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 boatlady Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:38 pm

Could also be the central humanist message, or even just the central 'don't be a bastard' message.

by Shirina Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:42 pm

Man speaking with man (all inclusive), seeking wisdom through YHVH Elohim (God): “Let us consider your point of view and my point of view and seek God’s ground.”

This is the absolute worst way to communicate because religion is absolute. I know you're going to say that you don't believe in "religion," but the reality is that, without religion, there is absolutely no way to know what God wants. This scenario may work between two Christians of the same denomination, but it certainly isn't going to work between a Christian and an Atheist or Secular Humanist. Obviously, a person such as myself isn't going to seek out the rules in Deuteronomy or Leviticus to settle a disagreement over gay marriage, for instance.

by Guest Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:55 pm

Shirina wrote:
Man speaking with man (all inclusive), seeking wisdom through YHVH Elohim (God): “Let us consider your point of view and my point of view and seek God’s ground.”
This is the absolute worst way to communicate because religion is absolute.

How did “religion” get mixed up in my soup?

Shirina wrote:
I know you're going to say that you don't believe in "religion,"…

Since you know that, the next word, “but”, puzzles me Perhaps one day, you and I may discuss the Creator without getting him mixed up with that which man has created.

Shirina wrote:
… but the reality is that, without religion, there is absolutely no way to know what God wants.

Either you believe Big Bang or you do not believe Big Bang. If you believe Big Bang, then you believe Genesis 1:1. If you believe Genesis 1:1, then you believe eternal, causative, incomprehensible power preexists existence.

The transliterated name by which eternal, causative, incomprehensible power is identified is YHVH Elohim, rendered (not translated) as Lord God in English. As Lord God preexist existence, and religion is within existence, Lord God’s existence must precede religion’s existence. Since Lord God’s existence precedes religion’s existence, what Lord God wants must precede religion’s existence.

One who seeks to know what Lord God wants need not seek answers from that which came after Lord God. I seek God, not religion, to know what God wants.

Shirina wrote:
This scenario may work between two Christians of the same denomination, but it certainly isn't going to work between a Christian and an Atheist or Secular Humanist.

This scenario works between any two individuals that (1) seek truth, and (2) possess sufficient humbleness to disallow personal hubris any opportunity to trample upon their search for truth. With apologies to Curtis Mayfield for appropriating and slightly altering his phrase, “It don’t matter none Christian or Atheist.”

Of course, since both atheism and secular humanism are flawed ideological myths, many, if not most, persons who subscribe to these indefensible myths will not disable their hubris so that they might “blank slate” their minds and let truth settle therein.

Shirina wrote:
Obviously, a person such as myself isn't going to seek out the rules in Deuteronomy or Leviticus to settle a disagreement over gay marriage, for instance.

A number of things for which certain humans have coined terms do not exist. Please examine this list of terms I’ve coined and identify those that refer to things that exist in reality: (1) the letter notifying me of my selection into the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame, (2) my bronze bust sitting between Earl “The Pearl” Monroe and Julius “The Doctor” Erving in the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame, (3) the “thank you” note from (take your pick) Gladys Knight/Chaka Khan/Pat Benatar/Terry Ellis/Jackie Ross for treating her to a night on the town complete with dinner and a first-run movie with unlimited popcorn, (4) my Naval Aviator wings earned as a Tomcat jock, (5) my certificate of ownership and the keys to the ignition of my Boeing 787 Custom Dreamliner.

by snowyflake Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:44 pm

Snowflake, please learn to read with a little understanding it would help a lot.

OK LOL

At no time have I ever either said or thought I was better in any way than anyone else.

The very fact that you are here arguing that everything we see on earth is God given, even though millions of scientists around the world have evidence as to how we got to where we are implies that you think you are better than anyone else because you know the absolute truth. You discount the evidence without even knowing what all of the evidence is.

In fact I am ashamed at parts of my life that have been anything but Christian, when I should have behaved in a better way, at no time have I ever doubted God but have at times not acted according to his wishes.

The only things you should ever be ashamed of is not behaving in a moral, decent, honest and loving way. How you know what God wishes baffles me. The insane asylums are full of people who think they are God or Jesus, think that God speaks to them (remember Son of Sam?) and claim to know the absolute truth.

The only one who has been without sin is Jesus and he suffered to save wretches like me and for this I am truly grateful.

Jesus didn't die according to Christians so I fail to see what sacrifice he actually made.

by snowyflake Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:46 pm

Either you believe Big Bang or you do not believe Big Bang. If you believe Big Bang, then you believe Genesis 1:1. If you believe Genesis 1:1, then you believe eternal, causative, incomprehensible power preexists existence.

Hi Rock. I don't think it's as straightforward or as black and white as that. I can believe in Big Bang because the evidence points towards this scenario but it doesn't mean that God is the causative power. We just don't know what it was yet.

by Guest Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:14 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Either you believe Big Bang or you do not believe Big Bang. If you believe Big Bang, then you believe Genesis 1:1. If you believe Genesis 1:1, then you believe eternal, causative, incomprehensible power preexists existence.
Hi Rock. I don't think it's as straightforward or as black and white as that. I can believe in Big Bang because the evidence points towards this scenario but it doesn't mean that God is the causative power. We just don't know what it was yet.

Hey Snowy.

And yet Big Bang and Genesis 1:1, the third word of which is “Elohim”, are congruent. As ones who respects math, this simple test of congruence makes that fact clear to you and I:

A = C
B = C
A = B

In sentence form since A, Big Bang, equals C, a certain “who-what-when-where” exposited and examined by Snowyflake and RockOnBrother, and B, Genesis 1:1, equals C, that certain “who-what-when-where”, then A, Big Bang, must equal B, Genesis 1:1

I dislike the English term “God” because it carries not the etymological meanings of either “YHVH” or “Elohim”, the etymological meanings of which, taken together, convey eternal causative (YHVH) incomprehensible power (Elohim). Being an English speaker, I’m stuck with a term I dislike.

by polyglide Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:24 pm

If you believe in a creator it does not realy matter what name you use to portray him [ if that is the correct terminology] what realy matters is why?.

Big Bang, little Bang, what should be of more concern is why in all the universe are we apparently the only beings that are able to utilize everything that is available to us.

If evolution had any credability man would have adopted wings, lungs that could breath under water and be equiped to deal with all worldly conditions and not have to wear cloths etc;

Instead he is the most vulnerable creature on earth.

Put a naked man and a male of all other creatures on earth together and see which would be the first to perish.

by Shirina Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:30 pm

If evolution had any credability man would have adopted wings, lungs that could breath under water and be equiped to deal with all worldly conditions and not have to wear cloths etc;

Why?

You're making the assumption that evolution is some sort of "wishing well" that grants humanity all of our most fervent desires. Then again, if Creationism had any credibility, God would have given us wings and the ability to breathe underwater. We would also regenerate lost limbs, wouldn't need to crap out bodily waste, we would have tougher resistances against bacteria and viruses, we wouldn't have a ticking time bomb in our bodies known as the appendix, we would never need our wisdom teeth pulled ... I mean, the list of flaws is endless.

And nowhere in your religion does any Holy Book explain WHY so many flaws exist. For such a Supreme Being, God sure made a mess of humans biologically for many other species are far more "survivable" than humans, as you love to point out.

I'm sure you'll have a million and one rationalizations as to why this is, but you'll simply be making stuff up as the Bible doesn't explain any of it. I'm also quite certain that your leading rationalization will be something akin to: "It all happened when humanity fell from grace in the Garden of Eden!" But, of course, that would be making stuff up since there is no evidence even from within your religion that substantiates that assertion.

The bottom line is that the flawed nature of humanity supports evolution not spontaneous creation by an omnipotent being. In fact, your own arguments support evolution.

Put a naked man and a male of all other creatures on earth together and see which would be the first to perish.

I'm betting on the mayfly.

by snowyflake Tue Oct 16, 2012 7:30 pm

Hey Rock

Incomprehensible power may be what kicked off the Big Bang but that does not make it a supernatural entity, or Elohim or God. This is a connection you have made and this works for you. I can agree with the Big Bang theory but no one knows what kicked it off. It might have been incomprehensible power or it might have been a small puff. We just don't know. Some scientists consider the term 'Big Bang' to be a bit of a misnomer since it might actually have been just a 'sudden expansion' with no banging whatsoever.

Take care Rock. It's always good to talk to you. Smile

by Tosh Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:40 pm

I'm back, I know you missed me.

And yet Big Bang and Genesis 1:1, the third word of which is “Elohim”, are congruent. As ones who respects math, this simple test of congruence makes that fact clear to you and I:
•A = C

•B = C

•A = B
In sentence form since A, Big Bang, equals C, a certain “who-what-when-where” exposited and examined by Snowyflake and RockOnBrother, and B, Genesis 1:1, equals C, that certain “who-what-when-where”, then A, Big Bang, must equal B, Genesis 1:1

mmm, this is a perfect example of a logical or slippery slope fallacy.

A=C is the premise and the conclusion is A must equal B, unfortunately this conclusion is dependant on the presumption B=C, which is commonly refered to as the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

An example can be given as follows

1.Men are human.
2.Mary is human.
3.Therefore, Mary is a man.

Must do better.

by polyglide Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:19 am

To try to simplify matters I will give a little scinario.

An engineer fashions the most perfect engine.

He gives instructions as to what is necessary for the engine to work perfectly.

Tosh is given the instructions along with Snowflake.

Tosh is told that a certain fuel must be used and no other

Snowflake is told that certain maintenance must be carried out on time.

For a very short period both carry out exactly what the engineer had instructed and all was well.

Along comes Shirina and tells Tosh there is another fuel that is better and will make the engine work better.

But the engineer said not to use any other fuel said Tosh, do not be daft he only said that so that the engine would under perform, you just try the other fuel. said Shirina.

So Tosh was tempted and tried the other fuel and the engine did perform better as it had a higher octane content.

At the same time Shirina told Snowflake she was wasting a lot of time as instead of carrying out the maintenance once a week it would do just as well doing it every month.

But the engineer said I must do it every week, do not be daft said Shirina he only said that to make things harder for you just try it once a month.

And she did and for a little while the engine worked that is until the engine was burned out by the extra octane in the fuel and the lack of maintenance.

Now I do not for one minute think you will realise the significance of the above and that is why you are lost in a lot of theories and nonsense.

.

by Shirina Fri Oct 19, 2012 4:53 pm

I'll offer up a different scenario:

A computer programmer sat down to create a video game called The Sims, a game that represents real life.

The programmer can create the characters in the game to behave any way he chooses.

So he gets down to the business of writing the code and creating the graphics ... typity type, clickty click. Okay, he's done.

First of all, he decided to have the characters be easily seduced by temptation because, I dunno, he just felt like it.

Secondly, the programmer puts a box with a big red button in the middle of the game that says, "Don't press me" even though he designed the characters to be susceptible to temptation.

Thirdly, he beta tests the game, and sure enough, one of the characters is tempted, walks up to the box, presses the red button, and blam! The computer crashes. (The beta testing represents God's omniscience).

This pisses off the programmer, but instead of taking the box out of the game or reducing the temptation level of the characters, the programmer leaves everything the way it is.

So, the programmer polishes up the game, works out some of the bugs (but leaves a lot of them alone), and settles down to play.

And, as should have been expected, one of the characters is tempted, walks to the box, presses the button and blam! The programmer's computer crashes.

"Dammit!" the programmer screams. "Why did you walk to that box and press that button?!?"

The programmer restarts the game half a dozen times and each time one of the characters eventually presses the button and crashes the computer.

Even though the programmer could have removed the box, programmed the box to do something other than crash the computer, or simply redesigned the characters' artificial intelligence (AI) not to be so tempted by the big red button, the programmer decides instead to get pissed off at the characters.

"How dare you defy me!" the programmer screams at his monitor. So he kicks the little Sim-people out of their home and programs the game so that each character is cursed for generations to come. "That'll teach ya!"

But now, whenever the programmer plays, the characters almost never do what he wants them to do; he keeps getting pissed and destroying his computers all the while blaming the characters instead of himself. After all, he created the world, the characters, the box, the button, and the AI for the game.

by Tosh Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:56 pm

Polyglide,

I have no qualms about you believing in a designer, however why you think its the God of the Jewish Scriptures is beyond me, you must ask yourself why is the OT true ?

The properties of Yahweh reflect the ignorance of its authors, the God of the Bible possesses all the attributes of Bronze Age man.

by snowyflake Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:40 am

Now I do not for one minute think you will realise the significance of the above and that is why you are lost in a lot of theories and nonsense.

I'm afraid it is you who fails to realise the significance of what you wrote. Belief in unproven or un-evidenced things is the nature of human beings. I would have thought in the 21st century we would have grown out of this but that takes education and unfortunately even basic science eludes most of the planet. Religion holds us back from our potential out of fear and misinformation and sometimes just plain stupidity.

by snowyflake Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:53 am

For polyglide: Please read and try to understand the differences. You can go to wikipedia under Objections to Evolution and find the references.

Critics of evolution frequently assert that evolution is "just a theory," with the intent of emphasizing that scientific theories are never absolute, or of characterizing it as a matter of opinion rather than of fact or evidence. This reflects a misunderstanding of the meaning of theory in a scientific context: whereas in colloquial speech a theory is a conjecture or guess, in science a theory is an explanation whose predictions have been verified by experiments or other evidence. Evolutionary theory refers to an explanation for the diversity of species and their ancestry which has met extremely high standards of scientific evidence. An example of evolution as theory is the modern synthesis of Darwinian natural selection and Mendelian inheritance. As with any scientific theory, the modern synthesis is constantly debated, tested, and refined by scientists, but there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that it remains the only robust model that accounts for the known facts concerning evolution.[30]

Critics also state that evolution is not a fact.[31] In science, a fact is a verified empirical observation; in colloquial contexts, however, a fact can simply refer to anything for which there is overwhelming evidence. For example, in common usage theories such as "the Earth revolves around the Sun" and "objects fall due to gravity" may be referred to as "facts", even though they are purely theoretical. From a scientific standpoint, therefore, evolution may be called a "fact" for the same reason that gravity can: under the scientific definition, evolution is an observable process that occurs whenever a population of organisms genetically changes over time. Under the colloquial definition, the theory of evolution can also be called a fact, referring to this theory's well-established nature. Thus, evolution is widely considered both a theory and a fact by scientists.[32][33][34]

Similar confusion is involved in objections that evolution is "unproven," since no theory in science is known to be absolutely true, only verified by empirical evidence.[35] This distinction is an important one in philosophy of science, as it relates to the lack of absolute certainty in all empirical claims, not just evolution. Strict proof is possible only in formal sciences such as logic and mathematics, not natural sciences (where terms such as "validated" or "corroborated" are more appropriate). Thus, to say that evolution is not proven is trivially true, but no more an indictment of evolution than calling it a "theory". The confusion arises, however, in that the colloquial meaning of proof is simply "compelling evidence", in which case scientists would indeed consider evolution "proven."[36]

by polyglide Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:07 pm

Just because one or two or a thousand or a million scientists "think" they have an answer does not make it right

As I have said previously for every theory that is available, there are scientists who find flaws in them and they are more likely to be right than pure conjecture.

Proof, is an irrefutable satetmant, evolution is pure conjecture and supposition, evolution is refutable on more grounds than can be said for it's
claimants.

by polyglide Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:09 pm

As I said Shirina, I knew you would not understand the significance and that is why you are unable to grasp reality.

by Shirina Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:58 pm

As I said Shirina, I knew you would not understand the significance and that is why you are unable to grasp reality.

Because all-powerful gods, talking snakes, burning bushes, virgin births, divine genocides, baby-killing magical plagues, parting seas, "mana" falling from the sky, people returning from the dead, 20 million animals crammed into a 450 foot boat, earth-covering floods, and men living inside of big fish for 3 days are all a part of "reality," yes?

by astra Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:21 pm

MAN Shirina, THAT must have been some bender (drunken party)!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Guest Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm

Shirina wrote:
… all-powerful gods… are all a part of "reality," yes?

All powerful gods plural are a part of man’s fantasy. Those who choose not to know YHVH Elohim, also identified as Adonai Eluheinu, one, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, incomparable, incomprehensible, preexistent, author, creator, owner, and sovereign of all that is, was, and eve will be, often create fantasies to disparage within their minds. Such fantasies tend to take on characteristics assigned to them by those who fantasize such things.

by snowyflake Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:05 pm

Proof, is an irrefutable satetmant, evolution is pure conjecture and supposition, evolution is refutable on more grounds than can be said for it's
claimants.

There is no point in discussing this with you. You are wrong. Evolution is a fact and the fact that you don't understand it doesn't make it any less true. Evolution has tons of evidence to support it. Creationism and intelligent design have zip and in fact is based purely on belief, conjecture and supposition and the ancient words of desert dwellers. The christian scientists are no better than charlatans for the fluff they try to pass off as science. It's disgusting.

by willingsniper Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:34 pm

All powerful gods plural are a part of man’s fantasy. Those who choose not to know YHVH Elohim, also identified as Adonai Eluheinu, one, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, incomparable, incomprehensible, preexistent, author, creator, owner, and sovereign of all that is, was, and eve will be, often create fantasies to disparage within their minds. Such fantasies tend to take on characteristics assigned to them by those who fantasize such things

.

Yawn...

by oftenwrong Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:02 pm

"There is no point in discussing this with you. You are wrong."

Uncanny. I KNOW that my Mother-in-Law is dead, I attended the funeral.
But ............................. ??

by snowyflake Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:04 pm

Uncanny. I KNOW that my Mother-in-Law is dead, I attended the funeral.
But ............................. ??

Yawn...

by oftenwrong Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:29 pm

C'mon. Give it your best shot! You know you want to.

by snowyflake Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:36 pm

I would but you bore me. Sleep

by astra Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:03 pm

Have some HAGGIS, snowy, you know it'll cheer you up!! bounce

by snowyflake Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:15 pm

Have some spotted DICK, astra Smile

(or is that cannibalism?)

by polyglide Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:47 am

I am not interested in any of the above Shirina, all I am concerned about is
from the time Jesus came to earth.

Pre Jesus and all that it entails is a mystery, the history as recorded is the result of man's interpretation of events and no doubt with a little help from the Devil, it can be and is, confusing but I am very willing to let God sort out the wheat from the chaff because it is beyond man to do so.

That is where faith comes in.

It matters not how many times you say evolution is a possibility the facts say it is not.

by oftenwrong Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:53 pm

Interesting to see someone "specialising" in the last 2000+ years. That must narrow the possibilities for disagreement.

by Tosh Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:53 pm

Such fantasies tend to take on characteristics assigned to them by those who fantasize such things.

.

Yep, you said it, no argument here.

by Tosh Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:01 pm

"There is no point in discussing this with you. You are wrong."

Uncanny. I KNOW that my Mother-in-Law is dead, I attended the funeral.
But ............................. ??.

I will be your huckleberry sweetie:

If you have knowledge that contradicts your Mother-in-Law is dead then produce it or there is nothing uncanny or " But....? " about it.

Next teenage conundrum please, its like shooting fish in a barrel.

by Tosh Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:10 pm

Interesting to see someone "specialising" in the last 2000+ years. That must narrow the possibilities for disagreement..

I specialize in the last 13.7 billion years, if you would like to broaden the argument then step up to the plate, it may relieve the thread of your pretentious musings.

Pick any point in time my friend, I cannot be more expansive than that.

by snowyflake Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:16 pm

Pre Jesus and all that it entails is a mystery, the history as recorded is the result of man's interpretation of events and no doubt with a little help from the Devil, it can be and is, confusing but I am very willing to let God sort out the wheat from the chaff because it is beyond man to do so.

That's a narrow view of the world. It must be claustrophobic for one mind to be boxed in so tightly that anything outside of 'Jesus' is considered the devil's work. How pathetically sad. There's an entire, glorious, beautiful world full of mystery and wonder, just waiting to be discovered and you settle for the lazy answer...God did it. We have learned so much and we have much to learn but it will be science that discovers it, not believers. Believers are the hinderers to scientific enquiry.

by oftenwrong Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:30 pm

Tosh wrote:
Such fantasies tend to take on characteristics assigned to them by those who fantasize such things.
.

Yep, you said it, no argument here.

But no commentary on the existence of God.

by oftenwrong Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:31 pm

Tosh wrote:
"There is no point in discussing this with you. You are wrong."

Uncanny. I KNOW that my Mother-in-Law is dead, I attended the funeral.
But ............................. ??.

I will be your huckleberry sweetie:

If you have knowledge that contradicts your Mother-in-Law is dead then produce it or there is nothing uncanny or " But....? " about it.

Next teenage conundrum please, its like shooting fish in a barrel.

Whereas "The Existence of God" ..............................

by oftenwrong Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:34 pm

Tosh wrote:
Interesting to see someone "specialising" in the last 2000+ years. That must narrow the possibilities for disagreement..

I specialize in the last 13.7 billion years, if you would like to broaden the argument then step up to the plate, it may relieve the thread of your pretentious musings.

Pick any point in time my friend, I cannot be more expansive than that.

Three successive postings of no relevance to the thread topic. Are we keeping you awake, Tosh?

by Tosh Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:27 pm

Three successive postings of no relevance to the thread topic. Are we keeping you awake, Tosh?.

Ahem...tap...tap...tap....wake up sleeply brain, these were 3 successive posts addressing 3 points raised by you and Texas, if my replies bore no relevance to the thread topic, then you must ask yourself the very same question you mistakenly asked me. Try and keep up oftenwrong.

If you haven't the confidence or intellect to debate content, then I suggest you stop posting pretentious garbage and leave the debate to grown ups.

The teenage angst pseudo intellectual room is down the hall, its marked " Toilets ".

by Tosh Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:44 pm

God created a genre on the internet that inspired my trolling career, there is nothing more amusing than dismantling the fragile ego and condascension of the pseudo intelectual, the guy who just tries too hard to be too clever. They all possess familiar traits, there will be of course an evolutionary explanation:

They all use famous quotes, metaphors and conundrums to avoid actually taking any particular viewpoint, its a great way of evading debate, you just sit on the fence nit picking either side with spurious non-sequitars.

It is a non participating sport for the weak minded, an ego too scared to debate content, perfect fodder for my sense of humour.

There is a poster on here who objects to anyone responding to his sage commentary on the grounds of relevance...lolol.

Now that is funny enough to go on my spread sheet. Very Happy

by Tosh Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:54 pm

by oftenwrong Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:56 am

QUOTE:

by foreversunshine on Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:50 pm.

Poor Tosh

by Sponsored content