God exists, and I Can Prove It.

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 531
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,196
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
This, I have previously posted:

It’s my view that the simplest explanation is that there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realisation: there is probably no heaven and afterlife either. I think belief in an afterlife is just wishful thinking. There is no reliable evidence for it, and it flies in the face of everything we know in science. I think that when we die we return to dust. But there’s a sense in which we live on, in our influence, and in our genes that we pass on to our children. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.

Stephen Hawking
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@FLRW
Well, I did graduate from Harvard and MIT. My thinking is along the lines of Stephen Hawking.
Hey, nice! Then you know what plagiarism is, right?
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam


.
YouFound_Lxam, that is vying to be the #1 Bible fool of this Religion Forum, where Miss Tradesecret will be sad,

Then very simply, show us the links in where you allegedly already addressed Matthew 15: 3-4 many times!!!  WAITING!



DAY SEVEN!!!!! 

NO RESPONSE YET FROM "YOUFOUND_LXAM" TO HIM PROVING THAT HE ADDRESSED SAID PASSAGE ABOVE LIKE HE SAID HE DID, OTHER THAN TO CONTINUALLY RUN AWAY FROM IT BECAUSE HE IS NOT A CHRISTIAN!

YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@FLRW
Astronomers indirectly detect dark matter through its gravitational influences on stars and galaxies.
No, they use a process of elimination to guess what is causing something.
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam


YouFound_Lxam, that is trying to be Bible dumber than Miss Tradesecret,

We all can see that you are to SCARED to address your Bible misstep in my post #483 above for 7 DAYS, as embarrassingly shown in this link:  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/362637

You finally realize that you are nothing but a little pseudo-christian that has to run away from Jesus' true words in the Bible because your perceived intellect of same is absolutely ZERO!

YouFound_Lxam, you are GUILTY of the following Jesus inspired Bible passage:  "You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?" (Galations 5:7)


Here is the Bible RUNAWAY "YouFound_Lxam" running away from my godly posts to him that he is to afraid to try and answer:
https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEHDXPJ   ...... Run "YouFound_Lxam," hurry, run away from Jesus' Bible FACTS, run to your mommy!  


NEXT BIBLE STUPID PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "YOUFOUND_LXAM" THAT PEES HIS PANTS WHEN SHOWN DISTURBING PASSAGES THAT HE CANNOT ADDRESS, OTHER THAN TO SHEEPISHLY RUN AWAY FROM THEM, WILL BE ...?

.
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@ebuc
How many numbers are there?
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,309
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Bones
How many numbers are there?

You have no quote by me ergo I dont know the specific context for your concern

Conceputally i.e. via our access to Meta-space mind/intellect, say that, there is an infinite set, and Ive been very clear about there existing only two kinds of infinite this or that:

1} the Meta-space mind/intellect/concept of infinite this or that ex numbers,

2} the macro-infinite, truly non-occupied space, that, exists outside of our finite, occupied space Universe.

In occupied space reality, of our finite occupied space Universe/God, if every quanta of Universe were a number, there can only exist a finite set. Ok, you grasp that?

Now, if we consider all counting numbers that are expressed { occupied space } here or there on Earth via written language { occupied space }, then there is a finite set of those, even if consider, a zillion number 1's. 2's, 3's etc, however, if only consider all the expressed [ occupied space } set of ones as one number one, then in our consideration of question "how many numbers are there", then again, we have a lesser finite set of numbers as expressed in occupied space format.

So lets say there is  super-computer on Earth --Oh Great Computer-- making all of these occupied space digital expresssions of a lineat set of numbers, beginnging with number 1.  That computer has only expressed { occupied space } finite set of numbers.  Do you grasp any of this Bones?

There exist no infinite set of expressed { occupied space } numbers on Earth, the Milky Way, or all the combined cluster of galaxies, extending on as our finite, occupied space Universe/God.  Do you grasp any of this Bones.  My guess is, that you do not.

Go back to number 1 { Meta-space }  above, and there is the only place we find an infinite set of numbers, dogs, cats, Toyotas etc, is when we have a Meta-space concept of such, expressed in occupied space, by a person verbally stating such concept or written language of the Meta-space concept.

All of the above is rather simple, logcial, common sense, critical thinking { Meta-space concepts } about infinity. Simple, yes?


Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,070
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
The first type of evidence supporting the existence of dark matter has to do with the way dark matter affects the movement of celestial bodies. In our solar system, almost all of the mass is in the sun. The innermost planets like Mercury and Venus orbit the sun the fastest. As the distance from the sun increases, the speed at which planets move decreases. This is because there is less gravitational pull from the sun on planets farther out and, to keep from spiraling into or away from the sun, they must move slower. We can apply a similar analogy to galaxies. If we assume that the bright part of a galaxy shows where most of the mass is, then most of the mass is near the center, and at the dim edge of a galaxy there should not be much mass. Therefore, objects orbiting far from the center of the galaxy should move slower than objects closer to the center, just like the planets in our solar system.
Our laws of gravity don’t hold up unless we find something that is holding the galaxies together, there must be something else, something unobserved and perhaps unobservable – some kind of unseen matter that emits no radiation, and we say we know it by its secondary effects, it is an “inferred” phenomena. And what is that secondary, inferred phenomena?  It is the fact that the current theoretical framework doesn’t explain the observations.  But we can never accept that our theories might be wrong or at least incomplete, it must be the universe that is wrong or incomplete, so we decide that the universe that the conceptual framework was supposed to explain is only a small percentage of reality, the majority of it is unobserved and unobservable, and we will call it dark matter because it is unobserved and unobservable.  The facts didn’t fit the conceptual framework, so we change the facts. 

It seems we have gone from a quantum realm of pure possibility that goes unrealized until it is “collapsed” by an observer, who apparently conjures a particle into existence out of a mathematical haze, to an entire realm of pure abstraction, that goes unrealized until it is “collapsed” by a theory, and that apparently conjures entire universes into existence out of a mathematical haze.  And I have to wonder if we are still doing science.

To test this hypothesis, scientists recorded the incoming light from a distant spiral galaxy (our home galaxy, the Milky Way, is also considered a spiral galaxy) and plotted the velocities of the stars vs. their distances from the center of the galaxy. Scientists discovered that the stars were not behaving in the way anticipated. They found that the stars farther away from the center were moving much faster than predicted.
Somewhere along the way, the observed universe we were trying to understand with our theories became subordinate to the theories, rather than adjusting the theories to fit the facts, we began adjusting the facts to fit the theories.  The observed universe we were trying to understand with our theories was no longer reality, it was just a fraction of reality, and then one day that contrivance wasn’t even the universe anymore, it was just one infinitesimal piece of reality, one of an infinite number of universes, all of them unobserved and unobservable of course, and all so the sacred theories could remain intact.

The enterprise of science has largely abandoned its reliance on observations and gone into the business of manufacturing unobserved and unobservable realities in order to support the theories.  I’m not really sure what this process is, but I know what it isn’t, it isn’t science, it’s something else, and because it is based on unobserved and unobservable realities, its completely faith based.

Einstein said “It is the theory that allows us to see the facts”, but I don’t think he ever said anything about inventing facts to fit the theory. I’m sure he never said anything about the theory being what is most real, and that reality should just be altered to fit the theory.

The only way this is possible is if there is more mass in the outer parts of galaxies than we can observe.
The observed facts didn’t fit the conceptual framework, and our theories can’t be wrong, so the only way this is possible is if we change the facts to fit the theory? 

The fact that we are unable to see this mass, because it is not emitting light, suggests the presence of dark matter.
We know it exists because we don’t observe it?  Lack of evidence is evidence?




FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,196
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Sidewalker
We know it exists because we don’t observe it?  Lack of evidence is evidence?
So you are saying there is no God?
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam




.
YouFound_Lxam, that is vying to be the #1 Bible fool of this Religion Forum, where Miss Tradesecret will be sad,

YOUR SPECIFIC QUOTE WHERE YOU SAID THAT YOU ALREADY ADDRESSED MY POST IN QUESTION REGARDING MATTHEW 15:3-4  "Secondly, you have not embarrassed me, you have only embarrassed yourself, and the that I will not be responding to that post, is because I already have many times, you just don't like the answer you have been given."

Then very simply, show us the links in where you allegedly already addressed Matthew 15: 3-4 many times!!!  WAITING!  
If you can't perform this simple act, then you will be known as  a LIAR and a blatant PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN Bible fool upon this Religion Forum!


You have RAN AWAY from producing your alleged evidence for addressing Matthew 15:3=4 SEVEN TIMES as shown below!
"Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account." (Hebrews 4:13)

.

Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
1: The Singularity

Many scientists today call use the term singularity to represent what they believe to be the big bang. Now before I go any further, I just want to point out that I do agree with science, and in fact it does prove gods' existence.

Ok back to the singularity.

We hear from scientists that the singularity, means something that popped into existence from nothing. If nothing existed at the start of time, then nothing would be here now. It is impossible for something to pop into existence from nothing. The only way for something to come into existence from nothing, is if something, or someone puts it there.

The big bang defiantly did happen, but God is the one who ignited the match.

2: Design Has to Have a Designer

When you see the various aspects of nature, like birds, dogs, trees, and all of nature itself, and all of the specific roles they play you have to wonder how they got like that. We as humans try to copy nature sometimes with the way that we use technology, aerodynamics etc. 

We see parts of our body that are some of the most advanced things we know of like for instance, the brain. We try to copy and mimic those things by making fake arms and computers and things like that, but we never even get close to a direct copy.

Now this all goes back to the question; well, where does design originate? We'll let me give you an example:

If you have all the parts of a watch in a box, and they aren't put together, you could shake that box forever, but you would never get a watch. Now the human brain for example is way more advanced than a watch, so do you really think that life was just created like that, all shaken up?

3. What Created Life?

Scientists use the term Law of Biogenesis to explain how life works. The way it is explained, is like this:

Law of Biogenesis: "In this material, natural world, life comes from previously existing life of its own kind.

Now scientist nowadays say well, life actually comes from random chemicals and elements. Yet every biological experiment we have done with chemicals and elements, has not produced life or any actual signs of life at all.

So, if life didn't arise from non-living chemicals, then how did life arise? The only explanation is a supernatural being.

4. Moral Law

If some things are objectively morally wrong, and some things are objectively morally right, then there must be a God. 

We don't say that when a dog stole a bone from another dog, that dog broke a moral, law no we don't. But we do when it comes to humans. So, at what point did moral law become important. 

5. Human Reasoning

We humans have the nature to reason, and to wonder why things exist, why we exist, and that's why we have science. Why are we the only species that does this? Animals don't wonder why they exist, they just do? What gave us that need to find out? God did that's who.
You realise that every single one of these arguments fail via the God of the Gaps fallacy - the notion that because the naturalistic world viewcannot explain X phenomenon, whether it be the moral law or actualistion of human life, and that this entails the Christian God hypothesis as the answer. Essentially, assuming Christinaty as the presupposed status quo. 
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Bones
That is an argument for a God. Not the God of the Bible.
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Bones
@YouFound_Lxam




YOUR QUOTE #492 IN SLAPPING JESUS IN THE FACE AGAIN!!!:  "That is an argument for a God. Not the God of the Bible."

H-E-L-L-O, anybody home again, NOT!  

In you being one of the most Bible inept pseudo-christians that this forum has ever seen, just who in the hell do you think that Bones was referring too, because he mentioned the Christian God in his statement?!  Your little boy tactic of moving the goal posts was done where you hoped that you didn't have to address Bone's factual statements relative to your inept Bible stupid statements, NOT!

Therefore, answer Bone's post #491, and don't run away from it like you have to do with my posts because they make you wet your pants in being so SCARED of actual Biblical axioms! LOL!
.

Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Okay sure replace my posts mentions of Christianity and Christian God with just “God”. You fall prey to the same issue - that you accept the logic of “because naturalism cannot yet explain X, the (Christian) God ontology is maintained”.
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Bones
Again, the argument that you quoted me on with post #491, is not an argument for the Christian Gods existence. It is simply an argument for the existence of a God.

If the goal is to prove that the Christian God exists, then you have to look at it in steps: 

First prove the existence of a God/higher being.
Then prove that the higher being you just proved is God.

The argument that you quoted me on with post #491, was only for the first step.


Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
And you clearly cannot read because I said change all my mentions of “Christian God” to just “God”. You say your arguments prove God but as I already said, and you ignored, You fall prey to the same issue - that you accept the logic of “because naturalism cannot yet explain X, the God ontology is maintained”.
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Bones
In your second reaction, you stated," You fall prey to the same issue - that you accept the logic of “because naturalism cannot yet explain X, the (Christian) God ontology is maintained”."

Then, in your third, you stated," You fall prey to the same issue - that you accept the logic of “because naturalism cannot yet explain X, the God ontology is maintained”."

 So, which is it, the (Christian) God, or just a God?

And you clearly cannot read because I said change all my mentions of “Christian God” to just “God”.
Neither you nor I changed your arguments. I never even questioned your arguments up until now. 
AustinL0926
AustinL0926's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 1,079
3
5
9
AustinL0926's avatar
AustinL0926
3
5
9
-->
@Bones
I second your statement regarding YouFound_Lxam's ability to read.
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
Am I legitimately missing something here?

I am honestly asking, please someone inform me on what I am missing.
Maybe I am just reading it wrong, but I have reread it multiple times. 
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
1. You obviously missed the brackets. Yes or no - does your argument serve as a logical step towards the Christian God?

2. My rebuttal critiques both the Christian and non Christian God. But this is irrelevant because I have already said that we can just talk about God. So to repeat, with small alterations:

You realise that every single one of these arguments fail via the God of the Gaps fallacy - the notion that because the naturalistic world viewcannot explain X phenomenon, whether it be the moral law or actualistion of human life, and that this entails the God hypothesis as the answer. Essentially, assuming Gods existence as the presupposed status quo.
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
And I would also be exceptionally curious how you leap from these conclusions to the Christian God - even if I grant that the complex must have a designer, a sentiment refuted about 250 years ago, everything you propose can be explained away by the existence of some very complex alien life form.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 272
Posts: 7,875
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
We are at 500 posts, guys.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 272
Posts: 7,875
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
God will be proven any time now.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,336
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
God will be proven any time now.

 Well one Christmas day has come and gone. The new target date I suspect will be next Christmas day.
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Bones
 You obviously missed the brackets. Yes or no - does your argument serve as a logical step towards the Christian God?
The arguments that you quoted me on, with your post #491 serves as an argument towards just a God, not necessarily the Christain God.

You realise that every single one of these arguments fail via the God of the Gaps fallacy - the notion that because the naturalistic world viewcannot explain X phenomenon, whether it be the moral law or actualistion of human life, and that this entails the God hypothesis as the answer. Essentially, assuming Gods existence as the presupposed status quo.
No, in fact we can explain a Gods existence using the naturalistic world, for instance the Law of Biogenesis.
The Law of Biogenesis: "The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material." the law of biogenesis - Google Search

Nothing we have now, couldn't have existed, without pre-existing life. That means, for there to be life now, there had to of been infinite life before us.

And if you ask me, I'll tell you (as well as many other people) that no living thing, that abides by the laws of nature, can survive infinitely. Something supernatural could though. 
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Something supernatural could though. 

Tell us how you know this as a fact. Tell us of your personal encounter with the supernatural that advised you.

Have you read Dragon in my Garage?

Regards
DL
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@YouFound_Lxam

You realise that every single one of these arguments fail via the God of the Gaps fallacy - the notion that because the naturalistic world viewcannot explain X phenomenon, whether it be the moral law or actualistion of human life, and that this entails the God hypothesis as the answer. Essentially, assuming Gods existence as the presupposed status quo.
No, in fact we can explain a Gods existence using the naturalistic world, for instance the Law of Biogenesis.
The Law of Biogenesis: "The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material." the law of biogenesis - Google Search

Nothing we have now, couldn't have existed, without pre-existing life. That means, for there to be life now, there had to of been infinite life before us.

And if you ask me, I'll tell you (as well as many other people) that no living thing, that abides by the laws of nature, can survive infinitely. Something supernatural could though. 
See so what you are doing is
  • "because naturalism cannot explain the existence of living organisms, life was created by God" 
You'll notice that this God of the Gaps argument is quite popular amongst Ancient Greeks 
  • "because naturalism cannot explain lightning, lightning was created by God". 
If you believe the first to be valid, you must also hold that the second is. Of course, neitehr are sound nor valid. 

YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
See so what you are doing is
  • "because naturalism cannot explain the existence of living organisms, life was created by God" 
You'll notice that this God of the Gaps argument is quite popular amongst Ancient Greeks 
  • "because naturalism cannot explain lightning, lightning was created by God". 
If you believe the first to be valid, you must also hold that the second is. Of course, neitehr are sound nor valid. 
Thats fair.
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Do you then conceed that, when the Achaeans were confused about the origins of lightning, that their deduction that Zeus actualised the bolts in rage is a correct assesment? That modern scientific understanding of how lightning forms is in fact incorrect?
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Stephen
Well one Christmas day has come and gone. The new target date I suspect will be next Christmas day.
Ad infinitum...