Evidence for God (3 Viewers)

[kcirdor]

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.

Ah, you mean where it all began. No, there is no answer to this as no one was there to record it. Only theories developed about 6000.... years ago, and more theories developed around 4000 years later.

But with stars emitting light from billions of light years away we know everything is much older than 6000 years.

 

[St. Widge]

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.

First, it is a common misconception about Einstein that he was talking about god. That's not what he meant and the quotes you have seen are out of context. The design he saw was base level physics, not "God."

Second, what do you think the answers to the questions you pose mean? I can answer them, for example, 1) There is no reason we are here, we just are; 2) We are here by chance; 3) There is no point to life other than enjoying it as much as you can, but i don't see what answering those questions is supposed to prove or not prove.

 

[from the plaines]

Ah, you mean where it all began. No, there is no answer to this as no one was there to record it. Only theories developed about 6000.... years ago, and more theories developed around 4000 years later.

But with stars emitting light from billions of light years away we know everything is much older than 6000 years.

Yep and I am not arguing that point either. Trust me I am a very big fan of science. I just am not a fan of blanket statments either way. Since its draws everyone into one of two camps. And people develop a bunker mentality.

 

[crosswatt]

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.

One is enough.

 

[The Unrest Cure]

The thing is, that even if you can't prove that (and someone probably can),

Purely as an aside, it appears you have as much faith in your position as others do in theirs. You simply prefer to call it science. I'll never claim that all science requires faith - far from it! - but the underpinnings, the assumptions that science is based upon (observation, experimentation, and conclusion) require just as much faith and hopeful certainty (I think we call it "peer review") as religion. That may well be the best method we have of determining truth: consensus. Some of history's greatest thinkers, however, have been dissenters, I would remind. But I find it to be INSANE to believe that all experimental and theoretical scientists are not swayed by their personal assumptions. The danger lies in taking one's biased take on temporary truth (I refer to the continuing analogy about cavemen and fire) and viewing it is as infallible. FWIW, I fear the same about the pope!

I think people are in profound error when they think religion is based PURELY upon faith. The proof many seek is in the acts they execute. The faith should come first, but the belief should be buttressed by tangible evidence in one's life soon after. Reason can be a wonderful, blessed tool, but to close one's eyes to only that which they can find scientific evidence for is very limiting.

That isn't meant to encourage mindless speculation about the yeti, before someone takes this in a wrong direction. Such belief is hopelessly selfish, while faith in God should be hopelessly selfless.

Eternal truth about God should not - cannot - be taken based upon consensus. It requires a personal approach, a personal interest, and personal effort. And that is difficult to translate to others.

 

[St. Widge]

Purely as an aside, it appears you have as much faith in your position as others do in theirs. You simply prefer to call it science.

We've gone over this before over and over and over again. It's clearly your pet peeve to try to prove that science is based on faith just like theism. But it's not true of me or of science in general. You can call it "faith" if you want, but it's not. I know enough about quantum mechanics, Chaos Theory and String Theory to believe that the universe really is a collection of random material that happened to organize the way it has now. No, I can't personally replicate the experiments, but I can read them and they are enough for me to conclude that they are probably correct. Now, do I believe that those theories can be proven wrong? Of course it's possible and that's the great thing about science. We come up with hypothesis and theories and then ask people to try to disprove them and if they can, what they proved becomes the new theory or hypothesis.

So, I guess if you call that "faith" then you might be right by definition, but I don't think any theist is talking about that process of thinking when he says he believes by faith. By faith, I think a theist means that they don't require any evidence or proof other than what they feel and know in their hearts and minds. And, there is nothing that I believe in relation to science, or anything else for that matter, that I believe only because I feel it in my heart (whatever that means) or mind.

How do you define "faith"?

 

[kcirdor]

Q: Seven years ago I said we'd be watching you, and we have been. Hoping that your ape-like brains would demonstrate *some* growth, give *some* indication that your minds have room for expansion. But what have we seen instead? You... worrying about Commander Riker's career? Listening to Counselor Troi's pedantic psychobabble? Indulging Data in his witless exploration of humanity?
Capt. Picard: We've journeyed to countless new worlds. We've contacted new species. We have expanded our understanding of the universe.
Q: In your own paltry, limited way. You have no *idea* how far you still have to go. But instead of using the last seven years to change and to grow, you have squandered them.

Capt. Picard: We are what we are. And we're doing the best we can. It is not for you to set the standards by which we shall be judged!
Q: Oh, but it is, and we have. Time may be eternal, Captain, but our patience is not. It's time to put an end to your trek through the stars; make room for other more worthy species.
Capt. Picard: You're going to deny us... travel through space?
[the courtroom erupts in laughter]
Q: You obtuse piece of flotsam! You're to be denied *existence*. Humanity's fate has been sealed: you will be destroyed.


Q: You see this? This is you. I'm serious! Right here, life is about to form on this planet for the very first time. A group of amino acids are about to combine to form the first protein. The building blocks
[laughs]
Q: of what you call "life." Strange, isn't it? Everything you know, your entire civilization, it all begins right here in this little pond of goo. Appropriate somehow, isn't it? Too bad you didn't bring your microscope; it's really quite fascinating. Oh, look! There they go. The amino-acids are moving closer, and closer, and closer. Aww, nothing happened. See what you've done?

the Q continuum is god

 

[OldSaintFan]

This website is awesome. It is designed to answer questions from athiest and non-believers, and does a really good job at that. I will Link you to the scientific part but you can click around, good stuff.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html

Please be careful opening this site. I just tried and Norton360 says that it is unsafe.

 

[Charlie Brizzown]

There have been tons of gods in the past that no one believes in any more. Why? Because as people learned more, they realized there are rational explanations to things they previously attributed to certain gods.

A lot of kids grow up believing in Santa Claus, no one refers to him as a god but that's what he is. He does magical things like fly through the sky, slips down chimneys to place presents under the tree, and rewards you with presents when you're good ... all this in a matter of a few hours. Eventually the kids learn that there is no magic happening there. Their parents and everyone else around them have been lying to them to as a way to keep their kids in check. "Don't act right, I'm not getting you that X-Box for Christmas!"

You can view today's gods the same way. As a kid, you're told that if you pray miracles will happen. Uncle Jim gets cancer, you pray and he gets better. "Praise the lord!" your relatives will say, "It's a miracle of God!" As you get older, you should begin to see that there was more to it than just you praying. People were taking Uncle Jim to the doctor, giving him chemo therapy and all sorts of care involved. You tell yourself "I could have prayed 24/7, but if they hadn't been taking him to the hospital he'd be dead anyway". Just like Santa, they use gods to keep people in check. Act bad and you're going to hell, behave and you can come hang out in the clouds with God later in life. Someone just put a little more thought into the current gods, because so far there is no way to prove that there is no heaven or hell. But there are all kinds of other flaws in the god stories that people just seem to look past.

People think atheist are arrogant when they laugh and point at theists. But it's no different than laughing and pointing at a grown adult who truly believes in Santa Claus.

 

[bergeaux]

Sure, if you claim it's a random collection of matter you do need to prove it.

That seems duplicitous. If someone says that God did it, they have to prove it. If you say that it's a random action that organisms began and evolved into humans, you don't have to prove it?

Purely as an aside, it appears you have as much faith in your position as others do in theirs. You simply prefer to call it science.

What he said.

How do you define "faith"?

Faith from dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

faith   [feyth]
–noun
...
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
...
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

You just said you don't have to prove what you believe. That sure sounds like number 2 to me. In fact the example is in a hypothesis that is not substantiated.

So, no, science won't allow for "faith" to be the answer. It requires "proof". Faith does not cut it for science.

Exactly, so that's why you cannot say "I believe we are here from random accident" and say that it's not a faith in something you can't prove.

We had to come from somewhere. Either we came from random electrons, nuetrons and protons forming DNA to become an organism, or we were created by SOME intelligent design (doesn't have to be a singular creator God). Neither has been proven by the brightest minds, so belief in either one requires FAITH. Otherwise you have to just say "I don't know where we came from and don't fall on either side". That is a position you don't have to have faith for at this point.

 

[dtc]

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.

Those cute little loopy tidbits of nothing entertain some people and can even illicit some retarTed conversational retorts.

If there is no creator, then why is there nothing instead of something? What is nothing? Is nothing the absence of something or is nothing, in and of itself, something. Or, is all of this just linguistic break dancing?

 

[V Chip]

Sure, if you claim it's a random collection of matter you do need to prove it.

That seems duplicitous. If someone says that God did it, they have to prove it. If you say that it's a random action that organisms began and evolved into humans, you don't have to prove it?

 

[bergeaux]

Sorry, I misread his post.

So Widge and I agree then!

 

[Brennan77]

/end thread

 

[V Chip]

People think atheist are arrogant when they laugh and point at theists. But it's no different than laughing and pointing at a grown adult who truly believes in Santa Claus.

Actually, it is different, but it is also rude.

I'm an atheist and I surely don't point and laugh and theists. At one point I was even one of them, then I started to investigate and question and seek out answers and came to the point I am at today. Just because someone else believes in God(s) doesn't mean they are worthy of ridicule -- most people are brought up to believe in God(s) and have to willingly and deliberately question all of it to change their views (or further confirm them). IMO most of them never attempt to take that first step, thus they would be like the children who believe in Santa Claus because they have never had a need or desire to question it.

Plus we know Santa Claus to be fiction. And as much as I think God is as well, we don't know that God is fiction.