Proof that God exists.

[Ekimklaw]

Hi Cris. Here's my response to you... (You=Italics, me=Bold)

Looks like you haven’t done much research on these issues. Taking these somewhat worn out arguments from, presumably heavily biased religious literature; you have unfortunately not considered the large number of arguments that refute all your points.

This is beautiful nonsense.


Not really. Since you mispercieved it - it seems to YOU to be nonsense. I am not responsible for your misunderstanding of clearly stated facts. These are closely held views based on logic and facts. Since I have carefully considered them, your assertion that I haven't done much research is out of line.


Think about this - you state ”Matter cannot be created or destroyed.” You offer this as a basic truth. If indeed true then the only logical conclusion based on this premise is that matter has always existed.

To make your logic work you would have to say something like ”Matter cannot be created or destroyed except by some form of unknown magic.”.

To say that matter cannot be created and then proceed to say that it can be created is a perfect contradiction.

What you have done here is not to show that a god exists but pretty much the opposite, that a god is quite unnecessary to explain the universe.


I stated that matter cannot be created by anything other than God. We humans cannot create or destroy matter. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Energy/matter can only be converted. Matter/energy had to have been created by someone or something (in my opinion)! That something is God.


There is no attempt at proof here only what seems like questionable opinions.


Like your oppinion that God doesn't exist. After all this whole thing is based on opinions derived from perception.


The world doesn’t display intelligent design; that is a subjective opinion. To be accurate - the world displays structure. Structure can be by intelligent design or by natural processes. If you have ever done any basic chemistry or even have a basic understanding of the periodic table you should well understand how elements have a very natural tendency to combine with each other and form natural structures. Just take a look at the beautiful crystals of sodium chloride (salt); these are formed from the attractive forces between two highly toxic elements, sodium (an explosive metal) and chlorine (a poisonous gas).

Given enough time (billions of years), a sufficient wide variety of naturally occurring elements, and a mixing force (the weather, wind, storms, rain, heat from a sun), and hey presto elements react with each other and form into billions of different structures. Some are very simple and others quite complex. Look at basic sugars and amino acids; beautiful naturally occurring compounds, the building blocks of more complex structures like humans.


My view is this "structure" was intelligently created by God. You have faith that it arose out of chaos over time. Either way it takes faith.


By your argument all these structures would have been designed by some form of intelligence. Not only were they not designed, but they also didn’t occur by blind chance. The fabric of the universe comprises a number of attractive and repulsive forces that inevitably result in natural structures. The formation of structure is inevitable and has nothing to do with intelligence or design.


This is your opinion.


Quote at least one example.

I'll quote an example of intelligent design. Which organ of a human body, for example, evolved first? The heart? The brain? The blood? Each one needs the other to survive. Implication? They all came into being simultaneously.

Want another? Sexual reproduction. What evolved first male or female? How did they evolve simultaneously? Without each other there is no procreation.


Why must there be a limit to the size of the universe? What is your rationale for this assertion? If the universe is infinite then there will be no limit, in which case no need of a god either.


My view, like yours is based on faith.


There is no evidence that humans are obligated to do anything? The only logical obligation would be to survive and evolution shows that anything that enhances life aids survival and anything that detracts from life reduces the chances of survival. Morality is hence perfectly defined by the need to survive. The only form of logical morality is that which is in the best interests of mankind. If a god could be shown to exist then any morality would still need to reflect what is best for humans, e.g. if worship of a harsh authoritarian god is needed for survival then so be it. But any way this is viewed morality always comes back to what is best for humans.

Humans are obligated by God to do good. This is taught in the Bible. You have made my point. Without God there are no moral absolutes. One persons view is as valuable as any other. It takes an outside agency to drive humanity toward goodness. Otherwise we are nothing but animals.

Atheism doesn’t attempt to teach anything. Atheism isn’t a belief system. Atheism isn’t about setting moral values or imposing ideas on others. Atheism is a disbelief in the claims made by theists. To claim anything else for atheism, or to imply that atheism should do something, reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism means.

So basically atheists just sit around disagreeing with every religious assertion no matter the logic or proof.

Humans are perfectly capable of determining what is in their best interests. Implying that some form of absolute morality is needed is unnecessary.


You claim that religion is dangerous. What you just wrote is the most dangerous view possible. That mindset has been the result of every mass slaughter from Ghengis Khan to Adolph Hitler to Idi Amin. So according to you the Crusades were okay after all. The Crusaders simply determined that the best thing for them was to clear the Holy Land of muslims. What a wreckless assertion and one that answers the question "Whats so bad about atheism."

Until you can show that the idea of a god is anything more than a dream then the effort to attempt a disproof is as futile as attempting to disprove the non-existence of any other imaginary object.


Even if I showed you proof you wouldn't believe because you don't want to.


It is not so much that a disproof is impossible but that the idea of a god is so archaic and absurd that there is no reason to waste one’s time.


That is your opinion. Because you feel this way does not mean you are right. Belief in God is about hope and love and peace. Giving of oneself. Human connection and emotional stability. If you think these things are "absurd" then more power to you.



Science is based on reason, logic, observation, evidence and proofs.


Science is, but atheism isn't. Your attempt to equate science with atheism is illogical.

Religion is based on fantasies and doesn’t represent any form of recognized rational thinking capable of determining factual conclusions or truth.


This once again is your opinion. I have outlined a few logical reasons I believe in God. Things I think prove that God exists. You have rejected them. Show me more you say. If Jesus came down from heaven and sat on your chest and said "Cris... I am Jesus... do you believe me now?" you would probably say "How do I know you didn't fall out of a plane?"

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by hippo
Maybe when you understand your own point you can explain

LoL, look in the mirror.

OOOoo, maybe you are menorerogating to hide from the absolute? Or you are psuedo-buddhasizing. Nothing like non-sequittor responses to blur the lines of reality...look at all the pretty colors.

Why don't you use more concise wording? "menorerogating" - "buddhasizing" - "non-sequittor"

Why don't you assert and prove how I am trying to "hide from the absolute"? Also "blur the lines of reality"?

Yea you are looking at all the pretty colors, tripping?

Because you cannot.
You cannot say that slavery is an absolute moral wrong, or you invalidate your claim that morality is relative and subjective.
So you must think that it is not always wrong.

You are tangent off the subject being argued. "right and wrong" I'm talking about good and evil. Once again answer the question hippo-man

What is evil to you??

Then I may end this frivolous argument with all your "hippo-argot."

Humans cannot name a moral absolute because we need a higher figure to declare it. So slavery is not morally absolutely wrong. It is relative and subjective. The Egyptians, within their own society and culture, believed it to be right. But others would declare it is wrong.

Who will serve as an absolute between human and human?

You cannot say that it is absolutely morally wrong to rape an infant, or you invalidate your claim that morality is relative and subjective.

Once again, between human and human, where is the moral absolute? Some may be insane and rape babies, in fact it has happened before.

But we may say that for all sane, raping babies is wrong.

So you must think that it is not always wrong.
You cannot say that it is absolutely morally wrong to force Jews into gas chambers, or you invalidate your claim that morality is relative and subjective.
So you must think that it is not always wrong.
I think you are afraid to answer yes or no, so you claim supererogation. Weak as a noodle.

Hahaha, interesting hippo. I like strong debaters.

What do you perceive morality to be?

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Tinker683
It does in the sense that their is an infinite number of possible reactions that could have happened. But life did happen. So I will concede that yes, I do think it was " by chance ". As I said before, evolution is a bit over my head.

Don't mention "infinite" number of chances. Look up the Anthropic Principles.

Now do I really know thats what happened? No, after all the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. But until I see any reason why I should believe in a God, I'm not going to.

Despite what Cris mentioned. It is theory and fact. Atheists tend to say it is fact because they have nothing else to turn to. If evolution is wrong? What is right? So I completely understand the atheistic viewpoint.

Evolution: Fact and Theory

Evolution is a Fact and Theory

Stephen Jay Gould: Evolution as Fact and Theory

Misconceptions: Fact and Theory

Life evolves - this part is fact about evolution.

Darwin's Theory Of Evolution - could be wrong, it's a theory. We don't know how life first evolved, we don't know if man came from apes or whatever, just theory here.

So in the grand scheme of things, you have to address parts of evolution. It is not fact as a whole.

Ah, but I was not making the claim sir. Mike said that the universe had a limit, I was asking him to prove it. The burdern of proof rests on the one making the claim.

Yes, I understand. But I'm just trying to prove that humans just plain don't know. Thanks though.

Secondly, humans aren't "inferior". We're just limited to the facts that we can only deduce at this time. Maybe, one day, we'll figure it all out. And if a "God" was responsible, then we'll figure that out.

Why aren't humans inferior? Are you letting your ego consume you now? Doesn't limited = inferiority?

Do you think humans may some day reach to construct a perfect sphere?

Hmm, I'll look into those, however, I was wondering if you could make citations from said books?

I read the book a long time ago, or a little of it. But it goes something like this. In making our moral choices we are influenced by the approbation or censure of others, especially of those with whom we are closely related. This "collective moral voice", if spoken in clear terms and in unison, will shape our inner judgments and help raise the moral level of all members of a society. Afflicted with myopia, reticence or lack of interest, the voice is muted or becomes extinct. In summation, society shapes most of our views.

Secondly, define choices? If you mean you can't do whatever you want, and not have any sort of reaction to your actions, well then yes, in that prespect, you don't have a lot of freedom. But thats only because society has chosen the best that best suits what it desires from itself ( Order and stability ). Now whther or not it fulls those goals, however, lies in the great field of politics

Everyone has transition phases. Some were raised to believe in God, and it is hard to change it. Serial killers have transition phases early in their lives, their motivations/habits to kill serve as a condition to prove how "right" they are in their own sense of mind and judgement. We have little choices, that is what Ornstein mentions.

But you are on the money and I think you understand it. It is unnecessary to elaborate any further.

The only reason their is an "imperitive" to do "good" is because it's far more beneficial for you to work in an orderly manner with others, and it produces a productive society.

Yep, and to protect their own specific society. "Collective moral voice" - different societies have different "voices"

Which is why I consider it "good" to help others, to be nice, to love, to cherish, etc.., because it bests help myself, and my fellow man around me.

That is great. Are you atheist? Agnostic? Theist?

Why does ones emotions depict if whether or not something is true? How can you objectively measure that? What might make you happy, might make another person extremely upset. Where do you draw the line?

Example: "I hate that the earth isn't in the center of the universe, therefore I don't believe that we aren't."

Emotions, human impluses and feelings, tend to stride away from logic.

As a theist, I believe intelectually. Other theists believe because of fear, happiness, and so on.

Priest: Believe in God or you will go to hell!!
Some theists: Ok, Ok, I will listen to my emotions and believe in God to satisfy my emotions.

They are just slaves to their own emotions and impulses.

And if it all depends on one person's perspective, then aren't you concedeing that the whole thing is subjective? After all, what you might see as truth, another might see as a fabrication. Again, where make the objective decision about whats "true" and what isn't?

First off, people have faith in things to be true. They believe in a certain truth.

Truth, in itself, regarding and concerning no faith or beliefs, conforms to reality and actuality.

Again, why should my emotions determine if whether or not something is true? Don't you think if you let your emotions get in the way, that you might me undermining the objectivity of what it is your trying to figure out?

You shouldn't let your emotions determine truth. You mention that God didn't answer your countless prayers, therefore you don't want to believe in Him because of that. You are listening to your emotions if this is true of you. Correct if I am wrong, and sorry for the assumption if it is one.

My emotions shouldn't have a damn thing to do with it. My ears are still attached to my head, and they still hear just as well as they did yesturday. If God really wants me to love him, as every Christian may say, then why would he require me to "have faith" in him, when he could just as easily come down a friggin` talk to me. And when he doesn't, can I be blamed to doubt if he cares? ( or even exists? )

That's emotional. You start to "dislike" God because He doesn't do this and that for you. So off of this "dislike" you don't believe in Him. You see the word "care" - emotional. Christianity appeals to emotions, most of it is utter crap but I don't dislike Christanity, just the humans that make it full of wonderful flaws.

Also organized religion is a bunch of BS, humans = organized religion such as Islam, Catholicism, et al.

 

[Cris]

Ekimklaw,

I am not responsible for your misunderstanding of clearly stated facts. These are closely held views based on logic and facts.

Facts were not clearly stated and your logic is invalid. You stated –

1. Cuasality. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, since matter exists, that begs a "first cause". Since matter cannot create itself, there must be a God. Since *something* cannot be CREATED by *nothing*... there must be a creator. Therefore God exists.

From this we can extract these premises –

1. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.
2. Matter exists.
3. Matter cannot create itself.
4. *something* cannot be CREATED by *nothing*.

For the sake of this argument I accept these premises as true.

Your conclusion, based on these premises, is that matter had to be created at some point, you also introduce the concept of a creator you have named God that isn’t derived from the premises.

The conclusion is a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

You need to show as a premise that matter at some time did not exist. Without that requirement you cannot claim that matter was at some time created. And again the concept of a first cause also doesn’t follow from the premises. You have to show that a first cause is necessary.

From (1) and (2) there is no way to conclude that at some time matter did not exist, and instead these premises imply that matter has always existed. There is no room in this argument for the need for a creator.

This is not my opinion but a conclusion drawn from your invalid logic.

Like your oppinion that God doesn't exist. After all this whole thing is based on opinions derived from perception.

I have not stated anywhere either as fact or opinion that God does not exist. That is an incorrect assumption based on what appears to be an inaccurate perception of my atheism. I have stated that the idea of a god is a fantasy. Again this isn’t an opinion but fact.

Until a theist can show even the tiniest piece of evidence for the existence of a god then the idea of a god remains firmly a human based imaginative fantasy. You can prove me wrong by proving that a god exists. I have no interest in trying to prove that an object from a fantasy does not exist.

My view is this "structure" was intelligently created by God. You have faith that it arose out of chaos over time. Either way it takes faith.

The volume of evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I base my conclusions on that evidence. Faith is a belief based on no evidence. I have no need of faith. You on the other hand can only invoke faith since you have zero evidence for your claims.

The formation of structure is inevitable and has nothing to do with intelligence or design.

This is your opinion.

That is not so clear. I’m really depending on the evidence from physics, chemistry, and biology, where there is enormous evidence showing that structures do form from natural forces. We don’t have any evidence that anything in the natural world was created by intelligence. I know that is what you believe but you haven’t shown that link to be true in your debate here.

I'll quote an example of intelligent design. Which organ of a human body, for example, evolved first? The heart? The brain? The blood? Each one needs the other to survive. Implication? They all came into being simultaneously.

Or they all evolved simultaneously as interdependent requirements. Asserting creationism does not invalidate evolution, neither does it validate creationism.

Want another? Sexual reproduction. What evolved first male or female? How did they evolve simultaneously? Without each other there is no procreation.

Evolution operates through favoring successful mutations or adaptations. I can surmise that sex evolved because it had favorable survival properties. It isn’t a matter of whether male or female came first but how the transition was made from asexual to sexual reproduction in earlier adaptations. This is currently the focus of a great deal of scientific research. We know that life evolved from lower life forms, including humans, this is fact, what we don’t have is all the details of the processes of how it occurred, and that is the realm of developing evolutionary theories.

Why must there be a limit to the size of the universe? What is your rationale for this assertion? If the universe is infinite then there will be no limit, in which case no need of a god either.

My view, like yours is based on faith.

No, I’m not stating an opinion, neither am I making any assertions, faith based or otherwise. These are real questions. The choice of an infinite universe is an obvious alternative idea to a creator. For you to show that a creator created the universe you need to show that a simpler alternative is impossible. At some point something must have the property of infinity otherwise nothing could have ever got started. Either a god is infinite or the universe is infinite. You have chosen a god, so I am asking why would you prefer that more complex choice than the simper idea that the universe simply is.

Humans are obligated by God to do good.

That becomes a circular argument since you are trying to indicate such an obligation is evidence for god. But your argument assumes that a god exists first. In effect you are using the object you are trying to prove as part of your argument, and that is invalid logic.

To show that humans are obligated by God to do good you must first show that God exists.

This is taught in the Bible. You have made my point. Without God there are no moral absolutes. One persons view is as valuable as any other. It takes an outside agency to drive humanity toward goodness. Otherwise we are nothing but animals.

No that is quite wrong. The issues of morality have been debated here many times but I will try to summarize as best I can.

Why does there need to be a moral absolute? This concept is only needed to support the authoritarian religious form of morality. What you seem to be ignoring is that humans have the ability to reason and think, and it is those abilities that distinguish man from other animals. Rational morality is perfectly possible and obviates any need for religious morality.

Religious morality designates a code of values derived from the alleged commandments of a supernatural being. To the question of why should I follow such rules, religion answers that it is the will of god. Since this is meant to be absolute morality and above our abilities to see the whole picture then absolute unquestioning obedience is a requirement. To the question why should I obey these rules the answer is that you will be rewarded or punished in this life or in an afterlife.

The result of religious morality is that one obeys a principle not because one desires its causal result but because one fears its sanction, in this case the wrath of God. In Christian terms the ultimate punishment is hell. We can see that religious morality is based on the needs of the god who controls humans by fear of eternal punishment.

Rational morality is a code of values required by man for his survival, well-being and happiness. I use the term rational here because the code must be based on human values and only reason can determine what is and is not of value to man.

For example food is of value to man’s survival while poison is not. If man is to survive he must value food and devalue poison. The same principles apply to all aspects of life.

Rational morality is significantly superior to religious morality since it is based on human needs whereas religious morality is based on fear of punishment rather than what is good or bad.

So basically atheists just sit around disagreeing with every religious assertion no matter the logic or proof.

Atheists disbelieve the claims of theists because the theist arguments lack logic or proofs. When proofs can be shown for the existence of a god then atheism will cease to exist. As it stands theists rest their arguments solely on faith, a firm belief in the existence of a god where there is no logic, evidence or proof. This is a definition of irrationality or illogic and such thinking is unacceptable to atheists.

Humans are perfectly capable of determining what is in their best interests. Implying that some form of absolute morality is needed is unnecessary.

You claim that religion is dangerous. What you just wrote is the most dangerous view possible. That mindset has been the result of every mass slaughter from Ghengis Khan to Adolph Hitler to Idi Amin. So according to you the Crusades were okay after all. The Crusaders simply determined that the best thing for them was to clear the Holy Land of muslims. What a wreckless assertion and one that answers the question "Whats so bad about atheism."

When people give up their choice to think for themselves then chaos and destruction is the usual result. You quote several tyrants who ruled by combinations of subjugation, terror, misinformation, ignorance, and superstition. Christianity through the inquisition and the crusades, and centuries of persecution of rational thinkers, also invoked tyrannical regimes where the masses gave up their own beliefs and allowed themselves to be dominated by these irrational leaders.

In our more modern societies based on individual freedom and democracy the need to depend on tyrants has vanished. A massive increase in education standards over the past few centuries has enabled many more people to think for themselves and make their own decisions. As education and knowledge replaces ignorance and superstitions we see the inevitable spread of secularism and the massive reduction in the power of religious authority.

As education and knowledge replaces ignorance and superstition people are gradually becoming capable of determining what is best for themselves without the need for tyrants or religion.

Even if I showed you proof you wouldn't believe because you don't want to.

That seems something of an irrational conclusion. Why do you think I don’t want to believe in a god? The prospect of a protecting father figure, and an eternal life in paradise, are extremely attractive in many ways. The issue is not that I don’t want to believe, it is that I’m not prepared to accept anything that cannot be shown to be real. But contrast that with yourself. You seem to believe because that is your desire despite the complete lack of evidence, which you admit since you state you believe on faith.

Belief in God is about hope and love and peace. Giving of oneself. Human connection and emotional stability.

I share many of these same values, all of which are perfectly possible without any need to believe in alleged supernatural beings.

Science is based on reason, logic, observation, evidence and proofs.

Science is, but atheism isn't. Your attempt to equate science with atheism is illogical.

Why? Science insists on proof before claiming facts. Atheists insist on proofs before accepting a god as a fact. The two approaches are identical. How do you reason otherwise?

Now contrast your faith based approach which specifically does not use proofs. Religion can therefore be seen as the opposite of science.

Religion is based on fantasies and doesn’t represent any form of recognized rational thinking capable of determining factual conclusions or truth.

This once again is your opinion.

No, this is fact. Without proof you only have a fantasy. Faith specifically excludes evidence and facts, whereas rational thinking specifically depends on facts. Logic and facts can be used to determine further facts and truths. Since logic requires facts as its basis and faith does not then faith cannot be logical and cannot be used to determine truth.

I have outlined a few logical reasons I believe in God. Things I think prove that God exists.

Without facts your claims to logic will always be invalid. You cannot reach any proofs until you have some evidence. You haven’t shown any.

If Jesus came down from heaven and sat on your chest and said "Cris... I am Jesus... do you believe me now?" you would probably say "How do I know you didn't fall out of a plane?"

If he is who he says he is then he will be able to prove it. Accepting assertions without evidence is the realm of the gullible and weak minded.

Just cuz you can't see it, don't mean it aint there! That's why we have 5 senses.

But claims that it is there, when it can’t be detected doesn’t mean it is there.

Cris

 

[James R]

<i>1. Is it absolutely morally wrong for a predominantly white population to enslave the minority black population?
2. Is it absolutely morally wrong to rape an infant?
3. Is it absolutely morally wrong to force Jews into gas chambers?
Let's see you, James, answer no to any of these.</i>

Remove the word "absolutely" and I will agree that all of these things are wrong according to my preferred moral framework. At the same time, I can say that none of them is absolutely morally wrong, since I do not believe there is any absolute morality.

 

[Ekimklaw]

Cris,

Seems, what we have here is a failure to communicate. I fear no matter how hard we try, we will probably never be able to.But it is fun to speak with an atheist who hasn't resorted to name calling and perjoritive ad hominem attacks.


anyway...

Atheists will say "Show me some real evidence." No matter what is shown to them. Some things just require faith. You seem to know all about "faith" since you state that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. Micro-evolution? Yes. Macro-evolution? No. There is not, nor has there ever been "overwhelming evidence" for Macro-evolution.

Your "explanation" for the evolution of sexual reproduction was weak I'm afraid. Where is YOUR evidence that anything reproduced asexually? You assumed that, and you have FAITH in it being true. There is NO evidence for higher life forms EVER having reproduced asexually. Next time you wonder how a religious person can believe something by faith, ask yourself.

You said:
"Why do you think I don’t want to believe in a god? The prospect of a protecting father figure, and an eternal life in paradise, are extremely attractive in many ways. The issue is not that I don’t want to believe, it is that I’m not prepared to accept anything that cannot be shown to be real. But contrast that with yourself. You seem to believe because that is your desire despite the complete lack of evidence, which you admit since you state you believe on faith. "

This is a good example of failure to communicate. We aren't connecting here. YOU have faith too. Don't you see? You have no empirical evidence that God DOES NOT exist. You BELIEVE he doesn't based on a lack of what you deem valuable evidence.

One of the main things that prove to me that God exists is that I see his effects on my family. In my life. If I stray away from prayer and scripture reading I find that I get angry quicker. Lustful thoughts creep in. Depression seeps in and I can have self-destructive thoughts. When I am living "in God", those temptations vanish and my spirit is raised. I get a sense of purpose. A feeling of contentment is present within. That is the MAIN reason I know God exists. But to atheists this is not good enough. They want to hold it in their hand, manipulate the evidence and SEE it. It's all about seeing. Atheists want to SEE everything before they believe it.

Every human being is filled with a need for God. Those who choose not to believe must fill this void with something. Anything. It can be science, sex, drugs, work, hobbies, or even atheism.

We as humans have a desire to gather together with likeminded people. To feel a sense of community. People fill this need quite easily with Church attendance. Other people fill this need with clubs, hobbies, work, school, etc.

You can fill this void with God or something else. The choice is yours. You are the only one responsible for what you believe, because in the end, it's just you who must answer (or not). After all, (and this is nothing new) if you are right and we are merely higher animals without an afterlife, we lose nothing upon death. But if Christians are right, you will answer to almighty God for rejecting that which you CANNOT claim to ignorant of. That is the saving blood of Jesus.

My purpose is to share what I have as a source of hope and happiness. Not to denigrate or mock. You are free to reject it. Jesus never once badgered anyone into belief. It is there. You can believe or not.

Heaven is reserved for those who believe what they have not seen. It requires faith. Without faith, it is all in vain.

I wish you well, Cris (and all other atheists). You have a friend in me, not an enemy. But I am a believing friend.

-Mike

PS. By the way do you believe there is life on other planets?

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Ekimklaw
Atheists will say "Show me some real evidence." No matter what is shown to them. Some things just require faith. You seem to know all about "faith" since you state that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. Micro-evolution? Yes. Macro-evolution? No. There is not, nor has there ever been "overwhelming evidence" for Macro-evolution.

Atheist love to make a blanket statement and state, "evolution is fact." After all what else have they to turn to if the theory of evolution was wrong? Darwin Evolutionary theory? Just a theory. Life evolves? Fact. Mankind also did not evolve and develop from apes. I'm a believer in evolution but I hold skepticism also.

Cris himself has faith in evolution, correct Cris? There is good evidence, but no substantial evidence to prove the Dawin Evolutionary Theory to be true. The theory of evolution is an explanation of the facts of evolution.

Your "explanation" for the evolution of sexual reproduction was weak I'm afraid. Where is YOUR evidence that anything reproduced asexually? You assumed that, and you have FAITH in it being true. There is NO evidence for higher life forms EVER having reproduced asexually. Next time you wonder how a religious person can believe something by faith, ask yourself.

Another thing I wonder is, why did organisms give up asexual reproduction for sexual? Asexual reproduction is much better than sexual reproduction, in terms of survival.

One of the main things that prove to me that God exists is that I see his effects on my family. In my life. If I stray away from prayer and scripture reading I find that I get angry quicker. Lustful thoughts creep in. Depression seeps in and I can have self-destructive thoughts. When I am living "in God", those temptations vanish and my spirit is raised. I get a sense of purpose. A feeling of contentment is present within. That is the MAIN reason I know God exists. But to atheists this is not good enough. They want to hold it in their hand, manipulate the evidence and SEE it. It's all about seeing. Atheists want to SEE everything before they believe it.

You know what some atheists will tell you? They might say you are weak to depend on a "higer figure" and so on. Something of that deviation. But who are they to say that? The only reason I see is to put themselves "above" theists to seem as if they are better. Call the theists weak-minded and atheists strong-minded, good strategy eh?

But this doesn't go for all atheists, I'm in no way generalizing.

Every human being is filled with a need for God. Those who choose not to believe must fill this void with something. Anything. It can be science, sex, drugs, work, hobbies, or even atheism.

You don't actually need God. Atheists will surely tackle this statement by you. Goodluck.

You can fill this void with God or something else. The choice is yours. You are the only one responsible for what you believe, because in the end, it's just you who must answer (or not). After all, (and this is nothing new) if you are right and we are merely higher animals without an afterlife, we lose nothing upon death. But if Christians are right, you will answer to almighty God for rejecting that which you CANNOT claim to ignorant of. That is the saving blood of Jesus.

Talking of "void" and so on, they will most likely compliment on "theist weakness."

 

[Cris]

Ekimklaw,

But it is fun to speak with an atheist who hasn't resorted to name calling and perjoritive ad hominem attacks.

My approach is often deliberately provocative, but I hope never abusive. I find bland debates somewhat boring. A little fire now and then adds for some excitement.

Atheists will say "Show me some real evidence." No matter what is shown to them. Some things just require faith.

LOL. You’re assuming that you are right and I am wrong. If there is no evidence and god doesn’t exist then believing on faith still won’t create truth. So we might have to agree to disagree, but from my perspective believing something without adequate evidence is never acceptable. Faith in the form of religious faith is not an effective method for determining truth. So I strongly disagree, there is nothing that requires believing just on faith. There are three states of belief –

1. Believing something because there is factual proof.
2. Withholding belief because there is no proof (i.e. don’t know).
3. Believing something when there are no supporting facts (faith).

I argue from the perspective of (1) and (2). Theists depend on (3). So I agree that no matter how much we argue we will never agree all the time we are basing our approaches on these opposing methods.

We aren't connecting here. YOU have faith too. Don't you see? You have no empirical evidence that God DOES NOT exist. You BELIEVE he doesn't based on a lack of what you deem valuable evidence.

But I am not saying that God does not exist, I have no way or power to search the entire universe to verify that nothing supernatural exists anywhere.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But then I have no way to show that invisible purple fire breathing dragons and a real Mickey Mouse do not exist somewhere in the universe. These concepts, just like the concept of gods, are just that, concepts, or imaginative ideas. Which of course I provocatively label as fantasies.

There is no onus on me to prove that the object of an imaginative idea isn’t real. If we followed that approach we’d all go crazy checking out every dumb idea ever imagined. The onus must be on the person making the claim that something does exist, to show the claim is true.

The idea for a god dates back many thousands of years. Forms of polytheism and monotheism have come and gone numerous times in the history of mankind. But the origin stems from significant and almost total ignorance of how the universe functions. Without the aid of the scientific method and the modern need for empirical and objective evidence, man saw no problem assigning magical properties to imagined deities in an attempt to explain the many otherwise unexplainable natural phenomena.

The result now is a leftover from millennia of ingrained acceptance from ancient times that deities exist. And still after all those thousands of years no one has yet shown that a god of any type actually exists.

Modern religions are this leftover from ancient times and really no longer have any relevance. We no longer need to believe that magical super beings cause lightning or make the sun come up every day. We have developed objective techniques (the scientific method) to help us investigate natural phenomena. And many millions of people like myself now expect answers based on real evidence rather than statements of the form that some magical super being did it.

We no longer need baseless and imaginative superstitions to help us answer new or old questions, since we now have objective scientific methods.

The idea of a god was never derived from any form of observation or detection. The idea almost certainly stemmed from a need to have explanations for everything. Humans hate mysteries, or rather they can’t stand something being a mystery for long. In less objective times an answer, any answer, was preferable to not having an answer, hence the creation of god myths.

So, fine, a god might exist somewhere, I can’t prove it doesn’t, but is the existence of such a being credible? When one considers the history of the human race and how so many religions and superstitions came and went, and how modern science is really only decades old, then are we surprised that relics of these ancient superstitions are still with us?

We don’t need the crutch of these archaic and absurd ideas about deities any longer. We have our own methods of answering questions. We no longer need to believe the words of the shaman or the learned priest; we have an objective method of determining truth – science. We have matured but unfortunately too many people still depend on millenia of tradition for their comfort, so the final elimination of irrational superstitions and religions is going to take a while.

One of the main things that prove to me that God exists is that I see his effects on my family. In my life. If I stray away from prayer and scripture reading I find that I get angry quicker. Lustful thoughts creep in. Depression seeps in and I can have self-destructive thoughts. When I am living "in God", those temptations vanish and my spirit is raised. I get a sense of purpose. A feeling of contentment is present within. That is the MAIN reason I know God exists.

Yes I fully understand, and I know the effects of religious beliefs are quite real.

However, you don’t know that a god exists; all you have is positive effects that you are attributing to a deity. This is known as the placebo effect. When something is believed so strongly then the brain is actually capable of generating the positive effects. In clinical trials with placebo pills the results are quite remarkable. The expectation of pain relief actually causes pain relief even though the pills given have no active ingredients.

My glib answer might be that you are deluding yourself, and in a real sense you are, even though the benefits are real. When that positive belief is further reinforced by neighbors, support groups, church meetings etc, then it is difficult to realize that you have nothing more than a strong delusion.

Here is one of many articles on the placebo effect - http://www.apa.org/releases/placebo.html

I doubt you are going to accept this explanation since I am sure you have surrounded yourself with a strong supporting environment for your beliefs.

Every human being is filled with a need for God.

You appear to be imposing your values on everyone else. I am certainly not filled with a need for a god, so your claim is therefore false. It looks like you have never stepped outside of the bounds of your religious cage, so I quite understand that you are unable to comprehend the sense of freedom that comes when you release those choking religious bonds.

Those who choose not to believe must fill this void with something. Anything. It can be science, sex, drugs, work, hobbies, or even atheism.

You are overlooking the obvious – reality. While you might fill your life with delusional beliefs and feel happy for it, that doesn’t mean that others have to do the same thing. For many atheists who run their lives based on proven reality, they do not live with the assurance of an afterlife or that a super being is going to look after them. In this sense being grounded in reality seems to be a disadvantage. The prospect that death means non-existence is clearly not attractive. There is nothing that says that reality means happiness. Truths are often harsh. But once I managed to free myself from the grip of Christianity some 30+ years ago I did feel a wonderful sense of freedom and independence. I would never want to go back to that delusional chaotic state again.

.. if Christians are right, you will answer to almighty God for rejecting that which you CANNOT claim to ignorant of. That is the saving blood of Jesus.

If such a god is so unjust that I am condemned for using my mind then such a god is not worthy of any praise. If atheists are right then you will have wasted most of your life pursuing pointless activities when you should be striving hard to help the survival of the human race.

PS. By the way do you believe there is life on other planets?

I don’t know if there is life on other planets. We don’t have any evidence yet.

Have fun
Cris

 

[Xev]

Chosen:

Another thing I wonder is, why did organisms give up asexual reproduction for sexual? Asexual reproduction is much better than sexual reproduction, in terms of survival.

No. Sexual reproduction increases genetic variability, so that organisms who reproduce sexually are better able to adapt to changes.

Elkimlaw:

Seems, what we have here is a failure to communicate. I fear no matter how hard we try, we will probably never be able to.But it is fun to speak with an atheist who hasn't resorted to name calling and perjoritive ad hominem attacks.

"Mr.Pot, Mr.Pot, there is a Mr.Kettle on line one. A Mr.Kettle on line one"

Atheists will say "Show me some real evidence." No matter what is shown to them.

No. Show me somthing that my mackrel tabby cat could not debunk.

Some things just require faith. You seem to know all about "faith" since you state that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. Micro-evolution? Yes. Macro-evolution? No. There is not, nor has there ever been "overwhelming evidence" for Macro-evolution.

Actually, there is.

Transitional fossils.
The way micro and macro fit with evolutionary theory.

There is NO evidence for higher life forms EVER having reproduced asexually. Next time you wonder how a religious person can believe something by faith, ask yourself.

A: There is no such thing as a "higher life form". The term itself is silly.

B: Aphids, certain species of fish I think, hydras and starfish.

They want to hold it in their hand, manipulate the evidence and SEE it. It's all about seeing. Atheists want to SEE everything before they believe it.

Correct. We want evidence before we believe.

"Extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence" --Carl Sagan.

If I told you that I knew how you could make millions of dollars from a thousand dollars, all you had to do was to send me a thousand dollars, would you send the money?

Every human being is filled with a need for God. Those who choose not to believe must fill this void with something. Anything. It can be science, sex, drugs, work, hobbies, or even atheism.

Ah! Kirkegaard's "God shaped key". (Or was that Sartre? Bugger, need more coffee!)

I've never felt this alleged need. Immortality would be groovy, but that's about it.

This contention, sorry, is mere assertion.

But if Christians are right, you will answer to almighty God for rejecting that which you CANNOT claim to ignorant of. That is the saving blood of Jesus.

Pascal was a meanie.

Why would your God be angry anyways? I've never understood this one.

Chosen:

Humans cannot name a moral absolute because we need a higher figure to declare it. So slavery is not morally absolutely wrong. It is relative and subjective. The Egyptians, within their own society and culture, believed it to be right. But others would declare it is wrong.

An interesting point. First, do you think that we need moral absolutes?

Second, do absolutes exist?

Third, what would be a good absolute to use, if they do?

This is perhaps more worthy of a thread of its own, though.

 

[Adam]

This is the second open thread about "proof" for the existence of god. I'm still waiting on any sign of such proof.

 

[Adam]

Also, if you wish to discuss evolution, first please read through these links:

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evolution.html
http://www.evolutionhappens.net/

Or even better, read this thread.

 

[Ekimklaw]

Hello Xev

------------------------------
Sexual reproduction increases genetic variability, so that organisms who reproduce sexually are better able to adapt to changes.
------------------------------

Nice side step buddy. You just explained why sexual reproduction is the best way. However, you in no way deal with my question as to how sexual reproduction could have evolved. Answer? It couldn't have.

-----------------------------
No. Show me something that my mackrel tabby cat could not debunk.
-----------------------------

Hey stop bugging your poor cat to help you with your philosophical argumants.

-----------------------------------
Transitional fossils.
-----------------------------------

Your joking right? There are no examples of transitional fossilization. Look into it.

-----------------------------------
The way micro and macro fit with evolutionary theory.
-----------------------------------

Isn't faith wonderful?

----------------------------------
A: There is no such thing as a "higher life form". The term itself is silly.
----------------------------------

I love semantics. Ignore the main point, and focus on a percieved semantical inconsistency. Ah, atheism. Dude, if you can't see that a tiger is a more complex life form than an aphid, I can't help you. "Complex life forms". You like that better?

----------------------------------
Correct. We want evidence before we believe.
----------------------------------

Here's a question for EVERY atheist: What evidence exactly would it take for you to believe that God exists? Please tell us.

----------------------------------
"Extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence" --Carl Sagan.
----------------------------------

Carl Sagan was the Billy Graham of Atheism.

----------------------------------
If I told you that I knew how you could make millions of dollars from a thousand dollars, all you had to do was to send me a thousand dollars, would you send the money?
---------------------------------

I said I was a Christian, not a nitwit.

----------------------------------
Ah! Kirkegaard's "God shaped key". (Or was that Sartre? Bugger, need more coffee!)

I've never felt this alleged need. Immortality would be groovy, but that's about it.

This contention, sorry, is mere assertion.
----------------------------------

...But it is also a firmly held conviction.

---------------------------------
Why would your God be angry anyways? I've never understood this one.
---------------------------------

I didn't say he would be angry. Reread my post. You simply can't be rewarded for refusing to do that for which the reward is given. Like it or not. It is that way.

Analogy time: You must finish the race to get the medal. But you won't even acknowledge a race exists.

---------------------------------
do you think that we need moral absolutes?
---------------------------------

I do think we need moral absolutes.

---------------------------------
Second, do absolutes exist?
---------------------------------

Yes. Those given by God.

---------------------------------
what would be a good absolute to use, if they do?
---------------------------------

It is wrong to murder the innocent.
It is wrong to steal for selfish gain.
You should treat others as you wish to be treated.

These are some rock solid moral absolutes.

Have a nice day!

By the way... as long as you're alive it isn't too late.

-Mike

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Ekimklaw

-----------------------------------
Transitional fossils.
-----------------------------------

Your joking right? There are no examples of transitional fossilization. Look into it.

Ekimklaw, I just posted links with evidence about transitional fossils. Don't be silly. Look into it.

 

[Ekimklaw]

Originally posted by Adam

Ekimklaw, I just posted links with evidence about transitional fossils. Don't be silly. Look into it.

I'll check it out Adam. Thanks.


-Mike

 

[Xev]

Hey Elkimlaw:

Nice side step buddy. You just explained why sexual reproduction is the best way. However, you in no way deal with my question as to how sexual reproduction could have evolved.

My apologies. Unfortunatly, the fossil record is rather incomplete here, due to poor conditions.

Therefore, my explanation will be a bit more theoretical than I would like. However, there are certain species of bacteria that use a process in which they exchange genetic material through "fusing" with each other. After time, reproducing asexually loses all it's advantages, and the switch to purely sexual reproduction is complete.
This site probably explains it a bit better than I can:
http://library.thinkquest.org/19926/text/tour/17.htm?tqskip1=1&tqtime=0622

Your joking right? There are no examples of transitional fossilization. Look into it.

Oh but I have. I recommend a "Biology 101" type textbook. I learned from Audisirk's "Biology: Life on Earth"

Or this site from Talk.Origens.

Very usefull.

Isn't faith wonderful?

Oh, I wouldn't know. I'm an athiest and a skeptic, and I don't think I've ever had much faith in anything.

Dude, if you can't see that a tiger is a more complex life form than an aphid, I can't help you. "Complex life forms". You like that better?

Complex works well. And I am no "dude".

Here's a question for EVERY atheist: What evidence exactly would it take for you to believe that God exists? Please tell us.

The existance of somthing for which it was most logical to postulate your God as an explanation of.

Carl Sagan was the Billy Graham of Atheism.

I think Carl was more an agnostic than an athiest, but I'm sure he'd be pleased at the compliment.

I said I was a Christian, not a nitwit.

Why trust the Bible but not trust me? Seems awfully arbitrary.

...But it is also a firmly held conviction.

Which in no way makes it true.

It is wrong to murder the innocent.
It is wrong to steal for selfish gain.
You should treat others as you wish to be treated.

These are some rock solid moral absolutes.

Can you justify them?

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Cris
My approach is often deliberately provocative, but I hope never abusive. I find bland debates somewhat boring. A little fire now and then adds for some excitement.*

Unless you're the one getting burned.
Then you resort to sulking, and hitting the "ignore" button.

*Modern religions are this leftover from ancient times and really no longer have any relevance. We no longer need to believe that magical super beings cause lightning or make the sun come up every day. We have developed objective techniques (the scientific method) to help us investigate natural phenomena. And many millions of people like myself now expect answers based on real evidence rather than statements of the form that some magical super being did it.*

You still don't know what causes lightning or makes the sun come up every day.
All you have is an ever more detailed description of what happens, but still no explanation of how it happens.

*We no longer need baseless and imaginative superstitions to help us answer new or old questions, since we now have objective scientific methods.*

You still have no answers, only very detailed questions.

*So, fine, a god might exist somewhere, I can’t prove it doesn’t, but is the existence of such a being credible? When one considers the history of the human race and how so many religions and superstitions came and went, and how modern science is really only decades old, then are we surprised that relics of these ancient superstitions are still with us?*

As far as I know, no religion or superstition has come and gone.
All of the religions and superstitions are still here with us, and many of them have simply been renamed "science."

*We have our own methods of answering questions.*

As far as science goes, those "methods" are...
1. not answering
2. asking another question

*...the final elimination of irrational superstitions and religions is going to take a while.*

Now that they have been renamed "science," I suspect that it will take a very long time.

*When that positive belief is further reinforced by neighbors, support groups, church meetings etc, then it is difficult to realize that you have nothing more than a strong delusion.*

What's worse, when the support consists of "scientifically-minded" people, the detection of such delusion becomes even more difficult, with all the self-congratulation of one's perspicacity and intelligence.

*It looks like you have never stepped outside of the bounds of your religious cage, so I quite understand that you are unable to comprehend the sense of freedom that comes when you release those choking religious bonds.*

From your numerous posts, I can only conclude that it would be quite similar to the liberation one might feel before reaching the fire, but just after jumping out of the frying pan.

*For many atheists who run their lives based on proven reality, they do not live with the assurance of an afterlife or that a super being is going to look after them.*

Well, duh.
An atheist who did expect some super being to look after them would be sort of missing the point of atheism, no?

*But once I managed to free myself from the grip of Christianity some 30+ years ago I did feel a wonderful sense of freedom and independence. I would never want to go back to that delusional chaotic state again.*

So you prefer the delusional, chaotic state you are in now?

*If atheists are right then you will have wasted most of your life pursuing pointless activities when you should be striving hard to help the survival of the human race.*

If atheists are wrong, or even if they are mostly right, they, i.e. you, are toast.

*Originally posted by Xev
Unfortunatly, the fossil record is rather incomplete here, due to poor conditions.*

Rotten luck.
The proof is there, it just can't be seen properly?

*I recommend a "Biology 101" type textbook. I learned from Audisirk's "Biology: Life on Earth"*

That's the worst kind of book to "learn" from.
Unless you want to learn how to delude children by feeding them misinformation.

*and I don't think I've ever had much faith in anything.*

You seem to believe that you can think clearly enough to detect delusion and deception.

*I think Carl was more an agnostic than an athiest, but I'm sure he'd be pleased at the compliment.*

Carl? Wasn't he the guy who sank to the point of declaring that the entire universe was full of sperm? (Panspermia)
A person can almost predict what he was thinking of most of the time.

*Why trust the Bible but not trust me? Seems awfully arbitrary.*

It seems almost incomprehensible that a person would fail to trust you more than the creator of the universe, but it happens.

 

[Cris]

Hi tony1,

Same old gibberish from you I see.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by tony1
You still don't know what causes lightning or makes the sun come up every day.

You might not know but I'm sure Cris does. You really should put down the Bible and pick up a textbook every once in a while or watch the Discovery channel, you might actually learn something.

Lightning is caused by a buildup of charge in the clouds; this usually occurs when fronts collide, the resulting turbulence causes friction and a build up of electro-static charge within the cloud. Eventually the charge becomes strong enough to arc to the ground.

http://ksnn.larc.nasa.gov/lightning/lightning.html

The Sun appears to move across the sky because of the rotation of the Earth. This is so basic that I had a hard time finding a reference that described it although I did find a psychological reference that suggests that a child should know this between the ages of 3-5 years, you're a little bit behind.

Here's a site, look under the Young Astronomer's Corner heading.

http://members.tripod.com/everett_astronomy/stargazer_mmi_10.htm

Helpfully
~Raithere

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Cris
Hi tony1,

Same old gibberish from you I see. *

Gibberish, moi?
Last time I posted in April or so, you were up to about 1200 posts.
Now in June. I see that you are up to 2381.

I'd say you're the specialiste de gibberish.

*Originally posted by Raithere
You might not know but I'm sure Cris does.*

Actually, he doesn't.
What he has is a detailed description of what happens.
He has no clue how it happens, or why.

*.. or watch the Discovery channel, you might actually learn something.*

Actually, it's from watching stuff like Discovery channel, that I'm realizing that scientists are performing one artful smoke and mirrors trick.
The trick?
Claiming they have answers, when all they have is descriptions.

It something like going to the doctor complaining of wry neck, and having the doctor "explain" that what you have is torticolis.

Whoopdedoo.

*Lightning is caused by a buildup of charge in the clouds; this usually occurs when fronts collide, the resulting turbulence causes friction and a build up of electro-static charge within the cloud. Eventually the charge becomes strong enough to arc to the ground.*

Great description!!!
Now what's the explanation for that?
How and why does that happen?

*The Sun...*

Another fantastic description!!!

Etc.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Welcome back Xev, missed you! (i'm joking )

Originally posted by Xev
Chosen:

No. Sexual reproduction increases genetic variability, so that organisms who reproduce sexually are better able to adapt to changes.

Funny, how long did it take for asexual organisms to become sexual organisms? If it does help genetic variability, then why not evolve into a ménage à trois? How long would that take, instead of 2 of each chromosome, why not 3?!

What's the explaination? Asexual is still far more superior, why would they want to give that up "for genetic variability" when they can perfectly survive without sexual reproduction.

It says: "However, in asexual species that do not have large numbers and do not reproduce quickly, asexual reproduction can lead to a very quick extinction."

Yea, they don't have to waste their time looking for a potential mate, thus they can feed more and keep masturbating with themselves and reproducing at much higher and better rates.

Explanation?

A: There is no such thing as a "higher life form". The term itself is silly.

Aliens?

Correct. We want evidence before we believe.

"Extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence" --Carl Sagan.

Once we find evidence for a supernatural it no longer becomes supernatural, unless we can't explain it.

Chosen:

An interesting point. First, do you think that we need moral absolutes?

Yes, it would be very beneficial to humankind. Unity is a good thing.

Second, do absolutes exist?

No, they do not, unless clearly indicated by God to all of mankind. Other than that, humans can disagree with each other however they want.

Third, what would be a good absolute to use, if they do?

The Golden Rule, everyone should follow that.

A killer would not like to be killed, a thief would not like to be stolen from. I'm sure a thief would feel wronged if someone stole from him.

If they do like it, they are insane.

Moral absolutes are meant for the sane people.