NationStates Jolt Archive

I challenge anyone seriously willing*! Prove the existence of God, using this forum and your wits alone, to a heathen such as myself.

I challenge anyone seriously willing*! Prove the existence of God, using this forum and your wits alone, to a heathen such as myself.
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable
(3) Therefore, God exists.

I challenge anyone seriously willing*! Prove the existence of God, using this forum and your wits alone, to a heathen such as myself.
Hey, I already did over in my thread!
:D

The existence of the idea of a babel fish. (I follow Bishop Berkley's idealism)

Sorry, I meant "seriously willing," not copying from the 300 proofs of God's existence site willing.

Sorry, I meant "seriously willing," not copying from the 300 proofs of God's existence site willing.
Aww...
But.. but.. but...
:(

Sorry, I meant "seriously willing," not copying from the 300 proofs of God's existence site willing.
Ok maybe I should have quoted them ... but that is my source! its perfectly valid!

There is a thread around here with 300 proofs.
But anyway, as an atheist, I say that what you are doing is kinda unfair, but it´s like a christian starting a thread saying "proof me that god don´t exist".
I like to discuss how religion is false, manipulative and bad to makind. Now, enter in this "god exists or not" discussion is just... waste of time... no one ever gets anywhere...

Well...as religion is faith based (believing without evidence) it cannot be done. And in fact, to show proof completely does away with religion, and *poof* God disappears in a puff of logic.

Thank you Mr. Adams for allowing me to botch your concept so horribly.

OK, lemme DISPROVE God (i know its to prove, but i like to offer why i dont think he does exist)

Imagine a creature that can translate anything, into audiable English. Ok, the arguement goes thus:
God: I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof destroys faith, and without faith I am nothing
Man: Ah, but this creature is a dead giveaway isnt. It is so perfect that it proves you exist, and therefore, by your own admission, you don't. QED
God: Ah, I hadnt thought of that *vanishes*

Having done this, man feels very pleased with himself, goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed at the next Zebra crossing.

Yes, the arguement is based on the babel fish from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, but it makes sense!

Because if God doesnt' exist then theirs not any reason to love one another. We might as well start raping and robbing each other.

Also do you want to take the chance taht god will be angry with you atheests and sent you to hell?

Jesus was the living son of god. Our Lord and Savior. That's all the proof you need.

Where did evrything come from if thers no god to create it?

OK, lemme DISPROVE God (i know its to prove, but i like to offer why i dont think he does exist)

Imagine a creature that can translate anything, into audiable English. Ok, the arguement goes thus:
God: I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof destroys faith, and without faith I am nothing
Man: Ah, but this creature is a dead giveaway isnt. It is so perfect that it proves you exist, and therefore, by your own admission, you don't. QED
God: Ah, I hadnt thought of that *vanishes*

Having done this, man feels very pleased with himself, goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed at the next Zebra crossing
That's from Douglas Adams, and Andaluciae beat you to it.

EHEH, wrong, I am afriad you lose. He suggested it, but I stated it

Because if God doesnt' exist then theirs not any reason to love one another. We might as well start raping and robbing each other.

Also do you want to take the chance taht god will be angry with you atheests and sent you to hell?

Jesus was the living son of god. Our Lord and Savior. That's all the proof you need.

Where did evrything come from if thers no god to create it?
Thats not proof silly just because you cant handle it without the a god does not mean it exists

Edit: where did god come if there is nothing to create it?

Because if God doesnt' exist then theirs not any reason to love one another. We might as well start raping and robbing each other.
Why? That has no logical connection. I certainly care for people, whether or not there is a God.
Also do you want to take the chance taht god will be angry with you atheests and sent you to hell?
Ahh, Pascal's Wager. It's a fallacy, you know. Should I take the chance that Allah will be angry with me and sned me to hell? How about Krishna? Or any number of other deities?

I challenge anyone seriously willing*! Prove the existence of God, using this forum and your wits alone, to a heathen such as myself.

Meh ... it's none of my business whether or not you believe, so why would I bother any attempt to prove anything of the sort? Allah will come to you in His own time and not by my will (or yours, for that matter).

Because if God doesnt' exist then theirs not any reason to love one another. We might as well start raping and robbing each other.

Also do you want to take the chance taht god will be angry with you atheests and sent you to hell?

Jesus was the living son of god. Our Lord and Savior. That's all the proof you need.

Where did evrything come from if thers no god to create it?

Yes. Without God to believe in everyone will kill and rape one another. Us Atheists are renowned for it.

Because if God doesnt' exist then theirs not any reason to love one another. We might as well start raping and robbing each other.


I assert that God doesn't exist, and while we may as well start raping and robbing (what do you mean by START anyway?), I feel no inclination to do so.

Also do you want to take the chance taht god will be angry with you atheests and sent you to hell?

Yes. I like taking chances, they're a part of what it is to be living, and risk of wrath from imaginary and unreasonably cruel beings is just one more of those chances.

Jesus was the living son of god. Our Lord and Savior. That's all the proof you need.

That's an assertion, not proof. I can just as easily assert the opposite.

Where did evrything come from if thers no god to create it?

Well, where did everything come from if there IS a god?

Meh ... it's none of my business whether or not you believe, so why would I bother any attempt to prove anything of the sort? Allah will come to you in His own time and not by my will (or yours, for that matter).
or not at all

or not at all

That, too.

Yes. Without God to believe in everyone will kill and rape one another. Us Atheists are renowned for it.

Nod ... ya'll always have the best parties.

The whole point around God is faith and believe.
I must tell you that I, personally will stop to believe in God the day someone will prove it to me that God exists.
Tell me something, do you believe in sand? water? fire? anything you know for sure? do you think each of these can bring salvation to the world?
When you believe in God, you believe that this is something that you can't understand, something that has great powers, some figure that can do everything and knows everything, the thing that created you. If someone proves that all this is true and you understand it, it is all just pointless.

I challenge anyone seriously willing*! Prove the existence of God, using this forum and your wits alone, to a heathen such as myself.


YOUR TALKING TO HIM BATCH

Ahh, Pascal's Wager. It's a fallacy, you know. Should I take the chance that Allah will be angry with me and sned me to hell? How about Krishna? Or any number of other deities?

I agree. It shouldn't matter if you are religious or not. If Heaven exists, then if you have led a good life, then you go, regardless. Same for Hell. If it doesnt exist, whos gonna know?

The likelyhood of spontaneous generation is approximately 1/1x10^190
Even if you assume that before life existed the conditions on the earth were constantly throwing around the amino acids required to create life from nothing, the time it would take for it to get it right once would make the age of the universe neglibible.

So, The Earth either won something that makes the lottery look like a sure bet, or something else happened.

The whole point around God is faith and believe.
I must tell you that I, personally will stop to believe in God the day someone will prove it to me that God exists.
Tell me something, do you believe in sand? water? fire? anything you know for sure? do you think each of these can bring salvation to the world?
When you believe in God, you believe that this is something that you can't understand, something that has great powers, some figure that can do everything and knows everything, the thing that created you. If someone proves that all this is true and you understand it, it is all just pointless.
Though my problem with organized religions is their requirement that you believe in their version of this un-provable person

The whole point around God is faith and believe.
I must tell you that I, personally will stop to believe in God the day someone will prove it to me that God exists.
Tell me something, do you believe in sand? water? fire? anything you know for sure? do you think each of these can bring salvation to the world?
When you believe in God, you believe that this is something that you can't understand, something that has great powers, some figure that can do everything and knows everything, the thing that created you. If someone proves that all this is true and you understand it, it is all just pointless.

I don't understand. Proving that God exists doesn't mean God is suddenly perfectly comprehensible and therefore lacking the essential mystery of God. Why should rational knowledge of God's existence prevent you from believing in God?

I could say that to me, quantum physics is something I can't understand, with great powers, the forces that bind me physically together to make me me. But knowing more about quantum physics wouldn't change that. "The more you know, the more you realize how little you know." Same with God.

The likelyhood of spontaneous generation is approximately 1/1x10^190
Even if you assume that before life existed the conditions on the earth were constantly throwing around the amino acids required to create life from nothing, the time it would take for it to get it right once would make the age of the universe neglibible.

So, The Earth either won something that makes the lottery look like a sure bet, or something else happened.
And how sir did you get that figure?

The likelyhood of spontaneous generation is approximately 1/1x10^190
Even if you assume that before life existed the conditions on the earth were constantly throwing around the amino acids required to create life from nothing, the time it would take for it to get it right once would make the age of the universe neglibible.

So, The Earth either won something that makes the lottery look like a sure bet, or something else happened.
Of course, that doesn't mean that the Earth didn't "win something that makes the lottery look like a sure bet". All you've done is state that it's improbable.

The likelyhood of spontaneous generation is approximately 1/1x10^190
Even if you assume that before life existed the conditions on the earth were constantly throwing around the amino acids required to create life from nothing, the time it would take for it to get it right once would make the age of the universe neglibible.

So, The Earth either won something that makes the lottery look like a sure bet, or something else happened.

While that may be a nice argument against abiogenesis, it doesn't really relate to the question of God existing. There are plenty of coincidences and long odds that don't prove God's existence.

Whats the likelihood of God's existence? What if it was really, really, really, really small? Would that make a difference to people who think God exists? Of course not.Nor would the odds of the lottery mean much to someone who has won the lottery and thus beaten those odds.

I challenge you to scientifically prove that the carpenter who built your house exists.

Without saying, "well my house is here" or using any witnesses or historical documents.

Just give it a try.

that's the hemoglobin number

I challenge you to scientifically prove that the carpenter who built your house exists.

Without saying, "well my house is here" or using any witnesses or historical documents.

Just give it a try.
For all I know he may be dead, therefore non-existant.

Faith is a form of proof. It is just as valid as any form of proof.

Faith, by dictionary definition, is "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing" and " Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

Evidence, by dictionary definition, is "A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment" and "Something indicative; an outward sign."

Therefore, faith in and of itself is evidence of the existence of the Divine, but it wouldn't hold up in court. Last I checked, though, this forum wasn't a court of law.

Proof, by dictionary defintion, is "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." I'm going to assume that's what you're looking for when you say "proof" and not "A trial sheet of printed material that is made to be checked and corrected."

As we have established that faith is evidence of the Divine, we must bring it to its logical conclusion that the same faith is also proof of the Divine.

Disclaimer: This has been a purely academic excersize and is in no way an attempt to sway or hinder anyone's belief in a deity or deities or lack thereof as I really couldn't give two shits what you believe in or not because that belief, or lack thereof, is not a measure of your worth.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the Earth didn't "win something that makes the lottery look like a sure bet". All you've done is state that it's improbable.
pluss I have seen that quoted before ... the number ... if I remember right incorrect probability calculation (was doing a point rather then broad)

Meaning that is the probability ROUGHLY of it developing only on earth ... which is not the same as the probability of it developing at all (and does not take into account age it is point in time probability as well)

So basicaly that is the probability of life developing at 1 given instant in 1 given place

kind of silly

The likelyhood of spontaneous generation is approximately 1/1x10^190
Even if you assume that before life existed the conditions on the earth were constantly throwing around the amino acids required to create life from nothing, the time it would take for it to get it right once would make the age of the universe neglibible.

So, The Earth either won something that makes the lottery look like a sure bet, or something else happened.
What are the odds of a god appearing out of nowhere?

oh, and the hemoglobin number is a little deceptive, in Favor of spontaneous generation.

You see, because for spontaneous generation to occure, there would have to be a huge drop in entropy amoung non living things in order for something living to come out.

And, as everyone knows, entropy does not decrease
*that's a scientific law, not a theory

I challenge you to scientifically prove that the carpenter who built your house exists.

Without saying, "well my house is here" or using any witnesses or historical documents.

Just give it a try.
I can ... because I was the one that did so. Not to mention traces left behind by my tools that are VERY specific. and matches of my hands on my tools ... my foot prints in the ground around the house not to mention pictures (phisical)

I never said that gods appear out of nowhere.
nor do i believe that they do.
there's likely more to this than we know

oh, and the hemoglobin number is a little deceptive, in Favor of spontaneous generation.

You see, because for spontaneous generation to occure, there would have to be a huge drop in entropy amoung non living things in order for something living to come out.

And, as everyone knows, entropy does not decrease
*that's a scientific law, not a theory
Law's are theory's

Might want to look that up

I challenge anyone seriously willing*! Prove the existence of God, using this forum and your wits alone, to a heathen such as myself.
I experienced god.
I exist.
Therefore, god subjectively exists.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the Earth didn't "win something that makes the lottery look like a sure bet". All you've done is state that it's improbable.
Also the "something else happened" option doesn't necessarily involve a deity. It's a situation where if you are honest and open minded you say "I don't know". If you are blindly committed to your unsupported assertion that a deity exists then you give it the credit.

I think St Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica beat you in proving Gods existence.

Go read a book, you "enlightened atheists"

I challenge anyone seriously willing*! Prove the existence of God, using this forum and your wits alone, to a heathen such as myself.

If you could prove the certianty of God's existance then it would not require faith then would it? (note that was not an attempted proof, just dispelling your idea of proof logic)

Because if God doesnt' exist then theirs not any reason to love one another. We might as well start raping and robbing each other.

Also do you want to take the chance taht god will be angry with you atheests and sent you to hell?

Jesus was the living son of god. Our Lord and Savior. That's all the proof you need.

Where did evrything come from if thers no god to create it?
Ok, I'm convinced. Not to start beleiving in god, just to start robbing and raping. Anybody want to join me?

I think St Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica beat you in proving Gods existence.

Go read a book, you "enlightened atheists"
That gave me a giggle

I can ... because I was the one that did so. Not to mention traces left behind by my tools that are VERY specific. and matches of my hands on my tools ... my foot prints in the ground around the house not to mention pictures (phisical)

i don't believe you.

(insert realization here that it GOES BOTH WAYS)

do not assume that matter in the universe is infinite. it isn't, any astronomer will tell you that. that probability is one chance in every 1x10^190 times that the universe tries.
Now i did mention the entropy bit. philosophers always miss that one. That statement about entropy only applies to systems that are left alone.

i don't believe you.

(insert realization here that it GOES BOTH WAYS)
Yup there is always a level of acceptable proof

Preponderance of evidence proves I built my house … not so in the case of god (specifically a specific deity)

i don't believe you.

(insert realization here that it GOES BOTH WAYS)
Difference is that he can provide evidence. Tool marks, etc. Theists never seem to be able to show god's tool marks.

oh, and the hemoglobin number is a little deceptive, in Favor of spontaneous generation.
Why are we talking about hemoglobin?
What's that have to do with anything?
You see, because for spontaneous generation to occure, there would have to be a huge drop in entropy amoung non living things in order for something living to come out.

And, as everyone knows, entropy does not decrease
*that's a scientific law, not a theory
Grr, I used to remember how to refute this, but I forgot.
Time for Google!

Ahh, here!
http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

I challenge you to scientifically prove that the carpenter who built your house exists.

Without saying, "well my house is here" or using any witnesses or historical documents.

Just give it a try.

Hmm, so universes are like houses and neither's creator can be proven to exist without witnesses or historical documents?

Houses (of the kind I am in) cannot be built without carpentry. Carpentry cannot occur without carpenters. Because this house exists and those two facts are irrefutable, it is logically true that the carpenter who built my house exists (though he may now be dead).

That is because of those two facts being irrefutable. They are, in fact, scientifically testible - I can reproduce carpentry right now, and find you carpenters as witnesses and evidence.

The same does not apply for 'universe' instead of 'house,' because "universes cannot exist without God" is obviously a refutable assertion (I am refuting it). There are no witnesses to Creation, and no one can reproduce the universe.

At any rate, I never said "scientifically prove" God's existence anyway, nor did I say "without witnesses or historical documents."

do not assume that matter in the universe is infinite. it isn't, any astronomer will tell you that. that probability is one chance in every 1x10^190 times that the universe tries.
Now i did mention the entropy bit. philosophers always miss that one. That statement about entropy only applies to systems that are left alone.
Who assumed such?

Amazing how people like to take such a simple thing and make it so complicated.

Yowza.

I think St Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica beat you in proving Gods existence.

Go read a book, you "enlightened atheists"
Well, I do read books. Unfortunately, I can't very well go find that one right at this moment.
Is the text provided on the web?
If not, would you care to summarize the argument for us, if it's not too much trouble?

oh, and the hemoglobin number is a little deceptive, in Favor of spontaneous generation.

You see, because for spontaneous generation to occure, there would have to be a huge drop in entropy amoung non living things in order for something living to come out.

And, as everyone knows, entropy does not decrease
*that's a scientific law, not a theory
Entropy can decrease locally as long as entropy in the entire system increases. You see, the earth isn't a closed system. The universe is.

Difference is that he can provide evidence. Tool marks, etc. Theists never seem to be able to show god's tool marks.

Tool marks, eh? Well ... in accordance with Genesis, the only tool God used to create the Universe was words ... and, erm, I'm seeing a bunch of words right now ....

Meh.

I know God, she's a friend of mine from Lit class. If you were here i could prove it.

I experienced god.
I exist.
Therefore, god subjectively exists.

Congratulations! Then again, I can use that same logic to prove that ANYTHING 'subjectively' exists, up to and including the delusions and hallucinations of schizophrenics. But I think we both know that is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. "Subjective existence" is not "existence."

Tool marks, eh? Well ... in accordance with Genesis, the only tool God used to create the Universe was words ... and, erm, I'm seeing a bunch of words right now ....

Meh.
:eek:
You're right!
*runs off to convert*

Look at the earth around you...its too complexed to just "happen" over time. Things are so complexed that if one single thing wasnt right then it wouldnt work...for instance the human body. Its God's design and it's perfect.

Secondly...who taught you wrong and right? oh, you say your parents...well, where did they learn it...oh, from your grandparents...well, where did they learn it. Its not just something tuaght. its instinct for us to know right from wrong. Morals didn't just pop out of the air. Evolution didnt come up with right and wrong. We were programed with morals...from God. these are just a couple things that proves God's existence.

I suggest you read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis and go to the link below.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

Look at the earth around you...its too complexed to just "happen" over time. Things are so complexed that if one single thing wasnt right then it wouldnt work...for instance the human body. Its God's design and it's perfect.

Secondly...who taught you wrong and right? oh, you say your parents...well, where did they learn it...oh, from your grandparents...well, where did they learn it. Its not just something tuaght. its instinct for us to know right from wrong. Morals didn't just pop out of the air. Evolution didnt come up with right and wrong. We were programed with morals...from God. these are just a couple things that proves God's existence.

I suggest you read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis and go to the link below.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html
TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

edit

as well as

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN (II), aka GOD OF THE GAPS, aka TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) Isn't X amazing!
(2) I don't understand how X could be, without something else (that I don't really understand either) making or doing X.
(3) This something else must be God because I can't come up with a better explanation.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

I challenge anyone seriously willing*! Prove the existence of God, using this forum and your wits alone, to a heathen such as myself.

i'm pretty sure Marx did this. the answer is far too complicated for me to explain, but there are four points on which it is based. seriously, philosophers have been proving and disproving this for centuries. they keep going because the answer is purely theoretical, and so can be theorized further and further ad nauseum...

Tool marks, eh? Well ... in accordance with Genesis, the only tool God used to create the Universe was words ... and, erm, I'm seeing a bunch of words right now ....

Meh.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I can't be expected to accept the existance of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenvolent and omnipresent being who is invisible and has no beginning or end without seeing some evidence. There's no evidence of language before humans came about. Maybe if we drilled a few miles through solid granite and found a letter from god I could beleive it.

Look at the earth around you...its too complexed to just "happen" over time. Things are so complexed that if one single thing wasnt right then it wouldnt work...for instance the human body. Its God's design and it's perfect.

Secondly...who taught you wrong and right? oh, you say your parents...well, where did they learn it...oh, from your grandparents...well, where did they learn it. Its not just something tuaght. its instinct for us to know right from wrong. Morals didn't just pop out of the air. Evolution didnt come up with right and wrong. We were programed with morals...from God. these are just a couple things that proves God's existence.

I suggest you read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis and go to the link below.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html
What does "work" mean? Are you assuming there's a goal? Without evidence that this earth and life as we know it were intended then your assumption is unfounded.

Oh, by the way, many primates demonstrate empathy, which is the foundation of "right and wrong". So evolution DID come up with right and wrong.

It's impossible to proov any religion is true, because of the faults they all have.

Well with buhdism on the side I guess.

if we were to prove He existed than He wouldn't since religion is based on faith and faith denies proof so therefore He exists because we will and believe it so but if we were to REALLY know than He wouldn't. it's as easy as that.......

:eek:
You're right!
*runs off to convert*

Just make sure you pick the right one! And wear a jacket ... it's cold out there!

i'm pretty sure Marx did this. the answer is far too complicated for me to explain, but there are four points on which it is based. seriously, philosophers have been proving and disproving this for centuries. they keep going because the answer is purely theoretical, and so can be theorized further and further ad nauseum...

here are some pages that explain the philosophical arguments FOR the existance of god. please be aware that equally plausible arguments exist AGAINST the existance of god. also i am a non-believer personally, but here they are anyway:
http://www.philosopher.org.uk/god.htm

http://www.souldevice.org/christian_godexists.html

http://www.geocities.com/rpfa/god.html

if we were to prove He existed than He wouldn't since religion is based on faith and faith denies proof so therefore He exists because we will and believe it so but if we were to REALLY know than He wouldn't. it's as easy as that.......
That already got said twice.

Maybe if we drilled a few miles through solid granite and found a letter from god I could beleive it.

Now that would be something ... wonder what it would say. Feh ... probably just a grocery list.

Look at the earth around you...its too complexed to just "happen" over time.

I'm looking but I don't see how anything is too complex to be formed over time. In fact I don't see how it could just "happen" in one instant - long periods of time for geological and biological processes to converge to create sediments and species.

Things are so complexed that if one single thing wasnt right then it wouldnt work...for instance the human body.

The human body can work just fine without an appendix.

Secondly...who taught you wrong and right? oh, you say your parents...well, where did they learn it...oh, from your grandparents...well, where did they learn it. Its not just something tuaght. its instinct for us to know right from wrong.

You're right, it's not just something taught. It's developed over time along with the rest of what is known as culture. For that matter, what my grandparents think is right and wrong differs greatly from what I do. None of that proves god's existence, only anthropology.

Morals didn't just pop out of the air. Evolution didnt come up with right and wrong. We were programed with morals...from God. these are just a couple things that proves God's existence.

In that case, I'm sending a bug report to God, because judging by the prison population his programming efforts backfire miserably.

I suggest you read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis and go to the link below.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

Thanks, but my conditions were to use this forum alone.

faith denies proof

Faith is a form of proof. Look back to one of my earlier messages in this thread.

Specifically, message #34.

if we were to prove He existed than He wouldn't since religion is based on faith and faith denies proof so therefore He exists because we will and believe it so but if we were to REALLY know than He wouldn't. it's as easy as that.......
ahhh, but if god created everything, then he/she also created the system known as science which proves what he/she has done, grasshopper...

the problem with your logic is that faith does not deny proof. faith is belief without proof. that is not to say that proof doesn't exist or that faith denies the proof, it just doesn't need proof to believe.

That already got said twice.

did it? ah well, i wasn't really paying attention as this thread is TOO long

Now that would be something ... wonder what it would say. Feh ... probably just a grocery list.
Lol that was funny; If I were to make any arguement for god it would be that it is all matter; And of course the big bang then would have happened, because the creation of everything.

ahhh, but if god created everything, then he/she also created the system known as science which proves what he/she has done, grasshopper...

yes but he may not have made it available to us. what if he just wants people to believe. i think there must have been some divine being that created all this. what else created the universe and was before the big bang? who made it? why? this are all philosophical questions that are unanswerable in LIFE.... but maybe not death...hmmmmm....

Secondly...who taught you wrong and right? oh, you say your parents...well, where did they learn it...oh, from your grandparents...well, where did they learn it. Its not just something tuaght. its instinct for us to know right from wrong. Morals didn't just pop out of the air. Evolution didnt come up with right and wrong. We were programed with morals...from God. these are just a couple things that proves God's existence.

Morals are different from person to person. It is nurture not nature that provides morality.

Example: Western world sees Killing and eating a human being as wrong and immoral. certain tribes in Papua New Guinney see canibalism as a great thing. So why would God give them different morals to us?

For all I know he may be dead, therefore non-existant.

well, YOU know you exits, and i know I exits, because we both know we can think. BUt i don't know if you exits cause i don't know if you're thinking or if thats reallyme thinking. So you can only prove that you exits. And i can only prove I exits. So you all might just be in my head and I'm really in a mental home in a nice padded room, or i might really be God. Who knows?

Though i always have thought that the people who like to push their faith on others should be able to prove that their faith is right.

God makes no sense. There is no evidence to support his existence. "Faith" isn't an argument to prove his existence, as I could say that I'm faithful that invisible purple otters are eating jelly in this very room. There is no evidence to support it, but none to the contrary. God is as real as the otters.

ok, so do i actually have to state the same argument again?
wow, though. i read the article and it only really addressed the existence of planets and compounds, along with the snide remarks claiming that all arguments against the author are just what stupid people say.

Steven Hawking originally stated that god is an impossibility. he now says that god is a physical necessity. That doesn't make his science stupid, though. And he's taking the argument from a different angle anyways (the existence of the universe rather than the existance of life)

Yes, following all physical laws, planets and compounds can exist without any intervention, because their existence does not entail an decrease in entropy. He cited as an example, burning hydrogen and oxygen to make water. This reaction, if it is anything, shows a spectacular increase in entropy.
the spontaneous existance of life is different. Life coming into existence decreases entropy.

I gave you the number, and if we were to make a computer program to try and make that hemoglobin at random, running programs as fast as the fastest of our technology, it still would take it longer than the universe has been here (much less the earth)

But you don't believe me, so why am i still talking?

But you don't believe me, so why am i still talking?

Because of the haunting, almost hypnotic, gentle clicking of your keyboard.

ok, how about this. Since every skeptic knows that lack of evidence does not entail evidence, i'd rather like someone to take up the challenge of disproving the existence of god or gods.

Now now, no one will take me up on this because that's not how things are done. what a shame.

so why am i still talking?

ok, well technically you are not talking to us, typing maybe, or talking to your computer screen hoping that we'll hear

I think St Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica beat you in proving Gods existence.

Go read a book, you "enlightened atheists"

if you had understood what you had read and looked further into the matter you would see that Aquinas simply puts forward ideas for the existance of god and al so that Hume compleatly destroyd all those theorys in th 18th centuary, so don't talk down to use "enlightend atheists" unless YOU know what your talking about.

Yes, following all physical laws, planets and compounds can exist without any intervention, because their existence does not entail an decrease in entropy. He cited as an example, burning hydrogen and oxygen to make water. This reaction, if it is anything, shows a spectacular increase in entropy.
the spontaneous existance of life is different. Life coming into existence decreases entropy.
You've already been refuted twice.
Once, with the fact that the Earth is not a closed system, then, with this page (http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html).
Most complex molecules may require the expertise of one or of many chemists to put them together in a laboratory. However, so far as the second law of thermodynamics is concerned, not only water but cholesterol, DNA, the anti-depressant in St. John’s Wort and millions of other complex substances contain less energy than their constituent elements. Therefore, thermodynamically, their formation from those elements would be a spontaneous process, energetically favored by the second law.
I gave you the number, and if we were to make a computer program to try and make that hemoglobin at random, running programs as fast as the fastest of our technology, it still would take it longer than the universe has been here (much less the earth)
Not necessarily. If it's at random, it might pop up the very first time. Or never.
That's the thing about randomness.

Yes, following all physical laws, planets and compounds can exist without any intervention, because their existence does not entail an decrease in entropy. He cited as an example, burning hydrogen and oxygen to make water. This reaction, if it is anything, shows a spectacular increase in entropy.
the spontaneous existance of life is different. Life coming into existence decreases entropy.

I gave you the number, and if we were to make a computer program to try and make that hemoglobin at random, running programs as fast as the fastest of our technology, it still would take it longer than the universe has been here (much less the earth)
Scientists say there is a 1 in a certain number chance that hyrdrogen came into existance. What if that 1 chance has already happened. Until the universe gets as old as it needs to be for it to 'supposedly' happen it might only have happened once.

Law's are theory's

Might want to look that up

No, thats not right, actualy, atleast scientificly. A Law is proven and can be used to prove other things and has no holes in the argument. A Threoy is not yet a law because it has too many holes it it and is not compleatly proven as of yet. So by def, they are two diffrent things

ok, how about this. Since every skeptic knows that lack of evidence does not entail evidence, i'd rather like someone to take up the challenge of disproving the existence of god or gods.

Now now, no one will take me up on this because that's not how things are done. what a shame.
I'm not sure why, it's impossible both ways; But people still try to argue it's existence anyways.

Now now, no one will take me up on this because that's not how things are done. what a shame.
Exactly. Because that's not how things are done.

I personally believe in a Superior being as the "Great Clockworker" theory. It asertains that a higher power created this universe through natural means, set evolution in motion, and then justs sits back and chills for the greatest reality TV show of all time. Does a higher power exsist? Sure. Has religion corrupted, destroyed, and scewed this Higher power for their own means? Sure. Why can't a higher power exsist that just chills, because I know if I was all powerful I'd just chill.

ok, so do i actually have to state the same argument again?

No. Maybe. Sure?

Steven Hawking originally stated that god is an impossibility. he now says that god is a physical necessity.

A lot of people are like that, they'll be idealistic in their youth and over time have their resolve and values broken down by the inevitable approach of mortality and the incessant hammering by society.


Yes, following all physical laws, planets and compounds can exist without any intervention, because their existence does not entail an decrease in entropy. He cited as an example, burning hydrogen and oxygen to make water. This reaction, if it is anything, shows a spectacular increase in entropy.
the spontaneous existance of life is different. Life coming into existence decreases entropy.

Life's processes, though, increase entropy. If you don't believe me wait a while when civilization burns itself out.

I gave you the number, and if we were to make a computer program to try and make that hemoglobin at random, running programs as fast as the fastest of our technology, it still would take it longer than the universe has been here (much less the earth)

But you don't believe me, so why am i still talking?

Well, as stated there was a call for proof of god, not of the unlikelihood of abiogenesis. No matter how unlikely it is to produce hemoglobin at random (I'm not sure how that even relates to abiogenesis - do theories indicate the first organic life was or included hemoglobin?) that doesn't go one step towards proving God.

No, thats not right, actualy, atleast scientificly. A Law is proven and can be used to prove other things and has no holes in the argument. A Threoy is not yet a law because it has too many holes it it and is not compleatly proven as of yet. So by def, they are two diffrent things
Laws have before been disproved, so they can too have hole in them. You can't really completely prove anything in science anyway...

ok, so do i actually have to state the same argument again?
wow, though. i read the article and it only really addressed the existence of planets and compounds, along with the snide remarks claiming that all arguments against the author are just what stupid people say.

Steven Hawking originally stated that god is an impossibility. he now says that god is a physical necessity. That doesn't make his science stupid, though. And he's taking the argument from a different angle anyways (the existence of the universe rather than the existance of life)

Yes, following all physical laws, planets and compounds can exist without any intervention, because their existence does not entail an decrease in entropy. He cited as an example, burning hydrogen and oxygen to make water. This reaction, if it is anything, shows a spectacular increase in entropy.
the spontaneous existance of life is different. Life coming into existence decreases entropy.

I gave you the number, and if we were to make a computer program to try and make that hemoglobin at random, running programs as fast as the fastest of our technology, it still would take it longer than the universe has been here (much less the earth)

But you don't believe me, so why am i still talking?
Obviously you didn't read my post in response to the entropy question. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy tends to increase in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. Entropy can decrease locally (on earth) as long as there is a net increase in entropy elsewhere in the system.

ok, how about this. Since every skeptic knows that lack of evidence does not entail evidence, i'd rather like someone to take up the challenge of disproving the existence of god or gods.


I would too.

However, there is one key difference between the two groups.

1] 95% of Atheists, upon obtaining a level of education beyond Junior year of College, openly admit that they cannot disprove the Divine.

2] 95% of Thesists, even after completing graduate school and gaining 40+ years of life wisdom, will argue all the way up until their death rattle that everything you see and seem is but a dream within a dream.

That's why a thread like this - asking to prove the Divine - will go on for 1100 posts before some Mod steps in and says, "Ok ok ok ok ... enough!" but a thread asking to disprove the Divine gets a few jokes and some "I can't and I don't care to try" before its death after 2 pages.

If you want a thread that's *really* fun, make a thread for discussion on defining the phrase "True Christian" and watch the Protestants verbally throttle each other for pages and pages of death threat goodness.

Laws have before been disproved, so they can too have hole in them. You can't really completely prove anything in science anyway...
So your saying, "When you drop your keyboard it will go up?"

ok, how about this. Since every skeptic knows that lack of evidence does not entail evidence, i'd rather like someone to take up the challenge of disproving the existence of god or gods.

Now now, no one will take me up on this because that's not how things are done. what a shame.
There's a good reason why things aren't done that way. It's almost impossible to prove a negative. For example, prove I don't own a Tyrannosaurus Rex. When you can successfully do that then we'll talk about me disproving god.

If you want a thread that's *really* fun, make a thread for discussion on defining the phrase "True Christian" and watch the Protestants verbally throttle each other for pages and pages of death threat goodness.

Everyone wants to prove how much THEY are a TRUE Scotsman!

So your saying, "When you drop your keyboard it will go up?"
Ah, but I have asserted nothing of the sort!
I have merely stated that these laws may be untrue. They are just the most accurate representations that we have found so far of what we observe.

Laws have before been disproved, so they can too have hole in them. You can't really completely prove anything in science anyway...

True, but Laws are just that much more certain than theories. Every thing we know could be a wrong law, but it's less likely than a wrong theory.

did that make sence?

God can not be proven to exist, because faith is required for him to exist. If the christian god were to be proven to exist he would then cease to, because of the requirement of faith for him to be. And I can't believe in your invisible man in the sky without proof. And when you provide the proper proof, he will no longer exist. So don't be to quick to prove the existance of your favorite diety.

well its obvious God exists, Scientists say that a big bang created the universe but what caused the big bang, scientists also say that there has been particals flying about for ages then finally came into the forms what they are now, were did these particals come from. If you think about it there is know reason for anything to exist, it couldnt have just appeard it had to be created by something and the something is God.

I don't pretend I know how the universe was created, it isn't wise that you should. It was a completely random sequence of events that led up to the eventual evolution of the human race and then this question.

well its obvious God exists, Scientists say that a big bang created the universe but what caused the big bang, scientists also say that there has been particals flying about for ages then finally came into the forms what they are now, were did these particals come from. If you think about it there is know reason for anything to exist, it couldnt have just appeard it had to be created by something and the something is God.

True, but Laws are just that much more certain than theories. Every thing we know could be a wrong law, but it's less likely than a wrong theory.

did that make sence?
while they are stable theory's they are still theorys

well its obvious God exists, Scientists say that a big bang created the universe but what caused the big bang, scientists also say that there has been particals flying about for ages then finally came into the forms what they are now, were did these particals come from. If you think about it there is know reason for anything to exist, it couldnt have just appeard it had to be created by something and the something is God.
You say god did it, but you offer no proof. Why not physical laws that we aren't aware of? Some set of physical laws with no intelligence guiding them that transcend time and space. Where did they come from? Well, where did god come from? Your argument comes down to "we don't know how everything happened, therefore goddidit". That's as pointless as saying "I can't find my wallet, therefore god needed some cash".

God can not be proven to exist, because faith is required for him to exist.

Untrue. God existed, in the Bible, before any humans or any other beings whatsoever. So if faith is required for God to exist, God's OWN faith is apparently enough, so that even if you prove God exists he will still exist.

Faith is only needed by believers BECAUSE there is no proof. But it's certainly not needed by God (if God were to exist).

well its obvious God exists, Scientists say that a big bang created the universe but what caused the big bang
Can't know
scientists also say that there has been particals flying about for ages then finally came into the forms what they are now, were did these particals come from.
The Big Bang, I suppose, if there was one.
If you think about it there is know reason for anything to exist, it couldnt have just appeard it had to be created by something and the something is God.
Low probability=/=cannot happen.

"You've already been refuted twice.
Once, with the fact that the Earth is not a closed system, then, with this page."

I'd like to point out that that page did not refute my argument. like i said in the message you were responding to
but as we aren't listening to each other anyways

http://squetch.com/

God exists. Existence is extremely easy to prove, and was done so centuries ago with the philosophy of metaphysics (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com).

The Axioms:
Existence Exists: Existence is something (as opposed to nothing). That fact that someone is aware of something is proof of existence. To grasp that you are aware of something you must be conscious.
Consciousness Is: You cannot deny your mind's existence while at the same time using your mind to deny it. Consciousness requires an existence. "I think, therefore I am."
The Law of Identity: Consciousness labels a thing "something" that exists. Everything that exists has a specific and particular nature that can be labelled as an identity.

The conclusions:
1. Consciousness is dependant upon existence. Consciousness perceives existence; therefore, existence comes first. If you are aware of things, they exist.
2. We can be aware of mental entities. Immaterial (metaphysical) things exist; memories, ideas, feelings, concepts, etc. We are consciously aware of them, and they have identity. Therefore, although they have no reality, they exist.
3. Non-existence can have no identity; there are no "non-existent things". If they are things, they exist.

Whether god is real or not, he undoubtedly exists: in peoples' minds, in peoples' hearts. The real question people should be asking is, is god real?

The likelyhood of spontaneous generation is approximately 1/1x10^190
Even if you assume that before life existed the conditions on the earth were constantly throwing around the amino acids required to create life from nothing, the time it would take for it to get it right once would make the age of the universe neglibible.

So, The Earth either won something that makes the lottery look like a sure bet, or something else happened.

Ever heard of the Anthropic Principle? That even though life may be incredibly unlikely, it *did* happen simply because we are here to experience it.

99% of all statistics are utter bollocks.

I'd like to point out that that page did not refute my argument. like i said in the message you were responding to
but as we aren't listening to each other anyways
Hmm? I listened to you. I posted the quote from the page that refuted you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron I
well its obvious God exists, Scientists say that a big bang created the universe but what caused the big bang


Can;t know

"Quote:
scientists also say that there has been particals flying about for ages then finally came into the forms what they are now, were did these particals come from.


The Big Bang, I suppose, if there was one.

Quote:
If you think about it there is know reason for anything to exist, it couldnt have just appeard it had to be created by something and the something is God.


Low probability=/=cannot happen."



Dude, you did not refute anything there. just asserted your belief in atheism.

you guys are funny.

good night

God exists. Existence is extremely easy to prove, and was done so centuries ago with the philosophy of metaphysics (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com).

The Axioms:
Existence Exists: Existence is something (as opposed to nothing). That fact that someone is aware of something is proof of existence. To grasp that you are aware of something you must be conscious.
Consciousness Is: You cannot deny your mind's existence while at the same time using your mind to deny it. Consciousness requires an existence. "I think, therefore I am."
The Law of Identity: Consciousness labels a thing "something" that exists. Everything that exists has a specific and particular nature that can be labelled as an identity.

The conclusions:
1. Consciousness is dependant upon existence. Consciousness perceives existence; therefore, existence comes first. If you are aware of things, they exist.
2. We can be aware of mental entities. Immaterial (metaphysical) things exist; memories, ideas, feelings, concepts, etc. We are consciously aware of them, and they have identity. Therefore, although they have no reality, they exist.
3. Non-existence can have no identity; there are no "non-existent things". If they are things, they exist.

Whether god is real or not, he undoubtedly exists: in peoples' minds, in peoples' hearts. The real question people should be asking is, is god real?

Or you could be a brain in a tank. Wired up so that you think you exist. Fulfills all the metaphysical criteria for reality, unfortunately, but I believe it's completely impossible to prove that you are not a brain in a tank wired up to something that you believe to be reality.

Untrue. God existed, in the Bible, before any humans or any other beings whatsoever. So if faith is required for God to exist, God's OWN faith is apparently enough, so that even if you prove God exists he will still exist.

Faith is only needed by believers BECAUSE there is no proof. But it's certainly not needed by God (if God were to exist).

This merely begs the question "Is the christian god aware of himself". I suggest you all take a look at infidelguy.com the guy that runs the site and the forum members will rape and pillage any question offered to them. Logic has prevailed in the webspace.

OK, lemme DISPROVE God (i know its to prove, but i like to offer why i dont think he does exist)

Imagine a creature that can translate anything, into audiable English. Ok, the arguement goes thus:
God: I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof destroys faith, and without faith I am nothing
Man: Ah, but this creature is a dead giveaway isnt. It is so perfect that it proves you exist, and therefore, by your own admission, you don't. QED
God: Ah, I hadnt thought of that *vanishes*

Having done this, man feels very pleased with himself, goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed at the next Zebra crossing.

Yes, the arguement is based on the babel fish from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, but it makes sense!

Makes no sense. If God did exist then he wouldn't poof away. Any way that proves/disproves nothing. God never said that he would not exist without faith. No one can disprove God exists as no one can prove he does. Now if the author of the thread didnt know that then that is truely sad but if he/she did then he/she made this to annoy people and to torment Catholics/Jews/Muslims with their pathetic attempts to prove the existence of a being not being known to exist or disexist.

I believe God does exist and my logic is only opinional so dont say this is a contradiction.
Life. Try to recreate life with only raw elements under the same condition about 3 billion years ago that would eventually evolve into creatures capable of this conversation and of having a religion, nukes and other capabilities that we have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron I
well its obvious God exists, Scientists say that a big bang created the universe but what caused the big bang


Can;t know

"Quote:
scientists also say that there has been particals flying about for ages then finally came into the forms what they are now, were did these particals come from.


The Big Bang, I suppose, if there was one.

Quote:
If you think about it there is know reason for anything to exist, it couldnt have just appeard it had to be created by something and the something is God.


Low probability=/=cannot happen."



Dude, you did not refute anything there. just asserted your belief in atheism.
No, he pointed out that there was nothing in the theist argument presented to refute. It was based on flawed logic and unsupported assumptions.

The conclusions:
1. Consciousness is dependant upon existence. Consciousness perceives existence; therefore, existence comes first. If you are aware of things, they exist.
2. We can be aware of mental entities. Immaterial (metaphysical) things exist; memories, ideas, feelings, concepts, etc. We are consciously aware of them, and they have identity. Therefore, although they have no reality, they exist.
3. Non-existence can have no identity; there are no "non-existent things". If they are things, they exist.

Whether god is real or not, he undoubtedly exists: in peoples' minds, in peoples' hearts. The real question people should be asking is, is god real?

Yeah. This is why I fucking hate philosophy and people who love it.

ex·ist Audio pronunciation of "exist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-zst)
intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists

1. To have actual being; be real.

Huh. Looks like existence by DEFINITION doesn't exactly apply to things that are not real, eh?

may i just say that logic is exactly why no one can prove God exists, most of the facts are there that proves it, but one little detail is always missing. People become so transfixed on that one missing point that they cannot see the big picture, while debating if god exists, we might as well debate if love exists.

Let me put it this way. Every thing is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons is'nt it, there is no reason for these protons, neutrons and electrons to exist, they couldnt have just formed out of the nothingness of space they must have been made by something.

God does not exist there is no pysical proof that God exist apart from a 2000 year old book that has to be translated 4 times before it can be read in english so imagine how much is mis translated and added in I belive that is more truth in montry pythons The Life Of Brian than there is in that fictional written known as the Bible. :headbang: :D :sniper:

Life. Try to recreate life with only raw elements under the same condition about 3 billion years ago that would eventually evolve into creatures capable of this conversation and of having a religion, nukes and other capabilities that we have.

We can already make viruses from scratch.

It's just a matter of time.

As for evolution, however, that takes a LOOOOONG time for the higher nomenclature stuff, so we can only go so far with that before we nuke ourselves. Lower nomenclature's pretty easy though.

Let me put it this way. Every thing is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons is'nt it, there is no reason for these protons, neutrons and electrons to exist, they couldnt have just formed out of the nothingness of space they must have been made by something.

You assume they ever didn't exist, which we have no evidence for.

You also assume that a sentient being is more likely to form out of nothingness than a mere particle.

That's like saying it's more likely for the empire state building to pop in to existance than a pebble.

Let me put it this way. Every thing is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons is'nt it, there is no reason for these protons, neutrons and electrons to exist, they couldnt have just formed out of the nothingness of space they must have been made by something.
The laws of physics in this universe made them function the way they do. Particle/antiparticle pairs form out of nothing all the time. Then they usually mutually anihillate one another. Once again you recycle the worthless argument "I don't know for sure, therefore goddidit".

there are 20 original documents written that say that the trojan war accually happened, and if you ask anyone here, they will say the trojan war happened. however there are over 25,000 original documents that state the existance of God. yet there are still those who say he does not exist. why is that?

there are 20 original documents written that say that the trojan war accually happened, and if you ask anyone here, they will say the trojan war happened. however there are over 25,000 original documents that state the existance of God. yet there are still those who say he does not exist. why is that?

Because, apparently there are more differences between the Trojan War and the Existence of God than the number of documents referring to their existence. And, there is more to belief than how many times that belief has been positively asserted in some document.

there are 20 original documents written that say that the trojan war accually happened, and if you ask anyone here, they will say the trojan war happened. however there are over 25,000 original documents that state the existance of God. yet there are still those who say he does not exist. why is that?
The trojan war involved people, nations, weapons, human emotions, and earthly terrain. Those are all things we have seen first hand. It is an account of a war. We can go to several parts of the world and see war firsthand. God is an extraordinary claim. Nobody has ever seen one. It requires more evidence. Hell, there's plenty of documents that mention vampires and werewolves. Do you walk around with a wooden stake and a gun loaded with silver just in case?

This is pointless.
You ask pepole to prove their faith. This is impossible.
No one will ever succeed in proving that God exists as no one will ever succeed in proving that God does not exist.
For me, God exists, this is what I believe, and it all sums to this. I don't care if God is real or not, this is not the question.
If there was any proof that everyone can agree with that God truly exists and is real, there will be no point in believing in it, becuase not believing in it would only get you sent to the asylum.
You people just don't want to understand the meaning of God, and that is the reason you keep bringing this question over and over again.
If you don't believe in God, for whatever reason, that's fine.
If you do, for whatever reason, that's fine just as well.
But please, don't ask the other side to dis/prove its existence.
"Ish Ish Be'emunato Yichye" - Each one should live as he believes.

I'll say it again, religiuos pepole, as myself, doesn't try to proove to anyone, not even to myself, that God exists.
I don't believe in its existence, I don't believe in its powers, I don't believe in Heaven or Hell.
I believe in God, I have faith in God, I trust God. Whatever God might be or not be, that is all I need to live my life.

Or you could be a brain in a tank. Wired up so that you think you exist. Fulfills all the metaphysical criteria for reality, unfortunately, but I believe it's completely impossible to prove that you are not a brain in a tank wired up to something that you believe to be reality.
How is that not existence?

And even with that, Troy wasn't considered truly evidenced until they FOUND the fricking place.

True, but Laws are just that much more certain than theories. Every thing we know could be a wrong law, but it's less likely than a wrong theory.

did that make sence?

That made no sense.

Energy pulses were proven to bend the rules to be able to travel faster then light. Before the universe what were the laws. The obvious answer would be there was none and that could be used to prove the existence of God if you wanted to be attacked. Also atoms are complex. According to the big bang ALMOST all matter came from the big bang which created itself before the laws of the universe making atoms of the same element almost identicle(might be spelt wrong) but was made when it couldn't have been created since it didnt spontaneously create itself before it was it or being able to create similar copies (isotopes are evil. Not as evil as functions on visual basic(damn them all except msgbox "He's my friend")) . Also the big bang would've released a hell lot of energy (the big bang was given a huge boost in support when lowly scientist proved somehow that 1% of static on old tvs are left over radio waves from the big bang (they got the nobel medal)) making atoms fuse together (Until they got to iron. Damn magic numbers) creating new elements so hydrogens would turn to heliums which would turn to i belive barium (or whatever the element with 4 protons are) meaning all hydrogens wouldn't be existing (unless virtual pairs but that would take a hell lot of pairs) which to me is a great proof that there is a God(s(if your hindu)).

while they are stable theory's they are still theorys

They are stronger than theories though. They have more facts behind them then theories do.

This is pointless.

Not exactly.


You ask pepole to prove their faith. This is impossible.
No one will ever succeed in proving that God exists as no one will ever succeed in proving that God does not exist.

Correct! I gave an impossible challenge. Hell one might even look at it as rhetoric designed to bring about that very conclusion.

You people just don't want to understand the meaning of God, and that is the reason you keep bringing this question over and over again.

What is "you people?" Un-chosen? Heathen? Inferior? I can't help but sense your stifling air of self importance.

I'll say it again, religiuos pepole, as myself, doesn't try to proove to anyone, not even to myself, that God exists.

They don't? Sure looks like a lot of them try to do just that. Are you sure you're not just speaking for yourself and that you don't, in fact, represent everyone who is religious?

Huh. Looks like existence by DEFINITION doesn't exactly apply to things that are not real, eh?
Yeah. That's why I hate modern dictionaries and the people who love them. :)

Hey, don't blame me that modern English has it all wrong and is confusing the heck out of n00bs. If this definition is so, then mathematics doesn't exist.

That made no sense.

Energy pulses were proven to bend the rules to be able to travel faster then light. Before the universe what were the laws. The obvious answer would be there was none and that could be used to prove the existence of God if you wanted to be attacked. Also atoms are complex. According to the big bang ALMOST all matter came from the big bang which created itself before the laws of the universe making atoms of the same element almost identicle(might be spelt wrong) but was made when it couldn't have been created since it didnt spontaneously create itself before it was it or being able to create similar copies (isotopes are evil. Not as evil as functions on visual basic(damn them all except msgbox "He's my friend")) . Also the big bang would've released a hell lot of energy (the big bang was given a huge boost in support when lowly scientist proved somehow that 1% of static on old tvs are left over radio waves from the big bang (they got the nobel medal)) making atoms fuse together (Until they got to iron. Damn magic numbers) creating new elements so hydrogens would turn to heliums which would turn to i belive barium (or whatever the element with 4 protons are) meaning all hydrogens wouldn't be existing (unless virtual pairs but that would take a hell lot of pairs) which to me is a great proof that there is a God(s(if your hindu)).

My whole theory thing was just about the deff of theory and law. Not God

it's the big band THEORY so right now it's just a good idea their working with. They is still a lot more they have to prove before it will be a law.

Let me put it this way. Every thing is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons is'nt it, there is no reason for these protons, neutrons and electrons to exist, they couldnt have just formed out of the nothingness of space they must have been made by something.
Well, who says they just formed?
Maybe they were always there?

Hey, don't blame me that modern English has it all wrong and is confusing the heck out of n00bs. If this definition is so, then mathematics doesn't exist.

No, because mathematics is "The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols." The places of study are real, and the act of mathematical study itself is real. For that matter, theology exists and is therefore also real.

I'm not going to say that modern English is quite so self consistent though. Obviously it's imperfect, but damn do I hate it when these digressions of definition come into being with no discernible purpose but pedantry.

The laws of physics in this universe made them function the way they do. Particle/antiparticle pairs form out of nothing all the time. Then they usually mutually anihillate one another. Once again you recycle the worthless argument "I don't know for sure, therefore goddidit".

It seems that you are a strong atheist and are almost the opposite of me Commies. I'm glad that some people know about pairs although i personally know very little besides virtual pairs kill black holes (eventually it takes 1 after 66 zeroes years to kill a black hoe the size of the sun). Not all people use the argument I dont know for sure therefore God did it. I am a Diest Roman Catholic (that is no more miracles after Jesus until his return then possibly no more) and as such i primarily use science and reasoning to prove my point like how de morgan did this

x=1 (given)
x^2=x (multiplication property by x)
x^2-1=x-1 (subtraction property of 1)
x+1=1 (Division property by (x-1)
1+1=1 (substitution of x with 1)
2=1 (simplification)

That could prove that 2=1 using logic and could make an ignorant person believe that 2=1 althought if you noticed something wrong then you can do math (I applaude). This is true with scientists. They believe that some laws are true but they ruled out loop holes or negations such as the division of zero (step 4 including given) making the whole thing invalid (the 2=1).

We can already make viruses from scratch.

It's just a matter of time.

As for evolution, however, that takes a LOOOOONG time for the higher nomenclature stuff, so we can only go so far with that before we nuke ourselves. Lower nomenclature's pretty easy though.

viruses are by definition not living.

What form and quantum of proof will you accept for the existence of God?
Why have you limited yourself to this form and quantum of proof?

Because its above me on the board: Viruses from scratch? Really? We can create them out of nothing? From a formless void? We can't even comprehend a void.

Since my last post two people have commented on me asking you to prove that the carpenter who built your house exists.

Both used things that I asked you not to use. The reason I asked you not to use these things, is because those are the things that back the existance of God. EI, historical documents and witness accounts.

You CAN NOT use witnesses (the reason I say you can not use a witness is because the gospels (matthew mark luke and john) are eyewitness accounts), not even your own. I also asked that you not use the "because my house exists" theory. Simply because... if given infinite time... your house would have 'grown' or something into what it is now.

The marks of his existance are found only when they are looked for.

Whats the likelihood of God's existence? What if it was really, really, really, really small? Would that make a difference to people who think God exists? Of course not.Nor would the odds of the lottery mean much to someone who has won the lottery and thus beaten those odds.

There is not a "likelyhood" factor that God exists. God's existance is not an event or an activity which you can mesure probablities for.

Just wait a little while, and it will be proven to you.

Or you could be a brain in a tank. Wired up so that you think you exist. Fulfills all the metaphysical criteria for reality, unfortunately, but I believe it's completely impossible to prove that you are not a brain in a tank wired up to something that you believe to be reality.

A brain in a tank is still something real that exists. You're confusing the "physical self" with the "perception of self".

It seems that you are a strong atheist and are almost the opposite of me Commies. I'm glad that some people know about pairs although i personally know very little besides virtual pairs kill black holes (eventually it takes 1 after 66 zeroes years to kill a black hoe the size of the sun). Not all people use the argument I dont know for sure therefore God did it. I am a Diest Roman Catholic (that is no more miracles after Jesus until his return then possibly no more) and as such i primarily use science and reasoning to prove my point like how de morgan did this

x=1 (given)
x^2=x (multiplication property by x)
x^2-1=x-1 (subtraction property of 1)
x+1=1 (Division property by (x-1)
1+1=1 (substitution of x with 1)
2=1 (simplification)

That could prove that 2=1 using logic and could make an ignorant person believe that 2=1 althought if you noticed something wrong then you can do math (I applaude). This is true with scientists. They believe that some laws are true but they ruled out loop holes or negations such as the division of zero (step 4 including given) making the whole thing invalid (the 2=1).
Actually I'm a weak atheist. Nowhere in this forum have I ever said that the existance of gods is impossible. I just dont' beleive they exist because I've seen no evidence.

This IS pointless, you will get no other conclusion from this discussion other than the fact that no one can prove this way or another regarding to God. For me, it only makes me believe stronger, for you, I guess it only makes you not believe stronger, but not in a way that justifies such a thread. I already know that I believe in God, you already know that you don't and everyone else already knows wether they believe or don't so this won't change anything one bit. Unless your target is to get to no conclusion, which makes this thread pointless again, this thread is pointless. It is just pointless, face with it.

For crying out loud, if you know that the only conclusion is that no one can prove this way or another, why do you ask people to try? Wanna show us that you are better than us? Maybe you are, becuase I really can't understand what you want...

"you people" is meant for all of you who don't believe in God.

Let me repharse:
Religious people as myself.
No comma this time. I only speak on behalf of myself and people who think and act as I do. In fact, I really don't like people who try to make other people believe in things they don't believe in. Faith should come from within, if you don't believe, you just don't and probably won't ever.

There is not a "likelyhood" factor that God exists. God's existance is not an event or an activity which you can mesure probablities for.
Because it's so ill defined? I find that to be a strike against god. How can one beleive in something that they cannot even describe accurately?

to understand faith fully, we need to first realize that virtually everything we(the common person/layman) know is "on authority." We know about history because someone we trust said so. we know about science because our teacher told us so. we know about God, or whatever faith because somebody else told us so. We read books, written by somebody else...we trust them to not steer us wrong. Most Christians believe the Bible on authortity, just as alot of (note i did not say ALL) atheists believe there is no God because somebody else has "proven" there was no God to speak of.

The reality is, there truly is no way to conclusively prove or disprove the existence of God for a few different reasons. To go back to the carpentry analogy (but in a slightly different angle) "A creator can no more be a part of his creation than a carpenter can be a wall in the house he just built."
--C.S. Lewis.
Surely, we would see signs of the carpenter. his tools, the house itself...but trying to find the carpenter as part of the house he built is...useless.

Also, since we cannot prove that this creator(whether it is the God of christianity, or some other creator) does not exist, and the scientiffic method for proving or disproving something is based on trying your hardest to prove the idea wrong (if you can't prove it wrong...then it most likely is true...the words "most likely" are key in that sentence). So, from a technical standpoint...you cannot prove God does exist, but you cannot conclusively prove he doesn't. There are any number of scientiffic "facts" based on this type of proof. (i'm gonna stop here...because if i go much longer, nobody will read this post)

No, because mathematics is "The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols." The places of study are real, and the act of mathematical study itself is real. For that matter, theology exists and is therefore also real.

I'm not going to say that modern English is quite so self consistent though. Obviously it's imperfect, but damn do I hate it when these digressions of definition come into being with no discernible purpose but pedantry.
Let's pretend you have two sheeps in a field. Then three more sheeps come onto the field. Now how many sheeps do you have on the field? *Beep!* Sorry, that answer doesn't exist because the sheep aren't real!

Using the definitions of metaphysics are the only way any of this makes any sense.

to understand faith fully, we need to first realize that virtually everything we(the common person/layman) know is "on authority." We know about history because someone we trust said so. we know about science because our teacher told us so. we know about God, or whatever faith because somebody else told us so. We read books, written by somebody else...we trust them to not steer us wrong. Most Christians believe the Bible on authortity, just as alot of (note i did not say ALL) atheists believe there is no God because somebody else has "proven" there was no God to speak of.

The reality is, there truly is no way to conclusively prove or disprove the existence of God for a few different reasons. To go back to the carpentry analogy (but in a slightly different angle) "A creator can no more be a part of his creation than a carpenter can be a wall in the house he just built."
--C.S. Lewis.
Surely, we would see signs of the carpenter. his tools, the house itself...but trying to find the carpenter as part of the house he built is...useless.

Also, since we cannot prove that this creator(whether it is the God of christianity, or some other creator) does not exist, and the scientiffic method for proving or disproving something is based on trying your hardest to prove the idea wrong (if you can't prove it wrong...then it most likely is true...the words "most likely" are key in that sentence). So, from a technical standpoint...you cannot prove God does exist, but you cannot conclusively prove he doesn't. There are any number of scientiffic "facts" based on this type of proof. (i'm gonna stop here...because if i go much longer, nobody will read this post)
Science invites us to do the math and the experiments and replicate the results for ourselves. It is not accepted on authority.

Also, most religions claim that god wants humans to know him. If the carpenter wanted the home owners to know him he would leave behind a photo of himself doing the work or something. If there is a god who wants his creations to know him then he's obviously too stupid to leave some evidence of himself behind.

Science can't prove god doesn't exist, but that isn't evidence that he does. That evidence is up to theists to provide if they want to convert anyone.

Actually I'm a weak atheist. Nowhere in this forum have I ever said that the existance of gods is impossible. I just dont' beleive they exist because I've seen no evidence.

That is more agonostic. Atheists fully believe without a doubt that God doesnt exist while agonostics are more of they dont believe that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven and since you need evidence and claim that you are a weak atheist should put yourself in the agonostic group. Also claiming to be atheist means that you have the mindset that God doesnt and cannot exist

this was presented to me in another debate like this in another forum.

it has some bearing here:

The Earth was created by God something like five thousand years ago. There's indeniable proof of this in a book that was written less than two thousand years ago.

Dogma is the most powerful psychological force on Earth. It gives you all the answers so that you don't have to put any strain on the mash in your skull. God gave humans the most incredible brains discovered, but He only intended it as a device for cooling the blood, obviously. Religion gives you a nice comfortable explaination of the workings of the universe, so that you don't have to do the work of thinking about it. It all seems so simple when you don't try.

It's interesting that one can actually see how religion may have occured. Ancient cultures, or at least the ones that Christianity spawned from, were often paternalistic. Fathers were security blankets, capable of great power and protection. When the children became older, the imperfections of fathers became all too apparent, so they needed a new icon to worship for protection and security. God always seems to be a great beard in the sky, because that's what fathers were when you're small (well, they were back when shaving hadn't been invented yet, anyway).

And then we get the element present in every religion: fear. You must be good, or else you'll go to the Bad Place. Keep ploughing those fields, or you'll go to the Bad Place. Don't question anything, ever, or you'll go to the Bad Place. Be a good conservative subservient person, and make sure to finish with those cows, and you'll go to the Good Place. The people who come up with religions don't even have to be particularly intelligent about it. Emphasize Good and Bad, and make worship mandatory to ensure that it really gets drilled in, and you have a powerful and versatile army of robots. They will do what you say without question, and will never complain about working for you. And they will even lay down their lives for their leaders. In war, dogma is an effective tool for converting ordinary ignorance into rage, which is a much easier force to set a vector for. In peace, it converts it into empty hope, which keeps them happy and complacent. Simple.

He can't be wrong. To question His will, which cannot be wrong, is evil. To even consider that God might be incorrect about anything, all the injustice in the world, the suffering, the pain, is evil. Keep your head bowed, do not have thoughts above your station, and God may pat you on the head like a good obedient dog. Or perhaps sheep would be a better analogy?

Suffer, because God wills it. Endure the torture, because it is a trial. Be a mindless, worthless serf, because it is in God's plan. Be a good boy and you'll get a sweetie. Be a bad boy and you'll feel eternal fire.

Of course I could be wrong. Maybe it really all does work the way religion would have you believe, that I'll only recieve pain for trying to think about it. But if you laid down what others told you to think for a moment, and thought about the world yourself, would you arrive at the same conclusions? Why did all those people have to die in the tsunami? Was that important to God's Divine Plan? How much work did you have to do to rationalize that one, religion?

Perhaps it is religion that's wrong. According to them, eighty percent of the world gets damned right out of the gate for not believing in God exactly the right way. It occurs to me that people have trouble comprehending exactly what real suffering and real eternity are. Only the greatest evil of them all would send even the worst sinner to that fate for even five minutes.

Scoffers are willingly ignorant. That means that a person, when reality is laid before them, turns away and scoffs, is doing it deliberately, so that they can be ignorant. I do not think that it is we who are the scoffers.

I already know I have no chance of changing your mind. There's nothing I can do for you, against belief. Logic, nay, even reality is no match for a good propagandist. Your faith is a shield. The same kind of shield that a blanket performs against a monster, or putting your thumbs in your ears and singing does against people trying to talk sense into you.

I can only say that I hope you do your job well. Enjoy the pat.

That's really a kind of silly challenge.

Prove you exist.

Prove your teddy bear exists.

Prove Lightening exists.

Prove the planet Neptune exists.

I'm going to take another spin on this conversation.

The reason I believe God to exist is because of my personal feelings and experiences. I have been through situations that have given me feelings that could only be brought by my Lord. You may simply shrug this off as a mental thing where I actually did this all myself, but that's simply not the case. You have not gone through what I have gone through, and have no right to decide what I felt and what my mind did. My opinions are my own, and you will never change them. The very fact that you havn't felt the things I have does not make me angry at you, it makes me happy that someone opened my eyes.

I know people who have been healed of cancer. I've seen people with bad backs jump with joy without pain. I've felt the power of God running through me many times. The existance of God is proven to me every single day. I can try to explain those things, but you'll be blinded to them and cast them out as rediculous.

The truth is, the love that God has for every one of you is staring you in the face, just asking you to pick it up. You choose to turn away; it's not my fault, it's not God's fault, it's not science's fault.

That is more agonostic. Atheists fully believe without a doubt that God doesnt exist while agonostics are more of they dont believe that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven and since you need evidence and claim that you are a weak atheist should put yourself in the agonostic group. Also claiming to be atheist means that you have the mindset that God doesnt and cannot exist
strong atheist = God is impossible
weak atheist = god is not impossible, just doesn't exist
agnostic = not enough information to hazzard a guess

I challenge anyone seriously willing*! Prove the existence of God, using this forum and your wits alone, to a heathen such as myself.


Although there is little proff that we know of so far that God does exist, we need to look at what he was telling us to start with. He wanted the idea of love and all that stufff to be passed about and which kind of makes him his word. So. Anytime we see love passed to one another, God is there, any time jimmy-jimmy helps billy with his math homework cause he doesent know how to, God is there, anytime some attempt at doing something good to better ones or another life, God is there. Not everyone calls good deeds "Acts of God" because of course God dident do it directally, but he called us to do so, and anyone who simply calls us to do good things like that can't be all that bad of a guy, sure, us as humans have screwed it up from time to time, were flawed, its goingto happen. But you have to let it sink in that just because you havent seen him, or you go through a hard time so that he must not be there. Alot of people say that its just some theory some wack job made up, but think about this. The planet Pluto for example, have you been there? no...have you seen pictures, sure, i say one from a satalight, well, as was withthe moon landing and theres questions aboutthat now. It is a large matter of faith to put into Believeing in God, but really if you think about, who are any of us to say weather or not a person that has bettered the lives of billions exsits or not. Its not us to say, and like i said before, Yes people have screwed up his teachings in the past and made peoples lives shitty and used God as an excuse, but his primary message has made many better people, and that there, is all the proof i would need.

Reading through this thread I've read a few amusing statements, but the truth is that God merely exists in order to keep the masses in line. God may or may not exist, but religion was created by men, who's motives later became to control and keep the public from going astray. Who wrote the books in the Bible? Was it God himself? Or was it man. If Man embodies the Church which controls how we see God, then is not God and Religion in itself however Man wants to shape him? On top of that, if Man is prone to corruption, and Man controls the Church, is it not possible that over the course of nearly two thousand years the Church has been corrupted?

Oh, we know it has been. In the 16th Century you could purchase Indulgences, a buy-off for Salvation, from the Catholic Church. What about the trials, the executions, the Inquisition? The crusades, Church-sponsored War, using God as a means of solidifying a seat of power as high as King, Queen, or Emperor, all submitting to the Church in the end as the highest authority.

But why not the authors of the Books of the Bible, where Christians worship the Word? Chances are they too could have been corrupted. Claiming to have God write through them - the person who wrote 'Chicken Soup For The Teenage Soul' could do that, too. As a matter of fact, the two books aren't too far apart. Both are a series of stories with deeper meaning behind them, a moral, an ethic, a collection of Asop's Fables.

Or better yet, the founding fathers of religion who formed the way we are to interpret the Bible. How easily could they have been corrupted, seeing as the Church went through a dangerous transition during the Middle Ages as it swelled in power, all going back to the seeds sown by the Roman Empire. The Church was not always righteous. These Men, who were inevitably prone to corruption, could easily change interpretation of the Bible.

You know, the first religions were Cults, and they worshipped Evil Gods in fear of being harmed by them. But Religion is a creation of Man, and therefore Man controls and shapes religion, and has undoubtedly changed the face of it over the last few thousand years. So if there is a God, most likely, you'll be foreign to it anyways.

So, uhm, go agnostic! :D

Science invites us to do the math and the experiments and replicate the results for ourselves. It is not accepted on authority.
if you look a little closer...i said that is why normal average people know science...

Also, most religions claim that god wants humans to know him. If the carpenter wanted the home owners to know him he would leave behind a photo of himself doing the work or something. If there is a god who wants his creations to know him then he's obviously too stupid to leave some evidence of himself behind.
he did leave his evidence behind, in the form of the Bible, Jesus himself, and if i felt like opening up a whole other debate...i could list about 5 or 6 more...unfortunately i'm lazy and tired... :p

Where did the universe come from if God did not create it?

I know people who have been healed of cancer. I've seen people with bad backs jump with joy without pain. I've felt the power of God running through me many times. The existance of God is proven to me every single day. I can try to explain those things, but you'll be blinded to them and cast them out as rediculous.

there was a study done

a group of people with a minor stomach problem (nothing fatal or even potentially serious, just discomforting) were split into two groups, and given treatment.

50% of them were given actual medicine that is known to cure the problem that they were having

the other 50% were given M&M's with the litte 'M' scratched off


91% of the reported feeling better, and 85% actually got better.



God is a placebo. nothing more.

Is there anyway to have these types of forums banned since they would not end. Also imagine a form of jehova witnesses trying to convert some one or a group of atheist trying to disprove the existence of God (I've been to one. It was funny. Their arguments are weak such as "God doesn't exist since the Big Bang existed") besides scientists didnt prove evolution yet although it is accepted (thus the Theory) and Darwin is wrong as proven due to the time he wished to use being to large and that would make the world older.

Age of earth: approx 4.6 billion years
Day on earth: approx 24 hours
Year on earth: approx 365.26 (egads! every hundred years we would loose a day)
Age of universe: approx 9.2 billion years
Age of life: Believed to be 3 billion on earth possibly earlier on Mars (ha ha)

Although there is little proff that we know of so far that God does exist, we need to look at what he was telling us to start with. He wanted the idea of love and all that stufff to be passed about and which kind of makes him his word. So. Anytime we see love passed to one another, God is there, any time jimmy-jimmy helps billy with his math homework cause he doesent know how to, God is there, anytime some attempt at doing something good to better ones or another life, God is there. Not everyone calls good deeds "Acts of God" because of course God dident do it directally, but he called us to do so, and anyone who simply calls us to do good things like that can't be all that bad of a guy, sure, us as humans have screwed it up from time to time, were flawed, its goingto happen. But you have to let it sink in that just because you havent seen him, or you go through a hard time so that he must not be there. Alot of people say that its just some theory some wack job made up, but think about this. The planet Pluto for example, have you been there? no...have you seen pictures, sure, i say one from a satalight, well, as was withthe moon landing and theres questions aboutthat now. It is a large matter of faith to put into Believeing in God, but really if you think about, who are any of us to say weather or not a person that has bettered the lives of billions exsits or not. Its not us to say, and like i said before, Yes people have screwed up his teachings in the past and made peoples lives shitty and used God as an excuse, but his primary message has made many better people, and that there, is all the proof i would need.
You have little proof (IMHO no proof) that god exists, but you claim to know what he said? That's just absurd.

Nobody who has seriously looked at the evidence questions the fact that men have walked on the moon. The standard of evidence for the existance of planets and satelites is lower than the standard for god's existance because planets and satelites are observable and follow the laws of physics. God cannot be observed and violates the laws of physics.

if you look a little closer...i said that is why normal average people know science...


he did leave his evidence behind, in the form of the Bible, Jesus himself, and if i felt like opening up a whole other debate...i could list about 5 or 6 more...unfortunately i'm lazy and tired... :p
Dude, the bible is crap for evidence. It contradicts itself and is just plain wrong, demonstrably so, in many places. If that's divine evidence then the Encyclopedia Britannica is the work of a being greater than any god.

Where did the universe come from if God did not create it?
The Keebler Elves baked it in their trans dimensional cookie kitchen. Just as good an explanation as god.

Did I say they had gas? No. I said they had cancer. A brain tumor actually. If it meant anything to you and you wouldn't simply shrug it off as rediculous (as I said you would) I would offer to show you the X-rays from all of this.

He also didn't eat any M&M's. He was preparing for surgury, you can't eat before surgury.

strong atheist = God is impossible
weak atheist = god is not impossible, just doesn't exist
agnostic = not enough information to hazzard a guess

According to you
Strong atheist= God is impossible
Moderate Atheist: God is a possibility and doesnt exist
Weak is missing since if you average the two to get the middle then you get the weak

Agonostic: Cant prove God does/doesn't exist and can/cant be real and has an unknown possibility.

Dude, the bible is crap for evidence. It contradicts itself and is just plain wrong, demonstrably so, in many places. If that's divine evidence then the Encyclopedia Britannica is the work of a being greater than any god.

The contradictions you are talking about are most likely in the gospels...but what nobody realizes is that those books were not written to be volumes in a theological manifesto...but devotional books to the early churches of their time. They were written to enspire believers, and to give a general account of wht happened. There are also like discrepencies in many major historical documents, are they any less valid?

Prove you, and everyone around you exists

Did I say they had gas? No. I said they had cancer. A brain tumor actually. If it meant anything to you and you wouldn't simply shrug it off as rediculous (as I said you would) I would offer to show you the X-rays from all of this.

He also didn't eat any M&M's. He was preparing for surgury, you can't eat before surgury.
Yes, spontaneous remissions of cancer are recorded in many different people. Not all are theists.

The contradictions you are talking about are most likely in the gospels...but what nobody realizes is that those books were not written to be volumes in a theological manifesto...but devotional books to the early churches of their time. They were written to enspire believers, and to give a general account of wht happened. There are also like discrepencies in many major historical documents, are they any less valid?
Plenty in the OT too.
A book claimed to be the word of god and evidence of his existance should be inerrant.

there are no contradictions in the bible, trust me i've read it cover to cover, ther are only contradictions when taken out of context

You have little proof (IMHO no proof) that god exists, but you claim to know what he said? That's just absurd.

Nobody who has seriously looked at the evidence questions the fact that men have walked on the moon. The standard of evidence for the existance of planets and satelites is lower than the standard for god's existance because planets and satelites are observable and follow the laws of physics. God cannot be observed and violates the laws of physics.


My proof was that my faith was all the proof i need. And as we know, there are many things that man has yet to discover, perhaps physically seeing God is one of them, With this in mind, can you really prove that he does not exist, if we have yet to be able to see him, and find him not there.

Did I say they had gas? No. I said they had cancer. A brain tumor actually. If it meant anything to you and you wouldn't simply shrug it off as rediculous (as I said you would) I would offer to show you the X-rays from all of this.

He also didn't eat any M&M's. He was preparing for surgury, you can't eat before surgury.

The power of the human will has been proven to help cure people. That is why i'm an ethnocent (what i call ethnocentric people).

Also despite the fact that God may not exist if you pray for someone's recovery it will actually help for an unknown reason. Yea i know i watch to much history channel :(

there are no contradictions in the bible, trust me i've read it cover to cover, ther are only contradictions when taken out of context
Then you read it wrong. Go on google, type biblical contradictions. There are tons of web pages listing them. Some are better than others.

Did I say they had gas? No. I said they had cancer. A brain tumor actually. If it meant anything to you and you wouldn't simply shrug it off as rediculous (as I said you would) I would offer to show you the X-rays from all of this.

He also didn't eat any M&M's. He was preparing for surgury, you can't eat before surgury.


do you even know what a placebo is?


pla·ce·bo ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pl-sb)
n. pl. pla·ce·bos or pla·ce·boes

A substance containing no medication and prescribed or given to reinforce a patient's expectation to get well.
An inactive substance or preparation used as a control in an experiment or test to determine the effectiveness of a medicinal drug.
Something of no intrinsic remedial value that is used to appease or reassure another.


it's a 'drug' that makes use of the patient's psyche to heal them. if the patient believes that he has been cured, his mind overcomes the body's ailments.

mind over matter.

My proof was that my faith was all the proof i need. And as we know, there are many things that man has yet to discover, perhaps physically seeing God is one of them, With this in mind, can you really prove that he does not exist, if we have yet to be able to see him, and find him not there.
I don't have to prove that he doesn't exist to beleive he doesn't. Do you need to prove that I don't own a Tyrannosaurus Rex? If you can't do you assume I do? It's stupid to accept any idea proposed without evidence. If you do you're a con-man's wet dream.

Did I say they had gas? No. I said they had cancer. A brain tumor actually. If it meant anything to you and you wouldn't simply shrug it off as rediculous (as I said you would) I would offer to show you the X-rays from all of this.

He also didn't eat any M&M's. He was preparing for surgury, you can't eat before surgury.
You really misunderstand man. God works LIKE a placebo. The Placebo Effect takes place all the time, and God works just like it. All it requires is a belief in something and the brain can react as if what you believe in is true. It's the power of the mind, not the power of the Almighty. We don't even know what our minds are capable of - we've just tapped into them on the evolutionary scale (evolution occurs within species that you cannot deny, species are known to develop and adapt to environments in order to stay alive such as types of bacteria, and it has been recorded scientifically) and slowly we're going to find out how smart we can really get.

Also despite the fact that God may not exist if you pray for someone's recovery it will actually help for an unknown reason. Yea i know i watch to much history channel :(
And you read too few skeptic publications. That experiment was thoroughly debunked.

You have little proof (IMHO no proof) that god exists, but you claim to know what he said? That's just absurd.

Nobody who has seriously looked at the evidence questions the fact that men have walked on the moon. The standard of evidence for the existance of planets and satelites is lower than the standard for god's existance because planets and satelites are observable and follow the laws of physics. God cannot be observed and violates the laws of physics.

You honestly believe that a modified vengence two rocket went to the moon. It has little room. The government planted the evidence my proof is that their is no wind on the moon. Think about it how could a flag wave if there is know way to make it wave by itself?

You also believe that we have little proof while you have less if you use science. Nothing in science is a constant (time,space included) and the laws aren't always accurate. The greatest distance a cannon could fire is at a 45 degree angle. That breaks in a vacuum when its a 30 degree angle

Then you read it wrong. Go on google, type biblical contradictions. There are tons of web pages listing them. Some are better than others.

i've seen most of these pages...and they themselves even take the bible out of context in much the same way durring the election bush's comment about not being as worried about osama bin-laden was taken out of context. if they had gone on to listen to the next sentence he basically said we've taken out his training camps and have him on the run. He's no threat, so we will keep looking for him, but he's not our main concern.

in the same way, these pages use fragments of scriptures to prove wrong other fragments of scriptures. basically they "ignore the second part of the sentence," so to speak.

And you read too few skeptic publications. That experiment was thoroughly debunked.

Nien. You honestly think i read. I take the least biased opinions (one reason i hate america). That wasnt proved to be debunked. It was during a special week on the history channel.

there are no contradictions in the bible, trust me i've read it cover to cover, ther are only contradictions when taken out of context
Hmm?
There are a bunch here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html), then again, they may be out-of-context as you say. I don't know, I'm no Bible expert.

You honestly believe that a modified vengence two rocket went to the moon. It has little room. The government planted the evidence my proof is that their is no wind on the moon. Think about it how could a flag wave if there is know way to make it wave by itself?

it was not waving, there is just not enough gravity to pull it downwards, so it would stay at whatever angle they set it at.

You also believe that we have little proof while you have less if you use science. Nothing in science is a constant (time,space included) and the laws aren't always accurate. The greatest distance a cannon could fire is at a 45 degree angle. That breaks in a vacuum when its a 30 degree angle


did you honestly think before you posted this?

in a vacuum, there is no wind resistance.
the environment changed, so the results will change.

plus, i am going to have to call you on this one.

proof?

You honestly believe that a modified vengence two rocket went to the moon. It has little room. The government planted the evidence my proof is that their is no wind on the moon. Think about it how could a flag wave if there is know way to make it wave by itself?

You also believe that we have little proof while you have less if you use science. Nothing in science is a constant (time,space included) and the laws aren't always accurate. The greatest distance a cannon could fire is at a 45 degree angle. That breaks in a vacuum when its a 30 degree angle
The flag waved because it was in a vacuum with little gravity. The waving action set up by the astronaut pushing the flagpole into the soil continued longer without air resistance to slow it down. Think of a pendulum. Push it once and it keeps going for a while. The rest of your post made no sense to me. Please rephrase it if you want a response.

Hmm?
There are a bunch here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html), then again, they may be out-of-context as you say. I don't know, I'm no Bible expert.


i've seen most of these pages...and they themselves even take the bible out of context in much the same way durring the election bush's comment about not being as worried about osama bin-laden was taken out of context. if they had gone on to listen to the next sentence he basically said we've taken out his training camps and have him on the run. He's no threat, so we will keep looking for him, but he's not our main concern.

in the same way, these pages use fragments of scriptures to prove wrong other fragments of scriptures. basically they "ignore the second part of the sentence," so to speak.

:)

Yes, spontaneous remissions of cancer are recorded in many different people. Not all are theists.
On top of that, plenty of theists with people praying for them and such still die.
Of course, that in no way disproves God, it just seems that he doesn't work in quite this certain way.

Nien. You honestly think i read. I take the least biased opinions (one reason i hate america). That wasnt proved to be debunked. It was during a special week on the history channel.
1 There was no control group. How can you insure that the "control group" doesn't have friends and relatives praying for them? Without a control group the experiment is shot.

2 The results were weighted badly. Some severe complications were treated as minor and vice versa in order to make the prayer group look healthier.

I'd say it's pretty well debunked.

A) God is in my pants
B) Since God is in my pants, therefore he exists.


DUH :rolleyes:

Because if God doesnt' exist then theirs not any reason to love one another. We might as well start raping and robbing each other.

Believe it or not, humans can police themselves. By your logic everyone who does not believe in the judeo-christian-islamic god is a rapist and a theif, I won't because its wrong, and not out of fear of some punishment btu because of my respect for my fellow man.

Also do you want to take the chance taht god will be angry with you atheests and sent you to hell?

Jesus was the living son of god. Our Lord and Savior. That's all the proof you need.

YOU want to take the chance that the being the ultimately decides your soul's fate is a pink space-zebra who's requirement for entering everlasting paradise is to not believe in any other god?
There, it has been written and has just as much proof as your god.


Where did evrything come from if thers no god to create it?

Where did god come from if it did not have a god to create it?

there are no contradictions in the bible, trust me i've read it cover to cover, ther are only contradictions when taken out of context
What did Jesus do the first week after his baptism?

Me prove God exists? You prove he doesn't!

I challenge anyone seriously willing*! Prove the existence of God, using this forum and your wits alone, to a heathen such as myself.

"How To Prove God Exists: The Home Version"

Step One: Conceptualize God
Step Two: Admit God Exists
Step Three: Say, "Oh That Was Easy"

Repeat As Needed

Me prove God exists? You prove he doesn't!
...
The burden of proof is upon the claimant for a reason, you know...

The power of the human will has been proven to help cure people. That is why i'm an ethnocent (what i call ethnocentric people).

Also despite the fact that God may not exist if you pray for someone's recovery it will actually help for an unknown reason. Yea i know i watch to much history channel :(

The human body has a slight telekenitic ability, some call this chi or life force. Some people, myself included, can fell this energy. I know from trail and error that visualisation is the best way to effect a change.

Now, I'm not saying that people can move walls or even push a dime across a table, but it does have a greater effect on the human body and even a small family praying (during which they may visualise the act of god destroying the cancer) they may in fact attack the cancer with their own chi, slowing its growth, get enough people together and they can, if they believe enough (the stronger the believe the stronger their chi can be), they can harm it.

First of all, not being god something material you can feel, there is just no way to prove its existance; sadly there is'nt either a way to prove it does'nt exist, as you could always look for it a bit more. Just don't expect a scientific conclusion.
Also I should say "god" does'nt necessarily mean "christian god" and has nothing to do with the Bible.
Some people say, "if there's no god, where did anything come from?"
Well, if there's god and it created "everything", where the **** did it come from? Did god create itself? Think a bit.
Some others even say, "if there's no god, there is'nt any reason to love people". Well if your only reason not to go around killing people is the fear of god's punishment, then I'm glad I live thousands of miles away from you. Back to the christian topic, people think just calling themselves "christians" makes them love everybody, while atheist can't love anyone. There has'nt ever been a war for atheism. What about wars for religion? And does "Inquisition" ring any bells?
Finally, back to my title, it's our ability to think that makes us humans. If there were a god and it were so cruel it wanted us to believe in it just by faith, that is, against our reason, it would'nt deserve my worship.

The human body has a slight telekenitic ability, some call this chi or life force. Some people, myself included, can fell this energy. I know from trail and error that visualisation is the best way to effect a change.

Now, I'm not saying that people can move walls or even push a dime across a table, but it does have a greater effect on the human body and even a small family praying (during which they may visualise the act of god destroying the cancer) they may in fact attack the cancer with their own chi, slowing its growth, get enough people together and they can, if they believe enough (the stronger the believe the stronger their chi can be), they can harm it.



oooookkkk obi one lol

No one can prove or disprove God as yet but I think it is safe to say that the vast burden of evidence suggests that God does not exist. The problem is that religion has no system for proof like science. In science you must make a prediction and then test it. In religion, if you get evidence that contradicts you theory, you simply change the theory to something that the evidence allows for.

What did Jesus do the first week after his baptism?
well...

1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered. 3 And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread. 4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. 5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. 7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. 8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. 9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: 10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: 11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 13 And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season. 14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.

what's your point?

my last post:

;)

oooookkkk obi one lol

Its the basis of the placebo effect and mind over matter.

well...


what's your point?


Go later in the bible, in another book, it says he was somewhere else, can remmeber exactly.

Me prove God exists? You prove he doesn't!That's not the way it works. The burden of proof lies on the person making the positive statement.

Go later in the bible, in another book, it says he was somewhere else, can remmeber exactly.

show me...i'd actually kind of like to see this...

show me...i'd actually kind of like to see this...
go to Http://www.google.com/
and search "Bible contradictions"

you'll find it in there.

Meh... http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

Though, I don't really know how much bearing that artical has in this debate. It's pretty interesting.

IMO there is a lacking amount of scientific knowledge when it comes to the very beginning of life(not evolution, but the absolute beginning), and the universe. And that hole of knowledge forms a metaphorical sillouhette of a God. At least in my opinion.

Now, religion is a different matter entirely...Yes I do believe in God, and yes I am Christian. I would never, however, dare to say that everyone else's core beliefs are false, nor do I believe that everyone else's core beliefs are false.

The afterlife, however, is described differently by the different religions, and is an artical of faith that cannot be proven or disproven by science.IMO
I realize that the concept of faith is nearly lost on a person who has none, so it's use is futile in this debate.

Meh... http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

Though, I don't really know how much bearing that artical has in this debate. It's pretty interesting.

IMO there is a lacking amount of scientific knowledge when it comes to the very beginning of life(not evolution, but the absolute beginning), and the universe. And that hole of knowledge forms a metaphorical sillouhette of a God. At least in my opinion.

Now, religion is a different matter entirely...Yes I do believe in God, and yes I am Christian. I would never, however, dare to say that everyone else's core beliefs are false, nor do I believe that everyone else's core beliefs are false.

The afterlife, however, is described differently by the different religions, and is an artical of faith that cannot be proven or disproven by science.IMO
I realize that the concept of faith is nearly lost on a person who has none, so it's use is futile in this debate.
Old news. Just because he went and got himself an imaginary friend doesn't mean I need to.

Is there tangleble evidence of Gods existance? Some would say yes, your standing on it. Some would say, no silly, two stars crashed and thats what you are standing on.

For me, it's all Faith. I can pick up a mound of dirt, let it sift though my fingers and give you several reasons why I think God created all. But you could use the same dirt and use evolution to for why the dirt is here. I believe when I give my statement, I will have comfort in knowing through Faith.

ok, so do i actually have to state the same argument again?
wow, though. i read the article and it only really addressed the existence of planets and compounds, along with the snide remarks claiming that all arguments against the author are just what stupid people say.

Steven Hawking originally stated that god is an impossibility. he now says that god is a physical necessity. That doesn't make his science stupid, though. And he's taking the argument from a different angle anyways (the existence of the universe rather than the existance of life)

Yes, following all physical laws, planets and compounds can exist without any intervention, because their existence does not entail an decrease in entropy. He cited as an example, burning hydrogen and oxygen to make water. This reaction, if it is anything, shows a spectacular increase in entropy.
the spontaneous existance of life is different. Life coming into existence decreases entropy.

I gave you the number, and if we were to make a computer program to try and make that hemoglobin at random, running programs as fast as the fastest of our technology, it still would take it longer than the universe has been here (much less the earth)

But you don't believe me, so why am i still talking?

Ok...first of all as previously posted the idea of entropy does not aply to anything other than things on the atomic level to argue any other point with it as evidence pretty much makes people ignore you.

second you have 2 incorrect facts in your post one burning oxygen and hydrogen to make water decreases entropy by removing the inherent instability of the 2 gasses through combustion and much more simply reducing 2 things to one as well as going from a gas to a liquid which also decreases entropy.

One more thing the spontanious introduction of living things into the world (if the term entropy applied here at all) would drastically increase entropy by (through being spontinaety) being the very (simple) deff of entropy as well as introducing matter complex systems and thought into the universe.

oops ;)

go to Http://www.google.com/
and search "Bible contradictions"

you'll find it in there.

MAR 1:12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
JOH 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples

the "contradiction" given doesn't even work. nowhere in that entire chapter(John CH. 1) does it actually mention Jesus being baptized, and since it's the first chapter in the book, it couldn't say it before. Unless you can say otherwise(and i may very well be wrong) i think this is a different meeting between the two men, and not in fact the baptism of Christ...once again,i could be wrong since i'm just an amateur...

In Genesis there are two accounts of creation which don't agree on the order things were created. There are many more contradictions, and plenty of websites dedicated to them.

The bible also erroneously claims that insects have four legs and rabbits chew their cud. If god made these creatures and then wrote a book about them shouldn't he know something about their anatomy?

see the funny thing is...everything you just mentioned is in one page...and every single one of them can be explained by reading more than just the one sentenced used to show the contradiction...i referr you to my earlier "reading the rest of the paragraph" comment...

Come now, let's be rational:

Contemption 1
Prove God Exists
Even as a Christian, I know God cannot be proven. Belief in Christ is faith: you cannot see God but you trust He is there. Trust in God, otherwise known as faith, can only be brought by one's self to allow to be in communication with God.

Contemption 2
Does God Exist
God is an omniuous being and cannot be seen physically in His true from. Only through other people and by their acts can you see Him as tangible. Whether you believe or not is your opionionated stance, as this is [America] it is a free country. Their religious bias is their own, and cannot be changed unless their choice. You must decide whether you do or not and you mussn't deny their responses because you dont want to understand what they're saying.

Contemption 3
For What Reason
If you do not believe in God and you are unwilling to comprehend other's posts then why ask the question. You (all oposing to my view) must have questioned Christianity and/or religion in itself to pose a question/comment on your behalf.

Conclusion
If you truly want an answer, and not random people with nothing better to do than to blogg their issues, then ask a local church; if you pose a question pose a rebuttal. Form your own opinion, don't conform to other's.

I haven't read this entire thread, nor do I really have the time to do so. But in general, what I wanted to say is said right above me with ThEnding's contemptions (don't you mean contentions?)

The question is this... are you really asking because you want to know? Or are you asking because you want to pick a fight?

The other question is this... if you really wanted to find out, why would you ask a bunch of random people that you don't even know and instead go do some research? Not only would the wealth of knowledge be so much greater, but it would probably be more detailed and much more intellectually stimulating. (Not implying that anyone's intellectual capabilities are low here, I'm just saying that you have to dig through a 15 page long thread if you want to find the good stuff.)

THere are many Christian apologeticists (Ravi Zacharias, Norman Geisler, to name a few) that have interesting explanations for questions such as the existence of God. That's what they do for a living :P

Alternatively, there are many philosophers (more than apologeticists I might even argue) that try to show why God doesn't exist. Why don't you go look at those much better formulated arguments and then evaluate the evidence for yourself. If you're really looking for an answer to this question, you're not going to find it here on the NS general forum.

Where do you dummys think everything came from? God made it. I can't beleive you people think God doesn't exist. I'll pray for you but you really need to let Jesus into your heart. The bible proves God is real and Jesus is the way the truth and the light. The demons of athiesm has blinded all of you.

This is ridiculous.

If you don't believe in a god (any god, let's not be narrowminded) then it's not for me to convert you, especially as i'm not a believer, but that's not my point.

If you want to believe and want some inspiration or whatever then get out there and admire the world that something other than science created. Having someone say "it's true because blah blah blah" won't help you.

I'm not going to sit here explaining why a god does / doesn't exsist, make your own mind up, it'll strengthen your belief / disbelief.

And one more thing, i don't object to posts explaining viewpoints, it's posts that expect you to share their viewpoints or you're in the wrong.

Where do you dummys think everything came from? God made it. I can't beleive you people think God doesn't exist. I'll pray for you but you really need to let Jesus into your heart. The bible proves God is real and Jesus is the way the truth and the light. The demons of athiesm has blinded all of you.
That's it. I'm sending an army of my atheist demons after you. You'd best run along and pray now or else.

The question is this... are you really asking because you want to know? Or are you asking because you want to pick a fight?
I believe that earlier he said that he was asking it as a rhetorical question to show others that you can't prove either way. I may be mistaken, though.

The whole point around God is faith and believe.
I must tell you that I, personally will stop to believe in God the day someone will prove it to me that God exists.
Tell me something, do you believe in sand? water? fire? anything you know for sure? do you think each of these can bring salvation to the world?
When you believe in God, you believe that this is something that you can't understand, something that has great powers, some figure that can do everything and knows everything, the thing that created you. If someone proves that all this is true and you understand it, it is all just pointless.
The world doesn't need salvation. It's perfect.

First of all, I think if you want to show Jesus' love to others, you shouldn't start calling them names just because they don't see things the way you do.

Secondly, I believe that God does exist, and I believe that He created the universe. He could've created the universe through the theory of Big Bang and evolution. Someone once said, "Everything that has a beginning has a cause" (I don't remember who said it, but I'm pretty sure it was a scientist guy). The universe we live in had a beginning, and it could've been through the Big Bang theory. But how did that speck that exploded get there. The only reason, I believe, is God. That's all I have to say right now.

The world doesn't need salvation. It's perfect.

And by the world do you mean Luxomburg. Cause even in that tiny protected little bubble there are still serious problems

And by the world do you mean Luxomburg. Cause even in that tiny protected little bubble there are still serious problems
Actually, by the world I meant the universe subjectively perceived.

Actually, by the world I meant the universe subjectively perceived.

Care to elaborate?

Care to elaborate?
Here's me. There's the world. I can see no flaw. It's the way it should be.

Here's me. There's the world. I can see no flaw. It's the way it should be.

Thats a little immature. To say "You are perfect" and leave it at that. I am sure that if you were to look across your life you would see area's where you have done the wrong thing, bad stuff and just sinned in general. Also the world is not just "what you can see". I can't see America at the moment, doesnt mean it doesnt exist (although it would be a comforting thought...)

Thats a little immature. To say "You are perfect" and leave it at that. I am sure that if you were to look across your life you would see area's where you have done the wrong thing, bad stuff and just sinned in general. Also the world is not just "what you can see". I can't see America at the moment, doesnt mean it doesnt exist (although it would be a comforting thought...)
I didn't say "I am perfect," I said the world is. I didn't say things I can't see don't exist; I said they are not a part of the world subjectively perceived.

It just so happens that I am less than perfect, but then, I imagine everyone thinks that about themselves.

EDIT: That's as it should be.

Through logic, one can conclude that a God or supernatural force does indeed exist. We'll start out with the basics. Logic tells us that all things have a beginning and an end; the same logic that atheism is based on. Now -- Answer me this, using this logic, you must be able to answer the question "Where did the first elements, particles, whatever come from to form this universe?" They had to come from somewhere...how can something come from nothing? Logic will tell you that something CANNOT come out of nothing, therefore the idea of using logic to explain the origin of the universe is flawed -- thus, the core base of atheism is flawed.

Now, I know all you atheists will ask, "Where did God come from?" This is a matter of faith, not logic. One must be willing to accept the irrational thought that God has always, and always will exist. As humans, we are not able to grasp this concept, because perhaps we are not on the same intellectual level as a being with the power to create the universe? To think that you could intellectually match a being capable of designing and creating the universe would make you a fool.

Another proof of Gods existence is the moral laws of man. Inherently, we as humans have a sense of right and wrong that comes naturally with time. For instance, if I killed a 3 year old child for no reason what-so-ever -- I'm fairly sure that every sane person participating on this thread would agree that what I did was "wrong". Atheist, Christian, Muslim, whatever -- they would say that what I did was 'wrong'. This inherent understanding of moral laws that come naturally parallel the moral laws found in the Christian Bible.

And perhaps the final evidence I have is the idea that the chances of us being created by random are EXTREMELY low. Any mathmetician will tell you that. For example, lets say that perhaps we were created out of evolution and a big bang. Well, first, dust and particles (that magically appeared out of nothing with no outside influence =P) somehow by chance formed a star in a vaccuum of space. This star then one day decided to explode, and all the thrown around dust and particles formed a planet EXACTLY the correct distance from the sun to sustain human life (even though humans arent around yet) and this planet formed out of chance has the right proportions of air, water, etc to sustain human life (may i remind you that humans are not around yet.) Now the first stages of life -- the protozoa come from somewhere. They go on to produce fish, birds, monkeys, humans. How can a single celled organism form something as complex as the human body? Well, in order to evolve at all, new genetic data has to come from somewhere. Where did this genetic data that allowed the protozoa to evolve come from? If anything, organisms on this planet lose genetic information rather than gain it -- but nevermind that science contradicts the entire idea of evolution and gaining of genetic data. The same science that athiests base their arguments on, mind you.

Finally, what I don't understand is why athiests are so eager to do away with Christianity. I thought you believed there was no God. I thought you believed that there is no supernatural force. Why, then, are you so eager to fight Christianity? Isn't that the equivalent of fighting something that is non-existant? An example would be you punching something that isnt there. Ridiculous, isn't it?

This is how I figure things, using nothing but logic. I'm open to suggestions, and perhaps you can change my mind. Oh yeah, FYI, I was an atheist from the beginning of my life until about 2 years ago. I'm 19 years old. So, I'm an open minded individual and would love for someone to try and change my views. Send me a telegram!

(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable
(3) Therefore, God exists.
OMFG (G stands for goodness btw :P) i so friggen tired of hearing <incert "seemingly" random thing here> therefore he existes...

go to Http://www.google.com/
and search "Bible contradictions"

you'll find it in there.

innacurate. they are not contradictions and many are taken completely out of context, such as : "ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities." and "DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

many of these show a complete disregard for study of scripture. like the one of judas: "And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18) Judas hung until his abdomen was partially decomposed (no one took his body down for a while); then his neck giving way, the rope breaking, or something happening which caused his body to fall, it burst open when it struck the ground.

another:
PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
several ways to look at this 'paradox':one way may be that we must answer fools at some minimum level to keep them from becoming wise in thier own estimation, but we must stop answering them long before we've been sucked into their web of foolishness.

As is always the case, the charge of contradiction is premature and reflects an immature appraisal of the extant evidence. In every case of alleged contradiction, further investigation has yielded additional evidence that exonerates the Bible and further verifies its inerrancy.

The alleged discrepancies pertaining to Matthew and Luke’s genealogies were explained and answered long ago, yet this site uses it as a contradiction. First, Matthew reported the lineage of Christ only back to Abraham; Luke traced it all the way back to Adam. Second, Matthew used the expression “begat;” Luke used the expression “son of,” which results in his list being a complete reversal of Matthew’s. Third, the two genealogical lines parallel each other from Abraham to David. Fourth, beginning with David, Matthew traced the paternal line of descent through Solomon; Luke traced the maternal line through Solomon’s brother, Nathan. A fifth factor that must be recognized is that the two lines (paternal and maternal) link together in the intermarriage of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. But the linkage separates again in the two sons of Zerubbabel—Rhesa and Abiud. Sixth, the two lines come together once again for a final time in the marriage of Joseph and Mary. Joseph was the end of the paternal line, while Mary was the last of the maternal line as the daughter of Heli. Notice carefully that Joseph was a direct-line, blood descendant of David and, therefore, of David’s throne. Here is the precise purpose of Matthew’s genealogy: it demonstrated Jesus’ legal right to inherit the throne of David. Luke shows His mother Mary, who was also a blood descendant of David.

"Let it be noted that if the Bible does, in fact, contain a legitimate contradiction of some kind, it has not yet been found. When all the facts are considered, each alleged biblical contradiction has been shown to be something other than a true contradiction. That is a powerful statement, considering the fact that no book in the world has been examined more closely or scrutinized more carefully. After the Bible has been put under the high-powered microscope of criticism, and dissected by the razor-sharp scalpel of supposed contradictions, it rises from the surgery with no scratches or scars, none the worse for wear." quote from apologeticspress.org

If you switch to faith, then you're no longer discussing logic.

EDIT: You can do both at the same time, but you cannot prove logic using faith.

I hate to say it, but if you are talking about the Christian God, there is and never will be proof... to quote the Bible, "by faith we are saved." It is made known in other parts as well that there won't be any proof, nor should there have to be.

I do not believe in god, and as someone pointed out about the other gods, it's very true. I don't believe in god, nor any other god that "exists" if god will smite me for not believing, then every one will be dead because there is probably no body that believes in every religion. DOn't get me wrong, I love religion, it fascinates me, but how can someone believe in one god when there are so many?

Goons unite!

http://img211.exs.cx/img211/7683/biblehurrr3zz5my.jpg

Fighting Christianity is not the same as fighting God.
I do not fight either, and ultimately there is no point of fighting, as the whole idea behind a religion is faith. If God's existence could be proven then everybody who was remotely sane would worship him, as not to experience permanent torment in hell.

god ?....no no no.....is not possible tha HE exists........how is it possible that one "man" could create all this stuff and then lay back and do nothing.....
anyway....church was the first the mention the existance og God...and we all know that church exists so the slaves can think that they will have better lives in "that" world.......hm....
i am sorry but my eglish is bad so is not possible for me to explain my stance...... :sniper:

Well, as one of my friends always says: "I was an atheist until I figured out I am god"

Why are we convinced that everything HAS to have a beginning and end? Why does everything have to be created? If God is eternal as many say, why can't the Universe itself be eternal? Why must have God created the force - could it not have occurred naturally? We know laws based on what we can observe from Earth, and it's not a helluvalot.
Energy can be created infinitely: see the Quantum Vaccum.

The Bible was NOT written by god but by Men who are prone to error, greed, and corruption. This is just simply the way it is. Jesus didn't write any of the books of the Bible. Neither did God directly, signing it with his John Handcock.

And those MORALS? The basic MORAL LAWS OF HUMANITY. They've been taught since the dawn of time in multiple religions. Judaism is far older than Christianity, has those same 'moral laws' that everyone defends as the exclusive property of Christianity, AND to top it off, Jesus appeared as a Jew, and yet Christianity is the numero uno for so many. Judaism is the oldest modern religion, older than Islam, older than Christianity... why did, if Judaism was good enough for good ole' Heyzeus, a whole new religion need to be born out of it, to reteach old lessons?

Through logic, one can conclude that a God or supernatural force does indeed exist. We'll start out with the basics. Logic tells us that all things have a beginning and an end; the same logic that atheism is based on. Now -- Answer me this, using this logic, you must be able to answer the question "Where did the first elements, particles, whatever come from to form this universe?" They had to come from somewhere...how can something come from nothing? Logic will tell you that something CANNOT come out of nothing, therefore the idea of using logic to explain the origin of the universe is flawed -- thus, the core base of atheism is flawed.

Now, I know all you atheists will ask, "Where did God come from?" This is a matter of faith, not logic. One must be willing to accept the irrational thought that God has always, and always will exist. As humans, we are not able to grasp this concept, because perhaps we are not on the same intellectual level as a being with the power to create the universe? To think that you could intellectually match a being capable of designing and creating the universe would make you a fool.

Another proof of Gods existence is the moral laws of man. Inherently, we as humans have a sense of right and wrong that comes naturally with time. For instance, if I killed a 3 year old child for no reason what-so-ever -- I'm fairly sure that every sane person participating on this thread would agree that what I did was "wrong". Atheist, Christian, Muslim, whatever -- they would say that what I did was 'wrong'. This inherent understanding of moral laws that come naturally parallel the moral laws found in the Christian Bible.

And perhaps the final evidence I have is the idea that the chances of us being created by random are EXTREMELY low. Any mathmetician will tell you that. For example, lets say that perhaps we were created out of evolution and a big bang. Well, first, dust and particles (that magically appeared out of nothing with no outside influence =P) somehow by chance formed a star in a vaccuum of space. This star then one day decided to explode, and all the thrown around dust and particles formed a planet EXACTLY the correct distance from the sun to sustain human life (even though humans arent around yet) and this planet formed out of chance has the right proportions of air, water, etc to sustain human life (may i remind you that humans are not around yet.) Now the first stages of life -- the protozoa come from somewhere. They go on to produce fish, birds, monkeys, humans. How can a single celled organism form something as complex as the human body? Well, in order to evolve at all, new genetic data has to come from somewhere. Where did this genetic data that allowed the protozoa to evolve come from? If anything, organisms on this planet lose genetic information rather than gain it -- but nevermind that science contradicts the entire idea of evolution and gaining of genetic data. The same science that athiests base their arguments on, mind you.

Finally, what I don't understand is why athiests are so eager to do away with Christianity. I thought you believed there was no God. I thought you believed that there is no supernatural force. Why, then, are you so eager to fight Christianity? Isn't that the equivalent of fighting something that is non-existant? An example would be you punching something that isnt there. Ridiculous, isn't it?

This is how I figure things, using nothing but logic. I'm open to suggestions, and perhaps you can change my mind. Oh yeah, FYI, I was an atheist from the beginning of my life until about 2 years ago. I'm 19 years old. So, I'm an open minded individual and would love for someone to try and change my views. Send me a telegram!
1 You start using logic then in your own words ask us to "accept the irrational thought <snip for brevity>". Sorry, you lose. You can't base a logical argument on the irrational.

2 Moral laws are based on empathy. Chimps display empathy. Empathy is a usefull evolutionary adaptation for gregarious animals. It lets them work together to ensure survival for themselves and their offspring. God isnt' needed there.

3 The odds aren't that impressive. You claim that the odds of a universe that supports human life are low. Ok, let's go with that. The odds of any specific universe are equally low. It only looks impressive if you assume human life is a goal that something (god) is working toward. This reasoning is sort of circular.

I'm an atheist who started out as a christian. I'm against all religion, not just christianity. I think it divides us and distracts us and is quite counterproductive.

I'm against all religion, not just christianity. I think it divides us and distracts us and is quite counterproductive.
The sad part is, it doesn't have to divide nor distract.

Goons unite!

http://img211.exs.cx/img211/7683/biblehurrr3zz5my.jpg
Genesis 1:31: God saw creation, and he liked it.
Genesis 6:6 he was upset with man because of their wicked behavior.

As the temples go. 2 chronicles is old testament, when they used the temple for worship. Acts is the new testament. no longer do they have to worship in the temple, because it was destroyed.

light and dark verses are out of context. kings : hes in a dark cloud before the temple, psalms : poem of God and the sky (heavens)

Alleged contradictions that are not condradictions.

(edit: adding that what the picture says, is not what the bible verses actually say.)

Through logic, one can conclude that a God or supernatural force does indeed exist. We'll start out with the basics. Logic tells us that all things have a beginning and an end; the same logic that atheism is based on. Now -- Answer me this, using this logic, you must be able to answer the question "Where did the first elements, particles, whatever come from to form this universe?"

Good question. We really don't know for sure.

They had to come from somewhere...how can something come from nothing?

Again, we don't know.

Logic will tell you that something CANNOT come out of nothing,

And logic will be wrong, because virtual particle pairs being created (out of nothing) is now pretty much accepted, and its effects have been observed.

therefore the idea of using logic to explain the origin of the universe is flawed

Definitely. The universe has no obligation to conform to what we think it should be. Quantum mechanics is completely illogical.

-- thus, the core base of atheism is flawed.

Whoa there! The core base of atheism, as far as I can tell, is the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of God, and that the supposition "God exists" is unfounded, and thus as far as we can tell probably untrue.

Or, for me it is. Maybe for different people it's different - atheism isn't a religion, we don't standardize our beliefs.

Now, I know all you atheists will ask, "Where did God come from?" This is a matter of faith, not logic. One must be willing to accept the irrational thought that God has always, and always will exist.

Ah. So you're saying "lack of God is illogical. God is illogical too, but God is allowed to be illogical because he's God." Well, I can just as well say that "the origins of the universe are not constrained to follow the laws of logic because they aren't part of this universe."

As humans, we are not able to grasp this concept, because perhaps we are not on the same intellectual level as a being with the power to create the universe? To think that you could intellectually match a being capable of designing and creating the universe would make you a fool.

Ah. So you're saying "God exists. We know this because we can't understand how he could possibly exist." That reasoning seems kinda flawed to me... again - our ignorance proves nothing. There is lots and lots about this world that humans don't know, and probably plenty that we never will. But that proves nothing besides our limitations.

Another proof of Gods existence is the moral laws of man. Inherently, we as humans have a sense of right and wrong that comes naturally with time.

Yes, it comes naturally from being raised by our parents and by our society.

For instance, if I killed a 3 year old child for no reason what-so-ever -- I'm fairly sure that every sane person participating on this thread would agree that what I did was "wrong". Atheist, Christian, Muslim, whatever -- they would say that what I did was 'wrong'. This inherent understanding of moral laws that come naturally parallel the moral laws found in the Christian Bible.

Of course. These "moral absolutes" were around before the bible was written, and so they were incorporated.

And perhaps the final evidence I have is the idea that the chances of us being created by random are EXTREMELY low.

Incorrect. We, currently, have NO WAY of estimating the "probability of us being created."

Several reasons for this:
a) The universe is not random. We see that it obeys certain physical laws. Of all of the calculations that I have seen, none have taken into account the way the universe works - most arrangements of molecules are downright impossible.
b) A probability is "number of successful outcomes" divided by "number of tries." We do NOT know the number of successful outcomes - how can we show that we are the only possible form of life? If there are millions of ways self-replicating systems can form, the odds of any individual one are low, but the odds of getting at least one can be high. Rolling a 5735861 on a 1-billion-sided-die are damn low; however if there are millions of possible outcomes that would constitute "success," the probability could be higher. We simply don't have any way of knowing what the number of "successful" outcomes is.
Second is number of trials. The odds of rolling a 1 on a 1-trillion-sided-die are damn low; however, if you roll this trillion-sided-die ten trillion times, the odds are much better. As things are now, we don't know the size of the universe (we know the size of the observable universe, but we're also pretty sure there's more), we don't know how many of the stars that exist have planets, we don't know much at all, in fact.

Any mathmetician will tell you that. For example, lets say that perhaps we were created out of evolution and a big bang. Well, first, dust and particles (that magically appeared out of nothing with no outside influence =P) somehow by chance formed a star in a vaccuum of space.

It's not chance, it's gravity.


This star then one day decided to explode, and all the thrown around dust and particles formed a planet EXACTLY the correct distance from the sun to sustain human life

Um, actually, that is completely NOT how the solar system formed. Maybe you should learn what the theory is before critiquing it.

(even though humans arent around yet) and this planet formed out of chance has the right proportions of air, water, etc to sustain human life (may i remind you that humans are not around yet.)

Again, same argument as before - you're assuming that "human life" is somehow a goal. It's not. Any intelligent life that would arise (on any one of the unknown number of planets, with any conditions) would look at their situation and marvel how perfect it's suited to them.

Let me restate an argument that I saw from someone here - I'd say who, but I don't remember...

"Lets say you have a hole in the ground. It rains, and a puddle forms. The puddle looks around and says 'look! the hole is perfectly shaped for me. It's just the right depth for me to fit, just the right size for me. Thus, it must have been designed specifically for me!' The problem with this reasoning is, of course, that it neglects the possibility that "if conditions on this planet around this star were different, then whichever other planet life formed on, the living things would marvel at how perfectly their planet is suited to them."

We have one observable statement - the earth came into existence via some process customized to suit humans, and the other alternative that humans came into existance via some process that customized them to fit the earth.

Evolution provides a mechanism for such a process - it makes perfect sense that all species that evolve and survive will be, well, suited to their environment.


Now the first stages of life -- the protozoa come from somewhere. They go on to produce fish, birds, monkeys, humans. How can a single celled organism form something as complex as the human body?

Through three-some billion years of evolution.

Well, in order to evolve at all, new genetic data has to come from somewhere. Where did this genetic data that allowed the protozoa to evolve come from?

From genetic duplications and miscopies. Or maybe some other mechanism too. We're not completely sure.

If anything, organisms on this planet lose genetic information rather than gain it

No, they do both, as has been observed.

-- but nevermind that science contradicts the entire idea of evolution and gaining of genetic data.

No, it doesn't... what science is this that contradicts the entire evolution and gaining of genetic data? Could it be the Nylon-metabolizing bacterium? Or the drosophila fly?

The same science that athiests base their arguments on, mind you.

Personally, I base my argument on the lack of science on the religious side. Others may base their argument on logic. Others may base their argument on faith. Others may base their argument on something else. I can't speak for all atheists, and I don't think you can either.

Finally, what I don't understand is why athiests are so eager to do away with Christianity. I thought you believed there was no God. I thought you believed that there is no supernatural force. Why, then, are you so eager to fight Christianity?

Well, because you Christians keep trying to force our beliefs on us, into the legal system and the education system.

Isn't that the equivalent of fighting something that is non-existant? An example would be you punching something that isnt there. Ridiculous, isn't it?

Christianity is there. God isn't.


This is how I figure things, using nothing but logic. I'm open to suggestions, and perhaps you can change my mind. Oh yeah, FYI, I was an atheist from the beginning of my life until about 2 years ago. I'm 19 years old. So, I'm an open minded individual and would love for someone to try and change my views. Send me a telegram!

Okay, Ill send you a telegram referencing this post, if you don't see it yourself.

Wow what a thread. *takes a short moment to breathe*
Ok, here is my stance on the entire thing.

1. I really don't care how the Earth got here, or how humans spawned onto this planet. I don't think the scientist have fully figured it out and I don't think a God, made the universe.

2. If somebody came up to you and said "I hear God in my head, I'll think I'll write it down." Would you follow this person around and actually believe him or would you put hin in a rubber room with a straight jacket? So why would I believe in a book which SEVERAL crazy people, just like the person I mentioned, wrote.

3. I have seen at my workplace, mind over matter. One of my old bosses, lets call him Henry, said Jesus gave him the power to heal since he believed in God so strongly. Some poeple who went to church with Henry came to the store one day and asked for his healing power. Long story short, some people said they felt better for a few days. So since I hurt my knee one day, and being a skeptic, I asked Herny to "heal" me. He did his thing and my knee still hurts to this day. If the christian God wanted to save me, then he would have let my knee feel better through Henry.

4. Why would God create Satan???? If he knew Satan would turn against him, why would he make him to begin with. I even asked a Preacher this question. He said he would get back to me with an answer. I'm still waiting 3 years later.

5. If forgiveness was truely divine, there would be no hell.

6. When I see Baptist telling Catholics that they are going to hell because of some little dispute between the way they see the Christian religion, then something is wrong.

7. In the day when people still believed in witches, ghost, and other BS, they could believe in the greatest con artist of all time. Jesus. I saw a man just the other day turn his body to flowers. I think he was called a magician. I also so people on TV who try to be like Jesus and pull cancer out of people, let people walk again, and heal cripple mangled frames for only 5 grand. I like the music video by Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson "Say Say Say." I have the feeling if I took pencil and paper back to those times, I would be burned for being a wicked evil being for being able to erase words.

8. According to history and what we found buried in the ground thus far, there was a time before christianity.(This came from a Catholic Professor at my local University) Were all the poeple before this time wrong what they believed in and went straight to hell for not believing in the right God? If Christianity was the first and only religion, then were did all these other religions, alive and dead, come from? Wouldn't these people be labled as Satan worshipers and killed off quickly? Apparently not.

9. Even Christians can't agree on everything. Especially on the Trinity. Are they all the same or are they differnt beings? They held a meeting on this very question and decided and still people do not agree with what they came up with. WHY????

10. "This world is Great! The Best! Patriarchy is very big here. They have so many names for the big one. They believe in one god, ONE BIG GOD, and they all fight over it. They fight over the TERMS. Catholic, protestant, Moslem, Jew, whatever. Do you know how awesome that is?" by Joseph Michael Linsner. While I agree to this statement, I think it needs to stop. It seems all of these religions are acting like babies.

11. The Ten Commandments were a bunch of rules to live by. The only reason the Ten commandments were made to was keep the rabble in line. After they all got kicked out of Egypt, somebody had to come up with some guidelines to make sure they all survived. In sure they were found and later added in.

well this was long winded. So I think I'll stop now.

Because if God doesnt' exist then theirs not any reason to love one another. We might as well start raping and robbing each other.
We don't rape and rob each other because God doesn't want us to...we don't do it for the good of humankind!

www.creationists.org

Logic tells us that all things have a beginning and an end; the same logic that atheism is based on. Now -- Answer me this, using this logic, you must be able to answer the question "Where did the first elements, particles, whatever come from to form this universe?" They had to come from somewhere...how can something come from nothing? Logic will tell you that something CANNOT come out of nothing, therefore the idea of using logic to explain the origin of the universe is flawed -- thus, the core base of atheism is flawed.

Now, I know all you atheists will ask, "Where did God come from?" This is a matter of faith, not logic. One must be willing to accept the irrational thought that God has always, and always will exist.

All things are created, if God is not created then God is no thing. You claim God is not created. Therefore you have disproven God (if we accept your premise). Then again, we can also accept that perhaps God IS created, and therefore has a creator... who also has a creator... etc.

Another proof of Gods existence is the moral laws of man. Inherently, we as humans have a sense of right and wrong that comes naturally with time. For instance, if I killed a 3 year old child for no reason what-so-ever -- I'm fairly sure that every sane person participating on this thread would agree that what I did was "wrong". Atheist, Christian, Muslim, whatever -- they would say that what I did was 'wrong'.

You sure about that? How many radical Muslims support terrorist activities that include exactly that (killing innocents)? How many Americans who are Christian support bombing an enemy nation to defeat it militarily (an act which more than not involves killing innocents)? How many agree that sometimes, in order to make an omelette, you have to break an egg?

How many disagree on moral questions in legal trials? Or hell, in every day life?

I strongly disagree with your notion of universal morality, let alone that the existence of universal morality would prove God.

And perhaps the final evidence I have is the idea that the chances of us being created by random are EXTREMELY low. Any mathmetician will tell you that.

Big deal. The chances of us being created by fictional entities is also extremely low. Where does this leave us with God?

For example, lets say that perhaps we were created out of evolution and a big bang. Well, first, dust and particles (that magically appeared out of nothing with no outside influence =P) somehow by chance formed a star in a vaccuum of space. This star then one day decided to explode, and all the thrown around dust and particles formed a planet EXACTLY the correct distance from the sun to sustain human life (even though humans arent around yet) and this planet formed out of chance has the right proportions of air, water, etc to sustain human life (may i remind you that humans are not around yet.) Now the first stages of life -- the protozoa come from somewhere. They go on to produce fish, birds, monkeys, humans. How can a single celled organism form something as complex as the human body? Well, in order to evolve at all, new genetic data has to come from somewhere. Where did this genetic data that allowed the protozoa to evolve come from? If anything, organisms on this planet lose genetic information rather than gain it -- but nevermind that science contradicts the entire idea of evolution and gaining of genetic data. The same science that athiests base their arguments on, mind you.

Sorry, I don't accept failed attempts to disprove the Big Bang and Evolution as proof of God - even if they succeeded instead of failed. (Yours failed.)

Finally, what I don't understand is why athiests are so eager to do away with Christianity. I thought you believed there was no God. I thought you believed that there is no supernatural force. Why, then, are you so eager to fight Christianity? Isn't that the equivalent of fighting something that is non-existant? An example would be you punching something that isnt there. Ridiculous, isn't it?

Christianity exists, Christians exist, whether God exists or not.

"How To Prove God Exists: The Home Version"

Step One: Conceptualize God
Step Two: Admit God Exists
Step Three: Say, "Oh That Was Easy"

Repeat As Needed

I'm failing with Step Two.

Since my last post two people have commented on me asking you to prove that the carpenter who built your house exists.

Both used things that I asked you not to use. The reason I asked you not to use these things, is because those are the things that back the existance of God. EI, historical documents and witness accounts.

Historical documents that back the existence of God? I think not. They document and testify to a bunch of Romans and Hebrews, written at THAT time - not documenting, or written during the time of, Creation itself. And no matter how many cities in the Bible actually exist, that is totally irrelevant to whether there is a God.

That is why I DID use those things, because (unlike universes) houses can be made by humans and have never (to my knowledge anyway) claimed to have built themselves or naturally. (And when I say house I obviously mean more than a cave or place of residence.)

There is not a "likelyhood" factor that God exists. God's existance is not an event or an activity which you can mesure probablities for.

And yet there is one for "us being created by random?"

And why is God's existence something that can have no probabilities (I never said it had to be measured)?

Just wait a little while, and it will be proven to you.

Huh. Ok. I'll be waiting. In the meantime I'll consider your actual answer "I have no proof of God's existence, so I'll threaten you with delayed conversion!"

This IS pointless, you will get no other conclusion from this discussion other than the fact that no one can prove this way or another regarding to God. For me, it only makes me believe stronger, for you, I guess it only makes you not believe stronger, but not in a way that justifies such a thread. I already know that I believe in God, you already know that you don't and everyone else already knows wether they believe or don't so this won't change anything one bit. Unless your target is to get to no conclusion, which makes this thread pointless again, this thread is pointless. It is just pointless, face with it.

Huh. I guess you're not someone who does believe in God, or else you'd see that nothing is truly pointless (how could anything be?)

And frankly, if what it takes for a thread to NOT be pointless is conditions where a thread reaches a "conclusion" or manages to "change anything" than ALL threads are pointless.

Please, stop trying to kill discussion simply because it's open-ended and you don't understand what the first person who spoke intended.

Let's pretend you have two sheeps in a field. Then three more sheeps come onto the field. Now how many sheeps do you have on the field? *Beep!* Sorry, that answer doesn't exist because the sheep aren't real!

Using the definitions of metaphysics are the only way any of this makes any sense.

Er. Maybe so, because I don't use your definitions, and your point if any makes no sense. Fictional sheep are not real, therefore they don't exist, but we can certainly suspend disbelief long enough to talk about them. The answer exists, because an answer is a physical response. Maybe you'd best clarify your analogy and how you mean it to refer to anything I've said before.

As for stopping using words as we use them and as they are defined, and instead cling to some arbitrary (and conflicting) definitions which aren't easily referenced or at all universal set down by some pretentious assholes who called themselves 'philosophers?' How about... NO.


That is more agonostic. Atheists fully believe without a doubt that God doesnt exist while agonostics are more of they dont believe that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven and since you need evidence and claim that you are a weak atheist should put yourself in the agonostic group. Also claiming to be atheist means that you have the mindset that God doesnt and cannot exist

No, weak atheism is in fact atheism. Sorry! Not all atheists believe hard atheism. Atheists do not possess a belief in [a particular] God. That is all that is required. You don't need to "fully believe without a doubt that God doesn't exist." That's hard atheism. Weak atheism is more LIKE agnosticism, but it is not the same thing.

First of all I did not read the whole thread so I am sorry before if I am repeating what someone has already said.

Of course god exists. God has existed in every culture since humans coould orally communicate with each other. It is important to note that god is represented differently in each culture, but that fundamentally god exists in everyone.

So why does god exists in every culture? Simply god has been used to explain something that is unkown, god is also a means of justification of one's actions and feelings that otherwise cannot be explained.

God will always exists since humans cannot understand and explain everything, God simply represents the unknown.

You want proof? Look out the window.

Bam, it's the miracle of life and all that shit.

If that's the case, then it is also true that of course schizophrenics seeing is also a portrayal of what exists.

Maybe I'm not ... [i]existentialist enough or something... but I don't think very much of these attempts to prove that god exists simply because the concept of god exists. A concept and the thing are two different things. A representation of the unknown does not exist simply because "the unknown" exists.

When someone talks of whether god exists or not, they are not talking about whether god exists "subjectively" - obviously you could look at it that way - or whether the concept of god exists - obviously, or else we wouldn't be talking about it now would we. I know this, you know this, it's common sense, please lets not digress for semantics.

You want proof? Look out the window.

Bam, it's the miracle of life and all that shit.
How does that prove anything?

How does that prove anything?
It defines god as something observable. Observable things exist.

If that's the case, then it is also true that of course schizophrenics seeing is also a portrayal of what exists.

Maybe I'm not ... [i]existentialist enough or something... but I don't think very much of these attempts to prove that god exists simply because the concept of god exists. A concept and the thing are two different things. A representation of the unknown does not exist simply because "the unknown" exists.

When someone talks of whether god exists or not, they are not talking about whether god exists "subjectively" - obviously you could look at it that way - or whether the concept of god exists - obviously, or else we wouldn't be talking about it now would we. I know this, you know this, it's common sense, please lets not digress for semantics.
Look what you wrote. First the 'representation of a thing' doesn't exist as representative the thing it represents, and then it does exist as a concept, a thing apart from actuality. Your use of existence as equivocal to reality is what is creating the confusion.

I believe that earlier he said that he was asking it as a rhetorical question to show others that you can't prove either way. I may be mistaken, though.

Oh ok... i didn't bother to read the whole thing cuz i don't really ahve the time to...

I still say my point stands however.