JCC God Exists.

Ok, let's do that. You have never seen life created from nothing. You have never heard of or seen life spark from the contents of the dirt (minus life, of course), which is how it must have started, given an existence without God. It has never been duplicated in science. And even if life could be created from nothing... as many have tried and failed... it would then be an illegitimate example of the universe creating life under uncontrolled circumstances. Spontaneous generation of life has never been observed.

You all, all of you who do not believe in God... you all believe, by faith, that there is a scientific explanation apart from God that this occurred.

And it's not as if a single celled organism is uncomplicated. Not only would life have to be created from nothing, but incredibly complicated life... Richard Dawkins (Darwinist and professor of zoology at Oxford University) has himself admitted that the genetic coding aka DNA in just the nucleus of a tiny amoeba is more than thirty full volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and the entire amoeba has as much information in its DNA to fill 1000 complete sets. And these are not random codes/letters (A, T, C, G), but in a very specific order. There are no known natural laws that create specified complexity (information). Only intelligence has been observed creating specified complexity.

Here's another huge leap of faith... the big bang. You're telling me everything in the universe exploded out of nothing? Even if it was something... it spontaneously erupted? What caused that? And where'd that stuff come from? These are things that do not occur in nature. There are no scientific explanations that are supported by any evidence to support any explanation apart from God.

The universe had to come from something. Something doesn't come from nothing in nature.

These are two certified miracles (as defined as something happening apart from or conflicting with natural laws) that are known to all of existence and you all believe, by faith, that there is some explanation other than God for them, even though the most logical thing.. from even a common sense perspective... is that they were caused by an incredibly powerful, eternal, and intelligent being outside of it all.

Let me quote myself:

"You're not listening. As I said, I will argue it [that God exists] and not rest on that argument [that God is above the laws of nature], and believe the evidence is there to a sufficient degree, at least from a logical standpoint"

"I will argue it on your side of reasoning because that is where the argument lies, but I'm attempting to make it clear that, if God exists, it doesn't matter what the science is, you understand?"

So then the response is "Oh well it does not matter what math/nature/science/reason/facts say because God". -VLM

"No, because I still believe that all of those things support His existence."

"But, again, I will reinforce that I will discuss and debate these things on your side of the argument"

Yes.

1- The origin of the universe.

2- The origin of life.

Now let me take a moment to correct a couple spelling/grammar/message errors I made...

-I'd much rather say, "I understand why you believe that, and it makes sense, but I think this makes more sense. Let's look at why and see if you feel the same way. If not, that does change how I feel about you."-

should read does not change how I feel about you.

and I can't find the other one... I said when and I meant to say went... or something like that.

 

Hah, you're funny. And need to read up on vacuums. Something comes from nothing all the time.

 

There is no evidence for the existence of a god.

There is evidence for the Big Bang, and for how life began. We don't believe by "faith" that these things occurred; we see the evidence and draw a reasonable conclusion from that evidence. That's how science works. Saying "God did it" is a lazy assumption, showing a lack of desire to research further.

"God" is nothing more than a noise a primitive mind makes to indicate its lack of understanding.

 

Darth Decepticon, making up physics, just like the transformers movies!

 

This is an interesting point, but one of those I believe I can work out, logically.... in the oceans there are pockets of this and that. It is certainly possible that enough freshwater was left in one area to sustain freshwater life and the same for saltwater.

And actually, if we look at the Black Sea....

"The saltier water in the Black Sea is on the bottom (the top layers being refreshed from rivers). The surface waters of the Black Sea have a salinity of 17 grams/liter while the bottom can reach 30 grams/liter."

This is from yahoo answers, but here's a site about it.

Basically, fresh water and salt water do separate, and the fresh water is reinforced, here, through the rivers flowing in and out...

Now, this is interesting... when water evaporates, it leaves behind salt, due to its weight, and thus rain is fresh water. So, what we have hear is salt water sinking, or, the salt sinking... and then fresh water being replenished on the surface of the body of water by rain.....

So, the fresh water animals move up and the salt water animals move down...... too easy.

plant-wise, only some needed to survive. It's possible the seeds would remain in-tact/dormant during this flooding process for many plants. I'm sure there's a number of directions you could go with this. I can do more research and thinking to come up with better explanations, if you like.

Did I say there was no evidence for the big bang? I was the one that brought it up and presented it in a factual manner!

I'm saying what is the cause for the big bang? Do you know? What's the prevailing theory (hypothesis)? Is that supported by evidence?

You do believe it by faith. You have faith that some explanation, apart from God, will be found one day, or that there is one that you don't know of- that it hasn't been discovered yet.

God did it is not the lazy conclusion, it is the logical one, especially considering the specific complexity of existence.

as for the origin of life: what is the evidence for it? life came from non-life? how? has it been observed elsewhere in nature? has it even been replicated in a controlled environment by scientists?

Your primitive mind theory is proven wrong by the many rational and highly educated scientists out there, right now, who believe in God, who are even Christians. It's an interesting assumption to make that everyone of intelligence who has researched this issue holds secular beliefs.

Ramza please explain.

 

Basically even in complete vacuum we see electrical field fluctuations and virtual particles coming in and out of existence - in other words, contrary to the assertions of Neil Peart, you can get something for nothing and, indeed, you expect to. You should definitely read up on it, it's a pretty cool phenomenon.

 

Interesting... this still is far different from an entire universe exploding out of nothing, but I will certainly have to look into this. Thanks.

Of course, the origin of life is still a big problem.

edit: quick response I found to this, though not resting on it:

"The effect of a net attractive force between objects in a vacuum, caused by quantum mechanical vacuum fluctuations creating radiation pressure. The radiation can be thought of as an atmosphere of virtual particles. The amount of radiation pressure on the objects is decreased in the gap between them, due to limits on the wavelength of the radiation in the gap. The gap is thus an area of lower radiation pressure, drawing the objects toward it. This force is strong enough to be of great importance at scales encountered in nanotechnology. The Casimir Effect sounds like the end all explanation of the origin of the universe but in reality really explains nothing. One still has to account for the origin of the radiation, the origin of the objects that this radiation draws towards itself. If this "force" is strong enough to be of this much importance to nanotechnology then what is the origin of this force? how did this force come into being, did it create itself"

 

Nope, it did not created itself, an huge and majestical space duck did it!

 

Miller-Urey would seem to suggest abiogenesis is a pretty valid hypothesis, actually; it's not hard to extrapolate from amino acids to simple single-celled organisms, and actually, more recent research suggests that the early atmosphere was possibly even better for formation than what they used.

 

Science doesn't claim to know everything. How could it? There is a ton we don't know about the origins of the universe. And that's what makes this so exciting to learn about.

Sure, it's possible that a god is responsible for creating all of this, but there is no evidence that that is the case. Until such evidence comes up, it is better to stay in the realm of what we actually do know.

By the way, as far as I can tell, Mount Everest hasn't moved yet. Why haven't your prayers moved it?

 

Well, suppositions of necessary first cause are really dangerous in QM, actually, precisely because we can get something from nothing. One can easily imagine a universe where things happen simply because on a broad thermodynamic scale they were still net zero. As for where the forces come from, some physicists have theories, I don't personally pretend to know, but that's an exciting sort of uncertainty. Maybe someday we'll know.

 

It seems as though there is some uncertainty about the miller-urey experiments, regarding the composition of the atmosphere, but apparently the experiment was done again with conditions closer to what they believe is accurate...

still, I have two questions/notes:

1- These experiments resulted in amino acids.... amino acids are not life. If it is a hop, skip, and a jump from amino acids to "simple" (not so-simple, as demonstrated above) single-celled organisms, has there been an experiment conducted that brought it all the way? If the hard part is amino acids, why haven't they gotten it to a full-fledged organism? Or have they?

2-Here's the logic problem...

from the book I cited a ways back:

"Scientists intelligently contrive experiments and they still cannot do what we are told mindless natural laws have done. Why should we believe that mindless processes can do what brilliant scientists cannot do? And even if scientists actually did create life in a laboratory, it would prove creation. Why? Because their efforts would show that it takes a lot of intelligence to create life."

First of all, science, itself, doesn't claim anything. It is an instrument for understanding.

Secondly, you're not in the realm of what we know. You are assuming that what we do not know will line up with what you believe, when it is discovered. You do not know how the universe began (as in the cause of the big bang) or how life began.

Why would I pray for Everest to move? It seems fine where it is.

more evidence you are operating in the realm of not knowing...

You have faith that further research will support your notion that there is no God.

 

No, I have faith that eventually we'll explain the origin of physical forces, and I also have faith that somewhere there's a platonically ideal null set so my entire field of research doesn't become meaningless, I never contended otherwise. I don't actually care about whether or not there's no god.

Time, mostly. It'd take a long, long time for that to happen, longer than anybody's got. Rome wasn't built in a day.

As for your "logic" "problem" I'd argue the problem is in the logic required to get to that statement, it's so asinine.

 

I love how you use the word faith as if its some sort of insult.

I do not expect science to find that there is no god. I expect science to keep on learning and expanding so that our knowledge of the universe increases. I mean, it's possible that we were created by a god, but it's also possible that we all reside in a giant snow globe, or that the earth is carried along by a giant turtle, or that we reside in some sort of alternate reality like The Matrix or The Truman Show or Logan's Run. Those things do exist as a possibility. But until there is solid evidence to show that any or all of those things are true, they are so unlikely that they aren't worth thinking about.

And, if it comes down to finding evidence, religion is the one that has to prove there is a god. Burden of proof falls upon the one making the claim that something exists.

 

Okay, so we've established a couple critical points:

a) It takes faith to believe there is no God. i.e.- it is not obvious, from science, that there is no God. One must choose what they believe, then fill in the gaps.

b) There is no explanation (supported by evidence) for how the universe began i.e. the origin of physical forces

Exactly what part of that logic is flawed?

Obviously, a successful experiment that resulted in creating life would support that the creation of life from non-life is possible, however, you believe that life created itself, without any intelligence responsible, merely forces and compounds in action: mindless. We would then need to observe it in nature. In essence, this experiment would establish some new hypothetical natural laws, but in order to confirm those, we would have to observe them in nature.

Yes or yes?

What about the logic that a creation of life by intelligent beings proves that intelligence is required to create life, until this process is then observed in nature, minus intelligence?

calling it a name is not a flaw in the logic.

Faith as an insult? Not at all. I believe faith can be a very good thing, and is essential in life. I have faith in God. My faith is a gift from Him.

I was merely setting out to show you that your beliefs require faith. Often the attitude in the secular world is that it is clear that God does not exist. If you have any intelligence, you would see that science explains any question you might have. If it doesn't, we just haven't discovered it yet. But, this requires a presupposition that there is no God, which is the choice that you have made.

Now, the way you frame the possibility of God existing shows that you do not really believe it, as evidenced in your statement that it is not worth thought.

Finally, that is not how it works. If I am holding a book and begin to talk about the book I am holding and you respond, "You're not holding a book," the burden of evidence is on you. I'm not sure where you got this idea that the burden of evidence is on the positive side of the equation. You then reply, "I don't see it," to which I am charged with a response. I say, "I will read from it and that will prove it." But you say, "That won't prove anything; you could be making it up!"

[edit: and in a legal case, both sides have the same opportunities to make their case and the jury decides. If someone is accused of murder-

ah. Perhaps that's where you get the notion from, because when a charge is brought to court, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or the person cannot be convicted of a crime, but you see, that's the difference: no one's going to jail. A debate is won when they have made a more convincing or compelling case. This slightly calls into question the notion of this connection having something to do with this: if there is a God, you are found guilty. You may then be in the wrong, or living your life wrong, and have to change, or there will be consequences.

mmm... this makes much more sense now...

for the record, if there's any truth to that for you or anyone here, forgiveness is free. It's already done. Everyone who believes receives eternal life. Once you recognize you are in the wrong, as I believe we all are, you just repent aka say your sorry and ask for forgiveness and it's yours. Then you try and live as best you can from then on out, following Him and with His help, but grace is always there when you stumble.

Anyway..]

You have formulated in your mind that the evidence weighs in favor of no God, that is why you assume the burden of proof is on those who believe in Him. It is my turn to tip the scales in you mind.

However, the fact remains that intelligent, educated scientists profess Christ, and are not ignorant of the facts of life, or what we have discovered about life, through science, a tool for better understanding existence. So, believing in God is not a fool's game.

Neither side can prove 100% that it is correct, so it takes a choice and a leap of faith either way.

It does seem like simple logic, though, to me, when we reach the ends of evidence. Creation requires a creator. We see this in life. This is how we see it work, through observation.

There's also another thing that's very convincing to me: the emptiness so many feel in life, even in success, even in leaving a great legacy. We are wired to search for purpose and meaning. So many of us feel we are falling short of that. Most of our culture is designed around satisfaction, and yet our appetites seem to never be satisfied. Peace is not something many people's lives are summed up by. We learn to work and work to retire and enjoy life and then when we get there we're not sure what to do with ourselves. It's all over in the blink of an eye. We get up, go to work, come home, watch tv, go to a party once in a while (borrowing this part from Rick Warren) and repeat and it feels like something's missing. I believe it's because we were made for more, and we know it, deep within ourselves, deep within our hearts, and deep within our souls.

 

Absolutely.

​

​

I agree we were made for more too. But how does a belief in God accomplish that tangible "more"? I think we were made to progress and get better at coexistence with our fellow man and the planet. And also about advancing to the stars and achieving longer lifespans and less disease and death. God is in us. But it's about personal and collective betterment that leads to that fulfillment, not handing it over to a deity, real or imagined.​

Look into transhumanism. That's about real possibilities and fulfilling "god's plan" more than anything religion offers(although transhumanism has its own shortcomings too).​

 

oh is that how it works?

 

The God in the gaps has been shrinking year after year as science fills in those gaps. Neal deGrasse Tyson talks about this. The gaps are simply filled in as science fills them in. Then religious people move the goal posts and plant them in new gaps.......until science comes along, fills in those gaps, and then the religious people move onto new gaps.

There will likely always be gaps and so likely always religious people who admire filling in the gaps with their imagination and emotions. But the god in the gaps has a very mobile history, ready to move at a moments notice to greener, unknown pastures.....at least until science comes along with the flashlight.

 

man, your whole last post hear and soul. i just, i don't.... you're basically admitting that you don't actually know any of this. what's wrong with that? what's wrong with just admitting that you don't know? instead we should just pick a thing and decide to believe that above all else and just fill in all the gaps in our knowledge with something that fits in that system, no matter how incredibly farfetched it is?

and all that stuff about emptiness. yeah, some people feel that. some religious people, some atheists, some agnostics. but both religious people and atheists feel full too. if you need the bible to fill your life, cool. don't assume that everyone does though.

 

The bit where it's a tautological reaffirmation of your own philosophical stance. So, you know, at its very core. That you cannot see how that's a flaw tells me, I think, that I'm done here. G'day and such.

 

To everyone reacting to the "fill in the gaps" thing, you realize he's not describing his own position, but instead laying out what he sees as the essential premises for accepting atheism? Because both Shane and tom seem to be missing that point.

 

maybe you should be his interpreter wox, but it seemed to me he was making the argument that that's the case on either side of the argument. anyway, i certainly can't see how it's not the case on his side whether that's the point he was making or not.

 

Well, he was arguing the "faith" as he defined it, was necessary for all sides. But only in atheism does this phenomenon have anything to do with the gaps in current scientific theory. He's been trying to build a distinction where, in Christianity the rationale for faith and the things one believes in are quite different.

 

oh, well if that's the thrust of what he's saying then i really don't understand how he would see any point in having a "what is true: science or the bible?" debate. but ok, whatever. hold the door, ramza!

 

Ok, but there is evidence.

One of these pieces of evidence is the Teleological Argument, or the Design of Life. It goes like this:

1. Every design had a designer.
2. The universe has a highly complex design.
3. Therefore, the universe had a Designer.

When you move past the origin of the universe, that the universe exploded out of nothingness, for many, the precision with which it exploded provides even more persuasive evidence for the existence of God.

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." -Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

William Paley (1743-1805) said every watch needs a watchmaker.

The universe is specifically tweaked to enable life on earth. Our planet has scores of improbable and interdependent life-supporting conditions that make it a tiny oasis in a vast and hostile universe.[much of this coming from I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, btw] These highly precise and interdependent environmental conditions (which are called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the Anthropic Principle, which basically states that the universe is extremely fine-tuned to support human life here on earth.

Anthropic Constant 1: Oxygen Level
Oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere. 25 percent and fires would erupt spontaneously. 15 percent and we would suffocate.

Anthropic Constant 2: Atmospheric Transparency
If the atmosphere were less transparent, not enough solar radiation would reach the earth's surface. If it were more, it would be bombarded with far too much solar radiation. (In addition: the atmospheric composition of precise levels of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and ozone are in themselves anthropic constants.)

Anthropic Constant 3: Moon-Earth Gravitational Interaction
If the interaction were greater that it currently is, tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. If less, orbital changes would cause climactic instabilities. In either event, life on earth would be impossible.

Anthropic Constant 4: Carbon Dioxide Level
If the CO2 (don't know how to type that ) level were higher than now, a runaway greenhouse would develop (we'd all burn up). If the level were lower, plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis (we'd all suffocate).

Anthropic Constant 5: Gravity
If the gravitational force were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent our sun would not exist, and, therefore, neither would we.

It's not just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. There are more than 100 narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an intelligent Designer.

10 more:
1. If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun.
2. If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped, and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any stars had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed.
3. Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 299,792,458 meters per second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth.
4. If water vapor levels in the atmosphere were greater than they are now, a runaway greenhouse effect would cause temperatures to rise too high for human life; if they were less, an insufficient greenhouse effect would make the earth too cold to support human life.
5. If Jupiter were not in its current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter's gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike the earth.
6. If the thickness of the earth's crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life impossible.
7. If the rotation of the earth took longer than twenty-four hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period were shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.
8. The 23-degree axial tilt of the earth is just right. If the tilt were altered slightly, surface temperatures would be too extreme on earth.
9. If the atmospheric discharge (lightning) rate were greater, there would be too much fire destruction; if it were less, there would be too little nitrogen fixing in the soul.
10. If there were more seismic activity, much more life would be lost; if there was less, nutrients on the ocean floors and in river runoff would not be cycled back to the continents through tectonic uplift (Yes, even earthquakes are necessary to sustain life as we know it!)

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that these and other constants- 122 in all- would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e., without divine design). Assuming there are 10^22 planets in the universe, his answer is shocking: one chance in 10^138. There are only 10^70 atoms in the entire universe. In effect, there is zero chance that any planet in the universe would have the life-supporting conditions we have, unless there was an intelligent Designer behind it all.

Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias, codiscoverer of the radiation afterglow: "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say supernatural plan."

Cosmologist Ed Harrison: "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God- the design argument of Paley- updated and refurbished. The fine-tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design." (prima facie- first face aka on first sight)

Astronomer Fred Hoyle (atheist): "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."

Other atheists admit design but claim there is no Designer. Given the virtually zero probability that all of the 100-plus constants would be as they are in the absence of intelligence, the Multiple Universe Theory was created. This essentially states there actually an infinite number of universes in existence, and we just happen to lucky enough to be in the universe with the right conditions. Given an infinite number of universes, they say, every set of conditions will occur, including the life-supporting conditions of our universe.

There are multiple problems with this:

First, there is no evidence for it. The evidence shows that all of finite reality came into existence with the Big Bang. Finite reality is exactly what we call "the universe." If other realities exist, they're beyond our ability to detect. No one has ever observed any evidence that such universes may exist.

Second, and infinite number of finite things is an actual impossibility. There can't be an unlimited number of limited universes.

Third, even if other universes could exist, they would need fine-tuning to get started just as our universe did (the Big Bang also contained an absurd level of precision). So positing multiple universes doesn't eliminate the need for a Designer, it multiplies it.

Fourth, the Multiple Universe Theory is so broad that any event can be explained away by it.