God does exist.

[whatsupyall]

Logic is a very slippery slope for an atheist to reside on when debating the existence of God.

Good point. Since the existence of "Nature as chance" is a completely irrational and illogical concept, one can fair as well using logic to debate "intelligence" while comparatively debating the existence and occurence of "medusa", "chance", purple dragons or the tooth fairy, or atheism, which all have one thing in common, NOT ONE OF THEM HAVE ANY SUBSTANCIAL EVIDENCE.
In other words, if you fail to comprehend the logical, then the illogical will always be your master.

 

[(Q)]

whatsupyall

Normally, I would cite you with plagiarism for using my quotes as your own. However, in your case, I'll make an exception, as I know all too well you don't have a single original thought in your head.

 

[Vienna]

Q,
Keep talking, someday you'll say something intelligent.

 

[Cris]

…seeker,

Darkness is the mere absence of light, and darkness itself is an illusion. The same as with evil and good.

You possibly had a point you wanted to make, but I think you forgot to make it.

It's also written that God knows the hearts of people...

It is also written that God does not exist. Are both then true because they have both been written?

Good piece of gibberish Nelson.

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by Cris
…What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

Fact. 1. Not one scientist can create any life form, from gathering amino acids, to gathering atoms.

Fact. 2. Evolution, Big Bang, is a theory which have not been demonstrated, but was created in the minds of people by judging the appearance of animals, thats it, as any kid can do the same. You can believe this theories, or reject it, either way doesnt make you smarter but just shows that you have faith in things that cannot be proven PHYSICALLY....

Fact. 3. Scientist cannot even explain how to cure cancers, why then do they claim they can explain the existence of a life form?

Fact. 4. Any claims, from "Nature as chance", to "God is real", needs substancial evidence, otherwise PUTTING FAITH ON IT IS USELESS AND A BLIND FAITH, might as well believe in toothfairies and giant purple squid monkey and ATHEISM, after all they cant be proven, Im a christian and a believer of God because there is SUBSTANCIAL evidence for God.
Where is the evidence God exist? Miracles, followers, martyrs, healing of incurable cancers, cause and effect, intelligent design, evidence that are logic, understandable, SUBSTANCIAL, present, and ACCCESSIBLE, plus I EXPERIENCED HIM.
Where is the evidence that nature existed through "chance"", by "laws of physics", in other words "Earthquake, lightning, wind, and hurricane created life forms", wheres the proof? NONE!!!! Period, I rest my case.........

 

[VAKEMP]

Quote from whatsupyall:

NOT ONE OF THEM HAVE ANY SUBSTANCIAL EVIDENCE

Give me substantial evidence of God, and I will become a Jew.

Give me substantial evidence that Jesus was literally the Son of God, and I will become a Christian.

Quote from whatsupyall:

Where is the evidence God exist? (edited by VAKEMP to get to whatsupyall's point) I EXPERIENCED HIM.

How do you know it wasn't Allah, Buddha, Satan (gasp!), or even your own imagination (big gasp!).

If Moses could prove he was sent by God to free the Israelites by turning water from the Nile into blood, and turning his staff into a snake, why can't anyone do that today? Why would God make it so obvious back then, but not now? He obviously wants people to know He exists. So, where's the proof? Or, do you want me to just go by your word?

 

[inspector]

"Give me substantial evidence that Jesus was literally the Son of God, and I will become a Christian."
--------------------------------------------------

No, you won't. Your presuppositions will not allow you to objectively examine the evidence presented to you supporting the existence of God.



"Why would God make it so obvious back then, but not now? He obviously wants people to know He exists. So, where's the proof?"
---------------------------------------------------

You beg the question. If you would only read the ENTIRE Bible, you would have the answers you seek. When satan asked Jesus to perform a miracle for him and Jesus refrained, why would Jesus perform a miracle for an unbeliever such as yourself? Read the Bible.

><>

 

[Mech_The_Muon]

why would Jesus perform a miracle for an unbeliever such as yourself?

Ahh, in order to get proof, you must believe and not seek proof. (note sarcasm) What a wonderful concept. I have some great land on the moon that I'm willing to sell you if you are interested. You can't see it, but you'll just have to believe me. No, don't seek confirmation, because if you do, you can't buy it. Sounds fair, doesn't it?

 

[inspector]

"Perhaps, if you can show that I am ignorant of the specifics concerning a particular disproof. Did you have something in mind?"
--------------------------------------------------

Christopher,

By choosing to deny even the POSSIBILITY that God exists you are awarding yourself with the compensation of ignorance. I have asked you numerous times to define your position within atheism, in your own words, and yet you conveniently avoid my inquiry. Why?


"There are no facts that support the existence of gods. The logic is extremely easy for anyone to see."
---------------------------------------------------

You mean easy to see for anyone but yourself. Follow the logic. Once again, Christopher, to say that there is NO evidence for the existence of God would require that you know and have had seen ALL evidence from past, present and future. Since this is impossible for you, your statement that there is NO evidence for God is illogical, subjective and, therefore, invalid.


><>

 

[inspector]

"Ahh, in order to get proof, you must believe and not seek proof."
-------------------------------

Christians have evidence, not proof. Whether or not an unbeliever chooses to ACCEPT the evidence is usually where we begin having problems.

><>

 

[Adam]

Re: For the rationally apt...

Originally posted by MarcAC
Are you agnostic Adam? You sound like it.

Way back in the early 20th when the tau neutrino was hypothesised there was no evidence for it. As far as I know it has been proven to exist. Just an anology. But hey, those who seek pure evidence would have said in the early 20th that there is no such thing as a neutrino. Hey I can't see it. Can't feel it. It hardly interacts with anything. There is no EVIDENCE for it. So IT CAN'[T BE THERE! Oh... oops it's there huh?

I'm Adamist.

The tau neutrino was not predicted through mere superstition. It was predicted because there was a missing piece in a puzzle; other pieces were known, leaving a gap of a certain size and shape. Basic example: A+B+C=3. We know from previous work that A and B each equal 1. Therefore, we expect to find a C which equals one, making the total 3. That is why the tau neutrino was expected.

And actually there is evidence for neutrinos.

 

[Adam]

Whatsupyall

Because you're an idiot and need help, I'll point this out once again for you. You persist in declaring that scientists claim "nature is chance". This shows your remarkable ignorance of thousands of years of research and theory. Chance is a part of nature. But nature also includes order, laws, and predictable patterns.

 

[Cris]

Inspector,

What's with the Christopher thing? You seem to be talking to me yet you are addressing someone else, yet there is no userid with that name and I don't know anyone here where that name might apply.

You may be used to praying to imaginary beings but I think you will find it really doesn't help trying to talk to imaginary people as well.

Cris

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by VAKEMP
Quote from whatsupyall:

Give me substantial evidence of God, and I will become a Jew.
Give me substantial evidence that Jesus was literally the Son of God, and I will become a Christian.

You want substancial evidence of God? Miracles, Lady of Guadalupe (over 800 yrs old cactus cloth still intact when the fact is scientifically speaking it shouldnt last over 40 yrs), Lady of Lourdes, millions of visitors each year, Healing of incurable cancers that took place, many times scientifically investigated, labeled as "Placebo" but unexplained..ETC.ETC. ETC.

Originally posted by VAKEMP
:
If Moses could prove he was sent by God to free the Israelites by turning water from the Nile into blood, and turning his staff into a snake, why can't anyone do that today? Why would God make it so obvious back then, but not now? He obviously wants people to know He exists. So, where's the proof? Or, do you want me to just go by your word?

Read above....

Quote from whatsupyall:
How do you know it wasn't Allah, Buddha, Satan (gasp!), or even your own imagination (big gasp!).[/B][/QUOTE]

Bcuz I was praying to Jesus. Plus how could it be inmy imagonation when i ask for 3 things and they all happened? its not on my mind....

one more thing...u dont want proof, YOU ARE NOT LOOKING FOR PROOF, BUT YOU ARE LOOKING TO DEFEND YOUR LIES...

 

[MarcAC]

Faith!

Originally posted by Cris
Marc,

The alternative to using logic is what? Illogic?

Logic is the most advanced and disciplined form of thinking we have been able to devise. To not use logic when making a decision is to allow considerable increased risk of error.

You appear to be saying you won’t use logic because it has made errors in the past. My point is that all the alternatives are much worse.

But the discipline of logic has been in the process of development for a long time, however, the primary basis of modern logic, I believe is still routed in the work by Aristotle (384 BCE).

But logic is limited to some extent since it depends heavily on factual evidence. But then this reflects reality. If facts are not available, as in the case for gods, then logic cannot reach a conclusion; or rather the logical conclusion is that a conclusion for or against a god cannot be drawn.

The theist then argues then that clearly logic is inadequate, and they reach a conclusion anyway. But what method of thinking has been used? If it isn’t logic then what? There is only one choice – illogic. And this is why many say that theism is irrational.

I've always heard this thing about the God of nature and the personal God. Einstien or however you spell it believed in a natural god. But he didn't believe in the personal god. I for one don't see a difference between the two. I believe in God [Of the sopernatural and personal nature]

Anyway, up there, Cris, you have opened your mind to the fact that logic is not a perfect tool to use to debate the existence of God, because, if [to humour you], God exists within and beyond our reality we cannot use our reality alone to explain what he is or isn't or what he can or cannot do. That's why I stated earlier, it is better to say you don't know, than to say no. An atheistic stance shows an ignorance of the nature of God. Atheists seem to see God as the grey guy with big dark eyes and a huge head who is much more advanced in intelligence than you. That aint God, bro's sis's, and things. Using logic to try and disprove God's existence illustrates a limited grasp of who or/and what God is. How can you talk about something you don't grasp? It's better you ask questions than make statements, or simply, as what'supy'all would put it; "Shut your hole"?.

Now what other rationale is there? If you don't use logic. Then you have to use illogic? I use faith. Call it what you wish. You don't understand it because it is 'not logical'. That I understand. And again I say I am an aspiring scientist and I do grasp the concepts of evolution and big bang and many others. And I do accept that these processes might have occured - that's how we explain what God has created around us. Even logic [human invention] which has it's relevant applications - just not God.

Many things have seemed irrational which have led to new discoveries. That's the basis of discovery itself - and a little serendipity here and there.

An atheists stance is a shaky one - nearly ludicrous. Jesus is the Rock of my salvation. I pity those who do not understand faith and I pray that one day you will. You will never understand faith in God until you apply it yourselves, that's a job for God himself, I do what I can.

 

[MarcAC]

Read CAREFULLY People!!!

Originally posted by Adam
I'm Adamist.

The tau neutrino was not predicted through mere superstition. It was predicted because there was a missing piece in a puzzle; other pieces were known, leaving a gap of a certain size and shape. Basic example: A+B+C=3. We know from previous work that A and B each equal 1. Therefore, we expect to find a C which equals one, making the total 3. That is why the tau neutrino was expected.

And actually there is evidence for neutrinos.

Adamist... o.k.

Obviously not Adam [superstition]. You guys just don't get it. You need faith to get it and faith to you is foolish so you won't get it until you get your faith. Hope you get it someday. Praying to God for it.

Read again Adam. Did I say I believed there isn't evidence for neutrinos? Read again bro. You can be sued for such defamation of character. Read in context.

I am personally in a better position in life than any atheist - that's my opinion [so don't tell me it is]. I can accept the theories which man uses to exlain his natural world... as long as they make sense and do not contradict Biblical revelations - which so far most of them don't [contradict] in my eyes. I believe in the one Triune God as my ALL. You know what the central verse in the Bible states?

PSALM 118:8 "It is better to trust in the Lord for protection than to trust anyone else [anyone else meaning man]."

If [to humour again], God exists and his promised day of judement comes, I'll have a much better chance of passing into the next existence without living in an eternal hell. Atheists, HELL NO!.... or should I say 'HELL YEAH!'?

 

[Cris]

Marc,

I'vve always heard this thing about the God of nature and the personal God. Einstien or however you spell it believed in a natural god. But he didn't believe in the personal God. I for one don't see a diefference between the two.

The god of Einstein was not a being in any sense of the word; his god was the order and harmony of the world. One doesn’t pray to order and harmony and expect a reply. Order and harmony do not create places of eternal torture and torment. The difference between an interfering personal god and the concept of order and harmony is massive.

Atheists seem to see God as the grey guy with big dark eyes and a huge head who is much more advanced in intelligence than you.

There is one certain thing that can be said about atheists is that it is impossible to say one thing about atheists that they all share apart from their disbelief in the theist claims for the existence of gods.

Your perception of atheist thinking perhaps stems from your own early childhood views on how you perceived your god. Atheists range from the most stupid of people to the most intelligent. Their range of views on what a god might be like will rival anything a theist might invent, and possibly much more since they have not hampered themselves with limited narrow-minded religious doctrines.

Now what other rationale is there? If you don't use logic. Then you have to use illogic? I use faith.

Anything less than logical thought is going to be inferior however you want to cut this.

Religious Faith is no more than an attempt to try even harder to convince yourself that a fantasy is real. It depends on no facts but almost entirely on emotionalism. It is incapable of determining truth except by chance.

You don't understand it because it is 'not logical'.

I understand religious faith perfectly. It is a desperate attempt by religionists to define something that sounds acceptable because they are unable to use any superior form of thought such as logic because logic is entirely dependent on facts and religionists have no facts. If religionists could use logic than it is certain they would.

Religious Faith is a belief without a factual basis. Trying to claim it is something different is simple desperation. We know this is true since if you actually had any facts you would quickly throw away the desperation of faith and point to the facts and say – look we have facts we now KNOW god exists.

Even logic [human invention] which has it's relevant applications - just not God.

Logic is not man made. It is the fundamental basis of any intelligence; even a god must be subject to logic.

An atheists stance is a shaky one - nearly ludicrous.

Nearly ludicrous, but clearly NOT ludicrous. The atheist stance is very simple – an absence of belief in the existence of gods because theists cannot prove what they claim.

 

[Cris]

Marc,

I am personally in a better position in life than any atheist.

Not if you believe in the fantasy ideas of gods. You have deluded yourself into believing something that isn’t real. Insane asylums are full of such people. You have been seduced by the idea of eternal life and the fantasy that when you die you will live an eternal life in paradise. This is understandable when one considers that all reality offers is a decayed and rotting corpse and non-existence. Reality is hard and harsh. Trying to escape from reality by believing in fantasies is evidence of gullibility and weak-mindedness.

Wake up from your dream world man and face reality.

PSALM 118:8 "It is better to trust in the Lord for protection than to trust anyone else [anyone else meaning man]."

Well of course it is going to say that. It is basic indoctrination. First thing any repressive organization does is convince its victims that its way is right and everyone else is wrong.

If [to humour again], God exists and his promised day of judement comes, I'll have a much better chance of passing into the next existence without living in an eternal hell. Atheists, HELL NO!.... or should I say 'HELL YEAH!'?

Dream on buddy, since dreams are all you have. You have my pity.

 

[Vienna]

Hi Cris

Einstein also said "Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."

He seems to contradict himself. What's your opinion on this?

Vienna

 

[Cris]

Vienna,

Einstein seems fairly consistent with his personal view of religion. It just has nothing to do with the conventional Christian style interpretations of what is meant by spirit or god.

He was primarily in awe of the order and harmony of the universe. It is not too difficult to see how that vastness could be seen as superior to anything yet accomplished by man.

His sense of religion was far from conventional, so it needs great care when trying to link what he said with conventional religions.