Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Proof Of God's Existence *

inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:14:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
G is for genetics- The molecular information of genes instructs cells in how to function and reproduce. The study of genetics has revolutionized our understanding of things living. DNA contains the 3 billion letter code inside our cells, its a virtual library of instruction manuals for assembling and operating all the cells of the body. Professor Anthony Flew came to the conclusion that God exists.
What he thought the DNA material has done is show us the complexity of arrangements which are needed to reproduce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.
Its the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtletly of the ways that they work together. The meeting of the two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute and in some cases almost impossible. It is a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were carefully achieved, which is evidence of intelligence.
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:19:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
O- This is for origin. If things have an origin, they always need an originator. Everything with a beginning has a cause and there are no known exceptions to this rule. Physics and astronomy have established that the universe has a beginning. It can be shown that the universe is presently expanding outward from an intitial point. So everything with a beginning has a cause and also effect. There is cause that the universe was created. Everything that is caused to exist is brought about by something superior to itself. Therefore something greater than the universe must have bought it into pure existence.
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:35:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
D- This is for design. Everything that has a specific and complex design has a designer. A building is designed by an architect. No amount of time, chance and unthinking natural process can produce a building. Mt Rushmore have 4 faces of American Presidents carved into rock. Wind and erosion can produce predictable designs on some mountains, but not defined and obvious well known faces. The Earth, for it to have life, it had to be the right size, 8000 miles in diameter.
If it were 9500 miles in diameter, scientists have concluded it would double the weight of air. Then there would be so much oxygen turning into water that it would cover the entire Earth. None of the continents would have appeared so there would be no land based life forms, including us.

The Earth is just the right distance from the sun-93 million miles. It it were just 5 percent farther out from the sun, the Earth would be too cold and mostly covered with ice. But if it were just a bit closer to the sun it would be unbearably hot and all of the polar ice caps would melt, flooding the coastal areas in the process.
The Earth also needs the right rotational speed. It it were a little bit faster, the
Earth would not be warmed enough. freezing much of the surface.
If it were slower, the heat would be totally oppressive.

It also needs the right atmospheric pressure- 78 percent nitrogen and 21 percent oxygen, the precise amounts sustain human life. The Earth also has a correct tilt, 23 degrees, allowing us to have the 4 seasons and twice as uch arable soil as a different angle tilt would provide.

Even the moon is precisely the righ size and cosmic distance from the Earth for the tides to move and the oceans around, keeping them clean and aerated.
Read the book The Privileged Planet', by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:38:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 9:14:48 AM, inferno wrote:
G is for genetics- The molecular information of genes instructs cells in how to function and reproduce. The study of genetics has revolutionized our understanding of things living. DNA contains the 3 billion letter code inside our cells, its a virtual library of instruction manuals for assembling and operating all the cells of the body. Professor Anthony Flew came to the conclusion that God exists.
What he thought the DNA material has done is show us the complexity of arrangements which are needed to reproduce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.
Its the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtletly of the ways that they work together. The meeting of the two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute and in some cases almost impossible. It is a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were carefully achieved, which is evidence of intelligence.

Complexity can arise from nature, we already know this to be true. Since a large portion of the DNA is junk, and we already know that deleting these portions cause no adverse effects, what would we conclude if we found out that over half the library contained jibberish, nonsensical books that seemed to have been the result of random mutation and nature?

Your argument fails. Anthony flew is a philosopher not a biologist, and therefore his stance on intelligent design is utterly meaningless.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:40:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 9:19:36 AM, inferno wrote:
O- This is for origin. If things have an origin, they always need an originator. Everything with a beginning has a cause and there are no known exceptions to this rule. Physics and astronomy have established that the universe has a beginning. It can be shown that the universe is presently expanding outward from an intitial point. So everything with a beginning has a cause and also effect. There is cause that the universe was created. Everything that is caused to exist is brought about by something superior to itself. Therefore something greater than the universe must have bought it into pure existence.

To the current form of the universe, yes. However, we do not know if the origin of the universe, i.e. the singularity that expanded from the big bang, requires a beginning, no. This fact alone disproves your argument. Just because something can end, doesnt mean it had a beginning.
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:47:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 9:40:17 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:19:36 AM, inferno wrote:
O- This is for origin. If things have an origin, they always need an originator. Everything with a beginning has a cause and there are no known exceptions to this rule. Physics and astronomy have established that the universe has a beginning. It can be shown that the universe is presently expanding outward from an intitial point. So everything with a beginning has a cause and also effect. There is cause that the universe was created. Everything that is caused to exist is brought about by something superior to itself. Therefore something greater than the universe must have bought it into pure existence.

To the current form of the universe, yes. However, we do not know if the origin of the universe, i.e. the singularity that expanded from the big bang, requires a beginning, no. This fact alone disproves your argument. Just because something can end, doesnt mean it had a beginning.

Yes it does. Anything that can be broken down from elements came from matter.
Matter itself is created by something. Everything comes from something, including you.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:53:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 9:35:20 AM, inferno wrote:
D- This is for design. Everything that has a specific and complex design has a designer. A building is designed by an architect. No amount of time, chance and unthinking natural process can produce a building. Mt Rushmore have 4 faces of American Presidents carved into rock. Wind and erosion can produce predictable designs on some mountains, but not defined and obvious well known faces. The Earth, for it to have life, it had to be the right size, 8000 miles in diameter.
If it were 9500 miles in diameter, scientists have concluded it would double the weight of air. Then there would be so much oxygen turning into water that it would cover the entire Earth. None of the continents would have appeared so there would be no land based life forms, including us.

Nope. We know that buildings and paintings have a designer because we see paintings and buildings being designed all the time, and never see paintings and buildings being created by nature.

The Earth is just the right distance from the sun-93 million miles. It it were just 5 percent farther out from the sun, the Earth would be too cold and mostly covered with ice. But if it were just a bit closer to the sun it would be unbearably hot and all of the polar ice caps would melt, flooding the coastal areas in the process.
The Earth also needs the right rotational speed. It it were a little bit faster, the
Earth would not be warmed enough. freezing much of the surface.
If it were slower, the heat would be totally oppressive.

What you failed to mention, is that we can get up to 15% closer to the sun to be too hot. Yes, we have already found a planet that exists in the habitable goldilocks zone of liquid water, even within our view.

The rest of your argument fails by the very reason I mentioned above. How much is a bit faster, how much is slower? Your claim of how if it were a bit closer to the sun, turned out to be a larger percentage than if it were farther away from it!

It also needs the right atmospheric pressure- 78 percent nitrogen and 21 percent oxygen, the precise amounts sustain human life. The Earth also has a correct tilt, 23 degrees, allowing us to have the 4 seasons and twice as uch arable soil as a different angle tilt would provide.

So we die the moment a plane goes up? Furtehrmore, again, the amount of nitrogen and oxygen required can change and we can still exist healthily and happily, since that amount fluxuates with pressure. So nothing here is precise.

Furthermore, again, many planets, even within THIS solar system have tilts that produce 4 seasons, like Juptiers moons.

Even the moon is precisely the righ size and cosmic distance from the Earth for the tides to move and the oceans around, keeping them clean and aerated.
Read the book The Privileged Planet', by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards.

Unless you can address my objections, theres no need to read that book.
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:55:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well where did the laws of the universe come from ? They are not matter or energy, but they govern how both operate. There is no intrisic reason for the laws of nature to exist. In fact, these laws had to be created and in place when matter and energy appeared, or there would be unbalance and total chaos. The laws of the universe require that a lawgiver calibrated them and set them into effect.

Without this force that cause mass to attract other objects, life could not exist. And the intensity of all forces must be in precise ratios to one another.
The famous physicist Stephen Hawkins himself even stated this. "The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could NOT exist.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:56:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 9:47:57 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:40:17 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:19:36 AM, inferno wrote:
O- This is for origin. If things have an origin, they always need an originator. Everything with a beginning has a cause and there are no known exceptions to this rule. Physics and astronomy have established that the universe has a beginning. It can be shown that the universe is presently expanding outward from an intitial point. So everything with a beginning has a cause and also effect. There is cause that the universe was created. Everything that is caused to exist is brought about by something superior to itself. Therefore something greater than the universe must have bought it into pure existence.

To the current form of the universe, yes. However, we do not know if the origin of the universe, i.e. the singularity that expanded from the big bang, requires a beginning, no. This fact alone disproves your argument. Just because something can end, doesnt mean it had a beginning.

Yes it does. Anything that can be broken down from elements came from matter.
Matter itself is created by something. Everything comes from something, including you.

So matter cannot exist for eternity in the singularity before the big bang? Awesome. Please prove your claim. Please do, you could win the nobel prize for doing so.
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:01:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 9:56:05 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:47:57 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:40:17 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:19:36 AM, inferno wrote:
O- This is for origin. If things have an origin, they always need an originator. Everything with a beginning has a cause and there are no known exceptions to this rule. Physics and astronomy have established that the universe has a beginning. It can be shown that the universe is presently expanding outward from an intitial point. So everything with a beginning has a cause and also effect. There is cause that the universe was created. Everything that is caused to exist is brought about by something superior to itself. Therefore something greater than the universe must have bought it into pure existence.

To the current form of the universe, yes. However, we do not know if the origin of the universe, i.e. the singularity that expanded from the big bang, requires a beginning, no. This fact alone disproves your argument. Just because something can end, doesnt mean it had a beginning.

Yes it does. Anything that can be broken down from elements came from matter.
Matter itself is created by something. Everything comes from something, including you.

So matter cannot exist for eternity in the singularity before the big bang? Awesome. Please prove your claim. Please do, you could win the nobel prize for doing so.

There was no big bang. This is only a theory that has not long term meaning or merits. If this was the case, then you would not even be human. Humans would not be an issue. There would be no mandate whatsoever or laws to follow.
This world would be out on control due to lack or a moral compass from which the Divine Creator would suggest of impose.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:02:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 9:55:29 AM, inferno wrote:
Well where did the laws of the universe come from ? They are not matter or energy, but they govern how both operate. There is no intrisic reason for the laws of nature to exist. In fact, these laws had to be created and in place when matter and energy appeared, or there would be unbalance and total chaos. The laws of the universe require that a lawgiver calibrated them and set them into effect.

Yes, that is the question. Where did the laws of the universe come from? We currently do not know, because we have no evidence to make a claim.

So your argument is basically an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. Thanks for proving my point.

Without this force that cause mass to attract other objects, life could not exist. And the intensity of all forces must be in precise ratios to one another.
The famous physicist Stephen Hawkins himself even stated this. "The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could NOT exist.

Nope, a recent paper suggests that, for example, a universe without the weak force would be largely indistinguishable from our own. The current model of particle physics has 25 parameters that are freely adjustable. This alone destroys your argument.

Furthermore, the universe, which seemed to have been designed for us, is 99.999999999999999999% hostile against us. How do you think that finding something that contains .000000000000000000000000001% of a material, makes that entire thing designed to house that material?

NEXT.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:04:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 10:01:46 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:56:05 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:47:57 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:40:17 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:19:36 AM, inferno wrote:
O- This is for origin. If things have an origin, they always need an originator. Everything with a beginning has a cause and there are no known exceptions to this rule. Physics and astronomy have established that the universe has a beginning. It can be shown that the universe is presently expanding outward from an intitial point. So everything with a beginning has a cause and also effect. There is cause that the universe was created. Everything that is caused to exist is brought about by something superior to itself. Therefore something greater than the universe must have bought it into pure existence.

To the current form of the universe, yes. However, we do not know if the origin of the universe, i.e. the singularity that expanded from the big bang, requires a beginning, no. This fact alone disproves your argument. Just because something can end, doesnt mean it had a beginning.

Yes it does. Anything that can be broken down from elements came from matter.
Matter itself is created by something. Everything comes from something, including you.

So matter cannot exist for eternity in the singularity before the big bang? Awesome. Please prove your claim. Please do, you could win the nobel prize for doing so.

There was no big bang. This is only a theory that has not long term meaning or merits. If this was the case, then you would not even be human. Humans would not be an issue. There would be no mandate whatsoever or laws to follow.

How do you know this to be true? Again, evidence, and not just assertions or an argument from ignorance.

This world would be out on control due to lack or a moral compass from which the Divine Creator would suggest of impose.

The same moral compass that came from the bible, that advocated slavery, murder, etc?
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:08:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Atoms would not be stable either. They would not have the capacity to combine into molecules, or the stars wouldnt form the heavier elements, or the universe would wholeheartedly collapse before life could develop. Austin American Statesman study from October 1997.

Who caused mass to affect its surroundings as it does to the degree that it does.
Who made laws that must have been exquisitely designed and calibrated to work in total harmony, symmetry, patterns, and volumes that do not defy the logistical laws of humanity. It must be an all-powerful Intelligence.
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:10:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 10:02:55 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:55:29 AM, inferno wrote:
Well where did the laws of the universe come from ? They are not matter or energy, but they govern how both operate. There is no intrisic reason for the laws of nature to exist. In fact, these laws had to be created and in place when matter and energy appeared, or there would be unbalance and total chaos. The laws of the universe require that a lawgiver calibrated them and set them into effect.

Yes, that is the question. Where did the laws of the universe come from? We currently do not know, because we have no evidence to make a claim.

So your argument is basically an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. Thanks for proving my point.

Without this force that cause mass to attract other objects, life could not exist. And the intensity of all forces must be in precise ratios to one another.
The famous physicist Stephen Hawkins himself even stated this. "The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could NOT exist.

Nope, a recent paper suggests that, for example, a universe without the weak force would be largely indistinguishable from our own. The current model of particle physics has 25 parameters that are freely adjustable. This alone destroys your argument.

Furthermore, the universe, which seemed to have been designed for us, is 99.999999999999999999% hostile against us. How do you think that finding something that contains .000000000000000000000000001% of a material, makes that entire thing designed to house that material?

NEXT.

Sorry. Not impressed by this stance. That recent study is just a theory that has been already debunked by science itself. Everything was created. And matter came from something. It does not matter if this is the universe, the Earth, the stars, the sun, etc. A bang could not have had an orchestrated intelligence to create things of design and pattern. That is true. Your logic is false beyond measure.
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:11:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 10:04:52 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:01:46 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:56:05 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:47:57 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:40:17 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:19:36 AM, inferno wrote:
O- This is for origin. If things have an origin, they always need an originator. Everything with a beginning has a cause and there are no known exceptions to this rule. Physics and astronomy have established that the universe has a beginning. It can be shown that the universe is presently expanding outward from an intitial point. So everything with a beginning has a cause and also effect. There is cause that the universe was created. Everything that is caused to exist is brought about by something superior to itself. Therefore something greater than the universe must have bought it into pure existence.

To the current form of the universe, yes. However, we do not know if the origin of the universe, i.e. the singularity that expanded from the big bang, requires a beginning, no. This fact alone disproves your argument. Just because something can end, doesnt mean it had a beginning.

Yes it does. Anything that can be broken down from elements came from matter.
Matter itself is created by something. Everything comes from something, including you.

So matter cannot exist for eternity in the singularity before the big bang? Awesome. Please prove your claim. Please do, you could win the nobel prize for doing so.

There was no big bang. This is only a theory that has not long term meaning or merits. If this was the case, then you would not even be human. Humans would not be an issue. There would be no mandate whatsoever or laws to follow.

How do you know this to be true? Again, evidence, and not just assertions or an argument from ignorance.

This world would be out on control due to lack or a moral compass from which the Divine Creator would suggest of impose.

The same moral compass that came from the bible, that advocated slavery, murder, etc?

The Bible does not advocate murder or slavery as you put it. This is also a selective theory of yours. It is false.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:15:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 10:08:03 AM, inferno wrote:
Atoms would not be stable either. They would not have the capacity to combine into molecules, or the stars wouldnt form the heavier elements, or the universe would wholeheartedly collapse before life could develop. Austin American Statesman study from October 1997.
Can be overcome by strong interactions with sufficient volumes during big bang nucleosynthesis. Harnik, kribs, Perez, 2006.
Who caused mass to affect its surroundings as it does to the degree that it does.

Not a who. Gravity.

Who made laws that must have been exquisitely designed and calibrated to work in total harmony, symmetry, patterns, and volumes that do not defy the logistical laws of humanity. It must be an all-powerful Intelligence.

Again, 25 parameters are freely adjustable within particle physics for this universe to work.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:16:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 10:10:57 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:02:55 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:55:29 AM, inferno wrote:
Well where did the laws of the universe come from ? They are not matter or energy, but they govern how both operate. There is no intrisic reason for the laws of nature to exist. In fact, these laws had to be created and in place when matter and energy appeared, or there would be unbalance and total chaos. The laws of the universe require that a lawgiver calibrated them and set them into effect.

Yes, that is the question. Where did the laws of the universe come from? We currently do not know, because we have no evidence to make a claim.

So your argument is basically an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. Thanks for proving my point.

Without this force that cause mass to attract other objects, life could not exist. And the intensity of all forces must be in precise ratios to one another.
The famous physicist Stephen Hawkins himself even stated this. "The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could NOT exist.

Nope, a recent paper suggests that, for example, a universe without the weak force would be largely indistinguishable from our own. The current model of particle physics has 25 parameters that are freely adjustable. This alone destroys your argument.

Furthermore, the universe, which seemed to have been designed for us, is 99.999999999999999999% hostile against us. How do you think that finding something that contains .000000000000000000000000001% of a material, makes that entire thing designed to house that material?

NEXT.

Sorry. Not impressed by this stance. That recent study is just a theory that has been already debunked by science itself. Everything was created. And matter came from something. It does not matter if this is the universe, the Earth, the stars, the sun, etc. A bang could not have had an orchestrated intelligence to create things of design and pattern. That is true. Your logic is false beyond measure.

Again, provide evidence. Where is your proof that matter cannot exist for eternity? Please, provide evidence or proof.

Nature produces design and pattern, but it is not intelligent. This is true. Your logic has failed.
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:18:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 10:16:55 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:10:57 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:02:55 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:55:29 AM, inferno wrote:
Well where did the laws of the universe come from ? They are not matter or energy, but they govern how both operate. There is no intrisic reason for the laws of nature to exist. In fact, these laws had to be created and in place when matter and energy appeared, or there would be unbalance and total chaos. The laws of the universe require that a lawgiver calibrated them and set them into effect.

Yes, that is the question. Where did the laws of the universe come from? We currently do not know, because we have no evidence to make a claim.

So your argument is basically an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. Thanks for proving my point.

Without this force that cause mass to attract other objects, life could not exist. And the intensity of all forces must be in precise ratios to one another.
The famous physicist Stephen Hawkins himself even stated this. "The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could NOT exist.

Nope, a recent paper suggests that, for example, a universe without the weak force would be largely indistinguishable from our own. The current model of particle physics has 25 parameters that are freely adjustable. This alone destroys your argument.

Furthermore, the universe, which seemed to have been designed for us, is 99.999999999999999999% hostile against us. How do you think that finding something that contains .000000000000000000000000001% of a material, makes that entire thing designed to house that material?

NEXT.

Sorry. Not impressed by this stance. That recent study is just a theory that has been already debunked by science itself. Everything was created. And matter came from something. It does not matter if this is the universe, the Earth, the stars, the sun, etc. A bang could not have had an orchestrated intelligence to create things of design and pattern. That is true. Your logic is false beyond measure.

Again, provide evidence. Where is your proof that matter cannot exist for eternity? Please, provide evidence or proof.

Nature produces design and pattern, but it is not intelligent. This is true. Your logic has failed.

Are you implying that it is not intelligent ? Again, you are being selective.
I am not impressed.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:19:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 10:11:53 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:04:52 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:01:46 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:56:05 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:47:57 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:40:17 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:19:36 AM, inferno wrote:
O- This is for origin. If things have an origin, they always need an originator. Everything with a beginning has a cause and there are no known exceptions to this rule. Physics and astronomy have established that the universe has a beginning. It can be shown that the universe is presently expanding outward from an intitial point. So everything with a beginning has a cause and also effect. There is cause that the universe was created. Everything that is caused to exist is brought about by something superior to itself. Therefore something greater than the universe must have bought it into pure existence.

To the current form of the universe, yes. However, we do not know if the origin of the universe, i.e. the singularity that expanded from the big bang, requires a beginning, no. This fact alone disproves your argument. Just because something can end, doesnt mean it had a beginning.

Yes it does. Anything that can be broken down from elements came from matter.
Matter itself is created by something. Everything comes from something, including you.

So matter cannot exist for eternity in the singularity before the big bang? Awesome. Please prove your claim. Please do, you could win the nobel prize for doing so.

There was no big bang. This is only a theory that has not long term meaning or merits. If this was the case, then you would not even be human. Humans would not be an issue. There would be no mandate whatsoever or laws to follow.

How do you know this to be true? Again, evidence, and not just assertions or an argument from ignorance.

This world would be out on control due to lack or a moral compass from which the Divine Creator would suggest of impose.

The same moral compass that came from the bible, that advocated slavery, murder, etc?

The Bible does not advocate murder or slavery as you put it. This is also a selective theory of yours. It is false.

Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that [are] with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. Lev 25:45

Fact.

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me Luke 19:27

More fact.

Your argument fails.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:20:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 10:18:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:16:55 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:10:57 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:02:55 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:55:29 AM, inferno wrote:
Well where did the laws of the universe come from ? They are not matter or energy, but they govern how both operate. There is no intrisic reason for the laws of nature to exist. In fact, these laws had to be created and in place when matter and energy appeared, or there would be unbalance and total chaos. The laws of the universe require that a lawgiver calibrated them and set them into effect.

Yes, that is the question. Where did the laws of the universe come from? We currently do not know, because we have no evidence to make a claim.

So your argument is basically an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. Thanks for proving my point.

Without this force that cause mass to attract other objects, life could not exist. And the intensity of all forces must be in precise ratios to one another.
The famous physicist Stephen Hawkins himself even stated this. "The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could NOT exist.

Nope, a recent paper suggests that, for example, a universe without the weak force would be largely indistinguishable from our own. The current model of particle physics has 25 parameters that are freely adjustable. This alone destroys your argument.

Furthermore, the universe, which seemed to have been designed for us, is 99.999999999999999999% hostile against us. How do you think that finding something that contains .000000000000000000000000001% of a material, makes that entire thing designed to house that material?

NEXT.

Sorry. Not impressed by this stance. That recent study is just a theory that has been already debunked by science itself. Everything was created. And matter came from something. It does not matter if this is the universe, the Earth, the stars, the sun, etc. A bang could not have had an orchestrated intelligence to create things of design and pattern. That is true. Your logic is false beyond measure.

Again, provide evidence. Where is your proof that matter cannot exist for eternity? Please, provide evidence or proof.

Nature produces design and pattern, but it is not intelligent. This is true. Your logic has failed.

Are you implying that it is not intelligent ? Again, you are being selective.
I am not impressed.

No, im not. But you are. And such a claim requires evidence.

No evidence, your argument fails.

NEXT.
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:23:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 10:20:22 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:18:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:16:55 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:10:57 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:02:55 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:55:29 AM, inferno wrote:
Well where did the laws of the universe come from ? They are not matter or energy, but they govern how both operate. There is no intrisic reason for the laws of nature to exist. In fact, these laws had to be created and in place when matter and energy appeared, or there would be unbalance and total chaos. The laws of the universe require that a lawgiver calibrated them and set them into effect.

Yes, that is the question. Where did the laws of the universe come from? We currently do not know, because we have no evidence to make a claim.

So your argument is basically an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. Thanks for proving my point.

Without this force that cause mass to attract other objects, life could not exist. And the intensity of all forces must be in precise ratios to one another.
The famous physicist Stephen Hawkins himself even stated this. "The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could NOT exist.

Nope, a recent paper suggests that, for example, a universe without the weak force would be largely indistinguishable from our own. The current model of particle physics has 25 parameters that are freely adjustable. This alone destroys your argument.

Furthermore, the universe, which seemed to have been designed for us, is 99.999999999999999999% hostile against us. How do you think that finding something that contains .000000000000000000000000001% of a material, makes that entire thing designed to house that material?

NEXT.

Sorry. Not impressed by this stance. That recent study is just a theory that has been already debunked by science itself. Everything was created. And matter came from something. It does not matter if this is the universe, the Earth, the stars, the sun, etc. A bang could not have had an orchestrated intelligence to create things of design and pattern. That is true. Your logic is false beyond measure.

Again, provide evidence. Where is your proof that matter cannot exist for eternity? Please, provide evidence or proof.

Nature produces design and pattern, but it is not intelligent. This is true. Your logic has failed.

Are you implying that it is not intelligent ? Again, you are being selective.
I am not impressed.

No, im not. But you are. And such a claim requires evidence.

No evidence, your argument fails.

NEXT.

My argument is very well accepted by scientists around the world. Intelligent design provokes a discussion that cannot be ignored. Youre just an extreme Atheists ideologue. So what we say has no bearing on how you think to begin with.
You will not be impressed with the evidence we present simply because you will never believe that God exist unless you see him with your own naked eyes. Period.
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:31:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If gravitational forces were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent our sun as we know it to be would not exist. Neither would we. Geisler and Nix law.

In addition to the importance of universe spanning effect of gravity, there also exists a vital balance of gravitational interaction more locally between the Earth and moon. If the interaction was greater than it is, tidal affects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. It it were less, the orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities. In either event life would be impossible.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:39:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 10:23:52 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:20:22 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:18:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:16:55 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:10:57 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:02:55 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:55:29 AM, inferno wrote:
Well where did the laws of the universe come from ? They are not matter or energy, but they govern how both operate. There is no intrisic reason for the laws of nature to exist. In fact, these laws had to be created and in place when matter and energy appeared, or there would be unbalance and total chaos. The laws of the universe require that a lawgiver calibrated them and set them into effect.

Yes, that is the question. Where did the laws of the universe come from? We currently do not know, because we have no evidence to make a claim.

So your argument is basically an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. Thanks for proving my point.

Without this force that cause mass to attract other objects, life could not exist. And the intensity of all forces must be in precise ratios to one another.
The famous physicist Stephen Hawkins himself even stated this. "The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could NOT exist.

Nope, a recent paper suggests that, for example, a universe without the weak force would be largely indistinguishable from our own. The current model of particle physics has 25 parameters that are freely adjustable. This alone destroys your argument.

Furthermore, the universe, which seemed to have been designed for us, is 99.999999999999999999% hostile against us. How do you think that finding something that contains .000000000000000000000000001% of a material, makes that entire thing designed to house that material?

NEXT.

Sorry. Not impressed by this stance. That recent study is just a theory that has been already debunked by science itself. Everything was created. And matter came from something. It does not matter if this is the universe, the Earth, the stars, the sun, etc. A bang could not have had an orchestrated intelligence to create things of design and pattern. That is true. Your logic is false beyond measure.

Again, provide evidence. Where is your proof that matter cannot exist for eternity? Please, provide evidence or proof.

Nature produces design and pattern, but it is not intelligent. This is true. Your logic has failed.

Are you implying that it is not intelligent ? Again, you are being selective.
I am not impressed.

No, im not. But you are. And such a claim requires evidence.

No evidence, your argument fails.

NEXT.

My argument is very well accepted by scientists around the world. Intelligent design provokes a discussion that cannot be ignored. Youre just an extreme Atheists ideologue. So what we say has no bearing on how you think to begin with.

As long as its not the majority of scientists around the world, your argument is meaningless.

You will not be impressed with the evidence we present simply because you will never believe that God exist unless you see him with your own naked eyes. Period.

No, i will not be impressed with the evidence you present, because you have not presented any evidence. I cannot be impressed by something that is not there. Present the evidence. Period.

NEXT.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:41:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 10:31:08 AM, inferno wrote:
If gravitational forces were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent our sun as we know it to be would not exist. Neither would we. Geisler and Nix law.
No such law, and no, again, 25 different constants can be altered, freely, without any problem. This alone destroys your argument.
In addition to the importance of universe spanning effect of gravity, there also exists a vital balance of gravitational interaction more locally between the Earth and moon. If the interaction was greater than it is, tidal affects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. It it were less, the orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities. In either event life would be impossible.

Again, 25. Please address this, because this is the main reason why your argument fails.
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:47:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 10:41:17 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:31:08 AM, inferno wrote:
If gravitational forces were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent our sun as we know it to be would not exist. Neither would we. Geisler and Nix law.
No such law, and no, again, 25 different constants can be altered, freely, without any problem. This alone destroys your argument.
In addition to the importance of universe spanning effect of gravity, there also exists a vital balance of gravitational interaction more locally between the Earth and moon. If the interaction was greater than it is, tidal affects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. It it were less, the orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities. In either event life would be impossible.

Again, 25. Please address this, because this is the main reason why your argument fails.

Yes, this is a law. Again, you are being overtly selective here.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:54:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 10:47:35 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:41:17 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:31:08 AM, inferno wrote:
If gravitational forces were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent our sun as we know it to be would not exist. Neither would we. Geisler and Nix law.
No such law, and no, again, 25 different constants can be altered, freely, without any problem. This alone destroys your argument.
In addition to the importance of universe spanning effect of gravity, there also exists a vital balance of gravitational interaction more locally between the Earth and moon. If the interaction was greater than it is, tidal affects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. It it were less, the orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities. In either event life would be impossible.

Again, 25. Please address this, because this is the main reason why your argument fails.

Yes, this is a law. Again, you are being overtly selective here.

Guess what. Its also a law that God doesnt exist.
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 11:08:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 10:54:23 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:47:35 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:41:17 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:31:08 AM, inferno wrote:
If gravitational forces were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent our sun as we know it to be would not exist. Neither would we. Geisler and Nix law.
No such law, and no, again, 25 different constants can be altered, freely, without any problem. This alone destroys your argument.
In addition to the importance of universe spanning effect of gravity, there also exists a vital balance of gravitational interaction more locally between the Earth and moon. If the interaction was greater than it is, tidal affects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. It it were less, the orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities. In either event life would be impossible.

Again, 25. Please address this, because this is the main reason why your argument fails.

Yes, this is a law. Again, you are being overtly selective here.

Guess what. Its also a law that God doesnt exist.

Only in your demographic kid. But there are many scientists who do believe otherwise. Its funny that you would never agree with them. I rest my case.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 12:10:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 11:08:30 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:54:23 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:47:35 AM, inferno wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:41:17 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:31:08 AM, inferno wrote:
If gravitational forces were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent our sun as we know it to be would not exist. Neither would we. Geisler and Nix law.
No such law, and no, again, 25 different constants can be altered, freely, without any problem. This alone destroys your argument.
In addition to the importance of universe spanning effect of gravity, there also exists a vital balance of gravitational interaction more locally between the Earth and moon. If the interaction was greater than it is, tidal affects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. It it were less, the orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities. In either event life would be impossible.

Again, 25. Please address this, because this is the main reason why your argument fails.

Yes, this is a law. Again, you are being overtly selective here.

Guess what. Its also a law that God doesnt exist.

Only in your demographic kid. But there are many scientists who do believe otherwise. Its funny that you would never agree with them. I rest my case.

Why dont you accept that law, that God doesnt exist? You are being overtly selective here.

Also, by "Many" you mean "Not enough to cover even 10% of all scientists", right? Its funny that they would never agree with the 90%, the vast majority of scientists saying otherwise.

Again, no evidence. Only claims. The case has been put to rest, and you have lost.

NEXT.
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 12:12:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 10:23:52 AM, inferno wrote:
Proof of Inferno's idiocy *
I:Incredibly lacking in logic.
N:Not even close to any form of reason.
F:Failing in all aspects of debate, and constructive conversation.
E:Everything he says is like a giant beacon of foolishness.
N:Never leaves this place, and continues to spark up moronic debates.
O: Oh my bog, this guy is retarded.
I miss the old members.