This thread is for proof that God exists

by juandefiero 375 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  ttdtt

  "Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."
  -Isaac Newton, Physics, Mathematics

  I can find NO evidence that Newton ever said this.

  
  Also at the time - how would it have been possible for Newton to know that there was a "proper" distance?
  
  "Principia" or any of his other writings did not deal with Solar Radiation - nor any musings on there being a "Goldilocks Zone?

  This quote only shows up on Pro Christian websites, and on sites where people are asking if he said it.
• 

  slimboyfat

  On another thread you said you don't make it personal yet you've called me troll at least 3 times now. I don't know why you think I should respond after that. Plus discussing the difference between the mystery of consciousness and a fart with someone who apparently can't tell the difference may not exactly be fruitful.
• 

  EndofMysteries

  "Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."
  -Isaac Newton, Physics, Mathematics
  I can find NO evidence that Newton ever said this

  1. Brewster, Sir David. A Short Scheme of the True Religion, manuscript quoted in Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton Edinburgh, 1850.
  2. Jump up^ "A short Schem of the true Religion". The Newton Project.East Sussex: University of Sussex. Archived from the original on 7 May 2013. Retrieved 7 May 2013.
• 

  Mephis

  Newton's 'evidence' against atheism is that mammals and birds have two eyes and two arms etc and so it's 'senseless' to not believe in a creator. The only time he mentions the sun is to say men have worshiped it in the past. Everything after 'atheism is so senseless' is not attributable to Newton.

  It's still a terrible argument whether one is pointing to biology or cosmology.
• 

  OneGenTwoGroups

  Logically, every religion can't be right, but all them can be wrong.
• 

  jacobm

  The majority of U.S. scientists either belive in a diety or in a higher power.

  http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

  Some people don't change their way of thinking when they leave JWs, they just jump ship to another belief, which they then use to hold over the heads of others. Very sad.

  To the lurker, may I suggest the book "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist". Of course, make sure you compare each side of the argument.
• 

  Mephis

  The majority of U.S. scientists either belive in a diety or in a higher power.

  Or you can phrase it as nearly 6 in 10 scientists in the US don't believe in God.
• 

  cofty

  To the lurker, may I suggest the book "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist". - Jacob M

  What specifically did you find compelling about that book?

  they just jump ship to another belief, which they then use to hold over the heads of others. Very sad.

  In my case I became a christian. It was nine years before I was compelled by the evidence to abandon faith.

  Many exJWs don't realise how little they have changed their belief system. They ring-fence all the basics and assume they must be true without really examining them.
• 

  cofty

  The majority of U.S. scientists either belive in a diety or in a higher power - Jacob M

  Actually the research you referred to said...

  scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power... 33% of scientists say they believe in God.

  Your misuse of statistics was not very honest was it?

  So why do you think those who understand reality better than most are much less likely to believe in god?

  
  

  Only 7% of members of the American National Academy of Scientists believe in god.
• 

  slimboyfat

  So why do you think those who understand reality better than most are much less likely to believe in god?

  Scientists do not "understand reality better" than other people. This is your fundamental error. Scientists understand one particular way of looking at reality better than others. But it is not the only valid way of looking at reality. Other perspectives include poetry, art, everyday experience, theology, philosophy, psychology, cartography, performance, history, and so on.

  Mary Midgley gives the example of the river Thames. Say you have various representations, including perhaps a painting, a chemical analysis, a poem, a map, a geological account, a historical treatment. Do you begin to appreciate how ridiculous it is to describe some of these representations as having a "better understanding of reality" than the others? They are different ways of looking at the same thing.