Prove God Exists - Act Three

[Black Fluffy Lion]

HamaticBabylon: is your signature "Religion & Science are the same" sarcastic or do you actually think that is true?

 

[AceChilla]

I will once and for all prove Allah/God exist...*drum beat comes up*

By showing you these pictures:

These clouds form the word Allah written in Arabic.

And this picture shows the word Allah formed in the shape of the cactus:

I think this proves enough and we can all agree that Allah/god does exist.

So let's all bow to the deity now!!

Edit- posted some new pictures, hope they are not hosted by Tripod.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@DM

This also proves God is hosted by Tripod

 

[King Alexander]

why does god have the need to glorify himself?

...Um, maybe because he feel lonely? In that case, he should have taken us right next to his throne, so we "praise" his gloriousness all the time.

What God are we trying to prove? Just the one that would correspond to the Bible's descriptions?

Exactly.

 

[AceChilla]

@DM

This also proves God is hosted by Tripod

You don't see the pictures?

That must must be an act of the Lord Almighty, how much signes does he have to give untill these athiest covert themselves

 

[Iggy]

You don't see the pictures?

That must must be an act of the Lord Almighty, how much signes does he have to give untill these athiest covert themselves

OK you have got me there. I am convinced. Tripod does exist.

 

[Mise]

This is an infinite regress of events which is incoherent and unintelligible. It is incoherent because of the fact that every event keeps being said to have a cause and it keeps getting pushed back thus never solving the problem of how the casual chain started in the first place. It is unintelligible because humans would be unable to comprehend the workings of such a infinitely regressing chain. When was an incoherent concept ever a true concept? It sounds somewhat reminiscent of making an exception to a generally accepted rule in one (possible multiple) case(s).

Hmm... I don't know if you get what I'm saying, or if I get what you're saying (probably the second one...). To coin a phrase, what I'm saying is that the creation of the Universe is like the chicken and the egg paradox, whereas most people see it as a (in)finite chain of events that go back and back until they reach THE beginning, perhaps God, perhaps something else.

The infinitely regressing chain problem can be solved by considering the chain to be joined at both ends, and saying that there was never a problem in the first place. Hence, like the hole in the bucket, dear liza, dear liza, which has no apparent solution, the paradox of the causal chain of creation can be ignored and simply taken for granted as fact -- i.e. the universe, like the chicken and the egg, and/or God, were always there.

 

[the mormegil]

Where have all the religionists gone?

 

[Perfection]

2. Scentists can kepp looking, but the only answer is a being on a higher dimension, a powerful force.

Do you have any support for that statement or are you just speculating?

There is no Science vs Religion, except among those who are close minded.

Indeed, all arguements for or against god are philosophical. Of course, science has a major impact on how we philosophically understand things.

1. If God had no exidence WOW! no one would believe in him.

Sure people can, it's called false evidence and failures of logic. I suppose there is anecdotal evidence, and some philosophical arguements, but scientific evidence.

2. Looking at DNA means you have DNA, it doesn't mean your great great granddad was a chimp.

True, but analyzing the patterns in DNA and showing its relations match those in the fossil record, as well as homologies, and vestigial organs provides evidence for the case. Of course, evolution isn't the topic here, god is!

2. i read scientific books as much as the Bible.

Hmm, just out of curiosity, what scientific books have you been reading?

2. With no God there is no right and wrong

Why must a higher power dictate what is right or wrong? Can't humanity decide what it is right and wrong?

3. I would like to piont out that not all religionist are stupid! WOW! We graduate from colledge, become teachers, read science books! NO WAY! Hard to believe, isn't it? We dont deny science. We just see there (1) no enogh prove in evolution, (2) no way we can exist w/o a god and (3) personally know God exists.

First of yes, I agree there are smart religionists, just because I feel they are wrong doesn't meant I don't think they are intelligent. I find Stormbind to be one of the more intelligent posters here, yet I have disagreements. Second, not many religionists believe in evolution, evolution is not on trial here, the issue is God not evolution!

I quit this thread too.

You don't have to announce it, you've already made your objections clear!

No way buddy. A fool (or fools) have no reason and are a waste of time to debate with.

If you think I'm a fool, than why did you bother posting a response?

Science and religion go hand in hand. If you don't believe me go and look at the works of gravity and plant biology.

The fact that some scientists made the fallacy of mixing science and religion doesn't mean they are inherently hand in hand. Go ahead an look at the works of modern science and you'll be unlikely to see many religious interpretations!

So this natural order exist and governs these laws of nature by it self? But is that not like saying the creator existing since these laws obey the master being?

The difference is the creator would be a nonsentient set of rules instead of an omnipotent being.
So I suppose you could call this set of laws as the "Creator" but you aren't going to call them god!

I don't understand why you are laughing. When I said gravity I meant that laws governing the forces working in nature, and those laws work in order not pandemonium, also they do not change their natural state when you find them. You can manipulate these laws but never can you evolve them!

Gravity and DNA replication are fully consistant with the laws of entropy. Both processes produce more chaos than order.

I will once and for all prove Allah/God exist...*drum beat comes up*

DAMN!!! Well, I guess I'll go join the local mosque!



By showing you these pictures:

 

[JohnRM]

Athiests want proof of God's existance. Perhaps God does not want to be proven to exist; but I guess its too bad for God, right? I mean, who is really losing out on something if God does exist and God has a purpose, in mind, for not wanting to prove it? It is not the Lord. It is you. It would be not of God's concern.

 

[Blasphemous]

Some issues brought up in this thread coincide pretty well with the ideas presented here. Clearly a solid read.

 

[cgannon64]

Does anyone here actually think and actively try to prove God exists?

 

[CivCube]

Some issues brought up in this thread coincide pretty well with the ideas presented here. Clearly a solid read.

Religion is being attacked here, not necessarily God.

 

[CivCube]

Does anyone here actually think and actively try to prove God exists?

No, they mostly try to defend and attack religion.

 

[Tomoyo]

There is no such thing as right or wrong. Even if God appeared in front of the White House during a news conference, all evidence of god is only perceptual. Nothing can exist. Entity thoughts are the essences of the universe. Everything we are, we will never prove, as we will be forever stuck in the loop of perception.

 

[JohnRM]

If God does not want to be proven to exist, and I believe that he does not, then how is one to prove that he exists?

All that I am arguing, here, is that:

1) Athiests believe that if believers cannot prove God exists, then they are right and God does not exist.

2) That this assumption on the part of Athiests is ridiculous. God's existance does not depend on his followers being able to prove the fact.

 

[Blasphemous]

Religion is being attacked here, not necessarily God.

I stand by what I said. Some issues presented here are answered very well in that article.
I never claimed it were ultimate disproof of god. Such disproof, would be impossible.

 

[Blasphemous]

If God does not want to be proven to exist, and I believe that he does not, then how is one to prove that he exists?

If he didn't want to be proven to exist, why did he allegedly send his son to Earth to die for humanity's sins? Why did he do all those fabulous things described in the Bible? Why did he even have the bible made, if he didn't want any proof of his existance to be possible? Sounds like a wacky way to disprove yourself.

 

[Perfection]

If God does not want to be proven to exist, and I believe that he does not, then how is one to prove that he exists?

Then it's all up to personal opinion if he does exist.

 

[JohnRM]

If he didn't want to be proven to exist, why did he allegedly send his son to Earth to die for humanity's sins? Why did he do all those fabulous things described in the Bible? Why did he even have the bible made, if he didn't want any proof of his existance to be possible? Sounds like a wacky way to disprove yourself.

You know what I meant