Mickiel's proof of God.

[mickiel]

It's very important for you to realize, That while I respect you as a person, I most certainly do not respect your beliefs.

I am not asking for respect of my beliefs, I am asking you not to insinuate things about me that are not so. You tried to impress that I ask for apoligies just because someone disagrees with me, that is not true.So what this means is that you insinuate lies about me, and if you keep that up, I will ask you for an apoligy. I don't treat you like that.

Peace.

 

[Tristesse]

I am not expecting an Atheist to see these things as proof, you cannot, your mind willnot allow your eyes to see them that way. These proofs are for me to see, not you. I showed you why I believe, I hold no intrest in what you believe about these things.

Peace.

Wow, your criteria for evidence is quite low. I could never lower my standards to your level.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not expecting an Atheist to see these things as proof, you cannot, your mind willnot allow your eyes to see them that way. These proofs are for me to see, not you. I showed you why I believe, I hold no intrest in what you believe about these things.

You don't? Then what's the point of this thread and the other "... another proof of God" threads that you started? It certainly seemed to me like you were trying to convince others that your beliefs are correct.

 

[Tristesse]

I am not asking for respect of my beliefs, I am asking you not to insinuate things about me that are not so. You tried to impress that I ask for apoligies just because someone disagrees with me, that is not true.So what this means is that you insinuate lies about me, and if you keep that up, I will ask you for an apoligy. I don't treat you like that.

Peace.

I tried to impress that you ask for apologies? What does that even mean? I insinuated the truth about you. From what I've seen, no one has been disrespectful. Nor should anyone apologize to you.

 

[mickiel]

If indeed a "creator" did create us, he did a botched job to say the least. The human back, for one is poorly "designed." Thats why you hear so many people complaining of back aches. The eye too is poorly "created" It has numerous blind spots. No intelligent being, worthy of the name "god"would have done such a botched job in creating us.

Baloney, the human eye is an incredible proof of God itself, but I won't post on it, but I could if I wanted to. Although accounting for just 1/4 thousandth of an adults weight, the human eye processes some 80% of the information received by its owner from the outside world. The Retina contains about 130 million rod shaped cells, which detect light intensity and transmit impulses to the visual cortex of the brain by means of some 1,000,000 nerve fibers, while nearly 6 million cone shaped cells do the same job, but respond specifically to colour variation.

The eye can handle 500,000 messages simiultaneously, and are kept clear by ducts producing just the right amount of fluid with which the lids clean both eyes simultaneously in one - five thousandths of a second. I most certainly disagree with your view of the eye. It is impossible for evolution or natural selection to achieve this perfection.

Peace.

 

[Kerr]

Baloney, the human eye is an incredible proof of God itself, but I won't post on it, but I could if I wanted to. Although accounting for just 1/4 thousandth of an adults weight, the human eye processes some 80% of the information received by its owner from the outside world. The Retina contains about 130 million rod shaped cells, which detect light intensity and transmit impulses to the visual cortex of the brain by means of some 1,000,000 nerve fibers, while nearly 6 million cone shaped cells do the same job, but respond specifically to colour variation.

The eye can handle 500,000 messages simiultaneously, and are kept clear by ducts producing just the right amount of fluid with which the lids clean both eyes simultaneously in one - five thousandths of a second. I most certainly disagree with your view of the eye. It is impossible for evolution or natural selection to achieve this perfection.

Peace.

The human eye is actually quite flawed. Not saying it is bad, it does what it is meant to do (but compared to the eyes of some animals it is bad, though).

 

[mickiel]

You don't? Then what's the point of this thread and the other "... another proof of God" threads that you started? It certainly seemed to me like you were trying to convince others that your beliefs are correct.

You got me dead wrong man, stop trying to treat me like you do other believers. I am not like them, I am not out here everyday trying to convince or convert! Which one of you have I EVER tried to convert or change your views. Produce that post please! Come on man, I talk with Atheist here everyday, where have I tried to imposes my beliefs on another? My style of debate is NOT to convince, but to explain my views, and thats as far as I go.

Listen, Atheist " Ask me for proof everyday", I give the proof, but ONLY to show you WHY I believe. Not to change your belief, or to convince you of mine. Get that in your understanding about me, your missing a vital part of me.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

If your faith is so weak that it needs an apology every time someone doesn't agree with you or tries to make a point, than it's completely useless talking with you. And it leads me to believe that you have no sense of humor. You need to lighten up man.

This is your impression you were giving, this impression is not true. I disagree with Atheist constantly everyday, constantly. I do not constantly ask for apoligies. You gave a false impression of me, but you said " If", so it was indirect.

Peace.

 

[Tristesse]

This is your impression you were giving, this impression is not true. I disagree with Atheist constantly everyday, constantly. I do not constantly ask for apoligies. You gave a false impression of me, but you said " If", so it was indirect.

Peace.

Yeah, whats your point? you do ask for apologies often. I can't open a thread of yours without seeing a post where you're asking for an apology.

 

[mickiel]

The human eye is actually quite flawed. Not saying it is bad, it does what it is meant to do (but compared to the eyes of some animals it is bad, though).

Well I agree, if compared to some animals, yes. But to suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, is absurd in the highest possible degree in my view.

The Retina is inverted, put together backwards. Consider this, the very highest energy demands of the photoreceptor cells in the veterbrate Retina suggest the curious inverted design was intentional, they are actually aimed backwards, away from the light. Thats design man, obvious proof of a designer.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

Yeah, whats your point? you do ask for apologies often. I can't open a thread of yours without seeing a post where you're asking for an apology.

Thats because you have certain Atheist who can't get away from name calling, showing disrespect and personal insults in conversation. And I am not going to stand for that. I'm just not. If you are going to talk with me, then you must show certain respects in the conversations. I ask for nothing I do not give. You can disagree, rough me up a bit, challange me, ignore me, question me, even complain about my spelling. You can be sarcastic, joke as much as you wish, but once you insult my personage, the conversation is over.

But I will forgive the insult, if a person apoligises. And I will give apoligy to others when I am wrong about how I treated them.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

Of all the personal desires I have, to be able to communicate with God is the most desired. Right now its one way for the most part, God remains silent to me. Boy but if he EVER talks with me, man, I think that would be quite something! Finally, a sure connection, but the ONLY connection I have at my disposal, is prayer. And I admit and see the irony of that, talking with someone you cannot see, who does not talk back. But I cannot homestly say and be correct, that God does not respond. He does, just not like I want him to. But I am able to determine response, he does respond. Yes, strange ways of response, I admit to that.

But God is strange in how he chooses to communicate as of now, and I want to go into that.

Peace.

 

[Kerr]

Well I agree, if compared to some animals, yes. But to suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, is absurd in the highest possible degree in my view.

The Retina is inverted, put together backwards. Consider this, the very highest energy demands of the photoreceptor cells in the veterbrate Retina suggest the curious inverted design was intentional, they are actually aimed backwards, away from the light. Thats design man, obvious proof of a designer.

Peace.

You are forgetting the blind spot and things like that. The eye is in no way perfect, as I said it just does what it is meant to do.

Complexity does not mean there has to be a creator.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

I'm not sure you understand what 'proof' really means. I could say that the fact that God has never communicated with me is a proof that she doesn't exist, but I would be wrong. It would simply be evidence, and to be honest it would be completely worthless evidence...

...But it would be evidence (not proof) nonetheless. Do you see what I mean?

GhK.

 

[mickiel]

You are forgetting the blind spot and things like that. The eye is in no way perfect, as I said it just does what it is meant to do.

Complexity does not mean there has to be a creator.

Complexity does define creator. The lens of our eyes varies in density so that all rays are brought into focus. This cannot be duplicated by any homogenous physical substance, such as glass. All the marvelous adjustments of the lens, rods and cones, nerves and allelse must have occured simultaneously, before each of them was complette, sight is impossible! Oh what proof of God that is! How could any of these necessary factors know and adjust itself to each of the requirements of the other? Its just not possible man, its just not.

Nature would have had a job developing the science of optics unless along the line there was a lot of help from intelligence, this is just a fact. Evolution cannot account for the eye purely on the basics of successive slight modifications. Before each modification God made was complette, sight was impossible.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

I'm not sure you understand what 'proof' really means. I could say that the fact that God has never communicated with me is a proof that she doesn't exist, but I would be wrong. It would simply be evidence, and to be honest it would be completely worthless evidence...

...But it would be evidence (not proof) nonetheless. Do you see what I mean?

GhK.

I understand calling God she, there exist in him what females came to be. I think God likes the female creation, I even speculate he created more of them than men, but thats just my speculation. But he is not human, thus shouldnot be defined by our gender, but yet we always refer to him as male. Interesting , but thats how it goes. Proof, evidence, one leads to the other so they both connect, why try to seperate them?

Peace.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

I understand calling God she, there exist in him what females came to be. I think God likes the female creation, I even speculate he created more of them than men, but thats just my speculation. But he is not human, thus shouldnot be defined by our gender, but yet we always refer to him as male. Interesting , but thats how it goes. Proof, evidence, one leads to the other so they both connect, why try to seperate them?

Peace.

Regarding gender: I don't see it as an issue really. He, she, it... If God exists I find it highly unlikely that gender would be the first thing i'd be worried about.

Regarding proof and evidence: Because they are not the same. There is a reason why they are two seperate words, because they mean two different things. Talking about the design arguement, your evidence (the eye) does constitute a proof (God). There are other explanations, however reasonable you find them to be. Just because you don't think they are good explanations, it doesn't mean they are impossible.

Similarly, I could try and argue that simply the word 'omnipotence' poses a problem to the idea of God, but it wouldn't be a proof that God doesn't exist, because there are other explanations, however unlikely I deem them to be.

GhK.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

DAY TWO

I don't know, but its still impressive. Whatever it is that makes a Woman be into me, is quite impressive, label it whatever you please, or don't label it. Its some type of emotion at the least. But it is also a devotion that I know is there. They are commited to you, will do for you. And this is how many view God. He is there for them, will do for them, I tell you, its like a Romance.

Its no doubt in my mind, that God has more people romantically involved with him, than any thing I have ever examined. Conversely, God has more people who hate him than I could ever count. This dynamic is real. Its VERY real.

And its very impressive, I mean people have died for God. Will give their Lives for him. Will try to literally change their nature for him. Will devote their entire lives to him. Man, this stuff is real, and there are many ramifications to consider in that.

Peace.

Nope no proof here. Still some personal opinion.

Perhaps your proof is in the next post.

Peace,

-Q

 

[Kerr]

Complexity does define creator. The lens of our eyes varies in density so that all rays are brought into focus. This cannot be duplicated by any homogenous physical substance, such as glass. All the marvelous adjustments of the lens, rods and cones, nerves and allelse must have occured simultaneously, before each of them was complette, sight is impossible! Oh what proof of God that is! How could any of these necessary factors know and adjust itself to each of the requirements of the other? Its just not possible man, its just not.

Nature would have had a job developing the science of optics unless along the line there was a lot of help from intelligence, this is just a fact. Evolution cannot account for the eye purely on the basics of successive slight modifications. Before each modification God made was complette, sight was impossible.

Peace.

Complexity is also the result of a system with many, many interacting factors.

 

[mickiel]

Regarding gender: I don't see it as an issue really. He, she, it... If God exists I find it highly unlikely that gender would be the first thing i'd be worried about.

Regarding proof and evidence: Because they are not the same. There is a reason why they are two seperate words, because they mean two different things. Talking about the design arguement, your evidence (the eye) does constitute a proof (God). There are other explanations, however reasonable you find them to be. Just because you don't think they are good explanations, it doesn't mean they are impossible.

Similarly, I could try and argue that simply the word 'omnipotence' poses a problem to the idea of God, but it wouldn't be a proof that God doesn't exist, because there are other explanations, however unlikely I deem them to be.

GhK.

Well again I agree with you on your points, they are simular to my thoughts. The use of the term " Omnipotence", or unlimited power, does not bother me in my considerations of God. If he exist, and has created humans, consciousness, which is life, this universe, then I see no problem at all with thinking there is no limit to his power. Perhaps there may be, but only he would know that, could state that. But I do not think that a human is qualified to even suggest that he is limited, let him be the one to suggest that.

Peace.