Proof that God exists.

[Ekimklaw]

In this post I will attempt to prove that God exists. I believe he does. Here is why:

1. Cuasality. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, since matter exists, that begs a "first cause". Since matter cannot create itself, there must be a God. Since *something* cannot be CREATED by *nothing*... there must be a creator. Therefore God exists.

2. Design. The world displays intelligent design. This was either done by a "designer" or blind chance. I see scientific proofs of God through astronomy and molecular science as well as other sciences. Since I do not believe that these things are the product of chance, I believe there is a "designer" and he is God.

3. Change. Everything changes. What changes a thing, is itself changing. EVERYTHING is acted upon by something outside itself which causes change. Nothing changes itself. From the tiniest atom up to the very limits of space and time. However large the universe is there eventually must be a limit. Outside the limit of space and time there must be an unchanging thing which caused change to occur. This unchanging source of change is God.

4. Ontological. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and also in reality, rather than just in the mind alone. Right? A good definition of God is that being which is supreme, such that no greater thing can be imagined. Now suppose God exists in the mind but not in reality. If that was true, then a greater thing than God could be imagined (namely a supreme being that exist both in the mind AND reality). But this is impossible since God is that being which is supreme, such that no greater thing can be imagined. Therefore God must exist in the mind *and* reality. This concept requires deep thought.

5. Conscience. Ones conscience must come from a higher being. Why? Because it could not have come from something lesser than me. It cannot come from myself (I do not obligate myself absolutely). It cannot come from society. They have no right to force their values on me. I can only derive absolute moral obligation (conscience) from a higher being. Therefore God exists.

6. Moral. Humans are obligated to do good and avoid evil. Atheism cannot teach a moral obligation (see #5). Therefore we derive our moral obligation from God. God exists.

These are some of the main reasons why I believe God exists. There are other important reasons, but I tried to avoid things like emotions, religious experiences, answered prayer, etc. Things that mean NOTHING to atheists.

In the end I cannot sufficiently *prove* God exists, no more than you can *prove* he doesn't. You can't do it absolutely. It is ultimately a choice one makes based on the percepted evidence one experiences.

One more thing... asking me to use science to prove God exists is like me asking you to use religion to prove he doesn't.

Thanks,

-Mike

 

[Xerxes]

I agree with a lot of things you say. Athiests aren't really people who don't believe in a higher force, I'm sure they do. IMO they're just basically lost or wandering, looking for answers and proof.

Now although you can't physically prove something that's responsible for your existence, since you know nothing about it/him/he/shemale whatever your religion says, you can still take what you know of your own existence and surroundings, and try to understand that you AREN't the highest lifeform since you didn't create yourself! It's that simply. But I find that trying to convince an athiest that there is a higher force out their, is just about as aimful as bashing your head against a steel wall. Science can't exist without philosophy, not the other way around.

 

[James R]

Hi Mike,

<i>1. Causality. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.</i>

According to relativity it can.

<i>Therefore, since matter exists, that begs a "first cause".</i>

Not if time started at the big bang.

<i>2. Design. The world displays intelligent design.</i>

Only where humans or other creatures have created it. All apparent "natural" design appears explainable with reference to natural processes.

<i>3. Change. Everything changes. What changes a thing, is itself changing. EVERYTHING is acted upon by something outside itself which causes change. Nothing changes itself. From the tiniest atom up to the very limits of space and time. However large the universe is there eventually must be a limit. Outside the limit of space and time there must be an unchanging thing which caused change to occur.</i>

Essentially, your argument boils down to: Everything changes. Therefore there must be something which doesn't change.

The conclusion goes against the premise so the argument is illogical.

<i>4. Ontological. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and also in reality, rather than just in the mind alone. Right?</i>

No. That's arguable. Many philosophers have argued persuasively against the ontological argument.

<i>5. Conscience. Ones conscience must come from a higher being. Why? Because it could not have come from something lesser than me. It cannot come from myself (I do not obligate myself absolutely). It cannot come from society. They have no right to force their values on me. I can only derive absolute moral obligation (conscience) from a higher being. Therefore God exists.</i>

Who says there are any absolute moral obligations?
Also, you have given no evidence that conscience can't come from within, or from society or whatever.

<i>6. Moral. Humans are obligated to do good and avoid evil.</i>

Obligated by what? Why do so many of them do evil, then?

<i>I tried to avoid things like emotions, religious experiences, answered prayer, etc.</i>

Funny. I think that religious experience is actually some of the strongest evidence for God. It is non-scientific, of course, but that's not necessarily a problem. I don't see why God has to obey scientific laws, if He exists.

<i>In the end I cannot sufficiently *prove* God exists, no more than you can *prove* he doesn't. You can't do it absolutely. It is ultimately a choice one makes based on the percepted evidence one experiences.</i>

Then why title this thread "Proof that God exists"? There is no proof. All there is is some questionable evidence.

<i>One more thing... asking me to use science to prove God exists is like me asking you to use religion to prove he doesn't.</i>

True, so why even try?

 

[Tinker683]

Hello,

While I just know that every athiest is going to love tearing this apart, I thought I'd add my thoughts before I went to bed.

1. Cuasality. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, since matter exists, that begs a "first cause". Since matter cannot create itself, there must be a God. Since *something* cannot be CREATED by *nothing*... there must be a creator. Therefore God exists.

Matter can not create itself, therefore God created it?

Well, prehaps. The theory of evolution is, after all, a theory. However, since this is only an assumption, this at best a hypothesis. Nothing more.

2. Design. The world displays intelligent design. This was either done by a "designer" or blind chance. I see scientific proofs of God through astronomy and molecular science as well as other sciences. Since I do not believe that these things are the product of chance, I believe there is a "designer" and he is God.

Withholding the question, " What scientific proofs in astronomy and molecular sciences " ( As I know that someone else will ask it ), how do you know their was a design at all? Are you implying that we were all designed for some reason?

And it didn't happen by "chance" It happened through gradual evolution. Humans weren't made overnight, ya know. We are the result are billions of years of evolution, of bacteria and chemicals and what-not reacting and counter-reacting to each other.

( Forgive me, I know this statement is rather, well, elementary given what it is I'm trying to describe, and I hope that someone much more versed in evolution theory can explain it better )

3. Change. Everything changes. What changes a thing, is itself changing. EVERYTHING is acted upon by something outside itself which causes change. Nothing changes itself. From the tiniest atom up to the very limits of space and time. However large the universe is there eventually must be a limit. Outside the limit of space and time there must be an unchanging thing which caused change to occur. This unchanging source of change is God.

A very profound claim, one which begs, " Can you prove it? "

Seriously, can you prove that theirs a limit to the Universe? Can you show that theirs sometihng outside it acting on it? Also, IF God is acting on out universe, outside of it, then there must be some degree we can measure. As you said, something is acted upon by something outside of itself. That would mean that we could somehow measure in what ways God interacts ( if at all ) with the universe.

4. Ontological. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and also in reality, rather than just in the mind alone. Right? A good definition of God is that being which is supreme, such that no greater thing can be imagined. Now suppose God exists in the mind but not in reality. If that was true, then a greater thing than God could be imagined (namely a supreme being that exist both in the mind AND reality). But this is impossible since God is that being which is supreme, such that no greater thing can be imagined. Therefore God must exist in the mind *and* reality. This concept requires deep thought

.

This is goofy reasoning, if I might coin the phrase. If God can only be concieved to be something greater than we can imagine in the mind ( How the fuck do you do that? ) then he's less than something that the same ( HUH? ) that exists? I think this is circular reasoning, I'm not sure. I just know you didn't prove anything.

5. Conscience. Ones conscience must come from a higher being. Why? Because it could not have come from something lesser than me. It cannot come from myself (I do not obligate myself absolutely). It cannot come from society. They have no right to force their values on me. I can only derive absolute moral obligation (conscience) from a higher being. Therefore God exists.

Firstly, society doesn't force its views on you ( Ever hear of criminals? ). The only reason society at large as accepted the laws that it does is because it's the most benefical and orderly that we can do.

And to say that a higher being is just flat dangerous. What if this higher being orders you to kill people? What if he orders you ro rape someone? Is it moral then?

And to say " He wouldn't say that " is only dodging the question. What if he did? Would he be moral then?

6. Moral. Humans are obligated to do good and avoid evil. Atheism cannot teach a moral obligation (see #5). Therefore we derive our moral obligation from God. God exists.

Where do you get this idea that we're "obligated" to do good? Says who? God? Thats circular, try again. And how do you know we derive it from God?

What if I feel that the reason I shouldn't kill people is because it would hurt their family members, take away another productive person form the human species, and is unfair because it deprives that person of living the life that I myself want to live. I did that all on my own, thank you very much.

These are some of the main reasons why I believe God exists. There are other important reasons, but I tried to avoid things like emotions, religious experiences, answered prayer, etc. Things that mean NOTHING to atheists.

Ouch. A little hate into those words, hmm? So athiests care nothing for emotion then, eh? What does that mean? Are you implying that we're all unfeeling machines? I seriously hope not, if you want me to take you seriously.

As for religous experiences, and all that hoo-bah, I've been praying to God everynight to reveal himself to me, thank you very much. And he has yet to do it. Why is that? Does he not care? He mustn't. I've questioned him thousands of times, and he's down no effort to talk to me! So am I to blame when I decided not to care anymore? Yeesh.

In the end I cannot sufficiently *prove* God exists, no more than you can *prove* he doesn't. You can't do it absolutely. It is ultimately a choice one makes based on the percepted evidence one experiences.

Why can't I prove absolutely an absolute being? GAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! *runs screaming into the hills* Your circles confuse me sir!!

Well, if it's ultimately a choice based upon experiences, and nothing else, then I guess the whole thing is moot, huh? WHEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

 

[Tinker683]

Originally posted by Elbaz
I agree with a lot of things you say. Athiests aren't really people who don't believe in a higher force, I'm sure they do. IMO they're just basically lost or wandering, looking for answers and proof.

Now although you can't physically prove something that's responsible for your existence, since you know nothing about it/him/he/shemale whatever your religion says, you can still take what you know of your own existence and surroundings, and try to understand that you AREN't the highest lifeform since you didn't create yourself! It's that simply. But I find that trying to convince an athiest that there is a higher force out their, is just about as aimful as bashing your head against a steel wall. Science can't exist without philosophy, not the other way around.

Your first paragraph was so ad homiem it's not even worth addressing.

Nor do I believe I created myself. I parents created me. They were feeling a trifle prankish and decided to play hide-the-ballony, and there I was, procreation, at it's finest! And my parents form theres..amnd theres....etc ad infinitum,

And maybe something created life, or maybe life created itself. However, none of us were there, so none of us can say first hand, " This is what happened!!".

However, until you can show me WHY I should believe that God " did it ", I'm going to continue to disbelieve.

See? Didn't smash ya into a steel wall! We're improving, this I see!

Ok, I'm going to bed now.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by James R
According to relativity it can.

I think he should have been refering to energy. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Not if time started at the big bang.

I am researching as much as I can on the Big Bang and Plasma Theory, I just gotta finish reading The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner and continue on to more modern knowledge.

But, it all boils down to accepting two possibilities to be responsible for existance:

1) God
2) Chance

And judging on how much knowledge mankind possesses and recognizing that knowledge is limitless, I choose God over chance anyday.

Saying chance is responsible for your existence is similar to calling it "your God" - but this is just my opinion.

But James R, how did it all happen? The Big Bang? Why was all that energy packed and exploded? How does something explode on its own? Does it infer that the Big Bang was already in a state of randomness? Or what?

Only where humans or other creatures have created it. All apparent "natural" design appears explainable with reference to natural processes.

Intelligent Design Theory, if found to be true later on, does not immediately and explicitly imply a God behind it. It merely means a designer. This designer could be anything, from another complex theory/model/system to explain the theory.

Essentially, your argument boils down to: Everything changes. Therefore there must be something which doesn't change.

The conclusion goes against the premise so the argument is illogical.

It's basically the same argument as "everything must have a cause."

But God should be the end of cause. Illogical? For atheists, the end of cause is the universe, or there was no cause at all.

Once again, it is like a gamble, for our cause:

1) God
2) Universe

I simply choose God.

Who says there are any absolute moral obligations?
Also, you have given no evidence that conscience can't come from within, or from society or whatever.

Where in the world or history is raping babies a good and moral thing to commit??

But the conscience argument is icky...we need to investigate further into the human mind, since it is so complex.

Obligated by what? Why do so many of them do evil, then?

Well, most humans must do good to survive. If we were more "evil" than good, then our species would not survive.

Funny. I think that religious experience is actually some of the strongest evidence for God. It is non-scientific, of course, but that's not necessarily a problem. I don't see why God has to obey scientific laws, if He exists.

Religious experience is mostly crap from other humans. That is why it is so flawed. "Strongest evidence"?? Haha, that is a joke. Just because priest or pope says God exists, He exists?

No way, everyone should choose their belief on their own, seek and believe in your own truths. You disbelieve emotionally - you have a problem. You believe or disbelieve because of how fortunate or unfortunate you were - you have a problem. Influenced by religions to believe? More problems. Disbelieve because of what idiotic theists have done to you - problem.

Then why title this thread "Proof that God exists"? There is no proof. All there is is some questionable evidence.

It's near impossible to absolutely prove an ultimate mysterious, IMO. But I believe someday, we will get hard evidence, but not substantial.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Tinker683
And it didn't happen by "chance" It happened through gradual evolution. Humans weren't made overnight, ya know. We are the result are billions of years of evolution, of bacteria and chemicals and what-not reacting and counter-reacting to each other.

Evolution depends on chance.

Seriously, can you prove that theirs a limit to the Universe?

Nope, can you prove that is it limitless? That's how inferior humans are

Firstly, society doesn't force its views on you ( Ever hear of criminals? ). The only reason society at large as accepted the laws that it does is because it's the most benefical and orderly that we can do.

I suggest you read The evolution of Consciousness by Robert Ornstein. Also read about Neuro Linguistic Programming as it helps to explain some of the book. Ornstein using deductive reasoning and observations to support his book, no empirical proof because of the human mind. In the way of looking at things, we have less choices than you think.

And to say that a higher being is just flat dangerous. What if this higher being orders you to kill people? What if he orders you ro rape someone? Is it moral then?

And to say " He wouldn't say that " is only dodging the question. What if he did? Would he be moral then?

There are no moral absolutes in the human world. Moral and such is relative and subjective.

Where do you get this idea that we're "obligated" to do good? Says who? God? Thats circular, try again. And how do you know we derive it from God?

We must do good in order to survive. That is human instinct. Why don't you ponder about it a little more??

Ouch. A little hate into those words, hmm? So athiests care nothing for emotion then, eh? What does that mean? Are you implying that we're all unfeeling machines? I seriously hope not, if you want me to take you seriously.

Actually most atheists disbelieve emotionally, or at least most of the ones I have met. In no way are they "emotionless monsters" some atheists I know are great people. It all depends on the individual's perspective(s).

As for religous experiences, and all that hoo-bah, I've been praying to God everynight to reveal himself to me, thank you very much. And he has yet to do it. Why is that? Does he not care? He mustn't. I've questioned him thousands of times, and he's down no effort to talk to me! So am I to blame when I decided not to care anymore? Yeesh.

Problem. Just because of an unfortunate event you disbelieve. You disbelieve emotionally. I hope you understand that.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

.

 

[fadingCaptain]

Hi Chosen,

"Once again, it is like a gamble, for our cause:

1) God
2) Universe

I simply choose God. "

A quick question for you- why choose God? I completely follow your logic up until this point. But why not apply Occum's razor here? I guess my question is - what is the reason or benefit to choosing God at this point?

Also-

Evolution depends on chance.

When you say "chance", do you mean it is accidental and random? If so, I suggest you read up on evolutionary theory and its compnoments, such as natural selection. They are not random.

-fc

 

[hippo]

faulty ivory towers

1. Causality. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

According to relativity it can.

Matter can be transformed into energy and energy can be transformed into matter, according to relativity. Relativity nowhere dictates annihilation of matter or spontaneously created matter.

Who says there are any absolute moral obligations?
Also, you have given no evidence that conscience can't come from within, or from society or whatever.

1. Is it absolutely morally wrong for a predominantly white population to enslave the minority black population?
2. Is it absolutely morally wrong to rape an infant?
3. Is it absolutely morally wrong to force Jews into gas chambers?
Let's see you, James, answer no to any of these.
A conscience can be developed in a society, but society cannot guarantee that societal moral absolutes will abide by the true human conscience driven rejection of any attempt to say no to any of the above. Historically, you might argue that #1 was answered no by churches and society, but these evils of the past were rejected as not abiding by a true standard conscience of the dignity of all humanity.

Why do so many of them do evil, then?

Free will.

I think that religious experience is actually some of the strongest evidence for God.

Neurological studies show that there are centers of the brian that correspond to religious experience. The chicken or egg argument will begin for both sides once this enters in. A religious person will say it is authentic experience that we naturally have a physical organ of sorts that indicates the reception, the athiestic will say that the organ creates this artificial response.

There is no proof. All there is is some questionable evidence.

There is first-hand proof experienced by many, what many lack is a personal miracle that happens before their very own un-pharmaceutically altered mind and eye. Some people arive at faith through study of philosophy, science, intellectual arguments, etc. If a person's inkling is that there is nothing more than what is seen, then the miraculous event will be brushed into the unknown phenomenon ash bin for those phenomenon that someday will be explained.

We must do good in order to survive. That is human instinct. Why don't you ponder about it a little more??

Anyone can do bad and do quite well in the world. In fact current societal trends indicate that the subjectivist mentallity which is at the root of most modern thinkers is the pervasive source of decision. Cheating in schools is reaching ridiculous proportions. Anti-semitism is growing throughout Europe. No one can claim these are wrong without entering into absolutes. There are eternally absolute rights and wrongs, or else we can answer no to 1 - 3 above or say, 'no, but...' and develop excuses. How many Nietzsche Supermen are posting here? Axed any old women lately for money? Beware your conscience, it is being chased by the hound of heaven.

 

[Cris]

Ekimklaw,

Looks like you haven’t done much research on these issues. Taking these somewhat worn out arguments from, presumably heavily biased religious literature; you have unfortunately not considered the large number of arguments that refute all your points.

I’ll pick on a couple just for fun since James (who isn’t an atheist) has covered them quite well.

1. Causality. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, since matter exists, that begs a "first cause". Since matter cannot create itself, there must be a God. Since *something* cannot be CREATED by *nothing*... there must be a creator. Therefore God exists.

This is beautiful nonsense.

Think about this - you state ”Matter cannot be created or destroyed.” You offer this as a basic truth. If indeed true then the only logical conclusion based on this premise is that matter has always existed.

To make your logic work you would have to say something like ”Matter cannot be created or destroyed except by some form of unknown magic.”.

To say that matter cannot be created and then proceed to say that it can be created is a perfect contradiction.

What you have done here is not to show that a god exists but pretty much the opposite, that a god is quite unnecessary to explain the universe.

2. Design. The world displays intelligent design. This was either done by a "designer" or blind chance. I see scientific proofs of God through astronomy and molecular science as well as other sciences. Since I do not believe that these things are the product of chance, I believe there is a "designer" and he is God.

There is no attempt at proof here only what seems like questionable opinions.

The world doesn’t display intelligent design; that is a subjective opinion. To be accurate - the world displays structure. Structure can be by intelligent design or by natural processes. If you have ever done any basic chemistry or even have a basic understanding of the periodic table you should well understand how elements have a very natural tendency to combine with each other and form natural structures. Just take a look at the beautiful crystals of sodium chloride (salt); these are formed from the attractive forces between two highly toxic elements, sodium (an explosive metal) and chlorine (a poisonous gas).

Given enough time (billions of years), a sufficient wide variety of naturally occurring elements, and a mixing force (the weather, wind, storms, rain, heat from a sun), and hey presto elements react with each other and form into billions of different structures. Some are very simple and others quite complex. Look at basic sugars and amino acids; beautiful naturally occurring compounds, the building blocks of more complex structures like humans.

By your argument all these structures would have been designed by some form of intelligence. Not only were they not designed, but they also didn’t occur by blind chance. The fabric of the universe comprises a number of attractive and repulsive forces that inevitably result in natural structures. The formation of structure is inevitable and has nothing to do with intelligence or design.

I see scientific proofs of God through astronomy and molecular science as well as other sciences.

Quote at least one example.

However large the universe is there eventually must be a limit. Outside the limit of space and time there must be an unchanging thing which caused change to occur. This unchanging source of change is God.

There are no proofs here only baseless assertions.

Why must there be a limit to the size of the universe? What is your rationale for this assertion? If the universe is infinite then there will be no limit, in which case no need of a god either.

6. Moral. Humans are obligated to do good and avoid evil. Atheism cannot teach a moral obligation (see #5). Therefore we derive our moral obligation from God. God exists.

There is no evidence that humans are obligated to do anything? The only logical obligation would be to survive and evolution shows that anything that enhances life aids survival and anything that detracts from life reduces the chances of survival. Morality is hence perfectly defined by the need to survive. The only form of logical morality is that which is in the best interests of mankind. If a god could be shown to exist then any morality would still need to reflect what is best for humans, e.g. if worship of a harsh authoritarian god is needed for survival then so be it. But any way this is viewed morality always comes back to what is best for humans.

Atheism doesn’t attempt to teach anything. Atheism isn’t a belief system. Atheism isn’t about setting moral values or imposing ideas on others. Atheism is a disbelief in the claims made by theists. To claim anything else for atheism, or to imply that atheism should do something, reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism means.

Humans are perfectly capable of determining what is in their best interests. Implying that some form of absolute morality is needed is unnecessary.

In the end I cannot sufficiently *prove* God exists, no more than you can *prove* he doesn't. You can't do it absolutely. It is ultimately a choice one makes based on the percepted evidence one experiences.

Sufficiently prove? There is zero evidence here.

Until you can show that the idea of a god is anything more than a dream then the effort to attempt a disproof is as futile as attempting to disprove the non-existence of any other imaginary object. It is not so much that a disproof is impossible but that the idea of a god is so archaic and absurd that there is no reason to waste one’s time.

One more thing... asking me to use science to prove God exists is like me asking you to use religion to prove he doesn't.

No it isn’t. Science is based on reason, logic, observation, evidence and proofs. Religion is based on fantasies and doesn’t represent any form of recognized rational thinking capable of determining factual conclusions or truth.

Cris

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
A quick question for you- why choose God? I completely follow your logic up until this point. But why not apply Occum's razor here? I guess my question is - what is the reason or benefit to choosing God at this point?

I won't elaborate here, but my other posts sum it up. Basically, God is an ultimate mysterious. I believe God to be the ultimate truth. I seek truth.

I'll ask you a question. Why choose chance and not God?

I know Occum's Razor says to expel superfluous ideas/things concerning science but we don't exactly know that God is superfluous. Therefore I embrace some faith. I'm more towards the logic side but logic is not flawless. I lose nothing investing faith. Logic tells me, mankind doesn't possess all the knowledge in the universe...and just start thinking from there.

I hope you understand how I perceive God.

When you say "chance", do you mean it is accidental and random? If so, I suggest you read up on evolutionary theory and its compnoments, such as natural selection. They are not random.

I suggest you read up on evolutionary theory. Look up Genetic Drift and you'll see what I mean. Evolution is a slave to genetic drift.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Re: faulty ivory towers

Originally posted by hippo
Anyone can do bad and do quite well in the world. In fact current societal trends indicate that the subjectivist mentallity is the pervasive source of decision. Cheating in schools is reaching ridiculous proportions. Anti-semitism is growing throughout Europe. There are eternally absolute rights and wrongs, or else we can answer no to 1 - 3 above or say, 'no, but...' and develop excuses. How many Nietzsche Supermen are posting here? Axed any old women lately for money? Beware your conscience, it is being chased by the hound of heaven.

Hehe, this is gonna be fun.

Why not all of us axe old women and let's see if we can survive? You're looking at it the wrong way. Humans are inherently good, this is required for survival. If we were evil, we'd kill each other off and help all the other species.

Hope you see the logic.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Ekimklaw
In this post I will attempt to prove that God exists. I believe he does. Here is why:

-Mike

Mike, here's a good rule for all theists

Keep your belief to yourself.

Well, most the time, unless they question you. It's never worth trying to convince others, let them choose their own paths. Beliefs should be an individual thing.

 

[fadingCaptain]

I suggest you read up on evolutionary theory. Look up Genetic Drift and you'll see what I mean. Evolution is a slave to genetic drift.

You place much more emphasis on genetic drift vs. natural selection than i do. I see how you can consider evolution 'chance' in this perspective. I see it more as a mechanism. Semantics, really...

-fc

 

[hippo]

and do bad

Humans are inherently good? You must be ignorant of history. Read DIARY OF THE WAR OF THE PIG by Adolfo Bioy Casares
E.P. Dutton 1972 and the history of the "dirty war" which ravaged Argentina for real.
Machiavelli describes humanity's tendencies which have nothing to do with goodness or morality.

If we were evil, we'd kill each other off and help all the other species.

Enslavement is much more beneficial than killing each other off, from the standpoint of survival. Read your history on the goodness of humanity. Are you going to argue that slavery was good once, but now it is bad? The axed old lady is a reference to Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky.
!!!good rule for all atheists
Keep discussing your belief. !!!
Then it becomes apparent how vacuous and hollow it is. The winds of power and influence direct your ship. Beliefs do not remain individual when the individual governs a people. If one privately believes that it is wrong to steal I hope they publicly act out this belief by not stealing and stopping or reporting a theivery occurring.

elements have a very natural tendency to combine with each other and form natural structures. Just take a look at the beautiful

To state as matter of fact that elements have a natural tendency to do anything is to act like this is a necessary behavior. One element can do thus with this other element and cannot do thusly with another. Why should this be? Because of specific forces and interactions that just happen to have happened? You are still dwelling within the necessary not accidental structures.

Look at basic sugars and amino acids; beautiful naturally occurring compounds, the building blocks of more complex structures like humans.

Read the science on this. Life's amino acids are all left-handed. So far the only naturally occuring tendency for finding statistically left-handed preponderance are comets, according to some scientists. Even in this there is no definitive, only a sense that there is nothing easy about how it occurred. The more time you give a process, the more likely it is to break down and make mistakes.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Re: and do bad

Originally posted by hippo
Humans are inherently good? You must be ignorant of history.

Haha, you missed my point, good job.

Enslavement is much more beneficial than killing each other off, from the standpoint of survival. Read your history on the goodness of humanity. Are you going to argue that slavery was good once, but now it is bad? The axed old lady is a reference to Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky.

Ok, why did you supererogate and bring enslavement into the picture? Having trouble defending what you stated? I'm not going to argue about slavery at all.

If we were all evil, there would be destruction everywhere. Who would help who?

What is evil to you?

bwt, welcome to sciforums.com

 

[Tinker683]

The_Chosen,

Evolution depends on chance.

It does in the sense that their is an infinite number of possible reactions that could have happened. But life did happen. So I will concede that yes, I do think it was " by chance ". As I said before, evolution is a bit over my head.

Now do I really know thats what happened? No, after all the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. But until I see any reason why I should believe in a God, I'm not going to.

Nope, can you prove that is it limitless? That's how inferior humans are

Ah, but I was not making the claim sir. Mike said that the universe had a limit, I was asking him to prove it. The burdern of proof rests on the one making the claim.

Secondly, humans aren't "inferior". We're just limited to the facts that we can only deduce at this time. Maybe, one day, we'll figure it all out. And if a "God" was responsible, then we'll figure that out.

I just wish God would come down to settle the friggin` debate already, rather than sitting up in heaven and expecting us to " just have faith "

I suggest you read The evolution of Consciousness by Robert Ornstein. Also read about Neuro Linguistic Programming as it helps to explain some of the book. Ornstein using deductive reasoning and observations to support his book, no empirical proof because of the human mind. In the way of looking at things, we have less choices than you think.

Hmm, I'll look into those, however, I was wondering if you could make citations from said books?

Secondly, define choices? If you mean you can't do whatever you want, and not have any sort of reaction to your actions, well then yes, in that prespect, you don't have a lot of freedom. But thats only because society has chosen the best that best suits what it desires from itself ( Order and stability ). Now whther or not it fulls those goals, however, lies in the great field of politics

There are no moral absolutes in the human world. Moral and such is relative and subjective.

I was not refuting this. Thank you for agreeing with me

We must do good in order to survive. That is human instinct. Why don't you ponder about it a little more??

Acually, if you want to survive you need only do what you must to remain healthy ( both mentally and physically ). There are dozens of ways you could approach that ( with methods ranging from civil to utterly barbaric. )

The only reason their is an "imperitive" to do "good" is because it's far more beneficial for you to work in an orderly manner with others, and it produces a productive society.

Which is why I consider it "good" to help others, to be nice, to love, to cherish, etc.., because it bests help myself, and my fellow man around me.

Actually most atheists disbelieve emotionally, or at least most of the ones I have met. In no way are they "emotionless monsters" some atheists I know are great people. It all depends on the individual's perspective(s).

Why does ones emotions depict if whether or not something is true? How can you objectively measure that? What might make you happy, might make another person extremely upset. Where do you draw the line?

And if it all depends on one person's perspective, then aren't you concedeing that the whole thing is subjective? After all, what you might see as truth, another might see as a fabrication. Again, where make the objective decision about whats "true" and what isn't?

Problem. Just because of an unfortunate event you disbelieve. You disbelieve emotionally. I hope you understand that.

Again, why should my emotions determine if whether or not something is true? Don't you think if you let your emotions get in the way, that you might me undermining the objectivity of what it is your trying to figure out?

My emotions shouldn't have a damn thing to do with it. My ears are still attached to my head, and they still hear just as well as they did yesturday. If God really wants me to love him, as every Christian may say, then why would he require me to "have faith" in him, when he could just as easily come down a friggin` talk to me. And when he doesn't, can I be blamed to doubt if he cares? ( or even exists? )

 

[hippo]

Haha, you missed my point, good job.

Maybe when you understand your own point you can explain

OOOoo, maybe you are menorerogating to hide from the absolute? Or you are psuedo-buddhasizing. Nothing like non-sequittor responses to blur the lines of reality...look at all the pretty colors.

I'm not going to argue about slavery at all.

Because you cannot.
You cannot say that slavery is an absolute moral wrong, or you invalidate your claim that morality is relative and subjective.
So you must think that it is not always wrong.
You cannot say that it is absolutely morally wrong to rape an infant, or you invalidate your claim that morality is relative and subjective.
So you must think that it is not always wrong.
You cannot say that it is absolutely morally wrong to force Jews into gas chambers, or you invalidate your claim that morality is relative and subjective.
So you must think that it is not always wrong.
I think you are afraid to answer yes or no, so you claim supererogation. Weak as a noodle.

 

[Cris]

Tinker,

Just a minor point of clarification, and this is a common misconception.

...after all the theory of evolution is just that, a theory.

Evolution is fact, it is the processes involved that cause evolution that are still being investigated that are termed the theory of evolution.

And to say 'just a theory' is to imply that 'theory' is some form of inferior fact, or not quite fact. That is also a misconception.

A scientific theory attempts to provide an explanation for known phenomena. In this case the known phenomena is that evolution has occurred. The theories try to explain how. And there are many differnt aspects to evolution and each has its own theories. Many of which are well known and in terms of inductive logic are quite solid.

Please don't think that evolution is something that may not have happened. It has occurred, and of that there is no doubt. What we don't fully understand in some areas is how it occurred.

Please don't become confused by creationists who try to claim that evolution doesn't exist. They are quite deluded and irrational.

Cris