Proof of the Existance of God

[ImmortalFlame]

I know exactly what science is. It is, just like we have here, a bunch of people with irrational arguments on both sides. Both sides are wrong. Creationist are wrong, and those arguing against Intelligent Design are wrong, and are equally irrational.

Then please explain how and why Intelligent Design should be considered valid science. For instance, can you name one experiment, test or prediction made by Intelligent Design scientists? Any of their theories? Their conclusions?

Intelligent Design does not oppose Evolution, rather the two enhance each other. The two theories fit together like a glove, each solving problems that the other can't answer, and not contradicting each other in the slightest.

You might want to tell that to the Discovery Institute. Intelligent Design is the name of a movement that came out of Creationism, a movement which was created specifically for the purpose of forcing God into science and opposing evolution. Whenever pressed for any kind of science, ID advocates never actually produce any, but instead produce poorly-constructed arguments against evolution, because that is all they have.

I've been told time and time again, that ants do everything by instinct, with no thinking at all. Ants are stupid, no where near enough intelligence to do the things they do. Either they have a collective mind, in which case God is also a collective mind, or Ants work souly by instinct.

So how can evolution explain ants building bridges across rivers? How could a thousand ants, purely by accident, assemble themselves in the right positions at the right time, to build a bridge?

Because you said so yourself. They don't do it "by accident", they do it "by instinct". Rather than just craft an argument from ignorance, why not actually do some research on the subject? Go and read a few books on Entomology or Myrmecology. Rather than just inserting God into the gaps in your own knowledge, why not try to actually fill those gaps with knowledge?

Any partial attempts would have resulted in a bunch of dead ants. Sure, they could have made very small crossings at first, but remember that ants do not have much memory. They can not store trillions bridge building configurations, one for each situation that might come up. In fact, it is even questionable that an ant could store enough information for a single bridge configuration in its limited brain. Can you store enough information in your brain to make a virtually identical copy of a bridge with 10000 ants, complete with each individual ants path to get to its destination, timing information, each ants limb positions at every instant in time accurate to the millionth of an inch.

Face it, it is not possible for that to be a purely instinctive, evolved process. It requires thinking, and much more thinking ability than individual ants have. That proves that ants have collective intelligence, which proves that collective intelligence exists.

If collective intelligence exists on a small scale, it also must exist on a God scale.

That is a huge non sequitur.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The Dover Trial has absolutely no relevance in Intelligent Design. Rational debate does not involve throwing out a whole field of science due to the actions on one small group of people.

Except that that "small group of people" were attempting to get I.D taught in schools, and brought with them to the trial to sum total of any and all scientific "evidence" in favour of I.D. The judge ruled that their evidence was either insufficient, nonexistent, or already refuted by real science. What's more, he ruled that I.D was not science.

Again, if he was wrong, then please present some I.D science.

You don't like frank, so everything frank believes in is heresy. You call that a rational argument??? Real science is not black and white. The game you play is politics, not science.

Rational science doesn't seem to exist in the USA at all, strangely enough. Everything is either one side or the other. One theory is considered acceptable, and the other is laughed at, and anyone following the other theories are unable to get jobs in science in the USA and probably some other countries as well.

I can't really tell, but I've heard that in some countries real science is allowed.

There's a reason for that. It's because one theory is correct, and the other is unfounded religiously-inspired hogwash that has no place in serious academic science.

If this is unfair, then please present some I.D science.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Science also tells us there is no such thing as heaven or hell. There is no way of justifying heaven and hell in science, nor in logic. Do you really think it is logical to torture people till infinity for doing something bad? And yet, Jesus came to save mankind. Not to save us from going to hell, obviously, 'cause the hell you imagine doesn't exist. Jesus came to save us from nuclear war and global warming and to end poverty.

Science says nothing about heaven or hell and does not make any judgement whatsoever on the realms of belief of religion, it is religiously neutral.

Just because all other theories are false, does not mean there is not a truth.

No, it's because their theory has evidence behind it and can be used to make successful predictions and experiments that makes it true.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A volcano would have been written in the language of the time as "the earth shaked and spit fire" or something like that. A meteor shower is remotely possible, however no meteor shower of that magnitude is known to have occurred in the entire history of the planet, so that is extremely unlikely. A single meteor, yes, but not a meteor shower. A single meteor would be described as a single star. Angles or people falling from the sky would just go splat, and not darken the sky nor would there be so many that there'd be a need to hide in caves, nor are angles known to exist. There was nothing that would come close to fitting the discription in WW1 or WW2.

All those things are grasping at straws. Only nuclear war fits the description perfectly.

More wild postulation based on self-fulfilling fallacy and hindsight.

 

[Amill]

The first page of the Bible tells of Jesus, and gives us the time of his birth (4 days of the Lord or 4,000 years after 4004 BC which is the date printed on the first page). The people who did the references in the center of many KJV Bibles knew of the predictions of Jesus long before his birth, yet none of that is offered as proof now days. I can only assume that preachers and people don't know it now days.

I've always wondered, how do young earth creationists explain the fact that we can see other galaxies? It's not as if they're less than 6,000 light years away.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm sorry... but Intelligent Design is not science. Science has to actually do scientific work.

I'm a theist and a biologist and I was very excited about the possibilities behind Intelligent Design... but more than ten years later I had to accept that it isn't going anywhere... it's an intellectual dead end only good for selling books and tickets.

In fact I have less respect for Intelligent Design than I have for good old honest creationism... at least they don't pretend to be something they are not and stay true to their fundamentalist identity.

Trying to use science to prove faith is a disservice to both.

wa:do

 

[RedOne77]

The Dover Trial has absolutely no relevance in Intelligent Design. Rational debate does not involve throwing out a whole field of science due to the actions on one small group of people.

The Dover Trial was all about Intelligent Design. They even got it's most famous (and most educated, btw) supporter, Dr. Behe to testify for intelligent design. Behe ended up being humiliated by his peers for showing a sever lack of understanding on subjects he so boldly and proudly proclaimed expert knoweldge on in order to boost the ID position. When it was all said and done, it was rulled that ID is not science and is a re-branding of creationism. A position held by over 99% of scientists world wide.

You don't like frank, so everything frank believes in is heresy. You call that a rational argument??? Real science is not black and white. The game you play is politics, not science.

Then present a scientific argument for ID, otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

Rational science doesn't seem to exist in the USA at all, strangely enough. Everything is either one side or the other. One theory is considered acceptable, and the other is laughed at, and anyone following the other theories are unable to get jobs in science in the USA and probably some other countries as well.

I can't really tell, but I've heard that in some countries real science is allowed.

Tony

People can't get jobs in science if they reject science as IDers do. Again, if this is a scientific idea, present something scientific in favor of ID that doesn't rely on ignorance.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Trying to use science to prove faith is a disservice to both.

wa:do

:clap:clap:clap:clap

 

[camanintx]

First of all, I must object to this thread being moved to Evolution vs. Creation, 'cause it has nothing to do with evolution nor creation. I am not a creationist, I only mentioned Intelligent Design, which has absolutely nothing to do creationism.

Tony

Apparently Tony has never read about "The Wedge Strategy" from the people over at the Discovery Institute.

 

[joea]

Unless Truth is purely your own experience and no one else, your belief and knowledge is only that...

 

[joea]

Are you aware of the theory called Intelligent Design? That doesn't quite prove that God exists, but it does give interesting evidence.

Another thing that is interesting, is how so called scientists totally dismiss it as "bad science", because it is not proven. Those sames scientists will swear by the fantasy land stuff the top physicists are saying, which is not only not proven but has no basis whatsoever.

It is a purely emotional argument. They don't want to believe in God, they don't want God to be a topic of scientific debate. So much do they hate the idea, that they'll not consider any evidence, no matter how solid it is.

On the other side of the coin, preachers give no evidence either. Even those claiming to have proof of the existence of God, offer nothing but emotional evidence. This banana is to perfect to be created by accident, and other bull crap like that.

God does exist, and there is solid proof. When the 3 wisemen came to see Jesus, they knew he'd be there. The people of Jesus' time believed in him, because they knew the predictions of his coming, yet today, almost nobody knows of these predictions.

The first page of the Bible tells of Jesus, and gives us the time of his birth (4 days of the Lord or 4,000 years after 4004 BC which is the date printed on the first page). The people who did the references in the center of many KJV Bibles knew of the predictions of Jesus long before his birth, yet none of that is offered as proof now days. I can only assume that preachers and people don't know it now days.

Jesus tells us about nuclear war, saying stars (hydrogen fusion fireballs) will fall from the sky and the sky will be rolled away like a script and the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give her light (nuclear winter), and the people will hide under rocks and in caves (or in fallout shelters).

Do you think something as important as nuclear war would not be in the Bible? Do you think God would simply forgot to mention that? Or that God didn't know about nuclear weapons 2000 years ago? God knows.

That is more proof of the existence of God.

Now, you can continue to follow your leaders, who don't seem to know these things, and make excuses for things. That is your choice.

For those of you who'd like to join me, I'm going to be creating a new church. A church who's purpose is to learn God's plan, and follow it, and save mankind.

The churches teach us to love God, as a man loves a rich friend who can give you the rewards. Only, it is reward in heaven, not reward with cash. That form of love is the same though, it really is not love is it. When a rich man looses his money, all his friends abandon him, proving they never did love him.

God is not stupid. God knows what is in your hearts, much better than you do. You must love God without thinking of your own personal reward. Thinking of reward in heaven does nothing but cloud the love.

My church will offer no reward in Heaven, nor fear of Hell. The only reward we can offer is peace and tranquility and purpose and real joy in life. Love. That is all I can offer. Isn't love enough?

Tony

You say you are going to start a new church and LEARN God's plan...LEARN ??..lol. You don't learn the truth.....You experience the truth. If you learn the truth, then you are borrowing knowledge...it's not yours.

 

[Autodidact]

Conceiva: You're a newbie so you might not know this, but any single point you raise you should probably be a subject for an entire thread. Your post is all over the place. We are familiar with each point you raise, and have discussed them before. Would you please start with a single point and we'll discuss that? Thanks.

 

[Biostudent287]

'Intelligent design' does not provide 'interesting evidence'; it is another phrase to replace 'creationism' and there is no evidence whatsoever to support it. You mention 'solid proof' but fail to name it - do you know your own argument?

As to your claim that the atheist / scientific argument is an 'emotional' one, this is not the case. While I can say that I would not wish there to be a God, this is not the case for many people, scientists included. Science is open-minded; if there truly was evidence for God then science would embrace it. The religious are closed-minded as they are presented with evidence yet refuse to accept it.

'When the three wise men came to see Jesus, they knew he would be there,' - This is as much evidence for God as 'when Dorothy went to the Emerald City, she knew the Wizard would be there' is evidence for a Wizard of Oz. Both are fairytales - the only reason that religious people feel there is a difference is because adults told them that there is a difference.

In regards to a new 'church', religion is on the decline. The Western world is becoming more and more secular and there is less and less room for the bronze age mythology that is attempting to hold back the advancement of humankind. Religion is the greatest evil in the world and, what is worse, people accept the evil that religion commits without any evidence to support the reasons that the religious give for it.

 

[oldfuture]

No offense to everybody and respect to all opinions...but does any body think deep inside that we need proves for god's existence....i mean how can we prove the only thing that we are certainly sure of its existence,do u consider us existing...what type of existing that lives for 50-100 years or less which is very dependent on its creator..
i think seeking for proves that something exists is only reflecting the doubts we hold inside..

just look around...its crystal clear

enjoy your day everybody

 

[Storm]

No offense to everybody and respect to all opinions...but does any body think deep inside that we need proves for god's existence....i mean how can we prove the only thing that we are certainly sure of its existence,do u consider us existing...what type of existing that lives for 50-100 years or less which is very dependent on its creator..
i think seeking for proves that something exists is only reflecting the doubts we hold inside..

just look around...its crystal clear

enjoy your day everybody

I tend to agree.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No offense to everybody and respect to all opinions...but does any body think deep inside that we need proves for god's existence....i mean how can we prove the only thing that we are certainly sure of its existence,do u consider us existing...what type of existing that lives for 50-100 years or less which is very dependent on its creator..
i think seeking for proves that something exists is only reflecting the doubts we hold inside..

just look around...its crystal clear

enjoy your day everybody

There's a pretty good reason why people look for evidence or proof of things before accepting them as true. It's because those people actually care whether or not that thing is true.

And obviously it's not crystal clear, otherwise there would not be so many people reaching different conclusions.

 

[oldfuture]

You were right on something that people tend to have different conclusions...but those different reactions is caused by personal preferences...not by different reasons or actions,one thing happens and many people reacts differently that means that its their recieving system which is beyond the mind for that we all have brains ...then there must be a hidden sensor which filters things inside us,and all this doesnt mean that the truth is many...the truth is one and its pretty clear...its our personal wants that denies or accepts...thats all

u dont see it around...i see it around
thats the difference.
with my respect

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You were right on something that people tend to have different conclusions...but those different reactions is caused by personal preferences...not by different reasons or actions,one thing happens and many people reacts differently that means that its their recieving system which is beyond the mind for that we all have brains ...then there must be a hidden sensor which filters things inside us,and all this doesnt mean that the truth is many...the truth is one and its pretty clear...its our personal wants that denies or accepts...thats all

u dont see it around...i see it around
thats the difference.
with my respect

Or, we're both seeing nothing, and you're just imagining it's there.

 

[oldfuture]

I realy tried to imagine that there is nothing there to be honest with you...but it always failed...i did my best to disbelief but all was failure

and if u meant that u couldnt see god by your bare eyes...then u r denieng microbes existence,or any other creatures or stars which your eyes cant see..

to see god u need more than your bare eyes...and its not easy..for not everybody is allowed to such glory,it takes alot of work untill u enter the circle...

one other thing,lets say that u r right and there is nothing outside ...then wat would u lose if u died as a believer
but...if there was realy something out there ...wat would u win as a non-believer

i think the answer is simple...except if there is something which i couldnt understand from your message

 

[Autodidact]