Evidence that god exists

[MARIS61]

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?

Go play in the sandbox, we're talking adult talk here.

 

[MARIS61]

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?

Either way, Hank the Dwarf got shorted.

 

[crowTrobot]

How is that not based on faith or belief? There's no evidence, it's never been anything more than a theory, yet it somehow doesn't take any faith or belief to believe it happened, whereas God is an irrational leap of faith. OK.

i just explained this. scientists don't "believe" in natural abiogenesis. they think it is the most probable explanation based on past experience of everything we know about nature having been the result of natural explanation and "goddidit" never once explaining anything. making that probability judgement requires no faith, only common sense.

I'm not disputing whether or not the big bang happened, I just love how we have all these conclusive "facts" about something no one was ever around to see or will
see in any way. And again with that god of the gaps garbage, apparently think the atheistic worldview is the only way to explain something.
You put your faith in the limited knowledge of mankind and assume it's truth, but of course you will never admit to it. Whose opinion do you hold on the level of that of God's?

if you don't put your "faith" in knowledge gained from science then i guess you should throw out your smartphone. chuck your TV. never use any modern diagnosis or medicine. never fly. never listen to a weather report etc etc

have fun in your cave.

 

[MARIS61]

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.

Jibberish.

 

[MARIS61]

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?

Since there's no evidence we wouldn't, it must be true.

 

[magnifier661]

Jibberish.

Nothing jibberish here.

 

[magnifier661]

Save us rhino!

 

[magnifier661]

Stopped the bleeding

 

[magnifier661]

Yes and one

 

[MARIS61]

Here's an interesting development.

Numbers of atheists have usually been estimated by counting religious people and subtracting their number from the general population, assuming the remainder accounts for all agnostics and atheists.

A Canadian study thought to word the questions separately and found a large minority of religious people do not believe god exists. And a lot of non-religious people do believe god exists.

For example, a Canadian Ipsos Reid poll released September 12, 2011 entitled "Canadians Split On Whether Religion Does More Harm in the World than Good," sampled 1,129 Canadian adults and came up with some interesting unrelated data on the numbers of declared atheists. These numbers do not jibe with the latest Canadian census data which pre-determined that a religious affiliation predisposed a belief in a deity and was based on a poorly worded question. A quote from the study follows:

"The data also revealed some interesting facts about Canadians beliefs:

• A majority (53%) of Canadians believe in God. What is of particular interest is that 28% of Protestants, 33% of Catholics, and 23% of those who attend weekly religious services do not.

One quarter (23%) of those with no religious identity still believe in God." [6]

If 47% of Canadians do not believe in god, as this study suggests, then it brings into question commonly held beliefs on the actual numbers of atheists in Canada and perhaps elsewhere in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

 

[crowTrobot]

Yes and one

lol a bit confused about where you are?

 

[magnifier661]

lol a bit confused about where you are?

Lol

 

[BlazerCaravan]

There are some crazy motherfuckers in this thread.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

There are some crazy motherfuckers in this thread.

Who in this thread has exercised Oedipal urges? I must have missed that part.

 

[MadeFromDust]

i just explained this. scientists don't "believe" in natural abiogenesis. they think it is the most probable explanation based on past experience of everything we know about nature having been the result of natural explanation and "goddidit" never once explaining anything. making that probability judgement requires no faith, only common sense.

What past experience are you referring to? There is no past experience for anything in evolution because we still haven't proven the theory is even true, much less abiogenesis. What we know about nature says nothing about why it's here. We can learn about it, but that's it.

More than thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or a confession of complete ignorance

-Klause Dose, considered a foremost expert in biochemistry

if you don't put your "faith" in knowledge gained from science then i guess you should throw out your smartphone. chuck your TV. never use any modern diagnosis or medicine. never fly. never listen to a weather report etc etc

have fun in your cave.

I never said that. On the contrary, I like science that builds us cool inventions and electronics. I like to play Xbox and use my iphone, I also honor that God has given us the inspiration for healing and medicine. That's what science is to me. I believe true science with the inspiration of God can do many great things, and has for centuries.

But the science I don't put faith in is science trying to explain the unexplained and unknowable about the origins of the universe and life, especially when it's attempting to eliminate a creator from the start. Scientists aren't unbiased. If they're persuaded ahead of time that God doesn't exist and then finds any evidence for Him then they'll either start believing in Him or brush it off and hope for something better to show up in the future. Many have done both, and they're imperfect like the rest of us and make mistakes and miscalculations. There is still plenty of phenomena here on earth we can't even explain, I don't think we're ready to move on to the universe just yet. We are but a speck in this massive cosmos, and we cannot and will not know anything of significance about the glorious heavens above that we can only gaze in awe at. Much less how it got here and why. If you want to believe them fine, but 50 years from now all our science books will probably be rewritten just like over the past 500 years, and we'll still be just as ignorant.

I believe the Bible because it speaks to me as God's Word and archaeological, historical and geological evidence supports it. There are over 24,000 manuscripts or portions of manuscripts that have been discovered from many regions of the world. The next closest in the ancient world would be Homer's Iliad, which is around 600. These manuscripts back what is written in our current day Bibles, and some date back to very early to the life of Jesus. The new testament is the most documented book in the world and the Bible as a whole was written over about 1,600 years in three different languages and on three different continents and is flawless in what it teaches. Although it was written by over 40 different authors, the same Divine theme is based in all of its books, as if there were only one author. There are over 2,000 fulfilled prophecies in the Bible out of about 2,500, which have yet to be fulfilled. There are strong evidences to the authenticity of the Jesus events and places. I also know Him personally, as He changes my life.

 

[crowTrobot]

What past experience are you referring to?

everything that has ever been explained ever.

I never said that. On the contrary, I like science that builds us cool inventions and electronics. I like to play Xbox and use my iphone

you accept science only selectively. the exact same science that led to the discovery of the quantum mechanical principals on which your iphone relys indicates beyond any reasonable doubt that the earth is 4.55 billions years old and that humans and apes have a common ancestor. blissfully using your iphone, while rejecting the virtually universal scientific consensus of common descent and an old earth, simply because you think what a primitive superstitious human with no understanding of science whatsoever wrote in genesis 1 must for some reason be taken literally word for word, is insane.

But the science I don't put faith in is science trying to explain the unexplained and unknowable about the origins of the universe and life, especially when it's attempting to eliminate a creator from the start. Scientists aren't unbiased. If they're persuaded ahead of time that God doesn't exist and then finds any evidence for Him then they'll either start believing in Him or brush it off and hope for something better to show up in the future.

40% of scientists believe in god. many of them would love to prove a creator exists if they could, and if anyone did it would be considered the greatest scientific find of all time. they would win multiple nobel prizes.

science is not some great anti-god conspiracy. you keep claiming that, and it's moronic. it shows a total misunderstanding of how science even works. it is possible for an INDIVIDUAL scientist to be biased, but the scientific community as a whole is SO diverse, and the nature of the scientific method iself is so perfectly designed to WEED OUT bias, that scientific consensus at the level of common descent or the age of the earth simply cannot emerge from bias. if there actually is evidence for a creator that we can find in abiogenesis or the origin of our universe, the scientific community as a whole WILL find it and they will be honest about it.

We are but a speck in this massive cosmos, and we cannot and will not know anything of significance about the glorious heavens above that we can only gaze in awe at. Much less how it got here and why. If you want to believe them fine, but 50 years from now all our science books will probably be rewritten just like over the past 500 years, and we'll still be just as ignorant.

yeah, the earth will probably turn out to be flat after all.

I believe the Bible because it speaks to me as God's Word and archaeological, historical and geological evidence supports it. There are over 24,000 manuscripts or portions of manuscripts that have been discovered from many regions of the world. The next closest in the ancient world would be Homer's Iliad, which is around 600. These manuscripts back what is written in our current day Bibles, and some date back to very early to the life of Jesus. The new testament is the most documented book in the world and the Bible as a whole was written over about 1,600 years in three different languages and on three different continents and is flawless in what it teaches. Although it was written by over 40 different authors, the same Divine theme is based in all of its books, as if there were only one author. There are over 2,000 fulfilled prophecies in the Bible out of about 2,500, which have yet to be fulfilled. There are strong evidences to the authenticity of the Jesus events and places. I also know Him personally, as He changes my life.

thanks for the sermon.

 

[TripTango]

you accept science only selectively. the exact same science that led to the discovery of the quantum mechanical principals on which your iphone relys indicates beyond any reasonable doubt that the earth is 4.55 billions years old and that humans and apes have a common ancestor. blissfully using your iphone, while rejecting the virtually universal scientific consensus of common descent and an old earth, simply because you think what a primitive superstitious human with no understanding of science whatsoever wrote in genesis 1 must for some reason be taken literally word for word, is insane.

40% of scientists believe in god. many of them would love to prove a creator exists if they could, and if anyone did it would be considered the greatest scientific find of all time. they would win multiple nobel prizes.

science is not some great anti-god conspiracy. you keep claiming that, and it's moronic. it shows a total misunderstanding of how science even works. it is possible for an INDIVIDUAL scientist to be biased, but the scientific community as a whole is SO diverse, and the nature of the scientific method iself is so perfectly designed to WEED OUT bias, that scientific consensus at the level of common descent or the age of the earth simply cannot emerge from bias. if there actually is evidence for a creator that we can find in abiogenesis or the origin of our universe, the scientific community as a whole WILL find it and they will be honest about it.

Great post -- not that it will do much good for this particular case. Like mustard seed on dry, infertile ground...

 

[magnifier661]

Great post -- not that it will do much good for this particular case. Like mustard seed on dry, infertile ground...

Yeah I liked it too. How about those Christian scientists that pioneered some of the biggest finds in science? Door swings both ways.

 

[TripTango]

Yeah I liked it too. How about those Christian scientists that pioneered some of the biggest finds in science? Door swings both ways.

What about them? I've got nothing but respect for the pioneers of scientific thought, regardless of their personal faith. Are you constructing a straw man to demolish?

 

[magnifier661]

What about them? I've got nothing but respect for the pioneers of scientific thought, regardless of their personal faith. Are you constructing a straw man to demolish?

Thought we weren't gonna use straw man as some argument. I was just saying that both theists and non theists attributed a lot to science. That statement by crow seemed like without those non theists; we would have all these cool things we have today. That is true with both sides of science. Agree?

 

[RR7]

Thought we weren't gonna use straw man as some argument. I was just saying that both theists and non theists attributed a lot to science. That statement by crow seemed like without those non theists; we would have all these cool things we have today. That is true with both sides of science. Agree?

No, he was saying without science, not without non-theist scientists. Without science in general.

 

[magnifier661]

No, he was saying without science, not without non-theist scientists. Without science in general.

Well that, I 100% agree on. Guess I misread it then.

 

[TripTango]

Thought we weren't gonna use straw man as some argument.

My request was that we stop using the term "straw man" incorrectly. (And I was teasing here -- I didn't really think you were intentionally misrepresenting crow, just possibly misunderstanding what he was saying.)

 

[magnifier661]

My request was that we stop using the term "straw man" incorrectly. (And I was teasing here -- I didn't really think you were intentionally misrepresenting crow, just possibly misunderstanding what he was saying.)

Yeah I guess reading it on the iPhone doesn't paint the entire picture.

 

[Denny Crane]

What about them? I've got nothing but respect for the pioneers of scientific thought, regardless of their personal faith. Are you constructing a straw man to demolish?

Many of those guys were burned at the stake as heretics.

 

[RR7]

Many of those guys were burned at the stake as heretics.

That's actually a poor historical translation. It was actually that their CLOTHES were burned because of hairy tics. It's just that it was written about, and translated through four languages, and hairy tics became heretics.

 

[MARIS61]

I was just saying that both theists and non theists attributed a lot to science.

Most humans bring forth a lot of good to society throughout their lives in big ways and small ways.

Not having a complete grasp on reality and not knowing everything there is to know (nobody knows everything and wouldn't that be boring if you did?) is something all humans will have in common for all eternity. It doesn't make them bad, or evil, or stupid, anymore than breathing air does.

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

9 pages and still no evidence.

 

[Denny Crane]

9 pages and still no evidence.

I saw a pic of HCP's wife. If that's not evidence, what is? ;-)

 

[MadeFromDust]

everything that has ever been explained ever.

And what does it have to do with abiogenesis and the origin of life?

you accept science only selectively. the exact same science that led to the discovery of the quantum mechanical principals on which your iphone relys indicates beyond any reasonable doubt that the earth is 4.55 billions years old and that humans and apes have a common ancestor. blissfully using your iphone, while rejecting the virtually universal scientific consensus of common descent and an old earth, simply because you think what a primitive superstitious human with no understanding of science whatsoever wrote in genesis 1 must for some reason be taken literally word for word, is insane.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Yes I take that very literally. And oh please, what does inventing an iphone have to do with proving humans "evolved" from an ape-like ancestor? So because it's labeled under "science" it must be true right? Even though there's no hard evidence for it? Sorry, not all theories are created equally and there's a difference between creating an iphone and explaining how we got here and why.

40% of scientists believe in god. many of them would love to prove a creator exists if they could, and if anyone did it would be considered the greatest scientific find of all time. they would win multiple nobel prizes.

science is not some great anti-god conspiracy. you keep claiming that, and it's moronic. it shows a total misunderstanding of how science even works. it is possible for an INDIVIDUAL scientist to be biased, but the scientific community as a whole is SO diverse, and the nature of the scientific method iself is so perfectly designed to WEED OUT bias, that scientific consensus at the level of common descent or the age of the earth simply cannot emerge from bias. if there actually is evidence for a creator that we can find in abiogenesis or the origin of our universe, the scientific community as a whole WILL find it and they will be honest about it.

There are many proofs that point to there being a designer, and you've seen how they've all been attempted to be explained. The fine-tuning argument is countered by the awesome multiverse theory, because then our universe isn't that "special" in that case. You'd be surprised how biased people can be. Many people don't want God to exist, because then they'll be held accountable for their actions and can't live off the lusts that they desire. I've heard this admitted in secret first hand by people. They will attempt to give an attempt to naturalize any discovery made now and in the future because many rule out a supernatural explanation from the get-go.

thanks for the sermon.

You're welcome. Hopefully you can study the historicity of the Bible. You may be surprised.