Prove God Exists - Act Three

[Saga of Gemini]

Science does points to a creator/designer more than most realize. Even some evolutionists realizes this. natural selection alone can't solve the gene neutral gaps required for evolution. I have no faith in this theory but yet the more we learn the more science points to a creator.

Well of course, I believe that also. But I wont present here personal views of what science says or dosnt says since then I would get too involved...and I just failed to subjects ( hehehe so much I debate about evolution and I come with the pretty little number of failing chemestry and biology...Im a hoot ............. ) and have to study for them.

if you read my definition of science youll see that Im rigth, even when science does make you and me, feel awe for god but to nonbelievers its no proof ( wich I find inexcusable..but hey I juts failed 2 subjects so who am I to judge...). Scientific discoveries do point to God but the scientific method cant prove or disprove his existence but also cant prove or dsiprove what I said before.....wich is prove that something that cant be submitted to a lab is not real or an illusion. That was my point happy?

 

[Saga of Gemini]

Before we get to 'god's power' - why not offer some solid ground that there is a god to begin with?

I still do not see anything but personal perspectives.

And surely a few people's whims does not constitute ground for us all to believe?

Tell us, religious folks;
Just why should we all believe your god is real?
What have you got to convince us, apart from your own yearnings?

I can almost predict word for word the responses here!

Well geeee curt how do you show the existence of color to a born blind person...ummm "red is like this pencil....see it?"......"No I still dont see colors" "But hey Im puting it rigth in front of your face" ..."Sorry I cant see them...how can I know if colors exist just beacuse you tell me it exist and say youve seen it"..."Well what can I say? I was taugth in kinder garden how to see colors" ..."Well I wasnt brougth up that way srry but you still have not shown to my satisfaction how colors are or if they even exist srry the logical conclusion is that I cant base what I think in what you tell me because other ppl years ago told you that those were colors...sorry colors dont exist".

This is sorta what your asking the responses you are getting and the reactions you are having. Needless to say its pointless.

 

[FredLC]

I love those posts who suppose that the idea of God not existing derives from an incapacity of perceiving obvious things. Comparisons with the blind, than, are the utmost fun.

Saga, why don't you ask the atheists here how many of them don't believe in ultraviolet. Ths should put things in perspective.

Regards .

 

[Erik Mesoy]

u still have skipped the real question i asked if there was a real GOD then why would he allow evil,

I despair. How many times must I repeat this? God must allow evil in order to allow free will! I have not skipped the real question. I have answered it, repeatedly, and you have refused or ignored the answer. FREE WILL IMPLIES CHOICE. CHOICE IMPLIES MULTIPLE ALTERNATIVES. IF GOD DESTROYED ALL EVIL, THERE WOULD BE NO ALTERNATIVE TO GOOD. THE POWER DEMONSTRATED BY CREATING BEINGS WITH FREE WILL IS GREATER THAN THE POWER DEMONSTRATED BY ZAPPING EVIL THINGS.

u cant say its to see who would turn to evil, and secondly what the hell is the point of createing everything in the Universe what was he just bored.

What kind of crap is this? You demand to know God's motives? Fat chance. I suggest you accept his existence before you demand anything of him.

And now to explain how religon actually started
no garden of eden no adam and eve no god no devil no no bible story crap heres the real TRUTH

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set ye free." Great quote, but proclaiming yourself as the sole source of truth is rather bigheaded, don't you think? It definitely seems to imply a lack of perspective- not a good thing for someone trying to tell the truth.

some guy way back when said he look that rock fell it must have been god oooo look we have had six healthy children oooo god must have blessed us, o no our second child died that must be the devil, and threw out the ages science has slowly weeded out the religous crap, and now the last thing science really has to disprove is that there is NO god NO devil

also keep in mind that these were first used to explain polythestic religons so good thing happens Zeus did bad thing happens Hades did it, similar with eygptian myths

Wrong, wrong, wrong. First difference- the egyptians and greeks had idols in every home that they worshipped and offered sacrifices of thanksgiving or appeasement to, when something happened one of these got the credit/blame, as unexplainable things happened their religion evolved.
To the early Jews and later the Christians, miracles demonstrably happened. (I don't know about the Muslims- never studied them.) Even Roman historians mentioned and acknowledged the ressurection of Jesus. Their view of god did not change over time: it is the same today as it was so many thousand years ago: God, the All-Powerful (litany of titles here) created mankind with FREE WILL to choose and do as they please, something which IMPLIED AND FORCED THE POSSIBILITY OF EVIL.
If you want more argument on the differences of religions, real and false, check out C.S. Lewis. He was an avowed atheist who converted to Christianity through reason.

also yea i would rather not piss off so Islamic Fundamentalist Extremeist, NOT a good plan

Mmhmm. You only argue against two-thirds of those you disagree with because you're afraid of the rest. Alright, then, "if you dont agree with me ill hire a hitman to come to your house and rip your hands off". Will that stop you arguing?
I seriously doubt that there are IFEs here. Besides, you're anonymous due to the Internet. Besides that, I was being sarcastic to criticise your way of picking on those you think it safe to argue with.
I don't care if I eventually lose this argument due to someone with a brain cell coming on your side. I don't care if someone commits an ad hominem on me due to arguing here. What I care for is having defended my faith. No, this is not a case of religious patriotism. This is a case of limiting the corrupting influence of such morons* as you. I already helped Smidlee, it seems, and I'm happy for that.

also very funny i dont even agree with a majority of what i said and yet i still have a convienceing arguement

If you can seriously belive that you can disagree with yourself and still have a convincing argument, that's the last proof I needed. You're a moron.


Do I need to visit you in person and explain this? We seem to be having a communications failure of the sort "Hello, my mouth is a foot from your ear and I'm screaming, can you hear me?"

Next time you post, try quoting me, indicate which quotes you are referring to, and use some punctuation. Maybe your argument will gain some sense then. On the other hand, it may just fall apart when I poke it.

*I will call you a moron when you suggest that all school should be voluntary. This will create a nation of morons. "Krake søker make", we say in Norway, meaning that one of a kind will seek towards more of the same kind...

 

[newfangle]

God, the All-Powerful (litany of titles here) created mankind with FREE WILL to choose and do as they please

HA! You do realize the contradiction there, don't you?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

No. Will you please point it out to me?

 

[newfangle]

The very existence of an omnipotent/scient being negates freewill. If some being exists that not only knows every possible outcome (all knowing), but can also determine what outcome someone takes, free will is arbitrary.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Take that to the theologists if you want to argue it. The "All-Knowing VS Free Will" debate is chewing old soup. To me, it's not a contradiction,

Assume that I am a sane person with a healthy state of mind, and I have a knife, and a hunk of bread. By Free Will, I could drive the knife into my chest, slit my own throat, etc, etc. However, you can "know" (based on information about my state of mind) that I will rather slice myself a slice of bread.
Free will does not require one to go counter to what can be expected or concluded.
On a realted note: There's an irritation in many tabletop RPG games where someone says to the GM "Hah! I know what you're going to do next! The Box of Gornhand is going to release a demon!" or something along those lines, and the GM is forced to change the plot at a moment's notice.
God knows what we're going to do. We don't have to do the opposite of that to prove that we have free will.

 

[newfangle]

You're taking the argument to an unneccesary point. I contend that regardless of whether or not God allows us to pursue our own choices, he will allows know what choice we will make (if he is indeed omnipotent).

In other words, you choose to accept faith, or your choose to accept causality. A dichotomy exists between them.

 

[Smidlee]

Well of course, I believe that also. But I wont present here personal views of what science says or dosnt says since then I would get too involved...and I just failed to subjects ( hehehe so much I debate about evolution and I come with the pretty little number of failing chemestry and biology...Im a hoot ............. ) and have to study for them.

if you read my definition of science youll see that Im rigth, even when science does make you and me, feel awe for god but to nonbelievers its no proof ( wich I find inexcusable..but hey I juts failed 2 subjects so who am I to judge...). Scientific discoveries do point to God but the scientific method cant prove or disprove his existence but also cant prove or dsiprove what I said before.....wich is prove that something that cant be submitted to a lab is not real or an illusion. That was my point happy?

I understand what you are saying yet to some degree you can use the scientific method to prove or disprove a creator or intelligent design. We use this same method with our SETI program to find life in space. Can Intelligent design be falsifiable ? Yes it can which again works just like SETI. I go back to my Walmart on Mars illustration. If there was found a Walmart on Mars this would prove that life was on Mar. Can this statement be falsifiable ? Yes it can by illustrating that a mindless universe could produce a Walmart. Now it's possible that mindless universe could make glass and steel but as far as we know there no evidense that raw nature could produce windows and doors in front of a Walmart store.This is evidense of an intelligent designer. Just the same science has proven that raw nature can produce some protein and amino acids which are the raw material to build life but it has yet to prove that raw nature can put all these raw materials together to produce a living cell. The same with Walmart : it possible that a mindless nature can produce maybe glass and steel but not to bring them all together . So the conclusion is only intellegent designer can produce both Walmart and Life (a living cell) which can be falsified using the scientific method by showing how a mindless universe can produce either one of them. ( notice even with all our intelligent scientists working together we haven't being able to uses raw materials to build a single cell life form)

P.S I hope you get better with those tough subjects. Just don't give up

 

[Plotinus]

FREE WILL IMPLIES CHOICE. CHOICE IMPLIES MULTIPLE ALTERNATIVES. IF GOD DESTROYED ALL EVIL, THERE WOULD BE NO ALTERNATIVE TO GOOD. THE POWER DEMONSTRATED BY CREATING BEINGS WITH FREE WILL IS GREATER THAN THE POWER DEMONSTRATED BY ZAPPING EVIL THINGS.

Your arguments are good, and I like the way you present them. But as a "theologist" I'm going to take you up on this one, which is flawed for the following reasons:

(1) The free will defence does not address the problem of evil that is not brought about by free will. The classic example is a fawn dying, unnoticed, in a forest fire. Why would God allow that?

(2) Free will does imply choice. But it doesn't follow that that choice must be between good and evil. It could be between a greater and a lesser good.

(3) John Mackie made a famous argument, which went along these lines:
(a) An omnipotent being can bring about any situation that could logically exist.
(b) A situation where you have a large number of free beings all freely choosing good is logically possible. That is, you could imagine it happening.
(c) Therefore, an omnipotent being could bring about this situation.
(d) Therefore, God could see to it that you have perfect free will *and* no evil choices being made.

Note this last one carefully - it's not suggested that God would "force" everyone to do good. It's that he brings about a world where everyone *freely* chooses good.

To put that last point differently, it's true that free beings must have the ability to choose what they do; however, it does not follow from that that they must necessarily sometimes *actually* choose particular options. For example, I can freely choose to stab myself in the heart. But I have never *actually* chosen this and with a little luck never will. Similarly, you could, in principle, have an agent who is free to choose to perform evil, but never actually does it. And God, if he is truly omnipotent, could bring this about.

And finally -

(4) What's so great about free will anyway? I'd rather be happy than free any day. I could never believe in a God who allows evil simply for the sake of free will. If having free will were a means to, ultimately, greater happiness, then I could understand that. But I've never yet seen a cogent argument for why free will is so wonderful that it outweighs all misery. Come to that, I'm not sure I've seen many arguments for it at all. Theists tend to appeal to free will as if it were the final arbiter, as if it were obvious that it justifies suffering. But I don't see it myself.

 

[Saga of Gemini]

The very existence of an omnipotent/scient being negates freewill. If some being exists that not only knows every possible outcome (all knowing), but can also determine what outcome someone takes, free will is arbitrary.

Not necesarally since he can choose not to see our future actions.

We simply cant understand those kinds of powers...

 

[Saga of Gemini]

I love those posts who suppose that the idea of God not existing derives from an incapacity of perceiving obvious things. Comparisons with the blind, than, are the utmost fun.

Saga, why don't you ask the atheists here how many of them don't believe in ultraviolet. Ths should put things in perspective.

Regards .

Nope srry that wont work since there are other methods to see UV.
But colors can only be seen, theres no other way to "explaine" them, unless someone finds a way to feel them or smell them....

I love those posts who suppose that the idea of God not existing derives from an incapacity of perceiving obvious things. Comparisons with the blind, than, are the utmost fun.

And yes I believe what you said here becasue........... it is obvius. And thats basicaly the core of every atheistic belive...."see to belive"

Or can you deny all the times ppl here have said something like this: "when I see a men walk on the surface of water turn water in wine.....divide a see..thats the day ill believe" I thnk I can count curt and perfectin since Im almost 100% sure they were the ones that said this or something like this...

 

[Colonel]

i have a way to disprove god's exsistance so here it is, u guys keep saying that god allows us FREE WILL, but that very phase contratictes all exsisting science because, if god is all knowing and all seeing then he\she\it could see every exsisting particle in the Unieverse but if that were true he could see (science states that if one were to know where every thing in the Unieverse then one could accurately predict there indireactions thoughout all time) the future which implies the fact the everything that happerns due to FATE which doesnt allow FREE WILL so with that said either god is lazy and doesnt want to kill evil or GOD doesnt exsist because if he did the devil wouldnt exsist


BEAT THAT


IWIN

 

[Perfection]

Nope srry that wont work since there are other methods to see UV.
But colors can only be seen, theres no other way to "explaine" them, unless someone finds a way to feel them or smell them....

Well, I think if you refer to it as electromagnetic radiation between such and such freuencies they'd get the idea.

 

[Quentin]

i have a way to disprove god's exsistance so here it is, u guys keep saying that god allows us FREE WILL, but that very phase contratictes all exsisting science because, if god is all knowing and all seeing then he\she\it could see every exsisting particle in the Unieverse but if that were true he could see (science states that if one were to know where every thing in the Unieverse then one could accurately predict there indireactions thoughout all time) the future which implies the fact the everything that happerns due to FATE which doesnt allow FREE WILL so with that said either god is lazy and doesnt want to kill evil or GOD doesnt exsist because if he did the devil wouldnt exsist


BEAT THAT


IWIN

Well, I personally like that argument but religionists tend to argue against that by basically saying that God knows better and that by using that you are judging God by human standards (which would be true, but what other standards do we have access to?). So that's really not gonna work.

 

[Colonel]

but it will because of what i said, no matter who\what\where\when\whatever you are, if ur super being like god, human, alien i dont care if you know where every particle in the universe at any given moment (that means if u knew even once where everything is at once) you could predict where everything could be for eternity

 

[Perfection]

Not as per the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle!

Edit: Oh and your sig is not funny.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

IWIN

Moron. Allcaps and lack of spacing. Huge arrogance. ULUSE.

If you like, you can refer to God as an eleven dimensional being, for whom "time" has no meaning, since he is outside it. You can say he's "seen" everything happen in the "past" and therefore knows it, even though the future hasn't "happened" for us yet and we therefore have free will since nothing is being predicted.

Oh and your sig is not funny. Ad hominem, (latin) langt oppi ræva. (norwegian) Get some punctuation. It's cheap.
I noticed you typed the letter "L" several times while you were ranting. The distance from "L" to "." is about 4 millimetres. moving your finger that far takes about 1/100th of a calorie. Do it, you'll gain so much respect.

 

[FredLC]

Nope srry that wont work since there are other methods to see UV.
But colors can only be seen, theres no other way to "explaine" them, unless someone finds a way to feel them or smell them....

You see, that is the entire point, my good friend. Things that exist but are beyond our senses can be reached through the use of tools that places them within our capacity to reach, or through indirect means that allows us to recognize their influences.

Neither of these possibilities withstanding with God, you know what conclusion this implies. Be brave and speak it out loud.

And yes I believe what you said here becasue........... it is obvius. And thats basicaly the core of every atheistic belive...."see to belive"

Or can you deny all the times ppl here have said something like this: "when I see a men walk on the surface of water turn water in wine.....divide a see..thats the day ill believe" I thnk I can count curt and perfectin since Im almost 100% sure they were the ones that said this or something like this...

Let me say it one more time - there is no such a thing as an "atheistic believe"; atheism, skepticism really, is a blank sheet, a passive posture in which nothing which isn't proven or logically expected is accepted as a valid claim. Just that.

If material evidence were presented in regard of the actual happening of miracles, I'd cease being an atheist, but not because my method failed. I'll simply alter my conclusion to the one that best represents the evidence. Today, it's atheism, as the God thesis is too weak, in your scenario it would be theism, as than the God thesis would have plenty of validity.

I always respond to the facts. What about you, my friend?

Regards .