Where has science proved that he doesn't exist? Most of you guys are steadfast in your belief in nonbelieving; so what is your scientific reasoning? Quantum physics has proved that we can't know everything. The big bang proved that the universe was created at a certain period in time by, what must have been, an equal force to the explosion.

Where does science disprove God?

P.S. I'm not talking about Christianity. I am talking about God.

Science doesn't say jack shit about God, and it doesn't care whether he exists.

Nonbelieving does not imply denying the existance.

I for one hold no belief either way. I have no rational explanation for either position.

Science cannot prove he doesn't exist. It can show that such a proposition is equally probable to such improbable things as the celestial teapot or the flying spaghetti monster.

Where has science proved that he doesn't exist? Most of you guys are steadfast in your belief in nonbelieving; so what is your scientific reasoning? Quantum physics has proved that we can't know everything. The big bang proved that the universe was created at a certain period in time by, what must have been, an equal force to the explosion.

Where does science disprove God?

P.S. I'm not talking about Christianity. I am talking about God.

Which 'God'?

Which 'God'?

Heh. This is funny. Believing is any one god or a set of gods is essentially strong atheism about other god's or gods. That is unless you believe it's not important who or what you believe, but whether you hold on to your faith.

Didn't Dogma say something about that? :)

Heh. This is funny. Believing is any one god or a set of gods is essentially strong atheism about other god's or gods. That is unless you believe it's not important who or what you believe, but whether you hold on to your faith.

Didn't Dogma say something about that? :)

Keeping the Faith as well. Dogma was a better movie, though.

Faith in general is extremely important. Trust holds society together.

Science can show that god is an idea which arose in humans fairly recently, and that there was no trace of the concept before that.
So it's like suggesting ipods created the universe.
Can you prove ipods didn't create the universe?
Well, you can prove that most of the universe predates them by a good while, that seems good enough to me.

Science doesn't say jack shit about God, and it doesn't care whether he exists.

Should I qoute the thousands of science lemmings, on this board alone, that write that he doesn't exist?

Should I qoute the thousands of science lemmings, on this board alone, that write that he doesn't exist?

Do as you wish, but science is the application of a theory of knowledge. No one speaks for it.

Should I qoute the thousands of science lemmings, on this board alone, that write that he doesn't exist?

Can you show the science used to arrive at these claims? As far as I'm aware, people around use philosophical arguements against a deity. I could be wrong, but I do not think anyone has linked the Big Bang with "God does not exist" and used valid logic (the only things questionable in this case would be the premises). If the logical structure is faulty, it's not science.

Where has science proved that he doesn't exist?
Since when is a non-existant something required to be a "he"?

Why not a she? An "it"? A "thingy"?

How can you buy into a nothing just like those you editorialize about?

Where's the science in your reasoning?

Since when is a non-existant something required to be a "he"?

Why not a she? An "it"? A "thingy"?

How can you buy into a nothing just like those you editorialize about?

Where's the science in your reasoning?

I don't need science in my reasoning. Because faith doesn't require science.

And guys, like you don't put creationists into the category of the ignorant. Such as the the more you know, the more distant you are from the idea of God. That we are nescient.

So prove to me my nescience by annunciating your science.

I don't need science in my reasoning. Because faith doesn't require science.

And guys, like you don't put creationists into the category of the ignorant. Such as the the more you know, the more distant you are from the idea of God. That we are nescient.

So prove to me my nescience by annunciating your science.

You're asking the impossible.

And guys, like you don't put creationists into the category of the ignorant. Such as the the more you know, the more distant you are from the idea of God. That we are nescient.

Evolution is damn near a fact. To say that God or whoever put bears, ants, rabbits, and cute kittens on earth just as they are is ignorant. However, I will not call it ignorant to say that some deity might have purposefully put the ingredients on Earth to create life... it's just ignorant to say evoution never happened.

Evolution is damn near a fact. To say that God or whoever put bears, ants, rabbits, and cute kittens on earth just as they are is ignorant. However, I will not call it ignorant to say that some deity might have purposefully put the ingredients on Earth to create life... it's just ignorant to say evoution never happened.

I'm don't believe God put everything here instaneously; in its perfect, evolved state. The Bible doesn't even claim he did that.

I'm don't believe God put everything here instaneously; in its perfect, evolved state.

Ok then... but I'm pointing out the people that claim he did.

Adam and Eve? Fiction.

Science cannot prove he doesn't exist. It can show that such a proposition is equally probable to such improbable things as the celestial teapot or the flying spaghetti monster.

Hahah. Sounds like you've been reading Dawkins. He uses those exact same examples.

Where has science proved that he doesn't exist? Most of you guys are steadfast in your belief in nonbelieving; so what is your scientific reasoning? Quantum physics has proved that we can't know everything. The big bang proved that the universe was created at a certain period in time by, what must have been, an equal force to the explosion.

Where does science disprove God?

P.S. I'm not talking about Christianity. I am talking about God.

But it's exactly true. Think about it this way. Just because you can't prove something doesn't exist doesn't mean that it does exist. Do you think an alien civilization lives underground on the planet Pluto? No? Why not? You can't prove they're not there. You don't believe because it's an absurd notion. Same with god. Every single way you look at it, God doesn't make sense. Every single angle you look at it, he doesn't make sense. It's incredibly unparsimonious explanation for the universe. If you're a pantheist, that's something different. In that case, god is just a matter of semantics.

Ok then... but I'm pointing out the people that claim he did.

Adam and Eve? Fiction.

The Bible speaks in generalities.

Here's the bottom line. With the acceleration of A.I we will eventually create GOD. Once we're able achieve A.I our future will be limitless and boundless. With the ability to construct anything from the sub-atomic level on up. Once we reach the Technological Singularity we will be GODS.

Here's the bottom line. With the acceleration of A.I we will eventually create GOD. Once we're able achieve A.I our future will be limitless and boundless. With the ability to construct anything from the sub-atomic level on up. Once we reach the Technological Singularity we will be GODS.

Yuck. I would prefer the biblical forecast.

Yuck. I would prefer the biblical forecast.

Mankind is evolving into Cyborgs. With each passing decade, we're becomming more intimate with our technology. Whatever you, where you go, there's allways a machine near, or on you. Much more then 10 years ago, or 10 years before that. And once we master Nano-Tech by 2040 we'll be able to recrate our bodily organs with nanobots, expand the neuro connections in our brains. Eventually we'll be able to duplicate our brains neuron per neuoron on a computer. And basiclly downloads ourselves into cyberspace. Seems unreal doesn't it? I advise you to go to www.kurzweilai.net you'll be amazed to see where our technology is leading us.

I know all about Kurzweil. He's a hack.

Where has science proved that he doesn't exist?

Where has science proved that "he" does?

The strict, scientific stance on the existence of anything beyond the natural is agnostic: We don't know. And we don't because there's no good evidence for it. None.

so what is your scientific reasoning?

One good nugget of scientific reasoning is the KISS rule: Keep it simple, stupid. There is no reason to resort to a supernatural explanation which has no evidence in favor of it when a perfectly natural one always works and, so far, has always been the case.

Furthermore, when there is absolutely no evidence for something, it is scientifically valid for all intents and purposes to simply assume nothing. When there is a lack of evidence saying anything, it is logically more likely that nothing is the correct assumption. The lack of evidence for it, for the time being, is good enough evidence against it, so to speak.

We ignore theories that have no evidence and look for possible theories that do have evidence, because it simply is scientifically invalid to assume something that has no evidence and try to use it.

It's for these reasons, for example, that we assume a suspect of a crime is innocent until we have proven them guilty in a court of law — even though in this example, there is usually some marginally valid evidence that suggests the person may have committed the crime.

Science does not conclusively say there is nothing beyond the natural; rather, it says there is no evidence supporting it, and it's safe to assume there is nothing. Yes, it's entirely possible that a supernatural realm exists, just like it's entirely possible a suspect is guilty. But it just does not hold up when you subject it to scientific scrutiny unless you have some sort of evidence for it.

Quantum physics has proved that we can't know everything.

So?

The big bang proved that the universe was created at a certain period in time by, what must have been, an equal force to the explosion.

No, it "must" not have been an equal force. It certainly could have been, but as far as I understand the Big Bang theory, it doesn't have to be.

Where does science disprove God?

Where does science prove it?

Should I qoute the thousands of science lemmings, on this board alone, that write that he doesn't exist?

Go ahead. I wanna see what they said, not what you say they said.

I don't need science in my reasoning.

That much is obvious.

And guys, like you don't put creationists into the category of the ignorant.

Ignorant of how science works, at best. Mind, ignorance does not imply stupidity, although it certainly is the case that at least some creationists are stupid.

I wonder, what would you say to my claim that unicorns exist? I know there is no evidence for unicorns, but you know, they haven't been able to prove that they don't exist either. Therefore they must exist. Besides, I rather like the idea of unicorns existing better than the idea of them not existing. The world would definitely be a sad place if they didn't exist. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing no magical critters in the forest watch over me and love me. I would go crazy and kill people if they didn't exist, because there would be nothing worth living for. And we can't have that.

Show me scientific proof against the existence of unicorns.

Evolution is damn near a fact.

Not just damn near. There is mountains of evidence indicating that the process of evolution does happen — so much that it is a scientific fact.

Not just damn near. There is mountains of evidence indicating that the process of evolution does happen — so much that it is a scientific fact.

Well I was creating a safety net for myself. :)

I was not sure what it's status is. I KNOW it's fact. It makes complete sense in my head. But as far as proof or evidence goes, I don't know what everyone says. I am not sure how much it takes to consider something "fact" in the science community.

Heh. This is funny. Believing is any one god or a set of gods is essentially strong atheism about other god's or gods.

Yeppers :)


That is unless you believe it's not important who or what you believe, but whether you hold on to your faith.

The best part about that position is it's another way of saying I have unconditional trust in unimportant ideas.


Didn't Dogma say something about that? :)

That movie was funny shit.

One good nugget of scientific reasoning is the KISS rule: Keep it simple, stupid. There is no reason to resort to a supernatural explanation which has no evidence in favor of it when a perfectly natural one always works and, so far, has always been the case.

Furthermore, when there is absolutely no evidence for something, it is scientifically valid for all intents and purposes to simply assume nothing. When there is a lack of evidence saying anything, it is logically more likely that nothing is the correct assumption. The lack of evidence for it, for the time being, is good enough evidence against it, so to speak.

For one thing, I hate when people speak of God as supernatural; just beause he exists outside of all natural laws does not mean that his existence is not in perfect harmony with the universe. I, for one, believe that if we had the utmost scientific knowledge, we could understand him fully.

I wonder, what would you say to my claim that unicorns exist? I know there is no evidence for unicorns, but you know, they haven't been able to prove that they don't exist either. Therefore they must exist. Besides, I rather like the idea of unicorns existing better than the idea of them not existing. The world would definitely be a sad place if they didn't exist. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing no magical critters in the forest watch over me and love me. I would go crazy and kill people if they didn't exist, because there would be nothing worth living for. And we can't have that.

You can believe in unicorns if you want. I'm not going to say anything. Hell, start up a unicorn religion, and see how many athiests will follow versus thrashing it. But first, let's not put God and unicorns in the same boat. Because, believing that something must have been created from something is a bit more logical.

What bothers me is when individuals try to use science, and the lack of knowledge thereof, as a reason to dismantle religion. It can't be done.

Or, even better, the people that say we refuse to concede our archaic convictions. There is nothing archaic about the belief in God. It's something that is innate to every child; a being that ascends imperfection.

For one thing, I hate when people speak of God as supernatural; just beause he exists outside of all natural laws does not mean that his existence is not in perfect harmony with the universe.
Existing outside of all natural laws is pretty much the very definition of supernatural.
Why would you possibly be upset or offended by people saying that God is beyond the laws of nature, if you believe he IS beyond the laws of nature?
I don't get it.

It's something that is innate to every child; a being that ascends imperfection.
1.) What makes you think that beleif in God is innate in children? I don't think it is.
2.) Children generally believe what their parents tell them is true.
3.) I have known MANY children that believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and yes, Unicorns. I don't think you are helping your cause at all.

Hahah. Sounds like you've been reading Dawkins. He uses those exact same examples.
Of course.

I don't need science in my reasoning. Because faith doesn't require science.
Why not?

Which 'God'?

*bump* still waiting Trog.

I know all about Kurzweil. He's a hack.

Ray Kurzweil was the principal developer of the first omni-font optical character recognition, the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind, the first CCD flat-bed scanner, the first text-to-speech synthesizer, the first music synthesizer capable of recreating the grand piano and other orchestral instruments, and the first commercially marketed large vocabulary speech recognition. Ray has successfully founded, developed, and sold four AI businesses in OCR, music synthesis, speech recognition, and reading technology. All of these technologies continue today as market leaders.

Ray Kurzweil received the $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize, the world's largest award in invention and innovation. He also received the 1999 National Medal of Technology, the nation's highest honor in technology, from President Clinton in a White House ceremony. He has also received scores of other national and international awards, including the 1994 Dickson Prize (Carnegie Mellon University's top science prize), Engineer of the Year from Design News, Inventor of the Year from MIT, and the Grace Murray Hopper Award from the Association for Computing Machinery. He has received ten honorary Doctorates and honors from three U.S. presidents. He has received seven national and international film awards.


http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/kurzweil.html


The only Hack here is you. Hacks don't have a resume like this. How does yours compare?

Ray Kurzweil was ...

And none of that means he is correct about his predictions regarding AI and "The Singularity".

Should I qoute the thousands of science lemmings, on this board alone, that write that he doesn't exist?

Very few of them are actual scientists.

Ray Kurzweil was...

And Isaac Newton thought you could turn lead into gold.
Does that make it so?

Here's the bottom line. With the acceleration of A.I we will eventually create GOD. Once we're able achieve A.I our future will be limitless and boundless. With the ability to construct anything from the sub-atomic level on up. Once we reach the Technological Singularity we will be GODS.

Have you read "The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect"? It's very interesting and related to our lives after the Singularity/discovering AI.

And Isaac Newton thought you could turn lead into gold.
Does that make it so?

Here's the point. He's the leading researcher in AI. His track record speaks for itself. So if I'm going to hedge my bet, it's going to be on Ray's Predictions.

Have you read "The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect"? It's very interesting and related to our lives after the Singularity/discovering AI.

Sweet, thanks for the reccomendation! I'll definately check it out.

Here's the point. He's the leading researcher in AI. His track record speaks for itself. So if I'm going to hedge my bet, it's going to be on Ray's Predictions.

And Newton was the leading physicist.
Would you trust his predictions?

And Isaac Newton thought you could turn lead into gold.
Does that make it so?

Here's the difference. Ray bases his predictions on conservative mathematical models based on the current rate of technological process. He doesn't pull anything out of his ass like Sir Isaac Newton.

Here's the difference. Ray bases his predictions on conservative mathematical models based on the current rate of technological process. He doesn't pull anything out of his ass like Sir Isaac Newton.

Because we can learn so much about the future by looking in a rearview mirror.

And for teh record, log growth is hardly conservative.

He doesn't offer an objective quantification for technological progress. That alone should destroy his theory. But even more, he doesn't address the socioeconomic issues surrounding the idea of technological singularity.

Besides, the whole idea is built on a gross misconstruction of Moore's Law, which, contrary to the popular belief that it states a rate of processor speed increase, actually only speaks of transistor density of processors and so obviously has an upper limit (because atoms exist).

He's very plainly wrong. I don't care how many digital pianos and OCRs he's sold.

And Isaac Newton thought you could turn lead into gold.
Does that make it so?

Maybe not, but it is so (http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.htm).

Transmutation of lead into gold isn't just theoretically possible - it has been achieved! There are reports that Glenn Seaborg, 1951 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, succeeded in transmuting a minute quantity of lead (possibly en route from bismuth, in 1980) into gold. There is an earlier report (1972) in which Soviet physicists at a nuclear research facility near Lake Baikal in Siberia accidentally discovered a reaction for turning lead into gold when they found the lead shielding of an experimental reactor had changed to gold.

Maybe not, but it is so (http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.htm).

Transmutation of lead into gold isn't just theoretically possible - it has been achieved! There are reports that Glenn Seaborg, 1951 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, succeeded in transmuting a minute quantity of lead (possibly en route from bismuth, in 1980) into gold. There is an earlier report (1972) in which Soviet physicists at a nuclear research facility near Lake Baikal in Siberia accidentally discovered a reaction for turning lead into gold when they found the lead shielding of an experimental reactor had changed to gold.

I'm aware of the ability to turn one element into other by atomics. That hardly counts as the alchemy Newton espoused.

Sure it is, they just didn't discover atomic alchemy yet.

He doesn't offer an objective quantification for technological progress. That alone should destroy his theory. But even more, he doesn't address the socioeconomic issues surrounding the idea of technological singularity.

Besides, the whole idea is built on a gross misconstruction of Moore's Law, which, contrary to the popular belief that it states a rate of processor speed increase, actually only speaks of transistor density of processors and so obviously has an upper limit (because atoms exist).

He's very plainly wrong. I don't care how many digital pianos and OCRs he's sold.

Exactly. Upper limits exist. That's the problem with suggesting that exponential growth will continue for very long into the future.

IBM grew exponentially from 1968 to 1978. In 1978, if we based predictions on conservative mathematical models based on the current rate of IBM's growth, we would have concluded that by 2003 half the US GDP would be IBM products, and in 2008, everything in the produced in the US would be by IBM.

Because we can learn so much about the future by looking in a rearview mirror.

And for teh record, log growth is hardly conservative.

Yep, it's called Moores Law ever heard of it? Or is that impractical also?

Did you miss this at the top of the page?

Besides, the whole idea is built on a gross misconstruction of Moore's Law, which, contrary to the popular belief that it states a rate of processor speed increase, actually only speaks of transistor density of processors and so obviously has an upper limit (because atoms exist).

Sure it is, they just didn't discover atomic alchemy yet.

No.
Newton was an occultist. Unfortunately, he lost most of his works pursuing non-scientific endeavors in a lab fire.

That, and the Royal Academy became rather ashamed that the figurehead of rationality and a scientific and mechanistic worldview was into shit like that.

"Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians." -- John Maynard Keynes, 1942, after purchasing Newton's alchemical works.

He doesn't offer an objective quantification for technological progress. That alone should destroy his theory. But even more, he doesn't address the socioeconomic issues surrounding the idea of technological singularity.

Besides, the whole idea is built on a gross misconstruction of Moore's Law, which, contrary to the popular belief that it states a rate of processor speed increase, actually only speaks of transistor density of processors and so obviously has an upper limit (because atoms exist).

He's very plainly wrong. I don't care how many digital pianos and OCRs he's sold.

Exactly. Upper limits exist. That's the problem with suggesting that exponential growth will continue for very long into the future.

IBM grew exponentially from 1968 to 1978. In 1978, if we based predictions on conservative mathematical models based on the current rate of IBM's growth, we would have concluded that by 2003 half the US GDP would be IBM products, and in 2008, everything in the produced in the US would be by IBM.

Yep, it's called Moores Law ever heard of it? Or is that impractical also?

...

Troglodyte
For one thing, I hate when people speak of God as supernatural; just beause he exists outside of all natural laws does not mean that his existence is not in perfect harmony with the universe. I, for one, believe that if we had the utmost scientific knowledge, we could understand him fully.

Considering the human mind, I doubt that's ever going to happen too. Even if we can see he or she right in front of us, the truth is stranger than fiction.

Exactly. Upper limits exist. That's the problem with suggesting that exponential growth will continue for very long into the future.

IBM grew exponentially from 1968 to 1978. In 1978, if we based predictions on conservative mathematical models based on the current rate of IBM's growth, we would have concluded that by 2003 half the US GDP would be IBM products, and in 2008, everything in the produced in the US would be by IBM.

There's been multiple Paradigm shifts. Before Transistors Vaccum Tubes were used. Scientists back in the Vaccum Tube Era said the same thing about the exponential growth of information technology. That it would be capped because Vaccum tubes can only handle so much. Trust me, Transistors aren't the end game!

There's been multiple Paradigm shifts. Before Transistors Vaccum Tubes were used. Scientists back in the Vaccum Tube Era said the same thing about the exponential growth of information technology. That it would be capped because Vaccum tubes can only handle so much. Trust me, Transistors aren't the end game!

Yes they are. Functionally, vacuum tubes and transistors do the same thing.

Current nanotechnology is capable of producing a "transistor" of exactly one atom.

That is as small as you could possibly make it. You can ignore all common sense and make the wildest proclamations your imagination will conjure, but the laws of physics will always impose themselves on your endeavors.

Oh common transistors can always develop further, everyday there are newer better conductors in fields from computer to electric lamps

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all transistors and vaccum tubes do are regulate the flow of electricity, right? If there's electricity flowing through it, it's a 1, and if there's no electricity flowing through it, it's a 0. 1010101010000111111111. right?

And the smallest unit of electricity is what, an electron? Hydrogen ion?
Assuming nothing melts when we get that much heat in one place with all those small parts, you still hit a limit. One electron. Or whatever the smallest unit of electricity is.

What "God"? In order to apply the scientific method, there needs to be something objective to study. Gods are imaginary, mythological beings.

Science doesn't say jack shit about God, and it doesn't care whether he exists.

yepppp

Well I was creating a safety net for myself. :)

Ah. Understandable.

I was not sure what it's status is. I KNOW it's fact. It makes complete sense in my head. But as far as proof or evidence goes, I don't know what everyone says. I am not sure how much it takes to consider something "fact" in the science community.

A scientific fact is something for which there is so much evidence that to deny it given the current evidence is just plain stupid. That the Earth is round is such a fact. That we need to breathe oxygen to survive is another. And that allele frequencies in a gene pool shift from generation to generation — the very definition of evolution — is yet another.

If you want to get technical about it, you can make a case that a scientific fact cannot be shown to be one-hundred-percent true, that nothing we know can be shown to be one-hundred-percent true. But then you're just getting into philosophy. For all intents and purposes, we can safely assume that everything that has enough evidence for it is one-hundred-percent fact for as long as we don't find any evidence to the contrary.

For one thing, I hate when people speak of God as supernatural; just beause he exists outside of all natural laws does not mean that his existence is not in perfect harmony with the universe.

So what is it? Subnatural?

Allow me to show you the definition of 'supernatural':

su·per·nat·u·ral (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=supernatural) adj.

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

I don't see anything in there about being in harmony with the universe. Therefore it is irrelevant to the definition.

This being you claim exists, like you said yourself, exists outside the natural world. This being is a power that goes beyond natural forces. This being is a deity.

This being you claim exists is supernatural.

You can believe in unicorns if you want. I'm not going to say anything. Hell, start up a unicorn religion, and see how many athiests will follow versus thrashing it.

Not very many, I should think. This is because atheists tend to ask for evidence first. ;)

But first, let's not put God and unicorns in the same boat. Because, believing that something must have been created from something is a bit more logical.

No it's not. Because you don't have evidence for it. Just like you don't have evidence that unicorns don't hang out in the woods, watching over me as I sleep.

What bothers me is when individuals try to use science, and the lack of knowledge thereof, as a reason to dismantle religion. It can't be done.

It can if you try to pass off your religion as scientific fact.

Or, even better, the people that say we refuse to concede our archaic convictions. There is nothing archaic about the belief in God. It's something that is innate to every child; a being that ascends imperfection.

It was not innate to me. Am I the devil's spawn, or just the devil himself? Should I be stoned?

these responces kinda make my head hurt

these responces kinda make my head hurt

Dear, you shouldn't be thinking at your age. It could cause you injury. Just stop doing it and go back to listening to Panic! at the Disco until you're at least 17, mkay?