Is there any proof God exists?

Page 15 of 105 [ 1680 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 105 Next

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

05 Feb 2015, 6:45 am

Ever thought about writing a novel which takes place during the Peasant's Rebellion of 1381? That, I believe, was the beginning of the end of the Medieval Period. Very interesting dynamics then.

Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

05 Feb 2015, 7:46 am

kraftiekortie wrote:

Ever thought about writing a novel which takes place during the Peasant's Rebellion of 1381? That, I believe, was the beginning of the end of the Medieval Period. Very interesting dynamics then.

Sounds like you have a good topic there... let me know how you go writing it :wink:

_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

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

05 Feb 2015, 7:52 am

Why bother with a "peasant's rebellion" of waaay back? Why not the "peasant's rebellion" of now?

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

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

05 Feb 2015, 8:27 am

I'm a bit sad that the few who acknowledge the necessity of an uncaused First Cause are so almost apologetic.

I would have hoped that they'd be a bit more confident in exposing the non-existence of any "scientific" excuses for the ideology of "Materialism". Maybe they need to do more homework.

Anyhow, I could give the Materialist dunces a few hints about fashionable excuses for their ridiculous, but fashionable, ideology but it would be a complete waste of time and effort... I been there, done that.

I think that the Dick(head) Dawkins scoffing appears above in this thread. I'll look at it later. But I predict that Dick (head) knows quite well that he has no science on his side and his only avenue for gaining sponsorship megadollars is by selling the Snake Oil of his handlers.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

05 Feb 2015, 8:32 am

And a pleasant Good Morning to you too, David!

pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

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

05 Feb 2015, 1:54 pm

Grommit wrote:

Thinking about god is just as crazy as thinking about
Infinity. Some of the greatest minds went mental over these deeply topical questions.

Now we know god just is can we all just get along

Infinity isn't and hasn't caused mathematicians heads to explode. Infinity is well defined and proven. There is a 'smallest' and 'largest' infinitude just as there are an infinitude of different 'sized' infinities in between... As to God, there is no evidence of any kind that it exists. There aren't even any first person accounts of Jesus in the bible. It's all written by people who never met this Jesus. This was used earlier in the thread as direct evidence of God...

sophisticated
Deinonychus

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

05 Feb 2015, 2:26 pm

Narrator wrote:

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

sophisticated wrote:

Janissy wrote:

Don't you see the conflict between your statement that.....

sophisticated wrote:

Right, but every theory must have a basis. If you argue particles can appear out of nowhere, I will ask you where "nowhere" is, if you can't show me where "nowhere" then your argument falls part.

and your other statement that.......

Quote:

For me, we can establish that there is a God through common sense, .

How is common sense suddenly a good enough basis to establish that there is a God but it wasn't good enough to establish that particles may be able to appear out of nowhere? "Common sense" isn't much of a standard for establishing anything.

There's no conflict.

A claim that makes no sense, needs to be backed up by strong evidence.

A claim that makes perfect sense, needs no strong evidence as it is self evident.

God is self-evident and I don't have to write a huge essay to convince you that he is real.

You ask for evidence for one but say the other is self-evident? That doesn't make sense, because if it did everyone would believe in God.

We put a virus under a microscope as evidence of its existence, because it is not naturally observable. Science has shown that the supernatural claim of possession was wrong. Why should any other supernatural claim not require the same scrutiny?

We use several methods to prove that the world is not flat, because it is not naturally observable. Science has shown that the Ptolemaic universe of Genesis 1 was wrong. Why should any other religious claim not require the same scrutiny?

Everyone (cept for confused people) believes in God.

Humans have a tendency to believe in God, they have no tendency to believe in the spaghetti monster or the flying tea pot.

Questioning or doubting the existing of God is a heresy in and of itself.

I spent 35+ years thinking the same way.

But on what you said, you notion of heresy is not evidence. And our tendency to believe in a deity has a more logical explanation, as a hangover from our ignorant past, when supernatural notions explained the unexplainable, like disease, weather, what we see in the sky, natural disasters and so much more.

The idea that God is self-evident, as expressed in the NT, comes from that very same ignorance.

I understand where you are coming from.

Naturally you believed in God. But you was practising a religion that is not from God .. and after 35 years you realized this.

But, don't give up , there is still time for you to find Gods true religion. Don't take the easy route into atheism.

Hahaha... ohhh the assumptions in that one. But I can remember thinking similar things. It reminds me of how I thought of people who had "lost their faith," as if they had lost something of great value. But in quitting Christianity, I have gained a lot, not lost.

"Easy route into atheism?" Such a trite cliche. The route to atheism is the road less traveled, and with 35 years invested, it's no easy choice. Please don't assume you know my journey.

Did you look into other religions after quitting Christianity ?

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

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

05 Feb 2015, 3:53 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:

And a pleasant Good Morning to you too, David!

Thank you, Krafty. I am rewriting my will to mention you as a beneficiary immediately. Unfortunately, however, it's much easier to bequeath you a share of a physical nothing than to give you a pearl of great price.

Anyhow, I am willing to (once again) demonstrate that the fashionable opinions of today's version of Materialism are an impossible nonsense that can only be sustained by a flood of unsubstantial assumptions and allegations... with not a jot of scientific observation or experimentation to support the superstition.

One can easily prove the logical necessity of an uncaused First Cause to anyone with the most basic use of reason, but one can't make a horse drink by leading it to water if it is infected with hydrophobia.

Grommit
Velociraptor

Joined: 7 Mar 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 436

05 Feb 2015, 4:34 pm

pcuser wrote:

Grommit wrote:

Thinking about god is just as crazy as thinking about
Infinity. Some of the greatest minds went mental over these deeply topical questions.

Now we know god just is can we all just get along

To be honest I wouldn't dispute what you just said, because I don't do maths it kills my brain. So I am not coming from a mathematical background, I haven't really got a distinctive answer other than what I have personally constructed because I simply don't know, if you can tell me how the universe was made, how it started, if there was a cause, I don't know. What I'm saying is we all drive each other crazy with our theory's. If you want to study it that's fine let me know when you have got the answer I will gladly salute you. But your going to need more of a three dimensional brain to figure this out. To be honest I'm not sure if I really do want to know because the more we find out we are the more we find out were not. It's too contradictory. The main reason I post on this forum is because peace and love is the only thing that works for me at the moment. Take it from a new age psychedelic hippy.
No one is going to be right and when I right this this is my perspective only opinion.

What I don't understand is all the controversies of the world

Why can't people be religious about peace and love? Surly this is more practical.

Grommit
Velociraptor

Joined: 7 Mar 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 436

05 Feb 2015, 4:40 pm

When I say love I don't mean in a flowery powery way lets all get naked.

I'm talking about conditional love, I've hated for no reason in the past but the absolute fact is underneath every person is a compelling story to tell

Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

05 Feb 2015, 10:16 pm

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

sophisticated wrote:

Narrator wrote:

sophisticated wrote:

Janissy wrote:

Don't you see the conflict between your statement that.....

sophisticated wrote:

Right, but every theory must have a basis. If you argue particles can appear out of nowhere, I will ask you where "nowhere" is, if you can't show me where "nowhere" then your argument falls part.

and your other statement that.......

Quote:

For me, we can establish that there is a God through common sense, .

Did you look into other religions after quitting Christianity ?

Good question, Sophi. Many ex Christians continue searching, trying other religions. I didn't.

When I studied theology, many decades ago, I learned about Christian and Jewish theology, but we also studied Islam, Buddhism, and to a lesser extent some others. I always retained an interest in the various religions, more out of curiosity, including some of the now dead religions, like Druidism. It's an anthropological interest.

Before I quit Christianity, I began to see the commonality of all religions, and it wasn't any deity. The commonality of all religions is the human anthropomorphism of the supernatural, attempting to make sense of the unexplained. Except that now we have reduced the unexplained to the tiniest fraction of what it once was.

All I can say is, thank God for the theology I studied early... lol... pun intended.

Last edited by Narrator on 05 Feb 2015, 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

05 Feb 2015, 10:24 pm

Oldavid wrote:

Anyhow, I am willing to (once again) demonstrate that the fashionable opinions of today's version of Materialism are an impossible nonsense...

Willing, like all best intentions, is not doing.
And "once again" you turn up empty handed.
Shall we try again tomorrow?

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

05 Feb 2015, 10:38 pm

What happens if God really wants us to believe in evolution? In "materialism?" In deciding for ourselves who or what to believe in?

Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

06 Feb 2015, 1:16 am

kraftiekortie wrote:

What happens if God really wants us to believe in evolution? In "materialism?" In deciding for ourselves who or what to believe in?

What happens if God has no clue what his little petri-dish has produced?

Sometimes I think of relative scale and time. Imagine the speed at which things happen, down at the subatomic size. At that speed, a million subatomic civilizations could come and go each second and we would be none-the-wiser of their existence. Turn that around and a billion earth years might be a fraction of a second in God time, and our universe could just be the tiniest piece of dust within a ball of blue fluff in God's naval.

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

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

06 Feb 2015, 3:27 am

Narrator wrote:

Oldavid wrote:

Anyhow, I am willing to (once again) demonstrate that the fashionable opinions of today's version of Materialism are an impossible nonsense...

Willing, like all best intentions, is not doing.
And "once again" you turn up empty handed.
Shall we try again tomorrow?

You, Mr Narrator, can go and re-read the "assumptions in science" thread. I was making the offer to a couple of correspondents I'd not seen before.

Anyhow, there are many examples of actual scientists who have a good deal more intellectual honesty and integrity than either you or Richard Dawkins display.

Quote:

You see, although natural selection is a real force of nature, it acts as a stabilizing force; it does not promote speciation. It is not the creative force that many people have suggested.16

Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, says that, “Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books that describe how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations.” 6

and later:

Quote:

A Few Skeptics

Problems such as this have caused many well-educated scientists to reevaluate their position on evolution. Two prominent British scientists and outspoken atheistic evolutionists, Sir Frederick Hoyle (Big Bang Theory) and Chandra Wickramasinghe were, in their own words, “driven by logic” to conclude that there “must be a Creator.” Both of them admitted that this was a tough conclusion for them to admit and that their conclusions were basically forced upon them, “against their will.”

Dr. Wickramasinghe went on to say, “From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in this situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. I now find myself driven to this position by logic. There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale. . . We were hoping as scientists that there would be a way round our conclusion, but there isn’t.” 8

Likewise, in his recent book, “Darwin’s Black Box,” the biochemist Michael Behe promotes the idea of “irreducible complexity” in the natural world as giving evidence of intelligent design.6

There are many more scientists, famous and non-famous, who are leaving the theory of evolution behind, often reluctantly, because of the overwhelming “logical” flaws in the theory. So why does it continue to be so popular with most modern scientists? Perhaps, as Chandra Wickramasinghe suggested, it has to do with the fact that it is an integral part of the public educational system?

http://www.detectingdesign.org/?page_id=118

The insufferably unreasonable Dawkins gets much kinder treatment than he deserves, in my opinion, in the article cited.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

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

06 Feb 2015, 4:09 am

I find the hypocrisy of YEC's simply astounding. They refuse to accept any form of evidence unless a. It is in the present ie the observable vs historical science nonsense. Furthermore this evidence is only accepted if it is incontrovertible. Yet they expect us to accept as self evident a God who not only created the universe but also gets involved with the daily lives of the human race. It would never occur to them that this is somewhat questionable! Also they would never accept (or more likely would never get their heads around )that the natural laws are for stuff inside the universe, not the universe itself eg there is nothing in the maths to prevent the universe from expanding at super luminal speed, in fact this is what we believe will happen, meaning that at some point light from galaxies will not be able to to keep pace and will therefore be invisible to each other. There is far more evidence that the universe can spontaneously come into existence from what we presently see as nothing, than there has ever been for the existence of God. virtual particles do it all the time and the mathematical evidence for this is among the most accurate of all scientific theories. By the way this popping into and out of existence by anti matter and virtual particles accounts for the creation of matter.

Regarding the nature of evidence, I wonder what type of evidence a creationist would require to find someone guilty, let alone what evidence they would require to have a person executed? I ask this as the support for capital punishment peaks in the US among white evangelicals.

_________________
"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

Page 15 of 105 [ 1680 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 105 Next

Jump to:

Is there any proof God exists? Post Reply New Topic

Is there any proof God exists?