Does God exist?

No wonder you are religious when you cannot even understand the contradiction in what you purpose as so called "logic or evidence". I suppose Church, Mosque or whatever you call it, will be safe as long as people who are not smart enough to understand basic logic, exist.

 

We know through the discoveries of Science that the Earth, Sun, Moon and other planets have revolved for billions of years. According to NASA’s website, Earth rotates at 1,000mph and it takes 24 hours for the Earth to rotate completely. The Moon takes around 27.32 days to complete a rotation around the Earth. By comparison to the speed of the Earth, the Moon rotates about 10mph. The gravitational force of the Earth keeps the Moon pulled down towards it and the Moon orbits at the perfect speed. Any faster, the Moon would speed off into space and any slower, it would be pulled down crashing to Earth.

The Earth where about 8 billion people reside today has a circumference of 40,000km. The circumference of the Sun is 4.3 million km. The Sun and its 8 planets along with 100 billion stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy which is 100,000 light years away. The Milky Way is a Galaxy among thousands of Galaxies that form a Cluster. This Cluster with thousands of other Clusters form one Super Cluster and thousands of Super Clusters form the Universe with a length of 30 billion light years away according to Scientists. It’s amazing to know how such a complex system within our Universe works without the planets colliding and no traffic control.

What you have to think about is, how can something just be created out of nothing? Who initiated the Big Bang? How did living creatures just appear?

Science does not disagree that God exists, because Science does not have the answer. As Einstein once said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

There is definitely something out there and if we don't get to know whilst we are alive, we will get to know the answer after death, but it may then be too late.

Lets turn the question around, can anyone prove that God does not exist?

 

The burden of proof always has been, and always will be on Christians to prove their God exists. Although I can't technically disprove a deity all together, I can disprove Christianity.

Assume the following:

God is omniscient and omnipotent
God is pro life

The vast majority of Christians hold these tenets. I will force these to contradict.

1. If God has is omniscient, that means he knows everything that will happen.
2. If God knows everything that will happen, that means he knows about every abortion that will ever happen.
3. If God knows about every abortion, that means we have no choice in abortion, and therefore God chose for those abortions to happen.
4. If God chose for those abortions to happen, that means he is not pro life.
Bonus. If God gave us free will, that means he doesn't know everything that will happen, meaning he is not omniscient.

Here's an answer that explains what we know pretty well: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090401081436AALoBx5

 

The first part of your post was total BS because nothing is perfect, planets collide and collapse all the time. Just your lack of knowledge make you believe the religious nonsense about everything being perfect. Even we assume that you nonsense is true and this complex system is perfect, how come this complex system needs to have a creator, but the creator who has made this system, doesn´t need to have one?

 

To say matter of factly that there "is no God", you would have to be God, since only a "god" could claim to know every place and thing in the cosmos. It is much better to simply say you don't know, or just don't believe, rather than make yourself look like a fool by calling the existence of God "BS".

 

I don't agree. If I told you there was no rainbow colored elephant floating around in space wearing a purple skirt waving a magic wand calling the shots on earth would you say that's a foolish statement? Same goes for me saying there's no god. Similarly people on a jury weren't actually THERE when the murderer committed his crimes, they use evidence to make reasonable assumptions. Saying there is no god is simply a reasonable assumption based on existing evidence.

 

I would say that's a ridiculous statement. But in light of the fact that there is an abundance of evidence that the cosmos were formed around an intelligent design, I'd call the assertion that there is no God foolish.

The denial of the existence of God has very little to do with any "evidence" and everything to do with arrogance. Even the world's greatest super computer required a plan and creator, yet the human brain is vastly more complex than all the super computers combined; a million monkeys hammering away on piano keys for years would never produce Beethoven's 5th symphony; all the mountains in the world with all the elements chipping away and shaping them would never result in Michelangelo's David.

That every living organism is able to function solely because mathematically rigid laws and consistency dictate so indicates a clear-cut design; that the only genetic changes man has ever observed in any species has served to handicap, not improve, the functioning of the species seems to indicate the concept of evolution is a farce by prideful men who would rather believe we came from monkeys than the creative design of a Creator.

The odds that any of this came about by chance are essentially zero.

But lest this turn into a long drawn out bought of disrespect and mud slinging, I'm going to withdraw from the discussion... Best of luck to you in whatever it is you're looking for in life...

 

I find it very amusing that people who don't believe in evolution think that they know better than tens of thousands of quite literally the most educated, intelligent, and knowledgeable people on our planet. And you've somehow discounted something that has leaps and bounds of evidence, has been observed, has had countless peer reviewed studies, and survived over a hundred years of scientific scrutiny. The arrogance in an evolution denier's claims is simply astounding to think you know better than a scientist who dedicates his life to the study of life. On top of that, evolution (and possibly climate change) are literally the ONLY scientific things that religious people deny. It's amazing how scientists can be so accurate as to put men on the moon, cure vicious diseases with vaccines, create technology that allows everyone on the planet to communicate, and guide rockets around the world with perfect precision - yet evolution is somehow wrong in your eyes. You have no problem utilizing all the scientific and medical advances that science has brought us, yet deny the evolution exists. Seriously that just makes my head explode. Gravity, cellular life, the earth revolving around the sun, laws of motion and thermodynamics, buoyancy principle, all scientific theories, and yet you choose to randomly not believe one because a 2,000 book told you to. Evolution is fact, period. Scientific fact. Perpetuating ignorance hinders mankind and it's both intellectually dishonest and counterproductive to a modern society.

And yes I'm done too, 5 year old thread about god is a waste of time.

 

I have to comment on this one thing. If everything didn't follow a consistent, orderly and totally inerrant set of laws, nothing science has accomplished would have been possible. It is because a clear cut design with immutable laws allows science to anticipate how jet propulsion works, how medicine will interact with a virus or how vaccines will prevent diseases that science can, with "such precision" do these things. If you believe for one minute that something as orderly, predictable and complex as the cosmos could have come about by erratic accidental chance, you're naive.

 

Seems an intelligent person would admit to not knowing what he/she doesn't know. Assuming there is no god based on existing evidence is like a monkey in the jungle making assumptions about the nature of stars based on what he knows about existing evidence. Intelligent design, philosophy, religion, they are all attempts to answer the "why" question that science does not answer.

 

No matter what kind of universe exists, there would be laws of physics. It's possible, even likely that we live in a multi verse, each universe containing its own laws of physics, many of which don't support life. It's by mere chance that our laws of physics support life.

 

Chance has never been precise. In fact, things that happen "by mere chance" will never respond the same way twice. Throw a handful of salt onto a table and record this ten million times and it will not fall the same way twice. Pick any act of randomness and show me just one instance where two results were the same; this says nothing for the billions of organisms and inanimate objects that currently exist and in which we could bank our lives on the inerrancy with which physical laws control and codify their behavior.

The fact is, the laws of probability completely rule out any possibility that chance could result in the consistency we see in both design and behavior of all things, both animate and inanimate.

Have you ever heard of "rose colored glasses"? It's from the idea that we see the world through a pair of lenses that show us what we want. Whether or not it's an accurate picture, we believe it because we want to believe it.

You speak of denying what "tens of thousands" of scientists claim is true, yet if I recall, Hitler had the entire country of Germany, which consisted of many more than "tens of thousands", duped into believing that Jews were "evil". This belief was in no way a reflection of reality and neither is the view of certain scientists.

The fact is, modern science has sought explanations outside the scope of religion for the past 200 years. So naturally, when Darwin came up with what appeared to be the perfect explanation, scientists latched onto it and sought evidence to substantiate it, despite the fact that Darwin actually recanted his views on evolution and reaffirmed his belief in God later in life.

Time and again man has proven that a strong belief in anything will result in strong supporting evidence to substantiate that belief. That was why Hitler so successfully duped the German population. He took half truths and weaved them with lies to create a massive conspiracy and the people lapped it up because they needed a culprit to explain the poverty and squalor they had in post-WW1 Germany.

Scientists who do not believe in God and seek a non-religious understanding of life readily latch onto the THEORY of evolution. They need this belief to give meaning to their existence, since they reject the meaning provided by religion. It is just like the rose colored glasses analogy above; it is this belief that causes them to see "evidence" around every corner, yet the "evidence" for evolution is tenuous at best and leaves many more questions than it answers.

You can choose to believe there is no God and even claim we all evolved from monkeys, and as long as you believe this, you'll see plenty of "evidence" to substantiate your beliefs. But don't expect the rest of us to wear your glasses and subscribe to these delusions...

 

Evolution is a theory like Gravity is a theory.

 

We know gravity is a fact because it is what keeps us firmly planted on the ground. We can clearly see it and that is why it is not a "theory". Evolution is only "seen" in similarities, but if I painted 20 paintings using the same set of paints, an identical technique and similar inspiration, they would all share similarities, but none of them would have "evolved" from the others. Aside from similarities in appearance and genetic makeup, there really is no actual "evidence" that we evolved from anything. There are no intermediate species, or "missing links" if you will, and no physical evidence that humans have ever been anything but human.

 

And we can see the sun move across our sky, which is why we know the Sun rotates around the earth.

We have been using selective breeding for a very long time, which actively demonstrates an underlying premise of how natural selection would change a species, an important part of evolution. As far as mutation, someone should talk to the folks at Monsanto, as they are now in the business of producing sterile crops so that farmers must return to the source to buy more seed. Of course mutation happens naturally as well, and given four and a half billion years, a whole lot can happen. Evolution is every bit as much of a demonstrable and repeatable fact as gravity.

The list of "missing links" is actually quite long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

I consider myself an agnostic, though I refer to myself as a liberal atheist. There is no knowing what we don't know, and I'm perfectly happy to entertain any fanciful idea such as a personal god or intelligent design or reincarnation or even organized religion(ugh), so long as we treat such ideas as the unknowing wishful thinking that they are. To deny evolution is to deny science which, by definition, is what we know and what we can prove.

 

It's funny you mention Wikipedia, as I am an editor there ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ormr2014 ).

These fossil records are no more proof of evolution than a the similarity between human DNA and the DNA of dolphins proves we descended from dolphins.

It's funny you mention genetic manipulation being done in a lab as a sort of proof that evolution is a fact. In my mind, this only further illustrates that evolution could not have happened; these modifications are deliberate and planned and orchestrated by intelligent men. You say such things also occur in nature, but the only genetic changes we have ever observed in nature have been to the detriment of the species, not the improvement. In short, all natural genetic changes have been devolution, not evolution.

 

Both of these statements are opinion.
* The fossil record proves nothing
* Natural genetic changes have always been for the detriment of the species

Regarding the fossil record, and what it proves, the very title of the wiki document "Transitional fossils" would indicate the fact based opinions of the scientists who disagree.

Regarding the immutable negative nature of naturally occurring genetic change, the words good, bad, positive, and negative don't seem to be in nature's vocabulary. Change happens. The peppered moth, for example, has had the light colored moths of it's species die off from predation, going from 98% of the species to less than 5% in under 50 years. The mutant dark colored moths benefited from natural camouflage. Would a light colored moth say the mutants were a detriment to the species? Only if they were racists.

 

There is proof (as in a body badly charred was obviously burned), then there is subjective "proof", as in phenomena that seems to someone to indicate a particular reality. They are not the same and they do not hold equal weight.

In the sense that the fossil record in the article does not definitively prove evolution is factual, that is not an opinion. This is subjective proof because to some people it validates the belief in evolution, but does not create an indisputable proof nonetheless.

The title of the article, "Transitional fossils" was named by someone who believes in evolution. To him, these fossils are indeed "transitional" and the name thus seemed a reasonable one. This in no way proves it is accurate. In fact other than the similarities, what proof, subjective or otherwise, is there that these are indeed missing links between evolutionary changes and not just extinct species that are similar to living ones?

As for the statement that "Natural genetic changes have always been for the detriment of the species", this is based on what we have witnessed as humans and as such is not "opinion". The only thing we can definitively say about genetic changes in nature is that it has always been a downgrade because this is the only type of change we have ever witnessed.

As a Wikipedia editor, I can tell you with 100% certainty that just because an article is posted on the site does not make it authoritative, nor does it mean a professional in the field wrote it. Anyone can write an article and have it published on Wikipedia and as long as someone does not contest the validity of the article, it will remain there.

 

The fossil record addresses questions about the origin of the species. There is quite literally no other way to study it. Evolution does not need the fossil record to be proven, as the indisputable proof is in the application of it's principles by a large number of companies and their commercially available products today. Given the only means we have to study the origin of all living things, I'll go with the fossil record and proven science over the alternatives.

This statement, like your original statement, would require omniscience to prove true. "The only type of change we have ever witnessed", "Genetic change has always been to the detriment of the species". Thankfully, there are countless examples, like that of the moth, which can prove those statements to be false.

Regarding the use of Wikipedia as a source of information, the entire history is always there to review. On politically controversial topics, there always seem to be edit wars. If one has doubts about the merit of the information contained there, one can always go to scientific studies, text books etc. I suspect that, for some people on some topics (Climate Change, evolution, Sarah Palin), no amount of evidence would be convincing. There is no climate change, evolution is a hoax, and Sarah Palin is a crook, evidence be damned. If one is unwilling to assign verifiable evidence the weight it deserves, what do we use as the basis of an intelligent conversation?

 

I like that; it's an excellent come back. I don't agree with you of course, but I respect you and appreciate that we've been able to discuss this without resorting to mud slinging or name calling. I'll leave this topic on that note.