No proof of god.

[Egyptianboxer104]

Jesus did, zeus DEFINITLY did. I think brahman has actually an even more beautiful description than what you presented.


And your description of allah is soooo relative. I loook at that and find it absurd. You look at it and find it beautiful. We're looking for objective evidence. Just because one person finds something beautiful doesn' tmake it beautiful for everyone. And if beautiful writting is a reason to believe in something, then i believe in mark twain...

 

[Egyptianboxer104]

You're 100% positive that the appendix is a useless organ?
Darwin had a theory that it was used to digest plants when our bodies had the ability to digest cellulose. Okay, so it isn't quite used for that particular purpose anymore. As of last year, biologists/immunologists were onto the theory that the appendix restores our intestines' health (through the production of useful bacteria) after it has been overcome with harmful bacteria from things such as diarrhea, cholera, etc. Such things aren't really a problem here, so when our appendices get taken out and there are no negative effects, it's no big deal. However, what about those in third world countries? Even something like diarrhea can be fatal, so the appendix to them isn't just simply a disposable organ.

Though perhaps these words are not proof to you, I find them a source of valuable reminder:

"In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, and the ships that run in the sea with that which profits men, and the water that Allah sends down from the sky, then gives life therewith to the earth after its death and spreads in it all (kinds of) animals, and the changing of the winds and the clouds made subservient between heaven and earth, there are surely Signs for a people who understand." [Quran 2:164]

I've never paid much detailed attention to physics due to the fact that I abhor math, hehe. But I ask this: since this universe depends on matter and energy, where did said matter and energy come from? Okay, the fundamental particles theoretically formed due to the Big Bang, which I agree with. But where did all the factors for this "big bang" come from? Thin air? Faith is not something that can be wrapped up and handed over in a pretty package to take away all possible doubt. I mean...the signs of God are things you have to see for yourself. By exploring and looking with an open-mind, countless people see them. Countless others don't. It's just a matter of perspective and opinion, that's all.

I feel like you are the first theist worthy of debating so far since you've done some research.

For the appendix thing, i'll let it rest since what i know about it comes from data from scientific papers from 2 years ago. I don't know if the appendix still has a use in third world countries at all.

As for where the big bang started, string theory is making great progress towards giving this answer. String theory is currently being tested by the particle accellerator in france/switzerland. This theory basically states that there is a continuous creation and impoding of universes. it happens on earth and it happens all the time when particles collide. the reason universes don't actually form is because there isn't enough force and energy to create the universe so it implodes on itsself and no one ever notcies. However, a build up of this can (in short) can cause the big bang. When there is enough energy, the big bang is possible. There isn't one universe but many many many universes outside of our own. each one with its own laws of physics, and to each one we cannot reach without bending space/time.

 

[Sui]

Thank you

Well, I'm not a total expert on it myself either. A detailed article of research was published about it last year in October or December, I don't remember which. But there was another article on it published a few months ago. I believe the appendix still has a major roll in the third world countries...their sanitation isn't standardized like it is for us. Diarrhea, while a nuisance at most here, is one of the leading causes of death in developing countries.

I can't quite refute your points of physics as thoroughly as I can with points of biology, my preferred science. It took me quite some time to figure out what you were saying Hm...seems I'll have to brush up on my physics then. In any case, it seems illogical to me that from an empty universe, a big bang would suddenly occur causing the development of planets, elements, etc. In my opinion, the universe is too perfect, too beautiful, too complex, to have been an accidental result of random energy.

 

[Halcyon]

Physics book:
The Universe is defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them.

Your "physics book" appears to be wikipedia Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The appendix serves no purpose in our bodies. It was useful only a long long time ago. The appendix just becomes inflamed sometimes due to infection and then we need it removed. That's all. It's NOT more effective larger.

You need to do some research.

And so you say there is no evidence for the edge of the universe (Even though there is) and therefore you don't believe it ends. Yet you have no evidence for god and yet you believe he exists.

You need to learn more about the difference between the universe total and the "observable universe".

and yes, sexual selection is the result of envionrmental factors.

No, it is not. Please research the various species of Bird of Paradise, paying particular attention to their tail feathers and how they affect their survival chances.

I am still not convinced god exists.

I'm not trying to convince you God exists, just pointing out where you are wrong/have limited understanding wrt science. I'm an atheist.

 

[Right_Path]

Jesus did, zeus DEFINITLY did. I think brahman has actually an even more beautiful description than what you presented.

You don't seem to understand that Jesus and Abraham are on my side, I'm a Muslim...i believe in all Abrahamic religions..so the God described by Abraham is my God.

And your description of allah is soooo relative. I loook at that and find it absurd. You look at it and find it beautiful. We're looking for objective evidence. Just because one person finds something beautiful doesn' tmake it beautiful for everyone. And if beautiful writting is a reason to believe in something, then i believe in mark twain...

First, this is not my desctiption, nor Mohamed's description, this is how God addresses himself.

More importantly, this is about 1% of what God said describing himself in the Quran, if you are willing to listen to more, have a look at the book.

and as i told you before, you have got a very fine chance of understanding the Quran, because you will usually find something that you seem to like most: SCIENTIFIC MIRACLES.

 

[Worshipper]

If we take you as an example, he has proven himself to you, but how do i know you're telling the truth. How do i know whether you saw what you say you saw, thats more what i was aiming at. (please don't think im calling you a liar for the record)

Exactly. You have no way of knowing whether I'm telling the truth. I could be lying. i could be mistaken. I could be crazy. So my empirical evidence, if it's not reproducible for you, doesn't prove a thing.

Actually, I would be really freaked out if a mentally-able adult decided to believe in God just because I said there was a God. I probably wouldn't want to spend time with that person anymore. He would scare me.

I think to say its foolish is rather dismissive of a deep issue, in the age of scientific revolution tangible proof is of the essense, the same old excuses just don't cut it anymore.

Well, I can see where you're coming from, but I wouldn't quite put it that way.

It is, I think, very important for you (or anyone else; this is the general you) to have empirical evidence before you believe in God. I think it would be foolish to believe in God without such evidence. But at the same time, producing that evidence isn't really something that any mortal can do, and I think it would be foolish to try.

It's not foolish to demand empirical evidence before believing. And it's not foolish to believe once you have that evidence. What is foolish is for an atheist to demand that evidence from someone who cannot give it (i.e., another mortal man), or for a theist to attempt to provide evidence he is incapable of giving.

Did I express myself all right there? I'm not saying a person should believe in God without evidence. I'm saying a person shouldn't ask for bread from a fish, when we all know that the fish is incapable of giving the bread.

Then again theres the huge assumption that there is a God. Since we cant prove him we've got 2 choices, wait and see or follow blindly in hope your submission was worth it in the end.

I think there's at least one other choice. I don't think we need to be passive, but I don't think we need to be blind fools, either. Just because we can't prove God exists doesn't mean he can't prove he exists. We can actively seek proof from him, just as we might when we walk into a dark room and call out to see if anyone else exists in the room. It's not that we blindly assume that someone is there; it's that we reasonably assume that someone might be there.

I think there is ample evidence to suggest that there might be a god. Anytime billions of people all agree on something, you've got to wonder whether they're right. And I think that if a person really wants to know whether there is a god, then the evidence suggesting there might be a god will give him a solid enough intellectual grounding to actively seek God's empirical evidence for his own existence — just like the evidence that there might be someone in a dark room gives us enough intellectual fuel to try to get evidence that there is someone in the dark room.

 

[darkendless]

What is foolish is for an atheist to demand that evidence from someone who cannot give it (i.e., another mortal man), or for a theist to attempt to provide evidence he is incapable of giving.

I think there is ample evidence to suggest that there might be a god. Anytime billions of people all agree on something, you've got to wonder whether they're right. And I think that if a person really wants to know whether there is a god, then the evidence suggesting there might be a god will give him a solid enough intellectual grounding to actively seek God's empirical evidence for his own existence — just like the evidence that there might be someone in a dark room gives us enough intellectual fuel to try to get evidence that there is someone in the dark room.

I wouldn't say foolish, i think it is and always will be a valid question. The same question has been posed ever since the church stopped killing opposition to its rule and will be until one group gets sick of the other and wipes them out. I have to ask, why would God reveal himself to a few select people and watch them get rideculed for not being able to justify themselves? Does he get his kicks our of watching us skwabble like school children? To me i dont buy "God is going to save us because he revealed himself to me" it doesn't seem right to reveal to a select few (completely random) and not the rest who desperately need his guidance.

I don't think numbers mean everything, the only reason religion survuve is people used to die for opposing them. Thats the only grounding they have, and people continue to follow the evidence (or lack of). I think the evidence is anything but solid, hence my lack of faith.

 

[Neo-Logic]

There is countless proof there is no god. Even the greatest mind of our time, stephen hawkings (and countless others like eisntien and richard dawkings) know god does not exist. It is a myth just like faries (which some people in the UK believe exist).

So there is plenty of evidence supporting evolution and the big bang. Please provide me with a shread of evidence god DOES exist


- former christian

Edit: There is nothing saying there is no god... but no evidence supporting god either. i'm looking for evidence supporting god.

Interesting position on the burden of proof, if I should say so myself.

 

[Sententia]

I think there is ample evidence to suggest that there might be a god. Anytime billions of people all agree on something, you've got to wonder whether they're right.

See here is your logical flaw... this is a fallicious argument and an appeal to the masses.

This is brought up so often I can't bring myself to believe you haven't seen it or considered it before but at one time the majority of the people on this planet thought the earth was flat.

At one time... disagreeing with the majority on religious subjects meant death. Take some time to mull that over.

Put yourself in the shoes of a parent whos kid is doubting god and is warned their son will have their tongue removed for blasphemy if he doesnt shape up.

There is a lot of thought control at work but today its far less then it has been. Partly because the people in power are failing us. You have the logical outcome of greed and trickle down economics at work.... The idiocy of building a superpower around a resource you control little of. You have born witness to the most massive wealth transfer from one nation to another ever.

But I digress. I dont want to address your whole statement... Your idea that because billions all agree on the same thing is flawwed on a number of levels... heres a few...

• Appeal to the masses. (Fallicious)
• Insinuation that billions all agree on the same thing. (You have to make your argument so generic as to be almost meaningless to get your billions agreeing on the same thing) [Gods are different, creation stories, religions]
• Failure to analyze the state of affairs from a historical stand point. What has led up to this agreement? What conditions have bred religion to the massive fragmented state it is at?
• Failure to analyze it based on current legal analytics.

There is more but you can start there. Now a days many are religious in name only. They say their catholic or baptist but have never really considered it.

There are layers of arguments here as well. Why is being religious a good thing? Dont some percentage of religious people get dressed up and regularly attend church making crippling donations to attone for their everyday lifestyles? Many argue that most religions teach intolerance and hate. (Just ask most catholic school kids what they think of atheists or muslims and islamists... Do they even know the difference?)

I wont endlessly argue this but there is no damning evidence that points to the existance of god. The popular argument is everything had a beginning if you assume the universe had a beginning then what came before the universe and caused the universe to come into existance? Ah.... god... You see.... Of course doesnt god then need a beginning as well and thus you havent explained anything. :sleep:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The popular argument is everything had a beginning if you assume the universe had a beginning then what came before the universe and caused the universe to come into existance? Ah.... god... You see.... Of course doesnt god then need a beginning as well and thus you havent explained anything. :sleep:

Actually, no. It's a thoughtless counter-argument.

 

[Sententia]

Actually, no. It's a thoughtless counter-argument.

See this is what I mean... what does your post even mean. I type a page and you throw out a vague one liner and smirk in your chair and add one to your post count. Elaborate.

What is a thoughtless counter-argument? If everything had a beginning then god would not be excepted from the circular logic this argument lies upon. Its argued by Dawkins, Hitchens and others. I'm not even sure who orginated it but I am parroting it here as I think its well thought out and an obvious and clear indication of the faulty logic at play in the original argument.

 

[zenzero]

Friend EgyptianBoxer104,

humans probably won't evolve for a very very very long time. It is impossible to know what will happen next. If you know ANYTHING about evolution, you'll know that the enviornmental conditions, shape the evolutionary tract of humans... notice how, now adays, humans control the enviornment.

When you do not believe in god then how are you stating that NOWADAYS humans control the environment which means earlier it was controlled by someone else, then who was that?
Besides, even humans to must be knowing that evolution is happening and where they are going atleast some direction?
Love & rgds

 

[Worshipper]

See here is your logical flaw... this is a fallicious argument and an appeal to the masses.

It's not fallicious in the least. I don't even think it's fallacious.

If I were trying to say that the fact that billions of people think there's a God proves that there is a God, then I would agree with you completely that it would be fallacious. But what I was in fact saying was that the fact that billions of people think there's a God suggests that there might be a God. I don't think that's fallacious at all. It's really hard for such a wishy-washy claim to be fallacious.

But I do think it's a reasonable claim, wishy-washy or not. Anytime most people think X is the case, that is in itself a lot of evidence to suggest that X might be the case. If only a small percentage of people believe X to be the case (substitute 'Extraterrestrial aliens come to abduct humans and conduct scientific experiments on us from time to time' for X, for example), then it's a lot harder to justify putting effort into considering whether X is the case.

Of course, as I implied, it's only worthwhile considering whether there is a God if you really want to know whether there's a God. If a person doesn't really want to know that, then such a consideration would be a waste of that person's time.

Insinuation that billions all agree on the same thing. (You have to make your argument so generic as to be almost meaningless to get your billions agreeing on the same thing) [Gods are different, creation stories, religions]

Well, this thread is already treating the matter in as generic a way as I need to to make the claim that billions all agree on the same thing. The question at stake is whether there is a god. Billions of people agree with the idea that there is a god. The variations in that belief are beyond the scope of this thread.

Failure to analyze the state of affairs from a historical stand point. What has led up to this agreement? What conditions have bred religion to the massive fragmented state it is at?

Actually, from a historical standpoint, the percentage of people who believe that there is a god is even higher. Belief in a god is a (statistical) universal in human societies and seems to occur quite independently of intercultural influence. I do believe that there have been more atheists and agnostics in the last few centuries, and particularly in the last century, than is common in the history of our species. But overall, I think it's incredibly common for people to believe in the existence of a god.

Remember, I'm not trying to say that a person should believe in God simply because many people do. If you'll go back and reread my posts in this thread, that should become pretty obvious. All I'm saying is that since many people believe in God, if someone really wants to know if there's a God, he's got enough reason to believe there might be to try to find God himself. If you don't really want to know if there's a God, then this doesn't even apply to you and you should ignore it.

Now a days many are religious in name only. They say their catholic or baptist but have never really considered it.

That's a good point.

There are layers of arguments here as well. Why is being religious a good thing? Dont some percentage of religious people get dressed up and regularly attend church making crippling donations to attone for their everyday lifestyles? Many argue that most religions teach intolerance and hate. (Just ask most catholic school kids what they think of atheists or muslims and islamists... Do they even know the difference?)

I wont endlessly argue this but there is no damning evidence that points to the existance of god. The popular argument is everything had a beginning if you assume the universe had a beginning then what came before the universe and caused the universe to come into existance? Ah.... god... You see.... Of course doesnt god then need a beginning as well and thus you havent explained anything. :sleep:

None of this has anything to do with what I was talking about or even with what I believe. I kind of get the feeling that you're trying to argue with people you know but whom I've never met, and trying to do it through me. I'm sorry I can't accommodate you here, but I tend to agree with most of the things you're saying in this section, so I can't argue with you on it.

 

[Sententia]

But what I was in fact saying was that the fact that billions of people think there's a God suggests that there might be a God. I don't think that's fallacious at all. It's really hard for such a wishy-washy claim to be fallacious.

Right. So then you take that suggestion and you find evidence for it. Spanish Inquisition, crusades and the earth is flat are examples where the masses essentially acted on what they thought to be so. (And some say the 2000 and 2004 american presidential elections... )

You are suggesting that since so many believe in god there just might be one... Of course we dont even really need the masses here for the possibility that god is real. It already is possible that there is a god without the appeal to the masses.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

See this is what I mean... what does your post even mean. I type a page and you throw out a vague one liner and smirk in your chair and add one to your post count.

I really wish you'd stop your incessant whining.

If everything had a beginning then god would not be excepted ...

But that is a pathetic and ignorant distortion of the position, which is better stated:

if everything natural has a beginning, then (a) there must be a First Cause, and (b) the First Cause must be preternatural.​

Your adolescent contempt for theism rests firmly on your ability to pummel shallow caricatures of your own creation. Bravo! :clap

 

[darkendless]

I really wish you'd stop your incessant whining.
But that is a pathetic and ignorant distortion of the position, which is better stated:

if everything natural has a beginning, then (a) there must be a First Cause, and (b) the First Cause must be preternatural.​

Your adolescent contempt for theism rests firmly on your ability to pummel shallow caricatures of your own creation. Bravo! :clap

Wow, did someone wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

Why does there have to be anything before the universe? God is not the explanation for everything, more an excuse.

 

[danei]

i have been thinking about that matter for a long time , considering the matters of evil ,immorality , ....etc
but really , i would like to know in details ... why you do not believe that a god exists ?
thanks

 

[Sententia]

I really wish you'd stop your incessant whining.
But that is a pathetic and ignorant distortion of the position, which is better stated:

if everything natural has a beginning, then (a) there must be a First Cause, and (b) the First Cause must be preternatural.​

Your adolescent contempt for theism rests firmly on your ability to pummel shallow caricatures of your own creation. Bravo! :clap

Is pointing out that your short remarks are vague and occasionally difficult to interpret considered whining?

I am not insinuating everything natural has a beginning. The argument that everything does however does not conclude with proof of god. You seem to grasp that but still want to attack me.

While Im flattered of course I dont see how you think I care or how it adds to the discussion at hand. I've attempted several times to steer you back to the topic at hand yet with every post you toss in a few new attacks on my character. Now I have an adolescent contempt? You can hate me. I'm comfortable with that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Really, there is not a shard of evidence to prove or disprove God.
I've learned to just live with the fact that no one will know for sure until death.

 

[Willamena]

See this is what I mean... what does your post even mean.

It means that it takes zero thought to present "Oh.. God did it" as a strawman counter-argument demonstrating the opponent's side, because it doesn't counter anything. It means that there are thoughtful counter-arguments, but the unthoughtful one is, as you said, the popular one thrown out by atheist apologists.