Scientific and logical evidences for the existence of God

[Jollybear]

Scientific evidence for the existence of God
Facts

1: The universe from the cosmos right down to the micro world is complex and designed and has purposes.

2: There is beauty in existence in the world around us.

3: There is a moral law, or the conscience that tells us there is a right and a wrong, and shows forth a standard outside ourselves that is written on our hearts.

4: There is a consciousness or awareness of ourselves and things around us, being able to be an objective observer.

5: There is information or intelligence, both in the cosmos, the micro world like DNA and within ourselves and things we write and speak and communicate about.

6: There are anthropic constants, or fine tuning or the delicate balance of forces within the universe. This is similar to design but not the exact same.

7: There is the law of causality which traces back to a first cause, a beginning.

8: There are inconsistencies in the arguments of atheism. This is evidence they are wrong and the alternative view is right. Here are those inconsistencies; they say there is no design or true complexity in the universe it just looks that way because of many universes being in existence even though there is no evidence for this. Another is there is no right or wrong, yet if you do wrong to them, they will react as if it was wrong. Or wrong exists, but there is no way to justify it as being wrong. Consciousness exists within the brain, yet no spot in the brain can be found that shows consciousness. They believe they have the information of truth, yet believe that beliefs are only a chemical in the brain. Well if it’s only a chemical in the brain, how then can they be objective in knowing that? You would have to be outside the chemical in order to know if your belief is a chemical or within the chemical. Yet they believe all beliefs, including their own, are within the chemicals, how then do they know if their belief is right, that all beliefs are within chemicals since their belief is not outside the box system? Also they believe there is no fine tuning; it just looks that way, and happened by chance because of the many so called universes. Yet, how did this so called complex universe maker get their? They say also there is a beginning, yet there is no beginning.

9: There are many personal experiences of God’s presence, or hearing an audible voice or sometimes even seeing God, called apparitions. Sometimes even in group settings they see stuff, which then rules out hallucinations, such was the case with the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Now here are the implications of the facts

1: Design and complexity imply a designer, a God. If there was no God, either nothing would exist, or everything that does exist would be chaotic and without order to it.

2: How can we say this or that is beautiful if it is all made by chance and chaos?

2: Right and wrong imply a commander, a God. For if there was no God, a human telling another human what to do, would be meaningless, since two humans are equal. So right and wrong would not exist in the true sense.

3: Consciousness implies a soul within the body, also quantum mechanics shows consciousness within the universe. This implies a God, which also is connected to intelligence. You can’t have intelligence without consciousness.

4: Information and intelligence implies a God. Intelligence cannot come about by chance, nor does intelligence DO things itself by chance, never. This implies a God, a person, a higher power and authority. By him creating people, he is thus creating more intelligence or smaller authorities in order to create order within societies.

5: Fine tuning is so balanced on a razors edge that this implies a God. Again chance doesn’t exist and forces don’t have a mind within themselves, it takes a mind to balance their force and do complex things with them.

6: If everything had a beginning, something had to begin it. Something has to be eternal, that something is either God or matter. And since matter is mindless, then it had to be a God. If matter did have a mind, or space did, then created more space, then that would be a thing of semantics and thus prove my point, there is a God. There is a first cause; you cannot have an infinite amount of causes.

God's existence is beyond denial.

 

[freethinker44]

Amazing....

...ly wrong.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

1:Complexity and fine tuned utility are predicted by materialist cosmology.

2:Beauty is subjective.

3: Core morality is an extension of evolved survival instincts. The rest is fluff.

4:Yes, we are conscious. So what?

5:Yes the universe is complex. So what?

6: The universe is what it is. If it were balanced in such a way that it could not continue to exist we would not be able to have this conversation. This says nothing on the subject of origin.

7:What caused the first causer? If stock answer 'god is eternal' is given, why not invoke ockhams razor and bestow the universe itself with the trait, 'eternal'? God is really extraneous to this line of reasoning.

8: There are no arguments for 'atheism' as atheism is not a positive claim, or even a meaningful designation. As to the rest, Christianity did not invent human 'morality', it merely co-opted some of it. People were living in perfectly functional and peaceful societies long before paul invented christianity in the first century ad.

9: People have also had many experiences with religious figures from many many other, mutually exclusive religions. This speaks on the nature of the human mind, but the diversity of claims actually serve as evidence AGAINST any one supernatural claim.

EPIC....FAIL.

Not even going to bother with the 'implications'.

 

[Erebus]

God's existence is beyond denial.

I deny God's existence.

Hey that wasn't so hard after all

 

[tumbleweed41]

Scientific evidence for the existence of God
Facts

1: The universe from the cosmos right down to the micro world is complex and designed and has purposes.

You are assuming design and purpose. This is not a scientific fact.

2: There is beauty in existence in the world around us.

I agree. There is also great ugliness in existence the world.
But those are our opinions. Not scientific facts.

3: There is a moral law, or the conscience that tells us there is a right and a wrong, and shows forth a standard outside ourselves that is written on our hearts.

Conscience is a social survival trait. As shown by anthropological research.
So, no, not a scientific fact.

4: There is a consciousness or awareness of ourselves and things around us, being able to be an objective observer.

This is called being self aware. Another social and individual survival trait.

5: There is information or intelligence, both in the cosmos, the micro world like DNA and within ourselves and things we write and speak and communicate about.

You are assuming intelligence. This is not a scientific fact.

6: There are anthropic constants, or fine tuning or the delicate balance of forces within the universe. This is similar to design but not the exact same.

Not tuning. What works together in biology, and the cosmos, replicates and/or survives destruction. Not to mention that our universe conforms to natural law.

7: There is the law of causality which traces back to a first cause, a beginning.

The Law of Causality does not always apply at the quantum level. Nor does it necessarily apply before the formation of time/space, from which our physical laws originate.

8: There are inconsistencies in the arguments of atheism. This is evidence they are wrong and the alternative view is right. Here are those inconsistencies; they say there is no design or true complexity in the universe it just looks that way because of many universes being in existence even though there is no evidence for this. Another is there is no right or wrong, yet if you do wrong to them, they will react as if it was wrong. Or wrong exists, but there is no way to justify it as being wrong. Consciousness exists within the brain, yet no spot in the brain can be found that shows consciousness. They believe they have the information of truth, yet believe that beliefs are only a chemical in the brain. Well if it’s only a chemical in the brain, how then can they be objective in knowing that? You would have to be outside the chemical in order to know if your belief is a chemical or within the chemical. Yet they believe all beliefs, including their own, are within the chemicals, how then do they know if their belief is right, that all beliefs are within chemicals since their belief is not outside the box system? Also they believe there is no fine tuning; it just looks that way, and happened by chance because of the many so called universes. Yet, how did this so called complex universe maker get their? They say also there is a beginning, yet there is no beginning.

This is not a scientific argument at all. And although full of inconsistencies and misinformation, I will not address it here as this is about you presenting scientific evidence.

9: There are many personal experiences of God’s presence, or hearing an audible voice or sometimes even seeing God, called apparitions. Sometimes even in group settings they see stuff, which then rules out hallucinations, such was the case with the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Here-say is never considered scientific evidence.

 

[Tiapan]

Scientific evidence for the existence of God
Facts

1: The universe from the cosmos right down to the micro world is complex and designed and has purposes.

2: There is beauty in existence in the world around us.

3: There is a moral law, or the conscience that tells us there is a right and a wrong, and shows forth a standard outside ourselves that is written on our hearts.

4: There is a consciousness or awareness of ourselves and things around us, being able to be an objective observer.

5: There is information or intelligence, both in the cosmos, the micro world like DNA and within ourselves and things we write and speak and communicate about.

6: There are anthropic constants, or fine tuning or the delicate balance of forces within the universe. This is similar to design but not the exact same.

7: There is the law of causality which traces back to a first cause, a beginning.

8: There are inconsistencies in the arguments of atheism. This is evidence they are wrong and the alternative view is right. Here are those inconsistencies; they say there is no design or true complexity in the universe it just looks that way because of many universes being in existence even though there is no evidence for this. Another is there is no right or wrong, yet if you do wrong to them, they will react as if it was wrong. Or wrong exists, but there is no way to justify it as being wrong. Consciousness exists within the brain, yet no spot in the brain can be found that shows consciousness. They believe they have the information of truth, yet believe that beliefs are only a chemical in the brain. Well if it’s only a chemical in the brain, how then can they be objective in knowing that? You would have to be outside the chemical in order to know if your belief is a chemical or within the chemical. Yet they believe all beliefs, including their own, are within the chemicals, how then do they know if their belief is right, that all beliefs are within chemicals since their belief is not outside the box system? Also they believe there is no fine tuning; it just looks that way, and happened by chance because of the many so called universes. Yet, how did this so called complex universe maker get their? They say also there is a beginning, yet there is no beginning.

9: There are many personal experiences of God’s presence, or hearing an audible voice or sometimes even seeing God, called apparitions. Sometimes even in group settings they see stuff, which then rules out hallucinations, such was the case with the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Now here are the implications of the facts

1: Design and complexity imply a designer, a God. If there was no God, either nothing would exist, or everything that does exist would be chaotic and without order to it.

2: How can we say this or that is beautiful if it is all made by chance and chaos?

2: Right and wrong imply a commander, a God. For if there was no God, a human telling another human what to do, would be meaningless, since two humans are equal. So right and wrong would not exist in the true sense.

3: Consciousness implies a soul within the body, also quantum mechanics shows consciousness within the universe. This implies a God, which also is connected to intelligence. You can’t have intelligence without consciousness.

4: Information and intelligence implies a God. Intelligence cannot come about by chance, nor does intelligence DO things itself by chance, never. This implies a God, a person, a higher power and authority. By him creating people, he is thus creating more intelligence or smaller authorities in order to create order within societies.

5: Fine tuning is so balanced on a razors edge that this implies a God. Again chance doesn’t exist and forces don’t have a mind within themselves, it takes a mind to balance their force and do complex things with them.

6: If everything had a beginning, something had to begin it. Something has to be eternal, that something is either God or matter. And since matter is mindless, then it had to be a God. If matter did have a mind, or space did, then created more space, then that would be a thing of semantics and thus prove my point, there is a God. There is a first cause; you cannot have an infinite amount of causes.

God's existence is beyond denial.

False
False
False
False
False
False

and very naive

Cheers

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Scientific evidence for the existence of God

Facts

These are not facts. They are your position, based on what you want the answer to be.

1: The universe from the cosmos right down to the micro world is complex and designed and has purposes.

It is complex, but it is neither designed or has a purpose. These are the first two instances of you injecting your desires into the debate. If you have evidence that the universe has a purpose, or was designed, please share it.

2: There is beauty in existence in the world around us.

I think so as well. This doesn't have any implications, other than our ability to enjoy the beauty that we see in the world.

3: There is a moral law, or the conscience that tells us there is a right and a wrong, and shows forth a standard outside ourselves that is written on our hearts.

Morals are completely subjective, and vary from group to group (and even person to person within a given group). There is no such thing as a universal set of morals, and the ones we hold are certainly not a universal law.

4: There is a consciousness or awareness of ourselves and things around us, being able to be an objective observer.

I don't know about the "objective" part, but I do agree that we (as humans) enjoy self awareness. Of course, some people struggle with that to the point that it is a burden.

5: There is information or intelligence, both in the cosmos, the micro world like DNA and within ourselves and things we write and speak and communicate about.

Nonsense. There is information in our DNA, but that is coincidental to your argument.

6: There are anthropic constants, or fine tuning or the delicate balance of forces within the universe. This is similar to design but not the exact same.

I'll pass on this one. There are a number of criticisms of the principle of anthropic constants, but this will sidetrack the entire thread if we get into it.

7: There is the law of causality which traces back to a first cause, a beginning.

So? If you wish to submit that God is the first cause, you then have the classic philosophical argument of whence God came.

8: There are inconsistencies in the arguments of atheism.

This is evidence they are wrong and the alternative view is right. Here are those inconsistencies; they say there is no design or true complexity in the universe it just looks that way because of many universes being in existence even though there is no evidence for this. Another is there is no right or wrong, yet if you do wrong to them, they will react as if it was wrong. Or wrong exists, but there is no way to justify it as being wrong. Consciousness exists within the brain, yet no spot in the brain can be found that shows consciousness. They believe they have the information of truth, yet believe that beliefs are only a chemical in the brain. Well if it’s only a chemical in the brain, how then can they be objective in knowing that? You would have to be outside the chemical in order to know if your belief is a chemical or within the chemical. Yet they believe all beliefs, including their own, are within the chemicals, how then do they know if their belief is right, that all beliefs are within chemicals since their belief is not outside the box system? Also they believe there is no fine tuning; it just looks that way, and happened by chance because of the many so called universes. Yet, how did this so called complex universe maker get their? They say also there is a beginning, yet there is no beginning.

First, even if atheism is wrong, that does not automatically mean that theism is right (which is basically the entire point of your paragraph). That is the fallacy of an argument from ignorance.
Second, the "inconsistencies" that you point out are simple disagreements you have with a point of view that you find displeasing.

9: There are many personal experiences of God’s presence, or hearing an audible voice or sometimes even seeing God, called apparitions. Sometimes even in group settings they see stuff, which then rules out hallucinations, such was the case with the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Groups can't get together and lie? Somebody better contact Congress!

God's existence is beyond denial.

Well, maybe for you. God's existence is beyond acceptance for many others.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

LOL. It took me 15 minutes to find the thread, read the post, type an answer, and post it.

In that time, 5 other members beat me to the punch.

Let's all strap in for the inevitable deluge of fallacies, false premises, and denial of reality. Should be a good ride.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Scientific evidence for the existence of God
Facts
1: The universe from the cosmos right down to the micro world is complex and designed and has purposes.

How do you know it's designed or "has purposes"? You assume intent, and then use this to include intent. This is begging the question.

2: There is beauty in existence in the world around us.

So?

3: There is a moral law, or the conscience that tells us there is a right and a wrong, and shows forth a standard outside ourselves that is written on our hearts.

Why do you equate "conscience that tells us there is a right and a wrong" with "moral law"?

Do you think that morality can't exist without God? It seems like that's what you're trying to imply, but you haven't given any justification for this.

4: There is a consciousness or awareness of ourselves and things around us, being able to be an objective observer.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Is it just "we have consciousness"? If so, how is this evidence for God?

5: There is information or intelligence, both in the cosmos, the micro world like DNA and within ourselves and things we write and speak and communicate about.

The "things we write and speak and communicate about" originate with us, not God.

Exactly what is it about "the cosmos, the micro world like DNA and within ourselves" that you think is "intelligence"?

What definition of "information" are you working with here?

6: There are anthropic constants, or fine tuning or the delicate balance of forces within the universe. This is similar to design but not the exact same.

Actually, it's not like design at all.

Yes, various physical constants are what they are. If they were something else, then they'd be something else.

It seems to me that for your point to have any bearing on the existence of God whatsoever, you'd need to establish that these anthropic constanst had to be what they are.

7: There is the law of causality which traces back to a first cause, a beginning.

Not necessarily, and you've got quite a leap from "first cause" to "God" that you haven't given us any reason to make.

8: There are inconsistencies in the arguments of atheism. This is evidence they are wrong and the alternative view is right.

False dichotomy. While some atheists do make claims similar to the ones you mention, rejection of those claims doesn't necessarily mean automatic acceptance of your claims. At the very least, a person can remain non-committed either way (which is itself a form of atheism).

Here are those inconsistencies; they say there is no design or true complexity in the universe it just looks that way because of many universes being in existence even though there is no evidence for this.

Straw man. However, for you to assert that this claim is false (as opposed to merely not accepting it), you'd have to show us some evidence that it actually is false. What have you got?

Personally, I don't think that it looks like the universe was designed. And I'm not sure what you mean by "true complexity".

Another is there is no right or wrong, yet if you do wrong to them, they will react as if it was wrong. Or wrong exists, but there is no way to justify it as being wrong.

I think you're making a false equivocation here.

We've got plenty of things that can be labelled "right and wrong", such as individual conscience and shared social norms. Arguably, we also have philosophical principles that can be used as the basis for moral systems. All of these work with or without a god doling out morality for everyone.

Also, IMO, "God says so" doesn't really work as a justification for morality anyhow.

Consciousness exists within the brain, yet no spot in the brain can be found that shows consciousness.

As opposed to all those spots outside the brain that have shown consciousness?

You're doing two things here: first, arguing from ignorance ("we haven't seen it, so it must not be there"), and second, you're making a false claim. Any number of hospitals have the equipment that would enable you to see the correlation between brain activity and consciousness.

They believe they have the information of truth, yet believe that beliefs are only a chemical in the brain. Well if it’s only a chemical in the brain, how then can they be objective in knowing that? You would have to be outside the chemical in order to know if your belief is a chemical or within the chemical. Yet they believe all beliefs, including their own, are within the chemicals, how then do they know if their belief is right, that all beliefs are within chemicals since their belief is not outside the box system?

What makes you think that anyone's saying that they have objective knowledge?

No matter what, any knowledge we get is going to be based on our own subjective perceptions. I don't see how the existence or non-existence of God would change that.

If God does not exist, all our individual knowledge is subjective and tentative. If God does exist, all our individual knowledge is subjective and tentative. No difference.

Also they believe there is no fine tuning; it just looks that way, and happened by chance because of the many so called universes.

This atheist doesn't believe that the universe looks fine-tuned. 99.999999...% of it is instantly fatal to every form of life known. I wouldn't call that "fine-tuned".

Yet, how did this so called complex universe maker get their? They say also there is a beginning, yet there is no beginning.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

9: There are many personal experiences of God’s presence, or hearing an audible voice or sometimes even seeing God, called apparitions. Sometimes even in group settings they see stuff, which then rules out hallucinations, such was the case with the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Such was also the case with statues of Ganesh drinking milk. Are you a Hindu?

Personally, I acknowledge that sometimes people have personal experiences that they attribute to their deity of choice. However, I also acknowledge that they seem to happen at a roughly equal rate for everyone, regardless of the deity involved, and that they generally lend equal support for every religion.

But here's the problem: many religions claim exclusivity, but they all also claim the "evidence" of personal experiences. Not all of them can be based in fact, so we have to recognize that most personal religious experiences are rooted in something other than the truth of the religion of the person having the experience.

Now here are the implications of the facts
1: Design and complexity imply a designer, a God. If there was no God, either nothing would exist, or everything that does exist would be chaotic and without order to it.

Design implies a designer, but complexity doesn't. And validly inferring design is tricky business.

2: How can we say this or that is beautiful if it is all made by chance and chaos?

Because we each have our own ideas about what is beautiful.

2: Right and wrong imply a commander, a God.

No, they don't. If something is right or wrong for no reason other than God's say-so, then they're meaningless.

Take a well-worn example: say that tomorrow, God appeared before humanity and said "I'm changing the rules. Forget 'you shall not murder'. I'm replacing it with 'you shall murder twice daily'." Would murder then be moral?

For if there was no God, a human telling another human what to do, would be meaningless, since two humans are equal. So right and wrong would not exist in the true sense.

If by "the true sense" you mean that they wouldn't have meaning beyond human society and experience, then that's correct: they don't. Where's the issue?

3: Consciousness implies a soul within the body, also quantum mechanics shows consciousness within the universe. This implies a God, which also is connected to intelligence. You can’t have intelligence without consciousness.

No it doesn't. On both counts.

4: Information and intelligence implies a God. Intelligence cannot come about by chance, nor does intelligence DO things itself by chance, never.

Can you provide any reason why we should accept this?

5: Fine tuning is so balanced on a razors edge that this implies a God. Again chance doesn’t exist and forces don’t have a mind within themselves, it takes a mind to balance their force and do complex things with them.

"Fine tuning" speaks to the likelihood of our current situation. What possible basis could you have for concluding that this universe is unlikely? Show us your calculations.

Anyhow, unlikely things do happen unplanned every so often.

Also, wouldn't the "fine tuning" argument also apply to God? If the universe itself is unlikely, how much more unlikely would a god capable of designing and creating it be?

6: If everything had a beginning, something had to begin it. Something has to be eternal, that something is either God or matter.

Why "eternal"? Why "either God or matter"?

And since matter is mindless, then it had to be a God.

You made a bit of a logical leap there. Mind if you go back through that step-by-step?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Well, it looks like it'll be 'back to the drawing board' for our esteemed creationist colleague

 

[Jollybear]

No one else respond unless you have something else to say that no one else covered. For I have allot to respond to from what people have written so far. If anyone else does respond, I will read it, but I will not respond to it as I have ALOT to respond to as is.

I won't respond tonight, I am taking a break.

Thanks.

 

[freethinker44]

No one else respond unless you have something else to say that no one else covered. For I have allot to respond to from what people have written so far. If anyone else does respond, I will read it, but I will not respond to it as I have ALOT to respond to as is.

I won't respond tonight, I am taking a break.

Thanks.

Instead of responding to all the point, which is a huge task, just pick the one that you think is the very best, most unbeatable argument and let's start there. There are threads that have pages in the thousands talking about any one argument you listed, I don't think it is possible to thoroghly debate each argument all at once.

 

[dust1n]

God's existence is beyond denial.

That was so poorly put together, that I'm not going to respond to it. I mean.. I pity the time you took to put this together. The time did not deserve this.

 

[Erebus]

That was so poorly put together, that I'm not going to respond to it. I mean.. I pity the time you took to put this together. The time did not deserve this.

whoops

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Why is it each creationist that comes along always believes they have something new to bring to the table? As if they aren't all bleating the same tune as the last 30 bazillion that swallowed the same lies before them. Sometimes I almost want to help them add some polish to the same 3 falicious arguments they continually rewrap and re-present. First cause..check. teleology..check. Attacks on evolution..check. Seriously, 'D-'

 

[Smoke]

Scientific evidence for the existence of God
Facts

The first thing you need to do is figure out what fact means.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Scientific evidence for the existence of God
Facts

1: The universe from the cosmos right down to the micro world is complex and designed and has purposes.

2: There is beauty in existence in the world around us.

3: There is a moral law, or the conscience that tells us there is a right and a wrong, and shows forth a standard outside ourselves that is written on our hearts.

4: There is a consciousness or awareness of ourselves and things around us, being able to be an objective observer.

5: There is information or intelligence, both in the cosmos, the micro world like DNA and within ourselves and things we write and speak and communicate about.

6: There are anthropic constants, or fine tuning or the delicate balance of forces within the universe. This is similar to design but not the exact same.

7: There is the law of causality which traces back to a first cause, a beginning.

8: There are inconsistencies in the arguments of atheism. This is evidence they are wrong and the alternative view is right. Here are those inconsistencies; they say there is no design or true complexity in the universe it just looks that way because of many universes being in existence even though there is no evidence for this. Another is there is no right or wrong, yet if you do wrong to them, they will react as if it was wrong. Or wrong exists, but there is no way to justify it as being wrong. Consciousness exists within the brain, yet no spot in the brain can be found that shows consciousness. They believe they have the information of truth, yet believe that beliefs are only a chemical in the brain. Well if it’s only a chemical in the brain, how then can they be objective in knowing that? You would have to be outside the chemical in order to know if your belief is a chemical or within the chemical. Yet they believe all beliefs, including their own, are within the chemicals, how then do they know if their belief is right, that all beliefs are within chemicals since their belief is not outside the box system? Also they believe there is no fine tuning; it just looks that way, and happened by chance because of the many so called universes. Yet, how did this so called complex universe maker get their? They say also there is a beginning, yet there is no beginning.

9: There are many personal experiences of God’s presence, or hearing an audible voice or sometimes even seeing God, called apparitions. Sometimes even in group settings they see stuff, which then rules out hallucinations, such was the case with the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Now here are the implications of the facts

1: Design and complexity imply a designer, a God. If there was no God, either nothing would exist, or everything that does exist would be chaotic and without order to it.

2: How can we say this or that is beautiful if it is all made by chance and chaos?

2: Right and wrong imply a commander, a God. For if there was no God, a human telling another human what to do, would be meaningless, since two humans are equal. So right and wrong would not exist in the true sense.

3: Consciousness implies a soul within the body, also quantum mechanics shows consciousness within the universe. This implies a God, which also is connected to intelligence. You can’t have intelligence without consciousness.

4: Information and intelligence implies a God. Intelligence cannot come about by chance, nor does intelligence DO things itself by chance, never. This implies a God, a person, a higher power and authority. By him creating people, he is thus creating more intelligence or smaller authorities in order to create order within societies.

5: Fine tuning is so balanced on a razors edge that this implies a God. Again chance doesn’t exist and forces don’t have a mind within themselves, it takes a mind to balance their force and do complex things with them.

6: If everything had a beginning, something had to begin it. Something has to be eternal, that something is either God or matter. And since matter is mindless, then it had to be a God. If matter did have a mind, or space did, then created more space, then that would be a thing of semantics and thus prove my point, there is a God. There is a first cause; you cannot have an infinite amount of causes.

God's existence is beyond denial.

There is nothing scientific about any of your opinions posted here. How about providing some sources to support your findings?

 

[challupa]

Well I'm going to muddy the waters just a little further. Say there is a god that created everything, who says it was the Christian god? Or even a god that gives a hoot about it's creation?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Boys, boys, boys.

Jollybear specifically asked us not to point out any more issues, as he is tired and taking a break. I'm sure that, with the proper rest and a quick visit to Answers in Genesis, he'll come roaring back with a vengeance, and a whole trunk full of evidence to support his claims of the divine.

Count on it.

 

[challupa]

Boys, boys, boys.

Jollybear specifically asked us not to point out any more issues, as he is tired and taking a break. I'm sure that, with the proper rest and a quick visit to Answers in Genesis, he'll come roaring back with a vengeance, and a whole trunk full of evidence to support his claims of the divine.

Count on it.

But But... I wasn't saying it wasn't god!:no: I was merely asking which god...:yes: :thud: