Of course there is evidence of intelligence that created existence, you are living in it. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The laws of nature existed before space and time. The potential for beings that know and create existed before space and time because of those laws. Beings that know and create arose because of those laws. You are too stupid to see it or understand it.
You have tried this argument, and failed repeatedly. And you end your fallacious assertion without evidence with an ad hominem "You are too stupid..." is a personal attack. I honestly think that you just can't help yourself. You appear to be an extremely angry person, and you have an uncontrollable need to attack other people.
Are you kidding me? I have smoked you every single time.
If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description,
the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself. Alexander Vilenkin
“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology. The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science. The second problem involves the special properties of our universe.
Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life? It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that
Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.” George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.
The irrationality of questing the intelligence that created existence is self evident and can only be attributed to an error in understanding on your part. There is no other possible explanation.
Again, this entire statement is nothing more than an ad hominem. I'm beginning to think that, perhaps I am mistaken, and you just do not understand what a personal attack consists of. Has no one ever explained how logical debate works? Are you ignorant of what it means to attack your opponent, rather than their argument?
No. This is called logic. The moment you meet the intelligence behind Creation, you will realize what a dumbass you have been. You won't be arguing that He was the dumbass. You won't be telling Him how He should have done it. If you can't understand this, you really are stupid.
The people who believe in God understand their faith better than you do. There is no bandwagon except the one you are driving. It is absurd to believe that you - a pathological liar - would understand the faith of another better than the one who practices that faith.
Actually, that is the very definition of a bandwagon argument. Just because a whole bunch of other people who are wrong happen to agree with you, that does not make you any less wrong.
Except in this case the difference is it is their faith and not your faith. You are on the atheist bandwagon telling believers about their bandwagon. Given that they see God as loving and caring and you don't, it is illogical to believe that you know their God better than they do, especially when you don't even believe He exists.
It is self evident that you do not believe that God exists. It is self evident that it is not possible for you to believe that something exists can be responsible for anything; including being a tyrant. The only red herring is your red herring argument which lacks intellect, reason and evidence.
My belief in God is irrelevant to the arguments put forth in the OP. That makes your entire line of attacking my lack of belief a red herring. Again, do you not understand the concept of logical fallacies? I am beginning to see a pattern here.
Actually it is not irrelevant, it is illogical. Why? Because you don't believe in God and know nothing about our faith other than you don't believe He exists. Why do you think you know our faith better than we know it? You don't and you never will. Your only purpose here is to ridicule believes and subordinate religion. You see Christianity as a rival religion and you attack it as such. Your arguments are flawed because you are subjective.
Yes, I am appealing to authority. They are the authority. Anyone who scoffs at accepting knowledge on authority as you just did would have to go through life knowing next to nothing as 99% of everything you know you accepted on authority. You only know things because others who you trusted told you. And here you are scoffing at authority. You are pathological.
xcept that is not how debate works. Just because Jews were the first group of people to put forth the irrational narrativeof a "loving God" contrary to the evidence of the actions of that God, that does not make your argument more valid. And, again, you end your statement with another personal attack. You really can't help yourself, can you?
That is exactly how logical arguments work. Facts are based on knowledge. Knowledge comes from authorities. For you to say it is an irrational narrative is ludicrous. Historians will tell you that the 3000 year continued existence of a tiny people who defeated the superpower of the day and went on to make contributions to mankind that were disproportionate to their numbers is inexplicable. When asked about this they give all credit to God. They see nothing special about themselves at all. They see meaning in their suffering, not a tyrannical God. And they believe in Him, while you don't.
"Over three hundred years ago King Louis XIV of France asked Blaise Pascal, the great French philosopher of his day, to give him proof of the existence of miracles. Without a moment's hesitation, Pascal answered,"Why, the Jews, your Majesty-the Jews."
Pascal is but one of many scholars and students of Jewish history who have been awed by a story that seems inexplicable by the ordinary rules of logic. When Arnold Toynbee completed his classic ten-volume analysis of the rise and fall of human civilizations, A Study of History, he was troubled by only one seeming refutation of his universal rules governing the inexorable decline of every people on earth. Only the Jews had survived, in defiance of Toynbee's carefully reasoned analysis. So Toynbee proclaimed the Jews nothing more than"a vestigial remnant," a people destined soon to perish. But somehow, in spite of the most brutal attempts throughout history to destroy the children of Israel-from crusades, inquisitions, and pogroms to the"Final Solution" of the Holocaust-Jews have defied all predictions of their demise.
Mark Twain was an agnostic and a self-acknowledged skeptic, yet he could not help but be overwhelmed by this remarkable truth. This is what he wrote in 1899:
The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away. The Greek and Roman followed, made a vast noise and they are gone. Other peoples have sprung up, and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out and they sit in twilight now or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew. All other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?
The writer Leo Nikolaivitch Tolstoy, best known for
War and Peace, was not an agnostic. He was a very religious Russian Orthodox Christian. In an 1891 article entitled"What Is a Jew?" he wrote:
The Jew is the emblem of eternity. He who neither slaughter nor torture of thousands of years could destroy, he who neither fire, nor sword, nor Inquisition was able to wipe off the face of the earth. He who was the first to produce the Oracles of God. He who has been for so long the Guardian of Prophecy and has transmitted it to the rest of the world. Such a nation cannot be destroyed. The Jew is as everlasting as Eternity itself."
The Miracle of Jewish History
The Jews did not see God as tyrannical. They found meaning in suffering. Unlike your sorry ass.
"From the eighth to the sixth centuries B. C., during which Israel and Judah tottered before the aggressive power of Syria, Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon, the prophets found meaning in their predicament by seeing it as God's way of underscoring the demand for righteousness. God was using Israel's enemies against her. The experience of defeat and exile was teaching the Jews the true worth of freedom. Another lesson was that those who remain faithful in adversity will be vindicated. Stated abstractly, the deepest meaning the Jews found in their Exile was the meaning of vicarious suffering: meaning that enters lives that are willing to endure pain that others might be spared it. "
the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.""
07 Judaism
You are confirming your bias. You are grinding an ax. Yes, I am attacking your lack of character too, but only after I destroyed your intellectually lacking bullshit excuses of an argument.
Do I need to point out the personal attack?
I am providing your motivation behind your illogical and unreasonable arguments. You are a liar. You never went to seminary school and you don't have a PhD in psychiatric. You are a militant atheist who seeks to subordinate religion.
