Evidence of God's existence

[Eljah702]

I already gave you a good alternative explanation, with as much real evidence to support it as yours: aliens.

Aliens with advanced technology could have created our universe as a pocket universe off a larger multiverse.

The fact that we can't explain everything in the universe does not mean we seize on the nearest available answer that suits our fancy. Sometimes we just have to say we don't know, and that is the answer.

Is there any evidence to support your explanation ?

 

[Haruspex]

Is there any evidence to support your explanation ?

You are mentally impaired. Do you have any evidence of the contrary? Please attach medical documents. If you can't, it means you are mentally impaired. Oh, yes, could you also have them translated into English? Thanks

 

[Eljah702]

You are mentally impaired.s

If you think so, why are you loosing your time with me ?

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Ad hominem attacks only diminish the attacker and weaken his own arguments.

"Is there any evidence to support your explanation ?"

I could write my own Bible. What other evidence do you have, besides an ancient package of hearsay?

You are relying on what Einstein described as "received knowledge." That is, knowledge (or evidence) that you can't examine or test for yourself, but which you are expected to accept simply because it was told to you, told to your father, told to his father, and so on.

 

[Eljah702]

You are relying on what Einstein described as "received knowledge." That is, knowledge (or evidence) that you can't examine or test for yourself, but which you are expected to accept simply because it was told to you, told to your father, told to his father, and so on.

a simple question : why is there something rather than nothing ?

 

[Half-n-Half]

a simple question : why is there something rather than nothing ?

I don't know, do you?

 

[Haruspex]

Ad hominem attacks only diminish the attacker and weaken his own arguments.

Put it this way. I have made an attempt and I tried having a logical conversation. I no longer try, it is futile.

 

[Eljah702]

I don't know, do you?

I believe because God decided to create the universe

Put it this way. I have made an attempt and I tried having a logical conversation. I no longer try, it is futile.

which reasoning of mine was not logical in your eyes ?

what is not logical of this reasoning ?

there are 3 possibilities :

the universe had a uncaused cause : God
the universe began from absolutely nothing
the universe is eternal, and had no beginning.

if there should be other possibilites, please name them.

 

[Mycernius]

Can science prove the bible has been removed from the original source ?

Yes and no. Yes in the fact that it is wrong about various things ie: Insects with four legs, bats are birds and rabbits chew the cud. Each of those are wrong. Science and biology shows us that they are all wong. therefore bible is wrong and is not the product of an all-knowing god because an all-knowing god should know these things, unless it isn't all-knowing, which makes your idea of god false.
No because the other faults of the bible can be shown by archeological sources and historic records. Parts of the psalms are from Egyptian texts written hundreds of years before the bible. The whole story of the flood pre-dates judaism and is lifted from the Babylonian/Mesopotanian myth of Utnapsihtim.

Archeology shows that the bible is wrong in the fact ther is no evidence of a worldwide flood, no evidence of the exodus, both in excatvations and in written historical documents, no evidence of the Garden of Eden.

Science shows that the idea of Adam and Eve is false through evolution, an idea accepted by the catholic church.. No Adam and Eve, no original sin and Jesus just got nailed to the cross because he was preaching sedition.

The bible even contradicts itself with Genesis 1 and 2. Tell me did animals come before or fater man because Gen 1 says before yet Gen 2 says after because Adam named them? How come Gen 1 says god made human beings, note the plural, yet in Gen 2 it made one man? And then there are the contradiction within the passages. Somehow light existed before god made stars, it also managed to make a planet before the sun. which observable evidence shows that it the other way around
The Origin of the Solar System l The Big Bang
this is observed reality, not out of a dusty old book.
Here is even a picture of an accretion disk in the Orion nebula

You want evidence, there it is.
Next god somehow makes plants, that need sunlight to grow and live, before he makes the sun. Again it is a contradiction and goes against basic biology and what we know to be facts. The bible also seems to think the moon is a light source itself. Wrong, any child should be able to tell you that the light of the moon is merely the reflected light of the sun. Again the bible is WRONG.

I would also take up the passgae in Gen 1:26. If god makes man in his own image then has god got genitals, and anus and a disgestive system? If so why? genitals are used for sexual reproduction and the excretion of waste. A divine omnipotent being doesn't need to reproduce, so why the wedding tackle? A divine onmipotent being doesn't need to eat, so why the waste system? The answer is obvious to any logical sound minded person. God was created in mans images, and product of a humans imagination for things he doesn't understand.

9QUOTE]attempt failed again. It seems you do not understand what i am asking for ?
If you think, God is not a good explanation for the existence of our universe, you must have on hand a BETTER explanation. Please tell me which it is, and the evidence to back up YOUR claim. I am asking YOU to move forward now, and bring up your point. I am patiently waiting.[/QUOTE]
We know excactly what you are asking for and you are not getting it because you have made an assertion and a claim. You are evading by trying to turn the argument back to us and shift the burden of proof. No matter how you try the burden is on you. Will you attempt to try and crowbar that into your brain.

I have looked through your apolgetic peice of purile rubbish at your forum. It is full of logical fallacies (the arguments from the first post have already been suitable debunked). You are using appeals to authority, popularity, ignorance, straw man, belief, tradition, no true scotman, Post, Hoc, just to name a few. That is why that link is purile BS because it is loaded with fallacy after fallacy. It is full of assumptions and assertions. The youtube links are to people who are not even trained in the subjects they are trying to debunk. William Craig Lane is a philosopher, not a biologist, physicist or cosmologist. He doesn't debate in open forums because he knows his arguments will be taken apart and he will be shown for the fraud that he is. In fact his arguments from his debates ahve been examined at length by people and he has been shown to be the BS fraud and liar he really is.
Peter Kreeft is also only a philosopher and has no scientific training.
The vids trying to demonstrate ID are from Michael Behe. His so called theory has been rejected by the scientific community, and was used at the Dover trail on why ID shouldn't be used in a science class, as it isn't science.
From his own university:

It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific

In other words ID is just creationism dressed up pretending to be science. Behe even knows tis, but still continues to spread his lies and his habit of quote mining, along with the likes of Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and Ray "bananaman" Comfort.
Lee Strobels trying to convice us creationism from a astronomical view is a laugh a minute. For crying out load the mans onlty qualification is journalism. Again he has no science background whatsoever and were are supposed to take his word for it and yet you refuse to believe people like Richard Dawkins who is an evolutionist biologist and knows more about bilogy and evolution than Strobel can even comprehend.
Dr. Schroederand his so calle conversion an Antony Flew you fail to mention that Flew became a deist, not a believer in christian god.
From Flew himself

Well, I don't believe in the God of any revelatory system, although I am open to that. But it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before. And it was from Aristotle that Aquinas drew the materials for producing his five ways of, hopefully, proving the existence of his God. Aquinas took them, reasonably enough, to prove, if they proved anything, the existence of the God of the Christian revelation. But Aristotle himself never produced a definition of the word "God," which is a curious fact. But this concept still led to the basic outline of the five ways. It seems to me, that from the existence of Aristotle's God, you can't infer anything about human behaviour. So what Aristotle had to say about justice (justice, of course, as conceived by the Founding Fathers of the American republic as opposed to the "social" justice of John Rawls (9)) was very much a human idea, and he thought that this idea of justice was what ought to govern the behaviour of individual human beings in their relations with others.

Source: Prof. Antony Flew's conversion to theism: a response

Another thing you use in your forum is Pascals Wager. I cannot believe that this old tired old argumet is being trotted out time and time again by theists. It has been debunked ever since Pascal first mentioned it. Pascal himself knew that it was flawed. If you really want me to debunk this tired old canard then I will, but I am fed up with having to continually show this for the flawed piece of cr@p it is.

What I want to know is that do you know anything about the following: Planetary formation, stellar formation, evolution, abiogenesis, cosmic evolution, palentology, basic quantum physics, in fact any idea of quantum physics.

I might get around to debunking the rubbish that is ID some other time. There is just much to show it for the BS that it is.

 

[Eljah702]

Yes and no. Yes in the fact that it is wrong about various things ie: Insects with four legs,

http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html

bats are birds,

http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html

and rabbits chew the cud.

http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html

Each of those are wrong.
Science and biology shows us that they are all wong. therefore bible is wrong and is not the product of an all-knowing god because an all-knowing god should know these things, unless it isn't all-knowing, which makes your idea of god false.

before making a judgment, i suggest you study first the issue.

No because the other faults of the bible can be shown by archeological sources and historic records. Parts of the psalms are from Egyptian texts written hundreds of years before the bible. The whole story of the flood pre-dates judaism and is lifted from the Babylonian/Mesopotanian myth of Utnapsihtim.

you are pretty wrong again..... the gilgamesh epos differentiates quit a lot from Genesis.

Is the Biblical Flood Account a Modified Copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh?

Archeology shows that the bible is wrong in the fact ther is no evidence of a worldwide flood, no evidence of the exodus, both in excatvations and in written historical documents, no evidence of the Garden of Eden.

wrong again.

http://www.lighthouseupc.org/flood.html

Science shows that the idea of Adam and Eve is false through evolution, an idea accepted by the catholic church..

The ET is not a proven fact.

No Adam and Eve, no original sin and Jesus just got nailed to the cross because he was preaching sedition.

that is a empty assertion. I suggest you make a study by yourself before come to false conclusions.

Bring You To – The Marketing Blog

 

[Mycernius]

I give you known problems and you give me apologetics, really bad ones at that. Do you not understand how debate is supposed to work? How about some actual, real, valid, evidence, not articles and links written by peiople who do not understand the science behind it?

Okay your first link is to an apologetics site talking about mistranslations of the bible. Firstly it is suppossedly given to man by god, so it should be impossible for mistakes to creep in. Surely god would be clear about such matters, but like the incompetant deity it is, it can't get that right. I mean they make assertions and bassless assumptions. For example:

Quite simply, the big back legs on the locust, etc. were not counted as "legs" in the same sense as the other legs.

Assumption and a blind assertion

It is clear that the Hebrews regarded the two large, hopping hindlimbs of the locust and the other insects of the same type, which are the only types of insects mentioned here (we now translate "beetle" as "cricket"), as something different than the other four limbs - perhaps because they were used primarily for vertical propulsion, whereas the other limbs were for scurrying around.

Perhaps? Doesn't that mean they don't know.

The argument about the bat is even worse. They decide that the Hebrews really meant this instaed of that. They hebrews also used Elohim to discribe god in the OT. Problem is that Elohim is a plural and translates as Gods. Seem they want to use translations when it suits them and ignore them when they don't. How I wish Mars Man was here, he actually knew, indepth, about the casual translations they are using. I mean this guy even accepts on the rabbits and cud that he isn't as well versed in hebrew as experts, and yet he feels he can tell us about it.

But let us not dwell on these three examples, let us see where else it is wrong. Saying the earth is fixed in Paslms and job. That is why Copernicus was made to refute his discoveries and Gallileo was locked up for the rest of his life. It took until the 20th century for the catholic church to admit that they were right.
The Sun to stand still in Joshua. Not hard seeing the sun is fixed in relation to the earth. To achieve this amazing feat would have meant to stop the planet. That would really cause some environemntal damage.
Circular vessels that work out that pi is 3.
Gen 1:30 says that we should be able to eat every plant. Go eat some hemlock or nightshade and see how right that is.
A woman made out of a rib hence the (false) claim that men have one less rib than women. We both have exactly the same. Go ask your doctor.
Snakes eat dust. Not any I seen
Gods cure for leprosy:

Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly off. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally kill a couple doves and offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering

Hmmm, fail.
Diseases are sent by God to punish sin. how come even the rightous get ill then?
Droughts are punishments from God. Funny I thought weather had something to do with that?
Lamentations 4: seems to think ostriches are cruel parent. reality shows them to be every attentive parents.

Do you really want me to continue?

Onto the apolgetic BS on Gilgamesh. Have you ever read this epic? I have. Very close to the myth of Noah. Seeing that sumerian cultuer predates the Hebrews by at least 4000 years. Early signs of sumerian culture date from 5300 BC.
Sumer - Wikipedia
The first time the Israelites are mentioned are in the stele of Merneptah, and as a defeated people.
Merneptah Stele
Funnily enough this is about the same time that exodus was supposed to have happened. The only problem is that all the bodies of the Pharoahs at the time are accounted for and none of them drowned along with the fcat there are nor records of any plagues or deaths or of the slaves leaving.
I also like the way that on that link of Gilgamest the author says that the Sumerian myth is an unseaworthy cube, yet the ark, bigger than most modern steel ships, is seaworthy. The fact of the matter is the size of the ark makes it unseaworthy and would fall apart under its own weight and movement in the water.

 

[Mycernius]

Okay the Lighthouse link and the flood deserves its own reply to be debunked for the drivel that it is. First we start with when the biblical flood supposedly happened. Apolgetic put it at either 2350 or 2479 by using Bishop Ushers timeline or using the dates and ages in the bible itself. There is one problem with this. The Egyptian civilisation exists before and after these dates and its records are continuous. It seems that they just forgot to drown.

Okay the Lighthouse Drivel, sorry evidence

Sea originating fossils have been found at high altitudes of every continent.

The surface of the aerth is not fixed, it moves, an observed fact. It is called plate tectonics. Best example is that the Himalayas. India is pushing into Asia at a slow, but measurable rate. Originally the land which makes up the top of Everest was at sealevel.
Real science for you
Plate Tectonics

The oldest known living trees, Bristlecone Pines in California, are about 5000 years old. This would coincide with the recovery of the earth after the flood.

Wrong.

A plant that may be even older is being studied by scientists in the Mojave Desert. It is thought that some creosote bushes there may actually be as old as 7,000 years! But we now know of an even older living thing. Recently scientists in Sweden have discovered a 9,550 year old spruce tree in the mountainous Dalarna province of that country. A few other spruce trees in the region have ages that are almost as old.

Source: http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/oldest/thing.html
You fail

The Origin of Civilization appeared near the resting place of the Ark at about the same time that the flood occurred.

Already shown to be false. Sumerian culture already existed in 5300BC. The Egyptian united upper and lower Egypt in c:3100BC. The civilisations in the Indus valley, nowhere near mount Arat, founded around the time of the so called flood.

Geologist classify rock formations by the type of rock they contain. A layer of the same type of rock is called a stratum. Many scientist believe that certain types of stratum originated in certain time periods such as the Eocene, Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods of time. There are many places on the earth where the order of these strata in reversed. Examples of this are the Matterhorn and Mythen peaks in the Alps. The order of the strata has been completely reversed in respect to the earth around it. Though many explanations have been offered for this phenomenon, the catastrophic effects of a flood as described in the Bible is still the best explanation.

Again see plate tectonics.

Sedimentary deposits cover large parts of the earth. These are the type of deposits that result from movement of water.

But not all of it. Plus the planet is 75% covered by water. Land moves, fact. Seabeds rise, fact. About 150 million years ago Oxford was underwater, so what? A global flood would mean everything would have sedimentary rock on it. Then there is the laying of such rocks. It take thousands and millions of years to lay down the strata they are refering to. The flood didn't last that long. Go educate yourself on geology.

An analysis of 30,000 radiocarbon dating results published in the "Radiocarbon" journal shows an unmistakable spike in the death of living things about 5,000 years ago.

Isn't it odd that these fudnie reject radiocarbon dating when it comes to shwoing the shroud of Turin is a fake or the age of the planet to be much older than they want is to be? Double standards anyone?

Fossils of once living organisms have been found in places not suitable for their habitat:

That is because the cliamte was different when these animals where alive. The South pole used to have jungles on it 100 million years ago. Reptiles could live there.
Ancient Climates | Do You Think Climate Change is a New Thing?

Do you know I prefer to read and listen to people who actually know what they are on about rather than some delusional Pastor who tries, badly, to interpret facts to fits his faith.

I repeat, your mythical flood never happened, reality says it never happened, actually research and archeological evidence asy it never happen, there fore IT NEVER HAPPENED?

The ET is not a proven fact.

The ToE is a theory suported by nothing but facts.
Go learn what a scientific theory is before coming out with this tired old creationist canards again.

that is a empty assertion. I suggest you make a study by yourself before come to false conclusions.

No it isn't. it is supported by evolution, genetics, DNA and real evidence. you are making the assertions, once again, and evading, once again. I As i said even the catholic church has accepted evolution. Evolution means no Adam or Eve and no original sin. Jesus was supposed to have died to remove that. Well since it didn't exist then he died for no reason other than to prove a point. Then there is the historical accuracy of the gospels themsleves.

Bring You To – The Marketing Blog

More apolgetic BS, but even this mentions the burden of proof is on you.

Mind you the bible does tell you that you must accept what the bible says, even if it is wrong, because you are not allowed to think for yourself.

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

That's right folks even if all the research and observed reality says that god is wrong go with god. Ignorance is bliss.
Strangly enough it then contradicts itself at 3:13

Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.

Go figure.

 

[Eljah702]

here goes my question again :

If you think, God and the Bible is not a good explanation for the existence of our universe, you must have on hand a BETTER explanation. Please tell me which it is, and the evidence to back up YOUR claim. I am asking YOU to move forward now, and bring up your point. I continue, and am patiently waiting.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Is there any evidence to support your explanation ?

You are asking for evidence in support of the claim that aliens created the universe. I don't know about that, but there's certainly "evidence" that aliens created the human race and influenced early human culture.

Have you read Zecharia Sitchin or Eric von Daniken? The former wrote Twelfth Planet, which offers "evidence" for how a remote planet was responsible for the creation of the Earth, and how its inhabitants subsequently genetically engineered humans by crossing alien DNA with Homo Erectus. Eric von Daniken has written 26 books, which have been translated into 20 languages and sold more than 60 million copies, all on the subject of how aliens came to Earth thousands of years ago, influenced human civilisation and perhaps genetically engineered humans.

Of course, this "evidence" is all totally rejected by the scientific community, but I don't think that will bother you because you seem quite happy to accept something that's written down in a book, regardless of whether it actually matches reality.

http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html
http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html

The thing I find amusing about these apologetics is how self-contradictory they are. In the buglegs one they are saying, "Oh, don't take the term 'owph to mean birds, that's too specific a term. It just meant flying things." In the cud-chewing one they are saying, "Oh, they couldn't use the word for "dung" because that's not specific enough, hares eat dung mixed with undigested food". So on the one hand they were using a less specialist term than we might reasonably suppose, and on the other they are using a more specialist term than we might reasonable suppose. No wonder I'm confused

And on that subject, what's all that nonsense about refection being an obscure thing that even rabbit keepers can't be expected to know about? Bollocks! I've owned six rabbits and they all eat their own sh*t quite brazenly. And yes, I use the word sh*t because that's basically what it is. You wouldn't know it contains undigested food unless you're an expert on rabbit sh*t. So on the one hand we're expected to swallow the assertion that Hebrews couldn't be expected to know about refection, but on the other we have to accept that they couldn't use the word for dung because that's not a technical enough term?

The funniest part is that the scientific term for it is refection or coprophagy, which both mean sh*t-eating. If the term sh*t-eating is OK for the scientists who fully understand the process, how come the ignorant Hebrews were so pernickety?

The ET is not a proven fact.

*Tears out my hair*

As Mycernius has pointed out, the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. The word "theory" in its scientific use has a very specific technical meaning, which differs entirely from its lay meaning. Anyone who doesn't know that has no right to comment on the Theory of Evolution, or any other scientific theory.

You know how your use of the word "faith" has a different meaning from the ordinary everyday meaning? It's like that with "theory". I freely admit that I don't understand the Christian use of the word "faith", so I refrain from commenting on technical discussions of the term. I suggest you take the same stance regarding scientific theories.

If you think, God and the Bible is not a good explanation for the existence of our universe, you must have on hand a BETTER explanation. Please tell me which it is, and the evidence to back up YOUR claim. I am asking YOU to move forward now, and bring up your point. I continue, and am patiently waiting.

The only explanation I can see for this post is that you have put Mycernius on ignore. He has practically written a book for you offering various evidences and explanations that are overwhelmingly more believable than "God did it".

 

[Eljah702]

The only explanation I can see for this post is that you have put Mycernius on ignore. He has practically written a book for you offering various evidences and explanations that are overwhelmingly more believable than "God did it".

I have not seen them. please show these explanations.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I have not seen them. please show these explanations.

See that guy up there ^ whose name is purple? Mycernius? The Hairy Wookie? See those bits in his posts that are underlined? Those are links. If you click on them they will take you to other websites where you can read these explanations for yourself.

I'll even make it super easy for you by reposting all his links here:

Plate Tectonics
http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/oldest/thing.html
Ancient Climates | Do You Think Climate Change is a New Thing?
Sumer - Wikipedia
Merneptah Stele
The Origin of the Solar System l The Big Bang
Prof. Antony Flew's conversion to theism: a response
Debates and discussions in this forum.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip...er_5_arguments_experience/burden-of-proof.htm



http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t#p/u (Thunderf00ts channel)
http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa (AronRas channel)
http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/7/EEKqqrfWevc
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/16/v8nYTJf62sE
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/13/uihNu9Icaeo
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/12/bK6_p5a-Hbo
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=98084
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/apostasy.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos1.htm
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

Please go and read them all as I shall be quizzing you later.

Your feigned ignorance is highly amusing. Why didn't you refute my refutations of your claims instead? ;-)

 

[Eljah702]

Your feigned ignorance is highly amusing. Why didn't you refute my refutations of your claims instead? ;-)

i think, who is ignoring my demand, is still you :

If you think, God and the Bible is not a good explanation for the existence of our universe, you must have on hand a BETTER explanation. Please tell me which it is, and the evidence to back up YOUR claim. I am asking YOU to move forward now, and bring up your point. I continue, and am patiently waiting.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

See that long list of links I just took the time to repost? Please read them. Why are you still patiently waiting for something that's already been handed to you...twice?

 

[Eljah702]

See that long list of links I just took the time to repost? Please read them. Why are you still patiently waiting for something that's already been handed to you...twice?

I've seen some links, and they do not answer directly my question. Please explain with your own words and answer my question.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I've seen some links, and they do not answer directly my question. Please explain with your own words and answer my question.

Firstly, you can't possibly have read all the links in the short time it took you to respond. If you want to have your question answered then you need to give sufficient time and attention to the response.

Secondly, the whole point about evidence is that it isn't one person's opinion. The reason we post links is because they provide evidence that is consensus, empirical, externally verified. Mycernius is trying to offer you evidence and explanations that reflect reality, that have been formulated by experts who explain things in a better way than a layman can. Having said that, he actually has done what you asked and explained things in his own words, using the links to back up his claims. He has repeatedly quoted Bible verses together with the scientific evidence to prove they are wrong.

But since you seem unwilling to read the links properly and you've somehow missed all the explanations Mycernius has already spelled out for you, here is the answer you are asking for:

God and the Bible is not a good explanation of the universe. Science offers a better explanation, in that it explains reality in a way that is testable, externally verifiable, peer-reviewed and predictable. Scientific observation, experimentation and logical reasoning has repeatedly shown the Bible to be WRONG, no matter how the apologists spin it. That's the thing about science. No spin is necessary. It is what it is. If it's proven wrong the theories are updated to fit the evidence, not fudged so they look superficially right anyway. The apologist evidences you have posted show that the Bible is open to interpretation. We can discuss and argue about whether 'owph means bird or just simply non-specific winged thing. At no point can you say, oops the Bible got it wrong, let's change it. That's why Science is the better explanation. We use it to give the best possible view of reality based on observable phenomena that anyone can repeat, and if it's proven wrong, we change it! Science adapts to match reality. Religion tries to twist reality to match its dogmas or tries to twist its own words when it starts to look stupid.

Just look at the ground Science has gained over religion. Religion said the solar system was geocentric. Science agreed until evidence accumulated to the contrary. Religion clung to the old beliefs to the point of persecuting the dissenters, until it looked so stupid that it had to acquiesce. Religion said that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and eventually had to admit it was wrong, but instead of doing the honest thing and admitting that the Bible is just plain wrong, the apologists come out with half-baked explanations as to why the Biblical chronology is so badly skewed; the word "day" meant something different back then and other such nonsense. Religion said that god created humans as we are today. Science proved that we evolved from simpler primates. The Catholic church has been forced to admit the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and those still clinging to creationism are like rats that won't leave a sinking ship. Hopefully within our lifetime, religion will have to admit that the eternal soul doesn't exist, that mind=brain.

To boil it down for you again, Science is a better explanation for god and the Bible because Science reflects reality. Even religion recognises this, because it eventually admits that Science is right about every new discovery.

 

[RavenRockstar]

I've seen some links, and they do not answer directly my question. Please explain with your own words and answer my question.

Yet when someone asks you a question, you post a myriad of links to answer their question

 

[Eljah702]

God and the Bible is not a good explanation of the universe. Science offers a better explanation, .

who told you that science and religion cannot go hand in hand, and that both are excludent each other ?

in that it explains reality in a way that is testable, externally verifiable, peer-reviewed and predictable.

Science cannot and does not give answers to ultimate questions, as in regard of the origin of the universe. Alister McGrath puts it that way :

For Dawkins, things are dazzlingly simple. There is a cosmic battle taking place between reason (represented by science) and superstition (represented by religion). Only one can win ﾂ― and it's got to be reason.

Owen Gingerich, Harvard University's distinguished astronomer, published God's Universe. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, brought out The Language of God. Both these scientists, with a long track record of peer-reviewed publications, made the case for belief in God as the best and most satisfying explanation of the way things are.

It also shows that it makes little sense to talk about ﾂ"proofﾂ" of a world view, whether Christian or atheist. In the end, as Gilbert Harman pointed out decades ago, the real question is which offers the ﾂ"best explanationﾂ" of things.

Scientific observation, experimentation and logical reasoning has repeatedly shown the Bible to be WRONG, no matter how the apologists spin it.

I do not agree on that, but here we are again. It's not what i have asked.

That's why Science is the better explanation.We use it to give the best possible view of reality based on observable phenomena that anyone can repeat, and if it's proven wrong, we change it! Science adapts to match reality.

Science cannot explain the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the reason of our existence, why so much suffering on earth, where we come from where we go. These questions will always be and remain a domain of religion and philosophy.

Just look at the ground Science has gained over religion. Religion said the solar system was geocentric.

Do not let us mix up things. The bible didn't say that. If religion said it, its not what i defend. I am not a catholic, btw.

Science proved that we evolved from simpler primates.

No, it has not. The ET is NOT a proven fact, despite many Darwinists make such claims.

So in the end, you have not answered my question. Here it goes again , lets make sure you understand my question right, and answer WHAT I AM ASKING :

If you think, God and the Bible is not a good explanation for the existence of our universe, you must have on hand a BETTER explanation. Please tell me which it is, and the evidence to back up YOUR claim. I am asking YOU to move forward now, and bring up your point. I continue, and am patiently waiting.

there are 3 possibilities for the origin of the universe :

1.the universe had a uncaused cause : God
2.the universe began from absolutely nothing
3.the universe is eternal, and had no beginning.

if there are other possibilites, please post them. Please explain also, why you think, no.1 is not the best explanation, which it is, and why.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

who told you that science and religion cannot go hand in hand, and that both are excludent each other ?

I didn't say that they're mutually exclusive. I said that Science offers a better explanation of reality, which is evidenced by the fact that religion, and in particular Christianity, eventually gives up ground to Science.

Science cannot and does not give answers to ultimate questions, as in regard of the origin of the universe.

Sure, the jury is still out on the ultimate origin of the Universe and of life, although current hypotheses are based on observation and evidence. The "hypothesis" that god created the Universe is nothing more than a speculation based on nothing observable or testable.

On what do you base the claim that Science cannot give the answer to the origin of the Universe? Show us how and when that was proven.

Owen Gingerich...Francis Collins

Religionists always trot out Scientists who believe in god, but the simple fact is that most of them don't. Over 70% of leading Scientists disbelieve in a personal god.

Redirect to Lockhaven.edu

It also shows that it makes little sense to talk about "proof" of a world view, whether Christian or atheist. In the end, as Gilbert Harman pointed out decades ago, the real question is which offers the "best explanation" of things.

You've done nothing to show that religion offers a better explanation for the origin of the Universe than Science does. Science's stance on the issue is to offer hypotheses that fit the observable phenomena, but to admit that we can't make a definitive claim until we have more data. Religion's stance is "God did it", without offering any evidence to support that claim.

If my window gets smashed do I go talk to the boy across the street who was playing football earlier in the hope of getting more information to determine whether he did it, or do I invoke some supernatural entity that goes around smashing windows? Just because I can't be sure how it happens doesn't make it OK to come up with an explanations for which there's no evidence. We admit we're not sure and seek more evidence.

Science cannot explain the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the reason of our existence, why so much suffering on earth, where we come from where we go. These questions will always be and remain a domain of religion and philosophy.

Again, on what do you base the claim that Science can't know these things?

Do not let us mix up things. The bible didn't say that. If religion said it, its not what i defend. I am not a catholic, btw.

The Bible says that the solar system is geocentric, a doctrine that the church defended into the 19th century. Whether or not you are a Catholic is irrelevant. If you are a Christian, you believe in a book that says that the Earth is unmoving:

1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.

Psalms 96:10
Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."

The ET is NOT a proven fact, despite many Darwinists make such claims.

No Darwinist claims that the Theory of Evolution is a proven fact. It is a theory based on proven facts. It has already been pointed out to you twice that you are misunderstanding the scientific meaning of the term "theory". A scientific theory is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations, which makes assertions about underlying reality, is accurate and predictive. That is to say, it is by definition the best possible explanation for observed phenomena.

If you think, God and the Bible is not a good explanation for the existence of our universe, you must have on hand a BETTER explanation. Please tell me which it is, and the evidence to back up YOUR claim. I am asking YOU to move forward now, and bring up your point. I continue, and am patiently waiting.

But you see, there's a flaw in your question. You are making an unfounded assumption. On what do you base the claim that one can't reject an explanation without having a better one? And on what do you base the claim that Science doesn't offer a better one?

there are 3 possibilities for the origin of the universe :
1.the universe had a uncaused cause : God
2.the universe began from absolutely nothing
3.the universe is eternal, and had no beginning.
if there are other possibilites, please post them. Please explain also, why you think, no.1 is not the best explanation, which it is, and why.

There are other possibilities. As Eric von Daniken believes, perhaps aliens created the Universe. Perhaps I dreamt it, and nothing exists except in my imagination. Maybe it was the FSM.

But even if we restrict our examination to the three possibilities you have stated, what have you done to show that the first one is any better than the other two?

My stance is that we're not sure yet how the Universe began, but given Science's good track record of explaining physical phenomena, and given the fact that Science has some hypotheses based on observation, it's reasonable to assume that if it can be explained, Science will explain it eventually. This is a better explanation because it trusts to something that has been shown to be reliable in related matters. Your explanation is worse because it is based on something that has been shown to be unreliable in related matters.

And how cool to be typing this while listening to Songs of Distant Earth by Mike Oldfield

 

[Eljah702]

My stance is that we're not sure yet how the Universe began, but given Science's good track record of explaining physical phenomena, and given the fact that Science has some hypotheses based on observation, it's reasonable to assume that if it can be explained, Science will explain it eventually.

it is very reasonable to assume that we will never know through empirical evidence, what the cause of the universe was. We cannot travel back in time, and see what happened billions of years ago. Therefor it makes sense, to ask what the best explanation for the cause of the universe is. Based on our scienfic and philosophic knowledge, it is reasonable to assume, that the universe had a absolute beginning. Therefor a cause. God. Of course you can mention Erich von Daenikens ET's, the flying spaghetti monster etc. But there is no evidence for these beings to exist.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Based on our scienfic and philosophic knowledge, it is reasonable to assume, that the universe had a absolute beginning.

Why is it reasonable to assume this?

Of course you can mention Erich von Daenikens ET's, the flying spaghetti monster etc. But there is no evidence for these beings to exist.

Just as there is no evidence that god exists