davien

science is a self-correcting process and the "nothing" I refer to is explicable to whom defines it and what it's used for...

Science is a general subject my friend and not everything is self-correcting. Scientists live in the uncertain and it's that uncertainty that encourages scientist to explore.

A mouth to stop willful ignorance...

It's good you can spell ignorance - you seem to be familiar with it

wow!....just wow! lol!
So you actually thought science gives "truths".....science is based on areas of philosophy like empiricism,realism,cartesian philosophy etcetera and under those axioms we can never know for certain if the observation you gave of #1 was/is always true...for all you know it began to occur that way when it was first viewed...the same goes for all your examples...

Cha- why do you insist on displaying your ignorance. These were your words: Nothing in science....is taken as "true". Instead of you to admit you over-spoke; you are here trying to play semantics with your words. If the 1st example I gave is not true, can you please falsify it. Perhaps you are the only human that doesn't have a brain since that might not be a truth statement according to your science. You are pitiful man

This is the reason why no scientist will say "science has all the answers" nor that "it's proven beyond reasonable doubt" otherwise it becomes a dogmatic religion...because of the fact that we can't really know anything to be true ..

Do you know the difference between making a truth statement and been uncertain? I am aware that science claims uncertainty but your statement that nothing is science is true is incorrect. I don't understand why you insist on playing pretend

So if you're wondering why we use science if we can't really know anything for certain it's because it's pragmatic and that is what I personally love about science..we don't have all the answers nor claim to,like religion...

I can't speak of all religions. Christianity doesn't claim to know all the answers. It bothers on theology and in case you don't know, theology is the queen of the sciences. It provides "beyond reasonable doubt" proof to me. So, please cross-check your references and information again.

Note,"primordial ripples" is not the same thing as "primordial universe"...the former is of ancient gravitational waves propagated by the big bang and the latter is the universe at pre-big bang..

Thanks

of what exactly?..because I'm yet to see you grasp or even discuss in an educated manner..

Coming from someone who thinks humans having brains is not true in science

Wrong again! First there is no dichotomy between lawrence Krauss' term of "nothing" and it's use...
Science works with terms that can be defined or numerically given for precision and to avoid ambiguity...."nothing" as commonly understood cannot be quantified let alone demonstrated to have been the state of the universe
Read the above.

Science use of nothing in other areas is quite clear as compared to Lawrence Krauss term of "nothing" when he refers to the cosmos. You seem insisting on Krauss definition of what nothing means. What doesn't nothing mean in mathematics?

I have the video of the debate...it was really intriguing for some of the greatest minds to be discussing such a topic,anyway if you had read you're own article...you'd have noted this comment by neil degrasse tyson " Ultimately, the definition of nothing may just be an ever-moving target,
shifting with every scientific revolution as new insights show us what
we thought was nothing is really something."
"Nothing" (as commonly understood) has not been established as the actual fate of anything...

So, Neil Degrasse Tyson definition of nothing exceeds or replaces Krauss definition of nothing in the same video abi or any of the other scientists? Dude, do you see how stupid that statement sounds! It's what I have been saying from jump-start. Nothing means something to these folks - they can't prove it but somehow it does. For example, it's like asking what is darkness? It's the same thing you are doing here - you are trying to define nothing as something. It's similar as saying, I don't know what it is but it could be something

Dimwit you are still referring to your straw man (multi-verse theory) haven't you read any of my comments?
I mean if simple tautology confuses you from the beginning,then you get confused by terminology (thinking primordial ripples equate to a primordial universe) and then not understanding the axioms of science, then I really don't think you have any business discussing any of this...you'll just end up being called out on your "knowledge"...

If you took time to read what I posted, you will see that I wasn't referring to the multi-verse. But you assumed I am referring to the multi-verse. I take God beg you, read it again and tell me how you came to the conclusion I was talking about the multi-verse?

Science is objective if you fail to grasp this there's nothing I can do..

Who said it wasn't. You are the one claiming a position of not been objective

davien

No, you still don't...

Have it your way - I won't argue with you anymore

Yes it was

Good - so basically the science that led to confirming the universe was eternal is the same science suggesting that the universe popped out of nothing? In your case - nothing means something

Nothing in science....is taken as "true",all we have is an approximation of knowledge based on what facts lead to.... The universe was considered eternal based on the acquired knowledge until more knowledge led to a different view

It is at this point that I realize you just want to talk because you have a mouth. You have basically said that a bunch of "intellectuals" can claim any nonsense as scientific and put the burden on others to disprove it. For your information, there are absolute proven in science, in other words, there are truths in science. So, for you to suggest otherwise, I am inclined to question your sanity. Examples for absolutes or true science

1. The moon rotates around the earth and the earth around the sun - perhaps you can try and falsify that
2. The gross anatomy of humans is well-established and beyond dispute. Normal humans have two hands, two feet, two eyes, two ears, and one nose. They also have brains, lungs, kidneys, livers, and stomachs.
3. Whereas certain diseases are caused by viruses, some others are caused by bacteria.
4. Under standard conditions water freezes at 0 Celsius and evaporates at 100 Celsius

I can go on an on but will leave you to falsify the above since they are not taken as true in science

No it is not..if you had read all the few sources I pointed out instead of concluding on what I was saying you might have understood me....in fact the video I linked up is of a short explanation of what inflation corrected in the big bang theory inwhich alan guth was interviewed and he explained how the primordial universe was before the big bang and what his postulates led to..
And before-inflation is still referred to as "primordial universe" it's inter-changeable but sadly you thought I was referring to the "multiverse theory" I guess religion does reta.rds minds

My mistake, the primordial ripples in spacetime is also used to support the multi-verse view.

Some terminology differs especially when given to lay men like yourself...."proof" for example is commonly understood differently to common folk when compared to how it is regarded in science as a deductive argument for a statement mathematically speaking...

I understand there can be different proofs. I am not referring to proof such as "beyond reasonable doubt". I am referring to scientific proof. An observable, repeatable processes, that can be tested an replicated.

At no point in time was it established that a common understanding of "nothing" was the state of everything...and when physicists say lawrence Krauss and stephen hawkin relay the universe emerging from "nothing" they define it differently...i will provide a video of lawrence krauss explaining this personally below...

Why should nothing as used in Lawrence Krauss physics when explaining the universe be different from the nothing used in normal science? Does Krauss get to change the meaning of nothing to support his argument? For example, the null set is empty - it contains nothing - no bdy argues that empty means there is something in the set only that we are not seeing it? The laws of physics are the same whether it's here on earth or whether it's the same in the cosmos. The variables may be different but they are the same.

Scientist have different meaning of what "nothing" means to them . You want to have fun laughing, here you go:

http://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html

How many people do I have to explain this to over and over again....i don't have to believe anything for it to be true nor have to support any theory for it to be legitimate....scientific theories are passed through the scientific method and are set as the single consistent model of understanding when it meets it's predictions to a substantial amount and to which no other theory best accounts for....
Take for example the the theory of gravity, did it make predictions-yes, did it account for everything-no, it couldn't account for mercury's orbit...but until that discovery it had made sufficient predictions to be relevant...and that flaw was discovered as always through the scientific method and a new theory(relativity) accounted for it...

Did you consider BICEP2’s results in that they predict that the Universe would have received large jolts during the cosmic inflation phase, which would have pushed it into the other valley of the Higgs field within a fraction of a second. And that would have collapsed the entire nascent Universe in a Big Crunch. It’s possible that BICEP2’s findings were actually caused by similar polarisation effects that can be generated by nearby dust in our own galaxy, a point that the researchers conceded was possible in their study. You ignored that and you are waiting for another Theory abi?

I don't hold any views on a scientific consensus, how are you failing to get that....science is the best method as far as we can tell for understanding the world we live in...that is demonstrable by its advent. If the big bang will ever be shown false it would have to be at the methids used to deduce it...not misused elementary notions you and your elk keep posing..

Stop playing this scientific subjectivity crap. You are giving yourself an escape clause. I gave you examples above where we have scientific absolutes i.e. truths. Whether you decide to hold it or not is irrelevant.

Nice straw man....it would be expected of you when to simply understand simple tautology is a problem... Again your jargon above would have made sense if I was referring to the "multiverse theory"

I didn't deny that I made a mistake in categorizing what you were referring to as the Multiverse Theory.

benalvino2:


just like he can't answer the question I asked him I am stupid and uneducated blah blah blah.
some theory said there was no matter and after BB it was so hot it began to cool off the matter started forming... sticking together gasses for stars... how could all these happy without gravity? so many planets and stars in billions and comets and water formed from a tiny dot that explode or inflate to the universe to?

if the galaxy can't collide cause they are moving away meaning there was explosion how come matter and anti matter collide and destroy each other?

He is expressing the multi-verse view. It's a view that has the scientific community is divided on. The view doesn't provide any factual and observable evidence - it's a theory that is why he can't give you a straight answer. He is basically relaying what his "experts" express.

davien

You don't get it...

No Bros - I do!

What your claiming would have been true if I had an ideology that I was giving but I didn't give you an ideology so its a little too soon to throw accusations of bigotry when all I have you were scientific theories..And its benalvino2 all over again.....can you give me a time when the universe had your definition of nothing that the scientific community agrees on....

It was science that claimed our universe was eternal decades ago, wasn't it; was that theory true even though it was the view held by science? My point is it's exactly what it is - a theory. It's when we have hard empirical evidence that we can test and verify that things begin to make sense. The theory you have is just another theory like the multi-universe.

Go grab a book was a god advice for you but you still swim in your self perceived "intelligence."...

Did you or did you not ask for the definition of nothing. I don't understand how the same definition that applies to physics or mathematics as nothing all of a sudden becomes irrelevant when we are discussing the cosmos . That is the length "intellectuals" will go to prove stupidit.y

Here lies the epitome of your own folly.....you have a view that everyone uses the same definition to characterize a phenomenon....when Stephen hawkin or Laurence krauss is talking about the universe emerging from nothing....they aren't using the term the same way common folk like you and me understand it to be.....if you did your research that wouldn't be a problem for you....atall..

That is your problem. You have given your life over to "experts" without any kind of hard evidence. If Hawkins or Krauss came out tomorrow and said, oops - we were uncertain about our hypothesis regarding the beginning of the Big Bang or what state the universe was in before the Big Bang - what then? Your view will automatically change? Didn't Einstein hold the same view that our universe was eternal until Hubble disproved his theory by providing factual evidence that could be observed?

Scientist will tell you that the theory makes sense and tell you why it makes sense but no one has observed any other universe apart from ours. Here is what Princeton University theoretical physicist Paul Steinhardt had to say: "The multiverse functions here as an all-purpose excuse for not being able to explain anything about particle physics"

Mathematician Peter Woit at Columbia University wrote in a blog post responding to BICEP2 reactions. "I consider such a view to be ‘giving up’ on finding a true scientific explanation,"

Go and read research on the same issue about with re-own professors like John Lennox and ask them why they don't hold the same view as Hawkins or Krauss

facepalm... I guess comprehension skills have dropped in nigeria..... my "cocky attitude" was for correcting you and thus has nothing to do with my atheism.....nice straw man though.

The same thing I am talking about. Bros - don't jump on the band wagon until factual proof has been given. You and I are seeing the same evidence but arriving at different conclusions. You need to be objective - let all the facts come out before you conclude what happened. Don't let your atheism stand in the way. Good luck

Pr0ton

With no other observable alternative, we can conclude that it did.

Okay, thanks for point that out. This leads us to several other questions:

1. How did the universe come out of nothing? Since it wasn't eternal and had a beginning - where was it before the beginning or where did it come from?
2. How does the universe creating itself fit into the scientific claim that NOTHING can come out of NOTHING. Or does your idea of nothing includes something

How can anything exist outside time and space?? There was no time and space before the universe began, with that, it can be said to be eternal.

I am a bit confused here. Are you stating that the universe was eternal? If that is what you are saying; remember that above you claimed that the universe created itself. How can something that existed eternally create itself? Your argument seem to be have too many holes in it. With that, I will ask:

1. Was/Is our universe eternal?
2. Did it create itself?
3. Did it have a beginning?

Even if there was any intelligent designer it can't be your God because it doesn't have features you attribute to your God. It doesn't connect to us. It only made the "first cause".

Again, you seem not to understand the Character of the Christian God. Our God is all powerful, all supreme, the first un-caused cause yet He is personal and we Christians relate to him. If you read the Bible, you should know that is quite obvious.

What I'm I cherry picking? I stated what your Bible states that your God has a beginning. And maybe after He began to exist He started creating things. But one thing is He has a beginning which is no different from the universe.

The Bible never stated "God had a beginning" The author described that the creation of our universe had a start i.e. the flip was switch on. It described the process of the universe existence as "In the beginning - God created the heaven and the earth". The author never stated nor implied God had a beginning nor did He create Himself. You are deliberately mis-representing the text and it's quite obvious. Sadly, it's not objective on your part and quite malicious.

It is not uncommon for the Bible to contradict itself. Where one place states "in the beginning" another place will tell you a different thing. It'd lead to nowhere if I started quoting out verses that contradict those up there.

You are mis-representing the passages referenced and I have addressed this accusation above already. I quoted the other passages showing that God existed before the beginning. There is no Christian whether in the Bible or in Theology that will tell you that the Christian God created Himself or that He had a beginning and the Bible doesn't claim or state that. The Bible narrated the description of when our universe was created; it didn't infer or state that God created Himself at the same time - you are the only one making such claims for Christians and it's at best laughable

It is also not uncommon for the Bible to make scientific errors, like the assertion that anything can exist outside time and space.

This can easily be cleared up if you tell us how our universe came into being. Remember the questions I asked:

1. Was/Is our universe eternal?
2. Did it create itself?
3. Did it have a beginning?

Your response will actually provide an answer to your statement

Now if all you'll keep doing is swallowing up apologetics lies and errors and coming here to vomit them for me to clean... I'm done with you.

I can say the same thing to you my friend. I reckon we are having an intelligent discussion but you are not compelled to continue. You can decide to believe whatever you want to believe. However, don't criticize others for choosing to believe what they want to believe especially when you can't defend your beliefs.

Pr0ton

Bro, I never said there's any difference. You should know I was talking of the universe when I used cosmos.

Thanks for clearing it up. So the question again is - Did the Universe create itself? Is the Universe the creator or everything?

And did God create Himself? He's His own creator? If you don't deem it weird that the God you don't see has no creator because a book tells you so how insane do you look to doubt that which you are in and do feel to have no creator even when science, the study of nature, suggests the opposite?

The common school boy argument . The God that I am explaining is not a created being. The Christian God is and was not created. If your idea of god is like that of Zeus or their likes that were products of matter or energy of the children of other gods, then you have the concept of the Christian God confused. God is eternal - that is one of His attributes or characteristics. Furthermore, for God to create anything he had to already exist in order to perform the action. But he could not do anything if he did not exist. Therefore, it is not possible for God to create himself.

There are people that call themselves gods and we have a place for such people - the mental hospital. So, if you think you are demolishing the question of created gods then good for you. You would have saved yourself the time because Christians don't need any convincing that created gods are a delusion . Let's use some math here to break it down for you:

1. The Christian God is un-created!
2. The category of the un-created is not empty

Perhaps, you have difficulty with the notion of the un-created. Christians do not. Also, do you believe that matter and energy existed before the creation of the universe? In essence, do you believe that they are eternal or were eternal? Or do you believe they were finite?

To my my painter example again, it's similar to you asking - who painted the painter since the painter existed before the painting? The painter existed before he painted the painting in question and it was at the time that the painting came into existence.

Imagine you wrote a book, the book never existed until you wrote it. We all agree that the book never existed and only existed at the time you wrote it and published it. Now, to find out who wrote the book; will I ask - "Who wrote the author?" Or even if we don't have any confirmation on who exactly wrote the book - will I ask "Did the author write himself?". This is a common Atheist question that have been amplified by the likes of Richard Darwkins, Lawrence Kruss and Sam Harris but it's so shallow that everyone can see through it.

The Christian God is not bound by time or space or was created; any Christian will tell you that. Also, I don't believe only because the Bible said so but because the information we have now point to an intelligent designer as the originator of our Universe - I called that intelligent designer God. Atheist don't like to call it God; that is fine by me. However, there is no entity that fits such description or has the power to create matter and energy and life.

...they only indicate that He has a beginning and it won't be proper to add to their words, which if we did would clearly oppose their idea of God having a beginning.

You are arguing from incomplete reference - you are cherry picking one statement without reading the entire text. If you read the entire text, it makes it clear that God created everything. The Bible also makes it very clear that God is eternal; so your argument that the Bible didn't use "Before the Beginning" has too many holes in it

This post is as dumb as any post can ever be. Are you comparing a mere painting with the universe? We are talking about the creation of time and space which is possible for the painter to exist before his art since he himself is within space. Time and space started when the universe started and there can't be any time and space before the universe, and that gives the impossibility of the existence of your God before the universe.

Christian authors and Christians all know that God is eternal and existed before the beginning. If you want verses that state "Before", I will happily indulge you:

1. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7)
2. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)
3. The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)
4. To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:25)

Again, it's quite clear in the Bible that God existed before time - please try and open your eyes when you read this. It's important that you are objective.

but the verse one states he was in the beginning and not before the beginning showing it clearly that the author didn't even understand Cosmology to begin with.

I admitted that the particular verse started with "In the beginning" and not "Before the beginning". However, the full text shows that God created everything and I have demonstrated above with Biblical references showing you that God is eternal and existed before the beginning.

Pr0ton

The same way you aver that God is the first cause is the same way I aver that the cosmos is its first cause. Argue that the cosmos must have a cause and I'll also argue that God must a cause.

So the Cosmos created the Universe? - what is the difference between the Cosmos and the Universe by the way? Also, is the Cosmos the creator?

So tell me where in the Bible that says "before the beginning was God"

The Bible doesn't use the word "Before the beginning". So, if you are looking for the word that says - Before the beginning, God existed and then in the beginning, He created everything; you won't find that as the author didn't indicate that. In the same way, I wouldn't look at a painting in a museum and expect to see the painter birth-date on his painting to prove he existed before he painted the picture or accuse him of being a baby when he painted it. I can't argue from silence.

However, if you continue to read the passage down to verse 3 of John chapter one, it states it quite clearly that God created everything

John 1 King James Version (KJV):

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

sufido123:


You have vacillated from one fallacious argument to the other. You have used argumentum ad baculum, devine fallacy, argumentum ignorantium, argument by gibberish, fallacy of shifting the burden of proof and you have now ended up at the grand daddy of them all which are insults called ad hominem fallacy and evil or stupid fallacy. When it gets to this point, I usually leave you in your own cesspool.

Your reasoning is fallacious and no amount of name calling would change that. Thank you for the debate.

Bros, stop all the long grammar. If you can falsify what I have posted, please do - if you can't simply admit you can't.

davien:
William lane craig has been called out on this his apologetics....why are you rehashing long debunked apologetics?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

The cosmological argument didn't start with William Lane Craig my friend. It goes all the way back to Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century and it's a very strong argument. One that no Atheist here have responded to so far.

It's easy to call someone lame and saying it has been debunked when you provide a link as proof instead of addressing the argument. The link you posted said this - Not enough is known about the early stages of the Big bang or about what existed before the Big bang. We don't know what the universe was like before the first 10−43 seconds after inflation started to say with certainty that the universe had a beginning

That above statement from rational-wiki contradicts all the evidence we have today from Scientist that admit our universe did have a beginning. That is why I don't pay attention to crap written by critics do are not objective but who rather see fault with other opinions. I rather engage people scientifically or with reasonable amount of proof on such topics

sufido123:


Fallacious argument period! Case closed. What type of empirical evidence are you talking about? You have none. Don't ask me to falsify your false argument, it is already false. Therefore, I can't negate a negative.

By the way I noticed that you try to evade the tough questions by creating your own questions and then answering the questions the way you like. It does not make sense.

Are you blind or are you deaf? Or you just don't know how to respond. From the above I have posted; can you please falsify it - if you can't; then sit down and shut-up.

I am asking logical questions for you to either validate or falsify and I honestly hope you know what that means. Either what I have posted above is true or it's not.

You seem to always cry wolf without offering any alternate explanation.

1ord:
Fact is yaweh and his ilk are genocidal.You can try to twist the scriptures but we have all read them. They attacked many nations unprovoked either to get to their promised land or just because they had diffrent gods. Your God is a bigot.

No one is ignoring or hiding anything. I did admit there were wars and killings in the Bible especially in the Old testament. The poster said that the Hebrews attacked all other nations unprovoked and that was a huge mis-representation of the text and an out-right lie.

I do admit there were wars - no one is denying that. So, I don't understand where you are suggesting I am twisting scriptures

Pr0ton

and "whatever begins to exist has a cause" so God has a cause, huh? if He doesn't then He doesn't exist as "whatever begins to exist [must] have a cause" in other words, "things that don't have a cause don't exist."

It's a cosmological argument and a logical one. A typical example is this: Before anything moves, it had to be moved by an initial force or mover. So does the mover and the mover that moved that mover. However, there can't be an eternal set of movers - at some point; there was the first cause that started everything i.e. a chain reaction that started everything or the first action that triggered the domino.

and don't tell me God never began to exist, because He's always there. Your Bible says, "in the beginning was the word" so He has a beginning. Even, pastors do call Him "the beginning and end".

However you interpret it, it's pretty simple - Before the "beginning" - there was God. Before matter and energy; something higher, some metaphysical preceded everything else - the 1st un-caused cause.

I can't get any more clearer than that.

Redlyn:


I am pretty sure beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence you have will not meet my satisfaction. So lets not pursue an exercise in futility.

In any case my original post was about proving non existence. Not proving existence.

Of course it will not - that is why you are an Atheist . I appreciate your honestly though

sufido123

This is mere sophistry or better yet the fallacy of non sequitur. It could also qualify as Devine fallacy. Your assertion can never qualify as evidence under any standard. In fact, it is one of the most lame evidence of God I have heard.

The divine fallacy, or the argument from incredulity, is a species of non sequitur reasoning which goes something like this: I can't figure this out, so a god must have done it. Or, This is amazing; therefore, a god did it. Or, I can't think of any other explanation; therefore, a god did it. Or, this is just too weird; so, a god is behind it.

It is a fallacious argument nonetheless.

My argument is very logical and is based on empirical evidence.

1. We all know that nothing can produce nothing - except of course you are suggesting otherwise. It is statement is false, please prove it. It's it true please confirm it
2. Our universe had a beginning & didn't exist eternally: Science holds this view as true. Christians had always held this view. Again if this is false, please falsify it or confirm if it's true

From the above, what is false or incorrect about what I have said?

Femmymata2:
physical and mental powers? Power derived from physical or chemical resources to provide heat,light e.t.c

Heat and light are forms of energy. Energy causes power - however that doesn't tell me what energy is. What is energy itself - is it something that you can show me? What is the origin or energy?

Femmymata2:
i agree with that... Aptly put

So then what is energy?

sufido123:


You said you have proof in your previous post. Share it now! Any tangible post would do. Forget the science of God delusion, I don't care for it and you conceded that you did not gave that.

My first argument or proof is the cosmological argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. That first cause is God

sufido123:


How many times have you been asked to provide this evidence? Do so without much ado!

I guess you are reading with your eyes close. WHAT KIND OF PROOF DO YOU WANT OOOO. Do you want a scientific proof, logical proof, theological one? What type of proof do you want?

sufido123

You seem to be the one changing the rules. I asked you for evidence of god's existence but you claimed that you can't mathematically prove the existence of God. I never asked you for the mathematics of god delusion, all I asked is any tangible evidence.

I keep asking you, what kind of evidence do you want? We can't inspect God in a lab neither can we call Him up for a meeting to prove He exist. So, I keep asking you; what kind of evidence do you want but you keep looping around.

You want it to be mathematics of God. I specifically excluded anything outside evidence of God like biology, chemistry, physics, evolution. Let me also add the exclusion of math or any studies beside tangible evidence. Provide me with any evidence of God or just find something else to do.

You still seem not to understand the premise. I am stating that I can't mathematically or scientifically prove God so if the evidence or proof you are requesting is a mathematical or scientific one then no - I can't provide such evidence. However, I can logically provide strong evidence that a Creator/God exist. That has been and is my point

For the rest of your arguments, you are pulling straws and going in vicious circles. Any attempt to change your cause of action seems to hit a brick wall. I doff my hat to you though for not being insultive like most christians who have no valid arguments.

You seem to shy away from constructive conversation. Why, I have no clue.

I am no longer interested in your hypotheticals. If it makes you feel better to say I am in Russian space station or that I am not who I am, then do it. You may also conclude that if my parents are dead, my parentage can't be verified. It won't change anything for me. The what ifs are just attempts in futility.

Another attempt in the wrong direction. We are talking about proof, you opinion is irrelevant. Proof that you are child of your parents would be your birth certificate. If you were not born in a hospital; proof that you are related to your parents would be eye witness account. Those are called legal and historical proof. That is what I am trying to get you to see. Proof that you are who you say you are would be your drivers license confirmed by some authority; a video chat, confirmation of your location. Those are all trails that we can confirm. So, you playing smart and avoiding the question shows how little you understand what I was getting at.

I gave you the example of providing proof/evidence that you ate dinner 5 years ago? You can't scientifically prove this - it has to be a legal or eye witness proof to confirm if you ate dinner or not. So, while there are so many categories of evidences and proofs; we can use one or a combination of more than one to provide evidence.

The fact remains that you have not been able to present a scintilla of evidence of God. I do know that you have a track record of believing in amorphous things. If you believe in Yahweh and his son, you would definitely believe anything. Therefore, I won't be surprised by any of your spurious beliefs. How specific do you want be to be? I asked for any evidence of God. Do you have it? Yes or no?

Bros - what is your standard of evidence oh? How many times do I have to ask? I can provide theological and philosophical arguments. I can provide logical arguments to prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exist. The question is - will those proofs be acceptable to you - if they won't then there is no need for me to waste my time. If you will ignore the arguments and evidence as irrelevant then there is no need to bother. Hence the reason I have stated several times, I can't prove God mathematically or scientifically if those are your standard of evidence.

We can debate the existence of God until the cows come home. It can be very interesting, especially when one goes into the detail and explore the subject in depth but for an atheist, they might be missing the point or avoiding the real issue.

asalimpo:

theyre some rare instances where some ppl had spiritual encounters tht made believe that God is real. But eventually all christians hav to conduct their lives and beliefs on nothing other than with no other than a "God said ... ".
This is the m.o in the kingdom of God. This is how faith operates.

What I mean is this:

1. Believing in the historical Jesus doesn't require faith. That is because the actual events happened. We can verify those events even if the Bible didn't exist
2. Historical evidence showed that Jesus was crucified - so we don't need faith to believe that.

If you say we need faith to please God and to live as Christians then I agree but you do not need faith to believe in God

Redlyn:


By proof I mean Evidence of some sort which stands up to scrutiny. Not speculation.

Proof has two meanings:

1. There's the rigorous meaning in maths that is very difficult to do and rare
2. Then there's the other meaning – beyond reasonable doubt

So, I can't mathematically or scientifically prove that God exist. However, I can provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt that He does. If you are interested, we can get started

asala1

[Then spake Joshua to JEHOVAH in the day when JEHOVAH delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
And there was no day like that before it or after it, that JEHOVAH hearkened unto the voice of a man: for JEHOVAH fought for Israel. (Joshua 10:12-14)

Cha - so we have left the Bible "claiming the earth is the center of the universe" and now we are on the sun? . Dude - I take God beg you, please stop making yourself look stup.id online. You gave examples that were easily rebuffed and debunked. You have left that and you are here talking about a whole new topic.

What has the sun in this passage got to do with the earth is the center of the universe?

sufido123

To determine my parentage: There is DNA testing

So, what happens if both your parents were dead - what then?

How do you know this is me? You are being fastidious, it does not matter whether is me or my sister or anyone because in this forum we are all anonymous. The bottom line is that you know you are communicating with a human being. Therefore your position is not tenable.

I am communicating with someone, that is true - there is no standard to suggest or that you are who you are. You could be on one of the Russian space station for all we know. My point is simple - writing on an online forum that over 6.5 billion people have access to doesn't prove who you are. We need more evidence i.e. legal evidence

You can't answer a question by posing another question. I am a humanist and you asked me if there is anything that I believe in that cannot be verified. The simple answer is no. I am not superstitious and I believe in things that are verifiable including when you tell me about your God, you have to prove that he/it exists.

Remember I asked you - What is the origin of energy, what is energy? Can you show me energy? I am sure you believe in energy and you know it exist - we all do. However, can you show me energy or tell me what energy is? Can you look at it under a microscope?

That leads me to a response to your assertion that when I said that there is no evidence of God, it means I claimed to know it all. I do not claim to know it all, my claim is that there is no evidence of God and you have not been able to discredit this assertion. I don't even know enough to say there is no God, my position is there is no evidence of his existence and this is a truism.

To that I said - what is the standard to prove or show evidence that He exists? I admitted that I can't mathematically prove God neither can I mathematically prove you ate dinner 5 years ago. So, if you are looking for a mathematical proof - then no - I can't prove God mathematically. However, proof can be showing something beyond reasonable doubt and in such a case - God can be proven.

I would not be debating the physics, biology and chemistry of the world, it will do you and I no good. I do not care what you think about evolution, consciousness or energy. It is a search I am not interested in. Similarly, my interest here only relates to the evidence of God's existence. If you have any verifiable evidence of God, I would be willing to share it with you but please do not tell me the bible is your evidence because it is not.

Dude, I will not even go to the Bible. I want to use a standard that we both agree to; actually that scientist agree to. That is why I asked you what energy was because it's such a common thing but you ignored the question. So again, what evidence do you want?

For your assertion that other gods but Yahweh are false, you are again engaging in a conclusion you have no fact to support. You simply do not know which God is real if at all there is God. If you understand why you dismissed Zeus as God then you would understand why others dismiss Yahweh and his son. Of course you do not understand why you dismiss other gods, you have simply been brainwashed to do so

I am not dismissing Zeus, I am saying the categorization on the Christian God and Zeus (as an example) is flawed because they are totally different in their character, their laws, how they relate, their history. So, they are not the same and it's a big error to claim that you can categorize them as the same. Zeus was created and is a product of two other gods so are nearly all other gods. The Christian God is the 1st un-caused cause; wasn't created and created all things. Again, do the research before you make such claims.

There are people today that claim they are gods - we have a place for them - the mental hospital

You were born an atheist and the rest of the dogma you acquired after birth were by accident of birth. I know it is difficult for you to admit that you cannot provide me with any evidence of the existence of God. The rest of your assertions though interesting are nothing but wild goose chases.

You seem not to play by the rules you are setting. I have asked you for the standard of evidence so many times but you keep ignoring me.

If your qwest is to discredit evolution to validate God, I say good luck in that but count me out. To me there is a possibility that both evolution and God dogma are both wrong. However, evolution makes more sense than the God delusion.

I am not discrediting anything - you seem to be running in circles pointing fingers but can't get specific with me

asala1

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Cha - why do you step so low to validate stupi.dity. This is a verse that is a psalm i.e. a poem. David was given a metaphoric expression about God's power. Did you read verses 31 and 32? Can the earth rejoice? Can the sea roar like a lion? These are simple metaphoric examples and that is very common in the Bible.

Jesus said in the gospels - I am the Door. Does that mean He is a physical door that is in your house? You are directly mis-representing the authors and the passages you have quoted. It shows little to nothing on your grasp on what you quoted. It's really pathetic though

It shows how little you know about the subject you are debating

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

Bros, I wouldn't do myself justice if I responded to you - please go back to school and read up on your basic literature. While at it, sit down and read the Bible, actually read it to get some insight. When you do that, you will see how shallow and pointless your claims are.

We all know the earth is moving. Don't believe some semi-educated ancient men. Oh sorry, Yahweh forgot that the earth actually moves when he inspired them or I guess he was high on some heavenly leaves.

From your argument so far; I can see who is high on some "leaves"

asala1

This is the Hebrew word for "man". It could be ultimately derived from Hebrew אדם ('adam) meaning "to be red", referring to the ruddy colour of human skin

Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎) is a figure from the Book of Genesis, also mentioned in the New Testament, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Iqan. According to Womack's creation myth[1] of Abrahamic religions.

The name Eve is a Hebrew baby name. In Hebrew the meaning of the name Eve is: Life, living, lively. Famous bearer: the Old Testament mother of the human race who tasted the forbidden fruit, precipitating the Fall of Man.

Eve (Hebrew: חַוָּה‎, Classical Hebrew: Ḥawwāh, Modern Israeli Hebrew: Khavah, Arabic: حواء‎, Syriac: ܚܘܐ, Tigrinya: ሕይዋን? or Hiywan) is a figure in the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. In Islamic tradition, Eve is known as Adam's wife although she is not specifically named in the Qur'an.

Bros, there is no where in the Bible that Adam or Eve are referred to as Hebrews; you seem to be making claims that the Bible didn't make.

So in the Bible,Yahweh didn't help the Israelites murder innocent people and destroy so many empires for just no cause? Who are their enemies? Are these other empires not the so called 'Yahweh creations'. If Yahweh created everyone as the bible claim, why will he allow some 'chosen generation' to destroy others because they don't allow them save passage? This is ridiculous.

Let's be more specific. Please provide the specifics you are referring to and then we can look at the context. It's one thing to sound rhetorically effective but it's another thing to look at the texts you are referring to to find out what it means. So, please provide specifics. Earlier, you said the same thing about the Exodus; you were proven wrong and here you are making general statements. Again, I am not saying that there were no wars and killings in the Bible - not at all. I am saying you can't cry foul until you have read what happened. In your case, you have cried foul so many times

BTW, I haven't finish reading the history of my ancestors not to talk of reading the folklore of some ancient Hebrew people.

Suit yourself

Only you can remove yourself from this mental slavery

The slavery you are referring to exist in your realm my friend - not mine

Femmymata2:
Humans out of curiosity have written holy books(bible,quran,e.t.c) created many Gods allah,jehouah,zeus,sango e.t.c. These God have alot of similarities, they can't talk,act, be visible and all you see and hear is there worshippers telling us how great,good,just,caring there God is. There God except in their various books is completely impotent and unreachable when it comes to reality

So, basically God is an idea that people believe in but can't prove or can't explain what He or it is?

asala1

1. Catholics are Muslims I guess.

My point was Catholics have traditions and practices that are not Biblical i.e. Confession to priest, purgatory. If you show me where it says the earth is the center of the universe in the Bible, then you have a case. So, far - you are mis-representing the Bible.

2. I actually don't how we got here but I will rather believe my ancestors were created by Olodumare in Ife because I'm Yoruba than to believe that my ancestors were some Hebrew family created in some imaginary perfect garden in the middle east.

Another ignorant statement - where in the Bible did it claim that Adam and Eve where Hebrews?

3. From the Bible, are the Israelites not the chosen people? How many different empires were ruined according to the bible because Yahweh is taking his people to the promise land- Jericho and Canaan came to my mind.

Your claim was that from their Exodus; they murdered innocent people. Upon closer look at the details and texts, it stated otherwise. I am not denying that their were wars in the Bible.

4. Will you as a president of a country allow people from another country encroach your territory? There are rules, every empire has their right to defend their territory. For example, will it be right for the US start destroying Nigeria if they refuse them entry into Niger republic through their country?

Stop playing pretend - the text was clear. If I was a president and someone asked for safe passage - I WILL NOT ATTACK THEM. Man up and admit if you mis-represented the text instead of playing smart.

Please remove yourself from this mental slavery

Try and get some education, most especially on Biblical narratives - you are free to believe in whatever you like, we all are.

asalimpo:


That's how all christian deal with God,thru faith, reason comes later.
Factual evidence comes later.
God's word is d agency of faith, but you unbelieving folks ,one day every man will hav no excuse , faith will b done away with but you moronic guyz, atheists so called, it will b toooooooo late for ya. You'll b screaming and begging to be given another chance to believe in God but you won't be given.

I respectfully, disagree with you. All Christians don't deal with God through faith and Christianity is not based on faith alone. Read Luke 1: 1-4. The origin of the New Testament is historically proven. So, it is not based on faith alone

Femmymata2:
If God exist, why do you need faith to believe that. Something seems to be wrong somewhere, thank goodness some humans feel the need to use there brains rather than depending on what some primitive people said 2000yrs ago. Industrial and french revolution occured because some individuals decided to be practical and forward think. We are in the era of positivism and not regurgating what some ancient hebrew men said...

You don't need faith to believe in God. You don't need faith to believe in the origin of our universe. However, you can deduce with empiral evidence that there is intelligent design in our universe i.e. something higher, more intelligent than us created our universe. Most people allude that meta-physical attribute to a God

Redlyn:


Of course he can't. Nonexistence cannot be proven. Let me give you an example. The entire universe is riding on the back of an invisible turtle. Can you prove the nonexistence of this turtle?

Why do people demand the impossible.

The question is, what is your definition of proof? A reasonable doubt or a mathematical certainty?

malvisguy212:
hi bro. Happy Christmas and new year.

Same to you my brother. I wish you the best of the new year

sufido123

Interesting article, I will jump in a respond

You can't use the belief that my parents gave birth to me to compare your belief in God. First of all, the fact that my parents gave birth to me is a fact that can be verified in many ways. However, your belief in God cannot be verified Just like tooth fairy cannot be authenticated.

I believe slyfox5555 was trying to compare how a belief can be true or false. Basically, how one can use logical, historical or even physiological evidence. So, let's use your parents as an example; what proof would you present that they are your parents?

Secondly, there is no evidence of God but there is evidence that I exist because you and I are communicating right now.

That is very lousy conclusion. How in the world can I verify you are the one I am responding to? Is there a possibility it could be your sister, brother, wife, uncle or a hacker that has taken over your account? Mere communication is no "evidence or proof". No one knows both us to confirm that we are the actual people that communicated on this day and time. Are there any eye witness account to verify this?

You cannot have a verifiable communication with God. Finally, you have no choice than to believe that my parents gave birth to me because if you believe that I am a product of two he goats, you would be laughed off by any reasonable person. You may even be considered insane

.

Again, slyfox5555 was trying to point out that something is either true or false. The issue here is the verification or proof of God. My question to you would be - are there things you believe in that can't be traced or verified or proved?

Whether Budha is God or not is irrelevant to my argument. Choose any God you like, Zeus, Sango, Allah, Amadioha, balogun, Ogwugwu, Yahweh. The point is that many people believe in different gods and if you choose the wrong God, you would be considered an atheist.

The problem with this idea is that 'gods' such as Zeus and Thor are not comparable with the biblical understanding of God. There is a vast distinction between all of the Ancient near eastern gods and the God of the Bible.

You think that your God is the real God but you have no evidence that you are correct. Chances very from the probability that there are no gods to any or none of the gods people believe in today is the real God. If you happen to believe in Yahweh and it turns out that he is not the real God, then whichever God in existence would deem you an atheist.

This kind of statement ignores that there are different kinds of 'proof/evidence'. "Can you prove that there is a God?". In the mathematical sense no, but proving anything is very difficult. The word proof has two meanings. There's the rigorous meaning in maths that is very difficult to do and rare. But then there's the other meaning – beyond reasonable doubt". That's the kind of 'proof' we can present: arguments to bring someone beyond reasonable doubt

I know thinking is hard so you would rather believe than think. However, understanding this hypothesis requires your thinking cap otherwise you would miss the point and compare your belief in God to he goat and my birth parents which is really absurd and insouciant.

Again, it was an example of belief and comfirming where something is true or not.

There is no difference in getting God wrong and believing in something and getting God wrong and not believing in anything. This is essentially what the moral of my position is.

Your position seems to be absolute! which if I am correct seems to be flawed. Except you are confirming that you know absolutely everything - then you are claiming that God doesn't exist

You may choose to believe that I am a product of two he goats if it makes you feel better. However, such belief would be delusional because it is not true. Same with your belief in God

You are missing the point by over a mile. The example was to show that we can prove within reasonal doubt that you are a product between two humans. However, I can use the theory of evolution draw conclusion that you are a product of two he-goats . Again, the point was to show that proof is subjective - what you are requiring of proof or evidence is not a standard to prove God.

Let me ask you a question - Can you prove the origin of the following. In otherwords - what is:

1. Energy?
2. Consciouness?

Remember, I am asking what these things are, where did they come from?