INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Enai de a lukal]

Even some natural (almost universal) aspects of the universe have no natural explanation

Buh-dum-cshh! And some bachelors are married!

 

[1robin]

Reconciling the idea that everything must have a cause, but "God" is somehow an exception, is interesting theology but lousy science, especially since no evidence can be brought forth to fortify the claim. But that doesn't stop many theists from inventing stories and then claiming it's really "science".

No it is not. It has been claimed to be unavoidable since Aristotle and Plato, through Leibniz and Aquinas, and now by Zacharias and Craig. There cannot be an exception to having an uncaused first cause in all causal chains.

But of course the Bible is a much greater scientific source than Susskind, Hawking, and most other cosmologists and quantum physicists.

I don't know about Susskind but according to common sense Hawking is lacking much in the way of science. Not to mention according to Penrose (who called his M theory not even a good excuse for not having a theory) or the Oxford pure mathematics professor Lennox (who said his latest book is 100% philosophy and even that is 100% wrong). Any man who says that because such a thing as gravity exists then something can come from nothing has lost all credibility outside the deepest end of physics and fairytales.

 

[1robin]

Buh-dum-cshh! And some bachelors are married!

I can not even find a hint of anything here to contend with. This might be proof that nothing can come from something but not the reverse.

Married bachelors is an expression used to indicate the contradictory nature of terminology. Exactly what in what I said is contradictory?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Look more closely, you'll find it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No it is not. It has been claimed to be unavoidable since Aristotle and Plato, through Leibniz and Aquinas, and now by Zacharias and Craig. There cannot be an exception to having an uncaused first cause in all causal chains.

Assuming this is true, as you seem to, then the universe can be the uncaused cause. No god required.

 

[Sees]

Whether we want to call whatever energy was in existence first by the term god or not, we have to say now what? It is a large leap from that point all the way to the highly personal, humanistic deities of common thought which tend to be a reflection of how the good old boys of a certain time and culture see/want things.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Whether we want to call whatever energy was in existence first by the term god or not, we have to say now what? It is a large leap from that point all the way to the highly personal, humanistic deities of common thought which tend to be a reflection of how the good old boys of a certain time and culture see/want things.

:yes:

 

[metis]

No it is not. It has been claimed to be unavoidable since Aristotle and Plato, through Leibniz and Aquinas, and now by Zacharias and Craig. There cannot be an exception to having an uncaused first cause in all causal chains.



I don't know about Susskind but according to common sense Hawking is lacking much in the way of science. Not to mention according to Penrose (who called his M theory not even a good excuse for not having a theory) or the Oxford pure mathematics professor Lennox (who said his latest book is 100% philosophy and even that is 100% wrong). Any man who says that because such a thing as gravity exists then something can come from nothing has lost all credibility outside the deepest end of physics and fairytales.

It's really quite bizarre you accuse them of having "lost all credibility outside the deepest end of physics and fairytales", as if you're somehow qualified to judge such matters. Maybe it's best to take a modesty pill and realize that you are trying to discuss matters that you are ill equipped to discuss. Just a recommendation.

 

[ladybug77]

It's really quite bizarre you accuse them of having "lost all credibility outside the deepest end of physics and fairytales", as if you're somehow qualified to judge such matters. Maybe it's best to take a modesty pill and realize that you are trying to discuss matters that you are ill equipped to discuss. Just a recommendation.

I second that. If ive learned anything on this forum....its best to hush sometimes....we are all on different levels of thinking, and understanding.

 

[metis]

I second that. If ive learned anything on this forum....its best to hush sometimes....we are all on different levels of thinking, and understanding.

Amen.

 

[cottage]

Assertions derived from reality and applied to things not seen is one of the most comment concepts even in science. Where do you think dark matter, dark energy, multiverses, oscillating universes, cracked eggs, holographic theory, and most of history comes from. It take things derived from the known and unless there exists a reason not to do so, they are applied to the unknown. Cause and effect are present in any state change of information known, every change of any type requires a state change in information, by the associative property every actual change requires cause and effect. In every talk (even by the most theoretical and rabid atheist scientists) on evolution or cosmology you will hear "cause and effect" and design used more than just about anything else. [/font][/color]

I’m sorry I have to keep explaining this but I’m slightly puzzled that you cannot see the difference.
All scientific and most metaphysical hypotheses, even some of the more highly speculative ones, concern what is or could be the case in possible experience, that is to say what changes in form and matter can be observed or predicted from existing physical data. And of course cause and effect is absolutely the crucial element in theoretical science. Scientists begin from a notion or idea, based on some already available physics and then pose a hypothesis. Of course it may well be that a theoretician has a pet idea that he would dearly love to see become generally accepted, but there is no official dogma, and even if there were there is nothing to prevent it being overturned or modified by another individual’s more compelling peer reviewed theory. Scientists don’t begin with a piecemeal doctrine, such as the Bible, which doesn’t allow any deviation or anything to count against what is written and held from faith; and since scientists cannot study or form theories from what is not there to be studied they must take existing physical phenomena and relate to it with possible or proven facts or predictions based on those observations.

There is evidence it was created. Fine tuning, the rationality within it, the lawful nature, etc..... those are not what a universe flung into being by nothing should have. They should not even have a universe. Nothing has no information in it to change states and result in an anything. The universe can't just appear, nothing can not create anything, the universe is not self creating, that pretty much narrows it down even if what it narrows it down to is inconvenient. That is why that argument is still standing after 3000 years of scrutiny to this day.

Fine Tuning is an argument, not “evidence”! Creationists argue that since matter itself is mindless how is it possible for unintelligent matter to know exactly what it needs to survive? Well, aside from the question-begging form of that argument it can hardly be said that we have ‘exactly what is needed’ when for example only a comparative few life forms survive by what is barely sufficient for their existence, whereas the greater number did not. Many were stillborn, expired due to malformations or disease, or were devoured by predators, but those that survived went on to breed and pass on their genes, good or bad, to the offspring. If the genetic material is healthy then the young will flourish, if not the gene pool will eventually dry up. But the point is that the ones that exist, you, me, and any individuals that happen to read this, are incredibly lucky to be among the almost infinitely tiny number in that succession that survived against all odds. Even those among us that have a disability or a congenital disease have somewhere down the line benefitted from natural selection. Hardly “fine tuning”!

That is not correct. A causal agent is not composed of causation alone. A personal being can chose to create or not. He neither has to create nor is prevented from doing so and neither effect his existence. Causation may be contingent but the causal agent is not. If X sustains X then X is not contingent. A thing contingent on it's self is a kind of tautology. Even if true the X that sustains x could not have brought x into existence. Your detour led back to the starting point.

You are misunderstanding the difficulty altogether. You acknowledge that causality is contingent and you are saying, nonsensically, that your personal being used a contingent principle to create contingent existence. So if, according to you, contingency is independent of time then it follows that the universe is independent of time, which we all agree to be impossible.

Wow we went back to theology 101 here. God in the Bible and in philosophy is a being that never began to exist. Only things that begin to exist require a cause. This is in fact true of everything actually in existence. Every single chain of causation that exists must have at it's terminus an uncaused fort cause. Infinite regression of causation is impossible. It will never produce anything. If we have a Z then there must be an uncaused A that began its chain of causation. This takes the form of pretty much a law in philosophy.

First of all there is no such thing as a “law in philosophy”, "pretty much" or otherwise, and nor is there any Law of Cause and Effect, the latter being the point I am constantly and respectfully having to make to you. And once again you’ve not addressed the argument I gave you (in italics). The rest of the paragraph is just the Straw Man argument that you repeat time and time again in almost every post, together with no reference at all the hypotheses I expounded.

I think he created it for himself and for others and I do not see anything incoherent about that. You went straight from creation for pleasure or for another's pleasure straight to need in order to make a point. Why? The Bible nor philosophy says anything about God having a need for us or the universe. He did not create out of necessity but out of love. There is nothing incoherent about creating a being so as to have it experience love and reason, etc.... The only way it would be incoherent is if the being, being created, did not exist to experience things. Your objection here was incoherent. Usually I can see what another person is driving at even if terribly wrong. Here I am lost why you would have said anything in the above paragraph. Clearly scholars of imminent status like Craig see no incoherence and that is exactly what he and others were extensively trained to do and neither do I.

I’ve given you a very simple argument, clearly expressing a logical conundrum. But from your reply it seems you do not understand what is being stated, when as a matter of fact you’ve confirmed the contradiction in your own words not once but three times!


[/quote]

That was not so. Depending on what I am asked I describe God as a concept or as a theological being, and even a philosophic maximum. In that statement I was talking about him as a concept but in none of the three is God a doctrine. That does not even make sense and is far more of a statement of faith than what I said. God as a concept is a being not a doctrine. In 15 years of debate I have never heard anyone attempt to reduce a theoretical being to a theological dogma. BTW I admit it is not always apparent which of the three modes I am in but in none of them would my statement be faith based alone

If you take the Bible as your authoritative manual then of course you are following a prescribed doctrine.

 

[cottage]

That is not what Vilenkin or anyone I am familiar with says. He and I say the universe began to exist and one of two things will occur in the future. It will never end in either of them. It will become an evenly dispersed energy and matter space, boring but existent. Or God will alter natural processes like he occasionally does and once again supervise nature constantly and it will be what it was intended to be. Nothing comes into being or even changes without a state change in information. The only possible information that could have changed before the universe existed was in the mind of God. You will never get anything if nothing existed and no God.

Well if Vilenkin and you are saying the world will never end then you are both wrong (in the case of Thesis 1) to make such an absolute assertion, since matter is contingent in whatever form and has no necessary existence. In the case of Thesis 2 a continued and sustained existence is possible, but again not logically necessary. And I don’t remember in Vilenkin’s exposition seeing any mention that “God will alter natural processes like he occasionally does and once again supervise nature constantly and it will be what it was intended to be”!

I am growing weary of this.

1. You claim that a universe can begin to exist without a cause. You can't know that and more importantly it contradicts everything we do know and philosophy its self.
2. I claim the universe had a cause. I can't know that either but it is consistent with everything we do know and fits hand in glove with philosophy and observation.

First point: The universe having a cause is not consistent with “everything we know” if there was nothing before the Big Bang; and the beginning was certainly not observed. Your argument is that if the universe had a beginning there must be a cause of this beginning and you assume this on the basis of cause and effect observed in the universe. But there is no observation of anything beginning to exist in the universe, for cause and effect is simply movement and mutation and not the creation of things from nothing, and therefore the inference is misleading, plain wrong actually!
Second point: And “philosophy”, by which you mean the cosmological argument(s), are purely inferential, taking as their premise aspects of this world and applying them to some other world, which leads to contradiction when this other world is proposed as the necessary being outside time and space but with the same contingent property.

Here is what you asked for:

I am going with every piece of evidence there is even if the evidence is only relevant by inference. You insist we go with evidence unless, as in this example, it makes God more likely then you go against all the evidence and it's not even a faith criteria. It is pure speculation based on nothing what ever. There is a double standard if they exist at all.

Inferential arguments from the physical world, which in any case you’ve merely alluded to, are not “evidence” for supernatural beings.

I was not discussing what sustains anything. I have no idea how an atom is sustained or what that even means. It is not being sustained anyway, it is burning out, running down, dispersing. I was discussing how it all began to exist. I can include many arguments about things in nature that nature can't explain but that is another subject. However any slice of reality no matter how large or small does not contain the reason for it's existence within it. There is always a chain of causation for every events and bit or matter in the universe. The world does exist and can be said to be more proven than God but the universe has nothing to offer in the way of explanation of the world or much of what is in it. That is the issue.

Atoms in this Thesis (2) are being sustained in the same way that your God sustains them. All the things you’re proposing are explained in the passage. Can I ask you to read it again?

It means a things existence is not predicated on another things existence. It might have implications about whether it must exist but I have never seen it used that way and doubt it can be. God is not contingent but he does not philosophically have to exist unless you get into multiverse fantasies, then he invariably exists.

That’s not actually correct. A thing that is contingent might indeed answer to another thing’s necessary existence. But basically it means it has no necessary existence and therefore need not exist at all.

I do not see how the lack of an "I" would still allow for thought. His comments were made in the context of himself. He said that if he thought then he must be a thing somewhere thinking because thinking requires a thing. He applied his identity to whatever that thing was and that is the context of the claim.

You’ve just argued in a circle there! He can’t begin with himself since that is what he hopes to prove.

I studied Descartes as one of the compulsory subjects, and so I consider myself familiar with his rationalist philosophy. Discourse on Method and the Meditations is a beautiful bit of prose but some of his arguments owe much to scholasticism – but then a tutor said some of my work had a scholastic air to it (that’s not a compliment) and I occasionally still wander in that direction. But anyway Descartes in his foundational quest for indubitable knowledge rejected sense experience. He said he was able to deny he has senses or any body, but he cannot deny he has doubts and hence he is a thing that thinks. But is he? Where and what is this “thing that thinks”? There was nothing in thinking that identified an essential self or an “I” but only the thoughts themselves. And we can’t propose that thoughts require a thought-making thing without begging the question. So his first principle fell and with it the edifice on which he hoped to build his theory of certain knowledge. And still that goal has not been achieved. His ontological and cosmological arguments are not compelling but his discussion on dreaming still holds water. How can we tell we are not dreaming now? We can’t, although later in the Meditations he revised that conclusion though not very convincingly in my view.

In what way are thousands of years containing records of millions of supernatural events any less reliable than a few hundred years of recording events involving black holes or quantum physics. We will swallow whole what maybe a few scientists at best tell us is the truth based on stuff we cannot understand and did not see but we reject supernatural claims (even if we see them, many times) even though they are the record of history by the millions. There is no actual legitimate basis for doing so. I want only a reasonable and consistent standard.

You told me that you doubted nearly all the claims for miracles, saying you were “very skeptical” and thought “about 95% of the claims are fake, mistaken, etc.” If that number of supposed supernatural events can be dismissed then how many of those claimed “millions” can also be rejected. And remember that not all supernatural claims feature God. But the question to be asked is that if there are so many supposedly genuine claims then why is there no actual evidence in common experience? That is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask.

 

[cottage]

I apologize. I must save the longest posts to last because they require more time. Yours are very long. By the time I get to them sometimes I have become frustrated by the shallow tactics in the attempt to win word fights over a subject more deserving of honesty than any in history. Sorry.

That’s very gracious of you. My thanks.

But at the end of the day, though, it is just about words. A God that never appears in general experience is no different to a God that doesn’t exist. More than two-thousand years have elapsed and there is no sign this shy deity.

This is an example of what I mean by the concept of God. God as a theoretical being is beyond nature. It is in that context he must be considered and only in that context can whatever did create the universe exist. I do not remember trying to prove what is true of the God concept, it kind of is true by default as well as the context it comes inseparable from. IOW the cause of the universe must be independent from everything in it, time, space, matter, etc.... God as a concept happens to be all these things and the only concept that is all these things. Therefor God as a concept is the best explanation for the universe. Does not prove he exists but does prove the concept is consistent with what nature needs.

To say the cause of the universe must be independent of everything in it assumes that the universe was caused or that its reason for being cannot come from within; I refer to David Hume once more when he asked why the world may not be the Supreme Being “for we know not all the qualities of matter?” Two hundred and thirty years on we are no closer to answering the question but it is still as relevant today as it was then because theism has come no further either. But scientific knowledge however does move on so we’ll wait and see. But the one thing we do know is that the world actually exists. So it is already ahead in the game, whereas God needs to exist before he can be nominated as the world’s cause.
In respect of your last sentence so does Thesis 2 that I proposed earlier.

If we have a universe that began to exist and what existed before it was nothing then every atom in the universe is an example of something coming from either nothing (which is impossible) or something that is not natural. Just because an atom is old does not change the fact it began to exist.

Let me correct you there. The options are that the world came into being uncaused, which is not natural, or something not natural caused the world to come into being. Notice that both hypotheses share the same explanatory term! I have argued for both, the second without a deity. The former is logically possible the latter as God is not.

1. You have made claims that not only have 0 evidence but contradict evidence and philosophy.

On the contrary I have shown that any causal argument to God is reducible to absurdity on two separate accounts and you’ve not been able to answer either of them. And what do you mean “contradict philosophy”? Is there something called Philosophy that pronounces on truth?

2. Almost everything you believe is not a universal belief.

So tell me, what is it you think I believe then?

3. Why in the world are you insisting universal belief is the criteria only where God is concerned?

I have no such burden and no claim has such a weird criteria. My claim is that millions of recorded events have no natural explanation. Even some natural (almost universal) aspects of the universe have no natural explanation. That is a much higher standard than faith naturally comes with. For faith I only need a belief that is not contradicted by evidence conclusively but my claim satisfies a much higher criteria than that, but no claim satisfies the criteria you posted.

What do you mean “weird criteria”? (!)
Where a thing is universally accepted it is more likely to be a fact, rather than just a doctrinal belief or a matter of spiritual faith. Every person believes that deciduous trees lose their leaves in winter, the earth is not flat and that night always follows day, but only theists believe in God. That is the difference. But you are also muddling things beyond need. There is a multitude of things we don’t understand about nature and perhaps never will but we don’t on that account suppose a supernatural agent as an explanation – unless we are already inclined to such beliefs. And your “millions of recorded events”, which you yourself have already cast doubt upon in very skeptical terms, still falls spectacularly below a criterion of universal assent, which even then can’t demonstrate actual existence. And didn’t I ask you for just one, single, universally accepted example of a miracle? That’s all I’m asking, can you not even manage that for me?


The difference between us is that unlike you I don’t begin from prejudice. And I don’t pretend to know the “secret springs, which nature keeps to herself”, to quote Hume, that explain and maintain the world. But there is no evidence at all in fact of a supernatural being that (absurdly) seeks a relationship with his creation. But the evidential fact of common experience informs us that no being cares or protects us above the need to continue the species, or, in different words, exactly what we expect from nature.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I guess the evidence I was asked to provide is just going to be ignored.
Third time’s a charm?


What I gave you were scientific studies where the results indicated that it is possible for the building blocks of life to form from nonliving materials. You brushed these off as failures, for some odd reason even though the results indicate what I said. If they were actually failures, as is your contention, the results should not have indicated that it’s at least possible for living matter to form from non-living matter. But they did, and so your analysis is inaccurate.

I showed you that in 2008 scientists revisited the Miller-Urey experiments and determined that they were more successful than they initially thought. They found additional amino acids that were undetectable in the original experiment. They also demonstrated that organic molecules are pretty easy to synthesize under a wide variety of atmospheric conditions and using different energy sources. Here it is:
http://astrobiology.gsfc.nasa.gov/analytical/PDF/Johnsonetal2008.pdf

There are tons of studies on the subject, that bring us closer and closer to understanding how life arose on earth which are more than simply wild speculations lacking in evidence. Nice try though. So while you’re here on the internet, declaring from some preconceived notions about god that all of this is impossible without “him,” scientists are out in the field trying to find actual answers for us. Every new piece of information gleaned is another piece that helps complete the puzzle:

A COMBINED EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL STUDY ON THE FORMATION OF THE AMINO ACID
GLYCINE (NH2CH2COOH) AND ITS ISOMER (CH3NHCOOH) IN EXTRATERRESTRIAL ICES
http://www.chem.hawaii.edu/Bil301/Kaiser%20Paper/p108.pdf

An asymmetric underlying rule in the assignment of codons: Possible clue to a quick early evolution of the genetic code via successive binary choices
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1781368/

Carbonyl Sulfide–Mediated Prebiotic Formation of Peptides
http://centerforchemicalevolution.com/sites/default/files/prebiochemI-article.pdf


Catalysis in prebiotic chemistry: application to the synthesis of RNA oligomers
https://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Catalysis%20Adv.Space%20Res..pdf

Cations as Mediators of the Adsorption of Nucleic Acids on Clay Surfaces in Prebiotic Environments
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/orig/2003/00000033/00000001/05098679?crawler=true

Chemistry for the synthesis of nucleobasemodified peptide nucleic acid
http://pac.iupac.org/publications/pac/pdf/2004/pdf/7607x1591.pdf

Coevolution of compositional protocells and their environment.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17510019

Conditions for the emergence of life on the early Earth: summary and reflections
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664691/
Coupled Growth and Division of Model Protocell Membranes
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja900919c

Early anaerobic metabolisms
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664682/

Evolution and self-assembly of protocells
http://complex.upf.es/~ricard/DarwinProtocells2009.pdf

Evolution of Amino Acid Frequencies in Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order of Introduction of Amino Acids into the Genetic Code
http://www.ffame.org/pubs/Evolution%20of%20amino%20acid%20frequencies%20in%20proteins%20over%20deep%20time%3A%20Inferred%20order%20of%20introduction%20of%20amino%20acids%20into%20the%20genetic%20code..pdf

Formation of Protocell-like Vesicles in a Thermal Diffusion Column
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja9029818

Generic Darwinian selection in catalytic protocell assemblies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17510015

Homochiral selection in the montmorillonite-catalyzed and uncatalyzed Prebiotic synthesis of RNA
https://www.rpi.edu/dept/cogsci/yesterday/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Joshi_Homochiral_Chem_Com_2000.pdf

Implications of a 3.472–3.333 Gyr-old subaerial microbial mat from the Barberton greenstone belt, South Africa for the UV environmental conditions on the early Earth
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1474/1857.full


Ligation of the hairpin ribozyme in cis induced by freezing and dehydration
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383583/

Mineral Catalysis and Prebiotic Synthesis: Montmorillonite-Catalyzed Formation of RNA
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/ELEM_V1n3_145-150.pdf

Replicating vesicles as models of primitive cell growth and division
http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Hanczyc_and_Szostak_2004_COChemBio.pdf

Self-assembly processes in the prebiotic environment
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664680/

Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5918/1229.short

 

[SpiritualFreedom1]

How do you know that an attribute of the Universe is that it is uncreated? I mean, if we are just making up attributes of unknown entities, why can't I make up attributes of unknown entities as well?

The universe is made up of physical matter. We know scientifically that it has a beginning point, for some reason it changed from a singularity to a growing, expanding universe. Why? We know according to physics that all effects need a cause. So even if you throw out the idea of an intelligent creator, we do need a cause.

For these reasons we can't say the universe was "uncreated". That would be scientifically impossible.

 

[metis]

And what's wrong with the idea of sub-atomic particles and/or the components of sub-atomic particles (possibly "strings") going back into infinity, which is slightly older than I am?

 

[1robin]

Assuming this is true, as you seem to, then the universe can be the uncaused cause. No god required.

Will this never end? How do I turn this thing off? The universe does not have the potential of being infinite nor uncaused.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/

As usual the Christian (of faith position) is consistent with all the evidence and the non-theist is contradicting it. That would be bad enough but that same position insists the opposite is actually the case.

Natural law (no matter how it is subdivided or considered as a whole) contains an explanation for it's self.

 

[1robin]

Whether we want to call whatever energy was in existence first by the term god or not, we have to say now what? It is a large leap from that point all the way to the highly personal, humanistic deities of common thought which tend to be a reflection of how the good old boys of a certain time and culture see/want things.

Prove or supply reliable evidence anything you claimed is true. Energy is not infinite, it is not even potentially creative, and certainly not eternal.

 

[1robin]

It's really quite bizarre you accuse them of having "lost all credibility outside the deepest end of physics and fairytales", as if you're somehow qualified to judge such matters. Maybe it's best to take a modesty pill and realize that you are trying to discuss matters that you are ill equipped to discuss. Just a recommendation.

That is what experts in the far more reliable ends of science claim. Penrose for example said Haking's M-theory is not even a good excuse for not having a theory.

I have more than enough education to know they have no idea what they are talking about. They never have to produce anything that works, and nothing is actually falsifiable so it is not even science. It contradicts evidence, many times is based on nothing what so ever, and posits things that are most likely impossible.

Dawkins central argument has been called by competent philosophers "the worst argument in the history of western thought on the subject of God".

A teen agree should be able to see the claim "because gravity exists we know that nothing can produce everything" is patently absurd. It is not even coherent and certainly is not scientific.

No less that a Oxford pure mathematics professor. Two peer reviewed board members of philosophic institutions, one of probably the top three textual scholars, and a moral philosophy professor tore Hawking's latest book to shreds. It is no that I think hawking's claims are wrong. It is that anyone with a little education and common sense can easily see they can't be true and are not even scientific.

That is not even the central point. The point is there is no way to know that even some of the details they posit are true. Their ideas do not have to work, they do not have to be verified, apparently they do not have to be consistent with anything. They are white noise dressed in scientific terminology. All of the more reliable science is consistent with the Bible.

If you want to demonstrate I am wrong instead of simply asserting what level of education I have is (and you have no way to possibly know that). Then prove Multiverses, oscillating universes, eternal universes, crack eggs theories, M-theory, Nietzsche's cyclical models, or objective morality are true or exist.

Your assertions based on what you can't possibly know are the worst defense of their assertions based on what they can't possibly know, possible.

 

[1robin]

I second that. If ive learned anything on this forum....its best to hush sometimes....we are all on different levels of thinking, and understanding.

Theoretical cosmology is probably the most unreliable field of science in history and probably the future. It is most of the time not even science they generate. It is pure speculation and in many cases contradictory to all known evidence. I will call crap as crap even if some call it science and use it to wager decisions that potentially involve the soul on it.