2006-07-21 05:30:13 · 18 answers · asked by H. B 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
We must first understand the principle that everything comes from something, that nothing comes out of nothing. Have you ever had a practical experience that something came out of nothing? No. Has any scientist ever produced something out of nothing? No. We can understand, therefore, that we indeed do come from something. We are not talking about our bodies here. We are talking about the non-material self that exists beyond our body, that is the witness and manipulator of those things occurring on the platform of the body. Of course our material bodies also emanate from that original source along with all the other material elements in the universe.
Since everything comes from something and we are part of everything we can understand that we do indeed have a source. Everything we see is caused by something else that preceded it.
2006-07-21 05:45:29 · update #1
Actually, it is quite common for things to come from nothing. In fact, what is usually regarded as a vacuum is continually in a froth of electron-positron pairs comming into existence and popping out again. THIS IS A MEASURED EFFECT.
So your basic premise is wrong. Even if it were, the better statement is that nothing material comes from something immaterial. So this actually shows that God, if it exists, is a material entity. Of course, even with this proviso, the argument is fatally flawed since you are implicitly assuming that htere can't be an infinite regress of causes. Among other aspects is the fact that causes are before the effects of those causes *and are part of the universe*. This would suggest that God, if it exists, is subject to time and is part of our universe. I have a feeling that isn't what you were wanting to conclude....
Next, you neglect to establish exactly what it is that defines this non-material self. We know our emotions, our thoughts, and our hopes are products of our brain activity. This is a very material thing. It also explains why we die when the brain is cut off from oxygen: the needed chemicals for the reactions are not there.
2006-07-21 09:10:44 · answer #1 · answered by mathematician 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i'm purely someone with restricted perceptions, equivalent to each and every person else. I believe God does exist, yet no longer in any anthropomorphic experience that would want to take care of to be shown or measured scientifically. This being the most possibly reason for the a even as old debate, I finish that i won't be able to offer any satisfying answer that would want to convince you both way.
2016-11-25 00:16:07 · answer #2 · answered by studdard 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Please provide proof. Proof must be something that can be examined or verified by others - single sources of evidence such as the bible do not constitute proof as they do not have any way of showing them as facts - they require faith.
Faith and fact are two very different things. True science does NOT say there is no god, only that there is no proof of one. If you can prove it then you are due for a Nobel. If not then you are posting this question only to rant and don't really understand the scientific process.
2006-07-21 05:37:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No offense meant, but GOD is a "truth" and based on a faith. SCIENCE is FACT and even when disputed is still FACT. PROOF may be subjective, internalized, opinion driven, as it relates to "TRUTH", and in no way can the two be compared, with regard to PROOF.
I defy you,,, no I challenge you, to PROVE the existence, until you actually pass into another frame of reference.
I'm GOOD not GOD, but very much a spiritual person, with faith in many things. I suggest there is no PROOF, until death, but certainly FAITH and a belief system is valid.
Reverend Steven
2006-07-21 05:39:21 · answer #4 · answered by DIY Doc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Essentially you are saying "something must have created the universe." This is probably the most convincing "proof" of God's existence, but the simple problem with it is that it begs the question, "who created God?"
2006-07-21 07:15:43 · answer #5 · answered by GrantPeacock 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're one up on this atheist if you can do the first part.
As to the second part, contradict yourself much?
Why don't you start small by proving there is no tooth fairy. Bearing in mind that there's a difference between not doing anything and not existing.
2006-07-21 05:45:42 · answer #6 · answered by corvis_9 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "For proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
"Ah, " says man, "But consider the Babel Fish. Such a unique creature could not have possibly evolved merely by chance. It proves you exist, so therefore, according to you, you don't."
"Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that," says God, and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy!" says man, and for an encore, goes on to prove that black is white, and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.
2006-07-21 05:35:47 · answer #7 · answered by Scotty Doesnt Know 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unless you show the proof and subject it to critical scrutiny, this is an empty boast.
God is unprovable by science. Philosophical proof might be possible, but may depend on the basic hypotheses (which in turn need to be subjected to critical scrutiny).
2006-07-21 05:35:20 · answer #8 · answered by jorganos 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a flawed argument. I also think there is a God but this is not proof. Existance in of itself is not proof of a deity. You need to rethink your argument
2006-07-21 06:04:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you are either a liar or a person who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "prove".
2006-07-21 05:33:17 · answer #10 · answered by BoredBookworm 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋