Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[Spiritual Being]

That's just a fucking cop out though, ignorance and gullibility should never be accepted as satisfactory. Religious beliefs are holding society back e.g. with the issue of gay marriage, religious nuts keep pointing to the bible and keep saying shit like "God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve".

science doesn't exist too

screw procreation, that's a fake concept

...........................................

or you could come back to earth and realise that the issue of homosexuality (or same-sex marriage) goes beyond blindly accepting religious commands

actually it has more to do with the stability of the world and facilitating procreation as we're all designed to by the grand scheme of the universe

but as I said, this isnt a same-sex marriage thread

 

[Spiritual Being]

There is a consensus among biologists that prokaryotes came into existence by abiogenesis. 'The Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids , often called "the building blocks of life", can be racemically synthesized in conditions intended to be similar to those of the early Earth .'

^^^^^^
proof that no god exists


oh and by the way, there's a consensus among priests that god exists...

^^^ proof that god exists

 

[Spiritual Being]

God could not have existed without cells, which was made from carbon.

yeah, because you're going to able to conceptualise god...

the idea of God, even if you're atheist is supposed to be that he's not an ordinary human, and he embodies divine powers

It is impossible to prove the existence of God without the concretion of faith. I myself am a Christian, and my strong belief can not be explained simply. There may not be any scientific evidence to prove his existence, but God delves far beyond the physical realm we know of. I have seen his wonders in my life, things or circumstances that have no logical explanation now do.

there is scientific evidence to support God's existence:

2 Samuel 22:16 (consistent with Jonah 2:6) states "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered", which denotes the existence of valleys and mountains under ocean floor, which science initially contradicted by saying ocean floor is 'flat', and then came to accept the inescapable scientific reality....

Job 26:7 - "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." - the notion of gravity, that the earth is suspended in place (of which biblically, God is the underlying facilitator)

3000 years ago, or however you want to scholarly date the bible, you're not going to be able to come to such scientifically valid conclusions because the world lacked the technology to do so, thus the bible has to be inspired by a being who is omnipotent (he had the power to create this) and omniscient (he knew what he created, and that's why it's reflected in the bible)

there's hundreds of verses like the ones above

even if one argues that it's a coincidence that the bible reflects these scientifically valid ideas (they argue coincidence because the inescapable conclusion is that the composition had to be inspired by a greater being), the bible isn't going to COINCIDENTALLY reflect concepts which happen to be scientifically valid - there's just too many possible alternatives that could've been written but weren't (again, because god inspired it)

 

[Sy123]

Why should complexity imply design? I don't see how this follows at all.


I also really don't find arguments based on improbability convincing mostly because http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Improbable_things_happen. Sure it is improbable that the sequence of scientific accidents required for us to be where we are now from the big bang (whatever it's cause). But the probability of any given day unfolding as it actually does is also miniscule because of the vast number of points at which events could deviate. If you used a RNG to choose a random integer between 1 and 1,000,000, and it spat out 372,143, would this be evidence that the RNG was not really "random"? After all, the probability of such a miraculous event occurring is a tiny 10^{-6}! There is some phrase for this probabilistic fallacy which I cannot recall, but the point is that probability is not the same thing as conditional probability.

In any case, probability seems like a poor way to compare alternative explanations of "how we got here" given the impossibility of quantifying probabilities of a god's existence.



Where did this number come from? I did not think the number was this large, but I suppose it largely depends on how loosely you define "intellectuals".

Note: I have no idea what the actual number would be in a worldwide study, but the academics I have met here and overseas must be extremely different from the norm if 90% is correct.

Complexity implies a designer by general human experience. We do not say that our cell-phones had come out of being out of pure chance from arrangement of atoms, we say that our cell-phones are designed. What then when we observe a simple cell, and find that is not simple at all, incredibly complex that gives the cell function.

-

Yes, indeed and I hadn't gone over the other part of the argument from design since it would take a long time. Essentially, I don't think any design theorists believe that improbability alone is necessary to justify design, but rather that it needs to be a mountain of improbability as well as there being a conformity to an independently given pattern, in order to justify design. The reason for this being the case is explained well here

However this falls under higher level philosophy and since I am but a layman, I will not be able to defend Dembski's claims, but it is claimed that he defends the argument rigorously in his book.

-

The number was meant for great thinkers throughout history. Yes indeed quite a number of the really great thinkers would be atheists, maybe 50/50 I'd say
And besides, the figure was meant for a form of rhetoric, to refute the claim that somehow an overwhelmingly majority of intellectuals are atheistic

 

[Spiritual Being]

Complexity implies a designer by general human experience. We do not say that our cell-phones had come out of being out of pure chance from arrangement of atoms, we say that our cell-phones are designed. What then when we observe a simple cell, and find that is not simple at all, incredibly complex that gives the cell function.

-

Yes, indeed and I hadn't gone over the other part of the argument from design since it would take a long time. Essentially, I don't think any design theorists believe that improbability alone is necessary to justify design, but rather that it needs to be a mountain of improbability as well as there being a conformity to an independently given pattern, in order to justify design. The reason for this being the case is explained well here

However this falls under higher level philosophy and since I am but a layman, I will not be able to defend Dembski's claims, but it is claimed that he defends the argument rigorously in his book.

-

The number was meant for great thinkers throughout history. Yes indeed quite a number of the really great thinkers would be atheists, maybe 50/50 I'd say
And besides, the figure was meant for a form of rhetoric, to refute the claim that somehow an overwhelmingly majority of intellectuals are atheistic

You don't need to. There's more convincing evidence as stated above.

 

[kaz1]

that's a pretty flimsy argument

the idea of god is supposed to be that he's the principal creator (omnipotent, omniscient etc etc) and thus there doesn't need to be anything which caused him

just like many atheists believe that the universe was just there

God was just there too

you're just broadening the atheistic belief that everything was just there

if we all just confine ourselves within the earth and for a minute believe that god doesn't exist, we can say, for example, that dirt is just there

you didn't create dirt

I didn't create dirt

it's just there, a product of the earth

jesus fuck, the concept of god is fucking irrelevant for me. To me it is much more plausible the cosmos was always there and the universe was created through natural processes (which we as humans do not understand yet).

While the religious people say some magic sky wizard who was bored one day decided to clap his hands and the big bang suddenly happened. Oh and the sky wizard was always alive and that is beyond argument.

and dirt is the product of the earth, dirt in a lot of contexts is synonymous with earth. have no fucking idea what point you are trying to make

science doesn't exist too

screw procreation, that's a fake concept

...........................................

or you could come back to earth and realise that the issue of homosexuality (or same-sex marriage) goes beyond blindly accepting religious commands

actually it has more to do with the stability of the world and facilitating procreation as we're all designed to by the grand scheme of the universe

but as I said, this isnt a same-sex marriage thread

you do know that something like 98% of the population is heterosexual, there is absolutely no threat to people fucking and making babies

and the prejudice against homosexuality today is mainly fueled by religious dogma as is resistance to same sex marriage, you'd be a retard to say otherwise

 

[Spiritual Being]

jesus fuck, the concept of god is fucking irrelevant for me.

You're debating about it, so it's clearly relevant to the argument at hand.

To me

To me it isn't.

it is much more plausible the cosmos was always there and the universe was created through natural processes (which we as humans do not understand yet).

What's more plausible, an unadulterated lack of understanding, or evidence which suggests the bible to be inspired by a greater being? Even if you're the most biased person in the world (not saying you are), at the very least, you'll say that this is circumstantial and not conclusive evidence of God's existence:

there is scientific evidence to support God's existence:

2 Samuel 22:16 (consistent with Jonah 2:6) states "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered", which denotes the existence of valleys and mountains under ocean floor, which science initially contradicted by saying ocean floor is 'flat', and then came to accept the inescapable scientific reality....

Job 26:7 - "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." - the notion of gravity, that the earth is suspended in place (of which biblically, God is the underlying facilitator)

3000 years ago, or however you want to scholarly date the bible, you're not going to be able to come to such scientifically valid conclusions because the world lacked the technology to do so, thus the bible has to be inspired by a being who is omnipotent (he had the power to create this) and omniscient (he knew what he created, and that's why it's reflected in the bible)

there's hundreds of verses like the ones above

even if one argues that it's a coincidence that the bible reflects these scientifically valid ideas (they argue coincidence because the inescapable conclusion is that the composition had to be inspired by a greater being), the bible isn't going to COINCIDENTALLY reflect concepts which happen to be scientifically valid - there's just too many possible alternatives that could've been written but weren't (again, because god inspired it)

And, you know what kaz? We convict on circumstantial evidence everyday in courtrooms across the world. Why? Because the totality of consistent circumstances which hints to one outcome (analogously the crime) profoundly lessens the possibility of a coincidence.

While the religious people say some magic sky wizard who was bored one day decided to clap his hands and the big bang suddenly happened. Oh and the sky wizard was always alive and that is beyond argument.

Well if you believe that we as humans are the pinnacle of power, and that no one else, without exception, can have divine powers or any abilities higher than us (thus no god exists) in the entire universe, then yes, on the surface, that statement is flimsy though arguable. It's relatively weightless because obviously there is intent behind creation - it's an expression of love. On a smaller scale, it's like your parents creating you and caring for you - it's an expression of love. Also, as another point, saying "why would he do it?" or "why does god put us on this earth if he knows what's going to happen" is just as ridiculous as asking "why live if you're going to die". I'm not saying you suggested the aforementioned, but I'm showing that there's meaning behind creation.

and dirt is the product of the earth, dirt in a lot of contexts is synonymous with earth. have no fucking idea what point you are trying to make

Exactly. It's always there. If you believe the universe is always there, why can't God always be there too? Isn't the design of the universe more leveled towards intent, which a thinking being can facilitate with omnipotent powers, or is it the result of nothing happening to nothing and everything self-replicating?

you do know that something like 98% of the population is heterosexual, there is absolutely no threat to people fucking and making babies

Sure, I'll agree with that. But legalising same-sex marriage will still breed a culture of acceptance surrounding the concept and soon more and more people will be gay - expand this to a broader scale and the world becomes a mess - even more than it is today (yes that's possible). That's like saying, let's kill 2% of the population because the other 98% will still be alive. "It's the damn minority man".

and the prejudice against homosexuality today is mainly fueled by religious dogma as is resistance to same sex marriage, you'd be a retard to say otherwise

I'll let you say that, because your conception of logic obviously makes you believe that homosexuality is absolutely fine. However, there are still scientific reasons behind it. As I said, a lot of atheists are still against homosexuality on a scientific basis. It's just not all religious rhetoric.

 

[aimpacc]

of course i exist

 

[seanieg89]

Complexity implies a designer by general human experience. We do not say that our cell-phones had come out of being out of pure chance from arrangement of atoms, we say that our cell-phones are designed. What then when we observe a simple cell, and find that is not simple at all, incredibly complex that gives the cell function.

-

Yes, indeed and I hadn't gone over the other part of the argument from design since it would take a long time. Essentially, I don't think any design theorists believe that improbability alone is necessary to justify design, but rather that it needs to be a mountain of improbability as well as there being a conformity to an independently given pattern, in order to justify design. The reason for this being the case is explained well here

However this falls under higher level philosophy and since I am but a layman, I will not be able to defend Dembski's claims, but it is claimed that he defends the argument rigorously in his book.

-

The number was meant for great thinkers throughout history. Yes indeed quite a number of the really great thinkers would be atheists, maybe 50/50 I'd say
And besides, the figure was meant for a form of rhetoric, to refute the claim that somehow an overwhelmingly majority of intellectuals are atheistic

1. We say that our cell-phones are designed because WE designed them, not because they are complex. We have a precise history of the invention of the cell-phone. Observing an object with properties A and B is not a shred of evidence for the assertion A=>B. Could you please elaborate on "general human experience"? Because I cannot think of any experiences of mine that support the idea that complexity cannot occur without a designer.

2. I might check out the link later, but I too am unqualified to debate "higher level" philosophical arguments.

3. I am still not convinced that the theists would even comprise 50% (given that due to population growth, today's demographics are weighted considerably more than historical demographics), but at least it is not as absurd as 90. In any case, without any actual sources, this isn't really valid beyond being a rebuttal to those atheists who make the opposite claims with just as little evidence.

 

[kaz1]

What's more plausible, an unadulterated lack of understanding, or evidence which suggests the bible to be inspired by a greater being? Even if you're the most biased person in the world (not saying you are), at the very least, you'll say that this is circumstantial and not conclusive evidence of God's existence:

So it's okay to fill our voids in knowledge with the explanation that "gawd dunnit" rather than find logical and scientific explanations for scientific phenomenon. I'm pretty confident in the future that scientists will figure this big bang shit out. If everyone accepted the bible as gospel truth there would be a lot less scientific discoveries e.g. Evolution wouldn't be discovered and we'd still have a geocentric model of the solar system. With the validity of the bible there is so much fucking bullshit in there it's pretty laughable that you are trying to argue it's legitimacy lol.

And, you know what kaz? We convict on circumstantial evidence everyday in courtrooms across the world. Why? Because the totality of consistent circumstances which hints to one outcome (analogously the crime) profoundly lessens the possibility of a coincidence.

again the bible is bullshit

exhibit A: the story of Noah's Ark

Well if you believe that we as humans are the pinnacle of power, and that no one else, without exception, can have divine powers or any abilities higher than us (thus no god exists) in the entire universe, then yes, on the surface, that statement is flimsy though arguable. It's relatively weightless because obviously there is intent behind creation - it's an expression of love. On a smaller scale, it's like your parents creating you and caring for you - it's an expression of love. Also, as another point, saying "why would he do it?" or "why does god put us on this earth if he knows what's going to happen" is just as ridiculous as asking "why live if you're going to die". I'm not saying you suggested the aforementioned, but I'm showing that there's meaning behind creation.

Humans are not the pinnacle of power. The only powers in the universe are the laws of nature like gravity, relativity and other shit. You say god created humans as an expression of love yet he is willing to torture humans in hell for all eternity, doesn't sound like a very loving god to me. If you're trying to assert that god put us on this earth because we are the pinnacle of creation that is simply not true, we are simply animals with our own imperfections but we were very fortunate with natural selection.

Exactly. It's always there. If you believe the universe is always there, why can't God always be there too? Isn't the design of the universe more leveled towards intent, which a thinking being can facilitate with omnipotent powers, or is it the result of nothing happening to nothing and everything self-replicating?

because the existence of an all-knowing all powerful god breaks pretty much every single law of nature and the premise is simply absurd

Sure, I'll agree with that. But legalising same-sex marriage will still breed a culture of acceptance surrounding the concept and soon more and more people will be gay - expand this to a broader scale and the world becomes a mess - even more than it is today (yes that's possible). That's like saying, let's kill 2% of the population because the other 98% will still be alive. "It's the damn minority man".

You sound like fucking Vladmir Putin. You're either gay or you're not, you can't simply catch gay from another person. Some people do change their mind through exposure but they are the barest minority. How will the world become a mess if there is more love and acceptance, the world will be better for it imo.

I'll let you say that, because your conception of logic obviously makes you believe that homosexuality is absolutely fine. However, there are still scientific reasons behind it. As I said, a lot of atheists are still against homosexuality on a scientific base. It's just not all religious rhetoric.

Homosexuality occurs in nature, there is no science against homosexuality.

 

[Spiritual Being]

So it's okay to fill our voids in knowledge with the explanation that "gawd dunnit" rather than find logical and scientific explanations for scientific phenomenon.

Maybe to you, but I provided evidence which stands.

I'm pretty confident in the future that scientists will figure this big bang shit out.

That statement is probative of nothing.

If everyone accepted the bible as gospel truth there would be a lot less scientific discoveries e.g. Evolution wouldn't be discovered and we'd still have a geocentric model of the solar system. With the validity of the bible there is so much fucking bullshit in there it's pretty laughable that you are trying to argue it's legitimacy lol.

That's a great statement (sarcasm), but it's undermined by your lack of response to my original argument. Tell me then, how does a biblical writer who is bound by lack of scientific understanding in those times state a scientifically valid idea and with consistency as well? Even if you argue certain issues, they absolutely don't undermine the scientific truth that's actually in there. So explain and I'm ready to hear your explanation.

again the bible is bullshit

Read above genius.

Humans are not the pinnacle of power. The only powers in the universe are the laws of nature like gravity, relativity and other shit.

Once again, I said I stated it to clear the convolution.

You say god created humans as an expression of love yet he is willing to torture humans in hell for all eternity

The Christian message is about forgiveness and understanding, and ultimately it's the individual who makes a conscious choice to reject God, not the other way around.

, doesn't sound like a very loving god to me.

Because fairness is horrible.

If you're trying to assert that god put us on this earth because we are the pinnacle of creation that is simply not true, we are simply animals with our own imperfections but we were very fortunate with natural selection.

Yes, it's all a coincidence that we're fortunate with natural selection.

because the existence of an all-knowing all powerful god breaks pretty much every single law of nature and the premise is simply absurd

Obviously he can manipulate physical laws. He's a God. That's the whole concept of a God.

You sound like fucking Vladmir Putin. You're either gay or you're not, you can't simply catch gay from another person.

There's no solid evidence to this assertion. It's pretty much all philosophical rhetoric.

Some people do change their mind through exposure but they are the barest minority.

As I said, when marriage becomes so unrestricted, minorities can quickly evolve into the majority.

How will the world become a mess if there is more love and acceptance, the world will be better for it imo.

Yes, absolutely. The world would be better if everyone practiced anal sex. Nevermind the diseases that come with it, but you know, as you said (I'll take your word for it), 2% of the population is gay, so if they all get diseases, no worries. No, it's not going to be better for the world.

Homosexuality occurs in nature, there is no science against homosexuality.

Oh sorry, procreation by principle doesn't exist.

 

[Frostbitten]

Excuse me, define 'nothing'?
Really?



Coco Pops also has influential power in the world

Do you hold Coco pops along politics and religion?

Obviously religion is more influential and has a greater significance in the world than coco pops. That comparison is irrelevant.

 

[nerdasdasd]

Yes, absolutely. The world would be better if everyone practiced anal sex. Nevermind the diseases that come with it, but you know, as you said (I'll take your word for it), 2% of the population is gay, so if they all get diseases, no worries. No, it's not going to be better for the world.

Oh sorry, procreation by principle doesn't exist.

1. Heterosexuals can spread diseases too. (Not only homosexuals). Disease is a irrelevant factor.
2. If Christianity is about understanding , why don't they understand the people who have a same sex marriage.

 

[Spiritual Being]

1. Heterosexuals can spread diseases too. (Not only homosexuals). Disease is a irrelevant factor.
2. If Christianity is about understanding , why don't they understand the people who have a same sex marriage.

LOL

It will increase profoundly with same-sex couples, as I said, anal sex.. yeah heterosexual couples can engage in anal sex too, but it's really the only option for homosexuals.. you're also neglecting the culture of acceptance (and thus increased homosexuals) which results in more people with diseases...

Homosexuality is vehemently opposed, just like murder is, you can still respect them as individuals since God tell us to love one another but there are obviously issues which are opposed and issues which are not

I was also talking about understanding as in, understanding of sin and repentance...

As I said, 100 years ago, you'd probably get killed if you were openly homosexual...

As I also said, the (hegemonic) value of religion continues to decay with time, and in 100 years, less people will believe in God than they do today, because of newfound conceptions of logic (sourced societally which is already the result of decay).

 

[kaz1]

fucking oath pretty sure I'm getting trolled now.

That's a great statement (sarcasm), but it's undermined by your lack of response to my original argument. Tell me then, how does a biblical writer who is bound by lack of scientific understanding in those times state a scientifically valid idea and with consistency as well? Even if you argue certain issues, they absolutely don't undermine the scientific truth that's actually in there. So explain and I'm ready to hear your explanation.

The Bible having any scientific merit doesn't warrant a response at all. It's like arguing with someone that believes storks bring babies to parents.

The Christian message is about forgiveness and understanding, and ultimately it's the individual who makes a conscious choice to reject God, not the other way around.

If the true god is the Christian god he would be an asshole for torturing 2/3 of the population for eternity but fortunately hell doesn't exist.

Yes, it's all a coincidence that we're fortunate with natural selection.

okay god created Adam from clay and created eve from his rib, it really sounds like a plausible story

Obviously he can manipulate physical laws. He's a God. That's the whole concept of a God.

so let's explain everything we don't know with magic

There's no solid evidence to this assertion. It's pretty much all philosophical rhetoric.



As I said, when marriage becomes so unrestricted, minorities can quickly evolve into the majority.



Yes, absolutely. The world would be better if everyone practiced anal sex. Nevermind the diseases that come with it, but you know, as you said (I'll take your word for it), 2% of the population is gay, so if they all get diseases, no worries. No, it's not going to be better for the world.



Oh sorry, procreation by principle doesn't exist.

Gays becoming the majority is probably the most moronic thing that you have said and that's saying something.

 

[Spiritual Being]

The Bible having any scientific merit doesn't warrant a response at all. It's like arguing with someone that believes storks bring babies to parents.

That's absolutely incorrect. Predictably, you have no response to why the bible contains scientifically valid ideas as directly quoted, because the only conclusion is that it's inspired by a greater being, otherwise known as God. And let me be very clear Kaz, I honestly don't expect you to come up with a response, because you simply can't disprove the affirmative.

If the true god is the Christian god he would be an asshole for torturing 2/3 of the population for eternity but fortunately hell doesn't exist.

As I previously stated, what we consider as 'good' or 'bad' is merely our own conception. Back to the same-sex marriage hypothetical which you had no substantial reply to (and again, I don't blame you, because there's nothing you can say in terms of refuting the premise), in one hundred years, everybody is going to read the bible and question why God is so immoral because he opposes homosexuality. Because by that time, everybody would be under the belief that homosexuality is completely moral and Tony Abbott or Julia Gillard won't be there to uphold a 3000 year definition. I won't be here to talk about how immoral it is. Every true Christian won't be here talking about how immoral it is. Every true Muslim won't be here talking about how immoral it is. This brings us back to the primary concept, that Christianity and Islam decay with time. They're slowly, but surely, losing their hegemonic value, as society's conceptions of logic continue to worsen because they just compound already present decay. And in all fairness, Muslims are better than Christians in this regard. A significant 'Christians' support homosexuality. There's no doubt about it, but by contrast, very little Muslim's support homosexuality. Why? Probably because Muslims take their religion much more seriously than Christians and Christianity has become so altered and so adaptive to contemporary society, that the essence of Christianity was lost in the process of trying to modify the religion to fit everybody's agenda.

okay god created Adam from clay and created eve from his rib, it really sounds like a plausible story

Once again, it's extremely plausible to believe that a being who so obviously inspired the scientific notions in the bible which only an omnipotent and omniscient being could come to, has divine powers and thus can manipulate physical laws. As oppose to believing an atheistic ideology which essentially embodies the quote "the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self–replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs".

Gays becoming the majority is probably the most moronic thing that you have said and that's saying something.

For someone who (unsuccessfully) tried to refute the irrefutable based on evolution, which heavily links into the passage of time, you're severely underestimating what can happen over time. Think of Christianity 100 years ago - an extremely powerful force. It's still powerful today, but obviously to a much lesser degree. Society can change drastically over a relatively short period of time. No one talked about same-sex marriage thirty years ago, because it wasn't an issue. Everybody's (or at least 99.7% of people) conception of logic aligned with the science of procreation and the operative stability of the world. As same-sex marriage is legalised, it will breed a culture of acceptance regarding the concept. It's okay to be gay. It's fine. It will be portrayed as natural, even though the laws of nature exude otherwise. This will encourage more people to be gay. How fast the progression from minority to majority will occur is obviously subject to much debate and question, but it will surely happen. It's like Australia moving north 1cm a year. If you look at in terms of twenty years, it's not that significant. If you start looking into millions of years, it becomes an extremely significant issue.


On another note, in all fairness, I've been continually respectful to you and I've provided evidence which you haven't responded to meaningfully. Again, that's not your fault. It doesn't mean you're a shit debater (not saying you are) or that you don't know how to express yourself (not saying you don't). You simply can't disprove something which is so objective. I'm just pointing it out. Please reciprocate with the same respect I provide you with. Even though your arguments have made me almost cry from laughter, I still respond to them meaningfully.

Also, let's all be honest here. We all have questions. Kaz, if I recall correctly, you were a theist previously and now you're a pretty strong atheist from what I can deduce from your posts. We all reach that point of questioning our religion (if we're brought up with one anyway). I read the bible dispassionately and it eliminated any doubt I had. There's just too many verses which could only be inspired by a greater being. I've had extremely long debates with atheists about it and their best response is 'coincidence'. It's not a coincidence that the bible reflects scientifically valid concepts. Why? Because you can't speculate to reach them. You can say that land is always there or that God creates it. If the bible was restricted to that, then yes, I'd absolutely question the validity of God existing. But there's more than that. Significantly more. When it states that valleys and mountains exist under oceans and so forth, we know that this is inspired by a greater being. When the bible denotes the existence of gravity, we know that this is inspired by an omniscient being. Fundamentalist Christians didn't alter the earth with omnipotent powers as ordinary human beings in order to make it an adulterated reflection of the bible. We know that's impossible. Let me be very clear on something. I'm not particularly impressed with the Christian church, whether it's Catholic or Orthodox. Thanks to free will and an imbalance of power due to church patriarchy, there's no doubt that shady things happen. This medium which was many years ago an unadulterated manifestation of Christianity has been turned into somewhat a medium for financial gain. It's still a place where one can manifest the bible and the existence of God as one understands it to be, but for many Christians (and atheists who ever think about the concept of church in Christianity), the framework of the church (some churches) being centered on financial gain and other worldly attainments is more of a deterrence from Christianity than anything else. I still go to church. I still like it. But I understand that it's far from perfect and far from what it used to be. And again, without delving into this for the fiftieth time, this goes back to the ongoing decay of Christianity. So no one here should ever espouse an idea of me to be this crazy fundamentalist who is paid thousands of dollars at a time to preach Christianity all over the internet.

Lastly, please actually come up with an interesting response. You're not going to say anything which refutes the premise. I know that. But at least say something interesting because at the end of the day, a debate should stimulate thought. You also don't look good when you pass off my response as a 'troll', and then subsequently lack a meaningful response. It actually makes you look horrible.

Response for reference:

there is scientific evidence to support God's existence:

2 Samuel 22:16 (consistent with Jonah 2:6) states "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered", which denotes the existence of valleys and mountains under ocean floor, which science initially contradicted by saying ocean floor is 'flat', and then came to accept the inescapable scientific reality....

Job 26:7 - "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." - the notion of gravity, that the earth is suspended in place (of which biblically, God is the underlying facilitator)

3000 years ago, or however you want to scholarly date the bible, you're not going to be able to come to such scientifically valid conclusions because the world lacked the technology to do so, thus the bible has to be inspired by a being who is omnipotent (he had the power to create this) and omniscient (he knew what he created, and that's why it's reflected in the bible)

there's hundreds of verses like the ones above

even if one argues that it's a coincidence that the bible reflects these scientifically valid ideas (they argue coincidence because the inescapable conclusion is that the composition had to be inspired by a greater being), the bible isn't going to COINCIDENTALLY reflect concepts which happen to be scientifically valid - there's just too many possible alternatives that could've been written but weren't (again, because god inspired it)

 

[KitchenSinky]

yeah, because you're going to able to conceptualise god...

the idea of God, even if you're atheist is supposed to be that he's not an ordinary human, and he embodies divine powers



there is scientific evidence to support God's existence:

2 Samuel 22:16 (consistent with Jonah 2:6) states "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered", which denotes the existence of valleys and mountains under ocean floor, which science initially contradicted by saying ocean floor is 'flat', and then came to accept the inescapable scientific reality....

Job 26:7 - "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." - the notion of gravity, that the earth is suspended in place (of which biblically, God is the underlying facilitator)

3000 years ago, or however you want to scholarly date the bible, you're not going to be able to come to such scientifically valid conclusions because the world lacked the technology to do so, thus the bible has to be inspired by a being who is omnipotent (he had the power to create this) and omniscient (he knew what he created, and that's why it's reflected in the bible)

there's hundreds of verses like the ones above

even if one argues that it's a coincidence that the bible reflects these scientifically valid ideas (they argue coincidence because the inescapable conclusion is that the composition had to be inspired by a greater being), the bible isn't going to COINCIDENTALLY reflect concepts which happen to be scientifically valid - there's just too many possible alternatives that could've been written but weren't (again, because god inspired it)

"And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered" - pretty vague statement for which you just pulled meaning out of your ass. That's like me saying "and then the dog was dead" and assuming that i predicted the dog would fly and then get hit by a car.

 

[Spiritual Being]

"And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered" - pretty vague statement for which you just pulled meaning out of your ass. That's like me saying "and then the dog was dead" and assuming that i predicted the dog would fly and then get hit by a car.

Huge fail. Should've called a lawyer to help you prepare your argument.

 

[Sy123]

1. We say that our cell-phones are designed because WE designed them, not because they are complex. We have a precise history of the invention of the cell-phone. Observing an object with properties A and B is not a shred of evidence for the assertion A=>B. Could you please elaborate on "general human experience"? Because I cannot think of any experiences of mine that support the idea that complexity cannot occur without a designer.

2. I might check out the link later, but I too am unqualified to debate "higher level" philosophical arguments.

3. I am still not convinced that the theists would even comprise 50% (given that due to population growth, today's demographics are weighted considerably more than historical demographics), but at least it is not as absurd as 90. In any case, without any actual sources, this isn't really valid beyond being a rebuttal to those atheists who make the opposite claims with just as little evidence.

1. Yes but if you had shown an African tribesmen an iPhone and saw how it worked, he is not going to say that this was purely from nature. Moreover, the cell information can indeed be likened to software and to digital information in the DNA and the structure of the cell. We don't say that cell-phones erupt out of chance, but instead the amazing properties of the cell are to of purely arrived by chance?

Obviously religion is more influential and has a greater significance in the world than coco pops. That comparison is irrelevant.

Well obviously it was a satirical, replace Coco Pops with something more serious and you have basically every need in the world being compared to religion
Water, cars etc etc

 

[KitchenSinky]

Huge fail. Should've called a lawyer to help you prepare your argument.

Sorry I prefer not to waste 30-60 mins of my time writing fucking books on a small community forum that only a minute number of people will read LOL. Strong rebuttal
It doesn’t take faith to believe in a god; rather, it takes the suspension of cognitive faculties.