Does Anybody Think They Actually Have Evidence for the Existence of God?

Response: Once again, we still see you fail to demonstrate that creation originating from chance can cause a repeating pattern, this proving that the patterns in the universe originated from intelligent design, thus God. Thanks for the clarifiation.

 

Response: As usual, we still see a statement with no proof, thus proving nothing as usual. thus the evidence that God exist still stands.

 

Your assumption do not take into account black holes, gravity or Evolution. One cannot answer a question that is based off incomplete assumptions.

 

this is an assumption not based on evidence, and a god of the gaps fallacy.

which leads to infinite regression.

 

you didn't provide any evidence. you made assumptions. you then used a god of the gaps fallacy, and doesn't address the problem of infinite regression.

your argument is self defeating.

 

Response: To the contrary, the evidence shows that intelligent design is the only logical way that intelligent life, the universe, and all that exists could have only originated from intelligent design. So black holes, gravity, and evolution is taken into account for as demonstrated, it could only have originated from intelligent design.

 

Response: This is another weal rebuttal which still fails to demonstrate that chance can originate a repeating pattern or that unintelligence can originate intelligence. Thus your own lack of evidence continues to support the existence of God.

 

Response: You still can't prove your own claim, thus defeating your own argument.

 

Hardly....Evolution proves that life becomes more complex over time. Not only does Evolution drive life to be more complex, Evolution also drives life to be more intelligent.

Your ignorance of what Evolution is, drives you to the god of gaps and the simpleton idea that some super natural being must of created all this.

I wont even get into Black holes and gravity. Its way above your pay grade.

 

But you're defining chance as "an intelligent designer doing something accidentally", do that still presupposes a Creator. Can nature produce disorder?

 

Chance is just one of the Natural Laws which are part of the web that explains how God works.

The one thing that recognizes a almighty creative entity is that all these Natural Laws are inherent in the initial Energy that existed before the Big bang manifeststion of the material Universe.
This undefined imaterial weighless "substance" we call Energy is the Creator.

We see this energy at work as the next frame of Reality presents itself to us.
Reality then it the essence of our God, and Hus son is the Truth that He father's in his wake.

 

Chance aint a natural law, junior.

and the singularity before the BB wasn't weightless and immaterial.


It was composed of compacted and highly dense matter.


It was even denser than you are! LOL!

 

this is becoming tiresome. you keep repeating the same unfounded assumptions, with zero evidence to support them. you haven't even addressed the fact that you keep using a god of the gaps fallacy, or how it leads to infinite regression. I'm sure you have no idea what infinite regression even means.

 

I don't have a claim to prove. the onus is on YOU to prove YOUR claim. all you have provided are unsupported assumptions and god of the gaps fallacies.

you need to actually provide evidence in order to prove your god. not unfounded assumptions, and god of the gaps fallacies.

I realize you're just trolling by the way

 

Here's a little bit of what I use as proof of the existence of a creator. This proof is taken from the modern M theory, or string theory and combined with a little bit of history. I am not a scientist, nor do I possess a college degree in any of these subjects, but this is the way I see things.

The way I understand it, string theory asserts that protons, nuetrons, and electrons are not tiny little particles. String theory assets that these basic building blocks of atoms are made from combinations of different types of energy strings. The energy strings that make these atoms are comprised of energy that vibrates in different manners and a combination of different vibrating strings of energy will produce a proton, nuetron, or electron. So protons, nuetrons, and electrons are the basic building blocks of everything in the universe and these basic building blocks are made from tiny strings of energy.

The way I understand it, the tiny little strings of energy that are the building blocks of everything in the universe are comprised of two gravity wells orbiting each other. These gravity wells not only orbit each other but they they orbit each other so closely that any energy coming between them will be trapped and bounce back and forth between the gravity wells. Light is a basic form of energy. The way I understand it, the strings of energy that comprise the basic building blocks of the universe are comprised of light trapped between two orbiting gravity wells. The wells are so close together that the light trapped between them is compressed enough to have the properties of a solid.

If this is true then the first step in creating the known universe from nothing would be the creation of gravitational energy and the creation of light energy. These energies would then be used to form the basic building blocks of the known universe. String theory shows us that the creation of the known universe might begin with the creation of light.

In the beginning God said "Let there be light," and there was light. These words were written by a person who live during the Bronze Age. There is no reason to believe anyone living in the Bronze Age had any idea of string theory. I find it interesting that the one Bronze Age religion to advance to, and gain dominance in, modern times is also the only Bronze Age religion that claims creation began with the statement, "Let there be light." It is the one Bronze Age religion that does not claim we were created by a giant turtle or that the Earth was carved by a some kind of giant. It is the one Bronze Age religion that claims the basic building blocks of the universe were formed when a supremely powerful being known as God uttered the words, "Let there be light."

If we were created by a powerful God then wouldn't it stand to reason that this God would try to let us know why we were created and what is expected of us? If we were created by a powerful God then wouldn't it stand to reason that if this God wanted a religious following then he would be able to assure the religion devoted to him would survive throughout our history? If we were created by a powerful God then wouldn't it stand to reason that the creator of our known universe and the laws of physics which govern the operation of our universe would begin His creation by making first making the basic building block of everything in the universe?

That's part of my take on your question. As for the philosophical proof of God, that might be a long conversation!

 

I happen to agree with GFP on this point. Patterns however DO occur naturally. But code as in DNA does not begin to exist in nature. Its the product of a mind. There is additional evidence for existence of God as well. Anything that begins to exist has a cause for beginning to exist. The universe began to exist so it had a cause. That cause was God or an GID my term for God the intelligent designer. Why? Because it’s logical to assume so as opposed to the illogical belief that the universe did not begin to exist or that it did not have a cause to begin to exist. Why God? Because the universe is bumpy and clumpy ha ha~ as opposed to what it should be i.e. hot, ‘smooth’ energy. In fact Roger Penrose a PhD world famous eminent mathematician and skeptic (of Christianity God etc) calculated the odds of why the universe is bumpy and clumpy i.e. has planets, stars, ie matter as opposed to being smooth. The odds for a smooth universe occurring was something like ten to the one hundred and twenty sixth power to one!!!!! How did the universe beat those odds against it, having planets that support life compared to the way the universe should have been by all odds, a smooth white hot plasma ? A logical mind would say it was designed or was created to overcome those impossible odds and support life. If one disagrees with those kinds of odds man would I ever want to play high stakes poker with you!

reva

 

Hmm' the comparisons you make are not valid, and/or are a bit ‘reckless’ IMO. The authors and recorders of the works you compare the NT to do not have to worry about losing their immortal soul if they are wrong! The latter, just injecting just a bit of levity...~ .

However, you will not get an argument from me concerning the skeptics skeptical assessment of the gospels and what’s contained therein. In fact I would say by and large the torah/Tanakh is more ‘accurate’* than the gospels, ‘secularly’ speaking. However, I have no doubt that the New Testament is accurate when recording words of Jesus. It’s also one of the best if not the best documented ancient documents in existence. As far as the claim that Jesus' exact words are not ‘documented’ etc, that depends on how or what form of validation process we are speaking of. Modern documents are so validated that no one in their right mind would question them, but some do, the holocaust is one event that is questioned by wing nuts. So it goes without saying that ancient documents are not as authenticated as modern recordings. That said I would claim that Jesus' teachings were carefully and accurately preserved before they were written down in the gospels.

To understand why I say the validity and accuracy of the Gospels is excellent we must realize a few quantifiers. When Christianity began an almost the culture was almost entirely oral. That is not as bad as it seems for accuracy. Recent studies of ancient cultures related to Judaism conclusively demonstrated the Jewish people (which included the disciples) were conditioned to memorize enormous amounts of material. Remember these ancient people relied almost exclusively on memory to record data, there were no Iphones or word processors etc back in the Jesus’ day, eh? In fact students were required to memorize their rabbis teaching word for word, inaccuracy was not tolerated. When it came to sacred teachings, they were memorized in fine detail with emphasis on word for word accuracy, so when passed on there was no or little alteration. I am sure that Jesus' disciples, who again were Jews themselves were imbued with Jewish traditional culture would of managed the words of Jesus who they knew was their prophesied Christ, the messiah their absolute savior and God in the flesh with absolute care! To say the least! So considering the above I and many academics are confident of that Jesus‘ words are accurately recorded. (excluding skeptics who have a vested*** interest in not believing anything.. Ha- ha~…eh? ) It doesn’t take only faith to believe Jesus disciples, and later their followers had not only the ability but the desire needed to pass on and eventually record his accuracy it takes knowing the history of the era and the Jewish people.

Notes;

Validated ‘Historical’* that mentions Jewish oral tradition methods ie recording of; (1 Cor. 15:3-8; Gal. 2:1-10; Col. 2:7; 1 Cor. 11:23).

* More accurate as in the historical sections.
Or...Google keywords; 'historical Jewish', and or 'historical Jewish oral tradition' ,'Jewish oral tradition, culture, and recording' etc.

* More accurate as in the historical sections.

*** Vested means not only money but other reasons as well.

reva

 

Hmm’ Before I explain why I disagree, well I disagree if I understand your claim fully, so please go on? Expand?

I would be careful of using the I word! Ha ha…You know the pot and the kettle thingie'?

Please do, I am interested in hearing your opinion and what BH and gravity has to do with your claims.

reva

 

Response: Yet it's been demonstrated that creation originating from chance causes disorder, as shown from the inability to create a face-painting by simply throwing paint on the wall, and intelligence cannot originate from unintelligence as shown from the inability of a dead person or new born to create a simple checkerboard pattern or face painting. Both shows that creation originating from chance causes disorder and lacks intelligence, thus showing that evolution is false since it is also based on chance. Thus evolution proves nothing since evoution is false itself.

 

Response: I never defined chance as "an intelligent designer doing something accidentally", thus your argument has no relevance.

 

Response: To the contrary, you keep making the same unsound and illogical claims that you continue to hide from to support evidence with. Thus your own redundancy only helps to suport the evidence that God exist according to your own fear to produce a logical rebuttal with evidence.

 

Response: You somehow quoted the post correctly in post 190 but got the names mixed up. The words of GFP are my words, and the words you have quoted for Fatihah (myself) are GFP's words.

 

Response: To the contrary, you made a claim that my evidence for the existence of God is unsound, yet continue to prove the claim with any evidence. Thus you've done nothing but show the strength of my argument that God exist, since you've not only dodged the responsibility to refute the evidence but actually made the unjustified claim that you don't have to, for fear of having your argument exposed.

 

you're using the KCA here. it's a useless argument. it assumes both of it's premises, and inserts a god of the gaps.

 

you have provided ZERO evidence that god exists. only your assumptions, completely devoid of evidence. you also keep using the god of the gaps fallacy, which leads to infinite regression. this is a thorough refutation of your argument, that you can't address, so you keep repeating your mantra. it's tiresome