There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

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

Abiogenesis is the beginning of life from no-litter. It is caused. According to Atheists, it is an explanation for how life began on our planet. If it is true then it to is a supernatural event which suggests that a God was involved, again.

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

How could the universe exist when prior to the big bang there was nothing. You are not thinking this through are you?

It didn't exist, that is the explanation.

But you just said that it has always existed. Which is it?

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

Please explain.

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

I do not personally know any Cosmologists so I am not aware of their personal beliefs.

 

[Bunyip]

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

Abiogenesis is the beginning of life from no-litter. It is caused. According to Atheists, it is an explanation for how life began on our planet. If it is true then it to is a supernatural event which suggests that a God was involved, again.

For all your protestations, nobody here can have missed the way you avoid responding to any points that refute you.

Abiogenesis is not an example of something beginning to exist that has a cause. The elements that formed the first life existed already.

I ask you for one example of something that began to exist and is know to have a cause - you give 'abiogenesis', which did not begin to exist and is not know to have a cause.

Please try again.

How could the universe exist when prior to the big bang there was nothing. You are not thinking this through are you?

It did not exist prior to the Big Bang, you are not thinking this through.

But you just said that it has always existed. Which is it?

Both obviously, the universe has always existed. The Big Bang occured some 14 billion years ago. There was no 'before' the big bang, before time began.The universe has always existed - there was never a time when it did not exist.

Please explain.



I do not personally know any Cosmologists so I am not aware of their personal beliefs.

Then why did you claim that they argued for a cause when they do not?

 

[Serenity7855]

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.

A militant atheist is not someone who merely disagrees with the beliefs of Christians, it is an attitude. You are a militant atheists in my opinion.

No, Kalam is not fallacious and contrary to what you have said, his argument is still relative today. Click on Kalam on your search engine to see how reagent his argument is.

I have to say that I am beginning to find your unfounded assertions a tad tedious now. You indictment of argumentum ad ignorantiam is rude and disrespectful. Please try and change you perspective. As this one has been dismissed as unacceptable drivel.

 

[Bunyip]

A militant atheist is not someone who merely disagrees with the beliefs of Christians, it is an attitude. You are a militant atheists in my opinion.

Given that you do not know me, your opinion on that matter is worthless. I am not a militant atheist.

No, Kalam is not fallacious and contrary to what you have said, his argument is still relative today. Click on Kalam on your search engine to see how reagent his argument is.

Of course it is fallacious - you yourself posted an article explaining how the first premis is nothing more than a guess, a hunch - a metaphysical intuition. Which you dishonestly defended by claiming that intuitions were axioms.

I have to say that I am beginning to find your unfounded assertions a tad tedious now. You indictment of argumentum ad ignorantiam is rude and disrespectful. Please try and change you perspective. As this one has been dismissed as unacceptable drivel.

It is not rude, nor disrespectful - it is simply the truth. The Kalaam begins with a premis that is drawn from an empty data set and nothing more thana guess. You yourself posted a quote defending it that explained the fact that the first premis is just an intuition.

The conclusion as you yourself admit is nothing more than that you claim there to be a cause and it is POSSIBLE that cause could be god. That is a perfect example of an argument from ignorance.

Essentially: I do not know how _______ happened, therefore I have proven god!

 

[Bunyip]

Serenity

Why not look up the Kalam yourself?

When you do you will suddenly understand why people keep repeating the same clarifications and corrections to you.

The first thing you will notice when you read about the Kalam is that it is not proof and does not claim to be proof. So that is your first major error.

The second thing you will discover is that the Kalam is not in fact a scientific argument as you imagined - it is a philosophical argument. That is why your claims that it is scientific, evidential and proof have all been refuted.
The Kalam is a philosophical argument, not science.

The third thing you should know by now - the first premis is just an intuition, it is not actually an axiom. That in itself establishes that the Kalam is not sound.

The fourth major problem is the most basic - cause and effect are temporal (they exist in time), and of course according to the BB theory, time begins with the BB - thus there can be no cause.

Now I and others have tried to engage with you on these issues, but so far your defence was simply to claim that intuitions are axioms - a claim you know to be false.

When asked to provide one single example of something that began to exist and is known to have a cause you gave 'abiogenesis' which neither began to exist, nor is it known to be caused.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

As I already responded to this, convincing and satisfying the mind are the same thing. You can't get out of this by playing semantics. You have presented the case for your side, and it would not convince (or satisfy the mind of or any other phrase you want) an impartial unbiased person. It doesn't convince me, for instance.

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.

Look, you have said certain things. If you really want an honest debate/discussion you can't go around pretending you didn't say them. I'm not making anything up. Maybe it's that English isn't your first language, or that for some reason you honestly don't see what you're saying, but whatever the case you're making different claims at different times. Even in the above you say:

"I said I could satisfy his mind that there is a better chance to suggest he exists then not."

And then:

"All of which would all but satisfy a reasonable man's mind that these supernatural events could indeed be attributed to a God. "

This is two different claims. You need to pick one and stick with it. Either you think your evidence can convince an impartial person that God is more likely than not or you think your evidence can convince an impartial person that these things you mentioned could be attributed to God.

I don't really see the point in the second one. You won't find many people who would deny that there is a possibility that a god is responsible for the big bang. I acknowledge that there is that possibility. The question is how likely it is, and what that means. It's no more likely than any other possibility. Even more importantly, even if a god is responsible for the big bang, that doesn't tell us any details about that god. You still want to make specific claims about the entity, like that there is a heaven, and he wants humans to act a certain way. That stuff is pure conjecture based on no evidence.

But the first step in all of this is for you to use clear language. It's your own fault we're still discussing your claim of being able to prove God is more likely than not. You deny you ever said that, and then go on to make the claim again. If all you really want is for people to agree that the universe could have been started by a god, then all you have to do is say:

I misspoke earlier. My point is that the universe could have been started by a god.

And then stop going back and reversing your stance.

 

[Magic Man]

I am not a troll and I do genuinely believe that the universe is teaming with evidence of a superior being.

I'm still waiting for any such evidence. It's been 70 pages. I expected to have something by now.

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.

So, you do things the wrong way because of the people you're trying to prove wrong? I'd suggest first being more careful with your words and second not refusing to do something you should do just because you think the people you're arguing against will think you're stupid. That only makes matters worse. Usually you'll find the other person will appreciate your ability to correct yourself. Is this why you refuse to admit your bad wording in the title and OP? Because I'd much rather you just admit it and we move on.

 

[George-ananda]

I'm still waiting for any such evidence. It's been 70 pages.

He's been giving his evidence; that multiple things in the natural world make far more sense believing there was a conscious intelligence involved than believing it was all non-conscious activity. You may not agree with his evidence but that's his evidence.

 

[JM2C]

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

What I meant is, your gods......

 

[George-ananda]

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

I'm saying no one is perfect. And in general his behavior has been better than some of the behavior from his opponents.

 

[JM2C]

Thus, the "truth" exist also without your concept.
A concept I am pretty sure, you know little about.

My concept? Yeah, you’re right, your truth exist in your mind, but we are talking about my faith, my belief in God always exist in HIS truth and this is not just a concept from human mind.

 

[JM2C]

Truth lies in observing evidence, that is something faith is required not to do.

Not really, faith/subjectively is required to see the evidence/objectively of the truth, of God‘s truth. Without the evidence/objectively of faith/subjectively truth then is nothing but lies which is always present in your concept or your mind.

Jn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit

If you can understand the meaning of this verse, then you will understand where I’m coming from.

 

[JM2C]

Faith is fine, to bad many pervert it into something unreasonable and dangerous.

You have no idea of what you are talking about. You are just playing words with your mind. You see how your mind deceive you into something you really have no knowledge about. Speculative philosophy. Nothing but speculation. Your argument does not have any pattern that is base on your belief, because you just think and argue whatever comes out of your mind.

 

[JM2C]

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.

Did you know that the Russians were one who built the pyramids?

 

[Magic Man]

He's been giving his evidence; that multiple things in the natural world make far more sense believing there was a conscious intelligence involved than believing it was all non-conscious activity. You may not agree with his evidence but that's his evidence.

No, it's not. Evidence is something that objectively points more in one direction than any others. For instance, if testing prayers gave us results that indicate prayer does actually work, that would serve as evidence. Saying "Well, there are multiple options, but I think it makes the most sense with God" isn't evidence. It's an opinion.

Plus, saying some things make more sense with a God, therefore God, ignores the fact that there are plenty of things that don't make sense with a God involved.

 

[George-ananda]

No, it's not. Evidence is something that objectively points more in one direction than any others. For instance, if testing prayers gave us results that indicate prayer does actually work, that would serve as evidence. Saying "Well, there are multiple options, but I think it makes the most sense with God" isn't evidence. It's an opinion.

Plus, saying some things make more sense with a God, therefore God, ignores the fact that there are plenty of things that don't make sense with a God involved.

You prove me right when I said:

You may not agree with his evidence but that's his evidence.

ev·i·dence
noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.


What he's presented is 'evidence'. And 'evidence' can be argued for and against. That's why we have courtrooms and debates.

 

[Serenity7855]

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.

Well no, that is Not true. I offered a single piece of evidence in order to get the ball rolling. That caused you to turn on the militant attitude and here we are. Stuck in the possibility of the cause of the universe being God. Your need to be right has stifles the debate, in my opinion.

Intuition was never my word here, was it. It was yours, maybe because it is easier to spell then metaphysical. You think you are right on your vague prognosis of my use of it so you have persisted to push the point, another indication of someone who is non compos mentus when it comes to fanatical atheism.

Yes, it is a possible explanation, as you have stated, that when brought together with all of the other evidences proves the existence of a superior entity, which could be God.

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.

True you do, and there is much more evidence that corroborate s this evidence. If you were remotely scientifically motivated you would know this.

I have sufficient evidence to prove that the big bang was either a supernatural event or a natural cause. Either way, the reason why the universe came into existence points towards a God. If it is a phenomenon that has meant the universe appeared like a rabbit in a magicians hat then it is, as you call it, a gap in our scientific knowledge, which means that we haven't got a clue how it happened, putting it outside of natural laws, it is, therefore, supernatural. If we assume that the natural law of cause and effect caused it's existence then the universe was caused to exist. Who caused it to exist. Either way atheism is wrong in its pseudo beliefs so hostility will be plentiful.

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

That, my dear man, is exactly what I was in the process of doing, until you thought you could Outshine me on my knowledge of the cosmos.

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.

yep, indubitably.

 

[Magic Man]

You prove me right when I said:




ev·i·dence
noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.


What he's presented is 'evidence'. And 'evidence' can be argued for and against. That's why we have courtrooms and debates.

Go back and re-read. It's not evidence. It's not about liking it or not. It's not actual evidence. "The big bang had to have a cause" does not imply "There is a conscious being responsible for creating the universe".

 

[Serenity7855]

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

This, I believe, shows your complete lack in the ability of conceptualising a fundamental process of biological observations.

Abiogenesis

The origin of life from a nonliving matter: as a : spontaneous generation b : a theory in the evolution of early life on earth: organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances

Everything existed, as you say, to create life but the essential ingredient was nowhere to be seen. LIFE was not present. The elements were caused to live. That cause is unknown to human science. It is beyond the realms of natural laws. It is a gap in scientific knowledge. It is therefore for supernatural and evokes the question, could it have been a God. Yet another evidence that proves your entire belief system wrong and untenable.

 

[Serenity7855]

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.

Hmm. What do I conclude from this illusory and duplicitous statement. One of just two narratives. You are either insidiously telling lies inadvertently because you have not read the OP or you cannot comprehend what it is actually saying. I only mention Atheists once in the entire OP when I say ".. void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists" I did not say they were bigots, mindless and closed minded. So that assertion is false, and I presume it was intended to be a ad hominem. So the Agenda of the Militant Atheist continues to show it's bigoted head because it is being threatened with extinction.

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 is a debating forum where words are used to debate, not fists or feet to kick. Your analogy is hostile and threatening to uncoerced and amicable debate. I am no different then anyone else. I have honest opinions about the hostile attitude of Atheists that are based on my experience and knowledge. I will express those opinions when appropriate. It is called debate. If you do not have sufficiently thick enough skin to be able to take contradictions to your belief then perhaps this forum is not the best place for you to frequent. My dear old mum used to say to me, when I called the kids who called me names my own selection of suitable phrases, two wrong never make a right, she would say. Just because I call atheist brainwashed does not mean that you should call me a bible basher. You, according to my mum, only lower yourself to their level.

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

I bet.