What evidence for God

[wilsoncole]

Three things you seem not to understand.

1. Objective empirical evidence.
2. Subjective beliefs.
3. The Birds and the Bees.

Now you resort to special pleading yourself.
Special Pleading
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

assertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view
Example: I know you think that quantum mechanics does not always make sense. There are things about quantum mechanics that you don't have the education to understand.
(Although in this case, the likeliness of this being true is statistically very high, as only a very small percentage of people studied quantum mechanics. But without proving this, and proving that sole intelligence without the education does not suffice, it’s still just an assertion.)

You should not do the things you condemn.
You know what that makes you?

“. . .do you, however, the one teaching someone else, not teach yourself? You, the one preaching “Do not steal,” do you steal? You, the one saying “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery?. . .” (Romans 2:21-22)


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[outhouse]

You still have no evidence do you

typical creationist tactic, attack everything but the truth

 

[tumbleweed41]

The singularity no longer exists - anywhere.
It can be likened to your mother's fertilized egg.
Even though it BECAME you, that egg no longer exists.

Your understanding of Cosmology is severely lacking.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Whose argument is that?

Yours

Let's put it this way:
"Show me anything material that has no cause."

"Show me anything material that has no cause, origin, source or creator."

Nothing comes from nothing. The material creation is evidence of God.

Every material thing has a cause.

Besides, God is immaterial.

“That’s a lovely cake! WHO made it?”
“That young man is a fine example. WHOSE son is he?”
“That boxer is really good. WHO trained him?”
A cause cannot be impersonal. There must be purpose behind the object involved.
Rocks have a purpose. Trees have a purpose. The wind has a purpose. The clouds have a purpose.
Show me something tangible that has no purpose.

No cause? If that is actually the case, astronomy itself would be impossible.
No cause? Then maybe you can tell me how it got to be.
Then go back. Think of a time before the Big Bang. If there was nothing then, there would be nothing now. Is that not so?

GOD - a personal, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent being, which is God.

Now, if there was absolutely nothing in existence before the Big Bang, what would be here now?
Remember, nothing comes from nothing!
It follows, then, that time and the universe had a beginning and it could not cause itself, then something must have caused it - right? Something that must have been there before it all. Something that must always have been there.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Three things you seem not to understand.

1. Objective empirical evidence.
2. Subjective beliefs.
3. The Birds and the Bees.

Now you resort to special pleading yourself.
(snip)
You should not do the things you condemn.
You know what that makes you?

“. . .do you, however, the one teaching someone else, not teach yourself? You, the one preaching “Do not steal,” do you steal? You, the one saying “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery?. . .” (Romans 2:21-22)

I am simply relying on the evidence of your posts to reveal the your lack of understanding.

 

[wilsoncole]

Your understanding of Cosmology is severely lacking.

Special pleading again.
Special Pleading
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
assertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view
Example: I know you think that quantum mechanics does not always make sense. There are things about quantum mechanics that you don't have the education to understand. (Although in this case, the likeliness of this being true is statistically very high, as only a very small percentage of people studied quantum mechanics. But without proving this, and proving that sole intelligence without the education does not suffice, it’s still just an assertion.)

NOW you're a cosmologist!

What a hoot!


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

sorry...
this is a bronze age legend...

How can you prove that?

somehow you undermine the innate sense of integrity and self dignity.
although i must admit not very many people cherish this... religious and non religious alike.

Faithfulness to a higher cause brings dignity and integrity.
Evolution's animal ancestors do/did not possess such qualities.
With no higher cause in the picture and beasts for foreparents, how can any individual atheist/evolutionist obtain such noble attributes?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Faithfulness to a higher cause brings dignity and integrity.
Evolution's animal ancestors do/did not possess such qualities.
With no higher cause in the picture and beasts for foreparents, how can any individual atheist/evolutionist obtain such noble attributes?

Considering that you have repeatedly lied, misrepresented and misunderstood science, shifted the burden of proof and displayed nothing but utmost ignorance of the subjects involved, you are not in a position to lecture anyone on "integrity".

 

[McBell]

Considering that you have repeatedly lied, misrepresented and misunderstood science, shifted the burden of proof and displayed nothing but utmost ignorance of the subjects involved, you are not in a position to lecture anyone on "integrity".

I completely agree.

Any deity that supports such blatant dishonesty is no deity I want anything to do with.

 

[Tathagata]

Nothing comes from nothing.
Something comes from something.
The Universe is something, so it came from something.
That Something is God, who is exempt from the "Something from Something" argument.

It is actually valid to claim that God didn't come from something because by definition, God is eternal and uncaused. The real problem lies in the fact that they presume that the "something" the Universe comes from, is God, even though it could be anything but God.

.

 

[wilsoncole]

Yours

These are YOUR words"
Something comes from something.
The Universe is something, so it came from something.
That Something is God, who is exempt from the "Something from Something" argument.

These are mine:
Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
Let's put it this way:
"Show me anything material that has no cause."

Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
"Show me anything material that has no cause, origin, source or creator."
Nothing comes from nothing. The material creation is evidence of God.

Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
Every material thing has a cause.

Besides, God is immaterial. (Not a something)

Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
“That’s a lovely cake! WHO made it?”
“That young man is a fine example. WHOSE son is he?”
“That boxer is really good. WHO trained him?”
A cause cannot be impersonal. There must be purpose behind the object involved.
Rocks have a purpose. Trees have a purpose. The wind has a purpose. The clouds have a purpose.
Show me something tangible that has no purpose.

Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
No cause? If that is actually the case, astronomy itself would be impossible.
No cause? Then maybe you can tell me how it got to be.
Then go back. Think of a time before the Big Bang. If there was nothing then, there would be nothing now. Is that not so?

Originally Posted by wilsoncole
Now, if there was absolutely nothing in existence before the Big Bang, what would be here now?
Remember, nothing comes from nothing!
It follows, then, that time and the universe had a beginning and it could not cause itself, then something must have caused it - right? Something that must have been there before it all. Something that must always have been there."

Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
GOD - a personal, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent being, which is God.

Not once did I say:
1. "Something comes from something."
2. "The Universe is something, so it came from something."
3. "That Something is God, who is exempt from the "Something from Something" argument."

WHOSE WORDS ARE THOSE?
Show me where I mentioned the words above!

Twisting words does not turn falsehood into truth.
It is not a new tactic. It was practiced in the first century by Apostate Christians:
“(Paul). . .speaking about these things as he does also in all [his] letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16)

So - why must you resort to lying?
That's what scoundrels do.
Are you a scoundrel, Sir?

That wasn't even a nice try.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[PolyHedral]

YES!
But first,will you describe this "Flying Spaghetti Monster," and who and where his worshippers are?
The worshipers in any religion can be assessed by the things they do.

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Also, what you're trying to imply is an appeal to motive. "These people do bad things, therefore they can't be right!" is not a valid argument. The only valid arguments in this case are scientific evidence and logical deduction.

And remember, according to the Big Bang, there was no point in time where the universe did not exist.

 

[wilsoncole]

Considering that you have repeatedly lied, misrepresented and misunderstood science, shifted the burden of proof and displayed nothing but utmost ignorance of the subjects involved, you are not in a position to lecture anyone on "integrity".

And all without answering the question!
Flinging charges and accusations, the most widely used tactic of atheists, cannot take the place of convincing refutation.
That was no lecture. I merely asked a question.
With no higher cause in the picture and beasts for foreparents, how can any individual atheist/evolutionist obtain such noble attributes?

No more dodging - Try answering the question.



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Also, what you're trying to imply is an appeal to motive. "These people do bad things, therefore they can't be right!" is not a valid argument. The only valid arguments in this case are scientific evidence and logical deduction.

Valid argument my foot!
There is no Scientific evidence, formula nor definition for "evil." Good and evil are real concepts but foreign to science.
And:
Logical deduction = So - since when are bad deeds considered right? Since when are bad people considered "good?"

And remember, according to the Big Bang, there was no point in time where the universe did not exist.

Not true!
Big Bang theory does not say that.
The Big Bang was the very beginning of time and the Cosmos.

You can try that with someone else.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[PolyHedral]

Valid argument my foot!
There is no Scientific evidence, formula nor definition for "evil." Good and evil are real concepts but foreign to science.

Good and evil are not physical concepts, only heuristics. They exist only as generalizations of cost-benefit analyses.

Logical deduction = So - since when are bad deeds considered right? Since when are bad people considered "good?"

Bad people are, by definition, not good. But they doesn't mean that they cannot be correct. If Hitler told you, "2+2=4", he'd be right, regardless of what disagreements you have with him.

Not true!
Big Bang theory does not say that.
The Big Bang was the very beginning of time and the Cosmos.

As I said, there is no point in time where nothing existed. The fact that time itself has a starting point is only tangential to this.

 

[Thief]

Good and evil are not physical concepts, only heuristics. They exist only as generalizations of cost-benefit analyses.

Do you live on Wall Street?

Bad people are, by definition, not good. But they doesn't mean that they cannot be correct. If Hitler told you, "2+2=4", he'd be right, regardless of what disagreements you have with him.

So you actually concede my posting?
That I don't use math to confirm all things....doesn't mean I'm wrong...at all.

As I said, there is no point in time where nothing existed. The fact that time itself has a starting point is only tangential to this.

Actually, because time is a measure of movement....
There would be a 'point'...of singularity....wherein movement does not exist.

I still claim rotation is the 'proof' of God.

God first then the movement.

This places God beyond the reach of your numbers.

 

[McBell]

Good and evil are not physical concepts, only heuristics. They exist only as generalizations of cost-benefit analyses.

Bad people are, by definition, not good. But they doesn't mean that they cannot be correct. If Hitler told you, "2+2=4", he'd be right, regardless of what disagreements you have with him.

As I said, there is no point in time where nothing existed. The fact that time itself has a starting point is only tangential to this.

Wow.
He is chasing his own tail with his fingers shoved to the second knuckle in his ears screaming "La La La" all at the same time!

What a sight that must be.

 

[tumbleweed41]

That's what scoundrels do.
Are you a scoundrel, Sir?

I have shown you where your "nothing from nothing" claim is flawed.
And your replies keep emphasizing it.
That you continue to revel in your ignorance reflects poorly on your faith.
As I have said before..
I find that those with a need to prove God have a lack faith in God.
And those who ignore reality in order to prove their concept of God have little in value to say.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I still claim rotation is the 'proof' of God.

The universe cannot 'rotate' without something outside the universe for it to rotate in respect to.

 

[Thief]

The universe cannot 'rotate' without something outside the universe for it to rotate in respect to.

All motion is relative.
Of course it is.

For the singularity to be truly singular....no secondary point is allowed.
No opportunity for numbers....no movement.

Once the secondary exists...so too the infinite number of 'points' in between.

Any two points become reference for rotation.

However.....expansion is not necessarily the cause for rotation.
A simple, straightforward,....'bang'....
would produce only a simple shock wave.
A hollow sphere of energy, expanding rapidly.

But that is not what you see over your head at night.

The rotation would have to be set in place BEFORE the 'bang'.

That would be the snap of God's fingers around a very small 'point'.