Dr.Franklin

Kalam argument

Something cant come from nothing

WRONG, deism is fake

who cares about deism

That was from Virt btw

to show your scientific theour

GOD IS REAL

Yes and I will prove it
1) Kalaam Cosmological Argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
   
2. The universe began to exist;
   
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
   

The first premise is fairly self explanatory. Anything that begins to exist must have a cause. Something cannot come from nothing. This cause must exist independently and outside of that which began to exist.
The second premise is also fairly self evident. The universe is not eternal. As Stephen Hawking notes:

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever . Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.

The Beginning of TIme
This lecture is the intellectual property of Professor S.W.Hawking. You may not reproduce, edit, translate, distribute, publish or host this document in any way with out the permission of Professor...
A big bang/big crunch hypothesis that Hawking argues for in his lecture cannot stand up to scrutiny. Dr. David Abel writes:

"Appeals to multiple or ‘parallel’ cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic ‘Big Bang/Crunch’ oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability . Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable , currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age.

As quoted here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html
2) Argument from Design

1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance
   
2. Most natural things lack knowledge.
   
3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
   
4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
   

debate.org user Contradiction argued this premise fairly well:

To say that natural entities tend toward ends is to say that they behave with a goal, purpose, or function in mind. It is to say, for example, that the heart tends toward the purpose of pumping blood or that the eye has the function of seeing. That natural entities of all sorts behave in this way is undeniable. Indeed, it is presupposed by discipline of medicine, which seeks to restore bodily functions to the way they ought to be. It accounts for why certain effects are regularly brought about by their causes . A match tends to cause fire – and not rainbows – when lighted because that is its function. A plant matures according to its kind because that it is directed toward that sort of development. Teleology is also present in the inorganic realm, such as in the water and rock cycles. If causes weren’t directed toward their effects, then there is no reason why causes can’t literally produce any effect.
Now to speak of causes as being directed toward certain purposes or functions is to admit to a type of intentionality. Intentionality is of course the mark of the mental, and there thus must be a mind who imparts teleology to the natural order. Just as how a match derives its function from the intentions of its creator, so do natural entities derive their characteristic behaviors from a grand creator. Similarly, to say that a heart ought to pump blood or that a human ought to think rationally is to admit to the existence of normativity, which also indicates the presence of an agent.

The universe appears to be ordered and designed. The complexity of life itself requires a creator and requires moving parts that simply cannot put itself together. Dr. Abel notes:

For even the first simplest cell to come to life spontaneously would have required incredible organization . A cell is not just a blob of protoplasm. Hundreds of integrated circuits, biochemical pathways, feedback cycles, and cooperative orchestration would have been required for the simplest life to generate spontaneously .
Organization, integrated circuits, and highly conceptual coordinated functions don’t just “self-organize” by chance and/or necessity (law). 18-20 Mass and energy cannot generate formalisms like mathematics, logic theory, value, esthetics, ethics, design, and engineering. Organization is a formalism, the same as mathematics, logic theory, and language. Formalisms are nonphysical, abstract and conceptual.

Conclusion
Why is there something rather than nothing and why is there life rather than non life? For atheism to be even remotely probable it must show a way for something to come out of nothing, and then have this something organize itself into complex structures and eventually create complex life. I personally see this notion as highly improbable. But why think these are caused by God? From these arguments we learn that this cause must be eternal, uncaused, and have intellect. This is what we call God.

Evolution requires a BOP

Wrong, God has the most answers, but the scientific theory proves god

default what??

why

How do you know that? God talks to us

God is an observable part too 

Te universe is pretty!!!!

So evolution is fake too

You guys have A world series to enjoy, Come on!

Lucky duck ya got it

Guess MY nationality, GO

SOMETIMES, perceiving something as real doesn’t cut it. With the shimmering image of a hologram, the illusion is clear enough. That 3D representation is a trick of the light, a projection of information encoded in just two dimensions. But it would be a bit of a shocker if we found out that the entire universe were made that way.
We’re not close to proving that, still less working out the implications. But a groundswell of work in theoretical physics suggests it’s a distinct possibility.
The story really begins in the 1990s. Physicists were struggling to tame the intractable mathematics of string theory – our best stab at forcing gravity to play nicely with the other three forces of nature – when they discovered a cunning trick. Under certain circumstances, by subtracting one from the number of dimensions in the universe you were dealing with – in other words, treating it like a hologram – gravity could be made to disappear.


The best-researched instance of this “holographic principle”, known as the AdS/CFT correspondence, only works in a complex 5D space-time bent back on itself rather like the surface of a Pringle. The trick has proved surprisingly useful, not just in string theory but also to elucidate the workings of practical things like superconductors, and explain such stubborn problems as why particles have mass.

SOMETIMES, perceiving something as real doesn’t cut it. With the shimmering image of a hologram, the illusion is clear enough. That 3D representation is a trick of the light, a projection of information encoded in just two dimensions. But it would be a bit of a shocker if we found out that the entire universe were made that way.
We’re not close to proving that, still less working out the implications. But a groundswell of work in theoretical physics suggests it’s a distinct possibility.
The story really begins in the 1990s. Physicists were struggling to tame the intractable mathematics of string theory – our best stab at forcing gravity to play nicely with the other three forces of nature – when they discovered a cunning trick. Under certain circumstances, by subtracting one from the number of dimensions in the universe you were dealing with – in other words, treating it like a hologram – gravity could be made to disappear.


The best-researched instance of this “holographic principle”, known as the AdS/CFT correspondence, only works in a complex 5D space-time bent back on itself rather like the surface of a Pringle. The trick has proved surprisingly useful, not just in string theory but also to elucidate the workings of practical things like superconductors, and explain such stubborn problems as why particles have mass.

You should not be authorized to speak to someone who blocked you just becuase you are a mod

Just ignore him, 

I disagree

Well I have to assume the universe isnt real, right?

Prove it

YES I AM PULLING AN IMABENCH

Tough inning for scerzer, he got out of it though

is evolution really that rare, wow God did it

They're still talking about that bat shit last night

so far Atsors 1, Nats:0

Good point

If we are just an another planet, then there would be another planet of life

Congrats!!!

An essential goal of the universe is to supply life

aye aye aye

The universe does have a goal, what is our goal, to survive and carry on our genes

You have a stutter, thats unfortunate

No goals,HMMMM

No its not a subjective TERM, WHAT IS ITS USE???

Well that explains a lot

But its still useless, right

and what does it do?

What is it then???

Ok what I mean as "designed" is the DNA the INSTRUCTIONS are made by human nature,(my belief by God, but lets not make this a religion thing if we dont have to) morphed DNA like that

I meant in their dna and shit

Ok thank you

But humans are designed for LOOKING FOR The meaning