Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Search Forums
Custom Search
Who's Online
0 registered (), 91 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Can we lay nothing to rest?
by Bill
Yesterday at 05:27 PM
Global Warming invades the U.S.
by Amaranth Rose II
11/22/14 09:27 PM
Climate Change and Serious errors of design
by Huynh Phu Dat
11/21/14 06:43 AM
Radial Turbine Symetry is BROKEN !!!
by newton
11/20/14 08:06 PM
Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including,
by Revlgking
11/20/14 12:04 PM
High Altitude Pseudo-Satellite (HAPS)
by Bill
11/20/14 08:53 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
newton 28
Bill 24
Bill S. 23
Revlgking 17
Amaranth Rose II 17
Page 1 of 35 1 2 3 ... 34 35 >
Topic Options
#14778 - 08/16/06 04:34 PM Evidence for God
Tim Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/16/06
Posts: 192
Loc: California
There is abounding evidence for a Creator God. If you're familiar with Geometry, an indirect proof is when you prove something by proving what it's not. To start this indirect proof, the given information I'm using is the universe and all it contains; I'm trying to prove that there's a God. First, I will assume temporarily that there is no God. So that means that there is no-one or nothing to create the universe and all it contains. But that conflicts the given that there is a universe. Therefore, there is a God that created the universe because there's not not a God.

Top
Of Interest?
#14779 - 08/16/06 05:29 PM Re: Evidence for God
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Tim wrote:
"I'm trying to prove that there's a God."

There is. I have the proof. And god is an invisible purple rhinoceros.

Tim wrote:
"I will assume temporarily that there is no God. So that means that there is no-one or nothing to create the universe and all it contains. But that conflicts the given that there is a universe."

Wow you are really really smart. Let me try it now.

I will assume temporarily that there are no stupid people. So that means there are no stupid people from which stupid people can be created. But that conflicts with the given that there are stupid pepole in the universe.

Thanks. I feel better now.

(be gentle now moderators ... I didn't call any specific person stupid. Feel free to substitute the noun of your preference).

Faith is an absolutely marvelous tool. With faith there is no question too big for even the smallest mind.
~ Rev. Donald Morgan
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14780 - 08/16/06 05:33 PM Re: Evidence for God
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
" But that conflicts the given that there is a universe."

We assume there's a creator, because their must have been a creator. That's not logic.

Top
#14781 - 08/17/06 02:55 AM Re: Evidence for God
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
science cant explain what happened in the first few split seconds after the "big bang". our science is not good enough yet to theorize what happen at the zero instant. how can anyone claim they know what there was before that instant. some say it was a singularity. if so that means that the material for that singularity came from somewhere. If this highly speculative theory is correct, then that means there was a big crunch before that. which means there was a universe and all before that too. In other words, if this theory (and many others) are correct, there was no creation because the everything has existed before and will never be completely destroyed. If anyone of these theories is correct, there is no need for god as infinity is the time in which all possibilities can exist. this is just as likely as god creating the universe and everything in 6 days.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#14782 - 08/17/06 11:30 AM Re: Evidence for God
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer wrote:
"science cant explain what happened in the first few split seconds after the "big bang"

Actually we can. Our physics doesn't break down until one gets within a microscopic fraction of the first second.

"Physics allows us to trace the matter and radiation of the Big Bang back to about 10^-43 seconds before time zero, but no further."

Reference:
http://www.open2.net/science/finalfrontier/messages/geoff_booth.htm
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14783 - 08/17/06 07:25 PM Re: Evidence for God
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
Tim:

Your assumed logic is faulty.
It reminds me of some scientific conclusions we find published. Some academic on the discovery channel has been given a grant and the opportunity to provide a tour of the great pyramid because some not so smart rich guy gave him a donation to enlighten the world on the subject. Our genius decides that the builders made three errors in their plans because they made three burial chambers before they settled on the kings chamber as a final choice. This is the same kind of genius that will argue against your views. You can not prevail with conclusions any more than they can. You must take it down to the basics. If you can not, then take a break.
jjw

Top
#14784 - 08/18/06 12:36 AM Re: Evidence for God
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer wrote:
"science cant explain what happened in the first few split seconds after the "big bang"

Actually we can. Our physics doesn't break down until one gets within a microscopic fraction of the first second.

"Physics allows us to trace the matter and radiation of the Big Bang back to about 10^-43 seconds before time zero, but no further."

Reference:
http://www.open2.net/science/finalfrontier/messages/geoff_booth.htm
that is the first few split seconds i was refering to. I was trying to keep everything as simple as possible, so therefore i did not use any numbers.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#14785 - 08/29/06 12:15 PM Re: Evidence for God
Tim Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/16/06
Posts: 192
Loc: California
Do any of you know about indirect proofs like what I used in this thread. If you've never heard of it, I can show you.

Top
#14786 - 08/29/06 12:26 PM Re: Evidence for God
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"Do any of you know about indirect proofs like what I used in this thread. If you've never heard of it, I can show you."

I have a master's in engineering math and computer science - and I've taken many extra math courses - total of maybe 45 credits in math and stats (not including all the physics, EE, and CS courses that used it). Almost half were at the graduate level. I also stay sharp because I tutor geometry every year at the high school level. So, yes, I think it's fair to say that I'm familiar with indirect proofs.

Top
#14787 - 08/29/06 01:59 PM Re: Evidence for God
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
In order to prove something by proven what it is not, you have to disprove all possiblity of it being something else. so far all you have done is given an opinion that one thing does not exist, which does not preclude other things.

what about the possiblity that the universe had always existed, therefore did not need to be created.

if its possible that god has always existed, then its also possible that the universe has always existed, with new variations being recreated every so many billions or perhaps trillions of years. we already have two theories about that that i know of.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#14788 - 08/29/06 02:23 PM Re: Evidence for God
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Tim wrote:
"Do any of you know about indirect proofs like what I used in this thread. If you've never heard of it, I can show you."

A bit of perspective here Tim. And again not to insult you but you are 16 years old and you are in email exchanges not with your peers but with people more than twice your age and at least one with a PhD, several with university degrees, and one that teaches at a university.

I think a bit of humility might be appropriate. Perhaps there are things we could teach you. Though having raised to 16 year olds myself (though the youngest is now 21) I expect you don't believe that is possible. She didn't either at the time. But here we are 5 years later and all of a sudden I am not the dumbest person on the planet. Go figure.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14789 - 08/30/06 11:54 AM Re: Evidence for God
Tim Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/16/06
Posts: 192
Loc: California
Yes, I admit that you would know more than me. I can tell by everyone on the forums' arguments against my religion. I went on this website to learn because that is what I like to do. I never said you were the dumbest person on the planet. But there is scientific evidence for a God. Now to dehammer; if you're talking about Hawking's theory on an infite universe, that couldn't be possible. I don't know if either of you are familiar with the kalam argument. It states that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist [evidence from the Big Bang]. Therefore the universe has a cause," as William Craig, Ph.D., THD said.
Our universe was created for a cause. Contrary to what atheist Quentin Smith said that, "The most reasonalbe belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing." There is evidence that the universe isn't eternal. Because an infite past would "involve an actually infinite number of events, then the past simply can't be infinite," as Craig said. The evidence of what scientists call the Big Bang is astounding; background radiation at the right temperature it would have been as a remnant of it, dating, etc. For more information on the kalam argument, read one of Craig's books or "The Case for a Creator," by Lee Strobel. That is solid evidence.

Top
#14790 - 08/30/06 12:20 PM Re: Evidence for God
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Craig is not a scientist. He is a theologian.

Craig's argument is an argument from ignorance.

Religious "philosophy" is anathema to discovery.

Craig tells you what you want to hear. Many creationists dispute The Big Bang.

Craig's argument relies on a comic book understanding of The Big Bang.

Top
#14791 - 08/30/06 02:24 PM Re: Evidence for God
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Tim wrote:
"I went on this website to learn because that is what I like to do."

Then stop your preaching and use this forum to ask questions, share interesting science stories, and to learn.

So far I've seen a lot of evidence of you wanted to prosletyze. Little evidence of a desire to entertain a new idea or to consider that anything you think is correct ... perhaps isn't.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14792 - 08/30/06 02:42 PM Re: Evidence for God
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by Tim:
Yes, I admit that you would know more than me. I can tell by everyone on the forums' arguments against my religion. I went on this website to learn because that is what I like to do. I never said you were the dumbest person on the planet. But there is scientific evidence for a God. Now to dehammer; if you're talking about Hawking's theory on an infite universe, that couldn't be possible. I don't know if either of you are familiar with the kalam argument. It states that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist [evidence from the Big Bang]. Therefore the universe has a cause," as William Craig, Ph.D., THD said.
Our universe was created for a cause. Contrary to what atheist Quentin Smith said that, "The most reasonalbe belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing." There is evidence that the universe isn't eternal. Because an infite past would "involve an actually infinite number of events, then the past simply can't be infinite," as Craig said. The evidence of what scientists call the Big Bang is astounding; background radiation at the right temperature it would have been as a remnant of it, dating, etc. For more information on the kalam argument, read one of Craig's books or "The Case for a Creator," by Lee Strobel. That is solid evidence.
actually ive not read Hawking's theory on an infite universe, but i have read of several theories on how the universe could be destroyed and recreated by its own laws, in according to the laws that have existed since before the universe did. I have also read of the kalam argument, but they have one assumption. that is that the universe was created out of nothing. Take away that assumption and the arguement falls to peices. there is no evidence of that assumption having any validity.

show me the evidence that the universe was created by for a cause.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#14793 - 08/30/06 04:27 PM Re: Evidence for God
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Tim,

If you come here because you have an interest in science, then talk science. If you need to explore your faith then go to somewhere like www.godandscience.org and discuss issues there. You will not find an audience here and will only antagonize people.

Your above argument is absolutely worthless and is a form of logic chopping that is used by people who don't really understand logic. You are inviting people to rip you up by posting it here.

Don't embarrass yourself and your faith by trolling here amongst people who just wish to discuss science. No one has invited you here to discuss religion so why are you taking such a liberty in a science forum? I made the same mistake and regretted it - you should learn from other's mistakes.

It's scienceagogo not faithagogo.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Top
#14794 - 08/30/06 04:55 PM Re: Evidence for God
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Or demonstrate any evidence that people are here for any purpose whatsoever: There is none.

I may choose to believe there is to help me get through my day if I am an unhappy sort who needs an excuse to do the right thing. But some of us are capable of not stealing and committing murder and coveting our neighbors wife without someone threatening us with eternal darnation.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14795 - 08/30/06 05:14 PM Re: Evidence for God
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Tim, i have to side with Blacknad here.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#14796 - 09/13/06 03:43 AM Re: Evidence for God
Rigor O'Mortis Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 09/13/06
Posts: 12
Tim,

What you tried to do here is a logical fallacy. It's called "missing hypothesis".

Your argument may stand as long as you admit that the Universe has been created. However, that is not the only possibility.

Translated, what you said was: "Let us presume that the cats were not born with the urge to eat mice. Yet, the cats eat mice, therefore they have been born with the urge to eat mice." It is not the only possibility. Perhaps cats only eat mice because they don't want to starve. Therefore they do not necessarily have an instinct to eat mice. (PS: this was a presumption for the sake of example)

Try to think over your arguments before posting them. Trust me, you're NOT the first NOR the last that attempts or has attempted to prove God. And it takes a lot more than a logical argument.

Let me give you a logical argument:
- omnipotence: the power to shape reality the way you want it, when you want it
- omniscience: the power to know all things that have been, are and will be

Is God omnipotent and omniscient at the same time? If he is omnipotent, then he has the capacity of shapind reality the way he wants to, thus denying the existence of a fixed future, therefore he cannot know the future, and is not omniscient. If he is omniscient, he knows what his actions are, and his future is already decided for himself too, by his power of omniscience. Therefore he has to follow a fixed path, and cannot do anything outside of it. Therefore he is not omnipotent.

So... logic that one out.

Top
#14797 - 10/24/06 09:19 PM Re: Evidence for God
eternauta Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 10/23/06
Posts: 16
Loc: BC, Canada
Quote:
Originally posted by Tim:
It states that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist [evidence from the Big Bang]. Therefore the universe has a cause," as William Craig, Ph.D., THD said.
Our universe was created for a cause. Contrary to what atheist Quentin Smith said that, "The most
You are mixing things here:

"whatever begins to exist has a cause" IS NOT THE SAME as "our universe was created for a cause"

Completely different things that make your statement nonsensical.
_________________________
Pruebas de ADN Paternidad

Top
Page 1 of 35 1 2 3 ... 34 35 >



Moderator:  Amaranth Rose II, Kate, Mike Kremer 
Newest Members
Charles, 4567891011121314, Tracy319, lalabetsy, teacher
719 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2013 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.