I can prove God exists

[ArmChair General]

Metaphysics (singular despite the s) is nonsense, eh?

Kant's seminal work, fyi, is entitled 'the general principles of the METAPHYSICS of morals', which by your own admission, you spent a lifetime studying.

Any reasonable individual would therefore conclude from your statements that you are the sort of person who spends a lifetime dabbling in nonsense.

You are swimming in a pool of your own excrement and you are not even aware of it.

metaphysics, is more or less, bunk.

Kant was correct when he said that although we can never hope to answer our metaphysical questions, we can't help asking them anyway.

 

[numinus]

metaphysics, is more or less, bunk.

Nothing here except YOUR opinion.

As I said, opinions are like anal passages....

Kant was correct when he said that although we can never hope to answer our metaphysical questions, we can't help asking them anyway.

His 'metaphysics of morals' is a work of logical and philosophical beauty. He discussed the principles by which we discern a moral good - not a list of moral commandments to be read like a grocery list.

So, he answered his metaphysical question just fine.

 

[ArmChair General]

Nothing here except YOUR opinion.

As I said, opinions are like anal passages....

metaphysical claims are not scientific and contradictory metaphysical positions cannot be tested empirically to determine which is false. and since coherent metaphysical beliefs cannot be refuted, philosophers adhere to their metaphysical theories more out of personal disposition and temperament than evidence and proof.

In other words, metaphysical claims are only someones opinions, nothing more.

 

[numinus]

metaphysical claims are not scientific and contradictory metaphysical positions cannot be tested empirically to determine which is false. and since coherent metaphysical beliefs cannot be refuted, philosophers adhere to their metaphysical theories more out of personal disposition and temperament than evidence and proof.

In other words, metaphysical claims are only someones opinions, nothing more.

When you say 'cannot be tested empirically', you are already ASSUMING empiricism as the ultimate metaphysical truth, no?

And what do you call logical and mathematical truths, if not immutable, eh?

Tell you what, sell your epistemological relativity somewhere else.

 

[9sublime]

Niminus, you have a good point, but you try to make yourself seem like a genius by using words like epistemological relativity. Its unneccessary, and only goes to prove Armchairs point that you are not a real philosopher, only a pretentious imposter.

 

[ArmChair General]

When you say 'cannot be tested empirically', you are already ASSUMING empiricism as the ultimate metaphysical truth, no?

And what do you call logical and mathematical truths, if not immutable, eh?

Tell you what, sell your epistemological relativity somewhere else.

The fact that the underpinnings of our knowledge are in some sense inscrutable (and may remain so), the fact that Hume's worries make sense, the fact that Wittgenstein can say things like "our spade is turned," does not place every spurious claim to knowledge on an equal footing with science. The discomfort induced in mathematics by Godel does not make the doctrine of Christianity or any other religion even slightly more plausible. There is still a difference between jumping a puddle and walking on water.

 

[numinus]

Niminus, you have a good point, but you try to make yourself seem like a genius by using words like epistemological relativity.

It is necessary to be PRECISE.

When one is speaking about the nature of human knowledge - what we deem to be true, how else can one explain it without using the word 'epistemology', eh?

Its unneccessary, and only goes to prove Armchairs point that you are not a real philosopher, only a pretentious imposter.

I have very little regard for opinions not corroborated by facts nor logic, like this statement. Break wind somewhere else.

Oh, incidentally, I am neither a philosopher nor a pretentious imposter. I am an engineer by profession.

 

[numinus]

The fact that the underpinnings of our knowledge are in some sense inscrutable (and may remain so), the fact that Hume's worries make sense, the fact that Wittgenstein can say things like "our spade is turned," does not place every spurious claim to knowledge on an equal footing with science.

What in heaven's name is your point??

Science is merely one of the many philosophical models we have. It operates under the ASSUMPTION that all phenomena are measureable. And when we come across something that cannot be measured, what then?

Even in our cosmological discussions, we have discussed phenomena that cannot be measured - planck lenght, time and energy, space-time singularities, absolute freezing, invariance of the speed of light, conservation of mass and energy - and yet, you are inclined to accept them as truth.

But, with regards to god's existence, the most common and universal HUMAN EXPERIENCE, backed with unassailable LOGICAL ARGUMENTS, you are quick to dismiss.

What is more absurd is that you use the scientific method to refute something that is clearly BEYOND its field of inquiry.

And you have the temerity to call my arguments spurious?! You need to re-take highschool science to have a better comprehension of what exactly you're talking about.

The discomfort induced in mathematics by Godel does not make the doctrine of Christianity or any other religion even slightly more plausible. There is still a difference between jumping a puddle and walking on water.

<LOL>

You call godel's incompleteness theorems a 'mathematical discomfort' and I'm the pretentious one?! Does it tick you off that the logical algorithm employed by your computer is finite?

And when exactly have I argued for christianity or any other religion, eh?

Is a metaphysical god necessarily a religious god, hmm?

 

[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?

This isn't proof..it's a straw man..you have made assertions based upon the outcome you desire.

All codes of mutation arose without anything other than what the mutation was that was needed to protect the cell. How do cuts heal? The body tells it it needs to close the hole.

Next time you want to present ID as a bona fide scientific bases, dont' leave out the "Intelligence"

 

[invest07]

Refferring to prions as an example of life without DNA

Prions are a part of the body's immune system. They occupy locations at synapses. For an unknown reason, some of these prions develop a distorted body, known as folded. These folded prions have the ability to cause healthy prions to do a similar distortion. This causes a "swiss cheese" effect in the brain, destroying synaptical connections.

So far, no one has identified any DNA in prions. They appear to function by using different proteins. Prions are a product of human DNA but do not appear to contain DNA. Prions exhibit life-like functions but not independent life. Folded prions can't reproduce a 2cd generation but can distort existing "good" prions, probably through some protein not present in the "good" prion.

Prions are NOT an example of a code that can be demonstrated as evolving naturalistically.

My gauntlet is still on the ground. So far, no one in this forum has come up with a code or language that can be positively demonstarted as having evolved naturalistically.

I don't understand why this isn't a piece of cake for you Darwin Kool Aid drinkers. I mean, some of you say "Evolution is a fact". So if it is a fact, prove it. Just one little code or language will do.

All you God Deniers, I am giving you a public forum to prove that DNA could have evolved without intelligence.

The gauntlet is still at your feet.

 

[Popeye]

Refferring to prions as an example of life without DNA

Prions are a part of the body's immune system. They occupy locations at synapses. For an unknown reason, some of these prions develop a distorted body, known as folded. These folded prions have the ability to cause healthy prions to do a similar distortion. This causes a "swiss cheese" effect in the brain, destroying synaptical connections.

So far, no one has identified any DNA in prions. They appear to function by using different proteins. Prions are a product of human DNA but do not appear to contain DNA. Prions exhibit life-like functions but not independent life. Folded prions can't reproduce a 2cd generation but can distort existing "good" prions, probably through some protein not present in the "good" prion.

Prions are NOT an example of a code that can be demonstrated as evolving naturalistically.

My gauntlet is still on the ground. So far, no one in this forum has come up with a code or language that can be positively demonstarted as having evolved naturalistically.

I don't understand why this isn't a piece of cake for you Darwin Kool Aid drinkers. I mean, some of you say "Evolution is a fact". So if it is a fact, prove it. Just one little code or language will do.

All you God Deniers, I am giving you a public forum to prove that DNA could have evolved without intelligence.

The gauntlet is still at your feet.

What's your point here? If evolution can't be proven to your satisfaction, you automatically jump to believing in a supreme being, that's quite a leap.

 

[9sublime]

What's your point here? If evolution can't be proven to your satisfaction, you automatically jump to believing in a supreme being, that's quite a leap.

Exactly my point popeye!

First of theres the jump from:

We don't have the knowledge to prove where DNA comes from, so it has to be a supreme being.

Then theres the jump from it must be a supreme being to... it must be the Christian God.

 

[invest07]

So, popeye.
Try to follow this reasoning.
1. There are no codes or languages that have occurred naturally. All codes and languages have been written by intelligence. If there is a code or language that occurred naturally, no one in the forum knows what it is.
2. DNA is a code.
3. Therefore, if no one can demonstrate ANY code or language that occurred without intelligence, why would anyone assume the basic foundation of naturalistic evolution is true?
4. And if naturalistic evolution did not occur, how did we get here?

All you have to do to destroy this argument is demonstrate just one code or langauge that you can present reasonable proof that occurred naturally without intelligence. Just one is all it will take.

It is amusing to me to watch all you God Deniers dance around this point and try to change the premise. I know you can't admit even the possible existence of a creator. But if evolution is true, can't you point out just one code or language that evolution says is common? I mean, according to the Darwin Kool Aid drinkers, DNA eveolved with only unfocused and random forces driving it. According to you Darwinists, human DNA with 3 Billion base pairs just arranged itself solely by chance over the ages. I think the chances of this occurring are so ridiculously small as to not merit serious consideration by any rational human mind.

Could it be that we God Believeres have a higher standard of proof for our beliefs than you God Deniers?

Try answering the challenge instead of dancing around the point.

 

[Coyote]

So, popeye.
Try to follow this reasoning.
1. There are no codes or languages that have occurred naturally. All codes and languages have been written by intelligence. If there is a code or language that occurred naturally, no one in the forum knows what it is.
2. DNA is a code.
3. Therefore, if no one can demonstrate ANY code or language that occurred without intelligence, why would anyone assume the basic foundation of naturalistic evolution is true?

Negative evidence is not evidence.

You state there are no codes or languages that have occurred naturally. If we assume DNA occurred naturally then there is ONE. DNA has building blocks portions of which exist seperately in more primitive cells.

Other codes: look at the physical sciences. Why do minerals and chemicals react the way they do? What holds atoms together? There natural laws. What are these natural laws? They are codes.

All you have to do to destroy this argument is demonstrate just one code or langauge that you can present reasonable proof that occurred naturally without intelligence. Just one is all it will take.

I did.

It is amusing to me to watch all you God Deniers dance around this point and try to change the premise. I know you can't admit even the possible existence of a creator.

It amuses me that you can not invision the possibility that evolution is natural.

 

[9sublime]

Just because you don't know where DNA came from, doesn't mean that it came from God.