The Christian God exists (4)

You said: I hold the position that the physical universe is all that exists, and that no objects or beings that exist outside this universe or that are metaphysical have presented themselves, nor has any valid evidence been presented for their existence. Most physicists agree that more dimensions than our four exist. We only know of them because when they do interact with our 4-dimensions they leave behind “vibrations”. “Further, string theory suggested that the universe is made up of multiple dimensions. Height, width, and length constitute three-dimensional space, and time gives a total of four observable dimensions; however, string theories supported the possibility of ten dimensions – the remaining six of which we cannot detect directly. This was later increased to 11 dimensions ... These "strings" vibrate in multiple dimensions, and depending on how they vibrate, they might be seen in three-dimensional space as matter, light, or gravity. [1] The word “supernatural” is defined as: “of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil” [2]. Other dimensions would therefore certainly qualify as “supernatural”. That they do manifest themselves is shown by their vibrations. That supernatural beings have shown themselves has been shown by 20th Century history as witnessed by 70,000 people. You said: “All Christians also base their beliefs off some part of the Bible, as well.... Therefore, in this debate you must give some valid evidence that the God as described by the Bible exists.” I again disagree that I must provide evidence of anything but existence, as per the title of the debate. But I already gave evidence of the Supreme Being having the traits which are given Him. He is not be a part of the universe which I have shown via multiple dimensions. He is involved in the affairs of the world is shown by the various miraculous occurrences. There are strong indications that He is in fact the creator of the universe not only from the logical conclusions which can be drawn by the two studies I cited but also by ALL of the quotes from scientists who said that the UNIVERSE seems to be finely adjusted. An intelligence that “finely adjusted” the universe could not possibly be from within the universe, thus ruling out an alien species. Something like that could only be done by an intelligent creator. As Creator it logically follows that He must be omnipotent, etc. But as I said this discussion is unnecessary as they are not part of the original topic. In answer to the points in your rebuttal: 1. With love you mistake physical love or attraction, in which hormonal changes can be measured, for the true selfless love I spoke about. Acts of kindness may be observed, but selfless love cannot be observed or measured. 2. Your attempt to debunk the “Miracle of the Sun” by numerous contradictory explanations of how it happened fails. The people you cited were not there. None attempt to explain how various other aspects of the miracle occurred, such as how the people’s clothing and the ground became instantly dry. Nor did they explain how three children could predict the time and place of the event a month before. Of the seven eyewitnesses whose testimony was given in the article three were Doctors, including Dr. Garrett, Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University who said: "The sun's disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight."[4] Another credible eyewitness was Avelino de Almedia, a columnist for Portugal’s anti-Church but most widely circulated and influential newspaper, O Século. His previous articles about the earlier events at Fatima were highly satirical and he was there to discredit any so-called miracle. However after actually witnessing it he wrote: “Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, ...the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws — the sun 'danced' according to the typical expression of the people."[5] The testimony of eyewitnesses are always more reliable than statements made by people who are attempting to smear the event. 3. Referring to your quote from Hawking: "Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator". I agree that Hawking alternate theories to try to explain away the “fine tuning”. However your article goes on to describe one of the most controversial theories… that of a the “multiverse” where an infinite number of universes must exist or have existed for one to come into being that by chance has all the “fine-tuning” necessary for life to develop. “Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology....for it means that our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is just one of many.”[6] So the article you referenced is actually opposed to your statement that “the physical universe is all that exists”. Although the multiverse is not what this debate is about I do wish to point out that when I read his statement: “That the multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning”, I was instantly reminded of a college psychology class when the professor explained that when someone goes out of their way to state that they are “not trying to” do something, in most cases that is precisely what they are trying to do. This is emphasized by his use of the word “miracle”. It also completely overlooks the fact that even if it were true there had to be a start to the process and therefore had to be a FIRST cause. You are correct in stating that science says nothing direct about the existence of God. Science has discovered truths from which the existence of God can be logically deduced as I have pointed out in the two studies. You are incorrect in stating that the scientists I referenced have nothing relevant to say. They were not “scientists who believe in creation”; they distinguished scientists. In the group were also Hawking, an atheist, and Jastrow, an agnostic. Yet they all pretty much said the same thing which logically points to the existence of a supernatural intelligence. 4. Your stated opinion“I acknowledged several times that this was an almost impossibly unlikely chance that met the standards for intelligent design” does not hold against the legitimate scientific research which stated the opposite. I also fail to see what bearing your introduction of the “Theory of Natural Selection” has to do with any of the points raised in this discussion. This topic was not being discussed.5. No legitimate scientist would use such an unscientific term "god of the gaps". It is an evasion tactic as it attempts to reduce legitimate arguments with a sarcastic inaccurate comment. Your statement opposed to belief in an afterlife is another attempt to divert the discussion. Belief in the afterlife is not the topic. Your statement “if intelligent design is prove to be correct, it is more likely that aliens were the ones who designed us.” has already been logically and scientifically disproved. As I pointed out while the Icarus study suggest that an alien intelligence may be responsible for life on EARTH, please note that the quotes from the scientists were speaking about the intelligence that seems to be necessary for the UNIVERSE to exist. An alien life-form could not have created themselves nor the universe of which they are a part. This certainly IS valid evidence of a Supreme Being who is not a part of this universe. You said: “I can assure you with 100% certainty that human DNA is not encoded with a belief in god, that's not how DNA works. Your DNA determines things like your hair and eye color,...etc. It does not give you a predisposed moral compass and political standing.” The Icarus study I posted in the first round stated clearly that DNA is capable of passing along NON-biological information. So despite your “100% certainty” I already cited a scientific study that says you are wrong. That we are born with a "moral compass" has also been shown by study published in 2010. The description stated: “The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state," but new research contradicts this view. The researchers have found babies as young as six months old already make moral judgments, and they think we may be born with a moral code hard-wired into our brains. ...The results contradict the theories of Sigmund Freud and others, who thought human beings start out as “amoral animals”, or a moral blank state. Bloom said there is mounting scientific evidence that this may not be true and that “some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bone.”[7] Once again this is not a topic of the debate. Your statement “I see no valid evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god” contradicts your previous acknowledgement that a Supreme Being must exist. I have given scientific evidence which, if taken all together, can lead logically only to the conclusion that the intelligence behind the creation of the universe can only be supernatural in being. Although not necessary as a part of this debate I have also demonstrated how this being has the attributes which are generally assigned to Him. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] Ibid [5] http://online.wsj.com... [7] http://phys.org...