There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[outhouse]

There is sufficient evidence in cosmology, evolution, the big bang and abiogenesis to give rise to the possibility of a superior entity, a God.

Outside imagination?

 

[George-ananda]

I think he is trolling you and the rest of this board for kicks and giggles, nothing more.

I say, he is absolutely not a troll. Whether you agree or not with his position, he is way too intelligent and a troll wouldn't spend this much time on details. And I think he's been more mature and patient than some of the atheist attackers. He certainly can't be dismissed as easily as his opponents here would like to claim.

I don't like his choice of the word 'prove' in the thread title. He could have said 'the most reasonable hypothesis'.

 

[Blackdog22]

I say, he is absolutely not a troll. Whether you agree or not with his position, he is way too intelligent and a troll wouldn't spend this much time on details. And I think he's been more mature and patient than some of the atheist attackers. He certainly can't be dismissed as easily as his opponents here would like to claim.

George, he is clearly playing games with many of the members on the board. You have him literally saying he didn't say something, then someone copy and pasting it from literally 2 pages back, then him exclaiming he didn't say that. If that isn't trolling and begging for attention I don't know what is.

I don't like his choice of the word 'prove' in the thread title. He could have said 'the most reasonable hypothesis'.

He did use the word "prove" though, and he could of absolutely wrote what you said, and been much better off. He has stated he used the word prove for views.(and will rebut this im sure, where I will copy and paste his stating such, which will just prove what I posted above) Would you call that deception for views? If I said, "I can disprove God" and then said, "Well, maybe kind of he could maybe not exist??" What would you call if an atheist pulled something like this? Lies? Deception? Trolling? I would vote all the above, I don't care what religion you are or are not a part of, its simply asking for trouble, and he is smart enough to know it. (While pretending he doesn't of course aka trolling)

 

[Bunyip]

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.

But that is fallacious thinking, it is the classic fallacy of an argument from ignorance - 'God of the Gaps.'

Trying to find what you imagine to be gaps in our scientific knowledge and inserting your deity into them is neither evidential, logical nor rational.

There is zero evidence for god to be found in arguments from ignorance.

 

[George-ananda]

George, he is clearly playing games with many of the members on the board. You have him literally saying he didn't say something, then someone copy and pasting it from literally 2 pages back, then him exclaiming he didn't say that. If that isn't trolling and begging for attention I don't know what is.

Blackdog, those kinds of things are always claimed and disputed in lengthy debates. And usually, as in this case, by both sides. Normal and not POE or trolling..

he might even make mistakes but he's not POE. He's sincere.

 

[Blackdog22]

Blackdog, those kinds of things are always claimed and disputed in lengthy debates. And usually, as in this case, by both sides. Normal and not POE or trolling..

I would be weary of such things George. Atheists asking for proof, when the title says "prove" and then the OP claiming they are lying, when its literally right above us in ink, isn't just casual misunderstanding. Its blatant dishonesty.

Here, how about this. I can prove your God doesn't exist. Lets give it a go and see how you find it. Be honest in your critique of me as we go along.

 

[George-ananda]

I would be weary of such things George. Atheists asking for proof, when the title says "prove" and then the OP claiming they are lying, when its literally right above us in ink, isn't just casual misunderstanding. Its blatant dishonesty.

Here, how about this. I can prove your God doesn't exist. Lets give it a go and see how you find it. Be honest in your critique of me as we go along.

Obviously I'm not going to buy either side claiming 'proof'.

But I still can't believe you don't believe he's real. He may get forced to shuffle but that certainly doesn't mean he's not real. That's common in long debates.

 

[Blackdog22]

Obviously I'm not going to buy either side claiming 'proof'.

But I still can't believe you don't believe he's real. He may get forced to shuffle but that certainly doesn't mean he's not real. That's common in long debates.

I respect that, I too don't bother with any side claiming proof.

Lets say you did inquire to my statement claiming I could prove your God didn't exist however. Not only did I say I could prove your God didn't exist, but I said if you believed in God you were bigoted, brainwashed, mindless and closed minded. How do you feel you would respond? Do you think this Atheist in particular would be:
A) seeking civil discussion
B) wanting open and honest discussion
C) flaming religious people for a reaction

Just looking for honesty here.

 

[Bunyip]

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

Abiogenesis

Well a postulation is not a premis. And abiogenesis is the name of a hypothetical process - not something that began to exist.

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.

That doesn't work - there was no 'before' the big bang. The universe has always existed.

So, how did an entire universe exist with no time, mass, energy and space? I look forward to your explanation.

It didn't exist, that is the 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.

Sure it had a beginning, but it has also always existed.

Thus far the evidence is sound.



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


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.

Name one cosmologist who has claimed that a cause is required?

 

[George-ananda]

Lets say you did inquire to my statement claiming I could prove your God didn't exist however. Not only did I say I could prove your God didn't exist, but I said if you believed in God you were bigoted, brainwashed, mindless and closed minded.

That's a gross oversimplified and exaggerated version of the events. I always see hotly charged words from both sides in these debates. There were no people here trying to just waste people's time like POE.

Just looking for honesty here.

This is my honest appraisal.

 

[Blackdog22]

That's a gross oversimplified and exaggerated version of the events.

That's an exact representation of his initial post. Go read it and you will find him saying atheists are bigots, brainwashed, mindless and closed minded. The only way you would think I exaggerated is if you didn't read the OP.

I always see hotly charged words from both sides in these debates. There were no people here trying to just waste people's time like POE.

Its cause and effect. If you were to walk around and punch people in the face it is possible you would get punched back. If you kick someones dog you may get kicked back. If you start a debate talking about how mindless and brainwashed an entire group is, you may get comments in kind.

This shouldn't be surprising to anyone and I do find it curious to see you defending such behavior.

 

[s2a]

Well, here I am, ******* on the fire ever again.

Just to be quite clear, it has NEVER been Hawking's contention that "god" was NOT the "origin" of the cosmos...only that no "god" NEEEDS to "be" as an exhaustive nor definitive explanation of said cosmos.

Now that we KNOW that INDEED "something from nothing" is a viable (and demonstrably proven) concept, it can follow that there is no "cause" to otherwise serve to either validate/refute any remaining"effect". IE, "It must be GOD

Whimsically ingratiating...but quite unnecessary.

 

[Serenity7855]

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.

Like the majority of your post here, you are wrong.

To call me a troll is a personal attack. We have just had a post from a Mod requesting that we should cease such attacks on the members. Are you above the rules of the forum?

 

[Serenity7855]

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.

Christians who are devout will avoid bearing false witness, which is exactly why militant atheists call them liars. Christians abhor the very thought of lying so what better name to call them. Associate this most despicable character in our recent history and you have a perfect Christian insult. You are quite obviously seasoned at what you do.

I have already stated that the axe that I grind is with militant atheists. This is proof of a militant atheist twisting my words to mean something other then what I intended them to be.

When you open a title saying


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.

Put in context with the original post it reads very different then you would have us all believe.

There is more then 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. 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.[/QUOTE]

 

[Bunyip]

Christians who are devout will avoid bearing false witness, which is exactly why militant atheists call them liars. Christians abhor the very thought of lying so what better name to call them. Associate this most despicable character in our recent history and you have a perfect Christian insult. You are quite obviously seasoned at what you do.

That is clearly disengenuous - you claimed earlier that your intuitions were axioms, that your hunches are unarguable fact. That was a lie.

So far you have presented no evidence whatsoever for any reasonable mind, only a terrible argument based on an intuition.

 

[Serenity7855]

I say, he is absolutely not a troll. Whether you agree or not with his position, he is way too intelligent and a troll wouldn't spend this much time on details. And I think he's been more mature and patient than some of the atheist attackers. He certainly can't be dismissed as easily as his opponents here would like to claim.

I don't like his choice of the word 'prove' in the thread title. He could have said 'the most reasonable hypothesis'.

Thank you George for your kind discernment. You are, of course, correct. I am not a troll and I do genuinely believe that the universe is teaming with evidence of a superior being.

In retrospect, maybe the word "proof" is to extreme. Trouble is that when you are dealing with militant atheists a change of mind is considered a sign of stupidity so once you say it you have to stick with it.

 

[Serenity7855]

George, he is clearly playing games with many of the members on the board. You have him literally saying he didn't say something, then someone copy and pasting it from literally 2 pages back, then him exclaiming he didn't say that. If that isn't trolling and begging for attention I don't know what is.

That is a lie. I was accused of calling someone bigoted. I said, to outhouse, I BELIEVE that I said his argument was bigoted and not that he is a bigot. Clearly stating that I could not be sure as I couldn't remember, hence the use of the word "believe". Outhouse then turned it into me saying that I never said it. A lie. You obviously believed that lie and are now perpetuating it. So, yet another misrepresentation from the Blackdog22.

He did use the word "prove" though, and he could of absolutely wrote what you said, and been much better off. He has stated he used the word prove for views.(and will rebut this im sure, where I will copy and paste his stating such, which will just prove what I posted above) Would you call that deception for views? If I said, "I can disprove God" and then said, "Well, maybe kind of he could maybe not exist??" What would you call if an atheist pulled something like this? Lies? Deception? Trolling? I would vote all the above, I don't care what religion you are or are not a part of, its simply asking for trouble, and he is smart enough to know it. (While pretending he doesn't of course aka trolling)

As I said, to change ones mind is a sign of stupidity to the militant atheist so there is no point. Plus, I meant proof. There was a cause to the universe. It is not unreasonable to conclude that one possible cause is God. Only I never said it was God. I said "could it be a God?" I then confirmed that I, personally, believe it is God. You are doing exactly what all militant atheists do. You use ad homenims. Discredit the person in the hope that it will Discredit his argument. So incredibly predictable.

 

[Serenity7855]

But that is fallacious thinking, it is the classic fallacy of an argument from ignorance - 'God of the Gaps.'

Trying to find what you imagine to be gaps in our scientific knowledge and inserting your deity into them is neither evidential, logical nor rational.

There is zero evidence for god to be found in arguments from ignorance.

But it is not gaps in our scientific knowledge is it. God of the Gaps? One of the favourite phrases used by militant Atheists but totally meaningless. It is gaps in our knowledge of universal laws. It does not fit in with the science we know. It acts contrary to all natural laws. It is therefore supernatural, as surely as Jesus Healed the blind so god caused the big bang, rapid expansion and every other unexplained event that brought life into the universe. Of course you will disagree as to agree would make your cause redundant. The only argumentum ad ignorantiam here is coming from your keyboard. You see unexplained phenomenon as a gap in scientific knowledge. How vain.

 

[Bunyip]

That is a lie. I was accused of calling someone bigoted. I said, to outhouse, I BELIEVE that I said his argument was bigoted and not that he is a bigot. Clearly stating that I could not be sure as I couldn't remember, hence the use of the word "believe". Outhouse then turned it into me saying that I never said it. A lie. You obviously believed that lie and are now perpetuating it. So, yet another misrepresentation from the Blackdog22.



As I said, to change ones mind is a sign of stupidity to the militant atheist so there is no point. Plus, I meant proof.

Yes, but then reveal that your conclusion of god is just a ' possible cause', you have not proven it, know that you have not proven it and state outright that all you have is the intuition that there must be a cause - and that cause could possibly be god. That is not evidence, no more than it is proof. It is a possible explanation of something you guess must exist.

There was a cause to the universe.

So you say, but have yet to provide any argument for other than it is a metaphysical intuition (a guess, or hunch). You need more than ahunch to form an honest premis.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that one possible cause is God.

Sure, but it is unreasonable to pretend that you have proven it, or that you have presented any evidence that atheists are somehow denying.

Only I never said it was God. I said "could it be a God?" I then confirmed that I, personally, believe it is God.

Precisely. You have said that it could be god, and provided an argument for which ypu claim god to be a possible explanation - but somehow imagine that somehow constitutes an evidential argument. And worse, that others are being dishonest or unreasonable for not accepting it.

You are doing exactly what all militant atheists do. You use ad homenims. Discredit the person in the hope that it will Discredit his argument. So incredibly predictable.

People in glass houses....

 

[Bunyip]

But it is not gaps in our scientific knowledge is it. God of the Gaps? One of the favourite phrases used by militant Atheists but totally meaningless. It is gaps in our knowledge of universal laws. It does not fit in with the science we know. It acts contrary to all natural laws. It is therefore supernatural, as surely as Jesus Healed the blind so god caused the big bang, rapid expansion and every other unexplained event that brought life into the universe. Of course you will disagree as to agree would make your cause redundant. The only argumentum ad ignorantiam here is coming from your keyboard. You see unexplained phenomenon as a gap in scientific knowledge. How vain.

LOL That was just terrible mate. Think harder next post. I am not a militant atheist by the way, you need to stop labelling everyone who points out the flaws in your argument as a militant atheist.

And yes, I'm afraid that the Kalaam is fallacious, it is an argument from ignorance.