INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Wait... what?

I think s/he's saying that since our Universe falls into a spectrum that nothing moves at a temperature of 0 kelvin and there doesn't appear to be anything that can move faster than light (not to sure on that one), then for something to operate beyond those levels it can't exist inside this Universe.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Both the belief that God does exist and the belief that God does not exist has to be done on "faith" because there is not any direct scientific evidence that proves or disproves the existence of God.

This is a fully retarded argument, you don't measure the truthfulness of things by the lack of evidence against it in any other case, do you?

I am god, prove i'm not or i am right.

There you go, a statement that should be simple to prove wrong, right, and yet it's impossible.

So by your logic, having faith in me as a god and not believing that i am god are equal stances and you have faith that i am not god?

Do you have the same considerate faith for all seven billion of us as you do for your religions god? If you do then they are equal prospects, if you don't, apologize.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

I think s/he's saying that since our Universe falls into a spectrum that nothing moves at a temperature of 0 kelvin and there doesn't appear to be anything that can move faster than light (not to sure on that one), then for something to operate beyond those levels it can't exist inside this Universe.

I hope not because that would be absolutely wrong.

We're not discussing Kelvian or Neutonian laws here that have since been discarded, are we? There are not people here who went to school in the 1800's are there?

I am fairly well versed in these matters so to argue it in my presence is kinda daft.

 

[1robin]

Robin, I admire what you are attempting to do and I have been playing this game on internet message boards for twenty years now. And I have a working back ground in science. With that said, the OP of this topic is a trick question because there is no direct scientific proof that God does not exist and there is no direct scientific proof that God does exist. Both the belief that God does exist and the belief that God does not exist has to be done on "faith" because there is not any direct scientific evidence that proves or disproves the existence of God.

1. What I am doing is only admirable if true. If not it is abhorrent. Jesus was either divine or a madman as Lewis suggests so aptly.
2. I have been involved with debate for approx. 20 years as well.
3. I know it is a trick question and have said so many times. I am used to them from non-theistic argumentation and no longer point them out most of the time. I have also conceded many times that proof for a faith proposition is incoherent.
4. However more lines of evidence are consistent with the Bible than I could ever post.
5. I also do science everyday on the latest military aircraft. I am not supposed to give details so I try and not do that, but have dozens of daily reminders of how unreliable even the most reliable science is. We have ordered 12 instruments. All twelve have arrived as failures. If we can't get it right about current and relatively simplistic things it is meaningless concerning multiverses and billions of years ago. Though even that science is consistent with the Bible.
6. I (and billions) have experienced God and have subjective proof. I pretend the question is still open for the benefit of debate but personally know the answer to an almost certainty.
7. No matter the threads title I only claim more than sufficient evidence exists to justify a very reasoned faith and many of histories greatest minds in every field including testimony and evidence agree AND SCIENCE.

Now about science; we live in a physical reality that goes from slightly faster than absolute zero Kalvin (all molecular motion stops) to slightly slower than the speed of light. Anything that reaches absolute zero Kalvin disappears and is gone. Anything that reaches the velocity of the speed of light disappears and is gone. The question is where did it go? Because it went someplace that science can not measure and because science can not measure it, it does not exist in the creation that we experience. It has to have gone outside of the "box or bubble" that we experience as Creation, so to speak. The physicist Stephen Hawking's "Black Hole" math says that it is not gone, but that it has just moved into another dimension. His math basically says that there is more to Creation than what science can at this time measure. Which makes what science can measure at this time, "our box or bubble". There is the possibility that God exists outside of what we experience as Creation (our box) and that because of this He can not be measured by science at this time.

I did not mention anything dependent on temperature of the spectrum of reality we have the capacity to access. Would you like a link to an Oxford pure mathematics professor's demolition of Hawking's philosophical conclusions to fragmentary science guesstimates? The prevailing cosmological model is a single finite universe. Until it is over turned I will go with the more reliable end of the scientific spectrum. We can and should speculate all we wish but the reliable science is consistent with God. Every single aspect of science used to contest God lies in the extreme end of the theoretical.

 

[1robin]

I think s/he's saying that since our Universe falls into a spectrum that nothing moves at a temperature of 0 kelvin and there doesn't appear to be anything that can move faster than light (not to sure on that one), then for something to operate beyond those levels it can't exist inside this Universe.

Why is something outside the universe just because it is outside or our very narrow ability to perceive? Where is outside the universe anyway? How does anyone actually know anything concerning this type of stuff? We get the weather wrong most of the time 48 hours in advance, and can't agree on what happened 100 years ago.

 

[metis]

Whether is occurs was not denied by mean but only the reasons I thought you claimed it had. Is this what you claim to be proof of observed species level evolution?...

Again, note you haven't supplied one shred of evidence to support your "boundaries" or "reality"

"Speciation" means new species have evolved, and those indeed are "kinds" since they cannot reproduce with each other. Even though they may look alike, and they are still related, they are still different enough genetically to be different "kinds". And what kind of magical "boundary" would stop this evolutionary process at your definition of "kinds"? Could you specify what it is, plus supply evidence that it actually exists? If you could do that, then that would be "reality".

Okay. Get life without God. Get evolution of any kind without life. Get a universe without God. Get natural law without God. Get Chemical evolution on the scales necessary without God. Get morality from amoral natural law. Get consciousness from the unconscious. Get the ration from the irrational. Get constants like the expansion rate from initial conditions. Every single example is potential evidence of God or at t least the supernatural, as no natural source is known. Many are assumed but few even have coherent theoretical possibilities without God. Get anything that is from that which is not. Every subsection of reality is evidence for God. No matter how you slice natural reality regressively it does not contain the causes for its self within its self.

If it is so logical that all must come from something, which I actually agree with you on, then what caused "God"? If you say nothing, then you are contradicting yourself even though you don't want to believe that is the case.

Now, note what I am not doing here, namely I'm that I'm not making any claim to know what caused our universe, but you sure have. Is it possible there could be a theistic cause, imo? Yes. Is it possible that sub-atomic particles, or the elements that may comprise them, could go back into infinity? Certainly.

So, which is it? Or is it something else altogether different? I don't know.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Why is something outside the universe just because it is outside or our very narrow ability to perceive? Where is outside the universe anyway? How does anyone actually know anything concerning this type of stuff? We get the weather wrong most of the time 48 hours in advance, and can't agree on what happened 100 years ago.

Shrug it has to be dectable. Our Very Narrow ability to perceive, no longer includes just our senses (mind you we have more than 5 that help us perceive the world)

IT includes microwaves, radiowaves, infrared, ultraviolet, x-rays, and a huge part of the electro-magnetic spectrum. Parts that we are perfecting on detecting every day...so I wouldn't say it is narrow....

 

[1robin]

Shrug it has to be dectable. Our Very Narrow ability to perceive, no longer includes just our senses (mind you we have more than 5 that help us perceive the world)

Did you mean detectable instead of dectable? Outside of our senses most others means have been discovered in the past few hundred years. What are the chances that what we discovered in that short time is even a meaningful fraction of what we will and will that ever be a meaningful fraction of the possible whole. My views embrace what we can't perceive directly.

IT includes microwaves, radiowaves, infrared, ultraviolet, x-rays, and a huge part of the electro-magnetic spectrum. Parts that we are perfecting on detecting every day...so I wouldn't say it is narrow....

I work with these things every single day. Or at least the few days they all actually function properly. I do not know if it is narrow or not but probability suggests it is infinitely narrow. What is the point to all of this? What are you trying to demonstrate or claim?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Did you mean detectable instead of dectable? Outside of our senses most others means have been discovered in the past few hundred years. What are the chances that what we discovered in that short time is even a meaningful fraction of what we will and will that ever be a meaningful fraction of the possible whole. My views embrace what we can't perceive directly.

I work with these things every single day. Or at least the few days they all actually function properly. I do not know if it is narrow or not but probability suggests it is infinitely narrow. What is the point to all of this? What are you trying to demonstrate or claim?

You say our senses are narrow, I assume that you are talking about our five common known senses. I pointed out that what we are able to detect and view is no longer narrow as it once was. We have been able to view the world at multiple points of the electromagnetic spectrum. We continue to advance the machines we use to do so. As such to say "our senses is narrow" means nothing as we don't rely on just our senses.

While your view is not incorrect (There is undoubtly more to be discovered), assuming about it before it is discovered however is not.

 

[Agnostic75]

They often do not like it if it comes with a sacrifice of pride, admissions of the gravest guilt, and the surrender to a higher authority.

But atheists would not have wanted to surrender to Hitler either, but they still believe that he existed, so there have to also be some other reasons why they do not believe that the God of the Bible exists, such as interpolations, and forgeries.

Atheists reject all Gods, including impersonal, non-bossy Gods, not just the God of the Bible, so you are not making any sense.

Surely most atheists approve of proper authority, such as parental authority, military authority, and laws against theft, and murder.

This is the last time I will entertain your demands about what I do with my time and posts. I can speak to what they have claimed about the Quantum. You are doing something far worse anyway. You know little about physics, the quantum, or theology yet speak on them all and even use physicists for theological claims. I can certainly state things that experts have concluded about the quantum and your suggestion otherwise is not only wrong but hypocritical.

You have no reputation at all among physicists. The majority of leading physicists do not believe in God. The National Academy of Sciences are neutral on the existence of God. Your own sources Vilenkin, Borde, Guth, and Penrose never said anything like your claim that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.

You are right that I do not know very much about physics, but although you know a lot more about it than I do, you know far less that the majority of leading physicists do about it, and you have refused to prove that you can adequately defend your arguments at Physics Forums, where there are lots of experts. All that you want to do is to debate other dabblers. If you were confident of your debating abilities, you would be willing to join Physics Forums.

The same arguments apply to your limited knowledge of biology.

It would be wonderful if a moral God exists. What evidence have you provided that a moral God exists?

Please make a post in my thread on the Tyre prophecy at The Tyre prophecy.

The essay that you mentioned by Simon Greenleaf at Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf is nothing special. Greenleaf says:

"The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule. Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."

We could debate those claims alone for years and get nowhere. There are a vast multitude of good reasons to reject those claims. No modern court of law that I am aware of accepts supposed eyewitness testimonies of supernatural events since quite obviously, supernatural events are not the same as natural events, and are far more questionable than natural events are. Current research has shown that supposed eyewitness testimonies in court cases are often unreliable.

If you believe that the Bible is sufficient evidence in a court of law, does that also mean that you disapprove of the separation of church and state, and that you believe that the government should legislate all of the Bible?

 

[1robin]

Again, note you haven't supplied one shred of evidence to support your "boundaries" or "reality"

"Speciation" means new species have evolved, and those indeed are "kinds" since they cannot reproduce with each other. Even though they may look alike, and they are still related, they are still different enough genetically to be different "kinds". And what kind of magical "boundary" would stop this evolutionary process at your definition of "kinds"? Could you specify what it is, plus supply evidence that it actually exists? If you could do that, then that would be "reality".

Claims of science are not true until proven wrong. They are supposed to be observed, reproduced, something. What example of a kind or species has ever been observed to become another kind? I am not for it nor against it but until it is observed it is not a thing at all and consists of mostly faith. You said "we" know it occurred and have observed it then sent me a link about Darwin and tortoises. That is not observation of what you claimed.

If it is so logical that all must come from something, which I actually agree with you on, then what caused "God"? If you say nothing, then you are contradicting yourself even though you don't want to believe that is the case.

Nope. This is the worst mistake that exists in non-theistic arguments. This and Dawkins central argument are the worst arguments possible for atheism and are kind of a running joke among Christians. Things that come into being need causes. Not uncaused things. I have to type this every other day and need to copy and paste it. Anyway. There are two philosophical truths involved here. Things that begin to exist need causes. There must at some point be an uncaused first cause of everything else that needs no cause it self or we would never get anything. An infinite regression of causation with no uncaused first cause will never produce anything and is a logical absurdity. If you start with any effect in the chain and start going backwards you MUST eventually reach an uncaused prime cause. Look up prime mover. I usually give examples and quotes but I just can't type all that out again.

Now, note what I am not doing here, namely I'm that I'm not making any claim to know what caused our universe, but you sure have. Is it possible there could be a theistic cause, imo? Yes. Is it possible that sub-atomic particles, or the elements that may comprise them, could go back into infinity? Certainly.

I did no intend to and usually make sure no to claim to know God created the universe. I claim only that the universe is consistent with the Bible and God is currently the only game in town as a cause. Natural law can't bring anything into being. I have nature and things above nature (supernatural) and nature is invalid. Kind of narrows it down. It is not possible for anything known to have created the universe. There maybe some future discovery that changes this but that is 100% faith and no longer science. Natural law is no creative.

So, which is it? Or is it something else altogether different? I don't know.

I do not know for sure but given what is known if I have to make a decision God is by far the most logical and consistent. You may wish to remain neutral until it is too late but I do not. There is no hero in neutrality. I am given one life to riddle this out and have made my decision and received confirmation. There is little reason to defer judgment until it we can no longer decide anything.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Claims of science are not true until proven wrong. They are supposed to be observed, reproduced, something. What example of a kind or species has ever been observed to become another kind? I am not for it nor against it but until it is observed it is not a thing at all and consists of mostly faith. You said "we" know it occurred and have observed it then sent me a link about Darwin and tortoises. That is not observation of what you claimed.




Nope. This is the worst mistake that exists in non-theistic arguments. This and Dawkins central argument are the worst arguments possible for atheism and are kind of a running joke among Christians. Things that come into being need causes. Not uncaused things. I have to type this every other day and need to copy and paste it. Anyway. There are two philosophical truths involved here. Things that begin to exist need causes. There must at some point be an uncaused first cause of everything else that needs no cause it self or we would never get anything. An infinite regression of causation with no uncaused first cause will never produce anything and is a logical absurdity. If you start with any effect in the chain and start going backwards you MUST eventually reach an uncaused prime cause. Look up prime mover. I usually give examples and quotes but I just can't type all that out again.


I did no intend to and usually make sure no to claim to know God created the universe. I claim only that the universe is consistent with the Bible and God is currently the only game in town as a cause. Natural law can't bring anything into being. I have nature and things above nature (supernatural) and nature is invalid. Kind of narrows it down. It is not possible for anything known to have created the universe. There maybe some future discovery that changes this but that is 100% faith and no longer science. Natural law is no creative.

I do not know for sure but given what is known if I have to make a decision God is by far the most logical and consistent. You may wish to remain neutral until it is too late but I do not. There is no hero in neutrality. I am given one life to riddle this out and have made my decision and received confirmation. There is little reason to defer judgment until it we can no longer decide anything.

Ah so your motivation was fear. If you remain neutral you'll be dealing with something you can't hope to defeat.

And if you can't beat them join them. SO it's survival instincts at play.

 

[1robin]

You say our senses are narrow, I assume that you are talking about our five common known senses.

I hope that is not what I said. The entire spectrum of our capacity to access reality is very likely infinitely narrow. It would be very arrogant to believe we are so smart as to have unriddled the universe in the past few thousand years. As most scientists say "every discovery simply reveals how much more we do not know" Lets just deal with visible light for a second. What percentage of the universe do you think has been fully observed. I would guess less than .000000000000000000001%. What percentage of that has been observed in sufficient detail to fully understand?

I pointed out that what we are able to detect and view is no longer narrow as it once was. We have been able to view the world at multiple points of the electromagnetic spectrum. We continue to advance the machines we use to do so. As such to say "our senses is narrow" means nothing as we don't rely on just our senses.

Yes we know more but logic would suggest it is still infinitely little compared with what exists. We are sitting on a grain of sand speculating about all the sand on the other side of the Pacific. We even speculate on sand we have no reason to believe exists. I am not to confident in that speculation.

While your view is not incorrect (There is undoubtly more to be discovered), assuming about it before it is discovered however is not.

I have one life to make decisions. I did not arrive at faith from science but some may have. We make most of our decisions every day based on less than all the facts. If you wait until all the evidence is in on who your dating they will be gone and married and you will never know. If I wait until I can't decide what good is new information. I made my decision and received confirmation. I am obligated to present truth as best I can given what we know and that is what I attempt to do. Non-theists have a habit I could never understand. There seems to be some kind of vicarious hope in the future on mankind. I do not understand how some future enlightenment (considering we do not destroy all life we know of first) seems to comfort people who do not believe in God. Why? We will all be dust by then and will not know or care. If we can't resolve issue in our given lifespan then what good are solutions to us at all? Maybe you can explain this.

 

[Agnostic75]

Claims of science are not true until proven wrong.

Regarding biology, why should anyone pay any attention to a dabbler like you instead of the about 99.86% of experts who accept macro evolution, which includes the majority of Christian experts?

You have refused to debate experts. That means that your objections to macro evolution are based primarily on faith, which would quickly be proven if you debated some experts at Physics Forums. Your refusal to debate experts also means that you are bluffing since you know that all of your opponents at this forum are amateurs.

I have asked a number of creationists at this website, and at another website, to critique in detail Ken Miller's article on the flagellum, intelligent design, and irreducible complexity at The Flagellum Unspun, but all of them refused to do so. No one who does not adequately understand that article is in a position to claim that all of macro evolution has problems. In the opinions of most experts, in that article, Miller provided overwhelming evidence that intelligent design, and irreducible complexity, have far more serious problems than macro evolution has.

As the Christian, Republican judge at the Dover trial said, creationism is not science. According to the vast majority of experts, science cannot show that creationism is probably true, but it can show that macro evolution, whether theistic, or naturalistic, is probably true.

Only a relative handful of experts accept creationism, and a lot of them also accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory, which means that they are not able to conduct object scientific research.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I hope that is not what I said. The entire spectrum of our capacity to access reality is very likely infinitely narrow. It would be very arrogant to believe we are so smart as to have unriddled the universe in the past few thousand years. As most scientists say "every discovery simply reveals how much more we do not know" Lets just deal with visible light for a second. What percentage of the universe do you think has been fully observed. I would guess less than .000000000000000000001%. What percentage of that has been observed in sufficient detail to fully understand?

Yes we know more but logic would suggest it is still infinitely little compared with what exists. We are sitting on a grain of sand speculating about all the sand on the other side of the Pacific. We even speculate on sand we have no reason to believe exists. I am not to confident in that speculation.

I have one life to make decisions. I did not arrive at faith from science but some may have. We make most of our decisions every day based on less than all the facts. If you wait until all the evidence is in on who your dating they will be gone and married and you will never know. If I wait until I can't decide what good is new information. I made my decision and received confirmation. I am obligated to present truth as best I can given what we know and that is what I attempt to do. Non-theists have a habit I could never understand. There seems to be some kind of vicarious hope in the future on mankind. I do not understand how some future enlightenment (considering we do not destroy all life we know of first) seems to comfort people who do not believe in God. Why? We will all be dust by then and will not know or care. If we can't resolve issue in our given lifespan then what good are solutions to us at all? Maybe you can explain this.

Well that is a very human-like response. We fear death, we fear pain and we fear suffering. So we need assurance. We are also taught that we can't rely on our fellow man (usually through stories and less so actual experience), and so we turn to God, because with God (real or not), you have a being that exemplifies perfection, makes you feel comforted, and makes you feel love. A being that is essentially your ally and everyone elses enemy.

Even if God did not exist the alternative seems too frightening for people (The idea that there is nothing out there but just other people who are just like you, seemingly weak, and without power), and so they will believe in God, because it is assurance. The curse of the Frontal Lobe: That all this thinking, waxing and waning philosophically means nothing.

 

[metis]

Claims of science are not true until proven wrong. They are supposed to be observed, reproduced, something. What example of a kind or species has ever been observed to become another kind? I am not for it nor against it but until it is observed it is not a thing at all and consists of mostly faith. You said "we" know it occurred and have observed it then sent me a link about Darwin and tortoises. That is not observation of what you claimed.

Obviously you didn't look up "speciation", which gives examples and also links to studies, so here's a link: Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Things that come into being need causes. Not uncaused things.

Then what caused God? I have to return back to that because there's really no way of getting around it even if one says God is "spirit" that can't be detected through the senses. Well, if God can't be detected through the senses, then exactly how does one even determine that God even exists? And how do you supposedly know there's only one God?

Now, I am not saying or implying there is no God or Gods, just that I am not certain there is either.

There must at some point be an uncaused first cause of everything else that needs no cause it self or we would never get anything. An infinite regression of causation with no uncaused first cause will never produce anything and is a logical absurdity. If you start with any effect in the chain and start going backwards you MUST eventually reach an uncaused prime cause. Look up prime mover.

You cannot logically offer any evidence whatsoever that there's no such thing as "infinity". In order to do that, you would have to go back into infinity to prove that there's no infinity, which is an oxymoron. And to find evidence that there was a point whereas no matter or energy of any type exists, again you'd have to go back to infinity or the "beginning" of everything, and you can't logically do that either.

Natural law can't bring anything into being.

You do not know that but only believe that, and there's a difference between "know" and "believe".

I have no problem when one says "I believe in God...", or even if one says "I believe in the Gods...". Just because I'm unsure doesn't mean that I think everyone else has to be. Most of my family and my friends are theists, and not only don't I have a problem with what they believe, we attend each others religious functions. And, believe it or not, we never argue religion-- discuss, yes; argue, no.

What I would like to do is to offer up an idea put forth by the Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard, and I hope to get to it a bit later as I have some other things to do right now.

Take care.

 

[metis]

Of all the theological authors I've ever read, the one that stands out as being the most insightful to me is Matthieu Ricard. Even if one were to totally disagree with him, he's still going to make them think.

He has a ph.d. in molecular physics, and was working at the Pasteur Institute with his mentor and Nobel Laureate, Francois Jacob. However, in the early 1970's, he gave that all up and went to work for the Dalai Lama, and has been with him ever since. His books "The Monk and the Philosopher" and "The Quantum and the Lotus" (the latter coauthored with Trinh Xuan Thuan) are top shelf all the way, but I do not recommend the first one unless one is already quite familiar with Buddhist dharma because it's very "heady".

Anyhow, I'll just shortly mention one area that relates to the discussion, but I'll do so very briefly whereas, if there's any questions, I can go on from there and be more elaborate.

In "The Quantum and the Lotus", he poses a problem with believing there's a uncaused creator-god that supposedly created our universe/multiverse. One point is that how can some entity actually create without changing itself? For example, before a painter paints, (s)he must decide to do so, gather up the materials, and go through the motion of painting, all of which involves action that intrinsically are change. If there's no change whatsoever, no action can result. Therefore, any creator-god must change at least a bit in order to create.

But then that leads to another problem, and that is that what would make this creator-god change? IOW, at some point the creator-god would have to be swayed by some outside influence(s) whereas he makes a decision. But that becomes a problem if this creator-god actually originally made all that's "outside" in the first place. Einstein focused in on this problem when he stated how can God not know what He created, and how could there be such a thing as "free will" if God literally created ever single thing?

While I'm at it, Einstein's views are very interesting, and he's very much conflicted over how this all can supposedly mesh together because there's some rather serious problems. Maybe we can get into that later, but right now I'd prefer to just stick with Ricard's questions.

 

[1robin]

But atheists would not have wanted to surrender to Hitler either, but they still believe that he existed, so there have to also be some other reasons why they do not believe that the God of the Bible exists, such as interpolations, and forgeries.

Almost the entire population of Germany, France, Poland, etc.. surrendered. Many were atheists and many do so willingly but I do not get the point. Is a person or group holds a position that is invalid. How would any of them know what was wrong with their reasoning until they gave that position up. Former atheists have much more insight into why they held that belief than those still stuck in it.

Atheists reject all Gods, including impersonal, non-bossy Gods, not just the God of the Bible, so you are not making any sense.

There is no point of reference to resolve this. The closest we can get is the claims of former atheists and you will not accept them. I am certain of what I claim but to even describe the complexities involved here is a daunting task. I can't go through a spiritual warfare and you would not care if I did. This is not resolvable.

Surely most atheists approve of proper authority, such as parental authority, military authority, and laws against theft, and murder.

Is that why they overwhelming support the killing of the most innocent for of human life possible. The unborn. All of the insane rambling about the absence of any moral truth or even truth at all is from the non-theist camp. Again I have no way to resolve this issue with someone who rejects out of hand the majority of reality the applies in this case.

You have no reputation at all among physicists. The majority of leading physicists do not believe in God. The National Academy of Sciences are neutral on the existence of God. Your own sources Vilenkin, Borde, Guth, and Penrose never said anything like your claim that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.

Repeat and explained responded to many times in totality and finality.

You are right that I do not know very much about physics, but although you know a lot more about it than I do, you know far less that the majority of leading physicists do about it, and you have refused to prove that you can adequately defend your arguments at Physics Forums, where there are lots of experts. All that you want to do is to debate other dabblers. If you were confident of your debating abilities, you would be willing to join Physics Forums.

The physics is perfectly consistent with the Bible. The end. Physicists do not make official claims about God either way. They can't do X, so pointing out they did not do X is meaningless. Scientists in every field (most of the ones that created the fields themselves) especially the legendary greats have been men of faith. In fact over the course of history scientists have been overwhelming men of faith. The latest atheistic crop is more a result of cultural issues than theological ones.

The same arguments apply to your limited knowledge of biology.

Sure are as it also is consistent with the Bible.

It would be wonderful if a moral God exists. What evidence have you provided that a moral God exists?

I can make a subjective case but I can't argue objectively with a person who has no foundation for objective moral truth. The greatest test of true love is self sacrifice. We build museums and give the highest medals for even a man who died for his friends. Christ is the greatest example of love in human history and the example of Christians while far from perfect is the greatest example of love of any cultural group. They have both died for those that hated them willingly.

Please make a post in my thread on the Tyre prophecy at The Tyre prophecy.

I did.

The essay that you mentioned by Simon Greenleaf at Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf is nothing special. Greenleaf says:

Holy heck where did you get that from? Did you found the most prestigious legal program in history? He did.

"The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule.

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."

We could debate those claims alone for years and get nowhere. There are a vast multitude of good reasons to reject those claims. No modern court of law that I am aware of accepts supposed eyewitness testimonies of supernatural events since quite obviously, supernatural events are not the same as natural events, and are far more questionable than natural events are. Current research has shown that supposed eyewitness testimonies in court cases are often unreliable.

He gave actual examples of what you claim does not occur. Did you read the whole paper?

If you believe that the Bible is sufficient evidence in a court of law, does that also mean that you disapprove of the separation of church and state, and that you believe that the government should legislate all of the Bible?

I would have to think on that a while. It would not be an all or nothing conclusion. Where do you get this separation from? There is a Bible in the cornerstone of the Washington monument. Almost all the founding fathers were theists or deist (mostly Christians), and there are scriptures carved into the walls of the capitol. Very little separation there.

 

[1robin]

Ah so your motivation was fear. If you remain neutral you'll be dealing with something you can't hope to defeat.

Where did you get that from?

And if you can't beat them join them. SO it's survival instincts at play.

See above.

Fear nor joining any crowds had the slightest thing to do with my being born again (actually the exact opposite) nor that post either. I am lost here.