Evidence for God

If there was even 1 shred of evidence, why would we have this forum? What would we be discussing?(not that i see much reason to have a forum in which atheists would always win 100:0 against believers). But we are mostly discussing side issues, and this forum is well worth it. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

I suggest you open your fridge because i just did that and it was full of poor unfortunate animals(cut to pieces). We have to kill and torture to survive as do most in the animal world. Have you seen the cow that's just given birth to a calf only to realise that its calf is being taken away forever? Often times the mother cow would escape and run around for 5-10 kilometres looking for her calf.
Have you seen the face of mothers losing their childeren? How about malnutrition kids dying of hunger in Chad in terrible pains? Or the sorrow of their mothers unable to do anything? Or the people dying from cancer in its latest phase when they lose their hair and die a horribly painful death?
You claim your god created this world so you have to know from someone that's not prejudiced that your god is a sadistic, merciless, omni-cruel and omni-retarded psychopath that likes to play with living creatures' suffering. I'd rather worship Osama Bin Laden, a rapist ot a serial killer than the one who created so much suffering and injustice in this world.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"NATURE" MAGAZINE SURVEY -- LESS AND LESS BELIEF
The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism."What kind of scientist could believe in something that's not backed up by ANY evidence? Science is about knowledge so what knowledge can a scientist possess about the existence of god/s/?What's really disturbing is that for a few millenia there was no question about how life came about. The answer was pretty clear and nobody questioned its authencity. It's funny that they "knew" that god did it and took everything for granted what the church fed them. It's disgusting. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

That was Mylakovich, not me(Agobot) but nevermind, we are of the same opinion on the matter.

AFAIMC, there is no proof that "proof" exists.

I have a plea to all participants, cut OpenMInd some slack. Please, for quite some time he's the only ID'er that participates in "their" subforum - Faith and Belief. I think the other ID'ers are not participating out of fear that all the atheists will jump on them and overwhelm them. Couple that with the fact that ID'ers are more strictly moderated by the admins and you get the picture. Be more easy on ID'ers, we are not turning this forum to a strictly atheist message board, are we?
You can't really turn a die-hard ID'er to an atheist. We have mounting evidence that shows that the universe does not require a God or that natural processes happen without divine guidance. However we don't have sufficient evidence to turn a die hard religious freak to an atheist. We have enough evidence to convince an unbiased and unprejudiced person that the existence of God is close to zero, but we don't have ENOUGH evidence to fill each and every gap in knowledge to which ClosedMInd will try to hold on and make an ill-supported case that will fit his beliefs.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

If you are OpenMInded and not closed-minded as i think, what do you think of this recent discovery from last month, published in Nature:"Greedy molecules could be behind the emergence of lifeArtificial system shows how a molecular soup could be exploited by a single self-replicating complex.Katharine Sanderson
soup
Imagine adding a pea that turned all the carrots, cauliflower and leeks into more peas ...PunchstockA molecule can ensure that copies of itself ” rather than any other possible reaction products ” are produced from a soup of smaller molecules. This demonstrates that complex structures could have evolved from a pool of simple molecules billions of years ago, its developers claim.Douglas Philp, a chemist at the University of St Andrews, UK, has previously shown that a molecule made of two halves that recognise and bind to one another can then act as a template for its own replication1. Along with his colleague Jan Sadownik, he has now discovered that this template molecule can drive its own formation in a bigger pool of many more reactants, quickly taking over the processes in that pool and dominating the system so that almost no other products have a chance to form.This kind of self-replicating system has been proposed as an explanation to how complex molecules such as DNA could have formed, ultimately triggering the emergence of life. Artificial versions of these systems, however, have remained elusive.
Strange brewPhilp's system relies on a soup of 25 different molecules, built up from various combinations of a few simple components ” different aldehydes, some with an amidopyridine group, and a maleimide. The resulting 25 molecules in the soup can all interconvert with each other.There is nothing special about this mixture until a slightly different maleimide is used. That gives just one of the resulting 25 products exactly the right building blocks to become the special self-replicating molecule that Philp's lab developed previously.“This shows that you can bring order from chaos”Douglas Philp
University of St Andrews, UKOnce this template molecule is formed as one of the 25 soup ingredients, it can grab its constituent parts out of the mixture and bring them together to create a complementary copy of itself. The template molecules subsequently grab more of their constituents, and the process repeats itself. Because the original mixture of molecules can all interconvert, the equilibrium in the soup changes so that the reactant pool feeds the self-replicating molecule's formation. The end result is that 93% of the mixture becomes the template molecule."Despite the fact this system can make goodness know how many compounds, you get one product," says Philp. "This shows that you can bring order from chaos."
Love and marriageThe process will work as soon as the correct maleimide is added, but it can be speeded up by adding a tiny amount of the complete template molecule. Philp presented his work last week at the American Chemical Society's national meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Philp hasn't got a practical use for his system yet. But that's not the point, says Eric Anslyn, a supramolecular chemist from the University of Texas at Austin. Demonstrating a system similar to that which might have created life is enough, he says, and it might well inspire other chemists to find a more practical use. "The cleverness in his initial design might spark many other clever designs," he says.Still, Philp envisages a time when a self-replicating system could be used to make, on demand, a range of different compounds, depending on the template you throw in at the start."Artificial self-replicating systems represent amongst some of the most intellectually challenging and stimulating of topics in contemporary chemistry today," says Fraser Stoddart, a chemist from Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois."Who knows" whether Philp's work can help to explain how life began, says Stoddart, but, he says, "life processes and self-replication go together like a horse and carriage, or love and marriage. You can't have one without the other.""Full text here:Greedy molecules could be behind the emergence of life | Nature

r what do you think of this:"VATICAN CITY - The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.

​

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican's culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a Rome conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held next March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

​

Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation. Earlier this week, a leading Anglican churchman, Rev. Malcolm Brown, said the Church of England owed Darwin an apology for the way his ideas were received by Anglicans in Britain..."MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

There is no way to disprove a negative, you should know that. But what does the Torah say about the dinosaurs? Did God kill them?
What do you think of the idea that an asteroid hit the Yukatan peninsula 65mln years ago and wiped them out, leaving a 300 km crater.
Care to look at an even bigger 340km crater on the Moon?The largest crater on the face of the moon. - NASA/ADSDoes it sound plausible that such an impact could wipe out the dinosaurs? Do 100 terra tons of TNT sound enough, when you consider the fact that it makes a force equal to 100 000 nuclear bombs? Do you need God to explain their extinction? No, you don't. You don't see a gap here, that's why you creationists don't abuse this topic.Why is the axis of the Earth tilted? Did God do it only to Earth? Nah, science says there was a big crash between Earth and a fairly large celestial body billions of years ago. As a result of the impact the Earth got tilted(the only planet in the Solar system) and lost a significant part of its volume in the form of dust, some of which got trapped and is still trapped in orbit in the form of a Moon. Could the Torah explain this in a more logical way? Do we need God to explain this perplexing task? No we don't. You won't find gaps here, so it's of no use for you creationists.What does the Torah say about the Australopithecus in my avatar? Did they have souls and did God send them to Heaven and Hell, or did souls emerge later on?And so on and so forth, the discoveries of science are virtually endless.What does the Torah give you besides the obvious comfort of the idea of an eternal life?Everything about what sciencce has discovered about the creation of the Earth and its history fits so nicely, it's frightening.You just have to open your eyes and be open-minded as your alias states. You may not quite like the truth about reality though.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

All 3 examples were of critical events from Earth's ancient history , not really evolution(the extinction of the dinosaurs, the formtaion of the Moon and the emergence of hominids). All of them being painful, unexplained white spots in the ancient holy books. Miraculously all three being explained by science.IN FACT, IN THE VERY UNLIKELY EVENT THERE IS A GOD, I CAN BET $1000 THAT SCIENCE WILL DISCOVER EVIDENCE WAY BEFORE ANY OF YOU THEISTS CAN COME UP WITH ANYTHING. In fact, for the last 4 000 years you haven't found any, not even a smell of evidence. This will likely continue into eternity.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Apperantly I shouldn't be sad as you've found at last evidence of the existence of the Almighty - the thunder and lightning. Let me pop the Champagne, let's celebrate the eternal life. I am no longer a sad individual, the human race has a higher purpose. Cheers!

It's evident that the majority of the people here don't think there is a God. Now bear with me and tell me if my reasoning is wrong:1. If anything has a beginning, it has a cause(creator).2. There is no evidence whatsoever of a cause(God or other power).3. Since there is no cause, there is no beiginning for the Universe.4. If there is no beginning, the material Universe must have existed before T=0(ever contracting and expanding Universe)?How does that sound and does this make sense? Where am I wrong? The ever-existing universe does not break rule 1 and so it doesn't need a creator. IMO this idea also has the added benefit of not making good sense to us(ever-existing universe), which of course is a plus, considering from what our puny human logic arised and the path it walked in the last 5 million years.
If we know what happened before T=0(that the Universe was contracting?) would this help us in any way better understand the nature of Singularity at T=0?The problem I could foresee is that I am applying human logic for the existence of rule 1, when there could be NONE. OMG.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

I was hoping some of the physicists might reply to this message, but in the anbscence of such here are the 3 likely scenarios about the fate of the Universe(that I could find info on):"Big Chill vs. Big CrunchThe universe's fate is intimately connected to its shape which, in turn, depends on a single number, Omega: the ratio of the average mass density of the universe to the critical value required to just maintain equilibrium.An open universe, corresponding to omega less than one, will expand forever. Matter will spread thinner and thinner. Galaxies will exhaust their gas supply for forming new stars, and old stars will eventually burn out, leaving only dust and dead stars. The universe will become quite dark and, as the temperature of the universe will approaches absolute zero, quite cold. The universe will not end, exactly, just peter out in a Big Chill.The expansion of a closed universe, with an Omega greater than one, will slow down until it reaches a maximum size, when it begins its inward collapse. Like a video of the Big Bang and expansion run backward, the universe will become denser and hotter until it ends in an infinitely hot, infinitely dense Big Crunch--perhaps providing the seed for another Big Bang.If Omega equals 1 exactly, then cosmic expansion will coast to a halt infinitely far into the future. The universe will not end in a Big Crunch nor expand into an infinite Big Chill, but will remain at equilibrium.This last case is consistent with the inflation hypothesis, and also commands the most observational support. Not to mention the fact that, for most of us, it's an emotionally appealing scenario. Even though the universe's fate lies billions of years in the future, it's the only one we have."http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/CosmosFate.htmlIn my original post titled "Before the Big Bang" i wrote "contracting" with a question mark, so that you could understand that I am not certain. Nor could probably be anyone else, unless we know the nature of dark energy. However that doesn't change the flow of the conclusions from 1 to 4. If there was no Big Crunch prior to the Big Bang, the singularity could have existed in another form. This "theory" just makes sense since it doesn't need a creator. You can't really ask "But who created the singularity?" because that'd make no sense in a ever-lasting Universe. Care to re-phrase?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

I see your point but I have to stress that we have in fact always existed in the Universe. Just in different form. The atoms that make up my body used to be atoms in molecules making up DUST 13 billion years ago. So yes, technically we have always existed in some form or another - dust, carbon, water, etc. so it doesn't invalidate the flow of conclusions 1 through 4.PS. God does not exist, I don't have to prove this, as negatives are un-provable. Besides, if there was God I would have been dead by now for all my god bashing. But hey, why is Osama still alive? He's breaking most of the commandments head-against-the-wall, is God blind?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.