There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

These are all arguments coming from someone that has a picture of white Jesus as their avatar. That ruins any credibility that you may once have had. Just saying.

Who said it is Jesus? That ruins any credibility that you may once have had. Just saying

 

[Bunyip]

Why, what colour do you think he was?

He would have looked like a man from Palestine, brown.

 

[outhouse]

He would have looked like a man from Palestine, brown.

Brown, sun beat, weathered face, black hair, skinny.

 

[Parsimony]

Who said it is Jesus? That ruins any credibility that you may once have had. Just saying

It's Del Parson's "Christ in Red Robe" painting. Given the title, I'd say it was indeed meant to represent Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

I use the words "militant atheists" to identify a group of individual within another group of individuals.

.

YES.

Those who are well educated within that group. That I am not.

So maybe you have issues with even those half educated, I do qualify for that.

Why you hate people with no bias is beyond me.

 

[Serenity7855]

Your statement was that there were places where science didn't belong and used this as an example. I have demonstrated that science "poking its nose where it doesn't belong" had beneficial effects for all of mankind. In fact, we can take this further: Herbologists, upon whose work the healing arts were founded, were once condemned and punished (sometimes lethally) as witches because someone thought they shouldn't be poking their nose in there. Not to mention, the idea that "we have no business cutting into dead bodies to seek knowledge" was also condemned as "where we shouldn't be" and led to the advent of life saving practices. There is no place .... NO place ... where science doesn't belong.

It doesn't belong in religion. Religion is the belief in the supernatural, science is all about the natural. They do not mix. A Cosmologists argument for the big bang will be completely different to Justin Welby's (The ArchBishop of Canterbury).

You understand that science doesn't "determine" anything, right? That they follow the trail of evidence to discover the natural laws in place?

I seem to recall Professor Brian Cox saying that science uses mathematical models to determine scientific research. It is a case of trial and error with scientific experimentation. That is how we have the standard cosmological model.

When mankind didn't understand volcanoes and earthquakes, they also conclude that the lack of explanation "invariable makes it a supernatural event". They were as wrong then as you are now.

As wrong as I am now? So, I am wrong, am I? Well then, put me right. Tell me how abiogenesis works using the natural laws we have at our disposal. Or show me how the Higgs Boson does what it does. After you fail at that, then show me the evidence that you have which makes me wrong. If you cannot, then your statement that "I am wrong" is baseless. That would make it intentionally hostile and unnecessary.

We can not explain something that we do not yet understands. The secrets of those laws in place have not yet been uncovered. "We don't know" doesn't mean "God did it".

No," we do not know" doesn't mean God did it, however, when it involves laws that cannot be explained, or if it has only been recognised in singular events, then the cause is supernatural, because we cannot explain it with our natural laws. There is therefore no reason not to assume that it could be a God, and to go on from that, it v could be God who is drip feeding us with answers to the natural laws that we have by inspiring mankind. I believe it is.

Too bad there wasn't anyone monitoring the Inquisition. Too bad there wasn't anyone monitoring Salem. Ol' Isaac was lucky; Jephthah's daughter, not so much (read Judges Chapters 10-12; a human sacrifice in honor of God giving Jephthah victory over the Ammonites -- with permission from God!) If you think Christianity is innocent of human sacrifices, you are sorely and sadly mistaken.

Well, I do not feel sore and the Holy Ghost does not make mistakes. When you quote scripture you need to do it in context. Man may well have performed some heinous atrocities but that cannot be attributed to God or Christianity. Man must account for it. Christianity is just a word that describes a lifestyle. Nothing in that lifestyle is hostile. You cannot hold a lifestyle accountable for the barbaric actions of mankind.

No. What I am saying is that believing in something without the evidence to support that said something is absurd, dangerous and deadly. What I am also saying is that because of irrational beliefs, religions have made it absolutely necessary for science to "encroach into their territory".

You may think it is absurd, but no one is asking you for your opinion on it. No one is asking you to do the same either. I think that you should mind your own business and be concerned about your own existence. My decision to be a Christian should never effect your life, which effectively means, that you are making it your business. I am not being offensive when I say that I am pointing out a truth.

What, because JWs have interpreted a scripture that tells them not to have blood transfusions, science should step in. I think that social workers should step in, not scientists. By the way, It is not because of what you have said it is. It is, again, down to man's interpretation of scriptures, plus, of course, JWs have changed the Scriptures.

 

[Serenity7855]

YES.

Those who are well educated within that group. That I am not.

So maybe you have issues with even those half educated, I do qualify for that.

Why you hate people with no bias is beyond me.

Let me make it very clear. I am a Christian. I HATE NOBODY.

 

[ScuzManiac]

Let me make it very clear. I am a Christian. I HATE NOBODY.

Not even Satan?

 

[Agnostic75]

Religion is the belief in the supernatural, science is all about the natural. They do not mix. A Cosmologists argument for the big bang will be completely different to Justin Welby's (The ArchBishop of Canterbury).

I do not understand your approach. In the opening post, you said:

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, than not.

What scientific evidence did you provide that shows that it is more likely that God exists than not? How much more likely? I have already provided you with reasonable evidence, even from some distinguished Christians, including one of the Christian founders of the Big Bang theory, that says that science cannot show that it is more likely that God exists than not.

Even if science could show that it is more likely that a God exists than not, it could not show that Christianity is more likely true than Deism is.

The majority of leading physicists do not believe in God.

 

[Serenity7855]

I do not understand your approach. In the opening post, you said:

What scientific evidence did you provide that shows that it is more likely that God exists than not? How much more likely? I have already provided you with reasonable evidence, even from some distinguished Christians, including one of the Christian founders of the Big Bang theory, that says that science cannot show that it is more likely that God exists than not

.

Sir Isaacs Newton's third law of motion. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. It came into force when t=0.

I do not think that science can show that God exists. It is not set up to include the supernatural. My claim was that I can use science to demonstrate to a reasonable man that it is more likely for God to exist then not.

Even if science could show that it is more likely that a God exists than not, it could not show that Christianity is more likely true than Deism is.

That is true.

The majority of leading physicists do not believe in God.

That is true as well, although I am baffled by it. With all of those miracles in the universe why the figures are not reversed.

 

[ScuzManiac]

I do not understand your approach. In the opening post, you said:



.

Sir Isaacs Newton's third law of motion. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. It came into force when t=0.

I do not think that science can show that God exists. It is not set up to include the supernatural. My claim was that I can use science to demonstrate to a reasonable man that it is more likely for God to exist then not.



That is true.


That is true as well, although I am baffled by it. With all of those miracles in the universe why the figures are not reversed.

That's because we get closer each and every day to explaining most miracles.

We aren't getting any closer to proving there is a God.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Serenity7855]

That's because we get closer each and every day to explaining most miracles.

We aren't getting any closer to proving there is a God.

As far as I am aware, no one is trying to prove God. It would be a sin.

 

[Agnostic75]

Sir Isaacs Newton's third law of motion. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. It came into force when t=0.

How does that show that it is more likely that God exists than not?

I do not think that science can show that God exists.

It is not set up to include the supernatural. My claim was that I can use science to demonstrate to a reasonable man that it is more likely for God to exist then not.

Science is not set up to show that God exists, and it is not set up to show that it is more likely that God exists than not.

The brilliant Roman Catholic priest George Lemaitre was one of the founders of the Big Bang theory, and he would have disagreed with your approach.

Consider the following that I have posted before:

Georges Lemaitre, Father of the Big Bang

It is tempting to think that Lemaître’s deeply-held religious beliefs might have led him to the notion of a beginning of time. After all, the Judeo-Christian tradition had propagated a similar idea for millennia. Yet Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction. Indeed, when Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, Lemaître was rather alarmed. Delicately, for that was his way, he tried to separate the two:

“As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”

Obviously, if the Big Bang theory remains entirely outside of religion, it remains entirely outside of trying to use the Big Bang theory to show that it is more likely that God exists than not.

There is no doubt Lemaitre disagreed with your approach, and he knew far more about Newton's scientific writings that you will ever know.

Here is some more about Lemaitre:

Big Bang Theory: A Roman Catholic Creation | WGBH News

As astonishing as Lemaître's idea was, perhaps equally surprising to us now was the reaction of the church. Lemaître was not jailed by the Pope like Galileo. He was not excommunicated the way Johannes Keppler was by the Lutheran Church. Quite the opposite. In the early 1950s, Pope Pius XII not only declared that the big bang and the Catholic concept of creation were compatible; he embraced Lemaître's idea as scientific validation for the existence of God and of Catholicism.

For his part, Lemaître was not pleased with the Pope’s position. He believed fiercely in the separation of church and lab. He viewed religion and science as two, equally valid, distinct ways of interpreting the world, both of which he believed in with deep conviction:

"We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character...The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations."

The National Academy of Sciences has said:

"Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral."

By implication, that also means that whether or not science can demonstrate to a reasonable man that it is more likely for God to exist than not is a question about which science is neutral.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It doesn't belong in religion. ........

I have never heard anyone talk so much and say so little. By the time you respond to anything that anyone else has to say, you have completely forgotten the premise of the discourse an take the conversation down a completely different path from which it began. :run:

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It doesn't belong in religion. Religion is the belief in the supernatural, science is all about the natural. They do not mix. A Cosmologists argument for the big bang will be completely different to Justin Welby's (The ArchBishop of Canterbury).

What does Welby's argument for the Big Bang have to do with anything we are discussing?

I seem to recall Professor Brian Cox saying that science uses mathematical models to determine scientific research. It is a case of trial and error with scientific experimentation. That is how we have the standard cosmological model.

Science does not determine what is and what is not. They discover what is and what is not. Science does not determine what conclusion their research and experimentation is supposed to take before taking it on. This is what I mean by "determine". You are smart enough to know what I'm saying. Enough of the shell game, huh?

As wrong as I am now? So, I am wrong, am I? Well then, put me right. Tell me how abiogenesis works using the natural laws we have at our disposal. Or show me how the Higgs Boson does what it does. After you fail at that, then show me the evidence that you have which makes me wrong. If you cannot, then your statement that "I am wrong" is baseless. That would make it intentionally hostile and unnecessary.

As I have stated, throughout history, mankind has consistently attributed what we could not yet understand to the supernatural. Consistently, mankind has been proven wrong in their premise that this supernatural explains the natural. The presupposition that "God did it" has continually been proven wrong. I don't need to answer questions that have no known answer to prove my point. History proves my point. Yes, you are wrong in assuming the supernatural as the cause for the natural.

No," we do not know" doesn't mean God did it, however, when it involves laws that cannot be explained, or if it has only been recognised in singular events, then the cause is supernatural, because we cannot explain it with our natural laws. There is therefore no reason not to assume that it could be a God, and to go on from that, it v could be God who is drip feeding us with answers to the natural laws that we have by inspiring mankind. I believe it is.

"I believe it is", you said. God did it: Check! "When it involves laws that cannot be explained". Continuing to ignore the pattern of history regarding mankind's constant attributing to the supernatural then be proven wrong is mere insanity; Doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

Well, I do not feel sore and the Holy Ghost does not make mistakes. When you quote scripture you need to do it in context. Man may well have performed some heinous atrocities but that cannot be attributed to God or Christianity. Man must account for it. Christianity is just a word that describes a lifestyle. Nothing in that lifestyle is hostile. You cannot hold a lifestyle accountable for the barbaric actions of mankind.

First, I did not quote scripture, so nothing is misquoted out of context. Second, God sanctioned Jepthadza's (however you spell that name) sacrifice of his daughter. As God condoned that horrific act, then yes, this atrocity can be attributed to him.

You may think it is absurd, but no one is asking you for your opinion on it. No one is asking you to do the same either. I think that you should mind your own business and be concerned about your own existence. My decision to be a Christian should never effect your life, which effectively means, that you are making it your business. I am not being offensive when I say that I am pointing out a truth.

No offense taken. Anything you put on a public forum is open for scrutiny. Anything you put on a public DEBATE forum is open for criticism and rebuttal. If you don't want someone pointing out to you that you can not convince any ol' body "not yet brainwashed by atheists", then don't make that statement on an open debate forum.

What, because JWs have interpreted a scripture that tells them not to have blood transfusions, science should step in. I think that social workers should step in, not scientists. By the way, It is not because of what you have said it is. It is, again, down to man's interpretation of scriptures, plus, of course, JWs have changed the Scriptures.'

Your tangent on the JW has absolutely nothing to do with the current debate. If you wish to vent, there are other avenues you can use to vent other than public debate forums.

Now, on to better things ....

 

[Serenity7855]

I have never heard anyone talk so much and say so little. By the time you respond to anything that anyone else has to say, you have completely forgotten the premise of the discourse an take the conversation down a completely different path from which it began. :run:

I think that you mis-judge me.

 

[Serenity7855]

How does that show that it is more likely that God exists than not?

It shows that the universe was caused to come into existence. It does not prove that it was a God, but what is does do is to make him a possibility. If it was uncaused then it is not covered by our natural laws making supernatural, which again make a God a possibility.

Science is not set up to show that God exists, and it is not set up to show that it is more likely that God exists than not.

I have actually said that.

The brilliant Roman Catholic priest George Lemaitre was one of the founders of the Big Bang theory, and he would have disagreed with your approach.

This is an unnecessary comment that cannot be proved.

Consider the following that I have posted before:

Georges Lemaitre, Father of the Big Bang

Obviously, if the Big Bang theory remains entirely outside of religion, it remains entirely outside of trying to use the Big Bang theory to show that it is more likely that God exists than not.

Why is that obvious to you. Science belongs to everyone so why is it that someone with religion is excluded to you?

There is no doubt Lemaitre disagreed with your approach, and he knew far more about Newton's scientific writings that you will ever know.

How are you able to say that. You do not know who I am and what my achievements are. Have you not considered that this whole paragraph is offensive?

Here is some more about Lemaitre:

Big Bang Theory: A Roman Catholic Creation | WGBH News

He was talking about the business end of science, the testing and collection of data, not the results that are for everyone, including religion, to freely use at their leisure. That means that when science has concluded that they do not have a clue what dark matter is then religion can say, it was God. What evidence is there to the contrary. Science doesn't know so why couldn't it be?

The National Academy of Sciences has said:

"Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral."

I disagree.

By implication, that also means that whether or not science can demonstrate to a reasonable man that it is more likely for God to exist than not is a question about which science is neutral.

I would not agree with that. Science is proactive in discrediting religion. One of the main focus's of the research into abiogenesis is to discredit religions claim for a creation.

 

[Serenity7855]

I have never heard anyone talk so much and say so little. By the time you respond to anything that anyone else has to say, you have completely forgotten the premise of the discourse an take the conversation down a completely different path from which it began. :run:

Thank you. I will keep it in mind for future reference.

 

[outhouse]

That means that when science has concluded that they do not have a clue what dark matter is then religion can say, it was God. What evidence is there to the contrary. Science doesn't know so why couldn't it be?



.

They know its not mythology.

They also do not repeat ancient mens mistakes of attributing what they do not konw to a deity of choice.

Man has FACTUALLY made this mistake for as long as writen history has existed. AND every single time each and every thing attributed has been pushed back into gaps of knowledge. It has natural explanations that do not require mythology

SO NOTHING has ever been able to be attributed to mythology