Evidence that god exists

[magnifier661]

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

Wow, first of all no offense, you better read up on evidence. Even ask Trip regarding "evidence" in the scientific world. Why do you think he is "agnostic" when it comes to the existence of God? Too many things unexplained. We call this "super natural".

 

[magnifier661]

straw man.

That was a dig.... LOL Was just joking buddy.

 

[MadeFromDust]

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.

Well there are. If the evidence for atheism is so overwhelming then why is 2% of the world atheist? You should read some novels that prominent scientists and scholars who believe in God have written, they give powerful arguments for God from many different angles that have yet to be refuted.

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

I am not the one claiming there is some precise design to things. Why aren't we all precisely the same height? Why don't we have the same color eyes and hair (and skin, etc.)?

Why are some stars yellow and some blue (and some red)? Why are some systems binary (pair of stars orbiting one another)? That's not precision.

Why would God make any species at all? Why make us need to eat to survive? Why make us die of old age?

Geez, this is shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[RR7]

I didn't say evidence was overwhelming, did I? Nope.

 

[Denny Crane]

straw man

Straw man? I'm asking for evidence God Exists. That's the title of this thread!

 

[MadeFromDust]

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.



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.

Call them what you want to, many, many scientists believe DNA has a programmer. After all, programs require programmers last I checked. And the reason you don't believe is because you adhere to man-made theories. Which is fine I guess, you're skeptical of God, I'm skeptical of what men think they know.

 

[MadeFromDust]

I didn't say evidence was overwhelming, did I? Nope.

Ok, any evidence whatsoever then?

 

[crowTrobot]

Even if they is manage to do it (which is highly unlikely given what we know about the complexity of single celled organisms) i'd say the difficulty they've already had would be enough to rule out it being created by blind chance. At this point in time, it takes a hell of a lot of faith to be an atheist IMO.

you're like a creationist website talking point machine. go go go!

 

[magnifier661]

I am not the one claiming there is some precise design to things. Why aren't we all precisely the same height? Why don't we have the same color eyes and hair (and skin, etc.)?

Why are some stars yellow and some blue (and some red)? Why are some systems binary (pair of stars orbiting one another)? That's not precision.

Why would God make any species at all? Why make us need to eat to survive? Why make us die of old age?

Geez, this is shooting fish in a barrel.

Pretty easy to explain if you are a "Christian"; but let's look at it logically.

Let's forget God is all knowing or omnipresent. Let's just think of him as a "Scientist" outside this universe.

The universe is a petri dish. He puts things in this universe to support life. He will fine tune the universe; just in case things need adjustment. In the end, life must follow all the known laws of physics; therefor we are all different.

Yeah this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[MadeFromDust]

you're like a creationist website talking point machine. go go go!

Show me where I'm wrong, if these points are refutable then by all means...

 

[Denny Crane]

Pretty easy to explain if you are a "Christian"; but let's look at it logically.

Let's forget God is all knowing or omnipresent. Let's just think of him as a "Scientist" outside this universe.

The universe is a petri dish. He puts things in this universe to support life. He will fine tune the universe; just in case things need adjustment. In the end, life must follow all the known laws of physics; therefor we are all different.

Yeah this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

So God isn't the Creator anymore.

Now you're getting it.

If you want to define God as random chance, then there is a God.

 

[crowTrobot]

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.

amazing

 

[magnifier661]

Straw man? I'm asking for evidence God Exists. That's the title of this thread!

I gave it to you. So far, you only said 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000 power and totally forgot to mention the improbability of life actually forming on earth.

You still don't get it do you? I gave all the available atoms in the entire known universe. And I know damn well you know how much that is; then the time of the entire universe, not earth. Then I said just life on earth requires all the known atoms in the universe to make life.

You said there still is a chance. Do you know the size of Earth compared to the universe? Are you saying that the universe started at Earth?

 

[RR7]

Ok, any evidence whatsoever then?

I'm curious, is it that important to you to be "right"? I'm in a thread to offer rebuttal's to claims that my beliefs are not sound. But I don't see the thread that says it is not sound to believe in god. I see the two people with the belief in god seem to have an insecurity that makes it important to also convince others. To judge them for their beliefs. See, this is why you are wrong, otherwise, prove it. Prove me wrong. When the majority here are not making any attempt to prove that YOUR faith is wrong. Just showing the proof you have against ours is faulty.

 

[MadeFromDust]

amazing

Yes it is amazing how people can still be atheists in the light of logic.

 

[magnifier661]

So God isn't the Creator anymore.

Now you're getting it.

If you want to define God as random chance, then there is a God.

No creator = intelligent design. Okay so you agree with this then?

 

[RR7]

I gave it to you. So far, you only said 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000 power and totally forgot to mention the improbability of life actually forming on earth.

You still don't get it do you? I gave all the available atoms in the entire known universe. And I know damn well you know how much that is; then the time of the entire universe, not earth. Then I said just life on earth requires all the known atoms in the universe to make life.

You said there still is a chance. Do you know the size of Earth compared to the universe? Are you saying that the universe started at Earth?

Maybe it's that at th ebeginning of time, each planet was running one of the combinations, and with the number of planets there are, it increases the probability that one of the planets would begin life.

One scientist running 100 experiments in a day to prove something isn't likely. But 100 scientists each running one makes it more likely.

 

[MadeFromDust]

I'm curious, is it that important to you to be "right"? I'm in a thread to offer rebuttal's to claims that my beliefs are not sound. But I don't see the thread that says it is not sound to believe in god. I see the two people with the belief in god seem to have an insecurity that makes it important to also convince others. To judge them for their beliefs. See, this is why you are wrong, otherwise, prove it. Prove me wrong. When the majority here are not making any attempt to prove that YOUR faith is wrong. Just showing the proof you have against ours is faulty.

Well for me personally, my motivation has always been to bring people into the truth of the Lord Jesus. Plus I like debating things, and I just don't see how staunch atheism is logical, never have.

 

[RR7]

Yes it is amazing how people can still be atheists in the light of logic.

Logic being, I am right, i read it in this book, and also, puppies are cute, which proves god.

 

[Denny Crane]

I gave it to you. So far, you only said 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000 power and totally forgot to mention the improbability of life actually forming on earth.

You still don't get it do you? I gave all the available atoms in the entire known universe. And I know damn well you know how much that is; then the time of the entire universe, not earth. Then I said just life on earth requires all the known atoms in the universe to make life.

You said there still is a chance. Do you know the size of Earth compared to the universe? Are you saying that the universe started at Earth?

Your logic is just bad.

Can 2 atoms in Oregon combine at the same exact time that 2 different atoms in California do?

(YES)

Your math and logic don't consider that aspect.

Odds:
2 dice, 1:36 chance any specific combination is rolled. That's 6x6, 2 dice.
3 dice, 6x6x6.

Capiche?

 

[Denny Crane]

No creator = intelligent design. Okay so you agree with this then?

Hell no. There's no evidence of a creator either. They look at genes (DNA) with electron microscopes, and there's nobody's signature (e.g. "Jesus" written) on it.

 

[magnifier661]

Maybe it's that at th ebeginning of time, each planet was running one of the combinations, and with the number of planets there are, it increases the probability that one of the planets would begin life.

One scientist running 100 experiments in a day to prove something isn't likely. But 100 scientists each running one makes it more likely.

You can fathom 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. Thats 1 chance in 10 with 40,000 "0"s behind it. Even Denny's big number he just posted wasn't even a sand particle to the size of that number.

 

[magnifier661]

Hell no. There's no evidence of a creator either. They look at genes (DNA) with electron microscopes, and there's nobody's signature (e.g. "Jesus" written) on it.

Well then don't use straw man arguments on me. You played my word "creator" knowing damn well what I meant.

 

[RR7]

You can fathom 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. Thats 1 chance in 10 with 40,000 "0"s behind it. Even Denny's big number he just posted wasn't even a sand particle to the size of that number.

How many planets are there? And how many more we don't know about/too far away to see?

 

[magnifier661]

Your logic is just bad.

Can 2 atoms in Oregon combine at the same exact time that 2 different atoms in California do?

(YES)

Your math and logic don't consider that aspect.

Odds:
2 dice, 1:36 chance any specific combination is rolled. That's 6x6, 2 dice.
3 dice, 6x6x6.

Capiche?

LAMO! wrong... The universe has time, according to your big bang. I gave you the entire universe for the primordial soup. Time is still needed to make that soup. Then time is needed to actually have the right combinations in that soup. Then you limit it to just Earth. Then you limit it to 1.8 billion years. Your dice analogy doesn't apply here.

 

[crowTrobot]

Show me where I'm wrong, if these points are refutable then by all means...

you (via a lifelong exposure to creationist propaganda) misunderstand and grossly misprepresent the scientific theories and laws you cite. evolution does not involve blind chance, and no scientist thinks abiogenesis would have happened that way either. the second law does not in any way imply nature should be incapable of increasing complexity. these things were hashed to death in mag's atheist thread if you care to read it.

 

[magnifier661]

How many planets are there? And how many more we don't know about/too far away to see?

Yeah and what does that have anything to do with it? We are talking about life on this planet.

 

[crowTrobot]

Call them what you want to, many, many scientists believe DNA has a programmer.

not that many percentage-wise. DNA and the phenotypical expression of DNA is a quite inefficient and wasteful system, exactly as we would expect if it had evolved naturally.

 

[MadeFromDust]

you (via a lifelong exposure to creationist propaganda) misunderstand and grossly misprepresent the scientific theories and laws you cite. evolution does not involve blind chance, and no scientist thinks abiogenesis would have happened that way either. the second law does not in any way imply nature should be incapable of increasing complexity. these things were hashed to death in mag's atheist thread if you care to read it.

I don't really care what scientists think about abiogenesis or the "blind chance" argument, since there is no proof that abiogenesis happened or is even possible. Of course they'll say that in order to defend their views, but it's not actually based on any sort of evidence because there is none. And no, things aren't known to self-replicate themselves to form something as complex as a living cell, much less something that resulted from a random explosion.