Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[nikolas]

And continuing, i'm assuming that your talking about the molecular branes theory, so what your saying is that matter spontaneosuly formed from the zero point energy, (the energy in a vacuum), assuming that did happen, then the energy must have been there in the first place, and to have been there, something can not come from nothing, it must have been created first. Im pretty sure there are no theories, whos saying they're true anyway, have they been proven or is te burden of proof all upon us, that nothing could ever conceivably give something.

Mate my point is simply that you are jumping to the conclusion that the only possible conclusion is God did it, while ignoring any other possible explanation.

You have provided basically a God of the gaps in science argument.

 

[Kwayera]

I really have to know this, why does it seem that atheists are so willing to throw away all scientific rational when it comes to arguing for atheism; but love to use the very same things that the had refuted when they come to defend atheism, i.e the laws of science.

Wait, what?

hey it seems okay for you guys to use unproved theories as seemingly convincing proof, so I will to.

Such as?

 

[Tistime345]

Na na na see mate its not simply a god of the gaps, the fact of the matter isn't that we cant say what happened say before with natural phenomena and pagan religions, were saying that these things simply should not have happened, yet they did, and the fact that they did is not misunderstood by us but evidence that someting must have been there for those things to have occured inthe way they did, to have occurred at all. something simply can not come from nothing, its absurd and pointless to even try and say the opposite.

 

[Kwayera]

were saying that these things simply should not have happened, yet they did,

No we aren't. How did you come to this conclusion?

and the fact that they did is not misunderstood by us but evidence that someting must have been there for those things to have occured inthe way they did, to have occurred at all. something simply can not come from nothing, its absurd and pointless to even try and say the opposite.

Same question.

 

[nikolas]

Na na na see mate its not simply a god of the gaps, the fact of the matter isn't that we cant say what happened say before with natural phenomena and pagan religions, were saying that these things simply should not have happened, yet they did, and the fact that they did is not misunderstood by us but evidence that someting must have been there for those things to have occured inthe way they did, to have occurred at all. something simply can not come from nothing, its absurd and pointless to even try and say the opposite.

Yes my point exactly SOMETHING must have been there. You my friend jump to the conclusion that this something is God.

And FFS at least put a little effort in typing up your posts.

 

[Tistime345]

For Kwayera, i guess i should phrase myself a bit more precisely, by the first part ive seen atheists shoot off the old argument, maybe the laws of physics change, when trying to describe things that shouldnt be the way they are, whilst in other times they point to scienific theories based upon those same laws to prove their point

For the seocnd part i again sould have phrased myself more precisely, i was talking about nikolas bringing up

There are also hypotheses, such as alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe, that allow a universe without a first cause.

@ the bolded bit, why can't a naturalistic explanation have caused the uneven creation of matter/anti matter, in fact i read a good guess of what could have caused this without needing to resort to "God did it"

i know that point was a bit wierd, btw sorry for being a bit of a dick nikolas, your being reasonable in this discussion

 

[CyanideChrist]

And for the second part your just showing to be a stupid arrogant fuk yourself, you should have read my second post, and maybe seen that this would have been more applicable to nikolas not you

Is that why you directly addressed me in the opening sentence? How does not understanding what you convultued, mess of a paragraph post has to do with god make me a "stupid arrogant fuk"?

cause your arguments are irrational to me, im not arguing about whose god is true its about the existence of a god.

I doubt you even understand my arguments...my argument is that it is impossible to know whether a god exists, or the nature/identity of a god.

 

[Tistime345]

nik what are you saying by the 'something'what, some mysterious force in the universe, or what,

and kwayera i admitted to your first response but what is the seocnd suppost to mean, i was saying thats what the god believers would say, are you saying we as in me and you are on the same side or what

 

[Lukybear]

I really have to know this, why does it seem that atheists are so willing to throw away all scientific rational when it comes to arguing for atheism; but love to use the very same things that the had refuted when they come to defend atheism, i.e the laws of science.

And continuing Nikolas

3. This claim raises the question of what caused God. If, as some claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.

I admit I cant fathom what caused God, because i dont believe he was caused, but who says the universe couldn't have been caused, if you want to talk about theories, did you know that a new one states that time is simply an illusion, that it does not exist and just is a way for our mind to understand the gradual increase of entropy in the universe; so in reality using that reasoning, the universe does not need a time factor. hey it seems okay for you guys to use unproved theories as seemingly convincing proof, so I will to.

Using another chain of reasoning, what if the time of creation was time t=0, then theres no need to say that the for cause to happen before effect the universe could not conceivably be created. btw cause need not occur before effect, have a look at quantum mechanics

I have just caught on here, also with your past arguments, especially concerning the Law Of Concervation of Energy.

1). The Law of Conservation of Energy does not apply before the Big Bang. This Law, including everything else breaks down at the Big Bang.

Sources: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

2). In a famous arguement for God, the cosmological argument. THe first premise is that "Everything which begin to exist has a cause." This is especially relevant to your 3rd arguement. The univers has NOT always existed, and thus need some sort of "creation." Using the lose definition of God - The creator of the universe thus God exist.

The argument i will provide i have quoted from a similar board:

The first oscillating theories for the Universe did just this by having the Universe expand and contract without ever actually reaching the singularity. Rather as the Universe contracted, matter and energy somehow passed each other by without actually coming to a point. As the matter and energy of the Universe passed by one another they would expand out until one again the Universe reached a point were the internal gravitation of the Universe overcame the expansion and forced it to contract yet again. However, this model was inherently flawed. Perhaps the most damning of the flaws against this theory was the fact that since the Universe never collapsed to an actual singularity, Entropy was preserved from one oscillation to the next. Dr. Novikov and Dr. Zel’dovich both pointed out in a 1973 publication entitled Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities that:

This arguement is basically using a lose definition of the universe. In this case, after the expansion of the singularity, the universe came into being. Physics have shown us that most likely, the universe did begin with a singularity, which requires creation.

3) Finnaly, i must remind you, that all your logics and scientific reasoning is rendered pointless in the prescense of an omnipotent being. For our reasoning do not apply.

 

[nikolas]

nik what are you saying by the 'something'what, some mysterious force in the universe, or what,

I'm saying i don't have a fucking clue. Anything i say would be pure speculation at best, however i don't jump to any conclusions like, theory X is correct or this model is wrong etc.

 

[Kwayera]

For Kwayera, i guess i should phrase myself a bit more precisely, by the first part ive seen atheists shoot off the old argument, maybe the laws of physics change, when trying to describe things that shouldnt be the way they are, whilst in other times they point to scienific theories based upon those same laws to prove their point[/qupte]

They must have been some very odd atheists

@ the bolded bit, why can't a naturalistic explanation have caused the uneven creation of matter/anti matter, in fact i read a good guess of what could have caused this without needing to resort to "God did it"

And most of us operate under that reasonable assumption - a naturalistic explanation.

 

[Lukybear]

Na na na see mate its not simply a god of the gaps, the fact of the matter isn't that we cant say what happened say before with natural phenomena and pagan religions, were saying that these things simply should not have happened, yet they did, and the fact that they did is not misunderstood by us but evidence that someting must have been there for those things to have occured inthe way they did, to have occurred at all. something simply can not come from nothing, its absurd and pointless to even try and say the opposite.

LOL

Sorry, i must point this out, I know I addressed this in my above post. But just to clarify, the Law of Conservation of Matter breaks down at Singularity, thus disproving your statement.

 

[Tistime345]

nikolas this was originally intended for cyanide but i suggest you have a look into it yourself befroe you plaec yourself into being an agnostic forever

Where you say that your argument is that its impossible to know if god exists or not, then that will come in the second part of any debate on the existence of god, which god is true, you really think that if there was a god he wouldnt have let one of us know and one of us have the truth. Lets go through why the god of the bible has the evidence behind him to back him up, alright 1. fulfilled, detailed prophecies, not the vague shit that nostradamus put down, we're talking bout the destruction of great trading empires like tyre, how its mainland would be pushed into teh sea, how it would never be rebuilt, that fishermen would dry their nets; whilst in sidon just kilometres down the coast, the bible predicted that it would have an incredibly bloody history and yet never says that it would be destroyed never to be rebuilt. even though tyre is by far a more advantageous place to have a city, its natural water supplies could provide for more than 1 million people without need of a dam or whatever, and these can be shown to have been put down before the events ocured, the documents have been carbon dated to before the date of the events and the historical records back this up. Only a greater being can predict such propheices with such accuracy, sometihng beyond our 4 dimensional space time and actually travel thorugh the time dimension, somethng i believe the true god can do.

 

[Kwayera]

nik what are you saying by the 'something'what, some mysterious force in the universe, or what,

and kwayera i admitted to your first response but what is the seocnd suppost to mean, i was saying thats what the god believers would say, are you saying we as in me and you are on the same side or what

I have no idea; you're not making yourself very clear. By 'we' I meant myself and other rational people (atheists, scientists, etc).

 

[nikolas]

I have just caught on here, also with your past arguments, especially concerning the Law Of Concervation of Energy.

1). The Law of Conservation of Energy does not apply before the Big Bang. This Law, including everything else breaks down at the Big Bang.


Sources: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

Mate i was merely refuting his point, you just took a shot at another theist (he was the one arguing the Conservation of Energy as proof of God.).

2). In a famous arguement for God, the cosmological argument. THe first premise is that "Everything which begin to exist has a cause." This is especially relevant to your 3rd arguement. The univers has NOT always existed, and thus need some sort of "creation." Using the lose definition of God - The creator of the universe thus God exist.

The argument i will provide i have quoted from a similar board:


This arguement is basically using a lose definition of the universe. In this case, after the expansion of the singularity, the universe came into being. Physics have shown us that most likely, the universe did begin with a singularity, which requires creation.

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

3) Finnaly, i must remind you, that all your logics and scientific reasoning is rendered pointless in the prescense of an omnipotent being. For our reasoning do not apply.

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

 

[nikolas]

nikolas this was originally intended for cyanide but i suggest you have a look into it yourself befroe you plaec yourself into being an agnostic forever

Where you say that your argument is that its impossible to know if god exists or not, then that will come in the second part of any debate on the existence of god, which god is true, you really think that if there was a god he wouldnt have let one of us know and one of us have the truth. Lets go through why the god of the bible has the evidence behind him to back him up, alright 1. fulfilled, detailed prophecies, not the vague shit that nostradamus put down, we're talking bout the destruction of great trading empires like tyre, how its mainland would be pushed into teh sea, how it would never be rebuilt, that fishermen would dry their nets; whilst in sidon just kilometres down the coast, the bible predicted that it would have an incredibly bloody history and yet never says that it would be destroyed never to be rebuilt. even though tyre is by far a more advantageous place to have a city, its natural water supplies could provide for more than 1 million people without need of a dam or whatever, and these can be shown to have been put down before the events ocured, the documents have been carbon dated to before the date of the events and the historical records back this up. Only a greater being can predict such propheices with such accuracy, sometihng beyond our 4 dimensional space time and actually travel thorugh the time dimension, somethng i believe the true god can do.

Please learn to use paragraphs my eye's are straining as it is.

This ones on the 1st page aswell.

• Rebuttal: Prophecies prove the accuracy of my religious text

Claim:

The religious text contains many prophecies that have accurately been fulfilled, proving it is a divine source.


Response:

1. There are several mundane ways in which a prediction of the future can be fulfilled:

• Retrodiction. The "prophecy" can be written or modified after the events fulfilling it have already occurred.
• Vagueness. The prophecy can be worded in such a way that people can interpret any outcome as a fulfillment. Nostradomus's prophecies are all of this type. Vagueness works particularly well when people are religiously motivated to believe the prophecies.
• Inevitability. The prophecy can predict something that is almost sure to happen, such as the collapse of a city. Since nothing lasts forever, the city is sure to fall someday. If it has not, it can be said that according to prophecy, it will.
• Denial. One can claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they have not. Or, more commonly, one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.
• Self-fulfillment. A person can act deliberately to satisfy a known prophecy.

There are no prophecies in religious texts that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories.

2. In biblical times, prophecies were not simply predictions. They were warnings of what could or would happen if things did not change. They were meant to influence people's behavior. If the people heeded the prophecy, the events would not come to pass. A fulfilled prophecy was a failed prophecy, because it meant people did not heed the warning.

3. Specifically, the Bible contains failed prophecies, in the sense that things God said would happen did not (Skeptic's Annotated Bible n.d.). For example:

• Joshua said that God would, without fail, drive out the Jebusites and Canaanites, among others (Josh. 3:9-10). But those tribes were not driven out (Josh. 15:63, 17:12-13).
• Isaiah 17:1-3 says that Damascus will cease to be a city and be deserted forever, yet it is inhabited still.
• Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (29:10-14), and Nebuchadrezzar would plunder it (29:19-20). Neither happened.

4. Other religions claim many fulfilled prophecies, too.

5. For Christians, divinity is not shown by miracles. The Bible itself says true prophecies may come elsewhere than from God (Deut. 13:1-3), as may other miracles (Exod. 7:22, Matt. 4:8).

 

[Tistime345]

Lukybear is the exact definition of what i was talking about kwayera,

But just to clarify, the Law of Conservation of Matter breaks down at Singularity, thus disproving your statement.

sorry do you care to prove that, do you care to prove to me that that actually happened, did you ever really consider to yourself how absurd it is to believe that a 'singularioty' no width, height, length etc. contained everything within the universe. the law of conservation of energy did not apply at the big bang, I see athesits had to add that in to their theory to make it conform with tehir beliefs, i didnt know science was meant to fudge their calculations.

lukybear
The first oscillating theories for the Universe did just this by having the Universe expand and contract without ever actually reaching the singularity. Rather as the Universe contracted, matter and energy somehow passed each other by without actually coming to a point. As the matter and energy of the Universe passed by one another they would expand out until one again the Universe reached a point were the internal gravitation of the Universe overcame the expansion and forced it to contract yet again. However, this model was inherently flawed. Perhaps the most damning of the flaws against this theory was the fact that since the Universe never collapsed to an actual singularity, Entropy was preserved from one oscillation to the next. Dr. Novikov and Dr. Zel’dovich both pointed out in a 1973 publication entitled Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities that:

i dont get why you brought this up, bt thanks anyway i can rip into you a but more, by bringing this up i dont get what you set out to prove, its just saying that entropy is always gonna increase, i.e the laws still existed at the beginning, since the oscillating universes shit had entropy fluctuating rather than incresing or remaining constant. Mate are you a dope or something, and again who cares, if your saying that the univesre did begin as a singularity, how did it form, fact of the matter is it wouldnt have formed but for god

 

[Tistime345]

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

 

[Lukybear]

Lukybear is the exact definition of what i was talking about kwayera,

But just to clarify, the Law of Conservation of Matter breaks down at Singularity, thus disproving your statement.

sorry do you care to prove that, do you care to prove to me that that actually happened, did you ever really consider to yourself how absurd it is to believe that a 'singularioty' no width, height, length etc. contained everything within the universe. the law of conservation of energy did not apply at the big bang, I see athesits had to add that in to their theory to make it conform with tehir beliefs, i didnt know science was meant to fudge their calculations.

lukybear
The first oscillating theories for the Universe did just this by having the Universe expand and contract without ever actually reaching the singularity. Rather as the Universe contracted, matter and energy somehow passed each other by without actually coming to a point. As the matter and energy of the Universe passed by one another they would expand out until one again the Universe reached a point were the internal gravitation of the Universe overcame the expansion and forced it to contract yet again. However, this model was inherently flawed. Perhaps the most damning of the flaws against this theory was the fact that since the Universe never collapsed to an actual singularity, Entropy was preserved from one oscillation to the next. Dr. Novikov and Dr. Zel’dovich both pointed out in a 1973 publication entitled Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities that:

i dont get why you brought this up, bt thanks anyway i can rip into you a but more, by bringing this up i dont get what you set out to prove, its just saying that entropy is always gonna increase, i.e the laws still existed at the beginning, since the oscillating universes shit had entropy fluctuating rather than incresing or remaining constant. Mate are you a dope or something, and again who cares, if your saying that the univesre did begin as a singularity, how did it form, fact of the matter is it wouldnt have formed but for god

Well Tistime345, all this are a series of arguements for the existence of a God, known as the cosmological arguement. Here is the
link:
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php?t=15307&highlight=cosmo

I would urge you to have a read, very innovating stuff.

Personally, i am a Christian, and i guess you too belong to the same religion. I guess there isnt one whole conceret arguement for God, as evident here, however, the End justifies the Means. Matters not on what you belive proofs God, instead it is pivotal to belive in God, and have faith.

 

[CyanideChrist]

Where you say that your argument is that its impossible to know if god exists or not, then that will come in the second part of any debate on the existence of god, which god is true, you really think that if there was a god he wouldnt have let one of us know and one of us have the truth. Lets go through why the god of the bible has the evidence behind him to back him up, alright 1. fulfilled, detailed prophecies, not the vague shit that nostradamus put down, we're talking bout the destruction of great trading empires like tyre, how its mainland would be pushed into teh sea, how it would never be rebuilt, that fishermen would dry their nets; whilst in sidon just kilometres down the coast, the bible predicted that it would have an incredibly bloody history and yet never says that it would be destroyed never to be rebuilt. even though tyre is by far a more advantageous place to have a city, its natural water supplies could provide for more than 1 million people without need of a dam or whatever, and these can be shown to have been put down before the events ocured, the documents have been carbon dated to before the date of the events and the historical records back this up. Only a greater being can predict such propheices with such accuracy, sometihng beyond our 4 dimensional space time and actually travel thorugh the time dimension, somethng i believe the true god can do.

Yes, but how do you know that that was a) your god, b) a god at all, c) many different gods, d) your god acting on behalf of a power greater than himself, etc.

Even if a god tells you the "truth", that he is the one true god, there is no way that you could ever know that he is not lying. He could be tricking you into believing. For example, if I were to say: "I am the one, true God", you would have no way to know whether I actually am or not. In fact, I wouldn't even know if I am the one, true god. Some other power could be fooling me into thinking that I am a god.

Do you see my point now?

Wow, you guys are smart and rational, id much rather believe in bullshit random chance than god

Was god's creation not a product of bullshit random chance, then (seeings as it is so illogical to believe in random chance)? God, of course, must have been created, because nothing (including god) can come from nothing. But then, what created god's creator? And was it fate that god's creator created god? Maybe he just randomly decided to create god one day?