God does exist.

Desert Rat (Muad'Dib?): Do you mean to say you can believe less and less - or just are less and less convinced? Of God's existence?

Do you want to believe, but are unable to?

I have bad news to everyone looking for proof (or trying to give it). Christ is the only proof available ("living proof"). If you don't believe that Jesus died on a cross but rose from the dead, your proof is dead. Of course there are steps that make believing this progressively easier, but they also depend on asking God to come into your life.

Even Jesus' disciples wanted proof:

John 14
5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

Science can be a great advantage for a Christian, but where theories and hypotheses (like Evolutionism) are involved, it becomes an obstacle because the 'evidence' is history itself. There are reasons why people can't believe, and therefore only one message/testimony that Christians can give...

2 Corinthians 3
14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

2 Corinthians 4
1Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake.



Another relevant piece:

15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever -- 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

The "proof" lies in the pudding. It requires living what you believe, and knowing that other people can't be perfect examples, but they can try to be authentic examples.
 
Last edited:
COUNSELORCOFFEE, WHERES THE PROOF SHAKESPEARE AND QUEEN ELIZABETH EXIST? WHY ARE YOU GIVING ME A BOOK WRITTEN BY SOME HUMANS FOR ALL WE KNOW THEY COULD B MAKING IT UP, JUST LIKE THE BIBLE, WELL WHERES THE PROOF? SHAKESPEARE IS A MYTH, CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE AND GIVE ME PROOF AND STOP RAMBLING.


note: Many of you think Im atheist, LOL, science teaches "it all began from a single atom", the day your scientist can create "living cell" out of "atoms" is the day i become atheist, in other words "when pigs fly then ill become an atheist". HOPE FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE IS YOUR ONLY HOPE.
 
The Dragon In My Garage

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the
psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion
to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There
have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but
no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and
see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to
mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture
the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't
stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a
special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal,
floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If
there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable
experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say
that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis
is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot
be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically
worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in
exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes
down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that
there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going
on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what
convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a
hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I
taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've
seriously underestimated human fallibility.
Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you
wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject
the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You
merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but
if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and
see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at
not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and
unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict
of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible,
all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch.
Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a
jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how
skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--
to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge
that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's
consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that
several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're
pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have
dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is
maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being
gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical
evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it
would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages
all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it
not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and
Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now
reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An
alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it
seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another
dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it
to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But
again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are
other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible
dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon
advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only
sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis,
to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the
cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people
share the same strange delusion.

Pgs. 171-173 The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan
 
when a person get shot and killed, no scientist in the known universe can bring the dead person to life. who can? Even if u assemble the human body parts together its too late, the spirit left him. It is more likely possible for scientist to assemble a human body parts together and bring it to life than to assemble atoms together and create a living cell to life. Maybe the scientist can invent some kind of laser where they can gather all kinds of atoms then grow a skin, and when the skin grows then they can add some spices to it (maybe a garlic) until it becomes a beating heart, then use toothpaste to glue the heart, ribs, and lungs together, and give some kind of electricity to the whole muscles then bring a human being to life. LOL,that impossible act is more likely to happen than gathering the ungatherable atoms, then create a living mitochondria,living ribosome, living nucleus, and thousands of cell's parts until it become a whole body of living cell.


The first life form to evolve from earth is "Cell", the building blocks of life. It would take about 40,000 of your red blood cells to fill this letter O. A cell is alive—as alive as you are. It "breathes," takes in food, & gets rid of wastes. It also grows & reproduces (creates its own kind). And in time, it dies. An optical microscope can magnify a cell up to 2,000 times. An electron microscope can magnify a cell by 1 million times. An ant magnified 200,000 times would be more than 21/2 miles (4 kilometers) long. But even with such tremendous magnification, the detailed structure of some cell parts still cannot be seen.<U READ THAT? EVEN WITH SUCH A TREMENDOUS MAGNIFICATION, THE DETAILED STRUCTURE OF SOME CELL PARTS STILL CANNOT BE SEEN, THATS ABOUT AS FAR AS SCIENCE CAN TAKE US TODAY.

SCIENTIST CANNOT EVEN FIND CURE FOR BREAST CANCER AND OTHER CANCERS THAT ARE KILLING US TODAY, AND YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEY CAN BRING A LIFE FORM OUT OF ATOMS?? WHOS SUPERSTITIOUS NOW?

You think theres no God because your Pride is whispering to you that you are like God, the same act got Satan in trouble, attempting to take God's place.

AN ATHEIST GUY SAID "GIVE SCIENCE TIME", THERE IS NO TIME! SATAN IS WHISPERING THOSE WORDS TO YOU! YOU ARE HOPING FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE, AND THE IMPOSSIBLE IS YOUR ONLY HOPE...
 
A cell is alive—as alive as you are. It "breathes," takes in food, & gets rid of wastes. It also grows & reproduces (creates its own kind). AND IN TIME IT DIES. An optical microscope can magnify a cell up to 2,000 times. An electron microscope can magnify a cell by 1 million times. An ant magnified 200,000 times would be more than 21/2 miles (4 kilometers) long. But even with such tremendous magnification, the detailed structure of some cell parts still cannot be seen.<U READ THAT? EVEN WITH SUCH A TREMENDOUS MAGNIFICATION, THE DETAILED STRUCTURE OF SOME CELL PARTS STILL CANNOT BE SEEN, THATS ABOUT AS FAR AS SCIENCE CAN TAKE US TODAY.
 
But even with such tremendous magnification, the detailed structure of some cell parts still cannot be seen.DID U READ THAT? EVEN WITH SUCH A TREMENDOUS MAGNIFICATION, THE DETAILED STRUCTURE OF SOME CELL PARTS STILL CANNOT BE SEEN, THATS ABOUT AS FAR AS SCIENCE CAN TAKE US TODAY.
 
Originally posted by muscleman
But even with such tremendous magnification, the detailed structure of some cell parts still cannot be seen.DID U READ THAT? EVEN WITH SUCH A TREMENDOUS MAGNIFICATION, THE DETAILED STRUCTURE OF SOME CELL PARTS STILL CANNOT BE SEEN, THATS ABOUT AS FAR AS SCIENCE CAN TAKE US TODAY.
Click to expand...

I take you see this as proof of the existence of God?

Ps you don't have to shout.
 
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL, You guys notice almost everything I say but u never notice the first topic, which is "chance (from atheist)" and "intelligence (from christian)" u change topic over and over and are in pure denial, I said "INTELLIGENCE IS THE PROOF OF GOD", THEN YOU SAY "GENCE ISN'T A PROOF OF GOD", then i repeat again "Intelligence is the proof of God", then you say "Intel isnt a proof of God", then I said "your stubborn I gave them to you already", and then you say "Where? Where is the proof of God? Give it now and stop rambling", then I say "Well here it is, intelligence is the proof of God", then you say "by proving abiogenesis wrong doesnt prove God exist, give me proof now and stop rambling!!", then I say "Intelligence is the proof of God", then you say "By proving evolution wrong doesnt prove God exist", then I say "Dont put words in my mouth, Im all for evolution and any theories supported with evidence", then you say "Your gay! You want apple sauce?"
 
Muscleman: Take it easy - you're trying to prove that God begins where science ends. Science will eventually describe and explain everything, but it cannot prove (or disprove) God, because God is not a natural phenomenon.

Evilpoet: The same applies - Sagan's explanation applies to scientific evidence of natural phenomena. If dragons did exist, and if you could find one, those tests could work (although their existence would exclude them from being large and invisible from what current scientific data predicts - being a natural phenomenon they'd have to comply to natural laws). Unless dragons were spiritual entities, in which case those tests wouldn't work. And then then you'd have dragon cults and discworld novels would become holy books. Instead there are stories of angels and ghosts, and there's the same controversy about them as about God.

I'm not saying science will never explain or include non-physical, intangible phenomena (quantum physics has come a long way since Heisenberg and Bohr). But science will always be surfing on the edge of what we know (a German proverb says 'everything that we know relates to something we don't know'). I think human thinking is riding on a wave that will eventually break, leaving us with nothing but spiritual explanations.

In that sense science is short-sighted, and relying on science to prove your world puts you at a disadvantage. And it's no wonder it was "wise men from the East" who brought tribute to Jesus' birth, because Oriental science wasn't limited like the Greek (that was about the only use astronomy has ever had, in my opinion). Even now Western science have trouble explaining Chi and acupuncture, yet it exists.

There is always more...
 
Originally posted by musclehead
Raith, Child I dont think u get what Im saying, my point is that ok it came from this then from that and so on, it keeps on going and going, Im asking a infinite never ending question and the topic GOES BACK FROM THE BEGGINING, IS IT "CHANCE"? OR IS IT "INTELLIGENCE"?

Yes, I'm familiar with the argument from first cause as well as the argument from intelligent design. I wonder if you truly are, however, since you continue to fail to name or even explain them properly.

The argument of first cause assumes that if all current naturalistic explanations of a first cause fail it follows that the cause is God. The argument contains two logical fallacies; that of false dilemma and that of hasty generalization. Essentially, the argument fails to take into account (respectively); One, that we may well find a naturalistic explanation of first cause. This indeed might be presumed to be a likely occurrence considering that true science has only really been around about 200 years and has already made more headway into explaining the Universe than the previous 10,000 years. And two, that even given a "supernatural" first cause there is a blatant assumption that the cause must be God (and in your case a Christian God at that). This fails to take into account the possibility of the many other Gods that have been conceived, not to mention the wide range of possible "supernatural" creatures that may be first cause without being God.

Every complex and detailed form is an effect of intelligent cause

This is demonstrably wrong. There is detail and complexity in a snowflake, an atom, the molecular structure of a diamond, the solar system, all the galaxies... none of this complexity can be demonstrated to be caused by intelligence. In fact, all of these things have been demonstrated to be caused by natural forces.

"The nucleus was luckily made first by tornado, this guy u wont believe it, he was very strong & was waiting until Mr. cytoplasm appeared. Then later on mitochondria accidentally appeared, he then said to cytoplasm & nucleus "sorry guys it took me 100,000,000,000,000,000 yrs to exist, its just that Mr. earthquake didn’t shake me right at first but it doesn’t matter, I accidentally appeared now, thanks for waiting guys", then ribosome accidentally appeared, then thousands & thousands of other parts accidentally appeared to join the rest of the crew until it became a fully develop cell.

This is not even vaguely similar to any theory of Abiogenesis. You're using a straw man argument. I'd also add that Abiogenesis is not a requirement for Atheism. You're not even in the same argument at this point.

FOR THE SAKE OF RAITH, let’s just pretend that scientists were able to successfully build a cell together!

It doesn't matter whether science can build a cell or a star or a freaking planet. You don't get this do you? This has nothing to do with atheism.

~Raithere
 
muscleman = idiot.

You are one of the most deluded and close minded people I have ever met muscleman, and I'm dead serious. If you have so much evidence then why won't you show me it? I promise I will be very open minded and if it does indeed prove God then I will become a believer today. Here's your chance to do what God asks of you and spread the "Good news". Are you going to take it?

And by the way, intelligence is not proof of God. The fact that on the surface the universe may LOOK LIKE it was designed intelligently doesn't at all mean it was. And even if it was intelligently designed, who's to say it was the Christian God who did it and not some alien from universe X? You say chance is impossible, how is that so when people win in lotteries every week? Ever heard of the Weak Anthropic Principle? I suggest you go look it up, by your logic it is proof that chance is what created the universe.
 
muscleman,

Do you know that human body is full of flaws? Flaws that shared and carried by all and only mammals? If you compare human eyes to octopus eyes, you will understand why there is no intelligent design. Because if you were god, do you want to put a blind spot in each human eye but not on the boneless octopus?

You also have many misconception about physics. For example, the concept of mass. An almond, no matter how big you blow it up or shrink it to. It always has the same mass. No more, no less. An other one is the concept of weight. It doesn't matter how big or small you try to resize the almond, its weight is only affected by the distance between the almond's center of mass and the Earth's.

You also misunderstand the evolution theroy how life started on Earth. Living cells did not start from a single atom at one signle spot on Earth. They started from molecules and in many many spots.
 
Originally posted by Raithere

This indeed might be presumed to be a likely occurrence considering that true science has only really been around about 200 years and has already made more headway into explaining the Universe than the previous 10,000 years. And two, that even given a "supernatural" first cause there is a blatant assumption that the cause must be God (and in your case a Christian God at that). This fails to take into account the possibility of the many other Gods that have been conceived, not to mention the wide range of possible "supernatural" creatures that may be first cause without being God..[/b]


You contradict yourself, you AGAIN BROUGHT OUT TO GIVE SCIENCE TIME, FOR 200 YRS SCIENCE EXPLAINED MORE CONCERNING ITS ENVIRONMENT THAN 10,000 YEARS PREVIOUS. Then later on you said..

It doesn't matter whether science can build a cell or a star or a freaking planet. You don't get this do you? This has nothing to do with atheism.

YOUR STRANGE, your contradicting your own words I was about to say "Well Ill give science 1 trillion years" but as i read that then i said "Wait, yeah but...what the...well ummm, hmmm...Im confused?"

AND I APPPRECIATE YOUR CURIOUSITY IN SAYING FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT, THAT LET US JUST SAY THAT THERE IS GOD, BUT HOW DO WE KNOW WHICH GOD OR GODS IS IT OR JUST SOME SUPERNATURAL THING (MAYB IT TICKLES U IF I SAY BOB THE INTER-DIMENSIONAL SCIENTIST, OR TOOTHFAIRY WITH A MAGIC WAND, ILL GIVE U THAT IMAGINATION, KIDS ARE ENTITLED TO), so the next question will be how do u know which God or Gods will it be? Well Ill answer that later...Illl be back with u in a second, I have to deal with "Xelios"...

Every complex and detailed form is an effect of intelligent cause

This is demonstrably wrong. There is detail and complexity in a snowflake, an atom, the molecular structure of a diamond, the solar system, all the galaxies... none of this complexity can be demonstrated to be caused by intelligence. In fact, all of these things have been demonstrated to be caused by natural forces.

Many stupid people (atheist) argues how the nature of earth is "Chaos" though its ordered and functioning beautifully, but you know what, I see what their attempt is (Their father Satan is so clever isnt he?). Their purpose is that if they can lie and tell the whole world nature is "Chaos", then they can prove there is no intelligent designer. Their evidence that nature is chaos is one, "u stepped on a worm, therefore nature is chaos" i say "Hahahahaha, grow up, death is part of nature", then they say "Father Satan what lies can i say now? the satan whispers in their heart, 'tell them about how there are kids wwho r born crippled", and so the atheist guy said it", then I say "where does that lead to? cripplednesss to slow or quick death right? therefore its still for the balance of nature! :), then atheist ask his father satan "what shall we do now? then satan's last resort is "call him gay". LOL...

But u know what, God just whispered this to me..

Raith, you are right, there is no evidence that intelligence is the cause of detailed and complex effect of "snowflake, an atom, the molecular structure of a diamond, etc.", you know why? BECAUSE THATS CHAOS. There is no ordered design in a snowflake, or a water, or a pond etc.

Another way to put your writing is....

"Well if the waves of water formed/shaped the sands differently, it doesn’t mean the waves of water have intelligence", stupid, Waves of water can move sands, but it cannot move sands to form into detailed bicycle, maybe in trillions and trillions of years, but this is not proven, it is proven however that intelligence can make such act possible. I’m talking about detailed complex existence. Detailed and ordered design functioning to do its purpose, such as a cat is designed to chase a mouse, or a car is designed to take me places, or a spaceship is designed to fly to mars, computers, etc. The causer, the mover, the intelligent effect. AN ORDERED SPECIES, OR TECHNOLOGICAL SPECIES, A MOTION ONE. The complex and detailed life form’s existence (cell), NOT CHAOS




~Raithere [/B]
Click to expand...
 
COUNSELORCOFFEE, WHERES THE PROOF SHAKESPEARE AND QUEEN ELIZABETH EXIST? WHY ARE YOU GIVING ME A BOOK WRITTEN BY SOME HUMANS FOR ALL WE KNOW THEY COULD B MAKING IT UP, JUST LIKE THE BIBLE, WELL WHERES THE PROOF? SHAKESPEARE IS A MYTH, CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE AND GIVE ME PROOF AND STOP RAMBLING

Muscleman I gave you proof. Plain and simple. If you cant understand that then I give up. Your blocked, wanna know why? Because YOUR A RETARD WHO TYPES IN CAPS!
 
"Illl be back with u in a second, I have to deal with "Xelios"... "

I'll be waiting.
 
Originally posted by Xelios
muscleman = idiot.


You say chance is impossible, how is that so when people win in lotteries every week?
Click to expand...

YOUR RIGHT XELIOS!!

READ WHAT "CHANCE" REALLY IS!!

Why do you reason with “chance” what doesn’t have a chance? I can claim that there’s a “chance” my mother will win the million-dollar lottery, even if winning is slim, fact is there is still a chance. One evidence to support my claim is that demonstration made it possible, she won the lucky 3 few times, other lottery games, & fact is many won it before. Lottery is accessible right now, there is no reason I shouldn’t be able to provide proof of “chance”. This claim of “chance” is evident. Another example of chance is competition; there is a chance that Evander Holyfield could regain the 4th heavyweight title considering the fact that there are others who has done it before, such as Muhammad Ali. This claim of “chance” is evident as well. But why do atheist make the claim that “earthquake, lightning, wind, and hurricane or any physics” have the chance of gathering atoms and molecules together then create a living breathing life form when the fact is no evidence supports such claim. Again, for one to make a claim of “chance”, one must present evidence to support the possibility…To say “series of earthquake and lightning will make me 1 million feet tall and weigh 50 trillion tons in 30 years by chance” and to say “Series of earthquake and lightning formed a living cell in a sudden gathering of atoms by chance”, is a lie, both are impossible, both doesn’t have any evidence to support the claims of possibility…

I HOPE YOU GOT THAT XELIOS? ;) AND THANKS FOR USING THE LOTTERY ANALOGY, THAT WAS SMART COMMENT (KNOWING IT COMES FROM YOU)
 
I think what muscleman is trying to say is "Ders a chance that God exits!!!" Well yes I agree with that but muscleman you dont seem to want to agree that if theres a chance God excists then theres a chance he doesnt excist.
 
As I said in another thread muscleman I'm through with you. However I do find it funny that in your profile you say you're open minded, when in fact you are one of the most closed minded people I have met to date.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top