Argument for God's existence.

[ToddNotTodd]

I will try one last time to debate wit you in a civil manner. You should be more humble than you are, especially since most of what you have been taught is in error. Citation: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=big+bang+explosion&btnG=

Your first link is from William Lane Craig, who not only isn’t a scientist, but misrepresents science in order to give his apologetics more gravitas.

Your second link describes the Cambrian explosion, which has nothing to do with the Big Bang whatsoever.

Here, here’s an actual description of what the Big Bang purports:

Was the Big Bang Actually an Explosion?

 

[createdtoworship]

Your first link is from William Lane Craig, who not only isn’t a scientist, but misrepresents science in order to give his apologetics more gravitas.

Your second link describes the Cambrian explosion, which has nothing to do with the Big Bang whatsoever.

Here, here’s an actual description of what the Big Bang purports:

Was the Big Bang Actually an Explosion?

Read any of the dozens of links. There are hudreds, something infinitely dense, relieving pressure would explode. It's obvious.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Macroevolution and microevolution have the exact same mechanisms behind them. One is just the cumulative effect of the other. Can you to cite a single scientific source that demonstrates a mutation barrier that would allow for changes within species, but not at the species level?

HINT: No. You can't.

Thank you for continuing to make an example of yourself.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Read any of the dozens of links. There are hudreds, something infinitely dense, relieving pressure would explode. It's obvious.

“Obvious” if you don’t understand what cosmologists say about the theory perhaps.

Show me a definition of the theory from a cosmologist that describes it as an explosion and not simply an expansion.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

evolution is already refuted in a few sentences

You have less than no hope of 'refuting' the cornerstone theory of biology.

You, someone who doesn't even know what the theory is, are against the overwhelming scientific consensus. They are backed by thousands of converging lines of critically robust evidence from a dozen relevant fields of study. You are backed by nothing.

You may as well be riding into battle on a broomstick horse, wielding a wooden sword, with a spaghetti colander for a helmet and your pants around your ankles. Against the Spartans.

 

[Moral Orel]

self.defining per the definitin of God is that He is omnipresent Omniscient and Omnipotent. All powerful, everywhere at once, and knows everthing. That is what makes God, God, per definition.

Okay, I can work with that. We'll call this a totally valid answer as to how God gained the ability to create. Now if you'll be so kind as to answer the other questions in post #786 that would be swell.

 

[createdtoworship]

Macroevolution and microevolution have the exact same mechanisms behind them. One is just the cumulative effect of the other. Can you to cite a single scientific source that demonstrates a mutation barrier that would allow for changes within species, but not at the species level?

HINT: No. You can't.

Thank you for continuing to make an example of yourself.

that burden would be on you sir.

and you have the definition wrong. Macro evolution is a barrier. I have proven widespread use of the term in scientific circles. And I have provided that most of them define macro evolution as evolution at a higher level than species. One refers to at the level of species. But ring species prove evolution between species. many different species can be the same kind of animal. So that does not prove what I am saying is a weakness here. The weakness in evolution is at the genus level, where you have two fully different animals. At that point there is no evidence of evolution between two genra. Monkey to man for example, or bird to dinasaur is another example or even wolf to whale as absurd as that sounds. All of those pairs have evolved from one to another according to current evolutionary consensus, yet not of it is proven. In order to prove it, one would need to see an intermediary animal between to different animals that has evolved into another animal. I have see a few examples of this. For example lucy and neanderthal. But lucy is not a missing link, lucy is ape like. And neanderthal was human like. So they were not intermediaries at all. So one would need to provide one example and preferably thousands. See if we are all evolving into different animal types, there would be half human, half monkeys, roaming around, or at least in the fossil record. there would be half bird half dinasaur fossils of failed attempts at evolution, the fossil record would be entirely saturated with such transitions, in fact there would be no barrier between genra at all, the barriers that make us different types of mammals would be fluid.

and that is not the case.

we know that is not the case because you cannot take human sperm, or ape sperm and impregnate a different animal.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sure, and I'm saying that the laws of physics might have created our universe. That's the "creator".

I agreed that I need to show it's possible. Do you mean something else by "valid at least"?

This doesn't answer either of my questions. I'm not going to attempt to prove that God is illogical. It'll save us a lot of time and confusion if you don't try to guess what my argument is going to be and answer questions in an attempt to deflect an argument that hasn't been made.

How did God gain His creative abilities? He gained them by being defined as having them?

Why would a rain cloud create a puddle it will never have any contact with? The definition of God has nothing to do with that question.

I feel I have answered all these questions in the definition of God as being omnipresent, omnicient, and omnipotent.

He didn't attain the ability to create, He is the creator, and because He has no mass He is outside of time as per general relativity. Being outside of time means He didn't have a beginning or cause. But the fact He is God by definition means if He is all powerful, then there are no other Gods beside Him. If there was another God out there, then that god would have some of the power in the universe, and that would defy one of the principles of God, which is omnipotence. If there is a question I didn't answer her, I don't know of it. So please rewrite it in response to this post.

 

[Moral Orel]

I feel I have answered all these questions in the definition of God as being omnipresent, omnicient, and omnipotent.

These questions have nothing to do with the definition of God.

I agreed that I need to show [a multiverse] is possible. Do you mean something else by "valid at least"?

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

 

[createdtoworship]

How did God gain His creative abilities? He gained them by being defined as having them?

Why would a rain cloud create a puddle it will never have any contact with? The definition of God has nothing to do with that question.

God never "gained" his creative abilities, they are inherent in His nature.

I would not have an answer to this question more direct than that.

In order to be God, omnipotent, it is required that God have all power, this includes creative ability. But He did not evolve that ability, or grow that ability. Because that signifies He was not always God or not always omnipotent. God was always God and thus always had that ability. We know this because God does not have a beginning, because He is outside of time and space. Time is a physical property, time varies with mass, and without mass there is no time effectively. (general relativity)

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

that burden would be on you sir.

Nope. You are the one attempting to challenge the cornerstone theory of biology. The burden is yours.

You still don't know what the theory even is, so you have a very, very long road ahead of you.

and you have the definition wrong.

Nope. Unlike you, I have actually studied this subject. I know what I'm talking about. You don't.

Macro evolution is a barrier.

I dare you to substantiate this assertion. Cite a single scientific source in your favor.

The rest of what you wrote is vacuous piffle. No one with a basic apprehension of this subject would say any of the things you are saying. You are not offering a 'challenge' to evolution. All you are doing is demonstrating that you don't know what the ToE is, or what scientists say about it. Over and over and over again.

 

[createdtoworship]

You have less than no hope of 'refuting' the cornerstone theory of biology.

You, someone who doesn't even know what the theory is, are against the overwhelming scientific consensus. They are backed by thousands of converging lines of critically robust evidence from a dozen relevant fields of study. You are backed by nothing.

You may as well be riding into battle on a broomstick horse, wielding a wooden sword, with a spaghetti colander for a helmet and your pants around your ankles. Against the Spartans.

then please provide one example of macro evolution being observed in biological history.

and you can't

yet you believe this myth.

 

[createdtoworship]

“Obvious” if you don’t understand what cosmologists say about the theory perhaps.

Show me a definition of the theory from a cosmologist that describes it as an explosion and not simply an expansion.

I provided dozens of examples of scientific literature explaining the term.

then I provided logically how infinitely dense material, being relieved of densness, would cause an explosion outward, and this explains why the universe expands.

I have sufficiently refuted this with citation, and with logic, so unless you can provide sufficient rebuttal, I would say this topic is done.

 

[Moral Orel]

@gradyll You keep quoting this question, but not answering it:

Why would a raincloud choose to create a puddle it will never have any contact with? The definition of God has nothing to do with this question.

I accept your answer to the other question, God didn't "gain" abilities, I don't disagree with that. But I need an answer to this question that you keep avoiding.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

then please provide one example of macro evolution being observed in biological history.

There are no examples of your fake, cartoon version of 'macroevolution', because it doesn't exist outside the realm of asinine creationist propaganda. The ToE has never proposed that one 'kind' of animal - which is not a scientific category - can 'turn into' another 'kind' of animal. That's not what macroevolution is, and if that did happened, it would disprove the ToE.

You would know that if you bothered to study the subject you are attempting to critique.

 

[createdtoworship]

@gradyll You keep quoting this question, but not answering it:

Why would a raincloud choose to create a puddle it will never have any contact with? The definition of God has nothing to do with this question.

I accept your answer to the other question, God didn't "gain" abilities, I don't disagree with that. But I need an answer to this question that you keep avoiding.

sir a raincloud does not create puddles so I don't exactly know how to answer that question. A rain cloud does not even create water that compose the puddle. a rain cloud absorbs water moisture from what I can tell. But it would not be creating puddles. When the water is released from the rain cloud, the cloud's job is actively finished. It is the result of the rain fall to the earth that creates the puddles, not the clouds themselves. But to be honest, I don't fully understand the implications of your question. The definition of God is very important to our discussion, after all you say you disagree that God did not obtain His creative ability. How would a God be God if He could not create? He would fail to be omnipotent, and thus fail in one of the three aspects of God hood according to theological circles. Now you can define God however you wish. But I would disagree with those definitions as I find the christian definition of God to be the most intellectually full.

 

[Moral Orel]

sir a raincloud does not create puddles so I don't exactly know how to answer that question. A rain cloud does not even create water that compose the puddle. a rain cloud absorbs water moisture from what I can tell. But it would not be creating puddles. When the water is released from the rain cloud, the cloud's job is actively finished. It is the result of the rain fall to the earth that creates the puddles, not the clouds themselves.

Sure it does. It drops rain on the ground. Rain on the ground that isn't absorbed is a puddle. It's like saying a painter doesn't create a painting; once the paint leaves his brush, his job is finished. Why would a rain cloud choose to drop rain that forms puddles knowing that it will never see that rain again?

The definition of God is very important to our discussion, after all you say you disagree that God did not obtain His creative ability. How would a God be God if He could not create? He would fail to be omnipotent, and thus fail in one of the three aspects of God hood according to theological circles. Now you can define God however you wish. But I would disagree with those definitions as I find the christian definition of God to be the most intellectually full.

You misunderstood me. I don't disagree with your definition of God. And I don't disagree that God always had His ability to create. I'm agreeing with your definition, I want to make that clear.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I provided dozens of examples of scientific literature explaining the term.

then I provided logically how infinitely dense material, being relieved of densness, would cause an explosion outward, and this explains why the universe expands.

I have sufficiently refuted this with citation, and with logic, so unless you can provide sufficient rebuttal, I would say this topic is done.

It’s done because cosmologists say your wrong. And you’ve yet to provide a definition from an actual cosmologist that describes the theory in terms of an explosion.

But please, keep denying you’re wrong. It’s great.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sure it does. It drops rain on the ground. Rain on the ground that isn't absorbed is a puddle. It's like saying a painter doesn't create a painting; once the paint leaves his brush, his job is finished. Why would a rain cloud choose to drop rain that forms puddles knowing that it will never see that rain again?

You misunderstood me. I don't disagree with your definition of God. And I don't disagree that God always had His ability to create. I'm agreeing with your definition, I want to make that clear.

actually gravity carries the rain to the ground to form a puddle. The rain cloud's job is essentially over after the rain is too heavy.

 

[createdtoworship]

It’s done because cosmologists say your wrong. And you’ve yet to provide a definition from an actual cosmologist that describes the theory in terms of an explosion.

But please, keep denying you’re wrong. It’s great.

I believe you are bitter because you have hidden sin, maybe it's internet porn, or cell phone porn, or homosexuality. This hidden bitterness comes out in all your posts. Maybe if you sought for help for those addictions, you wouldn't be as bitter. I have been free from all of that for at least seven years, and it's been a great place to be. I am only trying to help.

Jesus offers a solution to addiction, give initial repentance, believe in Christ in your hopelessness, He comes into your life and cleans it up for you, as well as giving you eternal life, and forgiving you for all your sins. Removing the punishment of Hell. If there was one chance in a million of all those benefits, I would run to Jesus, if I wasn't saved. It's the logical choice.