Well, now you are just acting like a religious fanatic.
Well, now you are just acting like a religious fanatic.
Just because you can prove that something happened through science doesn't mean God doesn't exists,it also doesn't automatically turn you into an atheist.
But replacing one theory with another isn't even prove,scientists don't know for a fact that this is how the universe started, they believe it happened like this the same way that religious people believe in their option, without any real proof,what scientists are basically saying is "it just happened" just like religious people say that "God always existed" both are theories that are impossible to prove or disprove, you need to believe in them.
And even if you would be able to prove that the universe started because quantum potential collapsed how do you prove or disprove that God didn't collapse it?!
You are arguing that the universe makes sense so it can't be made by God but nobody ever claimed God to be nonsensical,I hope at least.
Well, now you are just acting like a religious fanatic.
Just because you can prove that something happened through science doesn't mean God doesn't exists,it also doesn't automatically turn you into an atheist.
But replacing one theory with another isn't even prove,scientists don't know for a fact that this is how the universe started, they believe it happened like this the same way that religious people believe in their option, without any real proof,what scientists are basically saying is "it just happened" just like religious people say that "God always existed" both are theories that are impossible to prove or disprove, you need to believe in them.
And even if you would be able to prove that the universe started because quantum potential collapsed how do you prove or disprove that God didn't collapse it?!
You are arguing that the universe makes sense so it can't be made by God but nobody ever claimed God to be nonsensical,I hope at least.
But replacing one theory with another isn't even prove,scientists don't know for a fact that this is how the universe started, they believe it happened like this the same way that religious people believe in their option, without any real proof,what scientists are basically saying is "it just happened" just like religious people say that "God always existed" both are theories that are impossible to prove or disprove, you need to believe in them.
And even if you would be able to prove that the universe started because quantum potential collapsed how do you prove or disprove that God didn't collapse it?!
Example of what? Not being able to prove something doesn't exist?
[ . . . ]
.
"We can not really ever prove the non-existence of a thing."
That is a most overwhelming statement of a most definitive insistence from your part.
How about you give an example?
.
I bring you with me to my attic, telling you that we will search for a unicorn in the whole attic, and we will not find one there, wherefore: that is proving a negative, no unicorn existing.
Yup,it's still a theory because we have no proof.We do have evidence of the big bang theory.
...
The big bang theory
Where ever did I promote that idea? I called it a theory because that's what it is,you called it a theory as wellWe have a model that makes predictions, and we can look out into the universe and find the things that it predicts. That is proof. Science is not just opinion. Where ever did you get that idea?
And yet somehow we should take it for a fact that quantum phainomena existed before time and space and anything got created.We can't. The big bang theory states how the universe started and says nothing about what happened before it did.
Yes that is very much exactly the issue,science replaced it with quantum because that's what's hip right now (it's the best explanation we have anyway) ,back in the 30's scientists put radioactive material into beauty products and antiques and made shoe fitting devices with x-rays because back then that was the newest and coolest.The problem with the 'Well God' answer though is that I could literally replace anything at all and it would be exactly as valid. Maybe the quantum potential collapse was actually caused by a whale fart that traveled backwards in time. Literally just as valid a argument as 'god did it'. You need to provide some reason why it would be god and not the infinite number of other possible solutions.
My argument was:When you have a theory that can be neither tested and has no predictive value, it is worthless. Every scientific theory has at least one of those two qualities. That is what is missing in your argument.
Yup,it's still a theory because we have no proof.
Where ever did I promote that idea? I called it a theory because that's what it is,you called it a theory as well
And no a theory based on a model is not proof.
The misleading evidence that fooled scientists for decades
From human ‘gills’ to reproducing rock, evidence hasn’t always pointed scientists in the right direction.theconversation.com
And yet somehow we should take it for a fact that quantum phainomena existed before time and space and anything got created.
Yes that is very much exactly the issue,science replaced it with quantum because that's what's hip right now (it's the best explanation we have anyway) ,back in the 30's scientists put radioactive material into beauty products and antiques and made shoe fitting devices with x-rays because back then that was the newest and coolest.
Quantum that went back in time (or is eternal) is just as unproven as cow fart that went back in time, at this moment quantum is much more possible but that does not make it any more proven.
My argument was:
" Just because you can prove that something happened through science doesn't mean God doesn't exists,it also doesn't automatically turn you into an atheist. "
This can be tested extremely easily,just ask an extremely religious person to ad 2 and 2 together by means other than praying for the solution and see if he(she/it) turns atheist.
All the rest of my post is me trying to show that we have no actual real proof for either God or the big bang.
Yup,it's still a theory because we have no proof.
Where ever did I promote that idea? I called it a theory because that's what it is,you called it a theory as well
And no a theory based on a model is not proof.
The misleading evidence that fooled scientists for decades
From human ‘gills’ to reproducing rock, evidence hasn’t always pointed scientists in the right direction.theconversation.com
And yet somehow we should take it for a fact that quantum phainomena existed before time and space and anything got created.
Yes that is very much exactly the issue,science replaced it with quantum because that's what's hip right now (it's the best explanation we have anyway) ,back in the 30's scientists put radioactive material into beauty products and antiques and made shoe fitting devices with x-rays because back then that was the newest and coolest.
Quantum that went back in time (or is eternal) is just as unproven as cow fart that went back in time, at this moment quantum is much more possible but that does not make it any more proven.
My argument was:
" Just because you can prove that something happened through science doesn't mean God doesn't exists,it also doesn't automatically turn you into an atheist. "
This can be tested extremely easily,just ask an extremely religious person to ad 2 and 2 together by means other than praying for the solution and see if he(she/it) turns atheist.
All the rest of my post is me trying to show that we have no actual real proof for either God or the big bang.
I bring you with me to my attic, telling you that we will search for a unicorn in the whole attic, and we will not find one there, wherefore: that is proving a negative, no unicorn existing.
Everybody knows the unicorns live along the edge of the flat earth.
Title of thread: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.
Thread starter: Marius Dejess
Start date: Jun 7, 2016
Post #1
There is endless debate over God existing or not.
But there is no talk at all about how to concur on what it is or how to prove or disprove that something at all exists in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.
I think I can and do so prove for myself that God exists, and you can also if you will concur with me on how to prove that something at all exists in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.
Here is step No. 1 in proving or disproving that something at all, be it the nose in our face or God existing in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind:
No. 1 Parties engaged in proving or disproving something to exist must first work to concur on the concept of the thing, anything at all be it the nose in our face or God, otherwise it is an insane exchange of thoughts because parties will be talking past each other's head, and that is not communication at all or getting connected at all.
What do you guys here say?
When you accept my step No. 1, then I will or you guys here can propose step No. 2 for us all to work on to concur on it.
Right?Things, therefor God
That's not how anything works.
That probably won't happen until we stop indulging them, and they go bot somewhere else.i dream of not having to see this thread anymore
I think the God-bot is starting to understand that we don't care about it's religious mumbo-jumbo.Right?
I have a Star Wars Blue-ray, therefore that is proof that God exists.
That probably won't happen until we stop indulging them, and they go bot somewhere else.
If this was a legitimate person discussing their beliefs, I wouldn't even be in the thread. I have no problems with people's religious beliefs.I think the God-bot is starting to understand that we don't care about it's religious mumbo-jumbo.
maybe the code is corrupting? Did you read the nonsense it posted in the other thread?If this was a legitimate person discussing their beliefs, I wouldn't even be in the thread. I have no problems with people's religious beliefs.
However, when a bot posts nonsense over and over like this one has, it's annoying. You don't create a thread saying you have "proof" when you don't have proof, and then proceed to post nonsensical ramblings about unicorns in the attic.
Do bots cry when being objectified?Tell me something you want me to know about just one thought that matters a lot to you with calling yourself an atheist.
I think you will fine most of us here follow the true path and are members of the church of the nonfictional flying spaghetti monster.Are you [anyone here] an atheist?