I have discovered that the findings of modern science - Physics and Cosmology strongly suggests or implies that the Christian God exists. If people really want to know the truth they can. But they will have to be willing read some rather long posts and this is apt to be a really long thread.
To begin, there are only four fundamental forces known to science today. Gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak forces. these came into being at he same time as the rest of the physical universe - time, space, matter, universal constants, the four forces - all had a finite beginning during the Big bang singular event that took place about 13.7 Billion years ago.
I am going to ask that posters keep on topic - not post sarcastic remarks or put downs. Atheists might ask for extraordinary evidence that God exists. I give you - you.
From the four forces we eventually need to get extremely complex chemistry that not only allows for a tremendous amount of information but eventually becomes self replicating. We need to get all of the elements and then construct a fine tuned balance of many things in order to allow for the development of intelligent life, such as mankind is.
What are the odds of all of this occurring by pure chance? I think essentially zero for some of these facts and that those odds have to repeat many times over. Something that has essentially no chance of happening leading to other events that have essentially no chance of happening and doing this over and over again until we finally arrive at you and I.
If that is not extraordinary evidence I don't know what would be.
Blassings!.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Well, Larry, it's not actually evidence. It is you being amazed at something and then jumping to god as the reason because of that amazement.
Actually it is evidence. You simply deny the patently obvious. Repeatedly.
Do you not trust that Larry is able to respond to a comment directed to him?
GID, I find it curious that you will respond for others but not answer questions posed directly to you.
CyberLN: "Do you not trust that Larry is able to respond to a comment directed to him?"
[Those are your words, not mine. My reply does not in any way preclude Larry from answering you. Unfortunately, like me, Larry is assailed by so many of you atheists that neither of us can possibly respond to everyone, nor would we want to. First, many atheist replies are disingenuous, ignorant, offensive, petty, condescending, vulgar, or a combination of those characteristics. Second, no matter what we say, someone else will put words into our mouths, as you did above, and change the subject so that no matter how we reply, you still can claim your petty little victory. It never changes.]
"GID, I find it curious that you will respond for others but not answer questions posed directly to you."
[I find your comment extremely dishonest, inasmuch as I have answered countless questions posed directly to me. I don't shy from reasonable debate, by reasonable people. But you and your friends have no sense of balance or proportion. One Christian in a forum such as this always must face off against dozens of angry, condescending antagonists throwing stuff up on the wall, and then claiming so much of it really sticks. A real debate would be one on one, or two on two, or some other fair fight. When does that ever take place here or any Leftist forum? I have never seen it.]
He is following a logical order of events. And making a logical decision. Life has been observed to come only from life. Not from nothing or from any inorganic material. There fore it truly is illogical for science to choose to believe a theory that dictates that life came from nothing or inorganic matter because nothing had ever been observed to ever validate this theory. Also, further down the line in a long list of things that have been illogically assumed as valid theories, is that one organism made all other organisms. This theory has never been shown to be valid. But on the other hand we have had over 7000 years of all organisms upon this planet have only produced their own species, kind or organism. We don't have any thing that even suggests that this pattern has ever been broken, over the years. And therefore it would be logical to assume that this pattern will be the same far into the future. And if that is the case, why would it be illogical to assume that the same pattern was taking place in the distant past. Any other conclusion would be illogical. There is no proof otherwise.
Gerald,
We theists are on very safe ground when we recognize that there are only four fundamental forces. These allow for the formation of all the elements and all other physical stuff that we can experience or detect in the universe. Those forces working together in a just so fashion ultimately are responsible for all of the biochemistry that allows for life to develop and maintain itself.
That to speak in natural terms. But that these forces and so much else are just what they are and not a little off in one direction or the other is - to the Christian - attributable to God. It matters not how God created. It matters that God is the Creator.
I am not taking issue in any way with the conclusions of big science. Rather I think it entirely appropriate to see God at work in those conclusions and to use the data they provide to argue for the reality of the supernatural.
Blessings!
Gerald. You wrote that Life can only come from life. That is an assertion. Please provide proof this assertion is true.
You atheists relentlessly DEMAND "proof."
Clearly you are oblivious to the fact that science doesn't do proof. Moreover, all atheists dismiss ALL evidence which to any reasonable person would support the Christian narrative.
Please provide proof that you are open minded and rational.
"Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan
There is no proof for GOD or Gods period!!!!!. Show me the proof please, isn`t that why the current debate goes on and on.Faith is a stretch of the imagination totally one is exaggerating here.I`m a rationalist I believe after careful examination. All religion is evil starting with Judaism islam and Christianity the 3 Abrahamic faiths they have spurned terror and all kinds of hardship killing people, torturing people giving people a bad reputation, Judging people. There have been pedophiles and thieves and sharlatans of all types in the name of religion. this is only the tip of the iceberg here. I think you theist get the picture by now.So stop with the theism.
We do not demand proof, but if you want to try and convince us we are wrong and you are right, we then demand proof.
We keep demanding it because theist never provide it. After constantly asking, we atheist grow to expect that we won't get an answer even though we keep challenging theist to come up with something new beyond variations of the same 3-4 metaphysical arguments we already thoroughly debunked.
CyberLN
To me the Big Bang Cosmology is evidence. A lawyer in a trail might submit a piece of evidence but that lone does not seal the case.
You need other pieces of evidence and logical to do that. But the Big Bang strongly hints at a beginning. Entropy and an expanding universe bolsters that and leads to the argument - I think it is a strong one - that there was a beginning. I would distinguish that from the feeling of awe. Awe is appropriate but is a feeling.
I think the wide acceptance of the BB theory as factual - it is a well supported scientific theory - suggests that Christian faith enjoys a breadth and depth of explanatory power such that to believe is a rational and responsible response.
Blessings!
Idiotic comments here Larry
But why do you feel it is crazy. Is there something you don't agree with? Is there something you don't understand?
There are lots of feel good stories about Santa Claus, does not prove he exists
You forget myths and legends are based upon truth. There may be a lot of truth, like Christ upon this earth, or upon a sliver of truth, like the fact that there actually was a priest called Nicholas who later was declared a saint by the Catholic church. http://www.history.com/topics/christmas/santa-claus
So, the legends can be used as evidence and never dismissed as unimportant. Many a find has come about through the researching of legends.
And this is more than enough reason to look at the God legend as though there could be a measure of truth to it. Especially when all the other evidence is taken in consideration.
I've never liked the fine-tuned universe argument, or the intelligent design argument. But this is essentially what I was saying in the other post. What I consider to be evidence for God rests heavily of my interpretation of the evidence at hand.
To quote sir Chimp3 and madam CyberLN: "I think of the selfish gene when I am in the woods and am in awe as to what those proteins without purpose have built up from scratch.... Or when enjoying the ambrosia distilled from the malted fruit of the barley plant"
Their comments receive 7 likes total, so it definitely reflects the feelings of other's here. But notice how easily I can replace "selfish gene" with "God" and more or less begin describing how theists see the world: "I think of God when I am in the woods.... Or when enjoying the ambrosia distilled from the malted fruit of the barley plant"
I have no problem with atheists seeing the world around them as evidence for evolution, so long as they understand that for others that same world they're looking at is evidence for God. Perception and Interpretation is everything.
I honestly think the inability of atheists to comprehend this is solely from stubbornness. If a Hindu told me they saw the world around them as evidence for Krishna, I'll be like ok, I can see where you're coming from.
@John Breezy
you said "I have no problem with atheists seeing the world around them as evidence for evolution, so long as they understand that for others that same world they're looking at is evidence for God. "
Nope, not so.
1) Evolution is a proven fact.
2) There is no evidence of a god is also a fact.
Seeing evidence of evolution, knowing that it is a proven fact, is far different than seeing evidence of a god when there is no such thing.
You also said, "Perception and Interpretation is everything."
And that is the case if you want to change the meaning of things, revise history, introduce pseudo-science.
When you observe something and see an example of evolution you can rely on the science that has proven that evolution is a fact. The science has been peer reviewed, independently tested.
This is not the case of just looking at nature and jumping to a conclusion that a god made it.
It is not stubbornness to require concrete evidence, it's logic.
Let me ask you this then.
When I drop an object and it falls to the ground. Is that evidence that gravity is a force that pulls one object towards another, sort of like a magnet?
Or is that evidence that there is no "force of gravity", and that space-time itself curving around an object?
@John B.
Since I know that gravity has been proven, I can say it is evidence that gravity exists.
Take your same scenario. If I drop an object, is it gravity or is it god? Gravity has been proven peer reviewed, independently tested, measured. Your god hasn't.
According to Einstein, which is technically the currently held theory. Gravity doesn't exist in the way you are implying. Its not a force that pulls you down.
Your situations are equivalent.
BTW: curved space-time exerts a force.
Great, then you agree with my point, that atheists and theist can look at the same evidence an both interpretations are equivalent.
Thus, why: "I have no problem with atheists seeing the world around them as evidence for evolution, so long as they understand that for others that same world they're looking at is evidence for God.
Only problem is evolution (the creation of a new species by series of mutations and selections) has been observed in the lab; so what you keep telling us can't happen, happens. Which makes it hard to take anything else you say on the matter seriously.
Observed in a lab. Interesting. FAKE NEWS.
If you're referring to bacteria, as far as I know we've only seen natural selection in a lab, not evolution.
However, I'm fine with granting that bacteria can evolve, since the fact that they reproduce asexually though multiplication solves a lot of the problems. Have we observed bacteria evolve into sexual reproduction? When they do, shoot me an email.
Evolution 43(6): 1308-1311 Reproductive Isolation as a Consequence of Adaptive Divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura
Evolution 34:730-737 A Multfactorial Genetic Investigation of Speciation Theory using Drosophila Melanogaster
Nature 230, 289 - 292 Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophila
Having read the first two, I do wonder if you yourself read them. Because they are both very interesting, but I don't see what this does for you argument.
Your number one that Evolution is a proven fact, has had people begging for the proof that you are claiming exists. Please list a few of the evidence that shows that Evolution is a proven fact.
Okay then where is the proof? Let's talk about each of those facts one by one. Let's have the first one.
"I honestly think the inability of atheists to comprehend this is solely from stubbornness."
Well, John, each of us is separate, autonomous...theists and atheists. So this statement, imo, could use some tweaking.
I have exactly zero problem comprehending that you see the world around you as evidence for your god. You have stated it multiple times. I simply disagree and think you are incorrect. I thought Larry made a leap, so I told him that. It was not meant to reflect on what you have said, it was in response to what he said. Although I'm sure I've failed at it a number of times, I do attempt to respond to individuals here, rather than folks who identify in a certain way as a whole.
(Edited to correct typo.)
That's fair.
Pages