I can prove the existance of God. Right now.

Oops!
Didn't mean to print.
Anyway. Yes. Logical AND Reasonable.
However, I live in hollywood, about 4 miles from Dodger stadium and they won th DCS tonight. the Beer and Buds are a' flowin' , and i'm a going!

But I'll be back!

 

Enjoy! By the way, I addressed one of your earlier posts on a different thread on this Forum, because it seemed particularly relevant to the topic as framed by the OP:"Do you think less of theists' intelligence." You might want to check it out. Of course, I intend nothing personal in these exchanges, and I respect you as someone who has something to say that's worth responding to.

 

lsd forever!!!!

 

Won't bother with long rambling post.

Leave your "intuition" for a losing trip to Vegas. It has zero bearing on reality.

You've admited your bias. Do you have a point? "To impress me"???? are you god?

Example of a "quatum leap":

E=MC2
A photon has no mass, but is energy.
An electron has mass, but is also energy.
At some point, enough energy concetrated in a small enough space displays the property of Mass. this is a quatum leap. From one level to the next.
We live in a quatum Universe. One level to the next-- no inbetween.
A virus- a single cell organism- a multi-cellular organism- a self-aware organism- an intelligent organism. Quantum leaps.

I can rigorously answer any point you bring up. Can you answer one question?
What is "god"?

Also, the winding down of the Universe is NOT speculation. It's the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Entropy Increases. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, and nothing to nothing.

 

Oh, no. Not another genius! No, man. I'm certainly not interested in impressing you. Quantum leaps happen. How do they relate to the observed order and fine tuning of the universe? Most scientists who work with QM admit that they don't understand quantum phenomena. Do you? How does it relate to intelligent life? And how does the "complexity" resulting from the winding down of the universe relate to intelligent life either? Okies are dumb, man. You need to connect the dots for us. What is "god"? Beats the hell out of me. I've already conceded that in previous posts. Usually, in the context of discussions like this "god" refers to the hypothesis that some kind of "intelligence" provides a better account for the observed phenomena we've been talking about than blind and/or random processes. And I think you should have more respect for intuition. It's a blunt instrument, but the only thing we (scientists included) have to go on to connect the dots. Try out QM and chaos theory in Vegas, and let me know how it turns out.

 

End of, it all happened and it may be extremely unlikely- to the point of absurd. You may question what you do not understand.

But here's the proof of science. The idea of God is quite simply even more unrealistic and absurd. Comparatively, this atom talk doesn't sound so wayward. If you do not understand this, read it again. Then, you will understand the meaning of the universe.

 

Thanks for that pearl. How profound! Are we proving science?

 

Not anymore than anyone who believes in such a divinity is proving bed time stories.

 

why oh why do humans still believe in this higher being crap. god was invented(yes invented) to give reason to why things that we could not explain ie lightning, floods etc happened, and slowly over the eons we explained these natural phenomina but those who where in power kings and priests kept god going to keep people in check, to stop them breaking down civilizastion. so we have the ten comandments of man as brought down from the mountain by moses. it was the first law enforcement. people would be terrified of gods retribution if they broke any of his laws thus keeping people in check. we as western europeans enforced our religion on the rest of the world, there is only supposed to be one god but why for so many centuries did the egyptions the greeks, romans and meso americans believe in many gods and all of a sudden there is only one, this is where christians have so many so called arguments and they believe they are right, now i dont object to faith, when i last looked we are free to believe or not believe, i suppose it kept the world in a steady state for so many centuries but religion is one of the main reasons that the world is in such a sorry state now. and we europeans started all this forceful religious beliefs. shame on us


sorry for the poor spelling and grammer in such a agitated state just writing as i it flows in my head

 

For the same reason they believe in Darwin.

People always need something to worship, they can't organize and act as coherent body otherwise.

 

My dear, you are a FUCKING GENIUS!!

I'm not kidding-- That is the most inherently intelligent statement in this forum.

For those blinded by thier own beliefs, I'll translate:

What IS, IS
The simpilist explanation is most often correct.

The existence of god stands unproven.

 

Okiefreak,
Ask me your questions in an appropriate thread. I will be happy to enlighten you in matters great and small-- quid pro quo.

But this thread is dead--
The original poster failed in his assertation.

 

What do you mean "believe in Darwin"?? He was a historical figure. There is documentation of his existence. You don't need to believe in Darwin. You can be assured of his having lived.

You don't worship a scientific theory. You try to disprove it. When you realize that it can't be disproven, then you accept it as real and move on to the next one. If, in the future, someone DOES prove the old theory wrong, then you rejoice at having gained new knowledge.

This underlined part is where theists seem to get lost. For a theist, to have their understanding proven, or even suggested to be, wrong is deeply offensive.

I don't think it's the same for science. For science, only that which can stand up extreme scrutiny is applauded. Only when a theory has stood and resisted many attempts at being disproven can it really be respected.

Theists want to wave their hands, say god did it and not have to think about it anymore. If god did it, where is the room for criticism? What's left to scrutinize?

 

I am glad you think I am as intelligent as I figured I probably was, I felt the sentiment was right on the money.

Must confess mind, if you are being sarcastic, you should probably watch your tone...

I mean, Santa Claus might put you on his naughty list. He does existent in your world I assume?

 

most people of god are content with thinking god is love and then having love proven to them .

one time i noticed some words written as clouds in the sky above the montana mountains . i took a minute to translate them reasonably - then the next day i did what they implied , packed up the hippy bus , and took off adventurously in the direction indicated and for as far as i had gas to go . nothing bad happened . i was two weeks hanging out in a little town wondering if i was supposed to get a job and settle in there or what? then finally one day a guy in the irish pub commissioned me to paint an elephant . did that . the next evening i was playing flute downtown on the street tho no one was about - some kid found me and invited , led me to a christian meeting of tongue-speakers . mostly they just played loud electric rock and gave me some money after-words . so i fueled up the bus -went on back to that place in the mountains where i came from and still wonder of it all sometimes .

i believe to this day , 20 years hence , that god is very small and has just enough power to blow some wind about and make words of clouds .

of love , i don't in my life ever remember questioning it's existence or needing it proved .

probably you get just what you need also because you are human and do not exist alone .

 

It would be a waste of my time.

"It ain't over till it's over." Yogi Berra, adapted by Lenny Kravitz.

 

Education is never a waste of time.

 

Incorrect. If i had 1 year to live id be like party motha fucka do crazy shit.

 

I don't think Yeal was able to "prove" the existence of God, and I'm a believer. One word in the OPs proposition that might have started us off on the wrong foot is "prove". "Prove" is something that lawyers do in a courtroom, by assembling evidence that convinces a jury "by a preponderance of the evidence" (in a civil trial) or "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a civil trial. It's also something scientists do when they test hypotheses by rigorous methods and submit the results to peer review. I don't believe that for most important issues most of us non-lawyer, non-scientist types have to deal with, any of those standards of proof is applicable. When we vote for a political candidate or form an opinion on an important subject like abortion, global warming, health care reform, gay marriage, etc., or decide what job to take or who to date or marry, we don't ordinarily use the scientific method or even the courtroom approach. It would obviously be ridiculous to do so,because we have neither the evidence nor the time. So what do we do? How do we know? I think basically four approaches could be taken: (1) suspend judgment; (2) rely on authority and tradition; (3) make an arbitrary choice based on gut instinct and stick with it; and (4) use judgment to make the best decision we can based on judgment and the best substantial evidence available.

I've been told by some people in these forums that the first approach is the only responsible one: that if we don't have proof, we must suspend judgment. That's basically the agnostic approach, applied more broadly to other issue areas. Leave it to the experts, or wait until science gives us the answers. I find that approach to be unsatisfying, because I think it's often unlikely that science will do that in our lifetimes if ever, since science, by virtue of its very rigor, tends to avoid questions that don't readily lend themselves to quantification or testing, and in particular, is not helpful in addressing questions of meaning. If we suspend judgment on the important issues, we could go through our entire lives as passive, non-judgmental spectators of a seemingly meaningless, ambiguous reality--leaving the field of decision open to the know-it-alls.

The second approach, used consciously or unconsciously by most religious folks, is to rely on the answers supplied by whatever authority and tradition we learned to trust--the Church, the Bible, etc. Those who take this approach generally call it "faith" and assume that their particular authority and tradition is the right one, or at least right enough to get them by. But there are so many, and they say such different things, they can't all be right. I'm uncomfortable with canned answers.

The third approach is to make arbitrary choices or gut decisions and stand by them. This, I take it, is Sartre's brand of existentialism. I consider myself to be an Okie existentialist of sorts, but I submit we can do better than just being arbitrary or going by gut instincts or feelings. I've talked a lot about betting my life, which always brings up Pascal's wager. But I believe in educated bets. I vote, even though I often have doubts that one candidate is better than another. I form opinions on issues and make them known, even though none of them can be "proven". I date and work, even though it would be hard to prove whether or not some other girl or job might be better, the relationship might end in a breakup, or the job might turn sour.

Besides "proof" in the courtroom or scientific sense, decisions are also made in the public arena by administrators following the lesser standards of "probable cause" and "substantial evidence". "Probable cause', a reasonable judgment that something is more likely than not based on evidence, is the standard used for arresting people and bringing them to trial on criminal charges. "Substantial evidence", enough to convince a reasonable decision maker to opt for one policy choice over another, e.g., to restrict exposure to a substance suspected of being toxic or deciding to ban a toy that might be unsafe. These decisions aren't purely discretionary, but they aren't based on courtroom "proof" either.

This is the basis for the fourth approach, which I think makes the most sense in forming judgments on creation, God and the meaning of life. Beliefs on the important questions should be based on substantial evidence and reason, and consistent with the available evidence. If reason and evidence are unable to "prove" which course of action is correct, I then resort to less reliable tools: experience and intuition, in making what I think is the best judgment. I've been scoffed at for bringing up intuition, which is admittedly a blunt instrument for making decisions. But atheist guru, Sam Harris, who is working on a Ph.D. in neuroscience, agrees that it's valuable, and that even science couldn't get along without it. I think beliefs formed on this basis should be treated as working hypotheses, held tentatively, and readily revised on the basis of new information. Meanwhile, I form opinions on this basis, in a "joyful bet" that Martin Luther called faith--but a tentative faith supported by the best evidence available to me and consistent with science and logic. By the way, I also believe that a person could follow the same approach and come to reasonable conclusions exactly the opposite of mine--including atheism and agnosticism.