There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[outhouse]

. It's getting hard to read at this point. It's devolved into child like bickering, straw men and ad hominems.

Its been like this from the get go, with the ignorance of a militant christian playing Rudolph, guiding us through the mire of his imagination.

 

[Bunyip]

I was going to say the same thing. It's getting hard to read at this point. It's devolved into child like bickering, straw men and ad hominems. Can we please just let this thread die already?

Forgive the correction, but this thread did not devolve - it started out with Serenity flame trolling. From the outset any attempt to debate him has resulted in paranoid persecution complexes and ad hominem insults - generally levied against large generalised groups. At no point has Serenity even attempted honest debate, and he is always the first to resort to insult -typically he launches into suite of over generalised insults, which he justifies by pretending that he was the offended party.

 

[serp777]

It is inaccurate, is it? Who else, posting right now, is a Christian. You cannot just say "inaccurate generalisation" without it meaning something, or referring to something.

If the moderators are monitoring this thread then they will do so impartially, unlike you, and see that I am retaliating and not attacking. You are posting to me. I am not posting to you. You are attacking, I am responding to those attacks, as I am to several posters here. If you cannot take it, but only give it, then I suggest you stop posting to me as I can give as good as you can.

It varies as my spirituality varies and my biological chemistry changes all the time so does my spirituality, depending on what my senses are feeding it.



As regards to my communication with the Holy Ghost yes, every time I as I am given.



Because the results are always positive so my trust increases everything I put Trust in the Holy Ghost.



I do not prose that. I do not know that. Maybe there are alien abductions and cases of reincarnation, or at least historical retrieval from our DNA. I know that the proof of the pudding is in the eating and my Pudding is delicious to the taste and very satisfying.



Yes, I should have said faiths not religions. There are no authorised churches. God has not authorised anybody to set up his church anywhere and then to interpret his words. Religion is personal and is the relationship between one individual and his God. Congregations are a nice place to meet together but a false place to seek God and his desires for us. That comes in the quite of your bedroom whilst on your knees in earnest prayer and supplication. When that intelligence enters your body as a separate and distinct entity and bears witness to your soul that God lives and love all of his children and not those who are Catholic or Methodist.



Yes, I think that much of my beliefs tend to be similar to deists.



This is just silly. I am comparing my faith to a known theory. I am not discrediting the theory or anything related to evolution, or even evolution. I am comparing it to a process. Oh, bacterial development is microevolution, I am making my comparison to Macroevolution. That is why I used Darwin.



Except nothing, it does not meet with the scientific method so no amount of scientific evidence will ever change it from a theory.


What about what we do not observe, cannot observe. How are you defining random chance, does it exist, or is it all organised chaos? Show me how God could have done it better. God can only do what can be done. Did you know that God, or anybody else in scripture, never referred to his power as infinite. In fact it is only mentioned three times in the entire KJV Bible and all of those in the Old Testament, none of which refers to power.

" am not posting to you. You are attacking, I am responding to those attacks, as I am to several posters here. If you cannot take it, but only give it, then I suggest you stop posting to me as I can give as good as you can. "

You are posting to me as well. A counter attack is still an attack nonetheless. It's not about taking it or not; taking it is quite easy--i'm merely pointing out the irony of complaining about attacking, and then using that as justification to do the same thing back. It's not very consistent, nor is it following in the footsteps of Jesus. Surely the holy ghost told you that retribution is sinful.

"Because the results are always positive so my trust increases everything I put Trust in the Holy Ghost. "
That's called conformational bias.

"It varies as my spirituality varies and my biological chemistry changes all the time so does my spirituality, depending on what my senses are feeding it.

As regards to my communication with the Holy Ghost yes, every time I as I am given. "

These two statements are in contradiction. You're saying it depends on probabilistic biological chemistry on the one hand, and yet your communication with the holy ghost is 100% reliable on the other. You can't have it both ways. Just because you think you know God and his word doesn't mean you're correct. Suicide bombers were saying the exact thing as you to justify themselves--feelings =/= reality.

"I know that the proof of the pudding is in the eating and my Pudding is delicious to the taste and very satisfying. "
So this is a false analogy because the personal taste of your pudding only applies to you, but the truth of God applies to everyone. Personal taste != reality.

"When that intelligence enters your body as a separate and distinct entity and bears witness to your soul that God lives and love all of his children and not those who are Catholic or Methodist. "
This is an assertion. You need to have evidence besides you knowing. You're saying you know these things are true because you know, and you provide no evidence because you think your communication with the holy ghost is 100% reliable. It's more circular logic.

"Except nothing, it does not meet with the scientific method so no amount of scientific evidence will ever change it from a theory. "
Everything is a theory, including gravity, the round earth, computing, and medicine. It has evidence and empirical data going for it though, unlike superstitious beliefs.

"Oh, bacterial development is microevolution, I am making my comparison to Macroevolution. That is why I used Darwin. "

But the comparison is irrelevant because you have absolutely no data corresponding to your beliefs, unlike all of the evidence of macro evolution, which I will provide if you can't do a google search. It's also easy to see how microevolution becomes macro evolution. When you have a thousand small changes, it is obvious that altogether it could be considered a macro change.

"What about what we do not observe, cannot observe. How are you defining random chance, does it exist, or is it all organised chaos? Show me how God could have done it better."

God could have taken away the pointless number of diseases that kill small babies tortuously. God could have prevented alzheimers that destroys thousands of families. It's quite easy how things could be less painful and miserable for humans, while still allowing for evolution. Also you're assuming that God couldn't have done it better, which is just an another assumption. You're basically saying God is limited, finite, and not all knowing. Those aren't God like properties.

"Did you know that God, or anybody else in scripture, never referred to his power as infinite. In fact it is only mentioned three times in the entire KJV Bible and all of those in the Old Testament, none of which refers to power."

Why do you need scripture if you have a direct hotline the holy ghost?

 

[Skwim]

I have quite a repertoire of topics I can debate on.

:biglaugh:



To bad none of them have anything to do with religion or science or history

Spot on Excellent!

Just E X C E L L E N T !

​

 

[serp777]

Spot on Excellent!

Just E X C E L L E N T !

​

Lol your sig is great.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Forgive the correction, but this thread did not devolve - it started out with Serenity flame trolling. From the outset any attempt to debate him has resulted in paranoid persecution complexes and ad hominem insults - generally levied against large generalised groups. At no point has Serenity even attempted honest debate, and he is always the first to resort to insult -typically he launches into suite of over generalised insults, which he justifies by pretending that he was the offended party.

Sums it up perfectly, I'd say.

 

[Sapiens]

Sums it up perfectly, I'd say.

Ditto.

 

[Omtita]

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not. Even with the little knowledge that I have of the universe we live on a knife edge in, I could demonstrate that a superior force caused the universe to come into existence. Indeed, Kalam's cosmological argument is sufficient to do that on its own, that is, without mentioning the singularity, the Big Bang, rapid expansion, anthropic principle, dark matter and energy, fine tuning, etc etc etc... So why is it that Atheists have such leverage in our society to preach their counterfeit arguments.

If a man wants to know the truth, without a need to subscribe to any groups who all think the same and who all point the same condescending fingure, as there is safety in numbers, then the truth is in the stars for all to see. Why do men need to be told what to believe instead of finding out for themselves by looking at our world that simply could not exist without divinity.

Look at the vast gap between the intelligence of Man and that of our closest counterpart in the animal Kingdom to see how much more intelligent we are to them. Have we evolved that much faster then they have, and if we have, then why have we? Something so fundamentally obvious, both scientifically, cosmological and supernaturally has to have a form of intelligence behind it. It is so obviously God who created the universe and set our planet up for habitation. The "by chance" idea is hugely more improbable then a supernatural being is, yet we readily believe the former. Why? How do atheists reconcile this overwhelming cosmological and intellectual evidence. How is it possible to categorically claim that God does not exist.

We are at a point in time where we just stepped off of the train of the theological onto the plain of the scientific. Not so long ago our children were force fed religious propaganda, and now they are being force fed the propaganda of science.

Science is in it's youth, evolution is a metaphysical experiment. The fact is, the average person doesn't care about either. They never did and they never will. They care, not about the supernatural or the scientific they care about bread and butter. In order to remove the quixotic and the mundane transmogrification of both paradigms we have to remove the demand for bread and butter.

The utopian idealism of religion declines while the utopian idea of science and technology quickly burns out because it is far more self destructive in the sociopolitical system which the later falls into. Fractional reserve banking.

If you carefully study the book of Revelation you begin to understand that all of the seemingly astronomical phenomenon - the moon and the sun and the stars doing really strange things - are repeated from the Hebrew scriptures of thousands of years ago, and are metaphoric references, not to natural or supernatural phenomenon, but rather, social and political upheaval. The book basically says that Government will destroy religion, then government and commerce will be destroyed. The destruction of the world.

The world isn't the Earth, though, as the Earth will last forever. The world is the system we live in. The bread and butter. Man and his religion and his science are self destructive. We all know this.

 

[Bunyip]

We are at a point in time where we just stepped off of the train of the theological onto the plain of the scientific. Not so long ago our children were force fed religious propaganda, and now they are being force fed the propaganda of science.

Science is in it's youth, evolution is a metaphysical experiment.

Evolution is a proven fact, how do you imagine it to be a metaphysical experiment, when it is an observable natural process? What is the science of propoganda? Can you give an example?

The fact is, the average person doesn't care about either. They never did and they never will. They care, not about the supernatural or the scientific they care about bread and butter. In order to remove the quixotic and the mundane transmogrification of both paradigms we have to remove the demand for bread and butter.

The utopian idealism of religion declines while the utopian idea of science and technology quickly burns out because it is far more self destructive in the sociopolitical system which the later falls into. Fractional reserve banking.

No offence, but you seem pretty confused abkut what science is - is is a method for learning, not a competing philosophy to religion, it is not utopian, it does not define socio-politics. Scienceis a tool that yields exactly the same results when performed by believers and non-believers alike.

If you carefully study the book of Revelation you begin to understand that all of the seemingly astronomical phenomenon - the moon and the sun and the stars doing really strange things - are repeated from the Hebrew scriptures of thousands of years ago, and are metaphoric references, not to natural or supernatural phenomenon, but rather, social and political upheaval. The book basically says that Government will destroy religion, then government and commerce will be destroyed. The destruction of the world.

The world isn't the Earth, though, as the Earth will last forever. The world is the system we live in. The bread and butter. Man and his religion and his science are self destructive. We all know this.

Science has improved the average persons life immeasurably, it has tripled life expectancy and reduced infant mortality to a fraction of what it was when religions ruled the world - so in what way is science self destructive, and how is it relevant to the OP (which is about evidence for god)?

 

[Bunyip]

Hint: Attacking science is not evidence for the existence of god.

No degree of throwing stones at science, or pretending that science is some form of ideology will constitute evidence for god.

 

[Sapiens]

Omtita's whole argument is based on first establishing parity between religion and science, that dog just doesn't want to hunt.

 

[McBell]

Omtita's whole argument is based on first establishing parity between religion and science, that dog just doesn't want to hunt.

[sarcasm]
you just lack the faith to make it true
[/sarcasm]

 

[Sapiens]

Yes I lack faith ... it is an alien concept.

 

[outhouse]

Omtita's whole argument is based on first establishing parity between religion and science, that dog just doesn't want to hunt.

Its rather sad if you have visited his website, its historically atrocious.

 

[outhouse]

and now they are being force fed the propaganda of science

.

Ignorant dogma, from the ignorance of theistically induced blindness.

 

[Omtita]

Omtita's whole argument is based on first establishing parity between religion and science, that dog just doesn't want to hunt.

I don't know about that. It's more about human imperfection and bias being a common human reaction. It doesn't matter if it is science, religion, fashion, art, music, politics, entertainment, sports etc. Look at some of the people on forums like this frothing at the mouth because someone dares to disagree with them like they are religious, look at the need for monetary support. That always causes corruption, look at the history of religion and science when encouraged by governments to create weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Sapiens]

I don't know about that. It's more about human imperfection and bias being a common human reaction. It doesn't matter if it is science, religion, fashion, art, music, politics, entertainment, sports etc. Look at some of the people on forums like this frothing at the mouth because someone dares to disagree with them like they are religious, look at the need for monetary support. That always causes corruption, look at the history of religion and science when encouraged by governments to create weapons of mass destruction.

It does matter if its science, religion, fashion, art, music, politics, entertainment, sports etc., for only in science will you find people specifically trained to to resist bias. Doesn't always work ... but does a lot of the time.

 

[Omtita]

It does matter if its science, religion, fashion, art, music, politics, entertainment, sports etc., for only in science will you find people specifically trained to to resist bias. Doesn't always work ... but does a lot of the time.

Yeah, that isn't a quixotic approach to reality? Do you really think that science isn't as susceptible to human imperfection as religion or politics? A lot of atheists do think that way, which would be terribly frightening were it not for the fact that they seem to be the minority and completely incapable of organizing.

 

[Omtita]

Its rather sad if you have visited his website, its historically atrocious.

What's sad is your inability to back up your criticism even to the point of a semblance of specific refutation.

 

[Omtita]

Evolution is a proven fact, how do you imagine it to be a metaphysical experiment, when it is an observable natural process? What is the science of propoganda? Can you give an example?

Aegyptopithecus, from Origins p. 52, Time magazine of Feb. 18, 1980 page 58, and the New York Times of Feb. 7, 1980, p. A14, and January 1, 1984, Section 1, p. 16.

[References upon request for the following] Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus, Ramapithecus, the Pepper Moth, Piltdown man . . . I can name more examples of evolutionary propaganda than I can exposed Television Evangelists.

No offence, but you seem pretty confused abkut what science is - is is a method for learning, not a competing philosophy to religion, it is not utopian, it does not define socio-politics.

I agree, in theory, and in some part in practice, though it is naive to think so to the degree that atheists tend to. I'm not criticizing science as much as I am the over utopian atheist world view using science as an alternative to religion.

Scienceis a tool that yields exactly the same results when performed by believers and non-believers alike.

Sure, I can give you a list of scientist in the fields of genetic mutation, aeronautics, geology, molecular biology and microbiology and theoretical physics, who not only don't believe in evolution but teach the Bible in their spare time as volunteers.

Science has improved the average persons life immeasurably, it has tripled life expectancy and reduced infant mortality to a fraction of what it was when religions ruled the world

I don't doubt that, but look at a list of the top rated countries rating on infant mortality and compare how those countries, lets say the U.S., compare with a science and technology rating. The U.S. good at science, not so much infant mortality. It's about money. Science is subject to the same influence and corruption as religion. The theist sees this, the atheist doesn't.

- so in what way is science self destructive, and how is it relevant to the OP (which is about evidence for god)?

Science was introduced in the OP, not by me. To answer your question consider thermonuclear war implements, genetically modified food. Consider cancer compared to 50 years ago.

The atheist will tell us that the personal computer (created by 2 college dropouts in one of their parents garage) and the Internet (created by the U.S. Army) are products of 'science' but they don't say much about thermonuclear weapons or genetically modified foods. They will talk about peer review but seldom how Einstein fresh out of the patent clerk's office, was left behind for Nazi funding by most of his peers.

It's religious in nature. Quixotic. Laughable, to observe such religious devotion.