The Christian God exists (4)

Please note that I did not state simply “greatest in the universe” as you said but rather “the greatest inside or outside the universe whether they be physical or non-corporal”. I wish to point out to the judges that you initially failed to define God with any specific attributes other than being the “Christian God” in the beginning of the debate. As I pointed out Christians and other faiths view God as the “Supreme Being”. [1] As a result in this debate I need not prove that God has particular attributes, but rather only that He exists which was the initial title of the debate. This, as you have agreed, I have logically done. You also said: “I argue that the best that ca be observed is what we'll have to settle for, as if something is better than what we can now observe yet we can't observe it, that makes it somewhat useless. If you can't observe the effects of god (which I argue), what use is he? If there's no evidence for him, why should we assume that he exists?” I would totally disagree. As physical human beings we can only observe that which is within our four-dimensional universe (space/time being the fourth dimension). The fact that you cannot observe something does not mean that it does not exist. One cannot “observe” true selfless love yet we all know that it exists. Your argument may be considered sound if our physical universe is all that exists. Science states differently when they speak of there being at least 11 dimensions rather than our four, each of which dimensions could have a universe of its own. A life form which has just one more dimension than our four could certainly interact within our four, because he has all of them, but because we do not have his fifth dimension we would never be able to observe him or know anything about him. That is, of course, unless he chose to leave clues to his existence. This high school kid’s explanation is actually extremely accurate. http://www.youtube.com... So the question becomes are there any beings like that and have they left indications of their existence? Based on the numerous apparitions and miracles which have been recorded through history the reply to that question is a resounding “YES!” One of the most dramatic was the much publicized “Miracle of the Sun” which took place in Fatima, Portugal in 1917. This event was witnessed by over 70,000 people who had gathered because an apparition of Mary had told 3 small children a month earlier that a miracle would occur at that specific time and place. This event was related in numerous newspapers around the globe including the New York Times; that it happened no one can deny. What the people witnesses was the heavy clouds part like a curtain and the sun seemingly zigzag across the sky with brilliant colors, then seemingly come so close to the earth as to touch it. It had been raining heavily and steadily for some time before the event, yet after the event the people’s clothes were completely dried as well as the ground. However no one was burned. No one has ever explained how ALL of these events could have occurred…. especially the prediction by three children. [2] That this could be called the “supernatural” is quite evident. And there are a growing list of scientists, atheists and agnostics among them, who credit the “supernatural” or “totally unexplainable” for the existence of life and many other features of our universe. “The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron …. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” -- Stephen Hawking [3] Although an atheist, Hawking acknowledges that the universe is “finely adjusted” to allow for life. Something cannot be finely adjusted without an intelligence to do the adjusting. We are brought back to the results of the first study. Is it an alien intelligence of supernatural one? Comments from other scientists: "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." -- Sir Fred Hoyle "For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." -- Robert Jastrow [4] “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think a scientifically proven fact.” – Robert Jastrow.[5] As a result of this I have sufficiently proven that the supernatural does exist and that there is a form of life or intelligence which has interacted with the physical world. Because of this we know that the “Supreme Being inside and outside of the universe” could not be “Fred the garbage man.” In regards to my first study you stated: “Basically, there are evident patterns in DNA which have less than a 10^-13 chance of occurring and look like they're intelligently designed.” First off I would like the judges to note that you asserted this statement concerning a study which I referenced that was done by prominent mathematicians and published in “Icarus”, the premier scientific journal concerning planetary science, and you did so with NO scientific backing of the statement. You are stating the “look like they are intelligently designed” and that they are about the same randomness which are found in snow crystals. However the scientists involved use stronger language than “looks like”. The bottom of the abstract states clearly: “The code is shown to possess an ensemble of same-style precision-type patterns. `58; The patterns are shown to match the criteria of an intelligent signal.” [6] That they “match” the criteria of an intelligent signal are far stronger than they “look like” an intelligent signal. Likewise comparing them to the crystalline structure of snowflakes does not work because DNA strands do not respond like snowflakes whose pattern is completely random. Rather DNA passes along specific information inherited from the parents. The randomness found in a deck of cards and that eventually a specific pattern will occur likewise does not hold because the DNA intelligent pattern appears in every sample tested. http://www.sciencedirect.com... Concerning the second study you said: “Kids who are five years old or under find it easier to create a god of the gaps because they see no other solution or would rather comfort themselves than face a harmful truth. Many children also have imaginary friends for the same reason, so that they can comfort themselves in the face of a cold reality.” Once again I ask the judges to note that you are asserting your own opinion over that of the scientists who conducted the study. The study was led by Dr. Justin Barrett from the Centre for Anthropology and Mind at Oxford University. He drew on research from a range of disciplines including anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and theology. They directed an international body of researchers conducting studies in 20 different nations that represented both traditionally religious AND atheistic studies. [7] Nowhere in the abstract was there any mention of “God of the gaps” which is a traditional evasion tactic employed by many atheists. You likewise said: “… since there's no evidence to cause people to lean one way or another (bsides religious propoganda), it seems only natural that humans would like to think that the more comforting option is true.” Once again I point out that your statement is your personal opinion whereas mine was the result of legitimate scientific research. Your final statement is in grave error: “As for your last paragraph, I'd argue that if intelligent design were in fact the method by which the universe came about, it would much more likely be by aliens than God. Also, a belief in God is not in our DNA, every baby is born agnostic.” You state that the intelligence responsible for the discovered design is far more likely to be alien, yet once again you give no support or explanation for that statement. I have pointed out how the logical conclusion from the two scientific studies is that it would be more likely that it was a Supernatural Intelligence. You failed to answer my question which I left you: Why would an alien species which was so obviously incredibly more advanced in both knowledge and intelligence preprogram us to believe in God unless they themselves also did? Your final statement that “all babies are born agnostic” is likewise untrue as has been proven by my second study stating that humans are PREdisposed to believe in God and an afterlife. The only way that we could be predisposed to anything is if it were encoded in our DNA. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.montana.edu... http://www.montana.edu... as quoted by B. Durbin, “A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow,” Christianity Today, Vol. 26, 6 August 1982, p. 15 http://www.sciencedirect.com... http://www.ox.ac.uk...