How can you have evidence for God?

[spidergoat]

You and spidergoat should head out for some coffee. You'd probably really enjoy listening to each other make things up about people who don't agree with you. I've already presented two scientific laws, the law of conservation of matter and the law of conservation of energy. Both of which state the neither matter nor energy can be created. Since both matter and energy exists, something outside of those laws must have created them.

OK, thank you for suggesting something we can debate. I suggest the creation of the universe breaks no laws of conservation of matter/ energy. According to the physicist Victor Stenger, the positive energy of the universe is countered by it's negative gravitational potential energy. So, the unverse looks exactly as it would if it came from nothing.

 

[Norsefire]

I find something coming from nothing ten times more absurd than God.

 

[spidergoat]

Where did God come from? See you have to explain complexity somehow. An evolving universe makes sense, as it cools it complexifies, the young universe was simple. A God arising spontaneously is about as improbable as you can get. A God with ideas, wants, needs, motivations... those are difficult to explain except as the end product of a process of evolution.

 

[Norsefire]

Where did God come from?

Therefore God and nature are equally ridiculous. How can atheists claim there is no God because God is illogical while their own beliefs are ten times more illogical!

 

[spidergoat]

Read my post carefully. Nature is much less ridiculous, since all that arose apparently spontaneously were blind inanimate forces, particles and heat in a tremendous explosion.

 

[Norsefire]

Read my post carefully. Nature is much less ridiculous, since all that arose apparently spontaneously were blind inanimate forces, particles and heat in a tremendous explosion.

Entirely irrational, illogical, and unreasonable.

 

[KennyJC]

Entirely irrational, illogical, and unreasonable.

To you.

 

[Norsefire]

To you.

Yes, to me. And God is the same, to you.

 

[spidergoat]

Entirely irrational, illogical, and unreasonable.

Such things are common in nature, albeit on a lesser scale. Supernovae, for instance. Life didn't arise, it seems, until much, much later. What was God waiting for?

 

[SnakeLord]

I wasn't attempting to explain God, but science simply can't explain, and nor will it ever be able to explain the beginning. That's because everything in science is cause and effect. And, as I've already stated, and I hope you'll agree, you can't have an infinite series of cause and effect. It had to start somewhere.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/bigbang.html
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/counter_apologetics/craigs_unsupported_premise/

They might be helpful to you.

Further to that it is worth noting that the radioactive decay of an atom has been scientifically shown to be both uncaused and have a beginning.

Regards,

 

[shaman_]

I find something coming from nothing ten times more absurd than God.

.. and yet the god hypothesis seems to require something to come from nothing as well. How could it be ten times more illogical when compared to a premise that requires the same logic?

It does seem that you have made a decision about atheism Norsefire and are just looking for reasons to substantiate it.

If you are going to rule out a natural explanation because you can’t comprehend something coming from nothing then you must also rule out a creator.

 

[Norsefire]

Therefore, you have proven my point that they are on equal grounds.

 

[shaman_]

They are on equal grounds in the way that the centre of Pluto being water/silicate or frozen cheese... is on equal grounds.

However my point is that, following your logic, neither is possible so why even discuss them as alternatives. How could you say you think it is 50/50 when according to you it should be.. err 0/0?

Also, you have decided that the basis for your decision here is what you can and can't comprehend. Do you see problems with that? I am reminded of the scientists who said men would never fly and that spaceflight is not possible. I'm sure you can appreciate how much we don't know.

 

[Norsefire]

Shaman, no, it isn't in the same way. What you are saying is that the notion of there being a Creator is ridiculous, because the notion of Pluto made of cheese is ridiculous.

Why do you feel the concept of a Creator is as ridiculous as the concept of Pluto made of cheese?

Until we get past this, I am really getting sick of debating. NO SCRIPTURE. Just the concept of a creator. That's it. I don't understand what is so nonsense about that.

 

[shaman_]

Shaman, no, it isn't in the same way. What you are saying is that the notion of there being a Creator is ridiculous, because the notion of Pluto made of cheese is ridiculous.

Why do you feel the concept of a Creator is as ridiculous as the concept of Pluto made of cheese?

Until we get past this, I am really getting sick of debating. NO SCRIPTURE. Just the concept of a creator. That's it. I don't understand what is so nonsense about that.

I didn’t say it was nonsense. I am just following the same logic you did (in a different thread). If it seems absurd to you then you should rethink what you are saying. I am not trying to mock you by using cheese as an example (Ok I am being a little facetious), just demonstrate to you your reasoning.