 |
Where/what is the objective proof that God was not the power/force behind the creation of the universe even with all the scientific facts?
You can use all the scientific fact and theory on the earths existence but how does it objectively prove God was not the *author and creator* of the scientific facts?
Imagine you and I are having a conversation, and you say that the tooth fairy left a dollar under your daughters pillow last night.
I say to you, there is no tooth fairy.
The burden of proof is on YOU because you made the tooth fairy claim.
I don't have to prove that there is no tooth fairy.
Same thing goes for claims of GodAlmighty... the burden of proof is on those who claim that there is a GodAlmighty.
That is a non answer because just because we can not prove God exists does not mean there is no God.
Neither do you have to prove there is no God but I will still believe just as you believe to not believe.
The question is HOW does objective proof prove there is no God?
There is no proof that there isn't a God, just like there isn't any proof that there is. All the scientific facts in the world can't stop someone from feeling god's love flow through their souls.
I have faith, that's how I know there is a god. I'm assuming that the people that try and prove that there isn't one don't have faith.
Ok, great analogy. What you are saying is that you know that dollar bills are made by humans therefore, a human put the dollar bill under the pillow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Choux
Now, lets tweak the analogy a bit. Lets say for instance, that you find a watch in the forest. And I say that it created itself from all the materials after eons they came together and formed a perfect timekeeping mechanism. Of course, you know that is impossible. It must have been created by some human being.
Now, even just one little piece of the universe is a million times more intricate and detailed than a mere human mechanism. And if it took intelligence to make that trinket. How much more intelligence did it take to create the universe?
Yet, you claim that it came to be on its own. I believe the burden of proof is on you.
Sincerely,
De Maria
I will say what I said on the previous thred!
Evidence for Intelligent design.
The Evidence For a Creator is blatant and purely common sence that is IN YOUR FACE . Ignoring this evidence is a display of deliberate and willful ignorance.
You make things so complicated that you fail to recognize the obvious. For example, take a look at the Mount Rushmore photo below. Now ask yourself, how many years would it take for these figures to appear on the side of this mountain by chance? Millions of years? Billions of years? Given one hundred trillion years, could these figures eventually form on the side of the mountain?
The only thing that fuels the theory of evolution is the assumption that any thing can happen given a billions of years (that why I scientist convieneintly changed the age of the earth from 70 million to billions of years in oder to make evolution feasible)
So the assuption is that if you take a 100 monkey's, put them on type writers for a billion years , the monkeys will eventually come up with the entire works of Shakespear, Hamlet, Romeo &Juliet, Othelo etc... This is the huge unproven and highly improbable assuption the theory depends on. So the thoery reckons after billions of years of chance, we eventually, gradually come to be how we are now.
We know that skilled artists and sculptors worked to create the faces on Mount Rushmore. When we look at Mount Rushmore, we know that a mind or minds were used in designing and executing the images we see there. Prior to the faces being formed there, Mount Rushmore was a "victim" of chance, wind, rain, time, erosion. The result? Nothing that we would consider as complex, intelligent design. Then the faces were carved on the side of the mountain. It was then that mere chance was overthrown... by intentional design and order.
So could such a thing come about by chance? If the earth is as old as "scientists" tell us, then the mountains in the world are quite ancient. Do we see any mountains in the world where complex and recognizable images have formed on them by chance? NO
So an evolutionis or a believer in the Big Bang would see mount Rushmore and conclude that there is no intelligent sculptor/artist but rather the faces on this mountain appeared from no where, by chance over billions of years, given infinite time, wind, rain, and erosion. That conclusion is as ridiculous and as ignorant as the hoax that we all just appeared by accident from no where by chance and evolved over a billions of years. :rolleyes:
So the bottom line is the evidence for an intelligent designer is simple common sense. You dont need someone to tell you or give you "evidence" that an artist sculpted mount Rushmore, if you have a brain and common sense, the evidence is in your face. In the same way the evidence of intelligent design by a creator is in your face if you choose to use your common sence.
Sassy I agree but I want to know HOW all the 'scientific evidence' proves there is no God.
It doesn't! It accually affirms that there is a God. When Dawin came up with is wise evolution idea, cells were thought to be just blobs of nothing. Now Science has descovered DNA which has a wealth of complex information. Our human genetic code, though microscopic, would fill 100 books, each 1200 pages thick. Mathematically, there is ZERO chance life is a cosmic accident.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
No one can prove that there is a God.
No one can prove that there is not a God.
Why is this simple fact, still being argued?
Sassy T and DeMaria
Outstanding answers .there is little to add . It has been a long time since anyone in science thought the simple single cell was a simple structure. The more humans learn the more we learn the complexity of what we had previously thought was simple .
Because I do not understand why disproving God is considered objective to not have to answer and the other is required to show burden of proof when what they believe proves nothing more than what believers believe. Seems like a contradiction of terms and I would like to know HOW science proves to them there is no God.
It is the old standard dodge. They can make a negative definitive comment "there is no God" and then dismissively claim no need to prove a negative .What they really mean is that they "believe " there is not God. . They should not be making a definitive statement in the first place if they are not simularily willing to admit they have no better rational for their statement of non-belief than I have in my claim . I may say I "believe "God exists and when asked ,the bottom line is admit that it is a matter of faith .
There is no fang-toothed metagoer with long hair - prove it.
TOMDER
Exactly
I BELIEVE there is...Quote:
There is no fang-toothed metagoer with long hair - prove it.
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...zuni-thumb.jpg
So one can make definitive proof with a simple image?
I'll turn the argument around . I have NO requirement to prove a matter of faith.
Agreed.
THEN WHY is it repeated over and over that Believers NEED to prove!
Don't know, I didn't start this thread. I'm just a religious guy responding.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:30 PM. |