Finally, proof there is no God.

[oakdale]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

No, but I didn't say it would.

[dazzztay]

Finding proof of how it all began or even proof that explains councious memories or anything else does not disprove God. We can learn more and more and satisfy ourselves that the bible is inaccurate, but we can not say that a god has never or will never exist. Science deals with verifiable and repeatable evidence to provide probabilities for outcomes, we take high probabilities as fact, science can not look for and test a god if science doesn't know where to look or what to test, so the probability that there is a god is as good as the probability that there isn't a god.

I don't belive in any god, I think science will eventually explain and answer everything and I personally see no proof that a god has ever existed, anyone is welcome to disagree but unless we reach a point that every experiment however conceivable or inconceivable has been thoroughly tested to prove we ultimately know everything there ever has been and will be, then we can not prove there is no god, and that's obviously never going to be possible.

So happiness to the believers and non believers out there, let's just get along and not get caught up on the impossible to answer questions!

[scorp]

Swervin_Mervin said:

I don't see how this proves that a God doesn't exist.

It will go some way to disproving creationism though, although I doubt it will convince existing believers.

[scorp]

ash73 said:

I think when you look at the infinite question of creation, mathematically the probability is 1 you will reach a step that is inconceivable; and this will always be true. It's only a small step from there to give it a name.

Related: http://www.blogos.org/thinkabout/infinite-monkey-t...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Blib said:

Atheists spend an inordinate amount of time trying to prove God doesn't exist. It's becoming like some kind of religion to some of them.

They really don't. It's the other way around I find. Scientists spend an inordinate amount of time trying to increase our knowledge of how everything began, and are constantly pushing those boundaries. The God squad feel threatened by this so every time there's a new discovery, they all run around shouting "it doesn't disprove god, it doesn't disprove god."

Then they move the goalposts as said, so that god fills a different knowledge gap. And if they get their kicks out of that, leave 'em to it I say.

[ATG]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

They really don't. It's the other way around I find. Scientists spend an inordinate amount of time trying to increase our knowledge of how everything began, and are constantly pushing those boundaries. The God squad feel threatened by this so every time there's a new discovery, they all run around shouting "it doesn't disprove god, it doesn't disprove god."

Then they move the goalposts as said, so that god fills a different knowledge gap. And if they get their kicks out of that, leave 'em to it I say.

Absolute rubbish. You are only serving to prove his point.

[anonymous-user]

oakdale said:

No, but I didn't say it would.

So the organism wouldn't continue to absorb heat and dissipate heat time and time again as it would break down.
It seems a strange hypothesis that matter exists in non-living state across the universe, at wildly varying temperatures and with massive exposure to many forms of energy, yet somehow living structures are deemed better at dealing with energy even though they cannot deal with energy outside a narrow set of limits.

[heebeegeetee]

Blib said:

What fascinates me is that many tens of millions of people lead happy, productive, peaceful lives and they claim that their faith is the basis, the bedrock of all that they achieve.

I always think that's a shame. When someone does something really well and good, and has achieved something they should be proud of, they thank god and even attribute that success to him, when in fact there is no such thing as god and the reason the person did well is solely down to that person doing well. The person should be proud of his achievements, and not put it down to an imaginary friend with a beard in the sky.

Likewise I always feel sorry when something bad happens for people who have faith in some god or other, because they believe that that is also down to god and thus they are being punished for something bad they must have done, resulting in them suffering more.

[anonymous-user]

heebeegeetee said:

I always think that's a shame. When someone does something really well and good, and has achieved something they should be proud of, they thank god and even attribute that success to him, when in fact there is no such thing as god and the reason the person did well is solely down to that person doing well. The person should be proud of his achievements, and not put it down to an imaginary friend with a beard in the sky.

Likewise I always feel sorry when something bad happens for people who have faith in some god or other, because they believe that that is also down to god and thus they are being punished for something bad they must have done, resulting in them suffering more.

It's a kind of humility to apportion credibility for achievements to a.n.other.

Just a side note, isn't it strange that Dawkins is now being known more for his Atheism than his scientific endeavours? His 'beliefs' are overshadowing his science. For example he has commented on the genetic arrangement that Mary Portas, her wife and Portas' brother have made, yet it's not always reported as Dawkins the geneticist commenting on genetics, it's Dawkins the Atheist.


Anyway, anyone want to discuss the scientific hypothesis that the OP linked to?

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 26th February 08:03

[scorp]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Didn't really see anything concrete in that article.

I'm going to guess it's something like competing catalysts, I guess that could give rise to self organising structures, but really I have no clue at all from that link

[Einion Yrth]

scorp said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Didn't really see anything concrete in that article.

I'm going to guess it's something like competing catalysts, I guess that could give rise to self organising structures, but really I have no clue at all from that link

It's a link from the Independent - half decent footy coverage, the rest? Not so much.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It's not at all strange. Stephen Hawking is known more for being disabled than for his work. The press and hence the public are always going to be more interested in those kind of things than geeky old science.

I suspect Dawkins has "Evolutionary Biologist" on his passport as opposed to Atheist (do they still have your job on there?) .

[CrutyRammers]

dazzztay said:

Science deals with verifiable and repeatable evidence to provide probabilities for outcomes, we take high probabilities as fact, science can not look for and test a god if science doesn't know where to look or what to test, so the probability that there is a god is as good as the probability that there isn't a god.

I don't think it works like that, old chap.
There's an invisible monster standing behind you BTW. Well, a 50%/50% chance of it at least.

[Jinx]

scorp said:

Didn't really see anything concrete in that article.

I'm going to guess it's something like competing catalysts, I guess that could give rise to self organising structures, but really I have no clue at all from that link

Agreed.
It was merely a researcher at MIT that postulated that a group of atoms will rearrange themselves to dissipate energy more efficiently given enough time being exposed to that energy. This would be more inline with disproving random mutations (as exposure results in a specific order rather then a random structure) - a fundamental part of evolutionary theory - than disproving God.

[Moonhawk]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Very few scientists are famous in their field - unless they get on the telly (e.g. Brian Cox).

Dawkins is more famous for his Atheism simply because it is whilst discussing that subject that he is most likely to be presented to the public (via TV, Books etc).

Scientific journals on evolutionary biology aren't likely to be very high up the reading list for the average lay person and those journals aren't readily accessible to the general public. A book like "the god delusion" on the other hand is sold in book shops on the high street and in supermarkets and is therefore accessible to all.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Dawkin's book, The Greatest Show On Earth is fantastic. It's the current position on evolutionary biology as we stand today and it doesn't mention god once, as far as I can recall.

[Einion Yrth]

Moonhawk said:

Scientific journals on evolutionary biology aren't likely to be very high up the reading list for the average lay person

"The selfish gene.", "The blind watchmaker." and "Climbing mount improbable." might be though.

[///ajd]

Moonhawk said:

Blib said:

Atheists spend an inordinate amount of time trying to prove God doesn't exist. It's becoming like some kind of religion to some of them.

I personally don't care - it's an exercise in futility for two reasons:

1. It's virtually impossible (if not impossible) to prove a negative. You can't prove an arbitrary 'something' does not exist - especially if it's ill defined to start with or it's adherents can simply move the goalposts at any time.

2. To quote a famous saying "You can't reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place"

Science will never prove god doesn't exist - nor should scientists waste their time trying to.

Oh I don't know. Science might one day prove so much and leave so few gaps for a "god of the gaps" to fill, that one day we might stop indoctrinating our children with fairy stories.

Curing the human race of religion is not necessarily a waste of time, it would make the world a more tolerant place.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

Moonhawk said:

Blib said:

Atheists spend an inordinate amount of time trying to prove God doesn't exist. It's becoming like some kind of religion to some of them.

I personally don't care - it's an exercise in futility for two reasons:

1. It's virtually impossible (if not impossible) to prove a negative. You can't prove an arbitrary 'something' does not exist - especially if it's ill defined to start with or it's adherents can simply move the goalposts at any time.

2. To quote a famous saying "You can't reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place"

Science will never prove god doesn't exist - nor should scientists waste their time trying to.

Oh I don't know. Science might one day prove so much and leave so few gaps for a "god of the gaps" to fill, that one day we might stop indoctrinating our children with fairy stories.

Curing the human race of religion is not necessarily a waste of time, it would make the world a more tolerant place.

I think moonhawk is right, it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist but I agree with you, one day so much will have been explained scientifically as to remove any doubt except for the very limited of thinking.

For me and, I believe, millions of others we are way past that point already.

[///ajd]

scorp said:

ash73 said:

I think when you look at the infinite question of creation, mathematically the probability is 1 you will reach a step that is inconceivable; and this will always be true. It's only a small step from there to give it a name.

Related: http://www.blogos.org/thinkabout/infinite-monkey-t...

Do you really find that a convincing argument?

Can you see the logic flaw in saying - because you can't envisage how something like DNA could be created through evolution, this means something much more complex (a creator) must exist. The flaw is that the creation/origin/existence of a creator is of course much much more difficult to explain than what you are struggling to explain.

I'm really not sure what is so difficult to believe about the theory of evolution. Plenty of evidence for it, rather interesting it is too. Why ignore it?