125 reasons to believe in God

1) beginning of the universe

The universe had a beginning
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1297-beginning-the-universe-had-a-beginning

According to Hawking, Einstein, Vilenkin, Penzius, Jastrow, Krauss, and 100’s of other physicists, finite nature (time/space/matter) had a beginning.

The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9UMDiiE0kY&t=87s

2) fine-tuning of the universe

Fine-Tuning Argument for God? | Otangelo Vs Leophilius
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT6gZKqQkPw&t=1631s

Fine-tuning of the universe
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

3) the beginning of life, no scientific explanation of how life began

Abiogenesis is mathematically impossible
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1279-abiogenesis-is-mathematically-impossible

4) evolution doesn't satisfactorily explain biodiversity on earth

Why Darwin's theory of evolution does not explain biodiversity
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2623-why-darwins-theory-of-evolution-does-not-explain-biodiversity

Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2316-evolution-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from

5) we have no satisfactory explanation of consciousness

Idealism, dualism, or materialism? The Mind is Not The Brain
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1662-dualism-the-mind-is-not-the-brain

6) the moral argument. we know there are objective moral values, therefore, god must exist

The moral argument for gods existence
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1369-moral-argument-for-gods-existence

The Classical Teleological Argument

1. Whenever there are things that cohere only because of a purpose or function (for example, all the complicated parts of a watch that allow it to keep time), we know that they had a designer who designed them with the function in mind; they are too improbable to have arisen by random physical processes. (A hurricane blowing through a hardware store could not assemble a watch.)

2. The essential parts of a living cell cohere only because they have a function such as membrane proteins ( factory portals ), DNA ( hardware ), the genetic code and instructional complex information stored in DNA (software),  RNA polymerase ( information retrieval/encoding )  messenger RNA ( transmission ) Ribosome ( translation/decoding ) proteins ( complex machines )  dynein, kinesin ( taxis ) tubulins ( molecular highways )  mitochondria ( power generating plants ) ATP synthase ( power turbines ) the metabolic network ( electric circuits )  and so on, which are found forming an integrated interdependent system because they make it possible together for the cell to self-replicate, adapt, and remain alive.

3. These chemicals, building blocks, and macromolecules must have a designer who designed them with their function in mind: just as a watch implies a watchmaker, a machine implies a machine designer. Living cells were not created by human designers. Therefore, living cells must have had a non-human intelligent designer


1. Whenever there are things that cohere only because of a purpose or function (for example, all the complicated parts of a watch that allow it to keep time), we know that they had a designer who designed them with the function in mind; they are too improbable to have arisen by random physical processes. (A hurricane blowing through a hardware store could not assemble a watch.)

2. The essential parts of a living cell cohere to a functional whole. They are found forming an integrated complex system because they make it possible together for the cell to self-replicate, adapt, and remain alive. There is an organizational structure between the domain of specified complex information that cleverly directs the making all functional parts and controls molecular mechanical dynamics and self-replication.  

3. The functional organization which makes chemicals, building blocks, and macromolecules must have a designer who designed the system with the function in mind: just as a watch implies a watchmaker, a machine implies a machine designer, and a factory, a factory maker. Living cell factories full of machines made through the instructional genetic information were not created by human designers. Therefore, living cells must have had a non-human intelligent designer

125 reasons to believe in God

Scientists, most of them not believing in God, had to acknowledge and admit the overwhelming evidence pointing to the overwhelming appearance of design in the natural world:
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1276p25-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god#8282

Adam Frank, professor of physics and astronomy, author of: Cosmology and Culture at the Twilight of the Big Bang
Fine-tuning sticks in the craw of most physicists, and rightfully so. It’s that old Copernican principle again. What set the laws and the initial conditions for the universe to be “just so,” just so we could be here? It smells too much like intelligent design. The whole point of science has been to find natural, rational reasons for why the world looks like it does. “Because a miracle happened,” just doesn’t cut it.

Paul Davies British astrophysicist
“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".

Paul Davies
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.”

Had the ratio of the electromagnetic and gravitational forces differed by about 1 part in 10^40 (1 in ten thousand billion billion billion billion) then stars such as the Sun, which are capable of supporting life, could not exist. As Davies points out ‘the impression of design is overwhelming’.

F. Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, 1981
"The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems... cannot in our view be generated by what are often called 'natural' processes... There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible... The correct position we think is... an intelligence, which designed the biochemicals and gave rise to the origin of carbonaceous life... This is tantamount to arguing that carbonaceous life was invented by noncarbonaceous intelligence."

Eugene V. Koonin, The Logic of Chance:  " The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution,  page 351:
For all the effort, we do not currently have coherent and plausible models for the path from simple organic molecules to the first life forms. Most damningly, the powerful mechanisms of biological evolution were not available for all the stages preceding the emergence of replicator systems. Given all these major difficulties, it appears prudent to seriously consider radical alternatives for the origin of life. "

Graham Cairns-Smith, Genetic takeover, page 66:
Now you may say that there are alternative ways of building up nucleotides, and perhaps there was some geochemical way on the early Earth. But what we know of the experimental difficulties in nucleotide synthesis speaks strongly against any such supposition. However it is to be put together, a nucleotide is too complex and metastable a molecule for there to be any reason to expect an easy synthesis.

A.Einstein: The World As I See It", Ideas and Opinions (1954) trans Sonja Bargmann
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a Spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a Spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way, the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.”

A.Einstein: Letters to Solovine p 131.
.. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the 'miracle' which is constantly reinforced as our knowedge expands."

Stephen Hawking A Brief History of Time
"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

"The overwhelming impression is one of order. The more we discover about the universe, the more we find that it is governed by rational laws." "You still have the question: why does the universe bother to exist? If you like, you can define God to be the answer to that question."

Robert Jastrow God and the Astronomers
"Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements and the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."

Arno Penzias Cosmos, Bios, Theos p83
"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

Freeman Dyson Scientific American, 224, 1971, p 50.
"As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked togehter to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known we were coming."

Richard Dawkins: The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.
Computers run on software programs that are always made by software engineers. Every experience we have about information - whether it's a computer code, hieroglyphic inscription, a book or a cave painting - is the produce of intelligence. It logically follows that the same must be the case with the biosemitoc algorithmic instructional information stored in biological cells.

George Ellis (British astrophysicist)
“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

John O'Keefe (NASA astronomer)
“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”

George Greenstein (astronomer)
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist)
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author)
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”

Tony Rothman (physicist)
“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist)
“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician)
“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”

Ed Harrison (cosmologist)
“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”

Edward Milne (British cosmologist)
“As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”

Barry Parker (cosmologist)
“Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists)
“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics)
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (computational quantum chemist)
“The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer)
“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

Einstein quotes:  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/Einstein.html
Fred Hoyle quotes: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/Hoyle.html#c1
Hawking quotes: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/hawking.html#c1
Robert Jastrow: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/Jastrow.html#c1
Aron Penzias: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/penzias.html#c1
Freeman Dyson: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/dyson.html#c1

1. Information is the fundamental property of reality

Decoding reality - Information is fundamental
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3035-decoding-reality-information-is-fundamental

2. Existence of the universe. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause

The Kalam leads to the God of the Bible
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2877-the-kalaam-leads-to-the-god-of-the-bible

3. The universe obeys the laws and rules of mathematics and physics. Its implementation depends on the action of an intelligent rational agency.

Evidence of Design in Mathematics
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1360-evidence-of-design-in-mathematics

4. The physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent and irreducible. There would not be one without the other.

Laws of Physics, where did they come from?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1336-laws-of-physics-where-did-they-come-from

5. Fine-Tuning. The fundamental physical constants, the universe, and the earth are finely tuned for life. Over 100 constants must be just right.

Fine-tuning of the universe
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

6. Formation of stars: The accretion theory is unsubstantiated - Gas cannot clump based on gravity

Stellar evolution and the problem of the ‘first’ stars
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1922-chronology-and-timeline-of-origins-of-the-universe-life-and-biodiversity-the-lack-of-explanatory-power-open-questions-and-refuted-claims-of-naturalism#3212

7. Formation of life. Life comes only from life. Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated to be possible despite over half a century of intensive scientific research.

Abiogenesis is mathematically  impossible
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1279-abiogenesis-is-mathematically-impossible

8. Cells ARE literally factories. Biological cells ARE an industrial park of millions of interconnected complex factories, full of machines. Factories are always designed.

The factory maker argument
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2245-abiogenesis-the-factory-maker-argument

9. A minimal free-living Cell requires 1300 proteins with an average size of 400 amino acids. That requires to select 1 out of 10^722.000! 

Uncertainty quantification of a primordial ancestor with a minimal proteome emerging through unguided, natural, random events
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2508-abiogenesis-uncertainty-quantification-of-a-primordial-ancestor-with-a-minimal-proteome-emerging-through-unguided-natural-random-events

10. Irreducible complexity. Biological cells require a minimal number of parts, which have no use by themselves, and would never accumulate on a prebiotic earth

Irreducible Complexity: The existence of irreducible interdependent structures in biology is an undeniable fact
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1468-irreducible-complexity-the-existence-of-irreducible-interdependent-structures-in-biology-is-an-undeniable-fact#2133

11. The appearance of design. The universe and biological systems appear designed. Therefore, most probably, they are designed. 

A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1288-a-positive-testable-case-for-intelligent-design

12. Codified Information. DNA has the highest storage density known, and stores the blueprint of life. Blueprints can always be traced back to intelligence

Main topics on complex, specified/instructional coded information in biochemical systems and life
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2625-information-main-topics-on-complex-specified-instructional-coded-information-in-biochemical-systems-and-life

13. The Fossil Record. The Fossil record, and in special the Cambrian explosion, demonstrates the sudden appearance of lifeforms, without intermediates. 

Fossils - Evidence AGAINST evolution
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1701-fossils-evidence-against-evolution

14. Consciousness and language. Conscience, mental reality, language, logic, free will, moral values, are immaterial entities, and cannot emerge from physical matter. 

Idealism, dualism, or materialism? The Mind is Not The Brain
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1662-dualism-the-mind-is-not-the-brain

15. Objective moral values exist. They are "ought to be"s, imprinted in our conscience. 

The moral argument for gods existence
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1369-moral-argument-for-gods-existence

16. Human objective logic depends and can only derive from a pre-existing necessary first mind with objective logic.

How could consciousness, logic and language evolve from matter?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1334-the-origin-of-language#6045

17. Theology and philosophy. Both lead to an eternal, self-existent, omnipresent transcendent, conscious, intelligent, personal and moral Creator.

Syllogistic - Arguments of Gods existence based on positive evidence
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2895-syllogistic-arguments-of-gods-existence-based-on-positive-evidence

18. The Bible. The Old Testament is a catalog of fulfilled prophecies of Jesus Christ, and his mission, death, and resurrection foretold with specificity.

Fulfilled prophecies in the bible
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2435-fullfilled-prophecies-in-the-bible

19. Archaeology. Demonstrates that all events described in the Bible are historical facts. 

Is the Bible Historically Accurate?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1974-is-the-bible-historically-accurate

Noah's Ark has been found with high probability on Mount Ararat
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2940-noah-s-ark-has-been-found-with-high-probability-on-mount-ararat

20. History. Historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth, and really did physically rise from the dead

Evidence of the historical Jesus
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1676-evidence-of-the-historical-jesus

The shroud of Turin EXTRAORDINARY evidence of Christ's resurrection
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-shroud-of-turin

21. The Bible's witnesses. There are many testimonies of Jesus doing miracles still today, and Jesus appearing to people all over the globe, still today.


22. End times. The signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are occurring in front of our eyes. New world order, Israel as a nation, microchip implant, etc.


23. After-life experiences. Credible witnesses have seen the afterlife and have come back and reported to us that the afterlife is real.


Near Death experience , evidence of dualism
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1284-dualism-near-death-experience

“Mechanisms, whether man-made or morphological, are boundary conditions harnessing the laws of inanimate nature, being themselves irreducible to those laws. The pattern of organic bases in DNA which functions as a genetic code is a boundary condition irreducible to physics and chemistry.”
Hungarian-British Polymath, Michael Polanyi

“A new scientific truth is usually not propagated in such a way that the opponents become convinced and discard their previous views. No, the adversaries eventually die off, and the upcoming generation is familiarised anew with the truth"
Nobel Laureate, Max Planck, Founder of Quantum Physics

"...we desire the best available scientific status report on the origin of life. We shall see that adherents of the best known theory have not responded to increasing adverse evidence by questioning the validity of their beliefs, in the best scientific tradition; rather, they have chosen to hold it as a truth beyond question, thereby enshrining it as mythology."
Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, New York University

“The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides the living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences."
Hubert Yockey, "Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life" (Cambridge University Press)

“Semiosis not only is a fact of life, but is the fact that allowed life to emerge from inanimate matter"
Marciello Barbieri, Dept of Morphology and Embryology, University of Ferrarra

"The basic unit of life is the sign, not the molecule"
Professor Emeritus Jesper Hoffmeyer, Institute of Biology, University of Copenhagen

“Life is matter controlled by symbols"
Professor Emeritus of Physics, Howard Pattee, New York State University

It's actually easy (if you're not blinkered by a prior philosophical commitment to materialism) to infer God's existence from basic science soon after you wrap your mind around the concept of "absolute nothing".
Science shows that one can't get something out of nothing.
Here we are, so evidently there was always "something".
Here we are, obviously designed, so there was always "Someone."
Ergo, our Eternal Creator.
The main problem is the alienness of the concept of absolute nothing.
I found it helpful to look backward instead of forward and that was when I realised ... if indeed there always was nothing then nothing is what there would be now and always would be ...

1. Existence of the universe. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause
2. The universe obeys the laws and rules of mathematics and physics. Its implementation depends on the action of an intelligent rational agency.
3. The physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent and irreducible. There would not be one without the other.
4. Fine-Tuning. The fundamental physical constants, the universe, and the earth are finely tuned for life. Hundreds, if not thousands of constants must be just right.
5. Formation of life. Life comes only from life. Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated to be possible despite over half a century of intensive scientific research.
6. Cells ARE literally factories. Biological cells ARE an industrial park of millions of interconnected complex factories, full of machines. Factories are always designed.
7. A minimal free-living Cell requires 1350 proteins with an average size of 300 amino acids. That requires selecting 1 out of 10^720.000! 
8. Irreducible complexity. Biological cells require a minimal number of parts, which have no use by themselves, and would never accumulate on a prebiotic earth
9. The appearance of design. The universe and biological systems appear designed. Therefore, most probably, they are designed. 
10. Codified Information. DNA has the highest storage density known, and stores the blueprint of life. Blueprints can always be traced back to intelligence
11. Cell factories have a codified description of themselves in digital form stored in genes and have the machinery to process that information through transcription and translation into an identical representation in analog 3D form, the physical 'reality' of that description. Only intelligence has been shown able to instantiate such a process.

The universe and biological systems appear designed.
The universe is like a wind-up clock, winding down as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. 
Laws and rules of mathematics and physics are imprinted in the universe, which obeys them.  
The fundamental physical constants, the universe, and the earth are finely tuned to permit life. Hundreds, if not thousands of constants must be just right. Who/what finely adjusted these parameters to permit life? 
Cells ARE literally factories. Biological cells ARE an industrial park of millions of interconnected complex factories, full of machines, production lines, computers, energy turbines, etc. 
Cell factories have a codified description of themselves in digital form stored in genes and have the machinery to process that information through transcription and translation into an identical representation in analog 3D form, the physical 'reality' of that description. 
DNA has the highest storage density known, stores the blueprint of life, has information encoding, transmission, and decoding, and translation machinery. 
Humans are moral beings, and have conscious intelligent minds, able to communicate, use language, and objective logic. Morals, the mind, information, and logic, are non-material, non-physical entities.  


If all these things seem designed, why is it not plausible, probable, possible, and the best rational explanation to infer that injecting energy, implementing rules based on math, fine-tuning, creating blueprints, and upon these, machines and factories, information storage, encoding, transmission, decoding, translation, languages and codes, consciousness, intelligence, languages, and logic are caused and created by a superintelligent, eternal, powerful conscious mind? 

The beginning of the universe from nothing, the fine-tuning of the laws of physics, the precision of earth's placement in the universe, the origin of life, the information within life, and consciousness. These all point to an intelligent Designer.

All of these things ARE evidence for Intelligent Design. The fact that they have so much information inherent in them needs explanation. Again, in our uniform and repeated experience we have only ever seen mind create such large amounts of information. Therefore, an inference to the best explanation would force us to conclude that there is a mind behind the universe.

This is a scientific theory. You can disagree if you want, but to claim that there is no evidence or reasoning is not just factually wrong but also absurd.

Science points to an Intelligent Designer: 125 reasons to believe that God exists

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1276p25-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god#9400

Neil deGrasse Tyson: “Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance.”
My response: Science is the tool of discovery. The awe-inspiring discovery is that science leads to and confirms an intelligent designer. 

1. The Big-bang: From a steady-state model, popular in the first half of the last century, scientific evidence has led to the discovery that the universe had a beginning. “The big bang theory requires a recent origin of the Universe that openly invites the concept of creation.” Fred Hoyle: The Intelligent Universe (1983)
2. The laws of physics: The fundamental constants of the universe are themselves ungrounded and they ground all of the other things. The constants of physics are fundamental numbers that, when plugged into the laws of physics, determine the basic structure of the universe. These constants have a 1. fixed value, and 2. they are just right to permit a life-permitting universe.  For life to emerge in our Universe the fundamental constants could not have been more than a fraction of a percent from their actual values. The BIG question is: Why is that so?  These constants can’t be derived from other constants and have to be verified by experiment. [The Lord God] rules all things Isaac Newton, General Scholium to the Principia (1726)
3. Fine-tuning: There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming. Paul Davies: The Cosmic Blueprint (1988)
4. Origin of life: One of the most significant events in our distant past is still perhaps the greatest mystery: the origins of life itself. Neil deGrasse Tyson
5. The odds: The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is 1 to a number with 40,000 noughts after it (10^40,000).... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence. Sir Fred Hoyle
6. DNA stores software: How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows … … there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing. Paul Davies: Life force (1999)
7. The genetic code: The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components WHICH ARE THEMSELVES CODED IN DNA: THE CODE CAN NOT BE TRANSLATED OTHERWISE THAN BY PRODUCTS OF TRANSLATION [emphasis original]. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo [all life from eggs, or idiomatically, what came first, the chicken or the egg?]. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine." Chance and Necessity Jaques Monod (1972)
8. Natural selection: "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through the accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous." Lovtrup, S. The Refutation of a Myth(1987)
9. The Fossil record: Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors. Eldredge, N.,  Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks (1989)
10. Consciousness:  The Scientific Basis for a Rational Word: I have come to the point of view that mind-conscious awareness of the world is not a meaningless and accidental quirk of nature, but an absolutely fundamental facet of reality. Paul Davies: THE MIND OF GOD (1993)
11. NDEs:  The fact that Out of Body Experiences OBE’s can be stimulated in the laboratory clearly demonstrates that the sense of “I”, the self-identity, can be separated from the body consciousness. Therefore, ultimately, the sense of self is independent of the body sense, although normally extremely associated with it. Jon Lieff MD Extraordinary Mental States III (2012)
12. Origin of language: "Mid-century studies based on the evolution of language from apes to humans only “bring out more clearly the extent to which human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analog in the animal world." Chomsky, N., Language and Mind, p. 9, (1968).
13. Appearance of design: The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming. The belief that there is ‘something behind it all is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists.  Paul Davies: The Christian perspective of a scientist (1983)

Where does the evidence lead to? 

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1276p25-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god#9400

1. The universe and biological systems appear designed. Why do they require no designer?
2. How do logical inferences lead to the conclusion that either a) the universe came from absolutely nothing, or b) it is eternal in some form?
3. The universe was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. Where did the initial energy come from?
4. The laws of physics, based on mathematics, ordain the stability and operation of the universe, making it life-permitting. What instantiated these laws?
5. The universe is finely adjusted to permit stable atoms, stars, galaxies, and planets to exist. How was it's fine-tuning instantiated?
6. Physical life depends on the 4 basic building blocks, energy, information, and a codified language. What caused this transition, from nonlife, to life?  
7. What mechanism caused matter to start to comprehend math and calculus,  language, using the laws of logic, abstract thought, recognize beauty, able to start thinking?
8. It is objectively wrong to torture babies for fun. Where does our moral sense come from, since it is not something physical, and provides no evolutionary advantage?
9. We have a deeply ingrained sense of teleonomy, that our lives, what we do, have meaning. Where does that come from, if we are basically, just stardust?
10. The Old Testament is a catalog of fulfilled prophecies of Jesus Christ, and his mission, death, and resurrection foretold with specificity. How is that not true?
11. Archaeology. Demonstrates that all events described in the Bible are historical facts. How is that not true
12. History. Historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth, and really did physically rise from the dead. How is that not true?
13. The Bible's witnesses. There are many testimonies of Jesus doing miracles still today, and Jesus appearing to people all over the globe, still today. How is that not true?
14. End times. The signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are occurring.  New world order, Israel as a nation, microchip implant, etc. How is that not true?
15. After-life experiences. Credible witnesses have seen the afterlife and have come back and reported to us that the afterlife is real.
16. People are transformed through their faith in Jesus, and find forgiveness, hope, consolation, peace of mind, and meaning. How do atheists justify fighting against this?

The evidence all points to a Creator as the best explanation.

Order,
function,
laws,
purpose, and
instructions

are all positive evidence of a mind at work as opposed to blind, randomness operating in chaos. Stripping away the big fancy science and mathematical terms/concepts...what we find is a simple (yet infinitely complex) gold nugget of truth...a mind is more than likely behind the cosmos...therefore it is rational and reasonable to believe in God.

Conversation on clubhouse with an atheist:

Please answer with yes or no.

Are computers always designed? Yes
Is hardware, and software, always designed? Yes
Are machines always designed? Yes
Are factories always designed? Yes
Are transistors always designed? Yes
Are energy turbines always designed? Yes
Are codes always designed? Yes
Are outboard motors always designed? Yes

Good. All this, we see analogously, but also literally in the cell.

Neurons are literally computers
DNA is the hardware, and the sequence of DNA nucleotides is the software
Proteins are molecular machines
Cells are chemical factories
Neurons are transistors
ATP synthase is an energy turbine.
The genetic code is a real code
The flagellum is an outboard motor

Is it logical to infer that therefore, these things were also designed?
Atheist answer: No. The first mentioned things, we know humans design them.
The secondly mentioned things in nature, we don't know how they came to be.
Its sometimes so frustrating to have a conversation with atheists....

John Frederick William Herschel: A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, page 149, 1830
If the analogy of two phenomena be very close and striking, while, at the same time, the cause of one is very obvious, it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause in the other, though not so obvious in itself.

The Cell is a super computer
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2712-the-cell-is-a-super-computer

1. A transistor can be considered an artificial Neuron. Every living cell within us is a hybrid analog–digital supercomputer. The brain is like 100 billion computers working together.
2. Biological cells are programmed to be experts at taking inputs, running them through a complicated series of logic gates through circuit-like operations and producing the desired programmed output.
3. The origin of programs, logic gates, and complex circuits to obtain a purposeful specific outcome is always tracked back to intelligent implementation.  

The hardware and software of the cell, evidence of design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2221-the-hardware-and-software-of-the-cell-evidence-of-design

Paul Davies: the fifth miracle page 62
Due to the organizational structure of systems capable of processing algorithmic (instructional) information, it is not at all clear that a monomolecular system – where a single polymer plays the role of catalyst and informational carrier – is even logically consistent with the organization of information flow in living systems, because there is no possibility of separating information storage from information processing (that being such a distinctive feature of modern life). As such, digital–first systems (as currently posed) represent a rather trivial form of information processing that fails to capture the logical structure of life as we know it.

Molecular machines in biology
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1289-molecular-machines-in-biology

1. Machines are always designed.
2. Proteins are machines.
3. Therefore, proteins were designed.

The factory maker argument
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2245-abiogenesis-the-factory-maker-argument

1. Blueprints, instructional information and master plans, and the making of complex machines and factories upon these are both always tracked back to an intelligent source which made them for purposeful, specific goals.  
2. Biological cells are a factory park of unparalleled gigantic complexity and purposeful adaptive design of interlinked high-tech fabrics, fully automated and self-replicating, directed by genes and epigenetic languages and signalling networks.
3. The Blueprint and instructional information stored in DNA and epigenetics, which directs the making of biological cells and organisms - the origin of both is, therefore, best explained by an intelligent designer which created life for his own purposes.

Inside the neuron
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2292-neurons-remarkable-evidence-of-design#7201

HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT 9 The Physics Of Consciousness Andrew Thomas
The similarity between transistors and neurons is elucidated when we consider how most transistors are used nowadays. The vast majority of transistors are micro-miniaturised onto a semiconductor substrate to form an integrated circuit ("silicon chip"). The latest fabrication techniques allow extraordinary densities of up to 25 million transistors on a square millimetre of silicon. This actually results in an individual transistor size which is rather smaller than a neuron, but it is clear that the principle of packing microscopic transistors onto an integrated circuit resembles the packing of microscopic neurons in a brain.

The irreducibly complex ATP Synthase nanomachine, amazing evidence of design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1439-the-irreducibly-complex-atp-synthase-nanomachine-amazing-evidence-of-design

1. ATP synthase is a molecular energy-generating nano-turbine ( It produces energy in the form of Adenine triphosphate ATP. Once charged, ATP can be “plugged into” a wide variety of molecular machines to perform a wide variety of functions). It consists of two very different subunits that have to be externally and stably tethered together, just the right distance apart. The two major subunits (F0 & F1) are connected together by an external tether, and just the right distance apart. This tether doesn’t have anything to do with the functionality of either subunit but without it ATP synthase would not be able to perform its function. One of the subunits has to be embedded in the cell membrane so that an energy gradient can be formed ( The proton energy gradient is like the water in a dam, feeding a water turbine to generate energy). The second subunit has to be stably tethered to the membrane the proper distance away.
2. This is an irreducibly complex system, where a minimal number of at least five functional parts of ATP synthase must work together in an interlocked way, in a joint venture to bear function. The challenge is particularly onerous because these components are highly complex in all of life and are interdependent to provide energy for life. Individually, the subunits have no function whatsoever ( Not even in different setups). Besides ATP synthase, the membrane is essential to pump protons across the membrane. This setup cannot be the product of evolution, because it had to be fully operational and functional to start life ( The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution). No life form without ATP synthase is known.
3. We know by experience that complex machines made of various interlocked subparts with specific functions are always created by intelligent minds.  Therefore, ATP synthase is definitely evidence of a powerful intelligent creator, who knew how to create power-generating turbines.


The genetic code, insurmountable problem for non-intelligent origin
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2363-the-genetic-code-insurmountable-problem-for-non-intelligent-origin

1. Creating a translation dictionary, for example of English to Chinese, requires always a translator, that understands both languages. 
2. The meaning of words of one language that are assigned to words of another language that mean the same requires the agreement of meaning in order to establish translation.
3. That is analogous to what we see in biology, where the ribosome translates the words of the genetic language composed of 64 codon words to the language of proteins, composed of 20 amino acids. 
4. The origin of such complex communication systems is best explained by an intelligent designer.

Flagellum, Behe's prime example of irreducible complexity
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1528-the-flagellum-behe-s-prime-example-of-irreducible-complexity

The irreducible complexity of the flagellum
1. The flagellum has 36 different proteins essential for the function of the flagellum. Every protein is a complex structure of average 300 amino acids
2. All proteins are required and one has no function without another just like a piston of a car engine has no use without the other engine parts. 
3. Evolutionary biologists are unable to give any explanation on how all these proteins could have evolved in a gradual fashion to form the flagellum 
4. Therefore, the only option is set up by an intelligent designer. 

The Bible states, that God created the heavens and the earth. Science has corroborated Genesis 1. Big bang cosmology confirms: The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause. It is governed by precise laws based on math. Instantiating laws based on math requires a mathematician and a lawgiver. It is finely adjustment to permit life, therefore, it requires a fine-tuner. Life depends on selecting four basic complex molecules, energy made by ATP synthase energy turbines, and complex instructional assembly information, stored in DNA. Furthermore, matter cannot create a mind that suddenly could start to comprehend math and calculus, language, use the laws of logic, have abstract thought, recognize beauty, able to start thinking, and make moral judgments. How is it, that thought became independent of proteins, chemicals, and neurons? Math, calculus, and the laws of logic do not change, but neurons do all the time. I, Jesus Christ, am the alpha and omega, have become man, died on the cross to pay for the sins of the world, and resurrected on the third day, undeniably corroborated by the gospels. The Christian faith is not based on gaps of knowledge, but on solid evidence, and God's revelation in the Bible.

Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God – (Lecture starts around the 12 minute mark)
https://youtu.be/Qi7ANgO2ZBU?t=723
In this video, Dr. Chad McIntosh presents over 100 arguments for the existence of God. Each argument is presented in visual form followed by recommended sources for further research. At the end, we discuss what a similar list of arguments for atheism would look like (and what it would imply for the theistic list of arguments).
1 0:19:23 Aquinas’ First Way — Unmoved Mover
2 0:23:46 Aquinas’ Second Way — Uncaused Cause
3 0:24:20 Aquinas Third Way
4 0:26:26 Samuel Clarke-ish
5 0:30:48 Leibniz’s CA
6 0:35:22 Leibnizian CA: Davis-Craig
7 0:36:17 Leibnizian CA: Pruss
8 0:37:52 The Gale-Pruss CA
9 0:43:07 CA without the Principle of Sufficient Reason
10 0:45:39 Koon’s CA
10b 0:48:34 Koon’s Argument Simplified
11 0:51:48 Pruss and Rasmussen’s Contingency CA
12 0:53:04 Emanuel Rutten’s Atomistic CA
13 0:54:10 The Kalaam CA
14 0:55:08 Alexander Pruss’ Kalaam CA
15 0:55:48 Swinburne’s Inductive CA
16 0:58:20 Scotus’ Modal CA
17 1:00:50 James Ross’ Modal CA
18b 1:02:18 Christopher Weaver’s Modal CA
18 1:02:37 Rasmussen and Weaver CA
19 1:04:35 Pruss and Rasmussen’s Modal CA
20 1:05:35 Descarte’s CA
XX 1:08:27 THE Cosmological Argument

Ontological Arguments (1:10:10)

21 1:10:13 Anselm’s First OA (Proslogion II)
22 1:11:45 Descarte’s OA
23 1:13:00 Anselm’s 2nd OA (Proslogion III)
23b 1:14:35 Hartshorne on Anselm’s Proslogion III
23c 1:15:26 Maydole’s Reconstruction
24 1:15:59 Anselm’s Other Other OA
25 1:17:15 Plantinga’s OA
25b 1:18:01 The Modal OA Simplified
25c 1:19:45 Key Modal Inference
– – 1:20:52 Defenses of the Possibility Premise
26 1:21:42 The Phenomenal Defense of Plantinga’s Possibility Premise
27 1:23:52 Godel’s Demonstration of the Possibility Premise
28 1:25:06 Pruss’s Improvement on Godel’s Demonstration
29 1:25:49 Maydole’s Modal Perfection Argument
30 1:28:13 Bernstein’s Demonstration of the Possibility Premise
31 1:29:45 Nagasawa’s Maximal God Approach to the Possibility Premise

Design Arguments (1:34:51)

XX 1:34:51 The Argument from Bananas
32 1:35:08 Aquinas’ Fifth Way
32b 1:36:30 Étienne Gilson’s Justification
32c 1:36:41 Aquinas’ Fifth Way: Simplified
33 1:38:09 Design in Biology: Origin of Organic Life
34 1:38:53 Chandler’s Divine Intervention Argument
35 1:40:15 Design in Biology: Organic Structures Paley
36 1:41:48 More faithful version of Paley
37 1:42:35 Pruss’ Analogical DA
38 1:43:07 Design in Biology: Information
39 1:44:43 Tennant’s Argument from Cosmic Teleology

Fine-Tuning Arguments (1:46:24)

– – 1:46:25 Fundamental Constants and Laws
– – 1:47:03 Examples of Fine-Tuning Arguments
40 1:47:11 FTA by Elimination
41 1:49:34 FTA by Bayes
41b 1:50:40 Collins on the FTA
42 1:52:45 Collins’ Fine-Tuning for Discoverability
43 1:55:30 Perceiving Design

Moral Arguments (1:57:07)

44 1:57:07 Generic Argument from the Objectivity of Morality
45 1:57:30 Abductive Argument from the Objectivity of Morality
46 1:58:10 The Normative Implications of Evil
47 1:59:03 Evil as Privation of Good
48 2:00:10 Horrendous Evils
49 2:01:45 Universal Moral Beliefs
50 2:02:43 Sidgwick and Kant
51 2:03:40 A Kantian Argument from Adams
52 2:06:00 Oderberg on Cosmic Justice
53 2:07:18 Layman’s Moral Argument
54 2:09:04 The Need for Divine Aid in Being Moral
55 2:11:15 The Moral Gap
56 2:12:44 Duty to Promote the Highest Good
57 2:13:36 Objective Obligations and Duties
58 2:15:32 Argument from Conscience
59 2:17:21 The Intrinsic Harmfulness of Wrongdoing
60 2:18:43 Moral Knowledge
61 2:20:08 Apprehension of Objective Norms
62 2:21:02 Altruism: Schloss
63 2:21:54 Altruism: Pruss

Experiential Arguments (2:23:56)

– – 2:24:04 Examples of Religious Experience
64 2:26:32 Analogy with Aesthetic Experience
65 2:28:04 Hick on Religious Experience
66 2:28:52 Swinburne on Religious Experience
67 2:29:11 Plantinga on Proper Basicality
68 2:29:24 Alston on Perceiving God 1
69 2:29:59 Alston on Perceiving God 2
70 2:31:13 Yandell on Religious Experience
71 2:32:17 Ontomystical Argument
72 2:32:52 Personal Transformation
73 2:34:40 NDEs and Religious Experience
73b 2:35:04 NDEs and Life After Death

Arguments from Miracles (2:35:28)

– – 2:35:28 Preliminaries: Hume
– – 2:36:50 Generic Argument from Miracles
74 2:37:21 Historical Candidates for E: Exodus (Kuzari Principle)
75 2:38:34 Historical Candidates for E: Spectacular Events of Jesus’ Ministry
76 2:38:53 Historical Candidate for E: Resurrection
77 2:40:34 Contemporary Candidates for E
– – 2:41:08 Craig Keener
78 2:44:12 Fulfilled Prophecy as Miracle

Metaphysical Arguments (2:47:25)

79 2:47:30 Lowe’s Argument from Abstract Objects
80 2:47:42 Feser’s Augstuinian Proof
81 2:47:56 Lowe on Objects of Reason
82 2:48:12 Arguments from Propositions
83 2:50:19 Argument from Sets
84 2:51:47 Argument from Unities
85 2:52:20 Unities: Contingents
86 2:52:51 Unities: Wholes
87 2:54:08 Unities: The Cosmos
88 2:54:39 Rasmussen’s Argument from Limits
89 2:55:15 Applicability of Mathematics
90 2:55:31 Global Economy Argument (Leftow’s Reductions)
91 2:56:56 Argument from Possibility (Modality)

Nomological Arguments (2:57:08)

– – 2:57:08 Prolegomena
92 2:58:11 Laws as Counterfactuals of Divine Freedom
93 2:58:35 A Scholastic Argument
94 2:58:57 From Induction to Laws to God
95 3:00:00 From Induction to God
96 3:01:27 Simplicity of Divine Laws (Swinburne’s Argument from Induction)
97 3:01:42 From the Incompleteness of Nature (from Quantum Mechanics)

Axiological Arguments (3:02:28)

– – 3:02:28 Axiology Definition
98 3:03:16 Aquinas’ Fourth Way
99 3:03:39 The Deontic Argument
100 3:04:07 The Modal Deontic Argument
101 3:04:43 Objective Beauty
102 3:06:18 Aesthetic Sensibilities
103 3:06:37 Natural Beauty as Product of Aesthetic Intent
104 3:07:04 Natural Beauty as a Gift
105 3:08:47 Natural Beauty as a Natural Sign
106 3:09:13 Beauty in Mathematics
107 3:09:29 Inherent Human Value/Worth
108 3:10:11 Equal Worth
109 3:10:58 Natural Rights

Noological Arguments (3:11:31)

110 3:12:34 Thinking Things (Locke)
111 3:13:02 Psychophysical Laws (Swinburne’s Argument from Conciousness)
112 3:13:20 Nonphysical Concious States (Moreland’s Argument from Conciousness)
113 3:13:35 Conciousness Per Se
114 3:14:06 Paley’s Arguments from Flavors and Colors (Gratuitous Pleasures)
115 3:15:04 Intelligibility of the World
116 3:17:02 Argument from Reason
117 3:18:20 Naturalness of Theistic Belief
118 3:18:58 Argument from Certainty
119 3:19:27 Knowledge as Proper Function
120 3:19:48 Epistemic Probability
121 3:20:09 Reliability of our Cognitive Faculties
122 3:20:24 Anti-Realism
123 3:21:15 Idealism
124 3:22:02 Knowability: A Fitch-style Proof
125 3:22:54 Modal Epistemic Argument

Linguistic Arguments (3:24:20)

126 3:24:25 Concept Acquistion
127 3:25:52 Linguistic Ability
128 3:26:03 Semantic Content
129 3:26:38 Falsity of Semantic Indeterminism

Anthropological Arguments (3:29:23)

130 3:29:29 Argument from Desire
131 3:29:50 Modal Argument from Desire
132 3:30:11 God as Motivational Center
133 3:30:28 Love
134 3:30:57 Objective Meaning
135 3:31:06 Meaning as Endowed
136 3:32:21 Meaning as Narrative
137 3:32:38 From the Naturalness of Belief in Objective Meaning
138 3:33:03 Happiness and the Afterlife
139 3:33:33 Political Authority
140 3:34:13 Free Will
141 3:34:52 Pascal’s Anthropological Argument
142 3:36:04 Consensus Gentium
143 3:36:36 Rehult’s Consensus Gentium Argument
144 3:37:10 A More Modest Consensus Gentium

Pragmatic Arguments (3:37:57)

145 3:38:34 Pascal’s Wager (from Infinite Expected Value)
146 3:39:08 Pascal’s Wager (from Greater Expected Value)
147 3:39:18 Pascal’s Wager (Jackson and Rogers)
148 3:39:55 Pascal’s Wager (Rota)
149 3:41:10 The Jamesian Wager
150 3:42:15 Rationality of Devotion to God
151 3:43:50 From Personal to World Benefits

Meta-Arguments (3:44:36)

152 3:44:53 Transcendental Arguments
– – 3:45:35 Cumulative Case Arguments
153 3:45:42 Arbor’s Cumulative Credence Raiser
154 3:46:19 The Possibility of a Sound Theistic Argument

I would only need 1. Its pretty simple, but no god can or has done it yet.

That is evidence OR tests, the sort of evidence and/or testing I have for everything else. I'm looking at a screen. Its evidence there is a screen. I'm looking at the letters and words, thats evidence of that. I've got a computer here. I'm looking at a blue stuffed sheep from minecraft that I have. Evidence.
Maybe its like air, you can't "see" air right? Well, you can, you just need some device to do that. So it can be seen.

Ah well its not like anything at all, it cant be seen by any device, somehow. Okay, great what about testablity then? We can test everything else. Soooo can we test this thing? No?

Well then I don't buy it. None of the arguments work. They all fail on many logical and scientific levels because both logic and science rely upon having something be emperical and/or testable.

DeconvertedMan wrote:I would only need 1. Its pretty simple, but no god can or has done it yet.

That is evidence OR tests, the sort of evidence and/or testing I have for everything else. I'm looking at a screen. Its evidence there is a screen. I'm looking at the letters and words, thats evidence of that. I've got a computer here. I'm looking at a blue stuffed sheep from minecraft that I have. Evidence.
Maybe its like air, you can't "see" air right? Well, you can, you just need some device to do that. So it can be seen.

Ah well its not like anything at all, it cant be seen by any device, somehow. Okay, great what about testablity then? We can test everything else. Soooo can we test this thing? No?

Well then I don't buy it. None of the arguments work. They all fail on many logical and scientific levels because both logic and science rely upon having something be emperical and/or testable.

You want empirical proof. Not circumstantial evidence. You did read on your channel the entire thread about why it's irrational doing that, but, as it seems, did not learn anything.
Provide a BETTER explanation for our existence than an intelligent, eternal, powerful creator, and we talk.

Btw. My message board was not intended, since the beginning, as a place for debates, but just a virtual library of my ink.

Otangelo wrote:
You want empirical proof. Not circumstantial evidence.

Or a test.

Otangelo wrote:
You did read on your channel the entire thread about why it's irrational doing that

I also mocked and laughed at how incoherent saying that is.

Otangelo wrote:
Provide a BETTER explanation for our existence than an intelligent, eternal, powerful creator, and we talk.

Not my burden. I'm simply saying what would convince me that this thing is real

Otangelo wrote:
Btw. My message board was not intended, since the beginning, as a place for debates, but just a virtual library of my ink.

If its open to the public, its fair game.

Burden of Proof : Are Theists the Only People Who Have it?

Whoever makes the claim has the burden to prove that claim. Where is your proof?

Atheists demand constantly for evidence of Gods existence, but never apply the same burden of proof to materialism.

This assumes the athiest is defending materialisem. I am not. I do not say that all there is is materal. I also am not saying all there is is the natural world. I make no such claims. My only claim is that there is not evidence for "God" - there is no emperical evidence nor repeatable test(s) that I am aware of, there has been plenty of (bad) arguments I've seen and read that do not logically conclude with god. Therefor, I have zero reason to accept "god" this does not mean I must defend "the otherside" Nope. I don't.

I offer zero explation for this world/universe/how we got here etc. I claim nothing other then as far as I can tell, reality is real (lobsters exist) that's it. Why/how lobsters? No idea. I'll side with whatever science says on the matter to be sure, but I'm not saying they got it right, only that I trust the method as it has emperical evidence/repeatable tests.

You assume, incorrectly that atheisem is "about" something - no it is not, it is a decription of an answer to the question "Does god exist" if one says "no" or "I do not beleve in god" then one is an atheist. Full stop.

Its not about being a materlist.
Its not about being a naturalist.

This has been explained several times by many people, and I'm sure you know this by now. Why in the world do you make the same error?

I'm making no claims OTHER then you have not provided to fill YOUR CLAIM. That's it.

The position of weak atheists is nothing more than a complaint about what other people believe in, referencing God.

I suppose you can look at it that way. Is it valid to complain when someone beleves in something that is not supproted by evidnece and/or tests? I think it is.

I don't believe in UFOS, but I do not go around wearing a label pin or flag to identify as one who does not believe in UFOS.

No one is stopping you from doing that if you wanted. Do people come to your door to talk to you about UFOs?
Do people go to a building every week and spend money at that building towards UFOs?
Do people vote for ideas based on the idea that UFO's exist?
Is UFO belief enough of a threat to you/your loved ones/socity to make it be something you would go after?
At some point if UFO belief became that, would you speak out against it?
Perhaps at some point if enough people think there are UFO'S you would do that right? (I would)
Maybe even you would find that labeling yourself as an anti-UFOist is helpful.
What if society was against non-beleif in UFO's and was scared of you since you did not beleve in UFO's?
Would you just let that be, or would you want to work towards getting people to accept that its OKAY for people to not beleve in UFOs?

So there is a problem in the logic of this issue. If you do not believe in God, big deal,

If only it was so simple. But people say that not beleving has a huge conquence to it, also those that do beleve are making things hard for the rest of us.

but what is it that you proactively believe in.

Reality.

what is your positive worldview

See my topic https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3313-skeptic-reporting-in-d

No idea what my worldview even is, or if I have one.

influences your moral values,

They are based loosely on the ethics of utilitarianism, with some Kant inspired idea of my duty being to the truth, although I do not take truth as far as Kant did.

your daily behavior, your motivations, your family life, your vote, in short: that regulates or laws your own personal life? A person ought to be identified by what they believe in

Who says? Labels exist and are used as we want to, at whim. We can make them be or not be whatever we want.

not by what they do not believe in. So this is a shell game, a parlor trick.

Not at all. Perhaps you could research the word atheist and find out when/where and how it came about.

We

Who is "we"?

totally understand why atheists avoid the burden of proof.

What burden do you think atheists have?

We all know that atheists are the very definition of a "WIMP"

Posioning the well, ad hominem.

We both KNOW that if the burden of proof was placed on their tiny narrow shoulders, they will IMMEDIATELY COLLAPSE!! Their worldview is irrational and pathetic

What burden of proof?
What worldview?

We don't mind to demonstrate why intelligence is an infinitely more adequate potent cause in comparison to - wait - what exactly ?!! There is NO ALTERNATIVE to an eternal necessary powerful Creator; Maybe rub that in the face will help to wake-up their brains and start thinking ?

Are you talking to me or copy/pasting this from some webpage? This does not seem like it is dirrected at me. There is no proof of an eternal anything nor a creator. You want an answer for how things are - we know a lot from science, but there are mystery's yet to be understood, I'm okay with a mystery, are you?

The way to find truth about origins is to find out,

No, that is a matter of science - the complex nature of it has to do with a number of factors - nothing of this has to do with atheisem.

either if there is a God, an intelligent creator, or not.

False dichotomy. Perhaps God once existed, but exploded itself in order to make the unvierse, and is now dead.

These are the two possible explanations,

I do not know what all the possible explanations are, but that isn't the point. We are not trying to explain anything here we are seeking proof for a claim about "god". You are super mega sidetracked here.

this is the framework to work with, and within these two options to find the best explanation.

No.

That is not what I'm doing at all. I'm asking for emperical evidence/repetable tests. You are complaining about me asking for that.
You are shifting the topic to everything and anything else. You are blaming me/atheists. You are doing everything you can to avoid admiting that there is no emperical evidence or repeatable tests for god.

 When weak atheists try to argue that they just do not believe in claims made by theists, until the burden of proof is met, they want to have an advantage right from the beginning.

Whoever makes the claim has the burden of proof. The other person does not. That's how it works. Does not matter what it is about. You do not like how things work I suppose. Tough cookies.

At this point, one side has to sweat to make a case, while the other side has an easy play to be the judge, without the burden of proof to provide evidence why the "no-God hypothesis" is valid.

You are again assuming they HAVE that hypothesis. I do not.
I am making no other claim then that you have not provided me with emperical evidence/repeatable tests for god. That's it.
I make zero claims about how/why/who/what we are here as humans/universe/etc. I'm giving no alternative for how we came to be, I plan on giving none. I have no idea. Its a mystery.
Again, I'm only asking for proof that this idea is true.

(proof = emperical evidence/repetable tests)

If nonbelievers in theism are going to argue that adequate answers exist without the need for God, they are at least going to have to provide sufficient naturalistic explanations.

Depending on what you are asking for, humans have a lot figured out about how things got to where they are via the scientific method. I'm fine with anything and everything that science is able to say on the matter. The unknown/mystery is not something I will fill in with any answer as I do not know the answer. I'm okay with that.

It is worth noting that every single time humans have thought that `god did it` we turned out to be wrong. Lighting, for example, is said to have come from Zeus back in the day. Turns out, there is a natural explation for lighting. We do not need to posit Zeus to explain lighting anymore. In fact, we should never have posited Zeus in the first place, it was a made up story to fill in the void of knowledge we had.

Asking to provide positive, compelling evidence that points to the fact that the natural world can have an origin by its own,

Look to science. (I cant post links for 7 days, this answer comes from Nasa webpage)

Gravity is the answer:

"When the solar system settled into its current layout about 4.5 billion years ago, Earth formed when gravity pulled swirling gas and dust in to become the third planet from the Sun. Like its fellow terrestrial planets, Earth has a central core, a rocky mantle, and a solid crust."

is not the same as to ask for evidence that God does not exist.

Correct. To show that something isn't - it must be falsifiable, what things would falsify "god"?

It is one of the most frequent logical fallacies seen in atheism/theism debates.   That is called an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.  This illicit negative occurs when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises. Both sides, however, must be able to present and adopt a well-articulated, thorough-going positive worldview based on positive evidence that results in good reasons to infer naturalism or creationism/Intelligent Design. What the debater must present, is  a positive case for theism/atheism by reference to the evidence that favours a theistic/atheistic interpretation of reality.

I really honestly do not care.

Lets focus on this simple thing.

I do not have emperical evidence &/or a repeatable test for "god".
Do you have any emperical evidence &/or repeatable test for "god."?

Yes or no.

That's it.

That is all I need to think there is a god.

emperical evidence &/or repeatable test = proof.

Whenever I say or write "proof" just fill in that word with "emperical evidence &/or repeatable test"

I have no proof of god.
Do you?

DeconvertedMan wrote:My only claim is that there is not evidence for "God" 

Why should or would I care about your opinion?

Otangelo wrote:

DeconvertedMan wrote:My only claim is that there is not evidence for "God" 

Why should or would I care about your opinion?

Empathy.

Because we are humans, and we typicaly care about each other at some level, as we see that humans can and will help us from time to time, and not caring about each other leads to unfavored results.

Opinions and/or facts are something we can and do care about, at least at some level, else we would not spend time and energy trying to convince each other of anything at all.

You by posting all the things you have posted show that you care that someone, somewhere in the world knows about your ideas, that they are kept around in digital format. You could host your ideas in a worddoc on google folders or some other free file sharing service, but you did not do that, rather you put your ideas out there, findable via the internet as I did find them. Therefor, at some level you care very much about these ideas - or opinions, whatever we want to call them.

So, you know the answer to your own question, most likely, but are asking this as a defence mechanic to get the topic shifted away from the issue at hand, but I will always bring it back to the point of the topic, because it is why I am here. You are free to yeet me from your fourm, and I'll make a video where I laugh at and mock you for doing that if and when you do that, and you are free to ignore that video of corse, I'm just sayn thats what will happen.

So then, back to the topic at hand.

Is there emperical evidence and/or a repeatable test for "god"?

If yes to either, please provide that, if no then please say no.
You are also free of course, to say that you are not sure or do not know or that it might be possible, but if you do take that as an answer then please note that means you are unaware of any emperical evidence/repetable test for god, and that would be an answer you could provide.

I am not sure if you think there is in fact emperical evidence for god, I do note that it seems that you suggest asking for emperical evidence for "god" is incoherent, and I submit that saying that is in itself incoherent - because we have emperical evidence for pretty much everything else - so why not this? When and if we do not have emperical evidence, we tend to have some sort of test that can be done upon the phenomena in question. It stands to reason then, that since we have either emeperical evidence and/or a repeatable test for any number of anything - then why this thing would not have them seems to be - odd. It does not meet the burden to support its idea and that is a problem. I do not see any reason I should beleve in something that does not have one of the two things that I call "proof"*.

So then again, I must ask:

Is there emperical evidence and/or a repeatable test for "god"?


*(proof = emperical evidence &/or repeatable test)

DeconvertedMan wrote:

Otangelo wrote:

DeconvertedMan wrote:My only claim is that there is not evidence for "God" 

Why should or would I care about your opinion?

Empathy.

Because we are humans, and we typicaly care about each other at some level, as we see that humans can and will help us from time to time, and not caring about each other leads to unfavored results.

Opinions and/or facts are something we can and do care about, at least at some level, else we would not spend time and energy trying to convince each other of anything at all.

You by posting all the things you have posted show that you care that someone, somewhere in the world knows about your ideas, that they are kept around in digital format. You could host your ideas in a worddoc on google folders or some other free file sharing service, but you did not do that, rather you put your ideas out there, findable via the internet as I did find them. Therefor, at some level you care very much about these ideas - or opinions, whatever we want to call them.

So, you know the answer to your own question, most likely, but are asking this as a defence mechanic to get the topic shifted away from the issue at hand, but I will always bring it back to the point of the topic, because it is why I am here. You are free to yeet me from your fourm, and I'll make a video where I laugh at and mock you for doing that if and when you do that, and you are free to ignore that video of corse, I'm just sayn thats what will happen.

So then, back to the topic at hand.

Is there emperical evidence and/or a repeatable test for "god"?

If yes to either, please provide that, if no then please say no.
You are also free of course, to say that you are not sure or do not know or that it might be possible, but if you do take that as an answer then please note that means you are unaware of any emperical evidence/repetable test for god, and that would be an answer you could provide.

I am not sure if you think there is in fact emperical evidence for god, I do note that it seems that you suggest asking for emperical evidence for "god" is incoherent, and I submit that saying that is in itself incoherent - because we have emperical evidence for pretty much everything else -  so why not this? When and if we do not have emperical evidence, we tend to have some sort of test that can be done upon the phenomena in question. It stands to reason then, that since we have either emeperical evidence and/or a repeatable test for any number of anything - then why this thing would not have them seems to be - odd. It does not meet the burden to support its idea and that is a problem. I do not see any reason I should beleve in something that does not have one of the two things that I call "proof"*.

So then again, I must ask:

Is there emperical evidence and/or a repeatable test for "god"?


*(proof = emperical evidence &/or repeatable test)

Your incredulity does not help me in any sense or way. Just keep it for yourself. I am happy with my faith in Jesus. I need nobody attempting to bring me down to ignorance.  If you decide that you want to be saved, and need some guidance, let me know, and I'll be here to help. Ok?