Science a GoGo's Home Page
"Proof that there is no God and there was no Creation"

What would be needed to make that statement true ?

From a Bible perspective:
"God" first appears in Genesis 1:1.
It is this God to which I refer.

It is said that this God 'created' the earth and all the animals in seven days, as documented in Genesis Chapter One - commonly called the 'Creation Theory'.

Thus from a religious circular thinking perspective, the first chapter of the first book of the Bible confirms that 'God created the earth in 7 days'.

Atheists on the other hand reject this.

So let us make an equal playing field upon which to make a final conclusion.

Let us apply the scientific method of evaluation to this, and call the 'Creation Theory' a scientific theory.

In doing so, Religious people now HAVE to produce the evidence to prove their claim.

IF no evidence is tended, it will be relegated back to being just a hypothesis - a guess of wishful thinking (which they call Faith).

IF evidence is presented that the 'God' in Genesis 1:1 refers to something real and not divine, and the 'creation' account can be shown to be about something else real and not divinely produced, then this would prove 'The Creation Theory' FALSE.

Possible Result and conclusion:
1.) Evidence produced - There is a God and the Creation did occur.
or
2.) Contrary evidence produced - There is (was) no GOD, and there was no CREATION of the earth in 7 days (as perceived by religious people from their interpretation of the Bible).

What do think of this challenge to produce actual evidence ?
Posted By: paul Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/25/12 02:41 PM
Quote:
"Proof that there is no God and there was no Creation"

What would be needed to make that statement true ?


my guess would be a bunch of know it all , know nothing idiot's?

but it would only be true in the sense that the bunch of
know it all , know nothing idiots thought it was true.

so it would only be true to the idiot's.
Posted By: paul Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/25/12 02:48 PM
have you ever heard of the fly that is born , grows up , has children and then dies 30 minutes after it began life.

http://victoryv.hubpages.com/hub/top-10-Short-life-Small-lifespan-animalsinsectsplants

Quote:
These are aquatic insects.The lifespan of an adult mayfly can vary from just 30 minutes to one day depending on the species.The primary function of the adult mayfly is reproduction.About 2500 species of mayfly are known worldwide.


we cant leave out time.

to that fly everything he did in his entire life took 30 of our minutes.

I would imagine that compared to God our lifespan is like that fly's lifespan is to us.

so 1 day for God could be thousands or millions of our years.

there are a lot of people who dont think that creation is true.

I will start thinking that rocks gave birth to plants and animal's and humans just as soon as I see a rock give birth to any biological lifeform.

I think it is more intelligent to believe in creation than to not believe in creation.

oh wait it seems that everyone is now creating life in labratories all over the world , its simple.

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&...280&bih=616

you just have to have a little created life to begin with.






Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly
"Proof that there is no God and there was no Creation"

What would be needed to make that statement true ?

Nothing. Truth is relative when it comes to belief and statements made from belief. As long as one has no experience of God or God as the creator, God does not exist and there was no creation.
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly

From a Bible perspective:
"God" first appears in Genesis 1:1.
It is this God to which I refer.

This God to which you refer, would have to be something in order to refer to it. Otherwise you are referring to an imagined straw man of which you have no experience, and would wish to have someone define for you an example to which you could measure your own imagined God.
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly

It is said that this God 'created' the earth and all the animals in seven days, as documented in Genesis Chapter One - commonly called the 'Creation Theory'.

If it is documented it is not theory but documentation of events. You might be assuming it is theory based on an analysis or argument against your own ideas of understanding of the universe and its manifestation, and continuing existence.
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly

Thus from a religious circular thinking perspective, the first chapter of the first book of the Bible confirms that 'God created the earth in 7 days'.

Atheists on the other hand reject this.
Anyone who is against circular thinking or reasoning will reject this idea as documented fact whether religious or not.
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly

So let us make an equal playing field upon which to make a final conclusion.
Something to reject based on circular reasoning?
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly

Let us apply the scientific method of evaluation to this, and call the 'Creation Theory' a scientific theory.

In doing so, Religious people now HAVE to produce the evidence to prove their claim.

How does science prove a theory is more than theory? Will we produce evidence to support theory or reality?
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly

IF no evidence is tended, it will be relegated back to being just a hypothesis - a guess of wishful thinking (which they call Faith).

That would be one conclusion. Science does not necessarily tend to believe that without proof there is no reality, but rather an absence of evidence based on parameters of ideals and boundaries of knowledge and experience... Unless science has become a religion and searches for evidence of theory on faith.(Something I believe is not so far from truth)
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly

IF evidence is presented that the 'God' in Genesis 1:1 refers to something real and not divine, and the 'creation' account can be shown to be about something else real and not divinely produced, then this would prove 'The Creation Theory' FALSE.

Definitions of God would have to be established as well as understanding of God and what divine means in relationship to God as stated in the Bible. So far we are measuring religious and scientific terms. Neither may be within the realm of the original terms of which were presented at the time of those who spoke of God or divinity as they are documented.
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly

Possible Result and conclusion:
1.) Evidence produced - There is a God and the Creation did occur.
or
2.) Contrary evidence produced - There is (was) no GOD, and there was no CREATION of the earth in 7 days (as perceived by religious people from their interpretation of the Bible).

What do think of this challenge to produce actual evidence ?

It'd be like children discussing surgery after watching a documentary on the history of medicine.
Posted By: Ellis Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/26/12 03:27 AM
Eddy- You believe in god. Therefore you believe god exists. God only exists because you believe in the existence of the divine the spiritual, the afterlife--- Faith underpins your belief in every aspect of your life.

You can have no proof of the existence of god however, just your blinding certainty of his/her/its existence, which is fine as far as it goes. The problems occur when you, or others like you, expect the rest of us to live in obedience to your specific religious rules. We find that annoying!
Posted By: Orac Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/26/12 12:19 PM
I believe in science, I only recently was allowed to even consider a god because it is banned (well strongly frowned on officially) in my birth homeland.

There is however a problem at science if there really is a god he can do things that are outside science and any scientific methodology so hence it becomes a rather stupid argument.

In effect you can neither prove nor disprove god using science because a god is not bound to science laws, methods and experiments.

Thus you argument dies right there to scientific logic itself.
Posted By: paul Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/26/12 10:53 PM
Quote:
you, expect the rest of us to live in obedience to your specific religious rules.


I dont expect athiest to begin to think reasonably myself , that would be like expecting a completely isolated and sterile test tube to suddenly spring forth life from the glass that the test tube is made of.

voila !!! we did it , we created life !!! in a test tube !!!
now lets see vat de creationist have to say about dis !!!

scientist seem to want to create life so bad themselves that its eating away at science.

yet they hold that life could not have been created.


how dumb is that?
Posted By: Orac Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/27/12 03:21 AM
Actually Craig Venter in 2010 created the first synthetic bacteria went very close to doing what you describe Paul.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life)

Many news media described it as creating life from scratch

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...e-humanity.html)

However that is not technically true and as per Craig Venters own words

Originally Posted By: Crag Venter

The Craig Venter Institute maintains the term "synthetic bacterial cell" but they also clarify "...we do not consider this to be “creating life from scratch” but rather we are creating new life out of already existing life using synthetic DNA"



So even if they manage to take the next steps and manage to synthesize life from chemicals in a test tube it still doesn't answer the god question.

The question remains why is creating life possible at all because there has to be some reason for the rules that govern life and the universe and science can not exclude god from that answer.

Science does not hold that life could not have been created what it says if is if it was created by a god then it is outside science rules and therefore not science because you will never be able to prove or disprove it with science.

Science and Religion are not at war or even odds both essentially say the same thing. Religion says you will never recieve proof of god it is a matter of faith because god is not bound by our earthly laws. Science says if there is a god then there is no way to test it because a god would not obey science laws.

Religion comes down to a matter of faith and science is a matter of what is testable and the two concepts have no intersection.
Originally Posted By: paul
yet they hold that life could not have been created.


how dumb is that?

Athiest scientists, and perhaps those scientists who have a particular concept of God quite unlike the Biblical kind, seem to hold the view that life must have originated as a result of (i.e created by) the laws of nature/physics. That doesn't strike me as dumb.
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
How does science prove a theory is more than theory? Will we produce evidence to support theory or reality?
You missed out a very important part of proving a scientific theory:
If evidence is produced that directly contradicts the theory - then the theory is immediately shown to be false.
Posted By: paul Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/27/12 04:31 AM
Quote:
creating new life out of already existing life


like I said , its easy to do you just need some created life to begin with.
Posted By: paul Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/27/12 04:34 AM
Quote:
(i.e created by) the laws of nature/physics.


that in itself is dumb.

scientist will never ( create ) anything.

without using something that was created.

you cannot make a something from a nothing.

and that makes more sense to me , than to think that a something
can be made from a nothing.

point to a anything that a scientist has ever made from a nothing!

I know it must be mind boggling to strive to create something but you know that is why God is also called the Creator.

since that is his name then that means that he is the only one who can create.

Originally Posted By: Ellis
Eddy- You believe in god

Do I believe in gravity ? No - because it is a fact (independent of my beliefs or understandings).
Do I believe in ‘God’ ? No - because no evidence has been presented in over 3,000 years to substantiate the claim by religious groups that the account in the Old Testament at Genesis Chapter One is about a divine being as religiously taught.

Would I believe in ‘God’ and the ‘Creation’ if the proper evidence was presented ?
I could reply No or I could say Yes - but if the evidence shows it is a fact, then it is a fact (independent of my beliefs, understandings or bias).

BUT IF evidence was produced that showed what the religious groups cite as their evidence (ie. the words in the Bible) was NOT describing a ‘God’ nor ‘Creation’, then the facts would produce the conclusion that ‘they have been mislead for over 3,000 years’. (I find the word ‘wrong’ such a harsh word).
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
This God to which you refer, would have to be something in order to refer to it. Otherwise you are referring to an imagined straw man
To religious people, that ‘straw man’ is the one also cited in Exodus Chapter 3 where is it reported that ‘Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed’ and later Moses reports hearing a voice and being told the name of the Lord as “I AM”.

IF those words were to be shown that they were not referring to a ‘God’ nor a miraculous event, then the issue of “Is there a God” would be resolved as NO.
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Definitions of God would have to be established

Religions have established a definition. Their GOD is the one noted in Genesis 1:1 as “God”.
So let us use that word “God” too, as to what their God refers as part of this investigation.
This “God” is also associated with the other descriptions in Genesis Chapter One, so let us use those words too as part of the investigation.

Summary of terms to investigate:
1.) The religious “God” = the Hebrew word ‘God’ (Strong’s number 430) in Genesis 1:1.

2.) Here are extracted relevant keyword descriptions from Genesis Chapter One.
.2 "And the earth was {without form, and void; and darkness} was upon the face of {the deep}. And {the Spirit of God} moved upon the face {of the waters}"
.3 "and there was {light}"
.7 "made the {firmament}, and {divided the waters} which were under the firmament"
.8 "called the firmament {Heaven}"
.9-10 "let the {dry land appear}: and it was called Earth"
.24-27 "{fowls, beasts, cattle, man, creeping things, and woman}" put on the Earth (ie. dry land).

Hebrew word # 430 is the plural of H-word # 433 which meant ‘deity’: thus "God" is actually a plural word meaning 'gods in the ordinary sense' (ie. deities).
In the ‘religious sense’ it is perceived to be ‘The God’ - but we are looking at the original Hebrew meanings of the words and context and not what a later religious person deemed that word to mean.
btw. “Heaven” meant ‘sky’ and “earth” meant ‘dry land’.

Moses, who was an Egyptian priest, is attributed to writing this account. His first belief system was of ‘plural deities’ (ie. gods) such as the Ennhead of gods of Heliopolis.
So CONTEXT and original word MEANING show that the “God” in Genesis 1:1 was in fact about ‘deities’ {plural}.

Next is the Syntax of the original Hebrew sentence.
It read as “The beginning: created ‘God, heaven and earth’” and NOT ‘in the beginning God created the heaven and earth’. There is a big difference.
The English translation and rearranging of the verb has changed the objects to which it referred.
So originally Moses was reporting that ‘In the beginning: three things (deities, sky, dry land) were created’

You can now immediately see that there was originally no single ‘God’, and ‘he’ did not create the sky and land, but was part of the sequence of things ‘created’ in the beginning.
The rest of Genesis Chapter One (as highlighted by the {brackets} earlier) relates other things in the sequence that were also ‘created’ after the first three things.

Do any of you grasp what you are being told and have just read ?
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
This God to which you refer, would have to be something in order to refer to it. Otherwise you are referring to an imagined straw man
To religious people, that ‘straw man’ is the one also cited in Exodus Chapter 3 where is it reported that ‘Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed’ and later Moses reports hearing a voice and being told the name of the Lord as “I AM”.

IF those words were to be shown that they were not referring to a ‘God’ nor a miraculous event, then the issue of “Is there a God” would be resolved as NO.
The something is still not defined. Your reference to Exodus is an event, not the reality of God but an experience one had with God.
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Definitions of God would have to be established

Religions have established a definition. Their GOD is the one noted in Genesis 1:1 as “God”.
So let us use that word “God” too, as to what their God refers as part of this investigation.
This “God” is also associated with the other descriptions in Genesis Chapter One, so let us use those words too as part of the investigation.

Summary of terms to investigate:
1.) The religious “God” = the Hebrew word ‘God’ (Strong’s number 430) in Genesis 1:1.

2.) Here are extracted relevant keyword descriptions from Genesis Chapter One.
.2 "And the earth was {without form, and void; and darkness} was upon the face of {the deep}. And {the Spirit of God} moved upon the face {of the waters}"
.3 "and there was {light}"
.7 "made the {firmament}, and {divided the waters} which were under the firmament"
.8 "called the firmament {Heaven}"
.9-10 "let the {dry land appear}: and it was called Earth"
.24-27 "{fowls, beasts, cattle, man, creeping things, and woman}" put on the Earth (ie. dry land).

Hebrew word # 430 is the plural of H-word # 433 which meant ‘deity’: thus "God" is actually a plural word meaning 'gods in the ordinary sense' (ie. deities).
In the ‘religious sense’ it is perceived to be ‘The God’ - but we are looking at the original Hebrew meanings of the words and context and not what a later religious person deemed that word to mean.
btw. “Heaven” meant ‘sky’ and “earth” meant ‘dry land’.

Moses, who was an Egyptian priest, is attributed to writing this account. His first belief system was of ‘plural deities’ (ie. gods) such as the Ennhead of gods of Heliopolis.
So CONTEXT and original word MEANING show that the “God” in Genesis 1:1 was in fact about ‘deities’ {plural}.

Next is the Syntax of the original Hebrew sentence.
It read as “The beginning: created ‘God, heaven and earth’” and NOT ‘in the beginning God created the heaven and earth’. There is a big difference.
The English translation and rearranging of the verb has changed the objects to which it referred.
So originally Moses was reporting that ‘In the beginning: three things (deities, sky, dry land) were created’

You can now immediately see that there was originally no single ‘God’, and ‘he’ did not create the sky and land, but was part of the sequence of things ‘created’ in the beginning.
The rest of Genesis Chapter One (as highlighted by the {brackets} earlier) relates other things in the sequence that were also ‘created’ after the first three things.

Do any of you grasp what you are being told and have just read ?
Of course. However defining the ineffable is always an egoic venture. Religion may decide to define God and for arguments sake those who want to argue religion or belief will have to define God in order to make an argument for or against, but the truth of the matter is that scripture does not in and of itself define but rather point toward the reality of God and some qualities that can be defined or experienced.
Man chooses to take experience and qualities of experiences and apply them to define personal qualities in the beliefs of what God is.
If you investigate Vedic Scripture and the science of God that exists in both Western and Eastern philosophies, you will find that there is much more to God than any definition created thru religious decree. Man who establishes reality within the boundaries of the physical universe and ignores the understanding and experience of the spiritual nature of God as ones own nature will attempt to define that which exceeds determinate measure.
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Originally Posted By: paul
yet they hold that life could not have been created.

how dumb is that?

Athiest scientists, and perhaps those scientists who have a particular concept of God quite unlike the Biblical kind, seem to hold the view that life must have originated as a result of (i.e created by) the laws of nature/physics. That doesn't strike me as dumb.

_____

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
(i.e created by) the laws of nature/physics.

that in itself is dumb.

Is it? Perhaps you can name something that you believe wasn't brought into existence by the evolution of the universe in accordance with those laws of nature.

Originally Posted By: paul
scientist will never ( create ) anything.

without using something that was created.

you cannot make a something from a nothing.

and that makes more sense to me , than to think that a something
can be made from a nothing.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so scientists say. They would therefore agree that creation within our existing universe is no more nor less than the rearrangement of energy into different forms. It's true that humans have not yet created life by that means. May I take it that you believe they never will?
Posted By: Ellis Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/28/12 12:54 AM
A more interesting question to me is, what was the "burning bush'? Is there any rational real world evidence for this curiosity? It's an oddity I have to admit. Any suggestions?
Originally Posted By: Eddy Pengelly
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
How does science prove a theory is more than theory? Will we produce evidence to support theory or reality?
You missed out a very important part of proving a scientific theory:
If evidence is produced that directly contradicts the theory - then the theory is immediately shown to be false.
Theory is theory whether accepted as true or false
Posted By: Orac Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/28/12 03:03 AM
What I find fascinating is Red and I are in the middle ground and I suspect we are the most scientific ones commenting but apology in advance to anyone if I missed your background.

If you asked us whether the literal translation of the story of creation as contained in the bible was accurate, I would answer no it's not possible. However as many have commented above the concept of god in the bible is described in rather all seeing all knowing entity terms. That makes proof or disproving impossible for science.

Probably an interesting question to throw out there is if life is found on say another planet and it may not be intelligent, it may just be bacteria how does that affect your view of god.

Science would say the above is highly likely because we have found water and all the building blocks of life in huge quantities in space and infact there may be bactera buried in the soil of mars.

My guess would be the more progressive religious will see this is just an extension of god doing work at a universe level but the fundementalists will get thrown a loop because life is only supposed to exist on earth.
Posted By: Orac Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/28/12 03:17 AM
Originally Posted By: Ellis
A more interesting question to me is, what was the "burning bush'? Is there any rational real world evidence for this curiosity? It's an oddity I have to admit. Any suggestions?


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?
Posted By: paul Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/28/12 05:57 AM
Quote:
wasn't brought into existence by the evolution


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.

Posted By: paul Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/28/12 06:08 AM
Quote:
if life is found on say another planet


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.
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Perhaps you can name something that you believe wasn't brought into existence by the evolution of the universe in accordance with those laws of nature.

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
wasn't brought into existence by the evolution

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

evolution is nothing but adaptation to the environment.


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.

Originally Posted By: paul
and yes I think that scientist will never create any life.

Thanks for your comment.
Posted By: paul Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/28/12 04:14 PM
Quote:
evolution of the universe


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.

Quote:
Paul, you appear to have misunderstood.


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
Posted By: Orac Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/28/12 06:58 PM
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?
Posted By: Ellis Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/29/12 01:51 AM
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.
Posted By: paul Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/29/12 02:27 PM
Quote:
"A Universe from Nothing."


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.

Quote:
"Nothing" isn't "nothing." That is, even vacuums are "something."


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.



Posted By: paul Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/29/12 02:46 PM
Quote:
Paul, you're clearly having conceptual difficulties


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.
Posted By: paul Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/29/12 07:30 PM
Quote:
"Creation" by supernatural means is not a scientific area.


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.









Originally Posted By: paul
...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?
Posted By: Ellis Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/30/12 12:44 AM
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.
Posted By: paul Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/30/12 04:04 AM
Quote:
It's rather a question of one's personal concept of God, is it not?


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.










Posted By: paul Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/30/12 04:20 AM
Quote:
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.


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

Quote:
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


let the earth bring forth !!!

KJV
Genesis 1:20 and 21
Quote:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


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

Quote:
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


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

KJV
Genesis 1:9
Quote:
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.




Okay, Paul, good luck with your discussion. Stay cool smile
Posted By: paul Re: Proof that there is no God and no Creation - 06/30/12 02:49 PM
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.

© Science a GoGo's Discussion Forums