Christians of Moddb
Hobbies & Interests
This group is exactly what the name implies. A group for people who are Christians. If you're a Christian then please join us. We're a place on ModDB for Christians to gather and talk. It's as simple as that.
Theism:
A timeless being with a mind existed before the universe and then went on to create everything we see today including galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, trees, humans, animals and DNA. This intelligent being also created symmetry and order.
Atheism:
Theory 1:
There was nothing, then something.
Theory 2:
A timeless chaotic and mindless energy existed before the universe and then went on to create everything we see today including galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, trees, humans, animals and DNA. This chaotic, lifeless and brainless energy also created symmetry and order.
Theory 3:
A universe existed before our universe and created ours. The universe that gave birth to our universe was also born the same way along with the universes before it. The problem with this theory is that there would need to be a start which brings us back to theory 1 and theory 2 both of which are illogical. Theory 1 is debunked by scientific method. Something cannot come from nothing and theory 2 holds no credibility because it's unlikely that a mindless chaotic energy could produce the design and symmetry we can observe in this world and universe. Chaos is unlikely - if at all - to produce order and design and the likelihood of chaos doing such rests on blind faith and belief.
One might argue that theory 3 could be possible but it's a infinite chain of universe creating each other with no beginning instead. The problem with this idea is that The Laws of Thermodynamics states that energy and matter cannot last forever (which the idea of an infinite chain of universes would rely upon) and The Law of Cause and Effect state that no effect can be greater than the cause. Nothing can create itself. Everything with a start has a cause. An effect is by a cause. Therefore the universe had a cause and was created. Judging by the order and design we see, it's likely that it was an intelligent being that created the universe and not a mindless chaotic energy source.
I created this image in response to all the atheists who call theism illogical. Theism is actually more logical than atheism as proven by science itself.
This image is the sequel to this image:
https://www.moddb.com/groups/christians-of-moddb/images/atheism-debunked-with-scientific-method
So aparently a space dude that was just there and created everything for some random reason is very logical? Lol. Space and time are beyond our comprehension. Everyone can make theorys about it but noone knows and probably will never know the truth about it. So stop spreading this bullcrap and glorifying christianity like it's some big thing when it's not.
Space and time may be beyond our comprehension but we know that they were created when the universe began so logically "space dude" would have to be before them to have created them along with the universe which means that "space dude" is therefore timeless and without beginning and end.
It's not my fault that this is beyond your comprehension. You say anyone can make theories and that we don't know the truth behind things but then why do you downright deny God and preach atheism as gospel truth? Kinda of contradictory don't ya think? Absurd too considering atheism has nothing to stand upon.
Yeah, I'll accept "space dude" over your chaotic timeless energy or something coming from nothing theories. If you want to practice the "we can never know" ideal then you best open your mind because agnostics don't deny the existence of a god and keep their mind open to the possibility.
And another thing:
If you don't like hearing about Christianity, stop visiting this group. You clearly don't have many brain cells do you?
For atheism to even be considered, these things must be proven:
+That something can come from nothing.
+That The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.
+The The Law of Cause and Effect is wrong.
+That chaos produces order, balance and design.
+That symmetry can be the product of a blind and lifeless energy.
Prove these things atheists and then maybe atheism can stand on two feet because logic tells us that order, design and symmetry are attributed to a mind and not to a mindless chaotic energy.
Oh and if any atheists have any other theories about how the universe could have come into existence, well I'd like to hear them and I'd like to hear their take on why we observe order and symmetry (both are undeniably results of thoughtful design) in the universe.
And yes I realize that this image and the argument within doesn't prove the existence of the Abrahamic God which is something to be saved for another day.
I think this image should also prove that we religious people don't believe in God because we were forced into religion at an early age. Most of us believe in God due to personal experiences or because of arguments proposed such as these. I most certainly wasn't forced into religion, I found religion for myself.
Also another thing:
I don't believe in random chances, coincidences and luck. If you throw a stone and it hits the middle of a bulls-eye that's not luck, it's because you threw the stone in the right direction, with the right strength and the right manner.
Atheism bases itself off of random chance and coincidence. I don't believe symmetry can arise from chaos and random chance because we don't observe it in nature. Tornadoes don't produce design and bombs don't produce works of art.
Also The Big Bang theory states that the universe had an origin and a start from somewhere. The Big Bang theory also states that space-time had a beginning so the idea of the universe always existing is done away with by both The Big Bang theory and The Laws of Thermodynamics.
Who created God then? This article - that I created - should answer that:
Moddb.com
And just for reference, God isn't energy and matter. Therefore The Laws of Thermodynamics (Which God created what with him existing before the universe and being outside of space and time and all that) would not apply to him obviously.
Good job ecclesia I'll have to show this to my science teachers next year when I go into a public school and will be mindlessly brainwashed with evolution based ideas. (I hope I won't have to, but I can't stand error)
Atheists like to think of science as the explanation to why God doesn't exist, but as a physics student I can say it's not the case at all. Science can explain many things, but sometimes these are beyond scientific explanations and it is then when I use religion to explain it (this is my personal view). It's kinda like a dilemma to my mind, but there's always a way to combine both science and religion, because after all, science proves what religion beleives in (and it's all down to human perception and limitations of the mind's understanding of very complex phenomena).
Space is not symmetric and there is no order, just physical laws that caused kind of balance over milliards of years. If you dip pendulum, it will still get to basic position after some time.
You can shout about lacks of proofs about origin of universe, but one thing is clear: if we can watch birth of star and we know it takes millions of years, then we are quite sure universe couldn't be made in 6 days. :D
Space is not symmetric (obviously!) but we observe symmetric galaxies and if we were to cut a star or planet in half, the insides would match each other. The basic construct for the human body is symmetric. Observe the muscles of the human body and you find symmetry. Faces are symmetric. Then we have plants which are symmetric. The list goes on and on.
Those physical laws that caused balance - as you put - sounds like order to me and that's another thing, the universe is governed by laws. Methinks a universe without a mind behind it would - logically - have no laws whatsoever. I like how you say that the universe has no order but then mention the laws. Law is order remember?
No one claimed the universe was made in 6 days (that's the earth actually). I believe in the first verse of Genesis:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
End of story. Doesn't say how long it took for God to create everything. It just says that he created everything. This image isn't about Genesis or the Abrahamic God though and I did state that in my second comment.
This image supports theism in general. Either way it shows that atheism doesn't have much to stand on. With that said, what atheist theory do you believe? Theory 1? Theory 2 or theory 3? Or is there some other theory that I haven't heard of that you believe in because I think this image has summed up the major and most accepted atheist theories.
Also I'm not shouting about lacks of proofs for the origin of the universe. I'm simply pointing out how illogical atheism is and how logical theism is and that it's the most logical viewpoint out of the two beliefs which is why it should be accepted over atheism. As of yet you have yet to debunk this image which is supported by facts.
hmm, show me symmetric galaxy... then I would like to know what do you think is inside planets and stars. Organic matter can be considered as anomaly according to how much matter what what kind of matter is in universe. But bases of organic life are not symmetric at all. You should wake up at least sometimes in physics and chemistry lessons. Then you would also know that physical laws about matter behavior come from the matter itself (those small balls we call subatomic particles, ever heard of it?), not from any being. That should be end of this, at least if you not believe in god in nature.
And theory 1/theory 2 is actually a good point for atheism. Because you have no theories, you have just The Great Truth which can't be discussed. There are also theories with god as the beginning, but it doesn't seems to be probable. What do I believe? I don't believe, I can just guess which one seems to be more likely.
Strictly from physical point of view you can't ask what was before universe, because time (also as space) is part of universe and when there was no universe, there was no time. So your word "before" makes no sense. I guess you are not satisfied with that answer and neither do I and guys who create new theories. So we don't know what was in the beginning for certain, but at least we can admit that. "God" is much easier answer, but we are looking for useful answers that would make us understand it.
By the way, why don't you ask him? I am sure he will explain to you better than I can...
The Milky Way is symmetric. The inside of stars and planets are composed of layers. If you were to cut a star or planet in half you'll find that both sides mirror each other. Organic life should not be considered an anomaly because I've already explained how unlikely it is for chaos or unguided processes to create the symmetry we do see. I'm not referring to gases and chemicals here I'm referring to what we see inside and outside of organic life and that's symmetry pure and simple.
No, The Laws do not come from any being. God created the laws. The fact is however is that you argued that no order exists and yet we have the Laws which argue against that idea. If no order existed - as you proclaimed - there would be no such thing as balance in the first place. Here is the definition of order:
Dictionary.reference.com
Why are theory 1 and theory good points for atheism? Theory 2 is basically the god theory minus the intelligence. Why is it more probable that a lifeless, mindless force created the universe over a force that has a mind?
My word "before" does make sense because there was a "before" the universe and science agrees. I'm not using "before" in the time sense because as you have stated, there was no time before the universe. And there would have to had been a before for the universe to have a start which science agrees it did.
God isn't the easier answer. It's the logical answer based on what we observe within.
Lastly:
You state you don't believe in any of the theories but that you can "guess" and this brings up back to atheism centering on blind faith.
we've had this discussion before. Don't confuse Atheism with belief in Evolution and the big bang please, my biology teacher is Christian and she still believes and teaches evolution.
The fact is, is that scientific theories are ideas, backed up by knowledge and facts, as to what is contained in our universe. They can be disproven but to do so requires actual facts. The problem with your logic is that it is black and white. Just because we do not understand something does not automatically mean that god did it. That is illogical.
As for these "theories" here, well no educated atheist is going to believe something came from nothing as it defies the first law of thermodynamics. In fact the big bang theory says that the universe was once a hot, dense mass which then exploded into what we know as the universe.
solar systems, planets, galaxies etc. are symmetric due to their revolutions. The best analogy i can make to this is when making pottery, the clay spins and becomes symmetrical. There is also a theory which states the Earth is flattening because of this revolution (it can be seen by the fact that the poles are flat and there is a bulge at the equator). Earth is flattening for the same reason that the solar systems and the milky way is flat as well, constant revolution around and object flattens out the object, the galaxy and solar system are on one plane because of this.
Also, for the record the Universe is only 4.6% atoms, and the rest is 23% Dark matter and 72% Dark energy... This is proof that the Universe was not specially made for just us D: (we are nothing compared to the size of the universe, the thought it was specially made for us is arrogant)
I haven't brought evolution up though and I believe in The Big Bang theory or have you forgotten that? My logic isn't about filling the gaps with a god. My logic is about choosing the most reasonable and logical argument and going with that. Atheism theory 1, theory 2 and theory 3 are illogical and the argument you're putting forth sounds like you're saying we shouldn't accept anything without knowing the full facts first. So then why do you down-right deny a god?
That's being a hypocrite there.
Now I wasn't arguing about what causes symmetry or how symmetry is designed. For the record I don't believe that God is actively creating and forging things. He's created a universe which can look after itself and repair itself and again that seems to support my theory of the universe being designed and being ordered because chaos would lack such systems of repair.
Also I don't believe the universe was just made for us. I believe other life exists out there on far-a-way planets. I just don't believe aliens have visited us. I also believe that God could have made other universes with different laws. We could just be one universe in a bubble of millions of other universes each with different laws. This isn't really relevant to the discussion though and while we are infinitely small in the big picture we are still unique individual and God loves each and everyone of us.
If universe was made for us, then why there are no near habitable planets? If it was made for us, why aren't we in the center? You said you believe in Big Bang, and that you are not filling the gaps with God, but it looks exactly like that.
Why am I arguing with guy who call himself Knight of Christianity? What kind of guy can do that? I don't like using that "Troll" word, but if you are not, then it's quite sad...
And Milky Way is just part of our galaxy which is not completely symmetric. Overall shape is given by gravity of central parts (huge black hole?), but Stars layout is not the same in mirror parts.
Did I say the universe was made for us? Why do habitable planets need to be near us? Do you not know what type of problems would be caused if other intelligent beings existed near us? Prove how I'm filling the gaps with God. You can't. You're just making claims and not backing them up.
Ecclesia means Church actually not Christianity and it's in reference to the Kingdom Under Fires and Kendal (my avatar) who is a knight of the nation called Ecclsia.
No The Milky Way IS our galaxy and it is completely symmetric and mirrors the other side. The layout of the stars has nothing to do with the galaxy being symmetric. Would you say a face isn't symmetric if one side has a spot because no one else would.
Why should I argue with someone calling himself CommanderDef. What kind of guy can argue against someone calling themselves Commander Defiance? Maybe you're the troll if we are to judge by usernames...
Seriously, I debunk your argument and you accuse me of being a troll?
*facepalm*
i want you to go do some animal disection. animals are not symmetrical.
just shows how little you know.
and take a genetics class. gentics proves there isnt a intelligent designer, because if there was they would have to be retarded. there are millions of errors, usless genes junk DNA, deisease causing genes, and thousands of usless copies of the same gene.
genetics is a mess and it proves order is a myth.
Animals have muscles which are symmetrical. I never said organs are symmetrical so this proves how little you know. Genetics and DNA also prove that there is high complexity within us pretty much proving there is an intelligent designer.
Junk DNA is actually composed of a series of complex switches and isn't useless at all. Junk DNA is actually essential just all other genes within us.
Nytimes.com
So listen to your own advice and take some classes in science instead of believing what some random atheist blog tells you.
On another note, Richard Dawkins once admitted that a strong case could be made for a deistic god:
Spectator.co.uk
I think most atheists probably think the same but refuse to openly admit to believing in a creator even when the Pope of atheism admits that there's a strong case and only evidence can create a case. Atheism undoes itself once again. It's amazing that millions still follow old Dawkins when he keeps contradicting his own theory.
On yet another note, isn't it strange that all the top devout atheists constantly admit that strong cases can be made for a deistic god? A lot of these guys convert to belief later in their lives...
I admit, there might be a change that there is a god that created all time and space.
but i've also got the doubt that it is any god we would know of.
I take it that you're agnostic? At least you don't plain out deny the possibility of a god.
You seem intent on proving the exsistant of your God to Atheists lol. I don't know whether to find this amusing or annoying >.<
Note that for God to create the Universe, he has to exsist. There is no such proof, therefore your theory is just that: A theory, like everyone elses. Not more logical, nor less logical (though I personally see it as somewhat far fecthed, but thats just me).
In the following, I am not trying to say my beliefs are more logical to yours, or that the "God Theory" is less logical then another theory, but just putting it into my point of view:
Right, so, there was this Super Natural God guy who never was cretaed, he just *is* an-
WAIT! There is the problem. How is something that just *is* more logical then other theories? Your theory states that God never was created, and always exsisted. Eternally. Without being created or anything. Not logical. Not logical at all. Nicht Gut xD. Anyone can say something *just is*. I'm just intelligent. Does that make me intelligent? Nope. "That guy over their is so creepy omg!" "Why?" "I don't know! He just is!" Again, just because you say he is creppy, doesn't mean he is. It is, and will never be, considered as proof.
Your view on the other theories is far too biased. I am just laying out your theory like you layed out the theories of others.
@Ten10dix
This image doesn't even mention "my" god. This image is about theism is general and about proving how illogical atheism is. I've already given evidence for why a god existing is more logical than one not existing and I gave this evidence to you in the Certain Knowledge article and in comments above.
This universe contains design and order and therefore is likely the produce of an intelligent being. Show me chaos creating order and design and maybe then you'll have some support for your atheist theory but even then the chances are slim and it's more logical to assume an intelligent mind was behind things considering the balance we observe.
No I didn't say "God just is." I said that God is a timeless being who has existed before time and space (and he would had to have to in order to create the universe and science says the universe did have a start supporting the idea of creation) which means he would have no beginning and no end.
@Ten10dix:
I'd like to try and rationalize the possibility of an eternal being or construction, as well as the possibility that some eternal being could possess infinite power.
So to start off: hypothetically, suppose that God does exist.
On the basis that God created everything that we know to exist today (please remember that we're being hypothetical), he must also have created, directly or indirectly, all of the laws that we have found to exist.
This includes all of the laws relative to the existence of matter, as well as those relative to the existence of energy, and all of the laws relative to how matter and energy can be changed in relation to eachother.
Essentially, this means that God would have existed without energy or matter of any form before having created those laws. He would have existed in a realm of absolute nothingness.
Except for himself of course, though he would have had to existed as pure consciousness (and again, remember that we're supposing that he does exist for the sake of this hypothesis).
But what would have caused him to exist?
Well, in order for there to have been a cause, there would have to had been a time before him - in order for there to be change, there must be a rate, involving an initial value and a final value. However, if you define time as 'the constant rate at which the physical world changes in relation to itself,' and there is no aforementioned 'physical world' to change, there is also no time (time is a function of matter, energy, and their change. If time and energy do not exist, and do not change, there can be no time).
Thus, it should be possible for something to have existed forever (for an infinite amount of time), so long as it existed in a state at which there could be no change.
Now try to think of what it would be like to exist in nothingness: you could not count on your senses, as they would not exist. And even if they did, there would be nothing to sense. You would have no memories - there was nothing before you to remember. Just utter blackness; but not even blackness - absolute nothingness.
In such an existence, where you are the only thing that exists, your very thoughts would define reality.
The same is technically true for us, however, as our thoughts are just as physical as the rest of the world - they are electric impulses in our brains. But they influence little more than our physical bodies, which in turn influence only small amounts of energy and force in relation to the massive universe - we are very small in relation to the entirety of existence, and not even the whole 7 billion of us working together for a life-time could make a change to the universe that could be considered significant.
However, if the universe did not exist, nor our bodies, nor even those electrical impulses - if only our thoughts themselves comprised the entirety of existence, they would be infinitely more significant.
If you compare 7 billion to 9000 billion trillion times ten to the googleplex power, that 7 billion seems pretty insignificant. But if you compare 1 to 0, that one becomes infinitely significant.
In essence, if you are the only thing that exists, then you are infinitely powerful.
I know that none of this proves the existence of God, but I do believe that it somewhat narrows down the possibilities (presuming that it's true).
1: God created all of existence, and knowing that our limitations would prevent us from determining his existence, indirectly sent us proof (like the Bible) so that we could choose whether to follow him or not.
2: God does not exist; all of existence was created by something that was essentially natural, and all religious documents were created solely by men. Furthermore, we will only find the answers to the universe through science.
3: There is no way to determine the truth. To put it mathematically: 'there are too many undefined variables in this equation for us to be able to solve it.'
After that, it comes down to personal belief.
P.S. As per usual, sorry about the TL;DR.
God may exsist. He may not. I don't know what created the Universe, but I would prefer the "Nothing, then Something" idea to the "Someone never being created, a timeless entity, created us" idea. Especially since there is so many things in the history of man kind that suggests God is a man made invention, including (but not limited to):
1) Bible.
2) No one has ever seen him. Anyone who might of put it in the Bible, which meant they could of easily been lies.
3) Humans obeying Gods will, by... Disobeying it? Like bringing "Peace and Love" to the Musilims in their numerous Crusades, or burning anyone who did not believe in God (Free Will? Pff).
Sounds to me like it was simply a way to make everyone mindless sheep. Thank god (xD) some of us humans actually thought for themselves, otherwise we may still be in the Dark Ages >.<
NOTE: You seemed to just lay down those theories on the ground and jump up and down on them cause they contradicted yours. But you have to understand that NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW WHAT (or who... xD) CREATED THE UNIVERSE! Therefore there is NO theory more logical then another. Because no one will ever know. Get over it, ok? >.<
God help me... (:P).
@Ted10dix
You would prefer the idea of "nothing" creating something. And you say I'm the one who is illogical? You just hate the idea of God don't you? It's obvious you believe a god could exist but for some reason - God knows why - you just deny a god.
And didn't I already prove the accuracy of The Bible to you? We have scientific facts, archaeological evidence and medical facts all in the The Bible and for your information, The Crusades were politically motivated and about land and greed like most of the wars today. Evil has been committed in the name of the religion but should you deny God because of that? You would have to be incredibly dumb to refuse (yes, refuse) to believe in God because Mr.Pants decided he would rape and murder his wife in the name of God.
Also the Dark Ages were caused by the collapse of the Roman Empire not by religion. Freedom of speech is actually a product of Christianity which is something that can't be said about atheism where atheistic states and countries like North Korea and USSR persecute free speech and murder people due to their irreligious and atheistic ideals.
Now how did those atheist theories contradict mine? Either provide facts and evidence for your claims or just admit that your arguments are just your opinions and are based on blind faith.
I'm still waiting for you to prove these things:
+That something can come from nothing.
+That The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.
+The The Law of Cause and Effect is wrong.
+That chaos produces order, balance and design.
+That symmetry can be the product of a blind and lifeless energy.
Prove these things and then maybe atheism can stand on two feet because logic tells us that order, design and symmetry are attributed to a mind.
if your so keen on proving that God created the universe then just watch the videos that most interest you from this sit, Creationtoday.org
also what is your (all the unbelievers) reasoning for not believing God?
i mean look at the end results.
1. God turns out to be real and you don't believe in him, oopps:(
2. God turns out and you believe in him, yeah:)
3. God turns out to be a hoax and you didn't believe in him, well you had a life, done stuff that the bible said that you shouldn't. you may have hurt someone in some way for your own personal gain. *(not saying that a believer wouldn't hurt someone too)
4. God turns out to be a hoax and you believed in him, well you had a great life following his commandments and doing as he asked, mainly you tried living a good life.
i know i generalized a lot. anyways i think that its a lot better and safer to just believe God, and accept him as God.
Or it turns out to be a hoax used to control people and all who believed in it got screwed big time. The more likely one, in my opinion.
I'm not the type of guy to bow down to anyone, God or not, unless he deserves respect. God, of he does exsist, has made a sh***y job of making both Earth and us, no respect for him there.
And if he did appear before me, I would believe in him but NEVER worship him. Oh no, if he does exsist he did not put me on this Earth to waste my time praying to him. I'll pray and worship him after I die, in Heaven (Oh wait, I'm a pacifist and generally nice person but will rot in Hell cause I don't believe in God. Sorry, my bad).
Guys, it's not something from nothing. We know that is impossible. That's why we are looking for what actually was there in that moment of Big Bang. Because matter is morphed energy (matter can be converted back to energy) and we know (microwave rays from that period told us a lot about it) that Bang begins on one point, then we think about point that contains all energy in universe (because energy can't be increased from nothing). Existence of that energy point made some scientists think about universe "before". Some say it was completely same as our now, some say it was different, but both sides speak about end of expansion period and begin of contraction. This is a guess. But it can explain many things about existence of universe. Without God which seems to be logical enough for you and then you suddenly say that you can't know what it/he is.
Blind faiths you said? I avoided the word "believe" for purpose, but you still are giving me that word to my text. It's not right. I have no faith. No right, no blind.
What your comment was:
+Atheist Scientists think.
+Atheist Scientists believe.
+Atheist Scientists imagine.
Sounds like blind faith to me.
I still can't see the "believe" point... Maybe you are imagining words that are not in text... Or maybe your God is giving them there...
"Some say it was completely same as our now, some say it was different, but both sides speak about end of expansion period and begin of contraction. This is a guess. But it can explain many things about existence of universe."
Blind faith.
If there's anyone that sounds like blind faith. It's you. You're the type of person that probably was brainwashed since the day it was birthed. You base your arguments from some random shady websites that noone except christians have ever heard off. You claim that God exist and is the best thing that has ever happened and that there's absolutely no denying him or her or whatever is it in your textbook. It's also pethetic on how much time you spend researching this crap and copy pasting info from every biased page you can find.
With the right mindset and dedication you can "debunk" and back up any argument no matter how idiotic it is.
I'm not gonna arse to spend 24/7 to finding stuff about debunking your brain damaged logic because there's no reason to reason with a zombie like you.
You're a perfect example of blidn faith to all of us. World is a better place without people like you, seriously.
@aidas2
Your comment is filled with so much hate and ignorance that it irritates me somewhat. I wasn't taught Christianity at an early age, I found it by myself which shows what you know and no, all my arguments are forged within my own brain and written by my own hand and not copy and pasted from some Christian website. It is you who acquires arguments from websites written by atheists because you can't come up with your own due to your own inability to think. You are shackled and a slave and don't even know it. How sad.
"With the right mindset and dedication you can "debunk" and back up any argument no matter how idiotic it is."
So you admit atheism is idiotic? Sorry but only facts debunk and the fact that atheism can be debunked sort of does away with the theory don't ya think?
The only one here who is brain damaged is you because you follow an idiotic belief system that is actually a hate-filled cult with no evidence (logical or otherwise) to back it up or even make it considerable. You come here sprouting hate and ignorance because of your hatred against religion and you can't even argue against the arguments I have put forth and I'm the one with blind faith?
Of course you're following blind faith and the world is better off without judgmental and contradictory self-righteous fools like you. Now take your hate and get lost.
Mattman: Like I have said in a previous discussion, it is the man that is evil not the religion.
But I am pretty sure Heretics being burnt on the stake is not the fault of some corrupt Monarch (most of the time, some exceptions like Jeanne D'Arc come to mind xD).
KnightofEcclesia: I'll prove that to you as soon as you prove God to me. And I mean prove it. The Bible had those things in it, but look around the Internet and you'll find fellow Atheists have blew away all those facts as other things not related to anything Scientific (not devoted enough to look up what >.<).
I deny God because I do not see God, hear him or even see or hear anything that proves he exsists. I'm sorry, but an invisible man (or being, whatever >.<) living in the sky (or Heaven, whatever >.<) who always was and always will be and created the Universe, and us for no apparent reason (maybe he likes to see us suffer? Or maybe its an experiment? lol) is far too far fetched and sounds like something from a fairy tale. I swear, if the Three Little Pigs were in the Bible you'd be trying to prove they exsist aswell xD.
But like I said, the sole reason I said all that is cause you're pretty much saying "Here are all the other (or major) theories on how the Universe was made. They are all BS. Here is mine (Religious one): It is true. 'Nuff Said."
I find it easier to believe nothing created something then an eternal being creating something, cause I'm the sort of guy who questions alot of stuff, and I would (and actually have, I was a Christian >.<) asked how/who created God and the Priests said, generally, "He just does".
Now, Nothing seems more attractive then a super being who "just exsists". Seems to me like a desperate attempt to either show off ("Hey! I know what created us! I'm so cool!") or to gain power by giving answers to questions no one can answer.
I've already proposed the argument for God and you have ignored it and proving that chaos creates order and design is instrumental to proving your belief. You've already admitted that order exists along with Commander Defiance who admitted the same thing. So there's running away now.
No The Bible isn't filled with scientific facts left to right and it's not meant as a science book but the scientific and medical facts it does contain affirms the fact that the people who write The Bible were quite intelligent and advanced people more so than other civilizations.
You deny God due to an illogical reason. There are many things we humans can't see such as gravity and oxygen but we feel them and see their effects just as we see the effects of God (creation for one) and we can feel him too. One just has to search and accept God into their hearts first to feel God.
My theory isn't a religious theory. My theory simply states that a creator being behind the creation of the universe is the most likely one because it agrees with logic. You find it easier to believe that nothing created something and yet talk to be about logic and science. Didn't my first image prove to you through scientific method that that is impossible?
Again you're missing the point and ignoring the facts. God doesn't exist "just because", he exists because it's logical. He exists because he existed "before" time and is therefore timeless. Based on the design and complexity we see, we can conclude though logic that a mind was behind the universe.
I'm still waiting for you to prove these things:
+That something can come from nothing.
+That The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.
+The The Law of Cause and Effect is wrong.
+That chaos produces order, balance and design.
+That symmetry can be the product of a blind and lifeless energy.
Prove these things and then maybe atheism can stand on two feet because logic tells us that order, design and symmetry are attributed to a mind.
Sorry, didn't see your arguement for God anywhere. Can you put down the proof (actual proof, no he must of exsisted because we have order ect.)
The Bible was written to grab power over everyone else. The Bible was a man made invention. You have no proof that God had any word in its creation, but we can all be certain that humans made it.
Comarping Air and Oxygen to God is, quite frankly, stupid. You can feel Air, you breath it in, lack of Air can kill you. I cannot feel God, cannot see, hear, touch, smell or interact with God in any way and lack of God certainly would not kill me, as is made evident with me living today. Obviously, if we believe something is real we think it is real. Small children believe Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are real, does not mean they are real. Same story with God, just better told and believed by more people.
Just because something is logical, does not mean it will exsist. Our planet is more Water then Earth, yet us Humans can only live on land (without artificial aid). Wouldn't it be much more logical if we could live on both? Certainly. Do we? No. Just because something is logical does not mean it is real.
I'm not missing any point. You're missing one large one though: Proof that God is indeed timeless. There is no evidence (plausible evident, not the Bible or "eye witness accounts" from thousands of years ago >.<) that God even exsists, and none at all to say he is timeless.
Something from nothing is not plausible, but I have no theory on the creation of the Universe and the God theory is simply a primitive excuse to explain why we are here.
"That which can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof" -Hitchkins.
Note that I don't have to prove anything to anyone since I am not presenting a theory. You, however, have to provide proof that God does exsist. Concrete proof, if you please.
Note that by my first line in my comment, I mean that proof is not "Oh! I have presents under the christmas tree! Santa Claus must exsist!" but rather either:
1) Track down Santa Claus' hideout in the North Pole, drag him out and question him, getting detailed of accounts of everything he has done, how, why, when and where.
2) Confirm he does not exsist and it is, in fact, your parents or someone putting them there instead.
Proof is not, by any means, "This is made so well, it must of been made by someone", but rather "I have a video of this guy making that, proof he did make it".
One is theory, the other proof. Theories are provern by proof. Do not make the proof fit the theory.
We didn't know what was happening around when gods were imagined first. Now we know what are those things around us. Tornado is not finger of God, it's just kind of atmospheric phenomenon, we know why and how it happens. Same as lightnings, storms, but also fireflies. People used to look on skies full of birds and envy them... see? Now we can fly. Now we can dive. And that everything we managed without help of god. He was invented to be a person to blame, to pray and as aim of life, but now he is not necessary...
Read the bible and look for behavior of God. You should see he acts like romantic human. Also why does the last of Mosses's books describe his death?
And please, don't imagine any "believe" words in this text...
My argument for God is within the Certain Knowledge article which you have yet to debunk. I'm sorry but seeing design and order around does imply that there was a mind behind creation and if you disagree then prove the following things:
+That something can come from nothing.
+That The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.
+The The Law of Cause and Effect is wrong.
+That chaos produces order, balance and design.
+That symmetry can be the product of a blind and lifeless energy.
I never said God created The Bible. Of course it was written by humans but not for power. These humans were prophets of God and disciples of Christ and the books were written over a periods of time recording events which archaeological evidence has proven to be true. We have even discovered the tombs and bodies of saints and prophets supporting their existence. Saint Stephan's tomb was found after a Christian had a vision from an angel.
Comparing oxygen and gravity to God isn't stupid because you asked "why can't I see God?" and I explained that you can't see gravity and oxygen but we know they exist because we observe the effects just as we observe the effects of the created universe which displays so much design and order that you would have to be barking mad to attribute it to an accident.
No it wouldn't be more logical if we humans could live in water because we weren't designed for that. That's not even an argument or logical one for that matter. On the otherhand you have admitted that God is the more likely logical argument - judging by your comment here - and therefore should be the one accepted. Why accept illogicality (rain drops upwards) over logicality (rain falls down) just because you're angry?
We know the universe had a beginning along with space and time and we know that due to The Law of Cause and Effect that there was a cause behind the universe. Logically - as you yourself admitted - God is the likelihood and probable cause and since space-time was created with the universe - as science agrees - then God would need to be timeless. Yes you are missing the point.
Now answer these questions as I have answered yours:
+That something can come from nothing.
+That The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.
+The The Law of Cause and Effect is wrong.
+That chaos produces order, balance and design.
+That symmetry can be the product of a blind and lifeless energy.
The onus is on you to prove that what you say is true.
"Just because something is logical, does not mean it will exsist."
Is that you admitting that God is the logical idea compared to atheism? It amazes me then that you accept atheism instead of theism. Somehow I think it has to do with you hating religion but deep down you believe in a god because as you yourself seem to admit above, God is the more logical idea and logic can only be based on evidence and arguments we observe.
No there's no physical proof for God. Did you expect there to find God's signature in the universe?
"God was here. - Creation 0000"
We do have the logical proof however and I've already given that and the onus is now on you to prove that design, order and balance can come from something without a mind. Prove that and maybe then atheism will have a foot to stand on.
To Knight of Ecclesia:
I can prove all of these things with two words:
Quantum Physics.
Order can come from chaos. Life is the prove of this, and you might disagree with evolution, but I am sorry to say we have the ultimate prove that life can be created without the help to anyone and simply from the stir from volcanic activity.
This is called the Urey/Miller Experiment. Google it.
Your belief toward the Bible is Logical. Let's move on...
You assume that god exist because you think an entity must exist, but that's why you are wrong. There is no need for an entity. Why would there be any? By definition your theory is religious, mate. I do not deny God because he cannot exist but rather because I have no proof. He could exist or he may not, who knows? I do not deny god for illogical reasons, quite the contrary. You however, You are merely demonstrating that you made use of circular logic, which is to say, not much better than not using logic at all.
Little note: I do not wish to fight wit you, but you seem to be very opinionated without valid reasons and you seem to be hostile to every atheist you have encountered to date. I respect the fact that you are religious and I do not in any way "covert" you to an atheist. I think that they both have the right to have their respective belief as none can answer the long lasting question;whether god(or gods) exist or do not. But please, stop making fun of people who disagree with you. I know that the atheist group is not devoided of religious bashing content and I am sorry of that but it's beyond my control, and someone has to take the first step.
Sorry a little clarification, the only known law to stand for now is the third law of thermodynamics but both the second law(Loschmidt's paradox) and the First(Virtual particles, zero-point energy) law have exceptions. The Zeroth law, it's another story...
The other thing is, how is these statement have any relevance to the argument? Are you implying these laws require a god to exist?
Your Quantum Physics theory isn't proven and there isn't a single shred of evidence to support it. Life isn't proof of chaos creating order because you have no proof of chaos having such an ability and therefore (as I explained to CommanderDef up there) you have as much blind faith as the layman of a religion.
My belief isn't religious. My belief simply asserts that God is the logical theory because we observe order and design only coming from an intelligent mind. I'm bias because I know the truth. You're clearly bias with your belief which seems to lean towards atheism rather than agnostic and if I'm aggressive to atheists here then it's only because they insult.
If you find this comment aggressive then you should really question your being here. All my comments are formal. I take it you haven't had much debates or seen many? Here in England we have two TV shows called Question Time and The Big Question where people have debates and people who have appeared on these shows have been politicians, religious leaders and humanists. Dawkins appeared on The Big Question once and was debating against some Archbishop so you can imagine just how big the debates are. The shows handle many subjects from religion to politics and even to human rights and I can certainly tell you that there have been very heated debates on these shows that make these debates seem like small skirmishes in comparison.
I ask for evidence of chaos creating design and order not for your opinion or theory. I could easily direct you back to the laws of thermodynamics.
That's a monumental mistake of you to think there is no proof for quantum effects. I am astonished that you dare to make that claim.
- The double-slit experiment by Young and Fresnel(Proof of wave-particle duality)
- Quantum entanglement(in Einstein's words; spooky action at a distance)
- Casimir's plate experiment(proof of zero point energy)
- photoelectric effect(which I strongly hope you will not deny)
All of which have been proven to be legitimate and reproducible effect amongst others. In addition to that, if God really existed, Einstein would be wrong. God would indeed plays with dice.
I don't have "faith". I accept proof and theories or reject others which are less likely and makes new iterations to my own theories in response to new scientific developments. This is what religion failed to do but eventually had to, as it became ridiculous.
Please I am not a child. I came here because I followed the link posted on the atheist group and what I found was preposterous and unfair preconceptions and in hope of having a constructive debate, I refuted your arguments. I do not care for heated debate but there is a difference between that and full blown aggression through outright insults.
Moddb.com
Are you serious? What do you take me for, an idiot? If anything that as proven that you either follow circular logic to sustain your belief and nothing more or that it was an attempt at ridiculing our quest for truth in hope we will accept yours. If you justify your actions by saying that some atheist too have insulted you, then you don't follow your own religion.
"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I
have loved you."
JOHN 15:12 (RSV)
Never mind the fact that you seem to generalize your postulations to all of atheist out there, which some, just like me, simply want the truth. You don't want the the truth, you want that everybody accept yours, but yours just as mine is still uncertain. I am a baptized former christian, thus, I know the writings of the bible too but I have diverged from religion because it does not have any logical explanation to give me. Morals may have been carried by religious text but religion is not the sole precursor of them.
I have demonstrated a scientifically acceptable proof. Knowing the truth of the universe's origins and claiming to know it are two different thing. And to this day nobody can confirm the truth so my guess is as good as yours. The difference is I have an open mind. Either we die and we are judged by a God, we will simply die or we will eventually acquire "godly powers" and remains at peace for eternity.
I will not claim to know the truth until it can be asserted without doubt. I merely correct you in hope you will stop that prejudice of yours and your false claim.
If anyone has presented evidence, it's me. You have yet to prove:
a) That there is a need for a god or an intelligent creator of the universe.
b) That God cannot be replaced by a set of rules. Rules which, have replaced all of the former gods of different ancients civilizations. For example the Greek god Helios, also called Hyperion, our sun.
c)That my theories are wrong. For now all you did is deny them. More or less treating them as heretical thoughts.
I asked for evidence so that you to prove that your claims are true. I have presented you countless evidences, I am waiting for yours. You can redirect me to thermodynamics if you wish, but that doesn't invalidate my theories. As for chaos creating order, once again, please look at the Urey/Miller Experiment. It a genuine experiment which works. And you have failed to answer the question that I asked:
"The other thing is, how is these statement have any relevance to the argument? Are you implying these laws(laws of thermodynamics) require a god to exist? "
On a final note: here is the definition of religion according to the oxford dictionary:
"Religion-The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods"
Hence, your belief is unquestionably, a religious one.
I am looking forward to your answers.
The Urey/Miller experiment doesn't prove your theory. There's not one example of chaos there because there's an order and progression. You clearly don't know the definition of chaos if you're using that experiment as an example for chaos producing life.
As for the religion thing, here's Dictionary.com's definition of religion:
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
Therefore atheism and your belief system is a religion as well.
That will take long...
First of all the definition of chaos in the physics field is:
"the property of a complex system whose behaviour is so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions."-Oxford dictionary.
"There's not one example of chaos there because there's an order and progression. "
That's an absurd conclusion. Chaos can have a logical progression. For example if I roll a dice, we can agree the result is chaotic, can we not? Good. You take the dice, you roll it in your hand, release it, and then observe the result. It's called the scientific method.
If you stretch out the definition of religion, Atheism may be considered as one, although, it doesn't rely on faith but on empirical observations.
Nice work trying to avoid the real question. Here's the real definition of chaos according to Dictionary.com:
cha·os   [key-os] Show IPA
noun
1.
a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order.
2.
any confused, disorderly mass: a chaos of meaningless phrases.
3.
the infinity of space or formless matter supposed to have preceded the existence of the ordered universe.
The first and second meanings sum up chaos. If you think something can be produced from such then I ask you to provide a real example and record it and then post it for all to see. Such evidence is what atheism needs to be able to stand upon two feet. At the moment no atheist has proved that chaos creates ordered structure.
The third meaning even calls the universe ordered. Something you probably disagree with even though the scientific community generally consider the universe to be ordered.
Physlink.com
"It is nearly universally accepted that the universe began in a much more compact and ordered state than it does now."
Sorry but atheism doesn't have any evidence and the scientific evidences we do have speak against atheism. Due to this we would - naturally - assume that the opposite of atheism is true and the likely scenario.
I don't want the truth? You clearly don't know me. Who are you to say what I know and what I don't? Do you even know who I am? Perhaps I'm not even a human. How can you say? You - who proclaim to have an open mind - would have to consider the possibility that I'm telling the truth. Stranger things exist. Perhaps I've met God personally to know he's real. Perhaps he's told me things about the future which have all come true to the letter. Perhaps a bullet went through my heart and miraculously I survived. Obviously you will believe none of these things and why should you? I present you no proof about these things but do not say that I don't want the truth or know it. I know the truth.
Saying to me "you don't know for certain that God exists" is like going up to Jesus and saying the same thing. It's kind of ludicrous to say such to a person who has seen God or seen his miracles.
Basically what I'm trying to say about my knowledge is that it's personal experience which has shown me that God is real. I am indeed human. I haven't seen God but I have experienced miracles and we're not talking about things that could have been coincidences or random chance, we're talking about real supernatural miracles. Again you probably won't believe me and I don't expect you to either.
Now to answer your other three statemets:
a)Is the image not answer enough? I presume by "need" you mean reason? The reason for a creator being the logical idea here is that complexity and order simply cannot come into being as the result of chaos. Provide an example of where this is possible please.
b)Ummm what?
c)eh?
I can see you're trying to change the topic with b and c. I care not for debates about religion, codes, laws and morals in this thread. This is purely about God's existence and you haven't answered or debunked my questions and arguments. Going off-topic is normally a sign of someone having no further arguments you know...
Your reasoning is fallacious, it's unbelievable.I do not know you(nor do I claim to), that's correct but from what I have gathered so far, even when you are proven wrong you refuse to accept it, thereby, violating the principle behind any good scientific debate.
Perhaps you have met God, perhaps you are telling the truth, but what you do not seem to realize is, you need evidence to prove your claim. So let's assume all my theories were wrong, by the sheer fact that we don't have any knowledge of chaos creating order, therefore, there must be a God? Do you realize the irony? The universe is dominated mostly by chaos, not by order. Why would a perfect being create such a universe, it's illogical. It's the best God can do? And why god would allow us to become the dominant species while 99% of all life which have existed on earth is now extinct. Nature is efficient and economical, but not that resilient or acting in a orderly manner. In fact, another example of chaos bringing order came to my mind. Us. We are acting on a chaotic basis yet we create order. Burning fossils fuels to power our machines for instance.
"I present you no proof about these things but do not say that I don't want the truth or know it. I know the truth.
It's kind of ludicrous to say such to a person who has seen God or seen his miracles."
Then, how can you know the truth if you have no proof to offer. I do not deny the existence of Jesus, he was probably a real historical figure who somehow made a impression. His teachings may be true, his miracles are most likely not. If you are ready to claim that all atheist are wrong, you need to support it with EVIDENCE.
You may have experience "miracle". But, so did the ancient civilization. Did the Nordic god Sköll swallowed the sun?
Of course not, it's preposterous. Did an eclipse happened? Yes. Why would the vikings make such a presumptuous conclusion? They didn't know the cause.
I do not deny the possibility of miracle, but I question their causes. Claiming that God did it for the simple reason that you don't know why it happened, it's lunacy.
I don't mind if you try to convince me, please do, but with hard-solid irrefutable evidence!
"a)Is the image not answer enough? I presume by "need" you mean reason? The reason for a creator being the logical idea here is that complexity and order simply cannot come into being as the result of chaos. Provide an example of where this is possible please."
Well to correct....whatever that was supposed to be,as it is nor a question or an answer, arguably a rhetorical questions, Yes, I do request evidence to prove the requirement(Before I get that question, the term in the context of engineering) of a god in order to create this universe.
For B) God is an entity. Gravity is a law. If there is no need for an entity, the logical conclusion is that the universe has been created in accordance to a external set of laws. Here is an example: rather than saying that an entity with multiple invisible hands pull us to the ground, we investigate the possibility of a force created by a particle(the theoretical massless graviton). We then see that's it is a much more likely conclusion, research it further till we prove it, and then move on. The same can be done with the big bang.
C) You do not see our "beliefs" with an open mind, preferring to solely consider the Theory of a god(and yes it's a theory, at best).
Please read this---->>Now let me clear some things up. First of all, I am not against the idea of a God, nor am I claiming it's impossible, but I do think it's highly unlikely. I did not diverged from the topic without a valid reason. That reason being, refuting to your own argument which were irrelevant to the initial argument(for instance the one I am refuting in this paragraph), That is, whether the God theory is absolute, which is not until proven otherwise. I debunked each and every of your argument posted and answered your questions on this blog so far. I did not digressed intentionally from the topic, please, don't be childish. I did no such thing, and you know it.
"I debunked each and every of your argument posted and answered your questions on this blog so far."
Nope you haven't and you are lying. You disagreed with my arguments and presented your opinions as factual evidence. You have yet to answer and/or debunk any of my arguments:
+Prove chaos creates order. (You mentioned the Urey/Miller experiment which I debunked as proof. You couldn't even explain it)
+Prove something comes from nothing. (You mentioned quantum fluctuations which I debunked again. Quantum vacuum itself is something and also there is no evidences documented for creation out of nothing. It's a theory which requires blind faith.)
+Prove the human body is not symmetric. (You claimed that on closer inspection, nothing is symmetric but you failed to understand about the levels of symmetry and again you're claim was just that...a claim with no evidence.)
You keep ignoring my questions and arguments while asking me questions. This is normally the sign of someone who can't answer. I don't see why I should continue this debate when you have yet to address my three arguments and I don't want your opinions (something did come from nothing!). I want factual evidence supported by science that something can come from nothing because the science site that I linked to said nothing of the kind. So to sum up my questions that I want answered:
+Prove chaos creates order.
+Prove something comes from nothing.
+Prove the human body is not symmetric.
You fail to understand the scientific method, mate. Whatever I do, I can't prove anything to you if you act in such a way.
"Nope you haven't and you are lying."
I have? That's funny because I didn't claimed that the theist was debunked or that I knew how the universe was created, I cited pages from NASA which you initially dismissed, I didn't evaded any of your question despite your claims, and I am not using some weak irrelevant axioms to prove my arguments. You did all of those thing but to "debunk atheism". Either you are lying or you have no idea what you are talking about.
I am asking you questions because it's the right thing to do! In science you ask questions to obtain evidence, again, I can't believe your even asking this. This is a sign that you do not understand how to prove something.
For the last time here are your scientific proof:
1) The Urey-Miller experiment is one example and you still haven't proved otherwise, the only thing you can prove about it is that we haven't produced all the amino acids required to build a human for example. A chaotic chemical reaction can produce order.
2) I proved the existence of virtual particles.
3) I wonder how many time I will have to repeat this, but, I said tings are merely symmetric in the macroscopic world. The universe is not based on symmetry. That was the original question we are arguing about. You are the one who digressed, yet you keep claiming that I did it.
I did proved all of my theories so far. If you question that, return to see my previous replies, and well, learn. It pointless to have a debate if all I can do is repeat myself because you keep asking those already answered questions. These have been proven experimentally, the presence of God however, has not.
Ummm no. Once again you lie. I didn't dismiss anything from NASA, I EXPLAINED to you what that page on NASA meant because you clearly misread it or just didn't understand it. Meanwhile YOU IGNORED my questions and REFUSED to answer me. Why should I answer you when you won't answer me? You have proved that your theories hold no evidences which is why you refuse to answer my questions.
The Urey Miller experiment IS NOT an example as I proved below.
Also you clearly do NOT understand symmetry and keep quoting out of context. I NEVER called the universe symmetric. I said the human body and other things in nature are symmetric and every professional in the study of biology agrees.
You haven't proved any of your theories. You have presented them but they have no evidences for atheism, chaos creating order or nothing creating something. Once again I ask:
+Prove chaos creates order.
+Prove something comes from nothing.
+Prove the human body is not symmetric.
What you're referring to did happen. They just weren't miracles. What I'm referring to is impossible in the realms of science but it happened. I'm not going to bother convincing you that miracles can happen because how can I show you that God healed me? I didn't record it so stop pressing on this issue. You implied I didn't know the truth but if I've seen miracles from God then I know more truth than you at least.
a)Okay then. Here's the proof:
Need there be a requirement for a computer to have a maker?
(Hint: You should know the answer and that answer should answer your question).
b)So how can a law AND forces (which gravity is) exist before the universe when space and time didn't exist?
"the logical conclusion is that the universe has been created in accordance to a external set of laws."
Every cause has to have a reason or have you forgotten that? The logical conclusion is that there was a mind that made these laws and that this same mind created the universe which would work with these laws.
c) It's a theory to you but not to me because I already have certain knowledge in the forms of miracles that I have experienced. Miracles aside and I've got the logical arguments which support creation of the universe and support the idea that order only comes from an intelligent mind. You're not open-minded if you can't even consider such for a second.
There is no such thing as impossible in the realm of science, anything, with sufficient time and energy invested into, can be explained. The earth is not flat, it's spherical. Diseases are not demons, they are microorganism or body dysfunction/malformations. There is no witchcraft or magic, there is only knowledge and ignorance. There are some crazy folk who murder people in the name of Satan but atheist and agnostic are not part of them. If you want to condemn someone for being closed minded, argue that anti-theism is wrong. Atheism however, is not.
"a)Okay then. Here's the proof:
Need there be a requirement for a computer to have a maker?"
That's not a proof, it's a axiom =(. I keep repeating myself, yet you are not listening.
B)Again it's an axiom not a proof. But here it's even worst because you had an exception to your statement. You infer it require a being to establish some rules, but this being can live out side causality, why? The laws/rules could be outside causality too. You don't need a mind to "work out" these laws. If they were created by god, well god didn't made a good job while making the universe. Again you evaded many question of mine.
B)Again it's an axiom not a proof. But here it's even worst because you had an exception to your statement. You infer it require a being to establish some rules, but this being can live out side causality, why? The laws/rules could be outside causality too. You don't need a mind to "work out" these laws. If they were created by god, well god didn't made a good job while making the universe. Again you evaded many question of mine.
C) You want proof from me, that' fine. They are provided to you. But then you must be ready to add proof to your claims as well. It's not a debate I am having, I am teaching you how to prove something it seems. I can't consider that because I did already. The universe is so staggeringly imperfect, that, by god's standards, it would be a failure. Either that or, God's doesn't consider his creations as something he should take care of. Which in this case, I still don't have any reason to believe in him. Miracle are not even a theory to me. It's a effect created by a cause, as you so kindly repeated many times. The only difference, is, I don't believe it came from a transcendent or greater being.
Look, you can believe in your miracles and your God if you wish, but it doesn't validate your "debunking of atheism".
You haven't answered those questions:
"So let's assume all my theories were wrong, by the sheer fact that we don't have any knowledge of chaos creating order, therefore, there must be a God? Do you realize the irony? The universe is dominated mostly by chaos, not by order. Why would a perfect being create such a universe, it's illogical. It's the best God can do? And why god would allow us to become the dominant species while 99% of all life which have existed on earth is now extinct? "
You clearly haven't heard of the fine-tuned universe have you? The universe isn't staggeringly imperfect, quite the opposite actually as this site should show you:
2001principle.net
Physicists agree that the universe shows evidence of fine tuning and that it's just right and balanced for life. Whether you consider something imperfection is really your own opinion because most physicists say otherwise.
I don't need to rely on miracles. The evidence of fine-tuning in this universe is enough to debunk atheism and show the universe was the product of intelligent thought. I'd rather go with the universe being deliberate rather than a random accident with coincidences happening on large scales which seem highly improbable.
Once again your "evidences" fall flat on their faces and lay down exposed as your opinions which are backed by zero evidence and observations.
Scientificevidenceforgod.blogspot.co.uk
Atheism is wrong and stating that it's not without considerable evidence to back that claim up is ignorance at its peak. There are things within the realm of science that are impossible. For example, the universe being destroyed by an explosion and then being resurrected moments afterwards with all life intact is scientifically impossible.
"a)That's not a proof, it's a axiom =(. I keep repeating myself, yet you are not listening."
It's logical proof.
b)So if I create a computer game, should I be subject to the laws and scripts within that game? I've modded games and I'm not subject to the laws and scripts within the game doing away with your little argument. If God exists outside of the universe would would the laws of the universe apply to him? Your question is ludicrous. You're saying that laws existed and created the universe. Once again I say these laws are your substitute for God. You know it's scientifically, logically and mathematically impossible for atheism to be true because this universe had a beginning and you know it's impossible for nothing to create something. Yet you still refuse to accept the evidence which is staring you right in the face.
What would these laws be? Entities or forces? Laws show intelligence therefore your theory holds that intelligent design is real. Again, your atheist theory falls flat on its stomach.
Whether you wish to call the creator "a set of laws" or simply admit that the creator is an entity is irrelevant to me. You're still admitting to something creating the universe.
Then you have come to conclusions based on no evidence. If I am proven wrong I would accept it but you haven't proved any of my arguments wrong and keep redirecting me to your theories - supported by no evidence - and opinions.
"Perhaps you have met God, perhaps you are telling the truth, but what you do not seem to realize is, you need evidence to prove your claim."
No I do not. I do not need physical proof to know what I've seen but as I have admitted, I have not seen God nor have I met him but if I had, then me knowing and saying God is factual wouldn't be wrong. If you're referring to needing proof for God then you're right but I've already provided many proofs and arguments supporting God's existence which you have yet to debunk.
My arguments may have some flaws and other arguments I produced may not prove God exists with certainty but they darn well make a lot more sense than atheism and your theories. Also unlike your theories, mine actually have common sense, reasoning and logic behind them.
"The universe is dominated mostly by chaos, not by order."
Why does the National Academy of Sciences, NASA and other top scientists and science organizations disagree then? Dark energy is not chaos nor does it represent such.
"Then, how can you know the truth if you have no proof to offer."
Well haven't I already explained that based on the miracles I have observed? I don't need to prove them to you. This debate is - and never will be - about proving miracles or even The Bible. This debate is solely about God and atheism and I've already provided great evidences for God whereas you've provided none for atheism nor have you debunked any of my arguments or even retaliated against them.
"No I do not..."
If you claim that you debunked atheism, then yes you do need fact and evidence.
"I produced may not prove God exists with certainty..."
If you have no facts, by definition, your postulate is less likely than "atheist theories".
Oh really? Borrow these DVDs from a library then and after we will talk about it:
Thegreatcourses.com
"Well haven't I already explained that based on the miracles I have observed? "
Not a PROOF.
In analogy, what you are saying is, well aliens exist because there has to be other lifeforms of the universe; that is an axioms. Likewise, I saw UFO therefor it's a proof that they exist; not quite.
You need evidence to prove something, it goes for alien encounters just as much as it goes for God.
Outside of topic- While I do believe alien life exist, whether they can travel to earth that's another story.
Stop quoting out of context. I don't need physical proof to prove I have seen God or experienced a miracle. You can't get physical proof for that. That's personal experience and it's proved to the one who sees.
Atheism is debunked however based on the observations we can make within this universe along with simple logic and mathematics. BTW those DVDs are about the chaos theory and not about literal chaos existing and operating within this universe. Weather can be described as being chaotic but it's also a deterministic system.
Anyway back to atheism:
Logically debunked: We have never observed nothing producing something. Scientific method even debunks this as we can sit down and wish for something to appear from nothing and it will never happen.
Mathematically debunked: Because zero plus zero equals 0 and not 1.
Scientifically debunked: Because everything with a beginning has a cause. We know the universe had a beginning therefore it must have had a creator. The fine tuning of our universe points to an intelligent mind. Meanwhile the theory of relativity, the big bang theory, the expansion of our universe and the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem are all proof of the universe having a beginning. Meanwhile the BGV theorem and Laws of Thermodynamics also show that an eternal universe is very unlikely.
So the evidence for God is there and it's simple logical evidence that you have yet to debunk. Saying "oh no, I disagree" isn't good enough. It's much more likely for design and fine tuning to come from an intelligent mind than it is from an accident.
"I have demonstrated a scientifically acceptable proof."
No you haven't You brought up the quantum fluctuation theory which hasn't been proven and only atheistic scientists accept it as fact. Check NASA's site on the origin of the universe, they don't mention quantum fluctuation because it's simply an unproven idea that has been proposed but has no evidence.
I did give a reasonable scientific proof and they accept it too that the Casimir effect is a valid scientific proof here:
Nasa.gov
So what now? It's a conspiracy? NASA is a government agency, and the United States are known to be pro-religious(Which I have no objection to, unless it goes to the extreme of dismissing science).
Let's have a look at what NASA says about quantum fluctuation shall we?
"Vacuum Fluctuations of Quantum Physics:
Zero Point Energy (ZPE), or vacuum fluctuation energy are terms used to describe the random electromagnetic oscillations that are left in a vacuum after all other energy has been removed. If you remove all the energy from a space, take out all the matter, all the heat, all the light... everything -- you will find that there is still some energy left."
Again you miss my meaning. You are saying that the universe arose from nothing. NASA's site does not say that and the above paragraph states that a vacuum DOES contain energy and therefore something. Therefore there's still NO evidence supporting your idea of creation out of nothing.
I'm denying the theory of quantum fluctuations being responsible for the universe's origin which is something that NASA's site doesn't mention because it's not proven.
So again, I ask for real evidence and not your take or opinion on it.
Let's look at NASA's site for the origin of the universe:
Nasa.gov
All it says is that the universe came into existence with The Big Bang. There's nothing about creation out of nothing and to quote National Geographic again:
"The big bang theory leaves several major questions unanswered. One is the original cause of the big bang itself. Several answers have been proposed to address this fundamental question, but none has been proven—and even adequately testing them has proven to be a formidable challenge."
Science.nationalgeographic.com
Need more be said? We can only think about what is more logical now and God is unless you can prove these things:
+That chaos produces order.
+That a permanent vegetative patient can write and produce structure.
+That nothing can create something.
As of 2012, the argument is in God's favor and has been since this world could remember:
+Only intelligent minds have been observed creating order and structure in this world while natural forces like tornadoes are chaotic and leave only unorganized destruction .
+As of 2012, no vegetative patient has been documented being able to do anything let alone write.
+Well I performed the scientific method a while back along with the community and nothing happened.
Moddb.com
We wished for nothing to produce something and nothing happened. We added two zeros together and got nothing in return. So scientifically and mathematically, it's been proven that something cannot come from nothing.
Scientifically we haven't proved anything, mathematically and empirically, we found that you don't know what you are talking about.
"We can only think about what is more logical now and God is unless you can prove these things:
+That chaos produces order.
+That a permanent vegetative patient can write and produce structure.
+That nothing can create something."
A) done too many times now, I won't start that again.
B)That's flawed. A vegetative patient is like a broken machine. That's an illogical comparison.
C)Already proven too.
What I haven't proven and neither did I claim I would is, the universe came out from a set of laws/rules.
I did not claimed to have debunked theism. Yet you claimed to have debunked atheist. Not only you haven't but you are making a fool of yourself. Provide evidence or the debate stops here.
Now you're just talking out of your *** (again). NASA says nothing about nothing creating something and the National Geo site even states that scientists haven't found any evidences of what caused The Big bang. Meanwhile the mathematical evidence arguing against something from nothing is this:
0+0=0
I get nothing because nothing produces nothing and once again you provide no proof of the opposite.
A)I debunked your Urey-Miller experiment theory. It's not true chaos as it had order and several base chemicals.
B)Agreed. Atheism is flawed and illogical.
C)You haven't proven this. Quantum vacuum is not nothing.
I'm still waiting for you to truly provide SCIENTIFIC facts against my arguments because you're only stating opinions here while quoting out of context. If anyone is making a fool of themselves, it's you.
And it's a monumental mistake of you to presume I was denying quantum physics. I was denying your theory which is that quantum fluctuations produced everything. This image has already proven how that is impossible and now I shall demonstrate mathematically how that is impossible:
0+0=0
There you go. I have nothing. Nothing does not produce something. Something does not come from nothing. Quantum fluctuations is just like atheism in that it's a theory with zero evidence.
No it's a monumental mistake of your to not have stated your argument clearly. As I pointed out earlier your exact words were:
"Your Quantum Physics theory isn't proven and there isn't a single shred of evidence to support it."
What you should have said is that there was no proof for quantum vacuum fluctuations, which you would still be wrong but not to the same degree. You cannot hold me responsible if you made a generalization whether it was intentional or not.
We did prove the existence of quantum vacuum fluctuation. You must not have searched for very long. Now this does not prove that quantum fluctuation did caused the big bang. What it does prove however, is that particle can come out of nothing for a short while.
But, contrarily to religion we have an evidence to start with. While I do not wish to undermine other people's beliefs but I will retaliate if someone question good scientific research. Also, I do dismiss crackpot theory too when I see some. If you don't believe me, just go see the first, the second and the third most recent comments on the atheist group. Atheism and quantum theory both have hypothesis based on experimental evidence, we don't claim to be right(at least,those who are truly skeptical cannot, because it would violate their own belief), we claim it's the most likely explaintion that god doesn't exist.
Edit: this reply should below this one:
"And it's a monumental mistake of you..."
Then you haven't read my comment correctly. "Your" refers to your version of the quantum physics theory. Your version is that quantum fluctuations produced the universe from nothing which I have proved - back on page 2 - using NASA's site that this has never been documented nor does evidence exist for it.
To sum it up: I'm saying that your belief that something can come from nothing isn't supported by evidence. Quantum vacuum isn't truly nothing to begin with anyways - I even quoted NASA's site back on page 2 where they say there's still energy within a vacuum - and therefore, once again you still have no evidence of creation out of nothing.
It's a theory and one that hasn't been proved. It's also the only theory supporting atheism. Funny that an unproven theory is the only evidence that atheism has. Meanwhile theism has logic, maths and simple common sense on its side.
0+0=0
It's simple maths and it pretty much debunks the atheist theory.
"To sum it up: I'm saying that your belief that something can come from nothing isn't supported by evidence"
You are in denial. The energy comes from the virtual particle. Stop claiming you know everything because, you do not. I may have incited it as a possibility that the universe could have sprouted into existence this way, yes maybe , but the point remains Order can come from chaos. At least I have physical evidence to rely on, and you do not.
0+0=0, is worthless, just as your explanations and excuses.
"I may have incited it as a possibility that the universe could have sprouted into existence this way, yes maybe"
Once again, ANOTHER CLAIM BACKED BY NO EVIDENCE.
You're not good at this debating thing. I suggest you stop right now. Order cannot come from chaos. I have already proven how the experiment wasn't chaotic (your claim is that chaos produced order but then you turned it the other way around making your whole argument irrelevant) but rather ordered. Meanwhile 0+0=0 is indeed worthless much like nothing because nothing cannot produce something.
Still waiting for that proof.