In an article entitled "Is There a God?"

Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. I just disproved 99% of all gods ever invented. If your god isn't a creator deity, then name and define it and I'll disprove it as well.

Unfortunately for this argument, Alan Guth and many other physicists have shown that particles actually do spontaneously come into, and go out of existence in a "false vacuum." Thus, the universe could very well have started ex nihilo, without depending on any gods.

I only mention this to emphasize the importance of being careful in our argumentation. We do not want to make obsolete arguments (if they are in fact obsolete).

I think I understand what you are saying, but if I have misinterpretted,  then please let me know.

I agree that to say something exists simply because I say or believe it exists, doesn't mean it exists.

In other words,  there has to be a truth about everything, including God's existence.

Just because I say God exists, doesn't mean God exists.

And just because there is a huge portion of humanity that believes and teaches that God exists, doesn't mean God exists.

God either exists . . . or God does not exist. 

But to say that God does not exist because traditionally people have believed in God, is more or less a spitefull arguement against tradition, not a logical conclusion of truth as best can be concluded.

Although I did find your analogy of the teapot to be highly creative

Actually,  all matter is a form of energy.  And energy as we understand it, can only be transferred into one form or another.

This is the 1st Law of thermodynamics. Which Sapient misquoted and later recognized as a mistake in his debate against Cameron.

Although I'm very curious as to what "gods" you just disproved.  Greek gods?  Roman gods? Mayan gods?

If you did, then you just accomplished a paramont achievment that even Plato and Socrates never dared to announce.

However,  just a thought to consider . . .

We as humans have no knowledge as to "how" matter can be created or destroyed . . .

If God exists, and He "is" the "creator" . . .

then perhaps he just might know how

Just a thought to consider

Didn't you read what Matt wrote?

Supposedly the genesis of matter and energy clearly violates the iron laws of thermodynamics. However, that prejudice of mine all changed one day when I was abruptly reminded by Alan Guth, the founder of the inflationary hypothesis, that the actual matter/energy content may be very low because the false vacuum has negative energy, which cancels out the huge positive total of the energy present in the universe. He pointed out that since matter is interchangeable with energy and vice-versa, the universe could have started out of a quantum tunnelling event which broke the singularity, and released a huge tide of positive energy, cancelling out the negative energy, albeit not with perfect symmetry, we still see a small excess of energy (symmetry breaking is poorly understood).

However, this quantum tunnelling event clearly would violate the laws of thermodynamics. That's OK though, since it is only for 10^-45 seconds, and such small, unpredictable events are allowable under the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (actually, they are demonstratable with the Casimir effect)?

In a flash, Guth had blown my mind. I had forgotten about the negative energy of the vacuum. But in truth, he had pointed out something really obvious. After all, the solution to something that seemingly breaks the first law of thermodynamics would probably have to be so simple and obvious, because if it was monstrous and complex, it would probably be false, given how iron that law is.

I find this response to be highly insightful to the way "searchers" think.

I say "searchers" because I am assuming that most everyone who posts comments on this site is a searcher of truth.

I happen to believe that truth does exist,  but doesn't necessarily mean it can be proven or disproved.  It's a belief that every person makes voluntarily or involuntarily.

But to get back to what you are saying, Vastet, the theory that matter or energy can spontaneously appear is not a theory that can be proven. 

Consequently this is pretty much why I started this forum . . . proof.

How many things can we as humans actually "prove"?

In my opinion,  not anything.  I believe we as individuals "choose" to believe what we believe based on a huge and complex variety of reasons.

But then again,  this is just my opinion

Do you have evidence for this statement?  Or do you realize that this "neo-mystic" position that we cannot prove anything is a clear fallacy of stolen concept?

i'm not trying to knock down you peices and fly away here (i'll be back)... but what if God is not matter at all.  whos to say time only percieved by matter and infact God is as timeless as the rules that apply to science.  they where never created and they can't be destroyed.  we all have proof of that.

i dunno, that is just a "what if" and opinion, but would be fun to add in and hear your thoughts.

"Supposedly the genesis of matter and energy clearly violates the iron laws of thermodynamics."

I just have to point this out to you before I actually respond to your response.

Do you even know what "genesis" means?

Because if I am reading this correctly, you are using the word "genesis" as synonymous as "beginning"

I find that slightly amusing because that's not at all what genenis means.  But I can see how you arrived at the use of that word considering it is the first book of the Bible.   It actually means geneologies, which is the record of descendants.

Just to point that out

I'll be getting back to the rest of your response shortly.

Ahem. Where do you think we get the words biogenesis, abiogenesis, nuerogenesis, synaptogenesis, et?

gen·e·sis /ˈdʒɛnəsɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[jen-uh-sis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -ses /-ˌsiz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[-seez] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation. an origin, creation, or beginning.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source gen·e·sis (jěn'ĭ-sĭs) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. gen·e·ses (-sēz&#39

1. The coming into being of something; the origin. See Synonyms at beginning.
2. Genesis Abbr. Gen. or Gn See Table at Bible.

Remember suffixes from school?

• abiogenesis

• aerogenesis

• angiogenesis

• biogenesis

• caenogenesis

• cariogenesis

• chromogenesis

• cosmogenesis

• gamogenesis

• gynogenesis

• karyogenesis

• ketogenesis

• merogenesis

• morphogenesis

• oogenesis

• orthogenesis

• palingenesis

• parthenogenesis

• progenesis

• sis i

• synaptogenesis

• teratogenesis

• thermogenesis

• ureagenesis

• virogenesis

• zygogenesis

American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source

gen·e·sis (jn-ss)
n. pl. gen·e·ses (-sz)

The coming into being of something; the origin.

EDIT:

The list is missing vasculogenesis 

Do you realize that I very clearly said that it is my OPINION,  as well as anything you have to say, that anything cannot be proven without a shred of a doubt.

It is the whole reason I started this blog. To show that there isn't anything that cannot be questioned or debated.

Once again,  I believe that we as individuals, decide and choose to pick what parts of "the truth" we believe to create our synthesis of understanding.

I really didn't want to get this complicated on my point,  but if I have to keep going I suppose I will

Look into the origin of the word my friend.  Specifically,  Hebrew

Tyler Hayden wrote:

Look into the origin of the word my friend. Specifically, Hebrew

What does the etymological origin of the word have to do with anything? YOu called me out on my use of the word for no reason whatsoever, since its incorporation in modern English is a suffix for creation. The creation of matter is called cosmogenesis. YOu might as well attack me for using the word salary since in Roman times it meant salt.

Ha ha ha.  I actually have to agree with you on that one

LOL. Anyway, this thread has derailed, as often does, from discussion about negative proof, to discussion about matter and energy, to discussion about what the word genesis means. What were we talking about again?

The word 'genesis' does not appear in the Hebrew Bible, nor is it a Hebrew originating word. It is a Latin word from a Greek word which stands as a translation for the Hebrew word for "in the beginning," which is how the book of Genesis got its name. From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

genesis

I actually believe God is a form of energy that we cannot understand.  The Bible says that God is spirit.

Well what is spirit you might say?

Who knows?

But scripture does say that all things seen were created out of thing unseen,  implying that all things were created through a spiritual power.

Scientists continually look for the building block of all matter.  I remember when I was a kid in school and books said that an atom was was the smallest particle made up of sub-particles,  protons, neutrons, electrons, etc.

Now it's quarks,  next it will be something else. 

I happen to believe that matter is as infinitley small as the universe is big. 

We will never find an end to either.

I agree.  Not every belief is equally justified or even plausible.

My original point was that,  i've never seen any evidence that can prove or disprove God concretely.

It's a decision,  just like anything else, that you as a person has to choose what to believe.

Ohhh, I understand now. Your argument that "beliefs are something we choose" had the rhetorical effect of saving you from needing to justify your beliefs.

Yes, your beliefs are truly fascinating. Thank you for sharing them with us. Honestly, I really mean that.

Oh good, now we are talking science. Particle physics is one of the things that I study on the side, although I am a molecular biologist.

And unfortunately, you are dead wrong. And we are way past quarks. The standard model is experimentally correct, but it is as ugly as fuck, with 19 arbitrary paramaters. Now we are moving into strings and branes, GUT theories and force unification functions and quantum gravity.

Matter and space-time are two different entites, but they are both composed of the same more fundamental unit, which I shall detail now.

Space and time are inseparable, they cannot be broken from each other. One cannot exist without the other, they are one and the same. On the surface of the space time continuum are bodies of matter which distort the field of the continuum. Space time is a Euclidean “Cartesian theatre” with a pseudo-Reinmann manifold in which events take place. This is seemingly problematic, since every GUT theory predicts that the fundamental composition of matter, that is, if we could peer into the heart of the quark, is the same substance as space time itself, on the order of the Planck length. Yet, if matter is an illusion generated by space time, how can this effect seen in the picture be? Clearly they are not the same. Matter has a distorting effect on space time.

The answer is they aren’t. Matter is not an illusion generated by space time (before you ask, I retract all those statements I made in which I said exactly that. I have just reread my responses and I realize how silly that sounds now. Sorry) To assert they are the same is to make a fallacy of composition. I will show you why.

The most open question in QM and theoretical physics today is the number of dimensions needed to describe the universe. For this, we turn to the physics concept of branes. Where a brane describes a dimension, and the unfortunately named p-brane denotes the number of spatial dimensions. To find the number of dimension to describe an object is simply {p+1) since we always add one time dimension. There are many dimensions that may be needed to explain the universe. The space time continuum in which events take place is a 3-brane, with three spatial dimensions and one time dimension, at least as traditionally described. Some theories predict it is a membrane, which would imply the universe is holographic.

In the competing GUT theories, physical matter is of the same substance as the space-time continuum, except that it exists in a different number of dimensions, hence they are different. And this is what gives the distinction between matter and the space time continuum in which events take place. The number of dimensions. This is an open question seeing as almost all theories describe physical matter as having compact dimensions. M-Theory predicts 11 dimensions, another form of string theory (the least plausible) predicts 26.

As we can see from this picture, physical matter, as predicted at the fundamental level, while of the same substance as spacetime, exists in more dimensions, and as such, is still different from spacetime. String theory requires many tightly curled up dimensions that exist only at the subatomic level (you can see them here in this drawing).

In this topological model, the fundamental unit of the particle is the 10-brane (with an extra dimension to accommodate time). Only three of these dimensions will be noticeable at the macroscopic world.

he spacetime continuum is a four dimensional absolute Euclidean referential, a kind of sheet on the surface which events take place. These events are orchestrated by bodies of matter, which exist in a number of dimensions which remains open. While for the space time continuum we have only to choose between two competing theories, the popular 3-brane and the new membrane (holographic universe theory), the number of dimensions of physical matter is much more open. In short, we can view the space-time continuum as a 4D stage on which matter acts. The fundamental unit of both is the brane, a unit of mathematical topology which dictates dimensional frame of reference. The space time continuum can either have three or four dimensions. As for matter, it is much more open. We have predictions for 10, 11 and 26 and several others of lesser renown. Despite both being comprised of branes, matter is still different from space-time since it has many more branes. The addition of extra branes means that physical matter suddenly becomes an object which influences the 3-brane space time continuum, rather than the space-time continuum itself.

The correct answer is: Nothing. I showed that extensively here

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/7720

The materialist does not claim that all that exists is matter/energy, instead claiming that all that exists is material dimensions. Physical entities, composed of physical dimensions, are all that exists. The traditional supernaturalism is described is outside the universe, or "aethereal" not being composed of physical dimension. Physical dimension implies direct frame of reference and physical size, as well as absolute Euclidean geometric referentials something which the notion of "spirit" is antithetical.

Branes imply physical existence, the ontological category for physical existence is the brane seeing as a brane is a physical dimension. To be composed of branes is to be physical, and by extension, any object constructed of branes is naturalistic. Also, any object with more than four branes is considered physical matter, since it now, at the macroscopic level, clearly becomes a physical object, a notion antithetical to supernaturalism, it obeys all laws of naturalism.

Supernatural/spiritual by its own accord is decribred as atemporal. This is totally antithetical to the notion of matter from branes. All branes must have a time dimension. Even a 0-brane has a time dimension. Any object of branes obeys the laws of naturalism, the laws of the quantum at the subatomic level and the laws of Neweton at the macroscopic level. To say that "supernatural" is a "different kind" of matter can only be described as a cop-out, as such a notion is in and of itself contradictory to the concept of supernaturalism.

By my own definition, the fundamental unit of construction is physical dimensions, the brane. Space time and the material bodies which influence the continuum then both fall under this definition. I for this reason dislike the term materialist and prefer the term physicalist, implying only physical things exist.

But the notion of spirit is contradictory to the term "physical existence" and as such is logically absurd. Without physical existence, there is no entity, as the concept of entity presupposes the concept of physical existence.

From wikipedia:

Spirituality, in a narrow sense, concerns itself with matters of the spirit. The spiritual, involving (as it may) perceived eternal verities regarding humankind's ultimate nature, often contrasts with the temporal, with the material, or with the worldly.

By the definition given by wikipedia, which is the correct definition, spiritual is a logically absurd concept. The term "existenc" has a meaning which directly implies phsyicalism, seeing as it directly implies the need for a direct geometric reference in a physical dimension, and under this category, spacetime and matter would all be physical. Anything which is outside of space-time or the matter which acts upon it is not physical and is logically absurd.

The supernatural (Latin: super- "above" + nature) pertains to entities, forces or powers regarded as beyond nature,

Beyond nature implies not bound by natural laws, and as such is also logically absurd.

Existence requires a referent, something which supernaturalism or the concept of spirit ultimately lacks.

And thus can be reduced to the absurd. It means nothing. Without a Euclidean geometrical spatial or temporal referent point, to say that something supernatural exists at all is to contradict itself. Using theoretical physics in this way is a helpful sum to my points above about coherently defined entities requiring absolute reference points to exist. When pondering this, I am often reminded forcibly of the book The Cartographers Guild, in which mapmakers construct a map which is of exact scale 1:1 with the city of the map they are constructing, thusly making the map exactly the same as the city, and totally indistinguishable. The map has become its own reference point.

The concept of God is attempting to remove the reference points as predicates of existence, meaning no city or no map. It's logically absurd. Clearly, the ontological category for "existence" as subconsciously recognized invovles Substance and entites, merely because existence absolutely requires referential points of temporal and spatial coordinates. Without these, there is nothing. God then, without a "realm" and necessarily not an "entity" as this would be mutually contradictory, does not exist by extension, since God is ultimately placed outside the concepts (anyone with half a brain should see the glaring contradiction even in that statement seeing as for something to exist "apart from" or "outside" requires absolute Euclidean frame of physical reference)., without it there is no coherency to this statement. This is why there is no direction in space time (not enough dimensions).

Well thanks Mavaddat,  I appreciate your perspectives as well.  I honestly can't tell if you are being sarcastic but I'm kinda tired and I'll just take your word for it.  ha ha

I think I just got the worst headache of my life trying to understand what all that meant. A couple of the pics reminded me of those 3-D pics you cross your eyes at and a dinosaur pops out.  lol

The scientific ex nihlio theory still rules out a god by Occam's Razor, so a theist who engages in such argumentation has already lost before he began. I am quite prepared for such a response. And I wouldn't quite go so far as to say the argument is outdated. The law of thermodynamics is still a law, this hypothesis doesn't really break it.
Beyond that, all they've technically done is show particles appearing and disappearing. They haven't shown the energy making them up is created and destroyed. Unless I missed something, in which case feel free to show me.

Correct.

I stopped watching the debate after Cameron and Comfort conceded defeat in the first 20 minutes by being unable to respond to a critical refutation and bringing in the bible which was against the terms stated. Therefore I can't comment on this.

Any and every god that claims to have created existance. This includes the mono-theistic gods, and any pantheon claiming to be responsible for existance.

I just have more balls than most people. Every defined god is physically impossible.

It can't be, generally.

I'm not seeing anything to consider. The very term god adds complexity to an already complex structure, in an attempt to explain it, without explaining itself or putting itself beyond explanation, which is irrational. It doesn't answer anything. It merely creates more questions.

Dude, I'm reading the original posts and then the latest comments, and I have to wonder, "Weren't we talking about something else?"

 Anyways, Christians say that you can't prove that a God exists scientifically, and that's true. You cannot say that in all of the universe, there cannot be a celestial being who warrants god-like status. This would be to assert a universal negative. You would require knowlege of all the universe to make such a claim about whether or not such a being exists in all the universe. It's like trying to say there's no such thing as elves. It's a universal negative because if I say there's no elves, you'll say "how do you know? maybe we haven't found them yet." Even if we scowered the earth, you could still say elves lived in space. It is true that you simply can't prove a universal negative.

 Well, the problem with all that is that religion isn't trying to assert the idea that there is a god out there somewhere. The Christian church especially, would not agree that somewhere in the universe, there's a god, we just haven't found him yet. The second you pull your God out of a universal context and claim that you've found him, your opponents are no longer proving a universal negative.

Suppose you say there's such things as elves. You could claim that I can't find one, so they might be there (even though the burden of proof would still be on the asserter, you, to produce one) Because I don't know everything, I can't prove you wrong. But, if you say there are elves in this room, aha. Well, that's easily proven false after a couple of minutes of badgering around the nooks and crannies.

The problem with the you can't prove a god argument is that the Christian's aren't saying that a God exists, they're saying a God exists and here he is (the church). Well, a few minutes of badgering around THAT room, and it's easily disproven.

 I'm agnostic in the sense that I believe there could be a god, but he definitely isn't in the church. That's not a universal negative, it's a very point-specific negative.

#

Ray and Kirk claimed that they could prove God existed scientifically, without invoking faith or the Bible.  They didn't do that, so Kelly and Sapient were clearly victorious.

I don't think Sapient or Kelly claimed that they could disprove God's existence.  That wasn't the point of the debate.

Adam 

But Tyler, Kelly and Sapient didn't say they would or could prove that god doesn't exist because you can't prove a negative. Kirk and Ray on the other hand claimed they could prove God without using faith. Then they turned right around and started quoteing the 10 commandments and it was downhill from there.

 Now I've seen some theists split hairs by saying quoteing the Bible (in the form of the commandments) isn't using faith but you see it IS because the Bible in their own creeds says must be believed by FAITH! It is the only leg the bible has to stand on, once you remove faith then the bible has absolutely no authority therefore wouldn't count as evidence anyway. If you try to argue that the commandments are something we all know I say the same thing some emporers have said about that: big deal, every civilization has such laws (except for the ones regarding deity) one doesn't need a Bible for that.

Even other Christian apologists have been appalled at how badly Ray and Kirk performed especially when confronted with the cancer question. In case you didn't know cancer is not a disease it is a mutation of the bodies own cells going ballistic disproving Ray's point that our body is made perfect. Ray tried to dig himself out of a hole on that one by turning the question into the problem of evil argument but that clearly wasn't the point the questioner was getting at. Ray's actions regarding this one incident reveals that he is either clearly ignorant or so square about his own made up theology that he litterally hears no one else, he's like a kid with his hands over his ears shouting "i can't hear you blah blah blah I can't hear you..."

Give Kelly and Sapient their credit, they fullfilled what they said they would do and did so very graciously even and even said to the Nightline interviewers afterwards that they felt bad for Ray and Kirk because they do feel they are nice people and do have heart but simply are just not good debaters. To make matters worse they either don't understand the science they claim to refute or are flat out deceptive (thus breaking the ninth commandment) to keep their flock uninformed and brainwashed.  Based on my experience in the church and specifically with their program it's a little of the former and a LOT of the latter. I really wish it wasn't true Tyler but it is, their program lies through their teeth. Perhaps it simply goes with the territory when the church gets involved in mass media or specifically fundamentalist types. You won't find a single outright lie in the entire history of the Lutheran hour radio broadcast. Accountability and a clear time tested confessional theology prevents it. (It's also what keeps  them from denying science for that matter).

The problem stems from fundamentalists operating from a different set of rules Adam. Scientists and educated folks (I'm discounting "christian" institutions) know that we can't disprove a negative, understand logic and fallacies, and actually understand the difference between evolution, geology, astronomy, and cosmology. Fundamentalists on the other hand lump the *tion's and *ologies together, follow no rules of logic and demand negatives to be disproved. This is why when some scientific claim is one day disproven or seriously challenged they sit back smugly and use it to show how unreliable science is when we know that science is meant to be changed by performing science. IOW it shows the strength of science.

It is this same picking and choosing of the rules of logic fundamentalists take that allows them to ignore the fact that it is the study of evolution that enabled them to get a flu vaccine every year, and a host of other medical drugs.

There is no reasoning with them on those issues period. It's a fruitless endeavor and a titanic waste of time.

What I have seen work time and again though (and indeed changed me even) is consistently pointing out the fallacies and illogic in their own bible and theology. Show them the atrocious old testament laws followed by Jesus' not one jot or tittle verse. Show them Paul's support of slavery, counter their creationist claims with the fact that christianity is the child of Judaism of Judaism teaches Genesis to be an allegory and not literal. Parry their claims of the end of days from Revelation and Daniel with the fact that they weren't considered prophetical or literal until fairly recently. Reposte their claims of miracles, speaking in tongues, and driving out demons by demanding evidence of it and that christianity is far from alone with that. Move in for the kill when they say that you were never a real christian with biblical verses about how indeed one can fall away and the no true scotsman fallacy. When they try to say trite things like "the word of god is sharp like a double edged sword" and other crap ask them what the word of god is because that very verse was written supposedly before the "bible" was assembled which was done by a vote of church leaders which protestants believe to this day was corrupt anyway - IOW the "word of god" could not possibly have been literal words in a book, if they are then they are the pentatuch and not the "Bible." Counter their claims about the accurasy of the Bible with the fact that its merely a translation of translations and how older texts do not have many important verses but the only reason they are still clung to is because the church developed a theology around them and now refuses to change despite evidence to the contrary. IOW they've come to rely on the copy instead of the originals.

That's the kind of things that leaves them walking away thinking. That's why Cameron & company left feeling victoreous despite evidence to the contrary. They were playing by a whole different set of rules. Well that and the belief that they were persecuted and thus have stored up treasure in heaven.

Rob