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
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
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)