Prove God's Existence

[MrFungus420]

Whew! All this talk about theoritical physics and quantam mechanics has me beat. I like where this debate is headed...

You're beat? If we go half a step more, I'm going to to be in well over my head. :lol:

Forums are starting to require homework! LOL

 

[teenonfire4him77]

You are actually making a false claim here. The OT is full of commandments by God to go and slay a king and all of his followers down to women and children, and even fetuses.

Actually he is quite right...and wrong.
God doenst condone the killing (no torture, just straight, kill) of innocent life. (you shall no murder a commandment)
The killing and wars, were against people who were against God, who continued living sinful lives after God gave them a many years to repent, God is merciful, and so he waited...but they continued, and he wasnt going to let the people who followed him, suffer, because of sinful people.

You might say, why kids? Because they grew up in it, they were born into the life, and saw the deeds, and if left to live would probabyl grow up to do them...he did not want any remenants of it.

 

[steen]

Actually he is quite right...and wrong.
God doenst condone the killing (no torture, just straight, kill) of innocent life. (you shall no murder a commandment)
The killing and wars, were against people who were against God, who continued living sinful lives after God gave them a many years to repent, God is merciful, and so he waited...but they continued, and he wasnt going to let the people who followed him, suffer, because of sinful people.

You might say, why kids? Because they grew up in it, they were born into the life, and saw the deeds, and if left to live would probabyl grow up to do them...he did not want any remenants of it.

Ah, so the king is bad, and therefore God commands th sturmtroopers to cut open the pregnant women, to commit genocide.

Very clearly, Skilmatic's claim was an outright lie. Did you forget what he wrote?
"God in no way condones any killings unless its self defense. You are misconstruing Gods teachings. In no way did he condone torturing or mass killings. In no way does he condone any violence that is carried out onhis children. He is as peaceful as ghandi and yet as fair as the law. If that made sense."

That certainly contradicts what you just said, and it also contradicts the Bible.

 

[teenonfire4him77]

Ah, so the king is bad, and therefore God commands th sturmtroopers to cut open the pregnant women, to commit genocide.

Very clearly, Skilmatic's claim was an outright lie. Did you forget what he wrote?
"God in no way condones any killings unless its self defense. You are misconstruing Gods teachings. In no way did he condone torturing or mass killings. In no way does he condone any violence that is carried out onhis children. He is as peaceful as ghandi and yet as fair as the law. If that made sense."

That certainly contradicts what you just said, and it also contradicts the Bible.

I said he was quite right AND wrong
I know it contradicts what he said, tahts why i replied to him and you, and it doesnt contradict the bible, read it...try studying Hebrew History (which is baicly the OT, plus other soruces)

 

[steen]

I said he was quite right AND wrong
I know it contradicts what he said, tahts why i replied to him and you,

OK. Sorry.

and it doesnt contradict the bible, read it...try studying Hebrew History (which is baicly the OT, plus other soruces)

Ah, so the OT is not condoning Genocide merely because God doesn't like a population's king?

 

[leejosepho]

... I am a Christian, and I find it absolutely appaling to have one's actions and Faith determined by whatever reward/consequense can be extracted from that Faith.

I think I agree with you there ...

Might you elaborate a bit?

I do not mean to say reward and/or punishment are the only things I consider concerning my actions. Personally, it "feels good" to simply be at peace with anyone and everyone possible, and I would at least like to believe I would still make efforts to be civil even if I absolutely knew there was neither reward or punishment ahead.

 

[Elektra]

Let me just say now that I really want to believe in God. I do believe, off and on. Usually losing faith in extraordinarily hard times, which is when an individual is supposed to believe in God. So my question is, if you believe in God, how did you get to that point? How do you prove He exists?

Without having waded through 14 pages, already apologizing because surely somebody must have said that already: he can't be scientifically proven to exist.

 

[SKILMATIC]

How does a mythological figure avenge death? If he dosen't condone killing, then he wouldn't condone of killing under the guise of "pre-emptive strike?"

Again hes not a mythological. Myth is something thats old and never even substantiated.

God is alive and well. And there are facts proving that he does exist. Just not what your looking for. You are looking for someone to appear to you and say "Hi I am God whats your name?" It doesnt work that way. Now spiritual would be more of the word. And in his avenge he would BRing a definition of karma to that individual.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Without having waded through 14 pages, already apologizing because surely somebody must have said that already: he can't be scientifically proven to exist.

I can't really agree with that. The problem would be, I think, is two-fold.

Science is the study of the natural world, using a methodology that encourages both objectivity and doubt.

Any manifestation of God that would be considered proof...make it what you will, a floating rock, a reversal of the Second Law of Thermo, an audible recordable voice in every person's native language simultaneously "Thou Shall Not Kill, except with clubs on Fridays during Happy Hour" and make all modern weapons vanish, or the sudden inability of Bill Clinton to tell a lie...whatever, that manifestation would become part of the natural world.

Scientists would immediately seek to revise their theories of nature to incorporate this new datum. And that's because if God did exist, She must be considered part of the natural landscape.

The problem isn't with God, fictitious though the concept is. The problem is with men. God is used as a short-cut to explain the unknown. God used to do a whole lot more, when men knew a whole lot less. Once a person accepts "God did THAT", that person's inquiry into how THAT happened vanishes.

Why do the people of world speak different languages? The reasonable answer is that languages evolved with cultures, and distant communities followed divergent paths. The bible says that God got annoyed with man's hubris and confounded their language so they wouldn't conspire to ascend to heaven.

Why are there different animal and plant species? Again, diverging environments introduced mechanisms to select genetic variations with greater survival value, or God did it.

Religion's a wonderful thing, if one finds contentment in simple soothing answers. It's not so great if you seek truth.

 

[Thinker]

Why are you so obsessed with trashing me?

I am not "obsessed with trashing you". The only reason I keep responding is
to show how you make posts and then either claim you didn't say what you
actually did, or claim that what you wrote didn't mean what you said.

You have done this over and over on these forums. This leads me to suspect
that you deliberately write in a convoluted way to allow you to avoid
having to answer real questions about you views.

Here's the current example. You stated: "... and I contend that the same is
essentially true of all people, including naysayers, who make any claim at all
as to personal morality or goodness."

You tried to avoid my challenge that your statement is not true of "all" people
by highlighting the word "essentially" as follows: "That was my point, Mr.
Thinker, precisely, and as evidenced by my use of the word "essentially", with
nothing intended, implied or even thought about beyond that."

The adverb "essentially" in no way prevents the interpretation that you were
making a claim about "all people" and I showed that this claim was not true.
You did not say "most people" or "many people"; you said "all people".

To have a serious discussion about the topics here, we must all attempt to
make our meanings clear and be prepared to stand by what we have written
or accept valid criticism.

 

[Androvski]

This is a classic example of religion taking advantage of someone. You were in a seriously low point in your life it seems (sorry to hear about all the terrible times you went through). You had a void in your life that needed to be filled. Religion did that for you. People become very desperate for unconditional love at all times. They turn to religion to obtain this. Sounds like this is what happened here.

How does this prove the existence of a god?

I agree with that,but it doesn't matter where he found solace,the point is he found it!
Despite my Marxist leanings,I'd like to think there is something there for us,although I find it difficult to imagine God as some old chap with a big white beard.
I like to think that God is all around us,present in everything and that the wonder of the Universe is testament to this.I suppose I'm what's called a Pantheist!
As for proving the existence of God,we'll find out one day,that's one thing we can all be certain of!

 

[mwi]

The capacity to love IS the essence of this discussion.

 

[Androvski]

The capacity to love IS the essence of this discussion.

Yeah,trouble is that Religion probably brings out the hate in people more than anything!

 

[mwi]

So does politics.

 

[kal-el]

God is alive and well. And there are facts proving that he does exist.

Once again, enlighten me. Show me the proof!

 

[leejosepho]

I am not "obsessed with trashing you". The only reason I keep responding is ...

Whew! Do you really believe you are not obsessed with trashing me?!

Please listen closely, my alleged fellow:

The thing you had said was a simpler and clearer version of what I had said ...

And now, if you can and will: Please tell me to what people the thing you had said does *not* apply.

 

[Androvski]

So does politics.

I agree 100%,put the two together and you've really got trouble!

 

[DonRicardo]

He gives people choices to make and let them chose and reap what he sowes. God wont appear before someone kills someone and stop it but will avenge the persons death. God in no way condones any killings unless its self defense.

You have no proof of "choice". Choice cannot exist as it would equal a supernatural event. Every action is caused by another.

Improbability stands above possibility. If something is not possible, it cannot be probable. There is only one possibility:truth.

Please, answer this question:
Is it possible, if I throw a dice, that it falls on multiple ways?

I'd like to refer to Aristotle's flawed metaphysics...

You are misconstruing Gods teachings. In no way did he condone torturing or mass killings. In no way does he condone any violence that is carried out onhis children. He is as peaceful as ghandi and yet as fair as the law. If that made sense.

So what you're claiming is that it is moral if a man dies in front of my feet and I do not intervent?

 

[Dezaad]

I contend that the same is essentially true of all people, including naysayers, who make any claim at all as to personal morality or goodness

I think what Thinker is saying is that strictly speaking, the sentence:

"I contend that the same is essentially true of all people, including naysayers, who make any claim at all as to personal morality or goodness".

Is not the same sentence as:

"I contend that the same is true of essentially all people, including naysayers, who make any claim at all as to personal morality or goodness"

Essentially modifies "True" in the first sentence and "all" in the second one. 'Essentially true' means that the kernel of what is said is true, but that the details may or may not be. 'Essentially all' means "most".

Which is not really that big of a breach of saying what you mean, at least as far as intention.

Except that he is making the further claim that you do it often enough that it appears that you are deliberately attempting to use vague language. This, in the hope to allow something you strongly state stand unless you're called on it. In which case you appear to fall back to the grammatically incorrect (for your 'real' meaning), but nevertheless plausible, second meaning.

If you are not saying what you mean by habit (whether intentional or not), and then falling back on a weaker statement when others object, then Thinker is not being unfair. He would hardly be 'obsessed with trashing you'.

Perhaps he is growing impatient with thinking that you mean what you are actually saying, and then finding out that you mean something else.

 

[Androvski]

I agree with that,but it doesn't matter where he found solace,the point is he found it!
Despite my Marxist leanings,I'd like to think there is something there for us,although I find it difficult to imagine God as some old chap with a big white beard.
I like to think that God is all around us,present in everything and that the wonder of the Universe is testament to this.I suppose I'm what's called a Pantheist!
As for proving the existence of God,we'll find out one day,that's one thing we can all be certain of!

A good read is God and the Astronomers by Robert Jastrow!

 

[Snoozin]

Without having waded through 14 pages, already apologizing because surely somebody must have said that already: he can't be scientifically proven to exist.

Oh, I know. I was just hoping someone would say something, or approach the topic in a novel way, giving me something new to think about. :smile:

 

[SKILMATIC]

You have no proof of "choice". Choice cannot exist as it would equal a supernatural event. Every action is caused by another.

Improbability stands above possibility. If something is not possible, it cannot be probable. There is only one possibility:truth.

Please, answer this question:
Is it possible, if I throw a dice, that it falls on multiple ways?

I'd like to refer to Aristotle's flawed metaphysics...



So what you're claiming is that it is moral if a man dies in front of my feet and I do not intervent?

None of that made sense in concordence to what I just said. Please read the Bible and you will further learn about what I am talking about. I mean these things are pretty common sense in Gods own parables. I am sorry you dont understand common sense. I am not even a religious man and I know all of this.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Once again, enlighten me. Show me the proof!

Again what may be proof to me may not be substantial enough for you. To me just to wake up and walk outside is proof to me that a higher being than us(God) exists. There is no way that all this was by hapenstance or coincidence I do not beleive in coincidence.

Just look at around you and see how sophisticated this world is. How can some big bang cause this? If there is nothing to begine with how does nothing make soemthing so extaoridnary as this? Its science 101 you cannot make a steel building without steel ever existing. You cannot make a jet airplane when jet turbine engines never exists. You cannot make water without oxygen existing. Same deal goes for the evolution theory. I believe there are parts that are correct in evolution and there are parts correct in creation. In that argument alone explains and proves that your mythological or mystical or whatever you call him figure exists. I mean if you canot understand simple science 101 then I really dont know what else to tell ya. Even a 4 yr old knows he/she cannot play with toys if there arent any to begin with. Its really that simple.

 

[MrFungus420]

Again hes not a mythological. Myth is something thats old and never even substantiated.

myth n. an old traditional story or legend, esp. one concerning fabulous or supernatural beings, giving expression to the early beliefs, aspirations and perceptions of a people and often serving to explain natural phenomena or the origins of a people etc. (The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language, Encyclopedic Edition)

This describes every diety and religion.

God is alive and well. And there are facts proving that he does exist. Just not what your looking for. You are looking for someone to appear to you and say "Hi I am God whats your name?" It doesnt work that way. Now spiritual would be more of the word. And in his avenge he would BRing a definition of karma to that individual.

What facts are there that prove that any god exists?

 

[MrFungus420]

The capacity to love IS the essence of this discussion.

The capacity of emotion has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

Unless, you're trying to claim that our capacity for emotion is proof for the existence of a god.