There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Here, you said:

Then neither can you blame atheism on "brain washing".

But, HERE, 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.....

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Serenity7855]

I’m glad you agree. So I’m sure I won’t see you suggesting any more that atheists feel they are not accountable for their actions.

You said:

Every human being on the planet, be they Christians, atheists, Muslims, whatever, are accountable to everyone else, and to themselves.

That does not mean that militant atheists, with narcissistic psychopathic tendencies, do not see themselves as top dogs on metaphysical beliefs. They do, and if they try and exert their diabolical beliefs and coercion on me, which they have, many times, I will defend myself and my beliefs vigorously.

Yes, and as I pointed out, those groups of people are sociopaths and psychopaths who make a quite a small percentage of the human population. Unless you have some kind of studies indicating that all or most of such people identify as atheists, I don’t know how you’re drawing the conclusion that you are. Anecdotal stories don’t really cut it.

Yes, I accept that they are in the minority, but so was Hitler when he set out on his mission to control the world. You should never undermine the power of the minority.

Secondly, you always find them on these kind of forums. I rarely get a chance to debate with someone of a different faith to mine about their interpretation of Scripture without some antitheist drawing the topic to "we are idiots for believing in fairy stories" .

I am afraid that most posts here are anecdotal. Experience can be a valuable commodity.

Do you think it’s right for a Christian, for example, to attempt to instill their own moral standards to the world that do comply with god’s commandments? And if so, why would you find that acceptable?

Of course not. That removes free agency.

Some atheists feel that religion is harmful to society, and yet, I’m not aware of many that think religion should be entirely removed from our world. Even some atheists who identify themselves as “antitheists” wouldn’t even agree with that (see Christopher Hitchens, for one).

Professor Richard Dawkins. He has made it blatantly clear that he wants to rid the world of religion. He said that we were well on the way to achieving it until the Golf War erupted. He writes books to line his pockets for his retirement. He is a popular antitheist so his beliefs flood the earth with his militant agenda. How many people have been indoctrinated and encouraged to get rid of religion by his influence on them.

As I and a number of others have pointed out to you, your OP (and a number of your other posts) comes off as quite hostile which would explain the responses you have received to it. It appears you do not view it that way, and of course you can respond in any manner you like (within forum rules) but I’m just pointing out to you where this apparent return in hostility is coming from.

The mistake I made in the OP was not to put "militant" in front of atheist or just call them antitheists, which I would normally do. I expect hostility from them. As I have not been overly active here, I do not know who is an antitheist and who is an atheist yet. I am recognising them as they post on here, however, please do not let me fool you into believing that I am not hostile to the antitheist, I am. I see them as enemies to Christ Jesus, antichrists, and don the full armour of God when I confront them.

I mean, I wouldn’t expect that if I walked up to someone just standing around minding their own business and punched them in the face, that they’d just sit there and take it. I would expect a similar response in return. You suggest in your OP that atheists are close-minded, mindless bigots, who employ brainwashing techniques to convert the world to atheism. How do you expect anyone to respond to that?

Comparing verbal abuse with physical abuse is not really plausible is it? I understand what you mean though, which is why, in hindsight, I should have been more specific as to who I was referring to, antitheists.

I did not say what you are accusing me of saying. I said "void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists" I did not say that they were "close-minded, mindless bigots" in my OP, you have tagged that onto it. I should have said ""void of the brain washing techniques of antitheists"

I think most other posters are not acting in a rude or obnoxious manner.

Then you have not read there post or you are not being unbiased. Just select "outhouse" to see a good example of hostile post.

Then you should ask your sister to carry out some studies on your suggested correlation between atheism and psychopathy and ask her to demonstrate how one is caused by the other. We don’t all suffer with psychopathy and you cannot categorically state that every psychopath you’ve ever met were militant atheists, especially without any sort of psychological training or in-depth psychological analysis of the people in question.

It is my daughter not my sister. My daughter did much of her studies, and 4 years as a professional, in a secured unit with Criminal psychopaths, schizophrenic and sociopaths. Almost 80% of them had no religions. That is not anecdotal, it is fact. Thank goodness she left and now looks after patients with eating disorders.

I’m sure your experience is not in mind reading.

I am glad you said that.

So you must have actually had (militant) atheists say to you that they only felt guilty of doing something they considered wrong because they got caught? I find that very hard to believe.

Look, you do not have to believe a word I say. I am not pressurising you into believing me, but yes, I have that information from an authorised source.

“If an atheist tells lies on here, and they do, there is no reason for them to feel guilt, whereas, a Christian would need to recognise the sin, make restitution and then repent. We have a higher being to be accountable to.”
There is plenty of reason for an atheist (or anyone) to feel guilt when they feel they’ve don’t something wrong or immoral. To me, the moral thing to do when you’ve done such a thing is to make restitution with the actual person you have wronged. That’s how a person can be accountable for their actions.

It don't work like that, if you are a narcissistic psychopaths, schizophrenic or a sociopaths

Did you take a poll or something?

I have taken literally hundreds of polls, both for the commercial sector and for governmental use. I have conducted a poll recently for the government, as a result of the riots here, that is thought to have been caused by the moral decline of our society, that the experts feel started them. Guess what, this is it. Please do not ask for details. It is confidential at this time.

Well I’m sorry, but I think you need to look deeper.

We all need to be more introspective.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

That does not mean that militant atheists with narcissistic psychopathic tendencies do not see themselves as top dogs on metaphysical beliefs. They are not, and if they try and exert their diabolical beliefs on me, which they have, many times, I will defend myself and my beliefs.

Some atheists are terrible people, and some Christians are terrible people. Neither of those facts has anything to do with whether or not a God exists.

I have been attacked by some militant atheists for being an agnostic. I did not like it, but that does not have anything to do with whether or not naturalism is true.

The mistake I made in the OP was not to put "militant" in front of atheist or just call them antitheists, which I would normally do. I expect hostility from them. As I have not been overly active here, I do not know who is an antitheist and who is an atheist yet. I am recognising them as they post on here, however, please do not let me fool you into believing that I am not hostile to the antitheist, I am. I see them as enemies to Christ Jesus, antichrists, and don the full armour of God when I confront them.

How utterly absurd. The Bible is hostile to all non-Christians since it puts atheists, and non-Christian theists in the same boat.

In Old Testament times, Hebrews who accepted other Gods were put to death by God's command, and most of the Hebrew's enemies where theists.

Today, some of the most influential atheists are polite, and respectful.

 

[Agnostic75]

"A possibility" is not the issue. Rather, "more likely" is the issue since that is what you said in the opening post.

I do not mind you holding to the OP in this case because I still maintain it is true, however, these forums are used to gain knowledge as well as to impart knowledge. If I decided that a poster's opinion was right and mine was wrong, then I would change my opinion, so, you cannot always hold a person to the OP as he maybe wrong and you cannot edit the OP.

I am just going by what you said in the opening post, where you said that it is more likely that God exists than not. You later said that the existence of God is a possibility, which is different from saying that it is more likely that God exists than not.

You essentially claimed that science can show that it is more likely that the Big Bang came from nothing than not, but LeMaitre disagreed with that approach.

I initially stated that the Big Bang had a causation and that causation could be a God.

No you didn't. 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.

Obviously, "more likely" is different than "a possibility."

Why do you object to a scientific theory being used to validate the possibility of the big bang being caused by a God.

Because the National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God, and because even many Christian experts do not try to mix religion and science like you do.

The National Academy of Sciences has said:

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

I disagree.

Go right ahead, many people agree with the National Academy of Science about that, including many Christian laymen, and many Christian experts.

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 focuses of the research into abiogenesis is to discredit religions' claim for a creation.

The National Academy of Sciences is the most distinguished scientific organization in the U.S., and many of its members are Christians. Since the NAS is neutral on the issue of the existence of God, it is quite obvious that one its main focuses is not research into abiogenesis to discredit religions' claim for a creation. Some American naturalist scientists do try to discredit creation, but they do not represent the opinions of the board of directors, and the majority of the members of the NAS.

If you participated at Physics Forums, I doubt that you would get anywhere with your approach of trying to use the Big Bang theory, and Newton's third law of motion to show that it is more likely that God exists than not. I recommend that you make some posts there in order to show that you know a lot about physics.

How are you able to say that when you admit not knowing much about physics or did it provide an opportunity for you to insult me?

I am just guessing, and you have the opportunity to show that you know a lot about physics by discussing the Big Bang, and Newton's third law of motion at at Physics Forums, but I doubt that you will since you would much rather discuss physics with people who generally know far less about physics than many members of Physics Forums do.

Anyway, a large percentage of theists do not know enough about physics to have scientifically informed opinions about the Big Bang theory, and Newton's third law of motion.

Yet you appear to be an avid fan of George LeMaitre's, a Christian?

First of all, your reply did not have anything to do with my comment that "a large percentage of theists do not know enough about physics to have scientifically informed opinions about the Big Bang theory, and Newton's third law of motion," which is definitely true. Surely quantum physics is often too counterintuitive for the majority of laymen to adequately understand.

Second, I mentioned "a large percentage of Christians," not a brilliant physicist like Lemaitre.

Third, what do the facts that I admire Lemaitre's academic achievements, and his choice not to mix science and religion like you do have to do with whether or not science can show that it is more likely that God exists than not?

I have been alive for nearly a half a century longer than him.

Of course, and fifty years from now, no one knows where quantum physics will be, so there are not any good reasons to jump to conclusions about a field that is still in a manner of speaking in its infancy, and has undergone some significant changes in a relatively brief amount of time.

If I wanted to debate physics then I would, but I don't.

But you are obviously debating physics, and this forum is called the Religious Debates forum. The word "debate" is sometimes synonymously used with the word "discuss" You do not want to discuss the Big Bang theory, and Newton's third law of motion at Physics Forum partly because you know that the competition is much better there than it is here.

Neither the Big Bang theory, nor Newton's third law of motion, postulates what existed before the Big Bang, and what caused the Big Bang to occur. Those issues are beyond explanation by science, and thus, science cannot show that it is more likely that a God exists than not.

Why is it more likely that an eternal God caused the Big Bang to occur than it is that naturalistic energy caused the Big Bang to occur?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I said:


Every human being on the planet, be they Christians, atheists, Muslims, whatever, are accountable to everyone else, and to themselves.

I said that.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I said that.

Yes, you did. I specifically remember.

 

[Serenity7855]

I said that.

You most certainly did not. I have corrected it now. It should have read "you said"

 

[Serenity7855]

Yes, you did. I specifically remember.

Well you must be right then if you "specifically" remember.

 

[Password]

So why is it that Atheists have such leverage in our society to preach their counterfeit arguments.

Society is not properly educated with moral and unmoral forgiveness.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Every human being on the planet, be they Christians, atheists, Muslims, whatever, are accountable to everyone else, and to themselves.

I seem to have found it. The posts before, we would read Serenity proclaiming that "Militant Atheists" are "accountable to no one".

 

[Serenity7855]

I seem to have found it. The posts before, we would read Serenity proclaiming that "Militant Atheists" are "accountable to no one".

Gosh darn, why didn't you link us to it?

This is what Serenity really said "That is a tad condescending and arrogant, don't you think? Militant Atheists, after all, are void of moral accountability. They have no consequences to their actions, so there is no reason for them to account for them"

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Every human being on the planet, be they Christians, atheists, Muslims, whatever, are accountable to everyone else, and to themselves.

For your amusement, I do link it again. It's the blue arrow button in the blue box.

 

[Serenity7855]

Some atheists are terrible people, and some Christians are terrible people. Neither of those facts has anything to do with whether or not a God exists.

I have been attacked by some militant atheists for being an agnostic. I did not like it, but that does not have anything to do with whether or not naturalism is true.
Well, then you should be complaining to those who have taken it off topic.

How utterly absurd. The Bible is hostile to all non-Christians since it puts atheists, and non-Christian theists in the same boat.

Can you give me chapter and verse on that please.

In Old Testament times, Hebrews who accepted other Gods were put to death by God's command, and most of the Hebrew's enemies where theists.

Now, you see, the Old Testament was fulfilled by Christ in the Beatitude. The old testament refers to the Mosaic Law. It was a necessary law because people were extremely carnal in nature. It was a necessary law to bring mankind into line to enter into the Abrahamic Covenant. When Jesus Christ came he changed the law to the Abrahamic Covenant, effectively doing away with a whole chunk of the Old Testament.

Today, some of the most influential atheists are polite, and respectful.

Goes without saying, however, I am talking about antitheist.

 

[Serenity7855]

I am just going by what you said in the opening post, where you said that it is more likely that God exists than not. You later said that the existence of God is a possibility, which is different from saying that it is more likely that God exists than not.

Is it? Surely something that is likely is also a possibility. If so, then to be more then likely is to be possible.

Dictionary Definitions of "Possible and" Likely.

Possible
Able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something

More Than Likely

Capable of happening or existing; "a breakthrough may be possible next year"; "anything is possible"; "warned of possible consequences"

No you didn't. In the opening post, you said:

Obviously, "more likely" is different than "a possibility."

No, they are synonymous. See the definitions above.

Because the National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God, and because even many Christian experts do not try to mix religion and science like you do.

Right, then you are saying that I should comply with the NAS. Have you any idea how many of our discoveries have been made by non-compliant scientists?

Go right ahead, many people agree with the National Academy of Science about that, including many Christian laymen, and many Christian experts.

That is great.

The National Academy of Sciences is the most distinguished scientific organization in the U.S., and many of its members are Christians. Since the NAS is neutral on the issue of the existence of God, it is quite obvious that one its main focuses is not research into abiogenesis to discredit religions' claim for a creation. Some American naturalist scientists do try to discredit creation, but they do not represent the opinions of the board of directors, and the majority of the members of the NAS.

So, tell me, why have they been researching abiogenesis for the last 50 years, costing millions of US Dollars and thousand of Man hours, to be none the wiser now then they were when they started their research. Why is it important for them to know?

I am just guessing, and you have the opportunity to show that you know a lot about physics by discussing the Big Bang, and Newton's third law of motion at at Physics Forums, but I doubt that you will since you would much rather discuss physics with people who generally know far less about physics than many members of Physics Forums do.

That is a little presumptuous, don't you think? And a little wide of the mark as well.

First of all, your reply did not have anything to do with my comment that "a large percentage of theists do not know enough about physics to have scientifically informed opinions about the Big Bang theory, and Newton's third law of motion," which is definitely true. Surely quantum physics is often too counterintuitive for the majority of laymen to adequately understand.

Yes, that is very true. We have around 10 theories for quantum physics with none of them being fool proof. We are in the early stages of sub-automic particles, but when we do get a better understanding of it then the doors will be opened to God science, that I am sure. I have difficulty with it as it gives me headaches just thinking about it.

Second, I mentioned "a large percentage of Christians," not a brilliant physicist like Lemaitre.

He was still a Christian. You cannot cherry pick them.

Third, what do the facts that I admire Lemaitre's academic achievements, and his choice not to mix science and religion like you do have to do with whether or not science can show that it is more likely that God exists than not?

Nothing, so why did you feel it necessary to bring him up in the debate?

Of course, and fifty years from now, no one knows where quantum physics will be, so there are not any good reasons to jump to conclusions about a field that is still in a manner of speaking in its infancy, and has undergone some significant changes in a relatively brief amount of time.

In fifty years time we may have already seen the second coming and none of this stuff will be relevant anymore. I will not be around to witness it, that is for sure.

But you are obviously debating physics, and this forum is called the Religious Debates forum. The word "debate" is sometimes synonymously used with the word "discuss" You do not want to discuss the Big Bang theory, and Newton's third law of motion at Physics Forum partly because you know that the competition is much better there than it is here.

I do not believe that I am talking physics. I am talking about the discoveries in physics, applying them to religion. I have only mention one equation and have not spoken on published papers or in depth on research. I am talking about the shape, taste and colour of the pill, not how the pharmaceutical industry developed it.

Neither the Big Bang theory, nor Newton's third law of motion, postulates what existed before the Big Bang, and what caused the Big Bang to occur. Those issues are beyond explanation by science, and thus, science cannot show that it is more likely that a God exists than not.

Then why are people like Professor Brian Cox still researching it?

Why is it more likely that an eternal God caused the Big Bang to occur than it is that naturalistic energy caused the Big Bang to occur?

Because when you bring it all together with the other supernatural events, the picture you get points to design.

 

[ScuzManiac]

Can you give me chapter and verse on that please.

Revelation 21:8

:yes:

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I am just going by what you said in the opening post, where you said that it is more likely that God exists than not. You later said that the existence of God is a possibility, which is different from saying that it is more likely that God exists than not.

Is it? Surely something that is likely is also a possibility. If so, then to be more then likely is to be possible.

Dictionary Definitions of "Possible and" Likely.

Possible
Able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something

More Than Likely

Capable of happening or existing; "a breakthrough may be possible next year"; "anything is possible"; "warned of possible consequences"

The true question is, "Is there sufficient reason to believe?" The answer is "NO!" It is "no" for many reasons that have been explained to you.

As far as your delusion of "God Science", the first thing that has to happen is that "God" must be defined in a way that subjects it to scientific research. When that challenge is met, maybe we can ... "proceed".

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Right, then you are saying that I should comply with the NAS. Have you any idea how many of our discoveries have been made by non-compliant scientists?

Yes, but even the most "non-compliant" scientists (whatever that means) followed the scientific method. They didn't say, "We don't know, so there must be a God, so how can we prove that there is a God?" That is not how science works. This kind of "science" is akin to Creationism, Ancient Aliens and Bigfoot hoaxes.

 

[Agnostic75]

Obviously, "more likely" is different than "a possibility."

No, they are synonymous.

The first claim would be much closer to the claim that "it is plausible that God exists" than the claim that "it is more likely that God exists than not."

The second claim would be much closer to the claim that "it is more probable that God exists than not" than the claim that "it is a possibility that God exists."

Consider the following two claims:

1. It is a possibility that God exists.

2. It is more likely that God exists than not.

Are you saying that both statements are synonymous, and that for all practical purposes mean the same thing, and that the second statement does not imply a stronger probability that God exists than the first statement does? If so, I disagree, and with your permission, I will start a new thread just on this issue, and I will quote what you have said about this issue, and I will quote what I have said about this issue. I would not be discussing anything except for proper English grammar.

Anyway, you have not shown that science shows that it is more likely, or more probable that God exists than not.

Neither the Big Bang theory, nor Newton's third law of motion, postulates what existed before the Big Bang, and what caused the Big Bang to occur. Those issues are beyond explanation by science, and thus, science cannot show that it is more likely that a God exists than not.

Then why are people like Professor Brian Cox still researching it?

What I obviously meant was that those issues are currently beyond explanation by science. That is why science cannot show that it is more likely, or more probable that God exists than not.

As you must know, most physicists have said that it is very difficult to study what happened before the Big Bang, and why it happened.

The National Academy of Sciences is the most distinguished scientific organization in the U.S., and many of its members are Christians. Since the NAS is neutral on the issue of the existence of God, it is quite obvious that one its main focuses is not research into abiogenesis to discredit religions' claim for a creation. Some American naturalist scientists do try to discredit creation, but they do not represent the opinions of the board of directors, and the majority of the members of the NAS.

So, tell me, why have they been researching abiogenesis for the last 50 years, costing millions of US dollars and thousand of man hours, to be none the wiser now then they were when they started their research. Why is it important for them to know?

Do you have any evidence that the NAS has spent millions of dollars studying abiogenesis partly for the purpose of trying to discredit theism? It would be absurd for scientists not to try to create life. Even if scientists were able to create life, that would not necessarily discredit theism, and it would not necessarily prove that naturalism is true. Trying to find the truth is a noble enterprise, including trying to create life.

Wikipedia says:

Modern science relies on methodological naturalism and thus is incapable of discovering the supernatural. It thereby fashions a Procrustean bed which rejects any observation which would disprove the naturalistic assumption. Apologists argue that the resulting worldview is inconsistent with itself and therefore irrational (for example, via the Argument from morality or via the Transcendental argument for the existence of God).

Millions of Christian laymen, and thousands of Christian experts approve of that approach since they know that science cannot adequately study supernatural events.

How do you propose that scientists should study the possibilities that God created life on earth, and that aliens brought life to earth?

Why is it more likely that an eternal God caused the Big Bang to occur than it is that naturalistic energy caused the Big Bang to occur?

Because when you bring it all together with the other supernatural events, the picture you get points to design.

Now you have finally departed from science, which is good since you should not have discussed science in the first place. If supernatural events point to design, then obviously there is no need to discuss science.

Discussing supernatural events will take months of discussions just to get started, so please present your evidence of supernatural events that were caused by the God of the Bible. The Bible promises eternal rewards only to Christian theists, not to all theists, so merely proposing that an unknown God has caused supernatural events to occur is not helpful from a biblical perspective, partly because the Bible says that Satan can perform miracles, and partly because many non-Christians claim that God performs miracles, but the Bible says that non-Christians will not have eternal life.

Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. How could Paul have known that? Why isn't it just as possible that God is an imposter? If God was an imposter, how would you be able to know that?