prove to me that god is real

[ellion]

god is a bigger domino in a chain of bigger dominoes set up by super god. but super god was a super domino in a chain of super dominoes set up by mega god, but mega god was..... /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////__
who started that? me thats who!

 

[Clockwood]

Dominos are predestined. They will fall in a set pattern.
Evolution could have turned in a transfinite number of directions depending on an even greater number of random factors.

 

[Godless]

One thing happens after another. But who set up the dominos? The Answer is GOD.

And your evidence is?.

George's take on Religion: Click

Why the Big Bang is No Help to Theists: Click

Godless.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Just because you cant see something doesnt meen it doesn't exist

This is true. And just because someone would like something to be exist
doesn't mean that it does.

I believe that evolution occured...

Occured? Past tense? It's a non-stop process of adaptation through
variation.

and evolution is like a chain of dominos One thing happens after another.

I don't understand the metaphore. Maybe it can be ellaborated upon
how evolution is like a chain of dominos.

But who set up the dominos? The Answer is GOD.

[/QUOTE]

Why is it necessary for the 'dominos' to have been 'set up' by someone
(assuming the metaphore is clarified)?

 

[Prisme]

M*W: There are "so many variations of God" that that no god could exist!
*************

Again, your conclusion is not supported by your premise. Many different variations of a table does not necessarily mean that no table exist.
(ex: japanese table, square table, round table, tall table, red table...)

M*W: There is no god in existence. The existence of "God" cannot be proven; therefore, the people who believe in this "God" do so under false delusions. Therefore, no "god" exists.
*************

You have again confounded "Knowledge" and "Faith".
Saying that because people cannot -prove- God (by factual knowledge) they are thusly wrong to -believe- in Him (faith based facts) simply does'nt make any sense for one subject has nothing to do with the other.

Lets break it down aristotelian style:

1-The existence of God cannot be proven
2-Therefore those who believe in God suffer from delusion
3-Therefore no God exist

-How did you arrive to proposition 1? It looks like a conclusion not a premise.
-How those proposition 2 result from proposition 1? How is lack of proof be the cause for delusion? Many university professors disagree with each other and claim that the other side lacks proof... are they all delusional?
-How does proposition 2 entail proposition 3? It is rationally possible that one single man can be wright while everyone thinks he is delusional.
example: Copernicus!

It is commencing to be distressing to argue with someone who seems to have no bearing on what is a valid arguement and what is not.

========================
Quote from Godless quoting J.P. Sartre

The existentialist...thinks it very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him; there can no longer be a priori of God, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is that we are on a plane where there are only men. Dostoyevsky said, If God didn't exist, everything would be possible. That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to. --Jean Paul Sartre

Although it is true that Dostoyevsky had a certain existentialist tendancy, it is very clear that at the same time heoffers prowerfull critics to those who would reduce human existence to utilitarianism. In his novel Crime and punishement he tells the story of an old woman who was rich and did nothing with her money while the protagonist could use it in much more practical ways. He decides to murder her and flee with her money. Of course, Dostoyevsky then demonstrates how human conscience is much more powerfull than mere calculations based on practicality; indeed the protagonist finds himself deeply haunted by his action and cannot find any way to be happy again.
This said, I think Sartre is a radical philosopher which human consciousness has grown out of. Indeed, people who only dress in black, open their minds with jazz music and reject all forms of conformity are long gone. With time, its clear that people still hold a value to the meanning of a life despite the past fads philosophy had in the 60's to '70s.

On another point, Sartre says: "it very distressing that God does not exist". Personnaly, I think it would equally be "distressing" for people like Sartre to find out that God DOES exist, for it would force them to adhere to a particular world view that they may not wish to live under.

 

[Conspiracy]

This is true. And just because someone would like something to be exist
doesn't mean that it does.

I know



Occured? Past tense? It's a non-stop process of adaptation through
variation.

No shit, I meant I belive it is true and it began long ago

Why is it necessary for the 'dominos' to have been 'set up' by someone
(assuming the metaphore is clarified)?[/QUOTE]

I belive a greater power is responsible for evolution,
Thats what I meant by the domino metaphor

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I belive a greater power is responsible for evolution,
Thats what I meant by the domino metaphor

I understand. Where does the belief come from? Is it perhaps something
that just 'feels' right?

 

[jcarl]

on this, your guess would be as good as mine.
at the present time it would be redundant to try and prove a negative as Supernatural forces can not be shown to exist by the scientific method.

Well how do you know that that--emprical evidence--is the only method of determining reality?

I am prepared to wait,

So, let me get this straight. If somebody walked up to you and asked you if the supernatural existed, would you just withhold judgements, saying something like," I really haven't a clue about anything supernatural." I'm not saying belief like this is good or bad, just seeing if this what you really believe.

Someone someday may find a way

What do you mean by this? Do you mean: possibly someone may find a naturalistic way of observing the supernatural? Or are you opening the door, albeit slightly, to a non-empirical route of knowing Truth?

 

[paulisdead]

paulisdead: Yes, but we believe that the universe is eternal, unless you are going to argue that, and I highly doubt that you can prove that.
*************
M*W: Welcome to sciforums, paulisdead. I like your Username, but I hope you're not referring to yourself!

Yes, the universe is eternal -- to us mere humans. It will be here long after we've gone.
*************
paulisdead: Perhaps God is in a dimension that we cannot fathom, as in Kurt Vonnegut's novel "The Sirens Of Titan," the tranfa-whatever-dibulum or something. In it the man, Niles Rumfoord, is trapped in this scientific phenomenon and appears on every planet for particular points in time all throughout the solar system, apparently trapped within a sunbeam of sorts. Here is the point of this: He could go forward and backward in time, and he knew what was going to happen and thus told people waht they were going to do and did things that did not change the future, but rather helped it more easily maintain it's way. Basically, God could be in another dimension in which we have no comprehension (Just as Einstein has spoke about with various dimensions) and is in past, present, and future all at once. Therefore, he could have created himself at one point, and has always existed despite having to create himself. Confusing, isn't it? Then again, we cannot comprehend it and only come to it with theory. It's like being able to look forward and see your back, and then throwing a baseball at it and hitting yourself.
*************
M*W: No, it's not really all that confusing. The 'original' concept of god is in our dimension, and we see it everyday, weather permitting. The problem is an error of semantics. The 'original' god to ancient humans was the sun which evolved into the 'son of god.' The 12 signs of the zodiac were the constellations, later called the apostles. God didn't create himself. Everything was created by the Big Bang. It was like an explosion probably taking billions and billions of years to occur. We are still experiencing the ripple effect from the BB, but according to our perception of relativity, it is happening so slow that we can't really perceive it. However, now that mankind has created the measurement of time, we can see and feel every 24 hours go by, every day go by, every week go by, every month go by, and every year go by. As of yet, we cannot perceive the past return or the future we have. All we have in this dimension is the present.
*************
paulisdead: No wonder people have so much trouble with this, they give themselves brain aneurisms just like I just did.-Dan
*************
Dan: It's simple, really. The problem is that Christians, Jews and Muslims would disagree with my theory. For some reason, they don't quite understand that the monotheistic god they believe in was only their anthropomorphized sun god of ancient Egypt.

Again, welcome to sciforums where all your questions will be answered with love.

~ Medicine*Woman

I would reply to you on your arguments, but I am too tired. However, thank you for welcoming me, the name paulisdead is Paul Is Dead, AKA Paul McCartney, with the whole Beatles conspiracy backing that.
-Dan

 

[1Dude]

Yes, but we believe that the universe is eternal, unless you are going to argue that, and I highly doubt that you can prove that.

I am currently looking for arguments concerning whether the universe is eternal or not. There seems to be much disagreement on this point. Do you have any arguments that suggest that the universe is eternal?

If the universe is eternal our own sun should have burned itself out an eternity ago. The entire universe should have suffered a heat death an eternity ago and there would only be darkness now. Even the cycling universe theory seems a lot like an impossible perpetual motion machine. That seems very unlikely to me as well. Just my thoughts. Thanks!

 

[Godless]

On another point, Sartre says: "it very distressing that God does not exist". Personnaly, I think it would equally be "distressing" for people like Sartre to find out that God DOES exist, for it would force them to adhere to a particular world view that they may not wish to live under.

Sarte has been dead since 1980. He don't wish to live any longer. He's already gone.

I've just begun reading him btw, I do find him interesting, but not my tipe of philosophy either. I'm not an existentialist. I only study philosophy as a hobby.

I am currently looking for arguments concerning whether the universe is eternal or not. There seems to be much disagreement on this point. Do you have any arguments that suggest that the universe is eternal?

First of all what is "eternal"?.

One can't fathom till the end of time, one can't even begin to imangine eternity. Existence has existed eternally, and shall continue to exist eternally. Only for a brief nano second do you and I exist on this planet, and when the times come that our sun eithre blows up--Supernova or dies out it has only been a day; compared to the eternal past of existence and it's eternal future.

Godless.

 

[audible]

Well how do you know that that--emprical evidence--is the only method of determining reality?

I dont as I've said already, here

I did'nt say that, nobody would be so stupid, until such time as they can possibly prove the existence of a supernatural realm, I will stick with what I know now, and use my senses to guide me.

naturalism neither denies nor affirms the existence of God, either as transcendent or immanent. However, naturalism makes God an unnecessary hypothesis and essentially superfluous to scientific investigation. Reference to moral or divine purposes has no place in scientific explanations. On the other hand, the scope of science is limited to explanation of empirical phenomena without reference to forces, powers, influences, etc., which are supernatural.

and here

on this, your guess would be as good as mine.
at the present time it would be redundant to try and prove a negative as Supernatural forces can not be shown to exist by the scientific method. Supernatural claims assert phenomena beyond the realm of current scientific understanding, which are often in direct conflict with current scientific theory.

So, let me get this straight. If somebody walked up to you and asked you if the supernatural existed, would you just withhold judgements, saying something like," I really haven't a clue about anything supernatural." I'm not saying belief like this is good or bad, just seeing if this what you really believe.

my personal view is, I doubt very much that they will ever be able to determine a method other than the empirical, but as I've said it would be stupid for me or anybody for that matter, to completely rule out the possiblity.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean: possibly someone may find a naturalistic way of observing the supernatural? Or are you opening the door, albeit slightly, to a non-empirical route of knowing Truth?

read last paragraph, remember man once thought the world was flat, and the sun went round the earth, but we know different now.

 

[Prisme]

Sarte has been dead since 1980. He don't wish to live any longer. He's already gone.

No shit Godless. I gather that your half assed remark on the authors death was favored in order to avoid commenting on my original rhetoric to wich I don't understand why you quoted above your comment:

-Personnaly, I think it would equally be "distressing" for people like Sartre to find out that God DOES exist, for it would force them to adhere to a particular world view that they may not wish to live under.-

 

[Godless]

No shit Godless. I gather that your half assed remark on the authors death was favored in order to avoid commenting on my original rhetoric to wich I don't understand why you quoted above your comment:

Forgive the "pun" however I'm not to familiar yet with Sarte's work, as I mentioned right below I've just begun reading him, to make an assesment of your "rhetoric" would have been a deliberate lie or inconclusive view. Because of my unfamiliarity with both Sarte's and Dostovesky's literature works. I've never read "Crime & Punishment" as yet, but the book has been recomended to me several times. I have however read "The Idiot" and by that pice of literature I gather that Dostovesky to be atheistic in his ideas.

Personnaly, I think it would equally be "distressing" for people like Sartre to find out that God DOES exist, for it would force them to adhere to a particular world view that they may not wish to live under

It is already "distressing" since most "DO" believe in such an entity and they rule the people accordingly to religious rhetorical ideals. But how about the otherway around?. When say a person like the Pope who has recently passed away finds out that actually NOTHING EXISTS. That there's no god, that he basically wasted his whole life living and promoting a LIE! and that what he saw in his final moments of life was an illusion of the mind been cut of of oxygen and blood supply to the brain, he might of seen the "light" and headed towards it upon his death only to find out that after that there was only "DARKNESS" and thus he finally died.

The delussional mind set of not accepting death gives us thought of "heaven" a nirvana after existence, a place of peace and tranquility. However in reality how can such a place exist?. The opposite of heaven is Hell!. this used only to "manipulate" with fear, your reward for following religious rhetorical BULL SHIT, and if not done so accordingly to rhetorical religious crap your punishment would be "hell". If that's the case Hell is about to bust out of it's seems!.

But if you still content in believing that such a place exists you might as well visit here

Godless.

 

[Mr Spank]

so is he real then?

can i see an actual photo if he is please

 

[Yorda]

so is he real then?

can i see an actual photo if he is please

God is not physical, so it may be hard to take a photo of God HIMSELF. There is nothing which he can be compared to, so that he would become "visible". He has no "opposite", like 'soft' is the opposite of 'hard'. You know what hard is because you know what soft is, but you do not know what God is since there's no comparison. Everything in this world is relative, you know.

I guess the universe (everything) is the most precise physical manifestation of him. The universe is the heat, God is the fire which causes the heat. Also, everything that is good, is God. Take photos of good things, then you can have a small picture of what God looks like.

 

[(Q)]

It's interesting that some know so much about something that is not physical and not visible.

Yet, scientists know so little about the universe which is physical and is visible, and the more they do know shows no indication of what some think they know.

Curious...

 

[Prisme]

It is already "distressing" since most "DO" believe in such an entity and they rule the people accordingly to religious rhetorical ideals. But how about the otherway around?. When say a person like the Pope who has recently passed away finds out that actually NOTHING EXISTS. That there's no god, that he basically wasted his whole life living and promoting a LIE! and that what he saw in his final moments of life was an illusion of the mind been cut of of oxygen and blood supply to the brain, he might of seen the "light" and headed towards it upon his death only to find out that after that there was only "DARKNESS" and thus he finally died.

The delussional mind set of not accepting death gives us thought of "heaven" a nirvana after existence, a place of peace and tranquility. However in reality how can such a place exist?. The opposite of heaven is Hell!. this used only to "manipulate" with fear, your reward for following religious rhetorical BULL SHIT, and if not done so accordingly to rhetorical religious crap your punishment would be "hell". If that's the case Hell is about to bust out of it's seems!.

But if you still content in believing that such a place exists you might as well visit here

Godless.

1- For the second time, you have not adressed what I was invoking:
If Sartre critics believers as being 'frail' without God, I say that people like Sartre would be equally 'frail' if they discovered God existed for they would be obliged to recognize something bigger than themselves and their petty free will... this would cause them "distress"

2-If the pope found out that no God existed.. how could he then juge that he 'wasted' his life as you put it? With no God (creator), life HAD no meanning from the get-go, so he might as well as been pope than a mechanic or insurance salesman.. it wouldn't of changed anything according to you. Right?

3-Of course, when people usually see "the light" they are usually clinically dead... so he wouldn't "then die". And it you're dead, you couldn't conclude whether your going to heaven or hell now could you?

4-What do you define as accepting death? We don't even know what death is, how can we know how to accept it? By the way, don't bother replying that death is 'the end of all things for that person' since you can only say that from a living standpoint; we still don't know what death is for the dying.
"Death is the only certainty of life, and yet the greatest unknown. Understanding death is understanding the meanning of life" -Forgot

5-I'm afraind I have no idea of what to make with your heaven and hell segment. But since your bias seems more against organized religion than objective Creation or after-life events, I'll leave you to your conclusions.

Prisme

 

[audible]

prismeobjective Creation is an oxymoron.

why do you think people cant accept the end of life?

If the pope found out that no God existed, while he was alive obivously, he could only conclude he'd wasted his life.
however life has meaning regardless, theres certainly no need for a sky daddy.

"Death is the only certainty in life, and yet the greatest unknown" why whats to know, your dead.
it's not possible to understand death, what's to understand, you die your dead.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

paulisdead: I would reply to you on your arguments, but I am too tired. However, thank you for welcoming me, the name paulisdead is Paul Is Dead, AKA Paul McCartney, with the whole Beatles conspiracy backing that.
-Dan
*************
M*W: Thanks for explaining your Username. I thought it might have referred to Paul of Tarsus. Rest up, and we'll discuss later.