Can the existence of God(s) be proven or disproven Via religion or otherwise?

[Irock]

Randomness doesn't exist.

[erenik]

About the concept of matter and that it cannot be created:
Matter can be converted to energy, or reversed.

That is how fission and fusion work. Fission works by colliding 2 atoms to create 1 larger atom whose mass is lower than the total of the 2 reagents. The change in mass is converted to energy in the form of heat that is then used to drive turbines to generate electricity.

The same applies to fusion. How this can work is that the lowest mass/matter-ratio on the table of elements is iron, which has the element mass of 55.8 (compared to 1 for hydrogen or uranium with 238).

This is why the cores of stars (which start as gas clouds, hydrogen etc.) is eventually made of iron. The creation of higher mass/matter-ratio elements are formed from supernovae where the immense amounts of energy start higher mass/matter-fusions. The immense energies also start fissions so more smaller atoms are re-created.

The big bang theory works somewhat like this:
A huge amount of energy and/or matter gathered in the universe, resulting in a colossal explosion (and conversion of energy to mass).

Scientists have noted that all astrological parts are moving away from us, at different velocities, which would indicate that the universe is still expanding.

The theory of continuation I find most believeable is that (because of gravity, although weak and over immense periods of time) in the end, the universe will start to contract and shrink. This would then eventually lead to a new "big bang", after all mass and energy has been gathered again.
This would mean that the universe we live in now could be just one in a series of "big bang" universes.

Also, the formula for gravity between bodies of mass is constant, and exists everywhere. No questions there (from me at least).

Just thought I'd try clear things up with the matter/energy/gravity part for y'all. The theory of continuation-part is just the theory I cling to.

[Irock]

If matter is moving in an outward direction with nothing to stop it, while gravity is getting weaker as the space between the matter is constantly growing, why would gravity eventually cause everything to start moving back together?

[erenik]

Well there is the theory that the universe will expand forever, of course, too. Might be more believable.
No matter what you believe about the continuation though, it's a matter of billions of years, and I think humans will have died out if and when the universe would start shrinking anyway.

[tSwitch]

If matter is moving in an outward direction with nothing to stop it, while gravity is getting weaker as the space between the matter is constantly growing, why would gravity eventually cause everything to start moving back together?

Gravity is slowing things down by pulling opposite the direction they are moving.  So the force that is supposed to stop it is gravity, and then when it stops, it's highly likely to move in the direction gravity pulls it.

[Andarilho]

Science is the disproving of coincidence. Also, I think you're confusing intelligence for nature. Intelligence is a characteristic ascribed, (by the obvious use of the word,) to a living creature. Gravity, as your example goes, is not a "process in a (sic) intelligent order." Gravity is a natural element of the universe that we reside in. Truthfully, I don't even know why I'm taking the time to type this, since you're obviously either a kid, not very legible, or a non-native English speaker. Elitist Debate has gone down the shitter. There should be an age gate on this board.

I'm 20 years old. Thanks.

If as you say things are not random, then there is still no reason to believe in a god as even if you did everything would still happen, if you prayed to a god or if you didn't life would roll on the same way.

I said that there's no god. I'm not trying to prove something, it's only my rational thinking.
You're a lot influenced by religions. Stop talking about the old bearded man of religion.

erenik
You explained a whole process of ordered cause and consequence. No difference. In a logical thinking, you need a intelligent cause for a intelligent effect. Or the things are random.

[tSwitch]

Intelligent seeming things can happen easily happen as a result of random occurrence.

[IAMFORTE]

But pure random events are only interpreted as random, by "intelligent" Beings such as ourselves. Perhaps said random events are actually part of a pattern.

[tSwitch]

But pure random events are only interpreted as random, by "intelligent" Beings such as ourselves. Perhaps said random events are actually part of a pattern.

Or perhaps your perception is flawed and limited and you feel as thought there simply must be a pattern when it is truly random occurrence.

Something seemingly intelligent happens, such as the right chemical composition in the right place, the right distance from the sun, and suddenly it must be intelligent.

It can very well just be random.

[Sashikinaroji]

I understand the reasoning, in hindsight, mainly because the natural law that everything returns to chaos... And if that were true, expecting things to be maintained would be ridiculous, but honestly, I don't buy into that whole chaos notion, and instead believe that everything is constant unless acted upon by an outside force (which is a more commonly accepted belief, at least, where I am)

[tSwitch]

There are too many outside forces for anything to remain constant.

[IAMFORTE]

Perhaps my perception is flawed considering I attributed a lot of stuff to random occurrence in my first post, sorry about that.

[Irock]

Stop implying randomness exists. Every event is caused by another event, and the future was set the moment anything began to exist. If I threw a dice and it landed on 4, I, along with other elements, caused it to land on 4. If I would have thrown it a slightly different way, it could have landed on another number. If you rewound time and played everything again, it would be the same every time. Technically, everything is predictable.

[tSwitch]

I won't stop implying randomness exists, because I believe it does.  Yes there is a cause and effect series, of course.  But that doesn't mean that the effect of a cause cannot be random.

[Irock]

Why would the effect of a cause be random?

[tSwitch]

Why would the effect of a cause be random?

Why not?

[Irock]

Why would the effect of a cause be random?

Why not?

Because logical thinking says that if the circumstances are exactly the same, the results will be exactly the same every time. There's no reason why randomness would exist.

[Holkeye]

"Random" is a matter of perception. If I was walking down the street, and a bird shit on my head, I'd think, "Wow, that was random."
To that bird, though, taking a shit is not a random thing to do.

[Irock]

It's not random. That would have happened again under the same exact circumstances.

[Holkeye]

Right, but you're making an assumption that the world is predestined, and there is no such thing as free will. What you're saying is basically, "If that stuff happened again, it would happen again."

[Irock]

Right, but you're making an assumption that the world is predestined, and there is no such thing as free will. What you're saying is basically, "If that stuff happened again, it would happen again."

I believe that's the logical way to think from what we know and observe. But then again, there are other, seemingly impossible, unexplainable things that make absolutely no sense to me, like consciousness, self-awareness and the idea that at one point, energy (and existence) were randomly(?) created, despite the law of conservation of energy. We just have more of a reason to believe that randomness is nonexistent. It's much more easy to explain why randomness doesn't exist than does.

[Sophist]

But then again, there are other, seemingly impossible, unexplainable things that make absolutely no sense to me, like consciousness, self-awareness and the idea that at one point, energy (and existence) were randomly(?) created, despite the law of conservation of energy.

Oh dear god.

[tSwitch]

I believe that's the logical way to think from what we know and observe. [...] It's much more easy to explain why randomness doesn't exist than does.

Just because it's easier to assume that there is no such thing a random, doesn't mean that it is the right answer. 

I state again that perception is the flawed element in the formula.  The human mind excels in finding patterns and flourishes in an organized environment.  It only then makes sense that it'd be impossible to truly perceive randomness, as we are so entirely focused on patterns and formulae.

[Holkeye]

I think you're getting wrapped up in false use of the word "random".

[Irock]

I believe that's the logical way to think from what we know and observe. [...] It's much more easy to explain why randomness doesn't exist than does.

Just because it's easier to assume that there is no such thing a random, doesn't mean that it is the right answer. 

I state again that perception is the flawed element in the formula.  The human mind excels in finding patterns and flourishes in an organized environment.  It only then makes sense that it'd be impossible to truly perceive randomness, as we are so entirely focused on patterns and formulae.

But it takes an amount of faith to believe something that isn't proven or easily understandable. It seems like a bad argument to make in a thread about the existence of God when it would make much more sense to say things aren't caused by random events, but a standard way of thinking where specific causes make a pre-designated effect occur. Randomness vs creationism is mostly faith vs faith, based on what we know.