Finally, a serious conversation. Now were talking. The invisible zebra was only used to prove that you cannot prove something doesn't exist only that it does.
"The idea that there is no evidence to support the existence of God is clearly false."
Um... "Clearly?" If it's so clear post some evidence. So many people believe in God... That is your proof? The entire population of the world used to believe the earth was flat. Was that true? Theist love to say that Atheist are closed minded but here is a question... Is it possible that we are just a primitive people as ignorant as those who believed the earth was flat?

 

I believe in God, because when I follow his teachings, I can see how it impacts my life for the good.

You don't want to believe in God. Period. I could show you unrefutable proof that God exists, and you would still argue that he dosen't exist. The fact is, if you don't believe in a intelligent creator, me saying anything will not change you. Most people could say, well, if you don't believe in God, you are going to burn in Hell. I don't believe in Hell, the bible does not teach you that if you don't believe in god and follow his teachings, that you will burn in hell.

I KNOW God exists because I know that without God, we wouldn't be here. I KNOW that Jesus came down to Earth, and sacrificed himself for us. Without a doubt, I KNOW that God is real.

 

"I could show you unrefutable proof that God exists"
How about you show me the proof before deciding I will still argue?

If following God's teachings impacts your life for the better why do good things happen to people who don't follow god's teachings? Maybe those good things are simply coincidences.
I mean... seriously... there are innocent babies starving and dying of aids in Africa and you think God is chillin waiting to see if you go to church so that he can what? give you a 50 cent raise at work? Influence your teacher to give you an A- when you deserved a b+?

 

Good things happen to those who don't follow God's teachings becuase he allows them to. Just as he allows bad things to happen to Christians. The Bible doesn't say, be a Christian and all your problems will go away instantly. God wants us to choose Him. It is his way of loving us. There must be both good and bad. If he didnt' give us that choice, he would be restricting us of our free ability to choose Him.

 

How about this as evidence for God. Please read carfully and respond...

Let me point out one major problem with the skeptical worldview in order to get you to the point of recognizing that not all the data really fits your worldview. The data we are going to examine is the origin of the universe. Before the 20th century, atheists assumed that the universe was eternal. However, beginning with Einstein's theory of general relativity, and early observational evidence, it became apparent that the universe was expanding. Extrapolating back in time revealed that the universe was merely billions of years old. The data eventually led to the "Big Bang" theory, which is virtually universally accepted by modern day cosmologist. Attempts to get around the idea that the universe had a beginning have all met with observational difficulties. The idea that the universe could have gone through an infinite number of births and deaths (the oscillating universe theory) was shown to be false on the basis of the lack of amount of matter within the universe, and the fact that any collapse would have led to a "Big Crunch" instead of another Big Bang. So, we have come to realize that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Atheists are left with a dilemma, since their worldview requires that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. (If you don't believe in "supernatural events, you must believe only in naturalistic cause and effect relationships) So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). However, there is no direct observational evidence for either belief. Those who are "strong atheists" (not working out in the gym, but having a belief that no god exists) have just violated one of the main rules of atheism - that all beliefs are based upon observational evidence. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.

The problem actually gets worse for the atheist. The physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges in order for life (or even matter) to exist, suggesting design. If true, then the observational evidence actually leans toward the existence of God, contradicting strong atheism. The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe.

 

Uh, if its such a hard fact like you suggest, why is it called the THEORY of Evolution? Why isn't it just called Evolution? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PROVE IT! Scientist at one time has "unrefutable fact" that the Earth was flat. Yet in the bible in Isaiah (I believe its in that book, I can't recall exactly) it refers to the globe of earth. Scientist once KNEW FOR A FACT, that the Earth was the center of the universe. Uh, I'm sorry I forget, is that true?

If these FACTS can be proven wrong, couldn't carbon dating be wrong?

 

Read through and you will see where I posted numerous times that I am content with not knowing how the earth was created. What I won't do is rationalize it's creation by saying "god did it". Of course science has been wrong and I never said in this case it is right. I simply support the never ending quest for knowledge as oppose to "god did it" If it wans't for science we would still have a fire god, wind god, etc but thanks to all of our discoveries all we are left with is a creation of the world god.

 

"If god created the world, where was he before creation?. . . How could god have made the world without any raw material?. . . If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him?"

 

No one has evidence of a universal beginning. Although the known expanding universe suggests a smaller volume universe in the past, this does not necessarily mean that it had a primordial "beginning." Recent hypothesis suggest that even a Big Bang does not require an absolute singularity. Furthermore, various "many-world" hypothesis proposed by physicists produce many Big-Bangs. There simply does not exist enough information to determine whether or not the universe had a beginning, or even what "beginning" means in terms of a universe.

 

Regarding the "god mustve done it" mentality:

This only shows that you have ideas and myths about god derived from the Bible and supported by faith. Faith depends on hope and ignorance. And faith of a creator does not agree with the best scientific theories about the universe. Faith in god determines nothing about nature. Consider that every mathematical equation, every single advance of science throughout human history has never required a variable of god. Even the few scientists who claim belief in god must leave their beliefs aside if they wish to perform useful and productive science.

 

If you are content without knowing how the earth was created, then you are content without know whether or not God exists...
The truth is, that you are uncomfortable with the fact that you can't explain creation, without appearing illogical.

 

Did a historical jesus exist?

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

 

Silly reasoning... God created you, he does not need raw material to make the world. Why would God need raw material? He is not goverened by the laws that govern us. The Bible says he spoke creation. Perfect, does not mean that God does not have desire. He has desire for people to know him, because it brings Him pleasure.

 

Creation, like evolution are both only theories.

The difference is evolution can provide real evidence of its theory. Evidence that can be seen, tested, felt and proven.

Creation has only the bible for its evidence, a book written many years ago by many different authors. Evidence cannot be seen, felt, tested or proven.

 

What scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model? None! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain any evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist). Even secular websites admit that such ideas amount to nothing more than unfalsifiable metaphysics

 

Who created god?

 

Just as there is no evidence to support universe creation by a god.

 

 

You're right, it's not like a non-theist can't make a scientific discovery... but all the scientific discoveries and laws, point to the fact that there is intelligent design and therefore a creator consider this:

Early evolution of the universe. Cosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into the[se] 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.

Just right laws of physics. The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120 would completely negate the effect.

Unlikely events occur by chance? Hardcore atheists tend to dismiss the apparent design of the universe as happening by chance. Although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a dime to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history

Large, just right sized universe. Even so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are an really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been a much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 1059 larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

 

read my rather large post a page back