There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[outhouse]

No Christian does have testable evidence.

Exactly, There is none.

So the OP is wrong, glad you admit it. There is not more then enough evidence to prove any god.

 

[Serenity7855]

Exactly, There is none.

So the OP is wrong, glad you admit it. There is not more then enough evidence to prove any god.

You complain when people use the term "liar" and here you are lying. Hypocrite comes to mind.

 

[outhouse]

You complain when people use the term "liar" and here you are lying. Hypocrite comes to mind.

Where?

You keep making claims you just cannot substantiate.

 

[Serenity7855]

I did read the post you were responding to.

My question stands - why would anyone need to replicate the big bang? You claimto have testable evidence, but have yet to identify a shred of it. After all these pages, when are you going to identify the first example of evidence for your god?

Then you have not been capable of conceptualising the postulation.

My evidence, yet again.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Could that cause be a God.


Read more: In Defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith

 

[outhouse]

Then you have not been capable of conceptualising the postulation.

:biglaugh:

My evidence

Your evidence for what exactly, because none of it points to any god anywhere, at any time.

Could that cause be a God.

You should alert the scientific community of your grand discovery!!!


Imaginative question are now solid proof of what ever anyone thinks about is now magically real!


Quick run and tell the world!!! :biglaugh:

 

[s2a]

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not. Even with the little knowledge that I have of the universe we live on a knife edge in, I could demonstrate that a superior force caused the universe to come into existence. Indeed, Kalam's cosmological argument is sufficient to do that on its own, that is, without mentioning the singularity, the Big Bang, rapid expansion, anthropic principle, dark matter and energy, fine tuning, etc etc etc... So why is it that Atheists have such leverage in our society to preach their counterfeit arguments.

If a man wants to know the truth, without a need to subscribe to any groups who all think the same and who all point the same condescending fingure, as there is safety in numbers, then the truth is in the stars for all to see. Why do men need to be told what to believe instead of finding out for themselves by looking at our world that simply could not exist without divinity.

Look at the vast gap between the intelligence of Man and that of our closest counterpart in the animal Kingdom to see how much more intelligent we are to them. Have we evolved that much faster then they have, and if we have, then why have we? Something so fundamentally obvious, both scientifically, cosmological and supernaturally has to have a form of intelligence behind it. It is so obviously God who created the universe and set our planet up for habitation. The "by chance" idea is hugely more improbable then a supernatural being is, yet we readily believe the former. Why? How do atheists reconcile this overwhelming cosmological and intellectual evidence. How is it possible to categorically claim that God does not exist.

*sigh*

Sincerely Yours,
Brainwashing Atheist

 

[Bunyip]

Then you have not been capable of conceptualising the postulation.

My evidence, yet again.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Could that cause be a God.


Read more: In Defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith

On the contrary.

What is clear is that it is you who is failing to grasp the weaknesses of the Kalam, and that it was defeated generations ago.

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Here is the biggest problem for that - it is just an intuition, not actually a premis. You have not got one single example of anything ever beginning to exist that you know to have a cause. It is thus a premis built on a hunch and an empty data set.

2. The universe began to exist.

Well here the problem is that it didn't. The universe has always existed, there was no time when the universe did not exist. Just as you claim that God is exempt from first cause, so by exactly the same logic is the universe.

3. Therefore the universe had a cause.

Well this is a conclusion drawn from a premis based on no evidence other than a hunch and another based upon a factual error.

Could that cause be god?

Well so far you have given no good argument for a cause, or how to connect such a cause to god.

 

[Serenity7855]

On the contrary.

What is clear is that it is you who is failing to grasp the weaknesses of the Kalam, and that it was defeated generations ago.

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Here is the biggest problem for that - it is just an intuition, not actually a premis. You have not got one single example of anything ever beginning to exist that you know to have a cause. It is thus a premis built on a hunch and an empty data set.

No, it is a postulation based on known natural laws.

Abiogenesis

2. The universe began to exist.

Well here the problem is that it didn't. The universe has always existed, there was no time when the universe did not exist. Just as you claim that God is exempt from first cause, so by exactly the same logic is the universe.

How do you know that the universe has always existed.

There was no time when the universe did not exist? Time didn't exist prior to the big bang so you are right, there was "no time" when the universe didn't exist. No time, no matter, no space and no energy either. Just us and God existed. So, how did an entire universe exist with no time, mass, energy and space? I look forward to your explanation. Until then I will continue to believe, as does Professor Stephen Hawkins, that the universe, as we know it, had a beginning 15 billion years ago.

Thus far the evidence is sound.

3. Therefore the universe had a cause.

Well this is a conclusion drawn from a premis based on no evidence other than a hunch and another based upon a factual error.

No, this is a generally accepted axiom by most Cosmologists.

Could that cause be god?

Well so far you have given no good argument for a cause, or how to connect such a cause to god.

Not only have I given a good argument for a cause but many other scientists have agreed with a cause being required. It is only the desperate atheist who refuses to believe it because to do so makes their entire belief system a complete fallacy.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

this would be a quote from Stephen Hawking...About "the beginning of the universe"
emphasis mine.
"So the time of zero separation, would have been less than twenty billion years ago.

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside. "

es, the world "as we know it" started then... but what was before that is so unknowable as to be dismissed.. NOT there was nothing before that, just, not the universe we know today.

 

[Blackdog22]

As an Agnostic Theist I have to disagree with the OP

I suspect a very tiny portion of Theists actually agree with the OP. For my sanity, it is my belief that Theists are far more reasonable than this man, who I suspect with 99% certainty is a poe doing this for kicks and giggles.

 

[Blackdog22]

That makes you a Theist.



No Theist has testable evidence.

Doesn't stop some of them from claiming otherwise, as this thread proves. Its the difference between honesty and dishonesty.

 

[Blackdog22]

No Christian does have testable evidence. .

Annnnd you just refuted yourself. Good to see this thread end just like everyone thought it would. Onto the next one.

 

[Serenity7855]

Annnnd you just refuted yourself. Good to see this thread end just like everyone thought it would. Onto the next one.

No, I didn't but Bye:atheist::cheer:

A wise man once said to me "be careful when posting where Atheists hang out. They will take your words and twist them, manipulate them and take them out of context to make them something they are not" I have seen most of the underhanded traits in your post here, typical of the militant atheist. To debate with you is dangerous as your goal is to discredit as opposed to debate. I said I can prove it to a reasonable man using current science. You are only exposing yourself.

 

[Magic Man]

No, it is not going to become true, it is true. I am told it was a very appropriate analogy. I believe it was. If you do not like it then it is you who have the problem with it and not me.

Then you've been told wrong and you are wrong. Sorry, I've already explained why it doesn't work. If you'd rather stick your fingers in your ears and continue to claim, despite the obvious problems with it, that it does work, that's your problem.

You think that I would say this without making certain that I am right first. Of course I wouldn't.

A reasonable person would certainly do that, yes. Apparently you didn't, though. The fact remains there are some animals that are very intelligent and not that far from us.

Yes I have. I have brought him into the equation, as you have agreed. No it doesn't have to be a sentient being but it equally could be. That opens the possibility of his existence. I believe it is an argument for a God because I cannot theorise anything else. What do you think it was? I said "could it be a God" that is not making it the most logical conclusion. You are putting those words in my mouth. What do you think is the most likely and logical conclusion.

From your OP:

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not. Even with the little knowledge that I have of the universe we live on a knife edge in, I could demonstrate that a superior force caused the universe to come into existence.

If you want to say that it's possible that a godlike being started the big bang, we're fine. That would require amending your OP. If you want to continue to say God is the most likely explanation, we're back to our disagreement, and you'd have to provide evidence.

I did not make an argument for popularity, you did. I merely mentioned that there is twice as many Christians than Atheists. You took over from there.

Mentioning that there are twice as many Christians as atheists is the argument from popularity. So, you just agreed that you did it. It doesn't work.

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not.

I said I could satisfy his mind. I did not say convince him. The difference is very important.

I did not say that it was based on my scientific evidence. I said "using the scientific knowledge that we currently have" that is two counts of misrepresentation.

"Satisfy his mind" and "convince him" are not different. In both cases you're saying you can get him to believe it is more likely.

Saying "using the scientific knowledge we currently have" is the same as saying "based on scientific evidence". I'm not sure who you think you're going to fool trying to create differences where they don't exist simply so you can pretend you didn't say something you clearly did.

What axe is that?

The one you have to grind with atheists.

Act like what?

I do not single out any group for disagreeing with me. What on earth gave you that silly idea. I have an axe to grind with militant atheists because they are arrogant, bigoted, abnoxious, rude, offensive, false accusers, aggressive, narrow minded, lacking any empathy for those the cause distress to, morally inert, theistically redundant, and overly self opinionated becoming hostile if you disagree with them. To name but a few. No, I do not care if you disagree with me. I know the truth so it never phases me. I just find it abhorrent to watch the systematic destruction of good Christian by Bullies. Nothing more and nothing less. We all know what militant atheists are all about.

And yet you don't rail against any other group for doing those same things or having those same qualities. You're focused on militant atheists for some reason. Yes, there are rude atheists, but they are no bigger a portion of overall atheists than rude Christians are of overall Christians or other rude members of other groups. The question is why you limit your criticism to atheists and not other groups.

Also, you ignore the fact that you have done a lot of what you claim you don't like about militant atheists in this very thread.

Yes, you may well be right. You have a much more mellow attitude to the real militants hear. Yes, if I have pointed a figure at you as being a militant I must retract that as of this moment. I am mistaken.

I appreciate you admitting that. This is a great start.

You have to understand that these forums are full of militant atheists. I have had so many incursions with them that I can generally pick them out on their first post and then tend to ignore them as there is absolutely no reasoning with them and to respond is a total waste of time and energy. I have not done that to you and about five others who are all Atheists. I have tried to answer you questions honestly from my heart and not my head. I have taken my time and pondered over your post before I responded. I have responded with, what I consider to be the truth as I believe it to be. You must accept that you have put words in my mouth, like saying that I have stated that God is the most viable candidate for the cause of the big bang when I have said "could it be a god" I believe it was God but that is not what I said. You have changed your opinion. You have said that it could be a God. Are you the reasonable man without bias. Do we see the proof of the pudding here?

Again, I haven't put any words in your mouth. If that is all you meant from the beginning, I'd suggest using different language to convey it, because that's not what your OP said. If that's the case, your OP should have said something more like:

According to science, the big bang happened and must have had a cause. I believe that cause to be God.

You could have left out all the stuff about "satisfying someone that God is more likely than not" and "convincing someone who's totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of brainwashing techniques of atheists". With that kind of stuff, you make yourself no better than those you're criticizing.

 

[George-ananda]

No Theist has testable evidence.

Doesn't stop some of them from claiming otherwise, as this thread proves.

Where does the OP claim 'testable evidence'? It says 'scientific evidence'.

Its the difference between honesty and dishonesty.

That's what I'm calling out here. Or, giving the benefit of the doubt, the difference between 'understanding' and 'misunderstanding'. Or, just an emotional impulse to attack.

 

[JM2C]

Because after years of study.
I see how ancient Israelites, borrowed the concept from their Canaanite ancestors, then watched how the concept evolved as cultural changes took place.

“Ancient Israelites” “from their Canaanite ancestors”

Ancient Israelites came from Shem -Gen. 10:1
Canaan came from Ham the brother of Shem. Gen. 9:22

Where did you get this story from?

 

[JM2C]

Congratulations on losing any semblance of credibility you might have carried up until this point.

Who do you speak for?

 

[JM2C]

What is funny, is we have many other cultures that used this same methodology when they created their deities.

Yeah, that’s true. Human mind created their deities and that’s why their gods are their minds, they follow their own minds, but ancient Judaism and Christianity are not one them.

 

[Magic Man]

Where does the OP claim 'testable evidence'? It says 'scientific evidence'.

That's the same thing. If it's scientific, it has to be testable. That's the whole point of science. You form a hypothesis and then test it.

 

[Jainarayan]

*** MOD POST ***

Please keep the rules in mind when posting in this thread, especially the bolded parts.​

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling:
1)Posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users. This includes both verbal statements and images. Images that are likely to cause offense based on religious objections (e.g. depictions of Muhammad or Baha'u'llah) or the sensitive nature of what is depicted (e.g. graphic photos of violence) should be put in appropriately-labeled spoiler tags so that the viewer has freedom to view the image or not. Such images are still subject to normal forum rules and may be moderated depending on their contents.
2)Posts that target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)Posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, blatant misrepresentation or harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."