Does God really exist?

[Gamer4Fire]

Yes, look how church has helped people by telling the country with the largest AIDS problem (Africa) that not only do condoms not stop the spreads of AIDS, but that using them will cause you to become sterile and cause you to go to hell!

Lets look how muslims the world over refuse to immunize their children against polio and other diseases because it is really the great satan, America, trying to control their minds. Not only does this cause untold suffering, but it allows the disease to continue spreading, sometimes back to countries that had already eliminated it (Europe).

Lets see how churches stole money from poor villages in India to create "death houses" of the 'lord,' which were nothing more than a place to force people to die in the most isolated and sickly environment so that they could find god in their suffering.

Just recently in our own senate they refused to pass a bill allowing women to get vaccinated against cervical cancer because "it did nothing to prevent premarital sex"?!? We cannot even cure cancer without organized religion telling us that it is wrong and against the will of god. All disease would have been cured two hundred years ago if the religious hadn't been so busy burning all the scientists at the stake.

There is no god. If you disagree, then prove me wrong. Show me some piece of proof or evidence that a divine creator exists.

 

[Skylink]

Yes, look how church has helped people by telling the country with the largest AIDS problem (Africa) that not only do condoms not stop the spreads of AIDS, but that using them will cause you to become sterile and cause you to go to hell!

Lets look how muslims the world over refuse to immunize their children against polio and other diseases because it is really the great satan, America, trying to control their minds. Not only does this cause untold suffering, but it allows the disease to continue spreading, sometimes back to countries that had already eliminated it (Europe).

Lets see how churches stole money from poor villages in India to create "death houses" of the 'lord,' which were nothing more than a place to force people to die in the most isolated and sickly environment so that they could find god in their suffering.

Just recently in our own senate they refused to pass a bill allowing women to get vaccinated against cervical cancer because "it did nothing to prevent premarital sex"?!? We cannot even cure cancer without organized religion telling us that it is wrong and against the will of god. All disease would have been cured two hundred years ago if the religious hadn't been so busy burning all the scientists at the stake.

There is no god. If you disagree, then prove me wrong. Show me some piece of proof or evidence that a divine creator exists.

The whole problem with this debate is that no God will just leave a possible experiment or evidence for us to find to prove his existence. If I were God, I wouldn't just leave some direct evidence lying around and kill the whole point of the prophesied story of Christianity in Revelation, because if the doctrine of Christianity is true and the bible is correct, then we would not find any direct proof, because it would have been surely mentioned.

To resolve the question of God can come from science, in parts, for example; God says let there be light, and suddenly there is a very big bang. God says the earth brought forth life in Genesis 1 (or two, somewhere in there) and we find convincing evidence of life forming and evolving. We can also look in the bible and dig up how the universe is referred to quite a few times as a unique creation, proclaiming his glory, and find out through scientific investigation that the physical laws of the universe would produce unstable, short lived or inhospitable universes if they were not fine tuned the way they are. We can even read on to find that he is all knowing, omniscient, and all intelligent, and then find out that many physicists are proposing that from Schrodinger wave equation and with quantum uncertainty, some intelligent agent must apparently be knowledgeable of every particle in the universe to collapse each one's wave function. This may not exactly prove it, but it at leaves the jury out.

What you said about the churches, I think it should be noted when a Church does something religiosly wrong, and when the very inherint belief or doctrine clams something morally wrong. Once I heard a speaker at our church talk about a little joke he heard:

"A man is drowning, but he prays to God and he tells him he will save him. A boat floats by, but the drowning man says, no thank you, God will save me. A second boat comes by, 'no thank you, God will save me.' and A third. Soon, the Man Dies. When he gets to heaven, the man asked, 'why didn't you save me?' And God says: 'What? I sent three boats just for you!'" God had intentions, but they were misinturpureted.

With your example of Gallelaio and the flat earth, the bible never said the earth was flat. The church did. The bible encourages us to explore our world, even though it doesn't make vary many scientific claims, it wants us to do that ourselves. The bible also stresses on the fact that people are not perfect, that they make mistakes, and that they do things that displease God. They may do things in the name of the Lord that are their mistake, not the Lord's. Anybody can make such a claim, but it is never verified if it is the right thing to do. In dfact, it is usually obvious that it is the wrong thing to do, which would defeat the argument.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I do not believe in the existence of god.

I have taken too many classes on evolution and seen so many things that go against the teachings of the bible. I've worked with doctors who say they have never seen a "medical mystery." (Yes, they have seen strange things, but all with an explanation)

However, I have no problem with people believing there is a god. The way I see it, if we simply die and thats it, what does it hurt in believing in something anyway. Just as long as they stop bashing science anyway.

 

[blazedaces]

"With your example of Gallelaio and the flat earth, the bible never said the earth was flat. The church did."

Gallileo argued for heliocentrism (that the sun is the center of the universe) and the church argued for geocentrism (that the earth is the center of the universe).

It had nothing to do with flat vs. round earth. This was long ago established...

Just wanted to clear that up...

-blazed

edit: "sun is the center of the earth" < --- LOL! Yes, it was hilarious gamer, though I still feel a bit like an idiot for making such a mistake...

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Skylink - It is obvious you did not read my post because I never mentioned Galileo of Galilee.

On how if you were god you wouldn't leave evidence, you purport to know the mind of god? There is no evidence of god because there is no god, not because the bible says there isn't (which it doesn't BTW). And even if we couldn't find evidence of god, we could at least find proof that the bible stories are true. Unfortunately for you, they aren't and there is no evidence of, for example, a global flood that killed all life on earth except a drunk, his family and a bunch of animals on a large canoe. And if your assert that rainbows didn't exist until after (the covenant of god that he would never again destroy all life with a flood) then you seem to don't comprehend basic physics.

If you instead wish to point out the contradictory nature of the bible, that is easy. In one of the most important part of the bible, the ascension or easter story says that an angel came down to greet jesus as he left the tomb (Matthew 28:2-5). No wait, Mathew was wrong it was really a young man (Mark 16:5), unless you believe Luke who said it was two men (Luke 24:4). I like to believe that no one was there so no one knows (John 20:1-2). The story that proves he's god and not a one of them can get it right. For shame.

As for the "its the church that's evil, not the religion." The children of the sinners shall be punished to the third and forth generation (Exodus 20:5). After a victory over another city, Moses tells them to kill all the men and men-children and women who have known men, but to enslave all the women-children that hadn't (Numbers 31). I'm not sure whether that's better or worse than the wholesale slaughter of the innocent of all the cities of Bashan (Deut 3). The laws are also a kick, do not draw anything on around or in the earth (Deut 4:16), all you artists are going to hell. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live (Exodus 22:18), better start killing all those doctors. If your children are rebellious, kill them (deut 21:18-21). If you **** a virgin you owe the father fifty shekels and she has to marry you(deut 22:28-29).

For something a little more recent; "If anyone does not hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple (luke 14:26)." "I have come to set son against father, daughter against mother and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law (Mathew 10:35)." And if you thought that 'the old laws no longer matter,' well, Jesus says explicitly to teach and uphold all those crazy laws or you are going to hell (Mathew 5:17-20).

The bible is one of the last places you'd want to look for morality.

Gallileo argued for heliocentrism (that the sun is the center of the earth) and the church argued for geocentrism (that the earth is the center of the universe).

I know it was a typo, but it is still funny.

 

[Deleted member]

Yes, look how church has helped people by telling the country with the largest AIDS problem (Africa) that not only do condoms not stop the spreads of AIDS, but that using them will cause you to become sterile and cause you to go to hell!

Lets look how muslims the world over refuse to immunize their children against polio and other diseases because it is really the great satan, America, trying to control their minds. Not only does this cause untold suffering, but it allows the disease to continue spreading, sometimes back to countries that had already eliminated it (Europe).

Lets see how churches stole money from poor villages in India to create "death houses" of the 'lord,' which were nothing more than a place to force people to die in the most isolated and sickly environment so that they could find god in their suffering.

Just recently in our own senate they refused to pass a bill allowing women to get vaccinated against cervical cancer because "it did nothing to prevent premarital sex"?!? We cannot even cure cancer without organized religion telling us that it is wrong and against the will of god. All disease would have been cured two hundred years ago if the religious hadn't been so busy burning all the scientists at the stake.

There is no god. If you disagree, then prove me wrong. Show me some piece of proof or evidence that a divine creator exists.

We have free will. The religious people's mistakes and atrocities are not to be reflected on God Himself.

What do you mean, there is no God? You want me to provide evidence?

That goes against proper debate canon. I cannot believe you actually tried to nominate yourself for leading the debate hall. I'm actually 100% for your permanent removal. I don't understand the douche bag routine.

If I say God exists and you disagree, it is up to you to disprove Him, not me. So far, you haven't done that. This is the way it is done with faith-related topics.

In fact, all you've said is very arrogant things. Do you realize how insignificant you are? You are an ant. You are a tiny speck. You are so low on the scale of the bigger picture that you do not even register on it. You are meaningless.

How in the world are you so incredibly informed that you know how the universe was formed? How can one measly human being actually flat out deny so many things that aren't possible to prove? I think it is incredibly arrogant of you to actually act as if you know the answers and assume that the universe and all of its amazing complexities was simply a mathematical improbability.

It may be dumb of me to put faith into a God, but it is moronic for a tiny insignicant human being to arrogantly assume that they are the greatest life form.

You. Do. Not. Know.

In faith-related topics, it is always safer to believe than to not.

If you wanted my idea of proof of His existence, I'd tell you that you're standing on it. You're hurtling through space on it. You breathe the air created on it. You are living proof. Get where I'm coming from?

Let me ask you what you are basing your claim off of. Because it sounds just like you've got a superiority complex and refuse to believe you're a pathetic, microscopic piece of scum on the ground in comparison to a divine being.

You're being really dumb here. This debate is not about how organized religion is bad, it is if God exists. So really, the only line I will take into consideration in your quote is the last one.


We should really all look to the agnostics in the crowd.

Wisest is he who knows he does not know.

 

[Digital Watches]

We have free will. The religious people's mistakes and atrocities are not to be reflected on God Himself.

What do you mean, there is no God? You want me to provide evidence?

That goes against proper debate canon. I cannot believe you actually tried to nominate yourself for leading the debate hall. I'm actually 100% for your permanent removal. I don't understand the douche bag routine.

If I say God exists and you disagree, it is up to you to disprove Him, not me. So far, you haven't done that. This is the way it is done with faith-related topics.

I propose to you that there is a small teacup in an elliptical orbit around the sun, somewhere roughly between the Earth and Mars. This teacup is too small to be seen by modern telescopes. This argument was put forth by a man named Russell. You can't propose something's existance and then demand disproof before even questioning it. That's insanity.

That being said, I think that Gamer4Fire has proven to me, once and for all, that I can disagree entirely with the argument of someone who is arguing the same side that I am.

My main gripe is that a lot of the specific "laws" G4F outlines are gross misinterpretations. There are things in the bible that I disagree with, but that's just grasping for straws.

But Delorted, it's pretty dumb to say "things exist, we're alive, therefore God must exist." It's not some great uncanny thing that the physical laws of the universe coincide to make us possible, because that's true of everything that happens. Nothing that's impossible can happen, that's just plain redundant. For all we know, the universe could have formed billions of times before it was just right for us. The whole "Everything works so that we can exist" theory is nonsense, because while it COULD be a higher power, it's just as likely that, given an INFINITE amount of time, random chance DID produce a universe in which we could exist. The fact of the matter is that scientifically, we haven't the faintest CLUE as to what happened before the universe we know. To cite existance as proof is fallacious, because you cannot prove a correlation between a God and existance without first proving that there is undeniably a God, which is what you're trying to do in the first place by arguing that existance implies one.

And speaking of proof: the reason that this entire debate is, as you say, a "faith-based topic" is because no one CAN find proof or disproof of a God just yet. One thing that is essential (and very convenient) to religion is that there is no proof or disproof of a higher being, which is why the question of "faith" exists in the first place. Arguing that either side requires proof more than the other is ludicrous, as we're really in the same boat. I choose to not believe in a God because I have no reason to believe in one, and it seems unlikely to me. You need proof to convince me no less than I need disproof to convince you, which I really have no intention of doing, because it's like hitting one's head against the wall, the ultimate impasse, because people thoroughly convinced in the existance of a higher being are almost NEVER going to be convinced otherwise by those who are fully convinced that there isn't one, or vice versa. Even if there were solid, undeniable evidence that there was or wasn't a God, I'm sure many on the opposite side wouldn't be convinced (I would, but the proof had better be good). I mean, just look at evolution.

 

[Skylink]

Wow, I have a lot to address here.

On how if you were god you wouldn't leave evidence, you purport to know the mind of god?

I know I'm not God, G4F. But if you simply think about it with the least bit of logic I know is in you somewhere, do you think that the God the bible describes would just show himself like that?

There is no evidence of god because there is no god, not because the bible says there isn't (which it doesn't BTW). And even if we couldn't find evidence of god, we could at least find proof that the bible stories are true.

Again, as Delorted said, you cannot know theese things. You don't have any disproof either, so all you're doing is being arrogant.

Unfortunately for you, they aren't and there is no evidence of, for example, a global flood that killed all life on earth except a drunk, his family and a bunch of animals on a large canoe. And if your assert that rainbows didn't exist until after (the covenant of god that he would never again destroy all life with a flood) then you seem to don't comprehend basic physics.

I was not going to make such a claim. The bible even says that before the flood, there was never any rain. And I know that this hasn't been proved, but Hydroplate Theory Explains such a phenomenon well.

If you instead wish to point out the contradictory nature of the bible, that is easy. In one of the most important part of the bible, the ascension or easter story says that an angel came down to greet jesus as he left the tomb (Matthew 28:2-5). No wait, Mathew was wrong it was really a young man (Mark 16:5), unless you believe Luke who said it was two men (Luke 24:4). I like to believe that no one was there so no one knows (John 20:1-2). The story that proves he's god and not a one of them can get it right. For shame.

The gospel authors were not all around during theese times. Some only heard everything in their gospel from talking to people in the towns. Jesus Could have been there, one of the gospels mistook him for an ordinary man by seeing the back of his head, and he could have either been with someone else or Luke simply made a mistake.

The whole reason we HAVE four different Gospels is that when different people tell different stories, you hear different sides of the story from different people, some people overstress or understress different parts, and some people forget ceartian parts or get them wrong. This is natural and common. This only proves that the bible was written by imperfect people, only inspired by the story of the perfect person.

As for the "its the church that's evil, not the religion." The children of the sinners shall be punished to the third and forth generation (Exodus 20:5). After a victory over another city, Moses tells them to kill all the men and men-children and women who have known men, but to enslave all the women-children that hadn't (Numbers 31). I'm not sure whether that's better or worse than the wholesale slaughter of the innocent of all the cities of Bashan (Deut 3).

God sometimes asks his people to do drastic, crazy things. He asked his people to walk in circles around a desert stronghold once. He has his own way of doing things, and back then, there weren't a whole lot of other ways he would have been able to ensure the survival of the Jews, which was his top priority at the time. Besides, theese were not even innocent people. Theese people had been chasing and killing God's holy nation for hundreds of years, and it was about time, in God's mind, that their empires be destroyed.

The laws are also a kick, do not draw anything on around or in the earth (Deut 4:16), all you artists are going to hell.

Now stop right there. God does not say 'do not draw on the earth' anywhere in that passage. It say 'Do not make idols of yourselves,' so that is a meaningless claim.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live (Exodus 22:18), better start killing all those doctors.

That passage does not say kill any doctors! It says Sorceresses and sorcery are are forbidden, under a list of social responsibilities.

If your children are rebellious, kill them (deut 21:18-21).

That passage instructs the Jews to not try to control rebels, to take them to seperate people for severe discipline. Death to the Child is only merely mentioned because of how critical it was at the time to preserve the dignity of the Jewish people, and God was not trying to save everybody back then.

If you **** a virgin you owe the father fifty shekels and she has to marry you(deut 22:28-29).

Would you be better off with modern american justice-punishment of ****** a virgin? It even goes on, in the very next verse, it say if the father will not let you have her, you pay an additional price.

For something a little more recent; "If anyone does not hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple (luke 14:26)."

That is right. If you have a person who is at peace at home, a full christian family, and no real living feeling twords his faith, how can he be Jesus' Disciple? How can he not be his disciple without going through struggle, hatred, angst, and forgivness?

"I have come to set son against father, daughter against mother and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law (Mathew 10:35)."

and if you think about it, why would he do this? He has not come for earth to be a big place with only christians to live happily ever after. He made heaven for that. He set son against father to build stronger believers, to enlargen the controversey that surrounds him and the bible, and make christians that have the answers and the reason for believing what they believe.

And if you thought that 'the old laws no longer matter,' well, Jesus says explicitly to teach and uphold all those crazy laws or you are going to hell (Mathew 5:17-20).

Exactly. No one is to **** a virgin, no one is to make idols of themselves, and no one is to rebel against their parents. But if you look atDeuteronomy 21:18-21, it says for the son who does not obey when they (the jewish parents) scold them and discipline them. So now, we have distinguished between sincere evangelism and unruly defiance.

So far, you have done nothing but mock my argument, distort the meaning of the verses of deuturonomy, (which was some of Isreals most dire times) and accuse me not understanding physics. You have no argument against the existance of God.

 

[Deleted member]

On how if you were god you wouldn't leave evidence, you purport to know the mind of god? There is no evidence of god because there is no god, not because the bible says there isn't (which it doesn't BTW).

Lololololol I didn't even see this.

You purport to know the inner workings of the universe? Lololol.

 

[Skylink]

I propose to you that there is a small teacup in an elliptical orbit around the sun, somewhere roughly between the Earth and Mars. This teacup is too small to be seen by modern telescopes. This argument was put forth by a man named Russell. You can't propose something's existance and then demand disproof before even questioning it. That's insanity.

That being said, I think that Gamer4Fire has proven to me, once and for all, that I can disagree entirely with the argument of someone who is arguing the same side that I am.

My main gripe is that a lot of the specific "laws" G4F outlines are gross misinterpretations. There are things in the bible that I disagree with, but that's just grasping for straws.

But Delorted, it's pretty dumb to say "things exist, we're alive, therefore God must exist." It's not some great uncanny thing that the physical laws of the universe coincide to make us possible, because that's true of everything that happens. Nothing that's impossible can happen, that's just plain redundant. For all we know, the universe could have formed billions of times before it was just right for us. The whole "Everything works so that we can exist" theory is nonsense, because while it COULD be a higher power, it's just as likely that, given an INFINITE amount of time, random chance DID produce a universe in which we could exist. The fact of the matter is that scientifically, we haven't the faintest CLUE as to what happened before the universe we know. To cite existance as proof is fallacious, because you cannot prove a correlation between a God and existance without first proving that there is undeniably a God, which is what you're trying to do in the first place by arguing that existance implies one.

First of all, I'd like to point out that there is no "before our universe originally banged" It came into being a finite time ago, but the way the dimensions of time and space are built, there is no before. There is no outside our universe, or at least no way of ever detecting or finding them.
As for what you said on the improbable universe-God or lots of chances problem, keep in mind that this is not a scientific debate, but I will share what I know about that.

Many people confuse "17 billion years" and "infinite time" Now, as you said, yes, given an infinite amount of time, anything with any chance of happening will inevitably happen. But look at exactly WHAT happenend. A planet like this, this rich in Carbon, water, oxygen, the perfect (uncommon) tempurature range of liquid water, right in a narrow range from the sun that support such tempuratures, as well as in a narrow galactic hapitable zone, from which too close to the galactic nucleus would be too dangerous, where the average life span for stars and planets is less than a hundred million years, and too far being there not being enough uranium to go around for any planet to have a chance of having all the uranium we find in the earth's core today, which gives us a magnetic field, tectonic plates, hydrothermal vents that help keep the oceans warm and hapitable, as well as a well built atmosphere that has enough greenhouse gasses to keep us warm at night, block out harmful Electromagnetic radiation from the sun and beyond, as well as one that is transparent at night, which gives us a rare oppurtunity to look up to the galaxies and stars without leaving the planet (most planets with an atmosphere like ours don't have this luxury. We even have almost the whole table of elements on our planet, which supports diverse wildlife, millions of bacteria, each with different chemichal appetites and exctetations, and a natural sattelite, a moon, which just so happens to be both 400 times smaller than the sun, and 400 times closer, which gives us solar eclipses. The cauculated improbabilities are too great for any one universe.

But if we had multiple universes? Splendid! That solves it. All you have to worry about now is finding a significant chance of overcoming the odds of having a gravitational force exactly this strength, a weak force this strong, a strong force thjis strong, and an electromagnetic force this strong. Because as some mathmaticians and physicists have cauculated, the big bang was balanced on a razors edge. Universal expansin would increase at extreme exponential rates as you decrease the force of gravity, but if you bother increasing it by just a few part per million, the universe would not be stable enough to expand to this size and would be incredibly short lived. If the strong force were to be tampered with by significant portions, because there is too much both resistance and counter resistance on the binding of protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei, atoms would be unable to exist, save hydrogen, and if electromagnetic force were too different from what it is in this universe, electron clouds would be too unstable. Hydrocarbons would not be stable, and life as we know it could never exist.

Such odds have been multiplied and reported to be in in the order of orders of magnitude of one in ten with an exponent above the hundreds place. No number of universes, nor would even trillions or quadrillions of years be able to give us significant chances agains such odds.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

DeLoRtEd1 - You have failed. I know that I am being abrasive and caustic. And you have exploded in antagonism and enmity. Instead of debating me you fume and flare at how insignificant I am and how I should be removed from the DH permanently with out defending your position. Even in my acrimony, I made sure to stay with the debate and attempt to stay on topic. Others here, such as Digital Watches, have done a much better job at ignoring or defending against my wrath. He even tried to use it against me, although unsuccessfully.

If you wish to stay in here you had better start acting a sight better. And you should learn from your peers and myself of the proper and improper decorum of the Debate Hall. I neither ask for nor expect an apology. I do expect you to behave yourself, even against the most acerbic debater.

 

[Deleted member]

DeLoRtEd1 - You have failed. I know that I am being abrasive and caustic. And you have exploded in antagonism and enmity. Instead of debating me you fume and flare at how insignificant I am and how I should be removed from the DH permanently with out defending your position. Even in my acrimony, I made sure to stay with the debate and attempt to stay on topic. Others here, such as Digital Watches, have done a much better job at ignoring or defending against my wrath. He even tried to use it against me, although unsuccessfully.

You see, I'm not an idiot, like you seem to think everyone is. Way to try and detract from my arguments. I didn't explode at all. I'm quite calm. I'm sorry if you think that I'm a mite bitter towards you. Please, if you feel like actually giving a proper rebuttal instead of a weak come-back, do so. I can't wait to read it.

It's a little sad actually. I expected more from you. But alas, it seems I have bested you. It wasn't all that hard. It was like debating against a grade-school bully. They talk a lot of ****, but in the end they don't do much.

That's because you're behind a computer screen. Get over yourself.

If you wish to stay in here you had better start acting a sight better. And you should learn from your peers and myself of the proper and improper decorum of the Debate Hall. I neither ask for nor expect an apology. I do expect you to behave yourself, even against the most acerbic debater.

I don't really seem to care about you and your position as a "moderator." You don't do much of that. In fact, I'm actually very surprised that you still have the red in your name. The actual moderators do a very good job in keeping everyone in check - they've even warned you, on a bunch of occasions.

Do not lecture me on the decorum of the debate hall. I don't care if you're a moderator. I behave myself quite fine - you're just upset because I don't get off to being a **** on the internets like yourself. If you want me to treat you with the e-respect that is reserved for moderators, you cannot have a "wrath". And if you do, try and be a little more subtle, for christ's sake.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Am I missing something?

I know this is a touchy subject but ****...

 

[Deleted member]

Oh how the mighty have fallen.

 

[Digital Watches]

You're dumb and ugly!

NO U!

-To all of this: Shut up. Seriously, this is stupid drama that really isn't necessary, and adds nothing to the debate. Take it to PMs if you must. Really, this is a debate hall, not kindergarten.

To all the recent drama surrounding G4F: Just because some people are more mellow than others doesn't mean that people who put forth their opinions more forcefully are wrong to do so. When he uses ad hominem or bullying tactics, call him on it, but use it to refute his point in an intelligent manner, don't just start *****ing and moaning. Sorry to blow up, but I'm sick of it.

First of all, I'd like to point out that there is no "before our universe originally banged" It came into being a finite time ago, but the way the dimensions of time and space are built, there is no before. There is no outside our universe, or at least no way of ever detecting or finding them.

I don't care about detecting or finding them, that's not relevant. What is relevant is that an INFINITE amount of universes could have sprung up and disappeared and could still be doing so for all we know.

As for what you said on the improbable universe-God or lots of chances problem, keep in mind that this is not a scientific debate, but I will share what I know about that.

Many people confuse "17 billion years" and "infinite time" Now, as you said, yes, given an infinite amount of time, anything with any chance of happening will inevitably happen. But look at exactly WHAT happenend. A planet like this, this rich in Carbon, water, oxygen, the perfect (uncommon) tempurature range of liquid water, right in a narrow range from the sun that support such tempuratures, as well as in a narrow galactic hapitable zone, from which too close to the galactic nucleus would be too dangerous, where the average life span for stars and planets is less than a hundred million years, and too far being there not being enough uranium to go around for any planet to have a chance of having all the uranium we find in the earth's core today, which gives us a magnetic field, tectonic plates, hydrothermal vents that help keep the oceans warm and hapitable, as well as a well built atmosphere that has enough greenhouse gasses to keep us warm at night, block out harmful Electromagnetic radiation from the sun and beyond, as well as one that is transparent at night, which gives us a rare oppurtunity to look up to the galaxies and stars without leaving the planet (most planets with an atmosphere like ours don't have this luxury. We even have almost the whole table of elements on our planet, which supports diverse wildlife, millions of bacteria, each with different chemichal appetites and exctetations, and a natural sattelite, a moon, which just so happens to be both 400 times smaller than the sun, and 400 times closer, which gives us solar eclipses. The cauculated improbabilities are too great for any one universe.

But if we had multiple universes? Splendid! That solves it. All you have to worry about now is finding a significant chance of overcoming the odds of having a gravitational force exactly this strength, a weak force this strong, a strong force thjis strong, and an electromagnetic force this strong. Because as some mathmaticians and physicists have cauculated, the big bang was balanced on a razors edge. Universal expansin would increase at extreme exponential rates as you decrease the force of gravity, but if you bother increasing it by just a few part per million, the universe would not be stable enough to expand to this size and would be incredibly short lived. If the strong force were to be tampered with by significant portions, because there is too much both resistance and counter resistance on the binding of protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei, atoms would be unable to exist, save hydrogen, and if electromagnetic force were too different from what it is in this universe, electron clouds would be too unstable. Hydrocarbons would not be stable, and life as we know it could never exist.

Such odds have been multiplied and reported to be in in the order of orders of magnitude of one in ten with an exponent above the hundreds place. No number of universes, nor would even trillions or quadrillions of years be able to give us significant chances agains such odds.

Probability is irrelevant when the number of tests could be infinite. Like you have already said, we have no way of knowing how many universes there are, will be, and have been, and as such, ONE universe arising with the correct conditions in place for our existance is much more probable to me than an all-powerful being creating everything. (Also: Please don't take the brevity of my response to mean that I didn't read yours, as that is not the case.)

 

[Crimson King]

Since this topic had it worse, I'll say it here. Anyone bringing up the situation presented here, or asking me to clarify, will be warned severely.

 

[Skylink]

Originally posted by Digital Watches
I don't care about detecting or finding them, that's not relevant. What is relevant is that an INFINITE amount of universes could have sprung up and disappeared and could still be doing so for all we know.

Probability is irrelevant when the number of tests could be infinite. Like you have already said, we have no way of knowing how many universes there are, will be, and have been, and as such, ONE universe arising with the correct conditions in place for our existance is much more probable to me than an all-powerful being creating everything. (Also: Please don't take the brevity of my response to mean that I didn't read yours, as that is not the case.)

Such a claim is crazy. This is just like the un-disprovable teacup G4F put foreward. We have no better chances of finding any proof of this than we do of proving the dragon in my garage that is invisible that can fly that goes through the nets. There is nothing supporting the very possibility of an infinite number of universes, and that is what it would take to get a life-friendly universe or planet.

 

[Digital Watches]

Such a claim is crazy. This is just like the un-disprovable teacup G4F put foreward. We have no better chances of finding any proof of this than we do of proving the dragon in my garage that is invisible that can fly that goes through the nets. There is nothing supporting the very possibility of an infinite number of universes, and that is what it would take to get a life-friendly universe or planet.

Actually, I brought up Russell's Teapot, and yes, I understand that there is no proof of infinite universes, which is exactly the point. For one thing, you have NO WAY of knowing if it's even possible for the universe to have formed with different constants for things such as gravity. For all we know, even with the possibility of multiple universes, all of them could be the same, because the constants we know are just that: constant and unchangeable. I'm merely pointing out that we (and by "we," I mean "mankind") have a horridly limited knowledge about the formation of the universe, what lies outside it, and, frankly, how a lot of it works. Therefore any theory, including a supreme being creating it, is pure speculation, and no more or less provable than any other at this point in time. In my opinion - which is really all that anyone can have in a debate of unprovable speculation - it is more likely for our universe to be either one of many, possibly infinite universes, than it is for an all-powerful being to have created it.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

DeLoRtEd1 - You don't get it.

I didn't debate you because you didn't put forth any ecclesiastical points to refute.

Sky Link - You say that there are four different accounts because many of them are second hand. Then how do we know that any of the accounts are true? How can you expect anyone to put their life into a belief that?

About the hydro plate hypothesis, it is from the book "In the beginning" and was written by an Air force Colonel. It isn't founded on science and there is no physical evidence of it.

And despite what DW might say about grasping at straws, more mosaic laws can be found in Exodus, Deuteronomy and Leviticus. They include things such as the proper forms of slavery, that masturbation is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, cross-dressing is wrong, not being jewish is wrong, tattoos are wrong, wearing blended fiber clothing is wrong (anything like cotton/wool blend or polyester/silk), eating animals without cloven hoofed is wrong, eating shellfish is wrong, eating snakes and crocodiles is wrong, cutting off your sideburns is wrong, trimming the edges of your beard is wrong. How many of these sins do you commit each day? How many are you committing right now?

To go back to the law about killing your child (deut 21:18-21), it goes on to state: "22And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: 23His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day." It doesn't say anything about controlling the rebellious, like you stated.

To the point that our justice system doesn't punish the ****** of a virgin as well as the mosaic law, you go on to say that if the father won't marry off his daughter that he gets payed more. How is this justice?

About your most recent post, DW might have posed an impossible to prove assertion about the infinite universes, however the fact that there are trillions upon trillions of planets out there in trillions of different systems means that the odds are very good that life would arise somewhere. You only need one in a hundred billion chance and you'd have hundreds of billions of lively planets. In other words, this one universe is itself a really big place.

 

[Skylink]

Actually, I brought up Russell's Teapot, and yes, I understand that there is no proof of infinite universes, which is exactly the point. For one thing, you have NO WAY of knowing if it's even possible for the universe to have formed with different constants for things such as gravity. For all we know, even with the possibility of multiple universes, all of them could be the same, because the constants we know are just that: constant and unchangeable. I'm merely pointing out that we (and by "we," I mean "mankind") have a horridly limited knowledge about the formation of the universe, what lies outside it, and, frankly, how a lot of it works. Therefore any theory, including a supreme being creating it, is pure speculation, and no more or less provable than any other at this point in time. In my opinion - which is really all that anyone can have in a debate of unprovable speculation - it is more likely for our universe to be either one of many, possibly infinite universes, than it is for an all-powerful being to have created it.

We have TONS of knowledge of the universe. Our knowledge of it is growing exponentially, and everything we know about it would ten years of college to simply fully understand. Strides in knowledge about the laws of motion, universal gravitation, caucus, trigonometrics, absolute temperature, fundamental particles, general & special relativity and quantum mechanics just to name a few all took an innumerable amount of effort to bring to our knowledge, and modern physics theories are the farthest most of us can imagine from some simple flat earth theory.

That being said, however, just because we have learned much, God supposedly knows everything. As the creator, and from what we know of the creation, it is indeed baffling and difficult. The main thing that makes God more likely than having an infinite number of possible universes outside our observable one is just how there is absolutely nothing to back it up. It is just an unscientific assumption from the logic of "wow, our universe is uncommon and life friendly. Then there either must be a fine tuner or a LOT of other universes that aren't life friendly, and since the first sounds crazy there must be a lot of universes. None of them are testable or falsifiable. That's why this isn't a scientific debate.

You say that there are four different accounts because many of them are second hand. Then how do we know that any of the accounts are true? How can you expect anyone to put their life into a belief that?

About the hydro plate hypothesis, it is from the book "In the beginning" and was written by an Air force Colonel. It isn't founded on science and there is no physical evidence of it.

And despite what DW might say about grasping at straws, more mosaic laws can be found in Exodus, Deuteronomy and Leviticus. They include things such as the proper forms of slavery, that masturbation is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, cross-dressing is wrong, not being Jewish is wrong, tattoos are wrong, wearing blended fiber clothing is wrong (anything like cotton/wool blend or polyester/silk), eating animals without cloven hoofed is wrong, eating shellfish is wrong, eating snakes and crocodiles is wrong, cutting off your sideburns is wrong, trimming the edges of your beard is wrong. How many of these sins do you commit each day? How many are you committing right now?

To go back to the law about killing your child (deut 21:18-21), it goes on to state: "22And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: 23His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day." It doesn't say anything about controlling the rebellious, like you stated.

To the point that our justice system doesn't punish the ****** of a virgin as well as the mosaic law, you go on to say that if the father won't marry off his daughter that he gets payed more. How is this justice?

G4F, Israel's laws of old have different meanings now then they did back then. Back then, they were the commands of God to his people, for him to establish himself as king against his peoples' enemies. It was their struggle to survive as a nation and keep their principals first. God needed to show the world who he was, and that long era is now over. God is now the leader of the largest religious group in the world, and he does not need his people to go kill every person in another nearby nation in a golden age of diplomacy. He wants us to uphold the laws and procedures, but not his commands. Homosexuality is wrong, not being one of God's people is wrong. Not respecting him is wrong. Now, some of those were simply wrong, others were for the Jews to keep their salvation by countering their natural imperfect nature. Since Jesus came along and took care of that, we are allowed to eat snakes, shave, and cut off our sideburns.

About your most recent post, DW might have posed an impossible to prove assertion about the infinite universes, however the fact that there are trillions upon trillions of planets out there in trillions of different systems means that the odds are very good that life would arise somewhere. You only need one in a hundred billion chance and you'd have hundreds of billions of lively planets. In other words, this one universe is itself a really big place.

As said in my earlier post, The improbabilities are simply too high. say there are trillions (10^12) planets, but as much as that is, the unlikeliehoods have many more orders of magnitude.

• Planet w/ 15 proper elements: ~1-2 orders
• Planet w/ enough of Carbon and water: ~1-2 orders
• Planet in the solar hapitable range: (to provide adequate tempurature) ~ 1 order
• Planet w/ adequate size: ~1-2 orders
• Planet in the galactic hapitable range: (to make for a planet w/ a uranium core, and thus a magnetic field) ~2 orders
• Planet w/ adequate greenhousing: ~2-3 orders
• Planet w/ reasonable nitrogen composition: (to facilitate nucleic and amino acid synthesis) ~1 order
• Planet w/ a star that lives long enough: ~ 1 order

Now, this only enough for simple bacteria cells to form on the said planet. If you expect a planet to evolve intelligent life, then you need to add the following:

• Proper plate tectonics: (for heat transfer (volcanic activity and hydrothermal vents) nitrogen and carbon redistribution) ~2-3 orders
• High and low tides; Large, natural sattelite(for plate support, tidal pools for proper evolution) ~1 order

As you can see, the odds are not in favor of even a single Earth like planet in our entire universe, even if there are tens of trillions.

 

[Digital Watches]

We have TONS of knowledge of the universe. Our knowledge of it is growing exponentially, and everything we know about it would ten years of college to simply fully understand. Strides in knowledge about the laws of motion, universal gravitation, caucus, trigonometrics, absolute temperature, fundamental particles, general & special relativity and quantum mechanics just to name a few all took an innumerable amount of effort to bring to our knowledge, and modern physics theories are the farthest most of us can imagine from some simple flat earth theory.

Er. You're misinterpreting what I said. First off, I don't mean to say that we don't know much about physics, but we're still baffled on a ton of things in the universe, so that point is moot. Secondly, you say nothing to refute my assertion that we know next to nothing for sure about the FORMATION of the universe or what, if anything, lies outside it.

That being said, however, just because we have learned much, God supposedly knows everything. As the creator, and from what we know of the creation, it is indeed baffling and difficult. The main thing that makes God more likely than having an infinite number of possible universes outside our observable one is just how there is absolutely nothing to back it up. It is just an unscientific assumption from the logic of "wow, our universe is uncommon and life friendly. Then there either must be a fine tuner or a LOT of other universes that aren't life friendly, and since the first sounds crazy there must be a lot of universes. None of them are testable or falsifiable. That's why this isn't a scientific debate.

Of course it's not a scientific debate. We're talking about the existance of a religious deity whose status is only unknown by a complete inability to apply the scientific method to the problem. This has, however, become a debate of probability, and you're once again completely misreading what I said. Unless you can explain to me why a supreme magical being is MORE plausible than multiple universes (Which we can't prove or disprove either), then the entire train of thought resulting from "The universe is just right for existance" is at an impasse.

As said in my earlier post, The improbabilities are simply too high. say there are trillions (10^12) planets, but as much as that is, the unlikeliehoods have many more orders of magnitude.

• Planet w/ 15 proper elements: ~1-2 orders
• Planet w/ enough of Carbon and water: ~1-2 orders
• Planet in the solar hapitable range: (to provide adequate tempurature) ~ 1 order
• Planet w/ adequate size: ~1-2 orders
• Planet in the galactic hapitable range: (to make for a planet w/ a uranium core, and thus a magnetic field) ~2 orders
• Planet w/ adequate greenhousing: ~2-3 orders
• Planet w/ reasonable nitrogen composition: (to facilitate nucleic and amino acid synthesis) ~1 order
• Planet w/ a star that lives long enough: ~ 1 order

Now, this only enough for simple bacteria cells to form on the said planet. If you expect a planet to evolve intelligent life, then you need to add the following:

• Proper plate tectonics: (for heat transfer (volcanic activity and hydrothermal vents) nitrogen and carbon redistribution) ~2-3 orders
• High and low tides; Large, natural sattelite(for plate support, tidal pools for proper evolution) ~1 order

[gotta go, I'll finish this later] (thie list is complete, though.

And as I've said before, why are the probabilities of what we consider to be universal constants even in question? We have no proof that they could possibly have been any different, or that they only apply within our universe, nor do we know NEARLY everything about NEARLY every factor at play in the universe (Explain why quantum level particles can appear from seemingly nowhere, explain dark matter, dark energy, etc. Protip: "Dark" is scientist for "we have no clue") and therefore can't even say without a shadow of a doubt that life could not arise with different universal constants. This whole line of reasoning leads nowhere.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

G4F, Israel's laws of old have different meanings now then they did back then. Back then, they were the commands of God to his people, for him to establish himself as king against his peoples' enemies. It was their struggle to survive as a nation and keep their principals first. God needed to show the world who he was, and that long era is now over. God is now the leader of the largest religious group in the world, and he does not need his people to go kill every person in another nearby nation in a golden age of diplomacy. He wants us to uphold the laws and procedures, but not his commands. Homosexuality is wrong, not being one of God's people is wrong. Not respecting him is wrong. Now, some of those were simply wrong, others were for the Jews to keep their salvation by countering their natural imperfect nature. Since Jesus came along and took care of that, we are allowed to eat snakes, shave, and cut off our sideburns.

Who says which laws are simply wrong, and which were for the Jews to keep their salvation. How can you say that it's ok to shave, eat snakes and cut off our sideburns, but it's not ok to have homosexual relations. See, to me this is a way for people that believe in the bible to pick and choose what parts they want to follow. I think it's ridiculous. Can Jesus not take care of the sins of homosexuality?

Um... I guess I should state my views on this subject. I do believe in a higher being i.e. God, but not necessarily in all Christian beliefs.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Israel's laws of old have different meanings now then they did back then. Back then, they were the commands of God to his people, for him to establish himself as king against his peoples' enemies. [...] He wants us to uphold the laws and procedures, but not his commands. Homosexuality is wrong, not being one of God's people is wrong. Not respecting him is wrong. Now, some of those were simply wrong, others were for the Jews to keep their salvation by countering their natural imperfect nature. Since Jesus came along and took care of that, we are allowed to eat snakes, shave, and cut off our sideburns.

Prove it. Any of it.

As said in my earlier post, The improbabilities are simply too high. say there are trillions (10^12) planets, but as much as that is, the unlikeliehoods have many more orders of magnitude.

• Planet w/ 15 proper elements: ~1-2 orders
  [...]

• 
  
  No, for life on earth we need some of those. Life adapts to its environment, not the other way around. The only reason we don't look for methane rich planets between 90°C to 260°C is because that isn't how our planet developed. If our planet had developed like that the life on it would be very different.
  
  But you failed to answer two of my points. How is paying off the father of a **** victim justice and how do you expect people to base their life on a second or third hand account (by your own words) of someone who might have existed?

 

[snex]

skylink asks if i were the god of the bible, would i show evidence for my existence?

well lets see..

the god of the bible allegedly loves us and wants us to go to heaven.
the god of the bible will allegedly send anybody who does not believe in him to hell.
the god of the bible allegedly created a rational universe where evidence is the only way to be reasonably sure that some proposition is true.

given these 3 tenets of christianity, the christian god cannot help BUT show us evidence of his existence. that he does not disproves that the christian god exists.

 

[Skylink]

Er. You're misinterpreting what I said. First off, I don't mean to say that we don't know much about physics, but we're still baffled on a ton of things in the universe, so that point is moot. Secondly, you say nothing to refute my assertion that we know next to nothing for sure about the FORMATION of the universe or what, if anything, lies outside it.

Yes, I'm sorry, my mistake, but that's what I was implying. We know all kinds of stuff about General Relativity, Quantum theory and the like, thus, we have all kinds of knowledge on the big bang and how that went. I'm sorry for misreading.

The big bang has been proven. I don't have time to reread and retype everything I know about Hubble's observations and Hawking's Mathematical models. You can Google or wikipedia if you need to.

The mainstream scientific view of why the big bang happened, was, essentially, that there was nothing, no space, no time, and it was in quantum fluctuation with a very high mass (positive energy) and a very strong gravitational field (negative energy) and somehow, quantum theory allowed the high mass-high gravity version to exist, and space (not the fireball of mass and energy, but the fabric of space itself) expanded somehow. I know this because I have read some physics books and I can't remember all the details, but that's the current theory. The philosophical or religious interpretations of this may vary, but I don't have any degree in philosophy, nor do i study religious literature, so I can't really interpret any of that right now.

Of course it's not a scientific debate. We're talking about the existence of a religious deity whose status is only unknown by a complete inability to apply the scientific method to the problem. This has, however, become a debate of probability, and you're once again completely misreading what I said. Unless you can explain to me why a supreme magical being is MORE plausible than multiple universes (Which we can't prove or disprove either), then the entire train of thought resulting from "The universe is just right for existence" is at an impasse.

I know. But the only way to answer to this is to show you all the proof or clues there are to his existence. Instead, I'm trying to answer to this by saying that there is no scientific reason, Mr. scientist, nor is there any philosophical, social, or even logical reason to assume such, and while I answer other questions, you see why God is more plausible.

And as I've said before, why are the probabilities of what we consider to be universal constants even in question? We have no proof that they could possibly have been any different, or that they only apply within our universe, nor do we know NEARLY everything about NEARLY every factor at play in the universe (Explain why quantum level particles can appear from seemingly nowhere, explain dark matter, dark energy, etc. Pro tip: "Dark" is scientist for "we have no clue") and therefore can't even say without a shadow of a doubt that life could not arise with different universal constants. This whole line of reasoning leads nowhere.

Yes, I know, but you seemed to me to be taking it that way. Anyway, yes, the universe is life friendly, and a different universe may give rise to different life. I know this. But you must understand that while there may be lots of possibilities, intelligent life naturally must be complex. It must be uncommon. It requires improbabilities to arise naturally, and even if it is based off of a different base element, the chemicals are combined in an entirely different way, but when put together, are similar to our neuron built brains, the improbabilities are just as high. Even if we are in another universe, and atomic laws are different, you have neutrinos and positrons orbiting all kinds of funky quark configurations at the nucleus, and you have star shaped amino acids or whatever, none of that matters. Any possible way of assembling your quarks and leptons, all the way from them up to the full intelligent life form you speak of, it will take improbabilities. And they, chances are, will be just as high as the ones I listed in my previous post.

Who says which laws are simply wrong, and which were for the Jews to keep their salvation. How can you say that it's ok to shave, eat snakes and cut off our sideburns, but it's not ok to have homosexual relations. See, to me this is a way for people that believe in the bible to pick and choose what parts they want to follow. I think it's ridiculous. Can Jesus not take care of the sins of homosexuality?

Um... I guess I should state my views on this subject. I do believe in a higher being i.e. God, but not necessarily in all Christian beliefs.

What do you mean, who says which laws are just wrong? No one said any of them are wrong. You guys are getting mixed up with general laws, commands, and ritual procedure. "Thou shalt not Put any Gods before Me." is a Law. A commandment, in fact, which happens to be the most important one. Saying you cannot shave your beard or trim your sideburns is because it was the mark of the Jews back then. Back then, being one of Gods people was exclusive to those born into it. It is not nearly that exclusive now. I don't think you understand some of what Jesus dying on the cross for our sins means. It means before, every sin was punishable by eternal death, even for Jews, but they could avoid it by sacrificing animals, cleansing themselves, and performing rituals. When he came and died, we are no longer punished with an eternity in hell for every time we take a pen from the office. Because his blood was the blood most holy the blood of God, worth infinitely more than an animal's blood, we are all saved forever. That's where the sacrifices come out we don't need to do sacrifices, rituals, follow procedure, or shed any more blood. Even after all of this, God still does not want us to sin. Homosexuality is wrong. Killing is wrong. Nobody is choosing what parts they are following, we are only doing what it says. If you believe the bible in it's entirety, and think homosexuality is ok, then you are picking and choosing parts you like and don't like.

Prove it. Any of it.

How can I prove what I said? They are commands. If God told them such and such, and they wrote it down and did it, are we instructed to go out and do the same thing, 4000 years later? No. You are flipping through the ancient Tanakh, showing me examples of God instructing his people to do things that sound uncommon and wrong. Well, yes, that's right. God had to tell his people to destroy cities and kill hundreds of people. He also flooded the whole Earth once. He's sending dozens of billions of people to hell someday. Why would he do that? because he is not an all benevolent God, he is an all-Just God. He is not a hypocrite, he works for the common good, he punishes bad people, and he wants his green earth to succeed in the end.

No, for life on earth we need some of those. Life adapts to its environment, not the other way around. The only reason we don't look for methane rich planets between 90°C to 260°C is because that isn't how our planet developed. If our planet had developed like that the life on it would be very different.

But you failed to answer two of my points. How is paying off the father of a **** victim justice and how do you expect people to base their life on a second or third hand account (by your own words) of someone who might have existed?

Continuing on my response to Digital watches, yes, any life that forms adapts to its environment. If Earth were in the range of 300 deg. to 400-430, we may have been made from a heavier element in the carbon group to build our cells in a similar patter. we may have had biological features that depend on high temperatures to work or incorporate more radioactive elements and use them in cell processes. We may have not been made from multiple cells, but everything being a big cell. Maybe we could have had eyes that, rather than detecting light by requiring a specialized amino acid to change shape and change the shape of it's protein, thereby cutting a hole in a thin membrane, releasing sodium ions on reactive chemically charged nerves that electrochemically send signals to our brains, we could have little heat detecting chambers that measure the volume of a high volume-temperature changing fluid to detect light. We could have had not limbs or appendages, but rather float around by large electric fields generated by our bodies. If we're in another universe, we can let our imagination run wild, by creating something with neutrinos or charm quarks or strange quarks flip around each other with lots of random forces acting all kinds of directions to make some perfect building block for life. We could build up from there, making similar atom-like things to make simple, biological machines that perform basic functions, and build up from there until we have a full organism made entirely of weird particles and cells or systems. But no matter how any intelligent life, or any even simple life for that matter is going to ever originate and evolve, there are some things it just has to have. I'm not going to go into that now, but the list would essentially be the one I already put up, excluding, mostly, the ones dealing with specific chemicals.

And G4F, I don't know how paying off a father extra accounts for ****. I didn't write it. I'm just telling you what it says. And, no, I don't know why right now it is so reliable. When I went to the apologetics ministry at my church, I went straight to all the science stuff and I didn't attend any biblical reliability workshops.

skylink asks if i were the god of the bible, would i show evidence for my existence?

well lets see..

the god of the bible allegedly loves us and wants us to go to heaven.
the god of the bible will allegedly send anybody who does not believe in him to hell.
the god of the bible allegedly created a rational universe where evidence is the only way to be reasonably sure that some proposition is true.

given these 3 tenets of christianity, the christian god cannot help BUT show us evidence of his existence. that he does not disproves that the christian god exists.

Ugggh... I hate being the only one on this side of the argument...

Snex, I mean obvious proof. There has been PLENTY of subtle evidence, or at least the evidence that is mostly ignored. The stacks of improbability, (astrobiologically and multiversally) as well as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, the philosophically sound theology and poetry of the bible, and the natural guilt of sin and wrong doing that is seemingly uncaused and well explained by the bible. There is plenty of proof.

 

[snex]

why would somebody who accepts the big bang and an old earth believe in a global flood? you do realize that the same evidence that indicates that the earth is old refutes the idea of a global flood, dont you?

 

[Skylink]

Yes, I know, but I do not know all the little details, experiments, assumptions, conclusions, and parameters of both theories yet. I also believe in a God that turned water into wine once, as well as other things like walk on water, raise from the dead, and float into another plane of reality. I'm not really fully behind hydroplate theory yet. I'm sure that whatever really happened was scientifically sound, and may include parts of both theories, but it would not have been impossible for the impossible to occur.

 

[snex]

if youre going to deny that science has any bearing on the matter merely because god can do magic, why not reject science completely for a literal reading of genesis? it says 6 days, 6000 years ago. you are being inconsistent.

by the way, imagine how flooding the earth relates to your other topic of absolute morality. if morality is absolute, then flooding the earth and killing everybody is either moral or immoral no matter WHO does it (including god). are you sure you want to accept the implications of this?

 

[Skylink]

if youre going to deny that science has any bearing on the matter merely because god can do magic, why not reject science completely for a literal reading of genesis? it says 6 days, 6000 years ago. you are being inconsistent.

Scientific proof is scientific proof. I'm not going to argue with it, and niether should anyone else. Just because God can bend the laws of reality, doesn't mean he does it at every chance he gets. Besides, we don't need a literal reading of genisis, because that would be curious people seeking the real answers, taking the lazy way out and not stopping until they are convinced at the truth that they have found. That's why I don't make any claim as to which theory of origins I think happened.

by the way, imagine how flooding the earth relates to your other topic of absolute morality. if morality is absolute, then flooding the earth and killing everybody is either moral or immoral no matter WHO does it (including god). are you sure you want to accept the implications of this?

While God isn't exactly above the law, as I said in my most recent long post, God does bad things too. He sent Israel to destroy cities, cover Egypt in plagues, among lots of other bad things. Snex, this is because he is the man. He is a just, fair, and impartial God. He punises bad people for bad things, and delivers final judgement. It is by his very nature that evil must be punished somehow. Punishment is not all fun and games.

 

[snex]

Scientific proof is scientific proof. I'm not going to argue with it, and niether should anyone else. Just because God can bend the laws of reality, doesn't mean he does it at every chance he gets. Besides, we don't need a literal reading of genisis, because that would be curious people seeking the real answers, taking the lazy way out and not stopping until they are convinced at the truth that they have found. That's why I don't make any claim as to which theory of origins I think happened.

but if you want to go with scientific proof, then there was NO global flood, and jesus did NOT perform miracles. you cant have it both ways.

While God isn't exactly above the law, as I said in my most recent long post, God does bad things too. He sent Israel to destroy cities, cover Egypt in plagues, among lots of other bad things. Snex, this is because he is the man. He is a just, fair, and impartial God. He punises bad people for bad things, and delivers final judgement. It is by his very nature that evil must be punished somehow. Punishment is not all fun and games.

but instead of carrying out those things himself, god tells other humans to do it, thereby causing them to sin. hitler liked to claim that he believed he was doing god's work by eliminating the jews. given god's track record on eliminating people, how can you reasonably say hitler was wrong?

 

[Digital Watches]

Yes, I'm sorry, my mistake, but that's what I was implying. We know all kinds of stuff about General Relativity, Quantum theory and the like, thus, we have all kinds of knowledge on the big bang and how that went. I'm sorry for misreading.

The big bang has been proven. I don't have time to reread and retype everything I know about Hubble's observations and Hawking's Mathematical models. You can Google or wikipedia if you need to.

The mainstream scientific view of why the big bang happened, was, essentially, that there was nothing, no space, no time, and it was in quantum fluctuation with a very high mass (positive energy) and a very strong gravitational field (negative energy) and somehow, quantum theory allowed the high mass-high gravity version to exist, and space (not the fireball of mass and energy, but the fabric of space itself) expanded somehow. I know this because I have read some physics books and I can't remember all the details, but that's the current theory. The philosophical or religious interpretations of this may vary, but I don't have any degree in philosophy, nor do i study religious literature, so I can't really interpret any of that right now.

Following you so far... but...

I know. But the only way to answer to this is to show you all the proof or clues there are to his existence. Instead, I'm trying to answer to this by saying that there is no scientific reason, Mr. scientist, nor is there any philosophical, social, or even logical reason to assume such, and while I answer other questions, you see why God is more plausible.

Here's where it gets a little out there. I really don't see where you're going with this that we haven't been over before.

Yes, I know, but you seemed to me to be taking it that way. Anyway, yes, the universe is life friendly, and a different universe may give rise to different life. I know this. But you must understand that while there may be lots of possibilities, intelligent life naturally must be complex. It must be uncommon. It requires improbabilities to arise naturally, and even if it is based off of a different base element, the chemicals are combined in an entirely different way, but when put together, are similar to our neuron built brains, the improbabilities are just as high. Even if we are in another universe, and atomic laws are different, you have neutrinos and positrons orbiting all kinds of funky quark configurations at the nucleus, and you have star shaped amino acids or whatever, none of that matters. Any possible way of assembling your quarks and leptons, all the way from them up to the full intelligent life form you speak of, it will take improbabilities. And they, chances are, will be just as high as the ones I listed in my previous post.

Again, low probability does not necessarily prove God to exist. If anything, it proves that we have no idea how it happened. And you have not, as of yet, proven to me that the universal constants were EVER in question. For all we know (Which is really almost nothing about the outside of the universe or lack thereof) the constants applied before the universe existed. We have no way of knowing. I'll play the same game as many who argue less intelligently than yourself for the existance of god, but nevertheless have a point: Prove that they don't. Prove that there's any chance whatsoever that the constants that allow us to exist have any reason to be called into question. Then, once you've done that, explain why no other explanation for something of low probability happening, including random chance, is sufficient, why such an improbable figure as a supreme being MUST be assumed.

but instead of carrying out those things himself, god tells other humans to do it, thereby causing them to sin. hitler liked to claim that he believed he was doing god's work by eliminating the jews. given god's track record on eliminating people, how can you reasonably say hitler was wrong?

Godwin's law at its best. I'm glad to see there's one constant at play here that will NEVER be disproven.

 

[Skylink]

but if you want to go with scientific proof, then there was NO global flood, and jesus did NOT perform miracles. you cant have it both ways.

As I said before, i don't know everything about hydroplate theory, and neither do you. Even if it is so inconsistent, there may always be other models that other geologists come up with.

Now, about Jesus doing miracles, I think that you are forgetting who exactly he is. He is the one without cause, he is the one without beginning or end, he is the unchanging, outside of time and space-Alpha and Omega. Besides his brief appearence at the beginning of the 1st century, he never even walked this Earth! DW, Acts of God simply cannot be analyzed or reviewd like this, as it leads nowhere.

but instead of carrying out those things himself, god tells other humans to do it, thereby causing them to sin. hitler liked to claim that he believed he was doing god's work by eliminating the jews. given god's track record on eliminating people, how can you reasonably say hitler was wrong?

Hitler was wrong. Another thing that you are forgetting is exactly who the Jews were; They were Gods chosen few. They had his authority on earth, and were to act as God's representatives. Thats why it was so important to God that they mantained tgheir dignity. That's why they had his permission to be sent to destroy his enimies.

Digital Watches, Guys, I'm sorry, but I have to go to Pound 2 today. I won't be able to address you until evening tonight. Sorry. (I'm almost late as it is)

 

[snex]

As I said before, i don't know everything about hydroplate theory, and neither do you. Even if it is so inconsistent, there may always be other models that other geologists come up with.

i know that there isnt enough water on the entire planet to support a global flood. i know that there is NO evidence for a global flood in the rocks. not only do i know these things, but GEOLOGISTS know these things. you cannot sit there and accept scientific consensus that the earth is old when that consensus is based on the idea that there was no global flood.

Now, about Jesus doing miracles, I think that you are forgetting who exactly he is. He is the one without cause, he is the one without beginning or end, he is the unchanging, outside of time and space-Alpha and Omega. Besides his brief appearence at the beginning of the 1st century, he never even walked this Earth! DW, Acts of God simply cannot be analyzed or reviewd like this, as it leads nowhere.

this is more circular logic. i can say the same thing about mohammad, hercules, krishna, joseph smith, or any other religious figure you disbelieve in. the reason you disbelieve in all of these other figures is because science shows that their miracles are impossible. you cannot apply this inconsistently. either theyre all fake or theyre all real.

furthermore, there are *modern* people claiming to do miracles and MILLIONS of people believe them. if modern people with the benefit of science can still fall for this crap, just imagine how gullible the people of jesus' time were.

Hitler was wrong. Another thing that you are forgetting is exactly who the Jews were; They were Gods chosen few. They had his authority on earth, and were to act as God's representatives. Thats why it was so important to God that they mantained tgheir dignity. That's why they had his permission to be sent to destroy his enimies.

you are arguing from circular logic again. you admit that god has told people to commit genocide in the past. hitler claimed that god told him to commit genocide. you have absolutely no plausible reason to disbelieve him. the idea that the jews *were* gods chosen is irrelevant. hitler claimed god told him he chose a new people - the aryan germanic people - because the jews disappointed him. you cannot know the mind of god and therefore cannot claim hitler was wrong.

anybody who accepts that the bible is god's word and that god is good has no justification for having a moral compass. one of these two premises must be wrong.

 

[Digital Watches]

Now, about Jesus doing miracles, I think that you are forgetting who exactly he is. He is the one without cause, he is the one without beginning or end, he is the unchanging, outside of time and space-Alpha and Omega. Besides his brief appearence at the beginning of the 1st century, he never even walked this Earth!

So your proof that Christ performed miracles is a mere citation of his divinity? You can't take the very thing you're trying to prove for granted!

DW, Acts of God simply cannot be analyzed or reviewd like this, as it leads nowhere.

Sorry, but I can only read this as "my point doesn't stand up to analysis."

Hitler was wrong. Another thing that you are forgetting is exactly who the Jews were; They were Gods chosen few. They had his authority on earth, and were to act as God's representatives. Thats why it was so important to God that they mantained tgheir dignity. That's why they had his permission to be sent to destroy his enimies.

Ignoring the fact that you somehow managed to misattribute that quote to me... And that's a **** cop-out. I'm not anti-semitic, but I also don't buy into the "we're God's chosen people, so we're justified in attacking people." The very fact that God is so often used as an excuse for ridiculous conflicts (Israel is a prime example of this tendency) is a reason G4F may have a point in his semi-off-topic assertion that belief in God is holistically detrimental, however, I'm unwilling as of yet to take that position fully.

 

[Mic_128]

God does bad things too. He sent Israel to destroy cities, cover Egypt in plagues, among lots of other bad things. Snex, this is because he is the man. He is a just, fair, and impartial God. He punises bad people for bad things, and delivers final judgement. It is by his very nature that evil must be punished somehow. Punishment is not all fun and games.

He punished thousands of innocent animal species? He punished hundreds of thousands of people for not believing in him, without giving them proof of his existance? That's not devine intervention, that's an old grump tired of being ignored and throwing a tantrum. That's wrong, that's increadbly sinful.

Hitler was wrong. Another thing that you are forgetting is exactly who the Jews were; They were Gods chosen few. They had his authority on earth, and were to act as God's representatives. Thats why it was so important to God that they mantained tgheir dignity. That's why they had his permission to be sent to destroy his enimies.

How do you know that God didn't change his mind? "What have the jews done for me lately? Hey, these german guys seem alright, that Hitler guy seems okay, I'll go have a few words with him and see if they could be my new chosen people."

I can't proove I'm right, the same you can't prove I'm wrong.
EDIT: Snex basically said what I said only better. Drat :/

ifurthermore, there are *modern* people claiming to do miracles and MILLIONS of people believe them. if modern people with the benefit of science can still fall for this crap, just imagine how gullible the people of jesus' time were.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uiatGbaCxE0

I know it's immature of me, but as soon as Snex said that I had a flash of this.

 

[Skylink]

Thank you all for participating so thoughtfully. I appreciate your criticism and review, but please keep in mind that there’s one of me and about five of you, and my reply is probably going to be too long to fit into one posting, so if you could, try not to repeat each other or forget that I’ve been busy these last few days.

Before I go on, in this post I will resort to the argument that the bible has been verified and proven. However, it will be 12 in just a half hour, and I need to finish this post, so I can only link to a website I found and to a Google search page:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...en&q=Is+the+bible+reliable+OR+True+OR+proven?

Or misinterpreted. It's more grasping for straws. FOR EXAMPLE:

The stacks of improbability, both astrobiologically and multiversally.

That points to us not knowing the answer, not to a specific answer. You've yet to give me a convincing argument against the possibility of multiple universes, let alone all the other explanations for everything, many of which I'm sure no one's ever even thought of. To say "Things have happened that are improbable, ergo God exists" is to completely deny that any of the billions of other plausible solutions exist, including the possibility it's not even a MATTER of probability in the first place.

You are correct in what you say in your second sentence. There are lots of other possibilities that would have produced life, and the possibilities are endless. But the thing about naturally occurring, reproducing life, is that it must come up from the ground, from raw chemicals to raw reproducing molecules that are hundreds to thousands of times larger. Sure, you may get some hydrocarbons or other small-atom chains together, but by a basic law of thermodynamics, everything will be random. I’m not saying that it’s a simple thousand to one chance, I’m saying that if you want any function out of randomly arranging chemicals, you simply will not get it. Disorder comes from order, and you will need an extremely major violation of the laws of thermodynamics, and no such even minor macroscopic violation has ever been observed by man.
“but after billions of years on trillions of planets…” you will probably get some kind of chemical reproducing system going on, with an order of magnitude or two to spare. But you have not won the battle yet. In any of these environments, all of the materials that went into such systems will keep reacting randomly on them, none of them will ever get more than an inch or two off the ground. The chemicals won’t stop randomly reacting and changing the large molecules until you can find a situation where all the building blocks instantly go away once a system can sustain itself. It just doesn’t happen

Again, low probability does not necessarily prove God to exist. If anything, it proves that we have no idea how it happened. And you have not, as of yet, proven to me that the universal constants were EVER in question. For all we know (Which is really almost nothing about the outside of the universe or lack thereof) the constants applied before the universe existed. We have no way of knowing. I'll play the same game as many who argue less intelligently than yourself for the existence of god, but nevertheless have a point: Prove that they don't. Prove that there's any chance whatsoever that the constants that allow us to exist have any reason to be called into question. Then, once you've done that, explain why no other explanation for something of low probability happening, including random chance, is sufficient, why such an improbable figure as a supreme being MUST be assumed.

You say that there is no reason for our laws to be called into question, and you ask me to prove otherwise. You expect me to go out, prove that in a purely hypothetical plane of existence, there is any reason to believe our laws would be different. Just re read what you’re asking me to do here. I can’t prove to you what other universes would be like. I don’t know what inter-universal laws apply that govern universal, fundamental forces. An answer to such a question would take too many metaphysical assumptions, which would make it unscientific. DW, there is no scientific answer known to man to your question. The only thing I have to offer you is logic, and it tells me that different planes of reality simply cannot be exact copies of each other in terms of fundamental laws.

Not all well-written books are true, let alone able to prove the existence of a purely hypothetical figure.

Yes, this is true too. The Bible is no exception. It’s not just true because it has good poetry and philosophy in it. Any good poet could have just whipped it up just five hundred years ago, right? Wrong. The bible is proved by historical accuracy and archeological findings. I don’t have time to go re-research and retype everything I know on that either, but I can at least give you a good site I found

You're getting cause and effect mixed up. Guilt is a function of human psychology. A god is one way to think oneself to be rewarded for doing "good" and punished for doing "bad." The two are correlated, but if anything, guilt causes "God," not the other way around.

How does natural morality cause God? Yes, guilt is a function of human psychology. Selfishness and selflessness are both parts of natural human psychology. As are the “delusion” of the existence of God. But if you think about it, why do you think we have these qualities? Why do you think we have an instinct, that, let alone tells us that there is some supreme being? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, it is because there is a supreme being, and that we are meant to think like this for a reason? That we were, dare I say it… designed to think this way? Or do you think that it is because it is another natural, extra, unneeded function of our natural, un created brains?

If you're willing to turn a blind eye to logic. No offense meant, I respect your belief as well as the fact that you're willing to debate this rather heated topic so calmly and rationally even when so hideously outnumbered, but none of this constitutes proof.

Thank you for recognizing this. I’m sorry, but when so hideously outnumbered, any mistake I make is exploited by two or three people, and I must re-word, research, and retype what I find differently to try to avoid loopholes and false logic, which I have not ever done before with this level of opposition before.

So your proof that Christ performed miracles is a mere citation of his divinity? You can't take the very thing you're trying to prove for granted!

No, it is not a mere citation for his divinity. I never said that. Jesus is verified as divine because of any miracles he did. If he were here, in this time period, I would be able to use this argument, but his miracles are only as verified as the Bible is.

…The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics…

Name one way in which that's relevant.

I’ve been saving this one for last, so here I go.

The Copenhenagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics is the most widely accepted interpretation seemingly paradoxical data that physicist have obtained from Quantum Experiments. To start, the experiments show that we, first of all, never know the exact location of a quantum object, namely, an electron or photon, AND know it’s momentum at the same time. The more accurately we know one, the less accurately we know the other, which is part of their wave-particle duality. (We know right where a particle is, but we don’t know where it’s going, but we have no idea where it is.) Now, the thing about it, is when we observe the said quantum object, and then when we don’t observe it, we get some conflicting results only by adjusting when and how we collect our results. When we measure the decay rate of radioactive atoms that shift between hyperfinitive states by shooting photons at them and measuring the number and type of photons that reflect back, we get different results depending on how often we check the progress. When we measure electrons that can go through one of two holes to get to a positively charged target, we get different results depending on what or how we monitor the holes. There were lots of other experiments done that I don’t have time to cite now, but this all seems to be the case. And the Interpretation goes as follows:

1. A system is completely described by a wave function ψ, which represents an observer's knowledge of the system. (Heisenberg)
2. The description of nature is essentially probabilistic. The probability of an event is related to the square of the amplitude of the wave function. (Max Born)
3. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ensures that it is not possible to know the values of all of the properties of the system at the same time; those properties that are not known with precision must be described by probabilities.
4. (Complementary Principle) Matter exhibits a wave-particle duality. An experiment can show the particle-like properties of matter, or wave-like properties, but not both at the same time.(Niels Bohr)
5. Measuring devices are essentially classical devices, and measure classical properties such as position and momentum.
6. The Correspondence Principle of Bohr and Heisenberg, saying that the quantum mechanical description of large systems should closely approximate to the classical description.

This said, the outcome of quantum activity is dependant on the observer. There is always a “cloud of probability” that expands away from quantum objects after they are observed. Therefore, although macroscopic mechanical systems closely resemble classical physics, activity at the quantum level literally does not exist unless it is observed. And because the Quantum level is not defined, uncertainty always exist even in macroscopic objects. This has been proven by experiments measuring the quantum and classical properties of macroscopic objects. And without an observer to collapse its wave function, it does not exist as anything more than a “cloud of probability” So, what collapses the wave function of all objects in the universe?

(****!! There was this physics equation I saw once labeled “The God Equation” and “Million Dollar Equation” that proved that all particle objects in the universe required an observer to collapse their wave function and stabilize them to behave like classical objects, BUT I CAN’T FIND IT!!!)

 

[snex]

You are correct in what you say in your second sentence. There are lots of other possibilities that would have produced life, and the possibilities are endless. But the thing about naturally occurring, reproducing life, is that it must come up from the ground, from raw chemicals to raw reproducing molecules that are hundreds to thousands of times larger. Sure, you may get some hydrocarbons or other small-atom chains together, but by a basic law of thermodynamics, everything will be random. I’m not saying that it’s a simple thousand to one chance, I’m saying that if you want any function out of randomly arranging chemicals, you simply will not get it. Disorder comes from order, and you will need an extremely major violation of the laws of thermodynamics, and no such even minor macroscopic violation has ever been observed by man.
“but after billions of years on trillions of planets…” you will probably get some kind of chemical reproducing system going on, with an order of magnitude or two to spare. But you have not won the battle yet. In any of these environments, all of the materials that went into such systems will keep reacting randomly on them, none of them will ever get more than an inch or two off the ground. The chemicals won’t stop randomly reacting and changing the large molecules until you can find a situation where all the building blocks instantly go away once a system can sustain itself. It just doesn’t happen
You say that there is no reason for our laws to be called into question, and you ask me to prove otherwise. You expect me to go out, prove that in a purely hypothetical plane of existence, there is any reason to believe our laws would be different. Just re read what you’re asking me to do here. I can’t prove to you what other universes would be like. I don’t know what inter-universal laws apply that govern universal, fundamental forces. An answer to such a question would take too many metaphysical assumptions, which would make it unscientific. DW, there is no scientific answer known to man to your question. The only thing I have to offer you is logic, and it tells me that different planes of reality simply cannot be exact copies of each other in terms of fundamental laws.

not only is this an argument from ignorance, but it is just plain wrong. you are ignoring what real scientists say about the matter and instead taking the word of creationists who do no research, have no relevant degrees, and lie about what actual scientists say.

the probabilities are small, to be sure, but nowhere near as small as you are implying.

Yes, this is true too. The Bible is no exception. It’s not just true because it has good poetry and philosophy in it. Any good poet could have just whipped it up just five hundred years ago, right? Wrong. The bible is proved by historical accuracy and archeological findings. I don’t have time to go re-research and retype everything I know on that either, but I can at least give you a good site I found

the bible has a terrible success rate at predicting archaeological finds. none of the events in genesis or exodus have *any* evidence whatsoever. not a single prophecy has come true, and some books even get the history of their own (alleged) time periods horribly mangled. the book of daniel, for example, doesnt even know the kings of babylonia that reigned during the time it was supposed to have been written. even the life of jesus is highly suspect. very few of the stories about him in the gospels are even possible, let alone have evidence in favor of them. in terms of historical accuracy, the bible is one level above the book of mormon.

How does natural morality cause God? Yes, guilt is a function of human psychology. Selfishness and selflessness are both parts of natural human psychology. As are the “delusion” of the existence of God. But if you think about it, why do you think we have these qualities? Why do you think we have an instinct, that, let alone tells us that there is some supreme being? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, it is because there is a supreme being, and that we are meant to think like this for a reason? That we were, dare I say it… designed to think this way? Or do you think that it is because it is another natural, extra, unneeded function of our natural, un created brains?

this is discussed at length in works by daniel dennet, pascal boyer, and other scientists with relevant fields of expertise. needless to say, both are atheists.

Snex, please capitalize your “I”’s. It’s a pain to correct them all.

then dont. im not changing the way i write for you.

I believe in Jesus, and not the others, on no account of the scientific impossibility of what they did. This has nothing to do with this. I’m not applying any circular logic against them. I say, the bible has been confirmed, therefore I listen to what it says, it says the Jews are the man (or men) and if commanded by God, they have authority to kill these people.

if you say the bible has been confirmed, then you are simply lying. the key event to christianity is the resurrection of christ. not only is there absolutely zero evidence for this event, and not only is it scientifically impossible, but one cannot even create a coherent narrative for the story using the 4 gospels. i dare you to try it. using *every* verse from all 4 gospels, make a coherent narrative of the events between easter morning and the ascension.

Snex, I don’t like your logic. Just because God told the Jews to attack cities does not mean the bible has no moral value. The bible has repeated time and time again all kinds of promises for the Jewish people, what they would become, who they are, and what their ultimate future is. The Bible makes no mention of the Germans, or any group of anti-semitics anywhere near that time period would have any justified return to rule or dominance. It even promised that it would be the Jews[/i] that would be discriminated and persecuted against for as long as they live. Hitler has no justification.

if god told the jews to attack cities and commit genocide, then the bible has no inherent moral value. attacking cities and slaughtering everyone in them because they do not worship your god is morally wrong, PERIOD. it is wrong when muslims do it, and it was wrong when jews did it. either you must admit that the god of the bible is evil, or you must admit that the bible is not representative of the true god.

regarding hitler, it is irrelevant if the bible doesnt mention germans. mein kampf mentions germans. mein kampf contains the conversations between hitler and god, and you have no grounds to dispute that those conversations happened.

No, it is not a mere citation for his divinity. I never said that. Jesus is verified as divine because of any miracles he did. If he were here, in this time period, I would be able to use this argument, but his miracles are only as verified as the Bible is.

you have no knowledge of jesus' miracles outside of the claims of the bible. you are using the bible to verify the bible because the bible says so. CIRCULAR LOGIC!

I’ve been saving this one for last, so here I go.

The Copenhenagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics is the most widely accepted interpretation seemingly paradoxical data that physicist have obtained from Quantum Experiments. To start, the experiments show that we, first of all, never know the exact location of a quantum object, namely, an electron or photon, AND know it’s momentum at the same time. The more accurately we know one, the less accurately we know the other, which is part of their wave-particle duality. (We know right where a particle is, but we don’t know where it’s going, but we have no idea where it is.) Now, the thing about it, is when we observe the said quantum object, and then when we don’t observe it, we get some conflicting results only by adjusting when and how we collect our results. When we measure the decay rate of radioactive atoms that shift between hyperfinitive states by shooting photons at them and measuring the number and type of photons that reflect back, we get different results depending on how often we check the progress. When we measure electrons that can go through one of two holes to get to a positively charged target, we get different results depending on what or how we monitor the holes. There were lots of other experiments done that I don’t have time to cite now, but this all seems to be the case. And the Interpretation goes as follows:

1. A system is completely described by a wave function ψ, which represents an observer's knowledge of the system. (Heisenberg)
2. The description of nature is essentially probabilistic. The probability of an event is related to the square of the amplitude of the wave function. (Max Born)
3. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ensures that it is not possible to know the values of all of the properties of the system at the same time; those properties that are not known with precision must be described by probabilities.
4. (Complementary Principle) Matter exhibits a wave-particle duality. An experiment can show the particle-like properties of matter, or wave-like properties, but not both at the same time.(Niels Bohr)
5. Measuring devices are essentially classical devices, and measure classical properties such as position and momentum.
6. The Correspondence Principle of Bohr and Heisenberg, saying that the quantum mechanical description of large systems should closely approximate to the classical description.

This said, the outcome of quantum activity is dependant on the observer. There is always a “cloud of probability” that expands away from quantum objects after they are observed. Therefore, although macroscopic mechanical systems closely resemble classical physics, activity at the quantum level literally does not exist unless it is observed. And because the Quantum level is not defined, uncertainty always exist even in macroscopic objects. This has been proven by experiments measuring the quantum and classical properties of macroscopic objects. And without an observer to collapse its wave function, it does not exist as anything more than a “cloud of probability” So, what collapses the wave function of all objects in the universe?

(****!! There was this physics equation I saw once labeled “The God Equation” and “Million Dollar Equation” that proved that all particle objects in the universe required an observer to collapse their wave function and stabilize them to behave like classical objects, BUT I CAN’T FIND IT!!!)

why would somebody who seemingly understands quantum physics so well misrepresent it so much (im giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you arent copy-pasting)? you are equivocating the term "observer." "observer" in QM does not mean a conscious entity, it means *anything at all that can interact with the particle.*

 

[Digital Watches]

Thank you all for participating so thoughtfully. I appreciate your criticism and review, but please keep in mind that there’s one of me and about five of you, and my reply is probably going to be too long to fit into one posting, so if you could, try not to repeat each other or forget that I’ve been busy these last few days.

Before I go on, in this post I will resort to the argument that the bible has been verified and proven. However, it will be 12 in just a half hour, and I need to finish this post, so I can only link to a website I found and to a Google search page:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...en&q=Is+the+bible+reliable+OR+True+OR+proven?

I see nothing in either of those that proves the existance of God. I have no doubt that much of the bible is grounded in historical fact. This is not what we're arguing.

You are correct in what you say in your second sentence. There are lots of other possibilities that would have produced life, and the possibilities are endless. But the thing about naturally occurring, reproducing life, is that it must come up from the ground, from raw chemicals to raw reproducing molecules that are hundreds to thousands of times larger. Sure, you may get some hydrocarbons or other small-atom chains together, but by a basic law of thermodynamics, everything will be random. I’m not saying that it’s a simple thousand to one chance, I’m saying that if you want any function out of randomly arranging chemicals, you simply will not get it. Disorder comes from order, and you will need an extremely major violation of the laws of thermodynamics, and no such even minor macroscopic violation has ever been observed by man.
“but after billions of years on trillions of planets…” you will probably get some kind of chemical reproducing system going on, with an order of magnitude or two to spare. But you have not won the battle yet. In any of these environments, all of the materials that went into such systems will keep reacting randomly on them, none of them will ever get more than an inch or two off the ground. The chemicals won’t stop randomly reacting and changing the large molecules until you can find a situation where all the building blocks instantly go away once a system can sustain itself. It just doesn’t happen

Bull. You can't argue that it doesn't happen because it DID happen, and you can't argue that it's even unlikely without proving that there's any probability that it wouldn't have happened. And even then, you can't automatically jump from there to a diety. That's skipping a ton of logical steps, for example, eliminating other options. And again, until you can disprove multiple universes, I argue that probability is irrelevant given infinite trials.

You say that there is no reason for our laws to be called into question, and you ask me to prove otherwise. You expect me to go out, prove that in a purely hypothetical plane of existence, there is any reason to believe our laws would be different. Just re read what you’re asking me to do here. I can’t prove to you what other universes would be like. I don’t know what inter-universal laws apply that govern universal, fundamental forces. An answer to such a question would take too many metaphysical assumptions, which would make it unscientific. DW, there is no scientific answer known to man to your question. The only thing I have to offer you is logic, and it tells me that different planes of reality simply cannot be exact copies of each other in terms of fundamental laws.

I'm not asking you to prove anything. I am saying that you CAN'T. Secondly, logic must be grounded in some sort of pattern, fact, or prior knowledge. You can't call it logic when there's nothing to go on, and since we don't know anything about the existance of, possibility of, or properties of other universes, you simply have no logical basis for your assumption.

Yes, this is true too. The Bible is no exception. It’s not just true because it has good poetry and philosophy in it. Any good poet could have just whipped it up just five hundred years ago, right? Wrong. The bible is proved by historical accuracy and archeological findings. I don’t have time to go re-research and retype everything I know on that either, but I can at least give you a good site I found

Again, I've never disputed the historical accuracy of certain parts of the bible. For all I know it's a documented history as told by the people of the time. At the same time, their belief in God could cause them to interpret occurances as acts of said diety, and myths and works of fiction may be included. I believe that parts of the bible are historically accurate, but that doesn't convince me of God.

How does natural morality cause God? Yes, guilt is a function of human psychology. Selfishness and selflessness are both parts of natural human psychology. As are the “delusion” of the existence of God. But if you think about it, why do you think we have these qualities? Why do you think we have an instinct, that, let alone tells us that there is some supreme being? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, it is because there is a supreme being, and that we are meant to think like this for a reason? That we were, dare I say it… designed to think this way? Or do you think that it is because it is another natural, extra, unneeded function of our natural, un created brains?

I never said it was unneeded. If we didn't have a temperment that caused us to generally stray away from murder and the like, it wouldn't work out too well for us. Like most other instincts, our natural "morality" is easily explained as a product of evolution. If we had no qualms about any action taken whatsoever about other members of our species, we wouldn't exactly last long as a species at all.

Thank you for recognizing this. I’m sorry, but when so hideously outnumbered, any mistake I make is exploited by two or three people, and I must re-word, research, and retype what I find differently to try to avoid loopholes and false logic, which I have not ever done before with this level of opposition before.

Yes, I understand that it's hard to be a dissenting opinion, but please don't think that this entitles you to be more lax with your arguments.

You are going overboard, Snex. I’m glad to refute blind claims against the bible and my beliefs, but the title of the topic is “Does GOD exist?” Not the global flood, the morality of God, or if Jesus was God. I simply don’t have the time to go on with your bitter attacks off the topic.

Um. What? You've just cited NUMEROUS sources that prove nothing related to the existance of God. I agree that it's out of place, but practice what you preach, man.

Besides, this is just a one line response, saying, “There’s no proof!” Yes, sir, I know. That’s not what I’m trying to prove. I believe in Jesus, and not the others, on no account of the scientific impossibility of what they did. This has nothing to do with this. I’m not applying any circular logic against them. I say, the bible has been confirmed, therefore I listen to what it says, it says the Jews are the man (or men) and if commanded by God, they have authority to kill these people.

I stand by my previous statement on the "verification" of the bible. Just because parts of something are true doesn't mean that all of it is, nor does it mean that the events couldn't have been misinterpreted, lied about, or inflicted with bias on the part of the author.

Snex, I don’t like your logic. Just because God told the Jews to attack cities does not mean the bible has no moral value. The bible has repeated time and time again all kinds of promises for the Jewish people, what they would become, who they are, and what their ultimate future is. The Bible makes no mention of the Germans, or any group of anti-semitics anywhere near that time period would have any justified return to rule or dominance. It even promised that it would be the Jews[/i] that would be discriminated and persecuted against for as long as they live. Hitler has no justification.

Now I'm kind of worried. Are you actually l SERIOUSLY trying to JUSTIFY massively unethical actions on the basis that the Jews are God's chosen super-special people? That's kind of sickening, and stinks of religious extremism

No, it is not a mere citation for his divinity. I never said that. Jesus is verified as divine because of any miracles he did. If he were here, in this time period, I would be able to use this argument, but his miracles are only as verified as the Bible is.

I think Snex has already said what I would say here. Circular logic, etc.

I’ve been saving this one for last, so here I go.

The Copenhenagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics is the most widely accepted interpretation seemingly paradoxical data that physicist have obtained from Quantum Experiments. To start, the experiments show that we, first of all, never know the exact location of a quantum object, namely, an electron or photon, AND know it’s momentum at the same time. The more accurately we know one, the less accurately we know the other, which is part of their wave-particle duality. (We know right where a particle is, but we don’t know where it’s going, but we have no idea where it is.) Now, the thing about it, is when we observe the said quantum object, and then when we don’t observe it, we get some conflicting results only by adjusting when and how we collect our results. When we measure the decay rate of radioactive atoms that shift between hyperfinitive states by shooting photons at them and measuring the number and type of photons that reflect back, we get different results depending on how often we check the progress. When we measure electrons that can go through one of two holes to get to a positively charged target, we get different results depending on what or how we monitor the holes. There were lots of other experiments done that I don’t have time to cite now, but this all seems to be the case. And the Interpretation goes as follows:

1. A system is completely described by a wave function ψ, which represents an observer's knowledge of the system. (Heisenberg)
2. The description of nature is essentially probabilistic. The probability of an event is related to the square of the amplitude of the wave function. (Max Born)
3. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ensures that it is not possible to know the values of all of the properties of the system at the same time; those properties that are not known with precision must be described by probabilities.
4. (Complementary Principle) Matter exhibits a wave-particle duality. An experiment can show the particle-like properties of matter, or wave-like properties, but not both at the same time.(Niels Bohr)
5. Measuring devices are essentially classical devices, and measure classical properties such as position and momentum.
6. The Correspondence Principle of Bohr and Heisenberg, saying that the quantum mechanical description of large systems should closely approximate to the classical description.

This said, the outcome of quantum activity is dependant on the observer. There is always a “cloud of probability” that expands away from quantum objects after they are observed. Therefore, although macroscopic mechanical systems closely resemble classical physics, activity at the quantum level literally does not exist unless it is observed. And because the Quantum level is not defined, uncertainty always exist even in macroscopic objects. This has been proven by experiments measuring the quantum and classical properties of macroscopic objects. And without an observer to collapse its wave function, it does not exist as anything more than a “cloud of probability” So, what collapses the wave function of all objects in the universe?

(****!! There was this physics equation I saw once labeled “The God Equation” and “Million Dollar Equation” that proved that all particle objects in the universe required an observer to collapse their wave function and stabilize them to behave like classical objects, BUT I CAN’T FIND IT!!!)

Snex said it better than I could.

 

[Kalypso]

If God did not exist it would be necessary to create him.

 

[Digital Watches]

If God did not exist it would be necessary to create him.

Care to elaborate?