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

Your examples are very ignorant of what order and chance are. Purposely throwing a bucket at a wall is not chance and I fail how to see how paint on a bucket vs paint on a wall are different in order at all. The liquids fill up their respective containers in both cases. Sure, throwing paint at a wall may not create the Mona Lisa, but it COULD create patterns or something that looks very similar to a face, even in a crude manner. What you are basically saying is that unintelligence cannot create designed patterns, and in that I would agree with you.

 

Yes. We have evidence of the Existence of God but we're not gonna tell ya. See. There's loads of room in heaven but the less people there, the more room for the rest of us. We know something you don't know, you don't know, you don't know. We know something you don't know...nyah, nyah nyah nyah. Respectfully. MisLed.

 

God of the gaps fallacy, leading to infinite regression

 

this is funny.


I can say I lack employees, but that does not constitute I have none.

Lack

I have $5, but I lack the money to buy a car.

I have 10 employes, but I lack the employees to have 3 shifts a day, 24 hours a day for 365 days a year.

None

None means you have nothing.

Lack and none are not the same.

Once again you are NOT entitled to your own definitions.

 

Response: Throwing a bucket of paint on the wall is not chance. Yet thrown paint on the wall will never create a face painting. So if the splattered paint was to randomly create a face-painting after been thrown on the wall, then the act is in fact chance, since know intelligence is applied to align the paint after it is thrown on the wall.

Yet the random act of splattered paint on the wall aligning to create a face painting never happens. Instead, it remains as it is ....splattered paint. Disorder. Thus the example clearly shows that creation from chance causes disorder, and not order or a repeating pattern. Nor can you present any proof that throwing paint on the wall will create a face painting. Thus your rebuttal fails, thus supporting the evidence that God exist.

 

Someone stated that evolution always results in increased complexity or words to that effect. I do not agree with that statement. To think of evolution as having an arrow pointing toward greater sophistication or complexity is wrong. Our earth abounds with examples of designs (of life) that endure only because they are sufficiently suited for it‘s environment. Maybe a more correct statement would be that evolution may lead to increased complexity.

reva

 

The first three basic premises ;

1...Whatever begins to exist requires a cause

2...The universe began to exist

3...Therefore, the universe requires a cause

First even if we allowed non-validated theory, your claim falls short. The ‘units of energy’* were created in the big bang thus they had a cause to exist. (all energy mass time space or spacetime gravity etc were created just after the big bang began~)

Well, no, incorrect, see above. Gravity was created just after t-0 of the big bang. I will happily give you a source if requested.

Not by any measure, well maybe the KCA was defeated in your dreams, lol. Btw it may be a good thing I lost my first reply, it was a page long! In the reply that the severe ate I sourced all the info and claims I made and also explained some particulars of the first three min. of our universe (according to accepted cosmologic’ theory).

* All forms of energy were created just after the big bang began.

reva

 

Yes, "lack" is indeed synonymous with the THREE words "do not have". However you were not claiming that, you were claiming that it is synonymous with the SINGLE word "not". This is untrue.

 

First why believe that everything was created from and because of nothing? That is supremely illogical. Second, the first premise is an claim backed up by observation and experience. The fact is that there are no examples of anything beginning to exist without a cause.

The second premise is absolutely not an assumption. The Big Bang is the accepted cosmological model of how the universe began. The BB tells us that the universe began about 14.7 billion years ago and that is supported by empirical evidences as well as theoretical methods. The BB theory is almost equal to the theory of evolution by measure of acceptance by the scientific establishment. That the BB is almost overwhelmingly accepted is tempered by the efforts of atheist/secular scientists and theoreticians such as Hawking to discredit the God friendly (standard hot model) big bang theory. They hope to substitute the BB with a theory of origins that delete a point of beginning, thus hopefully eliminating God as there is no need for a ‘creation event’.

There are other theories of how the universe began or how it is eternal or even infinite universes (the MWI), but all of them have fatal flaws and are not ready for prime time, that includes Hawkins’s quantum gravity derived cyclic, eternal universe model.

Lastly there is no god of the gaps issue. The KCA takes us through logical steps to show why claiming ‘God did it’ is a logical and reasonable claim er' argument.

reva

 

What's illogical about it? It's an assumption without evidence, but that doesn't make it illogical.

Long-lived matter/energy has not been observed to come into existence with OR without a cause.

True or not, none of that would amount to evidence behind the second premise. The BB theory speaks to the beginning of the universe as we know it... but if you have any links to BB research that is widely accepted and describes the "beginning" of the singularity that the universe came from... well, I'd be much obliged to see it.

"Something caused this" is not the same as "god caused this". If you insert god in there without further logic to support this addition, then it's a god of the gaps.

 

You are saying that its more illogical for something coming from something than for something coming from nothing? Hmm' stand by for a few sources about modal and other systems of logic if you are willing to read them.

Nah, you are mistaken. Even ZPE comes from the quantum foam. But if you think you are correct please post a valid source for that claim.

You are helping ME. Ok, then the universe was caused by the singularity. I have been down this road before my friend. And the singularity also had a cause of its existence, God. ha ha~

If we get far enough I can show how the KCA (via Craig/Koon) arrives at God. I will toss a bone of not craigs creation but mine, it should be eaiser to defeat ha ha~. What can create or cause a universe to begin to exist, not just any old universe, but one that beats odds of a one with one hundred and twenty six zeros after it, to one?

reva

 

I didn't say anything was more illogical than anything else. Stating a premise with no evidence is not in and of itself illogical, that is all.

Nah, if you think you're right I'll let you continue to do so. I am not aware of any long-lived matter coming from ZPE.

Where's your reasoning that the singularity had a cause? The KCA I guess? We're back to square one.

The only honest answer is that nobody knows.

 

Response: Yet the context in which "not" was used does mean do not have. So lack is in fact synonymous to "not" in the example.

 

The proof of God's existence is all around us......His creation, our own existence and the universe. There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that creation can come into existence by itself out of nothing. It’s not even the law that governs the universe or nature.

 

But paint on a wall and paint in a can have the same amount of order, unless you have a special definition or something. Also also, I think you're confusing terms here. Are you equating chance with spontaneous rearrangement of elements for no reason?

 

There is no evidence to suggest anything about the beginning of the Universe besides that at one point it was in a hot, dense singularity and then expanded. Beyond that is pure conjecture and we are still trying to work out the kinks with our psychics to learn more about the early moments of the Universe. But, even if we could use or mathematics to describe the singularity, it wouldn't mean much in determining where that singularity came from. Theists are trying to say God did it, we aren't saying anything happened because we don't know.

 

Wrong. Quantum Mechanics requires violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Matter and Energy can be created, but only for a period less than the plank time (named after Max Plank and it's about 10^-43 seconds). All w/o a cause.

Once again, the very 1st premise falls short in the KCA. You can argue all you wish, but its clear your scientific knowledge is lacking, since you say “ * All forms of energy were created just after the big bang began”.

 

God of the Gaps.

 

That is besides the point which is what I said. Just because man is unable to detect the creator is not proof that the universe was not created by Him. More and more scientist are coming to the conclusion that there must be an intelligent being behind all that they see.....it makes no logical sense to believe that it all just happed by itself from nothing.

 

If god is Omnipresent, why is he undetectable? If he has taken away our ability to detect him, then that is not free will.

FAIL

 

If the word "not" meant "do not have", then you could say things like "I not a million dollars" and it would make sense. It doesn't. Perhaps I'm wrong, feel free to show me an entire sentence where you could remove the words "do not have" with the word "not" and it still makes sense and means the same thing.

 

god of the gaps fallacy, leading to infinite regression.

 

Because God is spirit and man is a physical being that only has the ability to know what comes to us via the five senses. So anything that is outside of our ability will be unknown to us unless it is reveled to us via divine revelation. Its blind arrogance and assumption to believe that if something exists we would know it. You don't really believe that man is that great that we can know everything that exist that is not in or part of the universe do you?

 

first two premises assumed, concluded with a god of the gaps fallacy.

KCA refuted

 

I must admit though I'm curious where you get this statistic from. I have a hunch it's from someone who happens to be religious, but I've seen loads of people say loads of different numbers with no explanation of how they arrived at those numbers, so it would still be quite interesting to read if it actually shows the maths.