you peeps are funny in the whole matter of debating....hmphh...first, lets start with what is formally known as the Anthropic Principle..... which essentially states that the probability of a life sustaining universe spontaneously arising out of unguided primordial matter is so slim as to be logically classified as impossible..... Our universe is fine tuned in away that if the gravitational pull was any different, our universe would either drift into abyss or implode in on itself. If the balance of our chemicals (nchop) wasny different, our earth could not sustain life..... The universe and its constants have an apparent fine-tuning for life that simply cannot be explained by chance. Unless of course you atheist like to reckon that it is quite plausible for a tornado to rip through a junkyard and spontaneously fling together an entire airplane ready for takeoff – that is the sort of probability that we are dealing with.......
In order to keep it shorter I will highlight only a few more things..................
Something needs to be eternal and uncaused in order that we do not have the impossibility of infinite regression. The Big Bang Theory essentially states that at one moment time, space, and matter were brought into existence – something came from nothing......... This defies the 1st law of thermodynamics that states that “matter is neither created nor destroyed." If our universe is not eternal - as the 2nd law of thermodynamics seems to imply (and the Big Bang Theory states) - then there needs to be something that is. This is an evidence for a creator that is both eternal and uncaused........
The absolute intricacy of our DNA, as Francis Collins states, is evidence for an intelligent designer. I’ll put that as expert testimony for the existence of God....Michael J. Behe, a microbiologist, states that it is impossible for some of the complex organisms that exist today to have naturalistically evolved. He argues that some things are irreducibly complex. I’ll put this as expert testimony.....
You atheist cannot prove the point that God cannot exist because there is no evidence......as for the that meaningless post about gods, and “evidence for our side”... we all have shown that it is possible for things to exist even without evidence. Think about it, just because there is no proven cure for the common cold, does not mean that it is not out there somewhere.....honestly, it true what they say... it takes more faith to be an atheist....
ne
You atheist cannot prove the point that God cannot exist because there is no evidence......as for the that meaningless post about gods, and “evidence for our side”... we all have shown that it is possible for things to exist even without evidence. Think about it, just because there is no proven cure for the common cold, does not mean that it is not out there somewhere.....honestly, it true what they say... it takes more faith to be an atheist....
ne
Again there is no evidence for greek gods, norse gods, roman gods, my gods(That I came up with), Hindu gods, unicorns, TFSM, etc. lol You got owned.
I think the argument goes something like this, you can’t prove it in the here and now and thus all evidence for it is meaningless.
But there is evidence in the here and now for evolution, insects, viruses, algae, plant species even certain fast reproducing larger species, they all evolve new traits and acquire the category of new species which are distinctive in themselves, you can actually see it now.
In science there is something called uniformitism, which is the idea that the laws as they are now existed back then, evolution erosion all happened back then just as they are now. So yes in principle everything could have been different back then, but as applied to the now world, of which we have a number of different technological developments from, it would not make much sense to say that some hypothetical Creator continues to have a say in it, otherwise a lot of our stuff would simply not work.
Why can’t the believers just do what Newtonian era did, i.e. just believe the universe is some great watch ticking through time, belief isn’t necessarily irreconcilable, plenty of people are believers and scientists.
Anyone remember the Monkey Trial, seems like the argument of creation evolution seems to go in cycles?, and usually its the same stuff thrown back and forth all the time.
Also the point’s been made, but if something did create something somewhere, it needn’t not be your God, it could just as easily be something else, i.e. aliens, Norse Gods, Egyptian Gods, Asian Gods, Native American Gods, etc.
Caeyete235 wrote:
I think the argument goes something like this, you can’t prove it in the here and now and thus all evidence for it is meaningless.
But there is evidence in the here and now for evolution, insects, viruses, algae, plant species even certain fast reproducing larger species, they all evolve new traits and acquire the category of new species which are distinctive in themselves, you can actually see it now.
In science there is something called uniformitism, which is the idea that the laws as they are now existed back then, evolution erosion all happened back then just as they are now. So yes in principle everything could have been different back then, but as applied to the now world, of which we have a number of different technological developments from, it would not make much sense to say that some hypothetical Creator continues to have a say in it, otherwise a lot of our stuff would simply not work.
Why can’t the believers just do what Newtonian era did, i.e. just believe the universe is some great watch ticking through time, belief isn’t necessarily irreconcilable, plenty of people are believers and scientists.
Anyone remember the Monkey Trial, seems like the argument of creation evolution seems to go in cycles?, and usually its the same stuff thrown back and forth all the time.
Also the point’s been made, but if something did create something somewhere, it needn’t not be your God, it could just as easily be something else, i.e. aliens, Norse Gods, Egyptian Gods, Asian Gods, Native American Gods, etc.
The proof is the bible. That seems to be used quite offten to find acient battle sites, cities, camps, walls, building, what sertain people did, how people died ext. But everything about Jessue or god is just tossed out the window WTF!!
You atheist cannot prove the point that God cannot exist because there is no evidence......as for the that meaningless post about gods, and “evidence for our side”... we all have shown that it is possible for things to exist even without evidence. Think about it, just because there is no proven cure for the common cold, does not mean that it is not out there somewhere.....honestly, it true what they say... it takes more faith to be an atheist....
ne
Again there is no evidence for greek gods, norse gods, roman gods, my gods(That I came up with), Hindu gods, unicorns, TFSM, etc. lol You got owned.
No,you got owned. He made a clear arguement and you made a dissmissive, not relavant failure.
Try answering his main ponits rather than doingshit like that
You atheist cannot prove the point that God cannot exist because there is no evidence......as for the that meaningless post about gods, and “evidence for our side”... we all have shown that it is possible for things to exist even without evidence. Think about it, just because there is no proven cure for the common cold, does not mean that it is not out there somewhere.....honestly, it true what they say... it takes more faith to be an atheist....
ne
Again there is no evidence for greek gods, norse gods, roman gods, my gods(That I came up with), Hindu gods, unicorns, TFSM, etc. lol You got owned.
No,you got owned. He made a clear arguement and you made a dissmissive, not relavant failure.
Try answering his main ponits rather than doingshit like that
That is my contribution
No one needs to prove that a god doesn’t exist. There is no proof for it’s existence, just like every other god out there.
We demand proof of the idea of God, you demand faith in the idea of God.
Another point is that just because there is no proof that something doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean it does exist.
As for your last point about it requiring more faith to be an atheist? How do you figure? Most atheists don’t say that they are absolutely certain that there is no god. Honestly, I think that most of the atheists that DO say they are absolutely certain do so because they are trying to avoid a certain response.
It goes one of two ways now a days: Either we say-
1. I’m certain there is no god... - then we get the response “how can you be absolutely certain when you do not have universal knowledge?! You thus have just as much if not more faith that us!!!"
2. I am not certain of gods existence, but I do not believe in one... - then we get the response “You are not certain of God’s non-existence because there is a part of you that actually does believe and feel his presence!"
I for one consider myself to be a firm atheist while also acknowledging that I do not have universal knowledge, and therefore cannot know ANYTHING is absolute. But when you consider nothing being absolute, then you might as well say that nothing is real. Continuing to raise the bar in this manner leads no where, and is more of a tactic to confuse and muddle the debate.
I simply do not believe because this universe has not yet shown to us ANY NEED for a supernatural being. If evidence were to arise, then I would gladly weigh it.
However... because there is not a SINGLE shred of evidence that points to a god without us pointing our OWN fingers, then I see no reason to even consider the existence of a god!
Watchman wrote:
you peeps are funny in the whole matter of debating....hmphh...first, lets start with what is formally known as the Anthropic Principle..... which essentially states that the probability of a life sustaining universe spontaneously arising out of unguided primordial matter is so slim as to be logically classified as impossible..... Our universe is fine tuned in away that if the gravitational pull was any different, our universe would either drift into abyss or implode in on itself. If the balance of our chemicals (nchop) wasny different, our earth could not sustain life..... The universe and its constants have an apparent fine-tuning for life that simply cannot be explained by chance. Unless of course you atheist like to reckon that it is quite plausible for a tornado to rip through a junkyard and spontaneously fling together an entire airplane ready for takeoff – that is the sort of probability that we are dealing with.......
In order to keep it shorter I will highlight only a few more things..................
Something needs to be eternal and uncaused in order that we do not have the impossibility of infinite regression. The Big Bang Theory essentially states that at one moment time, space, and matter were brought into existence – something came from nothing......... This defies the 1st law of thermodynamics that states that “matter is neither created nor destroyed." If our universe is not eternal - as the 2nd law of thermodynamics seems to imply (and the Big Bang Theory states) - then there needs to be something that is. This is an evidence for a creator that is both eternal and uncaused........
“you’re gonnna need a bigger boat”.....
Man, hmphhh... first Anthropic Principle is bs.
Take a deck of cards... shuffel them... now put 2 cards down.. the chances of you getting those 2 cards in the combination is 1/2... now put every card down... chances are
1/(1*2*3*4*5*6*7*8*9*...*52) or 1/(52!)
= 1/80658175170943878571660636856404000000000000000000000000000000000000
Now thats pretty slim.... Now if you had even done a little reading on chemistry, you would know that no matter how improbable 1 state must be... their always must be at lease 1 state. Else the probablity would be 0.
Watchman wrote:
The absolute intricacy of our DNA, as Francis Collins states, is evidence for an intelligent designer. I’ll put that as expert testimony for the existence of God....Michael J. Behe, a microbiologist, states that it is impossible for some of the complex organisms that exist today to have naturalistically evolved. He argues that some things are irreducibly complex. I’ll put this as expert testimony.....
You atheist cannot prove the point that God cannot exist because there is no evidence......as for the that meaningless post about gods, and “evidence for our side”... we all have shown that it is possible for things to exist even without evidence. Think about it, just because there is no proven cure for the common cold, does not mean that it is not out there somewhere.....honestly, it true what they say... it takes more faith to be an atheist....
ne
Francis Collins never backs up any of his statements.. nice try though.. trying to apeal to authority...
God? This is evolution vs creation. No it does not take more faith to disblieve in unicorns then it does to believe in them, the same logic applys to your god.
--- Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
aes wrote:
The proof is the bible. That seems to be used quite offten to find acient battle sites, cities, camps, walls, building, what sertain people did, how people died ext. But everything about Jessue or god is just tossed out the window WTF!!
Spiderman comics state many things that are in real life does not make it true.
--- Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
1outofDAinfinite wrote:
You rome wasn’t built in day but I bet I can destroy it in less then 12 hours.
hydrogen bomb could do It in seconds.
--- Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
You atheist cannot prove the point that God cannot exist because there is no evidence......as for the that meaningless post about gods, and “evidence for our side”... we all have shown that it is possible for things to exist even without evidence. Think about it, just because there is no proven cure for the common cold, does not mean that it is not out there somewhere.....honestly, it true what they say... it takes more faith to be an atheist....
ne
Again there is no evidence for greek gods, norse gods, roman gods, my gods(That I came up with), Hindu gods, unicorns, TFSM, etc. lol You got owned.
No,you got owned. He made a clear arguement and you made a dissmissive, not relavant failure.
Try answering his main ponits rather than doingshit like that
That is my contribution
Actually I felt like picking this one out because it pissed me off the most...Watchman hardly brings any points that are even a challenge to me..
You atheist cannot prove the point that God cannot exist because there is no evidence......as for the that meaningless post about gods, and “evidence for our side”... we all have shown that it is possible for things to exist even without evidence. Think about it, just because there is no proven cure for the common cold, does not mean that it is not out there somewhere.....honestly, it true what they say... it takes more faith to be an atheist....
ne
Again there is no evidence for greek gods, norse gods, roman gods, my gods(That I came up with), Hindu gods, unicorns, TFSM, etc. lol You got owned.
No,you got owned. He made a clear arguement and you made a dissmissive, not relavant failure.
Try answering his main ponits rather than doingshit like that
That is my contribution
No one needs to prove that a god doesn’t exist. There is no proof for it’s existence, just like every other god out there.
We demand proof of the idea of God, you demand faith in the idea of God.
Another point is that just because there is no proof that something doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean it does exist.
As for your last point about it requiring more faith to be an atheist? How do you figure? Most atheists don’t say that they are absolutely certain that there is no god. Honestly, I think that most of the atheists that DO say they are absolutely certain do so because they are trying to avoid a certain response.
It goes one of two ways now a days: Either we say-
1. I’m certain there is no god... - then we get the response “how can you be absolutely certain when you do not have universal knowledge?! You thus have just as much if not more faith that us!!!"
2. I am not certain of gods existence, but I do not believe in one... - then we get the response “You are not certain of God’s non-existence because there is a part of you that actually does believe and feel his presence!"
I for one consider myself to be a firm atheist while also acknowledging that I do not have universal knowledge, and therefore cannot know ANYTHING is absolute. But when you consider nothing being absolute, then you might as well say that nothing is real. Continuing to raise the bar in this manner leads no where, and is more of a tactic to confuse and muddle the debate.
I simply do not believe because this universe has not yet shown to us ANY NEED for a supernatural being. If evidence were to arise, then I would gladly weigh it.
However... because there is not a SINGLE shred of evidence that points to a god without us pointing our OWN fingers, then I see no reason to even consider the existence of a god!
“If evidence were to arise, then I would gladly weigh it.".....interesting...the alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance...... If someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing.
But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else. What Pasteur attempted to prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from? ......also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA........ you atheist who discount God are left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune. It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck.....
»
Religion
» Creation vs. Evolution Debate topic
