There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Bunyip]

Yes, of course, that is a given. Christianity is based on faith. Without it there can be no Plan of Salvation.

Sure, so if as you say it is all about faith - if there was evidence you would need no faith. Kind of demolishes your entire argument.

 

[Serenity7855]

Going back to the probabilities...

If there's a chance of it happening, then there's a chance of it happening.

It's like saying you will never win the lottery, and yet someone always win the lottery. To bring that back to this discussion, I agree that the odds of a planetary system generating life is close to nil. But when you factor in that there are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe with say 200 billion systems per galaxy (taking the milky way as an example), the odds don't really seem that bad.

Prove to me that it is 0% and not some random generated probability.

The Mathematical Probability Of Life On Other Earth-Like Planets

Infinity was invented to account for the possibility that in a never-ending universe, anything can happen. Life on other Earth-like planets, for example, is possible in an infinite universe, but not probable, according to a scientist from the University of East Anglia.

The mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low because of the time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining life span of the Earth. Structurally complex and intelligent life evolved late on Earth and this process might be governed by a small number of very difficult evolutionary steps.

The Mathematical Probability Of Life On Other Earth-Like Planets

Rare Earth's requirements for complex lifeEdit
The Rare Earth hypothesis argues that the emergence of complex life requires a host of fortuitous circumstances. A number of such circumstances are set out below under the following headings: a galactic habitable zone, a central star and planetary system having the requisite character, the circumstellar habitable zone, a right sized terrestrial planet, the advantage of a gas giant guardian and large satellite, conditions needed to ensure the planet has a magnetosphere and plate tectonics, the chemistry of the lithosphere, atmosphere, and oceans, the role of "evolutionary pumps" such as massive glaciation and rarebolide impacts, and whatever led to the still mysterious Cambrian explosion of animal phyla. The emergence of intelligent lifemay have required yet other rare events.

In order for a small rocky planet to support complex life, Ward and Brownlee argue, the values of several variables must fall within narrow ranges. The universe is so vast that it could contain many Earth-like planets. But if such planets exist, they are likely to be separated from each other by many thousands of light years. Such distances may preclude communication among any intelligent species evolving on such planets, which would solve the Fermi paradox: "If extraterrestrial aliens are common, why aren't they obvious?"[1]

Rare Earth hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mycroft]

God is prime mover, the uncaused first cause, that's the definition of a God, the alternative is an infinite regress, therefore a God is more plausible.

Just as Mestemia predicated. Gun+Foot=Shoot.

 

[suncowiam]

The Mathematical Probability Of Life On Other Earth-Like Planets

Infinity was invented to account for the possibility that in a never-ending universe, anything can happen. Life on other Earth-like planets, for example, is possible in an infinite universe, but not probable, according to a scientist from the University of East Anglia.

The mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low because of the time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining life span of the Earth. Structurally complex and intelligent life evolved late on Earth and this process might be governed by a small number of very difficult evolutionary steps.

The Mathematical Probability Of Life On Other Earth-Like Planets

Rare Earth's requirements for complex lifeEdit
The Rare Earth hypothesis argues that the emergence of complex life requires a host of fortuitous circumstances. A number of such circumstances are set out below under the following headings: a galactic habitable zone, a central star and planetary system having the requisite character, the circumstellar habitable zone, a right sized terrestrial planet, the advantage of a gas giant guardian and large satellite, conditions needed to ensure the planet has a magnetosphere and plate tectonics, the chemistry of the lithosphere, atmosphere, and oceans, the role of "evolutionary pumps" such as massive glaciation and rarebolide impacts, and whatever led to the still mysterious Cambrian explosion of animal phyla. The emergence of intelligent lifemay have required yet other rare events.

In order for a small rocky planet to support complex life, Ward and Brownlee argue, the values of several variables must fall within narrow ranges. The universe is so vast that it could contain many Earth-like planets. But if such planets exist, they are likely to be separated from each other by many thousands of light years. Such distances may preclude communication among any intelligent species evolving on such planets, which would solve the Fermi paradox: "If extraterrestrial aliens are common, why aren't they obvious?"[1]

Rare Earth hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No where in the set of articles did it prove that the probability is 0. Nor did it prove that god does or does not exist.

For you to claim that life can't create itself out of nowhere without further observations is the same for me to assert that god can't be come out of nowhere without further observations.

And if you're going to argue that god is above the laws of science and observability, then I guess I automatically lose.

My theory of god is an extra dimensional being that accidently sparked the creation of our universe. He's probably long dead, doesn't know we exist, or doesn't given a rats *** about us.

 

[bmk2416]

Just as Mestemia predicated. Gun+Foot=Shoot.

So saying that it would take something that transcended creation, something eternal, to create us (the definition of a God to be exact) is illogical? You'd have to provide me with some of your logic aside from gun+foot=shoot to convince me of that.

Comparatively the new theories on the creation of the Universe claim that it is eternal, but that's somehow sound logic?

 

[suncowiam]

Untrue, I do not believe because no proof is present.

You play with probabilities and semantics to falsely prove your cause

In the end even after the multitude of your sources, the conclusion is the same. We don't know if there is a god and we don't know the origin of life.

 

[Serenity7855]

No where in the set of articles did it prove that the probability is 0. Nor did it prove that god does or does not exist.

No, the articles were posted in response to what you wrote here "I agree that the odds of a planetary system generating life is close to nil. But when you factor in that there are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe with say 200 billion systems per galaxy (taking the milky way as an example), the odds don't really seem that bad." These articles demonstrate the rarity of life sustaining planets and not odds that "don't seem to bad", as you have stated.

For you to claim that life can't create itself out of nowhere without further observations is the same for me to assert that god can't be come out of nowhere without further observations.

I didn't say it couldn't, I said that it is unlikely.

God has always existed, in one form or another. He had no beginning.

And if you're going to argue that god is above the laws of science and observability, then I guess I automatically lose.

You must know that is my belief. It is a part of my belief system that I cannot change.

My theory of god is an extra dimensional being that accidently sparked the creation of our universe. He's probably long dead, doesn't know we exist, or doesn't given a rats *** about us.

I can neither agree or disagree with your first sentence as i just do not know either way.

God is an eternal personage who cannot die.

He set this all up for us so he is bound to know about us.

He is also incapable of not caring. I

Prove to me that it is 0% and not some random generated probability.

I am not quite sure what you are asking for here. If you want me to prove the existence of God beyond any doubt then I cannot, neither have a claimed that I can.

 

[suncowiam]

God has always existed, in one form or another. He had no beginning.

You must know that is my belief. It is a part of my belief system that I cannot change.

God is an eternal personage who cannot die.

He set this all up for us so he is bound to know about us.

He is also incapable of not caring.

Your definitions of God are personal in nature. They have not been proven to be a fact.

That is my point to you and all those that want to assert God is real.

If you want to declare those as your beliefs, then that's fine. Those are YOUR beliefs.

Its like saying you prefer red over blue but don't knock on people that prefer blue.

 

[McBell]

God is prime mover, the uncaused first cause, that's the definition of a God, the alternative is an infinite regress, therefore a God is more plausible.

Actually. that is A definition of god.

If god can exist noncreated, why can't something else exist noncreated?
I mean, other than it kills your argument....

 

[McBell]

Still waiting for all these alleged calculations...

 

[bmk2416]

Actually. that is A definition of god.

If god can exist noncreated, why can't something else exist noncreated?
I mean, other than it kills your argument....

Because in reference to something in our natural world it has never been observed and cannot be shown, by A definition God is physically unobservable and transcends our world, which is exactly my point.

In one aspect you're speaking on the laws of nature in the other you're speaking on metaphysical laws (which I agree you cannot prove without a doubt, but you also cannot disprove, so it leaves open a plausibility). Metaphysics goes beyond our natural laws and what we can observe.

But the one thing that absolutely doesn't fit is that something that shows an effect in our natural world has no cause.

 

[McBell]

Because in reference to something in our natural world it has never been observed and cannot be shown, by A definition God is physically unobservable and transcends our world, which is exactly my point.

In one aspect you're speaking on the laws of nature in the other you're speaking on metaphysical laws (which I agree you cannot prove without a doubt, but you also cannot disprove, so it leaves open a plausibility). Metaphysics goes beyond our natural laws and what we can observe.

But the one thing that absolutely doesn't fit is that something that shows an effect in our natural world has no cause.

What you seem to not understand is that once you make an exception for your god, you open the door for other exceptions.
Unless you are going to show how god is the only exception...
However, you cannot even show god exists outside human imagination.
So how are you going to show that there cannot be an exception other than your god?

See, the whole point is that your making your god an exception merely creates more problems for you.
And falling back on "goddidit" for your answers doesn't answer anything.

 

[Serenity7855]

Your definitions of God are personal in nature. They have not been proven to be a fact.

That is my point to you and all those that want to assert God is real.

If you want to declare those as your beliefs, then that's fine. Those are YOUR beliefs.

Its like saying you prefer red over blue but don't knock on people that prefer blue.

This is a Religious forum where views, beliefs and opinions are expressed. Everything I write here is based on my knowledge, experience and belief. I do not claim them for anybody else, and I do not assert that they are set in stone. This is what they are, now I invite you to question them, both for my own stability in testimony and for you to gain a greater understanding of the Plan of Salvation. I love red, however, if blue is your choice then so be it.

 

[Serenity7855]

Because in reference to something in our natural world it has never been observed and cannot be shown, by A definition God is physically unobservable and transcends our world, which is exactly my point.

In one aspect you're speaking on the laws of nature in the other you're speaking on metaphysical laws (which I agree you cannot prove without a doubt, but you also cannot disprove, so it leaves open a plausibility). Metaphysics goes beyond our natural laws and what we can observe.

But the one thing that absolutely doesn't fit is that something that shows an effect in our natural world has no cause.

To be perfectly honest, I am not sure if you are directing this to me and if I should be answering this because it could have been written by me.

Nope, I cannot respond. There is nothing there for me to disagree with. Sorry, I did try.