The debate "GOD exists" was started by
November 19, 2015, 2:11 pm.
124 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 442 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
thecries posted 1 argument, Alex posted 20 arguments, confident posted 4 arguments, DannyknowsItAll posted 1 argument, peacock posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Sosocratese posted 38 arguments, historybuff posted 13 arguments, omactivate posted 7 arguments, pajrc1234 posted 10 arguments, andy91 posted 1 argument, Chandru posted 3 arguments, kgb posted 1 argument, Socrates posted 1 argument, Monster posted 1 argument, Burnin posted 1 argument, danielle posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
loupsolitaire, fredtyu, Alex, owenpaul, bigB, DannyknowsItAll, young_debator2100, calebtanner, farishaidar, TonganCaillou, Gabri_XO, Ryan, invincible_01, confident, Sageofthe6Paths, Skeetc15, debaterjr, jellybeanie, iSmuggleJews, AlexRose1517, Glyan14, Kaunistin, britt9790, cody121, mdthuesen, jjrocks1738, gamelia94, peacock, FlyingCookie, jperi123, Firplius, duelist1, State57, AlenaMaisel, mandala and 89 visitors agree.
xbulletwithbutterflywingsx, wmgreen00, omactivate, thekid, Rokai, bearunter, RationalAtheist, WaspToxin, lawyer_to_be, Yuki_Amayane, andy91, pajrc1234, Wookie, zoeclare7, Chandru, historybuff, Mousie, Robert16, Tusharsingh, godisjustsomethingwemade, kgb, Socrates, Picassota, kallistigold23, famouslorie, AngryBlogger, Monster, progressive, danielle, Burnin, Talks_N_Rants, TheMartian, opiomatedman, franciscotrejo, SocialistRed and 407 visitors disagree.
God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that keeps getting smaller and smaller.
dude anyone can get a degree in philosophy
I don't believe in God but I do believe supernatural/spiritual existence. My only proof is a documentary about people with near death experiences when how an atheist saw her dead loved ones.
I cannot believe in something that there is no proof of! and there is absolutely zero proof for god
except you can detect air in many other scientific ways. god is irrational and has no evidence. and since atheists are now the third largest "religion" in the world, I'd say we can get by just fine without believing in God.
God do exist! just like the air, we cannot seen it but sure we need it!
I really dont beleive on GOD. I beleive in the scientific reason of our existance. but I do believe in the fact of the existance of extra terrestrial being that could influence our existance
We are still evolving, nothing has changed. I don't think you understand the fact that evolution takes millions of years to take place.
god only means the spiritual power who will guide u when you are off the track
before I get into my debate, I just want to go over a quick little fact with everyone. it's a fact that most countries believe there is a God and in the USA more specifically, around 80% of the US identified themselves as religious. so what I am essentially saying is this debate will have more votes that there is a god given the small percentage of non religious people but with that all said, that doesn't mean this won't be a good debate and that you can provide outlooks on the other end of the spectrum to perhaps convince that someone who is on the fence. now let me say that no one in this world currently can prove that there is a god but at the same time, there is no one that can prove a god doesn't exist. This is fact. It's more so up to religious people to prove gods existence and they can't without quoting pages of some book that you truly don't even know who written. now to get started, let's talk about all the things God and Jesus did throughout the bible. God himself was shown throughout most of the book to help those in need and to also protect people like when he delivered Moses and his people from Egypt and destroyed the Egyptian army in exodus. Notice how much he did then and also how he made himself clear that he existed. How come "god" doesn't do those things in today's age? I thought god was to protect Israel no matter what but here we are with that same Israel currently involved in different wars and being attacked. If God existed, he would certainly do something about that BUT no, god doesn't do anything about that because God might not exist. God was often seen through many and so was Jesus but again you don't see that today. Why? Also god destroyed cities and even the world at one point because there was "no good people" in it yet god has the power to make people good although he rather not but instead rather hardened the hearts like he did the pharaoh of egypt. God has the power to do anything but again you don't see it today. We will now be performing brain transplants soon enough and putting brains on other bodies. Such transplants have been done on animals and they lived but to do that on a human being and if the human lives, this almost proves entirely that man does not have a soul.
If God exists, how was he created? Explain to me how God just being, is more logical than the big bang theory.
there is no evidence for a God so no
did you even read the link I provided you to look at common sense vs logic? If you did, you may want to work on your reading comprehension because you shouldn't have doubled down on the whole common sense is logic statement....logic follows a very specific set of rules that allows you to present an argument in a very specific way. Common sense is a shortcut. Its a way to integrate social norms, bias, etc... and form reasonable opinions and actions based on information available. It doesn't always lead to truth however. Logic, by necessity, leads only to truth statements.
no. a logical statement does not have to follow common sense. common sense might tell you lots if things that aren't logical. common sense is colored by your own biases and background. logic is based in reason. it is supported by evidence.
I understand your smart and stuff, and have degrees. I have not studied debating, but I did look up those fallacies so I know them now (i think).
logic and common sence are not the same, they are similar, and often one with common sence had logic, and a logical statement will also follow common sence.
You have just affirmed my accusations of you lack of knowledge of logic.
Common sense is not logic. A quick Google search would have helped you save some face here... Here is some reading so you actually know the difference and don't sound so ignorant next time.
Another quick Google search would have led you to the definitions of each of the fallacies I listed, but since that seems to be beyond your skill level, here is some information on the subject
Please note that I actually have formal education in logic and philosophy so I get a little offended when people try and claim logic as a argument but then make logical errors as grievous and numerous as you have. It's an insult to all of us that studied logic.
I've a common sense of believing in reality.
my suggestion to you guys is to don't believe in anything till you experience yourself with strong evidence. be practical dudes as we're in 21st century n the world is moving faster with science as its main weapon. so try to be think what the real fact is.think of it who believing in nonexisting God, a nonsense n unreal.
all those arguments you accused me of doing, never heard of most of them. XD
common sence is logical. it's logical to have common sence, one with common sence would also have good logic, they are very similar.
To expand on the logic in science point.
What I have stated is that science defies common sense at times. The theory of relativity in particular certainly defies common sense. However, the theory follows the evidence and is thus logical by the standards of logic I.e. the conclusion necessarily follows the premises and the premises are supported by empirical evidence. Commons sense and logic are not equivocal. Don't confuse the two.
none of your examples were corroborated. some random person saying they saw something isn't evidence. no one has said science doesn't need logic. since it requires evidence and testing logic is a requirement of science.
I don't think you get to criticize or evaluate logic in science. You have used numerous formal and informal fallacies in your arguments. Worse yet, you have failed to address them when you were called out on them. So far you have used arguments by assertion, fallacy of incredulity, divine gap fallacies, special pleading fallacies, circular reasoning, fallacy of presumption, fallacy of equivocation (the Kalam cosmological argument is infamous for this and you have certainly used a version of that argument), fallacy of begging the question, argumentum ex silentio, argument from ignorance (I'll point that one out below) just to name a few.... With you making this many logical errors in your arguments it seems fair to conclude that you know nothing of logic. It would probably help if you actually tried to learn the various fallacies and tried to avoid them in the future.
The charge of science going against logic is not really fair since it stems from your ignorance of science. You have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge on science. You didn't know that white holes are a hypothesis, you didn't know that the multiverse is a hypothesis, you certainly don't understand evolution or abiogenesis, you demonstrated that you don't know any of the evidence involved in the theories of evolution, relativity, or the big bang; so if you don't know the evidence, if you don't know the scientific principles involved, why are you qualified to say a theory isn't logical? This would be your argument from ignorance....it would help if you actually read the body of evidence associated with these scientific theories, principles, and even terms (as you have demonstrated that you don't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis). You loose a lot of credibility when you argue based on a misunderstanding and lack of knowledge on a subject.
A little bit about debate etiquette since you don't seem to understand burden of proof.
You are arguing pro. This means the onus is on you to demonstrate evidence for your claim. It is cons responsibility to refute the evidence presented by you and offer alternatives. That's how debate etiquette works, since you can never prove a negative. So stop ignoring the requests for actual evidence and either provide some which aren't anecdotal or based on logical fallacies or admit you can't actually prove the existence of God.
when u do provide evidence you people dent it because you claim all religious people who have ever claimed anything were only people hallucinating. you all go against logic and common sence, but as you've said science doest need logic.
Time travel is possible if the theory of relativity holds true. That is because space of space time, time dilation, etc... It sounds like you don't understand this otherwise you wouldn't be arguing about it. Relativity is one of the most widely accepted theories in physics and one with some of the most practical applications.
The multiverse is not a theory, it's a hypothesis, not a theory. There is a clear distinction and if you had done even the slightest bit of research into the topic you'd understand that difference.
White wholes are hypothetical solutions to the black hole information paradox. It's not actually a theory, it's a hypothesis to solve the problem....again, if you would have done a little bit of research you would have found this information on your own.
May ask what you think makes you qualified to question scientific theories when you don't even understand the terms involved, the definitions used, the actual content of the theories, or the evidence used to support those theories? Furthermore, why do you think it appropriate to insert God into any gap you see in science? Why does God get to be the de-facto explanation whenever you think you see a hole? Aren't you presupposing the existence of God, if all you're doing is inserting God into the gaps of science? Can you actually prove God's existence without assuming it's existence?
The onus is on you to provide evidence for your claim that God exists Alex.
Well, Einstein's theory of relativity can allow time travel in both directions, and I'm unsure about the other two. Creationism is not even a theory. It is a hypothesis created by the imagination of those who didn't even know the shape of the Earth. Finally, it has no evidence supporting it. Evolution is a scientific theory with evidence including fossils and DNA similarities in multiple species. By not accepting it, you aren't being skeptical, but denying its existence in the face of a wide array of evidence.
Im no expert on those but I'd guess every one of those theories has better empirical evidence than religion.
Did you know there is a real scientific theory that states time travel is possible? there is also a theory that states there is such thing as a white hole. another theory says our universe was created from. other universes. yep those theories have tons of evidence, and proof. becoming a theory is pretty easy.
Don't dismiss the theory of evolution by calling it "just a theory". It shows that you don't know the definition of a scientific theory and how much proof has to go into it in order to reach that designation.
ok, I looked up the scientific law and if it can be ruled false or not, and I looked at many sources. some said a law can't be proved wrong, and some said it could be proved wrong. so who knows? but the university websites said a law can be changed if new evidence is found so I guess I'll go with them. But it all said at the present moment there is no evidence to prove if wrong and it is a law. once you show me evidence for the law of biogenesis to be false and it is stripped of its law title I will then look at all that other stuff.
I will not entertain a theory that first needs a law to not exist, needs the opposite if a law to exist, and to go against common sence. and to have many other things that are just theories now to be 100% true. a lot of stuff there to believe.
believing in nonexisting God is a common sense according to you historybuff,then God itself has no sense according to me.so if I'm not having common sense according to your opinion, then you not having any sense of truth,presence of mind,knowledge about fact n present moments,etc.don't you bro
There is absolutely no reason why we can't prove the law you're referring to as wrong. There is nothing no tenant in science that says "you shall not overturn laws of science". As our knowledge and understanding expands we are free to relegate previous "truths" to history and change our body of knowledge. That's the beauty of science. It's not stagnant.
There are a bunch of things in science that go against common sense.... Commons sense doesn't dictate knowledge. Relativity is an absolute mind f**k. There is nothing common sense about it and yet it's being shown to be true over and over again. You need to use empirical data not rhetoric to make your points.
just because we haven't witnessed it doesn't mean it is illogical. saying that an incredibly complicated scientific principle is common sense means you have never done any reading at all on the subject.
abiogenesis is not possible because
1. goes against a LAW OF SCIENCE. a law is something we know to be 100% true. a law can't be declared wrong.
2. life coming from nothing is not common sence or even the tiniest bit logical
So, you've used anecdotal evidence, and circular reasoning and you call it prove? You have not demonstrated that we have to come from something. In order to do that you have to prove God's necessity.
You have only asserted that abiogenesis can't happen, but you haven't offered any evidence as to why abiogenesis is impossible. You're reasoning is that it's not possible because God created life and therefore we can't have abiogenesis. In order use that argument you first need to establish that there is a God.
For the majority of your arguments, you have to assume that God exists in order to make them work.
I've given my proofs of God. the miracles, visions people have had. the bible agreeing so perfectly with itself. common sence that us coming from nothing did not happen.
This is what I've told Alex in many debates.
I can't prove 100% that evolution exists. That's why it's a scientific theory (please know the definition of this before coming back with the usual ignorant "just a theory" statement). However, I can point you to a large body of evidence which supports evolution and makes it a highly probable explanation. This body of evidence includes a lot more than "a few bones of extinct animals". Which is a statement so ignorant that it truly shows you have no idea what evolution actually is, how the theory is justified, and how much evidence there actually is to support it. You really need to get yourself educated on the subject if you're going to challenge it.
Now, can you please point me to any actual, credible evidence for the existence of God or will you concede that you can only believe that God exists, bit can never actually know that he/she/it exists?
except that we weren't created at all. we evolved from earlier homonids. those homonids didn't worship God. did they go heaven? or did God decide at some point that that was the moment we were good enough and we started having souls? either way Adam and Eve didn't exist. there simply isn't any way the story can be true.
No bro,u r in dilemma I feel.there's not at all a God exists.if I discuss ur own point right now then the animals also have same working system. if animals n plants also having life of their own its not because of God, if was why don't they giving any hint of worshipping or indicating God's existance, so we're same as animals n plants. the man put a nonsense word God to everyone,its just because of his selfishness n in accordance to meet his needs through by means of these kind of nonsense things.thank you
I'm correcting a misunderstanding historybuff had about us being created in God's image, and saying how evolution and creation are both possible. can you prove to me 100% evolution exists. a few bones of extinct animals is not proof.
For your argument to be effective, first you would need to prove that the soul exists, which has yet to be observed. Then you would need to demonstrate that this soul was designed and given to us by your specific deity rather than a different deity or pantheon. Finally you would have to use this to justify your knowledge of the existence of God. The problem is that for this to work you have to start from God's existence and work from there. It is a circular proof.
Are you trying to use the soul to justify God's existence or disprove evolution?
Sosocratees and HistoryBuff
we are made in God's image. this is our soul, not our bodies that is made in God's image. God is a spirit, he does not have a physical image. the soul is what is made in God's image.
We shouldn't have to explain this to you. If you're going to argue against evolution and try and insert God in its place, you should have a really good understanding of evolution. Go do some research on the subject and when you actually understand evolution, then you can maybe form a cohesive argument to further your point. Until then it's hard to take any argument you try and make serious since most of them stem from a lack of understanding about the subject.
Why should it happen again. We're already the dominant species. We've filled the specialty niche (go look it up if you don't know how that's relevant to evolution). There is no advantage for other apes to evolve into humans. They already occupy a special niche
we still are. there are genetic differences developing still. but evolution takes time. it doesn't happen in a year or two. it takes centuries, or millennia. you won't be able to watch it happen in real time.
if humans evolved by something all those years ago why dont it happen one more time why dont more humans evolve through it again..?
Alex and confident
If you're going to talk about evolution, you should already know why there couldn't have been a first Adam and eve. I shouldn't have to explain this to you because you should have done your own research....
The reason there wouldn't have been a first human is because changes happen gradually in evolution. Evolution is more like growing old I'm that sense. You don't sit there thinking today is my last day being young and then I'm old. The first humans came about through an evolution of a given population of pre-humans. The first members of that population to be homosapians weren't reprodictively isolated (look up what that means for speciation if you don't know). So they were still breeding with the rest of the population and were simply able to beget more offspring slowly passing their traits along onto the population. You couldn't have come from just two humans because there wouldn't have been enough genetic variety to start a population.
The lower estimates that geneticists have come up with is that it takes at least 50 individuals to start a population (due to genetic variety). So it would have been impossible to have the human species start from just two individuals.
and there would be no garden of Eden, no fruit of the knowledge of good and bad, etc.
but that first human would not have been created by God. he would not have been made in God's image. he would have evolved from an earlier homonid.
if they evolved from something there must be first human that must had evolved so, who was it?
but evolution means that God didn't create them. they evolved. creationism says God snapped his finger and there stood modern humans. evolution proves we evolved from earlier homonids.
ok, I was reading this debate just now and Sosocratees can you tell me why you said if evolution is true adam and eve are not the first humans? there had to be first humans right? even with evolution.
I quite enjoy debating you
I agree. Claiming there is no God is also not very honest. The most you can argue is that God is not probable, or that a believe in God is not rational.
Yes and there is a matter of faith that goes into religion. Yet, there is no way to disprove a supernatural being. You may only come to describing the natural world, but there is no proof to say there is no God. This boils down to a matter preference. I have my beliefs, and you yours. You may never understand my faith, and I in turn a world wothout God. This debate lies strictly in the realm of subjective arguments, not objective
I don't know enough about Catholic doctrine to know how they square science with faith, but in regards to the claim of this debate, it's sort of irrelevant. But I do enjoy debating the effects of science on religious doctrine more than simple God exists/doesn't exist topics.
The claim is that God exists. This means God is objectively part of existence. The original claim says nothing of a belief in God, simply the existence. Any intellectually honest person would have to say that this statement is false because it can't be proven.
The best argument you could possibly make is that a believe in God can, under certain circumstances, be intellectually defensible.
I should add we dont need to believe in evolution. We have to believe God directly gives us our souls. They are not a part of this physical evolution. We cant believe in atheistic evolution (without God). I believe this is correct, but I'm not a theologian and in going further I am unsure if I am creating scandal.
So what happens when science figures out abiogenesis?
Catholics must only believe that God's hand is in the creation of man and that our souls are given to us. Not evolved, but distinctly given to each individual. Though we reject atheistic evolution.
isn't that just a cop out though? The catholic church has a vested interest in it's followers not believing in science. I get that the catholic church doesn't discourage scientific inquisition anymore, however, science is directly at odds with the Christian faith.
If evolution occurred, then Adam and Eve were not the first humans. If Adam and Eve weren't the first humans, then there is no such thing as original sin. If there is no original sin, then there is no need for a messiah. If there is no need for a messiah, then what's the point of Christianity?
As a Catholic, we dont reject science. We sont have to believe it, but the two do not clash. But your argument is irrefutable as I cannot vouch for the beliefs of others if they do not follow the Catholic faith.
My earlier reply seems to have gotten lost....
The gist of it was that statistically speaking, religion is at odds with science.
Depending on the polls, anywhere from 30-44% of Americans believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, so even taking the low end, a full 1/3 of Americans don't believe in the science of dating the earth. 42% of Americans believe that creationism is true. They are at odds with the theory of evolution.
You can see this battle being played out across the country. School boards voting on whether or not to teach evolution, the big bang, etc...
It's a statistically significant population who are at odds with science and try to actively undermine the advances of science through various political platforms. Just because you may be able to fit God into the gaps of science, doesn't mean everyone of your faith can.
you're right. since they have no evidence you can't call it disproving. it's more like hiding from. or attempting to undermine.
I have faith in my religion. Thats not the issue being addressed by my statement. Christianity doesnt try to disprove science.
Well then prove that it is more than mysticism.
It doesnt... You are arguing based on misconception.
no one claims to know the answers to everything. scientists certainly don't. but science offers probable results and information while religion offers vague mysticism and does all it can to disprove the growing proof that science finds.
Nature is the matter, energy and vibration..we humans are so selfish that on just basis of five senses we think we know what universe and god is.... but the thing is our unit of measure and imagination is a drop in ocean...it is convinient to say then god made universe bcoz we are restless to know who created us....but we need to accept we dont know
Alex, how do you know God created nature? You're asserting a position without defending it. The proposition "God exists" isn't defensible. You can only go so far as to say "I believe God exists". You have presented no evidence for God's existence. You have tried circular reasoning using the Bible to justify the existence of God. You have tried inserting God into the gaps of science.
However, what evidence can you present that could possibly rise to the level of confirming God's existence?
God created nature, the universe can be natraul, but God created the nature.
Alex, the laws of physics can come to be through natural means. Why do you need a God to have positive and negative charges attract? Why do you need a God for gravity to work?
Are you simply asserting that God must exist because you can't imagine the universe being natural?
Arguing that people beloved in religion before books doesn't support your argument that God exists. People believed in many different gods, so unless you are saying that each of these gods was true, those people were mistaken. How do you feel that lends credibility to your God in particular?
Well, you can't prove that God exists in the first place, so it's a lot (lot lot lot) more likely that something else caused these laws. Now stop making rationalizations about God. We may not know how these laws came about, but we do know that you're not able to break them, regardless of who you are.
Andy "how did nature come about" God made the laws of nature.
religion has existed before books. that argument that 8n prehistory there was no religion is stupid
god does not exists its the nature who set the rules of existence. if god is real then why there are so many religions and so many scriptures in different languages. it means god first created us and waited for us to speak and learn languages and then thought that now humans are communicable.. lets hand over them some text books to read... we need to understand if there is something its within us. the very well designed human system is need to be read. God is an answer to things we do not understand
As others have said Alex, you have to establish that the Bible is a valid source of factual information. You can't do that without first establishing that God exists in the first place, that God wrote/inspired the Bible, that God is infallible, and that God is not deceptive.
As with any argument, you have to vet your sources. The Bible isn't exempt from this.
no because it's got no references, and was written by those who didn't know the shape of the Earth, much less its creation.
you have has this explained to you already. you are using Adam and Eve as a defense for God. you use the Bible as proof. and since God "wrote the Bible" it must be true. it is a circular argument. if I told you that werewolves were real because I read it in a book, would that be absolute proof? you would demand some sort if evidence. if the Bible says something you think is true then evidence is required to debate it. otherwise it's just a story in a book.
it's, according to you not reliable because it is religion, and religion must be fake.
there is no evidence at all for Adam and Eve. the Bible is the only "proof" and we have explained why that isn't a reliable source.
I was asked about adam and eve being first, not God existing. for the God existing question I would not use the bible as proof.
We've already gone through this type of argument. Using the Bible to justify the existence of God is circular reasoning. The argument you're using looks something like this
P1. God exists
P2. God is infallible
P3. God wrote/inspired the Bible
C1. The bible is therefore infallible
P4. The bible offers proof that God exists
C2. Therefore God exists
You have to presuppose the existence and nature of God in order to prove God. The same argument you're using can be used to justify any religion with a text. So are you contending that Hinduism is just as true as Christianity? Their holy book says Hinduism is true....How can you argue against the Hinduism if you're going to let them use circular reasoning? If I told you the Big bang theory is true because of the Big Bang holy book rather than any substantial evidence, you would rightfully laugh at my argument. For that matter, if I told you the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, because "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" says so; wouldn't you simply dismiss that argument as absurd?
In order to use the Bible as a source of evidence, you must first prove that God exists. Because if I challenge Premise 1 of the argument outlined above, you can't substantiate it without using the rest of the argument.
the good old bible tells me. too bad it's a lie made up by a bunch of crazy people having delusions together.
How do you know Adam and eve were the first humans and how do you know God guided it? You say that it's fact, show me your evidence. Otherwise it's not fact, it's an assertion.
Adam and Eve were the first humans. fact. must believe
evolution from apes guided by God made the first humans adam and eve. possible explanation. opinion not wrong or right.
You are absolutely right in saying we cannot disprove God. Mostly because we can't even agree on what God actually is. We can do however, is deem God as probably or not probable given the evidence provided.
We can also say that specific interpretation Gods are likely untrue. Take the Christian God for example. If evolution is true, then God did not create Adam and eve. If there is no Adam and eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, then there is no need for being saved. If there is no need being saved, there is no reason to believe in Jesus... That's why fundamental Christian apologists have to argue against evolution.
If you take a softer stance, then Christianity is still defensible. You can always claim that Adam and eve weren't literally the first humans, that it's just a story to make us aware that we naturally are capable of great evil and that we must distance ourselves from that. This is of course not a fundamentalist reading, but is easier to defend.
You cannot prove or disprove of God's existence.. just faith proves his existence.
I don't know what you're talking about with scientists not reading absolute 0, we have actually been able to cool particles to below absolute 0. What makes you think that it's impossible for us to discover abiogenesis? Is it simply because it goes against your religion, or do you have some sort of evidence that shows abiogenesis is impossible?
We don't know where the energy for the big bang came from. We don't really know anything before T=0. However, that's just another God of the gaps argument. You're squeezing God into the gaps of scientific knowledge, hoping we won't discover the gap. And just because we don't know something, doesn?t mean that God is the only answer to the gap.
the fact that we are getting closer all the time is significant. you can say we will never get there all you want. the Pope told Galileo that he would never prove the earth revolved around the sun. many popes told scientists they would never prove evolution. both of those are now proven. (yes I know you don't believe it) you being a nay sayer doesn't mean anything. science gets closer every day and all signs point to being proven sooner rather than later.
if everything was created by an explosion (big bang ) where did the energy for it came from?
you have gotten close to life from nothing and life from nonlife, but you will never reach it. scientists have gotten close to absolute zero, but will never reach it. same thing. life from non life will not happen.
What exactly is perfect about the universe? And how is a ratio of grass significant? The universe is a cold, dark, inhospitable place flinging rocks at us that can destroy the earth.... Out of the countless of stars we happen to be the perfect distance from the sun. Wouldn't it be a lot stranger if we weren't the right distance from the sun and still existed? This isn't proof for God, it's exactly what you would expect if the universe is natural.
how every thing is just perfect? the size of earth, the ratio of gasses, the earth is located at a perfect distance from sun, how the whole universe follows its laws etc. it doesnt seems like it was created by a mistake..
1. Abiogensis: Life coming from non-life is possible.
-- We've made some significant strides in the last few decades, which makes abiogensis extremely plausible. We've already created synthetic life, we've discovered some of the building blocks of DNA in meteorites, we've made some of the other organic chemicals necessary for life through completely natural processes. We still have to figure out how we get nucleic acids to bond and form DNA. We have, however made some breakthroughs on this font as well. Some of the newer research suggests that the first genetic codon may have been RNA instead of DNA. This means many of the error thresholds are significantly lower and also the size restraints are significantly lessened. We've already made plenty of growing and reproducing cells through completely natural processes.
2. Something from nothing: I believe this is very possible, and I think we're actually close to proving this one fairly definitively.
-- there are a couple of reasons that I believe this is a very likely scenario. First is the confirmation that we have a 0 energy universe. If had anything but a 0 energy universe, the coming of something out of nothing would not be possible. Second is the discovery of the Higgs boson. It confirmed that quantum particles can pop into and out of existence from nothing. With the search for anti matter in full swing now, we'll soon have another piece of the puzzle may well be proven soon. We need a unifying theory of gravity still, but with our knowledge of quantum physics becoming more and more extensive, it doesn't look too far away. The signs seem to be pointing towards a universe coming from nothing from a scientific stand point.
Natraul means, this means there must have been some sort of nature to make things. tell me is this natraul
1. life coming from non life
2. something coming from nothing
yes or no answer please.
Science tells us that the universe could have come into existence by purely natural means. If you read the arguments below, you will see that your argument of the "necessary creator" has already been addressed.
Long story short, the argument you're using rests on a logical fallacy called "argument from incredulity". Basically you are asserting God exists because you refuse to believe the possibility that natural processes could have created the universe and life.
God do exist and your existence is the great example. In this world we had seen that for something to exist there must be a creator and the creator of this world is God.
I think that Owenpaul thinks he can just take God for granted
and one more thing: "I don't know" doesn't mean you're right.
If the Bible is proof that the Christian God exists, then the Koran is proof that the Islamic version of God exists, and the Vedas is proof that the Hindu faith is true. Are you sure you want to use that sort of reasoning?
its in the bible,bible is the proof....as you saying god is not exist it's like you saying that god didn't make everything around us...did you know who create us..who are we?....what the destiny we are born?...
The main problem with your "proofs" are that they all rely on arguments rather than evidence. Most of these arguments have already been named, been classified, and been dismissed based on logical errors. There are a few descent arguments for God but they run into problems later on. Chromosomal Adam and Chromosomal Eve for example are evidence based arguments (you should look those up for future debates on the subject, you can actually spin them into really interesting arguments).
I totally accept the possibility God. I just don't believe it is probable or even likely given the lack of evidence. The only case that I can make is that it is unlikely that God exists given the evidence. You have confirmed that there is no evidence for God, only arguments for God which are largely based on logical fallacies. In order to make an arguments for the likelihood of God you would have to present independent evidence for God which contradicts science.
can't continue arguing with you, you seem smart, yet unwilling to accept the possibility of God.
ignore all my proofs I've given you.
As I said, there is no proof against it, hence the law still being around. We haven't been able to recreate abiogensis in the lab as of yet, however, that is far from being able to say that we are unable to recreate it. Unless you count the creation of synthetic life as abiogenesis. We used to think the higgs boson and higgs field existed; we didn't have any proof for over 50 years, and now we confirmed it.....It's not illogical to believe we will eventually figure out abiogenesis...
Again, you are making a God of the gaps argument. You are simply squeezing God into the gaps of science. You don't have proof for God; your implying that because x hasn't been proven you can attribute x to God. This type of argument is also called a "divine fallacy", a special case of the "ad Hoc fallacy" and the "argument from incredulity fallacy". There is a reason logicians worked through logical fallacies and it's because the reasoning that goes into these types of arguments is logically flawed.
can you dismiss a law without duper hard proof? you have no proof of it happening. it is a LAW . a law cannot be changed because you think it may have happened.
God goes against no science right now, and as of this moment he goes with science
The "law of Biogenesis" was proposed by Louis Pasteur in the mid 1800's....Now, it is important to note that the competing theory of the time was spontaneous creation and thus Pasteur's theory was the more logical. The scientific community has since dismissed the law as largely a relic of the past (especially considering that the theory of evolution directly competes with the "law of Biogenesis"). Science changes all the time with the discovery of new knowledge. This shouldn't come as a surprise at all and is the reason why scientific inquiry is the best way to acquire knowledge. It corrects it's own mistakes.
The claim that life has never been observed to have come from nothing is true and it is the sole reason that the "law of Biogenesis" is still in the picture. However, simply because it hasn't yet been observed doesn't mean that it hasn't or can't happen. Research into Abiogenesis is progressing at a furious pace.
The argument you're basically making is a "God of the gaps" argument. You're saying that because science hasn't proven principle x to be definitively true that this is prove positive for God. This means that if/when science does prove abiogenesis your argument will be null and void.
Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis.
it's a law. you are arguing that something that has never been observed happened. then you accuse me of believing in God that you have never observed. we never saw it happen, we have seen the opposite happen, but you claim it happened. do u have common sence?
Nothing has always been existing, even if you want it to have been
There is no law that states, life can't come from non-life. That is an extension of the ex nihilo nihil fit argument you used earlier. It is not a scientific argument, but a philosophical argument.
Alex; the Law you're referring to is the First Law of Thermodynamics. The first law states that: "the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed". You are obviously not very well versed on the subject because if you were, you would know that the Laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems. The universe at T=0 could not have been a closed system, therefore at T=0 the laws of Thermodynamics did not apply.
As pajrc1234 has pointed out, your argument about God is a fallacy called special pleading.
you are changing your own theory that nothing can't make something which is flawed anyway. Though you were also modifying the fact that something has always been existing
quantum physics I can't understand too well. there is a law called life can't come from non life correct?
also what science am I changing to make an acception to God?
Thecries; you're neglecting the possibility of natural events being responsible for our existence. Basically what you're saying is that you can't imagine God not having created us, therefore God must exist...It's an extremely weak argument. In order make the argument work you'd have to prove that natural events COULDN'T have been responsible for the existence of the universe.
Visions are not proof. If I told you I had a vision of the flying spaghetti monster would that be proof positive of it? Hallucinations are real to those that experience them. There are many people who swear that they have been abducted.....does that make alien abductions fact?
The logic arguments you're using are also flawed.
You are using a different version of an argument from incredulity than @thecries. You are essentially saying "I can't imagine that the universe can come from nothing, therefore it must have come from something, and that something has to be God."
Your second argument, is an argument called "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit" meaning "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes.". It is not a scientific argument. It stems from the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides. It actually has zero basis in modern science.
Science actually disagrees with that argument. We have actually proven that something can indeed come out of nothing. I have a few sources for you below to look at what science actually says on the subject. We have discovered that the universe is actually a "zero-energy" universe. This is completely compatible with it coming from nothing. The physics are very complicated and would take a long time to explain. If you want to debate this point further, I'd suggest doing a lot of reading because most of what I will have to say on the subject will go over your head if you don't have a solid understanding of quantum physics. If you don't have that understanding, you're going to have a really hard time understanding the coming arguments.
Alex, you're just making special exceptions to keep your beliefs intact. Your fallacy is called special pleading. Look it up.
our science always has an uncertainty in measurement on a scale as big as reality. We cannot measure how it was made. Science always applies, but cannot always be measured
We do not know that the universe is a closed system. If you open an empty box and stuff is pushed in that is what probably happened
I thought there was a LAW of science that said something can't come from nothing, and life can't come from non life.
a LAW of science is something we know for sure. unless your saying science us wrong, or your unsure science is right.
God did not come from nothing because he did not come. he was not created by something because he was not created. God is ETERNAL. he is the only eternal being or thing ever. he has no beginning nor end. because he was not created the science law does not apply, because the law only applies to created things.
Well if something ACTUALLY can't come out of nothing which we can't know for sure, then what are the chances god are what created this. Also God is something. What created him
your right, we cannot comprehend it fully, but science and logic that we can comprehend tells us something cannot come from nothing, unless science was going against science when things were made, which is impossible.
God actually agrees with the something cannot come from nothing law.
in this case God agrees with science, while atheist, who claim to only follow science disagree with it or say the weak argument "I don't know"
But God came from nothing. And the Big Bang is supported with evidence. I've told you multiple times what that evidence is, so repeating is redundant. Also, because God is a perfect being, he would not need anything and therefore not create anything (because that would mean he needed or wanted something). And "I don't know" doesn't mean you're right. It just means that it's something we don't know, and we can leave it there until we do know the explanation. However, that theory must be supported by evidence other than the thing it's intended to explain because something else may have caused it. And visions of things don't count, because those can be caused by disorders, imagination, etc.
Our brains are so tiny that we cannot comprehend HOW there has always been something or HOW there can be something made from nothing. also visions come from sources that lie or don't know for sure
I'm still wondering how everything came about... something had to create us but what or who
ok, forget the bible. things outside the bible: people have has visions of mary, God, the immaculate conception doctrine, our Lady of Guatalupea,.
also you can use logic to believe God exists. tell me what is more logical
1. you came from nothing, or this big bang particle cane from nothing
2. something made us, because according science that atheists love so much something cannot come from nothing.
something-nothing - not logical, not possible
something- something else logical, and possible.
Alex; using the Bible as proof is a fallacy known as "circulus in probando" or fallacy of circular reasoning.
Basically what you're saying is God is real because the Bible says so and the Bible is true because God says so. You have to provide independent proof that God exists. Otherwise you have to concede that every religion in the world is true because their text says so. This would mean that Islam is true because the Koran says so, Judaism is true because the Tora says so, Christianity is true because the Bible says so, Hindu is true because the Vedas says so, etc... not only would all the religions of the world be true, but they would have equal evidence for them. So using the Bible as evidence is self defeating.
see that last sentence ruined your whole argument. "in the Bible" is critical. it was written long after the events it describes. it was heavily edited to suit the church. and it was written and edited by people who stood to gain in money and power from people believing what they say. it is not a reliable source.
Jesus worked miracles. he walked on water, healed people, rose from the dead. rose other people from the dead. The Holy Spirit let peter speak in different lauguages at the same time. God killed and healed people though peter. The bones of Elisha rose a guy from the dead.... lots of examples of extraordinary, supernatural proof in the bible.
As Carl Sagan would say: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." please enlighten us as to how you could prove this extraordinary claim.