Amazing Scientific Evidences For God's Existence!

[trulyenlightened]

TrulyE: There is also no indirect, physical, observable, measurable, or direct evidence to suggest that a who, or a what, was involved in its creation.

Of course we do, because what immediately came into existence and how those first amazing things functioned require an intelligent designer - as just random things pointlessly bumping into each other didn't appear, but things with awesome designs and functionality, operating with great precision, obeying complex laws, and a directional purpose. These are all the hallmarks of an incredible intelligence, able to operate with great power and on a scale that was breathtaking to consider. So, you're back to re-enforcing your illogical belief in what blind, random things can accomplish - not the least trick is to jump from a non-physical state to a physical one, immediately. Your belief not only takes immense faith, but also is illogical, as we have ZERO examples of non-intelligent things showing such capabilities, anywhere in the universe - just popping into existence, uncaused, unguided, etc.

TrulyE: It is also true, that I don't have a clue what a blind, massively intelligent, massively powerful thing is. Especially one that is capable of creating my entire reality.

Maybe you don't - but you DO know that something with those characteristics necessarily existed, from what was instantly created.

TrulyE: But there are thousands of entities, past and present, that you can chose from. Maybe you can provide an example?

I'm not sure what you are referring to - perhaps other religions - but none compare to Christianity. Obviously, none of the pantheistic religions are true - because the universe could not create itself. If the universe once did not exist, and now it does, the universe, us, all material things, could not in totality make up God.

TrulyE: What you claim may or may not be true. Since you cannot or will not demonstrate your claims(assertions) as being a certainty, you are simply being intellectually dishonest.

OK, so you admit that what I assert "may" be true. But in the breath say I'm being intellectually dishonest. I'm not the one who thinks unfathomable designs and functionality can pop into existence, uncaused, without some grand intelligence. Are you smarter than Einstein - he got it - he immediately realized the implications of the universe having a beginning. And he spoke of it as "god" - but not "God."

TrulyE: By trying to censor my responses...

That's a debating tactic - instead, I've merely asked you questions, and how certain things are possible. You don't have an answer to that and so you lash out. HOW have I censored you - that's not credible.

TrulyE: My history in spirituality is personal and irrelevant to these discussions.

Oh, but it might well be relevant. Besides, what is there to hide or be secret about? I will answer anything you ask about my spiritual journey, my testing of the very same questions you have - but over 40 years ago, and intensely so.

TrulyE: But I will go out on a limb and suggest, that you would be less open to any concept or idea that would challenge any of your already established beliefs.

I was raised to faith from childhood - but in my later teens, I questioned it all - nearly rejected it, for many of the things I mistakenly had begun to think truly challenged it. My closest friend was an atheist - and he challenged me greatly to see what I truly believed. So, yours is a very old story to me, your kicking up very familiar and ancient ground for me. There will not be one objection to theism or Christianity I've not encountered or deeply considered. Every year, we on the forum see people with your views show up - and what we see over and over are the very same false beliefs that have no supportable basis. But your saying you just don't know, but then also asserting you DO know what preceded the physical universe couldn't possibly be God - that's a contradiction in thinking.

TrulyE: I would appreciate it if you would avoid the deviant behavior of labeling me. It is also apparent that you have clearly misrepresented Atheism. It is dishonest to mischaracterize all atheist as immoral, ignorant, self-centered, narcissistic, soulless, and God-hating.

You have me confused with someone else. One of my oldest friends is agnostic, some of my closed friends have been or are atheists. Where did I ever accuse you of being immoral or self-centered. I'm sure you may be a nice fellow, caring of your fellow man - maybe much more than me. You are not asserting a stereotype of Christians and projecting it upon me - who has only asked you direct questions. Please don't accuse me of what I've not done. But please indicate how I've called you immoral, etc. - I'm open to being shown how.

Please re-read your own paragraph, and explain just how Atheism is portrayed.

" Truly, how much do you know about the Bible? What is your upbringing, related to spiritual matters? Because you seem not to understand the Christian beliefs surrounding the character and holiness of God, that corruption cannot be tolerated in His presence. And most atheists suggest God should have made a perfect world so that the fall and redemption would have been silly and unnecessary. That the world would have been optimally created to last forever. But the issue is, FREE WILL. God could have made us robots, incapable of choosing for ourselves, or bad things. But atheism, per the individual, can only have a specific person's view of right and wrong. But as a person is not some god-like authority - morality for the atheist becomes mere opinion - as if they were right - NO God - then no sin, no good or bad, all would just be choices by some happenstance of a nature that somehow came into existence. So, atheists suppose of the kind of world THEY would have made - one without bad stuff. Which requires a world where no one will make bad choices - or that bad choices don't exists, aren't merely subjective. But such a world doesn't exist - ours does.". This will be the last time I will justify my reaction to something you have stated. Let's move on.

It is irrelevant if all my comments have been stated before. Repetition is not grounds for exclusions. Repetition is not false by repetition. Just what exactly have you proven at the instant of the BB? There is a very big leap of faith from the beginning of strong nuclear forces and the handyworks of a Designer. There is a big leap in faith from all natural events coming together to lead to your creation, and an orchestration of events by a Designer. If you wish to believe that everything that we observe, everything that we think, everything that we make, and everything that we are, is designed by a God, simply because it appears impossible for it to have happen any other way. This is the true definition of an argument from ignorance. Give me an example of anything that exist in nature, that can be determined as blind or random that is not effected by causality? Give me an example of anything that can be determined by science as being dependant on the supernatural or metaphysical as its cause or its effect? Is there any fallacy-free logic or creation-specific evidence to support a claim of Intelligent Design? Other than, "just look out the window" subjective nonsense?

You must be able to understand my level of obvious skepticism. Any religion or any cult can label creation with their own Deities. Since it is unfalsifiable it is also unprovable. I'm only stating that if your claims aren't falsifiable, then they aren't science. They are simply your belief, which requires no evidence at all. Remember, scientific evidence is not limited to observation only. It can be intuitive, inductive and deductive, measureable, inferred or predicted. But above all it must be falsifiable. You also seem to forget that you are making an extraordinary claim, so the burden of proof rest with you.

So please, what are these scientific evidences that prove that God must exist? Maybe you should start with something easier, like proving the power of prayer. Don

[abelcainsbrother]

TrulyE: There is also no indirect, physical, observable, measurable, or direct evidence to suggest that a who, or a what, was involved in its creation.

Of course we do, because what immediately came into existence and how those first amazing things functioned require an intelligent designer - as just random things pointlessly bumping into each other didn't appear, but things with awesome designs and functionality, operating with great precision, obeying complex laws, and a directional purpose. These are all the hallmarks of an incredible intelligence, able to operate with great power and on a scale that was breathtaking to consider. So, you're back to re-enforcing your illogical belief in what blind, random things can accomplish - not the least trick is to jump from a non-physical state to a physical one, immediately. Your belief not only takes immense faith, but also is illogical, as we have ZERO examples of non-intelligent things showing such capabilities, anywhere in the universe - just popping into existence, uncaused, unguided, etc.

TrulyE: It is also true, that I don't have a clue what a blind, massively intelligent, massively powerful thing is. Especially one that is capable of creating my entire reality.

Maybe you don't - but you DO know that something with those characteristics necessarily existed, from what was instantly created.

TrulyE: But there are thousands of entities, past and present, that you can chose from. Maybe you can provide an example?

I'm not sure what you are referring to - perhaps other religions - but none compare to Christianity. Obviously, none of the pantheistic religions are true - because the universe could not create itself. If the universe once did not exist, and now it does, the universe, us, all material things, could not in totality make up God.

TrulyE: What you claim may or may not be true. Since you cannot or will not demonstrate your claims(assertions) as being a certainty, you are simply being intellectually dishonest.

OK, so you admit that what I assert "may" be true. But in the breath say I'm being intellectually dishonest. I'm not the one who thinks unfathomable designs and functionality can pop into existence, uncaused, without some grand intelligence. Are you smarter than Einstein - he got it - he immediately realized the implications of the universe having a beginning. And he spoke of it as "god" - but not "God."

TrulyE: By trying to censor my responses...

That's a debating tactic - instead, I've merely asked you questions, and how certain things are possible. You don't have an answer to that and so you lash out. HOW have I censored you - that's not credible.

TrulyE: My history in spirituality is personal and irrelevant to these discussions.

Oh, but it might well be relevant. Besides, what is there to hide or be secret about? I will answer anything you ask about my spiritual journey, my testing of the very same questions you have - but over 40 years ago, and intensely so.

TrulyE: But I will go out on a limb and suggest, that you would be less open to any concept or idea that would challenge any of your already established beliefs.

I was raised to faith from childhood - but in my later teens, I questioned it all - nearly rejected it, for many of the things I mistakenly had begun to think truly challenged it. My closest friend was an atheist - and he challenged me greatly to see what I truly believed. So, yours is a very old story to me, your kicking up very familiar and ancient ground for me. There will not be one objection to theism or Christianity I've not encountered or deeply considered. Every year, we on the forum see people with your views show up - and what we see over and over are the very same false beliefs that have no supportable basis. But your saying you just don't know, but then also asserting you DO know what preceded the physical universe couldn't possibly be God - that's a contradiction in thinking.

TrulyE: I would appreciate it if you would avoid the deviant behavior of labeling me. It is also apparent that you have clearly misrepresented Atheism. It is dishonest to mischaracterize all atheist as immoral, ignorant, self-centered, narcissistic, soulless, and God-hating.

You have me confused with someone else. One of my oldest friends is agnostic, some of my closed friends have been or are atheists. Where did I ever accuse you of being immoral or self-centered. I'm sure you may be a nice fellow, caring of your fellow man - maybe much more than me. You are not asserting a stereotype of Christians and projecting it upon me - who has only asked you direct questions. Please don't accuse me of what I've not done. But please indicate how I've called you immoral, etc. - I'm open to being shown how.

Please re-read your own paragraph, and explain just how Atheism is portrayed.

" Truly, how much do you know about the Bible? What is your upbringing, related to spiritual matters? Because you seem not to understand the Christian beliefs surrounding the character and holiness of God, that corruption cannot be tolerated in His presence. And most atheists suggest God should have made a perfect world so that the fall and redemption would have been silly and unnecessary. That the world would have been optimally created to last forever. But the issue is, FREE WILL. God could have made us robots, incapable of choosing for ourselves, or bad things. But atheism, per the individual, can only have a specific person's view of right and wrong. But as a person is not some god-like authority - morality for the atheist becomes mere opinion - as if they were right - NO God - then no sin, no good or bad, all would just be choices by some happenstance of a nature that somehow came into existence. So, atheists suppose of the kind of world THEY would have made - one without bad stuff. Which requires a world where no one will make bad choices - or that bad choices don't exists, aren't merely subjective. But such a world doesn't exist - ours does.". This will be the last time I will justify my reaction to something you have stated. Let's move on.

It is irrelevant if all my comments have been stated before. Repetition is not grounds for exclusions. Repetition is not false by repetition. Just what exactly have you proven at the instant of the BB? There is a very big leap of faith from the beginning of strong nuclear forces and the handyworks of a Designer. There is a big leap in faith from all natural events coming together to lead to your creation, and an orchestration of events by a Designer. If you wish to believe that everything that we observe, everything that we think, everything that we make, and everything that we are, is designed by a God, simply because it appears impossible for it to have happen any other way. This is the true definition of an argument from ignorance. Give me an example of anything that exist in nature, that can be determined as blind or random that is not effected by causality? Give me an example of anything that can be determined by science as being dependant on the supernatural or metaphysical as its cause or its effect? Is there any fallacy-free logic or creation-specific evidence to support a claim of Intelligent Design? Other than, "just look out the window" subjective nonsense?

You must be able to understand my level of obvious skepticism. Any religion or any cult can label creation with their own Deities. Since it is unfalsifiable it is also unprovable. I'm only stating that if your claims aren't falsifiable, then they aren't science. They are simply your belief, which requires no evidence at all. Remember, scientific evidence is not limited to observation only. It can be intuitive, inductive and deductive, measureable, inferred or predicted. But above all it must be falsifiable. You also seem to forget that you are making an extraordinary claim, so the burden of proof rest with you.

So please, what are these scientific evidences that prove that God must exist? Maybe you should start with something easier, like proving the power of prayer. Don

Look TE no matter how much you want to think that NOTHING can cause things and do things,it cannot and it is you that have absolutely no reason or any evidence at all to think like that. We actually can consider other eternal gods over nothing though and we can go by evidence to determine which God is the true God and we have.It is you that have'nt done that.And since you reject gods you are reduced to nothing being your cause for everything.Own your atheist world view and stop being intellectually dishonest.You must go with nothing as a cause and creator for everything that exists in our universe and must rely on it if atheism is true.But the difference is you have absolutely no evidence - scientific or not that would prove it true,plus you are ignoring philosophy and reality.All in order to believe there are no gods.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Philip]

TrulyE: Please re-read your own paragraph, and explain just how Atheism is portrayed.

While individual atheists are unique, their atheism has certain unavoidable realities for all of them. When I talk of sin, I am referencing a belief, that if a reality, means right and wrong has no ultimate measure - it would be merely subjective. I'm not insisting that you or other atheists don't have a sense of right and wrong - nor that I am any more moral than whatever atheists. I'm merely speaking to the reality it would mean: Morality is per the opinion of whatever person - but there is no ultimate right or wrong. And I reference what most atheist seem to believe, because I've debated so many of them. They, almost to a one, question the imperfections of the creation - because that doesn't seem logical for a God to do.

And it was your clueless assertion about Constantine and Scripture that make me wonder about your background? Possibly Catholic upbringing?

TrulyE: Give me an example of anything that can be determined by science as being dependant on the supernatural or metaphysical as its cause or its effect?

I thought we had already established that the non-physical realm IS the metaphysical one. And the universe emerged from the non-physical realm/dimension. So the entire universe is dependent upon whatever was pre-existing in that metaphysical realm. Science has traced backwards as far as the first physical things - and before that was the metaphysical.

TrulyE: You must be able to understand my level of obvious skepticism. Any religion or any cult can label creation with their own Deities.

Truly, if you'll notice, so far, I've not spent much time talking about God or Scripture. Because the characteristics of whatever had the ability to create what came into existence at the Big Bang, has God-like abilities - that's a given, WHATEVER "it" was.

TrulyE: Since it is unfalsifiable it is also unprovable.

Of course, the beginning is not falsifiable - but that cuts both ways, doesn't it?

TrulyE: They are simply your belief, which requires no evidence at all. Remember, scientific evidence is not limited to observation only.

And yet, we CAN measure the result, and what had to have happened for the reality and building blocks necessary to build it happened. There are many, many studies and tests showing that the early timeline of the Big Bang is consistent and true. We DO see the evidence of what IMMEDIATELY emerges - MASSIVE evidence of what emerged. And the characteristics of that massive evidence reveals key, unavoidable conclusions about the Source behind the first physical things. How can you say that is not evidence? That's a ridiculous claim! Now, while the characteristics of that first Cause have certain necessities (per what was created), as for its identity - that's another question entirely. The First Cause of all things, no matter WHAT it Is/Was, it HAD to be eternal, unfathomably intelligent and powerful. Those are all necessary characteristics to produce came into existence. And so, logically, once you realize that, it would seem reasonable to see if "it" can be identified. Einstein recognized the God-like ability, He just didn't think it was the Christian God - but more like some impersonal Intelligence of great power and intellect. But make no mistake, He knew what the characteristics the universe's Cause MUST include, and he did so because of what immediately came to exist, and per all of the razor think parameters and interactivity of the world's many mechanisms. Truly, I don't think Einstein was a dummy - he got it!

[trulyenlightened]

TrulyE: There is also no indirect, physical, observable, measurable, or direct evidence to suggest that a who, or a what, was involved in its creation.

Of course we do, because what immediately came into existence and how those first amazing things functioned require an intelligent designer - as just random things pointlessly bumping into each other didn't appear, but things with awesome designs and functionality, operating with great precision, obeying complex laws, and a directional purpose. These are all the hallmarks of an incredible intelligence, able to operate with great power and on a scale that was breathtaking to consider. So, you're back to re-enforcing your illogical belief in what blind, random things can accomplish - not the least trick is to jump from a non-physical state to a physical one, immediately. Your belief not only takes immense faith, but also is illogical, as we have ZERO examples of non-intelligent things showing such capabilities, anywhere in the universe - just popping into existence, uncaused, unguided, etc.

TrulyE: It is also true, that I don't have a clue what a blind, massively intelligent, massively powerful thing is. Especially one that is capable of creating my entire reality.

Maybe you don't - but you DO know that something with those characteristics necessarily existed, from what was instantly created.

TrulyE: But there are thousands of entities, past and present, that you can chose from. Maybe you can provide an example?

I'm not sure what you are referring to - perhaps other religions - but none compare to Christianity. Obviously, none of the pantheistic religions are true - because the universe could not create itself. If the universe once did not exist, and now it does, the universe, us, all material things, could not in totality make up God.

TrulyE: What you claim may or may not be true. Since you cannot or will not demonstrate your claims(assertions) as being a certainty, you are simply being intellectually dishonest.

OK, so you admit that what I assert "may" be true. But in the breath say I'm being intellectually dishonest. I'm not the one who thinks unfathomable designs and functionality can pop into existence, uncaused, without some grand intelligence. Are you smarter than Einstein - he got it - he immediately realized the implications of the universe having a beginning. And he spoke of it as "god" - but not "God."

TrulyE: By trying to censor my responses...

That's a debating tactic - instead, I've merely asked you questions, and how certain things are possible. You don't have an answer to that and so you lash out. HOW have I censored you - that's not credible.

TrulyE: My history in spirituality is personal and irrelevant to these discussions.

Oh, but it might well be relevant. Besides, what is there to hide or be secret about? I will answer anything you ask about my spiritual journey, my testing of the very same questions you have - but over 40 years ago, and intensely so.

TrulyE: But I will go out on a limb and suggest, that you would be less open to any concept or idea that would challenge any of your already established beliefs.

I was raised to faith from childhood - but in my later teens, I questioned it all - nearly rejected it, for many of the things I mistakenly had begun to think truly challenged it. My closest friend was an atheist - and he challenged me greatly to see what I truly believed. So, yours is a very old story to me, your kicking up very familiar and ancient ground for me. There will not be one objection to theism or Christianity I've not encountered or deeply considered. Every year, we on the forum see people with your views show up - and what we see over and over are the very same false beliefs that have no supportable basis. But your saying you just don't know, but then also asserting you DO know what preceded the physical universe couldn't possibly be God - that's a contradiction in thinking.

TrulyE: I would appreciate it if you would avoid the deviant behavior of labeling me. It is also apparent that you have clearly misrepresented Atheism. It is dishonest to mischaracterize all atheist as immoral, ignorant, self-centered, narcissistic, soulless, and God-hating.

You have me confused with someone else. One of my oldest friends is agnostic, some of my closed friends have been or are atheists. Where did I ever accuse you of being immoral or self-centered. I'm sure you may be a nice fellow, caring of your fellow man - maybe much more than me. You are not asserting a stereotype of Christians and projecting it upon me - who has only asked you direct questions. Please don't accuse me of what I've not done. But please indicate how I've called you immoral, etc. - I'm open to being shown how.

Please re-read your own paragraph, and explain just how Atheism is portrayed.

" Truly, how much do you know about the Bible? What is your upbringing, related to spiritual matters? Because you seem not to understand the Christian beliefs surrounding the character and holiness of God, that corruption cannot be tolerated in His presence. And most atheists suggest God should have made a perfect world so that the fall and redemption would have been silly and unnecessary. That the world would have been optimally created to last forever. But the issue is, FREE WILL. God could have made us robots, incapable of choosing for ourselves, or bad things. But atheism, per the individual, can only have a specific person's view of right and wrong. But as a person is not some god-like authority - morality for the atheist becomes mere opinion - as if they were right - NO God - then no sin, no good or bad, all would just be choices by some happenstance of a nature that somehow came into existence. So, atheists suppose of the kind of world THEY would have made - one without bad stuff. Which requires a world where no one will make bad choices - or that bad choices don't exists, aren't merely subjective. But such a world doesn't exist - ours does.". This will be the last time I will justify my reaction to something you have stated. Let's move on.

It is irrelevant if all my comments have been stated before. Repetition is not grounds for exclusions. Repetition is not false by repetition. Just what exactly have you proven at the instant of the BB? There is a very big leap of faith from the beginning of strong nuclear forces and the handyworks of a Designer. There is a big leap in faith from all natural events coming together to lead to your creation, and an orchestration of events by a Designer. If you wish to believe that everything that we observe, everything that we think, everything that we make, and everything that we are, is designed by a God, simply because it appears impossible for it to have happen any other way. This is the true definition of an argument from ignorance. Give me an example of anything that exist in nature, that can be determined as blind or random that is not effected by causality? Give me an example of anything that can be determined by science as being dependant on the supernatural or metaphysical as its cause or its effect? Is there any fallacy-free logic or creation-specific evidence to support a claim of Intelligent Design? Other than, "just look out the window" subjective nonsense?

You must be able to understand my level of obvious skepticism. Any religion or any cult can label creation with their own Deities. Since it is unfalsifiable it is also unprovable. I'm only stating that if your claims aren't falsifiable, then they aren't science. They are simply your belief, which requires no evidence at all. Remember, scientific evidence is not limited to observation only. It can be intuitive, inductive and deductive, measureable, inferred or predicted. But above all it must be falsifiable. You also seem to forget that you are making an extraordinary claim, so the burden of proof rest with you.

So please, what are these scientific evidences that prove that God must exist? Maybe you should start with something easier, like proving the power of prayer. Don

Look TE no matter how much you want to think that NOTHING can cause things and do things,it cannot and it is you that have absolutely no reason or any evidence at all to think like that. We actually can consider other eternal gods over nothing though and we can go by evidence to determine which God is the true God and we have.It is you that have'nt done that.And since you reject gods you are reduced to nothing being your cause for everything.Own your atheist world view and stop being intellectually dishonest.You must go with nothing as a cause and creator for everything that exists in our universe and must rely on it if atheism is true.But the difference is you have absolutely no evidence - scientific or not that would prove it true,plus you are ignoring philosophy and reality.All in order to believe there are no gods.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Phil, spare me your straw man argument, as well as your playground logic("neither can you"). No rational person believes that something came from nothing. And there is nowhere in my statements that I ever said or insinuated that something could come from nothing. It is you that must have me confused with someone else. I simply stated that I DON'T KNOW the Origin of our Universe(no one does), no matter how many ways you try to misrepresent my comments to fit your extraordinary narrative. Please explain how NOT KNOWING something is tantamount to being intellectually dishonest? How are the questions I ask(and you ignore), being intellectually dishonest? All you do is make truth claims, as if they were absolute certainties. I am not questioning the integrity of your claims, I am questioning the integrity of your evidence. Atheism is not a belief, it is a position. Atheism is not a truth or falsity, it is a choice based on the total lack of evidence, and obvious fallacy-riddled constructs.

I will go with the evidence, long before I simply invoke the supernatural as a cause or gap-filler. Unless you can demonstrate objectively that anything supernatural does exists, I will always stop at, "I don't know", before "God did it". Since you can't, your position is still, "I don't know", disguised as, "God did it". You certainly have the right to your own opinions and beliefs, but you do not have the right to make-up your own logic to fit those beliefs and opinions. Perhaps one day you will actually learn to carefully listen to what others are saying, instead of hearing only what you want to hear. Just because you say it is so, don't make it so. I've told you the evidence I would need, and you've ignored me to posit only the evidence that you think I need. You then accuse me of self-imposed denial, or being irrational if I don't accept your self-serving fallacy-riddled evidence. This is true intellectually dishonesty at its worst. My way, or no way. I am right and you are wrong, etc. Science has nothing to do with belief, and belief have nothing to do with science. Don

[RickD]

trulyenlightened wrote:
Atheism is not a belief, it is a position.

And there's the intellectual dishonesty.

Atheism most certainly is a belief. It's a belief that there is no God.

[trulyenlightened]

TrulyE: Please re-read your own paragraph, and explain just how Atheism is portrayed.

While individual atheists are unique, their atheism has certain unavoidable realities for all of them. When I talk of sin, I am referencing a belief, that if a reality, means right and wrong has no ultimate measure - it would be merely subjective. I'm not insisting that you or other atheists don't have a sense of right and wrong - nor that I am any more moral than whatever atheists. I'm merely speaking to the reality it would mean: Morality is per the opinion of whatever person - but there is no ultimate right or wrong. And I reference what most atheist seem to believe, because I've debated so many of them. They, almost to a one, question the imperfections of the creation - because that doesn't seem logical for a God to do.

And it was your clueless assertion about Constantine and Scripture that make me wonder about your background? Possibly Catholic upbringing?

TrulyE: Give me an example of anything that can be determined by science as being dependant on the supernatural or metaphysical as its cause or its effect?

I thought we had already established that the non-physical realm IS the metaphysical one. And the universe emerged from the non-physical realm/dimension. So the entire universe is dependent upon whatever was pre-existing in that metaphysical realm. Science has traced backwards as far as the first physical things - and before that was the metaphysical.

TrulyE: You must be able to understand my level of obvious skepticism. Any religion or any cult can label creation with their own Deities.

Truly, if you'll notice, so far, I've not spent much time talking about God or Scripture. Because the characteristics of whatever had the ability to create what came into existence at the Big Bang, has God-like abilities - that's a given, WHATEVER "it" was.

TrulyE: Since it is unfalsifiable it is also unprovable.

Of course, the beginning is not falsifiable - but that cuts both ways, doesn't it?

TrulyE: They are simply your belief, which requires no evidence at all. Remember, scientific evidence is not limited to observation only.

And yet, we CAN measure the result, and what had to have happened for the reality and building blocks necessary to build it happened. There are many, many studies and tests showing that the early timeline of the Big Bang is consistent and true. We DO see the evidence of what IMMEDIATELY emerges - MASSIVE evidence of what emerged. And the characteristics of that massive evidence reveals key, unavoidable conclusions about the Source behind the first physical things. How can you say that is not evidence? That's a ridiculous claim! Now, while the characteristics of that first Cause have certain necessities (per what was created), as for its identity - that's another question entirely. The First Cause of all things, no matter WHAT it Is/Was, it HAD to be eternal, unfathomably intelligent and powerful. Those are all necessary characteristics to produce came into existence. And so, logically, once you realize that, it would seem reasonable to see if "it" can be identified. Einstein recognized the God-like ability, He just didn't think it was the Christian God - but more like some impersonal Intelligence of great power and intellect. But make no mistake, He knew what the characteristics the universe's Cause MUST include, and he did so because of what immediately came to exist, and per all of the razor think parameters and interactivity of the world's many mechanisms. Truly, I don't think Einstein was a dummy - he got it!

Then you would still be wrong, regardless of how many debates you have had with Atheists. You certainly by now should know that Atheism is NOT a thing that a person has. It is a position that a person takes(again I must repeat). Atheism has nothing to do with morality, but everything to do with a disbelief in the existence of a God. Morality refers to degrees of pain and/or suffering. The less pain and/or suffering one causes, the more moral one is. We as a species, have evolved long ago to realize it far more advantageous to our species to cooperate rather than to compete. To do this, humans and most other social creatures know that causing pain and suffering to any member within the population, will not promote optimal cooperation. So no more immoral worlds you need to construct, to misrepresent the Atheist's position.

Regarding my clueless assertions about Constantine and Scripture, look for yourself and spare me your Hue and Cry. http://www.deism.com/bibleorigins.htm , https://www.allaboutgod.com/how-did-con ... le-faq.htm , http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVansw ... 1-02a.html , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Bib ... onstantine, just to name a few. This information has contributions from both religious and non-religious scholars. Maybe you are smarter than all of them? Every comment I make has been thoroughly researched, and not merely parroted from repetition or rote learning.

All we have established is that neither of us know what happened before our Universe was created. You claim that God was before its creation, and I claim that I don't know what was before the BB. You claim that creation itself demonstrates God-like abilities and qualities. From this assertion, you then claim that this is demonstrated by what came into existence, therefore God must have did it. Wow, what self-serving circular reasoning. I claim that once the BB started, all creation simply followed the micro and macro laws of nature. Nothing more and nothing less. I personally believe that it is irrelevant and unknowable what happened before the BB.

"And yet, we CAN measure the result, and what had to have happened for the reality and building blocks necessary to build it happened. There are many, many studies and tests showing that the early timeline of the Big Bang is consistent and true. We DO see the evidence of what IMMEDIATELY emerges - MASSIVE evidence of what emerged. And the characteristics of that massive evidence reveals key, unavoidable conclusions about the Source behind the first physical things. What a bunch of nonsense. You use a lot of words to specifically provide NO EVIDENCE whatsoever.

Just one assertion after another, but not one example of evidence relating to the existence of a God to be found. What is the nature and composition of a "first cause"? How does its nature prove the existence of a God, exclusively? We are not talking about "God-like abilities", so spare me another straw man. Appearances are not proof. It would also seem that you know more about Einstein than Einstein knows about himself. Or, is this another silly appeal to authority, or an argument from incredulity? Don

[trulyenlightened]

trulyenlightened wrote:
Atheism is not a belief, it is a position.

And there's the intellectual dishonesty.

Atheism most certainly is a belief. It's a belief that there is no God.

All you have demonstrated here is that some Atheist believe that there is no such thing as a God, or that no God(s) exist. Both are positions. Both also seem like a silly game of semantics to me. Most Atheist that I know, believe that there is NO EVIDENCE to support the existence of a God(s) period. I'm afraid that I don't know how to make this position tamper-proof for theist. If you claim to be the proud owner of an invisible blue-eyed yellow purple people-eater, is it my belief that you don't? Or, is it a high degree of certainty? If you do not play chess, is it your belief that you do not play chess? Why not call this a lack of chess belief? Don

[Philip]

Truly: All you have demonstrated here is that some Atheist believe that there is no such thing as a God, or that no God(s) exist.

ALL atheists believe no God or gods exist - not merely SOME. If you believe, even a little bit, that there MIGHT be a God or gods, then you are agnostic.

[RickD]

trulyenlightened wrote:
Atheism is not a belief, it is a position.

And there's the intellectual dishonesty.

Atheism most certainly is a belief. It's a belief that there is no God.

All you have demonstrated here is that some Atheist believe that there is no such thing as a God, or that no God(s) exist. Both are positions. Both also seem like a silly game of semantics to me. Most Atheist that I know, believe that there is NO EVIDENCE to support the existence of a God(s) period. I'm afraid that I don't know how to make this position tamper-proof for theist. If you claim to be the proud owner of an invisible blue-eyed yellow purple people-eater, is it my belief that you don't? Or, is it a high degree of certainty? If you do not play chess, is it your belief that you do not play chess? Why not call this a lack of chess belief? Don

We could say that atheism is both, a position and a belief. But to say atheism is not a belief, is just dishonest. Of course it's a belief. In fact, it takes more faith to believe God doesn't exist, than it takes to believe God does exist.

Atheism is blind faith! And only a fool would claim there is no God!

[trulyenlightened]

Truly: All you have demonstrated here is that some Atheist believe that there is no such thing as a God, or that no God(s) exist.

ALL atheists believe no God or gods exist - not merely SOME. If you believe, even a little bit, that there MIGHT be a God or gods, then you are agnostic.

I really don't care how you wish to define Atheism. Your exercise in semantics is merely another distraction. Most people understand that an Atheist does not believe in the existence of a God(s), period. Or, will you again find some inconsistencies with this general definition? I thought my two analogies highlighting the difference between belief and degrees of certainty was extremely relevant. But I obviously was wrong, due to selective reading. Maybe you guys should go back and focus more on the evidence I asked for, or will there be more rabbit-holes to avoid your burden of proof? Don

[RickD]

Truly: All you have demonstrated here is that some Atheist believe that there is no such thing as a God, or that no God(s) exist.

ALL atheists believe no God or gods exist - not merely SOME. If you believe, even a little bit, that there MIGHT be a God or gods, then you are agnostic.

I really don't care how you wish to define Atheism. Your exercise in semantics is merely another distraction. Most people understand that an Atheist does not believe in the existence of a God(s), period. Or, will you again find some inconsistencies with this general definition? I thought my two analogies highlighting the difference between belief and degrees of certainty was extremely relevant. But I obviously was wrong, due to selective reading. Maybe you guys should go back and focus more on the evidence I asked for, or will there be more rabbit-holes to avoid your burden of proof? Don

As I said before, the entire original post of this thread shows evidence for the existence of God.

We believe the evidence points to God, you don't believe the evidence points to God.

I'm not sure what else you're expecting.

[trulyenlightened]

Heres another example for the slower among us. Before you learn how to drive your first car, you need faith in yourself that you can learn to drive. Once you have learned to drive--FAITH disappears. It is replaced by confidence due to learned knowledge. The more knowledge you have, the less faith you need. Since a belief requires absolutely zero evidence, it's reality is based entirely on faith. Atheist require not only evidence to prove the existence of God(s), but they require extraordinary evidence for this proof. Therefore, stating that, "Atheism is blind faith! And only a fool would claim there is no God", is more of the same unfounded, empty, unsupported, and intellectually dishonest statements, that is totally inconsistent with the truth. In fact, anyone that believes in EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS, without extraordinary evidence, is a fool with only blind faith to support him. Don

[RickD]

Heres another example for the slower among us. Before you learn how to drive your first car, you need faith in yourself that you can learn to drive. Once you have learned to drive--FAITH disappears. It is replaced by confidence due to learned knowledge. The more knowledge you have, the less faith you need. Since a belief requires absolutely zero evidence, it's reality is based entirely on faith. Atheist require not only evidence to prove the existence of God(s), but they require extraordinary evidence for this proof. Therefore, stating that, "Atheism is blind faith! And only a fool would claim there is no God", is more of the same unfounded, empty, unsupported, and intellectually dishonest statements, that is totally inconsistent with the truth. In fact, anyone that believes in EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS, without extraordinary evidence, is a fool with only blind faith to support him. Don

Why are you not holding yourself to the same standard?

A belief that God does not exist, according to your standard, should require extraordinary evidence.

You're not claiming agnosticism, or not knowing if God exists. You're saying you are an atheist, with a positive belief that God does not exist. Where's your evidence?

Either you're really slow understanding this, or you're intentionally being dishonest, to suit your BELIEF SYSTEM!

[RickD]

Again I ask...


Why are you here on this forum?

[trulyenlightened]

Truly: All you have demonstrated here is that some Atheist believe that there is no such thing as a God, or that no God(s) exist.

ALL atheists believe no God or gods exist - not merely SOME. If you believe, even a little bit, that there MIGHT be a God or gods, then you are agnostic.

I really don't care how you wish to define Atheism. Your exercise in semantics is merely another distraction. Most people understand that an Atheist does not believe in the existence of a God(s), period. Or, will you again find some inconsistencies with this general definition? I thought my two analogies highlighting the difference between belief and degrees of certainty was extremely relevant. But I obviously was wrong, due to selective reading. Maybe you guys should go back and focus more on the evidence I asked for, or will there be more rabbit-holes to avoid your burden of proof? Don

As I said before, the entire original post of this thread shows evidence for the existence of God.

We believe the evidence points to God, you don't believe the evidence points to God.

I'm not sure what else you're expecting.

As long as this is your belief, there is no problem. But using science to justify your belief requires evidence that is objective, not subjective or fallacious. The fine-tuning argument, the probability argument, the complexity argument, and the coding argument have all been easily debunked by science and logic. You simply refuse to accept this, and continue to parrot that science fully supports your beliefs, and all we need to do is accept your philosophical gymnastics, and ignore all your logical fallacies. Your claims are not ground in any science at all, no matter how many times you repeat your patented creation sound-bites. It is a belief that is grounded in faith and religion. Don