Scientific explanation for the existence of God

[Age]

I have seen the playlists in one form or another many times before and all of them fail.

Yeah, then I'm thinking you didn't see this one. And you most certainly didn't read the Blackwell Companion. If you had, you would know that what you're saying just isn't so.

But as the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but..."

I haven't read the Blackwell Companion but I don't see that making much difference, I'm familiar with most of the arguments. The problem with all of these theories is in trying to prove the existence of something that doesn't exist. You run into all sorts of problems and contradictions.

One could say that in trying to prove the non existence of something that does not exist is a 'problem' as well.

But, just like the other way around they both do NOT necessarily make the ALLEGED "fact" true AT ALL.

Have you PROVEN, once and for ALL, that God does NOT exist?

If no, then WHY NOT YET?

If, however, you did, then did you run into ANY sort of 'problems' and/or 'contradictions' along the way?

[Age]

I'm familiar with most of the arguments.

I can tell by the way you're speaking about them that as much as you may suppose you know, you don't actually know the arguments at all. But again, it's more than I can do to convince you of that if you won't look at them.

If "you", "immanuel can", know of ANY actual 'arguments', which back up and support the existence of God, then will you provide them here for 'us' to LOOK AT and SEE?

This is what you/us were essentially invited to do, after all.

Some are inferring here now that if you do NOT provide ANY 'arguments' or 'scientific explanations' here now, and you are expecting 'us' to go LOOKING for them ourselves, then this MEANS that you have absolutely NONE at all, correct?

If this is correct, then so be it. It is just the way it is.

BUT, if you do have ANY 'arguments' and/or 'scientific explanations', then WHY will just not provide it/them here now?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If there was a scientific explanation then the paradox is that that it would put 'god' out of existence.

WHY do you CLAIM 'this'?

Of course, religious nuts like Immanuel Can't are not capable of grasping this obvious truth.

If 'this truth' is, obvious, then WHY can 'I' NOT SEE 'it'?

And, what actual PROOF do you have that a 'scientific explanation' for the exist of some 'thing' would then, supposedly and allegedly, put that 'thing' "out of existence"?

I though 'scientific explanations', which VERIFIED the existence of some 'thing' could, conversely, put that 'thing into existence'. That is; for those who had NOT YET SEEN this 'thing' before.

But maybe this is exactly WHY you used the word 'paradox' above here. This word is, literally, a 'paradox' in and of itself.

Thanks for proving MY POINT

[Age]

I had a look at the playlist and there are 15 videos, do you expect me to look at all 15 ?

I think it would be a good idea if you looked at some of them...if you're interested in the OP, that is. I can't tell you how interested you should be. That's up to you, of course. But they do give a tidy little introduction to some of the arguments that are expanded to full-academic levels in the book.

But if you really intended the OP to be a question, and you cared about it, then I think you'd want to look at them.

You could always read the book, of course...

Or, if you just want to accept that there ARE such answers, but don't want to look at them, then I guess that's another alternative. But since the material is there, I don't think it's reasonable any longer to say "there are no scientific arguments." That's the one thing that's clearly untrue.

Why are 'you', adult human beings, so 'one sided'? (Thee actual answer by the way is very easy to find and know.)

Anyway, obviously, if the one named "ginkgo" here is going to LOOK for what you can SEE, "immanuel can", then they are NOT going to find 'that' AT ALL. And, vice-versa. "immanuel can" would NOT see what "ginkgo" see. 'you', human beings, literally, can ONLY SEE what 'it' is, which you BELIEVING is true. This is CLEARLY OBVIOUS, by now, surely, correct?

Unless some 'thing' is written down in here, or copied and pasted here, AND THEN the REASON WHY 'it' is, what one SAYS 'it' IS, then "others" will NOT necessarily SEE 'this' EVER, or AT ALL.

Just look at the, so called, "scientific evidence, proof, and/or explanations" of and for "climate change". SOME can SEE 'it', SOME can NOT. And, conversely, SOME can CLEARLY SEE the evidence, proof, explanations for the OPPOSITE. SEE, it all depends on what one thinks, assumes, and/or believes is True, prior.

When 'you', human beings, STOP looking at and seeing 'things' from your OWN BELIEFS and STOP looking from an either/or attitude, then this will help you to START LOOKING, and thus START SEEING, 'things' how they ACTUALLY ARE.

[Age]

the Cosmological argument and that's not a scientific argument.

Well, I don't mean to put it unkindly, but that response does suggest that either you don't know what "scientific" means, or you don't know the Cosmological Argument. But if you prefer, you could go for the Design Argument. That might be more what you have in mind...

But, you could put forward an ACTUAL sound AND valid, thus irrefutable, 'argument'. But while the "other" BELIEVES otherwise, then they could NOT SEE nor could they, obviously, AGREE WITH this 'argument'.

By the way, it is a shame that NONE of those listed arguments are ACTUALLY sound AND valid 'arguments' to begin with. And, thus they are NOT really worth repeating anyway.

[Age]

If there was a scientific explanation then the paradox is that that it would put 'god' out of existence.

WHY do you CLAIM 'this'?

Of course, religious nuts like Immanuel Can't are not capable of grasping this obvious truth.

If 'this truth' is, obvious, then WHY can 'I' NOT SEE 'it'?

And, what actual PROOF do you have that a 'scientific explanation' for the exist of some 'thing' would then, supposedly and allegedly, put that 'thing' "out of existence"?

I though 'scientific explanations', which VERIFIED the existence of some 'thing' could, conversely, put that 'thing into existence'. That is; for those who had NOT YET SEEN this 'thing' before.

But maybe this is exactly WHY you used the word 'paradox' above here. This word is, literally, a 'paradox' in and of itself.

Thanks for proving MY POINT

I did write what I did for a specific reason.

I also asked you clarifying questions, which I KNEW you were INCAPABLE of answering.

I will, once again, SUGGEST, if one can NOT back up and support their CLAIM, then it would be MUCH BETTER for them if they did NOT make the CLAIM in the FIRST PLACE.

Now, 'you', known as "vegetariantaxidermy" here, made the CLAIM that if there was a 'scientific explanation' for the existence of God, then that would put God out of existence. You also made the CLAIM that 'of course' some people would NOT be capable of grasping this, alleged and supposed, 'obvious truth'. However, if you NEVER provide what this, alleged and supposed, "obvious truth" IS, EXACTLY. Then what this ACTUALLY PROVES IS, this, so called, "obvious truth" could be a completely and utter FABRICATION of your OWN making.

Now, HOW 'could' the actual 'scientific explanation' for the existence of some 'thing' "obviously", and allegedly, put that 'thing' "out of existence".

There is NOTHING in the WHOLE Universe that INSISTS that the existence of God, Itself, will NOT become PROVEN through 'science' NOR a 'scientific explanation', one day.

So, feel FREE to proceed in answering MY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to 'you', or continue hiding behind the FACT that you can NOT or will NOT answer them. The choice is YOURS, ALONE.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

WHY do you CLAIM 'this'?



If 'this truth' is, obvious, then WHY can 'I' NOT SEE 'it'?

And, what actual PROOF do you have that a 'scientific explanation' for the exist of some 'thing' would then, supposedly and allegedly, put that 'thing' "out of existence"?

I though 'scientific explanations', which VERIFIED the existence of some 'thing' could, conversely, put that 'thing into existence'. That is; for those who had NOT YET SEEN this 'thing' before.

But maybe this is exactly WHY you used the word 'paradox' above here. This word is, literally, a 'paradox' in and of itself.

Thanks for proving MY POINT

I did write what I did for a specific reason.

I also asked you clarifying questions, which I KNEW you were INCAPABLE of answering.

I will, once again, SUGGEST, if one can NOT back up and support their CLAIM, then it would be MUCH BETTER for them if they did NOT make the CLAIM in the FIRST PLACE.

Now, 'you', known as "vegetariantaxidermy" here, made the CLAIM that if there was a 'scientific explanation' for the existence of God, then that would put God out of existence. You also made the CLAIM that 'of course' some people would NOT be capable of grasping this, alleged and supposed, 'obvious truth'. However, if you NEVER provide what this, alleged and supposed, "obvious truth" IS, EXACTLY. Then what this ACTUALLY PROVES IS, this, so called, "obvious truth" could be a completely and utter FABRICATION of your OWN making.

Now, HOW 'could' the actual 'scientific explanation' for the existence of some 'thing' "obviously", and allegedly, put that 'thing' "out of existence".

There is NOTHING in the WHOLE Universe that INSISTS that the existence of God, Itself, will NOT become PROVEN through 'science' NOR a 'scientific explanation', one day.

So, feel FREE to proceed in answering MY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to 'you', or continue hiding behind the FACT that you can NOT or will NOT answer them. The choice is YOURS, ALONE.

I will leave YOU to work it OUT

[Age]

Thanks for proving MY POINT

I did write what I did for a specific reason.

I also asked you clarifying questions, which I KNEW you were INCAPABLE of answering.

I will, once again, SUGGEST, if one can NOT back up and support their CLAIM, then it would be MUCH BETTER for them if they did NOT make the CLAIM in the FIRST PLACE.

Now, 'you', known as "vegetariantaxidermy" here, made the CLAIM that if there was a 'scientific explanation' for the existence of God, then that would put God out of existence. You also made the CLAIM that 'of course' some people would NOT be capable of grasping this, alleged and supposed, 'obvious truth'. However, if you NEVER provide what this, alleged and supposed, "obvious truth" IS, EXACTLY. Then what this ACTUALLY PROVES IS, this, so called, "obvious truth" could be a completely and utter FABRICATION of your OWN making.

Now, HOW 'could' the actual 'scientific explanation' for the existence of some 'thing' "obviously", and allegedly, put that 'thing' "out of existence".

There is NOTHING in the WHOLE Universe that INSISTS that the existence of God, Itself, will NOT become PROVEN through 'science' NOR a 'scientific explanation', one day.

So, feel FREE to proceed in answering MY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to 'you', or continue hiding behind the FACT that you can NOT or will NOT answer them. The choice is YOURS, ALONE.

I will leave YOU to work it OUT

You can NOT even back up and support your OWN CLAIM here.

Of course, however, people like 'you' are not capable of grasping this obvious truth.

People like 'you' just BELIEVE you CAN. Just like a religious person you just BELIEVE.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I did write what I did for a specific reason.

I also asked you clarifying questions, which I KNEW you were INCAPABLE of answering.

I will, once again, SUGGEST, if one can NOT back up and support their CLAIM, then it would be MUCH BETTER for them if they did NOT make the CLAIM in the FIRST PLACE.

Now, 'you', known as "vegetariantaxidermy" here, made the CLAIM that if there was a 'scientific explanation' for the existence of God, then that would put God out of existence. You also made the CLAIM that 'of course' some people would NOT be capable of grasping this, alleged and supposed, 'obvious truth'. However, if you NEVER provide what this, alleged and supposed, "obvious truth" IS, EXACTLY. Then what this ACTUALLY PROVES IS, this, so called, "obvious truth" could be a completely and utter FABRICATION of your OWN making.

Now, HOW 'could' the actual 'scientific explanation' for the existence of some 'thing' "obviously", and allegedly, put that 'thing' "out of existence".

There is NOTHING in the WHOLE Universe that INSISTS that the existence of God, Itself, will NOT become PROVEN through 'science' NOR a 'scientific explanation', one day.

So, feel FREE to proceed in answering MY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to 'you', or continue hiding behind the FACT that you can NOT or will NOT answer them. The choice is YOURS, ALONE.

I will leave YOU to work it OUT

You can NOT even back up and support your OWN CLAIM here.

Of course, however, people like 'you' are not capable of grasping this obvious truth.

People like 'you' just BELIEVE you CAN. Just like a religious person you just BELIEVE.

I like to keep INterACTions with the insane TO a MINIMUM. Nothing PERSONAL

[Age]

I will leave YOU to work it OUT

You can NOT even back up and support your OWN CLAIM here.

Of course, however, people like 'you' are not capable of grasping this obvious truth.

People like 'you' just BELIEVE you CAN. Just like a religious person you just BELIEVE.

I like to keep INterACTions with the insane TO a MINIMUM. Nothing PERSONAL

Just MORE PROOF that you can NOT even back up and support what you CLAIM, is 'obvious', of ALL 'things'.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You can NOT even back up and support your OWN CLAIM here.

Of course, however, people like 'you' are not capable of grasping this obvious truth.

People like 'you' just BELIEVE you CAN. Just like a religious person you just BELIEVE.

I like to keep INterACTions with the insane TO a MINIMUM. Nothing PERSONAL

Just MORE PROOF that you can NOT even back up and support what you CLAIM, is 'obvious', of ALL 'things'.

Just THINK about it. [redacted]


[Edited by iMod]

[Age]

I like to keep INterACTions with the insane TO a MINIMUM. Nothing PERSONAL

Just MORE PROOF that you can NOT even back up and support what you CLAIM, is 'obvious', of ALL 'things'.

Just THINK about it. [redacted]


[Edited by iMod]

Seriously I can NOT. Remember, 'I' am 'insane'. Therefore, 'I' can NOT see and do what 'you' can see and do.

How about just PROVIDING and SHOWING 'it'?

[Immanuel Can]

I invite Immanuel Can (or anyone else) to come up with a scientific explanation for the existence of God

It's a big topic, because there's actually a lot.

But it is NOT a big topic AT ALL....

Sorry, Age. Not bothering.

[Age]

It's a big topic, because there's actually a lot.

But it is NOT a big topic AT ALL....

Sorry, Age. Not bothering.

Who cares?

What God ACTUALLY IS can be explained VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY, and then proven absolutely True, SCIENTIFICALLY, without 'you', "immanuel can", getting necessarily involved at all.

This topic is so small and so easy to understand that it would only take a few sentences, with just a few clarifications, to become FULLY explained, and FULLY understood.

But, just because EACH and EVERY attempt of yours to explain God has FAILED, considerably, this does NOT make this topic big, NOR hard and complex either, AT ALL.

Actually, considering the fact that EVERY attempt of yours so far to explain God has been completely and utterly unsuccessful, maybe the best thing you could do here now is to NOT bother entering this discussion AT ALL. You have PROVEN to be delaying this process, after all.

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry, Age. Not bothering.

Who cares?

That works for me.