CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Does God exist?
Arguments for and against God's existence. I'd like the negative position to take on an equal burden of proof and provide arguments against God's existence, e.g. the problem of suffering, divine hiddenness, etc.
An Intelligent Designer seems incredibly possible since our universe is so fine tuned and the laws of thermodynamics can be applied in a sense that supports the existence of a much larger eternal being.
Just to confirm, you are arguing that because the universe is so great, it must have been created?
In that case, could you please explain the pain and suffering and sadness that humans go through every day? The struggle for life and wellness and recreation that every single living organism must go through their entire life? The simple fact that life needs certain things to survive, the imperfect nature of that fact, that God could create life that does not need the universe to be as it is to survive?
Life has adapted to its surroundings, giving the impression that our surroundings are perfect for life. Do you really think that things could not be better? That things are truly perfect? That our existence is nothing more than a minuscule probability, caused to be likely due to the simple immeasurable vastness and magnitude of space and existence?
There are many arguments which support an intelligent designer. But there are many more which do not. You should not ignore either side.
God didn't make the world so it can be perfect- or else we would all be robots. We all have our ups and downs for a reason. If bad things didn't happen to us, then we couldn't fully appreciate the bad things in life. Then we would just be living a world of boring monotony. What kind of life would that be living? That's not a life! The world is colorful and that's what makes us all so fun to be around. If God made life perfect, then what would be the point of life?
Nathaniel Hawthorne had a Puritan upbringing but unconverted because he did not like some aspects that his ex-religion had developed into. However, you can see themes of the effects of reaching enlightenment or perfection in several of his works. Basically what his message is saying is that once we achieve this level of perfection, there is no need for us to be living anymore. In this sense, God has put thought into carefully making such an array of beings- the vast amount of things and stuff he has created.
Your idea of an imperfect world is only about perspective. You and I think it is imperfect, but a child new to the world might say it is perfect. Different perspectives doesn't mean that there is a point in life, or meaning, or a purpose. It's just life. There is no point, it is all about what you want to do with the time you have.
So, God allowed the Holocaust to happen so that you could appreciate your kid being born or so that your daughter can appreciate a rainbow? a) that's just disgusting b) YOU DONT KNOW WHATS IN HIS HEAD iF HE DID EXIST
Where is the humility? Where is the "I don't know what he was thinking there". Oh no. Everyone has an answer. Everyone has insight into the "greatest mind that will ever be".
Think about this.. Our closest DNA relative is a large primate, the chimp. We are about 1-5% difference (depends on who you ask but just pick a number) from these guys. No monkey is going to compose a symphony or invent calculus. A monkey could never have any real or valuable insight into us. Seriously. Now imagine a God (who I'm sure you'd be happy to describe for us) who is beyond measure smarter than us. NOW try to picture your insight. Also, imagine you giving a damn about an insect crawling out of the ground. Now imagine God giving a damn about us if he did exist. But of course, we're here for the ant. And God is here for us?
I'll explain the sadness and suffering: sin. Yes, it is that simple. Sin. God created a perfect world where men and women (at the time just Adam and Eve) could live with God in paradise. However, Adam and Eve disobeyed his only command and sin entered the world. Sin caused pain, suffering, sickness and tears. The world WOULD be perfect if it wasn't for the sin of us humans.
When God made us, he gave us free will. This free will can be used to make good or bad choices. By removing sin completely, God is removing our free will to do as we chose. So to answer your question, yes, God does have the power to remove sin from the world, but that doesn't mean He is going to. God commands us to make the right choice, but that doesn't mean that we will. Sin plagues our world but there is a way to conquer it. God sent His Son to die on the cross for us to save us from our sin.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"
As long as you believe from your heart that God is who He says He is, and that He died on the cross for you, me, and everyone else on this earth, then you will be saved from your sin. You will also live in heaven for eternity in with God, as the verse states: "whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"
Except there is no such thing as God, nobody created us because we evolved, and free will is an illusion born of the completely stupid idea that we are lucky enough to live in the only moment which can be changed out of the last 14.5 billion years. Apart from those small problems your theory is fine.
The thing is that on a universal scale these things are considered to be miniscule. Things happen to planets that we are glad dont happen to us. I know earth life isnt perfect but if it was what would it even look like?
I picture heaven on earth, and each person has there own mental picture of this. If eve wouldn't have ate the forbidden fruit and got Adam to eat it as we'll, we would be in a life like paradise. Were we new nothing of sin. We would all be naked and not aware that we should be considered wrong. We would live with the wild life, eating fruits and veggies from the earth. We would not eat meat at all. As god created life and in all things we would respect life of all living things. Fish would be the only living thing we would eat. We wouldn't have computers and even power. Life as we know it wouldn't be, and sin would not exist either. But we can't go back and stop eve, so we have to wait until the time comes for this heaven on earth to emerge. Most people fear this time, and some have predicted the day and time in which this would happen, and the time has come and gone a 100 times over. Because the bible says 1000 years, we'll we don't know gods time scale. Nor do I believe that there is a human out there that has discovered the truth the bible holds. You can translate Hebrew to other languages but each time you do you lose some of the real meaning of the basic truth it holds.
If life isn't perfect, then what's to say it wasn't just a random chance that we are how we are, that things just happen to work as they do?
Let us assume that creation has occurred (which has happened with or without a God existing). If there was a God guiding this creation, then it would be fair to say that a more perfect world than our own should be expected to occur. If it was nothing but chance, then you would expect some parts of the universe to be habitable and suitable for life, and the vast majority not to be (as the number of factors required for possible life are great). That is what we have seen. We would expect a combination of both positives and negatives within that life. That is what we have seen. We would expect certain rules, or laws, to arise, which stay constant throughout the universe. This is what we have seen.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. - Richard Dawkins
You quoted Richard Dawkins but he believes in intelligent design. How do you know what perfection is? Describe a universe that is perfect. This intelligent designer does not have to follow what we think is perfect. Nobody can literally discribe a perfect universe.
Richard Dawkins has been one of the most prominent atheist & anti-religious voices of the last twenty years. He does not believe in intelligent design - the quote I used should quite simply show that.
How do you know what perfection is?
I do not need to. I simply need to show that the current universe is imperfect (there is a single thing wrong with it) and I have shown that we do not live in a perfect universe. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
A video was posted a while ago when he was interviewed about his book. Even he knew that you cannot proven an intelligent designer exists or not.I have read his book. If you dont know perfection how do you know imperfection? If you have shown that you dont know perfection how can you claim the universe is imperfect?
Even he knew that you cannot proven an intelligent designer exists or not.
That is a very different statement. You originally claimed that he believed in intelligent design (creation by a God). Now you say that he is saying that you cannot disprove the existent of a God (intelligent designer). Which do you claim he believes?
And if you managed to read his entire book, and not realise that he was an atheist, I honestly worry for you.
If you dont know perfection how do you know imperfection?
Because I see pain and suffering in the world. I see people with so much pain and suffering that they would rather stop their existence. But I also see that things can be so much better. In a perfect world, everything would be better, but we do not live in a perfect world. That's quite indisputable really.
God Ben I have no clue what I am talking about. I am just trying to learn as much as I can. I lost my initail point. I am arguing for the opposite side. Quite hard. Arguing for intelligent design is hard. I have no idea how to perfectly argue for it.
Explain it to me and explain how each theory is 100% true. I wanna see some wormholes or something spectacular. I wanna see the theoretical things become true go ahead. Explain it. It is all theories.
I know earth life isnt perfect but if it was what would it even look like?
So your point is that all-mighty perfect creator of everything creating imperfect world just to be more fun?
Is your argument that tsunamis and earthquakes that kill thousands of people in one day are just for the fun. Oh well, if God made Earth perfect, what would it be like? :)
Well to give you a hint what would it look like: it would certainly be a place where people don't kill each other over a horse shit like religion beliefs!
Here you have a question, let see if you can answer: if God created universe and all the laws in the universe, than God have ultimately created good and evil as well. Tell me than why God created all the evil that exist in the world?
Why are you asking me about the Christian God? I am talking an intelligent designer. Not God. Also we may never know its purpose. Science has not even gotten to the first step of life and even when they do something must have came before that and something must have created the item. Darwinian methods of survival is what runs our planet. You cant ask me abkut evil if that has nothing to do with my entire argument.
You cant ask me abkut evil if that has nothing to do with my entire argument.
So you mean that evil is perfect since it is part of the fine tuning and made by intelligen designer? It means that I can peak out an eye out of your skull just for the fun of watching it and you will accept it because the world is fine tuned as it is and an intteligent creator created my sadistic tendency as well?
No I was not talking about "christian god" i was talking about your "fine tuning" and intelligent designer.
You still dont get the idea. The creator just made the universe and thats it. Evil is for humans. Death is for humans or any organism that understands it. You keep mentioning all of these human characteristics of the creator I speak of when all I said is that he spawned the universe and thats it. Never did I say he made humans. Never did I say he made thoughts or emotions or good or evil. Who cares how the creator acts the only thing I am arguing for is that one may exist regardless of his morals or what humans deem it as.
Only one who don't get the idea is you young lady.
I am not giving any characteristics to your creator! What you don't obviously understand is that all the good and evil that exists is ultimately created by your creator. Explicitely or implicitly. Even if he jsut sparkled the big ban and nothing else, so has he created universe like it is. I just asked if all of those things I mentioned are what you consider to be fine tuning in universe? It does not give any characteristics to your creator. So please meditate and answer the questioni, or realize you are not able, nor will ever be able to answer it.
Also that "fine tuning" was your argument that an intelligent creator must be behind. Why would "fine tuning" at all imply an intelligent creator. Why wouldn't universe exist without a creator such as god and still be fine tuned?
Tell us also who created your creator.
Now try to answer those questions, and not to talk about me having ideas or not having ideas as you have done since I addressed you from the first time.
How in the world do you logically create an eternal and ever existing being? You should know that is impossible. You don't. It exists on its own. Forever. That is the point :-). Why would that be impossible? Give me a LOGICAL reason.
According to your logic than God has to be created as well. What created God?
You accused me of thinking in human terms; but it is exactly what you are doing all the time. You assume that EVERYTHING has to be created. Sometimes you have get out of the box and think differently.
I read a book called 'The case for a creater', not to be one of the people who always asks people to read books. Many well respected Scientists are theists. The book is about this guy who was atheist and was hoping he was right. He looked at it from a non bias view and came to the conclusion that there was a designer. The book also shows how many atheist's "proofs" are very fake.
Week ago I saw on Youtube "Conversion video" of atheist "Czech Scientist" woman converting to Islam. She had no East European accent, spoken clear Londoners English. Same video I found titled "German business woman" converted to the Islam or "Norwegian Noble prize winner" converted to Islam, still same chick...
There are video where "atheists" being converted into random religions in 30 seconds...
Same shit has been done by communists. You always find and idiot who pays for that book or video...
The Miller's experiment, which tried to prove that life can happen by chance. First off, he made a combination of chemicals that don't even match what scientists believe earth was like when life began. His experiment made amino acids which he claimed as proof that life started by itself. It turn's out the chemical was about as lifeless as cynide. So even in his forged earth, life could not start itself.
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.
Some people are atheists simply because they don't want to believe in God.
They don't want to be accountable to God.
It's a matter of convenient truth to remove God and religion. And its convenient, because the thought is prove it the Ill believe it. So its convenient, since the atheist doesnt think they need to prove God doesn't exist.
But it's without true evaluation. And its without the Atheist feeling the need to dispgrove God.
These "fake atheists" actully took on the resposibility to disprove God. And proved to themselves they were wrong!
Denial and deception go hand in hand. By avoiding a reasonable challenge to their thoughts they live in denial and deception. So please true atheists prove there is no God. That's what this debate is about. It's not about you dismissing the argument, it's about convincing others there is no God.
So take the challenge, and show me! I think it's out of blind ignorance, out of shutting your ears and eyes so you don't challenge an easy convenient truth. I think is omitting facts and its not founded in the degree of questioning that is complete in diligently convincing others or really even yourself that God doesn't exist.
Many dismiss God based on a "Santa" persona, He knows when we are naughty...
The atheist's denial of religion and of God has been formed by views they accept without investigation, concluded mostly by others who do not want a to answer their own life standards to a God they dont choose to know!
Their investigation consists of avoiding God, and avoiding any thoughts or opinions that may challenge their version of convenient truth.
They make their conclusions without giving it any thought let alone an attempt of an independent thorough investigation.
Atheists are so willing to accept that He doesn't exist, they argue without objectivity instead of challenging themselves to prove He doesn't exist. I think more creationist have at one time objectively looked at evolution through public school and universities than the other way around.
But very little if any effort is spent weighing the data that suggests He may actually really exist.
To many atheists it's a convenient truth, to be left unchallenged. They approach the idea of faith and sound reasonings for creation with a smug harshness against religion. Disproving He exists by holding unchallenged theories. And then not taking any responsibility to prove that He doesn't exist.Innocent till proven guilty, to do that all facts should be judged on truth and accuracy.
We creationists are on trial to prove that God does exist.
But even more shouldn't the atheist be on trial to prove He doesn't exist.
We can win an argument today, but defending on if there is a Creator or not, the atheist will stand alone in their investigation and face Him if He truely does exist. Shouldn't you at least prove He doesn't exist since so you can make that determination.
No understanding of spiritual things they don't believe could exist. They think how can God allow evil to exist, or allow pain, or judge sin.
So the atheists hasn't given much thought on why or how God exists, they focus on ignoring any details that my otherwise show that He does exist.
One can't be an atheist because they don't want to be accountable to something they don't believe in. That would, itself, require a belief in god, which precludes atheism.
Everyone knows there is a God. It is written on your conscience. And evident in nature. And is seen in others.
But consciences are easily dulled.
Have you ever investigated God, with a reasonable effort, as if you really and truely wanted to know?
If you adopted it without proving there isnt a God, then your not really an atheist. Your conclusions are not based on a belief saying "you don't believe God exists."
You are an atheist because it's convenient to be absent of God. And you choose not to find out.
To "believe" something it implies you investigated all the sides and evaluated both theories, and through your own reasonable effort you have concluded your position, and that IS what you believe!
You can't believe something is true or not true without truely believing the other is false. And you can't differentiate truth from false without investigating both theories in an objective way. That's NOT belief! Belief is CONVINCED. Convinced only comes through true investigation!
So you may be an atheist because you choose to be one, or because you want to be, but believing isn't a passive activity, its an activity that end in being convinced! Being convinced doesn't come by accepting another's view. Thats just following the beliefs of someone elses, and they typically didn't put out effort to be convinced either. So your assumption is based off anothers assumption, and all the way down the line!
This debate affords the opportunity to be formally convinced.
And even to convince us!
Believing is a conviction, conviction is convinced, convinced is firm and no beliefs come without a truely objective investigation.
And that effort determines what you believe!
Otherwise it's an assumption not a belief!
So you assume there is no God.
You choose to think there is no God.
You choose to ignore investigating God.
And you will whole heartedly argue it, but I wouldn't call it belief or being convinced. Because you are perched saying I don't need to know or care to know and it God's job and our job to convince you beyond your basic assumption.
My point is believing something and holding a view are different terms.
If you believe something you are convinced
If you hold a view it's an opinion.
So if someone says I don't believe in God, they are saying after really applying thought I believe this and believing is I am certain by way of being convinced.
A view can be well thought out but it's not being convinced in the sense of believing. A view is an opinion based on the info used to weigh the view point. One doesn't have to be convinced through objective investigation to hold a view, or they can have thoroughly investigated to hold a view.
But beliefs are not views. They are conclusions that are convinced. By understanding the depth of both beliefs.
So belief is a much stronger view, based on real thought resulting in real conviction.
So when someone says they believe there is no God, sometimes it's a true belief. But most times its an assumption view.
So if someone says I don't believe in God, they are saying after really applying thought I believe this and believing is I am certain by way of being convinced.
That's referred to as Positive Atheism. Negative Atheism is saying that after seeing the arguments in favor of theism, they simply aren't convinced. Atheism itself is not a positive claim, so Positive Atheism is by no means the default form.
So when someone says they believe there is no God, sometimes it's a true belief. But most times its an assumption view.
You truly have zero basis for making that claim. You have already demonstrated that you know incredibly little about the mindset of atheists, so please, stick to discussing your own beliefs and views, rather than attempting to tell others how they think.
The earth was floating in the Universe not spinning.
Floating as any rock in space.
A dark planet full of water.
So then on day 1 God made the universe and the world of water.
The Spirit of God was roaming over surface of the world made of water.
Then God made light separated the world in 1/2 with darkness and light. Light He called good. Named light "day" and dark "night."
And that was day 1.
Even today the oceans have midnight zones and twilight zones, and its lighter closer to the surface of the water. So light may have coexisted with the water showing in the water on the 1st day.
And a morning and an evening.
There is no time period for day 1 it could have been millions of years or 1000 years or a 24 hour day as we know it, but I'm thinking not a 24 hour day.
God is not governed by time. And He didnt create time as we know it till day 4. And He created time to govern our days. And number our days.
So on day 1, my theory is, time as we know it didn't exist.
Each day says there was morning and evening, but time didn't exist so light and dark were divided in two, and firmament nor sky nor air nor atmosphere existed yet.
Day and night, light and dark, morning and evening all these terms didn't have a definitive time value.
DUET 11 : 21
so that your days are multiplied, and the days of your sons, on the ground which Jehovah hath sworn to your fathers to give to them, as the days of the heavens on the earth. Heavens days are eternal. Time does not govern God or Heaven.
The days weren't coordinate by the world spinning till after day 4. So the unformed tumbled as earth stood floating without rotation in space.
Day 2 God placed the core and earth in the middle of the world. Separating water from water. Water covered the firmanent.
I brought it up in reference to the person I was responding to. They said "many scientists agree with this", when in fact most scientists do not.
I agree with your statement that a majority can be wrong sometimes. I would like to use the world's religions as an example, many of which have conflicting beliefs, yet large followings. Most if not all of them are likely to be wrong.
Intelligent design has been debunked extensively though. The argument boils down to "the universe is so perfect, therefore god". This line of reasoning is absurd, for it eliminates all other possibilities.
The scientific community outright rejected the whole intelligent design idea!?
This is not accurate nor correct Mark. And you know this. You're assuming because a couple scientists claim one thing that it trumps the other. As far as I know it's about 50-50 right now.
The scientific community outright rejected the whole intelligent design idea!?
Yes, yes they did. There has been a court case or two in which intelligent design was trying to be taught in school and it went to a lawsuit, and both sides presented their evidence. They found that intelligent design is merely creationism in disguise. Further, there is no evidence that would support intelligent design, like there is with the big bang and the theory of evolution.
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.
So yes, what I said was accurate and correct. It is you who does not know this. The number of scientists who believe in intelligent design vs something else is not 50/50.
Scientific acceptance of Intelligent Design would require redefining science to allow supernatural explanations of observed phenomena, an approach its proponents describe as theistic realism or theistic science. It puts forth a number of arguments in support of the existence of a designer, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity.[5] The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism,[n 3][n 4][6][7] and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws.[8][9][10][11] Intelligent design is viewed as a pseudoscience by the scientific community, because it lacks empirical support, offers no tenable hypotheses, and aims to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.
And you continue to pretend that you actually know what you're talking about.
Intelligent Design is not science, nor is it accepted in the scientific community. Nor does it have widespread support among scientists individually, certainly not 50%.
That statement is way to broad and is in itself a falicy. Even if what your saying is true (which I guess would only be if you get all of your information from Discovery Channel) scientists dont determine truth. A good first step would be to define what you mean by 'Scientific Community' since I can name several PhD scientists off the top of my head who have made great advances in recent science and who, not only reject atheism, but also evolution.
That statement is way to broad and is in itself a falicy.
How? I was responding to his comment, which said that many scientists agree with intelligent design. His statement was false.
Even if what your saying is true (which I guess would only be if you get all of your information from Discovery Channel) scientists dont determine truth.
Of course scientists do not determine truth. Our best method so far for discovering truth is through the scientific method. It's not through faith, or whatever other method. Lots of scientists have used this method, and have come to similar conclusions in regards to the big bang or evolution or other fields of science. More evidence is more pieces to the puzzle, and everyone has the same puzzle. It's not like religion or faith where its completely subjective.
I can name several PhD scientists off the top of my head who have made great advances in recent science and who, not only reject atheism, but also evolution.
What famous, well regarded scientists rejects evolution?
My information doesn't come from the TV. Perhaps you shouldn't get all your information from a 2000 year old book.
It's a fallacy because it is a blanket statement you haven't backed up with facts.
" Our best method so far for discovering truth is through the scientific method."
Another fallacy since the scientific method cannot varify the scientific method. Unless you are able to varify it, your worldview is reduced to absurdity.
"My information doesn't come from the TV. Perhaps you shouldn't get all your information from a 2000 year old book."
Unless I trusted in a 2000 year old book my worldview would be absurd like yours. Because I believe in God, I have a reason to believe the scientific method because I have a reason believe in knowledge. To know anything you have to either know everything or know someone who does. If you don't, something you don't know could contradict what you do know, therefore you can't know anything. I do know someone who knows everything and you don't, therefore I have a reason for truth and you don't. You can't even logically prove your own existence, I can because of the 2000 year old book.
"What famous, well regarded scientists rejects evolution?"
Another fallacy, I can list several times in history where the people who were right were not famous, well regarded scientists. Yet I will give you an example: John Sanford, inventor of the 'gene gun' the first device able to change the molecular structure of plant cells.
Another fallacy since the scientific method cannot varify the scientific method. Unless you are able to varify it, your worldview is reduced to absurdity.
This isn't the scientific method verifying the scientific method....
The scientific method is verified because it allows us to run experiments, these experiments let us make predictions, these predictions produce real things. They produce vehicles, space shuttles, air conditioners, cell phones, computers, etc. We use the scientific method because it works by produces things, this is how it is verified. If you want to reject this, then your worldview becomes absurdity.
Unless I trusted in a 2000 year old book my worldview would be absurd like yours. Because I believe in God, I have a reason to believe the scientific method because I have a reason believe in knowledge. To know anything you have to either know everything or know someone who does. If you don't, something you don't know could contradict what you do know, therefore you can't know anything. I do know someone who knows everything and you don't, therefore I have a reason for truth and you don't. You can't even logically prove your own existence, I can because of the 2000 year old book.
Have you been watching a lot of Eric Hovind? He uses an argument similar if not identical to yours.
Anyways, your premise is false. There are some things we can know for certain, without the two conditions you said. A priori statements are things we can know without having any experience.
Not counting things like that, we don't need 100% certainty to be able to go about our lives. We have a practical sense of certainty, in that our "assumptions of science" actually work as we intend them to.
My worldview is not absurd, but there are a few "i don't know's" in there. I'd rather have an "i don't know" than a fabricated and likely false explanation that makes me feel better. I can know things with a practical sense of certainty, or pretty much "99%" certainty.
All you're doing is pretending to know someone who claims to know everything in the universe. But I can do the same thing as you and say that Zeus is my god, and that he knows everything. Or is Zeus an invalid god and yours is the correct one?
Another fallacy, I can list several times in history where the people who were right were not famous, well regarded scientists. Yet I will give you an example: John Sanford, inventor of the 'gene gun' the first device able to change the molecular structure of plant cells.
Apparently he does reject evolution, but it says his position is rejected by most people in his field....
A good first step would be to define what you mean by 'Scientific Community'
An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, have issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
Hahaha, This is basically what you said "I don't varify the scientific method with the scientific method, I just varify it with science" LOL. Eric got this argument the same place I got it from, logic. Logic is something you can't account for, therefore everything you said is discounted since you (are trying to) use logic.
"your premise is false"
You can't account for logic, therefore in your worldview my premise doesn't need to be correct in order to be true. Do you know everything? No. So something you don't know could contradict everything you think you know, therefore you don't know anything. I have a reason to believe in logic.
"But I can do the same thing as you and say that Zeus is my god, and that he knows everything. "
So your no longer an atheist, you are a Greek. If, however, your posing this in the hypothetical, you can't know anything as an atheist, so your statement merely proved my point since you tried to use logic again.
" but it says his position is rejected by most people in his field...."
So was Galileo's
Look dude, whatever you say in your next reply is going to have a knowledge claim in it and therefore prove my point. You can't even prove you exist without God (you proof would have 'I' in it and would therefore beg the question.) Your just constantly proving what Romans 1 say over and over.
you take the scientific community as a source of truth. This is an appeal to authority, who are abstract and undefined. It lends discrete if one believes them relevant to the truth of the proposed statement, but i do not believe that this abstract entity has any relevance to this argument. To be more clear, this scientific community has about as much possibility as god.
Many scientists may be theists but this does not mean the believe there is irrefutable and incontrovertible proof of a god or gods. Moreover, very few scientists actually specialize in areas that would give them any authority on the matter of deistic probability.
Many scientists agree that there is a diety? Please define the term many. How about a percentage? I'll hinder to your point if you can find a scientist that wasn't raised in a faith based household that "converted".
That you KNOWexists? That contradicts your religion. God is a faith based God. He does not make himself know because through faith he is pleased. You cannot 100% truly know and God set it up that way. If you say you "KNOW" he exists you are contradicting the point of the faith.
That is such a messed up view of faith. Faith is not "maybe or maybe not" faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen. If my faith is substantial, it is for sure. I am not giving my life for anything that is anything but 100% true. If you read my other argument you'll see that everyone has faith in something, whether it's their mind or logic, those are things that have to be taken by faith and yet they make no sense without faith in God. Faith is not unique to Christianity, but faith in the living God I KNOW exists is.
if believe that things around you exist, then God exists. Who is the creator? And if you think that there is no creator of these things, then use all your power and create a single thing. ( I don't mean transform.)
Its called beyond a reasonable doubt. We try thousands of cases per day based on innocent or guilty beyond a " reasonable doubt"
I have evidence piled high that makes it proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Bible were on trial it would be guilty of being true beyond a reasonable doubt.
God wouldn't be a fair judicial judge if He hid the evidence and displayed unconfirmed testimony. Your testimony if from God would be confirmed by Him.
Just as He confirmed who Jesus was then. If He does not bear witness, then the testimony is false.
The Word Spirit and Father are a cord of three strands that cant be broken. A kingdom divided can't stand.
Its not the work of God to deceive, His light reveals.
He is judicial. In His courtroom He provides abundant evidence and testimony and witness. The truth is confirmed always! Witness confirming every fact.
I can that look at facts when discussing evolution, on which you have a credible degree of facts at the core of your foundation.
So then I ask in your facts of evolution can we find a Divine Intruder?
Whereas you dismiss facts of a Book based on unfactual and falsified information, and there isn't even a discussion to have beyond that because at the core foundation you accept false information, so when discussing your objection to the Divine Intruder in the study of History, your mythological falsified facts won' t allow a basic foundation of facts at minimum to build on.
So how credible is the facts you conclude against the Bible? a stance in opposition to the faith of others. Since your foundation of facts is piled up in inaccuracies and truely "myths" since they are based on untruths, isn't that what myths are?
So isn't it ironic to build a case on inaccuracies, then use inaccuracies to conclude a lack of credibilty, by which concluding what is myth?
The outcome of conclusion should at minimum be factual with accuracies to hold up at least it's foundation, especially if dismissing basic credibility of what faith is built on in the first place.
Skeptic scrutiny is not credible if you are blindly or conveniently accepting inaccuracies to dismiss accuracies, where by doing you dismiss faith by a foundation of inaccuracies.
Then let me tell you my experience of faith. Because I am an eyewitness of that. And its real, and I'm convinced.
My faith isn't based on a mental acknowledgement of a faith that I hope exists.
I have become convinced of faith by both reason and experience. And in understanding I see clearly, and
in my understanding I am convinced.
I would think it silly to deny your way in the world based on Hell or judgement, especially if you are NOT convinced of God, or if Hell or Heaven exists.
That's like saying Buy a wedding dress, rent the hall, and pay the caterer, even though you don't have a Bride, or Groom, or engagement, or even dating someone yet!
Jesus said count the cost! He actually wants us to be convinced of our decision to follow Him, and He wants us to go in to this relationship with Him, knowing we can pay the cost, knowing its worth it, and willing to pay the cost.
And no one does that unless their convinced. So Jesus says, I want you to be convinced, because your commitment to Me needs to be on solid ground! - wise man builds a house compared to the idiot that builds a house - both go through the storm, idiots house falls, the one who is solid is convinced and holds up through the storms.
The Rich Young Ruler WANTED to follow Jesus, He even agreed with His commandments! But Jesus says, cool you are almost there, one more thing .... the Rich Young Ruler wouldn't have worked out well, at least not making that commitment on that day, why?
Jesus didn't run after him and when the disciples were like Hey Jesus, this is bad for the saving business, no one will be saved if you keep that up! He taught them then, what is needed to make a child of Light, where your heart is, there is your treasure.
And He said people need to understand the cost, for some the cost may be someone, to others something, whatever you love He knows the heart ... Abraham loved Isaac, yet by his famous test, God said, do you love your Son more than Me?
And Abraham, you can imagine how distraught the scene was, and Abraham's grief leading up to that moment, God says pass! He counted the cost and was willing to pay every last penny he had serving God. Was he convinced? Or was his faith a guess?
So I never said this argument. I said count the cost, and be convinced. I showed you every reason to believe, and I added a very honest believable and relatable set of videos to satisfy your intellect. I showed you God's Word, confirming God's Word.
I showed you His character and sensibly showed you why darkness can't stand. And why the world's Woes have grown in the darkness of Satan's seed.
And I gave you my experience, which is wonderfully wise when I was a dumb ass 5 year old, 2nd grader, and and a merging rebel. And some other fabulous encounters that were realistic, without over spiritualizing every pee and poop I ever experienced.
I think people think faith is a guess. A lucky guess! We HOPE we are right, well that's not good enough!
That's actually not what faith is at all.
Faith is being CONVINCED of things not seen!
Without faith that is CONVINCED, it is impossible to please God!
Hebrews 11
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
2 For by it the men of old gained approval.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. ...
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
Romans 8: 37-39
37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us.
38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
"Matter cannpt be created or destroyed so something must have created it."
Wait, what? How can you assume something created it after just saying it cannot be created? And also, how do we know the universe even came from nothing? What if it didn't come from nothing? What if there is no such thing as nothing?
If it's perfectly reasonable for one to believe in an eternally existing complex deity, then I see no reason why another cannot believe in eternally existing simple natural forces.
Thats why I am saying what if an eternal being could create everything since it cannot create itself. Nobody is right or wrong apart of the little detail that your statement has no backing and it goes against knowledge that we have.
If the eternal being is an exception to the rule, why assume what is eternal is a being that created everything? Where does the description of a sentient being become a logical conclusion based off of the First Law of Thermodynamics?
What caused the forces? The forces are effects, every effect has a cause, that is natural law. There is somebody behind the law of nature, and that is God who created nature. God is the cause of natural forces. This is simple common sense.
To believe the natural forces are self existent is the religion of naturalism, in which you worship nature as the cause of your life.....while at the same time you hate nature for bringing you into existence only to suffer and die, a futile and meaningless reality you make for yourself by believing nature is God and needed no cause to exist. Only God exists without being caused.
God is the Creator! Every action taken by God was on purpose.
Honestly it doesn't matter if it was fairy dust and bang it existed. Or if God took His time on some days.
Isnt that up to Him.
I saw a few spiritual jewels in God's Word.
And I shared them. And somethings I've been seeing, I think are really awesome nuggets of revelation..
I shared it, if you don't see it, thats fine. Its my jewel today anyway!
You don't see me calling you names, calling you a heretic, or saying your not a Christian. Dude you are sinning! Stop your hurting yourself by the pride and bitterness.
childish logic based on simplified education for masses. I told you about Casimir's effect and the difference between classical mechanics and real world before, yet you keep posting same debunked bullshit over and over again.
During the Casimir's effect particles appears and disappears without any cause. That means that you do not need a wizard, there are obviously another ways...
How does the Casimir effect cause the creation of the universe? The Casimir effect requires the existence of material around the vacuum to affect the energy within. If there was no existing materials to surround the energy in the vacuum and act as the Casimir plates there would be no Casimir effect. We are back to the idea of what created the matter to cause the Casimir effect in the first place?
Particles are like rabbits then? When the magician pulls it out of the hat, I guess this proves that rabbits are usually born from their mothers but sometimes they just appear in magician's hats out of no where.
...Or maybe not. Maybe the magician is doing something we don't understand ust like the particles in the casimir effect ;)
I'm sorry I don't understand. The point in doing what?
My point was that a rabbit that magically appears in the magicians could be said to appear out of no where, therefore it may seem like particles appear out of the no where but in reality there is some sort of cause. The same could debunk the theory you're talking about by saying there is a cause and we just don't know it yet.
Fair enough. I'm not a physicist so I can't really argue with you on it. It is just quite difficult to believe that we can be absolutely sure that matter comes into existence without any cause. It would seem to me impossible to prove that there is no cause. I would have thought that the opinion would have been that we just don't know the cause of why matter comes into existence. But again i really don't know.
In quantum physics it works this way: I can predict from observation that particle A will hit particle B if particle B spins. I can tell you how probable is it and when it will happen and how we may benefit from it. However I have no clue why it happens.
We have so called "interpretations" of why it happens but they aren't actual theories. It just helps you to "visualize" the background of it.
Casimirs effect happens in vacuum where is no matter/energy present at all and we observed particles coming out of there. It like you standing next to a room with only one exit and you know that there is no one in there but you see people constantly leaving that room and it happens because the room is empty.
Matter cannpt be created or destroyed so something must have created it. Thats it.
No its not. As you say matter cannot be created, so no God can create it. Matter (or energy) is what exists, always did and always will, without reason and cause. Just accept that and the universe will be better place.
Also the big bang may not of been the beginning, general relativity breaks down at small scales. The idea that time and space began at the big bang came from relativity, so because relativity breaks down at small scales, it cannot be trusted at the beginning.
Also there are models in which the universe is eternal, some of these are cyclic. At this moment in time we do not know if the universe had an ultimate beginning.
Well tell me. If our universe came from the big bang and an infinite line of big bangs is impossible and our universe has an end then how is it eternal?
How is an infinite number of big bangs impossible?
There are cyclic models, in which the universe is infinite.
There are also models in which we are just one universe, in an eternal multiverse.
I am not saying any of these models are correct, all I am saying is there is that, there are models in which the universe is eternal, and we do not know whether it began or not.
There may be in a couple, but I haven't heard these problems. I don't think they would lose energy, just because energy is conserved. I don't know what you mean by overheat.
Yes they are all theoretical. All I am doing is there are models in which the universe is eternal. All our models before Planck time are theoretical, they are all hypothesis, and at this moment cannot be tested. So people shouldn't take them as facts, because they are not.
Isn't your claim that inteeligent creator created universe.
infinite big bangs cant occur.
Why wouldn't they?
On the contrary I think they can.
About your other poop about universum would loose energy that you pooped longer in the thread; how can universe loos energy when energy cannot be created of destroyed; it can only change the form. You who are pooping about thermodynamics all over the place here should know that. Lost of energy you are referring from thermodynamics, does not mean lost of energy from universe. The energy you loose in heating or making work is still present in universe in some other form (for example it heated up surface during the friction just as illustration).
If there is nothing outside the universe, where would energy be loosed? Energy just changes the form; it is not lost as "destroyed for ever". It is conserved, just as you wrote yourself (but obviously not reallly conscious what it means). Also it means that energy, (and matter since those are just two different forms of same thing) is eternal.
Scientists have already agreed that the universe would lose energy for each big bang. If I am pooping up stuff then tell me. What happened before the big bang and please only answer this question. I would like to see your response. Because even the biggest athiest I know cant guve me an answer.
Scientists have already agreed that the universe would lose energy for each big bang. If I am pooping up stuff then tell me. Yes you are pooping stuff because you said your self that energy can not be created or destroyed. Outside of the universum and big bang is nothing, so where should energy go away? Energi IS the universum at the very moment of the big bang (if that theory is correct at all).
What scientists? Link to your theory.
What happened before the big bang
Another universe. By the way there are other theorys than ever oscilating unverse.
Because even the biggest athiest I know cant guve me an answer. Of course I can give you answer young lady. But before I do that I have to correct you and point out that there are no "biggest" or "smallest" atheist. There are only primates who believe in god, and intelligent humans who know better than to believe in fairy tails.
About your question: nobody knows. At the moment. That is the answer. You might have red that in the other side of the debate since I have already wrote it. But you seem to lack the curiosity to read and inform yourself.
Science does not have answers for everything but it does not mean it will not have answer in the future. Just because there is a hole in the knowledge does not mean we have to fill it with superstition and morronic assumptions like a cavemen. Difference between humans today (well some of them) and cave people from 30 000 years ago, or even antique people from barely 2000 years ago is that we have much more knowedge about the nature around us, the universe and ourselves. We have it because we have applied rational and logic thinking about the unknowns which led to more knowledge, not because we blindly believed in fairy tails. If it wasn't so we would still be burning people who believe that Earth is rotating around the Sun! All you morronic "intelligent design" scientologists and similar idiots are achieving is putting your minds back in 13th century where people were burned because they dared to think logically and use science to explain the world instead of fairy tales told by analfabets from the past.
According to your claims, energi/matter can not be created from nothing. So what did God created enerig/matter from? Out of nothing? Have you thought about it? Who crated God? If God exists somewhat/something had to create God, isn't it so? Why is it acceptable to you that universe can not exist eternally on its own, but God can?
E = mc^2 means that matter and energy are interchangeable. Also many Physicists think that the total energy of the universe is 0, because the positive energy from matter, is counteracted by the negative energy from gravity.
The energy would be zero, because gravitational energy is negative and it counteracts the positive energy ( light, matter and anti-matter).
Stephen Hawking describes why Gravity is considered negative energy, I will put what he says below.
"Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less [positive] energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together".
Since it takes positive energy to separate the two pieces of matter, gravity must be using negative energy to pull them together. Thus, "the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."
One way to picture it could be to do with charge. An electron has a negative and a proton has a positive. However the overall charge is zero.
The example Hawking gave in his programme was digging a hole. when you dig a hole you end up with a pile and a hole. n and u, if you put the pile n back into the hole u, then it levels out.
Energy and charge are different, I just used charge as an example. I was just saying that positive and negative charge both exist, but they also cancel each other out, so the total charge is zero.
I agree, but then did god just appear one day in the middle of nothingness for no particular reason & just magic up a whole Universe complete with developed life forms in 7 days!?
At least the Big Bang doesn't imply the Universe was created as we know it today in a ridiculously short time! & heard of evolution? Kinda makes more sense than a human just appearing!
Much of the energy is randomly lost with death. We cannot find a logical place for it to have gone. Also, the soul must go somewhere as it cannot have but dissapeared due to the laws of Thermodynamics.
An Intelligent Designer seems incredibly possible since our universe is so fine tuned
What makes you believe that universe is fine tuned?
There are certain physical laws according which energy and matter are interacting with each others, and the rest is just a consequence of those laws. What is so fine tuned about the universe?
Is it really fine tuned that Sun will one they get cold and all life on Earth will die? Or is it fine tuned that we can get struck by an asteroid any time possible? Do you think it is fine tuned to have a myriad of different religions which possibly violently conflict with each other? Or do you believe that fine tuning is when people die in agony of cancer, Ebola, aids or murderous knife? Which part of the misery you believe is fine tuned?
If your God is such a wonderful creator, why didn't he get back after 2000 years and told humans what to do as he used to? After all he terminated Sodom and Gomorrah because humans there got bad. He also killed everybody but Noah since he wasn't really satisfied how people become. Do you really try to tell that our world is such fine tuned that God is really happy with people of today, where big parts of the planet are in constant war and hatred, where millions are dying of hunger and thirst, lack of basic hygiene and medicines, where humans are used as slaves just to produce cheap bananas and t-shirts for people in west so those can spend their time arguing about goodness of the God?
What makes you think I talk about "Christian God"? Do you really believe there is like "Christian" or "Muslim" God?
Try to put on your reading skills and please answer the question; what makes you believe that universe is fine tuned?
To not be a prick I can clarify that I speak about any religions that humanity came up with, but you obviously are referring to Judaism and religions spun from it, since those religions are all indoctrinated with "all mighty creator" fairy tales.
I am not talking about any religion what so ever. My diction and syntax implies an intelligent creator which amibitions unknown to man. Not the religions on earth. Please. Read through all my arguments and twll me where I said Judaism.
So wsn't I either but you seem not able to realize it. I am talking about your "fine tuned" universe which it is not, but you seem to not being able to realize it. The mere fact that there are "religions on earth" like you say which cauze suffering makes the universe not fine tuned. But maybe you live in some other universe that we other human being ar enot able to sense, so maybe that universe of yours is "tine Tunded". Your rhetorics are too shallow, and you have no arguments for your statements.
You said that univers is "fine tuned". Tell me what is your argument that universe is fine tuned? Do you believe it is fine tuned universe if thousands of people die of a tsunami in one day?
There is not much to read because you have no arguments at all; all you have are bisarre statements you don't understand properaly yourself. You don't seem to be able to understand that I have never put any words in your mouth. If I say that religion is proof of a world not being fine tuned, it does not mean that you are talking about religion. It means that your "creator" who fine tuned the universe has made stupid misstake since he created religion too. If you believe in an ultimate creator, than you have to accept the fact that he/she created everything, and thus religion too. I am not speaking neither of religions per se. You have to meditate better over what you are reading.
Fine tuned? Again you are only seeing this from a human perspective. If the Earth get hit by a apocalyptic meteor the universe is still going to do what it does. If you have studied the universe you would find it to be quite interesting and perhaps even mind boggling. Also the universe cant spawn out of nowhere.
Fine tuned? Again you are only seeing this from a human perspective.
Does it mean that we humans are not part of the universe? Isn't all we created a part of universe as well. Isn't also all that matters to us a part of universe?
If the Earth get hit by a apocalyptic meteor the universe is still going to do what it does.
So you mean the universe is fine tuned because intelligent creator made life and also made it possible for that life to get exterminated by a giant stone falling of the sky? Or you mean the universe is fine tuned because your intteligent creator made it sure for life to exterminate one day by making Sun run out of the fuel? Is that what you are pooping out as a proof of universe being fine tuned? Why would he bother than if he was so intelligent?
Once again: what makes universe fine tuned? Since you find "fine tuned" to be proof of intelligent creator I guess you should be able to at least say what is "fine tuned" in universe.
If you have studied the universe you would find it to be quite interesting and perhaps even mind boggling.
What do you know what I have studied or not? Do you know even who I am? How do you know I am not a proffesor in physics or astronomi? You assume too much. It is a sign of not very bright person, and your poops of claims just proof that.
Also the universe cant spawn out of nowhere.
How do you know that? You seem to be sure of that; is it also "obvious", just as your poop of "fine tuning?
Of course I do not know you sir. But one thing is that you said "astronomi" so I must begin to assume things. Also I havent seen anything disproving an intelligent creator of any sort regardless of what humans may think.
But one thing is that you said "astronomi" so I must begin to assume things.
Where did I said astronomi? And why would you assume that I don't know nothing about astronomi? How can word "astronomi" imply that I haven't read about astronomi?
Also I havent seen anything disproving an intelligent creator of any sort regardless of what humans may think. And what proofs for "intelligent design" have you seen? :-)
Of course I do not know you sir. But one thing is that you said "astronomi" so I must begin to assume things. Also I havent seen anything disproving an intelligent creator of any sort regardless of what humans may think.
What part of the statement is a question? Why is there no question mark there?
The only one who is avoiding question is you young lady. You still haven't asnwered: what makes universe so fine tuned?
In truth, there is only one God. There is no "Christian God" nor "Muslim God" nor any other specific religion-related God. If there is a God, he is one.
You are mainly discussing worldly issues here. They said that the universe was fine-tuned, not that the people in the world were perfect or that life is easy. You were definitely not getting the point that they were attempting to get across.
Simple. How do you create something that is eternal and had been eternal and will be eternal and existed during all time on an infinite scale? You cant. You cant make an eternal being. You cant make something that existed before you.
So your argument to 'where did god come from?' is he has always existed.
So he was just chilin for eternity when 1 day he thought ' it! I'll create a Universe'.
Does that seem realistic?
So, according to you, he always existed.
This is similar to steady state theory, which says the Universe has always existed as it it, but as it expands, new matter is created in the new space to keep the Universe always looking the same.
There are a number of philosophical arguments that allow for the existence of God. These arguments have withstood a long history of criticism and, in their current form, offer formulations that take into account this criticism and are based on the discoveries of modern science.
An Intelligent Designer seems incredibly possible since our universe is so fine tuned and the laws of thermodynamics can be applied in a sense that supports the existence of a much larger eternal being.
What is your argument that fine tuned universe needs a creator? If univers was fine tuned it is still not proof that intelligent designer created it; there is no implication or equivalence between those two.
What is your proof that universe is fine tuned?
None of that you say has any logical ground; both are subjective statements of yours which you are not able to proof, nor even understand seems like.
Your claim is that universe is so fine tuned that it is obvious it has intteligent creator.
If you can not proof "the obvioius" why are you than stating it is obvious? Sound ridicolous to me like everything else you pooped out in this debate.
By the way, to me this debate seems to about gods existence, not about if you can proof if unieverse is fine tuned or not. Also you should maybe read arguments on other side and see how my very first post openes before you poop out accusation from your mouth what I realize or not.
No I think you should read my initial posts. My original argument was that if matter cannot create nor destroy itself then something must bring it into existense. Also I dont think I am "pooping" out anything. I am only stating this from a more universal perspective.
No I think you should read my initial posts. My original argument was that if matter cannot create nor destroy itself then something must bring it into existense. And what I wrote just few lines above? Exactly stating that energy conservation was your argument and it is exactly one argument that says against your claim that something has to bring it into existence.
Energy conversation is not argument that "something has to bring it into existence". It is argument that universe exists on its own, eternally.
No I think you should read my initial posts. My original argument was that if matter cannot create nor destroy itself then something must bring it into existense.
No you don't. You are pooping claims you don't udnerstand. Explain what makes universe "fine tuned".
:) what question? Where is question? In your imagination?
Why didn't you answer question what makes universe so fine tuned?
I think you have dicredeted youself since long time ago. You have no idea what you are talking about & you lack capability to use reason in your logic. You are just repeating some poop you have heard or read elsewhere which you even can't understand properly.
The thing about God is that we cannot find any proof that he is not there.
And if one has it in their heads that they will not ever even try to believe or understand, they will not, even if they have all the proof they need around them.
The thing about God is that we cannot find any proof that he is not there.
She was saying that. She meant both sides.
But, that is a ridiculous concept. You are making a claim that He exists. It is up to you to provide something that shows He exists. It isn't up to us to determine everything that doesn't exist. It is impossible to disprove every imaginary being that people come up with.
I completely understand, and find your viewpoint completely respectable. Had I been in your position, I would have undoubtedly had the same opinion. I mean to tell you that I am a human of rationality.
However, having looked into the Quran, I found that there are no contradictions, no vile thoughts or views. Not only that, but I found that it contained scientific breakthroughs that had only been discovered recently, while the Book had been written 1400 years back.
People may complain that the scientific knowledge in the Book are too "vague", but if one has it in his mind to disbelieve, he will.
One must look upon the Books (Bible, Torah, Quran) in search of truth, not anything else.
I mean to tell you that I am a human of rationality.
Instead of telling me, actually act rational.
However, having looked into the Quran, I found that there are no contradictions, no vile thoughts or views. Not only that, but I found that it contained scientific breakthroughs that had only been discovered recently, while the Book had been written 1400 years back.
There is a section in the Quran that tells you if any part of the Quran contradicts itself use the later portion.
People may complain that the scientific knowledge in the Book are too "vague", but if one has it in his mind to disbelieve, he will.
If one has in his mind that he would like to know how biological processes work in a specific manner so that he can create modern medicine, he will avoid the vague Quran.
One must look upon the Books (Bible, Torah, Quran) in search of truth, not anything else.
You are using books that are supposed to help you be a better person, not to deliver the truth. You are using it wrong.
There is a section in the Quran that tells you if any part of the Quran contradicts itself use the later portion.
Show me this "section".
If one has in his mind that he would like to know how biological processes work in a specific manner so that he can create modern medicine, he will avoid the vague Quran.
You are speaking of looking through the Quran for the creation of modern medicine, through a biological process, in a specific manner. If the Quran were to list every possible way of surgery and medicine and healing, as well as every minute detail of every single aspect of our lives, it would be an encyclopedia and not a Holy Book stating not how to do every little thing in our lives, but the morals and laws we should live by.
You are using books that are supposed to help you be a better person, not to deliver the truth. You are using it wrong.
Firstly, who are you to tell me how to use books, let alone Holy ones?
Second, why can't being a better person be part of truth? Are you saying that being a better person is only related to "fiction", and that rational people are not good people, and don't strive to be better?
-None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?
If there aren't contradictions, why do you have substitutions in the Quran?
You are speaking of looking through the Quran for the creation of modern medicine, through a biological process, in a specific manner. If the Quran were to list every possible way of surgery and medicine and healing, as well as every minute detail of every single aspect of our lives, it would be an encyclopedia and not a Holy Book stating not how to do every little thing in our lives, but the morals and laws we should live by.
Dude, you can't defend the scientific knowledge in the Quran and also remind everyone there is no scientific knowledge in the Quran. It doesn't need to be a complete encyclopedia. Just one thing from Allah with perfect scientific detail would have been great.
Firstly, who are you to tell me how to use books, let alone Holy ones?
Who are you to tell me how to use books? You gave the incorrect way to use your book. Evidence: "but the morals and laws we should live by" you admitting it isn't about truth.
Second, why can't being a better person be part of truth? Are you saying that being a better person is only related to "fiction", and that rational people are not good people, and don't strive to be better?
I didn't say anything like that. Being a better person does not have to be based on truth. It can be, but in the case of religious texts it isn't supposed to be. They are stories to illustrate points. All I was saying is that one does not lead to the other or vice versa. I made no comment about rational people. It was actually irrational for you to bring that up.
The simulation argument is the only interesting argument for the existance of a creator, but the god that has evoled out of the DAMN bible? no way... The idea of a god has evolved throughout history and that's why the word "god" has many definitions. The god you are referring to isn't the one that came out of the bible, it's a different one, in other words it's a result of your own "self" trying to make sense of the word god itself, I just go one god further. It's a delusional state of mind, a form of mental illness...
Yes, everything is awe inspiringly fine tuned. So the Universe looks as though it has been created by a supreme intelligence? And an entity amazing enough to have done that, must itself have been created by an even greater intelligence....
Is the universe so fine tuned? To me, life seems poorly engineered. We have blind-spots in our eyes, because the veins in our eyes obstruct our vision. We have an appendix that serves no purpose except to occasionally become inflamed and kill us. Our reproductive system is mixed in with our body's sewer system. Our minds are easily deceived because they seem more tuned to surviving in the wild than living in our modern world. Is this how you would design a human being? Can you really say we are "intelligently" designed?
A better question is..."Is what people say about god true?". Because of course god exists, at the very least conceptually. Another better question is..."Is god a matter of serious concern to us?" to which any honest thinking person who wasn't raised to be ignorant of history must answer yes. Attempting to argue that god does not exist is as pointless as arguing about whether or not there is a universe. The question is not "does the universe exist?", it is "how can we improve our understanding of the universe?"
A better question is..."Is what people say about god true?". Because of course god exists, at the very least conceptually.
The question of whether or not god exists is equally important as it directly effects the importance of understanding god better. If god only exists conceptually, then it doesn't really matter, as god could be anything you want it to be, being a concept and all.
Another better question is..."Is god a matter of serious concern to us?" to which any honest thinking person who wasn't raised to be ignorant of history must answer yes.
What exactly do you mean here? I agree with that statement but for different reasons.
Attempting to argue that god does not exist is as pointless as arguing about whether or not there is a universe.
Nobody is really arguing god doesn't exist as much as they are arguing that there is no reason to think so. If we are talking about reason to think something exists, it makes significantly more sense to argue against the idea of a god but not the universe. There is significantly more reason to acknowledge the universe exists then god.
The question of whether or not god exists is equally important as it directly effects the importance of understanding god better.
If we accept that god exists at least as a concept then we have moved beyond asking if god exists and may now logically progress to questions about god's characteristic qualities. You cannot logically discuss the qualities of something assumed to not exist.
If god only exists conceptually, then it doesn't really matter, as god could be anything you want it to be, being a concept and all.
Ideas have consequences, and thinking of god strictly as an ideological construct, this ideological construct matters alot because it affects the way us humans interact with each other. If god did not exist, god would not have major sociological implications.
What exactly do you mean here? I agree with that statement but for different reasons.
That's strikes me as odd. You agree with the statement for reasons different than what I have yet to explain to your satisfaction. ie you don't know exactly what I meant, but you know enough to know that you agree for different reasons. I'll be happy to discuss effects of god after you admit god exists. Start a new debate and invite me.
Nobody is really arguing god doesn't exist as much as they are arguing that there is no reason to think so.
If we do not first accept the premise that: "truths can be known about god", then any statement or question posed with the word god as the subject remains meaningless.
If we are talking about reason to think something exists, it makes significantly more sense to argue against the idea of a god but not the universe.
really? Why do you believe in "The Universe" instead of "The Multiverses" ?
There is significantly more reason to acknowledge the universe exists then god.'
Pantheists understand the universe as god, Do you think they believe this for "No reason"?
If we accept that god exists at least as a concept then we have moved beyond asking if god exists and may now logically progress to questions about god's characteristic qualities. You cannot logically discuss the qualities of something assumed to not exist.
Exactly, my point, whether or not god exists, directly effects the importance of understanding what god is like. If god only exists as a concept, making sense of gods existence in relation to ours is unnecessary and does nothing for us, other than making some good fun in having some fantasy maybe. If god exists more than just a concept, then understanding god as an actual thing beyond an idea is relevant because it relates to us. Actual things can effect other actual things but I am sure you know this. If god is only a concept, then god can't have an effect on us like an actual thing, only as a concept or the influence of the concept. We can logically discuss the qualities of god if god only conceptually exists, as what god was supposed to mean, what god is in actuality, if god is a concept is illogical with having purpose behind discussing the qualities other than fun, and that is how it should be. We can discuss the qualities of an actual unicorn hypothetically all day long, but it would be illogical to discuss the qualities of unicorns in actuality if it was beyond the reasons of amusement, or as if we genuinely thought that unicorns exist. So since it is illogical to discuss the qualities of unicorns beyond reasons of amusement, and partaking in harmless fantasy, should we believe unicorns exist so that we can logically discuss the qualities of unicorns seriously? By your logic we should. My point is that god's existence is equally if not more important than an understanding of god, it isn't a question that should be ignored as long as we are seriously contemplating the qualities of a god. If we are to seriously contemplate the qualities of a god, then we should do so also contemplating whether or not god exists beyond that of a concept. To not acknowledge god's existence at all as a concept is silly, but I don't think anyone is going to argue against that. It is like two people arguing over whether or not there are people who die from unicorns, but not taking a moment to even think "wait do unicorns even exist?".
Ideas have consequences, and thinking of god strictly as an ideological construct, this ideological construct matters alot because it affects the way us humans interact with each other. If god did not exist, god would not have major sociological implications.
See, here I agree and disagree at the same time, when I said if god only exists conceptually, then it doesn't matter, what I meant was, what god would be in actuality hardly matters. If god doesn't exist then arguing whether or not god is just ignoring us, is the universe, what morals god has, what god expects from people, is all pointless, unless you are just playing with fantasy, and not taking any of it seriously but only to that extent. The reason the concept of god has such a huge effect on us is mostly because people believe in him/her/it/whatever, so to make the argument that god exists because it effects strongly how we treat each other is the same argument as "because so many people believe in god, then god exists". That isn't a reason to think god exists as an actual thing, unless you again meant conceptually, if you meant conceptually then I COMPLETELY agree with your statement, and I doubt anybody will argue with us there. Both atheist and theists, acknowledge that the idea of god exists, no reasonable person who has heard of god thinks that the concept of god doesn't exist. Everyone for the most part know that the concept is there, otherwise we wouldn't be able to debate about it here.
That's strikes me as odd. You agree with the statement for reasons different than what I have yet to explain to your satisfaction. ie you don't know exactly what I meant, but you know enough to know that you agree for different reasons.
I think we ran into a misunderstanding as I agreed with the statement that a better question was "is god a matter of serious concern to us?" but figured we had different answers to that question thus resulting in different reasons. I assumed since you are arguing that god does exist, that the question "Is god a serious matter of concern to us?" I assumed that your answer to that question is yes, while mine is no. If you believe god exists, then god is a matter of concern to you, I guess I could see where you are saying no, because the word "serious" is in there, if that is your answer I apologie for being presumptuous. I think god isn't a matter of serious concern, cause we don't have a logical reason to think god exists (in actuality, not conceptually) in the first place. We aren't concerned with unicorns because we lack a reason to think they exist, that are actual or probable. I could argue unicorns are possible, even if it happens to be the most improbable thing in the world, they are still possible, I still don't believe in them, and I would argue it to be illogical to believe in them. As belief means you have to be certain, which means your level of certainty doesn't match the probability of the existence of unicorns.
I'll be happy to discuss effects of god after you admit god exists. Start a new debate and invite me.
Sounds like a fun debate, however I can only admit god exists conceptually as I cannot be more certain in god's existence, then gods inexistence (actually). I do admit god does exist as a concept though, but anyone would.
If we do not first accept the premise that: "truths can be known about god", then any statement or question posed with the word god as the subject remains meaningless.
Some truths can be known about god, because god is a concept, like any other concept. Like the truth that god exists conceptually, the truth that people believe in god, etc. However I am not convinced god exists beyond that, and no truths can be known beyond that at least in this time right now. So not every statement or question posed with the word god is meaningless, because it exists as a concept.
really? Why do you believe in "The Universe" instead of "The Multiverses" ?
I always thought if there was a multiverse, the universe would be apart of the multiverse, I am pretty certain with what I have observed about other humans, that we would still have a "universe" if we discovered a multiverse. I thought the word universe only referenced everything inside our "realm" of space and time, or all of space and time that our existence belonged to. A multiverse would just be multiple universes. By what I thought universe meant, obviously a universe exists, regardless of whether or not a multiverse exists.
Pantheists understand the universe as god, Do you think they believe this for "No reason"?
How do pantheists "understand the universe as god", what does that mean? Understanding implies that you acknowledge the truth of something, know about something, therefore understanding would here in this sentence would imply the universe is god as a truth. This can be justified by having the definition of god being universe, but I think both you and me know that wasn't what the word originally meant. Whenever and wherever the word god came it didn't mean everything, all ancient concepts of gods referred to something conscious, or/and the origin of literally absolutely everything. God was never meant to mean universe. If someone's "god" means universe, I KNOW your god exists, I just don't see the point in calling something that already has a name. Does universe not suffice? I used to be a "pure agnostic" leaning pantheistic. If god is the universe, I agree with the pantheists, I just don't identify with them and their use of the word "god" and have a valid reason in believing in this "god". If god means anything that is presumptuous by having no logical or evidential back up, then when I said there is no reason to believe it, I meant an adequate logic or evidence as to why the universe is god. There is still reason, just not a logical one.
Ideas have consequences, and thinking of god strictly as an ideological construct, this ideological construct matters alot because it affects the way us humans interact with each other. If god did not exist, god would not have major sociological implications.
Yes people also have concept of human spirit that live furhter on in bodys of those who live on, so they believed they have to eat members of the society that died. Eventually those cannibals developed mad cow desease. Yes, concepts have sociological implications. Does it prove that human spirit lives on in bodys of those who live further on if they eat up their dead ones?
Just beacuse you make a claim, and discuss about it, does not make it real. Your reasoning is illogical. Even if we go along your line and say there is a concept of god, than we can also say there is a concept of universe without a god and apply your very same logic to it and implicate that it means we can reason about universe without a god which proofs there is no god. That is implication of your logic.
If we accept that god exists at least as a concept then we have moved beyond asking if god exists and may now logically progress to questions about god's characteristic qualities. You cannot logically discuss the qualities of something assumed to not exist.
Concept of something; and something real are two different things. A concept by definition is just an idea, a thought, something abstract that exist only in your mind. Thus you are right, you can progress with reasoning about your imaginery concept, in your own head, but you will never be able to experience or proof any of qualities you assume your imaginery god has.
The fact that you are so quick to say that God exists without a doubt and then criticizing people of being ignorant of history(read some darwin) is quite ironic.
Darwin said in The Origin of Man that evolution could not have happened without God, citing the complexity of the eye as a major example of how the human body alone must have had an intelligent designer. (read some Darwin)
Honestly i get where ATYPIC is coming from. i myself do not believe in any deity. what im taking from his comments is this; people will believe whatever they choose - although there is no physical proof for any known deities it is illogical to think the beliefs of those who worship certain deities isnt proof in itself. once we acknowledge this fact we can then argue the flaws and detrimental effects of said deity.
You're playing with words. "Is what people say about God true?" is the same question as "Does God exist?". When people ask that question they're not talking about whether God exists as a concept. They're talking about whether he exists as a God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.
"Is what people say about God true?" is the same question as "Does God exist?".
This is not true. There is not a universally accepted definition of god. To illustrate this, I'd pose the question to you: Does god exist as described by pantheists?
When people ask that question they're not talking about whether God exists as a concept.
This is because we can all agree that "god exists, at least as a concept". Accepting this premise is necessary to any logical discussion about god. The other premise that must be accepted is that "truths can be known about god". Without acceptance of these two premises, the term god can only be used in an illogical manner.
They're talking about whether he exists as a God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.
I'm not viewing god in a manner orthodox enough for you eh?
There are numerous calculations and measurements in the Bible from specific measurements in building designs instructed by God and in dates and times found the Bible.
Well I dont know why God put it there. Id imagine the book is so full of knowledge and wisdom and understanding that on one side its a confirmation that there is an outside influence and showing something that specific.
Even complete to the 4th decimal place in equations beyond the writers knowledge and ability. So it was a purposeful design to authenticate it. Or sign it as authored by more than the men that physically penned it.
Also God confounds the wise and mocks fools. So when the book is opened the foolishness of academia that denied God and caused multitudes to stumble and not seek God. When it is unrolled it will both mock and judge them. The blood of those they cause to stumble will be on their hands.
As far as the math itself, Im not a mathematician, so I can only think of known application as a lay person. Pi is measurements of a circle, inside out, and across etc...
pi appears in all sorts of calculations for physics, engineering, electrical systems.
The double-helix is DNA revolves around pi. Pi is in the rainbow, the pupil of the eye, and when a raindrop falls into water pi emerges in the spreading rings. It appears in colors and in music. It is also used in probability and statistics.
So I think the placement is not a calculation as in a word problem. But all incompassing of God's creation, intervention, judgement, and salvation. He brings creation full circle from creation to fall to our redemption.
Fullness of His dwelling. Complete measurement. God uses math and measurements within the scriptures also. Like measurements of the Noahs Ark and the Ark of the Covenant. And all kinds of measurements. So measurements and math are not foriegn to the actual reading of the written text.
So hidden in verse 1 of chapter 1 in Genesis and In John 1: 1 is profound and absolute design written by more than the pen of men!!
Gen 6 - Ark Measurements
14 Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms, and shall cover it inside and out with pitch. 15 This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 16 You shall make a window for the ark, and finish it to a cubit from the top; and set the door of the ark in the side of it; you shall make it with lower, second, and third decks.
17 Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.
Romans 8
38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
And "e" found in John 1: 1 Would be measurements of exponential growth. Which is what happened bt the Jews initially rejecting the Messiah.
Causing it to go out to the Gentiles. But also prophesied to come full circle, and lift the veil. To make a round trip so to speak, to reveal to the Jews also so in the end they also see the Messiah as who He is, Jesus.
Completing His creation full circle! And His salvation saves exponentially.
"God exist" Proof please? All I see is a book that has been wrongly translated and changed within the years. Even then the whole entire book doesn't make sense. God said "Let there be light" So he somehow conjured up light and everything dealing with it? Nope, let science handle this one. Also one more thing, provide points not questions. You seem like a pasture trying to get laid by Christians. In my understanding god is supposedly our lord and if we disobey him he tortures us? Doesn't seem godlike to me. Also about your universe theory you say saying no god means there is no universe.
Not even close. Before the big bang there was no universe or time that god could have made the universe, there were no law of physics or any laws. For something to happen there must have been something earlier in time that caused that event. Asking if god made the universe is a stupid question itself. It's like asking wheres the edge of the earth. there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything.
Some believe that God let the universe evolve by inserting a few laws that do not intervene with the laws in the universe. As long as the universe was created maybe we have a creator as well. If the the universe is completely self contained having no boundary or edge; would it mean there is no beginning nor ending. Don't try and put your little pea brain against this kind of mind, I am the best.
Not even close. Before the big bang there was no universe or time that god could have made the universe, there were no law of physics or any laws. For something to happen there must have been something earlier in time that caused that event. Asking if god made the universe is a stupid question itself. It's like asking wheres the edge of the earth. there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything.
This statement makes no sense. Basically you are saying nothing exploded nowhere never and created a perfectly sensible and ordered universe. If there was nothing where did everything come from? A creator from outside this closed environmental loop make just as much sense as spontaneous creation of everything from nothing. It is really the same concept just with a different initiator. There was nothing then there was everything. The question is what initiated the process.
The big question is "If god exist then who created god?" And also According to the big bang theory, the universe began by expanding from an infinitesimal volume with extremely high density and temperature. The universe was initially significantly smaller than even a pore on your skin. With the big bang, the fabric of space itself began expanding like the surface of an inflating balloon – matter simply rode along the stretching space like dust on the balloon's surface. The big bang is not like an explosion of matter in otherwise empty space; rather, space itself began with the big bang and carried matter with it as it expanded. Physicists think that even time began with the big bang. Today, just about every scientist believes in the big bang model. he evidence is overwhelming enough that in 1951, the Catholic Church officially pronounced the big bang model to be in accordance with the Bible.
Where did the matter in the infinitesimally small initial state begin? We are both back to the same conundrum: Where did what existed before the beginning come from? God is separate from our material universe and therefore not subject to the beginning of the universe as we know it.
Sorry not Catholic. I have many issues with what the Catholic Church believes that are not based on the bible.
That is exactly why spiritualists like myself only find "God" (if you really want to call it that) a manifestation of unity consciousness. Nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes people make things harder than they're supposed to be.
I read a book one time that said that God Himself was but a child and sibling to other divine beings, one who created humanity and told us that we were to believe in him and no others. Why would he say to believe in him and no others if He was the only one. God, if He exists, is a dictator who thrives on our blind fearful faith. Like any other dictator, He must be overthrown so that we, his subjects, can be free. On the other hand, God doesn't exist anyway, because if he did, he would have struck me down with fire and brimstone by now.
A creator from outside this closed environmental loop make just as much sense as spontaneous creation of everything from nothing. It is really the same concept just with a different initiator. There was nothing then there was everything.
Yes you are right.
The question is what initiated the process.
No it is not since you can ask same question, what initiated a God?
The question is what option is better to have: a God with all dogmatic religious superstitions and nonsense, or an understanding of universe based on logic and reason without dogmas and dictatorship of a "chosen ones".
One way is to accept that universe just exist. Just as you accept that God exists, so can one accept that universe just exists, and that our material world, life and we as living beings are just a consequence of a certain physical laws.
No it is not since you can ask same question, what initiated a God?
You can ask that question. But if God is from outside our closed system and our only points of reference are what we can observe from our closed system we can only say we do not know.
One way is to accept that universe just exist. Just as you accept that God exists, so can one accept that universe just exists, and that our material world, life and we as living beings are just a consequence of a certain physical laws.
You are correct. My contention is always that everyone is free to believe what they choose we just do not have enough information to completely discount either. Science can prove to some that God is unnecessary but it can not prove He doesn't exist.
You can ask that question. But if God is from outside our closed system and our only points of reference are what we can observe from our closed system we can only say we do not know.
Exactly, so what reason do we have to believe? How could anyone possibly know? People say that existence and the universe is evidence of god, as everything needs an origin. When you have an explanation for origin however, you haven't explained everything because now the explanation needs an explanation. I know people can believe in both god and the big bang, so this next statement isn't saying it is only one or the other. God doesn't explain origin at all, because to explain origin is impossible, the big bang explains origin just as well as god does, you can ask "where does the big bang come from?" and then come back to the argument that a god is needed. I can make the argument "where did god come from?" making god just as necessary of an answer as the big bang. Don't get me wrong you can think the big bang happened, and believe in god, my comparison was to show how god isn't as necessary as people think.
You are correct. My contention is always that everyone is free to believe what they choose we just do not have enough information to completely discount either. Science can prove to some that God is unnecessary but it can not prove He doesn't exist.
That's the thing, if god is unnecessary, why do you believe? There has to be SOME reason why, and that reason can either be logical or illogical.
The question is what initiated the process. No it is not the question. Question is why is there need for the process to be initiated.
A creator from outside this closed environmental loop make just as much sense as spontaneous creation of everything from nothing. It is really the same concept just with a different initiator.
Exactly. So it means you can equally abandon your theory about god as creator, since it just shifts question one step further and makes you answer even more dificullt question: who/what created God and what did God created the universe from if there was nothing before the universe.
Exactly. So it means you can equally abandon your theory about god as creator, since it just shifts question one step further and makes you answer even more dificullt question: who/what created God and what did God created the universe from if there was nothing before the universe.
No it doesn't . If God is from outside this universe and not subject to our time frame and not subject to the beginning of this universe then the simple answer is He existed before our universe because He is not of our universe.
You already told me that God is fake, but you are dumbass anyway. Why should I give a flying fuck about you calling me a faggot even though I am not? Well, because it is offensive.
My references are at the bottom. Yes GOD does exist. Scientific data has been slowly and steadily proving many biblical scriptures to be a truthful reality. For example, according to Genesis the earth is just over 6,000 years old. Science has stated the earth and the planetary bodies in our solar system are 4.53 billion years old. Either creationism or naturalistic atheist way is wrong. We can’t have both. Consider this then; Titan, one of Saturn’s many moons, is covered in kilometer thick 4.5 percent methane atmosphere along with 94 percent nitrogen and other trace elements. Scientific data has proven that solar radiation when bombarding methane changes the methane into a heavy hydrocarbon called ethane (C2H6). Since Titan has a sub zero temperature any ethane would drop to the surface and create oceans of ethane maybe miles deep. This data was published in 1980. In 2005 the Huygens Lander set down on Titan and proved something very strange. Huygens recorded that there was not much ethane on Titans surface. Being 4.5 billion years old calculations have indicated there would be no methane at all only ethane on the surface. This odd phenomenon as scientist dubbed it points to a Titan that is 5 to 8 thousand years old rather than 4.5 billion. Here science has indicated that abundant methane there is evidence for a younger Titan, while scientists insist there is some natural phenomenon to explain why the methane is still there. This young Titan falls in line with biblical scripture in Genesis. In correcting its own deficiencies and errors, science is proving the existence of GOD and the truthfulness of scripture. There is much more to consider also, such as DNA being extracted from a 450 million year old fossil. DNA has a shelf life of 50,000 years under ideal storage conditions. How then can a fossil contain DNA if it is 450 million years old? This and other questions need to be answered and science is not doing a very good job. It is time to rethink the way we do our thinking.
References:
G. Lindal et al. (1983). "The atmosphere of Titan: An analysis of the Voyager 1 radio occultation measurements". Icarus 53 (2): 348–363.
Staff (April 3, 2013). "NASA team investigates complex chemistry at Titan". Phys.Org.
Coustenis, A. (2005). "Formation and evolution of Titan’s atmosphere". Space Science Reviews 116 (1-2): 171–184
I don't know if you're aware, but saturn's moon, Titan, is not in fact, Earth. As two completely separate bodies in space, they are entitled to different ages. Titan is also a moon, not a planetary body. And, uh, stop watching Jurassic park, nobody has dinosaur DNA.
I don't know if you're aware, but saturn's moon, Titan, is not in fact, Earth. As two completely separate bodies in space, they are entitled to different ages.
God created our concept of "time." He is outside of time, therefore the laws of time do not apply to him. He is immutable (does not change) does not age, and does not have a beginning or an end, as those things only apply to something inside of time.
I always have the same song pop into my head when this debate topic comes up. When I was a younger man and used to go to church, there was a song the church sang quite often that had the line "You ask me how I know he lives? He LIVES within my heart"
That line has since become the end all to my debates on the subject. People have a right to believe anything they want to (1st Amendment) and to the extent that God* lives in some people's hearts (and or minds)... He effectively "lives" in our world.
No idea, but some believe God is simply the universe... well, that's real. Some believe he was a normal ancient teacher like Jesus, Mohammed or Buddha... possible?
Only thing possible is that some people might believe it. Also some people believed there was god of fortune, god of war, god of water and so on. But just because people believe it does not mean it is true. For example people believed that Sun orbits the Earth but juest their faith didn't make it happen.
If he was ancient teacher, it means he was a mortal human and it is not possible that he is still alive than. If he was a human being that lived thousands yeras ago it implicates that he died and thus does not exist. So your argument is actually for atheism.
To be honest, I don't think that argument contributes anything substantial to this discussion.
And therefore nobody who has ever died exists. Dinosaurs don't exist!
I support that some ideas of God exist. I just think people may have got it all a little bit wrong... possibly. (how can I be sure?)
I am a theist, of sorts. I 'believe' in three different types of deity, like the primary colours. Blue is the wise buddha, Red is the strong devi, Yellow is the all-encompassing kami when awake (still looking into that one), and white is the potential nature of kami, of everything. Black is the void or absence. But these are my personal 'beliefs', so I can't really debate them as I have very little available proof, or motive to present said proof.
Per definition those that died those not exist :-) Otherwise there would be no use of having word died at all :-) You are just stating tautologi out of definition, so what is the point?
There are many ideas of God in existence, and there were many more during the past history. There is also idea of Santa Claus, toothfairy, Smurfs and Donald Duck. Do you believe all those exists too just because there is an idea about them?
Why not 4 deitys than? Or 1, or 5? Just because you believe in an idea, it does not make it real. People believed it was god wish that some mothers died after giving the birth. Untill a certain doctor didn't find out they got inflamation by mikroorganisms because of dirty hands and instruments. There are a log of ideas people believe in. But only those that can be proofed by physical evidence and/or logical reasoning survive over time.
These are just the primary types- there are also secondary's like the trinity, the kami-unified and other partnerships. And yes, I 'believe' in eternity and everything existing, therefore I 'believe' that santa (the geezer actually did exist, st. nicholas) etc. will come to pass. I don't believe in it, I 'believe' in it. Like f(x) is not f'(x)... (I didn't differentiate it btw).
There are so many different ways of describing the Christian/Jewish/... god, and no doubt some of them are real.
No idea
So how can you have no doubts if you have no idea if there is at least one real description? Why would there be so many different descriptions if only one was real? If there are several real as you say, why would there be several different descriptions of god?
Maybe they are different gods? Think about it. X culture believes in God. N god is presented, and is accepted as X god. Such as Athena and Minerva, or Brigid and St. Bridget.
So you believe there are many many gods. Do you believe in spaghetti god? http://www.venganza.org/
Shouldn't that be proof for you that people got it wrong - there is no god! If there was a god or even several, people should have perception of him/them and would not be inventing gods over and over and over.
God(s) are created by people because those people can't do better!
I 'believe' in his noodlyness. May you be touched by his noodly appendage, unbeliever.
There will come a time to pass that a spaghetti god will create a world, and that will be perfectly normal. I mean... to use an old argument... we're on an organic spaceship orbiting a massive source of energy. Everything about us is weird, and yet we think it is perfectly normal. A spaghetti monster (which by the way, I am already familiar with~ I did my 'unusual beliefs' presentation on it in TOK) is not that strange.
I'm unconvertible at the moment. And how do I buy noodles for someone who probably lives in a different country, whose Identity I have no way of knowing?
I would provide you with all means to buy me a bowl of noodles to experince the god. Or maybe you could ask krishna to give you all the knowledge you need?
By the way do you mean you are going to be convertible later on? Are we talking about future upgrade? Eliva 2.0?
To be honest, you started to poop unseriousnes coz you had no arguments for your claims didn't you?
I am not into converting anybody, but just wanna hear one rational argument pro religion that is not based on subjective beliefs, pseudo-science or facts missunderstanding.
if your live in India then your will come to know that there is many supernatural ativities which prove that god exist.I am not writing this because i am theism but i saw all the things which were happening in temples,maszits and many more.
I can also give you some example to support my answer:
at jammu and kashmir katra veshnu devi mandir-A flame is coming out from the rocks since the rule of akhbar.
himachal pradesh chamba naagbintru-If you say that Philosophy that you want to see the snake king in his biggest avtar then you will see him in his bigest avtar.
there are many other example which prove that god exist.If you want to know your answer practically the n the only thing you have to do is come to india and visit to the local areas of himachal for sure.There you will see alot of examples by which you will be satisfied that god is present.
My references are at the bottom. Yes GOD does exist. Scientific data has been slowly and steadily proving many biblical scriptures to be a truthful reality. For example, according to Genesis the earth is just over 6,000 years old. Science has stated the earth and the planetary bodies in our solar system are 4.53 billion years old. Either creationism or naturalistic atheist way is wrong. We can’t have both. Consider this then; Titan, one of Saturn’s many moons, is covered in kilometer thick 4.5 percent methane atmosphere along with 94 percent nitrogen and other trace elements. Scientific data has proven that solar radiation when bombarding methane changes the methane into a heavy hydrocarbon called ethane (C2H6). Since Titan has a sub zero temperature any ethane would drop to the surface and create oceans of ethane maybe miles deep. This data was published in 1980. In 2005 the Huygens Lander set down on Titan and proved something very strange. Huygens recorded that there was not much ethane on Titans surface. Being 4.5 billion years old calculations have indicated there would be no methane at all only ethane on the surface. This odd phenomenon as scientist dubbed it points to a Titan that is 5 to 8 thousand years old rather than 4.5 billion. Here science has indicated that abundant methane there is evidence for a younger Titan, while scientists insist there is some natural phenomenon to explain why the methane is still there. This young Titan falls in line with biblical scripture in Genesis. In correcting its own deficiencies and errors, science is proving the existence of GOD and the truthfulness of scripture. There is much more to consider also, such as DNA being extracted from a 450 million year old fossil. DNA has a shelf life of 50,000 years under ideal storage conditions. How then can a fossil contain DNA if it is 450 million years old? This and other questions need to be answered and science is not doing a very good job. It is time to rethink the way we do our thinking.
References:
G. Lindal et al. (1983). "The atmosphere of Titan: An analysis of the Voyager 1 radio occultation measurements". Icarus 53 (2): 348–363.
Staff (April 3, 2013). "NASA team investigates complex chemistry at Titan". Phys.Org.
Coustenis, A. (2005). "Formation and evolution of Titan’s atmosphere". Space Science Reviews 116 (1-2): 171–184
You do realize that titan may have formed much later than other planets or even moons in the solar system, and even later still acquired it's methane atmosphere even later. In regard to the Huygens Lander mission there is very little controversy now and more up to date articles on Titan can be found on NASA's website and respective links on it.
Who does not believe in God. I believe in the one through God whose name is Jesus. I bet DanaforYeshua and other Christian believers will say the same thing. I bring a question to all atheism people "If God does not exist, where do you go when you die?" In my opinion all atheism will go to hell when they die as they never believe in Jesus our mighty saviour. I advise all atheism all people to start believing as death is like a blind hand. It will sweep you away without realising it. Here is the sinners prayer:
"Heavenly Father, have mercy on me, a sinner. I believe in you and that your word is true. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that he died on the cross so that I may now have forgiveness for my sins and eternal life. I know that without you in my heart my life is meaningless.
I believe in my heart that you, Lord God, raised Him from the dead. Please Jesus forgive me, for every sin I have ever committed or done in my heart, please Lord Jesus forgive me and come into my heart as my personal Lord and Savior today. I need you to be my Father and my friend.
I give you my life and ask you to take full control from this moment on; I pray this in the name of Jesus Christ."
Amen.
Pray this prayer soon. You will experience his wonders and grace by doing so. Also come to the church nearest your home every Sunday to hear his promises for you.
I bring a question to all atheism people "If God does not exist, where do you go when you die?"
As if you have any idea whatsoever. And just because you might be right about heaven and hell doesnt mean i should abandon all critical thinking skill and force myself into blind faith somehow in an attempt to cover my ass.
"Heavenly Father, have mercy on me, a sinner. I believe in you and that your word is true. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that he died on the cross so that I may now have forgiveness for my sins and eternal life
Just saying you believe something does not mean you actually believe it, nor does it make it true. For example, i could SAY that i believe in unicorns. Do i actually believe in them? no. i assure you i dont. And just because i might have believed in them did not make them true for those few seconds, nor for any amount of time.
I know that without you in my heart my life is meaningless.
A few of america's founders were atheists, were their lives meaningless? So was Clarence Darrow, and Douglas Adams, and Peter Atkins, and Julius Axelrod, and ALL OF THESE PEOPLE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listsofatheists
Were their lives meaningless? No. They were more meaningfull than one million of you put together. And they were so without your God.
Pray this prayer soon. You will experience his wonders and grace by doing so
I humored you and said it with full emotion. I felt nothing but the itch of a mosquito bite on my ankle and nothing more. Your wishfull thinking might trick YOU into thinking something happens when such magic words are uttered, but not me. Not us rational human beings. Sorry.
Also come to the church nearest your home every Sunday to hear his promises for you.
All i hear is "give us money". No, im not going to a church. What's the point? The bible already says that you should pray alone and not for attention and whatnot so why do you HAVE to meet up? You have all the tools you need, a bible and two clasped hands. Now i dont think that that means shit but it just goes to show you churches are pointless money funnels. I mean, you gotta have very little personal thought to even be a christian, but to be a church goer, you gotta have no personal thought whatsoever.
Also, god has a shitty track record of keeping promises. Ill take my chances with persuing my goals using my own skills and work. Thanks
Ave Satanas, believe what you believe. I don't care if you don't come to church or receive Christ because you will be going to hell and I will be going to heaven. Maybe one day, Jesus will show you something that will make you believe but until then, I will be waving at you from heaven while you are burning in hell. You should listen to me even if I am 13 because this is what is good for you. And btw, the lives of Clarence Darrow and Peter Atkins may not be meaningless now but there are certainly going to suffer in hell when they die. And at church, you don't give money, your'e receiving more of Jesus favour
In Bible Codes, some are far out and take it far out. But some are a signature of Divine Authorship. And these ones are definitely signatures as if He etched His Word with His own hand.
Pi found in Genesis 1: 1 and adv math e found in John 1: 1.
These aren't spread out, found in difficulty, and in need of twisting. These two adv math codes are found, each found using within one verse. And each one found separately in chapter one of two seperate books, written in two separate millennials, in written in two separate languages. And the nature of interpretation works with what is there from the ancient text.
And the odds of them occurring at any point at all within all 66 books of the Bible is in probabilities of unreasonable proportions.
What do you think is the probability of a few of these together found coded in the Bible? If just musing at first glance, wouldn't you say, " no way?" I'm not even saying in the whole Bible. What is the probability all these are found in only six books out if 66?
As for me, I dont think a calculation is needed to tell me that is an unreasonable probability in calculations of a snowflakes chance in Hell!
Even crazier, pi and e are coded in two different languages, Hebrew for Jews and Greek was a time period of the Gospel's progression out to the Gentiles.
And both verses state "In the beginning," so they each speak of a time period of Creation and in Jesus as the Creator. And advanced math equations not known yet for 1000s of years to come.
In Genesis 1: 1 pi equation is encoded, in creation of the world and universe and in God stitching prophesy into appointed times to bring Creation full circle.
And in John 1: 1 in Greek while the Gospel is propelled out to the Gentiles, you find in verse one the equation for e, which is compound interest, multiplying exponentially.
So even the equations found communicate the purpose of the event. And even the Bible Author God, divided these times by purpose as shown in the 1st verses of these two books, Genesis and John. Then to add to this timetables for dating history is BC and AD.
So the Bible notes each beginning with a math equation. Then took the division of time line for dating history. And then add TORH TORH YHWY HROT HROT in the beginning of each of the five books of the Bible at intervals of Bible numbers of importance in the written text throughout every book of seven and forty-nine .
These singuarly are a stretch against reasonable probability, but for all to be right there on the top, not buried or crazy, together all these are proof of God and His Word. All of these together are impossible odds without Divine Authorship. Together these are more than just an oooh wow, these are against odds of probabilities that are not even be conceivable.
Now in contradiction beween the improbability of two faiths.
A comparison between Christianity and Evolution as ecplanation of Creation.
So on one hand, Evolutionism states strands of DNA self assembled and mutated and against all odds of occurance and against all odds of science principles and without any evidence of a physical example in front of our eyes, we are told to believe it. And that it is factual.
Then you take just these few pieces of many in evidence, tangible and available to view in everyone's individual hands. With everyone having the ability to test it, and even count out the codes for themselves, and literally proving itself in person from the beginning and in person showing agsinst all odds He not only created, but He put it in writing against all odds to prove it!
You have to be evil or an idiot to at least not step back and say there is more to God and the Bible than I currently think. Maybe I should look further!
There are numerous calculations and measurements in the Bible from specific measurements in building designs instructed by God and in dates and times found the Bible.
Well I dont know why God put it there. Id imagine the book is so full of knowledge and wisdom and understanding that on one side its a confirmation that there is an outside influence and showing something that specific.
Even complete to the 4th decimal place in equations beyond the writers knowledge and ability. So it was a purposeful design to authenticate it. Or sign it as authored by more than the men that physically penned it.
Also God confounds the wise and mocks fools. So when the book is opened the foolishness of academia that denied God and caused multitudes to stumble and not seek God. When it is unrolled it will both mock and judge them. The blood of those they cause to stumble will be on their hands.
As far as the math itself, Im not a mathematician, so I can only think of known application as a lay person. Pi is measurements of a circle, inside out, and across etc...
pi appears in all sorts of calculations for physics, engineering, electrical systems.
The double-helix is DNA revolves around pi. Pi is in the rainbow, the pupil of the eye, and when a raindrop falls into water pi emerges in the spreading rings. It appears in colors and in music. It is also used in probability and statistics.
So I think the placement is not a calculation as in a word problem. But all incompassing of God's creation, intervention, judgement, and salvation. He brings creation full circle from creation to fall to our redemption.
Fullness of His dwelling. Complete measurement. God uses math and measurements within the scriptures also. Like measurements of the Noahs Ark and the Ark of the Covenant. And all kinds of measurements. So measurements and math are not foriegn to the actual reading of the written text.
So hidden in verse 1 of chapter 1 in Genesis and In John 1: 1 is profound and absolute design written by more than the pen of men!!
Gen 6 - Ark Measurements
14 Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms, and shall cover it inside and out with pitch. 15 This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 16 You shall make a window for the ark, and finish it to a cubit from the top; and set the door of the ark in the side of it; you shall make it with lower, second, and third decks.
17 Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.
Romans 8
38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
And "e" found in John 1: 1 Would be measurements of exponential growth. Which is what happened bt the Jews initially rejecting the Messiah.
Causing it to go out to the Gentiles. But also prophesied to come full circle, and lift the veil. To make a round trip so to speak, to reveal to the Jews also so in the end they also see the Messiah as who He is, Jesus.
Completing His creation full circle! And His salvation saves exponentially.
In my opinion all atheism will go to hell when they die as they never believe in Jesus our mighty saviour. I advise all atheism all people to start believing as death is like a blind hand. It will sweep you away without realising it.
Someone can say this about any religion. Why should I believe Jesus is real over Krishna?
In my opinion all atheism will go to hell when they die as they never believe in Jesus our mighty saviour. I advise all atheism all people to start believing as death is like a blind hand. It will sweep you away without realising it.
Let me tell you a secret: death will sweep away you as well. It will ultimately sweep away each and every human :).
First off, what you just said wasn't even a real argument; it was more of an attack than anything. Also, what you just said simultaneously makes you and your cause look bad.
Now, Shemael is right here; you will be going to hell if you don't repent. If you do repent, I guarantee that it will be life-changing. If you want some evidence, look at Lee Stroble, author of The Case for Christ. He was an atheist like you and managed to find reasonable proof for the existence of God. I would recommend getting that book if you're still debating on whether God exists or not.
Lee Strobel and Frank Turek are complete liars when they claim they "meraculously converted from atheism to christianity". If you knew anything about the arguments for atheism and these people you would see that its a ploy to get people to read their books and stay firm to faith and nothing more.
managed to find reasonable proof for the existence of God
He didnt find ANY proof. All he found was petty suggestive evidence at best and even that is generous. I point you to youtube.com, go to the channel Stevelikestocurse and watch his "An Atheist Reads The Case For Christ" series.
I would recommend getting that book if you're still debating on whether God exists or not.
It's curious that you recommended it to those who are on the fence about God's existence and not to people who have already decided they dont believe in god. It's curious because apologists like Lee Strobel aim their books at these such people, the fence sitters. The people who are on the doorstep of christianity and are about to step out. These books are NOT for the informed atheist because they would see right through the poorly formed arguments and wouldnt let bias persuade them to accept the arguments. The people on the fence, however, are people who often WANT to be solidified back into their faiths and are looking for the evidence to help them relax back into christianity reassured. Thats who these books work on.
So again, i point you to that youtube series where the book is destroyed piece by piece and exposed for how poorly written it really is.
Shamael,fuck off dont preach,just prove,i can prove there is no god next sunday by walking in a church and let of a bomb,so why would tour god let all the ones who survive live with pain and that it happened in the safest place on earth,fuck off
It is interesting throughout history the message of love, peace and compassion becomes perverted even if the bearer of that message is a supreme cosmic power. The Big Bang can be likened as a mother that conceives the universe. So anyway, these prophets always get this epiphany from messengers be it Angel or during solidarity and isolation and to give words to them is the worst possible mistake. Their primitive minds uses this privilege to give themselves authority that their judgement, since 'I am the chosen one' absolute and just.
So do I believe in God? Yes. But because we undermine the original message
we need to move forward with the times and not take things too literally. Their purpose have been fulfilled and now everyone has faith but often forget the spiritual aspects of it. Segregation and murder is a choice made by humans. Even if your dusty tome tells you to, we all learn to draw the line since we all have common sense. Some people think the Big Bang is the final (boring too) answer some people dont. Perfectly understandable.
All I can say for those who do not believe in Jesus is Good Luck in hell. Only Jesus can perform miracles in your life. Read the story of Elijah in the bible and you will understand. But I don't think you atheism will ever read it.
Ive read the entire bible and it has actually made me MORE of an atheist. The whole thing is riddled with fabrications and errors it practically reflects the writing of a third grader.
Also, if you actually believe that not only are people who dont believe in god going to hell, but that they actually DESERVE to be tortured for eternity, youre a fucked up human being with absolutely zero sense of morality or personal thought beyond that of what your stupid book and insane religion has told you.
Hell is never mentioned in either the Torah or the Bible. The primitive and brief explanations given are of a proto-underworld similar to Hades' domain.
Fucked up dickhead,i dont think you will read the bible,i read it and then burnt it,and i will read it again and burn it once again,miracles today spastic,arent you living a shit life so you may have eternal life,so why any miracles today,must be for us no believers,as you dont need a miracle,you already believe,thick skull/little brain.
Now I don't fully believe in God, but I must say I can't disprove "its" existence. First of all, I have noticed in the Quran, there are many scientific claims that have been proven many times. There is a whole book about it, but what particularly interested me is The Big Bang, Shape of the Earth, the Moons source of light, and the existence of Atoms. I find this interesting because I study Physics and just love these concepts. Evolution has always seemed like an interesting idea to me, however there really has been so much controversy around it that I decided to scrap the whole idea. I mean, lets face it, Science has corrected itself millions of times while this 1000 year old book hasn't changed a word. Im not muslim, i dont want to be, its just interesting. When I mean controversy I mean that people have staged many fossils (and it hasn't been conducted fully in a lab and hasn't been quantified). To conclude, you can't quantify God, and I only believe in things you can explain in a formula. But this is.... coincidence?
It's weird that you find the shape of the earth and the moons "source of light" interesting since those things are so simple to understand. The earth is round because gravity compresses it. Try putting some putty on a table and wait for a bit. it will smooth out and flatten out. The moon's "light source" is the sun's light waves reflecting off the moon.
Describe to me how gravity shapes the Earth; what is gravity; what all does gravity affect and how; why round; etc. I could do the same for the moon analogy, but I think you see my point.
It is foolish to say you can completly disprove or prove God's existance. In my opinion he wanted it to be this way, so you must have faith. One thing I find stupid is when people get mad at God, because they think is design is stupid, when in face you are nothing compared to him.
So you think that brain cancer is well programmed feature by the God? As well as Down syndrome and CP? Do you mean that leukemia is accurate and well design?
Tell me what proof do you have that DNA and human body is not a result of ever ending process of improvement?
So you think that brain cancer is well programmed feature by the God? As well as Down syndrome and CP? Do you mean that leukemia is accurate and well design?
I never said God is good. I never said God can't make mistakes either, I never said the system God created is perfect. I don't think it is meant to be perfect.
Tell me what proof do you have that DNA and human body is not a result of ever ending process of improvement?
Do you mean evolution? If you mean evolution, I have no intentions of disproving it because it is a well known fact.
Well you said we are "well programmed" and that DNA is "accurate and well designed".
Does it not mean than that you consider bone cancer to be well programmed as well since cancer cells are also our human cells, it is just that they are not what we really need; but they come from our own "well programmed" DNA.
Do you mean evolution? If you mean evolution, I have no intentions of disproving it because it is a well known fact.
If evolution is a well known fact, I suppose you accept it. It means than that our well programmed human cells as you call them, where much simpler long long long time ago and than got more complicated over the time. Why would they than change and evolve if they were so well programmed? Or do you mean that god just creted dust and than everything we are evolved from the dust? What if dinasaurus survived, and no humans or other mamals ever developed? What is so well about human cells?
Well you said we are "well programmed" and that DNA is "accurate and well designed".
Does it not mean than that you consider bone cancer to be well programmed as well
Why do you assume that?
Imagine I made a beautiful shirt, that was perfect in every way.
Then I made some people make several copies of the same shirt, to sell to people.
Now some of the copies weren't exactly alike. Maybe some shirts had holes in them, others were discolored, or whatever you can come up with.
Just because some shirts were flawed, does that make the original design flawed and imperfect?
Why would they than change and evolve if they were so well programmed?
I believe a God of some kind made it happen:) I don't have proof of this, this is my personal theory of what happened. Because I just can not accept that everything came from nothing - that is magic to me.
There is big difference in DNA reproducing itself out of God design, since according to your belief God created even process of reproduction and thus, since his creations are perfect, even that process is perfect. It implies that DNA can copy itself only perfectly, with no flaws, so even brain cancer is thus perfect creation.
You analogy with shirt breaks since a new copy of the shirt is new creation and involves same process from the beginning (a man in the middle, which can be you or somebody else), whereas DNA reproduction does not. Shirts does not reproduce themselves, each and every copy is created a new by a creator (you). So either cancer, and all other diseases, are a part of perfect creation and thus are "perfect and well programmed" as you claim, or your creators creation has flaw and thus is not perfect.
You subjective refusal to believe something or acceptance of something is not proof of anything. The point is if there was a creator and his creation is perfect it would not change and evolve. If you accept evolution as a fact, as you did, than the logical consequence is that creation was not perfect since it evolved into more complex forms.
I understand you can not accept claim that everything came from nothing. Actually I don't think there is need for such claim either. Can you accept that mater and energy has always existed? Never created, never destroyed. Is is pretty much like a concept of God but without a God actually.
I don't understand how can you not ask yourself what created god otherwise :).
You analogy with shirt breaks since a new copy of the shirt is new creation and involves same process from the beginning (a man in the middle, which can be you or somebody else), whereas DNA reproduction does not. Shirts does not reproduce themselves, each and every copy is created a new by a creator (you). So either cancer, and all other diseases, are a part of perfect creation and thus are "perfect and well programmed" as you claim, or your creators creation has flaw and thus is not perfect.
English is not my first language, there is a word I'm looking for that I can't seem to find in my head :)
But I am going to try to explain what I mean.
Inside a sell there is another thing, called something I don't know, where the copying of the DNA takes place.
This is not something I believe, this is a fact - DNA's are being copied, not created again.
You subjective refusal to believe something or acceptance of something is not proof of anything.
I know that, I never tried to prove my belief.
The point is if there was a creator and his creation is perfect it would not change and evolve
Why?
creation was not perfect since it evolved into more complex forms.
Let's take the shirt again.
Shirts don't just .. appear. You make them. There is a process you'll have to go through in order to make them. First they are just useless fabric, then you use that fabric to make the shirt.
The fabric itself is not a perfect shirt in any way - but it can make a perfect shirt.
Can you accept that mater and energy has always existed?
Can you accept that mater and energy has always existed? Never created, never destroyed. Is is pretty much like a concept of God but without a God actually.
I don't belong to a religion. I'm not christian, I'm not jewish.
I just believe something created our world. What it is I have no opinion on.
I don't understand how can you not ask yourself what created god otherwise :).
Whatever you believe, there has to be something that was everlasting. No matter if you're atheistic or religious, the entire thing has to start with something. So no matter what you believe, you will have to ask yourself, but .. what created that thing Get what I mean?
I'm not saying atheists are wrong, I'm just saying that theory doesn't make sense to me. And I never tried to convince you to believe anything. I think we could all have our own theories on what happens without making others believe it.
I just can not accept that everything came from nothing - that is magic to me. Isn't it pure magic if some superpower created the world out of nothing? Why would it be less magic if some whichcraft created the world out of nothing, than if universe just exist as an ethernal entity?
But it is not creepy to you that DNA and cells are reproducing themselves? :-)
Well, creepy or not, it does not matter what your liking of the idea is; the point is that your argument is false and your analogy make no sense; you are comparing apples and oranges.
Furthermore, if something makes sense to you, you should be able to know why does it make sense.
But it is not creepy to you that DNA and cells are reproducing themselves? :-)
Yes it is, don't you think it's creepy that things just magically reproduce themselves.
Well, creepy or not, it does not matter what your liking of the idea is; the point is that your argument is false and your analogy make no sense; you are comparing apples and oranges.
What part of my argument is false?
My analogy is that I believe there is a God - I don't know why this makes less sense then there is no God.
Furthermore, if something makes sense to you, you should be able to know why does it make sense.
I know why.
I think things that magically appear is called magic - not science.
Yes it is, don't you think it's creepy that things just magically reproduce themselves. No I don't; it is called life.
What part of my argument is false? Why do I have to repeat what I wrote above? I wrote 2 posts above why is you shirt analogy false. Your analogy with shirt is false. It leads to conclusion that cancer is gods creation and thus perfect, but we know that cancer is ill-reproduced human cells because of imperfections in DNA.
I think things that magically appear is called magic - not science. So god creating universe out of nothing is magic and it does not make sense? I agree with you. Instead you could realize that universe has always existed, by default, as a tautologi and than it does not have to appear out of nothing as a magic.
Why can't God create something imperfect? Why do you assume everything God makes is perfect?
but we know that cancer is ill-reproduced human cells because of imperfections in DNA.
Which proves my shirt analogy.
You reproduce something, and the reproduction is imperfect. Just because the reproduction is imperfect doesn't mean the original production is imperfect.
You agree that all cells are individual cells, right? So just because my cells are defected, does that mean yours are too?
No, each and every cell is an individual cell, a reproduction of the original thing. And the reproduction of that original cell can be defected, thus is that defected particular cell imperfect, not all cells.
If I have diabetes, does that mean because you are a fellow human being, you too have diabetes? No, we are two separate people with separate bodies and separate cells.
Instead you could realize that universe has always existed
You sound like you say your theory is absolutely true. Why do you want me to realize something you can't prove?
I say that life creates life. It happeneds every day man - it is called births!
Why can't God create something imperfect? Why do you assume everything God makes is perfect?For the Christ man, these are your words:
Just look at the human body, how well programmed it is, look inside a human cell, watch the DNA and how accurate and well designed it is.
It is you who says gods creations are well programmet and well designed. Thats your words, not mine!
Which proves my shirt analogy.
It does not; your shirt analogy is just bisarre exampel of a person who obviously has seen that argument somewhere and bought it naively and can't go beyond just repeating it blindly.
No it is not appropriate analogy, because according to you God would create each and every of human cells over and over and over again from the blueprint which we know does not happen. At least I am created by my parents, but maybe you are made in a laboratory who knows.
Your shirt analogy would imply that god sits all days long and prints humans, animals, rocks, trees, planets and everything else each and every day and sometimes he fucks up since some are born with 6 fingers, but its ok according ot your theory, because everybody can make misstake; even allmighty god that created everything :-). Poop.
If I have diabetes, does that mean because you are a fellow human being, you too have diabetes? No, we are two separate people with separate bodies and separate cells. Yes, we are different; but according to you god made one man and one woman and everybody else is just a blueprint which itself says against your theory of good blueprinting since there are no two 100% identical human beings.
You sound like you say your theory is absolutely true. Why do you want me to realize something you can't prove? Because it makes more sense than your ID poop and it would certainly be better world without religious fanatics.
Just look at the human body, how well programmed it is, look inside a human cell, watch the DNA and how accurate and well designed it is.
I am a woman, thank you.
I said it is well programmed, accurate and well designed. Is that necessarily perfect?
It does not; your shirt analogy is just bisarre exampel of a person who obviously has seen that argument somewhere and bought it naively and can't go beyond just repeating it blindly.
Where have you seen that argument before?
No it is not appropriate analogy, because according to you God would create each and every of human cells over and over and over again from the blueprint which we know does not happen. At least I am created by my parents, but maybe you are made in a laboratory who knows.
Cells reproduce, not produce.
Your shirt analogy would imply that god sits all days long and prints humans, animals, rocks, trees, planets and everything else each and every day and sometimes he fucks up since some are born with 6 fingers, but its ok according ot your theory, because everybody can make misstake; even allmighty god that created everything
Then you have misunderstood my analogy. I said God created one original thing, those things reproduce themselves, and those things can make an imperfect or defect copy.
it would certainly be better world without religious fanatics.
I am not a fanatic. I have never said my theory is the absolute truth. I have never said everyone should believe what I believe. Go throw that on somebody's elses face, thank you.
Because it makes more sense than your ID poop
Oh.. I see. Now it all makes sense. My opinion is wrong, because your opinion makes more sense to you.
Sorry dude, the world doesn't work that way. That's bad debating :)
That's like saying apples tastes better than oranges, because you think so.
I am a woman, thank you. Am I suppose to know that from the text on the screen? :-)
I said it is well programmed, accurate and well designed. Is that necessarily perfect? Do you mean that "well programmed, accurate and well designed" means: defect, catastrophes, desease and so on? What argument at all do you have that world is "well programed, accurate and well designed"? Your own biased crativistic poop you read in scientology papers or jehovas propaganda?
Where have you seen that argument before? In your posting!!!!!!!!! Are you having sudden case of demens?
No it is not appropriate analogy, because according to you God would create each and every of human cells over and over and over again from the blueprint which we know does not happen. At least I am created by my parents, but maybe you are made in a laboratory who knows.
Cells reproduce, not produce.
And your point by stating the obiouvs is?
Then you have misunderstood my analogy. I said God created one original thing, those things reproduce themselves, and those things can make an imperfect or defect copy. No, in your analogy you have claimed thta god like you, a shirtmaker, is making copies out of original over and over again. Those things reproduce themselves, and also evolve and change over the time, and that is why your analogy is wrong and false. I am glad I have at least teached you that cells are reproducing themselves and it is not god that blueprints them each and every day as you have claimed.
I am not a fanatic. yes you are.
Because it makes more sense than your ID poop
Oh.. I see. Now it all makes sense. My opinion is wrong, because your opinion makes more sense to you.
Sorry dude, the world doesn't work that way. That's bad debating :)
That's like saying apples tastes better than oranges, because you think so.
My opinion makes more sense to me than yours yes, otherwise I wouldn't be debating :-). You are wrong about your analogy, and you oviously can't take it and are just repeating, cutting things out and turning stuff upside down because you have nothing more to say. That makes you a pooper :-). Start staying behind what you said and try to defend it with argument or admit you took a bad example and try something else if you ain't a pooper.
Bad debating is not being able to argue more than one level as you obiously are not able; and also not being able to accept when you have false argument. By the way, you will never have argument you can defend simply because you are defending what is undefendable. God does not exist and religion is just poop for utterly illiterate brains. It is poor mans religion, for people who can't think for themselves or don't want to think for themselves.
No it is not like saying apples tastes better than oranges :-). Nice try, but it is more like saying, smoking and alcohol are bad for you and you are saying, no they are not because I like it.
Am I suppose to know that from the text on the screen? :-)
No, that's why I informed you that I was a woman.
What argument at all do you have that world is "well programed, accurate and well designed"?
The eye itself has 1 chance in 50.000 to be what it is. If there is one different thing about the eye, it doesn't work.
No man has succeeded in making a machine as well programmed as the human being.
Where have you seen that argument before? In your posting!!!!!!!!! Are you having sudden case of demens?
I thought you accused me of using arguments based on things I read. That is not true, but if you didn't accuse me of doing so then let's move on.
And your point by stating the obiouvs is?
I can't remember, it's been a while since I debated with you, sorry.
I think it was something about that when a cell reproduces itself, the reproduction of that can be defect, that doesn't mean that the cell it was reproduced from is defect.
Two people can have a child with a disorder or disability - does that mean the parents are disable too, or have the disability themselves? No.
Some reproductions can be defect, that doesn't change the perfection of the original design.
But if life created life, what created the first life?I firmly believe that life can become under certain circumstances on its own because of the physics law and interaction between particles.
But even if I don't know how first life on Earth become, it still does not proof there is God.
Religion has always been used to fill knowledge gaps, and this is exactly what happeneds now in your argumentation. Just because we can not explain something at the moment, it does not mean we will not be able in the future. Maybe not today or in a month or year, but maybe in thousand, or 10 000 years, it does not matter. You can see that was trend during the whole human history. It is just sad to see thare are still humans that believe Earth is not round.
:) ok. So what is the point than of talking about well-programmed cells and your beliefs and getting into the debate if you don't feel to prove anything. Debate is about proofing one stand or another.
Well, someone on the other side said God almost undoubtily does not exist. This is a very wrong assumption to make, because there is just as much chance that he does exist, than that he doesn't.
You disputed my argument with a total different thing, asking me about my belief - I answered.
Well, someone on the other side said God almost undoubtily does not exist. This is a very wrong assumption to make, because there is just as much chance that he does exist, than that he doesn't.
Why? What proof do you have? No it is not the fact that you can't give physic eveidence that god exist or not exist that makes it equally big chance. Do you have any other argument why is that wrong other than yhour subjective belief.
You disputed my argument with a total different thing, asking me about my belief - I answered. No I didn't. You took up that about our cells being so well programmed, and I just disputed that claim, since it was clearly wrong. Unless you accept that all anomalies that our cell exhibit are also part of "well programmed" in your claim. But in that case it wouldn't be anomaly.
You should ask the other guy, who said that. What proof does he have to make such a statement? God probably doesn't exist, but does he undoubtily not exist? No.
No I didn't. You took up that about our cells being so well programmed, and I just disputed that claim, since it was clearly wrong. Unless you accept that all anomalies that our cell exhibit are also part of "well programmed" in your claim. But in that case it wouldn't be anomaly.
Because it is true.
Everything in works so well together.. everything just works and it is weird that it does.
So after all this discussion only think you can come up with is you original claim that everything is so well :-).
Everything in works so well together.. everything just works and it is weird that it does.
So you DO mean that brain cancer is something that God intended for our cells to develop and it is working well for those poor people that die in agony and pain of damaged brain cells? According to you it is well working when a child 6 years old develop brain cancer and die?
Maybe you should develop one and experience your intelligent designers great work. It is probably the purpose you got a brain for, since you don't seem to use it for other purposes such as logical thinking.
It is incredible how people can be irrational and stupid despite all the science and knowledge on their disposal. Isn't it? Probably because biologically we are still same as cave people from 30 000 yeras ago and some even refuse to update their knowledge as well.
So after all this discussion only think you can come up with is you original claim that everything is so well :-).
Yes, things are good, don't be such a pessimist. Yes disease, sickness, death, war and I could go on exist. But there is good too.
And don't throw the cancer thing back at me - don't judge people who try to see some good in this world. Thank goodness some of the people here actually can see the benefits of life, instead of the bad stuff that it contains.
If there weren't bad things, we couldn't enjoy the good.
I am not irrational, I am human. I have no chance of escaping from the bad, so why not just try to see the good? You should try it some time.
What makes you think that I am not seeing good? If say the background of this page is white, does it mean I deny there exists black backgrounds? Your logic is very limited and naive.
So you mean that a 6 year old children should die in brain cancer, so that YOU can see the good? Is that what you mean with your rethorics?
Yes, things are good, don't be such a pessimist. Yes disease, sickness, death, war and I could go on exist. But there is good too.
Why do you believe I am a pessimist? :-) I am actually very happy and glad person; I am just showing you that world is not very "well programmed" place as you are arguing which implies that your theory about "intelligent creator" is false. You obviously have no argument to come up with but assumptions and your subjective claims in style "oh what a wonderful world". Even war, disease and sickness are wonderfull than? The point is that your assumption: world is so well programmed and this is sign of intelligent design is false and meaningless.
I disagree, the human is the most well programmed thing we know of. :-)
Its just your wish. What proof do you have that "The human" is programmed at all? What proof do you have that "the human" is "the most well programmed thing we know of"? You are just babbeling creativistic poop without even reflecting on it. Oooo "the human being is fantastic!" ... "thu utter proof that God created the universe" ... "ooooo ... hallelujah" ...
No, we are just animals like any other mamals. Why would human be more "well programmed than a monkey?". At least you don't seem to give a proof of more "advanced programming". Or you mean you are just a proof of imperfections in copying? :-)
Your side is theism yet you say God is not good? It is clearly mentioned in the Bible that God is good. Luke 18:19 - "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good - Except God alone). And God does not make mistakes. He is perfect. A perfect being does not make "mistakes". Also, I hope you are talking about micro-evolution and not macro-evolution, because macro-evolution has no proof.
God is real. If not, how were we created? How were our ancestors created? How were the forests, seas and skies created? God created the heavens and the earth. He created the universe where all the planets are created. In the Bible's first chapter, it explains how everything was made and how our world developed.
God is proved by Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics states that before the universe, there were quantum fluctuations occurring all over the place. The Big Bang was most likely a massive quantum fluctuation that became self-sustaining, but to become self-sustaining external forces would have to aid it so that it could become powerful enough. Since no other matter existed, God is the only explanation. A quantum fluctuation expands quickly if it becomes self-sustaining, and since time was not invented yet it probably seemed like a huge very fast explosion. There is more but that is all for now.
I disagree. Because they base their authority on senses and reasoning which are fallible and can't be tested empirically. The Bible is infallible and is the basis for knowledge and understanding, therefore it is more reliable then what they use to argue.
How might we prove that God is imaginary? One way would be to find a contradiction between the definition of God and the God we experience in the real world.
What would happen if we get down on our knees and pray to God in this way:
Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.
We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways.
Will anything happen? No. Of course not.
This is very odd. Jesus makes specific promises in the Bible about how prayer is supposed to work. Jesus says in many different places that he and God will answer your prayers. And Christians believe Jesus -- according to this recent article, "54% of American adults believe the Bible is literally true." In some areas of the country the number goes as high as 75%.
If the Bible is literally true, then something is seriously amiss. Simply look at the facts. In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:
Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
If "every one who asks receives", then if we ask for cancer to be cured, it should be cured. Right? If "our Father who is in heaven gives good things to those who ask him", then if we ask him to cure cancer, he should cure it. Right? And yet nothing happens.
In Matthew 17:20 Jesus says:
For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
If "nothing will be impossible to you", then if we ask to cure cancer tonight, cancer should disappear. Right? Yet nothing happens. Note that if we take the Bible less-than-literally here, the statement "nothing will be impossible to you" becomes "lots of things will be impossible to you," and that would mean that Jesus is lying.
In Matthew 21:21:
I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.
If "you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer", then if we ask to cure cancer tonight, cancer should dissappear. Right? Yet nothing happens. Note again that there is not a non-literal way to interpret "you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer", unless you replace "whatever" with "nothing" or "little."
The message is reiterated Mark 11:24:
Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
If God says, "believe that you have received it, and it will be yours," and if we believe in God and his power, then what should happen if we pray to cure cancer tonight? It should be cured. Either that, or God is lying.
In John chapter 14, verses 12 through 14, Jesus tells all of us just how easy prayer can be:
"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." [ref]
Look at how direct this statement is: "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." This is the "Son of God" speaking. Have we taken him "too literally?" No. This is a simple, unambiguous statement. Have we taken his statement "out of context?" No - Jesus uses the word anyone. Yet Jesus' statement is obviously false. Because when we ask God to cure cancer tonight, nothing happens.
We see the same thing over and over again...
In Matthew 18:19 Jesus says:
Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
In James 5:15-16 the Bible says:
And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
In Mark 9:23:
All things are possible to him who believes.
In Luke 1:37:
For with God nothing will be impossible.
Nothing could be simpler or clearer than Jesus' promises about prayer in the Bible. Yet, when we pray to eliminate cancer, nothing happens.
And keep in mind that this is Jesus talking here. These are not the words of human beings. These are not the words of "inspired" human beings. These are supposedly the words of God himself, incarnated in a human body. Jesus is supposed to be a perfect, sinless being. And yet, it is obvious that Jesus is lying. What Jesus says is clearly incorrect.
god has to be a part of creation if god does exist.i think creation is the most powerful force around.i say the created god changes with the continuing evolution of creation.in other words the created god of 2013 is a different form of creation than the created god of say pre history.in 1000 years time the created god will be different again.
The statistics you presented on prayers coming through is simply nonsense. I'm sure the stats doesn't cover that there are many prayers not answered until many years after they are said. What if the 30% percent fall into that category? If you read the Bible, you will find that many times people waited for for years before receiving an answer.
"Right? Yet nothing happens. Note that if we take the Bible less-than-literally here, the statement "nothing will be impossible to you" becomes "lots of things will be impossible to you," and that would mean that Jesus is lying."
Jesus was speaking directly to his apostles when he told them that the prayer of faith would accomplish anything they set their mind to. And it so happened that all the great miracles recorded in "the Acts of the Apostles" were fulfillment of those things Jesus had promised.
When Jesus said that anything asked in his name would be granted, he was telling the truth in that many outstanding results have been accomplished in the name of Jesus, since the apostles have passed away. There are many accounts of miracles happening after the apostles in St. Augustine's City of God. There have been many other miracles established since then in the name of Jesus, up to modern day, some of which I have personally witnessed. But since your fond of calling people liars to further your "hardness of heart," you will also say that I'm lying.
Jesus didn't mean that we had an unlimited wish-list. There is a text in James that addresses those who don't receive answers to their prayers: those who pray amiss, missing the will and purpose of God. You see many pray for stones to turn into bread instead of understanding why Jesus didn't do so, even though he had the power to.
Prayers are most powerful when they are humble and to better others. When we seek the kingdom of God first in our praying our prayers are more readily answered.
Speak for yourself when you say that prayers don't work, because prayers have always worked for me.
World has always existed, it is worlds nature. Man was created by same force as all other living beings, both animals and plants and anything else that has dna in itself.
The universe has not always existed, this has been scientifically proven. The universe is slowly shrinking, dying out, contracting, etc. The point is, it will come to an end.
Think of it this way: A flashlight has batteries, energy, right? Let's say the flashlight is on. The flashlight is slowly dying out and growing less bright. It can not have been on since the beginning of time. (Ignoring the fact that flashlights had not been invented yet. This is purely hypothetical.) If it had, it would have already run out of energy. Just like how the universe is slowly dying out, and running out of energy.
If the universe was eternal, it would have died out by now. But since the universe is not eternal, it still has life left and is using it up until, undeniably, it will come to a definite end.
I'm hoping you saw where I was going with this. Explanation is not my strong suit.
The proof that the Christian God exists is simple.
First, nobody needs proof because Romans 1 says all know and are without excuse, those who call themselves 'atheists' do know there is a God, they just hate him and his laws.
The Proof is:
Major premise: Without God, you could not know anything
Minor premise: You know things
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
Support for Major premise: There are only two ways to know anything, absolute knowledge or revelation from one with absolute knowledge. Because if you did not have absolute knowledge, something you don't know could contradict what you think you know, therefore those without absolute knowledge cannot know anything.
To be all knowing is to be God. God is then only one who knows all things.
Therefore, to know anything, you would have to have revelation from God.
Support for Minor premise: You know things. The funny thing about atheists is that everytime they open their mouth they utter a knowledge claim. Yet, as I have just proved, if there is no God no one can know anything. Any argument an atheist presents relies upon the existence of knowledge and logic, both un-accounted for in an atheistic worldview. Even to say "I don't know anything" is to make a knowledge claim. A common rebuttal is "I don't know anything, but neither do you!" it doesn't take long to see the flawed logic in that statement, for if you don't know anything, how do you know what I know?
The logical conclusion is that, because without God you could not know anything and you know things, God exists. And each vote for the atheists side can be counted as a vote for the Theism side because each of those arguments prove God exists.
Repent and put your trust in Christ alone. You love you sin and that is why you call yourself an atheist. You don't want there to be a God so you can do whatever you want with no eternal consequence, but you know he exists, you do not need this proof, and if you don't trust in Christ's blood to pay for your sins you will pay for them for eternity.
For more information in this argument, go to proofthatgodexists.org
You used the Bible as your source. Not very efficient, considering that your opponents don't even believe in it.
If God existed before us humans, then why wasn't the Bible written at the very beginning of humankind? Please don't say something like:
"Because the humans then weren't developed enough yet." My response: I thought God was supposed to be all-powerful. Wouldn't he have made the first humans perfect at once?
"Because God wanted us (people who lived "after the Bible was written") to be the ones to believe in him." My response: Doesn't your Bible say something about God 'loving all his children?' Or something like that.
~~~~~~~
Also, you said: " You love you sin and that is why you call yourself an atheist. You don't want there to be a God so you can do whatever you want with no eternal consequence, but you know he exists, you do not need this proof, and if you don't trust in Christ's blood to pay for your sins you will pay for them for eternity."
Well, that was interesting. And outrageous.
You're saying that anyone who doesn't believe the same things as you are evil beings. Thanks a lot.
If this were true, then all atheists would be murdering and stealing and destroying the world by now. That hasn't happened.
A lot of wars have been fought because of religion.
Lastly, do really think God would approve of the ways the Native Americans were treated when the Christians came to the New World? I hardly think he'd support whipping and beating and yelling.
The bible may seem very illogical, however if you look at science. For example Solid matter, you may or may not begin to realize the confusion of what makes Solid matter solid, you may say solid matter is solid because the particles are solid, but what makes the particles solid? You could say forces make particles solid, but what gives forces this ability?
So you can come to the conclusion that God creates the rules of the universe(including what gives forces the ability), you could in fact argue that there could be other rules that the universe would have followed perfectly, and that he can do anything. The question is what is God? God might not be psychical, and that he is a being who has no limit's to what he can do. In fact you could say, with God anything could be possible!
Christians have more doubt than everything added about their god,i have sold stolen goods to them,where a muslim has walked away,but they have all their doubt in themselves cause they know they arent good.christians living a good just life so they must make up for it by preaching their filthy diahrea up all our asses and they just cannot concept that 1 plus 1 equals 2,but bash it in at a young age/spastic(if of age)and teach them that 1 plus 1 equals 1million miracles,now FUCKOFF
William Lane Craig (PhD and Professor) had said that empty space is not nothing. A void (or empty space) is still space, even though empty. It is still a dimension. Now a dimensionless state is nothing, empty space is something. According to Scotus Dun’s (Oxford graduate and scholar) argument of causes and effects there has to be a cause for an effect. An endless amount of causes (like the universe always existing) is impossible. In ancient Greece there was once a god named “chaos”, which literally was nothing. But they treated it as a god (or a supreme being) because it led to the creation of the other gods. Now scientifically, the universe happened when “nothing” began to vibrate and created a void, and continued vibrating until a small microscopic particle called the Higgs Boson (aka “the God particle”or particle that gives everything mass) exploded and created the expansion of the universe which led to the creation of 9 dimensions. 8 spatial and 1 temporal. Which led to mass but technically did not create mass because mass is positive and gravity is negative. So the total amount of mass and gravity equals out to zero, so it still follows the law of conservation of mass. Keep in mind before the big bang, time (the temporal dimension), did not exist. And after the big bang height, width, and depth were created, as well as time, which were 4 of the said dimensions. So as the universe expanded it created atoms which eventually fused and created suns and planets. One of which planet was earth. And the first life forms arose (cyanobacteria); which later led to humans. Now genetically all humans can be traced back to one male and one female, and in the book of Genesis the first humans were one male (Adam) and one female (eve). And the Dead Sea scrolls do not rule out evolution. In fact they support it. In the book of Enoch it describes Giant’s that walked the earth before and alongside humans, which supports fossil evidence of human evolution. Now explain to me how 5,000 years before genetic testing people knew that humanity started with one male and one female. Also describe how the Greeks would know about the vibration that led to the creation of the universe, even naming it, before modern science. And finally how can you explain how “nothing” can vibrate and lead to the something before TIME even existed? There scientifically had to have been someone to create that effect, because an effect can’t happen without a cause, it’s scientifically impossible. Plus the laws such as conservation of mass and physics are organized, and the Universe is spontaneous, and scientifically only intelligent life can set laws. Like Isaac Newton and John Scotus Duns both said that no cause can happen without an effect, and “every action has an equal and opposite reaction” sounds familiar doesn't it? Because without a cause there can be no effect, and there can be no endless amount of causes. How can you say that the universe created itself? Not only does that go against John Scotus Duns argument, Isaac Newton’s laws of motion, but even Einstein ruled out Atheism. Something will not and has not ever been created from nothing.
An explosion destroys not create! how can the big bang cause a world to create? Especially if you think of one individual human being, to create such a sophisticated creature, the brain alone should make you wonder how all of a sudden it appeared to be! even atheists know that there has to be a god, it`s just that if you admit it, then all of a sudden there instructions of god to follow,the holy bible. Tell an atheist to tell her mother in her death bed that she should go to hell, this cannot happen because inside of every ones heart they know the truth. it`s just that they are afraid to admit it.
If you blow up a rock face, yes it destroys it, but it also CREATES new smaller rocks.
I admit this does not explain how something exploded from nothing, but neither does god!
Did he just suddenly appear!?
You must be pretty stupid if you think atheists believe a brain was instantly created from nothing.
We believe that matter slowly (over millions/billions of years) created things & that these creations slowly adapted to be more effective.
"All atheists know there must be a God"
What!?
Do you know what atheism is!?
Once my parents (who are Christian) told me "If we are wrong, we don't lose anything because we will just die & that will be it. But if you're wrong, you lose everything, so why not believe?"
That got me thinking, most religious people are religious because they need a sort of 'safety net' around their life.
Religious person has a difficult situation-they pray.
Atheist has the same difficult situation-They solve it.
Us Atheists do not need someone else ruling our life just so we don't feel 'alone'.
"If you blow up a rock face, yes it destroys it, but it also CREATES new smaller rocks.
I admit this does not explain how something exploded from nothing, but neither does god!
Did he just suddenly appear!?"
God created our concept of "time." He is outside of time, therefore the laws of time do not apply to him. He is immutable (does not change) does not age, and does not have a beginning or an end, as those things only apply to something inside of time. Things inside of time must have a beginning, must age and grow, change, dissolve, decrease, and decay. Energy alone cannot sustain itself; it can only deplete and over a period of Time, and eventually run out. Energy INSIDE of time must have a source. It cannot increase itself without an external source, it only can decrease. There must be a self-sustaining "well" of energy that continues to supply the Universe, otherwise everything would have already brought about it's own destruction, or depletion. Therefore, the only logical and reasonable explanation is an external, self-sustaining energy source that exists OUTSIDE of time.
"You must be pretty stupid if you think atheists believe a brain was instantly created from nothing. "
You have made a very good point. An excellent one, perfectly logical and reasonable, and you are right. A brain cannot be instantly created from nothing. I hate to have to turn this around on you, but actually by saying that you are contradicting the entire Atheist argument. You say that a brain cannot be created from nothing, yet you will argue and say that a single particle of matter somehow appeared from nothing and then proceeded to evolve over billions of years into... Trees, stars, oceans, animals... humans... (hence billions of brains)... and all out of a single particle of matter which came from.......... what?
"We believe that matter slowly (over millions/billions of years) created things & that these creations slowly adapted to be more effective."
Use your logic, just for a moment! Take it back to the beginning to this matter that you say started it all. (Let's call this matter "M+") Where did M+ come from? Are you saying that M+ did not have a creator? That M+ has always existed? (Which strangely sounds like the argument for God) Or are you saying that M+ jumped into existence out of absolutely nothing, out of no pre-existing material? (which contradicts science in every way)
There are only three arguments to debate on that issue.
1) Matter has always existed
2) Matter jumped into existence with no outside source
3) Matter was created by an external source
1) -If you say matter (M+ for the purpose of this statement) has always existed, I would say that theory is only possible if M+ is outside of time and does not need a creator, which would not make sense because you say the matter "evolved" and if this were true, anything that it evolved into would be outside of time as well, meaning you and I and animals and the Earth would not age or decay. The mere fact that we age and decay is proof that we are inside of time. And that also does not explain where physical laws like gravity and time itself came from.
2) --If you say that M+ jumped into existence out of nothing, then I would tell you that you are contradicting science itself, and there would no more point in discussing the theory. You and I and any other logical thinker both know that is not possible. The same goes for any other theory. Saying that chemicals mixed together and created the matter, I would make the same argument, asking where the chemicals came from, etc. I believe it all boils down to an Uncaused Causer.
3) --If you agree with science and say that the matter has to have an external cause in order to exist, then I would simply concede my argument and my case for God would have been made. God exists outside of time, God CREATED time and is not governed BY time, and He created everything that exists INSIDE of time. The Uncaused Causer, so-to-speak.
"...most religious people are religious because they need a sort of 'safety net' around their life."
What is interesting about your statement here is that for the most part, you are right. Religion, as defined by man's attempt to be equal to God through rituals and traditions and good deeds, (hate to step on anyone's toes) is corny and faulty, and any smart person (Atheist, Theist, Agnostic, whatever...) can see right through it. I consider myself a Christian, but I recognize that the typical Christian (99% actually) is religious and usually hypocritical. However do not equate hypocritical religion with the belief IN God. The simple belief that God exists is not religion; it is science, logic and reason. Religion is driven by emotion, pride, and greed, whether people want to admit it or not. You can be Christian and be led into religion without even knowing it. I understand you have met so many hypocritical, religious theists, but be careful not to label EVERY single person who believes in the existence of God under the same label as "hypocritical" and "religious."
"Religious person has a difficult situation-they pray.
Atheist has the same difficult situation-They solve it."
I, taking my stance as a non-religious, Bible-believing Christian, believe that God exists, that He is perfect, and that he loves us. (If you want to discuss this I would be happy to, but on a different debate...) He hates the problems in our lives and the fact that we go through so much pain. It hurts him to see how much pain we go through, but he will not mess with free will and make us like robots, to do whatever he wants, as that would corrupt His perfection and make him imperfect. The fact that we have free will means that we have a choice whether or not to believe in Him. He leaves that up to us. He gives us as much evidence as possible, so that we can figure out on our own that He exists just by using the tools he gave us in our minds, the tools of Logic and Reason.
Because of our free will, we as humanity disobey God all the time. This disobedience is called "sin." We "sin" all the time, starting with Adam and Eve. Because God is perfect, part of His perfection is Justice. He must see that injustice is punished and justice is done, otherwise He would be corrupt. We have sinned, done wrong, and therefore have to be punished rightfully by just action. He is perfect and therefore has the right to judge us. He created a place called hell that is basically like a prison, a jail for the unjust. It is our punishment for our sin, and we deserve it. However God HATES to see us punished no matter what we've done because He loves us, and so because of His love He created a way that we could escape that punishment. He took a part of Himself, His son, and sent His son to die as a sacrifice in our place. That son was called Jesus Christ. Jesus set aside His divine attributes for a while and was born on Earth, and lived a perfect, sinless life. God had nothing to punish Him for, so when Jesus was crucified, God saw Him as a replacement for us, and God punished Jesus instead of us for our sin. Every sin that we ever would commit, God punished Jesus for it. Jesus finally died after God punished Him on the cross that He was nailed to, and then Jesus after three days in the tomb was resurrected, and defeated death and hell. Now, because of that, God is able to forgive us based on Jesus' sacrifice, and we don't have to go to hell and be punished; instead we can live with God in the place that He is designing for us as a blessing after we die. We now can have hope, and God can't wait to give us an awesome place in Heaven after death.
All of this is simple: If you accept Jesus Christ's sacrifice, and believe that He died in your place, you receive forgiveness and don't have to worry about punishment anymore. All it takes is for you to believe it and accept it as truth.
This is not religion, because God does not require you to go to church, go through any rituals, live a good life, or even be moral to be forgiven. And that is where the confusion lies in the world today. People think they have to do something to get heaven, and they become prideful and arrogant much of the time. It's all just confusion of the truth.
Just use the tools of Logic and Reason to study all of these things that I have told you, and see if they don't make sense! Have an open mind, study translations of the Bible and see what it originally was meant to say as opposed to the translations in English. You will find it does not contradict itself. Study the life of Jesus, even using non-Biblical texts. Philosophers (Atheist and Theist alike) will admit to the life and death of Jesus. The empty tomb after He was resurrected has never been refuted, and if He was resurrected, that means He was who He said He was and that you can have faith in Him. Do all of this without bias and pre-conceived notions!
"Us Atheists do not need someone else ruling our life just so we don't feel 'alone'."
The question is not if you FEEL alone, it is whether or not you ARE alone. If God does not exist, there is no reason to be moral, to live with standards, regardless of how you feel. But that also means there is no hope. If you're wrong, God exists, and you have purpose and there is a meaning to life that you haven't discovered yet. I know where I am going when I die; I have hope, because I know there is purpose to life and this one is not the end. I can't explain it or prove it personally to you, you just have to experience it for yourself.
I know where I am going, and I have a reason to have hope. Can you say the same?
[…] You say that a brain cannot be created from nothing, yet you will argue and say that a single particle of matter somehow appeared from nothing and then proceeded to evolve over billions of years […] and all out of a single particle of matter which came from […] what? & […] The Uncaused Causer, so-to-speak.
The problem with your reasoning is that you treat an absence of definitive knowledge as to the origins of the universe as evidence of the proof of God. This does not follow.
[..] I consider myself a Christian, but I recognize that the typical Christian (99% actually) is religious and usually hypocritical. However do not equate hypocritical religion with the belief IN God. […] be careful not to label EVERY single person who believes in the existence of God under the same label as "hypocritical" and "religious."
The accusation is not one of hypocrisy, but of insecurity. Theism is the human response to an aversion to the unknown; it is an emotional convenience that sidesteps the fear of uncertainty.
[…] It hurts him to see how much pain we go through, but he will not mess with free will and make us like robots, to do whatever he wants, as that would corrupt His perfection and make him imperfect. The fact that we have free will means that we have a choice whether or not to believe in Him. […] Because of our free will, we as humanity disobey God all the time. This disobedience is called "sin." […]
There is much you assert and presume, but I shall focus on this: The ultimate premise of your argument is the presumption of free will, yet you never actually substantiate that presumption. I will begin to lend your argument credibility only when you have demonstrated that free will is more probabilistically true than not.
What would follow from there is an expectation that you similarly substantiate each of the rest of your multitude of other assumptions (e.g. God loves us, God is perfect, etc.).
Just use the tools of Logic and Reason to study all of these things that I have told you, and see if they don't make sense!
Logic and reason preclude presumptuous conclusions; your ideas are filled with them.
Do all of this without bias and pre-conceived notions!
Your entire argument is premised upon biased, pre-conceived notions. When one assumes a neutral ground your conclusions do not follow from what you have presented.
The question is not if you FEEL alone, it is whether or not you ARE alone. If God does not exist, there is no reason to be moral, to live with standards, regardless of how you feel. But that also means there is no hope.
God is not requisite to morality; most atheists possess moral intuition absent theistic faith. Morality itself is not even a purely religious construction, but a byproduct of human evolution compelled by biology and social pressures; it is fundamentally a matter of emotional judgment projected onto ourselves and our surroundings. I personally reject morality as detrimental to reason and the pursuit of objective truth; I could go into this if you like, but suffice it to say that far from alarming me your argument of an amoral Godless universe is rather appealing.
I hold hope in similar disutility. I have found it not only unnecessary in my life, but a liability.
If you're wrong, God exists, and you have purpose and there is a meaning to life that you haven't discovered yet.
I do not feel any need for my life to have any purpose or meaning.
I know where I am going when I die; I have hope, because I know there is purpose to life and this one is not the end. I can't explain it or prove it personally to you, you just have to experience it for yourself.
Therein lies the crux of the matter: you cannot explain it or prove it. Consequentially, you do not know these things but believe them as result of the many presumptions you hold.
I know where I am going, and I have a reason to have hope. Can you say the same?
"There is much you assert and presume, but I shall focus on this: The ultimate premise of your argument is the presumption of free will, yet you never actually substantiate that presumption. I will begin to lend your argument credibility only when you have demonstrated that free will is more probabilistically true than not.
What would follow from there is an expectation that you similarly substantiate each of the rest of your multitude of other assumptions (e.g. God loves us, God is perfect, etc.)..."
Again, If you would like to discuss those concepts, let's open a different debate. I did not substantiate because the purpose of this argument is only to debate God's existence.
Again, If you would like to discuss those concepts, let's open a different debate. I did not substantiate because the purpose of this argument is only to debate God's existence.
Your argument that God exists is premised upon the existence of free will, making free will a topical subject in the debate on the existence of God. If you persist in the notion that free will is non-topical, then the implication is that it was not topical to begin with and you have not actually proven the existence of God.
Furthermore, you have utterly neglected the entirety of the rest of my rebuttal. Failure to do so again will indicate concession of the points concerned.
The morals we have are for the continuation of our civilization. The hope we have is that future generations will live better than we have. It is not us who has no hope. The concept of eternal afterlife should not be a prerequisite for doing good. I do not believe in God, heaven or Hell, yet, I do not lie, cheat, steal or murder. I do not do these things because I know them to be less than ideal when considering the future of the human race. I do not need the promise of an eternal paradise, nor the threat of eternal damnation to do what is right.
if you don't want a "safety net' that is your problem. and the explosion argument is stupid
and also then can the atheist please explain then the conscience? or maybe abstract feelings. because i am pretty sure those aren't natural or come from anything material, and it certainly doesn't take millions of years either.
and god doesn't rule our life we freely choose to do this
Don't you guys get tired of doing these debates? It's like you need them to stroke your ego or something.
Far as a god or gods go, I'm not certain. But pretty sure Atheism isn't the right thing, as well. Mainly since I exist, and yes that is a total fallacy and I don't care if you call me on it.
There is a God for sure. The perfection of the things out here had to be created with an intelligent mind. No way a big bang made everything perfect and reasonably stable. "The Big Bang" started with one atom? The explosion from one Atom would only have enough force to create a nuclear explosion without not create a whole Universe with perfect life on Earth. You cannot disprove the existence of God. Ceasar only has 3 eyewitnesses of his Existence which then clarifies his existence but Jesus 18 eyewitnesses of his Existence and you still can't believe? Jesus had been proven to be the son of God. There is no good reason for Athiesm to be true. The proof of Jesus is the proof of God's existence. They definitely did not make up the stories of Jesus. All of the Canon(66 books in the Bible) agrees within its self. For example; Luke will give another perspective of Jesus in the same event as what Matthew wrote. Athiest say that the Gospels contradict each other but it actually appears to contradict each but it does not. Apparent contradictions are good to see from different eyewitnesses because if they said the same event exactly the same then it would appear that they set up a made up story. But you can put the perspectives of different eyewitnesses stories into one. Just like there can be 4 witnesses of a wonderful BBQ. One can talk about the grass, one can talk about the Chicken,one can talk about the salad, and one can talk about the fireworks. Each testimony may not talk about the same things about the BBQ nor have the same order but if you put all of the 4 testimonies together you will then get a full picture of the BBQ. They may even address what the other testimonies did address also but in a different way. Ok you get the point. The Bible is proven true through Archaeology and reason. God is proven true through the ressurection of his son Jesus. Prophecy proves the Bible to be true. Science and God agrees with each other. We dont agree with the Atheistic philosophy of science. If you come at the right approach then you will understand that science proves God. "There is no good reason for Athiesm to be true." William Lane Craig stated. I completely agree on that statement from Craig.
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
1 Corinthians 8:6 ESV / 92 helpful votes
Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Revelation 4:11 ESV / 45 helpful votes
“Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”
Hebrews 11:6 ESV / 44 helpful votes
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
1 John 4:8 ESV / 40 helpful votes
Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
Romans 1:18-20 ESV / 39 helpful votes
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Colossians 1:15 ESV / 36 helpful votes
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
John 1:1-2 ESV / 30 helpful votes
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.
Romans 1:21 ESV / 26 helpful votes
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
James 1:17 ESV / 20 helpful votes
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
John 3:8 ESV / 20 helpful votes
The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
John 1:18 ESV / 20 helpful votes
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
Genesis 1:27 ESV / 18 helpful votes
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Psalm 90:2 ESV / 17 helpful votes
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
1 Peter 3:18-22 ESV / 14 helpful votes
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
John 4:24 ESV / 13 helpful votes
God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
John 3:16-17 ESV / 13 helpful votes
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Romans 1:18 ESV / 12 helpful votes
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Jeremiah 29:13 ESV / 12 helpful votes
You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.
Psalm 19:1 ESV / 12 helpful votes
To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Romans 1:25 ESV / 11 helpful votes
Because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Isaiah 40:26 ESV / 11 helpful votes
Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these? He who brings out their host by number, calling them all by name, by the greatness of his might, and because he is strong in power not one is missing.
Genesis 2:1-25 ESV / 11 helpful votes
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground,
Genesis 1:1-31 ESV / 11 helpful votes
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Romans 1:28 ESV / 10 helpful votes
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Job 38:4 ESV / 10 helpful votes
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
Psalm 14:1-4 ESV / 9 helpful votes
To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one. Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread and do not call upon the Lord?
John 6:55-59 ESV / 8 helpful votes
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
John 6:50-71 ESV / 8 helpful votes
This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
John 3:16 ESV / 8 helpful votes
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Isaiah 7:14 ESV / 8 helpful votes
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
James 2:19 ESV / 7 helpful votes
You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!
John 14:21 ESV / 7 helpful votes
Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”
Mark 16:15-16 ESV / 7 helpful votes
And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
John 20:29 ESV / 6 helpful votes
Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
John 20:19-24 ESV / 6 helpful votes
On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”
Psalm 13:5-6 ESV / 5 helpful votes
But I have trusted in your steadfast love; my heart shall rejoice in your salvation. I will sing to the Lord, because he has dealt bountifully with me.
Deuteronomy 33:27 ESV / 5 helpful votes
The eternal God is your dwelling place, and underneath are the everlasting arms. And he thrust out the enemy before you and said, Destroy.
Romans 6:23 ESV / 4 helpful votes
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 2:14 ESV / 4 helpful votes
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
John 3:5 ESV / 4 helpful votes
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
John 1:1 ESV / 4 helpful votes
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Luke 1:47-49 ESV / 4 helpful votes
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.
Psalm 19:1-2 ESV / 4 helpful votes
To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.
Hebrews 12:6 ESV / 3 helpful votes
For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.”
Hebrews 9:22 ESV / 3 helpful votes
Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins
We do not need proof at all.
God does exist and I know because of this story.
Elijah on Mount Carmel
16 So Obadiah went to meet Ahab and told him, and Ahab went to meet Elijah. 17 When he saw Elijah, he said to him, “Is that you, you troubler of Israel?”
18 “I have not made trouble for Israel,” Elijah replied. “But you and your father’s family have. You have abandoned the Lord’s commands and have followed the Baals. 19 Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel’s table.”
20 So Ahab sent word throughout all Israel and assembled the prophets on Mount Carmel. 21 Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.”
But the people said nothing.
22 Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the Lord’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord. The god who answers by fire—he is God.”
Then all the people said, “What you say is good.”
25 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.” 26 So they took the bull given them and prepared it.
Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.
27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” 28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.
30 Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come here to me.” They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the Lord, which had been torn down. 31 Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the Lord had come, saying, “Your name shall be Israel.” 32 With the stones he built an altar in the name of the Lord, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs[a] of seed. 33 He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, “Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood.”
34 “Do it again,” he said, and they did it again.
“Do it a third time,” he ordered, and they did it the third time. 35 The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.
36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me, Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.”
38 Then the fire of the Lord fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.
39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The Lord—he is God! The Lord—he is God!”
40 Then Elijah commanded them, “Seize the prophets of Baal. Don’t let anyone get away!” They seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there.
41 And Elijah said to Ahab, “Go, eat and drink, for there is the sound of a heavy rain.” 42 So Ahab went off to eat and drink, but Elijah climbed to the top of Carmel, bent down to the ground and put his face between his knees.
43 “Go and look toward the sea,” he told his servant. And he went up and looked.
“There is nothing there,” he said.
Seven times Elijah said, “Go back.”
44 The seventh time the servant reported, “A cloud as small as a man’s hand is rising from the sea.”
So Elijah said, “Go and tell Ahab, ‘Hitch up your chariot and go down before the rain stops you.’”
45 Meanwhile, the sky grew black with clouds, the wind rose, a heavy rain started falling and Ahab rode off to Jezreel.
ALL HAIL GODDESS Artemis - for the PROOF of her existence is mighty... ;)
Proof that Artemis exists (from the Iliad):
•05.051 ...Artemis taught the Trojan, Skamandrios (Scamander), how to strike down all wild things in the mountain forest
•05.053 ...Artemis of the showering arrows could not help Skamandrios (Scamander) when he was killed at Troy
•05.447 ...Artemis and Leto heal Aineias (Aeneas)
•06.205 ...Glaukos (Glaucus) related the story of how Artemis killed Laodameia, the daughter of Bellerophontes (Bellerophon)
•06.427 ...Artemis killed Andromakhe’s (Andromache) mother after Akhilleus (Achilles) had released her for ransom
•09.532 ...Artemis, of the golden chair, was angered at Oineus (Oeneus) for neglecting her in sacrifice and sent a boar to ravage the countryside
•09.536 ...Artemis, the daughter of great Zeus, was denied the first fruits by Oineus (Oeneus)
•09.538 ...Artemis is called ‘Lady of Arrows’
•09.547 ...Artemis caused great anger when the boar was dead and the hunters argued over possession of the boar’s head
•16.183 ...Hermes fell in love with Polymele when he saw her dancing in the choir of clamorous Artemis
•19.059 ...Akhilleus (Achilles) wishes that Artemis had killed Briseis instead of letting her become a point of dissention between himself and Agamemnon
•20.040 ...Apollon, Artemis, Aphrodite, Leto and Xanthos (Xanthus) fought on the side of the Trojans
•20.071 ...Artemis of the showering arrows stood against Hera when the Immortals entered the battle for Troy
•21.470 ...Apollon’s sister, Artemis, scolds him for not fighting Poseidon
•21.472 ...Artemis refers to Apollon as ‘striker from afar’
•21.480 ...Hera says that Artemis is shameless and bold for daring to stand against her in battle
•21.491 ...Hera grabs Artemis and knocks the bow and arrows from her shoulder; Artemis flees in tears
•21.505 ...Artemis, the maiden, bowed at the feet of Zeus
•21.509 ...Zeus speaks to Artemis and asks which of the gods has shamed her
•21.511 ...Artemis answers Zeus and says that Hera hit her during the fighting at Troy
•24.604 ...Akhilleus (Achilles) tells Priam about how Apollon had killed Niobe’s sons and Artemis had killed her daughters
Proof that Artemis exists (from the Odyssey):
•05.123 ...Kalypso (Calypso) reminds Hermes how chaste Artemis had killed Orion with her painless arrows because he was the lover of Eos (Dawn)
•06.102 ...Nausikaa was dancing like Artemis
•06.107 ...Artemis dances with the nymphs in the mountains
•06.151 ...Odysseus compares Nausikaa with the goddess Artemis in beauty and stature
•11.172 ...Odysseus encounters the ghost of his mother, Antikleia (Anticleia), in the Underworld and asks her if she died of illness or by the painless arrows of Artemis
•11.324 ...Artemis killed Ariadne on the island if Dia when Dionysus testified against her
•15.410 ...Apollon and Artemis come to the island of Syria and kill the aged painlessly with silver arrows
•15.478 ...When the swineherd, Eumaios (Eumaeus), was a child, he was kidnapped by Phoenicians with the help of his wicked nurse; Artemis killed her because of her betrayal
•17.037 ...Penelope was as lovely as Artemis or golden Aphrodite
•18.202 ...Penelope wishes that chaste Artemis would give her the peace of death
•19.054 ...Penelope was as lovely as Artemis or golden Aphrodite
•20.060 ...Penelope prays first to Artemis
•20.061 ...Penelope calls upon Artemis, daughter of Zeus, to pierce her heart and ease her pain
•20.071 ...Penelope thinks of the daughters of Pandareos (Pandareus) and how Hera gave them beauty, chaste Artemis gave them stature and Athene (Athena) gave them skill
•20.080 ...Penelope wishes that the gods would make her vanish or that lovely haired Artemis would kill her so she could be with Odysseus in the Underworld
Proof that Artemis exists (from the Plato's Cratylus):
•Artemis is named from her healthy (artemes), well-ordered nature, and because of her love of virginity, perhaps because she is a proficient in virtue (arete), and perhaps also as hating intercourse of the sexes (ton aroton miseasa).
Proof that Artemis exists (from The Theogony of Hesiod):
•(ll. 1-25) From the Heliconian Muses let us begin to sing, who hold the great and holy mount of Helicon, and dance on soft feet about the deep-blue spring and the altar of the almighty son of Cronos, and, when they have washed their tender bodies in Permessus or in the Horse's Spring or Olmeius, make their fair, lovely dances upon highest Helicon and move with vigorous feet. Thence they arise and go abroad by night, veiled in thick mist, and utter their song with lovely voice, praising Zeus the aegis- holder and queenly Hera of Argos who walks on golden sandals and the daughter of Zeus the aegis-holder bright-eyed Athene, and Phoebus Apollo, and Artemis who delights in arrows, and Poseidon the earth-holder who shakes the earth, and reverend Themis and quick-glancing (1) Aphrodite, and Hebe with the crown of gold, and fair Dione, Leto, Iapetus, and Cronos the crafty counsellor, Eos and great Helius and bright Selene, Earth too, and great Oceanus, and dark Night, and the holy race of all the other deathless ones that are for ever. And one day they taught Hesiod glorious song while he was shepherding his lambs under holy Helicon, and this word first the goddesses said to me -- the Muses of Olympus, daughters of Zeus who holds the aegis:
•(ll. 918-920) And Leto was joined in love with Zeus who holds the aegis, and bare Apollo and Artemis delighting in arrows, children lovely above all the sons of Heaven.
Proof that Artemis exists (from Callimachus - HYMN I. TO ZEUS):
•Thus, smith, we say, belong to Hephaestus; to Ares, warriors; to Artemis of the Tunic, huntsmen; to Phoebus they that know well the strains of the lyre.
Proof that Artemis exists (from Callimachus - HYMN II. TO APOLLO):
•[60] Artemis hunted and brought continually the heads of Cynthian goats and Phoebus plaited an altar.
Proof that Artemis exists (from the Callimachus - HYMN III. TO ARTEMIS):
•[1] Artemis we hymn – no light thing is it for singers to forget her – whose study is the bow and the shooting of hares and the spacious dance and sport upon the mountains;
• And give to me all mountains; and for city, assign me any, even whatsoever thou wilt: for seldom is it that Artemis goes down to the town.
•[28] ... Three times ten cities and towers more than one will I vouchsafe thee – three times ten cities that shall not know to glorify any other god but to glorify the only and be called of Artemis And thou shalt be Watcher over Streets and harbours.
•[98] ... And thou wert suddenly amazed and sadist to thine own heart: “This would be a first capture worthy of Artemis.”
•[109] Artemis, Lady of Maidenhood, Slayer of Tityus, golden were thine arms and golden thy belt, and a golden car didst thou yoke, and golden bridles, goddess, didst thou put on thy deer.
•[233] For thee surely Proetus established two shrines, one of Artemis of Maidenhood for that thou dist gather for him his maiden daughters, when they were wandering over the Azanian hills; the other he founded in Lusa to Artemis the Gentle, because thou tookest from his daughters the spirit of wildness.
•[258] O Lady of Munychia, Watcher of Harbours, hail, Lady of Pherae! Let none disparage Artemis.
Proof that Artemis exists (from Callimachus - HYMN IV. TO DELOS):
•[228] So she spake and seated her beside the golden throne, even as a hunting hound of Artemis, which, when it hath ceased from the swift chase, sitteth by her feet, and its ears are erect, ever ready to receive the call of the goddess.
Proof that Artemis exists (from the Callimachus - HYMN V. ON THE BATH OF PALLAS):
•[93] ... And yet he shall be companion of the chase to great Artemis.
•[1.1.4] The Athenians have also another harbor, at Munychia, with a temple of Artemis of Munychia, and yet another at Phalerum, as I have already stated, and near it is a sanctuary of Demeter.
•[1.14.5] ... This is the victory of which I am of opinion the Athenians were proudest; while Aeschylus, who had won such renown for his poetry and for his share in the naval battles before Artemisium and at Salamis, recorded at the prospect of death nothing else, and merely wrote his name, his father's name, and the name of his city, and added that he had witnesses to his valor in the grove at Marathon and in the Persians who landed there.
•[1.19.6] Across the Ilisus is a district called Agrae and a temple of Artemis Agrotera (the Huntress). They say that Artemis first hunted here when she came from Delos, and for this reason the statue carries a bow.
•[1.21.3] ... This also has a tripod over it, wherein are Apollo and Artemis slaying the children of Niobe.
•[1.23.7] I remember looking at other things also on the Athenian Acropolis, a bronze boy holding the sprinkler, by Lycius son of Myron, and Myron's Perseus after beheading Medusa. There is also a sanctuary of Brauronian Artemis; the image is the work of Praxiteles, but the goddess derives her name from the parish of Brauron. The old wooden image is in Brauron, the Tauric Artemis as she is called.
•[1.26.4] Near the statue of Olympiodorus stands a bronze image of Artemis surnamed Leucophryne, dedicated by the sons of Themistocles; for the Magnesians, whose city the King had given him to rule, hold Artemis Leucophryne in honor.
•[1.29.2] ... As you go down to it you come to a precinct of Artemis, and wooden images of Ariste (Best) and Calliste (Fairest). In my opinion, which is supported by the poems of Pamphos, these are surnames of Artemis.
•[1.31.1] ... At Alimus is a sanctuary of Demeter Lawgiver and of the Maid, and at Zoster (Girdle) on the coast is an altar to Athena, as well as to Apollo, to Artemis and to Leto.
•[1.31.4] Such is the legend. Phlya and Myrrhinus have altars of Apollo Dionysodotus, Artemis Light-bearer, Dionysus Flower-god, the Ismenian nymphs and Earth, whom they name the Great goddess;
•[1.31.5] Athmonia worships Artemis Amarysia.
•[1.33.1] XXXIII. At some distance from Marathon is Brauron, where, according to the legend, Iphigenia, the daughter of Agamemnon, landed with the image of Artemis when she fled from the Tauri; leaving the image there she came to Athens also and afterwards to Argos. There is indeed an old wooden image of Artemis here, but who in my opinion have the one taken from the foreigners I will set forth in another place.
•[1.36.1] XXXVI. But I will return to my subject. In Salamis is a sanctuary of Artemis, and also a trophy erected in honor of the victory which Themistocles the son of Neocles won for the Greeks.
•[1.38.6] The Eleusinians have a temple of Triptolemus, of Artemis of the Portal, and of Poseidon Father, and a well called Callichorum (Lovely dance), where first the women of the Eleusinians danced and sang in praise of the goddess.
•[1.40.2] Not far from this fountain is an ancient sanctuary, and in our day likenesses stand in it of Roman emperors, and a bronze image is there of Artemis surnamed Saviour. is a story that a detachment of the army of Mardonius, having over run Megaris, wished to return to Mardonius at Thebes, but that by the will of Artemis night came on them as they marched, and missing their way they turned into the hilly region.
•[1.40.3] ... For this reason they had an image made of Artemis Saviour. Here are also images of the gods named the Twelve, said to be the work of Praxiteles. But the image of Artemis herself was made by Strongylion.
•[1.41.3] Not far from the tomb of Hyllus is a temple of Isis, and beside it one of Apollo and of Artemis.
• ...Alcathous therefore, son of Pelops, attacked the beast and overcame it, and when he came to the throne he built this sanctuary, surnaming Artemis Agrotera (Huntress) and Apollo Agraeus (Hunter).
•[1.41.6] ...Let so much suffice for Alcathous and for the lion, whether it was on Cithaeron or elsewhere that the killing took place that caused him to make a temple to Artemis Agrotera and Apollo Agraeus.
•[1.43.1] ... Now I have heard another account of Iphigenia that is given by Arcadians and I know that Hesiod, in his poem A Catalogue of Women, says that Iphigenia did not die, but by the will of Artemis is Hecate.
• ... A sanctuary of Artemis was made by Agamemnon when he came to persuade Calchas, who dwelt in Megara, to accompany him to Troy.
•[1.44.2] In it is a noteworthy Apollo, Artemis also, and Leto, and other statues, made by Praxiteles.
•[1.44.4] In Pagae a noteworthy relic is a bronze image of Artemis surnamed Saviour, in size equal to that at Megara and exactly like it in shape.
•[7.2.6] ... The sanctuary of Apollo at Didymi, and his oracle, are earlier than the immigration of the Ionians, while the cult of Ephesian Artemis is far more ancient still than their coming.
•[7.6.6] ... A likeness of this Adrastus in bronze was dedicated in front of the sanctuary of Persian Artemis by the Lydians, who wrote an inscription to the effect that Adrastus died fighting for the Greeks against Leonnatus.
•[7.18.8] On the acropolis of Patrae is a sanctuary of Artemis Laphria.
•[7.18.9] ... It is said that the goddess was surnamed Laphria after a man of Phocis, because the ancient image of Artemis was set up at Calydon by Laphrius, the son of Castalius, the son of Delphus.
•[7.18.10] Others say that the wrath of Artemis against Oeneus weighed as time went on more lightly (elaphroteron) on the Calydonians, and they believe that this was why the goddess received her surname.
•[7.18.11] Every year too the people of Patrae celebrate the festival Laphria in honor of their Artemis, and at it they employ a method of sacrifice peculiar to the place.
•[7.18.12] The festival begins with a most splendid procession in honor of Artemis, and the maiden officiating as priestess rides last in the procession upon a car yoked to deer.
•[7.19.1] The Ionians who lived in Aroe, Antheia and Mesatis had in common a precinct and a temple of Artemis surnamed Triclaria, and in her honor the Ionians used to celebrate every year a festival and an all-night vigil.
•[7.19.3] The history of Melanippus, like that of many others, proved that love is apt both to break the laws of men and to desecrate the worship of the gods, seeing that this pair had their fill of the passion of love in the sanctuary of Artemis.
• ... Forthwith the wrath of Artemis began to destroy the inhabitants; the earth yielded no harvest, and strange diseases occurred of an unusually fatal character.
• ... The oracle ordered that they themselves should be sacrificed to Artemis, and that every year a sacrifice should be made to the goddess of the fairest youth and the fairest maiden.
•[7.19.6] The sacrifice to Artemis of human beings is said to have ceased in this way.
•[7.20.1] It was in this way that they used to array of old those whom they led to be sacrificed to Artemis.
•[7.20.7] ... Opposite the marketplace by this exit is a precinct and temple of Artemis, the Lady of the Lake.
•[7.24.1] XXIV. By the market-place at Aegium is a temple shared by Apollo and Artemis in common; and in the market-place there is a sanctuary of Artemis, who is represented in the act of shooting an arrow, and also the grave of Talthybius the herald.
•[7.26.3] The Hyperesians gave their city its present name of Aegeira from the goats (aiges), and where the most beautiful goat, which led the others, crouched, they built a sanctuary of Artemis the Huntress, believing that the trick against the Sicyonians was an inspiration of Artemis.
•[7.26.5] There is also a temple of Artemis, with an image of the modern style of workmanship.
•[7.26.11] ... There are sanctuaries of Dionysus and of Artemis.
•[7.27.3] Above the temple of Athena is a grove, surrounded by a wall, of Artemis surnamed Saviour, by whom they swear their most solemn oaths.
•[7.27.4] Near the sanctuary of Apollo is a temple of Artemis, the goddess being represented in the attitude of shooting.
There is no concrete proof of God's existence. Even the Bible says, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6). Of course He could prove His existence in a moment if He so desired, but He wants us to come to Him because we want to by faith, not because we can no longer deny His existence.
He has proven His existence in MY life, by answering prayer and performing miracles. And for me, further proof of His existence lies in the minute details that add vitality to all life -- for example, how fragile, yet so perfectly complex, our minds and nervous systems are; or how every little thing serves some purpose in keeping our atmospheres so balanced.
If you're looking for the reason for suffering, why some starve and why others do not, if you're looking for the perfect world -- well, God gave us one and we ruined it by sinning against Him. And even before that, Lucifer created the possibility for sin by attempting to overthrow God. God created us all with freewill -- so why does He need to come down and fix all of our problems on a whim when He never created them, and when we have the means to do it ourselves, but apparently lack the willpower?
Isn't that the chances of just about anything? If I throw a handful of sand on the floor the probability of them landing in an exact way is very small, but it will happen.
