It is an absolute truth that only that which equates ( = ) is true, that each approximation is founded upon a minimum of one untruth, and that, as such, each approximation is, technically, untrue. It is, also, an absolute truth ( = ) that, regardless of it’s complexity, there is only one (1) original source of all of life, itself, and, therefore, of all of conscious life, itself, and, therefore, of consciousness, itself, and, given that the original source of all of consciousness, itself, cannot be unconscious and that consciousness, itself, cannot be inferior to itself, the original source of conscious life is, therefore, conscious …whom most people call GOD.
Shall we pray, Ladies and Gentlemen…
ScienceBlog.com has no paywalls, no sponsored content, and no agenda beyond getting the science right. Every story here is written to inform, not to impress an advertiser or push a point of view.
Good science journalism takes time — reading the papers, checking the claims, finding researchers who can put findings in context. We do that work because we think it matters.
If you find this site useful, consider supporting it with a donation. Even a few dollars a month helps keep the coverage independent and free for everyone.
As opposed to the fake living trees, eh? Trees grow by themselves, by the way. I don’t see gardener God out there hoeing the landscape.
You are wrong, plain and simple. Those who assume God does not exist (I am assuming you are talking about scientists) do not just assume, they arrive at their conclusion via a logical process, applying rational thought to a problem. Creationists however don’t use logic at all; they just believe which is the whole idea of faith isn’t it??
If creationists applied logic to the great question then it would void any concept of faith, rendering their belief system hypocritical.
You are wrong, plain and simple. Those who assume God does not exist (I am assuming you are talking about scientists) do not just assume, they arrive at their conclusion via a logical process, applying rational thought to a problem. Creationists however don’t use logic at all; they just believe which is the whole idea of faith isn’t it??
If creationists applied logic to the great question then it would void any concept of faith, rendering their belief system hypocritical.
Can you explain to me what proof there is that God exists? I doubt you can show any Mathematical, philosophical, scientific or any other evidence that the God of the bible exists. The bible was written by people (Human beings) how can you be 100% sure of the authenticity of any of the people involved in it’s publication, for all you know it was written by a deluded homeless man.
You talk about science as if it’s a belief system, it is not. Science is just a name for the search for truth through reason and logic which even creationist can learn to understand, how about you try and apply true reason and logic to your creationistic dilemma instead of attempting to bring science down by making unfounded below the belt attacks at how scientists go about proving or disproving things.
Dude, don’t be such a dumb ass. Your just saying a lot of big words that have no meaning together. Basically, you say things that you claim prove others when they really don’t equate such as that conscious created itself. Where do you come up with this crap? But thanks for trying anyway, maybe next time.
Where exactly You are living in America??
Because of certain reasons of life people who seeks GOD look only in the Bible. But no one of them try to talk to GOD. Sex is pure joy and if certain prohibitions GOD, (THIS IS WOULD BE ME!!!!!!!!) DIDN’T ARRANGE ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE BREAKABLE ON EVERYDAY BASIS. Try talk to me through the prayer. I’ll answer you. Best wishes from Me and My wife. Thank you. And by the way I live in America.
The real living trees are great prove of LIFE OF JEHOVA THE CREATOR.
I think the nice and unbeatable prove of LIFE OF GOD CREATOR are regular trees. They are not from the oceans. THEY HAD BEEN CREATED. HOSANNA JEHOVA!
True, the discussion of a scientific proof of God does not belong to a science blog, exactly because there can never be such a proof. We cannot ascribe any observable effect directly to God. BUT, that does not compel us to simply accept the absence of God. There are plenty of solid philosophical (and mathematical) arguments proving the existence of God. The problem is that Scientists think that the only way to prove something must be scientific in the pragmatic sense of the word. That’s just plain wrong. Can you prove “scientifically” that for example the number of primes is infinite? Of course not. The only proof is mathematical (or philosophical in a more general sense). Such is the nature of the proofs of the existence of God.
You need to define right and wrong… there is right and wrong that is based upon society – down South, when you order tea you get a 1/2 pound of sugar in brown cold liquid – and this is “right” – if the waiter brought you a tiny cup of hot tea this would be “wrong” (you can provide moral examples of your own) – BUT there is a UNIVERSAL Moral right and wrong that transcends cultures. If this were not so, we could not rationally hold Hitler accountable, cause maybe thats just the way they did things in Germany.
Also, God is not a man made theory. The story in the Bible is not about people reaching up to God, but rather, God reaching down to mankind – specifically through His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ (the most documented historical figure of all time).
Why are the only ways man can come about the big bang theory and creationism? Is it not plausible that both are wrong? If we cannot factually prove either of them right, then they both can be wrong. Silly.
The reason why God’s existence matters lies in the last sentence of your post. It is easy to tell people to be a “good” person but think carefully and ask yourself if you even know what it truly means to be good or is your perception of good simply whatever society and your feelings dictate. If you think “goodness” is whatever the majority decides to be true, then there is nothing which is inherently right or wrong and anyone is entitled to do anything and you should not be upset if people wrong you because it would just be a difference of opinion. However, if you think “goodness” is something independent of human thought such as the principles of science, then you must ask yourself who has the authority to dictate such principles. The simple answer is that no one is fit to dictate universal moral principles except for an all powerful God and if you want to know what good is then you must know the Word of God. Don’t bother with man made theories of justice such as utilitarian theory, rawlsian theory, or social norms because they have no credibility as they are based on people’s feelings. Anyone with minimal intelligence can tell you that your feelings are irrelevant to the truth.
THAT is why God matters. If He does not exist, there is no way to know right from wrong.
Yes, there is most definately a way to decide what is right and wrong without a God to dictate it to us. We as a species have done it through trial and error.It is in the best interest of a society to not kill one another or to steal from one another. God or religion if I may call it is a type of group think. I believe early humans banded together for survival reasons in groups. This would increase there ability to survive and inevitably would start to make law, rules,social norms and of course religion.
To say goodness is something independent of human thought makes no sense because we thought of the idea of goodness. To say we need the word of God to be good is ignorant because goodness has been around long before the word of God. I’m assuming you mean the Christian God. To say that you shouldn’t bother with man made theories is hypacritical because God is a man made theory. If we were to follow Gods word to the word to this day we would still be stoning criminals and committing mass genocide because they dont believe in your God. I’ll assume you havn’t read the bible.
If anything we should get rid of God maybe we could then show compassion and acceptance for our fellow man and women
Kudos to you!!
Here’s another proof:
http://kuday.bloggum.com/yazi/mathematical-proof-of-the-existence-of-god.html
God might be one of us. God might exist outside of time, or be from our far future.
Under the right circumstances, the universe and God can be the ultimate paradox, because it didn’t exist, until something from outside of time or our far future created it..
Maybe someone from our future created God as something else that evolved beyond time and space, and that happening is what allowed the creation to create us in the past.
MainFragger
Here’s another way of proof:
http://kuday.bloggum.com/yazi/mathematical-proof-for-existance-of-god.html
I always laugh whenever I see people who think that asking “Who made God?” is a valid argument. Its basically the same as asking “Who made matter?”
The odd thing is that the answer to both is normally given as “nobody”. Just the deist is answering the first question and the atheist is answering the second one.
Really people, wake up.
regarding my statement, “it is an absolute truth that only that which equates is true”, you stated: ” – what do you mean here? Are you seriously trying to use the mathematical definition of “true” in a philosophical or real (ie non-philosophical, real world) sense? Most people know that “true” (as in 100%) is generally a nonsensical notion unrelated to the world or non-mathematics.”
my response is yes. absolutely yes …and justifiably so.
if you, each, consider yourselves to be true (=) scientists, at which point did any of you abandon the most basic of scientific tenets [Publish no scientific statement which has not, first, been mathematically proven to equate ( = ).]?
Each term, statement, sentence, paragraph, chapter, book, tome, and anthology can be mathematically symobilized and the symbols manipulated, according to a logical set of rules, in order to determine which statements are true and which are untrue, given that each approximation is founded upon a minimum of one untruth and is, therefore, untrue, yet that which actually equates ( = ) is true and, as such, cannot be mathematically disproven; then, the symbols can be returned to words, yet, if all premises equated (=), the truths will have been separated from the untruths. Therefore, yes, mathematics can be appropriately applied to determine which philosophies are true … at least potentially, and to prove which philosophies cannot possibly be true under any circumstances whatsoever.
regarding consciousness, i did not state that consciousness is necessary. nevertheless, consciousness exists. yet, it does not exist separate from life. life is essential to the existence of consciousness.
albeit in other words, i, simply, stated that:
. life, itself, is infinitely large and exists everywhere outside of our finite galactic space (which was created solely by the big bang [a super-sized lightening bolt which shot across the scape of life])
. the inviolable power of the Law of Cause and Effect is a mere function of reality, rather than the reality, itself, reacting with mathematical precision ( = ) solely to positivities [( + ) peace] and negativities [( – ) friction], in every direction from the point of origin of the peace or friction
. the origin of life, itself, which must include 100% of the components of life, includes 100% of the components of consciousness, itself
. given that consciousness exists, the original source of all of conscious life (the center of which is in the center of everywhere), after these many trillions of years of evolution, cannot be unconscious
. mind does NOT equal (=) brain, and
. brain does NOT equal (=) mind.
Therefore, I proffer, herein, that:
. everyone is, inherently, equally intelligent
. animals and plants are no less conscious (and, thus, no less sentient and intelligent) than homo sapiens, and
. even though their body forms are different and more limited than those of homo sapiens, all living beings are healthiest and most comfortable within an environment of a constant temperature of 80 degrees fahrenheit with ample quantities of pure and undefiled oxygenated air and waters, and
. everyone is born to be immortal. imperfect circumstances, however, lead to death …for instance, methusela did live to be nearly 1,000 years old, yet, homo sapiens and wild animals are, now, subject to swift decomposition by the current high levels of bacteria, yeast, et caetera, which increase in populations at a relatively extreme rate of speed.
. The Golden Rule, which under each and every perfect circumstance IS The Ten Commandments, is the only way by which mankind can resolve every resolvable problem.
Peace.
PS: do not cut the grass …it is never essential to life, itself, to do so.
I am not a very religious person , but I believe in God as well. The last comment doesn’t make sense to me because God is not a who or a what in this sense therefor whoever or whatever created us cannot be called God. Will you worship some extraterrestrial creature come to find that we are created by them? Also, what would be the origin of that creature?
It seems illogical, in my opinion, to believe in the creation of human species as a bang and everything falling into place in a random but correct order. If the big bang is true then damn, what are we going to do? Nothing I suppose. I would live the way i still live today. I think at some point in time we have to stop and think. God gave us the ability to reason so why not use it, right? What I’m trying to say is this: sometimes perception can’t be reality. God cannot be perceived in anyway known to man. Therefor there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. All of this senseless talk in trying to reason why God can’t exist or why he can exist is inane. The real question is why do we question the existence of God? Does anyone have an hidden desire to murder, but don’t because God will get mad? Lets face the facts, whether a God exists or not we are destined to be who we are. God gave us free will and will not infringe upon one’s choices, so why should this dispute even take place? No matter what one believes in mortality is inevitable therefor getting worked up about whether God exists or not is meaningless. Just live life to be the best person you can be and hopefully everything will take care of itself.
I am not religious. I have no gain in proving or disproving God. But I believe in God as a point of simple logic. Which is to say that if you believe in the big bang, then every piece of matter in the universe has won the lottery at the worst possible odds in order to simply exist.
If there were no God, every arrangement of matter, every system that has formed, all forms of life have accidentally hit the lottery with odds exponentially worse than the worst possible odds.
If you don’t believe in God, then you are trying to tell me that our galaxy, solar system, planet and echo system are ALL in place strictly by accident.
This doesn’t make sense to me. Someone or something had to have formed, and guided the creation of the universe as we know it. Other wise, the odds would have naturally insured that none of this could ever have happened.
Now, I am not speaking of a God from a religious point of view. But whoever created us, gave us everything. So omni-everything or not, whoever created us is God. But for all we know, God is just another scientist who figured out how to make universes and put his knowledge to good use.
I don’t have a formula but you might want to check out the plot diagram
http://apageinthelife.blogspot.com
BLESSINGS OF PEACE, JOY AND ABSOLUTE LOVE SHALL BE TO ALL, FOR EVER AND EVER, WITHOUT END !!
AMEN.
THANK YOU, FATHER>MOTHER OF ALL !
AMEN, AMEN.
HOLLIS
Pandeism teaches that God became the Universe through the Big Bang precisely to experience existence as the Universe; and Pandeism further explains that, everything being part of what was originally God, there is a latent connection to the unconscious spirituality that pervades the Universe….
One thing tho, you seem to suggest multiple Big Bangs, and that perhaps a later one of these deposited life on the planets. While there has surely been a lot of cosmic instability and many gigantic explosions in the Universe, science points to a single Big Bang event that started it all — the one Pandeists identify as God becoming the Universe and the laws and matter of the Universe coming into being all-at-once!!
I LOVE YOU! I warship you! Jane You so rock. Any scientist that eliminates the idea of a possible God is a complete Moron. Ergo my concept of the male ego slowing evolution. And for your information i my self am male. you should never eliminate any possible possibility, for when you do; a clear answer will never really surface. Look at scientific mistakes. If you but only pay attention you will find the answer, and Jane’s mind is very wide. Most Humans are narrow minded and that is why we evolve so slowly now. Look how money controls our actions, eliminate money out of the equation and see how fast we evolve.
Haha, this post and replys are the exact thing that is wrong with the world. Gosh everyone needs to debate EVERYTHING. It gets pretty annoying, I’m not agreeing with anything this person said. However, people seem to waste all their time trying to prove they are right. Just get over it.
i know that this is a great deal to digest, so, please, read patiently. it will, if read objectively, open a new channel of scientific (=) discourse:
it is impossible to be more technical than to tender a mathematical proof (=). and no scientific proof is valid without the mathematical proof (=) to substantiate it, given that pure mathematics are wholly unbiased. as my lexicon, i rely upon the Unabridged English Dictionary of 1776, word for word and punctuation included, which was used by Benjamin Franklin [Library of Congress], who signed, both, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. the newer scientific definitions, i derive from the current lexicon.
that i did not specify that the set “complex origin of life” can be parenthesized for ease of objective mathematical manipulation should not thwart the efforts of a true scientist to mathematically prove (=) any argument.
given that the question of the existence of God divides mankind more wholly than any other (as an example: Jihad within Iraq), it is a vital topic, worthy of true scientific (=) analysis, whether it is to mathematically prove and/or to disprove God’s very existence.
to wit: ( 100% of the complexities [components] of the original source of life itself ) = ( the one original source of life, itself ) = ( original source of life ) = ( original source ) = ( the letter “A” as a mathematical symbol representing the term ( Set A ) = origin ) = ( Set A ) = A
thus: A (or “O” for “origin”) cannot be exclusive of conscious life, given that A includes no fewer than 100% of all of the components of life, itself, and, therefore, of conscious life, itself, and, therefore, of consciousness, itself.
mind does not = brain. brain does not = mind.
The Big Bang:
that which was prior to The Big Bang was pure peace …absolutely soft energy, given that there was no one alive to violate the peace by creating friction, even inadvertently. it so happens that the outer parameters of peace are appropriately and fully defined by the literal (=) parameters of The Ten Commandments (without the statement that God is “jealous”, which was a mistranslation of the Hebrew term for “worthy”); thus, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, literally, means “adulterate nothing” (not the truth, not your relationships, not even a hair on your head). GOD is, therefore, inherently good (pure, wholesome, soft, warm, clear, lightweight, divine).
Peace was, literally, everywhere …for an extremely long time, because no one existed to violate the peace. beginning at the center of everywhere, by the power of the inviolable and, thus, inviolate Law of Cause and Effect (a physical law which is mathematically precise (=) and a mere function of reality rather than the physical reality, itself), peace, eventually, evolved to become life, itself, which evolved, eventually, to become conscious life, itself. life was, therefore, everywhere, prior to The Big Bang.
the physical realities of the world are not confined to atomic structure, otherwise one could conclude that the space between the electrons, protons, and neutrons has no physical property and, as such, does not exist. thus, God is physical, rather than meta-physical, even if one is not fully utilizing his or her inner eye (mind) to see beyond galactic space and between the electrons, protons, and neutrons of matter, in order to see life, itself, therein (GOD).
the source of The Big Bang (the initial lightening bolt of friction which tore through life, itself, creating, in it’s wake, that which we know to be galactic space, is open to speculation, although, technically, it could have been, inadvertently, caused by an enormous, pure, physical human being who had, simply and unwittingly, erred once, given that each error is technically problematic, id est: a simple miscalculation; just as easily as the destruction of the Challenger was due to a miscalculation.
note that the living rose petal, in and of itself, is not producing friction. yet, therein, is life. yet, if one were to apply friction to the petal, wherever the friction touched the petal, the petal would, quickly, die. wherever the friction did not touch the petal, the petal would continue to live.
therefore, it is safe to conclude that extreme heat and cold (friction) damage life, itself, whereas, life, itself, is nourished at 80 degrees Fahrenheit. In fact, each temperature below and above 80 degrees Fahrenheit, damages life, though at 81 constant degrees, the life would dry out most slowly, rather than quickly, and, at 79 constant degrees, the life would congeal most slowly, rather than quickly.
to clarify, life, itself, always exists between and beyond the electrons and protons, and the electrons and protons (components) exist solely because of friction …The Big Bang …one enormous bolt of lightening which shot out across the scape of life, itself.
life, in and of itself, is pure, clear, warm (80 degrees fahrenheit), soft, and bright with the entire color spectrum, twinkling like tiny jewels in the sky. however, the portion of life which was torn by the friction of The Big Bang, separated this portion of life (God’s body) into mere components of life and, depending upon the cooling times and durations, devolved into the components and compounds which we, on earth, have labelled water, oxygen, diamonds, gold, silver, nickel, chloride, rubies, hydrogen, et caetera. the heavier base metals sank through the nooks and crannies; thus, the component set of nickel constitutes the core of the earth and the component set of gold, which cooled at a different temperature set than nickel, formed largely within veins as it leaked through the rocks and cooled.
as readily as your body would function to heal a small wound upon your arm, God’s body (life), automatically flowed into galactic space in order to heal the wound created by The Big Bang. some of this life (God’s body) landed upon the stars and was burned off. some of God’s body (life, itself), landed upon the planets, et caetera, while the earth was, yet, warm (80 degrees fahrenheit), day and night, for many millions of years, while the earth was experiencing it’s initial cooling phase. thus, by the power of the mathematically precise (=) law of cause and effect, this life on earth continued to evolve, because it was nourished by the warmth from within the slowly cooling planet …eventually, evolving to consciousness.
the early Big Bang meteor storms and showers smashing into and grazing across the planet earth, the resultant volcanoes, the increasing spinning of diminishing planet Earth, and cooling winds created pockets, nooks, crannies, mountains, and valleys of heat and cold. yet, wherever it remained a constant 80 degrees fahrenheit, life continued to evolve …eventually, to consciousness. thus, we have different life forms (the so-called “giants” of old, gods and angels (in the spirit), dogs (in the flesh), horses, eagles, sponges, homo sapiens, ants, bacteria, viruses, germs, et alii), all of which are, technically, God on earth (conscious, sentient, and as inherently intelligent as God, Himself), though God is still at home and the center of His consciousness is, either, at the center of everywhere, or, at least, very near to the center of everywhere (if He had created a body for Himself which is capable of moving away from the center of everywhere).
therefore, although meteor storms destroyed many of the earlier life forms on earth (because they were so burned by the molten lava and fires), we are, each, God on earth, exquisitely inherently intelligent (albeit, with virgin consciousness and, thus, without GOD’s own memories), inherently good (pure, wholesome, and peaceful), and born to be immortal. we would, each, be immortal, now, if we were living within a perfect environment of a constant 80 degrees fahrenheit with no omniverous microscopic conscious and sentient “people” to devour every living organism on earth, one bite at a time …and we would not need to eat in order to feed the microbes within our bodies in order to prevent them from eating us.
when galactic space has finally burned itself out, the remaining “heavenly bodies” (planets, meteors, et caetera) will, eventually, dissipate and become one with life, again. if no new Big Bangs are ever created, God will, once again, live in complete and utter peace, forever. if there are other Big Bangs, this whirling dervish will continue for an extremely long time …until some time after God understands the error which caused The Big Bang and corrects it. it is, even, possible that there is, currently, a string of galactic spaces …likened unto a string of pearls… which were created by The Big Bang.
that which is truly neutral is not, in and of itself, in any way violent. therefore, a neutrality does not, in and of itself, violate peace and, therefore, each neutrality is, technically, a positivity (+), because it does not damage life, in and of itself. thus, in absolute terms, 0 (zero) is, in and of itself, a positivity (+). by the power of the Law of Cause and Effect, which functions solely, in relation to non-friction (peace = neutrality = positivity = + = accuracy = perfection) and friction (any and all violence [such as a spark] = negativity = – = any inaccuracy = error).
each peaceful action (that which is solely within the parameters of The Ten Commandments), therefore, by the power of the Law of Cause and Effect, generates a positive chain reaction of events in every direction from the point of origin of the action, thereby, creating miracles (nourishing life, itself). conversely, each violation of The Ten Commandments (friction), by the power of the Law of Cause and Effect, generates a negative chain reaction of events in every direction from the point of origin of the action, resulting in death to some portion of life.
because peace will always exist somewhere outside of galactic space, within an xy graph, xx = + (represents life, because it contains only positivities and is infinitely positive). because each of the remaining three quadrants contains at least one negativity and because one cannot continue to subtract from the whole, ad infinitim, with a positive result, yy = -, xy = -, and yx = – (and each quadrant is, fortunately, finite). yy exists, therefore, only where no life exists, such as within a star, whereas, xy and yx represent the presence of some life and some death, such as that which we are experiencing on earth. given that the stars will eventually burn out, it is realistic to conclude that y will cease to exist, at some point. the same law applies to finance.
The Golden Rule most efficiently resolves all resolvable problems, leading us, automatically, back to within the parameters of The Ten Commandments. To wit: you do not want anyone to steal from you, therefore, do not steal; et alii.
God is peace. God is alive. God is conscious. God loves the way He feels and looks …pure, warm, soft, calm, clear, beautiful. God loves. We do not know, however, that God is aware of the tear in His body which was created by The Big Bang. We do not, therefore, know that He is aware that we even exist, here, on earth, nor that earth exists. although we have not, yet, been visited by aliens from another planet, there is life on all other planets, though the exact heating and cooling times and temperatures were different, so the life forms are different than our own …and some are frozen. if we are fortunate, they do not, yet, know as much about space travel and computers as we do, for they, too, are God and, therefore, possess inherently exquisite intelligence. yet, do they have an understanding of The Ten Commandments or The Golden Rule, as a moral compass?
rather than assuming that it is impossible, try to mathematically disprove any and all of my statements. if each of your premises is mathematically accurate (=), you will not be able to do so. you will need to specify, within your calculations, however, the base which you are applying, id est: base 10 [which is the base which i used, for ease of calculation; nevertheless, running it through a computer with base 16 works, as well, for as long as each premise is, first, proven to equate (=), punctuation included]. yet, if each of your premises to be included within your mathematical argument equates (=), you will be able to mathematically prove (=) the existence of God, based upon the information which i stated within my initial weblog.
Peace.
it is a UNIversal truth that Allah exist .lets have a circle to our globe .mostly the people before Chirstianity and islam beleived on GOd no matter how they beleive but they always beleived on GOd .NAture insist to admit that God is here there and also every where .no matter what u r all trying to argue .it is just ur explanations to hide ur sins and mind level.
thankx and second .My beleives cant be urs and urs cant be mine so live with freedom and let other to live
M,chaudhry
my post is not missing the M. you are. nice try though.
There is no ‘one’ intelligence orchestrating anything.
The intelligence is inherent in the design of matter itself, in how nature itself weaves the fabric of life. The orchestration is built into the orchestra. No ‘one’ is orchestrating anything, everything is. Given the right combination of carbon, light, etc, something will spring into life.
Everett Peacock
[email protected]
I can only prove true or false what I can observe, and it can only hold true or false whilst I can continue to observe it to be so. Does observing an effect prove the existing of that which causes the effect? I propose yes. I cannot explain consiousness but I know I am consious. I cannot explain what gravity is but I can observe the effect of it. I cannot touch or see dark matter but I can measure that it must be there. If we ascribe effects to god does this imply that god is the cause and therefore exists. Can we deny the existinance of god by not ascribing any effects to him? Does the fact that we can do either with god make it different prooving the existance of god from prooving the existance of gravity? I say yes. For me this is the difference between belief and science, and therefore I propose that god has no part to play in a science blog.
Although the above line of logic is broken in more than one leap. I feel compelled to point out the following:
Many have hypothesized the existence of God. This hypothesis has never been elevated to law but it has never been dis-proven either. I would go so far as to speculate that it may be impossible to disprove the existence of God. If this is true, then one who assumes the existence of God is equal in assumption to one who assumes that he does not exist.
no proof or disproof of either.
therefore=> both Christians and Atheists are assumptive :)
Ya’ll accidentally came here by mistyping the URL. You want:
scienceblogs.com
Notice how this jerk grabbed a URL that’s close (missing the ‘s’) to spew his non-science?
yeah, but what about Allah? Backwards that’s Halla!
“any have hypothesized the existence of God” (Try writing in here Fairies, Goblins, Ghosts, FSM, Witches, wizards).” This hypothesis has never been elevated to law but it has never been dis-proven either. I would go so far as to speculate that it may be impossible to disprove the existence of God. If this is true, then one who assumes the existence of God is equal in assumption to one who assumes that he does not exist.”
Same logic….
The argument is fully logically valid. The problem is not with the logic of the argument, it is with the premises the argument is based off of. Using a logically sound argument based of faulty premises is just as bad as using a logically fallacious argument based of sound premises.
In this case there are two premises:
given that the original source of all of consciousness, itself, cannot be unconscious – this is a common assumption of people trying to prove the existence of God, but no one has been able to show any evidence or any logical argument as to why this is the case.
that consciousness, itself, cannot be inferior to itself – this is obvious, but meaningless. It is like saying “the number 1 cannot be less than the number 1”. Obviously nothing can be inferior to itself, otherwise it would be two things and not one. I think what she was trying to say is that the original source of consciousness cannot be inferior to later sources of consciousness, but once again this has not been established by logic or evidence.
Jane – math: junk in = junk out.
“It is, also, an absolute truth ( = ) that, regardless of it’s complexity, there is only one (1) original source of all of life.
Not necessarily true. When conditions were right lie might have started more than once.
and, therefore, of consciousness, itself, and, given that the original source of all of consciousness, itself, cannot be unconscious
Not necessarily true and most likely to be false. The source(s) of life was (were) most likely a series of chemical processes without consciousness.
Any further conclusion based on two patently false premises is unlikely to be fruitful
And WTF this is a SCIENCE blog?
I’ve a deep sense of foreboding about getting involved in this, but here goes….
It is true that no-one knows what occured before the Big Bang, or what, if anything, caused it.
You may, if you wish, insert a ‘God of the Gap’ at this point; however, unless you can explain – with supporting evidence, please, not metaphyiscs – who or what created your God, how He/She came to be…then doing so explains nothing.
And if you could do that, then how do you avoid infinite regress? You God was created by another God, who was created by…do you see the problem?
Personally, I find a simple expression of ignorance – we just don’t know how the universe got started (at present) – more intellectually honest.
There are certain facts that science have not been able to explain till now.The very fundamental being where did everything come from…we and everything around us..the cosmos…Agreed that it was big bang which created the universe and hence all of us…but nobody knows what was there before big bang…..singularity (perhaps)…but what produced the singularity. Was there the hand of some power in this creation and evolution of universe …. can we call that power “God”.
Perhaps yes, even scientists of stature of Albert Einstein , Issac Newton believed in the existence of god.
But what is being said here in this blog is not science but at extreme case can be considered dry “Meta Physics”.
Come on let us be more practical and technical at our dissection on the topic of the existence of god.
For wealth of Science facts visit : http://sciencefacts.articlemuseum.com/
What? First, you need to show evidence that consciousness is needed to create consciousness. Reality is not a muddled equation. You have a presupposition that consciousness is necessary, but all the equations in the world mean squat if the initial premise is false. It’s that simple. If you claim to have evidence, please present it. If it proves valid, then we can use that as part of the equation. You also need to show that something that causes something else needs to be alive as well, else you are grasping at straws and attempting to prove something by claiming the very thing you seek to prove. Cuircular logic isn’t logic. This sounds like something a beginning philosophy student (or an apologist) might use before they learn how to use logical or philosophical proofs (not mathematical proofs, which do not apply).
Jane, your very first claim – that “it is an absolute truth that only that which equates is true” – what do you mean here? Are you seriously trying to use the mathematical definition of “true” in a philosophical or real (ie non-philosophical, real world) sense? Most people know that “true” (as in 100%) is generally a nonsensical notion unrelated to the world or non-mathematics. Sorry to go on a bit, but I honestly can’t figure out what you are going on about.
Re: Mr Peacock – ” but no scientist can deny that a force, albeit a natural one, is orchestrating, in a scientific way, the Big Show we all find ourselves in.” There are many scientists who can, and indeed do, deny that there is any intelligence orchestrating the universe. What we find is that the universe follows what we call “laws” (our descriptive term for what we discover), but there doesn’t seem to be any objective evidence for such an intelligent guide (although many claim that their subjective ideas serve as evidence). It’s nice poetry, but not a valid scientific model.
is dog spelled backwards.
First, thanks for taking the time to read the site and post a comment. But to set the record straight: The item above is from a Science Blog reader who has their own sub-blog on our site.
ScienceBlog.com has been around a a lot longer than ScienceBlogs.com. I know because I started the site!
Ben S.