Does God exist? (12 Viewers)

[impervious182]

I rest my case, you are naive.

Wrong.

I would be naive if I believed in something which is blatantly not true. You, and no one else for that matter, can disprove God. So my belief in Him has nothing to do with naivety.

Funny how you doubt Global warming (not necessarily saying its true)due to lack of evidence.

I don't doubt global warming on lack of evidence. I doubt it on facts; measurements which conclusively show that since 1998 the earth has been cooling.

 

[Enteebee]

THat is funny, how do you define divine intevention? Matter appearing out of thin air? Then science is just going to hypothesis some theory which will render this even not divine?

The truth is, you'll never belive miracles even if its out there.

It's up for you to provide the evidence for God... not me, I honestly don't know how it's strictly logically possible to prove some of the forms of God which people imagine. But I do think most people (myself included) would be very satisfied with a being who appears to have godlike powers being called God, i.e. can make the earth quake on command, can form planets, create new universes etc etc.

 

[Lukybear]

What? There is NO evidence for them. SCIENCE IS A METHOD NOT AN INSTITUTION.

IT TURNS OUT THERE ARE NATURALISTIC CAUSES FOR EVERYTHING. HOLY HELL.

I did not claim that.

Why cant miracles occur through complex systems? The truth is, we well never create a scientific model that will predict the Butterfly Effect. Thus said why cant God use Complex Systems as a medium for miracles?

 

[emytaylor164]

he 'dictated' the song, not wrote it.
on a technicaity, his friend wrote the song. handwriting analysis.

it is God's word not hiw writing

 

[Lukybear]

umm m-theory deals with particles at the fundamental levels...

LOL... It is true, but it also deals with the creation of the universe. There is an inextricable link between everything in science, especially when atoms are involved.

Heres the link which will explain:
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php?t=15307&highlight=cosmo

 

[nikolas]

The arguement that you are referring to for God is correctly labled the Cosmological argument for God, rather then the causation. The modern version of this argument contains 4 Premise:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) The Universe therefore had a cause.
4) Naturalistic explanations are insufficient in comparison to God in explaining this cause.

As you can see, the word begins is in italic. It is done so to counteract your strawmen. Everything that begins to exist renders God immune to your logic.


The cosmological arguement argues that there is a God, a very loose definition of it anywaz. It argues neither for the Christian God, nor any other God, rather is proves that there is a creator to the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
Take note, that there different versions of the cosmological argument.

Why does everything that begins have a cause?
Why are naturalistic explanations insufficient?

 

[impervious182]

It's up for you to provide the evidence for God...

There is no evidence that Lukybear could provide which would prove it to you. If a miracle is devine intervention, then how can we prove that there is devine intervention? Certainly there is no scientific proof, so then the only proof which could be given is that there is no scientific proof... and by extension, this is how scientific proofs are formed in the first place...

It's a truism to call for scientific proof which is not explained by science. That is essentially what is being asked.

We don't have some obligation to justify that God exists, because nothing we say can prove it to you. You have to find faith yourself and I know this does sound wishy-washy, but I believe, there is great comfort, great solace to be found in God; knowing that His love is infinite and that your imperfections can be overlooked.

 

[Lukybear]

It's up for you to provide the evidence for God... not me, I honestly don't know how it's strictly logically possible to prove some of the forms of God which people imagine. But I do think most people (myself included) would be very satisfied with a being who appears to have godlike powers being called God, i.e. can make the earth quake on command, can form planets, create new universes etc etc.

You know its funny Enteebe. THe first thread i ever had on this website was on this thread. It went along the lines that God was like the philosphy of Skeptism. It cannot be proven or disproven.

Well your perception of God is so evil, earthquakes. WHy cant God be loving and benevolant. Because certainly i am realy happy with salvation.

 

[Graney]

THat is funny, how do you define divine intevention? Matter appearing out of thin air?

That's exactly what many miracles claim happens.

 

[Lukybear]

Why does everything that begins have a cause?
Why are naturalistic explanations insufficient?

1) Laws of causaltion. When you throw a rock in the air, it would come back down. Same with the unvierse being created etc...

2)Well c, if you read the arguement you would understand. But basically the theory which postulates the creation of the unvierse are M-Theory, Multiverse which are improbable compared to God creating the universe.

Thus based on probabily God created the universe.

 

[nikolas]

LOL... It is true, but it also deals with the creation of the universe. There is an inextricable link between everything in science, especially when atoms are involved.

Heres the link which will explain:
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php?t=15307&highlight=cosmo

Ive read this thread before, this makes my Job so much easier, maybe you should read some of the rebuttals others have made. ive also refuted the causation in one of my other posts.

 

[Lukybear]

That's exactly what many miracles claim happens.

Well if that happened, you would postulate a hypothesis on the transformation of Dark Matter into Matter...

Its quite obvious that you wouldnt belive in divine interventions no matter what.

 

[Enteebee]

There is no evidence that Lukybear could provide which would prove it to you. If a miracle is devine intervention, then how can we prove that there is devine intervention? Certainly there is no scientific proof, so then the only proof which could be given is that there is no scientific proof... and by extension, this is how scientific proofs are formed in the first place...

If you'd prescribe to Occam's razor (as I do) it seems much more complicated, when we don't understand how something happened (i.e. there is no scientific explanation) to then go creating a realm of the supernatural with a complex god etc, than to simply say it was something natural which we are yet to understand.

Furthermore, if you don't want to prescribe to this notion I think you'll run into 2 problems, in that:

1) When you can't explain something, to be logically consistent you'll have to say there must be a supernatural explanation. We don't yet know for instance say how X creature mates, so we should posit that it happens magically.

2) No supernatural theory (i.e. God did it) is better than another (i.e. a Wizard did it).

You know its funny Enteebe. THe first thread i ever had on this website was on this thread. It went along the lines that God was like the philosphy of Skeptism. It cannot be proven or disproven.

Ultimately such a thing cannot be proven or disproven, just as ultimately unicorns cannot be in any ultimate sense proven or disproven... It's up to you however to have a theory of knowledge whereby for instance you may want to eliminate certain things and say they do not exist. I only believe that God does not exist in the same sense that I believe the tooth fairy does not exist.

Well your perception of God is so evil, earthquakes. WHy cant God be loving and benevolant. Because certainly i am realy happy with salvation.

If a man floated down from the skies and was able to magically cure all the aids/disease in africa, conjure up enough food for everyone, get rid of all the guns etc then I'd also accept that person as God.

 

[Lukybear]

Ive read this thread before, this makes my Job so much easier, maybe you should read some of the rebuttals others have made. ive also refuted the causation in one of my other posts.

Well if you are biased towards one side then obviously God will seem to be improbable.

Anyhow, there are rebuttals, and that is why there are rebuttals for your rebuttals.

 

[nikolas]

I did not claim that.

Why cant miracles occur through complex systems? The truth is, we well never create a scientific model that will predict the Butterfly Effect. Thus said why cant God use Complex Systems as a medium for miracles?

Cause then they are not miracles.

 

[Graney]

I don't doubt global warming on lack of evidence. I doubt it on facts; measurements which conclusively show that since 1998 the earth has been cooling.

So you're saying you know better than someone with a phd in climatology?

 

[impervious182]

So you're saying you know better than someone with a phd in climatology?

Not at all. There are hundreds of climatologists who cite this evidence and who I agree with.

Politicians purport the lie about anthropogenic global warming and some scientists.

 

[Lukybear]

Cause then they are not miracles.

Wait let me get this stright, ive just had a epiphany, your saying that MIRACLES are events which science cannot explain.

Well, science cannot explain that if i flatter my hand, it may become a storm across the globe.

And yes i know, it is the Chaos System, science have an idea about it, but cannot fully explan it. Is it an miracle then?

 

[Graney]

So for political convienience, and to fit in with your existing views and predjudices, you choose to believe the alternative hypothesis held by a minority of scientists, even though you admittedly can't possibly understand the systems and processes involved.

 

[nikolas]

Well if you are biased towards one side then obviously God will seem to be improbable.

Anyhow, there are rebuttals, and that is why there are rebuttals for your rebuttals.

HYPOCRISY IS THIS<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>

Big

When you are biased towards one side God will seem probable.

And im in opinion that the Athiests have refuted his points adequately . (and come on for petes sake one of the main debaters for the theists side denies evolution)

Having said as much, I will instead spend my time in the rest of this section addressing the arguments that claim that no initial singularity ever existed, that in other words our Universe is past-eternal. By using the term past-eternal I imply that when one rewinds the clock of our Universe, there never is a point when T=0, rather the existence of our Universe extends infinitely into the past.

This is in the op's thread and according to Big Bang there is t=0.

"Furthermore, having addressed possible naturalistic arguments or objections I will now offer up my conclusion and the conclusion of billions of others. God exists, and He exists as the creative force for why our Universe exists. At this point I know at least one person will (or would have at least, but after this he may not) object that God could not create the Universe because the creation ex nihilio of matter and radiation violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the Conservation of Energy. However, by this point everyone should know that this Law applies only to our Universe and is not a Universal necessity as because even it breaks down in the Singularity at the beginning. Having no such requirement emplaced on Him, there is no reason logical objection to why God could not create matter and radiation ex nihilio. Given the evidence and the knowledge of our Universe and its laws, given the logical fact that our Universe must be caused in some fashion and that naturalistic arguments fail to address this most vital of questions, God stands out not only as a viable cause for our Universe, but as the most viable of all causes. All naturalistic explanations fail on this point and none possess the explanatory power or scope of that of a divine creator."

here he does the classic "if science can't explain it, then God did it."