My favorite argument for the existence of God

[paul becke]

because we have several evidence from several scientific fields. we have evidence for the big bang for instance, the radiometric dating that give us only a limit age for the universe and the earth, the fact that we found no fossils till some geological layers and so on.

xianghua, I've always been utterly, totally convinced of Paley's position, without even reading his argument. It stands to the most elementary reason - like, as someone has said, elsewhere, if you found an old car radiator on a desert island, you would know that someone had been here before you.

You are 'flogging a dead horse.' Atheists are just insane - and some very distinguished scholars among them, The thing is you have to WANT to believe in Christ. Anyone in the UK over a certain age will be familiar with Christianity, and imo, will KNOW it to be true ;
They will be relatively familiar with Christianity, though prayers, hymns and scripture readings, if only through morning assemblies and RI lessons.

I think in most cases, their rejection of Christianity is tied up with sex and a pronounced antipathy towards constraints that would affect their life-style. At least, that was Aldous Huxley's conclusion with regard to his set (including himself, when he was younger).I've just read a quote of Fred Hoyle to exactly the same effect, though with the addition of liberation from certain political ideas, etc.

He started off an atheist (atheists still claim him. What a surprise...), but the facts and the figures relating to them meant something to him, and he was forced to conclude that the odds against life emerging form a primordial soup were so inifinitesimally, vanishingly minute, it was 'nonsense' of a high order' to claim otherwise. Thus, like Einstein, he was 'into' intelligent design in a big way :

“A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

The fine-tuning argument was enough to convince Anthony Flew, who was the Richard Dawkins of his day, although a more distinguished scholar. As a working biologist has pointed out, Dawkins is a journalist, and has been for years. His scholarly output was very exiguous, and ceased a good few years ago. He is no longer a working scientist, if indeed his doctorial thesis would qualify him as such at the time. I think Flew was a professor of philosophy and logic. I hope to check these details, if I have the time. The physicist, Fred Hoyle, up to that point an atheist, was also finally convinced that there had to be an intelligent mind behind the design of the universe.

However, the Big Bang also nails it.

 

[Kylie]

Perhaps the question that gives the answer is this: Why is there anything, and why are there variety of things that only ocure in given areas? Why do certain birds fly to far off places at certain times in the year; and then return again? Why are the things that exist, existing at all?Seems that this shows a pupose of design. Hence, A Creator.
Andy Centek

Evolution explains it quite nicely.

 

[dmmesdale]

Evolution explains it quite nicely.

Wishful thinking does not falsify an Intelligent Designer.

 

[Aman777]

Wishful thinking does not falsify an Intelligent Designer.

What's wrong with you? Don't you know that things just appear out of nothing? Changing from Ape to Human happened just one time and can never be repeated. Can't you see the solid evidence which NO one with any sense can oppose? You should go back to the first grade and let the godless evolutionists brainwash you again. Looks like the evol vaccination didn't take. Amen?

 

[Kylie]

Wishful thinking does not falsify an Intelligent Designer.

First up, evolution is not wishful thinking. Anyone who thinks evolution is nothing but wishful thinking has no idea what evolution actually is.

But you're right otherwise. Evolution does not show that there is no deity. It's entirely possible that a God may have created the world and intentionally created all life so it simply LOOKS like it evolved. But if you are to argue that point, I have to questions for you...

1. Why add a creator to the mix when such a creator is not required by what we see in the real world?
2. If there is a God who created everything so that it looks like he had no hand in it, then why do you believe when he obviously wishes to remain hidden?

 

[Kylie]

What's wrong with you? Don't you know that things just appear out of nothing? Changing from Ape to Human happened just one time and can never be repeated. Can't you see the solid evidence which NO one with any sense can oppose? You should go back to the first grade and let the godless evolutionists brainwash you again. Looks like the evol vaccination didn't take. Amen?

Nice strawman you have there.

 

[omega2xx]

Evolution explains it quite nicely.

Nothing can be explained quite nicely without supporting evidence. It, like Christianity is based on faith alone.

Let's see you support "natural selection" with proven facts.

 

[dmmesdale]

First up, evolution is not wishful thinking.

Disagree.

Anyone who thinks evolution is nothing but wishful thinking has no idea what evolution actually is.

Evolution rejected based on what is known, not on what is not known.

1. Why add a creator to the mix when such a creator is not required by what we see in the real world?

1. Not required by whom and how exactly does that falsify an Intelligent Designer? You need to falsify intelligent intervention and that has not been done. Science falsifies intelligent intervention in favor of nonintelligent processes all the time. Off the top of my head? Atheism naturally leads to nihilism and self-delusion. If no God then life is meaningless. Any meaning assigned is subjective fiction. Ideas which exist in the head and not in reality inferior to ideas in the head and in reality. If life is meaningless then that needs to exist both in the head and in reality. Not to go thru life with manufactured contradictions or assigned meanings when there is none.
   
2. 
   
3. 'The moment a man questions the meaning and value of life, he is sick, since objectively neither has any existence.' Sigmund Freud.
   
4. 
   
5. Also morality. We are by nature Theistic and moral. We intuitively know right and wrong. Even atheists. It is in our history. Rights from God which supersedes the abuses of kings. Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God. There is our history. Atheism explains nothing and if defined as lack belief requires no brains. An outhouse lacks belief in the atheist.

   [*]If there is a God who created everything so that it looks like he had no hand in it, then why do you believe when he obviously wishes to remain hidden?

Reject the statement looks like God had no hand in it. Will go along for the sake of argument. Laws presupposes a lawgiver. I would imagine an Infinite Being not obligated to make appearances or operates on our timetable. Your point is basically God is unobserved. So is many things taken for granted in evolution. Common ancestor and all sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction. So it is a double standard. I would say that an afterlife and accountability is axiomatic if we are to make any sense out of the problems of unjust suffering and injustice. We have obligations to each other and nature in general. Including at times courage to stand against evil. Atheism does not account for any of this. It presupposes inequality, injustice, and objective meaninglessness as the normal lot in life when we all know that is not the case.

We believe life has meaning and purpose because it does. Not because we are creating comforting fictions to get by. We believe we are moral agents and have obligations because we are and do.

 

[paul becke]

First up, evolution is not wishful thinking. Anyone who thinks evolution is nothing but wishful thinking has no idea what evolution actually is.

But you're right otherwise. Evolution does not show that there is no deity. It's entirely possible that a God may have created the world and intentionally created all life so it simply LOOKS like it evolved. But if you are to argue that point, I have to questions for you...

1. Why add a creator to the mix when such a creator is not required by what we see in the real world?
2. If there is a God who created everything so that it looks like he had no hand in it, then why do you believe when he obviously wishes to remain hidden?

No. He doesn't want to give faith to us on a plate. It requires rational thought, but its main intention is not as an intellectual test, but as a test of our hearts. We must want to find beauty in the truth of the faith. Why should ultimate truth be cold, ugly, impersonal, not to be wished for, not to be hoped for, undesirable ?

Indeed, we are all of wishful thinkers. But why would God instill those wishes, hopes and desires in the heats of Christians, if He had not wished to make the universe accord with them ? Which He has; and we find confirmation of it every day, while you look at the same things and find a way to dismiss them. He will ALWAYS leaves wriggle-room for the determined atheist.

Incidentally, how do you figure nothing made everything ? Don't you realise that designs require a mind.

 

[paul becke]

Evolution explains it quite nicely.

You'll like this, Kylie :

What false predictions tell us about evolution - .DarwinsPredictions

 

[Kylie]

Nothing can be explained quite nicely without supporting evidence. It, like Christianity is based on faith alone.

Let's see you support "natural selection" with proven facts.

evidence for evolution - Google Search

 

[Kylie]

Disagree.

Then you are wrong.

Evolution rejected based on what is known, not on what is not known.

Again, you are wrong.

And I have yet to see any evolution denier propose a replacement explanation that has the explanatory power of evolution.

Not required by whom and how exactly does that falsify an Intelligent Designer? You need to falsify intelligent intervention and that has not been done. Science falsifies intelligent intervention in favor of nonintelligent processes all the time. Off the top of my head? Atheism naturally leads to nihilism and self-delusion. If no God then life is meaningless. Any meaning assigned is subjective fiction. Ideas which exist in the head and not in reality inferior to ideas in the head and in reality. If life is meaningless then that needs to exist both in the head and in reality. Not to go thru life with manufactured contradictions or assigned meanings when there is none.

Stop shifting the burden of proof. You want me to accept your argument of intelligent design, then you must support it. Only an immature child would use the, "I'm right because you can't prove me wrong" argument, particular when that argument can and has been proven wrong many times.

(And before you say anything, the fact that you think it is wrong is not actual evidence that it is wrong. You must present a coherent argument as to why evolution is wrong, and be prepared for that argument to be rigorously examined.)

'The moment a man questions the meaning and value of life, he is sick, since objectively neither has any existence.' Sigmund Freud.

Irrelevant quote is irrelevant. Whether or not there is an objective or subjective meaning of life and what that meaning may be does not have any bearing on the validity of evolution as an explanatory mechanism.

Also morality. We are by nature Theistic and moral. We intuitively know right and wrong. Even atheists. It is in our history. Rights from God which supersedes the abuses of kings. Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God. There is our history. Atheism explains nothing and if defined as lack belief requires no brains. An outhouse lacks belief in the atheist.

First, you are assuming that rights come from God in an effort to support your idea of Goddidit. You can't use your conclusion as a premise.

Secondly, things are not true or false just because some people think they are immoral.

Thirdly, evolution can and has been shown to support morality. If you actually knew anything about evolution, you'd understand that evolution will favour ANYTHING which gives genes an advantage in being passed on to subsequent generations, and that genes can influence behaviour just as easily as they influence physical bodies. Hence, if a gene encourages altruistic behaviour in a species and that altruistic behaviour gives the genes an advantage in being passed on, then such altruistic behaviour will become more and more common. In short, a species can evolve morality.

Fourthly, your attempt to say atheism is evil and theism is good (presumably trying to associate evolution with atheism, despite the fact that many Christians accept evolution) is a non-sequitur.

Reject the statement looks like God had no hand in it.

I look forward to your explanation of why there are many flaws in what you claim is design. For example, why did God give dolphins lungs instead of gills, making them vulnerable to drowning?

Laws presupposes a lawgiver.

No they don't. Only if you are talking about man made laws. The laws of nature are simply descriptions of the way the world works.

I would imagine an Infinite Being not obligated to make appearances or operates on our timetable. Your point is basically God is unobserved.

Which is quite a change in personality from the Bible, when he appeared all over the place, in burning bushes, booming voices from the sky, sending angels, parting seas, sending plagues, etc.

So is many things taken for granted in evolution. Common ancestor and all sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction. So it is a double standard.

Except there is evidence for common descent from a universal common ancestor.

I would say that an afterlife and accountability is axiomatic if we are to make any sense out of the problems of unjust suffering and injustice.

The easiest solution to the problems of evil and suffering is simply that there is no God and sometimes bad things happen to good people, and there are bad people who are willing to gain at the expense of the suffering of others.

The moment you insist on believing that there is some underlying meaning and reason to it all, you have to start making convoluted explanations that strain credibility in order to explain why evil and suffering still exists.

We have obligations to each other and nature in general. Including at times courage to stand against evil. Atheism does not account for any of this. It presupposes inequality, injustice, and objective meaninglessness as the normal lot in life when we all know that is not the case.

Quite the opposite. As an atheist, I believe that this is the only life we get, so I work hard to make it a good one, for myself and for others.

On the other hand, it is the believers I see striving to maintain the inequality, which is why it is the conservative Christians who fight against equal rights for gay couples, who strive to get Christianity taught in public schools, but no other religions. Religion has long been used as a force to separate people into "us" and "them," which is one of the biggest causes of inequality.

We believe life has meaning and purpose because it does. Not because we are creating comforting fictions to get by. We believe we are moral agents and have obligations because we are and do.

And so do atheists, the only difference is that we ascribe our own meaning and purpose to life rather than have a religion do the job for us.

Seriously, if you are going to argue against evolution and atheism, you really need to learn what they are actually about before you start saying that they are wrong. Because all you are doing is arguing against a strawman and looking like you just don't know what you are talking about.

And I'll say it again: Evolution is NOT an atheistic position. There are many Christians who accept evolution. Even the POPE, the most famous Christian there is, says that evolution is real! And he's supposed to have a direct line to God, isn't he? Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'

 

[Kylie]

No. He doesn't want to give faith to us on a plate. It requires rational thought, but its main intention is not as an intellectual test, but as a test of our hearts. We must want to find beauty in the truth of the faith. Why should ultimate truth be cold, ugly, impersonal, not to be wished for, not to be hoped for, undesirable?

How can rational though and intellectualism lead to the conclusion that God is real when such a belief is defined as "faith"?

Indeed, we are all of wishful thinkers. But why would God instill those wishes, hopes and desires in the heats of Christians, if He had not wished to make the universe accord with them ? Which He has; and we find confirmation of it every day, while you look at the same things and find a way to dismiss them. He will ALWAYS leaves wriggle-room for the determined atheist.

So you are assuming that God did it in order to support your conclusion that God is real? That's a circular argument.

Incidentally, how do you figure nothing made everything ? Don't you realise that designs require a mind.

This book gives a much better overview on it than I could. A Universe from Nothing

 

[Kylie]

You'll like this, Kylie :

What false predictions tell us about evolution - .DarwinsPredictions

Do you have a specific example from that website, or are you expecting me to debunk the entire thing?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Wishful thinking does not falsify an Intelligent Designer.

It also doesn't confirm one.

 

[paul becke]

How can rational though and intellectualism lead to the conclusion that God is real when such a belief is defined as "faith"?

Because the deepest truths even of physics are paradoxical, seemingly illogical, such as matter at the quantum level being simultaneously in the form of both particles and waves. No a/mat would ever have disovered the basic truths of quantum mechanics for that very reason. Not in a billion years. Manifestly, since they believe - even today, weirdly - that everything will one day be explained by science, when paradoxes by very definition defy logic. Faith needs to be understood as 'commitment', not simply credence - still less 'credulity' (which latter is the only meaning you seem to be familiar with : 'blind faith' Even what is normally referred to as 'blind faith' in Christianity is anything but blind). We see the glass half full. You see it as half empty. St James tells us in his Epistle that the devil believes and trembles. Skeptics are not unbiased ; they are biased towards scepticism, as G K Chesterton pointed out.

So you are assuming that God did it in order to support your conclusion that God is real? That's a circular argument.

It is not an argument. It is a statement. He simply wants his own adopted family to know the truth - so he's not going to spin them a line. If you mean does he inspires us with knowledge of the truth, yes

This book gives a much better overview on it than I could. A Universe from Nothing

Because knowledge and faith form a continuum, a confusion of concepts - even at the secular level. The blindest secular fundamentalist switches on the light in his/her living-room with the same confidence as the rest of us, because they know that there is an excellent chance that there is still a bulb in the socket and that it hasn't blown. So they perform that little act of secular faith, as we all do habitually in many different ways throughout the day. Even if we might not ordinarily consider ourselves to be 'creatures of habit' (though I believe we all our in the wider context of behaviour).

Have you looked at the article by Cornelius Hunter at that link ?

 

[paul becke]

Then you are wrong.



Again, you are wrong.

And I have yet to see any evolution denier propose a replacement explanation that has the explanatory power of evolution.



Stop shifting the burden of proof. You want me to accept your argument of intelligent design, then you must support it. Only an immature child would use the, "I'm right because you can't prove me wrong" argument, particular when that argument can and has been proven wrong many times.

(And before you say anything, the fact that you think it is wrong is not actual evidence that it is wrong. You must present a coherent argument as to why evolution is wrong, and be prepared for that argument to be rigorously examined.)



Irrelevant quote is irrelevant. Whether or not there is an objective or subjective meaning of life and what that meaning may be does not have any bearing on the validity of evolution as an explanatory mechanism.



First, you are assuming that rights come from God in an effort to support your idea of Goddidit. You can't use your conclusion as a premise.

Secondly, things are not true or false just because some people think they are immoral.

Thirdly, evolution can and has been shown to support morality. If you actually knew anything about evolution, you'd understand that evolution will favour ANYTHING which gives genes an advantage in being passed on to subsequent generations, and that genes can influence behaviour just as easily as they influence physical bodies. Hence, if a gene encourages altruistic behaviour in a species and that altruistic behaviour gives the genes an advantage in being passed on, then such altruistic behaviour will become more and more common. In short, a species can evolve morality.

Fourthly, your attempt to say atheism is evil and theism is good (presumably trying to associate evolution with atheism, despite the fact that many Christians accept evolution) is a non-sequitur.


I look forward to your explanation of why there are many flaws in what you claim is design. For example, why did God give dolphins lungs instead of gills, making them vulnerable to drowning?



No they don't. Only if you are talking about man made laws. The laws of nature are simply descriptions of the way the world works.



Which is quite a change in personality from the Bible, when he appeared all over the place, in burning bushes, booming voices from the sky, sending angels, parting seas, sending plagues, etc.



Except there is evidence for common descent from a universal common ancestor.



The easiest solution to the problems of evil and suffering is simply that there is no God and sometimes bad things happen to good people, and there are bad people who are willing to gain at the expense of the suffering of others.

The moment you insist on believing that there is some underlying meaning and reason to it all, you have to start making convoluted explanations that strain credibility in order to explain why evil and suffering still exists.



Quite the opposite. As an atheist, I believe that this is the only life we get, so I work hard to make it a good one, for myself and for others.

On the other hand, it is the believers I see striving to maintain the inequality, which is why it is the conservative Christians who fight against equal rights for gay couples, who strive to get Christianity taught in public schools, but no other religions. Religion has long been used as a force to separate people into "us" and "them," which is one of the biggest causes of inequality.



And so do atheists, the only difference is that we ascribe our own meaning and purpose to life rather than have a religion do the job for us.

Seriously, if you are going to argue against evolution and atheism, you really need to learn what they are actually about before you start saying that they are wrong. Because all you are doing is arguing against a strawman and looking like you just don't know what you are talking about.

And I'll say it again: Evolution is NOT an atheistic position. There are many Christians who accept evolution. Even the POPE, the most famous Christian there is, says that evolution is real! And he's supposed to have a direct line to God, isn't he? Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'

You need to wise up, follow 'uncommondescent.com' and learn all the evidence against evolution. The Pope doesn't have time to monitor every form of the wall-to-wall lies peddled by our mainstream media and our 'bought and paid for' governments. mainstream propaganda atheists have been.

Read what this brilliant scientist has to say about the totalitarian black-out of scientific truths in Academia, when the metaphysical implications are completly unacceptbale to atheists. The reason for it is that most research is funded by the large corporations, and its principals do not want the activities of their organisations to subjected to ethical constraints.

'A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there's no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution'

 

[pitabread]

You need to wise up, follow 'uncommondescent.com' and learn all the evidence against evolution. The Pope doesn't have time to monitor every form of the wall-to-wall lies peddled by our mainstream media and our 'bought and paid for' governments. mainstream propaganda atheists have been.

Suggesting that evolution is a government/media/etc conspiracy just doesn't hold any water when you look at who really benefits from the best understanding of biology possible: biology-related industries.

If evolution was really as false as IDists/creationists claim it is, then it would be private industry pursuing alternatives. After all, they are the ones that stand to gain based on superior understanding of biology. Yet you don't see private industry pushing against biological evolution and/or championing alternatives.

And that's simply because of the ugly truth: fights against evolution are entirely motivated by religious ideologies. Understanding of biology is completely irrelevant here.

 

[Kylie]

Because knowledge and faith form a continuum, a confusion of concepts - even at the secular level. The blindest secular fundamentalist switches on the light in his/her living-room with the same confidence as the rest of us, because they know that there is an excellent chance that there is still a bulb in the socket and that it hasn't blown. So they perform that little act of secular faith, as we all do habitually in many different ways throughout the day. Even if we might not ordinarily consider ourselves to be 'creatures of habit' (though I believe we all our in the wider context of behaviour).

Yeah, faith in a deity is an entirely different thing than faith that my living room lightbulb hasn't blown.

Is this really the best argument you can come up with?

Have you looked at the article by Cornelius Hunter at that link ?

No I haven't.

Funnily enough, when someone tries "argument by overload" - throwing so many arguments that no person could hope to refute them all, I tend to ignore the lot of them, concluding that the person who posted it has no desire to have a reasonable discussion and instead is just trying to flood the discussion with nonsense. After all, if they wanted an actual discussion, isn't it easier to go through the points one by one?

And since you didn't provide any links to any specific pages on that website, and also since you posted the author of the article, but the website does not indicate the names of the authors for each article on the links, the only way I can find the article you are talking about is to go through each link one by one until I find what you are talking about.

Given the terrible logic I have seen from this sort of website in the past, and also given that you seem to be wasting my time (throwing a mountain of arguments at me hoping I'd get buried underneath it, failing to provide links to the specific things you wish to discuss), I have far better things to do with my time.

If you wish to discuss a specific thing from that website, provide a link.

 

[Kylie]

You need to wise up, follow 'uncommondescent.com' and learn all the evidence against evolution.

Oh! Because you are the first person EVER who has ever told me to go and do my research! Thank you! Because until now I had only ever bothered looking at one side of this topic! I never knew that I could look at the evidence AGAINST evolution!

Or maybe, I've been having these discussions for so long that I've seen the nonsense the anti-evolution crowd comes out with, I've examined it and found that it is just wrong.

Why do you think that I haven't done my research just because I don't agree with you? That's rather arrogant, isn't it? That everyone who is educated in a field must agree with you? Are you so incapable of entertaining the notion that you may be *GASP* wrong?

The Pope doesn't have time to monitor every form of the wall-to-wall lies peddled by our mainstream media and our 'bought and paid for' governments. mainstream propaganda atheists have been.

Still, you'd think that since he has a direct line to GOD, then he would still be able to get the truth!

Read what this brilliant scientist has to say about the totalitarian black-out of scientific truths in Academia, when the metaphysical implications are completly unacceptbale to atheists. The reason for it is that most research is funded by the large corporations, and its principals do not want the activities of their organisations to subjected to ethical constraints.

'A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there's no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution'

First, he's a CHEMIST, not a biologist. He is not qualified to speak in an area that is outside his field.

Second, the guy ADMITS that he doesn't understand evolution - "I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, “I don’t understand this”? Is that all right?" - and yet you think he is qualified to proclaim that something he doesn't understand is impossible. All he has is an argument from incredulity. "I can't understand how a thing could happen, therefore that thing is impossible."

Thirdly, the article is biased and does not reflect his actual views.

Dr. Tour, who developed the "nano-car" — a single molecule in the shape of a car, with four rolling wheels — said he remained open-minded about evolution.

"I respect that work," said Dr. Tour, who describes himself as a Messianic Jew, one who also believes in Christ as the Messiah.

But he said his experience in chemistry and nanotechnology had showed him how hard it was to maneuver atoms and molecules. He found it hard to believe, he said, that nature was able to produce the machinery of cells through random processes. The explanations offered by evolution, he said, are incomplete.

"I can't make the jumps, the leaps they make in the explanations," Dr. Tour said. "Will I or other scientists likely be able to makes those jumps in the future? Maybe."
​

SOURCE