There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not. Even with the little knowledge that I have of the universe we live on a knife edge in, I could demonstrate that a superior force caused the universe to come into existence. Indeed, Kalam's cosmological argument is sufficient to do that on its own, that is, without mentioning the singularity, the Big Bang, rapid expansion, anthropic principle, dark matter and energy, fine tuning, etc etc etc... So why is it that Atheists have such leverage in our society to preach their counterfeit arguments.

If a man wants to know the truth, without a need to subscribe to any groups who all think the same and who all point the same condescending fingure, as there is safety in numbers, then the truth is in the stars for all to see. Why do men need to be told what to believe instead of finding out for themselves by looking at our world that simply could not exist without divinity.

Look at the vast gap between the intelligence of Man and that of our closest counterpart in the animal Kingdom to see how much more intelligent we are to them. Have we evolved that much faster then they have, and if we have, then why have we? Something so fundamentally obvious, both scientifically, cosmological and supernaturally has to have a form of intelligence behind it. It is so obviously God who created the universe and set our planet up for habitation. The "by chance" idea is hugely more improbable then a supernatural being is, yet we readily believe the former. Why? How do atheists reconcile this overwhelming cosmological and intellectual evidence. How is it possible to categorically claim that God does not exist.

 

[George-ananda]

I share a lot of your views and am on a similar page. My mind reels thinking how our DNA came to exist through only the processes accepted by science. I believe conscious intelligence fostered the process.

Looking at western culture a few hundred years ago strict religious thinking ruled the roost. And then science advanced and a natural view of the universe started to make inroads and took over the roost. However in very recent times I'm seeing a new group making inroads in the roost; those that embrace both science and spirituality. And I see them becoming the wave of the future.

A quote from philosopher Ken Wilbur : Narrow science trumps narrow religion. Broad science/religion trumps them both.

 

[Skwim]

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not.

Your confidence in your ability to persuade crosses the line from hubris to But curious as to exactly what this powerful and compelling knowledge is, please share so that we too may benefit from your wisdom.

Even with the little knowledge that I have of the universe we live on a knife edge in, I could demonstrate that a superior force caused the universe to come into existence.

Yes, yes, yes, we appreciate your ability to persuade, just get on with it. We 're all a-tremble to learn.

Indeed, Kalam's cosmological argument is sufficient to do that on its own, that is, without mentioning the singularity, the Big Bang, rapid expansion, anthropic principle, dark matter and energy, fine tuning, etc etc etc... So why is it that Atheists have such leverage in our society to preach their counterfeit arguments.

Errr . . . this sucker has been debunked so many times that bringing it up is tantamount to admitting that you truly don't have a clue as to what you're talking about (I'm beginning to think I may have fallen victim to a troll here).

In any case take a look.

[youtube]35WVf6Uvk8U[/youtube]

​

For a more detailed debunking I invite you to click HERE

 

[Willamena]

I would like to hear more about this, please.

...the universe we live on a knife edge in...

 

[George-ananda]

I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not.

I would also like to add to that. I have made kind of an avocation of studying miraculous and paranormal phenomena. I think that the likelihood that things happen that show our 'scientific' understanding of the universe to be DRAMATICALLY incomplete to be immensely greater than the likelihood that these events can be explained by processes accepted by science. And a few tweaks to our scientific worldview is not going to explain it all. We need a new paradigm in which our physical science is a subset.

 

[George-ananda]

Errr . . . this sucker has been debunked so many times that bringing it up is tantamount to admitting that you truly don't have a clue as to what you're talking about

To claim it's 'proof' or 'debunked' is tantamount to admitting that you truly don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

 

[fantome profane]

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists...

How unfortunate that we can't all be as open minded and free from bigotry as you obviously are.

 

[Koldo]

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not.

You would obviously refer to the many scientific researches that concluded that a god exists. Correct?

Even with the little knowledge that I have of the universe we live on a knife edge in, I could demonstrate that a superior force caused the universe to come into existence.

Like the Big Bang?

Indeed, Kalam's cosmological argument is sufficient to do that on its own, that is, without mentioning the singularity, the Big Bang, rapid expansion, anthropic principle, dark matter and energy, fine tuning, etc etc etc... So why is it that Atheists have such leverage in our society to preach their counterfeit arguments.

If you are satisfied with calling whatever gave birth to the universe a god, then maybe. It may be nothing at all or something completely unconscious.

If a man wants to know the truth, without a need to subscribe to any groups who all think the same and who all point the same condescending fingure, as there is safety in numbers, then the truth is in the stars for all to see. Why do men need to be told what to believe instead of finding out for themselves by looking at our world that simply could not exist without divinity.

Says the one who calls himself a christian, and who probably was raised in a country with a christian majority. As if you haven't been told to believe in the many things that you do...

Look at the vast gap between the intelligence of Man and that of our closest counterpart in the animal Kingdom to see how much more intelligent we are to them.

Look at how slow we are compared to guepards. How weak we are compared to gorillas. How small we are compared to whales.

Have we evolved that much faster then they have, and if we have, then why have we? Something so fundamentally obvious, both scientifically, cosmological and supernaturally has to have a form of intelligence behind it.

We are not any more evolved than any other species.

It is so obviously God who created the universe and set our planet up for habitation.

It is obvious you are extremely biased.

The "by chance" idea is hugely more improbable then a supernatural being is, yet we readily believe the former. Why? How do atheists reconcile this overwhelming cosmological and intellectual evidence. How is it possible to categorically claim that God does not exist.

How do you calculate the probability of a supernatural being existing?

 

[Skwim]

I would also like to add to that. I have made kind of an avocation of studying miraculous and paranormal phenomena. I think that the likelihood that things happen that show our 'scientific' understanding of the universe to be DRAMATICALLY incomplete to be immensely greater than the likelihood that these events can be explained by processes accepted by science.

If an answer lies outside the purview of science than it says nothing about the completeness of science whatsoever. I think it best to keep in mind just what science is;

"The systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy."
source: Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology
​

And a few tweaks to our scientific worldview is not going to explain it all.

Exactly.

We need a new paradigm in which our physical science is a subset.

Why? What would be the benefit?

 

[Skwim]

To claim it's 'proof' or 'debunked' is tantamount to admitting that you truly don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

I invite you to Google "Kalam Cosmological Argument debunked." Obviously I'm not alone, but in very good company.

​

 

[George-ananda]

I invite you to Google "Kalam Cosmological Argument debunked." Obviously I'm not alone, but in very good company.

​

Of course in any debate both sides can refer to internet sources and post youTubes. That's consistent with my point.

 

[Skwim]

Of course in any debate both sides can refer to internet sources and post youTubes. That's consistent with my point.

You're point being, and I quote;,

"To claim it's 'proof' or 'debunked' is tantamount to admitting that you truly don't have a clue as to what you're talking about."
​

Sorry, but I fail to see the consistancy at all here. Care to explain?

 

[Serenity7855]

[

QUOTE=Skwim;3810821]Your confidence in your ability to persuade crosses the line from hubris to But curious as to exactly what this powerful and compelling knowledge is, please share so that we too may benefit from your wisdom.

Yes, yes, yes, we appreciate your ability to persuade, just get on with it. We 're all a-tremble to learn.

Who is "We"? Do you post on behalf of a group of people?

To persuade suggests an air of dishonesty. To allow a reasonable man, without any preconceived bias, to ponder the improbability of a God not existing, and then making his own mind up, based on evidence that is readily available, to everyone, is not a persuasion, it is an enlightenment.

Errr . . . this sucker has been debunked so many times that bringing it up is tantamount to admitting that you truly don't have a clue as to what you're talking about (I'm beginning to think I may have fallen victim to a troll here).

In any case take a look.

[youtube]35WVf6Uvk8U[/youtube]​

To my knowledge. William Lane Craig has never been debunked.

This guy is very good at making up rational improbabilities that are more improbable then the God Hypothesis, however, because they comply with the notions that bigoted Atheists subscribe to, as they adjust their blinkers to block out the probable to more clearly see their favoured dubiety.

It amazes me how people like this so eloquently speak untruths. The Laws of Thermodynamics pertain to our world and our universe. There is no need for us to conjure up a magic wizard or look for alternatives that simply do not exist in our universe. It would be like claiming a God exists outside of the universal laws. He says that Quantum physics states that atomic particles jump in and out of existence. That is not a lie, it is just not true. He is using that to dismiss the Thermodynamic principles, that is a widely acclaimed scientific constant, of cause and effect, and by quoting him, so are you.

What objections might be raised against this argument? Premise (1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause seems obviously true— at the least, more so than its denial. Yet a number of atheists, in order to avoid the argument’s conclusion, have denied the first premise. Sometimes it is said that sub-atomic physics furnishes an exception to premise (1), since on the sub-atomic level events are said to be uncaused. In the same way, certain theories of cosmic origins are interpreted as showing that the whole universe could have sprung into being out of the sub-atomic vacuum. Thus the universe is said to be the proverbial “free lunch.”
This objection, however, is based on misunderstandings. In the first place, not all scientists agree that sub-atomic events are uncaused. Many physicists today are quite dissatisfied with this view (the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation) of sub-atomic physics and are exploring deterministic theories like those of David Bohm. 7
Thus, sub-atomic physics is not a proven exception to premise (1).
Second, even on the traditional, indeterministic interpretation, particles do not come into being out of nothing. They arise as spontaneous fluctuations of the energy contained in the sub-atomic vacuum; they do not come from nothing. 8 Third, the same point can be made about theories of the origin of the universe out of a primordial vacuum. 9 Popular magazine articles touting such theories as getting “something from nothing” simply do not understand that the vacuum is not nothing, but is a sea of fluctuating energy endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws. Philosopher of science Robert Deltete accurately sums up the situation: “There is no basis in ordinary quantum theory for the claim that the universe itself is uncaused, much less for the claim that it sprang into being uncaused from literally nothing.” 10

William Lane Craig.​

 

[outhouse]

void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists
.

:biglaugh:

MMMMmmm grunt, snort, me tinking edumacation and nowege BAD BAD, VERY BAD!!!!!!!!

 

[outhouse]

To my knowledge. William Lane Craig has never been debunked.

.

He has not said a word, that has not be debunked.


He has no credibility, what so ever, and blindly talks about things he knows nothing about.

He lives in a fantasy filled world, where he doesn't have to explain any thing with known credible knowledge.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How is it possible to categorically claim that God does not exist.

In the same way it's possible to categorically claim that God does exist. Both claims are nothing more than speculation, and the only truly rational position is to conclude that there isn't sufficient evidence for either, and that the existence of god(s) is unknown.

 

[Quintessence]

What I find fascinating about these types of arguments is that although I agree 100% that evidence or reasoning for gods (aka, things that are sacred and worthy of worship to a person or culture) is obvious, I completely disagree with the argument set forth by the OP.

 

[outhouse]

I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have


.

Well that would depend on the education level of said subject.


If you took some dullard off the streets, he might buy your unsubstantiated statements.


If you get anyone with half a education, you may be getting laughed at.



All I see from you are arguments from ignorance on the specific topics you posit.


To date, there are no signs of any of the thousands of gods man has created, as having anything to do, in any aspect, of anything in nature or human origins.


As a matter of fact, you need to start explaining why the biblical accounts of our origins are all wrong, compared to the scientific knowledge we possess.

YOU ARE NOT ON THE OFFENSE HERE, you are on the defense.

Exploiting gaps in our knowledge, out of context, like Craig does, will not help you here.

 

[outhouse]

Thermodynamic principles
.

You don't go to Sunday school to learn about these topics.

You go and learn from a real professor.


Apologist do not teach this topic, yet for some unknown reason, your only using apologist to explain your point of view.

 

[outhouse]

How is it possible to categorically claim that God does not exist.


.

Well Im glad you asked.


Homo Sapiens have a very long and CLEAR history, of creating gods, thousands of them.


You discount every single one of these thousands of gods except one, that makes me and you almost identical. We both discount man made gods. I just discount one more then you.


Now, who states gods are real, and what credibility do they have???

If we look at how man has defined the Abrahamic deity, we see men compiling two different deities, and when monotheism became the norm, we see how they threw out the ancient gods from their past, at will by political events alone.

When we look at Jesus and how he was defined, we only see men defining him, and we see a clear evolution of that definition over 400 years.

But as far as credibility, there is no scientific or historical credibility on these ancient books. We see the mistakes made in the books regarding creation accounts, as well as their lack of knowledge on their very own history, they knew nothing about.

These were never history or science books, nor should they be read that way.