[peppercorn]

Believing in the existence of God is in either one or both of two ways, Faith, and scientific proof.

Scientific evidence for the existence of God as of AD 2010 - Zero.
Please do not misuse the term scientific proof, especially on a science forum.

You are making wholly irrational leaps from finding commonality in biological structures to claiming the validity of the creator myth.

[peppercorn]

I suppose I got excited and when I do, my comments no longer make sense because I just throw bits of information in that in my make perfect sense, but when I later come to read it, it does not.

Appreciated. There's times when I've got carried away with an idea or apparent 'evidence' before and come a cropper.  However, I'm not sure it's just a problem of expressing yourself clearly in this case. There is a fundamental problem in that you will not find current evidence anywhere in science that will support the idea of a creator.

After all, a piece of 'evidence' might be a reason for an individual to believe in God, but to another, the very same evidence is the reason for him to disbelieve in God

I'm afraid this can only be a question of personal faith, not reason (so far a science is concerned).

...so a person must be open to different ideas and must respect other people's views ... If you felt that I was stressing my point too much, my apologies.

No need to apologise.  I respect your right to believe in these concepts, but they are not going to be accepted by science without reasoned argument, supported by irrefutable evidence (meaning more than a selection of related values). ...

...Sorry  []

[peppercorn]

By the way, Peppercorn, did you take a look at the site I mentioned above?

I'm afraid my inbuilt bias (some may call it close mindedness) will not allow me to take much notice of a website under the banner of creationism.

The scientific proof that deals with the existence of God is not really proper scientific proof, but more like logical reason with a sprinkle of science, so it is open to criticism.

I'm not entirely sure this is what Russell was saying, but still.  Scientific proof is, or should be, applied coldly and without the bias of feeling (the same is not required of the scientists themselves though  []).  Above, you imply that a special strain of science is needed to deal with the question of God existence - there is not.  Going back to your hidden enlightenment through nature's 'hidden' number patterns theory (if I can call it that) - there is definitely no application of 'logical reason' in your support of it.  Sure, there are oft reoccurring values and mathematical patterns in nature, but this in no way leads logically to a creator, higher-conciousness, Godhead - call it what you will.

So it is not fair to say that there is no proof whatsoever for the existence of God

I disagree. Plainly, "there is no [scientific] proof whatsoever for the existence of God".
If there was even the slightest -scientifically measurable and repeatable- proof of God the world would be a very different place. For a start the 'believers' would no longer need faith.

[it's] not fair to say that there is proof which proves the existence of God 100%

A common misconception is that good science can ever work on principles of 'Absolute Truth'.  Therefore, the moment new evidence comes to light revealing a more complete understanding about the workings of some aspect of nature, there is no (or shouldn't be) idealogical battle between the old view and the new.  That's not say scientists are not resistant to changing cherished beliefs, being human as they are.

Where science is not wholly explaining of nature as we observe it, there is of course room for speculation, but to be worthwhile (for progressing human understanding) that has to be carried out along empirical paths.

[peppercorn]

Oh dear. I obviously confused you there, Rami:
You quoted Bertrand Russell, then say "This is exactly what I meant."  Then went on to explain,

The scientific proof that deals with the existence of God is not really proper scientific proof, but more like logical reason with a sprinkle of science, so it is open to criticism.

Without copying out his quote again, I was saying that what Russell meant differs from you interpretation.

As I said, proof of the existence of God is not like other proofs.

It is as far as science is concerned. This is a science forum. QED.

If you have visited either or both of the sites above, then perhaps we could discuss this point more, but since you just plainly state what is in your mind with out much proof, and just not accept any other view but rather criticize others', I see no outcome on this point but repetition of ideas.

Not true. I said I was resistant to visiting a 'creationist' website. Life is short and the 'net is full of opinion.  If there's a specific quote or argument from this website that has any relevance to scientific discussion, please post it here.  Keep it short though - members are not keen on trawling through BS.

Regarding you 2nd link, I had a look, but could find nothing that could be described as proof in a practical sense.  Discussing philosopher's arguments and physiological drives for man to seek out God - cuts no mustard in the world of the physical sciences.

For a start the 'believers' would no longer need faith.

No, you didn't read my previous post well.

[] Well, enlighten me then!

[peppercorn]

Quoted from my first link: ...

You mean your first link from a website titled 'Creationism.com' or some such?  Excuse me if I am not immediately accepting of the statement that "Proteins are so hard to make that in all of nature, they never form except in already living cells."

I don't have a background in biology and neither do I wish to spend masses of time delving into the probabilities of life's evolutionary steps.  That thousands of biologists the world over are, almost without exception, supportive of the general mechanism in which life can spontaneously arise on Earth, given enough aeons, is good enough for me.

A quick search threw up, this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Obviously, wikipedia is only a start point for any investigation, but do have a read.

Peppercorn, I keep on saying that what I mean by proof is not 'scientific proof', but rather like mental proof, but for some reason, you keep on saying that I say they are scientific, why?

Though you have not said "My ideas should be taken as following scientific principles", you are indirectly agreeing to this statement by posting on a Science forum.  If you just want to express your arbitrary (from the point of view of science) beliefs or feelings then there is a 'Just Chat' board here for non-science discussion and light-heartedness.

[peppercorn]

"except in already living cells."

Yeah, I got that bit. It doesn't change my opinion.

Yet you feel comfortable about neglecting those pieces of evidence which lay unread by yourself.

The world & esp. the internet is full of stuff haven't read. That doesn't mean I should keep a totally open mind on it all.  The fact that the is a huge body of scientifically competent biologists out there that can do the work for me (& all if us non-biologists) is what makes the idea of scientific progress so powerful.

Can a jury make a fair decision without reading every fact that is present?

The key word here is 'fact'. In the case of our discussions that has to be scientific fact.  Simple as.   A worldwide community of respected biologists have already peer reviewed their way through reams of observation that points to evolution running the 'show' from the start.

I just keep on repeating myself but somehow it does not get to you, it seems that your ego has overtaken you a little bit.

Certainly, I would never claim that I am immune to the temptations of 'ego', who isn't?  But, in my defence, I would never rule out the possibility of a creator, just as I would accept the remotest possibility that aliens purposely seeded the Earth. However logic tells me that these explanations are so as close to impossible as makes no odds.

As I have seen logicality and a little bit of science in them, I decided to post them here.

I have to point out that nothing you have posted so far can be claimed as scientific in nature. I'm not saying it's beyond all possibility that buried on the links you've supplied, but unless you can quote it on here (please remember that it will need to pass the 'science' test for it not to be instantly dismissed) as I've said already I'm not willing to trawl through, sorry.

Finally, it's funny you should mention repeating myself as I have felt like my arguments are repeatedly bouncing off a rubber sheet.

[tony6789 (OP)]

got eeeem

[CliffordK]

He SEES you when you're sleeping.
He KNOWS when you're awake.
He KNOWS if you've been bad or good.
So be good for goodness sake.

Oh, wait, that was Santa Claus....

Can you truly explain an omniscient being?
What is the chance that any single being could track what 6 or 7 billion people on earth are doing at any one time, and give individual attention to all 7 billion?

Now, we could be like bacteria in a petri-dish...  or perhaps like a dog to it's owner.  But, it would take a very faithful dog to be devoted to an owner that hasn't shown up for generations and never put out the food dish.

Perhaps we were visited by aliens...  or a race from Atlantis who possessed technology far beyond our own.  If modern man was to return 10,000 years in the past, who wouldn't be impressed by the ability to communicate over great distances, fly through the air, and spit death with a wave of the hand and a sharp bang.  But, does that mean they would be gods?

If you have a theory, and premise after premise is proven false...  how long until one must just consider the entire theory false?  There seems to be enough evolutionary evidence to indicate that all species of animals have evolved and changed over time, and many have become extinct, only to be replaced by others.  And humans are no different.

So, God didn't create all life in 7 days...  rather it slowly evolved from the bacteria and single cell eukaryotes over a 4 billion year timecourse.

Divine birth... or birthright.  King of Kings...  Shepherd over Sheep...  It sounds to me that someone just wanted to rule, and be revered, as is the case in many cultures and religions.

[SteveFish]

If you put a bunch of amino acids together, outside of a living cell, many proteins will be spontaneously formed and broken down every microsecond because of the molecular motion of heat. What a living cell does is to bias the probability that useful proteins will be formed.

The reason that creationism is not appropriate in a scientific context is that it involves belief in the supernatural. Because supernatural events cannot be detected, and their invocation can explain just about anything, the statements of a creationist are not trustworthy and, thereby, not worth any attention in a discussion that involves cause and effect or logical consequences.

[peppercorn]

These annoying threads keep rearing their ugly heads.
Even though the answer is always the same.
This one's been dead for five months now.
So to avoid sparking it back into life,
We shouldn't feel too much to blame!
[]

[tony6789 (OP)]

this is a "HOT" topic

[QuantumClue]

There are scientific proofs of God's is existence, one of is the number Phi, sometimes called the divine proportion or the golden number.
Phi = 1.618

According to the book "The Da Vinci Code" (and this true), if you measure the length from the tip of your head to the floor , and divide that by the length from your navel to the floor,you get Phi. If you measure the length from your hip to the floor, and divide it by the length from your knees to the floor, you get Phi. If you divide the number of female bees by the number of male bees in a bee hive,you get Phi. "Sun flower seeds grow in opposing spirals, the ratio of each rotation's diameter to the next is....PHI.
Fundamentally, Phi appears in everything; music, art, nature, architecture....everything.
This (at least for me) proves two things;
1- Divine power definitely exists.
2- Only ONE God exists, otherwise we wouldn't find such an astonishing link between everything in existence.

This is not, in any way, proof of the existence of any god.  Sorry.

Yes, I agree.

Also, the Bee thing is a myth.

[tony6789 (OP)]

Phi lol, such a random word.
"hmmm what to call this astonishing connection..."
"idk how bout phi?"
"like what you pay?"
"nawww like p.h.i. that there sounds smart"

[QuantumClue]

Phi lol, such a random word.
"hmmm what to call this astonishing connection..."
"idk how bout phi?"
"like what you pay?"
"nawww like p.h.i. that there sounds smart"

No. It's a Greek Letter.

[tony6789 (OP)]

well don't i feel dumb =p

[QuantumClue]

Don't, if you have never used it in any practical means, why be embarrassed?

[cheryl j]

I'm not religious, but one could consider God as not real or unreal, but a "model" that explains something to you about the mystery of existence, good or evil, suffering, love, etc. And I guess how well this model explains what you experience or observe, depends on your conception of this model or the qualities you endow it. Even our scientific models don't replicate every feature of "the real thing" that they are supposed to represent, although scientific models do a pretty good job of corresponding consistantly, or predicting events. Still, how many times has the model of the atom been redesigned?

[Titanscape]

God is real, some used to like to think of him as being where everything must have come from, but accept the big bang instead. But even that had to come from somewhere bearing in mind oxymorons like before time.

But it is a bit narrow minded to think that sight and test finds the limits of all that are. Like "there must be a vacuum on the other side of a wall for I can't see beyond it."

I am a mystic, science is just a tool, not a spiritual philosophy.

[Mjhavok]

God is real

That is a noncognitive statement to me. I have no idea what you mean.

[jameslancer33]

I hope he is real. I think he is real. It seems he does have a big sense of humor cause of the events happening in my life.