What would it take to prove / disprove the existence of God?

[Tiamat]

Why does everything have to be tangible? You don't see oxygen but you know it's there because you still breathe. It has been said if you have the faith of a mustard see you can move a mountain. Do you know how small a mustard seed is? That's the reality, that most of us don't even have enough faith to fill a mustard seed.

Has no one here experienced the power of prayer or a blessing from the universe if you will. I would venture to say that there are plenty of people on this board who have had some type of faith moving experience but won't mention it for fear of being slammed, but I would bet there are plenty here who have seen or been part of something spectacular.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Since there are three planets in this solar system that could sustain life and it has happend on at least one of them, then the chances are above zero and therefore not unrealistic.

You have no evidence that life could exist without God, you have only one planet upon which life is, this is your perspective, there are many that are thought unable to sustain life.

So, get the uncooked raw ingredients for a pizza and throw them against a wall. How many times would you have to do so before having a fully cooked pizza bounce off?

Is that a simple statistical probability question or could the answer simply be that without divine intervention that the probability is zero?

All things being equal the simplest explanation must (be accepted) as true. Given the complexity of the Earth and mankind as we know it to be, the simplest answer is creation, certainly not chance and evolution.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Depends. If you're asking me to acknowledge that its possible for things to happen without a sufficient natural explanation today, based on the information available, then yes, because the information available is always to some extent, incomplete. Scientific progress would to provide more light on the matter in the future. If you're asking me to accept that, hypothetically, with all possible available evidence, a natural explanation will fail, then I will not accept that. That is because I work on the premise of scientific method, which in that case, you would have to refute in order to proceed with your proposition.

It would seem to me that your premise is founded on your "faith" in it. If you are asking us to accept that all events will have a scientific explanation, as soon as science figures it out, then I might be no more willing to accept that than you would be willing to accept the supernatural.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle


You have no evidence that life could exist without God, you have only one planet upon which life is, this is your perspective, there are many that are thought unable to sustain life.

I actually have - this planet is the proof. Only if you think that life can't exist without godly interference you can deny this fact.

How can you claim that god is nessecary from just one sample ?

So, get the uncooked raw ingredients for a pizza and throw them against a wall. How many times would you have to do so before having a fully cooked pizza bounce off?

Is that a simple statistical probability question or could the answer simply be that without divine intervention that the probability is zero?

Am I allowed to try it several times per second for a couple of billion of years ?

All things being equal the simplest explanation must (be accepted) as true. Given the complexity of the Earth and mankind as we know it to be, the simplest answer is creation, certainly not chance and evolution.

Since a god is a very complicated thing - actually an unexplainable thing - I consider it very wrong to call that the simple explanation. Evolution is a much more simple and reasonable explanation - it even has the beauty that it makes sense. Oh, not to forget - it is seen in everyday life.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle


You have no evidence that life could exist without God, you have only one planet upon which life is, this is your perspective, there are many that are thought unable to sustain life.

So, get the uncooked raw ingredients for a pizza and throw them against a wall. How many times would you have to do so before having a fully cooked pizza bounce off?

Is that a simple statistical probability question or could the answer simply be that without divine intervention that the probability is zero?

All things being equal the simplest explanation must (be accepted) as true. Given the complexity of the Earth and mankind as we know it to be, the simplest answer is creation, certainly not chance and evolution.

Oh great, not the "evolution is random chance" BS.

The only thing that is random are mutations, which just supply the raw material for natural selection to act on. Natural selection is definitly NOT random chance. Read a biology textbook, genius.

It's becoming apprent to me that creationists believe thier sh*t because they need the "divine watchmaker" argument used since ancient times to "prove" the existance of god. Fools.

[Capt Dizle]

Re: What would it take to prove / disprove the existence of God?

Originally posted by Whaleboy

So what would it require in terms of arguments and evidence to prove this God? What would it take to disprove? Any thoughts before I add my two cents tomorrow?

Well, for starters, you might want to put a little effort into seeking God. If you wanted to prove the existance of a half fish- half bird creature rumored to live in some remote corner of the world, you might go there and look for it.

Or, you could sit on your hands and pontificate logically. If you are looking for the Christian God, go, seek. You have millions of people who profess belief and the writings. I think you might want to spend some time investigating with an open mind.

So, that is the requirement, a lifetime of openminded searching in and among the people, in places of worship, trying to understand the teachings.

You can't prove or disprove without it.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by BlackCat

Am I allowed to try it several times per second for a couple of billion of years ?

Since a god is a very complicated thing - actually an unexplainable thing - I consider it very wrong to call that the simple explanation. Evolution is a much more simple and reasonable explanation - it even has the beauty that it makes sense. Oh, not to forget - it is seen in everyday life.

Yes, go ahead. I'll wait. Get back to me.

And while you are at it, when you have proven evolution by pizza production please also forward proof that God did not create evolution.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Odin


Oh great, not the "evolution is random chance" BS.

The only thing that is random are mutations, which just supply the raw material for natural selection to act on. Natural selection is definitly NOT random chance. Read a biology textbook, genius.

It's becoming apprent to me that creationists believe thier sh*t because they need the "divine watchmaker" argument used since ancient times to "prove" the existance of god. Fools.

Let me scold you for rolling your eyes at me.

I can't quite resist the temptation to tell you to put the biology textbook down and read a Bible, maybe Proverbs, but really, relax. I am not trying to shove God down your throat.

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle


Let me scold you for rolling your eyes at me.

I can't quite resist the temptation to tell you to put the biology textbook down and read a Bible, maybe Proverbs, but really, relax. I am not trying to shove God down your throat.

No, what he is saying is for you to understand what you are debating against before you spout your mouth. It is obvious that you do not understand evolution. We are not debating morals or theology here.

[Elok]

Originally posted by BlackCat
A Puckle gun is a 1700 invention where the inventor found it suitable to use round bullets when used agaist christians and square bullets when used agaist heatens. Of course the squeare bullets inflicted much worse injuries.

So basically, no, you're still going for the same guilt-trip-with-atrocity-tangents argument style. Judging by your later writings in this same post, though, this approach would seem to be based on hearing what you want to hear. Moving on...

Wether or not the aztecs "wasted" a lot of time and energy on the issue of capturing victims doesn't really matter - they had ethical and moral valuse build upon a god belief.

I was not arguing for the actual morality of their actions, I was saying that, provided their lunatic premises were somehow true, their actions would be arguably justified from a utilitarian perspective. X people die--->Gods fight harder--->world survives vs. weak gods--->world perishes--->everybody dies. It's crackheaded, but if it were true theirs might be the moral decision. I mentioned the effort they put into it to dispel in advance any arguments of ulterior motive on their part. They didn't profit from it, they were genuinely terrified that the world would end. Maybe it was mescaline in the food supply or something, I don't know.

I don't think that religious people in the past was more crazy than todays. There is no reason to think that a religion started today wouldn't include human sacrifices. That would simply be a matter of the "story" behind the religion. I guess that you will argue that it could never happen today because laws would prevent it, but if those laws was changed by this religion it could certainly happen.

I wasn't arguing as much. I was just saying that your rhetorical style relies heavily on what seem to be completely irrelevant ideas.

Funny that you should mention Stalin and Pol Pot. I don't see them as rational nontheistic people. I see them more like headfigures in some kind of religious organisations - their actions for certain looks like that - their supporters don't ask questions and they do whatever they are told and belive that they are doing the right thing because they have been told it is.

To employ your style: "Whether or not they wasted a lot of time and energy on rationality doesn't really matter - they had ethical and moral values built upon a godless belief system." Your prejudices automatically assign all negative traits to stupid backwards primitives like me, no matter how often I try to demonstrate that I am not in fact retarded or vicious. That's not argument, that's just acting like a condescending weasel.

The reason why I mention those points is that you claim that a theist ethic and morale must be better because it's based upon a religion.

No, I do not, if by better you mean more sweet, kind and cuddly. You are reading that into my writings, and I am at a loss to discover how or where. I am saying that, assuming no supernatural causes, morality has no rational grounding. You're left just following the conscience by winging it, and you can't really argue for that.

I see it as a choice: if you believe only in naturalistic causes, you have the apparent advantage of "rationality," as you indicate, because you only follow what your senses can plainly indicate. However, you then face the choice of moral or immoral behavior, broadly speaking. This is really simplistic, I know, but for the sake of argument bear with me.

If you behave morally, you will be unable to justify your decision by naturalistic means (ie, what does it profit you?), and thus forfeit any claim to rationality if you see the act of moral behavior as having objective significance; you will be acting morally only in obedience to a sentiment, your conscience, and as such are not superior, in your own terms, to any wacko who ever lived. A loony who kills people because he suspects they'll try to seduce his wife is just acting on another sentiment, jealousy, which he has (it appears) as much reason to obey as you do to obey your conscience. Namely, no reason but to silence the inner voice. The irrational compulsion in his head told him to. You can claim no moral superiority to any other member of the human race without resorting to plain dishonesty. Of course, dishonesty as a bad thing is itself a moral judgment...

If you behave immorally in general, looking out only for number one, well, that seems to be in your best interests, except you may feel crummy anyway, for who knows what reason. Some might see God in that gap (I once tried to argue for it myself), but I don't intend to try here. You can make up your own mind. Rationally and without my foolish superstitions, of course...

PS. Isn't there something about human sacrifices in christianity ? I can't remember if it was a goat or a sheep that was so unlucky to be sacrified instead.

There was animal sacrifice in the OT, plus the famous incident with Abraham and Isaac that was just a test (a lot of people find it horribly cruel anyway, I know). I guess Christ could be figuratively be called a "human sacrifice," but his was voluntary.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Bill3000


No, what he is saying is for you to understand what you are debating against before you spout your mouth. It is obvious that you do not understand evolution. We are not debating morals or theology here.

I think it is presumptous for you to take me to task for not understanding an unproven theory.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle
I think it is presumptous for you to take me to task for not understanding an unproven theory.

That makes no sense. How can you prove or disprove anything if you do not understand its claims? They're saying, proven or not, you have the wrong idea about how it ostensibly works and your arguments about it are thus invalid.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle


I think it is presumptous for you to take me to task for not understanding an unproven theory.

Unproven my ass. Evolution is just as much a fact as gravity. The only difference is that gravity doesn't damage the arguments used to "prove" the existance of God, and therefore doesn't scare people who are stupid enough to think that you need to be religious to be moral.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Elok


That makes no sense.

You're expecting a creationist to make sense?

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, that is quite fine if you can give exaples of such things.

Okay, what about the resurrection? Even the Jews accepted the empty tomb, even as they argued that the Christians stole the body. How could the body of a dead man just disappear?

How can you say that ? It actually happend here. Just because there was a random coincidence here how does that prove the existance of any kind of god?

Because the chances of all of these factors occurring in the same place are extraordinarily remote.