:
|
Also, that's not what I meant, untilll we can find a way to create a non human life, from ground up, or even a way it would happen, we cannot say there is no God.
|
A non sequitur. We could not say that before nor after.
:
|
How was life created if we were supposed to be inside a tiny ball of mass
|
Supposed? Don't assume that every argument also claims there to be some sort of purpose.
:
|
who created that tiny ball of mass, and who made it explode all of the sudden
|
Anthropomorphism. Again, the argument here is that nobody needs to be making this stuff happen. That does not mean that there is no cause, rather that there is no need for the cause to be intelligent.
:
|
if for enterity before that it hadn't
|
The current theory is that the Big Bang is also when the dimension of time came into existence, so there was no eternity before. There was no
before, in the traditional sense.
:
|
and how was life amougnst a bunch of rocks.
|
:
|
And in conclusion, if we can't figure out how to create life from nothing, that means no cloning or anything from that such, I guess creating life from non living materials would be enough, we can't say there is a God, or something out there that created us all.
|
I assume that was a typo on your part, because suddenly you're supporting
our argument. Via non sequiturs, I might add.
:
|
Anyway, God living forever untill creating the earth makes a whole much more sence that a ball sitting around in the middle of nothing
|
1. It's not exactly going to make much sense to anyone who has not even a basic understanding of astrophysics. But it is what the available evidence and subsequent calculations all point to. You don't
have to accept evidence, of course, but then don't start claiming what makes sense and what does not. To me, the opposite of your statement is true.
2. Ball?
:
|
which technically may not even be space
|
True. It is hypothesised that what would become space was contained within the singularity.
:
|
and one day decidng to blow up masively
|
It didn't "decide" to do anything. Another anthropomorphism.
:
|
unless you believe in the big crunch theory, and it's a massive cycle, and then, why can't we find materials before the last big crunch, and what/ who created all of this, and started this cycle anyway?
|
1. We wouldn't find anything from the last universe if the hypothesis is true because information cannot be preserved through the complete and pure entropy of the end of the universe.
2. Why would it even need to be started anyway?
3. Who? Another anthropomorphism. I know it is difficult for one who has followed the religious route to break free of that concept when your own faith anthropomorphises every cause, but do try, especially when considering scientific explanations.
:
|
Hmm, maybe we should stop asking these big questions and get on with our lives.
|
Some people's lives are about asking these questions.
:
|
And Bullet Magnet, if Jesus came knocking on your door would you beleave in him? (Probably not becuase there were a few skeptics at your time), but say, you were on one side of an ocean, and God came down and parted the oceans for you, technically there's no maths involved, so would you beleave in God?
|
Of course not. With the evidence presented before my eyes, there would be no need for faith at all. But that does rather defeat the purpose of having faith in God, so would be something of an own goal on God's part.
Although whether or not this was truly God or some other powerful entity frequently mistaken for Him would be a relevant question.
:
|
Basically, proof comes in MANY forms, there's already proof of God, and currently to my knowlledge none against him, BUT because a mathimatical statement is blunt and obvious, and hard to get around, becuase of it's simplicity, then if you presented one proving or disproving God, there would be very little room for skeptics.
|
There can be no evidence for the non-existence of God, because the very concept is non-falsifiable. I have explained that already, haven't I? That makes it all non-testable, which means no evidence can be used to support the concept either.
Again, proof exists only in mathematics, and refers to other mathematical concepts. This means that it is a logical argument, not an empirical one (in which real-world evidence is involved). By this I do mean mathematical logic, logical reduction and so-forth, so it will not help you in terms of religious discussion.
May I also say that a sceptic is not someone who simply does not believe in anything, rather someone who requires adequate, empirical evidence for a statement.
:
|
But Mathitcal proof can be wrong, we can be mistaken, we can misunderstand maths (there could be a missing factor that we are forgetting) and therefore it is not completly solid proof, and there still is room for skepticism.
|
I hope you're not applying the God-of-the-Gaps argument to mathematics now, are you? It's a moot point anyway.
:
|
But give up, becuase a scientist is not going to waltz up your street with a mathimatical equasion proving God, becuase God isn't a mathimatical equasion, he isn't an amount, etc.
|
Exactly. These are more reasons why the concept of God is far from science and rational discussion. I hope I wasn't giving you the impression that I was sitting at home, eagerly awaiting the day that the mathematical God has been invoked to solve Schanuel's conjecture.
:
|
But there is kind of proof, alot of natural things follow the fibinachii system, a mathimatical patern, almost proof that there is a designer of our world becuase of it appearing in such a varity of things such as acorns, follows and honey combs.
|
No, that simply demonstrates what mathematicians has told us all along: that math is not abstract, but has actual and essential relevance to the physical universe.