Evidence for God (2 Viewers)

[gmaw]

Even though many atheists would like to dismiss such evidence of design, cosmologists know better, and have made statements such as the following, which reveal the depth of the problem for the atheistic worldview:

• "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine-tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."<SUP>6</SUP>
• "Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."<SUP>7</SUP>
• "In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely."<SUP>8</SUP>

 

[Severum]

We are not on the street. Don't be scared, look at the evidence and open your mind. Just might save yourself. And if you can disprove it, fine.

The street was tangential to my point. I have no need to be saved from anything and I'm way more open minded than you based on your past posts.

People are scared to go on the website so I quoting it and bringing it here.

That's copyright infringement which we frown upon.

Anyone with a basic understanding of science and logic will find your site unconvincing so this whole thread is rather pointless.

 

[gmaw]

The street was tangential to my point. I have no need to be saved from anything and I'm way more open minded than you based on your past posts.



That's copyright infringement which we frown upon.

Anyone with a basic understanding of science and logic will find your site unconvincing so this whole thread is rather pointless.

how so?

 

[Ice Bowl]

I used to get sucked into these arguments back when I was a raging fundamentalist (not really) but now I just don't see the point. Like you said, no one can offer me no proof that a higher power doesn't exist and equally I can't offer any proof one does.

Yep. And I can't imagine what the point would be, anyway. It makes no difference to me whether or not other people believe what I believe, because it has absolutely no effect on my life whatsoever.

When I look back at my life, the world in which I live, the universe in which it dangles, and the people around me, the only remotely credible conclusion I can reach is that there is some sort of "higher power" - not necessarily a creator-god (although there's room for such a deity in my belief system), but an overarching, all-encompassing universal consciousness of which each of us is a part as much as it is a part of us.

The fact that other intelligent people look at the same world, the same universe I do, and reach exactly the opposite conclusion is of absolutely no meaning to me. It has no impact on my life or the way I live it. It's not going to affect my belief system any more than I'm going to suddenly stop liking Los Lobos if a bunch of people on a message board all tell me that Los Lobos sucks.

And, at the same time, the equally fervent arguments of other believers serve only to drive me even further away from organized religion. I hate religion. I know that some people find a lot of value in it, and good - fine for them. I want no part of it. In my mind, religion is what gives god a bad name. I can just picture him sitting up there, holding his head in his hands, saying, "How could these idiots possibly have gotten this all so completely... ***ing... wrong??!?!"

 

[FleurDeLeap]

Well, your link that I quoted said it was and when I noted that it wasn't, you argued the point. And it's not "another name for Jesus". That's why the two are used together most of the time. One is a name and one is a title.

You keep arguing it and you keep being wrong.

As for Revelations, you do realize that isn't a direct quote, right? The book was written almost fifty years after Jesus supposedly died. And its themes are taken from earlier religious works. We're not even getting into the myriad translations and revisions that the work has undergone from the original.

A serious theological study on the matter shows that a Second Coming was originally intended to portent a new Christ to defeat the Antichrist.

Don't put too much stock in Revelations, of all the books. It's plagiarized apocalyptic literature.

I'm surprised that your intellectual curiosity of your religion is close to zero. Do you ever ask questions and try to deepen your understanding?

Well the book is titled Revelation, so there's a start for your strong wisdom. Please continue, I'd appreciate it if you deepened my understanding.

 

[gmaw]

Say what you want about me,but at least I back my belief of a higher power with science. You can dismiss the science if you want to, but hey isn't that what you accuse us of doing?

 

[dtc]

I'll go ahead and believe myself seeing as I'm a Christian and you're not, Christ is another name used by the church to refer to Jesus.
"A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham...and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." -Mathew 1:1-16

It must be convenient to have the faith that even when shown wrong you can ignore it and attribute your wrongness to faith and forgive yourself for the error.

 

[dtc]

common objection to the "God hypothesis" is the problem of how God came to be. If everything has a cause, why does God get an exception? The problem with such reasoning is that it assumes that time has always existed. In reality, time is a construct of this universe and began at the initiation of the Big Bang.<SUP>12</SUP> A God who exists outside the time constraints of the universe is not subject to cause and effect. So, the idea that God has always existed and is not caused follows logically from the fact that the universe and time itself was created at the Big Bang. The Bible makes these exact claims - that God has always existed<SUP>13</SUP> and that God created time,<SUP>14</SUP> along with the entire universe,<SUP>15</SUP> being described as an expanding universe.<SUP>16</SUP> Why can't the universe be uncaused? Of course, it is possible that the universe is uncaused. However, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that contradicts that idea (see part 1). So, an atheist who claims to live by logic and evidence cannot arbitrarily assign eternity to a universe that is clearly temporal.

When you quote other people's work, it's customary around here to post the link or at least attribute the writing.

 

[dtc]

lol what is happening

we're being spammed.

 

[FleurDeLeap]

It must be convenient to have the faith that even when shown wrong you can ignore it and attribute your wrongness to faith and forgive yourself for the error.

How was I shown wrong? Barack Obama holds the title of President, and many call him the president. (ie. "Did you hear the president's speech yesterday?") Jesus can be referred as Christ if I so choose to refer to him as that. I don't understand how you're trying to prove me wrong

 

[dtc]

How was I shown wrong? Barack Obama holds the title of President, and many call him the president. (ie. "Did you hear the president's speech yesterday?") Jesus can be referred as Christ if I so choose to refer to him as that. I don't understand what you even meant

Because Barack Obama's name is BHO. He may be referred to as BO, POTUS, Mr. President or any number of other pronouns, but his name is not President.

Jesus's name is Jesus. Christ is not his name. It was a title.

You're the Christian. WTH are atheists having to teach you this stuff?

 

[krazy9000]

Even though many atheists would like to dismiss such evidence of design, cosmologists know better, and have made statements such as the following, which reveal the depth of the problem for the atheistic worldview:

• "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine-tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."<SUP>6</SUP>
• "Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."<SUP>7</SUP>
• "In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely."<SUP>8</SUP>

You continue to use the same discredited arguments. The site you provide give absolutely no scientific evidence of god. It merely provides information (most of which is outright false) in a somewhat scientific manner, and then concludes that it must be god. I can see how this could be convincing to the uneducated, as they use lots of big numbers that one can't begin to understand unless he/she did a little research (and by research i mean just googling the stuff). Upon investigating any of the claims further, you will begin to see all of the "evidence" fall apart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa-1Iyphqzc&feature=related

Here is a great video that does a critical analysis of the movie The Case for a Creator. In the movie, Lee Strobel uses much of the same arguments your link uses, and they are summarily dismantled. If you want evidence, then watch it. If you want to remain ignorant of the actual scientific data, then continue to argue from incredulity.

 

[LafourcheSaint]

Atheists are just as much a thorn in the side of common sense as Evangelicals.

 

[FleurDeLeap]

Ok I apologize that another source (not me) said that was his surname. What I'm saying is that Jesus is called Christ. We are both agreeing on that matter, but you act like we are not. Back to my original point, a very well respected Roman historian who had hatred towards Christians, acknowledged Jesus as a real person.

 

[Ice Bowl]

Say what you want about me,but at least I back my belief of a higher power with science. You can dismiss the science if you want to, but hey isn't that what you accuse us of doing?

Not to be a dick, but do you understand the "science" you're citing? Can you explain - exactly - how those paragraphs you quoted support your point? What does it mean?