The debate "God is real" was started by
January 20, 2015, 4:29 pm.
129 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 64 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Intellect posted 2 arguments, DavidStuff777 posted 25 arguments, doostyne posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
JonL posted 5 arguments, Sosocratese posted 21 arguments, Superr1fifty posted 2 arguments, Bailz posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
DavidStuff777, wmd, Wantonjon, CodeGonzalez, SpiritofDeath, kennediharris515, Aakanksha, Intellect, Kirito, Vigilante, daisy, theguy, Razzakel, mansi, Sidharth, ty, doostyne, simplykk, akshay58165, kingrudi, ayleine, denmob, champ, Scottie, Vikram, Hollister_boy, Carlitosj41, jessicaS02, LeaderOfDiscussion, Conquistador0, username_gracie, invincible_01, taigaaisaka, BabyT14, quinnislegit22, Mauronesimo, sabrina, MetalClaw99, wilsoergel76, hollieg and 89 visitors agree.
mdavis1309, amwright, JonL, Redapples, Loui, Mitch, Unfathomable, Ornes, strawberryfieldsforever, Mriduljain, Sosocratese, DeWthaDeW, sickboyblonde, andy, parbelsaha, slash606, I_Voyager, DeathsDespair15, Mr_Anonymous, Sasha777, ferri, bitman, Hayleenikkole, darlingelysian, shinywhale, Superr1fifty, Bailz, stevenee and 36 visitors disagree.
IT DOESN'T MATTER, BUDDHA,THAT HINDU GOD WITH MANY HANDS, ALL, WHAT EVER.
You can't really know is there a god or not...
Let's talk dating techniques
Can you disprove all of these?
Amino acid racemization
Used to date fossils up to a several million years old
I'm guessing you'll try and use the fact that we use fossils to date these events, but you'll have disprove the amino acid method before you can dismiss this one since it's based on that method
Great barrier reef is believed to be about 25 million years old...and the coral structures on the reef are about at least 600,000 years old
The oldest trees on earth make a global flood impossible... They couldn't still be alive. Some estimates push tree ring chronology back 11,700 years... Though that number may be a bit extreme. However, the global flood couldn't have happened according to tree rings
Takes time, we know that, no way that the earth could be only 6000 years old if we look at erosion.
Iron manganese nodule growth
Length of prehistoric days
There is evidence (from corals growth) that show the last time we had a 400 day year with 22 hour days was about 370 million years ago
Take at least 1 million years to form
Nitrogen impurities in natural diamonds
The permafrost in Alaska would have taken around 225,000 years to reach its current depth
Mineral replacement process takes millions of years
Seabed plankton layering
Grow an average of 4 inches per 1,000 years....
Measures crystalline minerals in lava and ceramics, so we can measure when man-made ceramics were made and date them that way. It can date objects up to 230,000 years old. The accepted range for accurate dating is for objects between 300-10,000 years old... This is how we know Egyptians along with other civilizations were around during the flood as well.
Those are just a few.... Have at it
Now on to my magic complaints
Again, by magic I simply mean supernatural events attributed to God. You sure seem to need a lot of magic to explain criticisms of the Bible...for the sake of debate, it's hard to accept it as an explanation for every single problem that you can't overcome
Magic so far
Made the earth look old but be new
Made the atmosphere breathable in the death zone
Gave us enough genetic variability to restart every species on earth
Gave us new species right after the flood
I'm gonna start with the population problem since I don't feel like you answered that portion all the way. While you sort of addressed the Egyptians.... Again, I don't know why you don't like radiocarbon dating when it's been shown to be pretty accurate (for ages less than about 50,000 years) but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.
You still haven't addressed the Chinese... They had documented populations during the time of the flood. Those documents are strictly factual, containing no myths and can be cross referenced to the dates of the solar Eclipses calculated by European astronomers, so there is no ambiguity in the dating
Ocean life problem
Your problem here remain the reefs. We know how long they take to grow. We have measured it. By all estimates there is no possible way for the reefs to have grown back from the time of the biblical flood to today. The reefs would have died, even if we go by your new theory of only 400 foot rise. They couldn't have survived such a drastic change. Nor could they have grown back on the time frame the Bible prescribes.
The flood elevation.
If sea levels had rose 400 feet, then most of Europe, most of the Americas, most of Asia, most of Africa, most of the Middle East, most of Australia, and even some of the Pacific Islands wouldn't have been under water.... Why would we need an Ark? And why wouldn't he anchor close to the highest landmass since most rise well over 400 feet above sea level?
Your explanation of breathing problem is really bad. So you're saying that "magic" kept them alive in the death zone (if the oceans covered all of the earth like the Bible says).... That's a really poor argument. I'll get into this a bit later.
Mutations can't account for the genetic variability. Again, you need a population of at least 50 (that's the most conservative number I could find) to keep genetic diversity large enough to start a population. Otherwise you end up with too many genetic defects from inbreeding to restart a population. Again, mutations can't account for inbreeding. And again, you invoke magic to solve the problem....
So, what species didn't exist in Biblical times that exist now? I don't know of any theory that could account for such a large and fast method of speciation as you're hinting at... Must be magic again.
@ Sosocratese "Those are not historical evidence, there is no historical evidence that suggest any civilization was still living during the time of the flood, when traditional Egyptian chronology is used to evaluate archaeological findings, landmark events such as the mass exodus of Hebrew, people from Egypt appear to have left no evidence." "Instead of simply assuming the accuracy of traditional Egyptian chronology and modifying the Bible, people should carefully examine traditional chronology to see if it is as reliable as some claim it to be." "Isaiah warned against going down to Egypt for help (Isaiah 31:1)." "This phrase has come to symbolize a warning not to go to the world for truth." " A lot of Historians examine fragmentary clues and fill in the gaps based on their presuppositions." "Those presuppositions may be Biblical or traditional." "Accepting traditional Egyptian chronology necessitates rejection of Biblical truth." "Accepting Biblical chronology allows a reconstruction of ancient chronology on a foundation of truth." "Ptolomy II commissioned a priest named Manetho to compile a history of Egypt." "Traditional Egyptian chronology bases its outlines of Egyptian dynasties on Manetho's history." "However, Manetho's writings are unsuitable for establishing a reliable Egyptian chronology because Manetho's history was not ever intended to be a chronological account of Egyptian history and is inconsistent with contemporary Egyptian sources." "Viewing the evidence from a Biblical framework makes the histories of Egypt, others and the Old Testament fit together."
@ Sosocratese "I don't need to prove that "Powers" exist to dismiss Scientific Evidence because there is none that suggests it didn't happen while there is to suggest it did happen." "Probably God didn't create the Earth old, he probably just started experimenting with it while it was already old." "The Bible does mention Dinosaurs, it speaks of one in Job 40:15-24." "My numbers do address the true number of species, remember a lot of the species that live now did not live back then." "God told Noah to gather all foods that could be eaten and take it with him for him-self, his family and the animals."
"A lot of aquatic life did die and are instinct, they could still have survived and the reefs as well because of God."
"I'm sure the waters weren't that high, they would have probably been 400 feet above sea level, even if they were that high they are still with God."
"There could be enough genetic diversity to start a population through God and mutation."
There is also the Minoan civilization. Based on the island of Crete. They grew quickly and were highly advanced by 2500 bc. They had an alphabet, bronze tools, pottery, textiles, etc.... It continued to grow and was the center of trade and culture until 1400 BC. When it was destroyed by a eruption of Mt. Thera. There is no evidence of a flood destroying this culture or their infrastructure at any point in their history.
The population problem
Egyptian civilization is probably familiar to most of us. Egypt?s dynastic history started with the uniting of Upper and Lower Egypt by King Menes, around 3100 BCE. The Egyptian period known as the ?Old Kingdom? lasted from 2800 to 2175 BCE. During this time many of the pyramids were built. There is no record, written or archaeological, for a monster flood destroying and completely interrupting this countries infrastructure or it?s monuments such as the Sphinx, the Step Pyramid, or the Great Pyramids, which were built before ?The Flood?
China has a reasonably accurate history starting around 3000 BCE. According to texts from a Chinese book called ?Shu King? and verified by archaeological records, China was undergoing a prosperous period around 2400 to 2200 BCE during the early Yaou Dynasty. They have no record of a cataclysmic flood interrupting their whole civilization and destroying the infrastructure of the country.
The Indus valley civilization has a well-known history dating back to perhaps 3100 BCE. By 2500 BCE there were two major cities, Mohendaro (or Mohenjo-Daro) and Harrapa, which rivaled Egypt and Mesopotamia in population and technologies. This great Civilization also encompassed maybe 100 smaller cities, towns, and villages, and didn?t fall until about 1500 BCE. They have no record of a worldwide civilization-destroying flood
How do you account for those populations?
By magic I mean supernatural events attributed to God. I just don't know how else to describe it. In order to use "magic" to dismiss scientific evidence like modern dating methods, of which there are way more than just carbon dating of course, you would have to prove that it I fact happened, otherwise you don't have any evidence with which to challenge the notion that these methods are flawed because of supernatural events. It's a nice hypothetical, but it's not enough to dismiss scientific evidence that collaborated by multiple methods besides those you question. Also why would God create the earth so it would appear old? Why would he create already degraded material? Why do we have fossils of dinosaurs layered in with old sentiments we can date, with volcanic matter we can date, etc... (which there is no mention off on the Bible.... You'd think giant reptiles walking the earth would be a pretty big deal)
The Ark volume
There are 7.77 million species of animal on earth, with nearly 6.65 million living on land...your numbers don't address the true number of species.
The food problem
Many of the species on board require fresh food... Fresh meat, live food (snakes won't eat dead animals for example) how did they manage to keep live food and live plants (aphids can't eat wilted leafs. Some animals also need special diets.... How did Noah gather those restricted diets when it means journey's to places not yet discovered?
The aquatic life problem
Again most aquatic life would be extinct as salinity of the ocean would have changed. It also took the great reefs of the world hundreds of thousands of years to grow... How could they all have died, then came back from extinction to reform?
The oxygen problem
Water would have had to rise above everest.... How do you propose they would have dealt with the lack of oxygen and cold... Those that didn't freeze to death surely would suffocate. You can't survive above the death zone for more than a few days, let alone for months....
The genetic diversity problem
You need at least 50 individuals to restart a population... There isn't enough genetic variability I two breeding pairs to restart a population.
How to you resolve that problem?
@ Sosocratese "Most aquatic life didn't survive since 95% of fossils are marine creatures." "The Bible indicates that as the Flood waters receded, plants had already started regrowing, evidenced by the dove that returned with an olive leaf (Genesis 8:10-11). "This happened at approximately Day 278 of the Flood event; 128 days after the Ark came to rest on one of the mountains of Ararat; giving plenty of time for plants to start taking root and regrow." "Also, even after 140 days of soaking, the seeds of wild flowering plant types are still viable enough to germinate." "Another way plants would have survived is that they were taken onto the Ark as food for Noah, his family, and the animals (Genesis 6:21)." "Some of these plants could have been cereal plants that are unable to survive a long time immersed in water." "Some of these were replanted by Noah and his family after the Flood since we are specifically told he planted a vineyard (Genesis 9:20)." "After leaving the Ark any seeds the animals ingested during their final days on the Ark could have passed through and then left on the ground in the animals' excrement."
@ Sosocratese "Proving magic isn't really necessary to dismiss the other data since God doesn't use magic." "Also, actually as it says in Genesis God created the Heavens first then the Earth." "Also, may you please tell me the evidence that people were alive during the time of The Great Flood." " And The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15), which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet." "To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep." "If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars." "Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space." "If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars." This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah's family and 'range' for the animals." "However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway."
"Tabulating the total volume is fair enough, since this shows that there would be plenty of room on the Ark for the animals with plenty left over for food, range etc." "It would be possible to stack cages, with food on top or nearby (to minimize the amount of food carrying the humans had to do), to fill up more of the Ark space, while still allowing plenty of room for gaps for air circulation." "We are discussing an emergency situation, not necessarily luxury accommodation." "Although there is plenty of room for exercise, skeptics have overstated animals' needs for exercise anyway."
"Even if we don't allow stacking one cage on top of another to save floor space, there would be no problem. Woodmorappe shows from standard recommended floor space requirements for animals that all of them together would have needed less than half the available floor space of the Ark's three decks." "This arrangement allows for the maximum amount of food and water storage on top of the cages close to the animals."
The growth rate argument
I've heard this one before, and at first it sounds like a great argument, however, what this explanation fails to account for is negative growth years. The plague, for example, killed nearly a quarter of the world's population.... Most data shows human populations holding steady as carrying capacity of the environment allowed. New advances in agriculture allowed for population explosions. Also you fail to account for populations outside of those growth rates prior to the flood....
How would you account for those numbers?
The mitochondrial eve and Adam
This data was not determined by geological or carbon dating methods. It was determined by dna analysis. We were able to work backwards through sequencing and analyzing mutation rates etc... That's how we got there, so even if the old look argument somehow stands it wouldn't be enough to account for mutation rates. Furthermore, if the flood would have happened, chromosomal Adam would have been traced to 2340 something BC, not 58,000 BC or earlier.
You are using this evidence to try and further your claim but simply ignore the portion of the evidence that contradicts it. When you bring up dna Adam and Eve, you have to accept the methods by which we extrapolated that information, namely regressive mutation rate analysis. It's how we found out about chromosomal Adam and Eve in the first place. Why is the lineage portion accepted and the time frame dismissed? The two are one and the same research......
Your old look new Earth argument
Again it assumes the existence of God to negate scientific data, this means you have to first show that "magic" exists since that's what is required to dismiss the other data. It's a great philosophical point, but there is no evidence to support that claim. Especially considering the fact that you stated earlier that you believe the universe to be old. In Genesis, God created the stars and the moon after the earth, so you would have to figure out a way to square that.
The flood argument.
Again you are ignoring documented evidence of populations in the hundreds of thousands during the time of the flood. The Chinese kept meticulous records during this time. We also have evidence of people in the Americas, Africa, and Australia during this time.
I'm sure you've heard the questions I'm about to ask, so I'll keep them condensed. How in the world would Noah have been able to carry all those animals on that tiny little boat? Let alone food water etc... How would they have survived since sea levels must have rose above everest.... Oxygen, cold, etc... How would they have restarted the populations of all these animals when there would have been no vegetation to eat? Genetic diversity is also an issue. It takes at least 50 individuals to have enough genetic diversity to start a population.... How did all the aquatic life survive? Sun light would not have reached the great reefs of the world.
@ Sosocratese "I actually downloaded this app the other day as well, I'd figured I download it since I Loves debates and Stuff."
@ Sosocratese "This represents a population growth rate of 3.7% per year, or a doubling time of about 19 years." "If there were 300 million people in the world at the time of Christ's Resurrection, this requires a population growth rate of only 0.75% since the Flood, or a doubling time of 92 years?much less than the documented population growth rate in the years following the Flood."
"The Jews are descendants of Jacob (also called Israel)." "The number of Jews in the world in 1930, before the Nazi Holocaust, was estimated at 18 million." "This represents a doubling in population, on average, every 156 years, or 0.44% growth per year since Jacob." 'Since the Flood, the world population has doubled every 155 years, or grown at an average of 0.45% per year." "There is agreement between the growth rates for the two populations."
@ Sosocratese "The new Earth old look is an argument of mine and it's a good one, it gives a logical explanation of why some scientists might think Earth is very old and why the thoughts of some scientists about the origin dates of Mitochondrial Eve and Chromosomal Adam are wrong."
"Noah's Arc and The Populations."
"When you do the math, it confirms the Biblical truth that everyone on Earth today is a descendant of Noah's sons and daughters-in-law." "Not only that, but if people have been here for much longer, and there was no global Flood of Noah's day, there should be a lot more people than there are or there should be a lot more human remains."
"Many people have problems understanding growth rates of Stuff, when the population doubles from 16 to 32, it doesn't seem like much, but when it doubles from three billion to six billion it seems like a lot more." "But, it is exactly the same rate of growth." "Given enough generations the number of people being added with each generation becomes astronomical." "It is relatively easy to calculate the growth rate needed to get today's population from Noah's three sons and their wives, after the Flood." "With the Flood at about 4,500 years ago, it needs less than 0.5% per year growth, that's not very much." "Of course, population growth has not been constant." "There is reasonably good evidence that growth has been slow at times." "However, data from the Bible (Genesis 10,11) shows that the population grew quite quickly in the years immediately after the Flood." "Shem had five sons, Ham had four and Japheth had seven." "If we assume that they had the same number of daughters, then they averaged 10.7 children per couple." "In the next generation, Shem had 14 grandsons, Ham, 28 and Japheth, 23, or 130 children in total." "That is an average of 8.1 per couple." "These figures are consisent with God?s command to 'be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth' (Genesis 9:1)."
"Let us take the average of all births in the first two post-Flood generations as 8.53 children per couple." "The average age at which the first son was born in the seven post-Flood generations in Shem's line ranged from 35 to 29 years (Genesis 11:10-24), with an average of 31 years, so a generation time of 40 years is reasonable." "Hence, just four generations after the Flood would see a total population of over 3,000 people (remembering that the longevity of people was such that Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, etc., were still alive at that time)."
I actually just downloaded this app the other day. A friend of mine turned me on to it... Spent way too many hours in philosophy classes he figured I'd get a kick out of it.. He was right. Talked to a lot of Christian apologists in person, but this is cool.
You're not doing so bad either. It's usually a lot easier to get someone to go for the "because God said so" equivalent. You made a mistake in your new Earth old look argument (if that was supposed to be an argument...may have just been opinion) if it's an argument, it's a really bad one. God created the earth, therefore the earth looks old but is new, therefore the old testament is right, therefore the Christian God exists.... It's fine if you believe that, but that's a bad argument.
Mitochondrial eve argument.
I assumed you were gonna go for this one. I was hoping for a new one.... Every once in a while you guys change it up. Always fun.
Mitochondrial eve only points to one ancestral lineage not a single person. Also mitochondrial eve is thought to have lived around 170,000-200,000 years ago. that doesn't fit within the new Earth time frame.
Basically the same as eve, it points to a lineage not a single person. Chromosomal Adam is thought to have lived no less than 60,000 and as long as 340,000 years...the newer papers are leaning towards the 340,000, but still not good enough to be sure in my opinion. In either case, the dates of Chromosomal Adam and Eve don't line up. Also it certainly doesn't add up with the concept of Noah's arc at all. That would have but Chromosomal Adam at around 2200-2600 BC.
That's a rather nice way of getting around the initial population problem. I wanted to dismiss it because it assumes God, but in this case it kinda works. Although I'm not so sure mathematical models overestimated those numbers. There is no evidence that I know of that makes a strong case for that criticism.
However, the real problem is with the arc story. If you believe in the new world or even the 4000 BC human creation story, and believe in the flood, it would have occurred around 2400 BC....standard date is around 2348 I believe... Jesuit priest found records in China in the 1960s which chronicled the population of China back to its first emperor back to 2952....the population numbers were definitely not consistent with the flood....
@ Sosocratese "You're a very good debater, I haven't really met many."
@ Sosocratese "Additionally, scientists who claim that humanity came from thousands of individuals and not two assume that Adam and Eve were genetically identical." "Yet, there is no hint of that idea in Scripture." "When Eve is created, God takes material from Adam?s side and rebuilds it." "Part of this process could have involved the introduction of genetic differences into Eve?s genome that made Adam and Eve genetically heterogeneous."
@ Sosocratese "It would not have been impossible for us to have different mitochondrial DNA because numerous studies indicate that humanity originated at a single location (East Africa)?close to where some Bible scholars think the Garden of Eden was located and from a small population of individuals." "Moreover, analysis of mitochondrial DNA indicates that humanity traces back to a single ancestral sequence that could be interpreted as a single woman." "Likewise, characterization of Y-chromosomal DNA indicates that all men trace their origin back to a single ancestral sequence that could be interpreted as a single man." "These astounding results harmonize with a traditional reading of the biblical account of human origins, and suggest that Adam and Eve likely existed as real persons who gave rise to all of humanity."
"A number of studies do indeed indicate that humans stem from a small population, on the
order of a few hundred to a few thousand." "Scientists of the traditional reading of the biblical account of human origins uncritically accept these results." They argue that the data indicate humanity experienced a genetic bottleneck, with the population collapsing to a relatively small number of individuals." Consequently humanity arose from the thousands of survivors, not a primeval pair." "They also point to other methods to model the size of the ancestral population that do not depend on mutations, but on other types of processes to generate genetic diversity." "Studies employing these techniques also seem to indicate that humanity arose from population sizes on the order of a few thousand individuals."
"Even though population estimates reveal that humanity originated from several hundred to several thousand individuals based on mathematical models, it could well be the case that these models overestimate the original numbers for the first humans." "It is important to note that an origin of humanity from a small population is consistent with the existence of a historical Adam and Eve who gave rise to all of humanity." "After their creation the biblical text teaches that they procreated having many sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4)." "Given the limitations of the methods, it could be that the population estimates are reporting on the population structure of humans some time after their creation, when the population would have been small, on the order of a few thousand."
@ Sosocratese "I don't take every part of The Bible literally, also I'm starting to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old because the "apparent" age of the Earth is primarily derived from two dating techniques: radiometric dating and the geologic timescale. Scientists who advocate the younger age of about 6000 years insist that radiometric dating is flawed in that it is founded upon a series of faulty assumptions, while the geologic timescale is flawed in that it employs circular reasoning. Young-earth advocates present positive evidence for a young age for the earth in place of the old-earth evidences which they debunk. Young-earth scientists acknowledge that they are in the minority today but insist that their ranks will swell over time as more and more scientists reexamine the evidence and take a closer look at the currently accepted old-earth paradigm.
Those who hold to billions of years trust that methods such as radiometric dating are reliable and that nothing has occurred in history that may have disrupted the normal decay of radio-isotopes. Those who hold to 6000 years trust that the Bible is true and that other factors explain the ?apparent? age of the earth, such as the global flood, or God?s creating the Universe in a state that ?appears? to give it a very long age. As an example, God created Adam and Eve as fully-grown adult human beings. If a doctor had examined Adam and Eve on the day of their creation, the doctor would have estimated their age at 20 years (or whatever age they appeared to be) when, in fact, Adam and Eve were less than one day old."
Also, if you believe in the notion of Adam and Eve, how do you explain mitochondrial dna variability? It would be impossible for us to have different mitochondrial DNA had we all come from one "mother" so to speak.
Then we are at an unfortunate Junction of this argument. If you don't believe in carbon dating and that humanity was around for well over 6000 years, then it's impossible for us to get a correct time line. It's impossible for me to argue that latrines are 8000 years old and ship building has been around for 10,000 years if you won't accept the evidence of humanities existence before 4000 BC.
The reason for the 6000 year old earth question is because of the 7 day thing, humanity and the earth are about the same age if you take the Bible literally.
There are still some things we can debate. Namely the population question and the genetic diversity paradox that the flood bottleneck presents. I'll be interested to see how you address those.
@ Sosocratese "Lol again I will point out that it was Divine Knowledge since some of the first text of The Bible were written in the 2nd century that's 200 bc of the 1st millennium long before these concepts were brought up at all besides the people God had chosen." "I believe the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old and you have false information that assumes The Bible says the Earth is 6,000 years old." "I also, believe that humanity is 6,000 years old."
The question of why is irrelevant. It serves no purpose. Just because we can conceptualize the question doesn't mean it has purpose. It's also a question that doesn't need to be answered in order to further the question of God's existence.
The easy answer is that the only purpose we have is the purpose we create for ourselves. It's a lazy answer, but it's kind of a lazy question.
How, when, where are more relevant questions to the beginning of human kind. The question why implies purpose. Just because we want a purpose doesn't mean we have one. You would have to prove that we either have a purpose or that our existence requires a purpose for this to be a valid question.
We are immortal beings from our hearts to our minds.
What do I mean by this?
Assume for a minute with me.
Assume there is no God. Assume we are only sacks of meat. Assume with me that when the moment comes, you will just simply close your eyes, your mind will shut off, and your heart will thump its final beat. You will not see, you will not feel, you will not think a single thought ever again. Scary thought, right?
We have no substantial evidence that any other being on this planet has this fear.
The fear I am referring to, is 'the fear of nothing.'
It is my opinion that this 'fear of nothing' is the single most definitive proof that a creator does exist.
Continue the assumption with me...
It is widely accepted that human kind is aware of their impending death.
The human being knows, and must accept this reality. We must accept the reality that we are mortal beings.
However, for some reason we decline, time and time again to draw the line here.
Human beings seem to have a deep, innate feeling of purpose, beyond our mortal eye.
So we form an explanation.
Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity.
We feed this deep desire for purpose, for meaning.
We have seen the cycle of life on Earth many times over. We have seen the birth, and the death of many ages.
We live in a mortal word, and mortal life is all that we have ever observed.
Naturally speaking, we should not have never formed the concept of immortality. This has NEVER been an observed reality for life on this planet. EVER.
My question is why?
If all we have ever known is a cycle beginning with life, and ending with death; why would we believe anything other than this?
If we were to really close our eyes, and were nothing; why would this be worrisome to us?
I believe that 'the fear of nothing' is the single most definitive proof that a creator does exist; because naturally speaking, we would have absolutely no reason to try and conceptualize the idea of nothing.
If 'nothing' was a reality, then by nature, 'nothing' would be our reality. We wouldn't even give it a second thought.
This is not the case though.
Tell me then; how can a mortal being be so immortal by nature?
Here is another link with responses to the eternal productions 101 claims.
Before we can continue, I have to ask you how old do you think the earth and the universe is? Do you subscribe to the old or new Earth theology. In other words, do you believe that the earth is about 6000 years old as the Bible says or 4.5 billion years?
Then, how old do you think humanity is? Science says about 200,000 years....
This is important, because it gives us a frame of reference for time. As I've said. Even though some of the texts in the old testament date back to 800 BC, many of the concepts you describe are much older than that. Again, antiseptics have been used since 3000 BC. That's over 2200 years before the first texts biblical texts appeared. Latrines were found I settlements as old as 6500 BC; that's over 5800 years before the Bible. That's why I'm saying it's recited knowledge, not divine knowledge.
Simply attributing knowledge to the Bible because it states that the universe was created is an absurd standard. If that's the standard, then most origin stories are correct as they describe some sort of beginning to the universe.
The truths you are describing are too vague to really be considered scientific truth. The vagueness you allow from the Bible would never be acceptable as any kind of standard. It's akin to saying nostradamus was right because there are some aspects of his predictions that could be considered accurate if you stretch the imagination.
You are also making the mistake of pre-supposing the truth of the Bible. The whole flood thing is probably the best example. There is no evidence that a flood of that magnitude ever happened. Also, how would you explain the genetic diversity we have if we had such a harsh bottle neck effect so recently? How could our population have exploded to the levels we see today if our population was so drastically reduced just a few thousand years ago... It's mathematical impossible.
I know you're using the list on the eternal productions website. All of these arguments have been argued again and again
Here is a list of the common responses to the inquiries that you are copy and pasting.
@ Sosocratese "Again I will point out that none of these concepts were brought up before the text of The Bible as some of the first text date back to the 2nd century so it is Divine Knowledge long before these concepts were brought up except by God." "The Biblical Earth notion is not debunked because Genesis 1:1 clearly says In the beginning God created the Heavens and The Earth not if he did it right before creating the first humans or how long it took him to create Earth." "Here is more Divine Knowledge."
"15. The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: ?In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)?Then God said, ?Let there be light (energy).? No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.
16. The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.
17. The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.
18. Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.
19. Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow ?in the cloud? as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets ? which act as a prism ? separating white light into its color spectrum.
20. Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be ?parted? and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago ? God declared this four millennia ago!"
The theory of evolution doesn't preclude the existence of God, but it is complete enough to give a strong, viable alternative to a supernatural cause of life. Now we have a valid, natural theory to the beginning of life with plenty of scientific evidence. In fact the evidence is so good that we have been using the theory to advance medicine at a never before seen rate.
This is absolutely in the best interest to the species. While it may put the individual in peril and may mean the demise of those that do sacrifice themselves for the greater good, it's not an affront to evolution at all since it actually promotes the survival of the species as a whole. You see animals protect their young all the time even in the face of certain death. It's about the survival of the species, not the individual.
The chicken or the egg dilemma
It's not a dilemma at all in evolution. The answer is that neither came first. There never was a first chicken or first egg. It's small incremental changes. It's more like getting old. You don't go to bed one day middle aged and the next day wake up as old, it's a process.
The protein/dna dilemma you describe is also a false dichotomy argument. The answer is simple, they came to be through the evolution of simpler self replicating organism, and thus there is no chicken or egg dilemma. Dr. Jack Szostak has a video on YouTube about this.
The earth dust argument
If evolution is true, you would expect this to be true as well. The only building blocks we have to work with are the ones that we have here on earth. It would be a more impressive argument if we contained elements not found on earth.
Conservation of mass energy argument
This again goes back to the primal mover argument. It's not true that all matter that ever will be already exists. Matter is popping into and out of existence all the time. Therefore energy is no longer limited, it may in fact be infinite.
Quantum mechanics, especially the discovery of the Higgs boson, has changed the way we look at the universe and matter on an atomic level. The laws of thermodynamics that you describe don't apply at the atomic scale. This means that the notion that matter and energy are finite resources aren't necessarily true on that level. That's why the discovery of the hicks boson was so huge. It unified quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. It's discovery let's us account for mass on a quantum level, that's why it was called the God particle.
@davidstuff777 I figured those were gonna be your responses. First let's address the primary mover or original cause argument really quick again. The reason I called it a flawed argument is because the premise it's based on (I. E. An original mover/cause is necessary) isn't necessarily true. Second, the conclusion that God must be said mover also doesn't necessarily follow the premise, hence it's a flawed argument in its very nature.
The age thing
All I wanted to point out here was that the age of the biblical earth and the cosmological earth don't match. According to scripture (if you do the math) mankind came into existence around 4000 BC. This would make the earth just over 6000 years old.... Carbon dating has obviously debunked that notion.
Let's clarify some time lines. The old testament, according to most scholars, came into its current format around 538-332 BC. Some texts do date back to about 800 BC.
This makes any claims of divine knowledge, like the ones you made earlier, a reiteration of knowledge other cultures already possessed. We took to the seas around 12,000 BC in little tree canoes. Ship building has been an integral part of humans ever since. So this kind of knowledge wasn't given to us by the Bible, it was simply recited by the Bible. This includes the claims about sanitation, etc...Since cultures had this knowledge long before the Bible.
Let's talk about your new claims since I think I've addressed the others.
Evolution is too slow to be observed in our short time on earth and it is too long of a process to have been observed in our written history. It's therefore a disingenuous take on evolution to require direct observation. The only true observation we have of evolution is in the microscopic world where bacteria and viruses evolve (I.e. The bubonic plague becoming airborne etc...) but macro level lifeforms are too complex to be observed in the short time frames we have to use as reference.
The fossil record, and now molecular biology, have given us a pretty complete record of a few species and thus a model for evolution. The horse is probably one of the best examples. If you want to challenge that point by arguing that the fossil record isn't complete, I'd again contend that this is a disingenuous argument because fossil records can never be complete (not every evolutionary step was fossilized). However, the theory of evolution has good enough evidence to be the likely factor of speciation.
@ Sosocratese "Actually The Bible wasn't written after the knowledge of any of these concepts were brought up by people that God had not chosen because some of the first text of The Bible were written in the 2nd century and the book of Deuteronomy about the 7th century and here are some more evidence."
"9. The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe ? namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.
10. Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin?s theory of the survival of the fittest.
11. Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.
12. Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.
13. Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements ? all of which are found in the earth.
14. The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis."
@ Sosocratese "There is no flaw in my argument, I wasn't trying to explain matter with the laws of thermodynamics even if I was, matter still just might be condensed energy and because of who I am, I'm asking for reliable information that you can provide about events not necessarily needing a cause." "An initial mover is needed for the creation of a universe I'm not saying it has to be in fact a god." "The text is in line with how I know the universe came into existence." "Also what exactly are you getting at with the age, as we do have B.C and A.D, may you please provide more details on that."
@davidstuff777 I wanted to edit one of my posts, but apparently I can't figure out how or its impossible.
I stated that the laws of thermodynamics govern energy not matter. What I should have said was subatomic matter. Large bodies of matter are of course governed by the laws of the theory of relativity. My argument concerns the subatomic. Bosons, gluons, quarks, leptons, electrons, etc... However the argument remains the same aside from that distinction
Let's deal with some of the biblical arguments you present. I've seen this list used before and I'll be glad to address those as they've been addressed numerous times.
The basic principle behind dismissing most of these claims is that the Bible was written AFTER the advent and knowledge of a lot of these concepts.
These theories have been around since before the Bible. Greek and Indian philosophers have been kicking this idea long before the Bible was ever written.
2. Ship building.
Again by the time the Bible was written, these concepts were well known. It is much more likely that these ideas influenced the story rather than the story dictating technology.
Egyptians used antiseptics as early as 3000 BC. This again seems to be a matter where we had limited knowledge, however the knowledge we did have was available before the Hebrew texts were ever written.
Again, latrines were discovered in settlements as early as 6500 BC. This is again an example of knowledge we had prior to the Bible.
5. Ocean Springs.
This one is interesting, but ultimately it's not hard to deduce ocean Springs since we had prior knowledge of freshwater Springs. This is probably the best argument for primary knowledge coming from a biblical source. I would argue that it's still very unlikely to be divine knowledge and rather a lucky guess or good deduction.
6. Ocean mountains.
That's based on a story of a guy living in the belly of a fish for 3 days.... I'm not so sure how much credibility I give to any such claim. Furthermore, we've known about oceanic projections for about as long as we've been on the oceans. Reefs and such features are nothing new. It's not hard to imagine stories of great mountains eating ships etc... Coming out of maritime lore. I wouldn't consider this to be new knowledge obtained from the divine either.
7. Evolution of emotions
The origins of emotions have a very strong tie to our evolutionary path. We're social animals, empathy and emotional expression aids in social interaction and strengthens social bonds. We see it in apes and monkeys as well as other animals all the time. It's not a characteristic unique to humans and thus isn't only explainable by theology.
I don't think humans are so dumb as to not see the connection between blood and life prior to the Bible. We knew how to cauterize wounds long before the Bible. Again this isn't divine knowledge.
Let's deal with the experience argument first. I'm gonna dismiss it based on the fact that it's anecdotal and thus doesn't factor into the realm of presentable evidence.
Next, let's deal with the prime mover argument. The first flaw with that argument is that you try and use the laws of thermodynamics to explain matter when the law relates to motion and energy. Matter is governed by a different set of laws known as quantum mechanics.
In the field of quantum mechanics, things get a bit strange. Electrons can occupy two or more places in space at the same time, events don't necessarily need a cause etc... So the universe doesn't need a prime mover to exist and that is still perfectly within the laws of physics. I know it seems counter intuitive, but that's why we have physicists. Again there are plenty of books and other literature that explain these concepts better than I could in this limited format, however I hope you will do me the favor of taking me at my word here and I won't have to list a string of references.
As we've established earlier. Our understanding of the universe has become advanced enough to eliminate God as the only plausible cause. (I'm not claiming that we have eliminated him as a possibility, however there are plausible alternatives that don't rely on the supernatural). The argument that he must exist because there has to be a prime mover is thus mute, as there doesn't have to be a prime mover according to physics.
Even if there was a prime mover, it doesn't require that force to be anything supernatural.
Genesis and Romans argument:
Simply because the Bible says the universe was created doesn't make it any more accurate. Many other texts have claimed the same. The way in which the texts describe the universe coming into existence is not in line with how we know the universe came into being.
The Bible is somewhat specific about the age of the universe. We know the Bible lists ages of people and thus we know the Bible claims there was about a 4000 year period between Adam and the birth of Christ. So how do you square that number? Either Adam didn't exist and the Bible is wrong in its description of the origins of life, or our understanding of human history is a mess.
@ Sosocratese "This also supports the claim that God Is Real." 1. Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.
2. The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.
3. When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.
4. Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.
5. Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been hard for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!
6. There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.
7. Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creator?s presence ? ?in Your presence is fullness of joy? (Psalm 16:11).
8. Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were ?bled? and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that ?the life of the flesh is in the blood? long before people understood its function."
@ Sosocratese "1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause. 2. The universe has a beginning. 3. Therefore the universe has a cause. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause. In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time, God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause. In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy the heat death of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down. So let's just say that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause. It's self-evident that things that begin have a cause no-one really denies this in heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn't think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity. So, 1. The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning. 2. It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause. 3. The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
God, as creator of time, is outside of time. So he doesn't need a cause."
@ Sosocratese "The Bible doesn't say how old The Universe and Earth is at all." "There is also no proof of evolution." "Also, you can know that God exist because the experience you have once you choose to follow the path of Jesus Christ."
@davidstuff777 Wanting to prove that the God of the Christian Bible exists is a much more difficult position to take.
If you indeed intend to defend the notion that the God in the Bible is true, you have to square a few corners. If the God of the Bible truly exists, then the claims made by the Bible must be, at least mostly true.
The first challenge to this is probably the most obvious; the age of the earth and the universe. The earth is obviously a lot older than the Bible claims (unless you'd like to argue again carbon dating). Keep in mind that there may be natural causes to the existence of the universe as a whole and God, by your own admission wasn't necessary to create any of the space or matter that we have.
The second being the notion that mankind came from just 2 people and in the span of a few thousand years our gene pool was bottlenecked twice (once by the fact that there were only two original humans and then again during the great flood of Noah). With those bottle neck events our gene pool should be severely limited, yet it's incredibly diverse. Along with this argument you'll have to disprove evolution.
As you can see, there are a lot of problems with claiming the God of the Bible is true, since the texts and the facts to match up very well. If the primary source of the God you claim to be real isn't a true account of the events, then what is? How can you claim to know a god exists, let alone a certain God, when there is no evidence to support that claim?
Christian apologists often try to place to burden on the atheists, but what is your proof? What texts actually support the claims that God is real?
@ Sosocratese "It's alright and thank you for your kindness." "I am in fact though talking about a specific god and that is God, the Christian god always starts with a capital G." "Also, if you compare those creatures to what a lot of people under-stand and see today then yes it is unlikely, if you compare those creatures to possibilities and the existence of magic how-ever it is likely." "The Big Bang did happen though as there is cosmic microwave radition background as evidence." "I also agree that God is not needed for the creation of a universe."
@davidstuff777 sorry, I side tracked there, I had just heard that argument and question asked before, and figured I'd give that argument a try.
Anyway back to the whole existence of God. I'm gonna assume a few things and use a bunch of really common arguments at first. Assuming you're not talking about any specific God, I'm assuming you mean some intelligent deity/being/energy out there that moves the universe and manipulates lives somehow. With no other real qualities attributed to it. However, if you do mean a specific God, please correct me on this.
Really we a arguing whether or not the existence of God is likely or unlike. I can't definitely prove that unicorns, big foot, or fairies don't exist, however it's extremely unlikely. So I'm gonna go with that standard for my argument.
Modern science has made lot of the claims for God's obsolescence, it's simply a matter of whether you believe in the scientific theories that are proposed. The proof that these theories (big bang, evolution, etc...) are true is growing. I'm not saying they are proven without a doubt, but are becoming more and more likely. We now know for example, that the universe isn't as empty as we thought it was. Empty sections of space weigh something; stuff is popping into and out of existence all the time. Lawrence Krauss explains all of that much better in "something from nothing". A bunch of science stuff that, for the sake of a quicker argument, I'm not gonna recite, but it's all in there if you want an interesting read.
The implication of this new information is that it's possible that a natural phenomenon is responsible for creating something from nothing. The big bang theory is criticized for not explaining where all this "stuff" comes from. With this new piece, we have a possible answer. We now know stuff pops out of nowhere all the time. So there is perhaps a natural phenomenon responsible for this. This makes the argument that there has to be some super natural force, that came a priori, less and less problematic for an alternative theory to the creation of the universe.
God exists in the realms that we don't understand. And we're understanding more all the time. I would argue that it's therefore unlike that God is necessary for the creation of the universe as he's unnecessary for the creation of life, the complexity of life and the basis of morality.
@ Sosocratese "Reason is a characteristic we possess because God blessed us with it if he had not then we wouldn't know right from wrong." "I also don't worship God just because of morality or back up his existence just with morality." "Also, God is still necessary even if we were to obtain morality with-out him."
@davidstuff777 your argument about the nature of God's will being bound by reason makes God obsolete as a moral compass. Reason is a characteristic we possess as well. Therefore, we can ascertain what is good by reason as well. If God commands "it" (whatever particular action or inaction you choose) because "it" is good, then "it" is good regardless of whether God commands "it" or not and he/she/it is simply the middle man to information we can gather ourselves from beyond the confines of religion. God becomes unnecessary and morality is then something objective that can be obtained without a middle man. Morality and reason are therefore independent of God and he is bound by the laws of logic, reason, and morality; his nature then stems from those laws as they must have existed a priori. Therefore objective Morality is no reason to worship a God, nor is Morality an argument for God as it exists objectively without him.
@ JonL "Okay that paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotent God does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that's possible according to his nature. This distinction is important. God cannot perform logical absurdities; he cannot, for instance, make 1+1=3. Likewise, God cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being. God is limited in his actions to his nature. The Bible supports this, they assert, in passages such as Hebrews 6:18 which says it is "impossible for God to lie." This raises the question, to where this law of logic, which God is bound to obey, comes from. This law though is not a law above God that he assents to but, rather, logic is an eternal part of God's nature, like his omniscience. God obeys the laws of logic because God is eternally logical in the same way that God does not perform evil actions because God is eternally good. So, God, by nature logical and unable to violate the laws of logic, cannot make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it because that would violate the law of non contradiction by creating an immovable object and an unstoppable force."
@DavidStuff777: The characteristic of omnipotence show the invalidity of the existence of the god you are referring to.
The definition omnipotence from the oxford dictionary is "having unlimited power". Meaning everything is achieveable by something characterised as omnipotent. Which in itself is impossible.
A quick question to you (a plagiarised one at that). Can this god create something he cannot lift. Can your god create a rock he cannot lift above his head? Your answer will demonstrate why omnipotence is an invalid characteristic.
If he can not create this rock then he is not omnipotent. Though if he can create the rock which he can not lift, he is also does not posess omnipotence.
@ JonL "Because of the laws God set into the Universe and since God is Omnipotent he may choose to not follow those laws."
@DavidStuff777: Precisely the premise that needs to be reconsidered. If this "god" you are referring to can come from nothing, why do you assume the universe must then come from something?
A quite by Carl Sagan "In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?"
@ JonL "God was put in motion by nothing."
@Intellect: Correct, though absolute certainty is only coming from one side. I don't know that there is NO god, though it is clear the other side knows there is otherwise they wouldn't be in agreement. To agree with the statement "God is real", you must be quite certain.
@DavidStuff777: Review your response and either re-phrase it or reconsider it.
@JonL "Actually my response agrees with God, the cause of God was necessary existence."
@johnL Skepticism. We as human beings are not perfect. Thus we cannot have a perfect knowledge in anything. Granted of course we still know that if we drop something it will fall but there will always be doubt. That's why science will never be able to solve the debate.
@Intellect: Again the burden of proof is on the believer. In the scientific research field (which there are many of) we draw possible conclusions from what we find. i.e we don't set of with the focus of "god is real". Also what is evidence of god? Many outspoken theists state essentially anything and everything is proof.
@Davidstuff777: The cosmological argument is problematic. It assumes that the mover is "god" what ever, who ever it may be. The assumption is it is one/some of the thousands of options you have, is rather hopeful. Secondly as you show clearly in your response, it assumes that your choice of god solely does not follow your first set of rules, that everything must have a first cause. Though you go right into showing how something can in fact come from nothing.
"From experience of motion in the Universe, motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality we can see that there must be an initial mover. What-ever is in motion must be put in motion so there must be an unmoved mover. As for how God was created, according to Quantum Mechanics God was probably created by the result of Quantum Fluctuations in which he was created by nothing by as there must be a time when nothing existed as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence regarded as God.?" "Science may prove God."
In the end science will never be able to prove it however.
Which of the thousands of gods throughout history would be the god this refers to. The burden of proof lies with the claimant, meaning the individual with a positive claim must provide positive evidence (not saying "you can't prove there isn't"). Lastly personal experiences leading to the statements like "I don't know what really happened" or "it was a miracle" are examples of what is known as the god of the gaps fallacy. I don't know so god did it.