Reasons why i am a theist

[Javan502]

That is no argument and makes no sense. If you assume God always existed you just aswell say the universe did.

Cannot be.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/ear...96-beginning-0

Science supports Einstein's claim that the universe is a closed system.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-01/7-01.htm

Very soon after arriving at the final form of the field equations, Einstein began to consider their implications with regard to the overall structure of the universe. His 1917 paper presented a simple model of a closed spherical universe which "from the standpoint of the general theory of relativity lies nearest at hand". More evidence that supports the universe is a closed system :
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...euniverse.html


That means it has finite energy. Even though energy cannot be created or destroyed (by any natural processes), over time the useful energy in the universe becomes more and more useless. This is known in science as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the universe were eternal then all of the energy would have become totally useless by now and I wouldn't be writing this article and you wouldn't be reading it either!

Isn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics merely an expression of probability? Yes, but the probability is so high and certain that the odds of just one calorie of energy spontaneously defying the Second Law would be trillions times trillions to one, and the universe is made up of far more than just one calorie of energy!

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

The Big Bang marking the beginning of the universe is amazing when one reflects on the fact that a state of "infinite density" is synonymous to "nothing." There can be no object that possesses infinite density, for if it had any size at all it could still be even more dense. Therefore, as Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of matter from nothing. This is because as one goes back in time, one reaches a point at which, in Hoyle's words, the universe was "shrunk down to nothing at all."


http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm

Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.

Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite.

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_the_Big...rity_come_from

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know.

http://thoughtlife.wordpress.com/200...-observations/

Stephen Hawking writes, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.

The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html

I was asking how you justified a belief, let alone worship, of a supreme all powerful creator who either allows or causes things like child rape and the floods you may have seen on the news recently.

natural catastrophies are not always, but many times direct result of men. Volcanos, earth quakes, tornados, are necessary for life to exist on earth. If it is illogical for God to prevent inevitable evil because of choices and because sin and disobedience
are a potential byproduct of choice (so that love can exist) then God will not prevent the inevitable if salvation is the greater good. Yes, God is responsible for allowing evil and suffering to exist for the greater good of the eternal glory of LOVE which will exist in heaven forever with His Only Begotten Jesus Christ and His adopted children (by His grace - which is absolutely “unfair.”) There are multiple reasons why suffering exists..but often we do not know which ones apply in each instance of personal suffering..but we can look at the logical possibilites of what the Creator is doing.

Human consciousness or guilt in no way leads to conclusion; "magic man in sky".

i see. what other reasons do you think, exist, to explain human morality ?

[Javan502]

In the words of Douglas Adams



...and some further reading which won't be understood.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

skb

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astr...nking-t241.htm

The argument from fine-tuning moves from the idea that the universe is well suited to our needs to the idea that it was designed with us in mind. One criticism of this argument is that it is out of date. Evolution theory, it is argued, can now explain the appearance of design in nature, and it can do so without invoking God; there is no longer a need to postulate an intelligent designer to explain the harmony between us and our environment.
Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy, captured this critique with an analogy:
“Early man is thinking, ‘This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely’ and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him. This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’”
A puddle, of course, changes shape to fit its hole; the hole was not designed to fit the puddle. Similarly, according to evolutionary theory, man evolved to fit this environment; the environment was not designed to fit him. Whatever the environment in which life emerged, the life that emerged would suit that environment very well. We should not marvel at the appearance of design; it was inevitable that things would be this way.
The evolutionary critique is fine as far as it goes. It does not, however, go very far.
Yes, evolution can provide at least a partial explanation of the appearance of design in biology: biological organisms evolved to fit their environment.
It cannot, however, explain the appearance of design in the circumstances of the Big Bang, or in the laws of physics. These, unlike biological organisms, have not evolved. Modern design arguments, which tend to focus on physics rather than biology, can therefore resist the evolutionary critique.

there is an underlying order to the chaos. A thinking puddle will then have reached the point that Einstein reached when he said “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible at all.” When chided about this view, Einstein replied “A priori, one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way”.

A thinking puddle will realize with just a little common sense that a blind, pitiless, and indifferent universe should not be expected, a priori, to produce that which is not blind, not pitiless, and not indifferent.

[Javan502]

Javan, you ask others if they have read the bible. Most of us will have done so at some stage.

Have you read the bible and given its contents any serious consideration? Do you honestly believe in the Genesis story? Do you really believe that Noah managed to fit two of every creature on his ark?

Who told you Noah brought two of EVERY creature in his ark ? We know today how fast speciation works, sometimes in less than twenty years completely new populations arise, without possibility of interbreeding. This explains pretty well the variety of different kind of animals we have today. Microevolution explains that. No millions of years needed for that.

[asthmatic camel]

I smell a troll. Either that or a complete f*****g idiot. Come back in twenty years when you've managed to selectively breed a new species of dog from a a couple of fruit flies.

[smudge]

natural catastrophies are not always, but many times direct result of men. Volcanos, earth quakes, tornados, are necessary for life to exist on earth. If it is illogical for God to prevent inevitable evil because of choices and because sin and disobedience
are a potential byproduct of choice (so that love can exist) then God will not prevent the inevitable if salvation is the greater good. Yes, God is responsible for allowing evil and suffering to exist for the greater good of the eternal glory of LOVE which will exist in heaven forever with His Only Begotten Jesus Christ and His adopted children (by His grace - which is absolutely “unfair.”) There are multiple reasons why suffering exists..but often we do not know which ones apply in each instance of personal suffering..but we can look at the logical possibilites of what the Creator is doing.

What reprehensible piffle.
I'll ask you one more time.
If you had the power to stop the recent flood disaster in Pakistan would you? If not why not? Do you think the victims need to be taught a lesson? What do you think they can learn from this? What should we learn?
Bear in mind this disaster is nothing compared to various biblical slaughter carried out by your imaginary friend.
When a child is about to be raped by a family member, would you intervene if you were an all powerful deity? If not why not? What should victims of such appalling crimes learn from their experiences? Is it not appalling to expect them to tolerate such harsh lessons anyway? What purpose can you imagine your God has in mind when he allows and/or creates these situations or motivations in people? Will it all become clear in the after life? How could that possibly make it 'OK'?

Can you not imagine a world with more love, more freedom, and less suffering than this one? I can. So can most of us. Why can your imaginary friend in the sky not even come close?


The rest of your post is the usual dull God of gaps stuff or has been answered here already.

[smudge]

asthmatic camel
Have you read the bible and given its contents any serious consideration? Do you honestly believe in the Genesis story? Do you really believe that Noah managed to fit two of every creature on his ark? If you do, then you're a fool. If you don't, then why do you accept the rest of it as truth?

Who told you Noah brought two of EVERY creature in his ark ?

Genesis 6:19
Of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark.

Genesis 7:2
Of every clean beast thou shalt take thee by sevens, the male and his female.

Some confusion on numbers it seems...

[Watchman]

I smell a troll. Either that or a complete f*****g idiot. Come back in twenty years when you've managed to selectively breed a new species of dog from a a couple of fruit flies.

Looks like Asthmatic Camel had it nailed at #33. Our guest is , I believe , Angelo…AKA ELSHAMAH. If you actually go to his website you’ll see he spends a lot of time talking to himself and being plagued by an individual “AGGA”…who has some interesting things to say about Elshamah and his methods..
http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/present-yourself-section-of-debate-f19/what-does-it-look-like-to-you-abdi-t323.htm#1139
Anyway I’ve had enough of this one….I’m off to find out how to build a Spitfire.

[Watchman]

[QUOTE=asthmatic camel;91077]I smell a troll. Either that or a complete f*****g idiot.

Sorry to harp on about this…but take a look at this…
http://staffs.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=opposingviewsboard&action=display& thread=4429

He tried the same thing on the Masons…but his introduction might go some way towards explaining our new friends confused state of mind…
A Brazillian , Swiss , Evangelical…!!
Mardi Gras must be a real pain…does he dance , preach or clean up afterwards..
Anyone know where I can get a Merlin engine from…?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

2. The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet. Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design.

What are you saying here? Are you saying that, given what we suppose we know about the universe, life on this planet is unlikely? Or are you saying that, given what we suppose we know about the universe, life in the universe is unlikely? These are very different questions. Or are you saying something else?

Whatever your answer, you may wish to reflect on the fact that the bookie won't give you odds after the result has been posted.

[Javan502]

[QUOTE=Watchman;91097]

I smell a troll. Either that or a complete f*****g idiot.

Sorry to harp on about this…but take a look at this…
http://staffs.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=opposingviewsboard&action=display& thread=4429

He tried the same thing on the Masons…but his introduction might go some way towards explaining our new friends confused state of mind…
A Brazillian , Swiss , Evangelical…!!
Mardi Gras must be a real pain…does he dance , preach or clean up afterwards..
Anyone know where I can get a Merlin engine from…?

why exactly do you feel i am confused about ?

if you want a complete list of forums, i posted in the past, just have a look here :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/foru...e-past-t11.htm

i have posted in english, german, italian, portuguese.....

[Javan502]

Looks like Asthmatic Camel had it nailed at #33. Our guest is , I believe , Angelo…AKA ELSHAMAH. If you actually go to his website you’ll see he spends a lot of time talking to himself and being plagued by an individual “AGGA”…who has some interesting things to say about Elshamah and his methods..
http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/present-yourself-section-of-debate-f19/what-does-it-look-like-to-you-abdi-t323.htm#1139
Anyway I’ve had enough of this one….I’m off to find out how to build a Spitfire.

my forum is not a discussion forum, but a virtual library, where i find information, which i regard as relevant, fast on hand.

[Pebble]

there is an underlying order to the chaos. A thinking puddle will then have reached the point that Einstein reached when he said “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible at all.” When chided about this view, Einstein replied “A priori, one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way”.

A thinking puddle will realize with just a little common sense that a blind, pitiless, and indifferent universe should not be expected, a priori, to produce that which is not blind, not pitiless, and not indifferent.

This leads to very reasonable questions - where has the universe come from? Why is there order? Why has life evolved? Why did self reflection evolve?

These are seperate questions and should be investigated seperately. What one cannot do, is jump from questions to conclusions. In terms of the first two questions, I have no idea what the answer is or might be, in respect of the latter two I have some ideas and some evidence.

There is one completely unacceptable 'answer': Because a rational force that cannot be directly investigated made it that way, so you must believe, investigation is acceptable only if the findings confirm this apriori fact!

[Harryprice]

Stephen Hawking doesn't think the physics of the universe requires any deity

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

[Javan502]

Stephen Hawking doesn't think the physics of the universe requires any deity

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

he concludes the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.

He might explain then, what sets the laws os physics, and how did the start to be in place, if they did not even exist prior the Big Bang.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something," he concluded.

I see. Everything arose from absolutely nothing. Then he should explain, how he imagines that something can arise from absolutely nothing. Since absolutely nothing is the absence of any thing.

"That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions - the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass - far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings."

lucky coincidences.... i see......

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astr...ystem-t180.htm

Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body

less than 1 chance in 10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence.

WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist.

ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere.

OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life.

RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue.

THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all.

DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles.

RADIOACTIVITY: Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity.

DISTANCE AND PLACEMENT FROM THE GALACTIC CENTER: We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior.

THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer.

VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place.

EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field.

SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate.

THE MOON: We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a ‘two-planet’ system, as the size of earth’s moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history.

Amazing faith he has in lucky coincidences. He does not seem even a littlebit skeptic ans suspicious about naturalim. Actually, he is VERY credulous in luck and chance.

Sorry, but he has lost all my respect with such a nonsense he believes in.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

really ? wow - amazing. The law of gravity had to be in place, first place. Beyond the big bang, there was no gravity, there was no matter, no mass, no energy......

[smudge]

Sorry, but he has lost all my respect with such a nonsense he believes in.

Oh dear....
That really is good Javan!
I'm sure Stephen Hawking will be devastated!