Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscientific

[theStudent]

The length of the thread, in the link below, is largely due to repeated questions.on the contained information. The following is open for debate.
Belief in the existence of God is scientific. Denial - unscientific.

For those who disagree with the above, please state why, and/or provide evidence for the following:

• God does not exist.
• God exists only in the mind of the believer.
• Miracles do not happen.
• The Bible is a book of myths.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 172 by Bust Nak]

With their own personal interpretation of the text. Some maybe more literal than others.

In any event, some lose out on some vitally important information.

A ticket to hell?

That's not my belief.
However, we can say that they too lose out on some vitally important information.
While the understanding benefit.

I believe that what we need, has been made available by God, through his word the Bible and his holy spirit.
I believe that people basically reject and deny the existence of God, because they don't want his laws.

For one thing, I find it highly unlikely that so many people find the God of the Bible so appealing, and others find him so appalling.
Those who find him appealing are no robots, or blind, who walk around saying, "Yes master. Whatever you say master. Just do as you will, and we'll do as you want."
Many people I know are well educated, and the majority of us are well informed. Some are reputable scientists. There has to be another reason, which I think is quite obvious.

I've done my research. I have researched Satanists, and seen for myself their prime reason for rejecting God and religion. Anton Lavey - head of the Church of Satan (deceased now) - admitted in many interviews that he can do anything he likes, and not have to worry about feeling guilty, or having to answer to anyone. He followed the footsteps of the man branded as the "wickedest man alive" - Aleister Crowley, who had the motto,

Do as thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law. There is no law, except do as thou wilt.

They formed their own cult, and worshiped themselves.
Many celebrities follow that motto. When their women kiss up each other, and their men do the same what do they say? The same thing that the women who strip naked, and stand in the streets holding placards say. Read the placards and the writing on their body. Its always against God and religion.

Many people under different names follow the same pattern, including scientist. But what's interested, is that they are not against just any god or religion.
Gather all their interviews, and listen to them. They do have a god and religion, but not - definitely not the "Judeo-Christian God and religion. Any other god and religion is fine.
Why? My, My. His laws are too restrictive.

A god that is responsible for the laws of the universe is perfect, but a god who sets laws for humans is imperfect.
That's the crux of the matter imo, and I am not alone.

Many scientists admit it. And many sensible people observe it.

The explanation was right there in his post: "by measuring the effects of its gravity."

This is what NASA says "In addition to the Chandra observation, the Hubble Space Telescope, the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope and the Magellan optical telescopes were used to determine the location of the mass in the clusters. This was done by measuring the effect of gravitational lensing, where gravity from the clusters distorts light from background galaxies as predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity.

The hot gas in this collision was slowed by a drag force, similar to air resistance. In contrast, the dark matter was not slowed by the impact, because it does not interact directly with itself or the gas except through gravity. This produced the separation of the dark and normal matter seen in the data. If hot gas was the most massive component in the clusters, as proposed by alternative gravity theories, such a separation would not have been seen. Instead, dark matter is required."

I know it's in his post.
I was more taken up with your comment.
You said they detect Dark Matter, but they don't detect God.
So I wanted to know how they detect dark matter - not that I don't already know.

From your link... This is the part I am interested in...

Without dark matter, which is invisible and can only be detected through its gravity...

However, I'm going to use Wiki, which I used before...
Although dark matter has not been directly observed, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects such as the motions of visible matter, gravitational lensing, its influence on the universe's large-scale structure, and its effects in the cosmic microwave background. Dark matter is transparent to electromagnetic radiation and/or is so dense and small that it fails to absorb or emit enough radiation to be detectable with current imaging technology.
Not detectable without gravity.

So a few questions, are you saying that if God exists, he is

1. a type of matter, like dark matter?
2. inside the known universe?
3. a material figure sitting on a throne, waiting for inferior - as the theoretical string theory physicist calls us - type0 civilization?

According to the Bible, none of the above.

I also made this point before
Because something is not detected with man's physical senses, doesn't mean it is non-existent.
Because someone cannot take something in existence, and physically show someone, doesn't mean it is non-existent.
Everything has it's own makeup, and is detectable only by what it can be detectable with.

Where did the matter and energy come from? Was it created? How was the universe created?
The law of conservation says, matter cannot be created from nothing.

Reported in its January 1999 issue the magazine Scientific American

The big bang theory does not describe the birth of the universe... Another theory describing even earlier times will be needed to explain the original creation of the universe.

Which is what they are still working on.

I love the conclusion to this article.
What existed before the Big Bang?

But results from these new experiments are many years away, and until then, physicists will continue to speculate about what might have existed before the Big Bang. Many hope that these experiments will finally shed some light on the mystery. While were all waiting, perhaps the best we can do is slip into a bubble bath and contemplate the unknown.

They have speculation about multiverses.
How will they ever get to the bottom of this... or the top?

The universe did not always exist. It had a beginning.

Stephen Hawking, quoted in the article Did It Really Have a Beginning?, in the Awake! magazine, June 22, 1999

Many scientists did not like the idea that the universe had a beginning, a moment of creation.

Robert Jastrow

Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover... . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.

Alexander Vilenkin - (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

So I would say, it is clear that they have detected God at work - an intelligent mind, and controlled energy/power.

More on this later.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 180 by Divine Insight]

I watched the video link you had provided. It's not impressive. I have studied physics enough to know that this universe is not entirely random. If it were there wouldn't even be any laws of physics because everything would just behave randomly which it clearly does not.

Also, contrary to your incorrect assumption there is no need for any intelligent designer just for things to not be random.

You may find this shocking but other people have already studied these sorts of questions and have realized that an intelligent designer is simply not required.

Other people on this forum and even in this thread have attempted to explain these things to you but you don't seem to be interested in hearing the truth. You appear to be completely ignoring every point they have made.

I saw that info already.
Excuse my hardheadedness.
I believe other people outside these forums have had it explained to them also.
That's a lot of hardheads.

Everyone doesn't believe the same things DI.
When we get tired explaining, we are all free to stop.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 173 by RonE]

scientifically credible evidence

If this is all you want, you already got it.
It's not anything that will be accepted as scientifical, on these forums, so it would not be worth repeating.
I already mentioned, that sensible people acknowledge that the Bible, and science are in agreement, as I mentioned before, with one exception, which I have made myself clear on.

Perhaps there might be a time when more can be said after a few things are presented.
But for now, we are at a sort of... I don't know... back and forth?

Question:
Why are we here?

Answer:
Scientists - We don't know?
The Bible - God created man for the earth.

Question:
How and why did the universe begin?

Answer:
Scientists - We don't know?
The Bible - God created the universe.

Question:
How did life originate?

Answer:
Scientists - We don't know?
The Bible - God created all life on earth.

Question:
What is the future of the universe, earth, and life?

Answer:
Scientists - We don't know?
The Bible - God will bless and sustain life on earth forever.

As far as Christians are concerned.. We're cool.

I have some work to do, so I won't be on tomorrow.

[Divine Insight]

Everyone doesn't believe the same things DI.
When we get tired explaining, we are all free to stop.

That's right. Everyone doesn't believe the same things. But that doesn't change the fact that some explanations are rational and some aren't.

The biggest hole in your arguments are your conclusion that since you "believe" there needs to be an intelligent designer, this means that, not only must a God exist, but that it must be the God of your favorite religion.

The first idea that "There must be an intelligent designer" is already a flawed argument. This is not to say that there can't be an intelligent designer, but rather that the arguments you've been giving for why there "needs" to be one have been shown to be false arguments repeatedly.

Sure, you can still believe that there needs to be a designing God, but that doesn't make your arguments on that debate valid.

And the second part of your assumed conclusions is that if there exists a designer God then it must be the God of your favorite religion clearly doesn't hold any water at all.

Again, a belief, that has no merit.

~~~~~~

I on the other hand have no firm beliefs. I just state the truth.

And the truth is that there doesn't need to be a designing God. That doesn't say anything at all about what I believe. I could believe there is no God, or I could still believe there is a God even though there doesn't need to be one. Or I could be totally honest and simple say that I have no "beliefs" on the matter at all. There may or may not exist a God. Why do we need to harbor a firm belief about something we can't know?

That's simply not necessary.

Finally, I demonstrate that even if there was a designing God it isn't likely to have been the one described by the Bible for TWO very good reasons.

First reason is that the God of the Bible would be a terrible designer if he designed animals and humans. I already pointed out that even the Biblical God had men cutting off the foreskin of their own penises because the Biblical God make a mistake when designing penises. There are many other examples of really bad designs in nature as well if we imagine everything having been designed on purpose.

And the second reason that the God of the Bible can't be true, is because even if he wasn't associated with unintelligent poor designs, the Bible still requires that this God is a logical contradiction of the very traits he's supposed to have.

So even if there exists a "Designer God" it couldn't be the God of the Bible anyway. I keep pointing out that if there exists a designer God Buddhism would be far more likely to be a correct description of it.

So really these things have nothing to do with "beliefs", they simply have to do with the facts.

So you can believe whatever you like, that doesn't change the facts.

[Bust Nak]

In any event, some lose out on some vitally important information.

However, we can say that they too lose out on some vitally important information.
While the understanding benefit.

I believe that what we need, has been made available by God, through his word the Bible and his holy spirit.

So where does that leave people who don't have that vitally important information, when there are three camps all claiming to have contradicting "vitally important information straight" provided directly by God via the holy spirit? Nothing you said has changed my point: It's just your words against theirs.

I believe that people basically reject and deny the existence of God, because they don't want his laws.

That makes no sense, whether someone exists or not and whether someone's laws are good or not are different questions. That's a classic case of appeal to consequences fallacy. Give us unbelievers more credit.

For one thing, I find it highly unlikely that so many people find the God of the Bible so appealing, and others find him so appalling.

Confirmation bias would do that, why do you think it unlikely?

Those who find him appealing are no robots, or blind, who walk around saying, "Yes master. Whatever you say master. Just do as you will, and we'll do as you want."
Many people I know are well educated, and the majority of us are well informed. Some are reputable scientists. There has to be another reason, which I think is quite obvious.

I've done my research. I have researched Satanists, and seen for myself their prime reason for rejecting God and religion. Anton Lavey - head of the Church of Satan (deceased now) - admitted in many interviews that he can do anything he likes, and not have to worry about feeling guilty, or having to answer to anyone. He followed the footsteps of the man branded as the "wickedest man alive" - Aleister Crowley, who had the motto,

Do as thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law. There is no law, except do as thou wilt.

They formed their own cult, and worshiped themselves.
Many celebrities follow that motto. When their women kiss up each other, and their men do the same what do they say? The same thing that the women who strip naked, and stand in the streets holding placards say. Read the placards and the writing on their body. Its always against God and religion.

Many people under different names follow the same pattern, including scientist. But what's interested, is that they are not against just any god or religion.
Gather all their interviews, and listen to them. They do have a god and religion, but not - definitely not the "Judeo-Christian God and religion. Any other god and religion is fine.
Why? My, My. His laws are too restrictive.

That's plainly false. Neither Thor nor Poseidon are fine. That right there is what I was talking about re: confirmation bias. You are thinking of them being fine with the god of pantheism.

A god that is responsible for the laws of the universe is perfect, but a god who sets laws for humans is imperfect.
That's the crux of the matter imo, and I am not alone.

Many scientists admit it. And many sensible people observe it.

Well they are as wrong as you are.

So a few questions, are you saying that if God exists, he is

1. a type of matter, like dark matter?

No idea what he is. All I can say is if he exist he is naturalistic and material.

[*]inside the known universe?

Yes.

[*]a material figure sitting on a throne, waiting for inferior - as the theoretical string theory physicist calls us - type0 civilization?
[/list]

That's one option. There are others.

According to the Bible, none of the above.

Which is why we know God of the Bible isn't scientific.

I also made this point before
Because something is not detected with man's physical senses, doesn't mean it is non-existent.
Because someone cannot take something in existence, and physically show someone, doesn't mean it is non-existent.
Everything has it's own makeup, and is detectable only by what it can be detectable with.

But it does mean it is unscientific. That's your topic, remember? Like I said earlier, you've handicapped yourself by phrasing the question of God in a science context.

Where did the matter and energy come from? Was it created? How was the universe created?
The law of conservation says, matter cannot be created from nothing.

I think you'll fine the law of conservation says, energy cannot be created or destroyed.

They have speculation about multiverses.
How will they ever get to the bottom of this... or the top?

I am thinking never.

The universe did not always exist. It had a beginning.

Stephen Hawking, quoted in the article Did It Really Have a Beginning?, in the Awake! magazine, June 22, 1999

Many scientists did not like the idea that the universe had a beginning, a moment of creation.

Robert Jastrow

Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover... . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.

Alexander Vilenkin - (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

Well there you go. They don't like the idea of a beginning of the universe, yet was convinced by the evidence. That right there, is shows the idea that scientists reject God because they don't like God, not because of evidence, is bunk. All you need to convince scientists of God, is empirical evidence, they will accept it no matter how much they dislike the idea.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 167 by Divine Insight]

Then I turned to an ancient fable of a God and showed that by applying the same methods of logical proof there we can demonstrate that the fictitious God character in those fables cannot be true because the existence of that God character leads to a logical contradiction.

In short, what I have done is prove, using logic, that the God described in the Biblical fables cannot exist in reality. Of course, it's always possible to write contradictory stories, so I'm not proving that the Biblical fables can't exist. Only that the God Character they describe cannot exist.

All you did was say that if A exists then it cannot not exist.

And from that you conclude that God must exist.

That is not even remotely logical because you need to first show that your God exists before you can conclude that it cannot exist. But you haven't done that.

So no, Student, you haven't even remotely done the same thing I did at all. And the fact that you can't see the difference reveals that you don't even understand the logical reasoning behind the argument I've given.

I've shown that the fictitious Biblical God Character cannot be real.

You have not show that your God exists. And therefore you are in no position to proclaim that he cannot not exist. Yet that is your claim.

Let me just reasure you that I understand you fully, on your views on God, and respect that.
I understand that the Judeo-Christian God, is not the God you favor.
Actually I believe you know that you are not alone. Many scientists are on your side, as I am sure you know.

You have been told repeatedly on this site the different between evolution and abiogenesis for many weeks now. Yet you refuse to study the difference and acknowledge i

Where did I just say abiogenesis?
Why is it that every time I mentioned evolution this is said?

You have been told repeatedly on this site the different between evolution and abiogenesis

I don't even want to know.

Evolution has a motor. It is driven by the second law of thermodynamics called entropy. The Earth is not a closed system, it receives energy from the sun and therefore it must evolve in complexity. So that is what powers evolution.

The natural laws of chemistry could actually be said to be the "motor" which is driven by the energy of the sun.

So you are wrong to say that evolution has no motor. That conflicts with known science.

I don't care how many theories and hypotheses they come up with for their little worm... or new idea... plant (A New Physics Theory of Life).
Nor do I care who chooses to hold on to their god-of-the-chasms in their bid to support Darwin's religion.
The truth will always prevail, no matter how they try to hide the truth, that they so desperately don't want to accept - that science proves life was created by an intelligence.

When do you suppose they will get this one patched?

The second law of thermodynamics applied on the origin of life is a far more complicated issue than the further development of life, since there is no "standard model" of how the first biological lifeforms emerged; only a number of competing hypotheses. The problem is discussed within the area of abiogenesis, implying gradual pre-Darwinian chemical evolution.

Hey, there's that "a word" again.
At least I didn't mention it.

Even though atheist and evolutionists enjoy these theories, I enjoy them just as much - in a different way.
I sit and laugh at the desperate scramble to cover up the truth, and the miserable blunders that result. And I sit back and wait for the next comic to come out, to see what they come up with next.
I know I am one guy that gets a lot of face exercise.

How Does Life Come From Randomness?


After all, why be make a fuss when people choose to build their house on sand, not because they are ignorant, but because the prefer to, because they hate the the rock that others build their houses on.

Much of this sounds delusional IMO.
People don't appreciate the scientific method because they want to reject your god?
("they hate the the rock that others build their houses on"). You might as well accuse them of hating Santa while your at it. How can one hate what they don't find to be real?
Are you listening to your arguments?

Imagine this argument:
Person A) You are not listening to my explanation just because you hate the Tooth Fairy.
Person B) But, I don't believe that the Tooth Fairy is a real thing to be hated.
Person A) You are just saying that because your religion of algebra causes you to hate the Tooth Fairy!
Person B) Hmm, are you even paying attention?

And now, like arian, you think Darwin started a religion!

We can't have a reasonable discussion if you are not using reason to arrive at your conclusions.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 178 by Divine Insight]

That's not my question.
It's a link to a video you might enjoy, and agree with.
So I suggest you look at it, before coming to a conclusion.

Do you even realize that this rebuttal you offered has absolutely nothing to do with his point that you are not making an argument that points to the Christian god?

Do you not care that you are not arguing for your preferred god concept? I find it odd to argue for a created universe, but then not rebut the arguments that show it was not your god concept that did what you want to be true.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 180 by Divine Insight]

I watched the video link you had provided. It's not impressive. I have studied physics enough to know that this universe is not entirely random. If it were there wouldn't even be any laws of physics because everything would just behave randomly which it clearly does not.

Also, contrary to your incorrect assumption there is no need for any intelligent designer just for things to not be random.

You may find this shocking but other people have already studied these sorts of questions and have realized that an intelligent designer is simply not required.

Other people on this forum and even in this thread have attempted to explain these things to you but you don't seem to be interested in hearing the truth. You appear to be completely ignoring every point they have made.

I saw that info already.
Excuse my hardheadedness.
I believe other people outside these forums have had it explained to them also.
That's a lot of hardheads.

Everyone doesn't believe the same things DI.
When we get tired explaining, we are all free to stop.

You said that the universe is random. He explained why this is not true. You failed to even attempt to address his point.

Do you now agree that the universe is not random, or did you stick your head in the sand so you can pretend you didn't hear his reasoning? Is ignorance bliss in this case?

[RonE]

[Replying to post 183 by theStudent]

[Replying to post 173 by RonE]

scientifically credible evidence

If this is all you want, you already got it.
It's not anything that will be accepted as scientifical, on these forums, so it would not be worth repeating.

Why would you say "you already got it"? When you recognize that what you presented is not scientifically credible?

I already mentioned, that sensible people acknowledge that the Bible, and science are in agreement, as I mentioned before, with one exception, which I have made myself clear on.

Perhaps there might be a time when more can be said after a few things are presented.
But for now, we are at a sort of... I don't know... back and forth?

Actually, where we are is with you having failed to provide evidence to back up your claims of a supernatural, all powerful god who is the "intelligent designer". So there are two options for you, either retract your claims or support them with the evidence I requested.

[Clownboat]

scientifically credible evidence

If this is all you want, you already got it.
It's not anything that will be accepted as scientifical, on these forums, so it would not be worth repeating.
I already mentioned, that sensible people acknowledge that the Bible, and science are in agreement, as I mentioned before, with one exception, which I have made myself clear on.

This brush you use is too broad. For example, in the Spider Man comics, New York is referenced. That does not make Spider Man real!

Question:
Why are we here?

This is unknown. Now either accept that, or do as many others do that cannot accept this fact and pick a religions to follow.

Answer:
Scientists - We don't know?
The Bible - God created man for the earth.

Like I said, accept that we don't know why (or if there is even a 'why') or pick a religion. Why did you decide to pick a god concept rather than acknowledge that we don't know why we are here?

Question:
How and why did the universe begin?

Admit that we don't know, or do as billions of humans do and pick from an available god concept.

Answer:
Scientists - We don't know?
The Bible - God created the universe.

Like I said.

Question:
How did life originate?

The hard way to go about this would be to study the possible theories that are out there and decide if they seem credible.
Or... pick from one of the thousands of available god concepts and you literally don't have to do any work/research. Any surprise that so many humans choose the easy god concept route? Not IMO.

Answer:
Scientists - We don't know? (For sure) <--- Added by me
The Bible - God created all life on earth.

Like I said.

Question:
What is the future of the universe, earth, and life?

That we know much about, so you would need to be specific. I warn you though, you may have to do some reading/studying to find out what we do know. Perhaps it would just be easier to credit one of the many god concepts?

Answer:
Scientists - We don't know?
The Bible - God will bless and sustain life on earth forever.

Even after it is swallowed up by our sun? Bah, better just plug your ears to that one.

As far as Christians are concerned.. We're cool.

Of course, they are part of their own self created 'in group' after all.