- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 14,102
- Reaction score
- 3,919
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Why, yeah. They're evidence of Design. God.
If you'll look at the way they fit into this world - their purpose, their uses, their contribution, their role......of course.
It's part of the big picture!
Would we even have the Book called the Bible that we read today....if there is no paper. :lol:
Everything knits together....just like the existence of the universe that makes life sustainable on earth......that's another PATTERN!
That's what this thread is all about, isn't. I'm showing you - through the evidences - that there is a God!
Evidence that can be interpreted in multiple and contradictory ways in not evidence, unless put together with other evidence that preclude those contradictory interpretations. Thus it can be ambiguous but put together can lead to a probability, or as Tosca says cumulative evidence. However there isn't any evidence as such provided. So not only is there no evidence ambiguous there is no cumulative evidence.
What interpretation?
All I gave were scientific findings! Now you're saying scientiifc results are not good enough....or are not believable. :mrgreen:
All those science findings all show Design!
You're essential argument can be summed up as "everything is the way it is, therefor there is a god!"1. FINE-TUNING
The consistency of the physical law of the universe is evidence for having been planned/designed, and put in place.
Just the fact that we're situated in the suburbs of the Milky Way, where it's not crowded thus star collisions are rare, sort of reminds me of
the first rule for a successful business. LOCATION. LOCATION. LOCATION.
The nature of the universe is the best evidence for Design and how it came to be. One of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century....and we still add to our knowledge as new studies continue.
The Big Bang - with its dramatic hyper inflationary expansion (cause of it is unknown), but it's required for life to be possible in the universe.
The masses of quarks that has to be fine-tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.
Then we have to consider the large-just right size of the universe - exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.
We have just the right laws of physics,too. Of course.
Although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by sheer accident or chance, it would be virtually impossible that
all of them would require such fine-tuning.
There are some physicists who have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just this current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more exacting are the initial conditions of the universe in its initial stage, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process.
For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the current universe would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its infancy.
Have you noticed? All those above that explained about the origin of the universe have numerous evidences that support one another.
Yep. We're talking CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE again here, folks. Just by the first evidence given - it has its own cumulative evidences.
Having cumulative evidences is evident on various differing individual evidence(s) that will be given to you.
There is a system in place here that deals with evidences for God, by the obvious looks of it.
Most, if not all, evidences that will be given to you have cumulative evidences supporting each and every one of them.
I see a PATTERN! Which is another evidence for DESIGN.
Seeing as you like to add your own definitions to words, having this discussion with you is pointless.
How so? Saying atheism is a worldview is like implying abstinence is a sexual position.
Because there is a claim (ie God) and some people choose not to belief that claim. Therefor, I lack the belief. This shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand.
Ignoring it, is not really an argument, is it? What's the point of the discussion if you'll merely say, no, I don't see the evidence.
Not being able to come face-to-face with it (and being unable to address it).....is not really the same as, "not seeing it."
Uh....or is it the other way around?
Okay, you have a right to that. But how about discussing it with the Cambridge Dictionary (among others) who define it as:
"someone who believes that God does not exist."
atheist Meaning in Cambridge English Dictionary
No...atheism is not like that at all.
Atheism does not derive from "a" (without) + "theism" (a belief in a god) which would equal "being without a belief in a god."
Atheism actually came into the English language a century BEFORE theism...so it could not have derived that way.
It actually came into the English language from the Greek through the French and mans "a" (without) + "theos" (a god) which would equal "being without a god."
Sorry to bust your bubble...but this honestly does not answer the question "Is there a god?"
Except...it is completely bogus.
What interpretation?
All I gave were scientific findings! Now you're saying scientiifc results are not good enough....or are not believable. :mrgreen:
All those science findings show Design! They may not want to admit it.....but the individual findings for each and everything - they are cumulative evidences. How can we not see it that way.....if we're using logic?
Not all criminal cases are slam dunk! So many were convicted due to circumstial evidences that when used as a whole, had become
THE evidence...... without reasonable doubt.
And the Cambridge definition is nonsense. There is absolutely no logical need to say "I have a belief that I do not believe."
There were plenty of spiritual beliefs before theism as we know it today. There were people who believed in spirits, or gods and then others who did not believe them. You're digging far too deep into the word instead of the actual definition of the word.
And your point is what, exactly?
I do not believe in a god or gods. That is why I'm considered an atheist. Being an atheist doesn't subscribe you to any sort of beliefs or doctrine therefor atheism in itself is not a worldview. There really isn't much more nuance to that.
How is my lack of belief completely bogus? There is no proof for god, so why must I believe in him?
Actually, Pancake...YOU are my idea of an atheist!
This thread was created in response to Frank Apisa's request for me to provide evidences for the existence of God. I didn't get the chance to do a research actually.....and didn't gather all the evidences that can be presented. There will be numerous evidences given, and no doubt there will be attempts at rebuttals for each and every one at them. They're listed not in the order of any ranking.
But at the end of the day.....the main evidence that I'll give - there's no getting around it if we're going to use logic - is the fact that all the evidences for God that will be given, are "CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE."
Cumulative evidence(s) reinforces one another (evidences) thereby producing an effect stronger than any part by itself.
It's synonymous with, "corroborative evidence," which confirms, or adds to previous evidence.
So, after I'd given several evidences for the existence of God.....the last evidence I'd put on your doorstep will be the "package" that contains all the evidences as a whole.
Let me just deal a factual blow to atheism, just so to get it out of the way: atheism contradicts its own worldview by believing the universe has a natural cause despite the lack of observational evidence for such a belief.
Although there is no direct observational evidence as to the origin of the universe - no direct observational evidence as to how exactly it was created - we now have a good knowledge about the early history of the universe and the laws that govern it - thanks to science, and to advanced technology - which provide us with indirect evidence that a super-intelligent Agent designed the universe.
Intelligent Designers don't necessarily call the Designer, God......but followers of the Abrahamic religions, do.
Without further ado, here's the first evidence.
1. FINE-TUNING
The consistency of the physical law of the universe is evidence for having been planned/designed, and put in place.
Just the fact that we're situated in the suburbs of the Milky Way, where it's not crowded thus star collisions are rare, sort of reminds me of
the first rule for a successful business. LOCATION. LOCATION. LOCATION.
The nature of the universe is the best evidence for Design and how it came to be. One of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century....and we still add to our knowledge as new studies continue.
The Big Bang - with its dramatic hyper inflationary expansion (cause of it is unknown), but it's required for life to be possible in the universe.
The masses of quarks that has to be fine-tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.
Then we have to consider the large-just right size of the universe - exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.
We have just the right laws of physics,too. Of course.
Although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by sheer accident or chance, it would be virtually impossible that
all of them would require such fine-tuning.
There are some physicists who have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just this current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more exacting are the initial conditions of the universe in its initial stage, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process.
For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the current universe would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its infancy.
Have you noticed? All those above that explained about the origin of the universe have numerous evidences that support one another.
Yep. We're talking CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE again here, folks. Just by the first evidence given - it has its own cumulative evidences.
Having cumulative evidences is evident on various differing individual evidence(s) that will be given to you.
There is a system in place here that deals with evidences for God, by the obvious looks of it.
Most, if not all, evidences that will be given to you have cumulative evidences supporting each and every one of them.
I see a PATTERN! Which is another evidence for DESIGN.
What interpretation?
All I gave were scientific findings! Now you're saying scientiifc results are not good enough....or are not believable. :mrgreen:
All those science findings show Design! They may not want to admit it.....but the individual findings for each and everything - they are cumulative evidences. How can we not see it that way.....if we're using logic?
Not all criminal cases are slam dunk! So many were convicted due to circumstial evidences that when used as a whole, had become
THE evidence...... without reasonable doubt.
What is your concept of an atheist, exactly?
Because if your concept of the word "atheist" is anything more than "someone who doesn't believe in god or gods" then you would be wrong.
What is your concept of an atheist, exactly?
Because if your concept of the word "atheist" is anything more than "someone who doesn't believe in god or gods" then you would be wrong.
If you want to hear Frank's position on atheism, there's an entire thread full of hundreds of pages of him saying the same nonsense over and over again.
Summarized, his position is essentially: "Atheists require just as much faith as theists. I'm in the middle with no opinion whatsoever and because of that I'm the only rational person here. You have to accept every claim made by everyone until it's proven right or wrong."
Essentially, Frank doesn't believe in the burden of proof and thinks being an atheist requires explicitly stating "There is 100% no god". He can not be talked to or reasoned with, so you might as well not even try. To Frank, not making things up is the exact same thing as making things up. The only rational position is to float through life with no beliefs, convictions or truth of any kind. 'How dare you state you don't believe in unicorns! You can't prove they don't exist!'
Theist: God is real!
Atheist: I reject your claim until you provide evidence!
Frank: You're both equally faith-based!
Nah! Not even close!
You are my ideal idea of an atheist, Pancake.
So...you are going to stick to the fiction that the only thing that makes an atheist an atheist...is a lack of belief in a god.
Okay.
Stick to it.
It's part of the reason you are my ideal atheist.
If there is a "God" it certainly is not the "God" of the bible.
Which is 100% man made invention.
This thread was created in response to Frank Apisa's request for me to provide evidences for the existence of God. I didn't get the chance to do a research actually.....and didn't gather all the evidences that can be presented. There will be numerous evidences given, and no doubt there will be attempts at rebuttals for each and every one at them. They're listed not in the order of any ranking.
But at the end of the day.....the main evidence that I'll give - there's no getting around it if we're going to use logic - is the fact that all the evidences for God that will be given, are "CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE."
Cumulative evidence(s) reinforces one another (evidences) thereby producing an effect stronger than any part by itself.
It's synonymous with, "corroborative evidence," which confirms, or adds to previous evidence.
So, after I'd given several evidences for the existence of God.....the last evidence I'd put on your doorstep will be the "package" that contains all the evidences as a whole.
Let me just deal a factual blow to atheism, just so to get it out of the way: atheism contradicts its own worldview by believing the universe has a natural cause despite the lack of observational evidence for such a belief.
Although there is no direct observational evidence as to the origin of the universe - no direct observational evidence as to how exactly it was created - we now have a good knowledge about the early history of the universe and the laws that govern it - thanks to science, and to advanced technology - which provide us with indirect evidence that a super-intelligent Agent designed the universe.
Intelligent Designers don't necessarily call the Designer, God......but followers of the Abrahamic religions, do.
Without further ado, here's the first evidence.
1. FINE-TUNING
The consistency of the physical law of the universe is evidence for having been planned/designed, and put in place.
Just the fact that we're situated in the suburbs of the Milky Way, where it's not crowded thus star collisions are rare, sort of reminds me of
the first rule for a successful business. LOCATION. LOCATION. LOCATION.
The nature of the universe is the best evidence for Design and how it came to be. One of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century....and we still add to our knowledge as new studies continue.
The Big Bang - with its dramatic hyper inflationary expansion (cause of it is unknown), but it's required for life to be possible in the universe.
The masses of quarks that has to be fine-tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.
Then we have to consider the large-just right size of the universe - exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.
We have just the right laws of physics,too. Of course.
Although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by sheer accident or chance, it would be virtually impossible that
all of them would require such fine-tuning.
There are some physicists who have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just this current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more exacting are the initial conditions of the universe in its initial stage, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process.
For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the current universe would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its infancy.
Have you noticed? All those above that explained about the origin of the universe have numerous evidences that support one another.
Yep. We're talking CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE again here, folks. Just by the first evidence given - it has its own cumulative evidences.
Having cumulative evidences is evident on various differing individual evidence(s) that will be given to you.
There is a system in place here that deals with evidences for God, by the obvious looks of it.
Most, if not all, evidences that will be given to you have cumulative evidences supporting each and every one of them.
I see a PATTERN! Which is another evidence for DESIGN.
No, Frank, that's exactly what you've been saying.
Person A: Unicorns exist
Person B: I don't believe you
Frank: You're both wrong because you can't make statements without evidence.
You've stated over and over and over again that atheists rejecting the claims of theists is illogical. I don't need evidence to reject unicorns just like I don't need evidence to reject god. If any evidence for either pops up, I'll adjust my world view accordingly, until then I'll simply have an atheistic lack of belief in both, and that requires exactly zero faith.
I hesitate to let you pollute another thread with your nonsense, but this is exactly what atheism is. I don't have a belief in god, therefore I am an atheist. That requires no faith of any kind.
Attempting to prove the existence of God using secular standards of evidence and proof is a fool's errand. The best evidence for God's existence is the personal experience that billions of people share of a living God that touches their lives every day.
The question of the thread is "Is there a God?"
I am always headed in the direction of dealing with that question.
You are not even close to summarizing my position on anything, Rabid...and if it bothers you that I call attention to the fact that you are mischaracterizing my position...tough. I will do it anyway...and since it does impact on the OP...it is proper that I do so.
And any one of those people will offer a completely different and contradictory testimony to any of the other testimonies. I think it's funny how quick you christians are to pool all believers of all religions onto your side as if your numbers make it true. You still can't get past the fact that while there are roughly 2 billion christians, there are still 5 billion people who think you're full of ****.
Anyone who has even peeked in that monstrosity of a thread you've spammed knows that I'm representing your position as you've presented it. Being an atheist doesn't require a positive statement like "There is no god" and at no point have you ever been able to show that's a necessity.
AbsolutelyAttempting to prove the existence of God using secular standards of evidence and proof is a fool's errand.
Evidence is the wrong term here. I would say the best reason to have faith in God's existence is the personal experience that people have in a living God that touches their lives every day.The best evidence for God's existence is the personal experience that billions of people share of a living God that touches their lives every day.
The most compelling answer would be all those individual evidence for design......CUMULATIVE EVIDENCES.......all lumped together as ONE!
So if you'll insist on one compelling evidence - I give you the CUMULATIVE EVIDENCES! You'll have to consider that as a whole.
If we're talking logic - surely you cannot disregard that glaring fact!
And the Cambridge definition is nonsense. There is absolutely no logical need to say "I have a belief that I do not believe."
Attempting to prove the existence of God using secular standards of evidence and proof is a fool's errand. The best evidence for God's existence is the personal experience that billions of people share of a living God that touches their lives every day.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?