The Existence of God

So you believe the Bible is interesting, but yet its invalid?

Actually, evolution is not proven enough. I am not saying 100%, i mean, if it was proven enough, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a law. Evolution is a theory by Charles Darwin, which is not proven completely. It doesn't matter how much evidence it has, as long as its proven then its valid. But evolution cannot be completely proven and it could easily be invalid. Bible was written thousands of years ago, and yet, people still read it? And now you were born and questioning it. Its kind of interesting i guess, but that is the reason why we have more and more atheists each year.

As people get older, they get wiser. That is why you see atheists at the end of their life, starting to believe in god.

 

That something is interesting does not imply that it is valid. I find Norse mythology interesting, but I don't believe that the stories actually happened.

No, evolution could not "easily" be invalid - that would require the huge amounts of evidence in its support to all be found flawed. You are confusing "it is possible that this is wrong" with "this could be wrong, therefore it is silly to believe in it". You are completely ignoring shades of probability. It is possible that a qualified doctor may misdiagnose your illness and give you the wrong drugs, but do you absolutely reject all of modern medicine based on this small possibility?

So what? Many people read many ancient texts, what does that have to do with their accuracy?

Do you have any evidence for that?

 

Reasons I believe that there is a God of the Christian religion:
1) Many prophecies made by Jesus have come true, and his prophecies were made about two thousand years ago. Not all of them have come true but some have.
2) Steven Hawkings, currently the smartest person in the world, has scientifically proven that the universe has had to have a beginning. He has proven that there was once nothing, but something had to have started the universe.
3) You have to assume there is an omnipotent creator because if the universe did not exist at once, then it had to be created. It can not create itself because that is obviously not possible, so the only other logical point you can make is that there is a creator.
4) Creationism shows the complexity of human body and animal bodies. If the universe can not be created by itself, then there is a creator, assuming that there is a creator for life as well.
5) Life has a beginning and an end, therefore first beginning of life could not have made itself because we already know the universe had a beginning and if the universe which holds life, which is Earth, had a beginning, then you have to say that the life in the universe had not been there forever, assuming that there is a creator.

This does not prove that God of any religion is real, but it proves that there has to be a creator.

 

- The prophecies are vague/ambiguous.
- You can't claim legitimacy when the prophecies were accessible by those with the power to fulfill them. Those who fulfilled the prophecies would have to have had no knowledge of them.

No, he has not proven that there was once nothing. The Big Bang theory says nothing about what came "before" the Big Bang. It's a theory that models its period of expansion.

What created the creator?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Why can't extremely basic life spontaneously arise over a period of 100 million years?

 

1) The Big Bang also proves there was a beginning to the Universe. How did that big ball of gasses and other crap start, it can not just have appeared there. It's not like it was always there. The universe started as very small and continues to expand, so if you rewind before the Big Bang then there is nothing, assuming that there was nothing because the gasses and mass could not have always been there.

2) So far it can only be assumed that the creator always existed because so far it's the only logical explanation, rather than the universe creating itself. There is no other explanation to how the universe began. Not a very good explanation, but it's the best I have, and it is the most logical explanation for the beginning of the universe, rather than the universe always being there, which has already been proven wrong.

3) Because the universe had a beginning, and if the universe had a beginning, then life had a beginning, and it is completely illogical that life, even if it's basic life, has created itself.


Also, atoms, as you probably know, can not be created or destroyed. Remember that atoms make up matter, and if they can't be created then they weren't there at one point. So if they weren't there at one point, there couldn't be any matter, meaning the universe did not exist at once, so therefore there had to be a creator who made the atoms. But wait, they can't be created, so how did they start? Well you have to assume that an all powerful creator created them, which makes matter.

 

We don't know why it was there, or what it was composed of. The proper scientific stance is to keep an open, inquiring mind, not jump off and assume that something put it there.

Well if the creator always existed, why couldn't some sort of unintelligent naturalistic explanation for the universe always exist?

The Big Bang describes the expansion of the universe, as I have said. It does not state how the universe came into being, or comment on whether it has always existed in a recurrent "expand, contract" model.

Why is it illogical that simple life might spontaneously arise? Have you fully reviewed the major theories? Are you an expert on the chemical equations? Are you familiar with the conditions present on the early Earth? In short, are you actually speaking from knowledge or are you trying to use common sense?

It is possible that matter has always existed.

 

Yet you seem eager to trust the bible, which was written by.... humans?

 

Atoms in a sense can be destroyed as matter can be converted to energy. This argument is invalid because the laws of physics developed post universe creation. You cannot use something in the present to contradict something that did not exist in the past.

 

1) I'm not trying to jump off and assume, but with current scientific theories I have to assume that there is a creator.

2) Because atoms were once not there, meaning there was once not matter, meaning the universe did not exist at one point, meaning what you said can't happen because it didn't exist at once.

3) There was a time before the Big Bang when there were not any atoms, meaning there was no matter, and the ball of mass is matter, but it was once not there. You're right, it doesn't explain but I'm saying that if you look at Science you can go before the Big Bang and find that there was once no matter at all and there was nothing, not even time, so something had to create, it could not just have started on its own.

4) I have not read the major theories, I have though looked at some theories and found that there is no other possible way the universe created itself and created life by itself.

5) What says that matter always existed? From what I know and have learned I find it impossible that matter always existed because if matter can not be created nor destroyed, and it has been proven that the universe was not always present, and there was actually a point when the universe didn't exist, then that means matter did not always exist because the universe did not always exist. If atoms can not be created, then how did the universe begin?

 

You don't have to assume that there was a creator. It is possible that the universe runs in a serial "big bang big crunch" model.

How do you know that there was no matter before the Big Bang?

If you haven't researched any of this properly, why do you feel qualified to pronounce that life couldn't have arisen by itself?

It has not been proven that the universe did not exist at some point. Where did you get that information?

Ok. You made a general pronouncement, that as people get older, they get wiser, and they tend to become religious again. Do you have any data to suggest a large, world-wide trend?

Gamble? What am I gambling? A huge amount of evidence points to evolution being fact. It's almost like a forensic case - there are footprints there, blood samples, hair samples, DNA samples - and yet you suggest that we're in the wrong? Have you ever taken any time to review any of the evidence for evolution?

There is huge amounts of evidence in support of evolution - there no solid evidence for the existence of God.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that Christianity ruled the world with an iron fist for 1,800 years?

What...? Why would they need to figure out something else? If a theory is accurate, and describes reality in a way consistent with our observations, why on earth would we throw it out?

Good for them. That has no logical significance.

We cannot know for certain, but again, there are various shades of probability. Going by what the evidence suggests is completely rational - we all do it in our day-to-day lives.

 

The theory formed from the bible was even longer than the theory of evolution. It still generally remains the same: God creating everything. If you religious people were so smart, they would figure out something else, but apparently, they didn't. Even given more time they still didn't.

Also, all you do is say that the evidence backing evolution, which is a lot, has a large possibility of being all flawed making it false. You haven't given evidence for your belief that god created the world. You just continue to question and question the evidence for evolution which you probably don't even care about, just that it has the possibility of being wrong.

 

I answered no. But I don't think I can say I'm compleletly atheist, or that I'm completely spiritual.
Organized religion was a concept thought up by political swindlers a couple thousands of year ago to give the lower class a purpose, almost a reward for going no where in their lives while the upper class enjoys lavish accomodations. This "gift" was ofcourse heaven, aslong as they did what they were told ofcourse.
If I even one day believe in a god again, any rational being who believes in a being greater than them should assume that god is either: a completely careless cynic who enjoys toying with things, sort of like the gods of the Ancient Greeks with ofcourse some exceptions, or that he is a bumbling idiot who can't run a decent universe and even someone who works at McDonalds for minimum wage could and WOULD do a better job than this so-called omni-"everything" being.
I was raised Catholic, I'm currently in a private Catholic school, but something changed a couple of years ago. I changed, I began challenging everything I heard in religion classes to the point where I was ridiculing the religion I had held so dearly, I was tearing it apart and... loving it.
I guess I'm somesort of counter-culturalist or maybe just an anarchist, I don't really know and frankly don't really care.

 

1) Like all stars, the sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion. Every second that passes, the sun compresses 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy. After all that the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence. The sun is not a process used only to the sun. Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way. Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, which reduces the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left?

Example: Let's say I drive my car without putting any more gas into it. As I drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen? I am going to run out of gas. If the cosmos have been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen a long time ago. The fact is that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe. Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21-cm line in the spectrum a piece of light only given off by hydrogen. This could not be unless we had a beginning.

Giving credit to www.doesgodexist.org, which gave me this information on the sun and stars.

2) I have researched a bit, but I'm not getting really into and researching it a lot because I have better things to do. Anyways, you don't know if I have researched it correctly or not, and Biogenesis is most likely true, but is completely illogical when you say the most BASIC lifeforms ended up creating complex lifeforms that grew up to learn how to think, talk, wright, make computers, and other things. It's just not possible.

3) I may be wrong, but I think it is fact that time is the measure of changes in matter, and if time is finite, there can't be an infinite amount of time because time is finite. Matter and time are finite, not infinite. Meaning they can't be put in a universe that has always existed, that's impossible. I've been told that was fact and I thought Steven Hawking proved it. Also, what I said about the sun proves that the universe could not have existed for eternity or else we would run out of Hydrogen.

 

Shredderbeam just made me an athiest.

 

Okay, but if you want to find the truth, which may or may not be atheism, then I suggest you look more into it. I became an Atheist once for a while, then I realized the proofs supporting God and how they overwhelm the proofs of Atheism.

 

I don't think you understand how abundant hydrogen is. It is the simplest element. Yes, hydrogen could in theory "run out" eventually, but that day is so ridiculously far in the future. (And there would still be some created by other reactions)

The sun is not as old as most of the universe. Nobody is denying that the sun will burn out eventually.

And what, the more likely reason is that they were magically created by some god?
As of now, evidence indicates that is what happened. Keep in mind, this happened over hundreds of millions (if not billions) of years.

Do you have any real evidence of a god, or are you just going to keep throwing out nonsense?

 

The Big Bang expanded matter which attracted one another via gravity, seeing as every physical object, down to every little sub-atomic particle has its own gravitational pull; and formed into planets. Astrophysicists believes this happened approximately 13.7 billion years ago. 13.7 billion years =! infinite time. Stars and planets =/= all of physical existence. The Sun is known to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. 4.5 billion years =! infinite.

Hydrogen isn't an infinite chemical. Hydrogen was formed after the singularity of the Big Bang cooled down to the point where the first sub-atomic particles formed. Protons were created from quarks and the protons attracted electrons that were abundant. This mixture made the basic hydrogen atoms which have exactly one of each proton and electron.

Why do you think it's impossible? Compare it to a sperm-cell fertilizing an embryo and grows into a complex lifeform during 9 months of the factual microevolutionary process.

They weren't 'put' in an empty Universe; they've always been in an empty Universe. It's really that simple to understand, dude.

 

I suggest you look in to Astrophysics and Chemistry, perhaps then you'll understand that your recent arguments are a bunch of bullshit that you know nothing about.

 

Actually, I have been looking into them because I have found that they go the other way around by proving that there was once no matter, and how the sun and the stars would not give off hydrogen anymore if the universe was eternal. So don't talk about Chemistry like you know it all when in reality you're just saying I know nothing about it so you can say my claims are false without giving an explanation on how they're false.

So, I see you know a lot about Astrophysics and Chemistry, I assume you have an explanation to how my claims are bullshit. Please explain.