Home & Garden0 min ago
Proof/Disproof of God
41 Answers
I listened this week to an excellent talk by a Baptist Minister
This talk which lasted about an hour was largely based on the impossibility of the universe just occurring spontaneously . He quoted examples from many learned mathematicians and scientists to prove his point.
His punch line being that therefore it had to be a created by God.
However I pointed out to him that he had also simultaneously disproved God because if the universe can not occur spontaneously neither can God.
This talk which lasted about an hour was largely based on the impossibility of the universe just occurring spontaneously . He quoted examples from many learned mathematicians and scientists to prove his point.
His punch line being that therefore it had to be a created by God.
However I pointed out to him that he had also simultaneously disproved God because if the universe can not occur spontaneously neither can God.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by modeller. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Different people require different standards or levels of proof before they are willing to adopt a belief in something. In my younger days I was pretty much a pushover when it came to believing in anything someone proposed that I wasn't immediately able to dismiss. Once I even fell for the 'show me yours and I'll show you mine' but experience (and the humiliation of having a bunch of girls pointing and laughing at me) has made me wiser and I now consider myself a hard sell. So I consider myself fortunate to have at my disposal indisputable proof that god doesn't exist whenever I need it. I simply look at myself in a mirror and await the inevitable verdict . . . "No effing way!"
//Different people require different standards or levels of proof before they are willing to adopt a belief in something.//
Yes, but scientists behave almost like religionists at times. Granted they concede that science is open to change, but until that change emerges they are adamant that they have it right – when ultimately they often don’t.
Yes, but scientists behave almost like religionists at times. Granted they concede that science is open to change, but until that change emerges they are adamant that they have it right – when ultimately they often don’t.
naomi24 //.... and as you know, I suspect that some occurrences currently considered 'random' are not. We just don't know that yet.//
Many minds of very high calibre, including Einstein, have tried to show that Quantum randomness is the manifestation of some unknown hidden property and all have failed. There has not been even the slightest hint that it is anything other than random.
Moreover, the truly random nature of nature is not just a matter of esoteric theory but has been experimentally confirmed over and over again.
There are practical devices that depend on Quantum randomness to work. For example the Scanning Tunnelling Electron Microscope relies on the probability of electrons turning up on the wrong side of a very small gap even when they don't have the energy to cross.
Scientists have made an atom literally exist two places at the same time by manipulating the probabilities. They have even smoothed out the randomness in one place by increasing the randomness in adjacent space.
Many minds of very high calibre, including Einstein, have tried to show that Quantum randomness is the manifestation of some unknown hidden property and all have failed. There has not been even the slightest hint that it is anything other than random.
Moreover, the truly random nature of nature is not just a matter of esoteric theory but has been experimentally confirmed over and over again.
There are practical devices that depend on Quantum randomness to work. For example the Scanning Tunnelling Electron Microscope relies on the probability of electrons turning up on the wrong side of a very small gap even when they don't have the energy to cross.
Scientists have made an atom literally exist two places at the same time by manipulating the probabilities. They have even smoothed out the randomness in one place by increasing the randomness in adjacent space.
naomi24
Yes, but scientists behave almost like religionists at times. Granted they concede that science is open to change, but until that change emerges they are adamant that they have it right – when ultimately they often don’t.
Scientists stick to their interpretation of the evidence while it is consistent with the evidence. If something is to be overturned then it needs evidence to back it. These days that is very rare.
The idea that "scientists are often wrong" is a myth particularly when it comes to the fundamentals, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. These sciences can be used to derive the expected behaviour of everything and have successfully done so in every way without exception since they were conceived.
Yes, but scientists behave almost like religionists at times. Granted they concede that science is open to change, but until that change emerges they are adamant that they have it right – when ultimately they often don’t.
Scientists stick to their interpretation of the evidence while it is consistent with the evidence. If something is to be overturned then it needs evidence to back it. These days that is very rare.
The idea that "scientists are often wrong" is a myth particularly when it comes to the fundamentals, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. These sciences can be used to derive the expected behaviour of everything and have successfully done so in every way without exception since they were conceived.
Not strictly true naomi, most scientists that i have worked with are fully aware that no scientific 'facts' are absolutely true. But within a particular discipline they will form an argument based on accepted truths just to sustain the stream of logic so as to see where it leads. It is not so different to christians making the assumption that jesus is the son of god and then following the stream of logic that come from that assumption. The difference is that scientists know their assumptions for what they are whereas christians believe their assumptions to be true....until the pope changes his mind :-)
Beso, who was it that said 'if you think you understand Quantum Mechanics then you don't understand Quantum Mechanics' - or words to that effect? Frankly, where science is concerned, in my opinion, human beings are infants who have much to learn - but that's just my opinion, which
is clearly not worth the screen it's written on. As I said, scientists have, at times, much in common with religionists.
I'm going to bed. Night all. x
is clearly not worth the screen it's written on. As I said, scientists have, at times, much in common with religionists.
I'm going to bed. Night all. x
//There are practical devices that depend on Quantum randomness to work. For example the Scanning Tunnelling Electron Microscope relies on the probability of electrons turning up on the wrong side of a very small gap even when they don't have the energy to cross.//
Just because we have not yet established the underlying cause of apparently random events does not mean such events are without cause. Throughout the evolution of our knowledge events of unknown cause have often led to the presumption that such events were random. To this day we still don't fully understand the underlying mechanism behind gravity but that doesn't make it a random phenomenon, no matter how predictable it has proven to be.
Sorry Beso, but I'm not buying your 'randomness of the gaps' argument . . . even if Einstein himself failed to determine what god had in mind in one lifetime. ;o)
Just because we have not yet established the underlying cause of apparently random events does not mean such events are without cause. Throughout the evolution of our knowledge events of unknown cause have often led to the presumption that such events were random. To this day we still don't fully understand the underlying mechanism behind gravity but that doesn't make it a random phenomenon, no matter how predictable it has proven to be.
Sorry Beso, but I'm not buying your 'randomness of the gaps' argument . . . even if Einstein himself failed to determine what god had in mind in one lifetime. ;o)
All analysis has shown that Quantum behaviour is truly random within the definitions of the waves that consitute reality.
If there is a cause behind it then then that cause is behaving randomly. Occam's razor suggests there is no point taking this extra step.
Until you let go of the notion that cause and effect is an essential component of all action you will never understand Quantum Mechanics.
If there is a cause behind it then then that cause is behaving randomly. Occam's razor suggests there is no point taking this extra step.
Until you let go of the notion that cause and effect is an essential component of all action you will never understand Quantum Mechanics.
Beso, //If there is a cause behind it then then that cause is behaving randomly.//
You have implied that cause doesn’t need to exist, and now you’re saying if it does, it’s behaving randomly but it’s not worth pursuing. I disagree. To claim things happen without cause when we don’t actually know if there is a cause is misleading. How that cause is behaving is irrelevant. (I’ve never been a fan of Mr Occam).
You have implied that cause doesn’t need to exist, and now you’re saying if it does, it’s behaving randomly but it’s not worth pursuing. I disagree. To claim things happen without cause when we don’t actually know if there is a cause is misleading. How that cause is behaving is irrelevant. (I’ve never been a fan of Mr Occam).
At the end of the discussion is it not a fact that when you all learnt something you were taught by someone who was taught by someone who was taught by someone so who taught the very first one who started it all ?
Another point is, have scientists proved that other parallel universes actually exist or is that another theoretical probability ? If it could be proven then one of these other universes could be what we call heaven & when we pass from this life we go along the tunnel ( wormhole) to the bright light at the end.
WR.
Another point is, have scientists proved that other parallel universes actually exist or is that another theoretical probability ? If it could be proven then one of these other universes could be what we call heaven & when we pass from this life we go along the tunnel ( wormhole) to the bright light at the end.
WR.
//At the end of the discussion is it not a fact that when you all learnt something you were taught by someone who was taught by someone who was taught by someone so who taught the very first one who started it all ?//
Knowledge has no value beyond ones personal understanding of that which in reality it is intended to correspond. Knowledge is acquired, not by virtue of ones ability to regurgitate alleged 'facts', but rather by relating it without contradiction to ones own personal first hand experience which is essential to the process of confirmation. The rest is (right or wrong) . . . hearsay.
Knowledge has no value beyond ones personal understanding of that which in reality it is intended to correspond. Knowledge is acquired, not by virtue of ones ability to regurgitate alleged 'facts', but rather by relating it without contradiction to ones own personal first hand experience which is essential to the process of confirmation. The rest is (right or wrong) . . . hearsay.
I've had an email from the Baptist Minister which I thought I'd pass on as he is one of the few theists who admits to the weakness of his cause.:
#That's right, as you say, it comes down to who/what started it all off. Obviously whatever started it all off was uncaused (and transcends the natural universe itself) - mind-boggling as that idea is!
I can't prove it was an intelligence but I do think its a very reasonable conclusion to come to in light of fine-tuning, etc, (not to mention my personal experience of God which makes all this theory something very real for me).
The frustrating thing for me as a theist is that you can't let someone experience what you've experienced (!) so I tend to focus on the intellectual side...though I can pray that others might have a similar experience #
#That's right, as you say, it comes down to who/what started it all off. Obviously whatever started it all off was uncaused (and transcends the natural universe itself) - mind-boggling as that idea is!
I can't prove it was an intelligence but I do think its a very reasonable conclusion to come to in light of fine-tuning, etc, (not to mention my personal experience of God which makes all this theory something very real for me).
The frustrating thing for me as a theist is that you can't let someone experience what you've experienced (!) so I tend to focus on the intellectual side...though I can pray that others might have a similar experience #
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Employers To Move Jobs Abroad...who'd...
News3 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.