Okay, Let's Cut To The Chase!

[POI]

Dear Christians of all flavor(s),

I trust it is no surprise there exists a populous here, which lay claim to 'atheism', 'deism', or maybe other... In a nutshell, for me, this ultimately means I do not believe any such claimed Christian God exists - trying though as I might.... Which-is-to-mean, I was raised in a Christian house hold. However, after much study, I cannot get myself to belief such a claimed agent actually exists. Chalk it up, ultimately, to the topic of 'divine hiddenness' I guess...?

It is also evident there exists devout 'Christians' in this arena, of all flavors, who may feel they are 'fighting the good fight'; by defending their belief(s)/faith/rationale in the assertion of the existence to the "Christian God".

That being said, I am laying down the gauntlet, so-to-speak... Some here, as well as outside of here, are as sure as anything, that not only does God exist, but the Christian God! Well, I politely disagree. Meaning, I don't believe the "Christian based" assertion/claim.

I can't imagine this request will be anything new. Nor, can I imagine that I will encounter any new sort of enlightenment. But, being this is a rather large and important topic; I will continue to search, optimistically, that there exists some sort of 'concrete evidence(s)' to demonstrate that not only a God exists ---> but also the Christian God.

For Debate:

Please demonstrate the mere existence of the Christian God?

[TRANSPONDER]

Note that I did not say that these were the ONLY ones in each category; there are far, far more. All of the ones I did include do show major evidence for the existence of God. Perhaps the two biggest are the argument of the necessity of a first cause, also referred to as the "Cosmological Argument" which actually dates back to Aristotle, and the scientific argument of the exact fine-tuning of the universal constants to not only allow for a universe to exist but also to allow for life to exist. This is something which is acknowledged by virtually every acknowledged scientist no matter what their faith or lack thereof. There is also no getting around the "Miracle of the Sun" which was witnessed by approximately 70,000+ people and was reported in newspapers around the world.

I politely ask again. Which one do you want to address the most? This is not my first rodeo. I'm aware there exists many 'arguments'

Weak as it is, start with the first one and go on from there. What you are asking is for me to try to reduce an encyclopedia down to one article that represents the entire group. All of these are coming from different directions, but they all point to the exact same thing.

Well, let's start with this one first, since you admit the first one is weak and the second one is strong. (i.e.):

"The necessity for a “First Cause” that relies on nothing else for its own existence."

I'll start by saying.... If 'science' is correct, and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead only repurposed; this means there exists no reason to invent or assert a god in charge of 'creation', right?

No, it does not mean that at all. Not only is it changing the subject to a new one, but the fact that matter can neither be created or destroyed is in fact another of my scientific evidences of God, albeit not mentioned in my original reply. There was no "matter' involved in the "Big Bang"; it was pure energy. The energy became hydrogen, the hydrogen became the various suns, the gravity of the suns produced helium, when the suns eventually went supernova other matter was produced. But the essential point is, where did the energy come from? The only clear answer without going through the mental gymnastics of appealing to other universes that no one truly know exist is God whose omnipotent energy is the driving force of our universe (as well as any other universes that may exist). If you are going to address the "first cause" assertion then address it. Everything PHYSICAL needs a cause for its existence. Physical things exist. When you go through all of this caused that, and that caused this you eventually arrive that the necessary answer that there had to be a non-physical first cause.

Thanks for providing evidence for the existence of the One True God, Allah and his prophet, peace be upon him. Was it noting that everything physical needs a cause that led you to Allah in the first place, or something else entirely?

Thanks for your support here akhi! Not that Allah needs it, but a good ḥawāriyyūn is a good ḥawāriyyūn!

No, that came later. I think what led me to God was my discovery of the Fibonacci sequence, although I did not know anything about it at the time. You could say that I discovered God in a blade of grass. I was atheistic when 17-18 but when resting from mowing the lawn I sat down and rested with my back leaning against a tree and idly picked a blade of grass. In its order and symmetry I saw design and purpose. Then I saw it almost everywhere I looked! Over the next few years I went through a lot of stages from Deism through Roman Catholicism, and did examine many different religions including Islam. I found that Roman Catholicism was the absolute closest to my beliefs (although I do wonder about a few things taught there as well).

I wish you the fairest winds in your journey towards Him.

You were misled in seeing that the order and purpose o natural design led to a god. It is an understandable error but an error nonetheless. I can understand that the ID stuff like the golden mean and Fibonacci series can be seen as evidence of a mind at work and I won't get into that here. So you got to Deism, and rather skip over the process of getting to Christianity and thus Catholicism. In fact I don't propose to demand an explanation and undertake to demolish iot because after all your beliefs are your own affair. But if you stay here you may ge to hear why I and a few others do not accept any man -made religion (i.e any of them) and you may, like some others, see your way clear out of it.

[brunumb]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #416]

It's a shame you spent so much time and tired yourself out writing down all that so-called evidence because none of it actually requires there to be a god.

Did you actually read what I wrote and try to understand it? Or did you come up with your "answer" before you even read the first one. I have shown how ALL of these actually DO point to the existence of God.

Like others here, this is not my first time around the block. Everything you posted has been presented countless times before and been thoroughly rebutted. I will observe with amusement as the merry-go-round starts up again.

[POI]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #416]

It's a shame you spent so much time and tired yourself out writing down all that so-called evidence because none of it actually requires there to be a god.

Did you actually read what I wrote and try to understand it? Or did you come up with your "answer" before you even read the first one. I have shown how ALL of these actually DO point to the existence of God.

Like others here, this is not my first time around the block. Everything you posted has been presented countless times before and been thoroughly rebutted. I will observe with amusement as the merry-go-round starts up again.

Yea, it's almost as if some theists here have never really attempted to seek the counter arguments.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #416]

It's a shame you spent so much time and tired yourself out writing down all that so-called evidence because none of it actually requires there to be a god.

Did you actually read what I wrote and try to understand it? Or did you come up with your "answer" before you even read the first one. I have shown how ALL of these actually DO point to the existence of God.

Like others here, this is not my first time around the block. Everything you posted has been presented countless times before and been thoroughly rebutted. I will observe with amusement as the merry-go-round starts up again.

Hmm.... so like one of your friends here who appealed to science apparently without having a clue what that science is saying, you appeal to the mysterious "others" to rebut these amusing trivial points without even understanding what they are saying. The "first cause" point has been around since Aristotle. Despite numerous attempts it hasn't been rebutted since, only ignored.

[DaveD49]

Note that I did not say that these were the ONLY ones in each category; there are far, far more. All of the ones I did include do show major evidence for the existence of God. Perhaps the two biggest are the argument of the necessity of a first cause, also referred to as the "Cosmological Argument" which actually dates back to Aristotle, and the scientific argument of the exact fine-tuning of the universal constants to not only allow for a universe to exist but also to allow for life to exist. This is something which is acknowledged by virtually every acknowledged scientist no matter what their faith or lack thereof. There is also no getting around the "Miracle of the Sun" which was witnessed by approximately 70,000+ people and was reported in newspapers around the world.

I politely ask again. Which one do you want to address the most? This is not my first rodeo. I'm aware there exists many 'arguments'

Weak as it is, start with the first one and go on from there. What you are asking is for me to try to reduce an encyclopedia down to one article that represents the entire group. All of these are coming from different directions, but they all point to the exact same thing.

Well, let's start with this one first, since you admit the first one is weak and the second one is strong. (i.e.):

"The necessity for a “First Cause” that relies on nothing else for its own existence."

I'll start by saying.... If 'science' is correct, and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead only repurposed; this means there exists no reason to invent or assert a god in charge of 'creation', right?

No, it does not mean that at all. Not only is it changing the subject to a new one, but the fact that matter can neither be created or destroyed is in fact another of my scientific evidences of God, albeit not mentioned in my original reply. There was no "matter' involved in the "Big Bang"; it was pure energy. The energy became hydrogen, the hydrogen became the various suns, the gravity of the suns produced helium, when the suns eventually went supernova other matter was produced. But the essential point is, where did the energy come from? The only clear answer without going through the mental gymnastics of appealing to other universes that no one truly know exist is God whose omnipotent energy is the driving force of our universe (as well as any other universes that may exist). If you are going to address the "first cause" assertion then address it. Everything PHYSICAL needs a cause for its existence. Physical things exist. When you go through all of this caused that, and that caused this you eventually arrive that the necessary answer that there had to be a non-physical first cause.

Thanks for providing evidence for the existence of the One True God, Allah and his prophet, peace be upon him. Was it noting that everything physical needs a cause that led you to Allah in the first place, or something else entirely?

Thanks for your support here akhi! Not that Allah needs it, but a good ḥawāriyyūn is a good ḥawāriyyūn!

No, that came later. I think what led me to God was my discovery of the Fibonacci sequence, although I did not know anything about it at the time. You could say that I discovered God in a blade of grass. I was atheistic when 17-18 but when resting from mowing the lawn I sat down and rested with my back leaning against a tree and idly picked a blade of grass. In its order and symmetry I saw design and purpose. Then I saw it almost everywhere I looked! Over the next few years I went through a lot of stages from Deism through Roman Catholicism, and did examine many different religions including Islam. I found that Roman Catholicism was the absolute closest to my beliefs (although I do wonder about a few things taught there as well).

I wish you the fairest winds in your journey towards Him.

You were misled in seeing that the order and purpose o natural design led to a god. It is an understandable error but an error nonetheless. I can understand that the ID stuff like the golden mean and Fibonacci series can be seen as evidence of a mind at work and I won't get into that here. So you got to Deism, and rather skip over the process of getting to Christianity and thus Catholicism. In fact I don't propose to demand an explanation and undertake to demolish iot because after all your beliefs are your own affair. But if you stay here you may ge to hear why I and a few others do not accept any man -made religion (i.e any of them) and you may, like some others, see your way clear out of it.

In a universe that began by happenstance there should be no "natural design". Design shows intelligence. Why should spiral galaxies conform to the Fibonacci sequence? Keep in mind that Fibonacci did not create the sequence that bears his name, he discovered it. Likewise ALL the universal constants were not made by men, but rather discovered. So how do you explain how the strength of gravity is at the exact setting it has to be for a universe to exist? If there is no mind behind this then you have to account for it somehow scientifically. If your response is "I don't know, maybe future science will prove something" then it seems to me that the logical choice is to accept the possibility that a mega-intelligence did start things going because at least that provides a possible answer. If and when science does advance enough to provide some answers, then that might be the time to reevaluate. The same hold true for all other up to 167 universal constants as their strength likewise could have been anywhere on a incredibly huge scale.

Also I am not trying to convert people. If they have truly thought things through and made a rational decision to be an atheist they have no problems with me. My brother is an atheist. The ones that bother me are those who insist that there is no God but have little to no reason for believing so. They latch on to what others say even if they do not understand it. I think you know that there are a few here like that.

[DaveD49]

Science has already proven that the universe most certainly is not eternal

Let's start here.... You are making a claim. Prove it.

In the mean time, since you like to name drop, I will do so as well. And keep in mind, this provided video is not an appeal to authority or an appeal to consensus. It really does not matter WHO is in the video, but what the video states, and how it came to such a non-conclusion. (spoiler alert) "we don't know yet if the universe had a beginning?"

Yes, I made a claim and I already showed the evidence to support that claim. There is nothing I have to prove, and as I already mentioned it is illogical to ask for "proofs" of God's existence because only things in the physical world can be proven. You cannot use science to prove the spiritual or supernatural realm.

In as far as the video, sorry, but the concepts which they are talking about in the video are often referred to as "pseudo-science". I even spoke about them in my opening statement. They are considered pseudo-science because there is absolutely no way to to test and verify them, which is an essential part of the Scientific Method. Science can only test what they can measure, which means that it is confined to what is within our universe. Science could never verify these concepts because they are relying on what is outside of the universe or before it existed. Likewise the timing of when these concepts came into being is interesting in that it was only after the exact fine-tuning of all the universal constants became so well known, and that this fact points clearly to an intelligence involved in the creation process. It is almost as if these scientists were just looking for any way to explain away the fine tuning that so devastated their position. If our universe was just one of an infinite number of universes then we a just the lucky one which got everything right. In one of his videos Hawking actually verified this when he made the comment that "no God was necessary". Why would he bring God into what was suppose to be a purely scientific talk? Obviously it was something on his mind. The final line of the video was the classic "hope" line that future discoveries in the laws of physics would hopefully explain how it happened. They were admitting right there that they know that what they are talking about is not science. It is interesting that I even mentioned that line in my opening statement before I ever saw the video.

Also, it is not just the Big Bang that points to the universe having a beginning but, as I pointed out, the existence of radioactive materials with a half-life.

On of the axioms found in science if the fact that it usually the least complicated or simplest answer which is the truth. An appeal to the existence of an infinite number of universes most certainly is not the simplest answer.

One final point. The video relies on other preexisting universes or preexisting particles that are in fluxuation. These are also physical things that need a cause for their existence. By speaking about them they are not answering the question, they are just pushing back the time-line.

[POI]

Science has already proven that the universe most certainly is not eternal

Let's start here.... You are making a claim. Prove it.

In the mean time, since you like to name drop, I will do so as well. And keep in mind, this provided video is not an appeal to authority or an appeal to consensus. It really does not matter WHO is in the video, but what the video states, and how it came to such a non-conclusion. (spoiler alert) "we don't know yet if the universe had a beginning?"

Yes, I made a claim and I already showed the evidence to support that claim. There is nothing I have to prove, and as I already mentioned it is illogical to ask for "proofs" of God's existence because only things in the physical world can be proven. You cannot use science to prove the spiritual or supernatural realm.

In as far as the video, sorry, but the concepts which they are talking about in the video are often referred to as "pseudo-science". I even spoke about them in my opening statement. They are considered pseudo-science because there is absolutely no way to to test and verify them, which is an essential part of the Scientific Method. Science can only test what they can measure, which means that it is confined to what is within our universe. Science could never verify these concepts because they are relying on what is outside of the universe or before it existed. Likewise the timing of when these concepts came into being is interesting in that it was only after the exact fine-tuning of all the universal constants became so well known, and that this fact points clearly to an intelligence involved in the creation process. It is almost as if these scientists were just looking for any way to explain away the fine tuning that so devastated their position. If our universe was just one of an infinite number of universes then we a just the lucky one which got everything right. In one of his videos Hawking actually verified this when he made the comment that "no God was necessary". Why would he bring God into what was suppose to be a purely scientific talk? Obviously it was something on his mind. The final line of the video was the classic "hope" line that future discoveries in the laws of physics would hopefully explain how it happened. They were admitting right there that they know that what they are talking about is not science. It is interesting that I even mentioned that line in my opening statement before I ever saw the video.

Also, it is not just the Big Bang that points to the universe having a beginning but, as I pointed out, the existence of radioactive materials with a half-life.

On of the axioms found in science if the fact that it usually the least complicated or simplest answer which is the truth. An appeal to the existence of an infinite number of universes most certainly is not the simplest answer.

Even better.... I can just redirect you back to post 426.

BTW, in your prior response, when you stated:

1) Note that you did not in any way show HOW my arguments demonstrates "fallacious reasoning" or an argument from "ignorance". Just saying something is wrong or not well thought does not mean that it is so. So far you have said nothing to support you point of view other than to assert that there are other scientific theories that support you apparently without knowing what any of them are.

2) And thank you for your closing statement "To address the rest below would be repeating what I already stated." This is EXACTLY what I specifically stated would happen.e final point. The video relies on other preexisting universes or preexisting particles that are in fluxuation. These are also physical things that need a cause for their existence. By speaking about them they are not answering the question, they are just pushing back the time-line.

*******************************

1) Concluding a 'transcendent universe-creating agency' is fallacious. Please look into the topic of external world skepticism.

2) And when I stated I would not respond to the below, this was in regards to that particular response. Not the post prior, where you listed many differing topics for discussion. But nice try

[JoeyKnothead]

...Why do you wish to risk standing in opposition to God? Time is running out.

I don't stand in opposition to a god that can't be shown to exist.

I stand in opposition to folks who seek to oppress others in the name of a god they can't show exists.

[kjw47]

...Why do you wish to risk standing in opposition to God? Time is running out.

I don't stand in opposition to a god that can't be shown to exist.

I stand in opposition to folks who seek to oppress others in the name of a god they can't show exists.

Ask God to show you.

[JoeyKnothead]

...Why do you wish to risk standing in opposition to God? Time is running out.

I don't stand in opposition to a god that can't be shown to exist.

I stand in opposition to folks who seek to oppress others in the name of a god they can't show exists.

Ask God to show you.

Ask the Tooth Fairy to show you.

A god hasn't shown me anything, while so many theists show us all their bigotry.