God exists

What Pro so kindly left out was this in the source “ X-ray emissions from the double-star system Cygnus X-1 convinced many astronomers that the system contains a black hole. With more precise measurements available recently, The evidence for a black hole in Cygnus X-1 -- and about a dozen other systems -- is very strong” All of this evidence is the impact of black holes. The speed of clouds, Motion of material. All observations. It is more concrete than that. X-ray emissions convinces astronomers on the black hole. For a scientist to be convinced it would require evidence. Astronomers have seen the evidence and agree to black holes. Where is the convincing evidence for God? I then argue that this "something" must be intelligent in order for such unprecedented preciscion to be achieved. I found this to be an argument from intelligence design. The problem with this is that isn’t God intelligence. What created it? No, The unmoved mover was never created and is primordial. If this isn't true, The universe breaks because of thermodynamic equilibrium. I remember when you said something later on the lines of this " There's no evidence that god doesn't exist, Therefore god exists. " This can be seen as a false dichotomy or an argument of ignorance. Since without God something bad would happened it points to God. That is your argument without realising we have yet to have an understanding on the origins of everything. Stephen Hawking on the topicNote that Stephen Hawking did not use his scientific credibility to point to God. The reason is it would be an unfalsifiable claim. If we cannot even perceive God we cannot test or measure its accuracy. If you think we have evidence that proves the existence of God do tell. The black hole is different. It is a name for a really powerful gravitational field. God with Its many titles cannot be tested because the lack of evidence. All-powerful, All-knowing etc cannot be tested. It has to exist or everything breaks. False dichotomy. Not knowing every possible starter of the universe makes this an argument of ignorance. We can observe god's impact in the world through irreducible complexity, The information content of biology, And the mere existence of the universeGod is unfalsifiable. You pretty much make it clear here. We can test the impact but not when the supposed creature did the impact is what you are saying. It is unfalsifiable. We cannot test for such a being or provide evidence yet you move the goalposts to actually have position by stating God’s impact which falls flat because everything can be equated to God. I pointed out that Judaic and Christian thought both agree that both of these groups are worshiping the same godI don’t know where you got that from. The problem is the worshiping part. All three of them worship in a different way with their various rituals. Meaning if they are following the same God only one of them can be true or what is most likely none of them are. but because they are the only ones with a real concept of hell. Real concept of hell? What is that? A phrase you just made up. If they had such a real concept of hell where is it and how did they come to that conclusion? If this is all you have for determining these Religions to be the main ones it does fall flat. I am still sticking by the Argumentum Ad Populum. The point of Pascal's wager is to avoid hell. Let’s say I grant you that. Which hell? Your argument for picking the Abrahamic Religions falls flat with scrutiny. 1010^123 number is Dr. Roger Penrose. Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t this the teleogical from fine tuning argument? The problem with that argument is that as far as we know life only exists on Earth. Meaning we cannot test other planets to know how life started. Another problem with this is stating only life can exist this way or we won’t exist is undermining the capabilities. You grant it so much yet you grant it so little with this argument. Objective morality does exist, And must for subjective moral thought to come about. What Pro does not realise he/she has been saying this multiple time without explaining him/herself. How can objective morality exist when people still murder, Rape, Steal? Why is lacking in Pro’s argument. Anything that is objective is just like mathematics. Slavery is wrong 100% of the time. Maths is not dependent on the person stating it morality is. A different person does not think slavery is wrong but if someone says 1+1=3 they are wrong. By lifting morality as high as maths you are undermining your point and with the 100% number. What about bondservants which is accepted by Christianity? They were wrong about slavery by your stance yet you think they can be right about other things. A God can make no mistakes would be your stance so basically the Pascal’s wager pretty much becomes almost impossible for a God to exist by your narrow standard of only Abrahamic Religions and slavery being 100% wrong. If the serial killer believes that serial killing is acceptable then that person is wrong. How is he/she wrong? I found many of your arguments lacking the why aspect. shared set of principles. Right. Objective moral principles. Yes share. This does not make it objective. Shared set of principles does not point to objective moral principles so I would like you to explain yourself. If you meant objective as agreed/shared upon then it would be an Argumentum Ad Populum. The morality is not actually right instead a lot of people follow it. This is just how science works and you'll have to learn to accept it. Science requires evidence. God has none. Black hole does or if you don’t like the word then call it a really powerful gravitational field. He then proceeds to claim that I haven't accounted for any unknown information. This IS an argument from ignorance. But have you? I doubt not instead you allow the lack of evidence for God blind you into thinking that God is reasonable to believe exists. How is simply making an observation an argument of ignorance? I stated your position which in terms of God is of ignorance yet you state I am being ignorant. How does that work? that rejecting the unmoved mover (for some reason) breaks the universeWhy would it break? I can think of" it's the ONLY explanation that doesn't break the universeWhy again? With no success because they refuse to consider god as an option. Oh so now you are blaming scientist for believing in your supernatural being which cannot be observed in the natural world. By the way the black hole is a part of the natural world because we can perceive so you can’t compare God and black holes. God cannot be observed in our natural world. Physicists agree that the first cause must be atemporal, Incorporeal, And cannot occupy space in the conventional sense. Because none of these things existed before the unmoved mover brought them into existence. Would like to know what credible physicists said this or this is an argument of authority. Let’s say I grant you God exist in this one occasion. Which God? This has yet to be answered sufficiently. Sure Abrahamic Religions follow similar God’s but rituals are different between the three. Making it clear that 1 is right or all are wrong. A simple google search will lead you to find that we know that the unmoved mover exists in order to prevent the universe from breaking. Can you give me a source? I know of that have a concept of hell that people go to for not believing in the god of that religion are the three Abrahamic religions. Problem is that with what you do know it is tainted. Judaism hardly believes in concepts of heaven and hell. They still theorise what it might be like. One thing I agree with because that is only you can do is theorise until we have evidence of such a reality to exist. Even hell they see it as a washing machines cleansing the person’s soul. Meaning 2 of them believe in eternal damnation and the other has a heaven and a soul cleansing washing machine or they don’t know those concepts are true instead theorise. Sources used: What is the Jewish Afterlife like? (HAARETZ)Do Jews believe in Hell? (Chabad. Org)The Eternal Damnation of Hell (Abdullah Sameer)Why Eternal Damnation? (TrueChristianity. Info) In the meantime, Here's a source for the quote itself. http://www. Philosophicalsociety. Com. . . 's_take_on_god. Html Thank you for the source. It didn’t actually work because how buggy debate. Org is but I typed in a few words and found it. This is a bad source. It uses a quote from Fred Hoyle to make assumptions. Nowhere does it state it required him a lifetime of work to come to this conclusion you assumed it. I’ll lift what he said here: "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, As well as with chemistry and biology, And that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature" Note that Fred Hoyle is an Astronomer and Cosmologist. Having no real credibility in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. This in mind it wouldn’t be a professional opinion if this was the scientist you used to make the argument that God exists using chemistry, Physics and biology. Upon more research I found this was part of his paper called: The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Reflections are not facts instead an observation of particular events. In this it would be the past and present day in 1982. Read it and here is a quote: “When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link, It's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, More than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. ” If the Universe was fine-tuned by the most powerful being it would not have “useless arrangements” unless intentional. Which then requires the Pro said to give an answer why. Source: Google: the universe past and present reflections (It is the pdf file) Don’t have space left.