Evidence that god exists

[MadeFromDust]

Recent polls, that have even been quoted on Christian websites, show that 1 in 3 scientists believe in god.

Many scientists seek only natural explanations for things and rule out any supernatural possibilities before they even begin. Out of the human population, roughly 2% are atheist. Checkmate?

 

[magnifier661]

And let's be perfectly clear here. Denny was talking about only having the right "primordial soup". I explained in the other thread that I gave the entire universe for the "primordial soup" (Amino Acids, Enzymes, Carbon, Oxygen, Water, whatever) and still that odd is 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power. Then the time allowed for 17.3 billion years still makes the number completely out of the question. I even gave extra time clicks by using Planck time; and still even with 100 billion years it was mathematically improbable.

I will not let this get buried. I still haven't heard a decent response to this.

 

[Denny Crane]

No proof is required that God doesn't exist, period. Can that get through to you at all? Nobody (except Maris) has ever posted he doesn't exist.

Your logic is:

if evidence of God, then God exists
no evidence of god
therefore God doesn't exist.

Nobody but you us using that logic here.

That isn't what's been said.

If Queen Elizabeth is an American citizen, then she is a human being.
Queen Elizabeth is not an American citizen.
Therefore, Queen Elizabeth is not a human being.

It hasn't been twisted like Queen not a U.S. citizen; therefor she is not human.

If God doesn't exists;
Then there should be proof he doesn't exist;
therefor he doesn't exist.

As you see everything is in the same context; therefor it is NOT A STRAWMAN

Notice that the question changes in the middle. I haven't changed the question in mid form.

 

[MadeFromDust]

And let's be perfectly clear here. Denny was talking about only having the right "primordial soup". I explained in the other thread that I gave the entire universe for the "primordial soup" (Amino Acids, Enzymes, Carbon, Oxygen, Water, whatever) and still that odd is 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power. Then the time allowed for 17.3 billion years still makes the number completely out of the question. I even gave extra time clicks by using Planck time; and still even with 100 billion years it was mathematically improbable.

I will not let this get buried. I still haven't heard a decent response to this.

Also keep in mind that according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, nature doesn't organize things, it disorganizes them. This can also be used against people saying billions of years of blind chance increases the odds, when really you can make an argument it only decreases them.

 

[RR7]

And let's be perfectly clear here. Denny was talking about only having the right "primordial soup". I explained in the other thread that I gave the entire universe for the "primordial soup" (Amino Acids, Enzymes, Carbon, Oxygen, Water, whatever) and still that odd is 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power. Then the time allowed for 17.3 billion years still makes the number completely out of the question. I even gave extra time clicks by using Planck time; and still even with 100 billion years it was mathematically improbable.

I will not let this get buried. I still haven't heard a decent response to this.

In finding that "right combination", by using time, you almost seem to imply(generic argument) that there are 10 combinations, but you only have 5 minutes to figure it out, and since it would take too long to go through each combination, it is thus impossible. but that really only works if the combination found is the last or one of the last "tried". I mentioned this, and you said it took a leap of faith to believe. There's explanation, and it might be just as improbable as a creator, maybe more so to you, but it again is not proof or evidence, even if you think it is.

 

[magnifier661]

No proof is required that God doesn't exist, period. Can that get through to you at all? Nobody (except Maris) has ever posted he doesn't exist.

Your logic is:

if evidence of God, then God exists
no evidence of god
therefore God doesn't exist.

Nobody but you us using that logic here.

Wrong Denny.

That was on the last thread; which claims that "Atheism is not a sound belief"

That would be this question.

If Atheism is sound;
then atheism would have proof that God does not exist;
therefor atheism is a sound belief.

On this thread:

If God does not exists;
There would be evidence that God does not exist;
therefor God exist.

 

[Denny Crane]

And let's be perfectly clear here. Denny was talking about only having the right "primordial soup". I explained in the other thread that I gave the entire universe for the "primordial soup" (Amino Acids, Enzymes, Carbon, Oxygen, Water, whatever) and still that odd is 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power. Then the time allowed for 17.3 billion years still makes the number completely out of the question. I even gave extra time clicks by using Planck time; and still even with 100 billion years it was mathematically improbable.

I will not let this get buried. I still haven't heard a decent response to this.

If your math and reasoning were correct, it doesn't prove what you think. Even at 1:100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 odds, there's a chance of success the first time. And what it might prove, if the math and logic were correct, is that life formation is rare which I think is likely true (rare).

In all your odds, the universe formed with hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars each, with a handful of planets to each star. Your math and logic says that ONE star would be rare.

 

[magnifier661]

In finding that "right combination", by using time, you almost seem to imply(generic argument) that there are 10 combinations, but you only have 5 minutes to figure it out, and since it would take too long to go through each combination, it is thus impossible. but that really only works if the combination found is the last or one of the last "tried". I mentioned this, and you said it took a leap of faith to believe. There's explanation, and it might be just as improbable as a creator, maybe more so to you, but it again is not proof or evidence, even if you think it is.

Not impossible. Improbable.

 

[RR7]

Wrong Denny.

That was on the last thread; which claims that "Atheism is not a sound belief"

That would be this question.

If Atheism is sound;
then atheism would have proof that God does not exist;
therefor atheism is a sound belief.

false.

 

[Masbee]

If there were truly "evidence" that God existed, then there would be no reason for faith. Faith is one of the basic tenets of Christianity.

"You just have to have faith": is exactly what con artists say to their marks when they start getting suspicious.

Just sayin.

 

[magnifier661]

If your math and reasoning were correct, it doesn't prove what you think. Even at 1:100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 odds, there's a chance of success the first time. And what it might prove, if the math and logic were correct, is that life formation is rare which I think is likely true (rare).

In all your odds, the universe formed with hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars each, with a handful of planets to each star. Your math and logic says that ONE star would be rare.

Not when you factor a creator. The odds of a designer increases it drastically.

 

[magnifier661]

false.

Actually true. As you see, Denny can't deny what I said. You are the only one arguing because you aren't understanding.

 

[Denny Crane]

Wrong Denny.

That was on the last thread; which claims that "Atheism is not a sound belief"

That would be this question.

If Atheism is sound;
then atheism would have proof that God does not exist;
therefor atheism is a sound belief.

On this thread:

If God does not exists;
There would be evidence that God does not exist;
therefor God exist.

http://sportstwo.com/threads/206481-Evidence-that-god-exists?p=2732628#post2732628

Lol you would think so; but we already covered this Denny. You gave me the link and I already explained it on the other thread. Sorry if you actually thought changing the title actually changes the outcome.

If the most important minds in science can't find evidence to disprove God; and if there are still creationist in te fields of science; it should explain that there hasn't been enough evidence to support that god doesn't exist.

The underlined part is your straw man. The entire bolded part is the three questions.

Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not when you factor a creator. The odds of a designer increases it drastically.

If there were evidence of a creator, scientists would be all over it and someone would win the nobel prize for it.

Didn't someone write that (almost) exact thing already?

 

[MadeFromDust]

Not when you factor a creator. The odds of a designer increases it drastically.

It also answers why the galaxies, stars and planets are even here in the first place, and the precision the universe operates on.

 

[Denny Crane]

It also answers why the galaxies, stars and planets are even here in the first place, and the precision the universe operates on.

Why is 186,000 miles/second, the speed of light, somehow precise?

Why is 32 ft/sec/sec (gravity in many places on earth) somehow precise?

They look like random numbers to me.

 

[RR7]

Not when you factor a creator. The odds of a designer increases it drastically.

So? Yeah, if there were a creator, then odds of it is 1:1, I suppose. Because you just have to have faith it is so. That is not proof that it isn't the other way.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Why is 186,000 miles/second, the speed of light, somehow precise?

Why is 32 ft/sec/sec (gravity in many places on earth) somehow precise?

They look like random numbers to me.

So in order for God to exist, they have to be at a number to your liking?

 

[magnifier661]

So? Yeah, if there were a creator, then odds of it is 1:1, I suppose. Because you just have to have faith it is so. That is not proof that it isn't the other way.

It can be a factor. There is no evidence that says otherwise.

 

[MadeFromDust]

If there were evidence of a creator, scientists would be all over it and someone would win the nobel prize for it.

Didn't someone write that (almost) exact thing already?

Oh but there is. But when you want badly enough for something not to be true you'll find ways around it, and there are plenty of people around with that sort of motivation.

 

[magnifier661]

If there were evidence of a creator, scientists would be all over it and someone would win the nobel prize for it.

Didn't someone write that (almost) exact thing already?

Science doesn't want to make it a factor because they don't want to believe in the supernatural. Well at least the Atheist scientists.

 

[Denny Crane]

So in order for God to exist, they have to be at a number to your liking?

You're the one who talks about some sort of precision in the universe, when all I see is randomness.

In fact, why are some people 5' tall, and some people 7' tall?

 

[RR7]

Oh but there is. But when you want badly enough for something not to be true you'll find ways around it, and there are plenty of people around with that sort of motivation.

And there are millions with the motivation to prove it, and get that nobel prize, etc.
So the same could be said. there isn't evidence. but when you want so badly to believe something to be true, you find ways around it, and there are plenty(plenty more, according to you) with that sort of motivation.

 

[Denny Crane]

Science doesn't want to make it a factor because they don't want to believe in the supernatural. Well at least the Atheist scientists.

Show me a photograph. Show me a painting of Jesus from the time he was alive. Show me a fossil of the burnt bush.

You guys know what to look for, where is it?

 

[magnifier661]

You're the one who talks about some sort of precision in the universe, when all I see is randomness.

In fact, why are some people 5' tall, and some people 7' tall?

You are seriously over simplifying things and you know it.

We are talking about "life itself". The universe itself. And you know damn well the universe is "fine tuning". Even you believe in this because you gave me a link of the big bang. That has "fine tuning" written all over it.

 

[MadeFromDust]

You're the one who talks about some sort of precision in the universe, when all I see is randomness.

In fact, why are some people 5' tall, and some people 7' tall?

Because it falls on a certain number does not mean it's not precise. If it fell on any other number you'd be using the exact same argument. And what does the height have to do with anything? Are you trying to say that if there were a God we'd all be the same height, weight, color etc. or something to that nature?

 

[RR7]

and again, mags, none of this is evidence, at all. Just faith. good for you. You have faith. you do not, unfortunately, have evidence.

 

[magnifier661]

Show me a photograph. Show me a painting of Jesus from the time he was alive. Show me a fossil of the burnt bush.

You guys know what to look for, where is it?

straw man

 

[crowTrobot]

I'm saying God has done enough throughout the course of history for us to have every reason to believe in Him

if you think that is the case, faith isn't required and you don't have free will to genuinely NOT believe in god. just as i see no evidence whatsoever for god acting throughout history, or for intelligent design in the wasteful impractical structure of DNA, so i don't have the choice to believe in god (without brainwashing myself).

this was my only point. i wasn't arguing about who's view of the evidence is correct.

and that has nothing to do with scientific arguments.

god revealing himself "throughout history" or in the code of DNA are overtly empirical claims. when you say those things you ARE STATING a scientific hypothesis.

 

[RR7]

straw man.