Finally, proof there is no God.

[///ajd]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/new-theo...

This should get interesting.

[///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.

[///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?

[///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?

[///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.

[///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.

[///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

[///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?

[///ajd]

ash73 said:

///ajd said:

Is that how you understood it?

He's saying that to understand something people need a framework underpinned by some common knowledge, for example everyone knows ice is slippy so they accept that someone would fall over on it; and once they reach that understanding they stop asking why. You stopped when you reached fundamental forces, but there are an infinite number of levels of understanding beyond that.

But his point - and he was an atheist remember - was that where do you stop.

Certainly you can say the level we are now discussing is far removed from the magic and god of the gaps pushed by many religions. Yes you can carry on as far as you want, but is there a point at which you say, actually a magical creator now seems very unlikely. Certainly saying "ha - he must have created the charge on an electron!", seems a bit hollow when pretending the same creator has an opinion on homosexuality.

[///ajd]

ash73 said:

///ajd said:

But his point - and he was an atheist remember - was that where do you stop.

Do we know enough to stop? We don't know why the universe exists. We don't know about anything before the big bang. We don't know if there are other universes. We don't know how our universe inherited its fundamental properties. We don't know if it has a purpose, or how it will end. We have no idea *whatsoever* what dark energy is and it accounts for 70% of our universe. We don't know if there is intelligent life on other planets, or any life for that matter.

Right now anything is possible; all we can do is keep an open mind.

I fully agree, there is much yet to discover. Much to keep an open mind about.

My point was - where do you stop before you conclude the probability of a god that matches the bible (or any other god or holy text yet published) is rather less than likely?

In my opinion I'd suggest we reached that point some time ago.

[///ajd]

ash73 said:

If we encounter intelligent life on another world, the story of original sin and our special relationship with God will require some "modification" that's for sure.

The Fermi Paradox is a thorn in our sides. One interesting idea I came across the other day was it being used as indirect evidence to support the simulation hypothesis, i.e. an incomplete universe

Why do we need to encounter intelligent life before we question the stories?

Is there not enough evidence already to question the veracity of the scriptures? There is an enormous amount in the bible alone which already cannot be taken literally. World only x thousand years old, the ark, Adam 800+ years old, Eve came from his rib etc.

I'm not sure why the Fermi Paradox need be such an issue. Despite the statistics, the scale of the universe, its relative youth and the limitations of the speed of light in enabling communication - let alone travel - do not make a lack of contact that surprising, do they?

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

We have already drilled down a long way to a sub atomic level.

Found the Higgs Boson.

Are there really massive holes or gaps that require a God to explain?

[///ajd]

Indeed, it does make you think.

Does it make you think about a God though?

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Interesting that you refer to some as 'dumb-as-f*ck'. Why resort to insults? Losing the argument?

The theory was explained in the article. If proven, it may close one of the key gaps the religionists like to close with their chosen god - the origin of life. Whether the theory gains traction or not, who knows. But what if it did explain the origin of life? Would that be significant to a religionist? The lack of a solid scientific proof/explanation for the origin of life always seems to be one of the favourite gaps of the believer to fill with their preferred intelligent designer.

The title was maybe over the top but was intended to make people think and contemplate the possibility. But sadly it just produced swear words from some, presumably unable to do so and engage in debate.

[///ajd]

rxtx said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That's a very telling response. I'd be interested in hearing what you think "atheist bullst" is. Is it the fact they discount any god, or is it the language they use to put that point across?

What is atheist bullst?

Plus also revealing that 'nobber' atheists are 'doing nothing but spreading negativity'.

Negativity like spreading homophobia and inequality? Lets leave that to various churches.

It is not so much spreading bullst, but exposing it.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It is a reasonably new theory, and one which appears to be adequately explained at high level in the link - it is interesting in that it does potentially lend itself to experimentation & hence empirical proof in some form.

It seems you would prefer all theories to be suppressed until absolutely proven beyond all doubt. Hmmm. Not sure how science would progress much under those circumstances, but it is obvious why religion likes to try.

'Atheist bullst' is perhaps therefore unproven scientific theories. Like evolution and fossils being really old presumably.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Here is the full article from quanta, quoting theory many times. It is really a tad pedantic to wave the "its just a hypothesis" flag, isn't it? This is a sharp cookie from MIT, not some 3rd rate poly.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-phys...

This more detailed version does highlight some interesting ideas; it fits neatly with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It will be interesting to see if the name Jeremy England becomes recognised in years to come.

Rather than debate the science, I'm more interesting in the theological implications if it is proven. It is quite a big gap to close for the theists.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

But it does add more than the independent summary.

He goes onto consider the link between entropy and the idea that replication in itself is potentially a way of dissipating energy. He then goes onto make the link that RNA replication could itself be just an extension of that law. Hence the replication of RNA and DNA could be linked to thermodynamics.

Its sounds so simple, and obvious. Yet to be proven but already seems intuitively very plausible.

I'm still interesting mainly in the theological implications. Do you have a view on that?

[///ajd]

Derek Smith said:

There seems to be a consensus that science cannot disprove the existence of any god. I tend to agree, although I'm happy to be proved wrong. However, essentially is doesn't really matter. If Sheila Thompson pressed the button to start the big bang then so be it. What has she done in the subsequent 13.7 billion years?

What can be disproved, and has been at times, are the claims of various religions.

All religions are man-made. Many are developments of previous ones.

The various bibles have been proved wrong many times but adherents choose to ignore the evidence and carry on saying how nice it all is. A bit like mum, when her 'boy' is caught doing something really nasty by the police who claims he is innocent even after the evidence in presented in court and the lad pleads guilty. He is, after all, good at football. I find that understandable.

It is the same with religion. Once the claims are destroyed and various tracts from their bibles proved to be nonsense, we get a claim that they feel so good when they believe so how can it/they be wrong.

The fact is, and it is seen on PH god forums as well as in the wide world, that for most adherents, they pick and choose what to believe, so in essence each has his or her own religion.

So while it is easy to disprove each individual religion, it is impossible to go around to all of them and point out the faults each time.

And what is the point? Let people believe what they want to believe. If it is that they are the chosen ones, then this artificial elevation in worth without effort has a lot going for it. If they want to believe that god will smite some undefined group, then the feeling of relief alone might be worth belief. However, there are risks attached, as we see on a weekly basis.

If one group feels superior then there is always the risk that they will treat others an inferior.

If one studies the evolution of various religions, especially that of christianity, then one is confronted by the overwhelming evidence that it is a cynical construct, used as a political weapon from the first council. Then go onto the holy roman empire and we see the cynicism of Constantine trumped many times.

The history of the rcc disproves many of the religion's claims.

My feeling is that in the old days, blokes didn't have sheds as such. So rather than pottering around, they invented a Friday/Saturday/Sunday club.

But, of course, ridiculing a specific religion and pointing out the contradictions, the lies and the terrible history will not change the minds of those who suggest they believe in it because they have their own one, with the contradictions ignored, explained away with tortured logic, or suggesting that faith requires you believe in 'it'.

So whilst we cannot disprove a god, we can disprove religions, but only to those who will listen.

There is no difference between those who believe in the (a?) cargo cult and christianity. Apart from, of course, the chances of the second coming being much greater for the former and people actually having seen the miracles they claim.

As I say, why bother. For people to be convinced by evidence they have to be able to listen and take on board facts. Logic can be useful as well. All those dinosaurs, and so little room on the ark.

My main beef against religion is that the nutters have access to children's minds.

And the fact that my taxes go to support them.

You ask what is the point, but then do provide the answer. Poluting children is one of the issues. Whether it be indoctrinating against homosexuality, equality of the sexes, or promoting the killing of infidels, these are things that are no longer tolerable in my opinion, in society. What promotes these frankly sick ideas? It all points in one direction.

[///ajd]

ATG said:

turbobloke said:

"A new theory could answer the question of how life began â?“ and throw out the need for God."

Ye Gods even late in on the thread, it has to be said (or repeated maybe): that's a shocker.

It's the God-Of-The-Gaps religious nonsense that belongs more in medieval times when science was equally under-developed compared to today. Can't explain something? Hey Presclot! It must be God.

As that first statement above from the article is nonsense, anything following from it is heading the same way.

It's possible that a new theory may explain more completely how life began, but that will have no impact whatsoever in terms of proving the existence or otherwise of a God. Science can address questions about the origin of the universe or of life which begin "how?" but is incapable of answering such questions beginning "why?".

To disallow people from asking both types of question is arbitrarily and artificially restrictive whether you're a believer or not. The so-called war between science and religion being peddled by the journo and others is a phoney war.

^^^ this

You should ask as many questions as you like, and question as many things as you like.

This includes the question, "does there have to be a why?". No is one perfectly valid assumption, it is also erroneous to assume there has to be an answer to "why?"