I have come again. I did a lot of thinking today and while in this state I decided to put down some very interesting scientific stuff that can be said to prove that there is a creator or a God as it were. I will be very brief so I appeal to you the reader to bear with me. If you are an atheist I would like you to disprove these three proofs of a creator God if you can.

Here are my proofs

Every known proof for the existence of God hangs upon the principle of causality. Thus, if this can be dismantled then my argument would collapse, but the operation of this principle is observed from common every day experiences. It can be stated like this: Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect.

1st proof. Proof from Movement

Movement in its strictest definition is best defined as the gradual process of becoming. For example, the world moves into another place in its orbit, an animal or a person or even a leaf moves from one place to another. This definition applies to any change be it gradual or be it instantaneous.

From the above definition it becomes rather obvious that the object must either itself possess power of movement or be moved by another or something else. The series of movers cannot be produced into an infinite number and motion cannot create itself. The cause which does move and has created for example the motion of the earth must itself be perfect and changeless or the problem is set up again. This immutable mover is an eternal Being called God,

2nd Proof. Argument from Final Causality

It is obvious in everything without intelligence that there is what architects and industrial designers called the ordering of structure to function. All the planning is the adaptation of a means to an end, the end in unintelligent things being hearing or seeing or being green coloured.
Only an intelligence can use means to gain an end, for the end must be known in the first place and the relationship of the means to the end clearly seen. This order we find in things requires a final ultimate cause or the problem is recreated. This final uncreated, uncaused and unplanned Cause is God.

3rd Proof. Gravity

Gravity according to its definition is the force that attracts a body towards the centre of the earth or towards any other physical body having mass.

We know that all the planets including the sun are said to have gravity which pull on each other in order to maintain an equilibrium and keep their orbits constant. How is this even possible if it came about by chance. For this feat to be possible it would require a lot of deliberate calculations and fine tuning in order for this balance to occur otherwise the earth would fall into the sun or collide with another planet eventually.

The earth is orbiting the sun at a speed of 110,000km an hour which is about 30km per second which is more than enough to break it free from the gravitational pull of the sun and send the earth falling through space due to a force known as centrifugal force.

Now let me do a quick analysis. The sun weighs about 330,000 times the weight of the earth and is about 1,300,000 times the size of the earth so in order for us to get the size of the sun we need 1.3million earths right? Good.

Now a space rocket needs to hit a velocity of about 8km per second which is its orbital velocity in order to break free from the earths gravitational pull and enter space and I believe that for us to get the size of the earth from a space rocket we would be needing billions of space rockets if not more. But something that small easily breaks free from the gravitational pull of the earth at just an orbital velocity speed of 8km per sec.

Why can't the earth which is just 1.3million times smaller than the sun and with an orbital velocity of 30km/sec be able to break free from the gravitational pull of the sun?

There is a huge difference between 30km/sec and 8km/sec. This means that the earth is orbiting the sun at about almost 100 times the speed of sound. This is bone jarring and evaporating speed of which the centripetal force cannot possibly compensate and would cause the centrifugal force to rip the earth loose as the pull would be more outward than the push inward.

All I just did was to show that chance does not have the power to make detailed calculated harmony like this so something or someone else with intention, purpose and a plan, deliberately set things up this way and set them moving.

What I just showed is an example of a deliberate scientific experiment with several elements deliberately brought into play of which none could happen without an external help or external initiation/initiator whom we call God.

The whole universe was a deliberate scientific experiment on a much larger scale than we are used to set in motion by God. Everything we witness in our small scale scientific experiments in the labs and which we deliberately cause and effect, are also seen on a much larger scale in our universe. There is no difference except in size.

There is an uncaused cause known as God who scientifically created this experiment known as our universe same way there is a scientist in a lab who deliberately created his experiment for reasons best known to him.

If you are not scientifically inclined you may not be able to follow my argument. So please those who are not scientifically minded should take several seats and not comment ignorantly.

Cc winner01, emmanystone, felixomor, hopefullandlord, superhumanist aka mumuhumanist, sonofthunder, sciencewatch etc

SMH. You could be write a piece without being distorted. I could understand what you were trying to say even though your writings were quite disjointed. I also noted your misunderstanding of gravity.

1) The earth doesn't move because of God. Scientists are clear on why the earth moves. The earth moves because of gravity. According to the theory of relativity, space and time are combined in a single physical continuum called spacetime. When matter or energy is present in spacetime, it curves, stretchs and distorts spacetime causing objects or energy much smaller than it to move around it either in elliptical or circular orbit or bend slightly as it passes. Any of these would depend on the velocity of the object.

If you observe very well, you would see, in space, that smaller bodies revolves or bend around objects much larger than them and they would continue to do so in what seems like "forever" due to the very very very negligible energy loss caused by an object moving in spacetime. This energy loss is so negligible that it would take planet earth 10 billion years to spiral into the sun - - - - hmmm intelligent design with humans in mind (and before you start shouting rapture, sin and curse, know that this is simply due to every loss nothing more, nothing less). So mister butterflyleo, the perpetual movement of the earth around the sun is not due to your sweet sky daddy but gravitation.

Martinez19:
SMH. You could be write a piece without being distorted. I could understand what you were trying to say even though your writings were quite disjointed. I also noted your misunderstanding of gravity.

1) The earth doesn't move because of God. Scientists are clear on why the earth moves. The earth moves because of gravity. According to the theory of relativity, space and time are combined in a single physical continuum called spacetime. When matter or energy is present in spacetime, it curves, stretchs and distorts spacetime causing objects or energy much smaller than it to move around it either in elliptical or circular orbit or bend slightly as it passes. Any of these would depend on the velocity of the object.

If you observe very well, you would see, in space, that smaller bodies revolves or bend around objects much larger than them and they would continue to do so in what seems like "forever" due to the very very very negligible energy loss caused by an object moving in spacetime. This energy loss is so negligible that it would take planet earth 10 billion years to spiral into the sun - - - - hmmm intelligent design with humans in mind (and before you start shouting rapture, sin and curse, know that this is simply due to every loss nothing more, nothing less). So mister butterflyleo, the perpetual movement of the earth around the sun is not due to your sweet sky daddy but gravitation.

Wrong! Totally wrong!

You so conveniently refused to take into consideration the speed of this orbit viz a viz the size comparisons as I did with a space rocket which Also moves at a certain orbital velocity.

Nothing just starts to revolve around another without something else triggering it. I already addressed this in points one and two.

Inanimate objects don't begin to move until something else moves it. I said its either that inanimate object has the power in itself to move itself or it is moved by something else and as we all know, using daily observations around us, no inanimate object can begin to move by itself and this matches the law of cause and effect. There can be no cause without effect and there can be no effect without cause.

Energy or matter is present EVERYWHERE and EVERY OBJECT HAS GRAVITY be it in space or on earth.

Why not try this, take a huge rock and put it on the floor or hang it by a piece of rope in the air and do same with other smaller rocks all around this bigger rock and let them all hang from a wheel which spins and then take a cup or coffee and sit and wait for it to begin moving by itself IF IT CAN. You would need to be the one to commence the very first spin of the wheel before the rocks would ever begin to spin.

This is simple every day scientific observation and this is why a lot of scientists today do not deny cause and effect and do not deny intelligence behind the universe.

Butterflyleo:


Wrong! Totally wrong!

You so conveniently refused to take into consideration the speed of this orbit viz a viz the size comparisons as I did with a space rocket which Also moves at a certain orbital velocity.

Nothing just starts to revolve around another without something else triggering it. I already addressed this in points one and two.

Inanimate objects don't begin to move until something else moves it. I said its either that inanimate object has the power in itself to move itself or it is moved by something else and as we all know, using daily observations around us, no inanimate object can begin to move by itself and this matches the law of cause and effect. There can be no cause without effect and there can be no effect without cause.

Energy or matter is present EVERYWHERE and EVERY OBJECT HAS GRAVITY be it in space or on earth.

Why not try this, take a huge rock and put it on the floor or hang it by a piece of rope in the air and do same with other smaller rocks all around this bigger rock and let them all hang from a wheel which spins and then take a cup or coffee and sit and wait for it to begin moving by itself IF IT CAN. You would need to be the one to commence the very first spin of the wheel before the rocks would ever begin to spin.

This is simple every day scientific observation and this is why a lot of scientists today do not deny cause and effect and do not deny intelligence behind the universe.

The distortion, curvature and stretching of spacetime by a massive matter is the trigger to begin movement by bodies much more smaller than it.

Martinez19:
The distortion, curvature and stretching of spacetime by a massive matter is the trigger to begin movement by bodies much more smaller than it.

Wrong again. Matter is massive everywhere. Space being what it is, just a large expanse of space cannot generate any motion on its own regardless of distortion, curvature and stretching of spacetime. We have a lot of bodies much smaller than the earth so why does the massive matter relative to them not cause them to begin motion on their own?

Plus, why the specific speed of 30km/sec. Why not more, why not less? Why not even fluctuating?

Next time mention DNA

trapQ:
Next time mention DNA

Will get to that on another thread

Will mention you when I do

Butterflyleo:


Wrong again. Matter is massive everywhere. Space being what it is, just a large expanse of space cannot generate any motion on its own regardless of distortion, curvature and stretching of spacetime. We have a lot of bodies much smaller than the earth so why does the massive matter relative to them not cause them to begin motion on their own?

Plus, why the specific speed of 30km/sec. Why not more, why not less? Why not even fluctuating?

Nothing I have said goes contrary to scientific evidence and proof. You lack understanding of gravity. Not all bodies can curve, stretch and distort space to a great extent like sun or the earth. The greater the mass the greater the curvature of spacetime and besides, it takes great matter to distort space significantly. The reason why you don't see objects on earth spinning around some objects is because the earth's gravitational influence far, and I far, surpasses any gravitational influence that any two bodies on earth could have on each other. So, all objects on earth obeys the earth's gravitational influence.

Nonsense

Waiting patiently for that

Butterflyleo:


Will get to that on another thread

Will mention you when I do

Are you just failing to recognise rules set by you? In either scenario, if permission is required, driver or soldier has no choice but to seek it. And if it means no shooting or driving is done, so be it. The stupidity of such as system where permission is sought ad infinitum is the sole reason we don't set things up that way and set a limit on how many permissions would be required.

However, op has set up such a system with his statement
"Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect", but which he wants to get out of by claiming, "except god". And the only evidence he has for such a claim is his say so! And this he calls scientific! Does he not understand that therefore means
some, and not the every that he claims? Oh, I guess his argument falls apart if he admits that!

Seriously, on that basis, I wonder why one should bother claiming god done it. He might as well claim he is the first permission, except we'd probably all say he's mad, has a demon in him, and crucify his black ass!

vaxx:
Saying it does not make sense is a position of subjectivity which i agree, i my self found the analogy matured and logical. supposing we change the character of a car driver in that scenario to a solder in the military who depends on another commandant to fire or shoot, and this commandant also depend on another commandant till it goes to infinity, when we the solder shoot? in a hierarchical format, you cannot take decision on your own. you depend on another authority to give you a go ahead. but it will get to a stage where the authority in that position do not depend on any command, but assuming it is loose. how will that be possible?

in an organised settings, for example a bus terminal, the bus coach has an instruction to follow, the time she must live and when she must arrive, the speed at which she can move, the numbers of time she must stop on the way, the places she must stop for rest before reaching the main destination and likewise the weight of the overall luggage she must carry. etc. so she is under rules and instruction. so no coach can just jump into the bus and move when instructions is yet to be given.


ok i hope this one is clear enough, but if not, please let me know .

Butterflyleo

Provided you want to throw a stone to hit a lizard, you may keep trying and trying with one stone at a time and yet you will never hit the lizard. But if you take, let say, 35 small stones and throw it all at once, the chance of you hitting the lizard rises.. Big bang supports this, why is there not life on other planets in our solar system but there is life on our own?.

Look at million of objects flowing around in the universe, they simply fail to be that stone to hit the lizard of human life..

budaatum:

Based on the above alone, and concentrating specifically on the word "every", as used by yourself, it is not possible for there to be one single god since every godx would have to be an effect with a cause, godx-1, in its own right. Essentially, every effective godx would have a causitry godx-1.

Please state how you deal with the infinite regression, godx-1.

make I hear say too much sense no kill you
oga butterflyleo over 2 you,I'm sure you don't like that phrase " infinite regression'

Butterflyleo don leave we atheists disappear.

So these are the proofs to show that Yahweh exist abi? This hot tripe also serve as proof that a dead Jewish man that lived over 2000 years ago whose stories we read about him claiming to be God and his son at the same time abi? Well done.

Dalam0n:
So these are the proofs to show that Yahweh exist abi? This hot tripe also serve as proof that a dead Jewish man that lived over 2000 years ago whose stories we read about him claiming to be God and his son at the same time abi? Well done.

Don't mind him. These arguments can be used by those of other religion.

will any atheist scientifically debunked the argument? i am here to learn

budaatum:

Based on the above alone, and concentrating specifically on the word "every", as used by yourself, it is not possible for there to be one single god since every godx would have to be an effect with a cause, godx-1, in its own right. Essentially, every effective godx would have a causitry godx-1.

Please state how you deal with the infinite regression, godx-1.

i think we already settle this matter, infinite regression is philosophically and scientifically impossible. for example, imagine yourself to be a car driver ready to start a car, but before you start you have to ask permission from another driver behind you, but he has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever drive? If you do drive please explain how?

Martinez19:
Don't mind him. These arguments can be used by those of other religion.

The argument though totally invalid supports a deist God and not the Christian God which he believes in. Do you guys notice that Christian apologist never try to provide evidence to show that Yahweh exist? All they do is try to argue for a creator God ALONE whose existence can never be known unlike the Yahweh or Jesus God they believe in whose existence can be known or proven, assuming their claims are true because the God they believe in according to the attributes they assign to him can be tested and it should be knowable to any body that test it. Even the bible makes claims about a God that can be known and tested assuming he exist for real. The Christian apologist know that the claims of the bible are totally false so they run to hug the deist idea of a creator God that can never be shown or proven to exist in reality. William Craig takes this nonsense too far by always throwing the bible under the bus. For example he'll try to tell you that objective morality exist and it comes from God, but when you show him his God violating this objective moral principles, he'll tell you that he is not here to talk about the biblical morality, yet he wants you to believe that objective morality exist and it's from his God which is the God of the bible. These are are just so dishonest and crazy

vaxx:
will any atheist scientifically debunked the argument? i am here to learn

I did refute the first one and someone else refuted the second. I would create a topic very soon because of this topic.

Martinez19:
I did refute the first one and someone else refuted the second. I would create a topic very soon because of this topic.

ok , i will be waiting

vaxx:
i think we already settle this matter, infinite regression is philosophically and scientifically impossible. for example, imagine yourself to be a car driver ready to start a car, but before you start you have to ask permission from another driver behind you, but he has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever drive? If you do drive please explain how?

An infinite regression is most certainly possible regardless of whether one eventually drives or not! Mathematically, think of a number and subtract one from it, then subtract one from your answer and keep going. Do tell me when you can go back no further!

vaxx:
i think we already settle this matter, infinite regression is philosophically and scientifically impossible. for example, imagine yourself to be a car driver ready to start a car, but before you start you have to ask permission from another driver behind you, but he has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever drive? If you do drive please explain how?

But Mr butterfly said everything has a cause. If so yahweh must have a cause. If infinite regression is impossible and we say our universe is the beginning of that a finite regression, what problem would you have with that?

Error number 1: Gravity is not a force, it is simply a curvature in the space-time continuum!!!

Error Number 2: "Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect".................Says the scientifically illiterate who has never heard of the term, 'Acausality'!!!

Butterflyleo, which god are you referring to?

Error number 3:Why can't the earth pull away from the orbital velocity of the blah blah blah....................................You are comparing a rocket with planet earth? You do know what that means in philosophy don't you? It is a fallacy known as the "False Equivalence"!!!

budaatum:

An infinite regression is most certainly possible regardless of whether one eventually drives or not! Mathematically, think of a number and subtract one from it, then subtract one from your answer and keep going. Do tell me when you can go back no further!

Mathematics is not a tangible thing, but actually an abstract concept and abstraction are always problematic. infinity mathematically is indeed a flawed concept that leaves paradoxical gaps, or holes in the number line, both in the middle, where zero is not allowed to have a reciprocal, and at the two ends where “infinity” is not a valid number''. likewise.Mathematics itself is built on the foundations of axioms implemented a long time ago.( we deal with this phenomenon before) Those axioms were made from humans and the concept of infinity can be played around with by human even if it is true or false.The question i throw up is a tangible one and i will like you to treat it as such. i currently have this book on my table, i will recommend it to you too.‘Infinitesimals: ''The History of a Dangerous Idea’' by Amir Alexander. it elucidate more on the concept of infinity in mathematics. but before then can you go ahead and settle my tangible question?

Martinez19:
But Mr butterfly said everything has a cause. If so yahweh must have a cause. If infinite regression is impossible and we say our universe is the beginning of that a finite regression, what problem would you have with that?

that means you are postulating the universe has a mind of his own?

vaxx:
that means you are postulating the universe has a mind of his own?

if you say infinite regression is impossible, it means there must be an uncaused cause that either came out of nothing or has been since the beginning. What if I tell you that the universe is that uncaused cause? After all, you conceived that an uncaused cause can exist.

Martinez19:
if you say infinite regression is impossible, it means there must be an uncaused cause that either came out of nothing or has been since the beginning. What if I tell you that the universe is that uncaused cause? After all, you conceived that an uncaused cause can exist.

i find your argument interesting and i said that will also mean you are postulating the universe has his own mind.

budaatum:

Based on the above alone, and concentrating specifically on the word "every", as used by yourself, it is not possible for there to be one single god since every godx would have to be an effect with a cause, godx-1, in its own right. Essentially, every effective godx would have a causitry godx-1.

Please state how you deal with the infinite regression, godx-1.

There is no such thing as an infinite regression because there are no infinite gods as it were and we all know that not all gods lay claim to creation. So where does infinite regression come into play?