oh yeah.. and I never understand this: If someone told me today that "hey dude, I'm the son of god" and then I was all "uh, well, as much as I am, sure" and he was all "nuh-uh" and I was "whut?" and he went like "dude, I mean, my dad is god and he knocked up my mom without having ever touched her" I'd be like "dude, you're such a crackhead" and then try to convince him to seek help, even if he seemed like the smartest dude I'd ever met. why? why???????? why don't you understand that IF jesus existed he likely should have been committed as, well, I mean.... he had to have been a total loon. COME ON. "I am the way." can you imagine the GAWL. ack.
wow! iM IMPRESSED! YOU QUOTE ALL OF THEM EVIDENCE SO FAR KID! cONGRATS! YOUR NOT LIKE FRENCHY AND OTHERS.... Proof of God 1) The universe exists= So complex, so detailed, yet functioning, ORDERED, NOT CHAOS, but DESIGNED, all working in harmony. (predators, omnivors, air, plants to cleanse the air, fertilization, weather, death, life, etc.).. A DESIGN.... 2) People have testified belief= One or three could make up lies, VERY UNLIKELY FOR BILLIONS TO MAKE UP LIES WITHOUT FINANCIAL GAIN...Very unlikely indeed for billions to lie, and who accuse them of lying? YOU? WHO ARE YOU? 3) God exists otherwise King Henry/Shakepeare never did either= Yes, there is the same valid proof for the existence of God, as there is for King Henry and shakespeare, you cant really prove they exist (u may call them "waldo" or giant purple squid monkey), but bottom line is they have the same amount of valid evidence...... 4) People have died for religion= WHY WOULD YOU LIE AND SAY "GOD SPOKE TO ME" THEN BE FED BY LIONS, OR TORTURED TO DEATH? WHY WOULD MILLIONS DO THAT? ARE MILLIONMS INSANE? AND A LIAR? WHY WOULD THEY GIVE UP THEIR RICHES FOR THEIR FAITH IF THERE IS NOTHING GENUINE ABOUT IT? 5) 99% of universities founded by Christians= Thus proving that Christians are much smarter (UNLIKE THE LIES ATHEISTS SPREAD, CLAIMING THAT WE ARE IGNORANT ABO[UT SCIENCE WHEN THE FACT IS OPPOSITE...) 6) Healing, miracles, and other supernatural claims= yes, this are PHYSICAL AND SUBSTANCIAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.. You have Lady of Guadalupe cactus cloth. You have bleeding statues. You have healing of incurable cancers through FAITH AND/OR PRAYERS TO GOD, CHRISTIANS OR NOT, LIKE JESUS SAID "THEIR FAITH HEALED THEM".... 7) Random chance cannot form computers, nor life= EXACTLY! THERE IS NO PROOF THAT SOMETHING AS COMPLEX, DETAILED AND FUNCTIONING AS A COMPUTER CAN EXIST BY THE STRIKES OF LIGHTNING, EARTHQUAKE, ETC. (PHYSICS), NEVERTHLESS THE WHOLE UNIVERSE IS EVEN FAR MORE COMPLEX THAN A COMPUTER.... 8) Intelligent design= yes, that everything that exist, from bi9ological existence, through technological existence is PROVEN TO EXIST BY INTELLIGENT CAUSE, A FACT YOU CANNOT REFUTE.... SUMMARY= I HAVE GIVEN SUBSTANCIAL EVIDENCE, CURRENT AND HISTORICAL. NOT ONLY THAT, I HAVE ALSO DISPROVEN THE ATHESTS CLAIM OF "CHANCE"... WHAT MORE CAN I GIVE? WHAT MORE? WHAT ELSE IS THERE? IF GOD IS STILL A MYTH BECAUSE THAT IS HOW INCREDIBLY STUPID YOU ARE, THEN EVERYTHING ELSE IS A MYTH................... PERIOD..........
Great post wesmorris. Whatsupyall wrote: Random chance cannot form computers, nor life Then how do you suppose God was formed? Is he not "complex" enough to be considered worthy of a creator as well? Oh wait... I already know the standard response to this question......"umm... you see... God.. He...ummmm...always existed....YEA, that's it... He always existed. Therefore He doesn't need a creator." Well that's just the last desperate sound of a cop-out, the same thing as "umm... well....I have FAITH that He exists... and... so there". But seriously, maybe you have a better answer than the one I usually hear. So I'll ask you. Shouldn't God need a creator as well?
Shouldn't God need a creator as well? ---------------------- This question is logically problematic. If everything needs a creator, than no matter what exists, it must have been created. Furthermore, to be created means that someone or something had to create it. But then, who created the creator and so on? Logically, this would mean there would be an infinite regression of creators and we would never be able to find the first, uncaused cause since, by definition (the questions says that "everything needs a creator") there wouldn't be any uncaused cause. This would mean that the sequence of creations is eternal. But, if it exists that there is an eternal regression of creators, then who created the infinite regression of creators? Remember, the question presupposes that all things need a creator -- even the eternal sequence of creators -- which becomes logically absurd. Furthermore, if there is an eternal regression of creators that are eternal, then the question is not answered. In fact, it cannot be answered since it's weakness is that "all things need a creator." Of course, this only begs the question in that how did the process begin? Therefore, the question only raises the same problem it asks and it is a question that, by its own design, cannot be answered. Therefore, it is invalid. The question is better phrased as a statement: "Everything that has come into existence, was brought into existence by something else." This is a more logical statement and is not wrought with the difficulties of the initial question. In the revised statement "Everything that has come into existence," implies that the thing that "has come into existence" did not already exist. If it did not already exist but then came into existence, then something had to bring it into existence because something that does not exist cannot bring itself into existence (a logical absolute). This pushes the regression of creators back to what we would call the theoretical "uncaused cause" since there cannot be an infinite regression of creators as discussed above and since in infinite number of creators would mean there was an infinite number of creations and created things including things that cannot be destroyed since they would constitute things that exist. If that is so, then the universe would have had an infinite number of created things in it and it would be full. But it is not full. Therefore, there has not been an infinite regression of creations. By definition, the Christian God never came into existence; that is, He is the uncaused cause (Psalm 90:2). He was always in existence and He is the one who created space, time, and matter. This means that the Christian God is the uncaused cause and is the ultimate creator. This eliminates the infinite regression problem. But some may ask, "But who created God?" But the answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal. He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence. Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter. Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him. - carm ><> “For the past three hundred years, scientists have scaled the mountain of ignorance and as they pull themselves over the final rock, they are greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." –Robert Jastrow, Professor, Founder and Director of the Goddard Space Center, Agnostic
I'll have to hand it to whatsup. Considering some of the other stuff he's posted, this almost seems like an argument. You are still closed-minded, stubborn, and judging, but maybe there is hope yet. As I see you have presented an actualy opinon, instead of 'Ofcourse god exists, DUH!'. Here is how I see it all. God is a theory, not a fact. Such as science is a thoery. The only difference is that one is based on experiments and calculations and the other is based in our past. Here's a little simplified theory about god from a scientific point of view. God is a primal need that came with the evolution of knowledge for explanation of the world arround us. Once homosapiens learnt to use tools and harness fire, communicate, he nolonger needed to fear the world to survive, he was the master of all the animals he surveyed. With communication came stories, children listened attentively and excitedly to the hunters stories, who ofcourse embelished to gain status in the tribes. The greatest hunts were told over and over again by word of mouth through the generations, and for every storyteller the story evolved along with man. Stories were told to explain the mountains and the seas and the animals and the man. These stories became truths to primitive man, unquestioning children took them for their own. As tribes competed for the land and animals, they fought each other. And as they grew, the wise shaman realized that he could maintain controll and have the people do his bidding, if he claimed to be able to speak to the gods and so bring rain to the plains. Somewhere here the tribes started joining eachother and shure enough civilization was formed as man learnt more and more about his world. But the stories remained as the unquestionable explenations for the world, they only changed to suit what was learned. And those very shaman remained as the leaders, and became greedy with the power that they controlled. The christian God is no different from Allah or Buddha they all have books which are no more or less credible than the bible. Christianity had the luck to spread quickly at a very fragile moment in history, the fall of the roman empire. This is my explenation for god, the explenation of thw world changes everyday, we are yet to discover it, but to do so we must let go of the old stories and look at the facts. (Then again there seems to be a bit of a disagreement about what should be considered as a fact.) Today, the idea is that the universe and we are just one big random happening, the 'order' is created by the opposite forces within matter attracting and detering each other.
Inspector wrote: But some may ask, "But who created God?" But the answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal. He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence. Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter. Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him. - carm It's impossible for anything to exist outside of time. It doesn't necessarily have to exist in the SAME time dimension as us, but it has to exist in SOME time dimension. Somebody else could explain the logistics of WHY better than I could. Proposing that God has existed for all time and therefore does not need a creator, does not really answer the question. Because you're still dealing with a complex entity that was not created. Saying that God exists outside of time only brings more questions and doubt along with it. The same question remains though.
"It's impossible for anything to exist outside of time." --------------------- This is merely your opinion, based on your limited, finite understanding of the universe. To say that it is impossible for something to exist outside of time would not only require you to have absolute knowledge of all things regarding existence, dimensions of time and all of the appertaining, possible associations between the two entities involved, but also, would necessitate an absolutenss of scope which you are incapable of verifying. Therefore, since we are dwelling in subjectivity, I could equally claim that it IS possible for God to exist outside of time since He is both omnipresent and omnipotent. ><>
I quoted them as YOUR proclaimed evidence, not valid evidence. You COULD HAVE followed them up with actual evidence, but you didn't. I could go through each point again and dispute it, but you'd probably once again skip over anything that doesn't conform to your belief. For examples of how citation works, just look through the topics in the World and Politics section. Making a statement that you claim as fact, not opinion, without outside sources is worthless to anyone.
Inspector, Well no you can’t, you can only appeal to irrationaility. Regarding time though: In human experience there is no precedent for anything existing outside of time. As far as we are concerned nothing can exist outside of time, unless you can show otherwise. So of course any claims to KNOW that something can exist outside of time must be false since we have no precedent on which to make that conclusion. So a claim that God exists outside of time and is omnipresent and omnipotent are not subjective claims but irrational claims. Logic demands that its premises are based on facts. Since you can’t show those claims are based on facts then the claims are illogical and are therefore irrational.
Inspector wrote, Therefore, since we are dwelling in subjectivity, I could equally claim that it IS possible for God to exist outside of time since He is both omnipresent and omnipotent. Well, it sounds like to me that your belief in God, and your entire reseasoning behind it, is simply that you can't prove against it any more than you can prove for it. It is impossible to prove otherwise, so you might as well just believe what you want. Hey, I have a theory too. I believe in a different God than you. MY god exists not only outside of time, but outside of existance too. My God is therefore more powerful than yours and He's gonna create His OWN universe!! And he's a good god. He's not gonna let his creations suffer like YOOOOUUUUR God. HAH!
"So of course any claims to KNOW that something can exist outside of time must be false since we have no precedent on which to make that conclusion." ---------------------- Simply because an object or process lies beyond your naturalistic explanations does not make it false or invalid. There are many things that exist that cannot be proven scientifically. "Logic demands that its premises are based on facts. Since you can’t show those claims are based on facts then the claims are illogical and are therefore irrational." ----------------------- Nice try. However, applying your aforementioned commentary would ultimately negate the rationality of atheism. If attempting to prove something logical demands a factual premise to justify rationality, then atheism does not qualify, since it is based on subjectivity, and not facts. ><>
Seesaw, I’m British, I only live in the USA and I’m still learning American. I still get blindsided frequently with Americanisms, especially on message boards where you can’t hear my accent. Xev – “All heil Cris, leader of athiests! ”. OK OK but keep the salutes discreet and for God's sake don’t let whatsup see you.
Inspector, That is true but I wasn’t addressing such an object, I was addressing the Christian claim to KNOW that such things that are beyond our knowledge are true. That is irrational. I can’t think of anything offhand do you have an example? If it cannot be proven scientifically then how do you know it exists? No that is not true either. Atheism at its core is an absence of belief in theistic claims. A disbelief in claims that do not have a rational (factual) basis is perfectly logical. However, I would agree that strong atheism, a belief that a god does not exist, is technically illogical if evidence cannot be presented for such a claim. Hence the atheistic arguments of the paradoxes of “omniscience and human freewill” and “omnibenevolence and the presence of evil”. These proofs demonstrate the impossibility of the Christian god and hence the non-existence of such a specific god. These have been explored several times in this forum over the past few years. However, there is also the issue of credibility. At what stage does one admit that fantasies like flying green elephants are just fantasies and that such things do not in fact exist? Without any precedent for fantasies such as omnipotent gods and the supernatural then such things are as fanciful as flying green elephants. It seems perfectly reasonable under such circumstances to declare such things as non-existent, or at least to assume their non-existence in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary. To all intents and purposes the Christian God does not exist. Or rather it exists only in the imagination of Christians.
"I can’t think of anything offhand do you have an example? If it cannot be proven scientifically then how do you know it exists?" ------------- Does a thought exist? Of course. Can you scientifically prove that a though exists? No. Since you cannot prove that a thought exists, does this invalidate the evidence that a thought exists? No. The non-locality of Bell's Theorem is based on an object that is not empirical in nature. However, the results of the object impinge on our physical world. The same can be said of God. God may not be directly empirical in nature, but the results of God impinge on our physical world, also. "At what stage does one admit that fantasies like flying green elephants are just fantasies and that such things do not in fact exist?" -------------- Without supporting evidence, I would concur that flying green elephants are fantasies. However, there is an abundance of credible evidence supporting the existence of God. You simply choose to dismiss the evidence because it clashes with your presuppositions. Your method of examining the evidence is biased and tainted with prejudice. Therefore, your resulting commentary is merely subjective and opinionated. ><>
Well define "thought". Thought \Thought\, n. [OE. [thorn]oght, [thorn]ouht, AS. [thorn][=o]ht, ge[thorn][=o]ht, fr. [thorn]encean to think; akin to D. gedachte thought, MHG. d[=a]ht, ged[=a]ht, Icel. [thorn][=o]ttr, [thorn][=o]tti. See Think.] 1. The act of thinking; the exercise of the mind in any of its higher forms; reflection; cogitation. One can easily observe this in an MRI machine, or with a PET scan. So your analogy is false. Such as? I love it when theists do this, then when I ask what evidence, they mutter something about how they have faith, and they feel God in their hearts, and if I wasn't such a stupid, closeminded little bitch, I'd feel God too. Which never really answers the question, does it? You "feel" God. Well, I "feel" the Great Cthulhu. Does this mean Cthulhu exists? I'm not saying that your "feeling" is meaningless, any more than my "feeling" love for my cat is meaningless. However, if you want to communicate with another person on a logical and factual level, you can't use "feeling" as a guide. You must use logic and facts. A pretty assertion! But you know what happens to people who make assertions? They look like asses. Before you insult Cris, perhaps you should explain why his method is so biased, so that he can rectify such error. I think Cris is one who would agree with Marcus Aurelius: "If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm." -- Marcus Aurelius So pony up, inspector. What's the evidence for the existence of God? P.S: I remind you that by not being forthcoming with such, you're allowing Cris' and my souls to be condemmned to eternal torment - thus violating Rom 1:16's injunction to not be "ashamed of the Gospel of Christ".
"So your analogy is false." --------------------- No. The analogy is accurate, and, there are many more. "So pony up, inspector. What's the evidence for the existence of God?" ---------------------- Review some of my earlier posts, if you are sincerely interested. "P.S: I remind you that by not being forthcoming with such, you're allowing Cris' and my souls to be condemmned to eternal torment - thus violating Rom 1:16's injunction to not be "ashamed of the Gospel of Christ"." ----------------------- Nice attempt at inflicting guilt. However, you are responsible for your own actions, and will be judged accordingly. ><>
Inspector, So in support of Xev’s comments what can you offer that is credible evidence that shows beyond any reasonable doubt the current existence of – 1. God. 2. Jesus. 3. Souls. All of which are fundamental to the credibility of Christianity. If you want to further refine the criteria of such evidence then please make your case.
