Submit Your Proof of God [Archive] - Whistle Stopper Political Forums

Churlant

01-10-2005, 12:13 AM

Can we prove that no god exists in this same thread? Is either point provable?

We could certainly try. I would submit the general destructive tasks of mankind coupled with a psychological necessity for reason and explanation in our lives as proof against the existence of a God. Further I would question the logic of claiming one God over another... If we judge a specific religious faith to be above another, what qualifications do we use for such a decision? If one faith is NOT above another, how can the concept of "our God is the ONLY God" which is present in so many religions be reconciled with each other?

As for whether either is ultimately provable... some seem to think so. That's why I started the thread. I want to see what they're got - and I'd prefer specifics.

How can you ask for something you know does not exist?

Short of what has already been described, no one can prove or disprove the existances of God(s).

The only things we can offer as proof are of the natural world, God(s) if they/it exists, are of the supernatural. How perceisely are you suppose to prove the existance of something on a completely different plane with things from your own which cannot interact tangibly with the intended subject?

The problem is some people are very insistant on proof of God. To you God is separate of our existence... to others He is always here with us, and "proof" of His presence is seen in all things.

Personally I'm not really interested in a "disproving a negative" argument. I am working this thread from the position that there IS a God... or Gods. What I'm asking for is the evidence so many claim to have. I'm not even going to argue against evidence provided... I'm simply curious to see people's individual experiences and/or perspectives.

And anyway... I don't "know" whether a God exists or not - neither do you. I believe so... but then I also believe I'll live to see tomorrow. Without that most basic of faiths, would I even bother making this post? ;)

-JC

Craig

01-10-2005, 12:20 AM

It's been hinted at here already, but the burden of proof always lies on the person making the assertion, (i.e. that something exists). If you cannot figure out why this is, I want you to prove to me that there are no grey aliens who secretly control the world's government. Think on this long enough and you'll see what the burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion.

JoeR

01-10-2005, 12:50 AM

There is no solid proof, but I don't see any reason to take any pro-God position other than deism. Not my take though.

cpwill

01-10-2005, 01:44 AM

dude1212

01-10-2005, 02:14 AM

eugene40

01-10-2005, 02:22 AM

i'll try and use logic, i've heard this one before and it makes sense to me (this is to prove existence of a God not one in specific)

what is the greatest thing imaginable? your answer i'm assuming is a god(because what can be greater than a God) then for a God to exist in reality is greater than a God that existist in your mind, therefore a God has to exist for real. Because it is higher and better then one in your mind. (its a little confusing but after awhile it makes sense, i think)

Umm that isn't that logical... I mean I know it is trying to take Descartes arugment "I think therefore I am" a step further in saying "I think there is a god so therefore there must be a god"... Is in fact not logical,, because logic dictates that we are all individuals,, as individuals we all have our own morals, our own beliefs, ideals, creeds,, idiosyncracies,, so on and so forth ad naseum.. So for you... your answer to the greatest thing imaginable is god.. To me, the greatest thing imaginable is having sex with Heidi Klum. So where the individual mind begins your argument ends.

USViking

01-10-2005, 02:49 AM

Craig

01-10-2005, 03:11 AM

lol; well, considering that i'm already involved in this debate in about 3 other threads, i'll just go over the basics.

1. the law of causality (upon which all science is based) states that everything that comes to be has a source, a cause. yet science also tells us that the universe has a starting point; that it came to be. as nothing can can come from nothing; clearly there is a First Cause, an incredibly powerful something (as it has the power to cause everything to spring into existance) which is not held back by time or space (as both these were created in the Big Bang). looking at the incredible fine measuring that had to go into the universe (and indeed the very creation of life itself); the odds are astronomically in favor of this First source being intellegent.

The problem is that we don't know what the first cause is for sure. We don't know if it was simply the Big Bang, or a cyclical series of Big Bangs that is never ending, or whether it was the Christian God, or a God, or a pantheon of deities, or simply a force, divine or otherwise, or whether it was just the creation of intelligent creatures, etc. There's a lot of possible choices here, which do not necessarily even involve a God or supernatural force at all. Given that physics postulate that laws in a physical universe must always function as ours does, it may well be that it is impossible not to have a universe similar to ours, thereby casting into doub the incredibly fine measuring. All the talk of fine measurements presupposes that life and the universe necessarily would exist, a basic premise that has not been proven.

2. there is a human-wide spirituality; no civilization has ever arisen without it; as creatures; we seem to instinctively reach for God.

And yet humans disagree as to the nature of this divine reality, and the religions of the world stand testament to this assertion.

3. there is a human wide-morality, that follows basic rules. there is no country where betraying the one who trusted you most will, as a general rule, get you lauded for being moral. this morality is also of an extremely self-sacrificial nature, and thus is unlikely to spring from darwinistic sources.

On the contrarily Charlie, self-sacricial morality nicely ties into evolution, because ultimately self sacrifice serves to allow other members of the species to survive and reproduce. Interestingly, you'll note that most if not all cases of self sacrifice are to save a fellow human being and not an animal, which is consistent with evolutionary tenets- an intelligent species capable of reasoning should be first and foremost concerned with protecting its own members.

4. the happenings in first century palestine.

Interesting that many archaelogists and Biblical scholars have found a distinct lack of evidence for what is suggested in the Bible, especially regarding Jesus.

5. the sheer number of people who have come into contact with this God; you have to be willing to label a good chunk of humanity either liars or hallucinagenic lunatics in order to argue that there is no God. this isn't just one or two eyewitness accounts; this is billions of them.

And yet at the same time, there are people who have not come into contact with God nor are they inherently spiritual by nature. Certainly, I thought absolutely nothing of God and spirituality until someone actually told me about them. You have to be willing to label this chunk of humanity as either liars, or lunatics in order to argue that there is a God. We are left with a conflict here. You can doubt that people such as myself have not had spiritual experiences involving God, just as I can doubt that you have had authentic spiritual experiences where you've come into contact with the Christian God. Our doubts and personal biases alone are not enough to prove one way or the other.

(perhaps this isn't a reason but)6. it is impossible to disprove the existance of God.

You're quite right this isn't a reason, as explained in my earlier post.

USViking

01-10-2005, 03:29 AM

lol; well, considering that i'm already involved in this debate in about 3 other threads, i'll just go over the basics.

1. the law of causality (upon which all science is based) states that everything that comes to be has a source, a cause.
Not so fast- see this link:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/The_Quantum_age_begins.html

Here are two quotes from the link:

"One does not get an answer to the question, What is the state after collision? but only to the question, How probable is a given effect of the collision? From the standpoint of our quantum mechanics, there is no quantity which causally fixes the effect of a collision in an individual event."
(Max Born, Nobel Laureate and co-founder of Quantum Mechanics)

"the nonvalidity of rigorous causality is necessary and not just consistently possible. "
(Werner Heisenberg, Nobel Laureate and co-founder of Quantim Mechanics)

yet science also tells us that the universe has a starting point; that it came to be. as nothing can can come from nothing; clearly there is a First Cause, an incredibly powerful something (as it has the power to cause everything to spring into existance) which is not held back by time or space (as both these were created in the Big Bang). looking at the incredible fine measuring that had to go into the universe (and indeed the very creation of life itself); the odds are astronomically in favor of this First source being intellegent.
It does not inevitably logical that having a
starting point necessitates having a cause.

And what you call astronomical odds may
be in fact even with the odds of any other
outcome, hence unremarkable.

2. there is a human-wide spirituality; no civilization has ever arisen without it; as creatures; we seem to instinctively reach for God.

This, in effect, is saying that belief in the
existence of thousands of gods constitutes
evidence for the exclusive existence of
only one God.

3. there is a human wide-morality, that follows basic rules. there is no country where betraying the one who trusted you most will, as a general rule, get you lauded for being moral. this morality is also of an extremely self-sacrificial nature, and thus is unlikely to spring from darwinistic sources.
Fine- out with Darwin if you like,
but that does not usher in God.

4. the happenings in first century palestine.
If you are speaking of miracles I feel
entitled to withhold approval until I
see one myself, thank you.

5. the sheer number of people who have come into contact with this God; you have to be willing to label a good chunk of humanity either liars or hallucinagenic lunatics in order to argue that there is no God. this isn't just one or two eyewitness accounts; this is billions of them.
See my previous remark.

(perhaps this isn't a reason but)6. it is impossible to disprove the existance of God.
Perhaps nothing- this is no reason at all.

faithless

01-10-2005, 04:02 AM

3. there is a human wide-morality, that follows basic rules. there is no country where betraying the one who trusted you most will, as a general rule, get you lauded for being moral. this morality is also of an extremely self-sacrificial nature, and thus is unlikely to spring from darwinistic sources.
Fine- out with Darwin if you like,
but that does not usher in God

That suits Darwin just fine, actually.
Sacrificing one indivual for the collective is quite in accordance with Darwinism.

faithless

01-10-2005, 04:04 AM

In fact, it would be interesting to take this argument to the international politics forum and compare the individualism of USA to the collectivism of Europe.
Which one is more in tune with Darwin?

mataj

01-10-2005, 04:44 AM

If you want the solid evidence about the existance of my god, the Great Old Cthulhu, try diving around S. Latitude 47°9', W. Longitude l23°43'. There's a good chance that you'll come across some old pillars on the bottom of the ocean, or even meet Him in person. I wouldn't recommend that, of course. As far as I'm concerned- I don't need evidence, because I met Him in my dream.

lol; well, considering that i'm already involved in this debate in about 3 other threads, i'll just go over the basics.

1. . . .
1.Big Bang was an explosion. Explosions do occur spontaneously. If this is not the case, their purpose is usually demolition, not creation.

2,5.What about non-monotheistic civilizaitons, like Indian?

3.What about ants?

4.Due to lack of historic distance, there is very litte credible history from that era.

6.No, it's not a reason. It's impossible to disprove flying pigs either.

Mr Pariah

01-10-2005, 04:50 AM

That suits Darwin just fine, actually.

Charles Darwin himself conceded that all existing terrestrial life must have descended from some primitive life form that was called into life "by the Creator".

faithless

01-10-2005, 05:23 AM

Charles Darwin himself conceded that all existing terrestrial life must have descended from some primitive life form that was called into life "by the Creator".

Not that that disputes my claim that an individual sacrifice for what is percieved as the good of the collective is Darwinistic, but where did Darwin claim that all life come from "the creator"?
Do you have a source?

mataj

01-10-2005, 05:24 AM

. . . , but where did Darwin claim that all life come from "the creator"?
Do you have a source?So what, even if he did? Evolution happens with or without Darwin.

faithless

01-10-2005, 05:31 AM

That question wasn't disputing the existence or non-existence of evolution.
That question was questioning what C. Darwin said.

Mr Pariah

01-10-2005, 05:44 AM

but where did Darwin claim that all life come from "the creator"?
Do you have a source?

Origin of Species, 1900, p. 316

mataj

01-10-2005, 06:32 AM

That question wasn't disputing the existence or non-existence of evolution.
That question was questioning what C. Darwin said.And I was disputing the questioning what C.Darwin said.

Is Darwin some kind of prophet or something?

faithless

01-10-2005, 06:44 AM

And I was disputing the questioning what C.Darwin said.

Is Darwin some kind of prophet or something?

I don't think i'm understanding you or your point.
"And I was disputing the questioning"
You were disputing me questioning Darwin?

No, not to me he isn't at least, though he is an immensely important contributor to the knowledge bank of our species, as far as I am concerned.

faithless

01-10-2005, 06:47 AM

Origin of Species, 1900, p. 316
Hmmm, thanks, sadly I don't have the book.
I tried a google which didn't lead anywhere.

faithless

01-10-2005, 06:53 AM

I did find these quotes however by Darwin, on the subject of religion:

....During these two years (March 1837 - January 1839) I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come by this time (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see the Old Testament, from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rain-bow as a sign, &c., &c., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian....
....Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine....

At present the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomedans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favour of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddhists of no God...
....This argument would be a valid one, if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists....

mataj

01-10-2005, 06:56 AM

I don't think i'm understanding you or your point.My point is, that Darwin was a scientist, not a prophet. His word is now a law, he merely describes the laws of nature. It therefore makes no sense in counting commas in his texts, or even quoting his books in bible-like style.

faithless

01-10-2005, 07:06 AM

Hmmm. Well, I don't agree that I'm counting commas.
Be that as it may, I feel that is not the topic I am discussing.
Quite simply, I was counter-claiming that altruism is quite acceptable in Darwins description of the world.

cpwill

01-10-2005, 07:34 AM

The problem is that we don't know what the first cause is for sure. We don't know if it was simply the Big Bang, or a cyclical series of Big Bangs that is never ending, or whether it was the Christian God, or a God, or a pantheon of deities,

a God that pre-existed the Universe would have to operate independent of time and space; there can only be one infinite.

There's a lot of possible choices here, which do not necessarily even involve a God or supernatural force at all.

but none of them likely; and some flat out impossible.

Given that physics postulate that laws in a physical universe must always function as ours does, it may well be that it is impossible not to have a universe similar to ours, thereby casting into doub the incredibly fine measuring.

naturally physics in such a universe as this must always funciton as they do; that is arguing in a circle.

All the talk of fine measurements presupposes that life and the universe necessarily would exist, a basic premise that has not been proven.

you doubt the existance of life and the universe?

And yet humans disagree as to the nature of this divine reality, and the religions of the world stand testament to this assertion.

naturally; the thread was not "prove the existance of the Christian trinity", but rather, submit your proof of God.

On the contrarily Charlie, self-sacricial morality nicely ties into evolution, because ultimately self sacrifice serves to allow other members of the species to survive and reproduce.

:) self sacrifice for your young, perhaps. but for useless members of society? if you see a retard about to be hit by a bus; what is the morally best thing to do? why would principles arising from darwinistic sources of prosper-or-die tell us to deliberately keep our society weaker. and what's all this stuff (if we're talking evolutionary arisal of ethics) with not killing or stealing from members of other groups? if the US were to move in, kill all the africans, and settle there; wouldn't we just be helping the species by allowing a better qualified more adaptable genetic strain within it to take over? and, yet, we recognize that such an event would be immoral. and then you have the ideals; why in the world would evolution want us to be willing to lay our life on the line in order to defend something non-physical; especially when it comes to others? there's no reason for an evolutionary-based model to produce these moral callings, and alot of reason for them not to.

Interestingly, you'll note that most if not all cases of self sacrifice are to save a fellow human being and not an animal, which is consistent with evolutionary tenets- an intelligent species capable of reasoning should be first and foremost concerned with protecting its own members.

and we consider animal abuse immoral because.......?

Interesting that many archaelogists and Biblical scholars have found a distinct lack of evidence for what is suggested in the Bible, especially regarding Jesus.

:lol: ooh boy; are you serious?

And yet at the same time, there are people who have not come into contact with God nor are they inherently spiritual by nature.

:shrug: there are plenty of people who haven't come into contact with me; does this prove i do not exist? and it makes sense that differing individuals would have differing levels of spirituality.

You have to be willing to label this chunk of humanity as either liars, or lunatics in order to argue that there is a God. We are left with a conflict here. You can doubt that people such as myself have not had spiritual experiences involving God, just as I can doubt that you have had authentic spiritual experiences where you've come into contact with the Christian God.

not at all; (although then i am left arguing for a positive whereas you are arguing for a negative), i have no problem believing that you personally have not had any spiritual contact with God. as stated, in order to declare that there is no God; billions upon billions of people who are claiming contact with Him have to be either all liars or hallucinagenic lunatics. if so much as one person is telling the truth; the anti-God argument falls like a house of cards.

You're quite right this isn't a reason, as explained in my earlier post.

no, merely an interesting note on how many people expend so much effort trying to disprove something that, definitionally, they cannot disprove.

mataj

01-10-2005, 07:45 AM

Quite simply, I was counter-claiming that altruism is quite acceptable in Darwins description of the world.Creationists often attack the straw man (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/strawman.html), which goes by the name of "Social Darwinism". Social Darwinism is original Darwin's theory, misunderstood, and applied to politics, where it doesn't belong. In a word, Social Darwinism is utter nonsense. Very easy to attack, and disprove.

Darwin, being an originator of evolution theory, left many questions unanswered. This was the only right thing to do, because there simply were not enough facts available at his time. Most of theese questions were answered later, by other scientists. One of theese questions was the role of cooperation in natural selection and evolution. The easiest way to get an answer is to google up "prisoner's dilemma". It's a mathematical model, which describes very neatly how evolution process leads to cooperation and altruism.

Churlant

01-10-2005, 07:53 AM

5. the sheer number of people who have come into contact with this God; you have to be willing to label a good chunk of humanity either liars or hallucinagenic lunatics in order to argue that there is no God. this isn't just one or two eyewitness accounts; this is billions of them.

As I said, I'm not going to debate actual points... quite honestly it's obviously pointless to try.

However, I think it's important to realize that a good chunk of humanity ARE liars and certainly another great chunk particpates in the use of hallucinagenic items. Whether it's the same chunk I can't say for certain ;)

-JC

Albert

01-10-2005, 12:32 PM

Okay, perhaps I will take a shot at this.

Many scientists have come to believe that all matter and energy are made up of strings. When a string vibrates one way it behaves as energy, another mater, still another anti-mater. The manner of the strings movement not only determines what it exists as but when in time it exists. So if this is true, what determines what and when a string will be? How will groups organize? Will they become protons or neutrons or will they become electrons? What form of atoms will they reside? How is mater and energy organized in our existence?

So how do we go from billions of strings making up billions of atoms to individuals who not only perceive our own existence but also want to understand it? So it seems to me that the first proof of the existence of an organizing force in the universe is a conclusion that there must be.

Of coarse, the difficulty most thoughtful people have is the leap from this belief to the belief in a Santa like being, who knows when we are sleeping and knows when were awake, if you know what I mean. Yet if you read Tao Ching, Buddha, Mohammad, The Hebrew profits, The words of Jesus and the stories of Hiawatha and the Peacemaker, you may perceive a common theme: Existence is moving in a direction, if you get too bogged down by material things, you will not be able to follow. How can so many different people draw such a similar conclusion?

Mr Pariah

01-10-2005, 12:57 PM

I did find these quotes however by Darwin, on the subject of religion

It's quite obvious that Darwin's comments about a creator were not from a religious perspective. Instead, he was attempting to explain the origin of life after considering the problems with abiogenesis.

"There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.." - Darwin, 1859.

Rivet

01-10-2005, 01:14 PM

Wow!

You could win 1 million dollars if you prove God exists...

http://www.thinkandreason.com/
:cool:

USViking

01-10-2005, 02:17 PM

Origin of Species, 1900, p. 316

I own a copy of The Origen of Species.
(Random House 1979 reprint of 1976 issue of 1968 edition)

I confess to not having read it.

However, my edition has no such quote
on p.316, which is the last page of Chapter 9.

Darwin died in 1882, so the quote you cite
may be an interpolation by some party with
a religious axe to grind.

Other posters to this thread have firmly
established Darwin's skepticism in any case.

Mr.BlueOil

01-10-2005, 02:27 PM

i'll try and use logic, i've heard this one before and it makes sense to me (this is to prove existence of a God not one in specific)

what is the greatest thing imaginable? if your answer, i'm assuming is a god,(because what can be greater than a God) then for a God to exist in reality is greater than a God that existist in your mind, therefore a God has to exist for real. Because it is higher and better then one in your mind. (its a little confusing but after awhile it makes sense, i think)

My answer to you question, "What is the greatest thing imaginable?" For life to continue after I'm gone. To me the secret of life is to bare children and make sure your offering them a better life then what you had, weather that means picking up a bit of litter, or raising the child in your image. It is said that god created man in his image. Why can those words not mean that those who were here before procreated life, and raised the children in their image teaching them their views on life and it's meaning.

Something arguable for why children may be growing up all messed up is that tv is a baby sitter. We've lost our ability to raise children in a progressive manor, now they live to grow up and become rich and famous, when the many that don't make this happen come to realize that it's never going to happen it destroys a peice of them. They are raised thinking the only way they'll be special is to be involved publicly with the media.

My proof is for god not existing, for in the words of any religion, you can see that god is man made. If people simply believed in god and didn't have religion it would be much harder to view god as none existant.

cpwill

01-10-2005, 03:42 PM

I own a copy of The Origen of Species.
(Random House 1979 reprint of 1976 issue of 1968 edition)

I confess to not having read it.

However, my edition has no such quote
on p.316, which is the last page of Chapter 9.

if you own the 1979 reprint, it is quite likely that y'all are looking at different pages.

cpwill

01-10-2005, 03:43 PM

Wow!

You could win 1 million dollars if you prove God exists...

correction; you get it if you can prove it materially. materially proving the existance of an immaterial subject is, by definition, impossible.

::Major_Baker::

01-10-2005, 03:48 PM

CPWILL=if the US were to move in, kill all the africans, and settle there; wouldn't we just be helping the species by allowing a better qualified more adaptable genetic strain within it to take over?

Double take. Africa's developmental faults are genetic?
That's an odd assertion. Do you have any articles suggesting this, or did you just make it up?

cpwill

01-10-2005, 03:51 PM

Churlant

01-10-2005, 04:11 PM

immaterial; the fact being that western culture has produced a more successful society; therefore by the laws of evolution it is our moral imperitive to expand and overtake other, less successful society's in order to improve the species.

Oh really? Heh... we've got a couple hundred years to draw on. I hardly think you can call us more successful than any other society in history simply because we're here now. It takes the fullness of time to justify that arrogance... if you think "western culture" such as it is will last even a thousand years, I've got an ocean to sell :)

-JC

cpwill

01-10-2005, 04:15 PM

Oh really? Heh... we've got a couple hundred years to draw on.

as humans originated in africa (along with the first major civilization); they actually have the head-start on western culture. yet western culture was sailing around the world while african culture was still throwing spears, and most of them didn't even have the wheel. obviously western culture is currently the most successful of all available models.

I hardly think you can call us more successful than any other society in history simply because we're here now.

we are the largest, most powerful, most economically successful culture to ever exist; we are certainly better than anyone currently standing.

It takes the fullness of time to justify that arrogance... if you think "western culture" such as it is will last even a thousand years, I've got an ocean to sell :)

of course not; it will itself be replaced by something better; however, until that better thing shows up; under the darwinistic morality; it is western culture's moral imperitive to destroy all other inferior cultures to make way for the improvement of the species.

Rivet

01-10-2005, 04:39 PM

faithless

01-10-2005, 06:16 PM

"immaterial; the fact being that western culture has produced a more successful society; therefore by the laws of evolution it is our moral imperitive to expand and overtake other, less successful society's in order to improve the species."

No it hasn't.
Damn, that sounds pretty fascist.
It's been more successful in increasing the speed of productivity.
Successful?
I would feel pretty successful living in a hut and catching a nice head of venison.
Your definition is not the same as a
Masai warriors, even though our common ancestors told the blackfoots that.

cpwill

01-10-2005, 07:00 PM

No it hasn't.

yes it has; by all the measures of darwinistic requirement; it has produced a stronger, more adaptible group which has achieved economic, military, and technological dominance.

Damn, that sounds pretty fascist.

i would agree.

It's been more successful in increasing the speed of productivity.
Successful?
I would feel pretty successful living in a hut and catching a nice head of venison.

until, of course, an M-1 Abrams tank blew up your hut and burned down your family right in front of your eyes; with you helpless.

Your definition is not the same as a Masai warriors, even though our common ancestors told the blackfoots that.

success is success; it's means alter; the concept remains the same.

cpwill

01-10-2005, 07:01 PM

We are Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

:)

:shrug: pretty much :o

Churlant

01-10-2005, 08:45 PM

of course not; it will itself be replaced by something better; however, until that better thing shows up; under the darwinistic morality; it is western culture's moral imperitive to destroy all other inferior cultures to make way for the improvement of the species.

Not really. You can't just take one set of theories and apply it to another force entirely. Just because society "evolves" doesn't mean it will mirror the evolution of species. Trying to mesh the two is just another way to discredit the one - or justify the takeover of the world, of course.

Besides... how do you even determine ours as a "better" model? Scientific advancement? Sailing ships? Spears vs guns? The Egyptians didn't even have the wheel, yet they were able to survive and thrive for quite a while.

You seem to be equating "superiority" with "moral superiority"... either that, or you assume morality evolves in the same way as species. Both are flawed assumptions... if you're trying to make a DIFFERENT point, maybe you should detail it better. I'm a bit fuzzy.

In the end you can't really say who is "inferior" and justify that statement. As Americans, we believed Native Americans were inferior, thus their land and resources (and lives) belonged to us. Even more, we believed our own superiority to be God-given - sound familiar?

So, inferior based on what? Of all your talk about spears... you should know that a single race of natives living on an island chain devastated by the tsunami survived - all 500 of them. When the coast guard came to offer aid, they were shot at with arrows.

How did these people survive on such technologies when so many of their "superiors" did not? The answer might be surprising... and it also shows they aren't quite as inferior as one might believe.

-JC

Craig

01-11-2005, 03:57 AM

a God that pre-existed the Universe would have to operate independent of time and space; there can only be one infinite.

Proof for the second clause of this assertion? Not only that, but I still don't see how most of this is relevent to refuting the other possibilities that I brought up.

but none of them likely; and some flat out impossible.

Which ones are flat out impossible? And, on what basis do you know they're impossible? Discussing the cosmology of the universe is a bit like discussing God- who are you to declare something as possible or impossible? ;)

Indeed, I have yet to see any evidence why the Nirguna Brahman, for example, is any less plausible than God. At least Brahman does not have ot get into the issues of potentially contradictory character traits, which have been suggested on numerous instances for God or theological problems such as the problem of evil, regardless of whatever apologeticist responses have been offered.

naturally physics in such a universe as this must always funciton as they do; that is arguing in a circle.

No, my point is there is reason to believe that physics in any universe or physical reality must function as they do. If this is true, the whole argument about things being necessarily fine tuned is meaningless if all physical realities necessarily have the same physical laws.

you doubt the existance of life and the universe?

No, read closely- I said that the assumption that life and the universe necessarily would exist is a unproven one.

naturally; the thread was not "prove the existance of the Christian trinity", but rather, submit your proof of God.

Well then, what do you mean by God? The term "God" is completely insufficient to describe certain beliefs about the nature ultimate divine reality in other religions besides Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

:) self sacrifice for your young, perhaps. but for useless members of society? if you see a retard about to be hit by a bus; what is the morally best thing to do? why would principles arising from darwinistic sources of prosper-or-die tell us to deliberately keep our society weaker. and what's all this stuff (if we're talking evolutionary arisal of ethics) with not killing or stealing from members of other groups? if the US were to move in, kill all the africans, and settle there; wouldn't we just be helping the species by allowing a better qualified more adaptable genetic strain within it to take over? and, yet, we recognize that such an event would be immoral. and then you have the ideals; why in the world would evolution want us to be willing to lay our life on the line in order to defend something non-physical; especially when it comes to others? there's no reason for an evolutionary-based model to produce these moral callings, and alot of reason for them not to.

I'm surprised- you should know better about evolution than that. First of all, the ultimate evolutionary effect of developing a system of morality is that it increases survival, thus being beneficial in an evolutionary sense. But no one, upon seeing their daughter about to be hit by a bus, would think "Oh my God- I must protect my daughter to ensure she reaches sexual maturity and produces many offspring, thus ensuring our genetic line!" Rather, the father will simply act and try to save his daughter's life. Likewise, the same applies with a retarded person or someone else who doesn't contribute to the gene pool. We don't develop a selective morality simply to save individuals on the basis of their contributions to the further survival of the species. However, the willingness and capacity to sacrifice one's self does represent a method which ultimately tends towards improving survival.

We've got a bit sidetracked from the initial point however, namely that you are wrong about this dog-eat-dog misrepresentation of evolution. All that evolutionary theory suggests is that it is plausible for humans, as creatures capable of reasoning, to develop a system of morality, which in turns aids survivability. If we look at animals, for example, who according to the Bible were not endowed with morality as humans were, we can see nonetheless cooperation between members and even sacrifice made on the behalf of others. Likewise, it is perfectly logical for intelligent beings such as ourselves to develop similar, though more sophisticated systems of interaction and peaceful cooperation with each other. After all, if humans really did only behave as you described in the example with the USA and Africa, everyone would be in constant peril and fear for their lives. It makes sense then that humans would develop systems of morality from an evolutionary perspective, and one of the evolutionary benefits of doing so is an increased chance of survival.

and we consider animal abuse immoral because.......?

Because we have a system of morality. See above.

Craig

01-11-2005, 03:59 AM

:lol: ooh boy; are you serious?

Dead serious Cpwill. One of my Christian friends in my first year at university gave me a book about Christ to read in the hopes that I might change my mind regarding my stance on Christianity. After reading it for a bit, I explained to my friend that the author stated that Jesus the person was altogether different from Jesus the literary construction of the Bible. Further, the author of the book mentioned that numerous other Biblical scholars have already reached this conclusion, and that it was not by any means new or uncommon. Of course, my friend immediately wanted the book back, realizing that it was not going in the direction he had thought it would. If I hadn't found the whole instance bemusing, I probably would have been saddened by yet another attempt made by a Christian to stifle or supress information that was possibly subversive to their beliefs.

I do not recall the title of the book off-hand, but I believe it belongs to one of the Sociology professors on campus, and I could probably locate it if need be.

No, I'm not bluffing here, and nor was I mistaken before.

:shrug: there are plenty of people who haven't come into contact with me; does this prove i do not exist? and it makes sense that differing individuals would have differing levels of spirituality.

That's a poor comparison- you're not immaterial, nor is there immediate reason to doubt your existence, since human beings of all sorts are consistent with almost everyone's daily experiences. Not so with God. And differing levels of spirituality is fine, but God is quite capable of interacting with a person who has no spirituality. In my experience, the people who believe in God have the events of their life coloured by their beliefs that He has interacted with them in some way, while those who do not believe in him do not thusly have their events in their life coloured by their beliefs. In other words, daily life events that would not reinforce the belief of the existence of God suddenly do begin to reinforce this belief. Or, to put it another way, people see God's interaction in their life because they believe He is interacting in it.

not at all; (although then i am left arguing for a positive whereas you are arguing for a negative), i have no problem believing that you personally have not had any spiritual contact with God. as stated, in order to declare that there is no God; billions upon billions of people who are claiming contact with Him have to be either all liars or hallucinagenic lunatics. if so much as one person is telling the truth; the anti-God argument falls like a house of cards.

True, but you have to prove that one person is telling the truth, hence the title of this thread. Otherwise you've got one giant argumentum ad numerum.

no, merely an interesting note on how many people expend so much effort trying to disprove something that, definitionally, they cannot disprove.

One cannot disprove God, but one can doubt His existence, on the basis of a number of factors, all of which you have heard before. I have a much harder time doubting or casting doubt onto the Deist version of God; I still do not believe in Him, for the simple reason that I do not see Him as a necessary explanation for the universe. In either case though, disproof is not truly possible, but a large degree of skepticism and doubt certainly is possible.

faithless

01-11-2005, 05:03 AM

"It's been more successful in increasing the speed of productivity.
Successful?
I would feel pretty successful living in a hut and catching a nice head of venison."

"until, of course, an M-1 Abrams tank blew up your hut and burned down your family right in front of your eyes; with you helpless."

See, in my world, the guy with the abrams, destroying members of his species, is the one who is detrimental to the survival of my species, not the guy hunting a venison.
The abrams guy is the one that is not benificial for our survival.
Increased killing power, increased ability to destroy members of the human species and speed of productivity may even prove to be talents that are bad for the survival of the species.

Albert

01-11-2005, 08:51 AM

CP,
Another problem with Darwinism is the apparent misapplication of the concept: Survival of the fittest. It should be replaced with the far less sexy, survival of the not too bad. Under Darwin’s theory of natural selection a species only has to survive long enough to reproduce. This is why mice don’t drive motorcycles. They only have to live long enough to make more mice, which for mice is about 8 weeks. One strong argument for the existence of a creator, particularly one with a sense of humor is the existence of humans who are remarkable in a biological sense in the following ways:

Our inability to survive in the natural world.

The lack of variation in our species compared to all others

Our inability to comprehend the first two

green lantern

01-11-2005, 09:52 AM

proof of god?? look around you--the sun, the moon, the stars, the earth, YOU

mataj

01-11-2005, 09:57 AM

proof of god?? look around you--the sun, the moon, the stars, the earth, YOUThat's the proof of ubiquitous Chaos, from which all showy things sprung.

green lantern

01-11-2005, 10:09 AM

That's the proof of ubiquitous Chaos, from which all showy things sprung. nope, thats proof of god.

Rivet

01-11-2005, 10:15 AM

Come one and all - step right up and prove your God once and for all!

What is the purpose of these threads?
Do atheist get a rise out of making non-atheists prove their religion to them? Are you looking for more recruits?

Either you believe in God or you don't.

The Big Bog

01-11-2005, 10:31 AM

Something tells me that if I could definitively prove that God exists ... I wouldn't be sitting here posting it on an internet forum.

And neither would any of you.

faithless

01-11-2005, 10:33 AM

Albert452004, that's not why mice don't drive motorcycles.
The reason is they can't reach the gears with thier little legs.

mataj

01-11-2005, 10:36 AM

nope, thats proof of god.Nope, that's proof of Chaos.

faithless

01-11-2005, 10:40 AM

Nope, that's proof of Chaos.
Indeed.
The sun and the stars are continuing cataclysmic, armegadonic explosions of a magnitude that would make the recent tsunami look not even like a ripple on the ocean.
The universe: the granddaddy of all chaos.

mataj

01-11-2005, 10:59 AM

The universe: the granddaddy of all chaos.If the Big Bang theory is correct, universe is one huge, big explosion. I wander what gods are intending to demolish.

Or, maybe... Maybe it's just a firecracker accident. Shocked, burnt, and whimpering Creator will run home to mama immediately after completion of the explosion... I mean end of the universe.

Churlant

01-11-2005, 11:05 AM

What is the purpose of these threads?
Do atheist get a rise out of making non-atheists prove their religion to them? Are you looking for more recruits?

Either you believe in God or you don't.

I'm not an atheist. I do get a rise out of people trying to prove God with the Moon, however.

The purpose of this thread is simple - share your experiences. Sadly it has failed in that regard. No one is any more willing to share what they think "proves" their God than they are willing to entertain the opposing viewpoint.

If you talk to a believer, they insist they know there is a God and they have had personal contact, etc. As I have never personally been in His presence or the witness of an event that was unexplained by more basic (ie non-supernatural) means, I am curious to know what I'm missing.

Another unfortunate aspect of this thread is the only God we seem to be discussing is the Christian version... a pity.

-JC

Rivet

01-11-2005, 11:47 AM

If you talk to a believer, they insist they know there is a God and they have had personal contact, etc. As I have never personally been in His presence or the witness of an event that was unexplained by more basic (ie non-supernatural) means, I am curious to know what I'm missing.

I am not sure anyone can prove to anyone else the existence of God by their own personal experiences. You can always write them off. I haven't had any kind of breakthrough experiences either - like seeing angels, having a one-on-one discussion with God, premonitions, or other supernatural expereinces. I just feel his presence sometimes.

God is something you have to find out on your own I guess.

In my opinion our religions only scratch the surface of what God (or spirit, or life force or whatever you want to name it) is.
:angel:

Churlant

01-11-2005, 11:56 AM

I am not sure anyone can prove to anyone else the existence of God by their own personal experiences. You can always write them off. I haven't had any kind of breakthrough experiences either - like seeing angels, having a one-on-one discussion with God, premonitions, or other supernatural expereinces. I just feel his presence sometimes.

God is something you have to find out on your own I guess.

In my opinion our religions only scratch the surface of what God (or spirit, or life force or whatever you want to name it) is.
:angel:

Some people are quite sure they know who God is. Their religion has it nailed, so to speak. Personal experiences can be written off true... but that isn't the intent of this thread.

:shrug:

I'm not interested in debating a person's experiences - I just want to hear about them. I'm getting quite tired of conversations as follows:

Person A: "I know there is a God"
Person B: "How?"
Person A: "I've talked to Him"
Person B: "About what?"
Person A: "Everything"
Person B: "This was a two-way conversation?"
Person A: "Of course"
Person B: "In what way?"
Person A: "God is always speaking to us, you just have to listen"
Person A ::subtle wink, nod, and condescending smile follows::
Person B: "Are you being vague on purpose?"
Person A: "Maybe"

It's easy to claim the existence of a thing only you can see and hear, quite another to actually give a description to that sound and sight. That's what I'm asking for, however. In something of more substance than "just look around you!" I mean.

-JC

DRMIZER

01-11-2005, 12:04 PM

proof of god?? look around you--the sun, the moon, the stars, the earth, YOULogically, I think you are about as close to proof as one can get.

Albert

01-11-2005, 12:34 PM

JC,
I believe what confounds most of us is the belief that there must be some organizational force in the universe and our need to believe that we somehow understand this force and that this force is on our side.

It is one of the mysteries of our make up that makes having rational discussions so difficult we use words like faith and belief as if they were the same. I have observed that most people, who refer to themselves as “the faithful” don’t really have faith at all. Rather they have a well-regimented belief system that they have committed a great deal of emotional energy to. When their beliefs are challenged they become compelled to defend their beliefs as if their entire faith depended on it.

I personally understand faith to be a much less tangible thing. There are many things about this universe I do not comprehend or understand. I do not know the answers but I have faith that there is an answer even though I have no evidence to believe that there is. My belief is that if I stay open and empty of preconception I will move closer to understanding.

cpwill

01-11-2005, 12:49 PM

Not really. You can't just take one set of theories and apply it to another force entirely. Just because society "evolves" doesn't mean it will mirror the evolution of species. Trying to mesh the two is just another way to discredit the one - or justify the takeover of the world, of course.

hey; you're the one arguing for the naturally arising morality from a darwinistic source, not me :)

Besides... how do you even determine ours as a "better" model?

because we survive better; we are more self-sustatining; we are bigger, richer, stronger. should the need arrive, we can face competition that they can't. if our goal is darwinistic improvement of the species it is therefore our Duty to wipe them out to allow superior strains to flourish. nor am i the first one to realize this: Darwinism and the evolution of the species has been used as the reason/excused to commit genocide prior to this debate.
If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.
But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that is the strongest and best who must truimph and that they have the right to endure. He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist

say this about him; as screwed up as he was, the man had a keen grasp about the natural moral consequences of application of a darwinistic morality.

Scientific advancement? Sailing ships? Spears vs guns? The Egyptians didn't even have the wheel, yet they were able to survive and thrive for quite a while.

yup, and at the time this made them the best adapted to survive, which justifies all the conqering they did.
and perhaps this is picky; but if they didn't have the wheel; what did all those chariots they utilized for battle ride on?

You seem to be equating "superiority" with "moral superiority"...

if morality is in keeping with darwinistic values; then that is indeed the fact; evolution has one goal: improve the species in order to garuntee survival. if morality comes as a means of supporting evolution; it will have that goal itself.

In the end you can't really say who is "inferior" and justify that statement. As Americans, we believed Native Americans were inferior, thus their land and resources (and lives) belonged to us. Even more, we believed our own superiority to be God-given - sound familiar?

yup:) that would be a perfect example of a time when we allowed our Moral Law to be diverted by our darwinistic tendencies; however, if you'll notice, at the time, we tried to make constant excuses for what we were doing. this will help the indians; we're bringing them to christianity, we're civilizing them, etc. etc. etc.; you don't make excuses for something unless something tells you it's wrong.

So, inferior based on what? Of all your talk about spears... you should know that a single race of natives living on an island chain devastated by the tsunami survived - all 500 of them. When the coast guard came to offer aid, they were shot at with arrows.

How did these people survive on such technologies when so many of their "superiors" did not? The answer might be surprising... and it also shows they aren't quite as inferior as one might believe.

-JC

woopdedoo; and if tsunami's were a regular part of life on earth, then according to darwinistic morality they should survive to take over after we're all killed. however, as tsunami's aren't; then the type most generall adaptable and able to succeed in life overall should succeed.

Albert

01-11-2005, 12:57 PM

CP,
You should think about renting a movie called ‘Black Robe” for an interesting take on Religion and Native Americans.

The problem with Darwinism in application to human experience (AKA Social Darwinism) is that in relative terms the variance within our species is insignificant. If our civilization where wiped from the map. I believe the primitive tribes on remote islands would be the only humans equipped to survive.

Churlant

01-11-2005, 02:29 PM

hey; you're the one arguing for the naturally arising morality from a darwinistic source, not me :)

Actually, in this thread it is not part of the question, and I am arguing nothing.

because we survive better; we are more self-sustatining; we are bigger, richer, stronger. should the need arrive, we can face competition that they can't. if our goal is darwinistic improvement of the species it is therefore our Duty to wipe them out to allow superior strains to flourish. nor am i the first one to realize this: Darwinism and the evolution of the species has been used as the reason/excused to commit genocide prior to this debate.

A madman can use anything to justify genocide. This isn't really a question in this thread either. Really - can we just get to actual descriptions of proof rather than trying to "disprove" anything? This isn't just you either :p

The thread is to PROVE God, not DISPROVE someone else's.

and perhaps this is picky; but if they didn't have the wheel; what did all those chariots they utilized for battle ride on?

The Egyptians got their hands on chariots relatively late.

if morality is in keeping with darwinistic values; then that is indeed the fact; evolution has one goal: improve the species in order to garuntee survival. if morality comes as a means of supporting evolution; it will have that goal itself.

This is arguable... but again, not the thread.

yup:) that would be a perfect example of a time when we allowed our Moral Law to be diverted by our darwinistic tendencies; however, if you'll notice, at the time, we tried to make constant excuses for what we were doing. this will help the indians; we're bringing them to christianity, we're civilizing them, etc. etc. etc.; you don't make excuses for something unless something tells you it's wrong.

:lol: WRONG! :lol:

The posting of which doesn't automatically make you wrong, of course, but again - wrong thread. I'm not getting into this yet again. You can take "Darwin's Evolution" to whatever extremes and interpretations you like. The fact remains it is a theory which has many variables and many refinements yet to be made or discovered.

woopdedoo; and if tsunami's were a regular part of life on earth, then according to darwinistic morality they should survive to take over after we're all killed. however, as tsunami's aren't; then the type most generall adaptable and able to succeed in life overall should succeed.
[/quote]

You keep speaking of "darwinistic morality" as if it were static and you were an expert on the subject.

Neither is true :) You just can't apply the concepts known about evolution of species to morality alone. There are too many variables to make such blanket generalizations.

-JC

cpwill

01-11-2005, 02:46 PM

Proof for the second clause of this assertion? Not only that, but I still don't see how most of this is relevent to refuting the other possibilities that I brought up.

:shrug: being a finite reality; infinite cannot exist at all in the real since.

however, outside the universe; multiple infinites cannot exist because that would call for seperation between them; borders, if you will; parts where they are not, because another is. however, if there are parts where they are not, then, by definition, they are not infinite.

Which ones are flat out impossible?

:shrug: the endless expanding/retracting universe theory for one.

And, on what basis do you know they're impossible?

what we know of science, and logic.

Discussing the cosmology of the universe is a bit like discussing God- who are you to declare something as possible or impossible? ;)

I Am Authur! King of the Britons! And this is my trusty squire Patsy!:lol:

No, my point is there is reason to believe that physics in any universe or physical reality must function as they do. If this is true, the whole argument about things being necessarily fine tuned is meaningless if all physical realities necessarily have the same physical laws.

based on what? no other realities or universes ever having been observed in any manner whatsoever; it's backless postulating; a feel-good measure that's not only statistically unlikely beyond reason, but an answer that depends upon a blind faith in materialism. :rolleyes: and athiests accuse theists of coming up with baseless claims to fill a gap or cover a problem.

No, read closely- I said that the assumption that life and the universe necessarily would exist is a unproven one.

not much of one for "i think therefore i am" are we?;)
i'm willing to take the existance of life and the universe as an assumption. after all; if i'm wrong; then my being wrong won't exactly change anything, because i won't exist. :)

Well then, what do you mean by God? The term "God" is completely insufficient to describe certain beliefs about the nature ultimate divine reality in other religions besides Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

God at His most basic, if you will; that infinite immaterial intellegence responsible for the creation of the universe and life.

I'm surprised- you should know better about evolution than that. First of all, the ultimate evolutionary effect of developing a system of morality is that it increases survival, thus being beneficial in an evolutionary sense. But no one, upon seeing their daughter about to be hit by a bus, would think "Oh my God- I must protect my daughter to ensure she reaches sexual maturity and produces many offspring, thus ensuring our genetic line!" Rather, the father will simply act and try to save his daughter's life. Likewise, the same applies with a retarded person or someone else who doesn't contribute to the gene pool. We don't develop a selective morality simply to save individuals on the basis of their contributions to the further survival of the species.

well then; in that case morality doesn't arise from an evolutionary basis:)
the one goal in evolution is the further survival of the species.

We've got a bit sidetracked from the initial point however, namely that you are wrong about this dog-eat-dog misrepresentation of evolution.

oh, you are suggesting natural selection is not a part of evolution?

All that evolutionary theory suggests is that it is plausible for humans, as creatures capable of reasoning, to develop a system of morality, which in turns aids survivability. If we look at animals, for example, who according to the Bible were not endowed with morality as humans were, we can see nonetheless cooperation between members and even sacrifice made on the behalf of others.

yup; and always in such a manner that the instinct is developed with one goal in mind. an elk will protect her young to the death; she will not protect her grandmother once her grandmother no longer becomes viable.

Likewise, it is perfectly logical for intelligent beings such as ourselves to develop similar, though more sophisticated systems of interaction and peaceful cooperation with each other. After all, if humans really did only behave as you described in the example with the USA and Africa, everyone would be in constant peril and fear for their lives.

not really; the superior subsets would be fine; only the inferior strains (those whom, according to an evolutionary goal, are supposed to die) need fear; as they rightfully should.

It makes sense then that humans would develop systems of morality from an evolutionary perspective, and one of the evolutionary benefits of doing so is an increased chance of survival.

yes, the problem being that this system of morality that humans have developed doesn't seem to always necessarily benifit an increased chance of survival; in fact, often it directly contradicts it.

Because we have a system of morality. See above.

and why in the world would that system of morality tell us that animal abuse is wrong; that beating or torturing an animal that has no effect whatsoever on our ability to survive is covered within the bounds of morality at all?

Churlant

01-11-2005, 02:58 PM

no other realities or universes ever having been observed in any manner whatsoever

100% false. There is a great deal of indirect evidence, and more all the time. The only way a person can declare something as "impossible" is if they no longer wish to believe that which does not fit their current knowledge.

-JC

Redratio1

01-11-2005, 02:59 PM

And I was disputing the questioning what C.Darwin said.

Is Darwin some kind of prophet or something?

I 'm observing on this forum and elsewhere that the religious think that science-minded people see eminent scientists as prophets or religious personas, which of course is totally ridiculous.

I find it a little amusing.

They were people not demi-Gods! :rolleyes:

cpwill

01-11-2005, 03:14 PM

Dead serious Cpwill. One of my Christian friends in my first year at university gave me a book about Christ to read in the hopes that I might change my mind regarding my stance on Christianity. After reading it for a bit, I explained to my friend that the author stated that Jesus the person was altogether different from Jesus the literary construction of the Bible. Further, the author of the book mentioned that numerous other Biblical scholars have already reached this conclusion, and that it was not by any means new or uncommon.

well then, go get that book and let's have ourselves a debate.
i'll open up:

1. the accounts in the new testament are incredibly detailed and incredibly accurate; there are no less than 84 details in the second half of Acts alone that have been verified, ranging from local officials names, to regional slang, to roman military deployments, to correct lines of trade routes, to inscriptions on statues, to harbor depths.

2. the accounts in the new testament are unlikely to be something made up by the new testament authors; several times the authors give references, invite the reader to double-check them with easily available sources, and refer to events that would have been more than easily disproven by potential nay-sayers.

3. the accounts in the new testament are unlikely to be the product of embellishment of an otherwise true but less impressive story. this is for three reasons
A) if you were writing an embellishment to convince people to follow your religious claims, you wouldn't picture yourself as an ignorant, stupid, stubborn, faithless coward. in first century palestine you certainly wouldn't put women ahead of yourself.
B) of the disciples, only John managed to escape martyrdom(he was exiled to the isle of patmos), every other disciple was captured, tortured, and executed; when all they had to do to save themselves was recant. not one of them did few people are willing to suffer repeated beatings and arrests and eventually die so as to continue a practical joke which they know to be a lie. the conspiracy around nixon cracked like an egg, because one of them (james dean) broke in less than two weeks and turned states evidence under threat of plain old imprisonment; and those were people who believed they were doing the right thing. on the contrary; the writers of the new testament had every motivation to deny the events that they wrote about. you expect me to believe that in a conspiracy of people who believed they were doing the wrong thing, none of them cracked under far far worse?
and C) the early church engaged in several debates, both theological and practical; and yet, the gospel writers never had Jesus comment on any of them. how easy it would be (if you're embellishing anyway) to have the Ultimate Authority come down on your side. but in fact, far from actually doing this, the gospel authors almost go in the opposite direction, deliberately including difficult and embarrassing sayings of Jesus, things that are not only difficult to accept (thus hurting recruitment), but would weaken their authority within the church (after all; they'd have to be servants). had they been embellishing, the authors would have created a Jesus a bit more helpful to them.

4. the new testament documents simeoultaneously agree with each others' stories while differing on details of the accounts. had they differed in the same basic story; then obviously there were major parts that each was having to provide on his own, but had they contained no divergent details whatsoever it would have had to have been a collusion; something predetermined by a group prior to the writings. Simon Greenleaf, the Harvard Professor who wrote the standard study on what constitutes legal evidence actually declares that the four Gospels "would have been recieved in evidence in any court of justice without hesitation." if that's an appeal to an authority, it's an appeal to a dang good one who is a bit of what you might call an expert in these affairs.

5. The writings were eyewitness accounts, with the exception of Luke; who openly points out that he himself is not an eyewitness; but is rather a researcher who has gathered the evidence together.

your turn:)

cpwill

01-11-2005, 03:14 PM

That's a poor comparison- you're not immaterial, nor is there immediate reason to doubt your existence, since human beings of all sorts are consistent with almost everyone's daily experiences. Not so with God.

not at all; God is part of all sorts of human beings daily experiences.

And differing levels of spirituality is fine, but God is quite capable of interacting with a person who has no spirituality.

indeed, but are they capable of interacting with Him?

In my experience, the people who believe in God have the events of their life coloured by their beliefs that He has interacted with them in some way, while those who do not believe in him do not thusly have their events in their life coloured by their beliefs. In other words, daily life events that would not reinforce the belief of the existence of God suddenly do begin to reinforce this belief. Or, to put it another way, people see God's interaction in their life because they believe He is interacting in it.

rather because they observe Him interacting in it.

True, but you have to prove that one person is telling the truth, hence the title of this thread. Otherwise you've got one giant argumentum ad numerum.

callin me a liar?:)
callin billions liars?

all of us, somehow coming up with the same lie?

and why would any of us be willing to die for that which we know is false? why would i even be willing to give up parts of my life that i don't want to give up for such a thing?

One cannot disprove God, but one can doubt His existence, on the basis of a number of factors, all of which you have heard before. I have a much harder time doubting or casting doubt onto the Deist version of God;

why. because it's less invasive to you?

cpwill

01-11-2005, 03:17 PM

100% false. There is a great deal of indirect evidence, and more all the time. The only way a person can declare something as "impossible" is if they no longer wish to believe that which does not fit their current knowledge.

-JC
wrong, sorry; the existance of other universes; has been postulated, it has never been observed.

furthermore, it just pushes the debate out further; what causes all the different universes?

cpwill

01-11-2005, 03:24 PM

Actually, in this thread it is not part of the question, and I am arguing nothing.

well then heck, why'd you chime in?

A madman can use anything to justify genocide. This isn't really a question in this thread either. Really - can we just get to actual descriptions of proof rather than trying to "disprove" anything? This isn't just you either :p

The thread is to PROVE God, not DISPROVE someone else's.

yes, and i argued that Moral Law was evidence of God's existance, someone else said no, it could arise from evolutionary sources, and then we got into the point about how a morality with evolutionary goals as it's highest order would be different from the morality that we have. ;)

The Egyptians got their hands on chariots relatively late.

but had them, and had carts before that;) we've got wall paintings and carvings full of them.

This is arguable... but again, not the thread.

as it's part of the evidence presented it certainly is part of the thread; however, if you wish to engage in a seperate debate about it, i do believe there are a couple of other threads currently touching on it.

:lol: WRONG! :lol:

The posting of which doesn't automatically make you wrong, of course, but again - wrong thread. I'm not getting into this yet again.

:lol: yarg, this is part of the debate, :sorry: you argued that God not responding is evidence against his existance, i'm pointing out that you are wrong, and that in face He does respond.

You can take "Darwin's Evolution" to whatever extremes and interpretations you like. The fact remains it is a theory which has many variables and many refinements yet to be made or discovered.

and some basic precepts; among which is natural selection.

you keep speaking of "darwinistic morality" as if it were static and you were an expert on the subject.

not at all, the information i am utilizing is available to any highschooler.

Neither is true :) You just can't apply the concepts known about evolution of species to morality alone.

so then morality WASN'T the product of evolution? :eek:;)

cytwombly

01-11-2005, 03:27 PM

[QUOTE=cpwill]

callin me a liar?:)
callin billions liars?

all of us, somehow coming up with the same lie?

and why would any of us be willing to die for that which we know is false? why would i even be willing to give up parts of my life that i don't want to give up for such a thing?
QUOTE]

It never ceases to amaze me that Christians who claim to be following Jesus would take his singular life and say therefore the masses can't be wrong.
The irony is lost on Christiandom.
Needless to say, the people who voted for Hitler and marched when he said go also thought the many can't be wrong.
And as for "the same lie," theism and anthormorpic gods are pretty darn old.

Churlant

01-11-2005, 03:34 PM

wrong, sorry; the existance of other universes; has been postulated, it has never been observed.

furthermore, it just pushes the debate out further; what causes all the different universes?

When did someone tell you that denying a fact means you're right? ;)

We've never seen a black hole either, but I doubt you'll find many who still deny their existence. How DO we see them? Indirectly, of course.

None of this discounts the possibility that a God created a "beginning" in which these things can take place. Of course it is just as likely they were always here. "Infinite" to us is a purely abstract term. Just because we can't grasp the possibility of no true beginning doesn't mean there was one. Perhaps the Universe(s) always was, always is, always will be. There are some theories of the Big Bang which suggest that the initial explosion is causes by vibrations in alternative realities - explosions which occur at an ongoing basis. When our own Universe folds back into itself, it may simply melt into another - or it may be doing that now. Who knows? Except followers of God that is. :rolleyes:

Plus your deep-seated need to know what causes something before it is allowed to be true isn't helpful. Just because you have no clue what caused additional universes to exist doesn't mean they do not :) It just means you don't know. I don't either. Might as well accept it now - you will probably NEVER know, at least not in this lifetime.

-JC

cpwill

01-11-2005, 03:39 PM

When did someone tell you that denying a fact means you're right? ;)

We've never seen a black hole either, but I doubt you'll find many who still deny their existence. How DO we see them?

we observe them, their results. we have evidence for them. we have no such evidence for the existance of multiple universes.

None of this discounts the possibility that a God created a "beginning" in which these things can take place.

which would presuppose God's existance, thus answering the question of this thread.

Of course it is just as likely they were always here. "Infinite" to us is a purely abstract term. Just because we can't grasp the possibility of no true beginning doesn't mean there was one.

what, a true beginning, or a lack thereof?

Perhaps the Universe(s) always was, always is, always will be. There are some theories of the Big Bang which suggest that the initial explosion is causes by vibrations in alternative realities - explosions which occur at an ongoing basis. When our own Universe folds back into itself, it may simply melt into another - or it may be doing that now. Who knows? Except followers of God that is. :rolleyes:

and those who wish to employ their logic on such a situation. :)

Plus your deep-seated need to know what causes something before it is allowed to be true isn't helpful.

i know, it brings up such disturbing conotations and possibilities for those interested in proving an athiestic universe :)

Just because you have no clue what caused additional universes to exist doesn't mean they do not :)

no, the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of their existance causes me to doubt their existance, and the fact that other universe's being in existance wouldn't alter the argument one iota causes me not to care all that much :)

Churlant

01-11-2005, 03:40 PM

:lol: yarg, this is part of the debate, :sorry: you argued that God not responding is evidence against his existance, i'm pointing out that you are wrong, and that in face He does respond.

Voices in your head don't count as response.

Sound harsh? Good. Don't tell me he responds when He does not and I won't tell you he DOESN'T respond when he does. It works both ways.

not at all, the information i am utilizing is available to any highschooler.

Right. Find me a HS in this country that actually has classes on morality. Then find me two ;)

so then morality WASN'T the product of evolution? :eek:;)

all or nothing all or nothing all or nothing all or nothing all or nothing

Doesn't that get old?

The most basic morality is a product of survival. Religious morality is by definition a product of our evolution. One was first, the other was second. I know you don't agree, but it happens a lot.

Now... do you want to share some experiences with God, or not? That's kind of the point here.

-JC

cpwill

01-11-2005, 03:44 PM

Voices in your head don't count as response.

:) in that case you don't count, goodbye. :wave:

Churlant

01-11-2005, 03:45 PM

we observe them, their results. we have evidence for them. we have no such evidence for the existance of multiple universes.

Yes. We. Do. The two of us can go around like this until we drop dead. You don't accept my evidence and you won't present your own. Useless.

what, a true beginning, or a lack thereof?

There may not be a beginning. None. Zip. Always was. That's it. No cause, no origination - just always there. Impossible? Nope. Just not something you accept.

and those who wish to employ their logic on such a situation. :)

Isn't that how religious debate works? One God over Another - that is personal logic. I'm not sure what your point is...

no, the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of their existance causes me to doubt their existance, and the fact that other universe's being in existance wouldn't alter the argument one iota causes me not to care all that much :)

Once again - you're wrong :) You're right in that it doesn't make much difference. One Universe or 1,000 - God created them all.

Now why don't you prove it?

-JC

Churlant

01-11-2005, 03:47 PM

:) in that case you don't count, goodbye. :wave:

:shrug:

You don't see evidence of additional Universes... so you deny the possibility. I don't see evidence of God conversing with us, so I deny the possibility. How are these two beliefs different?

Except for the perception that you are right and I am wrong, that is. :rolleyes:

-JC

cpwill

01-11-2005, 03:47 PM

interesting; you don't exist, and yet i still could swear i see you making posts.....

Churlant

01-11-2005, 03:48 PM

interesting; you don't exist, and yet i still could swear i see you making posts.....

Do you ever answer a direct question? If I saw a post from God, we'd be talking about the same thing.

I don't. We aren't.

-JC

cpwill

01-11-2005, 04:00 PM

Do you ever answer a direct question?

i've been doing nothing but for the last 5 pages; however, i'm willing to be willing to extend you more benifite of the doubt than you seem to be willing to extend me: we shall continue.

Voices in your head don't count as response.

a silly proposition; if this is the case then i have no reason to listen to anything, from what you are posting to what my mother tells me on the phone. i'm not simply talking about a voice.

Sound harsh? Good.

:lol: why? are you intending to be?

Don't tell me he responds when He does not and I won't tell you he DOESN'T respond when he does. It works both ways.

i've witnessed the one; all you've done is witness a lack of it. i've also seen the aereogapagus; unless you've done the same no doubt you doubt it?
He responds; not simply verbally but in a dozen different ways; i can attest to it personally.

Right. Find me a HS in this country that actually has classes on morality. Then find me two

actually what i was referring to was the darwinistic theory of natural selection; but since you asked there are plenty of highschools which have classes on morality. my school had a bit every morning on it.

all or nothing all or nothing all or nothing all or nothing all or nothing

Doesn't that get old?

The most basic morality is a product of survival. Religious morality is by definition a product of our evolution. One was first, the other was second. I know you don't agree, but it happens a lot.

if religious morality is a product of evolution then it will carry with it laws and results predetermined by evolution; our religious morality does not carry with it those laws and results, and is therefore unlikely to have sprung from evolution.

Now... do you want to share some experiences with God, or not? That's kind of the point here.

:rolleyes: i thought we were discussing the existance of God; but since you asked, what would you like? :)

Churlant

01-11-2005, 04:07 PM

i've witnessed the one; all you've done is witness a lack of it. i've also seen the aereogapagus; unless you've done the same no doubt you doubt it?
He responds; not simply verbally but in a dozen different ways; i can attest to it personally.

I take your word for it that you believe what you witnessed/experiences was from God. It may be. It may not be.

Again - you refuse the existence of another Universe because you see no proof of one. *I* refuse the existence of a God because I see no proof of one. YOU see proof of God... to me it is irrelevant. *I* see proof of another Universe, to YOU that is irrelevant.

You really can't understand how these two things are parallel?

:rolleyes: i thought we were discussing the existance of God; but since you asked, what would you like? :)

Details. I am always asking for details, I never get any. This is the heart of God's existence to you. The whole point is to put out your proof of Him. Not to beat down someone else's beliefs. Not to beat down Darwin. Not to pretend something else is wrong or doesn't exist or is stupid... it's to put your own damn beliefs on the table and back them up.

This is what I keep asking for - instead the thread has devolved into another evolution vs creationism vs faith mess. I shouldn't be surprised, but I am. There are already plenty of existing threads for those circular arguments.

-JC

cpwill

01-11-2005, 04:08 PM

Yes. We. Do. The two of us can go around like this until we drop dead. You don't accept my evidence and you won't present your own. Useless.

:laughter: you want me to post my evidence when what i am arguing is that there is no evidence? what would you like, a series of articles which don't mention any evidence for alternate universes? :)

There may not be a beginning. None. Zip. Always was. That's it. No cause, no origination - just always there. Impossible? Nope. Just not something you accept.

something which is disproven both by science and by logic.

Isn't that how religious debate works? One God over Another - that is personal logic. I'm not sure what your point is...

alright, look, i'll spell it out for you; it's actually very simple.

okay, taking as an assumption that today exists.
taking as an assumption that tomorow will come after today.
taking as an assumption that yesterday occured before today.
taking as an assumption that therefore, time moves in linear order: specifically: yesterday, today, tomorow.
If time is infinite, there is an infinite number of both yesterday's and todays'; each extending endlessly in both directions from today, forwards and backwards.
however, if there is an infinite number of yesterday's, then we could never get to today by moving in that sequential order, there would always be more yesterday's pushing it back.
therefore, if today is real (which we assumed); then an infinite number of days could not precede it.
but, if there is not an infinite number of preceding days, then time has (at some point) a starting point; at which point time is not infinite, but rather has a border.
thus, our existance in the current disproves the possibility of time being infinite.
now, in order to respond, you have to exist in this universe, which means that you have to exist on the timeline; which means that by your response you are providing evidence for the assertion that time is not infinite.

Once again - you're wrong :)

then please provide our observations of other universes.

You're right in that it doesn't make much difference. One Universe or 1,000 - God created them all.

yup.

Churlant

01-11-2005, 04:12 PM

then please provide our observations of other universes.

Evasion. I can play a cute game of riddlemethis too.

Take an arrow and fire it at a target. The space it passes through to that target as a middle point:

-----------------*----------------

The star being the middle of the arrow's flight. There is also a mid-point to that star...

--------*--------*----------------

And a mid-point to that one.

----*-----*-----*----------------

So basically there are an infinite number of mid-points as you continue to fold the space in half.

However, if the arrow must travel through an 'infinite' number of mid-points, how does it ever reach the target?

-JC

Wasn't that fun?

Boldnold

01-11-2005, 04:14 PM

I guess you can look at it like this; If God (if there is a God) exists, then I suppose God can be, do or look like anything he wants. If God doesn't exist, then the maybe someone can explain why we exist?

Boldnold

Churlant

01-11-2005, 04:15 PM

cpwill

01-11-2005, 04:17 PM

I take your word for it that you believe what you witnessed/experiences was from God.

in that case, if you are not willing to accept the existance of God from this, you must either declare me to be hallucinagenic, or insane. you must not only claim this for me, personally; but for billions upon billions of humans; including some of our best minds, from newton to mendel to einstein.

Again - you refuse the existence of another Universe because you see no proof of one. *I* refuse the existence of a God because I see no proof of one. YOU see proof of God... to me it is irrelevant. *I* see proof of another Universe, to YOU that is irrelevant.

You really can't understand how these two things are parallel?

because they are not, firstly because there is no independent evidence of alternate universes; billions of people aren't claiming to have interacted with them. the best you have is some mathemeticians and scientists saying it's a possibility. there is no positive evidence whatsoever.

The whole point is to put out your proof of Him. Not to beat down someone else's beliefs.

well then what the heck is it that you're doing?
you asked for my evidence, i gave some of it to you; and yet here you are debating.

Not to beat down Darwin.

i am not, nor have i intended to beat down darwin. people have tried to extend his theories past their bounds to disagree with me, mind you.

Not to pretend something else is wrong or doesn't exist or is stupid... it's to put your own damn beliefs on the table and back them up.

:lol: and what the heck do you think it is that i am doing; that i have been doing for the past 6 pages, and multiple threads?

This is what I keep asking for - instead the thread has devolved into another evolution vs creationism vs faith mess.

where? all i've seen is a debate on the source of morality; not the species itself. however if you want to get into that too, i have no problem with it; as it, too, is evidence of God.

cpwill

01-11-2005, 04:18 PM

Evasion. I can play a cute game of riddlemethis too.

Take an arrow and fire it at a target. The space it passes through to that target as a middle point:

-----------------*----------------

The star being the middle of the arrow's flight. There is also a mid-point to that star...

--------*--------*----------------

And a mid-point to that one.

----*-----*-----*----------------

So basically there are an infinite number of mid-points as you continue to fold the space in half.

in the theory land of mathmatics, yes; however, not in reality, and especially not in time.

furthermore, your argument only proves to strengthen mine; the arrow had both a beginning and an ending point; the existance of infinite theoretical points in between these two borders does not alter the fact that there are borders, and, hence, definitionally; the line is not infinite.

Boldnold

01-11-2005, 04:48 PM

If God exists and if he created the universe, then I guess he can create or destroy anything in any fashion or manner he wants. If God doesn't exist, then why is the universe here?

Boldnold

cytwombly

01-11-2005, 04:53 PM

If God exists and if he created the universe, then I guess he can create or destroy anything in any fashion or manner he wants. If God doesn't exist, then why is the universe here?

Boldnold

Who said the universe needs "god" in order to exist? Apparently the universe exists for people who don't believe in god, why the dilema?

Boldnold

01-11-2005, 05:03 PM

If God doesn't exist, why does the universe and people exist?

Boldnold

cytwombly

01-11-2005, 05:05 PM

If God doesn't exist, why does the universe and people exist?

Boldnold

Why does God exist? Same question. If you say God is self existing, I will answer same about universe.

Churlant

01-11-2005, 05:07 PM

where? all i've seen is a debate on the source of morality; not the species itself. however if you want to get into that too, i have no problem with it; as it, too, is evidence of God.

The beginning of this thread, actually. Read it again. Still no details. Never any details from you. Just roundabout faith wrapped up in science wrapped up in presumption of being right. All I want is a story of a miracle or two or whatever you've got, because I'm honest to God curious.

All I get is more "I'm right, you're wrong, but I'm not going to explain why until YOU can prove me wrong"

I don't know why I bother.

-JC

Boldnold

01-11-2005, 05:34 PM

Why does God exist? Same question. If you say God is self existing, I will answer same about universe.

I believe I 'haven't' said God is self existing. I believe that God (if he does exist) has no explanation because no person living on this earth now or in the past can give no explanation.

Boldnold :)

mataj

01-11-2005, 06:03 PM

I 'm observing on this forum and elsewhere that the religious think that science-minded people see eminent scientists as prophets or religious personas, which of course is totally ridiculous.

I find it a little amusing.

They were people not demi-Gods! :rolleyes:
Yea, that was my point.

I had a debate on a local forum with a famous-scientists-also-believe-in-god kinda fellow a while ago. Frustrated by may lack of idolization of the famous scientists, he scolded me that I'm taking scientists for a lab rats :p

If God doesn't exist, why does the universe and people exist?For no particular purpose, I hope.

If you crave for purpose though, I suggest you read Kurt Vonnegut's book "The Sirens of Titan" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385333498/103-0498530-4284623?v=glance). You'll find some very interesting answers there.

green lantern

01-11-2005, 06:52 PM

Nope, that's proof of Chaos.where do you see chaos? there is an order to things in the universe.

Boldnold

01-11-2005, 07:06 PM

where do you see chaos? there is an order to things in the universe.

If there is a 'choas' then it is a human interuptation of what we think an 'orderly' or 'not so orderly' universe should be like. We don't know what the creator (if there is a creator) had in mind when he made the universe (if in fact he made it) orderly or not. All we know is what we see or what we think we see and that's all.

Boldnold :)

Kathryn

01-11-2005, 07:29 PM

cpwill

01-11-2005, 07:31 PM

The beginning of this thread, actually. Read it again.

looked through it again; still not seeing where i argued against evolution. perhaps you are thinking of someone else?

Still no details. Never any details from you.

i've given plenty of details in this and other threads on this subject. it's not my fault if you're not finding the IT that you're looking for.

Just roundabout faith wrapped up in science wrapped up in presumption of being right.

nothing roundabout about my faith; science adds to it; and yes, i think that i'm right because i don't think that i'm insane.

All I want is a story of a miracle or two or whatever you've got, because I'm honest to God curious.

well heck, that's not difficult; would you consider seeing the future or being given knowledge that you have no business knowing miraculous? perhaps being given words; i've seen physical manifestations, if that's what you're interested in...

All I get is more "I'm right, you're wrong, but I'm not going to explain why until YOU can prove me wrong"

I don't know why I bother.

-JC

dude, my first post was a list of reasons why i believed what i believed, everything since then has been dealing with challenges to that; go back and read yourself before you put on the prima donna act.

mataj

01-11-2005, 07:37 PM

If there is a 'choas' then it is a human interuptation of what we think an 'orderly' or 'not so orderly' universe should be like.Exactly.

When you study something in detail, you sooner or later come across chaos. Chaos is inherent in every little piece of our time and space, and present wherever something interesting is happening.

Boldnold

01-11-2005, 07:45 PM

"If you say God is self existing, I will answer same about universe." Boldnold

God always was and always will be. God is the first cause that created the universe out of nothing. Our universe has limits. Our universe had a finite beginning in time.

Obviously you know something that most, if not all us don't know. Please let us know the line of communication you have with the creator (if there is a creator), so that we may also share the joy of knowing what the creator has in mind for the rest of us.

Boldnold :)

Churlant

01-11-2005, 08:15 PM

and yes, i think that i'm right because i don't think that i'm insane.

Just because you are wrong doesn't make you insane - it makes you mistaken, and it means you have misinterpreted an experience or event - but insanity? No need :)

The human mind easily fools itself - both in serious and simple ways. Especially when one thinks of such things as fasting or traveling long distances through a desert to become closer to God (the side-effects of which just happens to include hallucinations), it isn't hard to imagine how average, and especially already highly religious people might have "visions".

But that isn't really the point. You're viewing this as an 'all or nothing' once again. Just because the source of your experiences isn't God doesn't make them any LESS real. Making the source of those experiences a God doesn't make them any MORE real. Neither circumstance means you are insane - you obviously are not. You have to get away from the "everything must have an explanation - I default to the easiest available". Some things may not have a source you can know - filling in the blanks just to make sure you aren't "crazy" doesn't do any good.

well heck, that's not difficult; would you consider seeing the future or being given knowledge that you have no business knowing miraculous? perhaps being given words; i've seen physical manifestations, if that's what you're interested in...

.

No details.. I wanted details. Details. Get details? I know you've seen the future and "seen" something physical, but I've also seen the future and had physical manifestations :p Mine are simply admitted fiction.

So come on :p details are what I keep asking for, and you keep skimming the request.

-JC

Boldnold

01-11-2005, 09:22 PM

Churlant

01-11-2005, 11:23 PM

We all long for supernatural events or miracles to happen during our lifetimes to help explain away the mystery questions about God and the universe. Science helps but it's probably safe to say that 'if' God exists, then it's possible that God exists in a realm, dimension and/or form that we cannot not yet begin to imagine or even yet begin to comprehend. The reality of God (if God exists) may well be beyond the imagination or understanding of what the human mind can realize, concieve and rationalize, at least in human terms. In simple terms, God is probably beyond our grasp of our understanding. It's hard to understand something you can't see, hear or feel. You think he's here, you think he's there, but you don't know for sure and there's 'no way' to prove it. For the majority of us, the same goes for 'God'.

Boldnold

I don't know why you insist on limiting not only yourself, but everyone else along with you. If you don't intend to discover the true existence and nature of a God, that's for you to decide. The rest of us might wish to follow the road of discovery.

One day we may find ourselves as Gods. Certainly if you look at some of the scientific advancements of recent years, you can't help but wonder what another thousand years would yield.

Nothing is beyond our potential and all things outside our grasp today will be firmly in hand tomorrow. A lack of understanding is never an excuse to give up - it is an inspiration to try harder.

-JC