• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

Awkward Fingers

Omphaloskeptic
Strange how you keep quoting Hawking on some things, but ignore other quotes from him, like

" ...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."
 

atheistsincesix

New Member
Aww.....it's cute when you little christians try. There are far too many contradictions in the bible to make it even a little true, not to mention that it says all men are liars and the bible was written by man. Try to contain your emotions when you realize you're wrong.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Strange how you keep quoting Hawking on some things, but ignore other quotes from him, like

" ...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."

I am fine with that statement. I totally agree with him. Only if you judge me as other Christian groups will you not see the individual. Ask yourself the question, as I did, why would God have to fine tune the universe if he was fully in control of the big bang and rapid expansion? Sort of like saying he did not impose what was to happen from outside. .
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
The scientific evidence makes it clear that the universe had a beginning approximately 15 billion years ago. Stephen Hawkins has been very vocal in that fact. It is almost a fact, and axiom if you like, that this is true and science has accepted it to be.

Sir Isaacs Newton has quite rightly said that there is no effect without a cause. When looking at the big bang we have to take into consideration his laws of the universe. Especially as it is entirely possible for the cause and the big bang to have taken place simultaneously - t=0

Because we know that time, matter, space and energy did not exist pre-big bang we need to take a cursory look at the possibility, no matter how ridiculous it might be, that the universe appeared without a cause.

As far as I can see there are two ways in which that happened, unless someone knows of a third way. It was either "caused" or it "just appeared" without a cause.

Caused

If we believe that our natural laws applied at the point of the big bang, that is when t=0, then it creates the intrigue of what was that cause. Now you say that each possibility is equally possible, however, you provide us with no evidence of what else exists to cause such a monumental event to occur. Personally I can not think of a single event that would cause the big bang other then by the power of a superior conscious being. But I am willing to learn. If I am right in my theory then I have to ask what did cause it and why was it caused? It is not unreasonable for me to come to the opinion that is was a God that caused it.

By Majic

If it is possible for something to be created from nothing then our universe could have come into existence from nothing. No cause. Let us assume for a moment that that is true. Something appeared out of nothing. How can we, as intelligent beings, come to an understanding as to how that happened? Well, we cannot understand it because it is outside of the natural laws. We do not have a clue how it would spring into being and there is no precedence. It is a gap in our scientific ability as it does not comply with any universal laws. It is a supernatural event and not a natural event, therefore, we have to conclude what actually happened could have been the result of divinity, or, some other event. What other event could it have been? I can only conclude that it was a God that did it as I cannot think of anything else.

Now, as there have only been two methods that can be considered, which one do you think it was. We only have two methods. It is either a God creating the big bang or, let's see, what else is there, oh yes, it could be a supernatural event that could be contributed to God and his gang. What do you choose, is there a choice even.

My conclusion is that God created the universe, that he caused it to exists or magically brought it into existence is meaningless to discuss as in both cases he is the instigator of this supernatural event. It is my opinion that he created the universe to sustain life so that his spirit children could take upon themselves mortality in the flesh. So that all of mankind could be tried and tested in the flesh. To be apart of the perfect plan of salvation. We are all benefactors of this great work and wonder to bring to pass the mortality and eternal life of Man. This is our purpose and this planet was created, populated and finely tuned in order to accomplish the mind and will of a God. His evidence for existence is all around us. In evolution, abiogenesis, photosynthesis, reasoning and awareness, intelligence that far exceeds that of our closest counterparts, the big bang, rapid expansion, dark energy and matter, the higgs boson, the anthropic principle, galaxies, super novas, black holes, quantum physics, child birth and DNA. Evidence so exquisite yet discarded as here say and balderdash by those who do not recognise their origins or destinations. A man with an open mind, void of bigotry and bias, being free of the destructive influence of pride and self righteousness, would look at this evidence objectively and with an open mind having a desire to know that which is true. He would study it out in his mind and he would come to a conclusion that there is something more then us in control of our destiny. Of course there are those who think that the know better then God or anybody who claims his existence and out of their own misery will bring those fence sitters into the throng of activist type atheism.

I hate no man but I practice Gods commandment to love all.

John 13:34-35

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another

I just do it wearing the armour of God.

Ephesians 6
10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,

20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.
This is the thing I asked you about before to which you did not respond.

How do you get from "the universe may have had a cause behind it" to "that cause was the specific god I personally believe in, to which I attribute all kinds of specific personality traits, characteristics, thoughts and plans that 'he' has in mind, all with us human beings in mind"? I don't see the connection. :shrug:

Even if, for the sake of argument, we assume the universe must have had a cause, and that cause must have been some kind of sentient being, you've still got all your work ahead of you in demonstrating that it's the specific god of the Bible that you personally believe exists.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Aww.....it's cute when you little christians try. There are far too many contradictions in the bible to make it even a little true, not to mention that it says all men are liars and the bible was written by man. Try to contain your emotions when you realize you're wrong.

I am not that little. Funny, I have read the Bible 10 times. Never found a contradiction. It only says in one place that men are all liars. It is in psalms, that is David's love songs to God, and it is in the context of a withdrawal not a statement.

The bible was indeed written by men and men are imperfect, however, it was compiled by God. Whatever it contains is exactly what God wants it to contain. It is the literal words of God, selected by Him for us.


Psalm 116:11

11 I said in my haste, All men are liars.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
This is the thing I asked you about before to which you did not respond.

How do you get from "the universe may have had a cause behind it" to "that cause was the specific god I personally believe in, to which I attribute all kinds of specific personality traits, characteristics, thoughts and plans that 'he' has in mind, all with us human beings in mind"? I don't see the connection. :shrug:

Even if, for the sake of argument, we assume the universe must have had a cause, and that cause must have been some kind of sentient being, you've still got all your work ahead of you in demonstrating that it's the specific god of the Bible that you personally believe exists.

Do you know when I was in university, many years ago now, we had a chemistry professor as one of our lecturers. Looks like Albert Einstein and seemed completely mad, however, he imparted some very good advice to me as I was having panic attacks over a presentation. I had to do. He said that you should never talk about a subject unless you are so familiar with it that when you are questioned on it you will have a answer immediately, without hesitation. Make sure, he said, that you know what you are taking about or you will make yourself look a fool. I have never forgotten that advice. I have studied scriptures to a point where I am a walking Bible. I am getting older so forget chapter and verse now but I know everything that it contains. Every principle, parable, allegory and precept. I have tried to disprove it and Tried to prove it. I have been it's greatest sceptic and most avid believer. I am not boasting, I am a realist, so I need to be sure that I am choosing the right. To that end, I am fully capable of connecting the god of the big bang to the god of the bible. It is all in Genesis.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
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.

Positing a possibility is not evidence. It is a guess.

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.

Your dishonesty is painful. That the first premis is just a metaphysical intuition was not 'my word' and you know that you are lying. It was what WL Craig said about the first premis of the Kalam IN THE QUOTE YOU POSTED TO DEFEND IT.

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.

You have not presented any other evidences. And it still remains no more than a guess - not something drawn from evidence and most certainly not proof.

You are claimingto have evidence and proof, when all you have is a guess.


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.

No, you have no evidence - just a guess.

Eiither 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.




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.


yep, indubitably.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Do you know when I was in university, many years ago now, we had a chemistry professor as one of our lecturers. Looks like Albert Einstein and seemed completely mad, however, he imparted some very good advice to me as I was having panic attacks over a presentation. I had to do. He said that you should never talk about a subject unless you are so familiar with it that when you are questioned on it you will have a answer immediately, without hesitation. Make sure, he said, that you know what you are taking about or you will make yourself look a fool. I have never forgotten that advice. I have studied scriptures to a point where I am a walking Bible. I am getting older so forget chapter and verse now but I know everything that it contains. Every principle, parable, allegory and precept. I have tried to disprove it and Tried to prove it. I have been it's greatest sceptic and most avid believer. I am not boasting, I am a realist, so I need to be sure that I am choosing the right. To that end, I am fully capable of connecting the god of the big bang to the god of the bible. It is all in Genesis.

Sure, but you have stated earlier in this thread that your intuitions are unquestionable facts. Which would render whatever study you conduct to be worthless.

Moreover the entirety of your comments on this thread revolve around you pretending that your guesses are facts and cantilevering those guesses into what you imagine to be proof. Any who reject your claims on the basis that guesses are not facts, and that they do not lead to proof is accused of being a dishonest, close minded militant atheist.

Well no Serenity, it is just a fact - guesses, intuitions and hunches are not proof.

Anyone who imagines that they can simply guess something and that their guesses are thus unquestionably proven facts (axioms) is simply deluded and whatever conclusions they draw worthless.
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
connecting the god of the big bang to the god of the bible. It is all in Genesis.

It is mythology to many people.

And it goes against all credible knowledge in science and reality.




. I have studied scriptures to a point where I am a walking Bible

Remember though, apologetics are not credible history or science. You made the mistake of crossing into lines attacking credible knowledge.


Now go and apply cultural and physical anthropology to the REAL history and learn how and why the books were collected and edited over hundreds of years.

Your eyes will be opened.

Your missing the scientific and historical context and that could polish all that work you have done.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
This actually explains quite a bit...

I imagine that whenever something that appeared contradictory came up, Serenity would just intuit that it must not in fact be a contradiction - and thus conclude that due to intuitions being axioms, he had thus proven that the contradiction was not a contradiction.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
This actually explains quite a bit...


Certain people must practice mental gymnastics and get the gold in imagination.



I always wondered why people cannot realize the context, and the original unknown authors who compiled these pieces did not care or even worry about it. Its all in the original context and that is lost on modern cultures.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Sure, but you have stated earlier in this thread that your intuitions are unquestionable facts. Which would render whatever study you conduct to be worthless.

Moreover the entirety of your comments on this thread revolve around you pretending that your guesses are facts and cantilevering those guesses into what you imagine to be proof. Any who reject your claims on the basis that guesses are not facts, and that they do not lead to proof is accused of being a dishonest, close minded militant atheist.

Well no Serenity, it is just a fact - guesses, intuitions and hunches are not proof.

Anyone who imagines that they can simply guess something and that their guesses are thus unquestionably proven facts (axioms) is simply deluded and whatever conclusions they draw worthless.

Ah, another trait from the endearing atheist. Repetition. Throw enough dirt at a person and some of it will inevitably stick. It has its origins in the school play ground where kids repeat the same thing incessantly to taunt and agitate. It is used a lot by militant Atheists like yourself.

I have already said that intuition is not a word I frequently use. In this case, you have put it into my mouth, presumably because you have difficulty in spelling metaphysical. As with evolution the metaphysical becomes an axiom. Intuition becomes realistic. Even if I am totally wrong your play on this shows your desperation not to be wrong because you attack man's intellect instead of his argument. Very naughty.

So, according to you, the big bang is an intuition, a hunch or a guess, as is rapid expansion. You should send a memo to Stephen Hawkins informing him of your current postulation. Little knowledge can be very dangerous and to think that little knowledge makes you an expert can be devastating. Why not quite the school yard banter and learn some facts about that which you write as this puerile behavior does absolutely nothing for your credibility here.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I imagine that whenever something that appeared contradictory came up, Serenity would just intuit that it must not in fact be a contradiction - and thus conclude that due to intuitions being axioms, he had thus proven that the contradiction was not a contradiction.

Very intellectually astute. What an asset you are to the militant atheists. Do you write for a comic book, by any chance, or are you a connoisseur of the ancient art of confrontation.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Very intellectually astute. What an asset you are to the militant atheists. Do you write for a comic book, by any chance, or are you a connoisseur of the ancient art of confrontation.

A metaphysical intuition is not an axiom.

It is a guess.

The Big Bang is a scientific theory, not a premis in a philosophical argument.

The point in hand is that your Kalam is founded on a metaphysical intuition, whch is a guess - not an axiom.
 
Last edited:

ruffen

Active Member
The bible was indeed written by men and men are imperfect, however, it was compiled by God. Whatever it contains is exactly what God wants it to contain. It is the literal words of God, selected by Him for us.

So, why did God then literally create the Universe 6,000 years ago (calculating from the geneaology of Jesus) and then create all those fictious streams of photons heading our way forming images of galaxies that are billions of light years away? There's no way light could have reached us from those galaxies in a young Universe, so why did he fool us like that, even to the extent of faking supernovae, pulsars, quasars, and even the cosmic microwave background radiation proving the Big Bang?


Psalm 116:11

11 I said in my haste, All men are liars.

If all men are liars, then so is the one who wrote that sentence, so therefore that sentence could be false. Actually the entire Bible could be false, a forgery of such liars claiming to know God's mind.
 
Last edited:

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
So, why did God then literally create the Universe 6,000 years ago (calculating from the geneaology of Jesus) and then create all those fictious streams of photons heading our way forming images of galaxies that are billions of light years away? There's no way light could have reached us from those galaxies in a young Universe, so why did he fool us like that, even to the extent of faking supernovae, pulsars, quasars, and even the cosmic microwave background radiation proving the Big Bang?

Where did that come from. The earth is 4 billion years old and the universe is 15 billion years old. You didn't read that in the bible. I have no idea where you have conjured that up from but it is wrong.

If all men are liars, then so is the one who wrote that sentence, so therefore that sentence could be false. Actually the entire Bible could be false, a forgery of such liars claiming to know God's mind.

He said "in haste" and David was no angel ether, he was certainly not talking on behalf of God. No deity has said that all men are liar, it was good old man again and God has included it in his Bible for a very good reason.

You believe that the bible could be a forgery? With the mountains of evidence that exist the bible is most certainly not a forgery. It's contents are intended to guide and direct men into paths of righteousness and then eternal life. How do you forge that? But even more important then that, why? Why would anyone want to produce a forgery of good honest precepts and principles. I think you would like for it to be, because your belief would be vindicated, but it is highly improbable without a justifiable motive driving it.
 

ruffen

Active Member
Where did that come from. The earth is 4 billion years old and the universe is 15 billion years old. You didn't read that in the bible. I have no idea where you have conjured that up from but it is wrong.



He said "in haste" and David was no angel ether, he was certainly not talking on behalf of God. No deity has said that all men are liar, it was good old man again and God has included it in his Bible for a very good reason.

You believe that the bible could be a forgery? With the mountains of evidence that exist the bible is most certainly not a forgery. It's contents are intended to guide and direct men into paths of righteousness and then eternal life. How do you forge that? But even more important then that, why? Why would anyone want to produce a forgery of good honest precepts and principles. I think you would like for it to be, because your belief would be vindicated, but it is highly improbable without a justifiable motive driving it.

Ah, I understand you, you meant that the Bible is literally the word of God, but God wasn't literal in his description of events in Genesis? If so, my apologies for misreading you.

I believe the Bible is a humdrum collection of books, some are based on old folk tales (flood myths, creation myths etc), some are created to spread wisdom and ideas, some are honest first-person accounts of real events, some are first-person accounts of what the author believed he saw but was wrong, and some are right out lies fabricated for political agendas, or to hurt the Roman Empire.

Some of the accounts were written centuries after the events they describe. Then all the books were selected by the Church that compiled the Bible, some were tossed out and some were kept. Some were edited or spliced with other texts, parts were removed and parts were added in order to suit the religious and political ideas of those editors.

And yes, you can forge men into paths of righteousness, by giving them instructions and moral rules that aren't necessarily morally sane, but achieves some agenda. For example the concept that a man shouldn't covet his neighbour's possessions, including his wife. A morally sound concept would be that a man's wife is not his posession, and could probably say something about a woman coveting her neighbour's husband as well.

Or the fact that Jesus says that if a man looks at a woman "with lust", and the two are not married, then he must pluck out his eye and toss it away, or face eternal punishment in Hell. What kind of morally sane God would invoke eternal punishment for something that every heterosexual 17-year-old has done?

Or the fact that homosexuals should be stoned to death. This is a rule the Bible imposes on us "to guide and direct men into paths of righteousness and then eternal life"? Why did the good Lord create some people with urges and sexual orientations and instincts like that, and then demand they be stoned to death?

Why does the Bible only mention animals, plants, and geography visible from the Middle East at the time of writing? If God intended this religion for the entire world, why doesn't it mention the other parts of it? Maybe because the humans who wrote it didn't have knowledge of anything else than what they could see?

It doesn't add up if one supposes the enitre Bible is directly inspired by God. God should show knowledge beyond that of the humans who wrote the Bible.
 
Last edited:

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Well if not a sentient conscious being that what else. What else is there. Is there such a thing as a being that is not sentient. Do you have an example. Does science have an example or is it as illusive as the unicorn. Being realistic your proposition is without any credibility.

For instance, we could just be part of another universe. It could just be the natural order of things for a singularity to form and the burst. A force caused the big bang. There is no reason that force had to be sentient. Just because you don't want it to be a possibility doesn't mean it isn't.

You accuse me of not providing evidence for a god yet your alternative is a non-sentient being. Is that it. Which is the most probable a God or a non-sentient being?

As far as we can tell, neither. Either one could be the answer. If you want to think a god is, go for it, but objectively there's nothing to say you're right.

You cannot make it any clearer as the idea of a being that is not sentient is inherently vague.

Not a being, something, a force. It doesn't have to be a being at all. Stars explode all the time. It doesn't take a being to make it happen. It's just how nature works.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
The concept you are arguing about is wrong. One is forced the other is not. If you cannot comprehend that fundamental difference then I am wasting my time.

That difference isn't relevant. The key here isn't whether or not you're trying to force someone. The key is that you think you can give someone information and they will then believe God is more likely than not to exist. You're trying to argue about the part that doesn't matter in an effort to deflect from the part that does. I don't care whether or not you're intending to force someone. The part I'm arguing against is you thinking you have an enough information/evidence to give an impartial person to cause them to believe God is more likely than not.

I do not believe that my op had any hostile tones. It was factual and concise. The world know what atheism is all about. They are gradually being seen as that rude angry lot because that is what they are. They do try and brainwash people into their narrow minded beliefs. They did it to my brother on his death bed causing his death to be terrifying.

I went ahead and bolded the hostile part. It's the same part that was hostile in the OP. Whether or not you believe it is irrelevant. That part is hostile. You sound like someone saying "I don't understand why those n****** are getting all uppity. I just said they are all lazy and want handouts, and all they're good at is sports". Yeah, I mean, who would ever take "they're gradually being seen as that rude angry lot because that is what they are" as hostile. The nerve of such people!

And BTW, this is why people are coming to the conclusion you're a poe. It's either that, or you're extremely oblivious.

You have taken these two examples out of context. The first one relates to the big bang. The second one could relate to the same event it would still mean the same, however, without looking I think I said the second one about other miracles of the universe.

I haven't taken anything out of context. You're saying you can prove God is more likely than not in some cases, and in others just saying "it could be God". You have to decide which it is. If it's the second, there's no argument. If it's the first, you're wrong.

Do you see anything different?

Really trying to figure out if you're just a troll now. This level of obliviousness seems impossible.

Do you honestly believe that is an option.

It doesn't matter what I believe. It is an option. I understand you want it to be god instead, but if you're being impartial and unbiased, you'll have to admit god is no more likely than a nonsentient being or force starting the big bang.

It is evidence, that you disagree with it does not make it any less evidentiary. It is evidence that the big bang happened. It is evidence that the result was a universe. It is evident that it was either caused to exist or it just magically appeared. All sound and viable evidence.

It's evidence, sure, just not of a god. The big bang happening and having a cause is not evidence for god because it doesn't point to a god. It allows for that possibility, but it allows for a lot of other possibilities too.

I do not need to admit anything. I am a realist. If I was presented with this evidence I would investigate it before I denounced it. If the claim were not credible I would then argue the point from the perspective of someone who has knowledgeably researched it. Big bang - fact, Rapid Expansion. - fact, causation or magic - fact, non-sentient beings - unrealistic twaddle.

You proved yourself wrong with the very last part. If you were a realist who actually considered the evidence, you'd realize a non-sentient force is just as likely to have caused the big bang as a sentient being, if not more so. Again, your desire for it to be a god shows you doing exactly what you want others not to: being partial. If you were impartial, you'd admit a god is a possibility as the cause of the big bang, but it's no more likely to be the cause than several other explanations.

Going on to repeat your false assertions in further long posts isn't going to help. The fact remains, you can't provide any evidence that a god is more likely than not to exist, and the supposed evidence you have provided is not.
 
Top