Scientific Proof God Doesnt Exist!

[Fr0st]

Starting things off...
"hey! where did God Come from?!"
"he was always there"
"always there huh? and he created us when"
"a few thousand years ago"
"and was god around for even a second before he mad ehte earth and man?"
"yeah"
"thank you"
ok think of a time line....
<------------------------------------------------------->
theres your time line...Now God always was so therefore he is Always at the beginning of this time line
<god><-------------------------------------------------->

Now god decides to create earth at say....year 0

<god><----------------------------<0>------------------->

now this is where your gonna have to use your brain to imagine what im talking about but...

Now god has to reach that year <0> so that he can create the world. And since god lived forever...he must then travel an infinite amount of time to reach the time that he created the world(or <0>)

So every year that god waits to reach <0> he doesnt acheive any movement because he is infinitely far away from it....

So there ya go....God Cant have existed forever due to that simple demonstration.

Next...If god didnt exist forever, then he must have been created at some point, or created himself....But if god created himself whats to have stopped the big bang from occuring...Well anyway, how does something create itself..? It would then mean that there was nothing in the universe, therefor no universe. Now what is more believable, a small speck of energy is cerated out of nothing, or an all supreme being is created from nothing...

In my opinion neither is believable, the most you can get from nothing...is nothing...so then this means that we technically do not exist in the means we believe we do. Like the Morpheus says in the Matrix, "What is Real? something you can touch? see? feel?" well we can touch see and feel things, but i think that it isnt matter that were touching, it couldnt possibly be, since the universe could not have started with anything in it, and thus still has nothing in it...So what are we? i dunno..................an idea? a thought? but whos idea? whoa, a big circle.....ah well well probably never udnerstand it

 

[sbbqb7n16]

hahaha....

now lets put it this way... God created the 0 at whatever point He wanted.... God created the time before and after the point and still remains outside of it Himself and is thus not bound by the time which He created.

Go figure

 

[Fr0st]

you cant be outside of time, man created time. God didnt create time, we designated everything to fit into time, so therefor God HAS to be inside time, unless re define it, which we have no reason to

 

[moerunamida]

This is interesting...
Why preach to Christians that there is no God?

~Mandie

 

[Dayton]

The earth was Created in six days 6,000 years ago, but God didn't have to wait an infinite amound of time to create the earth. God is not bound by our timeline.

 

[Fr0st]

because im in the science creation and evolution discussion andd debate forum....so why not have people discuss my theory? i can at least see if its plausible or not, makes sense to me

 

[lucaspa]

now this is where your gonna have to use your brain to imagine what im talking about but...

Now god has to reach that year <0> so that he can create the world. And since god lived forever...he must then travel an infinite amount of time to reach the time that he created the world(or <0>)

So every year that god waits to reach <0> he doesnt acheive any movement because he is infinitely far away from it....

So there ya go....God Cant have existed forever due to that simple demonstration.

Zeno's paradox applied to time. Garbage.

You do know that spaceTIME began at the Big Bang, don't you? Therefore you can't speak of "time" before the Big Bang, and your great logic goes out the window, doesn't it?

Next...If god didnt exist forever, then he must have been created at some point, or created himself....But if god created himself whats to have stopped the big bang from occuring...Well anyway, how does something create itself..?

This is the old atheist dogma of using an unanswered question of a deeper layer to try to deny the answer at the layer above it.

What is the origin of the universe? Possible answer: Deity created it. Now, for every answer two or three questions pop up out of the answer. So, the next question is: Where did deity come from? Answer: we don't know. FIRST, you have to establish the existence of deity, THEN you can answer that one. But failing to answer that one doesn't negate the existence of deity.

Now what is more believable, a small speck of energy is cerated out of nothing, or an all supreme being is created from nothing...

It always amuses me to see fundamentalists theists and militant atheists use the same argument. Frost, do you have ANY idea how many times we have seen the argument: what is more believable, that the universe appears out of nothing by chance or that God created it? With the answer, of course, being that God is more believable. If the logic there is flawed, so is yours.

In my opinion neither is believable, the most you can get from nothing...is nothing...

That's one way to deny scientific data.

 

[lucaspa]

you cant be outside of time, man created time. God didnt create time, we designated everything to fit into time, so therefor God HAS to be inside time, unless re define it, which we have no reason to

Man created time? Ah, yes, so that is why kaon decay is not symmetrical with respect to time. Because man created it that way. Yeah, riiiight!!

You do realize that atomic clocks have been ticking away whether humans were around to define their decay as "time", don't you?

 

[revolutio]

I don't believe in time.

All I know is that you can't prove a negative.

 

[Fr0st]

atomic clocks measure time, we created time

(/qoute? not sure how to use it...)
"You do know that spaceTIME began at the Big Bang, don't you? Therefore you can't speak of "time" before the Big Bang, and your great logic goes out the window, doesn't it?" ~lucaspa

im not talking about the big bang, however i admit i did mention it. Im talking about how peopel say god always existed. Since we defined time as A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration, and this duration in my "logic" is - infinity to +infinity. So i dont see why i cant speak of time before the big bang? im sure it happened within the time from the present to the year infinite years ago...? so whats the point you were trying to make?

"Next...If god didnt exist forever, then he must have been created at some point, or created himself....But if god created himself whats to have stopped the big bang from occuring...Well anyway, how does something create itself..?" ~me

"This is the old atheist dogma of using an unanswered question of a deeper layer to try to deny the answer at the layer above it.

What is the origin of the universe? Possible answer: Deity created it. Now, for every answer two or three questions pop up out of the answer. So, the next question is: Where did deity come from? Answer: we don't know. FIRST, you have to establish the existence of deity, THEN you can answer that one. But failing to answer that one doesn't negate the existence of deity." ~lucaspa

um i was staing a fact, thereisnt even a question in that statement, i admit this was not stated clearly so ill reiterate

if god didnt exist forever, which the time line theory suggests, then he had to have been created at some point in history. Now that were talking about things being created, what is more likely? a supreme being or a few little bits of energy and matter...what question did you think i was trying to use? i dunno...i think your just doing the old christian thing and trying to confuse the other person by stating things that dont make any sense whatever and are about as relavent as me bring in masturbation techniques of a horse....

And what scientific data do we have that says were not exactly what we think we are....

if you reach out and touch the keyboard, for all you know you are only thnking you are touching it, for the simple fact that matter cant be created or destroyed where did the first bit of matter come from??? ((you say god)) i say it cant possibly ever have been created, so then we cant exist in the form that we believe we do? so whats wrong with that?

 

[lucaspa]

I don't believe in time.

All I know is that you can't prove a negative.

So you don't believe in time. Then don't show up to work tomorrow and offer that excuse to your boss. The answer should be fun.

Actually, yes you can prove a negative. You do so by falsifying the positive. Thus, it is proved that the earth is NOT flat. A negative. It is proved that the earth is NOT the center of the solar system. It is proved that proteins are NOT the hereditary material.

That's why we say creationism is a falsified theory. We can prove that 1) the earth is NOT young, 2) each species was NOT created separately in present form, 3) the geology of the earth is NOT due to a world-wide Flood, etc.

 

[nephilimiyr]

you cant be outside of time, man created time. God didnt create time, we designated everything to fit into time, so therefor God HAS to be inside time, unless re define it, which we have no reason to

And this is what you use as scientific proof???

 

[tcampen]

The earth was Created in six days 6,000 years ago, but God didn't have to wait an infinite amound of time to create the earth. God is not bound by our timeline.

Do you really believe that? The universe is a mere 6,000 years old? If that's the case, why did god create the illusion of a universe that is far, far older? For example, we can see in telescopes cosmic events, like stars exploding, that occured more than a billion light years away, thus, more than a billion years ago. The star no longer exists after it exploded, although the light showing the explosion is just reaching us. With a 6,000 year old universe, god created that light in motion of a star that never actually existed. That's just plain weird.

Maybe you were just joking.

 

[Siliconaut]

@Fr0st: You have indeed tried to apply Zenon's paradoxon to a deity, disregarding the fact that this paradoxon only seemingly creates a problem. Achilles does eventually catch the turtle, even though it has already moved a tiny bit further in the time he took to reach its former position.

Lucaspa is theist, I am an atheist. And yet we agree, that there is simply no way to prove or disprove God (short of him appearing and showing me the error of my ways) either logically, or by scientific research.

You can try creating one paradox after the other, but they can only serve as philosophical entertainment, not actual evidence pro or contra the existance of any deity.

 

[nephilimiyr]

So you don't believe in time. Then don't show up to work tomorrow and offer that excuse to your boss. The answer should be fun.

Actually, yes you can prove a negative. You do so by falsifying the positive. Thus, it is proved that the earth is NOT flat. A negative. It is proved that the earth is NOT the center of the solar system. It is proved that proteins are NOT the hereditary material.

That's why we say creationism is a falsified theory. We can prove that 1) the earth is NOT young, 2) each species was NOT created separately in present form, 3) the geology of the earth is NOT due to a world-wide Flood, etc.

Because the earth is proven to be not young does not disprove creation.

 

[tcampen]

I don't think asking where god came from is denying one layer because you can't explaing where the previous layer came from. Rather, its pointing out that accepting that one thing didn't have a creator, or not knowing how it came to be is just as ok for one concept of origins as the next. In other words, if it is not necessary to know who created god, why is it necessary to know who created the universe? Or, if it is somehow acceptable to hold that god always existed, why can't one reasonably accept the same to be true of the universe? It's a valid point.

Furthermore, even if we were to accept that the universe was supernaturally created, that in itself tells us little about the creator. First, it could be one, or an infinite number of creators. Second, the creator(s) need not be omnipotent, but simply powerful enough to create a universe. It or they may still have limitations on its abilities. Finally, it need not necessarily be good, perfect, or benevolent, necessarily. In other words, anything goes. With these kinds of parameters, there just doesn't seem to be anything substantial to hang your hat on.

I'm not trying to prove god does or does not exist, as I don't see how that is possible. It is a matter of faith. Tho that won't keep people from trying.

 

[Fr0st]

so everyone says i cant say it, or prove somethign ? but thats all you say, why cant i? whats wrong in my theory? it makes enough sense....the proverb you used ~Siliconaut does not involve infinity, infinity is infinte? if you were told to take an infinite amount of apples from a tree, and the tree could supply you with an infinite amount of apples, would you ever finish your job? no, jsut as god could never reach the point in which he created the earth..

That is considering god always existed, which is what that idea was representing. If god was created at some point it then goes to the fact about a speck or a supreme being,..being craeted

 

[lucaspa]

atomic clocks measure time, we created time

The point is that atomic clocks had been ticking away measuring time long before humans came alone. We didn't create time, we DESCRIBE it, but not create it.

"You do know that spaceTIME began at the Big Bang, don't you? Therefore you can't speak of "time" before the Big Bang, and your great logic goes out the window, doesn't it?" ~lucaspa

im not talking about the big bang, however i admit i did mention it. ...
An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration, and this duration in my "logic" is - infinity to +infinity. So i dont see why i cant speak of time before the big bang?

Because spaceTIME didn't exist before the Big Bang. That's why you can't say time goes from - infinity to + infinity. BB shows that time indeed has a beginning.

The phrase "God always existed" started as liturgy. It is now used in answer to the nonsensical argument against God being one of the candidates to First Cause -- the argument you are advancing. Faced with the existence of the universe, the obvious question is: why is there a universe? One of several possible answers: God created it. Atheist invalid response: where did God come from? Theist response: God always existed.

The whole point of having a First Cause is to have it uncaused. So, failing to have a cause for First Cause is not a problem.

"Next...If god didnt exist forever, then he must have been created at some point, or created himself....But if god created himself whats to have stopped the big bang from occuring...Well anyway, how does something create itself..?" ~me

"This is the old atheist dogma of using an unanswered question of a deeper layer to try to deny the answer at the layer above it.

What is the origin of the universe? Possible answer: Deity created it. Now, for every answer two or three questions pop up out of the answer. So, the next question is: Where did deity come from? Answer: we don't know. FIRST, you have to establish the existence of deity, THEN you can answer that one. But failing to answer that one doesn't negate the existence of deity." ~lucaspa

um i was staing a fact,

Your original statement, which you repeated, is a question. There is no "fact" in it. Merely a premise stated in the "if ... " clause.

if god didnt exist forever, which the time line theory suggests,

There is no "time line theory", only a restatement of Zeno's paradox. With all the flaws of the original paradox. Including the flaw that time is infinite and therefore there is no way to get "to" the BB from infinitely in the past. However, the premise of that is wrong since time is not infinite in the past but only goes back 13.4 billion years.

then he had to have been created at some point in history.

Without the "if" being valid, the "then" isn't valid.

Now that were talking about things being created, what is more likely? a supreme being or a few little bits of energy and matter

A separate flaw is your use of "more likely". There is nothing to base probability calculations on. You are violating the scientific method here: ""1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself. " When you use "most likely" you are saying "how things logically ought to be". And that doesn't count.

And what scientific data do we have that says were not exactly what we think we are....

if you reach out and touch the keyboard, for all you know you are only thnking you are touching it,

Why is it that EVERYONE can touch the keyboard? Are we dealing with with a mass hallucination? Or are we dealing with your hallucination and no one exists other than you? Intersubjectivity does a lot to counter that arugment.

However, if the argument is valid, you not only disproved God, you disproved YOU and everything else. So it really doesn't matter if there is a deity if everything, including us, are not real, does it?

for the simple fact that matter cant be created or destroyed where did the first bit of matter come from???

Ah, we've seen this misstatement of the First Law of Thermodynamics (FLOT) before, but always before in the hands of creationists.

Let's get a definition of "law".
http://bob.nap.edu/html/evolution98/evol1.html
"Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances."

Laws only apply WITHIN the universe. You can't use them to deny the existence of the universe to begin with. FLOT describes what happens WITHIN the universe. You can't use it to say there is no way to get the matter/energy in the universe.

i say it cant possibly ever have been created, so then we cant exist in the form that we believe we do? so whats wrong with that?

Only that it misuses and contradicts science. But hey, what are a few facts to get in the way of your belief?

 

[lucaspa]

Because the earth is proven to be not young does not disprove creation.

CREATION and creationISM are two different things. Creation is the statement "God created the heavens and the earth."

CreationISM is a specific HOW God is supposed to have created. It's also a scientific theory. Evolution is also a HOW God created.

CreationISM is false. Creation is not. God created by evolution.

 

[goat37]

Because the earth is proven to be not young does not disprove creation.

Part of the creation dogma is that the earth is 6000 years old, there was a great flood etc... if none of that happened, it is reasonable to think that creation didn't happen (at least not in the style that you would like to believe)

I, quite frankly, NEVER knew anyone that actually believed in a young earth until I came to this board... Not too many YEC's here in Newport.