What would be proof that God exists?

[Laser Eyes]

This question has probably been asked before but its a good question and I'd like a shot at dealing with it. Let's get down to basics. Never mind the Bible at this stage. I would like all those atheists or agnostics out there to state precisely what they would regard as satisfactory proof to them that God exists. If you believe that there is no such thing as God what would it take to change your mind, (assuming it is open to be changed of course)?

[radagast]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
This question has probably been asked before but its a good question and I'd like a shot at dealing with it. Let's get down to basics. Never mind the Bible at this stage. I would like all those atheists or agnostics out there to state precisely what they would regard as satisfactory proof to them that God exists. If you believe that there is no such thing as God what would it take to change your mind, (assuming it is open to be changed of course)?

Strong, unambigious, unequivocal evidence. Unambigious, unequivocal evidence of any kind would be a start.

[Zero]

Honestly, there can be no absolute proof. I'd be willing to accept any clear-cut evidence of a specific religion's deity, but that still couldn't prove that it was an actual god. It could, after all, be an alien.

[radagast]

I don't want to speak for Zero, but from my point of view, most things are no where near 'provable', so proving something would be much more than needed. I accept evolution as the origin of the species, but that hardly means I consider it proven.

Simple, unequivocal evidence would be an excellent start.

[megashawn]

I would like all those atheists or agnostics out there to state precisely what they would regard as satisfactory proof to them that God exists.

Something I can see, touch or even hear, so long as more then myself is hearing it. Something that could be recorded, studied, and actually prove beneficial.

For instance, I'd be a bit more likely to believe in the Christian god if we were able to find the Garden of Eden. Seems like the bible says it is still located on earth, with a giant cherebum (spelling) on guard.

Basically, something we can sink our teeth in, and have the bad breath to remind us.

If you believe that there is no such thing as God what would it take to change your mind, (assuming it is open to be changed of course)?

See, thats just it. I don't believe anything. I have no clue whats behind everything. Common sense and reasoning has shown that there seems to be a natural explanation for most things questionable. It is not that I don't believe in a God, more so I am ignorant of such a being, and will not make a judgement based on ignorance.

And seeing as how most every religion promotes there god(s) as being all knowing, all powerfull, and transcending space and time then I cannot understand why such a being would allow me to live in ignorance. Especially when making just a quick appearance would cancel all doubts. Just a simple message, perhaps in modern, digital technology so that the original cannot ever be changed.

Yup, thats it. If god wants me to believe in him/her, then I want him to magically create a cd in my drive that explains in full his plans for humanity.

As almost any religion promotes there god as being all powerfull, this should not be a problem.

[Laser Eyes]

The thing I would like you guys to try and do is to be specific about the evidence that would change your mind. Don't say strong evidence or solid evidence or something along those lines. All of you except Megashawn are leaving it open to yourselves to say that whatever evidence is presented is not strong enough or its too ambiguous. Tell me exactly what evidence you would need that would prove to you that there is a God.

[megashawn]

This question has probably been asked before but its a good question and I'd like a shot at dealing with it.


Well, I provided you with some requirements, you gonna take your shot or not?

[radagast]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
The thing I would like you guys to try and do is to be specific about the evidence that would change your mind. Don't say strong evidence or solid evidence or something along those lines. All of you except Megashawn are leaving it open to yourselves to say that whatever evidence is presented is not strong enough or its too ambiguous. Tell me exactly what evidence you would need that would prove to you that there is a God.

No, unequivocal and unambiguous is straightforward. I can give examples. If a magical entity appeared before me, and violated a few known laws of physics, then told me that he/she was a diety and that I was to accept 'such and such', assuming that it was logically consistent, I would accept that.

If I had seen the burning bush, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe in and be subservient to god.

I certainly can't accept that there is a loving and just god that would allow someone to suffer for eternity. Justice implies a proportionality between crime and punishment, no finite crime balances against an infinite punishment.

What I can't accept is that an experience of a feeling, which could (and is by different religions) is often interpreted in a specific way and just happens to be something that a small segment of the world accepts as true.

I can't accept that just because it says so in a book, with absolutely, positively no way of determining if it's true (without dying) or just the beliefs of a middle-eastern, bronze age tribe of nomads that's been elaborated on for 2000 years.

I can't accept that a god would require folks to worship him. That's incredibly insulting to a god. That a god, who has given virtually no evidence of his existence - that would classify as the pinnicle of egotistical behaviour, IMO.

Importantly, I would like to be able to apply a test: Assume we have an alien or deep rain forest aboriginal indian, with good intellectual capabilities, but no knowledge of any particular religion. Set the arguments and evidence for god 'X' and his religion. Would he say this was not just something that is possible, but highly probable?

Another test: Give a theistic religious doctrine - can it be shown to be any more probable than the old Greek religion (Zeus and his cohorts).

Does this give you a more concrete idea of what it would take, and why the current state doesn't met my criteria or even probable, much less highly probable?

[Laser Eyes]

I'd be a bit more likely to believe in the Christian god if we were able to find the Garden of Eden. Seems like the bible says it is still located on earth, with a giant cherebum (spelling) on guard.

If god wants me to believe in him/her, then I want him to magically create a cd in my drive that explains in full his plans for humanity.So you'd like to find the Garden of Eden and for God to create a cd in your drive. You know I'm almost sorry I asked this question now. I should have known better. I should have remembered a scripture that is particularly relevant to this question. After Jesus was arrested and he was taken before the chief preists and scribes they said to him "If you are the Christ, tell us." But he said to them, "Even if I tell you, you will by no means believe." (Luke 22:67) The thing is there is already abundant evidence of the existence of God. The God of our universe is a reasonable God and he respects the intellectual ability that he gave us. He does not expect blind faith. If the evidence that exists already does not convince you then nothing will.

The Garden of Eden has long since withered away. That's what happens to a garden that is not maintained in this world, even a perfectly created garden. Today the site of the garden would look just like anywhere else, you wouldn't even know it had been there. Also, I have no doubt that the cherubs that God posted at the east of the garden left a long time ago. They were only there to prevent Adam from re-entering the garden. After he died there was no point in them remaining there. As for the CD there is only one thing I can say. I have always said that nothing in life is written in concrete but this time I think it is safe to say that I can guarantee you that God is not going to create a CD in your drive (even though he could do it very easily). And even if God did put a CD in your drive and it had these amazing plans for the future of man you wouldn't think it was from God. You would just say someone put it there. Actually you don't need a CD from God by special delivery to find out in full his plans for humanity. He's already stated his plans in full in the Bible for everyone to see.

I cannot understand why such a being would allow me to live in ignorance.That's why we have the Bible. God inspired men over many centuries to write a collection of books that tell you about God, his plans for humanity, how the world became screwed up, what is going to happen in the future and how you can gain everlasting life. But God will not force this knowledge on you. If you want to know the truth badly enough then you will find it. Or you could just ask me and I could tell you but then what's the point of that, you wouldn't believe me anyway.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes


That's why we have the Bible. God inspired men over many centuries to write a collection of books that tell you about God, his plans for humanity, how the world became screwed up, what is going to happen in the future and how you can gain everlasting life. But God will not force this knowledge on you. If you want to know the truth badly enough then you will find it. Or you could just ask me and I could tell you but then what's the point of that, you wouldn't believe me anyway. Every time I read something like that, I just want to laugh and cry. A book written by men, that isn't even internally consistant, which claims to be teh truth, should be taken as such because it claims to be true.

Go on, pull the other one, it has bells on.

[Laser Eyes]

Every time I read something like that, I just want to laugh and cry. A book written by men, that isn't even internally consistant, which claims to be teh truth, should be taken as such because it claims to be true.No Zero. Not because it claims to be true. Any book could do that. But for many reasons. Let's not continue this here. I will prepare a post that sets out the most cogent reasons for believing that the Bible is indeed God's word and we'll continue this debate there (if you're game). Watch this space, it may take me a week or two.

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
Every time I read something like that, I just want to laugh and cry. A book written by men, that isn't even internally consistant, which claims to be teh truth, should be taken as such because it claims to be true.

Go on, pull the other one, it has bells on.

Zero you just prove that what Laser Eyes says is true. You would not believe if told or shown.

The Bible was written by man and interpreted into different languages many times. It does not have to be consistent nor absolutely word for word True. The truth is there within stories and parables. You have only to look with an open mind and heart.

No one can prove to you or anyone less that God exists and what God is like. Only you can find the God, Buddha or whatever that is within you. Only then can you accept and know the truth and come to know both yourself and God.

God is not in a physics book nor is he in the bible. God is not in a church or your home unless you know God and invite him in to your home both objectively and subjectively.

God does not demand that we worship him out of ignorance or subservience. We do not worship God because he needs and wants to be worshiped. That is absurd. We need to worship God for our sake not his. This is the best way to come to know God and ourselves.

God is not hiding in any burnig bush nor anywhere else. It is only when we look outside of ourselves that we cannot find God or Buddha.
There is no mystery, no magic, no miracle or supernatural event needed to find God and all the proof that you or anyone else could possibly want or need.

Just simply look inside your self, at your seat of consciousness and being with an open wondering heart and mind. It is as natural as opening your eyes and seeing for the first time; but, you have to really actually open your eyes and truly want to see the truth and be willing to accept what is real and true. Far to often our egos and mind sets will not let us do that. Thus we are truly blind and cannot and will not see the truth.

It usually is not something that we can do in one attempt or one day. It takes time to train our mind, our hearts and our egos to be quiet and to accept what is instead of what we believe or want to believe.

[Zero]

*Shrugs*

Whatever, dude...you say that we can believe whatever we want, if we only wish for it hard enough. I think that is a bogus concept, but that's just me.

[Royce]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by radagast
[B]No, unequivocal and unambiguous is straightforward. I can give examples. If a magical entity appeared before me, and violated a few known laws of physics, then told me that he/she was a diety and that I was to accept 'such and such', assuming that it was logically consistent, I would accept that.[B/][QOUTE/]

Would you then accept it or would you kill the buddha walking down the road knowing it was an imposter?

[QUOTE]
If I had seen the burning bush, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe in and be subservient to god. [QUOTE/]

God nor Buddha is in a burning bush. He burns within you.

[QUOTE]
I certainly can't accept that there is a loving and just god that would allow someone to suffer for eternity. Justice implies a proportionality between crime and punishment, no finite crime balances against an infinite punishment.
[QUOTE/]

Nor do I. I can find nowhere in the New Testiment that that is what God or Jesus says will happen. As I have not read the entire Bible I have to take others' words for it that it is not in the Bible at all.
As I understand it the idea of heaven and hell and eternal damnation is derived form the works of a persian philosopher by the name or Zoraster (sp?). It is something that the jews and christains picked up to use and the carrot and stick to keep us straight.

[QUOTE]
What I can't accept is that an experience of a feeling, which could (and is by different religions) is often interpreted in a specific way and just happens to be something that a small segment of the world accepts as true.
[QUOTE/]

It is not an experience of a feeling. It is coming to know. Coming to know yourself, your true self not your self image and comeing to know God/Buddha, the true God/Buddha within not your image of what God/Budedha is. And then coming to know your true relationship with your God/Buddha. This knowing is beyond feeling and/or belief it is or becomes conviction. You may at time doubt that you exist but there is no doubt in ypour true mind or heart that God exists.

[QUOTE]
I can't accept that just because it says so in a book, with absolutely, positively no way of determining if it's true (without dying) or just the beliefs of a middle-eastern, bronze age tribe of nomads that's been elaborated on for 2000 years.

I can't accept that a god would require folks to worship him. That's incredibly insulting to a god. That a god, who has given virtually no evidence of his existence - that would classify as the pinnicle of egotistical behaviour, IMO.

Importantly, I would like to be able to apply a test: Assume we have an alien or deep rain forest aboriginal indian, with good intellectual capabilities, but no knowledge of any particular religion. Set the arguments and evidence for god 'X' and his religion. Would he say this was not just something that is possible, but highly probable?[B/]
[QUOTE/]

Please read my previous post to Zero. I doubt that anyone could find any aboriginal indian or tribes person with no religion. So far as I know all of the primative stone age tribes found have had a religion of there own.

[radagast]

[quote]by RoyceWould you then accept it or would you kill the buddha walking down the road knowing it was an imposter?

Since 'killing the Buddha, on the road' refers to killing the love of ritual and teaching, in favor of what they are meant to do, I have a hard time seeing how to apply your question.

[radagast]

----
If I had seen the burning bush, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe in and be subservient to god.
---
God nor Buddha is in a burning bush. He burns within you.


Then I guess neither qualify as evidence to me - it was a question as to what I would accept as evidence. Unless you wish to rewrite what I will accept... [:)]



----
I certainly can't accept that there is a loving and just god that would allow someone to suffer for eternity. Justice implies a proportionality between crime and punishment, no finite crime balances against an infinite punishment.
----
Nor do I. I can find nowhere in the New Testiment that that is what God or Jesus says will happen. As I have not read the entire Bible I have to take others' words for it that it is not in the Bible at all.
As I understand it the idea of heaven and hell and eternal damnation is derived form the works of a persian philosopher by the name or Zoraster (sp?). It is something that the jews and christains picked up to use and the carrot and stick to keep us straight.



Well, though it's been about 35 years, I have read it. A couple of times. I have seen where the passages were, and with more time would find them for you. As with everything they are up for interpretation.

Again, though, given there are many that do accept this, this was an example of something I couldn't accept, not something that was a uniformally accepted interpretation.

[radagast]

Royce,
I hope I'm misinterpreting what you have been saying, but I get the feeling that you are taking the use of the phrase 'coming to know Buddha' as different from a metaphor of understanding his teachings. He's dead, and has been for close to 2400 years.

When most folks use the term 'coming to know god', they aren't using the term god as a metaphor - perhaps you are, but most aren't.

[megashawn]

Ok. How about we try what we would definetly not consider proof.

1) The world around us.

There is enough of an explanation of basic existance to rule out a specific need for a creator.

2) Lines and passages from any religous text that say things such as "this is the truth, because I say its true, and anything that disagrees is obviously false"

3) Other things, such as Lasers earlier example:

That's why we have the Bible. God inspired men over many centuries to write a collection of books that tell you about God, his plans for humanity, how the world became screwed up, what is going to happen in the future and how you can gain everlasting life. But God will not force this knowledge on you. If you want to know the truth badly enough then you will find it. Or you could just ask me and I could tell you but then what's the point of that, you wouldn't believe me anyway.

In order for me to accept this, I must first accept that God exists, without any true knowledge of his existance. But from a perspective of "I don't know if god exists and lack the information to prove one way or the other." then how am I supposed to simply take this as truth, when the backbone of your arguement is lacking proof.

More to come, just lacking time.

[Royce]

Glenn, It does seem that we do have a different understanding of things. I have no idea what sect (if thats the right word) or maybe better branch of Buddhism the you subscribe to or follow. There are Buddhist who think of Buddha as another name for God. There are those who believe that the Buddha is with in every one and can only be found there. There are others that believe Buddhahood is what is found inside and still others who believe that the Buddha they seek inside is their true self and there are still others who follow Buddhism strictly as a philosophic way of life with no religious or inner seeking at all.

There are those non-buddhist who think of Buddha as a saint or world changing enlightened philosopher teacher.
I have said in other post that I read years ago that Buddha had seen God before he, Buddha, died. I, as a Christian Zen Buddhist, think that to follow Buddhism strictly as a living philosophy of life without looking inside oneself and finding ones true self and the Buddha or God is like listening to only the words of a song with no music. But that is me and only my opinion. We all take what we want and can use at the time from any experience, book or religion.

I have run across the saying that the buddha is within every man and can be found only with in that I came to think of it as a basic tenet of Buddhism. Perhaps I'm wrong. Never the less as both metaphor and spiritual reality it is one of my tenets.

[heusdens]

What about a life interview with God broadcasted on every television station on earth....

Interviewer: Let us ask our first question to God. Why did you not reveal yourself earlier to us?

God: Well I did sent my son, it happened just a moment ago!

Interviewer: Well already 2000 years have happened since then

God: Well what is 2000 years on all eternity?

Interviewer: So how can we know that you actually are God?

God: Can you proof to me that you are a journalist who interviews me?

Interviewer: Ehmmm. Right. Next question then. What is your plan for humanity?

God: Well, didn't they tell that in that book of yours, how was it called again?

Interviewer: The Bible?

God: The Bible? What is that?

Interviewer: It is the most holy book that exist, in which you have revealed yourself.

God: Oh, is it? People tell so much nonsense, and believe so many nonsense. I never read it, I don't like fiction.

Interviewer: Well we have been mislead then about that.

God: I guess so, but haven't I given you brains, so you could find the truth yourself?

Interviewer: Oh, you mean we have to actually use that gray mass in our heads?

God: Well what do you think it was intended for then?

Interviewer: Ehm, well perhaps for believing, hallucinating?

God: Well it sure looks like you people have not found a good way for using your brains, except for some people them. Perhaps next time I create a consciouss being, we will ship it with a manual!

Interviewer: Thanks for the interview, your holiness.

God: You're welcome.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Royce
Glenn, It does seem that we do have a different understanding of things. I have no idea what sect (if thats the right word) or maybe better branch of Buddhism the you subscribe to or follow. There are Buddhist who think of Buddha as another name for God. There are those who believe that the Buddha is with in every one and can only be found there. There are others that believe Buddhahood is what is found inside and still others who believe that the Buddha they seek inside is their true self and there are still others who follow Buddhism strictly as a philosophic way of life with no religious or inner seeking at all.


I am Zen Buddhist, Rinzai sect. But I have read a fair amount about Tibetan, Shin, Theravadan, Pure Land, Nicherin, Chan, and some others that have slipped my mind at the moment.

Of all, I only know of Pure Land that accepts the idea that Buddha is actual.

As we both know, Buddhism has been, primarily, a monastic religion. In such, most lay practitioners (in the east) have goten very little in the way of understanding the religion to which they ascribed. Many, many lay practitioners have an extremely skewed view of what their religion is, compared to the monks they help support. That they would see Buddha as a god isn't something that surprises me, that their priests and monks would believe so would.


I have run across the saying that the buddha is within every man and can be found only with in that I came to think of it as a basic tenet of Buddhism. Perhaps I'm wrong. Never the less as both metaphor and spiritual reality it is one of my tenets.

That you could take this a both a metaphor and reality would be consistent with your practices of Zen and Christianity. But most, I would think, consider the metaphorical to be predominate. As Buddhism doesn't have dogma, each individual arriving at their own interpretation of what Buddhism is and what it's spirituality is, is not only accepted, but inevitable. There are no wrong answers, as there would be in Christianity, where a dogma and doctrine apply, so I use the most commonly accepted views of those who practice it under the direct guidance of a teacher.

[Iacchus32]

How about if God just revealed Himself to you personally?

This is the same dilemma I was in when the Jehovah's Witnesses came my to door just after I graduated from high school. I had just gotten my first job, had gotten my first apartment, and subsequently had just gotten laid off. Needless to say I was under a lot of stress. So when they came to my door I'm thinking, "What can it hurt? I might as well see what it is that they have to say." So I invited them in and they started talking about God, and the Bible, and their church, and gave me a copy of the Bible to read, and consequently I started opening up about my problems. And yet everytime I would say something, they would open up the Bible and begin to repeat verse and chapter.

And I'm thinking these people aren't even listening to me, least of all addressing what I have say. At which point I determined I wasn't going to have anything to do with them, and did what I could to avoid them until they stopped coming around. I had also determined that if there was a God, He would have to make Himself known to me personally, even if that meant suffering an eternity in hell, because there was no way I was going to accept Him based upon what these people were telling me. And sure enough just a few months later I got my answer. And, although it was through the means of another person, it was as if God had spoken to me personally, honest. This was over 28 years ago and I still believe in God today.

If there's any moral to the story it would be, don't let anybody coerce you into what to believe, and if you really do want to know, leave it as an open question, your answer should be forthcoming. And neither do I think you should expect more than a personal answer such as this, because God tends to deal with us more on an "individual level."

[megashawn]

Well, I think disturbed said it best "Still I'm waiting on"

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
Well, I think disturbed said it best "Still I'm waiting on" Are you referring to me here? I would just go about my own business and not worry about it. If it happens it happens. It's not the most popular position to find yourself in anyway, because then you'll find yourself stuck in the position where you're trying to explain yourself to those who won't believe you outright, like on this forum here or, trying to explain yourself to those who say they believe, but have no grounds on which to accept it, like the people who go to church. So as a rule most people won't accept it or understand it, and you're the one stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[Laser Eyes]

You can't prove something that doesn't exist. It's kind of difficult.It's also kind of difficult to prove the existence of something to someone who has made up their mind that it doesn't exist.

[BoulderHead]

It is pointless to complain about people having their minds made up.
What I take from Windy’s post is that the first order of course for any ‘proof’ involves god making an appearance of some kind (and no, some hand-me-down story isn’t enough, nor is it enough for my neighbor to claim that he/she knows a person who knows a person who saw god). The three wishes part is to help insure the visitation isn’t just a hallucination. Any reasonable person could still find grounds for skepticism even if these conditions were met (such as what Zero touched on), but hey, I think all would have to admit that something significant took place right before their eyes. But what are the odds of that?
I don’t think it would be too great a feat for a loving god to make his existence known without all the ‘faith’ business needing to be invoked.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
It's also kind of difficult to prove the existence of something to someone who has made up their mind that it doesn't exist.

Why is it that you need to believe that atheists have closed their minds to belief in god(s). I, for one, just see no unambiguous evidence to support it.

That does bring up the question that which god should atheists believe in?

What is there that you can show me, that gives Christianity a slight lead in the balance of evidence, over say the ancient Greek theology? Why is the idea of Zeus less credible than Jehovah? Only the fact that more people believe in him - hardly an answer, given most people believed the earth was flat at one time.

Many here have talked about a personal experience of god. I won't contradict that you had a powerful and spiritual experience, or even that it was with god. I do question the interpretation of that experience. What criteria do you use to determine that it was, in fact, god? What was the criteria used to determine that it was the god is of your religious beliefs (say vs a god that is understanding enough to love you even though he knows you're seriously mistaken)?
I didn't have your experience, I cannot judge it. However, given I didn't have your experience, don't expect me to accept it as evidence.

I do find it somewhat amazing that many, of the Christian faith (and other faiths as well, no reason to narrow the argument), assume all of their experiences support a god as described in the bible (or whatever their exact beliefs), yet dismiss the experiences of the Muslims, Jews, Hindu, and other faiths that have (as described) similar powerful and highly spiritual experiences.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Windy
What makes your Xian idiot god "good" and Isis "bad"?

Why, because it says so in the Bible. [tongue held firmly in cheek]

I would say that proof is perhaps, more than would be needed. I don't know about you, but many things I accept as highly probable, haven't been proven.

Some good, unambiguous evidence would be nice.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
It's also kind of difficult to prove the existence of something to someone who has made up their mind that it doesn't exist.

No, it only indicates that the "thing" to be proved does not even exists independend, outside and apart from the mind.

If one does not believe the sun exists, one can provide objective evidence that the sun exists. This holds for every real thing that exists.

But in the case of God, no such evidence has ever been given.

This is an indication that God does not exist in a form which exists objectively.

It has no stance to argue that to belief in something is proof in itself. It is only proof that one can direct one's mind into absurd ways, but provides no proof in any objective sense.

Why does one have to belief in something, if that something can be known objectively? A belief is only necessary, if no such proof exists, because the thing itself does not exist in an objective way.

So the belief in something, just indicates that it might very well be the case that the thing believed in, has no objective existence at all.

If God would exist in an objective way, knowable to everyone, no-one would belief in God, but everybody would know that God exists.

[megashawn]

Are you referring to me here? I would just go about my own business and not worry about it. If it happens it happens. It's not the most popular position to find yourself in anyway, because then you'll find yourself stuck in the position where you're trying to explain yourself to those who won't believe you outright, like on this forum here or, trying to explain yourself to those who say they believe, but have no grounds on which to accept it, like the people who go to church. So as a rule most people won't accept it or understand it, and you're the one stuck between a rock and a hard place.


See thats just it. I've nothing to explain. I have a simple answer to any "Do you go to church or Do you believe in god/allah/jesus/buddha/zeus/santa?" I don't know.

People do take such a response odd, especially the ones who've been duped into believing in some form of superior being most there life, when you say I don't know. Responses like "How could you not know, the proof is everywhere" merely make me sick.

I discuss this here, because here one can actually make a point (or atleast attempt it) without being cutoff. I mean, have you ever tried having a debate in person about religous matters? It just does not work. It almost always degrades into a shouting match, and nothing is accomplished. Atleast here we can explain our ideas, or critic others, and hopefully build upon this. I know I've certainly changed my perspective since first coming to PF. I can thank both theists and atheists, simply for being able to get there ideas out there in a clean manner.

Frankly, in real life, if a person wants to know my perspective, and doesn't like it, to damn bad. I don't live to impress others, but more so just to live.

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
I would like all those atheists or agnostics out there to state precisely what they would regard as satisfactory proof to them that God exists.

I think such a supernatural being, who obviously does not choose to offer absolute evidence to everyone, is beyond absolute proof using the available physical evidence of the world. The workings of the universe are well explained with the laws of physics, etc. and do not change from moment to moment based on divine whims. There are many mysteries left in the universe, but no obvious evidences of the Hand of God.

Certainly, unambigious/unequivocal evidence of a miracle (something that breaks the laws of physics) would make one sit up and take notice, but even that would have uncertainties (e.g., did I see/understand that event correctly?).

So, on that level, I must consider how much faith I can invest. for anyone, "satisfactory" evidence would probably be relative to their degree of faith (the more faith you have, the less evidence you require to substantiate it) and exploration of the evidence (the more you learn, the more you must consider).

For a personal feeling of absolute certainty, I probably would need, as Iacchus32 said, for God to reveal Himself to me. Without that, a leap of faith is required. And that seems to be a real roller coaster ride.

Question: Would God reveal Himself before the leap of faith is made?

[radagast]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
I would like all those atheists or agnostics out there to state precisely what they would regard as satisfactory proof to them that God exists.

Laser, I didn't notice this, from your post, at first. Agnostics don't believe that proof of god (or disproof of god) is possible.

Agnostic doesn't mean you haven't made up your mind (although that is how it's generally used). It was coined by a professor by the name T. H. Huxley, who defined it as someone that didn't have a belief in god's existence (theism) or non-existence(strong atheism), and didn't believe that proof or disproof of god(s) was possible.

An atheist is one who has no belief in god(s). An atheist can believe there is no god (strong atheism) or can have no belief in a god (weak atheism). By definition (Huxley's), agnostics are weak atheists, but weak atheists may or may not be agnostics.

[Russell E. Rierson]

This is an interpretation of Chris Langan's CTMU, www.ctmu.org , and Saint Anslem's ontological argument.


1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.

2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.

3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.

4.] That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.

5.] If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic.

6.]The describer is a super-intelligence.

7.] By definition, the super-intelligence is God.


Russell E. Rierson

analog57@peoplepc.com

[radagast]

In response to the above post:

Apply the same rules to the super-intelligent entity substituting, referred to as god, substituting 'god' for reality.

Recurse as needed.

[The Grimmus]

I love this question of proof becuase both sides dont have anything, well "nonbeilvers" have perfect symetry but then "beilvers" parry that with god did it. No one's mind is willing to be open to the other sides opinions because neither side has hard proof.
You cant go on 2000 + year old facts from superstious people who had little understanding of the world compared to what we have to day. The truth is this can be debated and argued for all our lives until we die at which point we will find out who, if anyone, is right (but the atheist cant rub it in your face becuase their non-existent).

Yea so proof for me would be god comeing down from heaven and saying this "Yo dude i exist so go on with your life and perhaps worship me for a while, but dont go crazy like those bible carrying hics".

[radagast]

Originally posted by The Grimmus
I love this question of proof becuase both sides dont have anything, well "nonbeilvers" have perfect symetry but then "beilvers" parry that with god did it. No one's mind is willing to be open to the other sides opinions because neither side has hard proof.
You cant go on 2000 + year old facts from superstious people who had little understanding of the world compared to what we have to day. The truth is this can be debated and argued for all our lives until we die at which point we will find out who, if anyone, is right (but the atheist cant rub it in your face becuase their non-existent).

Yea so proof for me would be god comeing down from heaven and saying this "Yo dude i exist so go on with your life and perhaps worship me for a while, but dont go crazy like those bible carrying hics".

But when it comes down to it, how many things do you have proof for?

I accept that the big bang scenerio makes the most sense, given the facts we know, but this would hardly be proof.

To me, most of us operate based on fairly limited evidence and almost zero proof. For me, the greater the effort in some task, the greater the need for evidence to support the rational expenditure of that effort.

While the moon landing could, as a miniscule possibility, have been a grand hoax, I expend little energy by accepting it as having occurred.

Science, on many, many occasions, has allowed me to show myself that the things presented were indeed repeatable - so I tend to have a basis to trust the assertions that come from the scientific community.

I work for my employer, because I have good experiential evidence that they will continue to sign my paycheck.

Basic Christianity, however, is something for which I personally have no evidence to support an expenditure of effort. If others have had profound experiences, then they have what they percieve as evidence for the expenditure of effort needed to conform to the practices of whatever Christian sect they believe.

I believe this is where the symmetry between believers and non-believers breaks, excluding those who have had spiritual experiences which constitute personal evidence.

[Sikz]

Undeniable logic. That's a perfect proof. I can't give a specific example because that would be proving it myself (hehe), but you know what I mean. A set of uncontestable axioms upon which is built a proof leading inescapably to the existence of god. That is what I would accept as proof. Have it?

[radagast]

Originally posted by Sikz
Undeniable logic. That's a perfect proof. I can't give a specific example because that would be proving it myself (hehe), but you know what I mean. A set of uncontestable axioms upon which is built a proof leading inescapably to the existence of god. That is what I would accept as proof. Have it?

With that criteria, I don't think that I could prove to myself that I exist.

Your requirements are your own, mine are much, much less stringent.

At least some moderately unambiguous evidence would be a start. Even that seems to have eluded those who've tried to convince me.

[ProtractedSilence]

I think it there is evidence for God’s existence because Christianity is different from how man would choose to make religion:

1) It is a relationship instead of a religion
2) Based on asking forgiveness instead of working to be saved
3) Where we must admit that we are wrong and need help
4) Where the things that are called admirable are against our desires (monogamy, with one wife, humbleness, etc.)

It is good evidence for the God of Christianity, the all-powerful and personal creator God of the universe, that Christianity is the only world religion where salvation comes from what God has already done, instead of working for it.

It is good evidence that Judeo-Christian religions are the only ones that have writings that say they are God’s words instead of reflections of man about God.

It is good evidence that the description of the world given in the Bible fits with the world I see. It explains that good and evil exist, as well as why they do. It says that people are very important and matter, and gives a reason for why we do.

It is good evidence that Rome was really afraid of Christianity to the point of rounding up the leaders of Christianity in the coliseum so that they would renounce their faith, but that Rome never did the one thing that would have stopped the movement in its tracks; display Jesus’ dead body so that the nonsense about resurrection would stop.

It is good evidence that 10 people who had lived with Jesus while alive, and those men plus Paul who had seen Him resurrected all died for their belief. They were executed because they would not renounce the fact that they had seen Jesus resurrected, even though if they did say it they would have gone free. It also speaks highly of them that they had nothing to gain by holding to Christ. For their belief in life they were persecuted, beaten, shipwrecked, loathed, imprisoned, made poor, etc…they weren’t getting fame and fortune for their ideas.

It is good evidence that the Bible says God is the only being who knows the future, and that he will validate His authority with predictive prophecy. A good example: Jesus’ birthplace, name, parents, lineage, ministry, manner of death, and death date were all predicted more than 500 years before he was born. We know for certain that the prediction was 170 years before he was born because portions of Daniel and Isaiah were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls that contain some of these prophecies. The prophecies are not vague like those of Nostradamus, but specific and detailed to the point that many people contend they are fabricated. Furthermore, the story couldn’t have been changed later so that it fit the old writings because many of the sources we use for dates, etc. are from outside of the Bible – They come from the Jewish historian Josephus, from Roman records and letters between tetrarchs, from Egyptian documents. To be able to write the Gospels so that they fit the “myth,’ you would have to be able to look into the future and see what historical documents we would use today when examining the issue.
It is good evidence that extra-biblical sources like historians (Josephus) and documents from other Middle Eastern cultures, as well as archaeology support the events described in the Bible as being accurate.

Etc

Etc

But as someone said earlier, there is no 100% proof of God. If there was that kind of proof, we wouldn’t have the free will to reject God if we wished. We must come to Him in faith (= trust) of the facts we do have and what we know about God and say, “God, I don’t know if you are there or not, but I would like to find out. If you exist, prove it to me.” He promises to answer those honest questions in the Bible, and he answered it in my life. These are Jesus’ words in Luke 11:

“"So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 "For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened.”

If you are interested in this stuff start doing research and I think you will see there is more evidence, detail, and sense in Christianity and God than you think. A good place to start is “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel. He was an atheist Harvard Law graduate who went out to prove that Jesus wasn’t real/wasn’t who he said he was and in his search decided to believe in God.

[FZ+]

I don't want to sink too far into this, but...

1) It is a relationship instead of a religion
This is true only recently. Through the medieval golden age of christianity, the idea of a relationship with God was heresy. And I don't see how this is evidence - after all, relationships are one component of the egocentric world of man.

2) Based on asking forgiveness instead of working to be saved
This depends very much on your sect, I suppose. But again, I don't see this as evidence - rival religions would point to this as the laziness of christianity, perhaps.

3) Where we must admit that we are wrong and need help
Try getting a fundamentalist to back down.

4) Where the things that are called admirable are against our desires (monogamy, with one wife, humbleness, etc.)
Do you really desire polygamy? Really? (Of course, this again isn't evidence, just a sign of religion holding to what is evolutionarily favourable. The real question is why we should desire polygamy, when it is unfavourable....)

It is good evidence for the God of Christianity, the all-powerful and personal creator God of the universe, that Christianity is the only world religion where salvation comes from what God has already done, instead of working for it.
Nah, that's just marxism.

It is good evidence that Judeo-Christian religions are the only ones that have writings that say they are God’s words instead of reflections of man about God.
I'd like to point you to the work of akhenaten, one of the guys who proclaimed himself god. Or the eastern religions, who declared mankind to be a part of god. Again, I fail to see how this is evidence of anything but human (perhaps well-deserved, perhaps not) arrogance.

It is good evidence that the description of the world given in the Bible fits with the world I see. It explains that good and evil exist, as well as why they do. It says that people are very important and matter, and gives a reason for why we do.
Folks, it's time for a major contradiction...

Before, you praised christianity for not following the appearances of nature. Here, you praise christianity for following the appearances of nature. Can christianity do wrong? If the bible, for example, were crazy enough to ramble about some visions of edible scrolls and so on, you would put it as evidence of god due to its originality, and if you wastes time on all too human things like incest and slavery, you would put it as evidence of god due to its mundanity.

It is good evidence that Rome was really afraid of Christianity to the point of rounding up the leaders of Christianity in the coliseum so that they would renounce their faith, but that Rome never did the one thing that would have stopped the movement in its tracks; display Jesus’ dead body so that the nonsense about resurrection would stop.
Convenient fact 367(a) - no one knows what Jesus looked like. Hence, it would be impossible for the romans to claim a corpse as being that of Jesus, and such attempts would hardly be included in scripture.

It also speaks highly of them that they had nothing to gain by holding to Christ.
Except fringe benefits like an eternity in paradise. Never underestimate the strength of irrational belief. Patients believing in "alternative treatments" have killed themselves by rejecting medical treatment. Heaven's Gates have killed themselves in their hundreds due to their beliefs. Native American civilisations have once practised human sacrifice, and often the victims are willing. Suicide bombers fill the news. None of this for an instant is considered as real evidence.

We know for certain that the prediction was 170 years before he was born because portions of Daniel and Isaiah were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls that contain some of these prophecies.
The dead sea scrolls were compiled long after Jesus' death, as did the bible in the forms we see today. The gospel was made by rejecting hundreds of contradictory works and accounts, and were probably not independent accounts. The unity of the bible is because the book was compiled to be unified, and the Jews, significantly, still reject Jesus' role as messiah.

And of course, the presence of nuggets of truth does not validate the whole book.

[TENYEARS]

To all, religion does not promote an all powerful god which dominates over us. This is a misunderstanding, and is propagated by those who do not understand. They have the ability, but they are not using it for that purpose. There is a god, for I have seen god. When I say seen, it is the context of an experience which is the god of which I am part of in relative form. It is not a play on words, I am qualifying them as not to make your idea of the word seen the viewing of relative object in the past tense, but to show it's potential of expression with past people or religions. It is the god of all gods for there is only one god, one enlightenment, satori, meaning of life great spirit. I cannot break down your walls, nor can anyone else, you must. Too much candy. The world has you hooked. Disconnect yourself from the world and find the world. It is the only way.

[ProtractedSilence]

FZ+

This topic was started as a search for evidence. I listed out things which I think are evidence. Does this mean that any one of them by itself is 100% proof? No. Are all of them 100% proof, also no.

The first list of 4 qualifications I gave about Christianity were things that I think make it distinct from the way people choose to do things when left to their own devises. There is not another religion or philosophy in the world that believes people can't work to improve their state, or to make things ultimately better, or to gain righteousness through doing work.

Now at the same time, because something is inconsistent with man's ideas, does not mean that it is ill-fitting to the world. Christianity explains why things are the way they are. Many ideas that men have about the same issues are ludicrous, don't make sense, or have no connection with anything physically measurable or know historical fact. Do I agree with the Enuma Elish that the world was made from the hacked up body of a goddess? Do I agree with the determinist who says that thought is only the result of chemical reaction to stimuli, when this implies that there is no free choice, and no importance to people or life at all? Do I agree with Mormons who’s claim to history of both Israel and the Americas is completely unsupported by archaeological evidence? The answer is no for all of them.

I don’t care about what medieval Christianity said or did. I want to go to the source and find out what the truth is, instead of getting someone else’s synopsis of it. That’s why I enjoy reading the Bible. Jesus prays to God asking that he would have the same kind of relationship to people as he had with God himself:

John 17:20-24 “"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
22 "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.
24 "Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.”

This sounds like a relationship to me. Certainly older than medieval times.

The primary wrong that needs to be admitted is our need for God in our lives, and how our efforts to be our own God have failed. If we wrong other people, we should admit that wrong as well because we don’t have to be concerned with saving face. Christians should be willing to admit that they were in the past, and continue to be, sinful. However, I don’t need to admit wrong to you for telling you the truth in a loving (kind) way. It may be hard for you to hear, but is more loving for me to tell you the truth than to let you go without having ever heard it, and then being eternally separated from God.

How is polygamy unfavorable? Chimps do it all of the time. But to make it more poignant, perhaps I should have picked a more culturally relevant topic like wealth. The Bible says that striving to be rich is worthless, and is against God’s desire for us to care about the needs of others. This certainly contrasts with the view of mainstream America.

I don’t think Marxism has anything to do with my earlier comment, can you elucidate? Weren’t the Marxist supposed to take control of the means of production through revolt? How does this compare with God rescuing us from a predicament we can do nothing about ourselves?

It is arrogant for someone to proclaim to be God, unless it is true. What I was trying to point out is that for example: the writings of Hinduism are revelations men have had about God. Buddha wrote about being enlightened but did not claim to be God. The Enuma Elish claims to describe how the world was created, but not to be from God. The list goes on.

Immediately after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to approximately 2000 people. They had all been really upset because the person they hoped would liberate them from Rome had died. But now he was back, and they went crazy. They began telling everyone they had seen Jesus alive. Now Pilate and the Pharisees were already upset by the following this guy had who claimed he was a king. Wouldn’t it then make sense to go to the tomb, pull out the body of Jesus, and show it to the people who had seen him alive just 3 days before, and some of whom had lived with him for 3 years? Of course they knew what he looked like! It was the big news of the day.

You are right about the possible reasons for holding out to death. It could also be that they were relying in faith about the afterlife mistakenly, or that they were insane. Definitely it shows commitment, that they believed it was true. The writings that we have from the apostles don’t indicate they are crazy – they are very beautifully written, logical, and consistent. I’d say this rules out insanity. I do however think it is surprising that they were faced with the direct choice of life or death, simply by speaking a few words that they wouldn’t even need necessarily believe. They could lie and say they hadn’t see Jesus, and spare their life. If they were in fact sane men, it is pretty striking evidence for me.

Where do you get your evidence about the date of compilation of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Archaelogists and linguists have agreed on their production in the 175-200 B.C. range. Where is your source to say otherwise?

Even if writings about Jesus were compiled, it would mean that both Christians had widespread power and control of other cultures (in order to adjust history in extra-biblical documents) and that they would be able to see 2000 years into the future to find out what sources would exist today, so that they could change those other works to be consistent to what they had “compiled.” Roman tetrarchs and Jewish historians record his death at the hands of Pilate, the Egyptians record the census, Jewish documents reveal when the construction of the temple began, and the list continues. How would any group of writers be able to accomplish this grand scheme to fool us 2000 years later, and moreover, why would the care?

So I say that the evidence I laid out before as being viable. You can choose to think of it as you wish.

I have an interesting counter-question for the forum. What evidence can you show for God not existing?

[FZ+]

Now at the same time, because something is inconsistent with man's ideas, does not mean that it is ill-fitting to the world. Christianity explains why things are the way they are. Many ideas that men have about the same issues are ludicrous, don't make sense, or have no connection with anything physically measurable or know historical fact.
Our vision of the world comes from man's ideas. And at its root, the examples I gave show that religion is what people do when left to their own devices - if such a case was possible. Do you agree with the fundamentalist who talks about the universe appearing in 7 days? Religions are only the sum of its believers.

The primary wrong that needs to be admitted is our need for God in our lives, and how our efforts to be our own God have failed. If we wrong other people, we should admit that wrong as well because we don’t have to be concerned with saving face.
No, cynical as it is, people only admit the wrongs that are convenient. The point I am making is that there is an alternative explanation for all the strangeness of religion, deriving from their long and drawn out histories and evolving nature through history, and the fact that while you talk about christianity as going counter to human ideas, the fact that there are christians indicates that in some way, christianity is very much an idea that people, currently, can find favourable.

How is polygamy unfavorable? Chimps do it all of the time. But to make it more poignant, perhaps I should have picked a more culturally relevant topic like wealth. The Bible says that striving to be rich is worthless, and is against God’s desire for us to care about the needs of others. This certainly contrasts with the view of mainstream America.
People aren't chimps, are they? People live in a situation where the stability of a long term relationship is evolutionarily favourable for survival, such as child rearing. The same can be seen in similar relationships, such as those of birds.

Rich, sure, it is an ideal. But does anyone actually follow it? The vatican hoards artwork. Churches have tax exemption. And consider the environment where christianity emerged - the early christians were a persecuted cult, the underclass of civilisation, a situation where wealth sharing is directly favourable. Christ gets a favourable reception, because he is pleading for power and wealth redistribution and equality before a final judge, as Marx would do centuries later. And like Marx, it was corrupted for a while by the realities of the world, and now, with that happily cloaked by time, we can recover it and wipe away all that ugly blood and death. The point being, again, there is an alternative reason that history and evidence bears out.

I don’t think Marxism has anything to do with my earlier comment, can you elucidate? Weren’t the Marxist supposed to take control of the means of production through revolt? How does this compare with God rescuing us from a predicament we can do nothing about ourselves?
You misunderstand Marx, then. Marx did not base himself on the need for revolt. Marx prophetised that the future of society lies in a communist state, where ownership is based on need, and production based on capabilities. Marx spoke of a (now apparently mythical) society where all are equal, classes are erased, and greed and want and individual peculiarities are taken out of the equation. By simply being human, and being part of society, you get what you want. Which is, in many ways, a repeat of socialist christianity.

It is arrogant for someone to proclaim to be God, unless it is true. What I was trying to point out is that for example: the writings of Hinduism are revelations men have had about God. Buddha wrote about being enlightened but did not claim to be God. The Enuma Elish claims to describe how the world was created, but not to be from God. The list goes on.
Buddha said that we are all part of God, or the ultimate reality. Furthermore, the gospels were written by men, not gods. And I still don't see what any of this means.

Immediately after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to approximately 2000 people. They had all been really upset because the person they hoped would liberate them from Rome had died. But now he was back, and they went crazy. They began telling everyone they had seen Jesus alive. Now Pilate and the Pharisees were already upset by the following this guy had who claimed he was a king. Wouldn’t it then make sense to go to the tomb, pull out the body of Jesus, and show it to the people who had seen him alive just 3 days before, and some of whom had lived with him for 3 years? Of course they knew what he looked like! It was the big news of the day.

Says who? The gospels were all written at least 200 years after the event. The gospels themselves are contradictory in this account. Matthew has the convenient anecdote of guards being told to tell the governor that the corpse was stolen. The romans, also conveniently, had no account of this big news.

The writings that we have from the apostles don’t indicate they are crazy – they are very beautifully written, logical, and consistent.
Who said the suicide bombers and so on were insane? Can you prove it? Very, very normal people believed in things that made them kill and die. Palestine is not a hotbed of mental illness, but a place where people believe in terrible things. Hitler was a beautiful speaker. The serpent is subtle indeed.

Where do you get your evidence about the date of compilation of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Archaelogists and linguists have agreed on their production in the 175-200 B.C. range. Where is your source to say otherwise?
http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/dss.htm

The dead sea scrolls consisted of a variety of material, some before and some after. The gospels in which you talk of the fulfillment of the prophecy were written long after, with good access to the original predictions. Can you point out these specific and detailed predictions?

Roman tetrarchs and Jewish historians record his death at the hands of Pilate, the Egyptians record the census, Jewish documents reveal when the construction of the temple began, and the list continues. How would any group of writers be able to accomplish this grand scheme to fool us 2000 years later, and moreover, why would the care?
What roman records of Jesus? Are there any that are truly credible?

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/rfset17.htm

As far as a Roman record of the crucifixion, there is no evidence that there was any such thing. Some would like to claim that Tacitus' reference to Jesus as a man crucified by Pilate indicates such a record, but Tacitus' information could as easily have come from Christian hearsay of the time (around 115 CE). A scholar such as Norman Perrin (The New Testament, An Introduction, p.405) admits that his information probably came from police interrogation of Christians.

Later in the 2nd century, there appeared several gross forgeries on the subject, including letters or reports from Pilate to the emperor Tiberius, in which Pilate describes Jesus' career and crucifixion and acknowledges the validity of Christian faith, including the resurrection. (See Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol.VIII, p. 459f.) No one today, and certainly not a scholar of Crossan's caliber, takes these naïve inventions as authentic.

I have an interesting counter-question for the forum. What evidence can you show for God not existing?
I never said God does not exist. I would say that there is no reason, and no usefulness is believing that God does, and on the balance of probability, any specific god almost certainly does not exist because we can use as counter-evidence the infinitude of 'evidence' for an infinitude of other gods. That belief in gods are usually counter productive. It is a common strawman to ask an atheist to disprove God's existence, because atheists do not believe in god's non-existence.

[ProtractedSilence]

?Our vision of the world comes from man's ideas. And at its root, the examples I gave show that religion is what people do when left to their own devices - if such a case was possible. Do you agree with the fundamentalist who talks about the universe appearing in 7 days? Religions are only the sum of its believers.?

I admit I have gotten a little lost in the conversation, what examples are you talking about here?

I don?t know exactly what to think about the Genesis account of creation. There are several things to consider. 1) The Bible is an account of God?s interaction with man, not a science book. This does not mean that what it says shouldn?t be accurate?just that if it doesn?t elaborate on some natural phenomena it shouldn?t be immediately spurned, because it wasn?t written for that purpose. 2) The Hebrews wrote things differently than we did. They cared much less about chronology than the commonality of events. Thee Genesis 1 account may have occurred in different order than it is explained, but was grouped in a way to show relationships between the specific things created. 3) There are several literary cues used in the Old Testament when the word ?day? means a) a period of indeterminate time, or b) a 24-hour day. I have heard different arguments about whether those cues exists for Gen. 1.

However, coming to science. If I remember correctly the current view is that the majority of the universe was formed in 50 microseconds? With some thousands or millions of years to form planets. But that view is different from what was posited just 25 years ago, and I?m sure it will be different again 25 years hence. Where is the boundary of discovery where you finally say in science, ?aha, this is it,? and never change the idea if you get contrary evidence in the future. Standing on science and saying that, ?this contradicts what the Bible says? can be a shaky argument unless the Bible is violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Then you would have a real issue with the Bible.

The fact that there are Christians could indicate that obviously it is not contrary to human invention; however, why is Christianity the only one that says that you shouldn?t DO anything to be right with God, gods, deity, whatever, but that you should just ask for forgiveness? There are 1000s of religions, 100s of philosophies; and every one of them besides Christianity says that you have to do work to be religious/spiritual. If you don?t do the work, then you are not spiritual. Why is Christianity the only one that is different?

Science would make out that people ARE just overgrown chimps. Muslims are spreading throughout the world right now, and they think that having more than one wife is just peachy. It seems to be evolutionarily favorable if they are gaining in % total population. You have just made a logical error in your argument. You can?t tell me that chimps are a bad example for human relationships because they aren?t people, and then use birds to support the opposite hypothesis.

I agree 100% with your analysis of riches. If everyone is doing it (trying to get rich), and seems to enjoy it, why would people hold it out there as a model for living to not attempt to get rich?

120 A.D. is not 200 years after 33 A.D. You can check out the dates for Greek NT scrolls yourself. What contradictions are in the Gospels? Tell me so that we can talk about them.

The craziness I?m talking about is literal legal insanity. Some people would argue that the disciples were insane, and that is why they would choose to die when they could have gone free. But people that are literally crazy cannot form the consistent thoughts that appear in the writings of the NT. A psychiatrist would not declare them to be mentally ill. However, the delusions of grandeur of Hitler, that may be a different story.

That was a nicely organized website, but little actual meat. It doesn?t show that Daniel or Isaiah appear after Christ?s death at all. In fact typographically (how they date this stuff, because carbon dating is not very accurate +/- 500 years) these documents are from 175 ? 200 B.C. I don?t have my source off hand, but give me the weekend and possibly next week to find my notes.

I won?t go into stringent detail this morning, but I will be more specific in a later post (I have things to do today!). One of the really compelling arguments is from a prophecy of Daniel.

Daniel 9:24-26 ?24 "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. 25 "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.?

Now earlier in Daniel he talks about why Israel had been enslaved in Babylon, and it was because they had disobeyed the Sabbath of Years. This Sabbath of Years said that they were supposed to let the fields go fallow every seventh year to let them rest, and depend on God for that year to provide them with the food they needed. But the Israelites did not follow this command and so were cast into exile for 70 times 7 (years). So with this context, we know that Daniel is still using sevens to refer to years.

Anyways, I will explain more later. But this prediction is of when the Messiah will die ?be cut off (from the living),? but was made more than 500 years before the event. This part of Daniel appears in the DSS, and has been typographically dated to 175-200 B.C.


Agnostics are those who believe that God cannot be proven to exist or not exist. Athiests believe he doesn?t. If you can?t prove God?s non-existence, then you might not want to be so quick to judge on Christianity without looking at some more facts. Its an important issue. If you believe that God can?t be proven or disproven, you may want to check out some arguments to see if that is really true, instead of just a lazy response to scary issues.

Have a good weekend!

[Lorentz]

I would start believing if the rules of nature would be broken to benefit mankind.

...or actually broken for any Godlike reason.

[ProtractedSilence]

Would you really believe if they were, or would you chalk it up to some new phenomena and explain it away? (I am honestly asking)

I think God has already gone far beyond he could be expected to benefit mankind. See my post #101 on http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=183172#post183172.

God went so far for mankind that the angels were surprised at God's goodness:

1 Pet 1:10-12 "10Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things."

[Lorentz]

Would you really believe if they were, or would you chalk it up to some new phenomena and explain it away? (I am honestly asking)


I believe the rules of nature are unchangeable. The thing is though that we haven't found the whole set of rules yet and maybe we are wrong about some of them.

So if there was some new phenomena we would ofcourse question the rules of nature we found, but I was really talking about miracles. There's no way we would even try to explain the ocean standing as a wall, because otherwise it would flood a whole community, because a dyke broke down. If God ever did benefit mankind then he didn't ever do it this obvious.

[ProtractedSilence]

Lorentz,

I think we can read about how God has done some of the type of miracles I think you are looking for throughout the Bible. The ten plagues in Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, the pillar of fire, burning bush, water from the rock, parting of the Jordan. What kinds of things were predicted and actually happened when Christ was around? sick healed, lame walk, blind receive sight, dead brought back to life, large crowds fed with almost no food, walking on water.

The Pharisees also demanded a sign from Jesus and this is what he told them:

Matthew 12:8-42 ?Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." 39 But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; 40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 "The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. 42 "The Queen of the South will rise up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.?

The point being that the Jews who demanded a sign of Christ's authority would have it in the form of history and that Gentiles would be converted and saved before the Jews.

A while later in Jesus? ministry, in Mark, we can read about Jesus healing a man in front of the Pharisees eyes. The response of the Pharisees to this miracle, this sign, is that they immediately begin plotting to kill Jesus. Even when they got the miracle they asked for, they did not believe. These people asked for a sign with the wrong motives, and so they did not get it.

I think that apply this today we can see a possible connection. People in this country have become very enamored with the sciences (which is not a bad thing). But as I said earlier, I think that if God did perform one of these miraculous physical signs, most people would respond not by praising God, but by attempting to figure out what scientific phenomena caused it. I think that most of the miracles that can be seen today in this country are in personal change, relationships, etc, because people can?t explain away these changes with science as easily. They are more willing to accept the possibility that God was involved.

[FZ+]

Agnostics are those who believe that God cannot be proven to exist or not exist. Athiests believe he doesn?t.

Sigh.

Atheists *say* that atheism is the lack of belief in God, not the belief of the lack of God. This is backed up by dictionaries. Would you not feel that atheists have a better idea than theists as to what atheism means?

Agnosticism is not a matter of belief in God, or not. (gnos = to know. agnos = do not know) Agnostics believe in the impossibility of objective judgement. They believe that you can never tell whether God really exists or not, and that it is a matter of faith. You can be agnostic and still be theist, or atheist.

I have looked at the arguments - and quite possible more than you have. Ultimately, all arguments for or against God are either illogical, or simply circular.

[phoenixthoth]

regarding what would prove a God exists...

it is sticky (pun intended) to define what God even means but three attributes commonly attributed to God are omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.

i assert that there is no way to emperically prove that a being with the "three o's" exists, at least not directly. (as i will mention in a second, this argument will all be for naught. assume there is a being with just omnipotence. i will take that to mean that the being is able to perform any action requested of it if it so choses. in finite time, there is no demonstration that will prove omnipotence. one could see a demonstration of potentially arbitrarily large degree of "power" but one could never observe an infinite trait belonging to a being.

the only way to emperically prove omnipresence is to be able to observe every possible locations, including locations which may, by definition or virture of the way they are, be non-observable.

it would take infinite time to convey omniscience to a finite mind and while it may be possible to convey a potentially large amount of knowledge to a finite mind in finite time, it isn't possible to do this will all knowledge.

however, as advertized, some of this argument is weakened because an omnipotent being could snap its fingers and provide proof of itself. (maybe it already has but it isn't of the sort of proof that one must accept at this stage and maybe that's an expression of free will.)

therefore, i would tend to believe that a proof of God would not take the form of emperical data.

proof of God to me is like fitting a carpet in room that is too large for it. if you pull the carpet into one corner, it pulls up in another corner. what i mean is that there is a trade-off between proof of existence and definitions. if you define God to be my box of tic-tacs than it's pretty easy to convince someone that God exists. likewise if you define God to be the first cause or the force that created the universe. existence isn't an issue but proving that it has the three properties above, much less is the God worshipped in your favorite religion, is sticky. on the other hand, you can define God to be a being with the three aforementioned properties and even to be the God mentioned in your favorite religion but then proving it exists is sticky.

[deda]

Proof enough for me that god, which in my opinion is nothing, exists is the necesity of balance.

[xt]

It really depends on what you define god is.

If one claims the originator of everything is god or everything is a part of god, then god must exist.

But this type of god is not the one that we associate with religiously, its just a general philosophical definition of everything or origin of the universe.

People who argue for or against the existence of god seem to confuse the two types together, for example a religious person would argue: "if god did not exist then what created everything? is there no explaination? and things move therefore there must be a first mover... god." The argument is logical, but that person is missing the whole point. Most people who don't believe in the "religious" god, don't believe it because they can't see how the fictional type stuff like heaven and hell really exists without any evidence at all.

Its the "definition" of god that people's views differ on.

Religion and Science are both ways to explain how the universe works. Science is based on deterministic principles while religion is based on elementary human intuition.

[olde drunk]

I've said it before and i will say it again: "it is impossible to prove anything".

all we can do is list the reasons why we believe what we believe.

even when a carpenter with a laser ruler says that a board is 12' long, you can not prove he is right. cause, you can't prove that he, the ruler and board exist.

scientific proof is an agreement, to inderstand and manipulate the physical.

better to ask if one believes in a god and then ask for an explanation.

love & peace,

[TENYEARS]

It really depends on what you define god is.

If one claims the originator of everything is god or everything is a part of god, then god must exist.

But this type of god is not the one that we associate with religiously, its just a general philosophical definition of everything or origin of the universe.

People who argue for or against the existence of god seem to confuse the two types together, for example a religious person would argue: "if god did not exist then what created everything? is there no explaination? and things move therefore there must be a first mover... god." The argument is logical, but that person is missing the whole point. Most people who don't believe in the "religious" god, don't believe it because they can't see how the fictional type stuff like heaven and hell really exists without any evidence at all.

Its the "definition" of god that people's views differ on.

Religion and Science are both ways to explain how the universe works. Science is based on deterministic principles while religion is based on elementary human intuition.

What makes you think it's fictional or not logical? I could diagram the reality of the universe for you. It is what is, but you would have to believe me would you not, unless of course you experienced it for yourself. 17 bone heads also said ah yes, it's real we have scientifc proof and yet you would still believe. 6,000,000,000 humans may also say ah yes it is true, but you would still believe. There is no substitue for experience, because experience is what is.

[ray b]

Lorentz,

I think we can read about how God has done some of the type of miracles I think you are looking for throughout the Bible. The ten plagues in Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, the pillar of fire, burning bush, water from the rock, parting of the Jordan. What kinds of things were predicted and actually happened when Christ was around? sick healed, lame walk, blind receive sight, dead brought back to life, large crowds fed with almost no food, walking on water.

The Pharisees also demanded a sign from Jesus and this is what he told them:

Matthew 12:8-42 ?Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." 39 But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; 40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 "The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. 42 "The Queen of the South will rise up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.?

The point being that the Jews who demanded a sign of Christ's authority would have it in the form of history and that Gentiles would be converted and saved before the Jews.

A while later in Jesus? ministry, in Mark, we can read about Jesus healing a man in front of the Pharisees eyes. The response of the Pharisees to this miracle, this sign, is that they immediately begin plotting to kill Jesus. Even when they got the miracle they asked for, they did not believe. These people asked for a sign with the wrong motives, and so they did not get it.

I think that apply this today we can see a possible connection. People in this country have become very enamored with the sciences (which is not a bad thing). But as I said earlier, I think that if God did perform one of these miraculous physical signs, most people would respond not by praising God, but by attempting to figure out what scientific phenomena caused it. I think that most of the miracles that can be seen today in this country are in personal change, relationships, etc, because people can?t explain away these changes with science as easily. They are more willing to accept the possibility that God was involved.


the signs in egypt could be natural random events, and are not backed up by the records of the kingdom of egypt, in fact there is no mention of the jews or their leaving or the death of every first born is recorded and the bible never even names the pharroh so the whole thing is undateable
then the jews travel into the holyland and claim to subdue a land that in fact is a egyptian border land and under their control and rule and once again the egyptian records do not notice this???

3 days and 3 nights for JC in the earth????
btw there never was a man named jesus the name some "HOPE TO BE SAVED BY"
his mom called him ya-sho-wa modern name is joshua, and the name jesus is an tranlation ERROR
he "DIED" late friday,after only a few hours on the cross, note most people took several DAYS to die on the cross, then the body was taken down something prohibided by roman law, as the body was to rot in place, and was laid to rest just before the sundown beginning of the sabbath and he was up and gone by sunday morning sunrize that is two nights and ONE DAY by my count about 36 hours total, then moved to france with mary mags, without ever showing himself to the people or the rulers who "KILLED" him but only a few brief appearances to the faithfull ONLY, again with no offical notice, or record

IF there is a god, and he has a plan he wants me to follow , he would need to tell me about it, HIMSELF, not send some men to claim to know gods will

a brief study of the history of the claimed "MEN OF GOD" will quickly show no hand of god in the work of the church, only evil and greed in the power they misuse

[Josephus]

Dear, certainly there are many physical proofs of the existence of God, one of them is the science religion. Mostof the followers of scientists just believe what they say, without any physical and real proof:

How did Johannes Kepler to measure the distances between any 'planet' and the sun and to be sure of his eliptical distances?

What single proof presented Galileo of his movements?

If newton did not know G how could he determine the F=GMm/r2?

The Optic Gyroscope works because the movement of the source of light affects the velocity of light, the opposite of the teaching of the false genius Einstein.

In the document http://geocities.com/jesuselcristos/hoaxology.html

you should find more of science hoaxology

[heusdens]

It really depends on what you define god is.

If one claims the originator of everything is god or everything is a part of god, then god must exist.


Wrong!

Such an all encompassing being ('the everything') does not and can not exist, which can be explained using subtle logic.

To conclude that any specific thing exist, we must normally make an observation. It always requires there to be other things, which are independend and apart from the thing to observe.

We can't claim that the universe exists in the same way, since we aren't outside observers to the universe. We are part of it.

The universe does not exist alongside other things, and as such, we can not make any observations about the universe, we can only observe finite parts of the universe.

The universe itself is not distinguishable from nothing, it hasn't any physical properties.

[olde drunk]

Wrong!

Such an all encompassing being ('the everything') does not and can not exist, which can be explained using subtle logic.

To conclude that any specific thing exist, we must normally make an observation. It always requires there to be other things, which are independend and apart from the thing to observe.

We can't claim that the universe exists in the same way, since we aren't outside observers to the universe. We are part of it.

The universe does not exist alongside other things, and as such, we can not make any observations about the universe, we can only observe finite parts of the universe.

The universe itself is not distinguishable from nothing, it hasn't any physical properties.
aren't we also outside the 'physical' universe at this very moment??? i submit that we exist on many levels and the non-physical self can observe our physical universe and pass on this information to the consciouness of the physical being.

aren't there many paralell universes existing with us at this moment?? i believe we get caught up with the physical universe and limit our thinking to what we can see and touch. we are more! we can 'sense and feel'. i can easily accept that this physical universe of ours is but a portion of the UNIVERSE or omniverse that i sense exists.

will you agree that the uni-omni-verse includes our physical universe? it may be time for us to come up with a term that defines the physical universe(s) and another for the totality of all that exists within infinity/eternity?

love and peace,
olde drunk

[Mudvaynelethaldosage]

there's a concept I think we should all recognize. Each person has his own beliefs. If you line up 10 christians and ask them what exactly is Christianity? What are the morals? What does God look like? All that bull****, you're going to get 10 different, but similar answers. Same with 10 Buddhists or Muslims. An individuals perception of Gods image is altered by his life experiences. A persons past does to their religious views, what hardware does to software. An individual may read the bible (software), but get a different idea because of who he/she (hardware) is.
There also happens to be many individuals that are not Christians, but pretend to be so people will respect them (not me). When they do something sleazy, this makes people hate Christians.
Some Christians are complete idiots that try to force their uneducated opinions on others, but some are decent, misled, people.
I happen to be Atheist. I don't believe there is a god. It's hard to think how the whole world, space, ect. could've been created to how it is without someone to govern, though. I know about nebulas and all that ****, but how was the matter created in the first place? This just leads to so many questions. The answers to these questions many find is God.
I'm totally fine with the love and peace thing, but many people take religion too seriously to be peaceful about it, including me. I get really angry when people try to create religious views into law. I'm fine if people leave me out of their ignorance. I actually know a Christian girl. I admire the fact that she keeps her religion to herself. I speak out against religion in public a lot. I cut it out around her though, because she's shown the respect not to try to convert me. It is true that I will speak out against religion with people present that aren't forcing there religion on me. I'm making it sound like I set up a stage in front of the mall, lol.
I have a friend that is a Satanist. I agree with a lot of his ideas. He's not the stereotype of a Satanist. He does not sacrifice goats, or burn churches down. He does have a good understanding of balance though.

I'll get to my summary, everyone has their own individual religious view. While some may be similar, no two people have the exact same religious views. Some people use the Christian name so people will trust them, giving Christians a bad reputation in some cases. Although I'm Atheist, it seems as if there had to have been a god at some point in time. I think religion is fine if it promotes love and peace, even Satanism.

Trash comes in all wrappers. Black, white, mexican, blonde hair, brown eyes, gay, straight, gothic, punk, Christian, Satanist, Jewish, young, old, rich, poor. Some races, lifestyles, ages, religions, ect. have a higher percentile of trash if you line up 100 of that type of person. That's all I am saying for now, I could go on and on into other topics or stay on the religion. Thank you for reading.

also, whomever wrote "I certainly can't accept that there is a loving and just god that
would allow someone to suffer for eternity. Justice implies a proportionality between crime and punishment, no finite crime balances against an infinite punishment." That is very well put. You have an excellent sense of balance.

[heusdens]

aren't we also outside the 'physical' universe at this very moment??? i submit that we exist on many levels and the non-physical self can observe our physical universe and pass on this information to the consciouness of the physical being.

aren't there many paralell universes existing with us at this moment?? i believe we get caught up with the physical universe and limit our thinking to what we can see and touch. we are more! we can 'sense and feel'. i can easily accept that this physical universe of ours is but a portion of the UNIVERSE or omniverse that i sense exists.

will you agree that the uni-omni-verse includes our physical universe? it may be time for us to come up with a term that defines the physical universe(s) and another for the totality of all that exists within infinity/eternity?

love and peace,
olde drunkThat's a matter of terminology, the universe as far as we can observe, can be called "observable universe", and we don't need omni/multi verse, the term universe already includes those.

[DavidSF]

Who does the will of God, What is the will of God? Jesus knew these answers and God the Father already knows these answers.
If you dont know these answers you walk in fear and darkness.. You walk in sin..

Jesus said "The Father knows the Son and the Son knows the Father" which means simply that the Father knew and could read the knowledge thoughts of Jesus and those thoughts revealed to the Father that Jesus new the form of the Father.
Because it is the Fathers Will that we come to the full knowledge of the Father the Holy Spirit (the light of this world).
The Father is spirit.. Your Life force is spirit.. Your brothers Life force is spirit.. If you hate your brothers spirt you hate Gods Spirit..

The spirit of God turns the earth that you may have day and night and the seasons..
Jesus walked on water to reveal the living God to you in this way he reveals the Father (He walked with the law of God in his heart and mind for He new and loved his Father) who is the fundamental Holy Spirit POWER of the universe.

God is the fundamental foundation of light itself (GRAVITY energy)..
Come to the full knowledge of that light, and then you will find and come to the full knowledge of your God the Father and your own Spirit.

You were a part of the Spirit of God before you were born, and you will be a part of the Spirit of God Spirit when you say you die (You lived before and you will live after, God willing), and for now while you here on earth you are the Spirit of God in the flesh, For Jesus told you, is it not written 'You are a Gods'.
Please understand and dont walk lower than the animals.. May God Bless you and forgive your ignorance..

Seek the knowledge of the Spirit, the laws of light / gravity, your God.. This is His Will and all that he will ever ask of you...Love Him and he will reveal and show you all things as Jesus has already told you..

[Guybrush Threepwood]

The spirit of God turns the earth that you may have day and night and the seasons..


yes, but let's not forget that superman could reverse the rotation of the Earth, so I guess the spirit met his match .....


Jesus walked on water to reveal the living God to you in this way he reveals the Father (He walked with the law of God in his heart and mind for He new and loved his Father) who is the fundamental Holy Spirit POWER of the universe.


He (http://whyfiles.org/shorties/015walk_on_water) can walk on water also...


God is the fundamental foundation of light itself (GRAVITY energy)..
Come to the full knowledge of that light, and then you will find and come to the full knowledge of your God the Father and your own Spirit.


Well Einstein would be really glad to hear that the foundation of gravity is light and not the geometry of the space....

I guess you missed the title of the thread, specifically the word proof

[olde drunk]

That's a matter of terminology, the universe as far as we can observe, can be called "observable universe", and we don't need omni/multi verse, the term universe already includes those.
i agree. my point is that our physical universe is nestled inside a larger universe. to often when the word universe is used it is taken to mean the physical.

it is also quite possible that our larger unvirse is nestled inside another, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

is the total of all universes, god??? feels like it.

love&peace,
olde drunk

[olde drunk]

i agree that i am god as jesus said. that's why he is/was a wise man. unfortunately, we place a mystical meaning to the phrase and ignore the real meaning. we each control our destiny, we are one with whatever god is.

now all we gotta do is be true to ourselves and honor our neighbor as ourself. this done, listen to the inner you and you will find your definition of god. i submit that the definition is uniquely individual and defies a definition to satisfy everyone.

love&peace,
olde drunk

[DavidSF]

You want proof.....

The definition of space-time, can it be seperated from gravity or light? do you know your fourth dimensional motion (velocity) through the heavens? do you know the length of your second? do you truly know the real processes of electromagnetic propagation? much of this is still probably mystical and called phenomena to you.

Why is the kingdom of heaven within you? did you not know that inside the atom is an inverted mirror of what is occurring within the heavens.
Jesus said "all things come to them as parables because their is no root in them"
For this reason you do not know that the square root of the electron compton wavelength is, one over your total combination of galactic velocity vectors.

Einstein also understood that three dimensional geometry could not describe space time, as his theory of relativity predicts.

Atomic mass can modify space time can it not? If it can then space time must be able to modify atomic mass structure. which says that space time is not as empty as you may think. Its full of God...

If mass is convertible to energy then energy is convertible to mass.

Your God is Energy, the very structure of space time which we can modulate and send waves through, all frequencies which travel at a singular speed, for this reason he sees everything.

God is the carrier of all sources of electromagnetic light, he even bought my advice to you.

And you wanted proof,

It is all around you. But this you see, but alas you dont see. God forgive You.

[olde drunk]

You want proof.....

The definition of space-time, can it be seperated from gravity or light? do you know your fourth dimensional motion (velocity) through the heavens? do you know the length of your second? do you truly know the real processes of electromagnetic propagation? much of this is still probably mystical and called phenomena to you.

Why is the kingdom of heaven within you? did you not know that inside the atom is an inverted mirror of what is occurring within the heavens.
Jesus said "all things come to them as parables because their is no root in them"
For this reason you do not know that the square root of the electron compton wavelength is, one over your total combination of galactic velocity vectors.

Einstein also understood that three dimensional geometry could not describe space time, as his theory of relativity predicts.

Atomic mass can modify space time can it not? If it can then space time must be able to modify atomic mass structure. which says that space time is not as empty as you may think. Its full of God...

If mass is convertible to energy then energy is convertible to mass.

Your God is Energy, the very structure of space time which we can modulate and send waves through, all frequencies which travel at a singular speed, for this reason he sees everything.

God is the carrier of all sources of electromagnetic light, he even bought my advice to you.

And you wanted proof,

It is all around you. But this you see, but alas you dont see. God forgive You.
i do NOT need god's forgiveness. i do gods work, my way. my god doen't require that i know the definition of 'mass' or go to mass. he doesn't care if i ignore or worship. my god only expects that i be me and respect all of creation. AND, i don't need to tithe.

my god is energy! amen.

love&peace,
olde drunk

[Tom McCurdy]

You want proof.....

The definition of space-time, can it be seperated from gravity or light? do you know your fourth dimensional motion (velocity) through the heavens? do you know the length of your second? do you truly know the real processes of electromagnetic propagation? much of this is still probably mystical and called phenomena to you.

Why is the kingdom of heaven within you? did you not know that inside the atom is an inverted mirror of what is occurring within the heavens.
Jesus said "all things come to them as parables because their is no root in them"
For this reason you do not know that the square root of the electron compton wavelength is, one over your total combination of galactic velocity vectors.

Einstein also understood that three dimensional geometry could not describe space time, as his theory of relativity predicts.

Atomic mass can modify space time can it not? If it can then space time must be able to modify atomic mass structure. which says that space time is not as empty as you may think. Its full of God...

If mass is convertible to energy then energy is convertible to mass.

Your God is Energy, the very structure of space time which we can modulate and send waves through, all frequencies which travel at a singular speed, for this reason he sees everything.

God is the carrier of all sources of electromagnetic light, he even bought my advice to you.

And you wanted proof,

It is all around you. But this you see, but alas you dont see. God forgive You.
hmm I am still missing the proof part

And quit trying to post with the enlighted theme... it makes you seem like you are superior to us, pure in some fashion... I am sure god wouldn't want this now.

Hmm I didin't realize time was heaven... as I travel through the 4th dimension... however this does bring up something funny. The faster i move the more I am removed from heaven. Lol

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Religion topics are always a good time. I guess I'll join in on this one. :) I consider myself Agnostic because I'm in the middle of the situation. But if God turns out to exist I believe it might be possible to achieve proof. So I'm not sure what my grammatical religion would be called.

I can see the perspective of an Atheist well enough. Its like if someone said. There are 23 more planets in the Solar System but they have no proof. However since I personally can't disprove that I don't completely exclude the possibility.

No offense to Christians, but I find Christianity somewhat ironic. The way the beliefs are organized its almost like an interesting fairy tale. I'm sure some people read it as fiction. Some Christian beliefs aren't logical either.

I believe God would be much wiser than portrayed and would've at least explained his reasoning in any book provided to earth. With Christianity the Bible just dismisses something with no logic behind the dismissal. Therefore, I don't believe in the Christian God. Its possible, but I think its quite unlikely.

I'm fairly flexible when it comes to possibilities. I don't think illogical religious beliefs should be considered in government. Thou shall not do something. Why not? I'm disgusted when illogically backed up religious statements are used in government.

I'm not sure what my religion is but to believe in God I think I'd have to see him personally and have a lengthy discussion with him. Depending on how convincing he was I might talk longer or dismiss his statement.

I look at more things from an Atheist standpoint most of the time. It allows me to more logically look at situations and lets me take advantage of life to the fullest without basing my decisions on a possible afterlife.

However when I'm having a bad time I might pray. Prayer helps when nobody else can understand or is around. I think I've done this maybe 3 times since I shifted from parentally influenced Catholic beliefs. Whether or not God is up there Prayer and belief helps people when nothing else can. This is perhaps a reason why people cling so tightly to their religious beliefs. If they do not have them, they have to come up with their own morals. On top of that, they may be alone or fear death more. Many other factors could influence the entire subject.

I hope I didn't offend people. It looks from above that the conversation is fairly heated. If anyone knows what religion I would be considered I'd love to know. ~Thanks.

[jdavel]

"What would be proof that God exists?"

I know of at least three proofs that would work for me.

1) If everyone else believed it, I'd believe it.

2) If everyone who didn't believe it got burned at the stake, I'd believe it.

3) In a more practical vain, this would also work for me:

I examine a stack of 52 cards to ensure that it's a regulation deck. I immediately shuffle the deck to my satisfaction. I immediately deal ten poker hands from the top of this shuffled, regulation deck, and they all have four of a kind. At that point, I would believe in god!

[jradoff]

I think there's a general misunderstanding with regards to science. Scientists don't "believe" things, nor do they rely on scientific literature in the same sense as theists utilize scripture. Scientists weigh evidence and develop theories. The value of a theory is its ability to make experimentally-verifiable predictions.

Thus, when addressing any particular religion, one might ask: what is the strength of the evidence? What predictions does it make, and how can we test them?

I recommend the following book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/flex-sign-in/ref=cm_rate_rev_pagepos3/104-1549182-3438313#rated-review

[jradoff]

Hmm, the link I posted above didn't take for some reason. The book is the DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD, by Carl Sagan. It is pretty easy to find on Amazon, and discusses how many people come to certain beliefs (not simply religion, but also such things as UFOs, alien abductions, psychic powers, etc.) and how to think logically about things.

[DavidSF]

Tom MucCurdy seems to think I am trying to be a little superior.. This is not so.. To learn from the Spirit of God you must first learn to become humble, only then can you listen to God to learn and become wise..
(A wise man listens that he may become a little wiser).

If a man has wisdom, others without that wisdom thinks he may be inferior and immediately may accuse the other of trying to be superior.

Jesus said "knowledge is justified by its children".

I say "we are what we eat and drink"..

In a physics forum can I ask if anyone can answer me this - what is the Alpha? and what is the omega? for God says "I am the apha and the omega".

Also can somebody tell me, what velocity must I obtain to be waitless at the surface of the earth? (Think very carefully).

And for proof let me say this.

The Son of Man stands with the scientific institutions on the one hand and the religious institutions on the other hand and could very easily be saying "Come listen to me for I am the light of this world, for you both seek the ultimate knowledge of God, understand that their is only one truth and that truth encompasses all, for you both seek that very same truth".

I hope that you will eat a little truth every day, (the bread from heaven) that it may nourish you and then one day you will understand.

And to jdavel , remember what Jesus said "Wide is the road to perdition and many go in by it, but narrow is the path and few find it". Suggest you look beyond the cards.

God forgives you, so you also learn to forgive.

Who of you has a child who asks what he can do for his Father, but only children who are always asking the Father to do things for them.

Somebody once said to me "What does God want from me?". I said "He wants the one thing that you will never give to Him, Your time, For he has time for you, but you have no time for Him".

[Janitor]

the square root of the electron compton wavelength is, one over your total combination of galactic velocity vectors- David

David, due especially to the bit I just quoted, I suspect you are having fun pulling our legs. But if by chance you are serious, how about elaborating on that for us? Maybe even plug in some numbers, if you would be so kind. And who was the author of the book or article or tract from which you got that?

[DavidSF]

Dear janitor,
That information is not in the current science books, and I discoved the information after reading the words of Christ "The kingdom of heaven is within you".

This prompted me to seek out why he had said this I and discovered much much more than this about atomic physics.

At this time the physicists and institutions look at the atom with a very narrow minded viewpoint. They put the atom within a small box and ignore anything outside of that box, ignoring the fact that the tiny atom is travelling at over 2.3 million kilometres per hour through space time for a reason.

If you break this speed down to metres per second to conform with the standard SI metre per second format, then consider and relate this value to our atronomical galactic spin and galactic velocity conditions, you will note that you are almost there.

If I give you the formulae I give the world the formulae, and the scripture advises me not to caste my pearls before the swine lest they trample you underfoot.

I have given you more than enough information, Seek and ye shall find for nothing is hidden that will not come to light..

You are and will be dealing with the core of relativity, in that the time needed to cover 1 metre wavelength at galactic speeds is incredibly small.

No I am not, nor will at anytime, pull anybodies leg.

I ask you this, If you had the knowledge of God. Would you share it indescriminately, or be very cautious as to who it is given to.

Believe that it is there and it will be according to your belief, and be patient, It is not easy to shake off some of the miss-leeding information which can be found in the present day institutions.

DavidSF

[Janitor]

I had a suspicion that the knowledge of galactic vectors might be straight from God’s mouth to your ear. I agree that it is a dangerous gift to be in touch personally with He Who Is Above All Things. I understand completely.

[Nicomachus]

Dear janitor,
That information is not in the current science books, and I discoved the information after reading the words of Christ "The kingdom of heaven is within you".

This prompted me to seek out why he had said this I and discovered much much more than this about atomic physics.

At this time the physicists and institutions look at the atom with a very narrow minded viewpoint. They put the atom within a small box and ignore anything outside of that box, ignoring the fact that the tiny atom is travelling at over 2.3 million kilometres per hour through space time for a reason.

If you break this speed down to metres per second to conform with the standard SI metre per second format, then consider and relate this value to our atronomical galactic spin and galactic velocity conditions, you will note that you are almost there.

If I give you the formulae I give the world the formulae, and the scripture advises me not to caste my pearls before the swine lest they trample you underfoot.

I have given you more than enough information, Seek and ye shall find for nothing is hidden that will not come to light..

You are and will be dealing with the core of relativity, in that the time needed to cover 1 metre wavelength at galactic speeds is incredibly small.

No I am not, nor will at anytime, pull anybodies leg.

I ask you this, If you had the knowledge of God. Would you share it indescriminately, or be very cautious as to who it is given to.

Believe that it is there and it will be according to your belief, and be patient, It is not easy to shake off some of the miss-leeding information which can be found in the present day institutions.

DavidSF

blah blah blah. Whatever, David Koresh. All you have are a bunch naked assertions and what psychologists refer to as "delusions of grandeur."

[DavidSF]

Dooga Blackrazor,
You are a believer, only believers pray, even the so called non believers, or athiests will usually call out "My God" in a time of crisis, because it is inbuilt into them from the beginning, For God created heaven and earth and everthing within or on it.
What man teaches is unbelievable, what God teaches is Good and very believable, if in doubt just ask God.

Jesus told you how to pray, so analyse the words of the Lords Prayer. We are asking for his knowledge daily

[selfAdjoint]

Unbelievers call out "My God" not because it is hardwired into them but because they have been socialized into a culture where that is an accepted thing to shout in certain circumstances.

[Nicomachus]

Dooga Blackrazor,
You are a believer, only believers pray, even the so called non believers, or athiests will usually call out "My God" in a time of crisis, because it is inbuilt into them from the beginning, For God created heaven and earth and everthing within or on it.
What man teaches is unbelievable, what God teaches is Good and very believable, if in doubt just ask God.

Jesus told you how to pray, so analyse the words of the Lords Prayer. We are asking for his knowledge daily

Are you going to do anything but proselytize like a dogmatic cultist? The reason people cry out "my God" is a result of cultural programming. You don't see many Hindu's crying "my God" and I would be willing to claim the Rapa Nui and various other cultures not exposed to Judeo-Christian dogma didn't either. This is a ridiculous and is at best sophistry. Circulus in Demonstrando.
*Nico

[DavidSF]

Dear janitor or is it Jan,
The galactic velocity vectors have been measured and can be obtained from the internet, the main velocity component is 600km/sec and is also written in the scripture. Read about Noah's ark, and note Noah's age..

Then imagine that we are discussing the motion of the earth through the living water the arc the earth cuts as it orbits the sun.

Built into the scripture are all the numbers to confirm the truth, and some which they haven't discovered yet.

Have a feast..
David

[DavidSF]

Whatever God you believe in you will utimately call out his name, nomatter what your culture or belief, if you dont say it you will think it...believe me Satan is a liar, when we open our mouth we reveal our Father who is within us.. Some have taken to typing..

In a physics forum can I ask if anyone can answer me this - what is the Alpha? and what is the omega? for God says "I am the apha and the omega".

Also can somebody tell me, what velocity must I obtain to be weightless at the surface of the earth? (Think very carefully).

[Nicomachus]

Whatever God you believe in you will utimately call out his name, nomatter what your culture or belief, if you dont say it you will think it...believe me Satan is a liar, when we open our mouth we reveal our Father who is within us.. Some have taken to typing..

In a physics forum can I ask if anyone can answer me this - what is the Alpha? and what is the omega? for God says "I am the apha and the omega".

Also can somebody tell me, what velocity must I obtain to be weightless at the surface of the earth? (Think very carefully).

blah blah blah. That is a naked assertion, you have no evidence. Furthermore, it is irrelavent, all you have presented is that if someone believes in a theistic entity then one will, although this does not follow, call out the word associated with the theistic entity one believes in. Alright, so is every theistic entity that has a word associated with it which believers call out, real?

As far as your "alpha and omega," what was the point of this proselytizing nonsense? Yes we all know what that means, you are just crowing up a bunch of phrases without bringing forth any substance. You are still continuing your Circulus in Demonstrando and providing nothing but red herrings. Are you intellectually capable of presenting valid argument and not these absurdities you have brought thus far? Stop being a sophist and be the intellectual you are pretending to be.
*Nico

[Evo]

even the so called non believers, or athiests will usually call out "My God" in a time of crisis, or fun, or great sex.

[DavidSF]

Your mind is not not focused on the kingdom of the heavens, because of this you cannot understand where I come from.

This is a physics forum. I had hoped for an open minded hearing to enable the scientific knowledge of God to be openly discussed.

Logic depicts that if God created heaven and earth, He would know the laws of how it all works, and then would he not want to tell his children how His laws of the universe the laws of creation work.

Man is very good at tearing matter of apart but has not learnt how to put it back together.

Man is but just a destructive child at this time, and God wishes to teach and show you the truth, but who is listening. understanding is not mans strongest point.

God is love, you are a product of love, the next time you make love.. thank God.. but please give some love back to God, no matter how little you give, for he will multiply it a thousand times back to you.

[Evo]

Your mind is not not focused on the kingdom of the heavens, because of this you cannot understand where I come from.Very true.

This is a physics forum. I had hoped for an open minded hearing to enable the scientific knowledge of God to be openly discussed.I am not aware of any scientific knowledge of god.

Logic depicts that if God created heaven and earth, He would he know the laws of how it all works, and then would he not want to tell his children how His laws of the universe the laws of creation work.Sure, why not? When is he going to share this?
Man is very good at tearing matter of apart but has not learnt how to put it back together.Taking something apart is good for understanding how it works.

Man is but just a destructive child at this time, and God wishes to teach and show you the truth, but who is listening. understanding is not mans strongest point.So, if there is a god and he knows the answers, I would say that it is time for him to share. I think that there are many here ready to understand.

God is love, you are a product of love, the next time you make love.. thank God.. but please give some love back to God, no matter who little you give, for he will multiply it a thousand times back to you.I realized when I was eight years old that the god described in the christian bible was a manifestation of men's ideas. The god described in the bible is a vicious, jealous, angry, vindictive "god" that had all the shortcomings of mortal men, and also the values of the period in time in which it was written. Obviously it is a tale borne of man.

I do not wish to tear you from your beliefs. I think religion is a necessary crutch for many people.

[russ_watters]

I realized when I was eight years old that the god described in the christian bible was a manifestation of men's ideas. Minor sidebar here. Though your sentiment is nice to see, why is it (my perception) that women tend to be more religious than men, at least in Christianity? Do you think the same as your female friends - is it just your scientific mindset that makes you different (if thats your perception)?

For the record, I'm a Christian despite the clear and obvious flaws in the Bible. I should start my own sect (cult?)...

[russ_watters]

In a physics forum can I ask if anyone can answer me this - what is the Alpha? and what is the omega? for God says "I am the apha and the omega". They are letters in a dead alphabet.

[Evo]

Minor sidebar here. Though your sentiment is nice to see, why is it (my perception) that women tend to be more religious than men, at least in Christianity? Do you think the same as your female friends - is it just your scientific mindset that makes you different (if thats your perception)?No, I have found that I am pretty much alone in my beliefs. I'm in an odd (or maybe not so odd) position where I don't see any proof of a god, well, not a nice god.

When I was very little I thought of god as being kind, loving and good. Then I was taught how he was depicted in the bible. Not nice. Then I looked around at the atrocities happening every day. No "god" that was good would allow this. I knew all the arguments as to why "god" allowed these things to happen and decided it wasn't realistic. As much as I wished there was a "god" that would look out for me, I realized there wasn't.

For the record, I'm a Christian despite the clear and obvious flaws in the Bible. I should start my own sect (cult?)...If you come up with a convincing story, I might join. :wink:

[DavidSF]

Alpa = (C squared) / radius (r) = Angular velocity of the speed of light
Omega = C / r = frequency R represents lambda

1/omega = time

There is nothing dead about God..

But the light of God you do not walk in..

I have not found any flaws in my Bible but many flaws in mans interpretation of the Bible.

My God is the light of this world, Jesus told you plainly "I am the light" or did you not understand what He was saying.

He also told you only the "Son knows the Father and whom the Son is willing to reveal Him"

One day in the future you will know that even though you think you do not need God, He will still be there for you.

[Nicomachus]

Your mind is not not focused on the kingdom of the heavens, because of this you cannot understand where I come from.

This is a physics forum. I had hoped for an open minded hearing to enable the scientific knowledge of God to be openly discussed.

Logic depicts that if God created heaven and earth, He would know the laws of how it all works, and then would he not want to tell his children how His laws of the universe the laws of creation work.

Man is very good at tearing matter of apart but has not learnt how to put it back together.

Man is but just a destructive child at this time, and God wishes to teach and show you the truth, but who is listening. understanding is not mans strongest point.

God is love, you are a product of love, the next time you make love.. thank God.. but please give some love back to God, no matter how little you give, for he will multiply it a thousand times back to you.

"Your mind is not not focused on the kingdom of the heavens, because of this you cannot understand where I come from."

Alright David then present a case. I am well versed in many religions and especially your Christianity, so let's have it. But no, you just want to proselytize under the guise of scientific inquiry.

"This is a physics forum. I had hoped for an open minded hearing to enable the scientific knowledge of God to be openly discussed."

Well, let me be the first to say that I will have a rational discourse with you about this; I have already begun, when do you plan to start? You seem not to want us to be open-minded but gullible.


As for this statement:

"Logic depicts that if God created heaven and earth, He would know the laws of how it all works, and then would he not want to tell his children how His laws of the universe the laws of creation work."

Circulus in Demonstrando. Are you familiar with this fallacy? You are simply assuming your conclusions. This is your assertion: "God exists because he would want to tell his children about the 'laws' he created for the universe, therefore God exists." Do you have the intellectual honesty to face this problem? As well, you are also wrong again, it does not logically follow that if one creates something one would know entirely how that thing works. You may infer that but logically that conclusion is not based on any deduction. Anyway, I shouldn't have analyzed because you are being circular.

"Man is very good at tearing matter of apart but has not learnt how to put it back together."

Red herring. Bad poetry.

"Man is but just a destructive child at this time, and God wishes to teach and show you the truth, but who is listening. understanding is not mans strongest point."

Assuming your conclusions. Red herring. Bad poetry. As well, a psychologist would call this a "projection."

"God is love, you are a product of love, the next time you make love.. thank God.. but please give some love back to God, no matter how little you give, for he will multiply it a thousand times back to you."

I would call this a red-herring but that doesn't do this justice. This is not a discourse; this is you preaching. Look, I know all about your religion and I know all of your arguments so why don't you spare us the proselytizing and start presenting the arguments so I can begin refuting them. Your red herrings and sophistry, with respect to the physics quiz, is curious at best.

[Nicomachus]

Minor sidebar here. Though your sentiment is nice to see, why is it (my perception) that women tend to be more religious than men, at least in Christianity? Do you think the same as your female friends - is it just your scientific mindset that makes you different (if thats your perception)?

For the record, I'm a Christian despite the clear and obvious flaws in the Bible. I should start my own sect (cult?)...



You know, and this is my observation, I tend to think this is a myth. I would say women on the whole are not as religious as men, in actuality, but play that role in public. Men tend to be far more dogmatic, from my experience anyway and I have much experience in this matter. Oh and russ, Greek isn't a dead language =).
*Nico

[Nicomachus]

Alpa = (C squared) / radius (r) = Angular velocity of the speed of light
Omega = C / r = frequency R represents lambda

1/omega = time

There is nothing dead about God..

But the light of God you do not walk in..

I have not found any flaws in my Bible but many flaws in mans interpretation of the Bible.

My God is the light of this world, Jesus told you plainly "I am the light" or did you not understand what He was saying.

He also told you only the "Son knows the Father and whom the Son is willing to reveal Him"

One day in the future you will know that even though you think you do not need God, He will still be there for you.

Pi = the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Blah blah blah. What is your point? Oh you are making a neat allusion to your twisted interpretation of the Bible to fit some model you have created using the "Alpha and Omega" phrase. This reminds me of the legendary, but untrue, story of Euler's mathematical proof of God to Diderot; you's is even more ridiculous than the one attributed to Euler. You don't even have a premise and yet you have come to a conclusion based on these statements ... I have seen first year logic students do better than this.

On the whole you are being a sophist. You have twisted and wielded Revelations 1.8 to fit this model, your interpretation. Have you forgotten 2 Peter 1.20 ? Please don't tell me this is the best you've got.
*Nico

[DavidSF]

Dear Nick,
I almost feel sorry for you, Your lack of insight is your weakness. many things come as parrables to you, I am not a poet, but the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven will never be yours unless you cease to be judge and jury, this you were told and you never listened then, or either you have a very bad memory.

I will not toil with argument for the sake of argument, for this seems to be your delight. Your mind is closed. You do not seem to comprehend the beauty of the knowledge of life, of light, of God.. maybe you are still young and need to mature, I do not know, but God knows.

The knowledge of God (She) is your life, Seek her, Love her, and when you find Her and love Her then you will understand..

Only you stop yourself from understanding.
Read the parrables, it will help you see yourself.

David

[Nicomachus]

Dear Nick,
I almost feel sorry for you, Your lack of insight is your weakness. many things come as parrables to you, I am not a poet, but the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven will never be yours unless you cease to be judge and jury, this you were told and you never listened then, or either you have a very bad memory.

I will not toil with argument for the sake of argument, for this seems to be your delight. Your mind is closed. You do not seem to comprehend the beauty of the knowledge of life, of light, of God.. maybe you are still young and need to mature, I do not know, but God knows.

The knowledge of God (She) is your life, Seek her, Love her, and when you find Her and love Her then you will understand..

Only you stop yourself from understanding.
Read the parrables, it will help you see yourself.

David

My name is Nicomachus and don't feel sorry for me, that is just another projection of yours and example of your own delusions of grandeur.

"many things come as parrables to you, I am not a poet, but the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven will never be yours unless you cease to be judge and jury, this you were told and you never listened then, or either you have a very bad memory."

Your ad hominem with respect to my memory is duly unnecessary. Don't be so presumptuous and self-righteous as to think because I know you are providing no arguments that I am some how mentally diminished. Why do you continue this Circulus in Demonstrando? Honestly, I don't care if you are a poet or a garbage-collector, you cannot prove the existence of "the Kingdom of Heaven" by asserting "the Kingdom of Heaven exists." You explicitly suggesting that I must relinguish all rational thought in order to accept your nonsense, such is immoral.

"I will not toil with argument for the sake of argument, for this seems to be your delight. Your mind is closed. You do not seem to comprehend the beauty of the knowledge of life, of light, of God.. maybe you are still young and need to mature, I do not know, but God knows."

No, you just have no intellectual honesty. You make these naked assertions and then cry foul when I criticize them. You were the one bemoaning the lack of intellectual discussion and crowing of your knowledge of intellectual matters but yet you refuse to engage in intellectual discourse. My mind is not closed, I am simply rational, unlike this ad hominem and irrelavent display you have made. It is not fruitful to assert that because I do not accept your position because I am young, which is further presumpuous, or that I am somehow mentally diminished. When you assert this business of "You do not seem to comprehend the beauty of knowledge..." all you are doing is presenting vacuous statements. You attempt to make an emotional plea but that will not work in discourse.

" The knowledge of God (She) is your life, Seek her, Love her, and when you find Her and love Her then you will understand.."

Simply because you have changed the gender of the pronoun you use does not mean I will accept your unjustified positions. Again, this is preaching session, stop proselytizing and be the intellectual you were purporting yourself to be.

"Only you stop yourself from understanding.
Read the parrables, it will help you see yourself."

Blah blah blah. The word is "parables." I have read the Bible and I would claim I am more versed in it than you, I have certainly demonstrated that I have greater understanding of it than you. You did not respond; how do you justify your defiance of 2 Peter 1.20. I think I may speak for everyone when I say that no one cares for your preaching. You entered this thread purporting evidence and arguments, thus far you have presented nothing but naked assertions, fallacies, red herrings, bad poetry, and ad hominems in way of insinuating diminished mental capacity of those who do not fall for your sophistry.
*Nico

[DavidSF]

2 Peter 1:20 (knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation),

Why do ask me about this scripture, I do not interpret the scripture but read what is written there in very very plain English, If you do not beleive what is written then that is your problem..
I do not understand your anger toward me, is this because I understand a little about time, because Jesus warned me when he said "When your time comes, remember they hated me first"..
All I have received from you is aggressive anger statements, and a stuck record which keeps saying "Red herring Red herring Red herring", maybe I am a fisherman???


Go to page 5 and re-read what I have said previously, maybe you will learn something more.. You judge what yourself you do not understand,

Revelation 23
9. Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, "Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife.''
10. And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

As I said before The knowledge of God (She) is your life, Seek her, Love her, and when you find Her and love Her then you will understand..

Here is some proverbs from Proverbs 4

6. Do not forsake her, and she will preserve you; love her, and she will keep you.
7. Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom. And in all your getting, get understanding.
8. Exalt her, and she will promote you; she will bring you honor, when you embrace her.
9. She will place on your head an ornament of grace; a crown of glory she will deliver to you.''

She is the knowledge of God..

[DavidSF]

Proverbs 2
4. If you seek her as silver, and search for her as for hidden treasures;
5. then you will understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God.

What more can I say

[Nicomachus]

2 Peter 1:20 (knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation),

Why do ask me about this scripture, I do not interpret the scripture but read what is written there in very very plain English, If you do not beleive what is written then that is your problem..
I do not understand your anger toward me, is this because I understand a little about time, because Jesus warned me when he said "When your time comes, remember they hated me first"..
All I have received from you is aggressive anger statements, and a stuck record which keeps saying "Red herring Red herring Red herring", maybe I am a fisherman???


Go to page 5 and re-read what I have said previously, maybe you will learn something more.. You judge what yourself you do not understand,

Revelation 23
9. Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, "Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife.''
10. And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

As I said before The knowledge of God (She) is your life, Seek her, Love her, and when you find Her and love Her then you will understand..

Here is some proverbs from Proverbs 4

6. Do not forsake her, and she will preserve you; love her, and she will keep you.
7. Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom. And in all your getting, get understanding.
8. Exalt her, and she will promote you; she will bring you honor, when you embrace her.
9. She will place on your head an ornament of grace; a crown of glory she will deliver to you.''

She is the knowledge of God..

"2 Peter 1:20 (knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation),

Why do ask me about this scripture, I do not interpret the scripture but read what is written there in very very plain English, If you do not beleive what is written then that is your problem.."

Because you are twisting verses to fit your, albeit pointless, model. I realize that you are reading the verses but you are also intrepreting it at will.

"I do not understand your anger toward me, is this because I understand a little about time, because Jesus warned me when he said "When your time comes, remember they hated me first".."

I don't have anger toward you; you are just passive aggressively asserting your unjustified position, though mostly vague and vacuous, as some absolute that only an idiot would not accept. Your position and arguments have no merit.

"All I have received from you is aggressive anger statements, and a stuck record which keeps saying "Red herring Red herring Red herring", maybe I am a fisherman???"

Well possibly if you were educated you would realize why I keep calling you on red-herrings. That has been your tactic all along and the more you continue this strategy the more I will point it out.

I read your magical page 5 and it contained nothing but naked assertions, unjustified conclusions, and circulus in demonstrando, among other things. You seem to suggest that a proper deductive argument takes whatever you want to be true and makes it true.

"You judge what yourself you do not understand,

Revelation 23
9. Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, "Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife.''
10. And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,"

Do not be so presumptuous as to assume what I do not understand. I understand your religion and its text very well. It is you who are demonstrating and unashamed ignonrance of it. Have you no intellectual honesty, sir? This verse you have presented is simply part and parcel of your "I cannot defend criticism but I can preach as if I am a broken record" formula.

"As I said before The knowledge of God (She) is your life, Seek her, Love her, and when you find Her and love Her then you will understand.."

Circulus in ... Do I really have to write it out again? Let me ask you this: Do you know what it means to assume your conclusions and if so do you realize the problem with that? This is very basic elementary stuff for me, why are you having such a hard time with it? Bring something more challenging you are just sounding like any run of the mill dogmatic theist.
*Nico

[Nicomachus]

Proverbs 2
4. If you seek her as silver, and search for her as for hidden treasures;
5. then you will understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God.

What more can I say


I don't know. You haven't begun to say anything.
*Nico

-- Also, if you would like I will make a rigorous examination of your "page 5" statements and show them to be what I said previously and will demonstrate how you are blatantly defying 2 Peter 1.20, which is to say nothing of the lack of merit of your crackpot interpretations.

[DavidSF]

Mathew 10
25. "It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household!
26. "Therefore do not fear them. For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.


The knowledge of God is for those who love God and genuinely seek it, You do not know God nor his form.

For this reason you do not understand me. If you loved God you would seek his knowledge and I would know you, and you would know me.

But I do not know you, and because you do not know me you will remain
un-enlightened so to speak.

I will leave you with the following thoughts for the day.

Mathew 7
5. "Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.
6. "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.
7. "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
8. "For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

God Bless you all
Hopefully somebody heard the truth about God

Dear janitor,
the scripture is built on a process called witnessing, this you experienced and you will take on board the information I gave you.
For this reason you now know where to look, and it will profit you.
David.

[olde drunk]

first off, how does any of this nonsense prove the existence of god?? and, who said god created the earth, heaven and hell??

i would prefer to accept the thesis that there ain't no heaven or hell and that the earth is an energy projection available to us as a playground to hone our skills for manipulating our energy.

i submit, picture your most blessed image of heaven; now, how long before you are bored?? hell fails the same logic test. what purpose would it serve (for anyone or any god) to have a 'soul' spend eternity in a hell.

within creation we go to many, many worlds to expand our consciousness and that of the universe. these are playgrounds where we play games, respectfully. i hate to say it, but as a fallen (very faithful) christian, i have found that most continue to believe because they either do not want to think for themselves or they have bought the idea that they will be punished if they do.

i assure you, being a heretic is very safe! i have been one for neigh on 35 years and my life has the same twists and turns as believers. i do like, however, the insight gained by seeing how i made things happen and my evolution into a loving, peaceful being.

i have said it before, the bible has been corrupted by well intentioned translators and interpreters. a nice historical book that can not be trusted as a handbook for life.

you can have my pearls of wisdom because i do not consider ANY of creation to be 'swine'. trust me, there are no greater or lesser souls in the universe; only explorers. honestly, i prefer to be a happy go lucky seeker of experience.

let the games begin!!!! we don't need no stinkin religion!

love&peace,
olde drunk

[BoulderHead]

Hello DavidSF,
Here is what I’m seeing from reading your posts;

Your mind is not not focused on the kingdom of the heavens, because of this you cannot understand where I come from.
Translation; you do not believe as I believe, therefore you do not believe as I believe.

One day in the future you will know that even though you think you do not need God, He will still be there for you.
Needing God is emotional, whereas having conclusive proof of the existence of God is not. Don’t confuse the two. We all have emotional needs, so if you want to be cerebral about the matter it would be wise to have an appreciation for the difference.

I have not found any flaws in my Bible but many flaws in mans interpretation of the Bible.
How many flaws have you found in your own interpretation of the Bible? :smile:

I almost feel sorry for you, Your lack of insight is your weakness.
I have long contended that Xians cannot be so forgiving as atheists. After all, it is required to hold nonbelievers merit the eternal damnation a loving God has planned for them. As an atheist I can honestly extend to you my full sympathy, without reservation or caveat.

Only you stop yourself from understanding.
Translation; you too can believe what I believe if only you desire it deeply enough.

As I said before The knowledge of God (She) is your life, Seek her, Love her, and when you find Her and love Her then you will understand.
Translation; you too can believe what I believe if only you desire it deeply enough.

The knowledge of God is for those who love God and genuinely seek it, You do not know God nor his form.
Translation; you too can believe what I believe if only you desire it deeply enough.
Additionally, the failing is all your own doing (hence my inability to truly be a forgiving human being).

For this reason you do not understand me. If you loved God you would seek his knowledge and I would know you, and you would know me.
Translation; you too can believe what I believe if only you desire it deeply enough.

But I do not know you, and because you do not know me you will remain
un-enlightened so to speak.
Translation; you do not believe as I believe, therefore you do not believe as I believe. Additionally, I am enlightened for believing what I believe whereas you are found lacking.

[Nicomachus]

At the request of David I will now present an informal criticism of David's assertions from page 5 of this thread as he has offered it as proof of his erroneous positon which I have previously offered criticism. All quotes contained herein belong to David unless otherwise noted.

Who does the will of God, What is the will of God? Jesus knew these answers and God the Father already knows these answers.
If you dont know these answers you walk in fear and darkness.. You walk in sin..


Circulus in Demonstrando. Petitio Prinicpii. These are only a few of David's tactics.. What God? You cannot discuss these claims about God before you define God and prove its existence. You are simply assuming the conclusions you have come to, and you were going on about logic before, possibly you should study it more. Citing that someone is walking in fear because they do not accept your argument is pedantic.

Jesus said "The Father knows the Son and the Son knows the Father" which means simply that the Father knew and could read the knowledge thoughts of Jesus and those thoughts revealed to the Father that Jesus new the form of the Father.
Because it is the Fathers Will that we come to the full knowledge of the Father the Holy Spirit (the light of this world).
The Father is spirit.. Your Life force is spirit.. Your brothers Life force is spirit.. If you hate your brothers spirt you hate Gods Spirit..

Argumentum ad verecundiam. Also, this is irrelavent.

The spirit of God turns the earth that you may have day and night and the seasons..
Jesus walked on water to reveal the living God to you in this way he reveals the Father (He walked with the law of God in his heart and mind for He new and loved his Father) who is the fundamental Holy Spirit POWER of the universe.


Blah blah blah. Prove it. And if you'd like, please define these concepts you are taking for granted as that is an important part of proving these statements are true.

God is the fundamental foundation of light itself (GRAVITY energy)..
Come to the full knowledge of that light, and then you will find and come to the full knowledge of your God the Father and your own Spirit.


Strange equivocation. No justification, petitio principii; so on and so forth. Nothing of substance here.

You were a part of the Spirit of God before you were born, and you will be a part of the Spirit of God Spirit when you say you die (You lived before and you will live after, God willing), and for now while you here on earth you are the Spirit of God in the flesh, For Jesus told you, is it not written 'You are a Gods'.
Please understand and dont walk lower than the animals.. May God Bless you and forgive your ignorance..


Are you done preaching? Prove it. As well, stop being such so belligerant. You cannot call someone ignorant because they do not accept these non-axiomatic and ridiculous claims.

You want proof.....

The definition of space-time, can it be seperated from gravity or light? do you know your fourth dimensional motion (velocity) through the heavens? do you know the length of your second? do you truly know the real processes of electromagnetic propagation? much of this is still probably mystical and called phenomena to you.



Red herring. Some weird allusions to Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. As well, if you think "things" are not phenomena then I think you need an education. As well, please everyone notice the Delusions of Grandeur the knower or ultimate reality is displaying.

Why is the kingdom of heaven within you?

Is all you can offer a barrage of question begging and circular reasoninig? Ok, well let's see what other hair-brain concoctions you have to offer.

did you not know that inside the atom is an inverted mirror of what is occurring within the heavens.
Jesus said "all things come to them as parables because their is no root in them"
For this reason you do not know that the square root of the electron compton wavelength is, one over your total combination of galactic velocity vectors.


You sir have just violated 2 Peter 1.20. Are you not ashamed at your blasphemy? I know where this reference comes from, it is the parable of the sower, and you have decimated the verses and have applied a perverse and unwarranted interpretation, which is explicitly forbidden. Here is the verse reproduced


Mar 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:
Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.
Mar 4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?
Mar 4:14 The sower soweth the word.
Mar 4:15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.
Mar 4:16 And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;
Mar 4:17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.


David, I must say I am appalled. This verse is not dicussing "square roots;" you are being heretical. Here is David Guzicks standard and correct intepretation:


Parable of the sower explained

a. Jesus considered this parable as essential to understanding His other parable

b. The planted word has one of four fates:

i . No effect whatsoever, because of their hardness of heart and blinding work of Satan (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)
ii. Immediate reception but soon stumbling as soon as tribulation or persecution arises and the shallowness of their heart is made evident
iii. Planted well, but choked out by the cares of this world; the ground is too fertile and will accommodate anything
iv. Planted well and fruitful in varying measure, because the word is accepted

c. The fate of the crop does not rest on the sower or the seed, but on how the seed is received

No one is discussing galactic velocity vectors, stop being ridiculous.

Einstein also understood that three dimensional geometry could not describe space time, as his theory of relativity predicts.



Argumentum ad verecundiam. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Red herring. In other words, blah blah blah.

Atomic mass can modify space time can it not? If it can then space time must be able to modify atomic mass structure. which says that space time is not as empty as you may think. Its full of God...

Wow, two non sequiturs in one assertion. Also I suppose you have sprinkled a bit of Non causa pro causa.

If mass is convertible to energy then energy is convertible to mass.


Strictly speaking, you have committed the fallacy of converting a conditional. Although, I contend this is a irrelavent. However, I must comment that I think you are alluding to either a Non causa pro causa or simply a non sequitur, perhaps both.

Your God is Energy, the very structure of space time which we can modulate and send waves through, all frequencies which travel at a singular speed, for this reason he sees everything.

God is the carrier of all sources of electromagnetic light, he even bought my advice to you.

And you wanted proof,

It is all around you. But this you see, but alas you dont see. God forgive You.

Blah blah blah. No substance.


I've responded to his other post on that page so I do not think another is warranted. So we see, David's "proof" is still nothing more than many naked assertions and a session of proselytization.
*Nico

[DavidSF]

Nico,
If God were to stand in front of you and said here I am.. You would not recognise Him.. You would not know Him.. You would attempt accuse Him also, as they attempted to accuse Jesus..

Luke 11:
52. "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.''
53. And as He said these things to them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to assail Him vehemently, and to cross-examine Him about many things,
54. lying in wait for Him, and seeking to catch Him in something He might say, that they might accuse Him.


If a man does 10,000 things right and appears to you do something thing wrong, you are so ready to crucify him.

Nico, there is a hatred for the truth deeply seated within you, It is possessing you and you cant see it.

I dont think there is any cure for this..

Good luck
David

[DavidSF]

Nico for your peace of mind my sins / blasphemes will be forgiven me.
Mark 3:
28. "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter;
29. "but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation''.

For your information, God is Spirit, a transparent like fluid, which is like crystal clear water, and which fills all of space-time and matter.

Revelation 22:
1. And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb.

The Spirit of God is governed by laws which control its use and these laws should not be broken, these are the laws of God, laws which man has not yet understood or perceived. These are the fundamental laws governing light and the structure of gravity and time itself.

Jesus did not walk on water because he wanted to be a smart alec, but to draw your attention to the laws of gravity, the structure of time which he understood.

Jesus the son of God reveals his Spirit, and reveals his Father in
John 8:
12. Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.''

The process of converting energy to matter is a living process, look at the sand on the beaches and under the sea, it it not shells once living creatures (life).

You yourself Nico are a part of this process, don't deny your life, but come to understand what you are.

Because God is the (creative) energy of the universe, and a clear transparent fluid (the living waters) he cannot be seen because he is transparent, but everything exists only because He exists, and wants to reveal himself and his laws to you, and everyone else.

Don't fight against what will ultimately be revealed, but enjoy the challenge because it is not magic, but part of the laws governing light, electromagnetism and atomic behaviour.
Put the time in to study this subject and you will give time back to God, after all he has given time to you that you might live, do this, and you will see God within your own mind, clear as crystal.

That is enough for now.

Peaceful thoughts
David

[olde drunk]

DavidSF:

where's the meat? you offer not proof, only quotes from misguided men that you are affraid to question.

some of what they say may be accurate. what investigation have you done to believe that 100% of these quotes are worthwhile?

as said in one quote, they are SEEDS to be planted into our psyche so that we THINK! that's all.

we should think about the ideas and reach our own conclusions. we can not, and should not unconditionally accept the explanation of any other person.

if there is a god, he provided freewill, use it!

love&peace,
olde drunk

[Nicomachus]

Nico,
If God were to stand in front of you and said here I am.. You would not recognise Him.. You would not know Him.. You would attempt accuse Him also, as they attempted to accuse Jesus..

Luke 11:
52. "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.''
53. And as He said these things to them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to assail Him vehemently, and to cross-examine Him about many things,
54. lying in wait for Him, and seeking to catch Him in something He might say, that they might accuse Him.


If a man does 10,000 things right and appears to you do something thing wrong, you are so ready to crucify him.

Nico, there is a hatred for the truth deeply seated within you, It is possessing you and you cant see it.

I dont think there is any cure for this..

Good luck
David

David I don't have any hatred for the truth; I'm just tired of your nonsense. You cannot defend *any* criticism so you resort to attacking me and spouting verses which you have yet to demonstrate the veracity. I have, in turn, demonstrated that I am more knowledgeable about this Bible you keep quoting. All you do is talk about "Woe is Nico who is going to burn in Hell but I forgive him" blah blah blah. Look, if you want to be a mindless idiot and be subserviant to nonsense then that is fine by me, but you came to this forum under the guise of seeking intellectual discussion but you have offered nothing but attempts at proselytizing.

The problem is that I am not swayed by ridiculous emotional pleas and youth-minister level discourse. I do not accept the god-concept as meaningful so when you say "You wouldn't recognize God" blah blah blah "God will forgive for your ignorance" it doesn't mean anything to me. I don't care. Provide intellectual discourse and rebuttal and dispense with this nosense. You are not attempting to "seek truth" or whatever b.s. you read in a fortune cookie; you are simply trying to have an indoctrination session and run from any criticism.

DO you know what circular reasoning, or any of the other fallacies I recognized in your argument? Do you realize you cannot come to proper or meaningful conclusions when you commit these fallacies. Also, you have NOT justified your blasphemy by disregarding 2 Peter 1.20.

In turn, I think you are deeply indoctrinated and wield the Sword of Irrationality with such might that there is no reasoning with you.
*Nico

[Nicomachus]

Nico for your peace of mind my sins / blasphemes will be forgiven me.
Mark 3:
28. "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter;
29. "but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation''.

For your information, God is Spirit, a transparent like fluid, which is like crystal clear water, and which fills all of space-time and matter.

Revelation 22:
1. And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb.

The Spirit of God is governed by laws which control its use and these laws should not be broken, these are the laws of God, laws which man has not yet understood or perceived. These are the fundamental laws governing light and the structure of gravity and time itself.

Jesus did not walk on water because he wanted to be a smart alec, but to draw your attention to the laws of gravity, the structure of time which he understood.

Jesus the son of God reveals his Spirit, and reveals his Father in
John 8:
12. Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.''

The process of converting energy to matter is a living process, look at the sand on the beaches and under the sea, it it not shells once living creatures (life).

You yourself Nico are a part of this process, don't deny your life, but come to understand what you are.

Because God is the (creative) energy of the universe, and a clear transparent fluid (the living waters) he cannot be seen because he is transparent, but everything exists only because He exists, and wants to reveal himself and his laws to you, and everyone else.

Don't fight against what will ultimately be revealed, but enjoy the challenge because it is not magic, but part of the laws governing light, electromagnetism and atomic behaviour.
Put the time in to study this subject and you will give time back to God, after all he has given time to you that you might live, do this, and you will see God within your own mind, clear as crystal.

That is enough for now.

Peaceful thoughts
David

Blah blah blah. Red herring. Look, this does not justify your violation of 2 Peter 1.20. You used your blasphemy of 2 Peter 1.20 in order to come to a conclusion, which in itself was ridiculous, and such is erroneous and therefore all conclusions you have made following from this reasoning must be erroneous. That is quite enough though you are correct. David you are common.
*Nico

[russ_watters]

You know, and this is my observation, I tend to think this is a myth. I would say women on the whole are not as religious as men, in actuality, but play that role in public. Men tend to be far more dogmatic, from my experience anyway and I have much experience in this matter. *Nico Well - I do see (again, just my perception) that there are a lot more "Sunday Christian" women than men. They dress up nice and go to church because thats what they are expected to do even though they have no real beliefs.Oh and russ, Greek isn't a dead language =). Well ok then, to put a finer point on it, they are translations from a dead language.

[Nicomachus]

Well - I do see (again, just my perception) that there are a lot more "Sunday Christian" women than men. They dress up nice and go to church because thats what they are expected to do even though they have no real beliefs. Well ok then, to put a finer point on it, they are translations from a dead language.

Now that, I agree with.
*Nico

[DavidSF]

Dear Nico and even to you olde drunk,
If you had worked and studied hard for twenty years and developed a scientific level of understanding which is well beyond what is being taught today in the institutions, would you give it away indiscriminately on a forum such as this, to people such as yourselves.
I think not..
I am at a level of understanding and already corporately moving using this universal scientific knowledge gained.
Currently my company's website contains some information on this unique information, which you ask from me as proof.
I now have a scientific research team who work with me, in the area of atomic physics, and universal power and energy.

My faithfull patience has been rewarded as was promised in
Mathew 6:
33. "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.

I suggest you work in the field (reaping) and earn your own wages and subsequent respect from God, as I did.

John 4:
36. "And he who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life, that both he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together.
37. "For in this the saying is true: `One sows and another reaps.'
38. "I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored, and you have entered into their labors.''

It unrealistic and unfair for you to ask me to give to you my wages, but it is fair that you earn your own wages.. believe me the job offer is out there, but you have to want to work for those wages.

Matthew 20
1. "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.
2. "Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard.
3. "And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
4. "and said to them, `You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.' And they went.

There are many people in the world who are still babes in the eyes of God, unable to eat of solid food, but live on the milk of the word only, and there are many churches which only teach this type of doctrine.
If these babes are given meat too quickly and before they are weaned and made ready for solid food they vomit it out, unable to digest it.

For this reason I suggest you consider the following statements:

Mathew 5:
20. "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven".

And

Mathew 23:
13. "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in".

I cannot make it clearer to you all than this.. Think and reason between yourselves.. Religion based knowedge is a scientific wonderworld and not just the old church teachings.

The best Bible is the New King James. Unadulterated(a direct translation from the scrolls), is written in modern english and the numbers are in conventional format (Very important for researching).

Nico ask others what they think, give them all a chance to say something, dont hog the channel so to speak, be a gentleman. After all it is supposed to be an open scientific forum.

And Nico please dont call me, or imply that I am an idiot!! I have never insulted you in this way, and for a man who says "I am more knowledgeable about this Bible you keep quoting" you are getting very close to the line here..
Mathew 5:
22. "But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, `Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, `You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire".

David.

[BoulderHead]

Dear Nico and even to you olde drunk,
If you had worked and studied hard for twenty years and developed a scientific level of understanding which is well beyond what is being taught today in the institutions, would you give it away indiscriminately on a forum such as this, to people such as yourselves.
I think not..
Well, then may I suggest the next time you don’t bother with statements like;
Proof
You want proof.....
It is all around you. But this you see, but alas you dont see….
I am at a level of understanding and already corporately moving using this universal scientific knowledge gained.
Currently my company's website contains some information on this unique information, which you ask from me as proof.
I now have a scientific research team who work with me, in the area of atomic physics, and universal power and energy.
Translation; if you knew what I knew, you’d know what I know.

Not really very helpful, is it? :biggrin:

[edit: would you be so kind as to provide a link to your website? I would like to come over for a visit]

[DavidSF]

BoulderHead,

I did not come here to promote myself, but to encourage others to look beyond the conventional viewpoint of scripture, I try to open other peoples eyes and minds.

I have an obvious interest in other peoples views on God, and your forum subject intrigued me. I have met many people with my viewpoint toward scripture, all are highly skilled and qualified people. I hope you all have the strength of characture to be independant in thought towards this very subject, but dont ask the church, they dont understand. So I repeat myself.
Mathew 23:
13. "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in".

I have only scratched the surface of this knowledge base, one day you may find yourself working on a subject or project gleaned from scripture based knowledge.

I have sent you a message on how to find the website..

David

[loseyourname]

I did not come here to promote myself, but to encourage others to look beyond the conventional viewpoint of scripture, I try to open other peoples eyes and minds.

You came to the wrong place. Most of us could care less about scripture. Maybe you should try a religious forum.

[DavidSF]

Me thinks loseyourname maybe in the wrong area of the forum,
Did you loseyourway.

[Nicomachus]

Dear Nico and even to you olde drunk,
If you had worked and studied hard for twenty years and developed a scientific level of understanding which is well beyond what is being taught today in the institutions, would you give it away indiscriminately on a forum such as this, to people such as yourselves.
I think not..
I am at a level of understanding and already corporately moving using this universal scientific knowledge gained.
Currently my company's website contains some information on this unique information, which you ask from me as proof.
I now have a scientific research team who work with me, in the area of atomic physics, and universal power and energy.

My faithfull patience has been rewarded as was promised in
Mathew 6:
33. "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.

I suggest you work in the field (reaping) and earn your own wages and subsequent respect from God, as I did.

John 4:
36. "And he who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life, that both he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together.
37. "For in this the saying is true: `One sows and another reaps.'
38. "I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored, and you have entered into their labors.''

It unrealistic and unfair for you to ask me to give to you my wages, but it is fair that you earn your own wages.. believe me the job offer is out there, but you have to want to work for those wages.

Matthew 20
1. "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.
2. "Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard.
3. "And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
4. "and said to them, `You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.' And they went.

There are many people in the world who are still babes in the eyes of God, unable to eat of solid food, but live on the milk of the word only, and there are many churches which only teach this type of doctrine.
If these babes are given meat too quickly and before they are weaned and made ready for solid food they vomit it out, unable to digest it.

For this reason I suggest you consider the following statements:

Mathew 5:
20. "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven".

And

Mathew 23:
13. "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in".

I cannot make it clearer to you all than this.. Think and reason between yourselves.. Religion based knowedge is a scientific wonderworld and not just the old church teachings.

The best Bible is the New King James. Unadulterated(a direct translation from the scrolls), is written in modern english and the numbers are in conventional format (Very important for researching).

Nico ask others what they think, give them all a chance to say something, dont hog the channel so to speak, be a gentleman. After all it is supposed to be an open scientific forum.

And Nico please dont call me, or imply that I am an idiot!! I have never insulted you in this way, and for a man who says "I am more knowledgeable about this Bible you keep quoting" you are getting very close to the line here..
Mathew 5:
22. "But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, `Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, `You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire".

David.

Blah blah blah David. You still refuse to respond to criticism? Your rebuttal is that you have some secret knowledge that you don't want the world to know about ... huh? Make some sense. None of that justifies your violation of 2 Peter 1.20 NOR can it ever possibly justify the NUMEROUS fallacies you have committed. I went to your company's website and it, frankly, contains more information on Perth than anything relavent to this thread. The argument "Because Pi=The circumference of a circle, God must necessarily exist" is not sufficient. And before you cry foul, this is the same sort of reasoning you have been using.

As well, I never called you an idiot; I simply said if you wanted to be a mindless-idiot then that is fine with me. But you sir have made many insults to me. You have thus far called me ignorant, afraid, given me "pity" and so on simply because I do not accept your absurd and ridiculous position. Don't threaten me with this hellfire nonsense because I frankly don't care.
Furthermore, I am not "hogging the channel" everyone is free to post. This is your defense, I am writing too often so you must be right? You have not offered one thing of substance. Granted, you have made assertions but they have been riddled with fallacies you refuse to concede, defend or make any attempt at rebuttal, much less acknowledge your erroneous statements.

If you would like to discuss the Bible then that is fine; I have demonstrated that I know much more about it than you do. You seem to take some kind of linguistic nominalism stance towards the Bible though, very odd. Why do you think the NKJV is the "best version" of the Bible, because you speak English and they changed Unicorn to Ox. You know why that is? Because a unicorn is a fairy tale creature and they wouldn't want to have fairy tale creatures in the book of ultimate reality. Though, I know much more about this subject than that but I do not know why you bring it up. One would think the original language would be the most correct, and by extension better, version. I suppose not because you don't know Greek or Hebrew and so you would not be able to cling to your Delusions of Grandeur at being the knower of ultimate reality if the clearest description of that reality were not written in a language that you know. Not only do you suffer from Delusions of Grander but you are an elitist!

Look, your delusions of Corporate Elitism or whatever the hell you are going on about will not save you. I have presented intellectual discourse but you only provide sermons and respond to criticism with condescending and pedantic attacks, with your slave mentality, threatening me with hellfire and taking "pity upon me." In your 30 or so years of scientific discovery, as you say, I suppose you have not taken the time to become an adult and to learn to reason as a man should, not as a subserviant child.
*Nico

[DavidSF]

Nico, I dont threaten you, because I did not write those passages within the scripture, is this maybe your own concience speaking..

We are not acheiving anything or getting anywhere, lets just leave it at that, and agree to dissagree, Im happy with that fact, and others can make up their own minds.

I appologise if you feel I may have insulted you, if I did it was not intentional, I was probably generalising considering the amount of terrorism and wars which are in this world..

Keep safe
David.

[DavidSF]

I appologise to anyone who may feel I have insulted them, if you were insulted it was not intended, the scripture itself is very pointed and can easily be taken far too personally.

David

[olde drunk]

gee, if i worked 20 years and found a profound answer to save the world "would i give it away"????

ABSOLUTE - LY!!!! (my fav booze).

it's the christian thing to do. did christ charge for his sermons? just because the apostles and their followers began charging for blessings and indulgences doesn't mean it was the correct thing to do.

give it away! you can't take it with you! or is it so mystical that even you do not know how to explain the information you have?

regardless, i don't pay no stinkin donation or tithe or contribution cause organized religion is the biggest biz on the planet.

love&peace,
olde drunk

[DavidSF]

Good on you, olde drunk,

But can't you see what happened, Jesus tried so hard to give it away to whom ever wanted it, but almost no one listened, they thought he was superior and a threat to them somehow, he became a man hated without a cause, why? He only had love in his heart, and the knowledge of God to give us all.. Your a smart and experienced man capable of independant thought judge this for yourself.. But we have a Bible because a few men saw and had the guts to see the value in what Jesus said..

I wish it were that simple that I could just give it all away, but alas, it would be abused by some, such that it would not nescessarily save the world but could be used to destroy men and maybe the world..

Yes God exists but the system has a built in safeguard, for all our sakes, for this is the reason that power is only available to the disciplined (disciples).

I do know how to explain the information (gift) I have. but under the circumstances tell me, who do I give the information to, tell me who can be trusted. Loyal and true brothers are so hard to find..

Love&Peace
David

[olde drunk]

man's very nature is GOOD! (he is in the likeness of god). we only see the negative when we believe in the evil of man.

as you BELIEVE, so shall it be.

love&peace,
olde drunk

[Nicomachus]

Nico, I dont threaten you, because I did not write those passages within the scripture, is this maybe your own concience speaking..

We are not acheiving anything or getting anywhere, lets just leave it at that, and agree to dissagree, Im happy with that fact, and others can make up their own minds.

I appologise if you feel I may have insulted you, if I did it was not intentional, I was probably generalising considering the amount of terrorism and wars which are in this world..

Keep safe
David.

There you go again with your self-righteousness. No it is not my "conscience" talking, it is you and your nonsense. Defend yourself. You entered this thread with only the intention of proselytizing; why have you not responded to any criticism? I don't care about your irrelavent and emotional Bible verses, they have no relavence. Now you are going on some tangent about terrorism. Nonsense. All you have are vacuous arguments and you try to distract others away from your erroneous assertions with all these kind of statements. Don't be so intellectually dishonest; defend the criticism or concede.
*Nico

[dschouten]

OLDE DRUNK:
man's very nature is GOOD! (he is in the likeness of god). we only see the negative when we believe in the evil of man.
as you BELIEVE, so shall it be.


First, I must tell you how I much I empathise with you and your attempts to at least broach the topic reasonably with the oft-debunked wierdo DavidSF.

Nonetheless, the above quote is a farce, and shouldn't be allowed to pass by without reproach. Consider, if man's nature is good, whence this belief in the evil of man? Specifically, who is doing the believing? I can only assume that man is believing in the evil of man...which begs the question, why would a good being invent a belief in its own evil?

[dschouten]

I don't care about your irrelavent and emotional Bible verses, they have no relavence.

Of course you do, otherwise this forum wouldn't even exist...

For all the atheists out there, we sure spend a lot of time talking about God.

[Nicomachus]

Of course you do, otherwise this forum wouldn't even exist...

For all the atheists out there, we sure spend a lot of time talking about God.


dschouten, no you must understand what I mean. I meant that I do not care about the particular Bible verses he recited pertaining to emotional pleas and speaking of me going to hell or being ignorant. The verse about the Sower and so forth are perfectly fine for this discussion. Quoting random verses though, I find irrelavent and unproductive.
*Nico

[dschouten]

dschouten, no you must understand what I mean. I meant that I do not care about the particular Bible verses he recited pertaining to emotional pleas and speaking of me going to hell or being ignorant. The verse about the Sower and so forth are perfectly fine for this discussion. Quoting random verses though, I find irrelavent and unproductive.
*Nico
Ok, sounds good.

[DavidSF]

Nico,
Why do you seem so intent on trying to prove that there is no God? if this is your intent, then who in the world could say anything that could change your mind.
Tell us, define for us, what is the truth for you Nico, what would you call proof of God's existance.

Just so that you can complain again about my irrelavent information, this is the truth in my eyes.

Proverbs 6:
23. For the commandment is a lamp, and the law is light; reproofs of instruction are the way of life.

David

[olde drunk]

Nico,
Why do you seem so intent on trying to prove that there is no God? if this is your intent, then who in the world could say anything that could change your mind.
Tell us, define for us, what is the truth for you Nico, what would you call proof of God's existance.

Just so that you can complain again about my irrelavent information, this is the truth in my eyes.

Proverbs 6:
23. For the commandment is a lamp, and the law is light; reproofs of instruction are the way of life.

David
if i may butt in? lol

no one said they didn't believe in god.

we simply found your blind faith foolish. quoting the bible, to people who dismiss it as a source of valid information, is fruitless.

to my satisfaction, i have proved, to myself, that there is something. i would rather discuss the nature of reality with an atheist than a bible banger. we can expand our beliefs without trying to change the other.

i do not believe that there is a PATH. we each have our own personal path that leads us toward fulfillment.

in reality, no one can prove anything. we each must find our truth.

dschouten
which begs the question, why would a good being invent a belief in its own evil?

who knows? is it possible that that the church elders said/did this to control the faithful? in other words, you don't understand what we know, and BECAUSE you have the capability to do evil you must believe us. and, oh yeah, it is this evil nature that will deny you heaven, BUT, listen to us and we will show you how to gain heaven.

oh, what is heaven? gee, let's see. ummmm, it is a glorious place where you can have any and everything you wish; even 69 virgins. so? is it worthwhile listening to and obeying us?

does this sound like the best marketing scheme, EVER?

that's my guess. since rejecting traditional beliefs, ironically, i have found a better world. think real hard. don't you feel better when you do something nice and worse when you do something wrong? these feelings, for me, bespeak the true nature of man.

perhaps an oversimplification, but it works.

love&peace,
olde drunk

[DavidSF]

Ye olde drunk,
Have you not caught on yet, cant you see where I am coming from, I am the exact opposite to a Bible banger, if you went to the church with what I have said, they would throw you out, big time man.

We have an invisible all powerful energy (God 'For thine is the kingdom, the POWER and the glory forever') which works according to the rules of electrical and the electromagnetic energy laws of nature (he created all things even electrical energy 'comprendeee'). And the fundamental structure of space time itself. (have you heard the biblical expression 'Sit at the right hand of God' do you know the right hand rule for electromagnetic energy).

Please dont tell me the creator of the universe cannot see the future and has not had a hand in our current day terminolgy.

I have already said that the church doctrine is inadequate in that:
Mathew 23:
13. "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

I tried to represent to you all an alternate scientific viewpoint, It has personally led me into an incredible technical insite into the functioning of our atomic universe.

All I am saying is look for yourselves, dont just take my word for it. It is enough that I draw your attention to it.

I know that your first impressions are of immense dis-belief, but you are all smart enough (I hope) to have the intelligence to understand that you should ask this question within your own minds:
Why over over thousands of years of blood, sweat and tears was the Bible written (Inspired by God) for you all, if it was not for your complete mental development, so that you could finally see in your mind and know your creator (Father), and understand the fundamental energy laws of the universe itself (after all God is the universe and these laws, he cannot break his own laws).

Step outside of the conventional church doctrines and look beyond the milk of the word.

Step into the knowledge that opens up the heavens to you. I cant make it any clearer for you all.

Good luck and God bless.

David.

[Janitor]

the Bible written (Inspired by God)- DavidSF

Some Believers go so far as to say that God essentially dictated the original words of the Bible directly to the human writers. Then, given the scripture which says something like "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever," it follows that God also speaks directly to modern Believers as well.

A challenge for David or any other Believer: Post for us the lead headline of the New York Times for July 1, 2004. Now you may well object on the basis that God doesn't want just anybody knowing such a piece of information ahead of time. If that is your objection, go ahead and post an anagram of the headline. (Example: OSAMA CAPTURED can be converted to the anagram AAACDEMOPSTU)

Or alternatively, tell us why God refuses to do this for you.

[loseyourname]

does this sound like the best marketing scheme, EVER?


It's an incredible con job when you think of it, to believe something now in exchange for life after death. Even corporations with all their reward systems don't try to make it posthumous. -- Gloria Steinem

[DavidSF]

How many people have had a premonition, given usually for the purpose of self preservation, to protect you, some even say I have a guardian angel.

We all receive visions and other information, in dreams or awake etc, a form of deja-vu, but most people have been told by others who dont receive much, it is just mere coincidences.

It doesn't matter whether asleep or awake, it still happens. It is in fact the ability of the mind to communicate, as a sort of extra sensory perception, prayer is a perfected example of this type of communication.

As far as the New York Times for July 1, 2004 goes, All I received is "Though shall not tempt the Lord thy God", Sorry.

David.

[loseyourname]

God still speaks to you in Elizabethan English?

[DavidSF]

It is not me who speaks:
John 6:
56. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

[NeutronStar]

If God would buy me a Mercedes Benz that'd be proof enough for me. :biggrin:

[eureka]

Just a thought.. How could you explain the intricate design of the DNA? which is the signature of all living things.

if there's a design, there should be a designer.

[NeutronStar]

if there's a design, there should be a designer.
This is only true if the design is pre-planned. There's no logical reason to believe that DNA or living things were necessarily pre-planned.

[Nicomachus]

DavdSF, tsk tsk.

2 Peter 1.20: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation. "

Oh, eureka, that's funny. I love the teleological, its so ridiculous. Anyway, you are begging the question so I don't see your point. heh.
*Nico

[Russell E. Rierson]

Here is an interesting/strange proof:


http://www.talkaboutreligion.com/group/alt.religion.new/messages/3521.html


Mary Baker Eddy founded the church in 1879 in Boston
as a "scientific" Church. Her "science of God"
amounted to the following:

1. "God is mind"
2. "Heaven is a mental state"
3. God is a perfect man with a perfect mind
4. There is no perfect man on Earth

Now, bear in mind, this is the first religion in
history to make an actual scientific statement about
what God is: It says, "God is mind".

[Janitor]

A good ten years ago I listened to quite a few of Bob Larson's Christian radio programs. That was back when his format was to invite people to phone him and discuss or debate his particular brand of Christianity. (I drifted away when his program evolved into on-the-air exorcisms.) If I am remembering correctly, he was especially abusive of Christian Science, in addition to Mormonism and maybe Jehovah's Witness.

[DavidSF]

Originally Posted by eureka
(Just a thought.. How could you explain the intricate design of the DNA? which is the signature of all living things.

if there's a design, there should be a designer.)

The true motions within the heavens for all atomic matter is spiral (not circular), from our relative perspective we incorrectly assume circular motion. The solar system is not stationary and the universal does not revolve around us, we move at high velocity through the universe.

For this reason the spiral DNA pattern is produced in the format it is. The earth spirals around other bodies, for example the Sun. The created DNA cell pattern is therefore principlely designed, following the laws of the main spiral path, and the smaller refinements are inserted by more local daily spiral influences.

The laws constructing the spiral design are written in the scripture, The designer is God as he is the velocity/energy of these Spiral laws.

David

[DavidSF]

Dear Nico,
Go home and study, you dont have the intelligence to be able to answer my own personal questions let alone the question others. eureka asked a very intelligent question and you thought it was funny and ridiculous, he deserved a sensible answer.
I hope everybody has the intelligence to see you Nico for what you are.
There is much to learn by all and we learn by listening, in this way we become wise.

Proverbs 1:
5. A wise man will hear and increase learning, and a man of understanding will attain wise counsel,

David

[eureka]

Thank you for the support DavidSF :)

[dschouten]

The true motions within the heavens for all atomic matter is spiral (not circular), from our relative perspective we incorrectly assume circular motion. The solar system is not stationary and the universal does not revolve around us, we move at high velocity through the universe.

For this reason the spiral DNA pattern is produced in the format it is. The earth spirals around other bodies, for example the Sun. The created DNA cell pattern is therefore principlely designed, following the laws of the main spiral path, and the smaller refinements are inserted by more local daily spiral influences.

David

The nonsensical drivel you continually perpetuate shouldn't be dignified with an argument against it. Yours are the foolish ramblings of a dreamer or conjurer who has thus far refused to bring any of his dreams or "hypothesis" (using the term loosely) to the test of reality.

In short, you should just shut your vitual mouth and take your new age mysticism back to the crack syringe it came from.

A much better explanation of DNA design (in point form for the sake of brevity):

1. Dogs bark
2. When ice freezes it is cold.
3. The universe is made of stuff.
4. Round things move helically.
5. Therefore, clearly, DNA.

A similar argument could establish David S.F.'s inability to reason:

1. The solar system is made of little fairy gods.
2. When my hair falls out, the spirt of the great bear weeps.
3. Smoking crack moves one up the ladder of zen.
4. Therefore, David cannot think.

[RAD4921]

The design argument for the existence of God seems to be the greatest proof of some sort of intelligence governing the universe. Indeed there is a great deal of complex organization in the universe and it is natural to ask why. Some people claim that Buddhist are atheist but this has to do with people who are "enlightened" claiming that the ultimate reality of the universe is beyond explanation.
Most atheist are people who are not very educated and are in conflict with their religion that predominates in their culture (For an instance, Christianity in the United States)or are nonbelievers for political reasons. The word "god" implies a being that is supreme and this can come into conflict of what consciousness might be. The idea of a hierarchy of consciousness is a turn off to some modern thinkers and these people may be labeled "atheist' simply for semantic reasons.
Well educated atheist argue the design argument for the existence of "god" say that the universe is the way it is because a roll of the dice. That a cyclic or an infinite replicating universe(s) would eventually produce a universe that would develope life and APPEAR highly organized.
Physicist Stephan Hawking said in his famous book' "A Breif History of Time", that the chances of the universe creating itself the way it is by accident, would be like a monkey randomly banging out a Shakespeare play on a typewriter.

I find great psycholgical comfort believing in an cosmic intelligence and I tend to lean in that direction because of the great amount of organization in the universe (The word organism comes from the word "organize". If I am wrong and my consciousness is mortal and I will fail to exist for eternity then that isn't so horrible. Some people claim that the idea of immortality frightens them. Who knows?
"For God to pass judgment upon us would be for him to pass judgment upon himself"---Albert Einsten

[DavidSF]

dschouten,

If your so clever why dont you explain the reason for DNA design to eureka.. If I am so wrong you must know the right facts okay, Oh sorry I had not noticed, you already did when you wrote the following.

"1. Dogs bark
2. When ice freezes it is cold.
3. The universe is made of stuff.
4. Round things move helically.
5. Therefore, clearly, DNA"

My appologies for not noticing before,

David

[DavidSF]

RAD4921
You mentioned the following:
"Well educated atheist argue the design argument for the existence of "god" say that the universe is the way it is because a roll of the dice".

Are you aware that Einstein has already said, "God does not play dice".

Sorry about the background noise in the forum, it may go away soon and we can all get into a serious discussion without being so distracted.

David.

[RAD4921]

I think you are a very intelligent person. I agree that spirals are seen in all levels of the universe. From seashells, hurricanes, galaxies and the double helix of DNA just to name a few. :)

[RAD4921]

Yes I am aware of that quote-while he was arguing quantum mechanics- (I am wearing my Albert Einstein tee shirt right now). He also said "body and soul are not two seperate things but two different ways of perceiving the same thing"
Einstein and many physicists along with the majority of the great philosophers believed in God or some type of intelligence governing the universe. It is estimated that 4/5ths of the world's population believes in God and I am not in the minority:)

[DavidSF]

RAD4921, Thanks, my faith is restored, God did give some of us the ability to reason,
Isaiah 1:
18. "Come now, and let us reason together,'' says the Lord,
David

[DavidSF]

RAD4921,
God is sometimes referred to as being all knowledge and wisdom, It seems the more knowledge and wisdom we obtain about the universe and its operating principles, the closer we become to him and the more we become aware of his existance.

All the brilliant scientific minds of the past, generally developed a healthy respect for the existance of a God, This cannot be just a mere coincidence.

David

[Gokul43201]

Dear RAD and David,

In your attempt to try and speak "scientifically", you picked the one quote of Einstein's that is in fact known to be erroneous...at least in essence.

Quoting does not amount to reasoning or proving !

[DavidSF]

Which one?

Regarding proof, There are some in this forum, whom, if I said that sometimes the sky is blue, they would tell me I dont know what I am talking about.

These people dont want proof, and would not recognise the truth, even if it fell from a great height and knocked them six foot underground.

David

[RAD4921]

David
I often wonder whether a "physical theory" of the universe can explain consciousness. If we unite the 4 known forces of nature will this explain all?
Albert Einstien once said that he wanted to know the thoughts of God and the rest is details.
Bob

[eureka]

I can still remember what my adviser in thesis told me.
Einstein believed that quantum mechanics is still young, so he didn't support the idea of uncertainty principle. thus "God doesn't play dice with the world" something is still missing. If Einstein were to be alive until today, he might have proven it. Just my two cents about Einstein.

[DavidSF]

Rad4921,
The uniting of the four known forces of nature, requires an understanding of 4 dimensional space, and to understand 4 dimensional space requires an understanding of the nature of the fourth dimension of time itself.

The usual concept of space is 3 dimensional and they say that time itself somehow is the fourth dimension.

Time is easily understood if you dont call it time, but call it the reciprical of velocity.

When we measure one metre length over one second we refer to the SI value system.
But what is not considered is the massive velocities we travel at galactically, as this covers the length of that metre in a time period 1 metre / 641,000 metres / second

This value is close to atomic wavelength time periods. In this way an atom does not see the length of the metre the same as we do.

In one second the atom can see a wavelength of 641,000 metres.
Or 1 metre in a time period 1 metre / 641,000 metres / seconds.

This is the reason for the foundation of the theory of relativity.

The question you need to ask yourself is, is all matter moving by induction? or did it just happen to be moving correctly by chance?, by chance means that every planet within the universe has by chance been exceedingly lucky, or if you conclude that it is by induction you must conclude that something is inducing it.

This something is the very subject of this part of the forum, Proof of God's existance,
This something that is inducing matter into motion is electromagnetic energy, the carrier of light and any electromagnetic propagation, this something can be called the Holy Spirit, or otherwise called God.

Under these circumstances God can be said to exist.

Conciousness is an existance within this inducing electromagnetic energy field, and it can be logical to suspect that the mind which is made of atomic structure, can tune into this energy source, hence the purpose of 'Prayer' although I suspect many tune in and recieve without being concious that they are receiving. For this very reason we have a sixth sense.

I hope this may help resolve the questions that you are asking.

David

[Gokul43201]

Rad4921,
The uniting of the four known forces of nature, requires an understanding of 4 dimensional space, and to understand 4 dimensional space requires an understanding of the nature of the fourth dimension of time itself.

You must mean 4 dimensional space-time. Also current string theories say that space has 10 dimensions, not 3 or 4.

Time is easily understood if you dont call it time, but call it the reciprical of velocity.

But it is not. It is the reciprocal of frequency or velocity per unit length.

When we measure one metre length over one second we refer to the SI value system.
But what is not considered is the massive velocities we travel at galactically, as this covers the length of that metre in a time period 1 metre / 641,000 metres / second

Where did the 641,000 m/s come from ?

This value is close to atomic wavelength time periods.

For what wave ? For EM radiation (light, etc.), this time period has a wavelength of about 500 meters - hardly atomic scale !

In this way
In what way ? There is no reason why the preceeding statements (even were they accurate) should lead to the following conclusion.

an atom does not see the length of the metre the same as we do.

Sure it does, so long as it is in the same inertial frame as us (or at least approximately). It just counts a \lambda^{-1} number of waves, and voila, it has a meter !

In one second the atom can see a wavelength of 641,000 metres.

Then so can I. The perceived wavelength only depends on your relative velocity - and has nothing to do with your size.

Or 1 metre in a time period 1 metre / 641,000 metres / seconds.

This is the reason for the foundation of the theory of relativity.

Accoring to who ? DavidSF ? Surely not Einstein's reasoning...nor any other phycisist ! The Theory of Relativity (at least the Special Theory) is based on observations from different inertial frames not from different size scales !

No sane person will accept this as a sensible line of reasoning. I strongly suggest you refrain from attempting "scientific argument" lest you end up weakening the argument for the existence of God.

[dschouten]

No sane person will accept this as a sensible line of reasoning. I strongly suggest you refrain from attempting "scientific argument" lest you end up weakening the argument for the existence of God.

Exactly. David SF has a persecution complex about people refusing to accept his "scientific arguments" for "the truth". The point is, regardless of the truthfulness of his conclusions, his arguments are completely off kilter and reveal an understanding of nature consistent with that of a three year old child, or one whose neural development is seriously inhibited.

Seriously, the "main spiral path" ??? I got a couple of people in my office laughing for about 5 minutes when I relayed that hogwash to them. What a joke!

[RAD4921]

I cannot understand as to why you quoted "scientifically" since I never mention the word. I am only quoting Einstein. If you don't like Einstein's sayings I would suggest taking it up with him but he is dead.

[Gokul43201]

I cannot understand as to why you quoted "scientifically" since I never mention the word. I am only quoting Einstein. If you don't like Einstein's sayings I would suggest taking it up with him but he is dead.

I have nothing against Einstein's words. It just happens that Einstein, at the time, could not accept a non-deterministic universe and this is what he meant by those words. At the time, anyone would be shocked by the concept. What followed was one of the most sparkling and prolonged scientific jousting matches took place between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein. The latter, who could never accept the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, produced a series of gedanken experiments (thought experiments) designed to disprove the new theory. Bohr would then attempt to show where Einstein had gone wrong. In one of Bohr's successful attempts at this, he was especially pleased to note that Einstein had forgotten that according to his own theory of general relativity clocks run more slowly under the influence of a gravitational field. Einstein eventually did accept the Quantum Theory.

Anyway, here's how those discussions went ...

Einstein: "God does not play dice." :mad:

Einstein: "God is not malicious." :grumpy:

Bohr: "Einstein, stop telling God what to do." :biggrin:

Also, I was refering to DavidSF's discourses when I used the word "scientifically". If I incorrectly included you in that statement, I apologize.

[RAD4921]

Oh you were referring to the "dice" quote. I understand your reply now. Sorry for the isunderstanding:)

[DavidSF]

To all,
Velocity is a length per second, as is wavelength. In fact our velocity is the direct result of our frequency conditions.

The Approximate value of 641,000 m/sec is calculated from predominately the two values of 600,000 m/sec and 225,000 m/sec, stir that grey matter and work it out for yourself, after all your all cleverer than me, you may even be able to tell me what these two values represent.

When we discuss wavelength resonance we refer to a single wavelength resonant cycle, an atom does not count waves as you so cleverly put it.

Try defining the second, what is its length? width? and height, because it is part of space time, or do you deny that too.

David.

[Gokul43201]

To all,
Velocity is a length per second, as is wavelength.
Wavelength is NOT a length per second. It is a length. Won't you even stop to think before you write stuff ? And if you want to try to be consistent, say length per time or meter per second.

In fact our velocity is the direct result of our frequency conditions.

What are our frequency conditions ? This is not a physical description. And please understand what a dimension is and what a unit is. Quantities have dimensions which are measured in units. A unit does not have dimension. It's bad enough comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing the taste of an apple to the word 'happy'.

I really can't find the time to read through all the errors and unphysical statements in yor writing. It would be like looking for a way past all the water in the ocean. Wait, someone HAS does that !

I throw in my towel here.

[DavidSF]

Gokul43201,
Your not even trying to be co-operative just insultive, For you the world is so clean cut, You think the Dopler effect only occurs relative to the velocity of other galaxies, and you could not in your wildest dreams think that it may be occurring a little closer to home, like within your own little world under your own nose.

The Dopler frequency shift effect is caused by velocity, and links velocity with frequency wether you can accept that or not. No sir I dont compare the taste of apples with happy..Just discussing something you havent yet considered.

You ask me what our frequency conditions are, and yet not one question I have asked in this forum has been answered, all I have recieved are insults..
You deserve from me what you have given me.. Nothing.. I will accept your towel..

And leave you to exist within your own little world.

Good luck David

[dschouten]

Wavelength is NOT a length per second. It is a length. Won't you even stop to think before you write stuff ? And if you want to try to be consistent, say length per time or meter per second.

What are our frequency conditions ? This is not a physical description. And please understand what a dimension is and what a unit is. Quantities have dimensions which are measured in units. A unit does not have dimension. It's bad enough comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing the taste of an apple to the word 'happy'.

I really can't find the time to read through all the errors and unphysical statements in yor writing. It would be like looking for a way past all the water in the ocean. Wait, someone HAS does that !

I throw in my towel here.
Throwing in your towel is about the only thing you can do with this DavidSF character. Just look above at his description of the "main spiral path". This guy is either trying to upset a great many people by playing the fool (to perfection), or he is consistently hopped up on mushrooms. Take your pick.

[Gokul43201]

Gokul43201,
Your not even trying

Oh, I tried, all right !

to be co-operative just insultive,

Please show me which statement of mine you find to be insulting.

For you the world is so clean cut, You think the Dopler effect only occurs relative to the velocity of other galaxies,

Of course not. Show me where I have given such an impression.

and you could not in your wildest dreams think that it may be occurring a little closer to home, like within your own little world under your own nose.

I don't need wild dreams to be aware of Doppler shifts occuring closer to home. I can easily hear the frequency shift in the siren of a fire truck. If I see a police car parked by a higway, I know that the cop's speed gun uses the Doppler shift to determine vehicle speeds. When I'm doing X-ray diffraction analysis on my newly synthesized samples, I know that the Compton Effect is a result of the Doppler shift.

The Dopler frequency shift effect is caused by velocity, and links velocity with frequency wether you can accept that or not.

In fact, I was the one that brought this up...in objection to your claim that frequency shifts are causing by scaling.

No sir I dont compare the taste of apples with happy..Just discussing something you havent yet considered.

You ask me what our frequency conditions are, and yet not one question I have asked in this forum has been answered, all I have recieved are insults..
You deserve from me what you have given me.. Nothing.. I will accept your towel..

And leave you to exist within your own little world.

Good luck David

Yes, Good luck, David

[dave19903652]

The minute that you try to measure and record God he deserts you. If you try to justify why God is here then you don't actually believe in God. A quote from Jesus "Believe in me" that's all you have to do. Anyway to prove that God exists in my way and a slightly scientifical way say this to yourself.

THE COINCIDENCE OF LIFE
How did the big bang happen to happen in exactly the right way, how was relativity 'created' to be perfect for us? How was the sun made just big enough and us far enough enough away to not be fried or freezed? How did that chemical reaction come across that created water that in turn somehow created life? How did we manage to evolve perfectly? Ask those sort of questions and if you can't believe now, there is no point on reading this board because you are a confirmed athiest

[Bobert]

There is no proof. God was created by man because of our fear of death. those that choose to beleive may be wasting time but if there is a god than those that dont beleive will have hell to pay. I personally dont believe for many personal reasons but i advise u to make your own.

[naz]

Every time I read something like that, I just want to laugh and cry. A book written by men, that isn't even internally consistant, which claims to be teh truth, should be taken as such because it claims to be true.

Go on, pull the other one, it has bells on.

ur absolutely right, the bible is full of contradictions, one question
have you ever tried reading the quraan

[Ethanol]

Naz is right bible has many contradictions but that is because humans modified it into the form it is in(that is what I think). Lets remember how the world is running and how it originated, because all the relativity and Laws we study did not just arise on their own. we should remember a boat is not made without a carpenter. Someone powerful and mighty has to apply some force to do work. To propel a whole universe, a big, no, really big God is there. and if we say that the universe is too big for a God to Handle then it depends upon how big a God we believe in.Do try to read Quraan i believe anyone in doubt will be answered. Here is a little Part of the Holy Book i'm telling about.

"In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

IT IS the Merciful who has taught the Koran.

He created man and taught him articulate speech. The sun and the moon pursue their ordered course. The plants and the trees bow down in adoration.

He raised the heaven on high and set the balance of all things, that you might not transgress that balance. Give just weight and full measure.

He laid the earth for His creatures, with all its fruits and blossom-bearing palm, chaff-covered grain and scented herbs. Which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?"

[olde drunk]

Ethanol: Those are very nice words. Unfortunately, they serves no purpose in this thread.

those words could be muttered by a believer in mother earth as a god. it simply means that regardless of what we do, we should do it with reverence. in fact, an atheist can respect creation.

again, believing or not believing in a god is a matter what an individual wishes to accomplish at any given point in time. i am referring to a spiritual purpose. yes, i do believe that an atheist would be an atheist to fulfill his spiritual purpose.

love&peace,
olde drunk

[Gokul43201]

If you try to justify why God is here then you don't actually believe in God...... Anyway to prove that God exists in my way and a slightly scientifical way say this to yourself.

As you are now trying to justify why God is here, you don't actually believe in God.


CTHE COINCIDENCE OF LIFE
How did the big bang happen to happen in exactly the right way,
In "exactly the right way" ? The Big Bang is a space-time singularity, meaning that there is no 'way' involved in its happening.


how was relativity 'created' to be perfect for us?
'Relativity' is a theory. It explains phenomena such gravity and motion. There's nothing about it that makes it perfect for us. You could have said the same about Newtonian Mechanics, and it would take until the 20th century to figure out that that was wrong in the first place.


How was the sun made just big enough and us far enough enough away to not be fried or freezed?
Actually, the number of planets in the Universe where this is likely to be true is astronomical. It's not even vaguely resembling of a coincidence that the Sun was 'made just right', if you are aware at all of something called 'probability'.


How did that chemical reaction come across that created water that in turn somehow created life?
Again, the probability of this happening in some planet in the Universe, is not small at all. And it would be far more likely in a planet where water is in the liquid state, so that explains the temperature too.


How did we manage to evolve perfectly?
This statement is so vague, I really shouldn't be trying to answer. What do you mean by 'perfectly' ? There is no such thing as evolving 'perfectly'. What makes you think that we have evolved perfectly. Had we evolved into a different looking being, would you have still not said this ?


Ask those sort of questions and if you can't believe now, there is no point on reading this board because you are a confirmed athiest
But, by your own admission, in the first paragraph, you are a confirmed atheist...

PS : I'm not an atheist, and wish you had stopped with your first 3 sentences, for you have just crippled the argument by proceeding beyond.

[Gokul43201]

Ethanol: Those are very nice words. Unfortunately, they serves no purpose in this thread.

those words could be muttered by a believer in mother earth as a god. it simply means that regardless of what we do, we should do it with reverence. in fact, an atheist can respect creation.

again, believing or not believing in a god is a matter what an individual wishes to accomplish at any given point in time. i am referring to a spiritual purpose. yes, i do believe that an atheist would be an atheist to fulfill his spiritual purpose.

love&peace,
olde drunk

I completely agree. Too often, atheism is construed as 'being in opposition to religion'. This stems from the common misconception that religion involves an acceptance of the existence of God.

Consider this : Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

[Ethanol]

Yes, well i got a bit carried away and started preaching. Actually the point i wanted to make wasn't clear enough from my last message. It is right that we humans do not consider God but the last resort to everything. If someone is atheist he is surely not believing in God because he has some earthly profits from that and i say most of us who r not atheists pray to God, go to church,pray in a temple or a mosque just because we want people to trust us and know us as honest and saint people. I think Gokul43201 somewhere said that he was not an atheist.May i ask a question? Why r u so doubtful about the existance of God? Kindly tell me about ur religion and i will study about it too.

[michelle s]

If you believe that there is no such thing as God what would it take to change your mind

I believe the definition of "god" to be "the creator."
I do not know what else "god" does. It may not be the same "god" that christians believe in and worship faithfully.

I belive that to have "faith" means to have a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

My point is, if you are christian and you have "faith": you believe in "god"- full stop. Where as an atheist denies the existence of "god" completely. A "believer" can never convince an atheist to believe in "god" purely because to believe in "god", one must have "faith" and atheists will never have "faith" because atheists rely on logical proof and material evidence that "god" exists. There is no logical proof.
There is no material evidence.
But if there was, then Christianity would not be the same. People would not have "faith" only knowledge. This defeats the purpose of belief. "Faith" is one of the main basis' of the christian religion.

[Mk]

I believe the definition of "god" to be "the creator."
I do not know what else "god" does. It may not be the same "god" that christians believe in and worship faithfully.

I belive that to have "faith" means to have a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

My point is, if you are christian and you have "faith": you believe in "god"- full stop. Where as an atheist denies the existence of "god" completely. A "believer" can never convince an atheist to believe in "god" purely because to believe in "god", one must have "faith" and atheists will never have "faith" because atheists rely on logical proof and material evidence that "god" exists. There is no logical proof.
There is no material evidence.
But if there was, then Christianity would not be the same. People would not have "faith" only knowledge. This defeats the purpose of belief. "Faith" is one of the main basis' of the christian religion.

Oooh sounds like a loyal beliver in a bible-istic sort of way. Well, Michio Kaku's refrence to Issac Asmov's story about the creator is great, "Hyperspace" (read it, awesome)

Well, I'd have to say that the proof of the 2nd God/God of Miracles comes from Saint Thomas Aquinas, Troubled by the inconsistencies in the church ideology, he, in the 13th cntury, decided to raise the level of theological debate from the vagueness of mythology to the intense rigor of logical thinking. He proposed to solve the questions of God's existance. He even put it in an easy to remember poem! :approve:

Things are in motion, hence there is a first mover.
Things are coused, hence there is a first cause
Things exist, hence there is a creator
Perfect goodness exists, hence it has a source
Things are designed, hense they serve a purpose

"The first three lines are variations of what is called the cosmological proof, the forth argues on moral grounds; and the fifth is called the teleological proof. Moral proof is by far the weakest, because morality can be viewed in terms of evolving social customs"

-page 192, Before Creation, Proofs of the Existance of God

If you were to argue these points, in the poem, there are many things you could say.

When scientists, refer to God in a non-theological way, they are refering to the 1st God/The God of Order. Einstein, when writing he fondly called him "The Old Man." :)

I sure do belive in the God of Order

[kellykea]

Mk...
i see from some of your posts, that you are a very intellectual person.
i don't mean to question your superior intelligence, but could you possibly answer the following question
"what is the meaning of life?"

Could anyone else have a go at answering that for me?
is it something to do with God?

[olde drunk]

Mk...
i see from some of your posts, that you are a very intellectual person.
i don't mean to question your superior intelligence, but could you possibly answer the following question
"what is the meaning of life?"

Could anyone else have a go at answering that for me?
is it something to do with God?
IMHO, each person has an individual purpose that is not dictated by any god.

life is and/or will be what you make it. there are no limitations or idealized purpose.

all wise writings and commandments were meant as guides for enjoying an uncomplicated peaceful life. i view life as a game, a game to be played respectfully.

love&peace,
olde drunk

[Ethanol]

Your Definition of God is incomplete.
G- Generator
O- Operator
D- Destroyer
I like the rest of your words. Faith really has no material evidence, but that is the difference between a believer and nonbeliever. A believer won't ask where the God is and will he ever materialize in front of us. May be we certainly cannot prove the existance of God but i don't want to throw the sponge without trying.

[kellykea]

IMHO, each person has an individual purpose that is not dictated by any god.

life is and/or will be what you make it. there are no limitations or idealized purpose.

all wise writings and commandments were meant as guides for enjoying an uncomplicated peaceful life. i view life as a game, a game to be played respectfully.

love&peace,
olde drunk


i don't really see how life can be considered as a game. all games have a purpose, something to accomplish. I can, i suppose, see why you think it is a game; life has a beggining and an end. like all games. Like a game, life can be short or long. but why would God create us to be pawns in his chess game. games restrict free-will. you have to abide by the set rules. You can't choose a path like you can in life. In a game you only get a set route eg. snakes and ladders, monopoly. personally i dont agree to your statement life is a game.

anyone share my opinion?

[olde drunk]

i don't really see how life can be considered as a game. all games have a purpose, something to accomplish. I can, i suppose, see why you think it is a game; life has a beggining and an end. like all games. Like a game, life can be short or long. but why would God create us to be pawns in his chess game. games restrict free-will. you have to abide by the set rules. You can't choose a path like you can in life. In a game you only get a set route eg. snakes and ladders, monopoly. personally i dont agree to your statement life is a game.
anyone share my opinion?
gee, i never realized the full implications of my comment until you introducted the similarities to sports.

you see, i don't consider us as 'pawns'. the rules we abide by, are only the agreements we have made to be physical (accepting the laws of physics, etc).

freewill allows us to break rules and enjoy the consequences, as with all games. those that are more adventurous can 'play' within the rules and continually stretch them. i enjoy bending and stretching all rules.

my original intent was that we should not take life too seriously and PLAY more. we seem to get caught up in societal input as to what is important, rather than thinking for ourselves and making ouselves happy, first.
what good is it if we satisfy whatever understanding we have of god's intent, our family's, employer, community, etc if we are not happy with what we are doing.

personally, i feel i spent the first 25-30 years addressing what i thought was important and the last 30+ years trying to correct my ideas.

IF, we are happy and love self, then we can love others and life becomes a fancyful game without any losers.

love&peace,
olde drunk

[michelle s]

i don't really see how life can be considered as a game. all games have a purpose, something to accomplish. I can, i suppose, see why you think it is a game; life has a beggining and an end. like all games. Like a game, life can be short or long. but why would God create us to be pawns in his chess game. games restrict free-will. you have to abide by the set rules. You can't choose a path like you can in life. In a game you only get a set route eg. snakes and ladders, monopoly. personally i dont agree to your statement life is a game.

anyone share my opinion?

I agree with that statement because it would in theory restrict god's gift of free will to us humans. But your statement about god is not valid because god was not part of olde drunk's theory.

IMHO, each person has an individual purpose that is not dictated by any god.

[Gokul43201]

Gokul43201 somewhere said that he was not an atheist.May i ask a question? Why r u so doubtful about the existance of God?

Did I give the impression that I doubt the existence of God ? Surely, I never said this in words.

But that does not mean I won't object to the so called "scientific arguments" that are really ignorant concoctions of the scientifically uneducated. Moreover, they only weaken the argument for the existence of God, so I don't see why all the believers give such people a free reign, when they are really doing a disservice to the faith.

Finally, I must admit that I do doubt the existence of God. This is not to say that I'm convinced of His non-existence...but until something happens to change my opinion one way or the other, I will remain open.

Okay, now I've said it in words, but not before now.

[Gokul43201]

michelle s,

I think you're looking for 'bases' which is the plural of 'basis'.

Gokul

[marcus]

michelle s,

I think you're looking for 'bases' which is the plural of 'basis'.

Gokul

Yes, Michele said
"Faith" is one of the main basis' of the christian religion.

In English the apostrophe is not used to form the plural. Isnt that true?
I'm no great shakes on grammar or spelling for that matter.
One says that something has three baSEEZ (spelled bases) instead of
three baSISSes. It does seem to sound better, to say "one of the main bases of Christianity"


If one has a deep reverence for nature and the physical universe then I suppose that the Christian and Mohammedan idea of Jehovah or whatever it is may seem somehow disrespectful, frivolous, even in a certain way blasphemous, I guess.
I am getting a bit discouraged by all this Fundamental religiosity among Bible-thumping Christian and Koran-thumping Muslim.
I wish people could just try to respect and honor the world without thinking they must tell each other exactly who should get the credit for making it.

[michelle s]

In English the apostrophe is not used to form the plural. Isnt that true?
I'm no great shakes on grammar or spelling for that matter.
One says that something has three baSEEZ (spelled bases) instead of
three baSISSes. It does seem to sound better, to say "one of the main bases of Christianity".

I am sorry! I really do apologize!

I shall bear that in mind for future reference...

[marcus]

I am sorry! I really do apologize!

I shall bear that in mind for future reference...

dont feel bad, no problemo
I did not mean any severe criticism! I make all kinds of
grammar and spelling mistakes myself, constantly and without regret,
but also do not mind being corrected

Maybe we just need to make little perfunctory efforts at correct English
now and then to remind ourselves that it does have rules
above and beyond sheer habit, or so I sometimes think.

BTW michelle, I just came here by accident and was curious about the topic of discussion

It would seem more natural to me to turn the question around and say

"what evidence would show that the assumption of some sort of supernatural divine power is FALSE?"

You would formulate some kind of Supernatural Being Hypothesis (it would probably need to be more definite than simply saying "God exists" but anyway some precise version of that)
and then you would derive predictions from that hypothesis, which would follow if the hypothesis is true. and then you would check to see if
these predictions are born out by observation.

[michelle s]

"what evidence would show that the assumption of some sort of supernatural divine power is FALSE?"

i agree it would be a much better way to phrase the question. :wink:

[Gokul43201]

There's always the "If God exists, and He can do anything, then can He make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it ?" kind of paradox - and many more - that fit the bill. But of course, that's only a logic argument, not a desciption of evidence.

On the other hand if you hypothsize the existence of something that does not interact with us, the observers, in any way, is it meaningful to talk about such a something ? The counter-argument could be that it interacts with us, only after we are dead, or some such thing...

[omin]

All humans have five senses. Three are vision, sound and touch. The other two are chemical: smell and taste. Humans may only have thought one way and that is through the five senses. All thoughts represent one or more of the five senses. All senses represent something in the objective environment.

There is no thought on something that may not be sensed, unless it is a thought created by the mind that is simply a reordering of one or more of the five senses that represent empirical sense. For example, a fiction novel is a taxification only of the five senses, but is a order that represents a fantasitic order of the five senses. Another important detail is that each word summons different images and magnitudes of the images of the words of a novel, so everyone sees a similar (because of common language) but different story based upon form of the commonly sensed image and the intensity of the particular image. Just think about the possibilities of what the term God evokes accross humankind. One, the personal word value of each individual, and two, the form of the theories presented over time that build the concept, oh yeah, the personal reordering has an impact too based upon the determination of their mind.

Every element of thought you have is based upon something you have experienced in the environment. It is a memory only. And again, when it represents something that doesn't exist, it's simply those memories put in another order that wasn't experienced.

God is mixture of elements you have experienced in you life. All the elements have been experienced by you. But the order is something you have not experienced.

God is a fantastic theory, but represents nothing we sense, except the elements that make up the concept.

So, when you can present to me a God that may be sensed by my five senses, instead of a God that is only known by a fantastic theory which is merely a reordering of thoughts of empirically sensed things, then I will not believe in God, I will know God.

Do you have the force to summon the master? :biggrin:

[olde drunk]

OMNI - can you 'know' magnetism with your senses? NO! you can witness the effects of magnetism. you also witness the effects of god. life is that effect.

so, you can take all the chemicals and all the sources of energy and use all the scientists in the world and you will not create 'life'. so, is the concept of god any more difficult to accept than magnetism???

the problem that i see is that we get lost with the traditional definitions. i don't care what god is or isn't, in this area of discussion. but i do believe that there is a 'something' that creates life or provides the life force. using the term god is simply for easy of communication.

love&peace,
olde drunk

[Gokul43201]

All of current string theory or any theoretical high energy physics is really about things that have never been sensed and probably won't be, for many years to come.

[marcus]

There's always the "If God exists, and He can do anything, then can He make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it ?" kind of paradox - and many more - that fit the bill. But of course, that's only a logic argument, not a desciption of evidence.

On the other hand if you hypothsize the existence of something that does not interact with us, the observers, in any way, is it meaningful to talk about such a something ? The counter-argument could be that it interacts with us, only after we are dead, or some such thing...

Gokul we must try to do better than the business with the rock.

I have constructed two divinity-hypotheses that might be testable (that is falsifiable by observation). I do not have much hope that they are testable---that either could actually serve as a basis for making predictions which could be checked. But I'll put them out to examine, just in case someone might see how to test one of them.

A. the manipulative alien with intentions

At the present time there is a powerful alien able to manipulate events in the universe so that things happen which do not follow from the laws of probability and physics. Not infrequently, things happen that we wouldnt expect simply from natural laws, and this shows the alien's intentions.

B. the non-interfering designer

An alien intelligence designed the universe and set it in motion according to plan. The alien who did this is no longer in evidence and does not intervene----indeed may no longer be around or be interested. But the creation goes on working as designed.

Probably everybody (atheist and theologian alike) would be happy if we could disprove hypotheses A and B! they do not sound very nice. If everybody dislikes them, then why shouldnt we be able to disprove them scientifically?

But to disprove them we would first need to derive predictions from them about some future observation or measurement! I do not see how to do this.

Perhaps somebody else will come up with a more predictive hypothesis of this sort

[Gokul43201]

My sister once came up with the theory that Jesus Christ was really an alien. Was quite interesting, I thought.

Oops, have I just blasphemed ?

And yeah, the rock thing doesn't go far...but I've really not heard a response to that from a believer, and I'm curious what they'd say !

[omin]

OMNI - can you 'know' magnetism with your senses? NO! you can witness the effects of magnetism. you also witness the effects of god. life is that effect.

so, you can take all the chemicals and all the sources of energy and use all the scientists in the world and you will not create 'life'. so, is the concept of god any more difficult to accept than magnetism???

the problem that i see is that we get lost with the traditional definitions. i don't care what god is or isn't, in this area of discussion. but i do believe that there is a 'something' that creates life or provides the life force. using the term god is simply for easy of communication.

love&peace,
olde drunk

In logic, there is denotation and connotation. That's it. Denotation represents a symbol which represent something physically existing as a whole and connotation represents a part or aspect of that. Connotation may also abstract things which means multiply or divide them and form a 'idea concept' or mix and match of that aspect. God is a mix and multiply of real things sensed (connotations).

Gravity is still sensed, even if it's just a property which is understood through displacement. It exists, even if I only see a property, rather than what I believe may be something else to it, but havn't sensed. I have only sensed the elements that makes up the idea God, not the picture that the elements form. The difference is gravity is obviously a objectively sensed thing, but God is only a subjectively sensed thing formed out of objective elements. They are not equally believable or knowable. I know gravity of what I've sensed. I used to believe in God, but know science does not allow me to believe things I think over empirically.

Determination is creation said in a more accurate way. Creation assumes time travel may occur in the mind in the smallest of moments. We are who we are and we cannot change a thing. We say we make choices out of convience for language, but we really, really don't mean it. We are not really stopping the flow of physics, then deciding. The flow is stopping us and deciding for us. We don't decide the flow.

We watch ourselves unfold in this life. We watch ourselves born once. We watch ourselves exist in one place at a time the whole time we are here in human life. We watch ourselves make only one choice at a time (never two and never no choice, because Rush already convinced me that is a choice too). Then we watch ourselves die, one death, one second at at time.

If you are not the only one of you, one minute at a time, then who else are you?

There can only be one. -Highlander :wink:

[omin]

All of current string theory or any theoretical high energy physics is really about things that have never been sensed and probably won't be, for many years to come.

It's amazing. The physics forums on this site has a few people, (although fully knowledged in facts and said theories) who still don't get Newtons laws fully. To sense anything requires a chain reaction of physically existing things touching each other along that chain at some point.

I don't know anything about string theory, but I can say this about it confidently as a criteria before I do study it at some time. If string theory is not just pure imagination, but derived from things that do exist, then we have sensed whatever it represents indirectly, if it only be through instruments or extended physical mathematics of some sort. Sensing properties of existing things indirectly means they do exist.

There is probably more to this...

[Ethanol]

Gokul , i read that rock thing of yours. It's very funny, I thought that u were sensible and a powerful rival to convert. Surely God can do anything but if He makes a rock so heavy that even he can't lift isn't that gonna question His authority. I think a universe and so called parallel universes were big enough rock and He lifts them all fine enough.

[Gokul43201]

It's amazing. The physics forums on this site has a few people, (although fully knowledged in facts and said theories) who still don't get Newtons laws fully.

How does your argument make use of Newton's Laws ? Yes, I think there are people that don't get Newton's Laws...

To sense anything requires a chain reaction of physically existing things touching each other along that chain at some point.

"Touching" ? If you wish to use words with non-standard connotations, perhaps you should define them. Maybe an example would help.

I don't know anything about string theory, but I can say this about it confidently as a criteria before I do study it at some time. If string theory is not just pure imagination, but derived from things that do exist, then we have sensed whatever it represents indirectly, if it only be through instruments or extended physical mathematics of some sort. Sensing properties of existing things indirectly means they do exist.

If using some consistent framework of rules amounts to 'indirectly sensing', then yes, string theories make use of indirect sense.

You speak of the existence of "pure imagination." Can you provide an example of pure imagination ?

[Gokul43201]

Gokul , i read that rock thing of yours. It's very funny, I thought that u were sensible and a powerful rival to convert.

Sensible, I like to think of myself as. Powerful - no ...I'm not especially fond of being powerful.

Surely God can do anything but if He makes a rock so heavy that even he can't lift isn't that gonna question His authority.

The question may seem silly and laughable...but it is for exactly this reason (that you've provided responses which do not answer the question) that I brought it up. God does not have to demonstrate this task to all the people lest they question His authority. Simply for His own amusement, can He or can He not do it ? That's different from whether He chooses to.

Let's stick to the question.

I think a universe and so called parallel universes were big enough rock and He lifts them all fine enough.

So does that mean He has not the ability to control the size of the Universe ? But if He can, you still have not aswered whether He can make the rock big enough to satisfy the second condition.

All I'm saying is that assumption of the 'ability to do anything' leads to logical inconsistencies.

[dschouten]

Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah. Blah blah blah-blah, blah; blah blah!

Blah?

[Gokul43201]

Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah. Blah blah blah-blah, blah; blah blah!

Blah?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :biggrin:

[Russell E. Rierson]

All I'm saying is that assumption of the 'ability to do anything' leads to logical inconsistencies.

Yes, but there are also problems with only having uncertainty:



Here is a quote of Richard Feynman:


"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything. "


Feynman also appears to be expressing a mathematical paradox, basically in the form of a statement:

We can only be certain that we are not-certain :eek: :eek: :eek:


X iff not-X

:cry: :cry: :cry:

[nasrin]

Honestly, there can be no absolute proof. I'd be willing to accept any clear-cut evidence of a specific religion's deity, but that still couldn't prove that it was an actual god. It could, after all, be an alien.

i will give you one thing and i believe that will do it. i said i will since you said you are willing to accept any religion thing. so, here goes, islam.
just take Qur'an as prove for existance of God, one needs no others for it.

if you think it is written by someone else or so, then simply take this:
“And if ye are in doubt As to what We have revealed From time to time to Our Servant, then produce a Soorah Like thereunto; And call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, If your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot –And of a surety you cannot. hen fear the Fire Whose fuel is Men and Stones – Which is prepared for those Who reject Faith.”
[Al-Qur’aan 2:23-24]

The challenge of the Qur’aan, is to produce a single Soorah (chapter) like the Soorahs it contains. The same challenge is repeated in the Qur’aan several times. The challenge to produce a Soorah, which, in beauty, eloquence, depth and meaning is at least somewhat similar to a Qur’aanic Soorah.

this is a challenge for the human being for forever but no one until this day could do anything but failed and accepted it as the prove for the existance of God.

if you like to see more, there are many well known scientist and so on worked on it. this site is for it. www.it-is-truth.com
if you like to visit it. okay

you said it could be after all alien. but who is that alien could be? and who is the creator of that alien?

just take that challenge and work on that you will get your answer if you are looking for it. i am happy at least that you are willing to accept anything to find the question answer. i don't like that people limit their points and limit others words to only certain fields. why don't they want to know others? aren't they human?
okay
take care.

[fleetze]

nasrin wrote:

if you like to see more, there are many well known scientist and so on worked on it. this site is for it. www.it-is-truth.com
if you like to visit it. okay


I looked into the Muslim site. Warning bells immediately go off whenever I see a scientist claiming to know the "truth".

This following passage basically sums up the crackpottery that is www.it-is-truth.com


From www.it-is-truth.com:

Therefore, when there is a conflict between the meaning of a clear, explicit verse (meaning qat'ee ad-dalaalah) of the Qur'aan and 'modern' science. a Muslim must take the verse of the Qur'aan - without hesitation - over any scientific 'fact'. A rejection of such a verse, or even the apparent meaning of such a verse, would be tantamount to a rejection of Allah's knowledge. For example, the theory of evolution is, for the most part, agreed upon by the majority of non-Muslim scholars. Whether there is strong proof to back up the theory or not is irrelevant - the Qur'aan is clear that Allah created Adam from His own Hands, and "From him He created his mate, and from these two He spread forth many men and women" (4:1)

Therefore a Muslim can never believe in the theory that men are descendants of apes, no matter what "proof" might seem to exist.2 Neither is it allowed, as some Muslim rationalists have done, to try to interpret clear Qur'aanic texts to suit modern theories. Following the above example, to try to interpret the story of the creation of Adam and Eve as actually having been the creation of some Neanderthal neo-human species is almost as blasphemous as rejecting the verse in the first place!

:rofl:

[nasrin]

nasrin wrote:




I looked into the Muslim site. Warning bells immediately go off whenever I see a scientist claiming to know the "truth".

This following passage basically sums up the crackpottery that is www.it-is-truth.com


From www.it-is-truth.com:




:rofl:


i did not understand what you are trying to say. would you mind to explain it a little.
thank you
take care

[Gokul43201]

The challenge of the Qur’aan, is to produce a single Soorah (chapter) like the Soorahs it contains. The same challenge is repeated in the Qur’aan several times. The challenge to produce a Soorah, which, in beauty, eloquence, depth and meaning is at least somewhat similar to a Qur’aanic Soorah.

Unfortunately Nasrin, beauty, eloquence and depth are subjective qualities and can not be determined to an arbitrary extent by an impartial judge. So this is no proof of God.

And additionally, there are many people that believe there are more beautiful or eloquent pieces of writing than the quoted text.

And in response to your provided link, here's another : http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Contra/#external

[nasrin]

Unfortunately Nasrin, beauty, eloquence and depth are subjective qualities and can not be determined to an arbitrary extent by an impartial judge. So this is no proof of God.

And additionally, there are many people that believe there are more beautiful or eloquent pieces of writing than the quoted text.

And in response to your provided link, here's another : http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Contra/#external

thanks for your provided link, the first thing i read on that link page is the line that says contradicts, if you think there is contradicts in Qur'an then it is absolutely not ture, there is a person who just made a lists of contradicts about qur'an and i read an article answering that person and the mistake the person made was he didn't understand Qur'an language and took its meaning the way he wanted. here is the link to it:
http://www.islamselect.com/english/index.php?ref=575&pg=mat&ln=2&PHPSESSID=e9754789665f257ffcc610dc8e993ea6
and about beauty, well brother this world is wonderful and nature all around us. one simply gets lost when he/she sees the beautiful sky turns so many colors and design and so on. here is a verse from Qur'an to me it is the most wonderful words on earth that describes nature in such a beautiful way.
you guys were looking for proves for God existance, but i didn't know that the intention behind was different. well, for God existance that quote is enough if one takes it seriously. to go into to Qur'an you need to be open minded and free of everything with thoughts to sink inside it. but if you go into it with all that contradicts stuffs, it is evil side that will make you do things that way. God clearly stated in Qur'an there is no Contradicts in it for it is not written by human like us. and you will find so, if you are open hearted. there are so many people did and one example is the most popular singer of UK, whose now name is Yusuf Islam.
thanks once again. i will try to visit that site in dept. okay. bye.

002.164 Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;- (Here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise.

Al-Qur'an, 002.164 (Al-Baqara [The Cow])

Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.8

[nasrin]

just one more thing, who runs that site may i know? is there some islamic scholars and i mean a well known one who is there also???

[Smurf]

This question has probably been asked before but its a good question and I'd like a shot at dealing with it. Let's get down to basics. Never mind the Bible at this stage. I would like all those atheists or agnostics out there to state precisely what they would regard as satisfactory proof to them that God exists. If you believe that there is no such thing as God what would it take to change your mind, (assuming it is open to be changed of course)?

The bable fish.

[olde drunk]

how many times do we have to go through this?? if you 'believe' in the bible, you have one god. if you believe in the tora, another god. etc. etc. etc.

no matter what, if there is a god, s/he/it is of a nature that all the books combined do not reveal the truth. these books flow as a matter of worship, not proof. belief in a god is a personal value based on our individual connection. even atheism, etc are valid.

we will believe what is appropriate for us (the individual) at any given point in time. there will never be an external proof because god is a matter of faith.

love&peace,
olde drunk

[musky_ox]

There is obviously no absolute evidence for God existing, you are just trying to raise a stink. Anyways, there are 2 options: creation, or luck. The way i see it, by taking down 1 theory, you are proving the other. We can point out many holes and inconsistancies in the random chance theory. Evolutionists cannot provide explainations for everything with their theory, it is full of holes.

[Saint]

boring,God is not to be debated

[YZer]

So what evidence would convince god believers that god does not exist?

Of course god cannot be disproved, because it's not a scientific question; however, an accumulation of facts could lead to many contradictions.
So what's the nail in the coffin?

Of course religious people will/could always spin the facts.

[TENYEARS]

I came to this forum two years ago in search of what I am supposed to do. I am still in the same quandry. It is a daily experience. This should be a sight of understanding and yet what I see is few understand anything. To understand God you must understand the universe. The two meet in the middle to become one. I have seen god, the burden is on you. What you do not understand you will be forced to live in the unconciousness of your expression. These acts have consequnces. If you knew some of the future you would curl into a little ball and crawl into a dark corner trying to hide from yourself. Be mindful dam you. Wake up now, your feet are on fire.

[Gokul43201]

Anyways, there are 2 options: creation, or luck. The way i see it, by taking down 1 theory, you are proving the other. We can point out many holes and inconsistancies in the random chance theory. Evolutionists cannot provide explainations for everything with their theory, it is full of holes.

The ancients did not know what an eclipse was and considered it a warning from God. Till the 18th Century, combustion was not explained. Fire was considered something mysterious. Till the early 20th century, lightning and thunder were mysteries and given all kinds of magical explanations like "God's displeasure with man".

Every time something is not understood (or understood only partially) people will call it the 'hand of God'. You are one of those people. I guess you believe the Church was right in persecuting Galileo.

And, by the way, show me the holes.

[Gokul43201]

boring,God is not to be debated

Speak for yourself. Telling others what they should or shouldn't do gets people kicked out of Forums.

If you don't want to debate this, stay out.

[Gokul43201]

So what evidence would convince god believers that god does not exist?

Of course god cannot be disproved, because it's not a scientific question; however, an accumulation of facts could lead to many contradictions.
So what's the nail in the coffin?

Of course religious people will/could always spin the facts.

This is a good question. The converse also has some truth. A disbeliever is unlikely to accept a description of a 'miracle' as proof of God. What will be the nail in that coffin ? Of sourse, that question could only be resolved by a personal experience, of the kind that has given the world so many converts and born-agains. But again, I know of no sicentist or thinker that was/is a covert or born-again, so I think these people (believers) are inherently more willing to attribute some low probability event to the hand of God.

[Gokul43201]

These acts have consequnces. If you knew some of the future you would curl into a little ball and crawl into a dark corner trying to hide from yourself. Be mindful dam you. Wake up now, your feet are on fire.

What acts ? What consequences ?

<waking up and looking at my feet>

[Tigron-X]

Everyone believes in "God"; we just all understand it differently and all while not understanding God at the same time. Even if we had eternity at the expense of our limited bodies we could never stop learning and experiencing eternity. Everyone is intuned to God at their own level and people can beat drums all day like a little kid, but that doesn't mean that person knows how to play drums. He/She needs that desire or he/she will never hear the music within the noise that is waiting to be fine tuned and set in rythem with Life itself. I'm not saying being a kid and pretending to play isn't fine, but I am saying that a person's desires will grow faster than his/her mind if his/her own imagination cannot keep up with eternity unfolding in front of his/her very eyes.

People suffer because of ignorance; nothing more, nothing less. Our own imagination can hold us back from living Life, and imagination is limited by the principals we believe in. so why does it matter in which way believe in God when we all live, unless we're looking to expand our imagination?

[Smurf]

Everyone believes in "God"; we just all understand it differently and all while not understanding God at the same time.

For example, I believe that I am the one and only god and that everyone should bow down to me. Hail Smurf! Hail Smurf!

[amwbonfire]

For example, I believe that I am the one and only god and that everyone should bow down to me. Hail Smurf! Hail Smurf!

*Hails*

What if multiple people think they're the one and only god? Then you have a problem. :tongue2: I think I'm the only god. Let's fight it out. First one to die, loses.


EDIT: Oh wait, we're both Gods. We can't die. Well at least I'm a god, so I can't die. But you can... :devil:

[olde drunk]

*Hails*

What if multiple people think they're the one and only god? Then you have a problem. :tongue2: I think I'm the only god. Let's fight it out. First one to die, loses.


EDIT: Oh wait, we're both Gods. We can't die. Well at least I'm a god, so I can't die. But you can... :devil:
Cut that out! Are you guys trying to get me PO'ed?? Here I am looking forward to a nice quiet Sunday off (do you remember honor the sabbath?), and you're cracking wise about who is god.

Look, you can mess with your lives as if you were god, but we gotta work together on these hurricanes and such. They only happen when your mass subconsiousnesses invite them.

now stop talking about what god is or isn't and get the word out that i want you to love all of nature and preach peace. humans are to far evolved to still mess with violence.

OK< now who's got the comics and my sports section??????????????

love&peace,
god

[Gokul43201]

...now stop talking about what god is or isn't and get the word out that i want you to love all of nature

love&peace,
god

Aaarghhh ! A nature worshipper ! Heretic ! Pagan ! I shall set my knights upon thee and thine unholy cult !

[Tigron-X]

For example, I believe that I am the one and only god and that everyone should bow down to me. Hail Smurf! Hail Smurf!

You're a Smurf! We have to make sure we don't walk all over you in our daily lives because it would be hard to take you serious when we're suppose to bow and you're on the bottom of our shoe.

But, I'm glad you gave it some thought instead of blowing it off with your surplus of intelligence that you just died to share with me by showing me your clever and witty ways of the world because that's what frustrates you in your daily life; not how you could live it better.

Great example, but I'm pretty sure it would be safe for me to assume that the highest power you can fathom is not yourself.


*Hails*

What if multiple people think they're the one and only god? Then you have a problem. :tongue2: I think I'm the only god. Let's fight it out. First one to die, loses.


EDIT: Oh wait, we're both Gods. We can't die. Well at least I'm a god, so I can't die. But you can... :devil:

You would also join the rest, or certain parts, of the human race that fight about religion anyways, so you're still dying instead of living.

For example:

Example One:
Cut that out! Are you guys trying to get me PO'ed?? Here I am looking forward to a nice quiet Sunday off (do you remember honor the sabbath?), and you're cracking wise about who is god.

Look, you can mess with your lives as if you were god, but we gotta work together on these hurricanes and such. They only happen when your mass subconsiousnesses invite them.

now stop talking about what god is or isn't and get the word out that i want you to love all of nature and preach peace. humans are to far evolved to still mess with violence.

OK< now who's got the comics and my sports section??????????????

love&peace,
god

Example Two:
Aaarghhh ! A nature worshipper ! Heretic ! Pagan ! I shall set my knights upon thee and thine unholy cult !

[Fredrick]

Let's please take god seriously. Each of us has the ability to believe in (a) god, and as such it is good to realize we have that ability. What to do with the ability is a second question, and the freedom we have to come to our own understandings is enormous.

Nobody has any problem understanding that freedom exists, but right after the installment of freedom we do bump into problems, because freedom means that one person can go left, and the other person can go right without either having to reconcile their choice with the other person's choice. Often this goes without a problem, but sometimes choices lead to nasty outcomes.

In religion the same is true throughout history. By believing in multiple gods, or a single god, or no god, many clashes have been taken place - with deadly results and all. Freedom cannot be negotiated; one needs to deliver respect in order to give freedom and take freedom. Same goes in religion. A single god can be viewed as male, or as female. A single god can be considered spiritual only. A single god may have existed before the Big Bang and as a consequence does no longer exist: we and the universe are then the remnants. Multiple gods may exists, organized like stars, planets and what not.

The last one, atheism, is also a religion. One cannot know that god(s) do(es) not exist, the only way to get to atheism is by believing it: one has to believe it/he/she/them do(es) not exist. An atheist is still a believer.

The platform of believing knows three structures: a single god (still or no longer in existence), multiple gods, and no god. To ask for proof is asking for proof of any of these possible versions. It is not possible to prove there is no god - it is not possible to distinguish evidence on nature to belong to no god/ a single god/ multiple gods.

In religion there is one more platform: that of the agnostics. They state they cannot know one way or the other. So, they cut out the discussion altogether. However, believing is a human option, and sometimes when we sit in a horrible situation, the only way to make it out okay is by believing (in ourselves, in the goodness of others, in god(s) or whatever). Believing is important; the outcome may get changed (positively/negatively) because of it.

In science we do not have four structures available to us, but only two. Either everything can be placed in a single unified field theory, or everything cannot be placed in a single unified field theory. Either there is a single principle (everything comes forth directly out of one) or there are at least two principles (everything comes forth out of at least a single degree of separation). The other two structures available in religion don't work in science. It is silly to say that our universe does not exist (if you want to say it, okay, go right ahead), nor will anyone take a person seriously who states that one cannot know whether matter exists or not. See? Science and religion belong to different platforms.

Proof of god can only be found on the inside. Discussion about what you find and how undeniably all-important it is can never be considered proof in a scientific way, only in a religious way. Is god out there? Always, but god can be male, female, alive, dead, singular, multiple, all of us, nobody of us, existing outside of matter, or existing only on the inside of matter. Bon voyage.

[Gokul43201]

I think omnipotence leads to logical contradictions, in the same way that time travel does. That is one of the problems I have with accepting the existence of an omnipotent being.

If someone can lay down the axioms of a system of logic where omnipotence does not result in inconsistencies, that will help open me up to the possibility of the existence of an omnipotent being.

Tigron-X, cut out the holier than thou attitude if you want to contribute to this discussion meaningfully. You've shown that you don't possess a sense of humor. So, at least stick to the topic of discussion. This is not a forum for you to preach.

[FaverWillets]

Aaarghhh ! A nature worshipper ! Heretic ! Pagan ! I shall set my knights upon thee and thine unholy cult !


Yeah, that's the spirit....nature worshippers.... I was at a nudist colony once and you know what, I found out I was god.... at least that's what she kept calling me that night.

[FaverWillets]

Cut that out! Are you guys trying to get me PO'ed?? Here I am looking forward to a nice quiet Sunday off (do you remember honor the sabbath?), and you're cracking wise about who is god.

Look, you can mess with your lives as if you were god, but we gotta work together on these hurricanes and such. They only happen when your mass subconsiousnesses invite them.

now stop talking about what god is or isn't and get the word out that i want you to love all of nature and preach peace. humans are to far evolved to still mess with violence.

OK< now who's got the comics and my sports section??????????????

love&peace,
god


"Look, you can mess with your lives as if you were god, but we gotta work together on these hurricanes and such. They only happen when your mass subconsiousnesses invite them. "

sounds like the current Presidential Campaign, only they're blaming each other for these hurricanes!

[Tigron-X]

I think omnipotence leads to logical contradictions, in the same way that time travel does. That is one of the problems I have with accepting the existence of an omnipotent being.

If someone can lay down the axioms of a system of logic where omnipotence does not result in inconsistencies, that will help open me up to the possibility of the existence of an omnipotent being.

Tigron-X, cut out the holier than thou attitude if you want to contribute to this discussion meaningfully. You've shown that you don't possess a sense of humor. So, at least stick to the topic of discussion. This is not a forum for you to preach.

How does omnipotence lead to logical contradiction?

holier than thou? Riiiiiiiiiight... Don't worry I'm on topic. It's just most lkely not what you want to hear. Maybe because I explained somethng using a metaphor, and you don't like that...?

The first thing I say you guys crack jokes to blow me off, and I'm suppose to find that funny? lol... and you say I don't have a sense of humor. Anyhow, I throw it back in your face, and you seem to not have liked that too much... yet because of that, I don't have a sense of humor and I have an attitude?
Am I following along your thought process correctly?

Bro, I'm pretty sure you don't know me well enough to judge me and write me off as meaningless, humorless, and someone who thinks he's better than others.

So yeah, lets discuss this openly and not judge each other and respect each others view points.

[yanniru]

The phenomena of channeling is fairly common, but outside the realm of scientific investigation due to its subjectivity. Channeling is where some disemboded entity speaks to you through your inner ear. Some people can allow the entity to speak the entities words and with the entities accent. I have a friend with that abitity.

Now at one point in my life my friend channeled an entity who wanted me to take a certain action in my life. What the action was is beside the point. But the groundrules were that he/she could only answer questions that I posed.

So I asked if he/she were God or a god. No, he/she had just recently died. Later I asked him if there were a god and the reply was yes. Now this entity provided information to me that neither I nor my friend knew or could know. But I could check out its veracity with a simple phone call. In every case the information was correct.

So that data is the closest I have ever come to a proof of God or gods. But it is hardly a proof; just one dead person's opinion, assuming that the dead person had some form of existence and could interact with physical life with sound. It is said that the location of the interaction is in the inner ear. But as far as I know, there is no explanation or known mechanism for how it happens. What I do believe is that this is how revelation occurs.

[Gokul43201]

The first thing I say you guys crack jokes to blow me off, and I'm suppose to find that funny?

I didn't crack any jokes to blow you off. I merely made a joke at olde-drunk's closing line, and had no idea that you would take offense. In fact, he too was only addressing amwbonfire. The only person that made any reference to your post was Smurf.

And suddenly, out of the blue, you decide to make this personal.

Listen, if I offended you by my joke, I'm sorry. It was not intended to deride.

Bro, I'm pretty sure you don't know me well enough to judge me and write me off as meaningless, humorless, and someone who thinks he's better than others.

I certainly don't know you at all. I spoke in response to your personal attacks, which (to me) were unfounded. Now I see that they arose from a possible misunderstanding.

So yeah, lets discuss this openly and not judge each other and respect each others view points.

Agreed. If you'll forgive my tirade, we can set this aside and get back to the discussion.

How does omnipotence lead to logical contradiction?

One has to first set up an axiomatic framework before addressing this. Answering the following questions (rigorously, leaving no room for doubt) would help set up the required framework.

Define 'omnipotence'. Can an omnipotent being perform tasks (do things) that are in violation of our currently accepted science ? Is there any task that an omnipotent being can't accomplish ? If there is, what defines this set of tasks ?

{Usually the process of setting up these kinds of axioms eventually hinges upon the question : "what is a task ?". And it would seem that the only way to avoid inconsistency is to answer "anything that can be done by the omnipotent being is a task" (as opposed to "anything you can think of"). However, this definition can be applied to you and me as well. Finite sets of tasks are easy to hadle . Certain infinite sets are also fine. However, when you get to the 'set of all sets', you hit the Powerset Paradox. If you don't agree with this paragraph, let's start with answering the questions of the previous one and see where that goes.}

[Tigron-X]

Agreed. If you'll forgive my tirade, we can set this aside and get back to the discussion.
By all means, I apologize for the misunderstanding myself. Glad that didn't have to go any further. Anyhow...



One has to first set up an axiomatic framework before addressing this. Answering the following questions (rigorously, leaving no room for doubt) would help set up the required framework.

Define 'omnipotence'. Can an omnipotent being perform tasks (do things) that are in violation of our currently accepted science ? Is there any task that an omnipotent being can't accomplish ? If there is, what defines this set of tasks ?

{Usually the process of setting up these kinds of axioms eventually hinges upon the question : "what is a task ?". And it would seem that the only way to avoid inconsistency is to answer "anything that can be done by the omnipotent being is a task" (as opposed to "anything you can think of"). However, this definition can be applied to you and me as well. Finite sets of tasks are easy to hadle . Certain infinite sets are also fine. However, when you get to the 'set of all sets', you hit the Powerset Paradox. If you don't agree with this paragraph, let's start with answering the questions of the previous one and see where that goes.}

I'm not in the position of understanding what you're getting at quite yet since I'm unfamiliar with the Powerset Paradox. Before I define omnipotence, I want to tell you upfront that to me it seems that there is no such thing as a true paradox; only anomalies. Anomalies that we construe with limited knowledge since our language has not defined such content, or our minds have not imagined such logic, so our understanding is limited to a paradox. I'm not saying you don't have a paradox; just that I haven't found one. I look forward to hearing what it is.

Now there is a difference between an omnipotent being and the Omnipotent being. An omnipotent being is a being that understands the Omnipotent being well enough to mimic the knowledge of the Omnipotence in order to seem as such, but really the only creature that would claim such a beingness and having such knowledge as an omnipotent being is one who does not know any better to understand that the Omnipotent being is everything, beyond, between, among, and nothing. I can't say anymore than that because my ability to comprehend anything else, let alone those words, is something time or my experience in life has not granted me. My imagination can take me far, but I will never have an ending thought because I can imagine all sorts of combinations of logic, and my own words and thoughts can even turn things into illogical ones if I wanted the to, but what's the point? I do that enough when I find I missed the point. :P Anyhow, to me that's the power of thought and maybe even the gift of Life.

Now before I go off on a tangent, you asked if the Omnipotent being can do tasks. Well, the Omnipotent being would have to be considered the Creator, so the Omnipotent being can enjoy the Creation or extend the Creation. This could be considered the Will of Life which we better define through science. Since we could never be the Creator, we will never understand if the Creation has been extended or not. To us it would just be another experience of enjoying the Creation. I can go on, but to cut it short for the time being, the individual is the between, the among is the Life around, the nothing is what we haven't discovered yet since nothing is a word with illogical meaning, the beyond is the logical, and everything well... anything you can think of during your time of thinking.

Why doesn't one of the Omnipotent's tasks change logic? You have 10 dimensions that you can change in infinite ways by finding the anomolies within a dimension and walking through them. What is there to change? Infinity?

[FaverWillets]

How does omnipotence lead to logical contradiction?

holier than thou? Riiiiiiiiiight... Don't worry I'm on topic. It's just most lkely not what you want to hear. Maybe because I explained somethng using a metaphor, and you don't like that...?

The first thing I say you guys crack jokes to blow me off, and I'm suppose to find that funny? lol... and you say I don't have a sense of humor. Anyhow, I throw it back in your face, and you seem to not have liked that too much... yet because of that, I don't have a sense of humor and I have an attitude?
Am I following along your thought process correctly?

Bro, I'm pretty sure you don't know me well enough to judge me and write me off as meaningless, humorless, and someone who thinks he's better than others.

So yeah, lets discuss this openly and not judge each other and respect each others view points.

I'd like to jump in with my take on the concept of an omnipotent God as put forth by contemporary fundamentalist Christianity... here, the concept of a God that is ALL KNOWING...He is both the Alpha and the Omega knowing EVERTHING... such silly and useless things as all the hairs on your head, all that kind of nonsense.... If we are to take this kind of "understanding" of what God is, then we are smack in the middle of paradoxes... here's a God that cannot be surprised, he knows it all, from beginning to end... he allows babies to be born deformed, or into extreme poverty in places like the Sudan, where reports have surfaced of torture and mutilations of babies and all other age brackets... or babies are born conjoined, twins that failed to seperate in utero....severe mental retardation...incomplete physical development...the list goes on.... try visiting a pediatrics ward of a teaching hospital... it'll make you think when you see the horrors of an incomplete nature meted out on babies and children...

The idea of this kind of God allowing these things to happen is another confusing aspect of belief.... apologists come out of the woodwork to "explain" why God is this or that....there is NO documentation to support their enthusiastic "filling in of the blanks" to explain away the contradictions..... back to the Alpha-Omega thingy... IF we were to accept this concept of God, then we would have to accept that this kind of God is a machine, or worse, has nothing to look forward to... He just watches it all unfold, even though he knows the outcomes of literally everything and even though he is all knowing...he just sits on his big holy *** and does nothing...[sounds like the HAL 9000 to me] ... not a very convincing description of an omnipotent Being, is it?

What is God? Whose God do we worship, and why? Are our god(s) more powerful than the Hawaiian gods were, or the native Americans? Why? Because we had a more advanced warfare technology than they did... How does a mightier military become an automatic Manifest Destiny; when God is invoked? When our society vanishes into the annuls of history whose god will be left standing?

Votaire was a very wise and courageous philosopher... he continually reminded us that the Emporer was wearing NO CLOTHES...

We have to define God...until we do, we have no god; we merely have the desire to have a god.

[Fredrick]

The idea that god is omnipotent can be proven just as easily as the fact that god has no power whatsoever. Got it? The word believe means 'to hold something as the truth.' With lacking evidence you can say whatever you want to say. Religion means freedom and as long as you bent to the facts you will have that freedom.

The platform of religion is different from the platform of science in that science works first with facts, and from the facts it creates theories (does anyone recognize the word 'theo' in theory?). In religion it is the other way around. A supposition that cannot be proven is considered the truth and from that center position everything else gets explained. It is difficult to get this distinction right immediately. The difference is as small as the difference between 'to get' and 'to bring.'

Sometimes evidence means that the center position (of what is believed to be true) must be changed, like what for instance happened with the vision that the earth stood at the center of god's work. Nobody in the world believes today that the earth is the center of the universe (that is, if they have knowledge of the facts).

There is an interesting connection with the English word god (which is the same in all germanic languages - though the pronunciation/writing is sometimes different (god in Dutch, Gott in German etc.) and what this word may have meant originally. The Dutch word god (god) and the Dutch word gat (hole) are pronounced almost the same way (the only difference being the vowel sound, which is like the u in but and the o in bot. 'Gat' can be used to deliver a final ending to a story for which there is not really an ending.

In English there is this interesting set of words that truly sound the same: hole (again, gat in Dutch) and whole. With god, with a hole, one can come to a whole. God can be used to finish the explanation. God can be the explanation. Very much like theorizing in science, god can be used to deliver a larger vision.

In the Romance languages one can see that the word god is based on a different model: dio, dieu, dios. Let me use some words here we are more or less all familiar with: Solo, duo, terzo. In Italian 'solo' means 'sun', while duo means two. Two can be seen as 'split' or division. The word 'terrestrial' is based on the word 'terre' which means earth. We can see a very familiar connection between one, two, three, and singular, in between, and third, and also sun, god, earth. In German the word for earth is 'Die Erde', while in Dutch third is 'derde' (earth is 'aarde'). The position of 'god' in one, two, three is that between the visible sun and the visible earth. The invisible split (hole) is nevertheless important because without the split sun and earth would not be separate entities.

The problem is that in religion nowadays god does not come at the end of the story anymore, but is put center stage. The 'hole' has now come to mean an omnipotent entity for which nevertheless no evidence will ever be found. Lack of evidence means the same as 'hole.' A belief is something considered to be true, and it can stand into infinity as long as no evidence has contradicted it. Evidence has the power to change a belief, but often one notices how the belief adjusts itself to the new information. It is hard to bent to the facts (because there is the existence of the 'hole'). Just like the earth no longer standing center stage in our universe, we still have a hard time not giving ourselves omni-importance, right?

[Tigron-X]

I'd like to jump in with my take on the concept of an omnipotent God as put forth by contemporary fundamentalist Christianity... here, the concept of a God that is ALL KNOWING...He is both the Alpha and the Omega knowing EVERTHING... such silly and useless things as all the hairs on your head, all that kind of nonsense.... If we are to take this kind of "understanding" of what God is, then we are smack in the middle of paradoxes... here's a God that cannot be surprised, he knows it all, from beginning to end... he allows babies to be born deformed, or into extreme poverty in places like the Sudan, where reports have surfaced of torture and mutilations of babies and all other age brackets... or babies are born conjoined, twins that failed to seperate in utero....severe mental retardation...incomplete physical development...the list goes on.... try visiting a pediatrics ward of a teaching hospital... it'll make you think when you see the horrors of an incomplete nature meted out on babies and children...

The idea of this kind of God allowing these things to happen is another confusing aspect of belief.... apologists come out of the woodwork to "explain" why God is this or that....there is NO documentation to support their enthusiastic "filling in of the blanks" to explain away the contradictions..... back to the Alpha-Omega thingy... IF we were to accept this concept of God, then we would have to accept that this kind of God is a machine, or worse, has nothing to look forward to... He just watches it all unfold, even though he knows the outcomes of literally everything and even though he is all knowing...he just sits on his big holy *** and does nothing...[sounds like the HAL 9000 to me] ... not a very convincing description of an omnipotent Being, is it?

What is God? Whose God do we worship, and why? Are our god(s) more powerful than the Hawaiian gods were, or the native Americans? Why? Because we had a more advanced warfare technology than they did... How does a mightier military become an automatic Manifest Destiny; when God is invoked? When our society vanishes into the annuls of history whose god will be left standing?

Votaire was a very wise and courageous philosopher... he continually reminded us that the Emporer was wearing NO CLOTHES...

We have to define God...until we do, we have no god; we merely have the desire to have a god.

That's just the thing though. We can't completely define what we don't understand, let alone to fully conceive such a magnitude of existence. And the desire to have a god could be seen as the desire to understand God. You can define God as Life; "Alpha-Omega" is the samething.

As for "all the hairs on your head", who said that God sits there and counts them all, let alone sits up there in heaven or something? Many things in us and the world around us regulates how many hairs we have and such "nonsense". To say that God counts them would imply that God didn't know something, and that doesn't make sense if you just said that God is all knowing. I know you didn't say count them but that's the only thing I can think of that might have lead you to a paradox.

Why is it that when we say God is everything and then we try to imagine what God does, we seperate ourselves from everything?

The way I see it is God created God's own existence and we're parts of that existence living out the whole.

The problem with defining God is that by doing so we would be essentially giving God a purpose, but can we give a purpose to the Being that gave us purpose?

Can purpose define purpose?

Oh yeah... and all the suffering is a result of our ignorance.

[FaverWillets]

That's just the thing though. We can't completely define what we don't understand, let alone to fully conceive such a magnitude of existence. And the desire to have a god could be seen as the desire to understand God. You can define God as Life; "Alpha-Omega" is the samething.

As for "all the hairs on your head", who said that God sits there and counts them all, let alone sits up there in heaven or something? Many things in us and the world around us regulates how many hairs we have and such "nonsense". To say that God counts them would imply that God didn't know something, and that doesn't make sense if you just said that God is all knowing. I know you didn't say count them but that's the only thing I can think of that might have lead you to a paradox.

Why is it that when we say God is everything and then we try to imagine what God does, we seperate ourselves from everything?

The way I see it is God created God's own existence and we're parts of that existence living out the whole.

The problem with defining God is that by doing so we would be essentially giving God a purpose, but can we give a purpose to the Being that gave us purpose?

Can purpose define purpose?

Oh yeah... and all the suffering is a result of our ignorance.

Today in America the prevailing, dominant "god" is of Christian. Tomorrow, who knows? God is ? Budhhist? Hindu perhaps? Whatever...

It was Jane Goodall who first observed chimpanzees in the wild adopt ritualistic behavior during a very torrid thunderstorm. What IS God? WHO is God, where did God come from if one really did exist? Whose god through all of history is really THE god? All this god talk is making my head explode. I don't see a need for any sort of god... it is a figment of our imaginations. Amen.

[Tigron-X]

Today in America the prevailing, dominant "god" is of Christian. Tomorrow, who knows? God is ? Budhhist? Hindu perhaps? Whatever...

It was Jane Goodall who first observed chimpanzees in the wild adopt ritualistic behavior during a very torrid thunderstorm. What IS God? WHO is God, where did God come from if one really did exist? Whose god through all of history is really THE god? All this god talk is making my head explode. I don't see a need for any sort of god... it is a figment of our imaginations. Amen.

So you're saying that our understanding of "god" will change, and our understanding today is a figment of our imagination?

I would have to totally agree with you on that.

[FaverWillets]

So you're saying that our understanding of "god" will change, and our understanding today is a figment of our imagination?

I would have to totally agree with you on that.


If you find that summary more comforting...for myself, no. I belong to the newest god religion, the Church of George Carlin.

[Tigron-X]

lol... George Carlin is by far my favorite comedian. He's hilarious.

Just out of curiosity, what's wrong with that summary?

[bd1976]

Ummm... Hi. I would like to throw something minor in here. In all the debates on this subject I have seen you always get people attacking religion (or at least organised religion) by pointing out all the evils it causes. However I have thought about it and I can't see how you can believe in right and wrong / good and evil without believing in god. Surely they are one and the same thing?

p.s this is an honest question - please be gentle!

[Gokul43201]

I decide for myself what's right or wrong. I use a sensible approach to determine whether a given act is right or wrong (good or bad); on the basis of whether is harms or helps and not on the basis of whether it will or won't need a confession to some person sitting in a wooden box. Different Gods have different opinions of right and wrong, so that really doesn't help.

I think slavery is bad. I think it is bad to try to have as many children as you can. I think it is bad to impose your religion upon others, and use money as a means of conversion. I think it is terrible to mislead people by telling them that the Bible is consistent with science, or that science is wrong whenever there is a difference.

I don't think it is bad to 'check out a chick' or be homosexual, or work during the Sabbath.

I was stopped on the road the other day, by three college students who tried to help me ebrace Christianity. After about fifteen minutes of discussion, I realized that these folks are being lied to, and now walk about the streets with their eyes closed to the beauty and accuracy of science. I was too gentle with them.

[bd1976]

I decide for myself what's right or wrong. I use a sensible approach to determine whether a given act is right or wrong (good or bad); on the basis of whether is harms or helps and not on the basis of whether it will or won't need a confession to some person sitting in a wooden box.

This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. I'm sorry I realise I did't exactly define what I meant properly.

ok here goes,

assumption: There is no god. We evolved from animals. Evolution was started by a cosmic accident. We are animals. There is no God and no higher purpose to life.

Now most people would accept this. However most people would also say that killing is wrong. However surely if there is no god there is no right and wrong. There is no reason, for example, not to go around killing people. If we are just animals. Without ther concept of god there is nothing in which to anchor morality!

[bd1976]

p.s Not that I mean to suggest that murder is justifiable :-)

[Tigron-X]

I was stopped on the road the other day, by three college students who tried to help me ebrace Christianity. After about fifteen minutes of discussion, I realized that these folks are being lied to, and now walk about the streets with their eyes closed to the beauty and accuracy of science. I was too gentle with them.

15 mins, ay? They were that hott? :P

p.s Not that I mean to suggest that murder is justifiable :-)

No, but however killing is.

Anyhow, do you not believe in evolution?

[Gokul43201]

This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. I'm sorry I realise I did't exactly define what I meant properly.

ok here goes,

assumption: There is no god. We evolved from animals. Evolution was started by a cosmic accident. We are animals. There is no God and no higher purpose to life.

Now most people would accept this. However most people would also say that killing is wrong. However surely if there is no god there is no right and wrong. There is no reason, for example, not to go around killing people. If we are just animals. Without ther concept of god there is nothing in which to anchor morality!

I can give you a lengthy counter-argument about how your reasoning is not rigorous, but instead I'll give you a short counter-example (as that constitutes as disproof) : ME

I don't believe (yet) that there's a God, but I don't go about killing people. I do NOT anchor my moral values on some religious scripture. I anchor them upon my reasoning independent of any religious teaching.

[olde drunk]

your religion is information and your god is science!

love&peace,
olde drunk

[Gokul43201]

But I can question Science...and it does not work in mysterious ways that are beyond my comprehension.

Nevertheless, I agrre with the sentiment of your observation.

[FaverWillets]

But I can question Science...and it does not work in mysterious ways that are beyond my comprehension.

Nevertheless, I agrre with the sentiment of your observation.

The current issue of Scientific American SPECIAL EDITION is devoted entirely to Einstein and the future of physics....

Yes, question science...without questioning science there can be no progress in our understanding of nature or ourselves.

[bd1976]

hmm.... Perhaps I'm being a bit dense here but am I wrong when I say that you can't base right and wrong on reasoning or on science?

On a lighter note. In respose to

""But I can question Science...and it does not work in mysterious ways that are beyond my comprehension.""

can anyone say quantum physics? :-)

[arildno]

Yes, question science...without questioning science there can be no progress in our understanding of nature or ourselves.

Just a caveat here:
"...without SCIENTISTS questioning science IN AN INTELLIGENT MANNER there can be no progress in our understanding of nature or ourselves"
Non-scientists/specialists haven't got the competence to question science in an intelligent manner.

[FaverWillets]

Just a caveat here:
"...without SCIENTISTS questioning science IN AN INTELLIGENT MANNER there can be no progress in our understanding of nature or ourselves"
Non-scientists/specialists haven't got the competence to question science in an intelligent manner.

Actually you are right, but mostly in my choice of wording... yes, intelligent people can and do question science, but they usually lack the mathematical base and credentials that the scientific community covets. But there are also 'crackpot' scientists who "prove" things such as evolution wrong, etc... they don't of course, because they don't go about science in an intelligent and responsibile manner. They are religious zealots who have cast science aside due to their twisted sense of beliefs that they have 'discovered' new ways of disproving what they themselves find most uncomforting.... anyway.... It's like, if only I could disprove Einstein, I'd be world famous, rich and go down in history. Oh heck, the break whistle just blew...I'll start on it after work tonight."

how about this, "...without SCIENTISTS questioning science there cannot be effective debate yeilding any viable progress in our understanding of nature and ourselves."

Carl Sagan made this point in his book, The Demon Haunted World, when he used by way of analogy: [paraphrased] {consider that to even begin to hope to understand science today, a person must be willing to devote years of their lives to the study of mathematics, but it doesn't stop there... he/she must be willing to go through their first 12 years of primary/high school and major in mathematics and the sciences, then major in their undergraduate studies in the sciences and minor in mathematics, then go to graduate school and continue... all tolled they would have to be willing to invest 15 years of their lives minimum in order to have JUST THE MINIMUM baseline of background in order to begin to understand what the scientists are saying and doing.... or, they can choose the lesser of these and go to church.}

My point is that only scientists can wage an EFFECTIVE challenge to scientific findings, and only scientists as a group can even know how reported scientific findings were arrived at and then attempt to reproduce the same results in their own laboratories.

So, yes you are right. I am NOT a scientist, and certainly not even willing to attempt to balance my checkbook (which might explain a few things in my household budget "-) and though I can read Scientific American et al, I will never be able to go head to head with scientists in any meaningful way... best I can do is write an article that stirs up the hornet's nest and allow them to duke it out amongst themselves in the ensuing fray.

I do agree with your challenge to how I wrote that, and in and of itself, I couldn't agree with you more. And yes, scientist/specialists do have the advantage of bringing about meaningful debate.

Just remember the boys from Utah...you remember those idiots don't you?...the ones who went public with their world shaking discovery of COLD FUSION.... heheheh...funny guys, those Utah wizards.... it was scientists worldwide who exposed those frauds. I didn't have the means to test their hypotheses, didn't have the math skills to write out the proofs... but scientists and specialists did.


Phil

[dekoi]

Design Argument
-everything in the world is suited to the function if performs; everything shows evidence of having been designed
-a watch was made by a Watchmaker, an eye was made by the Divine Watchmaker
-other things are even more ingeniously constructed than just a watch, further showing the extreme power of the Creator

Criticisms: Weakness of Analogy
-although there is some similarity between a watch an eye, it is only a vague similarity, and a conclusion based from this argument of analogy will therefore correspondingly be vague or unclear

Criticisms: Evolution
-Charles Darwin (1809-1882) demonstrated that by a process of the survival of the fittest, animals and plants which best suited their environment lives on and passed these traits to their offspring
-Darwin’s theory does not disapprove God’s existence, but it weakens it because it creates an argument without ever mentioning the existence of the Divine Watchmaker

Criticism: Conclusive
1.) -the Design Argument, in no way, proves the existence of one God
-why couldn’t the universe be created by a group of gods?
-a watch might be made by a group of Watchmakers, then from the argument of analogy, couldn’t the universe also be made by a group of Divine Watchmakers?
2.) –the Design Argument doesn’t prove God is all-powerful; the universe has several design flaws (human eye tends to have short-sightedness due to old age)
-perhaps these flaws are due to a group of weak gods, or one weaker God, or maybe a young god experimenting and making a mistake
3.) –Problem of Evil


The Anthropic Principle
-the chance of human survival during human evolution was so small, that it can conclude that the world is the work of a divine architect; God must have created the perfect conditions for this kind of complex life to evolve

Criticism: Lottery Objection
-if you win a lottery in which millions of people competed, you agree that it was nothing more than a random selection; you would disagree with the notion that somehow, your ticket was “chosen” by a higher power


First Cause Argument
-arguments based on direct observation of the world are empirical arguments; arguments based only on the existence of the universe are Cosmological Arguments
-this argument states that everything has been caused by something prior to it

Criticism: Self-Contradictory

Criticism: Not a Proof
-if it is possible to have an infinite series, why then shouldn’t the effects and causes extend backwards into the past to infinity?


The Ontological Argument
-a perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist; thus, because a definition of God exists, God could therefore be said to exist as well;
-therefore, this argument is based on the notion that for there to be a “being”, it must also exist




I included both arguments and counterarguments, so you can understand my conluding point. Personally, i feel that humanity and life is a search for a higher goodness, a higher 'power' if you will. I have recognized that all of humanity has a desire or hunger for the trancendentals (good, truth, beauty, justice, unity). However, i think the magnitude of the idea of a higher power (God or gods) is much beyond our current thinking level, and thus, we can not solve the mistery of God in simple, materialistic words. I think, like Tolstoy, that the only argument for the existance of God is our search for initially belief, and in the end, faith. When we recognize what we are believing in and how we will go about it, and when we truly understand our belief, God (gods) will grant us faith. And when one is granted with faith, they will no longer worry about the burdens of society and life, as they will be in salvation.

[bd1976]

I don't believe (yet) that there's a God, but I don't go about killing people. I do NOT anchor my moral values on some religious scripture. I anchor them upon my reasoning independent of any religious teaching.

My argument is really this. There is no scientific reason not to go around killing people and yet we all (at least I hope we all!!) would agree that this is wrong. Yet right and wrong, are things that only have meaning if there is a higher purpose to life. So therefore the fact that we all believe in these things does point to the existance of God.

Now you could say that a belief in morality is a gift of genetic's giving humans an advantage by encouraging the formation of societies. But I don't think that most people accept this. Most people believe that there really is such a thing as right and wrong. So doesn't this point to a subconscious belief in the divine?

[dekoi]

i should say, i agree with you regarding that fact; you may have a morality without believing in religion. Because humanity tends to be directed toward some sort of truth, some sort of faith. Thus, while we search for this "goal" or human purpose --which is btw filled with the goodness, truth, beauty, and unity -- we tend to develope this morality.

Therefore, although we are following these aspects of goodness, we do so without mentioning any theological belief. Religion just allows us to have a clearer path toward the truth.

[bd1976]

whooooo there!

I'm not trying to get the thread shut down I'm trying to explain what I meant clearly. So that someone else can tell me where I have gone wrong in my thinking. I sometimes find that when you get wrapped up in an argument you can't think of a counter argument yourself!

[dekoi]

bd1976: i am trying to understand your question. are you looking for the source of moral judgment? of your conscience? my previously long thread explains the question/statement in the thread name, i figured that is what you needed as well?

[bd1976]

Well you sort of agreed with me. I am looking for someone to disagree with me. If you ask someone about this they will often say that there is no need for god. Human reasoning can provide a better morality. However I submit that morality is something that only has meaning in the context of a higher purpose in life? But I'm sure I must be wrong otherwise almost everyone would believe in god since almost everyone believes in right and wrong?

[dekoi]

No, even if you are correct, not everyone would believe in God. Human civilization is so clouded that people have begun to replace materialistic happiness for metaphysical bliss. Everyone believes they are happy, while only being fooled by their own enclosed mind.

[bd1976]

... Blimey!

[Tigron-X]

Well you sort of agreed with me. I am looking for someone to disagree with me. If you ask someone about this they will often say that there is no need for god. Human reasoning can provide a better morality. However I submit that morality is something that only has meaning in the context of a higher purpose in life? But I'm sure I must be wrong otherwise almost everyone would believe in god since almost everyone believes in right and wrong?

I don't really believe in seeing the world as right & wrong; good & evil; or yin & yang. I understand the use of them and the principal notion such words apply, and how such thoughts can help our judgment, but I'd rather see such things as good or better. See, I believe we live in a world of constant growing perfection. For example if you assigned our current era the value of 7, then tomrrow's era would become an 8... and so on. It helps me look at things differently. It's basically a value judgment.

My problem with right & wrong; or good & evil is if God is said to be everything than that would make God good & evil. That doesn't make sense. Or you can even say God created evil since God is the Creator. Well, that negates the righteousness of God, so that doesn't make sense either. There is only a choice one can have that leads to a higher form of perfection which overtime can change the world around us. This process is also seen as evolution. Some choices we have; some choices we don't have, and it all depends on our understanding of Life and its Perfection. Morality comes from understanding and/or gaining knowledge "of Life"/"on Life", however you want to look at it. Any intelligent person can have morality, but why limit your choices as "right or wrong" or "good or evil" when Life lives in many ways?

[Gokul43201]

Design Argument

...
The Anthropic Principle

...
First Cause Argument


...
The Ontological Argument

...



Nice summary, dekoi ! :smile:

[Gokul43201]

On a lighter note. In respose to

""But I can question Science...and it does not work in mysterious ways that are beyond my comprehension.""

can anyone say quantum physics? :-)

I'm not sure exactly how light your "lighter note" is intended to be, but our understanding of Quantum Mechanics is as strong as our understanding of Classical Mechanics (at least the areas of QM that are completely developed). The only difference is that QM is not intuitive, because it deals with a scale that we can not relate to through naked observation, for the most part. And fewer people understand it, because it relies on a lot of mathematics.

Also, I should add that a theory under development (that is attempting to explain things that are only partially/not at all understood) is not fair game for rebuke. It's called research, and it's the trailblazer that cuts into the unknown.

[Gokul43201]

My argument is really this. There is no scientific reason not to go around killing people and yet we all (at least I hope we all!!) would agree that this is wrong. Yet right and wrong, are things that only have meaning if there is a higher purpose to life. So therefore the fact that we all believe in these things does point to the existance of God.

Now you could say that a belief in morality is a gift of genetic's giving humans an advantage by encouraging the formation of societies. But I don't think that most people accept this. Most people believe that there really is such a thing as right and wrong. So doesn't this point to a subconscious belief in the divine?

Are you saying that :

1. Our (at least) subconscious belief in a higher power is the source of our moral values , OR

2. The higher power establishes these sets of morals in us, and hence we have them

?

And when you say "higher purpose to life", what is the role of the word 'higher' ?

[arildno]

Faverwillets:
I still would like to hold that even scientists must question science IN AN INTELLIGENT MANNER.
There have been lots of scientists that fail to uphold that standard; and in my view, "idiots with scientific credentials" are far more dangerous than uninformed idiots.

[FaverWillets]

Faverwillets:
I still would like to hold that even scientists must question science IN AN INTELLIGENT MANNER.
There have been lots of scientists that fail to uphold that standard; and in my view, "idiots with scientific credentials" are far more dangerous than uninformed idiots.


Looks like we're on the same page.

Returning to the orginal question that is the title of this thread, I guess that a "god" could only prove itself to us by first appearing and remaining in our physical presence and then by openly and repeatedly demonstrating its powers to violate the known laws of physics... and we would need to have the best magician illusionists on Earth on the committee alongside the scientists to "validate" the demonstrations.

[FaverWillets]

Faverwillets:
I still would like to hold that even scientists must question science IN AN INTELLIGENT MANNER.
There have been lots of scientists that fail to uphold that standard; and in my view, "idiots with scientific credentials" are far more dangerous than uninformed idiots.
Looks like we're on the same page.

[olde drunk]

i can see no reason that science and a belief in a higher power can not exist within anyone. i believe that science is simply another tool for understanding the universe. i also believe in our intuitive awareness of a broader reality.

as a layman, i understand the general concept of QT and it begins to show us that there is more than just this physical dimension. this doesn't prove a god, but it advances all the old mystic ideas that we exist on more than one level.

the dispute between religion and science is fought by extremists of both camps. if the universe is the source, or higher power, it includes science. ergo science can not be a tool of the devil. if science shows more demensions, it begins to confirm our faith in a broader reality.

both disciplines have a place in our world as long as we don't go overboard with either. it is funny, tho, as our great scientific minds get further into their ideas, they seem to become more spiritual (not religious). do they have an inner feeling - awareness that their contribution is giving them, personally, a better grip or insight into the spiritual that is beyond pure science???


love&peace,
olde drunk

[FaverWillets]

"i can see no reason that science and a belief in a higher power can not exist within anyone. i believe that science is simply another tool for understanding the universe. i also believe in our intuitive awareness of a broader reality."

That is the rub. What one believes is not science...science is founded on a solid method of testing and observation. Belief is founded on ... belief, without benefit of the scientific method. That is THE key definition of science...it is a method of inquiry that is standardized worldwide. What one scientist observes, tests and reports here another can observe, test and confirm anywhere else. Belief has no rules, no guidelines...it is devoid of the scientific method in its entirety. Belief is conscious choice that is based in emotion. Science is conscious inquiry based in methods that are supported by mathematics...the one true universal language.

Whenever science/scientists make this unfortunate turn toward a compelling belief, others expose it by simply attempting to repeat the original's experiments. When the results are continually different, or non existent the "belief" of the original scientist is invalidated. Unfortunately, we do not find this in religion/spirituality... we can't, by definition.

[bd1976]

I'm not sure exactly how light your "lighter note" is intended to be, but our understanding of Quantum Mechanics is as strong as our understanding of Classical Mechanics (at least the areas of QM that are completely developed). The only difference is that QM is not intuitive, because it deals with a scale that we can not relate to through naked observation, for the most part. And fewer people understand it, because it relies on a lot of mathematics.

Erm.. No. Quantum mechanics unlike Classical Mechanics is based on a complex Entity "the wavefunction" this is just one of the conceptual difficulties with the theory. Yes as a piece of mathematics its perfectally well defined but that isn't good nough dfor a physical theory. A physical theory also has to explain the relationship between the mathematics and reality. In that respect qm is a mess.


Are you saying that :

1. Our (at least) subconscious belief in a higher power is the source of our moral values , OR

2. The higher power establishes these sets of morals in us, and hence we have them

?

And when you say "higher purpose to life", what is the role of the word 'higher' ?

I am saying that, without a god or, if you like, a higher purpose in life, right and wrong, good and evil do not exist as concepts. If the only difference between a man and an Ape is a bit more complexity In the frontal lobes -courtesy of evolution then there is no justification for a belief in the concept of good and evil.

Consider: Most people believe that murder is evil. (not just undesirable for society but actually evil). However if an ape murders another ape is it evil -> of course not! I'm saying this almost universal belief in good and evil points to an unconscious belief in god!

(*bow's*) bd

[Gokul43201]

Erm.. No. Quantum mechanics unlike Classical Mechanics is based on a complex Entity "the wavefunction" this is just one of the conceptual difficulties with the theory.

When you say complex, do you mean that it uses complex numbers ?

A complex number is just an ordered pair of real numbers with some interesting properties. There is nothing unreal about them. Hundreds of years ago, when the concept of a negative number was new, the common man shrugged it off as unreal.

If this is not what you mean by "complex entity", then I'd have to say that the wavefunction is no more complex than charge or mass.

Yes as a piece of mathematics its perfectally well defined but that isn't good nough dfor a physical theory. A physical theory also has to explain the relationship between the mathematics and reality. In that respect qm is a mess.

bd

Quantum Mechanics is far more accurate at describing reality than any Classical Theory. The correspondence principle makes QM no worse than Classical Mechanics. Please show me exactly where QM is a mess.

[bd1976]

go here dude! http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=43096

[Kerrie]

sorry guys, i think this thread has gone on long enough.