Evidence for God (2 Viewers)

[Taurus]

Is that a fish with a foot/hand?

It's a Candiru fish.

 

[kcirdor]

It's pretty good odds that the guy who tamed fire didn't even live to be 33.

according to the old testement.. he could have lived to nearly 200 years old.

 

[Surviving Saint]

It's a Candiru fish.

I don't want that thing anywhere near my penile area.

 

[crosswatt]

''

believing in what? God? which God? What about Allah? Jewish God? Catholic God? cuz Baptist God says Catholic God's going to hell for dancing and drinking.
Are you asking me to believe in the power of Dianetics?
Seriously, If there is a God. Why doesn't he make up his mind as to which religion he is?

"I'm afraid it was the Mormons'. Yes, the Mormons' was the correct answer."

 

[The Unrest Cure]

A candiru? Com'n guys. There is one overblown case (well, not for the victim!) of the fish inserting itself into a penis. There are no other cases in recorded history. I think I can find more cases of eels in rectums than candirus in reproductive areas.

Thanks to that ridiculously overhyped story all parasitic catfishes are banned in this state. They feed on blood from gills, not urinary discharges. :aargh:

Back to your regularly scheduled debate.

 

[from the plaines]

From a philosophical point of view, the burden of proof is always on the person contending that something does exist. It's the basis for empiricism/the Scientific Method. Beyond that, it's essentially impossible to prove a negative and if we required that, we would have to believe that anything we can't prove exists, does exist. That would seem to me to have all sorts of odd consequences. For instance, I could claim there was a teapot at the center of the universe that created the universe. You can't prove their isn't therefore, if we require proof that something does not exist, you would have to believe that that teapot does exist and it created the universe. The same would apply to any nonsensical thing anyone could think of.

I get your point, but couldnt that cut both ways depending on who is asking the questions. If some one says the univerese is a random collection of actions and matters. Wouldnt they need to back that claim as well? I dont see in the end the difference, since in the end we are talking about how something started, that we never figure out how. So it seems to be a issue of faith or belief more so than proof

 

[bergeaux]

People who believe will always find reasons to prove they are right. Others will always find ways to prove they are wrong.

Actually, I think the problem is that nobody can prove anything.

This is where the truth is.

There is no definitive understanding of where the first organism came from and this is where both evolution/athiest believers and God believers are at odds. This is where agnostics just shrug and say "I don't care".

No one knows where life REALLY started. One of the "great minds" of evolution once said "maybe it was aliens" when he was cornered to come up with where the first organic life came from.

Believers in a singular God (doesn't matter which religion) cannot prove His existence or that God created the first organic life either. The bottom line is that you either choose to believe that we are an accident of nature or that there is "intelligent design" from a Creator.

The argument from atheists is: "If there was a God that did it all this, then why doesn't He show Himself? Why don't we see miracles happening that believers attribute to God in a more apparent way? Such as a limb re-appearing on a stump?" It doesn't make sense to them.

The argument from believers is "How can you think all these complex organisms evolved into even more complex organisms when science shows that DEVOLVING is the way nature seems to go, not EVOLVING." (Nature's version of entropy.) That doesn't make sense to them.

Both are reasonable questions. One has to search his own soul and figure out if they think there is a Creator that they are beholden to or think that life is just over after we die and it's all just a chance existence. It's easier to live life not thinking about it, so many lean one way or another but avoid the topic and let life just go on.

 

[kcirdor]

univerese is a random collection of actions and matters.

this can be proven. it can be seen. it can be studied.

This isn't bound by the word of man, but would have tests and results of tests as evidence.

 

[IowaSaintsFan]

One popular question I have heard posed to Atheists is:

"If there is no intelligent creator, then why is there something rather than nothing?"

If you can't answer that question, you're probably more of an Agnostic than an Atheist, and in my mind, a step in the right direction.

 

[kcirdor]

explain time while you are at it and black holes or dark energy.

you can ask a caveman to explain math, and if he can't then he must be agnostic...........

 

[from the plaines]

this can be proven. it can be seen. it can be studied.

This isn't bound by the word of man, but would have tests and results of tests as evidence.

No it cant, since we have no idea where it all started from. We are studying but to think we have it all figured out is a stretch at best.

 

[rcajun90]

People who believe will always find reasons to prove they are right. Others will always find ways to prove they are wrong.

I would have to disagree with you. Even hardcore Atheists have to ask some basic questions that can't be answered. Why are we here? Are we just some accident that wasn't suppose to happen? What's the point in life in general? Even Einstein saw intelligent design in the universe. I want to thank the original poster for such an awesome site. It will take me a while to read through most of it.

 

[St. Widge]

I get your point, but couldnt that cut both ways depending on who is asking the questions. If some one says the univerese is a random collection of actions and matters. Wouldnt they need to back that claim as well? I dont see in the end the difference, since in the end we are talking about how something started, that we never figure out how. So it seems to be a issue of faith or belief more so than proof

Sure, if you claim it's a random collection of matter you do need to prove it. The thing is, that even if you can't prove that (and someone probably can), it's doesn't mean that the only other option is "God did it." At the same time, even if you prove that it is a random collection of elements, it doesn't prove that god does not exist. Neither position if mutually exclusive of the other.

But, yeah, the burden is on the person making the claim. It's the nature of science and no real scientist or fan of science would want it any other way. So, no, science won't allow for "faith" to be the answer. It requires "proof". Faith does not cut it for science.

 

[from the plaines]

Sure, if you claim it's a random collection of matter you do need to prove it. The thing is, that even if you can't prove that (and someone probably can), it's doesn't mean that the only other option is "God did it." At the same time, even if you prove that it is a random collection of elements, it doesn't prove that god does not exist. Neither position if mutually exclusive of the other.

But, yeah, the burden is on the person making the claim. It's the nature of science and no real scientist or fan of science would want it any other way. So, no, science won't allow for "faith" to be the answer. It requires "proof". Faith does not cut it for science.

I agree 100% with this.

 

[St. Widge]

One popular question I have heard posed to Atheists is:

"If there is no intelligent creator, then why is there something rather than nothing?"

If you can't answer that question, you're probably more of an Agnostic than an Atheist, and in my mind, a step in the right direction.

I'm not sure what the importance of that question is? I mean the answer is basically "because things do exist." The reason "why" they exist isn't really relevant to anyone other than a theist. From a philosophical point of view if they didn't, we wouldn't exist and there would be no one to even ask the question. Beyond that, we know that matter can neither be created or destroyed so it makes sense that it has always existed and it always will.