Proof of God(s)?

[Nicolombian77]

yes

 

[Ketzer]

I agree: if we define ourselfs (in the end) as something like consciousness (who is aware of a body and a world) we can ask what might be the cause of this consciousness? Is the cause of our existance random? Neither yes or no can be proven. But there might be a deep feeling that random might be quite improbably.

 

[ChristineES]

:slap:so far I have seen nothing but assumptions and dodging the question eg. "what I call proof you may not call proof", "god cannot be proved", "we are in the Matrix", and what not.
==kerravon
lol scientist have already succesfully created the whole DNA sequence of an organism
just because we don't have the technology to do it doesn't mean it can't be done.

1000 years ago, humans could not make snow
you're saying that back then this proved that there was a "Force" other than typical laws of physics acting on the universe.
when anyone can answer the question, message me

Did you expect proof? If you did and are, it will be a very long wait for you. No one- not you, not me, not Albert Einstein, would have an answer to your question. What I question is your motive for even asking it.

 

[idav]

yes

Well there certainly isn't evidence that the source contained any pasta, cooked or uncooked.

 

[filthy tugboat]

When a slight variation of something makes a world of difference, it's evidence of fine tuning.

Only to those that are already looking for a tuner. The argument of fine tuning is a ridiculous argument that should not be taken seriously. It basically takes what we have, gasps, then decides that something else must have made the universe.

It would be objectively boring, if we were watching it.

You mean subjective? If you think it would be objectively boring, perhaps you could demonstrate that?

Yep. That's the last barrier to getting rid of human beings.

Could you support this assertion with some evidence and/or reasoning?

We should have, if there's nothing magical about intelligence.

Should we have? Could you support that assertion with evidence and/or reasoning?

I believe the universe is only decades old.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want.

And yes, this is a remarkable period in history, as I explained already.

Hardly, you claimed it was remarkable, I'm waiting on the explanation and the evidence/reasoning that support that explanation.

If you were to observe the product of the creatures who lived 1 billion years ago, with what we are producing today, there is no contest.

What would a dinosaur want with a TV? Or a car? Why does what is produced determine what is remarkable?

The humour, the debates, the activities, the movies.

Are all designed for humans by humans. You are appealing to objective standards where none exist.

Yes, the number of interesting things that are happening here make it look like it has been deliberately created as a puzzle to be solved. Not just a random accident of nature.

To you maybe.

Being fine-tuned to 0.01% accuracy by accident is unlikely because it's an extremely small tolerance.

How is our existence at this moment an example of fine tuning? This time frame would always occur as will the time frames preceding and proceeding it. Your argument doesn't make sense.

I have already laid out the evidence and why I think extremely small tolerances and fine-tuned physical constants and remarkable accidents are overwhelming.

No evidence, only opinions.

It IS fine-tuned.

No, the universe simply has constraints.

A less fine-tuned universe would simply be a large black hole.

What? Why?

It all smacks of deliberate creation by an intelligent entity.

Some people think this, no evidence exists to support that notion, only vague guesses and assumptions.

Yes, I consider them to be reasonable assumptions, such as women have the right to not be raped, and we have an obligation to protect women.

How do these assumptions have anything to do with "a verifiable miracle"?

I use the scientific method to scrutinize everything and I don't accept anything written as inerrant.

I'm yet to see the scientific method employed by you. You already adhere to the argument of fine tuning which does not employ the scientific method at all. I'm yet to see how your conclusion of, "the universe is only a few decades old," has anything to do with the scientific method.

It's what I consider to be logical. Not sure what else can be applied to this question.

I find your considerations of what is and what is not logical to be disagreeable with actual logic.

The DNA is a molecule, so when they splice it they are operating on an atomic level.

Oh, so you mean a molecular level? DNA is made up of many molecules so even after splicing it, we are only operating on a molecular level. Humans have never actually seen an atom.

I'm not saying it's proof. Just evidence. I do expect us to be able to recreate things that nature allegedly created by accident.

Why?

I looked up www.dictionary.com and it has:

3.
any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.

That is the definition I am using, and it doesn't require a "volitional entity".

Fair enough.

No, because I acknowledge those require large amounts of matter/force that we can't reproduce in labs here.

I'm glad you don't think that just because something is the product of nature humans can create it. Each thing should be taken on it's own merits and it's difficulty to reproduce is not defined by, "nature can do it".

Because stuff that occurs naturally, ie just by accident/random event, is something that we should also be able to do deliberately

This isn't an explanation, it's a repeat of your initial assertion.

unless the random event involved greater forces than we have access to.

Nature has far greater force than we have access to.

You have a very unique and strict view of the word "accident".

One I will happily change now that I've seen the definition you are using.

Yes, even when I was an atheist I was very suspicious about the fact that we couldn't create a living cell with all our technology.

Why? Do you know how to make a living cell? If you don't, why do you presume we should be capable of doing it?

It was as if there was a mysterious "life force" at play. In the competition between humans using immense logic to construct things, and nature relying on dumb luck, I do expect humans to be victorious.

How does nature rely on "dumb luck"? How do humans use logic to create anything? How can logic be used to create anything?

If you look around the world you can see the sophisticated machinery that humans have created, and I think we outperform nature in complexity, except for two things - a living cell and artificial intelligence. We are being beaten by nature (or more likely God) at that game.

OK. Is this supposed to be meaningful?

Sure. I just happen to believe that we're living in a computer simulation, and it is in the nature of the simulation that life can only come from other life, and intelligence is also part of the simulation, it's implemented on silicon, not our brains.

Fair enough.

We don't understand something that I wouldn't expect to be too complex if nature made it without any intelligent force behind it.

I don't understand how you decide the difficulty or complexity behind things. Are you saying, "nature did it, therefore we can too?" Is that how you judge the difficulty surrounding such matters? Why?

Sure, but you're allowing the concept of intelligent creatures messing with us.

It makes no real difference, no reasonable conclusion can be drawn from anything if one concedes that the supernatural is real.

That is the model I use myself. But in that scenario there's still a God. Whoever set up the brain in the tank is God.

You can call them whatever you like.

 

[Storm]

who said i was atheist, i believe in the flying spaghetti monster. May his noodly appendage strike heathens down and torture you forever. he will punish your personality based on the location you were born in and those who form your personality and life.
One term will disprove any religion that says this: Tabla Rasa

In that case, you should really read the 8 I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts In particular, the first:
"I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou *** when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject."