Prove God Exists - Version II!

eyrei said:

Religion has little to nothing to do with logic. I honestly don't even see why those of you are religious even engage in discussion like this with atheists. They simply want to tie you to a whipping post to give their rather empty existence some meaning...

Click to expand...

With all due respect, eyrei.

Saying that not being tied to religion amounts to an 'empty' life is somewhat a loaded statement?

eyrei said:

Religion has little to nothing to do with logic. I honestly don't even see why those of you are religious even engage in discussion like this with atheists. They simply want to tie you to a whipping post to give their rather empty existence some meaning...

Click to expand...

Well I don't about religion but the Bible deals with a lot logic. Also the best thing about the internet is that it very hard for someone to tie you down to a whipping post. Now going door to door witnessing for Christ takes a lot more courage.

I am with Curt on this, Eyrei. I think you were not very happy in your statement. I am an atheist, and I am quite content with my existence. I could very well look down on religious people and consider their lifes "empty" for their failure to relate with reality - if I were judgemental of people, there is.

Regards .

But a constant need to prove one's beliefs by refuting those who believe the opposite speaks of some doubt, and a need to confirm the belief system to oneself. I'm not saying atheists are the only ones that do it, but I do believe that is the purpose of this thread.

For my part eyrei, I simply dislike seeing people lead their lives according to superstitions. Especially when, like Ronald Reagan they make their executive decisions for the US with the help of astrologers. That is when I would gladly see all superstition/religion wiped out altogether.

I ignore of course that many people do terrible things without being religious, and all the good things that religion has certainly done.

But basically I am against it in the way that I am againsts someone claiming 2+2=19, i.e. because it is just plain wrong. I am also against people doing bad things who are not religious, but that's not what this thread is about.

I think a world without superstitions and religions (spirituality) would be a pointless place to live. I don't buy into organized religions, but I do have a personal belief, that is not based on logic, but intuition, so don't bother trying to refute it with logic, that there is something beyond human beings. That is the root of most religions, and while I agree that most religions cause more harm than good, if stamping them out equates to stamping out spirituality, I cannot accept that as a good thing.

Birdjaguar said:

I made four conclusions in the above post, so I?m not sure which you are pointing to.
1. If the universe had a beginning, it cannot be eternal
2. The Big Bang marked the beginning of the universe as we know it
3. Eternity & infinity must reside outside the universe if they exist
4. This model presents fewest problems for both sides in this debate unless you?re a bible literalist.

My post was in reply to one by Pointlessness about the universe being eternal. Since the big bang would negate an eternal universe, I was merely pointing out that eternity and infinity could only be worked into the equation by moving them out of the physical universe. The last sentence, which I presume to be the one you object to, is my opinion about how to best model the cosmos if you don?t want to limit the possibilities. Some people feel more comfortable with known boundaries, so they create safe zones where their thinking will not be challenged. The bible literalists are a perfect example of this.
Most people put up some kind of fence around their thinking that includes certain items and excludes others. It?s how we order our world.

I presume that your model of the cosmos is not the same as the one presented above, but, no doubt, you have one. But it is just a model. Nothing in your model or mine eliminates the possibility that our universe might be nothing more than a terrarium on the desktop of some larger seven legged entity which is trying to seduce its secretary.

Let me know which conclusion troubles you.

Click to expand...

I see that there is ambiguity in our definition of the universe. I say that the universe is eternal. By that, I mean that the universe existed before the Big Bang. It was just concentrated in a small point.

I'm sure col or betazed can confirm that current trends postulate an inordinately large number of universes. Of course, that could just be God practising.

Phydeaux said:

What I mean is that the real evidence doesn't come in untell you can see in the Spiritaul that is where the big evidence is. God created the universe by commanding it to be so. God is not going to cammand you to be saved because He gave you a free will, you choose not Him. That is why they go to hell not because they didn't do good enough but because they didn't want to be with God, you can choose to be free or not but you choose now... God does things on earth but you don't believe you call them lies or dimensions. You can grasp hold of the spiritual but how are you going to do that if you don't believe in the spiritual? You must believe in the one who takes you to the spiritual (God) before you can get there. God isn't physical you can see what He does in the physical but you can not see Him unless you look with the spiritaul.

Click to expand...

Well, all this sounds quite interesting, but I see you have not an ounce of proof to support your notion of this separate, spiritual world. Therefore, it is irrelavant. As I have said before, I believe only in what is tangible, or in what can be prove have a probablility of existance through logic or science.

You also claim that I have rejected god and will go to hell . Real nice of you to point that out. However, I consider the concepts of heaven and hell to be mere fabrications of humanity, to propagandize people to join certain religions with a reward/punishment system. Many religionists will agree with me in that regard.

Then you claim that god does things on Earth. Which begs the question: what?

eyrei said:

I think a world without superstitions and religions (spirituality) would be a pointless place to live. I don't buy into organized religions, but I do have a personal belief, that is not based on logic, but intuition, so don't bother trying to refute it with logic, that there is something beyond human beings. That is the root of most religions, and while I agree that most religions cause more harm than good, if stamping them out equates to stamping out spirituality, I cannot accept that as a good thing.

Click to expand...

Well, Eyrei, don't judge all atheists for this thread. Nevertheless, while your believe is your prerogative, please notice that thinking the world is pointless without it is, again, just a believe.

I for one find it way more fascinating that the universe haven't needed miracles, magic, whatever, to exist. In my book, it's the abracadabra that is dull.

Regards .

polymath said:

I'm sure col or betazed can confirm that current trends postulate an inordinately large number of universes. Of course, that could just be God practising.

Click to expand...

I think people have a hard enough time accepting/understanding/imagining a single expanding universe, let alone multiple ones that interact. At both the macro and the micro levels, science has moved way beyond the easy grasp of most people.

Pointlessness said:

I see that there is ambiguity in our definition of the universe. I say that the universe is eternal. By that, I mean that the universe existed before the Big Bang. It was just concentrated in a small point.

Click to expand...

Defining terms can be important to clarity. If we each define universe differently and then talk about it, it is likely we will misunderstand one another.

You want the universe to exist in some "compressed" state prior to the big bang when it expanded. Let me think about that.

polymath said:

That is when I would gladly see all superstition/religion wiped out altogether.

Click to expand...

Trying to ripe out religion (God) from man is like getting rid of sex. It's human instinct that tells man there is a God and there more to life than just the material world. Of course someone can learn to suppress these instincts (living without sex, religion, or God) yet trying to force all humanity againest instinct is futile. It's this "God vacuum" in the human heart is what makes cults and false religions so powerful. If you could ripe out all religions/superstition then this will only leave a bigger vacuum in the human heart for some fruitcake to lead the masses into a cult. A world wide atheism would be like A nuclear explosion is stopped by it's own vacuum which it created. This is why world governments like only one religion which they have control over. ( USA has the freedom of religion but don't be fooled, our government wants to control religion so they have to do it in a less obvious way.)

I think you're probably right there Smidlee. A very perceptive statement indeed.

eyrei said:

I think a world without superstitions and religions (spirituality) would be a pointless place to live. I don't buy into organized religions, but I do have a personal belief, that is not based on logic, but intuition, so don't bother trying to refute it with logic, that there is something beyond human beings. That is the root of most religions, and while I agree that most religions cause more harm than good, if stamping them out equates to stamping out spirituality, I cannot accept that as a good thing.

Click to expand...

I find it sad that some people have to find a reason for their existence and can't just accept that they exist out of chance. I think those people must be very unhappy in their life to have to make up stuff so they think they have a reason to carry on living.

Maybe that's why a lot of people who take up religion, take it up when they are at a troubled point in their life. Maybe that's also why the number of religious people is decreasing, because there is less hardship in their life now-a-days (apart from the fact people aren't forced into believing into going Church any more, of course).

the mormegil said:

I find it sad that some people have to find a reason for their existence and can't just accept that they exist out of chance. I think those people must be very unhappy in their life to have to make up stuff so they think they have a reason to carry on living.

Maybe that's why a lot of people who take up religion, take it up when they are at a troubled point in their life. Maybe that's also why the number of religious people is decreasing, because there is less hardship in their life now-a-days (apart from the fact people aren't forced into believing into going Church any more, of course).

Click to expand...

So, you find no reason for your existence, and that makes you happy? I don't get it. Existentialism is one of the more pointless beliefs I have ever encountered. Look at it this way:

If you believe that there is not a purpose, and that you exist only out of chance, you can take pleasure only in those things of the material world. They may make you happy, but not as hopeful as a spiritual belief would. Basically, all things being equal, those who have some spirituality have an extra bit of happiness in their hope for something greater. Whether this is the Truth or not should be irrelevant to your thinking, as only what happens during our physical lives is real anyway.

So now, tell me what it is about atheism that grants happiness equal to hope.



And the number of religious people is not decreasing. Those that join certain organized religions certainly are, but many of those people simply turn somewhere else to place their belief.

Pointlessness said:

As I have said before, I believe only in what is tangible, or in what can be prove have a probablility of existance through logic or science.

Click to expand...

Once you stake out that “only reason, logic and science have a place in explaining the world”, you eliminate any mystery. Your premise is that everything can be explained and therefore if you make a claim and cannot explain it, the claim should not be valued until it is explained in a manner you accept. M theory, branes, multiple universes are all acceptable postulates because they are presented in a framework of science and make no attempt to establish values. In truth the scientific method comes with its own set of values that are as invasive as any from the religious side. They are perhaps more subtle and less apt to result in torture and death though.

There are lots of things science would like to explain and, for the moment, can’t. Coincidence and intuition are two that come to mind. Science does not have a good way of dealing with events that cannot be tested under controlled conditions. It often labels these events: coincidence. There is no doubt that the events happen, there is just no way to replicate them or predict them for study. For example, I pick up the phone to call a friend and when I do so they are already on the phone having called me first. Chance? Maybe. Science has no explanation. Non science does. It fabricates a mysterious connection between people that can put them on the same wave length and synchronizes them to act in concert. Or whatever. You can insert any explanation you want.

Non science is popular because it does try to explain what science cannot or will not attempt. Therefore it has value to people. Please explain to my wife how she knew our daughter was in trouble five minutes before our daughter called to say she had been in a car accident. How does “reason” explain that simple event. It’s a true story, I was there. My wife is as agnostic as they come and she expressed no sense that this was in any way a strange or paranormal event. She knew something was amiss.

Forget, god and the universe for a minute. Forget the bible and religious propaganda, born again Christians, and god’s intervention into personal lives. The ability of non science to explain everyday events is the Achilles heel of the “reason only, prove it with science” position. Non science doesn’t even try to prove its story (unless they’re wackos) just explain how it might have happened. How do you explain such events? Any of you?

Just because someone isn't religious eyrei, doesn't mean they can't find happiness in life.

You may find happiness in devoting your life to God, that is what makes you happy, but not me and probably not a lot of people. What makes me happy is that I have friends, and my fiancee and people who respect me, no matter where i go, I will find people who will like me and be friends with me.

I also find enjoyment in furthering myself and pushing myself to the limits, I don't see how worshiping a god that hasn't spoken to me, contacted me or even made himself known to me is going to make life better for me.

I have had a hard life, but I am happy with where i am and how i got there, I don't need to think that there is something or someone watching me to make me happy or make me stronger, there wasn't when i needed them most, and I am sure there isn't now.

Stating that Atheists must have empty and unfulfilling lives is a thought that I find offensive, I have survived best part of 21 years on this planet without god, I am sure that I can survive the rest.

(Just my thoughts, if i offend, I am sorry)

SolarKnight.

BirdJaguar, never underestimate womans Intuition, my fiancee has seen visions of events in the past, and she is as atheistic as they come, she just knew things were happening, there doesn't have to be a god for people to have these experiences, just a very developed human brain.

SolarKnight said:

BirdJaguar, never underestimate womans Intuition, my fiancee has seen visions of events in the past, and she is as atheistic as they come, she just knew things were happening, there doesn't have to be a god for people to have these experiences, just a very developed human brain.

Click to expand...

My post was in no way dismissing a woman's intuition. In fact I was using that example to illustrate that unproveable events happen all the time and don't need to involve religion. It is very easy for the "reason & science only" crowd to go after people who claim a religious experience and say "prove it". As evidenced by this forum, they can't. Coincidence and intuition are religiously neutral and they cannot be proven either. I'd like to know how the fervid anti religion folks fit them into their view. Do they deny that they happen? Can they prove they do happen? I'm listening.