So I just have a question to every one. What is the point in proving god to not exist? What makes it worth while to sit and flip out on people, the goverment, schools, kids, parents.....that they are wrong, and science is wrong?
I understand having an oppinion, and trying to get others to beilve that. But Have any of you heard of Pascals wager?
What he said was basically, if you belive in god, and he is real, you lived a good live, and if you belive in god, and he's not real, you lost nothing, but lived a life of good morals, which I will touch on in a second. However, If he is real, and you didn't beilve you go to hell. And if you didn't beilve and he isn't real, then you lost nothing, other then being remembered as a person who didn't care about morals.
I would like you to go read the ten commandments, and the other moral wrongs in the bible. How are ANY of them bad?
All I'm really trying to gather here, is what is the point in tryign to prove god as fake? Why does it matter if you beilve in god? And what do you lose by beilveing in him?
http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life :here is a website showing how life could have formed. Once again if we cant find an answer we should not think it must be God.
http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life :here is a website showing how life could have formed. Once again if we cant find an answer we should not think it must be God.
But isn't that just saying that perhaps only the simplest amino acid could have formed, and nothing more?
That is the worst argument ever. I refuse to accept that. You do realize that isn't even an argumen right? Now you're just being childish.
God is spiritual. Spiritual means not tangible or material. Matter is something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses. If something is not tangible, can't be heard, felt, tasted, or seen, then it isn't matter, therefore disqualifying God as a material entity.
I am not a advanced biologist so I do not know each stage of life's long and complex development. But if you look it up from a non Christian source you will find how it works.
But if someone is capable of analysing the odds, and then being able to make the proper calculations, it is possible.
Sure but given this guys clear lack of understanding of biology and chemistry I don't think he had the capability to calculate such odds. Not to mention we have been able to replicate the processes of abiogenesis in a lab.
Close your eyes open your Bible and point to a verse. What are the odds out of the entire Bible that you would pick that one verse? That's pretty much the argument being made here, there is no real frame of reference for such calculations to indicate anything.
Yes, but we go back to the 300-molecule-long protein, with it's 1 in 10^390 odds.
Sure, however this protein didn't pop into existence as it is, it evolved slowly and from much simpler chemicals. This is a common fallacy which people use when dealing with evolutionary science and cosmology. Simply because we see it incredibly rare that something happen today as it is today does not apply because these things are not the same today as they were.
This is also used a lot with the 'irreducibly complex' fallacy that creationists like to use. Simply because we have a complex eye now does not mean that it was just as complex before. Things change gradually over time. The only ideas which have something phenomenally complex coming into existence already phenomenally complex are those which imply that a deity brought things into existence as they are today.
God is spiritual. Spiritual means not tangible or material. Matter is something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses. If something is not tangible, can't be heard, felt, tasted, or seen, then it isn't matter, therefore disqualifying God as a material entity.
I would say that's qualifying factors for not existing.
Lets say that there is a parallel universe. Wouldn't many astrophysicists and such believe in it? Yet, it can't be perceived by any of the senses.
If parallel universes were proven to exist that would mean they are observable in some way. There is also nothing saying that if they do exist they aren't material.
Lets say that there is a parallel universe. Wouldn't many astrophysicists and such believe in it? Yet, it can't be perceived by any of the senses.
When we begin dealing with such things as parallel universes we understand that there would be observable evidence, typically shown through interactions between our universe and the parallel. Also, many situations like this are based upon maths. We can establish a mathematical model which proves something, yet that model must be based on other mathematical models which can be proven via concrete methods such as observation and physical application.
For example, we know the rate of expansion of the galaxy based on a mathematical model, however what we can observe physically, as well as the mathematical formulae for measuring such things are demonstrable and verifiable.
