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

My proof, He exists

You're here, right? You don't think you did that yourself do you?

 

The Higgs Boson particle is beyond our senses, yet we have detected that. Your premise of 'anything that is outside of our ability will be unknown' falls short.

 

because there is no evidence to the contrary.

no, this is simply your assumption.

we have no way of knowing what existed prior to the big bang. you are ASSUMING that NOTHING existed prior to it. that is something you can not support.

the universe AS WE KNOW IT began. We do not know what existed prior to it.

no, the KCA merely assumes it's first two premises and concludes with a god of the gaps.

Which is why it's a useless argument.

 

This post is here, and God didn't make it.

 

Im here because my dads sperm hit my mom's egg. No god is needed.

 

and what caused gods existence? and now the problem of infinite regression. another reason the KCA is useless.

we have no idea. neither do you. but you insert a god of the gaps fallacy to explain it away.

 

The universe may have always existed. General consensus on the big bang is that it was a transition; the energy involved wasn't created. We don't know what existed prior to the singularity that expanded in the big bang.

 

As long as it can be known via one of our senses it is within our senses. Spirit on the other hand is not physical and therefore it is beyond our five senses see them, unless they manipulate something that exist in the physical world that would cause us to be aware of their presence.

 

You do realize the The Higgs Boson Particle has never been seen, touched, smelled, heard or tasted right? Scientists have only proved its existence because after smashing protons together, they look at debris for traces of particles that sprang into existence for just a fraction of a second before disintegrating. They are looking for the footprints of the particle, much like if an 'supernatural being' manipulate something – leaving a foot print of its existence.

 

So its just a theory based on what they have seen. But nevertheless the farther they go back the more they are going have to face the truth that God is behind it all.

 

you simply have no evidence to support this statement.

 

The way I see it, a god that manifests itself in reality is detectable. An undetectable god, i.e. one that does not manifest itself in reality, is indistinguishable from a nonexistent god and therefore a complete waste of time to consider. "Divine revelation" applies only to the person(s) the god has "chosen" to reveal itself to, is hearsay to everyone else and again, to everyone else, a complete waste of time. So for me--short of a revelation, which I haven't had and don't expect to, or until some god decides to "show" itself in the very real physical world I'll just tuck the idea of god(s) away in the same category with fairies.

 

Well, if they can't observe this so-called particle via one of the senses it’s either a theory or its beyond the senses to know. Because it would be like a person believing they can visibly see God just because one see a person in whom He lives in.

 

well you couldn't have done it if the owner of this site hadn't put it up. and if
algore hadn't invented the internet.

 

Response: "The man is not intelligent".

The above sentence is a clear example that not implies "do not have". The sentence the man is not intelligent means the same as the man does not have intelligence. As shown, words can take different meaning in different context. Just like the word "running" in "I'm running for president" is not the same as the meaning of "running" in "I'm running a track race".

 

this isn't evidence of your claim that "the truth that god is behind it all".

 

So, we take out "not" and replace with "does not have".

"The man is does not have intelligent."

If you think that sentence is correct then you do indeed have problems with the english language, my friend. Sure, you can just about gather what was meant, but it's quite clear that it's wrong.

 

Response: I clearly stated that the sentence "the man does not have intelligence" is the same as "the man is not intelligent". If you can't see that the sentences mean the same, then it's a clear inability to comprehend simple basic english. That's quite clear, especially when we consider the fact that not a single dictionary on the planet staes differently, nor can you prove otherwise.

 

That might be what you're saying NOW. Earlier, you said "not" is a synonym with "does not have". If you are changing your stance now, then fine, just fess up that you made a mistake saying that earlier.

 

Response: The word chance means an unplanned act. In other words, if one does not use intelligence to plan to align thrown paint on the wall to create a face painting, then the paint will remain as splattered paint on the wall. This shows that intelligence is necessary to create order and without it, the unplanned act, or chance of the paint being aligned to create a face painting leave the paint unorganized and splattered paint on the wall. Thus showing that creation originating from chance causes disorder, which shows that the order in the universe originated from intelligent design.

 

Response: I also say so in response to it's meaning in the sentence it was used, which clearly shows that "not" means "do not have". If you have a hard time being debunked, then just fess up to it, rather than continue in embarrassment.

 

Actually, you could indeed get a face-like pattern by chance. It depends on the observer, as people will "see" faces where there are none. It's all part of how the brain works. That's how you get the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast, for instance:

 

Then prove that what I said on #339 of my post is not true.

 

I have already told you the evidence for the first premise.

I am totally sure you do not know of any so called long lived matter coming from ZPE. Tell me what discipline are you referring to when you refer to long lived matter? Ha ha... about the only matter I can think of that is not long lived is well not even that. All matter is longed lived, eons long lived, especially if you count its other form ie energy.

The KCA tells me that. You have not proved ANY of the premises long, until you do the KCA is valid, and the KCA is a cosmological logical argument for the existence of God.

No one knows with a accuracy of 100% anything really (think of Godel). However, I can reason and go by the odds. There is far more evidence to support the existence of God than not.

reva

 

do you realize that you do not have to write the word 'response' WE KNOW it is your response.