Does science support the existence of God?

[Jayhawkk]

Sorry for the late reply...

I do it because it's what I think is the right thing to do and doing the right thing makes me feel better. maybe it's a selfish thought but i can live with that. If some 25 year old was coming through the doors with both hands full of stuff I would still open them up. I believe in being nice to everyone until given a reason not to be.

Stuck up sorority girls or not if there was an instance to do something nice for them I would still do it(like holding open a door). I don't do it for any signs of gratitude but for my own soul's health, so to speak. It's nice that sometimes people say thank you but i would do it regardless.

 

[thesinner]

This means it will eventually expand to infinity in a finite time.

You're rounding up Infinity isn't a destination, it's a direction.

 

[thesinner]

Sorry for the late reply...

I do it because it's what I think is the right thing to do and doing the right thing makes me feel better. maybe it's a selfish thought but i can live with that. If some 25 year old was coming through the doors with both hands full of stuff I would still open them up. I believe in being nice to everyone until given a reason not to be.

Stuck up sorority girls or not if there was an instance to do something nice for them I would still do it(like holding open a door). I don't do it for any signs of gratitude but for my own spiritual health, so to speak. It's nice that sometimes people say thank you but i would do it regardless.

I agree, it's nice to see a sign of gratitude every once and a while, and there's nothing wrong with getting a warm, fuzzy feeling for helping someone out. But it's important too realize that doing good for others doesn't (or at least shouldn't) put you on a higher status, nor should it entitle you to get so much as the time of day from that person. You should do these things selflessly and out of the goodness of your heart. Or for your own spiritual health (as you put it).

Edit: I changed your use of the word 'sou'l to the word 'spirit' because they have different connotations (to me at least).

 

[Nullifidian]

And let's ALWAYS remember one may be simultaneously logical, reasonable, and WRONG.

yes, because you might have made a mistake in a proof or started with in incorrect assumption.

 

[Nullifidian]

\

Spoken like a true philosopher!

Live more life: you'll see what I mean.

How many Philosophers can live on the head of a pin?

I think you mistake my candor in a debate to be how I am in real life. Couldn't be further from the truth. Especially when talking to someone. I'm not very good with debate so it takes me a long time to deconstruct a given argument into their individual components, map it to a logical function, search for fallacies, and then point those fallacies out in a post.

When not on the net, I generally try to avoid these kinds of debates at all cost; they generate too much stress face to face.

On the net though I can take my time, abstract the arguments into points with absolutely no emotion involved. It takes a little practice at first and sometimes I forget to remove any emotional involvement from the given debate, but for the most part it's far far easier on a forum than it is in real life.

 

[bitterplacebo]

So it's been a while, but I found some interesting videos that give an astrological explanation for religions. It's hardly an objective presentation, but the parallels and coincidences that they show make you wonder about things. I'd also question the accuracy of some of the statements they make (regarding the long lists that they scroll through to show parallels, I spotted a couple that I wouldn't agree are correct). Here they are:

Re-linked due to removal:




Stable Alternate Source: Invalid Link Removed

 

[DmitryWI]

Videos are no longer available...

 

[ItsHectic]

How does that happen? I watched the first one last night; as it was quite long, had to save the other two for today. Now they are gone, all of a sudden.

It must of been copyrighted, youtube got put under a lot of pressure recently to clean up its act on copyright infringment.

 

[bitterplacebo]

Videos are no longer available...

It must have been because people didn't like the content. Here's the first part in google video it's about 30 minutes, the whole movie is 2 hours.

Invalid Link Removed

That's the part that deals with religion, the rest goes into 9/11 conspiracy stuff and more. It might be touchy for some people, which is probably why youtube removed it.

 

[Tiberius]

Does YouTube regularly censor content which is neither pornographic nor racist?

Youtube is understaffed. They rarely actually watch videos which people complain about. If it gets a bunch of complaints they just remove it. Happens with political videos from both sides of the fence if they are inflamatory enough, and happens with anything that goes too much against Christianity cus there are a boatload of angry Christians in the US in case you haven't noticed.

 

[DmitryWI]

So is it possible the traffic generated by the post on this website resulted in theri deletion?

Most likely not, I guess it was just coincidence. I tried to watch it only few hours after it was posted here and I doubt few dosens people who got to watch it before me made any difference. Or may be it was recently posted on youtube and taken down right away.

 

[Tiberius]

And how many millions were just paid for it? LOL

3 billion actually. 2 guys in their garage running Youtube off of credit cards, and then the next day they are worth 1.5 billion a piece. I can't even imagine what kind of shock that must have been. I've built up quickly but not overnight. These guys went literally from a massive negative net worth to being worth more than Oprah.


Oh and another thing to keep in mind about Youtube. Now that they are owned by Google, Google is very careful not to offend anyone because they are afraid of lawsuits. Youtube used to take a bit of time before deleting videos, now they can them really quickly and without much if any actual review.

As for this site triggering lots of extra traffic, I doubt it. Likely what happened is it was dynamically linked to a very popular video and suddenly THAT caused it to have an influx of traffic, many of whom were angry zealots.

 

[bitterplacebo]

Most likely not, I guess it was just coincidence. I tried to watch it only few hours after it was posted here and I doubt few dosens people who got to watch it before me made any difference. Or may be it was recently posted on youtube and taken down right away.

It was a recent upload to youtube. The entire 2 hour movie contains lots of positions that are against the current government, proposing that 9/11 was an inside job with lots of real footage of the WTC incidents, the federal banking system is a scam, suggestions that religion is a method of controlling people...etc. So you can see why people might flag it right away.

I just wanted to offer the opportunity to watch the part about explaining religion astrologically, but the rest is interesting also, just doesn't have much to do with the original subject of this thread.

 

[samva777]

All these arguments have been refuted.

Read, "God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist" by Victor J Stenger

"When people start using science to argue for their specific beliefs and delusions, to try to claim that they're supported by science, then scientists at least have to speak up and say, "You're welcome to your delusions, but don't say that they're supported by science."

"The argument from design rests on the notion that everything, but God, must come from something. However, once you agree that it is logically possible for an entity to exist that was not itself created, namely God, then that entity can just as well be the universe itself. Indeed, this is a more economical possibility, not requiring the additional hypothesis of a supernatural power outside the universe....
... To [creationists], it is not a matter of logic anyway, but common sense. They see no way that the universe could have just happened, without intent. "How can something come from nothing?" they continue to ask, never wondering how God came from nothing."
-- Vic Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001), ch. 3

"The argument from design stands or falls on whether it can be demonstrated that some aspect of the universe such as its origin or biological life could not have come about naturally. The burden of proof is ... on the supernaturalist to demonstrate that something from outside nature must be introduced to explain the data."
Victor Stenger:
Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy, University of Hawaii
Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, University of Colorado
Research Fellow, Center for Inquiry - Transnational CFI
Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry CSI

There are plenty of scientist that believe in the Grand Architect of the Universe. Albert Einstein one of the greatest minds known to this planet and a Jew I might add believed in God. A few of his quotes " God does not play dice with the universe" "The universe is to orderly to have happened by chance" Let me add Einstein is not the only scientist that believes in God other Noted and published scientsit believe in God here are a few max Planck the father of Quantum Theory. Gregor Mendel etc etc

Einstein recognized the impossibility of a non created universe and firmly denied atheism. One of his remarks to a young physicist " I want to know how God created this world , I am not interested in this or that phenomenon , in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts , the rest are details.

 

[NattyT]

Its impossible for science to prove that god is real, I say this because it takes faith to understand god. The bible reads that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Thrue science things can be proven without any faith what so ever, and its actually science and ideas that will seperate you from god. We as humans try to figure every thing out and want an explanation for everything including our creator. We can be to smart for our own good, mans issue is excepting that there is somthiing greater than us, our entier culture is set up in a way that we all have to bow down to somthing. This can range from a job, a boss the goverment a king a police officer an a host of other things including addictions. We were created to serve, free will comes in when you decide what you will serve. If god decided to prove himself to each and every human then life would be pointless, Its the unknown that drives humans to act the way we do. Death is the great equalizer that all have to face, rich, poor, nice, mean, smart, stupid and so on and so on. Dosent it make since that it requiers somthing more to achive somthing after your natural life. Eternal life is truly a great gift, and we as humans get upset because this book tells us what we cant do if we want to go to heaven. Our flawed nature dosent alow us to see it how it should be seen, What we should do so that we wont go to hell. As humans when we hear we cant do somthing we rebel. The point of the matter is that god is much above our ways and thinking that we cant even conceive him. It realy dosent make since and thats the whole point to faith. Logic and science dont mix with faith, because after science proves a idea or theory its a fact. You dont need faith when you have facts because you can see the facts, God cant be seen so faith tells us to belive and have faith that he does exist.

 

[dsade]

You have obviously not bothered to put in the effort of reading the entire thread before repeating the same tired things that have already been addressed.

 

[DR.D]

There are plenty of scientist that believe in the Grand Architect of the Universe. Albert Einstein one of the greatest minds known to this planet and a Jew I might add believed in God. A few of his quotes " God does not play dice with the universe" ...

Indeed, Sam! I used that spin off from Einstein's quote in a paragraph of the original post. Sadly, you've been the only one to detect that so far.

Here's a few more shocking quotes from great scientists...


Matthew Maury [1806-1873]
The "Father" of oceanography, Aided in the laying of the first trans-Atlantic cable

* Maury believed Psalm 8:8, which speaks of the "paths of the seas" , and he discovered "oceanic currents"
* Maury described atmospheric circulation and showed that it was already described in Ecclesiastes 1:6
* Maury showed Job 28:25 to be true with respect to the weight of the winds.

"The Bible is true and science is true, and therefore each, if truly read, but proves the truth of the other."


James Prescott Joule [1818-1889]
Described the First Law of Thermodynamics: The Law of Conservation of Energy

* American Biochemist Isaac Asimov said that the First Law of Thermodynamics is "one of the most important generalizations in the history of science"
* Kinetic Theory of Gases
* "Joule-Thomson" effect--the basis of refrigeration (A unit of energy [work] in physics is now called a "joule")

"It is evident that an acquaintance with natural laws means no less than
an acquaintance with the mind of God therein expressed."

"Order is manifestly maintained in the universe...governed by the sovereign will of God"

"After the knowledge of, and obedience to, the will of God, the next aim must be to know something of His attributes of wisdom, power, and goodness as evidenced by His handiwork."


Lord Kelvin [William Thomson] [1824-1907]
Physicist, Laws of Thermodynamics, Absolute temperature scale, inventor

"With regard to the origin of life, science...positively affirms creative power."

"Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words."


Wernher Von Braun [1912-1977]
First Director of NASA, pioneer of space exploration

"Scientific concepts exist only in the minds of men. Behind these concepts lies the reality which is being revealed to us, but only by the grace of God."

 

[dsade]

because an appeal to authority isn't at all a logical fallacy.

 

[DR.D]

because an appeal to authority isn't at all a logical fallacy.

could be, depends.

 

[BoyFromAus]

very interesting posts by people. There's nothing much i can say.

 

[NattyT]

I am sorry to all who have posted on this thread, I did not read the entire thread befor posting. I am a firm beliver in God, the true and living god. Many cultures have gods. The bible says there is just one, I belive in the one Yahwe. I do think that Science is good and am in no way bashing it. I spend alot of time reading and watching various things that pertain to our planet, solar system, galaxy and the make up of or human bodies. I was just speaking out about faith and the belfe in god. I never had to find out that god was real for me to belive and thats just for me pesonally, not only god but his son. Thats the only thing I was getting at. Look I hope and pray that each and every one who reads this thread would belive in god, but its also has to go a step farther then that. But Im gonna stop and just say I am sorry once agin, and if I impeeded any ones progress to belife may god forgive me because thats the last thing that I wont to do. I am no longer going to offer my biblical knowledge on this site. I have gotte in to to many debates and hav become angry at times at individuals that dont know ant better. I will continue to read post like this and pray for you guys.

John 5:9 If we recive the witness of men, the witness of god is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of his son. He who belives in the son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not belive God has made Him a liar, because he has not belived the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and the life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the son of God does not have life. These things I have Written to you who belive in the name of the Son of God, you may know that you have etrnal life, and that you may continue to belive in the name of God.

 

[dsade]

You are obviously entitled to your opinion, however your post has no bearing on this thread which asks the queston about science proving the existence of god.

Instead, you chose to witness.

 

[NattyT]

You are obviously entitled to your opinion, however your post has no bearing on this thread which asks the queston about science proving the existence of god.

Instead, you chose to witness.

No, Dsdade the it is a question and I provided my opinion. Can Science prove that god exist, I dont belive so. The question could read Will god allow science to prove he exist. We cant find anything out that he wont allow us. I do belive that science can help us see the attributes of god and his design. Will science help peoplebecome born agin and turn from there ways? Whats the point of knowing god is real but not acknowledging his ways. All I was getting at is that the belife and knowledge of god is by faith and and faith alone. Beliving in what we cant see. So my post was my opinion to the question. It was not witnessing. Man coming to the knowlege of god on his own dosent exist, theres a gap inbetween us and god and it was filled by Jesus, Without the son you dont have the father. Anyhow god bless you and I respect your opinion.

 

[dsade]

No, Dsdade the it is a question and I provided my opinion. Can Science prove that god exist, I dont belive so. The question could read Will god allow science to prove he exist. We cant find anything out that he wont allow us. I do belive that science can help us see the attributes of god and his design. Will science help peoplebecome born agin and turn from there ways? Whats the point of knowing god is real but not acknowledging his ways. All I was getting at is that the belife and knowledge of god is by faith and and faith alone. Beliving in what we cant see. So my post was my opinion to the question. It was not witnessing. Man coming to the knowlege of god on his own dosent exist, theres a gap inbetween us and god and it was filled by Jesus, Without the son you dont have the father. Anyhow god bless you and I respect your opinion.

no the question cannot be read that way because you are changing the meaning b reading it that way.

The question is "Does science support the existence of" whereas your rewrite begins with the conclusion of god's existence then attempts to fill in facts afterwards.
This is also known as BAD SCIENCE.

 

[NattyT]

no the question cannot be read that way because you are changing the meaning b reading it that way.

The question is "Does science support the existence of" whereas your rewrite begins with the conclusion of god's existence then attempts to fill in facts afterwards.
This is also known as BAD SCIENCE.

Ok, your right, and im wrong. I gotta eat, God bless ya and have a great day.

 

[AE14]

I will say this natty, you are consistent, and have consistently stated that there is no logic in faith. Evidently, very true

 

[DR.D]

... I am no longer going to offer my biblical knowledge on this site. I have gotte in to to many debates and hav become angry at times at individuals that dont know ant better. I will continue to read post like this and pray for you guys. ...

Natty, you better not even joke about quitting just because you're angry. Did Christ quit when he was angry? He did not! You probably do encounter people that don't know any better, but you are not innocent of that either my friend. You stepped into this thread without knowing better, and did the same thing you're angry at others for. You must forgive others to be forgiven, just as you can't quit if you want to reach the finish line.

If you do decide to quit, I suggest you do it after you have received those instructions from prayer. If you just quit because you're angry and you don't wanna deal with it anymore, that may not be God's will. Think about it.

 

[dsade]

If you just quit because you're angry and you don't wanna deal with it anymore, that may not be God's will. Think about it.

Or it might be. Think about it.

/to act thus in accordance with our nature, which is created.
//created by whom?
///it's burger time...first BBQ of Spring.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

could be, depends.

It usually is. The validation of the authority of a statement verifier [...in this case, Jesus Christ...] must be reciprocal between the speaker and listener - that is, a fundamental epistemological convergence must be in place between the maker of the statement and its receiver, in order to accord authority to a statement verifier.

It is nothing more or less than agreement and consent itself which define authority: as social communities, we reciprocally accord authority to certain persons [officers and officials of the peace, for example] based on our agreement of their qualifications, and the consent to remit particular freedoms to validate this consent. Two religious individuals, if nothing else, agree upon the authority of 'god', and have consented to remit particular freedoms to validate that authority; as such, the appeal to Jesus [as you displayed in your response to Naty] is verifiable and justifiable, based on this mutual consent.

As dsade has not made similar concessions, the comporting of your argument toward a deity is unverifiable in its reciprocity - that is, the lack of agreement between dsade and yourself on the validity of deity makes such an appeal epistemologically moot!

 

[dsade]

It usually is. The validation of the authority of a statement verifier [...in this case, Jesus Christ...] must be reciprocal between the speaker and listener - that is, a fundamental epistemological convergence must be in place between the maker of the statement and its receiver, in order to accord authority to a statement verifier.

It is nothing more or less than agreement and consent itself which define authority: as social communities, we reciprocally accord authority to certain persons [officers and officials of the peace, for example] based on our agreement of their qualifications, and the consent to remit particular freedoms to validate this consent. Two religious individuals, if nothing else, agree upon the authority of 'god', and have consented to remit particular freedoms to validate that authority; as such, the appeal to Jesus [as you displayed in your response to Naty] is verifiable and justifiable, based on this mutual consent.

As dsade has not made similar concessions, the comporting of your argument toward a deity is unverifiable in its reciprocity - that is, the lack of agreement between dsade and yourself on the validity of deity makes such an appeal epistemologically moot!

Even more to the point, I do not ascribe special knowledge of "god" or anything else to someone who has a marked specialty that they are, admittedly, brilliant in. I give not a rat's behind that there are some scientists that are also religious (though the Einstein fallacy has been thoroughly debunked - he was an atheist and did not refer to anything remotely resembling a personal, christian god...so to bring that up yet again becomes a matter of deception), given that they have no special qualification nor access to special knowledge. Why not put as much credence in what Brad Pitt says about Physics?

Basically, what Einstein, or anyone else THINKS (readpinion) without demonstrating the PROCESS of thought which led to conclusions is irrelevant to the truth value...it is not an argument.

 

[TheLastRonin]

Natty, you better not even joke about quitting just because you're angry. Did Christ quit when he was angry? He did not! You probably do encounter people that don't know any better, but you are not innocent of that either my friend. You stepped into this thread without knowing better, and did the same thing you're angry at others for. You must forgive others to be forgiven, just as you can't quit if you want to reach the finish line.

If you do decide to quit, I suggest you do it after you have received those instructions from prayer. If you just quit because you're angry and you don't wanna deal with it anymore, that may not be God's will. Think about it.

“The fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control.”—Gal. 5:22, 23, NW. Things as imperfect humans whether you believe in God or not we all need to work on. I know I struggle everyday lol.

 

[DR.D]

Or it might be. Think about it.

/to act thus in accordance with our nature, which is created.
//created by whom?
///it's burger time...first BBQ of Spring.

Of course it could be, but it's unlikely IME. Thus the need to think about it.

Many times we are tested. Everybody has commonly experienced this and knows you can't gain from quitting. The path to failure can often be paved with least resistance, but passing a test yields endurance! Our "nature" is both animalistic (instinctual) and spiritual (super-natural). If you think it must be right just because it tastes good or feels right in your nature, you'd probably be dead by now (or at least a lot fatter, lol!) so don't front like that my man.

 

[gino1168]

Well put.Bro.

 

[DR.D]

It usually is. The validation of the authority of a statement verifier [...in this case, Jesus Christ...] must be reciprocal between the speaker and listener - that is, a fundamental epistemological convergence must be in place between the maker of the statement and its receiver, in order to accord authority to a statement verifier.

It is nothing more or less than agreement and consent itself which define authority: as social communities, we reciprocally accord authority to certain persons [officers and officials of the peace, for example] based on our agreement of their qualifications, and the consent to remit particular freedoms to validate this consent. Two religious individuals, if nothing else, agree upon the authority of 'god', and have consented to remit particular freedoms to validate that authority; as such, the appeal to Jesus [as you displayed in your response to Naty] is verifiable and justifiable, based on this mutual consent.

As dsade has not made similar concessions, the comporting of your argument toward a deity is unverifiable in its reciprocity - that is, the lack of agreement between dsade and yourself on the validity of deity makes such an appeal epistemologically moot!

Maybe you're being a bit presumptuous? D said "because an appeal to authority isn't at all a logical fallacy." There is no reference to deity, but just a generic statement applicable to authority as far as I see. My response was accurate. His comment could be the topic of a whole other thread though, but it's beyond the scope of this discussion IMO.

I do like your new avy Mullet! I can see you've been working your glutes.

 

[dsade]

Of course it could be, but it's unlikely IME. Thus the need to think about it.

Many times we are tested. Everybody has commonly experienced this and knows you can't gain from quitting. The path to failure can often be paved with least resistance, but passing a test yields endurance! Our "nature" is both animalistic (instinctual) and spiritual (super-natural). If you think it must be right just because it tastes good or feels right in your nature, you'd probably be dead by now (or at least a lot fatter, lol!) so don't front like that my man.

Ahh...true (except for the supernatural part, which there is no evidence supporting). You leave out physical, which is likely the source of what you experience as inner being and cal "soul".

But that is because of my estimation of what I want to accomplish/be, the necessary steps to perform, the discipline to overcome my natural urges (such as the one experienced by children to look to a god), and take control of my own life. I choose to short circuit some of my natural urges, rein in others to use at my own pace, and allow still others to run wild.

 

[JudgementDay]

I read this about a month ago and thought it was pretty interesting and maybe some of yous will think it is too.

>The university professor challenged his students with this question. "Did God create eveything that exists?
>A student bravely replied,"yes, he did!"
>"God created everything?" The professor asked.
>"Yes sir" , the student replieda.
>The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil,
>since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who
>we are, then God is evil"
>The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.
>Another student raised his hand and said, "Can i ask you a question professor ?"
>"Of course" , replied the professor.
>The student stood up and asked, "professor, does cold exist?'
>"what kind of question is this? Of course it exists. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in the reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperture.
>Cold does not exist we have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."
>The student continued. "professor, does darkness exist?"
>The professor responded, "of course it does."
>The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in realty the absence of light. Light we can study , but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot messure darkness A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."
>Finally the young man asked the professor, "sir, does evil exist?"
>Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as i have already said.
>We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."
>To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like cold that comes when there is not heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
>The professor sat down.
>The young man's name---- Albert Einstein

 

[dsade]

Step 1 - always check
Invalid Link Removed

before posting urban legend crap.

 

[futurepilot]

There have been so many religions over the years why would anybody think theirs is the 'one' true God. How many of you would have believed in sea monsters a few hundred years ago?

Read: Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Maybe you're being a bit presumptuous? D said "because an appeal to authority isn't at all a logical fallacy." There is no reference to deity, but just a generic statement applicable to authority as far as I see. My response was accurate. His comment could be the topic of a whole other thread though, but it's beyond the scope of this discussion IMO.

I do like your new avy Mullet! I can see you've been working your glutes.

Where did I claim that it was exclusive to deities? I gave the general analytical tool to identify an appeal to authority fallacy, and use the appeal to a deity as an example as it is highly applicable to the situation!

 

[dsade]

Actually, JD - at risk of looking like jerk, this is a pretty good example that needs a question to lay bare a certain mindset that might expose a difference in thought...

When you received the Einstein email, was your first thought to verify the accuracy somehow, by searching for proof that this was, indeed, an accurate event in the life of Einstein - or did the excitement that "what if it's true" and "yeah, the Christian sure showed him" mixed with the awe of Einstein somehow lending credence to it sort of blind you into just accepting without question that this event took place as described?

In this example, the first reaction would show a skeptical, scientific mind - while the second a religious mindset.

 

[JudgementDay]

I guess I just had the religious mindset, and then after reading it was false, next time I will def check into it.

 

[dsade]

I guess I just had the religious mindset, and then after reading it was false, next time I will def check into it.

In the end, we are all just trying to understand and refine our thought processes to best AVOID errors. I suppose that's where a definite misunderstanding occurs between thinking types.

Wishing to avoid critical errors, the more scientific/skeptical/agnostic simply awaits more proof before assigning truth value to religious claims. those that claims that faith will never provide anything of the sort are, unfortunately, prone to errors of wishful thinking and emotion, etc.

Does that make sense?

/3 hours of sleep last night

 

[JudgementDay]

Defiantely makes sence.

 

[TheLastRonin]

There have been so many religions over the years why would anybody think theirs is the 'one' true God. How many of you would have believed in sea monsters a few hundred years ago?

Well, if there was/is a God and he created the universe,set everything in motion, made life possible on earth(easily sustainable,our set orbit for seasons so we don't burn or freeze;Circumstellar Habituable Zone)made the moon the principal cause of ocean tides, which play a vital role in our ecology. The moon also makes sure that our earth is stable when it spins on our axis. Recycling within nature blah blah blah etc. The world is organized. As is our solar system.So if everything is so organized,so precise...would that point to chaotic randomness as a beginning? Not to me. It points to an organizer.A lawmaker. There seems to be one way to do things.The best way to do things.The Lawmaker I think of would have left instructions as to how to live the best way (The Bible for instance).It would also answer most if not all questions man has in that book.It would also state who that Lawmaker was;Isiah 45:18(God in the Bible) and what his purpose is (which the Bible does).It would also solidify its accurateness by naming scientific fact that was not known until a later time eg;The earth is suspended in space:
Job 26:7 "He is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing" written in about 1613 B.C.E,The earth is round:
Isiah 40:22 "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth" written about 732 B.C.E
There would also be prophetic word such as in the books of Isaiah and Daniel.
If there was/is a God..this is what I would expect would be the reason to believe in "one true God".

As for sea monster lol...some are based on fact;Kraken=Giant squid
Some say whales or crocidile=leviathan and hippos=behemoth. They are scary in person, I could see why people would embelish ahah.

 

[andrew732]

All I have to say to non-believers is one will not know who God is unitl they have a personal experience with him. If anyone were to see and experience what I have, they would be become believers of God. I pray for all in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit; Amen. God bless

 

[NattyT]

For the wrath of God is revealed From heaven aginst all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who surpress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in there thoughts and there foolish hearts were darkend. Professing to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man and birds and four-footed animals and creepimg things. Therefore God gave them up to uncleanness, in the lust of their hearts, to dishonor there bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather then the creator, who is blessed forever, Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even there women exchanged the natural use for what is aginst nature. Likewise the men leaving the natural use of the women, burned in there lust for one another, men with men committing what is shamful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of there error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in there knowledge, God gave them over to a debassed mind, to do the things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immoralitty, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envey, murder, strife, deceit, evilmindedness; they are backbitters , haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undicerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

This passage states some good things exspecialy the part about how god is seen through his creation and that man chooses not to retain Him in his mind. So through the discovery of diffrent things on our planet we see god and his work.

 

[futurepilot]

The Lawmaker I think of would have left instructions as to how to live the best way (The Bible for instance

They are scary in person, I could see why people would embelish ahah.

You do know that the Bible was written by man hundreds of years after jesus's death, right? Research: council of trent and council of nicea to see how hippocritical the "word of god" really is.

Kind of like a person slipping into a coma, then coming alive right after he was laid to rest and it being a 'miracle'?

 

[dsade]

You do know that the Bible was written by man hundreds of years after jesus's death, right? Research: council of trent and council of nicea to see how hippocritical the "word of god" really is.

Kind of like a person slipping into a coma, then coming alive right after he was laid to rest and it being a 'miracle'?

Not to mention that the bible utterly FAILS to denounce slavery, wholesale slaughter, etc.

The bible is, quite a bit, a morally repugnant book - as is the god described therein.

 

[DR.D]

Ahh...true (except for the supernatural part, which there is no evidence supporting). You leave out physical, which is likely the source of what you experience as inner being and cal "soul".

But that is because of my estimation of what I want to accomplish/be, the necessary steps to perform, the discipline to overcome my natural urges (such as the one experienced by children to look to a god), and take control of my own life. I choose to short circuit some of my natural urges, rein in others to use at my own pace, and allow still others to run wild.

Great response. I'll clarify that I did consider the physical aspect, I classified it with the animalistic aspect of man. It is inherent, just like instinct, but they are both limited, fallible and temporal. There is a "supernatural" or non-conventional/non-physical (spirit) aspect, whatever you wish to call it, it is certainly separate. It's often called intuition. This is a legitimate way of knowing something without knowing how you know, we have all experienced this in some way and there is no physical rational. It is nonetheless true and accurate.

Do you see any hungry animal walk away from it's pray, because it feels bad after attacking it? Do you see overweight animals going on diets when they get too fat? They have the same physical aspect as man, so it's hard to sell that physical is a legitimate explanation. Man has something more, it is spirit, it is eternal. It gives you the discernment to have a choice so that you are not blind to ethical concepts, and you are not a slave to instinct (which often can't keep up with evolutionary progress). You can misappropriate if you like, but you still know better! That is supernatural, that is the difference.

 

[DR.D]

... >Finally the young man asked the professor, "sir, does evil exist?"
>Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as i have already said.
>We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."
>To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like cold that comes when there is not heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
>The professor sat down.
>The young man's name---- Albert Einstein

Exactly. Darkness (evil) is only the absence of light (good), not a spectral opposite as many oversimplify.

'... where reasonable men treat these subjects the question can never be concerning the being, but only the nature of the Deity. The former ... is unquestionable and self-evident. Nothing exists without a cause; and the original cause of this universe (whatever it be) we call God.' - Dialogues (Philo)

God is legit. Maybe you atheists and agnostics are just calling god something else, but all sane humans recognize a process at work in this universe. That is God, whatever you're calling it. I think many get turned-off by weird religious customs that skew this reality, so it's easier to just dismiss God altogether rather than take the time to isolate the disinformation and dismiss only that. If so, you throw out the baby with the bathwater!

Why are the agnostic intellectuals here so lazy? Apply yourselves. What taking a shortcuts finds is a pathological construct. A comfort zone where one can willing deceive himself in order to maintain his ego's "OKness" (as it is sometimes referred to in psychology.) Very pathetic when you get to the end of life and realize you lived a lie, just to hide from irrational fears and laziness.

If there is a God, you potentially have everything to lose by not considering it now! You will have missed your lessons and failed many tests. If there is no God, you have zero to lose for considering that there was, you die just the same and that is that. Seems like a big-time no brainer.