Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator.

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread

I present undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator.

I await the evidence.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

[Suzy]

Like most of us atheists that debate online I also have asked for scientific evidence for a creator many many times.
I can now say there is no scientific evidence for a creator whatsoever because if there were then someone out there in the big wide world would have presented it to me by now.

If blind faith was good scientific evidence then all us atheists would be……….. fill in the blank with your own chosen F word!

[Thruit]

Well, I have absolutely no scientific background...your average run of the mill schmuk really...but since we all observe that life only comes from life, which is proven through repeatable demonstration, someone might take that information and develope a hypothesis that life must somehow have always existed...which is exactly what the Bible says. Of course, people are free to ignore this evidence which is all around them in favor of no evidence and develope a hypothesis that life came into being from lifeless matter.

[Zzyzx]

.

Of course, people are free to ignore this evidence which is all around them in favor of no evidence and develope a hypothesis that life came into being from lifeless matter.

A very rational response when one does not know the origin of something is "I don't know"

Those who study such things are likely to propose and check theories and identify them as such

Those who worship "gods" often feel compelled to "explain" origins by crediting their favorite god but can offer only conjecture, opinion, hearsay, testimonials, etc -- no verifiable evidence

Take your choice -- which is more rational?

[Inigo Montoya]

Here's the rub, and the main reason I question how much time I spend in this particular thought experiment: If there was undeniable scientific evidence, there wouldn't be any authentic atheists. You might have willfully ignorant atheists, but "THE CREATOR" would be known by everyone. Otherwise it wouldn't be...undeniable..scientific..evidence..

This site and every word in favor of the Christian god exists based on varying degrees of faith and belief. None, aside from Arian-types, will say they are 100% certain and offer undeniable proof.

Because it can't be done.

[Divine Insight]

Well, I have absolutely no scientific background...your average run of the mill schmuk really...but since we all observe that life only comes from life, which is proven through repeatable demonstration, someone might take that information and develope a hypothesis that life must somehow have always existed....

Developing a hypothesis is one thing. Proving the hypothesis is true is another thing entirely.

The problem with any hypothesis that suggests that life always existed is that it then has to deal with the bottleneck that the earth itself has not always existed.

So already the hypothesis that life had not always existed has a clear advantage of being more likely to be true.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 4:

If blind faith was good scientific evidence then all us atheists would be……….. fill in the blank with your own chosen F word!

Flabbergasted.

There's little need for all that repetitive talk of faith when you can offer confirmation.

[YahDough]

.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

Any truth can be denied.

But that doesn't make it not true.

The fact that there is a creation is probable cause for a "Creator" of some sort. (AKA "THE Creator")

There is no excuse for a person who cannot accept that. (Rom:1:20:)

[arian]

.
From another thread

I present undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator.

I await the evidence.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

Thank you ZzYzx.

OK, so more are interested to hear and not just ZzYzx pulling my chain so I repeat myself (and oh how everyone here knows I repeat myself) Like Master Spade said, I have claimed this a few times before, but actually I have explained it many, many times before, only to have you (unbelievers) refer to our "Creator" right back to the limited pre-programmed, indoctrinated world view as some old gray-haired bearded Deity who divines from the supernatural realm to a point of ad nauseam.

So if you keep referring to our Creator as the, or one of the created gods, I will stop this debate. If you were a teacher/professor then I expect you to understand simple terms and their differences, and not make fun of my posts that I carefully, and most of the time go beyond my ability to express. I said many times that I had very little schooling, but as you can see I try my very best putting together a sensible post, and use many different examples to get my message across.

So note number one; If you cannot understand the difference between Creator and the created, or the difference, the enormous difference between Infinite and finite, then I cannot go on.

SO, .. do you understand and agree with me that finite, no mater how many, or no matter how fast it is accumulating/expanding, it could NEVER, ever, ever reach 'Infinite'?

Note #2: Time, no matter how far you go back, or how far you go forwards could Never reach Eternity, or become eternal? Another words time does not in any way describe Eternity, or Eternal. That time has a beginning and an end, and has nothing to do with the actual Eternity which has no beginning nor end, .. do we agree?

Note #3: God, my God of the Bible does NOT mean religion. Another words, do you agree that someone could be very religious, (as I have said many times before like if I play tennis every morning at exactly 6 AM for exactly an hour, and try never to miss one day, yet believe in absolutely no god or gods, I could still be religious) yet have nothing to do with god or any worship of god or gods?

Now about another possible creator god, the Higgs boson particle Wikipedia:

Despite being present everywhere, the existence of the Higgs field has been very hard to confirm, because it is extremely hard to create excitations (i.e. Higgs particles). The search for this elusive particle has taken more than 40 years and led to the construction of one of the world's most expensive and complex experimental facilities to date, the Large Hadron Collider, able to create Higgs bosons and other particles for observation and study

... More data is needed to know if the discovered particle exactly matches the predictions of the Standard Model, or whether, as predicted by some theories, multiple Higgs bosons exist.

OK, if this makes sense to you that despite being present everywhere, more data is needed if multiple Higgs bosons exist, because the existence of the Higgs field has been very hard to confirm, but a 'Standard Model' has been predicted over 40 years ago, that would be in the 70's.
And I just have this deep feeling that the Higgs boson they study in the Large Hadron Collider will match the 40 years ago Predicted model since they cannot afford to pull any more bricks out of the very tall-tale and teeter tottering Big bang theory.
Just like The first true measurement of light-speed in 1676 at around 180,000 m/p/s
matched the 300 years later measurements, still at about 180,000 m/p/s.

.. if this sounds like true logical science to you, then you should have ABSOLUTELY no problem understanding my simple explanation of our Creator who created both the Universe and everything in it, including us man in His image. Only I promise not to use religious indoctrinations like I just shown you above regarding the Higgs boson.

So lets agree on some basic rational and logical ground rules and leave religion out of it, agreed?

[Divine Insight]

Arian, I'll be glad to offer my thoughts on your ideas,

SO, .. do you understand and agree with me that finite, no mater how many, or no matter how fast it is accumulating/expanding, it could NEVER, ever, ever reach 'Infinite'?

I'll grant that by definition. The finite is not infinite. No problem there.

Note #2: Time, no matter how far you go back, or how far you go forwards could Never reach Eternity, or become eternal? Another words time does not in any way describe Eternity, or Eternal. That time has a beginning and an end, and has nothing to do with the actual Eternity which has no beginning nor end, .. do we agree?

I'll agree to this too. But only to point out that there may very well me more than one kind of time. In fact, many physicists have suggested as much.

For one thing the "Entropic Time" that we experience within our physical universe is a property of what we believe to be a "fabric" that we call "spacetime". I call this type of time "Entropic Time" because its actually defined by the physical property of entropy which our physical universe exhibits.

I personally suspect that there also exists a potential "Non-Entropic Time", that does no define an arrow that we call "History". And "Non-Entropic Time" would indeed be "eternal" where eternity and the ever present moment are one in the same thing.

So, thus far I'm with you.

Note #3: God, my God of the Bible does NOT mean religion. Another words, do you agree that someone could be very religious, (as I have said many times before like if I play tennis every morning at exactly 6 AM for exactly an hour, and try never to miss one day, yet believe in absolutely no god or gods, I could still be religious) yet have nothing to do with god or any worship of god or gods?

I don't see the importance of the term "religion" or "religious". I can accept your semantic meaning of the term 'religious' to simply mean to do something with consistency, dependable repetitiveness, or even "dutifully" if you like.

However, as soon as I hear the phrase "My God of the Bible" that clearly implies scriptures, doctrine, or even dogma. In other words, a highly defined God character, complete with a behavioral history as well as supposedly having make directives, commandments, and even curses, etc.

Also, I confess to having a problem with your use of the term "My" in "My God of the Bible". I would suggest that the Bible defines its own God and unless you are claiming to be an other of these doctrines then I don't understand what you even mean by "My".

Now about another possible creator god, the Higgs boson particle Wikipedia:

Despite being present everywhere, the existence of the Higgs field has been very hard to confirm, because it is extremely hard to create excitations (i.e. Higgs particles). The search for this elusive particle has taken more than 40 years and led to the construction of one of the world's most expensive and complex experimental facilities to date, the Large Hadron Collider, able to create Higgs bosons and other particles for observation and study

... More data is needed to know if the discovered particle exactly matches the predictions of the Standard Model, or whether, as predicted by some theories, multiple Higgs bosons exist.

OK, if this makes sense to you that despite being present everywhere, more data is needed if multiple Higgs bosons exist, because the existence of the Higgs field has been very hard to confirm, but a 'Standard Model' has been predicted over 40 years ago, that would be in the 70's.
And I just have this deep feeling that the Higgs boson they study in the Large Hadron Collider will match the 40 years ago Predicted model since they cannot afford to pull any more bricks out of the very tall-tale and teeter tottering Big bang theory.
Just like The first true measurement of light-speed in 1676 at around 180,000 m/p/s
matched the 300 years later measurements, still at about 180,000 m/p/s.

.. if this sounds like true logical science to you, then you should have ABSOLUTELY no problem understanding my simple explanation of our Creator who created both the Universe and everything in it, including us man in His image. Only I promise not to use religious indoctrinations like I just shown you above regarding the Higgs boson.

That dosen''t sounds like "true logical science" to me. Especially concerning your comment: "And I just have this deep feeling that the Higgs boson they study in the Large Hadron Collider will match the 40 years ago Predicted model since they cannot afford to pull any more bricks out of the very tall-tale and teeter tottering Big bang theory."

I don't believe that any attempt was made to find something that wasn't there. Many physicists would be just as happy without a Higgs particles. Also the Big Bang theory is not dependent upon the Higgs particle. However, the Higgs particle does fit into the Standard Model of Particle Physics so I'm quite sure that many physicists are pleased to see it found.

I also don't understand how any of this is going to relate to evidence for THE Creator. What difference would it make whether the creator had used a Higgs field or not?

I would imagine you have an argument along those lines, but at the current time there's certainly no indication of how the Higgs (or the absence of the Higgs) is going to be evidence or not of a God.

So lets agree on some basic rational and logical ground rules and leave religion out of it, agreed?

I have no problem leaving "religion" out of it, whatever that's suppose to mean. But you clearly stated, "My God of the Bible". So I don't see how we can possibly leave the biblical scriptures or dogma out of it.

Is this the "Specific God" that you are calling THE Creator?

You've already mentioned the Higgs boson. So you're going to work up from the Higgs Boson and show that the God of the Bible has to be true?

Personally I think you've got one whale of a job cut out for you.

But taking it one step at a time, I hope you're going to make a case for why there needs to be a Creator of any kind at all. And I imagine this is going to have something to do with the Higgs Boson, otherwise why bother to even mention the Higgs Boson?

So at this point I would turn the debate back over to you and ask you to explain further what you believe the Higgs Boson (or absence thereof) has to do with evidence for or against any Creator. Let's not even worry about trying to pin it down to the Biblical God at this stage. Unless, of course you feel that you need to use the Bible to make that connection.

[Zzyzx]

.

OK, so more are interested to hear and not just ZzYzx pulling my chain

Zzyzx can only pull chains if they are left dangling. Well secured chains or debate arguments do not leave loose ends.

so I repeat myself (and oh how everyone here knows I repeat myself) Like Master Spade said, I have claimed this a few times before, but actually I have explained it many, many times before, only to have you (unbelievers) refer to our "Creator" right back to the limited pre-programmed, indoctrinated world view as some old gray-haired bearded Deity who divines from the supernatural realm to a point of ad nauseam.

So if you keep referring to our Creator as the, or one of the created gods, I will stop this debate.

Threats (or promises) to stop a debate do not constitute a sound argument for anything.

None of the thousands of proposed "gods" have been demonstrated to be "the creator." Many believing that their favorite "god" created the universe does NOT make it true.

None of the thousands of proposed "gods" have been demonstrated to be something other than a creation of human imagination. If you think otherwise, feel free to demonstrate which "god" created what and how that can be determined.

If you were a teacher/professor then I expect you to understand simple terms and their differences,

I credit fellow debaters and readers with ability to understand terms and differences (even beyond simple or simplistic) regardless of their profession.

and not make fun of my posts that I carefully, and most of the time go beyond my ability to express.

I do not intend to "make fun of" anyone's posts but I DO intend to challenge ideas presented that do not make sense or cannot be substantiated / verified.

I said many times that I had very little schooling, but as you can see I try my very best putting together a sensible post, and use many different examples to get my message across.

Schooling and education are not synonymous and neither is a guarantee of the other.

So note number one; If you cannot understand the difference between Creator and the created, or the difference, the enormous difference between Infinite and finite, then I cannot go on.

If one wishes to maintain in debate that they have knowledge of a "creator" they will be asked to verify that claim.

If one maintains that their favorite "god" cannot be a creation of human imagination that also will be challenged.

If one can only "debate" with those who agree to accept their preconceptions, they are demanding special privilege (which may be available in church or in Holy Huddle, but not in C&A debates)

SO, .. do you understand and agree with me that finite, no mater how many, or no matter how fast it is accumulating/expanding, it could NEVER, ever, ever reach 'Infinite'?

Is my position regarding finite and infinite required for you to present your ideas? If those are not matters of concern to me, are you unable to proceed?

Note #2: Time, no matter how far you go back, or how far you go forwards could Never reach Eternity, or become eternal? Another words time does not in any way describe Eternity, or Eternal. That time has a beginning and an end, and has nothing to do with the actual Eternity which has no beginning nor end, .. do we agree?

Is my position regarding time and eternity required for you to present your ideas? If those are not matters of concern to me, are you unable to proceed?

Note #3: God, my God of the Bible does NOT mean religion. Another words, do you agree that someone could be very religious, (as I have said many times before like if I play tennis every morning at exactly 6 AM for exactly an hour, and try never to miss one day, yet believe in absolutely no god or gods, I could still be religious) yet have nothing to do with god or any worship of god or gods?

I recognize that the term "religious" can have various meanings – including 1) relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity, 2) of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances, or 3) scrupulously and conscientiously faithful

Now about another possible creator god, the Higgs boson particle

Snip

OK, if this makes sense to you that despite being present everywhere, more data is needed

Snip

they cannot afford to pull any more bricks out of the very tall-tale and teeter tottering Big bang theory.

Snip

Just like The first true measurement of light-speed in 1676 at around 180,000 m/p/s matched the 300 years later measurements, still at about 180,000 m/p/s.

Snip

.. if this sounds like true logical science to you,

I take NO position regarding any of the above (and never have). Do you demand that I take a position in order to present your ideas about a creator?

then you should have ABSOLUTELY no problem understanding my simple explanation of our Creator who created both the Universe and everything in it, including us man in His image. Only I promise not to use religious indoctrinations like I just shown you above regarding the Higgs boson.

I am not easily impressed or convinced by arguments beyond a person's understanding / ability / knowledge

It might be prudent to present ideas as though readers were interested.

So lets agree on some basic rational and logical ground rules and leave religion out of it, agreed?

What ground rules would you suggest?