Proof in the existance of God

[Ovedya]

"God is that greater than which can be conceived. Existence is greater than non-existence. Therefore God exists." ~ C.S. Lewis

Did you know that C.S. Lewis was formerly an atheist himself? Check it out: http://www.lamblion.com/other/gems/Gems-02.php

[artsylady]

Did you know that C.S. Lewis was formerly an atheist himself? Check it out:

Good site. He's one of my favorites. Simply brilliant. And Protestant even!

[Fovezer]

The idea that the world was created by some "big bang" is as big of a "strawman" as you can get! Does order come out of chaos? Folks such as yourself truly amaze me to no end. You will go to whatever lengths possible to deny that God exists as a coverup for the conviction that is riding high on your life for the things you've done. You might want to learn the things you're talking about. Only the truly ignorant can attempt to explain that life started out from some "oooze" in the ocean. How did the "oooze" get there in the 1st place, do praytell? You can have all of the college degrees in the world, friend, but it doesn't make one truly intelligent. You may have book learning and be master of many things, but the only thing that matters is the record above, friend. If you would like to go through life thinking God doesn't exist, well it's not my place to tell you not to. God gave you a free will just like he did me. If you're truly open to the possibility of His existence, there are great resources out there to research, but I somehow get a feeling you're here not in search of truth, but to try and bring someone else down.

Do you know what a strawman is? It is deliberately misrepresenting something, and then attacking that misrepresentation and not the actual fact.

But you see, I AM in the search for the truth, and the truth has led me to the logical conclusion that no gods exist, especcially the Christian god. You basically said to be "believe in my version of God or you will burn in hell." You also assume that a god DOES exist, and when saying this to an atheist, it does no good.

To all those who say atheist don't exist, because in order to know there is not a god, you must be god, I am asking, what are you thinking? Apply that same concept to christians, and you get: Christians really don't exist, because in order to know there is a god, you must be god.

Fovezer, would you like to start a new topic on evolution then? That way everyone can leave their Bibles at home. I am interested in this pre-bacteria organism, and would like to further this discussion in a more focussed manner.

Douay

I would like that and I am up to it. Lets do it.

Fovezer,

I thought for a while there you were gone. Thanks for replying. Regarding the big bang, the stars and planets should be slowing down or at least going the same speed. Our science has shown that some of the stars are actually speeding up. which would disprove the big bang.

In your answer regarding a creator, I assume that you believe there is no beginning to time or an end. Is this correct of me to assume.

Again, do you beleive man has reason?

Thanks,

Nicholas

I don't understand the questian fully. Do you mean that since there was a rapid expansion after the big bang, the planets should be slowing down? If so, that is false, because ther is no resistance force in space, so the planet would travel at a constant velocity. I also don't see what problem the "stars speeding up" have on the big bang, and even if it did disprove it, there are still othere theories. But gravity could cause a star to speed up. Please provide a supporting link.

Reason? What do you mean by reason? For the most part, yes, I think we do, but I don't know what type of reason you are reffering to.

By what laws or rules do societies deem certain behaviors acceptable or unacceptable, moral or immoral?

Greed. You don't want to be killed because you value life, so you create a law against murder. You want your stuff stolen because you like it, so you create a law against stealing. I know you won't like that answer, but when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense.

Okay, first you said that all of our feelings are relatively the same because we are the same species. I accept that as being true, because I believe that God created us all the same, with the same emotions and therefore the same moral insticts. So, if human emotion is a universal absolute, and most cultures feel that murder is wrong, then morality has to be an absolute.

With regard to God, I simply do not question His reasons for doing things. I could argue that this was a punishment by God, or that this was a righteous act by God, but I think you would argue otherwise. I simply do not make it a practice of projecting my own intepretation of God's doings upon God Himself. Besides, I suspect that if I gave a Biblical explanation you would probably reject it anyway....right?

Thank you for proving my point. MOST cultures think it is wrong to murder. Not all people think it is wrong to murder, so it cannot be a moral absolute.

I would not immediately reject a biblical explanation IF you can justify murdering innocent children.

Yes, but everyone believes in something. Humans are built that way. It is impossible for a human to not believe in something without believing in something else. So you say, "I don't believe in God." Well, that right there indicates that you must believe in something. You must have a reason to believe that there is not a God. That, right there, is a belief structure.

I do not say, "I don't believe in God." I do say "I don't believe that a god exists." That "in" word makes a world of a difference. I can agree that everyone believes in something, but not that everyone has a belief system or the belief in a creator.

Quote from the American Atheists website:

"Atheism Teaches That...

[artsylady]

Fovezer:

But you see, I AM in the search for the truth, and the truth has led me to the logical conclusion that no gods exist, especcially the Christian god.

That's NOT logical. You can't prove a negative.

Besides, how is so logical to look at design in every direction of nature and think it all came together by accident? Step out of your door and you'll probably see an intelligently designed system - ants, bees, photosynthesis etc, etc, etc.

Accidents cause chaos, not order.

Regarding evolution: It CAN happen to a certain extent, but it's limited to the DNA of the species. Creationists DO believe in microevolution which simply means change within a species. There is a huge amount of information in a DNA cell. We can lose information after a number of generations but there is no way new information can get added in. Example. A cat has the ability to have a long coat. If a cat is in alaska, the dna, which is based on genetic information, pools out that ability for a long shaggy coat to form. (after a number of years) A lizard does NOT have this kind of information. A lizard will NEVER grow fur even if you put it in the artic for thousands of years. The information just isn't there. Eyeless bats are supposedly an example of evolution, however, this is just LOSS of information. Bats living in darkness for so long dropped the ability to see because it is useless in the dark. No information can be added. Evolution is just a pool of AVAILABLE genetic material to make the creature more suitable to his environment.

Thank you for proving my point. MOST cultures think it is wrong to murder. Not all people think it is wrong to murder, so it cannot be a moral absolute.

So you think it's okay in those cultures to murder? Do you also think it's okay to kill baby girls? In some countries, it's okay to molest children. Do you think this is okay?

Again, there really is no such thing as an atheist, for an atheist can never know that there is no God. If he did, then he would have to be God.

Very true.

To all those who say atheist don't exist, because in order to know there is not a god, you must be god, I am asking, what are you thinking? Apply that same concept to christians, and you get: Christians really don't exist, because in order to know there is a god, you must be god.

No, the same does not apply at all.

Are you an employee? Do you have a boss? Do you have to BE a boss in order to know whether a boss exists or not? Of course not.

Maybe I don't see any evidence because there isn't any, and all the supposed evidence has been disproved.

Open your eyes. Look all around you. There is design everywhere. In animals, plants, the way they relate, the solar system. Millions of systems of complex design. How do you ignore this?

I don't not want to believe in god, but I see no reason to.

You see no reason to, because you don't want to believe in God.

Yes, I was a one point a Christian, like many atheists.

Probably like MOST athiests. How did I know that? Let me guess. God didn't answer a prayer or didn't react the way you thought He should have, and then you decided that simply, there just wasn't a God. Correct?

I don't fight against it, I fight against misconseption of atheist and evolution and flat out lies told by many creationist. (I'm not saying you do.)

No matter where you're getting your facts, they have to be filtered. I believe Answers in Genesis is a very reputable and credible organization. If they make a mistake, they will admit it.

On the same token, there have been major mistakes made on the part of evolutionists trying to prove their theories. In fact, most of the 'evidence' used in the scopes trial has long been dismissed as such.

There was also a Christian minister who turned atheist. I can't remember his name, though. I'll see if I can find it.

I'm sure there are more than one, as there are more than one athiest turned Christian.

But if you're not open to the belief in God, why even be here?

Why do you care so much about what Christians think about athiesm? Why does it matter to you at all?

[irishcowboy]

that is a good point, G.M., about the man whos wife is dying, and needs the meds.....

as we all have discussed here ( on the boards ) from time to time..... how about this scenario:

the rapture comes, billions are taken, billions are left.....

of those left there are many that realize what has just happened, and turn towards God.... during this time, they can not buy or sell anything with out the mark......

the law says this..... also it is wrong to steal....

as they get hungry, as they thirst, as they need shelter, and clothing, how do they or will they obtain it???

not being able to buy anything..... will they have to steal for it???? is that not wrong??? morally????

food for thought......

mike

[irishcowboy]

by the way, if you happen to have a baby girl that you no longer wish to keep, and you are thinking about doing away with her, ( a baby boy even ) give her to us, we will love her and care for her and raise her up for Jesus....

I only wish i had the means and the space to take in every child that was unwanted ( yes, i mean every child thru-out the world)

Blessings my friend.

mike

[nebula]

I've heard the testimony of only two people who came to a knowledge of Jesus through intellectual pursuits - C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell. For everyone else, they were going through a time of crisis and cried out to Jesus in one way or another, and He made Himself real to them.

Well, in a lot of cases, things weren't so dramatic. But some people spoke of being at the point of death (i.e. drug overdose, toxic venom, boat flipped over in a storm) and cried out, "Jesus, if you are real, save me!" (or some variatian of that), and they were delivered from death. One man I heard had totally lost control of his family (i.e. daughter rebelling and doing drugs and what not) and cried out in desperation from his desire for his life to be brought back together; the first thing he was given was an overwhelming sense of peace like he'd never known (and there's no feeling of peace like that which you feel while in the midst of overwhelming turmoil).

I believe trying to argue God scientifically is pretty useless. All such debates I got into ended up just like this - both sides going no where with the other and everyone just getting frustrated.

The real test of God, of Jesus, is to cry out to Him and reveal Himself to you. If you, out of sincerity, ask, "Jesus, if you are real, please prove to me you are real," then you will know.

[sagz4Christ]

I believe trying to argue God scientifically is pretty useless. All such debates I got into ended up just like this - both sides going no where with the other and everyone just getting frustrated.

The real test of God, of Jesus, is to cry out to Him and reveal Himself to you. If you, out of sincerity, ask, "Jesus, if you are real, please prove to me you are real," then you will know.

Wonderful point Neb!

We should be so bold as to say....

"I challenge you to live with me for 30 days and see for yourself the power of God in our lives!"

The fact of God's reality is not based upon our ability to argue scientifically or logically for or against it.

The fact, or Truth of God's existence is found in the way a child of God lives out his or her life! This is something that ultimately lacks in this particular kind of medium. I can't see the way you live....and you can't see the way I live.

We CAN show those around us though...how we live...and THAT is where people see, and know that God exists. In our lives. The reality of God is found in the peace of a man that called out to Him amidst his family falling apart at the seams.

It is found in the resolution of a child with a gun pointing at her head, being asked if she believed in Christ, and saying with strength, love and peace, her last words on earth...."Yes."

God IS real. He DOES exist. And His power in people's lives today is the evidence.

~your servant in Christ

[artsylady]

I believe trying to argue God scientifically is pretty useless. All such debates I got into ended up just like this - both sides going no where with the other and everyone just getting frustrated.

Especially when the guy admits he doesn't WANT to beleive in God. I should just bow out now. It IS useless.

[Fovezer]

That's NOT logical.  You can't prove a negative.

Besides, how is so logical to look at design in every direction of nature and think it all came together by accident?  Step out of your door and you'll probably see an intelligently designed system - ants, bees, photosynthesis etc, etc, etc. 

Accidents cause chaos, not order. 

Regarding evolution:  It CAN happen to a certain extent, but it's limited to the DNA of the species.  Creationists DO believe in microevolution which simply means change within a species.  There is a huge amount of information in a DNA cell.  We can lose information after a number of generations but there is no way new information can get added in.  Example.  A cat has the ability to have a long coat.  If a cat is in alaska, the dna, which is based on genetic information, pools out that ability for a long shaggy coat to form.  (after a number of years)  A lizard does NOT have this kind of information.  A lizard will NEVER grow fur even if you put it in the artic for thousands of years.  The information just isn't there.  Eyeless bats are supposedly an example of evolution, however, this is just LOSS of information.  Bats living in darkness for so long dropped the ability to see because it is useless in the dark.  No information can be added.  Evolution is just a pool of AVAILABLE genetic material to make the creature more suitable to his environment.

What do you mean "prove a negative"? I haven't tried to prove any negative?

Where does evolution EVER say that things came about by accident? Stop building strawmen! Evolution is not a series of accident. Put down your "Creatioists guide to Evolution" or where ever you are getting these lies from.

And if everything is created by an intelligent and perfect creator, how come we are so imperfect and filled with flaws?

Microevolution does mean a small change. Why is is so hard to believe that macroevolution is just microevolution repeated many, many times? Lets use math as an example. You want to see 1+5=6. Meaning, from one animal to a complete other in as short of time as possible. But that is not how it happens. Macroevolution is more like this: 1+1+1+1+1+1=6. It takes smaller steps to get to that number. Creationists believe microevolution because of the overwhelming evidence for it, and it cannot be disproven.

As for gaining new information, new information CAN be added. Bacteria being able to eat nylon is one example. They had to add the info in order to be able to digest it.The gain of information is met by evolution via a TWO-STEP process.

1. Increase the amount of DNA.

2. Increase the amount of information by selection.

Just like a the pages of a book is the medium carrying information of the sentences on those pages, so DNA is the medium for carrying information in the genome.

Now, to satisfy the creationist demand for "increased information", you must add pages to the book. Or add DNA to the organism. There are several mutations that do this: insertion mutations where a single base is added to a gene, insertion of transposon (short sequences of DNA) to the gene, duplication of the whole gene, duplication of the whole chromosome, duplication of part of the chromosome and then translocation of that duplication to another chromosome (thus adding the DNA to the other chromosome), or adding a plasmid to a cell.

The last is how the new DNA was added for the nylon bug. http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

The bacteria already had its own genome. The plasmid brought in extra DNA to the organism.

Within the plasmid there was the insertion of a single base (thymine) into the sequence. "However, this single microevolutionary addition of a single thymine ('T') nucleotide caused the new bacterium's enzyme to be composed of a completely novel sequence of amino acids, via the mechanism of frame shifting."

Now, originally the article indicated that the insertion changed a key metabolic enzyme. However, later research shows that the sequence was NON-CODING before the insertion. That is, it was DNA that was not used for ANY information because it was not translated to a protein:

"Scientists have studied both the original (pre-mutation) plasmid and the novel (post-mutation) plasmid, in great detail. It turns out that the novel plasmid's mutated DNA for production of nylonase is almost identical to a non-coding repetitive DNA sequence on the original plasmid; the difference is the single nucleotide that triggered the Frame Shift. "

So, no information to information.

Now, once you have DNA as the medium, selection INCREASES information. This is demonstrated by William Dembski in his book No Free Lunch. The irony here is that Dembski is a founding member of the Intelligent Design Movement whose credo is that evolution doesn't produce new information!

"Suppose that an organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of these N offspring M succeed in reproducing. The amount of information introduced through selection is then -log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds universally and is non-mysterious. Take a simple non-biological example. If I am sitting at a radio transmitter, and can transmit only zeros and ones, then every time I transmit a zero or one, I choose between two possibilities, selecting precisely one of them. Here N equals 2 and M equals 1. The information -log2(M/N) thus equals -log2(1/2) = 1, i.e., 1 bit of information n is introduced every time I transmit a zero or one. This is of course as things should be. Now this example from communication theory is mathematically isomorphic to the case of cell-division where only one of the daughter cells goes on to reproduce. On the other hand, if both daughter cells go on to reproduce, then N equals M equals 2, and thus -log2(M/N) = -log2(2/2) = 0, indicating that selection, by failing to eliminate any possibility failed also to introduce new information. "

Now, remember Natural Selection. More offspring are born than survive and reproduce. So N is ALWAYS bigger than M. This means that -log2(M/N) is ALWAYS going to be positive. Natural selection will always INCREASE information!

Let's do some calculations:

1. In a population, there are 4 offspring born but selection eliminates 3 and only one reproduces. So we have N = 4 and M = 1. -log(2) (M/N) = -log(2) (1/4) = -(-2) = 2. We have gained 2 "bits" of information in this generation. Selection does increase information.

2. Let's take a more radical example. An antibiotic kills 95% of the population. So we have 5 bacteria that can reproduce out of 100. N = 100, M =5. -log(2) (5/100) = -log(2) (.05) = -(-4.3) = 4.3. Now information has increased 4.3 "bits". The more severe the selection, the greater the increase in information. Not exactly what Dembski said.

3. Let's take a less severe example. A selection pressure such that of 100 individuals, 99 survive to reproduce. -log(2) (99/100) = -log(2) (.99) = - (-0.01) = 0.01.

So now we have only an increase of 0.01 "bits" in this one generation due to selection. But remember, selection is cumulative. Take this over 1,000 generations and we have an increase of 10 "bits". Now, Nilsson and Pelger have estimated, using conservative parameters, that it would take 364,000 generations to evolve an eye. D-E Nilsson and S Pelger, A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B. 256: 53-58, 1994. Taking that over our calculations shows that the eye represents an increase of 3,640 "bits" of information.

-from here

So you think it's okay in those cultures to murder?  Do you also think it's okay to kill baby girls?  In some countries, it's okay to molest children.  Do you think this is okay?

So do I think it's okay in those cultures to murder? No, but they may think its ok. Do I also think it's okay to kill baby girls? Of course not. In some countries, it's okay to molest children. Do I think this is okay?Of course not, but if they do think it is ok, then there cannot be moral absolutes.

No, the same does not apply at all.

Are you an employee?  Do you have a boss?  Do you have to BE a boss in order to know whether a boss exists or not?  Of course not.

Yes, the same does apply. Your analogy is flawed. You can physically see and touch your boss, but not your god. So if you can't see or touch your boss, how do you know he is there? So yes, you would have to be your boss to know he exists.

Open your eyes.  Look all around you.  There is design everywhere.  In animals, plants, the way they relate, the solar system.  Millions of systems of complex design.  How do you ignore this?

I don't. I also don't think it is design. Show me how it HAS to be designed. I do not just attribute the unknown to god like you do.

You see no reason to, because you don't want to believe in God.

Ahhhh, of couse. Let me guess, you also believe all people are born knowing that the Christian god it the right god too, right? Give me a break.

Probably like MOST athiests.  How did I know that?  Let me guess.  God didn't answer a prayer or didn't react the way you thought He should have, and then you decided that simply, there just wasn't a God.  Correct?

Yeah, sure, that's it. Or maybe its that there really is not a god at all?

On the same token, there have been major mistakes made on the part of evolutionists trying to prove their theories.  In fact, most of the 'evidence' used in the scopes trial has long been dismissed as such.

Please show me what as been dismissed? Please show me where evolutionists have lied? (I know of one, in China, but it was evolution scientists who found it was a hoax.) Creationist keep using debunked "evidence" to try and prove creationism, which was disproved 150 years ago. So, who is lying now?

But if you're not open to the belief in God, why even be here?

Why do you care so much about what Christians think about athiesm?  Why does it matter to you at all?

But I am open to the possibiltiy of a god. Don't you read? I've said it many times already. Show me WHY a god HAS TO exist, and some evidence pointing to his existance, and I will rethink my position.