Post Any Evidence For God Here

[PLAYER57832]

[People did not believe the Earth was round, it was stupid to think it would be, many thought, until they saw the evidence. You think it is stupid to believe in God because you cannot see, have not seen the evidence. However, you don't know everything there is to know, have not experienced many things. You know this in other aspects. However, for some reason think its OK, when it comes to God to just say "well, I don't see it so anyone who does is just stupid".

Conversely, people believed with all their will and might that the earth was flat, and in reality, with no real evidence to support such a belief.

Not quite true. The evidence was merely misunderstood, because the people lacked additional knowledge.

You also do not know everything there is to know, and have not experienced many things, and one of them being a state of not believing in a God. In some ways, a person who has believed, and has not believed very much is more enlightened than someone who has always believed.

Now you assume something that is absolutely not true.

I am too much of a scientist to not fully and utterly not just think of, but actually experience unbelief. I only fully came to believe after going through the process of convincing myself. It is a personnal journey and was very long and involved, something that took more than a few years.

However, you do sum up why there is such lack of communication between believers and unbelievers. Far too many on EACH side refuse to acknowledge that the other side has any reasoned validity.

It is hard, because the real truth is that if you are firm in your belief, it is because you have proven it fully to yourself. However, few things are more critical in true communication.. you MUST accept that the other person has a "right"/reason to think as they do.

anyway... gotta go. will answer rest later.

[JoshyBoy]

God exists.
Evidence?
Some of the wins I've pulled off...he must exist.

[targetman377]

[People did not believe the Earth was round, it was stupid to think it would be, many thought, until they saw the evidence. You think it is stupid to believe in God because you cannot see, have not seen the evidence. However, you don't know everything there is to know, have not experienced many things. You know this in other aspects. However, for some reason think its OK, when it comes to God to just say "well, I don't see it so anyone who does is just stupid".

Conversely, people believed with all their will and might that the earth was flat, and in reality, with no real evidence to support such a belief. You also do not know everything there is to know, and have not experienced many things, and one of them being a state of not believing in a God. In some ways, a person who has believed, and has not believed very much is more enlightened than someone who has always believed.

In any case, those experiences, and things you have seen can still never constitute evidence in any real way. What they are, are simply experiences that guide your perception and beliefs. Certainly, it is impossible to know many things in this world for sure, so I dont think that you need assume any who question your belief in a God they simply have no reason or evidence to believe in as questioning your intelligence. In fact, making the assumption that those who do not believe in the same things you do, that you must be stupid for believing them is actually what is stupid.

Many here, if not most are not trying to prove believers are stupid in any way. Most are trying to engage in a debate mostly for the purposes of entertainment for the most part.

What we do know for certain and is proven is that the human mind and belief system cannot be fully trusted. It is very easily corrupted and reality is only one of the factors that shapes it. One need only research delusional psychosis, LSD use, or even read a Steven King book, to fully and immediately understand that humans can invent, and come to believe in a great many things, and in some converse relationship with reality, it are the real states of reality, with actual scientific evidence that are often the most difficult for them to come to accept, especially when they counter what they previously believed.

The human mind simply resists change, especially fundamental change, because it is not especially well equipped to deal with it. When understanding this aspect of human nature it makes it obvious that it is the strongest beliefs that can be discounted the most easily from a scientific viewpoint. They often represent a process that simply cannot be trusted, so as their strength in them increases, their credibility decreases per se, if not evidence is available to support them. This of course is only from a scientific stand point however. In reality, the strong opinions and beliefs actually become more believable on an instinctive and subconscious level, and often the more impossible they seem, the more they are believable. People are very easily swayed by things that are not true, and must be taught things that are true. There are countless examples of how this happens in human society, but when does research this and sees the examples, they very much do become more resistant to the process, to varying degrees.

In any case, no one is saying this is stupid per se, though sometimes it very much is. Only that there is no actual scientific evidence for many beliefs whatsoever, and that the belief itself, is not evidence of anything except the well...the belief itself.

Iike your post AAFitz.
But I do have a question for you? I believe in God. But I grew up believing in God. Then I stopped believing in God and now i do again. Does that make me double Enlightened? But what do you make of people that Believe do not believe or vise versa?

[MatYahu]

MeDeFE


Questioning the intelligence of Rich Deem isn't discrediting his math.

Attacking me verbally by calling me a simpleton is unnecessary. The bible verse is just stating that Energy is before all things, and holds all things together.

Deem's math is right on. And with something like that where you don't need sources just show me where his math is off. It's that simple.

I gave you something to work with, I quoted Rich Deem for one. It's his math though, how many references do you want for an equation? Simply show me where Deem's numbers don't make sense, how and why they don't make sense.

Again mocking me is really not needed. But thanks for clearing up the MeDeFe quote.

This discussion title is "Post any evidence for God here" and I did. I gave reason why logic suggests there is a Creator. I have proven it takes more blind faith to believe there is no Creator. My abiogenesis argument alone proves that. Bottom line there is every atheist must believe at some point abiogenesis occurred, even though it's never been observed, and hasn't happened since. No body has even claimed to have seen non-life create life. Why is it so difficult to understand that science supports creation in it's law of biogenesis. Life comes from life. Energy is life, and there has always been life, which is the Eternal Energy that has always existed, the First Cause who designed and created the obviously tailor made universe. Please don't try to argue that the razor thin laws of physics and much much more doesn't support design. But anyway, I am very interested in you showing me Deem's mathematical flaws.

[Neoteny]

The only thing your abiogenesis argument proves is a fundamental ignorance of biology, and your willingness to distort actual science to further your own worldview.

[Army of GOD]

The question I have is: why the Christian God?

Why not the Hindu gods? Greek gods? Allah? etc.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I can only assume you agree with me that your whole logic for reaching the conclusion that "eternal energy created the universe, and this energy is smart cause I want it to" is deeply flawed.

Please explain to me how exactly multiplying those 3 numbers gives you "the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe"?
Does this take into account the possible existence of numerous universes?
Does it take into account the anthropic principle(ie it isn't "luck" we're on earth and not mars, we're on earth because life couldn't develop on mars in the first place)?
Does it take into account that maybe all of those values are interrelated? Or maybe they're even fixed? Maybe it isn't possible for a universe to exist with any other values for it's fundamental forces?


more fundamentally, with which of these positions do you identify with:
1. there is nothing outside the universe, ie the universe is either cyclical and has always existed or it has created itself.
2. the universe was created by something outside of it.

If it's position 1, there's no place for gods.
If it's position 2, then that's absolutely EVERYTHING we can know about the creation of the universe. None of our laws apply outside our universe, anything outside our universe is inherently unknowable. Therefore we cannot state that the universe was created by a friendly light beam, or yahweh, or the FSM, we could only state that something outside our knowledge caused it. FULLSTOP.

Is there a third option I'm missing?

[MeDeFe]

Oh, I'm not questioning Deem's intelligence. His credentials on the other hand...

And pray tell, why did you bring up that bible verse in support of your hypothesis?


So, the math.
13.7 billion years is not one-thousand-and-eighteen seconds as you wrote.
Planck time is not the smallest physically possible period of time there is, so much as it's (maybe) the smallest measurable period of time.

1080 x 1018 x 1045 = 10143

That's plain wrong.

1080 x 1018 x 1045 = 1148914800


More fundamentally, the claim that life, the universe, etc. could not exists if certain physical values were just a tiny bit different is pure speculation. Furthermore, there is no way you can say how probable any value for any one of those constants is in any given universe. Essentially it's the logical fallacy I will call "appeal to bullshit", "appeal to bullshit" is when you make up some things and then put them in relation to each other, sugarcoat the whole thing with terminology and present it as fact.

And Haggis already rather nicely demolished your intelligent energy.


edit: Damn, this time I got fastposted.

[MatYahu]

To Neoteny: How so? How am i distorting science by stating abiogenesis has never been observed? Is it a distortion of science to say biogenesis is seen on a daily basis and requires no faith to "believe"?

To Haggis: I say the Energy is smart because the universe is designed, and the Energy was the only thing in existence prior to the universe to design it. My position is the universe was created by something outside it. As far as your mathematical question goes I am not sure what three numbers you refer to. I would think they do take into the account of a multi verse, something that i do not rule out, however i would argue that a multi verse would still exist in the same reality that exists in the universe, and would liken it to a different plane, or vibration of existence that other energies inhabit. The idea of God creating this universe "in a bubble (the universe is a closed system)" in one place, and another universe and/or reality in another bubble separate from this one is something i would consider, and certainly have no evidence to rule out. We can't be sure if God has made numerous creations. How can you say something that exists outside this universe can't reveal itself to beings in this universe? To say that information about The Energy that we can prove existed before the universe (before and outside the universe) is inherently unknowable is false. But since the topic is only evidence for the existence of a Creator we don't have to get into that. We can demonstrate that the Energy is eternal, and that the universe is designed. These two premises along with many others draws a clear conclusion purely based on logic that there is a Creator.

To: MeDeFe: The bible verse is just stating that Energy is before all things, and holds all things together. The math isnt wrong you are multiplying the numbers wrong. The last two numbers are to the power, and that was said in an earlier post. Why do you say its not possible to predict how probable any value for any one of those constants is in any given universe? Your opinion that Haggis demolished my "Intelligent Energy" is your subjective opinion and I disagree. If you can't see the design in nature I can only lead a horse to water. If you feel like believing the Energy is dumb and blind, and accidentally caused the big bang go ahead. I'm not here to evangelize or convert anyone, just posting evidence as asked. Believe the Energy is dumb if you must, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

[PLAYER57832]

.

Many here, if not most are not trying to prove believers are stupid in any way. Most are trying to engage in a debate mostly for the purposes of entertainment for the most part.

Agreed.

[What we do know for certain and is proven is that the human mind and belief system cannot be fully trusted. It is very easily corrupted and reality is only one of the factors that shapes it. One need only research delusional psychosis, LSD use, or even read a Steven King book, to fully and immediately understand that humans can invent, and come to believe in a great many things, and in some converse relationship with reality, it are the real states of reality, with actual scientific evidence that are often the most difficult for them to come to accept, especially when they counter what they previously believed.

The human mind simply resists change, especially fundamental change, because it is not especially well equipped to deal with it. When understanding this aspect of human nature it makes it obvious that it is the strongest beliefs that can be discounted the most easily from a scientific viewpoint. They often represent a process that simply cannot be trusted, so as their strength in them increases, their credibility decreases per se, if not evidence is available to support them. This of course is only from a scientific stand point however. In reality, the strong opinions and beliefs actually become more believable on an instinctive and subconscious level, and often the more impossible they seem, the more they are believable. People are very easily swayed by things that are not true, and must be taught things that are true. There are countless examples of how this happens in human society, but when does research this and sees the examples, they very much do become more resistant to the process, to varying degrees.

In any case, no one is saying this is stupid per se, though sometimes it very much is. Only that there is no actual scientific evidence for many beliefs whatsoever, and that the belief itself, is not evidence of anything except the well...the belief itself.

In the end, it comes down to a choice. You either choose to believe or choose not to believe.

[PLAYER57832]

I can only assume you agree with me that your whole logic for reaching the conclusion that "eternal energy created the universe, and this energy is smart cause I want it to" is deeply flawed.

Please explain to me how exactly multiplying those 3 numbers gives you "the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe"?
Does this take into account the possible existence of numerous universes?
Does it take into account the anthropic principle(ie it isn't "luck" we're on earth and not mars, we're on earth because life couldn't develop on mars in the first place)?
Does it take into account that maybe all of those values are interrelated? Or maybe they're even fixed? Maybe it isn't possible for a universe to exist with any other values for it's fundamental forces?


more fundamentally, with which of these positions do you identify with:
1. there is nothing outside the universe, ie the universe is either cyclical and has always existed or it has created itself.
2. the universe was created by something outside of it.

If it's position 1, there's no place for gods.
If it's position 2, then that's absolutely EVERYTHING we can know about the creation of the universe. None of our laws apply outside our universe, anything outside our universe is inherently unknowable. Therefore we cannot state that the universe was created by a friendly light beam, or yahweh, or the FSM, we could only state that something outside our knowledge caused it. FULLSTOP.

Is there a third option I'm missing?

Yes. Everything has existed and exists, including God.

[Army of GOD]

To Haggis: I say the Energy is smart because the universe is designed

Please explain how the Universe is "designed".

[jimboston]

Chocolate + Peanut Butter



Evolution... or Evidence of God?

Hot chick + Star Wars



Evolutions... or Divine Intervention?

[Army of GOD]

Hot chick?!?!?!?!?!

She looks more like Cris Angel than a chick...

[Haggis_McMutton]

To Haggis: I say the Energy is smart because the universe is designed, and the Energy was the only thing in existence prior to the universe to design it. My position is the universe was created by something outside it. As far as your mathematical question goes I am not sure what three numbers you refer to. I would think they do take into the account of a multi verse, something that i do not rule out, however i would argue that a multi verse would still exist in the same reality that exists in the universe, and would liken it to a different plane, or vibration of existence that other energies inhabit. The idea of God creating this universe "in a bubble (the universe is a closed system)" in one place, and another universe and/or reality in another bubble separate from this one is something i would consider, and certainly have no evidence to rule out. We can't be sure if God has made numerous creations. How can you say something that exists outside this universe can't reveal itself to beings in this universe? To say that information about The Energy that we can prove existed before the universe (before and outside the universe) is inherently unknowable is false. But since the topic is only evidence for the existence of a Creator we don't have to get into that. We can demonstrate that the Energy is eternal, and that the universe is designed. These two premises along with many others draws a clear conclusion purely based on logic that there is a Creator.

Please, try to structure your arguments a little bit, or this is going to take a loong time.
Your arguments seem to be:

1. Goldilock's universe( ie, the universe is perfectly fine tuned, therefore it's designed)
2. Energy is conserved and it was the only thing before the universe so it created the universe

Argument 1:
a.if I understood you, you calculated the number of particles in the universe times the number of plank intervals in the universe and said this was "the least likely probability event that could ever happen". Why?

b. You say you don't rule out a multiverse, clearly as the number of universes approaches infinity the probability that one would be fine-tuned for life approaches 1.

c. you have no way of discerning how improbable our universe is. Any calculation is ruined by the fact that we are here. You can only calculate the probability that the universe is fine-tuned, given the fact that we are here, which is obviously 1, cause if it weren't fine-tuned we wouldn't be here. Furthermore you cannot observe more universes, to see how many are fine-tuned. So, like I said, it is entirely possible that these forces are FIXED, that any universe that could ever exit would be fine-tuned in exactly the same way.

Argument 2:
You cannot apply an empirical law about how things work inside our universe, outside of the universe.
Do you believe you can?

How exactly do you know that energy was the only thing outside the universe? Because it makes intuitive sense to you? because you think that's what some rule about how things work INSIDE the universe hints towards? For all you know we're all a simulation in a computer, or a rabbit in a top hat created us and then disappeared. You have absolutely no basis on which to decide what is likely to happen outside the universe.

If a being outside our universe "revealed" itself, we would only see the part of it that can be conceived inside the universe, we would see the part of it that is inside the universe and nothing more. Have you read "Flatland"? A being outside the universe could no better reveal itself to us than a sphere can reveal itself to the inhabitants of a plane, they'll just see it's section, a increasing and decreasing circle.

Yes. Everything has existed and exists, including God.

i'm guessing you're playing around with the definition of "time" in making that statement. As in time is a construct of our universe or some such.
The point still stands that if something external "caused" the universe it obviously must have been outside it and is thus unknowable.
If something internal "caused" it, ie the universe created itself, well then god would be a part of the universe and would have to play by it's rules. I'm not sure how much of a god a being like that would be, certainly doesn't fit the abrahamic god very well.

[MatYahu]

Haggis: Well my argument is quite structured, very simple and contained. I argue that the premises: The universe very much so appears to be designed, and it's unlikely that design is not accidental (This suggests to me that the Eternal Energy is intelligent), and Biogenesis suggests all life came from a single eternal Life, the Energy which I argue is intelligent. Right now that is all there is to my argument so I don't see how it isn't structured.

Rich Deem calculated the number of particles in the universe times the number of plank intervals in the universe, and concluded it (not me) "the least likely probability event that could ever happen". Do you understand why Deem claims that unlikely? If so, can you give an example of something else that seems less likely?

I never said I thought there were multiverses for sure, I just can't ever say for sure they don't exist. I could never prove it. Like the atheist couldn't ever prove God didn't exist. I should have said though that without the fine tuning that exists in this universe it wouldn't be possible for carbon based intelligent life to exist in any multiverse that might exist. I believe the laws of physics would apply to any space in reality. We have no other universe to observe so we can't say if the laws of physics are fixed to our universe or not. We can't even say for sure other universes exist, but there is off topic evidence other planes, or vibrations where other intelligent energies exist. For another time perhaps. I don't make any claims on anything I can't observe. Besides even though I first brought it up, multiverses is off the topic, which is "evidence for God".

I know energy always existed, and the universe hasn't. Therefor Energy was in Existence when the universe wasn't. I know that every effect has a cause. I know the Big Bang happened. Since it happened I know there was a cause. The only suspect that could have been that cause is the Energy. I would bet the farm that even outside the universe effects have causes. I can't claim to know what happens outside the universe, but what suggests there was anything other then the Energy outside the universe before the big bang that could contend with the Energy in being the First Cause?

"If a being outside our universe "revealed" itself, we would only see the part of it that can be conceived inside the universe, we would see the part of it that is inside the universe and nothing more. Have you read "Flatland"? A being outside the universe could no better reveal itself to us than a sphere can reveal itself to the inhabitants of a plane, they'll just see it's section, a increasing and decreasing circle."

What suggests to you the Eternal Energy doesn't exist inside and outside the universe? Energy exists in this universe obviously. Perhaps, as some suggest, the Eternal Energy can be likened to an author who has written himself into his own novel. In any case I would like to know what evidence you have gathered that points to a being outside the universe being incapable of revealing itself to beings in this universe. I have never read Flatland. I agree that being on other planes, or spirits can't be seen by beings in this plane. God is by nature spirit so perhaps your half right, just change universe to plane, or vibration.

[MatYahu]

Army: The fine tuning of the universe suggests it was designed. For example the strong nuclear force constant....

[Army of GOD]

Army: The fine tuning of the universe suggests it was designed. For example the strong nuclear force constant....

And you eliminated the luck factor why? Because you thought it was too low?

[MatYahu]

I eliminated the luck factor because of probability theory for one. The odds of the universe being so fine tuned are so enourmous it could be comparable to the universe winning the lottery a billion times over (thats a humble number in this case). Its not a coin flip.

[Army of GOD]

I eliminated the luck factor because of probability theory for one. The odds of the universe being so fine tuned are so enourmous it could be comparable to the universe winning the lottery a billion times over (thats a humble number in this case). Its not a coin flip.

Dammit. I got trolled. Never mind, I'm done with this discussion.

[MeDeFe]

MatYahu, I was going to respond, but then I noticed something and, well, I'm done with this.

Haggis: Well my argument is quite structured, very simple and contained.

Sorry, but it's not.

You fail to use paragraphs correctly. You even fail to write your numbers correctly. You make typos in important places, like forgetting the "s" in "beings", which leads to a whole different meaning of the sentence. You don't quote properly, neither your sources, nor other posters. You don't argue for your points but instead state them as facts when they are, in fact, pure speculation. Then you apply a double standard and ask that the other side demonstrate why they are right as well as why you are wrong. When it is pointed out why you are wrong about something you ignore it.

To conclude, you are not a person one can have a debate with, because you are unable of debating.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

The only thing your abiogenesis argument proves is a fundamental ignorance of biology, and your willingness to distort actual science to further your own worldview.

Thank you.

+1

-TG

[Neoteny]

To Neoteny: How so? How am i distorting science by stating abiogenesis has never been observed? Is it a distortion of science to say biogenesis is seen on a daily basis and requires no faith to "believe"?

You're distorting science by applying the law of biogenesis, which is (actually not a law) the result of the inquiry into the spontaneous generation of complex, modern organisms, to the theories of the abiotic origin of terrestrial life, with which I have no doubt you are unfamiliar. It is a distortion to say:

The theory that non-life can produce life, or abiogenesis has never been observed, and it requires blind faith to believe in it, where the knowledge of biogenesis requires no faith to "believe" in because it is a scientific fact.

1. Before 2000, ununhexium had never been observed. But evidence demonstrated it could exist. Now we have created it. Just because we haven't observed something yet, especially when all the evidence points to veracity of that concept, does not invalidate the concept. To say otherwise is slur against science, and either a lie or a mistake.

2. It does take "faith" to "believe" in biogenesis. It requires faith in science, and in our observational capabilities.

3. A scientific fact like evolution?

You have a point though. So far, the closest we've come to a direct observation of abiogenesis is the fatuous commentary on science from the empty minds of creationists.

[natty dread]

I argue that the premises: The universe very much so appears to be designed, and it's unlikely that design is not accidental (This suggests to me that the Eternal Energy is intelligent),

Hmm, neat concept. Let us consider a similar claim:

My dick appears as if it was designed to fit in your arse. It is unlikely that design is not accidental. This suggests to me that invisible unicorns inhabit my pancreas.

See, the logic is identical in both claims.

and Biogenesis suggests all life came from a single eternal Life,

It does no such thing. "Biogenesis" as a concept describes only how already existing life maintains it's existence. It takes no stance towards how that life begun in the first place.

the Energy which I argue is intelligent.
Right now that is all there is to my argument so I don't see how it isn't structured.

I don't know about structure, but it's not very intelligent. It's full of leaps of logic and circular reasoning.

Rich Deem calculated the number of particles in the universe times the number of plank intervals in the universe, and concluded it (not me) "the least likely probability event that could ever happen". Do you understand why Deem claims that unlikely? If so, can you give an example of something else that seems less likely?

That's a bullshit argument. This Deem character (which I'm pretty sure is fictional) takes 2 arbitrary values, multiplies them and ends up with another arbitrary value, then claims that any event less likely than this arbitrary value can not happen.

It makes no sense at all.

Like the atheist couldn't ever prove God didn't exist.

But you can prove it does?

I should have said though that without the fine tuning that exists in this universe it wouldn't be possible for carbon based intelligent life to exist in any multiverse that might exist.

Another assumption, and a silly one. You have no way of knowing that this "fine tuning" of our universe is the only set of conditions that could allow carbon-based life, simply because we don't know any other conditions. There could be an infinite set of possible sets of conditions for universes for all we know, and a number of them could support life similar to ours for all we know.

I believe the laws of physics would apply to any space in reality.

You believe... ie. you don't have any evidence or even a logical reasoning for this argument.

We have no other universe to observe so we can't say if the laws of physics are fixed to our universe or not. We can't even say for sure other universes exist, but there is off topic evidence other planes,or vibrations where other intelligent energies exist.

I call bullshit. What is this evidence?

I don't make any claims on anything I can't observe.

Really? Because to me, you seem to be doing it a lot.

Besides even though I first brought it up, multiverses is off the topic, which is "evidence for God".

Yes... if something doesn't support your argument, let's just rule it outside the discussion. Good call. Smart.

I know energy always existed,

Source?

and the universe hasn't. Therefor Energy was in Existence when the universe wasn't.

Ok... even assuming that energy "has existed before the universe" (which is not necessarily the case) then, just because energy has existed does not mean this energy was the cause for the beginning of the universe. Another assumption, but hey, at this point you're just piling them on - it's turtles all the way, amirite?

I know that every effect has a cause.

Ok, let's say every effect has a cause.

I know the Big Bang happened. Since it happened I know there was a cause.
The only suspect that could have been that cause is the Energy.

The only suspect you're willing to consider?
What if it caused itself?

I would bet the farm that even outside the universe effects have causes.

How do you know that? Perhaps, outside the universe, effects have umbrellas. For all we know, causes are something they eat for breakfast.

I can't claim to know what happens outside the universe,

Seems like you just did.

but what suggests there was anything other then the Energy outside the universe before the big bang that could contend with the Energy in being the First Cause?

1. What suggests that the energy was there before the big bang?
2. Remember when you said that every effect must have a cause? So why does this not apply to the "energy"?
3. Your argument fails due to special pleading. "Everything must have a cause, except for this arbitrary cause that I want to pick as the first cause".

"If a being outside our universe "revealed" itself, we would only see the part of it that can be conceived inside the universe, we would see the part of it that is inside the universe and nothing more. Have you read "Flatland"? A being outside the universe could no better reveal itself to us than a sphere can reveal itself to the inhabitants of a plane, they'll just see it's section, a increasing and decreasing circle."

Ok, I don't see how this is relevant at all.

What suggests to you the Eternal Energy doesn't exist inside and outside the universe?

Again... what suggests to you that it does?

Energy exists in this universe obviously.

It does, in various forms, but nothing suggests that it has any intelligence in any form.

I would like to know what evidence you have gathered that points to a being outside the universe being incapable of revealing itself to beings in this universe.

I don't see how it requires evidence? You can't prove a negative...

I agree that being on other planes, or spirits can't be seen by beings in this plane. God is by nature spirit so perhaps your half right, just change universe to plane, or vibration.

How do you know the nature of god? Have you met?

And I don't want to change the universe to vibration. I'd spill my coffee.

[MatYahu]

Army of God: Nice cop out. If your willing please explain to me why you got trolled.

MeDeFe: Nice cop out. This discussion is on evidence for the existence of a Creator, not a grammar test. Are a few spelling errors really that important to you? Other than what I just commented on your grammar statements I will not further reply to the very obvious straw man argument you created to get off topic. I explained the last two digits in certain numbers are powers. Your math was off, even after that information was given out.

I argue the point the design of the universe suggests an intelligent creator. One of the points to that argument is that the odds are incredible unlikely that this universe would be so fine tuned. This is not speculation it is fact, one that Deem, and many other's have proved.

I have only asked why, when I have been accused of being wrong. In fact its quite the opposite. I have never got an answer to "Why is Deem's Math incorrect" or "Why is abiogenesis more likely if it's just a MYTH, where biogenesis is observed everyday". I made an argument and have defended it so for with logic, and Deem's equations which to me are flawless, and to this point so far there has been no evidence to say otherwise presented. It's because when you go over everything time and time again everything add's up 100%.

Saying that I am unable to debate is a cop out. Take care.

Neoteny: "You're distorting science by applying the law of biogenesis, which is (actually not a law) the result of the inquiry into the spontaneous generation of complex, modern organisms, to the theories of the abiotic origin of terrestrial life, with which I have no doubt you are unfamiliar."

Thank you Neoteny, you said it for me sir. The theories of abiotic life are just that..theories. Life coming from life is not a theory, that's why I used the LAW of biogenesis as a premises for my argument. It's something we can observe and test. It's not a theory on how life comes about, it's actually how life comes about. I am not applying biogenesis to any theories at all. I am just stating its a fact, and it suggests there is an eternal living being.

You suggest there is evidence that abiogenesis is possible? What evidence? Scientists have been experimenting, setting conditions, and trying to observe abiogenesis in closed settings, and labs since the 1950's with no success. What is interesting though is if they do accomplish their goal, and observe abiogenesis it will only prove one thing. It took intelligent life to create life, to set the conditions and so forth...

You say it takes faith to believe in biogenesis? Well actually you only have to see something be born, and then you have observed biogenesis. Biogenesis is observed everyday. It takes no faith to believe in as you stated..

Natty: Your first comment was a little inappropriate. Actually the vagina is much more well designed for the penis.

Biogenesis does suggest all life came from an eternal life. If life exists there was a first life. Since abiogenesis is a myth, why believe the first life came from non-life?

Can you give me an example of these alleged "leaps of logic" and "circular reasoning"? I would like to address them.

Deem is a real person, Richard Deem, look him up. Just because you don't understand the math doesn't mean it's wrong. Perhaps you could present Deem's math to a professor, and post the errors. Saying his math is wrong doesn't do anything, you must show where it is incorrect. His math makes perfect sense, and like I said if it doesn't, and your set on disproving him get the evidence and post it.

We CAN know for sure what kind of conditions are needed for carbon based life to exist. I'm not sure why you would say otherwise. There are working models of other conditions, you are greatly misinformed in this area.

My evidence or logical reasoning for believing that these laws of physics would apply anywhere in reality is because they do so far. On earth, in space, they stay the same. Do you know any other part of reality where they might not apply?

String theory is something interesting you might want to look into when considering other planes. There is evidence against the theory of other planes as well. Like I said when I mentioned the evidence for planes though this is off topic.

Whatever anything seems to you is subjective. Give me an example of a claim I have made on something I can't observe.

A multiverse doesn't support or attack my argument. Its just off topic. If you feel a multiverse somehow supports an atheistic world view please make your argument. If you simply want to discuss string theory or a multiverse start a discussion and I will join.

Here is one source. I have at least 1000 more. http://library.thinkquest.org/2745/data/lawce1.htm

Actually the case is energy always existed. What else existed other than that energy to be the cause of the universe? Whatever the cause was (say something else existed other then energy) it was intelligent. Intelligent enough to design the universe, and powerful enough to trigger or cause the big bang. An intelligent life that all life came from WHICH IS IN SYNC WITH BIOGENESIS. Since life is energy though, and its our souls or energies that animates the bodies it's logical to conclude all energy came from the Eternal Energy rather than something that existed with the energy pre-creation or pre-big bang. These are not assumptions they are conclusions drawn from the weighing of evidence.

We don't have to just say "every effect has a cause" every effect does have a cause. If I am in error please correct me by giving an example of an effect that doesn't have a cause. You could clear this up real quick with just one example.

Like I said above, if another suspect exists, its still a higher power, a creator. Some being that would be considered a "god".

I said I'd bet the farm. I didn't say it was a fact.

What seems like something to you is subjective. It's irrelevant to the discussion.

"1. What suggests that the energy was there before the big bang?
2. Remember when you said that every effect must have a cause? So why does this not apply to the "energy"?
3. Your argument fails due to special pleading. "Everything must have a cause, except for this arbitrary cause that I want to pick as the first cause". "

1. The law of energy conservation.
2. The energy isn't an effect.
3. There is a cause to everything that happens. The energy never happened, just always was. For there to be anything there has to be an eternal something. Otherwise it would be your position that matter (which is energy) just pops out of thin air and blindly organizes itself.

The fact that the Eternal Energy existed prior to the universe. The Energy Existed before, and since it was before it must have been outside the universe. How can someone live in a house that isn't built? And if the Energy existed outside the universe before it was created, and created the universe what suggests the energy couldn't occupy the creation it created? Why wouldn't a builder be able to enter a building he designed? These reasons suggest to me the Eternal Energy exists inside and outside the universe.

Human beings are intelligent energies. All intelligent life proves there is intelligent energy.