ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview

Otangelo Grasso: This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

125 reasons to believe in God

2 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 3]

51125 reasons to believe in God - Page 3 Empty Re: 125 reasons to believe in God Mon Jun 12, 2023 2:06 am

DeconvertedMan

DeconvertedMan

Otangelo wrote:
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?

No incredulity here, this is a VERY simply question Otangelo, and you are not responding to it that sends up red flags of all sorts.
Its not a trick question.
Its a yes/no sort of question.

1: Is there emperical evidence for god?
2: Is there any repetable test for god?

~~~
Is happyness with faith a good reason to keep it, even if it turns out to be false faith?

Just keep it for yourself.

No, you put it online, I'm responding to it.

I need nobody attempting to bring me down to ignorance

This is a double negative.

From chatgbt: "The sentence "I need nobody attempting to bring me down to ignorance" contains a double negative. The word "nobody" is already a negative term, and when combined with "attempting" and "to bring me down to ignorance," it reinforces the negation. The use of a double negative can create ambiguity or convey a different meaning than intended. To remove the double negative, the sentence could be rephrased as "I need somebody to uplift me and help me gain knowledge."


If you decide that you want to be saved

I do not beleve there is anything to be saved from, do you have emperical evidence and/or a repeatable test to show there is something that I need to be saved from?

https://www.youtube.com/@DeconvertedMan

52125 reasons to believe in God - Page 3 Empty Re: 125 reasons to believe in God Mon Jun 12, 2023 6:54 am

Otangelo


Admin

DeconvertedMan wrote:
Otangelo wrote:
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?

No incredulity here, this is a VERY simply question Otangelo, and you are not responding to it that sends up red flags of all sorts.
Its not a trick question.
Its a yes/no sort of question.

1: Is there emperical evidence for god?
2: Is there any repetable test for god?

~~~
Is happyness with faith a good reason to keep it, even if it turns out to be false faith?

Just keep it for yourself.

No, you put it online, I'm responding to it.

I need nobody attempting to bring me down to ignorance

This is a double negative.

From chatgbt: "The sentence "I need nobody attempting to bring me down to ignorance" contains a double negative. The word "nobody" is already a negative term, and when combined with "attempting" and "to bring me down to ignorance," it reinforces the negation. The use of a double negative can create ambiguity or convey a different meaning than intended. To remove the double negative, the sentence could be rephrased as "I need somebody to uplift me and help me gain knowledge."


If you decide that you want to be saved

I do not beleve there is anything to be saved from, do you have emperical evidence and/or a repeatable test to show there is something that I need to be saved from?

I wish you all the best.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

53125 reasons to believe in God - Page 3 Empty Re: 125 reasons to believe in God Mon Jun 12, 2023 8:07 am

DeconvertedMan

DeconvertedMan

I note you still have not answered the question.

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

https://www.youtube.com/@DeconvertedMan

54125 reasons to believe in God - Page 3 Empty Re: 125 reasons to believe in God Sat Aug 05, 2023 12:48 pm

Otangelo


Admin

I don't hate atheists.
I hate atheism because, in my opinion, it leads people to hell.

Similarly, I don't hate people with cancer.
I hate cancer because it kills people.

Gravity is inferred by observing an apple falling to the ground, so the existence of an uncreated non-physical creator is inferred by observing the existence of a finite universe.

The idea that matter can somehow become conscious through evolutionary processes is absurd.

The passion with which materialists defend their worldview doesn't add weight to its truth. Non-believers may claim that it is justified to remain agnostic or reject the idea of a supernatural reality beyond the physical world. They rely on their finite minds and sensory perceptions.

Since we are limited, the truth of the ultimate reality and the invisible, imperceptible supernatural world must be revealed to us. God did that. He gave us the book of nature, scriptures, and moral values. Therefore, disbelief is not justified. Wisdom is to trust the Lord and His revelation, which makes theistic belief rational.

There was no selection process to separate functional amino acids to form proteins in the prebiotic Earth. Checkmate, atheists.

Atheists believe they are intelligent based on their brains, which were not intelligently designed.

How can the inanimate become animate? How can consciousness emerge from atoms, protons, and electrons? These are impossibilities, plain and simple. The origin of consciousness only makes sense when it is accepted that the foundation and cause of the universe, at its most basic level, is an intelligent, living, eternal, and conscious spirit, not lifeless, mindless matter. Ontology moves from an eternal conscious mind, using mathematics, to create the physical laws governing the universe, physics, chemistry, biology, and as the crown of all creation: us. When Occam's razor is applied, and God is negated, absurdities arise, and the realm of "we do not know" becomes their playground.

The theistic worldview as a whole is solid as a rock and undeniably true. The entire universe is immersed, sustained, and connected by information: God's command. This refers to the use of mathematical principles to define physical laws, the fine-tuning of the universe, the Earth, and molecular action and interaction, sustaining and constraining the forces of subatomic particles, to inform the organization of matter to become alive, to inform us how to become spiritually alive through HIS revelation in the Bible.

Genesis: The creator of all living beings, accounting for how everything was made. From top to bottom.

Philosophical materialism, cosmic, chemical, and biological evolution: humanity, created by God, attempting to have greater knowledge than the creator. Everything evolved. From bottom to top.

NEVER, in over 150 years since Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" was published, has any, among hundreds or thousands, if not millions of scientific articles, provided ONE DEMONSTRATION, and replicable verifiable empirical evidence, that any of the proposed evolutionary mechanisms could produce a primary macroevolutionary transition of speciation and population differentiation.

At the end of materialism: Nothing started flirting with nothing and ended up causing an accident, which suddenly transformed into a precisely tuned expansion of space and matter, forming gas, which formed stars, which formed planets, which formed planet Earth with water, spinning around the sun, which formed a moon around planet Earth, and Earth randomly formed life. And life produced a brain. And the brain produced consciousness. And consciousness became self-aware and realized that 2 plus 2 is 4, thinking and claiming stupid things.

Asking an atheist to appreciate the evidence of God's existence in creation is like asking a blind person to appreciate DaVinci's Mona Lisa.

1 x 1 = 1 Theist: Genesis 1.1: God x His power = Universe
0 x 0 = 1 Positive Atheist: Krauss: Absolutely Nothing x Big Bang = Universe

The human brain is an incredible organ. The Cortex contains 17 billion computers. It works normally 24 hours a day, non-stop, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, day and night, but very often, in some groups of people, it seems to be turned off, never working!

Atheism is the celebration of ignorance.
Theism is the celebration of knowledge.

The fox is clever and tries to appear stupid. With many people, the opposite occurs.

When unbelievers ridicule the inference of God as magic, they seem to be unaware that replacing an intelligent and creative organizing power with unplanned and undirected random events is, in reality, appealing to "magic" that cannot be demonstrated to be possible. Either our existence is a miracle in any case, and then the common objection of unbelievers calling God's creation "magic" is insincere at best, or alternatively, the origin of reality and being through natural means should be so obvious that I shouldn't question it.

You shall not commit logical fallacies. Like claiming that logic can come from non-logic.

When atheists accuse believers of having an imaginary friend, they forget that they have an imaginary morality, an imaginary meaning of life, and, with extreme certainty, their entire worldview about origins is imaginary.

Atheism: An unknown caused an accident by accident. That accident generated other accidents, which somehow over time gave rise to the most fantastic, complex, and organized self-replicating factory in the universe. Atheism is best described as miraculous accidentalism.

Extreme skepticism and incredulity towards an explanation of origins (theism) should automatically lead to extreme credulity in the opposite explanation (philosophical naturalism). The escape from not knowing about origins is intentional and unjustified ignorance of the overwhelming knowledge that scientific advances and investigation have allowed us to obtain, and on which we can understand the world and reality, how the cosmos and biology work, better than ever before. This allows us to make safe inferences about historical events. Interpreting Sherlock Holmes has never been easier than today. Agnosticism is not justified.

If the metamorphosis of an insect is due to evolution, that is, if the transformation from a larval form to an adult is the result of evolution, then we should observe in nature various insects that are in different stages of evolution along this trajectory, much less advanced and complex, but similar to the intermediate forms of current insects in their intermediate stage of development. And there should be a large number of fossils preserved in various stages of this developmental trajectory.



EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS
Today is yet another day in which YOU, an atheist, ignore the evidence that God does, in fact, exist. You need to understand, however, that your indignant, arrogant opinion and denial is irrelevant to the facts.
You may continue to ignore the evidence if you want ... but you cannot claim it does not exist.

You may not like the God of the Bible … but that, too … is irrelevant.

QUESTION: WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF CODED BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION IN THE CELL?

Atheists will say … "God made life' is a blind assertion without evidence. Nothing of which involves science."
With all respect ... I humbly but strongly disagree.
The truth about the theory of evolution or (the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution) is that no matter how you want to define evolution:
1 Change in allele frequency.
2 Mutations acted upon by natural selection.
3 Change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
4 Descent with modification from preexisting species, or common ancestor,
5 Genetic drift …. or
6 Some other method of naturalistic explanations ....
None of these theories account for what we now know is the real driver of both the origin and diversity of life, which is … Integrated, functional, complex information storage and retrieval systems.
The crucial question that confirms the conclusive answer to the debate about biological origins and diversity is this:
“How exactly did the prescriptive or coded information to build cells in DNA, originate?”
If you don’t have biological assembly instructions, then you cannot build biological life.
This is a scientific fact that atheists and evolutionists tend to ignore, deny, or reject out of ignorance.
We know that coded information cannot self-generate. It cannot just pop into existence.
So where did it come from?
The 4-character digital information code in DNA is sequenced to provide the assembly instructions for every part of the cell and in turn, every part of every biological organism. These are precisely sequenced nucleotide bases along the backbone of the DNA molecule and cannot be produced by anything except an intelligent agent. The sequencing cannot be produced by a blind, mindless, random chance process, regardless of the amount of time allowed. If atheists and evolutionary biologists are going to keep making the claim that evolution is a fact … then they are going to have to show “exactly” how evolutionary mechanisms produced coded informational systems. To-date … they have not done so and there is little evidence that indicates they are even close to showing they can do so.
google: “what are the nucleotide bases in dna”,
or
go here: https://knowgenetics.org/nucleotides-and-bases/

Anyone who denies, ignores or rejects this scientific fact is doing so out of ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.
Atheists/evolutionists, cannot explain HOW the DNA molecule evolved from a blind, mindless, purposeless, random chance natural process, which, has no idea what an assembly instruction code is or should be?
These nucleotide bases function exactly like the letters of a written language or digital symbols in a section of computer code. These comparisons are not just an analogy as many atheists/evolutionists claim. This is a functional, coded information storage and retrieval system and operates exactly like a computer operating system.
The book: “Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life”, was written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost specialist in bioinformatics. Yockey rigorously demonstrated that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not a subjective statement, nor is it debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact.
Again … To deny this fact is either willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
Coded sequential information that instructs for the construction, operation, maintenance, and modification of a machine are UNIQUE to the PRESENCE of a designing intelligence. The nucleotide bases along the spine of the DNA molecule have been specifically sequenced to provide the assembly instructions for all of the other proteins and enzymes in the cell. This is an observable fact and not a subjective statement or baseless opinion.

THEREFORE, DNA CONTAINS A CODED INFORMATION SYSTEM THAT WAS INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED

Just as letters in the English alphabet can be formed to convey a specific message or instruction, depending on their arrangement, the sequences of chemical bases along the spine of the DNA molecule, convey precise instructions for the assembly of proteins. Proteins are then assembled precisely to perform numerous functions or assembly instructions of structures in the cell.
In 2010, the noted micro-biologist, Craig Venter and his team created the first computer designed, synthetically produced genome, which is the set of application programs for an organism. This artificial DNA had over 1,000,000 letters of genetic code that were then read, processed and executed by the computer systems in the target cell’s nucleus. Thanks to Venter and his team, these biological computers are no longer theoretical, but have been experimentally observed, tested and verified.
In an interview with Venter, He stated: “Life is basically the result of an information process, a software process. Our genetic code is our software, and our cells are dynamically, constantly reading that genetic code.”
(Watch this video documentary: “Science Uprising”)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhuxg3WRfg

According to evolutionary theory, new proteins, new animal functions, or new animal types of life, arise by random genetic mutations acted on by natural selection. But random changes in a language text or computer code, always degrade the function of the text or computer code.
So how can a degrading process such as mutations, improve an organism’s function or assemble a better or new function? Quite simply … it can’t. The discovery of coded information in DNA in 1957, and the proof by Craig Venter that the coded information system in DNA actually exists, has falsified evolution.
While a coded information system cannot be produced by a blind, mindless, purposeless, random chance process … the existence of that information system … IS … proof that there was an intelligent designer, because Coded Information Systems are only produced by intelligence.
Integrated Functional Complexity …. IS … Intelligent Design.
To deny that the code in DNA exists, and that an intelligence is responsible for it’s existence … is nothing short of intellectual ignorance or worse … intellectual dishonesty.

A COMPLEX, CODED INFORMATION SYSTEM IN DNA … IS THE DEMONSTRATION THAT DNA WAS INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED … NUFF SAID
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4FPPEzM9Oo

Often atheists claim that Darwin's Theory of Evolution replaces God.  Richard Dawkins famously noted that:  “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
While Darwin supposedly encountered an alternative explanation for the origin of biodiversity, that does not include an explanation for: 

1. The fact that the universe and biological systems appear designed. If so, why would they not be? 
2. 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. That means it had a beginning. Evolution does not explain its cause. 
3. 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. Evolution does not explain these finely adjusted parameters to permit life.  
4. Cells are in their identity, in a literal sense, a gigantic city of interconnected chemical factories, full of production lines, driven by energy turbines, and directed by software. Evolution does not explain this state of affairs. 
5. Cell factories have a codified description of themselves in digital form stored in genes, and up to over 200 manufacturing, signaling, and regulatory codes, and have the information transmission machinery to process that information through transcription and translation into an identical representation in analog 3D form, the physical 'reality' of that description. The origin of the first living cell is unrelated to evolution, and chemical evolution is a buzzword, that is unrelated to natural selection.  

When removing the smoking screen of evolution & natural selection, the only two alternatives to explain all the physical phenomena are an intelligent creator, or not. And when a creator is removed, all that is left as alternatives, are
unguided, random, stochastic events to explain our existence. Claiming that randomness is an inadequate explanation for our existence, is not an argument from ignorance, but a conclusion based on observation. Claiming that God is the best explanation for our existence is not a God of the Gaps argument, but a positive inference based on the scientific evidence at hand. Intelligence can produce ( and we know this based upon our own intelligence ) something completely new, fine-tune, use math to instantiate specific rules, select, and create codes, languages, blueprints, instructional assembly information, complex machines, energy turbines, assembly lines, and chemical factories. Extrapolating our observation to a similar cause, that created our physical universe, and life is a logical inference to the best explanation.


Often atheists claim that Darwin's Theory of Evolution replaces God.  Richard Dawkins famously noted that:  “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
While Darwin supposedly encountered an alternative explanation for the origin of biodiversity, that does not include an explanation for: 

Apparent Design: It's striking how the universe and living organisms display a remarkable level of complexity and intricacy, resembling the work of a designer. When I examine the intricate structures of cells, the interdependent relationships between organisms and their environments, and the elegant laws governing the universe, it's challenging to dismiss the possibility of a deliberate creator. While evolutionary theory offers insights into how species change over time, it doesn't fully address the question of the origin of life or the underlying design that seems to permeate the natural world.

Universe's Origin: The concept of the universe as a winding clock suggests a beginning point, a moment of creation. The Big Bang theory provides an explanation for the origin of the universe, but it doesn't explain the ultimate cause behind this cosmic event. The fact that the universe had a definite starting point raises profound questions about what might have initiated this process. Evolution may account for the diversity of life within the universe, but it doesn't delve into the origins of the universe itself.

Fine-Tuning and Laws of Physics: The finely-tuned constants and laws of physics that enable the existence of life are remarkable. The precision required for a universe that can support life is truly astounding. Evolutionary theory, while illuminating how species change and adapt over time, doesn't explain why the universe seems meticulously fine-tuned to allow for the emergence of life. The existence of these finely tuned parameters and physical laws raises the question of whether they are the result of chance or intention.

Cell Complexity: When I contemplate the inner workings of a cell, I'm struck by its astonishing complexity. Cells are akin to miniature cities, complete with factories, machinery, and information processing systems. The intricate molecular processes and structures within cells appear to point toward a purposeful design. While evolution provides insights into how species diversify, it doesn't account for the origin and complexity of cellular systems.

Information in Life: The presence of complex genetic codes and information within living organisms is a profound mystery. DNA's role as a blueprint for life, along with the intricate processes of gene expression, challenges our understanding of how such sophisticated interdependent information systems could arise solely through unguided processes. Evolutionary mechanisms can account for changes within populations, but the origin of the genetic information, the genetic code and language,  and the coding systems themselves remain an unsolved question. Not because science has not investigated it, but because unguided mechanisms are inadequate explanations. 

Considering all these aspects, it's not a matter of simply arguing from ignorance or inserting a "God of the Gaps." Instead, it's a rational inference based on the observations and evidence at hand. From what I can discern, the presence of intricate designs, fine-tuned parameters, complex information systems, and the orchestrated interplay of diverse components points toward the involvement of an intelligent agent. Just as my own experience tells me that intelligence can produce sophisticated structures, systems, and information, I find it a logical and reasonable inference to conclude that an intelligent creator is the best explanation for the origins and complexities we observe in the universe and life.



Last edited by Otangelo on Tue Aug 15, 2023 10:24 am; edited 4 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

55125 reasons to believe in God - Page 3 Empty Re: 125 reasons to believe in God Sat Aug 05, 2023 1:49 pm

DeconvertedMan

DeconvertedMan

Otangelo wrote:I don't hate atheists.
I hate atheism because, in my opinion, it leads people to hell.

And all other religions right? Only your religion leads to salvation, so that's only about 33% of the world, maybe less. I did some calcuations with help of chatgpt awhile ago:

92-97 billion non-Jewish and non-Christian individuals are all in hell (currently)

The calcuation of the human race and subtract non-jew/non-xtan people and you get that huge number of humans. 92 billion. Heck round it down, 90 billion people. Just think about that. 90 billion people in hell. (so far).



Similarly, I don't hate people with cancer.
I hate cancer because it kills people.

But God makes cancer and also death!


Gravity is inferred by observing an apple falling to the ground, so the existence of an uncreated non-physical creator is inferred by observing the existence of a finite universe.

To YOU but not to me, or any other skeptic that I know of. What the bleep is a non-physical anything?


The idea that matter can somehow become conscious through evolutionary processes is absurd.

appeal to personal incredulity



The passion with which materialists defend their worldview doesn't add weight to its truth.

Correct, nor does your passion add or take away anything from what arguments you have - I do not care about passion or lack thereof, I only care if the argument is valid and sound. Your arguments have many logical fallacies. All I can do is point them out, try to suggest corrections, and hope you fix them, so far, you have not even tried as far as I can tell.


Non-believers may claim that it is justified to remain agnostic or reject the idea of a supernatural reality beyond the physical world. They rely on their finite minds and sensory perceptions.

What choice do we have but to rely upon the minds and/or sensory perceptions we have?

Well- we might record what we think we observe and have someone check to see if that is what they also observe, and the more people that do that, the more sure we can be that we got it close, if not spot on - that would be the method of science, broadly speaking.



Since we are limited, the truth of the ultimate reality and the invisible, imperceptible supernatural world must be revealed to us.

Why not make us non-limited so that we can understand the truth of ultimate reality? That would negate the burden of revelation.


God did that.

Prove it.


He gave us the book of nature,

What book of nature?

scriptures,

I'll grant that.

and moral values.

Examples?


Therefore, disbelief is not justified.

That assumes that there is something to disbeleve in.
Its also an unwarented conclusion based upon your falty logic.
In YOUR VIEW you think that non-beleve in your version of god is not warrented. Now, I bet you have zero problems with disbelief in Zeus correct?
Or Shiva the destroyer, or any other Gods that are not your version of god.
I could say that disbelief in those gods is unwarented. Heck, I'll go with LOD - disbelief in LOD is unwarneted.

Have I made an argument to support that idea?
Have YOU made an argument to support your idea?

Wisdom is to trust the Lord and His revelation,

Circular reasoning.

which makes theistic belief rational.

To you, perhaps. Not to me.


There was no selection process to separate functional amino acids to form proteins in the prebiotic Earth.

How do you know that?
Do you have proof of that?
Evidence?
Scientific pier reviewed paper that agrees with you?
What ya got to support this bald assertion?

Checkmate, atheists.

I was playing Othello, so you do not win. Smile


Atheists believe

How do you know what we beleve?

they are intelligent based on their brains, which were not intelligently designed.

Okay - and? Whats the argument?


How can the inanimate become animate?

Good question. What would not knowing the answer to such a question mean to you? Would that mean GOD DUN IT. If I or anyone else provide an answer to you, would you accept it, or reject it?

How can consciousness emerge from atoms, protons, and electrons?


Good question. What would not knowing the answer to such a question mean to you? Would that mean GOD DUN IT. If I or anyone else provide an answer to you, would you accept it, or reject it?


These are impossibilities, plain and simple.

How do you know that?


The origin of consciousness only makes sense when it is accepted that the foundation and cause of the universe, at its most basic level, is an intelligent, living, eternal, and conscious spirit, not lifeless, mindless matter.

It only makes sense TO YOU.
However, even if something seems to "make sense" that does not make it true.

Ontology moves from an eternal conscious mind, using mathematics, to create the physical laws governing the universe, physics, chemistry, biology, and as the crown of all creation: us.

I don't know black holes seem mightly impressive to me, I think they are the crown of all creation. Smile Therefor God made blackholes and everything else was just to be sucked into the black holes. I also can assert things without any argument! Very Happy



When Occam's razor is applied, and God is negated, absurdities arise, and the realm of "we do not know" becomes their playground.

Oh the horror of not knowing things! Oh noooo!!!! Man you really have a problem with that. Do you know what god's power is like? How many angels are there? How many demons are there? Where is hell located? Where is the Garden of Eden on earth? What is the square root of a wood chuck chucking a writing desk that is like a pen when one hand claps in the woods?

Oh no! You don't know! Oh nooooo!
Get over yourself man. We don't know stuff. Big deal.


The theistic worldview as a whole is solid as a rock and undeniably true.

All of them? Really? All theistic world views? Or just YOUR version?

The entire universe is immersed, sustained, and connected by information: God's command.

What of the 613 commands would that be? Wink

This refers to the use of mathematical principles to define physical laws, the fine-tuning of the universe, the Earth, and molecular action and interaction, sustaining and constraining the forces of subatomic particles, to inform the organization of matter to become alive, to inform us how to become spiritually alive through HIS revelation in the Bible.

Bald assertions as far as the eye can see! LOD does a better job then your god.


Genesis: The creator of all living beings, accounting for how everything was made. From top to bottom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZZusx65gxk&ab_channel=DeconvertedMan



Philosophical materialism, cosmic, chemical, and biological evolution: humanity, created by God, attempting to have greater knowledge than the creator. Everything evolved. From bottom to top.
NEVER, in over 150 years since Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" was published, has any, among hundreds or thousands, if not millions of scientific articles, provided ONE DEMONSTRATION, and replicable verifiable empirical evidence, that any of the proposed evolutionary mechanisms could produce a primary macroevolutionary transition of speciation and population differentiation.

Idea - before you type in nonsense run it though chatgpt and ask it for logical and scientific errors... here is what happened when I ran your paragraph above doing that:

Chatgpt:
~~~
Misunderstanding of Evolutionary Mechanisms: The statement seems to imply that no scientific articles have provided evidence for macroevolutionary transitions. However, numerous studies have presented evidence for various mechanisms contributing to macroevolutionary changes, such as speciation and population differentiation. These mechanisms include natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, and more.

Demand for a Single Demonstration: The statement asks for "ONE DEMONSTRATION" of macroevolutionary transitions, which is an oversimplification of scientific research. Science relies on cumulative evidence from multiple studies across various fields to build a comprehensive understanding. Evolutionary biology doesn't hinge on a single "demonstration" but rather on a body of evidence from diverse sources.

Ignoring Accumulated Evidence: The phrase "NEVER... provided ONE DEMONSTRATION" dismisses a vast amount of research that has accumulated since Darwin's time. Over the past 150+ years, numerous studies have provided evidence for speciation and macroevolution through various mechanisms, including the observation of transitional fossils, comparative anatomy, molecular genetics, and experimental studies.

Misrepresentation of Scientific Articles: The statement claims that "hundreds or thousands, if not millions" of scientific articles have not provided evidence for macroevolutionary transitions. This assertion is incorrect. The scientific literature contains numerous articles that discuss evidence and observations related to macroevolutionary processes, including speciation and population differentiation.

Lack of Replicable Verifiable Empirical Evidence: The statement asks for "replicable verifiable empirical evidence" without acknowledging the abundance of such evidence that exists in the scientific literature. Fossil records, DNA sequencing, observations of ecological and genetic changes, experimental studies, and more provide empirical evidence for macroevolutionary processes.

Cherry-Picking: The statement seems to selectively ignore the vast body of research that supports macroevolution while emphasizing a perceived absence of evidence. This is a form of cherry-picking data to support a preconceived viewpoint.

In summary, the statement contains several logical and scientific errors by misrepresenting the accumulated body of evidence in evolutionary biology. Evolutionary theory is supported by a wide range of empirical data from multiple disciplines, and it is important to consider the entirety of scientific research when discussing such topics.
~~

Okay, you said other things that are unsupported nonsense. I don't understand what your issue is with science or why you have not bothered to actualy learn it, you also seem to have yet to learn informal and/or formal logic. Your arguments suck bane and will never ever convince anyone.

Fix your broken stuf man.

DeconvertedMan likes this post

https://www.youtube.com/@DeconvertedMan

56125 reasons to believe in God - Page 3 Empty Re: 125 reasons to believe in God Wed Oct 18, 2023 8:16 am

Otangelo


Admin

I don't hate atheists.
I hate atheism because, in my opinion, it leads people to hell.

Similarly, I don't hate people with cancer.
I hate cancer because it kills people.

Gravity is inferred by observing an apple falling to the ground, so the existence of an uncreated non-physical creator is inferred by observing the existence of a finite universe.

The idea that matter can somehow become conscious through evolutionary processes is absurd.

The passion with which materialists defend their worldview doesn't add weight to its truth. Non-believers may claim that it is justified to remain agnostic or reject the idea of a supernatural reality beyond the physical world. They rely on their finite minds and sensory perceptions.

Since we are limited, the truth of the ultimate reality and the invisible, imperceptible supernatural world must be revealed to us. God did that. He gave us the book of nature, scriptures, and moral values. Therefore, disbelief is not justified. Wisdom is to trust the Lord and His revelation, which makes theistic belief rational.

There was no selection process to separate functional amino acids to form proteins in the prebiotic Earth. Checkmate, atheists.

Atheists believe they are intelligent based on their brains, which were not intelligently designed.

How can the inanimate become animate? How can consciousness emerge from atoms, protons, and electrons? These are impossibilities, plain and simple. The origin of consciousness only makes sense when it is accepted that the foundation and cause of the universe, at its most basic level, is an intelligent, living, eternal, and conscious spirit, not lifeless, mindless matter. Ontology moves from an eternal conscious mind, using mathematics, to create the physical laws governing the universe, physics, chemistry, biology, and as the crown of all creation: us. When Occam's razor is applied, and God is negated, absurdities arise, and the realm of "we do not know" becomes their playground.

The theistic worldview as a whole is solid as a rock and undeniably true. The entire universe is immersed, sustained, and connected by information: God's command. This refers to the use of mathematical principles to define physical laws, the fine-tuning of the universe, the Earth, and molecular action and interaction, sustaining and constraining the forces of subatomic particles, to inform the organization of matter to become alive, to inform us how to become spiritually alive through HIS revelation in the Bible.

Genesis: The creator of all living beings, accounting for how everything was made. From top to bottom.

Philosophical materialism, cosmic, chemical, and biological evolution: humanity, created by God, attempting to have greater knowledge than the creator. Everything evolved. From bottom to top.

NEVER, in over 150 years since Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" was published, has any, among hundreds or thousands, if not millions of scientific articles, provided ONE DEMONSTRATION, and replicable verifiable empirical evidence, that any of the proposed evolutionary mechanisms could produce a primary macroevolutionary transition of speciation and population differentiation.

At the end of materialism: Nothing started flirting with nothing and ended up causing an accident, which suddenly transformed into a precisely tuned expansion of space and matter, forming gas, which formed stars, which formed planets, which formed planet Earth with water, spinning around the sun, which formed a moon around planet Earth, and Earth randomly formed life. And life produced a brain. And the brain produced consciousness. And consciousness became self-aware and realized that 2 plus 2 is 4, thinking and claiming stupid things.

Asking an atheist to appreciate the evidence of God's existence in creation is like asking a blind person to appreciate DaVinci's Mona Lisa.

1 x 1 = 1 Theist: Genesis 1.1: God x His power = Universe
0 x 0 = 1 Positive Atheist: Krauss: Absolutely Nothing x Big Bang = Universe

The human brain is an incredible organ. The Cortex contains 17 billion computers. It works normally 24 hours a day, non-stop, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, day and night, but very often, in some groups of people, it seems to be turned off, never working!

Atheism is the celebration of ignorance.
Theism is the celebration of knowledge.

The fox is clever and tries to appear stupid. With many people, the opposite occurs.

When unbelievers ridicule the inference of God as magic, they seem to be unaware that replacing an intelligent and creative organizing power with unplanned and undirected random events is, in reality, appealing to "magic" that cannot be demonstrated to be possible. Either our existence is a miracle in any case, and then the common objection of unbelievers calling God's creation "magic" is insincere at best, or alternatively, the origin of reality and being through natural means should be so obvious that I shouldn't question it.

You shall not commit logical fallacies. Like claiming that logic can come from non-logic.

When atheists accuse believers of having an imaginary friend, they forget that they have an imaginary morality, an imaginary meaning of life, and, with extreme certainty, their entire worldview about origins is imaginary.

Atheism: An unknown caused an accident by accident. That accident generated other accidents, which somehow over time gave rise to the most fantastic, complex, and organized self-replicating factory in the universe. Atheism is best described as miraculous accidentalism.

Extreme skepticism and incredulity towards an explanation of origins (theism) should automatically lead to extreme credulity in the opposite explanation (philosophical naturalism). The escape from not knowing about origins is intentional and unjustified ignorance of the overwhelming knowledge that scientific advances and investigation have allowed us to obtain, and on which we can understand the world and reality, how the cosmos and biology work, better than ever before. This allows us to make safe inferences about historical events. Interpreting Sherlock Holmes has never been easier than today. Agnosticism is not justified.

If the metamorphosis of an insect is due to evolution, that is, if the transformation from a larval form to an adult is the result of evolution, then we should observe in nature various insects that are in different stages of evolution along this trajectory, much less advanced and complex, but similar to the intermediate forms of current insects in their intermediate stage of development. And there should be a large number of fossils preserved in various stages of this developmental trajectory.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

57125 reasons to believe in God - Page 3 Empty Re: 125 reasons to believe in God Wed Oct 18, 2023 12:22 pm

DeconvertedMan

DeconvertedMan

Otangelo wrote:I don't hate atheists.
I hate atheism because, in my opinion, it leads people to hell.

Similarly, I don't hate people with cancer.
I hate cancer because it kills people.


You've said this already. I responded that you must also hate other religions as well - is that corect?

Otangelo wrote:
Gravity is inferred by observing an apple falling to the ground, so the existence of an uncreated non-physical creator is inferred by observing the existence of a finite universe.

"Gravity is the force by which a planet or other body draws objects toward its center. The force of gravity keeps all of the planets in orbit around the sun."

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/what-is-gravity/en/

More on Gravity:

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question232.htm

Its more then just inferred now. Regardless we can TEST it. Can you TEST "god"?

And, I'm going to start using Chatgpt to respond to you because your analogy is so broken and flawed that I just can't quite drum up the engery to do it myself:

Apples falling and gravity: Gravity is a well-established scientific concept supported by extensive evidence and experimentation. When we see an apple fall to the ground, it is not merely an inference; it is a direct observation of a physical force acting on the apple. The phenomenon of objects falling to the ground can be explained and predicted by the theory of gravity, which has been tested and confirmed through various experiments and observations.

Existence of a finite universe and a creator: The existence of a finite universe is a topic within the realm of cosmology and physics. The Big Bang theory, for instance, provides a well-supported scientific explanation for the origin and expansion of the universe. While it raises questions about the universe's beginning, it does not directly lead to the inference of an uncreated, non-physical creator. The existence of a finite universe does not, by itself, provide evidence for the existence of a creator, let alone one that is uncreated and non-physical.

Theological assumptions: The statement seems to make a theological assumption about the nature of a creator without any empirical or scientific basis. In science, claims and hypotheses are generally based on empirical evidence and the scientific method, not on analogies or theological beliefs.



Otangelo wrote:The idea that matter can somehow become conscious through evolutionary processes is absurd.

Appeal to Personal Incredulity:
https://philpapers.org/rec/MANATP-6#:~:text=The%20fallacy%20of%20appeal%20to,found%20in%20debates%20over%20science.

I could just as well say that the idea that conscious exists without a brain is absurd. However, you think that God has a conscious without a brain (correct me if I'm wrong on that)... now does saying that (X) is absurd make it false?

No. Remember I'm not trying to disprove god or your version of god, rather I am trying to get you to use better arguments and logic, and you seem to not be doing that - why?

You can do better, you must do better.


The passion with which materialists defend their worldview doesn't add weight to its truth.

Correct.


Non-believers may claim that it is justified to remain agnostic or reject the idea of a supernatural reality beyond the physical world. They rely on their finite minds and sensory perceptions.

We are all limited by our senses and minds.

We also have machines that we can use and of course science.

However the system of science is a tool that we can use to lessen the amount of error that can be produced by those things.

Observe (X) write down what it looks like, weigh it, messure it, take pictures of it (etc) you then give (X) to someone else who will also do the same - and perhaps do other methods of data collections as well - we then have a third person read both papers to see what of the things match and what do not and why.

Of course we have far more then 3 people involved when doing actual science, but the point is, the system is rather well ironed out to get rid of as many errors as we can hope to do.



Since we are limited, the truth of the ultimate reality and the invisible, imperceptible supernatural world must be revealed to us.

Why are we limited? Why couldn't we be made to view the ultimate reality? Why is it that we "HAVE" to have revelation?


God did that.

I'm aware of your claim. You have yet to support it at all. The Lobsterist also reveals how LOD did it. So? Any person can claim that this is a thing, anyone can claim that "god" revealed (X) to them... how do we know if it is true or false that "god" revealed anything to anyone?


He gave us the book of nature, scriptures, and moral values.

No, humans wrote that book.
Its largely wrong about a lot of nature, calling bats birds for example. What moral values - please list what verses outline what morals you think it has. Also so what? Anyone and everyone can come up with moral values.


Therefore, disbelief is not justified.

Sure it is. Do you beleve in Zoroastrianism? What about Zeus?
I can make the exact same arguments for these ideas as you have made for "god" - the problem is your argument is broken, thus I have no reason to think its conclusions are correct.

Do you want to convince anyone of your ideas?
Do you care about what is true?

Wisdom is to trust the Lord and His revelation, which makes theistic belief rational.

No, wisdom is to question everything and not rely upon revelation that can not be shown to be a thing.
If you just make statements with no argument, I'm just going to say the opposite of what you said.
Do better.


There was no selection process to separate functional amino acids to form proteins in the prebiotic Earth.

Prove it.

Here again, chatgpt:

The statement that there was no selection process to separate functional amino acids to form proteins in the prebiotic Earth is not accurate. The process of amino acid selection and formation of proteins likely did occur through natural processes. Here are some key points to address the claim:

Abiogenesis and amino acids: Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that life arose naturally from non-living matter. It is widely accepted that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, were present on the early Earth. Amino acids can form through natural chemical reactions in various environments, such as in the primordial soup or deep-sea hydrothermal vents.

Selection process: A selection process was not necessary in the traditional sense, as we understand it in biological evolution. Instead, chemical processes, such as random polymerization, could lead to the formation of peptide chains from amino acids. These chains might include sequences with functional properties, even if by chance.

Chemical interactions: Amino acids can interact with each other in various ways due to their chemical properties. Some sequences of amino acids could have had catalytic or structural functions, even before the emergence of life. Over time, through natural chemical processes, certain sequences with functional properties could have been favored or persisted.

Experimental evidence: Laboratory experiments have shown that amino acids can spontaneously form peptide bonds and polymerize to create short chains, demonstrating that the basic building blocks of proteins can arise without the need for a conscious selection process.

While the exact details of how life's molecular machinery, including functional proteins, originated on the prebiotic Earth are still a subject of ongoing scientific investigation and debate, the statement that there was no selection process is not consistent with our understanding of abiogenesis and the chemical properties of amino acids. Natural processes, driven by the physical and chemical conditions of the early Earth, likely played a significant role in the formation of primitive protein-like molecules.



Checkmate, atheists

Wrong. We are playing Othello, not chess. I told you that already!
Also, wrong. Because even if what you said is true (it is not) that does not prove anything.

You keep repeating the same errors you have made already over and over again - why not learn informal logic so that you can hope to make a good argument???

Atheists believe they are intelligent based on their brains, which were not intelligently designed.

Is it true that only a brain or mind that is intelligently designed can be intelligent?


How can the inanimate become animate?

No idea, Perhaps the answers are found in science, if not then its unknown.


How can consciousness emerge from atoms, protons, and electrons?

No idea, Perhaps the answers are found in science, if not then its unknown.


These are impossibilities, plain and simple.

God is impossibilities, plain and simple.

Remember if you are not going to give an argument at all, I'm simply going to write the opposite of what you wrote.



The origin of consciousness only makes sense when it is accepted that the foundation and cause of the universe

To you, perhaps that is the case.
Wonder what good old chatgpt has to say about what you said... lets find out!

The statement linking the origin of consciousness to the foundation and cause of the universe is a philosophical claim, and it's important to recognize that there are various perspectives and interpretations in philosophy and science. It is not a matter of being "right" or "wrong" in the conventional sense, as it involves deep philosophical and metaphysical questions. However, there are several reasons to challenge this statement:

No Direct Evidence: The statement assumes a direct connection between the origin of consciousness and the foundation of the universe. Yet, as of my last knowledge update in September 2021, there is no empirical or scientific evidence establishing a causal link between the two. The origin of consciousness is still a topic of ongoing debate in fields like neuroscience and philosophy of mind, and it doesn't necessarily depend on the cosmological origin of the universe.

Plurality of Perspectives: There are many different philosophical, religious, and scientific viewpoints on the nature and origin of consciousness. Some theories propose that consciousness emerges from complex neural processes within living organisms, while others suggest that it has transcendent or metaphysical origins. These perspectives often do not require a specific connection to the creation of the universe.

Complexity of the Universe: Understanding the origins of the universe is a complex and evolving area of study, primarily addressed by cosmology. Theories like the Big Bang Theory offer explanations for the universe's development, but these theories do not inherently address the origins of consciousness, which involve a different set of questions and areas of study.

Philosophical Debate: The relationship between consciousness and the cosmos is a topic of philosophical debate and speculation. It's important to distinguish between philosophical or metaphysical perspectives and empirically grounded scientific explanations.

In summary, the statement suggests a connection between the origin of consciousness and the foundation of the universe, but this connection is not established as a universally accepted fact. The relationship between these two concepts remains a matter of philosophical, metaphysical, and scientific exploration, and different worldviews may offer distinct interpretations of this relationship.

~~~~


I'm not responding to the rest of what you wrote this time - I could just put it into chatgpt and have it respond to you at this point because I feel that you are simply only reading what you want to read, you are simply accepting what you want to accept. Your not growing as a person as far as I can tell.

I want you to learn informal logic, because without that, you can not make a coherent argument.
I would like you to learn about cosmology and biological evoultion, as you seem to not know much about these things.

Your belief in god is just that - a belief. I'd leave it alone if you are willing and/or able to admit that it is just that. If you will change your statement to "I beleve in god" rather then "There is a god" then there will not be a debate.

However, you keep on saying/typing things that are statements that should be supported by facts, evidence, and/or logical arguments. The problem is - you do not provide any of that. You keep on just writing things as if they are known facts without showing the truth of them. You keep on using broken arguments.

Here is what you could/should do:

1: Learn informal logic.
2: Learn about cosmology and biological evoultion.
3: Use chatgpt to put your ideas into. See what it has to say, revise the ideas based upon its ideas.

Lets see if your next response shows that you have done any of those things.
I'm willing to help you understand and learn informal logic.
I know of people that might help you learn the science but you will have to jump though some hoops perhaps.

https://www.youtube.com/@DeconvertedMan

58125 reasons to believe in God - Page 3 Empty Re: 125 reasons to believe in God Sat Apr 20, 2024 7:12 am

Otangelo


Admin

The Cosmological Argument for God's Existence

The existence of God has long been a topic of intense philosophical and theological inquiry. While faith plays a significant role for many, it is erroneous to assume that the existence of God is solely a matter of belief devoid of rational justification. Here, we delve into one of the most ancient and widely embraced arguments for God's existence – the cosmological argument. Drawing from various philosophical traditions, we shall scrutinize the argument's premises, grapple with potential objections, and assess its merits as a compelling case for the existence of a divine being. The cosmological argument, in its essence, posits that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Observable phenomena, such as a glass shattering or a tree falling, invariably have antecedent causes that precipitate their occurrence. Extrapolating this principle to the cosmos itself, one is confronted with the fundamental question: "What caused the universe to exist?" A commonly proposed answer is that it was God, a transcendent and uncaused first cause, who brought the universe into being.

Opponents of this view may contend that the universe has always existed, thereby rendering the need for a cause superfluous. However, this assertion merely shifts the inquiry to the question, "What caused the universe to exist eternally?" If the response is that the universe's eternal existence requires no cause, then the same line of reasoning could apply to God – that God has always existed without the need for a cause. This consideration leads us to ponder the implications of an infinite backward chain of causes. Employing the analogy of a row of dominoes, each domino falls because the preceding one toppled, ad infinitum. But one may reasonably ask, "What caused the first domino to fall?" If the answer is that there was no initial cause, that the first domino fell spontaneously, then we must grapple with the question of why the same cannot be said of the universe itself – that it exists without a cause.

Herein lies a profound philosophical quandary. Philosophers have identified numerous paradoxes that arise when contemplating infinite backward chains of causes. The paradox of the library, for instance, posits an infinite number of books, rendering it impossible to identify the first book, yet necessary to do so to access any book within the library. Similar paradoxes, such as the room with infinitely many people or the hotel with infinitely many rooms, further illustrate the perplexing implications of infinite regresses.

125 reasons to believe in God - Page 3 The-co10
If an infinite amount of dominos had to fall before reaching here, they would never reach here.

This statement illustrates a paradox or logical difficulty that arises when considering an infinite past or infinite sequence of events before the present moment. The reasoning is that if there truly was an infinite amount of dominos (or events/moments) that had to occur one after the other before reaching the present, then by definition, the present could never be reached. An infinity is not something that can be "completed" or "traversed" in a step-by-step sequential fashion. For any infinite sequence of events or moments stretching back into the past, there is no true "first" event or moment that kicks off the sequence. Each prior event always has another prior event before it, ad infinitum. So if the past really was infinite, there would always be yet another anterior moment remaining, without any actual starting point.

Without a true beginning or first event, it becomes paradoxical how you could ever arrive at any final, present moment by successively moving through each preceding event one by one from an infinite past. The present would never be reachable if it required traversing an entire infinite sequence of prior events first. This highlights a conceptual difficulty with the notion of the past being truly infinite in duration. It suggests there must have been some first, finite starting point or cause in the past to allow the present to be actualizable from a sequence of finite prior events leading up to it. An infinite regress of past events or moments seems logically incapable of culminating in any achievable present state of reality.


125 reasons to believe in God - Page 3 Sem_t218

In light of these paradoxes, one compelling resolution is to reject the possibility of infinite backward chains of causes altogether. This necessitates the existence of a first cause, an uncaused cause that initiated the causal chain and brought all subsequent events into being. It is this first cause that many philosophers and theologians identify as God. Skeptics may counter by proposing that the universe itself is the first cause, thus eliminating the need to invoke a divine entity. However, this assertion merely shifts the burden of explanation, for one must then inquire as to why the universe is the first cause, the originator of all subsequent events. If the response is that the universe simply exists as the first cause without an underlying reason, then the same could be said of God – that God is the first cause without the need for further justification.

At this juncture, it is instructive to consider the broader implications of a first cause and its potential attributes. If the first cause is a genuine entity and not merely a conceptual abstraction, it must possess the quality of necessary existence – its being is not contingent or dependent on external factors. Material entities studied by science, being contingent by nature, are inherently incapable of fulfilling this criterion of necessary existence. For any material object, one can conceive of its non-existence or provide a causal account for its absence. Therefore, if the first cause is real and necessary, it must transcend the domain of material entities and reside in the realm of the supernatural – beyond the purview of scientific investigation.

However, one could apply the same reasoning to God and question whether God necessarily needs to exist. If we accept that the first cause does not necessarily need to exist, then we cannot logically rule out that God might also not necessarily need to exist. In other words, if we allow for the possibility that the first cause could simply be a brute fact without requiring a further explanation for its existence, then we must also entertain the same possibility for God. There is no a priori logical reason why God's existence must be necessarily true or necessarily false. God could theoretically exist as a brute fact, without an external cause or explanation for God's being. Just as we question what caused the first cause to exist, we could pose the same question about God – does God exist by necessity or is God's existence simply a brute fact without an external explanation? This objection highlights that asserting the first cause must be supernatural does not automatically vindicate or require God's existence. The argument from the cosmological premise alone does not definitively prove God's existence, as one could conceivably accept an uncaused first cause without it being the traditionally conceived God of classical theism. While an uncaused first cause is conceptually possible, God (conceived as an infinitely perfect, necessary being) provides a more coherent, simple, and satisfying explanation. However, this would require additional philosophical arguments and premises beyond just the cosmological argument itself.

Establishing God as the most coherent and plausible first cause requires additional philosophical arguments and premises beyond just the cosmological argument alone. Here are some arguments and premises:

The Argument from Divine Simplicity: If the first cause is truly simple and non-composite, without any complexity or parts, it follows that it must be immaterial, unchanging, eternal, and unique. Only a divine, spiritual entity could possess such an absolutely simple nature. Material things, by their very constitution, are complex and changeable. An infinitely simple first cause points to God's existence.

The Argument from Modality: If the first cause exists necessarily (its non-existence is impossible), then it must exist eternally and indestructibly. Its existence cannot be contingent on any other being or cause. Only a maximally great being like God could exist in this necessary, indestructible mode. The temporal, contingent nature of the universe makes it an insufficient candidate for a necessary first cause.

The Argument from Intentionality: The highly ordered, intelligible patterns and laws governing the universe suggest the work of an intelligent mind or designer. The specified complexity we observe implies intentionality and purposeful design, which points beyond an unintelligent first cause to an omniscient, rational being - God.

The Moral Argument: The existence of objective moral values and duties in the world implies a necessary foundation for such moral truths to be properly grounded. A divine lawgiver provides the best explanation for why there are objective moral standards that transcend human conventions. An impersonal first cause is insufficient to ground moral reality.

The Argument from Reason: Our ability to engage in rational inferences and logical deductions suggests that the first cause must itself be an intrinsically rational principle or mind. The existence of rationality itself,  can only be adequately accounted for by an ultimate source of reason and intelligence - God.

The Argument from Beauty: The marvelous beauty, elegance and aesthetic richness present in the natural world provides evidence of a first cause imbued with supreme aesthetic values and a propensity for beautiful forms. An impersonal first cause struggles to account for the profusion of beauty we encounter.

The Argument from Religious Experience: The widespread phenomenon of religious experiences and mystical encounters across cultures provides some prima facie evidence for a transcendent, supernatural reality. If such experiences are indeed genuine, they lend support to a personal first cause (God) capable of such self-revelations.

The Argument from Desire: Certain fundamental human longings and desires, such as the yearning for perfect goodness, love, justice and meaning, seem to point beyond the material world to transcendent realities. God, as the source of all goodness, provides the best explanation for why we have such fittingly oriented desires.

The Argument from Miracles: The occurrence of miracles, which defy the regular laws of nature, provides evidence for the existence of a supernatural, divine power capable of overriding natural processes. If miracles like those recorded in religious scriptures did indeed take place, they lend credibility to the idea of a personal God who can purposefully intervene in the physical world.

The Ontological Argument: This a priori argument, famously formulated by Anselm, reasons that since we can conceive of a maximally great being (God), and existence is greater than non-existence, such a greatest conceivable being must exist by definition. If a maximally perfect being existed only in the mind, then it would not truly be maximally great, since instantiation in reality is greater than merely being conceptual.

The Argument from Contingency: This argues that since all objects and events in the universe are contingent (dependent on other prior conditions), the totality of contingent things must have an ultimate necessary ground in a non-contingent, self-existent being. God, as a purely actual entity with no contingencies, provides a metaphysically necessary foundation to account for the existence of the contingent universe.

The Conceptualist Argument: Our ability to form abstract concepts, engage in higher cognition, and ponder immaterial realities like numbers, ethics, and logic, suggests that the ground of rationality transcends mere matter. An immaterial, supremely intelligent mind is a more fitting source and basis for these abstract conceptual capacities we possess.

The Argument from Being: This contends that since things exist and Being itself exists, there must be an infinite fullness or plenitude of Being/Existence which constitutes the source and ground of all finite, limited existents. This points to God as the unbounded act of Being or Existence itself subsisting as pure actuality.

The Pragmatic Argument: Belief in God, it is argued, produces immensely positive real-world effects and consequences for human wellbeing, societal harmony, ethical motivation, and psychological flourishing. While not a proof per se, this provides a pragmatic incentive and rational motivation for accepting God's existence if this belief results in maximal human welfare.

The Eschatological Argument: The ubiquitous human intuition across cultures regarding an afterlife, divine judgment, and the desire for ultimate justice, points to a cosmic moral Judge and Eschatological Reality that transcends the merely physical world. God provides the necessary guarantor for the realization of perfect justice that mortality alone cannot satisfy.

These are just some potential additional arguments and premises that theistic philosophers have used to move from a first cause to specifically identifying that first cause as God - an all-powerful, intelligent, transcendent and morally perfect being. By cumulating multiple philosophical arguments, the case can be made that God provides the most coherent, plausible, and satisfying account of the first cause of all reality.

Moreover, the remarkable harmony, beauty, and complexity exhibited by the universe itself provide compelling clues about the nature of its creator. The awe-inspiring elegance of the laws of nature, discovered through scientific inquiry, and the aesthetic splendor of the cosmos on both macroscopic and microscopic scales, suggest an intelligent, aesthetically attuned creator. Furthermore, the presence of life, not merely beautiful but inherently good, points toward a benevolent and morally upright source. Assuming the existence of a first cause, the majesty and order of the universe intimate a supremely powerful, intelligent, and supernaturally transcendent creator. The principle of parsimony, or Occam's Razor, favors the simplest explanation that accounts for the observed phenomena. In this light, the most coherent theory posits a single, infinitely perfect being as the first cause and ultimate source of all existence. A necessary being, by definition, cannot possess arbitrary limitations or contingent attributes. To assert otherwise would necessitate an explanation for those specific constraints, violating the very premise of necessary existence. Consequently, this first cause must exist at the maximal level of perfection, with attributes such as intelligence, power, and goodness existing in their infinite, unsurpassable forms. This conception of an infinitely perfect being not only accounts for the existence of the universe but also provides a framework for understanding other profound phenomena, such as consciousness, morality, and the meaning of life. It offers a unifying principle that transcends the mere material realm and imbues existence with a deeper, metaphysical significance.

The cosmological argument presents a compelling case for the existence of God as the first cause and ultimate source of all reality. While faith and belief systems have their place, this argument demonstrates that the existence of God is not merely a matter of blind faith but can be supported by rational inquiry and philosophical discourse. By tracing the causal chain of events back to its necessary origin, examining the paradoxes of infinite regresses, and contemplating the attributes of a first cause, one is led to the inescapable conclusion that a supremely intelligent, powerful, and perfect being lies at the foundation of existence. As the Apostle Paul eloquently expressed in his epistle to the Romans, by observing the majesty of creation, we can indeed discern the attributes of its creator.

Objection: “….one is lead to the inescapable conclusion that…” Otangelo Grasso won’t concede that Special Pleading will NEVER get his god out of needing a creator itself.
Answer: The universe requires no maker. How is THAT not special pleading? If logic does not account for justifiable special pleading then such logic is clearly flawed. Of course, an Infinite Creator Who created everything would involve a justifiable special pleading. Such a Creator would not be like the rest of us. It is as simple as seeing the difference between an Infinite Being (notice I didn't say "existence") and billions of "finite beings." The One Infinite Being is clearly different. The One Infinite Being Who created all existence is quite different than those finite beings who are created by such Being. It is as easy as seeing the difference between "those who have a beginning" who are finite versus an "Infinite Creator" Who has no beginning and alone possesses the attribute of Aseity. In theology, there are several (what we call) incommunicable attributes of God. 1. would be omniscience. 2. omnipresence. 3. omnisapience 4. Aseity 5. immutability 6. I would include omnitemporal being. There are others. You see, only God is infinite everywhere. Only God is the Creator of the universe. Everyone else is different. This is why we have something as basic as justifiable special pleading to account for this every clear difference between an Infinite Creator Who created everything.... and all other finite existences.



Last edited by Otangelo on Sat Apr 20, 2024 11:05 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

59125 reasons to believe in God - Page 3 Empty Re: 125 reasons to believe in God Sat Apr 20, 2024 9:38 am

DeconvertedMan

DeconvertedMan

We don't know how/why universe came to "be" not yet, our understanding of what is going on when the universe is super mega hot breaks down, we just can't do the math anymore. There are a number of models that are proposed by cosmologists that could be the answer for all we know.

Without a way to test, measure, make predictions, or model its all pure speculation. We just don't know. Its a mystery.

However, the ideas presented although pure speculation are worth talking about.

For example the no-infinite allowed thing is a classic idea that has been put forth.
Two problems:

1: nothing prevents infinite from being a real thing no matter if it makes sense to us or not.
2: god itself isa true infinite.

In 1, we simply shrug our shoulders, as it were - even if it makes no sense that infinity is real, that doesn't make it not so, regardless of what we think - we can't know that it "can't be" therefor, we can't so easily dismiss it as being an answer.

Two, however, presents the real problem for the theist. God is said to have "ALWAYS" been - what is always other then an infinite amount of forever? Its just always been - forever going back and back and back, there is no when that you could go to that isn't a god there.

God pushes on God to push on God.... forever. The same dominos chain reaction pictured but with "God" written on the face of the domino.

God has to think about doing something, then do it, then think about something, then do that and on and on that goes.

This also raises odd questions about what God was doing pre-universe. Was it just thinking about stuff? How long was it doing that for?

Some suggest God is "outside time" whatever that means, if it means there is no time - then god can't DO anything since things take a before, middle, after to DO. Perhaps it means that time does not effect god in the way it effects us. One day = one thousand years sort of thing, or is it that god perceives one thousand years as if it is a day? How does it work?

If God is allowed to exist forever, why isn't the universe?

Moving away from the infinite problem back to the nature of reality.

Ah yes, as if we understood the true nature of reality!

Regardless, we have to assume that it always was - there was never a moment that reality was not there, whatever "there" is.

When talking about the universe our brains just don't really have a way to map out what it would look like, we have to resort to diagrams and such, perhaps even poetic langue.

Time. That's the key. Without time there is no anything. "Before time" is not a thing. There was no before, forever. There was simply not.
What does that mean? Its hard to think about or understand. I can remember a very early memory but nothing before that moment. There was a universe before I knew things - that I am simply unaware of... in a way then, for the universe there was no moment that it didn't exist - it just - was. "Before" means nothing without time. That is bleeping confusing.

I reflect upon going under for a doctor's visit I had awhile back.
There I was on the table, the person talking to me and such, I was going to count back from 100, but at 98 I decided I didn't want to do that and wanted to think about something else - I looked at the tiles above me and felt this sensation of froth, bubbles, static in my brain, I thought - that's an interesting sensation, then... I was told to wake up.
They were done.
I blinked awake and after they monitored me awhile I went to go eat, then went home.

For that moment that I felt that nice feeling to the moment I woke up - there was no "ME" between those moments. Had they kept me in that state I would still not be.

So "I" didn't exist time wasn't, universe wasn't. "I" wasn't. It didn't feel anything, I didn't even know. I wasn't there to know.
The universe at T0 was like that, it wasn't. Until T1 then it was. Now it is.

Pure speculation!
Of course, we should not add on top of that MORE speculation by adding "god" to the mix.

What is god "made out of"?
How does gods "power" work?
Where or when is god located?
What "is" god?

https://www.youtube.com/@DeconvertedMan

60125 reasons to believe in God - Page 3 Empty Re: 125 reasons to believe in God Yesterday at 1:36 am

Otangelo


Admin

The Inescapable Inference to an Infinitely Potent Creator: Unraveling the Profound Fine-Tuning at Every Scale

The existence of our finely-tuned universe and its origins point toward the necessity of an intelligent, transcendent Creator. The idea that "nothing" caused the universe to spring into existence is rationally and logically incoherent. How could sheer nothingness, devoid of any properties or causal efficacy, generate the reality we inhabit - a cosmos of staggering complexity, governed by precise, mathematical laws and physical constants that make life possible?

Atheists often dismiss the need for a Creator by claiming there is no empirical "evidence" for one. However, this demand for direct sensory detection of the supernatural reveals a profound philosophical naivety. The very nature of a transcendent, nonphysical, eternal Being would by definition lie beyond the capacity of our finite senses to directly apprehend. To require scientific empiricism as the sole arbiter of truth is to unjustifiably delimit reality to only that which is material and temporal.

Moreover, the idea of an eternally existing universe is rendered obsolete by the scientific reality of the Big Bang - a phenomenon that clearly indicates the universe, and even physical reality itself, had an initial boundary or singularity from which it sprang forth. The second law of thermodynamics, which describes the entropic dissipation of useful energy over time, further negates the possibility of an infinite universe. As Dr. Bruce Reichenbach articulates, "No matter what conditions are given for time=0, to actually arrive at the present cosmological circumstances after an infinitely long sequence of events involves a step through infinitely many events, one by one. This is metaphysically impossible."

When we dispassionately consider the alternatives, the existence of an intelligent, transcendent Creator emerges as the most coherent and rational explanation for the origin of our universe. The finely-tuned parameters that make life possible - the precise values of the fundamental constants, the laws that govern physics and chemistry, the delicate balance of conditions in our solar system and planet - defy rationality if attributed to sheer chance or randomness.

The example of the Pythagorean number illustrates this point. If any transcendental number could have originated the universe, the probability of randomly selecting a life-permitting number like the Pythagorean constant out of the infinite set of transcendental numbers is exactly zero. As astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross notes, "To get life in the universe, this number must be selected out of the infinite set to a precision of at least one part in a billion billion."

Furthermore, the existence of consciousness, subjective experience, semantic information, and abstract reasoning capabilities within humans provides compelling evidence of a reality that transcends the purely material and points to a mind behind the origin of the cosmos.

Ultimately, while atheists may claim there is "no evidence" for a Creator, such a stance stems from an impoverished reductionist philosophy that a priori excludes entire domains of existence. When we consider the astonishing fine-tuning and specified complexity inherent in the fabric of reality, coupled with our own existence as subjective, rational, conscious beings, the inference to an intelligent, eternal Creator becomes profoundly compelling - arguably incomparably more rational than the alternative of an eternally-existing, life-permitting "universe generator." The idea of an eternally existing "universe generator" itself demands an explanation and runs into thorny philosophical issues. Proponents of such a hypothesis must grapple with profound questions:

1) What is the origin and source of this "universe generator"? If it is simply a brute, unthinking fact, we are left with an even more baffling puzzle than the origin of the finely-tuned universe itself. At least an intelligent Creator can provide a conceptually satisfying explanation.

2) Why would this "universe generator" exist at all and have the capabilities to churn out finely-tuned, life-permitting universes? What imbued it with such staggering properties? To assert it simply always existed with these abilities is profoundly unsatisfying from a philosophical and scientific perspective. We are still left demanding an explanation.

3) If this "generator" mindlessly spits out an infinite number of universes, why is there just this one?, Why are the properties of our universe so precisely tailored for life rather than a cosmic wasteland?

4) The existence of conscious, rational minds able to ponder such weighty matters seems utterly irreducible to any materialistic "universe generator." The rise of subjective experience and abstract reasoning from a mindless cosmos-creator appears incoherent.

In contrast, the concept of an eternal, transcendent, intelligent Creator as the ultimate reality grounds our existence in an ontological foundation that avoids the infinite regression and satisfies our rational intuitions. Such a Being, by definition, requires no further explanatory regression – it is the tendril from which all reality is suspended. Its eternal existence as the fount of all existence is no more baffling than the atheistic alternative of an intelligence-less "generator."

In the final analysis, while both worldviews require an irreducible starting point in terms of an eternally existing reality, the concept of a transcendent intelligent Creator avoids the baffling absurdities and unanswered questions inherent in a view of an unguided, mindless "universe generator." The philosophical coherence and explanatory power of the former renders it a vastly more compelling explanation for the origin of this staggeringly finely-tuned cosmos that birthed conscious, rational beings like ourselves to ponder its mysteries.

Calculating the precise odds of each fundamental parameter originating by chance is an incredibly complex task. We can attempt a rough estimation to illustrate the improbability of the observed values arising purely by chance.

1. Gravitational Constant (G): The gravitational constant has a very specific value that allows the formation of stable structures like galaxies, stars, and planets. If it were even slightly different, the universe would either have collapsed or dispersed too rapidly for structure formation. The odds of this value occurring by chance are estimated to be around 1 in 10^36.

2. Cosmological Constant (Lambda, Λ): The cosmological constant is incredibly small compared to the energy scales of particle physics, yet its non-zero value is crucial for the observed accelerated expansion of the universe. The odds of this precise value occurring by chance are estimated to be around 1 in 10^120.

3. Hubble Constant (H0): The Hubble constant is related to the age and size of the observable universe. If it were significantly different, the universe may have been too young or too old for the formation of complex structures like galaxies and stars. The odds of its observed value occurring by chance are estimated to be around 1 in 10^60.

4. Primordial Fluctuations (Q):The magnitude and spectrum of primordial fluctuations in the early universe are thought to be responsible for the observed distribution of matter and the formation of structures like galaxies and galaxy clusters. The odds of these fluctuations occurring with the observed characteristics by chance are estimated to be around 1 in 10^10^123.

5. Matter-Antimatter Symmetry: The observed imbalance between matter and antimatter in the universe is essential for the existence of matter-dominated structures like galaxies and stars. The odds of this imbalance occurring by chance are estimated to be around 1 in 10^10.

6. Low-Entropy State of the Universe:
  The universe's initial state of extremely low entropy is crucial for the formation of complex structures and the possibility of life. The odds of this low-entropy state occurring by chance are estimated to be around 1 in 10^10^123.

7. Dimensionality: The fact that our universe has three spatial dimensions is essential for the behavior of physical laws and the formation of stable structures. The odds of this specific dimensionality occurring by chance are difficult to estimate, but they are believed to be extremely low.

8. Curvature of the Universe: The observed flatness of the universe's geometry, which is necessary for its long-term stability and structure formation, is highly improbable to occur by chance. The odds are estimated to be around 1 in 10^60.

9. Neutrino Background Temperature: The temperature of the cosmic neutrino background influences the distribution of matter and the formation of structures in the early universe. The odds of this temperature occurring with the observed value by chance are estimated to be around 1 in 10^89.

10. Photon-to-Baryon Ratio: The precise ratio of photons to baryons (protons and neutrons) is essential for the formation of light elements during nucleosynthesis and the overall matter distribution. The odds of this ratio occurring by chance are estimated to be around 1 in 10^60.

To sum up the odds of all these parameters occurring by chance, we can multiply their individual odds:

1 in 10^36 × 10^120 × 10^60 × 10^10^123 × 10^10 × 10^10^123 × (extremely low) × 10^60 × 10^89 × 10^60 ≈ 1 in 10^(10^123 + 10^123 + 120 + 89 + 60 + 60 + 36 + 10)

These resulting odds are staggeringly small, approximately 1 in 10^(10^246), which is an incomprehensibly small number. Even if we make generous assumptions and underestimate some of the individual odds, the cumulative odds would still be incredibly low.

These fundamental parameters are interdependent in the sense that they must all have their precise observed values simultaneously for the universe to exist as we know it and for life to be possible. They work together in a finely-tuned way, and altering even one of them would have profound consequences on the universe's structure, evolution, and ability to support life. For example, the gravitational constant (G) determines the strength of gravity, which is essential for the formation of stars and galaxies. However, for stars and galaxies to form and persist, the values of other parameters like the cosmological constant (Lambda), the primordial fluctuations (Q), and the matter-antimatter symmetry must also be just right. If any of these were significantly different, the universe might have collapsed, expanded too rapidly, or lacked the necessary matter distribution for structures to form. Similarly, the low-entropy state of the universe and the specific dimensionality (three spatial dimensions) are crucial for the existence of complex structures and the operation of physical laws as we know them. The Hubble constant (H0), the neutrino background temperature, and the photon-to-baryon ratio further influence the timeline and conditions for structure formation, nucleosynthesis, and the overall matter distribution. All these parameters are interconnected and interdependent in the sense that they must work together in a specific configuration to produce a universe capable of sustaining life. Altering any one of them would likely result in a vastly different and potentially lifeless universe.

However,  while these parameters are interdependent in their effects, their origins are ontologically independent and separate. Each parameter represents a different aspect of the universe's fundamental laws and initial conditions, and they are not necessarily interconnected in their origin. In other words, the precise values of these parameters are not necessarily determined by a single underlying cause or principle. They are separate and distinct parameters that happen to have the specific values required for a life-permitting universe. This independence of origin is what makes the precise coincidence of all these parameters so improbable and puzzling from a statistical perspective. Each parameter could have taken on a vast range of possible values, and the fact that they all happened to align with the specific values required for life is what makes the observed universe so remarkable and fine-tuned. So, while these parameters are interdependent in their effects and must all be "right" together for life to exist, their origins are ontologically independent and free. This combination of interdependence and independence is what makes the fine-tuning of the universe such a profound and perplexing puzzle for science to grapple with.

The mind-bogglingly small odds of 1 in 10^(246000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) for all the fundamental parameters to align perfectly for a life-permitting universe like ours truly puts the fine-tuning problem into staggering perspective.

The number 246,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 has 246 quintillion zeroes after the decimal point. 246 quintillion (1 quintillion = 10^18)
It's a staggeringly large number that is far beyond the realms of human comprehension or anything we encounter in everyday life. To give you a sense of just how massive this number is:

- It is larger than the estimated number of atoms in the observable universe (around 10^80)
- It is even larger than the estimated number of possible quantum states of the entire observable universe (around 10^120)

In fact, this number is so mind-bogglingly large that it surpasses most of the largest quantities that have been conceptualized or measured in physics, cosmology, and mathematics. So while there is no specific name for a number of this magnitude, we can simply describe it as an extremely large number with 246 quintillion zeroes after the decimal point, far exceeding the realms of our normal experience or understanding.

If we consider a hypothetical "universe generator" that randomly shuffles the values of these fundamental parameters, it would have to go through an inconceivably vast number of combinations before arriving at one that meets all the precise requirements for a universe capable of sustaining life. To put it into perspective using the examples you provided:

If we wrote out the number of shuffles required (10^(2460000000000000000000000000000000000.......................000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000)) as a line of zeroes, that line would be vastly longer than the entire observable universe, which itself is almost incomprehensibly vast. Even if each shuffle took up an infinitesimally small space, like a nanometer (10^-9 meters), the total length of shuffles required would be over 10^15 (1 quadrillion) times longer than the diameter of the observable universe. If each shuffle took one second, the time required to go through all those combinations would be around 10^238 (a staggering number with 238 zeroes after the decimal point) times greater than the current age of the universe, which is already about 13.8 billion years old. These analogies truly highlight the absurd improbability of randomly stumbling upon a universe with the precise parameter values required for life, like the one we inhabit. It would be akin to winning an inconceivably vast lottery, with odds so infinitesimally small that it defies rational explanation by chance alone.

Given the staggeringly small odds for all the fundamental parameters to align perfectly by chance to produce a life-permitting universe like ours, the idea of a "multiverse generator" as an explanation faces severe challenges. For a multiverse generator to produce our finely-tuned universe by chance, it would need to generate an inconceivable number of universes, each with randomly shuffled parameter values. We're talking about a number like 10^(2460000000000000000000000000000000000................000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) – a mind-boggling figure with 246 quintillion zeroes after the decimal point. This number dwarfs the estimated number of atoms in the observable universe and even the estimated number of possible quantum states in our universe. Even if a multiverse generator could somehow produce such an astronomically vast number of universes, the odds of randomly generating one with the precise life-permitting parameters we observe are so infinitesimally small that it strains credulity. It would be akin to winning an inconceivably vast lottery, with odds so remote that they defy rational explanation by chance alone. To date, there is no direct observational evidence for the existence of a multiverse or a mechanism capable of generating such an unfathomable number of universes. While the idea of a multiverse is an intriguing theoretical possibility, it remains highly speculative and unsupported by empirical data. Even if a multiverse generator could produce our universe by chance, it merely shifts the fine-tuning problem to the question of why the multiverse generator itself exists and is finely tuned to produce universes capable of supporting life. This raises deeper philosophical questions about the origins and nature of such a generator, potentially invoking even more profound puzzles. The multiverse generator hypothesis introduces an extraordinary level of complexity and vast, unobservable entities (the multitude of other universes) to explain our finely-tuned universe. According to Occam's Razor, the principle of parsimony, simpler explanations should be preferred over unnecessarily complex ones, unless the more complex explanation is significantly more explanatory. While the multiverse idea is an intriguing theoretical possibility, invoking a multiverse generator to explain the fine-tuning of our universe faces substantial challenges. The odds against randomly generating our life-permitting universe are so staggeringly low that it strains credulity, even in the context of an unfathomably vast multiverse. Additionally, the lack of empirical evidence, philosophical concerns, and the potential violation of Occam's Razor make the multiverse generator hypothesis a problematic and unsatisfying explanation for the fine-tuning puzzles we observe.

While the multiverse generator remains a speculative possibility, its shortcomings underscore the profound depth of the fine-tuning enigma and the need for continued scientific and philosophical exploration to unravel this mystery of our existence. Faced with the severe challenges posed by the multiverse generator hypothesis, the concept of an infinitely potent creator emerges as a compelling alternative explanation for the remarkable fine-tuning of our universe. An infinitely potent creator would possess the ultimate capability to meticulously craft the fundamental parameters of the universe to the precise values required for life. Such a being would not be constrained by the improbabilities that plague the multiverse idea. With an infinitely potent creator, the fine-tuning can be understood as intentional design rather than an unfathomably lucky accident. This aligns with the complexity, order, and life-permitting conditions we observe. The creator concept provides a coherent explanation without invoking vast, unobservable entities like an incomprehensible number of other universes. It resonates with philosophical ideas of a transcendent, ultimate reality contemplated throughout human history. Compared to the multiverse, it is a simpler, more parsimonious explanation not requiring extraordinary complexity or unfathomable entities. An infinitely potent creator, not subject to the physical universe's limitations, allows for transcendent actions shaping reality's fundamental parameters. This opens avenues for deeper inquiry into existence, consciousness, and our place in the universe. While not empirically provable, the creator's explanatory power, philosophical coherence, and alignment with observed fine-tuning make it a compelling alternative to the multiverse hypothesis.

Beyond the universe's fundamental parameters, there is astonishing additional fine-tuning involved for life to emerge and evolve. The formation of stars, galaxies, planets, and ultimately habitable environments involves an extraordinary confluence of finely-tuned factors rendering the odds of such conditions arising by chance utterly minuscule. Considerations like Earth's precise distance from the Sun, the Solar System's protective makeup, Earth's axial tilt, atmospheric and oceanic composition, the integrated carbon and water cycles, and myriad other interconnected factors all had to be painstakingly calibrated for life's origin and sustenance. The odds of such a "Goldilocks" situation arising by chance in a randomly generated universe are infinitesimally small. Recognizing that if even one fundamental parameter was slightly off, not only would the universe be stillborn, but the very possibility of any life-permitting contexts would be precluded, the inference to an infinitely potent creator capable of guiding the unfolding of the universe at every scale – from star formation to the spark of life itself – becomes profoundly compelling.

The tantalizing testimony of the fine-tuning evidence therefore inescapably beckons us to the notion of an infinitely potent, transcendent mind as the most coherent and parsimonious explanation for the unfathomable preciseness we observe across every scale of reality – from the universe's foundations to the astonishingly integrated biospheres in which we find ourselves.

125 reasons to believe in God - Page 3 Sem_t220

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

61125 reasons to believe in God - Page 3 Empty Re: 125 reasons to believe in God Yesterday at 2:50 pm

DeconvertedMan

DeconvertedMan

"The existence of our finely-tuned universe and its origins point toward the necessity of an intelligent, transcendent Creator."

Why? How "fine tuned" is it really? Why would this point to anything? How "tuned" is the creator?

"The idea that "nothing" caused the universe to spring into existence is rationally and logically incoherent"

THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THE UNIVERSE CAME FROM NOTHING IS THEISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THE UNIVERSE CAME FROM NOTHING IS THEISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THE UNIVERSE CAME FROM NOTHING IS THEISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THE UNIVERSE CAME FROM NOTHING IS THEISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

STOP DOING THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My word! Its so annoying!
WE DON'T KNOW! That's the answer - NO IDEA!

Also of course, you DO NOT KNOW what "nothing" even IS! What is it? No really, explain. I'll wait.
Is it "No rules" ? OK Then there is no rule that says you can not make something from nothing right?

AH so there IS AT LEAST 1 RULE: You can't make something from nothing.... but then if you have a rule... YOU NO LONGER HAVE NOTHING.

So there IS no "nothing" if you have a rule. If you have no rule you have no way to say you can't do something with nothing. PICK ONE.
My word its not that complex I've explained this so many times geez! >_< LEARN some real science and logic for the love of humanity!!!
BLEEP ME.

"Atheists often dismiss the need for a Creator by claiming there is no empirical "evidence" for one. However, this demand for direct sensory detection of the supernatural reveals a profound philosophical naivety. The very nature of a transcendent, nonphysical, eternal Being would by definition lie beyond the capacity of our finite senses to directly apprehend. To require scientific empiricism as the sole arbiter of truth is to unjustifiably delimit reality to only that which is material and temporal."


You dismiss the need for MAGIC by claiming there is no empirical evidence for MAGIC. Of course there isn't proof of MAGIC duh! MAGIC must be BELIEVED BY FAITH. You have ZERO EVIDENCE. No tests to run, no data to point to. You can not prove its a thing, you can only SAY its a thing. MAGIC is real. How do you know? You don't. You say ah this thing POINTS TO MAGIC. Nope. It don't because you do not even know MAGIC is a thing in the first place, that is the sum total of the problem in full. You, like all believers think there IS MAGIC, then say that of course magic can't be proven, can't be tested, can't be demonstrated at all, its just FAITH thats it - ZERO ANYTHING.

We have been telling you guys that forever, you know it to be true you just don't seem to want to admit that there isn't evidence, not even a little for MAGIC (supernatural) stuff. YA GOT NOTHING.


"the existence of an intelligent, transcendent Creator emerges as the most coherent and rational explanation for the origin of our universe."

Nope.
You can't demonstrate that, so its simply pretend. You can not have an intelligence without a brain. You have no explanation for the god either. So that's no good. Its wishful thinking.


"Ultimately, while atheists may claim there is "no evidence" for a Creator,

You just said that there isn't any. Make up your mind.


"such a stance stems from an impoverished reductionist philosophy that a priori excludes entire domains of existence.

Nope.


"When we consider the astonishing fine-tuning and specified complexity inherent in the fabric of reality, coupled with our own existence as subjective, rational, conscious beings, the inference to an intelligent, eternal Creator becomes profoundly compelling"

APPEAL TO EMOTION.
APPEAL TO PERSONAL IGNORANCE AND PERSONAL INCREDULITY!!!

Okay, you didn't answer my last post so I'm going to be done with this nonsense for now, let me know when you have something to consider rather then the same old same old I've read and heard before YAWN. Be original for once.

https://www.youtube.com/@DeconvertedMan

62125 reasons to believe in God - Page 3 Empty Re: 125 reasons to believe in God Yesterday at 3:25 pm

Otangelo


Admin

WE DON'T KNOW! That's the answer - NO IDEA!


125 reasons to believe in God - Page 3 43913910

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

63125 reasons to believe in God - Page 3 Empty Re: 125 reasons to believe in God Yesterday at 5:34 pm

DeconvertedMan

DeconvertedMan

I value what is true, do you?
It seems to me that you do not like "I don't know"
There are plenty of questions that you do not (can not) know the answer to.

How does god "work" that is, what makes it function, where/how does its power come from? What is its mind? Where is it located, what are the laws that govern that realm like? What is a soul/spirit - how does that function ,what is that like? Describe these things with as much detail as possible.

You can't for a number of reasons. (it would be pure speculation if you tried)

So there are questions you do not know the answer to.
This is how things are. Maybe we will one day know, maybe not.

However you spend plenty of time trying (badly) to prove a god that only about 33% of the world thinks is true - clearly you think other gods are false - do you ever spend any time on proving those gods to not be or debunking those ideas? If not, why not?

Clearly you spend time on trying to convince the non-believer of the belief you have, because you think it is true, yet when I calmly and rationally explain why your arguments will not, can not work, you don't seem to care anymore and shift the topic to something else.

Have you studied informal logic yet?

https://www.youtube.com/@DeconvertedMan

Otangelo


Admin

Limited causal alternatives  do not justify to claim of " not knowing "
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1810-its-not-justified-to-claim-ignorance-limited-causal-alternatives-for-origins-do-not-justify-to-claim-of-not-knowing#2991

Why do positive, active, strong militant atheists or weak atheists/agnostics promote their views with such fervor and time spent?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2379-why-do-postive-active-strong-militant-atheists-promote-naturalism-with-such-fervor-and-time-spending

The actions of atheist proselytizers are counterproductive and misguided. Their sole aim appears to be diminishing others' faith, rather than contributing positively to society or enriching people's lives. It gives them a false sense of freedom, but in reality, it adds little value.

If an atheist's ultimate answer to questions of origins is "I don't know," why do they eagerly engage with theists, expressing their freely chosen ignorance and perceived lack of meaning in their lives? Do they genuinely believe that they can convince theists that ignorance is blissful? Do they think that ignorance exerts some positive force, influence, or attraction that should be embraced? This seems highly unlikely, especially considering that theists have repeatedly demonstrated that their views are not based on gaps in understanding.

One wonders how anyone can personally find fulfillment in being an atheist. It's as if they possess the keys to a luxurious mansion filled with gourmet food and fine furniture, but instead, they choose to live in the squalor of a garbage dump, scrounging for rotting scraps to eat. It's difficult to imagine a more senseless endeavor than that of weak atheists who have nothing else to offer but to engage with theists solely to express their ignorance.

It's akin to a homeless, jobless, and hungry vagrant sitting on a street corner, seeing a successful, happy, and fulfilled person passing by, and trying to convince them that their state of affairs is more attractive and better than anyone else's. It's a puzzling and seemingly futile effort.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum