What's new
US Message Board ūü¶Ö Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Top 10 Scientific Proofs of God’s Existence

Baron

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
11,504
Reaction score
5,547
Points
370
Location
Brooklyn, NYC
Many atheists want to have proofs of God's existence.
In my opinion the information from below is one of the bests in internet
Also, guys, read, think about and ask God for forgiveness of your sins
And begin to read the Holy Bible

iu



Gods Existence-
I often get the ‚ÄúProve to me God exists‚ÄĚ question, usually from people who really do not desire any answers. However, there is occasionally a few who really want to know‚ĶThis info is based upon about 6 hours of condensed note taking‚ĶHopefully it will be instrumental in your ministry as well‚Ķ
Technically, ‚ÄúProof‚ÄĚ (like a picture or video tape) is non-existent any more than I can technically ‚Äúprove‚ÄĚ that Washington was president‚ĶThere are writings that can be cited that will support his presidency and are accepted as fact but technically I believe that Washington was president because I have read the accounts and writings of those present in that day who have documented the history and I believe what has been presented to me as fact. It is a given however, that History is MUCH different than Science.
I have had many of the same questions myself that people ask me concerning science and God. I am an analytical person and am not satisfied with only someone else‚Äôs experience and faith as a basis for my own beliefs. I believe that there is nothing wrong with faith, but blind faith without logical analysis or deductive reasoning can be very dangerous and even na√Įve in some circumstances. I have studied extensively on the subject of God‚Äôs existence and actually have a lot of material to reference (books, audio series, notes, etc)‚ĶSome of which is so deep that I don‚Äôt really understand it completely myself with examples dealing with Quantum Physics and such‚Ķbut in my studies I have never been diligent enough to write down or organize my notes‚ĶUntil now‚Ķ
I do not take credit for any of this material, most all of it is taken from my notes and personal recollection of information that I have listened to and read from several sources‚ĶSome of the commentary is mine, but nearly all of the information in this outline comes from an audio series titled Top Ten Proofs by a Detroit radio host named Bob Dutko. If you are interested in owning the audio CD teachings on this subject, they can be purchased at this web-site (www.toptenproofs.com). There are several other topics of study that he addresses in this series but much of the ‚Äúinfo‚ÄĚ below comes from his audio CD titled top 10 proofs of God‚Äôs Existence.
I wrote this info in outline form in an attempt to shorten it and still relay the content. The content is almost completely referencing scientific justifications for God‚Äôs existence and not simply ‚Äúfaith based‚ÄĚ revelation.
I believe, in order to establish any ‚Äúfaith‚ÄĚ in God, there must first be an understanding of TRUTH that there IS A GOD‚ĶIf a person has never had an ‚Äúexperience‚ÄĚ justifying that ‚Äútruth‚ÄĚ then, for many, there must be legitimate scientific evidence presented in order for faith to have a foundation on which to build‚ĶHopefully, this outline will be a basis for that.
So I start with the most simple of scientific questions:
What is science?
Science, by definition, is formulating a hypothesis or theory based upon observation, testing or the ability to make predictions.
I am convinced that a belief in God is, IN FACT, Scientific and that science DOES back up and prove that there is a God…Here are some of my reasoning’s for that belief system
1. The Scientific law ‚ÄďThe First Law of Thermodynamics‚Ķ
a. Scientific conservation of energy law which states that in the universe we have matter and energy and that matter or energy can be converted into each other but cannot be created from nothing. This law also states that matter or energy cannot be destroyed to the point where it ceases to exist, it can only take on different forms…
b. Now consider the entire universe and all of the matter and energy in it‚Ķif there is NO GOD‚Ķthen Scientifically, the universe cannot exist‚Ķotherwise it would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics because science states that ‚Äúsomething‚ÄĚ in our universe and within the laws of science cannot come from ‚Äúnothing‚Ä̂ĶThis is the FIRST law of thermodynamics and all scientific law about matter and energy are based upon this first laws foundation.
c. The Big Bang theory does not support this law. Science has proven that the universe is expanding and theorize that everything came from a small ‚Äúdot‚ÄĚ of compressed matter which exploded into what is now our expanding universe‚ĶThe reason that they teach this theory and the fact that the universe came from the explosion of this compressed ‚ÄúDot‚ÄĚ is because of the first law of thermodynamics‚Ķwithout that compressed dot, the first law of thermodynamics collapses. But still, that theory is self defeating because the compressed ‚Äúdot‚ÄĚ that held the universe and exploded, still contradicts The First Law of Thermodynamics, because matter, regardless of how small or compact, according to scientific law, cannot come from nothing‚Ķ
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics-
a. Scientific Heat law- which states that everything will move toward a state of equilibrium. For instance, take a cup of hot coffee and a cup of ice and set them together on the same table‚ĶAssuming there are no outside influences (which is called a ‚Äúclosed system‚ÄĚ in science and scientists who do not believe in God‚Äôs existence or influence would concur that the universe is a closed system), over time, both will equalize to the same temperature and reach a state of heat equilibrium.
b. Also within the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a principle that states that things move from order to chaos, degrade, become sloppier and ultimately move toward a state of entropy. A simple example of this is, if you were to have a stack of papers on your desk at work, as people walk by, and the wind blows, over time your desk will become messier as the papers slowly move from a state of order to mess, they will NEVER become straighter or neater over time as this would become a violation of the law of entropy within the second law of thermodynamics‚Ķwith this law understood scientifically, if there were no God, and the universe is a closed system with no outside influence, when the ‚Äúbig bang‚ÄĚ took place 15 billion years ago, the universe could not have gone from an explosion to order‚Ķthis argument violates scientific law‚ĶExplosions cannot turn into order scientifically.
i. Considering these first 2 laws, occasionally scientists who believe in a closed system will argue under the first law of thermodynamics that perhaps all the matter in the universe always existed‚ĶHowever, the second law of thermodynamics invalidates that theory because if everything in the universe always existed, we would no longer have disparity of heat in the universe. Over the course of ‚Äúforever‚ÄĚ we would have achieved heat death and everything in the universe would be the same temperature based upon the second law of thermodynamics‚ĶBut as we know, that is not the case in the universe‚Ķthere are stars that burn at different temperatures and galaxies with varying heats depending upon their distance from their star. We also see comets which are balls of icy matter existing in the same universe ‚Ķwhich are the equivalent of the hot coffee and ice cups on the same table‚Ķso they could not have been here forever because the second law of thermodynamics disproves that within a closed system without having reached a place of equilibrium by now not to mention the fact that the universe could not have reached this level of complexity from an explosion based upon the law of entropy within the second law of thermodynamics‚Ķ
3. Based upon scientific law, ‚ÄúLife cannot come from Non-life‚ÄĚ
a. This is called A-biogenesis and is unscientific.
i. Science, by definition, is formulating a hypothesis or theory based upon observation, testing or the ability to make predictions.
1. Discredit 1- Science is a hypothesis based upon observation- has anyone ever observed life coming into existence from non-life? The answer is no, it has never been observed in any laboratory in history.
2. Discredit 2- Is there any test that can be done that will produce life from non-life? The answer again is No.
3. Discredit 3- Is there any predictions that can be made that will produce life from non-life…Again, No…so based upon scientific law A-biogenesis is an unscientific hypothesis.
b. With this said, based upon the definition of science, the scientists who hold strongly to the belief that Life came from Non-life (a-biogenesis) are not being “scientific’ at all in their assessment of what they say they believe. But what seems even more controversial, is that they then accuse Christian beliefs of being unscientific.
c. Because life has NEVER came into being from non-life scientifically, believing that there is a God is in fact scientific because we know scientifically that the laws of science will not allow life to come from non-life. So it is a scientific conclusion that there must be a ‚Äúbeing‚ÄĚ capable of creating life from non-life.

.................................

...............................

You can continue to read here:

 
OP
Baron

Baron

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
11,504
Reaction score
5,547
Points
370
Location
Brooklyn, NYC
4. What is the alternative

a. Atheists will often say, ‚Äúprove to me that God exists‚ÄĚ I contend that it is not scientifically my responsibility to prove that He exists but their responsibility to prove that He does not from a scientific perspective. When we have life and matter and heat and all of these states of being that contradict the very scientific laws that we know are true but contradict their theories. The only logical scientific perspective is intelligent design.

b. Here is a parallel- Imagine that you are walking along a city street and look down and see several hundred toothpicks on the ground very neatly and in order, spelling out your name…You look up, and three stories above you, you see a window open and a toothpick box turned up on its side in the window…Two people walk up, Mr. A and Mr. B…Mr. A looks at the toothpicks on the ground spelling your name and deducts that some intelligence placed those toothpicks neatly in that order to spell your name. Mr. B theorizes that the toothpicks fell from the window and just happened to land in such a way that they neatly spelled out your name on the sidewalk and no intelligence designed the toothpicks that way…Which persons theory has the TRUE burden of truth placed upon it? Our understanding of science and simple cause and effect proves to us that intelligence had to have organized the toothpicks in that order/design…now the argument is, What’s more complex… A couple hundred toothpicks or the human brain? If you’re not willing to believe that the toothpicks came together on their own…And honestly, who would? Then why would someone believe that the human brain could come together on its own? Deductive reasoning and logic would not allow it…the burden of proof is on the man who says that the toothpicks came together by chance…

5. Logic, Common Sense and Reasoning

a. Logic, common sense and reasoning will point to the existence of a God.

i. Egyptian Sphinx- Are you open to the possibility that the Sphinx was not carved by people, but over time, the wind and sand simply carved it out of rock? Considering that neither of us were there and cannot technically prove that man created it, would you be open to that possibility? ‚ÄďProbably not and the reason would be that there is too much complexity and design‚Ķwhat‚Äôs more complex, The sphinx or the human body? So why would someone be completely unwilling to believe that something less complex (the sphinx) could be created by happenstance through wind and sand but are willing to believe that something much more complex (the human body) could come together merely by happenstance? That is a contradiction in logic. One might argue that the difference is that we have a knowledge of beings who could intelligently create the sphinx which would change the deduction in our minds‚ĶI argue that our understanding of scientific law and the understanding of chance would leave us with no other conclusion other than intelligent design‚ĶNot to mention, our understanding of ‚Äúwhy or how‚ÄĚ has absolutely no baring on ‚Äútruth‚Ä̂ĶOnly our willingness to subscribe to it‚ĶTruth is truth whether we believe it or not‚ĶWhether or not we have an understanding of what that intelligence is, we would still have to conclude scientifically that the object is too complex and intricate to have just ‚Äúbecome‚ÄĚ without a designer‚Ķ

b. Another parallel example would be a portrait on a wall…Who would be open to the possibility that NO ONE painted it? If they are a logically thinking person, common sense would state otherwise…how much more nonsensical would it be to suggest that the 3 dimensional complex human face came together with no intelligent designer but one would be unwilling to accept that the less complex 2 dimensional design painted on the wall was not painted by anyone?

c. Time + chance = anything’s possible

i. Some might argue that the universe is 15 billion years old, and given enough time and chance life can form from it by accident…

ii. If we took an alarm clock and disassembled it to a couple of dozen parts and put all the parts into a coffee can, put the lid onto the coffee can and just start shaking the can…How many billions of years of shaking the can do you think would have to transpire before your alarm clock coincidently reforms itself into a working alarm clock in that can? The answer is, it will NEVER happen…Scientifically it is impossible even when, in this example, you have all of the working components, made to fit together perfectly on assembly present in the can…To believe otherwise is a contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics. An atheist perspective on this issue would have you believe that you have an EMPTY can that you are shaking for 15 billion years and then one day…poof-an alarm clock forms in the can…of course this train of thought is completely illogical…

d. Some will say, I don’t see God so I don’t believe He exists.

i. Cause and effect can be cited here‚ĶWe don‚Äôt see the wind but we cannot deny the effects of the wind as it blows through the trees and the leaves blowing in the same direction, you see the flag blowing in the same direction as the leaves and therefore conclude that there must be a cause for the effect that you see happening around you‚ĶThe logical conclusion is that there must be ‚Äúwind‚ÄĚ as the only alternative would be that they are randomly all responding exactly the same way with no external influence‚ĶThat belief would be illogical‚Ķour above cited examples logically conclude that there must be a God‚Ķ

6. The mathematical impossibility of life generating on its own

a. The human body has 206 bones, 639 muscles, each step we take uses the coordination of about 300 muscles…The simplest protein molecule in the human body has over 400 linked amino acids arranged in a specific order…Now ask yourself, Is 15 billion years enough time for even the simplest protein molecule with it’s 400 amino acids to form on its own?

i. Here is an example hypothetically simulating an even simpler protein model than the simplest in the human body and giving it a 100 piece amino acid chain instead of the 400 that is in the simplest of ‚Äúreal‚ÄĚ protein molecules‚Ķ

1. For the example we can use a deck of 100 playing cards numbered 1-100 in place of the amino acids in the hypothetical protein. For the sake of the example, lets assume that there is a specific sequence in these 100 cards that would solve the mystery of life and if you can get them in the said sequence you can create the simplest protein molecule…Doing a factorial, which in this case would be 100x99x98x97…etc all the way down to the number 1 will give you the correct number of how many different combination options that you have in that stack of 100 cards. In the event that you are not understanding the example if there were only 3 cards 1, 2 and 3 we would have a combination of 6 optional sequences for them…(123,321,231,213,312,

and 132) this is also exampled in our 1x2x3=6 combinations factorial…So how many combinations are there for a 100 piece puzzle? The answer is 10 to the 158th power (that’s a 1 with one hundred and fifty-eight zeros after it). So if you shuffle that deck that many times, then the laws of probability state that you will stumble across the correct combination option….So the question now is, Is 15 billion years enough time to stumble across this combination? The answer is, If there were 30 billion years to stumble across this combination there would still only be 10 to the 18th power number of SECONDS…To put that in perspective, one would have to shuffle that deck every second on the second 10 to the 140th power number of times (EVERY SECOND) for 30 billion years before probability says that we would stumble across the correct combination and that is ONLY for a protein molecule that is 1/4 as complex as the simplest protein molecule…

2. The atheist would have us believe that the human body with its 10 fingers, 10 toes, a nose, mouth, 2 eyes (each with 120 million photo receptors), 2 ears (each with 24,000 hair cells that convert sound into electrical impulse) a body with over 30 trillion cells and 2 million sweat glands that automatically regulate body temperature to within a fraction of a degree, a brain with over 100 billion cells each one with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells, a central nervous system, organs, blood flow, consciousness, a standard of morality, self awareness, a vocabulary, and the necessary vocal cords to say ‚ÄúI don‚Äôt believe I evolved into this‚ÄĚ just happened by chance through an unsubstantiated theory called evolution‚Ķ

3. If there is no God, then organs would have had to gradually developed in the bodies of humans and animals‚ĶHow did the heart, blood, kidneys, brain, etc develop ‚Äúover time‚ÄĚ in the first animals and the animals still survive while the changes were occurring? Did the first animal develop 10% of complete veins, then the next 20 and on and on until reaching 100%? And how did the heart, necessary for life and circulation in the animal slowly develop and get attached to the animals veins in the correct spots‚Ķand when or how did the blood enter the system, it could not have existed before the veins and heart in the body or it would have spilled out‚Ķdid the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets and plasma already and at what point to the heart start beating in the animal? What about the stomach, did they first develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach, and at what point did the acids enter? Where did the hydrochloric acids as part of the digestive juices come from? How did the animal survive prior to the completion of these changes and further more be able to reproduce in order for evolution to take place? Every organ in the first animals body would have had to have been FULLY functional in the first moments of life in order for there to be a progression or evolution of life‚Ķ

4. I know a common argument would be, ‚Äúwell how much more complicated would God be than His creation‚ÄĚ and ‚Äúif we could not have formed by chance, then, where does God‚Äôs existence fit into this same scenario‚ÄĚ. The problem with that question is it assumes that God fits into the laws of OUR universe. We can only make our scientific theory and hypothesis based upon the laws of our universe‚ĶOur scientific laws leave us with only deductions that fit within the laws of OUR existence. However, if God existed outside of our physical matter and energy and created us and creation as we know it within these laws we could not logically mandate that He must exist within the laws of our universe. It is a given that this DOES leave us with the perspective of not being able to understand HIS complexity as OUR science would not justify it, but HIS complexity does not negate the scientific laws surrounding OUR existence.

7. The bible itself…

a. Science confirms the bible.

i. When the book of Isaiah (in the old testament) was written, conventional wisdom and science taught that world was flat. Isaiah 40:22 states that the earth is a sphere. Science did not know that at this point in history When Jeremiah (in the old testament) was written, science taught that there was only 1100 stars and there was no reason to believe that there were any more than could be seen with the naked eye. Yet Jeremiah 33:22 says that the number of stars was incalculable and there was no way that they could have known that in that day. When Job (old testament) was written, the conventional belief was that the earth was not only flat but that it set on a large animal…science had no clue that the earth was suspended in space yet Job 26:7 stated that the earth free floated upon nothing…when Hebrews was written, science had no knowledge of atoms yet Hebrews 11:3 states that creation is made of invisible elements…When Jesus was on earth, conventional wisdom taught that all the stars were the same, there was no knowledge of there being a difference in the stars yet 1 Corinthians 15:41 states that each star is different. When Ecclesiastics was written it was believed that wind blew in a straight line, no one knew that winds carried cyclonically yet Ecclesiastics 1:6 states that wind blows in cyclones. When Leviticus was written, it was believed that sick people needed to be bled to be cured of their sickness, yet Leviticus 17:11 states that blood is the source of life and health…when 1 and 2 Samuel was written, the belief was that the ocean floor was flat, yet 2 Samuel 22:16 states that the ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains. When Job was written it was believed that the oceans were fed by rivers and rain, it was not common knowledge that springs fed the oceans but job 38:16 says that the ocean contains springs, a fact that could not be knowable in that day.

8. Non-Physical Characteristics

a. Human emotion-Love, Hate, Jealousy, pre-meditation, pride, Self-awareness‚Ķif there is no God, how is it that we have such a consistency throughout humanity of human emotion‚ĶHow is it that emotion evolves? How is it that by and large all humans experience these emotions‚Ķ? There is no evolutionary model for emotions‚ĶThe logical assumption would be that they would be given by God‚Ķthere is no animal that is self aware, man is the only creation with self awareness. Morality and a general state of right and wrong permeates all humanity‚Ķthis could not take place simply through evolution‚ĶHumanity also has a general desire to seek out a spiritual connection‚ĶWhat is the source of this desire to seek a spiritual connection‚ĶGod created humans with characteristics completely different from all other creation and these characteristics are not ‚Äúevolutionary‚ÄĚ in nature.

9. Existence of the supernatural

a. If God does not exist then the supernatural does not exist. There are too many accounts of supernatural experiences throughout history to discount. Certainly there will always be people who make bogus claims or make stuff up or have a drug induced/psychosis induced experience. But there are supernatural phenomena that take place that are unexplainable proving that the supernatural is real. I personally have had experiences that defy logic‚ĶSeeing things, hearing things, feeling things that were not ‚Äúlogical or scientifically possible‚ÄĚ experiences‚ĶNot to mention the miraculous healings that have taken place around the world. I‚Äôm not referring to skeptical occurrences (God healed so and so of depression-even though he may have), I‚Äôm talking about genuine miracles that have taken place and are documented with x-rays and doctors reports then miraculously the abnormality is gone‚ĶI have seen this happen myself! I know it‚Äôs real! In the US there is much that is intentionally down played in these arenas (I think relating much to politics and scientific prejudice which would mandate a change of perception to accept or believe that the supernatural was real)‚ĶBut in June of 2006 there was a conference of 500 doctors in the Philippines coming from 26 countries to present evidence that they have themselves of miracles that defy the laws of medicine and physics. Another supernatural experience that also can be pointed out is the transformed lives‚ĶTestimonies of people who lived entire lives with problems and issues‚Ķ murderers and hate filled people who receive Christ and their lives change completely.

10. Jesus

a. Jesus was a real man who walked this earth 2000 years ago. He defied sickness, disease, the weather and death…Historically documented by eye witnesses and not refuted ANYWHERE by any other documents or writings of that generation. A belief in Jesus is not just a matter of faith otherwise we would have to conclude by the same line of reasoning that George Washington’s presidency is only a matter of faith as well…Which of course would be ludicrous because there are documents and eye witness accounts of the authenticity of that claim and there are also no documents anywhere from eye witnesses of that day disputing or discrediting the life and presidency of George Washington…Jesus was crucified to death and yet documents of eye witness accounts verify that after his death that he hung around with 1500-2000 people for 40 days and again, there are no writings in archeology or anywhere from that day disputing these accounts… I can go into as much detail about the life of Jesus from a logical, scientific and historical perspective if you so desire as I have here concerning God’s existence…

11. So a very logical question is, Why do so many scientists and intellectuals dispute the existence of a creator if the evidence is so clear from a scientific perspective?

a. There are thousands of Scientists who believe in the existence of a creator…even though there is much larger populous in that demographic who do not…

b. In order to answer the above question there has to be a bit of theoretical assumption placed upon reasoning…

i. Perhaps they are allowing their emotions to trump their logic…

ii. They don‚Äôt want God to exist, they don‚Äôt want absolutes, they don‚Äôt want those who they consider to have a lower IQ (ie-those who believe in a creator) to be right and they be wrong, they don‚Äôt want to have to face the accountability associated with the acknowledgement of God‚Äôs existence‚ĶBecause if it turned out that God exists, then they would have the responsibility of doing something with that information‚Ķthey don‚Äôt want those ‚Äúreligious nuts and bible bangers and preachers that they made fun of and belittled‚ÄĚ to be right, so emotionally they refuse to accept the logic of His existence.

iii. I think also, perhaps there is an issue of pride. One prominent personality characteristic of extremely intellectual people is Pride of the knowledge that they possess. To acknowledge that God exists would be to recognize that what they ‚Äúthink‚ÄĚ they know would not be impressive when considering the scale of the creator who created the scientific laws and matter and energy that they have devoted their lives to understanding. If God exists, then the Scientist and the toilet cleaner have the same value in the eyes of God‚Ķand to the man/woman who is prideful and intellectual, that equalization is a tough pill to swallow. I‚Äôm sure you and I have both experienced being in the room with the ‚Äúsmart guy‚ÄĚ who it is obvious that being the smartest guy in the room feeds his ego, apparent by his conversation and demeanor‚Ķof course this is not a universal absolute characteristic but certainly a common one‚Ķ

iv. I think perhaps maybe something has happened in their life that they cannot explain or understand ‚Äúwhy‚ÄĚ it took place and they became bitter at God and their way of lashing out is ‚Äúdenial‚ÄĚ and as a result convince themselves that He does not exist because He did not fit within the box of understanding or rationale that they wanted Him to. Still, the acknowledgement of truth does not change its authenticity.

v. Some probably also have difficulty rationalizing things they don‚Äôt understand of God‚Äôs nature‚Ķ ‚ÄúHow does a good God allow people to go to hell‚ÄĚ, ‚ÄúHow does a good God allow the bad things in the world to happen‚ÄĚ and they come to the conclusion that until they can get these answers that they don‚Äôt understand‚Ķthey just refuse to believe He exists‚Ķ(which again is emotional, not scientific or logical)

vi. And finally, maybe a reason that they do not believe in a God is that they ‚Äúdo not see the miraculous happening before their eyes‚Ä̂Ķthey‚Äôve never seen the Red Sea Part, they‚Äôve never seen Jesus walking on the water, they‚Äôve never seen‚Ķ so they discount the miraculous or discount God‚Ķbut I would argue that they do see miracles happening every day but they do not recognize them as miracles‚ĶFor instance, Reproduction and child birth is a miracle process, the entire formation during gestation ‚Äújust happens‚ÄĚ as the 23 chromosomes from the egg merge with the 23 chromosomes of the sperm‚ĶFrom that point, cells split into a zygote, blood forms, organs just grow, bones grow from nothingness, a brain forms, tissue‚Ķetc‚Ķand although we can describe the process over the course of 9 months, Medicine and Science have absolutely NO IDEA ‚ÄúHOW‚ÄĚ it happens, they just know it does‚ĶIt IS a miracle! We hear of the ‚Äúmiracle of life‚ÄĚ and childbirth and it has become clich√©‚Äô because we have seen it so much that it has desensitized us to its miraculous-ness but it is, without explanation, a ‚Äúmiracle‚Ä̂ĶIf scientists saw daily people walking on water, or the red sea parting, it would lose its grandeur because, ‚ÄúEvery time I walk up to water, it parts‚Ķthat‚Äôs just what it does‚Ä̂ĶBut Mr. Scientist, HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?‚Ķ ‚ÄúI don‚Äôt know, the H2O molecules seem to recognize our presence and bind together to allow our passage on dry ground‚Ķit just does it‚Ķbut it‚Äôs not miraculous, it‚Äôs just the evolutionary process of our co-existence on this planet for a gazillion years‚Ķbut it is not a miracle or an act of god‚Ķblah blah blah‚Ä̂ĶSee the comparison‚ĶOur experience with or lack thereof does not change the fact that what is transpiring is miraculous!

What I have come to find is that in my pursuit of ‚Äútruth‚ÄĚ I have had many of my own experiences paralleling others experiences and also validating in my own mind what scientific evidence has been presented above‚ĶIt is a given that this is only the tip of the iceberg but it is a good foundation from which to begin‚ĶHopefully this helps‚Ķ

I am also available to teach this info for youth groups and church services if anyone is interested…

Aaron

trinity-small.jpg



 
OP
Baron

Baron

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
11,504
Reaction score
5,547
Points
370
Location
Brooklyn, NYC

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
46,726
Reaction score
15,798
Points
2,210
It's a decent read but just for argument.......if you believe in the God of the Bible you would have to understand that God could also create the Big Bang. Otherwise it simply opens up more and more questions. Was the universe here before God? If not the Universe was created from something that was never there to start with.

Is it really all that important how it was created? A piece at a time or one big boom creation?
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
7,002
Reaction score
1,829
Points
195
Many atheists want to have proofs of God's existence.
In my opinion the information from below is one of the bests in internet
Also, guys, read, think about and ask God for forgiveness of your sins
And begin to read the Holy Bible

iu



Gods Existence-
I often get the ‚ÄúProve to me God exists‚ÄĚ question, usually from people who really do not desire any answers. However, there is occasionally a few who really want to know‚ĶThis info is based upon about 6 hours of condensed note taking‚ĶHopefully it will be instrumental in your ministry as well‚Ķ
Technically, ‚ÄúProof‚ÄĚ (like a picture or video tape) is non-existent any more than I can technically ‚Äúprove‚ÄĚ that Washington was president‚ĶThere are writings that can be cited that will support his presidency and are accepted as fact but technically I believe that Washington was president because I have read the accounts and writings of those present in that day who have documented the history and I believe what has been presented to me as fact. It is a given however, that History is MUCH different than Science.
I have had many of the same questions myself that people ask me concerning science and God. I am an analytical person and am not satisfied with only someone else‚Äôs experience and faith as a basis for my own beliefs. I believe that there is nothing wrong with faith, but blind faith without logical analysis or deductive reasoning can be very dangerous and even na√Įve in some circumstances. I have studied extensively on the subject of God‚Äôs existence and actually have a lot of material to reference (books, audio series, notes, etc)‚ĶSome of which is so deep that I don‚Äôt really understand it completely myself with examples dealing with Quantum Physics and such‚Ķbut in my studies I have never been diligent enough to write down or organize my notes‚ĶUntil now‚Ķ
I do not take credit for any of this material, most all of it is taken from my notes and personal recollection of information that I have listened to and read from several sources‚ĶSome of the commentary is mine, but nearly all of the information in this outline comes from an audio series titled Top Ten Proofs by a Detroit radio host named Bob Dutko. If you are interested in owning the audio CD teachings on this subject, they can be purchased at this web-site (www.toptenproofs.com). There are several other topics of study that he addresses in this series but much of the ‚Äúinfo‚ÄĚ below comes from his audio CD titled top 10 proofs of God‚Äôs Existence.
I wrote this info in outline form in an attempt to shorten it and still relay the content. The content is almost completely referencing scientific justifications for God‚Äôs existence and not simply ‚Äúfaith based‚ÄĚ revelation.
I believe, in order to establish any ‚Äúfaith‚ÄĚ in God, there must first be an understanding of TRUTH that there IS A GOD‚ĶIf a person has never had an ‚Äúexperience‚ÄĚ justifying that ‚Äútruth‚ÄĚ then, for many, there must be legitimate scientific evidence presented in order for faith to have a foundation on which to build‚ĶHopefully, this outline will be a basis for that.
So I start with the most simple of scientific questions:
What is science?
Science, by definition, is formulating a hypothesis or theory based upon observation, testing or the ability to make predictions.
I am convinced that a belief in God is, IN FACT, Scientific and that science DOES back up and prove that there is a God…Here are some of my reasoning’s for that belief system
1. The Scientific law ‚ÄďThe First Law of Thermodynamics‚Ķ
a. Scientific conservation of energy law which states that in the universe we have matter and energy and that matter or energy can be converted into each other but cannot be created from nothing. This law also states that matter or energy cannot be destroyed to the point where it ceases to exist, it can only take on different forms…
b. Now consider the entire universe and all of the matter and energy in it‚Ķif there is NO GOD‚Ķthen Scientifically, the universe cannot exist‚Ķotherwise it would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics because science states that ‚Äúsomething‚ÄĚ in our universe and within the laws of science cannot come from ‚Äúnothing‚Ä̂ĶThis is the FIRST law of thermodynamics and all scientific law about matter and energy are based upon this first laws foundation.
c. The Big Bang theory does not support this law. Science has proven that the universe is expanding and theorize that everything came from a small ‚Äúdot‚ÄĚ of compressed matter which exploded into what is now our expanding universe‚ĶThe reason that they teach this theory and the fact that the universe came from the explosion of this compressed ‚ÄúDot‚ÄĚ is because of the first law of thermodynamics‚Ķwithout that compressed dot, the first law of thermodynamics collapses. But still, that theory is self defeating because the compressed ‚Äúdot‚ÄĚ that held the universe and exploded, still contradicts The First Law of Thermodynamics, because matter, regardless of how small or compact, according to scientific law, cannot come from nothing‚Ķ
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics-
a. Scientific Heat law- which states that everything will move toward a state of equilibrium. For instance, take a cup of hot coffee and a cup of ice and set them together on the same table‚ĶAssuming there are no outside influences (which is called a ‚Äúclosed system‚ÄĚ in science and scientists who do not believe in God‚Äôs existence or influence would concur that the universe is a closed system), over time, both will equalize to the same temperature and reach a state of heat equilibrium.
b. Also within the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a principle that states that things move from order to chaos, degrade, become sloppier and ultimately move toward a state of entropy. A simple example of this is, if you were to have a stack of papers on your desk at work, as people walk by, and the wind blows, over time your desk will become messier as the papers slowly move from a state of order to mess, they will NEVER become straighter or neater over time as this would become a violation of the law of entropy within the second law of thermodynamics‚Ķwith this law understood scientifically, if there were no God, and the universe is a closed system with no outside influence, when the ‚Äúbig bang‚ÄĚ took place 15 billion years ago, the universe could not have gone from an explosion to order‚Ķthis argument violates scientific law‚ĶExplosions cannot turn into order scientifically.
i. Considering these first 2 laws, occasionally scientists who believe in a closed system will argue under the first law of thermodynamics that perhaps all the matter in the universe always existed‚ĶHowever, the second law of thermodynamics invalidates that theory because if everything in the universe always existed, we would no longer have disparity of heat in the universe. Over the course of ‚Äúforever‚ÄĚ we would have achieved heat death and everything in the universe would be the same temperature based upon the second law of thermodynamics‚ĶBut as we know, that is not the case in the universe‚Ķthere are stars that burn at different temperatures and galaxies with varying heats depending upon their distance from their star. We also see comets which are balls of icy matter existing in the same universe ‚Ķwhich are the equivalent of the hot coffee and ice cups on the same table‚Ķso they could not have been here forever because the second law of thermodynamics disproves that within a closed system without having reached a place of equilibrium by now not to mention the fact that the universe could not have reached this level of complexity from an explosion based upon the law of entropy within the second law of thermodynamics‚Ķ
3. Based upon scientific law, ‚ÄúLife cannot come from Non-life‚ÄĚ
a. This is called A-biogenesis and is unscientific.
i. Science, by definition, is formulating a hypothesis or theory based upon observation, testing or the ability to make predictions.
1. Discredit 1- Science is a hypothesis based upon observation- has anyone ever observed life coming into existence from non-life? The answer is no, it has never been observed in any laboratory in history.
2. Discredit 2- Is there any test that can be done that will produce life from non-life? The answer again is No.
3. Discredit 3- Is there any predictions that can be made that will produce life from non-life…Again, No…so based upon scientific law A-biogenesis is an unscientific hypothesis.
b. With this said, based upon the definition of science, the scientists who hold strongly to the belief that Life came from Non-life (a-biogenesis) are not being “scientific’ at all in their assessment of what they say they believe. But what seems even more controversial, is that they then accuse Christian beliefs of being unscientific.
c. Because life has NEVER came into being from non-life scientifically, believing that there is a God is in fact scientific because we know scientifically that the laws of science will not allow life to come from non-life. So it is a scientific conclusion that there must be a ‚Äúbeing‚ÄĚ capable of creating life from non-life.

.................................

...............................

You can continue to read here:

There are writings that can be cited that will support his presidency and are accepted as fact but technically I believe that Washington was president because I have read the accounts and writings of those present in that day who have documented the history and I believe what has been presented to me as fact.
Actually, the writings that confirm Washington's existence are contemparary. They can be found in multiple accounts across several nations. We have signatures from his writings, paintings commissioned by him. They are also only a few hundred years old. His life is well documented by contemporary accounts. And none of it is unbelievable in what we know about the time period or basic understanding of physics. The bible makes unbelievable claims. Relies on non-contemporary accounts that have been translated, selected, retranslated, etc., etc.

Claiming both are the same is an incredibly dumb false equivalency.
1. The Scientific law ‚ÄďThe First Law of Thermodynamics‚Ķ
The something from nothing argument has been debunked so many times that I fail to see the point. It relies on several fallacies. The most noteworthy of which is Appeal to Ignorance (Logical Fallacy): Definition and Examples - Fallacy In Logic

Just because science doesn't know how the universe came into existence. (There are plenty of hypotheses but no actual consensus) That does not mean it proves God. It just proves we don't know. This is true for your other so-called proofs.

It also grossly misrepresents what science tries to do. Science is a mechanism that tries to find answers to questions by applying a certain method. It has consistently been shown to be the most reliable way to find those answers. It doesn't profess to be infallible nor is it rigid. In other words, even if we don't know something today, doesn't mean we won't know tomorrow. And even if we think we know something today, that doesn't mean tomorrow it can change, elaborated on, or refined.
 

mamooth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
27,380
Reaction score
9,471
Points
910
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
1. The Scientific law ‚ÄďThe First Law of Thermodynamics‚Ķ
Doesn't hold on a universal scale.

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics-
Ice and fire exist now, so the universe can't be old? That's just stupid.

3. Based upon scientific law, ‚ÄúLife cannot come from Non-life‚ÄĚ
Not a scientific law.

So, 3 faceplants. That means not worth investigating further.
 

occupied

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
32,487
Reaction score
12,681
Points
1,550
If God exists it can be proven scientifically that he does not care.
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
46,726
Reaction score
15,798
Points
2,210
If God exists it can be proven scientifically that he does not care.

I believe this argument can be made as far as a scientific argument goes.
 
OP
Baron

Baron

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
11,504
Reaction score
5,547
Points
370
Location
Brooklyn, NYC
Doesn't hold on a universal scale.


Ice and fire exist now, so the universe can't be old? That's just stupid.


Not a scientific law.

So, 3 faceplants. That means not worth investigating further.

Empty babbling isn't helpful, I advise you to find some better arguments
 

mamooth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
27,380
Reaction score
9,471
Points
910
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
4. What is the alternative
No gods. That's easy.

5. Logic, Common Sense and Reasoning
Argument from design fallacy.

c. Time + chance = anything’s possible
The usual creationist rubbish of not knowing what evolution is.
6. The mathematical impossibility of life generating on its own
And some more creationist rubbish.

7. The bible itself…

a. Science confirms the bible.
No. For example, the Bible very unambiguously says the earth is flat and has a dome over it. Isaiah 40:22 says the earth is a circle, which is a flat object.
8. Non-Physical Characteristics
Evolution explain emotions just fine.

9. Existence of the supernatural

a. If God does not exist then the supernatural does not exist.
Er, no. Just plain wrong. It's quite possible for the supernatural to exist without gods.

10. Jesus

a. Jesus was a real man
Unknown. But if he did exist, it shows nothing except that people later made stories about him.

11. So a very logical question is, Why do so many scientists and intellectuals dispute the existence of a creator if the evidence is so clear from a scientific perspective?
Highly arrogant of you to assume you know what others are _really_ thinking. Such arrogance indicates irrationality on your part.
 
OP
Baron

Baron

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
11,504
Reaction score
5,547
Points
370
Location
Brooklyn, NYC
If God exists it can be proven scientifically that he does not care.

What do you know about God and Science?
You are nothing in Universe, even a smallest galactic atom is billions parsecs larger as you.
What can you explain here, what do you know?
Nothing

073121_otherworlds_feat-1440x700.jpg
 

mamooth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
27,380
Reaction score
9,471
Points
910
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Empty babbling isn't helpful, I advise you to find some better arguments
Running so soon, in front of everyone?

Dang. That took less time than expected. I think everyone knew you would run, because you always run, but we thought you'd put up more of a struggle.
 
OP
Baron

Baron

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
11,504
Reaction score
5,547
Points
370
Location
Brooklyn, NYC
No gods. That's easy.


Argument from design fallacy.


The usual creationist rubbish of not knowing what evolution is.

And some more creationist rubbish.


Er, no. For example, the Bible very unambiguously says the earth is flat and has a dome over it. Isaiah 40:22 says the earth is a circle, which is a flat object.

Evolution explain emotions just fine.


Er, no. Just plain wrong. It's quite possible for the supernatural to exist without gods.


Unknown. But if he did exist, it shows nothing except that people later made stories about him.



Highly arrogant of you to assume you know what others are _really_ thinking. Such arrogance indicates irrationality on your part.

As I said please to provide serious proves, not babbling, cursing and hate to God
 
OP
Baron

Baron

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
11,504
Reaction score
5,547
Points
370
Location
Brooklyn, NYC
The age old question of why bad things happen to good people has but two answers. Either God does not exist or God does not care.

Read here

 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
46,726
Reaction score
15,798
Points
2,210
The age old question of why bad things happen to good people has but two answers. Either God does not exist or God does not care.

I disagree with that but it is not a scientific disagreement. Scientifically I can not prove either answer wrong.
 

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
5,693
Reaction score
2,279
Points
208
Many atheists want to have proofs of God's existence.
In my opinion the information from below is one of the bests in internet
Also, guys, read, think about and ask God for forgiveness of your sins
And begin to read the Holy Bible

iu



Gods Existence-
I often get the ‚ÄúProve to me God exists‚ÄĚ question, usually from people who really do not desire any answers. However, there is occasionally a few who really want to know‚ĶThis info is based upon about 6 hours of condensed note taking‚ĶHopefully it will be instrumental in your ministry as well‚Ķ
Technically, ‚ÄúProof‚ÄĚ (like a picture or video tape) is non-existent any more than I can technically ‚Äúprove‚ÄĚ that Washington was president‚ĶThere are writings that can be cited that will support his presidency and are accepted as fact but technically I believe that Washington was president because I have read the accounts and writings of those present in that day who have documented the history and I believe what has been presented to me as fact. It is a given however, that History is MUCH different than Science.
I have had many of the same questions myself that people ask me concerning science and God. I am an analytical person and am not satisfied with only someone else‚Äôs experience and faith as a basis for my own beliefs. I believe that there is nothing wrong with faith, but blind faith without logical analysis or deductive reasoning can be very dangerous and even na√Įve in some circumstances. I have studied extensively on the subject of God‚Äôs existence and actually have a lot of material to reference (books, audio series, notes, etc)‚ĶSome of which is so deep that I don‚Äôt really understand it completely myself with examples dealing with Quantum Physics and such‚Ķbut in my studies I have never been diligent enough to write down or organize my notes‚ĶUntil now‚Ķ
I do not take credit for any of this material, most all of it is taken from my notes and personal recollection of information that I have listened to and read from several sources‚ĶSome of the commentary is mine, but nearly all of the information in this outline comes from an audio series titled Top Ten Proofs by a Detroit radio host named Bob Dutko. If you are interested in owning the audio CD teachings on this subject, they can be purchased at this web-site (www.toptenproofs.com). There are several other topics of study that he addresses in this series but much of the ‚Äúinfo‚ÄĚ below comes from his audio CD titled top 10 proofs of God‚Äôs Existence.
I wrote this info in outline form in an attempt to shorten it and still relay the content. The content is almost completely referencing scientific justifications for God‚Äôs existence and not simply ‚Äúfaith based‚ÄĚ revelation.
I believe, in order to establish any ‚Äúfaith‚ÄĚ in God, there must first be an understanding of TRUTH that there IS A GOD‚ĶIf a person has never had an ‚Äúexperience‚ÄĚ justifying that ‚Äútruth‚ÄĚ then, for many, there must be legitimate scientific evidence presented in order for faith to have a foundation on which to build‚ĶHopefully, this outline will be a basis for that.
So I start with the most simple of scientific questions:
What is science?
Science, by definition, is formulating a hypothesis or theory based upon observation, testing or the ability to make predictions.
I am convinced that a belief in God is, IN FACT, Scientific and that science DOES back up and prove that there is a God…Here are some of my reasoning’s for that belief system
1. The Scientific law ‚ÄďThe First Law of Thermodynamics‚Ķ
a. Scientific conservation of energy law which states that in the universe we have matter and energy and that matter or energy can be converted into each other but cannot be created from nothing. This law also states that matter or energy cannot be destroyed to the point where it ceases to exist, it can only take on different forms…
b. Now consider the entire universe and all of the matter and energy in it‚Ķif there is NO GOD‚Ķthen Scientifically, the universe cannot exist‚Ķotherwise it would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics because science states that ‚Äúsomething‚ÄĚ in our universe and within the laws of science cannot come from ‚Äúnothing‚Ä̂ĶThis is the FIRST law of thermodynamics and all scientific law about matter and energy are based upon this first laws foundation.
c. The Big Bang theory does not support this law. Science has proven that the universe is expanding and theorize that everything came from a small ‚Äúdot‚ÄĚ of compressed matter which exploded into what is now our expanding universe‚ĶThe reason that they teach this theory and the fact that the universe came from the explosion of this compressed ‚ÄúDot‚ÄĚ is because of the first law of thermodynamics‚Ķwithout that compressed dot, the first law of thermodynamics collapses. But still, that theory is self defeating because the compressed ‚Äúdot‚ÄĚ that held the universe and exploded, still contradicts The First Law of Thermodynamics, because matter, regardless of how small or compact, according to scientific law, cannot come from nothing‚Ķ
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics-
a. Scientific Heat law- which states that everything will move toward a state of equilibrium. For instance, take a cup of hot coffee and a cup of ice and set them together on the same table‚ĶAssuming there are no outside influences (which is called a ‚Äúclosed system‚ÄĚ in science and scientists who do not believe in God‚Äôs existence or influence would concur that the universe is a closed system), over time, both will equalize to the same temperature and reach a state of heat equilibrium.
b. Also within the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a principle that states that things move from order to chaos, degrade, become sloppier and ultimately move toward a state of entropy. A simple example of this is, if you were to have a stack of papers on your desk at work, as people walk by, and the wind blows, over time your desk will become messier as the papers slowly move from a state of order to mess, they will NEVER become straighter or neater over time as this would become a violation of the law of entropy within the second law of thermodynamics‚Ķwith this law understood scientifically, if there were no God, and the universe is a closed system with no outside influence, when the ‚Äúbig bang‚ÄĚ took place 15 billion years ago, the universe could not have gone from an explosion to order‚Ķthis argument violates scientific law‚ĶExplosions cannot turn into order scientifically.
i. Considering these first 2 laws, occasionally scientists who believe in a closed system will argue under the first law of thermodynamics that perhaps all the matter in the universe always existed‚ĶHowever, the second law of thermodynamics invalidates that theory because if everything in the universe always existed, we would no longer have disparity of heat in the universe. Over the course of ‚Äúforever‚ÄĚ we would have achieved heat death and everything in the universe would be the same temperature based upon the second law of thermodynamics‚ĶBut as we know, that is not the case in the universe‚Ķthere are stars that burn at different temperatures and galaxies with varying heats depending upon their distance from their star. We also see comets which are balls of icy matter existing in the same universe ‚Ķwhich are the equivalent of the hot coffee and ice cups on the same table‚Ķso they could not have been here forever because the second law of thermodynamics disproves that within a closed system without having reached a place of equilibrium by now not to mention the fact that the universe could not have reached this level of complexity from an explosion based upon the law of entropy within the second law of thermodynamics‚Ķ
3. Based upon scientific law, ‚ÄúLife cannot come from Non-life‚ÄĚ
a. This is called A-biogenesis and is unscientific.
i. Science, by definition, is formulating a hypothesis or theory based upon observation, testing or the ability to make predictions.
1. Discredit 1- Science is a hypothesis based upon observation- has anyone ever observed life coming into existence from non-life? The answer is no, it has never been observed in any laboratory in history.
2. Discredit 2- Is there any test that can be done that will produce life from non-life? The answer again is No.
3. Discredit 3- Is there any predictions that can be made that will produce life from non-life…Again, No…so based upon scientific law A-biogenesis is an unscientific hypothesis.
b. With this said, based upon the definition of science, the scientists who hold strongly to the belief that Life came from Non-life (a-biogenesis) are not being “scientific’ at all in their assessment of what they say they believe. But what seems even more controversial, is that they then accuse Christian beliefs of being unscientific.
c. Because life has NEVER came into being from non-life scientifically, believing that there is a God is in fact scientific because we know scientifically that the laws of science will not allow life to come from non-life. So it is a scientific conclusion that there must be a ‚Äúbeing‚ÄĚ capable of creating life from non-life.

.................................

...............................

You can continue to read here:

The image at the beginning of the OP is appropriate.
 

occupied

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
32,487
Reaction score
12,681
Points
1,550
Read here

Original sin is the theological equivalent of "because I said so". That answer was unsatisfactory when you were a child. We are now grown ups now and it is just as much of a lousy cop-out.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top