Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)

If there is a God, he definetly isn't English.

keenobserver1 wrote:If there is a God, he definetly isn't English.

If God were an Englishman, He'd feel much too embarassed to ever admit it.

Just read a book by Philip Pullman called "The good man Jesus and the scoundrel Christ". Interesting take on the bible using the theory that they were identical twins, one aggressive and one passive and having to record what happened and twist the truth to enhance the miracle side of things.

Land, if you liked that book, try the "Lost Testament of Judas", it will give you a more alternate twist on things.

Can anything be drawn from the example of architecture?

Prior to the 20th. Century, the tallest buildings to be found anywhere would inevitably be places of worship. Church steeples reached towards HQ in obvious symbolism.

Now? Little else matches the soaring edifices of the Banking industry for altitude.

keenobserver1 wrote:Land, if you liked that book, try the "Lost Testament of Judas", it will give you a more alternate twist on things.

Next time I go to the library KO1

Anyone familiar with Pascal's wager?
 
gator

Yes. I am familiar with it...it basically says "believe in God because if he doesn't exist you have nothing to lose and if he does exist you have everything to gain".

But if you "wager" that God exists is this real belief?

No postings on the God-slot for ten days?
Has there been a dangerous outbreak of credulence?

Yes there is a god. My theory on how it came to be is basically because it is too amazing to be left to chance. Life also doesn't evolve unless it needs to, and the first signs of life would never 'need' to evolve. They would simply live for a few seconds, then die. Then how does that little amino acid become a human in the end? What happened, did the monkeys rule the world and lead to us? Was there a baby boom?

Douglas Adams suggested that the human race is merely an experiment being conducted by some white mice.

Life also doesn't evolve unless it needs to

That implies a purpose ... and a purpose is a human-contrived concept. Without humanity to observe it, the entire universe is unnecessary. Perhaps intelligent life needed to evolve in order to give the universe its reason for being. Otherwise, the universe is just a lot of dust, noble gases, and chunks of rock floating around. If there was no intelligent life and the universe disappeared tomorrow, why would it matter? And to whom?

That sounds like a believer in metaphysics - nothing exists unless we wish it to be so.

Like colour to a blind man, things which everyone accepts to be true may be nothing more than a mutual consensus.

Charlatan wrote:-
Yes there is a god. My theory on how it came to be…..

But of course a theory is not the same as evidence, and while there is no evidence of the existence of a god, it’s also impossible to prove the non-existence. As to the truth, I tend to go along with Oscar Wilde: “Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that’s survived”.

Ivan wrote:

Charlatan wrote:-
Yes there is a god. My theory on how it came to be…..

But of course a theory is not the same as evidence, and while there is no evidence of the existence of a god, it’s also impossible to prove the non-existence. As to the truth, I tend to go along with Oscar Wilde: “Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that’s survived”.

Are you an athiest or something? I supplied evidence as to why not evolution, therefore creation...

The more we search the universe and find nary a whit of life resembling our little blue marble, the more it leads people to think that we are a singularity...and, thus something "created" rather than the apparent ubiqutious nothingness that is the universe in terms of life.

A man who died having a hop just happened to see God before the docs brought him back.He was interviewed on TV.
Tell me said the presenter,you are the only pearson to have seen God and come back.What is God like."SHE IS BLACK"

[quote="Shirina"]

If there was no intelligent life and the universe disappeared tomorrow, why would it matter? And to whom?

It would matter to anyone who thought it would. Such a person would not be intelligent. It wouldn't matter to me.

It would matter to anyone who thought it would. Such a person would not be intelligent. It wouldn't matter to me.

So a person who values intelligence is unintelligent? Somehow I find that a rather destructive view of the universe. Remove intelligence from the universe and you remove beauty, love, compassion, awe, wonder, mystery, innocence, and everything else that truly matters. For instance, Saturn's rings possess posses no beauty if an intelligent creature cannot gaze upon them and marvel; without the intelligence to appreciate beauty, it does not exist. A comet passing by Saturn does not stare at the planet in wonder, seek to probe its mysteries, or even knows of Saturn's existence. It would be a cold, bleak, and austere universe with no intelligent eyes gazing upon it. Therefore, to me, it is perhaps THE most important thing in the universe.

Wait a minute! I'm replying to the question "If there was no intelligent life..." and now you are saying I don't value intelligence? I certainly do! Within the bounds set for the question, I may not even consider the possibility of intelligence!

A minor misunderstanding - I can see we are in agreement on intelligence and beauty.

That doesn't mean it would matter if the universe were to vanish. If it did so, I am sure there would be good reasons why it did. But don't ask me what such reasons could be: I can't imagine.

A minor misunderstanding - I can see we are in agreement on intelligence and beauty.

LOL! I don't know why I keep misunderstanding your posts, but yes, I see where you're coming from now and we do stand in agreement on that.

My apologies.

Most people have sufficient intelligence to recognise that there are things of which they are ignorant.

No apologies needed, but I appreciate your kindness.

I must accept blame for misunderstandings because I am not clear enough.

I find words difficult, as they mean all sorts of contradictory things, one doesn't really know where one is or if one is even talking about the same thing as one's interlocutor.

It is purely a matter of belief wether you accept the existance of God but what is not in dispute or should not be, is the fact that evolution does not explain how so many different species depend on other species to live.

Did they all evolve toghether and think I will supply the necessary for you and you do the same for me etc.,?.

The odds that an eye could develope through evolution are so great as to make it impossible and that is just one example of many.

So anyone with one iota of common sense will realise, call it what you wish,
that there must be a far greater intelligence involved than we can realy comprehend and this has lead to many different religions.

You can only base your opinion on what you read see and experience along with history and I am very happy to feel and believe there is a God and hope he sorts matters out very soon.

It is purely a matter of belief wether you accept the existance of God but what is not in dispute or should not be, is the fact that evolution does not explain how so many different species depend on other species to live.

Evolution is a fact and the above statement just shows that the poster does not understand evolution. Going back nearly 4 billion years, subtle changes to species can indeed bring about enough change over time to see a significant change from the original species. As to eyes, please google evolution of the eyes. It is an eminently beautiful explanation and infinitely more plausible than an invisible being magicking the universe into existence.

So anyone with one iota of common sense will realise....

polyglide. Where is the common sense in believing stories which defy both logic and nature? Virgins don't give birth, the dead don't come back to life and then float off into the sky, any more than Father Christmas comes down chimneys or opens every front door with his master key.

What also defies common sense is, as Shirina posted on another forum, "the astounding ease in which people can accept one creation story while rejecting all of the rest".

But you have to believe in Miracles. Andrew Lansley clearly does.

The issue at stake for me is why we are willing to accept what is essentially magic as a proper explanation for the origin of the universe and of Mankind while rejecting that same explanation for any other phenomenon. We do not believe that food magically appears on store shelves nor do we believe our car keys magically disappeared when we can't find them (though sometimes it seems that way!). Accused murderers cannot claim that the gun magically appeared in his possession nor do we believe babies magically appear in the womb.

If magic is not an acceptable explanation for anything else - even among Christians - then it should be asked honestly: "Then why do I believe magic is responsible for Creation?"

Shirina wrote:The issue at stake for me is why we are willing to accept what is essentially magic as a proper explanation for the origin of the universe and of Mankind while rejecting that same explanation for any other phenomenon. We do not believe that food magically appears on store shelves nor do we believe our car keys magically disappeared when we can't find them (though sometimes it seems that way!). Accused murderers cannot claim that the gun magically appeared in his possession nor do we believe babies magically appear in the womb.

If magic is not an acceptable explanation for anything else - even among Christians - then it should be asked honestly: "Then why do I believe magic is responsible for Creation?"

Your first paragraph. Nothing in this is 'magic' as you rightly say. Each example involves someone. Religions simply believe a being (creator) started things off. No magic.
We still have theories as to the 'creation' in terms of the 'Big Bang' or other theories. I accept the term 'Big Bang' in the sense that there was a moment when things came into being. I still have to be convinced that the creation/worlds/space etc. came from 'nothing'. Now that would be magic. But then I am not a scientist. I have posed this question to actual scientists and have never had a positive explanation - in terms of scientists agreeing with each other.

Over many years I have seen the theories come and go and wait the next one. That there was a moment when all things started I have no doubt. That we are still seeking answers I also have not doubt.

But as I've said before, I am a simple man.

As it's now 23.30 hours and this simple man is tired I bid you all goodnight. Will read tomorrow. May your 'god' go with you.

As seems to be a constant in discussions of this topic, some people describe themselves as atheists, when their comments indicate an agnostic.

oftenwrong wrote:As seems to be a constant in discussions of this topic, some people describe themselves as atheists, when their comments indicate an agnostic.

With respect, if that refers to me, I am a Christian. However I agree with your comment.


Ivan wrote Where is the common sense in believing stories which defy both logic and nature? Virgins don't give birth, the dead don't come back to life and then float off into the sky, any more than Father Christmas comes down chimneys or opens every front door with his master key.

With modern medicine it is quite possible for a virgin to give birth. The 'dead' do occasionally come back to life as some morticians will tell you.
As will people who have opened tombs for one reason or another and seen scratch marks in lid interiors.

Now the important point. You've really upset me Ivan. I wondered why Father Christmas no longer came - he doesn't exist?

I am not suggesting that we rewrite the Bible.

'Medicine in ancient Egypt'. by Sameh M. Arab. MD. is interesting. Some 'Modern' medicine are not be as 'modern' as we think.

Perhaps one could explain why the human brain has a capacity far beyond that used, approximately 5% of the capability has ever been used and if evolutution had anything to do with it at every stage the brain would be only evolving at the rate the prevailing cicumstances demanded.

You can have theories galore but none actually stand up to close scrutiny.

What stands in the way of truth is, unfortunately, the fact that man is so arrogant that he feels he has the answer to everything and you only have to look at the state the world is in to see the result.

Hi polyglide

I think this 5 or 10% usage of the human brain is an urban myth. In any case, the human brain has evolved to its present state. The truth is that facts don't even stand in the way of faith and believers are so arrogant that they think they have the answer to everything despite the facts in front of them and you only have to look at the state of the world of believers to see the result.

As seems to be a constant in discussions of this topic, some people describe themselves as atheists, when their comments indicate an agnostic.

Well, OW, I think the reason for this agnostic/atheist confusion is that some atheists are only atheists when it comes to religion but admit there could be a god of some kind. Now, what that god is, who knows, and this god's existence is only speculative. However, Adam and Eve and winged horses whisking prophets off to heaven, well, no.

I follow the same course - I'm an atheist when it comes to religion, and religion is often what is most discussed. Thus the atheistic side of our agnosticism shines rather brightly.

Agreed. I am an atheist about any god or God or gods or other imaginary beings and all of their respective dogmas and doctrines. I am agnostic about aliens visiting this planet.

The one Billion pound question...does God exist...no idea

The fact that the human brain is only used to a very small percentage of it's capacity is substantiated by those who are able to do things far beyond that of others, were evolution to be a factor then all would be able to do the same.

It is the easiest thing in the world to dismiss the truth by using silly totally unfounded replies.

There is no doubt at all that we are not of the first stage of life on earth, trees and other forms of plant life have been around far longer that we have, just one example being coal that can be found over a mile below the earth surface , also what about the over a ton in weight monsters that used to roam the planet all of which suddenly went missing,no doubt they thought they had had enough and should make way for evolution to go backwards and let man evolve himself.

As I have posted previously, if you believe in evolution, how long do you think it would take man with all his feelings of superiority and knowledge and knowing exactly what he wanted, to grow eyes at the back of his head and wings.

On top of which if anything was going to evolve for a given purpose the purpose must be known prior to evolution taking place which opens another can of worms.
Even Darwin doubted his theory and for very good reasons, there are too many unanswered quesions.

The only possible answer that would stand up to any scrutiny is instant creation and not necessarily of all things at once.

To think that there are not far superior beings [for want of another word]
,than we are, is taking the sublime to the ridiculous, once we accept that we are not as clever as a ten year old, the better, once we do then matters can be considered in a more responsible as well as sensible manner.

The only possible answer that would stand up to any scrutiny is instant creation and not necessarily of all things at once.

This premise is based on a lack of knowledge, not the presence of it.