Jump to content
IGNORED

What Argument Do You Use for God's Existence?


ksolomon

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Non-Conformist Theology
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  118
  • Topics Per Day:  0.06
  • Content Count:  4,361
  • Content Per Day:  2.36
  • Reputation:   2,109
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/25/2019
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/03/1953

On 1/12/2019 at 2:30 PM, ksolomon said:
Here's mine.
 
Proof God exists is SUPER EASY for anyone to understand (sadly, the stubborn denier is the exception):  
1)  Each DNA contains 100 million pages worth of instructions to build the entire body.  Do instructions write themselves?  Nope.  Instructions don't write themselves.  Behind every instruction is an 'instructor' who authored it.  Carl Sagan said:  "The information content of a simple cell has been established as around one trillion bits, comparable to about 100 million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica."
2)  Every genome is written as a quaternary molecular digital code:  "All present life is based on digitally-encoded information."  (American Academy of Sciences). Do digital programs write themselves?  Nope again.
3)  Each cell contains hi-tech miniature organs (organelles - nucleus, golgi bodies, mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc.) - none of which are naturally found elsewhere - hence no natural explanation for their existence.
4)  Who can write a 100 million pages worth of instructions and then stuff it into every cell of our body?  This hyper-intellect is who we will face on Judgment Day. 

My argument for the existence of the Lord is that he shows me how to fix all my problems.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  20
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  162
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   43
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/08/2019
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/24/1997

 

15 hours ago, thomas t said:

Guten Tag Leyla!

Here is beauty (see attached picture). It's a perfect interaction between nature and man. No beauty intended (by man). And no evolutionist easily explains how the beauty yet arose. So I don't believe it ;).

Normally, I don't respond in these threads because the "evidence is everywhere!"-folks do. They say science proved the Creator while scientists say they don't.

Not knowing who is right... I don't want to plug this hole for them trying to solve the issue. But this time, they didn't say anything in answering you.

So, enjoy the beauty.

Thomas

countryside-1149680__340.jpg

Hello and thanks for the eye candy. Humans are very visual animals and alot of our brain is dedicated or involved in vision, so its no surprise that we react strongly to visual stimulation. Pretty colours, symmetry, the sun in general (considering that the sun is the only reason we even evolved eyes) is very ressonating with us. But saying that this is beautiful raises another question for me. Is it objectivelly beautiful or is it subjective? Would this picture still be beautiful, if there were no sentient minds left in our universe, that could perceive it as beautiful? I also dont think that we cant answer why we think that some things are beautiful. Evolution in plants or wildlife often favours pretty colours or symmetry. Symmetry because its usually a sign of good health and pretty colours because they differentiate themselves from their enviroment. An insect, for example, is more likely to notice something colourful than something bland and is therefore more likely to pollinate the more colourful plant. Over time this will create things that simply draw our attention to them. The human made parts in the picture also follow that rule. A fence that is badly crafted, non symmetrical, falling apart would probably not give us the same pleasent feeling. I dont mean to say that ruins cant look pretty too, but its a general rule I follow when I build things and other seem to follow it too and it usually gives good results

Edited by Leyla
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  21
  • Topic Count:  235
  • Topics Per Day:  0.11
  • Content Count:  6,733
  • Content Per Day:  3.23
  • Reputation:   4,703
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/23/1954

15 minutes ago, Leyla said:

 

Hello and thanks for the eye candy. Humans are very visual animals and alot of our brain is dedicated or involved in vision, so its no surprise that we react strongly to visual stimulation. Pretty colours, symmetry, the sun in general (considering that the sun is the only reason we even evolved eyes) is very ressonating with us. But saying that this is beautiful raises another question for me. Is it objectivelly beautiful or is it subjective? Would this picture still be beautiful, if there were no sentient minds left in our universe, that could perceive it as beautiful? I also dont think that we cant answer why we think that some things are beautiful. Evolution in plants or wildlife often favours pretty colours or symmetry. Symmetry because its usually a sign of good health and pretty colours because they differentiate themselves from their enviroment. An insect, for example, is more likely to notice something colourful than something bland and is therefore more likely to pollinate the more colourful plant. Over time this will create things that simply draw our attention to them. The human made parts in the picture also follow that rule. A fence that is badly crafted, non symmetrical, falling apart would probably not give us the same pleasent feeling. I dont mean to say that ruins cant look pretty too, but its a general rule I follow when I build things and other seem to follow it too and it usually gives good results

Our responses to stimuli are by design of our Creator. The sensor light that comes on at our door is designed and set to respond when the light fades and it detects movement. It was designed and created to do this in the same way that nature is designed and created to interact with its environment. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Well Said! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  20
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  162
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   43
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/08/2019
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/24/1997

Just now, Michael37 said:

Our responses to stimuli are by design of our Creator. The sensor light that comes on at our door is designed and set to respond when the light fades and it detects movement. It was designed and created to do this in the same way that nature is designed and created to interact with its environment. 

Why is it designed? It seems to be more reasonable to assume that our eyes evolved to adapt to the enviroment

  • Praying! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  21
  • Topic Count:  235
  • Topics Per Day:  0.11
  • Content Count:  6,733
  • Content Per Day:  3.23
  • Reputation:   4,703
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/23/1954

1 hour ago, Leyla said:

Why is it designed? It seems to be more reasonable to assume that our eyes evolved to adapt to the enviroment

What? Just spontaneously? Hardly reasonable.

  • Well Said! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  20
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  162
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   43
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/08/2019
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/24/1997

6 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

What? Just spontaneously? Hardly reasonable.

Not just spontaneously, evolutionary pressure favoured things that work and weeded out things that dont.

  • Praying! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  21
  • Topic Count:  235
  • Topics Per Day:  0.11
  • Content Count:  6,733
  • Content Per Day:  3.23
  • Reputation:   4,703
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/23/1954

5 minutes ago, Leyla said:

Not just spontaneously, evolutionary pressure favoured things that work and weeded out things that dont.

That would be an effect, but what would be a cause? A cause can't be evolutionary pressure since that amounts to the fallacy of circular reasoning, very much like the argument that the theory of evolution is true because it is widely accepted. You can't say evolutionary pressure caused something to evolve because you haven't established why or how evolutionary pressure exists. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  20
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  162
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   43
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/08/2019
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/24/1997

6 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

That would be an effect, but what would be a cause? A cause can't be evolutionary pressure since that amounts to the fallacy of circular reasoning, very much like the argument that the theory of evolution is true because it is widely accepted. You can't say evolutionary pressure caused something to evolve because you haven't established why or how evolutionary pressure exists. 

The cause is that things that work will work and things that dont wont work. If a collection of organic compounds works and survives then it will persist, if not then it will be gone.

Edited by Leyla
  • Praying! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  21
  • Topic Count:  235
  • Topics Per Day:  0.11
  • Content Count:  6,733
  • Content Per Day:  3.23
  • Reputation:   4,703
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/23/1954

5 hours ago, Leyla said:

The cause is that things that work will work and things that dont wont work. If a collection of organic compounds works and survives then it will persist, if not then it will be gone.

Yeah! That's natural selection, NOT evolution.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  21
  • Topic Count:  235
  • Topics Per Day:  0.11
  • Content Count:  6,733
  • Content Per Day:  3.23
  • Reputation:   4,703
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/23/1954

It takes GREAT FAITH to believe in evolution, as its current high priest aludes to with an oxymoronic turn of phrase:

Dawkins Take.jpg

So when exactly has evolution been observed...?

  • Well Said! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...