Who else thinks that "well how else could we exist" isn't a valid argument?

Question

I mean people say that god is the only reason we could exist but surly if they bother to think about science they will see how absolutely incredibly stupid they sound to anyone with more than zero brain cells. Say no to jesus.

Answer 1

dunno

Answer 2

If God is not real, then where did life come from? A big bang?, well, where did the matter come from that went bang? Did you ever in your life see anything form from the exposion of a cherry bomb other than a hole in the ground? Can a watch come together from substance in the wind? Well we time everything off the movements of the heavens, so how did they come together if they were so to speak, flying in the wind. Just how big was that bang, thay cannot find and end to the universe but substance pulled itself together while still moving outward, hmmm, how can that be? You talk about science but they can't explain how it all came together. And they call themselves smart. The wisdom of the world is foolishness with God. 1 Corinthians 3:19 Just because science cannot explain God then he must not be real, now there's real logic for you, he's not real because we can't explain him.

Answer 3

good aspect, but poorly worded.

there are people that use "well, how else could we exist if we did not evolve from an common ancestor with the ape?"

that is not a valid argument for any course of debate because it leads to circular logic in every fashion.

as for proving the bible, it is done repeatedly through secular history. we know there was a Moses, we know there was a Jesus, we know there was a Mohommed.

what we have not proved is that Jesus was Christ.

We have not proved that Moses came out the mountains with two big stone tablets with writing from the flaming finger of God.

we have not proved that Mohommed did not write the entirity of the koran in one night.

but then again we have not been able to prove the above did NOT happen.

keep searching and one day, with the right evidence, i would become an athiest, after all.

-eagle

-eagle

Answer 4

The argument for God's existence by using our complexity is a problematic one because it fails on its own premise: the complexity of the Creator means that it would require a creator, etc. etc. If we say 'well god always existed' then we can say the same thing about any process that's in place. Now, the real mystery is we don't resolve the issue whether we keep god in the loop or take him out: we're left with the awe-inspiring (and potentially panic-inducing) concept of something always existing (even if that something is 'just' a process or potential, etc). For those who have trully tried to get their mind around this, it can be very very unnerving, especially because we think in linear sequence and cause/effect.

Answer 5

yes I agree with u.
they all go for the uncaused cause BS.
I posted this as a question 2or 3weeks ago:

It is certainly a fallacy: you may as well
argue that, since all roads lead somewhere, therefore there
must be some single place to which all roads lead---ROME, no doubt!

We know Aquinas was in error, he was long before Isaac Newton;
and Newton killed it off. Because Way one of Aquinas takes as it's
premise the proposition that everything that moves is moved by something
else, and is dependent upon the now discredited physics of Aristotle. So,
what is Newtons first law? ........"every body continues in it's state of
rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to
change that state by forces impressed upon it" From this vantage point we
can see that there is no necessity or warant for the principle that "everything
which moves is moved by something else"

Answer 6

As far as the evidence I have found, evolution is mathematically impossible. There are other theories, but I have found creation to be the most valid. Even if one isn't religious, if they have an open mind, it is clear to see that creation is a valid and likely theory.

Answer 7

You are agreeing to say yes to monkeys.
Let's look at some reasoning:
a> evolution - we came from ameobas in a pool of water millions of years ago.
creation - God created man from the earth, breathed life into him
b> ameobas become "smart," going back and forth onto land and returning to the water, developing lungs to breathe air and losing the capacity for water. Sounds fishy to me - no pun intended.
the Bible says that we were created in His image.
c> this creature evolved into the primate mammal, slowly growing and separating from the monkey family, moving the thumb to its present location, and losing tail and most body hair in the process.
the Bible says man and animals were created at different times.
d> your great great grand daddy use to swing from the trees and eat bananas.
my great great granddaddy came from God's creation.
Does evolution sound absurd now? Unfortuantely, it only takes one brain cell to believe in that.
Don't burn it up on too much thinking...You may need it later on.

Answer 8

Let's keep this simple. Do the math. Math never lies. For people to be here, just by chance, along with all the plants and animals and insects and fish. Now, don't forget, you'll have to include, male and female. So do the math and get back to me.

Answer 9

Do you breathe air? Can you see it? All things denote their is a God. Blood: can't live without it. We couldn't live without Jesus sacrificing his. Air: Couldn't breathe without it. Holy Ghost can't see it wouldn't be able to breathe without it. Water: Clear, pure, nourishes us, sustains us. Baptism: Cleans us, purifies us so we can be clean in the presence of God.

Answer 10

Agreed. I think they are just uneducated, and simply unable to fathom the scientific universe. I've heard scientist refer to this as "the God of the Gaps", because god is everywhere science hasn't been yet (the gaps in scientific knowledge). But, I do think it will only be a matter of time before science closes all the gaps and religion goes the way of the dodo...

1) According to Christian beliefs god is omniscient, that is, he knows everything that will ever happen. That said, one must conclude that god knows whether you are going to hell before he even creates you. Therefore, if you are damned, you were always damned. In essence, god, knowing full well your fate before your creation, plucks you from nothingness and puts you on the fast track to hell. In that sense, you might as well be a wind up toy that god winds up and points towards heaven or hell. This would also apply to the Devil and his legion of angels. (God was not surprised by Satan's rebellion...). Think of god as the creator of the old SNL skit Mr. Bill. Remember that? "Oh, nooooo, Mr. Bill!" Do some research on Calvanism or simply predestination.

2) In line with the above, it must also be assumed that god knows everything he will ever do. If god knows everything he will ever do then the one thing god can NOT be is spontaneous. That is, god can never change his mind because he knew he was going to change his mind an infinity before it happened. Consider: if god can not change his mind, and knows everything he will EVER do, does god really have free will or is he bound by his perfect nature (the so-called mandate of heaven)? If god has no free will, do you? Which also begs the question, why does god do the things he does - what forces predestined him to create the universe? Is that force more powerful than god (and therefore the 'true' god)?

3) Consider the implications of this statement: The above is not true because god is not all knowing or all powerful. There are things god does NOT know, and there are limits to his power. If that is the case, god is simply more powerful than us, and therefore has the right to torture and damn us at will. Might makes right...

4) If you go to the edge of the universe and then go ten feet further, what would you find? Nothing? Would you smack right into a big wall of nothing? Would you come out the other side of the universe like in the game pac-man? (There are actually some physicist who believe the last scenerio is a possiblity. History will prove them to be the fools they are). The universe is expanding, but what is it expanding INTO? The reason these questions confuse some people is because of some ambiguities in the term 'universe'. Does the word refer to the collection of matter that is ever expanding outward from the big bang, or does it refer to the space that this matter is expanding into? From this point forward, let it refer to the SPACE the collection of matter (galaxies, etc) is expanding into. Now, we know that the collection of MATTER does not go on infinitely, for we can see the edge, and further, we know it is expanding from a single point of origin that exploded some such and such billions of years ago. But what about space itself? Is that infinite? Is there an edge to space? If there is an edge, what is on the other side? Some would say that the answer to this is that there is nothing at the edge of space, but consider: in the physical universe it would be absolutely impossible for nothing and something to co-exist. Imagine this scenerio: the only thing that exists at all is a pencil. This pencil floats in a sea of nothingness. The problem with such a scenerio is that nothing has no dimensions or properties at all. It is nothing. No space. But a pencil occupies space, it has dimension, so how could it be contained by nothing? How could a pencil be inside of nothing? Therefore, the proof that nothing doesn't exist is evident by the fact that anything exists. By extension, this would also prove that space is infinite, for were space to have an edge we would find ourselves in the absurd situation where nothing contains something (the universe, space and matter). So, is there an edge to space? Is our universe in a bubble of space inside of infinite nothingness. Does 1 + 1 = 3?

5) Premise: the fact that anything exists at all is proof that something has always existed, and that at no point has nothing ever been the state of existence. From the previous argument we can see that nothing and something can not co-exist in the physical universe, and that therefore space is infinite. But we should also establish that it is a logical absurdity to believe that there was ever a state of nothingness and that something was somehow created from nothing. So, to restate: Something can never come from nothing, therefore, something has always existed; and, nothing has never existed. If nothing does not exist, then something is infinite.

6) Keeping arguments 4 and 5 in mind, lets examine the statement 'something has always existed' based on the premise that something can not come from nothing. We also know that since nothing and something can not co-exist that this something is infinite. Being infinite, this thing would also have to be singular (there could not be multiple infinite things). Presumably, this infinite, singular thing is the substance from which all other things are derived. The label this 'thing' that is the foundation of all other things has been given by primative cultures is 'god'. But here let me propose an alternative: is there anything else that fits the bill for this necesary foundation of all things? So far we know this thing must be infinite, and in being infinite must be singular. Since this thing exists of its own accord and is singular it would not be made up of other things, but would be elemental and unable to be broken down any further. Sounds exotic, this thing - this proto substance that is the very fabric of reality! What else but god could fit such a bill! Actually, there is one thing, and it is all about and within you. The best candidate for our proto substance is...drumroll, please......space! Consider: space is singular (there is only one space) and infinite (it goes on forever in all directions) and can not be broken down any further (it is not made of smaller parts). What better foundation for reality? Would it be more logical then to say the most complex being imaginable has always existed (god) or that the least complicated 'thing' in the universe (space) has always existed? If this is correct science will discover that all matter is energy interacting with itself, and that all energy is space interacting with itself. Essentially, that would mean that everything is composed of "patterns of space". String theory already plays with the idea of vibrating space as the substance of all matter, and other (as of yet unnamed) theories posit the existence of space "whirlpools" that form sub-atomic particles. It will only be a matter of time...

7) If the existence of the universe can be explained scientifically there is no need to posit the existence of a creator and therefore no need to try to explain the absurdities of religion (moot point).

Answer 11

In this life ,mens everyminute choice betwen bed or good.
When we arrive at God, this faith will be end,there is only good.
That whish isn't stupid.
Science......is good if is for the goodness of men. Is it allways....?