Evidence of God: Physics

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Science is explanation of creation.

Do you understand what that means?

You can use the explanation of creation & creation as evidence of a creator.

reply to post by oozyism

creation as evidence of a creator.

No.

The existence of something does not mean that something was created via intelligence. Take an island for instance, an island can be created with no intelligent intervention. I was formed in the womb with no intelligent intervention, just a biological process happening automatically (not consciously). Simply because some things are created does not mean all things are created. Without evidence there is no good reason to believe in a Creator and, as I explained, the existence of something is not evidence of a creator.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


The Islands are the product of Universal laws, who created those laws?

You have to go to the source.

Originally posted by Uncle Gravity
Seems to me like this is excellent evidence for a creator, the scientific community has in my opinion in recent years been moving towards proof of god ! I have over the years read theories that sound like the vedas and various other hindu religious beliefs. Personally i have always believed in a creator, i have always found it absurd that people believe everything happened by chance ! It's a copout, the evidence is stacking up more and more. Im delighted that science is finding this out. Atheists used to say there is no god ! that scientific proof is against it, now that more and more scientists are leaning towards god they just say that the scientists are wrong!!! You cant have it both ways! What maybe annoys these people is that they see corrupt religions on earth and somehow blame god, well the religions are a construct of human minds and emotions. The fact is some of them couldnt be further away from the truth (god). Also i say to people who say god doesnt exist...where is your proof ? Just by your very existence you are living proof ! You are trying to deny yourself.

No, filling a gap in knowledge with religious belief is a cop out because you're not willing to accept not knowing.

And science hasn't been leaning more towards creationism, on the contrary. Only 5% of scientists (and that includes many in fields other than biology/physics/chemistry/cosomology/etc) believe in creationism according to a 1991 Gallup study. Since then, trends clearly show that belief in a deity is decreasing in the population.

So your claim that "more and more scientists are leaning towards creationism" isn't based on fact, at best, it's what YOU WANT to believe. It's not based on facts though.

As for more and more evidence...please enlighten us and post just one piece of evidence that supports the existence of a god. You'd prove Stephen Hawking wrong, good luck!

This whole "god theory" isn't falsifiable (and therefore not even a scientific theory), and we have ZERO scientific evidence to support it, just like we don't have any evidence supporting the existence of unicorns.

Why is it so hard for some people to just accept that we don't have all the answers (yet)??

Either way, the thread title is very misleading as nothing in physics supports creationism...as Stephen Hawking stated correctly. Of course your understanding of physics is better than hawking's, so I'm sure you can provide us with some scientific evidence of how physics proves the existence of god

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

 

The Islands are the product of Universal laws, who created those laws?

The only correct answer (if we're talking about the laws like gravity/motion/etc that ultimately form the basis for geology and biological processes creating the island): WE DON'T KNOW!

reply to post by MrXYZ


But we have evidence suggesting something intelligent.
Second line.

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

But we have evidence suggesting something intelligent.
Second line.

No we don't. If you don't agree...please post your scientific evidence.

As it stands right now, you can't look at the law of conservation of mass/energy and seriously claim you have evidence that it only exists because of a creator. If I'm wrong, I'm curious what your evidence is.

reply to post by oozyism


There doesn't need to be a creator for natural "laws".

Natural laws describe the way nature behaves. They are only called laws because that's the word we used. Simply because the Universe behaves in a certain manner and doesn't behave in a certain other manner does not mean there is a God.

Not to mention you're using circular reasoning. You said I could use the "creation" to prove and intelligent creator, I gave you examples of things that weren't created by intelligence and you said I need to look to the Creator (source).

I've already refuted the "laws of nature prove God" thing in a previous thread and multiple times in this very thread.

reply to post by MrXYZ


I already provided the evidence, it wasn't that long ago

define evidence:

your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief

Google..

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Laws of nature is laws, just like the laws we have created, they are both laws, protocols, what ever you want to call them.

Logically since there is no instance of a law coming to existence through means other than intelligence, makes us conclude that _________??

Duuhhh..

You are just playing with words now, never thought Atheist/Agnostics would come to that situation.

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I already provided the evidence, it wasn't that long ago

define evidence:

your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief

Google..

Exactly, KNOWLEDGE! Tell me then, what knowledge leads you to conclude that:

A) No laws come into existence without intelligence.
B) Physics proves the existence of a creator.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

The arguments the OP is making are self-refuting and fallacious. Particularly bothersome to me is trying to conflate manmade laws with natural ones. A natural law merely describes the way that nature behaves, that's all it is, we humans are the reason it is called a law and had we decided to call it something else the OP wouldn't be able to make such a weak argument to begin with

what the hell does that mean?

no frikin parking is the same as gravity?

reply to post by MrXYZ


"1. We have laws which have intelligent origins (communication protocols etc).
2. We have laws which have unknown origins (natural laws).
3. We have absolutely no laws which have come to existence without intelligence. "

Since there is no instance of laws coming to existence without intelligence, and thousands of instances of laws coming to existence through intelligence, we come to one conclusive conclusion, an intelligent creator.

If you change the above sentence:

Since there is no instance of laws coming to existence without intelligence, and thousands of instances of laws coming to existence through intelligence, we come to one conclusive conclusion, no intelligent creator.

If you claim there is no intelligent creator behind the creation of such laws, you are using the GAP argument, because you will be using number 2 as your evidence to support your claim that an intelligence wasn't behind the creation of such laws, because we don't know what was (the trap of the GAP).

Get it?

How many times

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

 

Laws of nature is laws, just like the laws we have created, they are both laws, protocols, what ever you want to call them.

Logically since there is no instance of a law coming to existence through means other than intelligence, makes us conclude that _________??

Duuhhh..

You are just playing with words now, never thought Atheist/Agnostics would come to that situation.

Ok, now I really start believing you're a troll...no one can be that dumb.

YOU NEVER PROVIDED EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM THAT NO LAWS COME INTO EXISTENCE WITHOUT INTELLIGENCE...and continue to completely ignore that fact!

Even worse, you even claim that natural laws (physics for example) have unknown origins...so if that's true, how can you then claim intelligence is necessarily involved. The only way you could do that were if you'd have the KNOWLEDGE that the natural laws were the product of a creator. But you don't have that knowledge, you provided no evidence!!

I'll ask you one last time before I give up and accept the fact that you're brainwashed to the point where logic and rationality are foreign concepts to you: Provide evidence that gravity is the product of a creator! Hard scientific evidence...evidence that would contradict Hawking. Humour us. Until you do, repeating the same irrational OPINIONS don't matter and trying to have a scientific discussion with you is a giant waste of time because you don't give the impression to have a clue at all.

Oh, and I'm not attacking your intelligence...I'm attacking your incredible ignorance when it comes to accepting facts and looking at things rationally and logically...even if that means it goes against your belief. If you aren't able to do that, then discussing with you is about as useful as talking to a rock.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by oozyism

 

creation as evidence of a creator.

No.

The existence of something does not mean that something was created via intelligence. Take an island for instance, an island can be created with no intelligent intervention. I was formed in the womb with no intelligent intervention, just a biological process happening automatically (not consciously). Simply because some things are created does not mean all things are created. Without evidence there is no good reason to believe in a Creator and, as I explained, the existence of something is not evidence of a creator.

so your demise should be looked upon like an anthill being blown away by a summer storm?

or do you don't care what happened to the millions and millions in iraq who were killed by random entities?

it's people like you who deny a creator and bitch about man's inhumanity to man. how does that work?

"you are a fluke of the universe, you have no right to be here, whether you can hear it or not, the universe is laughing behind your back."

oooooooooh i get it, you are your own personal god!

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

"1. We have laws which have intelligent origins (communication protocols etc).
2. We have laws which have unknown origins (natural laws).
3. We have absolutely no laws which have come to existence without intelligence. "

Since there is no instance of laws coming to existence without intelligence, and thousands of instances of laws coming to existence through intelligence, we come to one conclusive conclusion, an intelligent creator.

If you change the above sentence:

Since there is no instance of laws coming to existence without intelligence, and thousands of instances of laws coming to existence through intelligence, we come to one conclusive conclusion, no intelligent creator.

If you claim there is no intelligent creator behind the creation of such laws, you are using the GAP argument, because you will be using number 2 as your evidence to support your claim that an intelligence wasn't behind the creation of such laws, because we don't know what was (the trap of the GAP).

Get it?

 

How many times

edit on 21-11-2010 by oozyism because: (no reason given)

And here we go again...the same 3 point idiot list you posted over and over again before even after it's been proven to be scientifically WRONG. I know in church they make people repeat the same stuff over and over again until it sticks, but in science repeating something often doesn't automatically make it true.

You need to provide evidence, you don't do that. So make a poster out of that ridiculous 3 point list if you want, it's nothing but an uneducated and completely irrational way to try and justify your belief.