Religious Evidence?

N

notme2000

The Art Of Fact
Registered Senior Member
I often see threads in which athiests and religious are arguing the existance of God. The athiests present the usual arguments. Darwin's survival of the fittest, which explains a functional system as oposed to design. Biology (how we are), psychology (why you're thinking what you are about my opinion), and let's not forget Fuzzy Pink Elephants, which DO make a good point, though can become kind of ridiculous sometimes. But the religous rarely give the "proof" they promise, and the odd times they do, it's usually healings in the name of God, God speaking to certain people, etc... But is that proof? Can you prove those healings were God and not just rare favorable flukes. Can you prove God talked to someone and they aren't just hearing voices, or lying for profit? I personally think if someone is religious they shouldn't offer proof, because we all know there isn't any. So why do some religious people swear they have proof and us athiests are just denying it? Religion depends upon faith for a reason.
 
IMO these 'healings' are bogus. Say someone has cancer, they pray and ask God to make it go into remission, it does and they say God healed them. Yet at the same time, another person with cancer may never pray for healing and his/her cancer can go into remission as well.

Something like "If you pray for healing, and you are healed, God did it. If you pray for healing, and you are not healed, God has other plans for you" Not very good proof if you ask me.
 
Praise the lord / The lord works in mysterious ways

Sounds pretty, hmmm what's the word... RANDOM CHAOS!:D
 
Darwin's survival of the fittest, which explains a functional system as oposed to design.

Darwin considered Biogeographic and Geographical distribution as some of his strongest evidence:

New species have appeared gradually - All species have changed, but rates of change are unequal - Rates of change may be unequal in consecutive strata.

Species do not reappear after they become extinct - Extinctions are not usually the result of catastrophic events - Extinct forms usually show intermediate features and make a "more perfect classification."

Fossil mammals in a particular area are more closely related to living mammals of that area than to fossils from the same stratum in different geographical regions. Simultaneous changes in form (in different geographical regions) can be explained by waves of migrations (i.e., dispersal.)

Environment cannot account for either similarity or dissimilarity, since similar environments can harbor entirely different species groups

"Affinity" (=similarity) of groups on the same continent (or sea) is closer than between continents (or seas)

Geographical barriers usually divide these different groups, and there is a correlation between degree of difference and rate of migration or ability to disperse across the barriers.

-- Origin of Species -- Darwin
Click to expand...


Not only is there evidence of evolution occurring even now, scientists have already discovered the very mechanism behind genes and recombination thereof. Not to mention the obvious morphological, behavioral and biochemical evidence as well as the ever-expanding fossil record.

We should consider that evolution has become fact - as much a fact as the Sun rises every morning.
 
*dives for cover as whatsmuscles flexes his muscles and prepares to charge*

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?
 
Proving or disproving the exsistance of a god is impossible because as soon as one disproves a god then the definition of what that god is changed. Of course their is no councle that thinks up definitions of god to give the nonreligious a hard time. It just happens naturally. Gods evolve just like language, species, and the the universe.
 
Last edited:
Proving or disproving the exsistance of a god is impossible because as soon as one disproves a god then the definition of what that god is changed
Click to expand...
My point exactly! Which is why I do not understand these odd religious ones who say they have so much proof of God and science and evolution has NONE... It just seems contradictory to me...
 
What is the point of believing in any God? Is it a matter of simplicity?

God is not evident.
 
I understand the point in believing in a God, just not the ability. God and religion seems to answer a near-impossible question that many people can't stand to leave un-answered. I just don't understand the ability to accept an answer without reason or evidense. But that's just me...
 
Originally posted by notme2000
God and religion seems to answer a near-impossible question that many people can't stand to leave un-answered.
Click to expand...

And what question is that?
 
An alternative view is to consider what the world would be like if there was proof of God. And here I mean high quality evidence, e.g. as good as knowing the sun exists.

Under these conditions life on earth would become pointless. It would be just a waiting room for the afterlife. And with so much overwhelming evidence for heaven and hell then only complete idiots would take actions where they would go to hell. And if this God is “just” as is claimed then he is unlikely to condemn idiots. And, well, that about wraps it up for hell.

But if paradise awaits us when we die then who would want to do anything to prolong life? And well, that about wraps it up for cancer research.

Religion can only make sense when there is no evidence or proof of God, but without evidence or proof of God then religion makes no sense.

NB. Christianity assumed here.
 
NB? What's all this england latin here? I'm not smart enough to know latin....please refrain....:( *whimper*

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?
 
But zero,

Everyone uses Latin, don’t they? Here are a few common abbreviations.

e.g.- latin:"exempli gratia" which means (for the sake of example).

etc.- latin:"et cetera" which means (and so on).

i.e.- latin:"id est" which means (that is).

N.B.- latin:"nota bene" which means (note well).
 
And as Evilpoet so appropriately quoted in another thread -

"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

" 'But', says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' "Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

From the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
Click to expand...
I’d always laughed at this before as silly, but now I think it is really quite perceptive. Apart from the Babel fish of course, but any significant evidence would do just fine.

If there were any real evidence for God that everyone could clearly see then life on Earth would cease to have any meaning. It would seem the existence of God really does depend on faith alone, and that means no evidence can ever be found.

And of course if there is never any evidence for his existence then no one can ever know if he exists.

And that about wraps it up for Christian claims.
 
Cris, that is exactly what I was getting at with this thread! Thank you for putting it in to words better than I could!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top