Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Proof that there is no God and no Creation

Its an observation in a book centuries old a little hard to test it :-)


However if I play devil's advocate let examine the observation as described so those versed in the bible chime in with answers.

The first question is was the bush actually burning or is the observer trying to describe something like Bioluminescence.

So did the observer get burned, cook something or make any other observation that would allow us to make the conclusion the bush was actually undergoing combustion?

all life , every form of life was not brought into existence by evolution.

evolution is nothing but adaptation to the environment.

and yes I think that scientist will never create any life.

that would be fine by me , I dont recall reading anywhere about what God was doing before or after he created the earth , and the life on earth.

so sure there are probably hundreds of thousands or even millions of planets with intelligent life on them or was on them or will be on them.

even though we think were the only ones in the universe that just goes to show how primitive we are.

and how stuck up on ourselves we are.

arrogant , thats the word.

Paul, you appear to have misunderstood. I referred to the evolution of the universe as a whole, in which - if you accept science as valid - all events have been determined by the laws of physics.


Thanks for your comment.

rocks dont evolve.

planets dont evolve.

the universe changes as a result of impacts , fuel depletion
gravity , things of that nature.

all the above things can be calculated using physics.
but physics did not cause anything to change.



life is what we were discussing wasnt it?

galaxies , suns , planets , moons , asteroids , meteors , and all non life / non living matter in the universe would not fall into any category that could have started life.

rocks dont have babies.

why beat around the bush , lets just think about it this way.

if life started from non living matter somehow , which is extremely impossible and in the first place you still have used matter in some form.

where did that matter come from.

picture the void empty with nothing in it.
no galaxies no suns no planets nothing at all just a huge
empty space.

how did the very first atom come into existence.

all you need to do is think about it that way.
if there is absolutely nothing physical anywhere

then wouldnt there have to be a creator of that very first atom?



now just suppose somehow that an atom just appeared but was not created , it just willed itself into existence.

which element in the above chart could evolve into all of the other elements in the chart?

after all you are claiming that life evolved from the elements arent you?

that the elements are what created life , am I correct on that?

they just all got together one day and decided to form life.
because the elements are smart like scientist are smart right?

the elements just willed life into existence correct?

you have to have somewhere to start , you cant just start
after creation has happened and then claim that it is impossible.

that would be dumb.

"A Universe from Nothing."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
"Nothing" isn't "nothing." That is, even vacuums are "something."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea
http://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html
Virtual particles pop into and out of existence, but annihilate each other. However, the way they annihilate is non-symmetric.

Galaxies (and planets) formed from gravitation acting on Nebulae that had a slight rotational velocity.
http://origins.stsci.edu/faq/planetary-systems.html

Heavier elements formed in stars and supernovae.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27304046/Where-Do-Chemical-Elements-Come-From

Life came from nonlife. The basic building blocks form naturally.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/abs/nature08013.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44068626/ns/...e/#.T-yRH_UeVC8

Humans have already created artificial DNA
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10132762

If scientists knew absolutely nothing about how the universe came about, where galaxies came from, or how life started, "God did it" is semantically equivalent to "It must be magic!" Neither of these is a scientific explanation. In fact, they are no explanation at all.

"God did it" is vacuous.

Paul, you're clearly having conceptual difficulties, especially with the meaning of evolution when it's not exclusively connected with Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Maybe the following relevant links will help:

Evolution of the Cosmos
http://cmex.ihmc.us/vikingcd/puzzle/Cosmos.htm

Evolution of the Cosmos and Life
http://www.college.ucla.edu/ge/clusters/ge70.html

Even inanimate human made objects like the humble car and computer have evolved it's quite a natural process but religious people have such emotion around the word.

I actually don't know of many things at all that don't have an evolution :-)

I can understand fundemental religious groups having a problem with evolution but again with a more open view of god and creation, evolution doesn't really do anything other than to establish humans evolve like almost everything does. It certainly doesn't prove there isnt a god.

So can I ask paul are you a fundementalist or more liberal?

Would it not be that if you believe in God then anything is possible, as God would have willed it and it is part of the plan?

I would not foresee a difficulty in accepting the existence of bacteria, as the religious people who regard humanity as the finest form of creation would not regard bacteria as 'real' life. After all many religions have no difficulty dividing the human race itself into 2 types at birth. One type then has considerably more rights than the other for life! Only man was made in god's image, not bacteria.

Most of us here do agree that the same 'proof' regarding god's existence is difficult for both sides of the argument to accept, and I feel that the belief in god is actually the truth that emerges.

Belief does not ensure existence. As a child, like nearly everyone else, I believed in Father Christmas. Now I don't, but while I did he was very real to me.

would you mind pointing to the time/spot in the above video
where you think that there is some evidence that the universe
was made from nothing.

just to save some time.



nothing is nothing

there cannot be a vacume from a nothing.
because if there is a vacume then there would have to be something holding that vacume.

there is nothing there to hold a vacume.

we must begin with absolutely nothing physical.

I cant see that , Im not straying away from the topic by talking about computers evolving (LOL) , just tell me how that first atom formed itself into being , that should be simple enough.

until you can show how that first atom willed itself into being then there is nothing that you can say against creation that would have any validity.

"Creation" by supernatural means is not a scientific area. "God did it" is indistinguishable from "It must be magic." Neither is an explanation.

OTOH, if we knew everything about how the first atoms were formed, it still would not disprove the existence of a supernatural creator.

The question is fundamentally unanswerable.

creation is not a scientific area at all.

because science cannot create anything.

science can cause what has already been created to change
so science has always been and will always be dependent on creation.

in fact it could be said that science is a study of creation.

Yes, if you assume that the universe did not arise through natural cause and effect from an eternal uncreated pre-universe. It may or may not have done so. Either way, one may believe in a God. It's rather a question of one's personal concept of God, is it not?

As rede points out science could only be a study of creation if you agree about the origin of the universe in the first place. I do not see why believing in the evolution of life on this planet (and maybe others) has to exclude the belief in god.

Why would it not be possible to think that god is involved with everything in the entire universe? It is certainly possible to think that he/she/it isn't.

no , its not a question of ones personal concept of God.

its pretty clear that nothing cannot create something.

the question would be if you believe that nothing can create something or not.

for instance if you believe that the first electron just
manifested itself and then that electron created the
proton and neutrons needed to make up that first atom
then that first electron would be the creator of the remainder of that atom.

but then could that happen?

can a electron create a proton or a neutron?

to me it makes loads more sense to think that there was a creator that created that first atom.

scientist seem to get their panties in a wad when creation is the subject , they dont believe in creation but they also cannot deliver any type of sensible reasoning behind their dis belief.

were not discussing evolution were discussing creation.

have you ever even read the first few lines of the bible?

KJV
Genesis 1:11 and 12



let the earth bring forth !!!

KJV
Genesis 1:20 and 21


Let the waters bring forth !!!

the way I think about it is that God set up a auto run feature sort of and this autorun feature was deposited into the earth and the waters.

and here is where he did that

KJV
Genesis 1:2



then the dry land recieved the auto run setup as it rose
above the waters.

KJV
Genesis 1:9

Okay, Paul, good luck with your discussion. Stay cool

why is it that when someone who does not think that creation is possible is confronted with such a simple question like how did the first atom come into being they suddenly get quite and leave.

then the next day they are proudly boasting about how much they know about evolution and how creation is not possible.

that falls into the category of know it all know nothing.

ie...although you think you know it all , you actually know nothing.

Im not saying that you know nothing however.

its just that you would seem to know more if you were not given to fantasy or make believe by insisting that creation is not possible.

when there had to be something to begin with in order for evolution to be possible

for a something to undergo evolution there must be a something
that can evolve.

you do agree that there was a point in time where there was nothing physical dont you?




in the above kirlian photo a leaf has had a potion of it cut off , yet the photo shows the outline of the cut off portion of the leaf.

looking at the leaf from a physical viewpoint we would not see
the cut off portion.

and we could not prove that anything would show up in the kirlian photo of the leaf using physics.

although we cant see it , its there , its physical because
its energy.

if it were not there it would not be picked up by the
kirlian photo plate below.


its like the leafs spirit , its there you just cant see it.