Q about arguments for God's existence.

[Tonus]

Thank you Creator for Huntington's disease and cancer!!! You're the best!!!

It's an important point, though. When we're asked to observe the world around us and see god reflected in nature, why wouldn't we also study the scary and horrible things and wonder what they tell us about him? If nature was all waterfalls and infant's laughter, it might be more convincing as the product of a conscious and caring mind.

Then again, we're talking about a deity who uses something as pretty as a rainbow to remind us that he once slaughtered nearly every living thing on the planet because he was feeling a bit put off.

[MindForgedManacle]

Please blind us with your brilliance.

I thought you were the one who said that with a few short questions you could show that the Big Bang theory was ridiculous. We've been waiting for you to do so. You have repeatedly in this thread been shown to be full of shit. Put up or shut up, you sound about intelligent as Ken Ham.

[Mister Agenda]

So, dark matter is the new wind?

This argument always used to be used about the wind, until it was thoroughly debunked.

Now, it's dark matter.

When dark matter is proven to exist then it will be something else we can't hear, see, or taste.

RJA

You use the same argument against God, it's good to see you being critical of your own statements.

It's not the same argument. You're just too dense to tell the difference.

---

The same goes for dark matter. We can't see it, we don't yet know what it is, but unless everything we know about gravity and relativity is wrong, there is *something*, a whole lot of something that we can't see.

You can't know that, it's physically unobserved.

The effects are observed. Like the effects of wind. Broadly speaking, effects are ALL we ever observe of anything.

---

Lol

Case in point.

Radio waves can't be seen, touched, smelled, heard or tasted.

They must not exist either! It's those goddamn scientists at it again! Trying to make fools of uneducated backwoods children of God!

I've heard them.

No, you've heard sound from a device that can detect them. You can't hear radio waves. Is someone here paying you to make it seem like Christians are this clueless?

---

No that's not how observations work in science. You don't have to physically observe something for its effects to be tested and measured, and not all observations have to be made visually; in fact hardly any scientific observation is visual.

But that's what you require of God, seems you are setting a double standard.

GC

That God's supposed 'effects' be testable and measurable is exactly the same standard.

[Jackalope]

---

I've heard them.

No, you've heard sound from a device that can detect them. You can't hear radio waves. Is someone here paying you to make it seem like Christians are this clueless?

Indeed. Even the low end of the AM band at 540KHz is far, far above the limits of human hearing (the upper limit of which is in the neighborhood of 20KHz.)

To oversimplify quite a bit, what you hear is the lower frequency sound wave after it's been separated from the carrier wave. Nobody has heard radio waves, ever. It's an absolute impossibility given the limits of human hearing, the same way that no human has ever seen into the infrared or ultraviolet, and why we depend on indirect observation to detect *damn near everything*.

[JesusHChrist]

I've heard them.

You've not heard radio waves. Humans have NO ability to hear electromagnetic radiation. Hearing is based on the air being compressed/decompressed. The higher the rate of compression/decompression, the higher the perceived pitch. Sure we can see light, which is a type of EMR, but you can't hear it without it being converted electronically into sound waves (that air thingy again), and even then it would need to fall within the range of human hearing (about 20-20k Hz).

JesusHChrist man -- use google to develop even a cursory knowledge base for things you pretend to have some inkling of understanding.

It's.Really.Not.Hard.

Science is not your bag. Penis expanders maybe, but not science.

[Mister Agenda]

As a 21st Century educated American you should be able to see the flaws in the Big Bang Theory yourself. It partially works on an individual star basis when a star goes supernova but not for the creation of the universe. Think about it and you will see why.

Um, you're so ignorant of what you're speaking about that you don't seem to be able to comprehend the true extent of your ignorance. The evidence points to a universe that existed in a hot, dense state, then rapidly expanded. The theory does not address how long the universe existed in that dense state before expanding, or the cause of the expansion, it's pretty much a straight up description of what observations indicate happened, like describing the cause of death of a dinosaur with lots of T Rex teeth in it. It has nothing to do with supernovas.

---

If I know God, and a billion other people know God, I consider that pretty good evidence for God. If God is supernatural, and you look for proof only by natural means you won't find him. I can understand why you consider the existence of God to be illogical, but it's hard to convince someone who knows God that he really doesn't know him.

And if a billion other people know a different God? And if another billion people know multiple gods? What's the most logical conclusion for a person who doesn't 'know' any gods to reach from that information?

---

If 4 billion people on the planet claim to know Susan and they can't agree about what Susan is, I may not know exactly what she is, but I would definitely be convinced that she exists.

If the vast majority of people agreed that God is fictional, would you think that was a good argument that you should cease believing that God is real?

---

I'm not buying the Big Bang Theory because it's silly. The quantum foam theory is most likely closer to the truth. That's because we are almost certain that once hydrogen forms it clumps together into giant balls and goes nuclear to create stars. And then the stars cook up the heavier elements. That process wouldn't have happened under the Big Bang.

The 'quantum foam theory' is that a quantum vacuum fluctuation gave rise to the 'Big Bang'.

---

Countless people believe in Noah's flood but it's not true. Based on the evidence Americans aren't very smart about a lot of things so claiming that the Big Bang is true because a lot of people believe it isn't a wise thing to do.

It's not true because a lot of people believe in it. It's not even true because a lot of experts believe in it, although that's an entirely different kettle of fish. It's just the most likely explanation for the available evidence, and the people most qualified to evaluate the evidence agree on it, despite there being a Nobel Prize in it for any of them who can show it's wrong.

Hell, most of them don't even know which country they live in or where it is.

Most astrophysicists and cosmologists don't know where their country is? Because those are the people the rest of us are talking about.

Chances are I can get you to admit that the Big Bang is silly by asking you a series of questions.

Chances are I can get you to admit that you're a moron by asking you a series of questions, if you're stupid enough to play along. If you actually had something, it wouldn't take a game to show it.

---

That's what I just said above. God has revealed himself in creation, so no one has an excuse not to believe in him. From that point is where the differences of revelation come in.

If God, then existence.
Existence, therefore God.

The syllogism affirms the consequent and is invalid. The following syllogism makes the same mistake:

If I am Bill Gates, I am rich.
I am rich, therefore I am Bill Gates.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Has Wyrd of God explained where cosmic background radiation comes from if there wasn't a Big Bang yet, or is it just another thing, like dark matter or quarks, radio waves and atoms he dismisses because he can't see it with the naked eye?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Please blind us with your brilliance.

I thought you were the one who said that with a few short questions you could show that the Big Bang theory was ridiculous. We've been waiting for you to do so. You have repeatedly in this thread been shown to be full of shit. Put up or shut up, you sound about intelligent as Ken Ham.

OK.
First question:

It's estimated that the Milky Way Galaxy is about 13.2 billion years. If an observer was there 13.2 billion years ago looking out into space would he have seen the same distant galaxies that we can see now, which some people say are 13.7 billion years old?

[StuW]

I thought you were the one who said that with a few short questions you could show that the Big Bang theory was ridiculous. We've been waiting for you to do so. You have repeatedly in this thread been shown to be full of shit. Put up or shut up, you sound about intelligent as Ken Ham.

OK.
First question:

It's estimated that the Milky Way Galaxy is about 13.2 billion years. If an observer was there 13.2 billion years ago looking out into space would he have seen the same distant galaxies that we can see now, which some people say are 13.7 billion years old?

Taking a closer look at the XDF (see a larger version), there are lots of spiral galaxies (similar to our own Milky Way), red galaxies (the remnants of galaxy collisions, which were much more common when the universe had first formed), and tiny dots that are mere galaxy seedlings. Remember, the XDF peers 13.2 billion years into the past, to when the universe was just 450 million years old. Today, 13.2 billion years later, the galaxies will look completely different — they will have moved apart, some will have ceased to exist, and the seedlings might have grown into full-blown galaxies.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/13686...e-universe

[FatAndFaithless]

Elvis is still alive! We never landed on the moon! Chemtrails!