|
|
|
|
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/22/2008 11:10:06 AM | Well to put things in context a little I would say that certain concepts of "god(s)" could never be proven based on these "god(s)" proclaimed attributes and characteristics.
Attributes define who deserves the title of God imo.
As I understand God is omni-present and is the ALL that encompasses the eternal realm.
Can there be two Gods that share in an atrtribute of being omni=present?
common sense tells me that there cannot be two omni-present Gods.
Nor can there be two Gods who share the attribute of omnipotence. And imo again there can only be one omnipotent God as well. How can there be two? One will be disqualified from being God by lacking in power to the other....and if they shared the same power and omni potence then they are equal and make one, not two. And of course if God is omnipotent then God also must be omniscient.. the two attributes go hand in hand and are compatible with each other.....
anyways If God is omni-present, where is the other god going to be but under the reign and rule of the Omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God.
there can only be One True God. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/22/2008 6:37:55 PM | Can someone prove that their god exists without the use of faith, the use of "the bible tells me so", the use of "well, there's no other possibility" or the use of "nothing else makes sense in my own mind so god must be real"? Of course not. We all know the inevitable truth about this. To be honest, nobody really avoids anything that I just mentioned. It's the same stuff everytime. If you disagree all you're going to find is that they'll come up with the same predictable arguments, conclusions and delusions without even considering how foolish that some of the material may appear to be.
Need examples? Eat some of this fool steak:
There was a report of someone seeing the Virgin Mary in a tree 0r at least her face. The question then becomes, "how the bloody hell do you even know what Mary's face looks like if she's over 2000 years old and probably doesn't have a face conceivable for anyone to imagine in the first place?!" It's idiotic thinking at its finest. First of all it just goes into one of my main points in life. Humans like to make shapes out of stuff that we see. Ever looked into the clouds and swear that you saw a shape? I'm not saying that nobody sees shapes in clouds. What I'm saying is that the reason why people see shapes is because their mind wants to make sense of out stuff that doesn't isn't necessarily what it appears to be. If you take a box of blocks and scatter them onto the floor and look at them your mind will make patterns and shapes out of them even though those patterns and shapes might only exist because you wanted them to.
Can someone prove that god exists because the "bible tells them so"?
Not really is the short answer. I apply this to Christianity. Why not? It's the majority religion. The bible tells us that god exists when it is the bible that also tells us that a kangaroo swam all the way from Australia to meet Noah, that a man can be swallowed by a whale and survive which is BS because I'm from Samoa and know all about whales and that there's a man with a pitchfork who hates you yet the all good and just god has killed more people by the bible's account. After all, the book contradicts itself so many times that it's just a joke for anyone to take any of it seriously. I'm supposed to believe that Satan has come to destroy when god is, not only responsible for Satan's existence, but has IN FACT, according to people who believe in the bible, claimed the lives of more humans? I don't care about the reasons why god killed so many people. He did it if what the bible says is true. That isn't refutable. If a book contradicts itself and spews out so much BS and yet people believe it that would be defined as pure insanity.
Can someone prove that god exists because "there's no other way of explaining how we got here"?
Not at all. See, that's the problem with humans. We always seem to think that if we can't explain it naturally it must be supernatural. For example, if a large, unidentified flying object came screaming across the skies in Phoenix, Arizona tonight people would swear it was ET. That's silly to conclude that the object was a visitor from outer space when it could just be a military test flight for a top secret aircraft technology. It wouldn't be the first time the Airforce has tested all sorts of strange and unusual aircraft. But that just goes into what I mean. Lots of people would swear up and down that our government is covering up an alien spacecraft visiting our planet when it could've been something more down to Earth; literally speaking. People will use the supernatural to explain anything that they're too ignorant to explain themselves. If there's a perfectly good natural explanation for something then why resort to the supernatural? | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/22/2008 9:44:43 PM |
Not at all. See, that's the problem with humans. We always seem to think that if we can't explain it naturally it must be supernatural. For example, if a large, unidentified flying object came screaming across the skies in Phoenix, Arizona tonight people would swear it was ET. That's silly to conclude that the object was a visitor from outer space when it could just be a military test flight for a top secret aircraft technology. It wouldn't be the first time the Airforce has tested all sorts of strange and unusual aircraft. But that just goes into what I mean. Lots of people would swear up and down that our government is covering up an alien spacecraft visiting our planet when it could've been something more down to Earth; literally speaking. People will use the supernatural to explain anything that they're too ignorant to explain themselves. If there's a perfectly good natural explanation for something then why resort to the supernatural?
Freud called this the "God of the gaps" | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/23/2008 11:23:43 AM | How about proof that Jesus existed? Ever heard of the Shroud of Turin or Veronicas Veil?
If not, you should certainly look it up...& remember..they let scientist do test on a piece of the shroud a few years ago...they found that nothing we have today...with all our technology...could produce that picture... | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/23/2008 11:53:39 AM |
How about proof that Jesus existed? Ever heard of the Shroud of Turin or Veronicas Veil?
If not, you should certainly look it up...& remember..they let scientist do test on a piece of the shroud a few years ago...they found that nothing we have today...with all our technology...could produce that picture...
First of all, that could all depend on which scientist did the testing. They could've simply lied about the results. I've seen creationist scientists personally and have heard of them distorting scientific results to fit their own needs and purposes. Besides, just because we can't find something that could've made that RIGHT NOW doesn't mean we couldn't later. Again, stop resorting to the supernatural when there could very well be a natural explanation for it. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/23/2008 12:13:13 PM | | hello... to a believer their Living Truth is proof to them and then they go out witnessing Truth to others... to me that is proof enough, why else would a perfect stranger risk everything to witness to other s unless God moved their heart???... to a believer we are blow away by the fact that Jesus is The Son of God and that God loved us so much that He allowed Jesus to come here to die for our wages of sin... while Jesus was here He said that we have seen Gods Character through His Own Life... Jesus forgave , healed, loved and empathised in such a humble way, what a great picture of God to go by... God exists through every tree, flower, baby, animal, ocean and good deed... God says in the bible that people didnt believe EVEN of One that was Raised from the dead... hmmmmm raising someone from the dead and still we doubt, what more could God do to change doub!?.. nothing in my eyes but to each her/his own walk with God...I pray that all will come to know God and His Son and be saved for Eternity and I thank God for my feeling that way... blessings, warmly Mona | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/23/2008 3:11:02 PM |
First of all, that could all depend on which scientist did the testing. They could've simply lied about the results. I've seen creationist scientists personally and have heard of them distorting scientific results to fit their own needs and purposes.
Secular, peer-reviewed, scientific journals since 2003 indicate the shroud could well be 2000 years old. http://www.shroudstory.com/ | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/23/2008 5:57:18 PM | And that proves...what again? Here, allow the skeptics to kill that argument as quoted from skepdic.com:
Skeptics believe that the shroud of Turin is just another religious relic invented to beef up the pilgrimage business or impress infidels. (Another equally famous painting, also claimed to have miraculously appeared on a cloth, cropped up in Mexico in the 16th century, "Our Lady of Guadalupe.") The case for the forged shroud is made most forcefully by Joe Nickell in his Inquest On The Shroud Of Turin, which was written in collaboration with a panel of scientific and technical experts. The author claims that historical, iconographic, pathological, physical, and chemical evidence points to inauthenticity. The shroud is a 14th century painting, not a two-thousand year-old cloth with Christ's image.
Need more?
Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the shroud of Turin controversy is the way true believers keep bringing up red herrings and the way skeptics keep taking the bait. Danin made his plant image/pollen grain argument in 1998, a follow-up on another plant image argument he made in 1997. He said in the 1998 article that his evidence showed that "the Shroud could have come only from the Near East." An AP article by Traci Angel (8/3/99) quotes Danin as saying that the evidence "clearly point to a floral grouping from the area surrounding Jerusalem." No doubt, a raging debate will follow (once again!) as to the origin of the plants and pollen gains. As if it matters. Even if it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that the shroud originated in Jerusalem and was used to wrap up the body of Jesus, so what? Would that prove Jesus rose from the dead? I don't think so. To believe anyone rose from the dead can't be based on physical evidence, because resurrection is a physical impossibility. Only religious faith can sustain such a belief. To believe that someone floated up to the sky and disappeared (i.e., rose into heaven) is also not going to be proved one way or the other by these shroud arguments. Finally, no amount of physical evidence could ever demonstrate that a man was God, was also his own Father and conceived without his mother ever having had sex. Thus, no matter how many brilliant scientists marshal forth their brilliant papers with evidence for images of Biblical ropes, sponges, thorns, spears, flowers, tumbleweeds, blood, etc., none of it has the slightest relevance for proving these matters of faith.
And the sledgehammer of conversational defeat:
latest news
Dr. Raymond Rogers, a retired chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, claims that the part of the cloth tested and dated at around 1350 was not part of the original shroud. According to Rogers, the labs that dated the cloth to the 14th century tested a patch made to repair damage done by fire. How does he know this, since the patch was destroyed in the testing? According to shroud investigator Joe Nickell, Rogers "relied on two little threads allegedly left over from the sampling" and the word of "pro-authenticity researchers who guessed that the carbon-14 sample came from a 'rewoven area' of repair." According to Nickell, P.E. Damon's 1989 article published in Nature claims that "textile experts specifically made efforts to select a site for taking the radiocarbon sample that was away from patches and seams."
Says Nickell,
Rogers compared the threads with some small samples from elsewhere on the Shroud, claiming to find differences between the two sets of threads that “prove” the radiocarbon sample “was not part of the original cloth” of the Turin shroud.
The reported differences include the presence—allegedly only on the “radiocarbon sample”—of cotton fibers and a coating of madder root dye in a binding medium that his tests “suggest” is gum Arabic....However, Rogers’ assertions to the contrary, both the cotton and the madder have been found elsewhere on the shroud. Both were specifically reported by famed microanalyst Walter McCrone.
Dr. Rogers estimates the actual date of the shroud to be between about 1,000 BCE. and 1700 CE. Still, all the evidence points toward the medieval forgery hypothesis. As Nickell notes, "no examples of its complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave" (1998: 35). "In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized—and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus—multiple burial wrappings with a separate cloth over the face."*
Other evidence of medieval fakery includes the shroud’s lack of historical record prior to the mid-fourteenth century—when a bishop reported the artist’s confession—as well as serious anatomical problems, the lack of wraparound distortions, the resemblance of the figure to medieval depictions of Jesus, and suspiciously bright red and picturelike “blood” stains which failed a battery of sophisticated tests by forensic serologists, among many other indicators. (Nickell 2005).
Of course, the cloth might be 3,000 or 2,000 years old, as Rogers speculates, but the image on the cloth could date from a much later period. No matter what date is correct for either the cloth or the image, the date cannot prove to any degree of reasonable probability that the cloth is the shroud Jesus was wrapped in and that the image is somehow miraculous. To believe that will always be a matter of faith, not scientific proof. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/23/2008 6:13:32 PM |
Can someone prove that their god exists without the use of faith, the use of "the bible tells me so", the use of "well, there's no other possibility" or the use of "nothing else makes sense in my own mind so god must be real"? Of course not. We all know the inevitable truth about this.
Can someone prove that 1+1=2 without using any Prime Number, any whole number, or any number at all? Of course not. You want to ask for proof while at the same time removing any possible path to evidence or proof? Go play in some sandbox with fools!
PS. Can I get some HP sauce for that steak?  | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/23/2008 6:20:49 PM | Ah, now come on. You can come play too. After all, they say doing such things stimulates the brain. I can prove that 1+1=2.
Watch this.
Take one hand and slap yourself in the forehead. Take your other hand and do the same. Now, doesn't that mean you slapped yourself twice?
Ah, the joy of teaching. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/23/2008 6:22:08 PM | Can someone prove that 1+1=2 without using any Prime Number, any whole number, or any number at all? Of course not. You want to ask for proof while at the same time removing any possible path to evidence or proof? Go play in some sandbox with fools!
That's a rather strange analogy. Faith is not evidence. The Bible is not evidence. Lack of imagination is not evidence. Incredulity is not evidence.
If I wanted to prove to you that pearls exist, I would not say "You need to have faith in pearls." I wouldn't pull out a copy of Steinbeck's "The Pearl" and say "See, they're mentioned in a work of fiction." I wouldn't say " If you can imagine they exist then they exist." I wouldn't say "Their existence makes sense to me." No, if I wanted to prove to you that pearls exist, then I'd show you a pearl.
Now show us your god. | |
|
| |
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/23/2008 7:12:54 PM | imo there are three parts to one person--the body,soul,and spirit--some may say the soul and spirit r the same and so I won't touch that one.When u think about the spirit how can the body exist without something more complex then just a shell.I guess what I am asking is animals have brains right and yet they r governed by the law of the jungle,so to speak,as in eat or be eaten.So what makes u and I different in our thinking process if we r also using our brains as r the animals?Whether u or I won't to openly admit it we as humans are pretty complex in our structure.We think,reason,react,and manuver just as animals do but what we have differently is the ability or even the need to reason.How many animals do u know that want or need to reason over anything,with anything or anyone?So why then does death scare some humans more then others because I don't see it scaring animals as much?Granted if u corner an animal they will come out one way or the other even if dieing is the only option but they won't reason about it.The animals know the act is final,have u ever noticed how the elephants do one of their herd that has died?The animals except it as part of being as if to say it is part of life and a part we can't ever control.Yet sometimes humans will do all they can to keep living,going so far as to make bargains with an unknown entity that throughtout their lives they have heard about but refused to confront or admit to the existence of.
Now can u or anyone tell me how the bones are formed in the womb to become a human?Can u tell me how the voice box is constructed or how it is put into place?
When this country was formed,our first president was a known believer in a higher existence of a being that he believed to be in control moreso then he was.Martin Luther King Jr. was an avid believer in the higher power and openly admitted to his belief.Nelson Mandella is a believer in the higher power and the acknowledgement of the power of this entity.Which one of these ppl will u be so bold as to tell them they need to use their brains about their beliefs?In saying that don't u openly flaunt ur arrogance in a way by seeming to have more what then ither of these ppl,more heart or more brains? | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/23/2008 10:36:39 PM | And that proves...what again? Here, allow the skeptics to kill that argument as quoted from skepdic.com:
Is the rebuttal you posted peer reviewed or simply the opinion of Joe Nickell? The article contains at least one major distortion of the facts and one outright lie by a decidedly biased Joe. Now you "have heard of them distorting scientific results to fit their own needs and purposes" from your own sources. What were you expecting from a carnival promoter and stage magician other than sleight-of -hand explanations?
Ray Rogers says it best however were Nickell is concerned:
Joe did not understand the method or importance of the results of the pyrolysis/mass spectrometry analyses, and I doubt that he understands the fundamental science behind either visible/ultraviolet spectrometry or fluorescence. He certainly does not understand chemical kinetics. If he wants to argue my results, I suggest that we stick to observations, natural laws, and facts. I am a skeptic by nature, but I believe all skeptics should be held to the same ethical and scientific standards we require of others.
Sincerely,
Raymond N. Rogers
Fellow (Retired)
University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM, USA
http://www.csicop.org
ps, where you gonna' shift the goal posts next time? | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/24/2008 12:43:07 AM | I won't attempt to prove the existence of god because personally I don't believe in him/her/it. But here's an essay I wrote some time ago reflecting my contemplations on this issue. If you have time to read this then go ahead. If you think I should take it down then tell me and I'll edit my post if that's possible on this forum...
PS. I know it starts off a bit weird but just give it a chance.
What is coffee? It is but a harmless addiction, but with the energy rush it gives is it not a
creator of life?
Is there some mystic force that excretes from the bean itself or is it in fact science that
tells of the innate energy unlocked by chemical romance from the bean to the brain.
A pointless statement to the context of the topic at hand, or is it?
Let us consider some minor factors. A person with an opposing view would without a doubt be able to argue coffee as a religious science.
Many people in modern society drink coffee on a daily basis, just as many go to church. It is a ritual that becomes a part of life because of the necessity for a longer day, or at least the energy provided by the chemicals in coffee identified with science. If one was to consider religion on its traditional terms then coffee too might be considered a traditional beverage of the weary and sleep deprived innocence that we call civilization in the modern world and to some be the road to “salvation” when sleep is unavailable. On the other hand for someone who believes it to be a lifestyle and not a conventional “religion”, the idea of coffee as being a religion is ridiculous. This is why coffee is but a religious science, one overwhelming the other depending on perspective.
Yet again this writer has gone somewhat off topic. You may be asking yourself:
What does coffee have to do in relativity to science and religion?
But the answer has been starring you in the face all along.
Coffee, although natural, has been identified, and understood through science, just as religion has been identified, revolutionized, and modified countless times by the church.
As you see, there is a similarity here. Both religion as we know it and science are similar in the way that both try to dictate a certain answer to the key concepts and questions of life.
The suggestion that we have to keep science and religion separate implies that they have nothing to say to each other and is none other than ridiculous.
Think of a book on geology, and one on music, they do not address the same issues and therefore have nothing to say to each other, is this also true to science and religion? But sometimes religion and science speak about the same issues and say very different things about them.
For instance in the bible it states that the world was created in six days (on the seventh “God” rested).
Science has proved that theory incorrect with the facts behind the creation of anything in general. Then again, those six days can be six days in the perception of “God” and not humans. One of those days can equal a thousand years, or even more because “God” is immortal and therefore has a different perception of time. So in essence the statement is an accurate one. One can conclude from this that science and religion are not that opposite; not only that, but with the co-existence of the two in complete harmony, deeper understanding of each one on its own can be met.
The ideas and theories that both tackle are the key concepts of life, death, existence, and reasoning, therefore needing valid points of view on either side to be taken seriously.
With two opposing views there is first debate, then reason, then common ground in various neutral agreements and therefore harmony.
But both tirelessly fight the other in order to eliminate the competition and reign supreme. Is it not true that with the agreement between the two there will be even more room for improvement because they will be working together on a higher and more open minded ground. The more that one learns about the other, the more it learns about itself.
Personally I suggest the two to stop arguing, wake up, and “smell the coffee” so to speak.
Even the existence of “God” can be put in different terms. We, human beings, play “God” everyday. Whenever a child is born it is our work alone. We are givers of life just like “God”. We give life to more of our kind.
“God”, as the creator, can be viewed as a scientist with a test tube, and we might just be an experiment in a huge chain. Wouldn’t this apply to the atheistic belief that if “God” did exist he wouldn’t let wars, or natural disasters to happen?
Just as in any experiment, not a lot is known and therefore the scientist doesn’t always know how to fix whatever the problem may be.
This can be related in the way that “God” may be capable to stop all these occurrences from becoming a reality but simply can’t because he doesn’t know how to do it yet?
Maybe we are just a test in a chain of testing, maybe even in the beginning stages done by this scientist, and when the messiah comes, or when Armageddon strikes it is just this scientist trying to save the good particles while purging the bad in order to restart with them as a basis for a more perfect world? And so, before us there were less perfect worlds, and after us there may be a perfect world to come.
Then there’s the logical agnostic view. Christianity is often the coat-rack that many people hang their minds upon. It's not the religion it's that they're looking for something that will solve all their problems. Much like coffee and the problem of falling asleep as a response to needing more time and looking to the almighty bean for the answer. Societies evolved as a means of prospering in larger groups, organized religion came with organized military and organized economy, spirituality has always been there, but religion came as a way of codifying the spiritual practices people in these societies shared like the Starbucks on every corner as a means for a known fix that is open 24 hours a day. When you've got knowledge someone has to be right, right comes from consensus and consensus is built by a new priesthood. It wouldn't matter if there were never any religions, humans would still find a way to make each other suffer. Hell, it's not like we don't have enough ways as it is aside from religion. We can stop selling coffee.
What just happened in the previous paragraph or two is all you need as proof, I am by all means not saying that what I say is one hundred percent correct.
This writer has just used both knowledge of religion and that of science to come to a neutral and peaceful conclusion.
Sadly I act with only the limited knowledge that I posses. If all the scientists and theists in the world would band together they would be able to further prove, or even disprove this theory, and create one that is profound and one completely accurate, since the power of our minds is great, but in unison with others it is even greater.
Maybe the reason we can only use six percent of our brain capacity is because we have not been able to tap into those six percent fully and when we do there will be room for improvement and steady climb towards the ultimate knowledge and understanding at one hundred percent.
Hence science and religion will become united, fuse into one, for the further evolution of human kind, and “God”, or our scientist, whichever it may be, will not have to purge the negative simply because there would be none in existence. Although this can be argued, there is also the important factor that without a negative there cannot be a positive, and vice versa.
We will constantly improve and take another step on the path to perfection and spiritual self actualization.
Enjoy the Coffee =) | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/24/2008 5:21:25 AM | Jesus does exist. we just need to prey for the ones that dont belive in him and quit fighting. If they need proof they can ask Jesus for the proof.
sometimes I wonder does all this fighting about Jesus please him. I think not.
There once was a baby that was born dead. the doctors left the baby with the family members so all coiuld say goodbye to the infant. they were all crying and taking turns saying goodbye to this little infant. out of nowehre this infant came to life. Just blew everyone including doctors away. Jesus gave this baby life. that child is called a miracle baby. For that to have happend it prooves Jesus is real. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/24/2008 6:11:03 AM | Or maybe that 'miracle baby' story just proves that medical science still doesnt understand the birth/life/death cycle and abilities of the human body.
Lets face it... you cant even get doctors to agree on 'natural alternative' medicine. Some swear by it, others call it bogus. Is garlic a toxin or antibiotic? The list goes on.
Has medical science figured out what our appendix are for? That tiny little organ continues to mystify science.
Just because a 'Miracle' story mystifies doctors, doesnt prove anything, other than doctor still dont understand everything. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/24/2008 6:13:25 AM | | Just my guess but im pretty sure a doctor and people can tell when something is dead. its not complicated to tell when someting is dead. You dont have to be a doctor to know when something is dead. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/24/2008 6:32:33 AM | And I also have a wonderful heartfelt 'kitten' story to tell. No pun intended. My dead kitten's name was Sasha and she lived to be 5 yrs old. As the vet pointed out.... obviously there is still much for science to learn about the process of death the body endures before reaching a point of no return.
I have heard of numerous stories where a patient was kept on alive on machines for the purpose of organ harvest. Once the 'plug' was pulled.. they 'woke up'. Miracle? Yes! It's a miracle based on the definition of death as we understand it. Obviously doctors dont fully understand the process of death the body endures before reaching a point of no return.
That baby was more than likely still very much alive in the mothers womb. But born stillborn, for whatever reasons, yet came back to life. Doctors need a deeper medical understanding of death. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/24/2008 7:07:07 AM | Msg 27: I thought I'd teach the "teacher" a few things about presenting an argument without resorting to fallacies. 
Regarding "fool steak"...
Alleged anecdotal reports of someone claiming to have seen Mary's image in a tree are 100% irrelevant to the actual matter under discussion even if supported by actual evidence. Ditto whether humans like to make shapes out of stuff or not (more anecdotes and assumptions, and no actual proof). As for tossing blocks on the floor, some branches of mathematics and some pundits of Chaos Theory would disagree with you. Not that it's relevant anyway. It just helps to show how myopic your view is ("It is so because I say it's so or I've experienced it as so, and it must be so for all or most other humans").
You need to differentiate between which parts of "the Bible" you mean when you make your generalised statements and false claims. If you quote the passage (book, chapter, verse is the usual way), you allow the reader to compare your claim with the actual words, and you show that you have compared the words and not just accepted what someone else said as a matter of faith. You did check your claims, didn't you? Or were you intellectually lazy and just took it as "gospel" when someone else said it? Not much of a "teacher", eh?
You say "the bible that also tells us that a kangaroo swam all the way from Australia to meet Noah". I can't recall any reference to a kangaroo, but I did search a concordance (it's a book that lists all the words in the Bible and where they are located) just to be sure. Nope. No "kangaroo". Can you help me out here, and give me the reference so I ca read it for myself? Thanks.
You said, "the Bible says that a man can be swallowed by a whale and survive". Nope. Not in the Hebrew. Not in Modern English. Can you point out the book, chapter, and verse where the Bible claims this. In the Hebrew or in Modern English please. Thank you.
Oh, and as a aside (and a "teaching" moment), "I'm from Samoa and I know all about whales" is called a False Authority Claim. "I'm from Samoa and I speak Samoan" probably isn't. "I'm a marine biologist and I know all about whales" probably isn't. I might as well claim, "I'm from Canada and I know all about hockey" (I don't). Or even, "I'm from Canada and I know all about whales" - We have whales in Canadian waters, maybe even more than Samoa does!
You said, "the Bible says there's a man with a pitchfork who hates you". Really? Book, chapter, verse please. Or were you just making it up as you went along?
As for you UFO/Government Conspiracy example, here's the problem. It wasn't a "natural explanation" (and no God of the gaps either). It was an alternative theory, presented without evidence, actually, more of an opinion than anything, and it's worth about zero in the real world. In your example, from a purely logical POV it's as "silly" to say it's a secret military project as it is to say it's an alien spaceship. There's ZERO evidence presented for either theory and none has more merit than the other. What's interesting though is how it informs me that you believe that your preference is the right one and your arrogant failure to see another POV. In that you prove, once again, that you failed miserably to teach anyone anything.
Edit:
Regarding the Shroud of Turin...
The original radio carbon dating tests done in 1988 by three independent teams of scientists were supposed to have been done under the strictest of scientific control and protocols. They concluded that the Shroud was created during the Middle Ages (specifically 1260–1390) and thus must be a forgery.
One serious error in the dating has come to light and that is that the sample had been compromised by a fire that had partly damaged the cloth and exposed the cloth to soot and smoke. Also, the sample was taken from a section of the Shroud that had been repaired (therefore later than the original cloth). The Oxford lab at the very least was unaware of this at the time of testing and has stated that had they known they wouldn't have reported the date range they did report. In other words, they produced accurate results based on the information they had, but the information was incomplete. What amazes me is that reputable scientists who were involved at the time allowed such errors to occur. Anyway, the Oxford lab has called for a re-testing to settle the matter and that is under way. I welcome it. I find the Shroud of Turin to be a fascinating object. Certainly, there is sufficient evidence for me to believe it existed prior to the Middle Ages. Historical records alone convinced me when I researched it 30 years or so ago. I am certain that a fair and accurate testing will settle the matter and date the Shroud around Jesus death.
I am also certain of is that if a group of reputable scientists did gather properly representative samples, and four independent labs dated the Shroud at close to the time of Christ's death, those who cannot conceive of the possibility that it is the Shroud of Jesus Christ will insist - in spite of the evidence - that it's a fake or seek some other (unproven) explanation. That's the way it's always been and that's the way it always will be. Demands for "proof" usually translate into demands for "proof that suits me".
| |
|
| |
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/24/2008 8:02:50 AM |
Just because a 'Miracle' story mystifies doctors, doesnt prove anything, other than doctor still dont understand everything.
And there we have the catchall rebuttal to any proofs brought forward. "We don't understand how it happened, but we know it can't be a miracle or God!!"
So scientific. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/24/2008 8:26:50 AM |
If you have faith that your god exists, that is proof enough for me that your god exists.
For you.
Ok so what if I say that I have faith that the god you speak of doesn't exist and that I am the true god. Can you disprove my statement in any way? | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/24/2008 8:42:17 AM | It would help in the quest for proving Gods' existence without faith if when he supposedly created the world he hadn't made the laws of nature so seemingly immutable. Personal experience informs us that the miraculous events described in the Bible are impossible. I'm fairly addicted to BBC News 24 and have never seen any reports of living persons being freed from the bellies of sea creatures. No global floods either, or dead humans coming back to life, or virgin births. To believe in these impossible things we have to discard the evidence of our own experience informing us that they do not happen.
Then religion makes belief in this stuff into a virtue, consigning unbelievers to eternal hellfire for having the commonsense to retain a grip on reality and not be gullible. Poor...
I say forget the faith, gimme some hard evidence - and the Turin shroud, albeit an interesting artefact, won't do. I'd like to see God cut the bullcrap, cease communicating thru the medium of middle eastern manuscripts - it's the 21st century and not everyone is fascinated by what the ancient folks wrote - and appear on News 24 in an exclusive interview with Stephen Sackur or some other such straight talking journo.
PS: Stan1388 You are not ginger and therefore cannot be God. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/24/2008 8:45:05 AM | E.Kyro... You have taken my quote and twisted it's meaning. Tsk Tsk
Kitten used miracles as proof of Jesus, therefore, proof of God. I merely offered FACT that modern medicine still does not understand EVERYTHING about the human body, and there is plenty of evidence that scientists need to dig deeper into the definition of death, as we understand it.
Our ancient ancestors didn't understand comas, therefore, thought that was death.
Miracles, as we understand them, do not PROVE the existence of God.
I never said it proves the LACK of God, either. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
