Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)

by keenobserver1 Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:14 pm

First topic message reminder :

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

by snowyflake Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:24 am

Ah, I see you amended your post, OW. Very nice. Thank you. Perhaps, you can't be Eeyore all the time.

Go outside and play today instead of hanging around here your whole life. Smile

(I realise that's stating the bleeding obvious but maybe you should give it a go)

Smile

by oftenwrong Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:15 pm

verb sap.

by Tosh Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:31 pm

The USP of all religions is in promising an after-life..

Genius, did you work that out all by yourself ?

Belief in an afterlife preceded religion by about 70,000 years, they did not have to promise an afterlife, it was already in place. Morality and immortality were united as a consequence of urbanisation, the biggest survival threat changed from nature to human nature. Morality is death avoidance and immortality is death denial, together they form religion, and religion is all about human nature.

Stick to cryptic conundrums, they disguise your ignorance.

by oftenwrong Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:03 pm

Stick to cryptic conundrums, they disguise your ignorance.

Unfortunately, I can think of nothing that could disguise yours, Sir.

by Tosh Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:10 pm

Unfortunately, I can think of nothing that could disguise yours, Sir..

Let me do the thinking, you aint very good at it. Sleep

by oftenwrong Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:17 pm

Seven-minute response. Could do better.

by Shirina Sun Sep 16, 2012 6:00 pm

It must go, and it won't go of its own volition, it is my mission in life to destroy all forms of supernatural belief.

Tsk, tsk, Tosh. This is where you overplay your hand. That which is known as "supernatural" is merely science we don't know yet. While there are many "supernatural" claims that I don't believe, there are a few that I feel have sufficient evidence to be explored more closely at a scientific level. Unfortunately, you are going by the label rather than what is actually inside the box -- if it says "supernatural" on the box, then there's no point in looking inside.

Your logic begins disintegrating here because lightning was once considered to be supernatural, but obviously that doesn't mean lightning doesn't exist or that we shouldn't believe in it. Imagine if the scientific community walked away from investigating lightning simply because the majority of people called it "supernatural?" In fact, where would we be today in terms of our knowledge of physical science if everything once labeled as "supernatural" was dismissed as non-existent?

In that sense, the scientific community are, themselves, being superstitious. Their refusal to even acknowledge the possibility of certain phenomena such as ghosts, for instance, is the scientific equivalent of miming the sign of the cross whenever the topic is mentioned. I've seen your post in the ghost thread (to which I will respond more at length later); the idea that our senses can be easily fooled is a truism, one I will not disagree with.

However, it is being used as a "catch-all" answer, one that is applied to every instance of a ghost experience (or other supernatural event) that cannot be explained conventionally. Hallucination has become the non-believer's "God of the Gaps." If it can't be explained, it was a hallucination. The logic fails because there are two separate claims: a) I saw a ghost, and b) it was a hallucination. Neither assertion has been proven, yet the hallucination explanation becomes the "last word" on the subject as if it *has* been proven. Now, if some scientist can wire up a person's brain and demonstrate that the part of the brain that governs hallucinations is the same part that "lights up" during a ghost experience, then there would be a stronger case. BUT ... since scientists don't bother studying the phenomenon, all you can do is guess.

by Tosh Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:00 pm

This is where you overplay your hand. That which is known as "supernatural" is merely science we don't know yet. While there are many "supernatural" claims that I don't believe, there are a few that I feel have sufficient evidence to be explored more closely at a scientific level. Unfortunately, you are going by the label rather than what is actually inside the box -- if it says "supernatural" on the box, then there's no point in looking inside.

Shirina,

There is no evidence of anything supernatural or metaphysical, I have one rule of thumb, anything supernatural that infers immortality is pure bunkum, my mentor Richard Dawkins made an excellent series called " The enemies of reason ".

Science disregards ghosts and the other psychic voodoo because they know what they are..... hallucinations, illusions and delusions.

Nobody dressed as a pirate is popping back and forth from the multi-dimensions or multi-universes that may exist.

It is very simple, if ghosts exist then they are physical and they evolved, what did they evolve from ?

Everything is evolution and evolution is everything, there are no exceptions.

by Tosh Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:24 pm

Seven-minute response. Could do better..

A lettuce could do better than you my friend, but God loves a trier, beat yourself up.

by snowyflake Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:46 pm

I am not a believer in ghosts, spirits or other supernatural 'phenomena'. My reasons for disregarding it is because there is no hard scientific or physical evidence of any of it. We have scads of anecdotal evidence which may or may not be real but until there is something solid to go on, one can reasonably surmise that it is likely not true. There are thousands of Institutes of Pyschical Research around the world and so far not one of them have managed to provide any scientific proof of a spirit world in the last 200 years of study. Compare this with the scientific method which may or may not get things 100% right 100% of the time but at least provides the evidence for the existence of whatever it is they are testing for. If ghosts are a physical entity then science could find it at some point. If it is not a physical entity it is therefore not in the remit of science.

by Tosh Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:06 pm

Snowy,

There are countless fascinating mysteries to the natural world, there is really no need for us to invent mystery.

What people fail to understand about evolution is it is deterministic and above all utiliterian, there is no cause for ghosts to exist and there is no use for ghosts to exist.

How can we possibly see ghosts with the naked eye if they are supposed to be spirits or souls.

I just hate all this irrational voodoo, my wife's gran recently lost her husband, she has been talkng to him through a psychic, I would execute these fraudsters.

by snowyflake Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:16 pm

I know, Tosh. Highly charged emotional states can make your brain chemistry wonky. (scientifically proven) Fear, grief, love, rage....you can convince yourself of anything. Humans are highly susceptible to self delusion.

As for those who prey on the griefstricken, I could just slap them all silly. They are charlatans of the worst kind.

by Shirina Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:58 pm

There is no evidence of anything supernatural or metaphysical, I have one rule of thumb, anything supernatural that infers immortality is pure bunkum, my mentor Richard Dawkins made an excellent series called " The enemies of reason ".

There are many out there who equate ghosts with God and the afterlife. That is speculation ... no one knows what ghosts actually are if they do, indeed, exist. But like with any mundane event such as a natural disaster, the lack of information invites us to fill in the gaps with our own made-up stories. Why do you think religious belief clusters around scientific topics we have yet to find a definitive answer for? As long as science refuses to pursue the topic, rampant speculation and rumor-mongering will supplant truth and knowledge. The lack of interest by science has fueled the supernatural element, which means no one is at fault here but scientists.

Science disregards ghosts and the other psychic voodoo because they know what they are..... hallucinations, illusions and delusions.

LOL! No, Tosh, they don't. They're just connecting two independent variables together.

People hallucinate. People see ghosts. Therefore, ghosts are hallucinations. It's FLAWED LOGIC! You know why? Because ... people see cars. People hallucinate. Therefore, cars are hallucinations.

See? For God's sake, man, now MY eye is twitching. If you keep up this inanity, I'll be forced to wear underpants on my head and call myself Deirdre.

Scientists have NEVER proven that every last ghost sighting was a hallucination ... or even that the majority of them are. There is not ONE piece of evidence that connects the two. At all. Period. Instead, scientists rely on the syllogism I just gave. A syllogism that I have demonstrated to be fundamentally flawed. Now surely a man of logic such as yourself wouldn't want to continue using flawed logic, would you, Tosh?

Nobody dressed as a pirate is popping back and forth from the multi-dimensions or multi-universes that may exist.

I know your tactic here, Tosh. You try to dress up the topic in ridicule and absurdity to discredit the idea. It might work on a lot of posters, but not me.

It is very simple, if ghosts exist then they are physical and they evolved, what did they evolve from ?

Well, gee whiz, Tosh ... maybe if science took ghosts seriously, we might actually be able to answer that question.

Everything is evolution and evolution is everything, there are no exceptions.

Why isn't it possible that the next "stage" of human evolution is a transformation into an electro-magnetic entity of some kind? Oh that's right ... we don't know! And how can we if the topic is never studied? A lot of science that we now hold sacrosanct was once considered nonsense by the scientific community. Why do we have to keep making the same stupid mistake again and again?

by Shirina Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:05 pm

Compare this with the scientific method which may or may not get things 100% right 100% of the time but at least provides the evidence for the existence of whatever it is they are testing for. If ghosts are a physical entity then science could find it at some point. If it is not a physical entity it is therefore not in the remit of science.

The Scientific Method is wonderful, but not infallible. In fact, it has become a weakness in certain circumstances, and the idea of ghosts is one such case. You can't force ghosts to appear in a laboratory where one can do studies and perform experiments on them ... and therein lies the problem. Even if you go to a place reputedly haunted and set up equipment, scientists might have to wait years for one to appear, assuming any are there at all. Science does not cover topics that do not offer immediate gains ... no one will fund such an endeavor. Good luck trying to obtain grant money to sit in a haunted house indefinitely hoping to see something that may not even be there.

by snowyflake Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:07 pm

Why isn't it possible that the next "stage" of human evolution is a transformation into an electro-magnetic entity of some kind? Oh that's right ... we don't know! And how can we if the topic is never studied? A lot of science that we now hold sacrosanct was once considered nonsense by the scientific community. Why do we have to keep making the same stupid mistake again and again?

The reason the next "stage" in human evolution is not going to be a transformation into an electro-magnetic entity of some kind is because DNA is not an electro-magnetic entity. We are physical beings. It is highly unlikely that what we have seen previously in evolution is suddenly going to become magical and and go against all the historical evidence. If you can give an example of this, I would be all ears.

by snowyflake Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:11 pm

Science does not cover topics that do not offer immediate gains .

Science does not cover topics that have no previous evidence. People have been ghost hunting for eons and thus far have not shown one iota of solid evidence. Although there is plenty of evidence for psychological, physiological, biochemical, and traumatic influences on the brain that cause hallucinations or other types of delusion.

by Shirina Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:17 pm

DNA may design the body, but the body is powered by electricity. Our consciousness, that which makes us ... us is powered by electricity. Even the pain that I feel every day is electrical. like having a short in my circuity. Since ghosts appear to be electro-magnetic in composition, I would think the connection between the two is at least interesting if nothing else.

by Tosh Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:20 pm

Why isn't it possible that the next "stage" of human evolution is a transformation into an electro-magnetic entity of some kind? Oh that's right ... we don't know! And how can we if the topic is never studied? A lot of science that we now hold sacrosanct was once considered nonsense by the scientific community. Why do we have to keep making the same stupid mistake again and again?.

The mind is a property of a biological organ, the elecro-magnetism does not evolve, only the organ.

by snowyflake Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:41 pm

Since ghosts appear to be electro-magnetic in composition, I would think the connection between the two is at least interesting if nothing else.

Electro-magnetism can be detected. It is physical. If ghosts were electro-magnetic that would imply they are physical and not spiritual. We should have discovered them by now, don't you think?

by Shirina Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:42 pm

Electro-magnetism can be detected. It is physical. If ghosts were electro-magnetic that would imply they are physical and not spiritual. We should have discovered them by now, don't you think?

That's where the evidence comes into play. Unfortunately, it is rejected out-of-hand. Even indirect evidence is often enough to at least acknowledge possibilities in science, but when it comes to ghosts, nothing short of Casper in a white sheet yelling boo at a scientist will ever really convince them -- not in the existence of ghosts, per se, but even the worth of studying the phenomenon.

BUT ... I don't disparate science completely on this issue. Like with UFOs, there is only so far one can go with the evidence available. Until someone brings into the lab a piece of ectoplasm or UFO, there's not much that science can do.

by snowyflake Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:50 pm

That's where the evidence comes into play. Unfortunately, it is rejected out-of-hand. Even indirect evidence is often enough to at least acknowledge possibilities in science,

One of the cornerstones of the scientific method is reproducibility. Indirect evidence is often enough to acknowledge possibilities however when it comes to ghost, spirits and other paranormal phenomena there appears to be only anecdotal evidence which is not enough to spark a scientists interest. There has to be hard evidence, facts.... that are testable and reproducible and unfortunately you get none of that with ghosts.

by Shirina Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:53 pm

Indirect evidence is often enough to acknowledge possibilities however when it comes to ghost, spirits and other paranormal phenomena there appears to be only anecdotal evidence which is not enough to spark a scientists interest.

I don't believe that scientists pay attention to or monitor the subject for anything new. For instance, Stephen Hawking once said that UFOs are only seen by screwballs and wackos ...

Of course, he was utterly wrong, and if he had done even cursory research into the phenomenon, he wouldn't have said something so easily refuted.

Next thing you know, however, Hawking is telling the world that we shouldn't be advertising our presence here on earth because aliens might come and take our resources. Now ... if he can believe that, then why can't he believe that UFOs (aliens) might actually be here now? It's a direct contradiction.

And I bring this up because it shows how even the most brilliant of minds can fall prey to stereotyping both the phenomena themselves and the people who experience them. At least until that brilliant mind wants a piece of the action. Even scientists have to speak on the subject with knowledge, and all too often, they don't. The danger is failing to notice the Appeal to Authority fallacy that other skeptics use when quoting scientists. Just because Stephen Hawking is an expert on physics or cosmology doesn't mean he's done his research on UFOs ... but because Stephen Hawking said something, it must be true and factual (even if it's just an opinion).

If these scientists are not well-versed in the subject they're refuting, then they're just more people offering uninformed opinions. I see a lot of that going on. I know that the ghost phenomenon has made a lot of breakthroughs in regards to things like EVPs (which no one can adequately explain), and readings from various pieces of equipment. But, because they're not Nobel laureates conducting the experiments, the evidence is tossed aside.

by Guest Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:46 am

Shirina wrote:
Indirect evidence is often enough to acknowledge possibilities however when it comes to ghost, spirits and other paranormal phenomena there appears to be only anecdotal evidence which is not enough to spark a scientists interest.
I don't believe that scientists pay attention to or monitor the subject for anything new. For instance, Stephen Hawking once said that UFOs are only seen by screwballs and wackos ...

One of those “wackos” talks about what he and a couple of his “wacko” compatriots saw on a particular “road” trip.

Astronaut Buzz Aldrin Recounts Apollo 11 UFO Encounter
https://www.youtube.com/v/XlkV1ybBnHI

The more we come to know, the more we come to know how much more we don’t know.

by Tosh Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:37 am

Maybe God made the aliens in his own image too, or are aliens an example of macro-evolution ? bounce

I think they all come to earth to find Jesus.

by oftenwrong Mon Sep 17, 2012 9:19 am

Is the verb "think" a synonym of "believe" in that context? That kind of belief would explain lots of otherwise inexplicable thread-content.

by Tosh Mon Sep 17, 2012 12:12 pm

Is the verb "think" a synonym of "believe" in that context?

Who cares except you with your pseudo intellectual semantics, its freakin juvenile.

Oftenwrong the lonely synonym searcher lol.

That kind of belief would explain lots of otherwise inexplicable thread-content..

I would imagine any inexplicable content would be down more to your weak intellect rather than any semantic vagueries.

Anytime you want to take off your anorak, put down your Thesaurus and debate thread content with me, I will be your huckleberry.

I just love bottom feeders.

by oftenwrong Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:57 pm

Gone away

by Tosh Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:09 pm

Yeah, we guessed that last would be of interest..

" We " ?

Priceless delusion, grown ups only speak for themselves, are you suffering from some form of teenage angst, just go away you silly little boy.

by Tosh Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:12 pm

Yes, I surmised that last might be of interest..

Too late to alter your absolute guff, and this pretentious version is no better.

Try again, maybe 3rd time lucky...lolol.

by Tosh Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:17 pm

oftenwrong is the worst troll I have ever encountered, he just doesn't have my talent. Very Happy

I have moved his stuffed head onto my wall. cheers

by Tosh Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:23 pm

Oftenwrong,

Your obsession with me must not affect your personal life, you seem to be getting too emotionally involved, try and focus on other issues, like the thread topic.

I have hidden my white bunny rabbit, just in case.

Weirdo.

by oftenwrong Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:33 pm

A story, which probably runs better in its original Arabic, describes the owner of a recalcitrant mule that utterly failed to behave in an appropriate manner, despite all attempts at correction. Finally he took the animal to an acknowledged expert in the training of disobedient creatures whose name was Ali Aziz. Ali examined briefly his subject, listened to the report of serial misbehaviour and picked up a stick, with which he repeatedly belaboured the mule about the head, ears and backside.

The poor owner was dismayed, and cried out, "What are you doing to that poor mule?" To which the trainer, Ali, responded, "First, I must attract his attention."

It seems we may have reached the First Stage.

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:46 pm

" oftenwrong ......... just doesn't have my talent"

And don't imagine we are not grateful for that small mercy... Very Happy

by Tosh Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:44 pm

It seems we may have reached the First Stage..

Sure thing fish, thats why the record shows you following me around like a pet poodle from the getgo.

I hooked you sucker without even trying.

by Tosh Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:46 pm

And don't imagine we are not grateful for that small mercy...

Unlike you my drowning friend, I have no need to invent imaginary support for my views, just pathetic " we "....lolol.

by Tosh Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:48 pm

oftenwrong spends literally half his waking hours searching for copy/paste quotes to appear intelligent, it simply is just too funny for words. :affraid:

by Shirina Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:00 pm

Okay, okay .... let's get the thread back on topic. Insulting posts that have nothing to do with the discussion beyond this point will be deleted.

by Tosh Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:33 pm

let's get the thread back on topic.

oftenwrong and Mel have yet to get on the thread topic, they seem rather preoccupied with lovely moi. Very Happy

Insulting posts that have nothing to do with the discussion beyond this point will be deleted..

oh dear, that leaves Pinky and Perky nothing to do.

by polyglide Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:28 pm

Shirina, there is apparent brutal behaviour in the world and it takes all forms, however, not counting mankind ,who is the most evident of this nature, all that happens in nature is towards a given predetermined end, we do not understand much of it and may feel that a loving God would not have created some of the most obvious examples.

The point I have made previously is that there is no evidence that others have not been involved in creation following God creating things in the first place.

Another consideration being that God knows best and all things have a reason and a place and those that seem used and disadvantaged may have been created with the ability to deal with all that is thrown at them and may not in our terms be suffering in the manner we feel they are and have been created to serve a purpose.

Alternatively, why on earth would any animal evolve to become a victim of another and continue in exactly the same vein for all it's life and all it's decendants?

Of course there is more we do not know than that which we do know and there lies the problem.

Faith my dear, faith.

by Tosh Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:14 pm

The point I have made previously is that there is no evidence that others have not been involved in creation following God creating things in the first place.

There is no evidence God created things in the first place and there is no evidence others have been involved since creation.

The reason nature and God does not make sense is because one of them doesn't exist, and it aint nature.

Come back oftenwrong, all is forgiven.

by Tosh Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:15 pm

Will someone please check polyglides IP address, if its not the same as oftenwrong I will eat my hat.

by Sponsored content