Thread: Is There Any Evidence for the Existence of God?

Originally Posted by SkyStryker

How so???????

You are part of the universe.

Originally Posted by Panzerkampfwagen

The Big Bang and Evolution are supported by facts and are theories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M1hxGj5bMg

Anything else you wish to be wrong on?

Wrong? I asked a question. You answered by agreeing with me.

Originally Posted by SkyStryker

No it isn't. We perceive the universe through our senses that are translated through our brains. For all we know, everything we can sense is nothing but an illusion because our brain cannot independently verify the information sent through electrical signals via senses.

Well, sure, but unless you're specifically discussing epistemology in any discussion about proving whether belief is justified there's a tacit agreement that we can trust our senses (or some kind of sensing machine) When your Mom asks if you've seen her glasses you don't explain to her that the best you can do is describe what you THINK happened a few moments ago when a particular visual pattern materialized and while you think her glasses caused it we have no evidence that our senses haven't behaved consistently up until now not because that's what they do but by coincidence. You just grab her glasses.

It sounds like you're just trying to hijack the discussion to avoid going down a road you know you disagree with. But he's right - within the context of this discussion seeing the universe exists is evidence only that it exists. Introduce your uncertainty and all the other stuff in this thread goes away as well, you know?

Originally Posted by Blackrook

How is it a logical fallacy to say that it makes no sense that the universe popped into existence out of nothing?

Don't play dumb. It's not a logical fallacy to admit you don't understand something. But you cited this as the
reason you believe in god, remember? That is a logical fallacy - the argument from incredulity or ignorance. It's why inventing Thor to explain thunder was not a reasonable explanation.

You do understand this, right? Religious people often seem incapable.

Originally Posted by saltwn

The precision of the universe cries out creator. Beyond that is another argument, but yes there is a "God" who/that got everything started from chaos.
Also if you want to dig deeper find some translations or even critiques (these would be by Cambridge or other prestigious scholars over the years-look for them in bibliographies if you have to but they are out there) of Ancient Greek philosophers. They absolutely proved (with discussion/theory/and more thought and discussion) that there was a being that /who created the universe.
I warn you some of this writing is mind boggling and can only be taken in in increments, considered and then go on to the next thought, but if you are truly interested in the subject it is worth it.

You're talking about the anthropic principle. And it hasn't been taken seriously by scientists or philosophers of science since Bertrand Russell. Chief among its many problems is it begs the question. It also makes some very specific claims about how universes operate despite its adherents' having ever only seen one universe. That is a pretty small sample space to start claiming things that must be true about all possible universes, let alone just ours.

I really have to wonder about hour critical skills if you have actually studied the stuff you claim to and came away with the idea that this issue has been absolutely proven. Be careful. You are the perfect candidate for recruitment into a cult: "seems totally legit to me."

Originally Posted by fmw

Wrong? I asked a question. You answered by agreeing with me.

I answered by agreeing with you? You told me that a theory is not the highest of the high. That's hardly agreeing with you.

Originally Posted by montra

As for the God of Abraham, we have the Bible. It is the only religious book I know that science uses, namely Biblical Archeology. These are not religious fanatics, in fact, some may not even believe in God. The use of the Bible in their digs is only due to the realization that it is a valuable historical information to use. There is truth in the book, so it is up to you to determine how much.
.

Im trying to keep a straight face here and avoid scare quotes Religious archaeologists long ago gave up digging holes in the desert looking for evidence that almost million people departed Egypt and bounced around in the sand. At this point if you find some bones out there it's probably some biblical archaeologist who died out there, unable to accept that the bible describes a fictitious event. Even mainstream Jews don't believe the Exodus happened.

It sometimes astonishes me how little Christians seem to know about secular examinations of their holy book. Your religion? It is nothing special and offers nothing a hundred others did or do. Aside from you guys inside the bubble nobody sees it as any different from Islam, Buddhism, or Scientology. All the wisdom, the theology, the history you find so inspiring? It's all just cribbed from other almost identical stories from that era Toss a rock into a crowd back then and you'd likely hit a prophet. Your team got a little lucky but at some point Christianity will be a historical curiosity just like all the other discarded religions. There is good reason to study it. It not to actually believe in it. As offended as you might be to hear this it's the truth, and Travolta will be equally offended so you're in good company.

Not a religious person, however, I agree with post 2 (Blackrook).
Calculate the additive probabilities of the following:
1. That the requisite material for life (water) is more dense in the solid phase than the liquid phase.
2. The proximity of Earth to the Sun (heat content).
3. The spin rate and tilt angle (heat distribution).
4. The composition of the atmosphere (i.e. 20 % oxygen)
5. The magnetism of the Earth (gamma ray dissipation)
6. The symbiotic relationship of plants and mammals (i.e. CO2 respiration versus O2 respiration).

Set up a simple probability plot of the odds of each event and tell me that something isn't funny. No one is asking you to believe in the resurrection of a man or goat. Just use statistics and reasonable assumptions and prove to yourself that something isn't amiss.

Originally Posted by dudeman

Not a religious person, however, I agree with post 2 (Blackrook).
Calculate the additive probabilities of the following:
1. That the requisite material for life (water) is more dense in the solid phase than the liquid phase.
2. The proximity of Earth to the Sun (heat content).
3. The spin rate and tilt angle (heat distribution).
4. The composition of the atmosphere (i.e. 20 % oxygen)
5. The magnetism of the Earth (gamma ray dissipation)
6. The symbiotic relationship of plants and mammals (i.e. CO2 respiration versus O2 respiration).

Set up a simple probability plot of the odds of each event and tell me that something isn't funny. No one is asking you to believe in the resurrection of a man or goat. Just use statistics and reasonable assumptions and prove to yourself that something isn't amiss.

So in other words, make up (*)(*)(*)(*) and claim it supports your argument?

It's a real number Pwagen. If you won the lottery recently, you might be able to provide a reasonable response.