How we know God exists

[Enterprise-D]

Thx on the avatar note Rickie.
And Sarkus, there you go that's one way of putting it. A pretty good way

 

[spidergoat]

EVOLUTION DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD'S EXISTENCE

Not exactly, but it does reduce the need to have God as an explanation for life and it's variety.

 

[spidergoat]

He is right, the chances of life happening by accident is about 1-1000, far too much to be by chance, there had to be an intelligent designer in the 3000 years of earths existence. Is that proof enough for you? I think you will have no argument left!

Really? Those are very high odds. I think it's much lower.

We know that the Earth is far, far older then 3,000 years, and we have known that already since the 1800's. Considering that the Earth is actually about 4 BILLION years old, even a one in a billion chance of life arising on any particular day means that it is almost 100% certain that life will arise, given the conditions of early Earth.

 

[Rickie]

You're still looking at it the wrong way. You're looking at the end product and asking what the chances were that gave rise to it - which in your mind is staggering.

But... (and I've used this example before)...

Shuffle a deck of cards.
Deal them out face up, one by one, and record the order in which they are revealed - all 52 of them.

The way you're looking at it - looking at the end product - the order of those cards - and say "Wow - what was the chance they would end up in that order?".
The answer is roughly 1 in 10^68 (or 1 with 68 zeroes after it).
Staggering.
And yet you did it - just by dealing the cards.

Your way of looking at it only holds if we were chosen as the "end product" before the cards got shuffled and dealt.

If you choose an order for the cards BEFORE you deal them, then yes, the chance of you being right is 1 in 10^68.

But we, humans, weren't chosen before the Earth began.
We are just a product of the way it has gone.

WOW!!!!, i never thought of it like that. that was a very good explaination. it makes a lot of sence. so here's the real question, were humans planned before the world began or are we just the product of what happens?
Can either be proven? or is it just a matter of opinion, or a matter of belief?
I don't think it can be answered 100%, i think it's a matter of choice. which do u choose to believe? which comes back to my statement, it takes just as much "faith" to believe it's all by fluke as it does to believe God/surpreme being caused it.

 

[Cris]

Sarkus,

The way you're looking at it - looking at the end product - the order of those cards - and say "Wow - what was the chance they would end up in that order?".
The answer is roughly 1 in 10^68 (or 1 with 68 zeroes after it).
Staggering.
And yet you did it - just by dealing the cards.

Great if everything was random. But life and everything didn't evolve randomly.

Actually I'm not sure what you are saying.

 

[KennyJC]

Sarkus,

Great if everything was random. But life and everything didn't evolve randomly.

Actually I'm not sure what you are saying.

How do you know the 'bang' that made all the laws of the universe wasn't random? What if it had another chance to bang and nothing clicked the way it did here, and there was just a huge empty ball of radiation?

 

[Godless]

Actually it never banged. It has always been, the BB theory has been overthrown, though unfortunately do to "religious/political" powers scientist against the BB theory are made to look like potzies. But their observations, and theories are gaining support.

clack

clack

click

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death

Well there you go.

Godless

 

[Provita]

Wow, so are there any theories replacing BB?

 

[imaplanck.]

Actually it never banged. It has always been, the BB theory has been overthrown, though unfortunately do to "religious/political" powers scientist against the BB theory are made to look like potzies. But their observations, and theories are gaining support.

clack

clack

click

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death

Well there you go.

Godless

Sounds like yet another of the uninformed knocks on our mainstay theories, I would bet my house this has been thought of and rebutted many times before, I personally am not holding my breath for too long on this one.

 

[nubianconcubine]

Wow, so are there any theories replacing BB?

one of the clacks said the universe has always existed and will always exist. but i read an article, soooo old now, that claimed the universe is spherical(?) with no signs of slowing or gravitating back to it's orginal state (if it had one). in effect the matter in the universe will become stretched so thin that eventually all that will be left are trace gasses and radio waves(?).

i have tried to process this. i can't help but rail against the fact that everything was "just there". mustn't it have come from SOMEWHERE?!

 

[Godless]

Wow, so are there any theories replacing BB?

Well yes of course. Evidence is shown that the BB theory does not hold water, when supposedly the BB theory took place at X time which is "apx 20 billion years old" supposedly. However evidence is beign observed otherwise, that there is existent matter in massive porpotion that contradict the 20billion year origin, it has had to start 200 billion years before the BB theory.

Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies

Sounds like yet another of the uninformed knocks on our mainstay theories, I would bet my house this has been thought of and rebutted many times before, I personally am not holding my breath for too long on this one.

Truly willing to loose your house are you? That's what happens when one talks without even being informed. I've been doing this kind of research quite a while now. Basically don't take my word for it, just follow the EVIDENCE!!

The best thing to do however is read my links instead of commenting without even reading the damn thing!. Then draw your own conclusions, however if you can't "even understand a damn thing" my suggestion would be, Don't blow farts out in the wind without an "education" on Plasma theory!!.

THE PLASMA UNIVERSE

I think Chris started a whole thread on this once. He to has come to a conclusion from "the evidence shown" that the BB just doesn't hold water.

There is a revolution just beginning in astronomy/cosmology that will rival the one set off by Copernicus and Galileo. This revolution is based on the growing realization that the cosmos is highly electrical in nature. It is becoming clear that 99% of the universe is made up not of "invisible matter", but rather, of matter in the plasma state. Electrodynamic forces in electric plasmas are much stronger than the gravitational force.

click

A group of cosmologists, other scientists and engineers have published an open letter in New Scientist May 22nd 2004. Their purpose is to draw attention to the current policy on research funding which seems to be governed by dogmatism and prejudice in favour of "establishment" science. The specific case refers to the denial of funding for research into Plasma Cosmology. The Big Bang theory has been the generally accepted explanation of the origins of the Universe since 1965, in spite of serious theoretical problems. New observational evidence is now accumulating against Big Bang. Lerner and his supporters contend that Plasma Cosmology provides a superior basis for understanding the Universe. They protest that decisions on research funding are taken in the interests of supporting the status quo rather than advancing scientific understanding.

click

It's like telling theist hundreds of years ago that the sun does not revolve around the earth but the other way around.


Godless

 

[nubianconcubine]

THE PLASMA UNIVERSEGodless

alright. can you translate all this into the language of the working man?

 

[imaplanck.]

Truly willing to loose your house are you? That's what happens when one talks without even being informed. I've been doing this kind of research quite a while now. Basically don't take my word for it, just follow the EVIDENCE!!

Yes I am truely willing to lose my house to the next grandeurly deluded fruit that believes he has found a) a fault in a cast iron theory b) believes he can fix it.
........That would be you of course!

The best thing to do however is read my links instead of commenting without even reading the damn thing!. Then draw your own conclusions, however if you can't "even understand a damn thing" my suggestion would be, Don't blow farts out in the wind without an "education" on Plasma theory!!.

THE PLASMA UNIVERSE

I dont wish to blow around in anyones farts I could much better devote time to tried and tested theories that are perfectly up to date with current measurement and evidence.

One thing to note is that your link predates my education on the subject of the bigbang.

 

[nubianconcubine]

can someone explain the plasma universe to me??
i can understand the BB theory. big pre-primordial explosion. stuff goes everywhere, cools off, gravity "pools" lots of it together wherever it happened to "land", etc. etc...
now could someone help me understand a plasma universe. what exactly does that mean? did plasma "gel" to form more solid matter? are these plasma rivulets like energy rivers? what?
don't bother giving me links unless they're to site like "The Known Universe and Theories of Its Creation For Dummies".

 

[Godless]

I can't make it any easier for you, you got to read the links and find the arguments.

I dont wish to blow around in anyones farts I could much better devote time to tried and tested theories that are perfectly up to date with current measurement and evidence.

That's what is been done "pendejo" the observation and evidence being shown are stacked against the BB theory!!

** Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The predictions of the theory for the abundance of 4He, 7Li and D are more than 7s from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10-14. Observations of voids in the distribution of galaxies that are in excess of 100 Mpc in diameter, combined with observed low streaming velocities of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang.**click

According to the big bang model, the uniform microwave background radiation indicates that matter in the early universe was distributed extremely smoothly. For a long time there was no evidence of any fluctuations or "lumpiness" out of which galaxies could have condensed. However, in April 1992 it was announced that NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite had found tiny inhomogeneities or "ripples" in the background radiation. While some scientists hailed the results as the discovery of the Holy Grail, others took a more sober view because the fluctuations are much too vast in size to be the ancestors of the galaxies and clusters observed today, and the fluctuations are only about 30 millionths of a kelvin -- far too minuscule to act as the seeds for structures to form from. So although COBE's findings were welcomed by big bang theorists, they "simultaneously relegated most of cosmologists' specific models for the formation of the universe to the trash bin" (Scientific American, July 1992, p. 9).

from the links I've been providing, all one needs to do, however is study a bit of COSMOLOGY and know how to interpret the evidence that is coming in from satellites such as COBE.

Godless

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

can someone explain the plasma universe to me??
i can understand the BB theory. big pre-primordial explosion. stuff goes everywhere, cools off, gravity "pools" lots of it together wherever it happened to "land", etc. etc...
now could someone help me understand a plasma universe. what exactly does that mean? did plasma "gel" to form more solid matter? are these plasma rivulets like energy rivers? what?
don't bother giving me links unless they're to site like "The Known Universe and Theories of Its Creation For Dummies".

Yes, we are getting into cosmology a bit deep. Are we still on the topic of religion?

In brief NC: Galaxies are redder than they should be. Hubble saw that the further away, the redder they were. One explanation for this is that they are travelling away from us - which means the universe is expanding. Extrapolate backwards and you get the Big Bang theory - that at some time in the past the universe expanded from almost nothing, and continues to expand. Other evidence followed such as Gamow's 'Cosmic Microwave Background' measurements - which support the BB theory as the hypothesised afterglow of the BB.

The plasma universe theory challenges that the redshifting of galaxies is because they are moving away. It says that light, moving through space containing plasma (charged matter essentially) loses energy, and thus becomes redder (redder light has lower energy). The microwave background is explained differenly too. So it is one of the "steady state theories" consistent with a universe that is not explanding, and either started some other way (without a bang), or always was...

I think Godless is overstating the demise of the BB. There's a way to go yet to establish plasma cosmology as a better explanation. However....

 

[nubianconcubine]

Yes, we are getting into cosmology a bit deep. Are we still on the topic of religion?

well...technically, cosmology has alot to with religion because god created the universe (religion) and we're discussing the creation of the universe.

In brief NC: Galaxies are redder than they should be. Hubble saw that the further away, the redder they were. One explanation for this is that they are travelling away from us - which means the universe is expanding. Extrapolate backwards and you get the Big Bang theory - that at some time in the past the universe expanded from almost nothing, and continues to expand. Other evidence followed such as Gamow's 'Cosmic Microwave Background' measurements - which support the BB theory as the hypothesised afterglow of the BB.

The plasma universe theory challenges that the redshifting of galaxies is because they are moving away. It says that light, moving through space containing plasma (charged matter essentially) loses energy, and thus becomes redder (redder light has lower energy). The microwave background is explained differenly too. So it is one of the "steady state theories" consistent with a universe that is not explanding, and either started some other way (without a bang), or always was...

I think Godless is overstating the demise of the BB. There's a way to go yet to establish plasma cosmology as a better explanation. However....

thankyou. that's all i wanted.

 

[nubianconcubine]

and - not to be a pain - am i the only one that can't grasp a universe that always was? let's say science points to this fact but can't explain the how. you can be happy knowing the "is" but not the "how"?
and if you can...how can you criticize theists acceptance of the "is" of god without the "how"? ...

... ...

i'm pleased with myself...

 

[wsionynw]

WOW!!!!, i never thought of it like that. that was a very good explaination. it makes a lot of sence. so here's the real question, were humans planned before the world began or are we just the product of what happens?
Can either be proven? or is it just a matter of opinion, or a matter of belief?
I don't think it can be answered 100%, i think it's a matter of choice. which do u choose to believe? which comes back to my statement, it takes just as much "faith" to believe it's all by fluke as it does to believe God/surpreme being caused it.

By planned you must mean by a creator, yes? In that case then no, since there is no evidence of a creator.
Evolution is a theory (see scientific theory) based on evidence, therefore it is more likely to be true than a theory based on no evidence (see creationism).

 

[wesmorris]

We can be certain that God exists because the Roman Catholic Church says so. (The Church says that we can be certain).

The church lacks the authority to make such an assertion, though they would have you believe otherwise - obviously. (and you do, apparently)

IMO, the church is a creepy, icky organization that I want nothing to do with. Have fun with all that.

No scientific evidence needs to, or can be, or should be produced.

I agree. There is no scientific evidence to support their authority, nor to deny it. Believers simply grant it because they are conditioned to do so - indoctrinated even.

Only the Church has the right, given by God himself,
to make authoritative pronouncements concerning the divine reality.

That's simply a crock. They only have the right because you gave it to them. I don't give it to them so from my perspective they completely lack the right you give them freely. Of course I respect your right to do so, but in exchange ask the you respect that I'm under no obligation to grant the authority you so freely do.

The Church also affirms that the human mind is capable of concluding, through various evidences, that God exists.

So what? That only matters if you care about the church.

However, to try and prove or disprove God from a scientific standpoint is useless and vain.

Agreed.

The role of Science is not to be a philosophical ground,
but an instrument of coming to knowledge about the physical reality.

You lack the authority to assert what constitutes philosophical ground. It's my opinion for instance, that all ground is philosophical. It can be found wherever you look if you're prone to do so.

God is pure spirit, therefore Science can never make a certain conclusion concerning God.

Non-statement. Numbers and words don't exist in reality, yet certain conclusions can be made about them, no? Certainly we can write words and numbers in physical reality, but they are not numbers nor words until observed.

Blah blah blah.