johnydon22:

lol.


I take it that you don't know then?

Cus that is the only explanation to why you would ask someone the exact same question they asked you.

I thought the answer is obvious.
what if someone says a car is not made but simply a result of many complex processes over a long period of time.
How does that sound to you.

science can never disprove God but only further buttress the point that things where made.

obinna58:

Hahahaha absolutely, that's why we need scientific research

You can't seek to find by just beliefs, can you?

scientific research to find out God?
how about trying to use xender to search out the person who created xender app can it work?

frank317:


U believe in a creator and suddenly life is more than this. I don't get it. Dude u just believe in a creator, don't go insinuating things u don't know. How does believing in a creator show that life is more than this? Does believing in a creator give u super power to know things?

Yes it means there is purpose for our creation and it give us the answer to alot of things.
the bible reveals the mind of God to us.

one which is that we shall be held accountable for our actions.

solite3:
scientific research to find out God?
how about trying to use xender to search out the person who created xender app can it work?

If it's the only possible way

budaatum:

Its called confirmation bias. You want what you believe to be true so you believe it and its true.

Tempts me to ask how old you are. I know a five year old who would tell you aren't reasoning right.

How Budaatum?
Budatuum were you not preaching about works the other time?
why should we work?

without the existence of God there can be no morality, do you know this?

obinna58:
If it's the only possible way

is it possible?

solite3:
is it possible?

If it's not possible at least it a lead rather than not trying

solite3:
I thought the answer is obvious.

Apparently not, since you can't even tell.

what if someone says a car is not made but simply a result of many complex processes over a long period of time.
How does that sound to you.

Sounds like a possibility you can refute by just pointing out how design and intent can be deduced.

I'm still holding on to faith that you can answer this question: How do you recognize design?

science can never disprove God but only further buttress the point that things where made.

This has absolutely no relation to what we are discussing here. Stick to the premise.

solite3:
God is not included because God didn't come into existence but he is self existent.
my argument is based on physical phenomena

So, you have agreed that something can in fact exist without being caused.

Good.

Thank you for refuting your own argument.

Now, moving on: If God can exist without being caused, why can't the universe exist without being caused?

obinna58:

If it's not possible at least it a lead rather than not trying

yes It does.

true science is a proof that there is a creator

solite3:
yes still I dont get how it affects op

Did you see where they said they can pop into existence in a vacuum?

1StopRudeness:


Dishonest??you funny man..there’s no prize to win here neither a medal to take home.....
my observations are summaries,

And they are not infallible, they can be subject to error just as they apparently are now.

u are the one that picked one and biasely expanded it to justify the atheism claim

Nope. It has always been used as a counter argument

...first of,I don’t think Christians claim being rich is exclusive to serving God.. it can’t be cos the Bible christians reference clearly points out God blesses all his creation(math 5v45) and as for riches seed time and harvest is standard for everyone(Gen 8v22)..

I have seen, countless times and that gave rise to the counter argument as Hopefullandlord rightly pointed out

Perhaps, You atheist are the one assuming that a Christian claimed God blessed him authomatically means a non-Christian getting blessed shouldn’t be possible.....isn’t that fallacy?? Cos I don’t think it’s written anywhere that riches are exclusive to any one...

Nope. Atheist aren't assuming it, we interact and argue with Christians often and even on this board, such arguments often crop up.

johnydon22:
Apparently not, since you can't even tell.

why not? sincerely you know the answer

Sounds like a possibility you can refute by just pointing out how design and intent can be deduced.

I'm still holding on to faith that you can answer this question: How do you recognize design?

by my sixth sense. How about you?

This has absolutely no relation to what we are discussing here. Stick to the premise.

It actually does?

you a big beautiful compound with a very big house and well trimmed flowers and a well kept field. if somebody tells you that house made itself and the compound will you believe it?

johnydon22:


So, you have agreed that something can in fact exist without being caused.

Good.

Thank you for refuting your own argument.

Now, moving on: If God can exist without being caused, why can't the universe exist without being caused?

Because there is evidence that thr universe has an origin.
nothing can come into existance without a cause.
God didnt come into existence he was already in existence from all eternity.

johnydon22:
Doesn't this premisw suggest that God too must then require something acting to bring it into existence since God is something and your premise says Nothing can exist except caused

How do you recognize design?

I think he meant anything that begins to exist.
By design,we mean something which couldn't have emerged from random chance.

LordReed:


Did you see where they said they can pop into existence in a vacuum?

well this statement is rather misleading rather it is a fluctuation of vaccum energy which are energies from underlying subatimic particles so it doesnt just pop out from nothingness

tartar9:

I think he meant anything that begins to exist.

Would he be right then to assume the universe began to exist?

By design,we mean something which couldn't have emerged from random chance.

Lol. This doesn't say anything, this is like saying, by cup i mean anything that is a cup.

How do you recognize something that can't emerge by chance?

What are the qualities observed that connote design?

solite3:
Because there is evidence that thr universe has an origin.

Actually there isn't.

The Big bang accounts for expansion of a singularity (cosmic atom) doesn't account for the origin of the atom that expanded (it could be eternal) So, No. Your assumption that there is evidence that the universe has a beginning is false.

Secondly, the Big Bang isn't in fact a scientific conclusion at the moment, it is still subject to debate with another alternate theory of an everlasting cyclical universe in equal consideration by cosmologists

nothing can come into existance without a cause.
God didnt come into existence he was already in existence from all eternity.

And what stops the universe from doing thusly considering the new information i furnished you with above?

solite3:
How Budaatum?
Budatuum were you not preaching about works the other time?
why should we work?

without the existence of God there can be no morality, do you know this?

One must work to understand, for understanding will not drop like manna on the lazy.

And I do not agree that there can be no morality without God, though, I suppose you might need to explain further.

Do you mean those without God can not have morals, or that morality itself cannot exist if there were no God?

solite3:
why not? sincerely you know the answer

No. I don't. And for an answer so apparent, it is proving to be stupendously hard for you.

Perhaps you don't know it?

by my sixth sense. How about you?

By your sixth sense? That's how you recognize design? What does that even mean?

Tartar9 you see that the guy doesn't even know how he knows what is designed or not.

Please, what is sixth sense? How does it work? How does this sixth sense translate to material or deductive perspective?

You are creating more problems for yourself here.

It actually does?
you a big beautiful compound with a very big house and well trimmed flowers and a well kept field. if somebody tells you that house made itself and the compound will you believe it?

I would not deny its possibility.

Again, the problem here isn't what is designed and if i believe it is designed

The problem is about You telling me how you recognize something is designed?

What qualities connotes design and intent from apparent observations?

It is proving to be very difficult for you.

solite3:

why should we work?

I don't quite understand why you'd ask this when you know you would starve to death and be incapable of worshipping anything at all if you do not work.

johnydon22:
Actually there isn't.

The Big bang accounts for expansion of a singularity (cosmic atom) doesn't account for the origin of the atom that expanded (it could be eternal) So, No. Your assumption that there is evidence that the universe has a beginning is false.

it is not an assumption, the age of the universe was actually estimated.

The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion (109) years within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.[1][2] The uncertainty has been narrowed down to 21 million years, based on a number of studies which all gave extremely similar figures for the age. These include studies of the microwave background radiation, and measurements by the Planckspacecraft, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other probes. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang,[3] and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time.



there is no account for the origin of atoms does not mean the universe has no origin.

budaatum:

One must work to understand, for understanding will not drop like manna on the lazy.

And I do not agree that there can be no morality without God, though, I suppose you might need to explain further.

Do you mean those without God can not have morals, or that morality itself cannot exist if there were no God?

well work to understand? why should I do that?

morality without God is impossible.
why do you think it is wrong kill somebody if One feel like?

@solite3

How can you say something cannot come from nothing, and yet something called God which came from nothing created the whole universe from nothing.

You even argued that God is not something. Then, is he nothing? No, you won't want to take any side just to make your argument of special pleading valid. "Nothing" is any non existing entity or a state of not existing while "something" is anything that exist but either unknown or not specified. It can be matter, energy, antimatter, atomic/subatomic particles, etc. So it's either your god is in existence (is something) or not in existence (nothing). Take your pick.

Meanwhile, anything that brought the universe into existence is more than just a mere petty magic man who lives in the sky, whose emotions can easily be triggered by how we live our lives on Earth. I mean the universe is just too big and complex to be attribute to all the petty gods of the world put together as one.

budaatum:

I don't quite understand why you'd ask this when you know you would starve to death and be incapable of worshipping anything at all if you do not work.

well right I should work so I can feed right.
what about robbing a bank isnt that work too?

solite3:

well work to understand? why should I do that?

morality without God is impossible.
why do you think it is wrong kill somebody if One feel like?

How can you possibly understand if you do no work to understand enough to see that you lack the ability to have a coherent discussion because you have done no work to develop the ability to understand what is being said?

There are a lot of people without God who have morals. If you did some research [work] you would know this. You would also learn [work] why it is wrong to kill just by exercising [work] your brain. You, for instance, would not like it if you were killed, and killing people is not exactly a thing most societies condone. But if you doubt me, go and kill someone and see what we'd do to you whether God exists or not. You'd find that what ever you lazily decide to think up in your brain is irrelevant.

solite3:
well right I should work so I can feed right.
what about robbing a bank isnt that work too?

Somehow, I expect you to claim all bank robbers are atheists. It would be the sort of lazy statement you'd make!

Did we not send you to school to learn the difference between right and wrong work? Did your parents not teach you the difference between good work and bad work? Are you just so antiwork solite3 that you refused to learn when we taught you the difference between good proper work and work that you should not do?

solite3:


it is not an assumption, the age of the universe was actually estimated.

lmao actually your idea that the universe had a beginning is an assumption

The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion (109) years within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.[1][2] The uncertainty has been narrowed down to 21 million years, based on a number of studies which all gave extremely similar figures for the age. These include studies of the microwave background radiation, and measurements by the Planckspacecraft, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other probes. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang,[3] and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time.

there is no account for the origin of atoms does not mean the universe has no origin.

This estimation accounts for periods after the cosmic inflation or bang.

Again, the Big Bang theory doesn't account for the beginning of the cosmic atom therefore, the causality of the universe doesn't fall within the provisions of a contingent factor.

Furthermore, the Big Bang isn't in fact a scientific conclusion at the moment, it is still subject to debate with another alternate theory of an everlasting cyclical universe in equal consideration by cosmologists, this idea speculates an oscillating universe of bangs and contraction, an eternal universe.

So you see? You are basing your argument that the universe has a beginning based on scientific models that do not conclusively assert a beginning for the universe.

Try again?

solite3:
well this statement is rather misleading rather it is a fluctuation of vaccum energy which are energies from underlying subatimic particles so it doesnt just pop out from nothingness

Where did you get that they are from underlying subatomic particles?

johnydon22:
lmao actually your idea that the universe had a beginning is an assumption



This estimation accounts for periods after the cosmic inflation or bang.

Again, the Big Bang theory doesn't account for the beginning of the cosmic atom therefore, the causality of the universe doesn't fall within the provisions of a contingent factor.

Furthermore, the Big Bang isn't in fact a scientific conclusion at the moment, it is still subject to debate with another alternate theory of an everlasting cyclical universe in equal consideration by cosmologists, this idea speculates an oscillating universe of bangs and contraction, an eternal universe.

So you see? You are basing your argument that the universe has a beginning based on scientific models that do not conclusively assert a beginning for the universe.

Try again?

Sir I believe your argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the big bang model and what it actually asserts. Maybe you should look into it a bit more.
Secondly ur assertions that the cyclic universe hypothesis is on equal consideration is an overstatement of the facts. As far as theories go, the big bang model is one of the very few theories that's widely accepted by all sides of the divide. That's actually part of the reason the cyclic universe hypothesis was proposed (an alternative view to challenge conventional wisdom). Anyways, the cyclic model is no longer an option on table with the recent actual proof of gravitational waves as Einstein predicted (that guy hehn, even after a 100yrs, people are still doing his homework). Even b4 that though, people weren't jumping on its train for some issues it had like "not enough matter in the universe to cause a crunch", "the issue of entropy", "appealing to exotic physics to make it work" etc , while every observational evidence still pointed to a big bang model.

But I'll have to say, ur question on how we recognise design is actually a good one.... Never really thought about it....

solite3:
Yes it means there is purpose for our creation and it give us the answer to alot of things.
the bible reveals the mind of God to us.

one which is that we shall be held accountable for our actions.

God described in the bible purely man made, there no prove he is real

johnydon22:
Would he be right then to assume the universe [b]began[[sub][/sub]/b] to exist?

Lol. This doesn't say anything, this is like saying, by cup i mean anything that is a cup.

How do you recognize something that can't emerge by chance?

What are the qualities observed that connote design?

Yes...and for it to have a beginning it has to have an external cause...unless the universe has always been existing,but this can't happen since we'd be having an infinite sequence of cause and effect.
I haven't had an argument from design all figured out yet...still thinking about it,and it seems your objection is correct.Expect a robust reply soon