Does God exist?

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
MarcusOfLycia
Senior Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:03 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: West Michigan, United States
Contact:

Re: Does God exist?

Post by MarcusOfLycia »

CopaceticMan wrote:If you must have a reason, fine. First, no one ever forced God on me, so I naturally disbelieve. Second, everything (or almost everything) about the traditional Judeo-Christian is ill-logical. Third, I naturally am skeptical of supernatural claims, and am not easily persuaded by love and faith.
It actually isn't illogical... and in fact without it we wouldn't have science as we know it today (give some time to researching the history of science and you might be surprised).

This might be an aside, but I'm beginning to wonder if the 'I'm skeptical by default' position makes any sense. If we are purely naturalistic entities, why should truth-seeking be our biological end-goal? Wouldn't it be survival? Why then do people who believe in purely naturalistic approaches to things somehow think that they are predisposed to pursue truth instead of survival?

Gman is right, no one has 100% 'proof' (I think evidence is the right word) of God's existence, but at least we're willing to admit that. You aren't admitting that. In fact, you are admitting that "everything (or almost everything) about the traditional Judeo-Christian [faith] is ill-logical". Really? I have a hard time believing that you are as well read as you would need to be to make such a sweeping claim. But, at the very least, it proves that you are coming from a position that I've seen before; one where you claim to be somehow superhuman in your capacity to understand the truth, while starting with the assumption that everyone you are dealing with is somehow inferior. Trust me... it doesn't make for good conversation... but it is a great way to lose friends (also have experience with this).
-- Josh

“When you see a man with a great deal of religion displayed in his shop window, you may depend upon it, he keeps a very small stock of it within” C.H. Spurgeon

1st Corinthians 1:17- "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel””not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power"
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Does God exist?

Post by RickD »

RickD wrote:
It's funny to me that you wrote this. Where does Jesus claim He is God incarnate? In the bible. John 5:17-18 Jesus claimed God is his Father, making Him equal to God. Can't you see that God is speaking to you when you read the bible? On one hand, you say that Jesus is not God incarnate. On the other hand, You seem to believe that the Bible says that Jesus is God in the flesh. Many atheists claim that Jesus is not fully God, but they won't at least be honest enough to admit that the Bible claims Jesus is God. See what happens when you honestly search for God? He speaks to you through the Bible.

Ultimately, no one here can convince you that there is a God. You need to ask God to reveal Himself to you when you read the Bible. If you are honestly seeking Him, He will reveal Himself to you.


I'll admit that I may be wrong about that point, I am no Bible scholar. Here are two passages that I could find that said something to the effect that Jesus is God.
John 1:1+14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.






And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.
1 Timothy 3:16
God was made manifest in the flesh.

I also have to ask: Do you believe Jesus is God, or not? You say that the Bible says Jesus is God's son (which makes me think that you think this to). But you then also say that the Bible says Jesus is God. Typo? And, he hasn't spoken to me, all I see are a bunch of words when I read the Bible.
I'm sorry for the confusion. I just thought it was odd that you, as an atheist, believe that the bible says Jesus is God. Every athiest that I've talked to, says Jesus isn't God. And the bible doesn't say He is God. If Made it sound like I don't think Jesus is God, then I'm sorry again for the confusion. I believe Jesus is fully God, and fully man.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
CopaceticMan
Newbie Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:17 pm
Christian: No

Re: Does God exist?

Post by CopaceticMan »

puritan lad wrote:CopaceticMan wrote:
You make a claim (God), prove it (hasn't been done, at least not to anyone's satisfaction who is an outsider), then I will

You m[ight?] believe this statement to be true, but I doubt it is. As I stated before, proving God's existence is child's play.

P1: If the human mind can obtain knowledge, then God exists, since God is the precondition of human knowledge.
P2: The human mind can obtain knowledge.
Conclusion: God exists.

The problem you have isn't a lack of evidence, for you have the same evidence that we all have. The problem is that you have precommitted yourself to a materialistic workdview.

But you do know God exists, because you live in His universe, and would not be able to function without acknowledging Him in some way. Knowledge is only one area where you prove this to be true.



CopaceticMan wrote:
P.s. If the evidence is abundant, why isn't God an accepted scientific fact?

This is an argumentum ad verecundiam. Since when is science an authority on God?
First, you never gave any reason why premise 1 should be valid. If you can show premise one to be valid, then, logically, you would have proven God to be correct. Only logically though.

And you have precommitted yourself to a supernatural world view... Also, I haven't committed myself to either materialistic, or supernatural. There appears to be a natural explanation for everything. Until we can find something that can only be explained by the supernatural, the only thing you can reasonably accept is the natural. If you want to mental gymnastics to keep God in your life, fine with me. I have asked for evidence of God, not some logical proofs or accusations of me not being willing to believe.

Obviously you have evidence I don't, because I should believe if we had the same exact evidence.

First, I don't believe that God exists. So there goes your whole point about me being a closet believer. But there are naturalistic explanations for the universe, so you have to show that the most likely explanation is supernatural before I believe.

And you accusing me of a appeal to authority is wrong. That was a response to jlay, and he was claiming evidence was abundant for God's existence. My point was that if the evidence exists for everyone, why doesn't everyone believe. If the evidence is there, why hasn't anyone tested it for God's fingerprint? If the evidence is there, and is confirmable, why isn't accepted by the scientific community. If those who disbelieve are ignorant of the evidence, then be my guest take it to the news, scientists, mathematicians, whom ever, and get it announced. If it is real (confirmed as most probable, like 99.99999999999999999% sure that it is God, just like evolution), then stick a pacifier in my mouth and call me Mary, cause I will believe.

And if science isn't the authority on God? Some child raping priests (not all), or the Pope who protects them? Some priest whom everyone trusts, but knows nothing about how the world works? I'll stick to the tests, you can live with your priests.


Gman wrote:No one here has 100 percent proof that God exists. No one, including on this forum. Where are you getting this? But that doesn't mean we can't have our convictions either..
Where did I say that? I don't ever recall writing something that says "you think this is 100% true." If I did, I apologize, because I had a brain fart. Because I don't think that anyone does. (Just like I am tempted to call evolution a fact even though I know it is entirely possible the natural selection isn't the cause, but ghosts are doing it. The theory of evolution=explanation of how it occurs;fact of evolution=species change over time.)
Gman wrote:What's this? Well, everything is built on faith.. Even if you deny that God exists you still have to have faith in something else. We ALL have faith. Even you.. You cannot escape it. There is no 100 percent proof of anything.. It's all faith driven. Even in the sciences...
What do you mean by faith? As in a belief? Well yah, I'll give you that you can call atheism a belief. If you call it a religion, then you have to redefine the term, but go ahead and call it that. Under even the most loose definitions of religion (currently) atheism doesn't fit.

Faith in something else? I still don't understand what you mean. Also please see above for my apology if I mislead you.
MarcusOfLycia wrote:It actually isn't illogical... and in fact without it we wouldn't have science as we know it today (give some time to researching the history of science and you might be surprised).
Sorry I made a typo there, I meant to say Judeo-Christian God. And yes he is. The rock paradox, euthyphro's dilemma, omnipotence-and-omniscience dilemma and many more. Getting around these alone requires some mental gymnastics and is part of the reason I don't subscribe to Christianity.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:This might be an aside, but I'm beginning to wonder if the 'I'm skeptical by default' position makes any sense. If we are purely naturalistic entities, why should truth-seeking be our biological end-goal? Wouldn't it be survival? Why then do people who believe in purely naturalistic approaches to things somehow think that they are predisposed to pursue truth instead of survival?
The default position is called the Null hypothesis (a null hypothesis for a null hypothesis is both stupid and just puts you back in the positive position: negative time a negative kind-of-thing). You make the claim that God exists. I say I don't believe you/in him/(however you want to phrase it.). A good example is the invisible pink unicorn. If I say that he exists, and is in my back yard, all I would have to do is show you it and you'd believe me. If you refer to my dragon story, you'll get where I am going.

Truth-seeking is the result of our evolutionary history (this is my guess, I don't know if any biologist have ever answered/been asked this question. You should look into that.) As early homo-sapiens we were trying to come up with new ways that made it easier to hunt. Stone, slingshot, bows and arrows, etc. But as we came to the point where we didn't have to risk our lives hunting, we could settle down and look around us. We noticed patterns we never noticed before. The moon always rises at night, sun in the morning. We were able to ask why. Since we had the ability to ask questions, and the time to answer them, you start getting these people who are lucky enough to have the ability to see into the patterns. Once you get that, you start getting math (which started likely with early bartering, if one orange is worth two apples, how many apples can buy if I have ten? That kind of thing.) You also get written languages, so on and so forth. After a period, you have people asking why does wood burn, why does the sun appear to go around the earth, is the earth flat, etc. Now you have people who can make sure answers are correct, and since then, every dogma (answer) religion has put up, questions and answers have brought them down. Not all are gone, but there are WAY fewer. A simple look 200 years ago will show you that.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Gman is right, no one has 100% 'proof' (I think evidence is the right word) of God's existence, but at least we're willing to admit that. You aren't admitting that. In fact, you are admitting that "everything (or almost everything) about the traditional Judeo-Christian [faith] is ill-logical". Really? I have a hard time believing that you are as well read as you would need to be to make such a sweeping claim. But, at the very least, it proves that you are coming from a position that I've seen before; one where you claim to be somehow superhuman in your capacity to understand the truth, while starting with the assumption that everyone you are dealing with is somehow inferior. Trust me... it doesn't make for good conversation... but it is a great way to lose friends (also have experience with this).
Again, that was a typo.

And, I am well read enough to counter many supernatural claims, but being so young (try guessing, it's less than 40 y:-? ), I haven't had much time on this planet to read as much as I would like to. Also, see my apology for my misleading post, although, I still can't find where I claimed that someone has 100% proof. Where do I claim I am super-human either? Where do I claim that I have special privilege to information that no one else does? I say that I have a better understanding of science and modern theories than most, but no where do I claim that I am by any means that smartest, or most knowledgeable, or that everyone I ever talk to is inferior to me, or anything. You are being incredibly insulting, you do realize that. You have insulted me more than any other Christian I have ever met. You are making everyone you represent look bad when you insult me with baseless claims. If you mistakenly read into what I was saying and trying to infer something about me from what I am writing, I'd recommend stopping, because judging is a sin, isn't it. Are you not supposed to respect your neighbor as if you were him (I think that's how it goes, I forget, it's 1130...)?

RickD wrote:I'm sorry for the confusion. I just thought it was odd that you, as an atheist, believe that the bible says Jesus is God. Every athiest that I've talked to, says Jesus isn't God. And the bible doesn't say He is God. If Made it sound like I don't think Jesus is God, then I'm sorry again for the confusion. I believe Jesus is fully God, and fully man.
You, sir, are the only Christian I have taken a liking to. Clarifying and asking, not accusing. Answering is fine.

Every atheist says Jesus isn't God, because they don't, first, believe God exists and thinks Jesus was JUST some guy. Second, maybe because the Bible, isn't very consistent on this point (like many others, but that's another topic.) I was saying, the Bible says Jesus was/is God. I could be wrong about that, I'm no Bible scholar. (Hey Marcus, I even said the same thing in my last post, why, if I think everyone is inferior to me, say that I could be wrong. Why wouldn't I say I'm always right, and I'm the best Bible scholar that is. Your portrait of atheists is wrong.) I have to ask you though, since you had a few typos there, are you saying that Jesus is God, or isn't.




Now Marcus, back to you.

Wanna know why some atheists are so rude and arrogant?

I don't care if you don't wanna know, I going to tell you. It's because they argue against something, say the cosmological argument, and essentially disprove it. Then some other guy comes back and, with a slightly different version, says "Ha, What about this one?!?!?!" And every other theist says something else. This doesn't just happen once, but dozens, upon dozens of times... Every time he disproves it, his ego gets bigger, his audience gets bigger, etc. This just serves to reinforce the atheism of some atheists, bring middle men into atheism. You wanna know who I am talking about. People like you (I only assume that you are like them, because you haven't said, or responded with anything useful, or even nice. If you apologize, I won't lump you with them.) (When I say people like you I mean creationists, religitards, etc. Don't get me wrong, there are smart Christians, but smart Christians will admit they are wrong, religitards don't. There are also, dumb atheists. They give people like me, and the 'bigots' you talk about, a bad name. Some of them come to atheism for the wrong reasons [imo], others just say some stupid crap. Others believe that it is entirely possible to 100% disprove God, but then sign up for the evolution theory, not evolution fact.)






I probably have a large number of typos in here, so don't accuse me of anything if you are confused with what I wrote. And if your response is accusing me of being a bigot, or something like that, just delete your post and wait till you have something worth while to respond to.




Let me clarify my original question: 1)Does God exist? Why is he the best explanation for X? Why not explanation Z, which came from scientists? 2) How do you get around all the contradictions associated with God as a being, not the book? 3) I forget what it was, I am having a brain fart.
We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on.
Richard Feynman (1918 - 1988)
Maytan
Established Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:03 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Does God exist?

Post by Maytan »

I'd love to jump into this argument, but I don't have the time to spend time on this right now. I can, however, introduce you to some links, CopaceticMan. Some of your issues are answered on the very front-page of this website for this forum, if you look through the articles. (godandscience.org)

Another website I'd like to point out to you is RTB's. I think you'll find some interesting information here.
User avatar
MarcusOfLycia
Senior Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:03 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: West Michigan, United States
Contact:

Re: Does God exist?

Post by MarcusOfLycia »

I wrote this:
Gman is right, no one has 100% 'proof' (I think evidence is the right word) of God's existence, but at least we're willing to admit that. You aren't admitting that. In fact, you are admitting that "everything (or almost everything) about the traditional Judeo-Christian [faith] is ill-logical". Really? I have a hard time believing that you are as well read as you would need to be to make such a sweeping claim. But, at the very least, it proves that you are coming from a position that I've seen before; one where you claim to be somehow superhuman in your capacity to understand the truth, while starting with the assumption that everyone you are dealing with is somehow inferior. Trust me... it doesn't make for good conversation... but it is a great way to lose friends (also have experience with this).
You wrote this:
And, I am well read enough to counter many supernatural claims, but being so young (try guessing, it's less than 40 y:-? ), I haven't had much time on this planet to read as much as I would like to. Also, see my apology for my misleading post, although, I still can't find where I claimed that someone has 100% proof. Where do I claim I am super-human either? Where do I claim that I have special privilege to information that no one else does? I say that I have a better understanding of science and modern theories than most, but no where do I claim that I am by any means that smartest, or most knowledgeable, or that everyone I ever talk to is inferior to me, or anything. You are being incredibly insulting, you do realize that. You have insulted me more than any other Christian I have ever met. You are making everyone you represent look bad when you insult me with baseless claims. If you mistakenly read into what I was saying and trying to infer something about me from what I am writing, I'd recommend stopping, because judging is a sin, isn't it. Are you not supposed to respect your neighbor as if you were him (I think that's how it goes, I forget, it's 1130...)?

...

Wanna know why some atheists are so rude and arrogant?
I don't care if you don't wanna know, I going to tell you. It's because they argue against something, say the cosmological argument, and essentially disprove it. Then some other guy comes back and, with a slightly different version, says "Ha, What about this one?!?!?!" And every other theist says something else. This doesn't just happen once, but dozens, upon dozens of times... Every time he disproves it, his ego gets bigger, his audience gets bigger, etc. This just serves to reinforce the atheism of some atheists, bring middle men into atheism. You wanna know who I am talking about. People like you (I only assume that you are like them, because you haven't said, or responded with anything useful, or even nice. If you apologize, I won't lump you with them.) (When I say people like you I mean creationists, religitards, etc. Don't get me wrong, there are smart Christians, but smart Christians will admit they are wrong, religitards don't. There are also, dumb atheists. They give people like me, and the 'bigots' you talk about, a bad name. Some of them come to atheism for the wrong reasons [imo], others just say some stupid crap. Others believe that it is entirely possible to 100% disprove God, but then sign up for the evolution theory, not evolution fact.)
I'm the most insulting Christian you've ever met? What, exactly, was my insult? How, precisely, is that tantamount to "the most insulting Christian [you've] ever met"? What does that mean? What I said was based on the implication of your statement: You claimed that the Judeo-Christian God is (likely) entirely illogical, yet you imply in your posts that you are not predisposed against the view (by claiming to have a 'null' position). Such a thorough knowledge of theology would be superhuman vs subhuman - its simple terminology I use to describe, well... what you described in your second paragraph as the 'arrogant atheist'. Theologians have spent lifetimes contemplating the sorts of issues you mention as being 'problems' with God. I'm suggesting that if you think everything is illogical, you are doing so incorrectly. It should be of the utmost consideration in your mind that ignorance of the reality of things is a distinct possibility. But, at the very least, you need to admit a bias here. It isn't a neutral position that anyone starts from.

I don't feel the need to apologize. I don't think I said anything insulting or untrue. However, if -you- would like to apologize for saying "When I say people like you, I mean... religitards...", or perhaps if you'd like to at least admit that you have an emotional reason to embrace atheism and attack Christianity, I would be interested in hearing it. And, I have gone back and reread my responses to you on a previous post to confirm that I haven't insulted you. So, if I'm missing something, please let me know.

[EDIT] It occured to me that you might have taken the line '... it is a good way to lose friends' as an insult. I didn't mean it as one, and would like to clarify. I have had people in my life change belief systems in the past in different directions. Fair enough. And sometimes it was a 'peaceful' transition (they made it clear they were searching or pursuing the truth) and that was that. In a few instances, some people became really militant in their positions, making accusations, insulting people of other faiths, becoming extraordinarily bitter in a very brief time, and just in general annoying all of their friends (except those new ones that feed the new belief system). I was merely trying to point out that I've seen this destroy relationships... this idea of atheists thinking of themselves as the most neutral of all groups of people with the purest philosophical lens, the noblest goals, and the most honest pursuit of truth. It just ain't so. That's all I meant by it.
-- Josh

“When you see a man with a great deal of religion displayed in his shop window, you may depend upon it, he keeps a very small stock of it within” C.H. Spurgeon

1st Corinthians 1:17- "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel””not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power"
User avatar
puritan lad
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1491
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:44 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Stuarts Draft, VA
Contact:

Re: Does God exist?

Post by puritan lad »

CopaceticMan wrote:First, you never gave any reason why premise 1 should be valid. If you can show premise one to be valid, then, logically, you would have proven God to be correct.
Sure:

Prove A: God is the precondition of human knowledge.

Step 1 - Assume the opposite. ~A: God is not the precondition of human knowledge.
Step 2 - ~A --> B: If God is not the precondition of human knowledge, then knowledge can be justified and accounted for in a godless universe.
Step 3 - ~B: Knowledge cannot be justified and accounted for in a godless universe.
Step 4 - ~~A: It is not the case that God is not the precondition of human knowledge.
Step 5 - A: God is the precondition of human knowledge.
QED
CopaceticMan wrote:Only logically though.
Didn't you claim that Christianity was "illogical"? Would you like to retract that statement, or prove what you previously asserted? What other kind of proof would you require?
CopaceticMan wrote:And you have precommitted yourself to a supernatural world view... Also, I haven't committed myself to either materialistic, or supernatural.
Sure you have. There is no such thing as a "null hypothesis" (the place where you described your position earlier). You want atheism (or at least agnosticism) to be the default worldview. But in a battle of worldviews, there are no philosophical freebies. Both sides are open for criticism, not just theism. Before you can even form an argument, whether it be from science or "reason", you have to make certain assumptions that a naturalist has no right to make. You have to assume that the human mind is capable for meaningful activity outside the creative attributes and providence of God. You have to assume that there exists a state of affairs conducive to scientific enterprise, but won't dare consider why such a state of affairs exists. These are things that you will need to justify before we can accept anything you offer.
CopaceticMan wrote:There appears to be a natural explanation for everything.
Then you should have no problem refuting Step 3 in my proof above. Let's see the naturalistic explanation for human knowledge (or Science for that matter).
CopaceticMan wrote:If you want to mental gymnastics to keep God in your life, fine with me. I have asked for evidence of God, not some logical proofs or accusations of me not being willing to believe.
You still haven't given us what kind of evidence you would accept. But you will have to answer to above questions before we can even get to "evidence", as evidence depends upon ones metaphysical precommitment.
CopaceticMan wrote:And if science isn't the authority on God? Some child raping priests (not all), or the Pope who protects them? Some priest whom everyone trusts, but knows nothing about how the world works? I'll stick to the tests, you can live with your priests.
Sweeping Generalization, Ad Hominem, and Red Herring. Before you call something "illogical", you may want to learn how to have a logical discussion. I'm arguing for the objective truth of Christianity, not your opinion on those who practice it.
Last edited by puritan lad on Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:00 am, edited 4 times in total.
"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." - JOHN OWEN

//covenant-theology.blogspot.com
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com/
Noah1201
Recognized Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:21 pm
Christian: No

Re: Does God exist?

Post by Noah1201 »

Isn't your argument essentially a variant of the God-of-the-gaps ("we don't know how to account for knowledge in a godless universe, therefore God exists). Furthermore, I still (if you remember me from the thread on presuppositionalism) don't understand how you make the leap from "God" to "Christian God".
User avatar
puritan lad
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1491
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:44 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Stuarts Draft, VA
Contact:

Re: Does God exist?

Post by puritan lad »

Noah1201 wrote:Isn't your argument essentially a variant of the God-of-the-gaps ("we don't know how to account for knowledge in a godless universe, therefore God exists).
The "god of the gaps" argument is invalid, because it first requires a precommittment to a naturalistic worldview. The "god of the gaps" argument then uses God to explain the gaps of knowledge in the naturalistic worldview. My argument is that, without God, we cannot explain or know anything. If we don't begin with God, we have no basis for even forming an argument. In other word, the God of the gaps uses God as a stop gap for the holes in naturalism. My argument is that God is the God of everything, including the gaps. He is the God of what we know, not merely the God of what we don't know.

There is no neutral territory. We either start with God, and thus have an objective basis for knowledge. or we start with "no God", and thus cannot know anything.
Noah1201 wrote:Furthermore, I still (if you remember me from the thread on presuppositionalism) don't understand how you make the leap from "God" to "Christian God".
Because the Christian God is the only one who can be the precondition for knowledge (other than hypothetic alternatives). But then we need to justify the authority of these alternatives.
"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." - JOHN OWEN

//covenant-theology.blogspot.com
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California

Re: Does God exist?

Post by Gman »

CopaceticMan wrote:
Gman wrote:No one here has 100 percent proof that God exists. No one, including on this forum. Where are you getting this? But that doesn't mean we can't have our convictions either..
Where did I say that? I don't ever recall writing something that says "you think this is 100% true." If I did, I apologize, because I had a brain fart. Because I don't think that anyone does. (Just like I am tempted to call evolution a fact even though I know it is entirely possible the natural selection isn't the cause, but ghosts are doing it. The theory of evolution=explanation of how it occurs;fact of evolution=species change over time.)
I brought that up because it seems that you wanted 100 percent proof of God. Both camps, atheists and creationist do not have it. And what facts they might have been soaked in philosophy something "real" science shouldn't do..
CopaceticMan wrote:
Gman wrote:What's this? Well, everything is built on faith.. Even if you deny that God exists you still have to have faith in something else. We ALL have faith. Even you.. You cannot escape it. There is no 100 percent proof of anything.. It's all faith driven. Even in the sciences...
What do you mean by faith? As in a belief? Well yah, I'll give you that you can call atheism a belief. If you call it a religion, then you have to redefine the term, but go ahead and call it that. Under even the most loose definitions of religion (currently) atheism doesn't fit.

Faith in something else? I still don't understand what you mean. Also please see above for my apology if I mislead you.
Sure.. Atheism is a faith or religion just like any other religion. A religion does not require a deity either.... They have substituted time, chance, gravity and matter as their god. It's not like an atheist hasn't denied the concept of authority, they just transfer it to some other authority, like their science or their ego, etc... Which in turn becomes their religion.

And atheism is CHUCK FULL of faith which requires miracles as well. To this day no one can say exactly how the universe came to being, or how life originated on earth, or what is the chemical composition of love. No one has rock solid evidence.. Hypothesis and theories yes, concrete evidence no. Both faiths require miracles, there is no other way around it..

Everyone is religious... Everyone.
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
User avatar
MarcusOfLycia
Senior Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:03 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: West Michigan, United States
Contact:

Re: Does God exist?

Post by MarcusOfLycia »

Gman wrote:And atheism is CHUCK FULL of faith which requires miracles as well. To this day no one can say exactly how the universe came to being, or how life originated on earth, of what is the chemical composition of love. No one has rock solid evidence.. Hypothesis and theories yes, concrete evidence no. Both faiths require miracles, there is no other way around it..
Kind of like a 'science of the gaps' idea.
-- Josh

“When you see a man with a great deal of religion displayed in his shop window, you may depend upon it, he keeps a very small stock of it within” C.H. Spurgeon

1st Corinthians 1:17- "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel””not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power"
Noah1201
Recognized Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:21 pm
Christian: No

Re: Does God exist?

Post by Noah1201 »

puritan lad wrote: Because the Christian God is the only one who can be the precondition for knowledge (other than hypothetic alternatives). But then we need to justify the authority of these alternatives.
Please explain what you mean by "justifying the authority" of these alternatives. Perhaps you want to say the same thing you've said in the last thread, that there must be a source of revelation of this hypothetical religion in order for it to be considered a valid, competing worldview. If that's the case, then, hypothetically, I could do just that, and write down the details of Christianity + 1 in a notebook and claim that it was revealed to me by God. What would you say then?

As for the God-of-the-gaps bit, your response went over my head. I'll try to respond to it later.
DannyM
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: A little corner of England

Re: Does God exist?

Post by DannyM »

puritan lad wrote:
CopaceticMan wrote:And if science isn't the authority on God? Some child raping priests (not all), or the Pope who protects them? Some priest whom everyone trusts, but knows nothing about how the world works? I'll stick to the tests, you can live with your priests.
Sweeping Generalization, Ad Hominem, and Red Herring.
Glad you noticed this. For a man who says he doesn't like logical fallacies, this really does take the biscuit. Lol. But you can see the theme (hatred for all things Christian) throughout his posts...Shame others fail to see this and would rather throw pearls...
credo ut intelligam

dei gratia
User avatar
jlay
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3613
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:47 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist

Re: Does God exist?

Post by jlay »

We know that all the conditions for creating life are, at least, possible. All the processes are possible. When you have trillions and trillions of molecules, and hundreds of thousands of years, the odds, while still unlikely may only produce one cell.
The conditions for CREATING life? Of course the conditions for CREATING life are possible. We are here. There is no doubt that life was in fact created. But you are assuming trillions of molecules and conditions, and yet providing no explanation for them. It all boils down to chance. Given enough time, universes, etc.

There is zero evidence for a multiverse. It is complete imagination used to push the alpha event further into the past.
Until we can find something that can only be explained by the supernatural, the only thing you can reasonably accept is the natural.
That is a presuppositional bias.
If the universe began, then there was no nature, and thus no natural laws. So, whatever began it was in fact supernatural.
We know that certain amino acids can form by themselves.
We do. Please cite an example of this as observed in the natural world with no human intervention, or setting of conditions.
Why does an amino acid form a protein? Because that is what it is coded (programmed) to do.

If you must have a reason, fine. First, no one ever forced God on me, so I naturally disbelieve. Second, everything (or almost everything) about the traditional Judeo-Christian is ill-logical. Third, I naturally am skeptical of supernatural claims, and am not easily persuaded by love and faith.
You are appealing to a personal genetic fallacy. I could cite all the cultures that demonstrate a natural tendency for a higher power. Which they do. But it doesn't mean a predisposition for God is correct. So what gives your predisposition (natural or not) authority?
God will reveal himself to me if I seek him, or burn me for not seeing a reason to seek him. All-loving my ***.
This is a predjedicial, emotional reaction. Yet you argue you are not biased with presuppostions.
Well, we have these things called observations.
And what reason do you have to trust them?
When you can repeatedly get the same results from a device, we call it reliable, especially when based off of a known example. When you have an experiment, you should repeat it multiple times, to ensure accuracy.
The problem here is that you take for granted that there is uniformity in nature. Why is there uniformity? Why can we trust in these principals?
We can conclude that the most likely, and what we can also call most logical, solution is that the bullet came from the suspects gun. Most likely=most logical with given evidence.)). People don't have to do it directly, we can enter data into programs that will do it for us. Arguments are based on evidence (good or bad).
Again, you have to assume logic is valid. But there is no explanation for it, because it isn't material. Logic is abstract, with no way to account for it in a material world.

You spent a lot of time explaining processes that we can all agree on. That isn't the issue. It isn't an ontological issue, but an epistemoligcal issue.
I hope you realize that there is an inherent difference between a computer program, and biology. You can't take an analogy of something, that we both agree can't even reproduce, or even live (by the definition of a living organism/cell), and turn it into a thing that can. But for the purposes of the example I'll go along with it.
I said it was a crude example. Surely you understand analogies and their limitations.
You say that ALL the required materials were there prior to the code, and with enough time, the code came about. Ignoring how, you had the precursor, and it came about, therefore it is at least possible. Especially since all the conditions were perfect. I also presume this is a genetic code, and a virus (otherwise it wouldn't be able to do it.)
No, this is a crude definition of what many atheists believe. If you reduce it down, it is just particals to people.
If the evidence is abundant, why isn't God an accepted scientific fact?
That is a great question. Why do people engage in self-destructive behavior even though they know the consequences?
Evidence isn't the problem. it is your interpretations of evidence. We all have the exact same evidence.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord

"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California

Re: Does God exist?

Post by Gman »

About the God of the gaps argument...

I've explained this before... Here it is again..

"Many say that the belief in God is just an argument from ignorance, you can’t prove that it’s not true so it must be true. This is the classic God of the gaps argument. We don’t know how it works yet so we say God did it. But we see this true with Darwinism all the time also with the origin of life, the origin of the phyla, the decent of man, in other words we don’t know how it works yet, but we are going to say that evolution did it. So there is no difference between God of the gaps and evolution of the gaps. We say it’s not testable; clearly you can’t take bunch of non-living chemicals, expose it to the right conditions and get a cell to come out. It’s something that took place in the past, we can’t test this. We can’t take a reptile, and expose it to radiation or gama rays, and get it to grow feathers. Basically Design and Darwinian evolution are not technically testable. This is not science vs religion, this is a battle between two different fundamental philosophies. Two different world views. "
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
User avatar
MarcusOfLycia
Senior Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:03 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: West Michigan, United States
Contact:

Re: Does God exist?

Post by MarcusOfLycia »

Right gman. I wasn't sure if you were responding to me or not, but that is exactly what I was trying to say in my small reply to you. Basically, that if an appeal to a "God of the gaps" explanation is invalid, it is equally invalid to do a "science of the gaps" approach, and yet its done. Example: "We should just assume that there will be, at some point, a naturalistic explanation for everything."
-- Josh

“When you see a man with a great deal of religion displayed in his shop window, you may depend upon it, he keeps a very small stock of it within” C.H. Spurgeon

1st Corinthians 1:17- "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel””not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power"
Post Reply