[King Kebab]

No. There is no God.

[ThinkB4Uwrite]

(Original post by Gofre)
We do not need to explain everything, but people do need to prove the things they make factual claims about. You're even welcome to say that god cannot be proven, but I'm also free to call your god a malevolent, wicked being for punishing us for not believing in spite of that.

Gofre its not about mine or yours its about the truth. God created us out of his mercy in order to give us the chance to earn eternal life. He doesn't need us at all, we need him for our sustenance and all he is asking of us is to give recognition and respect.
We become ingrates in our life. its sad times we live in when we recognize human achievements with honors such as Nobel prize, but when it comes to recognizing the one who put all of this universe together, we can't even give him recognition credit, but we become skeptical and judgmental.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by ThinkB4Uwrite)
we need him for our sustenance

Why, then, do I - an atheist - manage to survive, fully fed and comfortable? I don't seem to need your god.

[Gofre]

(Original post by ThinkB4Uwrite)
Gofre its not about mine or yours its about the truth. God created us out of his mercy in order to give us the chance to earn eternal life. He doesn't need us at all, we need him for our sustenance and all he is asking of us is to give recognition and respect.
We become ingrates in our life. its sad times we live in when we recognize human achievements with honors such as Nobel prize, but when it comes to recognizing the one who put all of this universe together, we can't even give him recognition credit, but we become skeptical and judgmental.

"All he is asking for" is for people to believe in him without any real reason to. I pride myself as being a rationalist above all else, I do not believe anything without sufficient reason to and I do not reject anything if sufficient reason is provided. There is no evidence for god of Abraham, I could not make myself believe in him if I tried. There is nothing about the universe which points towards a maker that I am aware of, and I am more than welcome to be proven wrong by anybody. But for now, the position of non belief is the only position I am physically capable of holding.

[bordercollies10]

Well, let us see how far we can all get with using science and logic to prove the existence of God to be true a priori (please note that the mathematical symbols will be flawed due to my inexperience with the more complex functions of TSR and the typing of mathematical symbols):
Presuppose character s to be the sample space for the potential outcomes of say:
A coin flip: {H, T}
2 coins being flipped: {(H,T),(T,H),(H,H),(T,T)}
Number of hours in an earth day being spent watching the television: {x bar x R, 0 <= x <= 24}
As we can see, each of these potential happenings can have a finite number of outcomes (or states). If an infinite number of outcomes were possible, then this entity in which we thrive cannot sustain that.
Let us now assume E to be the subset of S, where {E c S}is the mathematical notation.
Coin flip example: E = {heads}
In each instance of E (which stands for event), E must be absolute and definite for it has already occurred.
These examples I have looked at so far can be regarded as independent events for there is no external condition in which affects their outcome mathematically (when in reality, a coin flip could be affected by variables such as the moisture on the thrower's hand, the dirt on the coin or the temperature of the room) so to counteract that, a Presbyterian church minister called Bayes devised the Bayes' theorem. OK, lets assume the outcome of W is dependent on whatever the value of variable X is at the point of time in which the event leading to W occurs:
P{ X bar W} would be the mathematical notation.
Also, sometimes certain events only occur after the desired results are granted from the antecedent causes...
The outcome of, say, whether or not constant c - which equals 7 - being true is dependent on whether or not you roll a six and a one with two dice - probability of rolling a one or six is 1/6 therefore 1/6 + 1/6 = 2/6 thus 1/3 chance of c =7 being true!!
However oftentimes fate comes up against our will and conditions us to act in a way that we may not have intended to act in the first place, in reality depression is the cry for a different kind of conditioning hence why suicidal individuals only take their own lives when they are certain that they won't be conditioned to a different kind of conditions (which conditions them to achieve the hypothetical imperative as proposed by Kant), perhaps that of those they wouldn't mind.
So can any of the aforementioned prove the existence of God to be true?
Did the universe emerge from nothing? I reckon that nothing produces nothing. Scientifically, the existence of, say, the big bang theory, the abundance of hydrogen or the irreversible decay of the universe can back me up on this one. Can natural forces produce the universe? Please, ontologically there can't be any nature prior to the big bang; the big bang must have been caused by something supernatural, unbound, unchanged and omnipotent. If the universe was really around for infinite time with no beginning then surely we would have reached a cold and lifeless state of an absolute equilibrium by now. But who created God? I think that no one created God, as He is eternal. By logic, every effect must have an antecedent cause. However God is not an effect; rather He is a cause! Since something exists, and since something cannot arise from nothing, and that the universe itself is not eternal, something outside of the universe must be eternal. An infinite creator must be that something. Time and space had a beginning, but God exists external to the bounds of time and space.
The Bible is affirmative to this truth, that of God being independent and self-existing "from everlasting to everlasting" (refer to Psalm 90 verses 1-4, Psalm 102 verses 25-27, Isaiah 40 verses 28-31, John 5 verse 26 and Revelation,as prophesied by John, 4 verse 10). As once stated by Henry Morris, "The only answer that satisfies all the facts of science and human reason is that God is 'from everlasting.' Our heavenly father is the Creator of time as well as space and all things that exist in time and space. This is beyond our mental comprehension, but there is no other rational explanation for our existence."
However, can you point to a part of the brain that produces intellect? Why aren't we automata - I fail to accept that biology just gave rise, naturally, to intelligent, cognitive things that baffle computer scientists? Why are we able to deceive ourselves by electrical modulation and demodulation along our axons and dendrites? Surely that would prove that the laws of physics are relative when this isn't the only entity to be - but for that to be true the soul must be immaterial and we know that to be true for no tangible part of the brain produces the intellect and if we were a product of evolution (as likely as me pulling out a working watch after shaking watch parts together in a bag for a few billion years or so) then we might as well have been as conscious as a plant (really, without a God what purpose do we serve?)...
Nevertheless, your current perception is that of the particles in their current hinge, the past has dwindled away into the bottomless pit and the future remains for discovery and change. The truth can die among men or men can die for the truth but to accept the Christian God is to accept Jesus as the messiah. Read the first four gospels of the New Testament if you desire your historical proof. How about a Latin Vulgate as translated by St Jerome translated verbatim into English if you believe the translation you have is flawed by theological bias - I think you'll find that the diverse, historical accounts of Christ still remain to be.
Furthermore, nobody here is better than you! Some may just be better at executing the goals in their agenda than you are - but that would be about it. Anyway, what makes them so special anyway? We're not all gifted with the same talents, but if we were then this would be a very boring, at least, life...

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
Well, let us see how far we can all get with using science and logic to prove the existence of God to be true a priori (please note that the mathematical symbols will be flawed due to my inexperience with the more complex functions of TSR and the typing of mathematical symbols):
Presuppose character s to be the sample space for the potential outcomes of say:
A coin flip: {H, T}
2 coins being flipped: {(H,T),(T,H),(H,H),(T,T)}
Number of hours in an earth day being spent watching the television: {x bar x R, 0 <= x <= 24}
As we can see, each of these potential happenings can have a finite number of outcomes (or states). If an infinite number of outcomes were possible, then this entity in which we thrive cannot sustain that.
Let us now assume E to be the subset of S, where {E c S}is the mathematical notation.
Coin flip example: E = {heads}
In each instance of E (which stands for event), E must be absolute and definite for it has already occurred.
These examples I have looked at so far can be regarded as independent events for there is no external condition in which affects their outcome mathematically (when in reality, a coin flip could be affected by variables such as the moisture on the thrower's hand, the dirt on the coin or the temperature of the room) so to counteract that, a Presbyterian church minister called Bayes devised the Bayes' theorem. OK, lets assume the outcome of W is dependent on whatever the value of variable X is at the point of time in which the event leading to W occurs:
P{ X bar W} would be the mathematical notation.
Also, sometimes certain events only occur after the desired results are granted from the antecedent causes...
The outcome of, say, whether or not constant c - which equals 7 - being true is dependent on whether or not you roll a six and a one with two dice - probability of rolling a one or six is 1/6 therefore 1/6 + 1/6 = 2/6 thus 1/3 chance of c =7 being true!!
However oftentimes fate comes up against our will and conditions us to act in a way that we may not have intended to act in the first place, in reality depression is the cry for a different kind of conditioning hence why suicidal individuals only take their own lives when they are certain that they won't be conditioned to a different kind of conditions (which conditions them to achieve the hypothetical imperative as proposed by Kant), perhaps that of those they wouldn't mind.
So can any of the aforementioned prove the existence of God to be true?
Did the universe emerge from nothing? I reckon that nothing produces nothing. Scientifically, the existence of, say, the big bang theory, the abundance of hydrogen or the irreversible decay of the universe can back me up on this one. Can natural forces produce the universe? Please, ontologically there can't be any nature prior to the big bang; the big bang must have been caused by something supernatural, unbound, unchanged and omnipotent. If the universe was really around for infinite time with no beginning then surely we would have reached a cold and lifeless state of an absolute equilibrium by now. But who created God? I think that no one created God, as He is eternal. By logic, every effect must have an antecedent cause. However God is not an effect; rather He is a cause! Since something exists, and since something cannot arise from nothing, and that the universe itself is not eternal, something outside of the universe must be eternal. An infinite creator must be that something. Time and space had a beginning, but God exists external to the bounds of time and space.
The Bible is affirmative to this truth, that of God being independent and self-existing "from everlasting to everlasting" (refer to Psalm 90 verses 1-4, Psalm 102 verses 25-27, Isaiah 40 verses 28-31, John 5 verse 26 and Revelation,as prophesied by John, 4 verse 10). As once stated by Henry Morris, "The only answer that satisfies all the facts of science and human reason is that God is 'from everlasting.' Our heavenly father is the Creator of time as well as space and all things that exist in time and space. This is beyond our mental comprehension, but there is no other rational explanation for our existence."
However, can you point to a part of the brain that produces intellect? Why aren't we automata - I fail to accept that biology just gave rise, naturally, to intelligent, cognitive things that baffle computer scientists? Why are we able to deceive ourselves by electrical modulation and demodulation along our axons and dendrites? Surely that would prove that the laws of physics are relative when this isn't the only entity to be - but for that to be true the soul must be immaterial and we know that to be true for no tangible part of the brain produces the intellect and if we were a product of evolution (as likely as me pulling out a working watch after shaking watch parts together in a bag for a few billion years or so) then we might as well have been as conscious as a plant (really, without a God what purpose do we serve?)...
Nevertheless, your current perception is that of the particles in their current hinge, the past has dwindled away into the bottomless pit and the future remains for discovery and change. The truth can die among men or men can die for the truth but to accept the Christian God is to accept Jesus as the messiah. Read the first four gospels of the New Testament if you desire your historical proof. How about a Latin Vulgate as translated by St Jerome translated verbatim into English if you believe the translation you have is flawed by theological bias - I think you'll find that the diverse, historical accounts of Christ still remain to be.
Furthermore, nobody here is better than you! Some may just be better at executing the goals in their agenda than you are - but that would be about it. Anyway, what makes them so special anyway? We're not all gifted with the same talents, but if we were then this would be a very boring, at least, life...

Please use paragraphs. My eyes temporarily died attempting to read that.

[ThinkB4Uwrite]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Why, then, do I - an atheist - manage to survive, fully fed and comfortable? I don't seem to need your god.

Can,t you see that you are living in Gods earth, eating from his bounty and breathing his air. All of which were here before you. we might think we are in control but tell me can you stop your heart for one second?

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
Please use paragraphs. My eyes temporarily died attempting to read that.

Next time I will, but the point hopefully still remains valid.

I'll learn from the experience.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by ThinkB4Uwrite)
Can,t you see that you are living in Gods earth, eating from his bounty and breathing his air. All of which were here before you. we might think we are in control but tell me can you stop your heart for one second?

It isn't any god's earth. Why should I want to stop my heart? I can't lift Mount Everest either - and that is just as irrelevant.

[Gofre]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
So can any of the aforementioned prove the existence of God to be true?

I don't know, it seems entirely irrelevant from any of your following points, which makes its inclusion somewhat bizarre.

Did the universe emerge from nothing? I reckon that nothing produces nothing.

Advancements in quantum physics would be inclined to disagree with you. If you have a spare hour, watch A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss on YouTube.

Scientifically, the existence of, say, the big bang theory, the abundance of hydrogen or the irreversible decay of the universe can back me up on this one. Can natural forces produce the universe? Please, ontologically there can't be any nature prior to the big bang; the big bang must have been caused by something supernatural, unbound, unchanged and omnipotent.

Even if I were to accept your points, you've done nothing to validate the enormous jump to a personal entity with that set of characteristics.

If the universe was really around for infinite time with no beginning then surely we would have reached a cold and lifeless state of an absolute equilibrium by now.

The universe hasn't been around for an infinite period of time though, you've acknowledge the big bang yourself.

But who created God? I think that no one created God, as He is eternal. By logic, every effect must have an antecedent cause.

Special pleading.

However God is not an effect; rather He is a cause!

The two are not mutually exclusive, this does not exempt god from being caused.

Since something exists, and since something cannot arise from nothing, and that the universe itself is not eternal, something outside of the universe must be eternal. An infinite creator must be that something.

You cannot apply the causality as an absolute to a situation where causality is thrown out of the window. We have only ever known causal relationships to occur between things that already exist, in our current understanding it is impossible to enact an effect on something that does not yet exist to be affected.

Time and space had a beginning, but God exists external to the bounds of time and space.

Again, special pleading.

The Bible is affirmative to this truth, that of God being independent and self-existing "from everlasting to everlasting" (refer to Psalm 90 verses 1-4, Psalm 102 verses 25-27, Isaiah 40 verses 28-31, John 5 verse 26 and Revelation,as prophesied by John, 4 verse 10).

The Bible has proven itself on numerous occasions to be ignorant on the subject of science, drawing on metaphors is not sufficient to demonstrate its validity.

As once stated by Henry Morris, "The only answer that satisfies all the facts of science and human reason is that God is 'from everlasting.' Our heavenly father is the Creator of time as well as space and all things that exist in time and space. This is beyond our mental comprehension, but there is no other rational explanation for our existence."

Argument from authority.

However, can you point to a part of the brain that produces intellect? Why aren't we automata - I fail to accept that biology just gave rise, naturally, to intelligent, cognitive things that baffle computer scientists? Why are we able to deceive ourselves by electrical modulation and demodulation along our axons and dendrites? Surely that would prove that the laws of physics are relative when this isn't the only entity to be

Argument from ignorance. See my conversation over the last couple of pages with TB4UW for the issue with trying to prove the soul in this fashion.

but for that to be true the soul must be immaterial and we know that to be true for no tangible part of the brain produces the intellect and if we were a product of evolution (as likely as me pulling out a working watch after shaking watch parts together in a bag for a few billion years or so)

False analogy. Evolution was never a horde of parts being pulled out simultaneously, if you want to use this analogy it's the accumulation of increasingly helpful parts being placed into a watch casing.

then we might as well have been as conscious as a plant (really, without a God what purpose do we serve?)...

Plants don't have complex nervous systems.

I've cut out the last bit, more irrelevant stuff.

[ackbar]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
Did the universe emerge from nothing? I reckon that nothing produces nothing. Scientifically, the existence of, say, the big bang theory, the abundance of hydrogen or the irreversible decay of the universe can back me up on this one. Can natural forces produce the universe?
Please, ontologically there can't be any nature prior to the big bang; the big bang must have been caused by something supernatural, unbound, unchanged and omnipotent. If the universe was really around for infinite time with no beginning then surely we would have reached a cold and lifeless state of an absolute equilibrium by now. But who created God? I think that no one created God, as He is eternal. By logic, every effect must have an antecedent cause. However God is not an effect; rather He is a cause! Since something exists, and since something cannot arise from nothing, and that the universe itself is not eternal, something outside of the universe must be eternal. An infinite creator must be that something. Time and space had a beginning, but God exists external to the bounds of time and space.

There is a theory that the nature of the universe is cyclical - that all matter was in a condensed singularity and the massive forces involved led to the big bang, that all matter was then spread forth into the known universe and that one day the momentum will fail and natural forces will cause the universe to contract, once again pulling all matter into a dense singularity before the whole process begins again. As we discover more about the origin of the big bang, and of the very nature of the cosmos, this may turn out to be a viable solution thereby negating a need for a "creator" and allowing for the laws of physics that govern the very nature of reality to account for the existence of an infinite universe. Thus satisfying your need for cause and effect.

The Bible is affirmative to this truth, that of God being independent and self-existing "from everlasting to everlasting" (refer to Psalm 90 verses 1-4, Psalm 102 verses 25-27, Isaiah 40 verses 28-31, John 5 verse 26 and Revelation,as prophesied by John, 4 verse 10). As once stated by Henry Morris, "The only answer that satisfies all the facts of science and human reason is that God is 'from everlasting.' Our heavenly father is the Creator of time as well as space and all things that exist in time and space. This is beyond our mental comprehension, but there is no other rational explanation for our existence."
However, can you point to a part of the brain that produces intellect? Why aren't we automata - I fail to accept that biology just gave rise, naturally, to intelligent, cognitive things that baffle computer scientists? Why are we able to deceive ourselves by electrical modulation and demodulation along our axons and dendrites? Surely that would prove that the laws of physics are relative when this isn't the only entity to be - but for that to be true the soul must be immaterial and we know that to be true for no tangible part of the brain produces the intellect and if we were a product of evolution (as likely as me pulling out a working watch after shaking watch parts together in a bag for a few billion years or so) then we might as well have been as conscious as a plant (really, without a God what purpose do we serve?)...
Nevertheless, your current perception is that of the particles in their current hinge, the past has dwindled away into the bottomless pit and the future remains for discovery and change. The truth can die among men or men can die for the truth but to accept the Christian God is to accept Jesus as the messiah. Read the first four gospels of the New Testament if you desire your historical proof. How about a Latin Vulgate as translated by St Jerome translated verbatim into English if you believe the translation you have is flawed by theological bias - I think you'll find that the diverse, historical accounts of Chri

The bible was written by man, (which we can all admit are fallible) attempting to understand the world around them with their limited knowledge of the sciences. A single god as creator, and benevolent father, was both a simple and logical explanation to that which man was not meant to understand. It was also handy for the early church's as a method of both controlling the masses and establishing power - as we learn more about our very existence religion has had to modernise to keep up and stay relevant and what once was taken as literal is now regarded as metaphorical (I'm looking at you genesis).

You say you refuse to believe biology gave rise to intelligent cognitive things - well in that you're half right - it was evolution, my proof is the very fact you are here able to hold this conversation instead of succumbing to baser instincts - and humans are not the only intelligent beings on the planet we just regard ourselves as superior since we are the dominant species.

My final thought for this is post is this:

There is a theory that if we were ever to discover the true purpose and nature of the universe, it would immediately disappear and be replaced by something altogether more strange and wonderful. There is another theory that says this has already happened 😝



This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by Gofre)
I don't know, it seems entirely irrelevant from any of your following points, which makes its inclusion somewhat bizarre.



Advancements in quantum physics would be inclined to disagree with you. If you have a spare hour, watch A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss on YouTube.

Einstein's theory of relativity states that the laws of physics can be relative to their entity.

Even if I were to accept your points, you've done nothing to validate the enormous jump to a personal entity with that set of characteristics.



The universe hasn't been around for an infinite period of time though, you've acknowledge the big bang yourself.

Exactly, but without a God then there must have been nature of some kind prior to the creation of the universe thus matter in this entity must have been around for infinite time without some kind of deity.

The laws of thermodynamics are as follows:
The 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
The 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

Thus we would have reached a cold and lifeless state in this universe by now had it been around for infinite time.

Special pleading.



The two are not mutually exclusive, this does not exempt god from being caused.



You cannot apply the causality as an absolute to a situation where causality is thrown out of the window. We have only ever known causal relationships to occur between things that already exist, in our current understanding it is impossible to enact an effect on something that does not yet exist to be affected.



Again, special pleading.



The Bible has proven itself on numerous occasions to be ignorant on the subject of science, drawing on metaphors is not sufficient to demonstrate its validity.



Argument from authority.



Argument from ignorance. See my conversation over the last couple of pages with TB4UW for the issue with trying to prove the soul in this fashion.



False analogy. Evolution was never a horde of parts being pulled out simultaneously, if you want to use this analogy it's the accumulation of increasingly helpful parts being placed into a watch casing.



Plants don't have complex nervous systems.

I've cut out the last bit, more irrelevant stuff.

1. If consciousness does not exist, then reason does not exist either.
2. Reason does exist.
3. Therefore, consciousness exists.

[Gofre]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
Einstein's theory of relativity states that the laws of physics can be relative to their entity.


Exactly, but without a God then there must have been nature of some kind prior to the creation of the universe thus matter in this entity must have been around for infinite time without some kind of deity.

The laws of thermodynamics are as follows:
The 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
The 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

Thus we would have reached a cold and lifeless state in this universe by now had it been around for infinite time.

1. If consciousness does not exist, then reason does not exist either.
2. Reason does exist.
3. Therefore, consciousness exists.

I never denied consciousness exists, I rejected the assertion that consciousness necessitates a higher power to exist. You did nothing to substantiate that assertion aside from say that we are unaware of how it can be a result of chemical activity, which is an argument from ignorance at best.

(ill reply to the rest of your post when I get home, too fiddly on a phone.

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by ackbar)
There is a theory that the nature of the universe is cyclical - that all matter was in a condensed singularity and the massive forces involved led to the big bang, that all matter was then spread forth into the known universe and that one day the momentum will fail and natural forces will cause the universe to contract, once again pulling all matter into a dense singularity before the whole process begins again. As we discover more about the origin of the big bang, and of the very nature of the cosmos, this may turn out to be a viable solution thereby negating a need for a "creator" and allowing for the laws of physics that govern the very nature of reality to account for the existence of an infinite universe. Thus satisfying your need for cause and effect.

Not really, as by the laws of thermodynamics matter would reach a cold and lifeless state if it occurs for infinite time.

The bible was written by man, (which we can all admit are fallible) attempting to understand the world around them with their limited knowledge of the sciences. A single god as creator, and benevolent father, was both a simple and logical explanation to that which man was not meant to understand. It was also handy for the early church's as a method of both controlling the masses and establishing power - as we learn more about our very existence religion has had to modernise to keep up and stay relevant and what once was taken as literal is now regarded as metaphorical (I'm looking at you genesis).

All books are written by man for man, I don't think any intelligent person would think that God actually wrote The Bible verbatim (it is inspired by God but it won't always inspire the Christians) - anyway if religion was to control the masses then why do the theologians who lead the churches/congregations devote their lives to reading The Bible and worshiping with others around the community? Surely if they were that charismatic and convincing they could become mayor or something. Yes, I'll admit that some people do become scared and attend church "just in case", but that in its own merit is down to the actual person being affected, I didn't imply that any monotheistic religion was correct - I just believe that Christianity is the most feasible piece of monotheism.

You say you refuse to believe biology gave rise to intelligent cognitive things - well in that you're half right - it was evolution, my proof is the very fact you are here able to hold this conversation instead of succumbing to baser instincts - and humans are not the only intelligent beings on the planet we just regard ourselves as superior since we are the dominant species.

I do, and on this premise:
The argument against materialism holds:
For an assertion to be capable of truth or falsehood it must come from a rational source (see explanation below).
No merely physical material or combination of merely physical materials constitutes a rational source. (i.e. anti-panpsychism)
Therefore, no assertion that is true or false can come from a merely physical source.
The assertions of human minds are capable of truth or falsehood
Conclusion: Therefore, human minds are not a merely physical source

My final thought for this is post is this:

There is a theory that if we were ever to discover the true purpose and nature of the universe, it would immediately disappear and be replaced by something altogether more strange and wonderful. There is another theory that says this has already happened 😝



This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

That in itself would mandate that a conscious, immaterial and timeless mind is orchestrating the whole show as you have to admit - that theory does sound eerily intelligent of old mother nature, doesn't it?

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by Gofre)
I never denied consciousness exists, I rejected the assertion that consciousness necessitates a higher power to exist. You did nothing to substantiate that assertion aside from say that we are unaware of how it can be a result of chemical activity, which is an argument from ignorance at best.

(ill reply to the rest of your post when I get home, too fiddly on a phone.

Which part of the brain produces intellect? I'm not referring to the pre-frontal cortex as it is used to draw an indispensable map of reality and the axons and dendrites provide the input and output of this reality to us - but an answer to that question is still something that I desire to seek...

[Gofre]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
Einstein's theory of relativity states that the laws of physics can be relative to their entity.

I fail to see what point you're trying to make with this.

Exactly, but without a God then there must have been nature of some kind prior to the creation of the universe

Why?

thus matter in this entity must have been around for infinite time without some kind of deity.

The laws of thermodynamics are as follows:
The 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
The 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

Thus we would have reached a cold and lifeless state in this universe by now had it been around for infinite time.

Time is considered to have started at the big bang, that's basic physics. In this sense the universe has only existed for a finite amount of time.

(Original post by bordercollies10)
Which part of the brain produces intellect? I'm not referring to the pre-frontal cortex as it is used to draw an indispensable map of reality and the axons and dendrites provide the input and output of this reality to us - but an answer to that question is still something that I desire to seek...

This is precisely the point I'm making, a lack of scientific knowledge on a subject does not equate to positive evidence for your own assertion.

[Granger]

Ill leave yee with a riddle, Im coloured but clear, Im fruity yet sweet...im jelly what am I?

[Dangerous Theory]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
That in itself would mandate that a conscious, immaterial and timeless mind is orchestrating the whole show as you have to admit - that theory does sound eerily intelligent of old mother nature, doesn't it?

I think it simply suggests that we are far too unsubstantial to ever reach a definitive conclusion, therefore we just seek out answers that satisfy us. But of course, that answer soon gets boring and we find something else that would seem to disprove the former. Humans simply don't have, nor do we need, the power to understand what we call the universe, it's origins, and reasons for life to exist.

[umarrehman187]

science cannot bloody work out a cure for cancer..how are they going to find god? hahahahahahahhaha

[Gofre]

(Original post by umarrehman187)
science cannot bloody work out a cure for cancer..how are they going to find god? hahahahahahahhaha

Yes, because curing cancer should obviously be child's play...