Evidence of God's existence

[Eljah702]

Why is it reasonable to assume this?

Theorems by Hawking and Penrose show that as long as the universe is governed by general relativity, the existence of an initial singularity-or beginning-is inevitable, and that it's impossible to pass through a singularity to a subsequent state.

Just as there is no evidence that god exists

i think there is plenty of evidence, as already shown.

Evidence #1: the origin of the universe
- the steady state model supports atheism, but was disproved by the latest discoveries
- the oscillating model supports atheism, but was disproved by the latest discoveries
- the big bang model supports theism, and it is supported by multiple recent discoveries
- the quantum gravity model supports atheism, but it pure theory and has never been tested or confirmed by experiment and observation

Evidence #2: the fine-tuning of physical constants for life
- there are over 100 examples of constants that must be selected within a narrow range in order for the universe to support the minimal requirements for life
- example: mass density
- example: strong nuclear force (what he studies)
- example: carbon formation

Evidence #3: the fine-tuning of our planet for habitability
- the type of galaxy and our location in it
- our solar system and our star
- our planet
- our moon

 

[RavenRockstar]

Heres the thing, Elija.
You could bring your eye-in-the-sky down for a meet and greet, and that still mightn't convince me.
But you can't do that. All you can do is give your opinion, which you've done. This would be a nice debate if you would read the information you've been given, opinion or not, and acknowlage it. Bring in your opinions on it. Only then will you actually seem like someone reasonable and knowlegdeable on your topic.
Untill then, you sound like a child repeating "I'm right and you're wrong"
No offense intended, it's just a bit irritating to see so many opportunities for an interesting exchange be ignored

 

[Eljah702]

Heres the thing, Elija.
You could bring your eye-in-the-sky down for a meet and greet, and that still mightn't convince me.
But you can't do that. All you can do is give your opinion, which you've done. This would be a nice debate if you would read the information you've been given, opinion or not, and acknowlage it. Bring in your opinions on it. Only then will you actually seem like someone reasonable and knowlegdeable on your topic.
Untill then, you sound like a child repeating "I'm right and you're wrong"
No offense intended, it's just a bit irritating to see so many opportunities for an interesting exchange be ignored

well, i am reading and answering the posts of the participants. What else do you ask me to do ?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Theorems by Hawking and Penrose show that as long as the universe is governed by general relativity, the existence of an initial singularity-or beginning-is inevitable, and that it's impossible to pass through a singularity to a subsequent state.

Thanks for reminding us of this

- the big bang model supports theism, and it is supported by multiple recent discoveries

You've done nothing to demonstrate that the big bang theory supports theism. I found the following argument, which purports to prove the opposite:

Quentin Smith Cosmology – Internet Infidels

Evidence #2: the fine-tuning of physical constants for life

Evidence #3: the fine-tuning of our planet for habitability

By the use of the term "fine-tuning" you are begging the question. Anyway, your argument runs backwards. Life evolved as it it did because the Universe is the way it is. Had these constants been different, sure, life as we know it wouldn't have evolved, but who's to say there couldn't be life based on an entirely different biochemistry?

However, there are scientific arguments for the goldilocks hypothesis, such as oscillatory universe, multiverse, bubble universe or alien design.

 

[Eljah702]

Thanks for reminding us of this
You've done nothing to demonstrate that the big bang theory supports theism. I found the following argument, which purports to prove the opposite:

there is a compelling and convincing answer to Quentin Smith's arguments here :

leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/cossingu.html

Enjoying no greater consistency than its theistic rival, with no positive argument to commend it, and unable to escape the charge of metaphysical absurdity leveled against it, Smith's atheistic interpretation of the Big Bang appears to be untenable. If the standard model is correct, it does seem to constitute a powerful argument for the existence of a Creator of the universe. Smith leaves it open that the model may be false and some other model not involving an initial cosmological singularity be true.

By the use of the term "fine-tuning" you are begging the question. Anyway, your argument runs backwards. Life evolved as it it did because the Universe is the way it is.

I believe, the universe had a purpose : to host life. It is very unlikely , the universe to be the way it is, accidentally.

//winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/what-conditions-are-needed-to-create-a-habitable-planet/

The requirements of a habitable planet

Here are just a few of the requirements mentioned in the lecture.

a solar system with a single massive Sun than can serve as a long-lived, stable source of energy
a terrestrial planet (non-gaseous)
the planet must be the right distance from the sun in order to preserve liquid water at the surface – if it's too close, the water is burnt off in a runaway greenhouse effect, if it's too far, the water is permanently frozen in a runaway glaciation
the solar system must be placed at the right place in the galaxy – not too near dangerous radiation, but close enough to other stars to be able to absorb heavy elements after neighboring stars die
a moon of sufficient mass to stabilize the tilt of the planet's rotation
plate tectonics
an oxygen-rich atmosphere
a sweeper planet to deflect comets, etc.
planetary neighbors must have non-eccentric orbits

If the odds of winning are 1 in a million, you could still win by buying a million tickets with all the different numbers. In the universe, there are only about 10^22 possible solar systems. So if the odds of getting a habitable planet are 1 in 10^9, you'll get tons of life. But what if the odds are 1 in 10^40? Then you're not likely to win.

But this is not the argument that these two are making, because even though there are a lot of factors needed for a habitable planet, we still can't say for certain how likely it is that each of these conditions will obtain. Therefore, we can't make the argument except by estimating the odds of getting each condition.

do you think all these settings happened accidentally ? you must have really a big faith to believe so.

Had these constants been different, sure, life as we know it wouldn't have evolved, but who's to say there couldn't be life based on an entirely different biochemistry?

that is very unlikely.

from the same source :

The minimal requirements for life

I've written about this before here, but basically life requires a minimum amount of encoded biological information to allow it to replicate itself. The only element in the periodic table that allows you to encode information is carbon. Carbon is the hub of large molecules which form the paper and text of biological information. No carbon = no life.

Secondly, you need some environment in which to form molecules around the carbon, such as amino acids and proteins. That environment is liquid water. And you need the liquid water to be at the surface the planet where you want life to exist.

.

However, there are scientific arguments for the goldilocks hypothesis, such as oscillatory universe, multiverse, bubble universe or alien design.

show me some evidence to back up these claims....

 

[Mycernius]

- the big bang model supports theism, and it is supported by multiple recent discoveries

I'm with Tsuyoiko on this. Since when has the big bang supported a god, especially christian god, after all didn't it just magic everything into being?

Evidence #2: the fine-tuning of physical constants for life
- there are over 100 examples of constants that must be selected within a narrow range in order for the universe to support the minimal requirements for life
- example: mass density
- example: strong nuclear force (what he studies)
- example: carbon formation

Then why isn't the universe teaming with life? If you are right then around every yellow star should be life.
To quote the late great Douglas Adams:

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Seeing that current models sugest that the universe is heading for the heat death, cold death or big crunch
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/cosmos_death.html
I hardly call that fine tuned for life to carry on.

Evidence #3: the fine-tuning of our planet for habitability
- the type of galaxy and our location in it
- our solar system and our star
- our planet
- our moon

The old Goldilocks bollocks. You'll be pretty screwed if we find life on Europa, which there is a very good chance of.
Please watch this. The end of it is most relevant to your bollocks.

There is also the fact that 75% of our planet is covered in sea water. A water that we and most plants and animals cannot use as it will kill them and us. We cannot survive over 8000m without our technology. The same goes for living in deserts and the poles. Yeah, your god did real well when making a planet for its "chosen" people. Seems that given half a chance the planet will try to kill us by floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, being a in cosmic shooting gallery with the risk of being hit by meteors and comets, the ever expanding sun (that will eventually destroy all life on earth and blast the atmosphere of it), nearby stars that could go nova and give out a gamma blast capable of sterilising this planet and the apprach of the Andromeda galaxy and our eventual collision with it. Yes, you are right this is so fined tuned for us

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.

Way to go and shoot yourself in the foot sparky.

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.

Two things on this question:
1. It has already been answered. If you can't be bothered to read and watch then that is not my problem that you have comprehension issues.
2. To show what an inane question this is and why it really should be ignored I'm going to alter one bit of it. See if you can see what it is?

If you think, Allah and The Quran/Brahman and Hindu Scripture/Izanagi and Izanami and Shinto texts, Amun ra and Egyptian texts. the Aboringinal dreamtime (I could go on, but I think you get the idea) 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.

 

[Half-n-Half]

The requirements of a habitable planet
Here are just a few of the requirements mentioned in the lecture.
a solar system with a single massive Sun than can serve as a long-lived, stable source of energy
a terrestrial planet (non-gaseous)
the planet must be the right distance from the sun in order to preserve liquid water at the surface – if it's too close, the water is burnt off in a runaway greenhouse effect, if it's too far, the water is permanently frozen in a runaway glaciation
the solar system must be placed at the right place in the galaxy – not too near dangerous radiation, but close enough to other stars to be able to absorb heavy elements after neighboring stars die
a moon of sufficient mass to stabilize the tilt of the planet's rotation
plate tectonics
an oxygen-rich atmosphere
a sweeper planet to deflect comets, etc.
planetary neighbors must have non-eccentric orbits

Along with what Tsuyoiko and Mycernius have posted, contrary to popular belief, the Sun is most likely not a good candidate star to harbor life. Dimmer stars produce less amounts of harmful radiation and also live much longer, giving life more time to develop. These stars, known as K-type stars, are also much more abundant than our Sun, making up about 15% of all the stars in the Galaxy. But I'm sure you'll just say this points to a designer making us special.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/49740/title/Sun_may_not_be_a_Goldilocks_star

Also, you are assuming that life must be carbon based. The only reason we look for conditions that suit life on Earth is because we know those conditions have caused life to arise. It's a good starting point to search for life since we know the variables. However, it has also been proposed that life could be silicon based as well.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

there is a compelling and convincing answer to Quentin Smith's arguments here :
leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/cossingu.html

This answer misrepresents Smith's argument. For example, Smith's first premise is not, as stated in the rebuttal:
1. The Big Bang singularity is the earliest state of the universe.
but rather:
(1) If God exists and there is an earliest state E of the universe, then God created E,

The premise thus stated leaves open the possibility that there is actually no earliest state. At no point does Smith make a positive assertion for the Big Bang, in fact he states quite clearly that that is not what he intends:

my argument in this paper cannot be 'If the classical big bang theory is true, God does not exist; the classical theory is true, therefore God does not exist'. Rather, my argument is simply that the existence of God is inconsistent with the classical big bang theory. I aim to produce a valid argument for God's nonexistence, not a sound one.

Craig's rebuttal therefore fails as it is based on false premises.

I believe, the universe had a purpose : to host life.

Then your argument cannot be sound as it is based on an uncertain premise.

an oxygen-rich atmosphere...
the planet must be the right distance from the sun in order to preserve liquid water at the surface

Actually, when life began, oxygen was either rare or absent in the atmosphere. It's also possible that life began in deep sea vents rather than at the surface. This would allow for an earlier origin of life.

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

Even now, some organisms on Earth survive in the absence of oxygen.

Anaerobic organism - Wikipedia

even though there are a lot of factors needed for a habitable planet, we still can't say for certain how likely it is that each of these conditions will obtain. Therefore, we can't make the argument except by estimating the odds of getting each condition.

You posted this, but it actually seems to argue against your claim. We don't actually know the odds that the conditions favourable to life would occur, so how can we make any statements about their likelihood?

The minimal requirements for life
I've written about this before here, but basically life requires a minimum amount of encoded biological information to allow it to replicate itself. The only element in the periodic table that allows you to encode information is carbon.

I've run out of time to read up on this, but I thought silicon was also a possible candidate.

show me some evidence to back up these claims....

Well, I'm not claiming anything about those possibilities I listed, I'm just pointing out that there are other explanations for the goldilocks hypothesis. Google is your friend ;-)

 

[Hezam]

If you think, Allah and The Quran/Brahman and Hindu Scripture/Izanagi and Izanami and Shinto texts, Amun ra and Egyptian texts. the Aboringinal dreamtime (I could go on, but I think you get the idea) 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.

Yes this is what the other side (Muslim/Budhist) will say.
Eljah702,You need to understand that people is different and people have different ways of thinking,all what you posted is only Evidence,and No strong proof yet.
for example,i am muslim,i dont belive that human can become God ! like Prophet Jesus.
in the other hand,if i was athiest i will not belive that there is God because i can not see him ! or feel his existance !

gambaru minasan

 

[Regens Kuechl]

Hi, I made a list of the dozens or hundreds of forums wherein Angelo missioninizes:ramen:

If you want to see it just use the following link and scroll down

atheist.ie/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2300&start=135

:gohan:

 

[Mycernius]

Hi, I made a list of the dozens or hundreds of forums wherein Angelo missioninizes:ramen:
If you want to see it just use the following link and scroll down
i am a evangelical christian - Page 14 - Atheist Ireland
:gohan:

I'll link it properly for you.

Serial poster by the looks of it, and hasn't learnt a thing. What is noticable is that he hasn't posted on Atheist network, where he would not only be shot down in flames, but called all sorts of names. That forum has no problem with Ad hom attacks if you are being a douche. Also no posts on Richard Dawkins forum. I know he will be eaten alive on that one. He should join, we haven't got a decent chew toy at the moment.

Seems to have disappeared for the moment.

 

[Regens Kuechl]

I'll link it properly for you.
Serial poster by the looks of it, and hasn't learnt a thing. What is noticable is that he hasn't posted on Atheist network, where he would not only be shot down in flames, but called all sorts of names. That forum has no problem with Ad hom attacks if you are being a douche. Also no posts on Richard Dawkins forum. I know he will be eaten alive on that one. He should join, we haven't got a decent chew toy at the moment.
Seems to have disappeared for the moment.

You are wrong there . I can explain .

In my list I have a remark that 3 english Angeloforums are missing. This means I had 3 links more but one day this forums were reworked or the like and the links did not function any more. It were Angelothreads at :

atheistnation.net
atheistnetwork.com
davidmills.net

Perhaps the threads are still there, perhaps they were deleted. I could not find them again, so for now they remain "missing in angelo" :sorry:
I myself read Angelos Thread at atheistnetwork in full lenght last year.
He was not only shot down in flames and called all sorts of names, but one moderator served him a "Troll-Face-Avatar" with the inscription "I am trolling this boards"

I never searched him at Richard Dawkins forum, but in another Forum angelo himself states he very well had a thread there but he was banned and his whole thread got deleted because of hiss christian faith:?

If you are an User at these forums, perhaps you could ask there about angelos threads and if you find them post the links here ? Thank you

 

[Eljah702]

I'm with Tsuyoiko on this. Since when has the big bang supported a god, especially christian god, after all didn't it just magic everything into being?

If no God brought the universe into existence, than it would certainly be magic. How could something arise from any thing ?

Then why isn't the universe teaming with life? If you are right then around every yellow star should be life.

Who or what has set this rule ?

To quote the late great Douglas Adams:
Seeing that current models sugest that the universe is heading for the heat death, cold death or big crunch
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/cosmos_death.html
I hardly call that fine tuned for life to carry on.

If God had the purpose to permit life just for a determined interval of time, i do not see any problem.

There is also the fact that 75% of our planet is covered in sea water. A water that we and most plants and animals cannot use as it will kill them and us.

the size of the oceans is life essential.

WHY DOES THE EARTH HAVE OCEANS?

http://www.reasons.org/WhyDoestheEarthhaveOceans

Without an event that brought an abundance of asteroids from the outer regions of the solar system crashing to Earth, our planet would not have maintained a stable water cycle. Had this bombardment occurred too early, the water would have ended up buried deep inside the Earth instead of forming a life-essential liquid ocean. Only by the proper timing of this asteroid bombardment did Earth become habitable. Advances in our understanding of how our home developed continue to support the idea that a super Intellect worked to provide a place for humanity to reside.

We cannot survive over 8000m without our technology.

and what is the reason that we should ?

Seems that given half a chance the planet will try to kill us by floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, being a in cosmic shooting gallery with the risk of being hit by meteors and comets,

Earhquakes are necessary for life :

MORE EVIDENCE FOR THE DESIGN OF EARTHQUAKE ACTIVITY

http://www.reasons.org/design/solar-system-design/more-evidence-design-earthquake-activity

ANOTHER BENEFIT FOR LIFE IN EARTHQUAKES

http://www.reasons.org/design/earthmoon-design/another-benefit-life-earthquakes

Earthquakes are a byproduct of plate tectonics, a theory in geology developed in recent years for explaining motions near the surface of the Earth. One of the benefits from plate tectonics is that Earth maintains the right levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere to compensate for the Sun's increasing luminosity. This is accomplished by what is called the carbonate-silicate cycle. CO2 is removed from the atmosphere through weathering. The weathered products are eventually drawn into the Earth's interior via plate tectonics. Processes inside the Earth's interior release the CO2 back into the atmosphere via volcanoes. While all aspects of this mechanism are not yet fully understood, it has been instrumental in providing a stable environment for life on the Earth for billions of years.

WHAT IF THERE WERE NO HURRICANES?

What If There Were No Hurricanes?

Earth derives a number of benefits from massive thunderstorms (of which hurricanes are the most severe), including these five:3

Sufficient rainfall to water the earth. Major parts of the world rely on heavy storms to supply water for life's basic needs.
Plant fertilizer from lightning. Nitrogen "fixing" by lightning converts some of the nitrogen in the air into a form that plants can use for food. Without it, many plants could not thrive. And plants are the foundation of humanity's food chain.
Pruning of forests and prairies from lightning fires. Fires help maintain the diverse life-forms needed for a stable ecology naturally, by clearing away old growth and spurring new plant growth required for food.
Pruning of forests by strong winds. In addition to fires, winds uproot weaker trees and open up the forest canopy for a greater diversity of plants and animals.
Drought-breaking rainfall. Severe storms such as hurricanes (called monsoons, typhoons, or cyclones in other parts of the world) provide immediate, ample water supplies to end years of drought.

the ever expanding sun (that will eventually destroy all life on earth and blast the atmosphere of it), nearby stars that could go nova and give out a gamma blast capable of sterilising this planet and the apprach of the Andromeda galaxy and our eventual collision with it. Yes, you are right this is so fined tuned for us

despite all this, we live on this planet for a certain amount of time. This is evidence of a creator.

 

[Eljah702]

However, it has also been proposed that life could be silicon based as well.

No, it could not.

silicon-based life

Life-forms must also be able to collect, store, and utilize energy from their environment. In carbon-based biota, the basic energy storage compounds are carbohydrates in which the carbon atoms are linked by single bonds into a chain. A carbohydrate is oxidized to release energy (and the waste products water and carbon dioxide) in a series of controlled steps using enzymes. These enzymes are large, complex molecules (see proteins) which catalyze specific reactions because of their shape and "handedness." A feature of carbon chemistry is that many of its compounds can take right and left forms, and it is this handedness, or chirality, that gives enzymes their ability to recognize and regulate a huge variety of processes in the body. Silicon's failure to give rise to many compounds that display handedness makes it hard to see how it could serve as the basis for the many interconnected chains of reactions needed to support life.

 

[Mycernius]

I am locking this thread because thanks to Regens Kuechl we now know you are only here to evangelise shite. You are not here to learn anything. you are not willing to learn anything, and you are inconsistant (like the bibble, yes it is spelt that way on purpose) and suffer an huge case of congnitive dissonace. Your tired old creotard canards have been dealt with and frankly we are fed up with your obvious trolling and linking to apologist websites, not to anything that is based on reality.

This is also a site primarily about Japan, not a place for you to spread your lies and dis-information. As you seem to have no interest outside this sub-forum I suggest you go off elsewhere, as you seem to have enough places to bother others.

Do not start another thread on this subject or you will face either a temporay ban or a pernamant ban.

 

[Mycernius]

I never searched him at Richard Dawkins forum, but in another Forum angelo himself states he very well had a thread there but he was banned and his whole thread got deleted because of hiss christian faith:?

That's a lie to begin with. We have had creationists a lot worse than the cr@p that he has posted here and their threads are still up long after the member has been banned. He might have been banned for preaching, but RDnet don't really go around deleting threads from IDiots, that is what religious fora do. Censorship is rife amoung the religious.