Author Topic: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE  (Read 85515 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online bumblebee

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,371
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #570 on: Jun 03, 2018 at 08:29 PM »
Thank you.

Star wars na lang kulang ;D

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 940
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #571 on: Jun 03, 2018 at 11:08 PM »
Thank you.

Star wars na lang kulang ;D
Sir Bumblebee
Hindi na yata kasama ito….kasi it's in a galaxy far far away. Besides that war was made moot by the events in that terrible  Last Jedi!

Very comprehensive list Sir Nelson!
Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Offline dpogs

  • Trade Count: (+95)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,397
  • love and discipline
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 483
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #572 on: Jun 03, 2018 at 11:33 PM »
Dito ba sa Pinas mismo merong war o battle na ang dahilan ay religion?
There is none righteous, no not one.

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 940
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #573 on: Jun 03, 2018 at 11:34 PM »

 You are making the logical assumption that we exist as creators of these comments because of the rules that you yourself know to be true due to first-hand observable, repeatable experience: You know that you exist. You know that you are typing words on a device and transmitting them with the intent to communicate over the internet under a certain alias. Thus, when you see other aliases posting other comments, you are making the logical assumption that similar beings exist who are creating these messages.

However, that's not proof. Closer to actual proof would be if you were right here where I am, seeing me type this message, and clicking "Post" while logged in under the alias "fontaine" - that is a much better argument for proof. Because otherwise, do you really know that I exist despite your very logical, reasonable assumption? Do you think I am a person? How do you know that I am not a piece of software or bot? What if bumblebee and fontaine are in fact the same piece of artificial intelligence posting as difference aliases and not separate, distinct, living, breathing persons? Even if you say that I still "exist" in that case, is it still the same state of existence that you initially thought to be? If such a state of existence is already so tenuous for such a basic example as people posting on an internet forum, then how much more tenuous could the existence of a supernatural creator for the origin of the universe be?

Sir,
Bottom line is this....
…..A message/post exists. this post begun to exist, it is coherent and understandable.
…..Everything that starts to exist has a cause.
…..therefore the post had a cause.
The nature of the cause is immaterial. Whether its a person, an AI, a bot, separate or distinct. It doesn't really matter. Because the post...cannot exist or create itself. Thus it has to have an agent for it to exist.

Granted it may not be an ultimate "proof" but the evidence to the existence of the cause is unavoidable!

If a simple post demands a "poster", what more the existence of the  universe...the more that it demands a creator.
« Last Edit: Jun 03, 2018 at 11:58 PM by docelmo »
Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 940
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #574 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 08:18 AM »
There were probably a sequence of events that led up to the big bang, and the current conception of the big bang model assumes the pre-existence of energy, time, and space. But even the Big Bang model does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe because there is no current logic that will sufficiently support it.

However, to transfer the entire academic discourse - the philosophical, scientific, and metaphysical inquiry - regarding the origins of the universe to the existence of a supernatural creator with the intent to create is pure folly if without the backing of some semblance of reason. If our argument is that there must have been a creator because we are surrounded by creation that originated from a time before the big bang... then that is simply faith... that is not proof.

We know how trees grow. We know how living things reproduce. We know the cycle of the seasons. We know so many things about the world and the universe grounded on hard science and irrefutable data. And in all of these scientific discoveries, there is no proof of a god or supernatural creator. But just because we have not yet uncovered the ultimate origin of the universe, do we have a license to claim that as proof of a god? No, I think not.


The laws of nature and the universe are facts - yes.

The presence of information in DNA exists - yes.

These facts in nature can only come from a powerful intelligent mind beyond space and time - no.

The first two have proof to back them up. That last part is belief/faith. That last part tries to answer the question: How is it that the laws of nature and the universe behave according to principles that can be described by logical formulas? It is only because we have no answers for it in solid, experimental/observation-based science that people tend to default to faith-based answers, but those faith-based answers do not have proof to back them up.

In order to find evidence for this concept, we need to get insights or knowledge from various field of study such as, science, physics, philosophy and logic. If the discussion and search for evidence is confined only to natural sciences, then we are limiting ourselves to the search for ultimate truth. Because we know that natural science deals with the physical world. However, what we are trying to prove or disprove is NOT physical, not an object or phenomenon in the world. Furthermore, science is an empirical and inductive discipline (I deal w/ this daily in my practice of medicine). As such science or natural science, may not have considered all possible data that would be relevant in say the explanation of the birth of the universe. Science is however open to new discoveries which could change its conclusion if need be.

Much ado about…Nothing.

There is an expression: “From nothing, only nothing comes”…this expression becomes even more meaningful when we talk about the beginning of the universe. In the BBT the point at which the universe begun to exist is also the point where time begun to exist. In physics, nothing physical can exist prior to the beginning point simply because there is no “time prior to that point”. Then this follows, that the universe did not exist prior to the beginning point. Because there was nothing there in the first place. When we say “nothing” it means nothing….no dimension, no properties, no energy etc. etc.  Therefore, if nothing can’t do anything, then it cannot create something for that matter. Thus, we could say that the universe cannot create itself because when it was nothing….it can only do NOTHING! Finally, if the universe cannot create itself, then “something else” had to make the universe into something. This “something else” would have to be transcendent and beyond space-time. This force is generally termed “a Creator”.

Is there really an absolute beginning of space-time in whatever model our universe is situated? The so called BVG Theorem say so…

This theorem postulated by Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth (hence the name) to formulate a demonstration of a beginning of expanding universes….is a kind of Space-Time Geometry Proof.

"We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible.”

This was also apparently applied to string multiverses and oscillating universe models…in all cases the conclusion was there is an absolute beginning in all models.

This evidence from physics due to “space-time geometry proofs” indicates the probability of a beginning of our universe. In as much as a beginning indicates a point at which our universe came into existence, and prior to that point that the universe was nothing, then it is probable that the universe and any hypothetical multiverse in which our universe might be situated was created by a transcendent power outside of physical space and time.

That’s for the Universe, now for the DNA.

DNA in our cells is very similar to an intricate computer program.
In the same way, DNA is made up of four chemicals, abbreviated as letters A, T, G, and C. Much like the ones and zeros, these letters are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. The order in which they are arranged instructs the cell's actions.

What bogles the mind is that within the tiny space in every cell in your body, this code is three billion letters long!!! Repeat 3 Billion Letters Long!!!

To grasp the amount of DNA information in one cell, "a live reading of that code at a rate of three letters per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night."

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."5
Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this. "There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."6
Dr. Antony Flew (an atheist) questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?

Are these 3 scientists part of those “people” you characterized below:
“It is only because we have no answers for it in solid, experimental/observation-based science that people tend to default to faith-based answers, but those faith-based answers do not have proof to back them up.”

You are limiting the search to only what you call “solid, experiment/observation-based science” …and that’s where the problem lies. Because you need other fields of study to interpret and give to meaning to those experiments/observations…

Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Online bumblebee

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,371
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #575 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 08:24 AM »
Granted it may not be an ultimate "proof" but the evidence to the existence of the cause is unavoidable!

So are you open to the idea of evolution? Because it may not be proven yet, but the evidence is unavoidable.

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 940
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #576 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 09:48 AM »
So are you open to the idea of evolution? Because it may not be proven yet, but the evidence is unavoidable.
No, because evolution has no cause, while the evidence shows for existence of this universe points to a cause outside space and time.
Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Online bumblebee

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,371
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #577 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 10:02 AM »
No, because evolution has no cause, while the evidence shows for existence of this universe points to a cause outside space and time.

What? Evolution doesn't have a cause? Care to elaborate? As to the cause outside space and time, how did you get there? How can you say there's cause pre-time and space when all laws of physics came into the picture only after the Big Bang? And why is your creator a god, not something else, like an alien or whatever?

Offline vonTrappRap

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 431
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #578 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 10:08 AM »
Science has 3 main branches: Natural, Social and Formal. Logic and philosophy are part of formal sciences. Fields like metaphysics, ontology and epistemology area included in Philosophy of Science. What we are trying prove or disprove in not physical, not an object or phenomenon. Therefore, a combination of evidences found in all fields are needed to have a complete picture. Natural Science describes nature, while the formal sciences gives its implications and meaning.

Suggesting that something is "evidence" of a god creator is fine. That can still be in line with faith. Proof (like in the topic of this thread) is conclusive, evidence is not.

Thus the evidence we could find in all these areas will point to the probability of God's existence or everything a product of chance or something else. So believing that "something else" exist and it caused the universe to exist is not just faith but a reasonable conclusion based on all the facts gathered in all fields of study.

You can make the assertion that your conclusion is reasonable. It will come down your subjective definition of what is reasonable and what is not. Basically it will boil down to the existence of a god creator being - at best - a theory. And just to pre-empt (or maybe actually kickstart) a discussion on how religious theories and scientific theories are different...

The difference lies in the following: Scientific practices - observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses; the relentless questioning of established views - have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life. Religion has no equivalent record of discovering hidden truths.

So even though there are beliefs in science that are based on inconclusive evidence and there are beliefs in religion that are based on inconclusive evidence, there is a critical difference: The beliefs based on science are far more rational, because the methods of science are demonstrably superior at getting at truths about the natural world.

And on our common sense undestanding of "existence".

If you see a house in middle of a field, what do you think is the most possible conclusion on how this house came to exist? Did the house built itself? did it happen by chance? Of did something else caused the house to exist. This "Something Else" rather than nothing made the floor plans, got the materials and built the house. The same holds true for the universe. Our existence are governed by laws, rules, order, systems, matter, space and time. Where there is rules. information or instruction....there is the Mind that caused it.

The universe is not purely governed by order. The universe contains both chaos and randomness as well as rules and order.

On the microscopic level, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay - we only have the probability of decay in a given time, but there are no rules for us to determine it.

On a larger scale, the second law of thermodynamics states the the level of entropy (a measure of uncertainty or randomness) within a system - such as the universe - can only increase, which means that chaos is and will always be present in the universe.

Offline vonTrappRap

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 431
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #579 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 10:46 AM »
What is known now with regards to these "fine-tuning" factors:

Excerpts from a WSJ article by Eric Metaxas:

"The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces - gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the 'strong' and 'weak' nuclear forces - were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction - by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 - then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.
Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all 'just happened' defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?
Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term 'big bang,' said that his atheism was 'greatly shaken' at these developments. He later wrote that 'a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.'

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that 'the appearance of design is overwhelming' and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said 'the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.'

If people use this argument as proof of a god creator, consider this: Even if it's highly improbable that the universe as we know it came into existence through random processes, it's even more improbable that a being capable of creating the universe exists and decided to do so for whatever reason. That creator is, by definition, several orders of magnitude more complex than anything it would have created (if not then he wouldn't have been able to create this highly complex universe in the first place), so, using the logic of the argument against randomness, that being's existence is significantly less probable that the existence of our universe.

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 940
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #580 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 10:56 AM »
What? Evolution doesn't have a cause? Care to elaborate? As to the cause outside space and time, how did you get there? How can you say there's cause pre-time and space when all laws of physics came into the picture only after the Big Bang? And why is your creator a god, not something else, like an alien or whatever?
As in our discussion in another thread, evolution is defined as random or chance development. As in the implication of the BVG Theorem, it postulate of an absolute beginning to the universe. This implies a cause outside of time and space. This cause should be timeless, intelligent, powerful..... given these properties what would fit this description?
Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Offline vonTrappRap

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 431
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #581 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 11:00 AM »
Sir,
Bottom line is this....
..A message/post exists. this post begun to exist, it is coherent and understandable.
..Everything that starts to exist has a cause.
..therefore the post had a cause.
The nature of the cause is immaterial. Whether its a person, an AI, a bot, separate or distinct. It doesn't really matter. Because the post...cannot exist or create itself. Thus it has to have an agent for it to exist.

Granted it may not be an ultimate "proof" but the evidence to the existence of the cause is unavoidable!

If a simple post demands a "poster", what more the existence of the  universe...the more that it demands a creator.

How does the evidence of cause necesitate a creator? There has to be an agent for something to exist, but that doesn't mean that a creator is involved. When a boulder rolls down the side of a hill during an earthquake and leaves an indentation in the soil before it crashes into the plains below, then it rains and a puddle forms in the indentation left by boulder... who/what is the creator of that puddle? There were definitely agents that caused that puddle to exist, but I can't see how a creator is involved in the existence of that puddle.

Also, the nature of the cause is most certainly not immaterial because that's precisely the point of the entire "science vs religion" debate: Did the universe exist from a god creator or from something scientific?

Online bumblebee

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,371
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #582 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 11:15 AM »
As in our discussion in another thread, evolution is defined as random or chance development. As in the implication of the BVG Theorem, it postulate of an absolute beginning to the universe.

Can that not be the Big Bang?

Quote
This implies a cause outside of time and space.

No, it doesn't imply that. The implication is just something that "fits" our beliefs.

Quote
This cause should be timeless, intelligent, powerful..... given these properties what would fit this description?

Should? Again, that's speculation at best.

Offline vonTrappRap

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 431
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #583 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 11:26 AM »
In order to find evidence for this concept, we need to get insights or knowledge from various field of study such as, science, physics, philosophy and logic. If the discussion and search for evidence is confined only to natural sciences, then we are limiting ourselves to the search for ultimate truth. Because we know that natural science deals with the physical world. However, what we are trying to prove or disprove is NOT physical, not an object or phenomenon in the world. Furthermore, science is an empirical and inductive discipline (I deal w/ this daily in my practice of medicine). As such science or natural science, may not have considered all possible data that would be relevant in say the explanation of the birth of the universe. Science is however open to new discoveries which could change its conclusion if need be.

Much ado about…Nothing.

There is an expression: “From nothing, only nothing comes”…this expression becomes even more meaningful when we talk about the beginning of the universe. In the BBT the point at which the universe begun to exist is also the point where time begun to exist. In physics, nothing physical can exist prior to the beginning point simply because there is no “time prior to that point”. Then this follows, that the universe did not exist prior to the beginning point. Because there was nothing there in the first place. When we say “nothing” it means nothing….no dimension, no properties, no energy etc. etc.  Therefore, if nothing can’t do anything, then it cannot create something for that matter. Thus, we could say that the universe cannot create itself because when it was nothing….it can only do NOTHING! Finally, if the universe cannot create itself, then “something else” had to make the universe into something. This “something else” would have to be transcendent and beyond space-time. This force is generally termed “a Creator”.

Is there really an absolute beginning of space-time in whatever model our universe is situated? The so called BVG Theorem say so…

This theorem postulated by Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth (hence the name) to formulate a demonstration of a beginning of expanding universes….is a kind of Space-Time Geometry Proof.

"We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible.”

This was also apparently applied to string multiverses and oscillating universe models…in all cases the conclusion was there is an absolute beginning in all models.

This evidence from physics due to “space-time geometry proofs” indicates the probability of a beginning of our universe. In as much as a beginning indicates a point at which our universe came into existence, and prior to that point that the universe was nothing, then it is probable that the universe and any hypothetical multiverse in which our universe might be situated was created by a transcendent power outside of physical space and time.

That’s for the Universe, now for the DNA.

DNA in our cells is very similar to an intricate computer program.
In the same way, DNA is made up of four chemicals, abbreviated as letters A, T, G, and C. Much like the ones and zeros, these letters are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. The order in which they are arranged instructs the cell's actions.

What bogles the mind is that within the tiny space in every cell in your body, this code is three billion letters long!!! Repeat 3 Billion Letters Long!!!

To grasp the amount of DNA information in one cell, "a live reading of that code at a rate of three letters per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night."

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."5
Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this. "There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."6
Dr. Antony Flew (an atheist) questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?

Are these 3 scientists part of those “people” you characterized below:
“It is only because we have no answers for it in solid, experimental/observation-based science that people tend to default to faith-based answers, but those faith-based answers do not have proof to back them up.”

You are limiting the search to only what you call “solid, experiment/observation-based science” …and that’s where the problem lies. Because you need other fields of study to interpret and give to meaning to those experiments/observations…

Are those scientists attributing what we don't know about the universe to the supernatural? It doesn't seem like it. They're not saying that because we can't explain things that are incredibly complex, then that constitutes proof of a god creator. They are simply saying that we don't know and are acknowledging the possibility that a god creator exists... which is exactly what I am saying as well.

I have no problems with any of this, although it doesn't really change what I'm saying, which is that: There's no way to prove god; and, we don't know how the universe started. Maybe there will be a way to prove the existence of a god creator in the future. Maybe there will also be a way to prove the Big Bang Theory in the future. But right now, considering the wealth of knowledge that we currenty have in the human race - considering our current foundations for what constitutes factual truth within the realm of objective reality - there's no way to prove the existence of a god creator.
« Last Edit: Jun 04, 2018 at 11:27 AM by fontaine »

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 940
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #584 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 11:29 AM »
Suggesting that something is "evidence" of a god creator is fine. That can still be in line with faith. Proof (like in the topic of this thread) is conclusive, evidence is not.

Belief in God or is existence of God is faith sure. But so is the belief that our existence is simply the result of chance. Like it or not.
Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Offline vonTrappRap

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 431
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #585 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 11:42 AM »
Belief in God or is existence of God is faith sure. But so is the belief that our existence is simply the result of chance. Like it or not.

Definitely. If you have trust or confidence in something that cannot currently be proven with any factual truths within the realm of objective reality... then that is faith.

I agreed similarly with one of Nelson's posts:

5. Did you know that not believing in a God who created everything takes a tremendous faith? Faith is not limited to a belief in a God. Faith also applies to non-belief in a God.

Definitely. That's why atheists cannot prove the non-existence of a god and theists cannot prove the existence of a god. This is why that discussion is contained purely within the realm of faith and it's personally not a discussion I'm interested in.

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 940
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #586 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 11:50 AM »
Can that not be the Big Bang?

No, it doesn't imply that. The implication is just something that "fits" our beliefs.

Should? Again, that's speculation at best.
Can that not be the Big Bang?

No, it doesn't imply that. The implication is just something that "fits" our beliefs.

Should? Again, that's speculation at best.
you mean the big bang is the cause? Can the universe create itself?
If this is the case, then the universe has to "exist" prior to its existence!
That to me is a contradiction in itself.
Was it caused by "nothing"...this is even more implausible.

The most plausible to me is it was caused by "something else" other than itself and outside itself. Therefore not bounded by space and time.
Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Offline vonTrappRap

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 431
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #587 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 11:57 AM »
As in our discussion in another thread, evolution is defined as random or chance development.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a2

MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.

CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation, visit our article on DNA and mutations.

^ Just posted this to clarify. Where's the other thread that you're referring to, doc? This might be a better topic to continue there instead of here.

Online bumblebee

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,371
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #588 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 12:20 PM »
you mean the big bang is the cause? Can the universe create itself?
If this is the case, then the universe has to "exist" prior to its existence!
That to me is a contradiction in itself.
Was it caused by "nothing"...this is even more implausible.

The most plausible to me is it was caused by "something else" other than itself and outside itself. Therefore not bounded by space and time.

You asked about the beginning, not the cause, hence my answer. But I think you missed something about science that you assume it is doing, and that is science trying to explain anything pre-beginning. It simply can't at the moment.
« Last Edit: Jun 04, 2018 at 12:56 PM by bumblebee »

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 940
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #589 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 12:43 PM »
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a2

MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.

CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation, visit our article on DNA and mutations.

^ Just posted this to clarify. Where's the other thread that you're referring to, doc? This might be a better topic to continue there instead of here.
Sir Fontaine,
It's the in creation/evolution thread,
Yes, small changes or variations do occur. However, these are mere adaptation it's still the same species...so called micro-evolution. But Macro-evolution has not been observed. Mutation almost always results in loss of information and breakdown. If you say selection is not random, what is the mechanism for this?
Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 940
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #590 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 01:11 PM »
You asked about the beginning, not the cause, hence my answer. But I think you missed something about science that you assume it is doing, and that is science trying to explain anything pre-beginning. It simply can't at the moment.
Yes, I also agree that the big bang IS the beginning of the know universe. Yes again, the bvg theorem does not go as far as to identify what caused the universe to begin to exist. At this point we go to other areas of discovery such as: the high improbability of a low entropy universe to exist and the high improbability of  the cosmological constants.....

the probability For this two highly improbable discoveries to occur is non existant...and yet here we are.
Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Offline tigkal

  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 373
  • 9 going 10
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #591 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 01:37 PM »
Creation of universe is too complex. Why not start it to simpler term. Was Man created or evolved? This is the smaller version of the universe creation thing. Proof is easier to find. And we dont have to deal with what went before the big bang. Or is the creation of man tied up to the creation of the universe?

Online bumblebee

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,371
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #592 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 02:46 PM »
Yes, I also agree that the big bang IS the beginning of the know universe. Yes again, the bvg theorem does not go as far as to identify what caused the universe to begin to exist. At this point we go to other areas of discovery such as: the high improbability of a low entropy universe to exist and the high improbability of  the cosmological constants.....

the probability For this two highly improbable discoveries to occur is non existant...and yet here we are.

I think that's already OT. But good to know we agreed on the Big Bang thing.

Offline Nelson de Leon

  • Trade Count: (+141)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,084
  • Let us lead by example
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 291
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #593 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 06:58 PM »
What? Evolution doesn't have a cause? Care to elaborate? As to the cause outside space and time, how did you get there? How can you say there's cause pre-time and space when all laws of physics came into the picture only after the Big Bang? And why is your creator a god, not something else, like an alien or whatever?

There are artifacts that show the evolution of man. But pansinin niyo, Paisa isa lang ang mga nakukuha nila. Kailangan kapag 1 sa isang stage ng evolution, kahit paano, dapat by the thousands dapat ang mga nakukuhang bones that are similar. Alam naman antin na based on studies, it will take hundreds of before man evolves. Given the number of generation, dapat nakapag-multiply na ang isang stage ng evolution. It is also baffling me.

Online bumblebee

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,371
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #594 on: Jun 04, 2018 at 08:01 PM »
Bakit thousands? Hindi naman tayo sure kung ganun sila karami or namatay sila na intact ang skeleton. Pwedeng prey sila at nagkalat ang mga buto. Pwede ring konti lang talaga sila.

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 940
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #595 on: Jun 05, 2018 at 01:42 PM »
If people use this argument as proof of a god creator, consider this: Even if it's highly improbable that the universe as we know it came into existence through random processes, it's even more improbable that a being capable of creating the universe exists and decided to do so for whatever reason. That creator is, by definition, several orders of magnitude more complex than anything it would have created (if not then he wouldn't have been able to create this highly complex universe in the first place), so, using the logic of the argument against randomness, that being's existence is significantly less probable that the existence of our universe.
Correct, it is Highly Improbable  that the universe existed through random processes. In fact. the calculation of this extreme improbability of the universe existing by a random event approximates 1 chance in 10 to the power of 1030!!!

And yet inspite of this exteme improbability.....the Universe Exists!!!! And we are talking about its existence!!!

Thus, your conclusion that its even more "improbable for God to exist" is erroneous since that "extremely improbable universe" already exists!

Well, that is exactly the definition of God: Timeless, Powerful, Infinitely Intelligent, Complex. Even though as you say His existence is less probable than the universe. The existence of "randon chance" as the cause to create the universe.....is EVEN LESS PROBABLE.
« Last Edit: Jun 06, 2018 at 10:30 AM by docelmo »
Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 940
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #596 on: Jun 05, 2018 at 03:57 PM »
Suggesting that something is "evidence" of a god creator is fine. That can still be in line with faith. Proof (like in the topic of this thread) is conclusive, evidence is not.

You can make the assertion that your conclusion is reasonable. It will come down your subjective definition of what is reasonable and what is not. Basically it will boil down to the existence of a god creator being - at best - a theory. And just to pre-empt (or maybe actually kickstart) a discussion on how religious theories and scientific theories are different...

The difference lies in the following: Scientific practices - observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses; the relentless questioning of established views - have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life. Religion has no equivalent record of discovering hidden truths.

So even though there are beliefs in science that are based on inconclusive evidence and there are beliefs in religion that are based on inconclusive evidence, there is a critical difference: The beliefs based on science are far more rational, because the methods of science are demonstrably superior at getting at truths about the natural world.

The universe is not purely governed by order. The universe contains both chaos and randomness as well as rules and order.

On the microscopic level, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay - we only have the probability of decay in a given time, but there are no rules for us to determine it.

On a larger scale, the second law of thermodynamics states the the level of entropy (a measure of uncertainty or randomness) within a system - such as the universe - can only increase, which means that chaos is and will always be present in the universe.

What can science really prove and can't prove or put it in another term, what can it do and not do.

It can't prove the non-existence of something. Because by nature it deals with imperical and inductive methods. Using these tools science comes out with generalized conclusions. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find.

As in my practice, we come up a final diagnosis after you take the patient's history, physical examination and laboratory findings.....science in this case only covers the "lab results". Thus without the other two aspects the lab results is inadequate for me to diagnose the patient. In fact, in some instances we don't need the lab results in coming w/ a diagnosis. The lab result (i.e. science) is only 25% and history and p.e. is 75%.

Science is therefore neither superior nor the only authority on the search for the truth. Because, it cannot prove that something like God doesn't exist. Another false assumption, is the notion that since science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. Because science is not the only method available to learn things about the world.

But it is an essential tool it gives us true, or approximately true, information about the world, and it uses a technique that seems to be reliable, by and large. However, it is not the only means of giving us true information about the world; its methodology limits it significantly.

The law of entropy, does not conflict with an "ordered world". Because science has already shown the various laws governing it including entropy.

In fact, this second law further proves that the universe had a beginning and it is "winding down". Having a beginning demands having a force that caused it to exist. Add to that the cosmological constants, the improbability of it occuring by random chance and the presense of life on this planet which also has so many factors to allow that life to even exist......what does that leave us?

A Universe that came from nothing by random chance? The evidence doesn't seem to say so...



« Last Edit: Jun 05, 2018 at 06:41 PM by docelmo »
Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 940
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #597 on: Jun 06, 2018 at 08:28 PM »
How does the evidence of cause necesitate a creator? There has to be an agent for something to exist, but that doesn't mean that a creator is involved. When a boulder rolls down the side of a hill during an earthquake and leaves an indentation in the soil before it crashes into the plains below, then it rains and a puddle forms in the indentation left by boulder... who/what is the creator of that puddle? There were definitely agents that caused that puddle to exist, but I can't see how a creator is involved in the existence of that puddle.

Also, the nature of the cause is most certainly not immaterial because that's precisely the point of the entire "science vs religion" debate: Did the universe exist from a god creator or from something scientific?
It's the law of causation. The nature of the "creator" or cause would depend on its effect. That's why I said the cause was immaterial when we talk about "cause" in general. Cause means "something that brings about an effect". Thus the cause could be anything...even the boulder.

Let's take the book "Origin of the Species" this book exists because we know about and have read it.

The beginning of the book's "space-time" starts with the first line of the book. And ends with the last line. But the "cause" of the book cannot be found on the first page or first line of the book. Thus the cause is outside the book, outside "space-time".

When the author Charles Darwin started forming his ideas of evolution based on his observations at the Galapagos. These abstract ideas were formed in the mind of the author or cause. It is independent of the existence of the book itself. Was a creator (cause) necessary for something to exist? The answer is a resounding...YES!

I may not agree with his theory, but there's ample evidence that Darwin existed because of the existence of his book.

Why should it be "science vs religion or faith" when these two should instead be 2 sides of the same coin.
Man is not merely a collection of material or physical components but also compose of non-material or non-physical aspects as well.
Universe is not just physical matter but also non-physical "natural laws".

In fact, both are basically in agreement with one crucial thing:

Religion: Genesis 1....In the "beginning" God created the heaven and the earth.

Science: BBT, BVG Theorem

Both has declared there was a "beginning"!
« Last Edit: Jun 08, 2018 at 10:10 AM by docelmo »
Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Offline Nelson de Leon

  • Trade Count: (+141)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,084
  • Let us lead by example
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 291
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #598 on: Jun 06, 2018 at 11:58 PM »
Bakit thousands? Hindi naman tayo sure kung ganun sila karami or namatay sila na intact ang skeleton. Pwedeng prey sila at nagkalat ang mga buto. Pwede ring konti lang talaga sila.

Yeah it's possible. Pero yun hindi sila dumami is hindi din possible. I've read somewhere that para ma-maintain ang isang lahi, dapat daw at least there would be 2.3 na anak or descendants on an average per pair. Kung ilalagay natin siya sa at least 3 anak, starting at 20 pairs, imagine mo ang dami nila after 100 generation.

Online bumblebee

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,371
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
« Reply #599 on: Jun 07, 2018 at 06:58 AM »
I'm thinking possible. Pwede kasi na bound for natural extinction yung specie nila. Pagkaanak, patay agad dahil sa sakit or predation. Or pihikan sa pagkain. Or pinatay ng rival specie. Remember, they are still considered primitive. Wild world for them back then.