|
|
|
|
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/23/2008 9:17:59 AM |
Read some of the theologians, St. Aquinas had 4 or 5 or so.
Yes, Aquinas provided his "Five Ways" to prove the necessary existence of God. They all fail but derivations of his approach are often used by theists today, equally unsuccessfully... | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/23/2008 4:12:34 PM | It really amazes me how those that do not believe in a God will be always be talking about God. And the same ones say those that do believe in God are delusional in believing in something you can not see or prove.
I see it. The whole echo system screams of a creator. The universe shows a mathematical genius of life on earth. The odds of life as we see it so abuntantly here on earth is to rare to even fathom. I think those that do not see it are just trying to be as a God and tell us how to think. Amazing how we know the universe is like 12 billion years old and the earth is 4 billion years old. We have to prove God But evolution doesn't have to prove anything. We just keep picking the best theory as it fits in human knowledge for the day.
So with this in mind. Seems we are having a problem with the honey bees starting to be missing. And a cycle could start which means no bee, no pollenation, no plants, no animals, no humans. I am sure a new bee is in the process of being evolved to save the day. Maybe its the African killer bees.
We all could believe in God or not. But those who ridicule those that do. You better be sure as hell you are right!  | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/23/2008 5:49:47 PM | | I would hope that the reason people discuss any issue is that it's human nature to want to be right, and not that they want to ridicule anyone. Let's face it; that's why we're at these forums. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/23/2008 6:26:36 PM | | I believe in God. However, I don't think that God's existance can be proved using logic or reason. It is in fact, a matter of faith. There is no way of getting around this. No, I'm not a Christian extremist or even a Christian, but faith is what connects us to the spirit realm...unless you've actually seen spirits : ) or God, but who can claim this? | |
|
| |
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/23/2008 11:42:52 PM | Since you have never seen god, how do you know the FSM is a lampoon? There is exactly as much evidence for the existence of FSM as your god. Yes, people propose the FSM to show you how believing in a sadistic, homophobic, immature, vengeful, unforgiving, capricious god is silly. Especially silly in that you only believe in that god only because someone else who hasn't ever met that god told you to believe in it.
Aquinas' logic was as good as yours. Do we really need to revisit it? | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/23/2008 11:57:22 PM |
I see it. The whole echo system screams of a creator. The universe shows a mathematical genius of life on earth. The odds of life as we see it so abuntantly here on earth is to rare to even fathom.
You see what exactly? Your misunderstanding of the universe? Could you please put your views in terms of math? You know, the math you say you see as evidence of a creator. Can't? Well, what a surprise! Perhaps stick to just plain believing from now on, yes?
We have to prove God But evolution doesn't have to prove anything. We just keep picking the best theory as it fits in human knowledge for the day.
No one is asking you to prove anything. Evolution proves itself every single day, by the way. You know DNA? That molecule was discovered only because it was predicted by evolution. As a matter of fact, biologists no longer really need fossils now that we can take DNA apart. You carry every biological predecessor you ever had from the dawn of time to the present in every cell in your body.
Seems we are having a problem with the honey bees starting to be missing. And a cycle could start which means no bee, no pollenation, no plants, no animals, no humans. I am sure a new bee is in the process of being evolved to save the day. Maybe its the African killer bees.
So, that disproves evolution to you? Did the Black Plague disprove evolution? Hardly. As a matter of fact, the survivors of the plague have a certain gene that allowed them to survive. Evolution in action. BTW, honey bees are not the only pollinators and this does not disprove evolution. As a matter of fact, this event may force an evolutionary event for bees. Don't worry, we'll let you know if it does.
We all could believe in God or not. But those who ridicule those that do. You better be sure as hell you are right!
Ah, how clever! A restatement of Pascal's Wager! How very original! So far, there have been over 20,000 religions since humans started keeping records of such things. What are your chances of being right? All the other religions had just as much evidence on their side as you do. Lotsa luck! | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/24/2008 2:33:25 AM |
I see it. The whole echo system screams of a creator. The universe shows a mathematical genius of life on earth.
The above is the Design argument for God's existence in rough form. This is one of Aquinas' five ways and is clearly unsuccessful.
On a side note, I think theists have become a little defensive. The vast majority of the world are theists, their views are promulgated everywhere. They continually look to have a say in political matters in local, state and international affairs (Religious Right in the US for example...even looking to change science textbooks for kids). And yet, if one refractory voice makes a noise in a symphony of theism, they are instantly maligned. What are you all so afraid of anyways, the theists are completely in the ascendancy all over the planet and always have been? Are you really that threatened by an opposing opinion. Surely your unquestioning confidence in the existence of a supreme being cannot be shaken by something so miniscule. Surely you know that your belief in God is supposed to be based on faith. So as soon as someone points out that you cannot offer a rational backdrop to your religious belief...you simply shrug and say...so what. You're not supposed to be able to prove it or give rational reasons for it...it's faith, i.e., unquestioning confidence. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/24/2008 10:22:40 AM |
Since you have never seen god, how do you know the FSM is a lampoon?
Absolutely right.
There is exactly as much evidence for the existence of FSM as your god. Yes, people propose the FSM to show you how believing in a sadistic, homophobic, immature, vengeful, unforgiving, capricious god is silly.
That's how you and I know it's a lampoon.
Sadistic? Homophobic? Immature? You say these things as if YOU'VE met Him. In fact, they sound like you're judgment of Him. Yes, G-d hates sin. Unforgiving? Have you been estranged from ever having read a Bible? Have you experienced "unforgiveness"? How do YOU know? By your own accounts it seems you never read a Bible, so I don't know where you got your idea of capriciousness from, so I don't think it warrants an answer.
Especially silly in that you only believe in that god only because someone else who hasn't ever met that god told you to believe in it.
You don't know how I came to believe, in fact, you are wrong. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/24/2008 5:00:08 PM | Nowhere
You say that people who don't believe in God talk about him a lot. I suppose that's true under the right circumstances, but not in general. Most atheists I know have other things going on in their lives which negate the necessity for them to be talking about a God they don't believe in.
Besides, look what happens when we do state our beliefs; it is taken as a personal attack on the people who do believe, people then make value judgements on our character, and before you know it, we are excluded from certain circles. After all, we do live in a Christian-based society. In fact, I have numerous friends to whom I could not state my beliefs/lack of beliefs. You really do learn to keep quiet.
But this thread is about providing proof of God, apparently started by a theist, and as of yet, nothing conclusive has been provided; not even that the universe abides by mathematical principles. I think God is the only hypothesis for which we say that unless you can prove that it does not exist, then it must exist.
Finally, if someone doesn't believe in God, then they cannot judge him; we're not looking at this as an emotional issue, but a logical argument. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/24/2008 6:49:44 PM | Nowhere
You say that people who don't believe in God talk about him a lot. I suppose that's true under the right circumstances, but not in general. Most atheists I know have other things going on in their lives which negate the necessity for them to be talking about a God they don't believe in.
novascotialass: "justalittlecrazy" said that, not I. I think certain people on this forum who don't believe like to talk about Him do it, merely to flex their mental muscles, and to fulfill their egos. In certain respects I am guilty of egoism as well.
Besides, look what happens when we do state our beliefs; it is taken as a personal attack on the people who do believe, people then make value judgements on our character, and before you know it, we are excluded from certain circles. After all, we do live in a Christian-based society. In fact, I have numerous friends to whom I could not state my beliefs/lack of beliefs. You really do learn to keep quiet.
I took what that other guy said as an attack, because he stated believing is delusional. So it goes for both parties. Stating your beliefs is one thing, in fact, that would be refreshing. As you can see, that is not the case.
But this thread is about providing proof of God, apparently started by a theist, and as of yet, nothing conclusive has been provided; not even that the universe abides by mathematical principles. I think God is the only hypothesis for which we say that unless you can prove that it does not exist, then it must exist.
I suppose "proof" is up to the discretion of every individual. Some people need logical proof, some experiential, some, none at all.
Here's a "proof" : Has any non-believer said "I hope..." ? If it is in one's ability to do something, to change the outcome of the event, and they are willing and truly cannot, yet they still have hope, it would seem irrational to hope in anything at all, merely empty words. If not empty, perhaps there is hope?
Finally, if someone doesn't believe in God, then they cannot judge him; we're not looking at this as an emotional issue, but a logical argument.
Perhaps on a certain level. If what you said is true, then it is an attack; name-calling, rabble-rousing. I would hope that people are not a slave to "Reason" entirely, it's dehumanizing.
"Vanity of vanities all is vanity. " | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/24/2008 8:54:01 PM | nowhere,
You need to make up your mind. And you need to read your own Bible.
First, you admit you don't know your god from a hole in the ground. Then you go on to tell me you can differentiate two representations of the almighty being. Can't have it both ways.
Then you launch into statements about my ascribing characteristics to the biblical god that are inherent in that book. I have read the bible. Have you read Numbers? Pretty horrific stuff. How about the gospels? Jesus wasn't such a good fig grower, was he? So, I read the book and all I could take out of it was what a complete boob your god is. You'll find your god fully acting every way but godlike in that there book. You don't think anything you can't answer as warranting an answer. Really, read the book. Not the good parts or greatest hits or what your pastor tells you to but ALL of it. Prove Mark Twain right.
The only way you can know about the god of the bible is by having someone tell you about him either verbally or in print. Don't be daft. If god told you himself, you need medication. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/25/2008 5:38:02 PM | Seems "is to hot" asks questions, then answers them himself. He can even feel the Karma of people and know if they read a bible or not .... what an observation!
I would not waste my breath with you...I guess I should say type any response from your rebuttal of any of my posts. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/25/2008 6:23:08 PM | Evolution as Mythology, Part 5 (of 5): Conclusion
Editor’s note: Today we present an article by guest scholars Dr. Hugh Henry, Ph.D. , Daniel J. Dyke, M.Div., M.Th., and Dr. Charles Cruze, Ph.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The four previous articles in this series have shown that the theory of evolution is more like a creation myth than a scientific theory. A myth may be true or false, but its principle characteristic is that it validates the thinking, practices, and ideals of a culture. Evolution explains our existence within the framework of our modern culture of naturalism, which has no need for a god.
A myth cannot be proved, or disproved, with the technology of the culture; a myth requires faith. Evolutionists must have faith that living organisms appeared spontaneously from nonliving matter on earth (abiogenesis)—or from extraterrestrial sources. Faith is required because no demonstration of this capability has ever been performed on any level and because probability calculations argue strongly against it. Evolutionists must also have faith that simple life-forms evolved over geological ages into more complex life-forms via the extraordinarily rare mechanism of random beneficial mutations, and that dissimilar life-forms evolved from a common ancestor by the same mechanism. But the data support the thesis of a common intelligent designer just as well (or as poorly) as the thesis of macroevolution.
Not only does the theory of evolution meet the criteria of a creation myth, but also it fails to meet a critical criterion of a scientific theory: it cannot be falsified. For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be possible to devise a controlled test such that a negative result proves the theory false. But no such test exists for evolution because it is based on unrepeatable, once-in-a-lifetime random occurrences that can therefore “explain” anything.
Even apparently strong circumstantial evidence against macroevolution-by-random-mutations is readily dismissed. The symbiotic nature of grossly dissimilar life-forms is an example. Why should fruits and vegetables have a taste and smell that appeal to animals and humans, even though plants and animals are believed to have followed totally separate evolutionary pathways? This difficulty caused evolutionary zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé to comment:
“[According to] the Darwinian theory … a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur… . There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.”1
This emphasizes evolution’s myth like character. Mathematician/ philosopher Wolfgang Smith adds:
“The doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is, in essence, a metaphysical claim… . evolutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb.”2
As a result, some scientists are beginning to view Darwinism in the same way others view religion. After all, it has a prophet (Charles Darwin), a priesthood, and a secret body of knowledge. Science historian Marjorie Grene says, “It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds, men’s minds… . Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.”3
Evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis believes “neo-Darwinism will ultimately be viewed as only ‘a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology.’”4
Grassé observes, “Chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped.”5 He feels the “duty (of biologists) is to destroy the myth of evolution … to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths.”6
Nevertheless, the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution will probably continue as the prevailing scientific paradigm into the foreseeable future for at least several reasons related to its mythological character:
The theory of evolution is the creation myth of scientists taught to seek naturalistic explanations for observed natural phenomena, and in this context, it’s the only game in town. T. S. Kuhn points out in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, “the decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneous with the decision to accept another.”7 Therefore, although scientific research may pile up more and more data, no absolute answer or definitive mechanism will ever be found as long as the data is viewed through the lens of the naturalism creation myth. Neo-Darwinism will hence remain the dominant theory - even if modified slightly in its details - because it is the only naturalistic paradigm..
Kuhn also observes that scientists who have written papers supporting a particular idea are reluctant to change their minds.8 Darwinism and neo-Darwinism have been the dominant theories for over 100 years and 50 years, respectively; if evolution-by-random-mutations is wrong, countless textbooks and research papers by prominent scientists are wrong. Therefore, even if new data point to an alternate mechanism, it will probably be a long time before it is accepted as the dominant paradigm.
Perhaps the most compelling argument for the longevity of the theory of evolution is that it is the creation myth of a segment of the population much larger and more influential than scientists, and that is atheists, including cultural Christian nonbelievers. Surveys show confirmed atheists comprise far less than 10% of the American population,9 but their influence—especially in public policy and academia—far exceeds their numbers. Anything that reflects negatively on the evolution mythology will be met with strong and implacable opposition by such people, because the primary alternative to the creation myth of evolution is the idea of a creator-God, and this destroys the foundation of atheism. The over-the-top reaction in the mainstream media against the opening of a Creation Museum in Kentucky in 2007 illustrates this point, as does the fact that a new breed of militant atheists have begun to refer to Christians as “intolerant” and as “terrorists,” and to accuse them of many social ills, including war.
Fundamentalist Christians also contribute to the problem by casting science as an enemy of God, rather than a potential source of support. They fail to understand the subtle—but essential—distinction between a naturalistic cause and a naturalistic mechanism. A naturalistic cause implies something occurs because of self-directed natural processes, but God can use natural processes as a means to affect His will. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that God uses natural phenomena in a hyper-natural way to bring about miracles, of which the Israelite crossing of the Red Sea is the clearest example.10
Scientists who seek to minimize reliance on supernatural arguments and to understand the world in an honest way should be encouraged, not denigrated. Some of the greatest scientific breakthroughs have been made by Christians who believe “knowledge of the Holy One is understanding,”11 and find such knowledge through their work—and who also believe (with Michael Faraday) that “God’s … eternal power and divine nature have been … understood from what has been made.”12
Science is not the enemy, nor are scientists. The enemy is mythology masquerading as science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Pierre-P. Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, (New York: Academic Press, 1977), 103-4.
2 Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion (Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers, 1988), 242.
3 Marjorie Grene, “The Faith of Darwinism,” Encounter 74 (November 1959), 48.
4 Charles Mann, “Lynn Margulis: Science’s Unruly Earth Mother,” Science 252 (April 19, 1991): 378-81.
5 Pierre-P. Grassé, loc cit (1977), 107.
6 Pierre-P. Grassé, loc cit (1977), 8.
7 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), 77.
8 Thomas S. Kuhn, loc cit (1996), 59.
9 http://www.geocities.com/richleebruce/mystat.html ;http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html
10 Exodus 14:21-22, 27.
11 Proverbs 9:10 (NAS).
12 Romans 1:20 (NAS).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Hugh Henry received his Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Virginia in 1971, retired after 26 years at Varian Medical Systems, and currently serves as Lecturer in Physics at Northern Kentucky University in Highland Heights, KY.
Mr. Daniel J. Dyke received his Master of Theology from Princeton Theological Seminary 1981 and currently serves as Professor of Old Testament at Cincinnati Christian University in Cincinnati, OH.
Dr. Charles Cruze received his Ph.D. in Pharmaceutical Sciences from University of Tennessee Center for Health Sciences in 1977, and currently works in research at Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals.
This entry was posted on Monday, June 2nd, 2008 at 12:05 am and is filed under Evolution. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/25/2008 9:22:43 PM | Just a little crazy,
If you're going to attack the Theory of Evolution, it would be really nice if you first learned what it was first. The ToE has nothing to do with abiogenesis so there's one strike. Additionally, the ToE is tested every single day in labs all over the world and has been found to be consistent. Strike two. The ToE has led to working therapies for difficult diseases. Strike three.
Just in case you haven't been near a newsstand latetly, modern technology has disproved various myths like the flat earth, homunculi, aether, phlogiston, etc. So, your cherry-picked experts are wrong.
Why is it people like you and the writers of this garbage anoint yourselves instant experts after listening to a sermon from someone who knows sod-all about science? This is getting ridiculous. If people like you would even talk intelligently for once, you may be more persuasive. At the moment, people in industrialized countries are living longer and healthier lives than ever in recorded history. This, my friend, is not due to religion or its ridiculous arguments. This longevity is the result of science, technology and the scientific method. That includes what we know about genetics, which in turn is the ToE in practice.
The real progress doesn't belong to religion. (When has it ever?) If you want to return to the Dark Ages, go ahead. Just leave the sentient alone. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/26/2008 1:48:23 AM | Descarte's 'Cognito Ergo Sum' has been dismantled by modern philosophers and it out of date. I don't know all the debates but I will dismantle in my own way.
I think is just a process that someone is aware of. A process of imagination in the mind from the result of symbolism which we connect to the external world and call thought.
Therefore "I think" could just as well mean "I breath", or "I walk" or anything having to do with 'I'. 'I' which is an imaginary fiction created by humans with an anthropological thought process. That thought process which is given to us and only thinks in certain terms. One of those terms being a singular entity in a holistic universe. Holistic meaning whole, or not divisible into parts. It is impossible to take any part out of the universe.
So to finish quick, to start from "I think" is to start from the imagination which is human, fallible and anthropological. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/26/2008 1:53:32 AM | | I thought this thread might be a bit of fun. But, so much vitriol and nonsense is being spewed on all sides that it's become rather tedious reading. Couple of points that need to be understood. The exercise in trying to prove the necessary existence of a supreme being is ultimately a futile exercise, but it has not stopped what have been terribly clever and ingenious attempts that allow us to examine the nature of language and logical concepts. Again, if there were good, sound logical or empirical reasons that supported the belief in a supreme being, then there would be no need for "faith" which asks us to suspend rational enquiry, to suspend our need for "proof" and to believe in the absence of any such evidence or proof. However, given that so many theists have a tendency to ignore their own submission to 'faith', it can be fun to examine some of these old and rather famous arguments to which they willingly or unwittingly appeal. But trying to justify theistic beliefs in the manner that some people on here have, well (if you'll forgive the pun), it defies belief. Do you honestly believe that it makes MORE rational sense to believe in a supreme being? If that's the case, well why is there any need for faith in the first place? You cannot really have it both ways, either one must have faith, or on the basis of evidence sufficient to satisfy the normal criteria of rational investigation one can show that there are good, sound rational reasons for believing in God, and thereby, no need for faith. The most famous of these kinds of efforts have been logical arguments, which while extremely clever, nevertheless all commit logical errors at some point. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/26/2008 5:55:03 AM |
So to finish quick, to start from "I think" is to start from the imagination which is human, fallible and anthropological.
an·thro·pol·o·gy –noun
1. the science that deals with the origins, physical and cultural development, biological characteristics, and social customs and beliefs of humankind.
2. the study of human beings' similarity to and divergence from other animals.
3. the science of humans and their works.
4. Also called philosophical anthropology. the study of the nature and essence of humankind.
So what is your point?
re "I think" could just as well mean "I breath", or "I walk"
Animals do not think as humans do and do not have speech as humans do. Yes you can say animals are very smart. Spiders building a web. Who taught them this? Beavers building dams. birds building nests fish like dolphins and whales have there own way of communication. But to say I think is the same as I breath and I walk is not relevant. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/26/2008 6:24:21 AM |
The real progress doesn't belong to religion. (When has it ever?) If you want to return to the Dark Ages, go ahead. Just leave the sentient alone.
I did not mention anything about any REAL process to finding God in religion. Most if not all of the religions of the world are man made. Faith in a divine creator is not necessarily religion as YOU think it is. Reading the Bible which you have mentioned more than once. Is an historical fact if you decide it is in your own mind. If not than how could you believe in it? Just that you know understanding the written bible is not so hard to understand when you put all your opinions away before reading it. And you might actually learn something from studying it.
If I and any other person believing in a creator is still in the dark ages. People which rely on your kind of thinking and believing in the hot Pre- life chemical soup becoming intelligent life by chance is as good as any of the old Greek myths. Just that you know the dark ages were at least a thousand years after the creation account.
You and some others tend to be very rude to believers in creation and there would be many more here to discuss existence of God on the creation side. I am sure of it. But as I see it why bother debating in these forums with people who ridicule others. | |
|
| |
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/26/2008 7:59:56 AM |
People which rely on your kind of thinking and believing in the hot Pre- life chemical soup becoming intelligent life by chance is as good as any of the old Greek myths
I'm sorry but that kind of reasoning doesn't work on any level at all. That's really a very poor effort. Any application of any variant on Ockham's razor automatically unsettles your conviction. As Hume has pointed out in "Of Miracles": The antecedent improbability of the theistic position (in this case when it comes to the question of a supreme being) always outweighs the implausibility or comlexity of even the most far fetched scientific account. You more or less have to lose this on a priori grounds...again, why do you think the theologians insist on the necessity of faith? | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/26/2008 9:49:26 AM | atheist here.
It's irrational to believe in something when there is no real tangible evidence to back it up. Even though there is alot science can't explain I'm not sold by just "god did it"
show me proof.
Atleast there is proof in evoloution I believe religion gets in the way of free thinking and I certainly don't like the idea of being dictated to by books that were written thausands of years ago.
but that's just me. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/26/2008 10:52:44 AM | Some religions believe we carry the light of divinity within all of us.
I am, therefore, I am God. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/26/2008 7:30:44 PM |
Atleast there is proof in evoloution
Not a true statement ...... evolution is only a theory
There are NO transforming fossils found not one! With the evolution theory there should be many. Einstein said there would be many but he was wrong.
Why is it .... I just have to ask, In thinking of the movie Ghost Busters, I know laugh get it out. Done ... Good. With some people claiming in seeing ghosts or feeling what they feel are spirits near them and seeing things move on there own and the many haunted houses you here about. I am not saying I have ever seen this. Many say there is another dimension. Even in some science theories they feel another universe could be right next to us in another dimension So either all these people are crazy or there is a some sort of spirit world. And if so why wouldn't there be The Spirit of God creator of everything. More logical then spiting on the floor and with the right conditions millions of years later we have a cadillac | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/26/2008 9:06:03 PM |
Faith in a divine creator is not necessarily religion as YOU think it is. Reading the Bible which you have mentioned more than once. Is an historical fact if you decide it is in your own mind. If not than how could you believe in it?
Well, here we have it. I'm not sure that you were referring to me in an earlier post when you accused someone of saying that faith in a deity was delusional. The term delusional connotes pathological belief. That is not the norm. However, in your case, it is the case. Your brand of faith is delusional. There are not many people of faith who would agree that reading any sacred writing infers that you have to believe it is historically accurate, espeically in the face of overwhelming contravening evidence.
If I and any other person believing in a creator is still in the dark ages.
You believe in god. I believe in complete sentences. Maybe we are too different.
People which rely on your kind of thinking and believing in the hot Pre- life chemical soup becoming intelligent life by chance is as good as any of the old Greek myths.
People with my kind of thinking? You mean people who don't make stuff up that disagrees with reality? Those guys? How do you know I didn't just read Gulliver's Travels and am tying myself to tiny little sticks driven into the ground? To answer your question, I don't know how life started on this planet. Some people must and those people who know reality have postulated various scenarios. It is true that there in no direct evidence if any of these are correct. However, weren't you just recently railing that the Theory of Evolution was wrong because you didn't like any of the abiogenesis hypotheses except god-did-it? (Yes, that is also an abiogenesis hypothesis so why not say that all the others are like Christian myths?) Let's get this straight. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life anywhere. It is strictly a scientific theory of how life adapts to changing conditions and could form different species. It's a very simple concept but you would know that if you had ever studied it.
You and some others tend to be very rude to believers in creation and there would be many more here to discuss existence of God on the creation side. I am sure of it.
I am very rude to you, m'boy. Take a look at your very first message to me. Let me know when you're done. Was that a friendly message? Why were you taking up for another believer who had taken such an unChristian attitude towards me? They guy who accused me of speaking out of ignorance of the bible?
Funny thing, that's not the first time that happened. There was a christian guy at work who was being fairly obnoxious trying to convert me to his religion despite knowing full well that I'm an atheist. One time he invited me to a bible study he was leading at his church. I declined politely but he kept on, finally telling me that he was teaching about the Seige of Jericho. So, I told him that I would gladly attend if he allowed me to teach the bible passage describing what happened after the wall of Jericho tumbled down. You know that he didn't know! He hadn't bothered to read that part. Can you say attrocity approved by God? Well, he never bothered me again. I know it wasn't nice but it was deserved.
But let's get back to what you've written. Why would I care if you and your ilk discuss the creation and your god? I don't. I do care when you arrive at a public forum and try to convince people that a book of allegory is factual and that science is bunk. Now, there you are making up your own reality. So why bother those of us who studied and learned to deal with reality with your fantasies? We're really not interested and we don't like to have our intelligence so callously insulted.
But as I see it why bother debating in these forums with people who ridicule others.
No, not "others" just you and the bloke who said I was ignorant. Turn the other cheek. Better yet, leave any time you want. | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 19
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 |
|
Home
login 
