Hyundai Forum: Hyundai Performance Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Here's a brief summary of some reading I've done(on the subject) that points toward God's existance. Keeping in mind I'm not basing this on a single argument, but am drawing from many scientific disciplines. The reason being that proving God exists can't happen with a single argument. However the overwhelming evidence from scientific discoveries of the past 50 years points in that very direction.

This argument(read debate) is mostly aimed toward the Darwinist and Atheist camps. But anyone will equally benefit from it.

1) THE EVIDENCE FROM COSMOLOGY (Study of the Origins of the Universe, not the origins of makeup)

In simplest terms it's something called the Kalam Cosmological argument that has three principles based on LOGICAL REASONING, not religious faith or "suicidal intellectuals"

1) Everything that has a beginning has a cause.(Things just don't pop into existence)

2)The universe has a beginning. (The Big Bang... 99.9% of modern scientist accept this theory)

3)Therefore the universe has a cause.
"... a cause of space and time must be an uncaused, beginningless,timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal being endowed with freedom of will and enormous power"- william lane craig

2) THE EVIDENCE FROM PHYSICS

The laws and constants of physics unexpectantly conspire in an extraordinary way to make the universe inhabitable for life. ie., gravity is finetuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion.

the cosmological constant, which represents the energy density of space is as precise as throwing a dart from space and hitting a bullseye just a trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter on Earth. There are more than thirty physical or cosmological parameters that require precise calibration in order to produce a universe that can sustain life.

Chance cannot reasonably account for the "anthropic principle" (man) and the most discussed alternative (multiple universes) lacks any evidential support and ultimately collapses upon the realization that these other worlds would owe their existance to a highly designed process.

3)THE EVIDENCE FROM ASTRONOMY

it takes a highly unusual star like our sun (the right mass, the right light, the right age, the right distance the right orbit, the right galaxy, the right location) to nurture living organisms on a circling planet.
AND... the exceptional conditions that happen to make our planet suitable for life also make it stragely well suited for viewing and analyzing the universe and our environment. This suggest that not only is our planet rare(if not unique) but that the CREATOR wanted us to be able to explore the cosmos.

4) THE EVIDENCE FROM BIOCHEMISTRY

Darwin said," If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous , successive , slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Biochemist Michael Behe demonstrates that through his description of "irreducibly complex" molecular machines.

These complicated, microscopic contraptions, such as cilia and bacterial flagella, are extremely unlikely to have been built piece by piece through Darwinian processes, because they had to be fully present in order to function. Other examples include the incredible system of transporting proteins within cells and the intricate process of blood clotting.

More than just a devastating blow th Darwinism, these amazing biological systems- which far exceed the capacity of human technology, point toward a transcendent CREATOR.

4) THE EVIDENCE OF BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION (DNA)

The six-feet of DNA coiled inside everyone of our body's one hundreed trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodise are made. Cambridge- educated Stephen Meyer demonstrates that no hypothesis has come close to explaining how infromation got into biological matter by naturalistic means.
On the contrary, he said that whenever we find a sequential arrangement that's complex and corresponds to an independent pattern or function, this kind of information is always the product of intelligence. Books, computer codes and DNA all have these two properties. We know books and computer codes are designed by intelligence, and the presence of this information in DNA also implies an intelligent source.
In addition, Meyer said the Cambrian explosion's dazzling array of new life forms , which suddenly appeared fully formed in the fossil record, with no prior transitions, would have required the infusion of massive amounts of new biological information.
"information is the hallmark of the mind," Meyer said."And purely from the evidence of genetics and biology, we can infer the existence of a mind that's far greater than our own- a conscious, purposeful, rational, intelligent designer who's amazingly creative"

5) THE EVIDENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Many scientist are concluding that the laws of chemistry andphysics cannot explain our experience of consciousness. Professor J.P. Moreland defines consciousness as our introspection, sensations, thoughts, emotions, desires, beliefs and free choices that make us alive and aware. The "soul" contains our consciousness and animates our body.
According to a researcher who showed that our consciousness can continue after a person's brain has stopped functioning, current scientific findings " would support the view that 'mind,' 'consciousness,' or the 'soul' is a separate entity from the brain."
As Moreland said," You can't get something from nothing." If the universe began with dead matter having no conscious," how,then, do you get something totally different- conciousness, living, thinking, feeling, believing, creatures- from materials that don't have that?" But if everybody started with the mind of God, he said," we don't have a problem with explaining the origin of our mind."
Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse candidly conceded that " no one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems to have any answer" to the consciousness issue. Nobel Prise-winning neurophysiologist John C. Eccles concluded from the evidence" that there is what we might call a supernatural origin of my unique self-concious mind or my unique selfhood or soul."

[Edited by CHUCK/LILBIT on Sep 26, 2004 9:31 PM]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,264 Posts
very very interesting. I love stuff like this, always blows my mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,883 Posts
Originally posted by CHUCK/LILBIT
[body]
bump
[/body]
is your bible thumping so important that you bump this in an attempt everyone will start believing. what are the sources this came from? ive seen a lot of "science" proven stuff that links back to christian websites. :ermm:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,131 Posts
We already know God exists numbnuts....... I just go back the name BlackTibby to keep on the down-low.

Bump this POS again and I'll smite you. Seriously man, if it interested anyone, they'd respond.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Hey Mike!!!! Are you implying that because if information is biased it can't be true, even if the facts show no bias? Not that where I got them would make them any less true but here you go:

1) A lot of this is quoted from WILLIAM LANE CRAIG, PHD, THD

His books include alandmark debate with atheist Quentin Smithc alled Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology published by Oxford University Press; The Kalam Cosmological Argument; The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe; The Cosmological argument from Plato to Leibniz; and Reasonable Faith as well as contributionson this and related topics to several books.

He is a member of nine professional societies including the American Philosophical Association, the Science and Religion Foruim, The American Scientific Affiliation, and the Philosophy of Time Society.

If you want information on my other sources let me know. I can do it here or in PM. And the sources are books NOT websites. But welcome to the debate.

BTW I didn't mention anything in the original post that relied on the Bible as "proof". So, how am I "Bible-Thumping"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Originally posted by BlackTibby
[body]
We already know God exists numbnuts....... I just go back the name BlackTibby to keep on the down-low.

Bump this POS again and I'll smite you. Seriously man, if it interested anyone, they'd respond.
[/body]
You and I both know that the way things get cycled through A LOT of people who MIGHT have something to say but missed the post. So I'm just giving as many people as possible a chance to judge for themselves. but thanks for the imput.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,883 Posts
Originally posted by CHUCK/LILBIT
[body]
Hey Mike!!!! Are you implying that because if information is biased it can't be true, even if the facts show no bias? Not that where I got them would make them any less true but here you go:

1) A lot of this is quoted from WILLIAM LANE CRAIG, PHD, THD

His books include alandmark debate with atheist Quentin Smithc alled Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology published by Oxford University Press; The Kalam Cosmological Argument; The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe; The Cosmological argument from Plato to Leibniz; and Reasonable Faith as well as contributionson this and related topics to several books.

He is a member of nine professional societies including the American Philosophical Association, the Science and Religion Foruim, The American Scientific Affiliation, and the Philosophy of Time Society.

If you want information on my other sources let me know. I can do it here or in PM. And the sources are books NOT websites. But welcome to the debate.

BTW I didn't mention anything in the original post that relied on the Bible as "proof". So, how am I "Bible-Thumping"?
[/body]
whenever someone says, posts, writes, does whatever that is related to trying to show god is real, it registers to me as thumping. maybe you are preaching, maybe you arent. i just get really pissed because A: religion is supposed to be a personal thing, so i dont see why anyone should go and try to talk people into their views, and B: everytime i go to the mall, the store, the park, anywhere really, some guy comes up to me and tries to preach. when i say i dont want to hear it, they keep going.

im not trying to be a dick about it, it just comes out that way from years of frustrating people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Originally posted by endlessmike
[body]

whenever someone says, posts, writes, does whatever that is related to trying to show god is real, it registers to me as thumping. maybe you are preaching, maybe you arent. i just get really pissed because A: religion is supposed to be a personal thing, so i dont see why anyone should go and try to talk people into their views, and B: everytime i go to the mall, the store, the park, anywhere really, some guy comes up to me and tries to preach. when i say i dont want to hear it, they keep going.

im not trying to be a dick about it, it just comes out that way from years of frustrating people.
[/body]
I totally agree that religion is a personal thing and shouldn't be forced on anyone. That being said, I hope noone forced you into this thread. I hope nobody else is forced here either. Even so, what you get from the post is still a PERSONAL decision as to how you choose in your mind to deal with it. And most people who try to force it on you, don't have a good enough grasp on it to know they can't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
None of those examples prove ANYTHING, and heres why:
ALL THEY DO IS POINT OUT STUFF WE CAN'T EXPLAIN YET, did you know that the majority of scientific discoveries were made in the last 100 years? So does that mean that before then all that stuff we hadn't discovered or figured out yet proved the existance of god? Seriously, you christians need to get a ****ing life, you CAN'T PROVE THE EXISTANCE OF GOD...EVER. YOU WILL NEVER EVER EVER BE ABLE TO PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR RELIGION. So keep your fuking religion to yourself and stop trying to brainwash other people into becoming retarded zombies like you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
^ You're an idiot. Why does everybody associate God with religion?

This isn't really a discussion about religion, it's a discussion about the existence of God. Religious or not, almost everybody has an opinion. You've just stated yours in a manner that was really, REALLY uncalled for.

Personally, I've read everything you posted above several times, doesn't give me the impression that God exists, gives me the impression that we were created by something and not without purpose. What purpose? Who knows. Life is too short to worry about this crap.

Even if it was 100% proven with hard evidence that He existed, what would it change? I don't think it would change me or how I live my life, but would it change the world? For the better? I believe it would absolutely change the world and divide us once and for all into 2 distinct groups: Those who care, and those who don't.

[Edited by 99percentrice on Sep 27, 2004 4:57 AM]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,188 Posts
Originally posted by CHUCK/LILBIT
[body]
Hey Mike!!!! Are you implying that because if information is biased it can't be true, even if the facts show no bias? Not that where I got them would make them any less true but here you go:

1) A lot of this is quoted from WILLIAM LANE CRAIG, PHD, THD

His books include alandmark debate with atheist Quentin Smithc alled Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology published by Oxford University Press; The Kalam Cosmological Argument; The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe; The Cosmological argument from Plato to Leibniz; and Reasonable Faith as well as contributionson this and related topics to several books.

He is a member of nine professional societies including the American Philosophical Association, the Science and Religion Foruim, The American Scientific Affiliation, and the Philosophy of Time Society.

If you want information on my other sources let me know. I can do it here or in PM. And the sources are books NOT websites. But welcome to the debate.

BTW I didn't mention anything in the original post that relied on the Bible as "proof". So, how am I "Bible-Thumping"?
[/body]
Don't worry about him, he's just a confused child trying to act like a badass. He's too immature for this and any conversation i fear. As for the article, i'll read it later when im bored in class. Right now im trying to find what to use to glue a windshield in place...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
Although I can not agree with the way GodHatesYou presented his arguments, I do have to agree with him on his point that the content of the original post does nothing to prove god exists, only to point out we cannot understand or explain some things at this time. Like that's anything new.

03tib: Faith is in no way connected to truth or factual correctness. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,295 Posts
Originally posted by CHUCK/LILBIT
[body]
In simplest terms it's something called the Kalam Cosmological argument that has three principles based on LOGICAL REASONING, not religious faith or "suicidal intellectuals"
[/body]
Interesting analysis, but there are a few logical fallacies in the post. I will post later (ie: not from work) if this doesn't get locked because of the GodHatesYou fascist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,883 Posts
Originally posted by Jed118
[body]
Originally posted by CHUCK/LILBIT
[body]
Hey Mike!!!! Are you implying that because if information is biased it can't be true, even if the facts show no bias? Not that where I got them would make them any less true but here you go:

1) A lot of this is quoted from WILLIAM LANE CRAIG, PHD, THD

His books include alandmark debate with atheist Quentin Smithc alled Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology published by Oxford University Press; The Kalam Cosmological Argument; The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe; The Cosmological argument from Plato to Leibniz; and Reasonable Faith as well as contributionson this and related topics to several books.

He is a member of nine professional societies including the American Philosophical Association, the Science and Religion Foruim, The American Scientific Affiliation, and the Philosophy of Time Society.

If you want information on my other sources let me know. I can do it here or in PM. And the sources are books NOT websites. But welcome to the debate.

BTW I didn't mention anything in the original post that relied on the Bible as "proof". So, how am I "Bible-Thumping"?
[/body]
Don't worry about him, he's just a confused child trying to act like a badass. He's too immature for this and any conversation i fear. As for the article, i'll read it later when im bored in class. Right now im trying to find what to use to glue a windshield in place...
[/body]
this is true. ill just go back to my normal life now. ill stay out of conversations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,295 Posts
Originally posted by CHUCK/LILBIT
[body]
1) THE EVIDENCE FROM COSMOLOGY (Study of the Origins of the Universe, not the origins of makeup)

In simplest terms it's something called the Kalam Cosmological argument that has three principles based on LOGICAL REASONING, not religious faith or "suicidal intellectuals"

1) Everything that has a beginning has a cause.(Things just don't pop into existence)

2)The universe has a beginning. (The Big Bang... 99.9% of modern scientist accept this theory)

3)Therefore the universe has a cause.
"... a cause of space and time must be an uncaused, beginningless,timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal being endowed with freedom of will and enormous power"- william lane craig
[/body]
The inherent problem with this line of logic is that it is based on the concept of a universe and the Big-Bang Theory in #2.
The "universe" in and of itself is an abstract concept that is not easily definable. The big-bang theory is just that, a theory or a hypothesis. Even though "99.9%" of scientists accept this theory (appealing to credibility), it is not able to be proven.
Originally posted by CHUCK/LILBIT
[body]
2) THE EVIDENCE FROM PHYSICS

The laws and constants of physics unexpectantly conspire in an extraordinary way to make the universe inhabitable for life. ie., gravity is finetuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion.

the cosmological constant, which represents the energy density of space is as precise as throwing a dart from space and hitting a bullseye just a trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter on Earth. There are more than thirty physical or cosmological parameters that require precise calibration in order to produce a universe that can sustain life.

Chance cannot reasonably account for the "anthropic principle" (man) and the most discussed alternative (multiple universes) lacks any evidential support and ultimately collapses upon the realization that these other worlds would owe their existance to a highly designed process.
[/body]
The premise of this argument in the first statement "unexpectedly (I think is what was meant) conspire in an extrodinary way to make the universe inhabitable for life". The logic is implied, but the assumption is that because physics is so "exact", it can only be attributed to a supreme being. My question to this argument is "How are those parameters calibrated?"
Originally posted by CHUCK/LILBIT
[body]
3)THE EVIDENCE FROM ASTRONOMY

it takes a highly unusual star like our sun (the right mass, the right light, the right age, the right distance the right orbit, the right galaxy, the right location) to nurture living organisms on a circling planet.
AND... the exceptional conditions that happen to make our planet suitable for life also make it stragely well suited for viewing and analyzing the universe and our environment. This suggest that not only is our planet rare(if not unique) but that the CREATOR wanted us to be able to explore the cosmos.
[/body]
The assumption here is that our planet is one of kind (suitable for life). Viewing and analyzing the universe/environment is only possible with the aid/tools of technology.
There may be more planets/places in the universe that can sustain life (not necessarily carbon-based like we are), we just don't have the technology to find/view them yet, if they do exist.
Originally posted by CHUCK/LILBIT
[body]
4) THE EVIDENCE FROM BIOCHEMISTRY
[/body]
Disproving Darwin's theory is just that, disproving a theory. It doesn't necessarily lend support to Creationism.
Originally posted by CHUCK/LILBIT
[body]
4) THE EVIDENCE OF BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION (DNA)
[/body]
This is plausible in supporting the concept/theory of a creator.
Originally posted by CHUCK/LILBIT
[body]
5) THE EVIDENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS
[/body]
Consciousness is another abstract concept that is not easily defined. However, in the way it is defined here, lack of scientific evidence does not necessarily mean the consciouness has to be attributed to a creator. It is possible that we lack the tools to measure/observe consciousness.





[Edited by Tugger5000 on Sep 27, 2004 11:19 AM]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Personally, I think the above evidence points to the fact that man inherantly(sp?) needs reassurance of a divine figure head, and conforms his scientific facts to suit his needs. Man creates god in his own image. Faith doesn't cut it anymore because of the advancements in knowlege and science, so man needs another avenue to "find" his god.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top