Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a psychiatrist and our VA offers them free to veterans. I am fortunate to have served my country and I take advantage of these benefits. And I like my treatment, it helps.
It is an unfounded tradition that God cannot be proven , and like any unfounded tradition, an increase in knowledge can break through those traditions. And science can often help trumpet these breakthroughs. One of the simple ways to prove that God exist, is by examining the " Anthropic Principles."
The Anthropic Principles point out that there are over 100 varibles to existence which would have made life impossible if they were different than they are. And I will be examining the science of Anthroprocentrics, Anthropogenics, Anthropography, Anthropolatry, and Anthropology and show how these sciences undoubtly show the laws of existence were not created by themselves and show undeniable intentive design.
Anthropic means relating to human beings and their existence. One could say existence period! Existence depends on numerous cosmological constants and parameters whose numerical values must fall within a very narrow range of values , which science can track and graph. In these graphs we have formulated, the varibles cannot be altered or nothing would exist. And this is only one reason why we have belief in a God; the probability that so many varibles would align so auspiciously in our favor as humans existing merely by chance- is extreme! So it has led some scientist and philosophers to determine that the laws of existence were providentially engineered and that earth was designed to fit our specific needs.
The universe appears to have been " Fine-Tuned" for our existence.
The human body shows incredible design , and its no leap of faith to then assume a designer is certainly possible.
Its no leap of faith to assume that we are the only humans in the universe; we have the capability of space travel, we have found nothing. If other humans existed they have not found us. Its no leap of faith to assume if life existed elsewhere in the universe, it is searching for other life. Its simply logical science to assume certain things.
If you walked down the street and found a dime, you can assume it was dropped. If you walked further and found three dimes, you can logically and scientifically assume they were dropped. If you continued walking and found 200 dimes perfectly balanced on their edges and laying in specfic patterns you can scientifically and logically assume that this was done deliberately.
And this " Deliberate pattern is all in the universe; all in animal life; all in human life!" It is logical to assume that a God exist.
Earth is in the right conditions for life. It exists in a zone just right for water, with a larger planet jupiter that can use its gravity to protect it. Our sun is also the right mass. If it was larger, its brightness would change too quickly and there would be too much high energy radiation. If it was smaller, the range of planetary distances able to support life would be too narrow; the right distance would be so close to the star that tidal forces would disrupt the planet’s rotational period. UV radiation would also be inadequate for photosynthesis.
Earth is in the right conditions for life. It exists in a zone just right for water, with a larger planet jupiter that can use its gravity to protect it. Our sun is also the right mass. If it was larger, its brightness would change too quickly and there would be too much high energy radiation. If it was smaller, the range of planetary distances able to support life would be too narrow; the right distance would be so close to the star that tidal forces would disrupt the planet’s rotational period. UV radiation would also be inadequate for photosynthesis.
Is this convincing?
Its convincing to me and it makes sense. Its scientific, its factual, its common sense ; and it all points to proofs of God.
Carneades's argument disposes of the fine-tuning and other teleological arguments, noting that they beg the question of divine intent,direction. The puddle argument notes that a puddle could declare that it was intended for it to exist when in reality, no,because a hole just appeared to which rainwater filled it up. Randomness plays a large role in Nature. So, theists have it backwards with this lame argument! Lamberth's atelic/teleonomic argument notes that as science finds no divine intent behind natural causes, to postulate God as having intent to design and to create and so forth contradicts science instead of complementing it. First give evidence of how He operates in the Cosmos, by the magic of let it be? Then explain how theists can overcome the atelic argument instead of using the argument from ignorance here! Theists use the argument from personal incredulity, anwering with the argument from ignorance in their arguments. With Leibniz they ask why is there something instead of nothng when how could there even be complete nothing, and then answer with the pseudo- one of God, who explains nothing as Lamberth's the ignostic-Ockham notes. Even the ones accepting evolution ask why doesn't it have a director? And the same absurdity about the Big Bang comes forth. To prattle nevertheless, He operates makes for the new Omphalos argument that He deceives us with teleonomy-no intent,because, as John Hick puts it with his epistemic argument, God makes matters ambiguous about His exsitence so as not to overwhelm our free wills, but no, that is just another argument from ignorance! Behind most of their other arguments lie the ones from personal incredulity and from ignorance. Again even recognizing evolution, theists find it incredible that we exist. So they have to beg the question of divine intent. The atelic argument alone takes away all referents for Him as creator, designer, miracle monger and so forth, affirming ignosticism that He is vacuous. And as He has incoherent, contradictory attributesHe cannot exist. So we gnu atheists can flatly declare that no God exists by analysis, not by dogma. We then need not to travel the Cosmos nor have omniscience ourselves to declare that! So after eons of not validating Him, theist fail and so evidence of absence is indeed absence of evidence where as Victor Stenger, physicist-atheologian, notes and in line with Charles Moore's auto-epistemic rule. Those who up my reputation thanks! Theists just put old garbage into new cans of which we dispose.We desire to educate others against theism. We, as one philospher notes, can have fun with the arguments, and I add ti's a mental exercise! My arguments make explicit what others state implicitly, and I give names to others' arguments.
Last edited by carneadesthatesstratoofga; 05-04-2012 at 04:43 PM..
Reason: sp.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No intennnnnnt.just Nature at work!
