The Signs of God's Existence

a reply to: tsingtao
...so, urm, what exactly is your point?
This is the Sci/Tech forum and the OP is presenting a youtube which DOES NOT offer any evidence to support claims of gods. If anyone wishes to assert that the beauty around us is evidence of some god/creator or other then it should really be in the religious section where it can be ignored by people who think critically.
Faith based arguments are just that - faith with no evidence - I personally am not interested in seeing such things creep into the Sci/Tech forum, unless of course someone has some verifiable new information regarding claims of gods, but that is of course unlikely.

Go and build a bird from nothing...let it then fly away. You wont be able to. God did.

With all the diversity of life forms here...that's just one single piece of irrefutable evidence of a higher power.

BUT!? If anyone in the world can do that from nothing...call me and Ill come film it.

a reply to: mysterioustranger So, no evidence either, just wild claims that "God did".
I'm happy for any faith based ideas in the religious forums, but in Sci/Tech, nope, I read this forum to avoid unsubstantiated claims of unproven mystical superstition and woo woo stuff.

a reply to: grainofsand

Wow. How astute...the only response I can think of to that is "For those who require extreme "proof-evidence"...no amount of proof will be enough. And for those who don't...no proof is necessary".

So I will assume as you do...that you cannot prove with a single piece of acceptable evidence...God doesn't exist either.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: grainofsand
So I will assume as you do...that you cannot prove with a single piece of acceptable evidence...God doesn't exist either.

I've never stated anywhere that gods 'do not' exist, nor pixies, elves, ghosts, goblins, dragons, fairies, demons, angels, etc, just that there is no evidence to support such claims. I do not believe things without evidence, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - as any critical thinker would realise.

...oh, and I have no interest in reading purely faith based assertions in the Sci/Tech forum

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: itsallgonenow 1.618 is a very interesting number . Thanks op for your post S&F ..# 1 is representative of God in the Bible . 6 is the # representative of man . So 1+ 6 = 7..the # 7 is representative of spiritual perfection God made man for Himself . We are told that man fell in the garden and sin entered the world and so God and man were separated .So 1 + 6 + 1 = 8 ...God in restoring man back to Himself becomes man and dies in his stead ,for the wages of sin is death . So 1 + 6 + 1 = 8 ..8 is the # representative of resurrection or newness of life .Jesus said on the cross before He died ," it is finished " ....1 + 6 + 1 + 8 ..in the sequence 1 + 8 = 9 ..9 is the # that represents finality .So 1+6+1+8 =16 ..1+6=7 spiritual perfection again .

The Golden ratio (phi/Phi) is not just an "interesting number" it a very significant number in the formation of "everything" because the Fibonacci numbers sum it(and everything grows in a Fibonacci sequence ) however what you wrote is junk,gibberish math.The extrapolation of the words of scriptures to form religious doctrines of men is incorrect and since math is the truth when it is twisted into a religious agenda it is perverted even moreso.

a reply to: Rex282 I understand the significance of the numerical phi ratio in the realm in which we live in .I was merely pointing out that it also has significance in scripture that is symbolic .I did not use it to substitute the words that are quite clear on the pages but that there is a underlying numerical presence that I find interesting and thought I would share for anyone else interested in exploring it .You are welcome to disregard it ,explore it , but to suggest that I have a religious agenda is your perversion of what I posted . This thread is about God and you would be hard pressed to prove that The Bible does not address the subject matter ,either in the plain text or the ,beneath the surface in the Greek and Hebrew letters that do have numbers associated with them .

ETA here I will quote you "John CLEARLY states in the opeing verse ALL of Revelation is written in signs that signify with numbers and are word symbols (metaphors).ALL scripture is written in words AND numbers .Hebrew and Greek are both alphanumeric languages ..that wasn't an accident.The implication of that fact is FAR reaching. "

a reply to: grainofsand

"...oh, and I have no interest in reading purely faith based assertions in the Sci/Tech forum..." Me either.

I looked around for something easy for you to understand. I hope it can impress your thinking-critically....At the link, it reads in part...

Difference Between Evidence & Proof
By Daniel Francis, eHow Contributor

"...Although they are linked, evidence and proof are intrinsically different... It is best when it is something tangible but can be circumstantial. Proof is a burden. Proof is conceptual.

www.ehow.com...

I can give you three, all well known. God grants miracles to bring you to belief.

The Shroud of Turin (results of 2011 Italian study of the Shroud - "This degree of Power cannot be reproduced by any
normal UV source to date.")

The Tilma of Guadalupe www.catholiceducation.org...

Padre Pio, a modern saint, bore the wounds of Christ for fifty years Read the list of preternatural gifts besides
the stigmata given to Padre Pio by God. padrepiodevotions.org...

a reply to: mysterioustranger
I haven't used the term 'proof' anywhere in this topic, I stated that I do not believe in any gods due to the lack of any evidence. Your statements 'Look around' 'God did' 'Try to make a bird' etc are merely that, faith based assertions with nothing to support your claims.

Are you trying to convert me to your unverifiable faith on the Sci/Tech forum, really? I am NOT telling you there are no gods, just that I have seen nothing ever to draw me towards believing in such things.
You have made assertions so unless you have some decent sci/tech standard of evidence or logic to support your claims I would suggest it would be more suited in the religious forums.

"The world is so beautiful that it must be created by a god or whatever" is not logic, it is a faith based position which is nothing more than a guess to fill in the blanks of knowledge. If it makes you happy to believe that then fine but it will take more than evangelising in sci/tech (based solely on a feeling) to draw me towards believing in any invisible entities.

Too late for me to edit my last post but big thanks to the moderator who moved this topic out of sci/tech to the religious forum.
I shall now happily dismiss and ignore all previous and further comment here, as stated before, I don't do the faith without evidence thing.

This youtube clip is a good one to consider www.youtube.com...

AP David: On The Laws Of Nature | EU2014

originally posted by: grainofsand
................ I don't do the faith without evidence thing.

You are correct their is a difference between evidence and proof.In fact there is no positive "proof" of anything and that fact is believing in God is very, very different than knowing a creator God.Belief is only through a "Belief System(which everyone has regardless of what they do or do not believe and it is their religion).

Knowing God requires no evidence or proof because its axiomatic.The construct closest to that relationship is math.Math is not speculation or belief it is fact of knowing what is true..1+1=2
Math is the main evidence that "testifies"of a creator God.What it won't do is provide proof.First comes belief which is the primer of the pump however belief is not knowing..when belief is done away with then fact is known.That is the way it is "summed".

If there is a creator God there is no apparent rhyme or reason why a few (a VERY,VER VERY VERY few) were "chosen" to know the creator God.The old and new testimony scriptures(not what is called the bible) is a testimony that testifies (calculates or fulfills) the Truth.That testimony is of ONLY one thing.Yahoshua….which in Hebrew means Yahweh(the creator God) IS salvation(which means deliverance).Most call Yahoshua, Jesus.Yahoshua is NOT something to be believed it is something that is and will be KNOWN (experienced).

Salvation isn't about religions belief (it is the anthesis of religion.. Belief Systems) it is about "knowing".The apostles of Yahoshua were the only ones that "knew"because it was given to only them to know the creator God through the man Yahoshua.Christianity has it ALL wrong.They neither believe in Yahoshua nor "know" the creator God.Christianity is a part of someone Belief System(usually the core).It is IMPOSSIBLE to know the creator God BY belief.

Yahoshua and the apostles only proclaimed by stating what the Truth was.Yahoshua called it the Good News(gospel).The Good News is very simple (and infinitely complex).It is the only thing Yahoshua proclaimed.He was NOT teaching religion .What he proclaimed has been twisted into the "doctrines" of men...religion.The Good news is simply all of mankind will be delivered(saved) from the realm of death.There is no way to "know" this except by experience and none have experienced it yet .That deliverance doesn't mean they WON'T die it means delivered from the death they WILL die.

In a nutshell Yahoshua is testified in the old (and new) testimony scriptures in a way that has nothing to do with faith.It is centered around the central theme of the people of the nation Israel.Just a short background history.

It starts with the Hebrew Abram. He was told through a messenger(meaning of an angel) he would be the Father of many nations.When he was 99 and his wife Sara was 90 they finally had a son Isaac. Abrams "name" was changed to Abraham which means father of many nations. Isaac eventually had twin boys Esau and Jacob.Later after many adventures Jacob had his name changed to Israel(which means struggles with the Yahweh)He had 12 sons which are the 12 sons of Israel.They were in birth order(yes this is germaine to my point)

Reuben,Simeon,Levi,Judah,Dan,Naphtali,Gad,Asher,Issachar,Zebulun,Joseph,Benjamin.

This birth order is important because it determined "inheritance".There are a few "modifications,Joseph gave his inheritance to his 2 sons Manasseh and Ephraim and Levi had no inheritance because he became the "priest" tribe(s).The "new"tribes list is the same except there is no Levi and Manasseh and Ephraim are substituted for Joseph(patience I'm getting close to my point.).

The Israelites built a tabernacle in the wilderness and it was the "center" of their life.Inside the tabernacle was a place called the Holy of Holies that only the high Priest Aaron(from the tribe of Levi and Moses brother) could enter.He was the "representative" of all the 12 tribes.He wore a breastplate with 12 stones sewn into it. Each stone was symbolic of one of the 12 tribes.The stones were arranged in a 3x4 matrix in the birth order,…..here it is from the Aaron's left to right
3-2-1
6-5-4
9-8-7
12-11-10

Judah-Simeon-Reuben
Gad-Naphtali-Dan
Zebulun-Issachar-Asher
Ephraim-Manasseh-Benjamin

Here's where it gets interesting.Names are the main theme of the scriptures "testimony".A name is the nature and character of the thing or person named.The creator God told Moses his name was "I will be what I will be" which was known as the tetragrammaton(4 letter word) YHWH which the religious turned into Jehovah etc etc…. What is significant is a names "sum". ….what it means.That is where the testimony comes in .

The Hebrew and Greek language can be "calculated" by a system called gematria and isopsephia respectively.That means each word has a sum of it's letters and the most significant words are "names".When the names of the 12 sons of Israel are calculated here are their sums in the matrix pattern of the Aaron's breastplate.

30-466-259
7-570-54
95-830-501
331-395-162

These number seem to have no patterns.... but they do.They sum to 3700 which is a multiple of the unique number 37(thats a whole book!)
3700/37=100

…and there's more.
The bottom(4th) row sums to 888
331+395+162=888

888 is divisible by 37
888/37=24

the 3rd row plus the first name from row #2 sum
95+830+501=54=1480

1480 is divisible by 37
1480/37=40

the remaining 5 numbers sum
7+570+30+466+259=1332

1332 is divisible by 37
1332/37=36

The new testimony was written in Greek.The most significant name in it is Yahoshua(which is what Jesus comes from)translated from Hebrew it is Iesous and christ(from the Hebrew mashiach) which is christos. In Greek isopsephia Iesous and christos sums
Iesous=888
christos=1480

The other significant testimony of names is in the book of Revelation..the infamous number of the beast and the number of the man both of which are 666.
666+666=1332

These names of the sons of Israels numbers order also have a unique pattern.By adding the "odd names (1-3-5-7-9-1) and the even names 2-4-6-8-10-12 there is another number pattern
names 1-3-5-7-9-11
Reuben+Judah+Naphtali+Asher+Zebulun+Manasseh
259+30+570+501+95+395=1850

names 2-4-6-8-10-12
Simeon+Dan+Gad+Issachar+Benjamin+Ephraim
466+54+7+830+162+331=1850

1850+1850=3700

The purpose of the old and new testimony is to testify (witness by summing) of Yahoshua the mashiach…and there it is..in simple math.It has nothing to do with faith it is only fact.These names and numbers cannot be manufactured to create a religious agenda especially since the Jews DO NOT subscribes to this truth nor do the Christians.They are as a whole….. completely oblivious to it.They can only believe their "religious doctrines of men" of faith through the words whereas the math of the names is a testimony of Truth.

Israel(struggles with Yahweh) are the archetype of ALL mankind.The old and new testimony testifies of Yahoshua..Yahweh IS salvation /deliverance of ALL of mankind from the realm of death.It is a testimony nothing more.Not a religion.Not a method. None can do anything to receive salvation(or loose it).Yahoshua was not teaching nor did he start a new religion(nor did the apostles) man did.This math is not something to be believed as a doctrine it testifies to a statement of the Truth..Yahoshua….That's why its the GOOD news.

a reply to: Rex282

Ah, you replied to me perhaps you missed this bit when you quoted my words:

I shall now happily dismiss and ignore all previous and further comment here

...and seeing from your 'explanation' to support your claim of gods/creator/entity, you would have to bring something better to the table for me to ever be drawn towards your way of thinking.
I respect your right to believe in anything you like which has no evidence to support it, I however require more than ridiculous assertions such as:

Knowing God requires no evidence or proof because its axiomatic

Good luck with your beliefs but as previously stated in my comment which you replied to, I have zero interest in this topic now it has been correctly placed in the woo woo forum which apparently requires zero evidence for argument.
Not my thing, as said earlier, as you ignored.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Your entire post is a perfect example of a total lack of critical thinking skills.

To put this in context, here is Seth McFarlane's assessment of creationists and their understanding of science:

You actually take a cartoonist (Seth McFarlane) as some kind of authority capable of passing any kind of sound judgement on a complex scientific debate? You take his word over the considered, intelligent opinions of eminent scientists both past and present such as Galileo, Isaac Newton, Francis Crick, Sir Arthur Eddington, Allan Sandage, etc.?

...it's theistic propaganda saying essentially that science doesn't understand 100% of the universe therefore we can make up whatever we want to fill in the gaps, which must of course be God.

You've completely missed the point.

Physicists and cosmologists know enough about the universe to conclude that the likelihood of certain physical constants that the very existence of the universe depends on could not have acquired their values by blind chance. They are 'finely tuned', some to a precision of as many as 120 decimal places. But a materialist/atheist must maintain that the values of these constants (the precise values of which ensure that the universe has the structure that it does with all of its physical laws and its ability to support life in addition to the fact that the universe could even exist at all) are just set at the values they are by pure chance.

Is that a reasonable assertion?

The probability of this value being set to the value it is by chance is 1 in 10^120. To put this into perspective of how ridiculously improbable that is, there are 'only' 10^80 atoms in the entire universe. So the likelihood of the cosmological constant being set by blind chance is less likely than being able to choose a particular single atom out of all of the atoms in the entire universe.

Question: How do you explain this precision of the cosmological constant occurring by pure chance, and what evidence do you have to support your claim?

They say abiogenisis must be impossible so life can't come from nothing but fail to see the irony that's exactly what they seem to be claiming for God.

Straw man argument. An explanation of how God came into existence is not required for intelligent design to be an explanation for how the universe came into existence. You don't need an explanation of an explanation for the original explanation to be correct. This was even clearly explained in the video.

originally posted by: Brighter
The probability of this value being set to the value it is by chance is 1 in 10^120.

Source?

Question: How do you explain this precision of the cosmological constant occurring by pure chance, and what evidence do you have to support your claim?

You've been misinformed. In 1997 we thought the cosmological constant was zero. Now we think it's a small number above zero. There's nothing particularly special about either value and both models of the universe worked just fine, it's just that we adjusted it to a non-zero value based on observation. It could be many other non-zero values and the universe would be just fine. It's not that fine tuned, that assertion is complete nonsense as proven by the fact that the value of zero and the current non-zero estimate both allowed us and the universe to exist just fine.

Not only that, the universe is inhospitable for life in general. One of our biggest concerns about trying to visit Mars is the deadly radiation, especially if there is a coronal mass ejection during the voyage. Physicist Dr Park comments on this fine-tuning nonsense:

Fine-tuned Universe

Physicist Robert L. Park has also criticized the theistic interpretation of fine-tuning:

If the universe was designed for life, it must be said that it is a shockingly inefficient design. There are vast reaches of the universe in which life as we know it is clearly impossible: gravitational forces would be crushing, or radiation levels are too high for complex molecules to exist, or temperatures would make the formation of stable chemical bonds impossible... Fine-tuned for life? It would make more sense to ask why God designed a universe so inhospitable to life.

You don't need an explanation of an explanation for the original explanation to be correct. This was even clearly explained in the video.

If that's true then you don't need an explanation for abiogenesis either. You can't have it both ways, requiring an explanation for abiogenesis bot not for god.

a reply to: Brighter

Physicists and cosmologists know enough about the universe to conclude that the likelihood of certain physical constants that the very existence of the universe depends on could not have acquired their values by blind chance.

Well, some scientists say that this can be explained by the presence of a gradient of multiverses, each with their own constant. In such a hypothesis, the "right" universe (with the "right" constants) is bound to exist for life to occur.

BTW I am agnostic. So my personal opinion is not really biased towards any side on this God issue.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
To put this in context, here is Seth McFarlane's assessment of creationists and their understanding of science:

That's just rude, mate.

I got many christian friends. Saying that all of them are dumber than "retarded" is just pure prejudice, and you know it - you know very well that many of the greatest scientists of History also happened to believe in God. Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, you name it.

I can understand what you are saying, but I am fairly confident in your ability to make a point without resorting to insults.

a reply to: swanne

It says "Creationists", not Christians.
Creationists are the ones who think the Earth is 6000 years old.
It's not a dig against Christians who think the Earth is billions of years old. If it was, it would say "Christians" instead of creationists.

It's not possible to prove god doesn't exist, as far as I know.
However it is possible to prove the Earth is more than 6000 years old. If anybody who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old is offended by MacFarlane's characterization, I would suggest they spend less time being offended and more time studying science.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
You've been misinformed. In 1997 we thought the cosmological constant was zero. Now we think it's a small number above zero. There's nothing particularly special about either value and both models of the universe worked just fine, it's just that we adjusted it to a non-zero value based on observation.

Incorrect. It's not just a 'small number', it's astonishingly small, precise and extraordinarily significant. The cosmological constant, lambda, was most recently calculated at 10^-122 in "The Value of the Cosmological Constant", by John D. Barrow and Douglas J. Shaw in a March 2011 issue of the journal _General Relativity and Gravitation_. You're also confused about the basic issue being discussed. It's not that 'we just adjusted it to some none-zero value', it's the value itself that matters in conjunction with the maximum allowable deviation from it.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
It could be many other non-zero values and the universe would be just fine.

Incorrect again. The max. allowable deviation from the current value is 1 / (10^120). Outside of that deviation, the universe becomes inherently unstable. If your idea of the universe being "just fine" is an unstable universe where the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is either too small so that it simply collapsed in on itself, or too rapid so that stars and galaxies could never have formed, then I'm going to have to disagree with your definition of "fine". The precision of lambda points to just how delicate the very existence of our universe is.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
It's not that fine tuned, ...

And...incorrect again. If by "it's not that fine tuned", you mean that lambda doesn't have to be so precise that it can't even deviate by more than 1 part in 10^120, then you're wrong. If you have any evidence to counter this claim, then please present it here.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
that assertion is complete nonsense as proven by the fact that the value of zero and the current non-zero estimate both allowed us and the universe to exist just fine.

Actually, you're uttering nonsense. You appear to be under the bizarre belief that when the previous prevailing model had lambda set to 0, that that somehow affected the universe (huh?)

You're confusing the relationship between physical models and the reality that they describe. The cosmological constant was at one point set to 0 but it did not accurately describe reality. After Hubble, the observation of Type Ia supernovae, CMB measurements and the discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, the cosmological constant was reintroduced in order to account for this new empirical data. This new model is a far more accurate description of reality.

Now that we have that out of the way, I'll ask my question again:

Question: How do you explain this precision of the cosmological constant occurring by pure chance, and what evidence do you have to support your claim?

And while you're at it, you can also explain the fine-tuning of the ratio of electrons to protons (max. deviation of 1 in 10^37), ratio of electromagnetic force to gravity (max. dev. 1 in 10^40), mass density of the universe (max. dev. of 1 in 10^59) and expansion rate of the universe (max. dev. of 1 in 10^55). If any one of these values are off by their maximum deviations (which are almost infinitesimally small), then either the universe would not even exist, or at the very least life would never have formed.