Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

[Call_of_the_Wild]

LOL! You contradict yourself again.

Cmow now people. Lets stop with the bogus "contradiction" claims. I explained to you what I meant when I used the word "infinity" for two different reasons, one as it related to the subject at hand, and the other as it relates to the nature of God, and instead of focusing on what I said, you once again assert that I am contradicting myself, when I just explained what I meant.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

<sigh!>
I aswered you long ago, you just chose to ignore my posts.
Here it is again:

How the heck am I ignoring the post when I QUOTED what you said and responded to it??? Makes no sense.

If you half the length of your step, you would go from 0 to 0.5 to 1. In this case 0.5 could be argued to be the number just before 1.

Um luna, this cant be the case....how could 0.5 be the number just before 1 when in order to get to 1 you had to pass numbers 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9? You still have to cross these points before you get to 1. Its funny how you are even making an attempt to tell me the number before 1, when you originally said that there is no number before 1, because an infinite amount of numbers are between 0 and 1?? It is you who is contradicting yourself, not me.

This stopped being a discussion long ago.
You tend to ignore half the answeres in peoples posts, and you tend to contradict yourself.

Which questions do you feel I have not tried to answer?

I still havent gotten an answer as to how time could get to the present moment if it had to traverse an infinite number of points to reach it. You have not answered this. So go ahead, use this quote right here to answer this question. You claimed that there is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, and you would never reach the number 1 if you tried to count from zero all those numbers. You already admitted that. So if you cant reach 1 if you counted all the numbers in between 0 and 1, how could time reach the present moment if it had to traverse an infinite number of points??? Using this statement right here, I would like for you to quote this and answer the question please.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Cmow now people. Lets stop with the bogus "contradiction" claims. I explained to you what I meant when I used the word "infinity" for two different reasons, one as it related to the subject at hand, and the other as it relates to the nature of God, and instead of focusing on what I said, you once again assert that I am contradicting myself, when I just explained what I meant.

Your explanations contradict one another based on your religious belief as opposed to logic and reason.

Yes, we are focusing on what YOU say, that is the entire point of discussions.

 

[work in progress]

Cmow now people. Lets stop with the bogus "contradiction" claims. I explained to you what I meant when I used the word "infinity" for two different reasons, one as it related to the subject at hand, and the other as it relates to the nature of God, and instead of focusing on what I said, you once again assert that I am contradicting myself, when I just explained what I meant.

I think a lot of people here realized a little too late that it would be a waste of time and effort trying to have an honest debate with you! You are the one who has been hair-splitting and parsing the meaning of words and mathematical terms, so now you are complaining when others scrutinize the contradictions within your own rhetoric.

Very early on, I tried to make the point that when we are trying to conceptualize "time,""space,""matter,""energy" and how subatomic particle interactions occur, we are dealing with things that are totally counter-intuitive to the way we expect things to work in our world...what physicists like Stephen Hawking refer to as "the world of middle dimensions." For someone in my position - who will never get the math, I am stuck assuming that a consensus of experts on such a technical subject will come to the best general conclusions. But, those who have read too much stuff from people like WLC or Hugh Ross -- guys who only understand enough about the physics to misrepresent its implications to an audience who knows nothing about the subject....it becomes a trip down a blind alley, and the fans of these theologians end up with an education that leaves them less informed than if they had never bothered reading anything about the origins of the universe.

This long thread started when the OP cited an Austin Cline article about whether the common conception of God (all-knowing, omnipotent, omnipresent) can be examined by the scientific method. Cline quotes retired physicist - Victor Stenger's book: GOD, The Failed Hypothesis, as an example of using the scientific method to examine whether such a God has left evidence of its existence and draws a negative conclusion. You can take it or leave it...Stenger himself admits that disproving all possible conceptions of an intelligent creator or designer are impossible, and I recall from interviews he did at the time promoting the book, that he declared that he never would have bothered writing it in the first place if he hadn't become so sick and tired of people like William Lane Craig and a few other theologians, misrepresenting..or at least misunderstanding the subatomic physics that they are trying to use to prove that the Big Bang was our primordial creation event.

I believe this underlies your inability to move off of useless arguments about infinite numbers, since every math example I've heard of where you end up having to divide numbers by 0 produces a useless infinite string of numbers. Even 1 divided by 0 = an infinity, so why the hell are you still arguing that there can't be an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 0? Just doing that simple calculation gives you the answer.

In the end, believing in God is an intuitive reaction to the complexity of our world and the desire to have an easy explanation for everything, and more crucially - includes us as an important part of that creation. In the final analysis, the God answer is substituting "who" as an answer to a "how" question. And it works for those who don't really care about how this world came into existence.

Modern cosmological theories work through higher cognitive analysis done by a small community of expert physicists and mathematicians around the world. And no cosmological theory that I've heard proposed, declares that the Universe has meaning or purpose that we are going to relate to naturally on a gut level. And for me, the fact that a creator would go through all of this trouble and remain hidden from critical analysis, is all the proof I need that there is actually no God, and we are fumbling in the dark, left with having to create meaning in our own lives as we can.

 

[lunakilo]

How the heck am I ignoring the post when I QUOTED what you said and responded to it??? Makes no sense.

The problem is you don't seem to read the posts. You quote them, yes, but ignore their contents.

Um luna, this cant be the case....how could 0.5 be the number just before 1 when in order to get to 1 you had to pass numbers 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9? You still have to cross these points before you get to 1. Its funny how you are even making an attempt to tell me the number before 1, when you originally said that there is no number before 1, because an infinite amount of numbers are between 0 and 1?? It is you who is contradicting yourself, not me.

Here is a good example.
If you hadn't cut off the next lines of my post you would know that I am not claiming that 0.5 is the number just before 1.
This is part of a paragraph thying to explain that there is no specific number which is the number before 1.
If you had read the original post you would know that.

I still havent gotten an answer as to how time could get to the present moment if it had to traverse an infinite number of points to reach it. You have not answered this. So go ahead, use this quote right here to answer this question. You claimed that there is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, and you would never reach the number 1 if you tried to count from zero all those numbers. You already admitted that. So if you cant reach 1 if you counted all the numbers in between 0 and 1, how could time reach the present moment if it had to traverse an infinite number of points??? Using this statement right here, I would like for you to quote this and answer the question please.

For the third time I have tried to answer that question. If there is parts of that answer which is unclear please tell me what you don't understand.

Here it is again again:

I understand that you find the idea of infinite time in an expanding universe absurd.
But your arguments don't make me see it as a problem.

The distance from 0 to 1 is a finite distance. I don't think it translates well to an infinite 'distance' in time.

If you look at a time line and look at the time between point 0 and point 1, then there would be an infinite amount of points in time between 0 and 1, just like in the distance example.
But the time it takes to travel from time 0 to time 1 is still finite because passing a point in time takes an infinitisimal amount of time. The time between time 0 and time 1 is finite.

Now if you talk about traveling from 'the infinite past' to now, the time we are talking about is not finite.
And I agree that if time behaves like we are used to, then that would take an infinite amount of time.
But we know the universe was very hot and dense when it was younger, and we know that time behaves strangly in such an environment (again: Gravitational time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), so I don't think you can rightly assume that time flows in a straight line the way we are used to, when talking about the early, dense universe. So it is possible that there is no time dilemma if one delves deeply enought into how time works.

It is also possible that you are correct that there is a dilemma.
That time goes on forever but the universe (as we know it) had a beginning.
I see 2 ways to deal with that:

1. You can solve that dilemma by adding God as you propose.
2. You can also solve it by postulating that the universe itself is eternal and what we see as the creation of the universe is just a change in the universe from what it was before to what it is now.

I would argue that both 1 and 2 are the same solution just using different words.
If you add an eternal God before the beginning of the current, finite universe, then together (God + universe) is eternal and what we see as the creation of the universe is just a change in the universe from what it was before to what it is now.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The problem is you don't seem to read the posts. You quote them, yes, but ignore their contents.

Here is a good example.
If you hadn't cut off the next lines of my post you would know that I am not claiming that 0.5 is the number just before 1.
This is part of a paragraph thying to explain that there is no specific number which is the number before 1.
If you had read the original post you would know that.

You are double talking..in the quote above, you said that there is no number before 1. Then you said that in one meter, the number before 1 is 0.5. This is clearly double talking. You are giving two different statements when talking about the same thing, and not only that, but we can also identify points in between 0.5 and 1.

If you look at a time line and look at the time between point 0 and point 1, then there would be an infinite amount of points in time between 0 and 1, just like in the distance example.

Ok, here you admit that there is an infinite amount of points in time between 0 and 1, got it.

But the time it takes to travel from time 0 to time 1 is still finite because passing a point in time takes an infinitisimal amount of time. The time between time 0 and time 1 is finite.

This is CLEARLY double talking. "The time it takes to travel from time 0 to time 1 is still finite because passing a point in time takes a infinitismal amount of time." What the heck??? If it takes an infinite amount of time to reach any point, then no point could be reached at all, and certainly not the number 1. You already admitted that it is impossible to count the infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1. So if you cant count the numbers in between 0 and 1 to arrive at 1, how can time travel through an infinite amount of points to arrive at the present moment???!!!! The question has gone unanswered and the attempts to answer it, I really dont understand how you feel as if the answer you provided solved anything.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I think a lot of people here realized a little too late that it would be a waste of time and effort trying to have an honest debate with you!

You can call it what you want....I am completely in line with modern cosmology, which states that our universe began to exist, something that theists have believed for over 4,000 years. Science has just recently confirmed what the theists have always maintained, so science is catching up with religious implications, not the other way around. I have also gave philosophical and mathematical reasons why we can logically conclude that the universe began to exist, and no one has yet to successfully refute my claims, because you cant refute the truth. So all the atheists/naturalist can do now is to just fold his/her arms and pout angrily as the evidence just keep pouring in by large amounts. Nothing that I stated on this topic can be said to be a lie, and it is confirmed by science, philosophy, and mathematics.

You are the one who has been hair-splitting and parsing the meaning of words and mathematical terms, so now you are complaining when others scrutinize the contradictions within your own rhetoric.

This is not the case at all, some words have different meanings based on the context. When I used the word "infinity" in the first discussion, I was stating that it is impossible for infinity to exist in reality as an amount, such as an infinite amount of marbles or any infinite amount of time. Then the question was asked about God being infinite, and I stated that when we say that God is infinite, we are NOT USING THE WORD IN TERMS OF AMOUNT OR QUANTITY, BUT IN TERMS OF QUALITY. You are the one that jumped to the conclusion by saying that I am contradicting myself, when I am clearly not. I used the same one in a different context as it was applied. There was never any contradiction going on here. You are clearly ignoring this, and to me that is just being flat out disingenuous.

Very early on, I tried to make the point that when we are trying to conceptualize "time,""space,""matter,""energy" and how subatomic particle interactions occur, we are dealing with things that are totally counter-intuitive to the way we expect things to work in our world...what physicists like Stephen Hawking refer to as "the world of middle dimensions." For someone in my position - who will never get the math, I am stuck assuming that a consensus of experts on such a technical subject will come to the best general conclusions. But, those who have read too much stuff from people like WLC or Hugh Ross -- guys who only understand enough about the physics to misrepresent its implications to an audience who knows nothing about the subject....it becomes a trip down a blind alley, and the fans of these theologians end up with an education that leaves them less informed than if they had never bothered reading anything about the origins of the universe.

Um, ok.

This long thread started when the OP cited an Austin Cline article about whether the common conception of God (all-knowing, omnipotent, omnipresent) can be examined by the scientific method. Cline quotes retired physicist - Victor Stenger's book: GOD, The Failed Hypothesis, as an example of using the scientific method to examine whether such a God has left evidence of its existence and draws a negative conclusion. You can take it or leave it...Stenger himself admits that disproving all possible conceptions of an intelligent creator or designer are impossible, and I recall from interviews he did at the time promoting the book, that he declared that he never would have bothered writing it in the first place if he hadn't become so sick and tired of people like William Lane Craig and a few other theologians, misrepresenting..or at least misunderstanding the subatomic physics that they are trying to use to prove that the Big Bang was our primordial creation event.

You mentioned WLC first, and the quote above you mention Vic Stenger. Its funny you mention both of these gentleman, because they debated twice, one of which can be seen on youtube. Now Vic is the physicists here, but during the debate, it seemed as if WLC was more in depth and had more knowledge of cosmic events than Stenger. Stenger briefly tried to touch on these so called "virtual particles" as evidence that things can pop in to being uncaused out of nothing, and Craig quickly refuted this and the subject was never brought up again. The subject of cosmology wasn't discussed that much, which surprised me, because I thought Stenger would have been the one to show his expertise in the field, guess not. And as far as the book that Stenger wrote is concerned, look, science can in no way offer any explanation to explain the absolute origins of the universe. You cant use science as a way to explain science. The problem with these mainstream scientists (and most naturalists in general), they are good at what they do, but when it comes to drawing logical conclusions such as SCIENCE CANT BE USED TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGINS OF ITS OWN DOMAIN, they fail miserably, and that is the problem with Vic.

I believe this underlies your inability to move off of useless arguments about infinite numbers, since every math example I've heard of where you end up having to divide numbers by 0 produces a useless infinite string of numbers. Even 1 divided by 0 = an infinity, so why the hell are you still arguing that there can't be an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 0? Just doing that simple calculation gives you the answer.

Here the problem, instead of focusing on what I said, you want to speak "in general", I have consistently gave REASONS why I am saying what I am saying, and instead of quoting me and making an attempt to provide a explanation, you want to speak in broad terms. No. First of all, I just did the calculation, and my calculator said that "you cant divide by 0", so where is this infinity coming from? Second, I will ask you the same thing I keep asking luna, if you cant reach the number 1 by counting all the infinite numbers in between 0 and 1, how can time reach the present moment if it had an infinite amount of past point to cross??? Answer the question. Enough of the broad stuff, focus on the question that I am asking. I dont care you get to help with the math, Einstien, Hawking, Hilbert, Cantor, they cant help you. It cannot be answered, because it cannot happen in reality.

In the end, believing in God is an intuitive reaction to the complexity of our world and the desire to have an easy explanation for everything, and more crucially - includes us as an important part of that creation. In the final analysis, the God answer is substituting "who" as an answer to a "how" question. And it works for those who don't really care about how this world came into existence.

You are right in one sense, when I see the complexity of a space shuttle, I assume Intelligent Design. When I see the complexity of a computer, I assume intelligent design. If I assume intelligent design with these man made things, why shouldn't I assume intelligent design in reference to something more complex than a space shuttle and a computer combined, which is our universe???? The only being I can think of that can be more complex than the universe is, is defined as God in every dictionary you will ever look in to.

Modern cosmological theories work through higher cognitive analysis done by a small community of expert physicists and mathematicians around the world. And no cosmological theory that I've heard proposed, declares that the Universe has meaning or purpose that we are going to relate to naturally on a gut level. And for me, the fact that a creator would go through all of this trouble and remain hidden from critical analysis, is all the proof I need that there is actually no God, and we are fumbling in the dark, left with having to create meaning in our own lives as we can.

Our universe is finely tuned to the precision of 10:10:123...that is the number 10 as the base, and the number 120 as the exponent (which are Roger Penrose's equations), and if you wrote the number out, the number would cover half of the universe. If you dont see purpose and meaning in that astronomical number, I can't help you. As for the hiddeness of God, well, speak for yourself. There are many believers that have been said that they experience divine revelation from God, but you wouldnt believe any of this based on your presuppositions.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Nothing that I stated on this topic can be said to be a lie, and it is confirmed by science, philosophy, and mathematics.

LOL!

This is not the case at all, some words have different meanings based on the context. When I used the word "infinity" in the first discussion, I was stating that it is impossible for infinity to exist in reality as an amount, such as an infinite amount of marbles or any infinite amount of time. Then the question was asked about God being infinite, and I stated that when we say that God is infinite, we are NOT USING THE WORD IN TERMS OF AMOUNT OR QUANTITY, BUT IN TERMS OF QUALITY. You are the one that jumped to the conclusion by saying that I am contradicting myself, when I am clearly not. I used the same one in a different context as it was applied. There was never any contradiction going on here. You are clearly ignoring this, and to me that is just being flat out disingenuous.

What you did was to arbitrarily shift the goalposts to align with your religious beliefs (bold) failing to understand that you contradicted yourself in the process. Of course, you refuse to see that as it would tend to deconstruct your religious beliefs and your argument.

..science can in no way offer any explanation to explain the absolute origins of the universe... You cant use science as a way to explain science.

Once again, you shift the goalposts by saying science can't be used to explain the origins of the universe by equating that to the origins of science itself. They are not the same thing.

First of all, I just did the calculation, and my calculator said that "you cant divide by 0"

Your calculator actually said that?

You are right in one sense, when I see the complexity of a space shuttle, I assume Intelligent Design. When I see the complexity of a computer, I assume intelligent design. If I assume intelligent design with these man made things, why shouldn't I assume intelligent design in reference to something more complex than a space shuttle and a computer combined, which is our universe????

Not only is that a logical fallacy, but there is evidence to design in computers and other man made things but no evidence whatsoever to a design in our universe. You not only jump to conclusions based on fallacy, but also based on lack of evidence and most likely support your conclusion based on indoctrinated religious beliefs.

Our universe is finely tuned to the precision of 10:10:123...that is the number 10 as the base, and the number 120 as the exponent (which are Roger Penrose's equations), and if you wrote the number out, the number would cover half of the universe. If you dont see purpose and meaning in that astronomical number, I can't help you.

Of course, you can't help anyone to see purpose or meaning in those numbers, that is obvious.

There are many believers that have been said that they experience divine revelation from God, but you wouldnt believe any of this based on your presuppositions.

Or, the fact that believers really, really, really want to believe they've experienced divine revelation rather than accept simple terrestrial explanations.

 

[jasonwill2]

It seems to me that if spirits are real there must be some way to verify it, but it's possible that we just do not know yet how to study them scientifically due to their elusive nature.

 

[lunakilo]

You are double talking..in the quote above, you said that there is no number before 1. Then you said that in one meter, the number before 1 is 0.5. This is clearly double talking. You are giving two different statements when talking about the same thing, and not only that, but we can also identify points in between 0.5 and 1.



Ok, here you admit that there is an infinite amount of points in time between 0 and 1, got it.



This is CLEARLY double talking. "The time it takes to travel from time 0 to time 1 is still finite because passing a point in time takes a infinitismal amount of time." What the heck??? If it takes an infinite amount of time to reach any point, then no point could be reached at all, and certainly not the number 1. You already admitted that it is impossible to count the infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1. So if you cant count the numbers in between 0 and 1 to arrive at 1, how can time travel through an infinite amount of points to arrive at the present moment???!!!! The question has gone unanswered and the attempts to answer it, I really dont understand how you feel as if the answer you provided solved anything.

If you are really interested in understanding what I am talking about I suggest you read up on your math. Real numbers will be a good place to start: Real number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What you did was to arbitrarily shift the goalposts to align with your religious beliefs (bold) failing to understand that you contradicted yourself in the process. Of course, you refuse to see that as it would tend to deconstruct your religious beliefs and your argument.

LoL, I would never be foolish enough to say that infinity cannot exist in reality and then turn around a sentence later and say that God is infinite in the same way. I might be crazy, but I aint no fool.

Once again, you shift the goalposts by saying science can't be used to explain the origins of the universe by equating that to the origins of science itself. They are not the same thing.

Um, yes they are the same thing. if I asked you to explain the origins of your computer, and the answer has to lie within your computer, would you be able to do it? I really would like an answer to this question since you are making it seem as if when I say "science cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain", as if I am saying this without warrant.

Your calculator actually said that?

Yes it does....it says "Cannot divide by 0", which is no surprise. I am not even sure why I even tried to compute it anyway. If I have a box of pizza, how can I divide it with 0 people??? Hmmmm

Not only is that a logical fallacy, but there is evidence to design in computers and other man made things but no evidence whatsoever to a design in our universe. You not only jump to conclusions based on fallacy, but also based on lack of evidence and most likely support your conclusion based on indoctrinated religious beliefs.

So, if computers never existed, and you were walking in a field and tripped over a laptop and started pressing buttons and seeing all of this complexity within this object, would you not assume intelligent design?? But that's not the point anyway, the point is, if something as simple as a computer is intelligently designed, then the universe must be intelligently designed, because you cant get the type of precision that the universe has for human life from a blind, random, non-intellectual process.

Of course, you can't help anyone to see purpose or meaning in those numbers, that is obvious.

The fine tuning of the universe is not something new and something that is being debated by scientists. The universe is fine tuned for human life. Those were the calculations by Roger Penrose, who is a leading physicists in cosmology. He took the total entropy of the universe, which is 10:80 (10 in base and 80 as exponent), multiplied by entropy per baryon (10:43), and that will give a total of (10:123), and since the logarithm of the total phase-space volume, the total universe for a creation event is 10:10:123, which is 10 as the base and a 1 with 123 zeros as the exponent, and every zero representing 10. Now I don't know specifics, but this is what a guy that works in the field calculated. We are going where science takes us, right??? Well, it is taking us in the direction of supernatural implications, because if you believe you can get that type of precision from a natural, blind, random, non-intellectual process, I would say that requires a lot of faith.

Or, the fact that believers really, really, really want to believe they've experienced divine revelation rather than accept simple terrestrial explanations.

And unbelievers really want to negate the existence of a God so they postulate absurdities, like actual infinities, things popping in to being out of nothing, and complexity coming from randomness.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If you are really interested in understanding what I am talking about I suggest you read up on your math. Real numbers will be a good place to start: Real number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:beach:

 

[lunakilo]

:beach:

 

[EnochSDP]

The belief in one or multiple gods is the most evident source of life in the world.Regardless what science or creationist claim about recent discoveries they have proved little about how our creation started.
It is just a fact that some people have faith and the rest of the people need physical proof.No one can provide physical proof and no one can discredit faith.So how can we convince people that God exist?We can't, all we can do is provide the facts from both sides to conclude that it is one or the other.Because truthfully if one is correct then it causes the other to be incorrect, so we need to find which is most likely true by the facts.
There are billions of people who want evidence that God exist!First off it is impossible to prove God does or does not exist if the debator has taken a perticular view and can not accept change.If a person opposes even the possibility that there is or isnt a God, then they will try to explain away any evidence proposed.
People also need to face the fact that our impression of science and nature is limited to our worldy view.The fact is that our view in this world is physical and a infinate God is beyond the physical.Because the human mind is limited in knowledge we often struggle with most things that are physical.So with that we really can not expect to know much about our spiritual understanding.We must be careful not to allow our thinking to lead us away from truth.
Man's knowledge of creation in and out of this planet have many traits that lead to being designed.There are many who claim there is no evidence of God, though the actual fact is that the evidence is overwhelming that there is a Creator.
Obtainable information is at anyone's fingertips to prove that the existence of God is far more supported than all the theories made by science.God has evidence from the Bible, archaeology, history, science, and the Shroud of Turin to validate what was said within the Bible.Alot of people accept alot less from the big bang theory and science.Then science wants us to accept thier theories on faith with the actual provable evidence to be discovered later.
The process of science in its nature is to fail.In that failure causes results that therefore gains more knowledge to make more precise calulations.This process is helpful cause it produces results to improve but it is in the fact that science fails and can not provide 100% accuracy that causes a problem.So in essence science has to fail to even procede further!Most believers agree that God exspands beyond the aspects of science as we have learned it.
The simple fact is anyone can physically see that things do not appear from thin air in our world.That is because we are in a physical state and since this topic also concerns the physical state then it is important.From a physical state it is highly unlikely that life did not come from another source of life.To suggest life developed from lifelessness is to suggest that there was nothing at a point and that unintelligent matter became thinking life.It does not take much intelligence to know something does not come from nothing.Intelligence does not come from the unintelligent.
Intelligence in the classical sense means 'rationality,'People able to think beyond the limits of the physical world cannot come from unitelligence.Information is known as intelligence, when we consider this, then our entire body is information and cannot come from unintelligence.
We can take facts that we see in nature and still draw the wrong conclusions about them.It is probably suprising to the public to know that most scientific theories are mathematically impossible.Why do people accept this?It is because people do not want to face the fact that they will have to answer to a Creator one day for thier lack of faith.People want a tight grip on thier lives.They want to find a reason for thier existance with something they can actually see or touch.
Most people ignore the visable signs that a intelligent designer exist even though the evidence is staggering.You only need to look carefully at any life form to gain some respect for the complexity of it.Some examples are: earth's perfect distance from the sun, the human brain, DNA, the human body, order in the universe, intelligent differences in humans and animals, animals body chemistry, the amount of people who testify of God, and the amount of people who oppose a God who supposedly does not exist.
You can not find precise instruction like our universe without intent.With all of modern man's accumulated knowledge, advanced tools, and experience, we are still absolutely overwhelmed at the complexities of our life.
Why is the universe so orderly?How is it so orderly?The greatest scientist are in disbelief at these questions.There is no logical reason for a universe that obeys rules.The universe does not have to behave this way because of the conditions in space.Though it is not so much orderly than it is obedient.That is, having the laws that govern our universe are ultimately required otherwise life would have ceased.Here on earth we are also bound by rules of law and physics.
examples of order in the universe.
The Earth's size is perfect.If the Earth were smaller then an atmosphere would not be possible.If the Earth was bigger it would contain free hydrogen like Jupiter.We are the only planet with the right mixture of gases and a atmosphere to have planet, animal, and human life.The Earth is located the perfect distance from the sun.If we were any further away we would freeze and if we were any closer we would burn.The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while rotating around the sun.By the Earth rotating on its axis allows the entire surface of the earth to be properly warmed and cooled.
Our moon is perfect for the Earth creating ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate.While also being in perfect distance from our gravitational pull.
The more scientists study life, the more they become impressed by it.Nature is full of intricate designs and beauty.This is in contrast to man made objects, which look, corose and crude.Materialist believe life in all its amazing forms consists merely of atoms and molecules.They believe these atoms and molecules formed themselves into millions of intricate animals and planets.Even if nature could have originally built the proteins and enzymes used by living organisms, thats not just it, it takes much more.Life could never have come into being without some form of highly intelligent reason.
However, none of the life forms we know can surpass the overall complexity of the human being.Each person is constructed of cells forming trillions of connections.The marvels in the bodies of both animals and man are endless.In addition to this is the fact all the information is available for genes to repair the body when it is hurt.It is certainly true that we are like a machine carefully made by a craftsman.And like anything created, we reflect the existance of our creator.
Human beings are the only species in the known history of the world to have emotions.Emotions cause people to laugh, imagine, believe, have morals, and have manners.Animals do not even have the desire to cloth themselves.
People pocesses the ability to know both good and evil.You can look at this in many ways, positive and negative, God and the devil, right and wrong, harmony and destruction, peace and war, and we can go on with the opposites.The knowledge of good and evil appears to be divine.The ability to decide how to accomplish what you want by either good or evil, is not a ability any animal on earth pocesses other than man.Our intelligence and natural abilities hints to a divine authorship but it is your decision to decide that.
The design of the human brain is truely awesome.The human brain processes an amazing amount of information.The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.The brain functions differently than any other organ.It has the intelligent ability to reason, feel, dream, plan, react, relate, and decide.Something so complex could not of been created without design.
Well where did the life come from to create us?The arguement that The Creator must have a creator also is not a nessesary requirement."God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands."Acts 17:24.God is not required to submit privilged knowledge of his origin.God gave all the knowledge man needed to gain eternity within the Bible.
God persues you.God does not force us to believe in him.He has provided sufficient proof of his existance for us to respond to him.
why do people oppose god if he dont exist?
With all the odds edging heavly in favor that we were created from a Creator.The ultimate reason life does exist is because a being capable of creation decided to make life abundant.The reasons for this is evident all around you and people just do not realize it.
The reason this is such a dilema is because most look at it the wrong way.If we started our own nation, we would want faithful and diligent followers.How do you know the people you accept into your nation are not traders, liars, and tresspassers?The only way you know such things is to observe them and over a period of time they would gain your trust and belief.That is exzactly what The Creator has done here.Without appearing anywhere and everywhere proving His exsitance.The Creator has used certain techniques to inspire His will upon creation and leaves it up to the creation to believe in him or not.The creation must prove that they are loyal and faithful before they can join the Kingdom.Since this is how we act here on earth it would appear that we have learned it from our Creator.

 

[EnochSDP]

You can not prove that unintelligence can come from intelligence.But animals are not intelligent, not as humans are.You can trian our so called ancestor the ape all day everyday but it will never be like a human and can never do all the things a human can do!There is much evidence that shows that intelligence cant come from unintelligence.You think you know what you know becuase you were never taught?No!You know that it can not happen but refuse it because that is a must for there to be no creator.You tell me when any animal plays mozart,draws or paints high end artwork, or can make a skyscraper.In fact even if they did you must teach them too.It is easy to see that you can not become intelligent without training or the ability to do so.Are you any closer to truth from your research?
Full Truth can only be achieved with proper tools.If you lack salvation you lack the tools!
Im not saying that the creator didnt have a start!Because I do not know all!What I am claiming is that that knowledge is not required.But the truth is shown to you as right now but you refuse it.If God appeared in front of you now, you would still ask for more proof that he is God.You can never convince a man that does not want to be convinced.
There is no evidence of creation being built,designed?Then you must have blinders on.Wouldnt it be the same if a scientist took dna and duplicated aanimal which has been done.then yes science has designed animals too.what proof is there that we are created ? Solid "Scientific " evidence is not available , though empirical evidence is plentiful! Belief in the existence of God stems from looking at the abundant empirical evidence we see around us.
Creationists dispute the underlying theories of natural selection , breeding mutations and other facts above not because of their religious beliefs, but because no scientific research or laboratory observations over the past 150 years have shown these individual sub-theories can possibly be. Once these individual sub-theories are shown to be false , the theory of evolution falls apart. Once the theory of evolutions is ruled out as being a possibility based on scientific facts observed , the only thing left that make any sense is creations.It is a fact that Darwin and many other who had initial hand in theories surrounding evolution were known atheists or agnostics. The theory of evolution for them was essential to give them mechanical explanation of the universe without any spiritual principles. Without the theory of evolution, atheists and agnostics have nothing substantial on which the base thing , hence they tend to cling to the theory of evolution , even whe
n presented with facts that show sub-theories like natural selection cannot be. Again many assume it is true from what they learned in school, and leave it at that. It is when they discover the sub-theories like natural selection and mutations do not line up, that these religious people can easily discard the theory of evolution since they have their belief in creation to fall back on. It is simply a matter of a person who decides to learn about the theory of evolution in-depth, who stumbles on the discrepancies and realizes there is something wrong.
Again what evidence do YOU have?
You disreguard faith.What if(which has happened)you broke your rib,i told you that you broke it but its your body and you do not believe,why should you, you can not feel it.But years later you get sharp pain in your side,you do not know why.You go to the doctor and he tells you have a broke rib.This is how you are.
Im always able to admit im wrong.I made a few statements id wish to take back from earlier.I can not.Im human and in a type fast attitude and new here i rushed into convos.I will not do that again.
Man do have errors.Even though a man has errors and by description can be failable the insight God gives is not failable.His visions are not failable.A mans description of those visions can be failable.This does not prove the Bible has any errors but has misinterpretations from the translaters and the disriptions that the prophet saw.Does not mean there are lies or untruths or even unscientific passages.Just mean that the description a man can give from one generation from the next leaves room for error in the next translation.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The universe is fine tuned for human life.

No, it isn't.

I believe this is called 'puddle thinking'.

 

[darkendless]

No, it isn't.

I believe this is called 'puddle thinking'.

'Tis.

The universe isn't really designed for anything.

 

[lunakilo]

The belief in one or multiple gods is the most evident source of life in the world.Regardless what science or creationist claim about recent discoveries they have proved little about how our creation started.
It is just a fact that some people have faith and the rest of the people need physical proof.No one can provide physical proof and no one can discredit faith.So how can we convince people that God exist?We can't, all we can do is provide the facts from both sides to conclude that it is one or the other.Because truthfully if one is correct then it causes the other to be incorrect, so we need to find which is most likely true by the facts.
There are billions of people who want evidence that God exist!First off it is impossible to prove God does or does not exist if the debator has taken a perticular view and can not accept change.If a person opposes even the possibility that there is or isnt a God, then they will try to explain away any evidence proposed.
People also need to face the fact that our impression of science and nature is limited to our worldy view.The fact is that our view in this world is physical and a infinate God is beyond the physical.Because the human mind is limited in knowledge we often struggle with most things that are physical.So with that we really can not expect to know much about our spiritual understanding.We must be careful not to allow our thinking to lead us away from truth.
Man's knowledge of creation in and out of this planet have many traits that lead to being designed.There are many who claim there is no evidence of God, though the actual fact is that the evidence is overwhelming that there is a Creator.
Obtainable information is at anyone's fingertips to prove that the existence of God is far more supported than all the theories made by science.God has evidence from the Bible, archaeology, history, science, and the Shroud of Turin to validate what was said within the Bible.Alot of people accept alot less from the big bang theory and science.Then science wants us to accept thier theories on faith with the actual provable evidence to be discovered later.
The process of science in its nature is to fail.In that failure causes results that therefore gains more knowledge to make more precise calulations.This process is helpful cause it produces results to improve but it is in the fact that science fails and can not provide 100% accuracy that causes a problem.So in essence science has to fail to even procede further!Most believers agree that God exspands beyond the aspects of science as we have learned it.
...
Human beings are the only species in the known history of the world to have emotions.Emotions cause people to laugh, imagine, believe, have morals, and have manners.Animals do not even have the desire to cloth themselves.
People pocesses the ability to know both good and evil.You can look at this in many ways, positive and negative, God and the devil, right and wrong, harmony and destruction, peace and war, and we can go on with the opposites.The knowledge of good and evil appears to be divine.The ability to decide how to accomplish what you want by either good or evil, is not a ability any animal on earth pocesses other than man.Our intelligence and natural abilities hints to a divine authorship but it is your decision to decide that.
The design of the human brain is truely awesome.The human brain processes an amazing amount of information.The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.The brain functions differently than any other organ.It has the intelligent ability to reason, feel, dream, plan, react, relate, and decide.Something so complex could not of been created without design.
Well where did the life come from to create us?The arguement that The Creator must have a creator also is not a nessesary requirement."God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands."Acts 17:24.God is not required to submit privilged knowledge of his origin.God gave all the knowledge man needed to gain eternity within the Bible.
God persues you.God does not force us to believe in him.He has provided sufficient proof of his existance for us to respond to him.
why do people oppose god if he dont exist?
With all the odds edging heavly in favor that we were created from a Creator.The ultimate reason life does exist is because a being capable of creation decided to make life abundant.The reasons for this is evident all around you and people just do not realize it.
The reason this is such a dilema is because most look at it the wrong way.If we started our own nation, we would want faithful and diligent followers.How do you know the people you accept into your nation are not traders, liars, and tresspassers?The only way you know such things is to observe them and over a period of time they would gain your trust and belief.That is exzactly what The Creator has done here.Without appearing anywhere and everywhere proving His exsitance.The Creator has used certain techniques to inspire His will upon creation and leaves it up to the creation to believe in him or not.The creation must prove that they are loyal and faithful before they can join the Kingdom.Since this is how we act here on earth it would appear that we have learned it from our Creator.

You can not prove that unintelligence can come from intelligence.But animals are not intelligent, not as humans are.You can trian our so called ancestor the ape all day everyday but it will never be like a human and can never do all the things a human can do!There is much evidence that shows that intelligence cant come from unintelligence.You think you know what you know becuase you were never taught?No!You know that it can not happen but refuse it because that is a must for there to be no creator.You tell me when any animal plays mozart,draws or paints high end artwork, or can make a skyscraper.In fact even if they did you must teach them too.It is easy to see that you can not become intelligent without training or the ability to do so.Are you any closer to truth from your research?
Full Truth can only be achieved with proper tools.If you lack salvation you lack the tools!
Im not saying that the creator didnt have a start!Because I do not know all!What I am claiming is that that knowledge is not required.But the truth is shown to you as right now but you refuse it.If God appeared in front of you now, you would still ask for more proof that he is God.You can never convince a man that does not want to be convinced.
There is no evidence of creation being built,designed?Then you must have blinders on.Wouldnt it be the same if a scientist took dna and duplicated aanimal which has been done.then yes science has designed animals too.what proof is there that we are created ? Solid "Scientific " evidence is not available , though empirical evidence is plentiful! Belief in the existence of God stems from looking at the abundant empirical evidence we see around us.
Creationists dispute the underlying theories of natural selection , breeding mutations and other facts above not because of their religious beliefs, but because no scientific research or laboratory observations over the past 150 years have shown these individual sub-theories can possibly be. Once these individual sub-theories are shown to be false , the theory of evolution falls apart. Once the theory of evolutions is ruled out as being a possibility based on scientific facts observed , the only thing left that make any sense is creations.It is a fact that Darwin and many other who had initial hand in theories surrounding evolution were known atheists or agnostics. The theory of evolution for them was essential to give them mechanical explanation of the universe without any spiritual principles. Without the theory of evolution, atheists and agnostics have nothing substantial on which the base thing , hence they tend to cling to the theory of evolution , even whe
n presented with facts that show sub-theories like natural selection cannot be. Again many assume it is true from what they learned in school, and leave it at that. It is when they discover the sub-theories like natural selection and mutations do not line up, that these religious people can easily discard the theory of evolution since they have their belief in creation to fall back on. It is simply a matter of a person who decides to learn about the theory of evolution in-depth, who stumbles on the discrepancies and realizes there is something wrong.
Again what evidence do YOU have?
You disreguard faith.What if(which has happened)you broke your rib,i told you that you broke it but its your body and you do not believe,why should you, you can not feel it.But years later you get sharp pain in your side,you do not know why.You go to the doctor and he tells you have a broke rib.This is how you are.
Im always able to admit im wrong.I made a few statements id wish to take back from earlier.I can not.Im human and in a type fast attitude and new here i rushed into convos.I will not do that again.
Man do have errors.Even though a man has errors and by description can be failable the insight God gives is not failable.His visions are not failable.A mans description of those visions can be failable.This does not prove the Bible has any errors but has misinterpretations from the translaters and the disriptions that the prophet saw.Does not mean there are lies or untruths or even unscientific passages.Just mean that the description a man can give from one generation from the next leaves room for error in the next translation.

Cut-and-paste?

If not, could I trouble you to insert some line-breaks in your posts, they are practically unreadable.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, it isn't.

I believe this is called 'puddle thinking'.

It is this type of thinking that makes me wonder why I come here in the first place.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

'Tis.

The universe isn't really designed for anything.

If you agree with someone that is factually wrong on a particular subject, that makes you wrong by default. I have already explained why the universe is fined tuned for human life and unless you can refute it, seemly saying "No it isn't", or "the universe isn't really designed for anything" will not get the job done.