Proof of God

[101101]

Actually, that isn't possible...

What isn't?

[StrongInChrist]

Your argument is essentially equivalent to the one posted earlier. "If I can't prove that a gangster shot my uncle, it must have been James Brown!"

Completely unrelated. The universe? How does the universe prove God exists?

I didnt say Jesus (a proper noun) I said a CREATOR. You dont know James Brown shot him but you do know he was shot by somebody not just a bullet from thin air. Nice detective work

[101101]

lol, such a typical reply... science killed god its pretty much as simple as that... years ago im sure ppl thought god created earth??? haha, its just really ignorant...
i dont NEED to disprove something that has no factual or even logical evidence of being real.... show me one solid concrete bit of evidence that he does indeed exists and i give you my complete word that i will (and quite happily) change my beliefs...
dont get me wrong, i would sincerely like it if there was a god and an afterlife, but i proudly acknowledge that we are just a living being and when we die our brain stops and thats the end of it.

Science has only proposed an explanation. The Evolutionary Theory is just that: a theory. So anything is possible at this point.

Evolution itself has never been observed, so there's technically no factual evidence to that either.

But let me get to the point: I don't give a **** what you believe. Doesn't change my life. So go right ahead and believe when your brain stops that's it; I'm not going to argue with you about it because I don't care.

[Scaglietti]

The Bible says, "Some plant and some water but only God adds the increase."

So I do agree that I have worked hard and I have fed myself properly but in the end it is up to God to add the increase. If this is not so then I suggest you go out there and hit that 1000 pound bench you been longing for lol

god isnt adding anything, some ppl are born with more/stronger muscle fibres than others, providing the right ingredients (REAL ingredients, no magical god force here) they will reach huge potential...
plant and water, sun soil and nutrients grows a plant, again, science killed god....
its also evolved, most civilisations used to believe that something as simple as a thunderstorm was god angry, cant you all see these points?

[JBDW]

What isn't?

Proving a negative in this context.

I didnt say Jesus (a proper noun) I said a CREATOR. You dont know James Brown shot him but you do know he was shot by somebody not just a bullet from thin air. Nice detective work

Poor analogy, I admit, but it does illustrate to some degree the false dilemma you used. No explanation vs Creator. Where's the option of 'explanation without creator'?

[JBDW]

Science has only proposed an explanation. The Evolutionary Theory is just that: a theory. So anything is possible at this point.

A scientific theory is different from the word 'theory' as used in daily life. A theory in scientific circles is something that is virtually accepted as fact, based on evidence and logic. The casual use of 'theory' more closely resembles 'conjecture' or 'guess'. Don't confuse the two uses.

Evolution itself has never been observed, so there's technically no factual evidence to that either.

Actually, it has. Many, many times.

[Stinker]

No, I understand that macroevolution doesn't deal with it. I was just saying in regards to evolution I find microevolution very plausible, marcoevolution to me seems less likely. However, that stems from a lack of understanding; hence, I'll have to read more about it.

And I'm not saying that do know. There isn't a thing wrong with saying, "I don't know." I don't. But I choose to believe that it was created.

To help you understand "macro" and "micro" evolution (very) breifly:

Let's say that the species of a wall is determined by it's height. 3ft walls are a different species to 2ft walls etc.

I have a 3ft wall. Every day I take one brick off the top layer of the wall (micro). I keep taking bricks off each day and then I get to the last brick in the top layer. At this moment the wall is 3ft high. If I take the last brick off it will no longer be 3ft species of wall.

Micro means small evolution. Macro means evolution above species level. Macro evolution is the sum total of micro evolution. Macro and micro are just terms of scale. If micro evolution happens, then evolution happens- including macro. If macro evolution happens, then evolution happens- including micro.

Macro and micro evolution aren't two different things, they just tell you what kind of scale you are looking at in the evolution of a creature.

[Kello]

I dont care what you think about religion. Common sense and science show a very small odd of this planet producing life and an environment to house this vast system of life. If you dont believe in God at least you should have the belief that aliens or something created this. What are your actual thoughts on where the beginning came from?

there may be a small odd, but there are billions of galaxies with millions of stars. even if you want to say that each star averaged only one planet and ignoring moons, the universe would still have a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000 planets. Odds are that one of these would be capable of sustaining life.

What is your explanation? You must agree logically the chances are pretty slim all this modern tech. came from a single cell. And prior to that where did the first anything apear. Or even time and space. Aside from religious thinking how would you scientifically explain it?

by your logic, a supreme being created the universe. that's fine, but what created the supreme being.

[101101]

The supernatural doesn't explain anything though, it's just saying "I don't know, it was magic." Invoking such an arguemnt is kind of antithetical because the reason you invoke it is that you assume (rightly) that life has a cause, but you are not going for a causal explanation, you are going for a magic one. So I agree with you that we should search for the cause of life, but your answer is unsatisfactory, because it doesn't describe a causal process, it just invokes magic as an explanation.

Well no, it's not really saying, "it's magic." There's no deception involved. It's crediting a higher power with the intial design, as nothing else has to this point. There's no other explanation for the appearance of matter, at least I haven't come upon one yet (and I'm sorry JBDW, I can't read that long-winded post ).

I'm all for asking questions, I don't want to blindly accept a faith. However, to me, in regards to the origins of life and matter, a higher power has made the most sense. When I'm presented with something else that makes sense, I'll consider that too.

[AKR]

Science has only proposed an explanation. The Evolutionary Theory is just that: a theory. So anything is possible at this point.

Evolution itself has never been observed, so there's technically no factual evidence to that either.

But let me get to the point: I don't give a **** what you believe. Doesn't change my life. So go right ahead and believe when your brain stops that's it; I'm not going to argue with you about it because I don't care.

just a theory? like gravity and electricity and all of those crazy ideas where any explanation is possible?

[JBDW]

by your logic, a supreme being created the universe. that's fine, but what created the supreme being.

I can't believe I didn't raise this question earlier. Thank you.

[101101]

To help you understand "macro" and "micro" evolution (very) breifly:

Let's say that the species of a wall is determined by it's height. 3ft walls are a different species to 2ft walls etc.

I have a 3ft wall. Every day I take one brick off the top layer of the wall (micro). I keep taking bricks off each day and then I get to the last brick in the top layer. At this moment the wall is 3ft high. If I take the last brick off it will no longer be 3ft species of wall.

Micro means small evolution. Macro means evolution above species level. Macro evolution is the sum total of micro evolution. Macro and micro are just terms of scale. If micro evolution happens, then evolution happens- including macro. If macro evolution happens, then evolution happens- including micro.

Macro and micro evolution aren't two different things, they just tell you what kind of scale you are looking at in the evolution of a creature.

Ahh.. makes sense.

[Kello]

I can't believe I didn't raise this question earlier. Thank you.

actually you kind of did with the watchmaker's father analogy.

[AKR]

Well no, it's not really saying, "it's magic." There's no deception involved. It's crediting a higher power with the intial design, as nothing else has to this point. There's no other explanation for the appearance of matter, at least I haven't come upon one yet (and I'm sorry JBDW, I can't read that long-winded post ).

I'm all for asking questions, I don't want to blindly accept a faith. However, to me, in regards to the origins of life and matter, a higher power has made the most sense. When I'm presented with something else that makes sense, I'll consider that too.

your ignorant comments on evolution show that you know very little about it, and therefore, it stands to reason that you will NOT consider that which makes sense. you don't even know what a scientific theory is, so how can you begin to even argue about evolution?

[Stinker]

Well no, it's not really saying, "it's magic." There's no deception involved. It's crediting a higher power with the intial design, as nothing else has to this point. There's no other explanation for the appearance of matter, at least I haven't come upon one yet (and I'm sorry JBDW, I can't read that long-winded post ).

I'm all for asking questions, I don't want to blindly accept a faith. However, to me, in regards to the origins of life and matter, a higher power has made the most sense. When I'm presented with something else that makes sense, I'll consider that too.

I see the problem then. You are looking at things and asking "why?", instead of asking "how?". Take a building for example, you and I sit down and say where did this thing originate? You ask why, you say "well, there must have been a designer", but just saying that there was a deisigner doesn't answer anything unless you can detail the how.

In the case of a building the designer hires builders who arrange materials that have been mined and harvested, they shape them and fit them together. This is an example of a natural explanation.

Now applying the same question to life- you say "there must have been a designer", ok, but the existence of a disigner implies a how. There has to be a how, and if there is a how then the answer is a natural one. If there isn't a how then the answer is akin to magic and hasn't really answered anything.

[JBDW]

actually you kind of did with the watchmaker's father analogy.

I doubt anyone actually read through that though. Especialyl since MonsterG8r conveniently disappeared once I posted that.

[101101]

your ignorant comments on evolution show that you know very little about it, and therefore, it stands to reason that you will NOT consider that which makes sense. you don't even know what a scientific theory is, so how can you begin to even argue about evolution?

Educate me then, don't get hostile about it.

[AKR]

I doubt anyone actually read through that though. Especialyl since MonsterG8r conveniently disappeared once I posted that.

i did, and thanks for posting it. unfortunately, the people that use the watchmaker argument probably didn't read it or didn't comprehend it, seeing as how no one has refuted it yet.

[AKR]

Educate me then, don't get hostile about it.

i apologize, and it's nice to see that you're at least open to being educated on it. however, i'm not the one to do it. due to my christian upbringing, i wasn't really introduced to evolution for a while and i'm still catching up. i know enough to know it makes sense, but not enough to explain it to someone else.

[101101]

i apologize, and it's nice to see that you're at least open to being educated on it. however, i'm not the one to do it. due to my christian upbringing, i wasn't really introduced to evolution for a while and i'm still catching up. i know enough to know it makes sense, but not enough to explain it to someone else.

Fair enough. It's not my intent to prove or disprove anything for that matter. As I told someone already, I'm merely asking questions or making statements with the hope that someone will answer them, or offer me a different/better explanation.

I was ignorant to the theory situation, confusing it with conjecture - that's a poor education on my part. Now corrected though.

[StrongInChrist]

there may be a small odd, but there are billions of galaxies with millions of stars. even if you want to say that each star averaged only one planet and ignoring moons, the universe would still have a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000 planets. Odds are that one of these would be capable of sustaining life.



by your logic, a supreme being created the universe. that's fine, but what created the supreme being.

Woe there buddy by your logic the universe came from nothing so that is just as far fetched as my God being eternal. Where did all these billions of galaxies come from. It all had to start somewhere. Answer this one. Where did time and space come from? Scientists say the universe has no end where is the evidence for that?

[Scaglietti]

i apologize, and it's nice to see that you're at least open to being educated on it. however, i'm not the one to do it. due to my christian upbringing, i wasn't really introduced to evolution for a while and i'm still catching up. i know enough to know it makes sense, but not enough to explain it to someone else.

its nice to see some ppl seeing the REAL light

[Persecuted]

Fair enough, BUT as I've said, evolution is concerned with what is already there. That's pretty much it. The origins of life more accurately falls under the study of abiogenesis, than evolution.

I would have to disagree with this as i think would most evolutionists including Darwin himself. As he wrote in the origin of species he was not concerned with "what was already there" but how it came to be there. The term common dissent is often used to desribe evolutionary development and is used to invoke how A turned into B.

One of the most famous chapters of Darwins book is "The dissent of Man" which proceeds to explain how man came to be through the evolution of primates.

Origin of life and Abiogenesis are actually names for what is commonly known as chemical evolution. The evolution of simple chemicals into coplex organic molecules and then into life.

I would like to point out now that one of the lead researchers of chemical evolution Dean Kenyon has now turned to intelligent design theory as he believes it is a much more plausible explanation.

And you don't actually explain why material atheism is ridiculous. You just say that there is 'something' else. FAr too vague.

I wouldn't say it's ridiculous, certainly materialism has some scientific standing but it is not enough to convince me. I would use the term "seemingly implausible" in light of what we have learned and continued to learn.

Why i think it's implausible?

Ok some predictions that Atheist materialism has said the opposite of:

For more than a century Atheist scientist predicted an eternal universe in which time and chance were limitless and could give rise to anything including what we see around us. They also predicted an eternal universe due to the laws of causality and that everything we observe is bound by these laws. The law that "everything that began to exist had a cause".

Einstein himself was untrue to his own scientific findings when he realised that his theory (general relativity) implied a beginning to the universe.

Indeed proponents of the Big bang theory were met with harsh opposition by the mainstream atheist scientists of the time. Why? because of the obvious implications of the universe having a beginning. i.e. the universe had a beginning so it too was bound by the laws of causality and the God hypothesis fits that cause very well as described in the books of Genesis.

"The universe suddenly exploded into being...The big bang bears an uncanny resemblance to the Genesis command." Jim Holt, Wall Street Journal science writer

One proponent of the big bang theory a belgian priest was accused of being a creationist by scientists for supporting the theory. It turned out that he and others were right.

Because of the Big bang einstein converted from atheism to deism.

This all doesn't prove God but it does outline a failed prediction made by the majority of scientific atheists.

Biological predictions:

Atheists used to insist that certain organs were "vesitigial" because they seemed to serve no apparent use. As a result of this it was standard practice if a doctor was operating on somebodies abdomen to remove the appendix even if it was not causing problems.

We know now that the appendix along with the tonsils are certainly not vestigial and they play an important role in the immune systems response to infections.

Darwin and his contemporaries observed the cell to be "a simple blob of albuminous proto plasm". Indeed many scientists envisioned that the foundation of life the cell would be exceedingly simple they were quite wrong.

Examples of fine tuning (anthropic principle) and irreducible complexity of molecular machines are becoming far more abundant than random chaos as should be the case with material atheism.

The only argument i've heard against fine tuning is either A) it's all a bunch of coincidences (which are getting more and more BTW) or B) Appeals to the multiverse, an inifinite number of universe and one of them had to get the physical properties for life right.

I am not convinced by either of these arguments.

There are more failed predictions but i've mentioned enough for now... my left hand is getting a bit cramped as well.

[StrongInChrist]

its nice to see some ppl seeing the REAL light

haha real light. Where did light evolve from? Or the perfectly created eyes to see this light?

[Kello]

Woe there buddy by your logic the universe came from nothing so that is just as far fetched as my God being eternal. Where did all these billions of galaxies come from. It all had to start somewhere. Answer this one. Where did time and space come from? Scientists say the universe has no end where is the evidence for that?

that in no way answers the question. you say a supreme being created everything, then what created the supreme being? you claim the universe can't just exist, so why does it make sense that a supreme being just existed. you tell me what created the creator and i will tell you where space and time come from.

some scientists say the universe has no end and others do not. just as it has been scientifically proven the Big Bang occurred, scientists are working on trying to determine if the universe will eternally expand (have no end) or if at some point there will be a Big Crush.

[101101]

that in no way answers the question. you say a supreme being created everything, then what created the supreme being? you claim the universe can't just exist, so why does it make sense that a supreme being just existed. you tell me what created the creator and i will tell you where space and time come from.

some scientists say the universe has no end and others do not. just as it has been scientifically proven the Big Bang occurred, scientists are working on trying to determine if the universe will eternally expand (have no end) or if at some point there will be a Big Crush.

The Big Bang was scientifically proven? Whereabouts can I read about it?

[farmerlee]

Forgive me if i'm ignorant, now I don't know a whole lot about evolution but, my biggest problem is scientists say that life began from chemicals and evolved from there and yet they cannot prove that life did indeed come from chemicals. The whole evolution theory seems to be based on this unproven fact.

[Kello]

The Big Bang was scientifically proven? Whereabouts can I read about it?

stephen hawkings "a brief history of time"

[StrongInChrist]

that in no way answers the question. you say a supreme being created everything, then what created the supreme being? you claim the universe can't just exist, so why does it make sense that a supreme being just existed. you tell me what created the creator and i will tell you where space and time come from.

some scientists say the universe has no end and others do not. just as it has been scientifically proven the Big Bang occurred, scientists are working on trying to determine if the universe will eternally expand (have no end) or if at some point there will be a Big Crush.

The creator is the explanation for THIS universe. If looking at it scientifically then like I said before whatever created it could have been created by something else but nevertheless it was created. Watch men in black it portrays this theory well lol. That is my thoughts what is yours. My educated guess is our creator could have been created and so on. But with no creator involved how do you explain where the beginning came from?

[Stinker]

Forgive me if i'm ignorant, now I don't know a whole lot about evolution but, my biggest problem is scientists say that life began from chemicals and evolved from there and yet they cannot prove that life did indeed come from chemicals. The whole evolution theory seems to be based on this unproven fact.

Evolution does not say that life came from chemicals, evolution says that creatures change over time.

Abiogenesis deals with life forming from chemicals. No, no-one has replicated this yet, but it took man 10,000 years to be able to explain why things fall to the ground, give us a little more time when it comes to creating life.