Proof of God

[pocaracas]

Harris Wrote:
These Theories lack Correspondence and Coherence. In attempting to elucidate meaning to these expressions in terms of truth-conditions, induce a plethora of further problems. Many are a matter of detail concerning the kinds of properties we should associate with these terms to produce truth theories for them. Lack of Correspondence and Coherence are the sources for general difficulties concerning whether or not truth is central at all in the analysis or elucidation of meaning of these expressions.

Pocaracas Wrote:
Well, the god hypothesis introduces its own nice set of difficulties which you just happen to choose to ignore with a flick of a finger.

We can dismiss any non-proven hypothesis, while betting on one of them to be the winning horse. I guess that's what believers do.

I prefer not to gamble.

I had given sufficient logical evidences that universe cannot be the product of:

1. Nothingness
2. Accident and
3. Chance

I think spotted your problem.
LOGIC, even if correctly applied, when it uses faulty of incomplete premises, leads to the wrong answer.
Mankind's knowledge of how the Big Bang came about puts you in such a problem.
- The universe may have not began to exist, as your premise states, but rather it may have changed state... we can't tell what kind of change or even what sort of state... It's an unknown... at best, your premise can be that it's unknown what caused the big bang... But you cannot claim anything about a prior state. The Universe, in its present state, has been around since the big bang, at least.

Anything else, we don't know, we can't tell, we'd better not put faith in any wild guess.

Nothingness cannot produce anything where as if there is something then Accident can only cause chaos and anarchy, but not creation.

How would you know anything got created at all, ever?

Chance depends over already existing paraphernalia. In order to explain Chance you first need to explain that paraphernalia.

Chance arises from mankind's inability to account for all possible physical states at any particular time.

The idea of Multiverse is an attempt of finding the cause of our Universe. This idea is thoroughly constructed on precise orderly structure of our existing universe, which is not at all chaotic, and there are no signs of anarchy either. Rather the phenomenon of fine-tuning and universal constants are mind-blowing factors.

Yes, the multiverse idea is a useful construct to show how this perceived fine-tuning may have come about... Is it really fine-tuned?
Or is it just another unknown?

The weight of all scientific and logical evidences leads only to one idea and that is the idea of CREATION.

The weight of all theology shows that any god is complex enough to be even more complex than any universe... hence it too would require a creative force...
And down we go the rabbit hole....

As I wrote earlier, that multiverse is only a calculated assumption, which has no clues in support because those clues (if they exist) are outside of Universe and thus outside of conceivable domain of human perception.

Furthermore, I also argued that even if scientists would find the origin of our universe in some multiverse then they would face another challenge, “How and why multiverse exist?”

Therefore, long ago Aristotle has put a full stop over this regressive process by arguing for the First Unmoved Mover.

So, Aristotle already had all the weight of present-day scientific and logical evidences, huh?
Or did he pull it out of his.. .err... imagination... like all theologians?

Yeah.... there's this entity called "Natural Selection" that consciously "chooses" the fittest... why do you word things in such a fallacious fashion?

Anyway, had you not skipped high-school, you'd have been presented with the evidence you want.

Here's a collection of resources that seem fit for the job at hand:
http://sciencenetlinks.com/lessons/intro...selection/

http://www.ngsslifescience.com/biology_l...ction.html

http://www.nhm.org/site/for-teachers/les...igh-school

Good luck.

Regrettably, the links you have offered are not helpful in any sense. They only explain the (presumed) effects of Natural selection without giving any comments over the cause of Natural Selection and there is no mention about the source of Natural Selection.

Let me simplify the meaning of the phrase “Natural Selection is not science” so you can have a better grasp on it.

We do not know what gravity is. However, we know the source of gravity, which gives us the opportunity to measure its different strengths that precisely depends over the nature of the source. We can then use the results to modify our different scientific mechanisms on earth as well as in space. Thanks to the universal gravitational law, which makes us able to calculate and predict a precise consequence in advance for the manoeuvres of our machines in a certain gravitational field strength without any hassle of being wrong.

Similarly, we do not know what Natural Selection is. However, unlike gravity we do not know the source of Natural Selection either. The lack of the source means lack of certain specific features of the source, which further simplify to “NO CALCULATIONS.” Without calculations, there cannot be any universal law and so we are left with the unpredictability of fabulous Natural Selection.

This unpredictability is further empowered by absurd statements from eminent scientists like Dawkins according to whom

“NATURAL SELECTION, THE BLIND, UNCONSCIOUS, AUTOMATIC PROCESS which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life HAS NO PURPOSE IN MIND. IT HAS NO MIND AND NO MIND’S EYE. IT DOES NOT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. IT HAS NO VISION, NO FORESIGHT, AND NO SIGHT AT ALL.”
Page 5
The Blind Watchmaker
Richard Dawkins.

It is a common sense that if we cannot observe some natural phenomenon then we cannot collect data related to that phenomenon. When we have no data then we cannot make our calculations. Therefore, without data and without calculations, any idea is unscientific. Thus, Natural Selection is not a scientific concept.

Natural Selection has a certain political purpose and that is to promote the ideology of atheism in the secular world by fooling young generations.

Got it: you're too stupid to understand that "Evolution by Natural selection" is an effect perceived from the multidisciplinary study of fossils; evolution of fast reproducing life forms such as bacteria and fruit flies; isolated populations, etc, etc, etc.

Natural selection has no political purpose. Nor does it promote any ideology.
Now... theology, on the other hand... the muslim kind that you claim to be true... oh boy!