# Modern scientific finds strongly implies God exists

99 posts / 0 new

Now you are just being batshit crazy Gerald. Those equations are viable. You don't get to move the goal post just because you have been proven wrong.

mykcob4, the goal posts did not exist then. Nothing did. So we have nothing as a base to determine how any thing was then. We can only go by from what we were able to observe. And we observed that life came from life and that each species has only come from that same species. This is what we have observed for over 6000 years. It has been a pattern that has never wavered from that observable time. We can, therefore without any doubt, assume that each species that will be born in the near or far future, will come from to be just as the way we have been observing. And if this is the case, then it is only logical to assume that what we have seen, and what we assume to be, could be the only logical, assumption determining that all species arrived from a living predecessor, and that it came from its same parent species. Any other conclusion is illogical, and irrational. I'm therefore not the crazy one. For I am merely using the scientific model left to us to help guide us into logical assumptions.

Do you believe santa clause came down the chimney and gave you presents - Or - that your parents told you a story, and they are the ones that gave you presents? Just because you were not around to see your parents get born, automatically disqualifies the "your parents theory" and you instead accept the santa clause theory? Why not at the very least chase down another, more plausible evidence based theory instead of jumping strait to santa clause theory?

Gerald - equations you are referring to could never be proven as viable

The derivation is quite simple:
What is the chance of rolling a 1 on a regular die (6 sided dice)? p = 1/6

Probability is set up so that the (probability of an event) + (the probability of not getting that event) = 1 (or 100%). The probability of an event is typically labeled p, and the probability of not getting that event is labelled p' (and is called the complement of p); giving the equation: p + p' = 1

So what is the chance of rolling something other than a 1 on a die? p' = 1 - 1/6 = 5/6

It is often easier to use p' (the complement of p) to calculate with than p; which we can do because we can switch between them since we know p + p' = 1

What is the probability of rolling 1 or more 1's on 20 dice? It is difficult to think about this problem in terms of p. Instead we use p'. To get zero 1's on 20 dice, every die must have a result from 2-6, or p' must happen for every dice, so:

The probability for rolling zero 1's on 20 dice is p'^20

Now lets convert that back to terms with p, we known p + p' = 1, therefore p' = 1 - p; giving us:
The probability for rolling zero 1's on 20 dice is (1 - p)^20.

But that wasn't the original question, we want to know the probability of NOT rolling zero 1's. We want the probability for rolling one or more 1's. But we know the (probability of NOT rolling zero 1's) + (probability of rolling one or more 1's) = 1, so again we can use this to convert the problem to answer the question we want:

Probability of rolling one or more 1's on 20 dice: 1 - (1 - p)^20.
In short: the complement of the complement of p, is p.

You will notice this has the same form as my previous post:

Nyarlathotep - The probability of an event happening(p) in one or more number of locations(n) is 1 - (1 - p)^n

So yes Virginia, this is how probability is calculated; and I didn't just copy the equation from someone...

You tell me nothing here, just because these 4 forces came in during the big bang way back when doesn`t say much here. Cosmologist and physicist really haven't figured it out yet. So the God concept is put on hold. I f you want to believe in a God or Gods, by then you are not using reason Here.I t is either faith or reason you can`t have both at the same time. Faith is believing in things not proven not seen. I just don`t think that is rational for us humans.I like to test hypothesis that's why I am a man of science and agnosic atheist in my beliefs.

Maybe it depends on what you think faith is an what reason is? religions differ with each other to the point of logical contradiction.

Mine is that God gave us an historical faith - a faith that can be subjected to empirical ( at first) and ( now) logical proofs. It is my belief that faith and reason work together. I also believe - as do many scientists - I am not one of those people, but many Christians are -
but the belief is that science and faith work together to provide a more comprehensive understanding than either alone would.

Blessings!

Larry A.
Is faith the only way to prove a god is real?

Then you fail at using part of who you are to determine truth. Our makeup is far more than just flesh and bone. Time and time again it has been shown that man is a physical, mental, and spiritual being. Just to be able to consider spiritual, means that there is a part of us that can be used to help us to see more than the here and now. Our abstract way of thinking can be explained no other way. And the way that science has been able to take tidbits of info and find black holes and the like, should dictate that the dimension of God should not be dismissed. But looked into further. Just as much as the other things of that science can not see but only suspect.

Well, I guess the evidence for god is so overwhelming that faith is no longer necessary.

No, faith is still needed. Faith is a personal choice. But it should be informed by reason and facts. This is an important Constitutional idea as well as a theological one.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html

"1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16] The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator..."

Blessings!

Wrong! If you have enough evidence then faith is not necessary Thank you , Larry! You have overturned the foundation of Christianity - faith- in one single post! Allelujah!

You speak of that which you know not. You don't have any idea of God. Because you dismiss Him instead of at least keeping an open mind. The hundreds of thousands who have kept an open mind dictates that one should not dismiss lightly the God concept. And for you to do so and speak so flippantly about it shows your ignorance. Especially about evolution.

Gerald
Is faith the only way to prove a god is real?

Tell me Larry where is the reason for faith, faith is incompatible with reason How could according to matthew gospel people come out of there graves and walk into town, It`s quite a stretch here wouldn`t you say. No faith is unreasonable in religion, the claims are preposterous you made something big out of nothing. The fact is you don`t have a leg to stand on concerning theism.

simply agnostic: "Tell me Larry where is the reason for faith, [Run-on sentence] faith is incompatible with reason [.]How could according to matthew (sic) gospel people come out of there (sic) graves and walk into town, [Run-on sentence] It`s quite a stretch here wouldn`t you say. No faith is unreasonable in religion, [Run-on sentence] the claims are preposterous [Run-on sentence compounded] you made something big out of nothing. The fact is you don`t have a leg to stand on concerning theism."

Such pathetic grammar from one who relentlessly PRETENDS to be so intellectual and smart. Tsk, tsk.
How is it that a "stupid" "Fundie" can point out atheists' grammatical ignorance time and again on this message board?

And not ONLY grammatical ignorance, but of course also preposterous, unsupported claims about everything.

Every scientist has faith that the laws of nature are reliable, consistent, and that diligent study can unlock a few more mysteries that are so elusive from the submicroscopic to the super-macroscopic. Fancy all of that coming from.... nothing, which of course you worship.

A grammar nazi misusing the word "worship."

Keep it up with your hypocrisy, it feeds me..

Here we go again. The grammar nazi crying about run-on sentence.

We stand occupying space as intelligent beings. We don't know from where we came from. It is an impossibility that we are. All the factors that the Atheists claim to have come to be just right, by an accidental chance of mixing, is followed by one after another accidental chances, that beat all odds and made man, according to the Atheists. But it is not so with the intelligently design theory. Where an Intelligent being created all with us in mind.

The man created god theory has lots of real world tangible evidence. Where as the god created man theory has zero actual evidence.

I am gonna go with option A with actual evidence.

Both are unlikely yes, but one has real evidence where the other does not.

In my first post I suggested that the content of the Big Bang theory combined with the fine tuning of the universe for life is evidence for the Christian God. I admit I need other arguments or premises to establish that claim. But the Big bang theory provides evidence that there was a beginning. An absolute beginning. There are theories about an oscillating universe or a multiverse. But from what I have read those don't solve the problem of an absolute beginning. Those situations involve expansion. An expanding universe or one that involves an expansionary phase eventually had to have a beginning. That much seems to have been proven.

We could posit multiverses going back as far as we want, for instance. But eventually we would have to reach an absolute beginning. And from what I have learned such multiverses would also have to be fine tuned in some way.

So those theories don't solve the problem. For centuries philosophers said that "nothing comes from nothing". According to the standard BB model nothing existed prior to that singular event. That is an absolute nothing - though we can;'t really conceive of that.

Nothing at all. Nothing can do nothing. It has no power to cause anything.So at this point we need a Cause. That Cause must be such as to have no beginning. It must be an uncaused cause. A self existent cause. And it must have be a non physical cause. Not a part of the universe or of space time. So supernatural. Something that is outside of anything that had a beginning.

This Cause must be self existent , super intelligent and super powerful. Look at the Universe. It is immense and displays power, complexity and fine tuning. So the Cause must be personal. It must have willed and planned that other personal beings come into existence. Ourselves.

We are like the Cause in that we have intelligence and can will to do.

We - though a part of the natural universe - love and appreciate beauty and know to recognize good. Therefore the Personal Cause must be Good.

The Personal Cause must desire to communicate with us because it - He - populated a part of the universe with being like ourselves who have the capacity to love, to communicate, to will, and to know goodness.

In addition we have Christ being crucified and buried in a sealed and guarded grave. Sealed and guarded because those in authority
- the religious rulers on the one hand and the political ruler son the other - had their own authority at stake if it could be credibly said that Christ rose again.

Christ's followers were scared to death that the same horrible fate would befall them. In any event they did not expect that Christ would rise again. Later they claimed they saw Him and maintained this claim even in the face of death itself. They could not have stolen the body because it goes against nature to maintain a lie in the face of death. But for something they thought was true they would be willing to die. they would know if they were lying when they said saw and ate with the risen Lord.

What evidence do I have that God raised Christ from the tomb?

Let me try a legal argument.

Suppose a person needs to have his left arm amputated The surgeon removes the right arm by mistake. What does the man need to prove at court? Nothing. The fact that the surgeon controlled everything and the man's right arm was removed is enough.The facts speak for themselves.

So with the resurrection. Christ was dead and in a sealed tomb all alone. So who raised Him - God - the facts speak for themselves.

Blessings!

Not to mention the point that the Jews had part of the Roman Guard and part of the Sanhedrin guard guarding the tomb where Christ lied. Yet there is no account of soldiers or disciples of having been killed. It would have been to the benefit of the Jewish Hierarchy to have placed in view the yet dead body of the Messiah, so that any hopes of the disciples to continue the work of Christ would have been dashed to pieces. Instead the soldiers were payed to lie, and claim that the body was stolen. A lie that should have cost the lives of each and ever soldier present that night. Yet this is not what happened and the disciples come out swinging, suddenly and forcefully. Spreading the Gospel of Christ and the love of God around the world. And causing the Jewish custom to be largely left behind.

Bullshit Gerald. To the Jewish hierarchy, jesus was a criminal. The Romans would never had wasted man power to guard the grave of a peasant. There was nothing of value to steal. You are interjecting lies to fit your narrative. Not even your bible describes guards guarding the tomb. The only people that went to that tomb were 3, count them, 3 cleaning women. When they got there they found the tomb open and nothing inside. No resurrection. No ghost. No 500 witnesses. Just 3 cleaning women that found an empty tomb.
And since we are on historical accuracy, there would be no reason to entomb jesus. Since the christian, jewish, faiths call for burial not entombing a body. Romans cremated their dead. So this tomb business is all hogwash in the first place. Plus jesus was a criminal so his burial would have been in a common grave by jewish law at the time. I doubt very much that the Romans would have gotten involved with the disposal of a dead body if the jews claimed it. They would have been only too happy to just let the jewish leaders dispose of it as they saw fit. But it is all moot because there is no proof it happened in the first place. No Roman records of a trial of jesus, or even a census recording a jesus. That is quite striking as Romans kept implicit records. So it is more likely that it didn't happen at all.
What is likely that the first compiler of a bible around 324ADE incorporated a resurrection story for whatever reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection

Dead people stay dead you are exaggerating things a bit here!!!!!! The whole Christian account is a hoax, for gullible people like you and Larry. be realistic here,

simply agnostic writes,

"Dead people stay dead you are Dead people stay dead you are exaggerating things a bit here!!!!!! The whole Christian account is a hoax, for gullible people like you and Larry. be realistic here,"

I can't post everything I have read on this and other subjects. I can only post a little that might lead to some doing their own research. But I am just now reading an article by a man named John Warwick Montgomery - several degrees and has practiced law
before the highest courts of U.S . , England and France as well as before a tribunal on human rights.

In an essay entitled 'The Jury Returns" this well respected scholar and lawyer goes to some length to show why the New Testament is trustworthy based on legal reasoning. It is interesting that a good many lawyers and jurists - army generals, statesmen , philosophers and and other people who we trust to be insightful observers apply the same kind of thinking they do in their professional lives to the New testament and find it reliable and trustworthy.

The essay is found in an anthology entitled "Evidence For Faith" edited by john Warwick Montgomery.

Dead people do stay dead - but God the Son did not. For Jesus to rise again - if he was who he claimed to be - makes perfect sense. his resurrection merely substantiated His claim. Is the new testament credible on this point ? According to people with good training and sound judgement it is.

Larry

you know that the gospel of mark what scholars believe to be the first written came 40 years after jesus deathAnd the original transcripts don`t include the resurrection narrative, Look for yourself and learn something don`t be so ignorant.Check it out that verses 9 to 20 are not included in the old manuscripts.This is all Myths fake stories here, and what matthew luke and john did was copy off of mark and embellished the story. It is a pack of lies, down to the very last word.

Exactly Simply. I have been posting that for as long as I have been here. You get it. Funny how christians just ignore it!

Simply writes,

"you know that the gospel of mark what scholars believe to be the first written came 40 years after jesus deathAnd the original transcripts don`t include the resurrection narrative, Look for yourself and learn something don`t be so ignorant.Check it out that verses 9 to 20 are not included in the old manuscripts.This is all Myths fake stories here, and what matthew luke and john did was copy off of mark and embellished the story. It is a pack of lies, down to the very last word"

Mark chapter 16 at verse 8 in the oldest manuscripts. No one should base any doctrine on 9-20 unless they can also use other New Testament passages to support their idea. The New Testament documents were written in ancient times. Much from that era has been lost to us - probably 90% or more has been lost. So I can't prove everything I would like to about the early authorship.

My research has led me to believe that Matthew was probably written first perhaps as early as 37AD. I have to conclude that the Gospels were written before 70 AD. John later 80s or 90s. But written documents were written earlier than many think. In any case they compare very favorably with other ancient documents that are and have been used by historians.

Thousands of hours have been spent on close examination by competent scholars - who affirm the reliability of the text. Many details have been confirmed by archaeological finds.We know what the earliest preaching was - it was as 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 says.

Jesus died according to the scriptures was buried and rose again - according to Old testament scriptures - and was seen by the various witnesses at the various times. This all rings true to men of the world such as lawyers and historians and statesmen and so forth. So I believe I am in good shape believing as I do.

Larry

Follows is from http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5608/pg5608.html

In London in the 1800s two legal guilds owned a church. The pastor wrote a story that pretended to put the case for resurrection on trial.This gave him a chance to closely reason the case for it.

"Suppose a man should tell you, that he was come from the dead, you would be apt to suspect his evidence. But what would you suspect? That he was not alive when you heard him, saw him, felt him, and conversed with him? You could not suspect this, without giving up all your senses and acting in this case as you act in no other. Here then you would question, whether the man had ever been dead? But would you say, that it is incapable of being made plain by human testimony, that this or that man died a year ago? It can't be said. Evidence in this case is admitted in all courts perpetually
Consider it the other way. Suppose you saw a man publicly executed, his body afterwards was wounded by the executioner, and carried and laid in the grave; that after this you should be told, that the man was come to life again; what would you suspect in this case? Not that the man had never been dead; for that you saw yourself: but you would suspect whether he was now alive. But would you say this case excluded all human testimony and that men could not possibly discern , whether one with whom they conversed familiarly was alive or no? Upon what ground could you say this? A man rising from the grave is an object of sense, and can give the same evidence of his being alive, as any other man in the world can give. So that a resurrection considered only as a fact to be proved by evidence, is a plain case; it requires no greater ability in the witnesses, than that they be able to distinguish between a man dead, and a man alive: a point in which I believe every man living thinks himself a judge."

The point is that the claim has to considered on the evidence not on a prior presupposition "dead men stay dead." Thinking Christians are such because they have thought through the evidence - as the pastor who wrote the story was doing.

Larry

People come back from death all the time in comic books; which is about as serious as I take the stories in bible.

The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell

(page 156)

D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe examine what has happened in history that displays the influence of the (Christian) church. Here are “a few highlights” they cite (in their book What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?):

• Hospitals, which essentially began during the Middle Ages.
• Universities, which also began during the Middle Ages. In addition, most of the world’s greatest universities were started by Christians for Christian purposes.
• Literacy and education of the masses.
• Representative government, particularly as it has been seen in the American experiment.
• The separation of political powers.
• Civil liberties.
• The abolition of slavery, both in antiquity and in modern times.
• Modern science.
• The discovery of the New World by Columbus.
• Benevolence and charity; the Good Samaritan ethic.
• Higher standards of justice.
• The elevation of the common man.
• The high regard for human life.
• The civilizing of many barbarian and primitive cultures.
• The codifying and setting to writing of many of the world’s languages.
• The greater development of art and music. The inspiration for the greatest works of art.
• The countless changed lives transformed from liabilities into assets to society because of the gospel.
• The eternal salvation of countless souls.

In the nineteenth century, Charles Bradlaugh, a prominent atheist, challenged a Christian man to debate the validity of the claims of Christianity. The Christian, Hugh Price Hughes, was an active soul-winner who worked among the poor in the slums of London. Hughes told Bradlaugh he would agree on one condition.

Hughes said, “I propose to you that we each bring some concrete evidences of the validity of our beliefs in the form of men and women who have been redeemed from the lives of sin and shame by the influences of our teaching. I will bring 100 such men and women, and I challenge you to do the same.”

Hughes then said that if Bradlaugh couldn’t bring 100, then he could bring 50; if he couldn’t bring 50 then he could bring 20. He finally whittled the number down to one. All Bradlaugh had to do was find one person whose life was improved by atheism and Hughes - who would bring 100 people improved by Christ - would agree to debate him.