I will prove god's existence if....

Need to do the "wife and kid" thing again for a while. Will be back later tonight. Please, keep the responses flowing.

Thanks

Ive tried keeping up with you wiz kids but at times you appear to be trying to out inform each other and have lost the plot..Life wot is it ??? we dont know...where did it come from ?we dont know...can we reproduce it? no....so is it exceptional? most definitely...Was it created quit possibly but no one here has proved it...assumption after assumption for consumption.....

So what do we know about God?

He is all powerful, beyond time, inherent in everything, can create worlds, destroy worlds, modify the universe at will, create life, end life, so on and so forth.

What does this sound like to you guys? To me, it sounds like energy. Sub-atomic or quantum energy to be precise. When mankind witnesses something but has no idea what it is, we try to categorize it. We give it a name, something to relate. When mankind finds something that it doesn't understand, we usually fear it. Well let's say, by pure chance, someone found a way to view energy at a time when we weren't familiar with it. Would it not make sense that this became God?

I hear what you are saying but for most...GOD..is a conscious being...a deliberate act to create...does this energy have a purpose??..

Back to the proof (for only the next minute or so, ... I'll be back this evening for longer):

We have observable evidence by gravitational effect that upwards of 95% of the universe is "Black Energy" or, more accurately named, "Transparent Energy". Transparent because it cannot be defined nor seen nor accounted for, other than in mathematical equations which not only predict its existence as a possibility but demand it as completion to their formulas. So, ? what is it?

As students of physics, we must remember our first fairy tale and bedtime story, "Flatland - A Romance of Many Dimensions". A story of 2-dimensional people who observe a 3-dimensional intrusion into their world - a giant foot. This intrusion seems to instantly appear, then disappear from their 2-dimensional world. This observation of theirs is a result that 2-dimensional people would not have the concept of height, hence everything to them is relative to their dimensions of width and length. When an object comes from a point above them, it would seem to magically appear and then disappear from their 2-dimensional reality.

In the process of the intrusion, the giant foot leaves behind a footprint relative to 3 dimensional reality. However, to the 2-dimensional world, the footprint is a hole in their world, a vortex, that has no definition to. It now represents an absence of the continuity of their 2-dimensional world.

As we gaze out into the macro of the cosmos, we observe a consistency that is vaguely familiar, a mirror of the micro. What occurs on the level of atoms seems to replicate itself within the larger spectrum of the cosmos.

Atoms exist as a result of the electron(s) creating a "field" around the nucleus of which it spins around at distances inconceivably far apart relative to the size of the particles which comprise the nucleus and electron(s). This creating a net effect that the space that an atom consumes consists of over 99.999?% void. The nucleus and electrons consume almost nothing. The existence of atoms seems to be the result of the magical "electron". Magical in that it behaves like both a particle and a wave (energy). The particle part of its behavior is what defines it as the causal factor to an atom's existence. However, its ability to co-exist at all places within its orbit at all times is what defines it as the behavior of a wave (energy).

Similar to the micro atom, the macro cosmos have a "feature" to them that mirrors the electron. And, this very "feature" is what leaves behind a "footprint" in its trail. This footprint is the observable effects of gravity that are the representation of the existence of Black Energy. Black energy isn't real in the sense that it is currently creating gravitational effects, it is only real in that it is the "shadow" remnant and "footprint" of the macro Cosmo's version of the electron.

So, what is this "Macro Cosmo's" version to the electron?

yes this is very interesting but you had better do better than this to prove a god any god..

That's not what's going on here.

Data is trying to present a logical proof, that in logical terms is irrefutable.

So it may seem unfair that I'm assailing it on scientific grounds.

But the problem is that his logical proof is inseparably dependant on certain scientific pretexts.

And the problem is that nearly every scientific statement he's made is simply wrong. It's actually worse than being wrong -- it's misleading.

Why misleading? Because he's selective about which science he chooses and which he disregards, but his selectivity is NOT based on the methodological merit of the science. It's misleading because he deliberately presents speculative statements as facts. It's misleading because he deliberately presents areas of great controversy as facts.

If the logic of his proof depends on certain scientific facts about the world, then his proof will be meaningless if even a single fact of his is wrong. And what that means is he cannot present this proof in good faith unless he has utmost understanding and comprehensive literacy with the science he cites.

I really don't want to extend a tit for tat about scientific nuance. That's not the point. I wouldn't even take it to this length if he weren't so self-assured about how his proof is irrefutable and impenetrable. But it turns out that his proof (thus far) is broken from the very beginning -- so much so that there is nothing to refute.

And this leads to a more important point about the methodology of logical proofs. Namely, if one attempts an exercise in pure logic, how much reference can there be to the 'real' world before the logic becomes subsumed beneath the empirical? I'd argue that in the case of Data's proof, that his logic is entirely beholden to the truth or falsehood of empirical science, since it is so essential to his premise.

I appreciate what you was doing but it went beyond the original proposal, you aloud it to wander of his original theory and you became embroiled in tit for tat debate..even if his scientific theory could be agreed it gave no evidence of a creator or of a thinking designer...Sorry if i was interfering unduly..

Yes, for specific reasons, as I've mentioned. How else can one critique someone's claim of an airtight proof without going at the premises, assumptions, and structure?

I agree with you that even accepting his scientific arguments doesn't prove anything.

But I think one huge problem in our society is our collective lack of scientific education and literacy, and it would be a mistake to validate rhetoric that spreads untruths to people who may indeed be looking for justifications.

I mean if you want to believe in God, it's fine with me. That's not my problem. But don't go screwing with science in order to believe. It's possible to be faithful to God and to be faithful to the universe he created at the same time.

Sherlock Holmes uses a logical approach referencing that, after having exhausted all reasonable options, whatever is left remaining, with disregard for how absurd it may seem, it must be the answer ("When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth")


Can we accept such reasoning appropriate to draw a final conclusion? i.e. ? We review and eliminate all possible explanations that are reasonable, and are left with only the remaining possibility, that Divine Intervention must have existed to enable and to be the cause of the existence of our universe. With this approach, we would follow the method of "If "P", then "Q"," where "P" is observed evidence and "Q" is what the evidence indicates.


If we are willing to accept this approach, then I will be able to easily and successfully complete the proof.

But your proof is based on wholesale innacuracies about science. It's easy to create whatever argument you want when you turn science into essentially a rhetorical lie. Honestly, go look at scientific source material and demonstrate to yourself how the story you tell bears no resemblance to the scientific understanding of the world.

In a certain way im disappointed there was not a strong enough reason to consider a creator....my circumstantial evidence was the best and i was not even trying..

Circumstantial evidence is only meaningful when you have a reference.

For example, circumstantial evidence in murder trials only has meaning because these cases share circumstances with cases in which there is also direct evidence.

So if you're trying to prove the existence of a creator with solely circumstantial evidence, where is the 'gold standard' reference that tells us that such circumstantial evidence has anything to do with a creator at all?

Its not a court of law its a debate on what the individual considers relevant from their perspective....If you add up all the evidence at some time you must consider it as valid..

So let me get this straight.

First of all we label everything we know about the real world as knowledge based on faith, thus legitimizing belief in God, because it's also based on faith. "A disproof of everything".
Then we also throw away our "very simplistic conception of time" regarding this "amusingly linear concept" we hold of it.
Moving on, we claim to have intimate knowledge of God's properties. "God trancends[sic] time".

After following this clearly logical line of reasoning it is only foolish not to believe God exists. Right ?

...

Amazing.



-

Presenting the points of differing arguments together, without any of its logical context and done in such a way as to create an adverse impression. A wonderful way to go about an argument, far superior to the old and out moded 'logical debate.'

And if the individual's conception of relevance requires ideas that are neither logical nor true, then it doesn't even provide no circumstantial evidence.

What evidence? He objects that nature isn't really natural, so therefore it must be divine intervention. How is that evidence? His assumptions about nature are not evidence.

Im not exactly referring to his evidence but the evidence that occurs when we question certain knowledge or experiences...for example the BB by consensus of cosmologists is an event without an apparent cause so could we then say the universe has been created..for many it is a valid conclusion..there are many such events that question the possibility of a creator or creative force..

If in scientific terms we conclude that we don't know the cause of the Big Bang, that doesn't mean there is no physical cause and therefore it must be created. There are things that we scientifically cannot know for technical reasons, and this is true to some degree or another of everything in the past. To make the leap that the Big Bang must have been caused by divine intervention is just as devoid of support as any other hypothesis.

The big bang has no before by the evidence..you cant just say we dont know...there is no evidence of a before so its just as logical to say it could have been created.Im not saying it was but its part of the circumstantial..Now what about the considerable amazing relationship of distance and sizes of the sun the earth and moon..How the moon came to be exactly positioned the correct weight correct size by the smallest margin...how by chance we had the correct position relative to the sun and the moon...All these are amazing coincidences or have they been magnificently engineered..circumstantial...Without this fine tuning life would be impossible..