Come off it, the gaps in our knowledge are still there, and if you want to fill them in with a creator, thats fine with me. BUT you need to accept thats what you've done to please yourself and calm your fears about life and death, a primitive urge, and that it doesn't count as any kind of proof.

 

[Coyote]

Invest recycles the same old arguments that the Fundies keep trotting out.

Transitional fossils exist - the majority of paleontologists support the interpretations on transitional fossils. Fundies (I'm sick and tired of hearing about "Darwinistas" and other such terms so I'm going to apply the proper terminology here: Fundies) prefer to attribute a supernatural explanation when there are gaps in knowledge. Gaps in knowledge do not automatically validate a supernatural explanation.

Fossilization is very very rare - the conditions leading to it are very rare - most that end up fossilized also get destroyed through natural processes or are never discovered. Hence the many gaps.

What do you suppose are the mathmatical odds that:
an animal will die under the right conditions to become a fossil?
the fossil will survive natural erosion and upheavals?
the fossil will then be discovered by humans?

Pretty sparse I bet.

Why is it that Fundies refuse to submit their theories to peer review?

 

[Cookie Parker]

If you can read this, I can prove that God exists. And, for all you atheists or agnostics out there, I will give you the opportunity to prove me wrong. So far no one has been able to do so. This is based on the writings of Perry Marshall, 2005.

Patterns versus Designs

Examples of patterns are stalgamites, snowflakes, crystals and tornadoes. The formation of patterns is part of the study of Chaos. The formula for a snowflake is "Water+cold air+gravity+wind+time". Patterns are not information. No information is programmed into a pattern and no information can be decoded from a pattern.

If you are seriously into math, then fractals and mandelbrot sets are patterns. Weather is a pattern but forecasts are notoriusly unreliable because the weather is driven by chaos.

No intelligence is required to form patterns. Only naturally occurring events.

Designs require intelligence. Designs are examples of information.

Music is an example of a design. Notes are represented symbolically on paper. The sounds generated depend on the placement of these symbols on the staff, the shape of the symbol and the order. Music also exists in physical form when the air vibrates in a musical composition.

Windows is a design. It is a binary code in which "on" and "off" signals are arranged in sequences to send coded electric signals to various components of a computer. The component decodes the sequence of ons and offs and takes action based on the coded instructions. Windows XP is estimated to contain in excess of 30 million lines of code. This means that componnents must be capable of decoding the same 30+ million lines.

Language is a design. Language requires symbols that have meaning. Meaning is determined by the specific choice of symbols, the sequence and a standard set of rules to decode the meaning. Languages are a design that requires intelligence.

Designs require encoding and decoding to determine the meaning of the coding.

DNA

The DNA molecule is an example of information. Humans have 3 billion base pairs on each DNA molecule. One DNA molecule is a blueprint for an entire living organism; The body, the organs, the enzymes and hormones, the nervous system, the brain. Everything we are is encoded in each DNA molecule in our body.

I am 5'10" tall with brown hair, brown eyes and light skin. I have an astigmatism in my left eye and a deep voice. I have a shallow foot arch and and am right handed. All this is due to the information encoded into my DNA. The DNA I received from my parents and based on the DNA they received from my grandparents.

DNA is an encoding and decoding system. DNA is a language. DNA can be compared with computer programming. DNA is a code.

And DNA cannot have occurred naturally, without intelligent input.

The Challenge

Give me one example, just one, of a code or language that arose naturally, without some intelligent input. Give me just one example of information that arose solely from naturally occurring events. Give me reasonable proof, with your argument and with sources, that clearly establish that your code or language arose spontaneously from natural forces, without intelligent input. Just one example is all it will take and I will retract my initial statement.

Is anyone up to this challenge?

They all arose naturally...it's a false premise. It assumes that chaos is what is used to prove no God and that order is used to prove God. Nothing but a strawman here....

All arose from evolution..changing and adapting...and science and nature has its rules...it does not, however, have a creator. There is no such evidence to prove a creator.

 

[Cookie Parker]

Again, your whole argument is a false premise you create...a strawman...and then tell people to refute it...it refutes itself. It is not an argument. And it's circular...you repeat it and it goes no where proving nothing.

 

[Bunz]

cookie nails it.

 

[numinus]

So Numinus, you are basically saying that when it comes down to religion, its fine to jump the gaps of knowledge in the name of reason???

Who's talking about religion?

Theology and metaphysics are two different subjects.

 

[numinus]

numinus

Regardless of how the Darwinistas contort entropy, any physicist will tell you there are NO exceptions that have ever been discovered of violations to the entropy law of thermodynamics.

My truck was new in 1992. The paint was shiny, the engine compression was precisely within factory specs and the clutch and brakes were tight. Today, 15 years down the road, the paint is dull, the compression varies 25% from #1 to #4 cylinder, the clutch chatters and the brakes squeal. This is the natural order of things. My truck is wearing out.

My body is slowly aging. The sun is using up it's fuel. The earth's rotation is gradually slowing. Comets are losing mass with each pass around the sun. Saturn's rings are becoming increasingly more unstable.

The amount of energy available to do work in the universe peaked at the Big Bang and has been going downhill ever since. The natural order of the universe is for things to run down (become less organized) over time.

MacroEvolution most certainly does violate the entropy law of thermodynamics. MacroE requires life to get more organized over time. MacroE also volates the First Law of Biogenesis.

Most Darwinistas will say intelligent design is not a scientific belief system. However a belief in ID does not require one to accept any violations of natural laws.

What they are saying is that open thermodynamic systems MAY work opposite that of a closed system. Living things are essentially open thermodynamic systems which feed on 'free energy'. The abundance and variety of life on the planet is saying that this 'reverse' entropy is more the rule than exception.

The solar system was formed from an essentially homogenous cloud of dust that contracted to form the sun and the planets (hence an abundant amount of 'free energy') BY GRAVITY ALONE.

I was hoping someone would explain this curious phenomenon in light of the laws of thermodynamics. No such luck, it seems.

 

[numinus]

A belief in ID requires you to make a leap of facts and logic. I could accept that DNA was too complicated to evolve in the way that we believe it did, and also that we do not know the origins, but I cannot just fill this in with an intelligent creator, when their are other possibilites our science and knowledge cannot comprehed at the moment.

Did you really believe you could better some of the greatest philosiphers of all time when you arrogantly stated in the title of this thread 'I can prove God exists'?

Come off it, the gaps in our knowledge are still there, and if you want to fill them in with a creator, thats fine with me. BUT you need to accept thats what you've done to please yourself and calm your fears about life and death, a primitive urge, and that it doesn't count as any kind of proof.

A priori reasoning, negative logic and modal logic are VALID. Science employs these kinds of reasoning as well, fyi.

 

[numinus]

They all arose naturally...it's a false premise. It assumes that chaos is what is used to prove no God and that order is used to prove God. Nothing but a strawman here....

All arose from evolution..changing and adapting...and science and nature has its rules...it does not, however, have a creator. There is no such evidence to prove a creator.

Matter and energy come from an infinte chain of causality, then? It is perfectly 'scientific' to conclude that everything is reducible to an infinite regress?

Do you even give yourself leave to realize how ridiculous that is?