Is there any proof God exists?

Post Reply New Topic

You seem to be implying that empirical evidence should be used to sell laundry powder but not ideological fads.

Let's begin (again) with empirical evidence. It is evidence from observation and experiment. Simple!
I have, to the limit of my patience and endurance, already shown that "Evolutionary Materialism" is philosophically, physically, chemically, biologically, mathematically impossible according to all the empirical evidence that ever has been, or is now, available.

One would think that an ordinarily reasonable mind would think "Ooo! This is serious! I'd better look into it! I might have been duped."

But no. My experience suggests that there is a pathological irrationality that I will call "chronic intellectualistic narcissism". (I am supposing that we're mostly aware of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder kind of narcissism that eats people as if their only worth is food for the narcissist). This other kind of narcissist eats reason; that is, they arbitrarily assume that their opinions are the sum of reality and reason and they cannot conceive or comprehend any reality or reason that could transcend their convenience.

Fairly recently there have been a few idealised "Spergic" types appearing in media stories... socially uncomfortable and inept, preoccupied with analysis of everything (fair enough). But the egomaniacal fringe have jumped on the Band Wagon to gain sympathy and credibility.

I would hope that eventually there will be a "diagnostic" distinction between 'Spergics and narcissists... but I won't hold my breath.

Anyhow, pertinent to this thread; I contend that there is compelling evidence that an uncaused First Cause is a logical necessity. Uncaused First Cause does not imply anyone's fanciful idea of "God".

I also say that natural science (philosophy) is independent of any "scripture" or anyone's version or interpretation of such. The Bible is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

You've got me there. No argument.

You have done no such thing. All you've done is repeat over and over that something that doesn't exist can't cause itself to exist per the Big Bang. But you don't know that. You just assume that because you haven't observed it here on earth (although people with a better understanding of quantum physics than mine- which is a low bar- are showing that maybe that's not true). But who knows what happened before the Big Bang? You don't and I don't. Applying the label "God" to what happened does not increase your understanding. It just gives the illusion that you've figured it out.



Take a tip from AngelRho. Insults don't advance your argument.



It isn't a logical necessity. There could also be eternity-no beginning but only the appearance of a beginning because Big Bang is all we have evidence for. But how is Uncaused First Cause not your idea of God. What is God in every religion with a singular God but the Uncaused First Cause?



How bizarre. We agree. Natural science really is independent of scripture and the Bible is irrelevant to this discussion. Why then did you go on about geological evidence being falsified elsewhere if you aren't a Young Earth Creationist?

I just believe the best selling-point of laundry detergent is that it cleans clothes.

It's best when I see the results of two laundry detergents side-by-side.

When I first got into this kind of thing, I was prone to making similar kinds of statements. I thought that was acceptable. It was commonplace, SOP for anti-theists. As often happens, someone will hit me with something that completely stumps me, and in one particular case I recall being taken to task for ad hom arguments. Something similar happened over a strawman that I'd apparently used. Bear in mind it wasn't something I did consciously. It's just that I'd seen the other side use those tactics, figured it was fine, and I hadn't yet gone quite so far to see exactly where I'd gone wrong. So it was confusing when I'd borrow someone else's tactics and get the rug pulled out from under me. It's pretty obvious how to do that effectively: Make people responsible for their own mistakes.

The easiest way to call someone out on it is by doing nothing…ignore it and it will go away. Mockery answered with mockery just leads to more mockery. Stick to the facts and premises and that will get rid of most of it. Once a strawman or ad hom becomes a central part of argumentation, i.e. the discussion cannot survive without the mistake being present, that's a good time to call foul. The argument will fall apart by itself with no further help.

Did my eyes deceive me, or did Dent call me a prick earlier? Coming from Dent, that's actually a pretty high compliment. Thanks!

Anyway, not sure how much more useful I can be here. I think for the time being, I'm just gonna sit back and eat my popcorn. Y'all have fun now!

If you're still there, Angel Rho, this isn't really pertinent to the topic at hand but can you tell me who initiated the barbaric idea of stoning as described in the OT? And who was the wicked prophet who cursed a group of boys for teasing him, so that bears came from the woods to kill them? Just for being insulted. If the majority of Aspies did that today, there would be few folk left alive!

To be honest, if God truly exists He would be really high tech and much more advanced than us. On a far higher plane of cosmic consciousness. Not primitive and bloodthirsty as indicated in many parts of the Old Testament, which was written at a time in history when bloodthirstiness and brute survival was par for the course.

Well, you are NOT GOING TO get any clear distinctions between Asperger's Syndrome and Personality Disorders, as research shows they are commonly co-morbid conditions.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=5098828

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2705351/



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2705351/table/T4/

Narcissism is fairly rare and Anti-social Personality disorder is almost non-existent, per the study at hand.

Let's face IT.. even thoUGH IT.. IS heRe and tHere.. the Universe IS GOD per ALL that IS.. and Stephen Hawking.. a 'leader' of 'nerd scientists' alREADY suggests that the Universe createS itself.. without the need of another cause...

So even Stephen Hawking.. the KING OF NERDS.. agrees with you.. already as such...

What the hell are you really arguing about...

Or do you just like to argue to FEEL SOMETHING.....

A COMMON SYMPTOM... of something else....

Just another co-morbid..

per associated issues with Alexithymia..

Perhaps.. BUT I FOR ONE AM NOT GONNA ARMCHAIR YOU!..

I think David merely wants an escape--and his escape is arguing on WrongPlanet, playing the Iconoclast role.

He's actually a model citizen in real life. Then he puts on the cape...and all hell breaks loose in his mind!

I think that is the reason most folks are here, and it certainly was for me at first...

I left here for three months on an imposed 'leave of unpaid absence'.. and I DID NOT MISS IT AT ALL..

BUT THAT was before more open-minded thinking is allowed here.. as it is now..... by neutral moderation instead of moderation with an agenda....

Where open minds go.. i visit... where closed minds live.. i leave.....

I can dig that!

Pretty soon, you'll be leg-lifting half a ton!

I wish David could contribute more than condescending insults. Maybe share some real-life insights based upon real life.

I actually saw some decent substance from him in another subforum here.

Thanks Kraftie.. yes i agree.. and only IF the machine WILL allow more weight teetering over the edge at 930LBS i WILL only have 70LBS to go.. and or if there is a 'stronger machine' available in my metro area.. that there is currently not.. but considering i do the 930.. 12 times.. the half a ton thingy.. is already a safe bet.. at least around 8 reps..

It sure beats raising my arms over my head after eating.. and almost passing out.. or doing the same.. with a casual walk around the block.. in my illness days..

54 beats 47 any day of my life.. NOW.. even 'sweet' 16..17 or adult 21....

"It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out..."

I have no idea who initiated. But this goes along the same lines as God allowing for things like divorce and slavery. God knows the wickedness of the human heart. God wants us to totally depend on Him and to make that choice on our own. So things like that are allowed in order to make life more livable. The treatment of slaves as described in the OT allows for a system of justice that puts criminals to work rather than incarceration, impractical to a nomadic society, and automatic death or dismemberment for the smallest infraction. And, of course, if someone becomes a servant, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, that person is to be freed within a certain period of time and any unpaid penalties forgiven. Western slavery, while claiming to be modeled on Christian morality, seemed to conveniently overlook this minor detail. It also ignores why OT slavery was instituted in the first place. It was a means of restitution, but secondarily it also recognized that there were those who were especially gifted in servanthood in whatever capacity and would be willing to devote themselves to lifelong service to a master--in a professional capacity no different than maid/janitorial services, catering/restaurants, etc. Having a lifelong contract to someone freed you from having to regularly seek employment and protection any time your term came up.

Divorce predated the Israelites obviously. But, again, the institutionalized dissolution of marriage was tied to the ancient view of women as chattel property and as such gave divorced women certain protections. It's not because God wanted it that way, but rather because God knew it would happen. It served to ease something that was already unfair.

Capital punishment is an extension of lex talionis. While one can put a price on an eye or a hand, there is no price for a life. So justice compels society to take life for a life.

Stoning likely predated the Israelites. If God tells Moses that stoning is acceptable, it's in the context of any number of execution methods that are allowed. As I've said before, it gives everyone who has been hurt by the taking of life to take part in receiving justice as well as delivering justice to the guilty. After all, they are putting someone to death, not performing vivisection. If it were up to me, I can think of any number of worse ways to die. Honestly, though, I read stoning as a baseline, not an absolute. It's all about the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law.

But to answer your question, it's a human invention and if there is an answer for that, you won't find it in the Bible.


Oh, yeah, "Go up, Baldy." I think that was Elisha.

Well, a couple of things, here--what were teenagers doing bullying a known prophet? Did their parents not warn them about mistreating those called by God to do His work? I mean, that's just messed up. It sends a message. Or maybe their parents DID warn them. What did Moses say? Honor your father and mother so that you may live long in the land God gave you. Whether their parents did their job or not, it doesn't matter. They dishonored their families, and God fulfilled the law of Moses by cutting their lives short.

Yes, it's tragic. But it could have been avoided. Never punish God or anyone else for the sins that others commit. Place the blame and responsibility where it belongs.


Agreed, but I don't think the OT paints God as bloodthirsty. It paints people as bloodthirsty. And yes, you do have to take history into account.

But also, you have to keep in mind that "technology" is a human development. If God transcends physical reality, especially as an all-powerful being, there is no need for "technology" as God is plenty self-sufficient. It's only through God we can do anything at all. The trouble is that we have way too many assumptions going on, and perhaps the most significant assumption here is that the perfection of human beings over millennia isn't the best way to get the job done. For all we really know, given the state of fallen creation, how things went really was the best possible way God could have brought about His plan for our world and for us and the realities of the ancient world were necessary for US to learn those important lessons enough to, hopefully, rise above them and not repeat them. What is unfortunate for us, perhaps more for believers than atheists or anti-theists or agnostics, is there are religious fanatics who choose not to be content with that and insist on pulling us back into that world. I don't believe God wants necessarily to reteach all those old lessons, but as it is He holds us responsible to do that when the time comes for it. I just don't see the Western world being very proactive in that regard, so my suggestion is enjoy your technology while you have it.

Good stuff, and if I didn't have too much to do this week, I could stay here for days.

Yeah it was not meant to be nasty. Now best I read the rest of your diatribe so I can refute it.

Ok first up you are viewing slavery through incredibly rose coloured glasses. The only slaves to receive manumission were Israelite's, others received no such freedom and were salves for life as were any children born to them. In fact all the reasoning you give refers to Israelite's only. Slaves of all cultures could be sold as chattel. Even among the Israelite's it was legal for a man to sell his Wife and daughters into slavery for a period of up to 3 three years to clear HIS debts. So you are being somewhat dishonest in presenting it the way you have.

The rest of your statement sounds like a justification for the way ISIS is behaving, they are using laws founded around the same time as the ones you are defending and I dont think you or anyone else would find their behavior less than abominable.

As to you defending the actions of Elisha this sounds very much like the defence put up by a wife beater. "well you honour, we was having an argment and the b***h slapped me, so wot was I gonna do, I had to slap her around to teach her a lesson" "Wasn't my fault she ended up in a coma and now needs that tube to breathe, the b***h brought it on herself"

It is never ok for someone with far greater power to squash and kill someone who has displeased them.

You make a half heated appeal to modernity, and defend gods morality by suggesting that "he does not want to reteach those old lesson's" Sorry but that is a load of bull. We cannot compare subjective morality and accuse others in different times of being amoral by our subjective standards, but we can if that behavior is supposed to be objective and we have let those supposed objective morals in the gutter where they belong.

Yes.. a mind can be a beautiful thing to lose.. on occasion.. but only with a trust for return..

And by that i simply mean meditation.. the trance of free style dance.. or whatever creatively frees one's mind into feeling pro-social emotions and or other sensory feelings in regulation and integration.. yes.. freely.. without annoying little thoughts..

But of course a return to the verbal mind is a requirement for more concrete thinking for rules and order to get by in life.. in an increasingly complex cultural organism of many human minds....working together as is.. for whatever works now...