ITT: List evidence for god

[MachetePower]

I think it's the hypocrisy of demanding that science prove what the cause of the universe is definitively using tangible and observable methods and evidence, and until then you are going to keep the idea that god did it despite the lack of any definitive proof using tangible and observable methods and evidence.

Edit: Evidence of what he means in this very thread.





This guy demands that evolution be demonstrably true, which it is, before he believes it yet requires no such evidence for his believe in a god.

i have no evidence of my beliefs "god" but you are wrong.until you can explain yours 100%

Strong retarded religous nonsense. Existential crisis occurs if one finds that there is no "point" or "meaning"..

Humans try to make reason of everything even though there is none. Someone believes it wasntt their time to die because god told them. Yet god let Hitler live... What was his purpose?

It may not be comfortable to accept the truth but it is at the end of The day "the truth" .

[guyver79]

Easy champ. One step at a time, you're getting too far ahead of yourself.

All I am proving is that your semantics are silly. Things come into existence through causes, it's quite elementary. Give me an example of something that has no cause other then the possibility of quantum quarks.

And it's absurd to say: 'o'hai matter is arranged differently on day 4 than it is on day 5; therefore plants = animals. That's your logic at this point.




You take it wrong then.

So I have to give an example except an example that would prove you wrong? Lol.

Regardless, the universe is not the result of cause and effect, what happens within the universe is not applicable to the big bang.

There is no time before the big bang, no cause and effect, the universe wasn't a little glowing dot up in the sky that god lit the touch paper for!

[guyver79]

They have proof!

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

This is actually what William "two citations" lane Craig said during a seminar I was watching the other day!

It was something along the lines of "science says the universe had a beginning, the bible says "in the beginning" therefore science agress with the bible!"

Obviously ignoring the rest of the nonsense that follows in genesis!

[GreatOldOne]

There was a comment earlier about universe being 'contingent' and god being 'necessary'.

Not correct. The universe is contingent and god would be a contradiction, but I concede most people don't believe that and god is also contingent. Not necessary, though...not without fixing some of those age old arguments like design, ontology, etc...I don't see those as getting fixed any time soon.

[Brodent]

So nothing existed until you became aware of it?

Pretty much. What is reality, what is existence if my senses can't ever be used to define it?

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

Pretty much. What is reality, what is existence if my senses can't ever be used to define it?

The only thing that gets added to the equation when you exist is your perception of reality.

[ONtop888]

So I have to give an example except an example that would prove you wrong? Lol.

Lol...you couldn't come up with any examples. The reason I excluded 'quantum quarks' is that not enough is known about them to conclusively state whether they pop into existence without a cause. Do you dispute that?

Regardless, the universe is not the result of cause and effect, what happens within the universe is not applicable to the big bang.

How do you know the laws or parameters of existence that brought forth what we now call the universe?

There is no time before the big bang, no cause and effect, the universe wasn't a little glowing dot up in the sky that god lit the touch paper for!

Right. I would argue that God created ex nihilo. Thanks for clarifying that the universe wasn't a glowing dot in the sky though.......L-o-L.

[ShaneSwan]

There was a comment earlier about universe being 'contingent' and god being 'necessary'.

Not correct. The universe is contingent and god would be a contradiction, but I concede most people don't believe that and god is also contingent. Not necessary, though...not without fixing some of those age old arguments like design, ontology, etc...I don't see those as getting fixed any time soon.

Well, the argument is that God is a necessary Being, and not contingent; a contingent God makes no sense. In other words, if God is a perfect Being, it dosnt make sense that He is contingent. God, being perfect, didnt just happen to exist, nor accidentally exist; again, by definition, He must exist, necessarily.

This is, crudely, the typical theological stance on God. Which is great, for anyone who wants to argue against God's existence. Firstly, it takes an empirical God out of the argument. Secondly, if this concept of God can be shown to be logically flawed, then the proof for God is not valid/sound.

[guyver79]

Lol...you couldn't come up with any examples. The reason I excluded 'quantum quarks' is that not enough is known about them to conclusively state whether they pop into existence without a cause. Do you dispute that?

How do you know the laws or parameters of existence that brought forth what we now call the universe?

Right. I would argue that God created ex nihilo. Thanks for clarifying that the universe wasn't a glowing dot in the sky though.......L-o-L.

I'm glad you've learnt the universe wasn't a glowing dot in the sky, because before it sounded like you were trying to apply laws within the universe to the universe itself.

You're welcome! Lol.

And you have still failed to give and example of something "beginning to exist" you've only mentioned examples of rearranged pre-existing material.

Also I'm not familiar with the physics but just walk me through the evidence of an eternal cannite volcano god making something out of nothing?

Cheers!

[Alchem]

And you have still failed to give and example of something "beginning to exist" you've only mentioned examples of rearranged pre-existing material.

I don't think you get the intended meaning beginning to exist in the context of cosmological arguments. It's tricky for entities, but you can understand it in the context of events/acts.. So an example of something that began to exist would be, if you pinch yourself, the particular pain you feel, is something that began to exist. This particular pain is something. It wasn't there before, only now it began to exist. The "opposite" of something that began to exist would be like an imaginary pinch, that was always possible, yet it never had the chance to exist at t w/e.

[guyver79]

I don't think you get the intended meaning beginning to exist in the context of cosmological arguments. It's tricky for entities, but you can understand it in the context of events/acts.. So an example of something that began to exist would be, if you pinch yourself, the particular pain you feel, is something that began to exist. This particular pain is something. It wasn't there before, only now it began to exist. The "opposite" of something that began to exist would be like an imaginary pinch, that was always possible, yet it never had the chance to exist at t w/e.

Thanks for the reply, but at the same time you can understand from my point of view your still giving example of something pre-existing.

[Alchem]

Thanks for the reply, but at the same time you can understand from my point of view your still giving example of something pre-existing.

The cause is pre-existing, but the particular pain itself is something the began to exist, this is what is intended.

[hassel35]

" It's like you took a bottle of ink and you threw it at a wall. Smash! And all that ink spread. And in the middle, it's dense, isn't it? And as it gets out on the edge, the little droplets get finer and finer and make more complicated patterns, see? So in the same way, there was a big bang at the beginning of things and it spread. And you and I, sitting here in this room, as complicated human beings, are way, way out on the fringe of that bang. We are the complicated little patterns on the end of it. Very interesting.

But so we define ourselves as being only that. If you think that you are only inside your skin, you define yourself as one very complicated little curlique, way out on the edge of that explosion. Way out in space, and way out in time. Billions of years ago, you were a big bang, but now you're a complicated human being. And then we cut ourselves off, and don't feel that we're still the big bang. But you are. Depends how you define yourself. You are actually--if this is the way things started, if there was a big bang in the beginning-- you're not something that's a result of the big bang. You're not something that is a sort of puppet on the end of the process. You are still the process. You are the big bang, the original force of the universe, coming on as whoever you are.

When I meet you, I see not just what you define yourself as--Mr so-and- so, Ms so-and-so, Mrs so-and-so--I see every one of you as the primordial energy of the universe coming on at me in this particular way. I know I'm that, too. But we've learned to define ourselves as separate from it. ” ― Alan Wilson Watts

Regards,
Hassel

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

It is fallacious to assume that the universe began to exist because some things in the universe began to exist.

[ShaneSwan]

It is fallacious to assume that the universe began to exist because some things in the universe began to exist.

One of the things it helps to be aware of in discussions about the universe is the way we conceive of the universe; typically, we talk of and understand the universe in terms of a 'container'. This is not necessarily wrong, but it can possibly lead to error. For example, a container can be something which, well, contains things. But then this can lead to the idea that the container and its contents can be treated as seperate 'things'. Much like a jar and whatever it might contain.

Perhaps the universe just *is* whatever things comprise it. In other words, there is no jar or container-thing at all, nothing 'extra' to whatever contents there are. So strictly speaking, there is nothing 'in' the universe as such, but constituents of the universe.

What metaphors we use to conceive of something will obviously have an important role in how we think and talk about it. Sometimes this leads to error and confusion. Its a prominent issue in all philosophy.

[Sargamatha]

It is fallacious to assume that the universe began to exist because some things in the universe began to exist.

Atheists claim only to look up to science as evidence, when it comes to Big Bang they disregard evidence and science, hypocrites of peace lol.

Big Bang was a dot of infinite density, heat, and energy, then it exploded for some reason and created everything we live in today, if there really was a Big bang, surely it had a cause and purpose, infinite energy doesn't just pop out of nowhere and explodes.

Since DNA half-life has been proven to be 521 years your silly atheistic origins myth should be jettisoned in favor of actual science. Evolutionists have nothing left to cling to but fraud and momentum... combined with mainstream media malpractice.

[ONtop888]

And you have still failed to give and example of something "beginning to exist" you've only mentioned examples of rearranged pre-existing material.

Cheers!

This is absurd. Your body is more than re-arranged Pre-existing material. Your organs are a new creation out of pre-existing material as you are yourself. Your consciousness began to exist at a specific point in time and the 'you' having this discussion exists right now, but it didn't 1,000 years ago.

Those are facts which you can ignorantly choose to ignore. Nonetheless, since evolution and species arising out of pre-existing material bothers you then we can move on.

Did time/space/matter themselves begin to exist?


Also, can you send a source to inform me about Yahweh being a 'volcano god' as you allege?

[koh19]

but but, doesn't a beautiful sun set on the ocean mean God exists?

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

Atheists claim only to look up to science as evidence, when it comes to Big Bang they disregard evidence and science, hypocrites of peace lol.

Big Bang was a dot of infinite density, heat, and energy, then it exploded for some reason and created everything we live in today, if there really was a Big bang, surely it had a cause and purpose, infinite energy doesn't just pop out of nowhere and explodes.

Since DNA half-life has been proven to be 521 years your silly atheistic origins myth should be jettisoned in favor of actual science. Evolutionists have nothing left to cling to but fraud and momentum... combined with mainstream media malpractice.

When did I say anything about the Big Bang?

[basement iron]

So after 6 pages so far nothing and the conversation has turned to anything but evidence for god.

The indirect evidence for dark matter, such as gravitational lensing, is still more and better evidence for gods....which is a big fat zero.

[Bahai.Lifter]

The evidence has been, will always be, His divine Word. It has always been sufficient enough to get billions upon billions to believe (those that were open to it). That a person rejects the proof, does not make that proof invalid. It is the most valid, the most superior Word, regardless of what we say. We need to have an open and unbiased and unprejudiced heart; we need to open our inner ear to the sweetness of His Voice, if we want to believe. This has always been the way, and is still the way today. It isn't something that is spoon-fed by someone else. These kinds of debates will never cause someone who does not listen with his inner ear to start doing so. He has to take the initiative himself. If there is no longing for the Beloved—if there is no true search—nothing will be found.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

The evidence has been, will always be, His divine Word.

Baseless assertion.

It has always been sufficient enough to get billions upon billions to believe (those that were open to it).

Argument from popularity.

That a person rejects the proof, does not make that proof invalid.

Special pleading.

It is the most valid, the most superior Word, regardless of what we say.

Baseless assertion.

We need to have an open and unbiased and unprejudiced heart; we need to open our inner ear to the sweetness of His Voice, if we want to believe.

Special pleading.

This has always been the way, and is still the way today. It isn't something that is spoon-fed by someone else. These kinds of debates will never cause someone who does not listen with his inner ear to start doing so. He has to take the initiative himself. If there is no longing for the Beloved—if there is no true search—nothing will be found.

Aaaaaaaannnnnnnnnddddddd . . . special pleading.

[mdruggan]

really? present said evidence.

w w w . talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

remove the spaces

[Jenslyn17]

The evidence has been, will always be, His divine Word. It has always been sufficient enough to get billions upon billions to believe (those that were open to it). That a person rejects the proof, does not make that proof invalid. It is the most valid, the most superior Word, regardless of what we say. We need to have an open and unbiased and unprejudiced heart; we need to open our inner ear to the sweetness of His Voice, if we want to believe. This has always been the way, and is still the way today. It isn't something that is spoon-fed by someone else. These kinds of debates will never cause someone who does not listen with his inner ear to start doing so. He has to take the initiative himself. If there is no longing for the Beloved—if there is no true search—nothing will be found.

Today, dear students, I will introduce you to the concept of fallacious logic


^_^

[Bahai.Lifter]

Today, dear students, I will introduce you to the concept of fallacious logic

Well then, fallacious logic FTW if "fallacious logic" means belief in God. True story.

[Merauder]

This infinite universe did not create itself. The universe has no will or intelligence.

I'm supposed to believe that these 2 things are true?

[Bahai.Lifter]

I'm supposed to believe that these 2 things are true?

If you would like. Is the universe something that can bring itself into being from non-existence, of its own volition, and exercise will and intelligence somehow? Does that sound right? Or is the creation itself but an object, brought into being through the will and good-pleasure of the Creator?

Do we see how these discussions will never reach a conclusion? All of us must go on his own spiritual quest and study the scriptures with an unprejudiced heart. This is the only way, honestly. God has made things this way. He has made His Word to man His proof. We have to study His Word for Today, His "current" Word. This is the Word which will speak to our souls, to our needs for Today. Everything we need is there, we just need to seek it. There are perhaps some humans who would like to see us without eternal life, and so they guide us away from it; but God wants us to have eternal life, and guide us to it. We need to play our part, therefore, in having real and true intentions and investigating His Holy Word with sincerity.

"Ask ye that which shall be of profit to you in the Cause of God and His dominion, for the portals of His tender compassion have been opened before all who dwell in heaven and on earth." (Bahá'í Scriptures)

[Merauder]

The dog remained a dog.

Humans despite of skin color remain human, mammoth and elephants were still the same specie.

Fish and crocodile are different specie, moron.

Are atheists even aware wat is micro and macro evolution? mind blown at how you guys boast how educated you are yet can't tell the difference between the fairy tayle of macro evolution and the fact of micro evolution.


Some so-called fossil species have evolved significantly. Cockroaches, for example, include over 4,000 species of various shapes and sizes.
So "significantly" that they are still cockroaches.

In a few thousand years the dogs will still be dogs yes

Really, I've seen you around and you're not the one that has to badmouth other people.

[Merauder]

If you would like. Is the universe something that can bring itself into being from non-existence, of its own volition, and exercise will and intelligence somehow? Does that sound right? Or is the creation itself but an object, brought into being through the will and good-pleasure of the Creator?

Do we see how these discussions will never reach a conclusion? All of us must go on his own spiritual quest and study the scriptures with an unprejudiced heart. This is the only way, honestly. God has made things this way. He has made His Word to man His proof. We have to study His Word for Today, His "current" Word. This is the Word which will speak to our souls, to our needs for Today. Everything we need is there, we just need to seek it. There are perhaps some humans who would like to see us without eternal life, and so they guide us away from it; but God wants us to have eternal life, and guide us to it. We need to play our part, therefore, in having real and true intentions and investigating His Holy Word with sincerity.

"Ask ye that which shall be of profit to you in the Cause of God and His dominion, for the portals of His tender compassion have been opened before all who dwell in heaven and on earth." (Bahá'í Scriptures)

I like you but it feels like you're trying to 'sell' me a religion.

[Bahai.Lifter]

I like you but it feels like you're trying to 'sell' me a religion.

Wouldn't being offered eternal life be about the best gift in the universe? It is a free gift, offered to all mankind. Even if someone wanted to give a free, billion dollar check to you, or all the gold on earth, that still wouldn't be anything like the gift of eternal life—there's no comparison. The material things stay here and perish; we can't take them. God's Mercy is for all to benefit from and eternal, if they will put their trust in Him. My only humble advice is to study the Bahá'í Scriptures (http://www.bahai.us/welcome/founders...cred-writings/). Not selling anything, just humbly offering to do that for the seeker's own benefit. Doing such a thing can only benefit oneself, it definitely can't cause any harm to say the least!