There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

It depends on what you mean by "created".

create
kriːˈeɪt/Submit
verb
1.bring (something) into existence."he created a thirty-acre lake"

synonyms: generate, produce, design, make, fabricate, fashion, manufacture, build, construct, erect, do, turn out; bring into being, originate, invent, initiate, engender, devise, frame, develop, shape, form, mould, forge, concoct, hatch;

They were "arranged" from pre-existing material. They didn't pop into being. We still haven't observed something "coming into existence" and that is an important distinction to make.

And neither will you observed something "coming into existence" from nothing. Ex-nihilo-nihil-fit is a fallacy. It can never happen as you cannot create anything from nothing as nothing does not exist in our universe or before it existed. Stuff can only be created from stuff because stuff is all that there is.

Perhaps but I haven't seen a single point stick so far. Do you have a basic rundown of the evidences you feel makes god "more likely" ?

Do you know I haven't. I have never thought about it before, but, it is a good idea, thanks.

 

[Serenity7855]

You have said this to just about everybody in this entire thread.

No, I haven't

 

[Bunyip]

No, I haven't

Sure you have, everyone starts here trying to politely address your very insulting OP. Any response that effectively challenges your claims is met with pretty much the same ad hominem brush off about forum atheists. (The ones you refer to as mindless brain washed bigots in your opening comment).

Any intelligent response is characterised as atheist venom.

 

[adi2d]

Sure you have, everyone starts here trying to politely address your very insulting OP. Any response that effectively challenges your claims is met with pretty much the same ad hominem brush off about forum atheists. (The ones you refer to as mindless brain washed bigots in your opening comment).

Any intelligent response is characterised as atheist venom.

Even some of the not so intelligent responses like mine

 

[Monk Of Reason]

create
kriːˈeɪt/Submit
verb
1.bring (something) into existence."he created a thirty-acre lake"

synonyms: generate, produce, design, make, fabricate, fashion, manufacture, build, construct, erect, do, turn out; bring into being, originate, invent, initiate, engender, devise, frame, develop, shape, form, mould, forge, concoct, hatch;



And neither will you observed something "coming into existence" from nothing. Ex-nihilo-nihil-fit is a fallacy. It can never happen as you cannot create anything from nothing as nothing does not exist in our universe or before it existed. Stuff can only be created from stuff because stuff is all that there is.

Actually the ex-nihilo-hihil-fit is a postulated philosophical argument not based in scientific evidence. Its a great logical argument and I have a great respect for the philosophy. However when it comes to the creation of the universe, known science breaks down and we don't know if the basis of our philosophies also break down.

Also the ancient argument "from nothing nothing comes" is based on an assumption based upon our limited understanding and observation. Everythin we have ever seen "created" was "made" from "something" that was there before. So it is a very logical conclusion that everything we have today was created from something else. However when we talk about the "creation" or "origin" of where these things came from we loose any meaning from that argument. Or at least we potentially loose all meaning from that argument.

Do you know I haven't. I have never thought about it before, but, it is a good idea, thanks.

Well when you get the list send it to me!

 

[Serenity7855]

Of course we see objects coming into existence everyday – but only from or within already existent matter!

But how else could objects come into existence unless there were element to use. Plus, it is impossible for it to come from nothing as there is no nothing in our universe just something so an object has no alternative but to come into existence from something.

You agree that matter doesn’t begin to exist in the universe but only changes its material form, as per the manufacturing examples you gave.

Yes

But it is self-contradictory to say “elements are eternal in nature”. Everything in nature is contingent and finite, and therefore matter cannot be eternal, and also would involve an infinite regress of causes, which is absurd. It is this, the perennial infinity problem that nullifies any proposal of eternally existing matter.

Genesis 2

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

You see, everything was created in the spirit before it was created in the flesh. Spirit is eternal and tangible. It is matter, not unlike quantum sub-automic particles. That is the great thing about the plan of Salvation. It is perfect. My old Mollie, a Jack Russell Dog, died two years ago aged 16. It was like losing a close friend. I was devastated at her parting and still get choked up when I look at her photos. Thankfully, I sincerely believe that I will see Mollie again. Imagine how hard it would be if I had to accept that an animal who I dearly loved I would never ever see again. I am in a win win situation. If I am wrong then it will not matter as I will be dead. If I am right then I will be elated to see my Mollie again. I cannot lose either way.

I have probably learned more in this thread then any other thread I have taken part in. I have had to adjust my opinions many times as a result of new knowledge being presented to me by the likes of posters such as yourself. But nothing that has been said has phased my testimony of divinity, on the contrary, I knew little about quantum theories before starting this thread. I know a lot more now, which still isn't much, but I am convinced that quantum sub-automic particles is probably closer to God's design then any other science is. Particles that alter their state by being observed is miraculous. I find it awesome and another witness for the existence of God.

 

[Serenity7855]

Is it permissible to ask where God came from?

Well yes, of course. God has always existed.

Science can postulate the existence of many universes. Our universe caused by a prior one. Still model goes back to a time where there was nothing. So whether the first universe came from nothing or God came from nothing to create this one.

Yes it can, and I see no reason why we should be unique.

A thought provoking argument, however, element, like God, is eternal. It has always existed, it was never created.

Science doesn't have an answer of something from nothing anymore then religious belief. That doesn't provide proof for God any more then not having a cause for God proves it was possible for the universe came from nothing.

No, I would agree, that science does not have an answer of something from nothing doesn't provide proof for God. God does not need a cause though as he has always existed.

Actually since it is a matter of a lack of knowledge both could be equally wrong.

Yes, very much so.

 

[serp777]

There are several problems with the cosmillogical argument. The most crucial objection to the argument itself is that unless we know that premise 2 is true, the argument fails. If the universe is infinitely old, for instance, every thing could indeed be caused by something else before it; the series of causes could go back forever. But perhaps more importantly, one could hold that the argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causes—multiple gods, say—or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. Finally, the argument holds that God is required to explain the existence of the universe, but offers no explanation for why God exists. If you invoke God to answer the question "Why is there a universe rather than nothing?" you raise the further question "Why is there a God rather than nothing?" The fundamental question—"Why is there something rather than nothing?" is still unanswered

A crucial premise of William Lane Craig's kalam cosmillogical argument (KCA) is that the universe began to exist. Craig supplements the KCA itself with a secondary argument for this crucial premise. That secondary argument, in turn, presumes that an actual infinite cannot exist. In this essay, Jeffrey T. Allen argues that if an omniscient God exists, the premise that an actual infinite cannot exist is false, as an omniscient God would need to know an infinite number of truths about himself. Thus Craig's defense of his KCA appears to entail a premise that contradicts the conclusion of his KCA. As long as Craig does not offer some alternative defense of the KCA premise that the universe began to exist, and unless he can justify limiting to the physical world his KCA premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause, he must either concede that it is false that an actual infinite cannot exist, or else that God does not exist.

 

[Serenity7855]

There are several problems with the cosmillogical argument. The most crucial objection to the argument itself is that unless we know that premise 2 is true, the argument fails. If the universe is infinitely old, for instance, every thing could indeed be caused by something else before it; the series of causes could go back forever. But perhaps more importantly, one could hold that the argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causes—multiple gods, say—or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. Finally, the argument holds that God is required to explain the existence of the universe, but offers no explanation for why God exists. If you invoke God to answer the question "Why is there a universe rather than nothing?" you raise the further question "Why is there a God rather than nothing?" The fundamental question—"Why is there something rather than nothing?" is still unanswered

A crucial premise of William Lane Craig's kalam cosmillogical argument (KCA) is that the universe began to exist. Craig supplements the KCA itself with a secondary argument for this crucial premise. That secondary argument, in turn, presumes that an actual infinite cannot exist. In this essay, Jeffrey T. Allen argues that if an omniscient God exists, the premise that an actual infinite cannot exist is false, as an omniscient God would need to know an infinite number of truths about himself. Thus Craig's defense of his KCA appears to entail a premise that contradicts the conclusion of his KCA. As long as Craig does not offer some alternative defense of the KCA premise that the universe began to exist, and unless he can justify limiting to the physical world his KCA premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause, he must either concede that it is false that an actual infinite cannot exist, or else that God does not exist.

Yes, you are quite right. If there was no big bang then there was no cause. I am taking the word of people like Stephen Hawkins and Brian Cox. If they are wrong then the whole thread is a waste of time. Cannot argue with you on that point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, I haven't

The readers of the thread can decide for themselves.

I've read the entire thread and I've seen you say it over and over and over again.

 

[Serenity7855]

The readers of the thread can decide for themselves.

Are you playing to an audience or are you debating a point. Either way you are lying.

I've read the entire thread and I've seen you say it over and over and over again.

I may have said things like it to aggressive atheist, such as you, however, it would have been in retaliation to your nasty insults and attacks on me. It still makes you a liar, and we can let the readers of the thread decide for themselves. A little advice to those readers, check this guys history, he is hostile to every single Christian that I have seen him posting to.

 

[serp777]

Yes, you are quite right. If there was no big bang then there was no cause. I am taking the word of people like Stephen Hawkins and Brian Cox. If they are wrong then the whole thread is a waste of time. Cannot argue with you on that point.

You completely ignored the rest of the argument, like the bit about multiple uncaused causes, etc. Also There are no authorities in physics and the big bang is the least understood phenomena in the universe. Just because stephen hawking or Brian cox says something of which there is extremely limited scientific evidence does not make it so, especially since time didn't necessarily exist linearly in the big bang, which throws causality out the window.

 

[Shad]

Are you playing to an audience or are you debating a point. Either way you are lying.



I may have said things like it to aggressive atheist, such as you, however, it would have been in retaliation to your nasty insults and attacks on me. It still makes you a liar, and we can let the readers of the thread decide for themselves. A little advice to those readers, check this guys history, he is hostile to every single Christian that I have seen him posting to.

The only thing that was nasty is when people point of your fallacies and illogical arguments you become emotional and try to play games by picking what counts and what does not count. When called out you become defensive and accuse others of insults and being "aggressive". The aggression shown is your over-emotional reaction to your own illogical thoughts and this being made public. People reply in kind as it is clear that you do not know what you are talking about but follow your own illogical thoughts anyway. You do this due to your ignorance and your inability to even to attempt to understand your own arguments and that others. Your failure to understand logic and the completely refusal to learn when people try to example by examples outside the KCA.

 

[Bunyip]

Are you playing to an audience or are you debating a point. Either way you are lying.



I may have said things like it to aggressive atheist, such as you, however, it would have been in retaliation to your nasty insults and attacks on me. It still makes you a liar, and we can let the readers of the thread decide for themselves. A little advice to those readers, check this guys history, he is hostile to every single Christian that I have seen him posting to.

It is not a lie. Do you want us to start posting quotes? There would be hundreds of example to show that he is not lying. Bearing false witness is not very Christian buddy. I took screenshots of several dozen of your attacks.

And these would all be where you are lauching the first strike - just to establish that they were not as you claim retaliation.

If you can't participate beyond name calling and lies. whay are you here?

A little advice to readers - read the thread.

 

[Serenity7855]

Actually the ex-nihilo-hihil-fit is a postulated philosophical argument not based in scientific evidence. Its a great logical argument and I have a great respect for the philosophy. However when it comes to the creation of the universe, known science breaks down and we don't know if the basis of our philosophies also break down.

Also the ancient argument "from nothing nothing comes" is based on an assumption based upon our limited understanding and observation. Everythin we have ever seen "created" was "made" from "something" that was there before. So it is a very logical conclusion that everything we have today was created from something else. However when we talk about the "creation" or "origin" of where these things came from we loose any meaning from that argument. Or at least we potentially loose all meaning from that argument.

Well when you get the list send it to me!

I really feel like I should tell you this. If there is ever a chance that I might ever become an atheist, which I doubt, I would want to be an atheist just like yourself. Straight talking, pulling no punches, yet polite and honest. There is nothing wrong in having different beliefs and having the courage to stand by those beliefs, telling it like you really believe it is, as long as you are amicable and polite with it. I admire people like yourself, you are a worthy opponent. I sorry if I have embarrassed you, but I really felt like I should tell you that

 

[Shad]

Yes, you are quite right. If there was no big bang then there was no cause. I am taking the word of people like Stephen Hawkins and Brian Cox. If they are wrong then the whole thread is a waste of time. Cannot argue with you on that point.

Hawkings works on the no-boundary universe exludes an external causes. He proposes a self or uncaused universe (standard cosmology) devoid of God. God never enters any experiment as this is outside of science. God is not required for no boundary theory. He continuously rejects God as a creator and the afterlife. If you are going to talk about someone at least know what they are talking about first...

Read his book The Grand Design.

 

[Serenity7855]

Hawkings works on the no-boundary universe exludes an external causes. He proposes a self or uncaused universe (standard cosmology) devoid of God. God never enters any experiment as this is outside of science. God is not required for no boundary theory. He continuously rejects God as a creator and the afterlife. If you are going to talk about someone at least know what they are talking about first...

Read his book The Grand Design.

Again, so what? My point was that he says that a big bang took place 13.7 billion years ago.

 

[Serenity7855]

The only thing that was nasty is when people point of your fallacies and illogical arguments you become emotional and try to play games by picking what counts and what does not count. When called out you become defensive and accuse others of insults and being "aggressive". The aggression shown is your over-emotional reaction to your own illogical thoughts and this being made public. People reply in kind as it is clear that you do not know what you are talking about but follow your own illogical thoughts anyway. You do this due to your ignorance and your inability to even to attempt to understand your own arguments and that others. Your failure to understand logic and the completely refusal to learn when people try to example by examples outside the KCA.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

 

[Serenity7855]

It is not a lie. Do you want us to start posting quotes? There would be hundreds of example to show that he is not lying. Bearing false witness is not very Christian buddy. I took screenshots of several dozen of your attacks.

And these would all be where you are lauching the first strike - just to establish that they were not as you claim retaliation.

If you can't participate beyond name calling and lies. whay are you here?

A little advice to readers - read the thread.

For every proclaimed attack I have made you have made two. I just prefer not to read them as soon as I see another. If you want to get back at me so much and be that puerile then be my guest. I believe I accused you of playing to an audience as well and of getting more aggressive when a pack forms. But be my guest and fulfil your threat and I will report you as the troll and troublemaker that you are.

Good advice though, if the reader wants to see the definition of an aggressive atheist, read his post. Not just to me, but to all Christians. I know that because I put him on my ignore list as advised by other Christians here. Christian here would do well to avoid him as he does not want to debate he wants to agitate you. His best trick is to falsely entrap you and then stand back, snuggly pointing his figure and laughing.

 

[Shad]

Again, so what? My point was that he says that a big bang took place 13.7 billion years ago.

No-boundary theory is the idea that there is no boundary outside of the universe. There is no external. Everything that exists does so within space-time. This taken with the BB means there is no external cause. If there is a God, God it a product of the universe not the producer/cause of it.

If you are going to site an authority at least read what theories they support. This way you are not citing someone that concludes God is not necessary or possible