INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[lewisnotmiller]

That was not even a reply to you.

1) This an open forum and debate thread
2) You commented negatively towards secularism, and I found the tone of your argument sad, given that it is such a mass-generalization, and in my opinion demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of me.

Pretty straight-forward.

 

[Skeptisch]

1) ...and in my opinion demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of me.

Of you and most other atheist. Good night from up over :sleep: and good day to down under. :soccer:

 

[Agnostic75]

Agnostic75, the esteemed member of the Baptist Church community is intellectually bankrupt. His faith will never let him admit that there is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, the same way heterosexuality is not. In the end we are simply born with one or the other and “fifty shades” in between.

You and others who try to reason with that red breasted bird are very much appreciated. You have plugged his feathers and exposed his hypocrisy and many a casual reader thank you for it. There is a good chance Robin will come back until his skeleton is exposed but don’t expect him to answer your numbered arguments in post #688 in an intellectually honest fashion because -

it would destroy his supernatural dream world. :magic:

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. Carl Sagan

Thanks very much for your post. If you had read all of 1robin's posts in that thread on homosexuality, you would be even more disenchanted with him than you are. In one of his posts, he compared homosexuality with cannibalism when I told him that dozens of countries allow openly homosexual people to join the military. He tried to use the cannibalism analogy to say that since cannibalism worked well for some groups of people, my argument that allowing openly homosexual people to join the military has worked well for many countries was not valid. It is obvious that cannibalism does not work well for people who are the main course for dinner. It is also obvious that homosexuality is consensual, and cannibalism is not consensual.

1robin's post #304 at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...7-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-31.html was deplorable. He copied a bunch of stuff from a radical conservative Christian website, and never bothered to check out the individual claims. Some of it was true, but some of it was not true. I hope that 1robin is willing to discuss that post with me.

 

[Skeptisch]

If you had read all of 1robin's posts in that thread on homosexuality, you would be even more disenchanted with him than you are.

I just did. What a disgraceful exhibition of ignorance, not surprising though considering his or her moral guidance:

Leviticus
20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

[Agnostic75]

Science cannot make a case that it is probable that a God created this universe. A National Academy of Sciences pamphlet says that the NAS is neutral on the existence of God. That is good enough for me, and for many millions of other people. The main issue is whether it is plausible, or probable, that a God exists. Apparently, science alone cannot determine that.

Science can do very little with God at all. Science says what natural facts are (or that is what they should be doing). It is the theologian that determines if those facts are consistent with the Bible and they are.

Consider the following from the opening post:

.......science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science.......

That is about science, not about theology. The National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God, which means that this thread is not needed as far as science in concerned.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

This post is only relevant if you can solve pi.

 

[Agnostic75]

Regarding my post #1199, I just noticed that there are some misspelled words, and some usage errors. I think that it was late at night when I made that post. Rather than repost the entire post, I would like to make one correction in this post. I said that "in Denmark, heterosexuals have a higher divorce rate than atheists do." I meant to say that "in Denmark, heterosexuals have a higher divorce rate than homosexuals do."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Regarding my post #1199, I just noticed that there are some misspelled words, and some usage errors. I think that it was late at night when I made that post. Rather than repost the entire post, I would like to make one correction in this post. I said that "in Denmark, heterosexuals have a higher divorce rate than atheists do." I meant to say that "in Denmark, heterosexuals have a higher divorce rate than homosexuals do."

Does that mean homosexual atheists never divorce?

 

[Agnostic75]

There is no method by which homosexuality is harmless in general.

I will copy and paste that in the thread on homosexuality and reply to it there.

 

[camanintx]

It is an absolute fact that secularism has compromised general morality and that has affected Christians.

Then why are some of the more secular countries also the healthiest?

Correlating societal health with religiosity and secularism | Physicians for a National Health Program

 

[Agnostic75]

On the contrary, there is a need if you are arguing against macro evolution based upon your own personal knowledge of biology.

I never did. I have no personal knowledge of biology. The arguments I used were first, not claims evolution does not happen. The Bible and I have said many times it does. I never even said macro evolution doesn't. I said there is no proof it does and there are major problems with all of it. Second the arguments are from professionals who do have knowledge and PhD's.

"Proof" is not the issue. Rather, "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" is the issue. A very large consensus of Christian, and non-Christian biologists accepts macro evolution. You are not in a position to question their opinions based upon your own personal knowledge of biology.

Second the arguments are from professionals who do have knowledge and PhD's.

But the professionals that you are referring to are only a relative handful. In addition, how can you adequately judge their research since you said that you have no knowledge of biology?

Two of the leading Christian organizations that promote creationism are the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and Answers in Genesis (AIG). Both of those organizations also promote the global flood theory, and the young earth theory. Some Christian laymen who accept the global flood theory, and the young earth theory, would use your same argument and say that "the arguments are from professionals who do have knowledge and PhD's."

I said there is no proof it does and there are major problems with all of it.

That does not compare favorably with the following:

I have no personal knowledge of biology.

How can someone who admits that they have no knowledge of biology be adequately informed about supposed major problems with all of macro evolution?

On the contrary, there is a need if you are arguing against macro evolution based upon your own personal knowledge of biology. Since you are not able to adequately critique Ken Miller's article on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun, you are not sufficiently informed about macro evolution to debate it based upon your own personal knowledge of biology. If you are merely quoting a relative handful of experts who agree with your religious opinions, why should anyone pay attention to anything that you say about macro evolution? Even if you were an expert, why should laymen trust your opinions over the opinions of a large consensus of experts, including the majority of Christian biologists? For laymen, accepting macro evolution is a good bet.

If you claim I didn't you must how it is that I didn't. In fact it is impossible to show that, even if I am wrong. The counterclaim I made is perfectly consistent with logic and reason. There is no doubt that even if he was right he did not prove anything in that paper. He gave a counter assumption to which I gave an equally possible counter assumption.

What counter claim did you make?

I assume that most biologists believe that Miller reasonably proved quite a lot with that paper, and with some of his other research.

If Miller was right, he certainly did prove a lot with that paper. In the article, Miller says:

"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. .... Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe 1996b)

Miller was quoting Michael Behe, a biochemist who originally came up with the irreducible complexity argument. If Miller is correct, then "an irreducibly complex system [can] be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system," which means that the story of Adam and Eve is not literally true as understood as accepted by the vast majority of Christian creationists.

In the article, Miller says:

"Of all these examples, the flagellum has been presented so often as a counter-example to evolution that it might well be considered the 'poster child' of the modern anti-evolution movement."

Such being the case, I assume that very few, if any creationist biologists would agree with your claim that "there is no doubt that even if [Miller] was right he did not prove anything in that paper."

Like you, I do not know very much about biology, but a person does not need to know very much about biology to know that whether or not Miller is correct is very important.

Do you have reasonable proof that any supernatural events happened in the Old Testament?

Genesis 5-6 say:

“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”

Who was “man”? Was it only a group of people who had disobeyed some of God's commands, or everyone who lived in Mesopotamia, or everyone in the entire world? Surely everyone who lived in Mesopotamia was not part of the group who followed the God of the Bible. If the flood happened anywhere around 2300 B.C., people lived at least as far away as China. This suggests that God was not upset with all men, only some men who lived in Mesopotamia, but which men since different groups of people of different religions must have lived in Mesopotamia at that time?

Let's call the group in Mesopotamia that may have disobeyed some of God's commands Group A, and let's call everyone else Group B. If God intended to kill all of Group A, he would also have killed everyone, or at least some of the people, in Group B. That does not make any sense.

Neither a global flood nor a localized flood makes any sense according to what the texts say. If a God inspired the original Bible, the best conclusions are that he did not inspire the flood story, and the writer made it up on his own, possibly from an innocent but inaccurate revelation, or that God inspired the story as an allegory, not as a literal event.

A similar argument can be made about the story of Adam and Eve, and the Ten Plagues, and the Exodus. If you would like to debate the Ten Plagues, and the Exodus, there is currently a thread about those issues at the Biblical Criticism and History forum and the FRDB (Freethought and Rational Discsussion Boards). Many posters at that forum are very knowledgeable about biblical textual criticism, and some of them are professionals.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Who was “man”? Was it only a group of people who had disobeyed some of God's commands, or everyone who lived in Mesopotamia, or everyone in the entire world? Surely everyone who lived in Mesopotamia was not part of the group who followed the God of the Bible. If the flood happened anywhere around 2300 B.C., people lived at least as far away as China. This suggests that God was not upset with all men, only some men who lived in Mesopotamia, but which men since different groups of people of different religions must have lived in Mesopotamia at that time?

My highlight. Australia. Men lived in Australia, and way before 2300 B.C. We always get forgotten in these conversations, just 'cos no-one knew we existed.

 

[ruffen]

Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything...

uhmm...? Before anything there was nothing, and before anything there was something?

 

[1robin]

1) This an open forum and debate thread

2) You commented negatively towards secularism, and I found the tone of your argument sad, given that it is such a mass-generalization, and in my opinion demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of me.

I have no objection to your being depressed even if there is no justification for it and I do not object to your answering a post I made to another person. I however think the context invalid. Here is your statement;

Actually makes me sad that I can be so completely and thoroughly misunderstood.

That would indicate to us mere fallible humans that I had misunderstood and therefor distorted something you claimed. I was not responding to anything you said and was unaware of what you were referring to. There is nothing offensive about anything you did but there is nothing meaningful or logical about it either. My comments are about secularism not every individual secularist. I understand secularism very well as do countless theologians, philosophers, and historians through the ages. The data is far beyond anything that can be debated. A rise in secularism produces moral degradation in general. Because I am lazy and because it so accurate I will let this poem explain what I find wrong with secularism. It is a little hyperbolic but it's general philosophy accurately points out the drastic problems and irrationality that secularism produces:

An excerpt from Ravi Zacharias’ book “Can Man Live Without God?” Steve Turner says “No!”…But we try all the time….
“Creed” on the World
By Steve Turner
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don’t hurt anyone
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy’s OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there’s something in horoscopes
UFO’s and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its
compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn
We believe in Masters and Johnson
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and
bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors .
And the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It’s only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.
If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.
Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God? Pages 42-44

Pretty straight-forward.

Yep it sure is.

I will close by saying even if I was a secularist I would have no idea how to justify what it has produced in this country and in general elsewhere. Even one of its champions (Nietzsche) said this. Because philosophers and poets killed God in the 19th century, the 20th century would be the bloodiest in history and a general madness would abound. Not only was the 20th the bloodiest, it surpassed the previous 20 centuries combined. Not only is a kind of moral insanity that produces secular gems like: a death row inmate may not be gassed but so far almost 1 Billion babies who never committed a sin may be murdered (most for the convenience of the guilty), not only this (the worst moral decision made in human history) but Nietzsche himself went quite mad. If there is a defense for what secularism produces I am unaware of it.

 

[1robin]

Consider the following from the opening post:

That is about science, not about theology. The National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God, which means that this thread is not needed as far as science in concerned.

Isn't what you said an exact summary of what I claim. Science has no capacity to make God any more real or false than he is. The natural world can be examined and determined to be consistent or inconsistent with a given revelation (it has and it is) but science offers little else in this context.

 

[1robin]

This post is only relevant if you can solve pi.

Pi is a brute fact and not something that needs deriving. That's like saying derive cold. Not Pi necessarily but there are many natural constant in the universe that have no natural explanation even theoretically possible and are finely tuned to not simply allow us but to allow even a structured universe at all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well who's opinion is to be used in secularville....Hitler's, Stalin’s, Mother Theresa's, Muhammad's or Mao's and why? Your system either makes morality a flavor of the month or might makes right. My beliefs were against my wishes at least when adopted. I wish many things about God were different. Preference has little to do with what I believe.

We don’t use individual opinions to determine morality. I’ve stated that several times now.

Might makes right applies to your religious belief.

No matter what terms or words are used to establish morality without God they equal opinion.

Until someone can prove that your god (or any god) exists, the collective opinions, values, genetics, environment, etc. are all we have to go on. It is quite clear to me, from human history that this is how human beings come upon moral values. Morals values are the result of our understanding that human wellness in itself has value.

You do not have to that is what you believe. Virtually everyone even secular or Pagan empires recognizes an objective moral dimension. It is a virtual instinct only possibly absent in the very insane.

Some are, some aren’t. Many are subject to the parameters of a given situation.

I deny them in general. The Romans being extremely logical and systematic categorized morality as objective and ethics as subjective and so does everyone else (admitted or not). Do you think the torture of a new born right even if everyone else did?

Then you deny reality. Taking a life is considered acceptable under certain circumstances and unacceptable under others. You admit as much yourself but somehow can’t bring yourself to acknowledge it.

It allows and even validates a superiority of race. It was in fact a version of evolution (not an invalid one) that Hitler excused his race claims by. The title of Darwin’s book would be enough all alone.

No it doesn’t. It allows for those who can procreate to pass on their genes. In fact, the genetic homogeneity of human beings refutes racism because it shows that humans are all members of a single biological race. It shows that we are all the same. So it does the opposite of what you say it does.

You’re not seriously referring to the title of Darwin’s book on this, are you? “Favoured races” refers to variations within species which survive to leave behind more offspring. It’s not racist in any sense of the word, as we understand it.

Hitler’s views were based on social Darwinism which is wholly different from biological evolution.

It is not important what an atheist thinks. It is important what is demonstrably logical or reliable. I can think Christians are smarter than any other group. I can't demonstrate it. (I do not think). However special you think biology is it only becomes more "special" with God. There is only a net gain in "specialness" given God and a loss without him.

Obviously I disagree. As I stated, I think life is more special if we only get one shot at it.

How special is this life on earth really, if we get to live on for eternity somewhere else?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Survival would make execution of any competitors that did not aid my tribes survival a plus. If you accept these negative aspects of survival governed ethics I can grant he "good" aspects.

It could. But it could also do what I said and bring us together because we realize it’s more beneficial for us to work together and that we’re safer from predators if we work as a group rather than just getting by on our own. Both have clearly happened throughout human history.

I never said it did not, and I do not have to take responsibility for false religions because I believe in the actual God. I said almost all ethical statistics have gotten worse corresponding exactly to the rise in modern secularism. That is a fact so obvious and so damning that secularists have had to change what is actually right and wrong to defend it. Happily for them it is very easy given no God.

Oh okay, you believe in the actual god. And that’s true just because you say it is! Why should I believe you over say, a Muslim? Or a 15th century Christian?

The actual god you believe in ordered slavery, genocide, the murder of witches and homosexuals. Where’s the morality there?

Very well but my claims are not responsible either.

Your god is the one who supposedly says we are responsible for other peoples’ actions.
I would never say that.

Please take care to understand this. My claims are this.
1. The atheists elimination of God allows for a less substantial valuation for Human life and it is therefore much less diabolical to kill. Be honest here. Which is more of a prohibition to murder?
a. Atheism- life is valuable to a person and their associates but has no absolute worth. Killing is inconvenient for them but carry’s no objective foul or eternal consequence.

Why is life more valuable or special if your god exists than if he doesn’t?

Clearly, I disagree with your assessment. It’s obvious to me that if there is no afterlife and this is all we get, then this life is as precious and special as it gets. Looking at it from that perspective, taking the only life a person gets is the worst crime that can be committed. You are taking someone’s personhood or being away from them. That is all they have and all they are.

b. Theism - Human life has absolute worth to the architect of the universe. We are all observed by him and are eternally accountable to him. To take life unjustly is objectively wrong and carry’s eternal consequences.

Under Christianity one needs merely to accept Jesus Christ as one’s lord and savior and you are absolved of your sins and get a ticket to heaven. Entrance to heaven is not based on good works, so I don’t see how your religion constitutes a system of morality at all. It is a system of obedience to authority.

Furthermore I think it diminishes human existence because it says that we are incapable of determining right actions from wrong ones, and that we need a daddy in the sky to dictate such things to us. What’s the point then, of these fantastic brains we have?

2. Even actions not directly attributable to atheism are derived from facets of it .

I’m not sure what you mean by this.

3. Stalin and many other atheistic Tyrants persecuted religious folks directly and for atheistic reasons alone.
There are many other aspects to this but I am lazy and this is quite enough.

Like I said, they also persecuted freethinkers and skeptics and basically anyone who questioned their tyrannical authority. Clearly, that was not for atheistic reasons.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Man's sin causes its own problems. If you are referring to Hell I do not believe the version the Catholics invented to scare people into Church. I believe Hell is separation from the God you denied and eventual annihilation of the soul you did not create. That is the editorial "you" not the you - you.

This doesn’t even begin to address what I said.

God demands only admission of our sin and the acts of Christ. I would say that God might tell you this:
New International Version (©2011)
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

So how exactly does that constitute a system of morality rather than a system of obedience to authority?

He might also say he sent you 1ROBIN to abuse and misuse so horribly (just kidding) and yet you would not believe.
Actually I can only say this. I unlike you have been on both sides and used similar argumentation as an atheist. I am know heartily ashamed of my non-faith and look back on what I can only describe as willful blindness.

I have also been on both sides of the god debate. The way you describe looking back at your atheism is the same way I feel when I look back at my years as a Christian.

 

[1robin]

Then why are some of the more secular countries also the healthiest?

Correlating societal health with religiosity and secularism | Physicians for a National Health Program

I at one time used statistics like this as an argument for Christianity. The proportion of scientists that made major contributions that were men of faith, the fact that the largest empire in history and the most powerful and benevolent nation in history were Christian nations, that the conservative Christian demographic is the most generous group, and a million others but I soon saw many flaws with the methods. I have a math degree and took three semesters of probability and statistics and should have known better. I am not going to contend with an article I do not have time to read presently but will illustrate problems I have found in the past with these types of claims.

1. Norway leads the world in many quality of life issues and is secular and is used as an argument many times. However Norway’s quality has more to do with natural resources and the arbitrary times they were discovered than anything secular.
2. The US is 80% Christian yet has high crime rates. It is absolutely impossible that a beliefs that murder is objectively wrong actually produces more murders. It is more a factor of our innocent till proven guilty justice system, our liberal bias towards non-accountability, and our unprecedented individualism, and freedom.
3. No other nation has exceeded the trends and circumstances that Israel. Here is a very small fraction.

ISRAEL​

Statistics:

• Israel is 1/6 of 1% of the land mass of the Middle East.
• Israel is roughly half the size of Lake Michigan, or New Jersey.
• Israel’s population is ½ the size of metro New York. Only 2% of the Middle East population.
• Israel has none of the valuable resources of Oil, natural gas, or coal that the rest of the Middle East is covered up with.
• Hebrew is the only case in history where a completely dead language was revived.

ACCOPLISHMENT OF THIS TINY NATION​

• Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees per person in the world.
• Israel produces more published scientific papers per person than any other nation.
• They have the highest number of scientists and technicians per capita of any other nation.
• They have the highest number of engineers per capita in the world.
• They have the highest number of PhD’s per capita in the world.
• They have the highest number of physicians per person of any nation.
• Israel has the highest percentage of its workforce involved in technical areas than any other nation.
• Israel is the largest immigrant-absorbing nation in the world per capita.
• It is the only country in the Middle East where Christian, Muslims and Jews are free to vote.
• It is the only country in the Middle East where women enjoy full political rights.
• They have the largest number of startup companies per capita in the world.
• They have the largest number of NASDAQ listed companies except for the US and Canada.
• Israel has the highest concentration of high tech companies outside Silicon Valley in the world.
• The cell phone was invented in Israel.
• Voice mail began there.
• IBM’s first PC had an Israeli chip.
• They developed the first anti-virus software.
• Most of Windows NT and XP were developed in Israel.
• The Pentium 4 and Centrino processors were entirely designed and produced in Israel as well as Pentium MMX Chip technology..
• Israel has the highest number of PCs per person in the world.
• They were the first Middle Eastern country to launch a satellite.
• They have more museums, more orchestras, and read more books per person than any other nation on earth.
• The most unrestricted free Arabic press is in Israel.
• Israel has the world’s finest airline security system.
• Their dairy cows produce more milk per cow by far than any other countries. (I know this isn’t that important but I listed it because it reminds me of that scripture that talks about how Israel will be a agricultural star in the end times)
• They have more in-vitro fertilizations per capita than any other nation. And it’s free.
• Israel’s $100 billion economy is larger than all its immediate neighbors combined.
• Israel has the highest average living standard of any country in the Middle East. The average income level is more than twice its neighbors in the region even though their neighbors are swimming in oil and they are not.
• Israel was the first country in the world to reject conflict diamonds.
• They developed the first camera small enough to be ingested for medical procedures.
• I’m getting bored but there is much more.

Now is that evidence that their modern secular bent is producing this or the fact no other nation has a greater claim and evidence for claiming they are special to God? Stats are very tricky things.

I would argue that secularism is not a thing. It is only the absence of things (almost universally a net negative on every level) and therefore is not a creative force. It does however rule out many vital things like objective morality and any ultimate meaning and purpose and can only be a negative influence. I have also posted that at least in the US the rise of secularism has produced undeniable increases in moral decay and the once powerful and strong US has been crippled and almost to the point of no coming back by secular liberalism. Are you bound by those stats like you assume I am by yours?