Using Science to prove that God EXISTS!!!

[nlm]

Not all that long ago, according to best thinkers of the time, it seemed entirely logical based upon the information that they had at the time that the sun was dragged across the sky by a super natural human like being in a chariot. It was the conventional wisdom of the day. They were, of course, wrong. But they couldn’t be proven wrong at that time. I believe it is human nature to credit things that we do not yet fully understand to super natural human like beings. After all, we have done it as a species for as long as there is a historic record and we continue to do it to this very day.

[nlm]

Not all that long ago, according to best thinkers of the time, it seemed entirely logical based upon the information that they had at the time that the sun was dragged across the sky by a super natural human like being in a chariot. It was the conventional wisdom of the day. They were, of course, wrong. But they couldn’t be proven wrong at that time. I believe it is human nature to credit things that we do not yet fully understand to super natural human like beings. After all, we have done it as a species for as long as there is a historic record and we continue to do it to this very day.

How do you know they were wrong, and we are right?

Are you seriously asking how I know a super natural human like being isn't pulling the sun in a chariot from horizon to horizon? I'll gladly explain it to you if you're being serious. But I would first need to ask why you believe a super natural human like being is pulling the sun across the horizon in a chariot. (P.S. I only check up on this site from time to time so be patient if you’re serious.)

[nlm]

all i'm saying is that humans have a remarkable tendancy to presume that they are always right-as you pointed out. But who says that we are right today? In a few thousand years, there is every possibility of our bliefs being presented in a similar way.

I agree 100%. Who is to say we are correct today? People who live today? My point isn't that people were wrong yesterday, but they are right today. It's let learn a little patience - we could be as wrong today as they were yesterday, we don't know everything, let us learn from our mistakes - can we not just admit that and keep working on learning in an honest fashion.

[nlm]

It occurs to me that given our present understanding of physics, the only reasonable answer to the question of how the universe was created is "I don't know". It is certainly not improper to add "but I think it was created by x, y or z forces for a, b, or c reason".

Saying that all evidence at this point in time indicates that there is a beginning to the universe is only evidence of a beginning point, not of what caused that beginning. The traditional human answer to such problems through history, as I pointed out earlier and as jmfcst seems to want to do now, is to assign the action to a super natural human like being. The problem with that is that evidence of a beginning and the evidence that a super natural human like being created the beginning are two entirely different things. There is no more evidence that a supernatural human like being created the beginning than there is that a super natural aardvark like being created it or that a stray particle from the 27th dimension shifted into this space and exploded, or anything else anybody in the world wants to dream up. We simply don't know enough presently to determine the why of it and, from my perspective, we have assigned so many things to super natural human like beings over the course of our history as a species and been dead wrong about it that I find that particular answer to be fairly tired and convenient. The last 47,000 times (yeah that’s a random number I pulled out) we as race were wrong about super natural human like beings control the forces of this universe, but just you wait, this time there really is a super natural human like being behind it! Like I said, it’s tired. Religion is too often the boy that wouldn’t stop crying “wolf”, after a few thousand years I would think people would start to catch on.

[nlm]

No, we are not left with a super natural force. We are left with something we don't understand. There is nothing that excludes a natural force that we have yet to identify, I'm certainly a believer that there are mountains of physical principles that we have yet to understand. Just because we don’t understand something currently doesn’t mean that only a super natural force could have done it. That is exactly the kind of reasoning that allowed people in the past to believe the sun was pulled across the sky by some super natural being in a chariot.

I'm also not willing to say that this universe is the only universe or to say that our understanding of thermodynamics is perfect, the odds are very, very good that our understanding is not perfect. Maybe the 27th dimension has been around forever, and the stray particle that created this universe somehow entered a void space in the space time continuum, and bang, our universe was created. I have no idea and I have no idea if the answer to such a question as “what created the universe” is even graspable by the structure of the brains of human beings. I'm just trying to point out the silliness of pretending that we do have an idea at this point in time, while at the same time noting that super natural human like beings have been our incorrect answer so many times in the past to such gaps in our understanding that it seems to be more an act of human psychology to want to believe in super natural human like beings, than any thing remotely approaching deductive reasoning.

[nlm]

No, we are not left with a super natural force. We are left with something we don't understand. There is nothing that excludes a natural force that we have yet to identify, I'm certainly a believer that there are mountains of physical principles that we have yet to understand. Just because we don’t understand something currently doesn’t mean that only a super natural force could have done it. That is exactly the kind of reasoning that allowed people in the past to believe the sun was pulled across the sky by some super natural being in a chariot.

I'm also not willing to say that this universe is the only universe or to say that our understanding of thermodynamics is perfect, the odds are very, very good that our understanding is not perfect. Maybe the 27th dimension has been around forever, and the stray particle that created this universe somehow entered a void space in the space time continuum, and bang, our universe was created. I have no idea and I have no idea if the answer to such a question as “what created the universe” is even graspable by the structure of the brains of human beings. I'm just trying to point out the silliness of pretending that we do have an idea at this point in time, while at the same time noting that super natural human like beings have been our incorrect answer so many times in the past to such gaps in our understanding that it seems to be more an act of human psychology to want to believe in super natural human like beings, than any thing remotely approaching deductive reasoning.

You can argue all you what science MIGHT discover, you might even replace 1_1=2 while your'e at it.  But the undisputable fact is that ALL the data gathered by scientists points to a universe that is finite in age which could not have created itself.  Period.

Go argue with Muon2.

Let me ask this question. Was thermodynamics a supernatural force prior to us gaining enough of an understanding of it stop attributing its actions to super natural human like beings?

The reasoning you are using is the same the ancients used to determine that the Earth was the center of the universe, that lightning was thrown down upon the land by super natural human like beings, that rain was the tears of gods, etc.

Admitting that we don't know it all can be tuff, but not admitting it can lead to beliefs similar to the stars being pin holes in a black cloth that covers the sky at night. And worse, it can lead to the absolute belief that such things are proven facts, because nothing we know at the time contradicts that belief.

[nlm]

No, I'm not saying that your acceptance of thermodynamics is the same as believing in the tooth fairy. I'm saying that reaching the conclusion that because we have no mechanism to explain the origins of the universe that a super natural force must have done it is similar to the ancients concluding that a super natural force was the cause of the sun rising because they had no mechanism to otherwise explain it.

[nlm]

No, I'm not saying that your acceptance of thermodynamics is the same as believing in the tooth fairy. I'm saying that reaching the conclusion that because we have no mechanism to explain the origins of the universe that a super natural force must have done it is similar to the ancients concluding that a super natural force was the cause of the sun rising because they had no mechanism to otherwise explain it.

It not simply that they have no natural mechanism, it's that there own Laws state that there can NOT be a natural mechanism.  And those Laws are supported by all data points across all ranges of time, space, and energy.

My conclusion, given what we know, is that we don't know the answer to this particular question. You appear to be concluding otherwise and seem to be operating under the assumption that lack of proof and understanding is in fact proof of something, that being the reasoning used to demonstrate that a very large man held the world over his head.

You also seem to be under the mistaken belief that "their" laws (who ever they is) are intended to be absolute. They are not. They simply express the limits of our current understanding (and I hope that you are not arguing that our current understanding is limitless). When a point is reached were that understanding breaks, and that happens all the time, one can either keep looking to figure out why they break down (which is how knowledge advances) or, I guess, one can just assume that a super natural force did it and be content that all questions have been answered. As I said before, I think history shows very clearly that it is human nature to go with the super natural force idea. It's quick, it's easy, it requires no effort to understand and it allows us to feel knowledgeable and in control. It’s also been wrong at every turn, over tens of thousands of application of the super natural being posit being applied to countless things. But why let a small thing like that stop us from continuing to assume that because we don’t currently understand something that a super natural human like being is responsible for it.