From existence to the existence of God

The E wrote:Yep, cthia still functioning as intended, still making wild assumptions about everything and everyone based on his perceived intellectual superiority, still willing to disregard everything that may contradict him while blindly praising that which agrees with him....


It's funny that he, a person who has spent considerable verbiage on the most inane of proofs, thinks that "Man is finite while the universe is infinite, therefore god exists" is a complete and sufficient proof.

Did that cray in your basement tell you that? Is that still a thing you're doing?

My perceived intellectual superiority? The bulk of your own scientists believe in a higher power.

But that is my point. You never submit anything of your own that contradicts me or religion. You never submit anything at all. You tap dance around what I, and religion, embrace, but you never submit anything yourself or address what "we" submit.

Yes, the Cray is still running. She is only one. Programmed in Lisp. BTW, I have never been accused of "lacking in formal logic" before you. I am pretty sure I have written algorithms that are still being used today in expert systems. Well, I can't prove that. They could have been rewritten, but since my code was tight and fast, I doubt it. Programming in Lisp demands a thorough understanding of logic.

cthia wrote:But that is my point. You never submit anything of your own that contradicts me or religion. You never submit anything at all. You tap dance around what I, and religion, embrace, but you never submit anything yourself or address what "we" submit.

Because there is nothing to submit. There is no scientific paper I can point to that unequivocally states "there is no god" (neither is there one stating the opposite).

You are trying to convince people that a thing you believe in exists. It is upon you to prove it, and upon us to evaluate the evidence you submit, and so far? So far, you haven't been able to provide anything more than sophomoric philosophical or rhetorical arguments in favour of your position. You promised a formal proof. Deliver it.

Yes, the Cray is still running. She is only one. Programmed in Lisp. BTW, I have never been accused of "lacking in formal logic" before you. I am pretty sure I have written algorithms that are still being used today in expert systems. Well, I can't prove that. They could have been rewritten, but since my code was tight and fast, I doubt it. Programming in Lisp demands a thorough understanding of logic.

Programming in any language does. I'm a professional software developer too, although I make no particular claims to brilliance or extraordinary success that you do; and one thing all devs learn is that you need to be very precise when defining your terms and conditions in order for anything to work. This handwaving you're praising to high heavens here just doesn't cut it on the command line, or, for that matter, in science or philosophy.

The E wrote:For the uninitiated in deep forum lore: Cthia once claimed to be working on a formal proof of the existence of god. Either he abandoned that project, or he is still looking for what eludes him; at any rate, it seems he never published anything.

I wonder, is your sudden disregard for crossing the ts and dotting the is when constructing a proof just because it turns out to be really hard?

Thanks for the introduction. I feel special. Bow, bow, bow. But enough about me, this discussion is about God.

BTW, my Cray doesn't have feelings and it could care less about your constant complaints about the time it is taking. Again, I only have one Cray. And obviously an army of Crays would have a hard time solving just a single one of the Millennium Problems. But, where does this particular common and frequent diversion get you? Afraid of the actual topic? I'm not God. Nor is my Cray.

This is why you are still on my ban list. You don't want to actually discuss topics. You want to defer, troll, change the subjects, discuss what's in my basement, etc., etc.

Every time I go through the trouble to "display your post" - and it is a lot of trouble to respond to someone who is on your ban list - I am disappointed.

Do you have anything at all to offer of your own? Anything at all? It does not have to be totally yours. Adopt a mainstream theory from your side of the fence and support it.

.

cthia wrote:BTW, my Cray doesn't have feelings and it could care less about your constant complaints about the time it is taking. Again, I only have one Cray. And obviously an army of Crays would have a hard time solving just a single one of the Millennium Problems. But, where does this particular common diversion get you? Afraid of the actual topic? I'm not God. Nor is my Cray.

I like tweaking your nose because it's so damn easy. It's a minimum effort job to get you to post the most hilarious nonsense, just by pointing out the most obvious flaws in your statements.
That you claim to have an avenue to "a formal proof for the existence of god" is just icing on the cake, really; It's such a grandiose claim that it's very hard not to make fun of you for it.

Oh, and who can forget you threatening to sue me? The messages where you invoked the wrath of your family because you thought I cared enough about you to hack one of your tablets?
If you expect me to ever forget that, or to stop laughing about it and making fun of you over it, well, you're mistaken.

This is why you are still on my ban list. You don't want to actually discuss topics. You want to defer, troll, change the subjects, discuss what's in my basement, etc., etc.

And yet, you keep responding to me!

Every time I go through the trouble to "display your post" - and it is a lot of trouble to respond to someone who is on your ban list - I am disappointed.

Here's the secret: You are disappointed because I refuse to bow to your "logic". You are disappointed because the only people who praise you for your insight here are people already agreeing with you.

Do you have anything at all to offer of your own? Anything at all? It does not have to be totally yours. Adopt a mainstream theory from your side of the fence and support it.

The mainstream theory is "There is no god". The support I offer is "there is no evidence for it that we have been able to find" and "actually, given how the philosophical underpinnings of the scientific method work, it is actually impossible to create an experiment to find that evidence".

It is upon you to prove me wrong.

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:But that is my point. You never submit anything of your own that contradicts me or religion. You never submit anything at all. You tap dance around what I, and religion, embrace, but you never submit anything yourself or address what "we" submit.

Because there is nothing to submit. There is no scientific paper I can point to that unequivocally states "there is no god" (neither is there one stating the opposite).

You are trying to convince people that a thing you believe in exists. It is upon you to prove it, and upon us to evaluate the evidence you submit, and so far? So far, you haven't been able to provide anything more than sophomoric philosophical or rhetorical arguments in favour of your position. You promised a formal proof. Deliver it.

And the singing and tap dancing begins. What do you mean there is nothing to submit? You've got nothing? Nothing at all? Then how are my thoughts superior? Superior to what?

Ok, I've got something. Where did the primordial soup come from? How can science be responsible for existence when before existence there was no science. None of your tools existed. I'm not asking you to prove or disprove God, just make your own views of science make sense. And, please, stop tap dancing. It is exhausting.

The only real question is, what before the big bang?
Various branches of science have set out what has happened since. From the rapid expansion to the coalescing of galaxies and stars, to planets, to eventual ponds of primordial soup. At least on one planet among many depressions in rocks over many millions of years there was the right combination of natural nutrients present to produce amino acids, which after millions of iterations formed basic life.
Sure a lot of misfires, and dead ends, but millions of years is long enough in the goldilocks zone. As to how many times in a infinite universe this happened, and if life can be transferred by interstellar spores, who knows?
What I was really trying to illustrate is that man is a clever animal, and there is no set point where man becomes a special (made in god's image) sentient case, different to previous generations.
I would like the christian myth to be real, as I miss my mum, but can't make it so by wishing. When in Rome, I was struck by looking at the Sistine Chapel ceiling, as to how much I resemble Michelangelo's Yahweh, so maybe I need to look closer to home?

Daryl wrote:The only real question is, what before the big bang?
Various branches of science have set out what has happened since. From the rapid expansion to the coalescing of galaxies and stars, to planets, to eventual ponds of primordial soup. At least on one planet among many depressions in rocks over many millions of years there was the right combination of natural nutrients present to produce amino acids, which after millions of iterations formed basic life.
Sure a lot of misfires, and dead ends, but millions of years is long enough in the goldilocks zone. As to how many times in a infinite universe this happened, and if life can be transferred by interstellar spores, who knows?
What I was really trying to illustrate is that man is a clever animal, and there is no set point where man becomes a special (made in god's image) sentient case, different to previous generations.
I would like the christian myth to be real, as I miss my mum, but can't make it so by wishing. When in Rome, I was struck by looking at the Sistine Chapel ceiling, as to how much I resemble Michelangelo's Yahweh, so maybe I need to look closer to home?

Now that is a question worth pondering. The Big Bang. Now, science posits a big dot in (space), a very dense point that exploded. Some scientists conclude that this very dense dot always existed. As I have pointed out in another thread, the notion is nothing short of existentialism. Yet, some naysayers conclude that matter can have always existed, but a God can't have always existed? Yet, out of the two, God is the only one that can truly (matter). If some matter has the distinct properties of immortality, then I wish we would make cars out of it.

But alas, some skeptics ask the question, well, who created God? Which is a meaningless statement. Would that be division by zero?

At any rate, if the "stuff" which existed in the very dense dot that exploded into a Big Bang, then that "stuff" is God. Or at least the God process. Whatever came first is God. We even understand that notion as kids.

"I am first! Therefore I am God." Though, as kids we are usually referring to our place in line to get ice cream.

But, don't forget the timing Daryl. Those first three minutes after the Big Bang are the most important. Creation is too ordered to have been happenstance. Einstein was right in that God doesn't roll dice. Life wasn't a matter of luck. And, somethingness certainly didn't form out of nothingness.

Some say science and religion are on a collision course. Nonsense. Either science created existence or a God created existence. From everything we know, God is more likely the one who can create out of nothing. That leaves science on a collision course with itself.

cthia wrote:

Donnachaidh wrote:None of what you said proves or disproves God (whichever one you're referring too, there are so many to choose from...).

I believe what you said can be accurately paraphrased as "since we exist and that existence is for a limited time, God must exist". There is no proof or really even an honest argument in that.

It certainly proves that man isn't God, or the Creator. Who is left? Creation can't be blamed on aliens from another system because most people in the forum don't believe in aliens either. You shot yourself in that foot long ago. LOL

Of course there are as many Gods as there are languages and cultures.

"That which we call a rose by any other name will smell as sweet."

BUT! What would bother me is if only one culture believed in a higher power.

As you say, there is not an honest argument to that. There isn't an honest argument to any of IT. There is plenty of mumbo jumbo to sing along with all of the tap dancing though.

You made no argument beyond "Nuh-uh! He's right; you're wrong" which is a clear indication that you have no interest in any sort of discussion.

cthia wrote:<snip>
Some say science and religion are on a collision course. Nonsense. Either science created existence or a God created existence.

Or maybe science is about finding out what and how while you're demanding that it explain why then saying science is wrong because it didn't answer your demand in a way that met your world view.

cthia wrote:From everything we know, God is more likely the one who can create out of nothing.

Please explain this to me since I have never seen anything that supported this contention.

Donna,

I have no interest in any type of discussion? Me? But I do. I always have, but I get none in return. My interest in a scholarly discussion on the matter is why The E keeps getting second chances. But he is correct, Christians can be easy to take advantage of for his own sick entertainment. We believe in second chances. But thanks for admitting it E. I don't have to waste time on you any further.

Donna, Daryl, anyone else. Again, explain to me how matter created itself. Explain to me where the densely packed point of matter came from which is responsible for the Big Bang. Then explain to me what made it finally explode. Was it increasing in density all the while? From where was it getting the matter? Point to me some science which can explain spontaneous combustion of absolutely nothing.

You keep saying I'm not interested in a discussion, but your side fails miserably at that point. Don't you get tired of tap dancing around the subject then blaming me for fake news?

But seriously, you have to overcome that seemingly insurmountable obstacle. You don't believe in a God but you are so willing to attribute God-like power to matter. Explain it to me so I can understand it please. I keep asking, you all keep tap dancing around it. Surely you must have something you think can be responsible for creating matter out of nothing. Or are you simply disagreeing with religion because "you said so." But that is what you accuse me of.

Science has to be graded on a curve. It has to begin with the Big Bang. Ask naysayers where the dense matter could have come from before the Big Bang and they have a melt down. There are no holes in religion.

There are plenty scientists who are on our side who believe there is a God. There is not a single Christian who has defected to your side. Not one.

I keep giving you plenty to discuss. My stance is mainstream and found amongst most, MOST, of your own scientists. So, tell me again how it is I who shy away from conversation.

And, the burden of proof is on me??? Nonsense! Show me how any aspect of science can create something out of nothing.

Preposterous!

cthia wrote:And the singing and tap dancing begins. What do you mean there is nothing to submit? You've got nothing? Nothing at all? Then how are my thoughts superior? Superior to what?

Apologies, what I meant by "his perceived intellectual superiority" was "self-perceived intellectual superiority". You keep making statements that boil down to "you're just not smart enough to appreciate the truths I'm posting", thus implying that you believe yourself to be intellectually superior, it's part of what makes you so funny.

Ok, I've got something. Where did the primordial soup come from?

Again with the super-basic arguments!
Even if I could explain the entire path from a distributed cloud of matter to a solar system to a planet to a planet with oceans, a weather system, and complex chemicals in those oceans, it doesn't matter for the argument of whether or not there is a god.
The fundamental, unbridgeable difference between you and me is that you look at the universe and see the majesty of god's creation. You look at all the complexity, all the beauty and terror, and come to the conclusion that someone or something willed it to be so.
Me, on the other hand, I look at the same thing and marvel at the beauty of randomness and complexity from simple interactions. I see no shaper, I see no evidence of a will at play. Just ... stuff happening, over eons and lightyears.

The other difference is that you absolutely believe that you know the truth of the universe. That your faith is, in some way, accurate and that there is a personal connection between you and the will that shaped the universe, which I obviously do not share.

(Also, I find your attempts to prove me wrong amusing)

How can science be responsible for existence when before existence there was no science. None of your tools existed. I'm not asking you to prove or disprove God, just make your own views of science make sense. And, please, stop tap dancing. It is exhausting.

...what?

How can science be responsible for existence?

See, this is what I mean by you being an easy target for needling. You posted this, you think this is a killer takedown of something, but... it's just a really, really stupid statement.

Science is a philosophical framework that we came up with to develop a systematical approach to gathering knowledge. It's a tool to describe the world so that humans may know it and gain a measure of control over it. It's a human creation, and can only exist when humans do. It didn't create the universe, and it didn't appear ex nihilo - but it may, one day, come up with a description of how the universe was created.
I would have thought you knew that, but apparently not.

cthia wrote:Donna, Daryl, anyone else. Again, explain to me how matter created itself. Explain to me where the densely packed point of matter came from which is responsible for the Big Bang. Then explain to me what made it finally explode. Was it increasing in density all the while? From where was it getting the matter? Point to me some science which can explain spontaneous combustion of absolutely nothing.

Yeah, what D said about you not being interested in scholarly debate? This is proof. You're asking for something that amounts to an in-depth treatise on astrophysics, and you're too lazy to do the work and get that degree yourself.

You keep saying I'm not interested in a discussion, but your side fails miserably at that point. Don't you get tired of tap dancing around the subject then blaming me for fake news?

You're the one with the extraordinary claims, you get to present your evidence first.

Oh, and, cthia?

I know you'll be reading this and I know you won't be able to help you from responding to it. You may be able to keep yourself from posting about me here, but you won't be able to keep it up forever.