Do you believe in God?

[JediRage]

@niky

The law of entropy needs an isolated system? How do you decide the boundaries of the system and determine the conditions there?

Can you clarify what you mean by the 'complete knowledge being unattainable' aspect?

The laws of the Universe are the laws known at the present moment. By saying this is the final set, you aren't allowing for any findings in the future that either disprove or modify it.

What I will agree with is that existence of God is untestable by current methods that man has. But if current methods aren't able to say one way or another, it doesn't mean other methods won't be able to.

All I'm saying is that the rigidity about the concept of God flies in the face of scientific methods. Just because humanity has made huge steps in science in the past few thousand years it doesn't mean it can say definitively whether it has the means to disprove God once and for all. We haven't transported a human to the nearest planet and yet we deign to have solved the ultimate question that has nagged humanity since the beginning?

 

[TheDrummingKING]

The laws are based on all the data ever collected, and until something breaks those laws, they will remain the same. I think they'll be good for a while.

We haven't found any evidence to support any god yet, as such there is no reason to believe in one yet. Of course it could change, I don't think any of us are denying that.

 

[niky]

Our Universe is arguably not a closed system. matter and energy leak out of it through black holes. Particles spontaneously generate in a vacuum (proven and observed). But entrophy still works, and all predictions and observations show that entrophy will be the end of us all. All matter is subject to it, all energy is subject to it. Even black holes may eventually evaporate, thanks to interaction with previously mentioned spontaneously generated particles.

Complete knowledge is unattainable due to the basic laws of our Universe. According to Heisenberg, we cannot know the exact position and velocity of any particle at the same time.

On a more fundamental level, to completely model the Universe, you would need a storage medium or matrix that is effectively bigger than the Universe. Such a storage medium or mind, thus, cannot exist within the Universe. If it did, it would have to model itself, which leads us down a spiral of infinite self-reference.

Who's being rigid? The consensus is that there is no physical way to measure, observe or validate any theory about the God Outside. If there was a way to physically escape the Universe to do so without being reduced to quark paste (i.e.: through a Black Hole), then it would be possible to test the theory of God. As it is, it's not, and the physical laws of the Universe keep it so.

Since God is untestable, scientific consensus is content to say that he is untestable, and content not to make any wild claims or assumptions about whether or not he exists.

 

[Scaff]

My source is all of the historical record, to date.
There is nothing to validate.
Your standard of evidence for prior unknown events, clearly shown by that record, could never validate a single one of them.
BTW, you've done a good job digging the only hole thats been dug.

Please cite a single example of an event from the historical record that the scientific standard of evidence has failed to validate.

Oh and once again probability isn't a standard of evidence.

Aren't you the one that said "peoples belief is not evidence for validation".
I'd say, it's pretty "scientifically evident", which it is.

At what point in my post did I make any such claim?

I asked you two direct and clear questions (I'm sure the use of question marks would have indicated that to most), as such I am not stating anything with regard to my position, I am questioning yours.

I expected to get an answer to this question, with at least some semblance of intellectual integrity,

You have had nothing but, my position has been clear and consistent with sources provided to ensure that all can check the validity of my position.

To date you have not provided a single source to corroborate your clear inability to understand probability theory, possibility theory and the standard of scientific evidence. What you have do is bastardize and attempt to redefine all three to support your own position. As such it is no wonder that you are unable to cite a single source to validate the positions you hold with regard to them.

Now, using that(your) standard of evidence method, what is the probability you will validate anything, prior to known existence?
but you did not respond in kind.

Once again this is not my standard but a position you are attempting to place on me, one that I have never held, never claimed to hold and have now clearly and repeatedly stated as such. Once again I have never stated that Probability can be used as a standard of evidence, you can claim I said it all you like, but given that you are unable to quote me doing so and that I have consistently stated that it is not a standard of evidence it is quite clear that this is not nor has ever been my position.

That you having to resort to repeatedly lying about this doesn't bode well for your membership and seems to fly in the face of your Christian values. As I have said either quote me stating it or retract it. The AUP is quite clear on this and I will ask a member of the admin team to look at it as an AUP violation if you continue to try and force a position I do not hold upon me.

The fact that the atom wasn't discovered until recently doesn't mean that it didn't exist before its discovery.

Atheists/scientists should tone down the hardline rhetoric a little and be more open-minded. Open-mindedness is what brought the Renaissance and the age of science. Let's not try to become rigid like the clergy of yore.

We are simply asking that the exact same standard is placed upon the claims that God exists as are placed on everything by science.

When the Higgs-boson was first considered no one in the scientific community claimed to be able to prove it existed, they theorized it did and then set out to try and prove it did. Proof that meets the scientific standard as well, which includes falsability. When Italian scientists thought they had broken the speed of light the went to the scientific community and basically said' we've done something we think can't be done, anybody want to test it and break it for us.". When they were proven wrong (falsability) they quite happily accepted it and used the knowledge to further refine what they were doing.

Science constantly tries to break everything it knows to refine and improve our understanding of existence and how it works, religion on the other hand burns down schools because they are possessed by the devil.

All I'm saying is that the rigidity about the concept of God flies in the face of scientific methods. Just because humanity has made huge steps in science in the past few thousand years it doesn't mean it can say definitively whether it has the means to disprove God once and for all. We haven't transported a human to the nearest planet and yet we deign to have solved the ultimate question that has nagged humanity since the beginning?

Not only is the scientific method as far from the rigid clergy of yore as you can get, its also works wonderfully in situations like this. The very second that anyone is able to provide proof to the scientific standard (the same one that has a 100% success rate with everything that exists) of God then science will quite happily study the hell out of it. The issue currently is that not a single piece of evidence has ever come to light to back the existence of God.

 

[ProjectVRD]

No, either it is a different experiment, unlikely given the similarity but possible, in which case I apologise, or you are wrong. I will try and rewatch the program to find the original source, unless you can provide that?

What you have said there can also be explained by an expanding universe.

See my repsonse below

I clearly gave two possibilities. The experiment cannot be as you described it, because the way you described it is incredibly flawed. I gave you several reasons why and you've not, apparently, read or responded to them.

Incidentally, if it's using lasers to measure distance and space-time curvature, it's not quantum physics (gravitation, particularly, being a singularly nonunified field with quantum physics). So quite why I'd need to go to a bunch of universities and tell them quantum physics is stupid because you gave a vague and implausible set of experimental conditions for an unrelated, uncited, unreferenced experiment escapes me.


Perhaps you could drop the attitude and provide us with the links you've been asked to provide so that we can determine the particulars of the experiment? As things stand, the "experiment" you described is implausible.

Why should I drop what you percieve as an attitude when what I say is correct? Have you watched that episode again? Because I have! And as I said, perfectly straight lasers that do not bend indicates infinity, not expansion.

BBC iPlayer is where you will find that episode by the way, you know that.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

At what point in my post did I make any such claim?

He might be referring to when I talked about how his arguments were ad populum and appeal to emotion. Well, it's good to know he has read my posts and simply not replied.

Why should I drop what you percieve as an attitude when what I say is correct? Have you watched that episode again? Because I have! And as I said, perfectly straight lasers that do not bend indicates infinity, not expansion.

BBC iPlayer is where you will find that episode by the way, you know that.

If what you say is indeed correct then that is all the more reason for you to post a link to what you are talking about.

 

[ProjectVRD]

Any gods are non-falsifiable - they cannot be disproven.

What does that have to do with probability? I mean, pretty much the last two weeks of posts in this thread have been someone trying to show that God exists because of a misapplication of probability.

You cannot incorrectly apply probability regarding something that cannot be observed, you can only misapply probability to that which can be fully proven. You should know this considering you appear to be on a crusade to argue with the entire human species.

He might be referring to when I talked about how his arguments were ad populum and appeal to emotion. Well, it's good to know he has read my posts and simply not replied.



If what you say is indeed correct then that is all the more reason for you to post a link to what you are talking about.

BBC iPlayer. Horizon: How Big is the Universe. In that episode they say not only is the universe infinite, but it is expanding infinitely.

 

[Scaff]

@ProjectVRD - stop the double posting and cut the attitude right now, as if it continues you will be given a holiday from GT Planet.

 

[Famine]

Why should I drop what you percieve as an attitude when what I say is correct?

Your attitude is unhelpful.

I brought up several points why the experiment cannot be as described. You chose not to answer any of them (still) and instead invited me to go to several universities and call them stupid.

What you should have done is cited the experiment properly. This still hasn't been done.

Have you watched that episode again? Because I have!

What episode? You didn't cite the experiment in any way. How am I supposed to find what you're talking about without any references except a description that is either flawed (and thus won't help me find the experiment) or accurate but of an unscientific experiment (which won't help me find anything)?

And as I said, perfectly straight lasers that do not bend indicates infinity, not expansion.

I brought up several issues with "perfectly straight lasers". These haven't been referenced at any point.

BBC iPlayer is where you will find that episode by the way, you know that.

Episode of what? You didn't cite your source.

You cannot incorrectly apply probability regarding something that cannot be observed, you can only misapply probability to that which can be fully proven.

That appears to be gibberish - using something incorrectly is a misapplication of it and the individual in question has been using probability incorrectly in an argument to prove the existence of God.

You should know this considering you appear to be on a crusade to argue with the entire human species.

And again with the bizarre attitude.


Still, I think we've now established that you're describing an experiment you saw described on a popular science programme. It should come as little surprise then that the described parameters of the experiment do not quite tally with reality and that the obvious problems haven't been addressed. Not sure what quantum mechanics have to do with it still (what with gravitation and quantum theory remaining ununified fields) or why I need to go call some universities stupid because your description of a popular science show's description of quite a complex experiment does not reflect the reality of that experiment though - or why it's me that's on an argument "crusade" for being abused for pointing this out...

 

[TiZzla]

Wow is this thread really happening? Reminds me of a video I watched recently

 

[JediRage]

Our Universe is arguably not a closed system. matter and energy leak out of it through black holes. Particles spontaneously generate in a vacuum (proven and observed). But entrophy still works, and all predictions and observations show that entrophy will be the end of us all. All matter is subject to it, all energy is subject to it. Even black holes may eventually evaporate, thanks to interaction with previously mentioned spontaneously generated particles.

Complete knowledge is unattainable due to the basic laws of our Universe. According to Heisenberg, we cannot know the exact position and velocity of any particle at the same time.

On a more fundamental level, to completely model the Universe, you would need a storage medium or matrix that is effectively bigger than the Universe. Such a storage medium or mind, thus, cannot exist within the Universe. If it did, it would have to model itself, which leads us down a spiral of infinite self-reference.

...

Since God is untestable, scientific consensus is content to say that he is untestable, and content not to make any wild claims or assumptions about whether or not he exists.

But what happens to the matter and energy going into the Black Hole? Admittedly, not possible to study it just yet, but surely we may one day be able to come up with a better explanation than, "well, stuff just disappears". Any scientific postulate starts with an explanation of the environment of the object under study. Like being an isolated system is a pre-requisite for the law of entropy to work. So there are assumptions being made and of course until those assumptions are disproved, the law or postulate will stand.

As for modeling the Universe, why would God need to model the intermediate and final builds of the Universe? Why would he not let the Universe determine its future like he has done with man by giving him free-will?

Of course, I am content to say that God cannot be proven to exist with current and accepted scientific methods. And on such a topic that has influenced man for such a long time, it would be wise not to entirely ignore it.

We are simply asking that the exact same standard is placed upon the claims that God exists as are placed on everything by science.

When the Higgs-boson was first considered no one in the scientific community claimed to be able to prove it existed, they theorized it did and then set out to try and prove it did. Proof that meets the scientific standard as well, which includes falsability. When Italian scientists thought they had broken the speed of light the went to the scientific community and basically said' we've done something we think can't be done, anybody want to test it and break it for us.". When they were proven wrong (falsability) they quite happily accepted it and used the knowledge to further refine what they were doing.

Science constantly tries to break everything it knows to refine and improve our understanding of existence and how it works, religion on the other hand burns down schools because they are possessed by the devil.

Not only is the scientific method as far from the rigid clergy of yore as you can get, its also works wonderfully in situations like this. The very second that anyone is able to provide proof to the scientific standard (the same one that has a 100% success rate with everything that exists) of God then science will quite happily study the hell out of it. The issue currently is that not a single piece of evidence has ever come to light to back the existence of God.

Ah, but organized religion is a problem and no one denies that. But that does not mean that organized religion that man has created represents God in every way. The problem with it is that man has used it to control state policy and the population so in effect it is largely a man made creation. As with any man made creation it is a double edged sword. Science gave us penicillin and the atom bomb (the arms race and so on). One has saved millions of lives, the other consumes millions and billions of lives.

Let not the hatred for organized religion colour your views regarding God. That's the open-mindedness I'm asking for.

As for not a single piece of evidence coming to light, well, I partly addressed in my response to niky, but let me state that the non-existence of God is a hypothesis. Let us not declare it an axiom just yet.

 

[Famine]

But what happens to the matter and energy going into the Black Hole? Admittedly, not possible to study it just yet, but surely we may one day be able to come up with a better explanation than, "well, stuff just disappears".

It doesn't "just disappear".

Try not to think of a "black hole" as an actual hole. It's a physical object, much like a star. In fact exactly like a star - since that's what it is. Matter and energy that passes the event horizon - the edge of the "hole" - is simply added to the mass of the object as it would be if it fell onto a star.

Science gave us penicillin and the atom bomb (the arms race and so on). One has saved millions of lives, the other consumes millions and billions of lives.

People gave us those things, through the knowledge they acquired through the scientific method.

Also, nuclear weapons have lead to nuclear power.

As for not a single piece of evidence coming to light, well, I partly addressed in my response to niky, but let me state that the non-existence of God is a hypothesis. Let us not declare it an axiom just yet.

The non-existence of God is not an hypothesis because you cannot either hypothesise nor prove non-existence. Please refer to Russell's Teapot.

 

[JediRage]

Complete knowledge is unattainable due to the basic laws of our Universe. According to Heisenberg, we cannot know the exact position and velocity of any particle at the same time.

We cannot know the exact position and velocity of any particle but we may know all the possibilities.

What if that is how God observes the Universe? What if he sees all possibilities?

 

[Ibonibo]

The thread is "Do you believe in God?" not does God exist.

Nobody could answer that question. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of a "God" (whatever that be)


For most people, the central idea is to believe in something, that eases the view on their lifes, on afterlife,....

Hope and believe are two good traits of humans that kept us going a long way.

We all know that there is and was a lot of misuse of Gods, that doesn't render the whole process of believing unnecessary.

I hate religious people who try to shove down their belief in others throat, but I also hate non religious people denying people of their believe because that's their "religion/ethos"

 

[JediRage]

It doesn't "just disappear".

Try not to think of a "black hole" as an actual hole. It's a physical object, much like a star. In fact exactly like a star - since that's what it is. Matter and energy that passes the event horizon - the edge of the "hole" - is simply added to the mass of the object as it would be if it fell onto a star.

My bad, forgot about that. I was just trying to challenge scientific assumptions. I'll have a look at the Russel's Teapot analogy.

The thread is "Do you believe in God?" not does God exist.

Nobody could answer that question. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of a "God" (whatever that be)


For most people, the central idea is to believe in something, that eases the view on their lifes, on afterlife,....

Hope and believe are two good traits of humans that kept us going a long way.

We all know that there is and was a lot of misuse of Gods, that doesn't render the whole process of believing unnecessary.

I hate religious people who try to shove down their belief in others throat, but I also hate non religious people denying people of their believe because that's their "religion/ethos"

I agree with this. Especially the bolded parts.

 

[phil_75]

I love geek arguments!

 

[niky]

We cannot know the exact position and velocity of any particle but me may know all the possibilities.

What if that is how God observes the Universe? What if he sees all possibilities?

If you model all possibilities, then you will need a whole lot more storage space.

And if God has perfect knowledge of the starting position of the Universe and enough processing power, he will know exactly what the outcome will be. And in the end, he will not need to create the Universe. If it can be perfectly modelled in his mind, then it's just as good as real, without having to actually exist.

-

If an omniscient God exists, free will is an illusion. As much as I like to say "If it smells like free will and tastes like free will, what's the difference?", if you know everything that's going to happen, then you already know the outcome of any decision made by "free will".

Even worse, you lose your own.

Larry Niven touches upon this in his "Known Space" novels. A sentient being of nearly unlimited intelligence has very little free will. Knowing the outcome of every decision means that there is only one decision it can make in any instance.

 

[Kitten]

1: I think that this should probably be in the opinions forum, and there probably is a thread somewhere asking the same question.

Personally I believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and I make no efforts to hide it.

From,
Chris.

I Agree with this

 

[Famine]

The thread is "Do you believe in God?" not does God exist.

Nobody could answer that question. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of a "God" (whatever that be)


For most people, the central idea is to believe in something, that eases the view on their lifes, on afterlife,....

Hope and believe are two good traits of humans that kept us going a long way.

We all know that there is and was a lot of misuse of Gods, that doesn't render the whole process of believing unnecessary.

I hate religious people who try to shove down their belief in others throat, but I also hate non religious people denying people of their believe because that's their "religion/ethos"

I agree with this. Especially the bolded parts.

Belief isn't a problem. Faith isn't a problem. Religion isn't even a problem.

The problem is when knowledge and belief are mixed - when people seek to misuse, misrepresent or misunderstand knowledge, evidence and science to forward their particular belief/faith/religion. The biggest culprits are "creation scientists", but it's not limited to them. As I said earlier:

If you wish to believe that God exists outside of existence, that's fine. We have no evidence that there is anything beyond existence, so you can take that on faith if you desire. Trying to redefine known terms, quantities and processes within existence for something without existence is not fine. This pretty forms the crux of every attempt by those who have faith to prove their flavour of deity is the right one - and the majority of points made in this thread.

Your faith is your faith. There's no evidence that it's the right one because faith and evidence are incompatible. Have your faith but stop trying to prove it!

 

[Scaff]

Of course, I am content to say that God cannot be proven to exist with current and accepted scientific methods. And on such a topic that has influenced man for such a long time, it would be wise not to entirely ignore it.

Why?

What affect can something that has never been shown to exist have on me?

Let not the hatred for organized religion colour your views regarding God. That's the open-mindedness I'm asking for.

It's not.

My view regarding God is quite simple, God doesn't exist. That has nothing to do with organised religion but rather is part of my own spiritual voyage and analysis of all the information at hand and has lead me to my position as an atheist.

I don't ram my views down others throats, but I will not censor my discussion if someone raises the issue in a discussion. If someone claims that God exists I will ask if they are able to provide proof (why should I not?), in doing so I am not asking or telling them to stop what they believe at all.

I have no problem with what people believe, I do however have an issue with it being cited as proven or used to displace what is proven. It important to remember that while I have been utterly civil in this thread I have had someone who claims to uphold Christian values clearly misquote me (I would go as far as to say lie) and also tell me that God has said I am going to hell (how he is able to speak so accurately on behalf of God is a point he has not get answered).

As for not a single piece of evidence coming to light, well, I partly addressed in my response to niky, but let me state that the non-existence of God is a hypothesis. Let us not declare it an axiom just yet.

Non-existence can't be proven, the burden of proof lies with those making a claim for God's existence not the other way around.

As I have said I have no issue with faith, but I do ask for evidence if something is claimed to exist. Trust me if someone claimed Unicorns existed I would be doing the exact same thing.

The thread is "Do you believe in God?" not does God exist.

Nobody could answer that question. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of a "God" (whatever that be)

One is a natural progression of the other and certainly not worth starting another thread on.

For most people, the central idea is to believe in something, that eases the view on their lifes, on afterlife,....

Hope and believe are two good traits of humans that kept us going a long way.

We all know that there is and was a lot of misuse of Gods, that doesn't render the whole process of believing unnecessary.

And for many, many other over the centuries the exact opposite is true, that no comfort at all lies in being controlled and manipulated on behalf of what could well be viewed as a myth (after all that is the view most would hold in regard to the Norse gods, etc).

I hate religious people who try to shove down their belief in others throat, but I also hate non religious people denying people of their believe because that's their "religion/ethos"

I've been an interested and active atheist for quite a while and while 'militant atheist' most certainly do exist I have never seen one threaten to kill anyone over it, the opposite is most certainly not true.

 

[BobK]

Science gave us penicillin and the atom bomb (the arms race and so on). One has saved millions of lives, the other consumes millions and billions of lives.

I know that some people have an allergic reaction to penicillin, but has it actually killed millions and billions of lives? Because the atomic bomb has only killed a few hundred thousand to date.

This may change in the future, of course.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Your faith is your faith. There's no evidence that it's the right one because faith and evidence are incompatible. Have your faith but stop trying to prove it!

Indeed. I believe in God and my reply to any atheist that seriously asks me to "prove scientifically" God's existence needs to be "don't insult my intelligence"

 

[homeforsummer]

I clearly gave two possibilities. The experiment cannot be as you described it, because the way you described it is incredibly flawed. I gave you several reasons why and you've not, apparently, read or responded to them.

Predictably, you've called it right. He's misreported it.



The segment he's referring to is from around 45:11.

There were no lasers fired "deep into the cosmos". There were no lasers at all, in fact, other than to illustrate an experiment in an empty cinema room.

The actual experiment involved making a triangle between our point of reference, the Earth, and two sides of a heat island in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, at a known size and distance away.

If space were spherical, and could be said to be finite, then the angles of that triangle should add up to more than 180 degrees. The evidence instead showed that a perfect triangle was being described, inferring that the universe is flat and infinite rather than spherical and finite.

So ProjectVRD - whatever end you were trying to come to from bringing it up, your means was incorrect. As Famine stated in his very first reply to you, you were misreporting their methodology. Feel free to drop the attitude any time you like.

 

[Swara]

To answer the question, yes, I believe in God. I'm Hindu, and I'm a staunch believer in God.

 

[ProjectVRD]

Predictably, you've called it right. He's misreported it.



The segment he's referring to is from around 45:11.

There were no lasers fired "deep into the cosmos". There were no lasers at all, in fact, other than to illustrate an experiment in an empty cinema room.

The actual experiment involved making a triangle between our point of reference, the Earth, and two sides of a heat island in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, at a known size and distance away.

If space were spherical, and could be said to be finite, then the angles of that triangle should add up to more than 180 degrees. The evidence instead showed that a perfect triangle was being described, inferring that the universe is flat and infinite rather than spherical and finite.

So ProjectVRD - whatever end you were trying to come to from bringing it up, your means was incorrect. As Famine stated in his very first reply to you, you were misreporting their methodology. Feel free to drop the attitude any time you like.

That is what I said in my first post, and the next, and the next. I even mentioned that the lines would be curved on sphere and cited plane flights around the globe, being curved they create more than the 180-degree total. I never said the laser was intended to reach said target and make it back.

 

[homeforsummer]

That is what I said in my first post, and the next, and the next. I even mentioned that the lines would be curved on sphere and cited plane flights around the globe, being curved they create more than the 180-degree total. I never said the laser was intended to reach said target and make it back.

That was a small part of what you said. And you didn't mention anything about 180 degrees in a triangle (I've quoted your original post below, to confirm). And I said nothing about a laser being "intended to reach said target and make it back" - you've pulled that entirely out of the air, just now.

The way you described their way of getting to that conclusion was wrong, hence Famine's original comment. The one you took exception to.

All the stuff in bold:

The reason for this sudden understanding is that a team set out to prove them all right by firing two lasers deep into the cosmos at very slightly different angles. They were aiming for the exact same object in space which a specific star in a different galaxy to our own. As you can imagine then, those two laser beams would appear to be exactly parrallel from our perspective because they would not converge until several thousand lightyears away even if they were off target.

They were expecting to see the two laser beams curve, because our knowledge of the Universe tells us that it is roughly spherical in shape. And any straight line across a spherical 3D volume will never be straight but instead have a slight bend. Think of the highways across the United States, they go in a straight line but every several hundred miles there is this return turn to the left of about 20 degree's... but from a satalite photo that road is a straight line, mind boggling but that is physics for you. The same for the airplane routes, a flight from New York to London goes up towards the Artic Cirle yet both cities are over a thousand miles below the Arctic Circle, however it is still the shortest route! All because straight line bend in a 3D spherical space.

They detected no bend, nothing. And over larger distances the bend should be more visible. The two beams were perfectly straight, which can only be possible if there is no boundary within the volume. this indicates that the Universe is in fact infinite and still growing. Crazy concept I know.

...is badly described (and I won't even get into how hard the stuff not in bold is to read...). All references to lasers and beams are irrelevant as no such part of the experiment took place. They weren't aiming for a star, they said nothing at all about parallel lines, and they weren't even expecting to see "curved" lines.

All they were looking for was a tiny difference in the angles of a triangle, adding up to more than 180 degrees. That would imply curved space, but has nothing to do with visible curved lines.

Is it any wonder your post was questioned?

 

[JediRage]

...
And if God has perfect knowledge of the starting position of the Universe and enough processing power, he will know exactly what the outcome will be. And in the end, he will not need to create the Universe. If it can be perfectly modelled in his mind, then it's just as good as real, without having to actually exist.

-

If an omniscient God exists, free will is an illusion. As much as I like to say "If it smells like free will and tastes like free will, what's the difference?", if you know everything that's going to happen, then you already know the outcome of any decision made by "free will".

Even worse, you lose your own.

Larry Niven touches upon this in his "Known Space" novels. A sentient being of nearly unlimited intelligence has very little free will. Knowing the outcome of every decision means that there is only one decision it can make in any instance.

I understand where you're coming from, but why would he need to dictate how the future pans out? What if he's conducting an experiment and he knows the possible outcomes and just wants to observe what the final outcome is?

Belief isn't a problem. Faith isn't a problem. Religion isn't even a problem.

The problem is when knowledge and belief are mixed - when people seek to misuse, misrepresent or misunderstand knowledge, evidence and science to forward their particular belief/faith/religion. The biggest culprits are "creation scientists", but it's not limited to them. As I said earlier:

That is what I and Ibonibo just said! What does the existence of God have to do with treating a patient with penicillin? Of course if some people are going to deny other people the right to medicine or whatever because it interferes with their form of organized religion that that is of course wrong.

If you will treat the texts or beliefs of organized religions as representative of the idea of God, then you are starting on the wrong foot.

EDIT: Especially when you consider the possibility of allegory in there.

Separation of religion and state is a good thing!

My view regarding God is quite simple, God doesn't exist. That has nothing to do with organised religion but rather is part of my own spiritual voyage and analysis of all the information at hand and has lead me to my position as an atheist.

I don't ram my views down others throats, but I will not censor my discussion if someone raises the issue in a discussion. If someone claims that God exists I will ask if they are able to provide proof (why should I not?), in doing so I am not asking or telling them to stop what they believe at all.

I have no problem with what people believe, I do however have an issue with it being cited as proven or used to displace what is proven. It important to remember that while I have been utterly civil in this thread I have had someone who claims to uphold Christian values clearly misquote me (I would go as far as to say lie) and also tell me that God has said I am going to hell (how he is able to speak so accurately on behalf of God is a point he has not get answered).

Non-existence can't be proven, the burden of proof lies with those making a claim for God's existence not the other way around.

As I have said I have no issue with faith, but I do ask for evidence if something is claimed to exist. Trust me if someone claimed Unicorns existed I would be doing the exact same thing.

Who is using God to disprove anything? Creationists? Then you are taking their religious text as representative of the idea of God. Thereby starting on the wrong assumption again. See my reply to Famine above.

I know that some people have an allergic reaction to penicillin, but has it actually killed millions and billions of lives? Because the atomic bomb has only killed a few hundred thousand to date.

This may change in the future, of course.

I was talking about the arms race in general.

 

[Famine]

That is what I said in my first post, and the next, and the next. I even mentioned that the lines would be curved on sphere and cited plane flights around the globe, being curved they create more than the 180-degree total. I never said the laser was intended to reach said target and make it back.

Since there were no lasers involved in the process, I'm wondering what lasers you were talking about exactly...

The reason for this sudden understanding is that a team set out to prove them all right by firing two lasers deep into the cosmos at very slightly different angles. They were aiming for the exact same object in space which a specific star in a different galaxy to our own. As you can imagine then, those two laser beams would appear to be exactly parrallel from our perspective because they would not converge until several thousand lightyears away even if they were off target.

They were expecting to see the two laser beams curve, because our knowledge of the Universe tells us that it is roughly spherical in shape.

And as I said, perfectly straight lasers that do not bend indicates infinity, not expansion.

All five of my concerns over the reporting of this experiment seem to have been fully justified.

I'm familiar with the WMAP CMB polarisation experiment. Might be worth pointing out that the shape of the universe described by it is for the observable universe, rather than the actual universe. There are still shapes that the entire universe could be that are not flat while retaining flat local characteristics - much as my driveway appears flat but is really slightly curved.

These shapes blow my mind, so please don't ask me to describe them - I don't understand them. Just look up "manifolds".

 

[Scaff]

Indeed. I believe in God and my reply to any atheist that seriously asks me to "prove scientifically" God's existence needs to be "don't insult my intelligence"

Out of interest what would be your reply to a Christian who claimed they could prove God existed?

I also don't understand at all why a claim that anything exists being questioned is an insult to anyone's intelligence. Its a perfectly valid and legitimate question to ask when a claim is made that anything previously unsubstantiated exists is made. As I said tell me Unicorns exist and I will ask exactly the same question.

Who is using God to disprove anything? Creationists? Then you are taking their religious text as representative of the idea of God. Thereby starting on the wrong assumption again. See my reply to Famine above.

What other measure would you suggest is used as being representative of the idea of God if not religious texts? Please keep in mind that its not me that taking religious texts as representative of the idea of God, that would be the followers of the religion in question.

SJC has quite clearly and repeatedly stated that the bible (OT and NT) are the word of God, if you are saying this is not the case then what else do we have left by which to form a representative idea of God?

As the Abrahamic texts (in its various guises) have been used in place of science and as a tool to stop the advancement of mankind for centuries, they have been used and cited as the word of God. Given that I hardly think that atheists are the ones working on the wrong assumption.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

The fact that the atom wasn't discovered until recently doesn't mean that it didn't exist before its discovery.

Bravo.
Contrary to Scaff's comments, I doubted that everyone in this thread, was void of basic reasoning and comprehension skills.

Please cite a single example of an event from the historical record that the scientific theory of evidence has failed to validate.

I think you mean scientific method, don't you?

A theory is not evidence, only a suggestion for possibility,
open to interpretation, yet untested for validation, and cabable of being invalidated.
To put it in your own words, still 0 probability.
Possibilities abound, with or without scientific theory.
Practically anything is possible.

At what point in my post did I make any such claim?

Oh yea, here it is:

The number of people believing in something has no bearing at all to the validity of it.

I asked you two direct and clear questions (I'm sure the use of question marks would have indicated that to most), as such I am not stating anything with regard to my position, I am questioning yours..

And I have answered both.
Although, one answer was a question.

What you have do is bastardize and attempt to redefine all three to support your own position.

Careful now, remember the AUP.

Once again this is not my standard but a position you are attempting to place on me, one that I have never held, never claimed to hold and have now clearly and repeatedly stated as such. Once again I have never stated that Probability can be used as a standard of evidence, you can claim I said it all you like, but given that you are unable to quote me doing so and that I have consistently stated that it is not a standard of evidence it is quite clear that this is not nor has ever been my position..

Well how about this quote you demanded I provide:

I take out insurance based on the statistically calculated probability of an event happening to me, an event that has already been proven to exist.

Now, I have clearly demonstrated and established the fact that the event is proven to exist, but no evidence is present to implicate you personally as being in the future statistical 2%. To the contrary, with regaurd to probability, you are most likely, by a huge margin to be in the 98% bracket.
In reality, you are buying insurance in this case, on risk possibility, rather than on across the board, improbable probability represented by the 2%.

What is it that you can't comprehend about that, in reference to your own statement, of why you take out insurance.

That you having to resort to repeatedly lying about this doesn't bode well for your membership and seems to fly in the face of your Christian values.

Now, now, remember the AUP.
Likewise, you would'nt want to run afoul of it.
What alleged lie, are you referring to?

As I have said either quote me stating it or retract it. The AUP is quite clear on this and I will ask a member of the admin team to look at it as an AUP violation if you continue to try and force a position I do not hold upon me..

Which position is that?
This one?

absolutely no evidence of a scientific standard exists for a God or God's.
Now you can easily defeat all of us on this point by providing evidence (to a scientific standard) that God exists.)