Prove there's a god.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#635712 Jul 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently it did pokay , we can't answer exactly how.
But even if it's because a bearded sky fairy waved a magic wand and said "start thinking" ,
those neural networks started forming.
Science works on answering the question, even if it's hard.
But sees nothing but evolution to explain it.
Including the evolution of complex chains of organic carbon compounds
that became the building blocks of life that became DNA and life.
Otherwise known as abiogenesis.
There is no apparency here. Why is it apparent that it did? We don't know that there was no life in existence somewhere accessible to this existence/universe at all times. We don't know whether there was consciousness/awareness in existence at all times. So what do you mean "apparently it did"?
Then you know the difference between nothing, and absolute nothing.
Us having this conversation is evidence that absolute nothing never existed else we would not be.
Another genius statement. What *is* the difference between "nothing and absolute nothing"? Nothing is nothing isn't it? "Absolute nothing" is redundant isn't it?

OK then you can't be implying that something can come from nothing. At least we got that straight.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#635713 Jul 2, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
To understand radiometric dating, you need to understand measurement first. Any scientific measurement is expressed as a number of units, plus a tolerance. For instance, a spindle rod with a diameter of 26mm with 0.5mm tolerance. This means that the actual measurement, when measured by a more precise tool, would be 25.5-26.5 mm.
Now, radiometric dating also have such tolerances. On early Homo Sapiens, this tolerance would be maybe a thousand years. So if the test gives a result of 153,610 years old, their maybe a swing of 800 to a thousand years. Not very much, compared to 150,000 years, right?
Now, the farther back we look ,the rougher our tools become. When dating the oldest rocks on earth (using uranium) we would have a possible swing of a few million years. That sounds like a lot, but compared to 4.6 billion, it is a drop in the bucket.
Radiometric dating measures the decay of the Element, based upon that element's "half-life" Think of it this way. Let's say you leave your kids at home for a week, with food in the cupboards. If I go in on day 2, I would find most of the food still there. But I go in at day 6, and most of the food might be gone. I can thus determine roughly, how long you have been away, by examining only the food in the cupboard. If I know the smaller variables, like their weight, exercise routine, usual diet, favourite meals, I would be able to scientifically determine the time you were away, by measuring the kilojoule value of the food taken from the cupboard.
That is how radiometric dating works. Elements decay away, and we measure that decay. Some elements decay rate goes quick, like Carbon (about 5000 years) and others, like Uranium, are more than a billion years.
By all means, google this information, do not just take my word. Decay rates have never ever ever been proven not to be constant, despite a great many experiments.
Now. How about a small verification? Africa and South America were once joined, we know this due to the fact that the geologies align. Now, both move real slowly, at about 2 inches per year. If we take the vectors they are on now, at the rate they are moving, we find that they split roughly 97 million years ago.
Now, plantlife aan animal life began to diversify on both continents, after 97 million years, according to radiometric dating techniques of fossils. Tgis implies that before 97 million years, the continets were one. And at 97 million years, they split.
This evidence makes an extremely strong case for the accuracy of radiometric dating, since two sources corroborate each other
This is all excellent data and I truly commend and respect the scientists who figured all of this out. it's truly amazing. However, they still are basing this all on the assumption that the conditions of the atmosphere were the same thousands of years ago as they are today. How can we assume to know this if we don't even know what truly happened in the beginning?

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#635714 Jul 2, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
The Cambrian Period was earmarked by a cbemical compound in the soil that worked detramental to fossil formation. Currently, one in every million specimens gets fossilised. Why? Because fossilisation is very rare. Now, during the Cambrian, this figure may have been one in a hundred million. This gives very incomplete evidence.
To be completely honest, I don't know a heck of a lot about the Cambrian period....I only posted this article to show that scientists today are realizing that things they once thought true...probably aren't. This article brings about a lot of unanswered questions...and that's my whole point. To say science has it all figured out beyond a shadow of doubt is truly to kid yourself.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#635715 Jul 2, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, not rue. The evolution from mammal to humanoid has been proven above any reasonable doubt. Not one other theory can explain the fossil evidence. Not one.
No there is definitely reasonable doubt....And a lot of people doubt

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#635716 Jul 2, 2013
scambuster wrote:
<quoted text>
Your beliefs about matter and consciousness feels a lot like mine did when I was agnostic. What are your thoughts on physical laws? How interactions started out pretty simple, but become more and more complex as time, and the universe expands? Could there have been an intelligence behind the laws of physics? And if so, that intelligence could be all knowing due to the fact that it would know what interactions would produce which results.
I'm just thinking out loud here, so forgive me if that all seems convoluted.
I'm not religious but I'm not exactly agnostic either. I believe there is a higher power. I believe that consciousness/awareness is the most fundamental force and is what I consider "God". I'm not going to give it a name or a gender or claim that it wants something from you.

I'm going to guess that natural law doesn't change; what changes is what we know about it as we learn more. Science may never uncover anything that is absolute about existence itself or about consciousness.
Myth Buster

Scottsdale, AZ

#635717 Jul 2, 2013
Bullshit signed in wrote:
How can you say it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that we evolved from something when we have no idea what the heck it was we supposedly evolved from....LOL...that's just beyond hilarious to me.
There's absolutely nothing even mildly amusing about being a religiously retarded redneck lacking the intellectual capacity to know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#635718 Jul 2, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
These "skeptics" on here are too passionate in their non-beliefs to be "skeptics".
Skepticism is doubt, not actively denying.
christianity is an evil philosophy,

they honor a "god" that they cannot demonstrate exists.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#635719 Jul 2, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Who actively denies the existence of a god?
define "god"
Myth Buster

Scottsdale, AZ

#635720 Jul 2, 2013
Pokay wrote:
I would describe any hypothesis of 'consciousness that came into being from a state of unconsciousness' as pseudoscience as well, because there is no way to approach it scientifically.
You could and you'd be wrong!

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#635721 Jul 2, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the evidence for the activation of "reality"? What is the evidence "reality" is real except relative to itself?
predictability,

logic

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#635722 Jul 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a broken record, dude.
quid pro quo

“Jon Snow”

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#635723 Jul 2, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>It's not that hard to understand what I'm saying if you try a little. We don't know what exactly consciousness is, and therefore have no clue whether a molecule possesses some small aspect of it or whether consciousness/awareness was always in existence or not. If you can argue that there is no such thing as free will then I can say that chemical attraction and repulsion are examples or products of consciousness and that molecules are therefore conscious in some way that is not apparent to us. I don't really believe they are conscious but how could I know?
*How* do the "13+ billion years before it attest to there not being any" consciousness in existence? That's an idiotic statement. We have no clue whether consciousness/awareness was in existence.
I think you know what consciousness is, it is simply the ability to know (aware), detect (sensory input), and remember(memory).
The higher the levels of these things the higher the level of consciousness.
13+ billion years
It means it took that long for consciousness and hence life to evolve in the universe, being we have no evidence it exists anywhere else or existed before life on Earth.
But if it had always existed and evolved to the degree we have there should be evidence of that. And recorded history would be more than it is.

What we see is primitive life with rudimentary consciousness
and as these life forms evolved and senses evolved the level of consciousness was raised. Brains became larger sensory inputs became more sensitive , the information processing power grew.
The biological arms race started in the Cambrian the senses peaked out over 300 million years ago long before mammals, but 200 million years ago mammals got larger brains and consciousness expanded over reptiles.

Then we came and memory was expanded within us consciousness was expanded as we became aware of the world on new levels.
About 3,000 years ago when communication and writing was developed man became aware on a new scale and for a thousand years it grew. And he became infinitely more conscious than 20,000 years ago. Indeed modern man is exponentially more conscious than 2,000 years ago , but consciousness is still growing and evolving with us. Because one man need not carry the entire amount of our knowing
and it can be saved in external memory the consciousness of our species has become infinite.

I think we can determine a clear pattern in the growth of consciousness, in the life on Earth as well as within ourselves.
Yes we are aware of things on a molecular level and even to atom sized awareness , so if intelligence or consciousness existed in molecules we would know it. But it takes cells to posses this
and while these cells could possibly involve something into the quantum spectrum , I think it would have to have come from the living tissues on a cellular level, and not the reverse.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013...

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#635724 Jul 2, 2013
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
You could and you'd be wrong!
As usual you don't acknowledge anything directly and specifically. We can't know whether life came from nonlife or whether it always was in existence. How do we know? Your buddy tim admitted that we can't know.

You say that you don't hold any beliefs but you'd be wrong. It is a belief that life came from nonlife or that awareness came from unawareness; not a fact. Anything that we (science) knows is contingent on certain things. There is nothing "absolute" about science or anything else available to us humans. The most obvious of which is the fact that what we perceive as reality may not be a first-order reality at all; but I don't think you can understand what I mean by that as you hold onto your ignorance

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#635725 Jul 2, 2013
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
There's absolutely nothing even mildly amusing about being a religiously retarded redneck lacking the intellectual capacity to know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.
I know the difference between the two...but to say we evolved from mammal to human without a shadow of doubt without knowing the mammal you insist that we evolved from is...well...it's ludicrous. And for the record...abiogenesis doesn't occur. It's a failed theory...hypothesis...idea...w hatever you wanna call it.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#635726 Jul 2, 2013
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
There's absolutely nothing even mildly amusing about being a religiously retarded redneck lacking the intellectual capacity to know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.
oh and btw...how are you tonight? In a better mood by chance? I see you're still name calling...but I can look over that. Hope life is treating you well PA :)

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#635727 Jul 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you know what consciousness is, it is simply the ability to know (aware), detect (sensory input), and remember(memory).
The higher the levels of these things the higher the level of consciousness.
13+ billion years
It means it took that long for consciousness and hence life to evolve in the universe, being we have no evidence it exists anywhere else or existed before life on Earth.
But if it had always existed and evolved to the degree we have there should be evidence of that. And recorded history would be more than it is.
What we see is primitive life with rudimentary consciousness
and as these life forms evolved and senses evolved the level of consciousness was raised. Brains became larger sensory inputs became more sensitive , the information processing power grew.
The biological arms race started in the Cambrian the senses peaked out over 300 million years ago long before mammals, but 200 million years ago mammals got larger brains and consciousness expanded over reptiles.
Then we came and memory was expanded within us consciousness was expanded as we became aware of the world on new levels.
About 3,000 years ago when communication and writing was developed man became aware on a new scale and for a thousand years it grew. And he became infinitely more conscious than 20,000 years ago. Indeed modern man is exponentially more conscious than 2,000 years ago , but consciousness is still growing and evolving with us. Because one man need not carry the entire amount of our knowing
and it can be saved in external memory the consciousness of our species has become infinite.
I think we can determine a clear pattern in the growth of consciousness, in the life on Earth as well as within ourselves.
Yes we are aware of things on a molecular level and even to atom sized awareness , so if intelligence or consciousness existed in molecules we would know it. But it takes cells to posses this
and while these cells could possibly involve something into the quantum spectrum , I think it would have to have come from the living tissues on a cellular level, and not the reverse.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013...
Idiot, no one knows what consciousness really is, so the rest of your post is a waste of time, sorry. It doesn't matter what we think it is, the fact is no one knows what it really is.

It doesn't matter how organized a bunch of unconscious molecules ever become; even if they form neural networks by accident, we cannot assume they were able to become conscious at some point, until we can demonstrate a specific and detailed mechanism and understanding of it. We haven't even a way of approaching it, period. Yet you can't get that simple fact through your noggin

“Jon Snow”

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#635728 Jul 2, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text> There is no apparency here. Why is it apparent that it did? We don't know that there was no life in existence somewhere accessible to this existence/universe at all times. We don't know whether there was consciousness/awareness in existence at all times. So what do you mean "apparently it did"?
<quoted text> Another genius statement. What *is* the difference between "nothing and absolute nothing"? Nothing is nothing isn't it? "Absolute nothing" is redundant isn't it?
OK then you can't be implying that something can come from nothing. At least we got that straight.

Is it not apparent that life is here now? Can you not see that?

You go straight to conjecture again, there is no reason to surmise that life elsewhere has anything to do with why we are here now.
And even it it has been in existence elsewhere it hasn't touched us
or expanded our knowledge base or involved itself with us.
We are what we are through the evolution of life here.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#635729 Jul 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you know what consciousness is, it is simply the ability to know (aware)
So, just because we don't observe molecules "behaving" or displaying awareness, means that they do not contain some small aspect of consciousness? I don't believe they do but fact is we can't even guess.

I don't even have to push the idea that 'life is carried eternally by an underlying consciousness that can survive a big bang singularity' to make my point. Simple life could have always existed and simply crossed paths with our universe. How do we know what "paths" there are in the grand scheme of things? And how do we know what the simplest form of life could be? We don't. Science would have to be some sort of deity in order to know some of the things you claim it knows.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#635730 Jul 2, 2013
If virtual particles seem to come out of nowhere then there must be all kinds of unknown "paths" in the grand scheme of reality that could be responsible for perpetuating life and or consciousness. No one knows, except for myth buster and aura mytha; we should be proud to be amongst deities here. There must be a course available called,
"how to be ...
...a deity".

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#635731 Jul 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it not apparent that life is here now? Can you not see that?
You go straight to conjecture again, there is no reason to surmise that life elsewhere has anything to do with why we are here now.
And even it it has been in existence elsewhere it hasn't touched us
or expanded our knowledge base or involved itself with us.
We are what we are through the evolution of life here.
Dang are you dense. It is apparent that life/consciousness is here now but it is not apparent whether it was always in existence or not. No one knows.

Are you admitting that life could have existed "elsewhere"? Well if so then why could it not have crossed paths with our universe and evolved from there? Why did it have to be "created" here? Who says life came from nonlife? No one can do anything but guess. There are no educated guesses here.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 min karl44 88,123
Secular Humanism VS Christianity 8 min RiversideRedneck 127
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 20 min Al Capone 3,388
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 28 min New Age Spiritual... 665,309
News Medicare looms over Trump-Ryan alliance 50 min Taco-smacko 2
The Future of Politics in America 53 min Buck Crick 222
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 57 min LAWEST100 184,720
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 1 hr Buck Crick 551
More from around the web