INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Agnostic75]

Your limiting my comments on homosexuality based on thread relevance is even more absurd than the rationale used to justify the practice to begin with, however since I can only gain by your restrictions I agree and will hold you to it.

But how in the world will people who are interested in the topic of homosexuality know that you are discussing it in this thread? People who are interested in that topic typically go to threads about that topic. Don't you want more people to read your arguments about homosexuality? If so, relevant threads are obviously the best places for that to happen.

Threads have titles for a purpose, which is obviously to discuss certain topics, and to allow people who are interested in those topics to find them. Are you proposing that discussing any subject in any thread is appropriate?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: When you get some extra time, please reply to my three most recent replies to you in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-80.html#post3420740. No hurry, just whenever you get some extra time.

 

[Willamena]

Message to 1robin: When you get some extra time, please reply to my three most recent replies to you in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-80.html#post3420740. No hurry, just whenever you get some extra time.

A PM to Robin might be more effective.

 

[1robin]

But how in the world will people who are interested in the topic of homosexuality know that you are discussing it in this thread? People who are interested in that topic typically go to threads about that topic. Don't you want more people to read your arguments about homosexuality? If so, relevant threads are obviously the best places for that to happen.

Threads have titles for a purpose, which is obviously to discuss certain topics, and to allow people who are interested in those topics to find them. Are you proposing that discussing any subject in any thread is appropriate?

I meant that the person who against my wishes found me in other threads and brought up homosexuality telling me not to mention it in those same threads is absurd, not the request its self, and I was joking anyway. It just smacked of benign hypocrisy.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: When you get some extra time, please reply to my three most recent replies to you in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-80.html#post3420740. No hurry, just whenever you get some extra time.

Your three most recent posts were to someone else.

 

[Agnostic75]

Your three most recent posts were to someone else.

I said my three most recent replies to you.

 

[1robin]

I said my three most recent replies to you.

Oh I see. I never could do what I was told.

 

[McBell]

Depends on what you mean "rational proof". Theists and Non theists seem to look at it in a different view.

I disagree.
IMO it depends on what is meant by "INDISPUTABLE".

Because there has not been presented a single "INDISPUTABLE" rational proof this whole thread.

 

[Agnostic75]

If we may, let's get back on topic.

I would only claim God as the leading and most suffecient theory but that is far less than an indisputable theory. However there are only two choices a abstract concept as creator or a mind. Abstracts create nothing on their own and we are left with mind until some intrepid scientist invents a new fantasy.

The National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God.

As far as I know, your sources Vilenkin, Borde, Guth, and Penrose, do not believe in God, or are agnostics.

The majority of leading physicists do no believe in God.

Thus, from an entirely scientific perspective, no one should pay any attention to you.

You might be right, but even if you are right, you cannot reasonably prove that you are right from an entirely scientific perspective.

You have said that other universes do not exist, but you cannot reasonably prove that they do not exist. Today, many things that were previously thought to be impossible have been proven to be true, such as air travel.

The search for truth has no time limit. A hundred years from now, there might be sufficient scientific evidence that other universes plausibly, or probably exist. Since we have not even found a cure for the common cold, there are not any good reasons to assume that we have gone very far with physics as compared with how far it will go in the future. From a certain perspective, physics is still in its infancy.

And, as a Wikipedia article says, what is often counterintuitive to laymen is often not counterintuitive to quantum physicists. True scientists do not jump to conclusions based upon what they read in religious books.

 

[Agnostic75]

Your limiting my comments on homosexuality based on thread relevance is even more absurd than the rationale used to justify the practice to begin with, however since I can only gain by your restrictions I agree and will hold you to it.

But you are currently discussing homosexuality in a thread that is not about homosexuality. You should transfer your debates about homosexuality in that thread to the thread on homosexuality where you and I are having some discussions.

If people should not discuss topics primarily in relevant threads, why shouldn't everyone discuss all topic in just one thread?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

A PM to Robin might be more effective.

But would completely take away from the glory to be gained by winning the debate where everyone could witness it . This debate has become the ultimate "I can pee further than you can" contest, and nobody's going behind closed doors until the last drops have been shaken out.

 

[Thief]

But would completely take away from the glory to be gained by winning the debate where everyone could witness it . This debate has become the ultimate "I can pee further than you can" contest, and nobody's going behind closed doors until the last drops have been shaken out.

And the focus is upon the INDISPUTABLE rational 'proof' that God exists.......

And there will be no 'proof'.
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no experimental results.

so we are left with ......rational.

And all of these people....the many billions of them.....
ALL will fail to survive the last breath.

I think THAT would be irrational.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And the focus is upon the INDISPUTABLE rational 'proof' that God exists.......

And there will be no 'proof'.
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no experimental results.

Indeed. Not only is there not any "indisputable rational proof that God exists", there isn't even mildly compelling evidence that God exists. Worse, it isn't obvious that God's existence is an intelligible claim to begin with; it doesn't appear to have any truth-conditions.

On the other hand, there are some fairly compelling, if not absolutely conclusive, reasons to believe that God does NOT exist. These are the absence of necessary evidence, the conceptual incoherence of most conceptions of God, and the fact that god-concepts appear to be created by men, not the other way around.

 

[Thief]

Indeed. Not only is there not any "indisputable rational proof that God exists", there isn't even mildly compelling evidence that God exists. Worse, it isn't obvious that God's existence is an intelligible claim to begin with; it doesn't appear to have any truth-conditions.

On the other hand, there are some fairly compelling, if not absolutely conclusive, reasons to believe that God does NOT exist. These are the absence of necessary evidence, the conceptual incoherence of most conceptions of God, and the fact that god-concepts appear to be created by men, not the other way around.

Choosing not to believe is not much of a choice.

And ignoring the notion that the body renders a unique spirit on each occasion.....
is shallow.

It's all about intellect.
Smart enough to carry on after dying?

Apparently not.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Choosing not to believe is not much of a choice.

Whether something is pleasant has no bearing on whether it is true.

And ignoring the notion that the body renders a unique spirit on each occasion.....

Not ignoring it, because it doesn't imply anything remotely related to the existence of any occult entities.

It's all about intellect.
Smart enough to carry on after dying?

Right. That makes sense. Lol.

 

[Thief]

Whether something is pleasant has no bearing on whether it is true.


Not ignoring it, because it doesn't imply anything remotely related to the existence of any occult entities.


Right. That makes sense. Lol.

Your denial is noted.
But neither can you say there is no God.

Without proof....you have choice.

And you choose.....eternal darkness.
No afterlife.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Your denial is noted.
But neither can you say there is no God.

Without proof....you have choice.

Even with proof, you have choice. One can prove, definitively, that A=A or 2+2=4, but you could still refuse to accept it (this would be completely irrational, but nevertheless possible).

But as I said, there is much more compelling evidence and stronger arguments that there is no God than that there is. Thus, it is a choice between an intellectually responsible belief, and a belief that makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside.

And you choose.....eternal darkness.
No afterlife.

I choose belief in the non-existence of God. I also choose belief in no afterlife, because the idea is inconsistent with well-established science, and pernicious to boot.

 

[Thief]

Even with proof, you have choice. One can prove, definitively, that A=A or 2+2=4, but you could still refuse to accept it (this would be completely irrational, but nevertheless possible).

But as I said, there is much more compelling evidence and stronger arguments that there is no God than that there is. Thus, it is a choice between an intellectually responsible belief, and a belief that makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside.


I choose belief in the non-existence of God. I also choose belief in no afterlife, because the idea is inconsistent with well-established science, and pernicious to boot.

Nay.
Your denial is based on the lack of 'proof'.
If there was 'proof' your choice of belief would be gone.

But you also choose to not believe that the body renders unique spirit.
And you choose to deny that anyone one of us might survive the last breath.

I think such line of thought to be.....irrational.

 

[Agnostic75]

If there was 'proof' your choice of belief would be gone.

John 3:2 says:

"The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."

How much faith did it take those people to conclude that Jesus was not an ordinary man?

That was proof that Jesus was not an ordinary man.

 

[Thief]

John 3:2 says:

"The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."

How much faith did it take those people to conclude that Jesus was not an ordinary man?

That was proof that Jesus was not an ordinary man.

Yeah....well enough.
But having seen the miracles .....then they believed.

Blessed are they who believe....and have not seen.
(so I've heard)