My favorite argument for the existence of God

[Kylie]

Idd. They did exactly the same thing with Big Bang theory and the expansion of the universe.

For millenia, no theist interpreted those verses in that way.
Then, after scientific consensus was reached on an expanding universe, there came the creationist saying that it "they knew it all along" because "da bible says god stretched out the heavens".

Yet, before we knew about an expanding universe, a static universe was assumed. Theists weren't disagreeing.

It's pretty pathetic.​

Isn't it strange how it's always religion that changes its interpretation to agree with knowledge about the universe that science discovered? It's never the other way around.

 

[Kylie]

Wow ! What a telling, informative riposte ! Good gracious, no. They just happen.

Wow, no need to be rude, I was simply asking for clarification of your position.

When you say:

What else but an omniscient, omnipotent god could have created and, up to this moment, continue to sustain, a universe of such size and complexity ?
​

And then post an article that says that science requires a belief in supernatural things, it sure sounds like you are saying that complexity requires a creator.

So your sarcastic response is not wanted, nor is it needed.

 

[durangodawood]

So big complex things need to be created?

Is there even a "big complex thing"?

All the complex things I know of are relatively small on an astronomical scale, with the largest being, perhaps, a terrestrial ecosystem.

 

[Kylie]

Is there even a "big complex thing"?

All the complex things I know of are relatively small on an astronomical scale, with the largest being, perhaps, a terrestrial ecosystem.

I'm sure many believers would agree that the universe with its laws counts as big and complex.

 

[paul becke]

Isn't it strange how it's always religion that changes its interpretation to agree with knowledge about the universe that science discovered? It's never the other way around.

No. It isn't strange at all to point out that you belief/assertion has been vindicated scientifically. Far from it. Especially something as primordial as the origin of the universe. What's more the scientific endeavour, itself, was arguably initiated by the medieval friar and philosopher, Roger Bacon ; the West's initially unique rate of technological progress was a product of Christendom, of its Christian faith, moreover.

Unlike other religions (and no religion) we believe that man is made in God's image, and so expect to see something of the reasoning powers we possess in the designs of His Creation. Of course, it far exceeded our wildest dreams, in that even Einstein was left in total awe of the complexity and sophistication of the design of the universe, as well he might.

Here is one quote from Bacon on the subject :

'The strongest arguments prove nothing so long as the conclusions are not verified by experience. Experimental science is the queen of sciences and the goal of all speculation.'

In Bacon's day, the word, 'science' on its own, simply meant 'knowledge' ; 'experimental, here, evidently, 'empirical'.

 

[Kylie]

No. It isn't strange at all to point out that you belief/assertion has been vindicated scientifically. Far from it. Especially something as primordial as the origin of the universe. What's more the scientific endeavour, itself, was arguably initiated by the medieval friar and philosopher, Roger Bacon ; the West's initially unique rate of technological progress was a product of Christendom, of its Christian faith, moreover.

Unlike other religions (and no religion) we believe that man is made in God's image, and so expect to see something of the reasoning powers we possess in the designs of His Creation. Of course, it far exceeded our wildest dreams, in that even Einstein was left in total awe of the complexity and sophistication of the design of the universe, as well he might.

Here is one quote from Bacon on the subject :

'The strongest arguments prove nothing so long as the conclusions are not verified by experience. Experimental science is the queen of sciences and the goal of all speculation.'

In Bacon's day, the word, 'science' on its own, simply meant 'knowledge' ; 'experimental, here, evidently, 'empirical'.

But you are committing the sharpshooter fallacy.

You take a text that can be interpreted in many ways, then when science shows what is correct, you pick the interpretation that matches what science says and say, "Yes, that's what it always meant."

It's like playing a raffle. If there are 100 tickets and you take them all, then yeah, you're going to have the ticket that matches the number drawn, but you're still holding 99 losing tickets in your hand. You're just covering as many options as possible and then acting like you're the lucky winner when it's drawn.

 

[paul becke]

My ! Judging from your signature quotes, alone, you atheists love to (try to) 'dish it out', but when somebody cannot believe you are naive enough to ask that question, and responds ironically, you complain ? It seemed to me that you had to be being sarcastic with that question ! Sorry.

 

[paul becke]

Someone with a sarcastic wit I can relate to

You forgot the magic words.... over millions of years.....
Can't explain something complex, just add the words millions of years. That solves everything.... sigh.....

Sorry. Yes, of course... 'over millions of years' (cough)(cough).

 

[paul becke]

But you are committing the sharpshooter fallacy.

You take a text that can be interpreted in many ways, then when science shows what is correct, you pick the interpretation that matches what science says and say, "Yes, that's what it always meant."

It's like playing a raffle. If there are 100 tickets and you take them all, then yeah, you're going to have the ticket that matches the number drawn, but you're still holding 99 losing tickets in your hand. You're just covering as many options as possible and then acting like you're the lucky winner when it's drawn.

Wrong. We are defined in part by that belief. You are the ones who come up with endless fantasies - today, in desperation with Many Worlds and what have you. How could you have imagined otherwise ?

Anything, no matter how gratuitously speculative, but allow God's foot in the door.

 

[ianw16]

Unlike other religions (and no religion) we believe that man is made in God's image, and so expect to see something of the reasoning powers we possess in the designs of His Creation.

And the scientific evidence for that is.....? If it is just an evidence-free, faith based belief, then it has nothing to do with science and can, and will, be rightly ignored.

 

[marineimaging]

my favorite argument for the existence of god (or a designer) is going like this:

a) we know that a theoretical self replicating robot that made from organic components is evidence for design. because we know that any robot is evidence for design.

b) from a physical perspective a walking creature (a penguin for instance) can be consider as a self replicating robot that made from organic components (without talking now about the free will question, i just talking now about the physical perspective).

or in other words: if a robot that is identical to a penguin need a designer (including the ability to reproduce), then also penguin need, because they are identical in this case.

the main objection to this argument is that if the object is made from oroganic components then we cant call it a robot. but this is wrong because if for instance we will see a watch that made from a wood and have a self replicating system we can still consider it as a watch. even if it made from a wood. so a robot that made from organic components is still a robot.

the second objection is that the designer need a designer too. but actually this isnt true because its possible that the designer is eternal. and if he eternal he didnt need a designer. we know that nature have a beginning so we cant
claim that nature is eternal too. also remember that such a robot cant evolve because there is no stepwise way from a self replicating matter to a robot.

I used to try and convince others with a valid argument they would accept, but the truth was nobody..., and I mean NOT A ONE of them came to my way of thinking because of my arguments. No, I began to see the wonders of our God AFTER I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior, understanding my own human failings and knowing that HE is the only way, the truth, and the life. So I didn't accept Jesus because of science, but in spite of science. And I thank God that my salvation experience did not rely on bringing somebody aboard with me because I failed miserably. God has to call them and He calls whom He knows will receive His Son. And He calls those to Him whom He knows has not forfeited their choice and they have the decision to make. Not all will make the decision to follow His Son. Sad, but true. We do not need to explain God to anyone because they won't listen to us. God must present the truth to them in a manner they will understand if He knows they will listen. Meanwhile, our best approach and our best testimony is living the Word in our hearts and being all of those things of which God wants from us.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm sure many believers would agree that the universe with its laws counts as big and complex.

The universe is big, relative to the human scale anyway.

But prior to the advent of life, its not that super complex imo. Just one thoughtful man's opinion, but I share it:

"Richard Swinburne, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford, says that simplicity in terms of scientific theories consists in postulating few objects, few kinds of objects, few kinds of properties and mathematically simple relations between the properties. "I think simplicity can be codified in an objective way. My account of it is that one mathematical concept x is simpler than another concept y if you can only understand y by understanding x and not the other way round," Swinburne says.

When it comes down to the complexity of the Universe, Swinburne says the final explanation will be fairly simple. There is a large number of entities which make things complicated but only a few properties attributed to each. "We don't know what the final theory will be but it will only have a few fundamental properties like mass or charge and each of these will have a numerical value," he adds.

Is the Universe simple or complex?

 

[Aman777]

Genesis 1:8 and other Heavens were made on the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:4 When today's most advanced scientists discover this Fact, they will confirm information which ONLY God could have known 3k years ago. It's proof of God.

Kylie:>>And how will we see the differences between these three universes? How can we expect to see different about them?

One is at the bottom of Lake Van, Turkey. It is a miles wide expanse which looks like a giant Wok. The canopy or windows of this firmament were opened and it sank 11k years ago and today is covered in volcanic debris. The second Heaven is the present world/cosmos. The third Heaven is normally referred to as Heaven. One city there is 1500 miles square and 1500 miles high with streets of Gold and Gates of Pearl.

Kylie:>>For example, you might say, "If we see some region where such-and-such physical law that we know does not work, but this other law works, then we know that it is the 2nd universe, the firmament."

You should know that the physical laws apply throughout the multiverse except for Humans (sons of God). In the 3rd Heaven, Humans will be like Jesus and able to go anywhere in a moment in the twinkling of an eye since we will have the ability to Speak things into being. It's a really fabulous way to see the multiverse in it's Glory.

Kylie:>>In other words, be specific about your claim. Then we'll see if science ever makes a discovery that agrees with you.

Science should soon discover:

1. That life is all over the Universe but NOT Human intelligence since there was but one Ark. Humans (descendants of Adam) are only found on planet Earth.
2. The solid firmament at the bottom of Lake Van. It's Adam's destroyed world, proof of intelligent life beyond our universe and the most valuable Treasure on Earth
3. That Genesis chapter one is the complete History of God's 6 Day Creation and includes events which are future to 2018 at the end of the present 6th Day when Jesus returns. Genesis 1:28-31

 

[DogmaHunter]

No. It isn't strange at all to point out that you belief/assertion has been vindicated scientifically. Far from it. Especially something as primordial as the origin of the universe. What's more the scientific endeavour, itself, was arguably initiated by the medieval friar and philosopher, Roger Bacon ; the West's initially unique rate of technological progress was a product of Christendom, of its Christian faith, moreover.

No. It was a product of science, despite christendom.

This is why technological progress advanced exponentially as the scientific method got standardized, eventhough the west was drowning in christian rule for more then a millenia already.

Unlike other religions (and no religion) we believe that man is made in God's image, and so expect to see something of the reasoning powers we possess in the designs of His Creation. Of course, it far exceeded our wildest dreams, in that even Einstein was left in total awe of the complexity and sophistication of the design of the universe, as well he might.

Einstein called abrahamic religion childish.
I wouldn't advice using him to make your religious point.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Wrong. We are defined in part by that belief. You are the ones who come up with endless fantasies

what fantasies?
Are you talking about scientific theories?

Anything, no matter how gratuitously speculative, but allow God's foot in the door.

Anything based on evidence. Your god of choice that you believe in, likely by geographic accident, will be included in scientific theories the second you can demonstrate that god to being a factor in whatever phenomenon that theory tries to explain.

Until then, it's classified on the same shelve as space unicorns and pink graviton fairies.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Time dilation is indeed an experimental fact.

So as velocity increases decay rates slow. But if you use today's slower rate to calculate into the past without taking into account the decay rates increase as you go backwards, you would come to the incorrect conclusion that the earth was billions of years old.

Time dilation does exist, but what you apparently still fail to grasp is that it is relative. The rate of time passing in Earth's proper frame never changes, whatever our movement. What changes is the rate of time we measure in frames moving relative to us, and the difference in the rate of time we measure for such frames depends on their relative motion with respect to us. Likewise, from the point of view of other frames, their own proper time never changes and it's our rate of time which they measure that changes; if we measure their time running slow, they'll measure our time running slow.

Since there's no absolute frame of reference, with respect to which frame are you suggesting that the rate of passing of time on Earth has changed, and how do you propose it makes any difference to the age we measure for events in Earth's proper frame?

By products of this is that mass also increases due to an increase in energy, hence we no longer have dinosaur sized animals because they can not exist in today's higher mass.

Mass increase, like time, and length contraction, is also what we measure for other frames that are in motion with respect to us, i.e. it is relative. As far as we are concerned, it never changes in our proper frame. Frames in motion relative to us will measure a change in our mass, and rate of time passing, and a contraction in the path of our relative motion, and we will measure corresponding changes in theirs, but from the POV of each frame their own mass, length, & time never change.

So again, with respect to which frame are you suggesting our mass has increased? (hint: it would have to be moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light relative to us to measure the kind of changes you suggest).

There have been ill-informed suggestions that Earth's gravity was weaker 65 million years ago, but a moment's thought will tell you that any difference significant enough to allow creatures to grow several times larger than otherwise, would disturb Earth's orbit, that of the moon around the Earth, and change the sun's size and rate of fusion; there's no evidence for any of this.

And if you're suggesting it's because of the big bang, it would also apply to the rest of the solar system and the whole galaxy too. We don't see any such disturbances and we don't see the mass of stars & planets decreasing with distance from us (i.e. back in time), or any other consequences that would result.

 

[marineimaging]

The universe is big, relative to the human scale anyway.

But prior to the advent of life, its not that super complex imo. Just one thoughtful man's opinion, but I share it:

"Richard Swinburne, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford, says that simplicity in terms of scientific theories consists in postulating few objects, few kinds of objects, few kinds of properties and mathematically simple relations between the properties. "I think simplicity can be codified in an objective way. My account of it is that one mathematical concept x is simpler than another concept y if you can only understand y by understanding x and not the other way round," Swinburne says.

When it comes down to the complexity of the Universe, Swinburne says the final explanation will be fairly simple. There is a large number of entities which make things complicated but only a few properties attributed to each. "We don't know what the final theory will be but it will only have a few fundamental properties like mass or charge and each of these will have a numerical value," he adds.

Is the Universe simple or complex?

What is complex is the laws of physics which can't be broken by anyone or anything.

 

[durangodawood]

What is complex is the laws of physics which can't be broken by anyone or anything.

Are they really complex?

They seem amazingly simple to me, especially in how few there are. But they are difficult to comprehend in mathematical language.

 

[Kylie]

Wrong. We are defined in part by that belief. You are the ones who come up with endless fantasies - today, in desperation with Many Worlds and what have you. How could you have imagined otherwise ?

Anything, no matter how gratuitously speculative, but allow God's foot in the door.

You do not seem to be making any sense.

 

[Kylie]

Genesis 1:8 and other Heavens were made on the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:4 When today's most advanced scientists discover this Fact, they will confirm information which ONLY God could have known 3k years ago. It's proof of God.

Yeah, yeah. When it happens, lemme know.

Kylie:>>And how will we see the differences between these three universes? How can we expect to see different about them?

Learn how you use quote tags please. At the start of the quoted passage, put the word QUOTE inside square brackets. And the end of the quote, put /QUOTE inside square brackets. It's not hard and makes things much clearer.

One is at the bottom of Lake Van, Turkey. It is a miles wide expanse which looks like a giant Wok. The canopy or windows of this firmament were opened and it sank 11k years ago and today is covered in volcanic debris. The second Heaven is the present world/cosmos. The third Heaven is normally referred to as Heaven. One city there is 1500 miles square and 1500 miles high with streets of Gold and Gates of Pearl.

And please explain to me how this would be impossible without three different universes.

And are you saying that the bottom of a lake and a sparkly city are evidence that they are in different universes? Isn't that like me saying my bathroom is a different universe to the living room because it doesn't have a TV? You are not being clear as to why these things prove your claims.

BTW, Lake Van formed 600,000 years ago, not the paltry 11,000 years you claim. Yes, the lake bed sank, but that was due to tectonic activity, as the lake is near several fault lines that run through the area. There is no reason at all to believe that there is anything other than natural activity going on here.

You should know that the physical laws apply throughout the multiverse except for Humans (sons of God). In the 3rd Heaven, Humans will be like Jesus and able to go anywhere in a moment in the twinkling of an eye since we will have the ability to Speak things into being. It's a really fabulous way to see the multiverse in it's Glory.

Yah huh. Nice sales pitch. Got any evidence from the real world?

Science should soon discover:

1. That life is all over the Universe but NOT Human intelligence since there was but one Ark. Humans (descendants of Adam) are only found on planet Earth.
2. The solid firmament at the bottom of Lake Van. It's Adam's destroyed world, proof of intelligent life beyond our universe and the most valuable Treasure on Earth
3. That Genesis chapter one is the complete History of God's 6 Day Creation and includes events which are future to 2018 at the end of the present 6th Day when Jesus returns. Genesis 1:28-31

1. First, even if we find evidence for simple and non-intelligent life, that doesn't mean that Humans are the only intelligent life in the universe. There could be intelligent life in Andromeda, but we'd have no way of knowing that, would we? Second, are you suggesting that Noah's flood affected other planets?
2. Your Lake Van argument has fallen apart. There is no evidence to suggest that Lake Van is anything like what you say it is. The entire floor of the lake has been surveyed. There is nothing there supporting your claim.
3. We'll just see if this actually happens. Just out of curiosity, when you say "soon", just what kind of time frame are you speaking of? A year? A decade? Two decades? And what future events does Genesis Chapter 1 describe?