There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

What "counterfeit arguments" are you refering to specifically? I thhik I understand what you are trying to say, but you claim something that doesn't seem possible.

There are many that are constantly being used by those who do not fully see. For example. It does not seem possible that the big bang was causeless, yet, there are many who believe that it was, or that it is a equal possibility, despite the fact that the entire universe is predominantly governed by cause and effect. That is precisely the counterfeit argument that I refer to, that is, that they are using "a straw man fallacy"

You say that "the By Chance idea is hugely more improbable than a supernatural being is," but you do not explain why.

Remember that God is only supernatural because he acts outside of natural laws. If his laws were our laws, He would not be a supernatural being, but would be an entity that we would fully comprehend and understand. Christians, that have been converted by the Holy Ghost, see God as a natural being. It is those who restrict themselves to the knowledge and comprehension of mankind's imperfect understanding that see him as supernatural.

I do not explain why, simply because I do not feel that something, that seems to me to be so obvious, would necessitate an explanation. There are a host of Web sites available, where statitions and probabilists have given complex probability calculations that demonstrate the implausibility of the "by chance" postulation. The God Theory is backed with a multitude of supernatural and natural circumstantial evidences that culminate in reasonable evidence. What reasonable evidence exists for the "by chance" straw man. All I hear is the claimed uncaused events in Quantum physics.

ld say that the lack of scientific explanation is, most likely, due to a lack of scientific discovery. In short, we haven't yet discovered an explanation. I think it seems foolish to assume the supernatural simply because science has failed to discover a natural explanation. How do you reconcile this?

But that is what the word "supernatural" defines. The inability to comprehend phenomenon that cannot be explained by using naturalistic laws. It is just the opposite of natural. I think it is a very apt descriptive word for events that, as you have said, science has failed to discover a natural explanation, Yet. The biggest mistake made by the non-believer is to segregate supernatural and natural science. They are synonymous. To separate them merely gives you a half of the picture. How can you determine the subject of the picture when only half of it exists.

su·per·nat·u·ral
(so͞o′pər-năch′ər-əl)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

supernatural - definition of supernatural by The Free Dictionary

 

[Serenity7855]

There never is

There always is. You just do not see the wood for the forest of trees. It is like the visionary illusions you need to look at them in a certain way in order to see the pattern. If you don't then you will never see it.

You probably see Albert Einstein on this picture. However, if you stand up and step 15 feet away, you will see Marilyn Monroe on the same picture. Do the same with christianity to see the Saviours Face hidden in the picture of Richard Dawkins

 

[leibowde84]

There are many that are constantly being used by those who do not fully see. For example. It does not seem possible that the big bang was causeless, yet, there are many who believe that it was, or that it is a equal possibility, despite the fact that the entire universe is predominantly governed by cause and effect. That is precisely the counterfeit argument that I refer to, that is, that they are using "a straw man fallacy"




Remember that God is only supernatural because he acts outside of natural laws. If his laws were our laws, He would not be a supernatural being, but would be an entity that we would fully comprehend and understand. Christians, that have been converted by the Holy Ghost, see God as a natural being. It is those who restrict themselves to the knowledge and comprehension of mankind's imperfect understanding that see him as supernatural.

I do not explain why, simply because I do not feel that something, that seems to me to be so obvious, would necessitate an explanation. There are a host of Web sites available, where statitions and probabilists have given complex probability calculations that demonstrate the implausibility of the "by chance" postulation. The God Theory is backed with a multitude of supernatural and natural circumstantial evidences that culminate in reasonable evidence. What reasonable evidence exists for the "by chance" straw man. All I hear is the claimed uncaused events in Quantum physics.




But that is what the word "supernatural" defines. The inability to comprehend phenomenon that cannot be explained by using naturalistic laws. It is just the opposite of natural. I think it is a very apt descriptive word for events that, as you have said, science has failed to discover a natural explanation, Yet. The biggest mistake made by the non-believer is to segregate supernatural and natural science. They are synonymous. To separate them merely gives you a half of the picture. How can you determine the subject of the picture when only half of it exists.

su·per·nat·u·ral
(so͞o′pər-năch′ər-əl)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

supernatural - definition of supernatural by The Free Dictionary

I think you would benefit by looking at the multiverse theory and the eternal explosion/implosion theory, as I felt the same way you did until I researched both and saw that they were, in fact, plausible. Quantum mechanics/physics operates under a different set of laws than normal physics. This is something that we are just beginning to figure out. For example, in quantum physics we see that certain atoms disapear and reapear in a completely different location seemingly without rhyme or reason. Now, I'm sure that one day we will discover a reason, but to hold the universe to already understood and demonstrated laws is extremely foolish. Our scientific knowledge/understanding is severely limited, so counting out theories such as this is, imho, unreasonable.

 

[Serenity7855]

I think you would benefit by looking at the multiverse theory and the eternal explosion/implosion theory, as I felt the same way you did until I researched both and saw that they were, in fact, plausible.

I am in perfect agreement to the plausibility of the existence of a multi verse, equally as much as I am in the uncaused possibility of the universe. For me the uncaused theory still pans out to the existences of a super scientist. I, therefore, agree that they are plausible but not necessarily probable.

Quantum mechanics/physics operates under a different set of laws than normal physics. This is something that we are just beginning to figure out. For example, in quantum physics we see that certain atoms disapear and reapear in a completely different location seemingly without rhyme or reason. Now, I'm sure that one day we will discover a reason, but to hold the universe to already understood and demonstrated laws is extremely foolish.

I totally agree, which is why I believe that supernatural events and natural events are synonymous in the laws that cause them. Why we should just use natural laws to explain phenomenon is beyond me, when those supernatural laws will, one day, be described as natural laws, like heat transfer in thermodynamics have demonstrated for us.

Our scientific knowledge/understanding is severely limited, so counting out theories such as this is, imho, unreasonable.

I do not count any plausible theory out, on the contrary, I admonish that all possibilities should be investigated, including supernatural theories, such as the sixth sense. I, therefore, am in agreement with you.

 

[Mycroft]

There always is. You just do not see the wood for the forest of trees. It is like the visionary illusions you need to look at them in a certain way in order to see the pattern. If you don't then you will never see it.

You probably see Albert Einstein on this picture. However, if you stand up and step 15 feet away, you will see Marilyn Monroe on the same picture. Do the same with christianity to see the Saviours Face hidden in the picture of Richard Dawkins

The difference being both Albert and Marilyn existed. As does Richard Dawkins. The 'saviour' does not.

 

[Serenity7855]

The difference being both Albert and Marilyn existed. As does Richard Dawkins. The 'saviour' does not.

Oh, he exists, you just do not have the eyes to see Him. Only the elect will recognise the Masters voice.

 

[leibowde84]

Oh, he exists, you just do not have the eyes to see Him. Only the elect will recognise the Masters voice.

Hmmm ... so you have to be one of the "elect?" And, I thought belief was available to everyone. Is that not the case? Because if you need "the right eyes" to see Jesus, and one cannot force oneself to believe anything, there must be some that are not provided the opportunity.

 

[Serenity7855]

Hmmm ... so you have to be one of the "elect?" And, I thought belief was available to everyone. Is that not the case? Because if you need "the right eyes" to see Jesus, and one cannot force oneself to believe anything, there must be some that are not provided the opportunity.

The remark was supposedly made by Jesus Christ to His followers. It was not said by His followers. The elect are those that donned the glasses that gave you the sight to see, the glasses are a combination of the scriptures and the Holy Ghost. An elect are those who have recieved the Holy Ghost and have thus recognised the Saviour and have followed His teachings. It is not something you are or someone to be, but someone you become.

Every individual, regardless of social and economical environment, or geological location, will receive an opportunity to either accept or deny the sacred Plan of Redemption, whether in this world or in the world to come. We must all have equal opportunity to hear His voice for justice and mercy to both be served. The people you refer to will not exist.

 

[Mycroft]

have followed His teachings.

So that rules out pretty much everybody on the entire planet.

 

[Serenity7855]

So that rules out pretty much everybody on the entire planet.

There are 7.2 billion people on the planet. 2.2 billion are Christian, 3.9 billion are of mixed belief, 1.1 billions are atheists, agnostics or just do not know. Granted, many of those who call themselves Christians draw near to Him with their mouth but in their hearts are far from him, however, even then it does not reconcile your claim.

 

[leibowde84]

The remark was supposedly made by Jesus Christ to His followers. It was not said by His followers. The elect are those that donned the glasses that gave you the sight to see, the glasses are a combination of the scriptures and the Holy Ghost. An elect are those who have recieved the Holy Ghost and have thus recognised the Saviour and have followed His teachings. It is not something you are or someone to be, but someone you become.

Every individual, regardless of social and economical environment, or geological location, will receive an opportunity to either accept or deny the sacred Plan of Redemption, whether in this world or in the world to come. We must all have equal opportunity to hear His voice for justice and mercy to both be served. The people you refer to will not exist.

But, you have to admit that there are many people "in this world" that will not get the opportunity, right? I mean, think about a small child who is taught by his parents to hate Christianity with every ounce of his soul. I don't think this child would have had an opportunity, or at least the same opportunity that we have had.

 

[Serenity7855]

But, you have to admit that there are many people "in this world" that will not get the opportunity, right? I mean, think about a small child who is taught by his parents to hate Christianity with every ounce of his soul. I don't think this child would have had an opportunity, or at least the same opportunity that we have had.

Everyone will be given an opportunity to either accept or reject the plan of redemption, whether in this world or the next, where Jesus went, amongst those who knew him not, in the spirit Prison, to teach His word to them. Anything short of this would make God less then perfect and just. True, there is no second chance. Once you reject it, knowing it is true, then that is your lot, but you have to know the law in order to accept or reject it. Think about what I am saying. That child will receive an opportunity. If not here then in the Spirit world.

 

[McBell]

There are many that are constantly being used by those who do not fully see. For example. It does not seem possible that the big bang was causeless, yet, there are many who believe that it was, or that it is a equal possibility, despite the fact that the entire universe is predominantly governed by cause and effect. That is precisely the counterfeit argument that I refer to, that is, that they are using "a straw man fallacy"

So what caused god?

Remember, you shoot your argument in the foot the second you claim god has no cause.

Remember that God is only supernatural because he acts outside of natural laws. If his laws were our laws, He would not be a supernatural being, but would be an entity that we would fully comprehend and understand. Christians, that have been converted by the Holy Ghost, see God as a natural being. It is those who restrict themselves to the knowledge and comprehension of mankind's imperfect understanding that see him as supernatural.

This is nothing more than choir sermon double talk.

I do not explain why, simply because I do not feel that something, that seems to me to be so obvious, would necessitate an explanation. There are a host of Web sites available, where statitions and probabilists have given complex probability calculations that demonstrate the implausibility of the "by chance" postulation. The God Theory is backed with a multitude of supernatural and natural circumstantial evidences that culminate in reasonable evidence. What reasonable evidence exists for the "by chance" straw man. All I hear is the claimed uncaused events in Quantum physics.

I have heard this "the calculations are out there" claim numerous times.
Sadly, not a single person making the claim has been able to back it up with anything other than "you find them".

 

[McBell]

Everyone will be given an opportunity to either accept or reject the plan of redemption, whether in this world or the next, where Jesus went, amongst those who knew him not, in the spirit Prison, to teach His word to them. Anything short of this would make God less then perfect and just. True, there is no second chance. Once you reject it, knowing it is true, then that is your lot, but you have to know the law in order to accept or reject it. Think about what I am saying. That child will receive an opportunity. If not here then in the Spirit world.

Sorry, but bold empty threats are not the least bit impressive.

 

[bmk2416]

So what caused god?

Remember, you shoot your argument in the foot the second you claim god has no cause.


This is nothing more than choir sermon double talk.



I have heard this "the calculations are out there" claim numerous times.
Sadly, not a single person making the claim has been able to back it up with anything other than "you find them".

God is prime mover, the uncaused first cause, that's the definition of a God, the alternative is an infinite regress, therefore a God is more plausible.

 

[Serenity7855]

God is prime mover, the uncaused first cause, that's the definition of a God, the alternative is an infinite regress, therefore a God is more plausible.

I agree

 

[suncowiam]

Going back to the probabilities...

If there's a chance of it happening, then there's a chance of it happening.

It's like saying you will never win the lottery, and yet someone always win the lottery. To bring that back to this discussion, I agree that the odds of a planetary system generating life is close to nil. But when you factor in that there are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe with say 200 billion systems per galaxy (taking the milky way as an example), the odds don't really seem that bad.

Prove to me that it is 0% and not some random generated probability.

 

[Bunyip]

Going back to the probabilities...

If there's a chance of it happening, then there's a chance of it happening.

It's like saying you will never win the lottery, and yet someone always win the lottery. To bring that back to this discussion, I agree that the odds of a planetary system generating life is close to nil. But when you factor in that there are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe with say 200 billion systems per galaxy (taking the milky way as an example), the odds don't really seem that bad.

Prove to me that it is 0% and not some random generated probability.

I think that is the dimension of probability most often overlooked. I remember a conversation about the emergence of life, where the person said that the chances of such and such a molecule forming naturally were a gazillion to one - but of course if you figure in the number of precursor molecules per litre of water, multiplied by the number of litres of water on earth, multiplied by the time all of a sudden the improbable becomes all but certain.

 

[bmk2416]

True, but it can never be certain until it is observed, it's only possible, therefore you're still taking by faith that it is certain.

 

[Serenity7855]

True, but it can never be certain until it is observed, it's only possible, therefore you're still taking by faith that it is certain.

Yes, of course, that is a given. Christianity is based on faith. Without it there can be no Plan of Salvation.