Prove God Exists - Act Three

[Plotinus]

Which is the more important question:

How did I get here?

What should I do now that I am here?

Colonel: use any scientific fact to at least somewhat prove that the first question is more important.

A very good point, FearlessLeader, although I doubt you'll get a useful answer...

I agree, by the way, that the Catholic Church has done many wrong things, although I can't comment on the paedophilia scandals since these seem to be mainly an American thing and haven't made much of a splash elsewhere, so I don't know much about it. I just wanted to make the point that not all about Catholicism is bad, just as not all about any other Christian tradition is good. Like I said, look at poor old John Forest, whose only crime was to be a Catholic priest who opposed Henry VIII's usurpation of the church in England.In 1538 he was burned by Hugh Latimer (I think I said Ridley before, which was a mistake). Latimer had him suspended by chains over the fire so that he would suffer for longer, but the crowd couldn't stomach it, rushed forward and knocked Forest (who was 67) into the fire, where he promptly perished. Not a good moment in the history of Protestantism, which holds Latimer up as one of its great heroes. In any case, this isn't the topic of this thread, and it seems to me that you agree there is much of value in Catholic teaching. There are tares and wheat mixed in together everywhere you look...

 

[Plotinus]

ok how do you KNOW that there are things out side of the universe that can be created without a before action HOW can u possibley KNOW without a doubt that there are things that can be created out of nothing at least i can say based on all knowing of science that that is impossible

But colonel, I have just argued that we can't know either way. Maybe the universe and spiritual things need causes, maybe they don't. I was trying to show why your dogmatic insistence that everything has a cause is mistaken - just as the dogmatic insistence by some theists that the universe must have a cause is also mistaken. We can't know either way. Science doesn't show that it is impossible - in fact, strictly speaking, it can't show that it is impossible even for a normal object within the universe to be uncaused. Science is descriptive and predictive, not prescriptive - it describes what we have already seen, and on the basis of that predicts what we may see in the future. Everything we have examined has had a cause, so we predict that everything we will encounter in the future will do, too. But we can't prove that it will do so, and we can't state that it is impossible that one day we will find something that doesn't. It's incredibly improbable that we will. But it's not impossible.

As for why God would come down to tell us about himself if there is nothing to see - well, I didn't say that Christians teach that God is nothing, simply that he is not a thing. As for what that means - well, that's another matter. If you really want to know, go to http://www.ccel.org/ccel/rolt/dionysius.all.html and read the works of one of the most influential Christian philosophers and theologians of all time on this subject. They're not easy though...

 

[Colonel]

one i dont read pysco christian works as i dont wish to be influnced by insane religous fantics, next i can at least use some information we know about the universe to understand that something must have caused everything no matter where\what\when something is it must have been created by something else this why i know that what i believe is the most accurate to the best understand of both religon and science but htat is beside the point

IN any case even if god exsists there must have been something to create him but i have yet to see anything to point to the fact that he exsists

 

[Plotinus]

If you won't read them, how do you know they're by insane religious fanatics? In fact, nobody knows who wrote the works I linked to.

I'm not going to repeat myself again... You *don't* know that something must have created everything. Theists don't know it, you don't know it, no-one knows it. It is an assumption. Science tells us only about objects and processes within the universe. It does not tell us about things that transcend the universe. The origin of the universe falls into this category, as does God. Perhaps the universe had to have a cause other than itself, perhaps it didn't. Perhaps God - if he exists - had to have a cause other than himself, perhaps he didn't. You just can't say, and science is no guide here because these matters fall outside the realm of what science can deal with. However, as I pointed out, it is one of the traditional divine attributes that he doesn't need a cause. I see nothing wrong with that and I know about science.

You asked before for "scientific" reasons for God's existence - sorry I didn't pick up on this before. What precisely do you mean by "scientific"? It seems to me that you are working with a rather vague and possibly flawed understanding of how science works and what it tells us.

EDIT: All right, I did repeat myself again. Dammit! Must stop doing that...

 

[Colonel]

ok, goto your garage get a tac hammer hit urself a few times come back and read

ALL SCIENCE SAYS THAT EVERYTHING MUST BE CREATED BY SOMETHING ELSE

as for question scientfic ANYTHING within science that even remotely points to ANY refencence to a higher being, not a possiblity of one but a resonable point that there is one

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Colonel,
Are you going to answer me?

 

[Saga of Gemini]

ok, goto your garage get a tac hammer hit urself a few times come back and read

ALL SCIENCE SAYS THAT EVERYTHING MUST BE CREATED BY SOMETHING ELSE

as for question scientfic ANYTHING within science that even remotely points to ANY refencence to a higher being, not a possiblity of one but a resonable point that there is one

well I dont understand how you are an atheist and go claiming everything must be created. The question here its not "how" is god but to *prove* he exist. At least that. By saying this you are saying that the universe was created therefore beliving in god or a god or a deity or something extrasensorial powerful enough to create this.
If then u wanna go on and on about how god didnt or couldnt create himself then by all means keep hammering your face against your screen.

I also take your probability as false since you cannot put in probabilyties if theres a creator or not. Science does not take in consideration a higher being because its not its mission to see if theres one. Its to understand our world. You dont go to the bible to learn about genome as its not its mission to explaine biology, but you dont go to a biology book to leran about morals or how to live.
Science takes care of whats measurable, religion or *faith* takes care of the unmeasurable. As god its not an empiric being that cant be submited to a lab.
The thing is to know where or when to understand that science wil never expliane all that exists or will have the answer to all, or can test all.
your choice not to understand that seems as ilogical to me as my beliefs seem to you, yet I respect your point of view, as a personal choice and as you say in the terms you are asking nobody will prove u that God exists ( unless somehow we find a signature in a corner of the universe), But the thing is to change your way of thinking. But bare in mind this: science also does not disprove a creator, and one think is lack of evidence for that evidence against...or as the constitution says: "Innocent until proven otherwise". So its believing in god its not a matter of facts but rather a matter of mentality.

 

[Colonel]

um i didnt say that a god or something of that sort had to create the universe i said something which in sense means i meant Big Bang theroy so blah WOW i have said many things useing science that in all disprove his exsistance

 

[Perfection]

ALL SCIENCE SAYS THAT EVERYTHING MUST BE CREATED BY SOMETHING ELSE

Not quantum mechanics!

 

[Colonel]

so what that one and if you would so please inform us of where it says this

 

[Saga of Gemini]

um i didnt say that a god or something of that sort had to create the universe i said something which in sense means i meant Big Bang theroy so blah WOW i have said many things useing science that in all disprove his exsistance

Such as?? Also the Bing Bang is a theory taht supports a creator didnt you know?

 

[Inter4]

Colonel, stop claiming things without backing them up. Even Perfection (an anti-religionist) has corrected you..

 

[FredLC]

Oh, Saga of Gemini reply to me was such a juicy one that I could not decide if I should answer it sarcastically or seriously. I was like that, sarcastically, seriously, sarcastically, seriously, sarcastically, seriously, sarcastically, seriously, sarcastically, seriously… so I decided that I should do both:

Then would you gladly explain me how to difer colors with my eyes shut and with no reference whatsoever??. ( By this a I mean saying something like: "the color of leaves")

Sarcastically:

Well, just like you know the difference between God and self-imposed illusions… oh wait! You can’t tell the difference. Go figure…

seriously:

Actually, the proposal is loaded. Surely, if you take the ability that allows us to tell colors apart, one person certainly can’t do it. The problem here is that there was never anyone with an uncontroversial ability to perceive god, either objectively or subjectively. All we have are claims, untrustworthy at best – a serious dissimilarity between the two proposals that renders the comparison useless.

Other than that, we can tell blind people the differences between colors – don’t delude yourself about it. Just like we managed to find out about extremely high or low specters, the blind can locate and deal with specters that are beyond them and within people with no visual disorder. Only that it would take instruments to represent colors to them – just like a radar device represents the waves of sound visually for us.

if you say so............. I believe atheists need more faith than theists.

Sarcastically:

Of course we need faith. Otherwise, what would we ridicule on you religionists? Faith makes our days fun!

seriously:

And actual relevant reply to this is in the link I recommended to Blasphemous; anyway, I have no problem in making it available again. Here it is.

Also dont go telling those lies. im certain you dont believ what u said [ regarding the miracles]

Sarcastically:

Well, I don’t believe you don’t believe in me. Should we go on in that road?

seriously:

This is a typical Ad Hominen tactic, specifically the tu quoque; you try to diminish the validity of my assertion by suggesting that it’s not sincere. Nevertheless, I am confident that I am more aware of how I react to stimuli than you are, SoG… and also, I don’t think it’s polite that you accuse me of lying so gratuitously. I could accuse you of not really believing in Christ just to be even, but I know better than pretending to judge the inner works of people’s heads, a lesson that may be useful to you.

I respond to facts but Im humble enough to understand that not everything can be measured, and that men should be smart enough to understand that and not think that all can be measured. Also because "facts" are never conclusive are always partial and can be submited to change.

Sarcastically:

Oh, yeah, you are humble image of the almighty Lord of the Universe, and I am this pretentious descendent of apes. How this wisdom did never occurred to me, I’ll never know. I won’t call you a genius now only because this would pain your modest ego…

seriously:

This is a diversion tactic, and also a strawman. It both pretends to distract from the fact that an assumption can’t make up for knowledge, and to suggest that atheists, or skeptics is general, are self-righteous pricks who pretend to know everything.

Wrong in both cases. Fact is that we all are well aware that much in the universe is probably light-years beyond any possibility of comprehension… but the only conclusion we can take about what we don’t know is, well… that we don’t know. Placing a deity in the holes of our understanding, making it a true God of the Gaps, is neither intelligent nor rewarding in any way.

Regards .

 

[Mrogreturns]

Which is the more important question:

How did I get here?

What should I do now that I am here?

Colonel: use any scientific fact to at least somewhat prove that the first question is more important.

Well I'm not the Colonel, and I'm not going to say the first is more important than the second. However, I do think that they are related questions. Putting it bluntly, if we didn't get here by means of a god- then there isn't much point in spending time and resources on worshipping one.

 

[Perfection]

so what that one and if you would so please inform us of where it says this

Virtual particles do not have causality according to quantum mechanics.

Science cannot disprove the existance of god.

 

[Perfection]

Colonel, stop claiming things without backing them up. Even Perfection (an anti-religionist) has corrected you..

I wouldn't call myself anti-religion. I just dislike the mixing of science and religion. It irritates me when one tries to use religion to disprove science or science to disprove religion.

 

[Colonel]

science in its self cannot but all of scienfic fact is contrary to exsistance there is no science that directly disproves but there are sciences that say he exsists in anyway there is no science that even support the idea of a supreme being

 

[Colonel]

Colonel, stop claiming things without backing them up. Even Perfection (an anti-religionist) has corrected you..

I HAVE PROVED WHAT I HAVE SAID u religons fantics attempt to disprove but you cant since NO scientfic idea supports the exsistance what i said was a slight I REPEAT slight over step its not like the before mentioned science disproves what i have already said

u cant even use ONE scienfic fact that even support the IDEA of a once again the IDEA of exsistance

 

[Perfection]

The lack of scientific evidence does not indicate disproof.

If one cannot find evidence that I killed some person it doesn't mean I did not kill the person.

 

[Colonel]

i didnt say that it disproves anything i was just pointing out the fact they havent used scienfic fact to disprove any arguement i have made