Your Best Argument for God's Existence

[Jollybear]

Take out the words evidence and proof. In a sentence (rather than dictionary; english is contextual), if you have evidence for something, you can either keep it as that or chose to use it as proof to validate a claim of somesort.

I can careless about proof. Can you demonstrate how the evidence of patterns and order mean god? How did you (?) draw that conclusion?

I drawed that conclusion because chance cannot create all this order and design. In fact under controlled experiments chance has been shown to not exist.

Also, i conclude God created it because it cannot come from nothing, that makes no sense. It cannot create itself, thats a contradiction.

Also i conclude God did it because if the universe had no beginning and was simply always there, then you would fall into infinite regression.

 

[Valjean]

Everyone has two eyes, two ears, one mouth, all in the same spot. Does that not show order? Each of those parts serve a function. Does that not show design?

Animals are orderly because of biology and genetics. The order is explained by ordinary biological mechanisms. It's not evidence of magic or intention.
Animals have designs, but they aren't designed. They don't have intentional design.

DNA is information. Information or codes from what we know in everyday life, comes from minds.

We don't know that. Just because humans can generate patterns and organization doesn't mean all patterns and order is a human product.
Humans can make noise, kindle fires and make waves, too, but not all noise, fire and waves are human generated.
DNA comes from ordinary chemistry and biology.
"This information can be thought of as the basic set of inheritable "instructions" for the development and function of a human being."
An Overview of the Human Genome Project
[/quote]
Not following...

Instructions come from mind or intelligence.

They can also occur by natural processes. Why do you think these processes don't work?

 

[Jollybear]

Animals are orderly because of biology and genetics. The order is explained by ordinary biological mechanisms. It's not evidence of magic or intention.
Animals have designs, but they aren't designed. They don't have intentional design.
We don't know that. Just because humans can generate patterns and organization doesn't mean all patterns and order is a human product.
Humans can make noise, kindle fires and make waves, too, but not all noise, fire and waves are human generated.
DNA comes from ordinary chemistry and biology.
"This information can be thought of as the basic set of inheritable "instructions" for the development and function of a human being."
An Overview of the Human Genome Project

Not following...
They can also occur by natural processes. Why do you think these processes don't work?[/QUOTE]

Ok, so.....design is there you admit (man, im glad you admitted that much. I had a debate with another atheist who said it dont even look designed).

Ok, so, you say by natural mechanisms the design happens. Alright......break down the natural mechanisms for the DNA code information?

 

[Valjean]

There is no example of anything that is not designed. Absolutely everything is designed.

Unless you're using "design" to mean order, you're just spouting religious dogma. Things have pattern and order, yes, but these occur naturally, through ordinary chemistry, physics, &c. There is no evidence of conscious intention.

How can an atheist address the issues he has with god when the theist doesn't have a solid definition to which that atheist can properly build his own argument?

I have no issues with God, nor any argument.
The burden of proof is on the theist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You know. I think you're the only person I remember in RF that answer the question directly.

I drawed that conclusion because chance cannot create all this order and design. In fact under controlled experiments chance has been shown to not exist.

Can chance be evidence of its own end or dependent on interpetationin

Also, i conclude God created it because it cannot come from nothing, that makes no sense. It cannot create itself, thats a contradiction.

It has to is personal demonstration of validity. Can it stand on its own?

Also i conclude God did it because if the universe had no beginning and was simply always there, then you would fall into infinite regression.

A lot of what you believe is not based on facts. So, when you see pattern, thats your perspective not a universal fact.

Can one be blind in general for not seeing the creater in pattern or are they only blind because they can't see the others perspective?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have no issues with God, nor any argument.
The burden of proof is on the theist.

Yes. But that doesn't answer my question though.

 

[Valjean]

Ok, so.....design is there you admit (man, im glad you admitted that much. I had a debate with another atheist who said it dont even look designed).

"Design" can be ambiguous. Intentionality is often inferred, but here I'm using it simply to mean pattern or order.

Ok, so, you say by natural mechanisms the design happens. Alright......break down the natural mechanisms for the DNA code information?

Ordinary biology; natural selection.
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. How does DNA work? How was it originally created? How did the functional arrangement of nucleotides occur?

 

[Valjean]

Fill a bathtub with ping-pong balls and they'll arrange themselves in a perfectly ordered/designed/patterned crystalline lattice, but there is no intention behind the pattern, no hand of God sorting them out. Its all just ordinary physics.

 

[Valjean]

Yes. But that doesn't answer my question though.

This question?
"How can an atheist address the issues he has with god when the theist doesn't have a solid definition to which that atheist can properly build his own argument?" I'm not aware of any issues atheists have with God. What did you have in mind?

Different atheists might have different arguments with theists, but I can't think of any arguments that would apply to basic, weak atheism, unless you're thinking of 'arguments' disencumbering theists of their misunderstandings about atheism.
Definitions? Yes, a mutual understanding of terms is needed in any serious discussion or the interlocutors will end up talking past each other. In fact, in the regular atheism-theism debates that occur regularly here, the understanding of the term "atheist" seems to be the most controversial point.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This question?
"How can an atheist address the issues he has with god when the theist doesn't have a solid definition to which that atheist can properly build his own argument?" I'm not aware of any issues atheists have with God. What did you have in mind?

Umm.... all of RF? Weird question. You mean in person?

Different atheists might have different arguments with theists, but I can't think of any arguments that would apply to basic, weak atheism, unless you're thinking of 'arguments' disencumbering theists of their misunderstandings about atheism.

No. I'm pretty simple. A lot of atheists have problems with god. Nothing more.

Definitions? Yes, a mutual understanding of terms is needed in any serious discussion or the interlocutors will end up talking past each other. In fact, in the regular atheism-theism debates that occur regularly here, the understanding of the term "atheist" seems to be the most controversial point.

How did you get this above from this: "How can an atheist address the issues he has with god when the theist doesn't have a solid definition to which that atheist can properly build his own argument?"

Can an atheist address issues with god if theist don't have a solid definition in which the atheist can appropriate address his or her concerns?

 

[Salvador]

Here's mine:
Proof God exists is SUPER EASY for anyone to understand (sadly, the stubborn denier is the exception):

1) Each DNA contains 100 million pages worth of instructions to build the entire body. Do instructions write themselves? Nope. Instructions don't write themselves. Behind every instruction is an 'instructor' who authored it. Carl Sagan said: "The information content of a simple cell has been established as around one trillion bits, comparable to about 100 million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica."

2) Every genome is written as a quaternary molecular digital code: "All present life is based on digitally-encoded information." (American Academy of Sciences). Do digital programs write themselves? Nope again.

3) Each cell contains hi-tech miniature organs (organelles - nucleus, golgi bodies, mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc.) - none of which are naturally found elsewhere - hence no natural explanation for their existence.

4) Who can write a 100 million pages worth of instructions and then stuff it into every cell of our body? This hyper-intellect is who we will face on Judgment Day.

With item (1) almost every reasonable person acknowledges that they have never seen nor heard of instructions writing themselves. This is common sense to most people although not all.

Some argue they see all the above occur in nature when cells reproduce. However, there is still no explanation how the very first living cell came about with all those instructions in its DNA, and although some theorize that organelles were first formed by bacteria invading a host 'cell', we've never seen organelles produced by such a mechanism nor has such a mechanism ever been DEMONSTRATED and VALIDATED by any study.

Anyway, I would like to hear your argument for God's existence. Thank you.

Because of the compelling evidence to me for Salvador's God, there's good reason for me to believe in this cosmic ancestor(s) of extraterrestrial intelligence who invented our genetic code where the semantic message of 037 is embedded by Salvador's God who is everybody's cosmic ancestor.

Extraterrestrial intelligence has left its/their mark in our genetic code as evident by how the numeric and semantic message of 037 appears in our genetic code. Each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us descendants of our cosmic ancestor(s) with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.

Salvador's God is the proven inventor of our genetic code as evident in the "WOW! Signal of the Terrestrial Genetic Code" that scientists discovered back in 2012.

Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov. Icarus, May 2013,Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code

The significance of the semantic message "037" embedded in our genetic coding is well-explained in the following journal articles: .
Biosystems Volume 70, Issue 3, August 2003, Pages 187-209 "Arithmetic inside the universal genetic code" Author: Vladimir I. shCherbak
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...4703000662

NeuroQuantology | December 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 4 | Page 702-715 Masic, Natasa Nested Properties of shCherbak’s PQ 037 and (Biological) Coding/Computing Nested Numeric/Geometric/Arithmetic Propertiesof shCherbak’s Prime Quantum 037 as a Base of (Biological) Coding/Computing
http://Nested Numeric/Geometric/Arithmetic Properties

Exactly who/what left its/their mark in our genetic coding might not ever get determined by anybody presently bound to Earth. The search for our cosmic relatives and cosmic common ancestor likely then needs to be done with advanced space exploration.

Whether there is extraterrestrial intelligent life with whom we Earthlings share a common cosmic ancestor who is Salvador's God would be testable with advanced space probes capable of interstellar space travel and DNA probing of extraterrestrial life forms.

 

[Valjean]

Because of the compelling evidence to me for Salvador's God, there's good reason for me to believe in this cosmic ancestor(s) of extraterrestrial intelligence who invented our genetic code where the semantic message of 037 is embedded by Salvador's God who is everybody's cosmic ancestor.

Extraterrestrial intelligence has left its/their mark in our genetic code as evident by how the numeric and semantic message of 037 appears in our genetic code. Each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us descendants of our cosmic ancestor(s) with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.

Salvador's God is the proven inventor of our genetic code as evident in the "WOW! Signal of the Terrestrial Genetic Code" that scientists discovered back in 2012.

Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov. Icarus, May 2013,

The significance of the semantic message "037" embedded in our genetic coding is well-explained in the following journal articles: .
Biosystems Volume 70, Issue 3, August 2003, Pages 187-209 "Arithmetic inside the universal genetic code" Author: Vladimir I. shCherbak

NeuroQuantology | December 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 4 | Page 702-715 Masic, Natasa Nested Properties of shCherbak’s PQ 037 and (Biological) Coding/Computing Nested Numeric/Geometric/Arithmetic Propertiesof shCherbak’s Prime Quantum 037 as a Base of (Biological) Coding/Computing
http://Nested Numeric/Geometric/Arithmetic Properties

Exactly who/what left its/their mark in our genetic coding might not ever get determined by anybody presently bound to Earth. The search for our cosmic relatives and cosmic common ancestor likely then needs to be done with advanced space exploration.

Whether there is extraterrestrial intelligent life with whom we Earthlings share a common cosmic ancestor who is Salvador's God would be testable with advanced space probes capable of interstellar space travel and DNA probing of extraterrestrial life forms.

Methinks it is like a weasel.

 

[Jollybear]

You know. I think you're the only person I remember in RF that answer the question directly.

I guess thats a good thing, yes? I like to not beat around the bush. Just cut to the chase.

Can chance be evidence of its own end or dependent on interpetationin

I dont think chance is evidence of its own end. Under controlled experiments chance has shown to be none existent. The Not So Random Coin Toss

It has to is personal demonstration of validity. Can it stand on its own?

Heres the thing, intelligent design and information does stand on its own. How? Not based on proof, but based on evidence, inference and philosophical thought. However, when you stand intelligent design up against the ONLY other alternatives, it stands even stronger.

And the other alternatives are also not proven, but also are philosophical, but, the logic in those breaks down.

A lot of what you believe is not based on facts. So, when you see pattern, thats your perspective not a universal fact.

Is a pattern a fact? Complexity with many functioning parts, is that a fact?

ID uses these facts to INFER intelligence.

Can one be blind in general for not seeing the creater in pattern or are they only blind because they can't see the others perspective?

For me this is a psychological question and one that interests me a whole lot. I think its a case by case basis. Some atheist people are mentally blind. While some atheism is a emotional position. So, i think its a case by case.

There may be a rare third case, these would he atheists that do see the perspective of ID, but are not firm to there position out of emotionalism. They merely stick to there position of atheism PURELY due to the fact they have not directly seen the creator. A true blue doubting thomas. These folks have value in there mindset, but, again, i simply think there position is wrong.

 

[viole]

There is no example of anything that is not designed. Absolutely everything is designed.

How do you know then that something is designed is nothing is not designed?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jollybear]

How do you know then that something is designed is nothing is not designed?

Ciao

- viole

Give me that again? I did not understand.

Do you mean how can i know if theres design if theres nothing to compare none design too?

 

[Jollybear]

"Design" can be ambiguous. Intentionality is often inferred, but here I'm using it simply to mean pattern or order.
Ordinary biology; natural selection.
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. How does DNA work? How was it originally created? How did the functional arrangement of nucleotides occur?

How did instructional codes in DNA come about from unintelligent natural mechanisms? What are those mechanisms that do that?

 

[viole]

Give me that again? I did not understand.

Do you mean how can i know if theres design if theres nothing to compare none design too?

Yes.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jollybear]

Yes.

Ciao

- viole

Ok....well, based off what we know of how codes and information work and design works from human engineering, we see this kind of thing in nature, so, we infere actual design in nature.

Also, how we can tell NONE design is by taking all the parts of a unbuilt car, throwing them on the ground and wait till a tornado hits it and then hope by chance all the parts come together just right in order to build the car. It wont happen. But, all those designed parts by themselves are NOT a designed car UNTIL the parts come together, THEN its a designed car. So then, we know from human engineering again, what none design looks like. So, based on that, we infer EVERYTHING in nature is designed.

 

[viole]

Ok....well, based off what we know of how codes and information work and design works from human engineering, we see this kind of thing in nature, so, we infere actual design in nature.

Also, how we can tell NONE design is by taking all the parts of a unbuilt car, throwing them on the ground and wait till a tornado hits it and then hope by chance all the parts come together just right in order to build the car. It wont happen. But, all those designed parts by themselves are NOT a designed car UNTIL the parts come together, THEN its a designed car. So then, we know from human engineering again, what none design looks like. So, based on that, we infer EVERYTHING in nature is designed.

That's strange. Those parts are not indicative of a designed car? They might not be part of a BUILT car, but for sure they have been designed with the designed car already in mind.
Take 100 different cars, break them down, take randomly one component from the heap (e.g. the steering wheel, the brakes, etc) and try to reassemble a full functioning cars without add ons.
You will find it difficult also with tornadoes.

So, back to square one.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sand Dancer]

Trying to show evidence to a stubborn atheist is like trying to show and explain a tree and beauty of the sun to a blind man.

Most atheists are ex-Christians, so we believed at once time.