Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Theists, what would you do....

dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 9:14:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
if some fact came to light that absolutely proved your religion false? Would you rethink your religious beliefs? Would you decide the fact was not actually a fact? What would be your action?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 9:19:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 9:16:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Revise my beliefs. Isn't this obvious? Most people would.

I am forced to disagree. I have spoken to many who would say that it would have to be a false because their faith cannot be wrong. You, my friend, are the exception, not the rule.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 10:02:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 9:19:39 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:16:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Revise my beliefs. Isn't this obvious? Most people would.

I am forced to disagree. I have spoken to many who would say that it would have to be a false because their faith cannot be wrong. You, my friend, are the exception, not the rule.

I doubt it. Probably just the ones you were talking to.

AFter all, if I formed my opinion of atheists by, say, Thomas Nagel's "fear of religion" I'd be liable to tthink that most atheists wouldn't change their mind even if presented with induibitable proof of God's existence...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 10:06:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 10:02:29 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:19:39 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:16:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Revise my beliefs. Isn't this obvious? Most people would.

I am forced to disagree. I have spoken to many who would say that it would have to be a false because their faith cannot be wrong. You, my friend, are the exception, not the rule.

I doubt it. Probably just the ones you were talking to.

AFter all, if I formed my opinion of atheists by, say, Thomas Nagel's "fear of religion" I'd be liable to tthink that most atheists wouldn't change their mind even if presented with induibitable proof of God's existence...

When someone actually has some evidence, we'll see. As far as 'just the ones I was talking to', well, it happens every day. There is hard evidence that a lot of what is stated in the bible as fact is indeed wrong yet people continue to assert it is the direct word of their God. In any case, I'm just asking people for their opinions. It's not a scientific survey by any means, just more curiosity on my part.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 11:14:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 9:14:02 AM, dhardage wrote:
if some fact came to light that absolutely proved your religion false? Would you rethink your religious beliefs? Would you decide the fact was not actually a fact? What would be your action?

Rethink my beliefs.

So what if you saw some fact that proved God exists what would you do?

In a debate with william lane craig his opponent said the apostles were having halucinations of Jesus. Later he said if he saw some giant God like figure berating him from his front lawn he would believe. Craig then asked 'are you sure you wouldn't say woo I just had a huge halucination?'

Athiest go around saying there is no evidence. But many believers see the evidence of Gods work in this universe and in thier lifes. I suspect no fact would change the athiest mind. But then again facts about life, morality, logic have changed the minds of other athiest so I guess it takes an honest look without worryi'g about where the inquiry leads you.
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 11:24:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 9:14:02 AM, dhardage wrote:
if some fact came to light that absolutely proved your religion false? Would you rethink your religious beliefs? Would you decide the fact was not actually a fact? What would be your action?

They'd whine about it and dismiss it
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 11:48:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 11:14:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:14:02 AM, dhardage wrote:
if some fact came to light that absolutely proved your religion false? Would you rethink your religious beliefs? Would you decide the fact was not actually a fact? What would be your action?

Rethink my beliefs.

So what if you saw some fact that proved God exists what would you do?

In a debate with william lane craig his opponent said the apostles were having halucinations of Jesus. Later he said if he saw some giant God like figure berating him from his front lawn he would believe. Craig then asked 'are you sure you wouldn't say woo I just had a huge halucination?'

Athiest go around saying there is no evidence. But many believers see the evidence of Gods work in this universe and in thier lifes. I suspect no fact would change the athiest mind. But then again facts about life, morality, logic have changed the minds of other athiest so I guess it takes an honest look without worryi'g about where the inquiry leads you.

Believers claim that the universe itself is evidence of some god but it only proves that the universe exists. If you can show me one fact that is testable, can be empirically confirmed or disproven, and unambiguously supports the assertion that there is some kind of supernatural being of any kind I will revise my position. So far no such evidence has been presented.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 11:55:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 10:06:34 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 10:02:29 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:19:39 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:16:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Revise my beliefs. Isn't this obvious? Most people would.

I am forced to disagree. I have spoken to many who would say that it would have to be a false because their faith cannot be wrong. You, my friend, are the exception, not the rule.

I doubt it. Probably just the ones you were talking to.

AFter all, if I formed my opinion of atheists by, say, Thomas Nagel's "fear of religion" I'd be liable to tthink that most atheists wouldn't change their mind even if presented with induibitable proof of God's existence...

When someone actually has some evidence, we'll see.

People have presented evidence for thousands of years, what are you talking about?
That they allegedly don't have strong or sufficient evidence enough =/= having no evidence.

It's quite possible to have strong evidence for a proposition regarding a specific body of evidence, but not have sufficient reason/evidence to believe that propsoiton regarding one's TOTAL body of evidence. That's just a basic truth in epistemology.

As far as 'just the ones I was talking to', well, it happens every day. There is hard evidence that a lot of what is stated in the bible as fact is indeed wrong yet people continue to assert it is the direct word of their God.

Depends on what they mean by that. As in the direct words of God transcribed by prophets? Most Christians don't believe that; that's more of a Muslim theory of inspiration.

In any case, I'm just asking people for their opinions. It's not a scientific survey by any means, just more curiosity on my part.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 12:21:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 11:55:12 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2015 10:06:34 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 10:02:29 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:19:39 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:16:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Revise my beliefs. Isn't this obvious? Most people would.

I am forced to disagree. I have spoken to many who would say that it would have to be a false because their faith cannot be wrong. You, my friend, are the exception, not the rule.

I doubt it. Probably just the ones you were talking to.

AFter all, if I formed my opinion of atheists by, say, Thomas Nagel's "fear of religion" I'd be liable to tthink that most atheists wouldn't change their mind even if presented with induibitable proof of God's existence...

When someone actually has some evidence, we'll see.

People have presented evidence for thousands of years, what are you talking about?
That they allegedly don't have strong or sufficient evidence enough =/= having no evidence.

None of that so-called evidence is viable or falsifiable or in any way unambiguous so no viable evidence has been presented.

It's quite possible to have strong evidence for a proposition regarding a specific body of evidence, but not have sufficient reason/evidence to believe that propsoiton regarding one's TOTAL body of evidence. That's just a basic truth in epistemology.

As far as 'just the ones I was talking to', well, it happens every day. There is hard evidence that a lot of what is stated in the bible as fact is indeed wrong yet people continue to assert it is the direct word of their God.

Depends on what they mean by that. As in the direct words of God transcribed by prophets? Most Christians don't believe that; that's more of a Muslim theory of inspiration.

But many do and they also believe the world is only 6000 years old. Ask any Christian if the 10 Commandments were given directly by God and I would give high odds that most would say yes.

In any case, I'm just asking people for their opinions. It's not a scientific survey by any means, just more curiosity on my part.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 12:31:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 11:55:12 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2015 10:06:34 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 10:02:29 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:19:39 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:16:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Revise my beliefs. Isn't this obvious? Most people would.

I am forced to disagree. I have spoken to many who would say that it would have to be a false because their faith cannot be wrong. You, my friend, are the exception, not the rule.

I doubt it. Probably just the ones you were talking to.

AFter all, if I formed my opinion of atheists by, say, Thomas Nagel's "fear of religion" I'd be liable to tthink that most atheists wouldn't change their mind even if presented with induibitable proof of God's existence...

When someone actually has some evidence, we'll see.

People have presented evidence for thousands of years, what are you talking about?
That they allegedly don't have strong or sufficient evidence enough =/= having no evidence.

It's quite possible to have strong evidence for a proposition regarding a specific body of evidence, but not have sufficient reason/evidence to believe that propsoiton regarding one's TOTAL body of evidence. That's just a basic truth in epistemology.

Hats off


As far as 'just the ones I was talking to', well, it happens every day. There is hard evidence that a lot of what is stated in the bible as fact is indeed wrong yet people continue to assert it is the direct word of their God.

Depends on what they mean by that. As in the direct words of God transcribed by prophets? Most Christians don't believe that; that's more of a Muslim theory of inspiration.

In any case, I'm just asking people for their opinions. It's not a scientific survey by any means, just more curiosity on my part.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 12:42:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 12:21:24 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 11:55:12 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2015 10:06:34 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 10:02:29 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:19:39 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:16:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Revise my beliefs. Isn't this obvious? Most people would.

I am forced to disagree. I have spoken to many who would say that it would have to be a false because their faith cannot be wrong. You, my friend, are the exception, not the rule.

I doubt it. Probably just the ones you were talking to.

AFter all, if I formed my opinion of atheists by, say, Thomas Nagel's "fear of religion" I'd be liable to tthink that most atheists wouldn't change their mind even if presented with induibitable proof of God's existence...

When someone actually has some evidence, we'll see.

People have presented evidence for thousands of years, what are you talking about?
That they allegedly don't have strong or sufficient evidence enough =/= having no evidence.

None of that so-called evidence is viable or falsifiable or in any way unambiguous so no viable evidence has been presented.

Of course the evidence is, You might be equivocating, evidence with proof.

Is there evidence for God, Tons of it

Is there proof of God, No.

Why?

Because God isn't a physical being who is bound by the universe.

But it doesn't mean we can't conclude based on the evidence that God exists.


It's quite possible to have strong evidence for a proposition regarding a specific body of evidence, but not have sufficient reason/evidence to believe that propsoiton regarding one's TOTAL body of evidence. That's just a basic truth in epistemology.

As far as 'just the ones I was talking to', well, it happens every day. There is hard evidence that a lot of what is stated in the bible as fact is indeed wrong yet people continue to assert it is the direct word of their God.

Depends on what they mean by that. As in the direct words of God transcribed by prophets? Most Christians don't believe that; that's more of a Muslim theory of inspiration.

But many do and they also believe the world is only 6000 years old. Ask any Christian if the 10 Commandments were given directly by God and I would give high odds that most would say yes.

In any case, I'm just asking people for their opinions. It's not a scientific survey by any means, just more curiosity on my part.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 12:48:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 12:42:47 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/26/2015 12:21:24 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 11:55:12 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2015 10:06:34 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 10:02:29 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:19:39 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:16:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Revise my beliefs. Isn't this obvious? Most people would.

I am forced to disagree. I have spoken to many who would say that it would have to be a false because their faith cannot be wrong. You, my friend, are the exception, not the rule.

I doubt it. Probably just the ones you were talking to.

AFter all, if I formed my opinion of atheists by, say, Thomas Nagel's "fear of religion" I'd be liable to tthink that most atheists wouldn't change their mind even if presented with induibitable proof of God's existence...

When someone actually has some evidence, we'll see.

People have presented evidence for thousands of years, what are you talking about?
That they allegedly don't have strong or sufficient evidence enough =/= having no evidence.

None of that so-called evidence is viable or falsifiable or in any way unambiguous so no viable evidence has been presented.

Of course the evidence is, You might be equivocating, evidence with proof.

Is there evidence for God, Tons of it

Show me these tons of evidence and explain why it has any probative value in this discussion.

Is there proof of God, No.

Agreed. Thanks for the honesty.

Why?

Because God isn't a physical being who is bound by the universe.

Then he is irrelevant to this universe, which is purely physical. If he can interact with the physical universe then he would leave evidence of it.

But it doesn't mean we can't conclude based on the evidence that God exists.

It means we can reject the assertion that any god exists since such existence cannot be verified.


It's quite possible to have strong evidence for a proposition regarding a specific body of evidence, but not have sufficient reason/evidence to believe that propsoiton regarding one's TOTAL body of evidence. That's just a basic truth in epistemology.

As far as 'just the ones I was talking to', well, it happens every day. There is hard evidence that a lot of what is stated in the bible as fact is indeed wrong yet people continue to assert it is the direct word of their God.

Depends on what they mean by that. As in the direct words of God transcribed by prophets? Most Christians don't believe that; that's more of a Muslim theory of inspiration.

But many do and they also believe the world is only 6000 years old. Ask any Christian if the 10 Commandments were given directly by God and I would give high odds that most would say yes.

In any case, I'm just asking people for their opinions. It's not a scientific survey by any means, just more curiosity on my part.

All of that said, you have not answered the question in the OP. If you discovered a fact, testable and falsifiable, that demonstrated beyond doubt that your religion was wrong, what would you do?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 12:52:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 12:42:47 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/26/2015 12:21:24 PM, dhardage wrote:

None of that so-called evidence is viable or falsifiable or in any way unambiguous so no viable evidence has been presented.

Of course the evidence is, You might be equivocating, evidence with proof.

Is there evidence for God, Tons of it

Is there proof of God, No.

Why?

Because God isn't a physical being who is bound by the universe.

But it doesn't mean we can't conclude based on the evidence that God exists.

Whatever "tons" of evidence you suggest has been brought forward these past many centuries does not appear to be available for scientists to study. Could you please point out this evidence so we can see what you're talking about?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 1:05:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
When someone actually has some evidence, we'll see.

People have presented evidence for thousands of years, what are you talking about?
That they allegedly don't have strong or sufficient evidence enough =/= having no evidence.

None of that so-called evidence is viable or falsifiable or in any way unambiguous so no viable evidence has been presented.

Of course the evidence is, You might be equivocating, evidence with proof.

Is there evidence for God, Tons of it

Show me these tons of evidence and explain why it has any probative value in this discussion.

Evidence for design?

The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be. The process of discovery continues, since one of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century. New studies continue to add to our knowledge about the universe and its extremely unlikely makeup.

The Big Bang

The Big Bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10-36 to 10-32 seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe.

Excess quarks

Quarks and antiquarks combined to annihilate each other. Originally, it was expected that the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. If the ratio were exactly equal to one, the universe would have consisted solely of energy - not very conducive to the existence of life. However, recent research showed that the charge"parity violation could have resulted naturally given the three known masses of quark families.1 However, this just pushes fine tuning a level down to ask why quarks display the masses they have. Those masses must be fine tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.

Large, just right-sized universe

Why the Universe Is the Way It IsEven so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.2 Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 1059 larger,3 the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

Early evolution of the universe

Cosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into the[se] 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.4

Just right laws of physics

The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120 would completely negate the effect. The physical constants required to produce carbon and oxygen in stars is also narrowly fine tuned. A value for Hoyle state 2% higher than the measured value would prevent the formation of carbon.5 A value 2% lower than the measured value would produce lots of carbon, but no oxygen.5 Both are essential atoms for life.

Universal probability bounds

"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 1080 baryons and has only been around for 13.8 billion years (1018 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec),6 the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:

1/1080 x 1/1018 x 1/1045 =1/10143

Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history.

Continued in link

http://www.godandscience.org...
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 1:06:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 12:48:40 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 12:42:47 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/26/2015 12:21:24 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 11:55:12 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2015 10:06:34 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 10:02:29 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:19:39 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:16:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Revise my beliefs. Isn't this obvious? Most people would.

I am forced to disagree. I have spoken to many who would say that it would have to be a false because their faith cannot be wrong. You, my friend, are the exception, not the rule.

I doubt it. Probably just the ones you were talking to.

AFter all, if I formed my opinion of atheists by, say, Thomas Nagel's "fear of religion" I'd be liable to tthink that most atheists wouldn't change their mind even if presented with induibitable proof of God's existence...

When someone actually has some evidence, we'll see.

People have presented evidence for thousands of years, what are you talking about?
That they allegedly don't have strong or sufficient evidence enough =/= having no evidence.

None of that so-called evidence is viable or falsifiable or in any way unambiguous so no viable evidence has been presented.

Of course the evidence is, You might be equivocating, evidence with proof.

Is there evidence for God, Tons of it

Show me these tons of evidence and explain why it has any probative value in this discussion.

Is there proof of God, No.

Agreed. Thanks for the honesty.

Why?

Because God isn't a physical being who is bound by the universe.

Then he is irrelevant to this universe, which is purely physical. If he can interact with the physical universe then he would leave evidence of it.

But it doesn't mean we can't conclude based on the evidence that God exists.

It means we can reject the assertion that any god exists since such existence cannot be verified.


It's quite possible to have strong evidence for a proposition regarding a specific body of evidence, but not have sufficient reason/evidence to believe that propsoiton regarding one's TOTAL body of evidence. That's just a basic truth in epistemology.

As far as 'just the ones I was talking to', well, it happens every day. There is hard evidence that a lot of what is stated in the bible as fact is indeed wrong yet people continue to assert it is the direct word of their God.

Depends on what they mean by that. As in the direct words of God transcribed by prophets? Most Christians don't believe that; that's more of a Muslim theory of inspiration.

But many do and they also believe the world is only 6000 years old. Ask any Christian if the 10 Commandments were given directly by God and I would give high odds that most would say yes.

In any case, I'm just asking people for their opinions. It's not a scientific survey by any means, just more curiosity on my part.

All of that said, you have not answered the question in the OP. If you discovered a fact, testable and falsifiable, that demonstrated beyond doubt that your religion was wrong, what would you do?

I don't believe in religion, I believe in God.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 1:19:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 1:05:39 PM, johnlubba wrote:
When someone actually has some evidence, we'll see.

People have presented evidence for thousands of years, what are you talking about?
That they allegedly don't have strong or sufficient evidence enough =/= having no evidence.

None of that so-called evidence is viable or falsifiable or in any way unambiguous so no viable evidence has been presented.

Of course the evidence is, You might be equivocating, evidence with proof.

Is there evidence for God, Tons of it

Show me these tons of evidence and explain why it has any probative value in this discussion.

Evidence for design?

Continued in link

http://www.godandscience.org...

None of what you posted is evidence for any god and it's poor evidence for design, if it has any strength at all. The fact is that we can only exist in the tiniest fraction of the universe. The vast, and I do mean VAST, majority of it would kill us in seconds or less. That is poor design and poor or faulty design is a sign of no designer.

We are an effect, not a cause. We are as we are because the universe is as it is. The universe was not made to fit us, we were formed by the universe to fit our environment like water filling a vessel and taking that container's shape. We don't know exactly how and why the distribution of matter in the universe was not equal to antimatter and thereby destroying itself. We are researching that and a myriad of other questions about the universe but NONE of that is evidence for any deity.

If you want to discuss something, please do so but don't resort to posting an entire page from an apologetics web site. It's really a waste of time.

OK, so you don't have a religion but you believe in God. I will assume that you are not a Christian of any sect or denomination. That being the case, suppose you answer the question 'What if you discovered a fact that made your belief in God wrong? What would you do?'
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 1:35:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 1:19:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 1:05:39 PM, johnlubba wrote:
When someone actually has some evidence, we'll see.

People have presented evidence for thousands of years, what are you talking about?
That they allegedly don't have strong or sufficient evidence enough =/= having no evidence.

None of that so-called evidence is viable or falsifiable or in any way unambiguous so no viable evidence has been presented.

Of course the evidence is, You might be equivocating, evidence with proof.

Is there evidence for God, Tons of it

Show me these tons of evidence and explain why it has any probative value in this discussion.

Evidence for design?

Continued in link

http://www.godandscience.org...

None of what you posted is evidence for any god and it's poor evidence for design,

According to you it isn't, But it is.

if it has any strength at all. The fact is that we can only exist in the tiniest fraction of the universe. The vast, and I do mean VAST, majority of it would kill us in seconds or less.

Then isn't it a good Job we don't exist in the other parts?

That is poor design and poor or faulty design is a sign of no designer.

In your opinion, not mine.

We are an effect, not a cause. We are as we are because the universe is as it is. The universe was not made to fit us, we were formed by the universe to fit our environment like water filling a vessel and taking that container's shape.

This goes against everything you just said, you just said we would be killed in seconds if we existed in other parts of the universe, why? because it is not suitable for life. Life doesn't just evolve regardless of it's environment, the environment has to be right, for life to evolve.

We don't know exactly how and why the distribution of matter in the universe was not equal to antimatter and thereby destroying itself. We are researching that and a myriad of other questions about the universe but NONE of that is evidence for any deity.

Yes it is, If it was any different, there would be no universe at all, there are many many factors that if they were slightly different we would not exist.


If you want to discuss something, please do so but don't resort to posting an entire page from an apologetics web site. It's really a waste of time.

Don't be so Bias, it has nothing but scientific conclusions. If you want to dispute the science do so, The apologetics takes nothing away from it.

Here's some more quotes from the link

What do cosmologists say?

Even though many atheists would like to dismiss such evidence of design, cosmologists know better, and have made statements such as the following, which reveal the depth of the problem for the atheistic worldview:

""This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine-tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."7

""Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."8

""In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the liveable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely."9


OK, so you don't have a religion but you believe in God. I will assume that you are not a Christian of any sect or denomination. That being the case, suppose you answer the question 'What if you discovered a fact that made your belief in God wrong? What would you do?'

I don't think it's possible.

That's my answer,

But if it was, then I would re-evaluate my stance.

What about you?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 1:54:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 1:05:39 PM, johnlubba wrote:

Evidence for design?

The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be.

Sorry, but you appear to be misinformed. Science shows through observation that the universe came about due to the laws of physics that describe the properties of nature and the universe. No evidence whatsoever suggests and kind of design. That is entirely false.

The process of discovery continues, since one of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century. New studies continue to add to our knowledge about the universe and its extremely unlikely makeup.

That would be due to the laws of physics and properties of nature and not design.

The Big Bang

The Big Bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10-36 to 10-32 seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe.

Excess quarks

Quarks and antiquarks combined to annihilate each other. Originally, it was expected that the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. If the ratio were exactly equal to one, the universe would have consisted solely of energy - not very conducive to the existence of life. However, recent research showed that the charge"parity violation could have resulted naturally given the three known masses of quark families.1 However, this just pushes fine tuning a level down to ask why quarks display the masses they have. Those masses must be fine tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.

Large, just right-sized universe

Why the Universe Is the Way It IsEven so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.2 Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 1059 larger,3 the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

Early evolution of the universe

Cosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into the[se] 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.4

Just right laws of physics

The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120 would completely negate the effect. The physical constants required to produce carbon and oxygen in stars is also narrowly fine tuned. A value for Hoyle state 2% higher than the measured value would prevent the formation of carbon.5 A value 2% lower than the measured value would produce lots of carbon, but no oxygen.5 Both are essential atoms for life.

Universal probability bounds

"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 1080 baryons and has only been around for 13.8 billion years (1018 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec),6 the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:

1/1080 x 1/1018 x 1/1045 =1/10143

Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history.

Continued in link

http://www.godandscience.org...

Sorry, there is no fine-tuned argument, that is a non-sequitur. Changing the properties of our universe and making up numbers is not an argument for the existence of our universe. It's the old puddle and water fallacy.

What we were asking for was actual evidence to support your claims, not subterfuge and innuendo.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 2:05:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 1:35:28 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/26/2015 1:19:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 1:05:39 PM, johnlubba wrote:
When someone actually has some evidence, we'll see.

People have presented evidence for thousands of years, what are you talking about?
That they allegedly don't have strong or sufficient evidence enough =/= having no evidence.

None of that so-called evidence is viable or falsifiable or in any way unambiguous so no viable evidence has been presented.

Of course the evidence is, You might be equivocating, evidence with proof.

Is there evidence for God, Tons of it

Show me these tons of evidence and explain why it has any probative value in this discussion.

Evidence for design?

Continued in link

http://www.godandscience.org...

None of what you posted is evidence for any god and it's poor evidence for design,

According to you it isn't, But it is.

Not according to the vast majority of physicists and cosmologists.



if it has any strength at all. The fact is that we can only exist in the tiniest fraction of the universe. The vast, and I do mean VAST, majority of it would kill us in seconds or less.

Then isn't it a good Job we don't exist in the other parts?


Meaningless statement and no real argument.


That is poor design and poor or faulty design is a sign of no designer.

In your opinion, not mine.

No, in fact. If your God was perfect why would he design imperfect beings?

We are an effect, not a cause. We are as we are because the universe is as it is. The universe was not made to fit us, we were formed by the universe to fit our environment like water filling a vessel and taking that container's shape.

This goes against everything you just said, you just said we would be killed in seconds if we existed in other parts of the universe, why? because it is not suitable for life.

Precisely. Why would any being create an entire universe only have life on one small planet circling a small, middle aged star on the outer rim of a minor galaxy? It's wasteful in the extreme, just to name one problem. It has no purpose, no function, no meaning so do supernaturally powerful and wise being would create, let alone implement, such a poor design.

Life doesn't just evolve regardless of it's environment, the environment has to be right, for life to evolve.

I never said it didn't have to be right. I'm saying because it was right for life, life developed and evolved. The earth was not always as it is now and the life that came first was nothing like us except at the most basic molecular level. Once again, we are an effect of the environment, not the cause for the environment to exist.

We don't know exactly how and why the distribution of matter in the universe was not equal to antimatter and thereby destroying itself. We are researching that and a myriad of other questions about the universe but NONE of that is evidence for any deity.


Yes it is, If it was any different, there would be no universe at all, there are many many factors that if they were slightly different we would not exist.

Then we would not exist. It's that simple. If things had been different, we would not be here. We're an effect. It wasn't set up this way for us. Can't you see the difference?



If you want to discuss something, please do so but don't resort to posting an entire page from an apologetics web site. It's really a waste of time.

Don't be so Bias, it has nothing but scientific conclusions. If you want to dispute the science do so, The apologetics takes nothing away from it.

It's not science, it's the opinion of a few Christians who happen to be scientists but they cannot generate one peer reviewed study between them that produces evidence that your god or any other exists. All they have are assertions that their god must be responsible because there is a specific set of parameters the universe has. They don't know so they insert their god. It's called the 'god of the gaps' fallacy.
Here's some more quotes from the link


What do cosmologists say?

Even though many atheists would like to dismiss such evidence of design, cosmologists know better, and have made statements such as the following, which reveal the depth of the problem for the atheistic worldview:


""This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine-tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."7


""Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."8


""In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the liveable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely."9

All just personal opinions, no science or studies behind them. Show me the experiments, the studies, the data.




OK, so you don't have a religion but you believe in God. I will assume that you are not a Christian of any sect or denomination. That being the case, suppose you answer the question 'What if you discovered a fact that made your belief in God wrong? What would you do?'

I don't think it's possible.

That's my answer,

But if it was, then I would re-evaluate my stance.

Thank you.

What about you?

Please note a previous post. If I were presented with one fact, verifiable and falsifiable, that unambiguously supported the existence of any god, I would have to change my stance as well. I've never said otherwise, but no one has presented that kind of factual evidence. All I get are specious logical arguments with unsupported premises, arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, and arguments from popularity. Show me one fact, just one, that can be used to falsify the hypothesis that God exists and created this universe. That's all it takes.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 2:15:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 9:14:02 AM, dhardage wrote:
if some fact came to light that absolutely proved your religion false? Would you rethink your religious beliefs? Would you decide the fact was not actually a fact? What would be your action?

Hypothetically speaking:

If unquestionable evidence irrefutably proved my religious beliefs false, they'd be history.

I would question my critical thinking abilities, examine them to see where I went wrong, and re-establish a more correct pattern.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 4:25:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
None of what you posted is evidence for any god and it's poor evidence for design,

According to you it isn't, But it is.

Not according to the vast majority of physicists and cosmologists.

And you accuse me of arguemnts from popularity?

Nobody has complete knowledge

The vast majority of scientists and cosmologists is an argument from popularity.
Who are themselves guessing how the universe works on the available evidence, Nobody has complete knowledge of how the universe works, There is no unified theory,


if it has any strength at all. The fact is that we can only exist in the tiniest fraction of the universe. The vast, and I do mean VAST, majority of it would kill us in seconds or less.

Then isn't it a good Job we don't exist in the other parts?


Meaningless statement and no real argument.

Of course not, if the vast universe is inhabitable to our lifeform, then isn't it good we are able to exist in this tinest piece of the universe.?

Of which displays intelligence to produce planets that allows the evolution of melecular machines, which are able to comprehend an infinite amount of pieces of it's splendour and wonder.



That is poor design and poor or faulty design is a sign of no designer.

In your opinion, not mine.

No, in fact. If your God was perfect why would he design imperfect beings?

Even in faith somethings are unknown.


We are an effect, not a cause. We are as we are because the universe is as it is.

The universe is as it is because it rests on finely balanced laws which can not be altered, there are so many factors the universe relies on for our existence, which if were a fraction different, it wouldn't be.

The universe was not made to fit us,

This is the question,

I believe the odds on the universe even existing are so astronmical, I suspect there has to be an intelligence involved.

we were formed by the universe to fit our environment like water filling a vessel and taking that container's shape.

However you put it, The universe has the potency to manifest planets and life.

Chance, I don't think so.


This goes against everything you just said, you just said we would be killed in seconds if we existed in other parts of the universe, why? because it is not suitable for life.

Precisely. Why would any being create an entire universe only have life on one small planet circling a small, middle aged star on the outer rim of a minor galaxy? It's wasteful in the extreme, just to name one problem. It has no purpose, no function, no meaning so do supernaturally powerful and wise being would create, let alone implement, such a poor design.


I'm sorry you feel like that, but I wouldn't call the creation of planet earth and the journey of every living specices, a waste of time. I think nature has a way of dealing with life, that just keeps the greatest show on earth going.

Life doesn't just evolve regardless of it's environment, the environment has to be right, for life to evolve.

I never said it didn't have to be right. I'm saying because it was right for life, life developed and evolved.

Right according to an absolutely astrnomical mathmatical improbabilty.

The earth was not always as it is now and the life that came first was nothing like us except at the most basic molecular level. Once again, we are an effect of the environment, not the cause for the environment to exist.

I'm not saying we caused the enviroment, I'm saying the enviroment caused us to exist, and the enviroment is only possible due to an improbable fact.


We don't know exactly how and why the distribution of matter in the universe was not equal to antimatter and thereby destroying itself. We are researching that and a myriad of other questions about the universe but NONE of that is evidence for any deity.


Yes it is, If it was any different, there would be no universe at all, there are many many factors that if they were slightly different we would not exist.

Then we would not exist. It's that simple. If things had been different, we would not be here. We're an effect. It wasn't set up this way for us. Can't you see the difference?

But we actually exist. We can not imagine us not existing.




If you want to discuss something, please do so but don't resort to posting an entire page from an apologetics web site. It's really a waste of time.

Don't be so Bias, it has nothing but scientific conclusions. If you want to dispute the science do so, The apologetics takes nothing away from it.

It's not science, it's the opinion of a few Christians who happen to be scientists but they cannot generate one peer reviewed study between them that produces evidence that your god or any other exists. All they have are assertions that their god must be responsible because there is a specific set of parameters the universe has. They don't know so they insert their god. It's called the 'god of the gaps' fallacy.
Here's some more quotes from the link


What do cosmologists say?

Even though many atheists would like to dismiss such evidence of design, cosmologists know better, and have made statements such as the following, which reveal the depth of the problem for the atheistic worldview:


""This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine-tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."7


""Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."8


""In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the liveable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely."9

All just personal opinions, no science or studies behind them. Show me the experiments, the studies, the data.

What are you talking about.





Please note a previous post. If I were presented with one fact, verifiable and falsifiable, that unambiguously supported the existence of any god, I would have to change my stance as well. I've never said otherwise, but no one has presented that kind of factual evidence. All I get are specious logical arguments with unsupported premises, arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, and arguments from popularity. Show me one fact, just one, that can be used to falsify the hypothesis that God exists and created this universe. That's all it takes.

You are still confusing evidence with proof. You can have evidence for God, where the evidence is factual, But it isn't proof for God. There is no proof of God, so you are setting your hopes high. If you base your stance on the strength of some sort of empirical proof of God himself, then your request is not in accordance of what any religion proclaims. God is not pyhisical, empiricalism does not apply to Gods spiritual nature. It doesn't mean God does not have the power and intelligence to manifest the universe.

But to discover God, we need to discover the spiritual aspect of God which is within us.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 4:38:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 4:25:10 PM, johnlubba wrote:
Snipped

And you accuse me of arguemnts from popularity?

Nobody has complete knowledge

No, I'm just demonstrating that the people who actually study this stuff, dedicate their lives to that study disagree with you. Given their relative level of expertise to yours, I would accept their evaluation as more likely to be correct.

The vast majority of scientists and cosmologists is an argument from popularity.
Who are themselves guessing how the universe works on the available evidence, Nobody has complete knowledge of how the universe works, There is no unified theory,

See above. They aren't guessing, they observe, hypothesize, experiment, and re-evaluate. When they find a hypothesis that fully explains the observations and has been tested sufficiently, it becomes a Theory, like Atomic Theory, or the Theory of Gravity.


if it has any strength at all. The fact is that we can only exist in the tiniest fraction of the universe. The vast, and I do mean VAST, majority of it would kill us in seconds or less.

Then isn't it a good Job we don't exist in the other parts?


Meaningless statement and no real argument.


Of course not, if the vast universe is inhabitable to our lifeform, then isn't it good we are able to exist in this tinest piece of the universe.?

Of which displays intelligence to produce planets that allows the evolution of melecular machines, which are able to comprehend an infinite amount of pieces of it's splendour and wonder.

One again, no intelligence shown. We are the end result of a lot of trial and error brought on by survival pressures that our ancestors adapted to survive.

Even in faith somethings are unknown.

In faith all things are unknown, just believed because you were told it was so.

The universe is as it is because it rests on finely balanced laws which can not be altered, there are so many factors the universe relies on for our existence, which if were a fraction different, it wouldn't be.

So, what? What is the relevance of this statement?

This is the question,

I believe the odds on the universe even existing are so astronmical, I suspect there has to be an intelligence involved.

Argument from incredulity, meaningless.

Chance, I don't think so.

See above

Right according to an absolutely astrnomical mathmatical improbabilty.

See above.

The earth was not always as it is now and the life that came first was nothing like us except at the most basic molecular level. Once again, we are an effect of the environment, not the cause for the environment to exist.

I'm not saying we caused the enviroment, I'm saying the enviroment caused us to exist, and the enviroment is only possible due to an improbable fact.

See above.

We don't know exactly how and why the distribution of matter in the universe was not equal to antimatter and thereby destroying itself. We are researching that and a myriad of other questions about the universe but NONE of that is evidence for any deity.


Yes it is, If it was any different, there would be no universe at all, there are many many factors that if they were slightly different we would not exist.

So what? Not an argument of any kind and irrelevant.

Then we would not exist. It's that simple. If things had been different, we would not be here. We're an effect. It wasn't set up this way for us. Can't you see the difference?

But we actually exist. We can not imagine us not existing.

Non-sequitur


If you want to discuss something, please do so but don't resort to posting an entire page from an apologetics web site. It's really a waste of time.

Don't be so Bias, it has nothing but scientific conclusions. If you want to dispute the science do so, The apologetics takes nothing away from it.

It's not science, it's the opinion of a few Christians who happen to be scientists but they cannot generate one peer reviewed study between them that produces evidence that your god or any other exists. All they have are assertions that their god must be responsible because there is a specific set of parameters the universe has. They don't know so they insert their god. It's called the 'god of the gaps' fallacy.
Here's some more quotes from the link


What do cosmologists say?

Even though many atheists would like to dismiss such evidence of design, cosmologists know better, and have made statements such as the following, which reveal the depth of the problem for the atheistic worldview:


""This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine-tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."7


""Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."8


""In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the liveable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely."9

All just personal opinions, no science or studies behind them. Show me the experiments, the studies, the data.

What are you talking about.

All of your quotes are opinions, many from people who are not qualified to argue with actual cosmologists. They present no study that in any way validates those opinions.







Please note a previous post. If I were presented with one fact, verifiable and falsifiable, that unambiguously supported the existence of any god, I would have to change my stance as well. I've never said otherwise, but no one has presented that kind of factual evidence. All I get are specious logical arguments with unsupported premises, arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, and arguments from popularity. Show me one fact, just one, that can be used to falsify the hypothesis that God exists and created this universe. That's all it takes.



You are still confusing evidence with proof.

Nope. I have asked for evidence. I never said proof.

You can have evidence for God, where the evidence is factual, But it isn't proof for God. There is no proof of God, so you are setting your hopes high. If you base your stance on the strength of some sort of empirical proof of God himself, then your request is not in accordance of what any religion proclaims. God is not pyhisical, empiricalism does not apply to Gods spiritual nature. It doesn't mean God does not have the power and intelligence to manifest the universe.

It means that he does not exist in this universe and is therefore irrelevant to those of us who do.

But to discover God, we need to discover the spiritual aspect of God which is within us.

An appeal to personal feelings which are evidence of nothing.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 4:46:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 4:25:10 PM, johnlubba wrote:


I believe the odds on the universe even existing are so astronmical, I suspect there has to be an intelligence involved.

Because you error in your thinking. Astronomical odds happen all the time but people seem to understand this doesn't justify intelligent design. It just us humans when it comes to our selves start thinking hey what are the odds eh ?.................

It gets worse any intelligent life (such as yourself) will find it's self in situation where life is possible cause you don't find life where life can't exist. This creates a bias problem in the data that an intelligent life form observe.

So what is the probability that an intelligent life will find it's self in a life permitting universe ? 100%. And it doesn't matter how improbable a life permitting universe is an intelligent life form will always find it's self in a life permitting universe cause if the universe wasn't they wouldn't exist in that universe in the first place to put forth the claim that hey I think this was all part of the plan................
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 4:48:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 9:14:02 AM, dhardage wrote:
if some fact came to light that absolutely proved your religion false? Would you rethink your religious beliefs? Would you decide the fact was not actually a fact? What would be your action?

Ain't going to happen. People have spent alot of time and work to make their religious claims untestable and thus can never be proven.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 5:27:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 9:14:02 AM, dhardage wrote:
if some fact came to light that absolutely proved your religion false? Would you rethink your religious beliefs? Would you decide the fact was not actually a fact? What would be your action?

I would have to ask based on what grounds does the fact come from and what exactly are it's claims towards my religion.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 5:30:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 4:46:04 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/26/2015 4:25:10 PM, johnlubba wrote:


I believe the odds on the universe even existing are so astronmical, I suspect there has to be an intelligence involved.

Because you error in your thinking. Astronomical odds happen all the time but people seem to understand this doesn't justify intelligent design. It just us humans when it comes to our selves start thinking hey what are the odds eh ?.................

They are astronomical, The fact that laws are set with precision for a universe to exist, is a phenomenon in itself,


It gets worse any intelligent life (such as yourself) will find it's self in situation where life is possible cause you don't find life where life can't exist.

Not at all, I think life exists all over the universe.

This creates a bias problem in the data that an intelligent life form observe.

Why?


So what is the probability that an intelligent life will find it's self in a life permitting universe ? 100%.

0% without a Consciousness behind the construction of the universe.

And it doesn't matter how improbable a life permitting universe is an intelligent life form will always find it's self in a life permitting universe cause if the universe wasn't they wouldn't exist in that universe in the first place to put forth the claim that hey I think this was all part of the plan................

But it is a life permitting universe, and the odds that it is, makes it even more believeable that it is being directed by a supreme intelligence.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 5:39:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 5:30:43 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/26/2015 4:46:04 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/26/2015 4:25:10 PM, johnlubba wrote:


I believe the odds on the universe even existing are so astronmical, I suspect there has to be an intelligence involved.

Because you error in your thinking. Astronomical odds happen all the time but people seem to understand this doesn't justify intelligent design. It just us humans when it comes to our selves start thinking hey what are the odds eh ?.................



They are astronomical, The fact that laws are set with precision for a universe to exist, is a phenomenon in itself,

That is nonsense, the laws are not set with any kind of precision for a universe to exist, this is the universe that exists as a result of those laws, not the other way round.



It gets worse any intelligent life (such as yourself) will find it's self in situation where life is possible cause you don't find life where life can't exist.

Not at all, I think life exists all over the universe.


This creates a bias problem in the data that an intelligent life form observe.

Why?


So what is the probability that an intelligent life will find it's self in a life permitting universe ? 100%.


0% without a Consciousness behind the construction of the universe.

There is no evidence of any Consciousness behind the construction of the universe.




And it doesn't matter how improbable a life permitting universe is an intelligent life form will always find it's self in a life permitting universe cause if the universe wasn't they wouldn't exist in that universe in the first place to put forth the claim that hey I think this was all part of the plan................


But it is a life permitting universe, and the odds that it is, makes it even more believeable that it is being directed by a supreme intelligence.

That is just an argument from incredulity. There is no evidence whatsoever for a supreme intelligence.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 5:56:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 1:54:48 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/26/2015 1:05:39 PM, johnlubba wrote:

Evidence for design?

The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be.

Sorry, but you appear to be misinformed. Science shows through observation that the universe came about due to the laws of physics that describe the properties of nature and the universe. No evidence whatsoever suggests and kind of design. That is entirely false.

Why to interject about stuff you know nothing about. The laws of physics are human descriptors of the universe we live in. The natural laws can not make the universe in which they are descriptive of that's basic logic.

And the laws of physics as we understand them break down when you get under (time since big bang = t) t = 1 second.

This is evident that they, as we understand them, can not be the reasons for the universe existing. And the other point is they break down because humans do not have a complete understanding of them, So how can you say anything of what causation they can affect in such scenarios? NOTHING you can't say nothing.

http://www.cracked.com...



Sorry, there is no fine-tuned argument, that is a non-sequitur. Changing the properties of our universe and making up numbers is not an argument for the existence of our universe. It's the old puddle and water fallacy.

You don't understand the "changing the numbers of this universe" is a calculation of the possible types of universe that can occur. And the vast majority of universes possible are all dead or re-collapsed universes. Most the fine tune arguments do not take into account the values needed for biological life as we know it. But any matter energy universe as we know it. And that's still a small chance.

Come on.. seriously how many small chances have to occur in an order before you think there is someone watching the knobs. Oh but I guess you think humans are just the most luckiest things around.


What we were asking for was actual evidence to support your claims, not subterfuge and innuendo.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 6:05:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 5:30:43 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/26/2015 4:46:04 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/26/2015 4:25:10 PM, johnlubba wrote:


I believe the odds on the universe even existing are so astronmical, I suspect there has to be an intelligence involved.

Because you error in your thinking. Astronomical odds happen all the time but people seem to understand this doesn't justify intelligent design. It just us humans when it comes to our selves start thinking hey what are the odds eh ?.................



They are astronomical, The fact that laws are set with precision for a universe to exist, is a phenomenon in itself,



It gets worse any intelligent life (such as yourself) will find it's self in situation where life is possible cause you don't find life where life can't exist.

Not at all, I think life exists all over the universe.


This creates a bias problem in the data that an intelligent life form observe.

Why?


So what is the probability that an intelligent life will find it's self in a life permitting universe ? 100%.


0% without a Consciousness behind the construction of the universe.




And it doesn't matter how improbable a life permitting universe is an intelligent life form will always find it's self in a life permitting universe cause if the universe wasn't they wouldn't exist in that universe in the first place to put forth the claim that hey I think this was all part of the plan................


But it is a life permitting universe, and the odds that it is, makes it even more believeable that it is being directed by a supreme intelligence.

Once again, the reason you believe that is because of an error in your thinking which is all to common, that being that the low probability of an event, yes even an astronomical low probability of an event justifies an intelligent design inference, it doesn't.

You know what is even more improbable than a life permitting universe ? your own existence. Cause not only do you need the improbable life permitting universe you need from that a certain events to happen in order for you to exist like your parents meeting, their own parents meeting, those parents of those parents meeting, etc etc and if there had be just one thing different like your great great great grandmother not meeting your great great great grandfather because hitler didn't invade poland or some other historical event your would not exist.............

Hey what are the oods ? probably part of a divine plan.

Now you can tell yourself wow it's so astronomically it just couldn't of happened by chance and thus justify it as all part of the plan of a deity............but you see that would be irrational and narcissistic.

Once again I say unto you................

1) The astronomical improbability of an event does not justify intelligent design
2) Necessary pre conditions of an observers existence create a bias in the data they will or will not observe. Eg, life in a life permitting universe, your own parents meeting (cause if they didn't you wouldn't exist in the first place).
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12