Existence of a god or gos

It isn't only me. Maybe you're the x-men .

 

That is incorrect, the question of God can not be proven because the attributes of God lie outside the limits of our science. Something like the goings on beyond the event horizon of a black hole times the power of infinity. (yes I was taking artistic license with that last sentence FW). We can not probe the workings of a black hole beyond the EH because our laws of physics break down at that imaginary line.

Well your musings may sound correct but are not sound at all. A Sunday school bible teacher will tell you that some books and some passages were written as parable etc. For example what is a year according to the bible?

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that ONE DAY is with the Lord as a THOUSAND YEARS, and a THOUSAND YEARS as ONE DAY … the ‘day of the Lord’ will come as a thief in the night … the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (II Peter 3:4-10).

The bible indicated that the Universe was CREATED at a specific point, and that its not static. However secular science did not come to that conclusion fully until the 1920s to 1970!

Science theory is just that. For example virtual particles etc are theoretical entities, we can not prove they exist. Black holes are thought to exist however we can not prove it. They are theoretical entities. Piltdown man was a theoretical entity too and science had to eat 40 years worth of crow for that fraud.

Again that is incorrect. Some believers are deists. Look (the word) it up.

Rev A

 

The beginning of the universe is evidence of an intelligent creator. Look up the KCA. Even if one feels the argument is flawed (it has never been defeated or proven invalid) that cosmological argument lays out demonstrable evidence of a creator, I call it a GID (God the Intelligent Creator) that created the universe. The reason it can probe areas that secular empirical science can not is that it uses logic and other tools to go beyond t-0 (the point that the universe began to exist according to the standard model (hot) of the big bang.

Our empirical science (specifically our laws of physics) break down just before t-0. So that one way that metaphysics triumph over old decrepit logical positivism when it comes to areas that secular science can not go at this time. Maybe if our civilization lasts long enough we will develop a new physics that can develop quantum gravity and discern what happens inside a black hole or before t-0. However until then metaphysics and scientific philosophy is the only tool we have to probe the things that lie beyond the reach of today’s secular science.

Rev A

 

Well good. Then you should have no problem posting one of these indications that suggests there is a God.

?!

 

There is no "beginning" of the universe that can be proven.

 

That would totally upset a lot of the so-called laws of physics and other scientific standards... some which stipulate that for every event there must be a 'cause'. Your statement also shoots the 'big bang' in the foot.... as the 'big bang' would have been a beginning.

 

Evidence is evidence. You have made the same mistake that every other atheist has made in this forum, which is understandable, because most atheist have the same thought processes. In retrospect, you should have specified that you would accept EMPIRICAL EVIDNCE only, you know like the tooth that secular science built the Nebraska man from. Can't beat that empirical evidence eh, cause it was the same kind that produced the 40 year reign of piltdown man! Or the evidence that made Java man and Orce man so chummy with secular science! Lets not forget the empirical evidence that produced the mistruths of the attrubites of Neanderthal man. Yep better use ONLY empirical evidence, you know like the fossiliesed specimens that validated the authenticity of Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis the fake 'Dinosaur-bird'.

Please forgive my venture into a little levity to demonstrate that empirical evidence is just as risky all other evidences.

So, the way I see it any evidence that supports the truth of a position is valid EVIDENCE!!!! The ONLY time I see such a resistance and a hissy fit about trying to define the word ‘evidence’ is in forum discussions is where the membership has a high percentage of atheists. The reason is clear. Just as they claim they do not need to defend their beliefs i.e. their model of realty or paradigm of atheism, now they are saying they have the right to define a word i.e. 'evidence' to gain a unfair upper hand in the discussion/debate. Sorry guys, that ploy will not work, it does not work in either case if the truth is known!

Anyway;

here is the definition ; ev·i·dence [évvid’ns]
n
1. sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

That’s it folks, the number one definition! If you wanted something other than evidence you should of specified it. So again there are tons of evidence that support the existence of God from the KCA and other cosmological/ontological evidence to the Penrose calculations to the code arguments (patterns occur naturally code do not) and much, much more. However to even give ONE of these evidences full consideration requires, no DEMANDS an open mind. And with all due respect to those that atheists that may have an open mind I haven’t found one (an atheist with a open mind to theological metaphysical arguments and evidences, the same evidences etc that PhDs and other professionals in the field accept as valid arguments for evidence for the existence of God.) yet, in internet forums. I have met several in academia i.e. professional philosophers and others in like fields.

Rev A

 

Indications.... Indicants... OK ... Here you go:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

have fun. While you are having fun... look at the definition of the word 'indicant', check the definitions there along with the synonyms found for that word.

 

Hey IC we agree on this. When did the universe begin? Answer it began about 14.7 billion years ago. That is in total agreement with the BB model eh?

Rev A

 

I already did read my post.

Rev A

 

WMAP- Age of the Universe
Jul 19, 2010 ... How Old is the Universe? Until recently, astronomers estimated that the Big Bang occurred between 12 and 14 billion years ago. To put this in ...
map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html


The Birth of the Universe ......................................
Our universe began with a singularity that exploded, some 15-17 billion years
ago. The explosion created space and time as we know it; some of the expanding ...

www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/birth/oftheuniverse.html

Ha ha! Ahhhh~ I included the worsley school for kids for you, no really it was a mistake but the information is accurate. Around seven years ago most if not all NASA sites and others would say the “universe began about “ instead of saying the BB happened etc. This is because about seven years ago PhD Christian apologists and scientists began correlating that the universe had a beginning with creation. OMG the secular scientists cried! We cant have that! NASA supporting Christianity! So now the secular sites try not to use the word beginning because of its theological implications even if its accurate. Even the atheist philosopher David Hume recognized the big bang theory had theological implications. i.e.

Cosmological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It has been used by various theologians and philosophers over the centuries,
from ... 384–322 BC) both posited first cause arguments, though each had certain
notable ... In light of the Big Bang theory, a stylized version of argument has
emerged .... David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that
causal ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cosmological_argument

So you see that you are sucking to hind titty* when you say there is no for the evidence of God.

*That is not an insult its a hillbilly saying because when a mother dog ie a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) is feeding its pups the runt gets hind titty therfore has less milk, meaning that your claim is not very valid.


Rev A

 

Exactly my point. They make statements that contradict their statements. There is no consistency (other than ridicule of Theists) in their statements or reliable statements that they allege to be truth.

 

No it doesnt ? Watch the discovery channel sometime.

These things are just theories.

Have you ever taken quantum physics or quantum chemistry ? I have. Suffered through Shrodinger's wave equations and calculated the ground state energy of hydrogen from first principles.

We do not know and the more you get into this stuff the more you realize how much we really do not know about the universe.

Have we found the end of the universe ? No

Then how do we know where the beginning is if we do not know the end or the size of the universe ?

When scientists speak about the size of the universe the speak in terms of "the known universe".

The problem is what we do not know.

Do we know what was before the supposed "big bang" ? No

This is how scientists speak

The above was written in 1997 .. what a difference a year makes, in 1998 look what we find.

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
http://www.universetoday.com/19509/the-universe-is-not-expanding-uniformly/

 

DISCLAIMER SORRY TO THE MEMBERS FOR THE MANY ONLINE EDITS, ITS PAST TIME FOR MY WARM MILK TODDY AND BED. (I GET UP AT 1 AM)...

That is correct. There was an atheist that I fully admired here on the forum, but I think he ran away! His sc name is Red. He was like most off line atheists
very moral and ethical, I admire his style. So no I do not clump all atheists as being unable to think only inside the box. Those that can not think outside the box and those that present an malicious hateful agenda are what I call the usual suspects. However if the US (usual suspects) change that behavior of being malicious and hateful to believers, I remove them from the usual suspect clique.

Additionally, and maybe you feel the same ; not all atheists are malicious, neither do all dislike Christians. We need more Mr. Reds! Still we are in agreement on all the other points, and I hope that the OP author agrees to accept evidence as it is defined in this discussion. If not there is not too much to say for the discussion would not be fair or productive IMHO.

Rev A

 

This has nothing to do with Christianity my good man but an undestanding of Science.

Scientists have theories, some are better than others. There is evidence that suggests that the "known universe" is expanding.

Simple logic tells you that if you calculate the size of the "known universe" and you know the rate of expansion, and you plot a midpoint you can calculate a time.

Simple right ?

Wrong: There is no center to the universe (see posts above) and the universe is not expanding at a uniform rate as previously thought.

Worse, we do not know the size of the universe or where it begins or ends.

The Big Bang and the age of the universe are separate issues altogether.

From my previous post.

Not the terms "new understanding" of both "Origin" and "Structure"

We just do not know.

 

Why? All I have to do is visit PF where a lot of the pseudo-scientists hang out

Then why waste time on this forum with stuff (theories) that have not been proven. Not having been proven, places all of those 'theories' in the same category as a 'myth'.

No, I have not, but then who needs to when I have all you professionals on this forum to provide validated information regarding 'theories'. As for the 'ground state energy of hydrogen'... I find that the validity of such calculations are an illusion, since you cannot prove that hydrogen has only one electron and one proton. You may have been able to successfully manipulated mathematics in such a way as to satisfy the strictures of the box that you are confined to. Though such a tedious task would only serve to prove that you are proficient in the religious practice of numerology.

But yet you KNOW all that there is needed to KNOW about God to conclude that God does not exist. Hello inherent logical defect.

I already KNOW that.

Good question.. what is the answer?

Oh really? Have any of those scientists visited the end of "the known universe"? How do they KNOW what the end of the KNOWN UNIVERSE is? To my understanding, that is a pretty big space to cover in one lifetime or even a thousand lifetimes.

Yep! That is a pretty big problem. Yet you conclude (through the available evidence and application of the preferred form of logic) that God does not exist. Yep... that is pretty logical.

Yet you rule out particular possibilities and again (using your preferred form of logic) conclude that before the BB there could not have been anything including God.

That's nice. Your citations show that science is in a constant state of flux and nothing is to be considered standardized or consistent... always plastic.. nebulous... interesting. Sounds like the scientific community might just as well accept the inevitable and just join hands in prayer along with the Theist community instead of hiding behind rationalizations.

 

No no no NO! (ha ha) You said ;

“There is no "beginning" of the universe that can be proven.”

It began according to the sites I presented about 14.7 billion years ago. Man up when you are wrong. Most of the rest of your post has nothing to do with me correcting your falsehood. What you may of MEANT to say but didn't is that there is no KNOWN CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE because everything is expanding away from everything else. That is correct. What is weird is that the objects that are the farthest away are expanding at the fastest rate! That should not be happening. I wonder if the experts have considered that he objects farthest away may be may be riding the (boundary) shock wave of the early inflationary universe when it expanded ‘faster than light‘.

Now my dear fellow members (even you freeware) I must dive into bed with my beloved old basset hound, man do I miss the good ole days as a wanton sinner and blondes with big racks....kinda‘, the best looking chicks were the very most evil, sometimes deliciously so. …Nah I will take eternal life, my beloved, snoring 13 year old hound and the love of Jesus over the mean women anytime….still an avg looking christian woman would be nice... hint hint (must like hound dogs and hillbilly stuff)...

Rev A

 

Or you could just listen to real scientists such as myself.

This statement that all theory is in the same catagory as myth shows a high degree of scientific ignorance.

Not all Theories are on the same level. All start out as hypothesis. Over time if enough evidence that supports the hypothesis is found it becomes a theory.

This does not mean that the Theory is absolute, just that there is much evidence that seems to support it.

Claiming that a Scientific Theory is on the same level as myth is nonsense.


But yet you KNOW all that there is needed to KNOW about God to conclude that God does not exist. Hello inherent logical defect.

None have !! This is why we do not have a high degree of confidence in statements or Theories starting with "The beginning of the Universe"

Nowhere do I conclude that God does not exist. What on earth are you dreaming up now ?

Absolutely not ! Some Scientific theories are in a constant state of flux.

Much of Science is not in a state of flux.

Mixing Hydrogen gas with Oxygen gas at the right concentration and stricking a match gives creates water .. and a big bang of course !

 

In classical physics, yes. At the quantum level that changes.

Yes, and the Big Bang theory stands on its own. There is no evidence of a God in that theory.

I have specified that I would like empirical evidence.

 

Indeed .. and I stand by my assumption and provided you with the logic behind that assumption. Logic which you have not responded to.

If there is no "known" center of the universe, in part because of expansion but also because we do not know the boundaries of the universe, how on earth can we calculate an age, beginning, or end ?

What is referred to in your links is what some scientists theorize might be the beginning, or the age, of the Universe.

Nowhere in your link does it give "the why". This is important.

What is also important is to note the use of the term "estimate".

Note that in my comments I gave you one way that Scientists estimate the age of the Universe and some of the constraints and assumptions on that estimate.

Scientists readily admit that estimates of the age of the universe are based on these assumptions and that there is a high degree of uncertainty as to these assumptions.

Connecting these ideas to God is a whole other can of worms.

 

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19-20)

I suppose for one to consider only the natural world, you could conclude as you have. But there is also a spiritual world, sight unseen but nevertheless perceived by many who believe in the Holy Bible and Jesus. Of course there are satanists that have latched on to a life of demonic inspiration and most likely they have delved into the world of evil forces. Kind of like those that believe they can converse with those family members or others that have already passed on. They perhaps are confusing demons in the image of their lost ones who trick and lie to them as satan is the father of lies and people want so much to have hope in something even if it's unGodly.

For a Christian, we have Faith, a spiritual 6th sense, if you will. Not as a carnal man who only relies on the 5 physical senses.

The natural world did not come into existence out of nothing, there is One who created all this and whose hand is still in it that keeps all things together whether it be plant, animal or mineral or whatever. Most will not accept this but that's on them.

 

Right, but why do you think that? Other than someone telling you? If no one had ever given you a Bible, you would never think or know any of that.

 

The OP titled this thread "Existence of a god or gos".

I would suggest there are two reasons that counter one another that answers the question for each person who views this thread and for people in general.

You believe in the Gospel. God's Word which you accept as the Truth.

or

You believe in the Gos(pill). Man's word which is the pill of alternative thinking.

 

Please answer my question. What proof is there that the Bible is correct? And how would you know anything about the Bible if you weren't raised in this kind of society? What evidence is there for any of it being true?

I believe whatever observation and logic dictate. I doubt both man and "God's Word". And considering that this word originated with man, then perhaps you should check your own source of thinking as well.

 

You are partially correct. However you ignore the fact that we as Christians do have a personal knowledge of and relationship with the Lord, are indwelled with the Holy Spirit and have personal evidence of His existence in our lives and the lives of others. It's kind of like the New Testament writers, they had first hand knowledge and experience with Jesus either before or after His death and resurrection and no one at the time questioned it. For they would have if it had been in error.

I've found it incredulous that other lesser known books are taken as written and not questioned, either the source or the material. Yet, the Holy Bible is constantly under attack and criticized. Even if you don't believe it, why all the hoopla over it?