Proof that God exists.

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Xev
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.

Shame, the human belief system is powerful. Everyone has some sort of faith. You just simply reject faith in God.

Now why? Exactly why? I think can debunk your reasons.

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

If God is supernatural, something supernatural rest outside of the natural realm. How can you find evidence of a supernatural?

If we do find evidence, do you think it would still be considered supernatural?

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

Agnostic is the far better choice and logical choice.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Why call yourself atheists? If you are a weak one, just call yourself a full fledged agnostic.

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

Someone on the internet?

 

[Cris]

Raithere,

You have to realize that tony1 thinks he is really a god and knows absolutely everything. So there is no point trying to teach him or implying that there is something he doesn't know. And of course to him no one here knows anything anyway.

His style is that of a destructive parasite.

Parasite - because he has never started a topic and focuses on criticizing, often with heavy cynicism, everyone else's posts.

Destructive - because he posts in as many topics as he can and if there was any useful debate in a topic then he breaks it apart with irrelevances and distortions, effectively killing the topic.

The temptation is to reason with him, and if you try you will be sucked into his weird little world of reverse logic and unique obscure bizarre personal interpretations of religious scriptures.

But he does have thick skin so he is fair game for teasing. But beware that he is a master of sarcasm and cynicism, and you are unlikely to best him at that. Just don’t be tempted to take him seriously or take his many criticisms personally – that’s his key method of sucking you in.

Cris

 

[Cris]

Chosen,

Shame, the human belief system is powerful. Everyone has some sort of faith. You just simply reject faith in God.

You should really stop speaking for everyone else when you clearly have no idea what everyone else thinks, it is very irritating. As far as I know I do not use religious type faith in any arena or aspect of my life. If you think I do then let me know so I can correct myself. It is definitely a disadvantage to believe anything on (religious) faith.

And yes, human beliefs are very powerful both for good and bad. Faith based beliefs result in suicide bombings and people like Osama, and the inquisition. Any time you choose to believe something where there is no factual basis you stand a very real risk of screwing up seriously.

Those who choose to believe without facts make wonderful targets for tricksters, conmen and junior sales people. In effect those who choose faith as their method of living represent the most gullible.

The only way you can be correct by believing on faith is purely by chance, you’re gambling in other words, and that is well known to be a disastrous way to run a life.

So please stop trying to insist that those of us who understand atheism are in some way using faith. Xev has stated quite clearly that she doesn’t use this fallacious tactic and most definitely neither do I.

Comprende?

Cris

 

[Cris]

Chosen,

Why call yourself atheists? If you are a weak one, just call yourself a full fledged agnostic.

Agnostics are either theistic or atheistic, there is no such thing as a full-fledged agnostic. In fact I have no idea what that phrase might mean.

When it comes to belief in a god, one is either theistic or atheistic. There is no middle ground. A theist believes, otherwise everyone else is atheist.

Agnosticism is concerned with knowing god, from the Gnostics (Greek, meaning to know). So an agnostic theist is one who believes that a god exists but claims that it is not possible to have any knowledge of such an incomprehensible being. And an agnostic atheist disbelieves in the existence of a god and claims that such an entity would be unknowable anyway.

Hope that helps.
Cris

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Cris
Chosen,

You should really stop speaking for everyone else when you clearly have no idea what everyone else thinks, it is very irritating.

I certainly hope you are not telling me to comprehend something when you don't yourself. But since you did quote me and state, "you [Chosen] clearly have no idea what everyone else thinks, it is very irritating."

So are you rejecting my claim that everyone does have some sort of faith?

- And please, don't become narrow-minded again and speak of only religious faith. That is very irritating.

As far as I know I do not use religious type faith in any arena or aspect of my life. If you think I do then let me know so I can correct myself. It is definitely a disadvantage to believe anything on (religious) faith.

Here we go again, what do you comprehend I meant when I explicitly stated, "some sort of faith."

Between the two words "of" and "faith" - I sincerely hope you are not supererogating and inserting "religious" in there.

And yes, human beliefs are very powerful both for good and bad.

Good, you acknowledge that, I use towards the good side.

Faith based beliefs result in suicide bombings and people like Osama, and the inquisition. Any time you choose to believe something where there is no factual basis you stand a very real risk of screwing up seriously.

Depending on what you choose to believe on, then you may consider the risk. Faith is not the risk, rather the idea/concept being believed on is the risk.

Those who choose to believe without facts make wonderful targets for tricksters, conmen and junior sales people. In effect those who choose faith as their method of living represent the most gullible.

Are you refering only to religious relations or what?

If not, that is wrong. I believe in evolutionary theory, does that make me a "wonderful target for tricksters..."?

Please don't say that evolutionary theory is fact, it isn't.

The only way you can be correct by believing on faith is purely by chance, you’re gambling in other words, and that is well known to be a disastrous way to run a life.

"believing on faith"? What? Why don't you elaborate, I think this sounds like non-sense.

True, people shouldn't run their entire lives on faith alone, faith doesn't sustain life at all.

So please stop trying to insist that those of us who understand atheism are in some way using faith. Xev has stated quite clearly that she doesn’t use this fallacious tactic and most definitely neither do I.

Comprende?

Cris

Don't tell me to comprehend Cris. I'm not the one trying to discredit theists relating certainity to being equal to believing. And you are deriding Tony1? What a joke.

Comprenez-vous?

Maybe someday you might become worthy of "comprenez-tu" if you know what i mean.

Have a nice day.

 

[Cris]

Chosen,

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.

Perhaps, but if asexual activity was the only method then the chances are that human like intelligence would probably not evolve for many more million years if ever. The mutation rate for asexual reproduction that would generate new variations is incredibly slow compared to the massive variation capable with sexual reproduction. While asexual might seem superior in terms of stability it simply would not have resulted in humans any time soon.

No, asexuality was forced to change to sexual activity, and of course these mechanisms had no choice in the matter. The probability is that the asexual mechanisms were corrupted and forced to adapt which resulted in a sexual tactic.

There is support for this from NASA –

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/origin_sex_010710.html

The article describes a model of the slow mutations of asexual activity and offers a potential explanation for the origin of sex.

It is also interesting that the origin of the sex chromosomes occurred some 300 million years ago. Here is an article that shows that discovery –

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s63100.htm

This doesn’t coincide with the origin of sex; that occurred before the sex chromosomes fully developed in the way we know them today. But what this shows is that the mechanisms for sexual reproduction were still adapting some 300 million years ago, which is some 299.5 million years before man appeared.

So it looks very clear that sex evolved rather than be a part of some supernatural design, but we still need to know the probable cosmic event that triggered the corruption of the asexual activity forcing a massive set of mutations.

Hope that helps.
Cris

 

[Cris]

Chosen,

In a religious forum the term faith usually refers to religious faith. When you refer to atheists using faith, it seems quite reasonabe to assume you are referring to religious faith.

As I said in much earlier posts the use of the term faith is fraught with the potential of massive confusion and I tried very hard to encourage you to avoid using the term.

The confusion you/I are experiencing here is becasue faith has multiple meanings which are not interchangeable.

I take religious faith to mean specifically a belief without proof. Would you agree or shall we decide on a differnt definition?

Cris

 

[Cris]

Chosen,

Here we go again, what do you comprehend I meant when I explicitly stated, "some sort of faith."

Between the two words "of" and "faith" - I sincerely hope you are not supererogating and inserting "religious" in there.

Of course I am since we are discussing religion.

The point you appear to have been making is that theists use faith and you are trying to claim that faith is an acceptable method to acquire knowledge.

Atheists such as myself and Xev specifically do not use faith in that context.

You counter that we are wrong and that we do use faith. If you are referring to religious faith which you should be if you were to be consistent then you are wrong, we don’t use that type of faith.

All of this makes sense if the same definition of faith is being used throughout. But it looks like you are continually interchanging different definitions of faith whenever you wish. You are creating confusion.

If I take a definition of faith that means I have trust in some activity because I have evidence that it will not let me down, then fine I use faith in that context as I suspect Xev does as well. But if we are discussing faith in the religious sense, which means belief without proof, then neither I nor Xev use faith in that sense.

If you are talking about theism and atheism then faith is conventionally taken to mean religious faith. It really makes no sense to introduce different definitions in the same topic let alone the same post.

Cris

 

[Cris]

Chosen,

And please, don't become narrow-minded again and speak of only religious faith. That is very irritating.

What has being narrow minded or not to do with this? And, “again”? I let that drop last time because I had hoped you would re-read my previous explanations concerning the usage of the term faith; I guess you didn’t.

We are in a religious debate. It should be reasonable to most to assume we are discussing religious faith.

Please, please, if you can, when discussing religion and using the term faith make sure you mean religious faith, i.e. belief without proof. It really doesn’t make any sense to use any other definitions of faith in this forum, unless you very specifically state otherwise.

We can communicate effectively if we agree on the same terms. Would you agree?

Cris

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Cris
Raithere,

You have to realize that tony1 thinks he is really a god and knows absolutely everything.*

?

*And of course to him no one here knows anything anyway.*

No, although I do have a lot of fun demonstrating that you have difficulty in knowing things.
Of course, you make it easy by simply stating that you don't know anything.

At some time, I may create a compliation of the many posts in which you claim to not know anything.

*His style is that of a destructive parasite.*

As opposed to yours, where you attempt to dissuade people from having any chance at eternal life?

*The temptation is to reason with him, and if you try you will be sucked into his weird little world of reverse logic and unique obscure bizarre personal interpretations of religious scriptures.*

That reminds me of the time you proposed that evolution was true because simpler creatures appear earlier and more complex creatures appear later on the evolutionary ladder.

As it turns out, we'd have to wait several thousand generations to evolve into the Brazilian horned frog, based on your "reasoning" and "logic."

*But beware that he is a master of sarcasm and cynicism, and you are unlikely to best him at that.*

Nope.
I'm wielding a sword, and you just end up on the wrong side of the blade all too often.

*Just don’t be tempted to take him seriously or take his many criticisms personally – that’s his key method of sucking you in.*

Oh you poor guy!!!
You were taking my criticisms personally?
They were directed at your ideas!!!
I don't even know you, so how could you take them personally?

*Faith based beliefs result in suicide bombings and people like Osama, and the inquisition. Any time you choose to believe something where there is no factual basis you stand a very real risk of screwing up seriously.*

Disclaimer: This response is directed at your statement, not you personally.

Suicide bombings, the inquisition and O b L are a result of having no faith.
After all, if one actually had faith that things would turn out OK, why would one take things into one's own hands?
It is precisely because one has NO faith, that these things happen.

*So please stop trying to insist that those of us who understand atheism are in some way using faith. Xev has stated quite clearly that she doesn’t use this fallacious tactic and most definitely neither do I.*

Disclaimer: This response is directed at your statement, not you personally.

Yet you both have faith that you are correct.
What a strange way to demonstrate absence of faith.

*When it comes to belief in a god, one is either theistic or atheistic. There is no middle ground. A theist believes, otherwise everyone else is atheist.*

You're losing your ability to follow your own logic, again.
If theists believe then so do atheists, just in opposing concepts.

*And an agnostic atheist disbelieves in the existence of a god and claims that such an entity would be unknowable anyway*

This is priceless comedy.
A person couldn't pay a comic enough to be this funny.

"I don't believe in God, but if I'm wrong, I believe that God would be unknowable, anyway."
On what basis would such a mythical "thinker" conclude that God would be unknowable, given that he has already decided he doesn't exist in the first place?

*Hope that helps.
Cris*

It does.
You appear to be forging entire new dimensions of humor while flogging a dead horse.

*Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~
I believe in evolutionary theory, does that make me a "wonderful target for tricksters..."?*

Oddly enough, yes, since you already demonstrated a certain propensity for believing trickery, otherwise known as "evolutionary theory."

*Originally posted by Cris
I take religious faith to mean specifically a belief without proof. Would you agree or shall we decide on a differnt definition?*

In Christian faith, faith is the proof.
In other religions, such as science, it could mean anything.
A definition is definitely called for.

 

[Xev]

Chosen:

Shame, the human belief system is powerful. Everyone has some sort of faith. You just simply reject faith in God.

Oh do they? Certainly not religious faith. So faith in what?

Now why? Exactly why? I think can debunk your reasons.

Let's go.

There is just as much evidence against the existance of God as for
Occam's razor states that 'entities must not be multiplied unnecessarily'
Occam's razor is a valid logical tool
God is an entity
Therefore, believing in God is an unnecessary multiplying of entities
Therefore, believing in God is irrational.

Irrational does not mean inferior or wrong.

If God is supernatural, something supernatural rest outside of the natural realm.

Same argument applies to that athiest cliche, the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Agnostic is the far better choice and logical choice.

I know that most of you guys think that it is, and hey, when I was agnostic, I felt the same way. But you seem to be confusing a very strong athiestic stance with the weak athiestic stance that I take.

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.

Yes, but if they are more liable to genetic bottlenecks.

The Golden Rule, everyone should follow that.

Good absolute and logical. If I ever suceed in creating my logical moral system, it will probably incorperate that rule.

Tony:

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.

That's a poor straw man, Tony.

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

Toast? I thought I was devil's food cake.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Cris
So it looks very clear that sex evolved rather than be a part of some supernatural design, but we still need to know the probable cosmic event that triggered the corruption of the asexual activity forcing a massive set of mutations.

Hope that helps.
Cris

Ok, from an atheistic viewpoint.

What is the point of sex? Why would evolution take this path? Asexual is perfect for survival. Why would it want variations of genes?

Well, Dr. Lovelock's conception describes Gaia as a homeostatic process in which life, through various feedbacks, maintains a constant, optimal environment. "Optimal" sounds like a vague concept. So Prigogine's concept of increasing energy flows as the criteria for optimization explains that life then tends to change its environment so as to increase the captured energy flows, thus continually modifying the environment, rather than maintaining it in one state. In summation, life evolves.

But what's the point of sex? What about ménage à trois? Why not? Point?

Sex was never required to survive.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by tony1

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

What the fudge are you smoking, dude? The reason is nature/physics. The description is in our language. As Raithere pointed out, the former is due to charge differentials and the latter due to the rotation and orbit of the Earh.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Cris
Chosen,

In a religious forum the term faith usually refers to religious faith. When you refer to atheists using faith, it seems quite reasonabe to assume you are referring to religious faith.

I understand, and it is also "quite reasonable" to assume that all theists are fools?

I hope you see what I am seeing.

As I said in much earlier posts the use of the term faith is fraught with the potential of massive confusion and I tried very hard to encourage you to avoid using the term.

The confusion you/I are experiencing here is becasue faith has multiple meanings which are not interchangeable.

I take religious faith to mean specifically a belief without proof. Would you agree or shall we decide on a differnt definition?

Cris

Nah, I say:

religious faith = belief concerning GOD that does not rest on material evidence

Proof means different things. Shall we agree on this? I'm a special person (well everyone is ) so when I post, I mean religious faith whenever I directly say "religious faith." So please don't assume when I say faith that is immediately means "religious faith."

Thanks

 

[Cris]

Chosen,

What is the point of sex? Why would evolution take this path? Asexual is perfect for survival. Why would it want variations of genes?

You speak as if evolution had a choice, or that it has intelligence in some form. It doesn’t have either. Evolution does not proceed according to any plan; it simply reacts to what is. Random events will play a role in an evolutionary environment, and some events could be very dramatic, e.g. the extinction of the dinosaurs from an asteroid impact.

Sex was never required to survive.

Again this implies that there was some form of intelligence involved. Sex - simply was the result of largely random mutations and consequent adaptations.

Cris

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Cris
Chosen,

Of course I am since we are discussing religion.

The point you appear to have been making is that theists use faith and you are trying to claim that faith is an acceptable method to acquire knowledge.

Discovery Channel - Discovering new things sometimes recquires an element of faith.

I believe in Cold Fusion. No I don't have material evidence yet. It is a belief without proof, but is it religious? No. Because of my resolve to belief, I am determined to seek what I believe to find an end result of it being true.

The belief system can be used as a catalyst for acquiring knowledge. It all depends on the person's perspectives.

Atheists such as myself and Xev specifically do not use faith in that context.

You're missing out. The human belief system is powerful.

You counter that we are wrong and that we do use faith. If you are referring to religious faith which you should be if you were to be consistent then you are wrong, we don’t use that type of faith.

I never said anyone was wrong. I never mentioned religious faith. Everyone uses faith, do you believe in evolutionary theory or no? There is proof, but not substantial proof, therefore you must believe in it to be true or not.

All of this makes sense if the same definition of faith is being used throughout. But it looks like you are continually interchanging different definitions of faith whenever you wish. You are creating confusion.

No, I'm not creating confusion, I'm simply very open-minded. Religious = refering to God. Belief = conviction of a truth.

If I take a definition of faith that means I have trust in some activity because I have evidence that it will not let me down, then fine I use faith in that context as I suspect Xev does as well. But if we are discussing faith in the religious sense, which means belief without proof, then neither I nor Xev use faith in that sense.

You don't use religious belief because it concerns God. But belief without proof you do.

Answer these questions:

1) Do you believe in aliens?
2) Do you believe in the Big Bang?
3) Do you believe in evolutionary theory?
4) Do you believe that life arose from non-living matter?

I could ask more, but I'll stop.

If you are talking about theism and atheism then faith is conventionally taken to mean religious faith. It really makes no sense to introduce different definitions in the same topic let alone the same post.

Cris

Faith = belief without proof

religious faith = belief concerning God without proof

Do you see the different now? Is your mind open?

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Cris
We are in a religious debate. It should be reasonable to most to assume we are discussing religious faith.

Please, please, if you can, when discussing religion and using the term faith make sure you mean religious faith, i.e. belief without proof. It really doesn’t make any sense to use any other definitions of faith in this forum, unless you very specifically state otherwise.

We can communicate effectively if we agree on the same terms. Would you agree?

Cris

Look up the word religious.

What does it mean? Don't worry, my point will evetually come and I will show you what I exactly mean by "everyone has some sort of faith."

and that the human belief system is powerful.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Cris
Chosen,

You speak as if evolution had a choice, or that it has intelligence in some form. It doesn’t have either. Evolution does not proceed according to any plan; it simply reacts to what is. Random events will play a role in an evolutionary environment, and some events could be very dramatic, e.g. the extinction of the dinosaurs from an asteroid impact.

I'm not inferring evolution has a mind of its own. I'm just simply asking the question of: Why?

Why would things want to evolve? It just is huh?

That is why I am a theist, I simply accept a God over "it just is." I'm not into organized religion and so on, so I lose nothing believing in God. IMO, belief in God is better than belief in chance.

Again this implies that there was some form of intelligence involved. Sex - simply was the result of largely random mutations and consequent adaptations.

Cris

Whatever is responsible for sex, I must thank it.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by tony1
Oddly enough, yes, since you already demonstrated a certain propensity for believing trickery, otherwise known as "evolutionary theory."

Tony1, I'm sorry for being so open-minded about things.

Let's pretend evolution is a big scam. I'll still use it because it is the most plausible theory out there to explain diversity of origins. I don't believe the whole theory to be invalid.

Evolution is the best working theory now. Accept the best available for the time being. What sounds more senseful? Evolution or creationism? Evolution has working models, but they are limited. Creationism has jack diddly squat as a working model. You accept the best available theory, yet stay open minded enough to see something better than this "best."

Much knowledge has grown from Darwin.

 

[Cris]

Chosen,

I'm not the one trying to discredit theists relating certainity to being equal to believing.

We need to resolve this since it is clear we are using the same words and assigning them different meanings. The result is that we are not communicating.

Some definitions taken from Webster as they specifically relate to a religious debate.

Belief: conviction of the truth of some statement.
Conviction: the state of being convinced. Synonym = certainty.
Truth: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality.
Fact: a piece of information presented as having objective reality.
Certain: known or proved to be true.
Theist: belief in the existence of a god or gods.
Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

So the full definition of a theist is someone who –

Claims to know with conviction (certainty) that the existence of a god or gods is true and in accord with reality.

This is about the most precise definition I could derive based on the Webster component definitions.

I also found this definition while searching the web – A theist is someone who denies that God doesn't exist.

So what do you reckon? Opinions?

If you compare yourself to tony1 (I guess you don’t know him well enough yet though), or Ekimklaw, or Vinnie, who are all theists, then they are quite different to you. And yes, I know, you have already stated you are not a typical theist. My point is that I don’t think you are really a theist at all. Your openness to pursue all possibilities and consider that a god might not exist really means you are not a theist.

I guess it doesn’t matter so much. We each assign what labels make us the most comfortable.

But note the definition for faith as well.

Have fun.
Cris