What is your favorite proof for God?

[iNow]

I can't see Jesus under a microscope, though... no matter what magnification.

[Mr Skeptic]

When I have a cold, I don't need to see the bacteria, I see the symptoms that result from the bacteria creating the cold to know that the bacteria is there. So is the resurrection of Jesus, do i need to see Him resurrect to believe, or see the masses of followers of His time that believed it.

 

I thought that colds were caused by evil spirits, or by an imbalance of the humors? People were pretty resistant to the idea that diseases were caused by microorganisms until we got microscopes.

[rigney]

I think humans eventually evolve into beings so powerful they merge into a hive mind and become God, at the end of time they go back in time and create the universe so they can evolve, deny God's existence, and evolve into God..... and so it goes, what goes around eventually comes around...

 

Might this not also be considered, Postulation? Or does "think", absolve you of that premise?

 

Thor! No way, only a Goddess can give birth to the Universe, the very idea of a male supreme being is blasphemy!

 

it's not nice to deny Mother Nature!

 

 

I don't know why the image failed to show.... Possibly the faeries and elves objected

 

Seriously, why didn't the image show up?

 

 

Is the below not also postulation, or have I missed something?

 

quote name='Moontanman' date='21 August 2010 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1282429925' post='561097']

Thor! No way, only a Goddess can give birth to the Universe, the very idea of a male supreme being is blasphemy!

[Moontanman]

Might this not also be considered, Postulation? Or does "think", absolve you of that premise?

 

 

 

 

Is the below not also postulation, or have I missed something?

 

quote name='Moontanman' date='21 August 2010 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1282429925' post='561097']

Thor! No way, only a Goddess can give birth to the Universe, the very idea of a male supreme being is blasphemy!

 

 

Yup, you missed something...

[rigney]

Yup, you missed something...

 

Evidently, but the kids keep me on my toes and are likely the reason

I remain an Agnostic. Oldest daughter sent this today.

 

I'd rather spend a lifetime believing in GOD, and an eternity finding out he isn't there.

Than believing he doesn't exist, only to have it revealed after my death, that he does?

Kids can make you wonder?

[Moontanman]

Well when you are dead, you are dead, no eternity of wondering what happened.... No wondering about anything, just nothing, the universe is neatly divided into three parts, before I existed, while I existed, and after my existence, my awareness only applies to one of those time periods....

[Mr Skeptic]

Evidently, but the kids keep me on my toes and are likely the reason

I remain an Agnostic. Oldest daughter sent this today.

 

I'd rather spend a lifetime believing in GOD, and an eternity finding out he isn't there.

Than believing he doesn't exist, only to have it revealed after my death, that he does?

Kids can make you wonder?

 

Hm, what religion does she belong to? According to the Bible, the dead know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5)

[The Clairvoyant]

If given eternity a monkey can re-create the complete works of Shakespeare on a type writer or so that's the theory. Daft theory really. Why a monkey ? Why not a snail ? Or an amoeba ? And why a type writer ? Given eternity surely an amoeba can re-create the entire works of Shakespeare in 57 languages (58 including amoeba speak) using the entire mettalic remnants of James Bonds Aston Martin.

 

Even given eternity, I don't believe the monkey could recreate Shakespeare and therefore neither could the amoeba.

 

In the same vein, I don't believe that the elements could have come together in such a way to allow intelligent life (whatever life is) within a relatively short few thousand billion years (compared to eternity). I evolved from being space dust to typing on this computer ! The chances of that happening must be similar to that as the monkey or amoeba theory and they got eternity (the little cheats) not a few, measly billion years !

 

Therefore, it seems much more plausible to me that we were created, because the restrictions of the time since the Big Bang surely would not be enough to evolve us from space dust to intelligent(ish) human life. Do the non-God believers really think it was enough time to turn us from lifeless elements into functioning live organic matter ?

 

Therefore, I reckon the probability is that we have a creator and he's told a few people his name is God.

[iNow]

I'd rather spend a lifetime believing in GOD, and an eternity finding out he isn't there.

Than believing he doesn't exist, only to have it revealed after my death, that he does?

Kids can make you wonder?

This what is known as Pascal's wager. It's silly on a number of levels. Here's a nice exposition on why (I've quoted just a sample):

 

 

http://saintgasoline.com/2008/12/28/what-if-youre-wrong/

 

Ultimately, Pascal’s wager as it is often formulated fails because it doesn’t address probability or evidence in any legitimate sense. For instance, we can be relatively certain that not showing up to work or calling the boss with wild tales about homicidal unicorns would lead to the loss of one’s job. However, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any such unicorns exist, that there exists a mechanism by which a fart could sustain a life indefinitely and cause untold suffering (most of the suffering from farts is not untold, but quite told), or that farts can indeed be rainbow-colored. When we make decisions, we don’t just consider the consequences that could potentially result from every possibility. We also consider how probable those possibilities are to begin with. So while the fear of infinite punishment from unicorn farts is certainly very great, it is decidedly counteracted by the almost infinite improbability of such a thing even existing. We can’t just assess consequences in the absence of any evidence.

 

With God, there is much similarity to these unicorns. We have much reason to find God’s existence improbable based upon his rather odd qualities (moral perfection combined with omnipotence and having rather exagerrated anger toward trees), as well as the lacking evidence of his existence. Of course, Pascal originally formulated his argument based upon the presumption that God’s existence could not be assessed by observational evidence, and that is precisely the major point where his argument falls to pieces.

 

Because evidence is not necessary to make decisions in Pascal’s scheme, one could formulate any possibility and would be forced to take it seriously solely on the merits of the seriousness of its consequences, and not the likelihood of the consequences actually existing. We could conceive of Gods who reward skeptical thinking, who punish those who believe in Jesus, who give candy canes to child rapists, and so on and so forth. There is no longer any reason to privilege a Judeo-Christian deity as the default and do our calculations with such a conception as our basis. We may as well make room for the flying spaghetti monster and rainbow-farting unicorns if we need not concern ourselves with that pesky thing called evidence.

[Moontanman]

If given eternity a monkey can re-create the complete works of Shakespeare on a type writer or so that's the theory. Daft theory really. Why a monkey ? Why not a snail ? Or an amoeba ? And why a type writer ? Given eternity surely an amoeba can re-create the entire works of Shakespeare in 57 languages (58 including amoeba speak) using the entire mettalic remnants of James Bonds Aston Martin.

 

Even given eternity, I don't believe the monkey could recreate Shakespeare and therefore neither could the amoeba.

 

In the same vein, I don't believe that the elements could have come together in such a way to allow intelligent life (whatever life is) within a relatively short few thousand billion years (compared to eternity). I evolved from being space dust to typing on this computer ! The chances of that happening must be similar to that as the monkey or amoeba theory and they got eternity (the little cheats) not a few, measly billion years !

 

Therefore, it seems much more plausible to me that we were created, because the restrictions of the time since the Big Bang surely would not be enough to evolve us from space dust to intelligent(ish) human life. Do the non-God believers really think it was enough time to turn us from lifeless elements into functioning live organic matter ?

 

Therefore, I reckon the probability is that we have a creator and he's told a few people his name is God.

 

 

The idea that everything you have suggested is random is not true, your disbelief is directed at a straw-man. No one is asserting life, or intellegence, came to be by randomness so your disbelief is misplaced at best and at worst an attempt to mislead but of course you are welcome to believe what ever it takes to float your boat... neither belief nor disbelief has ever changed reality...

[Marat]

Everything that Needimprovement says makes the same error, which is to assume that he can take concepts as absolutes and then treat these absolutized concepts as implying empirical truths about the concrete, material world which exists outside of concepts. I can grant (in proof 8 above) that 'being,' taken absolutely as excluding all becoming, is conceptually one, without being bound by that concession that that being actually exists, or that that one actually corresponds to something in the real world. Since that correspondence does not follow from those conceptual manipulations, the proofs say more about what follows from using language in a certain way than what follows in the real world.

 

Is Needimprovement, with all his citing of Aristotle and Aquinas, a Jesuit?

[The Clairvoyant]

The idea that everything you have suggested is random is not true, your disbelief is directed at a straw-man. No one is asserting life, or intellegence, came to be by randomness so your disbelief is misplaced at best and at worst an attempt to mislead but of course you are welcome to believe what ever it takes to float your boat... neither belief nor disbelief has ever changed reality...

 

 

Of course you are right Moontanman (re:randomness, not on my misleading which you have assumed and come to the wrong conclusion ) but even given that, do you really feel that there's been enough time to get us to where we are now ? The random events needed are just too random.

 

Can we prove mathematically that there's been enough time ? I'm sure somebody somewhere has tried and worked out some sort of probability. I'd say there was 0.000000(and as many noughts as you'd like) 0001% that there was enough time. If someone can get me up to even a 0.1% chance then i'd happily say "you've 'got me there" ! I'm saying that this is my favourite 'proof' that God exists, if you disagree then I put it to you to prove me wrong !

[Moontanman]

The idea that everything you have suggested is random is not true, your disbelief is directed at a straw-man. No one is asserting life, or intellegence, came to be by randomness so your disbelief is misplaced at best and at worst an attempt to mislead but of course you are welcome to believe what ever it takes to float your boat... neither belief nor disbelief has ever changed reality...

 

 

Of course you are right Moontanman (re:randomness, not on my misleading which you have assumed and come to the wrong conclusion ) but even given that, do you really feel that there's been enough time to get us to where we are now ? The random events needed are just too random.

 

Can we prove mathematically that there's been enough time ? I'm sure somebody somewhere has tried and worked out some sort of probability. I'd say there was 0.000000(and as many noughts as you'd like) 0001% that there was enough time. If someone can get me up to even a 0.1% chance then i'd happily say "you've 'got me there" ! I'm saying that this is my favourite 'proof' that God exists, if you disagree then I put it to you to prove me wrong !

 

 

I do not need to prove you wrong, you are still using the Straw-Man argument that life came about by randomness, if you had taken time to read across this forum you would know that assumption is simply not true and is generally used by YECs to mislead those who do not understand the mechanisms of Physics, Chemistry and the universe...

[rigney]

Well when you are dead, you are dead, no eternity of wondering what happened.... No wondering about anything, just nothing, the universe is neatly divided into three parts, before I existed, while I existed, and after my existence, my awareness only applies to one of those time periods....

 

Well, I'm gonna keep the phone lines open just in case. I'm glad I don't have such a substantial faith in nothingness as you do.

Be a real bust to run afoul of something I know absolutely nothing about, especially if it somehow actually exists. 'cource I have the same trouble with science.

[Moontanman]

Well, I'm gonna keep the phone lines open just in case. I'm glad I don't have such a substantial faith in nothingness as you do.

Be a real bust to run afoul of something I know absolutely nothing about, especially if it somehow actually exists. 'cource I have the same trouble with science.

 

If I remember and understand the message of religion, your idea is no better than being a straight up atheist, either you totally believe or you burn, no sticking one toe in to see if it's hot before you decide...

 

 

In other words, once you die, there's no time to turn before you burn....

[Mr Skeptic]

Can we prove mathematically that there's been enough time ? I'm sure somebody somewhere has tried and worked out some sort of probability. I'd say there was 0.000000(and as many noughts as you'd like) 0001% that there was enough time. If someone can get me up to even a 0.1% chance then i'd happily say "you've 'got me there" ! I'm saying that this is my favourite 'proof' that God exists, if you disagree then I put it to you to prove me wrong !

 

Sure. The universe could easily be infinite, and if that were the case then the above (in)probability would become certainty. Now, do you have any scientific reason to believe the universe is finite?

 

I do not need to prove you wrong, you are still using the Straw-Man argument that life came about by randomness, if you had taken time to read across this forum you would know that assumption is simply not true and is generally used by YECs to mislead those who do not understand the mechanisms of Physics, Chemistry and the universe...

 

That too. "Random" and "naturally" have different meanings.

[Moontanman]

I have to admit that if you going to go with religion, needimprovement has the right idea, i loath his constant proselytizing, and his backing up his assertions with just more assertions and the only evidence he ever gives is nothing but more assertions by people who agree and believe.... BUT I have to admit that is the way religion works, you have to believe it totally for it to work, no sneaky pretending till you see hell fire and then suddenly becoming a good Christian will work, according to most religions of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim traditions you have to really believe for it to work, you can't just keep the possibility in mind as an insurance policy and as Skeptic pointed out, "the dead know nothing" until the resurrection you will not know anything, you will be dead, although i think Catholicism ignores that scripture in favor of hold things like purgatory over the heads parishioners so they will stick around and support the church so they can get their loved one out of purgatory, i wonder how much money that takes in the long run?

[rigney]

I have to admit that if you going to go with religion, needimprovement has the right idea, i loath his constant proselytizing, and his backing up his assertions with just more assertions and the only evidence he ever gives is nothing but more assertions by people who agree and believe.... BUT I have to admit that is the way religion works, you have to believe it totally for it to work, no sneaky pretending till you see hell fire and then suddenly becoming a good Christian will work, according to most religions of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim traditions you have to really believe for it to work, you can't just keep the possibility in mind as an insurance policy and as Skeptic pointed out, "the dead know nothing" until the resurrection you will not know anything, you will be dead, although i think Catholicism ignores that scripture in favor of hold things like purgatory over the heads parishioners so they will stick around and support the church so they can get their loved one out of purgatory, i wonder how much money that takes in the long run?

 

Swear to gosh!, Every time I jump in the creek with any of you guys, I'm the only damn one who don't know how the hell to swim.

Edited September 1, 2010 by rigney

[Moontanman]

Swear to gosh!, Every time I jump in the creek with any of you guys, I'm the only damn one who don't know how the hell to swim.

 

 

Don't worry rigney, I'm a trained life guard and open water diver, I won't let you drown.... Although some others I might hold their heads under.....

[needimprovement]

I can't see Jesus under a microscope, though... no matter what magnification.

Is it reasonable to claim, as does the behaviourist school of psychology, that "mind" or "consciousness" does not exist? Behaviourists seem to have lost their mind.

 

Perhaps "life" does not exist either, since no one has seen it under a microscope.

Edited September 2, 2010 by needimprovement

[iNow]

Is it reasonable to claim, as does the behaviourist school of psychology, that "mind" or "consciousness" does not exist? Behaviourists seem to have lost their mind.

 

Perhaps "life" does not exist either, since no one has seen it under a microscope.

Much like the concepts of consciousness or mind, your concept of god lacks a clear, consistent, and measurable definition. I'll tell you what... You provide a clear, consistent, measurable definition for god and I will then consider addressing your question about whether or not existence can be demonstrated using a microscope.

 

And, are you frakkin kidding me? Life hasn't been observed under a microscope? Seriously? Is this the level of stupid I'm dealing with here?

[needimprovement]

Is Needimprovement, with all his citing of Aristotle and Aquinas, a Jesuit?

No. I'm just a simple believer in God.

 

Much like the concepts of consciousness or mind, your concept of god lacks a clear, consistent, and measurable definition. I'll tell you what... You provide a clear, consistent, measurable definition for god and I will then consider addressing your question about whether or not existence can be demonstrated using a microscope.

How does one see the immaterial?

And, are you frakkin kidding me? Life hasn't been observed under a microscope? Seriously? Is this the level of stupid I'm dealing with here?

Well, Jesus is a God-man (God the Son) ***** edited

Edited September 2, 2010 by needimprovement

[iNow]

How does one see the immaterial?

That's totally irrelevant and nonsequitur to my post. I asked you to define it in a clear, consistent, and measurable fashion. Please comply, or cease responding.

 

 

Well, Jesus is a God-man (God the Son), thus can be observed under a microscope too.

Okay... Never mind. Please, for the love of Thor... Just stop responding. The stupid is starting to burn.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, Jesus is a God-man (God the Son), thus can be observed under a microscope too.

 

Wasn't that metaphorical, like the rest of the supernatural bits in the Bible?

[Edtharan]

The idea that everything you have suggested is random is not true, your disbelief is directed at a straw-man. No one is asserting life, or intellegence, came to be by randomness so your disbelief is misplaced at best and at worst an attempt to mislead but of course you are welcome to believe what ever it takes to float your boat... neither belief nor disbelief has ever changed reality...

 

 

Of course you are right Moontanman (re:randomness, not on my misleading which you have assumed and come to the wrong conclusion ) but even given that, do you really feel that there's been enough time to get us to where we are now ? The random events needed are just too random.

 

Can we prove mathematically that there's been enough time ? I'm sure somebody somewhere has tried and worked out some sort of probability. I'd say there was 0.000000(and as many noughts as you'd like) 0001% that there was enough time. If someone can get me up to even a 0.1% chance then i'd happily say "you've 'got me there" ! I'm saying that this is my favourite 'proof' that God exists, if you disagree then I put it to you to prove me wrong !

The "Process" of evolution can be described mathematically (that is with Algorithms - a concept that has been around for over 1200 years).

 

When looked at like this, Evolution is a mathematical fact.

 

Wew also know the rate of genetic change over time that can occur, and there is more than enough time for evolution to get us to where we are now.

 

We can also do experiements with how fast evolution can occur by using the algorithm of evolution. Such a simulation experiment I heared about (and if anyone

here can remember more details it would be a help) where they worked out, using known rates of genetic change and using acceptable rates of change (based on what is biologically possible), that it is possible to evolve an eye from an initial starting "desig" of a few light sensitive cells (and this was the full structure of the eye with variable foccus lense and the whole works) in around than 10,000 or so generations.

 

To give you an idea, of how short a time this is, the average human generation time is aroudn 25 years. So in 250,000 years, humans could have started with just light sensitive patches of cells and developed the complex eye we have.

 

As life on Earth has been around for about 3,500,000,000 years, it seems like evolution was running a bit slow if anything.

 

So yes, there has been much more than plenty of time for evolution to have got us to where we are now.

 

When I have a cold, I don't need to see the bacteria, I see the symptoms that result from the bacteria creating the cold to know that the bacteria is there. So is the resurrection of Jesus, do i need to see Him resurrect to believe, or see the masses of followers of His time that believed it.

Until microscopes cam along, there was no evidence that germs existed. It is only because people have gathered so much evidence that supports germ theory that when you have a cold you accept that it is caused by bacteria.

 

Until microscopes came about and provided evidence against all the other theories, there were many theories that many people believed in. Som of the more popular one are:

1) Humors: The used to beliee that the body had 4 Humors that govered it. If these humors were out of ballance then this caused deseases. This has since been proven wrong as we have identified organisms that can cause deseases.

 

2) Spirits/Possesion: This was once favoured by the christian churches (and is still believed in some places). They believed that all deseases were possesions by devils or evil spirits. Again, these have been disproved as with these deseases biological causes are now known.

 

3) Curses: Again, this was favoured by the churches too. In this evil magic, or divine punishment was the cause of deseases and if someone came down with a desease, then this was seen as divine cause (miracles don't have to be good). Again, this has been disproven as the causal agents have been identified.

 

People didn't just go from not believing in Germ theory to accepting it, it took years of research and a lot of evidence for (at least the medical profesion if not everyone else) to accept germ theory, and there are still people around today that do not believe it (dispite the masses of evidecne that supports it and disproves their beliefs).

 

Again, you have not given a good argument or reason for belief in God. You are hinting that you have the answer, but when it comes time to actually provide one, you seem to back away and try to dodge the question.

 

View PostiNow, on 2 September 2010 - 09:25 AM, said:

Much like the concepts of consciousness or mind, your concept of god lacks a clear, consistent, and measurable definition. I'll tell you what... You provide a clear, consistent, measurable definition for god and I will then consider addressing your question about whether or not existence can be demonstrated using a microscope.

 

How does one see the immaterial?

We can see living organisms and we can work out how their component parts work. Doing so we find no need for an immaterial force (aka: "Elan Vital"). The Elan Vital theory of life has long since been disprove, so why would you think it would make a good argument for the existance of God?