It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God, WSJ

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 12:07 AM

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
If you cannot prove God's existance is improbable, then God's probability to exist proves God's existence, since given any probability, over enough time it will happen. Monkey composing Shakespeare.

Can you prove that the easter bunny's existence is improbable? If not, then you just proved his existence. You can't definitely prove non-existance of any wrong idea, but by your logic that makes them all exist. But again, without evidence, there is no probability equation for god because even 109238301984091804918094102 times 0 = 0. If you are suggesting he is .1% probable, I'd like to know how you figured it. We don't know that the universe is infinite, but it is true, even with low odds the more you roll the dice, the more likely you are to eventually hit. You are blatantly misusing probability in your god example because there are ZERO rolls of the dice and nothing to even compare it to. It was a valiant effort however.
edit on 7-1-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 08:16 AM
a reply to: TinfoilTP

You haven't proven the probability of Zeus is zero, ergo he exists.

Spotted the flaw in this logic yet?

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:30 PM
a reply to: GetHyped

All I see is some terrible abuse of statistics
I also want to know how they can prove the existence of undefinable beings (*insert obligatory comment I am a spiritual person to clarify I am not an athiest on a rampage*), because that is beholden to them if they wish to go down this route

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:52 PM

originally posted by: KnightLight
Now if you want to see evidence for god what would that be? You want foot prints? DNA? IF you don't know what to look for you won't find anything. And I'm pretty sure creating the big bang leaves the same fingerprints as a big bang randomly happening. So what is this evidence that you want?

What I am talking about is complex systems look like god to some people and to others it looks like a lot of time/selection.. But how can you possibly know which one is more likely. (to know which one is more likely you have to see what happened before the universe got here) That's a crazy assumption to me. They are both impossible until you explain the beginning. And yet here we are.

If somebody was able to see what happened before the big bang, there would be no probability involved because they'd know the answer. I would consider anything objective (that doesn't involve assumptions) that demonstrates god exists or is necessary for any part of the universe to function as it does. Saying, "Oh X looks like it was designed", or "Y appears to be designed" is just personal opinion. It's not about appearance, as there are plenty of things that appear intelligently designed but are not. God is less likely do the fact that we haven't found evidence yet, and everything we've studied in the universe functions on its own without the need of an external entity. With no evidence, you can't claim one thing is more likely than something WITH evidence (ie evolution, plus even abiogenesis has some). The problem is that people put god into the unknown gaps of scientific knowledge claiming that god caused the big bang, or DNA is so complex it was designed, when we actually do not know the full cause of either one yet. Not knowing the answer isn't a case for god. This thread is about scientific evidence, and claiming it makes a case for god. It doesn't.

And did you just say no evidence for a creation event? What is the Big bang exactly if not a creation event (not saying conscious creation here)

I was talking specifically about conscious creation, because we are talking about god, are we not? If you aren't talking about god as a conscious entity and creator of the universe you are speaking in metaphors, as you can call god almost anything. It's still personal opinion. There's nothing wrong with personal opinion, but it isn't a scientific case for god.

What if the "Unified Field" is actually information... That's the only fingerprint you could find for god.. IS this a "computer" program.. IS this reality based on laws? If it's based on laws, are these laws natural, or created, and how could you know the difference??

We can't tell the difference, but the believers constantly use these things as evidence of god. IE, "If there are laws, who made them?" The answer is we don't know how they came about, or if they are simply properties of the universe. If the universe is a program, it probably runs like absolute crap because of all the billions of extra stars, planets and galaxies and their interactions. The design would be terribly inefficient, which leads me away from that notion, although you can't fully rule it out without having complete knowledge of the universe and beyond, just like with god.
edit on 7-1-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 01:42 PM

edit on 2/6/2015 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:16 PM

edit on 6-2-2015 by Grimpachi because: nvm I refuse to feed the troll

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:17 AM
a reply to: DeadInside

In 1900, there were 2 world views. Materialists believed the universe has an independent existence and all that exists (including us) is a product of the interaction of matter and energy. Scientific observation favored this world view. It appeared to be the rational viewpoint.

Idealists believed matter was dependent upon a Mind for its existence. This conclusion was derived from logic and philosophy. Others concluded it depended upon faith.

Then came quantum mechanics, the double slit experiment, quantum eraser experiment, etc. They showed there is no mind-independent existence. (

The odd thing is that survey results show that, while scientists familiar with these experiments agree that the results accurately indicate the nature of reality, they remain Materialists even though the experiments completely debunk materialism.

While these experiments do not "prove" the existence of God, in the words of Sherlock Holmes:

"My dear Watson, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 11:28 AM
a reply to: pmchristopher

Those experiments don't prove god and don't disprove materialism. If they did, there would be a scientific consensus that god exists already.

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in