God exists 2- the revival

Hi everyone. This is part two of my "God Exists" Question. I have some proof as to absolute evidence of God's existence. Read my challenges and then feel free to give your opinions. Please don't be mean though.

God must exist and here is the proof.

In an attempt to explain the Universe, theorists declare that there must be "dark matter" pressing the galaxies together! But there is no evidence that such fanciful stuff exists. It takes a lot of imagination to hold evolutionary theory together. The theorists declare that "97% of the universe is missing" They are speaking of the dark matter("exotic matter" which they cannot find.

Why are disk galaxies shaped like a disk? Astronomers say there is no explanation for what could place stars into galactic structural pattern. It surely is beautiful, with the globular clusters outside the disk, hanging in space like chandeliers,-- but how could random motions produce such balanced, artistic harmony?

Globular clusters are extremely stable, yet they ought to be the most unstable objects in the universe. The stars within globular clusters ought to all be crashing into one another. The organization of stars within clusters is fabulous. Any non-thinking force capable of bringing these tens of thousands of stars into the globular cluster-would have crushed them all together.

Globular clusters rotate separately, and even pass through the plane-without colliding with any stars! Evolution cannot explain this! These clusters are fantastic balls of stars, each one scattered above and below the galactic plane of island universes.
How could all those stars get into that cluster, with absolutely nothing outside the cluster for many light-years? How could they all be there, without crashing into one another or flying out from the cluster? Even super clusters have a definite order and arrangement. One or two giant elliptical galaxies are usually in the center of each cluster.

Stars never get closer than a certain distance from one another (3.5 light-years apart). More than one half of all stars that we can individually examine through our telescopes are binary or multiple star systems.

Scientists say that after the Big Bang there were nebulas, gas-clouds. But how will gas get into stars and planets when gas gravitates into a solid. Experiment: gas supposed to push itself into solids. We will help it along, by starting with the high-pressure propane tank in your backyard. Fill it as full as possible, thus helping to push the gas together. Wait and check periodically. The contents should change themselves into a solid. Then open the valve to see how the situation is proceeding: all the contents will rush out.

Gamow, a well-known scientist and science fiction writer Originated the "Big Bang" theory. Science fiction is all it is.

If the nuclear force were only one part in a hundred stronger or weaker than it now is, carbon could not exist, and carbon is the basic element in every living thing. It would be impossible for evolution to produce the delicate balances of these forces. They were planned.

"It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it… One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe".

The mass of the neutron must exceed that of the proton in order for the stable elements to exist. But the neutron can only exceed the mass of the proton by an extremely small amount --an amount that is exactly twice the mass of the electron. That critical point of balance is only one part in a thousand. If the ratio of the mass of the proton to neutron were to vary outside of that limit-chaos would result. If it were any less or more, atoms would fly apart or crush together - and everything would be destroyed. A Master Designer planned that the proton's mass would be slightly smaller than that of the neutron. Otherwise the universe would collapse.

If the nuclear force were only one part in a hundred stronger or weaker than it now is, carbon could not exist, and carbon is the basic element in every living thing. It would be impossible for evolution to produce the delicate balances of these forces. They were planned

Why would matter that is ever expanding outward toward infinity, suddenly stop and reverse its direction? If all matter had finally moved into the outer perimeter of the universe, that is where the center of gravity would be.

Why would matter want to reverse and move back away from the gravitational field? The universe could not collapse inward unless there were ten times as much matter in the universe as there now is. This is the "missing mass" problem. Evolutionists try to solve it by theorizing that 97% of the mass in the universe is "dark matter" which cannot be located, seen, or identified with any scientific instruments.

All the matter, shooting back inward, is supposed to collide in one miniature point. In reality, speed would carry everything past that central stopping point.

If you read official explanations, you will see a preoccupation with the DEATH of stars and descriptions of COLLIDING and MERGING and CANABALISING galaxies that are SMASHING together. In what we are seeing most often is the birth of galaxies and quasars not their deaths. And, instead of collision, the separation of parent and offspring.

So, modern mainstream astronomy is full of "illusions" and "mirages"(their explanation of why we should not believe our eyes) and "strange and dark" energy, matter, "neutron stars" and "black holes", none of which have ever been seen or photographed but whose existence they continually invoke in order to save their otherwise failed theories.

One argument of the "Big Bangers" is that the background radiation in the universe is from the Big Bang , but the background radiation is omni-directional. Background radiation comes from every direction instead of one. Background radiation" is actually a slight amount of heat given off by stars throughout the universe. Would they not be expected to emit a very faint amount of heat into outer space? Background radiation is too smooth. The theory requires that it be much more irregular and "lumpy" (with "density fluctuations" in order for it to explain how stars could be formed from the Big Bang explosion.

Angular momentum is another serious problem. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one another? How could the super-fast linear (straight line) motion, started by the supposed Big Bang, have changed into rotation (spinning or revolving motion) and revolutions (orbiting motion)? How could angular momentum exist-and in such perfectly balanced orbits throughout space? There is no possible way that floating gas could transform itself into rotating and orbiting objects, like stars, planets and moons.

Push marbles in toward a common center, the marbles would not begin rotating or circling after they reached it. Matter-origin theories cannot explain why stars spin. The theorists tell us that stars somehow started spinning; but, with age, they slow down. Yet some stars spin faster than either "younger" or "older" stars. Some spin once in less than an earth-day. The fastest, Hz 1883, has a spin period of only 6 hours.
Some stars orbit backward to that of other stars. The theorists cannot explain this. Saturn has 17 moons, yet none of them ever collide with the rings. The farthest is Phoebe, which revolves in a motion opposite to Saturn and its rings. There are three co-orbital moon sets; that is, each set shares the same orbit and chases its one or two companions around Saturn endlessly. Some of the moons travel clockwise, and others counterclockwise. How could all these moons and their movements originate by chance? In fact, every moon of the different planets is located at the precise distance to keep it from flying into or away from its planet. How could all this originate from a single explosion or collision?

To have such a huge body as the moon circling so close to us- without falling into the earth- is simply astounding. Scientists cannot keep their satellites orbiting the earth without occasional adjustments. Lacking such adjustments, the orbits decay and the satellites eventually fall and crash. Yet, century after century, our moon maintains an exquisitely perfect orbit around the earth. They should crash into one another or fly apart. Try circling two magnets with another; will they orbit one another or smash together?

Western scientists say the sun shine because of hydrogen explosions (nuclear fusion). The amount of mass/energy our sun would have to lose daily amounts to 4million tons [3.6 million mt] a second. The problem is the fusion process should produce lots of sub-atomic particles called neutrinos, and each square inch of earth's surface should be hit each second by a trillion neutrinos. Scientists have neutrino detectors in place and have searched for them since the mid-1970s, but hardly any arrive from the sun. This fact alone would appear to disprove the hydrogen theory of solar energy.

Although pseudo-intellectuals of the modern age who are incapable of even counting the hairs on their own heads will consider God a mythological figure, it is actually the foolish mythology of modern men to think that such a sophisticated apparatus as the sun, which provides heat and light for the entire universe, can function without intelligent administration.

After reading this proof is everyone convinced that God exists and that He created the Universe? Please give suggestions. Please answer the questions. Thank You.

...I didn't read them . The first proof was worthless, so I dismissed the entire list.

This is reasonable and typical behavior on my part. That's why I suggested you present just your best one, in a well thought out manner, unless your goal is simply to get the choir singing.

Silverwings and Orion, you both have lovely singing voices by the way.

Wowo, thanks for the research...

I am not a science person,and all of that stuff is over my head, I have all the proof that I need, however, many do not, and for them, I am very grateful to you for posting what you did.

I love this part:

Although pseudo-intellectuals of the modern age who are incapable of even counting the hairs on their own heads will consider God a mythological figure, it is actually the foolish mythology of modern men to think that such a sophisticated apparatus as the sun, which provides heat and light for the entire universe, can function without intelligent administration.

God bless you...

here here well done masterful BBB! Keep up the good work!

I have read some of what you posted. Here is part of what you said that is so true!

"Angular momentum is another serious problem. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one another? How could the super-fast linear (straight line) motion, started by the supposed Big Bang, have changed into rotation (spinning or revolving motion) and revolutions (orbiting motion)? How could angular momentum exist-and in such perfectly balanced orbits throughout space? There is no possible way that floating gas could transform itself into rotating and orbiting objects, like stars, planets and moons."

God bless you BB

1) theorists declare that there must be 'dark matter' pressing the galaxies together! But there is no evidence that such fanciful stuff exists

Of course there's evidence, that's why they theorize it. Although we can't see it, we can directly observe it's effects through gravitational lensing. By the way, it need not be 'fanciful'. 'dark matter' is a synonym for 'we can detect gravitational effects that we haven't accounted for.

I don't see how this is any kind of proof, let alone even evidence of a god. Are you suggesting that god is directly manipulating the gravitation of the galaxies in a supernatural but deterministic manner?

These types of long lists of 'proofs', each of which is no proof at all, serve only to get the choir singing (I see they're singing in unison already), and to get you categorized as a nutjob by everyone else. May I suggest presenting just 1 well thought out proof, rather than a giant list of junk proofs?

To Toadly:
Wait a minute, what's wrong with all the other proofs?

To Todaly: Okay Todaly think about this don't you think it is highly unlikely for our planet to be placed so comfortably in the habitable zone of our Sun. Any closer and our planet would be too hot and any farther and it would be too cold for humans to exist. Our Earth is perfectly situated 93 million miles away perfect for most forms of carbon based life. We rotate around the sun at just the right speed so that it is dark when we are tired. Do you think it is a coincidence that the Sun stays up for just the right amount of time and not 23 hours a day or 1 hour a day, which would mess up the biological system of humans? How about the moon? Is it a coincidence that we have a moon that just happens to be the correct distance from the Earth to slow down its rotation, create tides in order to produce life on Earth, and help grow vegetation? Since scientists say there is no life among the 70 sextillion stars and the decillions of planets and moons that revolve around them, the chance that even one bacteria would be created on Earth by chance is only 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 1 in 1 Decillion atleast. These don't look like good odds in Atheism's favor. Those odds of life being created naturally are only 1 out of 1 decillion of a chance. Have you ever seen worse odds for anything? So if we would have to guess and use probabiltiy there is 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that God made the Universe and a 1 out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that life developed without a God in the Universe. So what odds are you going to beleive 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 out of a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance or a 1 out of a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance? Come on be reasonable you are beleiving in a 1 in a Decillion chance that is like beleiving that you will live to be a Nonillion (10^30) years old and on every day of your life you will win the lottery and get struck by lightenening eleven times. There might be a one in a decillion chance that this might happen also. You could say that Empire State Building, The Sears Towers, all the skyscrapers in the world and all of the cars and roads in teh world were actually naturally built by gravity and that none of it is manmade. There might be a 1 out of a decillion chance that this could be true, but there is a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999 percent chance that humans made all the skyscrapers, cars and roads on the Earth and that it didn't just naturally occur.

no, and I didnt even read half of it. ill never be convinced that he does exist.
did you know that no one has actually SEEN any of the galaxies, ect with there own eyes, all this is done with computers. and why are you trying you convince everyone that he does exist. you cant please everyone, so why try?

*** "don't you think it is highly unlikely for our planet to be placed so comfortably in the habitable zone of our Sun."

All you've done is to assume there is a purpose the specific life found on our planet, observe that our planet has such life, marvel at the odds that a planet suitable for this life would have this life on it, and then conclude the original assumption that it must have a purpose. This is called 'begging the question', a common logical fallacy that pretty much all the ontological arguments suffer from.

To Jazlovestoskate:
With the naked eye you can actually see the Andromeda Galaxay as a fuzzy patch but with a normal telescope you can see other galaxies, and if not astronomers can see many galaxies with their huge telescopes. Wait a minute why do you answer my question if you didn't even read it all the way or even read all of the posts on the question?

...by the way, the rest of that post is completely unsubstantiable, so once agin, I'm not going to bother with it.

bbb, is this really the best you can do?

To Toadly: You may not be aware of this but you are creating a logical fallacy too. Its called Ad Ignorentium. Which states just because you can't prove something to be true, that doesn't make it false. So even if nobody can prove that God exists, that does not mean that he does not exist. To say that God doesn't exist is a logical fallacy.

Actually, bbb, it is you who are using the Ad Ignorantium argument, by saying "there is no way blahblahblah" when you can't even understand the arguments scientists use to explain things. Angular momentum is simply not a problem.

To take your last "argument" alone. "To say that God doesn't exist is a logical fallacy." Substitute any other debatable entity, such as fairies, leprechauns, Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Bless His noodly appendages). Do you agree that to say they don't exist is a logical fallacy? If not why not? Same goes for God/dess/es.

Life is fine-tuned for the universe - not the other way around. And this is what we'd expect based on evolutionary theory.

"Why are disk galaxies shaped like a disk? Astronomers say there is no explanation for what could place stars into galactic structural pattern. It surely is beautiful, with the globular clusters outside the disk, hanging in space like chandeliers,-- but how could random motions produce such balanced, artistic harmony?"

To address this and many other of your 'proofs': Assume for a moment you're correct. How does this prove god exists? More specifically, how do this prove the christian god exists?

If you're going to post something like this, you need to at least give some credible references. I don't really accept things like "scientists have said..." or "astronomers say" because, quite frankly, most of what you've attributed to these "scientists" is wrong.

"Astronomers say there is no explanation for what could place stars into galactic structural pattern."

There are multiple explanations for why disc galaxies have the shape they do. Here is one of the most recent based on data from the Hubble telescope
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=24480

"Any non-thinking force capable of bringing these tens of thousands of stars into the globular cluster-would have crushed them all together."

Well, for starters, globular clusters have a very high rate of star collision and near-collision, which is why you have some very unusual stars that form in those types of galaxies. But globular clusters are very chaotic, there is no logical reason behind their existence.
http://seds.org/MESSIER/glob.html

"Scientists say that after the Big Bang there were nebulas, gas-clouds."

What do you mean, after the Big Bang? You gloss right over most of the history of the early universe. The universe went through several stages which are vital to understand how photons, fusion, and eventually matter itself, came about. It was a long time, as in eons, after the Big Bang that quasars and other stars started to form, as well as nebulas and gas clouds.

I suggest you read Simon Singh's book Big Bang: The Most Important Scientific Discovery of All Time and Why You Need to Know About It

"A Master Designer planned that the proton's mass would be slightly smaller than that of the neutron. Otherwise the universe would collapse. "

Then how do you explain the fact that the universe predates the formation of protons and neutrons? Those baryons, as they're called, were formed from quarks. That protons and neutrons are the mass they are is the result of the quark-gluon plasma of the universe cooling, which formed other baryons and hadrons as well, the physics of which has been proven.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html

In addition, when the universe was in its initial stages, protons, neutron, and other hadrons WERE in fact colliding with other anti-hadrons and anihilating each other. The result of all this early chaos was that most of the early universe was composed of photons, and these are what would interact with protons and electrons for several eons. The universe today, as we know it, is composed much differently than it was when protons and neutrons were first formed, largely because of the formation of stars which themselves process elements and compounds, including during their death. Life itself would not be possible without the heavier elements produced by stars during their death.

"The theory requires that it be much more irregular and 'lumpy' (with 'density fluctuations') in order for it to explain how stars could be formed from the Big Bang explosion."

It only appears smooth on a very large scale. Upon closer examination, there are deviations from the smoothness, and the universe in several places is actually quite lumpy.

"There is no possible way that floating gas could transform itself into rotating and orbiting objects, like stars, planets and moons. "

The process is far more complicated than that. You make it sound like some sort of magic has to be performed in order to get stars and planets, and it seems to me like you're regurgitating what you've read about the incomplete parts of these theories and then adding your own interpretation, which is based on a poor understanding of astronomy and astrophysics.

I don't know where you've been getting your information, but so much as been discovered about planet and star formation in the last few years that it's created a lot of buzz in the scientific community. Here's an interesting article about something Hubble observed a couple years ago about planet formation. It does ineed come from the gasceous, dusty discs around stars.
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/physik_astronomie/bericht-71713.html

"How could the super-fast linear (straight line) motion, started by the supposed Big Bang, have changed into rotation (spinning or revolving motion) and revolutions (orbiting motion)? "

What "straight line" motion are you talking about? The expansion of the universe did not take place in a straight line; if that were the case, the universe would have a definite center and edges, which it does not. Curvature has been part of the universe since it began; if you travel through the universe, you will travel along a curve, and if you travel long enough, you will eventually return to where you started, or a point near it. The fact that matter within this universe is in motion is simply the result of gravity and inertia.

"Scientists have neutrino detectors in place and have searched for them since the mid-1970s, but hardly any arrive from the sun. This fact alone would appear to disprove the hydrogen theory of solar energy."

When I read this, I almost decided not to reply to your post at all, because it became clear to me that you were making things up. Putting aside that detecting neutrinos is very hard because they have almost zero mass, it was impossible in the 1970s because of technology. We've been able to detect that the earth is in fact bombarded with neutrinos from the sun constantly, and we've been able to do it for quite some time now.
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/neutrino.html

Here's the deal, bbb. You wrote this big, long post with all of this supposed evidence against the Big Bang theory, when most of it has been refuted already, and some of it is so poorly explained that nobody can even understand what you're talking about. And yet, despite attacking the Big Bang theory, you offer not a single proof that anything in the universe was fashioned by a supreme being. All you resort to, which is the same as ALL creationists, is: "a god must have done it all, it's too complicated to have happened otherwise". That is rubbish, and it has no place in science. I continue to hope that my kids never have to suffer through the dribble that is offered by creation "science".

To Toadly: True but, if you say that there isn't a God like you have before than it is a logical fallacy.

Oh, I am so sorry now I understand science. Science is basically reading the title of a question, maybe the first sentence of an argument and saying something is false. Oh I guess I was mistaken the entire time. I thought science was about carefully reading the argument and the proofs completely and then thinking them over. After that I thought science was about responding to each of the individual proofs and explaining what is wrong or illogical about them. My mistake, I didn't know science was just about reading the first sentence of an argument and from there concluding the entire thing to be false. Nice thing to know, maybe next time I take a Science Exam I should just read the title of the exam and the first question and whatever I get for the first question True or False I should apply it to all of the questions on the exam. Wow thanks for enlightening me. I actually thought science was about responding to each of the indivdual arguments and giving explanations as to why it is wrong or right. I didn't know it was only based on biases and the first question.

BBB didn't ya know that 'science' is sooo smart that they don't need to know what you said or what you think, because they are always right, no matter what? LOL yea, think again!

Don't fool yourself BB, your entire comments have been read and guess what, they KNOW you are right, but can't prove their side so they just say "...I didn't read them . The first proof was worthless, so I dismissed the entire list. " Come on! Give me a break!

orion, I just read your comment. I understand that it is frustrating to have someone read "half" an answer and draw a conclusion or read only certain responses and comment but sometimes it happens. if someone makes an outlandish or improbable statement right off, I usually skip the rest. I hope that you are not referring to only non-believers doing this because, on a question regarding 'christians thinking that women are weaker', I as well as others gave well thought out, detailed responses and silverwings stated that she didn't read all the comments but that she agreed with amblessed. I was offended and responded as such. it happens. my response to silverwings was definately not nice and I am sorry for that. your response on the 'god exists 2' question was rude and sarcastic. and quite honestly not what I would expect from you. you are a christian and as such have placed yourself into a leadership position as a moral compass. you will lead more people to your christian views if you leave off the sarcasm and petulant, rude responses.
just because someone disagrees with you does not make it an affront to your very being.
and if you want to lead people to christ and show them "the way" clean up your act.
if you talk the talk, you should walk the walk.
if not, you are doing a disservice to christ and quite honestly being a poor witness.
'God asks all of His children to believe, to have faith that He is real and to follow His laws. If your faith is strong and you desire to live with God forever, then you will see Him face to face. God bless you!'
that is a quote from one of your answers. compare that with your above gleeful and rude response.
which one do you think non-believers will pay more attention to?

bbb.b,
"You may not be aware of this but you are creating a logical fallacy too. Its called Ad Ignorentium. "

No I'm not. I've made no claim here except that your proofs are worthless, which I demonstrated. ...no argument from ignornace there.

"True but, if you say that there isn't a God like you have before than it is a logical fallacy."

Sorry, but that isn't correct. I never claimed I could prove the nonexistence of gods. My claim is that god beliefs are generally unreasonable and unsubstantiable. My claim that gods don't exist is an ordinary inductive claim, not a deductive claim. It's no different than saying "Leprechauns don't exist", or "Tom Sawyer doesn't exist". I could possibly be wrong on both counts, but it's unreasonable to expect that.

orion, I disproved the first item in the list. Can you please tell me why any sane person would give 2 seconds of thought toward the rest of the list after seeing that the first item is of the poorest imaginable quality? It's obviously an attempt to overwhelm opponents with mountains of horse hockey, knowing that it's easier to create horse hockey than it is to digest it.

If you want to aid the discussion instead of just singing the praises of everyone who reinforces your preconceptions, why don't you pick the best item from the rest of the list - since you obviously read it and analyzed it (you did of course read it and analyze it before effectively demanding I do that, didn't you?) - and I'll be happy to address that ONE point. If your point is worth half a thimble of spit, I'll agree to analyze a second, and so on.