Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

by ROB Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:00 pm

First topic message reminder :

Shirina wrote:
Humans are easily fooled.

Perhaps that’s why atheism is growing in spite of its illogicalness.

To prove that an omniscient being does not exist, one must be an omniscient being. Only God can prove God’s existence, and only God can prove God’s nonexistence; thus, if God’s nonexistence is ever proven, God will have proven God’s own nonexistence.

by snowyflake Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:27 am

well. we dont believe in God, magic, aliens, oranything else which could bridge the rather large gap that we live with, so why should we be happy with whats left,ie we're here ,and have no idea how or why,we're going...where?..........and dont know how or why, and also,we're(YOURE!) gonna die(and you can make all the movie industry noises you like about how thats cool and you dont mind; but you DO, really- the only reason you mightnt is if you knew for sure that it was nt an end).

CAM down eggy. Smile

You have to find your own purpose for living and in spite of what some believers think, you can actually be a good person, loving, caring, compassionate, productive, decent and moral (quite often more so) than a life filled with superstitious fear.

Be happy and make others happy. Smile

by egginbonce Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:35 am

Thanks, snowy......thats nice;I spect I got up too early! Very Happy

I think a 3rd cup of tea will provide at least an interim answer....................

by Tosh Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:35 pm

Seemingly the universal laws that affect us all do not affect aliens, their technology just skips over minor obstacles like time and space.

I notice these aliens never visit educated areas, its always some location inhabited by backward minded folk.

by snowyflake Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:57 pm

Seemingly the universal laws that affect us all do not affect aliens, their technology just skips over minor obstacles like time and space.

I notice these aliens never visit educated areas, its always some location inhabited by backward minded folk.

Who've been hanging around the moonshine still or picking mushrooms (not naming any names Egg!) and are sometimes named Bubba.

by Shirina Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:28 pm

Seemingly the universal laws that affect us all do not affect aliens, their technology just skips over minor obstacles like time and space.

No, that's God you're talking about, not aliens.

I notice these aliens never visit educated areas, its always some location inhabited by backward minded folk.

Whoops, way to overplay your hand there, chief. After witnessing the numerous brain cell murdering debates with PoD on this subject, you should know better than this.

Tsk tsk.

by egginbonce Sun Mar 24, 2013 8:43 pm

Hi Snowy.I can see that you think im a mycologist.................... Very Happy

by polyglide Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:41 am

We do not know all the laws that apply to the universe.

by Tosh Mon Mar 25, 2013 12:03 pm

We do not know all the laws that apply to the universe.

Correcto mundo, unfortunately this does not count as evidence for the existence of God or the supernatural or Santa Claus.

by egginbonce Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:06 pm

polyglide wrote:We do not know all the laws that apply to the universe.

and god moves in mysterious ways, while we're on the subject................

by egginbonce Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:10 pm

do you reckon, tosh, that once we do know 'all the laws' that apply to the universe(whatever THAT is), Gods existence will have been disproved?(the importance of the disproof,or indeed, of the proof, being a bit lost on me)

by Tosh Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:32 pm

do you reckon, tosh, that once we do know 'all the laws' that apply to the universe(whatever THAT is), Gods existence will have been disproved?(the importance of the disproof,or indeed, of the proof, being a bit lost on me)

Nope, its called theistic evolution, everything is directed by God, impossible to prove otherwise by any means.

by snowyflake Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:29 pm

We do not know all the laws that apply to the universe.

What laws don't we know, polyglide?

by oftenwrong Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:38 pm

There's apparently one about not coveting your neighbour's ass.

Not sure about others.

by egginbonce Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:54 pm

Tosh wrote:
do you reckon, tosh, that once we do know 'all the laws' that apply to the universe(whatever THAT is), Gods existence will have been disproved?(the importance of the disproof,or indeed, of the proof, being a bit lost on me)

Nope, its called theistic evolution, everything is directed by God, impossible to prove otherwise by any means.

Is that the sameas incontrovertible(!) proof that God exists?.................can I stop being a Pastafarian now? Very Happy

by Tosh Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:29 pm

Is that the same as incontrovertible(!) proof that God exists?

.... if you believe God exists, then its absolute proof.

by Guest Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:02 am

by snowyflake Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:52 am

Only YHVH Elohim can prove or disprove YHVH Elohim’s existence; nothing offered by you, me, or any human can do so.

Then what is the point in believing in him? All this power, Rock, and he plays hide-and-seek for millennia. What for?

by oftenwrong Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:36 am

I read somewhere that God exists in a grain of sand. The imagery that is irresistibly brought to mind by that is of the Genie in the film "Thief of Baghdad".

Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2) - Page 6 The-thief-of-bagdad-genie2

Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2) - Page 6 The-thief-of-bagdad-genie2

by egginbonce Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:03 pm

'infinity in a grain of sand, and eternity in an hour'................Blake;not 'the thief of baghdad'!

by egginbonce Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:05 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Only YHVH Elohim can prove or disprove YHVH Elohim’s existence; nothing offered by you, me, or any human can do so.

Then what is the point in believing in him? All this power, Rock, and he plays hide-and-seek for millennia. What for?

to give us something to do with our time,other than asking what the point is............... Shocked

by polyglide Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:34 pm

Snowyflake, if you wish to know about the laws of the universe and how the present accepted theories can be proven wrong, then just read, The Final Theory.

Taking into account that one single negative result disproves any theory. and Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
Albert Einstien.

Then we may be able to discuss the matter in reality instead of floundering in the dark.

by Shirina Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:16 pm

and Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.

I adhere to God's wishes as far as I possibly can

Hmmmm .... confused

by snowyflake Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:23 pm

Snowyflake, if you wish to know about the laws of the universe and how the present accepted theories can be proven wrong, then just read, The Final Theory.

Sounds scarily like The Final Solution. I will look it up, polyglide and report back. However, you are wrong in your assumption that one negative result or discrepancy discounts the entire theory. That is not science, that's a christian trying to wriggle out of an accepted theory.

You should always look both ways before crossing the road. That's good advice. If, for whatever reason, you cross the road and get hit even when you looked both ways does that mean the good advice is no good? Of course not. Same with science. Discrepancies happen in science. It doesn't mean the theory can be discarded. It means scientists have more research to do. That's all.

by snowyflake Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:31 pm

If you read The Quantum Universe: Everything that can happen does happen
by Professor Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw.

by polyglide Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:34 pm

So you now set yourself up as better than the scientists.

If the research proves the theory wrong then it is wrong.

Read the book and then you can talk about science.

by Guest Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:38 pm

by snowyflake Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:00 pm

So you now set yourself up as better than the scientists.

Eh? I am a scientist, you wally. I don't specialise in physics and neither do you.

If the research proves the theory wrong then it is wrong.

Depends on what research you are talking about. If there is a mountain of evidence supporting the theory on the one hand and a couple of indiscrepancies on the other, it does not discount the theory. It's anomaly or an outlier. Then scientists will look for answers to the discrepancy.

Read the book and then you can talk about science.

Did you read the book? Did you understand it or did you just read the first chapter and then take it on faith that this guy is right?

by snowyflake Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:01 pm

What is the point in not believing in him?

Rational thought and reason. Living life without delusion.

by Shirina Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:27 pm

What is the point in not believing in him?

I'm sure Snowy will have her own ideas to add, but I will say this much:

Believing in God isn't something you just up and decide to do. There are many things that I would like to believe in. I would like to believe that I'll wake up tomorrow with my neuropathy completely gone. But it's not realistic. I could no more "decide" to believe in God than Franklin Delano Roosevelt could have "decided" to get up out of his wheelchair and walk.

We don't typically go through life evaluating all of the available data under the premise of: It is true until proven false. Just think of the paranoia and dysfunction that would cause! Every sniffle would be cancer, every stranger would be a serial killer, every late night at the office would mean your spouse is cheating. Every little fear, no mater how irrational, would be the gospel truth until it can be proven false. Scammers would have a field day because we would have to believe we really are the heir to some Nigerian prince - until it is proven wrong with an empty bank account. We have to filter information based on how reasonable it is, and for many of us, believing in God simply isn't reasonable. It may be nice to believe that there is a God watching over us, providing us an eternity in paradise, but it isn't reasonable.

by Shirina Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:44 pm

If the research proves the theory wrong then it is wrong.

LOL! Polyglide, I don't know if you're aware of the paradox you're setting up for yourself here, but just in case you aren't aware, I'll explain it.

You like to claim that we really shouldn't put a lot of stock in science because scientists can get things wrong.

Then you point us to a book that perports that every scientific theory since Isaac Newton has been wrong.

The paradox is: How do you know that this book you're plugging, The Final Theory, isn't wrong?

You seem to grant infallibility to books that support your case while dismissing 300 years of science because it doesn't support your case.

In fact, I have my doubts about this book anyway. How can one singular book refute the work of millions of scientists over the last three centuries? How can one singular book make entire libraries obsolete? If I were to hazard a guess, this book is probably a big criticism of science but one that does not offer up any tested alternatives.

Yet the paradox still exists. A book on science that claims science is wrong is, well ... dubious at best.

by Guest Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:06 pm

by egginbonce Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:38 pm

polyglide wrote:Snowyflake, if you wish to know about the laws of the universe and how the present accepted theories can be proven wrong, then just read, The Final Theory.

Taking into account that one single negative result disproves any theory. and Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
Albert Einstien.

Then we may be able to discuss the matter in reality instead of floundering in the dark.

No........just look at things YOURSELF, without having to read someone elses ideas...................YOU have all ther information you need,since you are a living being, with all it entails;you ARE the book..............................(gosh....the stuff one has to point out to people, who wud otherwise get lost in dogma and theory...)

by egginbonce Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:46 pm

polyglide wrote:So you now set yourself up as better than the scientists.

If the research proves the theory wrong then it is wrong.

Read the book and then you can talk about science.

I cant see how anyone who hasnt suffered a 'scientific education', has the wherewithal to evaluate anything scientific;in particular, Im thinking of innumerable research papers which we were asked to read, with no other instruction than to find the flaws;there were ALWAYS flaws,and this,we found, was to be expected.Only a person who didnt know this, would shout so loudly in favour of science as a wondefull 'see all;understand all,magic bullet-its not- its useful, but the list of its limitations has no limit!)
But please yourself................only a non -scientist would treat science like a religion;I spose thats OK.there are so many religions already, that another wont add much to our burden of ignorance!

by egginbonce Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:48 pm

Rational thought and reason. Living life knowing ultimate reality living life knowing truth.

You feel that 'ultimate reality/truth' is gained by thought and reason?In that case, you, I guess have 'got there' or you wouldnt know that....?

by Shirina Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:13 pm

only a non -scientist would treat science like a religion

Actually, no. Science is not regarded as a religion by anyone that I'm aware of. It is simply regarded as the best - or most likely - explanation for our natural world. Most people understand that science can be wrong. The problem is that, aside from science, where do we turn for explanations? Holy books? Mythology? Religion? There is simply no rational alternative. Barring science, there is only the spiritual, paranormal, and the supernatural. For people like myself, we do not want to keep making the same mistakes as our ancestors, that mistake being the attribution of mystical and supernatural forces to that which we don't understand. There is plenty in this world that we have yet to explain, but that doesn't give just cause to believing in Adam and Eve simply because science cannot yet explain where life came from. Religion and mysticism has never been proven correct, not once, ever, in the history of humanity. Why would I wish to hitch my wagon to a horse that has never once reached its destination?

Too often, believers predicate their arguments on the misguided notion that we are at the peak of our knowledge - that there is nothing left to discover, nothing left to understand. If science cannot explain the origin of life or the cause of the Big Bang right now, right this very minute, then both of those issues are utterly incomprehensible and always will be. Therefore, God. It's a fallacious view of the universe.

While science is not always right, religion has NEVER been right. In fact, religion has had to give way to science on hundreds of issues over the centuries.

by snowyflake Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:09 pm

What is the point in knowing him?

Rational thought and reason. Living life knowing ultimate reality living life knowing truth.

Hi Rock. Believing in invisible entities is not rational or reasonable.

by snowyflake Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:17 pm

Does anyone else think that certain cultures are more superstitious than others even when there is good education in that country? The reason I ask is because my Dad's wife is Philippino and she is educated, a registered nurse, and quite bright but she's a complete looney tunes when it comes to spirits. She is a catholic but doesn't go to church but she is devout with little shrines all over the house and she prays. But when the radiators are knocking she is convinced that it is her mother or father talking to her and she is terrified to stay alone in the house. Is this hyper-superstition an Asian/African thing or is it an education thing or is it a religion thing? Or is it a mix of Eastern mysticism and Western religion and culture?

I think she's a lovely woman and I hold her in the highest regard except when it comes to this stuff and then I think she'd suit a strait jacket. Smile

by oftenwrong Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:37 pm

As has been remarked upon elsewhere, a person's religion is likely to have been strongly influenced by their place of birth.

by Tosh Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:50 pm

Snowy, stop using the word invisible or you will get another lecture from Texas and polyglide, maybe undetectable is more appropriate.

by Guest Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:07 am

by Guest Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:19 am

by Sponsored content