Maths Proof: God Created the Universe

originally posted by: randyvs
But my point is it's science
came along and made the extraordinary claim that all the magic
we see everyday came to be without a magician. All the mechanics
to existence never needed a mechanic, no designer of the obvious
design, no programmer needed for the program, hell books don't
even needed writers either I guess.

Science doesn't say any of that. You are personifying a method of fact discovery. Science only determines HOW we can learn from physical things based on experiment and observation. It doesn't say anything about religion being wrong or comment on design. Since there is no evidence of a god or designer, science has no say on the matter. Science goes by what we CAN determine, not by what we can't.

And if you see magic everyday, I'd really like a sample of whatever you are smoking... unless of course you are just a huge David Copperfield fan. There is no obvious design. You believe it, so you make it seem obvious to yourself. Obviously most educated people disagree that magic exists and can be witnessed on a daily basis. It sounds like you are talking in metaphors because most things in nature can be explained naturally, no magic necessary.

a reply to: Barcs

Science doesn't say any of that. You are personifying a method of fact discovery. Science only determines HOW we can learn from physical things based on experiment and observation. It doesn't say anything about religion being wrong or comment on design. Since there is no evidence of a god or designer, science has no say on the matter. Science goes by what we CAN determine, not by what we can't.

Alright, I can't believe it but I think I see what you mean.
You're saying not every reaction can equate into the theory?

And if you see magic everyday, I'd really like a sample of whatever you are smoking... unless of course you are just a huge David Copperfield fan. There is no obvious design. You believe it, so you make it seem obvious to yourself. Obviously most educated people disagree that magic exists and can be witnessed on a daily basis. It sounds like you are talking in metaphors because most things in nature can be explained naturally, no magic necessary.

Come'on Barcs don't play at words and not work with me.
You know what I mean and it isn't Chris Angel. I'd like to
believe we relate to each other more than that if that's
okay with you?

a reply to: TzarChasm

If we ever need a better understanding, we can always revisit one of your threads.

Damn boy! Touche" on guard!

a reply to: TheLamb
(Sigh)

You know, I want to rep you. I really do. You obviously put a lot of time into this. And as a believer, I respect anyone who puts time & effort into their religious path. (To be fair, i respect anyone who follows their dreams too. But I give more respect to those pursuing their spiritual paths.)

But as much as I want to show you anonymous support, you're making it hard to. Our job isn't to create new scriptures, interpretations, and formulas to "prove" God's existence. If you have faith in your beliefs, live them! Being a good example of your beliefs is the single best way to get people interested in your path. But claiming you have "proof" is only going to make people get defensive, including other believers. Especially if the "proof" is convoluted, requires an English translation to "match"; and doesn't even list the scriptures it's referring to.

Also, do you lack faith in your scriptures? Because if you don't, then why the need to explain "hidden formulas" and "secret meanings" to convince non-believers? Just point people towards your scriptures & let them read it for themselves. If they resonate with the reader, then it was meant to be. If they don't resonate with the reader, that's fine as well. If people have questions, answer them to the best of your knowledge. And if you don't have the answers, admit it then either try to find them or point them to a source that can help.

Meh, I'll flag this thread anyway. But please remember this basic rule: For believers, there is more than enough proof. And for non-believers, there is never enough proof.

youtu.be...

Just watch I got a laugh out of it. This guy on YouTube is great.

a reply to: randyvs

Alright, I can't believe it but I think I see what you mean.

Which part of what Barcs said can't you believe about how science works?

You're saying not every reaction can equate into the theory?

Can you restate this in such a way that it makes sense? What kind of reaction? Which scientific theory? It's like you just stuck some science-y words together and hoped to get a cogent sentence out of it.

originally posted by: randyvs
You're saying not every reaction can equate into the theory?

I'm a little puzzled, which reactions and are you talking about evolutionary theory?

I feel like you may be hinting at subjective coincidences and feel that certain things (ie eclipse ratio, cell complexity, etc) suggest a creator. I can see how you would want those things to be considered evidence for creation, but the problem is it is extremely difficult to determine what one should expect to find in a designed universe vs a natural universe. There are no known examples of either one, so it becomes guesswork, which doesn't count as science. One person sees an eclipse and is in awe of it, so they attribute it design. Another person sees it and thinks about the mechanics of how it works and why.

Come'on Barcs don't play at words and not work with me.
You know what I mean and it isn't Chris Angel. I'd like to
believe we relate to each other more than that if that's
okay with you?

I was projecting myself onto you. I was a huge Copperfield fan back when I was young. I think of that when I think of magic. But is there really magic involved in anything that occurs in the natural world? You did say you see it every day. If so, I'm curious as to what you consider "magic" that is not strictly confirmation bias.

a reply to: Barcs

I was projecting myself onto you. I was a huge Copperfield fan back when I was young. I think of that when I think of magic. But is there really magic involved in anything that occurs in the natural world? You did say you see it every day. If so, I'm curious as to what you consider "magic" that is not strictly confirmation bias.

I was speaking of magic as a metaphor. Metephorically speaking like, say
how the sun works. So as to avoid having to describe it scientifically. As
that would be a task for myself admittedly.

And I can do without this kind of crap.

And if you see magic everyday, I'd really like a sample of whatever you are smoking...

Thanks

a reply to: iterationzero

Which part of what Barcs said can't you believe about how science works?

I just meant I can't believe I understand what Barcs was getting at. But
apparently I didn't. Is there something wrong with my writing? It seems clear
to me when I proof read.


Apologies to you both. I fell off line for a couple days.

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

However, You can't dismiss the possibility of something because there is no evidence for its current existence.

Where did I do that?

I said I lack belief in its existence. I didn’t claim I had knowledge beyond the known Universe that gave me certainty ‘god’ doesn’t exist.

When religious people say this being exists then the burden of proof is on them. To shift that burden to the ones who disbelieve the claim is fallacious.

Replace ‘god’ with ‘frost trolls’. Do you still feel the burden of proof is on both sides?

I have a friend who honestly believes dragons exist, and are hiding somewhere on Earth or a nearby planet. I don't believe they exist at all. Is there something unreasonable with my disbelief? Do you feel I should have absolute certainty they don't exist before my disbelief is warranted?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Atheists share the burden when they state "there is no god" or any absolute statement of that variety. If you told your friend "dragons do not exist" I would expect you to be able to back that statement with facts.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Atheists share the burden when they state "there is no god" or any absolute statement of that variety. If you told your friend "dragons do not exist" I would expect you to be able to back that statement with facts.

Really??

Who said gods, unicorns, red riding hood or dragon do not exist??

They all exist in fairy tales and mythologies, only place you will find them all. And not 'one' God, but multitudes of them...

Nothing outside of that, there is no single piece of evidence.

Now is your turn, prove it God exists outside of mythological/fairy tales books. (ps. just to make sure we are on the same page - bible is collection of fairy tales, that is why is so scary... )

Math? If you're basing your faith in GOD based on math you might end up finding yourself in hell in the after life

a reply to: SuperFrog

Multitudes have said god does not exist. Tons have said "man creates god". Plenty have said god is simply a psychological compound of one's cultural upbringing and not at all "real" in any sense of the word.

Again, because there is "no single piece of evidence" does not mean there is not a god. The existence of a god/s is by nature supernatural. Supernatural is by definition beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature...and therefore unable to be demonstrated by evidence/argument as true/existing.

We don't take turns "proving" God exists/does not exist. That is foolishness to begin with. The existence of deity(or nonexistence) is a supernatural phenomenon and outside the realm of scientific proof....

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
Multitudes have said god does not exist. Tons have said "man creates god". Plenty have said god is simply a psychological compound of one's cultural upbringing and not at all "real" in any sense of the word.

Your first comment was 'existence of god', where next one - who created whom, we actually have some evidence that humans through history created many Gods. There is no single piece of evidence that tells/shows that your god is exception to previous human creations, on contrary, we have evidence that Bible (or other sacred texts) are made/written by humans - are collection of folklore tales. (just like mythologies from past)

Something being in literature/sacred text - does not mean its real, otherwise you would have Greek titans, or Horus and other ancient Egyptian gods around as well... or Harry Potter, Aliens,.... (list goes on... )

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
Again, because there is "no single piece of evidence" does not mean there is not a god. The existence of a god/s is by nature supernatural. Supernatural is by definition beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature...and therefore unable to be demonstrated by evidence/argument as true/existing.

One very smart man said once - supernatural claim requires supernatural evidence. Claim that something is beyond science does not work...

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
We don't take turns "proving" God exists/does not exist. That is foolishness to begin with. The existence of deity(or nonexistence) is a supernatural phenomenon and outside the realm of scientific proof....
A2D

So, I guess you will not be able to prove God exists??? To bad, was hoping to see something different from last 2,000 years... do we know what made him change his mind???

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Again, because there is "no single piece of evidence" does not mean there is not a god. The existence of a god/s is by nature supernatural. Supernatural is by definition beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature...and therefore unable to be demonstrated by evidence/argument as true/existing.

This is such a weak cop-out.....'god is spooky, magical and mysterious so that's why there's no evidence'....

If such a being exists then it's natural, in fact it's the very source of what we consider 'natural', and if it manifests itself within reality then there's no reason it cannot be detected and measured.

a reply to: Prezbo369

There are already tons of things science cannot t even begin to understand...let alone the concept of an all mighty being. Its not a copout...its simply the truth.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Prezbo369

There are already tons of things science cannot t even begin to understand...let alone the concept of an all mighty being. Its not a copout...its simply the truth.

Can you please name those things that science can't understand??

Thanks,

SF

a reply to: SuperFrog

For starters: love.
All we can see are the biological consequences, but that's it.

Besides from that we understand roughly 5% of our universe, thus we're 95% away from the world formula of 'fundamental understanding'...

a reply to: SuperFrog

For starters...maybe you can explain why the Sun's corona is a few million degrees hotter than it's surface...

originally posted by: randyvs
I was speaking of magic as a metaphor. Metephorically speaking like, say
how the sun works. So as to avoid having to describe it scientifically. As
that would be a task for myself admittedly.

So you describe anything you don't understand as magic?

I guess it ties in perfectly to your other post. You admittedly don't understand something, but make no attempt whatsoever to improve your understanding, or to learn about it. Then you argue against it as if it is evidence of a creator, when it's clearly not, it's just you not understanding it.

And I can do without this kind of crap.

I'm not psychic. When you use metaphors like magic to describe science, it throws people off.

My personal recommendation:

You will take a lot less flack if you stop attacking things you don't understand. If you wish to argue against science, you need to understand it first. Otherwise there is no point. Just leave science alone, it didn't do anything to you, it's not against religion. You just look at it that way because it conflicts with literal interpretations of a holy book, when in all reality it's far more likely that the holy book is a metaphor.