Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[historykidd]

nikolas i was shooting off on a side issue, its shooting off on a side issue, to be honest it doesnt effect me if you believe it or not.

Kwayera, rational people, scientists and atheists and whatnot, yh im rational to beieve that soemting came from nothing, im rational enough to believe that the human brain,the most complex thing in the universe, was a result of random genetic mutations, life itself was the result of a teh same impossible conditions of the urey miller experiemnts (which only accounted for 2 out of 20 amino acids, also produced the 93% tar and carboxylic acid which would have destroyed the amino acids long before they could form a functioning protein, and excluded oxygen becasue it would have oxidised the necessary ammonia and yet must have been present to form ozone to have allowed teh ammonia to form without being broken apart in the first place).

Wow, you guys are smart and rational, id much rather believe in bullshit random chance than god, yeh the probability of a cell forming naturally estimated at 1 in a number greater than every partcicle in the universe, otherwise known as impossible to anyone else but not to scientists. And actually much less than the probability of me walking into a brick wall and getting through when the electromagneic fields would just let me.

You are really smart

oh yeah, alright then.

 

[Tistime345]

btw i know my spelling sucks something awful in these posts, yh its been going downhill since english HSC. Just reaffirming this, atheists are really, really, smart.

 

[nikolas]

Please start formatting your paragraphs at least a little bit, I'm not even gonna try and decipher your walls of text until you do.

 

[Lukybear]

Where does your line of reasoning conclude that God is the only thing that could have created the singularity? You have merely asserted this.

Well, current scientific explanations are insufficent to prove the existence of God. This line of reasoning comes from

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) The Universe therefore had a cause.

The first two points are summed up by the Big Bang theory, ie the singularity, before the singularity. And fourth point of this arguement comes from that

4) Naturalistic explanations are insufficient in comparison to God in explaining this cause.

This is summed up simply by a few theories proposed out there at the moment. E.g. multiverse, in reference to the possibility of infinite universes, string theory etc....

However, by no means, those this line of reasoning provide a concrete, 100% proof of God's existence. It is merely by far the most probable, if considered logically.

And yes, i do recognise that the burden of proof is placed upon thesists, but as i said and as you re-iterated, we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

So either way, we cannot conclude that there is a God both ways.

But i deeply urge you to take the most probable...

 

[Lukybear]

Lol ATHEISTS R RLY SMRT BEKZ I copy paste shit from OTher sites lulz. Christians are fucking hilarious.

You my friend is discriminating!!! LOL.

 

[Kwayera]

Kwayera, rational people, scientists and atheists and whatnot, yh im rational to beieve that soemting came from nothing, im rational enough to believe that the human brain,the most complex thing in the universe, was a result of random genetic mutations, life itself was the result of a teh same impossible conditions of the urey miller experiemnts (which only accounted for 2 out of 20 amino acids, also produced the 93% tar and carboxylic acid which would have destroyed the amino acids long before they could form a functioning protein, and excluded oxygen becasue it would have oxidised the necessary ammonia and yet must have been present to form ozone to have allowed teh ammonia to form without being broken apart in the first place).

Wow, you guys are smart and rational, id much rather believe in bullshit random chance than god, yeh the probability of a cell forming naturally estimated at 1 in a number greater than every partcicle in the universe, otherwise known as impossible to anyone else but not to scientists. And actually much less than the probability of me walking into a brick wall and getting through when the electromagneic fields would just let me.

You are really smart

Translated: "I have no idea about anything about science except what I did in years 7-10 science and possibly EES and Physics, and thus I have no idea about "probability" and statistical chance and the fact that the progression of genes isn't random at all, and therefore it's more rational to dismiss science for magic."

 

[Lukybear]

Translated: "I have no idea about anything about science except what I did in years 7-10 science and possibly EES and Physics, and thus I have no idea about "probability" and statistical chance and the fact that the progression of genes isn't random at all, and therefore it's more rational to dismiss science for magic."

Please dont lead us to another debate on complex systems... End the misery here, go out, read the bible, consider christ, do whatever, but PLZ dont tell us about complex systems...

But then again, you are ignoring the most probable way of creation of the universe. GOD

 

[Kwayera]

Well, current scientific explanations are insufficent to prove the existence of God. This line of reasoning comes from

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) The Universe therefore had a cause.

The first two points are summed up by the Big Bang theory, ie the singularity, before the singularity.

And that's where your reasoning breaks down. It didn't have to have a cause.

4) Naturalistic explanations are insufficient in comparison to God in explaining this cause.

...

However, by no means, those this line of reasoning provide a concrete, 100% proof of God's existence. It is merely by far the most probable, if considered logically.

I'll say it again, as I've said a million times before. The existence of a God as an explanation for ours and the universe's existence is not the most probable. By your own reasoning - what caused God? Your reasoning rules out the unmoving mover.

 

[Kwayera]

Please dont lead us to another debate on complex systems... End the misery here, go out, read the bible, consider christ, do whatever, but PLZ dont tell us about complex systems...

Well, I wasn't the one trying to disprove something out of incredulity about it's "probability"

And I have read the bible.

 

[Tistime345]

Lukybear, first are you catholic or christian; and if so which christian, secondly i admit not to have time or energy to go thorugh the entire link but from what your saying it brings us back to the beginning, that we cant really be sure; but that atheists often resort to illogical aguments for the sake of their belief, not to say they're impossible but that in the end it all comes down to one question, regardless of the scope of the universe, whether it has 100 dimesnison or 4, if it was seeded from anothefr universe etc.,truth of the matter comes down to there is someting, and someone must have created that something, physical laws can not be changed when it seems fit especially if they seem to hold true for everything else

Cyanide, theres no way for us to resolve that argument its a matter of what each person can see as there proof or not, its a personal choice, its not something we can decide

Nikolas its been good arguing with you sry bout being a dik about your physics knowledge since ive been through the course a zillion times, so i better have learnt it

Kwayera your a stuck up btch that i dont reckon anyone here really likes, HSC 2005, go get a life and get off this forum, all people like you do is point little errors in someones argument rather than actually argue. Fuk off and get a boyfriend.

Luky bear cant help but relaise that youve kinda skipped off talking bout the physics side of things since your arguments were unproven and hypothetical, next time you dont say 'e.g. law did not apply at teh sngularity', you say , 'it may not have applied'

 

[Kwayera]

but that atheists often resort to illogical aguments for the sake of their belief

Lol, irony alert.

Kwayera your a stuck up btch that i dont reckon anyone here really likes, HSC 2005, go get a life and get off this forum, all people like you do is point little errors in someones argument rather than actually argue. Fuk off and get a boyfriend.

This statement is more hilarious than you realise.

 

[Lukybear]

And that's where your reasoning breaks down. It didn't have to have a cause.

I'll say it again, as I've said a million times before. The existence of a God as an explanation for ours and the universe's existence is not the most probable. By your own reasoning - what caused God? Your reasoning rules out the unmoving mover.

The univserse, by definition is the period AFTER SINGULARITY. THE period before singularity was before the univserse. What cause the creation of the universe? To put it in plain words. What cause the expansion of the universe?

Now apply my fourth premise and we're good, ie string theory
4) Naturalistic explanations are insufficient in comparison to God in explaining this cause.

 

[Kwayera]

4) Naturalistic explanations are insufficient in comparison to God in explaining this cause.

Why?

 

[Lukybear]

Why?

When you examine string theory and multiverse, which try to postulate a begingn for the universe, you would find many faults in it. IE string theory is just math.

However, that is too much a task for a student in year 10 to explain, one would require a professor with a PhD in particle physiscs.

 

[Kwayera]

I like her.

Awr I like you too Dom

 

[Lukybear]

Kwayera your a stuck up btch that i dont reckon anyone here really likes, HSC 2005, go get a life and get off this forum, all people like you do is point little errors in someones argument rather than actually argue. Fuk off and get a boyfriend.

No comment lol... Take it as whatever you like

 

[Kwayera]

When you examine string theory and multiverse, which try to postulate a begingn for the universe, you would find many faults in it. IE string theory is just math.

However, that is too much a task for a student in year 10 to explain, one would require a professor with a PhD in particle physiscs.

Which is why string "theory" (it should really be "string hypothesis") is just one of many?

 

[Tistime345]

Hey John Oliver, what yr 8, yh explains why your argument is shit, personally cant stand em (yr 8's), what, an asteroid would substantially increase the probability that amino acids forming?

1. who cares, the gases present dont add up in reality, (e.g plentiful supplies of oxygen must have been tehre for the ozone to form and protect the ammonia from UV rays and yet oxygen cant have been there for teh ammonia and carbon monoxide not to have been oxidised in the first place)

yp atheists are smart, you smart mofo.

2. did you know that amino acids are more likely to dissolve in liquid water than form cells, no you didnt cause your still learning what a force is, shut the fuk up and bring up arguments with a point

Kwayera i know more about everything then you'll ever know, cause i believe in Yahweh, the one who created everything, btw the mere fact that your here right now on a Wed night indicates your probably las in your class in uni, theres some probability you might understand

 

[nikolas]

Well, current scientific explanations are insufficent to prove the existence of God. This line of reasoning comes from

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) The Universe therefore had a cause.

The first two points are summed up by the Big Bang theory, ie the singularity, before the singularity. And fourth point of this arguement comes from that

4) Naturalistic explanations are insufficient in comparison to God in explaining this cause.

This is summed up simply by a few theories proposed out there at the moment. E.g. multiverse, in reference to the possibility of infinite universes, string theory etc....

However, by no means, those this line of reasoning provide a concrete, 100% proof of God's existence. It is merely by far the most probable, if considered logically.

If your referring to Chadn737's thread, he has merely asserted that naturalistic explanations are insufficient to multiverse/M-theory and the god is more probable considered logically (God of gaps argument). He offererd no line of reasoning that says there is no possible way this could of happened without God.

And yes, i do recognise that the burden of proof is placed upon thesists, but as i said and as you re-iterated, we cannot prove of disprove the existence of God.

This is not even a point it is stating the obvious.

But i deeply urge you to take the most probable...

See 1st rebuttal

 

[Kwayera]

Hey John Oliver, what yr 8, yh explains why your argument is shit, personally cant stand em (yr 8's), what, an asteroid would substantially increase the probability that amino acids forming?

Yes.

1. who cares, the gases present dont add up in reality, (e.g plentiful supplies of oxygen must have been tehre for the ozone to form and protect the ammonia from UV rays and yet oxygen cant have been there for teh ammonia and carbon monoxide not to have been oxidised in the first place)

yp atheists are smart, you smart mofo.

2. did you know that amino acids are more likely to dissolve in liquid water than form cells, no you didnt cause your still learning what a force is, shut the fuk up and bring up arguments with a point

Wow, your EES teacher failed substantially.

Kwayera i know more about everything then you'll ever know, cause i believe in Yahweh, the one who created everything, btw the mere fact that your here right now on a Wed night indicates your probably las in your class in uni, theres some probability you might understand

Uni's finished for the year, smartarse