I can prove God exists

[numinus]

Science has no evidence that an intellegence (or diety exists). You are depending on negative evidence for your conclusion. In other words - because science can not YET explain everything that somenow supports a conclusion that there is a diety involved. You find holes in evolution and you use those holes as evidence for your theory. That is not science Invest.

Even if there were an intellegent designer - what scientific evidence do you have for it being a Judeo-Christian God? Maybe it's Allah? Maybe it's Zeus? Maybe it's Mannawydden, Ceres, or Kali?

What are you saying - that logic and mathematics are inventions of the mind?

And the way scientific laws ALWAYS follow mathematical and logical operations is a coincidence, eh?

That the universe is OBLIGED to follow the way humans think, hmm?

Try googling the philosophy of science. It is the subject of exactly this sort of questions.

 

[Coyote]

What are you saying - that logic and mathematics are inventions of the mind?

And the way scientific laws ALWAYS follow mathematical and logical operations is a coincidence, eh?

How is that proof of a diety?

That the universe is OBLIGED to follow the way humans think, hmm?

I do not understand what you mean and how it proves a diety of any sort, much less the Judeo-Christian species.

 

[Coyote]

Correct.

Science cannot prove nor disprove something that is not a material cause. That is why there is no 'scientific evidence' for god. You need to use another tool for that - logic and philosophy for instance.



Science postulates that everything has a material cause, doesn't it?

Where is the proof of that, hmm? Could it be that you accept the truth of that statment on nothing but faith?



I do not question the importance of science - merely the absurd claim that something doesn't exist if it has no 'scientific' evidence.

And when you are no longer encumbered by the 'scientific method', you would realize that there is logical proof for god's existence.

I do not think that science explains all or can - which is why I've always seperated faith and science. I am not sure if philosophy and logic are as sound a yardstick for proving the existance of something though. For example I seem to recall (this is a long time ago) when I took a class in logic that logic could be mis-used to "prove" some truely ridiculous things.

 

[r0beph]

ohhhh whats this?!

http://physorg.com/news105869123.html
neato...huh.

 

[Coyote]

ohhhh whats this?!

http://physorg.com/news105869123.html
neato...huh.

Wow

Neato yes

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

ohhhh whats this?!

http://physorg.com/news105869123.html
neato...huh.

As I recall Alzheimer's Disease causes the brain to fill up with a left-handed protein that is a mirror image of a naturally occuring protein in the human body. Very similar to this is the prion which causes the encephalopathies like Creutzfelt-Jakob Disease, Mad Cow Disease, and Scrapie. Prions act like they are alive but don't have DNA or any of the other things we have come to associate with living organisms.

Another vary bizarre creature is a plant/animal called Pfiesteria Piscicida, which has a 23 stage life cycle and lives quietly in estuary water most of the time, but when its water is polluted with enough sewage and fertilizer in can change into a predatory stage of its development and produce a toxin which dissolves flesh and causes open sores on fish in the water. The toxin also outgasses into the air and can cause weird, violent behavior in humans and also permanent memory loss. Fascinating book on the research around this strange critter was written by Rodney Barker, AND THE WATERS TURNED TO BLOOD.

Scientists have long wondered if life on this planet might not have been seeded here by space-born debris.

 

[numinus]

How is that proof of a diety?

(Sigh)

Proof of god's existence cannot come from science because science only investigate material causes.

There is, however, logical/philosophical proof - the cosmological argument and the argument from contingency to name a few.

I do not understand what you mean and how it proves a diety of any sort, much less the Judeo-Christian species.

The scientific method depends on sensory (or something reducible to it) evidence that are quantifiable. To a large extent, how we think utterly dependent on sensory input.

Are you telling me that everything manifests exclusively through our senses?

 

[numinus]

I do not think that science explains all or can - which is why I've always seperated faith and science. I am not sure if philosophy and logic are as sound a yardstick for proving the existance of something though. For example I seem to recall (this is a long time ago) when I took a class in logic that logic could be mis-used to "prove" some truely ridiculous things.

Science IS a materialist PHILOSOPHY - merely one of many such schools of thought.

I don't know what 'ridiculous things' logic proves, but I assure you, such conclusions proceed from fallacies or faulty reasoning.

There exist, however, formal paradoxes (skolem, banach-tarski, etc.) that represent the limits of logic, in much the same way that heisenberg's uncertainty represents the limit for which material phenomena can be measured.

In the end, all human inquiries fall prey to godel's first and second incompleteness theorems which go as follows:

"1. For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed. That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.
​

2. For any formal recursively enumerable (i.e. effectively generated) theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent."​

 

[ArmChair General]

(Sigh)

Proof of god's existence cannot come from science because science only investigate material causes.

There is, however, logical/philosophical proof - the cosmological argument and the argument from contingency to name a few.



The scientific method depends on sensory (or something reducible to it) evidence that are quantifiable. To a large extent, how we think utterly dependent on sensory input.

Are you telling me that everything manifests exclusively through our senses?

Metaphysics are nonsense. They can'not be proven. try again.

 

[ArmChair General]

Science IS a materialist PHILOSOPHY - merely one of many such schools of thought.

I don't know what 'ridiculous things' logic proves, but I assure you, such conclusions proceed from fallacies or faulty reasoning.

There exist, however, formal paradoxes (skolem, banach-tarski, etc.) that represent the limits of logic, in much the same way that heisenberg's uncertainty represents the limit for which material phenomena can be measured.

In the end, all human inquiries fall prey to godel's first and second incompleteness theorems which go as follows:

"1. For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed. That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.
​

2. For any formal recursively enumerable (i.e. effectively generated) theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent."​

Do you actually pride yourself in speaking like this? I mean do you do this in real life or just on the internet when trying to make yourself seam intelligent?

You are a prime example of sloppy writing. Which in turn brings sloppy thinking.

Now I am not against hard subjects, which require difficult writing. Kant, for instance whom I greatly respect and have spent much of my life studying is a very difficult philosopher to read. And Aristotle is not always easy. Wittgenstein is hard.

But these thinkers are hard because they're working at the very limits of what they can understand, and they're trying to make it clear. It's an honest attempt. What gets me about so much of the poststructuralist jargon that you and other assholes write is the fundamental dishonesty, the pretentiousness, the idea that you are writing in such a style because you are some deep thinker.

Its as if your point for being here isn't communication at all. Its that we should all fall on our knees and bow down because you are such an elevated person.

You are full of ****.

 

[BigRob]

9sublime

Did you read the post?

My contention is that DNA could not have evolved. It was designed.

You can disprove my statement by citing just one example of a code or language that arose naturalistically, without intelligence. If no such code or language exists it proves that DNA was the result of design.

Can you give me just one example?

That doesn't prove that at all. Perhaps DNA is the example of something that arose naturally, after all there were separate species of humans, perhaps they had differing DNA.

 

[9sublime]

Do you actually pride yourself in speaking like this? I mean do you do this in real life or just on the internet when trying to make yourself seam intelligent?

You are a prime example of sloppy writing. Which in turn brings sloppy thinking.

Now I am not against hard subjects, which require difficult writing. Kant, for instance whom I greatly respect and have spent much of my life studying is a very difficult philosopher to read. And Aristotle is not always easy. Wittgenstein is hard.

But these thinkers are hard because they're working at the very limits of what they can understand, and they're trying to make it clear. It's an honest attempt. What gets me about so much of the poststructuralist jargon that you and other assholes write is the fundamental dishonesty, the pretentiousness, the idea that you are writing in such a style because you are some deep thinker.

Its as if your point for being here isn't communication at all. Its that we should all fall on our knees and bow down because you are such an elevated person.

You are full of ****.

You've just been told, good and proper.

 

[numinus]

Metaphysics are nonsense. They can'not be proven. try again.

Metaphysics is about what we can say to be true with absolute certainty.

How the hell is that nonsense, hmm?

 

[numinus]

Do you actually pride yourself in speaking like this? I mean do you do this in real life or just on the internet when trying to make yourself seam intelligent?

You are a prime example of sloppy writing. Which in turn brings sloppy thinking.

Now I am not against hard subjects, which require difficult writing. Kant, for instance whom I greatly respect and have spent much of my life studying is a very difficult philosopher to read. And Aristotle is not always easy. Wittgenstein is hard.

But these thinkers are hard because they're working at the very limits of what they can understand, and they're trying to make it clear. It's an honest attempt. What gets me about so much of the poststructuralist jargon that you and other assholes write is the fundamental dishonesty, the pretentiousness, the idea that you are writing in such a style because you are some deep thinker.

Its as if your point for being here isn't communication at all. Its that we should all fall on our knees and bow down because you are such an elevated person.

You are full of ****.

Kindly direct your comments to wikipedia. The quoted passage is from there, fyi.

What godel was talking about was SET THEORY AS APPLIED TO THE REAL NUMBER SYSTEM.

That's basic ARITHMETIC, in case the low-brows in the forum are thoroughly befuddled by now.

Poststructuralist jargon, indeed!

 

[numinus]

Metaphysics are nonsense. They can'not be proven. try again.

Metaphysics (singular despite the s) is nonsense, eh?

Kant's seminal work, fyi, is entitled 'the general principles of the METAPHYSICS of morals', which by your own admission, you spent a lifetime studying.

Any reasonable individual would therefore conclude from your statements that you are the sort of person who spends a lifetime dabbling in nonsense.

You are swimming in a pool of your own excrement and you are not even aware of it.