Can someone/sci/entifically refute this post?

Thanks and nice digits.

I don't think it suggests any one religion is accurate, or even that "God" in that sense is a personal entity, just that the first cause must be inherently supernatural.

>unfalsifiable

This is just a retarded buzz word 13 year olds say.

>Plenty of reasons why God is more plausible than a natural cause. Boltzmann brains, fine tuning, 5 ways, etc. No reason why natural is more plausible than God though.
And yet by your own admission, still, always- no proof.

That natural cause by that point fits all the requirements to just be considered an impersonal God.

What requirements?

>Independent of time and space
>Independent of the laws of physics as we know them, ergo
>Omnipotent and self-sustaining

It's an impersonal god at that point. In fact, I'd hardly call it a natural cause if it must by definition predate nature itself. So it's really a supernatural cause that has the previous traits and then it's just a god.

But why is it god?
At the end of the day inserting god into a thing we haven't figured out yet is always going to be god of the gaps.

You seem to be implying I mean I got of a particular religion, when I mean it in the most deist sense.

>Plenty of reasons why God is more plausible than a natural cause.
There are absolutely no reasons why God should be more plausible than a natural cause. God will always be a further complication of anything else you can come up with, so why even assume there is one? It makes no sense at all

There cannot be a natural cause to something that predates nature.

>three people may have different beliefs, therefore God is undefined
How many YouTube arguments have you won with this?

Not an argument.

And you think some how that makes him wrong? 100 years ago we had no proof we lived in an ever expanding universe. Now some research says we don't even. This is evidence that the lack of evidence is not a method of disproving something. Just basis for insecure people to reject an idea because they think they're too smart for it. There are things that we don't know about the ocean or how it works. Does that mean it doesn't exist? Don't be stupid.

Why assume that there isn't because it creates more questions? Shouldn't questions lead to answers to questions? And if there are no more questions aren't you just at your wits end, and not informations end? Or maybe you're looking in the wrong place. The suggestion that there is a creator is infinitely more reasonable than the idea that chemicals which come from stars, which didn't exist at the time, reacted with one another and caused something in a violent explosion, powerful enough to create space and linear time. This theory fails to take many things into account. Specifically time. Was time always passing? Did it exist before existence? Is it even something that really exists, or is it a tool used for keeping appointments?

The universe was created exactly three minutes and thirteen seconds ago by god in this exact configuration. The god that created this is an all knowing all seeing god that damns people who bring up these arguments to circle jerk and never actually internalize other points of view into the deepest pit of hell.

Prove me wrong.

That's not proof.

You've failed to explain why we should replace "we don't know yet" with "god did ".

Why must the two be incompatible? If you learn a magicians tricks, he doesn't cease to exist or do the tricks, you just understand them now.

If the most staunch determinist materialist is to be correct, this supernatural first cause did in fact do EVERYTHING THAT WILL EVER HAPPEN by way of being the first cause, whether we understand the following events or not.

>no proof
If a suspects fingerprints are on the murder weapon and the victim's blood is under his fingernails does that 'prove' he's the killer? No, but obviously he is. There's a point where asking for proof is just hiding from the truth in a tiny little gap of an unlikely possibility because it hasn't been absolutely disproven yet.

?????
Are you implying that we have something as damning as DNA proof that God exists?

>Why must the two be incompatible?
It's not whether they must be.
It's why god is on the table at all. If a sentient first cause exists, we'll find it eventually. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

DNA itself is proof of intelligent design

Explain your reasoning.

DNA is a coding language. Randomness can create patterns but not information or definitions.

>why we should replace "we don't know yet" with "god did "
That's exactly what should happen when we work out God did something.

That's based on a suposition that "randomness" didn't create DNA, and we have no proof of that.

Not even sure what to say.
We have no proof that God exists.

More exactly it's an encoding/decoding device, for it stores information about the organism it's part of. For example in the DNA the information about eye color of the organism in certain circumstances. Let's say you figure out X gene = Blue eyes. That is a definition of the programming language.
Matter and energy (no matter how randomly) can not create information because they're on different axis.

DNA evidence just tells you some things are more likely than others. Universe is no different. Why is it fine tuned? Why aren't we Boltzmann brains? It's very unlikely the result of natural processes.

Furthermore DNA has intent. There is no logical reason for multiplication. It just does it. The intent of DNA is multiplication. You cannot create intent from matter + energy + randomness.

>Matter and energy (no matter how randomly) can not create information because they're on different axis.
Again, they can, because DNA exists. Something being incompatible with our current understand does not mean god did it you fool.
It means only that our current understanding is limited. But as we see from history, science is always incorporating new truths.

>It's very unlikely
Why even post?
That's not the argument.

>no proof that God exists
We also have no proof that dinosaurs ever walked the earth or that humans evolved from protomammals that survived the Cretaceous mass extinction event.
We do have a bunch of rocks and bones and our best guess about what most likely happened.
What is the argument?

>Again, they can, because DNA exists
Unless it's replicable it's just an assumption. Unfounded one at that.
>Something being incompatible with our current understand does not mean god did it you fool.
Not an argument.

>Not an argument.
Then you're not using logic. I'm out.

wat
What do yo think dinosaur bones are?

Something being incompatible with our current understanding does not mean god didn't do it you fool. It means only that our current understanding is limited. But as we see from history, science is always incorporating new truths some of witch might eventually lead to intelligent design.

>does not mean god didn't do it
I didn't say that. Nice try fæm.

No. I did.

No, I meant that you were strawmanning me.
But you knew that.

I was trying to use the same logic you used to point out that what you were saying wasn't an argument against what I said and proved nothing.

>>Something being incompatible with our current understanding does not mean god did it
This is a true statement, and a refutation to your assertion that DNA proves god.

a belief not shared with others is called a delusion

You're going in circles. Instead of refuting my point you're saying IT WILL BE REFUTED IN THE FUTURE!
Which is basically a stalemate.

>You're going in circles.
No, I'm not. You said that DNA is proof and I refuted that and brought us back to the truth that neither of us knows dick.

What I said is this:
1. DNA is an encoding language.
2. DNA has intent (to multiply).
3. Randomness does not create intent.
You said just because we haven't observed it doesn't mean it's not true. (Which is a very theistic way of approaching things, see russels teapot)
I'd say we can only base our arguments on what has been observed so far.

Whatevs homie. Ain't neither a us no nuthin.

I agree but it's still fun to think about.

Not really. God is a dumb concept when the real answer is we don't know. But unlike science, God has absolutely no basis in reality.

>God
You're too hung up on that word. It triggers you. I suggest you swap it with something else when you're trying to think about this. If you don't even make the effort of trying to understand the other persons argument then it means you're really insecure about something.

>1. DNA is an encoding language.
>2. DNA has intent (to multiply).
>3. Randomness does not create intent.
All three of these assertions are just a game of semantics and don't constitute an argument. Intent is only something humans and other animals of sufficient intelligence possess. The statement "DNA has itnent" is nonsensical.

I prefer to only be psychoanalyzed by people I'm paying.

I find it hard to think you believe that. How do you define intent if you accuse me of manipulating words?

Literally all they are is weird chunks we found in the ground.
I think they're the rigid bits that used to hold dinosaurs up against gravity.

You can't prove that>

>real answer is we don't know
"we don't know" is an admission of ignorance not an answer

Right I can't prove it but who cares about proof anyway? It's more reasonable to think that's what they are than water eroded geological formations and that's good enough for me.

The answer is that we are ignorant.

The answer is either god did it or god didn't do it.
The question is what happened, not do you know.

You seem incapable of uncertainty.

I find it funny that science accepts higher dimensions but will jump through hoops to call a higher dimensional force anything but God

Why is that funny?
Why would that be god?

What about junk DNA?

If a 5th dimensional entity came tomorrow and told everyone on earth, 'yeah the bible, that was all me' science would jump through every hoop to avoid calling it god.

It wouldn't be God though?
It would be a fifth dimensional entity who wrote a book.

>inb4 see you're doing it too
There's no reason to call that god or allah or ra or whoever else.

>There's no reason to call that god or allah or ra or whoever else.
Why not? Because a higher dimensional being would fit the role of "god" in many religions.

Because it would also most probably have elements that don't jive with the holy books.
Plus the different books say different things.

then why would it be claiming to be god or allah or ra?

...

you lost me

and even if it were, wouldn't it's opinion as the alleged author of said religion overrule anything non-kosher/heretical as human error or misinterpretation?

Didn't know Stan Lee claimed Spiderman existed or was based off true events.

It would be illogical to conclude that the stories contained within either work were based on true events.

>5th dimensional entity shows up and says "Hi, I'm Yahweh, I wrote the Bible"
>you say "There's no reason to call that Yahweh because it probably has elements that don't jive with the holy books, even if it's claiming to be"

I was disagreeing, and think that a higher dimensional being would be in a position of authority where anything could be written up as human error or changed by man.

But the more I think about it, I am failing by assuming that a higher dimensional being has honest intentions and isn't just trolling the dumb 3DPDs. Hell, you could say all religion originates from 6th Dimensional internet trolls, or as my mom says, Ancient Aliens that were actually just joyriding alien teenagers before they got caught.

Didn't know God personally made a press conference and claimed he existed or events in bible was based off true events.

>Spiderman was written and sold as a fictional comic book by a single author
>The Bible was written as a collection of books that cover multiple genres of history, law, mythology, history, and letters from x to y, written over a span of 4000 years with multiple authors

How is it logical to treat them the same?

The authors of the books of the Bible never claimed to be writing fiction. Stan Lee did from the beginning.

The existence of God is unfalsifiable, but hypothesis which include the actions of God can be falsified.

Both are fiction, what's not to understand? Is there any proof for the bible other than the church saying "yeah it happened" ?

I didn't know that ancient law books could be categorized as fiction.

It's not one book.

Anything with zero evidence is fiction by default

Is anything that happened before 500 B.C. fiction to you if their texts include religious rites and beliefs? Is all civilization a lie?

But yeah, it's too bad there's no archaeological evidence of jews ever living in Israel, or those ancient cities having ever existed.

sooo are you finally admitting that you don't have any proof for anything you said ?

What makes you think that?

>too bad there's no archaeological evidence of jews ever living in Israel
too bad there's no evidence, archaeological or otherwise, to support the existence of a """""god"""""

>pushing the goalposts

I'll take the Universe for 200 Alex.

If you don't know the answer to a question saying "I'm uncertain" might be true but you don't get any points for it.
Talking about uncertainty is a way to avoid the original question and make it about how sure people are about what they think they know.

...

It's possible that God exists and we can't disprove it, just like we can't disprove faeries and unicorns exist, but that's not evidence that he does exist. In science, lack of evidence of the negative does not prove the existence of said thing, and science is the best that we have. Therefore, we should not act as if God exists.

>science is the best
>its literally useless here
>therefore

>all those arguments