Sharpshooter Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Show me authentic ancient scripture of this tea-pot orbiting jupiter being watched over a being made of spaghetti and meatballs. Show me the wonders of this tea-pot orbiting jupiter being watched over a being made of spaghetti and meatballs. Show me the implication of this tea-pot orbiting jupiter being watched over a being made of spaghetti and meatballs. Show me the purpose of this tea-pot orbiting jupiter being watched over a being made of spaghetti and meatballs. Show me a community of people who already believe in this tea-pot orbiting jupiter being watched over a being made of spaghetti and meatballs. There's no credible evidence to this tea-pot orbiting jupiter being watched over a being made of spaghetti and meatballs. God on the other hand, has many evidences. You just continue to dodge it all. At your convenience - one major evidence for God is the extremely fine tuned planet and galaxy we live in. The kind of complexity that our earth and galaxy encompasses, for example the precise gravitational field that permits life to exist as well as to prevent matter from escaping? For example the gravitational field from our perfect sized moon that gives perfect ocean currents that sustain life in our oceans? For example, the perfect meteor belt that protects the earth from hundreds of killer meteors every year? For example, the perfect distance from the Sun that permits life? For example, the perfect tilt on our earth that accounts for the ever needed change of seasons? Our planet and our galaxy is undeniably more advanced and complex than any software developed, any hardware engineered, any building constructed, and any book written. Everything is so extremely fine tuned that it points to an intelligent designer. Our extraordinary life permitting planet is credible evidence to a transcendent being known as God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Funny because it's a much more widely accepted claim that God does exist. Atheism is the new thing, remember? Theists don't have to prove God exists. It's widely accepted. You have to disprove God, or refute all the evidences that point to a God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom-The-Great Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 in before "but you're making a claim that god doesnt exist, so you have to prove that!" lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Funny because it's a much more widely accepted claim that God does exist. Atheism is the new thing, remember? Theists don't have to prove God exists. It's widely accepted. You have to disprove God, or refute all the evidences that point to a God. If you agree with me, even to the slightest, then you can see it is some sort of evidence that points to a Creator. That's the one point I'm making to Sharpshooter. He thinks there is no evidence whatsoever which is total baloney. I'm glad you can see this evidence now, so at least we can get talking! Alright, so there is an incredible small % chance that this world arose through random means right? Now, what are the chances? Are we asserting that we are the absolutely lucky people who scored such a %? That argument just doesn't work, especially for scientists. It isn't convincing enough. Almost like how a gambler at a casino would be dealt 4 aces over and over and over again, he cannot say to the authorities "ugh I'm in this universe where I'm just super lucky".. this kind of argument is unacceptable. It's a very small chance, but it's an unacceptable answer. Not only are the chances extremely and near impossible, but the limited life of the universe of 14 billion years is more strain on the chances. We're not talking infinite time - we're talking limited time. If scientists DO take this claim.. of the 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of hitting the cosmic lottery, then any logical person would assert this underlying fact - it is more probable to think our universe is designed than to believe it was randomed. So we can refute the argument that only religion leads to differences. Clearly atheism can breed differences too. Hostile not yet, but give it a few thousand years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Fine tuning: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 No offense, but this is soooo pathetic arguing about God. Seems like none of you have anything better to do, and atheists just like stirring up arguments for no good reason, and it is even more pathetic when God-believers cave in and start interacting with them as if the atheists are going to change - there is a very high chance that they won't change their perception of God and as harsh as this may sound to some (No offense, just telling the truth), atheists are kinda like a rock; they won't change, yet they won't listen to anything at the same time, thus, it's like talking to a rock - nothing's gonna change. ....Just all of you, chill out..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom-The-Great Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 I love thunderf00t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Let's say there is a heavy rain in Vancouver that creates a puddle. In this puddle, a race of microscopic organisms who have roughly the same intelligence as humans emerges. They look at the puddle and see that it has a specific area, depth, temperature etc. These puddle people conclude that the puddle must have been specifically designed for their existence, because they are able to survive in the conditions found in the puddle. They look at the puddle from what we would equate to an anthropocentric perspective. They don't realize that their existence is contingent on the puddle being the way it is, not the other way around. If the ground contoured ever so slightly in a different way, the puddle would be completely different. A different type of puddle-people could arise from this slightly different puddle, and say the exact same thing. That's why the watchmaker argument is stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 And let's say God pours a watering can. Next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom-The-Great Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 And let's say God pours a watering can. Next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 And let's say God pours a watering can. Next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Oh i'm sorry. I thought this thread was the God thread. My bad. Yes, man's arrogance knows no bounds. While it should've been obvious that we aren't at the center of everything, it's taken us ages to admit that we aren't. However, how you define reality comes into play. If you think that reality is how you are personally able to interpret your surroundings, then aren't you, in essense, the center of your own personal universe? Think of it in terms of singular little speck lifeforms, not the whole group. Let's say speck A interprets his surroundings differently than speck B. Further, lets say speck A also physically reacts differently to his surroundings than speck B. So... Alternate puddles? And who's to say what's the right puddle? Luckliy the laws of physics are around. Who created those again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 I just rambled on disregarding your point again, didn't i? Sorry. Bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dancin'Droid Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Yes it can, here are a few examples First, scientists have been realizing for the better part of a century now that the physical world is too complex and finely tuned to have come into being by accident. For example, something as basic to life as the cell never could have evolved because it is a collection of complex machines made of molecules. Those molecule machines never would have evolved because their parts by themselves serve no survival purpose – and only features that serve a survival purpose develop by evolution. The cell – and many other complex aspects of our world – had to come into being just as they are, and that would only happen if they were designed by an intelligence far beyond ours. Science leads us to the conclusion that Creator God is real. Second, Christianity is the only religious faith based on a historical fact that proves it is true beyond a reasonable doubt. The resurrection of Jesus from the dead validates His teaching about what God is like and how He expects us to live. Though many skeptics reject the resurrection as a myth, it is in fact far better documented than many other events in ancient history that people take for granted. None of the arguments skeptics offer can explain away the fact of the empty tomb. Skeptics reject the resurrection not for lack of evidence but because admitting it happened would require them to live a life that honors Christ, instead of living to satisfy their own appetites and ambitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Oh i'm sorry. I thought this thread was the God thread. My bad. Yes, man's arrogance knows no bounds. While it should've been obvious that we aren't at the center of everything, it's taken us ages to admit that we aren't. However, how you define reality comes into play. If you think that reality is how you are personally able to interpret your surroundings, then aren't you, in essense, the center of your own personal universe? Think of it in terms of singular little speck lifeforms, not the whole group. Let's say speck A interprets his surroundings differently than speck B. Further, lets say speck A also physically reacts differently to his surroundings than speck B. So... Alternate puddles? And who's to say what's the right puddle? Luckliy the laws of physics are around. Who created those again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Fine tuning: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Also I'm not advocating Strobel's books. The Case for Christ was actually a pretty good read...but then I read the other two and it really put me off his writings... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 That video refutes the earth/galaxy/universe from being fine tuned?????? Oh my.. Gravity isn't required for life? What if water escapes to space? What water do you have left on earth? The video said no gravity is okay for life.... and then they showed being in zero gravity air craft shows evidence of that? What if there is no water? Maybe the film maker was inept to conclude that life doesn't need water? Then they say Lee Strobel has no academic credibility on the entire matter of mathematics and gravitational force.... this is hilarious. Lee Strobel is an investigative journalist who interviews experts and other mathematicians. His mode of investigation gives him the credibility to conclude with points he has investigated. Much like how you are able to watch the news and believe what is being presented. Why would you ever believe ANYTHING that is reported on any news station? Biochemists even use scientific research that is concluded by other chemists and biologists.. it's called synthesizing research. Lee Strobel investigates the facts and synthesizes the data. Lastly, the video presented the fact that our planet has a very small % degree of life on it. Asserting that our planet is not extraordinary at all. That is laughable. For DECADES no one is able to find life at all on any other planet. Not only that, but humans have sentient life. That even adds more radical uniqueness to our planet. Sigh.. the video skips over the fact that our distance from the Sun is perfect, ocean currents perfect, the tilt on the earth is perfect, extraordinary protective meteor belt.. etc etc etc.. Where is all the refuting evidence? Here's more on the fine tuning of our cosmos - http://m.teachastron...ng-in-Cosmology One of the very difficult things to explain in standard cosmology is the flatness of space. Remember that the early universe was small and dense, and space-time was actually curved and knotted in the quantum era so the current flatness of space is an unusual condition. In standard cosmologies with no vacuum energy, flat space corresponds to a critical energy density, and in the expansion dynamics of the universe it’s an equal amount of energy in kinetic energy of the expansion and in the potential energy of all the gravity in the universe. The best analogy for this strange situation is to imagine throwing something up into the air. If you give it some particular random speed it’s likely to fall back down to your feet, but if you give it the very special velocity of the escape velocity, the object will just leave the gravity of the Earth. If you give it much larger than the escape velocity, the object will sail off into space and travel forever. The universe itself is poised between re-collapse and endless expansion. The flat space condition is a very particular condition corresponding to equal amounts of potential and kinetic energy. It’s as if the odds of throwing something up into the air and having it at exactly the escape velocity were very small. The fine tuning of the universe is the closeness of the space-time shape to being flat. The fact that space-time is this close to being flat now means that the initial parameters of the big bang expansion must have been very finely tuned early in the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Sigh.. the video skips over the fact that our distance from the Sun is perfect, ocean currents perfect, the tilt on the earth is perfect, extraordinary protective meteor belt.. etc etc etc.. Where is all the refuting evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Yes it can, here are a few examples http://markkelly.wor...ianity-is-true/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.