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

Just a theory?

A scietific theory is not a laymens theory. Besides, The Higgs Boson Particle is a particle not a theory.


The Higgs Boson Particle proves that humans can detect something beyond our sense.

"Spirit on the other hand is not physical and therefore it is beyond our five senses see them" = FAIL

 

uh, no. that's not how debate works. YOU made the positive claim. YOU need to prove YOUR claim. It's not up to me to disprove it.

 

yes. it's your assumption. we've been over this.

the KCA assumes 2 of it's premises, then concludes with a god of the gaps fallacy, leading to infinite regression. the KCA is a useless argument for the existence of god.

there is exactly zero evidence for the existence of god.

 

This:

Is not evidence of anything. This is just an illfaded opinion.

 

I've already proven it by the last statement above. Now, it’s for you to prove that creation a universe can happen by itself from nothing. Since there is only one universe and man does not have the ability to know if there is a universe that exist outside of this one, or if another universe is creating itself it would be impossible for you to disprove my argument. So show me in this universe of a house, a car, a tree, an animal or even a star that came into existance from nothing.

 

Look, I'm only embarrassed that this has continued so long. Obviously "lacking intelligence" has the same overall semantic meaning as "not intelligent" (although I could have sworn you actually said "not knowing" rather than "not intelligent", which would still be wrong). That doesn't necessarily mean that any two words in the sentences are synonyms. Once again, "not" is not a synonym for "lacking". Go to thesaurus.com and type in 'lack', the word 'not' is not a synonym. They are not synonymous. Despite being able to be used in a sentence that ultimately means the same thing, these two words alone do not mean the same thing under any circumstances. It's really that simple. I'll try to leave it at that, but sometimes I can't help being pedantic when people are flat out wrong and won't admit it.

 

this statement........."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" is not proof of this statement..........."that god is behind it all".

you actually need to provide evidence of that claim. it's not up to me to disprove it.

no it isn't, because I never made such a claim.

.
you seem to be stuggling with a very basic concept here. it is not up to ME to disprove YOUR argument. YOU actually have to prove it.

ok. right after you show me that your god created it.

 

You're getting mixed up - this exchange was about believing that everything was "created from and because of nothing.", not about believing the first premise of the KCA.

"Discipline"? I don't think it's really necessary to state which discipline, but I suppose it would be physics. The matter/energy (for as you astutely point out they are the same thing) that might come from ZPE is not long lived - it exists for less than the Planck time before annihilating. I think that's "not long lived" by anyone's standards. But the underlying point is this: if we have never witnessed the creation of any matter/energy AT ALL, then it is somewhat disingenuous to say that we have never witnessed matter/energy being created without a causative agent.

I do not attempt to prove the KCA wrong. As I've said in several threads, I believe it impossible to PROVE wrong. It is easy, however, to DISMISS it if you do not agree with the opinions that form it's premises. It's a valid argument, yes, but not a very convincing one unless you happen to agree with those opinions. Since 'argument' suggests that it's likely that the other person already disagrees, then it's not exactly a USEFUL argument.

Well, that's what this thread is about, isn't it? If the KCA isn't your only evidence, then have at it!

 

Response: What a person claims to observe and what's actually true is two different things. No one's face actually looks like the image above.

 

Response: No one stated that the word alone is synonymous, thus your whole point is pointless. What was clearly implied is that "not" is synonymous to "lack" based on its usage in the sentence, which was clearly demonstrated.

 

Jog on. "not HAVING" is synonymous with "lacking". "NOT" on its own isn't, whatever the context. Deal with that fact.

 

Genesis 1:1 (ASV)
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

So now, you show me in this universe of a house, a car, a tree, an animal or even a star that came into existance from nothing.

 

lol, really?

a verse in a book is not proof of your argument. it's called circular reasoning. try again.

right after you prove your god created it.

 

I guess we are at an impasse......you are incapable to seeing the truth and I have no desire to force you to. So it is better to end this here.

 

yes we are at an impass. you made a claim for which you have zero evidence for, I called you on it, and now you want to run away.

 

No, it doesn't show that intelligence is necessary to create order, it shows that a plan is required to create a planned outcome. And once again you haven't provided an example of chance. Once again, no act of chance created disorder, so I don't know why you keep bringing up chance without providing an example of it.

 

Even the Higgs is better supported by evidence than "spirits" are The whole spirit concept is a holdover from animism and an unfortunate flaw in how the human mind works. We naturally think in "spiritual" dualistic terms, regarding agents - minds - as something apart from the material bodies in which we actually see them. We face the problem of reality being counter-intuitive to human thinking, which is why, I think, the theory evolution and other such scientific advances were so slow in coming.

 

I never said it was, but it also isn't proof that it WAS created by a creator either.

As to your second bolding, it also makes no logical sense that your uncreated God created something out of nothing either, but that is what you are claiming, so why resort to logic?

 

So you don't believe it came into existence by itself and you don't believe it was created by a creator either then what do you believe?

 

I honestly have no clue how it came into existence by itself or not because we have no way to observe the true beginnings of the Universe with our current understanding of physics. It could have created itself, the Universe could have always existed as you claim God always has, an outside natural force could have caused it, or a God or group of technologically advanced extraterrestrials could have started it.

 

Well, the evidence points to a beginning and it’s also scientifically accurate to say that life (which is the most complex of all things that exist) can only come from life. So there must be one life that got all the other life started that existed outside of time and space. One may not have what some would call tangible physical evidence but it is reasonable to believe that just as a house proves that there is a designer and builder so does the universe is a testimony of God's existence. To argue outside of that logic is to deviate from the law of nature.

 

What evidence?

Argument from ignorance. At one point it was scientifically accurate to say that only animals with wings could fly. We already know that we can create the organic material that life requires by using non-life.

Except a person creates a house out of wood and other earthly materials. You are trying to compare that to God creating the Universe from nothing. It isn't exactly a great analogy.

 

not really. your entire argument relies entirely on a god of the gaps fallacy. You have no idea how something as complex as life could have come about, so you simply declare that because it is so complex, it must have been "designed" by something even more complex. that's not evidence for your god. that's you saying well, I don't know how else it could have happened, therefore, god did it.

 

That started with a bang and that not only is everything is moving away from each other after that it is speeding up.

Do you know of anything that is more complex than living things? Can you explain what life is? And using what already exist is not considered creating life....can man create life from nothing or something that does not exist in the physical world? What make a person, animal or insect alive is far more complex than designing wings of machine to look like that of a bird.

I did not say that God created the universe out of nothing......the Bible says that the things that are seen were not made of things visible.

 

I think there is some confusion here. The Big Bang starts with the premise that there was a singularity and then the "bang" part of the theory is that singularity started to expand at an incredible rate. The Big Bang theory doesn't state anything about where the singularity or the material in the singularity came from.

Not off the top of my head.

Nobody can really explain what life is, the only requirement seems to be that it can self-replicate on its own, but that comes into trouble when we are talking about viruses.

This is just a long drawn out argument from ignorance. Your argument is basically that, "life is complex, therefore God must have done it because I have no other reasons to explain it."

So your explanation that God doesn't actually explain anything about how the Universe came into being, it just adds in another layer that we now have to explain.