Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?

[theVOID]

If you want to know how to just know, it is called faith, and some people have a whole helluva lot more than other people do.

It's not "knowing" - Knowledge is verified, what you have there is a stab in the dark.

[Minimalist]

You went out on an expedition of your own with a crew and a ship and research technologies and foun dout evolution was true? You are one dedicated dude!

You never saw your godboy come back from the dead, either. Why you believe that particular bit of bullshit is up to you but you do not require that he come back every year and demonstrate it for you.

Likewise, Evolution does not have to be experienced by everyone who accepts the evidence (yes! EVIDENCE) of its existence.

[Watson]

Haha, mistake me for a Christian why don't you? I guess you have to have a label to put upon your so-called 'enemy', somehow. Oh well.

In truth I am still very much on the path to finding my own way in life, and know that the journey ahead will be full of potholes, questions unanswered, and strange sights/detours. I've explored certain venues and found them completely undesirable, and am now just taking particular interest in Christianity. If I've stumbled upon my place, then so be it. Awesome.

It's completely personal.

You went out on an expedition of your own with a crew and a ship and research technologies and foun dout evolution was true? You are one dedicated dude!

You never saw your godboy come back from the dead, either. Why you believe that particular bit of bullshit is up to you but you do not require that he come back every year and demonstrate it for you.

Likewise, Evolution does not have to be experienced by everyone who accepts the evidence (yes! EVIDENCE) of its existence.

Wow, I'm terribly sorry you're so scared of religion and Christianity, really I am. It's nothing to be afraid of, dude. People using religion and Christianity, now that's a different story.

And thanks for proving my point with your post, too. It's all a matter of perception, and if you haven't seen it happen, it just depends upon which things you choose to put your belief and faith in. I choose God and evolution, thanks very much. I trust my own eyes and other's eyes on both counts.

[Autumnlicious]

Thing is, evolution can be demonstrated in a laboratory (See Lenski experiment).

Demonstrate God for me in a lab. Then we'll be on equal footing.

[Watson]

Thing is, evolution can be demonstrated in a laboratory (See Lenski experiment).

Demonstrate God for me in a lab. Then we'll be on equal footing.

HA HA! Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I'll look into the Lenski experiment, might be interesting to learn about.

But, have you ever recreated it yourself? Seen it for yourself? Done it for yurself?

[Autumnlicious]

HA HA! Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I'll look into the Lenski experiment, might be interesting to learn about.

But, have you ever recreated it yourself? Seen it for yourself? Done it for yurself?

The processes involved in science can be replicated and analyzed repeatedly. So, with the proper training, I, as well as anyone else, with 20 years to spend, could recreate it.

The reasons one defers to the experts is based on a rational expectation. Just like when you turn on a light or go to the doctor, one has a rational expectation that the light turns on and the doctor with his diagnosis is correct. If the light is out or the doctor is wrong, it is not a paradigm shattering event. With both, you can run through each step of the actions involved to repeat it. If the filament is broken, then an integrative step by step analysis of light bulbs and the processes you were involved in will identify that. If the doctor is wrong, one can (with proper training) analyze every step of the diagnostic.

Key word is repeatability. And anything real is repeatable, limited only by our understanding and research. But just because we cannot do certain actions doesn't throw out the repeatability for an experiment or occurrence - it simply means we cannot do certain actions. A lack of evidence is simply a lack of evidence, nothing more.

[Darwinian]

Thing is, evolution can be demonstrated in a laboratory (See Lenski experiment).

Demonstrate God for me in a lab. Then we'll be on equal footing.

HA HA! Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Then you must have lead an incredibly sheltered and quiet life to date if that sounds ridiculous to you. :S

[fr0d0]

I'd love to see this logical argument you speak of.

Use your brain and think about it then. You insist on verifiable evidence for your so called reasoning. So when you're sure, THEN you decide it's true. You cannot reason without someone else having done the work for you.

Then you must have lead an incredibly sheltered and quiet life to date if that sounds ridiculous to you.

You think there can be evidence for God?! Which tree did you just fall out of?

[Edwardo Piet]

If you want to know how to just know, it is called faith, and some people have a whole helluva lot more than other people do.

If you don't know how you know with 'just faith' then how can you really know?

I, personally, think it's incredibly arrogant to say that you know without any explanation as to how you can hold absolute knowledge on these matter - and furthermore, I think it's completely absurd to think that "Faith" equates to 'knowing' - faith is blind trust... you wouldn't need 'faith' if you actually had evidence so it's about as far from 'knowing' as you get.

How... can you know...? You say "with faith", but that's simply begging the question: How can you know... 'with faith'??

EvF

[rjh4 is back]

---

If that is all that is meant by evolution...then I wholeheartedly agree (in which case, I could be considered both a creationist and an evolutionist).

You misunderstand me. What I said was that even if God had created the first life forms, it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution isn't concerned with how life got here, only how life has diversified. What the evidence does show, is that all life is related to a single ancestor. Whether this ancestor was the first life, or whether there were lots of other life forms that simply died out, and this was the only to survive, is unknown.

But I do not think many evolutionary scientists would agree with you. If one took your view, there would not be much debate between evolutionists and creationists. Creationists think that there were many different initial life forms created by God and would agree that the life forms that we see today descended from those initial life forms.

My position was a hypothetical, nothing more. It didn't say God created anything, nor did it say that there were more than one first life form. If God created the single cell as the first life form, then what we see in the animal kingdom today is everything that evolved from that point. If God created lots of different types of life, then all those died out, leaving one which survived and evolved.

It is highly likely from the evidence at hand that only one life form emerged, and this evolved into every organism we see today.

I wonder what would happen if someone tried to explain evolution in a schoolbook such that it covered the situation where there were multiple initial life forms. Would the governments/courts allow this?

Yes. It's a valid theory, as long as they mentioned the conclusions we can draw form this (i.e. that all life today is related to only one common ancestor, not to several. As I said, whether there was only one or multiple life forms is unknown. The evidence points to one, but it is possible others existed and died out.

I wonder what would happen if a scientist tried to publish a paper in a scientific journal using such a broad definition of evolution. Would it pass peer review?

What broad definition? That organisms adapt, change, evolve? That isn't a broad definition...that's a simplistic definition. I doubt a scientist would put it in those terms to begin with.

It would sure eliminate much of the conflict. But I think evolutionary scientists would balk at such a teaching since evolution as it is taught in schools is "common descent", meaning ALL life forms have a common anscestor.

What is taught it what the evidence shows, that all life has a single common ancestor. As I said before, the only way in which there could be multiple common ancestors would be if that ancestor died out very early on, taking all of its descendants with it.

Would you support teaching evolution in that manner in schools?

That wouldn't be teaching evolution, but rather abiogenesis. The creation of life has nothing to do with the diversity of life. You can hypothesise upon abiogenesis producing multiple organisms, but the theory of evolution as it stands only supports one common descendant. The evidence simply doesn't show any others.

---

Adrian, please provide the evidence that leads you to be able to distinguish between:

1) All life has a single common descendant.

2) Some of life has one common descendant and some of life has a different common descendant.

In other words, a single common descendant compared to two common descendants.

Since you say that the evidence only supports 1) but not 2), I want to know what that evidence is.