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 Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:57 am

Bellatori wrote:So where does that leave us? It leaves us with a universe that was either created by God or created itself. The latter is actually a simpler hypothesis. Occam's Razor applies.

Hello, Bellatori, and welcome aboard. Smile

Yeah, I agree with you, in truth, but ... I figure if I'm going to get people to see reason, I have to do it one step at a time. If I can get someone to accept evolution - even if they have to believe a God started it - then I've made some progress. That's a far sight better than someone believing in Adam and Eve and a 6,000 year-old earth, after all.

by Bellatori Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:32 am

Shirina wrote:That's a far sight better than someone believing in Adam and Eve and a 6,000 year-old earth, after all.

I have to agree. How does the saying go?

"Softly, softly catchee monkey!"

by AW Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:06 am

Shirina wrote:Yeah, I agree with you, in truth, but ... I figure if I'm going to get people to see reason, I have to do it one step at a time

It seems to me that people who believe in God do not do so for good reasons. Therefore to try and supply good reasons for not believing is futile. If they don't hold the belief for good reasons, how much less chance there is to get them to reject it for good reasons? headbang

Put another way: it is unreasonable to try to persuade someone not to hold a certain belief because reason and evidence does not support it if that person does not hold that belief on the basis of reason and evidence.

by Dan Fante Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:15 am

snowyflake wrote:Welcome Dan, glad to see you made it

Just making myself at home Wink

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:20 am

ROB wrote:
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.

In purely empirical terms what do we know about hypothesis that cannot be falsified? For instance if I claimed to have a magic invisible unicorn that no one else could see or hear? Take your time....

Now I know I'm new here and I may well be wrong, but the American trend of inventing new words ending in ness, intuitiveness, aggressiveness, illogicalness, is starting to raise the temperature of my urine to a slow boil. Illogicality, if you don't mind. Rolling Eyes

by AW Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:29 am

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:but the American trend of inventing new words ending in ness, intuitiveness, aggressiveness, illogicalness, is starting to raise the temperature of my urine to a slow boil. Illogicality, if you don't mind. Rolling Eyes

Such pedanticality! What a Face

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:33 am

AW wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:but the American trend of inventing new words ending in ness, intuitiveness, aggressiveness, illogicalness, is starting to raise the temperature of my urine to a slow boil. Illogicality, if you don't mind. Rolling Eyes
Such pedanticality!

pedantness I think you'll find.... Wink

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:49 am

bobby wrote:Could someone explain nothingness and what is in the space where nothing exists?

I remember Professor Dawkins pointing to this mistake by non scientifically trained people, like myself, that nothing can be used in an incorrect context, when asked how something could come from nothing he responded by asking what they meant by nothing, he was, courteously I thought, indicating that they didn't understand that they had used nothing as an absolute when it may well be inappropriate, the largely theistic audience laughed, and he was rightly baffled.

I should now come clean and say I can't answer your question, but when people say there nothing do they mean that electromagnetism, gravity, the laws of physics didn't exist? Which I think was what Dawkins was implying. Though I'm happy to be corrected here if I am wrong.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:57 am

snowyflake wrote:I am in awe too, boatlady :)I shall use the odious commodious today in a sentence....at some point....maybe not right now...

How long before it appears in something written by an American as comodiousness?

by Shirina Sat Oct 12, 2013 3:40 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:How long before it appears in something written by an American as comodiousness?

I happen to be an American. pokenest

In fact, I represent Americaness to the hilt. I think. scratch

by Bellatori Sat Oct 12, 2013 3:57 pm

Shirina wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:How long before it appears in something written by an American as comodiousness?
I happen to be an American.

In fact, I represent Americaness to the hilt. I think.

Well... never mind...

BTW I though commodious was a comfortable toilet seat.

[EDIT] Clearly an age thing then Smile

[EDIT] There is not an emoticon for tongue in cheek which should be placed after the well never mind... like the Doc I have an english sense of humour which my wife thinks equates to not being funny at all... ahh well. Embarassed

by Norm Deplume Sat Oct 12, 2013 3:57 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
AW wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:but the American trend of inventing new words ending in ness, intuitiveness, aggressiveness, illogicalness, is starting to raise the temperature of my urine to a slow boil. Illogicality, if you don't mind. Rolling Eyes
Such pedanticality!
pedantness I think you'll find....

Or even pedantry

by Norm Deplume Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:14 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
snowyflake wrote:I am in awe too, boatlady :)I shall use the odious commodious today in a sentence....at some point....maybe not right now...
How long before it appears in something written by an American as comodiousness?

I imagine the colonials have been using that noun about as long as the English speakers in the home countries - since before 1570. [Source: OED 2nd edition]

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:52 am

Norm Deplume wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
AW wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:but the American trend of inventing new words ending in ness, intuitiveness, aggressiveness, illogicalness, is starting to raise the temperature of my urine to a slow boil. Illogicality, if you don't mind. Rolling Eyes
Such pedanticality!
pedantness I think you'll find....
Or even pedantry

I was being facetious of course. I haven't got the hang of those emoticons yet.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:55 am

Shirina wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:How long before it appears in something written by an American as comodiousness?
I happen to be an American.

In fact, I represent Americaness to the hilt. I think.

Then my profoundest apologies, as no slight was intended. The reinvention of words by tacking ness onto the end of them aside, I'm positive most Americans are delightful people. Wink

by William R Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:55 am

Bellatori wrote:
Shirina wrote:
If God can create gravity, thermodynamics, nuclear physics, and a host of other scientific principles that Christians take no issue with, then it shouldn't be hard to believe God could have created evolution, as well.
I have a problem with this. What actually did 'God' need to create?

What would it mean for God to "create evolution" anyway? Or even guide it as I think some people suggest, so it's still a natural process but God made it lead to us - I can't see how that works either.

I suspect we sometimes support this idea that God is somehow behind natural processes because it at least encourages theists to drop most of their anti-science attitude.

btw I'm not sure there's a "blind watchmaker fallacy", is there? I thought there was a watchmaker fallacy (from Paley's naive argument from personal incredulity), and "blind watchmaker" is from Dawkins.

by Bellatori Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:21 am

William R wrote:

btw I'm not sure there's a "blind watchmaker fallacy", is there? I thought there was a watchmaker fallacy (from Paley's naive argument from personal incredulity), and "blind watchmaker" is from Dawkins.

You are absolutely correct. I have made the amendment in the post. Thank you. What was I thinking!! headbang

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:32 am

What would it mean for God to "create evolution" anyway? Or even guide it as I think some people suggest, so it's still a natural process but God made it lead to us. wrote:William R

Interesting post. Well that argument always struck as suggesting a very dishonest god who communicated one message, when the truth was another. If it were true why not set it out in genesis, clearly and concisely? He'd have saved so much suffering and death and war, and had us all believing. While he's at it he could have communicated a limitless clean fuel for us, and made the entire universe habitable and easy to get to. Devoid of disease and suffering.

Someone will now no doubt post the puerile idea that it's all our fault, citing magic apples or some such, and original sin, please don't as it's so absurd it's rather tedious to have to refute it yet again.

by snowyflake Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:24 pm

Hi William R

Is that you Billy Bob? Smile

If it is, welcome to the forum.

by snowyflake Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:25 pm

I thought the blind watchmaker was Chaucer? Crap, I will have to google....

Nope. It's Dawkins. Oops

by William R Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:25 pm

Hi Mrs S

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:37 pm

polyglide wrote:I believe things evolve, but they do not evolve from nothing, they evolve from that which God created and that is the point.

The theory of evolution is still a theory based on ignorance and the ability to dismiss the obvious. ie. things must have been created.

Evolution requires no belief, the weight of evidence that supports it put's it as beyond refutation as any scientific theory in existence, it is also the most scrutinised scientific theory of all time. It is certainly not based on ignorance, but on scientific empiricism and a massive amount of peer reviewed research. It also yield enormous amounts of new scientific knowledge every year in medical research alone.

Why must things have been created? Just because ancient superstitions say so? Any empirical evidence to support this assumption?

by William R Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:24 pm

And as usual we have to ask when God created the first life, and what exactly it was. (And how he did it I suppose, but let's not go there.)

After that we might ask how specific he was about humans evolving 3.8 billion years later, or whether a sentient god-fearing being of any configuration would have done just as well.

by Bearman Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:57 am

As I'm new to this forum, and to save me the trouble of reading all 22 pages of this thread, can I ask if anyone has actually claimed to have evidence for the existence of god, and if so, was it anything other than the usual "look around it everywhere" response?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:13 pm

Yes, J.Cusick has repeatedly claimed to have evidence for the existence of God. Of course he hasn't actually produced any.

by Bearman Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:51 pm

Hi Dr S!

Gosh that sounds familiar - now where have I read a theist claiming to have such proof, but then never actually providing it?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:30 pm

Bearman wrote:Hi Dr S!

Gosh that sounds familiar - now where have I read a theist claiming to have such proof, but then never actually providing it?

Hi Bearman, to be honest it happens a lot, though it wouldn't amaze me if JP Cusick turned out to be TOM M in disguise.

by snowyflake Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:35 pm

Hi Sheldon, JP is not as hateful a Christian as Tom M. He's just deluded.

by Heretic Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:45 pm

snowyflake wrote:Hi Sheldon, JP is not as hateful a Christian as Tom M. He's just deluded.

But at least you didn't have a moving target with Tom M.

And before Mr Jp Cusick sees that as a compliment please believe me when I say it isn't.

Heretic

by oftenwrong Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:55 am

This ironic news may strengthen a few waverers:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/white-supremacist-craig-cobb-told-2783789

by Dan Fante Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:06 am

oftenwrong wrote:This ironic news may strengthen a few waverers:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/white-supremacist-craig-cobb-told-2783789

This is a perfect example of why these types of people should be allowed to air their views in public.

by polyglide Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:17 am

Everything must have been created, if you understand the actual meaning of creation.

As I have said previously, you cannot get something from nothing.

So the only problem is, how, and why.

Evolution only answers how things can evolve, it has no answer to how things came into existance.

More and more evidence of matters we were unaware of come to light at regular intervals, many of which contradict what was previously thought.

Long before man has the answers God will have carried out his promises.

by Dan Fante Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:19 am

polyglide wrote:Everything must have been created, if you understand the actual meaning of creation.

As I have said previously, you cannot get something from nothing.

Who or what created the thing that created everything?

by oftenwrong Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:32 am

I am inclined to go along with this:-

"The Primordial Soup Theory suggest that life began in a pond or ocean as a result of the combination of chemicals from the atmosphere and some form of energy to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, which would then evolve into all the species.

The Theory propogates that Life began in a warm pond/ocean from a combination of chemicals that forms amino acids, which then make proteins. This is supposed to have occurred at least 3.8 billion to 3.55 billion years ago.

The Russian Chemist A.I. Oparin and English Geneticist J.B.S. Haldane first conceived of this idea. Each developed this theory independently in the 1920s.

It's arguably less fanciful than the notion of a Supreme Being.

by Dan Fante Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:39 am

Hold the front page Razz

by polyglide Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:41 am

When you consider all the different theories and opinions you are left with the basic question.

Where did that which everything originated come from, irrespective of how it eventually evolved.

by Dan Fante Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:46 am

polyglide wrote:When you consider all the different theories and opinions you are left with the basic question.

Where did that which everything originated come from, irrespective of how it eventually evolved.

Well there's plenty of evidence for the Big Bang. Before that? There are theories, but who really knows? Of course, to assume there are absolute certainties is unscientific.

by polyglide Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:02 am

Now Dan, you will eventually see the light.

by Dan Fante Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:05 am

I already have.

by polyglide Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:12 am

Then it is not the one that shines the brightest.

by Dan Fante Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:33 am

polyglide wrote:Then it is not the one that shines the brightest.

Which out of the tens of thousands of different Christian dominations would that accolade belong to? Laughing

by Sponsored content