sorry “see something a meter away” and “2459789922870800000 times its current speed”
It would still be light and it would still be visible, but possibly not to us. The energy involved at such an acceleration, were we able to view it, would most likely vaporize our mortal forms instantly. There is no reason to assume, however astronomical the multiplyer is, that if the speed of light is not a constant, there is a “terminal velocity” that it must reach (there is also no valid reason to assume that there is not). But, given the estimate of the increase in speed and increase in energy, could you imagine the sunglasses God must need? 
Well, your planet is observable in principle, unlike god. Also unlike some varieties of god, a hypothesis of its existence would not include any expectation of interaction with our world. It is thus more like a deistic god.
In either case, the right response is to withhold belief until there is some reason to believe that either the planet or a god exists.
Of course, the planet violates no physical laws, so we have less reason to think it does not exist than is the case with a god.
What is impossible to explain about forever?
Matter did not create the big bang. Matter froze out of energy from the Big Bang. If, as seems likely now, the sum of energies in the universe is 0, there is nothing to be explained.
Whether anything we observe contradicts the idea of god depends on what your idea is. If your idea is that of a creator of the universe 6,000 years ago, plenty contradicts that.
A being with the power to create the Universe could also bend the space-time continuum so that instead of waiting for the slow light to come to the objects he is trying to observe, he could bring the objects to the light…
If I understand what you are trying to say here, He would have to literally pull the objects into his eyeball faster than light could travel to get there. As far as I know, moving stuff at past the speed of light tends to have some kind of effect on the object (generally vaporizing it), so that idea probably wouldnt work, plus He would end up with a lot of crap in his eyes that way.
All this to say, it seems a lot of things we can observe seem to contradict the idea of the existence of God. As far as I know, the only thing that supports the idea is the relative complexity of everything in existence, and the fine balance and exactness of said existence.
If you could understand how God does it, wouldn’t you be a little disappointed? Not to squelch your curiosity or anything, but wouldn’t our brief time here be better spent helping someone in need rather than tryin gin vain to seek the mind of God…or prove He does not exist? It jsut seems like wasted energy, since you will never figure it out…
Dialogue like this helps people make informed decisions and avoid being “duped” by Religious Extremists who use tactics of circular and weak logic to prey on the uninformed. Its all due course in the fight against ignorance. The real problem is when people claim to be able to PROVE the existence of God with Science. I am not trying to disprove the existence of God, rather to reinforce the idea that it is unprovable and anyone who says different is probably trying to mislead in order to grow their own organization and influence.
How have you been informed by this dialogue? You simply have an opinion that you obviously do not want to change, and you defend it. I don’t see any great illumination going on here.
Who are you speaking of who claims scientific proof of the existance of God? Religious people are called people of FAITH because God cannot be proven. In religious circles, scientific proof of God is not offered, as a rule. You may have some whack job somewhere who will, but they are the exception.
Tearing down and criticizing people of faith and the systems they believe is a healthy exercise. It is one that most high school freshmen can, and often do attempt. What they often do is stop there, not investigating for themselves the reasons and powerful experiences people have that enforces and reenforces their belief in a supreme being. Sure, it is easy to paint religion with a broad brush, but until you have found a community actively seeking to do God’s will (for Christians that would be actively loving all people unconditionally and without expectation of anything in return) and have tried to understand why they dedicate their lives to service, you are really only investigating one side of the issue. That is not a very informed way to make a decision, is it?
If we did not have eyes, we would not even be aware of light. Animals that are completely blind have no awareness that light even exists (unless it is a human who has been told about light).
Some animals have evolved powerful senses of smell or hearing that enables them to collect data about their environment. It is possible that there is a sensory stimulus “X” that exists that we are not even aware of because we do not have stimulus “X” receptors.
To limit God’s ability to function and observe the universe he created based upon our own abilities only illustrates our inabilty to fathom God.
The ID movement, Josh McDowells “Evidence that Demands a Verdict”, Creationists, Christian Science…and thats just off the top of my head. There are probably millions of them.
I would not dispute a persons right to attribute certain emotional states or circumstances to a spiritual experience of some kind, there’s a kind of beauty in that. Its also perfectly reasonable to share your experience with others.
Where it goes wrong is when religious people try to use “evidence” they “heard somewhere” about how someone prooved Noah’s flood actually happened, that the earth is only 6000 years old and all of Science is just a big satanic coverup.
That kind of sentiment is NOT held by just a few whack jobs, its very widely held. I feel that spreading “religion” by attempting refute science and encouraging people to turn away from Scientific study in favour of the study of these various bunk theories does our entire race a massive disservice and actually impedes our ability to intellectually evolve.
The reason I posit these kinds of arguments is to add to the critical mass against any kind of movement that would see people remain in ignorance and turn away from learning and growing. I think it helps.
Few, if any of them, claim that science proves God’s existence. (In fact, the ID movement emphatically states that the evidence merely points to a designer–not necessarily God.)
The people and movements that you cited claim that science provides evidence for God’s existence. This is not the same as saying that God’s existence can be proven scientifically. There’s a rather huge difference between the two claims.
In fact, I already pointed this out to you. Earlier, I mentioned the teleological and kalam cosmological arguments. In those arguments, scientific evidence is used as data to guide one’s philosophical ruminations. In other words, while science can provide evidence, one must resort to other methods (e.g. philosophy) to conclude anything about God’s existence.
Since this has already been emphasized to you (repeatedly, I might add), I hope that will disabuse you of the notion that the people you cited claim that science *proves * God’s existence. Few, if any, would make such a claim.
You are correct, they will not likely will state directly that God’s existence can be proven scientifically. They will imply it, use rhetoric, circular logic, etc, but not just come out and state it.
IE: “The question of God’s existence is obvious, just look at the complexity of the universe He made, it just couldnt have happened by chance as Science would have you believe…and now that we’ve explained that…here is the Word on how you can have a personal relationship with Him.”
thats the kind of mindset I seek to protest.
ooops, please substitute ‘message’ for ‘mindset’ in my last post.
And how much evidence have you cited for this particular claim? Exactly none.
In fact, the opposite is true. They generally state that one cannot prove God’s existence, but that there is ample evidence to believe that he exists. For example, as I already pointed out earlier,the Intelligent Design movement does not claim that their theories prove God’s existence. The vast majority (if not all) do believe that there is a God, but they go out of their way to emphasize that Intelligent Designer merely points to a master architect–not necessarily the Creator of the universe.
This bears repeating. **The Intelligent Design proponents say the exact opposite of what you claim! ** The same holds true for the vast majority of theists who cite scientific evidence for God. They believe their is evidence for his existence, but they do not claim that this constitutes scientific proof thereof.
OK, I think there are two seperate issues here.
Firstly, the argument you posted above (which is one I’ve heard myself) is based on the mistaken assumption that science implies atheism; that science is opposed to the existence of God. The religious believer is invited to reject science because, they’re told, it’s in conflict with their faith. The correct response, IMO, to this sort of argument is to point out that this conflict is illusory, and that one can both have religious faith and fully accept the scientific view of the world.
Secondly, the (stated) goal of Scientific Creationism is not to use science to prove the existence of God, but to use science to prove the literal truth of certain passages in the Bible. This attempt may be doomed to faliure, but it’s still legitimate to make it.
I’ll respectfully disagree with JThunder that the ID movement doesn’t equate “The Designer” with God, but the ID argument is basicially the teleological argument that you yourself regard as legitimate. To put it another way, the fact that ID seeks to find God in the design of the universe doesn’t require the impossible “physical god” that you discuss; the God of ID is still a supernatural, transcendent, being.
Good luck with that…I still am not sure what you are trying to accomplish. I think this is an exercise for your personal edification, and that’s fine.
As others have already said, many people try to offer proof that God created the world, but I don’t know of anyone who offers proof that God exists.
So, let me get this straight…that link you sent, with pictures of crosses, invitations to enjoy “Gods forgiveness” etc. in no way implies that the intelligent designer might be…hmm…I dunno…hmm…GOD?
Your link simply supports what I am saying. While I agree they do not outright SAY “God is Science Proven!” They IMPLY it with the context of the message. That again is what I am protesting.
Yes, intelligent design theory is SO compelling that I, the Athiest am clearly just in denial.
Hmm… us Athiests are apparently a bunch of drugged out alien worshipping wierdos!
thanks for the cite, it was helpful to me.
: sighs :
Ok, I hate to admit it, but I agree with you on this one. There are some “whack jobs” out there, professing all manner of faiths and dogmas, steering their followers towards their beliefs rather than toward tangable evidence and the correlation with such evidence and scripture. Personally I love it when someone in a dark suit asks me if I have ever read the Watchtower. I’ll either go toe to toe, verse to verse with them and use their own circular logic against them or just start singing Iron Man and playing air guitar until they leave.
The people who piss me off are those who (for example) believe Jesus was white and spoke 16th century english. Those who think dinosaur bones were put there by satan as a decoy. And, those who think that 7 days 6000 years ago are the same as 7 days today. How is a day, normally defined as a rotation of the earth, defined before the earth started rotating? How can the span of a year millions of years ago be the same if the span of a year this year is not exactly what it was last year?
A lot of the Hebrew scripture is history but a lot if it is allegory, passed down through oral history from generation to generation for ages before it was ever written down. In the scripture of most religions there is a mix between what is literal and what is figurative. The problems arize when people lose the distinction between the two. The New Testiment is a good example. Full of history and parables, the history may be verified by archeological evidence but the parables are simply to be taken as lessons.
The same conditions exist in the scientific community as well. People who hold their theorys as absolute truths and reject any challange. A good example is the speed of light. If one holds the speed of light as an unchallangable constant then any future growth is impossible. Only by challanging the constants, questioning the imperical, and attempting to violate the “Laws of Existance” either with new theorys or physical evidence can any further growth occur. It is the same in the religious world, everything must be questioned and a lack of answer does not mean that the answer is negative.
Nice Freudian slip :dubious: