Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 28, 2024, 8:41 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What would you consider to be evidence for God?
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
Magic?
Reply
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
(July 29, 2016 at 3:56 pm)Stimbo Wrote: All you've done, snowy, is say that the Universe was created by something with the ability to create a universe, follow it up with some storybook references to "God" making a universe, then conclude that that proves "God" exists. That literally is all you have succeeded in doing. The fact that you feel the need to play it up as a dichotomy with unsupported emphasis on the impossibility of the opposite extreme only highlights your insecurity in your own argument,
Perhaps 100 years ago the logic would be circular, but discoveries in science have validated the Bible which said it first.
1. Universe has constant laws of physics - “I have established the covenant of day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth” .
2. Universe is expanding - He created the heavens and stretched them out.” and ‘stretching out the heavens like a tent’ - the Hebrew verb form here indicates a continual or ongoing stretching.
3. Universe is decaying - In Romans 8 it’s state that the entire creation has been subjected to the law of decay.
4. Universe had a beginning - “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.

What sciences says:
1. Astronomers have look back into time within 200,000 years of the big bang event and have seen no change in the physical laws, and other sciences have not detected any changes.
2. Hubble discovered this shortly after General Relativity published.
3. 2’nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
4. The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand.
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
Reply
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
You're as wacky as the occasional muslim fuckwit who drops by with the same silly shit, son.

Time to grow up.  There is no god.
Reply
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
(July 31, 2016 at 1:56 am)snowtracks Wrote:
(July 29, 2016 at 3:56 pm)Stimbo Wrote: All you've done, snowy, is say that the Universe was created by something with the ability to create a universe, follow it up with some storybook references to "God" making a universe, then conclude that that proves "God" exists. That literally is all you have succeeded in doing. The fact that you feel the need to play it up as a dichotomy with unsupported emphasis on the impossibility of the opposite extreme only highlights your insecurity in your own argument,
Perhaps 100 years ago the logic would be circular, but discoveries in science have validated the Bible which said it first.
1. Universe has constant laws of physics - “I have established the covenant of day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth” .
2. Universe is expanding - He created the heavens and stretched them out.” and ‘stretching out the heavens like a tent’ - the Hebrew verb form here indicates a continual or ongoing stretching.
3. Universe is decaying - In Romans 8 it’s state that the entire creation has been subjected to the law of decay.
4. Universe had a beginning - “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.

What sciences says:
1. Astronomers have look back into time within 200,000 years of the big bang event and have seen no change in the physical laws, and other sciences have not detected any changes.
2. Hubble discovered this shortly after General Relativity published.
3. 2’nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
4. The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand.

Yes its just so amazing how these old myths get so much right ... still deciding which fairy tale I will devote the rest of my life worshiping?

Once upon a time .... Clearly states there was a beginning

And they all lived happily ever after.... Clearly the goodies live forever, even after the end

The end .... Obviously there is an end
Religion is the top shelf of the supernatural supermarket ... Madog
Reply
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
Who cares if they got some stuff right?

They didn't, but even if they did, it gives us no clue as to how they knew it.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
He hasn't even shown that they did get some stuff right. Again, at most he's trawled the text for a few phrases which look like they refer to the Big Bang and the expansion of the Universe and stapled them to a totally unsupported conclusion that this is what the storytellers were thinking of when they wrote this stuff down. It's all a grotesque non-sequitur argument from ignorance and he expects us either to prove it wrong or swallow it wholecloth. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
The Bible says people existed.
Reply
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
Snow tracks, after the fact conformity between some Scripture and modern scientific discoveries really don't prove anything. First lots of other verses reflect an ancient cosmology. Second, no one ever claims that a given verse predicts an as yet undiscovered scientific fact or theory. I cannot. Can you?
Reply
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
(July 31, 2016 at 1:56 am)snowtracks Wrote:
(July 29, 2016 at 3:56 pm)Stimbo Wrote: All you've done, snowy, is say that the Universe was created by something with the ability to create a universe, follow it up with some storybook references to "God" making a universe, then conclude that that proves "God" exists. That literally is all you have succeeded in doing. The fact that you feel the need to play it up as a dichotomy with unsupported emphasis on the impossibility of the opposite extreme only highlights your insecurity in your own argument,
Perhaps 100 years ago the logic would be circular, but discoveries in science have validated the Bible which said it first.
1. Universe has constant laws of physics - “I have established the covenant of day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth” .
2. Universe is expanding - He created the heavens and stretched them out.” and ‘stretching out the heavens like a tent’ - the Hebrew verb form here indicates a continual or ongoing stretching.
3. Universe is decaying - In Romans 8 it’s state that the entire creation has been subjected to the law of decay.
4. Universe had a beginning - “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.

What sciences says:
1. Astronomers have look back into time within 200,000 years of the big bang event and have seen no change in the physical laws, and other sciences have not detected any changes.
2. Hubble discovered this shortly after General Relativity published.
3. 2’nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
4. The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand.

On your four "points":

1) Just because A says X and B says something similar you cannot infer that A supports the truthfulness of B. The fact that, as far as we know, scientific principles are constant across the universe does not even remotely lead one to be able to surmise that god exists nor that science has provided evidence for god. In fact everything we know in science leads us to be confident that god is not necessary, and what is not necessary can be safely disregarded without evidence (for which the god hypothesis has none). Also in your "science says" part you give scientific evidence which flat out contradicts biblical "truth". The bible states the world is c. 6,000 years old and yet you can agree that scientists can accurately see to within 200,000 years of the big bang (an event which itself contradicts biblical creation).

2) No the bible didn't posit an expanding universe. The bible posits that the "heavens", to which we are generous in accepting that they meant the universe (the fact is ancient hebrews knew fuck all about the universe thinking stars were simply fixed pinpricks in the "heavens" and other absurdities), is a fixed plane which is permanently put in place above the world and doesn't move. Thus the bible posits a stationary non-expansionary universe not an expansionary one.

3) We don't actually know if the universe is decaying overall, while it probably is the universe may not be a closed system (which is one of the necessary conditions for 2 Thermodynamics to hold) and if it is not, it need not decay, just like the earth is not decaying currently as it is receiving energy from an outside source. Plus the "law of decay" you refer to in Romans is not talking about entropy but talking about the "decay" one is supposed to experience when one is "removed from god", in order to show that such decay exists you have to prove the existence of the christian god, an impossible task because he doesn't exist.

4) Again, the big bang refutes biblical creation. In the biblical creation we have a group of gods (as per the bible) creating the world ex nihilo and then creating the "heavens" as a cloak to put around the flat earth described in the creation. This myth doesn't accurately describe the shape of the world, never mind the circumstances in which came about. An accurate bible creation story would have talked about the singularity that existed before space time had meaning, its expansion and how c.9bn years after this expansion started a clump of dust in a nebula accreted to form the proto star which became sol, and that the ring of dust around it clumped together to form the small planetisemals which eventually, by a process of hovering up other gasses and dust in the cloud and collisions, formed the planets and asteroid belts which we know as the solar system. As you can see the biblical creation myth has absolutely nothing to say about reality, and therefore science has no way to validate it.

Of course your nonsense comes to a deeper problem with your assertions. You are asserting that the bible has "predicted" scientific principles or cosmic history when it has done nothing of the sort. What others have done, and you have swallowed, is mendaciously cherrypicked passages from the bible which on a very superficial and ignorant reading of scientific principles can be made out to agree with those scientific principles, after the science was developed. If those passages were truly scientific, then we would expect medieval scholars to be able to show scientific knowledge like the laws of thermodynamics, and explain phenomena like solar system formation simply from reading the bible and applying the knowledge therein to the world they saw. Instead we see medieval scholars posit a very simplistic view of the universe, full of wrong suppositions and ideas which were generated by their reading of the bible.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli

Home
Reply
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
(July 31, 2016 at 1:56 am)snowtracks Wrote: Perhaps 100 years ago the logic would be circular, but discoveries in science have validated the Bible which said it first.
1. Universe has constant laws of physics - “I have established the covenant of day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth” .
2. Universe is expanding - He created the heavens and stretched them out.” and ‘stretching out the heavens like a tent’ - the Hebrew verb form here indicates a continual or ongoing stretching.
3. Universe is decaying - In Romans 8 it’s state that the entire creation has been subjected to the law of decay.
4. Universe had a beginning - “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.

What sciences says:
1. Astronomers have look back into time within 200,000 years of the big bang event and have seen no change in the physical laws, and other sciences have not detected any changes.
2. Hubble discovered this shortly after General Relativity published.
3. 2’nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
4. The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand.

What comes in mind here is the law of truly large numbers. Also, it's funny how the verse regarding the Big Bang has been found in ancient Vedas and sumerian scriptures (dating 4000 years back)

If you think logically now. Think about how many thousand scientific facts there are. Is it really impossible that in a book with hundreds and thousands there are some verses that resemble science? 

Watch the beginning of this video for a demonstration, it also indirectly shows data manipulation although that was not the intention of the video itself The "scientific miracles" are merely data manipulation and mathematics. The Qur'an has tons of those, they're just as bs.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Veridical NDEs: Evidence/Proof of the Soul and the After-Life? Nishant Xavier 34 3378 July 17, 2024 at 7:34 am
Last Post: arewethereyet
  Dear Atheists: what would convince you God/Christ is Real? JJoseph 209 22020 June 12, 2024 at 10:54 pm
Last Post: arewethereyet
  If you learned that the god of [insert religion] is real, would all bets be off? Sicnoo0 59 8333 June 12, 2024 at 10:38 pm
Last Post: Prycejosh1987
  The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Nishant Xavier 38 4181 August 7, 2023 at 10:24 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  When were the Gospels Written? The External and Internal Evidence. Nishant Xavier 62 5270 August 6, 2023 at 10:25 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Isaiah 53, 700 B.C: Historical Evidence of the Divine Omniscience. Nishant Xavier 91 7435 August 6, 2023 at 2:19 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Conscience and the Moral Argument as Evidence for the Goodness of God. Nishant Xavier 162 15151 July 9, 2023 at 7:53 am
Last Post: Deesse23
  Signature in the Cell: DNA as Evidence for Design, beside Nature's Laws/Fine-Tuning. Nishant Xavier 54 4697 July 8, 2023 at 8:23 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Why the resurrection accounts are not evidence LinuxGal 5 1295 October 29, 2022 at 2:01 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Can you consider Atheism an ethnicity UniverseCaptain 31 4162 September 27, 2021 at 7:23 pm
Last Post: UniverseCaptain



Users browsing this thread: 31 Guest(s)