Scientific evidence for god discovered

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Tue May 26, 2015 6:42 pm

???

RU second guessing the meaning? It's a long way to the depths of great thoughts about the meaning of everything.
"The end of everything is the beginning of nothing"

(Shall we go around again?)

digress wrote:
toroid wrote:I never use an ignore list.


Encore!
Last edited by toroid on Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3450
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Lausten » Tue May 26, 2015 7:12 pm

I never said you were lying. How can it be a lie to mention a theory anyway? I just can't figure out why you refer to it. It doesn't support whatever else it is you are not saying.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Tue May 26, 2015 8:01 pm

Gord is I believe a man of his word so he'll likely no longer reply. But this comment of his deserves a post, IMHO.

WTF is wrong accepting what a post states at face value? The myriad of operating systems setting the parameters within which the known universe operates, while not qualifying for "god" because they're (big, but) limited nonetheless are powerful and awesome. (Universal goes beyond what can be stated at present.)

Expanding the view of reality to include scientific speculations that it consists of a limitless (but not infinite) multiverse and the operating systems then can logically be called god (or dog or the Great Hamsandwich). Not ironically or counterintuitively. Ignorance about (the totality of) reality will (probably) always be the case, but isn't worth wasting time and effort trying to factor in here. God-botherers is a term worthy of a chuckle, but nothing else.

It's impossible to know with certainty but easy to be a non-theist because of the preponderance of evidence. Likewise it's easy to belief in the Great Hamsandwich (or dog or god) because of the preponderance of evidence. Some individuals have special limitations regarding belief of anything so may choose to believe in nothing. Is belief in nothing silly? Probably, but it's impossible to know with certainty.

Gord wrote:
Toroid wrote:

I choose to call it "god", because it truly is powerful and universal and awesome.

...WHY??? Are you doing it ironically? Ignorantly? Counterintuitively? To piss off the god-botherers? (Sorry, "god-botherers" is a term my nephews learned to use because they grew up next to a church and had to put up with the weekly congregation of annoying people. It's a term that others have used with a different meaning, so I felt I should explain my own use if I wanted you to understand me.)...


:sigh: Okay, buh-bye.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19799
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue May 26, 2015 8:22 pm

donut wrote:Expanding the view of reality to include scientific speculations that it consists of a limitless (but not infinite) multiverse and the operating systems then can logically be called god (or dog or the Great Hamsandwich). Not ironically or counterintuitively. Ignorance about (the totality of) reality will (probably) always be the case, but isn't worth wasting time and effort trying to factor in here...

And it isn't worth wasting time and effort to modify a term that already has a very specific and well understood meaning.

It's impossible to know with certainty but easy to be a non-theist because of the preponderance of evidence. Likewise it's easy to belief in the Great Hamsandwich (or dog or god) because of the preponderance of evidence.

Out of that salad I would like a serving of the evidence of god you mention, please.

Some individuals have special limitations regarding belief of anything so may choose to believe in nothing. Is belief in nothing silly? Probably, but it's impossible to know with certainty.

When you say "nothing" here, you actually mean no thing?
Last edited by scrmbldggs on Tue May 26, 2015 8:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Tue May 26, 2015 8:24 pm

I never said you said I was lying.You said; "Can't tell if he's got a theory of what will happen to the universe or just uses that as a strawman. I said and then asked in a compound sentence; "Damn, I just told you the theory I accept, and you think I'm lying?"

Do you agree that your post is supercilious or just suspicious. i don't understand the context of the "it" in your second to last sentence quoted below and the meaning of the last sentence which starts out with (presumably) the same "it" and wanders off into gawknowswhat?

Lausten wrote:I never said you were lying. How can it be a lie to mention a theory anyway? I just can't figure out why you refer to it. It doesn't support whatever else it is you are not saying.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Tue May 26, 2015 8:50 pm

Since you're fugging with me, I'll decide without caring whether you agree or not whether to accept the Great Hamsandwich (or any other appelation it employs.)

(Dryly...) Forget the salad, on to the desert:

"Nothing" (proably) exists beyond spacetime. (Probably) there's an unknown amout of it. What is popularly called nothing, isn't nothing. It's full of all kinds of (momentary) sh-t.

How many "no things" make up nothing? An infinite amount? What are you full of?

(Edited for misspelling Hamsandwich. I've been told by mysterious messengers, no spicy mustard for 40+ days.)

scrmbldggs wrote:
donut wrote:Expanding the view of reality to include scientific speculations that it consists of a limitless (but not infinite) multiverse and the operating systems then can logically be called god (or dog or the Great Hamsandwich). Not ironically or counterintuitively. Ignorance about (the totality of) reality will (probably) always be the case, but isn't worth wasting time and effort trying to factor in here...

And it isn't worth wasting time and effort to modify a term that already has a very specific and well understood meaning.

It's impossible to know with certainty but easy to be a non-theist because of the preponderance of evidence. Likewise it's easy to belief in the Great Hamsandwich (or dog or god) because of the preponderance of evidence.

Out of that salad I would like a serving of the evidence of god you mention, please.

Some individuals have special limitations regarding belief of anything so may choose to believe in nothing. Is belief in nothing silly? Probably, but it's impossible to know with certainty.

When you say "nothing" here, you actually mean no thing?
Last edited by toroid on Wed May 27, 2015 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19799
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue May 26, 2015 8:51 pm

Dodge by the round and holey thingy noted.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26775
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 27, 2015 12:24 am

Lausten wrote: Where'd this one come from? He's funny. Kinda all over the map. Can't tell if he's got a theory of what will happen to the universe or just uses that as a strawman. What does "not a creation worthy of god or even God" mean, I wonder aloud, not expecting a coherent answer. I also wonder if he can name even one of these "many respected scientists" he speaks of (without googling). And he wonders if we find it all confusing, isn't that precious.


Toroid isn't as funny as Yrreg, the Filipino christian who posted here for a couple months. However they both use the expression "operator of the universe". They are probably both reading the same "How Christians should argue with skeptics" propaganda book.

Yrreg wins the Unintentional Comical Christian Award for calling us "Yapping Canines" after trying to translate Filipino insults, against us, using "Goggle translate"

viewtopic.php?f=83&t=24560&hilit=Yrreg#p428391
:D

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29458
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gord » Wed May 27, 2015 12:48 pm

digress wrote:
toroid wrote:I never use an ignore list.

Encore!

I use this one, so that others don't have to read my posts. I don't ignore toroid for toroid's sake, or for my own sake, but for the sake of other people who have in the past complained that I keep trading posts with people in the obsessively boring way that I do.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26775
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 27, 2015 1:12 pm

Gerald wrote: Yes siree, I kinda got fond of that funky feature "reverse privacy", that blocks my posts from the eyes of those cranky Canadians. Mighty glad Pyrrho kept it.

I just say I'm mighty full of thanks to you good people for never quoting me. Don't want no crazy canucks and their sleds of socialism in my home town. I tells ya, once those northerners get into your head ....you're a goner :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Trust me. They will never work it out.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29458
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gord » Wed May 27, 2015 2:34 pm

My sled of socialism is pulled by six white boomers.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Wed May 27, 2015 2:45 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:Dodge by the round and holey thingy noted.


Luv you too. Y'really oughta' check out my Chevy!

(edited to consolidate 2 replies into one)
Last edited by toroid on Wed May 27, 2015 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Wed May 27, 2015 2:56 pm

Thank The Great Hamsandwich, or whatever!!! Some of the oldltimers appear to be a clubby li'l group.

My work here is done; we'll (me and the club) haveta' see how long I stay around after publishing The Hamsandwich Strategy.)

BTW, the Great Hamsandwich didn't create the universe (or cosmos), it's merely reality's operating systems described collectively.

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Lausten wrote: Where'd this one come from? He's funny. Kinda all over the map. Can't tell if he's got a theory of what will happen to the universe or just uses that as a strawman. What does "not a creation worthy of god or even God" mean, I wonder aloud, not expecting a coherent answer. I also wonder if he can name even one of these "many respected scientists" he speaks of (without googling). And he wonders if we find it all confusing, isn't that precious.


Toroid isn't as funny as Yrreg, the Filipino christian who posted here for a couple months. However they both use the expression "operator of the universe". They are probably both reading the same "How Christians should argue with skeptics" propaganda book.

Yrreg wins the Unintentional Comical Christian Award for calling us "Yapping Canines" after trying to translate Filipino insults, against us, using "Goggle translate"

viewtopic.php?f=83&t=24560&hilit=Yrreg#p428391
:D

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Wed May 27, 2015 3:14 pm

Gord is logical, consistent, obsessive and honest. Glad to learn what the use of Encore indicates.

Gord wrote:
digress wrote:
toroid wrote:I never use an ignore list.

Encore!

I use this one, so that others don't have to read my posts. I don't ignore toroid for toroid's sake, or for my own sake, but for the sake of other people who have in the past complained that I keep trading posts with people in the obsessively boring way that I do.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19799
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed May 27, 2015 3:20 pm

Take heart, Adam. As one of our valued posteriors printed on this very board: "....the more resistance one receives is directly proportional to the likelihood that that person is right....".

Therefore it's not a clubbing, it's a validation!
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Wed May 27, 2015 3:23 pm

Thanks.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby digress » Wed May 27, 2015 3:41 pm

Gord wrote:
digress wrote:
toroid wrote:I never use an ignore list.

Encore!

I use this one, so that others don't have to read my posts. I don't ignore toroid for toroid's sake, or for my own sake, but for the sake of other people who have in the past complained that I keep trading posts with people in the obsessively boring way that I do.

Boooo! :lol:

You've some gloomy companions if they've gone out of their way to post that you've been boring them. What distasteful manners.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5008
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Monster » Wed May 27, 2015 6:05 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:Take heart, Adam. As one of our valued posteriors printed on this very board: "....the more resistance one receives is directly proportional to the likelihood that that person is right....".

Only the people who are the most wrong would say that. Well, either very wrong, or very dogmatic.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19799
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed May 27, 2015 7:17 pm

...it's true....----------
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3450
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Lausten » Wed May 27, 2015 10:36 pm

toroid wrote:I never said you said I was lying.You said; "Can't tell if he's got a theory of what will happen to the universe or just uses that as a strawman. I said and then asked in a compound sentence; "Damn, I just told you the theory I accept, and you think I'm lying?"

Do you agree that your post is supercilious or just suspicious. i don't understand the context of the "it" in your second to last sentence quoted below and the meaning of the last sentence which starts out with (presumably) the same "it" and wanders off into gawknowswhat?

Lausten wrote:I never said you were lying. How can it be a lie to mention a theory anyway? I just can't figure out why you refer to it. It doesn't support whatever else it is you are not saying.

What's the difference between you saying "you think I'm lying" and my saying you think I'm saying your lying?

I think this has an explanation of what "whatever" means in Minnesota. "Whatever" is the "it" I was referring to. We use it when we have an opinion about something but care to get into the specifics at the moment.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Wed May 27, 2015 11:47 pm

The question mark at the end of my post.

Lausten wrote:What's the difference between you saying "you think I'm lying" and my saying you think I'm saying your lying?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26775
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu May 28, 2015 1:33 am

scrmbldggs wrote:Take heart, Adam. As one of our valued posteriors printed on this very board: "....the more resistance one receives is directly proportional to the likelihood that that person is right....".
Monster wrote: Only the people who are the most wrong would say that. Well, either very wrong, or very dogmatic.
It was Gorgeous the troll, who was upset that we laughed at her, for claiming alien lizards working for the illuminati control the world because she said so.
:D

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29458
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gord » Thu May 28, 2015 6:06 am

digress wrote:You've some gloomy companions if they've gone out of their way to post that you've been boring them. What distasteful manners.

Not just posts: I get private messages about it, too. I've been told I'm responsible for not only my own posts, but also for the posts of those who have responded to my posts. :thumbsup:

So for the sake of others, I have at ten people on my ignore list. Most of them don't even post here anymore, so maybe it works; maybe they got bored and left because nobody was responding to them once I stopped.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby digress » Thu May 28, 2015 4:42 pm

Image
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19799
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu May 28, 2015 7:28 pm

If Cha would be around, she'd have said, "Who? Where? Let me at 'em!" :box:




But she isn't...

Image
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3450
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Lausten » Fri May 29, 2015 12:04 am

toroid wrote:The question mark at the end of my post.

Lausten wrote:What's the difference between you saying "you think I'm lying" and my saying you think I'm saying your lying?

Poor communication on your part. It appeared you were exclaiming that and questioning why I would think you are lying. If you wanted to ask me if I thought you were lying then you would have asked, "do you think I'm lying?" There was no interrogative at the beginning of what you now say was a question.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Tue Jun 23, 2015 3:35 pm

You may well be right. I've lost track of point we were going around and around on...

RedBard
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:41 pm

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby RedBard » Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:47 pm

Has anyone else read “Bible Stories Mother Never Told Me” by CL Putnam? It's new on Amazon books. It re-tells several Bible stories, but from the point of view of God’s “enemies” and his “victims”. If your "believer" friends really want to know the WHOLE truth about the Bible, have them read this book!!! I'd like to start a discussion about it.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8241
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Poodle » Fri Aug 07, 2015 12:14 am

About what? The book, or your blatant advertising of it?

User avatar
Nay_Sayer
New Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:28 pm

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Nay_Sayer » Sat Aug 08, 2015 5:39 am

I find if you take any religious claims about scientific proof and add air quotes around the word science it helps, No it still won't make a lick of sense nor be right, but grammatically it will be correct.
I am 100% confident all mediums/psychics are frauds.

"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." -Thomas Jefferson-

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19799
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Aug 08, 2015 6:26 am

The book comes with a warning:

3 Used from £7.85
7 New from £7.33

:scratch: ...um, that's scary but that's not it. This: Some of the stories and descriptions in this book are not suitable for children. They contain graphic images of murder, rape, infanticide, animal cruelty, sexual mutilation and hemorrhoids.

I bet this guy could keep us safe.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Cygnus_X1 » Wed Sep 16, 2015 4:05 pm

I hate the way otherwise 'science' sites like space.com has these same 'proof of God' adverts. I guess those places have to pay for themselves, but no respectable science sites should be displaying totally unscientific adverts. It goes against the whole ethos of trying to present science.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19799
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Sep 16, 2015 7:28 pm

Image
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11090
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 16, 2015 9:58 pm

If toroid makes it back, you said: "For god to exist an endless multiverse is the minimum requirement." //// I thought the argument was the reverse? God could make a perfect universe once for us thereby defining perfect as less than .000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of its volume suitable for human habitation. A multiverse is almost mandated by the fact of life in this universe and all the variables that had to coincide for this to be the case..... ie..... lots of dead cold universes.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29458
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gord » Thu Sep 17, 2015 2:52 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:If toroid makes it back, you said: "For god to exist an endless multiverse is the minimum requirement." //// I thought the argument was the reverse? God could make a perfect universe once for us thereby defining perfect as less than .000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of its volume suitable for human habitation. A multiverse is almost mandated by the fact of life in this universe and all the variables that had to coincide for this to be the case..... ie..... lots of dead cold universes.

Nah. For something to happen, it just needs to be possible. Infinite other possible outcomes are not necessary for that. For instance, if you took a billion pennies and threw them into a pile, they would come up in a unique formation of positions and heads/tails. This occurs without the need for every possible form of the same pile existing somewhere else.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11090
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:03 pm

Hey Gord.... you have it slightly wrong. Imagine of those billions of pennies that only 1 was of a certain combination. Now....if you are shown to a room with exactly that combination....do you think it was the result of one throw, a conscious designer, or one of a billion rooms?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Mon Oct 26, 2015 2:13 pm

Monster wrote:Checkmate Atheists – Scientists Discover God!

http://viral.buzz/video-checkmate-athei ... cover-god/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I listened to the video. I think it's dumb. The speaker said, "The Bible got it right," regarding the fact that the universe has a beginning. And he also equates "the Laws of Nature" and "god". So dumb. I'd like this guy to tell monotheists that they're worshiping the Laws of Nature.


Yeah, the video doesn't accomplish much beyond stating the guy's arbitrary POV. Some questions came to mind though while I watched it:

Do the laws of nature exist?
Can scientists understand the laws of nature?
Do scientists understand the laws of nature?
Do atheists believe that the laws of nature exist?
What is known about atheism?
Can atheism be proven?
Is atheism arbitrary?
Do the laws of nature have any connection to either theism or atheism?
Is worshipping the laws of nature required?
Would worshipping the laws of nature make sense?
Do the laws of nature control all the forces acting on reality?
What controls reality other than the laws of nature?
Should the laws of nature be called god?
Can the laws of nature be called god?
Last edited by toroid on Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Mon Oct 26, 2015 2:35 pm

Gord wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:If toroid makes it back, you said: "For god to exist an endless multiverse is the minimum requirement." //// I thought the argument was the reverse? God could make a perfect universe once for us thereby defining perfect as less than .000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of its volume suitable for human habitation. A multiverse is almost mandated by the fact of life in this universe and all the variables that had to coincide for this to be the case..... ie..... lots of dead cold universes.

Nah. For something to happen, it just needs to be possible. Infinite other possible outcomes are not necessary for that. For instance, if you took a billion pennies and threw them into a pile, they would come up in a unique formation of positions and heads/tails. This occurs without the need for every possible form of the same pile existing somewhere else.


That's why "limitless" is a more accurate description of reality than "infinite".

Unless reality is limitless (unlike the universe) there's no point to either other than the "isness" of being and "isness" ain't even a word!

Unfortunately the limitless nature of reality exists only as conjecture at this point. Science hasn't gotten beyond the universe. Humans may never know appreciably more than is currently known although it would be a mistake to believe that unless scientific observations succeed in closing some possibilities; if that is possible.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29458
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gord » Mon Oct 26, 2015 8:59 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Hey Gord.... you have it slightly wrong. Imagine of those billions of pennies that only 1 was of a certain combination. Now....if you are shown to a room with exactly that combination....do you think it was the result of one throw, a conscious designer, or one of a billion rooms?

If I was shown a room with a billion pennies in it, I would say "Whoa, that's a lot of pennies!"

It would have a certain combination by its nature. I wouldn't be impressed with it no matter what that combination was. I wouldn't think there must be an infinite number of other rooms containing every other combination possible.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:55 pm

I just watched the documentary, Particle Fever, about the search for evidence of the Higgs Boson at CERN's LHC.

Apparently at the present time the data confirming the existence of the Higgs Boson doesn't give a clue about whether finding evidence of additional particles is possible or whether future hypotheses of physics will only be unprovable theoretical excercises such as the string theories.

Partical Fever is only available for a fee, but here's a freebie on the subject:
CERN Large Hadron Collider


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest