The debate "There is no God" was started by
October 26, 2018, 3:51 am.
117 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 256 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.
TheExistentialist posted 4 arguments, TJ posted 1 argument, JDAWG9693 posted 8 arguments, DestinySub posted 1 argument, Allirix posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
NitinTher posted 1 argument, Jakellutis posted 3 arguments, jrardin12 posted 4 arguments, InfinityMachine posted 9 arguments, Mashung posted 1 argument, freakofnaturespitbucket posted 1 argument, jmch posted 1 argument, Mj_Bossdude posted 1 argument, Minimalist posted 1 argument, Repent_4_The_End_Is_Near posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Big_Tuna, TheExistentialist, crispsandchips, astatine, Emihle, US7, Debater23, TJ, byniched, JDAWG9693, Argnier555, DestinySub, District9, district10, talktotalk, rainingdown, SanjayKumar, wordsmith, tniromin, marendies, ZhiZho, Sk, castor, maksonmakson, EmiMoro, Allirix, boispendaddy, Communistguy and 89 visitors agree.
x1nyan, NitinTher, bhnf, Runtz, Aryaman999, Matt, Jakellutis, Dushonjj2, csmithwick, Tushar, Kanwal, letsgobro, jrardin12, wilsoergel76, davidjohnson1953, WiseWords, addictedfromyouth, InfinityMachine, Mashung, Rifa_Tamanna_2007, abc123, segev, Consitution101, Napoleon_of_Politics, Aryan, freakofnaturespitbucket, aysell, jmch, benshapirofan, vastworld, Mj_Bossdude, Hey, Minimalist, AlissiaMathew, srija, SMNR, MADHURA, happy, amir_alhakim07, Rodolfo, Repent_4_The_End_Is_Near, Deat, pankaj1407singh, sk25, Light and 211 visitors disagree.
3. evolution and fossil record are the evidence for the *tree* of life
1. evolution (combination of mutation + natural selection + mind boggling large amounts of time). quite simple actually. time makes many things simple.
2. false. fossil record is one of many strong proofs for evolution.
3. what does molecular biology have to do with a tree of life? evolution and fossil record are the evidence of life.
4. lots of time. slow and steady.
5. why would convergent evolution be unlikely? the feature is favorable, the method is irrelevant. you would expect evolution to come up with many different solutions instead of one "perfect" answer. proof against God, thank you!
6. the genetic code follows all of the laws of chemistry. you should look up electronegativity and take a closer look at the periodic table to see where you are wrong.
7. what is the problem here? elaborate please.
8. neodarwinian? the columbian exchange explains the biodiversity. human action only a couple of centuries ago. you do realize Europe didnt have corn, potatoes, tomatoes, bananas, chocolate... and those are just food plants. there was minimal biodiversity. your history is mistaken.
9. both of those are true
10. why do you say they provide no benefit. I strongly disagree.
You know, there's a reason the scientific community doesn't accept these rebuttals. You probably think it's because the scientific community is bias but each of them is based in a misconception of evolution. I've linked papers where I thought necessary to each point:
1. Irreducible Complexity: Systems satisfying Behe's characterization of irreducible biochemical complexity have been shown to arise naturally and spontaneously as the result of self-organizing chemical processes. The linked journal article was the first group to show this. They also explain that evolved biochemical and molecular systems are a product of a large number of overlapping, slightly different and redundant processes which they call Redundant Complexity. Vestigial parts are a good example of this. Behe's mousetrap analogy of IC was also shown to be reducible https://doi.org/10.1086/392687 (free access to all papers on Sci-hub)
2. Punctuated Equilibrium is actually a crucial part of evolution. Not sure why they think it's a rebuttal but kudos to them for doing their homework.
3. This is blatantly false. (Genetic basis for newest additions: https://www.nature.com/articles/nmicrobiol201648)
(Tree of life: https://tree.opentreeoflife.org/opentree/argus/opentree10.4@ott93302)
4. This point is basically saying "Low impact changes don't create much change". This is just obvious. If something makes a minor impact it has a lower selection coefficient.
5. Things evolve in similar environments and are put under the same set of restrictions where similar adaptions are optimal solutions. This paper shows why 23 independent cases used the same solution at the protease level https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3581919/
6. Abiogenesis is not a part of biological evolution.
7. This embryo thing is incredibly outdated and I'm not even going to bother with it.
8. Well they still have work to do then? Given the research skills of this author a part of me actually expects they've successfully done this a few years ago. I just don't think this is too relevant to evolution though so idc
9. Science is about searching for the truth and testing it constantly. Mistakes are inevitable.
10. No survival advantage? You don't even need hard science to argue there's group advantage to each of these.
Yes! That's the One. Thank you
sorry about that, I'm new here so I don't know how to outsource
1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features, and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages.
2. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution.
3. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand ?tree of life.?
4. Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;
5. The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant ? at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely.
6. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code.
7. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.
8. The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species.
9. A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called ?junk? DNA.
10. Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).
I agree that most multiverse theories struggle for falsifiability but they're still based in theoretical physics which make predictions on our universe which can be observed. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation and inflation observations strongly support what we expect to see in a type 1 and type 2 multiverse so I'm more willing to believe it then not.
A good summary of multiverse theories:
Firstly, I have never heard of a respectable scientist that is credited in a relevant field agree that intelligent design happened or that that universe was fine-tuned for life. I have heard many scientists argue that life was fine-tuned to the universe.
And, your statement on evolution just shows how little you know about evolution. We ARE still apes. Also, Neanderthals probably went extinct mainly from breeding (as in we bred with them until we were the only ones left). And, there's nothing saying that a species HAS to evolve. If they are already suited to their environment, they can remain unchanged. And, apes (like gorillas and chimps) have a common ancestor with modern humans, but they as a species were not our genetic ancestor.
Not really. If you read my argument against Allirix, I said that The multiverse theory couldn't be verified. The Design argument implies that the universe is fine-tuned for life & that it seemed intentional . Scientists agree with the finding that the universe is fine-tuned for life but what some of them don't agree with, is the Idea that a super intellect is behind it. ID proposes that the "Super-Intellect" influenced & directed physical laws. Unlike the multiverse theory, this can be verified because we are use scientific facts to verify it.
Just a quick seperate Notion
Evolution basically says We were once apes, which then turned into Neanderthal, when there are no Neanderthal but somehow theres still ape.
if winning the lotto has a 1 on 100 billion odds, but you buy 200 billion tickets, your chances of winning are high!
there are countless stars, and even more planets. as rare as life may be, across the cosmos, it's a near certainty.
also evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. evolution is how life changes from life to life. the origins of life is solely the domain of chemistry, not biology.
I'm not sure why a nonstatistical law is neccessary, but if I must name one I think natural selection is one that is very deliberate.
if you have a statistical law that gives you an 80% chance of taking a step forward and a 20% chance of taking a step back, if you zoom out enough, the law will seem like a steady and deliberate progression forward.
Even so, small probability does not mean that an architect was necessary. There was still a chance. And, again, the deck was not made for poker, poker was made from within the deck. The universe was not made for the universe, life was made within the universe.
I think he believes evolution is abiogenesis and acts completely randomly. If I had that belief I'd also have his same question. The problem he gives has an almost 1/(4x10^45) % chance of occurring. If there's only 30 billion planets in the universe then it's reasonable to assert that ordering is impossible. But, our DNA sequence isn't random. Those 200 proteins didn't just spontaneously occur - they were adapted from previous simpler proteins through the force of natural selection.
However, I never proposed the multiverse theory (I know that Allirix did which is why you talked about it). That means you still have to dispute my point
An architect god is also too speculative That's why it's not accepted as anything more than a hypothesis with no evidence.
Stephen Hawking's Multiverse argument received no credibility because it is outside of verification.It was dismissed as "Too speculative". I will admit that the person who I'm referring to is the English physicist Paul Davies, a religionist.
The conclusion of the anthropic principle and multiverse theory is the universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe
Firstly, there is no law of probability. And, something not being probably does not mean that it is impossible. And, my example is the universe. We only have one sample to text, which makes it unfalsibiable. And, who is to say that life as we know it is the only way that life can exist?? We don't know because we only have one sample. The experiment of the universe is not repeatable, as far as we know.
The universe was not made for life, life was made within the universe.
My favorite analogy of that is this: Isn't it amazing how finely tuned a deck of cards is for the game of poker? If there were more or less than 52 cards, 13 cards per suit, or a different number of suits, the game of poker as we know it couldn't exist.
Obviously a deck of playing cards wasn't made for poker, poker was made within the deck.
Let's give these arguments their names in literature so we know exactly what we're talking about. The argument from design is called the teleological argument. It lost favour in literature after evolution was able to explain complexity very well. The teleological argument is still used today because many people have misconceptions about evolution. It doesn't explain abiogenesis, speciation is a low and gradual process (although gradual changes can be punctuated by radical changes when environments change), and it's not random but based on natural selection, an observable phenomenon that Darwin was the first to prove with his finches.
The argument that our universe is built for us because minor changes to cosmological constants would have created a universe hostile to us is called the fine-tuned universe. It's a better version of the teleological argument but it's not proof either. The anthropic principle and multiverse theory are just two examples that show how the universe appears to be finely tuned to us.
Oh, And note that there are over 200 parameters that had to just right in order for life. It defies the laws of probability to suggest that every single one of them have been meet on that one chance cosmic explosion that shouldn't have brought about life anymore than a nuclear bomb would've.
If complexity isn't the result of intelligence, then give me an example of a natural law giving anything besides statistical information &. You won't, Because doing so would counter your own argument. You have to look at evidential implications objectively. There are way too many conditions that had to be exquisitely fine-tuned or life as we know it, couldn't exist. I can name a few if you like.
the universe, in a closed system, moves towards decreasing complexity. however, in a system (the earth) that had constant energy input (from the sun), complexity tends to increase. and over time, life emerges.
Complexity does not equal design. That's exactly the watchmaker argument which is nothing more than the god of the gaps, or the argument of ignorance.
Also, we say that DNA is like a language because it's easier to understand complex thing using simple analogies, but DNA code is very different in many ways from language, chief among those differences being that language was designed by humans, DNA was not designed by anything.
1. DNA reveals intelligence : The intricate complexity of DNA is beyond the naturalistic notion. To put it into perspective, I'm going to give an example basing off the basic interpretation of naturalism & Intelligent Design, each represent the arguments
Pattern A - "ljp?fgn kd3nur, ni3hado bfst" (this arranging of randomly generated letters, represents the Big Bang theory and it's mainly naturalistic trait & this level of information is called "statistics" and it's the lowest level of information, why? Because even if you were change a small detail there, it wouldn't make a difference & that's because it didn't mean anything before, it wouldn't mean anything now that you've now changed a detail there)
Pattern B - "let's eat, grandpa!" (this arranging of letters is very specific and detailed. This is a level of information called apabetics. The highest level of information because we all know that the slightest change in it affects the entire meaning & can cause a dramatic change: This represents The argument of intelligent design)
If you are having trouble defining the difference, simply ask yourself " If I removed the comma on the first example, would it change anything?"
"ljp?fgn kd3nur ni3hado bfst" - So no, removing one small detail like the comma, doesn't change anything. The sequence is still meaningless because it didn't mean anything before & it surely doesn't mean anything now
Now ask yourself
look What happens if I do the same (remove the comma) in this sentence
"Let's eat grandpa!" - You see the difference! How is it that Naturalism from the Big Bang bought about such complexity that small changes matter. That defies natural laws.
Which obviously means that the universe had to have been specifically designed for life & that means a Designer must have planned it.
Do it, please.
I actually can scientifically & logically prove that God Exists
the broadest definition is the one who created the universe. the architect
It actually depends upon your definition of God. How do you define God exactly? What is God according to you? Is he an invisible man up in the sky? Does he have any shape or is he amorphous?
I have no proof God does not exist.
I have no proof unicorns dont exist.
I have no proof fairies dont exist.
the reason is, you cant prove a negative. ever. asking someone to prove nonexistence of anything is stupid.
You could be convinced the lack of evidence leads to believe so, but no one can prove for sure, 100% "there is no god"
the intricate circuitry and chemistry of the brain hides many secrets. one of the remaining unstudied regions due to the difficulty of studying it alive and kicking until very recently. you dont know what gems we may uncover.
for a century the biggest finding in neuroscience happened because some joe happened to blow a steel pipe thru his own head and survived. a complete accident. it's not the easiest thing to study. but fMRI has been very promising in recent times.
I believe there is a misunderstanding with science. science is not anti god. random laymen who quote science and happen to personally be anti God (or trolls just trying to get a reaction) may say such nonsense. but the truth is science simply cannot use God as an answer.
you said it yourself. "God cannot be scientifically proven unless he shows himself" (or we develop a spiritual detector), neither of which are happening. fact, period. if God cannot be proven, how is he supposed to be used as an answer is science. science does not confirm or deny him. many scientists believe in God, but you wont see any of them, including einstein who you quoted, actual put God into a theorem. he is speculation, the opposite of science. there is no place for an untestable hypothesis in science. it's that simple, nothing more.
anything beyond that is pure conspiracy theories based off a handful of loud trolls on the internet, generalized to millions of people. the height of folly.
I happen to be someone who believes that two engines are better than one. So I use both the engine of faith and the engine of observation in my pursuit of the attainment of knowledge. I highly recommend this approach.
"Emotions and consciousness are just our evolved brains. There is nothing spiritual about that." These are value judgments and your interpretation of the evidence. However it does not negate the evidence. Science cannot explain consciousness, and it is not able to be accounted for by evolutionary theory. Your claim that the underlying principles of science and religion are different, I agree. Religion begins with faith. Science begins with observations. That is different. The problem in your claim is where you assume that because these things are different, therefore they cannot converge. Religious faith progresses to confirmations from experiences and observations that accumulate and conglomerate synergistically into knowledge over time; however that knowledge is always subject to reinterpretation by faith. The engine producing religious knowledge is faith. Similarly, scientific observations progress to the development of hypotheses, and then theories later on. Once these theories become strong enough then they are known laws; however the laws themselves are always subject to challenge by new observations. The engine of scientific knowledge is observation. In either case, both religion and science converge in the attainment of knowledge--the difference is that they start from opposite sides of the continuum and are powered by different forces. A logical analysis can demonstrate that the two approaches are complimentary in their final outcome.
"Near death experiences are also part of your brain." This is your assumption for which science has no proof. The evidence shows that near death experiences take people out of their bodies therefore how can they be part of the brain. Isn't it obvious at death that while the entire body remains, that consciousness no longer resides in the body? The evidence for God is overwhelming, for those who use common sense.
"But as soon as we prove they are false you will just move the goal post again and continue insisting it is the "word of god"." An open minded religious person can understand the Bible for what it is, a mixture of history, metaphor and allegory intended to preserve important spiritual knowledge. The "blind faith" and the dogmatic materialist camps are two extremes, in the middle of which is a rational and pragmatic view of the Bible. For all that, we are still talking about interpretation. No matter how you interpret it, the Bible is not going to disappear. The evidence for God exists.
Emotions and consciousness are just our evolved brains. There is nothing spiritual about that. Lots of animals have emotions. They are a product of evolution, they serve a purpose. In a few million years maybe dolphins will continue to develop and become fully conscious. That isn't evidence of god, that is evidence of a well documented scientific principle.
Near death experiences are also part of your brain. It shows you things you want to see / memories etc. It is similar to dreaming. Maybe in some cases what people dreamed in their near death state was really there. but how many thousands or millions of those experiences were just nonsense. If you only focus on a tiny subset it is easy to skew information.
You are able to cherry pick quotes from scientists who are also religious. Issac newton was born in 1643. You'd have a hard time finding anyone who didn't believe in God back then. And less who would admit it in writing. But the fact that they thought they could co-exist doesn't mean they coverage. They underlying principles are still completely incompatible.
If you want to split hairs to try to protect a book that makes no sense, that is your prerogative. But the story is still false. There could not have been an adam and eve. They would both have come from tribes of people. They were not new or entirely unique. There would have been "people" for thousands of years before and after them. The story is a lie. Just like noah's ark (a global flood never happened) or any one of a number of stories that are provably false. But as soon as we prove they are false you will just move the goal post again and continue insisting it is the "word of god".
Evidence for the soul is in such things as emotions and consciousness. Science has zero explanations for consciousness. Additional scientific evidence is in near death experiences where people remember details such as a man remembering there was a sneaker on the hospital roof. When he came back he described it and they went and verified there was indeed a sneaker that matched his description. Like I said, much of this evidence is suppressed. For what they cannot suppress, they label it as "conspiracy theories" to be dismissed. Ergo, you rejected the evidence without considering it. That is your decision, not mine; however it does not prove your claim that there is no evidence. Some religions demand blind faith, but not all. Ideally, religion invites rational belief, and informed faith. Einstein said "Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind." Science today is lame because it rejects religion. Any religions which reject science are blind. I am religious, since I accept science; I am neither blind nor lame. That there is no convergence point is your opinion, which is contrary to the opinion of the inventor of the theory of relativity, and the discoverer of the law of gravity (Sir Isaac Newton).
Point four is a matter of interpretation. If God created some bacteria that evolved into humans, then He created humans, if indirectly. If humans create computers that hypothetically advance themselves through artificial intelligence to the point of self-awareness in the future (see Skynet, "Terminator" movie) then we could in theory come to one of these AI beings one day and say "we created you". They would be like "whatever, we know that we evolved from mainframes in the 20th century." It's just interpretation, which is inherently subjective and proves nothing about the evidence itself.
1) what is this evidence of the soul existing? I'm pretty sure there is no such thing.
2) I had no idea who Lloyd Pye was. I googled him. He is a weird conspiracy theorist who tried to prove the existence of big foot, and human-alien hybrid creatures. I see no reason to believe anything he has said is credible.
3) Science and religion are, by their very fundamental basics, completely different. Religion is based on faith and blind submission to information approved by the religion. Science is based on constantly questioning everything. Religion says believe it because we say so, science says believe it because i have done exhaustive research and can prove what i say is correct. There is no convergence point between those, ever.
4) even if I allow for the goal posts to move and "Days" didn't mean days. the bible says god created man in his own image. but he didn't make man at all. In this version of events he would have made much simpler creatures which over the course of billions of years slowly evolved into Homo Sapiens. Adam and Eve could not have been the only people. There would have been an entire tribe of "people" very similar to them.
I disagree that there is no evidence for God. The most compelling evidence for God is in the scriptures which collectively preserved this idea for millennia. Where there's smoke there's fire. That said, I would maintain that scientifically we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God conclusively, because the only proof would be if God manifested Himself collectively to the world. He did that for the Hebrew nation but since we are not Hebrew we must take their testimony for it, and at the time there was no such thing as science in the modern sense. Conversely, the only way to prove there were no God would be to attain all the qualities of Godhood (omniscience, omnipotence, timelessness, etc). If that were possible then at the point where we were capable of disproving God then God would have become manifest.
Additionally the human being itself and the soul within are evidence for God. It is possible for individuals to obtain proof of God by asking God to manifest Himself. He will manifest Himself to that person who asks and will prove His existence with compelling internal evidence. The scriptures say God dwells in the human soul and I can attest to it on the basis of my experience. The only way to gain this evidence however is by asking for it, which means those who believe are incapable of forcing anyone else to see the truth.
Well you confused evidence and proof. I did not say that the soul was proof, but evidence of God, and there is evidence for the soul as well (but not proof, yet). Scientifically, we appear to have evolved, however there is suppressed scientific information which demonstrates that there must have been an intervention in our evolutionary process which fast-tracked our progress into the current stage as homo sapiens. Lloyd Pye, who recently passed away, was spearheading the research and dissemination of this information. Science has become Scientism, an anti-theistic religion which suppresses any evidence for God just like the Catholic church suppressed information in centuries past. The implications are that both religion and science have a convergence point, which it is in the best interests of the powers that be to suppress. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DihBkrMA65Q
Even apart from Lloyd Pye's research, I have no problem logically believing that God created humans through an evolutionary process. As for the Bible, much of it is metaphorical or allegorical, and condensed for utility. It was not written as a scientific treatise but to distill the most critical concepts for humans to remember in an easily digestible format. For instance "day" in the Bible, the real meaning is "period." These are indefinite blocks of time. You could also translate it as "eon" or "epoch". I don't dispute that the Bible was written by men, or that other religions have scriptures. It does not mean they are true, and it does not mean they are false; but their existence is evidence regardless. The fact that they have been with us for so long, older than any human alive, this notion of God recorded in writing, is strong evidence for God.
The scriptures are stories written by men. There are books written for all sorts of religions. That doesn't mean any of them are true.
I agree that it likely isn't possible to disprove god. But primarily because religions love moving the goal posts. Even as science disproves things they say one by one they just move on to something else. The pope had people arrested for saying the earth orbits the sun. but science proved the pope was wrong. Religions will continue to do that forever. No amount of proof will ever be enough.
Ok, so humans and their soul (which there is no evidence for) is proof of god? but we know that humans evolved. we were not created as we are as the bible would have you believe. So I would say that humans and the lack of evidence of a soul is pretty strong evidence against the idea of a god. Certainly the christian version anyway.
Umm, no one. But since that didn't happen there is no need to speculate. We know for certain that the earth, life etc was not made in 6 days. We know it is about 4.5 billion years old and that humans didn't exist for the vast majority of that time.
Harry Potter is quite clear that Wizards exist. That doesn't mean they really do. The bible was written decades after the events it describes and was written by people who weren't there. Most of the people who wrote the bible wouldn't have even been able to speak to a person who was there.
Additionally, even if all of that wasn't true, the bible was then edited. It was compiled and put together something like 60 or more years after the death of jesus. The early church leaders designed the bible to make a particular narrative.
So to summarize:
1) The story was written by highly biased people decades later.
2) Those stories were then edited and parts were left out
3) Other than because the authors say so, there is no evidence anything in the bible is "devinely inspired". There is no reason to trust the bible any more than you should trust the Divinci Code. Both include at least elements of facts in order to tell a specific story.
you people who say that there is no God are wrong. God is real because who on earth could've been able to make the heavens, earth, seas, and everything in the universe for six days. I don't care what anyone says, I'm sticking to my beliefs that God exists not just because of that very fact but also because the Bible is clear of the fact that God exists and how we can live as followers of Him. whoever says God is false or a hoax, all I have to say is you are all wrong.
I have no proof God does not exist.
I have no proof unicorns dont exist.
I have no proof fairies dont exist.
the reason is, you cant prove a negative. ever. asking someone to prove nonexistence is stupid.
How did you know that there is no God?
The laws of logic, the uniformity of nature and absolute morality is the ultimate proof for God.
I don't believe you can have the information on the existence of God. Aka agnostic
All of those you just listed are philosophies or ideologies, not religions.
you do understand that logical reasoning is not empirical evidence? logically speaking the earth is stationary. I dont feel it move.
the fact is that the evidence for and against God are perfectly equal, in that they are both nonexistent.
as for logic, god is certainly a simple explanation for the existence of the universe, but really just moves the goal post to an explanation for the existence of God. if it's hard to imagine rocks and gas coming from nothing, where did a sentient all mighty appear from?
No it would just mean that the conventional understanding of Creation was incorrect or incomplete. Complexity of argument doesn't equate to correctness. Intellectualism doesn't require one to have common sense.
There is much more evidence for God than for the non existence of a God. It's the atheists who are the real wackos.
Everyone has a religion. For many it's science, for others it's agnosticism, for others it's narcissism, for others it's materialism or hedonism.
There is overwhelming evidence of God.
what flaws do you believe the bible has? so what your saying is then, you dont believe in death?
The bible has many flaws so it may not be real. Some of the passages wouldn't last in science courses and I do not believe that a human could defy such things and then disappear and abandon us completely
How can there be no god if there was thousands of eyewitness accounts proving that jesus walked the earth and performed the mircles the bibal said he did therefore proving the existence of god?
"You will get your proof that everything was created by a conscious being that is God when you show your proof that everything was created by the effect of something that does not have impulse and lacks the necessary variables to create anything."
Are you implying that you have proof? If you do, you would likely be the most famous theologian of all time. If not, I'd have to accuse you of lying about your quality of evidence and that in fact you have no proof only faith.
The LISA experiments at LIGO have already detected gravity waves from the exact moment of T=0. As for anything "prior" to that (for lack of a better term), the only honest answer is "We don't know". Any claim to the contrary is simply ignorant. However, there are some really good hypothesis that are being explored including the use of the quantum-corrected Raychaudhuri equation, which is derived from quantum-corrected Friedmann equations, which describe the expansion and evolution of universe (including the Big Bang) within the context of general relativity. This hypothesis, if proven correct, would indicate a infinitely existing universe rather than a T=0 universe. This would mean the universe was never "created" in the first place and no "God" would be necessary for it's "creation".
or I could just come to the conclusion that we dont know without making guessed.
a few hundred years ago we had no explanation for lightning, but now it's easy. 2000 years ago every natural event was ruled by God. now only creation is beyond our understanding, and that may just be a matter of time
No, but you'd have less basis for the belief that something that is non physical and non conscious existed based on the existence of matter and acted without impulse.
so if I can't show a natural explanation of how things can be created from nothing then that means God is correct, by default, without any proof of its own?
You will get your proof that everything was created by a conscious being that is God when you show your proof that everything was created by the effect of something that does not have impulse and lacks the necessary variables to create anything.
Well it came from God's Word which is the Bible.
I never heard that story from God, only human priests and human believers.
But if everything was not created in 6 days. Then God would be a liar.
where is your proof there are no unicorns?
how about leprechauns? gnomes? trolls? anything?
you can't prove something doesnt exist. you cant prove any negative statement. those are logical impossibilities my friend.
God is a matter of faith. there is no way to prove or disprove anything about him. but what we do know is the methods by which he worked. the methods discovered by science. I can guarantee you the universe was not created in 7 earth days, and is certainly far older then 6000 years. those are positive statements we can prove.
Where is their proof that there is no God?
Jake where's your proof of that statement?
You can't say for certain that there is no God as it is more likely that there is a God than vice versa.
Psshhh you can totally have a devil without a god... They're both imaginary so you can have an imaginary devil.
you can't have the devil without a God. they go hand in hand.
no God = no devil
I love it when people say "I rest my case" before anyone gets a chance to even make a reply.
the sign of a strong argument (lmao)
precious... not everyone has a religion.... not everyone worships something...
If there was no God whom will a person worship to"who knows what".
Its seems to me that u don't know your religion.
Well if u are saying that there is no God that means you worship the devil.
If u didn't know that the devil to u will now be your God.
So if u didn't realize you are worshipping a god let me tell u that u are worshipping a god.
If it is not the Lord Almighty,an idol or a spirit there has to be another one which would be the devil so I assure you that everyone has a God.
I now rest my case.Thank You.
And you claimed I did not understand that a negative statement could be proved correct when I did so I was just defending myself.
But you agree with the statement. So that's why I made that assumption.
well, the argument just has to be framed to one of likelihood/probability rather than definitives.
"Lol I think it is you who does not understand."
if you read my first comment I fully limit my argument to one of probability. I'm not the author of the claim just the first argument, so please don't conflate my argument with the original claim.
Lol that's my point. You just stated a negative statement without proof haha. People have no evidence there are gods and you have no proof that there are no gods. Lol I think it is you who does not understand.
you are fully mad
Prove a negative???? That makes absolutely no sense.
you can't prove a negative. If you don't believe this basic tenant of logic, please prove that there are no Unicorns, that there is no Thor, Mars, or Zeus etc.... Logically the best you can do is state that the likelihood of any of these things existing is very low due to a lack of evidence for their existence and due to the presence of more plausible alternatives. In the case of Thor for example; while there is no proof that the god of thunder doesn't exist, the fact that we know how thunder can occur in the absence of divine influence, it is much more likely that Thor isn't the cause of thunder and that he is likely not to exist at all. The same goes for the Christian God, the Jewish God, the Muslim God, etc...
You have proof to back up that negative statement?
There seems to be no real evidence for God and thus it is unlikely that there is one.