Prove to me that God exists (page 15)

Abaddon

JW83

Hitler himself was non-religious, even though nominally Catholic.

I think we can agree on Hitler being an evil nut-job who believed all sort of erroneous bollocks, but he was also an evil religious nut-job who believed all sort of erroneous bollocks...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_murphy/religionofhitler.html

"Hitler seeking power, wrote in Mein Kampf. "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." Years later, when in power, he quoted those same words in a Reichstag speech in 1938."
"Three years later he informed General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." "
"Those who would make Hitler an atheist should turn their eyes to history books before they address their pews and microphones. Acclaimed Hitler biographer, John Toland, explains his heartlessness as follows: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god..." "

Just because he used religion to manipulate people doesn't mean he didn't believe in god.

It might pay to get your facts right before you criticise other people.

Kenneson

No, I don't see it that way. The atheist likewise makes the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that it is possible to prove a negative, therefore you are not relieved of the Burden of Proof that you require of the theist.

I am sorry, but you are making a straw man argument there. Atheism is NOT believing "it is possible to prove a negative".

Why is it neccesary for you to make false statements about those you disagree with?

An atheist might not believe in god based upon their examination of the evidence or lack thereof, however, a conclusion reached after study is not an assertion that "it is possible to prove a negative".

Is the causeless universe your EXTRAORDINARY PROOF that there is no God? How does it square away with the scientific view that the universe had a beginning? Also, how do you explain the origin of life and the complexity of nature without a superintelligence?

And how do you explain the origin of the superintelligence you have to have for your theory of creation? You seem to suggest complex things need a designer yet your beliefs would appear to have no explanation for the existence of a complex superintelligent designer, which means your theory of creation invalidates itself.

Kenneson

JW83,

Whom did I criticize in my response about Hitler? Was Hitler an atheist? I just completed a book on Hitler and the Vatican and I didn't get that impression at all.

OldSoul

It is easy to explain how matter occurred as long as one accepts that energy did not have a beginning, cannot be destroyed, and can exist in different forms. But then, what is energy and can you prove it exists?

Respectfully,
OldSoul

doogie

deputydog:

I didn't ask you if you had any morals or used logic, I asked how you account for them. How did these things evolve from nothing or from simply matter energy and motion?

if you're truly interested in exploring this, you should look at "Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence" by Carl Sagan. he has a great writing style and he is just about as non-dogmatic as a guy can be (hell, it says 'speculation' right in the title). it's a great introduction to the evolution of the human brain (assuming that you are honestly interested in this subject).

Kenneson

Abaddon,

If some atheists do not make an assertion that they have proof of a negative, are there not at the same time others of them who sound (at least to me) very dogmatic? I'm certainly not trying to intentionally lie about atheists and I apologize to the exceptions.

So, in the final analysis, which is a better explanation, a causeless universe or a causeless God? Or do we need to look for another explanation?

Daunt

I would also like to know where God came from since the current theory is, "Complex things need a complex creator". Seems to stop where-ever the person wants it to stop.

And why do we even need an answer when we do not have sufficient evidence for it? It's nothing but a fantasy without evidence to back it up.

OldSoul

It is easy to explain how matter occurred as long as one accepts that energy did not have a beginning, cannot be destroyed, and can exist in different forms. But then, what is energy and can you prove it exists?

Anyone?

Daunt: It's nothing but a fantasy without evidence to back it up.

I agree. However, that evidence does not have to be demonstrable to someone else to exist. Does it?

OldSoul

Kenneson: Or do we need to look for another explanation?

In my opinion, always.

funkyderek

It is easy to explain how matter occurred as long as one accepts that energy did not have a beginning, cannot be destroyed, and can exist in different forms.

One of the most fundamental laws of physics, the law of conservation of energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form to another (including matter). This would preclude it having a beginning within the laws of our universe.

But then, what is energy and can you prove it exists?

In physics, energy is the capacity of a physical system to do work. Solipsism asides, we know energy exists because it's observable and measurable.

OldSoul

funkyderek: This would preclude it having a beginning within the laws of our universe.

This will probably sound combative. It is not motivated from anything other than a desire to inspire honest investigation into the (lack of) foundations of our (lack of) understanding of reality. As a species.

Stating a law doesn't logically preclude anything. It only precludes it from the standpoint of working paradigm. I could state a similar law and prove that God has always existed and can never be destroyed. Would consensus prove me right? Would consensus preclude another possibility?

Is energy aware? Is it conscious? How would you know? How could you measure that? We can't even measure that with great effectiveness in humans by anything more than monitoring brain waves. Where would energy's "brain waves" be, if they exist? How would you monitor for their existence?

funkyderek: In physics, energy is the capacity of a physical system to do work. Solipsism asides, we know energy exists because it's observable and measurable.

So if I assert an (unfounded) law that energy is a manifestation of God in our perceptible dimension and I can get consensus agreement, have you proven that God has always existed and, through energy, can be observed and measured? I mean, after all, we already know that everything we are aware of is energy.

I am seriously wanting to get to the foundation, because it is at the foundation that the delusion of our highly regarded insights, as a species, disappears. Why is there a law of conservation of energy, stating that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form to another (including matter)? Upon what is that law based, beyond consensus? I know the standard lines and we both know that at its core is a basis of consensus and nothing more concrete.

Energy is observable? Yes, I agree. But measured? Measured against what? Arbitrary rulers created arbitrarily by men. Men who witnessed relative phenomenon they could not explain and arbitrarily devised means by which to codify relationships that may or may not be correctly defined. Because of the known limitations of the observer (humanity) an incorrect definition is much more likely than a correct one. But these arbitrary measures cluster together to form a known deceit of a body of knowledge. I say "a known deceit" because we are frequently changing the measures, changing the definitions, and thereby changing the body of knowledge.

So, thoughts? Hopefully thoughts independent of the Papacy of Science or Religion? Mandates from on high don't sit well with me anymore, no matter who dons the funny looking clothes (lab smock, papal hat).

Respectfully,
OldSoul

Prove to me that God exists

Share this