The Strongest Argument for God

[RickD]

Why don’t you hold yourself accountable and recognize there is zero evidence that an intelligent being could live eternally, and create stuff out of nothing? Again; hold yourself to the same standards you hold me to.

There is ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that a MATERIAL intelligent being can be eternal.
There is ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that the quantum singularity from which the big band started had always existed.

Both these statements are 100% true.

They are also irrelevant to the argument.

There is also ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that ANY type of intelligent being can be eternal. Now that is completely relevant to the argument

That is a meaningless statement. And only proves your bias.

[Philip]

I said SCIENTIFIC evidence. Any absurdity could be considered evidence!

But all those theist-believing scientist are looking at yes, SCIENTIFIC evidences from chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics that is driving a big part of their theism. Why? Because they know of the breathtaking array of countless systems and their components, in these many fields, that are so complex in their designs and there functionalities, that they conclude from that it is irrational to not see it takes an intelligence. Don't keep saying the same stupid stuff, Ken - they ARE looking at the scientific evidences - which have been detailed many times in this forum! They are look at things that, mathematically / statistically, clearly cannot be explained via non-intelligent origins, as they have never seen anything whatsoever that suggests that.

Ken: If I believe the Earth is flat, the fact that it looks flat to me could be considered evidence. If I believe Santa builds toys at the North Pole, the very existence of toys could be considered evidence that Santa is real. That’s why I said scientific evidence, because there are standards when it comes to scientific evidence...

Ken, you are so dishonest in what you argue against! You're comparing a flat earth, Santa, etc. to the incomprehensibly complex scientific evidences that drives all of these theist scientists belief in a superior Intelligence that is responsible for it all - scientist whom, by the way, understand the evidences on a far deeper level that we do. You just dismiss the same extraordinary things as not requiring an intelligence.

Ken: So as long as you continue to insist an intelligent being is responsible for the Big Bang, you are not holding yourself to the same standard you are holding me to.

As long as you lie to yourself that the evidences I speak of are like Santa and a flat earth, you'll have no credibility whatsoever!

Ken: Why don’t you hold yourself accountable and recognize there is zero evidence that an intelligent being could live eternally, and create stuff out of nothing?

I cite the very same evidences that believing scientists do - as they know that all that exists came from something and that these many things could not create or design themselves, while also noting the staggering complexity observed requires an intelligent Designer. First place, pure logic tells us that SOMETHING had to be eternal - whether one thinks it is the universe itself (like Hawking) or some other thing or things, as if NOTHING is eternal, then nothing would exist. And what exists, even at building block levels, across all of these scientific disciplines, is inexplicable without an intelligence to create and drive them. And that is why so many scientists are theists! Only delusionists would say great complexity and self arrangement and intelligence can spring from non-intelligent sources.

[RickD]

There is ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that shows rape is morally wrong.

[PaulSacramento]

Why don’t you hold yourself accountable and recognize there is zero evidence that an intelligent being could live eternally, and create stuff out of nothing? Again; hold yourself to the same standards you hold me to.

There is ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that a MATERIAL intelligent being can be eternal.
There is ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that the quantum singularity from which the big band started had always existed.

Both these statements are 100% true.

They are also irrelevant to the argument.

There is also ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that ANY type of intelligent being can be eternal. Now that is completely relevant to the argument

No Kenny,
Please site scientific evidence of the non-material world.

[Kenny]

Why don’t you hold yourself accountable and recognize there is zero evidence that an intelligent being could live eternally, and create stuff out of nothing? Again; hold yourself to the same standards you hold me to.

There is ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that a MATERIAL intelligent being can be eternal.
There is ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that the quantum singularity from which the big band started had always existed.

Both these statements are 100% true.

They are also irrelevant to the argument.

There is also ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that ANY type of intelligent being can be eternal. Now that is completely relevant to the argument

That is a meaningless statement. And only proves your bias.

Please explain.

There is ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that shows rape is morally wrong.

True. But we aren't discussing morality.

[Kenny]

I said SCIENTIFIC evidence. Any absurdity could be considered evidence!

But all those theist-believing scientist are looking at yes, SCIENTIFIC evidences from chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics that is driving a big part of their theism.

Scientific evidences? Really??? So where are the scientific theories that result from these scientific evidences that lead to their theism? If what you say is true, somebody would have published something for peer review concerning this by now; don;t cha think? If not, why not?

Why? Because they know of the breathtaking array of countless systems and their components, in these many fields, that are so complex in their designs and there functionalities, that they conclude from that it is irrational to not see it takes an intelligence. Don't keep saying the same stupid stuff, Ken - they ARE looking at the scientific evidences - which have been detailed many times in this forum! They are look at things that, mathematically / statistically, clearly cannot be explained via non-intelligent origins, as they have never seen anything whatsoever that suggests that.

IOW because they can’t imagine it being anything else? Really Phil??? These same scientists admit to only knowing approx 4% of the Universe, and because according to the 4% they do know about, an intelligence is required, so they assume the same goes for the 96% they have no clue about; is this how science works? C’mon bruh!

Ken, you are so dishonest in what you argue against! You're comparing a flat earth, Santa, etc. to the incomprehensibly complex scientific evidences that drives all of these theist scientists belief in a superior Intelligence that is responsible for it all - scientist whom, by the way, understand the evidences on a far deeper level that we do. You just dismiss the same extraordinary things as not requiring an intelligence.

The only thing I compared was scientific evidence which has standards vs personal subjective evidence; which does not.

I cite the very same evidences that believing scientists do - as they know that all that exists came from something and that these many things could not create or design themselves, while also noting the staggering complexity observed requires an intelligent Designer.

I noticed you neglected to address what I said. Let’s try it again;
There is zero scientific evidence that an intelligent being can live eternally and make stuff out of nothing. Do you agree?

First place, pure logic tells us that SOMETHING had to be eternal - whether one thinks it is the universe itself (like Hawking) or some other thing or things, as if NOTHING is eternal, then nothing would exist. And what exists, even at building block levels, across all of these scientific disciplines, is inexplicable without an intelligence to create and drive them. And that is why so many scientists are theists!

According to Pew Research, less than 30% of the Scientists involved in Physics and Astronomy actually believe in God. I would hardly call that “so many scientists are theists”
https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/sci ... nd-belief/

[Kenny]

Why don’t you hold yourself accountable and recognize there is zero evidence that an intelligent being could live eternally, and create stuff out of nothing? Again; hold yourself to the same standards you hold me to.

There is ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that a MATERIAL intelligent being can be eternal.
There is ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that the quantum singularity from which the big band started had always existed.

Both these statements are 100% true.

They are also irrelevant to the argument.

There is also ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that ANY type of intelligent being can be eternal. Now that is completely relevant to the argument

No Kenny,
Please site scientific evidence of the non-material world.

There is none. No scientific evidence for the spiritual world, God, or any type of eternal being. But that isn't going to stop some people from believing.

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
There is none. No scientific evidence for the spiritual world, God, or any type of eternal being. But that isn't going to stop some people from believing.

There is no scientific evidence that it's wrong to rape children. But that isn't going to stop some people from believing that it's wrong.

I wonder why that is, Kenny?

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
There is none. No scientific evidence for the spiritual world, God, or any type of eternal being. But that isn't going to stop some people from believing.

There is no scientific evidence that it's wrong to rape children. But that isn't going to stop some people from believing that it's wrong.

I wonder why that is, Kenny?

Because science does not address moral issues.

[Philip]

Ken, let's look at direct research about scientists and belief: https://www.godandscience.org/apologeti ... eists.html

Ken: I noticed you neglected to address what I said. Let’s try it again;
There is zero scientific evidence that an intelligent being can live eternally and make stuff out of nothing. Do you agree?

Yes, just like you should agree that there is no scientific evidence that this is not possible. BTW, you apparently believe SOMETHING must have been eternal and always existed - why do you believe THAT? But if God, as His characteristics described in the Bible exists, of course it is entirely possible.

Ken: If what you say is true, somebody would have published something for peer review concerning this by now; don;t cha think? If not, why not?

How are you going to prove God via science? Science cannot measure for God OR disprove His existence - it can only measure what He has made across the universe and world (due to the complexity of the designs and functionalities involved) and deduce, just like Einstein, that there must be an intelligent Force that is responsible for the universe. Which is a different matter from concluding from the studies of the creation that an intelligence is required to produce what exists.

BTW, Ken, you can't prove from science that God doesn't exist either! And notice that many scientists - even the atheistic ones - believe that some aspect of what spawned the universe is ETERNAL. Thus they have come up with multiverse and string theories. As they realize something HAS to be eternal - or else something would have had to create itself - or like magic - just pop into existence. But these non-intelligent theories of the multi-verse, etc. don't solve the issue. Because every chain must have a beginning link. Like Byblos is fond if noting, these are theories of things unanchored to anything.

But there are some very compelling books written considering what we could expect to see if the God of the Bible is the creator vs. non-intelligent naturalism.

[Kenny]

Ken, let's look at direct research about scientists and belief: https://www.godandscience.org/apologeti ... eists.html

Ken: I noticed you neglected to address what I said. Let’s try it again;
There is zero scientific evidence that an intelligent being can live eternally and make stuff out of nothing. Do you agree?

Yes, just like you should agree that there is no scientific evidence that this is not possible.

You were making the case that because we know of no instance of non-intelligent things creating, that should be sufficient reasoning for believing only intelligent beings create. I was applying that same logic to the fact that we know of no intelligent being living eternally and bringing stuff into existence

BTW, you apparently believe SOMETHING must have been eternal and always existed - why do you believe THAT? But if God, as His characteristics described in the Bible exists, of course it is entirely possible.

As I said before, it makes sense to me that something had to have had an eternal existence. It makes more sense to me that a non-intelligent inanimate object to have an eternal existence than a live intelligent being.

Ken: If what you say is true, somebody would have published something for peer review concerning this by now; don;t cha think? If not, why not?

How are you going to prove God via science? Science cannot measure for God OR disprove His existence - it can only measure what He has made across the universe and world (due to the complexity of the designs and functionalities involved) and deduce, just like Einstein, that there must be an intelligent Force that is responsible for the universe.

If God exist as you say he does, it would be the job of science to investigate and provide information of God. The fact that science does not shows either science is not doing its job, or God does not exist.

[Philip]

Ken: If God exist as you say he does, it would be the job of science to investigate and provide information of God. The fact that science does not shows either science is not doing its job, or God does not exist.

As God is SPIRIT and not a physical being, how to do you think science could ever directly test for His existence? We can only look at what He has created to know there is an intelligence behind things.

And I find that ALL we DO know - per the entire history of man's investigations into the universe - to be far more compelling than the theoretical "what-ifs" of things we don't know. And the subsequent knowledge man sees, merely confirms in an ongoing manner that only intelligent things can create other intelligent things or things with complex designs and functionality.

[PaulSacramento]

Why don’t you hold yourself accountable and recognize there is zero evidence that an intelligent being could live eternally, and create stuff out of nothing? Again; hold yourself to the same standards you hold me to.

There is ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that a MATERIAL intelligent being can be eternal.
There is ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that the quantum singularity from which the big band started had always existed.

Both these statements are 100% true.

They are also irrelevant to the argument.

There is also ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that ANY type of intelligent being can be eternal. Now that is completely relevant to the argument

No Kenny,
Please site scientific evidence of the non-material world.

There is none. No scientific evidence for the spiritual world, God, or any type of eternal being. But that isn't going to stop some people from believing.

So, science can NOT make a statement in regards to the non-material existence of anything, correct?

[PaulSacramento]

If God exist as you say he does, it would be the job of science to investigate and provide information of God. The fact that science does not shows either science is not doing its job, or God does not exist.

That is probably one of the silliest things you have said, sorry.

Maybe you need to re-read that and think about it.

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
If God exist as you say he does, it would be the job of science to investigate and provide information of God. The fact that science does not shows either science is not doing its job, or God does not exist.

And this post perfectly sums up the 5 years that Kenny has been on this forum.