Argument for God's existence.

[Moral Orel]

thanks for going back, I went back till monday, but you posted this sunday night, I didn't go back that far, but I did go to your profile and looked at a weeks worth of posts, so I think I did my fair share,

No, your fair share is replying to more of my posts than you ignore in the first place. You haven't done that yet, but we'll see how long you continue to reply to this chain.

now relating to your post.
I have answered that question numerous times in this thread, I dont' need to prove it false. You have to prove it right.

I think you have your burden of proof wrong.

it's not that you have to prove it possible, and I have to prove it wrong.

it's that you have to prove it right, and all I need to find is a slight weakness in it.

No, you have it backwards. Your claim is that it must have been God because all other ways are impossible. My claim is that it might have been something else. See how much weaker and vague my claim is? I don't need to prove the multiverse is real, I only need to prove it's possible. You need to prove it's impossible otherwise your dichotomy where you eliminate all other possibilities besides God doesn't work.

and i did in my last post,

I won't reply here, just scroll up and read it.

Okay, let's see...

how did a multiverse gain creative abilites?

How did God gain creative abilities?

and why would a multiverse decide to extend energy to create a completely separate universe, that is has no contact with?

Why would a rain cloud decide to create a puddle it will never have any contact with?

 

[Moral Orel]

Show evidence this statement is correct.

It's not. Multiverse Theory is gaining in popularity, but it is still a minority view.

 

[cvanwey]

the universe has mass, we know that as evidence by all the photographs from nasa about mass in the universe, flying around. That means that it is under time. If it is in time, it had a beginning. Secondly nearly all scientists have changed their view of an eternal universe because of recent discoveries the last twenty or so years and now believe it was created by a multiverse (that is eternal).

but at that point, I would ask

how did a multiverse gain creative abilites?

and why would a multiverse decide to extend energy to create a completely separate universe, that is has no contact with?

not very logical to hold that position.

I'm going to instead let this 9 minute video explain. And just as a precursor, I'm not asserting this particular scientist HAS the answer; because he never claims to. But again, what YOU are attempting to defend, and what I am, at least presenting, are apples and oranges.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm going to instead let this 9 minute video explain. And just as a precursor, I'm not asserting this particular scientist HAS the answer; because he never claims to. But again, what YOU are attempting to defend, and what I am, at least presenting, are apples and oranges.

I’d be surprised if any cosmologist says they’re sure they have the answer.

 

[createdtoworship]

Show evidence this statement is correct.

you honestly think science rejects the Big bang model?

 

[createdtoworship]

No, your fair share is replying to more of my posts than you ignore in the first place. You haven't done that yet, but we'll see how long you continue to reply to this chain.


No, you have it backwards. Your claim is that it must have been God because all other ways are impossible. My claim is that it might have been something else. See how much weaker and vague my claim is?

No not that every alternative was impossible just the one's presented. My argument is that when you see at piece of art that is proof there is an artist. When you a creation you know for a fact there was a creator. You say there are alternative hypothesis, but they have been demonstrated wrong.

I don't need to prove the multiverse is real, I only need to prove it's possible. You need to prove it's impossible otherwise your dichotomy where you eliminate all other possibilities besides God doesn't work.

actually you do need to prove it valid at least, or stop saying it.

Okay, let's see...

How did God gain creative abilities?

Why would a rain cloud decide to create a puddle it will never have any contact with?

He has them as per the definition of God, totally logical.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

you honestly think science rejects the Big bang model?

The Big Bang model says nothing about an eternal multiverse.

You said that almost all scientists believe in an eternal multiverse.

Please show evidence of this.

 

[createdtoworship]

The Big Bang model says nothing about an eternal multiverse.

You said that almost all scientists believe in an eternal multiverse.

Please show evidence of this.

if you have an alternative theory let me know.

most people don't believe the universe had a beginning, and that it spontaneously generated out of nothing. But I could be wrong. I don't have evidence of most scientists believing in a multiverse, I assumed that. But there could be some that believe like I said that the universe exploded from nothing. Which is equally laughable as spontanious generation has been disproven for a hundred years. Nor is it possible for fully formed proteins or DNA to spontaniously generate in a primordial soup. So that takes chemical evolution out as well as stellar evolution in one fatal swoop.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

most people don't believe the universe had a beginning, and that it spontaneously generated out of nothing.

Citation needed.

Which is equally laughable as spontanious generation has been disproven for a hundred years. Nor is it possible for fully formed proteins or DNA to spontaniously generate in a primordial soup. So that takes chemical evolution out as well as stellar evolution in one fatal swoop.

You're confused. Spontaneous generation - organisms springing into existence fully formed, with all biological functions intact - is what creationists believe in.

And I agree, it's laughable. And not at all comparable to chemical or stellar evolution.

You should consider studying the subjects you are trying to address.

 

[createdtoworship]

Citation needed.



You're confused. Spontaneous generation - organisms springing into existence fully formed, with all biological functions intact - is what creationists believe in.

And I agree, it's laughable. And not at all comparable to chemical or stellar evolution.

You should consider studying the subjects you are trying to address.

Abiogenesis is spontanious generation.

 

[createdtoworship]

Christians are sometimes accused of being narrow-minded or anti-intellectual – as contrasted with those who call themselves ‘free thinkers’. Jesus says that, in fact, the opposite is the case. Following Jesus is the way of intellectual freedom and integrity.

Truth is revealed by God. Jesus is ‘the truth’ (john 14:6). He is God’s ultimate revelation. Knowing the truth is not about assenting to propositions, but about knowing a person. Knowing Jesus broadens your mind, increases your depth of insight and widens your scope of understanding. To live in truth is to live in a relationship of love with Jesus who is the truth.

This does not mean that we have all the answers but that we have a true framework of thinking. Scientific laws provide a framework that gives freedom to investigate in the physical realm. God’s revelation provides the framework that gives intellectual freedom to investigate in the spiritual realm. Belief leads to understanding.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Abiogenesis is spontanious generation.

No it isn't.

Abiogenesis is a scientific theory describing the gradual, incremental development and integration of biological processes - cellular differentiation, morphogenesis, physiological traits, digestion, stimulus, reproduction, etc.

'Spontaneous generation' is fully formed organisms popping into existence with all biological processes intact. And it's what creationists believe.

Again, try studying the subjects you are attempting to address.

Or don't. By all means, keep making an example of yourself.

 

[createdtoworship]

No it isn't.

Abiogenesis is a scientific theory describing the gradual, incremental development and integration of biological processes - cellular differentiation, morphogenesis, physiological traits, digestion, stimulus, reproduction, etc.

'Spontaneous generation' is fully formed organisms popping into existence with all biological processes intact. And it's what creationists believe.

Again, try studying the subjects you are attempting to address.

Or don't. By all means, keep making an example of yourself.

spontanious generation is a fully formed protein or amino acid forming from nothing. Or should I say unsupported previously unknown materials, for lack of a better word I say "nothing"
which is what is claimed universally from abiogenesis supporters.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

spontanious generation is a fully formed protein or amino acid forming from nothing. Or should I say unsupported previously unknown materials, for lack of a better word I say "nothing"
which is what is claimed universally from abiogenesis supporters.

Anyone reading this can google 'spontaneous generation' or 'abiogenesis' right now, and see that you are wrong.

I have to wonder what value you see in making naked assertions that can be disproven in just a few seconds worth of research. Multiple times in the same thread, no less.

 

[createdtoworship]

Anyone reading this can google 'spontaneous generation' or 'abiogenesis' right now, and see that you are wrong.

I have to wonder what value you see in making naked assertions that can be disproven in just a few seconds worth of research. Multiple times in the same thread, no less.

so you get all of your information from the net huh? Well thats your problem. Wikipedia has errors, and that is what pops up first. Truth be told, abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are identical, they both claim that life can arise from non life.

trying to find disimilarities with wikipedia won't get you out of this one.

in fact the similarities are so defined and obvious that in the wikipedia link for spontaneous generation they specifically mention that it's not to be confused with abiogenesis.

that to me settles the issue.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Or don't. By all means, keep making an example of yourself.

I don’t know about you, but it’s really working for me...

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

so you get all of your information from the net huh?

I get them from reading what actual scientists have written on the subject. You apparently get them from reading creationist propaganda, which explains a lot.

My point is, your assertion is so utterly vacuous, so completely flawed at the most basic level, anyone can refute you in a matter of seconds, regardless of how much they actually know.

Far from having an informed critique of the subject, you don't even appear to have a rudimentary grasp of what the subject is.

Truth be told, abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are identical

Since you cannot substantiate this in any meaningful fashion by citing any scientific resource, it isn't 'truth'. It's just a vacuous naked assertion that can be dismissed out of hand.

But please, keep making an example of yourself. There are believers with doubts who visit these message boards, and reading exchanges like this are exactly the kind of thing that leads them further down the path toward atheism.

 

[createdtoworship]

I get them from reading what actual scientists have written on the subject. You apparently get them from reading creationist propaganda, which explains a lot.

My point is, your assertion is so utterly vacuous, so completely flawed at the most basic level, anyone can refute you in a matter of seconds, regardless of how much they actually know.

Far from having an informed critique of the subject, you don't even appear to have a rudimentary grasp of what the subject is.



Since you cannot substantiate this in any meaningful fashion by citing any scientific resource, it isn't 'truth'. It's just a vacuous naked assertion that can be dismissed out of hand.

But please, keep making an example of yourself. There are believers with doubts who visit these message boards, and reading exchanges like this are exactly the kind of thing that leads them further down the path toward atheism.

so please explain how abiogenesis does not entail life arising from non life.

then explain how that is not exactly the same as spontaneous generation

I am using logic as my argument right now.

if you can answer those simple but profound questions, then we may believe that you have truly researched this.

I have many sources on this, but I have not even pulled them out because you are not truly debating, you are just taking jabs at me.

Which just happens to occur usually by the losing party of the debate. Most often.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

so please explain how abiogenesis does not entail life arising from non life.

then explain how that is not exactly the same as spontaneous generation

Already done. Here it is again, for anyone who missed it,

Abiogenesis is a scientific theory describing the gradual, incremental development and integration of biological processes - cellular differentiation, morphogenesis, physiological traits, digestion, stimulus, reproduction, etc.

'Spontaneous generation' is fully formed organisms popping into existence with all biological processes intact.

If you can't see the difference between gradual, incremental processes, and an instantaneous act of magic, you can't be helped. But of course, this isn't for you. It's for anyone who might be reading along.

I have many sources on this

No you don't. There are zero scientific sources that will support your naked assertion that spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are 'identical'.

Though if you wish to keep making an example of yourself, you are welcome to try, and fail, to provide one.

I am using logic as my argument right now.

You're using vacuous naked assertions that you can't substantiate in any meaningful fashion whatsoever.

Which just happens to occur usually by the losing party of the debate

Whatever this is, it's absolutely not a 'debate'. In a debate, both sides know what the subject is. You do not.

That's not a 'jab'. That's a demonstrable fact, which anyone with a rudimentary understanding of this subject can tell just by reading your own words.

 

[createdtoworship]

Already done. Here it is again, for anyone who missed it,

Abiogenesis is a scientific theory describing the gradual, incremental development and integration of biological processes - cellular differentiation, morphogenesis, physiological traits, digestion, stimulus, reproduction, etc.

'Spontaneous generation' is fully formed organisms popping into existence with all biological processes intact.

If you can't see the difference between gradual, incremental processes, and an instantaneous act of magic, you can't be helped. But of course, this isn't for you. It's for anyone who might be reading along.



No you don't. There are zero scientific sources that will support your naked assertion that spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are 'identical'.

Though if you wish to keep making an example of yourself, you are welcome to try, and fail, to provide one.



You're using vacuous naked assertions that you can't substantiate in any meaningful fashion whatsoever.



Whatever this is, it's absolutely not a 'debate'. In a debate, both sides know what the subject is. You do not.

That's not a 'jab'. That's a demonstrable fact, which anyone with a rudimentary understanding of this subject can tell just by reading your own words.

So again, usin logic here, I don't want a biased definition from some liberal site or book. Think rationaly: I have sources I can quote but we are not even really debating. You are just in denial. Ok, so an earth is created with no life. there is water on the earth to support life, but no life exists. Then all of a sudden in a pond a lightening strike hits the water and life is formed. That is spontanious generation. Because you are taking non life and creating life. That is the exact definition of spontanious generation.