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

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lars-E


Be honest and admit you have not the faintest idea of what I'm talking about. You don't understand at all do you. My sentence was a quote - a very basic Christian statement.

So you quoted a contradiction. I am not impressed. I fully understood that it was contradictory whatever the source was.

My quote was from the Bible which you also revealed yourself to be TOTALLY IGNORANT of.

Would you like to discuss the many other contradictions in the Bible. I thank you for supplying one more. So many in such a small number of words.

Conclusion: You don't seem to grasp even the simplest piece of theology or basic fundaments of Christianity.

You don't know a contradiction when you see one. If your basic beliefs so self-evidently wrong you really should change them.

It would be better for you to shut up instead of revealing to all the world and for your own shame that you're an ignoramus.

I see, you would rather believe a contradiction than have it pointed out to you. I will continue to avoid calling a belief in nonsense wisdom. I see no shame in not knowing every single line in the Bible. I have read enough of it and had a enough quoted at me to see that it often leads to ignorance rather than wisdom.

[JCG]

Heh, on the contrary, I think that a "God" would certainly follow certain "laws of the universe", even retroactively...BUT "God" would not necessarily follow the current laws of logic and physics as we puny humans know them.

[Lars-E]

Ethelred, Ethelred....

What can I say...

The quote is from Hebrews, probably written by Paul - the greatest theologian of all times.

You are obviously on a higher level than him - in your own mind I'm sure you are. IMO he was lightyears ahead of you (and most others).

I can of course provide an exegesis on the scripture, but I think you would not be interested. Just a little glimpse anyway: The word faith or the word believe used in a biblical and theological context is not the same as the word most people use in their everyday vocabulary. And there is also much to be said about the relationship between hope and faith. Just a few clues.

Further words should be unecessary unless you feel like enlightening the world with your theology/philosophy - which must be genius and on the the highest level ever to be revealed to mankind.

[Lincoln]

The scripture Lars quoted gives the Bible definition of faith. Pretty simple really. Of course I suppose that the "modern" definition of the know-it-alls is much wiser. Even a child who has been taught from the Bible knows that faith is much more than a blind belief or a blind hope. Biblical faith is exactly what Paul said it is. Some of course who do not have it ridicule that which they do not understand. But what's new?

[loinburger]

**** on a shingle, why is this thread still on the front page?

[Lincoln]

Some die hard revived it and we all too the bait...

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by CyberShy

First, I said compared to other scriptures from those days.

I doubt that you are that knowledgeable about all other religious writings of the time. However considering that the Bible is often alleged to be at least be inspired by god in a somewhat direct manner and the other writings are usually admited to be what they are, the writings of men, the Bible should be quite a bit more accurate than it is.

Second, I don't claim the bible is infallable or completely accurate. It's history being written up by one person. There might be faults (our dates might be wrong as well!!) but it's still a good accurate book compared to scriptures from it's age.

Its not written by one person. Its from at least two different groups of Jews on top of that as can be seen in the many paired stories and in the two versions of creation at the very beginning of Genesis.

Budda's teachings still put the human in center, it's the human who should lead a good life. Who should meditate. Pherhaps the 'pride' does not apply on budda's teachings though. you might be right on that.

This no different than the Bible. The humans should pray. The humans should obey.



"Of course Genesis is clear about humans being better than anything else "

it is?

Yes. Its right in Genesis.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Thats pretty clear that humans are in charge of the whole of life on Earth.

well, we should not be. But you're right, christians themselvers are 'sinners' as well. I don't claim that christians don't seek pride and all that. I say that the bible teaches us that we should not search for pride in ourself.

As Jack pointed out allready the Jews got their asses kicked an awful lot for the Chosen People of God. Budism is about as from pride in oneself as it is possible to be.

pherhaps to predict, but it did actually happen as well. 2000 years after the diaspora the return to israel happened. Did this ever happen to other oppressed people in history on such a large scale?

Make enough predictions and some will come true. Eventually some downtrodden group was bound to achieve their prediction of regaining what they claim they once had. It happened to be the Jews.

MacArthur predicted he would return to the Philipines. I don't see much in the way of evidence of god being involved in that either. Although MacAthur might disagreed about that. He sure thought highly of himself.

But even if you take that all into account, I think those fullfilled prophecies about israel are quiet amazing. Pherhaps not to be token as the defenitive argument in favor of God, but not something to be cashed away too easy.

Lots of things are amazing. Low probability events do not constitute proof of god though. If the Bible did not have so many problems in other areas this would indeed be a significant step in proving the Bible true. However it has many other parts that prove it wrong.

that's true in some degree. But if you take into account that the original people are in charge there again. They are independant nations.

Only in the case of Persia and even that ignores the fact that the Persians are not quite the same as those of the Biblical times even without being Islamic these days.

Neither are the Jews for that matter. European Jews often are indistinguishable from other Europeans unlike full Semites who are very clearly not Europeans.


"Persia is not Zorastrian anymore its Islamic."

it's still a threat to israel, I think that's more important.

That may change as well. Saddam Hussein will not live forever.

well, I might be misinformed about that, but as far as I can see does budhism requier humans to live a good life. ie. do it themselves.

So does the Bible. That is what the Ten Commandments were for. YOU must obey them.

Like I have said before,
a painter does not have to obey the same rules as a painting.
A baker does not need to same ingredients as a bread, and neiter does a god need to obey to the same rules of his creation.

And the Universe we see today does not have to follow the same rules of the Universe of the past. Indeed we have good reason to think that it did not. Its true that physics assume the laws of the universe are the same everywhere but there is ample evidence that the early universe had different rules.

By early I mean in the first seconds or so. There were no atoms only particles and the the particles that can only be see for fractions of a second in acclerators where the dominant form of matter at the beginning.

Nor is the MetaVerse that may or may not exist limited to the rules of our Universe. Matter CAN pop into existence according to quantum theory and experiments. The major question is how so much did and why is it as stable as it is. Since we can't yet produce enough energy to experiment at that level (and may not want to risk it if we could) we simply cannot know the answers yet, if ever.

The universe we live in has a subset of the possible laws of any mathematicly concievable universe. Mathematics or at least the principles behind it would exist wether the Universe existed or not.

I didn't say anything about evolution.
I said something about the pre-bigbang period. That's defenitely not evolution, nor does creation cover that.

Creation in Genesis contravenes the evidence of Evolution. That is why you refuse to accept the reality of evolution. Its why you have to retain a distorted concept of evolution.

You were the one that brought up monkeys earlier. Thats why I mentioned it.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lars-E
Ethelred, Ethelred....

What can I say...

The quote is from Hebrews, probably written by Paul - the greatest theologian of all times.

Well the maybe most prudish anyway. There a lot of Christians that don't think highly of Paul. I certainly have seen no reason to.

You could of course admit that Paul was saying nothing that related to proof of god which is what the thread is supposed to be about. I know its a troll but that is what you were responding to.

You are obviously on a higher level than him - in your own mind I'm sure you are. IMO he was lightyears ahead of you (and most others).

Its not my fault that neither you nor Paul noticed that he contradicted himself. I notice you have not shown it otherwise and are merely trying to browbeat me into accepting it by calling me an ignoramous for not knowing ALL the contradictory statements in the Bible.

I can of course provide an exegesis on the scripture, but I think you would not be interested. Just a little glimpse anyway: The word faith or the word believe used in a biblical and theological context is not the same as the word most people use in their everyday vocabulary. And there is also much to be said about the relationship between hope and faith. Just a few clues.

Hope and faith do not constitute evidence for god. It does often constitute wishfull thinking.

Further words should be unecessary unless you feel like enlightening the world with your theology/philosophy - which must be genius and on the the highest level ever to be revealed to mankind.

It doesn't take a genius to see that something is self-contradictory. It only takes an open mind.

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

Things not seen are not evidence. Faith is evidence of hope and nothing else. Even if you try to redefine faith a lack of evidence remains a lack of evidence.

[Dis]

I think that is proof enough. It has been noted in the scientific community how unlikely evolution really is. Sure I believe in it. But so many things had to go right for us to be here. Of course that doesn't prove there is a god, but it makes you think we had a helping hand.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Dissident
I think that is proof enough. It has been noted in the scientific community how unlikely evolution really is.

Nonsense. Evolution is inheirent in life. Its not in least unlikely.

Perhaps you mean that WE are unlikely. Well of course we are. So what? We couldn't ask the questions if we didn't exist. Nothing would notice that we didn't exist. However an entirely different form of inteligent life could ask the same questions and leap unjustifiably to the same conclusion you do.

'Karg, you know darn well that god exists because we exist. Our ancestors could just as easily have been wiped out by a meteor millions of years ago and then those brainless mammals would have taken over the land.'

It didn't have to be us that asked the questions.

Sure I believe in it. But so many things had to go right for us to be here. Of course that doesn't prove there is a god, but it makes you think we had a helping hand.

Things don't just happen to be right. They just happen, period. We just happened. It could have been otherwise. There is no special significance that it was us humans that happened instead of inteligent dinosaurs or even birds.

Well no special universal significance anyway. Its significant to us which is why you think its evidence of meddling.

[Dis]

very true. human species cannot help but be arrogant I suppose. But life in general is highly unlikely. the right elements had to be deposited on earth for this to happen. Other planets have not been able to do this. And from what I've read about newly discovered planets they are far to hostile to support life. Although theoretically there could be billions.

[Giancarlo]

Dissident am I hearing this right? Have you claimed evolution is not true? It very is so.

Other planets have not been able to do this.

You don't know that. The universe is a very large place.

So therefore there must a stupid figure like god to fill in the gap? I am sorry but that is not how the way it works.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Dissident
And from what I've read about newly discovered planets they are far to hostile to support life. Although theoretically there could be billions.

The trouble is that the only planets that we're currently capable of detecting (due to the limited abilities of our detection equipment) are huge planets that are in highly irregular orbits. Planets with regular orbits (like those in our solar system) don't cause sufficient oscillation in their stars to be detected at this time, and as far as we know a planet needs a regular orbit in order to be capable of sustaining life.

IIRC, there's speculation that there's life on Europa (one of Jupiter's moons). I have no idea how much evidence supports the speculations, though.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Dissident
very true. human species cannot help but be arrogant I suppose. But life in general is highly unlikely. the right elements had to be deposited on earth for this to happen. Other planets have not been able to do this. And from what I've read about newly discovered planets they are far to hostile to support life. Although theoretically there could be billions.

We can ONLY know about hostile planets with our present technology. Its like looking for your keys near the light because you wouldn't be able to see them anywhere else. If you don't find your keys its likely the cause is a lack of light rather than a lack of keys.

We have NO idea how likely or unlikely it was for life to get started on Earth EXCEPT that it happened pretty much as soon as it was possible to happen. That makes it look more likely than not. However we can't be sure till we find other similar planets. One point of reference can only tell us that life can exist not how likely it is.

So far we have one planet capable of supporting life as we know it and it has had life since the place stopped getting pounded. That sure doesn't make it look unlikely anyway and every attempt I have seen to show life as unlikely has made a series of unjustifiable assumptions. Every single one of them.

How about you try to show some of the reasoning behind your claim that life is unlikely? Then I can show the dubious assumptions behind the claim. All such claims that I have seen so far have been based on specious assumptions.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Ethelred
You are not only assuming that everything has a cause

That's fine, I stated my assumptions at the start. Without assuming something you get nowhere.

you are ALSO assuming that the god does not have a cause otherwise you are really just creating an infinite regression.

A reasonable point, I wasn't clear enough. If there is a start to this universe, and that seems to be the case, then I am making my assumptions regarding cause and effect to this universe that I am aware of. I make no assumption about before, as there was no before if the universe didn't exist.

What you have done is at best give a suggestion that there might be an infinite series of creators.

That's not how I see it. That's an assumption you have made because you've applied cause and effect outside of this universe as well. But even if you are correct, you have not only proved there to be a God, but an infinite series of them. That may be so, but is besides the point. One will do for now.

Why not settle for the stopping the series at the Universe? It makes at least one bit more sense than going one more step and stopping there instead.

Then you've lost your initial cause for this universe, which was one of the assumptions stated at the start, and a very reasonable one I believe.