Does God Exist?

[lilmama1991]

Yes he does, all the good things that's happening for us is from him

 

[Dan4reason]

Yes he does, all the good things that's happening for us is from him

Thanks for the response but I would really love evidence in this debate.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

There may be a conspiracy but the probability that any one accepted idea is a conspiracy is tiny plus there is not motive at all. What would be the point in fooling the world into believing in Julius Caesar? Sounds kind of stupid to me.

There have been times when I have had to take an accepted idea off the list. I once believed that Jesus existed, however when I realized that there was controvercy over this, I now consider that to be a questionable idea.

So you get to pick and choose your conspiracy. You acknowledge that there were conspiracy on the deity of Julius Caesar from historians; thus, you believe that Julius Caesar exist but not as a deity. Yet, when it comes to the conspiracy on the deity of Jesus Christ; you not only believe in the conspiracy on his deity; but you also denied his very existence as a man! So I guess everyone's belief is subjective to the available historical documents.

My method is the same reason you believe in commonly accepted ideas unless you have seen Bahrain, Paris, and dinosaurs first hand so I do not see why you have a problem with it. The same is not true of religious claims. Religious claims are in thorough contradiction of each other, lack in evidence, have logical flaws, contradict science and rational thought, lack sufficient backing by smart people and are even opposed by many experts.

Your assumption is because your lack of in-depth study of the Judeo-Christian Religion. Plus, your claims is unsubstantiated at best. But, hey, everyone is entitled to their bias. Some do it for propaganda reasons; some out of ignorance; some out of malice. Who knows why people don't research truth like gold.
:slap:

 

[OneThatGotAway]

One reason I trust historians so much is that they are not going to believe everything they read. There is absolutely no consensus among Roman historians that Caesar was a God, and actually that is usually regarded as a political move. Plus, I find religious claims to be dubious because so many are so crazy, unproven, and contradictory. I am going to have to ask for extra evidence on that one.

Same is true for believers in Yahweh The God. We do not believe in mythology because we know that there have been false believers and false gods for thousands of years. Furthermore, we do not believe in everything we read against God like many people do. What happen to the Roman historians that supported Julius Caesar's deity? Were they all murdered? Your claims against religion seems bias and unsubstantiated. I think you would have received a better religious education through such institutions such as a Yeshiva, Sunday School, or a Seminary.

The bible is a collection of Jewish and Christian historical documents but like many of those times they have mythology mixed with reality. The fact that the bible is based on historical events does not the supernatural events true.

I do not think you are able to distinguish mythology from the supernatural. And I think your beliefs are based upon unsubstantiated claims from historians who were short-sighted and bias as well. Basically, what you are saying is you either believe the events or you don't; based upon the testimony of your favorite historian(s).

The fact that the bible says God exists doesn't mean he does. The fact that you have had wonderful feelings does not mean he exists. Comments do not convince me, credibility and evidence does.

And the fact that your historians says that God does not exist does not means that they are true. And that fact you had a painful experience with religion does not means that he does not exist. I guess we all get to pick and choose our credibility and evidence from among our favorite so-call experts.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Individually, perhaps. But get them all together and try and get one description of god that they all agree on? Never going to happen. That is one of the big problems with the appeal to popularity fallacy.

All believers believe in this one description of God:

1. He exists. :angel2:

2. He has supernatural powers that mankind cannot achieve. :angel2:

 

[McBell]

All believers believe in this one description of God:

1. He exists. :angel2:

2. He has supernatural powers that mankind cannot achieve. :angel2:

Your desperation is duly noted.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

I see. You want to exclude your beliefs about spirits, your God, magical miracles, and supernatural events from the definition of myth because you happen to think it is true. I argue that the definition of mythology should not depend on whether you happen to believe it or not but what it is claiming and what evidence it has. Christianity makes all the wild supernatural claims just like every other myth and there is no evidence to back up these myths despite whatever you say. Therefore it is a mythology, but that does not make it false. It just makes it a certain kind of idea.

A man should read the Holy Bible, the related historical documents, and archaelogical evidence to see if there is a God. You obviously don't think that we should believe you just because you say so. You do not have no more documents and sources than the average researcher; therefore, you are left with same two conclusion like believers: You either believe them or you don't. According to your definition of mythology; today's elephants and giraffes would be considered mythology a thousand year from now; if there were no elephants and giraffes available during that era. And assuming that the only document the historians would have available would be a handful of books describing such animals (without photos). The same would be true for astronauts ascending into the heavens towards the moon: They would be part of mythology a thousand years from now if the only source you have were books without photos.
:unicorn: :devil: :magic:

 

[OneThatGotAway]

I cannot extablish your idea as a negative because you make sure that it avoids the evidence. You just have to make God invisible so we cannot detect him. You have to make it so he does not want to prove his existence by showing himself because he wants people to believe in him with little evidence. How convenient. However, this idea shoots itself in the foot. In avoiding the evidence, it has stripped itself of any possibility of ever being positively proven and is just as valid as belief in fairies, Greek Gods, devils, etc. In order to believe something, it must have evidence. Without evidence, the idea will not be believed, just like if there were evidence against it.

I made sure of an avoidance? Hey, guy thousands of year before I was born, there were witnesses of God. I am just part of the this believing generation. Avoiding which evidence? The evidence of his work is in the heavens and the earth. The Holy Bible and archaelogical sources are there as well. Before you and I were born, God began a long and detail plan to save mankind from destruction. And part of that plan includes getting mankind to use their faith in him based on historical evidence; and not a daily physical appearance of His Deity. That would defeat the purpose of his master plan in getting men to exercise their faith. If you see Him; then you would no longer be using faith but sight. Your plans are subject to His plans; and not the other way around. If you truly seek the truth about God; then He will certaintly make Himself known to you; without altering his current plans to remain invisible until the appointed time. And his plan does not place him in the same categories as mythological creatures as fairies; because scholars know that there is still evidence for a true God among false gods. Remember my previous post on astronauts being myths a 1,000 years from now depending on the reader of the picture-less history book.

The universe has patterns, but that does not mean it is complex like a computer or a clock. The universe with its stars and planets has just as much evidence of design with its patterns as rainbows, snowflakes, thunder, etc. Just because you don't know the explanation for natural phenomena does not mean that there is a guy who just makes it happen by magic. We even have an explanation of the universe called the big bang and natural observations and our knowedge of the theory of relativity confirm that this event really did happen. There is no need for a designer of the universe.

How do you know that the universe is not complex? No man has ever travel to every place in the universe to scientifically verified this as fact. Or is this just your belief. Should we believe you or any scientists that says: Hey world believe us: the planets and stars and the universe has always been there in its present designed state without any designer (Creator). That is ludicrous! All you atheists wants us to BELIEVE (without proof) in the BIG BANG and "EVILUTION" because you atheists say so? What kind of crazy religion is that? No observation, no proof, but theories (i.e. beliefs). Sorry, pal. In the beginning, was God. It makes more sense and it's more logical.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Your desperation is duly noted.

Surely, you jest. Believe me, I am in no hurry about this subject. I got all the time in the world regarding the truth about God's existence.

From the famous lyrics of the Rolling Stones: "Time Is on My Side". :beach:

 

[Dan4reason]

How do you know that the universe is not complex? No man has ever travel to every place in the universe to scientifically verified this as fact. Or is this just your belief.

I see. An invisible God exists because a part of the universe that we don't have evidence for is complex. Your statement disproves itself.

Should we believe you or any scientists that says: Hey world believe us: the planets and stars and the universe has always been there in its present designed state without any designer (Creator). That is ludicrous!

Fred Hoyle said that and he was wrong. The big bang displaced his ideas.

All you atheists wants us to BELIEVE (without proof) in the BIG BANG and "EVILUTION" because you atheists say so? What kind of crazy religion is that? No observation, no proof, but theories (i.e. beliefs). Sorry, pal. In the beginning, was God. It makes more sense and it's more logical.

I see. An invisible God exists because a part of the universe that we don't have evidence for is complex. [/QUOTE]

Actually we believe these ideas because of the evidence. The implication of the theory of relativity was that the universe was expanding, modeling what would happen in a singularity of the big bang scientists made a model of what should happen. These mathematical and theoretical calculation have been confirmed by observation. For example the specific kind of radiation that should be all over the universe if there was a big bang is everywhere. The universe is proven to be expanding. The universe is very old so if we chart back in time, we find ourselves with smaller and smaller universe. This is just some of the evidence we have.

The theory of evolution has quite a bit of evidence. One is that we have found our ape-like ancestors in the fossil record. For example, a chimp-like ancestor with the ability to walk, and ancestors with much larger brains than normal apes, but too small for humans, had the ability to walk, and had pronounces facial features.

 

[McBell]

Surely, you jest.

Not in the least bit.
Your desperation to put god some whee, anywhere it seems, has been duly noted.

Believe me, I am in no hurry about this subject.

Oh, I believe you.
Cause you are merely flapping your gums in classic stall tactic manner.

I got all the time in the world regarding the truth about God's existence.

And time, along with belief and faith, is ALL you have regarding the "truth" of gods existence.
If you had anything else, you would have presented it.

From the famous lyrics of the Rolling Stones: "Time Is on My Side".

Yes, the ever popular "feed them enough stall tactic bull **** and they will get frustrated and leave. Then victory is mine." debating technique.

 

[Dan4reason]

[/i]
So you get to pick and choose your conspiracy. You acknowledge that there were conspiracy on the deity of Julius Caesar from historians; thus, you believe that Julius Caesar exist but not as a deity. Yet, when it comes to the conspiracy on the deity of Jesus Christ; you not only believe in the conspiracy on his deity; but you also denied his very existence as a man! So I guess everyone's belief is subjective to the available historical documents.

Ummm... I never said that there was a conspiracy. I just said that they were wrong. Just because I got a physics question wrong today does not mean I was conspiring to trick myself. Remember what I said about controvercial claims? If there is some controvercy over the claims, then I am going to ask for some evidence.

Your assumption is because your lack of in-depth study of the Judeo-Christian Religion. Plus, your claims is unsubstantiated at best. But, hey, everyone is entitled to their bias. Some do it for propaganda reasons; some out of ignorance; some out of malice. Who knows why people don't research truth like gold.

:slap:

My claim is substantiated to death. Look what happened to the claim that thunder is made by Zeus, the sky is a person, the volcanoes are Gods, when you feel like doing something bad a spirit devil is tempting you, a person makes the planets move, the stars were all created by a designer, all the animal species were put into a boat, thunder is created by a guy in the sky, and snakes have no legs because God got mad at them. Religious claims are dubious and require some evidence to make up for their bad reputation.

 

[Dan4reason]

I do not think you are able to distinguish mythology from the supernatural. And I think your beliefs are based upon unsubstantiated claims from historians who were short-sighted and bias as well. Basically, what you are saying is you either believe the events or you don't; based upon the testimony of your favorite historian(s).



And the fact that your historians says that God does not exist does not means that they are true. And that fact you had a painful experience with religion does not means that he does not exist. I guess we all get to pick and choose our credibility and evidence from among our favorite so-call experts.

I did not get this idea that God doesn't exist from historians, this is an idea I have come up with while reading the bible and learning about science.

 

[Dan4reason]

I made sure of an avoidance? Hey, guy thousands of year before I was born, there were witnesses of God. I am just part of the this believing generation. Avoiding which evidence? The evidence of his work is in the heavens and the earth. The Holy Bible and archaelogical sources are there as well. Before you and I were born, God began a long and detail plan to save mankind from destruction. And part of that plan includes getting mankind to use their faith in him based on historical evidence; and not a daily physical appearance of His Deity. That would defeat the purpose of his master plan in getting men to exercise their faith. If you see Him; then you would no longer be using faith but sight. Your plans are subject to His plans; and not the other way around. If you truly seek the truth about God; then He will certaintly make Himself known to you; without altering his current plans to remain invisible until the appointed time. And his plan does not place him in the same categories as mythological creatures as fairies; because scholars know that there is still evidence for a true God among false gods. Remember my previous post on astronauts being myths a 1,000 years from now depending on the reader of the picture-less history book.

Why make it a plan to make people believe things without proper evidence? What is the point? Why doesn't God just come down and actually show that he exists and help humanity? The truth is that a good God would never encourage such blind belief and the reality is that faith is really a cop out and is a device by an unproven mythology to brainwash believers into believing without evidence and creates a culture of hostility to those who use their heads.

 

[outhouse]

in my opinion man created god in our image, our imagination to be exact.

for 200,000 years homo sapiens have imagined something for questions he could not answer

the less he knew, the more he imagined

the more he knew the less he imagined.

the point at which our current religions were created are only here becuase thats when we started writing. Nothing more. imagined gods were not more powerful back then and appeared more often, NO mans imagination just got recorded while man knew very little.

funniest thing of all, were so smart now if a man or group of men started a religion today. Every last one of them would be labeled as crazy. but following a 3000 year old sheep herders guide for a good life and using it as a science and history book is completely acceptable. man really hasnt evolved all that much has he.

 

[Orias]

All believers believe in this one description of God:

1. He exists. :angel2:

2. He has supernatural powers that mankind cannot achieve. :angel2:

I believe in God and these are hardly a standard of my belief.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

"How do you know that the universe is not complex? No man has ever travel to every place in the universe to scientifically verified this as fact. Or is this just your belief." ---- OneThatGotAway

I see. An invisible God exists because a part of the universe that we don't have evidence for is complex. Your statement disproves itself.

And I see that you avoided answering my question. Maybe in your mind you believe that the universe is not complex; when in fact it is. I am not the one going around claiming that we know everything about the universe. When in fact the truth of the matter is that we barely know our solar system let alone the earth. How then can you begin to discuss the complexity of God with this kind of short-sightedness on the universe?

"Should we believe you or any scientists that says: Hey world believe us: the planets and stars and the universe has always been there in its present designed state without any designer (Creator). That is ludicrous! " ---- OneThatGotAway

Fred Hoyle said that and he was wrong. The big bang displaced his ideas.

Fred Hoyle may have been wrong; however the Holy Bible is not. The author Wayne Jackson puts it better this way:

"The big bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered universe randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion—a “holocaust,” to use Jastrow’s term. Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting bang. The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: “There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state”

"All you atheists wants us to BELIEVE (without proof) in the BIG BANG and "EVILUTION" because you atheists say so? What kind of crazy religion is that? No observation, no proof, but theories (i.e. beliefs). Sorry, pal. In the beginning, was God. It makes more sense and it's more logical." ---- OneThatGotAway

I see. An invisible God exists because a part of the universe that we don't have evidence for is complex.

And you want us to believe in the mythology (so-called "science" theory) of the Big Bang and Evolution? These are your invisible "gods" which can neither hear nor speak on your behalf.

Actually we believe these ideas because of the evidence. The implication of the theory of relativity was that the universe was expanding, modeling what would happen in a singularity of the big bang scientists made a model of what should happen. These mathematical and theoretical calculation have been confirmed by observation. For example the specific kind of radiation that should be all over the universe if there was a big bang is everywhere. The universe is proven to be expanding. The universe is very old so if we chart back in time, we find ourselves with smaller and smaller universe. This is just some of the evidence we have.

"If the universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter-energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center—consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be expected that the universe would be characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our earth around the sun (cf. Morris 1984, 150)." ---- Wayne Jackson

"For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original big bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the universe itself is not uniform; rather, it is “clumpy,” i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and voids. If the big bang theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case." ---- Wayne Jackson

The theory of evolution has quite a bit of evidence. One is that we have found our ape-like ancestors in the fossil record. For example, a chimp-like ancestor with the ability to walk, and ancestors with much larger brains than normal apes, but too small for humans, had the ability to walk, and had pronounces facial features.

The ape-like fossil discovered does not established evolution. Evolutionists ignore that fact that this fossil could have been one of the following (but not limited to):

1) an abnormal genetically deformed primate (ape, chimpanzee, etc.);
2) an abnormal genetically deformed (retarded) human;
3) an abomination result of bestiality between a man and a ape (common among heathens); i.e. the old proverbial "putting the cart before the horse" possibility

And where is the DNA evidence showing a connection between humans and primate in this fossil (or any fossils) such as the Peking man, Java man, or Neanderthal man?

"Characteristics of these Missing Links between Humans and [so-called] “Early Ancestors”:

Investigating the scientific literature reveals that all these proposed ”missing links” are either very human-like with a trace of some apelike characteristic, or very apelike with a trace of some human characteristic. There is nothing really in between (where you would expect a “real” transitional species). One example of a change seen by scientists would be in the shape of a jaw. The jaws in some apes are almost rectangular and others are more curved. Since the human jaw is roughly parabolic (a rounded “V&#8221, those apes possessing a more curved jaw are claimed to be “more human.” Similarly, a human skull that had a slightly squared jaw would be considered “more apelike.” Therefore, please keep in mind that the tiny variations seen by scientists may actually be variations in normal ape and human populations that are incorrectly labeled as missing links." ---- Copyright © 2001 by Clarifying Christianity

Australopithecus

"Those fossils known as Australopithecines are very apelike. That is, they look exactly like ape fossils except that a close examination of the teeth, or the jaw shape, or minor bones of the skull leads some scientists to think they see faint “human” characteristics. Early attempts to introduce these fossils as “progressive pre hominids” were ridiculed by scientists. One example is the Australopithecus africanus finding at Taungs in 1924 by Dr. R. A. Dart. He considered the apelike skull pieces (consisting of the front of a face and lower jaw) to have slightly human features. The scientists of the day (who were also evolutionists) treated his proposal with great scorn and considered the skull to be a variety of chimpanzee. They called it “Dart’s baby.” Even the evolutionary advocate and “expert on human origins” Teilhard de Chardin (also loosely associated with Peking Man, Java Man, etc.) considered the Australopithecines to be a branch of development that did not continue to progress up to man. That is, even within the “evolutionary community” many scientists believed that these fossils were only apes." ---- Copyright © 2001 by Clarifying Christianity

 

[astarath]

God exists for sure. Proof...come live my life with me. I will show you God.

 

[outhouse]

Evolution Has No Verifiable Evidence

Sir do you lie all the time about your ignornace?

evolution is based on facts and has been verified

if you had any education in science you find your short comings

The ape-like fossil discovered does not established evolution. Evolutionists ignore that fact that this fossil could have been one of the following (but not limited to):

1) an abnormal genetically deformed primate (ape, chimpanzee, etc.);
2) an abnormal genetically deformed (retarded) human;
3) an abomination result of bestiality between a man and a ape (common among heathens); i.e. the old proverbial "putting the cart before the horse" possibility

your right, fossils do not prove evolution. Evolution being based on facts holds strong without fossils at all!

after that your telling all lies based soley on ignorance and not even worth a real debate


in my opinion man created god in our image, our imagination to be exact.

for 200,000 years homo sapiens have imagined something for questions he could not answer

the less he knew, the more he imagined

the more he knew the less he imagined.

the point at which our current religions were created are only here becuase thats when we started writing. Nothing more. imagined gods were not more powerful back then and appeared more often, NO mans imagination just got recorded while man knew very little.

funniest thing of all, were so smart now if a man or group of men started a religion today. Every last one of them would be labeled as crazy. but following a 3000 year old sheep herders guide for a good life and using it as a science and history book is completely acceptable. man really hasnt evolved all that much has he.

 

[PolyHedral]

"How do you know that the universe is not complex?

The universe is quite obviously not complex; It is entirely real.

...I'm sorry, I'll stop with the mathematics jokes now.

And I see that you avoided answering my question. Maybe in your mind you believe that the universe is not complex; when in fact it is. I am not the one going around claiming that we know everything about the universe. When in fact the truth of the matter is that we barely know our solar system let alone the earth. How then can you begin to discuss the complexity of God with this kind of short-sightedness on the universe?

Ad homenim.

Your argument appears to be that the universe is complex, thus it needs a creator. But surely a creator is necessarily equally or more complex than anything it creates?

Fred Hoyle may have been wrong; however the Holy Bible is not. The author Wayne Jackson puts it better this way:

Who is Wayne Jackson? Wikipedia lists a singer, a musician, a General of the Austrailian Armed Forces, and a footballer, and I don't think you mean any of those.

"All you atheists wants us to BELIEVE (without proof) in the BIG BANG and "EVILUTION" because you atheists say so? What kind of crazy religion is that? No observation, no proof, but theories (i.e. beliefs). Sorry, pal. In the beginning, was God. It makes more sense and it's more logical." ---- OneThatGotAway

Want me to produce proof of evolution?

"If the universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter-energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center—consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be expected that the universe would be characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our earth around the sun (cf. Morris 1984, 150)." ---- Wayne Jackson

Wayne Jackson does not know what he is talking about.

For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original big bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform...

but it hasn't. The CMBR is almost, but not quite, uniform, and the reasons for this are an open problem in physics.