mikempb

Ok so now I'm at work typing on my little iPhone so there will plenty of spelling mistakes. I guess a good starting point would be to realize that one can know the truth then there are 3 major arguments The cosmological The design argument The moral argument All I ask that once starts let's stick with it before jumping around

Given the fact Im leaving to go to work now I looked up your first example Anchiornis. The problem I have with this is this was a dinosour living 160 million yrs ago, and it always had wings, to me this is a strange and curious creature but it doesnt prove a lizard started to sprout wings, it seems some animals have similar fetures to other animals but thats it.

You had me laughing because I was reading your post I had my Micro/macro evolution argument ready!! LOL It is true I believe in Micro evolution you gave perfect examples.... But the proof for Macro evolution just isnt there, for example: they (evolutionist) say new species evolved from old ones ( birds from reptiles, etc) but there is no fossil evidence for this. In other words there are no 1/2 bird 1/2 lizard fossils, so how could it have evolved to it?

i posted before I finished... Hugh Ross " The creator and the Cosmos" 1995 there are others I havent been able to foot note but the attachment Andy Posted should also help my point

Not being familiar with Giant's Causeway I just looked it up, gathered some quick data and looked at a couple of pictures, It looks beautiful, but to me its still very random, they are not all lined up in an exact formation not all tiles are in precision to the rest, as if a masonary was hired to do your driveway. My example would be the grand canyon, awe inspiring and impressive, but it was created randomly through natural causes, Now look at Mt. Rushmore, no amount of wind and rain will make that( intellegent design)

Thanks Andy! I heard of this before but not with such detail in explanation..

Here's my source Dan in fact I underestimated it, it was actually 10 to the 138 Astrophicist Hugh Ross

But in order for there to even be any posts at all An intellegent designer wrote the posts on the computer that another intellegent designer made, on the server that an intellegent designer designed.... Do you think the internet and computers could have been created out of nothing, and just appeard?

No, but it does mean that an Intellegent designer did

Quote: " but if I saw miles of nearly uniform undulations in the sand, I would be fairly certain that the wind did" I agree that is not intellegent design. In fact if the castle is left by the person who made it it will turn back into disorder fairly soon.. The chance for all the factors for life to exist is 10 to the 136th power,( that is from scientist)do you know how many atoms are in the universe? 10 to the80th power. That tells me for life to be possible it is beyond rare. It shows a complex design therefore all designs have a designer. FUNNY story, there was an athiest professor, who had his class turn in their progect for class, he saw one with no name on it, it was a accurate diagram of the solar system, when he asked who's it was, one student said noone's. the professor said, that's ridiculous! somebody had to have made it!!

Well I'm a silly guy.... My point is that there are math equations that can be worked out that cant be applied in real life...

Quote:" Mathematically it's easy to prove: 0 = -1+1. I think quarks pop into existence from nothing in opposite pairs all the time" The quarks popping up out of nothing isnt true.. It is done inside of a vacumme, there is still an abundant amount of energy in that vacumme. As far as proving your theory in math, it's great on paper because math is just a figment of our imagination. If you dont agree then what color is math? or how much doest it weigh? When you are talking about finite, physical universe those numbers just dont add up ( sorry for the pun)

Im not moving the argument back, IF this statement which i'm copying from my earlier one to Marinus is true:"I agree time didnt exist before the universe because Time , Space, and Matter all need to exist together or none will, according to Einstein. To me the evidence leads ( not proves ) that a timeless, immaterial, space-less, all powerfull force must have caused the universe. You see if there is a "designer" he must be beyond the Natural Law " Is this proof, NO, does it logically makes sense if there was a creator he would have to be beyond natural law ? There are many arguments for the case of a designer, not just cosmological which I didnt even get into the intellegent design aspect of. sorry for the long message but one more point... If you saw a sandcastle on the beach would you think the wind did that? No it was from an intellegent designer( a person) natural law causes disorder not order, the same case can be made for our universe, proof, no, just logical observartion leading to possible explanations.

Hey dan, I'm assuming my conclusion using reasoning, to not prove my point , but to point out reasonable explanations for a possible answer.( By the way, I didnt say the universe didnt have a cause, quite the opposite, the universe did have a cause, just the designer behind it did'nt)

Congrats on winning! I disagree with only proof comming from my end, here's why... You too ( more directed toward athiest) have faith. Your faith is in something came from nothing as much as non believers dont like calling that faith, it is, just not in a creator. You too have the burden of proving your stand.. I know you made other points but I'd really like to tackle this head on first..So How, and or when has something ever come from nothing( not to put words in your mouth, please explain your way)

"IF" isnt the cause of my problem because as I said I'm ok with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that will never get rid of the IF. Think of all the decisions you make everyday, big and small, you never have 100% proof of everything involved. (EX) jumping, the plane has been maitained well, but you have no idea what is happining with all the parts, your chute is packed by your packer you didnt watch him but he/she has done it many times before, so the evidence is in favor of things going well. You stake your life on very little proof, why do expect a different standard in only this one area??

Middle Of The Road - "Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep wow never heard that one, I'll have to take a listen to it sometime...

I just thought I'd see if there was any interest in here with all the discussions about God? not God talk, for another aspect other than using the bible for your argument. Apologetics is proving BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that God exists, by using SCIENCE, OBSERVATION, AND REASONING. I know people want 100% proof from you when defending your faith, problem is there is no 100% proof for either side, but when you see all the information, the evidence is stacked much more to support a creator. What do you think??

There is no proving god exists, I admit that I've used the term before and thats evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.. I'm not asking an athiest to prove to me god doesnt exist because that is equally unattainable.. You hit the nail on the head by the way!! I agree time didnt exist before the universe because Time , Space, and Matter all need to exist together or none will, according to Einstein. To me the evidence leads ( not proves ) that a timeless, immaterial, space-less, all powerfull force must have caused the universe. You see if there is a "designer" he must be beyond the Natural Law

Quote:To say God is the cause of the universe only relocates the problem, because God should have a cause too Im not relocating the problem, I'm solving it: Premise 1: Anything that came into being had to have a cause premise 2: the universe had a begining premise3: therefore the universe had a cause so logically I conclude that: 1) anything that came into being had a cause 2)God did not have a begining 3) therefore God did not have a cause So Im not redirecting my problem if I provide a reason to support my claim . you see, if God had a cause, then that cause would be superior to God which would then make that cause God...

Just for the record I am definatley not trying to convince you or anyone else one way or the other, just showing people out there that think religious people are following blindly that there is so much more to take into account. I didnt think there was enough to support my beliefs without even using the bible, but I think there is.

You bring up a great point... Noone can prove God or religion. I hope I didnt give that impression. However I believe with evidence through a cosmological, moral, and design argument there is enough evedence beyond a reasonable doubt for theism. If you were on a jury that would be enough evidence to send someone to the chair.

To clarify just a bit, what I mean by needing more faith to be an athiest is that you have to believe that Something came from Nothing ( begining of the universe) that has never happened before thefore there is no proof it can be done, for example why doesnt orange juice just appear in front of me spontaneously? Its silly to suppose it could so how can all matter just do it?

Hey all, I havent been in here in a super long time, but this topic caught my attention... I dont want to start rambling off hrs of information to prove my case, but maybe this lead will help some in this forum.. It is some of the worlds best christian apologetics, I have been studying for a while. They are Frank Turek, and William Lane Creig. This isnt a post to convert any athiests Im not really interested in doing that, unless they come to me, but it shows you why it takes more faith to be an "athiest" than a "thiest".

Thanks