INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Alceste]

I hate having to agree with loopy knuckle walking fundies like you, but this vile puppy eating heathen concurs.
Believers can be quite rational....we just disagree about a single premise, one which neither of us can prove or disprove.
I prefer to judge the individual rather than the believer status.

I'm not saying theists are 100% irrational 100% of the time. I'm saying it is impossible to construct an evidence based argument in favour of theism that follows the rules of logic, but it doesn't matter.

We are all irrational some of the time, if not most of the time. Empiricism, logic and reason are specific tools for processing specific, observed, measurable, natural phenomena. Religious faith is not one of them (unless you're a neurologist, perhaps).

Watching folks like 1robin trying to use reason to justify their faith is just painful. Like watching me try to use reason to explain why I can't stand to see old people eat. The whole story is that I just can't. If I start trying to find experts, studies, and evidence to build a foundation for an anti-old-people-eating argument adhering to formal logic rules we'll be here all day.

 

[Agnostic75]

I also said I would not highjack this thread and this stalking of yours is getting out of control. Why in the world is my opinion so important to you?

You are right, this thread should be reserved for the topic of the existence of God. However, if you wish to discuss homosexuality in another thread, it will be easy for me to show that your arguments are not valid.

I will try not to make any more off-topic posts in this thread.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Dang, 41 pages, and I'm just now looking. What did I miss?

How was evidence of God tested? What data was used? And what has been clarified to be falsifiable to narrow the conclusions down to "God exists"?

Or shall we clarify the existence of God through sharing of solace gained from artistic portrayals and philosophical musings?

 

[1robin]

You are right, this thread should be reserved for the topic of the existence of God. However, if you wish to discuss homosexuality in another thread, it will be easy for me to show that your arguments are not valid.

I will try not to make any more off-topic posts in this thread.

You are the most persitent person I have ever debated. You would make a great Christian. I have posted on that thread dozens of times and your arguments have been less than persuassive. I plan on doing so again but it will have to wait a bit.

 

[1robin]

Good stuff. Sometimes it sure feels like this.

 

[Alceste]

Dang, 41 pages, and I'm just now looking. What did I miss?

How was evidence of God tested? What data was used? And what has been clarified to be falsifiable to narrow the conclusions down to "God exists"?

Or shall we clarify the existence of God through sharing of solace gained from artistic portrayals and philosophical musings?

I'm pretty sure you didn't miss a thing. It's the old "something can never come from nothing, except when the 'something' in question is God" argument, followed by 41 pages of adding extra words to it in order to try to make it look like it adheres to the basic rules of reason.

 

[McBell]

I'm pretty sure you didn't miss a thing. It's the old "something can never come from nothing, except when the 'something' in question is God" argument, followed by 41 pages of adding extra words to it in order to try to make it look like it adheres to the basic rules of reason.

That pretty much sums it up

 

[Agnostic75]

You are the most persitent person I have ever debated. You would make a great Christian. I have posted on that thread dozens of times and your arguments have been less than persuasive. I plan on doing so again but it will have to wait a bit.

You are wrong on three counts. First of all, I was a conservative Christian for over 30 years. Second, I have added some new arguments in this thread that you have not replied to, and you have not replied to all of my arguments in the other thread. Third, it is amusing that you said that my arguments are not persuasive since the following organizations would flatly reject your utterly absurd claims that all homosexuals are guilty for what some homosexuals do, and that all homosexuals should practice abstinence for life:

American Psychiatric Association
American Psychologiccal Association
American Academy of Pedicatrics
American Medical Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Anthropoligical Association
American Sociological Association

All of those organizations have issued statements that support homosexuals. None of those organizations support your unscientific claim that homosexuality does not have anything to do with genetics.

Since this thread should be reserved to discuss the existence of God, there is no need for us to discuss homosexuality here. I just made a post in a thread on homosexuality at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-66.html#post3239455. It is post #652. Please reply to that post. You cannot accurately claim that you have discussed everything in that post with me. If you believed that you had the advantage, you would still be having some discussions with me in that thread. You replied to someone else in that thread two days ago. Please stop you idel boasting and let's have some detailed discussions in the other thread. In debates, it is typical for a debater to become evasive when he gets into trouble. Some flimsy excuses that I have come across are "I am too busy," or "you are too rude," or "I have already answered your questions." 'The truth is, most people who debate a lot do not become evasive, or quit a debate, if they believe that they have the advantage.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm pretty sure you didn't miss a thing. It's the old "something can never come from nothing, except when the 'something' in question is God" argument, followed by 41 pages of adding extra words to it in order to try to make it look like it adheres to the basic rules of reason.

This......:yes:

 

[Revoltingest]

That is the first time I have ever had an agreement that stung. Was that a form of consulation?

I don't even know what "consulation" is.
But we're expected to go for each other's throat, so any agreement must be tempered with abuse.

 

[1robin]

Dang, 41 pages, and I'm just now looking. What did I miss?

How was evidence of God tested? What data was used? And what has been clarified to be falsifiable to narrow the conclusions down to "God exists"?

Or shall we clarify the existence of God through sharing of solace gained from artistic portrayals and philosophical musings?

It should be tested the same way dark matter, multiverses, string theory, M-theory, abiogenesis, and oscillating universes are. Look at the evidence given in reality and make an educated guess. That is of course if there was any evidence for any one of those things I listed. No matter what irrational level of evidence you claim for God, it is greater than any of those scientific conclusions above.

 

[LuisDantas]

It should be tested the same way dark matter, multiverses, string theory, M-theory, abiogenesis, and oscillating universes are.

How would that work?


What are god's theoretical properties? Which experiment can be made to falsify them?

Look at the evidence given in reality and make an educated guess. That is of course if there was any evidence for any one of those things I listed. No matter what irrational level of evidence you claim for God, it is greater than any of those scientific conclusions above.

Either you misunderstand what a scientific conclusion is, or you choose not to represent the idea correctly.

 

[LuisDantas]

Someone ought to pay me for the inspiration for that sketch.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

It should be tested the same way dark matter, multiverses, string theory, M-theory, abiogenesis, and oscillating universes are. Look at the evidence given in reality and make an educated guess. That is of course if there was any evidence for any one of those things I listed. No matter what irrational level of evidence you claim for God, it is greater than any of those scientific conclusions above.

Are any of these examples observable in nature? Like in measuring galaxy rotation curves or velocity dispersions? Are any of these examples considered "supernatural"?

The problem with claiming proof of God is that the theories of the nature of God are so variable. Which God? What version? Male? Female? Not anthropomorphized? Animistic? Pantheistic? Greek? Roman? Papua New Guinean? Aztec? Violent? Peaceful?

Now how can that hypothesis be tested? How can it be falsifiable? How can any of them be proven wrong outside of philosophy and within the bounds observational evidence?

We as a civilized species used to think that demons and hexes caused sickness and mental illness. None of those guesses would fall within the realms of scientific inquiry and could never be proven outside a religious paradigm. But once we began asking questions that related to observation over repeated testing, finding patterns, tracing those patterns back and forth from source to conclusive evidence, we began to see that other factors came into play - like germs, bacterial infection, compromised immune systems, poor nutrition, etc.

To this day, there is no way to test the hypothesis that demons and spells cause sickenss or catastrophe. There is no way to test for the existence of fairies, leprechauns, or unicorns. And there is no way to test for the existence of the Abrahamic God.

One is certainly free to believe in the existence, however. But I don't think there has been a generally accepted method throughout the entire community that explains, observes, and tests that belief. It then falls under purview of philosophy, IMO.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Belief in God requires faith. Now that is one heck of an Earth shattering discovery.

And, apparently, one you've yet to absorb and understand.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: If you wish, I will be happy to discuss with you how many biologists accept creationism in a new thread that I could start at the Evolution versus Creationism forum. Surely less than 10% of biologists accept creationism, probably less than 5%, maybe less than 2%.


At any rate, you do not know enough about biology to adequately defeat an expert on macro evolution in a public debate. Many creationists know very little about biology, but why should they if all that the Bible requires to accept creationism is faith?


An interesting thing about confirmation bias is that few people who have it know that they have it. Since creationism is only obvious to creationists, there is obviously something more to it than just science. It is doubtful that the most informed creationist experts understand biology better than the most informed experts who accept macro evolution. So, what is all this commotion about science?


Why do you care whether God created humans quickly, pretty much as they are today, or slowly over a long period of time in successive stages?


Today, I made a post in a thread on homosexuality at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-66.html#post3239455. It is post #652. Please reply to that post. You cannot accurately claim that you have discussed everything in that post with me. I know, you are conveniently too busy to reply to that post in detail. I don't blame you, if I had arguments as ridiculous as many of your arguments are, I would be too busy too.

 

[1robin]

How would that work?

By making educated conclusions given by careful consideration of reality and the effects of the proposed causes or entities.

What are god's theoretical properties?

In a way, omni-everything. See great making properties.

Which experiment can be made to falsify them?

I have never understood the idea that anything that is claimed to be must have a test for falsification. Things are true or not regardless of that requirement. Maybe you can elaborate. I believe the Bible can be tested for falsification in about a billion ways. However none of those accepted scientific principles I gave are falsifiable yet they remain. Why? In fact abiogenesis has been falsified in every attempt yet it is a given fact to evolutionists. There are double standards afoot.

Either you misunderstand what a scientific conclusion is, or you choose not to represent the idea correctly.

The claim a scientific concept or entity exists that cannot be detected uses the exact same reasoning a supernatural claim is posited upon. Yet one is allowed and the other not. There be inconsistent standards here bouts.

 

[1robin]

Are any of these examples observable in nature? Like in measuring galaxy rotation curves or velocity dispersions? Are any of these examples considered "supernatural"?

Is supernatural a code word for not allowed? The existence of the entire universe is an effect that has no natural explanation.

The problem with claiming proof of God is that the theories of the nature of God are so variable. Which God? What version? Male? Female? Not anthropomorphized? Animistic? Pantheistic? Greek? Roman? Papua New Guinean? Aztec? Violent? Peaceful?

Mine in the context of my comments.

Now how can that hypothesis be tested? How can it be falsifiable? How can any of them be proven wrong outside of philosophy and within the bounds observational evidence?

I submit the same questions of the scientific principles I gave. In fact abiogenesis has been falsified in every attempt yet it is given as fact.

We as a civilized species used to think that demons and hexes caused sickness and mental illness. None of those guesses would fall within the realms of scientific inquiry and could never be proven outside a religious paradigm. But once we began asking questions that related to observation over repeated testing, finding patterns, tracing those patterns back and forth from source to conclusive evidence, we began to see that other factors came into play - like germs, bacterial infection, compromised immune systems, poor nutrition, etc.

The Hebrews also believed waste, sickness, and death etc.. (germ theory) must be cleansed away before contact with others. Until 1860 science did not agree and killed tens of thousands in their ignorance. There is progress and regress all through history. We no longer have the quaint idea that all human life is sanctified and therefore kill millions of babies a year as a form of birth control. Are you sure we are going in the right direction? Yep, we got cell phones and extremely high suicide rates.

To this day, there is no way to test the hypothesis that demons and spells cause sickens or catastrophe. There is no way to test for the existence of fairies, leprechauns, or unicorns. And there is no way to test for the existence of the Abrahamic God.

The exact same thing is true for the scientific concepts I gave plus countless more. What about the concept of exorcism and the many documented cases where supernatural causes are about the only explanation possible? BTW my theology does not support many of the claims you made.

One is certainly free to believe in the existence, however. But I don't think there has been a generally accepted method throughout the entire community that explains, observes, and tests that belief. It then falls under purview of philosophy, IMO.

Agreed, but the same is true in science yet one is adopted and the other dismissed.

 

[Looncall]

Is supernatural a code word for not allowed? The existence of the entire universe is an effect that has no natural explanation.

You left out an important word: "yet".

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: If you wish, I will be happy to discuss with you how many biologists accept creationism in a new thread that I could start at the Evolution versus Creationism forum. Surely less than 10% of biologists accept creationism, probably less than 5%, maybe less than 2%.

I either need to convert you or employ you. You are relentless. I have all I can handle right now. However you may throw in a few claims here and I will respond. I do not mean to be impolite but I would have to be an octopus to keep up with every challenge I am given.

At any rate, you do not know enough about biology to adequately defeat an expert on macro evolution in a public debate.

That is probably why I am in engineering not on the debate circuit. I have never rejected macro evolution by the way, I simply claim that God is necessary to get what we have and there appear to be severe problems with an evolution only dynamic. I can however watch and read people who are qualified debate the issues and there are plenty.

Many creationists know very little about biology, but why should they if all that the Bible requires to accept creationism is faith?

Agreed but many do and the net is full of scholarly papers from them on it. It depends what you mean by creationism if you are suggesting I just accept it by faith.

An interesting thing about confirmation bias is that few people who have it know that they have it.

Agreed but that goes both ways.

Since creationism is only obvious to creationists, there is obviously something more to it than just science. It is doubtful that the most informed creationist experts understand biology better than the most informed experts who accept macro evolution. So, what is all this commotion about science?

Let me state this again so we are on the same creationist page. I believe God is necessary to get what we have. Exactly how that works is up for debate but nature can't do it alone. We can't even get a universe to have evolution in without a very God like source. That is why I have suggested starting there.

Why do you care whether God created humans quickly, pretty much as they are today, or slowly over a long period of time in successive stages?

I don't. I even have suggested it is very possible he didn't do so quickly. I however belief the first "Human" with a soul did not evolve.

Today, I made a post in a thread on homosexuality at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/142807-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-66.html#post3239455. It is post #652. Please reply to that post. You cannot accurately claim that you have discussed everything in that post with me. I know, you are conveniently too busy to reply to that post in detail. I don't blame you, if I had arguments as ridiculous as many of your arguments are, I would be too busy too.

I will try but it is low on the priority list. I have not answered half the theological claims I need to and I am out of time and have to leave. If you search for my posts I have had to cut short many more important issues lately. I cannot even find time to proof read anything today. I need a nap.