The Religion Discussion

[meccalli]

Understood. Assuming everything you said is true, you just need to explain why it is impossible for those other dimensions to exist and you will disprove the theory.

They can only exist if the multiverse exists. Several scientists have outlined the fallacies of time as a dimension, it's a matter of who believes what.

Not a disproof of the matrix or of the concept of God but a good comparison to see that he notion that there is a God is as silly as the notion that we are living in the matrix

You realise its a viable theory because the evidence of absolute constants for our existence points to it right? The concept of the matrix only comes about because God is excluded and substituted for another primogenitor of a simulator. You can thank our current mathematical astrophysicists for coming up with the 'silly notion' of the matrix.

[Habit7]

^^^That was a phase in me stating a conclusion.

The regulation I am talking about is the world, the world is regulated as seen in the laws of science. Theism can account for this with with the world being created by an intelligent mind. Atheism cannot account for the regulation of the world, in fact that reality runs counter to atheism. Thus an intelligent mind regulates, regulation cannot come from unintelligence.

This was my argument you accuse of circular logic.

[Slartibartfast]

invalidating an argument for God because the argument assumes God is real.

Here is your circular argument.

Conclusion - God Exists (Argument for God)
Assumption/ Premise - God is real.

There, now that we have those two out of the way, let's move on.

Ok hear what. Let's get this argument back on track. I'll break it down once again to it's basics. I have presented 4 arguments. You can reply to each point separately and I will respond to each of your replies separately. One section for each response so there is no need for us to quote eachother and make it hard for others to read. Also, any extra that someone wants to say can be added in a 5th section (so you can call me blasphemous and I can say you are right). However there will be no response to the 5th paragraph shall be required.


1st point,
Just because it can't be disproven doesn't make it true (multiverse, the matrix, God, Dragon is Car Sagan's Garage) (i.e. Just because science cannot disprove the existence of (multiverse, the matrix, God, Dragon is Car Sagan's Garage), does not mean that (multiverse, the matrix, God, Dragon is Car Sagan's Garage) exist.


2nd point
Just because science cannot currently explain it fully and simply enough for you to understand doesn't mean God did it. (I showed you alternatives that you are yet to disprove).


3rd point
Now that I have shown that absence of evidence is not evidence of existence (or absence), the only way to settle this argument is for you to prove that your God exists. For which I ask for one example of a verifiable/repeatable event/occurrence/action/attribute of God (just one)



4th Point -
Although this is not needed unless you prove that your God exists, I present it as an alternative to show you that the "regulated world" does not point in only one direction.
Your Premise (Correct me if I am wrong)
an intelligent mind is needed to create a regulated system, ergo, every regulated system points to an intelligent creator. The universe being a seemingly regulated system therefore points to an intelligent creator. (This argument assumes the "regulated world points in one direction)
My Premise
A seemingly ordered or regulated system is a natural permutation of any system.
My Premise used to disprove your premise
Any system that is allowed enough time/chance to pass through an infinite amount of permutations (i.e. infinite occurrences) will eventually wind up in a permutation that looks like it was purposefully regulated/ordered (i.e. probability becomes one). Note that the frequency of the occurrence is not affected.
In the case of the universe I am not saying that all of the systems are occurring at the same time or one after the other or that they are all affected by our concept of time anyway.
Also note that it is possible that the origin of the universe may be something that we have not even considered as yet (hence the reason why I will say evolution and the big bang are the best explanations we have to date but are open to future review)

[Habit7]

1st
I can prove God's existence with logical, ethical and scientific arguments. You are the one as an atheist who believes God does not exist and lodges that mainly in science disproving God:

And again, science disproves religion (yours especially) so there are incompatible and will always be pit against each other.

And if you want to claim that religion is not God, in the same post you subsequently use them synonymously.

If there was no religion/God there would be no _________ and the consequence would be ____. Therefore we must always ensure that religion and belief in God are present.

Now you are saying God can't be "disproven" by science or is another time you have to click your edit button?

2nd
Science can't explain it so that doesn't mean God did it..but it also doesn't mean that God didn't do it. This shows atheism as a vain attempt to say there is no God when they don't have all the information

3rd
Asking for natural evidence of a supernatural being is as I said before a category error. I can't respond to a nonsense request. I can only offer natural evidence of the causal nature of a supernatural being, and you are living in it, its called nature.

4th

"A seemingly ordered or regulated system is a natural permutation of any system"

I see no evidence or example of this.

Any system that is allowed enough time/chance to pass through an infinite amount of permutations (i.e. infinite occurrences) will eventually wind up in a permutation that looks like it was purposefully regulated/ordered[/color][/b] (i.e. probability becomes one).

To start off with "any system" is circular logic. One must start off with objects (without questioning how those object came into being, but I digress) objects left on their own in a closed system will deteriorate. Objects will have to be acted upon (cause) to produce any system (effect). Given approaching infinite permutations, there is far greater probability (and I believe this probability is 1:1) that the cause would not allow for any system to occur, and the objects will deteriorate. After this there are no more permutations to increase any chance of system creation.

Several Friday afternoons as a child I lay aside my packed school bag and never found a functioning system on Monday morning. All objects lay at rest.

Your best alternative (I see that you finally ditched Matrix as an option) is that unexplained objects, acted upon themselves, and formed a system. That is a nonsense.

[Slartibartfast]

Section 1
I said science disproves religion, as religious texts make a lot of assertions about reality that have been proven false. There is no need to go further than genesis in your case where you have to retreat behind the vagueness of the text or flat out ignore proof for anything else in order to hold on to the notion that it is true. God on the other hand is just an imaginative construct like a quible-flabble and is therefore impossible to disprove (also, like he Dragon is Carl Sagan's Garage. The "/" means "and/or" in that context. I was trying to be easy on you and give you the option of using either one or both as you see fit. I never said religion is God or vice versa. Your logical, ethical and scientific arguments are based on unwarranted assumptions (as seen over the past two pages). Why not present some empirical proof that unequivocally points to God as the creator. Does Section 3 imply that there is no empirical proof for God (that unequivocally points to him and absolutely nothing else, so cheap answers like "our existence" or "morality" or "the bible" don't count.)

Section 2

2nd
Science can't explain it so that doesn't mean God did it..but it also doesn't mean that God didn't do it.

From my 3rd Point

that absence of evidence is not evidence of existence (or absence)

It seems that we are in full agreement on this. Are we?

Section 3
My point exactly. There is no evidence of God. Our entire universe, by definition, is natural and there is no evidence that it was created by a supernatural force or event. For the sake of your argument, at best, the only thing that you can say with certainty is that there are still natural laws to be discovered. Some of which may or may not explain the origin of the existence of our universe. Refer to section 2 to see why I believe that this is a stalemate argument and therefore of no real value as it cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of a God.

Section 4
Unlike you school bag, the objects in the universe are hardly at rest. The universe currently seems like system with no net gain/loss in energy with time. It is more analogous to a ball release from the top of a hill. Once let go there is no energy input but a conversion of energy going on. The problem with the universe's origin is the a question of "where did that initial energy come from" You argument is that it came from God, my argument is referred in section 2.

"A seemingly ordered or regulated system is a natural permutation of any system"

Now using that same analogy. Let's say the it was a transparent ball with a bunch of red balls and blue balls inside it, all tumbling down an infinitely long hill together. All of the balls bounce around within this closed system randomly and constantly re-organise themselves (i.e. difference permutations). Considering that there is only a finite number of ways that the balls can be mixed, it will eventually organise itself so that it seems as though the balls are separated by colour (albeit for a split second). Now if a snap shot was taken at that split second, it would seem as though the balls were purposefully separated by colour (because who considered balls randomly separating themselves according to colour right?). Whether a situation exists for infinite permutations of all matter to occur randomly, nobody currently knows. We can only work with what we have the ability to perceive with our limited senses.

Now before you get confused, all this is meant to illustrate is that there is the possibility of an alternative to origin that is independent of the notion of a God and currently outside of our scientific understanding.

Lastly, what exactly do you mean by deteriorate? According to what is observed, everything is deteriorating. The sun and by extension the solar system is losing net energy and will not exist for ever. The universe is expanding and long from now all of the stars will be burnt out and all bodies will be so far apart that the gravitational forces between them are negligible and life would also cease to exist.

PS, the matrix was just used to prove section 2 that we now seem to be in agreement on.

[Slartibartfast]

Given approaching infinite permutations, there is far greater probability (and I believe this probability is 1:1) that the cause would not allow for any system to occur, and the objects will deteriorate. After this there are no more permutations to increase any chance of system creation.

This is wrong. Consider the proof below.

Quick course on Probability of Complimentary Events
Complimentary events are events that cannot occur at the same time (eg. matter organising itself into a seemingly regulated system (Event A) and matter not organising itself into a seemingly regulated system(Event B))

Let's keep the numbers small so that it will be easier to understand.
Let's say Event B is 100 times more likely to occur than Event A or that Event A has a 1 in 100 chance of occuring (Note, this works regardless of the magnitude of probability of event A)

In one occurrence - Event B has a 99/100 probability of occurring = probability of A not occurring
Event A has a probability of 1-99/100 of occurring

in 2 occurrences - Event B has a probability of (99/100)^2 of occurring twice in a row
Event A has a probability 1-(99/100)^2 of not occurring on either of the two tries.

After n occurrences - Event B has a probability of (99/100)^n of occurring n-times in a row
Event A has a probability of 1-(99/100)^n of not occurring in any of n-tries

And n --> infinity; (99/100)^n --->0
1-(99/100)^n --> 1

Replace the probability of event A with 1/100000 or 1/10^1000000 or whatever infinitesimally small probability you want and you will realise that the result is the same.
The graph of probability Vs. number of occurrences would resemble a "y=1-(1/x)" graph

The actual graph equation would be
P(A) = 1-[P(B)^n]

[Habit7]

An object at rest will not move until acted upon by a force - Newton's first law.

Matter can never organise itself into a regulated system. In you horrible example, you released the ball to gravity. A ball at rest will stay at rest. Matter at rest will stay at rest. Matter doesn't jump up by acting on itself and forms systems.

Some force acted on matter in the closed system of time and space. That force can't be material, it has to be timeless and spaceless, and it has to be powerful. And even in doing so matter, space and time came into being governed by affixed laws are complex and immutable. These laws allow for systems on the most extreme knife edge of parameters to exist, and allows for failure and dissolution in the widest chasm of parameters. Yet our occurrence today is on the backs of successions of successful systems which were doom to fail even as they succeed and got more complex....

However you are saying that force was matter acting on itself? I should expect to see you appealing to Spontaneous Generation soon.

[Slartibartfast]

Can you just organise that argument into the sections from earlier? I realise if we don't do this our argument just keeps going all over the place and moving back and forth.

[Habit7]

My argument has stayed the same from 4 the pages back when we started viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=19650#p8683699 God is the uncaused cause.

You are the one bouncing from pillar to post, matrix to multiverse, fallacy to error, to somehow circumvent it.

[Slartibartfast]

The argument has stayed the same because you constantly sidestep and dance around the issue while using unwarranted assertions and wrong assumptions as axioms and through them claiming that you have reached the absolute truth. I even showed you your fallacy of circular reasoning. I even had to help you refine your own argument to make your own point against my own:roll:

The reason I structured the argument was to get move the conversation forward and at the first sign of progress, you circle back to precisely where I was helping you advance from. Don't know what I expected considering that is what christians have been doing for 2000 years.

Anyway, nothing but love for you bro *chest bump*chest bump*peace sign*. When you gain some actual knowledge and develop your own ideas just give a proper reply to my argument.

If you want to reach me you have my number and you could pm me anytime.

Peace!

[Habit7]

cool

*bonx*

[Slartibartfast]

Habit, if you don't mind, since we done for now I just bumpin this for Shane.

I'm directing this to the Muslim population of tuner.
Please read & answer the questions honestly.

Why should Muslims follow the Hadiths?
Is Islam derived from the Qur'an or traditions/cultures of Muslim people?
Do you believe the collections of hadith by Bukhari and Moslim are the authentic words and teachings of prophet Muhammad?
Do you know why Scholars claim these hadith are authentic?
Do scholars claim a hadith is genuine if the chain of narrators (over 1400 years ago) all had a good character (were perfectly honest & had infallible memory)
How do scholars claim a hadith is genuine?
How can scholars prove hadith narrators had a good character?
Is believing in Hadith a form of "blind faith"?
Do you believe in blind faith?
Do you believe the Qur'an is the un-corrupted word of God?
Does the Qur'an say you should believe in blind faith?

And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying (out of ignorance, conjecture and assumption). )(Quran, 6:116)

Does the Qur'an say anything about believing in any other literature other than the Qur'an?

"We have permitted the enemies of every prophet human and jinn devils to inspire in each other fancy words, in order to deceive. Had your Lord willed, they would not have done it. You shall disregard them and their fabrications." 6:112

"Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognise that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbour any doubt.
The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient." 6:114-115

"This is to let the minds of those who do not believe in the Hereafter listen to such fabrications, and accept them, and thus expose their real convictions." 6:113

Would Bukhari & Moslim Hadiths be classified as literature other than the Qur'an?
Do scholars agree the Prophet prohibited hadith to be written during his life time other than the Qur'an?

"Do not write down anything of me except the Quran. Whoever writes other than that should delete it" (Ahmed, Vol. 1, page 171.....also Sahih Muslim )

Is the Sunnah of Mohammed mentioned in the Qur'an?
Can you show just one verse where the Sunnah of Mohammed is mentioned in the Qur'an?
Was the writing of hadith prohibited for the first 200 years after the death of the Prophet (historically)
Do you think it's possible it was prohibited because the prophet prohibited it?
After answering all the questions do you think a Muslim can still be a Muslim by only following the Qur'an & not Bukhari's/Moslem's Hadiths or a combination of both is required for you to be a True Muslim?

Thanks for reading.

Please post your answers below.

Regards,

Shane

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz ... ant-humans

Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans
MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report) – Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life, a sobering new study reports.

The research, conducted by the University of Minnesota, identifies a virulent strain of humans who are virtually immune to any form of verifiable knowledge, leaving scientists at a loss as to how to combat them.


“These humans appear to have all the faculties necessary to receive and process information,” Davis Logsdon, one of the scientists who contributed to the study, said. “And yet, somehow, they have developed defenses that, for all intents and purposes, have rendered those faculties totally inactive.”

More worryingly, Logsdon said, “As facts have multiplied, their defenses against those facts have only grown more powerful.”

While scientists have no clear understanding of the mechanisms that prevent the fact-resistant humans from absorbing data, they theorize that the strain may have developed the ability to intercept and discard information en route from the auditory nerve to the brain. “The normal functions of human consciousness have been completely nullified,” Logsdon said.

While reaffirming the gloomy assessments of the study, Logsdon held out hope that the threat of fact-resistant humans could be mitigated in the future. “Our research is very preliminary, but it’s possible that they will become more receptive to facts once they are in an environment without food, water, or oxygen,” he said.

[bluefete]

Fact: We are alive (fact based on first hand empirical evidence)
Fact: We have to die (fact based on observation)
Unknown Fact: What happens after we die and why no one has come back to tell us.


Random fact: How things randomly sort themselves into a coherent order with no external help.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Fact: We are alive (fact based on first hand empirical evidence)
Fact: We have to die (fact based on observation)
Unknown Fact: What happens after we die and why no one has come back to tell us.


Random fact: How things randomly sort themselves into a coherent order with no external help.

there are measures of disorder. We consider somethings to be coherent because they are consistent with what we already know.

[Slartibartfast]

Not to mention we are naturally pattern seeking and will recognise patterns in disorder.

[Habit7]

there are measures of disorder. We consider somethings to be coherent because they are consistent with what we already know.

Not to mention we are naturally pattern seeking and will recognise patterns in disorder.

I think you guys are overstating your case. If there is no definitive or absolute appearance of order (no matter the level of complexity), if regulation is just an appearance, then we should all pack our bags and go home.

That would invalid science in which we systematise an appearance of an ordered world governed by laws. We presuppose logic, mathematics and metaphysical truths as axioms before we even begin science. If order is nothing more than a mental construct we attribute to observations...then who to say our mental thoughts are ordered, or even our observation of science? Who is to say your atheism isnt a vain attempt to see order in the existence of the divine?

You would have just invalidated all you thoughts and conclusions no matter how ordered and logical they are because according you, order is just something subjective, not absolute.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

there are measures of disorder. We consider somethings to be coherent because they are consistent with what we already know.

Not to mention we are naturally pattern seeking and will recognise patterns in disorder.

I think you guys are overstating your case. If there is no definitive or absolute appearance of order (no matter the level of complexity), if regulation is just an appearance, then we should all pack our bags and go home.

That would invalid science in which we systematise an appearance of an ordered world governed by laws. We presuppose logic, mathematics and metaphysical truths as axioms before we even begin science. If order is nothing more than a mental construct we attribute to observations...then who to say our mental thoughts are ordered, or even our observation of science? Who is to say your atheism isnt a vain attempt to see order in the existence of the divine?

You would have just invalidated all you thoughts and conclusions no matter how ordered and logical they are because according you, order is just something subjective, not absolute.

who exactly is overstating here?

[Habit7]

Should I consider what you just wrote as coherent because it is consistent with what I already know to be the objective language of English?

Or was it a typo you are yet to correct?

[Slartibartfast]

Will get to this as soon as we finish the last discussion. All I see right now is a pattern of sidestepping and dancing around any real arguments raised. I not ready to argue for a next 4 pages for you to avoid replying

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

All I see right now is a pattern of sidestepping and dancing around any real arguments raised.

its all red herrings and logical fallacies

but the conversation and sharing of ideas is good non-the-less

[Habit7]

All I see right now is a pattern of sidestepping and dancing around any real arguments raised.

its all red herrings and logical fallacies

but the conversation and sharing of ideas is good non-the-less

Really, could you quote my biggest red herring or logical fallacy?

If anything, you avoid questions more than Slarti, like my last response to you.

[Slartibartfast]

I dont know if I can be continually wearied with you lying about me presenting a circular argument

invalidating an argument for God because the argument assumes God is real.

Here is your circular argument.

Conclusion - God Exists (Argument for God)
Assumption/ Premise - God is real.

There, now that we have those two out of the way, let's move on.

I swear your memory is getting a lot worse these days.

BTW I didn't avoid your point. I said to prevent arguing in circles I will argue the points in the order they are raised. You have yet to respond to me so I see no reason to move forward seeing that as soon as you cant come up with a reponse you just ignore the point raised and revert to a previous argument.

So please, feel free to pick up where we left off

[Habit7]

That's just dishonest. You are quoting a phase in very long sentence, out of context.

Any system that is allowed enough time/chance to pass through an infinite amount of permutations (i.e. infinite occurrences) will eventually wind up in a permutation that looks like it was purposefully regulated/ordered[/color][/b] (i.e. probability becomes one).

This is circular logic.

I answered your last four points, where did we leave off?

BTW this all start when I posted

Only under a theistic worldview can we account for the immaterial criteria of law of causality, logic and the reliability of observation, which one must accept before one engages in science. The atheistic worldview cannot account for these, if not prove them as the outworking of random chance and shouldn't be relied on.

As an atheist you have to borrow axioms from a theistic worldview to conduct science, all through which you hope to invalid the theistic worldview.

One of your best evidence for God is that you were born with a ingrained belief in God, you suppressed it with faith in the universe having no causal agent, and now you shake your fist at Him like the rebel He says you are.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Romans 1:18-21

Do you absolutely believe there is no God?

No need for my points to be redefined or sidestepped.

[Slartibartfast]

I just asked you to organise your thoughts becuase I realised not everything was responded to. It structured it to ensure that both of us will respond to all issues raised.

Also, for the above argument, please illustrate how my premise is dependant on my conclusion. (Like the argument God exists becuase you assume God is real)

[Habit7]

Also, for the above argument, please illustrate how my premise is dependant on my conclusion. (Like the argument God exists becuase you assume God is real)

Any system that is allowed enough time/chance to pass through an infinite amount of permutations (i.e. infinite occurrences) will eventually wind up in a permutation that looks like it was purposefully regulated/ordered (i.e. probability becomes one).

Any system (ordered objects) will eventually look like it appears to be ordered.


Now which question you believed I sidestepped?

[Habit7]

I dont know if I can be continually wearied with you lying about me presenting a circular argument

invalidating an argument for God because the argument assumes God is real.

Here is your circular argument.

Conclusion - God Exists (Argument for God)
Assumption/ Premise - God is real.

There, now that we have those two out of the way, let's move on.

^^^That was a phase in me stating a conclusion.

The regulation I am talking about is the world, the world is regulated as seen in the laws of science. Theism can account for this with with the world being created by an intelligent mind. Atheism cannot account for the regulation of the world, in fact that reality runs counter to atheism. Thus an intelligent mind regulates, regulation cannot come from unintelligence.

This was my argument you accuse of circular logic.

It was after me making this argument you accused me of circularity, falsely.


I hadda move like my PM and clear my name

[Slartibartfast]

That's why I structured the argument. I need to see where we agree and do not before I can show you in a way that is simple enough for you to understand. Once the 4 points that we are discussing are dealt with I will come back to this. If not we will just end up arguing about exactly what we said 4 pages ago... someone might even resort to just copy and pasting the same arguments back here. So before it comes to that, why don't we move forward.

[Habit7]

Section 1
I said science disproves religion, as religious texts make a lot of assertions about reality that have been proven false. There is no need to go further than genesis in your case where you have to retreat behind the vagueness of the text or flat out ignore proof for anything else in order to hold on to the notion that it is true. God on the other hand is just an imaginative construct like a quible-flabble and is therefore impossible to disprove (also, like he Dragon is Carl Sagan's Garage). The "/" means "and/or" in that context. I was trying to be easy on you and give you the option of using either one or both as you see fit. I never said religion is God or vice versa. Your logical, ethical and scientific arguments are based on unwarranted assumptions (as seen over the past two pages). Why not present some empirical proof that unequivocally points to God as the creator. Does Section 3 imply that there is no empirical proof for God (that unequivocally points to him and absolutely nothing else, so cheap answers like "our existence" or "morality" or "the bible" don't count.)

Section 2

2nd
Science can't explain it so that doesn't mean God did it..but it also doesn't mean that God didn't do it.

From my 3rd Point

that absence of evidence is not evidence of existence (or absence)

It seems that we are in full agreement on this. Are we?

Section 3
My point exactly. There is no evidence of God. Our entire universe, by definition, is natural and there is no evidence that it was created by a supernatural force or event. For the sake of your argument, at best, the only thing that you can say with certainty is that there are still natural laws to be discovered. Some of which may or may not explain the origin of the existence of our universe. Refer to section 2 to see why I believe that this is a stalemate argument and therefore of no real value as it cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of a God.

Section 4
Unlike you school bag, the objects in the universe are hardly at rest. The universe currently seems like system with no net gain/loss in energy with time. It is more analogous to a ball release from the top of a hill. Once let go there is no energy input but a conversion of energy going on. The problem with the universe's origin is the a question of "where did that initial energy come from" You argument is that it came from God, my argument is referred in section 2.

"A seemingly ordered or regulated system is a natural permutation of any system"

Now using that same analogy. Let's say the it was a transparent ball with a bunch of red balls and blue balls inside it, all tumbling down an infinitely long hill together. All of the balls bounce around within this closed system randomly and constantly re-organise themselves (i.e. difference permutations). Considering that there is only a finite number of ways that the balls can be mixed, it will eventually organise itself so that it seems as though the balls are separated by colour (albeit for a split second). Now if a snap shot was taken at that split second, it would seem as though the balls were purposefully separated by colour (because who considered balls randomly separating themselves according to colour right?). Whether a situation exists for infinite permutations of all matter to occur randomly, nobody currently knows. We can only work with what we have the ability to perceive with our limited senses.

Now before you get confused, all this is meant to illustrate is that there is the possibility of an alternative to origin that is independent of the notion of a God and currently outside of our scientific understanding.

Lastly, what exactly do you mean by deteriorate? According to what is observed, everything is deteriorating. The sun and by extension the solar system is losing net energy and will not exist for ever. The universe is expanding and long from now all of the stars will be burnt out and all bodies will be so far apart that the gravitational forces between them are negligible and life would also cease to exist.

PS, the matrix was just used to prove section 2 that we now seem to be in agreement on.

Section 1
Science may have disproved some religions, not Christianity. There is no empirical scientific fact that runs counter to Christianity. None. And please do not reply with theoretical ages of the universe or origin of species, they are not empirical science.
God is impossible to disprove because He is possible to prove. For instance I have done so already in this series of posts using the Law of causality, your personal incredulity rejects them and you have faith in an alternative like the matrix (which still has a godlike figure-The Architect) and the multiverse (which, apart from being fantasy, still doesnt give an uncaused cause) I dont have that faith you have, I have proof for God.
"Your logical, ethical and scientific arguments are based on unwarranted assumptions" who is to say what is warranted?
"Why not present some empirical proof that unequivocally points to God as the creator." Category Error (see Section 3)

Section 2
If by agree you mean there is no basis for atheism because atheists don't know if there is a God, then yes!

Section 3
If one were to say as an accountant, bills of sales show ownership, show me the bill of sale for your daughter otherwise she is not yours! That person will be a nutter. Likewise asking for empirical evidence for God is a nutty request because it is a category error. Your world consist of matter, time and space. God logically cant be the substance of what He brought into being...but you keep asking for God to be illogical. You cannot assess God with science (empirical observation) in the same way you cannot assess with science - logic, maths, metaphysics, aesthetics and morals all of which have absolutes.

I keep telling you you are committing the logical fallacy of Category Error yet you still repeat it. You are not winning the argument by asking illogical questions. What is next, can God create a rock He cannot lift?

Section 4

An object at rest will not move until acted upon by a force - Newton's first law.

Matter can never organise itself into a regulated system. In your horrible example, you released the ball to gravity. A ball at rest will stay at rest. Matter at rest will stay at rest. Matter doesn't jump up by acting on itself and forms systems.

Some force acted on matter in the closed system of time and space. That force can't be material, it has to be timeless and spaceless, and it has to be powerful. And even in doing so matter, space and time came into being governed by affixed laws are complex and immutable. These laws allow for systems on the most extreme knife edge of parameters to exist, and allows for failure and dissolution in the widest chasm of parameters. Yet our occurrence today is on the backs of successions of successful systems which were doom to fail even as they succeed and got more complex....

However you are saying that force was matter acting on itself? I should expect to see you appealing to Spontaneous Generation soon.

[maj. tom]

Hahahaha.
It good for yuh Slarti.