Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Is there any proof God exists?

Page 88 of 105 [ 1680 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 ... 105  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

sophisticated
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

02 Apr 2015, 2:06 am

Lintar wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
Lintar wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
Lintar wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
Lintar wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
There is no Easter Bunny there is no Santa Clause, there is no Tooth Fairy or Boogie Man, or Sand Man, Jack Frost is not real either and neither is God it is all mythology.


Otaku, this response of yours is truly idiotic. To equate God with Father Christmas just goes to show that you accept the inane ramblings of the current saints of 'New Atheism' (i.e. Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and their ilk), and haven't even made the effort to truly understand what it is you think you are rejecting.

Is this the sad, low level that disbelief has sunk to?
It is not sad it is a fact, belief is something children do so it is time to put away childish things! The stories about god and or gods can be found in the mythology section at your local library!


Putting away childish things. Isn't that what Jesus says in the Bible? Yes, I do believe he does!
The bible is childish obsolete and outdated it is nothing more than a book of mythology and fairytales as a means to guide a persons life, it is outdated and humanity no longer needs such obsolete primitive beliefs in order to get ahead in life! In short we don't need to believe in a god anymore we are more advanced and evolved to do so!


So people who don't believe in the reality of God are 'more evolved', are they?

8O :roll: :lmao:

You wish!
No need most religious people reject evolution so fail to evolve themselves!


Most religious people DON'T reject evolution, they accept it.

Don't take this personally, but you would have to be the most misinformed person I have ever come across here at Wrong Planet. You just do not have a clue.


Adam was a man in the Abrahamic tradition and since half of the world population follow this tradition (to a certain extent), then most religious people believe that our ancestors was were normal humans not a monkies or ape like creatures. But most religious people have no problem with microevolution in humans.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

02 Apr 2015, 2:40 am

lintar wrote:
Most religious people DON'T reject evolution, they accept it.


sophisticated wrote:
I don't know about that. Adam was a man in the Abrahamic tradition and since half of the world population follow this tradition (to a certain extent), then most religious people believe that our ancestors was were normal humans not a monkies or ape like creatures. But most religious people have no problem with microevolution in humans.
Nah, "'Fisticated", there's a huge slice of the "Abrahamic Tradition" that is just busting to run with the nonscience. They've invented a whole new "theology" to accommodate nonscience.

Anyhow, I think that any foray into theology is way beyond the scope of this thread.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

02 Apr 2015, 3:58 am

sophisticated wrote:

There's absolutely no empirical proof that your great great great great great greatgreat great greatgreat great greatgreat great greatgreat great greatgreat great greatgreat great greatgreat great greatgreat great great grand father existed ... therefore he never existed.


Oh My, Really. Has this thread degenerated to this level of thought. Time to invoke Godwin and make analogies to the Nazis.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


izzeme
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Apr 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,665

02 Apr 2015, 4:38 am

sophisticated wrote:
izzeme wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Sometimes, we see what we want to see.


Full agreement here; however, perhaps this applies to yourself as well?


It does not apply to me.

I have proven the existence of God right here on this thread.

Remember, this thread is about Gods existence, we are not discussing His nature, his location, why created us etc.


And why not, you are the one 'seeing' a god, while i 'fail to see'.

You have proven his existence you say? i have read this entire topic and have seen no such thing. There were plenty of emotional reasons to believe, but nothing objectively verifiable, hence no evidence, let alone proof.

And indeed, we are discussing the existence of a god here; i have not made any mention to the intention of such a diety, regardless of his existance (well, not in this thread)


sophisticated wrote:
But most religious people have no problem with microevolution in humans.

There is no such thing as "micro/macro evolution", the only difference is the timescale. "macro" evolution (as defined by the religous) is just a cumulation of several "micro" evolutions.



MannyBoo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,968
Location: Hyperspace

02 Apr 2015, 6:23 am

sophisticated wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
I have proven the existence of God right here on this thread.


Nope. You've proven that you believe in uncausable causes.


You cannot argue with facts.



You argue with fabrications.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

02 Apr 2015, 6:30 am

sophisticated wrote:

I've proven it. If you didn't see the proof then that is your problem not mine.


So your belief is faith based. Thanks for clearing that up.

Next!



sophisticated
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

02 Apr 2015, 12:53 pm

adifferentname wrote:
sophisticated wrote:

I've proven it. If you didn't see the proof then that is your problem not mine.


So your belief is faith based. Thanks for clearing that up.

Next!


If you wish to hold onto superstition and non-science then that is your business.



sophisticated
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

02 Apr 2015, 1:08 pm

izzeme wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
izzeme wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Sometimes, we see what we want to see.


Full agreement here; however, perhaps this applies to yourself as well?


It does not apply to me.

I have proven the existence of God right here on this thread.

Remember, this thread is about Gods existence, we are not discussing His nature, his location, why created us etc.


And why not, you are the one 'seeing' a god, while i 'fail to see'.

You have proven his existence you say? i have read this entire topic and have seen no such thing. There were plenty of emotional reasons to believe, but nothing objectively verifiable, hence no evidence, let alone proof.

And indeed, we are discussing the existence of a god here; i have not made any mention to the intention of such a diety, regardless of his existance (well, not in this thread)


sophisticated wrote:
But most religious people have no problem with microevolution in humans.

There is no such thing as "micro/macro evolution", the only difference is the timescale. "macro" evolution (as defined by the religous) is just a cumulation of several "micro" evolutions.



You either haven't read the whole thread .. or the proof needs to be explained to you (totally understandable).

Which part of "an infinite regress of causes is impossible" did you not understand?



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

02 Apr 2015, 1:16 pm

sophisticated wrote:
You either haven't read the whole thread .. or the proof needs to be explained to you (totally understandable).

Which part of "an infinite regress of causes is impossible" did you not understand?


This is not a proof because it is not known if it's impossible or not. Infinity boggles the intuition but that's not proof that it can't exist. You can't rely on intuition and what 'just makes sense' for this. You (we) simply don't know.



sophisticated
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

02 Apr 2015, 2:03 pm

Janissy wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
You either haven't read the whole thread .. or the proof needs to be explained to you (totally understandable).

Which part of "an infinite regress of causes is impossible" did you not understand?


This is not a proof because it is not known if it's impossible or not. Infinity boggles the intuition but that's not proof that it can't exist. You can't rely on intuition and what 'just makes sense' for this. You (we) simply don't know.


It is not known to you maybe. Don't assume that everyone is as ignorant as you are .

Just saying.



pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

02 Apr 2015, 2:29 pm

sophisticated wrote:
Janissy wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
You either haven't read the whole thread .. or the proof needs to be explained to you (totally understandable).

Which part of "an infinite regress of causes is impossible" did you not understand?


This is not a proof because it is not known if it's impossible or not. Infinity boggles the intuition but that's not proof that it can't exist. You can't rely on intuition and what 'just makes sense' for this. You (we) simply don't know.


It is not known to you maybe. Don't assume that everyone is as ignorant as you are .

Just saying.

Actually, infinities are understood much better than you seem to understand. You should understand something you are attacking...



TornadoEvil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Oct 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 707

02 Apr 2015, 2:36 pm

No, next question. Never mind that the Babelfish is a dead giveaway. To quote Douglas Adams, proof denies faith, and without faith I'm nothing. And because of the Babelfish LORD vanishes in a puff of logic.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

02 Apr 2015, 3:21 pm

sophisticated wrote:
Janissy wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
You either haven't read the whole thread .. or the proof needs to be explained to you (totally understandable).

Which part of "an infinite regress of causes is impossible" did you not understand?


This is not a proof because it is not known if it's impossible or not. Infinity boggles the intuition but that's not proof that it can't exist. You can't rely on intuition and what 'just makes sense' for this. You (we) simply don't know.


It is not known to you maybe. Don't assume that everyone is as ignorant as you are .

Just saying.

I'm sure Janissy would apologise for her ignorance if you could link to the peer-reviewed study where it was demonstrated that an infinite regress of causes is impossible...



mookestink
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2015
Posts: 43
Location: Canada

02 Apr 2015, 5:32 pm

Which God? I don't think anybody has been clear with the definition.

The pantheist God is Everything, and everything is most certainly not nothing whatsoever. The proof of His existence is in everything that exists.
The deist God is far-flung from the God of Christianity.
The Gods of Islam and Mormonism evolved from Christianity, which in turn evolved from the collision of Judaism and Plato.
The God of Judaism is evolved from Zoroaster's twin Gods of Good and Evil. The Evil God still exists in modern Christianity in the form of the Adversary.
Zoroaster's Gods are based off of Hindu polytheism.

Disproving one God does not disprove them all.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

02 Apr 2015, 7:52 pm

sophisticated wrote:
MannyBoo wrote:
There is no absolutely no empirical evidence that a god exists. Therefore there must be no god.
.


There's absolutely no empirical proof that your great great great great great greatgreat great greatgreat great greatgreat great greatgreat great greatgreat great greatgreat great greatgreat great greatgreat great great grand father existed ... therefore he never existed.


The old cliche that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' would seem to apply. Even if it is true there really is no evidence for the existence of God within physical reality that we ourselves can see, this, in and of itself, just means there is no evidence that we can detect with the faculties we have. The best that one can do is remain neutral, and await evidence or a well crafted logical proof that specifically rules it out.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

02 Apr 2015, 8:00 pm

sophisticated wrote:
Lintar wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
Lintar wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
Lintar wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
Lintar wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
There is no Easter Bunny there is no Santa Clause, there is no Tooth Fairy or Boogie Man, or Sand Man, Jack Frost is not real either and neither is God it is all mythology.


Otaku, this response of yours is truly idiotic. To equate God with Father Christmas just goes to show that you accept the inane ramblings of the current saints of 'New Atheism' (i.e. Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and their ilk), and haven't even made the effort to truly understand what it is you think you are rejecting.

Is this the sad, low level that disbelief has sunk to?
It is not sad it is a fact, belief is something children do so it is time to put away childish things! The stories about god and or gods can be found in the mythology section at your local library!


Putting away childish things. Isn't that what Jesus says in the Bible? Yes, I do believe he does!
The bible is childish obsolete and outdated it is nothing more than a book of mythology and fairytales as a means to guide a persons life, it is outdated and humanity no longer needs such obsolete primitive beliefs in order to get ahead in life! In short we don't need to believe in a god anymore we are more advanced and evolved to do so!


So people who don't believe in the reality of God are 'more evolved', are they?

8O :roll: :lmao:

You wish!
No need most religious people reject evolution so fail to evolve themselves!


Most religious people DON'T reject evolution, they accept it.

Don't take this personally, but you would have to be the most misinformed person I have ever come across here at Wrong Planet. You just do not have a clue.


Adam was a man in the Abrahamic tradition and since half of the world population follow this tradition (to a certain extent), then most religious people believe that our ancestors was were normal humans not a monkies or ape like creatures. But most religious people have no problem with microevolution in humans.


You're assuming that the majority accept a literal interpretation of the text, but most actually don't. Only a small number of fringe Protestant sects in the U.S. interpret every word of the Bible this way (even the Jehovah's Witnesses don't do this), but the vast majority of religious adherents in the world today do not have an issue with the notion of biological evolution. Only certain Christians and Muslims do, the kind that most people regard as being extreme.