Is God Real?
Side Score: 40
Side Score: 46
I believe in God. Why? Well here is my argument. Think about all the beautiful things in this world. How can they not have a designer? Now, think about the human eye. It is so complex that even the smartest of minds can fully understand how it works. The argument about how the universe can and will create itself is flawed. How? Well... Somebody saying that the universe can and will create itself is the same as them saying "a cellphone can and will create itself" which we obviously know isn't true. What I'm trying to say is if the universe can create itself then a cellphone can create itself. If a cellphone has a designer so does the universe.
The argument is nonsense .........
Version 1 Watch Maker Counter Argument:
(This argument is called the Watch Maker Argument and says that there appears to be design in a watch therefore there must have been a designer. A different example people use is a painting and a painter and they say that this same designing concept also applies to the universe and evolution.)
The Counter Argument:
The reason the watch and the painting arguments fail is because you know these things have been designed by people and there are many examples of these things being manufactured and built in workshops and in art studios. There are no examples on the other hand that humans have been designed in workshops or zapped into existence with a magic wand. Complexity does not mean design within the natural world. Simplicity can form complexity within the natural world. Many things that appear to be designed are not. Snowflakes and crystals are made by natural means and not by a Magical-Man in the sky. Snowflakes and crystals only occur under the right natural conditions. As in the case for snowflakes and crystals life also needs certain conditions in order to form. There are no known natural processes that allow watches and paintings to form whereas snowflakes, diamonds and the foundations of life have natural processes that allow for them to form under the right conditions. This argument contains the False Analogy fallacy because you cannot compare naturally occurring things to things that are not known to occur naturally under the right conditions. Watches and paintings do not have a way to replicate and do not occur naturally but living things and life can reproduce offspring and can occur naturally under the right conditions.
Note: Humans were designed but it was not a top down design coming from a god but a bottom up design coming from gradual modifications over long periods of time. Gene flow and mutation explain how things change within evolutio
Think about all the beautiful things in this world. How can they not have a designer? Now, think about the human eye.
The human eye is actually one of the best arguments against creation because there are many less biologically developed versions of the eye observable in nature. The human eye did not occur overnight. It is the result of billions of years of development. If you only view the end result and completely disregard how it got there then no wonder you interpret it to be a miracle.
That is according to your miserable theory forcefully presenting itself as factual science.
Darwinism hasn't gone through the necessarily and mandatory scrutiny of a theory to be accepted as science.
Just because dawkins enjoys the theory(ain't it obvious why? he is atheist) doesn't make it science.
Science is not for him or his father or mother or children.
Theories don't become science because someone with power enjoys it.
Science has objective qualifying standards for every theory to be qualified as such; Scientific fact.
Darwinism hasn't been through that process and cannot be science no matter how much money people are investing into promoting it in schools.
Dawkin's crew know darwinism is fake and are not ready to sit down for the appropriate scruitiny of the theory as a theory should normally endure.
All the bullshit you say about the eye is 'alleged/just a theory of unfounded probables' and not factual.....
There is no evidence that the human eye specifically evolved over billions of years.
Human haven't existed for billions of years.
The eye can't start evolving when we didn't exist.
This is the most dangerous myth ever in the history of the human race.
Get a brain and a life.
The development of the eye went through many stages, and all of those stages are still present in various species today. Each stage gives the animal a slight advantage over its predecessors, so it would be favored by the process of natural selection.
Stage 1: Many simple forms of life, such as earth worms and heterotroph euglena, have a light sensitive cell that only allows them to tell if it's light or dark.
Stage 2: Flat worms and limpets have similar light sensitive cells in a very shallow cup.
Stage 3: Nautilus have light sensitive cells in a deeper and narrower cup, but still no lens.
Stage 4: There are numerous animals with murky lenses, no iris, and very poor vision, such as the conch.
Interesting facts: More than 70,000 people have eyes without an iris.
Irides (the plural of iris) come in many different shapes.
Stage 5: Animals, like fish, have clear lenses and an iris, but their iris can't expand and contract.
Stage 6: Animals, like birds, have lenses and a contracting iris, but their eye's are stationary. That's why they jerk their heads around so fast.
Stage 7: Finally you have eyes with a lens, contracting iris, and the ability to move in different directions.
Here are some questions to think about.
If eyes were intelligently designed, then why are there animals with non-functional eyes, poor vision, or color blindness? Doesn't that seem like rather poor design?
Why are there animals showing various stages of eye development that we would expect to see if they evolved, instead of all animals having fully functional eyes like you would expect if they were intelligently designed?
Why do millions of people have vision problems if the eye was intelligently designed? "An estimated 253 million people live with vision impairment: 36 million are blind and 217 million have moderate to severe vision impairment." source
Cellphone and universe are incomparable, the universe is much more complex and encompasses everything that exists. That means that God should exist as a part of the universe. That means that he only exists in the universe. But if that is the case then how was he able to create universe if he only exists in the universe? He couldn't have created it then. And there is no evidence that god exists outside of universe. He has to have create a creator too, but then who is creator's creator? Human eye went through many changes through history. If human eye was perfect the first time He created it, then why did the eye change so much? And also, this does not prove that the universe was created by two or more gods. How do you know that Hindu's polytheistic religion is wrong? It's more likely that God doesn't exist because there is not enough evidence to conclude that there is One or more Creators or if there are any Creators at all.
this is evidence that there is a God. but there is no evidence that the universe created itself. If the universe created itself you might as well say a banana created itself. You're saying everything came from nothing. If you're saying that the universe came from an explosion you're sadly mistaken. If an explosion created the universe and an explosion is part of the universe how did the universe come from part of the universe?
Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of TREMBLING unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it… For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of
the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle
(Zech 12:2-3, Zech 14:2-3 KJV).”
I am a Christian: therefore, I believe in God.
Science has evidence supporting that there is a God. Constants, for instance are one way of proving that the universe at least had an intelligent designer. By constants, I mean environmental and physical factors. There are about 160 constants, and if any of them were off in the slightest, we wouldn't be standing here today.
There is no plausible explanation for the Anthropic Principle other than a Cosmic Designer. For those who are not familiar with the Anthropic principle, it is this: A philosophical consideration that observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it.
Ripples in temperature. These are "ripples" in space that are coming to us from the past. Scientists are amazed at their precision. Any slight variation, and we wouldn't be here to tell about it. There is no way that something so incredibly precise did not have intelligence behind it.
These are some arguments to state my case.
You say " There is no way something so incredibly precise did not have intelligence behind it " .....
What is this babble ? I've put this nonsense to bed last year it's a pitiful argument .
The reason that this argument fails is that it ignores natural and alternate explanations for why the universe appears fine-tuned. This argument has two logical fallacies. The first is the Argument from Incredulity. This is when someone says that they couldn’t believe it happened any other way. It would be like saying you cannot imagine candy bars being made any other way than fairies making candy bars on Planet Candy Land. Actually there are many other ways candy bars could be made such as in a factory by a machine. In the same way there may also be many more alternate explanations other than the God Hypothesis for why the universe appears fine-tuned with more research or more thought gone into them
This is honestly a hard topic to debate, even if it is one of the most simple statements to argue against. There's no evidence that he does 100% exist, yet there's no evidence that he doesn't either. However, a simple google or YouTube search about "To heaven a back stories," will bring up numerous results. To say that some of them are a complete lie, and are just posted for attention on YouTube especially is most likely correct. But to deny the reality of every single story where someone claims to have been in heaven momentarily is a very naive assumption. To deny the existence of God, you are denying every single article that has every been published, every single video, ministry, church building, and organization that was built in his name. First let me establish this before I go into my strongest point. Jesus and his apostles absolutely did exist. There is no debate there. The debate is whether he was really the son of God or not. Now it's a fair assumption to say the apostles were going along with Jesus to get attention, or fame; or maybe simply because they wanted to believe it was true. But if it was all a big joke, and the apostles new that it was a lie; they would not have given their own life up for it. If you are saying that God doesn't exist, you're claiming that the apostles died for a lie that they new wasn't true. The Roman government would have let them live if they simply said these words, "I denounce Jesus as the Son of God." But they didn't. They died for their faith. If that many people were welling to die rather than denounce there faith, I believe it was more than just a lie or opinion.
Yes and right now Seeing God is like To believe is to see, believe in Jesus Christ then you'll recognize what God is doing.If you want to know if the God in bible is true then you'll have to do what it says about seeing him. If it say Jesus is the mediator then you will need to pass Jesus first then God 'No one comes to the Father but through me' 'The righteous and the clean in heart will see God'
There is no evidence. There is not one piece of compelling evidence I have heard from Christians concerning God. All there is, are blind assumptions, Biblical passages and "I've talked to Him". What pathetic nonsense. If you believe in something, don't expect everyone else to believe in it. Don't force it into their minds, or insult them for not believing in what you believe in. I will happily believe in god, if you give me evidence for his existence. God is probably not real, because there are too many contradictions and loop holes. We have collected so much data that contradicts what Christianity says about the universe. I think we should all except that not everything in the Bible is truth. Why does God evade being disproven? Because there is no way to disprove god at all. The founders of Christianity, or most likely the leaders of that era, meticulously crafted the idea of a divine creator, and kept updating it to fit with the moral Zeitgeist.
A definition of Real ......
The short answer is no , the longer answer is no
actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
"Julius Caesar was a real person"
synonyms: actual, existent, non-fictional, non-fictitious, factual; More