Is there any proof God exists?

Post Reply New Topic

Ah.. dam restrictive editing thingy..

ForGET 'my' musciK video to better illustrate IN THE ART OF GOD..

THAT SLINGSHOT THINGY i AM talking about.....

And here IT IS..

IN Centuries....

past and present @

HERE.

I seem to pop into the forum about once a year - curiosity, I guess. Hoping things will have changed? Helpful hint - no clear evidence for change spotted in this groundhog's environment.

Just for the record - I have no evidence I exist. Cogito - ergo I THINK I am, said the Little Engine that [maybe] Was.

Postulate - if as often suggested A cannot create A, but only A -x - something less, how does A-x prove A exists? My computer may guess there in a User, but can hardly prove it.

Fact of life - which we simply have to put up with, whether Theists or Atheists, Gnostics or Agnostics [and I DO know what I am doing with parallelism] - you cannot by most standrards of proof prove God or gods - which by most accepted standrards of proof does not DISPROVE God or gods.

So, Brother Pascal, we live with it until all bets are off.

Proving reality exists is a waste of to me...

But never the less, welcome back for a moment of now..

It would have to get around to this depth of absurdity... although there is more.

However, I can prove that you think you exist by just punching your (maybe) non-existent self in the nose. The things you crack-pots come up with is beyond belief. I wouldn't believe that a human intellect could be so insanely degraded if I hadn't seen so many instances of it.

I will contend that an uncaused First Cause is a logical necessity.

Although I know full well that falsifying one option does not "prove" an alternative, but it does remove the falsified option from the list of possibilities.

The only instance of a "Klein Bottle" is a Materialist with his head in his own arse.

No. You cannot rely on me to jump on socially, politically "correct" band wagons. I will develop this aversion to fashionable stupidity as time permits.

C'mon David......too early in the morning for this. How are the wife and kiddies?

The wife is as grumpy as all-get-out and the kiddies are feasting on nonsense. Perfectly usual!

If your worldview includes the existence of God, then, yes, you're absolutely right. But you cannot assume that every worldview allows for God to exist. My opinion on this is less that people don't know God exists and more people don't want God to exist--wishful thinking. But regardless, put yourself in their shoes. If your worldview is founded on the precept of God's non-existence, then logically, NO, an uncaused cause is NOT a logical necessity. The reason why it's not a logical necessity is that there are documented, peer-reviewed hypotheses that suggest that the universe or Big Bang weren't actually preceded by a singularity. Without a singularity, it is difficult to say that the universe ever began to exist. The cosmological argument in part depends on the Big Bang and the necessity for a First Cause. There are other questions, of course, such as whether the First Cause is personal or impersonal. But none of that matters if you can't firmly establish the fact of origins theories in the first place.

I'm not a well-educated scientist…I have a master's degree in music composition, so any string theory that doesn't apply to violins, brane theory that doesn't apply to drums, and wave theory that doesn't involve filtered saw/triangle/pulse waves or sine waves ordered by harmonic ratios is mostly lost on me. What little bit I've picked up here and there, though, does seem to point to a beginning of some sort. As to the exact nature of that beginning, well, we can't empirically know that with any real certainty. The kinds of people you're arguing against here really, REALLY don't like using the F-word to describe it, but it's nothing more than what we believers possess. If we're being completely intellectually honest, F**** in God is as practically good as F**** in anything else. Perhaps you have no chance at all of actually moving the needle in this discussion--but you lack even the HOPE of moving that needle if you fail to understand that much.

One of the first things I did when I started posting faith-based responses was I refused to mock opposing viewpoints. Disagree, yes. Support and defend my own ideas, yes. Attack and belittle others, NO. And I didn't tolerate my opponents treating me that way, either. It took a long time. I learned who to dialogue with and who to pretend didn't exist. I learned to tell the difference between someone opposing my ideology and someone who was abusing me--and I WAS abused by at least two users. A lot of "those" atheists and agnostics either left WP or were banned. I don't entirely agree with how some of that was handled, but, at any rate, PPR is much friendlier than it used to be without devolving into an echo chamber.

I think, while we want to watch out for "those" atheists or anti-theists, we should be even more vigilant that we don't become "THOSE" Christians, either. I stand by the Bible and by my faith in Christ. I won't deny in the slightest how I feel on certain moral and political issues. I won't budge one bit on the evangelical message that all should repent and be saved. But I also know you can't fight hatred with hatred. No apology built on hateful mockery can stand. If you want a meaningful discussion, you should start by encouraging positive responses to positive challenges. All you're going to get for mocking another POV is mockery in return.

Dent and I have been there. I don't get the impression he feels any seething hatred towards me, even if he does feel that way about what I believe. I often don't respond, not for lack of will, but for lack of time, and the kinds of challenges I get from Dent go a lot deeper than what I'm usually prepared for. I don't doubt what I already know to be true. But good responses are going to require a lot more digging and a lot more study. I DON'T try to mock or belittle Dent. We throw the old saws back and forth, we both trot out the classic arguments/counterarguments, but he strikes me as more than reasonably intelligent. So I think we've managed to avoid a lot of the amateurish, trollish behaviors that others have exhibited.

I firmly believe we need more people of faith in here. You're more useful here than not. I'd rather focus on longevity than asserting my own correctness through belittling others. Trust me on this…I've had "official" warnings called on me for less than that. Please, PLEASE adjust your tactics to be more consistent with your faith.

Are your kids into mass culture, David---or are they philosophical in outlook?

Well said, AngelRho. Since I grew up in the Christian faith but have for many years been increasingly a free thinker as we really don't know very much. I can see both viewpoints and try to reconcile them. Some of the main reasons why I am no longer a fundie or prepared to go along with their views, include: the violence and petty cruelty of most of the Old Testament, the continued intolerance shown by among others Paul even in the New Testament and inability to change with the times, increasing scientific knowledge showing proof of evolution and the fact that we are truly tiny in comparison with the mighty universe out there.

The more we know, the more there is to know! None of us can say we have all the answers. Life is a learning process and despite the fact that nothing on earth is perfect, it is still miraculous, however one views God or whether or not one believes in Him or Her. For instance, we are still unable to synthesize life or ask even the most advanced computer to create a puppy or even a simple DNA life structure for us...

I appreciate your apparent good will in trying to give me lessons in political correctness and social aptitude. However, I didn't get to be an odd bod by sycophantically following either. I'd rather be lonely than be a fashionable idiot.

If a lack of sympathy for inveterate idiots is "belittling" then so be it. I'm not new to this nonsense and I don't believe that appeasement will either soften Materialistic superstition or give the naïve and credulous a good reason to doubt the egomaniacal enticements.

I still contend that reality and reason require an uncaused First Cause that even Plato, without any Bible, was able to deduce. In another thread it will be explained why the Bible is of no significance in philosophy (science).

No. They (she) is excruciatingly, unquestioningly ordinarily following NT fashions. The telly is the sole arbiter of goodness and truth.

I have noticed and appreciate how you don't use insults.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I do pity unbelievers. If I can do nothing else, pity is the least I have to offer. I've been called "intolerant," "homophobic," "ignorant," "patriarchal," "anti-science," you name it. I've even gotten warnings from mods for expressing scripturally consistent views. I'm no stranger to persecution on here. But there is a difference between "appeasing" someone for the sake of continued existence on here and weighing whether one can be true to one's faith, participating in discussion consistently with what we know about Jesus and the apostles. Jesus instructed us not to cast pearls before swine. Jesus often taught us to respect authority, pay taxes, etc., and overall avoid causing trouble. Paul taught slaves to buy their freedom if at all possible, or if they couldn't, to be good servants and thus good witnesses to those we're bound to rather than fight the system and show ourselves disruptive and disorderly (I think most of us can agree slavery is an evil institution that should be ended…with solution involving the least amount of bloodshed and negative impact on society being preferred). I think we have to assess whether we are worth more dead than alive before going down some altruistic path. I'm afraid a pattern of insulting people and eventually getting run off/thrown out makes a significantly less impactful statement to participants (and lurkers) here than if you found a way to gently express your views and portray something closer to the Christian ideal.

Do as your conscience dictates, of course. I'm just afraid the way you're going about it might do more harm than good.

AngelRho, I'm surprised to hear about that as you always seem do fair and never resort to any personal attacks. I think most of us admire the way you bring your points across.

It's difficult for me to express the way I really feel because I came out from a strong Baptist background but pair this with some of the clear contradictions found in the OT especially (e g do not kill according to Exodus and yet the mosaic law allowed for barbaric practices such as stoning) as well as inconsistencies such as what really happened to Judas: there are two clearly different and contradictory passages about that.

Therefore I can see opposing POV without taking offence or allowing myself to be shocked!

I place a high value on fairness. I don't believe being fair requires me to compromise on principle.


Ah, that… I used to get into these kinds of discussions all the time and at this point I find them too boring. I'll sum it up thusly: Where others see contradictory statements, I see complementary statements. "Do not kill" is a mistranslation. It often goes back to KJV, and it has been speculated that some of the choices made in the KJV were made to fit a political agenda. That specific commandment referred specifically to murder, and Mosaic law is pretty clear about that. The Judas incident probably referred to details omitted in one account and included in the other. They're just pieces of the puzzle, and if you read the passages together they actually work just fine. And that's not the only example. How about the two different genealogies of Jesus? Piece of cake. One referred to a biological line that would have been well-known, the other would include Levirate marriages, adoptions, etc., all linking Jesus to the line of King David and going all the way back to Adam. It is unnecessary to read contradiction into them.

Inexorably someone will post that big black chart with red curves scribbled all over the place linking all the supposed Biblical contradictions, like that's supposed to be earth shattering and completely subvert my worldview. *yawn* I've rarely gotten REAL discussions on those, and by this point I don't even really care. Most of that is easily debunked like the Judas incident, the commandment not to murder vs. capital punishment/war, how King Saul actually died, Jesus' genealogy…blah, blah, blah. And then there's the tired, old excuse "well, you just refuse to acknowledge contradictions and you're just being an unreasonable poo-poo-head." lol I don't even bother firing back on that one. It's just too obvious. It's good weight-lifting, target practice, training exercises for novice apologists. There aren't many anti-theists left around here who even bother with those, and if you're an opponent to Christian teaching--trust me, it's not worth YOUR time, either.


lol I know. Same here. We probably come from similar backgrounds, we just branched off into two different paths. I used to be fairly liberal, "open minded," etc., and the more I actually read the Bible and contemplated other religious beliefs, lifestyle choices vs. orientation, entry-level philosophy, politics, science, etc., the more difficult I found it to live consistently with my convictions. That led me, in a roundabout way, right back to my more conservative upbringing. But I came back to it because of, not in spite of, my love of learning and exploring. I'm fascinated by people who think differently. I consider all views valuable. After all, what if I'm wrong? If I'm wrong, what am I wrong about, exactly? And if I adjust, am I compelled to change my mind about something?

I don't have the same view of evolution that I had before. I think a thorough reading of Genesis allows for a preexisting heaven and earth prior to the creation account. Nowhere does Genesis require the seven days of creation to be consecutive days, though I do think they followed in the order presented. And I think that a whole lot of other things could have happened, even if we're not completely sure HOW. I do not believe that God granted Abrahamic or Christian peoples exclusive monopolies on wisdom--and if the Bible is correct and we all hail from a common tradition, then there is much ancient wisdom yet to be gleaned from other cultures and religions. ALL wisdom comes from God…so even if a religion or ideology is wrong on, say, the need for salvation, that doesn't mean that other concepts are untrue wholesale. Dionysus, a god who dies and is reborn, Greek and Hindu concepts of reincarnation--wow…who does that sound like? God sacrificing Himself in human form, Jesus instructing us to be "born again," loss of personal identity in Nirvana sounds a lot like the repurposing of the human soul for eternal, common worship in Paradise.

Oh, and I'm prepared to be wrong about any number of those things. I just find them though-provoking and fascinating. I am, after all, to love the Lord my God with my MIND, and I think it would be a travesty to be completely closed off to everything that's out there.

So…long winded way of saying few things shock me these days, either. I'm aware of how people feel about my opinions and my faith, so I don't worry THAT much about offending anyone myself. I'd rather offend someone because they're inclined to be disgusted by certain things than because I did/said something that genuinely hurt someone, intentionally or not. I don't bother being surprised or shocked, either. If people just want to talk, I'll listen, and I'll contribute if I think I have something valuable to add.

I hear this a lot and I disagree, whilst there are some who feel the "why is the suffering" argument denies an interventionist God (I don't care for this argument BTW) and there are some for whom the suffering they have experienced means they cannot believe in God, I do not think this is the major reason for non belief. I for one would love to wake up in a beautiful peaceful realm, where love and contentment envelopes everything to its very core. Why wouldn't I!

Clearly then my non belief does not emanate from a position of not wanting god to exist. Rather, it comes from an understanding of the natural world which leads me to realize there is no need for God. Energy/mass etc can be explained through purely natural means. Even if we agree for the sake of argument that an uncaused first cause is required, I would contend that if God can be this creative force then so can energy, after all it is reasonable to assume that your creative force would in part consist of some form of energy.

Alongside the knowledge of natural laws sits my love of history, and relative to this is my study of religious history, which clearly shows the man made nature of religion and religious texts, complete with revisions and blatant goal post maneuvering.

So it is not that I do not want God and heaven to exist, rather I see it as incredibly implausible and the concepts can be understood either from a time of fear and ignorance of the natural world or as a result of our own need for meaning and fear of death. I have no need to have an objective purpose in life, being alive is enough, however I do not wish to grow old and die. Unfortunately I cannot deceive myself into solace by the vehicle of faith. I think many people feel this way, some, maybe most, will not have delved as deep into the sciences and history as I have, but essentially they have come to the same conclusions I.E Religion is a relic of times when we knew very little about the natural world, and is continued purely as a vehicle of solace by a large group of people who need objective purpose to have a reason to exist.

Thank you for your kind words. If you were a deist I would have no reason to debate you, and from where I view your understanding of science this to me should be you default position, I find it astonishing that someone with your level of knowledge believes in the biblical creation story.

But anyhow it is good to debate with you. At least you get me looking up and learning about philosophical concepts, which I then disagree with