Existence of God disproved!

dowie said:
I think you're getting confused between an article headline and what 'scientists' have actually said.

Do you really think scientists often act like they know everything? Can you give any recent examples?
Click to expand...

Do you often take figures of speech so literally? Obviously by "know everything" I meant "are extremely arrogant and often dismissive of people's beliefs".
 
Elixir said:
2/10 troll, must try harder.
Click to expand...

*sigh* I can see that the point still hasn't caught on with you...

Assume the big bang theory is correct.

Where did the energy input to kick it off originate? What was there before? If nothing, then how did something suddenly come from nothing. Questions that science can't provide the answers to. So this article doesn't disprove God. It just proves life could have emerged through random probability.
 
Curio said:
Do you often take figures of speech so literally? Obviously by "know everything" I meant "are extremely arrogant and often dismissive of people's beliefs".
Click to expand...

I guess maybe some seem arrogant when dismissing beliefs that contradict evidence or which have no evidence but that is perhaps a matter of perception or simply being a bit sensitive.... it is also rather different to acting like they know everything whether meant literally or not.
 
Yes it disproves the God you find in religious books written by man. But not that a God didn't intend for these life giving parameters to exist inside out universe.

There are scenarios I can imagine where God created our universe but also we have no soul and we don't go to an afterlife....keep your mind and your options open I say.
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
*sigh* I can see that the point still hasn't caught on with you...

Assume the big bang theory is correct.

Where did the energy input to kick it off originate? What was there before? If nothing, then how did something suddenly come from nothing. Questions that science can't provide the answers to. So this article doesn't disprove God. It just proves life could have emerged through random probability.
Click to expand...

It doesn't prove life could have emerged through random probability, it suggests it and gives an explanation of how it could happen. Science may well be able to provide more detailed answers both to this and the complete origin of the universe, but no-one is claiming to have those answers at the moment. The suggested "we know everything, your beliefs are rubbish" opinion of scientists is perpetuated primarily by poorly worded media articles like that in the OP.

You should also note that if you're assuming the big bang theory is correct, then you're already disproving God as he created the Earth more recently than that. Feel free to create another religion to worship your deity that created things before the big bang though.
 
benjii said:
Cogito ergo sum.
Click to expand...

part of a computer simulation sure.

observed particles behave differently you can't explain that!!!! it's computer simulation not simulating what can not be seen to save resources.

if it's in the fog of war why render it?

why do particles appear to go through the slit that is being observed and not the other???????

why is schrodingers can not dead or alive? computer simulation doesn't simulate until it's observed
 
Last edited:
Terrified Christians everywhere!!!!

Why can't God have directed the light (that he might have created) onto the atoms that he might have put there in order to create new life...?

Also I very much doubt that the scientist actually was attempting to disprove God. Didn't realise the Independent was a tabloid now.
 
Elixir said:
It doesn't prove life could have emerged through random probability, it suggests it and gives an explanation of how it could happen. Science may well be able to provide more detailed answers both to this and the complete origin of the universe, but no-one is claiming to have those answers at the moment. The suggested "we know everything, your beliefs are rubbish" opinion of scientists is perpetuated primarily by poorly worded media articles like that in the OP.

You should also note that if you're assuming the big bang theory is correct, then you're already disproving God as he created the Earth more recently than that. Feel free to create another religion to worship your deity that created things before the big bang though.
Click to expand...

Your first sentence is totally contradictory. The key word is COULD. It does prove life COULD have emerged through probability.

I never mentioned it is my deity. I just indicated that the thread title and article is utter nonsense as in no way does it disprove God. Again I'll state the big bang THEORY doesn't disprove a God either because it in itself isn't proven. Which as I've stated is in the title. Science simply doesn't have the answers in this case and so cannot disprove the existence of any theological being.
 
Curio said:
It could still just mean that God was an amazing coder.
Click to expand...

:eek:

From the looks of things I'd say God was an utterly diabolical and terrible coder, that is according to the typical beliefs for the role of God in the universe.

If popular beliefs in God are anything to go by, then God is technically a bigger devil than his evil brainchild Satan and I want nothing to do with him and his ridiculous experiment of seeing how gullible human beings are for believing in him. Every single popular God which has been created by man (especially the Abrahamic one) is rooted in hypocrisy and contradiction.

I like to believe that if a God does exist, then he simply sparked the universe and the laws of physics, everything else is out of God's control and is a completely natural process with no need to please him with blind indoctrinated worship.
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
Your first sentence is totally contradictory. The key word is COULD. It does prove life COULD have emerged through probability.

I never mentioned it is my deity. I just indicated that the thread title and article is utter nonsense as in no way does it disprove God. Again I'll state the big bang THEORY doesn't disprove a God either because it in itself isn't proven. Which as I've stated is in the title. Science simply doesn't have the answers in this case and so cannot disprove the existence of any theological being.
Click to expand...

It doesn't prove life could have emerged through probability, it suggests a scientific theory which is yet to be tested. The word "prove" has no place in any of this, it's discussion of an entirely theoretical concept. The Quanta Magazine article is far better written than the sensationalist rubbish in the OP.

This is the paper in case anyone is interested.

All discussions of what can explain anything pre-big bang is entirely philosophical at the moment as there is nothing that can be observed to support any theories. You might also want to note I didn't state it proves or disproves anything other than your scenario where you said to assume the big bang theory is correct. There is at least considerable evidence to support the big bang theory, relative to the alternatives
 
While I have no belief in God or any other god, nothing scientific can disprove the theory of a creator/curator who just played a role in either establishing the rules or clicking their fingers and causing the big bang.
 
Christianity is drugs.

I know this because I withdrew from Paroxetine and Amilsulpride too quickly and I saw visions like my third eye, christ on the cross, dinosaurs and viking helmets.

Its drugs.

This doesn't disprove God either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom