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 Shirina Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:15 pm

By definition, an atheist is “one who believes that there is no deity.”

a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

An atheist disbelieves, therefore, we are non-believers.

We can play on this merry-go-round all day long.

by polyglide Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:23 pm

You know that God does not exist, you cannot understand the difference between God and Santa and Desperate Dan, the latter two obviously man's creations to amuse children, you are unable to give a reasonable explanation for anything you are requested to and show a less than intelligent response to anything.

There is ample evidence of the existance of God, it is just that you are too arrogant to realise the fact.

by Guest Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:29 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
By definition, an atheist is “one who believes that there is no deity.”

Shirina wrote:
a•the•ist [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

An atheist disbelieves, therefore, we are non-believers.

We can play on this merry-go-round all day long.

atheist

athe•ist noun \ˈā-thē-ist\

Definition of ATHEIST

: one who believes that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

I disbelieve atheism; therefore, I am a non-believer.

by Shirina Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:37 pm

There is ample evidence of the existance of God, it is just that you are too arrogant to realise the fact.

Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

You'll notice up there ^^^^ is the actual thread title.

It says "Evidence FOR the existence of God"

So far, you've provided none. No one has. Attempting to debunk evolution or the Big Bang does not provide evidence for God. Nor does quoting from the Bible or trying to paint atheists as "believers." Perhaps even less evidential than all else is simply stating there is a God and behaving as though that is proof enough.

It isn't.

by polyglide Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:44 pm

Nor does all the rubish you post prove that God does not exist, there is more abundant evidence that anyone with common sense can see proves that creation involves more than random events.

If not just say how without quoting a load of scientific nonsense.

by Guest Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:51 pm

Shirina wrote:
We can play on this merry-go-round all day long.

Your implicit inclusion of me in your use of the inclusive plural pronoun “we” is incorrect; I “play” on no “merry-go-round.”

by Shirina Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:56 pm

I disbelieve atheism; therefore, I am a non-believer.

Sure, Rock. Go around calling yourself a non-believer and see what happens.

At least then you'd understand why your semantics are inaccurate.

by Shirina Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:05 pm

Nor does all the rubish you post prove that God does not exist

I don't have to.

there is more abundant evidence that anyone with common sense can see proves that creation involves more than random events.

Evidence such as? I would remind you that butterflies do not prove the Bible true and eyes do not prove that Christianity is the "one true" religion.

If not just say how without quoting a load of scientific nonsense.

Speaking of nonsense ....

Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2) - Page 17 Goalposts_moving-back

by polyglide Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:08 pm

Einstein's theories are presently being looked at in a different light, in light of the latest discoveries, or did you not know?.

by polyglide Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:09 pm

And so are many other sientific theories.

by Shirina Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:18 pm

Einstein's theories are presently being looked at in a different light, in light of the latest discoveries, or did you not know?

How do you know the latest discoveries are true? Yeah, that's what happens when you try to cherry pick science.

by polyglide Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:26 pm

I do not cherry pick anything other than the fruit of the cherry tree.

When all the present theories are found wanting and are replaced with another set that will also eventually found wanting you will then begin to understand that theories are just that. and all should be questioned.

by Guest Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:27 pm

Shirina wrote:
Sure, Rock. Go around calling yourself a non-believer and see what happens.

What happens?

by snowyflake Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:59 pm

Atheism is based on the evidence. There is no God to be seen, heard, tasted, touched or smelled. Therefore he does not exist. It's a simple equation. If you believe otherwise, present the evidence.

by Shirina Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:02 pm

What happens?

Everyone who doesn't already know you will assume you are an atheist.

Actually, there are those who argue that even having a word for the disbelief in God gives God and religion too much credit. After all, those who disbelieve in unicorns are not called "aunicorneists" nor are those who disbelieve in fairies called "afairieists." Non-existence is self-evident.

by Guest Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:25 pm

Shirina wrote:
Everyone who doesn't already know you will assume you are an atheist.

I look forward to that. Perhaps those who so assume will inform me of their assumption, which might allow me to inform them of YHVH Elohim and Y’shua without the necessity of wade through the garbage deposited all over the place “in the name of JEE-sus!” by, in my opinion, such sham-sters as Hinn, Popoff, Dollar, Jakes, and others not so well known.

If you understand “Lord” to mean eternal, omnipresent, omniscient causation (YHVH), “God to mean immeasurable, incomprehensible power by which all that is, was, and will be has been powered into being (Elohim), and “Jesus” to mean Y’shua bar Yosef, Y’shua Moshiach, of whom the father has said “This is my beloved Son, my Chosen One, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him”, then feel free to substitute “Lord God” and “Jesus” into the previous paragraph without any risk of missing the previous paragraph’s meaning.

Shirina wrote:
Non-existence is self-evident.

Nonexistence of designer as pervasive design inundates one’s senses is not self-evident.

by polyglide Wed May 01, 2013 10:41 am

There are thousands of examples of things that cannot actually be seen but we know they exist.

Thoughts for just one example, the results of maybe, the thought NO.

by Tosh Wed May 01, 2013 10:47 am

Try and imagine what it must have been like for the human mind to awake some 100,000 years ago, and like a child's imagination it sought to make sense of its surroundings. Our brain is a copying mechanism that forms patterns, in other words it uses what it knows as a role model or template to explain new experiences.

So what did precognizant humans know that they could use to solve the many new puzzles they were now faced with, and the answer is they knew about relationships and social dynamics. They knew they created babies, they knew they were rewarded for doing good and punished for doing wrong, they knew humans had intentions both good and bad, they knew actions had consequences, they knew things happened to them for a reason and they knew about the hierarchical nature of their family group.

Now simply use ones imagination and make a pattern using these role models to explain nature, and what you get is nature becoming part of their social group with similar relationships and dynamics. The glue that binds all of this together is the pattern that everything has a spirit like us, and like us everything has an intention.

In other words nature was a copy of us, we modeled nature on human experiences and relationships, and we merged these concepts to help us understand what the bloody hell was going on.

This way of thinking can easily be recognized in the primitive cultures of the native Americans, a culture they took with them some 15,000 years ago when they colonized the Americas, one that was still in existence right up until the Europeans arrived in the late 15th century.

It is fair to say the Native American was in effect cro magnon, and little had changed in 40,000 years.

by Tosh Wed May 01, 2013 10:54 am

Thoughts for just one example, the results of maybe, the thought NO.

We can see thoughts through a MRI scan.

by Shirina Wed May 01, 2013 10:56 am

There are thousands of examples of things that cannot actually be seen but we know they exist.

Because there is actual evidence for their existence.

by polyglide Wed May 01, 2013 11:00 am

I did not say they did not exist, I said you cannot see them.

by Tosh Wed May 01, 2013 11:06 am

Can you imagine sitting in a cave watching the shadows on the wall created by firelight and not knowing what they are, much like a 2 year old that becomes fascinated by their shadow.

The shadow moves in tandem with us therefore it must have something to do with us, ergo our shadow was a copy of us, in effect a spirit, everything cast a shadow and everything had a spirit.

by Tosh Wed May 01, 2013 11:07 am

I did not say they did not exist, I said you cannot see them.

We can see them, our thoughts are physical.

by Shirina Wed May 01, 2013 11:17 am

I did not say they did not exist, I said you cannot see them.

Yes, but we can see evidence for their existence.

Take the oft-used argument of wind. We can feel wind against our skin. We can see it rippling over a smooth body of water. We can see its effects in the form of erosion. We can even see it when a tornado touches down and picks up debris. The only evidence for God is our own ignorance, our own lack of knowledge. Humans need "filler" answers to that which we do not know, and that is the essence of the God of the Gaps.

That which we do not know, we invent.

by trevorw2539 Thu May 02, 2013 10:37 pm

Shirina wrote:
I did not say they did not exist, I said you cannot see them.

Yes, but we can see evidence for their existence.

Take the oft-used argument of wind. We can feel wind against our skin. We can see it rippling over a smooth body of water. We can see its effects in the form of erosion. We can even see it when a tornado touches down and picks up debris. The only evidence for God is our own ignorance, our own lack of knowledge. Humans need "filler" answers to that which we do not know, and that is the essence of the God of the Gaps.

That which we do not know, we invent.

There was no evidence for HiggsBoson particle before it was theorised middle of last century. Yet it existed. Only because science has advanced do we now have possible evidence for it. And so it is with most things.

It is said that a 'God' visited the city of Ephesus as a man and waited for someone to invite him into their home, as was the custom.
He waited in the square, ignored, all day until an old man saw him and invited him in. The 'God' was angry at being ignored and punished the city.
That's possibly why Paul and Barnabas were worshipped as 'Gods' when they did 'miraculous' things there. The people did not want to angry the 'Gods' again.
The point I'm making is if there were a supreme, all-powerful being who came to earth as a man how would you recognise him? What evidence would you have of his 'inhumanity'.
Science is limited by our ability to use it. What questions to ask about things we have no knowledge about.
Indeed, what question do we ask science to find evidence for 'God'?
The Christian and other religious opinion is that 'God' is not like man, but a 'spirit'. But what is a 'spirit'?

It's interesting reading the opposing views but the fact is that we have no way of 'knowing' for certain whether there is/isn't a 'God'.

Oh. And Tosh's 'shadow/spirits' is an interesting theory. Wonder what happened to the 'spirit' on cloudy days and in the dark.

by Tosh Thu May 02, 2013 10:59 pm

Oh. And Tosh's 'shadow/spirits' is an interesting theory. Wonder what happened to the 'spirit' on cloudy days and in the dark.

My theory is a work of genius, the model for an external spirit came from our dreams. hallucinations and shadows, self awareness enabled us to observe our dreams and hallucinations, floating around outside our bodies requires an explanation and the explanation was a copy of ourselves, in effect duality, body and spirit.
Our shadows required an explanation and it was the shape of our spirit, in effect a copy of the body.

Since spiritualism is universal then it is safe to assume this belief was in existence some 60-70,000 years ago when our ancestors colonized the earth.

Now its your turn, please provide me with your explanation for the origins of spiritual belief that marries with the evidence.

by polyglide Fri May 03, 2013 10:49 am

Shirina, this is supposed to be about God.

So let us just consider what you think and what I think and consider one thing at a time (that is answer one item at a time without going into a lot of unrelated items.

I believe in God as the original creator. You Iam aware dispute this so we beg to differ in that respect.

I believe that God made Adam perfect.
On the grounds of his powers.which we do not understand.

I believe that Satan exists and is continually attempting to undo God's will.

I believe that Adam had the opportunity to do either God's bidding or be tempted by the Devil.

I do not know what the relationship between God and the Devil is regarding just what the Devil is able or allowed to do under the terms of the dispute.

Now accepting that I may be correct regarding the existance of God just explain why I am wrong.

We can then consider all you have to offer regarding evolutuion

by polyglide Fri May 03, 2013 11:15 am

Sorry for the spelling.

by trevorw2539 Fri May 03, 2013 11:34 am

Tosh wrote:
Oh. And Tosh's 'shadow/spirits' is an interesting theory. Wonder what happened to the 'spirit' on cloudy days and in the dark.

My theory is a work of genius, the model for an external spirit came from our dreams. hallucinations and shadows, self awareness enabled us to observe our dreams and hallucinations, floating around outside our bodies requires an explanation and the explanation was a copy of ourselves, in effect duality, body and spirit.
Our shadows required an explanation and it was the shape of our spirit, in effect a copy of the body.

Since spiritualism is universal then it is safe to assume this belief was in existence some 60-70,000 years ago when our ancestors colonized the earth.

Now its your turn, please provide me with your explanation for the origins of spiritual belief that marries with the evidence.

I didn't say I disagreed with you. I found what you posted interesting.

Myself? I have seen too many things, and experienced too much I can't, and others can't, explain to be dogmatic about anything to do with religion. Even science only provides us with answers to questions we ask if we ask the right questions. And then those answers often provide more questions. Which provide more answers - ad infinitum. There are, for me, still many questions to be asked. But then I won't be around to see many of the answers. If Christians, Jews and Moslems are right there will be one almighty war. If many scientists are right we will kill ourselves one way or the other. Heads of tails. Your choice. I ought to warn you I use a double headed penny Very Happy

By the way. I'm an pessimistic optimist with great hopes for the non-future of humanity, I think. confused

by Tosh Fri May 03, 2013 1:56 pm

Trevor,

I too have seen and experienced many things, most if not all have a natural explanation, explanations that are rejected out of cognitive bias by those spiritually inclined.

Science answers questions about the physical nature of our universe, what humans do with these answers is not a deficiency of science. I read you are a great proponent of the " insufficient tool set " argument, and it is an irrational argument. The existence of God does not have to be disproved, all is necessary is to provide natural explanations for natural events, and in doing so make god unnecessary and irrelevant to the process, to date there is nothing in any physical shape or form that requires or indicates the presence of an external force. To suggest all the multifarious scientific disciplines are all failing to detect any sign of divine intervention or interaction due to insufficient tools, is to make a mockery of reason.

All god seems to do is coincide with natural laws, to choose hiddenness over non-existence is simply unreasonable.

by trevorw2539 Fri May 03, 2013 3:02 pm

To suggest all the multifarious scientific disciplines are all failing to detect any sign of divine intervention or interaction due to insufficient tools, is to make a mockery of reason.

Not at all. Science has no positive answer to the 'theory of everything' as Hawking put it.
Quote. The "theory of everything" is one of the most cherished dreams of science. If it is ever discovered, it will describe the workings of the universe at the most fundamental level and thus encompass our entire understanding of nature. It would also answer such enduring puzzles as what dark matter is, the reason time flows in only one direction and how gravity works. Small wonder that Stephen Hawking famously said that such a theory would be "the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God".

Accepting that Hawking did not really mean this literally, the following article shows we are far from understanding our beginnings, or even our now.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18612-knowing-the-mind-of-god-seven-theories-of-everything.html

by Tosh Fri May 03, 2013 3:46 pm

Not at all. Science has no positive answer to the 'theory of everything' as Hawking put it.

Trevor, we do not have to know everything to discount the absence of any external force in either quantum theory or general relativity theory. There is nothing affecting anything outside the natural laws at both the micro and macro levels, god may indeed reside in another dimension or universe but he aint acting upon anything in our 3 dimensions or in our universe.

His existence like Deism is pointless.

by Tosh Fri May 03, 2013 5:45 pm

I believe that Satan exists and is continually attempting to undo God's will.

God created Satan to undo his own will, God sounds retarded.

by snowyflake Fri May 03, 2013 6:19 pm

Now accepting that I may be correct regarding the existance of God just explain why I am wrong.

Do you read this thread? We have presented hundreds of arguments against the existence of God, most notably that you can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch God. Everything else that exists has evidence for its existence. Except God.

I can just as easily claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and though I cannot prove it, it is no less wrong than claiming God created the universe.

The only reason it carries any weight at all is because ancient people wrote it down in their story book. Who would have thought that humans would be so ridiculous as to think it was literally true!

by trevorw2539 Fri May 03, 2013 7:48 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Now accepting that I may be correct regarding the existance of God just explain why I am wrong.

Do you read this thread? We have presented hundreds of arguments against the existence of God, most notably that you can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch God. Everything else that exists has evidence for its existence. Except God.

I can just as easily claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and though I cannot prove it, it is no less wrong than claiming God created the universe.

The only reason it carries any weight at all is because ancient people wrote it down in their story book. Who would have thought that humans would be so ridiculous as to think it was literally true!

I don't agree with Polyglide, but I don't agree with you either. There are probably many things that exist we know nothing about, or that they exist. 'Dark matter' has existed since creation but we have only just found 'evidence' of something we call 'dark matter'. The point is that we have only just 'realised' and discovered evidence for it.
Of course scientists of 200 years ago had no evidence or clue that it existed, but that did not mean 'dark matter' wasn't there.

In my lifetime many scientific 'definitely's' have become 'probably's'. The best anyone can say is that 'God', according to all the evidence we currently have, probably does not exist.

by snowyflake Fri May 03, 2013 8:24 pm

The best anyone can say is that 'God', according to all the evidence we currently have, probably does not exist.

Exactly.

There may be millions of things we don't know exist. But until there is evidence to suggest they exist, we cannot claim they do exist. That kind of reasoning is the road to the nuttery. Anyone can claim anything and claim that it is truth. That is not rational.

by trevorw2539 Fri May 03, 2013 9:51 pm

snowyflake wrote:
The best anyone can say is that 'God', according to all the evidence we currently have, probably does not exist.

Exactly.

There may be millions of things we don't know exist. But until there is evidence to suggest they exist, we cannot claim they do exist. That kind of reasoning is the road to the nuttery. Anyone can claim anything and claim that it is truth. That is not rational.

Wow. Agreement. Now if you just agree that 'God' exists we have miracles too. Shocked

by snowyflake Sat May 04, 2013 8:42 am

Wow. Agreement. Now if you just agree that 'God' exists we have miracles too. Shocked Laughing

Wow indeed! Smile

No chance unless someone presents real evidence. So far no one has.

by polyglide Sat May 04, 2013 11:07 am

No one has answered my question.

If I am correct in my belief then is it possibe that it explains all matters?

On the other hand, all other theories are just that, theories with no evidence whatsoever to support creation, evolution to a certain extent, yes, ceation show me the proof.

by snowyflake Sat May 04, 2013 11:08 am

If you are correct in your beliefs and that is a big IF, you should have some evidence that substantiates your belief. Saying, 'Look around you, that is all the evidence you need for God's existence' is not good enough. I can slot anything into the space where God is and make the same claim. Leprachauns, fairies, Thor, Zeus, Harry Potter etc etc etc

You need evidence to support your claims.

by polyglide Sat May 04, 2013 11:22 am

As I said in another post, a wasted education.

I said very clearly, if I am correct in my belief does it explain everything?.

You can give any ridiculous alternative but none can expalin creation.

by Sponsored content