Proof that God exists (for agnostics/athiests)

[witabix]

OK I'm not a god squader, but I do allow for the possibility (along with a lot of other things I can neither prove or disprove). And in your last post, you had me until that last comment.

The reality you speak of is the reality that is observable by us with our five senses. Do you not allow for the possibility that our 5 senses might not be able to perceive all?

Our eyes cannot see the vibration of indigo in the spectrum. Don't have the right cones/rods/or other equiptment for this, but it exists. I cannot hear sounds that are very high pitched, but this does not mean that they aren't there. Dogs hear them, although I see the flaw in this line of reasoning in that I can make a high pitched noise, not hear it with my ears, but see a dog tilt it's head and prick up its ears.

How about "He exists outside of my perceivable reality". A little more accurate, perhaps.

 

Right.....

 

I don't know where to start here.

 

All the points you make are in your percievable reality, ultra-sound, you know of. Otherwise what are the dogs reacting to? etc etc.

 

These people are making the point that their god denies all that we understand, including morals.

 

One of the pillars of Islam is the giving of alms to the poor, do you see that happening?

 

One of the tenets of the Christians is turn the other cheek when someone offends you, do you see that happening?

 

The state of Egypt, and Jordan, has turned their collective backs on the Palestinians.

 

Mr Bush, whom the Americans, the state of freedom, democracy, and mom's apple pie, did not only not turn the other cheek, he attacked a people, and they are still suffering under the results of his attack, as are HIS OWN PEOPLE.

 

How many more young Americans are to be delivered to Maine, and Texas, and New York before someone says what the hell is going on here. Why are our sons and daughters dying for this?

 

If there was a god would he let this happen? The religious will point to free will, and our choices within that. That is a point for the philosphers.

 

I will point once again to America. That country suffers at the hands of a demented man, a man who espouses Christian ideals, whilst he kills people from another culture, and whilst people from his own country die. how many Bushs have died, how many of his own sons did he send to fight the righteous fight?

[PinkKittyKat]

Can't help myself, going to play devil's advocate and introduce a new religious strand. KARMA, anyone? I think the christians are going to have a hay day with this, if they even know what it means.

 

I'm just throwing this out there, I am not a hindu or a buddhist - I'm beginning to believe that I don't believe in anything, or anyone.

 

Hahaha oh crap, you've just added another ingredient to this volatile soup!!!

[witabix]

Can't help myself, going to play devil's advocate and introduce a new religious strand. KARMA, anyone? I think the christians are going to have a hay day with this, if they even know what it means.

 

I'm just throwing this out there, I am not a hindu or a buddhist - I'm beginning to believe that I don't believe in anything, or anyone.

 

Annieo, I get your point, but then I would have to agree that my SO and Lucreziaborgia deserved to get breast cancer. I can imagine that you understand that I cannot accapt this.

[witabix]

This implies that Christians are stupid or uneducated. What you call karma, we call reaping what you have sown.

 

Bent, you shock to me to the core of my being with that comment, truly shocked, deeply shocked, shocked.

[Lovelybird]

I think bent meant 'everyone on the earth has sined against God', no one can be exception of that. our suffering is a result of our sins, not about what God doing. But God's grace extend to everyone, if we RECEIVE, then we can be healed.

 

Yesterday just saw a testimony, a woman who get severe cancer, the doctor said his human hands cannot cure her anymore. and one day she listened a gospel music, she felt that God healed her, then she went to check in hospital, doctor told her that all her cancer disappeared. If God give us his grace, and we continue to reject, we cannot get healed by his supernatural power, only when we receive, believe, the healing power can work in us.

[annieo]

Right.....

 

I don't know where to start here.

 

All the points you make are in your percievable reality, ultra-sound, you know of. Otherwise what are the dogs reacting to? etc etc.

 

These people are making the point that their god denies all that we understand, including morals.

 

One of the pillars of Islam is the giving of alms to the poor, do you see that happening?

 

One of the tenets of the Christians is turn the other cheek when someone offends you, do you see that happening?

 

The state of Egypt, and Jordan, has turned their collective backs on the Palestinians.

 

Mr Bush, whom the Americans, the state of freedom, democracy, and mom's apple pie, did not only not turn the other cheek, he attacked a people, and they are still suffering under the results of his attack, as are HIS OWN PEOPLE.

 

How many more young Americans are to be delivered to Maine, and Texas, and New York before someone says what the hell is going on here. Why are our sons and daughters dying for this?

 

If there was a god would he let this happen? The religious will point to free will, and our choices within that. That is a point for the philosphers.

 

I will point once again to America. That country suffers at the hands of a demented man, a man who espouses Christian ideals, whilst he kills people from another culture, and whilst people from his own country die. how many Bushs have died, how many of his own sons did he send to fight the righteous fight?

 

OK, I feel the need to apologize, but as I said, I was playing devil's advocate. But for some people in the world, karma (bad deeds done in past lives being paid back with pain in the present life, or vice versa) is a belief that explains the inequities and grief of NOW. I didn't say I espoused it, but it's another excuse... IMO it does not excuse immediate accountability for our actions. If I inadvertently implied this, I am sorry. Although, there goes the free speech thing.

And I completely agree that the actions of the current American government in Iraq, are deplorable war-mongering and murder. If you were a Hindu, you would believe that these sins will be balanced by grief and torment in future lifetimes.

I'm not so certain. I'd LIKE to think that the evil will be punished but in a universe with no god, no OS that kicks in when someone has done a baddie, sneaky, powerful people will go unpunished, get away with it. Might makes right, the winners will write history.

Very depressing prospects all around, don't you think?

[annieo]

Sorry, I missed something. As far as witabix's wife, lb, my friends who have had (or died) of cancer, or other diseases it is not a karmic judgment. We're all going to die, one way or another. Either through age, disease, accidents, it will come to us all. I don't see death as an injustice or a punishment, just a mysterious fact that I will have to deal with, for myself and with the people I love.

Again, I feel awful that I have said something hurtful, not meant.

[Lovelybird]

I don't meant that we sinned against God, but that we continue to sin. Since I can only speak for myself, I am still dealing with the sin if pride, disobediance and the that tongue like a sword thing. Sometimes I speak before I think or speak out of anger. So those things are constantly getting me into trouble. Therefore, I reap what I sow.

I know what you mean. If I check my every motive to do things, then I found out many of them are selfish motives, sometimes even do things hurt others but benefit own selfishness, thank God he is continuing changing me, Holy Spirit often reveals to me that I should check my own thoughts because our mind create reality outside of us. God is all-giving, all of his motive are to give, to love others, to forgive, no darkness in him. compare to God, all of us are deeply in sins. but thank God, he gave us his son and Holy Spirit to change us from inside.

 

And I think God wants us to relax, not concentrate on our weaknesses all the time, just ask Him to change us, bide in Him, and we will bear many good fruits, this is really good, I can relax and trust in God, and each day I will be better

Edited April 5, 2008 by Lovelybird

[lovelorcet]

How do you go from seagulls chirping to quantum mechanics and string theory?

 

First off, in this universe, meaning our universe there was a beginning and it has been described as a big bang.

 

In order to describe these kinds to things one needs an extremely high level of physics.

 

You have to keep in mind that our brains have evolved to deal with finding food, staying alive and having sex and not to deal with a complex multi dimensional universe.

We precise time as a constant in our universe but in reality time is not constant and depending on where you are and how fast you are moving the rate of time itself changes. What I am saying is that at some point we can only describe things with math and physics.

 

So my suggestion would be if you really want to convince yourself then learn the science behind it and see what is really there.

 

Here is a link to get you started. It is just a Nova but it is very well done and explains a lot of what you are talking about here.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

 

 

I have read a lot of your threads and you sound like a really smart and curious guy who has just had his brain bent by some congregation. Learn to think outside the box, let your curiosity lead the way. If you see something complex like a bird, a human or a universe don't take the easy explanation of "god did it." See for yourself what is really out there.

[disgracian]

How about "He exists outside of my perceivable reality". A little more accurate, perhaps.

It would be unreasonable not to allow for the possibility of a God-in-hiding, except that andy is a Christian and that certainly doesn't describe the god of the New or Old Testament.

 

It pays to bear this in mind, as many Christians will shift the goalposts to this faraway god that hides in the great beyond so they can get the opposition to admit that they cannot emphatically deny the existence of this kind of being. And without missing a beat, they will take this admission as proof of their own god. But then we must remind ourselves that we are dealing with a deity that is claimed to have played a very overt role with humanity, dropping bread from the sky, impregnating virgins, answering prayers and a host of other not-so-timid behaviour.

 

Cheers,

D.

Edited April 5, 2008 by disgracian

[Horse]

I'll start with a simple question, if I promise to give you a chocolate bar after an infinite amount of time will I ever give you the chocolate bar? No. Another question, could there be an infinite amount of time before right now? No, because we would never of reached this moment of time. etc. etc. etc...

 

This is called the cosmological argument. It was first proposed in the 13th century.

 

There are a few problems with it.

 

1. Even if we did know what caused the creation of the universe and when, you could then ask "well what caused that?" The truth is, there will always be a limit to our understanding of the universe. It doesn't really prove anything.

 

2. The premise, that everything has a cause, a beginning and an end, is based on our experience of the known universe... but the argument extends beyond the universe and our experience. How can we know what time or matter were capable of, before there was time or matter as we know it? There could have been a different kind of time and space that operated under completely different rules, but we will never know.

 

3. The argument contradicts itself. If everything is created by something else, and if time cannot be infinite, then something must have created god at some time. You could argue that god is supernatural and outside of the rules of space and time, but then that would also put him outside of existence in this universe.

 

There are other arguments against it, but I've wasted too much time already. The only thing that this proves is that we don't know as much as we would like.

 

There are a couple other interesting philosophical arguments for the existence of god. You might want to look them up if you are bored.

 

The ontological argument

The argument from design (like intelligent design in reverse)

If you can wrap your head around the writings of Espinoza, he spent his entire life trying to rational proof that god exists.

Pascals wager is also interesting, although it is more about faith.

 

This is all interesting, but most people stopped trying to prove that god exists around the 18th century. Since then it has just been a matter of faith.

[annieo]

It would be unreasonable not to allow for the possibility of a God-in-hiding, except that andy is a Christian and that certainly doesn't describe the god of the New or Old Testament.

 

It pays to bear this in mind, as many Christians will shift the goalposts to this faraway god that hides in the great beyond so they can get the opposition to admit that they cannot emphatically deny the existence of this kind of being. And without missing a beat, they will take this admission as proof of their own god. But then we must remind ourselves that we are dealing with a deity that is claimed to have played a very overt role with humanity, dropping bread from the sky, impregnating virgins, answering prayers and a host of other not-so-timid behaviour.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

Absolutely correct - you can't take the events of the bible as fact, then say that god has decided to not be such an intrusive old man anymore. Contradictory, self-serving, lazy thinking.

[annieo]

OK, still love the Lord.

 

Great, but love isn't rational. I respect your feelings/faith, but don't feel the need to prove it with science. It ain't gonna happen.

And that is what will make you truly faithful, belief without hard evidence. As opposed to doubting St. Thomas.

[annieo]

If the whole thing with Thomas touching the wounds of the risen Lord actually happened. Again, it's an analogy, IMO.

[witabix]

OK, still love the Lord.

 

Yes, I respect that view too.

 

Faith in and of itself requires no hard proof, that is the nature of faith. To believe in something that cannot be quantified.

 

It does not mean that it does not exist, your faith is real to you, and that is all that you need concern yourself with IMO. As long you believe, it cannot matter to you if I do, just as it does not matter to me if you have faith.

 

That is always my central point, that we should respect each others viewpoint on such things. In as much as I cannot dis-prove the existence of a god, neither can it proven. I choose to think the way I do, with no prejudice to anothers personal view of life or existance.

 

Peace to all. Is my motto.

[Enema]

I think bent meant 'everyone on the earth has sined against God', no one can be exception of that. our suffering is a result of our sins, not about what God doing. But God's grace extend to everyone, if we RECEIVE, then we can be healed.

 

I'm surprised no one has jumped on this disgusting little nugget.

 

You suggest that the starving african children are suffering because of their sins.

 

Why is their suffering so much greater than mine? I live an extraordinarily comfortable life, I want for nothing and suffer not at all, yet I completely reject the notion of a god. Why do they suffer, but I don't?

 

51% of Africans identify as Christians... why doesn't "gods grace" extend to them?

[disgracian]

Over 70% of America is Christian and that doesn't stop God from sending Muslim fanatics into their buildings as punishment for leniency towards homosexuals and single mothers. 51% just isn't trying nearly hard enough.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moai]

Where is your pride?

 

Huh? What is posting information about the Lorentz Transformation shameful?

[FleshNBones]

Huh? What is posting information about the Lorentz Transformation shameful?

You want to apply a space and time dependent model to someone or something outside space and time.

It doesn't work that way.

[Moai]

Interesting point.

 

I have a few aquariums of fish. I feed and maintain their environment. They see me and "get excited" when I drop food into their "world." I affect their lives every day, but I have never entered into their "world."

 

How is this possible if I "created" their world as they know it and I cause changes in it every day that I can do this without being a part of it?

 

But you eixst in the same space/time that they do.

 

 

 

Since my point was that evolutionists do use the term "ape like" for "our" ancestors, your diversionary tactics away from that question was unnecessary. However, I guess your chosen websites must not have used that term.

 

What is your point exactly, then? We share an ancestor with modern apes. We are "ape-like" even now.

 

We share an ancestor with modern apes. We are apes (primates specifically).

 

Yes, I know. These were not official websites chosen by you, but my point is that many evolutionists use the term apelike for man's ancestors yet make quick note when someone says we evolved from apes. The sites using the terms range from "bloggers" to Stanford PhDs. I could have easily added many more links using the term that were not creationist sites. However, it was getting kind of tedious.

 

Why is "ape-like" such a hang-up for you? Yes, we have an ancestor that is "ape-like".

 

As stated earlier, it is semantics.

 

Fine.

 

Agreed. Really, the TOE is quite humorous when one looks at it objectively. And they say creationists believe in magic.

 

Absurd. You have an issue with the term "ape-like" for whatever reason, and then draw the conclusion that such an ancestor existing is outlandish or "magical" in some way.

 

Take a look at Amphicyon sometime. It is "bear-like" AND "wolf-like". Clearly, it is an ancestor of wolves AND bears. Just like human ancestors have "ape-like" and "human-like" characteristics.

 

Funny how DNA solidifies this concept. No magic needed.

[JamesM]

Huh? What is posting information about the Lorentz Transformation shameful?

 

I find it humorous that you used wikipedia when you have scoffed at many others when they used such an inaccurate source.

[FleshNBones]

I find it humorous that you used wikipedia when you have scoffed at many others when they used such an inaccurate source.

I don't have a problem with the source as long as you approach it with the understanding some people may purposely corrupt it.

 

I only had a problem with his little proofs.

He is throwing stuff with the hope it sticks, and so far, it hasn't.

[JamesM]

But you eixst in the same space/time that they do.

 

True. But the point that you so blithely ignored is that I am outside of their world as they know it...yet I can change their world. I do not need to be a part of it to make changes. As simple as this is, it is highly likely that God can also affect our world while not being a part of it. Just as the fish could not comprehend the possibility...if they could think, so it is hard for us to imagine a Being who is so above us.

 

What is your point exactly, then? We share an ancestor with modern apes. We are "ape-like" even now.

 

We share an ancestor with modern apes. We are apes (primates specifically).

 

Why is "ape-like" such a hang-up for you? Yes, we have an ancestor that is "ape-like".

 

I think we all can see that you began this discussion. "Ape-like" is not a hangup for me. Continued repetitions do not make us apes....I think that is why it is not completely accepted. (And I know you will quote this for some reason of your own. )

 

Perhaps you recall you made a big deal because I chose a site that actually was creationistic? You stated that

I read that article, and I am forced to conclude that either you did not read the whole thing, or your definition of an "evolution science website" is so broad as to be meaningless.

 

(BTW, no one forced you to conclude anything. )

 

I apologized and admitted I did not read the whole thing. Since I knew that there were many sites that were pro-evolutionist that DID use the term, I then showed you many sites that were not creationistic that used "ape-like." It appears that you decided that since this was proven, you would head into a diversionary without acknowledging that ape-like and even "southern ape" are actually evolutionistic phrases...not simply fraudulent creationist terms.

 

Go back an read what caused this discussion. As I said, this discussion has been a waste of time. Here is how it started...

 

1. Andy said we evolved from apes.

2. Disgracian made this a big point and used it to show that Andy must not know what he was talking about.

3. I pointed out that it was semantics, because evolutionists use the phrase "ape-like" frequently to describe the alleged ancestor of mankind.

4. You jumped in and pointed out that my website was an "epic fail."

5. I apologized and proceeded to use websites that were pro-evolution and even your own chosen website.

 

My point as you should well know was simply...even evolutionists say we evolved from apes.

 

Absurd. You have an issue with the term "ape-like" for whatever reason, and then draw the conclusion that such an ancestor existing is outlandish or "magical" in some way.

 

I am sorry...where did this rant come from? Did I say anywhere that this was a "problem?" No. Please start real debates or discussions...not imagined ones.

 

Please go back and read the five points listed above.

 

Take a look at Amphicyon sometime. It is "bear-like" AND "wolf-like". Clearly, it is an ancestor of wolves AND bears. Just like human ancestors have "ape-like" and "human-like" characteristics.

 

And did I even talk this direction? No.

 

I simply pointed out that according to the TOE, we either came from an ape like human or a human like ape. Point is...we either evolved from apes or humans. And then, those "uneducated" creationists are not semantically wrong.

 

I now know from your direction that I evolved from "the southern ape." Since I live in the northern part of the US, I really want to know who evolved from "the northern apes."

 

While it is fun to divert the discussion away from points, it is not really beneficial.

 

Funny how DNA solidifies this concept. No magic needed.

 

Actually with pixar, we can make evolution seem so real. I was amazed at how evolution worked so seamlessly when I watched all of the Land Before Time videos. Sorry...it does take a lot of magic. All this to "prove" that we do not need God.

 

Anyhow, thanks for diverting this thread into an unnecessary direction. It took you a couple of posts to come back to....

 

 

As stated earlier, it is semantics.

 

 

 

 

Fine.

 

 

Sheesh.

[andysw]

How do you come to this conclusion? Why intelligent?

 

Other than acknowledging that there couldn't have been an infinite amount of time before now, there are other ways to show signs that evolution can't explain. Such as the bacterial flagellum. 40 different parts are required to build the flagellum motor and half of them are constructive proteins that assemble the flagellum's individual components. If one of them is removed the flagellum will be useless. Evolution can't explain how a machine of superb design could've risen gradually without forsight or plan through the biological pathway that Darwin envisioned.

 

A design demands a designer.

[Enema]

Wow, there are few older and more thoroughly rejected irreducible complexity arguments than the ol' flagellum motor. Next you'll talk about the eye!

 

Normally, I would post links to various sites explaining how the argument for design of the flagellum motor has been rejected, but let's try something different!

 

When you find one of these arguments from a typical creationist list, you should then search for that argument followed by "evolution" or "explanation" in google and you'll probably see many pages where scientists explain how it happened.

 

For example, "Flagellum motor evolution" in google brings up many results explaining how they evolved.

 

Hopefully this will save us some PRATT time in future.