|
|
digs wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote:
digs wrote:
DomFortress wrote:
digs wrote:
All science and all the scientific laws point to a creator and a beginning. The universe must have been created by one who is beyond the universe (God). The laws of thermodynamics say matter can't be created or destroyed (same for energy) and that the universe moves towards disorder and not towards order. Science cannot explain everything, and it can't explain beyond our universe. But what we do know from the laws of science is that something beyond science had to start all this, by the very laws science is based on it is impossible for all this to have happened naturally. Those aren't natural laws which all science must based on, when they're just your personal opinions and entitlements, without factual proofs found in nature.
Therefore unless you can prove that God exists in nature, your hypothesis isn't scientific 'cause it doesn't work without a working God in nature.
My hypothesis is that there must be something beyond nature for nature to exist. We have every evidence that nature is finite and always goes towards chaos. We know that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. These scientific facts prove that we cannot explain natures existence through natural means. Nature itself disproves that it created itself or that there is some process that did all this. My hypothesis is based off of science, and it's that science points and demands that there be something beyond the natural (God) to have created the natural. These are all natural laws on which all science is based on. All matter and energy are bound to the laws of thermodynamics, this isn't my opinion, it's scientific fact. That's still entitlement, not natural science.
And as long as God's not present and accounted for, your hypothesis is baseless.
Furthermore, as long as you're arguing creationism, here's the kicker; who created God? 
If your answer is God created Himself, then what's not to say that's the same case for nature/universe, aka existentialism?
Finally, you can't disprove other supernatural beings. As soon as you proved that there's indeed something supernatural using natural proof. And I'll let you figure out how you're gonna manage to do that.
Have fun with that, while I'll just be happy and contend with nature. Or do you have a problem with me being naturally happy and contend without God?
How is it entitlement? I am quoting the undisputed basics of scientific law. Are you saying until God gives out cookies and throws lighting on non-believers that my theory has no credibility?
And God does not need a creator. The whole point of being beyond the natural and beyond science is that God did not require a beginning or a creator. All we know is finite, so we can't understand that. But God is beyond the finite and created the finite, He is eternal and lacks the need to be created. God was never created, He is eternal and has always been existing even before time was constructed. God can operate outside of time and thus is not bound by that either.
I have no problem with you being happy, why do you think I want people to be miserable? My argument is about the beginning of the universe (this whole thread is). So, if you only believe in nature then how did the universe come into existence despite nature proving that it can't create itself? By the very nature we live in all of this cannot have created itself. Nature itself proves that God exists through science.
We created our society based on our addiction and not our human nature, while we just happen to live in our society of addiction a plenty.
So what's not to say that the concept of God is just another creation of our imagination? Since we can all imagine unproven hypothesis that's based on nothing natural.
Finally, just because you can spell "thermodynamics" doesn't mean that the law itself requires a God in order for it to work. When it works fine just on its own in natural setting, because that's what a natural law should be. And as long as you keep claiming the existence of the natural laws as the result of some supernatural creation without natural proof, that's just plain entitlement.
Or should I ought to prove to you that your faith in God is just how your brain responding to an addiction? A fMRI scan of your brain reacting towards the concept of God ought to do the trick.
Now what was that Christian saying goes? Ah yes, "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."- John 8:32
|
9137 cr points
Send Message:   113
 Offline
|
digs wrote:
My hypothesis is that there must be something beyond nature for nature to exist. We have every evidence that nature is finite and always goes towards chaos. We know that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. These scientific facts prove that we cannot explain natures existence through natural means. Nature itself disproves that it created itself or that there is some process that did all this. My hypothesis is based off of science, and it's that science points and demands that there be something beyond the natural (God) to have created the natural. These are all natural laws on which all science is based on. All matter and energy are bound to the laws of thermodynamics, this isn't my opinion, it's scientific fact.
I agree, scientific laws suggest a higher power (i.e. something outside the laws of science or outside our realm of existence) must or must have existed.
All matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, so the origins of the original matter and energy must have been put into place by a force outside these laws. But you can't say that force is God, I just call it a higher power. God is an omnipotent being, this logic only tells us something outside the laws of nature was the origin of the universe, it doesn't say anything about what it is. It could have been a random, meaningless force, it could have been aliens from another realm of existence; we can't come to any conclusions on what the higher power is.
But the basic logic that a higher power must exist is right, using scientific laws as evidence.
|
|
|
Yei wrote:
digs wrote:
My hypothesis is that there must be something beyond nature for nature to exist. We have every evidence that nature is finite and always goes towards chaos. We know that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. These scientific facts prove that we cannot explain natures existence through natural means. Nature itself disproves that it created itself or that there is some process that did all this. My hypothesis is based off of science, and it's that science points and demands that there be something beyond the natural (God) to have created the natural. These are all natural laws on which all science is based on. All matter and energy are bound to the laws of thermodynamics, this isn't my opinion, it's scientific fact.
I agree, scientific laws suggest a higher power (i.e. something outside the laws of science or outside our realm of existence) must or must have existed.
All matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, so the origins of the original matter and energy must have been put into place by a force outside these laws. But you can't say that force is God, I just call it a higher power. God is an omnipotent being, this logic only tells us something outside the laws of nature was the origin of the universe, it doesn't say anything about what it is. It could have been a random, meaningless force, it could have been aliens from another realm of existence; we can't come to any conclusions on what the higher power is.
But the basic logic that a higher power must exist is right, using scientific laws as evidence. Again: Finally, just because you can spell "thermodynamics" doesn't mean that the law itself requires a God in order for it to work. When it works fine just on its own in natural setting, because that's what a natural law should be. And as long as you keep claiming the existence of the natural laws as the result of some supernatural creation without natural proof, that's just plain entitlement.
|
9137 cr points
Send Message: 113
Offline
|
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote:
Yei wrote:
digs wrote:
My hypothesis is that there must be something beyond nature for nature to exist. We have every evidence that nature is finite and always goes towards chaos. We know that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. These scientific facts prove that we cannot explain natures existence through natural means. Nature itself disproves that it created itself or that there is some process that did all this. My hypothesis is based off of science, and it's that science points and demands that there be something beyond the natural (God) to have created the natural. These are all natural laws on which all science is based on. All matter and energy are bound to the laws of thermodynamics, this isn't my opinion, it's scientific fact.
I agree, scientific laws suggest a higher power (i.e. something outside the laws of science or outside our realm of existence) must or must have existed.
All matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, so the origins of the original matter and energy must have been put into place by a force outside these laws. But you can't say that force is God, I just call it a higher power. God is an omnipotent being, this logic only tells us something outside the laws of nature was the origin of the universe, it doesn't say anything about what it is. It could have been a random, meaningless force, it could have been aliens from another realm of existence; we can't come to any conclusions on what the higher power is.
But the basic logic that a higher power must exist is right, using scientific laws as evidence. Again: Finally, just because you can spell "thermodynamics" doesn't mean that the law itself requires a God in order for it to work. When it works fine just on its own in natural setting, because that's what a natural law should be. And as long as you keep claiming the existence of the natural laws as the result of some supernatural creation without natural proof, that's just plain entitlement.
You don't seem to understand the logic, did you even read the argument? And you don't seem to understand my post, your response was irrelevant, I didn't say anything about God.
|
|
|
Scientology failed, my good people. It will be a long-endured constant of humanity eating itself due to petty views.
|
|
|
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Yei wrote:
DomFortress wrote:
Yei wrote:
digs wrote:
My hypothesis is that there must be something beyond nature for nature to exist. We have every evidence that nature is finite and always goes towards chaos. We know that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. These scientific facts prove that we cannot explain natures existence through natural means. Nature itself disproves that it created itself or that there is some process that did all this. My hypothesis is based off of science, and it's that science points and demands that there be something beyond the natural (God) to have created the natural. These are all natural laws on which all science is based on. All matter and energy are bound to the laws of thermodynamics, this isn't my opinion, it's scientific fact.
I agree, scientific laws suggest a higher power (i.e. something outside the laws of science or outside our realm of existence) must or must have existed.
All matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, so the origins of the original matter and energy must have been put into place by a force outside these laws. But you can't say that force is God, I just call it a higher power. God is an omnipotent being, this logic only tells us something outside the laws of nature was the origin of the universe, it doesn't say anything about what it is. It could have been a random, meaningless force, it could have been aliens from another realm of existence; we can't come to any conclusions on what the higher power is.
But the basic logic that a higher power must exist is right, using scientific laws as evidence. Again: Finally, just because you can spell "thermodynamics" doesn't mean that the law itself requires a God in order for it to work. When it works fine just on its own in natural setting, because that's what a natural law should be. And as long as you keep claiming the existence of the natural laws as the result of some supernatural creation without natural proof, that's just plain entitlement.
You don't seem to understand the logic, did you even read the argument? And you don't seem to understand my post, your response was irrelevant, I didn't say anything about God. No, it's you who doesn't understand that the rationality of natural science does not require a higher power in order for it to work.
Furthermore, as long as your default analogy is based on the philosophy of creationism, you must thereby continue to define the existence for a "creator" of this "higher power" and so on and so forth. Otherwise your hypothesis isn't correct because it lacks natural proof.
And here I thought you claimed that agnostics are so rational.
|
9137 cr points
Send Message: 113
Offline
|
DomFortress wrote:
No, it's you who doesn't understand that the rationality of natural science does not require a higher power in order for it to work.
Furthermore, as long as your default analogy is based on the philosophy of creationism, you must thereby continue to define the existence for a "creator" of this "higher power" and so on and so forth. Otherwise your hypothesis isn't correct because it lacks natural proof.
And here I thought you claimed that agnostics are so rational.
You can't just argue against the argument by saying it isn't true. You need to back up your claim with evidence.
My default analogy? I'm not using an analogy, and I didn't say anything about creationism. There you have the not understanding the word you use and the random nonsense again.
When easily defeated in an argument, you first: report the post that defeated you to the mods. If that fails: just ignore it and hope people won't notice.
|
24500 cr points
Send Message: 24 / M / Sweden
Offline
|
|
|
|
That article was an interesting read.
|
|
|
It seems that all things work on their own accord as if they have a conscience. I ponder what created (if anything) all that is, and wonder how that would effect us all. Should we come to meet our maker, or better yet, come to find that there can never be an answer to that since this creator destroyed all evidence of itself and left the space/time continuum to loop in an infinite circle. There is no beginning and no end. Infinity is to be a future from now with no end and there has never been a starting point for everything in existence.
|
|
|
bitter_nail wrote:
It seems that all things work on their own accord as if they have a conscience. I ponder what created (if anything) all that is, and wonder how that would effect us all. Should we come to meet our maker, or better yet, come to find that there can never be an answer to that since this creator destroyed all evidence of itself and left the space/time continuum to loop in an infinite circle. There is no beginning and no end. Infinity is to be a future from now with no end and there has never been a starting point for everything in existence. If that's so, the in my field of rational, God has no business with my affair. And when just like you've said that God Himself got rid of His own existence in our universe. Then the least I think we can do is to respect that fact and continue our existence without Him. Think of it as He accepts us in our own ability to survive.
|
|
|
DomFortress wrote:
bitter_nail wrote:
It seems that all things work on their own accord as if they have a conscience. I ponder what created (if anything) all that is, and wonder how that would effect us all. Should we come to meet our maker, or better yet, come to find that there can never be an answer to that since this creator destroyed all evidence of itself and left the space/time continuum to loop in an infinite circle. There is no beginning and no end. Infinity is to be a future from now with no end and there has never been a starting point for everything in existence. If that's so, the in my field of rational, God has no business with my affair. And when just like you've said that God Himself got rid of His own existence in our universe. Then the least I think we can do is to respect that fact and continue our existence without Him. Think of it as He accepts us in our own ability to survive.
"As it has always been, and also, never was. God the Almighty, left us to our own devises. His existence was too high to bare, so he threw himself into the Void from whence he created this grand Universe."
-bitter_nail
|
|
|
That argument doesn't make any sense, darkoff's post was right.
|
|
|
RisingEchoe wrote:
That argument doesn't make any sense, darkoff's post was right.
Yeah, he was very right. There are some things you can't prove or disprove.
|
23519 cr points
Send Message: ಠ_ಠ
Offline
|
|
