Prove(or provide overwhelming evidence) to me the existance, or non existance of God

[Lemmy]

Have not seen a person die yet that has not talked to GOD before departing this life

just be around when i die

Do you deny that there is no social control among scientists? Do you deny that people with different opinions are outcast among scientists?

It really depends on what their opinion is, and what it is based on. Just like how people who persistently say that there is a yellow midget walking besides them are social outcasts.
What do you mean with social control?

[Robert]

Does that include whether your God exists or not?

it morely includes that we cannot understand his existance. We would not know he did exist were it not for the sake he revealed it to us.

It all depends on if you believe that, ie. the bible, is a revelation by God. I can understand you don't believe that. I can't defend the logic behind that. I admit only faith applies to that.

I think that it's not unlogic that there is something that we can't understand. Just for the sake that I think that something can't be self-causual. That's something we can disagree about. I think the answer I come up with is a logical argumentated answer. I would not say that the 'god of the bible' is the logical argumentated answer.

I don't ask you to confirm the truth of my theorie,
but you might confirm that there's logic behind it.
I would never declare evolution or big bang or science to be ilogic. There is logic behind it, those theories are based on logic. But not everything that seems to be logical has to be logical.

Is this from your own religious experience?

yes.

I have no doubt that you could have some kind of mythical experience. The big sticking point lies in the interpretation.

I agree with that.
I understand there could be explanations for my 'mythical experience' that exclude God.
But eventhough I know these explanations, I still believe it is not so.

This doesn't make any difference to us though. If you are positing that there is some kind of infinite, personal entity that forever lies outside of our sphere of knowledge, what sense does it make to talk about this being?

Well, it does if it is his intention.
If he did indeed contact us, and if he indeed has plans with us... it does make sence. The question morely is if this is the case than if it is possible.

CyberShy: And yes, the concept of omnipotence is flawed if you take it to the letter.

To the letter? What do you mean?

The exact meaning that "everything is possible" includes "the impossible is possible".
Pherhaps we better should describe God as "his possibilities lie beyond our imagination".

Sure, but that's not my point. My point is natural events can be verified. This verification can be direct or indirect.

I agree with that.
But the larger the distance, the bigger the change of mistakes.

We are not talking about arguments. We are talking about actual observations. Facts. You can't argue away facts.

If I move from The Netherlands to Great Brittain, I do it by using different types of transport. I walk, I drive my car, I walk again, I take a plane, I walk, I take a cab and than I walk.

You see me coming, and you see me walk. It's a fact that I walk. But that doesn't mean I walked all the way from The Netherlands.

I do not deny there are observations of mutations.
But I do not believe that our entire habitat on earth became what it is right now by evolution.

I just disagree that much simple mutations together are a complex mutation doesn't work for me.

The fact that one man can move 50kg doesn't mean 10 men can move 500kg as easy as one man can move 50kg. Those 10 men need to communicate to work together while one man alone doesn't need to do that.

It's just a simple example that shows that much little things do not automaticly form one big thing. I will not deny the existance of the little mutations though.

I know of no scientist past or present who asserted he or she has (had) all the answers.

ok. I should have said "who were sure about the answers they provided, while later their answers appeared to be wrong"

Now if you stop pulling such fabrications out from your appendix, it'll behoove all of us.

Well, I would if you would admit that the same might be applicable to modern science. Read my words, I don't say it WILL, but it MIGHT.

You can observe an apple falling down to the ground, but how do you tell it is gravity? Do you not have to take the words of scientists at face value that it is indeed something called "gravity" that caused the apple to fall?

So why is this parity between evolution and gravity?

Well, to compare evolution with a falling apple, we only can see the apple lying on the ground. We can't see it fall. Ok, let's say we see it roll 1cm.

you do not have any framework to interpret any mythical experience that you might have.

does that matter?
does something not exist if there's no framework to explain it?

I was saying that you do not understand the Big Bang cosmology.

Not into details indeed.

Because energy is converted into mass in these situations. How could you not know about this basic stuff before you start asking questions?

which leads to the question where the energy came from. I know the basic stuff, but it doesn't provide a satisfactional answer to me. I can't see how you can test the appearance of particles and virtual particles in a lab, and than compare it with the appearance of particles and virtual particles in space.

that's like you can't observe the natural behavior of animals in a zoo.

Do you have any concrete examples of said "outcastings?"

yes. one simple example, Brownlee and Ward published a book about how low the odds are for the appearance of inteligent life. Most of the critics these scientists got was that they were secret creationsts. They hardly got any scientific counter arguments, but their book was just trashed because it supported people who suspected inteligent design behind the universe.

The fact that makes it even more silly was that neither Ward nor brownlee suspects inteligent design, but rather say that "we" have been extremely lucky.

I got CyberShy to concede that atheism is the default state. Which is something to show

I really did?

[Lemmy]

yes. one simple example, Brownlee and Ward published a book about how low the odds are for the appearance of inteligent life.

well, you don't see intelligent life everywhere in the universe, do you?
No matter how low the odds are, in a universe this big it would still be possible for it to happen.
I would agree that the odds are extremely low for intelligent life to appear, but not impossible.

[Lars-E]

Just listen to your heart buddy. If you're not called by God don't bother. But you'll now it at some point.

[Lemmy]

yes. one simple example, Brownlee and Ward published a book about how low the odds are for the appearance of inteligent life. Most of the critics these scientists got was that they were secret creationsts. They hardly got any scientific counter arguments, but their book was just trashed because it supported people who suspected inteligent design behind the universe.

The fact that makes it even more silly was that neither Ward nor brownlee suspects inteligent design, but rather say that "we" have been extremely lucky.

ok, found a review about that book

http://patriot.net/~jlazio/essays/review3.html

[Lemmy]

and another:

http://www.setileague.org/articles/rarearth.htm

In Rare Earth, the authors present the theories they favor as complete and widely accepted, masking the fact that many are controversial (for example, whether star metallicity is as rare as they describe and whether Cambrian Ediacarans represent additional extinct phyla). Furthermore, I spotted errors in my field of expertise (conflation of transcription and translation, a 20-fold exaggeration of the number of human genes -- both pertaining to the crucial concept of complexity) and a howler regarding the rotations of Mars and Venus (which are not locked, as the authors assert in their haste to make Earth unique in the solar system), These missteps make me wonder whether the authors misquoted additional facts instrumental to their hypothesis.

[Robert]

No matter how low the odds are, in a universe this big it would still be possible for it to happen.

well, that's what they try to prove wrong.
the universe is not big enough, according to them.

[Lars-E]

Take a look at nature. You either see God behind it or you become a God-denier and believe an incredible fairy tale called evolution.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Lars-E
Take a look at nature. You either see God behind it or you become a God-denier and believe an incredible fairy tale called evolution.

Exactly why is God more believable than evolution.

Believe in God if you want but don't dismiss something which at least has evidence

[Lars-E]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

[Lemmy]

Take a look at nature. You either see God behind it or you become a God-denier and believe an incredible fairy tale called evolution.

where did you get the idea evolution is a fairy tale?

[Ari Rahikkala]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
Have not seen a person die yet that has not talked to GOD before departing this life

A priest advised Voltaire on his death bed to renounce the devil.
Replied Voltaire, "This is no time to make new enemies."

Allright, it doesn't quite fit. But it was the first thing to come to my mind when I read that post .

[Bosh]

For God's sake Cybershy, leave it alone. You are giving religion a bad name...

Nah, however annoying it might be to debate him at times I've never got a feeling that personally CS is anything but a really nice guy, I've seen FAR FAR FAR worse (not even counting Civie ).

[Robert]

Boshko, name anything and I will agree with you, just to do something back

[Robert]

oh, and the annoyance is both ways at times