• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 10 votes

God Is Theoretically Possible


  • Please log in to reply
774 replies to this topic

#361 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 06 December 2011 - 06:57 PM

When it comes to whether or not God is possible proof caries more of an “evidences,” flavor. Proof or evidence of concept is the idea. http://en.wikipedia....roof_of_concept Someone can disagree with anything and if this is part of the definition of proof than there is no proof. Someone always will.

My point exactly - God is not required to explain ANY phenomena including the biosphere, origin of universe, origin of religious experiences (including ordinary people and religious figures like Moses/Jesus/Paul/Mohammed/Christian mystics). Why is it possible to trigger religious experiences with drugs, fasting, sensory deprivation, meditation and prayer?


Not your point. I gave you the definition of “proof” and it is not this. Read it again. Why is there something rather than nothing? This question remains for any phenomena you have mentioned. The answer will be philosophical and based on faith. You won’t even give any reasons for atheism. Your definition of “Proof,” is faulty. Absolute proof of anything is impossible. There is an element of faith in everything.

#362 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 06 December 2011 - 07:07 PM

Do you reject evolution shadowhawk? Please tell me you don't....


What do you mean by Evolution? 1. Anything that changes evolves. 2. The cosmos changes. 3. The cosmos evolves. I know you reject philosophy but :)

Evolution in biology. Start from Wikipedia definition if you need one.


Hmmm I looked around and never saw "Evolution is biology." Are you sure? What part of 1. Anything that changes evolves. 2. The cosmos Changes. 3. The cosmos evolves, is incorrect?

I did need Wikipedia to find your deff. "Evolution is Biology," but it wasn't there. :|? Again, evolution has many meanings and many different competing advocates and views. What are you talking about? "Evolution is biology," isn't it.

Evolution in biology. Look it up, it's not hard to find, not even for cretinists:

https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Evolution


Again I ask why I am wrong and what you are talking about. There are hundreds of views of evolution "in" Biology. For a minute there I thought.... Don't you know that? Name calling...typical Atheist responses. :)

Edited by shadowhawk, 06 December 2011 - 09:21 PM.


#363 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 06 December 2011 - 10:04 PM

Rather than make real arguments platypus, perhaps you should just post inane 45 minute long videos and external links over and over instead.


Oh the believer in The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Good to see you again.

Sorry in dealing with some of lifes deepest questions 45 minutes is to much for you. It is hard when talking to a mixed group, not to be over some peoples heads. My suggestion is if the subject discussion gets to much, try to find something simpler. If external links are to much...I don’t know what to tell you. If you are serious about finding the truth, perhaps you should loose your fear of looking at competing sides and ideas. By the way, point out a real argument which was ignored.

#364 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 06 December 2011 - 11:25 PM

Again I ask why I am wrong and what you are talking about. There are hundreds of views of evolution "in" Biology. For a minute there I thought.... Don't you know that? Name calling...typical Atheist responses. :)

These are the 1st sentences from Wikipedia, does your religion prevent you from agreeing with it or not?:

Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]



#365 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 06 December 2011 - 11:30 PM

Sorry in dealing with some of lifes deepest questions 45 minutes is to much for you. It is hard when talking to a mixed group, not to be over some peoples heads. My suggestion is if the subject discussion gets to much, try to find something simpler. If external links are to much...I don’t know what to tell you.

It seems you cannot form arguments yourself as you frequently point to (inane) 45 minute videos. You need to stop that.

If you are serious about finding the truth, perhaps you should loose your fear of looking at competing sides and ideas. By the way, point out a real argument which was ignored.

Well, for example the religious experience and why it can be triggered by tweaking the brain with for example fasting, drugs or an epileptic fit? Or why Jahve/Jehova/Whatever does not tell Jews that Jesus was the messiah (or christians and mormons that he wasn't). You just try to brush difficult stuff away and not acknowledge valid points.

#366 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 06 December 2011 - 11:35 PM



#367 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 06 December 2011 - 11:54 PM

Again I ask why I am wrong and what you are talking about. There are hundreds of views of evolution "in" Biology. For a minute there I thought.... Don't you know that? Name calling...typical Atheist responses. :)

These are the 1st sentences from Wikipedia, does your religion prevent you from agreeing with it or not?:

Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]


Again you have not answered my questions. I agree wirh Dr Johnson from UC Berkley and my favorite debate is in the last post. Don't think I am going to be the only one answering issues. By the way, belief in evolution does not keep one from being a theist or Christian. From your definition I assume you are Lamarckian?

Edited by shadowhawk, 07 December 2011 - 12:01 AM.


#368 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 07 December 2011 - 12:06 AM

EVOLUTION PROVES GOD

Evolution Proves God's Existence Watch Free Videos Online - Vidbox.org

Does Evolution Disprove God's Existence? Watch Free Videos Online - Vidbox.org

Evolution is a Miracle Watch Free Videos Online - Vidbox.org

Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism « Wintery Knight

Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? | First Things

Amazon.com: God and Evolution (9780979014161): Jay W. Richards: Books

Does Evolution Disprove Christianity? - YouTube

Evolution Proves God's Existence - YouTube

The Wit of Dr. Craig - Part 9 "Evolution Loves God" - YouTube

Does Evolution Disprove Christianity? - YouTube

Evolution Proves God's Existence - YouTube

Fazale Rana: A Scientists Journey to Faith - YouTube

Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

Alvin Plantinga: Science & Religion - Where the Conflict Really Lies - YouTube

Alvin Plantinga on Evolution - YouTube

On <em>Signature in the Cell</em>, Robert Saunders Still Doesn't Get It - Evolution News & Views

#369 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 07 December 2011 - 06:38 AM

By the way, belief in evolution does not keep one from being a theist or Christian.

You are right, of course it doesn't. I was just asking whether you accept biological evolution as the creator of biodiversity or not - so do you?

#370 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 07 December 2011 - 04:17 PM

Is a god required to create our universe? Currently, there's no evidence that a god is needed. Most of the best minds in astrophysics believe that while we don't yet know the exact cause of our universe, there's no reason to believe it isn't the result of natural, emergent laws. Similarly for the emergence of life on our planet -- we don't yet know the exact cause but very few in evolutionary biology doubt that life didn't arise from basic chemical physics that led to self-replicated molecules.

Morals, likewise, arose from social groups throughout the animal kingdom that gained a survival advantage by cooperative behaviors. No god required.

We used to invent gods to explain lightning bolts, sickness, and the sun moving through our sky. Thank god we're not that uninformed anymore. But, some of us are still hanging onto the notion of a god to explain other things that are equally uninformed.

#371 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 07 December 2011 - 04:31 PM

Not your point. I gave you the definition of “proof” and it is not this. Read it again. Why is there something rather than nothing?

That question is clearly unanswerable.at the moment.

This question remains for any phenomena you have mentioned. The answer will be philosophical and based on faith.

Well, anyone who thinks that question can be answered is irrational and cannot live with uncertainty. Be intellectually honest and say "we don't know".

You won’t even give any reasons for atheism.

God is not needed to explain anything, not even the experiences of religious figures.

ps. you are still ignoring the questions about religious experiences and why Jahve/Jehova/Jesus does not answer prayers.

#372 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 07 December 2011 - 06:24 PM

Rather than make real arguments platypus, perhaps you should just post inane 45 minute long videos and external links over and over instead.


Oh the believer in The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Good to see you again.

Sorry in dealing with some of lifes deepest questions 45 minutes is to much for you.


*sigh* look at how many responses you have made with videos or external links. I can see doing it once in a while, but you do it to the point of being rude.

By the way, the FSM is just as real as your god.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 07 December 2011 - 06:26 PM.


#373 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 07 December 2011 - 06:38 PM

By the way, belief in evolution does not keep one from being a theist or Christian.

You are right, of course it doesn't. I was just asking whether you accept biological evolution as the creator of biodiversity or not - so do you?


Creator? No. Could it be created (evolution) yes.

#374 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 07 December 2011 - 06:50 PM

Rather than make real arguments platypus, perhaps you should just post inane 45 minute long videos and external links over and over instead.


Oh the believer in The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Good to see you again.

Sorry in dealing with some of lifes deepest questions 45 minutes is to much for you.


*sigh* look at how many responses you have made with videos or external links. I can see doing it once in a while, but you do it to the point of being rude.

By the way, the FSM is just as real as your god.


What you want is answers that don't require you to think. If it is to much for you, don't bother. I have yet to hear one point from you regarding any source i presented except that I presented one. That is your argument? I am used to reading books, listening to debates and using every kind of media in my studies. Sigh all you want. Wait until you have to read a book.

#375 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 07 December 2011 - 06:59 PM

By the way, belief in evolution does not keep one from being a theist or Christian.

You are right, of course it doesn't. I was just asking whether you accept biological evolution as the creator of biodiversity or not - so do you?


Creator? No. Could it be created (evolution) yes.

WTF do you mean? Please explain yourself. Do you accept that evolution creates complexity without divine intervention?

#376 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 07 December 2011 - 07:01 PM

What you want is answers that don't require you to think. If it is to much for you, don't bother. I have yet to hear one point from you regarding any source i presented except that I presented one. That is your argument? I am used to reading books, listening to debates and using every kind of media in my studies. Sigh all you want. Wait until you have to read a book.

Dude, your argumentative and communicative skills suck and you are one of the most obfuscated persons I've ever met during my 20 years of discussions over the internets. Learn concise argumentation or stop.

#377 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 07 December 2011 - 07:04 PM

What you want is answers that don't require you to think. If it is to much for you, don't bother. I have yet to hear one point from you regarding any source i presented except that I presented one. That is your argument? I am used to reading books, listening to debates and using every kind of media in my studies. Sigh all you want. Wait until you have to read a book.

If you cannot crystallize your points into a concise form, you don't understand them. Pointing to videos made by people who you think are smart does not help.

#378 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 07 December 2011 - 07:40 PM

Is a god required to create our universe? Currently, there's no evidence that a god is needed. Most of the best minds in astrophysics believe that while we don't yet know the exact cause of our universe, there's no reason to believe it isn't the result of natural, emergent laws. Similarly for the emergence of life on our planet -- we don't yet know the exact cause but very few in evolutionary biology doubt that life didn't arise from basic chemical physics that led to self-replicated molecules.

Morals, likewise, arose from social groups throughout the animal kingdom that gained a survival advantage by cooperative behaviors. No god required.

We used to invent gods to explain lightning bolts, sickness, and the sun moving through our sky. Thank god we're not that uninformed anymore. But, some of us are still hanging onto the notion of a god to explain other things that are equally uninformed.

It depends on how you answer the question, “why is there something rather than nothing? Is a God not required to create our universe? Without resorting to faith, you tell me. These are great questions They are dealt with in the topic “Theist, Atheist Debates in England “ This is a series of tremendous debates between world leading atheists and believing philosopher William Lane Craig. Want to hear cutting edge debate I recommend them. http://www.longecity...tes-in-england/

You are correct many issues of science are hotly debated. It isn’t just between believers and non believers in God but many different views. The history of truth in Science has never been a political contest of numbers making right. The majority has almost always been wrong. We shall see dominate views change several times in our life times.

What you describe is known as “The God of the gaps theory.” Just use God to explain what we don’t know. Knowing how something works does not explain why it exists and everything you described does not support your conclusion there is no God or our knowledge is exhaustive. Many think we have raised more questions than answered, What we learn does not rule out God. The Anthropic principle is just one of many examples.

#379 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 07 December 2011 - 07:42 PM

What you want is answers that don't require you to think. If it is to much for you, don't bother. I have yet to hear one point from you regarding any source i presented except that I presented one. That is your argument? I am used to reading books, listening to debates and using every kind of media in my studies. Sigh all you want. Wait until you have to read a book.

If you cannot crystallize your points into a concise form, you don't understand them. Pointing to videos made by people who you think are smart does not help.


Nonsense

#380 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 07 December 2011 - 07:54 PM

By the way, belief in evolution does not keep one from being a theist or Christian.

You are right, of course it doesn't. I was just asking whether you accept biological evolution as the creator of biodiversity or not - so do you?


Creator? No. Could it be created (evolution) yes.

WTF do you mean? Please explain yourself. Do you accept that evolution creates complexity without divine intervention?


You are not looking for aq discussion on Evolution. I don't have to explain myself to you.
Evolution has created nothing. It can't and all it does is rearrange existing things. The issue is information. No I do not think God is not involved. Now it is your turn to answer the same question

#381 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 07 December 2011 - 08:00 PM

What you want is answers that don't require you to think. If it is to much for you, don't bother. I have yet to hear one point from you regarding any source i presented except that I presented one. That is your argument? I am used to reading books, listening to debates and using every kind of media in my studies. Sigh all you want. Wait until you have to read a book.

Dude, your argumentative and communicative skills suck and you are one of the most obfuscated persons I've ever met during my 20 years of discussions over the internets. Learn concise argumentation or stop.


Is this a command from someone who thinks they have no burden of proof? :|o

#382 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 07 December 2011 - 09:01 PM

What you want is answers that don't require you to think. If it is to much for you, don't bother. I have yet to hear one point from you regarding any source i presented except that I presented one. That is your argument? I am used to reading books, listening to debates and using every kind of media in my studies. Sigh all you want. Wait until you have to read a book.

If you cannot crystallize your points into a concise form, you don't understand them. Pointing to videos made by people who you think are smart does not help.

Try this short one:



#383 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 07 December 2011 - 09:09 PM

You are not looking for aq discussion on Evolution. I don't have to explain myself to you.
Evolution has created nothing. It can't and all it does is rearrange existing things. The issue is information. No I do not think God is not involved. Now it is your turn to answer the same question

Evolution creates information all the time, it happens all around us, even in computer-programs. The evidence for this is completely overwhelming. You seem to be a creationist.

#384 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 07 December 2011 - 09:49 PM

Rather than make real arguments platypus, perhaps you should just post inane 45 minute long videos and external links over and over instead.


Oh the believer in The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Good to see you again.

Sorry in dealing with some of lifes deepest questions 45 minutes is to much for you.


*sigh* look at how many responses you have made with videos or external links. I can see doing it once in a while, but you do it to the point of being rude.

By the way, the FSM is just as real as your god.


What you want is answers that don't require you to think. If it is to much for you, don't bother. I have yet to hear one point from you regarding any source i presented except that I presented one. That is your argument? I am used to reading books, listening to debates and using every kind of media in my studies. Sigh all you want. Wait until you have to read a book.


What I want is actual answers from 'you' rather than you using someone else's work as a proxy. Sadly, I am not going to spend hours of my time watching every video and reading every link you post because YOU refuse to think for yourself and make your 'own' case.

#385 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 07 December 2011 - 09:50 PM

What you want is answers that don't require you to think. If it is to much for you, don't bother. I have yet to hear one point from you regarding any source i presented except that I presented one. That is your argument? I am used to reading books, listening to debates and using every kind of media in my studies. Sigh all you want. Wait until you have to read a book.

Dude, your argumentative and communicative skills suck and you are one of the most obfuscated persons I've ever met during my 20 years of discussions over the internets. Learn concise argumentation or stop.


Is this a command from someone who thinks they have no burden of proof? :|o


I would say its more of an accurate observation. He is dead on with what he said.

#386 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 07 December 2011 - 09:51 PM

What you want is answers that don't require you to think. If it is to much for you, don't bother. I have yet to hear one point from you regarding any source i presented except that I presented one. That is your argument? I am used to reading books, listening to debates and using every kind of media in my studies. Sigh all you want. Wait until you have to read a book.

If you cannot crystallize your points into a concise form, you don't understand them. Pointing to videos made by people who you think are smart does not help.


Nonsense


No, not nonsense. Once again he is dead on.

Make your own points instead of using somebody else's.

#387 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 07 December 2011 - 09:57 PM

You are not looking for aq discussion on Evolution. I don't have to explain myself to you.
Evolution has created nothing. It can't and all it does is rearrange existing things. The issue is information. No I do not think God is not involved. Now it is your turn to answer the same question

Evolution creates information all the time, it happens all around us, even in computer-programs. The evidence for this is completely overwhelming. You seem to be a creationist.

I know you want very short answers for complex questions like information theory and I suspect you can't handle the answer of whether or not I am a creationist.
Q: How do you define information?
A: The dictionary definition (computer science case in particular) will suffice: “Processed, stored or transmitted data.”
From Wikipedia:

Information is a message, something to be communicated from the sender to the receiver, as opposed to noise, which is something that inhibits the flow of communication or creates misunderstanding. If information is viewed merely as a message, it does not have to be accurate. It may be a lie, or just a sound of a kiss. This model assumes a sender and a receiver, and does not attach any significance to the idea that information is something that can be extracted from an environment, e.g., through observation or measurement. Information in this sense is simply any message the sender chooses to create.
This view assumes neither accuracy nor directly communicating parties, but instead assumes a separation between an object and its representation, as well as the involvement of someone capable of understanding this relationship. This view seems therefore to require a conscious mind.
information is dependent upon, but usually unrelated to and separate from, the medium or media used to express it. In other words, the position of a theoretical series of bits, or even the output once interpreted by a computer or similar device, is unimportant, except when someone or something is present to interpret the information. Therefore, a quantity of information is totally distinct from its medium.
What’s important here is 1) information always involves a sender and a receiver; 2) an encoding / decoding mechanism; 3) a convention of symbols (“code”) which represent something distinct from what those symbols are made of. A paragraph in a newspaper is made of ink and paper, but the sentence itself may say nothing about ink or paper.
It may be very helpful here to point out the difference between a pattern and a code. Patterns (snowflakes, crystals, hurricanes, tornados, rivers, coastlines) occur in nature all the time.
A code is “A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages.” Examples of code include English, Chinese, computer languages, music, mating calls and radio signals. Codes always involve a system of symbols that represent ideas or plans.
All codes contain patterns, but not all patterns contain codes. Naturally occurring patterns do not contain code.

Q: But information CAN arise naturally – the gravitational constant, Pi, the speed of light, or strings of molecules like C 7 H 5 NO 4 (Benzine).
A: None of these things contain coded information (see above for definition of information). Gravity is gravity. It is a force. But it contains no code or symbols. When we measure it and quantify it (or even speak of it) we assign code and symbols so we can understand it, but in and of itself, it contains no information.
Pi is a relationship between the diameter of a circle and the circumfrence. The number 3.14159 is a way of expressing Pi, based on a human-designed encoding/decoding system (numbers, base ten) but the relationship between the diameter of a circle and the circumfrence itself is not coded information. The same can be said of the speed of light. The speed of light is the speed of light, it represents nothing other than itself.
A molecule, such as Benzine, is just a molecule. When we describe it with symbols like C 7 H 5 NO 4 we are using an encoding / decoding mechanism to describe it, but Benzine itself contains no code, and it is not an encoding / decoding mechanism. It represents nothing other than itself. Information is different from benzine because it represents something OTHER than itself.
If I arrange pebbles on the driveway to spell your name, those pebbles represent you. As such they now encode information, and possess a property they did not possess before I spelled your name with them. They now contain information.

Q: DNA is not a code, DNA is just a molecule
A: Francis Crick received the Nobel prize for discovering DNA. The following is from the first paragraph of Francis Crick’s Nobel lecture on October 11, 1962. Note his use of the word “code” and “information,” emphasis mine:

“Part of the work covered by the Nobel citation, that on the structure and replication of DNA, has been described by Wilkins in his Nobel Lecture this year… I shall discuss here the present state of a related problem in information transfer in living material – that of the genetic CODE – which has long interested me, and on which my colleagues and I, among many others, have recently been doing some experimental work…”
The following quotes are from atheist Richard Dawkins’ book The Blind Watchmaker:

“Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.
“Each nucleus, as we shall see in Chapter 5, contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of a body put together.”
Having quoted Dawkins here, it’s interesting to note that neither he, nor any materialist has ever provided any scientific (i.e. empirical, testable, falsifiable) explanation for the origin of information. For a very interesting and extensive read on this subject, read “The Problem of Information For The Theory of Evolution” by Royal Truman. If you carefully trace every reference and rebuttal to this article on the internet, you’ll discover that not one person has ever supplied a scientific response to the questions raised here, nor provided any examples of materialistic processes that produce coded information.
No naturally occuring molcule possesses the properties of information. Nature does not produce any kind of code, encoding/decoding mechanism or symbolic relationships at all; everything in nature represents only itself.
DNA, on the other hand, represents a complete plan for a living organism. DNA is an encoding / decoding mechanism that contains code, or language, representing the organism.

Q: Someone could discover a naturalistic process that produces information, maybe tomorrow.
A: In theory, yes, they could. Non-belief in God must surely rest on a sort of faith that such a process exists and will be discovered someday.
Is there such a process? All we can say is that none has ever been discovered. No known exception exists. We can say that information never comes from naturalistic process in the exact same way that we say that there are no exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics, or the law of gravity, or the speed of light.
Maybe someday, someone will discover an exception to thermodynamics and entropy.
Maybe someday, someone will discover an exception to the law of gravity.
Maybe someday, they’ll find an exception to the speed of light.
If someone were to ever discover any of these things, he or she would surely become the Nobel Prize winner of the century.
But to say right now that there is an exception to any of these laws of physics is to make a patently unscientific statement. Everything we know about thermodynamics and the conservation of matter and energy requires a causal agent outside of space and time.
And everything that we presently know about information and DNA requires a Mind, because there is no known mechanism by which natural processes produce information.
Thus we have airtight inductive inference that DNA originated from a superintelligence:

1. All languages, codes, protocols and encoding / decoding mechanisms that we know the origin of come from a mind – there are no known exceptions
2. DNA is a language, a code, a protocol, and an encoding / decoding mechanism
3. Therefore DNA came from a mind.

Q: What Does Information Theory Tell Us About God?

A: What’s unique about information theory and its special way of addressing origins question (compared to, say, physics or astronomy) is that although humans can never create matter and energy or re-create the Big Bang, all of us create information every day.
The Big Bang is a barrier that Einstein proved we will never see beyond; we can only determine that it had a cause outside of space and time. But the creation of information, the creation of languages and codes, is something we’re all intimately familiar with.
You create information every time you talk to somebody. The creation of information begins with a desire, which lead to an idea, which you express in words, which you break down into sounds and letters when you speak or write. In that order. The way you and I design a paper airplane or a car, or remodel a kitchen is no different.
In other words, language and design are always a top-down mental processes – not something that nature does “bottom up.” So not only does Information Theory prove the existence of God, it also tells us something about God’s nature – that God is conscious, God is personal, and God communicates and speaks.
This is 100% consistent with the observation that the one element common to ALL designs is that they are represented symbolically by ideas and language before they are implemented in reality. Anything that is represented by language before it is built is designed.
God is a designer. God thinks and speaks in order to build.
With that in mind, it’s especially prescient that Genesis One says “And God Said… let there be light,” etc etc. Note that creation itself is a product of words that are spoken. Then the book of John expands on this, connecting the creation of all things with Jesus Christ: “In the Beginning was the WORD. And the WORD was with God and the WORD was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything that was made.”
What we have here is a theological statement that Jesus is both the verbal expression of God and the essence of God at the same time. In Christian theology, God himself is the essence of words, language and expression. The Biblical theology of God squarely matches everything that information science tells us about reality.

#388 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 08 December 2011 - 12:16 AM

What you want is answers that don't require you to think. If it is to much for you, don't bother. I have yet to hear one point from you regarding any source i presented except that I presented one. That is your argument? I am used to reading books, listening to debates and using every kind of media in my studies. Sigh all you want. Wait until you have to read a book.

If you cannot crystallize your points into a concise form, you don't understand them. Pointing to videos made by people who you think are smart does not help.


Nonsense


No, not nonsense. Once again he is dead on.

Make your own points instead of using somebody else's.


You are just saying this to avoid answering anything. I never hear any thing coming from you except The purple monster which you borrowed from someone else. More nonsense.

#389 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 08 December 2011 - 01:07 AM

It depends on how you answer the question, “why is there something rather than nothing? Is a God not required to create our universe? Without resorting to faith, you tell me.


If you want to suggest that to have a universe, or the laws that created the universe, we need a god, then how did god get here to begin with, and if there's no *here* until he arrived, where was he before he created a place to exist?

This is where the idea that god created everything falls completely flat, tripped up by the simplest of logic. It's far more likely that a random universe will emerge into existence than an all-powerful god (who would then go on to create a universe).

And if a Christian god were real, for example, why would he allow most of human worship (over human existence) to be for goddesses, and non-Christian gods??? And even now the Christian god does not seem very powerful on Earth, having less than 50% of the population as followers. And his manual, the Bible, is one of the messiest of documents, full of bad behavior on his part, contradictions, and bad science. And not one accurate prediction of the future that could have sealed the deal for him.

EVERYTHING points to the idea that god is a human creation. NOTHING points to gods being real. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Yet, we have evolved to believe in higher authority (a social group adaptation) and thus it's a very very hard belief system for most people to rise above.

#390 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 08 December 2011 - 02:52 AM

It depends on how you answer the question, “why is there something rather than nothing? Is a God not required to create our universe? Without resorting to faith, you tell me.


If you want to suggest that to have a universe, or the laws that created the universe, we need a god, then how did god get here to begin with, and if there's no *here* until he arrived, where was he before he created a place to exist?

This is where the idea that god created everything falls completely flat, tripped up by the simplest of logic. It's far more likely that a random universe will emerge into existence than an all-powerful god (who would then go on to create a universe).

And if a Christian god were real, for example, why would he allow most of human worship (over human existence) to be for goddesses, and non-Christian gods??? And even now the Christian god does not seem very powerful on Earth, having less than 50% of the population as followers. And his manual, the Bible, is one of the messiest of documents, full of bad behavior on his part, contradictions, and bad science. And not one accurate prediction of the future that could have sealed the deal for him.

EVERYTHING points to the idea that god is a human creation. NOTHING points to gods being real. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Yet, we have evolved to believe in higher authority (a social group adaptation) and thus it's a very very hard belief system for most people to rise above.


1. Who made God. When as a child my parents asked me this question at eight years old it started off my education by them, as an atheist. Good and often asked question. There are several parts to answering this. First it is a nonsense question in philosophy.. It is like asking why the color blue is not red. God by definition is uncaused. Ask as many times as one wants, the answer is always, “no one created God because God is uncaused.” Well lets change the definition so God is created. Then you do not have God. Change the definition of anything and you no longer have that thing. Since one of the attributes of any God must be greater than what is created, “here” can be a limitation if you are not also ‘there’ and ‘everywhere.’ The greatest we can perceive is “everywhere.” This has led philosophers to Conceive of an adequate being to explain a creation as being omnipresent. God is not limited by space or time. This has led humans such as Anselm to describe God as “the greatest than all,’ and others as a necessary being. If there is a god, than God would have to be sufficiently great to be the creator of the cosmos. I don’t see how your logic defeats this.

2. Nothing which is caused, comes into existence of itself. Everything in the 4 dimensional universe we exist in is caused. You may want to talk about the multi verse. If so we need to talk about BORDE GUTH VILENKIN THEOREM


http://winteryknight...em-bvg-theorem/


The subject of this thread is the possibility of God. You have asked me Christian questions which are so many that it is difficult reasonably to deal with in a post such as this.
3. Why are there goddess religions?
4.Why does only ½ the population of the world hold Christian belief?
5. Problems in the Bible.
6. Science issues
7. Prophesy.
8. Everything points to God being a human creation, nothing points to God being real.
We could go on and on. I Want to focus so we don’t have to write a book. Some people here hyper ventilate if you post a video!

First are God issues. Is God possible? This is our present subject. Second if the answer is yes, than what kind of God is there? That is another subject. There is no reason the answers won’t be more complex than questions of the physical world. One thing I have noticed is so far questions have largely been one way. For example if I get a question about Goddess religions does anyone get to answer where consciousness comes from in a material only world? The questions are a two way street. What do you think if the discussion on “information.’ http://www.longecity...post__p__489954




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users