Existence of God. Can debate satisfy atheist ?

[MikeF]

No actually the balls still in your court..

Your still called into question by your question..
So what proof do you that God doesn't exist..
As you can see..I will not fall for your excuses and that's all your doing is trying to avoid answering your own question.
Therefore your called into question by your own question..
So what proof of evidence do you have that God doesn't exist..
So therefore the ball is still in your court..

Would you agree that people can believe things that are not true or real?

 

[Polymath257]

The scientist that stood up..they are called into question by their own question..
Therefore that scientists is called into question by their own question..

This is what I don't understand about your position. How is the scientist 'called into question by their own question'?

To ask for evidence requires nothing beforehand. In fact, it is the *first* step.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So does that mean Christianity does not make real sense? I guess they are the gods who know the real deal?

In general, there are two kinds of people, those who think the scriptures make sense and those who don't. Let each make up their own mind and live with their decision.

And that seems to be what they, I and you have done.

 

[ppp]

Just another excuse

Nope. I don't need an excuse. You are simply wrong.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You've been told wrong or you misunderstood what you were told. All the universe is evidence of is that the universe exists. Claiming God Did It! is nothing more that wishful thinking.

Which have I misunderstood?

1) Physical law tells us matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed

2) So nothing that is was created

3) To circumvent the obvious, some claim this law was not in force at Planck time/expansion time, without any reason/proof, thus a just-so story

I don't claim "God did it!" I claim there is evidence the Bible is authoritative, including fulfilled prophecy, showing God's prescience.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

No actually the balls still in your court..

Your still called into question by your question..
So what proof do you that God doesn't exist..
As you can see..I will not fall for your excuses and that's all your doing is trying to avoid answering your own question.
Therefore your called into question by your own question..
So what proof of evidence do you have that God doesn't exist..
So therefore the ball is still in your court..

Evolution created the world and universe not any god.
The ball is in your court now.

 

[ppp]

1) Physical law tells us matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed

Then no creator is needed.

 

[MikeF]

Evolution created the world and universe not any god.
The ball is in your court now.

For clarification, the Theory of Evolution only explains the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over time. The Big Bang Theory is the current working model for how the cosmos began 13.8 billion years ago and became what we observe today.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually, the law is also problematic in general relativity because of curvature considerations. Strictly speaking, the total amount of energy in a region cannot even be defined in general relativity.

There are also more subtle violations of this law in quantum systems because of what are known as quantum fluctuations. In particular, violations are allowed in time scales given by a Heisenberg uncertainty condition.

In particular, on the Planck scale, we have both large curvature and violations because of quantum fluctuations. So, no, it isn't hand-waving at all, but entirely in line with other things we know.

If you cannot define a finite quantity you cannot justify it's origin (or final destiny).

It is not "entirely in line with other things we know" to say "the universe just is". You cannot have it both ways logically, "it's okay for matter and energy to be created, sometimes, from NOTHING".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Or maybe that the total net energy of the universe is zero, and that explains it? What's the Total Energy In the Universe? | Live Science

That explains WHAT? The existence of everything is explained by "Everything equals zero"?

That sounds like atheist/materialist philosophy all right. Christianity says everything has profound meaning.

 

[Heyo]

The person that's asking for the evidence.
That person is called into question by their own question..
That person must prove what their asking first...
Before the other person has to say or give any evidence..

Where did you get that idea from?
You are trying to make up a rule of debate that is unprecedented.
I looked it up and found no such rule.
There is, however, the Burden of Proof an established rule of debate.
You are trying to shift the burden of proof with no reason what-so-ever.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Would you agree that people can believe things that are not true or real?

That does happen..
But when someone ask another for proof of something..
That person is called in question by their own question..
For a person to ask another for proof..that person must first give proof of what their asking first..

 

[Faithofchristian]

This is what I don't understand about your position. How is the scientist 'called into question by their own question'?

To ask for evidence requires nothing beforehand. In fact, it is the *first* step.

But when someone ask another for proof of something..
That person is called in question by their own question..
For a person to ask another for proof..that person must first give proof of what their asking first..
It's that simple..
Don't ask if you don't have the proof to back up what your asking..
It's that's simple..

 

[Polymath257]

If you cannot define a finite quantity you cannot justify it's origin (or final destiny).

I have no idea what you mean by this.

It is not "entirely in line with other things we know" to say "the universe just is". You cannot have it both ways logically, "it's okay for matter and energy to be created, sometimes, from NOTHING".

But that is precisely what happens in quantum fluctuations.

And, in regard to the universe, the 'universe from nothing' scenarios point out that the total energy of the universe is *zero*

 

[Faithofchristian]

Evolution created the world and universe not any god.
The ball is in your court now.

Nope not at all the ball is still in your court..
But when someone ask another for proof of something..
That person is called in question by their own question..
For a person to ask another for proof..that person must first give proof of what their asking first..
It's that simple..
Don't ask if you don't have the proof to back up what your asking..
It's that's simple..

 

[Polymath257]

But when someone ask another for proof of something..
That person is called in question by their own question..
For a person to ask another for proof..that person must first give proof of what their asking first..
It's that simple..
Don't ask if you don't have the proof to back up what your asking..
It's that's simple..

That makes no sense. You don't have to have a proof to ask a question. In particular, you don't have to prove the opposite of what you are asking about.

I don't know where you got this viewpoint, but it is exceedingly unusual.

 

[Polymath257]

That explains WHAT? The existence of everything is explained by "Everything equals zero"?

No, now *explained*, *allowed*. And it isn't 'everything equals zero', but that the total energy is zero.

In other words, it shows that your bringing up the conservation of energy is an invalid argument.

But we can go further. Technically, the conservation of energy says that the total energy of a system at one time is equal to the total energy at a different time: the total energy does not change.

And, even if the universe had a beginning, that would still be the case. It is possible (even predicted by general relativity) that time simply cannot be extended prior to the Big Bang. In other words, there would be no violation of the conservation of energy because there was no previous time to do the comparison with.

But, there are other possibilities. For example, in most versions of quantum gravity, the Big Bang is a type of phase transition between the universe now and the universe that existed prior to the Big Bang. And that prior universe existed infinitely far back in time. Hence, there again would be no violation of the conservation of energy: the total energy would have been the same for all times.

That sounds like atheist/materialist philosophy all right. Christianity says everything has profound meaning.

OK, but that is irrelevant to your argument.

 

[Polymath257]

But when someone ask another for proof of something..
That person is called in question by their own question..

No, they are not.

For a person to ask another for proof..that person must first give proof of what their asking first..

No, that is *never* a requirement.

It's that simple..
Don't ask if you don't have the proof to back up what your asking..
It's that's simple..

If you are asking a question or asking for proof, you aren't saying anything. You are requiring the other person to back up what they claim.

 

[MikeF]

No, they are not.



No, that is *never* a requirement.



If you are asking a question or asking for proof, you aren't saying anything. You are requiring the other person to back up what they claim.

I think @Faithofchristian might be having some fun at the expense of "non-believers". See how long they will keep responding despite giving the same answer. I fold.

 

[Ancient Soul]

Sure there is. The persistent lack of evidence in spite of thousands of years of investigation under circumstances that *should* show evidence is actually evidence against the existence.

But, again, as always, the burden of proof is on the one making a positive existence claim, not on the one denying it.

For example, I do not have to show the non-existence of Bigfoot. Those who claim Bigfoot exists have to supply positive evidence of such.



One big problem is that believers never describe the type of evidence that would show a difference between a universe with a God and a universe without one. They also never define the properties of this God in such a way that it *could* be tested. And, they never describe an observation that, if it goes the way they don't expect, would convince them of the non-existence.

ALL of these are basic for any honest claims for the existence of something.

I don't see any evidence presented that proves God does not exist.