God exists ... and I can prove it!
I haven't seen a thread like this for a couple of days now, so I guess it's time to put this baby to bed - once and for all!
Science goes only so far in describing our system of existence. Reality can be described as a system of opposing forces that are always in chaos, always changing, and never staying the same.
One can look at it as we are on Earth, the Earth is in a solar System, the solar system is in a galaxy, and the galaxy is in the Universe. So naturally our universe would have to be in "something", and that "something" in turn would have to be in "something else".
Science describes these systems, how they interact with each other, and the laws that they follow. It states that something has to be made of something, it needed to "evolve" from something, and that something would have needed to evolve from "something else". You can go for infinity backwards in time. What science can't describe is where this system as a whole came from, it's almost as if this system would have to always have been and always exist. God, ladies and gentlemen. The system is God itself, because it does not have a beginning or an end.
See? ... it's just as simple as THAT!
[:D]
Science goes only so far in describing our system of existence. Reality can be described as a system of opposing forces that are always in chaos, always changing, and never staying the same.
One can look at it as we are on Earth, the Earth is in a solar System, the solar system is in a galaxy, and the galaxy is in the Universe. So naturally our universe would have to be in "something", and that "something" in turn would have to be in "something else".
Science describes these systems, how they interact with each other, and the laws that they follow. It states that something has to be made of something, it needed to "evolve" from something, and that something would have needed to evolve from "something else". You can go for infinity backwards in time. What science can't describe is where this system as a whole came from, it's almost as if this system would have to always have been and always exist. God, ladies and gentlemen. The system is God itself, because it does not have a beginning or an end.
See? ... it's just as simple as THAT!
[:D]
0
-
Thanks Zip but you just; 
0 -
I bet Nunn locks this topic. But, then again, that might prove that there's a God. See, now, Nunn is the god of the GD forum. 0 -
God did create everything Zipperzap. Be careful, there are some hostile atheists lurking around these parts.[:(] 0 -
You convinced me, I will start going to church. 0 -
when science can duplicate the human eye, I might start to listen the the other side of the story. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by SLING BLADE
when science can duplicate the human eye, I might start to listen the the other side of the story.
I read a story once about how scientists can make an exact replica of corn right down to exact molecular structure, but no matter how many times they plant it it wont grow.0 -
So....compared to God, our universe and everything in it is simple. Yet you explain our universe as something that had to have a beginning by giving us a God who had no beginning?
If you are serious it sounds like circular reasoning to me.0 -
Awww...jeez!
Several of you need to go back and edit your posts. You are making a statement of faith as though it were a statement of fact. All you have to do is state that it is your opinion or your belief.
OK?
Don't make me come down there.0 -
quote:slipgate:
You convinced me, I will start going to church.
THAT'S not the FIRST TIME that I've seen that comment in
one of my threads - I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
[:o)]0 -
Now explain to me where God came from. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rosie
Now explain to me where God came from.
Thats an easy one. Evolutionists say he came from an ameoba.0 -
Sing Along:...Jesus loves me yes he does.. cause the Bible tell me so... 0 -
Where did the......Ah hell. Forget it 0 -
quote:Originally posted by nunn
Awww...jeez!
Several of you need to go back and edit your posts. You are making a statement of faith as though it were a statement of fact. All you have to do is state that it is your opinion or your belief.
OK?
Don't make me come down there.
Nunn, nothing personal, but this policy is ridiculous. Just who are you trying to protect here? Anything concerning religion, politics, and other controversial subjects are of course matters of opinion. We know this; everyone who chooses to talk about such things knows this. There shouldn't need to be a disclaimer for something we already know.0 -
We don't know where God came from, but someday we might. If you want to learn what we do or can prove read the works of french theologian(Jesuit) and scientist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. His best known work is "The Phenomenon of Man". Chardin's works are taught in major universities all around the world. As most of us know matter can be converted to energy and therefore energy can be converted to matter, we just don't know how to do that yet. Chardin was the one who proved that God is exists. His calculations show that there is an all intelligent and all powerfull energy(atleast compared to us) that is present through out the Universe. We should remember that the Big Bang was energy converting to matter. For those that don't like the time table of the Big Bang and Evolution, Billy Graham said that there is no real conflict between the 6 day creation and evolution. 0 -
My GODD ... on the second day, it's been resurrected!
[:o)][:o)][:o)]0 -
Let science or logic have the final say in this matter. Remember Ockham's razor?
quote:
"The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, which translates to: entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity...... This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one," or alternately, "the simplest explanation tends to be the right one" "
-taken from Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
Now, apply what science generally considers good, sound logic and scientific principle, that being Ockham's razor, what is more likely;
1) All that we know was created by a single, Supreme being - requiring One assumption; or
2) Everything just came together through happenstance and overcome all odds and unlikelihoods in the only manner possible to arrive at what we know as the Universe - for all practical purposes requiring infinite assumptions.
Claimer:
You may assess this for yourself, but this scientist's postulate is based upon reasoning #1.0 -
I have never seen God...
I have seen Satan, personally, I know that SOB exists!!!
That being the case I can only conclude that God is real too!!!0 -
quote:Originally posted by csi-cyberspace
1) All that we know was created by a single, Supreme being - requiring One assumption
The problem here is you're using Occams razor to compare a scientific explanation with a non-scientific explanation. It doesn't work because while one has evidence and is extrapolated from known data, the other is totally made-up.
And by the way, how do you know the world was created by just a single supreme being? You're actually making two assumptions. There might be thousands of supreme beings who run reality.0 -
the earth was not created by a supreme being.
it was created by a combo being with extra black olives and mushrooms.0 -
quote:Originally posted by MosinNagantDisciple
quote:Originally posted by csi-cyberspace
1) All that we know was created by a single, Supreme being - requiring One assumption
The problem here is you're using Occams razor to compare a scientific explanation with a non-scientific explanation. It doesn't work because while one has evidence and is extrapolated from known data, the other is totally made-up.
This is a totally moot point. Ockham's Razor makes no distinction of "scientific" versus "non-scientific". It addresses the comparison of two explanations to a question. It is you who is making the determination of "scientific".
quote:Originally posted by MosinNagantDisciple
And by the way, how do you know the world was created by just a single supreme being? You're actually making two assumptions. There might be thousands of supreme beings who run reality.
Again, this is irrelevant. The postulate that I put forth is that of one Supreme being. If you care to postulate many, that is certainly your prerogative. However, my application of Ockham's Razor in this context addresses the idea of one supreme being versus random chance. If you eliminate random chance and conclude the existence of at least one supreme being, you may then address/contemplate the existence of more than one. My contention is such to dismiss random chance.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
21 comments