Evidence of God's existence

[angelosergipe]

God or Gods exist only where proofs and evidence of their existence is given.

the more science does evolve , the more it does provide us the possibility to analyze and think about the scientific facts. There is no advantage to atheists over theists about the provided scientific evidence whatsoever. We study the same material. The difference relies  in the interpretation of the discoverings. Some believe, the presented and studied facts do constitute evidence against the existence of a all powerful creator, others do come to a opposite  conclusion. So what ? All we have, are personal opinions and beliefs. The ultimate truth cannot be proven. So to say, theists do not have evidence of the existence of God, is unreasonable. We would have no evidence, if any thing would exist. Then God might exist, but any thing else. But we would not be here as well to think about this.
But we are here. We exist. The universe exists. Therefore, we have ground to think about the God hypotheses. We have evidence to think about whatever might be the origin of our universe. And God seems to me the best explanation based on a series of reasons.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...l#2enrRx2nk469

At this time in history, there is more evidence demonstrating the existence of God than at any time in the past. Much of that evidence is presented on this site. In addition, there are missionaries throughout the world proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ and the salvation that He offers as a free gift. Although the gift is "free," it will cost you your sin, selfishness, and pride. Since none of these character traits are allowed into heaven, those who insist upon holding onto these traits cannot enter into heaven, but must be separated from God in a place called hell. Therefore, those who go to hell do so voluntarily, preferring hell to complete submission to a holy and just God.

1. We know, the universe had a beginning, thus must have a cause.2. We know , the universe is finely tuned to life. 3. We know, the existing bio-chemistry, specially carbon, is very unlikely to evolve by chance. There must have been very special, unlikely circumstances, carbon to arise.
4. Life only comes from life. Abiogenesis has been understood as very unlikely, almost impossible , to happen. There must have been a guided process to create life. DNA is a code. A code is always result of a mind. there is irreducible complexity, the existence of sex cannot be explained through evolution. So also human language, our consciousness, and our intelligence.
we have morality. We know instinctively, what is right, what is wrong. Men through all ages, and all ethnic groups, believed in God in some way and form,
we have the revelation of the bible with its prophecies, and contundent revelation of God, we have the appearence of christ, and his ressurrection, we have personal experiences with God, like miracles, revelations, dreams, etc. the argument of beauty. God is the best explanation why everything exists, rather than nothing.

And since the bible has been proven to contain lies, the bible has been invalidated as divinely inspired or as being the infallible truth of an infallible God.

please provide the proofs, the bible lied.

[angelosergipe]

how are you so sure about it ?

 â€œModern Israeli archeologists now know for certain that Moses never parted the Red Sea and never divinely received the Ten Commandments. Why? Because Moses never existed.  In fact, the ancient Hebrews were never enslaved in Egypt, and there was never any mass “exodus.”
The recently discovered truth is that Israeli Hebrew culture arose locally from nomadic shepherds and goatherds around 1200 BC.

you are outdated with your assertions.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/bible-c ... t-t239.htm

Because god does not take part in ANYONES life. To state that god is a supreme being and can do whatever he wants needs to explain; why was Jesus crucified if god can do whatever he wants?

because this was his plan of salvation of humanity.

Why is sin even in existence?

because God did not want to create robots, which would do always exactly what he programmed them to do. He wanted free beings, with the ability to make own decisions. This incorporates also risks.

Why does revelation have to happen the way it is written, why not just smite the devil and be done with it? Why is there a need to have no evidence for a supreme all powerful creator ect…ect…

the evidence is right upon the front of your eyes. See our earth, and the universe, and ask yourself, if it could have been self created.

Cops are good at getting confessions too. Are they divine? I emotionally experienced the movie P.S. I Love You. Cried like a bitch (I can’t believe Im admitting this on the internet.) An emotional experience is just that. Its not evidence for an existence of any kind of god.

There are many ways, God to reveal himself to people. He has given me many times evidence through personal experiences of his existence.

[angelosergipe]

The mistake that you make is that you interpret individual and personal proofs as being universal proofs and evidence.  It is not, I am a theist because I was given the proofs and evidence I needed to believe in a God, but these are personal and individual proofs and evidence.  They are valid only as far as the individual is concerned.  Personal and individual proofs and evidence cannot be used to establish the existence of a God beyond the individual that the proofs and evidence was given to.

  The proof and evidence that was given to me so that I might believe in a God, is valid only to me.  It is not valid to any other person.  You can give testimony from now until doomsday and this means nothing.  If God or Gods can give proofs and evidence to me or you then they can give evidence and proofs to all others.  The fact that they do not proves that they are not universal Gods wanting universal followers.  All it means is that these Gods want selected followers and are not interested in those that they do not give evidence or proofs to.

  Only God or Gods can give evidence or proofs of their existence, you cannot nor can I give proof or evidence of these Gods beyond the personal level, but you are a Christian and feel the need to cram your God no matter how false down every ones else’ have you ever considered following another God, it seems you guys were scraping the bottom of a polluted and corrupted barrel when you came up with your God.  There has to be hundreds of better choices to pick from besides a God who would rape a 13 year old virgin.
 

the existence of us, and the universe, is evidence to all mankind of Gods existence. No individual and personal experience needed to understand this fact.

[angelosergipe]

To  G-Roll

  I have no intentions of arguing God with an Atheist.  For Atheists God nor Gods exist, I grant this with open arms.  I argue with Christians there is no point whatsoever for me to argue with an Atheist.  Your right God nor Gods exist, simple where no evidence or proofs exist to prove God or Gods exist then no God or Gods can exist.  Now please let me play with the Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals.  It is them that I wish to debate.

  As I have stated in the American Atheist blog consider me the theist attack dog.  My purpose in life is to attack the Theist Christian views and to discredit and invalidate them.  I cannot attack or argue with Atheist views for Atheist views are correct.  So please let me do as my God wants me to do and that is to tear the Christian religion down to it’s lying and deceiving foundation and invalidate all of it’s claims to righteousness, and God given authority and power.  That is what I do and do well.  

I cannot fight Atheists, they are right.  So please let me have my little pleasures of attacking the hell out of the Christian beliefs and doctrines.  Please pretty please.
 

[angelosergipe]

About angel's response stating that morals must have been placed into our hearts by a god -- says who?  It is just as likely that, as a people, the human races conscience and subsequent morals were developed through evolution to preserve the human race.  If everyone thought that murder was a-okay, we wouldn't exist today.

in the animal world, many animals kill other animals, and still most do survive.

Also, if morals were set in place by a god, why do some people seem to lack them?

each one of us has a free will. We can do wrong things, but our inner light will remember us, that we did something wrong. And we do not need to be teached to understand it.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-go ... t-t186.htm

Commands are like this; commands can’t exist without something else existing that commanded them.
The moral argument seeks to exploit this fact; If moral facts are a kind a command, the moral argument asks, then who commanded morality? To answer this question, the moral argument suggests that we look at the importance of morality.
Morality is Ultimately Authoritative
Morality is of over-riding importance. If someone morally ought to do something, then this over-rules any other consideration that might come into play. It might be in my best interests not to give any money to charity, but morally I ought to, so all things considered I ought to. It might be in my best interests to pretend that I’m too busy to see my in-laws on Wednesday so that I can watch the game, but morally I ought not, so all things considered I ought not.

Why would  a loving and merciful god choose to create a man with the power to decimate others' lives and feel no form of regret?  The answer would be that morals are a work of evolution, or maybe not evolution, but something other that allowed humans to develo conscience, and people that lack them are a negative mutation from the standard..

-Mike

and how should we have developed self consciousness ? and the ability of thinking and speaking ? the language cannot have been evoluted.
We need to think, to be able to speak.

[Whitney]

angelosergipe, Mark is also a theist...so some of what you said was kinda preaching to the choir.

In fact, according to science, life is only possible, based on carbon chemistry. Silicon is not a possible alternative. It is however very unlikely, Carbon to be formed in space by chance.

This is not true, we simply do not know of any silicon based life at this time.  It is, however, a possibility.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin- ... s-t122.htm

 "Chemistry is one of the better understood areas of science. We know that you just can't get certain atoms to stick together in sufficient number and complexity to give you large molecules like carbon can. You can't get around it. And you just can't get other types of liquids to dissolve as many different kinds of chemicals as you can with water. There's something like half a dozen different properties of both water and carbon that are optimal for life. Nothing else comes close. Silicon falls far short of carbon.

I don't think a book called "case of a creator" is the most reliable scientific source.  The same wiki article referenced in that forum post states the following (note wiki isn't a scientific source either but is at least subject to public scrutiny via the editing process):

The most commonly proposed basis for an alternative biochemical system is the silicon atom, since silicon has many chemical properties similar to carbon and is in the same periodic table group, the carbon group.

Even so, biogenic silica is used by some existing Earth life, such as the silicate skeletal structure of diatoms. This suggests that extraterrestrial life-forms may have silicon based structure-molecules and carbon based proteins for metabolic purposes, therefore enabling the ability to feed on a rather common resource on a terrestrial planet like Earth for building up the silicon based part of their body.

It is also possible that silicon compounds may be biologically useful under temperatures or pressures very different from the surface of a terrestrial planet, either in conjunction with or in a role less directly analogous to carbon.

A. G. Cairns-Smith has proposed that the first living organisms to exist on Earth were clay minerals - which were probably based on silicon.

I think the above is enough to establish that is is a possible basis for life even if it is not necessarily probable.  So I think my previous statement stands other than apparently being partially wrong about there not being any current life forms that silicon.

[angelosergipe]

Hi Folks, I am a famous Angelologist  :idea:
And i wish you a happy new year, dear happy atheist forum

here some help to update your list:

http://www.uni-protokolle.de/foren/viewt/250807,60.html

http://www.focus.it/Community/cs/forums ... 51147.aspx

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162088

[angelosergipe]

I don't think a book called "case of a creator" is the most reliable scientific source.  .

so how about Guillermo Gonzalez (born 1963 in Havana, Cuba)  astrophysicist ? the cited words are his.

Can life only arise from carbon based molecules ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin- ... s-t122.htm

Silicon is the element most like carbon (it is directly beneath carbon on the periodic table), a fact picked up by more than one science fiction writer. But the silicon-silicon bond is extremely weak, and will fall apart in contact with water, for instance. A more likely possibility is an silicon-oxygen backbone to the molecule. The oxygen-silicon bond is strong, it is what defines sand, and a range of compounds based on this system, silicones, are manufactured in this world. Whether they could encompass the complexity required for life is impossible to say, but I would not rule it out. The problem with a silicon-oxygen world is; what is the driving force? Carbon based life can be divided between oxidizers (animals burn food to produce carbon dioxide) and reducers (plants use carbon dioxide in photosynthesis). Silicon based life does not have this potential, and would presumably more closely resemble fungi. While there may be lifeforms that eat the silica-fungi, they would be 'low energy' lifeforms, without the strength to move around.

[Whitney]

in the animal world, many animals kill other animals, and still most do survive.

You don't see pack animals attacking/killing members of their pack unless it is to correct bad behavior (much like how we punish criminals only other animals don't have ways to build jails)

We can do wrong things, but our inner light will remember us, that we did something wrong. And we do not need to be teached to understand it.

If that is the case, then why do morals vary across time and cultures?

and how should we have developed self consciousness ? and the ability of thinking and speaking ? the language cannot have been evoluted.

It certainly could have evolved.  Here's something you can listen to that gives a overview of evolutionary psychology.  You can also scroll down for some notes on the program.  http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows ... anMind.htm (the talk starts around 2:30 if you want to skip the 'i'm an ape man' music)

[Whitney]

Silicon based life does not have this potential, and would presumably more closely resemble fungi. While there may be lifeforms that eat the silica-fungi, they would be 'low energy' lifeforms, without the strength to move around.

He seems to agree that silicon life is possible.  I never stated it had to be able to move.

[angelosergipe]

If that is the case, then why do morals vary across time and cultures?

basic morals do not change. Even people of the most remote tribes do know, that kill other people, lie , etc. is bad.

It certainly could have evolved.  Here's something you can listen to that gives a overview of evolutionary psychology.  You can also scroll down for some notes on the program.  http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows ... anMind.htm (the talk starts around 2:30 if you want to skip the 'i'm an ape man' music)

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/darwin- ... ss-t70.htm

Of course Darwinians think that consciousness came into being via random mutation and selection. But this is not because we have any specific ideas about the evolution of consciousness per se.

Leonard D. says in his latest comment that
"Science has little understanding of what consciousness is, how it works, or what it is for. So it seems unfair to expect Darwinians to have any specific theory of how it evolved."

Yet they do not even know if it evolved in the normal evolutionary, biological sense. They just assume this, as you note. Would it not seem equally unfair to label any alternative views of what consciousness is, or what its purpose is, as outside the realm of rational thinking or even scientific inquiry? Leonard D. implies this and many others more aggressively demand that such alternative thinking be disregarded altogether.

[G-Roll]

you are outdated with your assertions.

im outdated. ill actually read what you wrote tomorrow. its bed time here.

[Whitney]

basic morals do not change. Even people of the most remote tribes do know, that kill other people, lie , etc. is bad.

I guess that means you are unaware of cannibalistic tribes who thought it was acceptable to kill people, not to mention all the human sacrifices many religions have made to appease the gods.

 I'll accept that to lie is universally looked down upon even though there are theoretically cases where it would be better to lie (like if some crazy person said to me "accept jesus right now or 100 kids will die" I'd put on a wonderful performance of how I saw the error of my ways and now believe in jesus).  

What are the other "basics" in your opinion?

Of course Darwinians think that consciousness came into being via random mutation and selection. But this is not because we have any specific ideas about the evolution of consciousness per se.

You didn't listen to the audio so I don't see the need to read your link.  We are trying to establish the possibility of consciousness evolving (which you said wasn't possible).  The audio I provided was enough to establish it as possible and that it is a field of scientific study.

If you just want to state your views without researching counterpoints this isn't the right forum for you.

[G-Roll]

how are you so sure about it ?

 â€œModern Israeli archeologists now know for certain that Moses never parted the Red Sea and never divinely received the Ten Commandments. Why? Because Moses never existed.  In fact, the ancient Hebrews were never enslaved in Egypt, and there was never any mass “exodus.”
The recently discovered truth is that Israeli Hebrew culture arose locally from nomadic shepherds and goatherds around 1200 BC.

you are outdated with your assertions.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/bible-c ... t-t239.htm

Because god does not take part in ANYONES life. To state that god is a supreme being and can do whatever he wants needs to explain; why was Jesus crucified if god can do whatever he wants?

because this was his plan of salvation of humanity.

Why is sin even in existence?

because God did not want to create robots, which would do always exactly what he programmed them to do. He wanted free beings, with the ability to make own decisions. This incorporates also risks.

Why does revelation have to happen the way it is written, why not just smite the devil and be done with it? Why is there a need to have no evidence for a supreme all powerful creator ect…ect…

the evidence is right upon the front of your eyes. See our earth, and the universe, and ask yourself, if it could have been self created.

Cops are good at getting confessions too. Are they divine? I emotionally experienced the movie P.S. I Love You. Cried like a bitch (I can’t believe Im admitting this on the internet.) An emotional experience is just that. Its not evidence for an existence of any kind of god.

There are many ways, God to reveal himself to people. He has given me many times evidence through personal experiences of his existence.

i suppose i have an equal effort for your answers...  

because this was his plan of salvation of humanity

no it wasnt

because God did not want to create robots, which would do always exactly what he programmed them to do. He wanted free beings, with the ability to make own decisions. This incorporates also risks.

he didnt create anything because he isnt real. so i guess if there is free will then there is no plan, and shit just happens. that would make him mysterious.

the evidence is right upon the front of your eyes. See our earth, and the universe, and ask yourself, if it could have been self created.

i know, i took high school biology. myself says yes it could have been self created.

There are many ways, God to reveal himself to people. He has given me many times evidence through personal experiences of his existence.

[/quote]
no he doesnt.

[angelosergipe]

i know, i took high school biology. myself says yes it could have been self created.

everything , that begins to exist, has a cause. Only the universe doesnt....???
what is your base to make this claim ?