Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

On the contrary. I take nothing for granted because it probably is true.

Your arguments must be very weak if you have to assign false viewpoints to others in order to defeat them.

Good question. Who or what put these principles in place?

And what do you base this "natural process" on? Your intense familiarity with the singularity process?

 

the two things are not even remotely similar

 

Um... no.

I am an atheist. Your rejection of this belief is all based on your opinion and what you have accepted as truth... you seem to confuse evidence with proof. Faith cannot exist with proof, and all of existence is itself evidence supporting the theories behind a God. I reject them personally... but this was a very lazy rebuke of my rebuttal. Answer the love question at the very least or be gone.

 

The argument was in my link. You have yet to refute it.

The rest of your post is typical of bigots.

 

This is what Paul Davies really said:
"We will never explain the cosmos by taking on faith either divinity or physical laws. True meaning is to be found within nature". The other guy Eric Metaxas took everything out of context. He is a false news TV host and speaker.

 

Intelligent Design has been around for hundreds of years....easily going back to the 1800s. Its just a renamed version of Deism which believes that there is a higher organizing power but doesn't claim to know specifically who or what it is. That is all it is. ID is supported by some Conservative Christian because believing in Creation theory has been so stigmatized and rightfully so. In fact its more likely that many conservatives Christians are rejecting the 6,000 year old Earth nonsense and adopting a less literal interpretation. This is clearly shown in Gallup polls over the years which show a slow but steady decline in the belief in a young Earth. If it makes you feel better then we can call it Deism which is what it used to be called.

 

it was easily refuted pages ago

the point is that it's bogus

 

Once again why would the designer of the universe even care about us. It might be just a giant program that get everything set up and lets stuff play out. There is absolutely no reason why a super being would get involved in our lives at all. We may or may not have souls but its silly to think that "God" cares about what I eat or who I sleep with.

God is simply the term for it. God could mean anything. We simply don't know. The assumption that atheists make is that there is no god because they can't see him or any sign of him. Did black holes not exist before we discovered them? The atheist argument is childish, rudimentary, petty and bitter and is generally a rejection of a higher power based on some emotional reaction. This is why you find the most ardent and vocal Atheists used to be religious at one point. They rejected their faith and then went full bore to the polar opposite conclusion just to get as far away from it as they could. That is not reasoning that is acting like an infant.

Why don't you google the odds for the simplest or RNAs to form and replicate. Then google the odds for the universe existing as it does now (stars and planets) if the four forces were not set where they are currently. Then come back and say with a straight face that this all occurred out of pure luck.

 

Based on what evidence? You don't get to claim there is no higher intelligence or god because you can't find him and then not defend that position. Show me one study or paper that says that life as we know it or even the formation of the universe as we know it is statistically possible by mere chance. The essence of the atheist argument boils down to... "I don't believe in god because he hasn't introduced himself to me." What a patronizing and arrogant assumption that a higher intelligence would even bother to introduce itself to what are more than likely one of many different species that evolved in various parts of the universe. Since the odds are so incredibly against all of "this" just happening by chance and the only other alternative is that it didn't happen by chance, its far easier to accept the notion of a higher power than to reject it. Until someone shows that the odds of all of this stuff are within a reasonable limit of happening by chance it takes more faith to believe in that than in any sort of creator.

 

What odds are those?
The odds that all potential combinations could occur simultaneously, the balanced one availing itself?
The odds that the universe has always existed as it does now, expanding and collapsing on itself?

You guys keep setting up these limited perspective "other than God" arguments and battle these strawmen with such arrogance.

There are a billions and billions and billions of possible answers as to "how" the tuning of the universe happened in a set of dimensions where there is no such thing as time or space... it is literally unfathomable. There are any number of answers to these questions... only the most primitive one is "God did it".

One argues the requirement of degrees of the four forces as demonstration of perfection... and then just ignores the chaos... one ignores extinction level asteroids and... solar flares... and... hurricanes and tornadoes and earthquakes... you think some being who can pare down the fundamental forces to the nth degree in order for existence to be needs some cosmic Michael Bay theater? Its... mindbogglingly vapid.

Design is silly. Designing time... outside of time... is silly. Intelligent design implies thought... thought requires time... in order to invent time... it is a paradox of astounding proportions. (*)(*)(*)(*) be... because shiit can be... or because (*)(*)(*)(*)'s always been. Thats really all there is to it.

 

Can one person please prove there is a god. And then explain to me why he is always broke and needing money.

 

That's simple. Time as you imagine it doesn't exist. It is nothing more than a human construct that allows us to write equations describing the world around us.

 

Time is relative. We observe a photon moving through space with a certain velocity and can measure the time associated with that. From the perspective of a photon there is no time, it doesn't exist. Neither does distance. Space and time are closely interrelated. Does that mean time can't exist without space? Probably, but like the photon, experiencing time isn't a fundamental requirement for existence.

 

As I have said several times now. Neither theory will ever be conclusively proven. They are both equally valid but equally unprovable. That is why I am going with the numbers. The math stacks against the "luck" theory so heavily that its literally almost inconceivable. Its not like believing in an intelligent designer does me any good anyways. Unlike Christianity or Buddhism there is nothing that indicates the existence of a soul or an after life so I figure that I am more than likely going to simply cease to exist altogether at some point.

 

You assume that whatever started it all is manipulating everything today. Why does "god" have to meddle in the daily affairs. Scientists run experiments all the time where they set up a situation and then see how it plays out. Even religious people debate whether a god just watches and observes or is actively involved with each individual person.

I am not sure why you put asteroids, earthquakes and whatnot in the chaotic category. Asteroids are very predictable we track thousands of them. Earthquakes happen in the same general areas over time and is nothing more than the crust releasing potential energy from the constant strain. That is just physics. Nothing astonishing about it at all. In fact if we didn't have earthquakes that would be a very bad thing since that would mean the earth's mantle and crust aren't moving. The moon makes werewolves goes nuts.....is the moon bad and chaotic now as well?

Regarding the odds....some of them are set in stone. If you nulcear forces holding atoms and molecules together were different then atoms and molecules would simply cease to exist. They would either fly apart (and actually never even get formed in the first place) or they would never separate and we wouldn't have gases or liquids.

 

based on a lack of evidence

"Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses."

 

http://www.godandscience.org/

Here's a link to a fascinating site which kept me up all night reading a few months ago. Quite interesting to say the least.

 

Oh that was simple alright........and addressed nothing.

 

You refuted nothing. Stomping your feet and shaking your head is not an argument.

 

Lets see if there are trillions of universes being created you only need one to survive the one we are in that matters, once you accept the massive numbers the odds mean nothing we are in one the lucky universes that rolled the dice and won. If it didn't we would not exist to talk about this.

 

Douglas Adams put it best. He said, imagine a puddle suddenly waking up and discovering that its container matched its shape absolutely perfectly. Surely the puddle could hardly help but conclude that the container was fine-tuned for just that puddle and no other.

 

Indeed. The only thing more absurd than an unseen guiding hand is a childish insistence that everything we see around us and know of just happens to be here somehow (like a tiger that just happens to appear in your bedroom one morning apropos of nothing at all). Which takes a more willful act of self delusion?

 

Wrong, the numbers still wouldn't work out. That's the point.

The statistical likelihood that we exist out of simple coincidence is so astronomically high as to be unbelievable. It's far more logical to believe that something designed it.