There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

You have not got one single example of anything ever beginning to exist that you know to have a cause.

My response

Abiogenesis

Second Evasion.

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.

My Response.

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.

 

[outhouse]

“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?

That IS where they evolved from. Genesis is not a history book.


It is a religious book.


Next you will tell me Israelites came from Egypt, if you do, post evidence.

 

[outhouse]

Evasion


.

You are the teacher here.

 

[Serenity7855]

You are the teacher here.

Didn't you see Jainarayan's *** MOD POST *** on personal abuse.

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

This is a personal insult against me instead of my post. Please, ease respect the mods warnings.

 

[outhouse]

personal abuse

.

Glad your learning here.


Maybe now you can go back and read your OP and find all the personal attacks it has on people with different beliefs or lack of belief.

 

[Serenity7855]

Glad your learning here.


Maybe now you can go back and read your OP and find all the personal attacks it has on people with different beliefs or lack of belief.

Mine are against a group pf people not individuals, as yours is. Please keep to the rules to allow for amicable debate.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have typed many words and spent much time tying them to militant atheists. When you expend that amount of energy defending your corner and critiquing their perceptions you get a feeling for the type of people they are. The most obviously trait that they possess is their eagerness to be confrontational, regardless as to who they might offend and upset. Followed closely behind by their desperation to maintain the impossibility of the existence of a God and the resulting hostility if you successfully show their ethos to be erroneous. I can give you a list of their idiosyncrasies but those two are the most prevalent. I therefore object strongly to your assertion, however, please be mindful that it is militant atheists I refer to and not Atheists in general.

If I am out to lunch on that one then they obviously frequent the same restaurants as I do. :sorry1:

What assertion do you refer to? I have made many.

Wow. Just wow.

I even specified one of the assertions I was talking about. And you avoided it to say the nothingness you said above.

You've got to be a POE.

You're a terrible mind reader, that's for sure.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

By the way, to add to my response to this, I just realized the title of the thread is "There is more than enough evidence to prove God exists".

 

[Serenity7855]

By the way, to add to my response to this, I just realized the title of the thread is "There is more than enough evidence to prove God exists".

There are only so many words you can use in the title so these words indicate what is explained in full in the op." "There is more than enough evidence to prove God exists" 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. One should never judge another until he has the full facts.

 

[Serenity7855]

Wow. Just wow.

I even specified one of the assertions I was talking about. And you avoided it to say the nothingness you said above.

You've got to be a POE.

You're a terrible mind reader, that's for sure.

I knew you were going to say that.

 

[Magic Man]

There are only so many words you can use in the title so these words indicate what is explained in full in the op." "There is more than enough evidence to prove God exists" 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. One should never judge another until he has the full facts.

Um...that only says the exact same thing as the title. That was my point. If you didn't mean to say that you could convince any impartial person that God is more likely to exist according to the evidence we have, then you shouldn't have said so in the title and OP.

 

[George-ananda]

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.

It's hard to see how 'testable' the Big bang or evolution is. But there still science. The best you can do is run some tests to see if certain things are compatible with the theory. In the same way the OP is saying there is scientific evidence for God although there's no way to directly test for God.

 

[Magic Man]

It's hard to see how 'testable' the Big bang or evolution is. But there still science. The best you can do is run some tests to see if certain things are compatible with the theory. In the same way the OP is saying there is scientific evidence for God although there's no way to directly test for God.

In those cases, as well as many others, you posit certain things that will be the case if the hypothesis is true, and then test them. "If the big bang happened, then we'd be able to see _____". Evolution is testable even more directly than that.

There is no way to test directly for a vague god. In the same way as above, there is a way to test claims about gods, though.

 

[Serenity7855]

Um...that only says the exact same thing as the title. That was my point. If you didn't mean to say that you could convince any impartial person that God is more likely to exist according to the evidence we have, then you shouldn't have said so in the title and OP.

I didn't say I could convince them. I said I could satisfy his mind that there is a better chance to suggest he exists then not. I could do that with known scientific evidence. It is true. I have done it, as have several of my colleagues.

That is a little different from saying I could prove that God categorically exists, I cannot. It is being portrayed as that in order to circumvent the actual claims of the op onto how stupid and dishonest I am for backtracking, when I have done no such thing of the sort. It is dishonest and curtails honest debate. I was hoping to go onto to cover the other supernatural events, but just this one has taken up 70 pages, without going into the other evidences that were used to satisfy that reasonable man's mind. Evidence like dark matter and energy, black holes, rapid expansion, super novas, the anthropic principle, or fine tuning, and the Higgs Boson. All of which would all but satisfy a reasonable man's mind that these supernatural events could indeed be attributed to a God.

If you have a problem understanding the objectives of the op ask me and I will clarify them for you but please do not read stuff into it that is not there and the make wild claims that are far wide of the mark.

 

[Serenity7855]

It's hard to see how 'testable' the Big bang or evolution is. But there still science. The best you can do is run some tests to see if certain things are compatible with the theory. In the same way the OP is saying there is scientific evidence for God although there's no way to directly test for God.

Yes, absolutely correct. Spot on. :yes:

 

[Serenity7855]

In those cases, as well as many others, you posit certain things that will be the case if the hypothesis is true, and then test them. "If the big bang happened, then we'd be able to see _____". Evolution is testable even more directly than that.

There is no way to test directly for a vague god. In the same way as above, there is a way to test claims about gods, though.

The way to prove that a superior intelligence exists is to make a collection of circumstantial evidence. Supernatural events that are inexplicable to our scientists and do not use known natural laws. There is sufficient evidence in cosmology, evolution, the big bang and abiogenesis to give rise to the possibility of a superior entity, a God.

 

[adi2d]

The way to prove that a superior intelligence exists is to make a collection of circumstantial evidence. Supernatural events that are inexplicable to our scientists and do not use known natural laws. There is sufficient evidence in cosmology, evolution, the big bang and abiogenesis to give rise to the possibility of a superior entity, a God.

If you would have said that in your OP this thread wouldn't ne nearly as long

But you have gone from "it was God" to "it was probably God" to "God was a possibility"

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Who do you speak for?

Myself, why?
Are you posting on behalf of a group, or for yourself only?

 

[Blackdog22]

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


Can you provide any scientific evidence that is incapable of being tested?


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.

I assume you mean that I am attacking the OP? I guess it really depends on what you would consider an "attack", but I simply don't believe the OP is being honest at all. I think he is trolling you and the rest of this board for kicks and giggles, nothing more.

 

[Blackdog22]

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.

That wise man sounds like the Hitler of the Christian society considering it appears to not indicate that Christians are capable of lies, which you have clearly proven wrong. The very line saying Atheists (just all atheists huh? weird!) will intentionally twist your words (I actually copy and pasted exactly what you wrote, but you have no desire for honesty do you?) is a lie. Its generalizing an entire group and is completely unfounded and untrue. So if you want proof that you are a liar, look no further than this post.

I said I can prove it to a reasonable man using current science. You are only exposing yourself.

When you open a title saying

There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

You have just stated there is proof of Gods existence. Now if you want to go ahead and admit you intentionally provided a deceptive title (AKA A LIE) to draw in viewers then I am completely willing to accept it.

Not that any of this matters, since no one can be this dense I have concluded you are a poe. Not even the Christians on this board find you reasonable.