The Fine Tuned Universe - affirms and confirms the Creator's existence! No?

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 


Nor did I ever contend that there is not a god. Those 'brilliant' men you listed are all the same in my eyes. You call Dawkins a fool? Man, you are an idiot, you like to put anybody who doesn't agree with your brain-numbingly backward views all in the same category, you have no idea of my beliefs, all you know is that I despise christianity. Once again proving to me that it's pointless engaging a religious nut in any kind of conversation. Go and feed your satanist lodger, and then feel good about your self and your christian ways. I'm sure I'll see you on here again spouting your nonsense.
edit on 8-4-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


Dawkins lacks understanding of basic fundamental concepts of Christianity, as do you.

I see no more need discussing The Theory of Everything (GOD) to a prideful and inattentive child.

And it doesn't matter if you believe in god, if you do not believe in God.

Lowercase gods that do not exist mean nothing to me
edit on 4/8/2012 by Iason321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I understand your point and even though I disagree I have to admit that it is tempting to believe the way you do. However, I have a serious problem with just assuming it is a loving entity that has done it and that he is a God and not just a more powerful, longer lived entity then we are.


It's not an assumption friend but based on facts evidence by observation.

Case in point - location of the planet earth.

Why do they call it the "Goldilocks Zone"?

Is it just by coincidence that we're in this specific zone?

Consider also the neighboring planets and Galaxies - did they just came to be there or were they strategically placed there? For what reason?

Any idea?

tc.
edit on 6-4-2012 by edmc^2 because: put - place


Mars is also located in the Goldilock Zone so what's your point?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
 


you haven't, as, if it wasn't we wouldn't be typing this, and we all know (or rather don't know) the enormity of the universe, but you just pretend there is no living thing anywhere else



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 





MrXYZ, there will NEVER be that objective empirical evidence that you and the scientific community so desperately long for my man! It ALL boils down to faith!


Exactly...blind faith. Why blind? Because it doesn't match reality and isn't backed up by objective evidence. There's hundreds of things wrong in the bible...DEMONSTRABLY wrong!



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Your rational / logic escapes me just as much as mine does you....

How can somebody believe that every last stinkin material object on earth has a creator, and every single human being walking earth has a creator......yet all these creators that create, lack a creator themselves? Makes no sense to me....

MrXYZ, if you lived near me I would invite you to my home for dinner, so we could go back and forth on this....I feel like you would be an interesting person to debate with


You don't apply any rational or logic in the first place...

We believe that SOME material objects have creators because we have OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that they were created by humans or animals. But there's NO PROOF of a creator, which it is correct to say it requires blind faith.

And that's ok...you are entitled to believe whatever you want, as long as you don't pretend it's the "truth" or "fact".



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


Many of the greatest minds in science have been Christians. Maybe YOU are the one who needs to study some? The men who wrote the Bible were the most brilliant men to walk the earth...

IGregory Beale, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society
Craig Blomberg, New Testament scholar at Denver Seminary, author of How Wide the Divide? An Evangelical and a Mormon in Conversation
William Lane Craig, professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, author of The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Millard Erickson, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society
Sinclair Ferguson, former editor of Banner of Truth Trust
John Frame, theologian noted for his work in epistemology and presuppositional apologetics, author of The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God
Norman Geisler, co-founder of Southern Evangelical Seminary, co-author of General Introduction to the Bible
Graeme Goldsworthy, Australian Anglican theologian
Wayne Grudem, co-founder of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, author of Systematic Theology
Gary Habermas, author, lecturer, and debater on the topic of the Resurrection of Jesus
Kenneth Kitchen, Egyptologist, author of On the Reliability of the Old Testament
Andreas Köstenberger, editor of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Richard Longenecker, professor of New Testament at McMaster Divinity College
John Warwick Montgomery, writer, lecturer and public debater in the field of Christian apologetics
J. P. Moreland, professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology
Thomas C. Oden, father of Paleo-Orthodoxy; theologian associated with Drew University in New Jersey
J. I. Packer, theological editor for the English Standard Version, author of Knowing God
Andrew Purves, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Alvin Plantinga, University of Notre Dame, philosopher, Warrant and Christian Belief
Moisés Silva, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society
R. C. Sproul, Reformed theologian, founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries
John Stott, former Rector of All Souls Church, Langham Place
Miroslav Volf, professor at Yale Divinity School
Stephen H. Webb, professor at Wabash College
Nicholas Wolterstorff, professor emeritus of philosophical theology, and Fellow of Berkeley College (Yale); author, Lament for a Son
Edwin M. Yamauchi, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society
Ravi Zacharias, apologist, autho



There's just a very, very, very tiny list of some BRILLIANT Christians. Any of whom I would say would make the most respected atheists (Dawkins and Hitchens come to mind) look like the fools they are.

You are not convincing anyone God doesn't exist. You are only convincing people you are ignorant and spiritually discerned.

God bless you on this beautiful Resurrection day, that day Jesus died for YOU to be able to say He doesn't exist!

and one quick edit: Whoa whoa whoa, backup, literal interpretation? Who said I believed every word of the Bible literally? There are entire books of the Bible that are almost 100% Allegorical works... (Genesis comes to mind...)
edit on 4/8/2012 by Iason321 because: (no reason given)


Now you are using another fallacy in your argumentation...an argument from authority.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 





Probably no historical record has been more scoffed at than the Bible. However, the facts show that if it weren't a book of religion and it had only recently discovered by archaeologists, it would be proclaimed the most significant find in all history. For, its details as to family lines, lands of occupation, life spans, and events should provide positive proof to even the most skeptical observers that its accounts are genuine and accurate, because no one would go into such minute detail if they were simply creating a forged document. Oh, they could if they wished, but that would require a high level of sophistication and some very dark motives.


Like I said, the bible is DEMONSTRABLY wrong in hundreds of cases.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


If you roll a D20 once, expecting a 5, you may have a coincidence. If you roll a D20 800 times, you'll inevitably get at least one five, and likely many more.

I know the odds of a planet being right for life is much lower than 1/20, but if every planet can be considered a roll, the massive universe, with more planets than we could ever imagine, is still out rolling the odds.

We see many planets in possible Goldilocks zones. We don't have the resources to know which ones have life on them, yet. However, the point still remains, we're not here by chance, accident, or design. We're here by the size of the universe stacking the odds so thoroughly in the favor of life appearing, that it'd be a crazy accident for life to not develop anywhere.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
 


you haven't, as, if it wasn't we wouldn't be typing this, and we all know (or rather don't know) the enormity of the universe, but you just pretend there is no living thing anywhere else


Quite the opposite.

I'm very confident that there's life elsewhere in the universe. Can't say 100% without seeing it firsthand, but it's too likely too deny.

What I am saying, is that 99.99999999999999% of the universe doesn't support life. We are in that 0.0000000000001%, along with probably many more planets. Incredibly small sections can sustain life, but the overall vast, vast, vast majority doesn't.

If the universe were well tuned for life, intentionally created just for living things, it's one of the worst designs ever. It simply fails to do any better than what random chance would produce.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You offered one flimsy website that I or any other good apologist could debunk completely and thoroughly in a few hours.

I think it's obvious to any outside observers watching this who wins this debate - the one who can post hundreds of sources and websites and names of scholars supporting his views, or the one who posts one flimsy website that could be easily debunked.

The atheistic arguments are getting pretty weak the more we delve into this subject at hand, why is that?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 





You offered one flimsy website that I or any other good apologist could debunk completely and thoroughly in a few hours.


Funny how with a lot of counter arguments you simply state they're "so easy to debunk"...yet you never do, or seem able too


And the website isn't "flimsy", it lists over 400 CONCRETE cases in which the bible is demonstrably wrong
edit on 8-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I'll debunk all 400 of them if you want me to, I did a quick read through and I debunked the first 20 or so with about 20 seconds of thought per "issue"...



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Too bad you have no appreciation of true science, because if you do - you should be able to confirm and see what many great minds have already seen. That is, that the universe is governed by a highly precise and fine tuned laws. And that such fined tuned laws require precision planning and great thinking ability. An ability not produced by mere accident and chance but by a great mind - God.

I'm just tired of debating the same topic over and over in every single thread, which is basically yours and others' opinions. A finely tuned universe where life is so incredibly rare. That really makes sense for an "intelligent" designer. The problem is not my appreciation for science. I absolutely love science. The problem is your lack of understanding about science and what constitutes as objective evidence or proof. You cannot prove that the laws of the universe were made by some extra dimensional being. You cannot prove that RNA was designed and didn't emerge naturally. You can't prove a single thing you are talking about. It is your opinion about the universe. It is faith based.


To you this is nonsense because you've already convinced yourself that chance and accidents are the causal force.
No, I just don't put stake in things that lack objective evidence. That's your department.


Because to you such profound statement as:

“every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:4)

is nonsense and doesn't mean a thing. You've already shown yourself to be incapable of logic and most of all common sense. Thus there's no evidence in the universe for someone who refuse to see the obvious.


Logic and science do not support your theory. I'm sorry but its true. No matter how much you are in awe of nature, and the complexity of DNA, and the laws of the universe (the way it is), there is not a single piece of evidence to suggest god exists or a process of design ever happened.

"The universe is the way it is. That totally proves design!!" That is essentially your entire basis for your argument. I'm just hoping that one day you'll acknowledge your faith as actual faith, and admit its just your opinion, instead of trying to preach to others about science and proof of god when this isn't even close.
edit on 8-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I'll debunk all 400 of them if you want me to, I did a quick read through and I debunked the first 20 or so with about 20 seconds of thought per "issue"...



Go for it, debunk them


You can start with that global flood that never happened, talking snakes, and people living inside whales...
edit on 8-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The global floods cannot be disproven, and theres a good chance it wasnt entirely global, but actually a local flood.

The serpent / snake is a metaphor, it wasn't a literal snake in a garden.

The belly of the whale is a metaphor for Sheol or death


Go on .....



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 





The global floods cannot be disproven, and theres a good chance it wasnt entirely global, but actually a local flood.


Of course it can be disproven. If there's no geological evidence in favor of a global flood, then there was no global flood...and there is no evidence.

I agree that the bible probably talks about local floods, even though that's not what it really says.




The serpent / snake is a metaphor, it wasn't a literal snake in a garden.


So was Adam & Eve I guess





The belly of the whale is a metaphor for Sheol or death


Since we're playing the metaphor game:

So technically, according to the bible there might be no god and its was simply a natural process...god essentially being a metaphor because people didn't understand the science behind things.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Alright, well then we're agreeing on the deluge.

Adam and Eve don't have to be a single person named Adam and Eve, adam in Hebrew means mankind, and eve (ishshah) means woman or womankind or female.

And not the ENTIRE bible is metaphorical like that, mainly just Genesis and a few of the stories throughout the OT, and some of the parables of the NT and the Revelation (also the OT prophecies by Daniel). God is a very real Being, YHVH is no metaphor for "nature" or "the universe", YHVH CREATED the laws of nature and the laws of physics, they didn't create Him.

Give me some more specific examples that you are hung up on and I will continue to explain / debunk.

PS, MrXYZ, you should change your avatar. I don't think of you as being a hideous monster because you're an atheist....maybe a baby sucking its thumb would be a more appropriate avatar for how I look at atheists....
edit on 4/8/2012 by Iason321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


And not the ENTIRE bible is metaphorical like that, mainly just Genesis and a few of the stories throughout the OT, and some of the parables of the NT and the Revelation (also the OT prophecies by Daniel). God is a very real Being, YHVH is no metaphor for "nature" or "the universe", YHVH CREATED the laws of nature and the laws of physics, they didn't create Him.

Which parts of the bible are metaphorical and which are literal? Did God make notes in the margin or have you taken it upon yourself to arbitrate which bits should be interpreted and which should be taken at face value?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


It depends. It doesn't come from reading it over quickly and having a gut feeling, interpretation comes from guidance of the Holy Ghost coupled with deep meditation and prayer alongside studying an interlinear Greek/Hebrew study Bible with a KJV/CLV and Strongs Concordance.





top topics
 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join