Prove God Exists - Act Three

[Smidlee]

I'll search to find another "god", MY "god", who doesn't care of worships and wants nothing in return because he doesn't need it.

it sounds like you want a god who has no love nor care about anything. This would be like saying i would want a spouse who doesn't care that I love her and make no demands for my time. Because I love my child I make demand on them for their benefit not because I need something from them.

A "god" who'd be interested to improve the human nature from kill each other for territory control/expansion/strategic sources capture.

God is very interested in improve human nature ,He gave his Son to save man. Your first point reveals why God won't force anyone to worship Him. Worship is an act of love and can't be force.

A "god" who wouldn't allow people to die from starvation.

So you believe it's God's fault because the greed of mankind, other are starving.

A "god" who wouldn't claim that innocent people die because that's "god's will".

It amazing how mankind loves to cry God claim innocent lives when we are so quick to declare a unborn baby has no right to live and call it "PRO-CHOICE".

It sounds like (unless I missing something) what you really want is for God to judge everyone and make them do right while you can do as you please without God demanding anything from you. This is a double standred. Just like politics as you used , It a lot easyer to bash the president and cry againest his actions than to have real answers to the world's problems.

 

[Blasphemous]

Things had to be created, if there was no creator there would be no creation. So who or what created it all? That is what God is the creator. I don't see how any one in a healthy state of mind could say that there is no God, that all this came from no where.

That's the thing, you are still stuck in the anthropocentric frame of mind that dictates that nothing can exist without being made. We understand that some things just are. Sometime, there is no "why". There is just a "how".

 

[Phydeaux]

That's the thing, you are still stuck in the anthropocentric frame of mind that dictates that nothing can exist without being made. We understand that some things just are. Sometime, there is no "why". There is just a "how".

The stuff that we see today could not just be. This is just the same as saying that there is a god, but science is againist your god. Why do you choose make up a earth god insted of choosing the God that is not pushed away by science and we already know?

 

[Blasphemous]

The stuff that we see today could not just be.

(This is the only coherent part of your post so I will not reply to the rest.)
Did you read that post by FredLC with the whole thing about the special guy?
The universe is just like that. It's bound to happen eventually, out of sheer probability. It's only special to us because we're part of it.

 

[Smidlee]

Let say that we found a Walmart on Mars yet no life in site. There are two groups who have separate conclusions:
First group claim this is evidence that life was once on Mars even though we haven't seen life itself on Mars yet.
Second group this doesn't proof there was life on mars even though we can't explain how the Walmart got there.
Now who would you think has the stronger case?
many love to claim there is no God just like those in the second group but can't explain how life got here . Of course they try to use infinite amount of time and an infinite universe and said life was bound to happen but fail to produce the chance of life to exist. Let's do the math
Infinite time X infinite universe X chance of life; 0 = 0
0 times anything number is always 0
There is no proof that life started from just chemicals just like there no proof a volcano can produce a Walmart . Both can only produce the materials uses to build life or a building. So far science has failed to prove that even a infinite universe could ever produced life. This is why the burden of proof is on the atheist and not on the theist (just as the burden of proof would be on the second group) since even logic and science demands there is a Creator (the same with the first group ; a Walmart demands there is a builder).

 

[Mise]

Let say that we found a Walmart on Mars yet no life in site. There are two groups who have separate conclusions:
First group claim this is evidence that life was once on Mars even though we haven't seen life itself on Mars yet.
Second group this doesn't proof there was life on mars even though we can't explain how the Walmart got there.
Now who would you think has the stronger case?
many love to claim there is no God just like those in the second group but can't explain how life got here . Of course they try to use infinite amount of time and an infinite universe and said life was bound to happen but fail to produce the chance of life to exist. Let's do the math
Infinite time X infinite universe X chance of life; 0 = 0
0 times anything number is always 0
There is no proof that life started from just chemicals just like there no proof a volcano can produce a Walmart . Both can only produce the materials uses to build life or a building. So far science has failed to prove that even a infinite universe could ever produced life. This is why the burden of proof is on the atheist and not on the theist (just as the burden of proof would be on the second group) since even logic and science demands there is a Creator (the same with the first group ; a Walmart demands there is a builder).

Well, first, your "math" doesn't make any sense, since "infinity" isn't a number that can be manipulated algebraically. Simple proof: If infinity was a number, then infinity + 1 is bigger than infinity, but infinity is the biggest number you can get, therefore, infinity + 1 = infinity. This doesn't make algebraic sense, and so infinity is not a number that you can multiply in your little equation you've got there...

Secondly, I STILL don't understand how the Universe MUST HAVE a creator, but God DOES NOT NEED a creator! If there ever was a failing in your "proof" that the Universe "could not just be", as Phydeaux put it, it's that God equally "could not just be", and also MUST HAVE a creator.

Thirdly, to address your Walmart case. I agree, Walmart does demand a builder. But why does the Universe, in it's infinity, demand a builder? Your logic is limited in its scope. It is also not suprising that you mention such a shallow analogy, since Religion is riddled with them!

Sorry for being a bit antagonistic, but I'm sleepy

 

[Smidlee]

Well, first, your "math" doesn't make any sense, since "infinity" isn't a number that can be manipulated algebraically. Simple proof: If infinity was a number, then infinity + 1 is bigger than infinity, but infinity is the biggest number you can get, therefore, infinity + 1 = infinity. This doesn't make algebraic sense, and so infinity is not a number that you can multiply in your little equation you've got there...

I used infinite since you could use any figure you like to put in that spot. (I don't have that 8 "down on its side" key so it possible in math to have an infinite #)Example 15 billions years , or 60 triilion years ... it really doesn't matter because anything times 0 is still 0.

Secondly, I STILL don't understand how the Universe MUST HAVE a creator, but God DOES NOT NEED a creator! If there ever was a failing in your "proof" that the Universe "could not just be", as Phydeaux put it, it's that God equally "could not just be", and also MUST HAVE a creator.

I thought I made it clear that there is still no proof the infinite universe can produce life by itself. So the infinite universe really doesn't matter. From what we know about our universe so far it's very hostle to life except Earth as far as we know today.
As far as does God have a creator we would have to study Creator itself. the Walmart example would show life was there but may not tell us much about the builders. So I agree that "life" and our universe alone wouldn't tell us much about the Creator himself.

Thirdly, to address your Walmart case. I agree, Walmart does demand a builder. But why does the Universe, in it's infinity, demand a builder? Your logic is limited in its scope. It is also not suprising that you mention such a shallow analogy, since Religion is riddled with them!

I didn't add any kind of religion in my Walmart example. this was based on logic alone.
It's " Life" (origin of) that was the Walmart "type" not the universe. The exact same logic that says Walmart has a builder also says "life" has a creator. Even if it took scientists 100 years to build it first single cell life it still took intelligence which only would proves we could copy the creator.
Life is a super natural miracle that happens everyday.

 

[Perfection]

Things had to be created, if there was no creator there would be no creation. So who or what created it all? That is what God is the creator. I don't see how any one in a healthy state of mind could say that there is no God, that all this came from no where.

Virtual Particles pop in and out of existance with no cause! Physics has already proven your assertion false!

 

[Blasphemous]

Smidlee, prove that the chance for life to exist is equal to zero.
Seems to me that Earth is indeed living proof that in the right conditions life can spontaneusly create itself, as many leading studies have shown.

 

[Mise]

@Smidlee:
The probability may be small, infinitessimally small, but need not neccessarily be zero. It is possible to synthetically create proteins in the lab -- how is it not possible for it to happen in nature? Given the right conditions, things react. Whether WE give them the right conditions, or the right conditions occur naturally, they will STILL react. There is no intelligence required for a reaction to occur. And if the universe is infinite (it need not be infinite), it is naive to think that the conditions won't occur naturally.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Well, the fact that Christianity did not always exist basically proves it wrong- it means early men did not worship God, which means many of the stories of the worlds creation and mans progress are completely made up.
This also means that Christianity can be traced back to one moment where someone sat down and invented the Christian faith.
Also, since the Bible was written over such a long time, it means it was NOT inspired by God, otherwise He would've given the whole story to the people who first started the religion.
Then there's the fact that, ever since the very first moments of ALL religion, religion has been used solely and completely as a means for gaining power and wealth. That this practice has now, in Protestantism at least, stopped makes no difference at all- to find whether Christianity is real or not, you must look back to it's origins, through millenia of corruption and greed.

Also, if God did exist, he, simply wouldn't inflict religion on people, as it has caused the death of tens (hundreds? Thousands?!) of millions of people, significantly slowed human progress, for what? If God did exist, then He inflicted Christianity on us, knowing it would almost destroy the world (it may yet), just so people could worship him, and if they didn't, he sentences them to an eternity of unimaginable torture- does this not seem at all odd for a God who loves people, especially since love means to love without asking anything in return? This was because, for millenia God was used solely as an instrument of fear and destruction- if God existed, he sure as hell would've been smart enough not to tell us he did.

 

[Smidlee]

Smidlee, prove that the chance for life to exist is equal to zero.
Seems to me that Earth is indeed living proof that in the right conditions life can spontaneusly create itself, as many leading studies have shown.

this again it like saying "show me prove that a volcano can't produce a Walmart". According to the wisdom and knowledge of man, the chance that raw natural can produce a Walmart is the same that raw natural could produce "life".( life is even more complex than a building) So the chance of life to exist is equal to zero. The only difference between " Walmart on Mars" has a builder And "Life" has a creator is in the human heart. Man doesn't have to worry about answering to a Walmart but answering to a Creator does trouble the human heart.

 

[Smidlee]

@Smidlee:
The probability may be small, infinitessimally small, but need not neccessarily be zero. It is possible to synthetically create proteins in the lab -- how is it not possible for it to happen in nature? Given the right conditions, things react. Whether WE give them the right conditions, or the right conditions occur naturally, they will STILL react. There is no intelligence required for a reaction to occur.

But this only produces the materials for life not life itself. If it was that simple then man wouldn't have any trouble producing life left and right But life a lot more complicated than building a Walmart which we can easily do everyday. so far we haven't even discover any right coniditions , or right reaction to produce life. Think about it , even with all our technology we still can't heal anyone. If our bodies won't heal itself there nothing that a doctor can do. (medicines only aids the body)
With all we know about life today the possiblity of life is still 0 without a Creator ( someone who is a lot smarter and more powerful than all the scientist put together)

 

[Mise]

this again it like saying "show me prove that a volcano can't produce a Walmart". According to the wisdom and knowledge of man, the chance that raw natural can produce a Walmart is the same that raw natural could produce "life". So the chance of life to exist is equal to zero. The only difference between " Walmart on Mars" has a builder And "Life" has a creator is in the human heart. Man doesn't have to worry about answering to a Walmart but answering to a Creator does trouble the human heart.

I've already warned you of Religion and it's shallow analogies . Analogies aren't evidence or proof.

There is a well defined chain of events which lead to life: atoms -> molecules -> acids -> proteins -> nuclei -> cells -> life (I'm not a biologist, perhaps someone could elaborate?).

And if there ever was proof that evolution is true, it's that bacteria grow immune to anti-biotics.

 

[Smidlee]

I've already warned you of Religion and it's shallow analogies . Analogies aren't evidence or proof.

There is a well defined chain of events which lead to life: atoms -> molecules -> acids -> proteins -> nuclei -> cells -> life (I'm not a biologist, perhaps someone could elaborate?).

And if there ever was proof that evolution is true, it's that bacteria grow immune to anti-biotics.

Religion ?? I not talking about religion but reality. A cell can have all the thing it needs for life and yet still be not alive. Even many evolutionists wouldn't disagree with the logic that I used.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@Smidlee
I'm not sure of what you're trying to say.

 

[Mise]

In the same way that neutrons and protons bind to form atomic nuclei, atoms bind to form molecules, molecules bind to form proteins, proteins bind to form cellular nuclei, which are the basis of life. DNA is a protein and is as a catalyst for the reactions required to form all life. Like I said, I'm no biologist, but it's clear to see that evolution makes sense. How else can bacteria gain resistance to antibiotics?

About analogies. Here is another. Everything is made up of 4 elements, earth, water, fire and air. Some things have more of one type of element than others, e.g. a stone has more earth than orange juice, which has mostly water. Each element will try to make the object go towards where there is an abundance of that element. E.g. a stone, if dropped, will go towards the earth. Water, if poured, will flow towards the sea. Air, if trapped under another fluid, will on release go up towards the air. Fire, if left untamed, will release the fire element in other things (like trees).

This of course, is utter crap. Why? Because it is based on analogy, not on empirical evidence. Religion is also based on analogy. Almost everything Jesus says is an analogy.

Regarding logic. Consider the tortoise and the hare. Near the end of the race, the hare realises that the tortoise might win, so decides to start running again. The hare sees the tortoise in the distance, so runs to that point. He takes a finite amount of time to reach that point, but in that time, the tortoise has moved on a finite distance. The Hare then takes a finite time to run to that point, but the tortoise has also moved on a little bit in that time. The hare runs to the point where the tortoise is now, but again, the tortoise has used that time to move on a bit! So the hare runs to the point where the tortoise is now, but the tortoise has gone on a bit again! This goes on and on and on, and if you add up all the small bits of time the hare has travelled to "catch up" with the tortoise, it will be infinity! I.e. it takes the hare an infinite amount of finite bits of time to catch the tortoise up, and so cannot catch up with the tortoise, ever!

Clearly, this isn't right, yet it makes logical sense.

Analogy and logic can be used to prove anything. That is its great power, and it's greatest weakness.

 

[Black Fluffy Lion]

Smidlee: you seem to be saying that something non-living cannot produce life...have you considered that you are made up entirely of non-living atoms, but you are alive?

Instead of replying to the thing about probabilty, I shall just suggest that you read this excellent set of pages which clearly explain the probability of life developing and highlight the flaws in "life cannot have come out of non-life" arguments (false analogies, etc.)

 

[Blasphemous]

Smidlee, science, unlike religion, doesn't claim that first there was nothing, then *pop* people riding horses through a forest.
Science claims that first there was nothing, then in a long and slow process, extremely simple single-cell critters started showing up, and from there it's just a matter of evolution.

RE: Loving god
What kind of loving god dooms the vast majority of his children to either suffer in life and then have a nice afterlife, or to live a fun life only to then suffer eternity in hell?
Sounds to me like the christian god of the new testament is every bit as evil as the god of the old testament. Perhaps even worse.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Well, God was always said to be evil, up to a relatively short while ago, He had to be in order to fit in with the Church's God-fearing (note:God-FEARING, not God-loving or God-Worshipping) policies for ruling through a web of hate and fear, which was how they gained power. Just look at stained-glass windows. Those days it was either pay tribute to the church, or either they kill you here or send you to hell.