give examples of this hard evidence, because most scientists and most modern philosophers might disagree with you
Some would consider existence as proof of creation. If there was creation then was there a cause? And if there was a cause, then was it god? The atheist has faith that it is not. And the faith is based on... what?
You can append any one of an infinite number of imaginings on that philosophical chain. Are they all proven, or one? or none? If just one which one and why? What about the possible reasons we haven't thought of yet? Do you have faith they are all wrong.If I claim Iain M Banks Culture novels are actually factual does it require faith for you to disbelieve me? Do you have faith that the next book Stephen King writes is not true? God myths are stories. I'm still waiting for an explanation why one story requires faith to consider as fiction whereas the others we just put on our bookshelves.There is no more evidence for the existence of various gods than there is for the existence of the Culture, beyond perhaps that the Culture novels make a certain amount of sense. Why do the mythical supernatural being stories have a special status? On what basis?
Yet somehow everything that we know came into existence from (arguably) nothing, now if there were absolutely no intention or purpose or intelligence behind that event whatsoever I honestly don't believe it could have turned out how it is now; there are too many coincidences to simply ignore in my opinion.
Come on - did the greatest philosophical thinkers ever use ridiculous analogies like pixies?
Yes, there is a certain level of pre-determination - that is, God sets out a path before us ... however, we can choose not to go down that path if we so desire. If God had a remote control, no one would ever sin.
The fact that the universe (arguably, but evidence tends to confirm it) had a finite beginning. So in essense a 'beginning' implies that the universe was created, thus requiring a beginner, a first cause. As in my above post I believe that if there were no purpose or intelligence behind that beginning whatsoever, we could not exist as we are today.That the universe is incomprehensible, but still intelligible and structured in a way that we can understand it. There is more, just cbf thinking right now...I'm not sure what kind of evidence you are referring to though, if you talking about scientists that might physically find God and say hello, then no I don't think that is very realistic.
you are using faulty logic, if the universe didn't exist in a way that we could observe it then we wouldn't be here to observe it, given that we are here the universe must be suited for us, chance doesn't come into this nor does a god
um... Dawkins has a D.Phil
I had this argument put to me once, that God is powerful but directly affecting someones heart is more difficult than God intervening. I replied:"Saint Paul also known as Saul"This won the argument instantly
Yeah ok, you keep telling yourself that.. what atheist book did you get that ridiculous argument from? so neither chance NOR God come into the equation? What then accounts for the structure and intelligence in the universe that we observe?
as it again shows that no-one can be too far away from God to engage in a relationship with him.
it's here http://www.moller.com/
What then accounts for the structure and intelligence in the universe that we observe?
It's actually a quite good argument, and one that's been related to you about twenty times now mate. I'm really starting to believe you're just trying to fuck with everyone. You should take a hard look inward an ask yourself whether that's all you're ever going to achieve.
"i cant understand whats going on" if you cant understand adult conversation then you should leave it to the adults
Anthropic Principle"everything about the universe tends toward humans, toward making life possible and sustaining it" Hugh Ross"... the Anthropic Principle says that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common--these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life." Patrick Glynn--------------------------------------------------------------------------The Anthropic Principle was first suggested in a 1973 paper, by the astrophysicist and cosmologist Brandon Carter from Cambridge University, at a conference held in Poland to celebrate the 500th birthday of the father of modern astronomy, Nicolaus Copernicus. The Anthropic Principle is an attempt to explain the observed fact that the fundamental constants of physics and chemistry are just right or fine-tuned to allow the universe and life at we know it to exist. (see Cosmic Matters). The Anthropic Principle says that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common--these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life. - Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, "stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster." - The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example). - A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons--yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars. If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is--roughly twice the mass of an electron--then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say good-bye to chemistry as we know it--and to life. - The very nature of water--so vital to life--is something of a mystery (a point noticed by one of the forerunners of anthropic reasoning in the nineteenth century, Harvard biologist Lawrence Henderson). Unique amongst the molecules, water is lighter in its solid than liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and earth would now be covered with solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to the unique properties of the hydrogen atom. - The synthesis of carbon--the vital core of all organic molecules--on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the centre of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12--allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long. Taken from God the Evidence by Patrick Glynn - The fact that we are living and can observe the universe, implies that the fundamental constants must be "just right" to produce life. There is an element of circular reasoning here, because if the constants were not "just right", we would not be here to observe the universe. However, the fact is that the universe does not seem to be a random or chance event. We can postulate a many universe scenario, in which only one or some universes produce life, but we cannot validate that scientifically because we only live in one of those universes.Here are some definitions, first from Barrow and Tipler:Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history. Because: There exists one possible Universe 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers'. Or... Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being (Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP)). Or... An ensemble of other different universes is necessary for the existence of our Universe (which may be related to the Many_Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics). Final Anthropic Principle (FAP): Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out. Copernicus suggested the sun-centred model of the planetary system rather than an earth-centred model. 500 years later the Anthropic Principle puts mankind back to centre-stage. The Anthropic Principle refutes the Darwinist's claim that we are the product of mere chance. The universe is not so random as we thought. We have a universe with a beginning and designed for man.
The Universe.
I see no antigravity propulsion systems, only four shitty rotaries strapped onto the side of a cessna.The most ironic this is the hording of science during the dark ages.Mostly because rampant fucktards were trying to hold on to power through their link to god, and science helps disprove at least a portion of it all.If they followed the religion properly, it would not allow them to do such a thing.So fuck you christianity, you owe me a flying car, and interstellar travel.
No, it really isn't - and i'm really starting to believe that some of you are just thick as pig shit and/or not willing or capable to consider any viewpoint which hasn't been drummed into your head by fanatical atheists :/
Nice, Bill O'Reilly (Oh Really!) is a kneejerk interviewer not worth the time of day..."We saw Apollo down there, he's not in a good way"...wtf!But I'll wait, because there's sure to be something juicy about Dawkins being an idiot etc :asian:I thought he came across as someone eminently reasonable, even when faced with stupidity.
Very cleverly and subtly insinuated, but it appears I'm in good intellectual company if I'm in your group of the retarded. Re the anthropic principle, you've misrepresented it and not considered objections against the reactions against it you posted, this being an example of your utter inability to consider stuff that doesn't clearly lead to a white-bearded God in the sky.
lol @ hitler being an atheist
It's because the objections are not worth considering - the notion that this universe is just one of many possible universes that just happened to 'get it all right' is so utterly ludicrous it's laughable.So what's the other options? If chance is supposedly not a factor, and an intelligent first cause is supposedly not a factor for the existence of the universe, then what is!?and if you seriously think that my idea of God is a "white-bearded old man in the sky" you are misinformed my friend. You think that just because some artists in earlier times portrayed God as an old man resting above the clouds that that forms the common modern conception of what God is? Pffft.
I want to know WHY it all happened!
may i suggest hitting it against a concrete wall somewhere....
