Proof?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K

Kuroko

Guest
#41
#41
Before I called myself christian I called myself a theist, I believe in god and I believe it absolutely.

I have debated (on volconvo.com with is a debating site mind you) the existence of god so many times it isn't funny.

There's two different sides to winning the argument, one is to win the argument and the other is to give them a reason to pursue a relationship with god on their own, sometimes it can be both.

Lighthouse had one of my personal favorites, prove god doesn't exist.
To win my debates I would often set up immediately what the person expects to be fair evidence (I must admit I am a good debater :p)
Then I state immediately that for the opposing person to have the opposing side they must bring up equal evidence to support their own argument... usually this would sets the best outcome for them as a draw and I never like to leave it as a draw so I debated like all buggery ^_^

Here's why I believe in god so strongly, feel free to use it in your own debates later.
First and foremost, when I ask myself the question I get the distinct feeling there is a god, I cannot in any good conscious say there is absolutely 100% no god out there, I ask people whether they themselves have asked the same question and what evidence they give themselves to draw their conclusion. Then I go onto list the reasons why I concluded OTHER than just feeling absolutely that god existed.

Physics:
The universe had a definite beginning, red shifting shows that the universe came from a central point and it is estimated to have occurred 13 billion years ago (or so). The time isn't important but the question remains where did it come from?

There are several laws inherent to this universe, one of those laws is that you cannot create from nothing and you cannot destroy some thing entirely only shift it between different states which means if not by divine methods and the hand of a creator where did the universe as we know it come from?

Retorts to this question:
I've had several, one of my favorites is "if god created the universe then who created god?" I love this answer because it draws the debate into the realm of god existing. My favorite answer? If god was able to create the universe as we know it and all the laws within it that guide it, why would you think he would be bound by his own rules that he created? God exists most probably in a way that we cannot fathom where everything that applies to this universe has no hold on him.

Other favorite retort is "If there are multiple universes where one might be made up entirely of matter and the dimensions clashed and some matter came into this universe/dimension and some of our universe entered that one before they separated again" I just laugh and reference the fact that scientists also can't explain why the universe is expanding and not being drawn in by gravity then listen as they say dark matter is what is causing this to happen, which is hilarious because then you get to ask "where did dark matter come from?" and when they say the same universe where matter came from you get to laugh and say that the two of them couldn't have existed together in the same space but they can't exist without the other either, science sure has a good unicorn up their sleeve to replace god :p

Physics again:

Some one mentioned the rotation of the earth around the sun, even admitting that there can be some level of variation between the distance, speed and rotation that are so ideal for life (they could just argue life evolved to adapt so perfectly to the conditions of earth) there is still one reality to this argument, it all really is just a little too convenient that it all happened on one planet.

Biology:

I'm not even going to START talking about how advanced and complicated DNA is, but I will talk about how life began on this planet. I always like hearing the different ways life starts on earth according to direct non-believers. There were a bunch of pools with organic chemicals that formed random segments of RNA which began repeating and eventually started replicating and that's how life started!

Scientists have been trying to replicate this in labs for years already under any condition they thing might work, in fact a lot of the scientists who worked on doing this for a long time converted to christianity I found out in my research :p
Here's some facts, RNA and DNA contain only one side of the acidic table, any contact with the other half of the table immediately breaks the RNA or DNA chain so having random RNA segments in a primordial pool of organic chemicals sounds great until you consider water alone can break that chain, the other thing I love pulling up as a tidbit is that UV/Radiation SEVERELY affects RNA and DNA (one of the main reasons cells form walls and bacteria do the same) so having random segments around won't last very long, unless you have an atmosphere... with ozone.. which is somewhat generated by life as we know it... it's like a giant version of "what came first, the chicken or the egg?"

You know what, there's an argument for life that I think hits all the points I would use when arguing what the origins for life are, bornagain77 brings up many points that are very valid and it's a true example of how deep this argument gets. Chemists, biologists and physicists have long since argued this very same argument (where how and why does everything exist).

Darwin's God: More Doubts About Primordial Soup

Just read the comments, yeah it's that complex sometimes :p

Physics again:

Entropy states that as the universe expands it is also releasing all it's energy and becoming neutral, which means this universe has a timeline and eventually will cease to exist as we know it... easy come easy go :p ask him why?
 
J

jfritzyb

Guest
#42
#42
Sorry, got to rant about this...

I was talking to a group of atheists once about the Big Bang Theory (this was on one of those sites similar to Blog TV); they explained to me that it was the concept that in the beginning, it was space or the universe (can't remember which they had said) that suddenly began to expand and of course, you had all the chemical reactions and stuff. Later, I asked them how they knew for a fact that this was how our life began, to which they told me that today, our universe is still expanding. But what I asked them what caused it, they told me "No no, you don't get it; it just expanded and expanded and reached a point where today, it's regressing and one of these days it will all explode and be done with" (or something like that). We also talked for a long while about chemical reactions and stuff like that and of course good ol' Kelvin temperatures ;). After their lectures and disortations were finished and the hard hats put away, I pressed them further to tell me what had caused this phenomena to begin with; to which, they repeated again the same thing they had told me earlier, basically implying that it...just...expanded and expanded and there was a whole bunch of chemical reactions and not only that, by this time, they started getting a bit angry too.

Of course, I wasn't very happy about the whole affair either; after all, here they are, DEMANDING me to give them evidence for the existence of God and here I am DEMANDING that they tell me what the original cause for this "big expansion" was but they never could really give me an answer and just kept rambling on and on about the complexities of the chemicals that had formed our universe in the beginning and I sort of shouted back a very pointed rhetorical question (something along the lines of "Are you trying to tell me that our universe is self-existent?")--and if you thought THAT was hairy, you should have seen my face when they told me that their belief was, how you say..."justified"? And not only that, they also said that finding the original cause of the expansion didn't matter??

...AND...

They wrapped their argument up with something along the lines of "Science doesn't always have the answers"??!!

And it was then that the lights came on in my brain and I realized something (and I told those guys this too); "It takes just as much faith to believe that nothing created the big bang as it does to believe that God exists. Here you are demanding that I give you evidence for the existence of God and yet, you can't even tell me how the big bang started."

...Know what happened next?

"WE'VE SPENT A GOOD PORTION OF TIME EXPLAINING TO YOU HOW IT ALL HAPPENED; WE'RE NOT THE ONES WHO CAN'T PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE--YOU'RE THE ONE WHO HASN'T EVEN GIVEN US ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS!! YOU'RE JUST MAKING A BUNCH OF STATEMENTS ABOUT GOD!"

(And I already had tried to explain my beliefs to them the best I knew how; for I had attempted to try to explain to them that there are things that exist on this planet that are invisible and that you cannot use the same kind of method on those things that you could with physical things partaining to nature or some kind of visible, solid object.) I was going to go further and explain that somewhat in the same way, because God's existence is totally different from our own, then it would be more then logical to conclude that maybe we should use a different method for finding evidence of God and a totally different approach if we're going to understand Who He Is--this method of course being faith.

Of course, they had a very difficult time with even accepting the notion that there was such a concept as something invisible that transcended science and they proceeded to continue interrupting me, shouting on occassion, and everyone was making fun of me in the chatterbox--it was one of those classically epic moments you generally run into when you try to introduce the concept of God to atheists.

But yeah; that's the end of my rant.
 
trust_in_the_name

trust_in_the_name

Banned
#43
Jan 18, 2011
1,117
5
0
#43
The best argument out there is, without a doubt, the anthropic principle, which could be also be called the argument from fine-tuning. This is the ONLY argument known and accepted by all mainstream scientists around the world. The strongest form of the anthropic principle goes something like this: We know, from observation, that both (a) the physical constants of the universe (such as the strength of the graviational, electromagnetic, strong, and weak forces, the mass-to-charge ratio of the electron, Planck's constant, and many others; the list goes on) and (b) the very laws of the universe themselves, exist in such a way that, if they were even slightly different, life would not be possible. For example: If the value of even a single one of the constants were slightly changed, stars and galaxies would be unable to form or persist over time in a stable form, and no life, of any form, would ever even have a chance of existing.

There is only one counter-argument to the anthropic principle, which is the multiverse hypothesis. If there are an infinite or very large number of universes, as opposed to just the one that we happen to inhabit, then the apparent fine-tuning of our universe could simply be explained by us happening to inhabit one of the universes that happens to be just right for life. Of course, the problem with this line of reasoning is that there's no evidence for the existence of any universes beyond our own, and, for that matter, no real idea how we could even acquire evidence from a universe separate from our own in the first place.
 
trust_in_the_name

trust_in_the_name

Banned
#44
Jan 18, 2011
1,117
5
0
#44
As far as the big bang theory goes, the reason people don't give a response regarding what caused the big bang is simply because scientists really don't know. There are some ideas floating around, all of which are incomplete and hypothetical. However, if you ask a scientist who is actually familiar with the big bang theory about what got it started, the answer will always be the same: the big bang theory leaves out the bang. The big bang theory says nothing whatsoever about time zero, and in fact it is not even intended to address this question. It is a theory that explains what happened a fraction of a second AFTER whatever started the expansion of the universe caused it to start expanding.
 
trust_in_the_name

trust_in_the_name

Banned
#45
Jan 18, 2011
1,117
5
0
#45
One thing that makes this a particularly hard question to even try to address is that when relativity is applied to the beginning of the universe, the result is a singularity, which is an infinite, and therefore meaningless, value that sometimes arises in physics and indicates a breakdown of the theory. The incompatibility of relativity, which deals with gravity, and quantum mechanics, which deals with the microscopic world, also means that we are unable to understand objects, such as the big bang singularity, which are really small and really massive as well.
 
S

sensitive

Guest
#50
#50
Psalms 53
[1] The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
 
S

sensitive

Guest
#51
#51
You can't argue with a fool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.