PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

[DogmaHunter]

Loss of prestige and salary are things that most people try to avoid.

Yep.

And in science, prestige and salary become exponentially higher when you turn fields upside down.

You indeed lose both when you engage in absurdity and bad science.

Was that your point, or were you rather trying to imply some kind of grand conspiracy among millions of scientists?

 

[DogmaHunter]

why the flagellum isnt a spinning motor? even scientists call it a motor:

The bacterial flagellar motor: structure and function of a complex molecular machine. - PubMed - NCBI

The difference is that when scientists use those words, they aren't implying additional baggage like "machines and motors are manufactured!!!".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Its a motor only if God isn't involved.

No. It is a motor in the sense of analogous function.
It's not a motor in the sense of "motors are created in factory assembly lines".

 

[Radrook]

Yep.

And in science, prestige and salary become exponentially higher when you turn fields upside down.

You indeed lose both when you engage in absurdity and bad science.

Was that your point, or were you rather trying to imply some kind of grand conspiracy among millions of scientists?

Well Dogma Hunter, I think that the second option comes a little closer to what my intentions were but not exactly.

 

[Radrook]

No. It is a motor in the sense of analogous function.
It's not a motor in the sense of "motors are created in factory assembly lines".

That is irrelevant to whether it meets the criteria of being a motor or not.

 

[DogmaHunter]

OK nothing caused the universe since time did not exist. Nothingdidit. It just popped into existence for no reason. Perhaps a donkey will pop into your living room for no reason.

No, that's not at all what I said. I don't know what the origin of the universe is.
I'm just saying that the cause/effect argument, is necessarily a false argument.
It invokes phenomena of physics which require space-time to exist, in a state where no space-time exists.

I don't know what the correct answer is... just that invalid argumentation will not lead you to the correct answer.

The cause of the universe was extrinsic of the universe and that is what Genesis 1:1 implies. God situated extrinsic of creation. So obviously some form of time existed outside of the universe.

There is no reason to pick up that particular book and consider it relevant what it has to say about the origin of the universe.

Problematic and inferior explanations.

Even extreme simplistic and vague explanations wouldn't be inferior to the mere claims of any religion, which have no explanatory power whatsoever.

Let alone a huge body of knowledge like evolution theory, of which the explanatory power is overwhelming.

Design posits a designer.

The problem is that you folks call everything "designed". Especially those things that your preconceived beliefs tell you are created by the deity of said religion.

An assertion based on evidence.

What evidence?

Claiming the first cause of bio life is exclusively nonliving matter, chemicals is an assertion absent precedent or observation.

Evolution theory doesn't any make claims about the origins of life.
The origins of life are not within the scope of evolution. Evolution theory is about the natural process that existing life is subject to.

All life requires a living cause.

I could agree to that, if instead of "all life" you said "life as we know it".

Yes they do.

No, they don't.

Why is that?

Strange question.... Do you object to what I said?
Isn't every species unique in its own way? If there was no difference between cats and dogs, would we have seperate names for them??

Naturedidit? Evodidit? Got any other thought stoppers?

Ever heared of the term "speciation"? You should google it. While you're at it, add the search parameter "observed" as well.

No it is not, speaking of assertions.

Yes, it is.
If there were no moral rules and duties, then that would mean that you wouldn't be able to trust anyone anymore. The bread you buy might be poisoned. Someone could come and rape/kill you at any given time.

Society would collapse. Humans don't do to well on their own.

I do not need you to survive.

When you go to a pub and order a chicken-cheese sandwich, you are literally picking the fruits of the efforts of THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of people for all the infrastructure and work that is required to get that chicken-cheese sandwich in that store for you to order and eat.

You should think it through a bit more.

Food is necessary, Air and water is necessary, morality is optional.

You'ld be killed by the first wild animal you encounter or the first desease you get.
Again, you should think it through a bit more.

You end up in a world where you are on your own and its every man for hims.

We do know. God assertion is based on what we do know, not on what we do not know.

If anything, you have demonstrated the exact opposite.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is irrelevant to whether it meets the criteria of being a motor or not.

I think it matters a lot, to be clear on what exactly is meant by calling it a "motor", both explicitly as well as implicitly, in these types of conversations.

 

[Radrook]

I think it matters a lot, to be clear on what exactly is meant by calling it a "motor", both explicitly as well as implicitly, in these types of conversations.

The definition of motor doesn't include the particular criterion you are introducing.

Sure as heck looks like a motor to me!

 

[Strathos]

10. MILLIONS OF PEOPLE KNOW GOD PERSONALLY THROUGH JESUS CHRIST

Jesus Christ has answered millions of people’s prayers and transformed millions of lives from misery, sin and despair to love, joy, peace, hope and victory. Do not be like the fool who says that there is no God. Receive Jesus Christ as your God and Saviour from sin today. Then you too will know God personally.

This is the best of all of the arguments. I wish I could award the 'winner' rating to only this part of the post.

 

[Shemjaza]

The definition of motor doesn't include the particular criterion you are introducing.

Sure as heck looks like a motor to me!

I don't think anyone is disputing that it is a rotation mechanism.

But the concern is that an implication is: "It's a motor, so someone built it" as a premise rather then a conclusion from evidence.

 

[dmmesdale]

I don't think anyone is disputing that it is a rotation mechanism.

But the concern is that an implication is: "It's a motor, so someone built it" as a premise rather than a conclusion from the evidence.

It's a motor is an observation, and so someone built it is a conclusion based on the observation. The conclusion naturally flows from the observation. It is following the evidence.

If it has the complexity of a jumbo jet, then its source is intelligence.
If it has astounding nanotechnology, information processing systems, and massive amounts of pre-loaded digitally encoded information, can duplicate quite effortlessly then its source is intelligence. Not natural processes absent intelligence. Intelligence is the most reasonable given the options.

 

[Speedwell]

Evangelizing through personal witness as Christ taught us to to is a good thing, as we are charged with by the Great Commission. On the other hand, attempting to "prove" the existence of God through logic or science invariably has a political motive, usually unsavory.

 

[quatona]

It's a motor is an observation, and so someone built it is a conclusion based on the observation. The conclusion naturally flows from the observation.

It "flows naturally"? Wow. I´m impressed and almost convinced.
(Need to keep that one in mind in case I find myself in desperate need of bridging a logical gap.)

 

[Shemjaza]

It's a motor is an observation, and so someone built it is a conclusion based on the observation. The conclusion naturally flows from the observation. It is following the evidence.

If it has the complexity of a jumbo jet, then its source is intelligence.
If it has astounding nanotechnology, information processing systems, and massive amounts of pre-loaded digitally encoded information, can duplicate quite effortlessly then its source is intelligence. Not natural processes absent intelligence. Intelligence is the most reasonable given the options.

Yes it's complicated, but it's built from very simple chemical basis that build up complexity from the DNA and RNA in the cell. There's nothing miraculous or mechanical in evidence from its construction.

In addition possible paths to its development via simple mutations have been suggested so I don't see any reason to assume a designer/builder that uses unknown methods and unknown design goals when all the naturalistic explanations are sufficient to explain it.

"The conclusion naturally flows from the observation." is an assertion not a presentation of evidence.

 

[dmmesdale]

"The conclusion naturally flows from the observation." is an assertion not a presentation of evidence.

The cell or the bacteria itself is the evidence. The complication of a jumbo jet on a speck is an observation, and the intelligent source is the conclusion based on the observation. They are reasoning from effect to cause. It is following the evidene and not explaining it away due to prior comittments to myths. Assigning supernatural creative powers to chemical reactions etc.

If the earth is the right size, the right temp, the right atmosphere along with the right distance from the sun with the exact right type of moon then it is all evidence of construction not natural processes or blind circumstances. So you have a host of external and internal circumstances far sufficient enuf to convince reasonable persons unhindered by denial of the obvious.

 

[Speedwell]

The cell or the bacteria itself is the evidence. The complication of a jumbo jet on a speck is an observation, and the intelligent source is the conclusion based on the observation. They are reasoning from effect to cause. It is following the evidene and not explaining it away due to prior comittments to myths. Assigning supernatural creative powers to chemical reactions etc.

Yet Markov processes based on variation and selection are demonstrably capable of producing biological complexity--the math is air tight.

 

[dmmesdale]

No, that's not at all what I said.

It is implicit in your statement. If there was no time extrinsic of the universe then there is not one known thing which could have caused the universe. Nothingdidit

I don't know what the origin of the universe is.
I'm just saying that the cause/effect argument, is necessarily a false argument.

That is called ad hoc exception and would also point out you are using cause and effect to deny cause and effect. If you wish to deny cause and effect, then don't use cause and effect and good luck with that. There is no reason to dismiss an extrinsic cause for the start of the universe based on cause and effect since the alternative leads to absurdities or appeals to ignorance.

I don't know what the correct answer is... just that invalid argumentation will not lead you to the correct answer.

You have not made a case it is invalid. Nowhere near beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is no reason to pick up that particular book and consider it relevant what it has to say about the origin of the universe.

No reason not to.

Even extreme simplistic and vague explanations wouldn't be inferior to the mere claims of any religion, which have no explanatory power whatsoever.

And nothingdidit or appeals to ignorance has exactly what explanatory power?

Let alone a huge body of knowledge like evolution theory, of which the explanatory power is overwhelming.

Yawn, like dungeons and dragons has a huge body of knowledge and has explain power. Both are myth. The belief of scientists do not equate to fact and the so-called science is far from exact. Its not like anyone is out there claiming the laws of physics is just as valid as the origin of life theories or naturalistic evolution. They are inferior counter explanations riddled with assumptions and problems, including math.

The problem is that you folks call everything "designed".

If we find the starship Enterprise on the moon, it is designed, not natural and intrinsic of the moon.

Especially those things that your preconceived beliefs tell you are created by the deity of said religion.

My preconceived beliefs do not have anything to do with Theism.

Evolution theory doesn't any make claims about the origins of life.

You can't have the one without the other. Besides, it is all taught in the same biology textbooks. They have chapters on the origin of life.

The origins of life are not within the scope of evolution. Evolution theory is about the natural process that existing life is subject to.

It is a distinction without much of a difference. Obsessions with classifications. Dogmatism.

I could agree to that, if instead of "all life" you said "life as we know it".

Quibbling. You know what i meant.

 

[dmmesdale]

Yet Markov processes based on variation and selection are demonstrably capable of producing biological complexity--the math is air tight.

Yawn. You have explained exactly nothing. Retreated to esoteric mumbo jumbo which is typical defense mechanism. Now you next will be to tell to get an education or some such thing. IOWs shut up. It is usually a precursor underhanded personal attack. Nature runs in the exact opposite direction from complicated to breaking down. Species are giong extinct. Car do not evolve into jets. etc. They rust. There is no reason, other than faith, to assume we go back into our past and there are fish or whatever or we are nothing more than big brained apes. It is myth which appeals to many having next to no basis in reality.

 

[Speedwell]

Yawn. You have explained exactly nothing. Retreated to esoteric mumbo jumbo which is typical defense mechanism. Now you next will be to tell to get an education or some such thing. IOWs shut up. It is usually a precursor underhanded personal attack.

I'm not saying ID is wrong, but you want to prove it by showing that evolution is incapable, you'll have to deal with the math--what you call "esoteric mumbo jumbo." Evolution is capable of producing the biological complexity we observe; the question is, did it? Or did something lese?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not saying ID is wrong, but you want to prove it by showing that evolution is incapable, you'll have to deal with the math--what you call "esoteric mumbo jumbo." Evolution is capable of producing the biological complexity we observe; the question is, did it? Or did something lese?

So if Jesus speaks a loaf of raisin bread into existence, and Betty Crocker bakes a loaf of raisin bread into existence, you're going to come along later and deny Jesus spoke His into existence?