Prove God Exists - Act Three

[Saga of Gemini]

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.

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")

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.

if you say so............. I believe atheists need more faith than theists. Also dont go telling those lies. im certain you dont believ what u said [ regarding the miracles]

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

Regards .

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.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

i am pretty sure my arguements are better then the religous fantics that have yet to even attempt to present ANY scietific fact to support there belif, and that in its self proves the fact that there is no actual proof besides u religous stories which in themselves are disproved by scientfic fact

Not a big fan of reading comprehension, are we? Or did you just run out of Tylenol and Midol?
Moderator Action: I'm not a big fan of flaming. Warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Let me dumb it down a notch or three...



Faith not need proof. Why? Because faith not for answering sciencey questions, faith for answering spirity questions. Sciency questions need proof. Faith is not sciency. Faith is answer to question, based on belief. Science is answer to totally not same question, based on what can see, smell, taste, touch, hear, or add up on blackboard.

Faith not science, and not answer science questions.

Science not faith, and not answer faith questions.

Basic questions ask what and where it is.

Science questions ask how(not always succeed), and when it got there.

Faith questions ask why, and what to do about it, and what it all means.



You have never attempted to answer Saga's question about moral and esthetic principles. Answer the question.

 

[Colonel]

I will just leave it at this, if no one can prove by science and not by faith and religous backing, that god exsist then I have won the arguement I was makeing. However if someone can prove me wrong while useing a scientific backing then i will gladly shut up but untill that moment I am proven wrong i have won.

THats all

 

[Saga of Gemini]

I will just leave it at this, if no one can prove by science and not by faith and religous backing, that god exsist then I have won the arguement I was makeing. However if someone can prove me wrong while useing a scientific backing then i will gladly shut up but untill that moment I am proven wrong i have won.

THats all

can u prove me that the love for your family exists? or could u perhaps explaine me why we like art.

Can u explaine a blind men colors?? ummmm

 

[Colonel]

thats not the issue here, and the only reason you said it is in an attempt to weaken my statement

 

[Saga of Gemini]

thats not the issue here, and the only reason you said it is in an attempt to weaken my statement

Well duh........

Not everything is measurable u just have to be humble and understand it.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I will just leave it at this, if no one can prove by science and not by faith and religous backing, that god exsist then I have won the arguement I was makeing. However if someone can prove me wrong while useing a scientific backing then i will gladly shut up but untill that moment I am proven wrong i have won.

THats all

Just like the US in Vietnam, declare victory and flee. *chuckle*

 

[Colonel]

difference is i actually won because all you can do is poke jokes but you cant make a good arguement

 

[newfangle]

I thought FL2's argument was dead on and I'm an atheist.

Reason and faith are dichotomous. Though praying and believing are very difficult for me to understand, I don't find it utterly offensive if other people do it

 

[Phydeaux]

Ok, why isn't the fact that the universe had to be created enough? You say that virtual particles show that things could come from nowhere. I think that your idea is not very strong, because it is based on some thing that we don't know much about. It is not wise to base your ideas on little know how. I could be wrong seeing how I don't know much about this my self. But I do have some thing I would like you to explain,

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-305.htm[/url]
]First, the big bang theory postulates no preexisting space or vacuum. Hence there would have been no place for virtual particles to fluctuate. Second, virtual particles, if real, form as matter and antimatter in equal amounts. However our universe appears to consist almost entirely of ordinary matter. Antimatter is distinctly rare.

Note: The weblink has some things that I do not wish to address, look at the link as much as you want but please address the quote.

Why would you try to replace the love of God with this any way?

 

[ainwood]

Note: The weblink has some things that I do not wish to address, look at the link as much as you want but please address the quote.

Why would you try to replace the love of God with this any way?

Re the formation rates of matter and antimatter, can't remember if they are the same, but I recall that the decay rates are different enough to account for the disparity between the amount of matter and antimatter that is observed.

 

[Colonel]

Why would you try to replace the love of God with this any way?

the answer: i am not replaceing the love of god with scientific fact i am merely pointing out that you who have defended the belif in god have no scientfic fact to base your belif (To point this i do believe in god) the only reason i have pointed out all the scientific things that explain gods exsistance away is because i wish to point out that most science in its self is contrary to the possibleity of gods exsistance

 

[Inter4]

most science in its self is contrary to the possibleity of gods exsistance

Show me. I'm curious to know how science disagrees with the existance of an Intelligent creating mind.

 

[Plotinus]

... of concepts that have nothing to do with God, and are therefore strawman arguments against His existence.

Omnipotence-- Nowhere in the Bible is God described as omnipotent. I would think it safe to say He is supremely potent, in that no other is as strong as He, but even as a devout Christian, I can go no farther than that without backup from God. This defeats/destroys the 'rock so heavy God can't lift it' strawman, and Catholicism.

Omniscience-- See above argument on omnipotence. This defeats/destroys the 'existance of evil' strawman, and Catholicism.

Hang on! How on earth do these considerations - which are perfectly true - "destroy" Catholicism? Catholics believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient, and why shouldn't they? The Bible does not explicitly use those terms to refer to God, but it doesn't prohibit them, either. Here's Thomas Aquinas' consideration of omnipotence - http://www.newadvent.org/summa/102503.htm - you may disagree with the argument but I don't see how it's contrary to the Bible.

 

[Colonel]

Here are a list of scientific facts which disprove parts of religon and in which help to disprove gods exsistance
~Theroy of Evoultion
~the Quatum Physics idea i mentioned early (forgot the name)-disproves free will
~the fact that 2 people cannot create an useable gene pool to create a race (disproves the adam and eve story and the noa's ark story)
~now to disprove any type of religous event involveing the sky
-comets
-astroids
-metor showers
-astroid hitting earth
-comet hitting earth
-and if u believe in them even Alien's

Inter32 i have already proved the point that most science is contrary to exsistance in god and the above is a list of science crap that help to disprove exsistance and alot other crap along with possible exsistance

 

[Plotinus]

You haven't "proved" it, Colonel, you've just *claimed* it. How on earth does the fact that asteroids have hit the Earth disprove God? What has the existence or otherwise of aliens got to do with anything? What is the relevance of meteor showers? Explain your arguments!

And you know perfectly well that most Christians do not believe in Adam and Eve and suchlike things from Genesis. Even if they did, science would only disagree with that part of religion. It's got nothing to do with the existence of God. Don't conflate completely different issues. Certain historical or scientific claims by certain religious people may well conflict with certain claims made by mainstream modern science. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not there is a God. You can't get away with it that easily.

And I think we've pretty thoroughly debunked your claim that science disproves the notion of free will...

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Hang on! How on earth do these considerations - which are perfectly true - "destroy" Catholicism? Catholics believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient, and why shouldn't they? The Bible does not explicitly use those terms to refer to God, but it doesn't prohibit them, either. Here's Thomas Aquinas' consideration of omnipotence - http://www.newadvent.org/summa/102503.htm - you may disagree with the argument but I don't see how it's contrary to the Bible.

They don't destroy Catholicism, they merely show that it is not aligned with Scripture, and therefore not Christianity. Omnipotence(OP) is a self-defeating argument, and omniscience(OS) appears to violate free will, so neither can be applied to Jehovah. Doing so weakens the Bible's credibility, and is a direct assault on the Word of God. Clearly then, ascribing these attributes to Jehovah serves Satan.

The modified versions of OP and OS take care of the weak points in these arguments, but are difficult for the average joe to comprehend, and therefore do little to mitigate the harm caused by the application of the unmodified versions. OP and OS are distractions from the Word, and undesirable.

Catholicism has a very bad historical record where it comes to preserving and disseminating the Word of God. It has outright killed people for reading the Bible, and at other times sought to muddy the clear water of life with papal blandishments. Today it's lip service to the truth is all too apparent, as pedophiles are shuffled from one diocese to the next to protect them from justice.

How can anyone call the Catholic leadership servants of the One True God, when all they do serves to further discredit Jehovah? If you find this offensive, ask yourself why.

 

[Colonel]

metoer shower, astoids, comets, and aliens if they exsist explain away all religous stories that have to do with any religous event in the sky (ie the big explosion in the sky haveing to with battle of good and evil, the story with mosous(cant spell the name) with god coming down giving the commandments, hell that could have been aliens and there are many other stories like that

Now on to the next part if you think most christians dont believe in Genesis then what the hell are you argueing about since Genesis is the core of your arguement, if god DIDNT create the universe then what the hell do you worship him for, by saying you dont believe in Genesis that is what you have just said

 

[Plotinus]

But FearlessLeader, all these considerations do is show that Catholics believe some things that are not explicitly stated in the Bible (although Aquinas, in that link I gave, bases the doctrine of divine omnipotence on Luke 1:37). It doesn't follow from that that they are not "aligned with Scripture". *All* Christians believe things that are not explicitly stated in the Bible. For example, the New Testament nowhere teaches Jesus' divinity or the doctrine of the Trinity (which is why the church argued about these things for so long). I think that most orthodox theologians would agree that these things are not in the Bible, but that nevertheless they are implied by the Bible, or by the things that are in the Bible, and that they are certainly "aligned" with it. The same could be said for the doctrines of omnipotence and omniscience.

Omnipotence isn't self-defeating. It may not be true (I certainly don't think there is any omnipotent being) but I don't think it's inconsistent with itself. Similarly, I don't think that omniscience is inconsistent with free will. As I said before, what do we mean by "free will"? You state without argument that no attribute that conflicts with free will can be applied to God, but I don't see why. When did free will become an essential doctrine of Christianity? As far as I know, it was only regarded as an important doctrine in the third and fourth centuries, by theologians who imported it directly from the Platonic philosophers. It ain't got anything to do with the Bible.

I don't think it's fair of you to say that the "modified" versions of these doctrines are hard for people to understand and therefore dangerous. After all, if something is true, it's true. Aquinas, for one, thought that these things were true and therefore worth saying. And he was also certainly concerned for those who don't have the time or ability to follow dense philosophical arguments. That's why he thought faith was so important. He believed that God had revealed everything in the Bible and to the Church so that people didn't have to work it all out in their heads.

I won't take you up on your rather one-sided attack on Catholics - after all, Protestants don't have a much better history! One of the reasons old Latimer went to the stake so bravely for his Protestantism was that he himself had burned so many Catholics without any apparent remorse. He must have regarded it as pretty much par for the course. In any case, you can't say that the Catholic leadership do *nothing* but discredit Jehovah. Visit http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0222/_INDEX.HTM and read the Pope's deservedly famous encyclical "Veritatis Splendor", and then tell me there is no Christian value to what he says.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Here are a list of scientific facts which disprove parts of religon and in which help to disprove gods exsistance

Oh goody, I can hardly wait...

~Theroy of Evoultion

For all its supposed magnificence, the ToE still looks like the thumbprint of an intelligent designer. There is no explanation that works for the sudden bursts of evolution, and those gaps are where all the important things happen.

~the Quatum Physics idea i mentioned early (forgot the name)-disproves free will

Already debunked by better folk than i.

~the fact that 2 people cannot create an useable gene pool to create a race (disproves the adam and eve story and the noa's ark story)

If they have no genetic defects they'll do just fine. Adam and Eve were supposedly perfect. Jesus was said to have been like Adam, and not subject to disease or imperfection.

~now to disprove any type of religous event involveing the sky
-comets
-astroids
-metor showers
-astroid hitting earth
-comet hitting earth
-and if u believe in them even Alien's

I'm afraid that's not how it works. Pick a specific event, and a specific 'disproof'.