Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:Again I ask...


Why are you here on this forum?

This is the third time I've asked this. I will not ask again.

TrulyE: The fine-tuning argument, the probability argument, the complexity argument, and the coding argument have all been easily debunked by science and logic.

Then why have many scientists - those qualified in disciplines relevant - disagreed, as they insist that what exists and how it came to IS massive evidence for the existence of God? If so well debunked, why do a significant percentage of scientists disagree? Why did Einstein realize this? Are you smarter than all of these brilliant men? In fact, if you look at the history of brilliant scientists, you will find that many of them have been believers. Wonder why?

Bottom line, without reason to believe it, you believe blind, random, non-intelligent things can produce astounding complexity - and can produce a physical universe, instantly, in which a moments before it did not exist, with incredible things immediately appearing and perfectly interacting. ALL scientific evidences that are testable, refute this idea that such things can simply appear without an intelligence behind it. I doubt very seriously if you believe that in the rest of our physical world or universe - but you apply that unmerited reasoning to the first things because you don't like the idea of some eternal intelligence - sounds too God-like, apparently. I find it incredible that anyone can believe such nonsense. Yep, I call it entirely illogical - because ALL of our observations in the universe refute this. We see, whether across the universe, or in the microscopic worlds, mind-blowing precision and functional operations - and not only individually so, but also in the way these many complex systems perfectly interact. Because if they did not, the universe as we know it would/could not exist. Whatever your beliefs, they are not based upon rational analysis, but upon speculative theories that are not fact based or certifiable. And yet, it IS certifiable that every single existing thing we can see and measure, is ultimately derivative of some pre-existing thing. And that HAS to also be true of the very first physical things - they also had a Cause. And every speculative scenario I've seen argues for some previously existing, eternal things that have intelligent capabilities. Such never actually asserts a universe from nothing at all - as their "nothing" is always SOMETHING.

trulyenlightened wrote:
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". Don

I shouldn't say this but I'm going to.


Don,

I might be able to provide you with the supernatural evidence you claim to seek (but in reality would shake your fist at and deny). Let's face it. You're probably going to hell (eternal separation from God) anyways. Therefore I see no issue with what I'm about to reveal to you.

However, first I need to know your answer to the following question:

1) If you had a paranormal experience; unexplainable, profound, or powerful; would this be enough objective evidence of the supernatural to convince you the supernatural does in fact exist, and is in fact, real.

Yes or no, please.

RickD wrote:

RickD wrote:Again I ask...


Why are you here on this forum?

This is the third time I've asked this. I will not ask again.

He's here to debate and learn. That or get his weekly dose of shaking his fist at God out of his system.

Either way I honestly don't mind it. I actually think its a good thing. I'm happy he is at least intellectually engaging with believers vs intellectually isolating himself, as many atheists do.

RickD wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote: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!

Why is it that when anyone questions malformed religious logic, misrepresentation or misinterpretation of "brute" facts, extraordinary truth claims or any other poorly supported assertions, that person is immediately labeled as an Atheist? This is a socially deviant and defensive behavior to marginalize, denigrate, demean, and stigmatize any dissenting religious opinions, and avoid any inconvenient truths. Again, being intellectually dishonest. I have never questioned Belief itself(which I find positive in general), I have only questioned the rationality of the evidence supporting belief or how it is in anyway supported by science. Since no science can falsify the existence of a God, debating existence is a total waste of time. Of course you know this, since it is the default position of all creationist, and other cultists. However providing evidence that a God does exist is avoided like the plague, or shrouded behind an infinite amount of metaphysical or philosophical verbiage. It is YOU that is steering the conversation away from the central topic, by focussing on belief and God, NOT ME. I am only interested in your supposed scientific rationale, not your indoctrinated self-serving opinions. I am not the one who is making extraordinary claims, so I have no burden of proof. And I would say that, "God did it" is one hell-of-an extraordinary claim. However, if your claims are based entirely on your beliefs and NOT science, then we're down here.

The differences between us(there are many) include, that I can simple state that I don't know something and not violate my intellectual level of honesty, or my standards of truth. YOU CAN'T! I can quite easily admit that I am wrong about any topic or idea, YOU CAN'T! If the evidence changes or is proven false, I will gladly change my views without the need for any emotional readjustment treatments. I have never claimed to be fast at understanding anything. I am what I am. But whatever I am, I still rejoice in my own existence and self-awareness. Crediting existence to anyone or anything will only lead to an infinitely regression, therefore irrelevant. Don

RickD wrote:Again I ask...


Why are you here on this forum?

Unless people with differing ideas and opinions are censored, targeted, excluded, or banned from this forum, your question is totally irrelevant to the topic. And with all due respect, absolutely none of your business! I'm not interested in you providing me with evidence to justify the merits of your faith, or the validity of your belief. I am only interested in the science that you claim supports your position or worldview. FYI, I am also on other science, trade, hobbyist, free thinking, atheist, and obviously religious forums. Don

RickD wrote:

RickD wrote:Again I ask...


Why are you here on this forum?

This is the third time I've asked this. I will not ask again.

GOOD! Don

trulyenlightened wrote:The differences between us(there are many) include, that I can simple state that I don't know something and not violate my intellectual level of honesty, or my standards of truth. YOU CAN'T! I can quite easily admit that I am wrong about any topic or idea, YOU CAN'T!

Erm, did you choose to name yourself "trulyenlightened" or not? Just I'd have thought that someone who called themselves "trulyenlightened" would at least think themselves right about some things. You say that you could be easily wrong about any topic or idea, then why should you be listened to on anything?

Consider if I was in a dark room fumbling around trying to find an exit. Someone to my right says quite adamently the way out is over here, while a person to my left says "No, they have no evidence, there's no way out there! To be honest, I might be wrong but I believe it is over here." Why I think I'd be more inclined to trust the person seeming more certain even if in all the darkness I can't see why they believe.

Philip wrote:

TrulyE: The fine-tuning argument, the probability argument, the complexity argument, and the coding argument have all been easily debunked by science and logic.

Then why have many scientists - those qualified in disciplines relevant - disagreed, as they insist that what exists and how it came to IS massive evidence for the existence of God? If so well debunked, why do a significant percentage of scientists disagree? Why did Einstein realize this? Are you smarter than all of these brilliant men? In fact, if you look at the history of brilliant scientists, you will find that many of them have been believers. Wonder why?

Bottom line, without reason to believe it, you believe blind, random, non-intelligent things can produce astounding complexity - and can produce a physical universe, instantly, in which a moments before it did not exist, with incredible things immediately appearing and perfectly interacting. ALL scientific evidences that are testable, refute this idea that such things can simply appear without an intelligence behind it. I doubt very seriously if you believe that in the rest of our physical world or universe - but you apply that unmerited reasoning to the first things because you don't like the idea of some eternal intelligence - sounds too God-like, apparently. I find it incredible that anyone can believe such nonsense. Yep, I call it entirely illogical - because ALL of our observations in the universe refute this. We see, whether across the universe, or in the microscopic worlds, mind-blowing precision and functional operations - and not only individually so, but also in the way these many complex systems perfectly interact. Because if they did not, the universe as we know it would/could not exist. Whatever your beliefs, they are not based upon rational analysis, but upon speculative theories that are not fact based or certifiable. And yet, it IS certifiable that every single existing thing we can see and measure, is ultimately derivative of some pre-existing thing. And that HAS to also be true of the very first physical things - they also had a Cause. And every speculative scenario I've seen argues for some previously existing, eternal things that have intelligent capabilities. Such never actually asserts a universe from nothing at all - as their "nothing" is always SOMETHING.

Probably the same reason why you can't help making fallacious assertions. So What! Disagreements among scientist, and within science occur all the time, so what is your point? It is easy as an opportunist and pseudo-scientist or sophist, to fill-in the gaps created by these disagreements with whatever nonsense you wish. It is still only an argument from ignorance. And, what is this massive amounts of scientific information that proves the existence of God? This, in itself, is an obvious contradiction. That is, why would scientist disagree with massive amounts of evidence in any affirmative, like the Theory of Evolution(Oops!)? Are these brilliant men of science noted for the religious beliefs, or their pioneering scientific contributions? Just because a person excels in one thing, doesn't mean they excel in all things. So far I am hearing only, arguments from ignorance, an equivocation fallacy, a fallacy of composition, and an appeal to authority fallacy. Let's move on.

I don't even know where to begin to dismantle all the false, half-truths, unknown, or fallacious assertion in the last paragraph. Is this a creation tactic to ward off the discovery of truth, or to insulate one's arguments from being exposed for what they really are? Let's proceed.

Show me something that is biologically non-intelligently designed. Show me anything in nature that does not blindly, randomly, or unintelligently happen. Show me anything in nature that is not the result of direct causality of the law of probability. Also show me anything that is complex, that does not exhibit simplicity in its basic foundation or composition. Can you provide any evidence or examples of anything that has "instantly" appeared, or "perfectly" functions without any materialistic cause? Bottom line is you cannot objective prove, or provide objective evidence for anything that comes out of your mouth. You are simply reduced to chanting and parroting the same old scientifically-refuted arguments, in spite of them having nothing to do with science, and everything to do with your own personal Belief.

I do not draw the same conclusions from your self-serving logic. I do not postulate such illogical premises, and expect others to simply accept them on faith alone. Although I totally agree with you that "it IS certifiable that every single existing thing we can see and measure, is ultimately derivative of some pre-existing thing. And that HAS to also be true of the very first physical things - they also had a Cause". It is your presuppositional conclusion that I find hard to fathom. All complex systems are based on less complex systems, and so on. We observe this fact everyday. No matter how you try to extend your composition and division fallacy, to include "magical thinking", it just ain't evidence.

Also stating that all scientific evidence agree that an intelligence can only be the cause of all things that are, "immediately appearing and perfectly interacting", are straw man and red herring fallacies. Science does not agree that ANYTHING spontaneously appeared or can perfectly function in the first place. Science cannot explain ANY unknown causality, or what a supernatural relationship entails. You are actually the first to use JEALOUSY as the reason for my self-imposed ignorance. Of course YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG! I would welcome my life being overseen and my mind being controlled by an invisible multi-dimensional, all powerful, all-knowing spiritual entity. I would be happy that out of all its creations, I was somehow special, and extremely lucky. I seriously suggest that you should relook at the meaning of a speculative scenario, before using it as an argument of proof. Since NOTHING in our 4-dimensional universe is eternal, does that mean that our universe in unintelligent? Scientist agree that something will always come from something, only because there is no such thing as absolute nothingness. It is only blind belief that allows people to accept that "absolute nothingness" is really an "Intelligent Designer" in disguise.
Don

trulyenlightened wrote:

RickD wrote:

RickD wrote:Again I ask...


Why are you here on this forum?

This is the third time I've asked this. I will not ask again.

GOOD! Don

Fine, play it your way.

I suggest you read over the Board Purpose that you agreed to when you signed up for the forum. Since you're banned for 7 days, you'll have plenty of time to think about if this forum is for you.

Who is the message board intended for?
This message board is publicly open to anyone who wishes to register and participate in discussions, however it is ultimately intended for a specific audience. It is intended to serve as a place for:

Sincere seekers to inquire and ask questions;
Christians to give and receive encouragement and instruction; and
Non-Christians who are willing to "walk a thin line" and reason sensitively and respectfully.
This board is not for those who have strongly made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to put down, debate, and argue against essential Christian beliefs. As such, those who are Christian, have not made up their minds, or desire civilised discussions on Christianity are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged and will be heavily moderated.

RickD wrote: I suggest you read over the Board Purpose that you agreed to when you signed up for the forum. Since you're banned for 7 days, you'll have plenty of time to think about if this forum is for you.

Hello Rick,

Um. Did you really ban him for 7 days? When you ban someone it makes it appear as though you lost the arguement.

May you please un-ban him? Perhaps thier is another thread he could utilize more appropriate to atheists who want to debate Christians?

I say this is because if he is banned he will not come back to the forum to discuss the evidence of God. He will leave thinking he "won" and become more truculant and close minded to

I'm also thinking if he experiences the paranormal first hand - he will change his mind. That is what happened to Bryan Melvin during his NDE.

However the other 99.99999999 (adinfinitum) will never experience this. So he can go to the Queen Mary for a quick vacation.

http://www.queenmary.com


If he is looking for "proof" of the supernatural he has a solid 5-10% chance of a paranormal experience on the ship If he approches it the right way with an open mind.

The Queen Mary was the ship a person or demon the form of a young WWII era solider materialized from thin air, from another dimension of existance and punch/grabbed/held me. The ship is ground zero for paranormal activity. There are recorded EVP videos all over the internet (you have to separate the real ones from the fakes) where the voices of known ghosts/demons whatever, are all the same on the videos, such as the little girl Jackie in the pool area whose voice I heard which matches the recordings going back to 1991.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8AVJjGVAwQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17yuBmSV7pg

Admittingly I would say MOST of the ghost shows are fakes and phonies. There are so many liars making fake videos etc that it clouds the truth. Not on this ship. It's ground zero. Notwhere in the entire world has this many experiences dating back to the late 1960's early 1970's. You have thousands of totally unrelated people from all over the world saying the same things describing the same sights sounds and apparitions. This was BEFORE the internet. Now with the internet there are all these videos matching up to these events.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS-X7zdo20c


Room B340 is where a ball of negative energy came to the wall to see who I was - but could not get past the wall. It was the wall of room B340. This was before I even knew about the room or watched this video and I freaked out. It was unmistakable. Other people have said the same thing.


I experienced several unexplainable paranormal events onboard the ship. Nowhere else but on this ship. I kept visiting it until the experiences cummulated with proof of life after death/supernatural. I am actually a little concerned about my "standing" after this experience. We are called to live on faith alone. Not evidence. But he has no faith anyways. He will just keep shaking his fist at the sky until something comes along to question his atheist constructs.
.

If he stays onboard the ship 3-5 days and follows my instructions - he's got a good 5-10% gamblers chance of getting the "proof" he seeks. Assuming he gets it, it will nag and bother him to no end - I promise you this. He will either shake his fist at the sky in denial and claim it was a delusion audio-visual hallucination and the supernatural does not exist, or he will make a leap of faith.

Maybe this is a stretch to say I don't know because most Atheists do not want to beleive in a higher power. So nothing will convince them.



TE ... PM me if you want instructions for your next vacation. I will instruct you what to do which will give you a good 5-10% chance of a paranormal experience.


You can laugh in denial or you can put your bigotry aside and PM me. Your move buddy.

trulyenlightened wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Personally, the way many atheists think/describe/view god is so far removed from the classical theist view ( see Aquinas) that it doesn't surprise me that they see no rational reasonable way to believe in god.

Other than simply editorializing, maybe you can compare or contrast the evidence(or lack there of) that can supports a rational disbelief in the existence of God(s), and any objective and God-specific evidence that supports the existence of a God(s)? Finding evidence for a reasonable or rational reason to believe in a God(s), only begs the question that a God(s) exist in the first place.
Don

I know you are new here but for those of us that have been here for years this gets tedious.
If you think you can relate the Christian God with "other gods" then you don't have any idea of who and what the Christian God is.
If you think he is an "invisible man in the sky" or comparable to the Easter bunny or a flying spaghetti monster, you have no idea.
If you think the classical Christian understanding of God is Anything like what Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens or bill Maher ( LOL) thinks He is, then you have no idea.
OF you understand Aquina's first TWO proofs of God and understand why they have NEVER been refuted and never will, then you are at the beginning of understanding what God is ( though not yet WHO God is).

Blessed wrote:

RickD wrote: I suggest you read over the Board Purpose that you agreed to when you signed up for the forum. Since you're banned for 7 days, you'll have plenty of time to think about if this forum is for you.

Hello Rick,

Um. Did you really ban him for 7 days? When you ban someone it makes it appear as though you lost the arguement.

May you please un-ban him? Perhaps thier is another thread he could utilize more appropriate to atheists who want to debate Christians?

I say this is because if he is banned he will not come back to the forum to discuss the evidence of God. He will leave thinking he "won" and become more truculant and close minded to

Let him be wise in his own eyes then. The Board Purpose and Discussion Guidelines are there for a reason. This is considered a Christian-friendly board. I'd not go to a Muslim board all claws out and expect not to be shown the door. Why should he be shown special treatment, especially when others have to adhere to such? It'd be unfair for those non-Christians who have been able to dialogue more politely and avoided Rick's wrath. He's lucky it was a 7 day ban imo.

When someone choose the name " Trulyenlightened" ( an oxymoron and self-refuting title if ever there was one) and choose to engage Christians on a Christian website WITHOUT bothering to understand what TYPE of website it is, much less have any idea about what Christianity really is, it is because ( typically) that person wants to either argue for the sake of arguing ( which means he/she is always right) or they want to "enlighten" and educate us poor "superstitious" and "ignorant" Christians about what the real world is really like and what science really is.

TrulyE: Since NOTHING in our 4-dimensional universe is eternal, does that mean that our universe in unintelligent? Scientist agree that something will always come from something, only because there is no such thing as absolute nothingness.

Does he not see the major problems with his statement above? So, he's spent how much time saying there is no need for an intelligence to explain what exists, and gets around it by merely alluding to the idea that the universe itself just happens to be intelligent. Wow! But how so? Maybe it went to Universe University??? He says nothing in our universe is eternal, and yet asserts there is no absolute nothingness. Doesn't "no absolute nothingness" require something that is eternal? Amazing and thought-provoking analysis.