God doesn't exist (Page 2)

theHating: "I said using "scientific instruments" in a lab. Scientific Method is quite another thing (it's the same thing) and we probably wouldn't agree on a description (we already do) but I can refer you to a short course on it by a very distinguished and well-known scientist.

The Scientific Method describes how one imputes observances and places them into a formula to arrive at a theory, which can be tested. (With infratelemetry) If the results don't work, something is wrong with the formula.

You can't place "God" into a formula - you can place the evidence in it."


How are you using the term " formula"? I sense the term formula was used to denote a hypothesis or a hypothetical. In that sense you could indeed put the existence of god into a formula (hypothesis) placing evidence to support your theory is NOT scientific, you cant focus only on narrow evidences, there needs to be a robust body of evidence to rule out any possibility of a competing explanation.

theHating: If you are claiming in your hypothesis that god lies beyond the realms of testability, a supernatural realm, and it is not possible to know if that realm is enacting intelligent creation upon nature, then how can you possibly assert knowing it exists?

theHating: "God affects snowballs by preventing the maker from tucking a rock inside of it."

Silliness aside... (Im an atheist and I have never put a rock in a snowball. That sounds like something anyone with any belief would do regardless of god intervening in their thoughts...)
So you are walking along and see a giant ball of snow. You can see a huge trail behind it all the way up to a giant hill, where stands a man, presumably the origin of the small bit of snow and force to move it. But from there, his contribution is dictated by the natural causality of gravity pulling the snowball to its natural resting point, amidst a myriad of more molecules of snow, and out emerges from this series of events is a mass so large not even its creator could lift it for yet another tumble.

Consider the same scenario except without any evidence a man at the top of the hill caused a bit of snow to ball up like that. Maybe an avalanche. Does an avalanche have a creator?

Does a volcano have a creator?

You cant assert an avalanche or a volcano have a creator without providing a substantiating body of evidence to rule out any other possible explanation. To my knowledge, god has never been found responsible or as a means of explaining the origins of the universe. If you have any evidence to prove me wrong, I would love to know about it.

theHating: Even if it was found an avalanche had been created by a man, a donkey, or even god himself, the result of that avalanche is not dictated by the creator and must be explained within the understanding of natural forces, and thus the end result really has little to do with what its creator even intended on creating.

theHating: So can you make god exist by just believing hard enough?

Zanjan: Twins and quadruplets aren't clones.

A formula is a mathematical phrase - I take it you never learned algebra. Theoretical physicists use very complex formulas. They still need to be tested but often the equipment to test it hasn't been invented yet.

Today, there's an awful lot of scientific investigation devoted to proving what we already know is true. I guess scientists need to feed their families too. Here are some scientifically proven discoveries:

https://list25.com/25-obvious-knew-science-proved/

"Im an atheist and I have never put a rock in a snowball."

You live in Israel so, you don't know how to make one.

Giant snowballs are naturally made by wind - it doesn't need to go downhill if the conditions are right. Wind can move large trees, boulders and humans. How did the human on the hill get there? Who commands the wind?

An avalanche isn't a snowball - it's a verb, describing the action of a loosened slab of pack snow rumbling down the mountain slope. They're precipitated by atmospheric warming but triggered by sound waves. Winds can make very loud sounds. So can a gun. Avalanches don't occur in Israel no matter how many guns you got.

A volcano has a creator but it isn't man - it's the earth's response to pressure build up. Volcanoes don't always explode; sometimes, they just leak and ooze, maybe smoke a bit. . God controls when it will blow and how much.

"If you are claiming in your hypothesis that god lies beyond the realms of testability"

I didn't claim that. I claimed He can't be tested using physical instruments. You don't need them. A gazillion people will tell you what happens when you test God. Go ahead and try it.

If you don't know how the universe was created, no problem. When you don't know why it was, then you've got a problem.

Zanjan: "can you make god exist by just believing hard enough?"

If you believe hard enough, you'll probably just get an aneurysm.

Very few possess the power of mind over matter, how much less the mind over spirit. There are some who claim they believe; undoubtedly they believe something, just not in God. There's a way to tell but they aren't familiar with that.

theHating: Should i fast for forty days and pray to jesus to reveal himself?

Zanjan: No. I never had to. If you put conditions on God, He's just going to ignore you. Don't demand names or be insincere. Try to be a good servant - it takes a lot to impress Him so you'd want to convince Him you're worthy.

Do your research independently...... pray for a sign from the Lord of the Age and beg for direction; perhaps you'll eventually receive a vision you can follow. Worked for me.

theHating: "Do your research independently...... ()pray for a sign (magic?) from the Lord of the Age and beg for direction(self-induced autohypnosis?); perhaps you'll eventually receive a vision you can follow. Worked for me."

I have no doubt it worked for you.



But what you experience versus what can be called fact is the difference in testability; hence scientific evidence. You can't assert that just because you see godzilla or a leprechaun, doesnt mean you can objectively prove it exists.

For example, i know for a fact god does not exist like i know for a fact that leprechauns do not exist. Because there is no scientific evidence to support such a thing.

Here we have two competing explanations, one of them is the simplest and the other one continues question begging.

Consider the snowball analogy and your conclusion "who put the man on top of the hill?" The simplest explanation could be " he walked there. " Begging the question -- "well, who gave him the legs and the will to..." And so on.

What the theist doesnt understand is what constitutes evidence to support the prevailing explanation for why something might occur. In your mind, you see existence as the direct line of proof, for if god didnt exist, creation couldn't possibly exist. No, that is an argument from ignorance, where you assert the things science cant explain as being explainable by god, which is not an explanation at all and still begs the question of God's existence before you can assert with absolute knowledge that no other explanation can account for.

And of course, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, extraordinary claims with no evidence may be tossed out of the window WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

Do leprechauns exist? No! How do I know this? There is nothing to substantiate the claim!

Does god exist? No! How do I know this?

NOT ONE PERSON ON THIS EARTH CAN PROVE IT WITH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

if you have some, i would like to see it, otherwise your vacuous claims can be tossed out the same way you tossed em in : WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

Angry Beaver: Isn't the bible scientific evidence? Ken Ham says it is

Zanjan: There's scientific evidence that these Biblical records have been around for a few thousand years. Pearls of wisdom stand the test of time while the prophecies the Bible contains can be scientifically proven as true.

"self-induced autohypnosis?"

Nope. You can't direct yourself when you don't know where you're going.

"But what you experience versus what can be called fact is the difference in testability; hence scientific evidence. "

You appear to be stuck in a rut, claiming science provides the answer to everything. If the creek runs dry, how scientific is that? There's nothing scientific about evidence unless you're using the eyes of a man-made instrument to locate it.

A FACT is the bundle of evidence in which more than one person agrees is all connected. Therefore, it can be based on nothing more than observation.

Nobody saw the plane crash so we can't know how this crumpled twin turboprop found beside the football field came to be that way. Without further evidence, we'd intuit it fell out of the sky and call this a fact.

We don't have to test that with science to be correct, despite there being a remote possibility it was run over by a Zamboni. We don’t have to replicate the experience to find out, only be satisfied with the evidence.

Zanjan: Definition of fact: "The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability — that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. "

“what constitutes evidence to support the prevailing explanation for why something might occur”

Event: I'm home alone. I fall and hit my knee hard on the floor. The event is a fact because there is plenty of evidence that this happens to many people. However, did it really happen to me? That would be an additional fact.

My experience, as I recounted it, is a single event. Meanwhile, a forensic examination would show there's a lot more to my story than that; nevertheless, * My* story is still a fact. That other stuff is irrelevant to MY story - it's evidence belonging to an additional fact.

“you see existence as the direct line of proof, for if god didn't exist, creation couldn't possibly exist”

“Causation” would NOT be my only path to arrive at a truth. If anything exists, it’s real. That doesn’t imply one understands the full reality.

I accept, as truth, that my Small Pox vaccination continues to provide immunity (Small Pox was eradicated decades ago but could still return). I’ve never contracted shingles; in this case, I can’t accept, as truth, that my body continues to provide immunity. The main piece of evidence is missing - I don’t know whether or not I’ve had Chickenpox.

Therefore, what would be my best course of action?

Zanjan: You can arrive at truth simply threough a process of elimination – aka, reverse engineering.

You claim God doesn’t exist, yet you haven’t supplied a single piece of evidence to work with. There’s nothing to eliminate. Therefore, a negative claim is always false. I claim God exists; as a positive claim, you could eliminate half or even most of my evidence but not all.

How many pieces of evidence do you need – 1, or 25?

Example: A man claims He’s a Revelator of God, a Spiritual King. You don’t need to prove this, you need to disprove it. Test the facts. Start with the easiest to scrutinize.

Fact #1 - all Revelators have a family tree that can be traced back to Abraham. Test: If this man can’t supply that, we can eliminate this piece of evidence and call him a liar. If He supplies this, we can’t eliminate it. Yet this isn’t enough evidence to support the claim – his biological siblings have the same family tree; ergo, continue to the next possible elimination, Fact #2. .and so on.

When God claims “I can raise the dead”, that should be testable. Although you can’t replicate that experience even a single time, you’ll test it by gathering the evidence of testimony, then you’ll gather concrete results to verify the testimony. First, you’ll understand that, in fact, there are two ways to die – spiritually and physically; both are results of a series of events.

Apply the right evidence to the correct situation and the truth will be discovered. The truth is not evidence, it’s the proven reality; it doesn’t have to be you who proves it.

theHating: What constitutes evidence of a creator?

No one here is saying science provides the answers to everything. In fact i am saying quite the opposite -- science doesnt comment on it (god) because there is no evidence that nature was designed nor is there evidence that anything in nature is moral or even moving toward complexity. What is the goal of a creator?

No one here is saying nature provides a contingent set of morals or ethics. The purpose of this thread is not to disprove god, it is to examine if god exists and what credible scientific evidence there is to support the fact to fit your model of reality. Im not claiming knowledge of facts that refute god, for one, that would require previous knowledge of god existing.

Zanjan: You wrote: "Im not claiming knowledge of facts that refute god"

Yes you were. You said no one has been able to prove the existence of God. THAT'S the fact you claimed existed to make you believe it. You were asking us to prove you wrong. If you're not claiming X, then you have be claiming something else. This is the plane of opposites.

You wrote: "The purpose of this thread is not to disprove god, it is to examine if god exists and what credible scientific evidence there is to support the fact "

Really? Then why doesn't the topic title read "Does God exist?"

If you want to use *only* scientific evidence to examine the existence of God, you need to first admit that BOTH science and God exist. If God doesn't exist, then neither does science. Out of necessity come the tools.

For example, scientists have done the actual math, calculating everything they know that must occur for the universe to operate like clockwork - as in chain reaction. What they found is that it doesn't - there's an intelligent controller. They came up with 99% mathematical proof.

This fact turned science around - it changed the question. They ask, since X is occurring, how does God do it? They're not looking for a cause, they're looking for a law. When they find it, they'll be able to determine some of its other applications.

Q. How do we know something was created? A. By understanding nothing exists in a vacuum.

Recognizing a thing’s existence doesn’t imply one has to see it - some things are invisible. You know the thing exists by its impact on other things; therefore, the thing can be named. Within the atmosphere of existence, a vacuum can be created.

Q. How do we know what created it? A. By compiling information relative to the thing.

Investigation of its substance and environment together with the examination of its behavior under various conditions discloses a series of developments – you can settle on the final cause (condition) or link those as far back in time as you’d like to go.

The making requires the right ingredients and several conditions to activate in succession. This is how we learned that diamonds are made on earth but gold is made in a sun.

Q. How do we know who created it? Their Signature; their stamp of identity in pattern and style, the history before and after, eyewitnesses, quality, results, etc. that are consistent with only one character.

Zanjan: If nature were not designed, no balance would exist. We know it does.

Not sure what you mean by “moving towards complexity”. Since we’ve permanently lost a profound number of species in the last 100 years, does that simplify complexity?

Man is the most complex of creations on earth…..if our population increases, do we become more complex? We don’t have evidence of a more complex species elsewhere in our galaxy, yet they might already exist as a civilization. One day, we might have first contact and invite one to stay with us for a year or so, if they didn’t find us too disgusting.

“What is the goal of a creator?”

Depends on the creator, the time and place. God’s first goal was to create a living being which was able to recognize the Ancient Beauty. He achieved that.

God’s Plan for mankind is to fully civilize humans so they, too, can know and love God, all of them. Progress is being achieved by His Revelators, Who orient us to the stage we’re in and prepare us for the next stage.

theHating: So can something exist in nature without having a cause in nature? I. E. Has anyone ever experienced a suddenly wounded knee from simply no explainable cause? Say, you are just sitting there and all of a sudden your knee is bleeding.

I have heard people get a bloody nose from "seemingly no reason". So maybe we should consider something in nature. Can a volcano erupt for "seemingly no reason?".

By asking "can existence exist for simply no reason" is to exclude knowledge of all other causes known so far -- singularity to energy, energy to mass, mass to nature, nature to life.

Another aspect to consider is a funny term called balance. Implying no sufficient force is acting either way is to imply a universe will not exist without a force to be reckoned with. Balance exists in things that experience no force.

And indeed nothing exists in a vacuum. Of course there are no absolutes in the actual vacuum of space.

So taking this logic of contingency to your claim from astute scientists.

"calculating everything they know that must occur for the universe to operate like clockwork - as in chain reaction. They came up with 99% mathematical proof."

Now we can assume this .09%~ uncertainty value is caused by an unrecognizable force -- god?

"They're not looking for a cause, they're looking for a law. When they find it, they'll be able to determine some of its other applications."

Applications? But I thought this was a test to infer the existence of god!

AchillesSinatra: "So can something exist in nature without having a cause in nature?" - TheHating


According to the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics, the answer is "Yes!"

Certain events, the most fundamental of all, on this view, are simply "uncaused".



"Why did this particular uranium atom decay and not another one?"

"There is no causal story to be told" - Copenhagen.

Angry Beaver: Ahhhhhh the old "shit happens" theory

Zanjan: "So can something exist in nature without having a cause in nature?"

No. Everything in existence has a cause, except for God, Who is uncreated and eternal. God is the First Cause of all things and the Mover of all things, both natural and supernatural.

All things can be explained, eventually. The sudden bleeding nose or knee without reason has a cause; we certainly know the final cause but might not immediately understand what led up to that - that is, the previous causes.

For example, my adult son has often had sudden nose bleeds which can't be explained by immediate trauma or anything he was doing at the time.
Now back up. At 12 years old, he drove his bike into a fifth wheel trailer hitch, which inflicted a serious whack in the head between his eyes. An ugly scar remains. Since then, pressure occasionally builds in his naval cavities, then must release when it hits peak. If you didn't know that history, you couldn't solve the case. Which cause will you name as the main cause?

When I see a behaviour, I want to understand it so I can apply the appropriate response. Therefore, I must study all the different conditions where this behaviour presents itself. Whatever doesn't change under all the conditions is divine.

Science is limited in what it can study; as it discovers more, it changes position. Former ideas (developed from observations) pass away. This happens because we live in a continent world. Physical nature isn't entirely reliable but the spiritual nature is - that's why it's eternal.

theHating: "According to the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics, the answer is "Yes!""

I think the implication of this uncertainty is that it is evidence that a god exists..

theHating: This is like asking the paint to prove the wall doesn't exist, but there is zero reason to conclude we are even on a wall to begin with.

theHating: Hmmm, uncaused. Simply no reason... Hmmmm....

Well, i was feeling especially weak in my faith.

I just want to know if there is a creator so that way i can toss out the understanding of a creation existing for simply no cause.

theHating: I want to clarify that I am not at all implying "uncaused" to any model to say "uncaused by no god" or "uncaused, therefore no god"

I that if I did that, i would be making that negative claim evidience-free gap conclusion fallacy that all theists make when asserting god as the origins of something described as "uncaused".