Finally, proof there is no God.

[///ajd]

ash73 said:

I agree, but it's like Newton's theory of gravity; when we got into space and found clocks ran faster it would be silly to regress and say it's magic, but we needed an Einstein to further refine it.

Macro evolution is an extrapolation. How does a time-based theory accommodate 2.5 billion years of single-celled stagnation and the Cambrian explosion? All the building blocks for modern life evolved in the first few million years, why no new ones? etc.

I can see where you're coming from, because religion speculates about the nature of something which is by definition inconceivable, and this shouldn't get in the way of us better understanding the universe.

When you see creationists insist that the world is only 6000 years old, and when they debunk evolution as a nonsense theory, does that not call into question the (to me rather obvious conclusion), that it is all just made up, loosely based around and derived from ancient sun/star worship?

[Thorodin]

REALIST123 said:

Wouldn't agree with your first comment, not at all what I've seen. On the contrary, the planet's religions, without exception, appear to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to stop the faithful thinking for themselves IMO.

Your right in the second point though, faith is the standard cop out. No evidence, have faith. Don't understand something, have faith. Suspect you're actually wrong, have faith. Etc.

Faith, in this context, is a misnomer. It implies a mindless trust in an imaginary infallible non-entity.
It is really Hope. But somehow 'Hope and Charity' doesn't impart the same munificence.

[///ajd]

ash73 said:

I like the idea that it's possible to prove logically that God exists, as the universe is essentially a mathematical entity, but it says nothing about the nature of God. For example something that created the universe would exist outside of the laws of nature and so "miracles" would be possible, but why would it care about us?

Whereas I see religion as speculation about the nature of God; it may help some people to live their lives in the right way but many people are dogmatic and interpret it literally. Just occasionally it impresses though, some random bloke in the Middle East 1700 years ago writing the words "let there be light"... seriously?

I work with someone who is religious and enjoy chatting with her. I have a problem with her concept of God as a perfect being that always makes the right choice; for me the universe has no implicit morality and a perfect being would not bear the inefficiency of free will if there was only ever one correct choice.

We were talking the other day about life on other planets and I pointed out that if God was punishing the universe for our original sin, the rest of the universe wouldn't know about it yet due to the speed of light, so they could not comprehend their punishment. Her response was the Fermi Paradox. Damn it.

Why was saying "let there be light" impressive?

This does not necessarily indicate some insight into the big bang if that was the implication

It actually probably reinforces the theory that christianity is just derived from sun worship.

It probably is just a reference to our 'sun'. The sun/son of God. Very important tor life of course (crops/warmth).

No religion that worships the sun would carry much weight now. Perhaps that is why they had to evolve the stories to keep the flock enthralled.

[4v6]

There is no god, I say so.
Furthermore I say 40 million people must be mentally ill to think a god is real.

Prove me wrong.

[anonymous-user]

What's this all got to do with England's hypothesis?

[Troubleatmill]

Or as Hitch once said.

You can't prove there is not a God
You can't prove there is a God
You can't prove there are lots of Gods.
You can't prove that God has a sense of humour where all the evil people get into heaven and the good people go to hell.

After all - God was an absolute hoot in the Bible.

[Vizsla]

CrutyRammers said:

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.

Fish in shooting like a barrel

[ellroy]

Aetheists: quoting science to prove a negative.

Irony, much?

[cymtriks]

The Dawkins fan club are wrong, in fact they are so wrong it calls into question their claim to be so much more clever than their opponents.

How exactly does this new theory disprove a creator?

The theory could equally well be seen as evidence of a divine plan, the creation of a universe in which the laws of nature guaranteed the arrival of life and ultimately life that could comprehend the creator.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

cymtriks said:

The Dawkins fan club are wrong, in fact they are so wrong it calls into question their claim to be so much more clever than their opponents.

How exactly does this new theory disprove a creator?

The theory could equally well be seen as evidence of a divine plan, the creation of a universe in which the laws of nature guaranteed the arrival of life and ultimately life that could comprehend the creator.

Exactly right. You can never disprove god and it's a waste of time trying. Personally, I'm perfectly happy in being convinced there's no god and living my life accordingly.

[///ajd]

cymtriks said:

The Dawkins fan club are wrong, in fact they are so wrong it calls into question their claim to be so much more clever than their opponents.

How exactly does this new theory disprove a creator?

The theory could equally well be seen as evidence of a divine plan, the creation of a universe in which the laws of nature guaranteed the arrival of life and ultimately life that could comprehend the creator.

I would have thought that was rather obvious?

Whether this is a really new or revealing discovery is debateable - but one of the many cries of the 6000 year old flat earth creationists is that there is no explanation of the creation of life (which is true). So any new theory that may support that - if it can be proven to be feasible - is yet another "gap" closed which religionists use to try and prop up their myths. A theory than can be proven to show life could be created through natural processes without a creator surely does start to tip the odds somewhat - or at least if you have your mind open.

The trend is that the gaps are getting filled. We are a long way from thinking the earth is flat now - I don't think anyone would claim that now. Infact hardly anyone would claim the sun goes around the earth - well apart from one religionist only LAST WEEK.

[RTB]

Can I just confirm which god we are trying to prove doesn't exist? Thank you.

[Troubleatmill]

RTB said:

Can I just confirm which god we are trying to prove doesn't exist? Thank you.

I think it was the rainbow coloured ocelot, or was it the flying spaghetti monster.

No - I got it - it was the old man with a beard.

"If triangles had a God - he would have 3 side"

[WinstonWolf]

Troubleatmill said:

RTB said:

Can I just confirm which god we are trying to prove doesn't exist? Thank you.

I think it was the rainbow coloured ocelot, or was it the flying spaghetti monster.

No - I got it - it was the old man with a beard.

"If triangles had a God - he would have 3 side"

It better not be Thor, he's a proper god with thunder 'n everything...

[Thorodin]

RTB said:

Can I just confirm which god we are trying to prove doesn't exist? Thank you.

The one in whose image we are apparently made, obviously. Don't mention it.

[jmorgan]

Thorodin said:

RTB said:

Can I just confirm which god we are trying to prove doesn't exist? Thank you.

The one in whose image we are apparently made, obviously. Don't mention it.

Odin?

[4v6]

cymtriks said:

The Dawkins fan club are wrong, in fact they are so wrong it calls into question their claim to be so much more clever than their opponents.

How exactly does this new theory disprove a creator?

The theory could equally well be seen as evidence of a divine plan, the creation of a universe in which the laws of nature guaranteed the arrival of life and ultimately life that could comprehend the creator.

What a load of.....

If god made the universe and everything in it, who made everything outside of it?
Who made god?
Its all in the mind dear boy an aberration, a crutch to deal with the fact that theres sweet fa left when you exhale your last breath and your eyes roll back in your head, its a bunch of who shot john, nonsense, cobblers and codswallop for simple minds to focus on, its all taken on faith, on someone elses word, proof dont live here.

Now, do you believe in pink fairies orbitting pluto?
I do.....

[///ajd]

w

ash73 said:

///ajd said:

A theory than can be proven to show life could be created through natural processes without a creator surely does start to tip the odds somewhat

It doesn't. Unless you can explain what created the natural processes, and what created whatever created the natural processes, and so on to infinity.

Even if you could introduce us to intelligent life on another planet that evolved completely separately, it wouldn't say anything about the existence of a creator.

It might give religious folk something to think about though

But there comes a point where you don't need to explain it.

The charges and attractions between sub atomic particles just are what they are, and patterns emerge which eventually can sustain "life". Thats it.

It is also why those who say how amazing the laws of physics are in relation to life perhaps miss the point when claiming if certain forces were different we wouldn't have a carbon based life. If things were different we might not have carbon based life, but another element, or the elements themselves would be totally different.

Edited by ///ajd on Sunday 1st March 14:51

Edited by ///ajd on Sunday 1st March 14:53

Edited by ///ajd on Sunday 1st March 15:15

[Dr Jekyll]

///ajd said:

It is also why those who say how amazing the laws of physics are in relation to life perhaps miss the point that if certain forces were different we wouldn't have a carbon based life. If things were different we might not have carbon based life, but another element.

+1

It's a bit like studying the lives of your ancestors in great detail and then marvelling at the fact that if various people hadn't met when they did you wouldn't be here.

It might seem an unbelievable coincidence that generations of people all just happened to do what they needed to do for you to exist, it might be tempting to think some higher power must have intervened. But the point is that it all had to happen like that or you wouldn't be here to worry about it, so there is no justification for being surprised.

[///ajd]

ash73 said:

///ajd said:

But there comes a point where you don't need to explain it.

Watch this and think for a minute about what you just said.

Thanks for that.

You may have misunderstood my meaning, but I think Feynman amplifies my point wonderfully.

He is in effect saying the same thing; the questioner perhaps intends to suggest magnetism is somehow magical, but through a series of basic principles of physics Feynman shows why there is no need at all to reach for 'magic' or the 'supernatural'.

Is that how you understood it?