INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Cephus]

What an atheist would laugh at, deny, ignore, or dismiss without cause is not an argument for anything flattering to atheists.

Your argument is not something flattering to anyone with a rational brain cell in their heads, I'm sorry. It's just sad to see such horrible, irrational, ridiculous claims being touted by the religious as evidence for their faith or a defense of their religion when 10 seconds thinking about it critically reveals just how asinine it really is.

But please, do try harder next time, these arguments from ignorance really do your side no good.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Aren't dogs only descendants of the Grey Wolf?

 

[Cephus]

Aren't dogs only descendants of the Grey Wolf?

Everything is a descendant of something.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Everything is a descendant of something.

Yes, but of all the wolf species the one with the closest link to Dogs is the Grey Wolf.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I AM TALKING ABOUT THIS UNIVERSE. WHERE IS ALL THE LIFE? Most of the universe is hostile to life. How do you factor that in?

I am asking you a very simple question and you just keep giving me the run around. We are talking about this universe, this universe that you keep telling me is fine-tuned for life. WHERE IS ALL THE LIFE?

All of this life is on planet earth.

If you mean that the entire vastness and emptiness of the universe is fine-tuned for life to specifically exist only on earth, then say so. That would bring me to another question, that being, why did your creator waste so much space if he only intended to create life on one miniscule dot in this entire vast universe full of empty space?

Maybe my creator wanted to create life in this "one miniscule dot" and he created this entire vast universe full of empty space" so that his creation can marvel at his work, which is exactly what scientists are doing? What if that was the purpose? Scientists continue to explore all of this vastness, don't they? What if that was the purpose?

I’m concerned about LIFE IN THIS UNIVERSE which is what we’re talking about.

And according to Penrose, LIFE IN THIS UNIVERSE is fine tuned for human life. It is as plain and simple as that.

You are saying the universe is fine-tuned for life, and yet it’s mostly empty space. Life did not have to happen, it simply did. We got lucky.

It doesn't matter, because THIS universe is fine tuned for human life. You call it lucky, I call it precision from a cosmic engineer.

Speculation.

No that is a scientific FACT.

Not if it’s not accepted science, it doesn’t.

Name me one scientists that has called in to question Penrose's calculations. It has been over 20 years since that publication, so name me one scientist that has disputed Penrose's work in this regard.

Why? If those “odds weren’t overcame[sic]” then we wouldn’t be here to speculate about it. Or some other beings would be here possibly speculating about it. So what?

So you are saying it is more rational to believe in those astronomical odds than to believe that an intelligent designer orchastrated the process? And I thought only religious folks played the faith game.

Argument from incredulity.

More like the argument from "best explanation". What I have before me is a universe that is contingent followed by the fact that is specifically designed for human life. Only two explanations can be given to explain the causes of both, and based on effective argumenation in favor of Intelligent Design and the irrationality of naturalism, I conclude that Intelligen Design is the best explanation of the two.

It just so happens that every single process discovered on earth (and in the universe) to date, has been found to have a naturalistic explanation behind it.

False, abiogensis isn't a closed case, and cosmologists can't rule out the God hypothesis, in fact, we have both empirical and logical evidence that points the opposite direction.

Thousands of years ago you could have said “no naturalistic explanation can be given as to how lightning operates or where it comes from so we must assume there is an invisible deity creating it when he gets upset with us.” Good thing there were people who actually cared enough to investigate lightning’s origins, rather than to just leave it at that.

Yeah, and thousands of years ago everyone (except the Judeo-Christian followers) assumed that the universe was infinite and eternal. So "good thing there were people who actually cared enough to investigate the origin of the universe, rather than to just leave it at that ". Now we know that the universe is contingent and therefore had a beginning, and therefore an external cause is necessary.

There are many naturalistic hypotheses as to how this universe was formed. We don’t have to employ god-of-the-gaps simply because we don’t know everything yet.

No natural hypothesis can escape the problem of infinity, which is if nature has always existed, time has always existed, and if time has always existed, then there would be no such thing as a "present" moment if every present moment was preceded by an infinite amount of prior moments.

Well, if another universe was found, it would give us something to compare THIS universe to. For starters.

That is something to satisfy you, but that is not a requirement. If Henry Ford decided to make only ONE automobile and was selfish enough NOT to tell anyone else how he made it, we would have no other automobile to compare it too, but that won't change the fact that the very one that he DID create is fine tuned for transportation. No other vehicle has to be even thought of..the fact is that the one vehicle that he made was fine tuned for transportation.

If I can’t personally build a car with all the available parts provided to me, does that mean it’s impossible to build a car?

Well in the case of the universe, it only had what you had. It isn't as if the universe borrowed "spare" energy from other universes, it only had what it had.

Of course it matters. Having another universe to compare this one to would take us a long way in understanding what conditions need to be present for life to be permissible, how many available conditions there are in which life could be permissible, how many different ways the universe could have formed, etc.

Did we have any computers to compare with before the first computer was made? Did we have any televisions to compare with before the first television was made?

Yet, you won't deny that both the first computer and television was fine tuned??

What is specified order??

My goodness, if you only knew how specified things had to be. For example, right now I am at work (it is a slow day :beach I am using a computer to type this very post. The computer has a CPU and monitor, with a printer and label maker hooked to it, not to mention the keyboard and things like that.

Now just take the monitor alone. Do you know how much goes in to just making the monitor, how much configuration that had to take place? How much engineering? Not just that, the monitor had to be made to be COMPATIBLE with the CPU. Do you know how precise engineers had to be to make the CPU? How much math goes into it? What about the printer? The CPU has to be able to read the printer, and you can't see what you are printing without the monitor (much less print), and the same thing applies to the label maker. If the label maker wasn't made to be compatible with the computer, then it wouldn't work properly.

This is specified complexity. It is not enough to just have the parts, you have to have the MIND, the intellect to be able to configure the parts together to make it all work. It is not something that happened by random chance. You don't get that kind of precision from a explosion at a Dell computer factory.

Now, if you start the universe off with a big bang at which mindless matter and energy and space began to expand, how do you go from the mindless matter and energy, to a configured human body that can think, eat, reproduce, etc.

That is why I think naturalism is completely irrational, and I don't have the faith to become an atheist.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You really have no idea what I am talking about?

Nope, that's why I said so.

Good grief you actually don't what I am talking about do you? Bill Gates described DNA as code (but of a far more sophisticated kind).

So what? Bill Gates is a computer programmer, not a biologist, or a chemist.

The reactions in DNA are chemical ones, not the sharing of information between intelligent minds. It is chemistry.

What builds things? Plans. Where did nature get plans? Behavior is programming? Have you ever seen a C++ disk self originate? Just instincts alone would make C++ look like a children's book. I work with a PhD specialist in information theory discuss these issues almost daily. How did trees formulate the Fibonacci sequence braches obey? How did the nautilus compute Fi? Or sunflowers an interrupted Fibonacci?

Is a disk an organic substance that can reproduce? No. Then what are you talking about?

That is a geological instant. I have never heard a geologists suggest otherwise.

We’re talking about tens of millions of years. We’re not talking about some tiny timescale where evolution wouldn’t have had enough time to occur. That’s the point.

It is called the explosion because it was almost instantaneous not because it blew something up. It is not consistent with traditional evolutionary theories.

It is consistent with evolutionary theory. If it wasn’t, we would no longer have evolutionary theory.

The first line was this: The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life.

Okay so you misrepresented it, and are now correcting that? ??

Did you take note of the word “Seemingly?”

I only saw additional points (mostly may haves and could haves) about things I never mentioned. I never said evolution among things did not occur at that time.

Yes, you did:
After that I am not sure what happened (and do not think anyone does to any meaningful extent until the Cambrian when all major body types exploded on the scene in a geological instant with little to know significant evolution.

I said the organisms that exploded on the scene do not have significant development record preceding them.

That’s not entirely accurate either. There are a number of reasons why there aren’t as many Precambrian fossils as we would like, but they do exist. You, yourself just pointed out that complex life existed before the Cambrian explosion. I live right by the Precambrian Shield, in fact, I was just up that way a couple of days ago. The claims you’re making about the Cambrian explosion are outdated, as are most creationist claims. We’ve discovered and learned a lot since such claims were first made.

How do slow and ponderous changes in genes almost instantly create massive changes in the very types of life forms?

Read the link I provided again.

Then read this:
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion_shows_all_kinds_of_life_appearing_suddenly

Then this:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

Then this:
http://biologos.org/questions/cambrian-explosion

Every knows (including most evolutionists) that this is a anomaly traditional evolutionary theories does not explain.

I doubt it.

What’s an evolutionist exactly, anyway? Do you accept gravitational theory? Should I refer to you as a gravitationalist?

It is a big blur to everyone including you. I am just honest enough to admit it. It is another blur (but less blurry) until recorded history and is still hazy even in the 19th century. I am on two civil war round tables and know very well arguments abound about who was where during pickets charge, even with hundreds of battle reports, thousands of witnesses, and hundreds of studies on the physical debris of Gettysburg. Claiming to know exactly what happened a few hundred million years ago is offensively arrogant and damaging to credibility. For the love we can't predict the weather right more than 48 hours in advance most of the time.

When did I claim anyone knows “exactly what happened” every single second during the last hundred million years? All I said was it isn’t a big blur, like you seem to think.

I will read these when you explain what I said that they are countering. Common design explains what is in their titles just as well or better than evolution (which I never rejected anyway). I only reject evolution alone.

It’s a response to what you said:
I have no real objection to humans coming from other primates but many things cause me to pause. The almost infinite intelligence gap is one. There is no slow steady improvement. There (if true) are huge leaps in much shorter time frames that general evolutionary change rates.

Gee, no wonder you were talking about people not being able to remember the past.
How does common design explain evolutionary changes?
You never rejected evolution but you only rejection evolution alone? What???

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sam Harris is an idiot (in debates anyway). He is the only atheist debater I have ever seen that suggested objective morality exists. Craig backed him into a corner so tight he admitted he assumed they existed. After Craig rightly said you can't assume the premise to the debate topic, Harris defended it by listing many other atheist claims that are assumed (which is the worst justification I have ever heard). He basically said that he could guess at this because they have guessed at everything. I appreciate the information on atheist arbitrary rejection methods but you nor anyone has done the slightest thing to actually show that anything I said fits that contrived description.

Everything in that post was either outright garbage or a half-truth. I think someone even took the time to respond to it all.

I think most of Sam Harris' argument are excellent and it's about time someone put them out there.

 

[SkepticThinker]

One last time. Slow gradual evolution should produce a bunch of catdogs of graduating ratios. Not a bunch of cats and a bunch of dogs that can't interbreed. This might be too complex for a forum. Many other things come into play like tectonics, local catastrophes, predation, etc... but the principle is sound in general.

No it shouldn't. Why do you think it should?

 

[Cephus]

No it shouldn't. Why do you think it should?

The only people who make that kind of claim are those who really don't understand the fundamentals of evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You can say the same thing about a stray pit bull.

Behavioral and physical differences such as what?

The problem is the mixing of your presupposed interpretation with the observation. The observation is things change over time. The interpretation is that things change via macroevolution. But that interpretation is not a fact because no one has ever seen it. It is what you BELIEVE, but as you just told me, it doesn’t matter one bit what you believe (either). We’ve never seen macroevolution, but what we have seen microevolution, and there is a whole lot of microevolution going on.

Dog kind: wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingos, domesticated dogs
Cat kind: lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, jaguars, domesticated cats
Snake kind: pythons, boas, cobras, anacondas, rattlesnakes
Bear kind: Grizzlies, Brown, koala, polar
Throughout the history of mankind, no one has ever reported seeing an animal produce anything other than their kind. Never. So, if you believe such a thing, you are relying on the unseen, because you are sure as heck not relying on observational science.

The observation is of microevolution. I guarandamntee if every living creature on earth disappeared EXCEPT the “dog” kind, a million years later you will find a world populated with nothing but dogs. There may be different varieties of dogs, but they will all be DOGS. There is absolutely no reason to think that during these millions of years, some dogs will slowly lose their snouts and have a half-beak and half snout, and some will grow partial wings and feathers. None. This is evolution fairy tales. Voodoo science.


Has anyone ever observed an animal producing a different kind of animal? I gave you the definition of kind above. In order for all living creatures to share a common ancestor, there had to be a lot of voodoo stuff going on. So you definitely believe it, the question is, where is the observation? I thought observation was a big part of science. I will ask any scientists in that field of study, where is the observational evidence?

I could ask you to do the same thing about your personal beliefs.

First of all, you wont get a different kind of animal based on domestication. Whoever told you that lied to you. There is no correlation between the changes in behavior and the changes in physical characteristics. None. There may be some temperament changes, but that is it. See, this is what I am talking about, pure speculation. You can tame just about any animal, but the animal will always be what it is.

Well, you told me yours, so I told you mines.

More like a different variety of the same kind.

Based on what observation?

Because the phenomenon must meet their presupposition.

This is an unsupported assertion. No one has ever seen micro leading to macro. To believe this, you are leaving science and landing right in the realm of religion.

I will tell you how long it takes to happen. It takes SO LONG TO HAPPEN…that it didn’t happen.

Why bother because I know it won’t be what I am asking for. It will more than likely be an example of microevolution, a concept that I have granted because we have actually seen such a thing occur.

Sure it does.

Yet, all dogs are descendents of the wolf. If you don’t see the contradiction in what you are saying then perhaps you should carefully examine your own argument because it is as clear as day to me.

Different varieties of the same kind of animal. Not a different animal altogether, such as the whale leaving the oceans after it mysteriously evolved into a land mammal.

I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall at this point. I mean, seriously, you're still telling me that in order for macroevolution to have occurred, some animal would have had to give birth to a completely different animal. You don't understand evolution, that is clear. And it's probably why you don't accept it. Have you ever seen an undomesticated, wild banana? I bet if I put one of those up to one of the genetically modified bananas we have now without telling you what they were, you'd have a hard time telling me they're the same "kind."

Your personal belief stands in direct opposition to all known science, from virtually every single scientific field of inquiry. It's not my personal hypothesis or belief that you disagree with, it's ALL KNOWN SCIENCE. Evolution is the one of the most, if not the most well supported and attested scientific theories in existence. It is fact. You can personally believe whatever you like, just know that all it is, is your belief. And it runs counter to known facts.

 

[Cephus]

I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall at this point. I mean, you're still telling me that in order for macroevolution to have occurred, an animal had to give birth to a completely different animal. You just don't get it.

Your personal beliefs are in opposition to all known science from just about every scientific field in existence. It is not my personal opinion, or hypothesis that you don't agree with, it is ALL KNOWN SCIENCE. Evolution is one of the most, if not the most, well supported and attested scientific theories in existence. Just so you know. You can believe whatever you want, so long as you know that is all it is.

That's what happens when theists base their scientific "knowledge" on what apologists tell them instead of what science actually says.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Aren't dogs only descendants of the Grey Wolf?

I think so.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The only people who make that kind of claim are those who really don't understand the fundamentals of evolution.

Yep. That's why I asked for an explanation.

 

[Cephus]

Yep. That's why I asked for an explanation.

Unfortunately, they're not going to pay any attention when you explain why they're wrong. Reality doesn't matter to these people, only their personal emotional security blanket.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Unfortunately, they're not going to pay any attention when you explain why they're wrong. Reality doesn't matter to these people, only their personal emotional security blanket.

Yeah, it's $&^(@)Q%^ frustrating!

 

[Thief]

I do believe there's sufficient evidence to possibly conclude that what we see in these accounts are to be taken as allegory. With what we now know, a literalistic approach doesn't make much sense.

Because of a recent find in northern Israel that involves a Cuneiform text covering some of the main themes of Genesis 1-2 that predates the writing of Genesis, what appears to have happened is that the author(s) of these accounts took the Babylonian narrative and modified it to teach our values and beliefs. This is not at all unusual since all cultures do this, nor does it in any way invalidate the teachings found within these creation accounts.

Therefore, the most important issue really isn't whether these accounts are accurate renditions of history but is more on what is actually being taught here in the area of values and beliefs, which has a major effect on our morality.

Regardless the source of the account....someone had to be first.

That the Genesis account includes selection of a specimen, ideal living conditions, anesthesia, surgery, cloning and genetic manipulation...
strong indication of interference by Something Greater...

The Genesis account is an introduction.
It would be the introduction that a Greater Power....has been here.
There was interaction.
That interaction resulted in the making of Adam....and Eve.

Did you notice?
Eve had no navel?

 

[Thief]

Your argument is not something flattering to anyone with a rational brain cell in their heads, I'm sorry. It's just sad to see such horrible, irrational, ridiculous claims being touted by the religious as evidence for their faith or a defense of their religion when 10 seconds thinking about it critically reveals just how asinine it really is.

But please, do try harder next time, these arguments from ignorance really do your side no good.

Are you not making a gross assumption?
Which would not be flattering to anyone on your side of the argument.

 

[Cephus]

Are you not making a gross assumption?
Which would not be flattering to anyone on your side of the argument.

Would you like me to disassemble your claim and show you how absurd it is? I can do it, I just doubt that it would mean a thing, you'll likely just ignore it and continue on making the same ridiculous claims.

 

[Thief]

Would you like me to disassemble your claim and show you how absurd it is? I can do it, I just doubt that it would mean a thing, you'll likely just ignore it and continue on making the same ridiculous claims.

Been doing this most of my life.
Got an IQ of 125.
Trained in argument and logic.
Believe in God because of science.
Been here at the forum four and half years.

Go for it.

 

[McBell]

Would you like me to disassemble your claim and show you how absurd it is? I can do it, I just doubt that it would mean a thing, you'll likely just ignore it and continue on making the same ridiculous claims.

Wow.
You really did hit that nail square on the head.