There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[s2a]

Just to reiterate. once again, that there is more than enough "evidence" to more than politely suggest that you are wrong.

Intellect is not the factor here, but resident wisdom. It will aways be difficult to defeat religious beliefs with evident fact. Always.

BUT YOU ARE STILL WRONG

 

[outhouse]

It will aways be difficult to defeat religious beliefs with evident fact. Always.

No matter how much education and knowledge we provide, he will not change his belief.


Willful ignorance is something I have little patients with.

 

[Curious George]

Well I am here. I am a reasonable, completely impartial, non bigoted, open person.

 

[Serenity7855]

Dude, I don't think you're an imbecile. People make mistakes. I'm not arguing against God either. I'm just trying to understand whether your position is that God can be proven beyond a doubt to exist or not.

I am not trying to prove, beyond a doubt, that God exists. I am trying to show, that with the current scientific knowledge, that his existence is more likely then not. That is the case I have put forward in the OP. I believe that I have sufficiently accomplished that goal thus far showing the real possibility that a God could be responsible for the big bang, and that I am further accomplishing it with the Anthropic Principle, in accordance with my OP.

 

[Curious George]

I am not trying to prove, beyond a doubt, that God exists. I am trying to show, that with the current scientific knowledge, that his existence is more likely then not. That is the case I have put forward in the OP. I believe that I have sufficiently accomplished that goal thus far showing the real possibility that a God could be responsible for the big bang, and that I am further accomplishing it with the Anthropic Principle, in accordance with my OP.

But how is "it could be possible" proof by the preponderance of evidence?

 

[Serenity7855]

No matter how much education and knowledge we provide, he will not change his belief.


Willful ignorance is something I have little patients with.

You like the word "willful" though, don't you?

Who is "we"

You are damn tooting right I will not change my belief. Why would I? What business is it of yours what I believe? Is that what you are trying to do here? Do you believe that you have education and knowledge to pass on to me, or anybody else? Do you believe you are on a crusade for your master to take theists away from their religion?

 

[Curious George]

You like the word "willful" though, don't you?

Who is "we"

You are damn tooting right I will not change my belief. Why would I? What business is it of yours what I believe? Is that what you are trying to do here? Do you believe that you have education and knowledge to pass on to me, or anybody else? Do you believe you are on a crusade for your master to take theists away from their religion?

As a reasonable man from the streets, I would like to point out that rhetoric bordering on ad hominem is not very convincing of anything. In fact, it increases a feeling of unease especially in that your rhetoric hear seems to announce you yourself are not open minded. When you ask this of people like me but denounce the trait in yourself a red flag comes up that questions whether you are preying on the open minded. Freeriders exist in our system, despite collaboration being more productive for all.

 

[Serenity7855]

But how is "it could be possible" proof by the preponderance of evidence?

Because "it could be possible" is greater them "it might be impossible" and less then "most assuredly" , therefore, the evidence is predominant in favour. Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence, which is the evidence I refer to here

Wiki

 

[Serenity7855]

As a reasonable man from the streets, I would like to point out that rhetoric bordering on ad hominem is not very convincing of anything. In fact, it increases a feeling of unease especially in that your rhetoric hear seems to announce you yourself are not open minded. When you ask this of people like me but denounce the trait in yourself a red flag comes up that questions whether you are preying on the open minded. Freeriders exist in our system, despite collaboration being more productive for all.

Every post that this poster makes about me is ad hominem. You are fresh on this thread so you would not know that. I do not usually respond but I got up to go to the toilet and found his belittling comments begging me to answer them.

 

[Serenity7855]

But how is "it could be possible" proof by the preponderance of evidence?

That remains to be seen, I think. As you have no profile I fear it needs to be a suck it and see operation.

 

[outhouse]

am trying to show, that with the current scientific knowledge, that his existence is more likely then not.

.

And you failed in light of the fact, man created deities for thousands of years prior to your god.

Israelites plagiarized Canaanite mythology, Christians plagiarized Judaism, and islam plagiarized them all.

And they all think ONLY their books are correct



YOU IGNORE FACTS, and avoid history.

 

[Curious George]

That remains to be seen, I think. As you have no profile I fear it needs to be a suck it and see operation.

I do not know the expression "suck it and see operation.". Could you please explain.

 

[Curious George]

Because "it could be possible" is greater them "it might be impossible" and less then "most assuredly" , therefore, the evidence is predominant in favour. Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence, which is the evidence I refer to here

Wiki

Preponderance refers to your more likely than not. I would imagine that this is the threshold which you must meet to convince a reasonable person from the streets, like myself. I am not asking for any great burden of proof. But more likely than not still leaves room for skepticism, and doubt. That is ok. But from my reasonable perspective hypotheticals that end with the emphasis "it could be possible." Does not meet the burden. You are suggesting that you can meet this low burden of proof. Thus, we must look at your evidence objectively and ask is your assertion more likely than not. I am not sure you have met this burden. Granted I haven't read through all of the posts, but I do not see rhetoric such as the gap of intelligence between man and beast addressing this. Perhaps you have a post in mind in which you have laid forth your argument in a concise manner. Please link me that post. If not please do so.

My understanding is that we only have circumstantial evidence. But that makes no matter. Like a puzzle, we do not need every piece to ascertain what the picture holds. Even more so when the burden is just a preponderance. But please, set forth the argument. I understand that circumstantial evidence can be picked apart by logic, this is true for either side of the argument. This does not matter. I am only looking for a more likely than not scenario.

 

[Serenity7855]

I do not know the expression "suck it and see operation.". Could you please explain.

Hmm. I think it might be an English phrase

suck it and see (British & Australian informal)

to try something that you have not done before to discover what it is like or whether it will be successful I'm not sure at this stage whether it's the right job for me - I've just got to suck it and see.

 

[Serenity7855]

Preponderance refers to your more likely than not.

Yes.

I would imagine that this is the threshold which you must meet to convince a reasonable person from the streets, like myself.

Yes, however, it differs in each case.

I am not asking for any great burden of proof. But more likely than not still leaves room for skepticism, and doubt.

Well, you know what good old Stuart Chase said, “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”

That is ok. But from my reasonable perspective hypotheticals that end with the emphasis "it could be possible." Does not meet the burden.

Stuart Chase really is right in his quote above. But I believe that no amount of proof can ever convince anyone that a God exists for if we saw him face to face would we still ask who he is. I am as sure as I can be that God exists but there is always scepticism, no matter how devout you are. I am told that we went to the moon but I have to take the word of the media. I do not actually know it. Even with these circumstantial evidence they will never be enough. They increase the likelihood but they never quite turn faith into knowledge. But that is fine for me. Even if there is nothing after I die I have still very much enjoyed my life as a Christian.

You are suggesting that you can meet this low burden of proof.

I suggest nothing. I have presented the information. It is up to the reader to decide if it meets to their level of burden of proof. I am quite willing to offer rebuttals to any comments as well.

Thus, we must look at your evidence objectively and ask is your assertion more likely than not.

Yes, that is a reasonable expectation.

I am not sure you have met this burden. Granted I haven't read through all of the posts, but I do not see rhetoric such as the gap of intelligence between man and beast addressing this.

Neither do I, on its own

Perhaps you have a post in mind in which you have laid forth your argument in a concise manner. Please link me that post. If not please do so.

This thread is nearly 2000 posts long. I have probably written 1000 of those posts, at least. The majority of those posts revolve around the big bang and it's possible causes. I do not have a particular post in mind but what I do have is time and patience for reasonable debate, so if you want to question me on it I do not mind repeating it, provided you keep to the topic and not my person or my abilities. I claim no superior knowledge on the subject but I have read up on the topic in my interest of it.

My understanding is that we only have circumstantial evidence. But that makes no matter. Like a puzzle, we do not need every piece to ascertain what the picture holds. Even more so when the burden is just a preponderance. But please, set forth the argument. I understand that circumstantial evidence can be picked apart by logic, this is true for either side of the argument. This does not matter. I am only looking for a more likely than not scenario.

Kalams Cosmological Argument.

Classical argument

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence

What is your opinion on the argument?


So as to give you an insight into my own religious convictions, I wrote a post to Blackdog22 yesterday summing it up. Here it is for your reference.

Religions, or faiths, are the biggest blight on understanding the true nature of God. I know I will get people's backs up, however, faiths are not necessary. They serve no purpose, other than to guess at the meaning of scriptures and claim to be the only true faith to follow. I do not like faiths. They are for weak people who cannot make their own decisions. They are elitist and self serving. Jesus told us exactly how to worship him.

Matthew 18:20

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

That is the true definition of a church. Religion is personal. It is not to be forced or sold to others. It is a personal relationship with you and your God, whoever He may be. I don't want to fall out with you or anyone else over my personal beliefs and you should feel the same about your non-belief. It has as much to do with me as mine has to do with you. This is the only type of venue that the two should meet and intertwine. Where else in your daily life would you want to talk about your non-belief. I rarely talk about my belief. We got it all wrong by allowing men to continue in their interpretation of Scripture for us instead of by us. I am not your every day Christian. I am a pragmatist, a bit of a literalist. Religions in heaven will not exist. I will, you will and so will everyone else. Do you think there will be Catholics, or Protestants, or methodists in heaven, no, of course not, they will all be Mormons.:no:

 

[Serenity7855]

Maybe it is.

I have to admit, I have thought about it and reasoned it out in my mind many times. I think I have a mixture of beliefs, a reasonable measure of paganism, a smidgen of JW, some bits and pieces of creationism, quite a chunk of mormonism, all bound together by my own beliefs.
.

I would question how simple God is if he isn't complex. More simple than a rock? More simple than a plant? At some point the God concept starts to become quite confusing if you are arguing his non complexity, and attempting to place him as the creator of the Universe. If he is as simple as an atom then we don't need to call him God, as atoms are all that is needed to get to where we are, if he is more complex than an atom then rationalizing he is more likely to exist than an atom is self defeating.

Yes, but at what point does something become complex and by what standard do you compare it to. Compare it to me and he is extremely complex but compare him to the complexity of the universe and not so much. Let's face it, we are not that comp, ex either but if you compare us to a protozoa then we are ultra complex. In his own sphere of existence I get the impression that his being, his mission, his abilities are all pretty fundamental. When Jesus was on his ministry he did some pretty miraculous stuff and people saw him as someone who was extraordinary, however, in today's world, much of what he did is being done everyday in our hospitals so the people of his time must have seen him as complex, but today, not so much. So how do we define complexity.

I was primarily talking about the part where you said if you were right you have nothing to lose (presuming no other religions exist), but if I am wrong then I have a lot to lose. It appears you are saying it is just your religion or nothing.

No, no, my religion is not the bench mark for success. I will not know myself until I die. I am sure that there will be atheists in heaven. By your works will you be judged, not by what religious denomination you belong to. If you are an atheist but you meticulously keep the Commandments of God then you cannot be kept out of the Kingdom of God. You have done all that is necessary to do.

If I were still spiritually inclined I would take this approach as well. It is commendable.

Thank you. I think things will change for you before you leave this world. You sound and feel like a good spirit.

 

[Magic Man]

Please take a look at what you are saying. Anything that contains the words "evolutionists" or "this creation" you avoid and then tell me that I should be less bias. I am, I will listen to the truth who ever says it or whatever words they use. With all due respect, you are being selective, I am not.

Read what I wrote again. I stop reading there because on the issues we're talking about a post that contains those things is nor worth more than a few seconds. It's obviously heavily biased, and so isn't going to give any worthwhile info on this topic. If you have something more objective, I'd be glad to take a look.

I totally agree, for every additional planet that exists that is sustaining life, the probability of a designer increases and the probability of chance decreases.

OK, but that's not true in the slightest, so you don't agree.

Your argument a while back was that the odds of our planet forming with just the right conditions to support advanced life are so amazingly small that it couldn't have happened without a guiding hand. I countered that argument with the fact that there are trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of planets in the universe, so even if you calculate that the chances of such a world forming are 1 in 100 quadrillion, that still means it's likely to happen when there are more than a sextillion planets in the universe.

Your use of long odds only works, if the set they work within is small enough. When the set is larger than the odds, using them to prove how unlikely it is doesn't work.

 

[Serenity7855]

Read what I wrote again. I stop reading there because on the issues we're talking about a post that contains those things is nor worth more than a few seconds. It's obviously heavily biased, and so isn't going to give any worthwhile info on this topic. If you have something more objective, I'd be glad to take a look.



OK, but that's not true in the slightest, so you don't agree.

Your argument a while back was that the odds of our planet forming with just the right conditions to support advanced life are so amazingly small that it couldn't have happened without a guiding hand. I countered that argument with the fact that there are trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of planets in the universe, so even if you calculate that the chances of such a world forming are 1 in 100 quadrillion, that still means it's likely to happen when there are more than a sextillion planets in the universe.

Your use of long odds only works, if the set they work within is small enough. When the set is larger than the odds, using them to prove how unlikely it is doesn't work.

The more likely an event is to happen, then the odds are short, short odds or odds on. The less likely, then the odds are long. The chances that 1 in a 600 billion, billion planets, being a life supporting planet, is odds against. It is unlikely, long odds. The chances of a earth type planet, being found in double that figure, is odds on because you have increased the numbers of chances. The greater number of planets that you use the greater chance that one will eventually be life sustaining, odd on, or, short odds.

So if you find 1planet in 100 quadrillion planets the that is life permitting then the probability is 1 in 100 quadrillion. Assuming that the repeatability is a constant then you will not get another life sustaining planet until you reach 200 quadrillion planets. That is long odds, 2 in 200 quadrillion planets, that is one huge long odds. It is not likely to repeat itself. If the odds were 1 trillion in 100 quadrillion then there is a good chance that it will repeat itself. That is short odd, likely to happen. God said, world's without number have I created. That means that we should expect to find a great many more planets like ours. The odds are short that we will.

So, in order for all of these planets to be connected together, via phenomenon that we do not yet understand, life permitting or not, there must exist a grid, array, of planets all interconnected, a bit like an array in quantum physics, so that when one planet is tweaked it will effect another living planet a trillion light years away, therefore, they had to be framed in the most complex of manners to allow for them all to sustain life. The complexity is mind numbing. I cannot conceive it. You change the energy level on just one electron on an atom and another atom, somewhere in the universe, has to fill that gap from the same level as the one that has moved came from, according to quantum physics, and Professor Brian Cox, in his Christmas lecture. It makes sense that if it can happen at a quantum level then it can happen within Universes. The conclusion is that it takes a great deal of tweaking to set one planet up to sustain life. It takes twice as much tweaking to set two planets that are happy to coexist in a matrix of planets. A trillion planets means a trillion time more complex. That has to follow that a by chance theorem is very improbable

 

[McBell]

The more likely an event is to happen then the odds are short. The less likely then the odds are long. The chances that 1 in a 600 billion, billion planets being a life supporting planet is odds against. It is unlikely. The chances of a earth type planet being found in double that figure is odds on because you have increased the numbers of chances. The greater number of planets that you use the greater chance that one will be life sustaining, odd on, or, short odds.

So if you find 1planet in 100 quadrillion planets the probability is 1 in 100 quadrillion. Assuming that the rapidity is a constant the you will not give another life saving planet until you reach 200 quadrillion planets. That is long odds 2 in 200 quadrillion planets is the one that is long odds. It is not likely to repeat itself. If the odds were 1 trillion in 100 quadrillion then there is a good chance that it will repeat itself. That is short odd, likely to happen. God said, world's without number have I created. That means that we should expect to find a great many more planets like ours. The odds are short that we will.

So, in order for all of these planets to be connected together, life permitting or not, there must exist a grid of planets all interconnected, a nit like an array in quantum physics, so that when one planet is tweaked it will effect another living planet a trillion miles away, therefore, they had to be framed in the most complex of manners to allow for them all to sustain life. The comp, exit is mind numbing. I cannot conceive it. You change the energy level on just one atom and another atom has to fill that gap from the same level as the one that has moved came from, according to quantum physics and Professor Brian Cox in his Christmas lecture. It makes sense that if it can happen at a quantum level then it can happen withing Universes. The conclusion is that it takes a great deal of tweaking to set one planet up to sustain life. It takes twice as much tweaking to set two planets that are happy to coexist in a matrix of planets. A trillion planets means a trillion time more complex.

And yet the odds of any god existing are so long you cannot even begin to calculate them....

and that is just for any god.
How much less likely is your particular favoured god to exist?

And yet here you are trying to convince others that the odds of the universe happening with your completely incalculable god existing are longer?

Yes, I agree that you can convince someone who already believes in god that god exists.
But why even bother?
I mean, they already believe....

 

[Serenity7855]

And yet the odds of any god existing are so long you cannot even begin to calculate them....

I haven't tried, have you?

and that is just for any god.
How much less likely is your particular favoured god to exist?

How many Gods do you think exist. One for every denomination or one per religion. Why do you even care, you do not believe in any of them and if there were no theists who would you try and annoy and torment then.

And yet here you are trying to convince others that the odds of the universe happening with your completely incalculable god existing are longer?

I am not an evangelist. I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. You use that to justify your need to aggravate theists but nobody cares, or even wants, you in their congregation. We are just happy to discuss out beliefs with decent atheist, of which you are not.

Yes, I agree that you can convince someone who already believes in god that god exists.

Well that is not convincing anybody as they already believe in God, could you not work that one out. Secondly, you cannot convince anybody that God exists, it is something that the individual who wants it has to do himself.

But why even bother?
I mean, they already believe...

I don't think you should bother, to be honest.

I gotta be honest, I do not give a flying frigget what you believe in. I most certainly am not trying to convince you of anything. We do not need people like yourself within our ranks. People cannot be convince, they have to be converted by the Holy Ghost who will testify to their souls that God is real. I get the feeling that you will never reach a point where the Holy Ghost would want to converse with you.