Quote from: odolvlobo on Today at 01:37:41 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 20, 2021, 12:34:34 AM

There are two major scientific ways one can prove the existence of God. And there is a third that is almost unimaginable because we don't take it into consideration deeply.

1. When you combine entropy with cause-and-effect with complexity, and at the same time consider everything that we really know (not the theories), the answer is God, or nothing exists.

2. All of our machines come from the machines of the universe. To exist, our machines use parts of universe machines. Machines have makers... or do you have an example of a machine that doesn't have a maker.

3. 1 + 1 ≠ 2. Why not? Because there are no two things in the whole universe that are exactly the same. 1 + 1 always = 1 + 1.

1. The crux of that argument is as stated by you: "Whatever set cause and effect into place, to produce the complexity of life through essentially throwing a handful of sand into the air, must be extremely complex within itself."
Of course, that is an assumption and something that you have not proven. It is generally called the First Mover argument and it is attributed to Thomas Aquinas. The problem is that there is nothing to support that argument, nor is there anything that shows that the "first mover" is a god (assuming you don't define the word "god" to strictly mean "first mover"). The obvious rebuttal is that the First Mover argument requires an exception in the case of the cause of the god.
2. Your premise false. Not all machines have makers. For example, the water cycle has all the characteristics of a machine, yet it has no maker. You can't counter that a god is the maker of the water cycle, because then you are begging the question --"God is the maker of the water cycle, therefore God exists."
Anyway, the best argument you can make here is "Every machine with a maker has a maker, therefore there must be an ultimate maker", which immediately shows its flaws.
Also, this is just another version of the First Mover argument, so everything in #1 also applies.
3. That's because you are twisting the meaning of "+". Either way, a philosophical statement like that has nothing to do with the existence of a god.

Quote from: BADecker on February 20, 2021, 12:34:34 AM

Haramein's Quantum Revolution: Science of a UNIFIED Universe

I think this guy is trying to be the successor to the charlatan Deepak Chopra. The video makes so many statements that mean nothing. It constantly twists the meanings of words in order to pretend to make a point.

1. It's proven in the high numbers of examples where complexity always produces something of equal or less complexity. You might suggest that there are a bunch of idiot people who produce offspring of the highest IQ order. However, the programming for such was already in their genes. In other words, high complexity produced low complexity with the ability to produce higher complexity than itself. But in general, there is no high complexity found that is higher than the complexity that preceded it. Such is part of entropy, which at its base, is reduction of complexity.

The idea of throwing a handful of sand into the air to produce complexity is a stupid idea. Rather, as the videos suggest, vibrations were cause to exist in the thing we call empty space, so that complexity was formed. Big Bang was a stab at trying to fathom something way to complex to fathom. Bug bang had no way to take the complexity of thought and all the fundamentals of the subconscious which uphold thought, into account... and a lot of other things, as well. Complexity alone suggests God. When it is combined with cause and effect and entropy, nothing could exist without God.

2. The water cycle has a maker because it is a machine. We simply don't clearly recognize who or where that maker is. Simply because we are too ignorant to find the maker, doesn't mean the cycle doesn't have a maker. Consider the Antikythera mechanism https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2008/dec/11/antikythera-first-computer. Just because we don't know who made it, doesn't mean it popped into existence without a maker. In fact, we don't even know which nation it sprang from for sure. However, it uses the machines of nature in its design and operation. And it is made of the stuff of nature, a machine of machines.

3. Nobody can imagine mass production without ever producing more than one of the same thing. While that part of the points wasn't meant to prove God, it certainly shows us a strange method for making similar things in great number, with everything being different although similar. What could do this?

The things that Nassim Haramein says are foundational. It's not that he is simply telling bedtime stories or something. The things he explains are things of science, things that science has found, that seem to go against possibly the foundations of things that Einstein said. Einstein suggested that space is empty. But there are too many scientific observations that show that space is essentially an elastic solid, made of moving vibrations as Haramein said. That's why Einstein's theories are still theories after nearly a hundred years. There are too many things of science against them.

Cool