|Does god exist?Page 3 of 13 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)|
God spoke to me; therefore God exists.
"Been there, Heard Him.."
Amen to you Ashley
|Does god exist?|
Posted: 12/11/2005 11:53:48 AM
|The fact that you do not wish to understand the very words of God will make things alot more difficult for oneself.|
But in this case there is otherways to provide a point of view
The Earth its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet it restrains our massive oceans from spilling over across the continents.
Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.
Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.
Water is also chemically inert. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.
Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.
Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.
Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.
Your brain registers emotional responses, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.
The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.8 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. A brain that deals with more than a million pieces of information every second, while evaluating its importance and allowing you to act on the most pertinent information...can we say mere chance brought about such an astounding organ?
Only a mind more intelligent and knowledgeable than humanity could have created the human brain.
Only touching on a few amazing aspects of our world: the Earth's position to the sun, some properties of water, an organ of the human body. Could any of these have come about by chance?
When one considers the intricacies of our life and universe, it is reasonable to think that an intelligent, loving Creator provided for everything we need for life. The Bible describes God as the author and sustainer of life.
God will pove himself to you, but maybe too late for some or they would have wished to have known Him long before. This is the choice you have. But He will reveal Himself it really is up to you when either you seek him or He will come to save you from self destruction for He does love everyone and does not wish for them to perish.
Do you want to begin a relationship with God and actually know you are accepted by Him?
This is your decision, no coercion here. But if you want to be forgiven by God and come into a relationship with Him, you can do so right now by asking Him to forgive you and come into your life. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door [of your heart and knock. He who hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him
God views your relationship with Him as permanent. Referring to all those who believe in Him, Jesus Christ said of us, "I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand."
One can conclude that a loving God does exist and can be known in an intimate, personal way.
God says, "I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you." This is God, in action.
|God exist does|
Posted: 12/11/2005 12:51:20 PM
|Pardon Sky? I do not uderstand what you are implying. Please explain .|
He/she ?? not as I know? The one who knows everything about me is God more so than I. God also knows all about you better than you thought.
Now if you think you know what my understanding of God is I would say great but how do you know it would be not as I know it. This mmakes no sense Sky.
|God exist does|
Posted: 12/11/2005 6:56:43 PM
If he is all loving, he understands my need for evidence of his existence. He will come to me to show himself and then I will come to him to prove myself worthy of heaven.
Uhmmm...He already did...about 2000+ years ago...and "The Holy Spirit" left behind for us, still calls...
So, ball is in your court...believe what is written...or not...
|God exist does|
Posted: 12/11/2005 11:43:08 PM
Reading a book isn't reveling himself to me. I need direct communication, so it must be through miracle (or supernatural ways). Simply positing a book isn't useful, because I can turn the same thing to you...
Well Kid, then you'll have a long wait with your closed minded views.
Reading and Studying 'The' Bible is but one of the best ways to get to know Him...
Try Prayer; ernest, deep, sincere prayers too...
Also, there are those who claim 'God' speaks to them; Even most Christians tend to think that fringe element should be institutionalised for their own good.
But, consider this: You actually 'hear' the voice of God speak to you someday soon;
Who then will you tell of your friends, that would stop and believe you?
What proof could YOU give that it actually happened to YOU?
|Does god exist?|
Posted: 1/25/2006 8:44:29 AM
|"Yes, millions/billions of people on this planet contemplate/worship God, therefore, He must exist." |
argumentum ad numerum- also known as the bandwagon fallacy. Millions of people once believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Were they right? Just because a lot of people believe something is not a logical argument for it's veracity. I could provide a long list of things a lot of people believe that are demonstrably false. There is no way to prove either way if God exists or not. That renders it a matter of personal philosophical belief. If you go about trying to use logic or empirical observation to prove his existence you will fail. Just accept that it's something you "feel" and leave it at that.
"Science has proved that man did not come from a monkey, chimp, ape, or any other creature for that matter"
This is a terribly ignorant statement. First of all the theory of Evolution does not state that man evolved from an ape or a monkey. We share a common ancestor- big difference. Secondly the theory is an exceedingly strong one and accepted by the vast majority of people in the scientific community. And don't bother pasting a list of a handful of "scientists" who claim to support creationism, because they are not representative of the average scientist, and most of those names are people speaking outside of their discipline and in some cases are even blatantly misquoted.
"the big bang theory they threw that one out the window"
Where do you get this drivel? The big bang theory has not been discarded.
"How long did it take granite to form?"
Amusing. This old saw again. This nonsense is based on the rather unscientific claims of one person who happens to be a physicist and not a geologist, and is NOT taken seriously by the mainstream scientific community for very good reason. He has never been able to demonstrate that the concentric halos in mica are the sole result of polonium decay's alpha particles, and all the actual evidence contradicts his theory. His samples are not from the early stages of the earth, and it does not cohere with the vast amount of independent evidence for the age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years.
"I have questions that are even harder than this one"
Harder for you perhaps, but sophomoric to someone studied in scientific methodology and critical thinking. You are like a child loudly proclaiming his expertise in English literature, because he just read a stack of Richie Rich comic books.
|Does god exist?|
Posted: 1/25/2006 10:59:25 AM
|"I especially love the harp strings."|
Zoom- right over my head. I don't get the reference here.
"So, I stand on yes, God exists because million/billions recognize Him as existing"
I think you missed my point. If you are predicating your belief on what a bunch of other people believe, then I have to say you should rethink your position. If you lived in Nazi Germany, would it be a sound argument that Jews should be rounded up into concentration camps, because all your neighbors believed so? That is a terrible reason to believe something. A far more sound reason for your beliefs would simply be that you feel it to be true. It's not a logical reason either, but at least it sets the issue in a relevant framework. It is nothing but a matter of personal inclination for both theists and atheists.
|Does god exist?|
Posted: 1/25/2006 11:33:49 AM
|"ARGUMENT FROM BEER"|
Now that makes sense! In fact I think I'll run to the liquor store and get pious.
"The question is not "Do you believe in God and if so why"?"
And my point was that the reason you gave for believing is hopelessly spurious. If how many people believe something is a litmus test for validity, then you should also believe in Santa Claus, because millions of children worldwide do. There's an awful lot of people who believe that America is the great Satan- do their numbers lend legitimacy to that? A lot of people used to believe that fruit flies spontaneously generated from rotting fruit. Should we accept this as a valid theory, because a lot of people believed it? If that was how science worked, you wouldn't have a computer to engage in this discussion, or an electrical outlet to plug it into. An awful lot of people in the world are racist- are they right, because there are so many of them? I'm not saying that your beliefs are false, only that the reason you gave for them is a terrible one. Don't get an "I'm dumb" complex. I'm not accusing you of that. Just listen to what I'm saying. Predicating beliefs on how many other people believe it can and often does lead to horrible situations. The bandwagon fallacy is not only egregiously illogical; it can even be socially dangerous.
|Does god exist?|
Posted: 1/25/2006 3:16:01 PM
|"Anyone with a long enough attention span would notice that if they read a novel of, say, 200 pages, in one day (quite intense reading it would have to be), they would for a while feel themselves somewhat “seeing” the world of the novel all around oneself, because the thought association and worldview of the author(s) of the book would have taken over one’s usual frame of mind"|
Good post- a little disjointed, but interesting and thought provoking. I regularly will read 200 pages in a day, sometimes more, sometimes less. Now and then I'll read as much as 400 pages in a day, and I can tell you from years of personal experience that you are right. It is an entirely different mind-expanding experience to immerse yourself like that in the intellectual space of the author as opposed to slowly digesting it over a long period of time, but I would extend your statement into non-fiction as well, perhaps even more so in that case. I would also extrapolate the concept beyond one book and into a subject. Sometimes a subject will catch my interest, and I'll check out five books on it from the library and consume them in short order. Not only are you immersed in the subject, allowing you to apply concepts to your environment in a whole new light and illuminating a nexus with other concepts previously encountered, but you are also provided with the tremendous benefit of having the concepts introduced through differing perspectives and perceptual biases. Sometimes you think you understand something, but when you read it presented in a new light for the third time a light bulb goes on, and you begin to understand it on a whole new level.
|Does god exist?|
Posted: 1/25/2006 6:44:28 PM
|Densebored- Son, you need to get your information from legitimate sources. I doubt you will absorb anything I tell you, so feel free to skip my post; it is really intended for those who are actually interested in learning the actual facts, not for the wilfully ignorant, meaning those who have no interest in furthering their knowledge beyond what they have already decided to be true, regardless of the actual evidence. First- let's examine the "credentials" of Dr. Baugh. According to his own claims he holds a degree in "Doctor of Philosophy in Theology from the California Graduate School of Theology." First, it is not an earned degree, but an honorary one, and the "California Graduate School of Theology" is not accredited by any national or regional accrediting agency. It is also a degree entirely unrelated to Geology. He also claims to hold a degree in Bachelor of Arts from Burton College, which investigators have not even been able to verify exists, and also unrelated regardless, and a Master of Arts from Luther Rice in Conjunction with Pacific College of Graduate Studies, which is a seminary school from which a representative confirms that Baugh received a degree in Biblical Archeology from their Australian extension, also unrelated to Geology. He then later claimed to hold a Masters Degree in Archaeology from Pacific College and a Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Anthropology from College of Advanced Education. Both of these supposed claims have been shown to be false. The address of the College of Advanced Education that he cited was traced by investigators to a private residence located next to a baptist church whose reverend stated that CAE is a missions school with no scientific curriculum. His personal history goes on and on like this, with spurious claims of legitimate degrees. The man is a liar, and a con-artist. Gee, how surprising- lies from the creationist movement. |
"actually there is no one in the scientic community that is willing to come forward to disproved the theory how long it took granite to form."
Nonsense. His claims have been roundly debunked. It's just that the scientific community doesn't pay much attention to frauds. Just because he continues to perpetrate his fraud does not mean the scientific community needs to address him every time. He's already proven his utter lack of legitimacy.
"The most serious error that all evolutionary minded people make in accepting dates derived from Carbon-14 dating and from the half-lives of Uranium isotopes, including U-238, is the PRESUMPTION that the Theory of Uniformitarianism, the foundation on which both systems of dating rise and fall, is rock solid"
Son, you need to get a real education. None of this is even accurate. Uniformitarianism is not the lynch pin in carbon dating. Uniformitarianism is an antiquated and no longer accepted geological theory regarding the geological timescale being uniform as opposed to catastrophism. You are misapplying it. Not only has it not been accepted in Geology for a long time now, but it is unrelated to carbon dating. You are confounding lack of punctuation in geologic history with the regular decay rate of radioactive atoms. For those who would like to learn how carbon dating actually works reference the following website:
|Does god exist?|
Posted: 1/25/2006 8:00:15 PM
|"I choose to believe in Elshadi."|
That's great. I have no problem with that and no desire to convince you otherwise. Lies, misrepresentations and misquoting of scientific theory and scientists, on the other hand, pisses me off. The creationist movement routinely uses these prevaricating tactics, and they get saps like you, who have no understanding of science, to spread their lies. Evolution is not atheistic- that is another of their lies. They prey on the public's naivete of science to spread their ideological virus. Congratulations, you are one of their zombie soldiers. You have been hoodwinked. Why don't you actually study science before yammering on with your negative opinions of something you don't even understand? How would you feel about someone denouncing the Bible if they have never even read it? I have no problem with your faith. Belief in God is not contradicted by Evolution or science in general. The creationism movement is perpetrated by a small group of fundamentalist literalists who insist that the Bible should be interpreted as literal word for word. That is a logical impossibility considering that the Bible gives contradictory accounts. Clearly, divinely inspired or not, it is at least somewhat metaphorical. There is nothing besides an absurd literal interpretation that obviates complementarity between science and religion.
|Does god exist?|
Posted: 1/26/2006 12:37:04 PM
|"Just look at his typical response to those who believe in God. Why is he so angry? He says he has no problem with peoples' faith, yet those who express it are insulted and ridiculed by him."|
When have I attacked someone for their faith? Show me where I have done that. I attack people for denouncing science when they have no substantive knowledge of what science even is- like you have just done in your post. I have never attacked someone for simply expressing their belief in God.
"He claims to know about the Bible, but has made no sense in sharing his beliefs or his "evidence" about it."
I've read the Bible. I've never claimed to be an expert on it. The only comments I have made regarding the bible is that it is logically impossible to interpret it literally word for word. That is simply a fact. I have expressed no negative opinions towards it. You want to know what angers me? Exactly the type of prevaricating tactics that you are now using. Implying that I have said things I haven't. Yes, dishonesty, lies and logical fallacies anger me. I admit it.
"And he probably thinks Believers are hippocrites"
Nope, I do not.
Without going into detail on the silly misunderstanding of science that you have just pasted, I will give you a general description of what you don't understand- science is a process, not a fixed dogmatic belief. Of course our understanding of nature grows and changes. Of course theories today are more refined than those a century ago, and they will be refined further still. Many theories that are proffered in the scientific community "touch on" an underlying causal mechanism, but not enough empirical data exists to frame it in a satisfactory analogy, which is what a theory is- a model- a representation of underlying causal mechanisms. When more data is available the analogies are replaced with better ones that are more explanatory in a larger frame of reference. Your post is very illustrative of your gross ignorance of what science even is. You guys still don't get what pisses me off. It is the denouncing of something you don't understand. And I'm not implying you don't have the ability to, only that you don't possess the knowledge. Instead of tilting at windmills, why don't you just educate yourself? It seems to be you who is arguing, by default, that you don't possess the ability.
|Does god exist?|
Posted: 1/26/2006 2:26:14 PM
|"By the way "Science is at best an educated guess." Can you tell me who said that"|
Sounds familiar, but I don't. I do concur with the sentiment though. The operative word here is "educated." There is a big difference between guessing the moon is made of green cheese and developing a logically consistent model based on empirical observation.
"But I'm a firm believer in knowing who you are talking with before you make bold statements."
And I'm a firm believer in predicating rebuttals on the content of another's argument. It is plainly clear that your knowledge of scientific methodology is wanting. If that were not the case, you would not misuse scientific terms and principles and quote the theories of frauds.
"By the way where did you get your degree in science?"
Irrelevant. If you are saying this because I exposed the spurious credentials of Baugh then you entirely missed my point. When did I ever claim to have a degree in Physics from MIT for example? I routinely express the fact in the forum that I am an autodidact. Where I learned what I know, from the library or a university, is completely irrelevant. If you doubt my knowledge, then that should be predicated on nothing but the content of my posts. That is all I've done with you; I could care less if you have a degree or not. I only care that you have exposed your lack of knowledge in this area by your words. The relevant point about Baugh is not his lacking credentials, but the fact that he is a liar and a fraud.
"and there are more scientist than you could ever emagine that use the Bible as a compass for their work."
As an inspiration, there's nothing wrong with that. I don't care if a scientists casts bones for inspiration and some may. That is entirely different than predicating a theory on a metaphysical assumption while ignoring empirical evidence. That is what real scientists DON'T do. As I've stated before, there are many Christian scientists, there are many Hindu, Muslim, Pagan, Atheist, Agnostic, etc., etc., scientists. So what? The point is they all understand the important demarcation between their personal philosophical beliefs and the METHODOLOGY of science. Something you clearly don't.
"I along with quite a few decided to open our eyes to new thing and new idea's,"
You have done quite the opposite. You have started from an assumed premise and ignored any evidence to the contrary. That is not an open mind. That is a dogmatic mind. I can't remember the name of the guy who said it, so sorry for not citing him, but the quote bears repitition-
One should keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.
|Does god exist?|
Posted: 10/14/2006 5:16:40 AM
|The existence of a supernatual spirit being cannot be proven from our particular level of understanding.|
One day perhaps when humans have evolved to a higher level, it may be possible.
|Does god exist?|
Posted: 1/1/2008 2:41:55 PM
"Ah, but barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me."
"Exactly !"- affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens, is, people don't go to Him and do not look for Him.
"barber" has a testable definition. "God" does not.
A barber may be observed to exist without going to him. Gods cannot.
I can show you a barber. I cannot show you a god.
A barber has objective evidence to show he exists. All evidence of gods is subjective.
The question is unanswerable. Both answers are purely personal assumptions, however you arrive at them. I say "no" because every concept of deities has been contradicted by real world evidence. With no positive evidence, and every example proven wrong, there's no reason to thing any future example will prove correct.
I AM HE AS YOU ARE ME, AND WE ARE ALL TOGETHER
See how they run like pigs from a gun see how they fly...
|Does god exist?|
Posted: 1/1/2008 4:57:47 PM
No offence but I believe you are mistaken... The concept of a singularity splitting itself into all aspects of itself has most definatly not been contradicted by real world evidence and time and time again, the concept of being at one with all things has been envisioned by many different people from many walks of life.
If that whatever caused the Big Bang had thoughts and or feelings, it could have been a deity
Could have been, but unless you define them as one and the same, you're still dealing with a fairly arbitrary and unsupported concept. I should have been more specific and referred to gods which are reputed to have some sort of current, real-world interaction. Those which are reputed to interact are contradicted. The remainder are unsupported. Defining a god which is exactly the same as a scientific concept WORKS, but it's redundant with the science and won't be a concept which many of the religious will agree with. Maximum parsimony eliminates redundant explanations, like god-of-the-big-bang. Most concepts of deities exist as explanations for real world events. While I don't actually have a problem with your concept, and at one time would have agreed with it, it just strikes me as an attempt to cling to a broader concept which is increasingly proven wrong and shoehorned into narrower and narrower niches. This is the essence of my disbelief - the concepts have been disproven over and over until they reach a point where they are redundant with science and offer only spiritual comfort. I don't begrudge the latter, but the former is pointless.
Show me pain. Show me love. show me hate.Show me jealously. These things you can not see, hear or touch. But they exist.You can emotionally feel them just as I have emotionally felt God.
More false analogy. Pain is a sense, like pressure, vision, smell, hearing. It is a means by which the body measures interactions with the world. Love, hate, and jealousy are emotions, which are purely internal mental concepts. Are you considering God to be just an emotion? Most of those who make this comparison believe that God does things, and has some kind of external existence. Can an emotion part the Red Sea? Are you considering God to be a sense? What does this sense actually do?
|Does god exist?|
Posted: 2/21/2010 12:18:45 PM
|I'm not so arrogant to say, without a doubt, something so divine certainly does not exist. However, that is how I feel. I was born and raised as a Christian and it wasn't until I started to question all the things I'd ever been taught that I actually started to see things a little differently.|
To say that the universe is too complex to be anything less than design seems a little ignorant (no offense). If you consider, lets just say, a billion billion universes and 1 in every billion has 1 planet that can sustain life that's still a billion planets that have the exact conditions to sustain life. It's not design. It's a result of millions of years of natural selection and evolution. It's not chance and it only seems remarkable because now we're conscious of it all.
It seems like almost all the arguments that favour the existence of God either come down to, "God is above science. You have to have faith" or if science can't disprove God he must exist. You have to understand how foolish that sounds. That because we can't (yet) explain something that it must be divine. It's like saying, "Oh, you can't explain that? Don't worry, God did it." As if it is better to remain ignorant than to truly discover the origin of life, or anything else for that matter.
After all if God did exist who created God?
13 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)