Basic Bottom Line Argument For God

That is why we deal in probability rather than just throwing our hands up and quitting. Indeed the logical premise is called hypothesis - and teh one that hold sway is the one that sees most probable given the problem set. Unfortuantely, we have no test that will conclusively prove it.

THis also assumes that science is the only manner in which something can be proved and that is not the case.

Indeed, there are several proofs that makethe probability of God in creation a requirement - so its probable.

We know that there are recorded miracles, answered prayers, and strong testimonies of God out there. So we can either conclude that there is something there or that humanity, save a tiny percentage, have been subjected to a mass conspiratorial delusion - for which there is zero evidence.

We also ave these things called Prophets. I ask atheists this all the time, as they spend all kind of time trying to disprove every little thing about him, is to come up with an alternate explanation for his influence and profound impact of his teachings. Nothing. Ever.

He's just a dude with a good idea? Well, the funny part is that he damb near perfect idea is centered around God. So if you look at them and thing, "Heh, this dude is onto something," then we would do well to consider the fullness of his teachings.

Again, its probable. And teh logical equirement of faith that is ANY hypothesis in the abscence of conclusive evidence is the way forward.

Agnosticism is in many ways simply quitting - a desire to not be wrong - and never be right.

Well, here is the thing, I cannot prove it, but I know - not only is God real, but, just like Jesus claims, he loves you with a fierceness that almost overwhelming.

If you wish to avoid Love because of science? Well, perhaps now you understand why Einstein believed science without religion was stupid (and the opposite).

Singularities are created after the universe and conform to the rules of the universe in their creation after the universe itself was created. No on considered a magic ball of pure eneregy that pops into existence to be teh same thing as a singularity. Something created after creation cannot be teh source of creation.

To insert certainty into the gap and elimineate God (when we have penty of evidence for a God - albeit non-conclusive) is illogical. To exclude possibilities without study is illogical.

Indeed, to advocate things that we KNOW are false is equally silly. So when atheists turn to talk of unicorns, etc. all they are really doing is retelling us that they do not think God is real .... because of unicorns. The evidence for unicorns and atheist imaginations has no bearing on the actuality of God - and indeed, that is why no atheist really want to discuss the evidence for or against God.

What we get is a strigent application of scoped logic where obfuscation is the rule rather than problem solving.

Well, that is an emotional choice to use logic as a stone rather than a tool - not a logical one.

Why does any random hypothesis you come up with have to have zero proof and no burden of proof?

Why are your hypothesi allowed to contradict what we know? Before the Big Bang, there was no time and space, no mass, no energy. So are you really interested in rejecting the Big Bang (which claims that the universe is finite) to simply postulate that the universe is infinite?

Well, I find it pretty amazing that atheists will reject a scientific paradigm when the evidence starts pointing to a Creator in preponderance.

No need whatsoever to explain how all this got here - it just is. Magic. Problem solved by not solving it?

Yep, that is atheism.

 

There are also plenty of disproven miracles, uncorroborated miracles, and unanswered prayers.

Would you concede that those are evidence against God or will you take the typical apologist cop-out and say "God works in mysterious ways"?

When those "prophecies" are only written down after the fact or written so vaugely that they can be interpreted in dozens of ways, then they really mean nothing.

I have plently of love in my life. I need none from a God.

Einstein by the way was a pantheist. He didn't believe in a personal god.

Duh. That's exactly what I said. The Singularity is not the creation of the universe, but since we have no way of knowing what came before it, the only logical answer is to say "I don't know".

Exactly. The correct position is to say "I don't know" and wait until we have more evidence.

How exactly do you know this? Scientists don't even know what came before the Big Bang, so how do you?

Not an Atheist.

 

That does not mean they all are does it? And the ones that are validated? Guess we'll just ignore them. That's what logical people do.

We have no idea how God works.

So yes, that would be a mystery. Indeed, there are a great many things about the universe that we do not know - yet they do. And yet when we say this in thise areas - its not a cop out - it just is.

Again, what you advance is emotional - not scientific.

Oh, the coming of the messiah was ony written down after the fact was it?

Interesting how you interpret the word Prophet with prophecy? They are not the same thing - but one is more difficult for standard atheist propoganda to deal with - so apparently you went with the indoctrinated response?

Yep, you have plenty of love in your life which is why, like all atheists, you only ever talk about it when someone else raises it first. Interesting that phenomenea isn't it? So important that you never mention it or allow it to quide you - but those of us who do, well, that means nothing.

Pantheist or not, he belived in God. He struggled with the idea that something massive enough to create a universe a massive as it knew it to be could actually care about him.

He's wrong.

And being a pantheist - with science - kinda proves the point about science somehoe eliminating God doesn't it?

So tell me, how is that something can create the universe - have that much power - but not care about what he created and apparently invested that much power in?

No, the logical answer and way forward is a hypothesis.

The other is just a cop out. Duh. (I am sure you appreciate the last word as much as we do).

No, the correct way forward is to hypothesize and search for ways to find and test.

What you have done is ceeded problem solving to others.

Its funny, because when religious people say, "I don't know," atheists scream and rant and throw little parties. When they do? (And yet are certain anyway), well, now is logic rather than failure.

Its just another double standard of atheism.

Well, I believe I explained it to you. All that stuff afterward that points to the existence of God. And he kind of claims himself as the source. So, if he's real, and he's claiming it ... well, maybe you would care to switch it to a random imaginary creation for which we have no evidence whatsoever?

And teh simple fact of teh matter is that creation need a mechanism of creation - a Creator. At least in a finite universe with defined beginning.

Right. An agnostic so you can avoid being wrong at any cost - even as you argue from an atheistic standpoint.

Now that is a cop out.

I wonder what happened to yoru lecture about thermodynamics? I guess those rules were agnostic in your view as well?

 

Obviously there is or else the I.D. movement and religion would be dead.

 

Well, not actually, to me its logical, and obviously to a majority of the world its logical, so that in itself, leads to at the very least questions.

 

Your point?

 

i don’t get the argument that you need an intelligence to design and maintain the universe

Isn’t that intelligence going to need laws and rules to govern its own operation and maintain its own existence just so it can be?

And if that’s the case you can have an order that’s not created and there is no longer a need for the god, you just add inherent patterns of behavior to existence itself

Doesn’t rule out a god or gods but no need for them

 

They use faith. The very thing they ridicule us for. It seems that they are not as high and might as they would like to believe.

 

I can't prove God is intelligent.

But I am certain there is a force outside this universe that caused this universe to come into existence.

Otherwise, this universe came into existence without cause.

 

Why does there have to be a cause?

 

Um but that leaves the problem what caused the outside force to exist the problem of an uncaused cause remain this just seems to be pushing it back to some palace where were less inclined to care about it.

Seems to me your either stuck in a series of infinite regression which still doesn’t give you an answer for why anything exists at all

Or something can just exist without cause but in that case theirs no longer a need to create an outside force and its possible the universe just sprang into existence without reason because it did or just always was in some form because it has

 

I almost spilled on the keyboard. Flying pink monsters would be better. At least you'd talk about something material. it is another proof of God, - atheists talk things they have no clue about.

what is singularity?
then what are vacuum fluctuations?
Did/does singularity have any material or immaterial existance in the mateiral world/reality?
atheists are sure they have logic and can logic god of gaps and a fallacy. really they are sure about themselves. they serve as a proof of God for their perception of reality around us is at least funny.


Quantum fluctuations within a singularity is priceless.

 

can you show me someone who somehow somewhere has seen space expansion or at least can desribe such a happenng?
can you show me someone who somehow somewhere has seen high energy conversion into matter or at least can desribe such a happenng?

I was an atheist. But I am almost sure that I was not insane. Or may be I was? I don't remember.
Thank you G-d just for keeping my mind clear.

 

All of which is clearly explained in Fabric of the Cosmos.

 

If I was not answering an atheist I would ask, -You've quoted my post, why don't you try to address it ... at least somehow?

But all I have for you is... I am sorry.

 

The distance between some parts of the universe is growing faster than the speed of light. Since nothing can actually travel faster than the speed of light, the space between these parts must be expanding. As to matter from energy, if you generate x-rays of sufficient power, they will spawn electrons and positrons. This has been done in a lab numerous times and it's why we know that antimatter (the positron, in this case) exists.

 

It requires a book to fully explain.

Note the effort of reading such a piece requires much more effort than mummering "god did it".

 

Do you understand the doctrine of election?

 

I don’t Wikipedia hasn’t much of an article for it


just a shot in the dark hear is it god creates favorites?

if not do tell

 

God chooses who to give sight too.

 

Awesome i think i got it

So what’s the relevance?

People that don’t believe in god don’t see that god obviously exists like people he has chosen eventually can, thus people who don’t see that god must be, in fact support the doctrine of election and thus are just another sign of gods existence?


or have I got that wrong would not surprise me much if i have

 

These are all issues at the periphery of the matter. They're the theological version of a political wedge issue--not meaningful, only a way to distinguish between groups of people already divided. No atheist I know of has ever become so because of the corruption of the church, nor because some Christians are bad people. That has never been the reasoning of any atheist I have ever discussed the matter with, nor any who have ever written about their subject. Maybe such people do exist, but they are surely very rare. That these "arguments" would not persuade you is assumed--they don't persuade anyone, so why would anyone expect them to persuade you?

That's the core of this, and you are simply very wrong here. Logically, rationally, there is a very coherent and well supported alternative explanation--the naturalistic universe. You may not like this explanation, but that does not make it an unreasonable explanation. As soon as you bring "reason" into the discussion, it shifts from your untestable opinion to a question of hard fact. And the facts show very clearly that a naturalistic universe is not only possible, but far more likely than the supernatural universe you propose.

Why are we here? A combination of random chance and nonintelligent selective processes. Earth itself was pretty random, and quite possibly the initial self-organization of life was also random. However, once life exists, evolution by natural selection (a nonrandom selective process lacking intelligence) leads to increasing fitness for varying environments and competitive stresses.

Why is the universe here? Ultimately, because a singularity expanded. The reasons for that are in dispute, but there is no obvious intelligent hand behind it, and even less evidence that such a hand continues to influence the universe. The notion that Goddidit makes even less sense than the idea that the universe started itself, because you not only have to explain how hedidit, you have to explain where he came from. I mean, if you're going to do some special pleading to explain how god created himself, or "always existed", then why can't you just do the same for the universe? The Goddidit explanation runs into quite a few problems anyway. For one thing, the universe is known to exist, and god is not. Secondly, cause and effect don't make any sense without time, and time is a consequence of the start of the universe.

Why has it not dissolved into "chaos and disorder"? I'm not sure why you think a natural universe would be inherently unstable. If anything, a universe that operated at the whim of an all-powerful personality-motivated deity would be much less stable than one governed by immutable physical laws. The God of the Old Testament does not seem to be particularly emotionally stable, after all. "Oh, I love you all, guiding you, my people, towards a more perfect... DEATH TO ALL THE BABIES OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SOME CULTURAL PRACTICE I DON'T LIKE!" That is the kind of stability you think is at work in the universe? You think that kind of emotional variability would lead to a stable predictable universe?

I sure don't.

Well, it is your burden to prove. That's how logical arguments work; the proponent of an argument is the one with the burden of demonstrating it true. The skeptic merely needs to point out how it's wrong. It is an easier position, to be sure.

Ok, you've had some legal training. That argument right there is a bit like a prosecutor walking into court, holding up a picture of a dead body, and declaring that it is the only proof he needs that the defendant murdered that person and deserves to go to jail for it. Religious folks are a bit like the folks on the jury who look at it and nod along with the prosecutor.

I mean, no one establishes culpability like that, except people engaging in logical fallacies. If you're going to prove that god exists, you're going to have to do more than point at a piece of questionable evidence and shout that god must have been responsible.

It makes a great deal more sense than your goddidit proposal. There is, you know, evidence supporting the naturalistic worldview. Faith's got nothing.

I don't need to know I'm right to also know that your argument makes no sense. If we're going to engage in baseless speculation, any old idea is just as good as another, and I can come up with way more convincing explanations for Human existence--like the idea that we all "just existed", and persist in a shared collective delusion that the world around us also exists. All the evidence in the world could never disprove that, since apparently we're happy letting logical fallacies stand in the place of proper logic.

 

In that context, clearly he was referring to an infinitely dense point in space.

"Immaterial existence" is an oxymoron. It seems that a singularity would be more like a spatial state than an object.

 

so stig is right.

God created favourites?

oh well .... I'm doomed ....

never mind.

If God rejects me, I don't see any reason to believe in him.

 

The prosecutor does show the jury a picture of the dead body, to prove that a murder occurred.

It is therefore established that someone is guilty of the crime of murder.

The rest of the prosecutor's evidence focuses on proving the defendant is the murderer.

You are like a defense attorney, who sees the picture of the dead body, and argues to the jury that the dead body proves nothing.

Yes, it does.

The dead body proves that someone is dead.

And people don't die unless there is a cause of death.

You can argue your client didn't kill the victim, but you can't argue that the victim isn't dead of some cause.

Just like universes don't pop into existence without someone or something causing that to happen.

What I am saying, is that whatever the cause of the universe is, you might as well call it God.

You are denying a tautology.

Whatever you think caused the universe, that is God to you.

God can't not exist. Do you see that?