#15 God & Scientific Explanation - Existence Proof

An expedition to find evidence for the existence of God. Evidence is not self-evident. The logic of physics leads to God.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Philosophy
• God's existence
• Laws of Nature
• evidence
• philosophy of science
• humor

[shizzleman8]

We need a law which conserves laws, but if it doesn't conserve itself then it leads to another meta-law, and so on, so what we actually need is a law which conserves other laws and also conserves itself, something which keeps the laws of nature in operation and also conserves itself in being fits the description of what we call God.

[dfpolis]

@shizzleman8 Right on, Dan. Peace, Dennis

[shizzleman8]

A wise man once said,

[shizzleman8]

"we don't get any closer to explaining why the laws of nature remain constant, the reason we needed the meta in the first place is that the law of conservation of mass-energy for example conserves mass-energy and not a law.

[shizzleman8]

1. We explain things by immaterial laws of nature. 2. The laws are immanent operating in matter. 3. The laws explain things here and now because they act here and now. 4. The conservation laws we use to explain things are aspects of reality, not fictions. We discover them by observing reality, we don't make them up, thus, they exist in reality, if they did not they would not be able to explain why the stone did't go 'poof' in reality. WE need to be careful to distinguish the laws of physics

[shizzleman8]

@marksp Attacking the man is ad hominem, a straw man is a 'dummy' that is built by an opponent as a representation of an argument they build which can be defeated. Often times people poor in ability of arguing legally build dummies that they can't defeat, it's really hilarious.

Causality is like a Power Plant and the laws of nature are like the lines that link everything to it's source. Humean-Kant­ian causality is dependent upon the essential causality of the intentional laws of nature.

[marksp]

@shizzleman8 You don't even know what a Straw men fallacy is. A straw man is when you attack the person and not the facts. I've said that it doesn't matter if he is a Ph.D he is wrong because he isn't using science. His conclusion was flawed because he didn't prove the existence of a god he simply proved that he doesn't know the answer [hence] he concluded that it must be something else.

I don't know how the laws work, it must be god. He is filling his knowledge void by MAKING UP an answer.

[shizzleman8]

@dfpolis "nothing changes the fact that you have no idea how science works".

;¬) How's that for an opening statement?! (xianphil . org proof2) "When essence limits existence, existence is more comprehensive. Something less comprehensive, a finite essence, cannot entail something more comprehensive existence. Thus, a finite essence cannot entail existence. For an infinite being, what-it-is would be identical with that-it-is". <= Here's where I find them to be weak, me too, essence/existence

[shizzleman8]

@marksp I don't worship creation, rather God as the Creator of the universe, Supreme Being, Ruler and final Moral Authority. You have to identify this proof as something other than what it is. You say either that Dennis Polis Ph.d in Theoretical Physics is "filling in the gaps with God" or "You're creating a God", which is irrelevant and a straw man, is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. Find fault with premise or reason. What are you examining? Apples?

[shizzleman8]

@wraith168 The pledge of allegiance, "One nation under GOD", on US currency, "In God We Trust", When the President is sworn into office he swears an oath to God while placing his hand on the Bible. The Supreme Court of the USA opens it's sessions in prayer to God. Testimony 3. open declaration or profession, as of faith. 1. Law . the statement or declaration of a witness under oath or affirmation, usually in court. The TESTIMONY of the Courts and all the branches of government is for GOD!