Total Posts:197|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evidence of God

Evidence
Posts: 853
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 12:21:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What if you were given simple scientific evidence of The Creator God, could you accept it?
Here is what I mean; Theism is the study of god/gods, of which none is The Creator God and I can prove it. Atheism is the unbelief of those god/gods of which none is The Creator God.
In my years of debating, both theists and atheists alike had a preconceived idea of God which was that God is a religious construct, .. that God=religion. So God cannot be shown to be real as by scientific evidence. That The Creator can be only believed in by faith, that is 'blind faith'. So when I've shown the scientific evidence of God The Creator, the Only One Possible, everyone (theists and atheists) denied Him!?
Why?
Because of their preconceived notion that God can only be a construct of religion, which as we all know religion requires that we accept their god (from tens of thousands out there) without question, on faith alone, .. or 'blind-faith'.
So my question for debate is, if I've shown you scientific evidence of our Creator God (which the Bible happens to support/reveal) could you step outside this paralyzing mindset that God = religion?
Could you at least give yourself a chance to view God The Creator outside of religious indoctrination?
Thanks
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 12:29:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sorry, but a creator god is inconsistent with reality. Look at my Tensless Cosmological Argument for why.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 2:24:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 12:21:29 AM, Evidence wrote:
What if you were given simple scientific evidence of The Creator God, could you accept it?
Here is what I mean; Theism is the study of god/gods, of which none is The Creator God and I can prove it. Atheism is the unbelief of those god/gods of which none is The Creator God.
In my years of debating, both theists and atheists alike had a preconceived idea of God which was that God is a religious construct, .. that God=religion. So God cannot be shown to be real as by scientific evidence. That The Creator can be only believed in by faith, that is 'blind faith'. So when I've shown the scientific evidence of God The Creator, the Only One Possible, everyone (theists and atheists) denied Him!?
Why?
Because of their preconceived notion that God can only be a construct of religion, which as we all know religion requires that we accept their god (from tens of thousands out there) without question, on faith alone, .. or 'blind-faith'.
So my question for debate is, if I've shown you scientific evidence of our Creator God (which the Bible happens to support/reveal) could you step outside this paralyzing mindset that God = religion?
Could you at least give yourself a chance to view God The Creator outside of religious indoctrination?
Thanks

Wrong. A person CAN and many DO believe in a God or Gods whom are not religious people. Have you ever heard of Deism? Read up on it. It posits a belief in a non-Theist or non_biblical type of a God. A non-personal one. It could be a type of Science-based Creative Force. An Infinite Mind. Many scientists believe in this type. Einstein for one. His "God does not play dice with the Universe" quote alluded to such a God.

Also....you say you can prove there is no such thing as a Creator God? Or that nobody can believe in one if they are religious. Wrong again. I do. And I am. I will wait for your proof that there CANNOT exist a Creator God.
Thank you. God Bless.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 2:35:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 12:21:29 AM, Evidence wrote:
What if you were given simple scientific evidence of The Creator God, could you accept it?
Here is what I mean; Theism is the study of god/gods, of which none is The Creator God and I can prove it. Atheism is the unbelief of those god/gods of which none is The Creator God.
In my years of debating, both theists and atheists alike had a preconceived idea of God which was that God is a religious construct, .. that God=religion. So God cannot be shown to be real as by scientific evidence. That The Creator can be only believed in by faith, that is 'blind faith'. So when I've shown the scientific evidence of God The Creator, the Only One Possible, everyone (theists and atheists) denied Him!?
Why?
Because of their preconceived notion that God can only be a construct of religion, which as we all know religion requires that we accept their god (from tens of thousands out there) without question, on faith alone, .. or 'blind-faith'.
So my question for debate is, if I've shown you scientific evidence of our Creator God (which the Bible happens to support/reveal) could you step outside this paralyzing mindset that God = religion?
Could you at least give yourself a chance to view God The Creator outside of religious indoctrination?
Thanks

Here's some stuff on Deism---the belief in a Creator God, a Non-Theist one--that you should read before continuing to discuss this with me.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 2:39:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 12:21:29 AM, Evidence wrote:
What if you were given simple scientific evidence of The Creator God, could you accept it?
Here is what I mean; Theism is the study of god/gods, of which none is The Creator God and I can prove it. Atheism is the unbelief of those god/gods of which none is The Creator God.
In my years of debating, both theists and atheists alike had a preconceived idea of God which was that God is a religious construct, .. that God=religion. So God cannot be shown to be real as by scientific evidence. That The Creator can be only believed in by faith, that is 'blind faith'. So when I've shown the scientific evidence of God The Creator, the Only One Possible, everyone (theists and atheists) denied Him!?
Why?
Because of their preconceived notion that God can only be a construct of religion, which as we all know religion requires that we accept their god (from tens of thousands out there) without question, on faith alone, .. or 'blind-faith'.
So my question for debate is, if I've shown you scientific evidence of our Creator God (which the Bible happens to support/reveal) could you step outside this paralyzing mindset that God = religion?
Could you at least give yourself a chance to view God The Creator outside of religious indoctrination?
Thanks

From an article on Deism............

The term "deism" comes from the Latin word deus, which means god. Deism is the belief that God, or a god, exists; this belief is based solely on evidence from the natural world and human reason apart from the revelation of the Bible or other sacred writings. Deism became important during the Age of Enlightenment in 17th and 18th Century Western worldviews, also influencing some early American intellectuals and political leaders.

Classical deism has existed since ancient times and centers on the idea of one Supreme Being who created all things. This thought system evolved in ancient Greek literature as well, and can be seen in the apostle Paul's argument for the Christian message to those in Athens in Acts 17:23-27: "What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him."

Modern deism attempts to integrate the teachings of classical deism with modern scientific knowledge. While classical deism adheres to a view of God as a Creator who has no personal relationship with humanity, some modern deist teachings suggest a view of God that defies the category of being personal or impersonal but is rather transpersonal, or simply beyond understanding.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 2:55:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 12:21:29 AM, Evidence wrote:
What if you were given simple scientific evidence of The Creator God, could you accept it?
Here is what I mean; Theism is the study of god/gods, of which none is The Creator God and I can prove it. Atheism is the unbelief of those god/gods of which none is The Creator God.
In my years of debating, both theists and atheists alike had a preconceived idea of God which was that God is a religious construct, .. that God=religion. So God cannot be shown to be real as by scientific evidence. That The Creator can be only believed in by faith, that is 'blind faith'. So when I've shown the scientific evidence of God The Creator, the Only One Possible, everyone (theists and atheists) denied Him!?
Why?
Because of their preconceived notion that God can only be a construct of religion, which as we all know religion requires that we accept their god (from tens of thousands out there) without question, on faith alone, .. or 'blind-faith'.
So my question for debate is, if I've shown you scientific evidence of our Creator God (which the Bible happens to support/reveal) could you step outside this paralyzing mindset that God = religion?
Could you at least give yourself a chance to view God The Creator outside of religious indoctrination?
Thanks

Present said evidence and we'll see.
ecco
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 3:12:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 2:55:30 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

Present said evidence and we'll see.

I'll second the motion.
Think
Evidence
Posts: 853
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 5:48:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 3:12:57 AM, ecco wrote:
At 7/29/2015 2:55:30 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

Present said evidence and we'll see.

I'll second the motion.

Lol, .. excellent, and I am delighted to provide such evidence.
But first, I want to say hello, I am new here. I didn't think I was going to get any responses, but this sounds promising, .. again, thank you, and nice meeting you all.

Remember as I said that for some time now I was hoping to get this across to other fellow Debaters, but with no success, and I have learned of the many reasons why? So first I would like to ask you all to bare with me, so I could set the stage for this simple yet mind blowing revelation. Now to avoid religion (me preaching) or me setting my own stage as religions normally do, I will ask that we first agree on some basic definitions of words. What we are looking for is 'absolutes', and if you don't believe in absolutes, then we'll have to debate that first also;

The true and only (absolute) meaning of infinite for instance. If you believe that there can be multiple 'infinites', or different 'sizes' of infinites, then we will have to get that straight first,

Or, if you believe that 'nothing' is not nothing anymore, then we'll have to debate that till we have one, or an absolute definition of 'nothing'.
This goes for the GOD, vs. god/gods as described in theology, all the religion gods, deities, and so on.

First let me tell you that I have considered and exhausted a lot, I mean a lot of definitions of 'god', all Google-gods, all Wikipedia gods, all theology gods, Christian and non-Christian gods, so unless you give me a definition other than these so I may consider it, none are God THE Creator, and we would be just wasting our time on them.

One definition of God that I was shown which I agreed with was Tillich's version, where God is not a being, but the ground of being. So as he said that "God doesn't exist", I'm with him on that.
But please understand that my definition of God is neither Tillich's God, or Arius's (Arianism) God, even though from what I have been shown of their comments and arguments, God as I understand Him is very much the same One, the only possible ONE.

So can we start with the definition of 'absolute', that there is such thing as absolute thing, or being?

second, the word God as it is understood today, .. as a religious construct. Because the god/gods in theology is not GOD the Creator. An example you might consider is:

Let's say your wife sends your 6 year old son, saying: "Johnny, go get daddy, we are ready to eat!"
Johnny then runs to his bedroom and opens his little toy box full of plastic toy soldiers, takes one and runs back to mommy. "Here mommy, here is daddy!"
Now maybe for a 2 year old, that would be somewhat expected, but not for a 6 year old, .. you guys (general guys/gals) with me here?
Well it's the same with the gods in theology, none are the real Creator God, the only One possible. The 'toy box' is religion, and the god/gods in the box are no different than the plastic toy soldiers.

Also we have to consider that no matter what 'proof' we present, it can be denied, it is what free will is, so if I see blatant disregard for evidence, I will disregard that posters comments. Of course it has to be blatant (flagrant, glaring, obvious, undisguised, unconcealed, open) right?

Again, thank you, and nice to meet you all!

Evidence.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Evidence
Posts: 853
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 6:04:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 12:29:01 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Sorry, but a creator god is inconsistent with reality. Look at my Tensless Cosmological Argument for why.

I agree that a Creator God, as in 'Creator' (not some created creator which would fall within 'infinite regress') IS inconsistent with reality. As Tillich put it, God is not a being, but the 'Ground of Being', .. He doesn't exists as part of created reality.
Reality as we know it is the created, or finite.
God on the other hand, the Only One Possible is the Creator/Infinite.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Evidence
Posts: 853
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 6:40:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 2:24:26 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:21:29 AM, Evidence wrote:
What if you were given simple scientific evidence of The Creator God, could you accept it?
Here is what I mean; Theism is the study of god/gods, of which none is The Creator God and I can prove it. Atheism is the unbelief of those god/gods of which none is The Creator God.
In my years of debating, both theists and atheists alike had a preconceived idea of God which was that God is a religious construct, .. that God=religion. So God cannot be shown to be real as by scientific evidence. That The Creator can be only believed in by faith, that is 'blind faith'. So when I've shown the scientific evidence of God The Creator, the Only One Possible, everyone (theists and atheists) denied Him!?
Why?
Because of their preconceived notion that God can only be a construct of religion, which as we all know religion requires that we accept their god (from tens of thousands out there) without question, on faith alone, .. or 'blind-faith'.
So my question for debate is, if I've shown you scientific evidence of our Creator God (which the Bible happens to support/reveal) could you step outside this paralyzing mindset that God = religion?
Could you at least give yourself a chance to view God The Creator outside of religious indoctrination?
Thanks

Wrong. A person CAN and many DO believe in a God or Gods whom are not religious people. Have you ever heard of Deism? Read up on it. It posits a belief in a non-Theist or non_biblical type of a God. A non-personal one. It could be a type of Science-based Creative Force. An Infinite Mind. Many scientists believe in this type. Einstein for one. His "God does not play dice with the Universe" quote alluded to such a God.

Also....you say you can prove there is no such thing as a Creator God? Or that nobody can believe in one if they are religious. Wrong again. I do. And I am. I will wait for your proof that there CANNOT exist a Creator God.
Thank you. God Bless.

Hey, thank the Lord and you for the response August, I really appreciate it!

If you look more carefully, I said, a created-creator is NOT God THE Creator, right? We are looking for 'The Creator' without falling into the problem of 'infinite regress'.
Religions, tens of thousands of them each have a god they believe in, the Christians (Constantine created Christian Religion) have Deities as their gods, one such plural Deity/demon is mentioned in the New Testament that Jesus cast out of two men, whose name was 'Legion', .. remember? One being, who was 'many', something like 2,000 that went into the herd of pigs.

Please look up and study what deities are, use Bible dictionaries, Wikipedia, Webster's, Google it, .. and you will see that deities are demons who now reside in the supernatural realm and divine to mediums (Christian Diviners who graduated from schools of Divinity and Trinity Colleges, they divine to other witches, diviners, soothsayers, etc.) But our Creator reveals His message to us through revelations, by His Holy Spirit, not deities/demons.
The Catholic Church in the NT changed God the Spirit to the word Deity, because as the New Jesuit Pope announced; Lucifer is their God, and his son is Jesus, or sun-god which according to the Bible is the anti-Christ. (Please look up on YouTube: "Pope Francis announces that Lucifer is God" They even have a Telescope at the Vatican Observatory here in AZ on Mt. Graham called LUCIFER. If you studied the Catholic Jesuit Order, you would know they are Luciferian.

Please study up on the things I write, and read everything I say very carefully, it will save us years of debating.

Again, I thank you, and may God bless you and yours, in Jesus name

Odon (Evidence)
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 10:33:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why is this nonsense in the science forum? If you have some scientific evidence for a god (any god) then please present it. Stop beating around the bush. I assume you understand what constitutes scientific evidence? Hint. It's not a philosophical argument.
ecco
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 12:59:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Evidence:
"Please study up on the things I write, and read everything I say very carefully, it will save us years of debating."

I don't know about studying, but I carefully read everything you posted. You're right, it will save us years of debating. Because so far you haven't posted anything that can be debated.
Think
DaGreek
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 2:10:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 12:21:29 AM, Evidence wrote:
What if you were given simple scientific evidence of The Creator God, could you accept it?
Here is what I mean; Theism is the study of god/gods, of which none is The Creator God and I can prove it. Atheism is the unbelief of those god/gods of which none is The Creator God.
In my years of debating, both theists and atheists alike had a preconceived idea of God which was that God is a religious construct, .. that God=religion. So God cannot be shown to be real as by scientific evidence. That The Creator can be only believed in by faith, that is 'blind faith'. So when I've shown the scientific evidence of God The Creator, the Only One Possible, everyone (theists and atheists) denied Him!?
Why?
Because of their preconceived notion that God can only be a construct of religion, which as we all know religion requires that we accept their god (from tens of thousands out there) without question, on faith alone, .. or 'blind-faith'.
So my question for debate is, if I've shown you scientific evidence of our Creator God (which the Bible happens to support/reveal) could you step outside this paralyzing mindset that God = religion?
Could you at least give yourself a chance to view God The Creator outside of religious indoctrination?
Thanks

In my opinion, the existence of God is one of the most if not the most important question. I will give two arguments in favor of the existence of God. I hope that my fellow theists of all stripes will fill in the many, many more.

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

1- Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nauture or in an external cause
2- If the universe has an explanation, that explanation is God
3- The universe exists
C1- Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)
C2- Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God

Premise One

This premise seems more plausible than its denial. Nowhere do we find something that has no explanation of its existence. We don't find computers with no explanation of their existence. This truth of the premise is considered to be the default position because the grand majority of the world believes it. The burden of proof would then be on the opponent of the argument. One might say that the universe does not require an explanation, but this begs the question. Unless one assumes that the universe is all that there is, there is no reason to think that the universe is an exception.

Premise Two

This may seem like a bold assertion, but it is logically true. The explanation of the universe would have to be outside the universe and therefore the absence of what makes up the universe/what the universe is. The universe is made up/is all matter, energy, space and time. This means that the explanation would have to be non-material, not bound by energy (omnipotent), non-spacial (omnipresent) and timeless (eternal). This is the classical description of God.

Premise Three

This states the obvious. The universe does exist. We would not be having this debate if the universe did not exist!

Conclusions

Since the three premises are valid, the conclusions logically follow.

The Teleological Argument

Since this is the science forum, I am going to stick to the scientific arguments although other arguments, such as the moral arguments, are very interesting. Before I sketch out this argument, I need to explain the concept of fine-tuning. Fine-tuning is the word attributed to how the universal constants are on a razor's edge. If these constants ("settings" for certain features of the universe) where just a little off, intelligent life would be impossible. Here is an example: if the universal constant, which is the energy density of space, was changed one part out of 10^120, life would be impossible. Do you see how incredible that is? There is a whole plethora more, but I will leave you with that one. Here is the argument:

1- The fine-tuning of the universe can be explained by physical necessity, chance or design
2- It is not due to physical necessity or chance
C- Therefore, it is due to design

Premise One

This is self-evident, there is no other explanations. If there was a forth option, it would be well known and be easy to falsify the first premise.

Premise Two

The fine-tuning cannot be due to physical necessity because the universal constants are wholly apart from laws of nature. There is no correlation. Since the universal constants have no relation and do not interact with the laws of nature, they cannot be to physical necessity. Chance is not a viable option either. Just the nature of the constants show this. There is 10^80 amount of atoms in the whole universe. If the cosmological constant was changed in one part out of 10^120. life would be impossible. Getting the cosmological constant right by chance (only one of the many constants) would be more improbable than picking out a specific atom out of the universe. Oh, keep in mind that you only have one chance and if you don't pick that right atom...everything and everyone dies.

There is a way that people try to save the chance hypothesis though. Proponents of the chance hypothesis posit the multiverse theory. The multiverse theory states that we are one universe in thousands and possibly an infinite amount of universes. This would allow at least one universe to get the constant right by chance. This objection fails twofold. First, there is no independent evidence of a multiverse. Not an inch. Invoking the universe is a huge leap of blind faith. Second, if we where living in a multiverse, we would expect to be living in a much smaller universe. Maybe only a solar system big. Why? Because it is easier to get a small thing by chance than a large. Imagine you have cards with one letter of the alphabet on each card. It would be much easier to form the sentence, "Hi Joe" by throwing the cards on the floor blindfolded than to create the whole dictionary in order.

Conclusion

As laws of logic dictate, since each of the premises are true the conclusion inescapably follows. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to design. From the first argument we know that this designer would have to be non-material, not bound by energy (omnipotent), non-spacial (omnipresent) and timeless (eternal). Like we concluded previously, this would be God.

A Word

I hope that this forum will be fruitful in giving us all a new perspective on the existence of God and that we can discuss our views with reason and not turn into mud slinging. Thank you.
DaGreek
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 2:35:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 12:29:01 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Sorry, but a creator god is inconsistent with reality. Look at my Tensless Cosmological Argument for why.

**My Own Arguments**
Tenseless Cosmological Argument
P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause.
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3).
C2) God did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1).

Thank you for this argument, it is very interesting. I have noticed recently how many atheists/agnostics use tenseless theories of time to object to a creator God. I am going to respond just to premise three for this post.

Premise Three of SNP1's Argument

All tenseless theories of time state that temporal becoming and tensed facts are illusions. Now, if either temporal becoming, and/or tensed facts can be shown to be real then any and all tenseless theories of time would collapse. If any and all tenseless theories of time collapse, then premise three would be false and the argument would cripple as a consequence. The argument that I propose is this:

1- An illusion is a mind process
2- Mind processes require temporal becoming
C- Therefore, an illusion requires temporal becoming

If my argument holds, then the idea that temporal becoming is an illusion is self-defeating and self-contradictory. As I said before, this would defeat any tenseless theory of time and would leave us with a tensed theory of time; one that would include the existence of tensed facts.

Premise One

This is true by definition. Medically speaking, it is undeniable. One might try to escape this by going into the philosophy of mind and try to talk about mind vs brain and so on. Even if an illusion is a brain process the argument would still stand.

Premise Two

This is true for the following reason: without temporal becoming, one would be stuck in one moment forever. One would be stuck on one thought forever. If one is stuck on one thought forever, they could not experience multiple thoughts such as an illusion. Why do I say that without temporal becoming that one would be stuck on one moment and thought forever? Because the definition of temporal becoming is the process of time states changing from one to the other. Without time being able to change states (passage of time), one would be stuck on a moment forever.

Conclusion

Since both premises are valid, then the conclusion necessarily follows. This argument refutes a tenseless theory of time because it shows that the crucial pillar of tenesless theories is false. By the tenseless theories being false, then the tensed theories would be true. Thank you again for this interesting point!
ecco
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 3:45:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 2:10:36 PM, DaGreek wrote:

In my opinion, the existence of God is one of the most if not the most important question. I will give two arguments in favor of the existence of God. I hope that my fellow theists of all stripes will fill in the many, many more.

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

1- Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nauture or in an external cause

Premise One

This premise seems more plausible than its denial. Nowhere do we find something that has no explanation of its existence. We don't find computers with no explanation of their existence. This truth of the premise is considered to be the default position because the grand majority of the world believes it. The burden of proof would then be on the opponent of the argument. One might say that the universe does not require an explanation, but this begs the question. Unless one assumes that the universe is all that there is, there is no reason to think that the universe is an exception.


Let's see if I understand your position
1. God exists
2. There is an explanation of god's existence.
.....a. The necessity of its nature
.....b. An external cause

You didn't explicitly rule out b. but I can safely assume that you do not believe that god had an external cause.

So that leaves us with: god exists because of the necessity of god.

That's not a very convincing argument to post in a topic entitled "Evidence of god" in a Science forum.

The rest of your post is equally bad.
Think
Evidence
Posts: 853
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 3:49:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 10:33:59 AM, dee-em wrote:
Why is this nonsense in the science forum? If you have some scientific evidence for a god (any god) then please present it. Stop beating around the bush. I assume you understand what constitutes scientific evidence? Hint. It's not a philosophical argument.

Hello dee-em, it is my pleasure to meet you.

Where else would I post 'evidence', .. in the religious section? Or Christianity (which is the same thing, I mean the religion; as in the Christian religion)

Yes I understand what constitutes 'scientific evidence'. and please I beg of you don't take this as an insult, but I have to ask: "Do you know what constitutes scientific evidence?"

Here is what I mean, if you believe the Big-bang theory constitutes scientific evidence, then I must say from a scientific perspective (you know, the science that 'observes the world around us') and not makes up billions of years ago sci-fi fairytales, we have a big problem in our understanding what constitutes science.

Now I understand you want me to 'get to the point', but like I said, after years of trying to explain this to other Debaters whom I would consider far, far more educated and schooled then I, yet we couldn't get past simple and sometimes even belligerent arguments about basic things like the definition of 'infinite'. If you believe there can exist different sizes of infinite, then me getting straight to the point would be meaningless. Nevertheless, here I give you the sum total of our Creator:

The Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am Who I Am"

But if you don't have the absolute understanding of the words like 'Infinite' (believe there may be different sizes of infinite) or 'Eternal' (that time somehow turn into eternal) or 'mind/spirit (believe that the brain produces the mind, as in evolution) or what a name like "I Am Who I Am" really means (within created reality like our body/brain) this definition is meaningless.

Thanks, and God bless you. (and I don't mean 'any god' (as you simply put it) from the many to bless you, but the Only One Possible)
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
DaGreek
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:14:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

1- Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nauture or in an external cause

Premise One

This premise seems more plausible than its denial. Nowhere do we find something that has no explanation of its existence. We don't find computers with no explanation of their existence. This truth of the premise is considered to be the default position because the grand majority of the world believes it. The burden of proof would then be on the opponent of the argument. One might say that the universe does not require an explanation, but this begs the question. Unless one assumes that the universe is all that there is, there is no reason to think that the universe is an exception.


Let's see if I understand your position
1. God exists
2. There is an explanation of god's existence.
.....a. The necessity of its nature
.....b. An external cause

You didn't explicitly rule out b. but I can safely assume that you do not believe that god had an external cause.

So that leaves us with: god exists because of the necessity of god.

The very definition of God is that He is the maximally excellent being. A maximally excellent being would necessarily exist. So by the nature of God, His existence would be necessary. This is because if a being did not exist, then there would be a way in which the being could be better; it could exist. So a non-existent, maximally excellent being would be a contradiction. It would only not be a contradiction if such a being exists.

That might have been confusing. Let me add another explanation of why God exists because of the necessity of His nature. We now know that the universe had a beginning, due to the big bang. According to big bang cosmology (the standard model of cosmology) there was a point before the universe existed. Keep this in the back of your mind, we are coming back to it.

Every entity is a cause. By typing this response, I am the cause for the keys on my computer being clicked. When you turned on you computer, you are the cause of the computer turning on. Now, as causes we had a cause. The cause of me is my parents and the cause of them is their parents. Due to the big bang, we know that an infinite regress is impossible There had to be an uncaused, first cause. This is God. You see, God is necessary in that way as well.

That's not a very convincing argument to post in a topic entitled "Evidence of god" in a Science forum.

The rest of your post is equally bad.

I don't see why you have to be rude. As you said, we are on a science forum. A forum for intelligent debate, not slandering others. On that note, since you did not object to the teleological argument it remains true. Thank you
Evidence
Posts: 853
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:38:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 2:10:36 PM, DaGreek wrote:
In my opinion, the existence of God is one of the most if not the most important question. I will give two arguments in favor of the existence of God. I hope that my fellow theists of all stripes will fill in the many, many more.

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

1- Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nauture or in an external cause
2- If the universe has an explanation, that explanation is God
3- The universe exists
C1- Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)
C2- Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God

Premise One

This premise seems more plausible than its denial. Nowhere do we find something that has no explanation of its existence. We don't find computers with no explanation of their existence. This truth of the premise is considered to be the default position because the grand majority of the world believes it. The burden of proof would then be on the opponent of the argument. One might say that the universe does not require an explanation, but this begs the question. Unless one assumes that the universe is all that there is, there is no reason to think that the universe is an exception.

Premise Two

This may seem like a bold assertion, but it is logically true. The explanation of the universe would have to be outside the universe and therefore the absence of what makes up the universe/what the universe is. The universe is made up/is all matter, energy, space and time. This means that the explanation would have to be non-material, not bound by energy (omnipotent), non-spacial (omnipresent) and timeless (eternal). This is the classical description of God.

Premise Three

This states the obvious. The universe does exist. We would not be having this debate if the universe did not exist!

Conclusions

Since the three premises are valid, the conclusions logically follow.

The Teleological Argument

Since this is the science forum, I am going to stick to the scientific arguments although other arguments, such as the moral arguments, are very interesting. Before I sketch out this argument, I need to explain the concept of fine-tuning. Fine-tuning is the word attributed to how the universal constants are on a razor's edge. If these constants ("settings" for certain features of the universe) where just a little off, intelligent life would be impossible. Here is an example: if the universal constant, which is the energy density of space, was changed one part out of 10^120, life would be impossible. Do you see how incredible that is? There is a whole plethora more, but I will leave you with that one. Here is the argument:

1- The fine-tuning of the universe can be explained by physical necessity, chance or design
2- It is not due to physical necessity or chance
C- Therefore, it is due to design

Premise One

This is self-evident, there is no other explanations. If there was a forth option, it would be well known and be easy to falsify the first premise.

Premise Two

The fine-tuning cannot be due to physical necessity because the universal constants are wholly apart from laws of nature. There is no correlation. Since the universal constants have no relation and do not interact with the laws of nature, they cannot be to physical necessity. Chance is not a viable option either. Just the nature of the constants show this. There is 10^80 amount of atoms in the whole universe. If the cosmological constant was changed in one part out of 10^120. life would be impossible. Getting the cosmological constant right by chance (only one of the many constants) would be more improbable than picking out a specific atom out of the universe. Oh, keep in mind that you only have one chance and if you don't pick that right atom...everything and everyone dies.

There is a way that people try to save the chance hypothesis though. Proponents of the chance hypothesis posit the multiverse theory. The multiverse theory states that we are one universe in thousands and possibly an infinite amount of universes. This would allow at least one universe to get the constant right by chance. This objection fails twofold. First, there is no independent evidence of a multiverse. Not an inch. Invoking the universe is a huge leap of blind faith. Second, if we where living in a multiverse, we would expect to be living in a much smaller universe. Maybe only a solar system big. Why? Because it is easier to get a small thing by chance than a large. Imagine you have cards with one letter of the alphabet on each card. It would be much easier to form the sentence, "Hi Joe" by throwing the cards on the floor blindfolded than to create the whole dictionary in order.

Conclusion

As laws of logic dictate, since each of the premises are true the conclusion inescapably follows. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to design. From the first argument we know that this designer would have to be non-material, not bound by energy (omnipotent), non-spacial (omnipresent) and timeless (eternal). Like we concluded previously, this would be God.

A Word

I hope that this forum will be fruitful in giving us all a new perspective on the existence of God and that we can discuss our views with reason and not turn into mud slinging. Thank you.

Exactly, amen. Philosophically the laws of logic (as you well put it) dictates that 'God did it', and to answer the illogical question like "which God, since there are so many?", I present 'evidence' of Him. This is why I posted it in the science forum.

Only 'what constitutes evidence'? What 'evidence' do we have of 'gravity'? If evidence is only the things we can see, feel, or only those things that we can examine with our physical senses, then we are gravely limiting ourselves.

The world, or the carnal mind defines evidence from a purely physical perspective (even though that is changing with quantum mechanics and quantum physics) it is still at its "the earth is flat" stage. But with our 'spiritual-mind' it's a whole different story.
Like the carnal mind understand faith as in the carnal religions, which is that all faith is blind faith. If we say 'Allah is God', then you better accept that.
But real faith that transcends this physical reality has evidence with substance; Hebrews 11:1

Thank you DaGreek, and God bless you.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:59:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:38:50 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 7/29/2015 2:10:36 PM, DaGreek wrote:
In my opinion, the existence of God is one of the most if not the most important question. I will give two arguments in favor of the existence of God. I hope that my fellow theists of all stripes will fill in the many, many more.

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

1- Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nauture or in an external cause
2- If the universe has an explanation, that explanation is God
3- The universe exists
C1- Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)
C2- Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God

Premise One

This premise seems more plausible than its denial. Nowhere do we find something that has no explanation of its existence. We don't find computers with no explanation of their existence. This truth of the premise is considered to be the default position because the grand majority of the world believes it. The burden of proof would then be on the opponent of the argument. One might say that the universe does not require an explanation, but this begs the question. Unless one assumes that the universe is all that there is, there is no reason to think that the universe is an exception.

Premise Two

This may seem like a bold assertion, but it is logically true. The explanation of the universe would have to be outside the universe and therefore the absence of what makes up the universe/what the universe is. The universe is made up/is all matter, energy, space and time. This means that the explanation would have to be non-material, not bound by energy (omnipotent), non-spacial (omnipresent) and timeless (eternal). This is the classical description of God.

Premise Three

This states the obvious. The universe does exist. We would not be having this debate if the universe did not exist!

Conclusions

Since the three premises are valid, the conclusions logically follow.

The Teleological Argument

Since this is the science forum, I am going to stick to the scientific arguments although other arguments, such as the moral arguments, are very interesting. Before I sketch out this argument, I need to explain the concept of fine-tuning. Fine-tuning is the word attributed to how the universal constants are on a razor's edge. If these constants ("settings" for certain features of the universe) where just a little off, intelligent life would be impossible. Here is an example: if the universal constant, which is the energy density of space, was changed one part out of 10^120, life would be impossible. Do you see how incredible that is? There is a whole plethora more, but I will leave you with that one. Here is the argument:

1- The fine-tuning of the universe can be explained by physical necessity, chance or design
2- It is not due to physical necessity or chance
C- Therefore, it is due to design

Premise One

This is self-evident, there is no other explanations. If there was a forth option, it would be well known and be easy to falsify the first premise.

Premise Two

The fine-tuning cannot be due to physical necessity because the universal constants are wholly apart from laws of nature. There is no correlation. Since the universal constants have no relation and do not interact with the laws of nature, they cannot be to physical necessity. Chance is not a viable option either. Just the nature of the constants show this. There is 10^80 amount of atoms in the whole universe. If the cosmological constant was changed in one part out of 10^120. life would be impossible. Getting the cosmological constant right by chance (only one of the many constants) would be more improbable than picking out a specific atom out of the universe. Oh, keep in mind that you only have one chance and if you don't pick that right atom...everything and everyone dies.

There is a way that people try to save the chance hypothesis though. Proponents of the chance hypothesis posit the multiverse theory. The multiverse theory states that we are one universe in thousands and possibly an infinite amount of universes. This would allow at least one universe to get the constant right by chance. This objection fails twofold. First, there is no independent evidence of a multiverse. Not an inch. Invoking the universe is a huge leap of blind faith. Second, if we where living in a multiverse, we would expect to be living in a much smaller universe. Maybe only a solar system big. Why? Because it is easier to get a small thing by chance than a large. Imagine you have cards with one letter of the alphabet on each card. It would be much easier to form the sentence, "Hi Joe" by throwing the cards on the floor blindfolded than to create the whole dictionary in order.

Conclusion

As laws of logic dictate, since each of the premises are true the conclusion inescapably follows. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to design. From the first argument we know that this designer would have to be non-material, not bound by energy (omnipotent), non-spacial (omnipresent) and timeless (eternal). Like we concluded previously, this would be God.

A Word

I hope that this forum will be fruitful in giving us all a new perspective on the existence of God and that we can discuss our views with reason and not turn into mud slinging. Thank you.

Exactly, amen. Philosophically the laws of logic (as you well put it) dictates that 'God did it', and to answer the illogical question like "which God, since there are so many?", I present 'evidence' of Him. This is why I posted it in the science forum.

Only 'what constitutes evidence'? What 'evidence' do we have of 'gravity'? If evidence is only the things we can see, feel, or only those things that we can examine with our physical senses, then we are gravely limiting ourselves.

The world, or the carnal mind defines evidence from a purely physical perspective (even though that is changing with quantum mechanics and quantum physics) it is still at its "the earth is flat" stage. But with our 'spiritual-mind' it's a whole different story.
Like the carnal mind understand faith as in the carnal religions, which is that all faith is blind faith. If we say 'Allah is God', then you better accept that.
But real faith that transcends this physical reality has evidence with substance; Hebrews 11:1

Thank you DaGreek, and God bless you.

So you don't have any evidence? you have just redefined what you consider to be evidence.
Evidence
Posts: 853
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 5:21:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hello DaGreek, it is a delight to read your posts.

On that last one about the 'existence of God' outside of infinite regress, I have finally came to an understanding of it. It is as Tillich put it, that God doesn't 'exist', because He is the 'Ground of Being', which I understand as; "I Am Who I Am".

Think about this for a second, if God existed, we could look for Him amongst the created things (in existence) and we could claim anything in existence as 'God'. This is exactly what we have today, tens of thousands of gods. But since none of them are the True and ONLY possible God, we have religions to make us 'believe' they are. "No, this is god, .. no it's this one!" so we have wars, and they have achieved their goal. As long as there are people, and more and more people, there will be plenty to support all the religions and their Priests.

Logically within philosophy God is the only explanation, but which God? So people (even scientists) who have been indoctrinated by religion (as we all have for thousands of years) obviously seek God within this physical existence, like the 'God particle' for example.

I understand what you are saying that there has to be a Creator, like the first or the greatest One. But God is not OF the created. And if we start looking for that Great-One within creation, we are looking in the wrong place. God is NOT the Big Bang, nor is He 'outside, or the creator of it'. God the Creator is not the nothing that the quantum speck of whatever supposedly Big banged in, nor is it that God created the universe out of. Actually, it's very simple, and we, man created in the image of God are the main 'evidence' for God.

I can prove the existence of 'nothing' also, both philosophically and scientifically by a simple experiment, .. and why it was created for.

I can also show that the 'mind' is not the construct, or result of the brain, but it is who we are, a small part of the One and Only "I Am Who I Am".

Thanks again.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
ecco
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 5:54:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:14:06 PM, DaGreek wrote:

Quoting ecco...
Let's see if I understand your position
1. God exists
2. There is an explanation of god's existence.
.....a. The necessity of its nature
.....b. An external cause

You didn't explicitly rule out b. but I can safely assume that you do not believe that god had an external cause.

So that leaves us with: god exists because of the necessity of god.

That's not a very convincing argument to post in a topic entitled "Evidence of god" in a Science forum.

The rest of your post is equally bad.

I don't see why you have to be rude. As you said, we are on a science forum. A forum for intelligent debate, not slandering others.

You are correct, I did not have to be rude. I should have said:
Since the first part of your post was unconvincing, I didn't want to waste my time to read the rest of the post.

On that note, since you did not object to the teleological argument it remains true. Thank you

Does that mean that, since you did not respond to or object to my rebuttal (So that leaves us with: god exists because of the necessity of god.), that it remains true? Thank you.
Think
Evidence
Posts: 853
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 6:02:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:59:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
So you don't have any evidence? you have just redefined what you consider to be evidence. :

Hello Ramshutu, nice to meet you.

Yes you are correct, I redefined what I consider to be evidence, now it's your turn to debate that evidence. Do you agree that God is the Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am Who I Am"?

Do you agree that there can possibly be only One infinite and eternal, and that this person is not really a being but the 'Ground of Being', as in "I Am Who I Am"? And that He is conscious with the ability to create within His Mind/Spirit, and that He created all things that have been created right there in His mind, defining each atom that makes up reality by laws, and that reality is simply laws created by "I Am"?

Do you understand this? Then you have faith from evidence with substance.

Hebrews 11:1 (NKJV)
By Faith We Understand
11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


This is why in the quantum realm, reality as we know it starts to disappear. And what we start seeing are laws that define the atom, the cells, the flesh, .. everything that has ever been created. We, this earth, this entire universe and all the Heavenly beings were created by a dream and kept alive by the laws God created us by, in Infinity which is Gods Mind/Spirit.

The universe is finite, so is everything that has ever been created. These are facts, absolutes and not assumptions which have been falsely called 'theories', .. like in the Big-bang Evolution theories.

You want to know the difference between a miracle and magic?
Magic is taking of the created and make an illusion of it (disappear, change into a rabbit etc.) but a miracle is real, for it is a request from the Lawmaker (God Himself) for permission to change His laws.
Only God has the authority to change things He created, so ask, and it shall be given to you. But if you ask in blind faith, don't expect anything of it. We must remember Hebrews 11:1

Thanks again, and may God bless us all with wisdom that comes from above, and is spiritual, not of the carnal mind which is limited by the indoctrinations we have been taught and stored in our brain. We need a newness of our mind, .. a kind of 'rebirth'.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 6:20:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 6:02:15 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:59:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
So you don't have any evidence? you have just redefined what you consider to be evidence. :

Hello Ramshutu, nice to meet you.

Yes you are correct, I redefined what I consider to be evidence, now it's your turn to debate that evidence.

Then it's not really evidence

Do you agree that God is the Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am Who I Am"?

I agree that the thing you talk about is sometimes ascribed those properties, but cannot be shown to actually exist.

Do you agree that there can possibly be only One infinite and eternal, and that this person is not really a being but the 'Ground of Being', as in "I Am Who I Am"? And that He is conscious with the ability to create within His Mind/Spirit, and that He created all things that have been created right there in His mind, defining each atom that makes up reality by laws, and that reality is simply laws created by "I Am"?

Is it possible? Yes; but only so far as it is possible that the universe was sneezed into existence, or that chuck Norris is the one true divine being. Both are just as well supported by actual evidence.

So far you are simply speculating.

Do you understand this? Then you have faith from evidence with substance.

Appreciating what you claim God is, and agreeing that it is technically possible in the way I just have is not cause to assert I have faith. In fact this is really a non sequitur.

Hebrews 11:1 (NKJV)
By Faith We Understand
11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


This is why in the quantum realm, reality as we know it starts to disappear. And what we start seeing are laws that define the atom, the cells, the flesh, .. everything that has ever been created. We, this earth, this entire universe and all the Heavenly beings were created by a dream and kept alive by the laws God created us by, in Infinity which is Gods Mind/Spirit.

And what evidence do you have to support this assertion? You need justification if you are going to present as fact, that reality necessarily follows from and most be caused by your speculation.

The universe is finite, so is everything that has ever been created. These are facts, absolutes and not assumptions which have been falsely called 'theories', .. like in the Big-bang Evolution theories.

Unless you can demonstrate those things are true, they are not absolutes or facts; merely assumptions. There are many reasons to believe this is not the case.


You want to know the difference between a miracle and magic?
Magic is taking of the created and make an illusion of it (disappear, change into a rabbit etc.) but a miracle is real, for it is a request from the Lawmaker (God Himself) for permission to change His laws.

The definition of magic and miracle are effectively the same thing. Suspension of natural laws; unless of course you equivocate on the meaning. Even so, this statement is meaningless as you cannot demonstrate it as true and is merely your own speculation asserted authoratatively as if it's fact. It's not, because you cannot show it.

Only God has the authority to change things He created, so ask, and it shall be given to you. But if you ask in blind faith, don't expect anything of it. We must remember Hebrews 11:1

Thanks again, and may God bless us all with wisdom that comes from above, and is spiritual, not of the carnal mind which is limited by the indoctrinations we have been taught and stored in our brain. We need a newness of our mind, .. a kind of 'rebirth'.

So far you have simply asserted a number of things you cannot possibly show to be true, presenting them as if they are.

Speculation without basis in actual evidence or demonstrable knowledge no matter how authoratatively asserted or honestly believed is still speculation.

People believe things that aren't true; it is a key trait of humanity. Until you can demonstrate your belief and speculation is more objectively truthful than a spuriously invented fairytale that is definitively wrong, then it is simply belief and speculation. Not proof, not evidence, not real and likely to be just as imaginary.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 6:50:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 2:10:36 PM, DaGreek wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:21:29 AM, Evidence wrote:
What if you were given simple scientific evidence of The Creator God, could you accept it?
Here is what I mean; Theism is the study of god/gods, of which none is The Creator God and I can prove it. Atheism is the unbelief of those god/gods of which none is The Creator God.
In my years of debating, both theists and atheists alike had a preconceived idea of God which was that God is a religious construct, .. that God=religion. So God cannot be shown to be real as by scientific evidence. That The Creator can be only believed in by faith, that is 'blind faith'. So when I've shown the scientific evidence of God The Creator, the Only One Possible, everyone (theists and atheists) denied Him!?
Why?
Because of their preconceived notion that God can only be a construct of religion, which as we all know religion requires that we accept their god (from tens of thousands out there) without question, on faith alone, .. or 'blind-faith'.
So my question for debate is, if I've shown you scientific evidence of our Creator God (which the Bible happens to support/reveal) could you step outside this paralyzing mindset that God = religion?
Could you at least give yourself a chance to view God The Creator outside of religious indoctrination?
Thanks

In my opinion, the existence of God is one of the most if not the most important question. I will give two arguments in favor of the existence of God. I hope that my fellow theists of all stripes will fill in the many, many more.

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

1- Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nauture or in an external cause
2- If the universe has an explanation, that explanation is God
3- The universe exists
C1- Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)
C2- Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God

Premise One

This premise seems more plausible than its denial. Nowhere do we find something that has no explanation of its existence. We don't find computers with no explanation of their existence. This truth of the premise is considered to be the default position because the grand majority of the world believes it. The burden of proof would then be on the opponent of the argument. One might say that the universe does not require an explanation, but this begs the question. Unless one assumes that the universe is all that there is, there is no reason to think that the universe is an exception.

Premise Two

This may seem like a bold assertion, but it is logically true. The explanation of the universe would have to be outside the universe and therefore the absence of what makes up the universe/what the universe is. The universe is made up/is all matter, energy, space and time. This means that the explanation would have to be non-material, not bound by energy (omnipotent), non-spacial (omnipresent) and timeless (eternal). This is the classical description of God.

Premise Three

This states the obvious. The universe does exist. We would not be having this debate if the universe did not exist!

Conclusions

Since the three premises are valid, the conclusions logically follow.

The Teleological Argument

Since this is the science forum, I am going to stick to the scientific arguments although other arguments, such as the moral arguments, are very interesting. Before I sketch out this argument, I need to explain the concept of fine-tuning. Fine-tuning is the word attributed to how the universal constants are on a razor's edge. If these constants ("settings" for certain features of the universe) where just a little off, intelligent life would be impossible. Here is an example: if the universal constant, which is the energy density of space, was changed one part out of 10^120, life would be impossible. Do you see how incredible that is? There is a whole plethora more, but I will leave you with that one. Here is the argument:

1- The fine-tuning of the universe can be explained by physical necessity, chance or design
2- It is not due to physical necessity or chance
C- Therefore, it is due to design

Premise One

This is self-evident, there is no other explanations. If there was a forth option, it would be well known and be easy to falsify the first premise.

Premise Two

The fine-tuning cannot be due to physical necessity because the universal constants are wholly apart from laws of nature. There is no correlation. Since the universal constants have no relation and do not interact with the laws of nature, they cannot be to physical necessity. Chance is not a viable option either. Just the nature of the constants show this. There is 10^80 amount of atoms in the whole universe. If the cosmological constant was changed in one part out of 10^120. life would be impossible. Getting the cosmological constant right by chance (only one of the many constants) would be more improbable than picking out a specific atom out of the universe. Oh, keep in mind that you only have one chance and if you don't pick that right atom...everything and everyone dies.

There is a way that people try to save the chance hypothesis though. Proponents of the chance hypothesis posit the multiverse theory. The multiverse theory states that we are one universe in thousands and possibly an infinite amount of universes. This would allow at least one universe to get the constant right by chance. This objection fails twofold. First, there is no independent evidence of a multiverse. Not an inch. Invoking the universe is a huge leap of blind faith. Second, if we where living in a multiverse, we would expect to be living in a much smaller universe. Maybe only a solar system big. Why? Because it is easier to get a small thing by chance than a large. Imagine you have cards with one letter of the alphabet on each card. It would be much easier to form the sentence, "Hi Joe" by throwing the cards on the floor blindfolded than to create the whole dictionary in order.

Conclusion

As laws of logic dictate, since each of the premises are true the conclusion inescapably follows. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to design. From the first argument we know that this designer would have to be non-material, not bound by energy (omnipotent), non-spacial (omnipresent) and timeless (eternal). Like we concluded previously, this would be God.

A Word

I hope that this forum will be fruitful in giving us all a new perspective on the existence of God and that we can discuss our views with reason and not turn into mud slinging. Thank you.

Interested in debating A-theory/B-theory?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 6:59:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 6:40:17 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 7/29/2015 2:24:26 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:21:29 AM, Evidence wrote:
What if you were given simple scientific evidence of The Creator God, could you accept it?
Here is what I mean; Theism is the study of god/gods, of which none is The Creator God and I can prove it. Atheism is the unbelief of those god/gods of which none is The Creator God.
In my years of debating, both theists and atheists alike had a preconceived idea of God which was that God is a religious construct, .. that God=religion. So God cannot be shown to be real as by scientific evidence. That The Creator can be only believed in by faith, that is 'blind faith'. So when I've shown the scientific evidence of God The Creator, the Only One Possible, everyone (theists and atheists) denied Him!?
Why?
Because of their preconceived notion that God can only be a construct of religion, which as we all know religion requires that we accept their god (from tens of thousands out there) without question, on faith alone, .. or 'blind-faith'.
So my question for debate is, if I've shown you scientific evidence of our Creator God (which the Bible happens to support/reveal) could you step outside this paralyzing mindset that God = religion?
Could you at least give yourself a chance to view God The Creator outside of religious indoctrination?
Thanks

Wrong. A person CAN and many DO believe in a God or Gods whom are not religious people. Have you ever heard of Deism? Read up on it. It posits a belief in a non-Theist or non_biblical type of a God. A non-personal one. It could be a type of Science-based Creative Force. An Infinite Mind. Many scientists believe in this type. Einstein for one. His "God does not play dice with the Universe" quote alluded to such a God.

Also....you say you can prove there is no such thing as a Creator God? Or that nobody can believe in one if they are religious. Wrong again. I do. And I am. I will wait for your proof that there CANNOT exist a Creator God.
Thank you. God Bless.

Hey, thank the Lord and you for the response August, I really appreciate it!

If you look more carefully, I said, a created-creator is NOT God THE Creator, right? We are looking for 'The Creator' without falling into the problem of 'infinite regress'.
Religions, tens of thousands of them each have a god they believe in, the Christians (Constantine created Christian Religion) have Deities as their gods, one such plural Deity/demon is mentioned in the New Testament that Jesus cast out of two men, whose name was 'Legion', .. remember? One being, who was 'many', something like 2,000 that went into the herd of pigs.

Please look up and study what deities are, use Bible dictionaries, Wikipedia, Webster's, Google it, .. and you will see that deities are demons who now reside in the supernatural realm and divine to mediums (Christian Diviners who graduated from schools of Divinity and Trinity Colleges, they divine to other witches, diviners, soothsayers, etc.) But our Creator reveals His message to us through revelations, by His Holy Spirit, not deities/demons.
The Catholic Church in the NT changed God the Spirit to the word Deity, because as the New Jesuit Pope announced; Lucifer is their God, and his son is Jesus, or sun-god which according to the Bible is the anti-Christ. (Please look up on YouTube: "Pope Francis announces that Lucifer is God" They even have a Telescope at the Vatican Observatory here in AZ on Mt. Graham called LUCIFER. If you studied the Catholic Jesuit Order, you would know they are Luciferian.

Please study up on the things I write, and read everything I say very carefully, it will save us years of debating.

Again, I thank you, and may God bless you and yours, in Jesus name

Odon (Evidence)

So, OK, wow, where to begin her, my friend. Lots of stuff you misunderstood from my post. Did you read my links? In theological circles, when speaking of Theodicy (the Nature of God) the term Diest or Deism has nothing to do with Demons. When somebody says I'm a Deist not a Theist..well, they are saying NOT that they believe in Demons, but rather an Impersonal sort of Creative Intelligence. Did you not read my Einstein quote? Hawking believes the same way. You really think these guys are saying the believe in a Demon God/ Please.

And I dont kow what the hell you're talking about with the RCC changing the word "God the Spirit" do Deity in the NT. I don't read the Catholic Bible, or Vulgate, I'm an Ecumenical Christian Protestant. But I have a Catholic Bible in front of me write now and see God and Spirit all over the place.

Constantine created the Christian religion?? That's hilarious. You need to read a but more on the early HIstory of Chritianity, brother. Emperor Constantine only "sanctioned" and made legal the Religion of Christianity in the early part of the 4th Century. (Around 325 AD or so if I recall). So do the math on the date and see that since Jesus died in around 32 AD and Paul wrote his frist epistles about 20 years later, that the Christian Movement and Religion had been around for a good 250 years before Constantine OK'd it.
the reason he Did so was not that altruistic. He had a vision--of a Cross in the Clouds before He engaged in a Battle. It said "Use this To Conquer!". He went on to victory, thinking Hey man there might be something to this Christian God! (LOL) so he OK's the Christians whom up till then were being persecuted pretty damn ferociously.

You sound like an RCC conspiracy nut. Dan Brown fan I am guessing? LOL. I am no fan of the RCC but they're not Satanists. I admit I didn't read you link or look at it. Its just going to be something silly out of context. The RCC was just another example of how Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. They have many things to answer for. But they did their evils in the name of God, NOT Satan. Or Lucifer as you said.
BTW: do you know the name "Lucifer" is WRONG for Satan? Yep--it comes from a bad mis-translation from the OT, where the author (one of the prophets, Isiah or Ezekial) was speaking of The King of Babylon. NOT Satan. As being "the Light Giver" which is what Lucifer means. Look it up if you wish, but trust me on this. I believe the mis-translation was made by Jerome when he translated from the Hebrew to Latin.

And the Jesuits being Satanists is too absurd to even discuss. Go here.http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu...

Given your username you should research stuff a bit better before you spout personal and prejudiced opinion on matters and institutions you obviously have a problem with. Just a thought.

From a wiki article on Deism.......
Deism derived from the Latin word "Deus" meaning "God", is a theological/philosophical position that combines the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge with the conclusion that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single creator of the universe.

Deism gained prominence among intellectuals during the Age of Enlightenment"especially in Britain, France, Germany and the United States"who, raised as Christians, believed in one god but became disenchanted with organized religion and notions such as the Trinity, Biblical inerrancy and the supernatural interpretation of events such as miracles.[8] Included in those influenced by its ideas were leaders of the American and French Revolutions.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
DaGreek
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 7:32:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 6:50:07 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/29/2015 2:10:36 PM, DaGreek wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:21:29 AM, Evidence wrote:
What if you were given simple scientific evidence of The Creator God, could you accept it?
Here is what I mean; Theism is the study of god/gods, of which none is The Creator God and I can prove it. Atheism is the unbelief of those god/gods of which none is The Creator God.
In my years of debating, both theists and atheists alike had a preconceived idea of God which was that God is a religious construct, .. that God=religion. So God cannot be shown to be real as by scientific evidence. That The Creator can be only believed in by faith, that is 'blind faith'. So when I've shown the scientific evidence of God The Creator, the Only One Possible, everyone (theists and atheists) denied Him!?
Why?
Because of their preconceived notion that God can only be a construct of religion, which as we all know religion requires that we accept their god (from tens of thousands out there) without question, on faith alone, .. or 'blind-faith'.
So my question for debate is, if I've shown you scientific evidence of our Creator God (which the Bible happens to support/reveal) could you step outside this paralyzing mindset that God = religion?
Could you at least give yourself a chance to view God The Creator outside of religious indoctrination?
Thanks

In my opinion, the existence of God is one of the most if not the most important question. I will give two arguments in favor of the existence of God. I hope that my fellow theists of all stripes will fill in the many, many more.

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

1- Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nauture or in an external cause
2- If the universe has an explanation, that explanation is God
3- The universe exists
C1- Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)
C2- Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God

Premise One

This premise seems more plausible than its denial. Nowhere do we find something that has no explanation of its existence. We don't find computers with no explanation of their existence. This truth of the premise is considered to be the default position because the grand majority of the world believes it. The burden of proof would then be on the opponent of the argument. One might say that the universe does not require an explanation, but this begs the question. Unless one assumes that the universe is all that there is, there is no reason to think that the universe is an exception.

Premise Two

This may seem like a bold assertion, but it is logically true. The explanation of the universe would have to be outside the universe and therefore the absence of what makes up the universe/what the universe is. The universe is made up/is all matter, energy, space and time. This means that the explanation would have to be non-material, not bound by energy (omnipotent), non-spacial (omnipresent) and timeless (eternal). This is the classical description of God.

Premise Three

This states the obvious. The universe does exist. We would not be having this debate if the universe did not exist!

Conclusions

Since the three premises are valid, the conclusions logically follow.

The Teleological Argument

Since this is the science forum, I am going to stick to the scientific arguments although other arguments, such as the moral arguments, are very interesting. Before I sketch out this argument, I need to explain the concept of fine-tuning. Fine-tuning is the word attributed to how the universal constants are on a razor's edge. If these constants ("settings" for certain features of the universe) where just a little off, intelligent life would be impossible. Here is an example: if the universal constant, which is the energy density of space, was changed one part out of 10^120, life would be impossible. Do you see how incredible that is? There is a whole plethora more, but I will leave you with that one. Here is the argument:

1- The fine-tuning of the universe can be explained by physical necessity, chance or design
2- It is not due to physical necessity or chance
C- Therefore, it is due to design

Premise One

This is self-evident, there is no other explanations. If there was a forth option, it would be well known and be easy to falsify the first premise.

Premise Two

The fine-tuning cannot be due to physical necessity because the universal constants are wholly apart from laws of nature. There is no correlation. Since the universal constants have no relation and do not interact with the laws of nature, they cannot be to physical necessity. Chance is not a viable option either. Just the nature of the constants show this. There is 10^80 amount of atoms in the whole universe. If the cosmological constant was changed in one part out of 10^120. life would be impossible. Getting the cosmological constant right by chance (only one of the many constants) would be more improbable than picking out a specific atom out of the universe. Oh, keep in mind that you only have one chance and if you don't pick that right atom...everything and everyone dies.

There is a way that people try to save the chance hypothesis though. Proponents of the chance hypothesis posit the multiverse theory. The multiverse theory states that we are one universe in thousands and possibly an infinite amount of universes. This would allow at least one universe to get the constant right by chance. This objection fails twofold. First, there is no independent evidence of a multiverse. Not an inch. Invoking the universe is a huge leap of blind faith. Second, if we where living in a multiverse, we would expect to be living in a much smaller universe. Maybe only a solar system big. Why? Because it is easier to get a small thing by chance than a large. Imagine you have cards with one letter of the alphabet on each card. It would be much easier to form the sentence, "Hi Joe" by throwing the cards on the floor blindfolded than to create the whole dictionary in order.

Conclusion

As laws of logic dictate, since each of the premises are true the conclusion inescapably follows. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to design. From the first argument we know that this designer would have to be non-material, not bound by energy (omnipotent), non-spacial (omnipresent) and timeless (eternal). Like we concluded previously, this would be God.

A Word

I hope that this forum will be fruitful in giving us all a new perspective on the existence of God and that we can discuss our views with reason and not turn into mud slinging. Thank you.

Interested in debating A-theory/B-theory?

I would be, at a later time. I have not spent enough time learning about philosophy of time. It is a really interesting subject though!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 12:22:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 12:21:29 AM, Evidence wrote:
Could you at least give yourself a chance to view God The Creator outside of religious indoctrination?

Not with what you just did, Ev... You called the creator God...

You could have called it anything, but you invoked a word whose meaning has only ever been theological, thus importing a huge array of theological assumptions and prejudices, contaminating the discussion before you began.

If you want to talk about creation as a scientific possibility, we actually can. But before we could, you'd have to abandon a priori any suggestion that the creative agency is:
* individual (i.e. only one of them),
* intelligent (i.e. it was competently solving a problem),
* that creation was deliberate (i.e. not the byproduct of some other process),
* that the creator is engaged in the product (i.e. it's monitoring),
* that it's compassionate (i.e. that it upholds hominin ideas of morality), and
* focused on humanity in particular (i.e. that it doesn't find some other species -- terrestrial or non-terrestrial more interesting.)

If you want to lead the evidence by calling your conjecture God then it shouldn't be taken seriously by any empiricist.

On the other hand, if you want to talk scientifically about the prospect of a creation event with no whiff of theological bias -- sure. Bring it on.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 12:31:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 2:35:22 PM, DaGreek wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:29:01 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Sorry, but a creator god is inconsistent with reality. Look at my Tensless Cosmological Argument for why.

**My Own Arguments**
Tenseless Cosmological Argument
P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause.
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3).
C2) God did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1).

Thank you for this argument, it is very interesting. I have noticed recently how many atheists/agnostics use tenseless theories of time to object to a creator God. I am going to respond just to premise three for this post.

Premise Three of SNP1's Argument

All tenseless theories of time state that temporal becoming and tensed facts are illusions. Now, if either temporal becoming, and/or tensed facts can be shown to be real then any and all tenseless theories of time would collapse. If any and all tenseless theories of time collapse, then premise three would be false and the argument would cripple as a consequence. The argument that I propose is this:

1- An illusion is a mind process
2- Mind processes require temporal becoming
C- Therefore, an illusion requires temporal becoming

If my argument holds, then the idea that temporal becoming is an illusion is self-defeating and self-contradictory. As I said before, this would defeat any tenseless theory of time and would leave us with a tensed theory of time; one that would include the existence of tensed facts.

Premise One

This is true by definition. Medically speaking, it is undeniable. One might try to escape this by going into the philosophy of mind and try to talk about mind vs brain and so on. Even if an illusion is a brain process the argument would still stand.

Premise Two

This is true for the following reason: without temporal becoming, one would be stuck in one moment forever. One would be stuck on one thought forever. If one is stuck on one thought forever, they could not experience multiple thoughts such as an illusion. Why do I say that without temporal becoming that one would be stuck on one moment and thought forever? Because the definition of temporal becoming is the process of time states changing from one to the other. Without time being able to change states (passage of time), one would be stuck on a moment forever.

Conclusion

Since both premises are valid, then the conclusion necessarily follows. This argument refutes a tenseless theory of time because it shows that the crucial pillar of tenesless theories is false. By the tenseless theories being false, then the tensed theories would be true. Thank you again for this interesting point!

Your argument is based off the intuitive argument for the A-Theory of Time. This is refuted as an argument against the B-Theory of Time in this paper:
https://www.google.com...

Furthermore:
P1) Either Special Relativity (SR), General Relativity (GR), or Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) are correct interpretations of relativity.
P2) If SR or GR are correct, the B-Theory of Time follows.
P3) If LET is correct, then the principal of uniformity of nature is incompatible with reality, thus cosmology cannot be done.
C1) Either the B-Theory of Time is correct or cosmology cannot be done.
P4) If cosmology cannot be done then no cosmological arguments or assumptions can be made.
P5) If the B-Theory of Time is correct then the Tensless Cosmological Argument (TCA) follows.
C2) Either cosmological arguments/assumptions are invalid or the TCA follows.
P6) If cosmological arguments/assumptions cannot be made, one cannot attest to an absolute beginning of time.
C3) In either case, one cannot contest to a cause of the universe existing/being possible.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 4:57:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 6:04:57 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:29:01 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Sorry, but a creator god is inconsistent with reality. Look at my Tensless Cosmological Argument for why.

I agree that a Creator God, as in 'Creator' (not some created creator which would fall within 'infinite regress') IS inconsistent with reality. As Tillich put it, God is not a being, but the 'Ground of Being', .. He doesn't exists as part of created reality.
Reality as we know it is the created, or finite.
God on the other hand, the Only One Possible is the Creator/Infinite.

From what you're saying I could claim God is dead and the universe is after-birth. Humanity is a child of that miraculous explosion. This would explain both our existence and seeming absence of God.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 5:50:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 12:31:28 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/29/2015 2:35:22 PM, DaGreek wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:29:01 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Sorry, but a creator god is inconsistent with reality. Look at my Tensless Cosmological Argument for why.

**My Own Arguments**
Tenseless Cosmological Argument
P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause.
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3).
C2) God did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1).

Thank you for this argument, it is very interesting. I have noticed recently how many atheists/agnostics use tenseless theories of time to object to a creator God. I am going to respond just to premise three for this post.

Premise Three of SNP1's Argument

All tenseless theories of time state that temporal becoming and tensed facts are illusions. Now, if either temporal becoming, and/or tensed facts can be shown to be real then any and all tenseless theories of time would collapse. If any and all tenseless theories of time collapse, then premise three would be false and the argument would cripple as a consequence. The argument that I propose is this:

1- An illusion is a mind process
2- Mind processes require temporal becoming
C- Therefore, an illusion requires temporal becoming

If my argument holds, then the idea that temporal becoming is an illusion is self-defeating and self-contradictory. As I said before, this would defeat any tenseless theory of time and would leave us with a tensed theory of time; one that would include the existence of tensed facts.

Premise One

This is true by definition. Medically speaking, it is undeniable. One might try to escape this by going into the philosophy of mind and try to talk about mind vs brain and so on. Even if an illusion is a brain process the argument would still stand.

Premise Two

This is true for the following reason: without temporal becoming, one would be stuck in one moment forever. One would be stuck on one thought forever. If one is stuck on one thought forever, they could not experience multiple thoughts such as an illusion. Why do I say that without temporal becoming that one would be stuck on one moment and thought forever? Because the definition of temporal becoming is the process of time states changing from one to the other. Without time being able to change states (passage of time), one would be stuck on a moment forever.

Conclusion

Since both premises are valid, then the conclusion necessarily follows. This argument refutes a tenseless theory of time because it shows that the crucial pillar of tenesless theories is false. By the tenseless theories being false, then the tensed theories would be true. Thank you again for this interesting point!

Your argument is based off the intuitive argument for the A-Theory of Time. This is refuted as an argument against the B-Theory of Time in this paper:
https://www.google.com...

Furthermore:
P1) Either Special Relativity (SR), General Relativity (GR), or Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) are correct interpretations of relativity.
P2) If SR or GR are correct, the B-Theory of Time follows.
P3) If LET is correct, then the principal of uniformity of nature is incompatible with reality, thus cosmology cannot be done.
C1) Either the B-Theory of Time is correct or cosmology cannot be done.
P4) If cosmology cannot be done then no cosmological arguments or assumptions can be made.
P5) If the B-Theory of Time is correct then the Tensless Cosmological Argument (TCA) follows.
C2) Either cosmological arguments/assumptions are invalid or the TCA follows.
P6) If cosmological arguments/assumptions cannot be made, one cannot attest to an absolute beginning of time.
C3) In either case, one cannot contest to a cause of the universe existing/being possible.

^ Bluesteel had some objections to this argument, though I did respond to them
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass