Does the God of the Bible exist

[Jstwebbrowsing]

My opinion is yes.  I come to this conclusion through the process of elimination.  I started with the fact that we do exist. 

Firstly I eliminated evolution.  For a scientific theory it seemed very unscientific.

http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html

Dozens of other references to this effect can be found.  I literally would have a better chance of a windstorm building me a house.  I don't know the number but I know at some point of improbability science considers something to be impossible.  And it is way way way below this number.

If I accept it them I must accept it on the basis of faith, defying scientific odds.  Would anyone disagree with this statement?

[One Above All]

I suggest a one-on-one debate for this, because trust me, you're going to get destroyed[1] otherwise.

EDIT: Metaphor changed.

1.	Metaphorically speaking.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I suggest a one-on-one debate for this, because trust me, you're going to get raped[1] otherwise.

1.	Metaphorically speaking.

Yes that probably would be better.

[One Above All]

Actually I was just kidding. You're gonna get destroyed[1] anyway. However, the one-on-one method involves less replies.
I recommend myself. My knowledge of evolution and the Bible isn't absolute, which should give you some time to run away before I make a reply and destroy every argument you throw at me.

EDIT: Metaphor changed.

1.	Metaphorically speaking.

[magicmiles]

wow, how could anyone resist that humble offer of engagement, Lucifer.

[One Above All]

wow, how could anyone resist that humble offer of engagement, Lucifer.

I would be humble if there was a reason to be humble. If you could point out where I'm lying and/or wrong, I'd appreciate it.

[Tero]

Jeez I'm tired of retired math professors and Hoyle et al putting a lot of zeros behind one. This is what you get when you have no understanding of chemistry abd biology.

Just don't go for Big Bang in connection with evolution.

[albeto]

My opinion is yes.  I come to this conclusion through the process of elimination.  I started with the fact that we do exist. 

Firstly I eliminated evolution.  For a scientific theory it seemed very unscientific.

http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html

Dozens of other references to this effect can be found.  I literally would have a better chance of a windstorm building me a house.  I don't know the number but I know at some point of improbability science considers something to be impossible.  And it is way way way below this number.

If I accept it them I must accept it on the basis of faith, defying scientific odds.  Would anyone disagree with this statement?

You're mistaking scientific methodology with statistical probability.  It would have been, statistically speaking, impossible to have predicted my presence on this website ten years ago, replying to this very post, the one I could have had no knowledge of you intending to write.

And yet here we are.

[Quesi]

I think that Jst has been on this forum about 24 hours.  And if I remember correctly, he said initially, that he is not interested in debate, but exploration.

After getting beaten up on by Omen for most of the day, he finds himself in a position in which Lucifer is challenging him to a one on one debate.

It has been a busy day. 

Jst- words of wisdom to you.  Lucifer is exceptionally smart, and quite relentless in his argumentation.  I would strongly encourage you to peek at some of his previous debates before accepting the challenge.  Do not mistake his humble statement about his knowledge concerning either evolution or the bible, as an indication that this would be an easy debate.  If you do accept his challenge, I think that you (and most of us observing) would have the opportunity to learn a great deal. 

Lucifer- I don't care for the rape metaphor. 

[nogodsforme]

My opinion is yes.  I come to this conclusion through the process of elimination.  I started with the fact that we do exist. 

Firstly I eliminated evolution.  For a scientific theory it seemed very unscientific.

http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html

Dozens of other references to this effect can be found.  I literally would have a better chance of a windstorm building me a house.  I don't know the number but I know at some point of improbability science considers something to be impossible.  And it is way way way below this number.

If I accept it them I must accept it on the basis of faith, defying scientific odds.  Would anyone disagree with this statement?

Do you wash your hands before you eat? If you do, you "believe in" the germ theory of disease. It's just a theory, though. Scientific theories can never be proven, no matter how much evidence there is. But I am sure you think there is enough evidence of germs to keep washing your hands before eating. Science does not care what people believe. There are germs or there aren't.

You don't know appear to know what evolution is, at least in the way biologists use the term. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with why humans exist or how life came to be on earth.

Evolution deals with how populations of organisms adapt to their environment over time. The theory accounts for why different animals have all solved the same environmental problem in similar ways. Like birds, bats and bees all fly, but use different mechanisms. And similar fish will have different coloring from those in another part of the ocean, based on the color of the plants it lives among, so it is camoflauged from predators.

When the theory was first proposed in the 1800's it was based largely on observations of nature. After a lot of observations over many years by lots of people, the theory became even stronger. Now we have had nearly 200 years of replicated experiments, new discoveries that reinforce the original ideas, and most importantly IMHO, useful applications of the theory.

Nobody has falsified the theory of evolution yet, and genetics has traced DNA changes of primates and other species back in time over millions of years. There is way more evidence than anyone should need.[1]

Most everything they do on CSI shows is based on applications of the theory of evolution. They can tell from a handful of bone fragments that it was a racoon and not a human child. They can tell from a hair and some saliva that it was this particular human being and not that one.   

Anyone in 2012 who "doesn't believe" in the theory of evolution (while eating chips made from genetically modified corn) does not know what evolution is. It would be like someone "not believing" in physics, geology, or chemistry while using computers, cell phones, gas-powered cars and sunscreen everyday. Or "not believing" in the theory of gravity while walking down the street.

1.	like certain fossils right where evolution predicted them, lab experiments that demonstrate what evolution said should happen, successful treatment of illnesses with antibiotics, eradicating diseases with vaccines, genetic testing for inherited traits, etc, etc

[Tero]

J or anyone with a numbers game, here is the explanation. Or, the situation is that we cannot calculate any of the odds. We do not have such mathematical models that measure complexity and mechanistic detail.


if you do not like his voice try this


more on the numbers:

[Eddie Schultz]

I suggest a one-on-one debate for this, because trust me, you're going to get raped[1] otherwise.

1.	Metaphorically speaking.

Yes that probably would be better.

No, you don't need a debate. Just watch this video and part 2, then come back and tell us which god it is that you believe is the god of the bible. If you don't believe what is being presented in the video, just take the time to do the research on it. Christian's/creationist's usually don't put much emphasis on research, but you ALL really should.

What actual research have you done to come to the conclusion that your bible god exists?

We'll all be anxiously awaiting your reply.

[nogodsforme]

Oh one last thing: the theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether the god of the bible exists or not. However, if the god of the bible exists, he does not understand the theory of evolution any more than the OP does.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I think that Jst has been on this forum about 24 hours.  And if I remember correctly, he said initially, that he is not interested in debate, but exploration.

That was just for that specific thread.

I am thinking atm and taking a break.

[Omen]

My opinion is yes.

Why are you limiting your choices to just bible god or no god?

  I come to this conclusion through the process of elimination.  I started with the fact that we do exist. 

Firstly I eliminated evolution.

What does evolution have to do with the bible god existing or not existing?

  For a scientific theory it seemed very unscientific.

http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html

Nothing on this website addresses 'evolution', no explanation is offered to as how this probability value was calculated, and evolution is not the origins of life.

What does this have to do with the bible god?

Dozens of other references to this effect can be found.  I literally would have a better chance of a windstorm building me a house.

The probability of a windstorm building your house has nothing to do with evolution.  Why do you think it does?

I don't know the number but I know at some point of improbability science considers something to be impossible.

False.

A high probability does not equate to impossibility.

  And it is way way way below this number.

If I accept it them I must accept it on the basis of faith, defying scientific odds.  Would anyone disagree with this statement?

So far you haven't made a statement that is factual, much less that could be agreed with.  You seem to believe that evolution is something that it is not or claims something that it does not.  You also seem to believe it has something to do with a god existing or not existing.  All of which is not explained and which questions are then begged.

[Alzael]

My opinion is yes.  I come to this conclusion through the process of elimination.  I started with the fact that we do exist. 

Firstly I eliminated evolution.  For a scientific theory it seemed very unscientific.

http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html

Dozens of other references to this effect can be found.  I literally would have a better chance of a windstorm building me a house.  I don't know the number but I know at some point of improbability science considers something to be impossible.  And it is way way way below this number.

If I accept it them I must accept it on the basis of faith, defying scientific odds.  Would anyone disagree with this statement?

Jstwebbrowsing, this is similar to what a lot of theists try to say about evolution. It is always wrong and based on false information. Such as what you linked.

I think it would be in the best interests of the discussion if you first demonstrated that you actually knew what evolution is. Can you accurately describe the theory of evolution first please? In your own words. Then please describe a scientific theory. Again, in your own words.

Once you can show that you know the terms you are making claims about, it will make the discussion easier.

In case you are unaware, the green indicates that I am speaking to you in capacity as a mod.

[Omen]

I have to second Alzael on this:

You're not talking about 'evolution' or 'science' by any means that is understood at even a grade school level.  I'm not saying this to insult you, but it is as if you have never opened a science textbook in your life and will only do yourself ( as well as us ) a disservice in just lying or repeating the lie of someone else right to our faces.  I hate to break it to you, but it is likely that everything that a fellow jehovah witness has told you regarding evolution was or has been basically false.  Whether or not their falsehood was intentional is a different question.  The problem is that religious apologia are ripe with this kind of dishonest material and they make appeals to audiences that are usually not educated in the material itself.

[One Above All]

If you do accept his challenge, I think that you (and most of us observing) would have the opportunity to learn a great deal.

Doubtful on the "most of us observing" bit, but thanks for the compliment.

Lucifer- I don't care for the rape metaphor. 

I have changed it[1], which I think was the right thing to do, assuming my understanding of this part is correct.

1.	And apologize for using it.

[Quesi]

Thank you for your revision Lucifer.

Jst, in terms of your op -  You've dismissed evolution, and you've been presented with some explanations and videos explaining evolution.  I'm sure you'll get more.

But here is my question.  In your op you state that since you dismiss evolution, that leads you to accept the god of the bible.  Eddie presented a fascinating video which presents the influences of polytheistic religions on the ot. 

But why pick the ot or nt at all?  Why pick monotheism?  There are a wide host of belief systems, each of which has a creation story.  Have you ever thought about the fact that if you had been born and raised in a family and community that had a different creation story, you probably would have adopted that story? 

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Jstwebbrowsing, this is similar to what a lot of theists try to say about evolution. It is always wrong and based on false information. Such as what you linked.

I think it would be in the best interests of the discussion if you first demonstrated that you actually knew what evolution is. Can you accurately describe the theory of evolution first please? In your own words. Then please describe a scientific theory. Again, in your own words.

Once you can show that you know the terms you are making claims about, it will make the discussion easier.

In case you are unaware, the green indicates that I am speaking to you in capacity as a mod.

Evolution has many facets -- how the universe began to how humankind began and beyond.  To replace a belief in God all of these must be taken into consideration.  Of necessity evolution must begin with the Big Bang and proceed at least to humankind.  And it does:

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
http://www.voyagesthroughtime.org/cosmic/index.html

Regarding what is a theory.  I will simply replicate the definiton:

1.  A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:

2. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Synonyms:  idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms:  practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

But here is my question.  In your op you state that since you dismiss evolution, that leads you to accept the god of the bible.  Eddie presented a fascinating video which presents the influences of polytheistic religions on the ot. 

I will explain this later.  I would rather take things in the smallest steps possible.

I have not watched the videos yet but I will.  Mainly this in reply to the moderator.  I assume these must be answered before a debate can begin.

[ParkingPlaces]

Jstwebbrowsing

If I were to tell you that I disagreed with the bible because it keeps talking about skateboarding, and I  know that skateboards weren't invented that early, you would wonder what the heck I was talking about.

Well, that's about the level of understanding most theists demonstrate when talking about evolution. They may think they know the subject, but they haven't a clue.

This happens several times a month, at least. And to say we are getting a little fed up with voluntary ignorance is an understatement.

It is not important that you agree with evolution. It is important that you be able to discuss it intelligently. Many atheists here know a lot about the bible (I'm not one of them), even though they disagree with what it says. And though we would surely argue with you one way or the other about why you disagree, your ability to discuss the subject intelligently would go a long way towards helping you make your point.

Otherwise you will sound like an idiot. I don't think for a second that you are, but if you are not up to speed on what evolutionary theory is about, that's what you will come across as.

You are about to get jumped for saying the evolution involved "how the universe began". That is a separate subject, and I predict that at least four or five of us will jump all over you for that. Evolution involves life on earth, after biogenesis. The stuff that happened before (big bang, star formation, heavier elements forming, etc) are all certainly relevant. But they do not involved the process of evolution in any way.

For you to be effective here, you need to figure this stuff out.

Go do your homework. Before you get into heavy duty discussions. Otherwise you simply won't be prepared to argue stuff you feel is important. Because none of us will listen to a lightweight.

[Omen]

Evolution has many facets -- how the universe began..

Wow.. You didn't read anything did you?

What is the purpose of lying about evolution?

[Nick]

My answer...NO.  God of the bible does not exist.  You have a better change of getting it right with The Flying Spaghetti Monster.  At least He is fair with His creation and it is all lined out as clear of day.  Migit, mountain, tree...any questions?

[Alzael]

Evolution has many facets -- how the universe began to how humankind began and beyond.

Your very first sentence betrays how little you know of the subject.

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how humankind began. The only people who think it does are theists that are too lazy to actually learn about the subject they claim not to believe in.

  Of necessity evolution must begin with the Big Bang and proceed at least to humankind.

No it does not.

Regarding what is a theory.  I will simply replicate the definiton:

1.  A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:

2. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

You were asked to do this in your own words. The question is not whether you can repeat a definition. The question is if you actually understand what you're writing.

As PP said, most of the theists who try to make claims about evolution have no idea of what evolution is or what the theory says. They simply parrot what they have heard from other creationists, who don't understand it any better than they do. They simply say things that sound good that they know their audience will believe because they know theists won't bother to think about it or do actual research of their own.

Take your claim earlier about probability. The person who wrote that was either deliberately lying to mislead people like you, or too stupid to be allowed near a calculator. He has no idea of how probability actually works. The same is true with your claim about evolution being involved with how life began. It is simply not true, to the point that it is ludicrous to even suggest such a thing.

This happens constantly hence why I felt it necessary to just skip to the point and find out if you actually understoof anything about what you were trying to disprove.

Now again, can you describe evolution and a scientific theory in your own words?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Evolution has many facets -- how the universe began..

Wow.. You didn't read anything did you?

Yes I read, "Voyages Through Time is a year-long, integrated science curriculum for ninth or tenth grade, based on the theme of evolution ........... The year-long VTT curriculum is divided into six modules: Cosmic Evolution, Planetary Evolution, Origin of Life, Evolution of Life, Hominid Evolution, and Evolution of Technology."

And I also read, "Evolution - Any process of growth and change with time, including an accumulation of historical information; in its broadest sense, both developmental and generational change."

Did you read anything?

Is your definition of evolution different from that of Harvard?

ParkingPlaces:  I appreciate the warning.  No, I am not a scholar of evolution.  I have studied it to the point that I concluded it was incorrect.  But I am able to look up definitions on the internet and quote people smarter than I.  It seems many here have a very narrow view of evolution.  But according to Harvard it is, "Any process of growth and change with time...."

Many here seem to say that evolution does not involve the Big Bang but Harvard disagrees and so does high school curriculum.

If this definition is incorrect then please correct it.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

You were asked to do this in your own words.

I did so and then supported it with links about evolution.

Theory:  Better than a hyposhesis, but not as good as fact.

[Omen]

You're conflating a cheesy high school presentation video with a generic definition of evolution as a word, to dismiss evolutionary science.

Yes, you've gotten everything wrong.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

You're conflating a cheesy high school presentation video with a generic definition of evolution to dismiss evolutionary science.

Yes, you've gotten everything wrong.

But you fail to answer the question.  You do this a lot.

Another:  If life did not evolve then how did it originate?

[Alzael]

You were asked to do this in your own words.

I did so and then supported it with links about evolution.

Theory:  Better than a hyposhesis, but not as good as fact.

No, you did not.

Evolution has many facets -- how the universe began to how humankind began and beyond.  To replace a belief in God all of these must be taken into consideration.  Of necessity evolution must begin with the Big Bang and proceed at least to humankind.

Does not describe evolution at all. Not to mention that the statement is outright factually wrong. The same holds true for your definition of theory. It does not describe what a scientific theory is, nor does it demonstrate that you have any understanding of such a thing.