Does God exist?

I don't take stances on many scientific arguments really.

This isn't really right. You debate subjective and inconclusive evidence, just like how people argue string theory and dark matter. When there is no evidence it just becomes shots in the dark, and any guess is as good as the next.

I will, for the sake of debate, acknowledge that existence already existed, but will not accept the definition used for the universe since it is not a standard in the scientific community. Please consider the multiverse theory.

 

Example of subjective, inconclusive evidence for God: the human body appears to be well designed, therefore it may have been designed by a God. Evolutionist's response: this is only evidence that it took millions of years for the human body to evolve through random mutations.

There's a piece of evidence for both parties, but both are just interpreting it differently. Which party is interpreting it correctly? This is where we get our debate.

 

Except that the human body does not appear to be well-designed, as I have mentioned earlier in a terrible post whose clarifying image has been lost to time. I recommend you to read a book on the subject before making claims.

I also recommend reading a book on the subject of the current understanding for the origin of our universe. Or watch a talk on the same subject on Youtube (The book is much better, obviously, due to no time constraints)


Also:

This sounds like a major cop-out. I don't see any reason to not take stances on scientific arguments, unless you lack the proper knowledge. If you do lack it, why are you posting?

 

We're well enough designed to be able to ask questions like these, aren't we? Why should we be perfect? Where would the opportunity to grow and learn be if we weren't flawed?

 

Yes. I don't believe that we can just "evolved" or ended up here randomly. There is clearly a purpose behind life.

 

I'm not making the claim. I'm saying it can be made. And it can - to some people, the human body does appear to be well designed. Go ahead and find me a couple of vestigial organs, another explanation to how the human body could've been made, etc. (all of these can be found in your "book on the subject") but at the end of the day, it still looks like a self-sustaining machine. Most self-sustaining machines we know of are created by an intelligent mind, so it's not unreasonable for someone to infer that the human body is made by an intelligent mind. It's just a different way to interpret evidence.

If I were to make an argument, I'd focus on DNA appearing to function as a code, and hence having the possibility of being created by an intelligent mind, as all other codes that we know of are. It's a possibility - nothing 100% conclusive. If you ignore it, you're being biased.

Let me give you an example so you can understand what I mean by interpreting evidence. You come and you find your laptop, your TV, etc. are completely in ashes. For you, you assume your roommate Billy burned them because he hates you. Billy, however, claims that the mains were struck by lightning, and the laptop, TV, etc. caught fire from this (believe it or not, lightning actually poses a problem to homes which are not grounded well in third world countries). Given that there indeed was lightning on this day, which claim do we believe - that the burned appliances are evidences for Billy's madness, or they are evidence that the house was struck by lightning? We have two differing claims, made on the SAME piece of evidence. Sure, the second option has a low possibility, but you CANNOT deny it, otherwise you'd be biased.

All these YouTube shows, books, and whatnot are simply offering ALTERNATE explanations of a piece of evidence. Nothing's conclusive.

 

What difference does it make if I take an actual side here? I simply speak and allow people to formulate their own opinions on a subject rather than me tell them mine.
If you wish to know my opinions and stances on certain scientific issues, then feel free to contact me, but displaying my opinion in an argument like this shouldn't have much bearing.

Oh and thanks for your conjecture.

This argument only holds water if you like to ignore all the evidence on evolution.
Now an argument that can be used is that a god set the circumstances to allow or help evolution on this or many worlds.

But then the question becomes: what event and how was it aided? How far back are we looking?

There is no evidence for the simple creation of humans, any interpretation of the evidence of evolution would make this painfully obvious.

Unless you wish to claim that fossil evidence was placed there by god to test our faith?

 

I myself think that god Doesnt exist Because there is no evidence of god existence That is what i believe unless someone can prof that god Do exist.

 

I don't believe in God's existence, but I do believe in a power that is guiding us and helping us reaching our faith.

 

Even if there is a god, something came from nothing no matter what nuff-said.

 

Look at car - Assume hows its made by analogy and comparative thinking.
Look at car - Actually study how it was made by analysis and repeated successful experimentation.


It's not a different way of interpreting evidence. It is wishful thinking.

 

For something that we do know the answer for, it is wishful thinking.

Example: Pot of boiling water. We know why it boils - heat transfers to the water molecules which gives them more kinetic energy which allows them to move farther from each other. This can be shown by experiment and it can be observed. To say, "Ah, perhaps God is separating the molecules Himself" is indeed wishful thinking.

HOWEVER, for something that we DO NOT know the answer for (like, for example, the emergence of DNA), there are:

1. No evolution experiments which can show how it was made (in fact, experimental evolution isn't a really big field itself)
2. No way to study how it was actually made - all is speculation, simply due to the factor of time

All we're left with is to infer (not wishful thinking). If all other functional codes (with their own encrypting/decrypting system) that we know of are created by an intelligent mind (Morse code, binary, C++, etc.) then it's not unreasonable for us to assume that perhaps DNA (which is a code - argue it's just chemicals, but then I'll argue that binary is just electricity passing through gates and switches) was created by an intelligent mind. Tell me it's designed poorly because of junk DNA (oh, and junk DNA isn't really junk - http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/), but this is irrelevant (I'm not saying a perfect God created it, I'm saying it was designed by an intelligent being, and not random chance).

It's like this - assume I have a box with a duck inside of it. If all other ducks outside the box are white, then it's not unreasonable for me to assume that the duck inside the box is white as well. However, if you find one duck outside of the box which is black, then doubts are raised.

Note that I'm not saying anything 100% conclusive, and I'm not even talking about God. However, evolution doesn't provide any good answers for the creation of DNA. Want me to wait on science to find the answer? I will - but I'm going to need a little faith for that.

P.S. Some theories in evolution are based on inference as well - micro-evolution can be demonstrated experimentally, and because of this, evolutionists believe that macro-evolution is 100% possible based on inference only (there are no experiments demonstrating macro-evolution on a large scale - all we hear is the cop-out that "there is not enough time"). Then comes the interpretation of fossil structures as "evidence". But note - we do not have experimental evidence of macro-evolution (the one and only one experiment that evolutionists will refer to is this - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html, but this isn't even close to showing a new species being made in the lab, just a new, self-harming trait). So in the end, evolutionists themselves are using "analogy and comparative thinking" to expand upon theories for evolution - something you'd call "wishful thinking". It is, however, just an inference, much like the example I gave above.

Also, lots of scientific theories are based on comparative thinking, especially those in the field of astronomy - http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#e1. "Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison." It doesn't mean it's "wishful thinking".

Excuse the long post - I just want people to understand my stance properly.

 

Using logic in this particular subject is pretty pointless so i say that let us all have faith in the existince of god