Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

[ROB]

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.

[oftenwrong]

Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744) in An Essay on Criticism, written 1709 - published 1711:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."

[snowyflake]

Oh yeah, and also, to prove that an omniscient being does not exist, one must be an omniscient being.

How do you know there is an omniscient being? It's mythology.

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

That's funny. Atheism is growing because science is growing and we know far more than we did 100 years ago and 100 years before that. And science has refuted many claims made in the bible. Like the earth is the centre of the universe. We now know this to be wrong. That serpents can talk. That gay people are sinners purely based on their homosexuality. That women are worthless. That human beings can be slaves/property. Science has shown that this kind of tribal thinking is wrong although it says otherwise in the bible, torah and qu'ran.

It's perfectly logical to me. When the evidence for God is irrefutable then I will believe. Until then, it's mythology with all it's illogical, wishful thinking for extending this one life.

We are far kinder, less violent and more aware of our fellow man and other species than we have ever been in history. This is not down to religious belief. On the contrary, it is down to knowledge (scientific and otherwise). Religious belief is the hinderance to knowledge.

All the studying of the Greek, Hebrew or Arabic in the world does not change the fact that it's mythology. And different beliefs are just different mythologies.

[tlttf]

Nothing illogical about not believing in a superior being. It shouldn't however take away from the fact that the commandments were written by various wise/clever people that realised for society to prosper and grow from a tribe mentality that some kind of social system had to be laid out and for it to prosper it had to hidden behind an archaic belief, otherwise only a few would ever get to understand it.

[snowyflake]

But you cannot prove or even provide evidence for an omniscient being either, Rock. Under those circumstances I shall await evidence. So far, it's nada. You on the other hand are jumping on the Omniscient Being Bandwagon based on a bunch of papers written in Greek and Hebrew a couple thousand years ago. They are no more 'true' than Harry Potter is true.

You say 'I dunno' but previously you stated that what you say is true. What is 'true' to you might only be self-delusion. It may not be 'true' in the true sense of the word. It might be Rock's 'truth' and nothing more substantial than that. If that is true then fine but don't you think it's presumptuous to tell others that your 'truth' is true (reality)?

I hope that made sense.

[Shirina]

Dear Polyglide,

Please do not interject into a discussion just to insult someone. I let it go in another thread because it was just you and Snowy, but here, Snowy is debating with Rock and you just wandered in to snipe. Don't do it. Consider the deletion of your post your first warning. We really don't need good, civil discussion ruined by sniping attacks.

Thank you.

[boatlady]

Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744) in An Essay on Criticism, written 1709 - published 1711:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."

You're so right OW

[polyglide]

Then stop all sniping, then we may then get some sense and reason into the posts.

You appear to pick and choose which is wrong.

[oftenwrong]

But when somebody presents such a big fat juicy target of themselves every time ..... sniping performs a Public Service.

[polyglide]

And warrants retaliation.

[oftenwrong]

Bible > Romans > Chapter 12 > Verse 19

[polyglide]

For some unknown reason Snowflake I cannot find the thread where you kindly showed me where I could find the scientist,s expalnation of evolution and the Big Bang theories.

Although I was fully aware of them, I did read them again and would like to discuss them with you in a friendly and hopefully fruitful way.

If we take the Big Bang theory first.

At the present time it is accepted that you cannot get something from nothing.

It therefore suggests that if there is something there it has always been there or been created.

Both pose an impossible rational explanation unless we accept that there are matters that we are not able to comprehend.

If something is created then it must have been created from something that already existed, which poses the problem where did that come from and you can go round and round in circles and never come up with an answer that will stand up to close scrutiny.

We have no real idea how old in our terms the universe is and if matter cannot be explained in detail then we have to accept that in some form it has always existed and the universe is timeless.

I would appreciate your ideas on this subject.

[bobby]

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

[polyglide]

bobby, a very good question, I wish I new the answer.
Along with, if there is an extent to the universe where does it end and what is on all the other sides.

[oftenwrong]

"Could someone explain nothingness and what is in the space where nothing exists?."

I think it might be the space between the ears of that gentleman on trial at the moment for allegedly setting fire to the house which contained his six children. For financial gain, apparently.

[Shirina]

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

Whether or not there actually is a state of "nothingness" is a matter of some debate. This is one of the major weaknesses of the typical Creationist argument that "something cannot come from nothing." We don't even know if "nothing" can exist, so there's a huge assumption that "nothingness" was the state of the universe before the Big Bang.

[polyglide]

If someone has a degree in knitting but cannot recognise a knitting needle it is of little value.

If the state of nothingness was that prior to the Big Bang then what went Bang?.

It is a safe bet that all matter in many different forms has always been around, we than have the problem of how everything originated, along with where is around.

If you had a air tight globe extracted everything from it, you could, providing it stayed in the same condition, leave it for ever and there would
be nothing inside it.

We attempt to find what is beyond what we call the universe, we do not know the extent of the universe in the first place.

In our normal thinking the vast majority of sane people would accept that there is a beginning and an end to most things and an explanation for 99%

There can be no end to space other than at the other side there is something else that contains what we call space.

Then we have the problem of where does that which contains space start and end.

The answer of course is that there are matters and influences and beings
in forms that we do not understand and sciences that we do not understand.

[oftenwrong]

There is measurable space between the components of the atom. It's not very commodious, but it has to be there unless the intention is to demonstrate quite a Big Bang.

[snowyflake]

It's not very commodious,

Commodious? Is this really a word, OW? Are you sure you don't mean 'big'? Commodious sounds like 'pertaining to a commode'.

[boatlady]

No, commodious is in fact a word, and spelled correctly at that - I for one am in awe

[snowyflake]

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

[Shirina]

I shall use the odious commodious today in a sentence

Definition 1:

"Stepping into the gas station restroom, I was immediately overcome with an acidic, commodious smell as if the attendant hadn't cleaned the place since 1952."

Definition 2:

"The Roman Emperor Commodious Tiberius Septus was assassinated by his own Praetorian Guard after Commodious exiled his own mother for putting her face on a coin."

[boatlady]

No!

[oftenwrong]

The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
Oscar Wilde
Irish dramatist, novelist, & poet (1854 - 1900)

[snowyflake]

The answer of course is that there are matters and influences and beings in forms that we do not understand and sciences that we do not understand.

This is NOT the answer. This is your hypothesis. Your speculation. Making definitive statements about anything means it is incumbent on you to provide evidence. So far you haven't done so. Where is the evidence for your claims?

[polyglide]

Then if there are no superior beings and no better intelligence explain space, if you cannot then I have answered your question, because there is an answer.

Snowflake I am at a loss realy, you say I believe, you are a member of Three Degrees but that does not entitle you to make a song and dance about it.

[Shirina]

Then if there are no superior beings and no better intelligence explain space, if you cannot then I have answered your question, because there is an answer.

This is like a sports team that, after winning a default victory against a team that didn't show up, runs around town bragging about how, "We crushed them! We were so good that the opposing team never scored a single point against us!"

While technically true - the other team didn't score against the "winning" team - it's still a lie of omission since the "winning" team scored no points, either.

You can't demand explanations for hard-to-define things and then claim victory when your opponent doesn't have a ready answer. You've done this dozens of times with evolution. You may, in fact, have AN answer but not necessarily the correct one, so you haven't really scored any points against your opponent.

[oftenwrong]

While technically true - the other team didn't score against the "winning" team - it's still a lie of omission since the "winning" team scored no points, either.

The practice is widely known in British Politics, and usually described as "Economy with the Truth".

A practical example is of the Witness who told a Court, "I grabbed a firebucket off the wall and applied it to the blaze, but was unsuccessful in stifling the flames."

In conversation with family afterwards, he expanded on his evidence and said, "Fortunately nobody asked me whether there had been any water in the bucket."

[Shirina]

"Fortunately nobody asked me whether there had been any water in the bucket."

[snowyflake]

Then if there are no superior beings and no better intelligence explain space, if you cannot then I have answered your question, because there is an answer.

Explain space? What's to explain? Space occupies the universe. It's called space for a very good reason. There's a hell of a lot of it out there. What else do you want to know?

Snowflake I am at a loss realy, you say I believe, you are a member of Three Degrees but that does not entitle you to make a song and dance about it.

I had to read this 3 times before I got it. Very good polyglide.

And it's snowyflake btw

[polyglide]

Sorry Snowyflake, I do not know y I missed the y but I do prefer Snowflake.

[egginbonce]

When presented with any evidence for anything at all, you are always the final arbiter of that evidence,so 'good evidence' is rather subjective',especially where religion is concerned;to me, the existence of a particular scripture is such poor(non-existent?) evidence, compared to that of my own existence,from which, of course, I can draw no conclusions that can be expressed in words, as to the nature of God,although I may well feel that 'God is rather familiar..
So......while you cant say that you know nothing of God, neither can you say that you are right there with it,either, which brings me back to 'evidence- its a word used by scientists which doesnt really address the issue;its like asking for evidence that water is wet...
Having said all that, it seems to me that most religious adherents are so worried that there may not be a 'happily ever after', that they invent one(along with 'the evidence'),rather than having the confidence to really look,without the 'shelter of anothers beliefs.
So what have I just said?...................nothing much, really; just whats in front of my nose....

[polyglide]

If there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond doubt, that God created all things, that was clear and did not need seeking out then we would not need faith nor would we be debating the matter.

The evidence is there if you care to seek it with an open mind.

[egginbonce]

DO we need faith? why? Why not rely on whats visible? If the 'evidence' is so compelling, it shudnt matter whether you have an open mind or a banana.................I mean, if u get hit by a truck, it hurts whether or not you believe in trucks!surely something as magnificent as 'God' should be more obvious than a little runaway truck,and some broken bones?(it IS, BTW!)
Faith........by definition, isnt knowledge,and so the word 'blind' preceeding it,better describes it,surely?
Would you trust your immortal soul(thats a long conversation, perhaps?), to 'blind faith'?

[Shirina]

If there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond doubt, that God created all things, that was clear and did not need seeking out then we would not need faith nor would we be debating the matter.

The idea of "faith" is an intellectual cop-out and stands in for reality - and reality says "there is no evidence." To circumvent the lack of evidence, just add faith. "I believe even though there's no reason to." What's worse is that religion has taken hold of so many so completely that people are willing to die or kill others in defense of a belief they cannot even begin to prove true. It is the very definition of madness.

If there is a god of any kind, his refusal to reveal himself is criminal and capricious - one big head game that has cost the lives of untold millions, and how many millions more will die as we fight tooth and nail to prove whose god concept is superior to all others? How many more will be persecuted, subjugated, marginalized, ostracized, and abused for holding a belief contrary to the norm? All because we don't have ANY evidence that one religion is any more true than another, that one particular god exists while all the others do not.

Presumably, all the while, God contentedly watches the slaughter born of his refusal to set the record straight once and for all. Instead, believers and non-believers alike are forced to guess, pick, and choose based on nothing. One may as well roll a die and randomly see which religion they adhere to.

[egginbonce]

fussing about what god is,and inventing religions, is the same as floating in the sea and arguing about what water is like.
'evidence' is a word borne out of the western obsession with 'scientific proofs', and as such wont make a dent on what religion purports to be about (but isnt).
Sorry about the last 2 bald statements,which i put as if by so doing makes it so,and I realise that my opinion is no beter than anyone elses...(false humility,there!)

Why, all the saints and sages, who discussd,
so learnedly, are thrust like foolish prophets forth;
their words to scorn are scattered,
and their mouths are stoppd with dust.

[snowyflake]

DO we need faith? why?

This is a question that Shirina asked on another thread (maybe this one I can't remember). But it is a really good question.

Why do we need faith in a God? As human beings in the 21st century is this still a necessity? I can see for the believers on the forum that it is but why? What purpose does faith serve?

What purpose does faith serve that reason wouldn't serve better? The only thing I can think of is the promise of eternal life for the believer. The various religions dress it up to make it palatable. Human nature is such that one believes in a thing because there is a some sort of benefit to the believer. Religious belief is such a thing. The pay off for humans is eternal life doing heaven knows what but there you have it. If that promise wasn't there, would anyone believe?

[Shirina]

The pay off for humans is eternal life doing heaven knows what but there you have it. If that promise wasn't there, would anyone believe?

A belief in an afterlife wouldn't be such a bad thing if we simply saw it as the next stage of human evolution - something all of us will undergo. Where it all went wrong is when religion decided to place its own guardians at the Pearly Gates to ensure no one who did not march in lockstep with a particular religion slips through.

[egginbonce]

perhaps the term'afterlife',isnt useful,and that there is no 'before, during, and after'.its all the same thing,and all thats left is to see it..............religion is for those who cant see it,and are too scared to look incase its not so,which is why they invent a 'truth' that already exists;I love the irony, specially as they invent a lot of fantastical details to prop up the invention............'virginn births,water to wine,Paradise with 72 virgins(they do like virgins, dont they?),the Devil waiting for you if you do .......well...almost anything, plus the i9dea of original sin to make sure you dont get away that easy................Grimms fairy tales, which have recently had some bad press(dont scare the little children...)are not a patch on the hellfire and brimstone of religion...............
It does give one a bit of a laugh, I spose..............

[egginbonce]

perhaps, then, the evidence is self-evident, as it were................ie the lily really doesnt need gilding at all........................(and that, I think, is supposedly by a mythical biblical figure called Solomon,isnt it?)

[Sponsored content]