There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Alceste]

Why doesn't it?

Logic requires a reason that it does. Otherwise it is simply unknown. Absent a good reason that the "first cause" must be an intelligent being as opposed to any one of an infinite number of other possibilities, there is no reason for any rational person to leap to the conclusion that some deity or other was the cause.

 

[outhouse]

Absent a good reason that the "first cause" must be an intelligent being as opposed to any one of an infinite number of other possibilities, there is no reason for any rational person to leap to the conclusion that some deity or other was the cause.

Not only that, add he track record of mythology and creation accounts, and it reduces said possibility to the absurd.

 

[Serenity7855]

Logic requires a reason that it does. Otherwise it is simply unknown. Absent a good reason that the "first cause" must be an intelligent being as opposed to any one of an infinite number of other possibilities, there is no reason for any rational person to leap to the conclusion that some deity or other was the cause.

If there are, as you have said, an infinite number of possibilities then perhaps you could list for us just 10. You see I am not saying that the causation is God. I do not know for an absolute certainty that he exists I have faith that he exists. I am saying that it could be a God. I am exploring the possibilities that it could be a God. That a rational person would jump to the possibility that it could be a God is the result of the culture in which we live. We are taught about God at an early age so the natural choice of most people, in our city centre malls, is that it must be a God. It is the most logical conclusion. If you were in Baghdad it would be Allah. Basically, a superior being or entity.

 

[Blackdog22]

That is where Kalam comes in. He is speculating that if everything was nothing, then what caused it to change from nothing into something. Kalam does not present the postulation as evidence, neither do I, though those are the words that you are fastidiously placing in my mouth.

You know maybe, just maybe, if you hadn't used the word prove as your title header and had be more honest none of this would of happened. You spouted off your first argument like everyone is mindless if they don't believe your fool proof evidence. I have never seen someone backtrack so hard in my life.

For future reference, leave out the insults, leave out the blatant lies, and instead say, "Hey guys, I have something that I think could be a possible reason for God existing, tell me what you think." The way you went about it was simply awful and your attitude now, that suddenly changed, is much more reasonable. I do commend you on coming around to some form of sense.

 

[Skwim]

Logic requires a reason that it does. Otherwise it is simply unknown. Absent a good reason that the "first cause" must be an intelligent being as opposed to any one of an infinite number of other possibilities, there is no reason for any rational person to leap to the conclusion that some deity or other was the cause.

Exactly!

Asserting the first cause is one's god is no more persuasive than someone else asserting it's some other god, or some pre-big bang condition. Unless there's good and sufficient reason to declare X as the culprit the wise person simply says, "I (we) don't know." So, although far from a satisfactory point of view, at least it's an honest and unforced one.

Therefore, when confronted by the believer's unwavering certainty that "God did it," people shouldn't be cowed into thinking any notion contrary to "God did it," must have equal certainty. Doubt and ignorance are just as valid positions as is certainty, and maybe more genuine.

 

[outhouse]

I am saying that it could be a God.

.

based on what exactly?

Ancient mans mythology that we know is not correct?

 

[Ouroboros]

Logic requires a reason that it does. Otherwise it is simply unknown. Absent a good reason that the "first cause" must be an intelligent being as opposed to any one of an infinite number of other possibilities, there is no reason for any rational person to leap to the conclusion that some deity or other was the cause.

Agree.

Also, when we talk about cause and effect, it's not as perfect or direct as we usually think. For instance, if a ball flies through a window. What caused the window to crash? Was it the ball? Was it the thrower? Was it the physical properties of the ball, glass, inertia, etc? What exactly is The Cause (single) for the glass to break? Also, the glass pieces that broke consists of billions of molecules, and most of the pieces were broken by the chain-effects of the other pieces breaking, etc. There's no single cause. There's no linear cause. And so on. So in my opinion, the First Cause argument is merely a philosophical oversimplification of what cause-effect is.

Or perhaps a better example is a car crash in an intersection. Was the cause that one person ran a red light? Or was it that driver talked on the phone? Or was it that he slipped on the break pedal? And wasn't the other driver a part of the cause, even if he/she wasn't responsible? What is a single cause in these situations?

When we create a house, many people and things are involved. From such experiences, it's easier to draw the conclusion that the cause for the universe is not a single one, and is a natural one (since cause and effect is based on experience in the natural world).

 

[Awkward Fingers]

If there are, as you have said, an infinite number of possibilities then perhaps you could list for us just 10. You see I am not saying that the causation is God. I do not know for an absolute certainty that he exists I have faith that he exists. I am saying that it could be a God. I am exploring the possibilities that it could be a God. That a rational person would jump to the possibility that it could be a God is the result of the culture in which we live. We are taught about God at an early age so the natural choice of most people, in our city centre malls, is that it must be a God. It is the most logical conclusion. If you were in Baghdad it would be Allah. Basically, a superior being or entity.

So, your OP is essentially, "I can reasonably show anyone strong evidence for god, if they haven't been brainwashed by atheists, but have been brainwashed by the culture they live in to automatically assume god"

Not exactly a challenge, that....

 

[Bunyip]

My intellectual abilities are not the subject of debate here. What is up for debate is evidence that suggests that a reasonable man might conclude that a God is responsible for the existence of the universe, in which we all reside. A scientific argument of fact, as you put it, is a contradiction in terms. How can a argument for an events causation be a fact, or visa versa? I ether put it forward as a possible argument for an event or I state the actuality of that event as a fact, therefore, I have either stated a fact or I am giving my opinion. If the reader believes it is a fact, then I apologize for being misleading, as it is an argument for the existence of God, that when put together with the other arguments produces a theory. A theory that God exists.

Indeed it was misleading, extremely misleading given that what you now admit to be simply a possibility you original argued as PROOF. And worse, an unevidenced possibility that you have insulted anyone who has challenged on the basis that they are dishonest, militant atheists who have been brainwahsed. The reality of course that it was you who was being dishonest - yo6 now admit that all you have is a possibility.

Abiogenesis is not dissimilar to the big bang. We do not know how it happened, yet we except the results of it in the form of evolution. We can speculate all we like but we cannot replicate, which is an essential ingredient in the scientific method.

What makes you say that? Scientists have already synthesises self replicating molecules ajd even a simple cell -msomwhat makes you think that in the future we can never fully understand abiogenesis?[/quote]

We can, however, replicate the Big Bang in the large Hadron Collider to see what happened a millionth of a second after the big bang. Those condition demonstrate that a big bang took place some 13.7 billion years ago. So what caused it?

It does not need a cause, cause and effect can not come before time.

That is where Kalam comes in. He is speculating that if everything was nothing, then what caused it to change from nothing into something.

This is the error that you simply refuse to grasp - a state of nothing can not exist, there was never nothing - the universe has always existed. There was never a time when the universe did not exist, or when there was nothing.

Kalam does not present the postulation as evidence, neither do I, though those are the words that you are fastidiously placing in my mouth.

Not only did you present that postulation as evidence - you presented it as proof. It is neither.

. He puts it forward as an argument. That is why it is called the Kalam's Cosmological Argument. If we agree that the big bang took place, simultaneously with the cause, at t=0, then the question of causation must be asked. If the conclusion to that question results in the prognosis that it was caused, then we need to ask, what caused it, could it have been a God? Couple that with all of the other evidences and a reasonable man would conclude that a God is indeed a reasonable assumption. To believe that it just appeared would present the dilemma of asking, if the universe can just appear then why not a white rabbit, a car, a apple.

IT DID NOT 'JUST APPEAR' IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TIME WHEN THE UNIVERSE DID NOT EXIST. THERE IS NO 'BEFORE' THE BEGINNING.

 

[Serenity7855]

Indeed it was misleading, extremely misleading given that what you now admit to be simply a possibility you original argued as PROOF. And worse, an unevidenced possibility that you have insulted anyone who has challenged on the basis that they are dishonest, militant atheists who have been brainwahsed. The reality of course that it was you who was being dishonest - yo6 now admit that all you have is a possibility.

I have always posted the question "could it be a God " I have used the big bang as evidence that it could, in deed, be a God, I have said that there is more then enough proof that a God does exist. I have never said that the big bang, on its own, is sufficient evidence for a god.

As far as insulting anybody who disagrees with me goes, it is a falsehood. You really need to substantiate your accusation. Read the thread and see who threw the first stone. Oh, I have stones to throw, plenty of them, but I try not to throw the first one, as in my experience, atheists almost always consider the throwing of a stone to mean that you are too hostile to put forth an educated argument.

You are breathing words into my mouth, yet again. I have not been dishonest. I have back tracked once on the grounds that I did not consider a particular fact which made my argument wrong. I was not being nasty about atheists, it is a general perception that atheists are argumentative and intimidating resulting in brainwashing. Look at the William Lane Craig v Lawrence Krauss. [youtube]V82uGzgoajI[/youtube]
Life, the Universe and Nothing: Why is there something rather than nothing? - YouTube


and see the decorum demonstrated by WLC and the hostility of his atheist opponent Lawrence Krauss.

What makes you say that? Scientists have already synthesises self replicating molecules ajd even a simple cell -msomwhat makes you think that in the future we can never fully understand abiogenesis?

I would ask to see their publicised paper on it.

It does not need a cause, cause and effect can not come before time.

No, but they can can come together when t=0

This is the error that you simply refuse to grasp - a state of nothing can not exist, there was never nothing - the universe has always existed. There was never a time when the universe did not exist, or when there was nothing.

Watch the debate to be enlightened.

IT DID NOT 'JUST APPEAR' IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TIME WHEN THE UNIVERSE DID NOT EXIST. THERE IS NO 'BEFORE' THE BEGINNING.

Yes, there has never been a "TIME" when the universe did not exist. That is, that ever since time has existed then so has the universe. As far as nothing existing is concerned, I fail to see how anyone can say that nothing existed before time as nothing is something, it is defined as the absence of something.

 

[Blackdog22]

As far as insulting anybody who disagrees with me goes, it is a falsehood. You really need to substantiate your accusation. Read the thread and see who threw the first stone. Oh, I have stones to throw, plenty of them, but I try not to throw the first one, as in my experience, atheists almost always consider the throwing of a stone to mean that you are too hostile to put forth an educated argument.

You literally called us all brainwashed, mindless, close minded bigots and used the term "militant atheist" in a negative sense. You threw 4 stones at us and then started throwing fits when someone called your argument weak, you argued for pages before finally admitting your argument was weak. You literally insulted people on the basis that your argument was proof, then denied it was proof, and so called us all idiots for no reason at all. Just when I think you are getting somewhere you go and do something like this. Shame, shame.

I was not being nasty about atheists, it is a general perception that atheists are argumentative and intimidating resulting in brainwashing. Look at the William Lane Craig v Lawrence Krauss.

Is this the point where I get to post a video of a Christian making a bad argument and then get to call all Christians idiots "in general". You are completely clueless as to why everything you say is insulting aren't you?

 

[McBell]

Read the thread and see who threw the first stone.

That would be you with your OP...

 

[McBell]

I have not been dishonest.

:biglaugh:

 

[Serenity7855]

You literally called us all brainwashed, mindless, close minded bigots and used the term "militant atheist" in a negative sense. You threw 4 stones at us and then started throwing fits when someone called your argument weak, you argued for pages before finally admitting your argument was weak. You literally insulted people on the basis that your argument was proof, then denied it was proof, and so called us all idiots for no reason at all. Just when I think you are getting somewhere you go and do something like this. Shame, shame.

No I didn't. All I said about atheists in my OP was" void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists" I believe in what I have said, which is why I said it, in my opinion militant atheists do try and brainwash others into leaving the faith. I am not about to lie about it, that would be dishonest.

I did not throw any fits when disagreed with. I was looking for disagreement. I welcomed input to verify my own data on it. I do not consider it to be weak either. It is not a recent argument so it has had its real effect on cosmology. I haven't denied that it is proof. It is just one piece of circumstantial evidence that when added to the rest makes a pretty good case for the existence of a God.

I called no one an idiot for disagreeing with my opinion. I was insulted befor I retaliated.

Is this the point where I get to post a video of a Christian making a bad argument and then get to call all Christians idiots "". You are completely clueless as to why everything you say is insulting aren't you?

Am I clueless or are you making a false assertion about me rather then dealing with the argument. Klauss did not make a bad argument, he was insulting and intimidating. He had to be asked to allow WLC the opportunity to respond as he would speak over him resulting in Craig not being allowed to speak. These are all general characteristics of Atheists. I have not just discovered it and have started talking about it. The problem has been there for a long time and now that people are pointing it out your counter argument is to project it back on Christians. If you don't like it then cease doing it yourself.

 

[Alceste]

If there are, as you have said, an infinite number of possibilities then perhaps you could list for us just 10. You see I am not saying that the causation is God. I do not know for an absolute certainty that he exists I have faith that he exists. I am saying that it could be a God. I am exploring the possibilities that it could be a God. That a rational person would jump to the possibility that it could be a God is the result of the culture in which we live. We are taught about God at an early age so the natural choice of most people, in our city centre malls, is that it must be a God. It is the most logical conclusion. If you were in Baghdad it would be Allah. Basically, a superior being or entity.

Being taught a creation myth does not make that myth logical. It is reactionary to accept whatever story you were taught without question, not rational.

Some M theory physicists hypothesize that the big bang could have been caused by
the collision of two other universes. I think that is a promising direction of inquiry.

Most of the other possibilities I can think of are just as silly and improbable as God, since I am not a physicist, so brainstorming nine more for you would be pointless.

 

[Serenity7855]

Being taught a creation myth does not make that myth logical. It is reactionary to accept whatever story you were taught without question, not rational.

Some M theory physicists hypothesize that the big bang could have been caused by
the collision of two other universes. I think that is a promising direction of inquiry.

Most of the other possibilities I can think of are just as silly and improbable as God, since I am not a physicist, so brainstorming nine more for you would be pointless.

It doesn't matter if the creation is mythical or allegorical. The objective of the creation is to demonstrate who the main players are in the plan of salvation. I sort of doubt that there was a talking snake in as much as it was a character with the same traits as a snake. Sly, writhing, slimy, low life and decisive. I don't whether eating an apple revealed to Eve knowledge of good and evil. If you take the creation verbatim then you would be wrong to, like you would if you take the great flood as being a reality as opposed to allegorical.

Are you suggesting that M theory, or String theory are credible alternatives when they have not left the "what if" stages of scientific research. I doubt whether we ever will come to know if there is a multi verse. We only need wait 3 score years and 10 to see if a God exists. I think you were exaggerating a tad when you said an infinite number of causes. I cannot think of a single cause other then a God.

 

[ruffen]

It doesn't matter if the creation is mythical or allegorical. The objective of the creation is to demonstrate who the main players are in the plan of salvation. I sort of doubt that there was a talking snake in as much as it was a character with the same traits as a snake. Sly, writhing, slimy, low life and decisive. I don't whether eating an apple revealed to Eve knowledge of good and evil. If you take the creation verbatim then you would be wrong to, like you would if you take the great flood as being a reality as opposed to allegorical.

Are you suggesting that M theory, or String theory are credible alternatives when they have not left the "what if" stages of scientific research. I doubt whether we ever will come to know if there is a multi verse. We only need wait 3 score years and 10 to see if a God exists. I think you were exaggerating a tad when you said an infinite number of causes. I cannot think of a single cause other then a God.

Do you believe in Jesus? Literal, mythical or allegorical?

 

[outhouse]

The objective of the creation is to demonstrate who the main players are in the plan of salvation.


.

Yet it plays ZERO part in science.

That is mythology and it does matter.

Scientifically a soul, afterlife, gods do not exist. Nor a plan of salvation.

 

[adi2d]

1. this universe came into existence from a previous universe
2. This universe is a closed loop. People from our future went back in time and caused our universe
3. We are not real. We are players in a book
4. We are a science experiment of a 9th grade student


There's a start on the list. No evidence but a possibility

 

[Alceste]

It doesn't matter if the creation is mythical or allegorical. The objective of the creation is to demonstrate who the main players are in the plan of salvation. I sort of doubt that there was a talking snake in as much as it was a character with the same traits as a snake. Sly, writhing, slimy, low life and decisive. I don't whether eating an apple revealed to Eve knowledge of good and evil. If you take the creation verbatim then you would be wrong to, like you would if you take the great flood as being a reality as opposed to allegorical.

Are you suggesting that M theory, or String theory are credible alternatives when they have not left the "what if" stages of scientific research. I doubt whether we ever will come to know if there is a multi verse. We only need wait 3 score years and 10 to see if a God exists. I think you were exaggerating a tad when you said an infinite number of causes. I cannot think of a single cause other then a God.

I don't need to wait. I already know God is nothing more than a story humans tell one another to make sense of the world and their place in it.

And there literally are infinite possibilities. The fact you're unable to think of any says much about your own powers of imagination, but nothing at all about the likelihood of God's existence.