Absolute, Irrefutable Evidence of a Creator

Originally posted by Psychonaughty
reply to post by brightlight

 

The question is not of the existence of a creator, the question is why the creator, the divine one binded you to this physical manifestation.


[edit on 5-9-2009 by Psychonaughty]

I think the answer to this may lay in the opposite. What existence would be like if there were no firmament, no physical body to exist in. What would it be like, feel like? What limitations would exist for a entity, soul, spirit, conciseness in a existence without form or physical rigidity?

Boring beyond belief comes to mind. Any thoughts?

reply to post by LordBucket


I'm glad I read down to your post before adding my reply.You saved me the time and energy,as you argued everything exactly the way I was about to.Star to you!!

reply to post by InTrueFiction


This cannot be becasue of evidence of the big bang...

Originally posted by ChemBreather
Nice Vids.
I liked what they said about Dawkins, his books seems to be nothing more than an attack on religion...Some thing along those lines ..

Great find,. S&F

Lol, That is exactly what Dawkins books are, and quite rightly so!

reply to post by brightlight


Dear Brightlight,

These types of posts always make for interesting conversation, it is good that you have begun to find enlightenment and wish to share your thoughts with the rest of us. Indeed, this wonderful forum is the perfect place to allow one to think outside of the box, to discuss such amazing topics.

As humans we naturally like to reach 'conclusions', there is great comfort in being able to behold a self believe conforming to that of another persons idea of truth, self validation if you like. Just as we reach out to move the mouse attached to the computer we can see that it is a solid object and know that it is a solid object by touching it. Without our 5 (or possibly 6?) senses we are effectively blind to the world. Now, as humans we are limited to our 5 senses, our entire interpretation of existence revolves around what we see, hear, feel, taste and smell. Our super processing units aka brains process this information into thoughts. May then I go as far as suggesting that we humans only get to understand a small section of the puzzle based on our 5 senses?

Once we begin to understand that we really know nothing, we really start to learn.

Life or existence extends infinitely in all directions, our planet is absolutely tiny when compared to other planets out there in space. When I look at a picture of a Nebula I always think they look like plankton in the sea, it makes me think wow, just wow!

I would like to refer you to this video which puts things into perspective.


At the moment you may find comfort in the belief there is a god creator which created all, I hope in time you will also find comfort in knowing that it is OK to question this belief, to move out of that safe feeling to learn more as much as we humans can do!

All the best in your quest my friend.

Originally posted by theyreadmymind
reply to post by debunky

 

Which is why we can't compare the probability of knowns to the probability of unknowns unless we agree on some fundamental level of equal knowledge. It's not fair for example for me to roll a die and say there was a 100% probability of me rolling a six because I rolled it. Then give you a die and ask you to tell me the probability of your die roll being a six before you roll it. Now my die roll is 100% likely and your die roll has a 16.6% probability. Now can we tell people I'm a better roller than you are?

On the other hand, I haven't seen the video and neither did the first guy. So it may very well be the hypothetical comparison in question could be flawed for any number of reasons. I just wouldn't throw a blanket statement around like this without hearing the proposal first.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by theyreadmymind]

Well... we can't assign propabilities to definite, already happened facts, because it is always 100 % (Well, we can. It just isn't very interesting, since always 1). That argument is a standard, and it is in those videos. If the weak force was stronger, If gravity worked the other way round ... if amino acids didnt somehow like bonding to each other... all this wouldnt be here.

And none of us would be sitting around going "Btw: who ordered the universe? What? No one?"

And if we assume the universe is infinte, and expanding, and that after the big bang comes the big crunch, followed by another big bang, no matter how small the propability for an event: It only affects the where and when. And where is obviously here, and when seems to be now.
Actually i think you and I are on the same page here Just saying it differently.

reply to post by debunky


Lol. Probably we are on the same page. The only thing I would ask you to reconsider is when you said it gets interesting again when we look at lifeforms on other planets/other universes. Because to compare the two (known planet earth and unknown planet) you would have to say that if life exists on other planets the probability is 100%, and if it doesn't the probability is 0%. That's not very helpful in the slightest. The only way around such a mess that I can think of is if you were to mask off what we know and begin with a clean universe in both instances and use what we know to calculate the odds. But even then I think we don't know everything and our probabilities will be flawed. The only way we'll be right is if we have a perfect model of the universe, in which case we would be back to 0% and 100% probabilities again. Ultimately we just don't know what we don't know and our ignorance is the only way to get a number in between.

Originally posted by Clickfoot
...everybody has a right to believe whatever they like... all I heard was complete hogwash.

If you could post here the one piece of evidence gleaned from these videos that you think is absolutely irrefutable for discussion, that would be useful.

I agree with you that everyone should believe what makes the most sense to them individually. America, after all, was begun as a group of British subjects escaping religious and economic persecution. I recently went on a two day binge on the mathematical angle of this, however, and came up with some interesting data.

To set the stage:

Number of atoms theorized to exist in the entire universe: 10^78-10^100
Number of cells hypothesized to exist in average human body: 10^13
Number of "pieces" to a typical mammalian cell: 13-17
Most complex "piece" of a cell: Mitochondria
Number of DNA Molecules making up the mitochondria of a typical mammalian cell: 220+/-6.2 -- 1720+/-162
Age of planet Earth: 3.9 billion years
Age of Universe: 13.9 Billion years; highest scientific estimate: 30 Billion years

So then, the current theory of abiogenesis contends that small, unproductive pieces of the very first amino acid chains formed independently of any guiding force. It sticks to the "primordial soup" model, but rejects the Darwinian concept that, at some point in time, a cell just came to be. It rejects this because, as the theory of evolution has been studied, it has become increasingly idiotic to believe it.

So let's be incredibly generous. Let's say that the earth is actually 4.55 Billion years old, as some contend. And let's say that for every second of the earth's entire lifespan to this moment, there have been 1 billion, billion, billion billion (10^36) attempts by "nature" to generate just one functional mitochondria of one single mammalian cell.

Now, in order to calculate the odds of a single mitochondria, containing 220 DNA molecules, forming on its own, we need to do 220 factorial, expressed: 220!. 220! is 220x219x218x217x216....x4x3x2. That number, in mathematical terms, is indistinct from infinity. So instead, we'll be incredibly generous again, and say that a mitochondria is the only part of a cell, and it is made up of 100 DNA molecules, which still need to be arranged just perfectly. The value of 100! = 9.3326215444x10^157.

So, 4.55 Billion years worth of seconds = 1.434888x10^17. At 10^36 random mutations per second, at 1.434888x10^17 seconds, you multiply the both together to get 1.434888x10^53.

Therefore, the mathematical likelihood of this hypothetical 100 DNA molecule mitochondria having evolved in the process of abiogenesis over a period of 4.55 billion years worth of seconds, with 1 billion billion billion billion attempts at creation per second, leave a remainder of 6.5040766557x10^104; millions of billions of trillions of times the number of all the atoms in the entire universe.

Now, "abiogenesists" will say that I'm missing the point, because they aren't saying that one cell created itself, but rather tiny parts of the cell, in the form of RNA molecules and enzymes "stored" (don't ask how or why, you won't get an answer) by nature for later.

But, those "purely random chemical transformations" must occur at just the right time, in the right place, and given the volume of the "primordial soup" the odds of this are mathematically indeterminate.

To put it simply, to believe that it's possible for life to have evolved absent some guiding universal force, is to believe that you have a reasonable chance of winning the lottery every week of every month of every year for you entire life. And to believe that those first cells replicated themselves spontaneously, you believe that you can win the SAME lottery a hundred times per week, month, year for your entire life.

Watch this, 58 minutes

God is omnipotent, right? God knows everything, yes? And God is eternal? Right? That's the whole premise we're working with, isn't it? So if you want to live a few lifetimes beleiving that you're a monkey, or that the flying spaghetti monster wants your worship, or whatever suits you...why would God stop you?

I don't know, why would bible god wipe out every human being on Earth (bar Noah and his fam) in the form of a flood because they were exercising free will? why give human beings free will and then expect them not to use it?

reply to post by john124[/i

 

You don't have much to offer except your narrow minded opinion.

well, ya know? i don't really consider surgicaly disecting someone elses
post. in a little hissy fit of an attack, much of an offering.LMAO

took me a whole 10 mins to put some words together. glad they worked for ya. if you know what i mean.

on the ground rolling

[edit on 5-9-2009 by randyvs]

[edit on 5-9-2009 by randyvs]