Twitch - I'm actually coming round to the idea that science can definitively disprove any and all gods one attribute at a time. I was thinking this through for my former belief. Every single thing I thought was a proof of Mormon jesus had a much better scientific solution that either made the bearded one superfluous to the equation or at worst the mistake. The key to applying science is the definition that the believer believes in. We give believers way too much latitude to lazily point to the sky and say that a god is out there. Once we focus on what believers actually are saying it rapidly is revealed to be either utterly wrong ( global flood - all animals in tiny wooden boat ), not logical ( followed through to conclusion it fails ) , not even wrong ( like life = energy, love = Christ) or unknown ( the believer doesn't really know what they believe in when they are asked to clarify it.) Where a believer can actually make a concrete statement ( rare) then we can see if science has a better explanation for that. Not been disappointed yet.
The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?
What we curently recognise as "non-living" matter shows many of the traits we use to define life. For example, crystals form in favorable conditions. Simple molecules replicating themselves repeatedly in an effort to dominate their micro-environment. The elements that constitute the physical world are not dead . . . they are dynamic and ever-changing, seeking to add complexity through chemical reactions which even compete with one another. Sounds a lot like "life" I guess.
Could it be that crossing over from "non-living" to "living" is not the miraculous threshold we believe it to be . . . that it is simply a level of complexity and requires no such thing as "the spark of life." If the energy that gives both living and non-living matter it's physical presence is the same . . . then the entire universe is alive. The distinction is merely a human perception . . . an illusion.
Maybe we can draw a threshold at replicative ability. Life copies itself. While there may be an argument that matter interacts with its surroundings seeking vibrational harmony it might be a stretch to say that atoms beget atoms?
While there may be an argument that matter interacts with its surroundings seeking vibrational harmony it might be a stretch to say that atoms beget atoms?
No argument there . . . but then it all changes again at a molecular level . . . which is still a long way from what we commonly recognise today as "living". The threshold for "life" is not the clear-cut definition some imagine.
So the only clear statement you made is that life = energy = god.
You're hung up on me stating that the attribute about God is life... which is of course one attribute... but what I said is creator of life. Creator of all.
The sum of all observed energy in the universe is estimated to be zero so god is not.
This makes zero sense... seeing as we are also energy, and well, we are not zero.
Life is plainly not simply energy.
Never said it was, and I'm not a scientist Q. You want to discuss things down to the sub-atomic, theoritical physics, particle, then speak to one of them.
An atom carries a certain energy state and is not biologically alive or conscious. Or do you think the rocks are thinking?
Is thinking a condition of life for you?
Where you would cheapen life to simply a state of vibration I would present to you that life, as explored by science, is a self organising information set utilising energy gradients to accomplish resource sorting to allow imperfect replication.
You put words in my mouth, and none of this has to do with you disproving the existence of a creator.
All your other statements are inadequate.
Inadequate for what you are atttempting to do, sure. But that is not my problem.
Since we are discussing your own personal god you are not allowed to suggest that you don't know the answer.
I most certainly am allowed to do so. I do not now nor have I ever claimed to know everything about God, or the universe.
Neither do you. Neither does anyone. To expect something more is completely unrealistic.
I am not interested in using science to refute all possible creators I'm using it to disprove yours. You cannot hide your creator behind someone else's.
Well, you can't... and I'm not.
Like I said, if it could be done, it would have been done by now, and that person would have won some sort of nobel prize. You are the one claiming to be able to do what no other scientist claims to be able to do.
I'd say it's a weak argument to say you can't disprove god
Wasn't my argument.
I only said it because Q claimed that he could disprove God.
Q - Thank you. I like where you are going with this. I have a feeling more can be said about religious claims beyond the simple "you can't prove a negative," provided you can ever get a religious believer to clearly state his/her claim(s).