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 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 polyglide Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:40 am

God and Christianity without a doubt.

Got to go Dan.

by Shirina Wed Nov 13, 2013 6:17 pm

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

Except for your god, of course. Insert "special pleading" argument #9.5 million here.

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

But obviously you think we can get something from magic.

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

Strange how we've been telling you this over the course of hundreds of posts, but only when you thought accepting this would work to your advantage did you finally admit to what we've been saying all along.

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

Yep. It's called "learning."

Since religion claims to have all of the answers, it prevents further intellectual growth; learning slows to a crawl until it stops altogether. At that point, a rigid and unchanging body of religious knowledge remains despite any further facts, discoveries, and inventions made in the scientific realm. It's no wonder so much of Christianity took place in Egypt given that it is the home of da Nile. headbang

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:04 pm

polyglide wrote:Everything must have been created, if you understand the actual meaning of creation.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Claim 202937, but no evidence, just a "I think it's true and you are too silly to see it" broad assumption. That coupled with the complete ignorance of evolution and the scientific method you persistently show on here is all we need to point and laugh at such nonsense.
As I have said previously, you cannot get something from nothing.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:First define nothing, as you're clearly too dimwitted to recognise the limitations the words meaning has in this context, secondly prove there was nothing, then finally prove that you "cannot get something from nothing".
So the only problem is, how, and why.
cannot get something from nothing wrote:The problems are listed above, try tackling them before you roll onto to your next assumption based on bronze age superstitions about magic apples talking snakes and pregnant virgins.
Evolution only answers how things can evolve, it has no answer to how things came into existance.
cannot get something from nothing wrote:Correct but then you can't wash with a sponge, for that you must have soap. Since we're stating obvious and entirely unrelated topics.
More and more evidence of matters we were unaware of come to light at regular intervals, many of which contradict what was previously thought
cannot get something from nothing wrote:More and more evidence confirm evolution every year, and has done for almost 200 years, not one shred of scientifically validated evidence exists to validate religion or creationism, and they've had thousands of years.
.

Long before man has the answers God will have carried out his promises.
cannot get something from nothing wrote:Yet scientific empiricism has provided innumerable answers, many of which have destroyed huge swathes of a message you claim came form this omniscient god, odd that. Nonetheless that is a fact, unlike your claim which is pure and subjective supposition.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:06 pm

Dan Fante wrote:
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?

I'll actually have an educated guess here, the human imagination?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:08 pm

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.

And your answer is an unevidenced bronze age superstition, though when pressed to answer where it came from you have no credible answer, and state that it always existed, odd that the absolute rule you apply to everything is immediately discarded to circumnavigate this obviously fallacious logic.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:28 pm

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.

"Logicalness" hilarious....No one needs to prove an omniscient being doesn't exist, but anyone claiming it does will have to prove it. So far we have pregnant virgins, magic apples, a 6 day creation, a geocentric universe, talking snakes etc etc.. anyone that thinks that message came from an omniscient mind needs help...

by Dan Fante Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:19 am

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Dan Fante wrote:
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?
I'll actually have an educated guess here, the human imagination?

Bingo! We have a winner! Wink

by Heretic Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:28 am

Dan Fante wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Dan Fante wrote:
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?
I'll actually have an educated guess here, the human imagination?
Bingo! We have a winner!

Did Disney make it all?

by Dan Fante Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:37 am

Heretic wrote:
Did Disney make it all?

United Artists wasn't it?
Well done to anyone who gets the reference.

by snowyflake Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:36 am

Shirina wrote:Humans are easily fooled.
ROB wrote: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.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:"Logicalness" hilarious....No one needs to prove an omniscient being doesn't exist, but anyone claiming it does will have to prove it. So far we have pregnant virgins, magic apples, a 6 day creation, a geocentric universe, talking snakes etc etc.. anyone that thinks that message came from an omniscient mind needs help...

Unfortunately, Rock (RoB) has left our forum but this was his argument. That only god could prove his non-existence which turns out to be a circular argument chasing its tail. If god didn't exist, how could he prove his non-existence? It was really a bad argument. If I didn't exist, how could I prove I didn't exist? But you could not get RoB to see the light of this no matter how many times you had the conversation.

by Shirina Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:06 pm

Hiya Snowy ... I fixed your quotes, but I can't be sure if that's how you were trying to set them up.

snowyflake wrote:That only god could prove his non-existence which turns out to be a circular argument chasing its tail.

LOL! When Rock first started using this nonsense argument, I often posted this in response:

Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2) - Page 23 Dogchasingtail

Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2) - Page 23 Dogchasingtail

by Bellatori Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:24 pm

snowyflake wrote:If I didn't exist, how could I prove I didn't exist?

You cannot but then I can because I exist... see my logic argument elsewhere. The probability of God existing (or anything else for that matter ) where there is no evidence is zero. Please note it is zero NOT vanishingly small either. The argument is logically solid. Theists have to provide irrefutable evidence. Tom M used to claim there was loads of this but when it came to the crunch he showed zilch. No evidence -> no god. The logic IS irrefutable. The argument is solely about what constitutes evidence. Belief is NOT evidence. There we have the nub of the matter.

by snowyflake Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:14 pm

Thanks Shirina Smile

I can't seem to get the hang of the quotes. Anyway, i'm off to bed. Work tomorrow and then the weekend woohoo!

Hope you are well. Take care x

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:18 pm

Dan Fante wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Dan Fante wrote:
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?
I'll actually have an educated guess here, the human imagination?
Bingo! We have a winner!

I've never won anything before, this is so exciting. Wink

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:19 pm

Shirina wrote:Hiya Snowy ... I fixed your quotes, but I can't be sure if that's how you were trying to set them up.

snowyflake wrote:That only god could prove his non-existence which turns out to be a circular argument chasing its tail.
LOL! When Rock first started using this nonsense argument, I often posted this in response:

Years ago we had a Bull Terrier that did that, it was a lot funnier than watching theists do it on here.

by Heretic Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:44 pm

snowyflake wrote:If I didn't exist, how could I prove I didn't exist?

Recursion is defined as the process of repeating items in a self-similar way.

Or in a rag mag "Recursion: see recursion".

Heretic

by polyglide Fri Nov 15, 2013 10:40 am

Any sane person knows the meaning of nothing in human terms.

Once you start making assumptions regarding the meaning then the meaning is lost.

I know this will be beyond your understanding Dr Sheldon, get someone to explain.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:44 pm

polyglide wrote:Any sane person knows the meaning of nothing in human terms.

Once you start making assumptions regarding the meaning then the meaning is lost.

I know this will be beyond your understanding Dr Sheldon, get someone to explain.

More childish insults and avoidance, I guess you have no answers then, which is why you were careful not to quote my questions so as to avoid making your dishonesty obvious no doubt. I'll just repeat the questions then. It was you who made the assumption, and as you correctly say, the meaning was indeed lost, as I had pointed out to you.

When you say there was nothing:

1. Was there gravity?
2. Electromagnetism?
3. Did the laws of physics apply?

Now since you claimed there was nothing, are you claiming none of those things existed? If so what evidence have you?

Take your time.....

I look forward to you dismissing my post as childish again, and hurling insults at me...

by Tosh Fri Nov 15, 2013 10:39 pm

Doc,

You are wasting your breath, creationist are programmed NOT to answer questions just to ask them, in their minds unanswered questions are evidence of God.

Thousands of years ago mankind woke up and tried to understand things that happened to them, our empty mind did not know any " hows ", understandable given the copying design of our brain, we had no model to copy from and original thought does not come easily.

So what did our brain use to copy to explain all actions, what did we use to form a pattern, and here is a possible explanation.

Pascale Boyer did a paleontology study on primitive belief systems and concluded that the basic model behind them all, was every action was intentionally caused by an unknown/unseen agent, and the only thing they had to work out was " why " not " how ". Termites devoured your hut for a reason, and it was intended.
In effect the model they used to explain actions was THE SELF, they understood that they and others committed actions for a purpose, there were intentions behind every action. You intend to club someone over the head fora reason, it is intentional.
In the social world of interaction a self aware mind only understood one principle, actions committed by them or on them by others were intended, it was " why " things happened, no survival need for " hows " in human relationships.

So the model of animism/spirit world was born from the question of " why ", lightning struck because the unseen agent intended it, and for most of our existence we wasted all our efforts on explaining the " whys " behind every effect. Worship, sacrifice and prayer were to encourage or discourage actions, they wanted to influence the " why ", affect the intention.

You are trying to explain to a primitive mind " how " things work, when in reality it is only programmed to understand the " why ", if a tree falls onto someones head then an unseen agent intended it, and he calls this " why " God.

A test of our predisposition to this mindset is how many people use the term " why " when they mean " how "?

by Tosh Fri Nov 15, 2013 10:56 pm

Anyone know who we could consider as the first human to record a " HOW ", in effect the first person to offer a natural explanation for effects?

by Tosh Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:43 pm

Since our brain is a copying machine, a first child is the most original copy of us, it is why culturally they would inherit everything first, a form of first child favoritism that still exists in some families today, a sub conscious emotional reaction.
Subsequent children copy us but also the elder sibling, so it is in a sense not the same thing, everything in our minds has an evolutionary cause.

by Tosh Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:50 pm

Anyway, back to the " hows " and ployglides unwillingness or inability to answer questions.

Ask polyglide HOW God made the universe, HOW God created life, HOW our consciousness can survive death or HOW miracles can happen, and he cannot answer because his only answer is a "WHY ".

Goid did it does not answer " HOW ".

by Tosh Sat Nov 16, 2013 12:18 am

There are some who think because an atheist cannot answer the 4 "how" questions I mentioned, as an intellectual argument for agnosticism over atheism.
I disagree, agnosticism is about not knowing if God exists, not how the universe came about, using this lack of knowledge to pronmote the validity of God is illogical in my opinion, I could be agnostic that the universe was created by an alien species, God is not the only logical explanation.
Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence but absence of evidence cannot be grounds for agnosticism, or else we would be agnostic about any bare assertion.

by Bellatori Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:19 am

Tosh wrote:...Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence but absence of evidence cannot be grounds for agnosticism, or else we would be agnostic about any bare assertion.

The line in my argument that deals with agnosticism is
5. P(g<=X) = {¬V & X}/{¬V}

In essence there are two states that define God. he exists or does not and he is evidenced or not. These are separate domains and each one exists as two mutually exclusive states. The point is that you can only get two answers for the probability. P=1 because he exists and there is evidence and the statement above which gives the answer P=0. There is not a derivable value such that 0 < P(g=X) < 1. We only have P(g=X) ={0,1}. Agnosticism would require that [0 < P(g=X) < 1] = true which is impossible. The only thing you can be agnostic about is the evidence which is what underlies the argument.

by Heretic Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:05 am

Reminds me of the New Testament story where the disciples were in out a boat during a storm.

KJV Matthew 14
22 And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.
23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.
24 But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
32 And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.

To me the agnostic is like Peter who believed but when the crunch came and it really counted then his faith failed him.

Heretic

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Nov 16, 2013 12:50 pm

Tosh wrote:There are some who think because an atheist cannot answer the 4 "how" questions I mentioned, as an intellectual argument for agnosticism over atheism.
I disagree, agnosticism is about not knowing if God exists, not how the universe came about, using this lack of knowledge to pronmote the validity of God is illogical in my opinion, I could be agnostic that the universe was created by an alien species, God is not the only logical explanation.
Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence but absence of evidence cannot be grounds for agnosticism, or else we would be agnostic about any bare assertion.

Now I've encountered this polemic too many times, theists and agnostics insisting that atheism is in fact a belief without evidence, and in some cases suggesting that atheism is an absolute claim. I usually ask if they accept the possibility of the existence of mermaids, and the experiential evidence of starving dehydrated sailors plucked half drowned form the ocean, burned senseless by the sun that they had encountered and been saved by a mermaid. More often than not they miss the point entirely and either become angry in the mistaken belief I'm being facetious, or laugh and try to lend gravitas to their belief through numbers, argumentum ad populum, or "evidence" which of course isn't evidence at all, any more than the testimony of drowning sailors about the existence of mermaids is evidence. As you have said they always try to keep their focus on a narrow band of the polemic, and try and use another small piece to validate another and another, never stepping back to look at he whole and realise that none of it evidenced.

by polyglide Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:24 pm

As usual utter nonsense.

Nothing means nothing.

It may interest you to know that scientists now believe that Germs communicate with each other and consider how best to attack humans.

This indicates to me that these little creatures are far more intelligent than those who attemp to reply to my posts with nothing more that stupid nonsense.

by Tosh Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:45 pm

Nothing means nothing.

Where is your evidence the condition of nothing exists.

by Shirina Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:00 pm

polyglide wrote:It may interest you to know that scientists now believe that Germs communicate with each other and consider how best to attack humans.

Heh, that would speak volumes about the rapacious cruelty and insidious malice that circumscribes the god you worship now ... wouldn't it?

I think so.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:32 pm

polyglide wrote:As usual utter nonsense.

Nothing means nothing.

It may interest you to know that scientists now believe that Germs communicate with each other and consider how best to attack humans.

This indicates to me that these little creatures are far more intelligent than those who attemp to reply to my posts with nothing more that stupid nonsense.

Did gravity, electromagnetism, or the laws of physics exist? If so then nothing clearly is not an absolute term in this context, it's meaning here is nuanced, and you can stamp your foot and sulk, whilst calling everyone names all you want, that won't alter the fact. You made the claim, it's incumbent on you to evidence that claim....take your time..

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:33 pm

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.

Where do you claim your god came from, and what evidence have you to validate the answer?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:38 pm

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.

There's no evidence that an omniscient being exists in the first place, which is where your premise unravels.

by Heretic Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:24 pm

polyglide wrote:This indicates to me that these little creatures are far more intelligent than those who attemp to reply to my posts with nothing more that stupid nonsense.

I would of thought that you would need to show that it was "stupid nonsense" except where it was self evident. So please join the dots....

Heretic

by polyglide Tue Nov 19, 2013 1:55 pm

I agree and it is self evident.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Nov 19, 2013 3:19 pm

by polyglide Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:22 am

From the beggining of time that included mankind there has been numerous ideas as to the purpose of his existance.

Man is so far removed from any other living thing that there must be a reason.

When you consider the universe, the latest I have heard is that there was an event some 3.7 bn light years away involving a little explosion, now when you consider miles per hour and the speed of light per second, it indicates the size of the universe is not something we can comprehend nor ever will be able to.

So we are but less than a size we can measure in terms of the universe and yet have been given all the abilities that mankind can and does employ, common sense as well as the facts indicate that there must be a purpose.

by Heretic Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:54 am

polyglide wrote:From the beggining of time that included mankind there has been numerous ideas as to the purpose of his existance.

And religion is one way to explain that yearning. There was a time when every community, village or family had their own gods and they were looked to for many reasons, when their prayers were answered it was proof of the power of their god and if their prayers were not answered then their gods were angry. As communities became larger and traded with other communities the number of gods became fewer but more powerful. We are now down to a few very large traditions in the world of and it looks as though they are hell bent on destroying each other. Eventually there will be one world religion but I suspect that whichever one it is will very quickly fragment, Christianity already has thousands of denominations.

The problem of "the purpose of existence" is that man is never satisfied with the answer.

polyglide wrote:Man is so far removed from any other living thing that there must be a reason.

Why????

polyglide wrote:When you consider the universe, the latest I have heard is that there was an event some 3.7 bn light years away involving a little explosion, now when you consider miles per hour and the speed of light per second, it indicates the size of the universe is not something we can comprehend nor ever will be able to.

I take it that you're not a young earth creationist.

polyglide wrote:So we are but less than a size we can measure in terms of the universe and yet have been given all the abilities that mankind can and does employ, common sense as well as the facts indicate that there must be a purpose.

Again Why????

Heretic

by Heretic Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:55 am

Not sure how two copies of that post ended up here.

Heretic

by Norm Deplume Sat Nov 23, 2013 12:52 pm

polyglide wrote:
Man is so far removed from any other living thing that there must be a reason.

Is the fact that we resemble every other species of primate just a coincidence then?
There is no huge unique gap between humans and other animals. We have bigger brains and highly advanced language abilities but bats are the only flying mammals so you could claim that they are as far removed from other creatures as man is. Homo sapiens is much closer to Pan paniscus than either is to Panthera tigris and all three have more features in common than they share with amphibians or birds.

There is absolutely nothing to distinguish humans that is not a matter of degree rather than kind.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Nov 23, 2013 2:02 pm

polyglide wrote:

Man is so far removed from any other living thing that there must be a reason.

You made this claim before, and it's axiomatically false, humans share as much as 94% of their DNA with other primates, our nearest biological relatives. Not only are we not far removed, we're barely removed at all, and there is solid evidence from genetic science to show this.

by Sponsored content