I would like to see you come up with a rational watertight argument for a God
, it is a fairly common argument with more merit than most, how would your immune system develop through evolution, it is not like growing a wing for example where more survive as wing like things let something glide, the immune system is hugely complex and it is very difficult to see the steps in how it came about (although I am sure we will eventually).
If you read a few posts up, you can see I am defiantly not really in support of that.
You made a watertight argument, yourself. People are just too big-headed to realize it.
Firstly, consider the limitations of real science. We're not talking about publishing papers for fame and grant money. This is real science, going back to ninth grade, where you were taught the scientific method. We're trying to answer a question using a specific scientific process, and part of that process is that
correlation does not prove causality. Basically, you can't prove anything without setting up a
system of experiments where only one variable is manipulated.
The system would seem like this:
Question or Statement of Problem: Does god exist?
Hypothesis: God does not exist. All observable phenomena are independent of a creating entity.
Explanation of Procedure: We will develop two infinitely dense and small groups of matter in a space of absolute nothingness, and then to one we will do nothing. To the other, we will perform a battery of stimulation until it eventually explodes violently and the mass within it scatters over an eventually infinite space at a speed infinitely close to the speed of light. From this mass of debris will form billions of solar systems, and within one solar system eight planets will form around one star..... You get the drift. Meanwhile, our lack of action has not caused the second ball of mass to react in any way. If our hypothesis is correct that God exists, then none of the expected results will happen and we will exhaust all possible resources before the Big Bang is caused in our experimental variable.
Confused? Basically, the procedure is to create two pre-Big Bang universes and stimulate one using whatever means necessary to cause the Big Bang, while the other is still innert. Whatever method we used to create the Big Bang is therefore
proven to be the cause of the Big Bang and of the universe as we know it, provided our methods stand up to the battery of the inquisition of the scientific community and they agree no results were obtained erroneously. If we exhaust literally everything possible to react one Big Bang and not the other, only then can they actually say that at some point the two pre-Big Bangs will eventually explode on their own without the help of any outside entity.
Now,
please, I beg you to correct me if I'm wrong, but what I just outlined is the only possible way to have
scientific proof that God exists. Aside from science
forming an experiment that demonstrates the existence of anything we can see today, science can't say with certainty that anything is true or anything is false.
Remember this is just ninth grade science; no bottom-quarks, gravitons, string theory, or anything else needs to be used in my demonstration. Science can't prove anything without an experiment, and without experimental proof
every theory is watertight.
