Does God Exist?
Quote: MathExtremistThe concept of god is far older than the concept of phlogiston. Do you think it will be possible through advances in physics or some other branch of human knowledge to demonstrate that god doesn't exist?
There is no need for science to prove god doesn't exist, beacsue there is no rational reason to suppose any such thing actually exists. Likewise there's no need for science to disprove astrology, or the notion that the Moon is made of cheese.
I mentioned phlogiston as a reasonable assumption, given the then-current level of knowledge, which turned out to be wrong. Phlogiston almost, but not quite, explained combustion. The discovery of oxygen, indeed of gasses as being material, explained everything and debunked phlogiston. My point is that dark matter and missing particles may either be found, or may go the way of phlogiston.
Quote:At its conception, was god a reasonable explanation given the state of knowledge at the time?
No. It explained nothing, it just gave a name to what was unknown and over time discouraged investigation. Remember Galileo? Even Newton faced trouble, though not as extreme, for daring to suggest light wasn't "pure." Ben Franklin was denounced for inventing the lightning rod.
Simply saying "god did it" just pushes the problem back: how did god do it? And don't even ask why, because it's not the right of mortals to question the god. Be satisfied with "God moves in mysterious ways."
So, no, it wasn't a reasonable explanation.
Quote: gofaster87If the things I show you can be explained by anything other than the existence of God, Jesus Christ and the virgin Mary
Don't buy the tickets, Nareed! God doesn't live in Egypt,
everybody knows he lives in the Vatican. Or in Lynchburg,
VA. Or Utah.
Quote: gofaster87Well if we had the time and it was reasonably safe, we could fly to Egypt so I could show you. You buy the tickets and Ill go. If the things I show you can be explained by anything other than the existence of God, Jesus Christ and the virgin Mary Ill bite my tongue and post a public apology.
You still fail to identify your alleged evidence. You're using tactics more commonly seen in con games. Mind, far too clumsily to be a real con.
So, where in Egypt, what is it, what does it do, where was it found, by whom, when was it found, has it been documented by serious scientists or even serious scholars? And that's just for starters.
And if such evidence were shown here, would you believe it was real?Quote: NareedThen you should be able to rpesent here, shouldn't you? Otherwise youre' just making noise.Quote: gofaster87I have actually seen evidence of God.
The first 5 minutes of this clip is some pretty convincing some "evidence".
Is that acceptable evidence? Or are you going to claim that it was just trick photography?
Now watch the next 3 minutes - the discussion in the judge's chambers. These people were direct witnesses, and yet there is still doubt!
My point is this, there is no way to present second hand evidence and have it be believed by a non-believer. And there's no way to present first-hand evidence to 6 billion people.
Quote: gofaster87Ill cite the example of actually being given the evidence I wasnt Jerry Logan. You said an apology would be given for your behavior if was to be made fact I wasn't him.
Well, you are a liar, but not Jerry Logan:
Click here
Not quite halfway down the page, post dated May 16th 2011.
What else might you be lying about?
Quote: DJTeddyBearAnd if such evidence were shown here, would you believe it was real?
Just becasue it was presented here? No. But I would be willing to look further into it.
Quote:The first 5 minutes of this clip is some pretty convincing some "evidence".
Is that acceptable evidence? Or are you going to claim that it was just trick photography?
I can't watch videos at work, and I make it a practice not to watch videos without some description about whet they contain (otherwise I find myself wasting a lot of time). So perhaps you'll tell me what's in it.
Quote:My point is this, there is no way to present second hand evidence and have it be believed by a non-believer.
No, but there are ways to present first-hand evidence. It's done every day by countless scientists and scholars all over the world, or at least all over the West. So I ask: is there any such evidence?
Quote:And there's no way to present first-hand evidence to 6 billion people.
I'm one person :)
Quote: gofaster87You do make a good point I didn't witness the items and the things that happened to them in person at the point they happened but i believe my mother to be truthful along with most of the people in the Coptic Orthodox religion.
So your conclusive evidence is a story you heard from someone else?
Sorry, but that and $5 will get you a pass line bet at a $5 craps table.
BTW you still haven't even said what it is.
- Complexity (Beauty, Age) <> God. Science has been used successfully to explain and prove complexities and we're arrogant to assume that we'll eventually figure out everything.
- Our existence <> God. Evolution is a good theory and Drake's theorem postulates that there's other intelligent life that we haven't discovered and even if there is absolutely no life found outside this planet doesn't prove that God exists.
- Bible/holy book being wrong <> No god.
Yet I still believe that God exists. It's a spiritual thing... a bunch of brain chemistry working together to brainwash me I'm sure. I guess I'm not a good a person as everyone else. Sigh.
Quote: gofaster87I never said anything about stories. I said physical evidence. I just wasn't there the moment the "miracle" happened to the specific objects.
An unspecified miracle happened to unnamed objects, according to you, and you learned of it from someone else. I'll be generous and assume you heard from someone who was there.
If that's so, all you have is a story, or if you preffer a claim, not hard evidence.
Look, you can show me a sealed bottle of water containing wine, then claim the water miraculously transformed to wine and that's evidence that God exists. That woulnd't be evidence because 1) I could esily pour wine into a watter bottle and seal it so you wouldn't know it dind't just come out of the assembly line (it's very easy), 2) you would need to show some documentation that there was water in the bottle to begin with, not wine, 3) you would ahve to show the liquid inside is actually wine (I could easily inject a dye to turn the wate purple, too).
Of course that's just for starters.
But merely showing a water bottle, sealed, containing a puprlpe fluid, is not evidence of a mirculous transformation of water into wine. presenting the bottle and saying it changed to wine is not hard evidence. It's just a claim, a story.
Quote:Im not going to argue belief with you
Then don't. But please don't say what you're not going to do when youa re clearly doing it.
Quote:and Im not forcing my belief on anyone else.
No. But you are insulting people who disagree with you. Worse yet, you are accusing me of doing what youre doing.
Quote:From what I see you know as much about religion or belief as you do gambling and that doesn't seem to be much. Argue with someone else.
Yes, like that. You can stop demonstrating now.
Quote: boymimboBelieving that God exists is a belief and nothing more.
I've no quarrel with that at all.
I mind, and a great deal, when after saying something like:
Quote:There's no proof that God exists.
some people go on to claim not believeing in god is also an act of faith.
See the difference?
Quote: NareedI've no quarrel with that at all.
I mind, and a great deal, when after saying something like: "There is no proof God exists"
some people go on to claim not believeing in god is also an act of faith.
See the difference?
Believing in no-god is different than not believing in god. To wit, there is also no proof that no god exists. If you deny god because there is no proof of god, then you must also deny no-god because there is no proof of no-god. That leaves you with "I don't know", unless you disagree with the original premise and instead hold that failure to believe in something means you necessarily believe in its negation.
This concisely illustrates why attempting to use scientific methods on religious questions is a bad idea. Religious questions, by their very nature, are not resolvable by scientific investigation.
Quote: gofaster87Ill play your game. Documentation proves nothing.
Sometimes it does. A photograph of the water bottle containign a clear, water-like liquid, whosing the lot number and expiration date, better yet showing some peculiarity of that bottle (torn label, bump, whatever), showing an unbroken seal, with a time stamp, would prove the bottle contained something else in the recent past.
Quote:You want proof of God that cant really be given even with documentation. Unless you were there nothing historical can be proven beyond a doubt.
Thats' not so. Historians rely on multiple sources, artifacts and other things when judging the accuracy of historical accounts. If, say, a colonist in Massachussets wrote of a battle at X date in Y place, and a Brittish logistics lieutenant's diary shows expenditures of ammunition and gun powder at that place and time, you can conclude a batle did take place there and then.
I am being perfectly reasonable here. You, on the other hand, have prejudged I will reject everything out of hand and are throwing a tantrum as a result. Well, I'm not responsible for your prejudice. If you want to throw a fit, that's your problem.
I am willing to examine any evidence. I am not willing to beg you, or anyone else, to please even identify what evidence you claim to ahve, much less beg to be shown it. If you want to show your evidence, or even describe it, fine. If you'll just claim it exists but won't show it or even say what it is, then go waste someone else's time.
I will admit I'm willing to examine any evidence presented because I know no such evidence exists, because no such evidence can exist. I would just as readily examine evidence about the existence of Santa Claus, or Ra, or aliens from outer space, or unicorns, or dragons, or sirens, or mermaids, or an entertaining soccer game.
Yet I am honest enough to look without bias and reach a fair decision. It's possible unicorns may have existed, after all.
Quote: gofaster87along with most of the people in the Coptic Orthodox religion.
Insert theme from the 'Twilight Zone' here...
I was being deliberately vague. It was a feeble attempt to make a point.Quote: NareedI can't watch videos at work, and I make it a practice not to watch videos without some description about whet they contain (otherwise I find myself wasting a lot of time). So perhaps you'll tell me what's in it.Quote: DJTeddyBearThe first 5 minutes of this clip is some pretty convincing some "evidence".
The clip is the courtroom scene in the first Oh, God! movie, where God (George Burns) makes a personal appearance, and convinces those in the courtroom that he is truly God. Then, in the judge's chambers, the 'evidence' is ignored, and it is ruled that God did not really appear.
My point is, if you were told that the first part was a news clip and not a movie, would you believe that God was in the courtroom?
My other point was, regardless of your answer, in the next 3 minutes, some of those actual witnesses do not believe.
That being the case, what chance does ANY sort of evidence have, other than first-hand experience?
Quote: DJTeddyBearThe clip is the courtroom scene in the first Oh, God! movie, where God (George Burns) makes a personal appearance, and convinces those in the courtroom that he is truly God. Then, in the judge's chambers, the 'evidence' is ignored, and it is ruled that God did not really appear.
George Burns once said, when asked about playing God (literally), that at his age doing anything was a miracle :)
Quote:My point is, if you were told that the first part was a news clip and not a movie, would you believe that God was in the courtroom?
No offense, but you're reaching.
Quote:That being the case, what chance does ANY sort of evidence have, other than first-hand experience?
An excellent chance, if it were real.
If, on the other hand, the "evidence" consists of claims backed up by nothing, or of subjective feelings, then you just can't expect it to be taken seriously.
What would constitute real evidence? It depends on which god we're testing for. A Mayan god would get a plant to spit on a woman and impregnate her (I think, it's been ages since I read the Popol Vuh), or would transform a man-shaped tortilla into a real man. That would be very conclusive. The Biblical god, on the other hand, could hand over a short-term prophecy, as is a common ploy in time travel stories. Or he could revive someone who's been declared dead by a competent physician (of course we'd have to rule out catatonic states and even the effects of extreme cold, both of which can be sued to fake such things; but I digress). Or let's see the colorado river turn to blood. Actual animal blood that will show red and white blood cells and platelets. that should be easy, as red blood is red because of red blood cells.
Quote: gofaster87Are you you a specialist in the field of religious objects?
No.
Quote:Can you, for certain, say if something is evidence that God exists?
No, but if a river suddenly turned to blood I'd be intrigued.
You can't even say what evidence you claim to ahve seen. So challenging me on what hypothetical evidence I would accept does not impress me.
Quote:You're just not happy because your theory of documentation was thrown out the window.
When? I mentioned docummentation among other things, not as some kind of be-all evidence.
Quote:Historians also argue about historical fact amongst themselves. Who is right? Who determines which historian is right?
Sometimes the evidence, when such exists. Sometimes no evidence, or not enough, is left.
For isnatnce, are there any sources other than the Bible that tell of Jews being kept captive and enslaved in Egypt?
Quote: gofaster87Lets say that a group of people were praying in a cavern while they were hiding from invaders, this is located underneath a holy place. While praying the image of Jesus went across the room and left a clear impression on the cavern wall.
What kind of impression? Has it been tested chemically and phisically? What did the "miracle" accomplish? What is "the image of Jesus"? How do you know the "image of Jesus" wasn't left there by a playful Loki torturing those he considers unbelievers?
Quote:What about a plate that was held in hand that shook then cracked in several places and left a clear impression of the virgin Mary?
About as impressive as Elvis appearing on a tortilla, or the "virgin" Mary doing the same thing. You know what would be a miravle at this point? An image of Elvis Costello appearing anywhere.
If that was your holy, secret evidence, I am not impressed at all. The Catholics have milked their Medieval fakery much farther.
Quote: gofaster87Lets say that a group of people were praying in a cavern while they were hiding from invaders, this is located underneath a holy place. While praying the image of Jesus went across the room and left a clear impression on the cavern wall. This room has been closely guarded since and is surrounded by iron bars. Would this be some kind of proof he exists or would everyone say its a sham. It is documented and still exits to this day. What is the explanation?
The thing that really bugs me is people think if theres a god,
he plays childish parlor tricks like this. Or walking on water
or turns water into wine. Its just silliness and people actually
take it seriously.
Quote: gofaster87To clarify about the image on the plate, it was not an image made from the cracks it was an image that appeared out of nowhere, and etching if you want to call it that. Choose your words wisely because I dont take kindly to people calling my mother a liar or a fraud.
You choose your words accurately first.
I'm still not impressed. The Catholic Medieval forgery is quite impressive, a real work of art.
Quote: gofaster87I look back when I was in the Corp and remember our saying of God, Country, Corp.
After seeing Full Metal Jacket I would pretend to be a Wonder Bread Christian if I were in the military. It would seem commie heathen don't fit in well.
Quote: gofaster87A monkey coming out of your ass wouldn't impress you so I'm not sure anything would.
I think most people would be impressed by that, even if it was a small monkey.
Quote: gofaster87They forced him to attend services or do extracurricular exercise. He was really tired most of the time.
Beat the fear of god into the boy, thats the spirit. LOL!
Quote: gofaster87Well we dont take you seriously so whats your point?
Hey, I'm not seeing Jesus in a potato chip or the rust
on the side of an old fridge. I'm not seeing him anywhere.
You're the one with visions, not me..
Quote: FrGambleTo not understand or believe that is to condemn ourselves to a sad conception of reality that nothing really matters and I am a cosmic accident - I'd rather play Keno that think that!
Well then, you better place your keno bets ...
"It was as if that great rush of anger had washed me clean, emptied me of hope, and, gazing up at the dark sky spangled with its signs and stars, for the first time, the first, I laid my heart open to the benign indifference of the universe."
--- Albert Camus
Quote: FrGambleMatilda -
It's not that one of us doesn't know about the topic at hand it is a question on how deep do we want to really go in our posts. I do try to keep things simple because we are not in a Sartre forum. However, you must agree that for him it is only for consciousness that the world appears as an intelligible system of distinct and interrelated things. The l'en-soi (the in-itself) or 'raw being' is as he describes it opaque, massive, undifferentiated, the nebulous background, as it were, out of which the world is made to appear. It is "without reason, without cause and without necessity" (JP Satre, "Being and Nothingness" trans. H. Barnes, p. 713). Being simply is, there is no reason for it, "To exist is simply to be there" (La nausee, p. 171, English ed., Penguin). As you quoted above man comes along and defines himself and existence. Therefore, man is thrown back entirely on himself, and he cannot justify his choice of making himself into something as ideal by appealing to a divine plan for the human race. My point is that if in fact there is no God who has created man for a purpose, to attain a determinate end or goal, there is no given moral order to which man can appeal to justify his choice. There are no absolute values in Sartre's system without God and since I don't seem to know what nausea means (or how to spell it) let me say that this atheistic existentialism just scares me.
Sounds pretty good doesn't it. Well I have to ask FrGamble if he has ever heard of of Frederick Copelston? Have you ever heard of his books titled The History of Philosophy. Are you acquainted with Vol. IX?
Of course you are. Because that is where you plagiarized your statements about Sartre and philosophy.
You are a fraud and you have been busted by Detective Matilda. You stated in another post "but if I'm being honest we should all be honest". But you are not honest. You stole another's work and presented it as your own.
Find the truth at http://www.scribd.com/doc/22255713/vol-9-modern-philosophy
Scroll down to page 184 in the reader which is page 350 in the work. Read the last paragraph in the left column. FrGamble copied part of this paragraph word for word.
Quote: gofaster87Lets say that a group of people were praying in a cavern while they were hiding from invaders, this is located underneath a holy place. While praying the image of Jesus went across the room and left a clear impression on the cavern wall. This room has been closely guarded since and is surrounded by iron bars. Would this be some kind of proof he exists or would everyone say its a sham.
Perhaps it was the Invaders god leading them to the pansies who were hiding. I assume they believed in different gods, just as they do today. And when everyone believes in a different god, they ALL lose credibility.
Quote: gofaster87What about a plate that was held in hand that shook then cracked in several places and left a clear impression of the virgin Mary?
Really??? And what did she look like? Was she a dark-skinned black woman? This was Egypt you know. How do you know if wasn't just an image of the local baker's daughter? What does Jesus look like for that matter? Do you really think the typical biblical representation of a white man with long blond hair and blue eyes came out of Africa? Or maybe Jesus was born in Norway?
Quote: zippyboy\Do you really think the typical biblical representation of a white man with long blond hair and blue eyes came out of Africa? Or maybe Jesus was born in Norway?
A couple years ago they came out with a drawing
of what Jesus probably looked like. He was a short,
balding Jewish guy with a large nose. Very average
looking Jew for the period in which he lived. Dark
skinned too, like an Arab. He would have been short
for sure. The average height of a man 2000 years ago
in the Med-East was about 5'3". Heck, the average of
a Civil War soldier was only 5'6". My wife used to sell
vintage clothing from the late 1800's and we always
marveled at how small people were. About the size
of an average 7th grader these days.
Yes GOD exist as tough and with some predetermined perspective what GOD is - symbols among other ...
Can be as cartoon or a symbol that stands for certain values - to say it does not exist with that kind of definition would simple be ridiculous.
Then if some one specifier that GOD does not exist as a unknown force in our daily life - it would also be simple and ridiculous as GOD effect many humans daily life and beliefs.
The conclusion is that some one has to define how GOD does not exist using a specific definition to make the statement clear.
Some one could argue that the nature and the modern society's imbalance and balance has its own complex laws and are the source of God's creation - witch lives its own life.
Same applies to Santa - if some one state that he or she does not exist - then what he or she just say did not exist.
If some one state Santa does not exist as a human figure with magic force with own castle where Santa produce gift for free for all the children it the world - then some one make it clear how something does not exist - even it does exist - but not with given definition.
Because we all know that Santa exist in our daily life - the question is how something exist - not that it does not exist.
Quote: gofaster87Just as Nareed you can only refute out of ignorance and not give a educated reason for his non existence except for the common "no one has seen him or wheres the documentation?". Ive given what I believe is some kind of evidence all the rest of you have just made jokes.
Did you? You mentioned a story of uncertain origin. You did not answer questions I raised regarding them (what is an image of Jesus? What does it look like? Has it been tested chemically and physically? etc). You provided no details. All this, mind you, after most of a day getting you to even say what the evidence is.
You're not serious, yet you accuse others of not being serious. Nice.
Are you an expert in any related field? Are you a historian of religion, an archeologist or an anthropologist? No? What then is your authority to accept these so-called miracles as genuine?
As for jokes, well, you're not serious about discussing this matter. What did you expect? Reverence?
So someone claims to ahve seen an image, or was it an etching?, of the virgin Mary on a plate. So? Do you know how many such claims there are? How about Muslims who claim to see the word "Allah" spelled on anything from markings on a fish to sand patterns in the desert? Does that prove God has chosen Islam as His one true faith? No? Why not? Are you a historian of religion, an anthropologist, an archeologist?
What exactly is wrong with being a cosmic accident?Quote: FrGamble..what we are all trying to do - find purpose and meaning behind the actions and circumstances of life, even the losses. God is the ultimate way to know that what I do and how I live matter and to remind us that this life is not all there is. To not understand or believe that is to condemn ourselves to a sad conception of reality that nothing really matters and I am a cosmic accident - I'd rather play Keno that think that!
Quote: matildaIn reaction to my criticism of his misinterpretation of Sartre FrGamble wrote:
Sounds pretty good doesn't it. Well I have to ask FrGamble if he has ever heard of of Frederick Copelston? Have you ever heard of his books titled The History of Philosophy. Are you acquainted with Vol. IX?
Of course you are. Because that is where you plagiarized your statements about Sartre and philosophy.
You are a fraud and you have been busted by Detective Matilda. You stated in another post "but if I'm being honest we should all be honest". But you are not honest. You stole another's work and presented it as your own.
Find the truth at http://www.scribd.com/doc/22255713/vol-9-modern-philosophy
Scroll down to page 184 in the reader which is page 350 in the work. Read the last paragraph in the left column. FrGamble copied part of this paragraph word for word.
Give Matilda a Woot!
I actually a more realistic explanation is that FrGamble is a monkey who typed all of his words randomly but came up with the exact quote from the text typing random jibberish.
Nareed too.
Now if that ain't proof for God's existence, what is???
Quote: s2dbakerWhat exactly is wrong with being a cosmic accident?
"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
-- Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2.
I personally think that wonderful things created by accident are much more wonderful than wonderful things created on purpose.
While I still have not misrepresented my man Sartre and his ideas I did not give credit to Copelston from whom I took some succinct summaries of a complex philosophy. My conclusions about the dilemma we find ourselves in as a human race when we take God out of the picture still stand and I hope you take them to heart, or simply look around and see them. I'll shut up now and ask forgiveness for the mortal sin of plagiarizing.
