The universe is proof of god!

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Now you have claimed that you have the same evidence for God creating the universe as we have for the manufacture of watches, so please provide evidence of the universe factory God uses to create universes. Please make sure to include photographs of various new universes at various stages of development, as this would help to prove your case.

Well, we have mountains of evidence attesting to the fact that men create these gods, creators, beginners, ghosts, but no evidence that it happens the other way around. So I'm going with option A, that humanity creates these things.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Updating the manufactured object won't save the argument until you can resolve the need to be two-faced in the evaluation.

Well we could keep the tradition although personally I think its almost "keeping the theists back" in a manner of speaking over the analogy when we could be up to date and argue with the science you (plural) use against.

Dude, the evidence is not holding you guys back.

There's an aphorism, insanity is doing the same thing twice, expecting different results.
The watch analogy is doing the same thing twice, (watch to nature comparison) forcing different results. (dissimilar; similar-therefore-god).

 

[steve_bank]

I heard this one from an Evangelical.

We were discussing creationism and he pointed out the window saying joist look, it is obvious god exists.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I heard this one from an Evangelical.

We were discussing creationism and he pointed out the window saying joist look, it is obvious god exists.

Just look! massive amounts of savage predation. Horrible parasites. Brutal virus diseases. Horrible disease causing germs. Fungal diseases. Brain eating amoebas. Does this wonderful world resemble a Universe made by a kindly loving, omnipotent, merciful and compassionate God or blind nature and opportunistic evolution?

My standard answer to this sort of handwave argument.

Isaiah 11
⁶ The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
⁷ And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
⁸ And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

----

So what is God waiting for?

 

[Lion IRC]

God doesn't have to 'wait'.
He is in no hurry.

Parasites, predation, germs, viruses?
Just take a step back and imagine yourself to be Darwin/Attenborough/Dawkins.
These are incredible, indespensible beauties of nature.
God doesn't have to apologise for them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

God doesn't have to 'wait'.
He is in no hurry.

Parasites, predation, germs, viruses?
Just take a step back and imagine yourself to be Darwin/Attenborough/Dawkins.
These are incredible, indespensible beauties of nature.
God doesn't have to apologise for them.

Yeah, God's blunt force approach to the reproductive system is really awe inspiring.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

God doesn't have to 'wait'.
He is in no hurry.

Parasites, predation, germs, viruses?
Just take a step back and imagine yourself to be Darwin/Attenborough/Dawkins.
These are incredible, indespensible beauties of nature.
God doesn't have to apologise for them.

Sorry. That does not get God off the hook. All of this is exactly what we would expect from blind nature, evolution. Christianity and Judaism tell us that God will fix this after the Jews return to Jerusalem. Isaiah 11. A prophecy that did not come true. And if we ignore that, we must ask, why is that God dragging his heels? Of course all of that is religious delusion. Nature screams at us. "No perfectly good, kindly, loving, merciful God".

 

[Copernicus]

God doesn't have to 'wait'.
He is in no hurry.

Parasites, predation, germs, viruses?
Just take a step back and imagine yourself to be Darwin/Attenborough/Dawkins.
These are incredible, indespensible beauties of nature.
God doesn't have to apologise for them.

If you bothered to read any of those three, you would see that they say the exact opposite of what you claim about their perspective. Nature contains a great many abominations from a human perspective. Claiming that humans can find beauty in our ungodly universe is not the same as claiming that everything in it is beautiful.

 

[steve_bank]

I heard this one from an Evangelical.

We were discussing creationism and he pointed out the window saying joist look, it is obvious god exists.

Just look! massive amounts of savage predation. Horrible parasites. Brutal virus diseases. Horrible disease causing germs. Fungal diseases. Brain eating amoebas. Does this wonderful world resemble a Universe made by a kindly loving, omnipotent, merciful and compassionate God or blind nature and opportunistic evolution?

My standard answer to this sort of handwave argument.

Isaiah 11
⁶ The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
⁷ And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
⁸ And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

----

So what is God waiting for?

Obviously you have not gotten the word. God works in mysterious ways, beyond our ability to understand god....

 

[Keith&Co.]

Obviously you have not gotten the word.

I think it was how you framed it, but I do feel your pane.

 

[Rhea]

As a time piece anyway , it is inferior to the "atomic" clock timing ;which is run from what is already there, naturally of course ...or as in Genesis where the Sun and Moon for example: marking time continually self perpetuating without winding. Or better - the biology that has predictable processes which has time limitations and working like clockwork too.

Um, you do know that the orbits of the arth and the moon decaay over time, right? As well as the rotations? That they aren’t self perpetuating?

 

[Learner]

Um, you do know that the orbits of the arth and the moon decaay over time, right? As well as the rotations? That they aren’t self perpetuating?

I've heard of the suggestion but I assume its to fit the cosmology models or calender formats maybe. Its always been 365 days in the memory of man and his observations since his existence as far as I know (may need looking up).

Have you or anyone seen or noticed on any record(s) : the decay?

 

[skepticalbip]

Um, you do know that the orbits of the arth and the moon decaay over time, right? As well as the rotations? That they aren’t self perpetuating?

I've heard of the suggestion but I assume its to fit the cosmology models or calender formats maybe. Its always been 365 days in the memory of man and his observations since his existence as far as I know (may need looking up).

Have you or anyone seen or noticed on any record(s) : the decay?

Actually the radius of the moon's orbit is increasing by about 4cm/year (so the moon's orbital period is increasing) - it has been measured by reflecting lasers off the reflectors left there during the 1970s moon missions. The increased angular momentum this would indicate is "stolen" from Earth's rotational period because of tidal friction which increases the length of Earth's day by about one second every 18 months (if I remember correctly) so total angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system is maintained.

 

[bilby]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

Not only have people noticed; They have been forced to take action.

 

[FinBack]

Hello folks. It's been a while since i have posted but this stuff still fascinates me and is a very good read.

I personally do not believe in the 'Big Bang Theory'. The only 'Evidence' we have for it are faint signals in the CMB that could be evidence of Gravitational waves and then we have entropy.

I think the Universe didn't need a 'beginning' or a 'Big bang' to come into existence, because the Universe has always been here, it had No beginning. It's just been here and always has and always will be.

'Entropy' is Not proof that distant stars are moving away from one another, thus meaning that those stars were once close together. Instead, Space could be expanding between those stars.

In this scenario there would be no need for a God or Creator. A God/Creator was invented by man because he didn't have Science to explain things.

Is there anything wrong with my thinking?

 

[none]

The observation of red shift is the evidence of the big bang, its an ongoing process

 

[FinBack]

The observation of red shift is the evidence of the big bang, its an ongoing process just like ice from the last ice age is still melting

The Red shift values are all wrong though ! One of the reasons i am skeptical about it.

Leads to the age old question, 'What was here BEFORE the universe'?.. If we rule out a beginning and go with the universe having always been here, removes a lot of these questions and is a far simpler way of getting from A to B.

 

[none]

All wrong?
You are skeptical that there was less space in history but believe there was a beginning? Doesn't make sense
Steady state is steady no need for change, no beginning because steady state

 

[FinBack]

All wrong?
You are skeptical that there was less space in history but believe there was a beginning? Doesn't make sense
Steady state is steady no need for change, no beginning because steady state

Yes, if there was a 'Big Bang' then the Red Shift values are wrong, they don't match up to that theory.

I never said i believe there was a beginning.!! Quite the opposite.! Steady state theory has it's problems but i think it solves more problems than it creates.

Someone here will understand what i'm getting at.

My main point is about the thread, the universe is proof of God.? I don't think it is.!

 

[none]

All wrong?
You are skeptical that there was less space in history but believe there was a beginning? Doesn't make sense
Steady state is steady no need for change, no beginning because steady state

Yes, if there was a 'Big Bang' then the Red Shift values are wrong, they don't match up to that theory.

Big bang is an ongoing process

I never said i believe there was a beginning.!! Quite the opposite.! Steady state theory has it's problems but i think it solves more problems than it creates.

Yeah you just asked the "age old" question while rejecting expansion
If steady state no change, beginning is a big change and steady state excludes that to some degree maybe totally