As we know, every time we can't explain something the answer is that the magic sky god did it.
How can you have evidence for God?
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
Yes, but as science explains more and more there is less room for the magic sky god.
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
That's true but my point was that superstition cannot, by itself, cause a physical event such as forming the earth.
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
A rule of formal logic
Thou shalt not default to the supernatural
Or how about Occum's razor?
god isn't needed to explain the cosmos, so,,,,
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
Keep hope alive. With that view there will always be "room" for your god. But please, don't expect everyone else to bury their heads in your sand.
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
Yes, that is the natural way of things.
I will make you this promise. Science will never explain creation. Not today, not in 1000 years. Science itself says that matter cannot be created or destroyed which means either the universe doesn't actually exist, or that it exists outside of science. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge this is actually burrying their head in the sand. Not the other way around.
They would observe no evidence whatsoever is offered from those who think they're smart enough to know for sure there are gods.
It would appear that your empty promise is more of a threat, in that people like you will make sure science remains suppressed through religious ignorance.
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
Is this promise as good as all the other theist promises? see those are never kept either.
Umm, if matter cannot be destroyed, what happens to the uranium when an atomic bomb is detonated?
Last edited:
Cris answered the question very well and I hope you read his post. You also have to think about why the notion of 'God' arises in humans universally. Anthropomorphism (which is a survival mechanism in all humans) results in the concept. It comes down to any claim of 'God' by humans being nothing more than anthropomorphization of reality; hence, they are simply not true (which is why evidence is absent).
Well, of course not. 'Creation' is a theistical concept that has no correspondence to reality. Nothing for science to explore there.
More or less correct.
Nope, that's not what it means. Matter is condensed energy that is represented by various cross sections of the universe. That means the energy is part of our present universe.
Various models of reality predict how a universe might occur and show that if a universe is not a static entity then it itself can be transformed via a larger system it is a part of (much like one form of energy can be transformed into another in our universe). The top-level systems (i.e. reality) in any model appear to be static (in other words it/they always exist). What that means is that our unvierse might simply be a blip of change in a much larger system that always exists and any energy it has is a transformation from the larger system.
It's sounds like you value how anthropomoprhic delusion makes you feel more than truth.
That's called taking a risk. I agree it can be a successful strategy, and it is employed in science when we make a radical hypothesis, but we do not neglect to test it. That involves experimentation, or in your example, trying an on-line business or cramming for a test. I don't dismiss the God hypothesis because it's radical or risky, but because it fails the test.
My goodness we are all hostile aren't we. You've all shot me down with definite certainty without telling my how we can exist. Your "explanation" above is certainly the most elaborate thing I've heard here, but it says absolutely nothing. You said that matter is condensed energy. So what?Science also states in the law of conservation of energy, that energy cannot be created or destroyed either. So we're back to the same question; If energy can't be created how did it get here?
You talk about a top level reality that "always exists" as if that explains it? How did this ever present top level get there? You state it as fact and then move on. How is that any different than a creationary force that is above and beyond all laws of physics? You're saying the same thing I am.
Why are you people making something so simple become so complicated. You can keep explaining things by saying A was caused by B. And B was caused by C etc. but eventually you will get to as far back as you can go and you will still be left with the same question. How did it all start. If saying that it all started from a static reality that always existed makes you feel better than saying the word creator, then go ahead, but your static reality is just as impossible as a creator.
I almost embarassed for you on this one. That's almost like asking what happens to wood that you put in a fire. The entire mass of the wood, is still present, it's just that it has been changed into a different form. Most of it is carried away as smoke and the rest is left as ash. The same thing happens with uranium. The sub atomic particles are excited to a point where they can no longer be contained and they shoot out smashing into other subatomic particles creating a chain reaction. All of the mass is still there, it has just changed form. There is nothing in science that says matter cannot be changed into a different state, but it cannot come from nowhere or be turned into nothing.
I absolutely don't think I'm smart enough to know there are gods. Apparently you having not been paying much attention to what I've said. My Evidence of a creationary force (please note that I've never argued for or against a god in any of my posts) is that we exist. I am maintaining that according to all laws of science, existence is an impossibility. Since we do exist I can only conclude that an impossible force must have done it. Whatever you choose to call that force is up to you, but to deny it seems at best, foolish and at worst stubborn. I would love to know all about that force and I am not afraid to admit that. You seem to be confusing my quest for answers for a belief that I know the answers. The quickest way to ignorance is to believe you have nothing left to learn. Certainly on the issue of the creation of the universe we all still have an inifinite amount to learn.
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
Actually it's turned to energy.
Here is an interesting excerpt from a New York Time article about scientists and their belief in God.
According to a much-discussed survey reported in the journal Nature in 1997, 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God - and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray "in expectation of receiving an answer."
The link to this article is:
nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?pagewanted=print
Some scientists have found that the universe is too complicated and sophistacated to be an accident. The more they probe for scientific answers the more they are overwhelmed by the impossiblitiy of it all. Science is great at providing reasons for why things work, but it falls short in the area of creation.
According to a much-discussed survey reported in the journal Nature in 1997, 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God - and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray "in expectation of receiving an answer."
The link to this article is:
nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?pagewanted=print
Some scientists have found that the universe is too complicated and sophistacated to be an accident. The more they probe for scientific answers the more they are overwhelmed by the impossiblitiy of it all. Science is great at providing reasons for why things work, but it falls short in the area of creation.
How 'we' can exist? An adequate planet (Earth), adequate energy (our sun), and the laws of physics result in difference detection machines that collect energy to persist (i.e. all life on Earth).
It's not that ellaborate. I'll try and make it simpler so the point isn't lost. Various models of the universe show it being a structure in parent environment. The parent has resources for causing, reclaiming, or modifying universes. Much like conservation of energy in our universe the same would apply to the parent. Our universe' energy would be a transference from the parent.
Now naturally you are going to ask about the parent (where did it come from)? The question simply might not apply (I'll explain more below).
I am communicating what various models predict... not necessarily facts. A topmost parent (aka: reality) is not beyond the laws of physics. It IS the laws of physics. It doesn't begin, it doesn't end, it's not a cause, and it's not an effect. It simply "is". From a human perspecitve, that's a really difficult concept but it becomes easier to understand with a simple question:
-->Does "nothing" (as in the absence of everything / anything) exist?
Can you point out a single instance of nothing? Can anyone? The answer of course "no"; therefore, "something" always exists.
Reality is alot of things but simple is not one of them. We can track a causal chain but eventually the question "how did it start" no longer makes sense.
A static reality isn't a life form and we can observe pieces of it, make predictions about it, and test predictions for validity (that makes things very possible). A 'creator' is always claimed to be a sapient omnipotent life form that is non-observable, non-predictable, and non-testable. The reason different words / phrases are used to label them both is because they are very different concepts. Realistically; however, 'creator' is simply an projection of human traits on reality.
So because we don't have the answers now, should we rely on a great magic entity as the placeholder once again? Every time we have done this in the past it has later shown to be wrong. How much does god have to retreat into the shrinking gaps before we stop falling back on him/her/them/it as the easy answer.
Arthur C. Clarke -
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
Last edited: