Science 'versus' God?

[austintorn@aol.com]

it has to be succinct however

Hi Prof. Oh ye of little faith in science.

All keys parts will be succinct. Skip over the rest.


OPEN YOUR EYES AND YOUR MIND AUSTIN!!!!!

They are, Prof. All my posts have good meat, whatever the topic. No circumvolutions for me. No flat outright one-liner-type sayings from me that hang only in the air with no ground. Those kinds of things will be but a mere sub-portion of the disproof.

[Profpat]

Hi Austin;

I hope Milal and others enjoy your discourse; but by your own statement you are NOW out to try to disprove various specific " Ideas " and " Definitions " and " Concepts " and " Contradictions " of God; but not GOD. THERE IS BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISPROVING GOD and.....( "I will be disproving the Judeo-Christian—Islamic Theity—the Main Man. (Note that Christian is much more than Catholic.)....

Austin, how many times do I have to tell you this, The God that can be defined is not God.
Enjoy yourself.

Best,

Pat

P.S. What you are going to do is to take some cheap shots against many people various and specific faiths. Do you really want to do this? It proves nothing except what is in your nature.

[Graybeard]

Far out ... If only we can draw an out-of-town jury, all my moneys goin on the prodigal son

cool bananas ... greg

[Profpat]

Far out ... If only we can draw an out-of-town jury, all my moneys goin on the prodigal son

cool bananas ... greg

You are a trouble maker Greg.

I've been thinking, according to science, that for every one particle that didn't get annihilated 1,000,000,000 did. And by all rights there should have been an anti-particle, for every particle. So I guess the odds of us being here would be 1 in a billion. This of course doesn't even address how these particles got here in the first place. My guess would be the odds of particles popping out of near nothingness to be about 1 in a trillion,trillion,billion. And this magical event so far has ocurred 1 time in 15,000,000,000 years. So it's not an event that repeats itself very often.

Now given those odds against this happening, here we are with a most beautiful Earth, awesome universe, wonderful friends and family, and I'm aware of all of this. I say thank you GOD for getting it right the first and only time this has happened in at least the last 15 billion years.

Sure there's no GOD this is all a fluke.

Best,

Pat

[austintorn@aol.com]

The God that can be defined is not God.

Prof, an undefined God has no definition. You are only telling what God isn't, plus that only says you know nothing about the Guy. Remember some stuff in the ideas thread?

I will be proving that the regular God Theity cannot exist. The Church of Profpat has only one member—you. We can get to that one later on. In fact, it might even get covered earlier, as the God's goodness or loving qualities, let's say, will be irrelevant since the God can't exist anyway.

[austintorn@aol.com]

So it's not an event that repeats itself very often.

Eternity is a big 'often' time.

[austintorn@aol.com]

What you are going to do is to take some cheap shots against many people various and specific faiths.

Prof, it is not nice to predict 'cheap'. My posts are not short and cheap insult type things or 'shots'. A full basis is always given. Cheap shots are only from some of the religious preachers previously on TQ that got their time severely limited or got banned altogether, etc. from even more than some 'shots'.

Do you really want to do this? It proves nothing except what is in your nature.

I already answered above and in an earlier post. In fact, as you stated in 'Idea', you love me and my nature. Do you really want to personally make a charge upon one's personal character and nature, even doing so ahead of time and then getting ashamed when it turns out not to be so?

May peace be upon you and your wild thoughts and presumptions.

I will be using science, as also previously stated, not any cheap shots or a bad sinful nature. Cheap shots are ever worthless on ToeQuest, as anyone can see through them. Plus, they have consequences.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Even Darwin had to accept probability of an Intelligent Designer.—Profpat

Darwin’s discovery caused him great, personal grief and anguish, as he went to Divinity school and wanted to believe in God and may have.

Yet, as an exemplar of a scientist Darwin followed the evidence of wherever it led and whatever the consequences.

Evolution was predictive and falsifiable:

—It (he) predicted the human ancestors to be found in Africa.

—His theory predicted the emergence of resistant strains of from the use of antiviral or antibacterial agents.

—Paleontologists correctly predicted that species showing evolution from fish to amphibian would be found in the strata.

—Transitional forms do indeed exist, refuting Creationist claims. A simple google search will reveal hundreds of examples.

The failure of these predictions would have falsified evolution. They did not fail.

—Nor do we find any organisms out of place in the fossil record.

Was the time too short for evolution to occur? No, Kelvin withdrew this objection when it was realized that the nuclear energy of the sun could go on for billions of years, 5 so far and I guess 5 yet to go.

—DNA falsified the hypothesis of a God who created humans as a distinct life form and also a God who created ‘kinds’ or species of immutable life-forms one time in history and left them unchanged since.

Indeed, evolution implies that humanity was an accident and not the special creature of traditional doctrine.

Darwin soon began losing faith in the scriptures as absolute dogma. He was still scared, though, and resited publishing for 20 years until he had to (Wallace was going to publish the same idea, but of much less content.)

My proof will not require the literal interpretation of the scriptures as done by Jewish and Christian fundamentalists who even claim the earth is only 4000 years old—the parts of the scriptures that all can see they were off. My proof would not be so flimsy as to just point that out. I give that easy stuff up to further strengthen my proof and stick to the common core of belief of the Theity.

[Profpat]

Oh boy I can hardly wait for your diatribe.

Here it is Austin your favorite quote:


>(1) In his 1876 autobiography, Darwin argues, "Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wondrous universe, including man with his capacity of looking backwards and far into futurity, as a result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."

And so after years and tears of study here is Darwin's conclusion:


" Another source of CONVICTION in the existence of GOD.... And I deserve to be called a THEIST.


He was an intelligent man with an open mind, who correctly concluded what to him appeared obvious.


So I have Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein on my side, and you have Dumbkins.


Does it make you feel good or superior when you attack a person's faith Austin?

And you may want to challenge my limited definition that I believe God is Good and Loving, but even if you could do that successfully, doesn't disprove God, only my limited definition. So go ahead prove to me that God isn't good or loving Austin. Make me cry.

EVERYONE, even David, knows you CAN"T disprove God, and so you are going to use that YOU are able to disprove GOD, as an excuse, to further your agenda of attacking various specific beliefs.

I both love you, and therfore right now, pity you Austin. I wouldn't waste one letter of the alphabet on you if I didn't.

FYI: Most reputable scientist believe the Universe was Created around 14 - 15 billion years ago. Sorry Austin only you and Hoyle believe in an eternal universe. Though something or someone must be eternal to create our awesome universe.

[melanie]

Can You Prove the Existence of God?


(Why philosophers and atheists love this question)



By Gregory E. Ganssle, Ph.D.


Ever since Immanuel Kant wrote his Critique of Pure Reason, it has been common for thinking people to insist that it is impossible to prove the existence of God. In fact this claim has been elevated to the level of dogma in American intellectual culture. The reason I know this is considered unquestionable dogma is the reaction I get when I call it into question. When someone says "You cannot prove the existence of God," I want to ask, "How do you know? You just met me! How do you know what I can do?"

What do most people mean when they recite this claim? Most people mean that I cannot provide a philosophical argument for the existence of God which will convince all thinking people. It is impossible, so the story goes, to provide an argument which will compel assent. If my argument will not convince the most ardent atheist, they say, I have not proven God's existence. Since I cannot convince such an atheist to believe, my arguments do not count as proof in their eyes. If they do not count as proof, what good are they?

I agree that I cannot provide an argument that will convince all thinking people. But what does this tell me? Does this tell me anything about God? No. This tells me more about the nature of proof than it does about whether God exists. I cannot provide an argument which will convince everyone, without a possibility of doubt, that God exists. That is no problem. You see, I cannot provide an argument for any interesting philosophical conclusion which will be accepted by everyone without possibility of doubt.

I cannot prove beyond the possibility of doubt -- in a way that will convince all philosophers -- that the Rocky Mountains are really here as a mind-independent object. I cannot prove that the entire universe did not pop into existence five minutes ago and that all of our apparent memories are not illusions. I cannot prove that the other people you see on campus have minds. Perhaps they are very clever robots.

There is no interesting philosophical conclusion that can be proven beyond the possibility of doubt. So the fact that arguments for the existence of God do not produce mathematical certainty does not by itself weaken the case for God's existence. It simply places the question of God's existence in the same category as other questions such as that of the existence of the external, mind-independent world and the question of how we know other people have minds.

Does this mean that arguments for the existence of God are useless? Not at all. Sure, I cannot provide an argument which will convince all thinking people but this does not mean I don't have good reason to believe in God. In fact some of my reasons for believing in God may be persuasive to you. Even if you aren't persuaded to believe that God exists, my arguments may not be useless. It is reasonable to believe that the mountains are real and our memories are generally reliable and that other minds exist. It is reasonable to believe these things even though they cannot be proven. Maybe some argument for God's existence will persuade you that belief in God is reasonable.

So how can we know that God exists? Instead of looking for undoubtable conclusions, we weigh evidence and consider alternatives. Which alternative best fits the evidence?