Subject:
|
Does God Exist? (was Re: Mercy? (was Re: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Sep 2001 00:37:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1381 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> > > You yourself even used the term technicality, how could something created
> > > 'perfect' by god have a technicality.
> >
> > I didn't apply the term "technicality" to God. I meant that man's goodness
> > derives from God, since God is the source of all goodness. If you
> > presuppose the nonexistence of God, this is nearly impossible to prove.
> > That's why I referred to it as a technicality.
>
> Mark said: The Kindness Of Man. Please, give credit where credit is due,
> and don't shortchange the good people.
>
> You said: All goodness derives from God, but this is a technicality in this
> instance :).
>
> So what did you mean exactly? In the reply to me you said: "I didn't apply
> the term "technicality" to God. I meant that man's goodness derives from
> God, since God is the source of all goodness. If you presuppose the
> nonexistence of God, this is nearly impossible to prove. That's why I
> referred to it as a technicality" What's the technicality then? The
> kindness of people? More specifically the kindness of people who presuppose
> the nonexistence of god?
Oh dear. Let me start over.
God is good, and there is no evil or sin in him. God created everything, so
therefore everything reflects God's goodness in some way. People doing good
things don't do it because of their innate goodness; they reflect the
goodness of their Creator.
But to an outside observer, there is no apparent connection. People are
doing good things; God is also doing good things. Theologically, they are
connected. For the purposes of our discussion, I don't think it's relevant
whether they are connected or not. So I put the point forward, but I called
it a technicality.
> > > You also talk about how god created man, and the universe, and to that I'm
> > > going to say no. There is a huge amount of evidence against that any being
> > > did either of that, and I'm not not go more into that. But that is your
> > > belief and I'll respect that.
> >
> > I would disagree - in fact, there's a huge amount of evidence - both
> > philosophical and scientific - that a Creator exists, and a further huge
> > amount that this Creator is the God defined in the Bible. If you'd
> > reconsider, I could go into that further. (I pray you reconsider this, too :).)
>
> You do?!? Well lay it on me then brother! Finally, scientific evidence
> that a creator exists!
All righty then...
(This is one of many categories of proof. Much of the following data is
also posted at www.GodAndScience.org, an excellent site for this sort of thing.)
Given that the universe had a beginning, which is commonly known as the Big
Bang. Given that the laws of physics were set at the beginning and have
remained unchanged since.
The laws of physics must be extraordinarily precise for the universe to
function as we know it and remain functioning until today. The maximum
deviation from the following constants would have to be accurate to within
the given range, or else one of three things would happen: the universe
would not exist now (would have collapsed already), would not sustain
matter, or would not sustain life.
Ratio of Electrons to Protons, 1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force, Gravity 1:10^40
Expansion Rate of Universe, 1:10^55
Mass of Universe, 1:10^59
Cosmological Constant, 1:10^120
If even one of those properties had deviated beyond the range indicated,
life would not be possible.
From Dr. Hugh Ross's *The Creator and the Cosmos*,
One part in 10^37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to
visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American
continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000
miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt
would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile
dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as
North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billion of piles of
dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he
will pick the red dime are one in 10^37. (p. 115)
Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
For general skepticism, athiests/agnostics should have a look here:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html
> > > And who would accuse him or anyone or anything that of being too controlling
> > > to have this event not take place.
> >
> > This is the point I tried to address before. If He had, people might accuse
> > Him because *they wouldn't have known what He was intervening to prevent*.
> > People can't see into the future and they don't know future potential
> > sequences of events. They would be unfairly accusing Him of inconveniencing
> > them by interfering, because they wouldn't be able to see that He was in
> > fact *protecting* them by His interference.
>
> Here we disagree once more, or still, whatever. I understand your point you
> make, sort of. Obviously people can't see the future, and yes, if god
> prevented the events without making that known, no one would have known what
> he did. I doubt anyone would accuse him of being inconvienient if he would
> explain what he did and why, thus not an inconvienience and also a protector
> and saviour etc. But there is no evidence that there was any involvement of
> god, in any way.
Not conclusive evidence. But there is circumstantial evidence, which can be
supplemented with faith.
>
> Adam
--Ian
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | The Origins Debate
|
| (...) It's not nearly so cranky as many of the others, but it's still largely based on anti-logic. Why can't it be the Hindu gods? Or why can't the Hare Krishnas be right? (...) But the physical state of the universe was quite different. We're in a (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
98 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
