Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend 257 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  OldSoul

  TS: science as a papacy with clergy gets in the way of real progress.

  Straw man, my eye. There are many readily available historical examples of what I describe. Nikola Tesla was treated very similarly to Galileo Galilei. Of course, he had stronger convictions. He did not recant his heretical views, so his wondrous workshops were demolished and he was forced out of the scientific community to whom he gave so much. No wonder he became reclusive and loathe to share his inventions with the world. The scientific community wrecked his life's work.

  Science being a papacy with a clergy gets in the way of real progress. I would love to have ridden in Tesla's electric car. Who do you believe is responsible for his silencing, if not those who claimed responsibility at the time?

  Any dogma that is regarded as virtually incontrovertible stands in the way of progress, even if it has consensus backing (peer review) from the Cardinals and Bishops.

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  SixofNine

  Mysticism is the NewJehovah
  

  and

  Physics is the NewPleiades

  and the gap is now so small you couldn't slide a NewWorldTranslation page thru it. But where there is a gap, someone will put a god. Because without a god, it ain't so much fun to *spit* when you say "puny human" or "modern science".

  :P~
• 

  toreador

  Excellent reasoning.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  OldSoul: P.S. CinemaBlend wanted this argument, everyone else is doing his arguing for him. I disclaimed my posts in this thread already.

  yes, i appriciate that. thanks for for playing along!

  Science does not recognize everyone that brings forward a better explanation.

  because not everyone has the birth-right to bring forth a "better" explanation. scientists, working within the scientific community have the earned right to bring forth better explanations. go ahead and call it a "religion" if you want to! we already have a "scientific community" where it is "open" and "everyone" can bring forth better "theories" without much work. it's called pseudo-science.

  And your premise that all that is required is a better theory that explains existing data and evidence is completely flawed when examined against what actually happens as opposed to what is supposed to happen.

  okay. so just to re-cap. we have basically entered into a "yes / no" match, haven't we? i say yes, you say no. i say that science is not a religion because of the way it operates
  (i also detail the way it operates). you say science is a religion because of the way it operates in "reality". i say that reality is a certain way. you say it is not, but yet another way. how to tell?!

  well perhaps one way to look at this debate is to then look to history.

  religion, my friend, has not done much good for mankind. this is not an all or nothing statement, as surely some good has come of religion in our history. sure, it has united communities and tribes together. but it can be argued that they where united in ignorance and fear. but not much good has come from it, when compared to the great suffering it has caused. need i really detail all the blood-shed, inquisitions, wars, mutilations, tortures it has spawned? let alone the negative psychological impacts of religion: fear, guilt, hatred, ignorance, arrogance.

  science, HAS had it's bad moments. no doubt. and it will have bad moments in the future. is this reason to call it a religion? reason to discard it in the trash bin of religion? do you not agree that science is self-correcting and religion is basically not? is that not a substantial difference? there are similarities between science and religion in the metaphorical sense. but i find you all to eager too scale the metaphors to reality. so in that sense, calling science another religion, not to be trusted more than religion, is a straw man argument because science has done WAY MORE observable and usable good for humankind than the blood shed and ignorance of religion has.

  the story of nichola tesla, is a sad one. "science" acted badly there. "science", as in: several scientists or a community that treated him so poorly. should that be scaled to all scientists right down to 2005? if science is self-correcting, then should we say that no scientists learned the "tesla lesson"? it can also be argued, that tesla did not handle the situation optimally. but who can blame him really? he was a victim of injustice. shall we now discuss the victims of religion? no need to, is there, being on JWD and what-not?
  

  Science being a papacy with a clergy gets in the way of real progress.

  this statement still has an unfounded assertion smuggled into it. you haven't really done anymore to show that science is a religion than to label it as such, and give the unfortunate experience of tesla.
  

  Any dogma that is regarded as virtually incontrovertible stands in the way of progress, even if it has consensus backing (peer review) from the Cardinals and Bishops.

  i am thankful for the peer review mechanism. unlike religion, it has weeded out a lot of poorly developed ideas, that in pseudo-science (or RELIGION) would have been hastily accepted as the word of...Yeti.
• 

  poppers

  I have been looking at this thread title for days now and can only chuckle because as stated, there is an implicit assumption that YOU exist, and that this 'you' needs/wants an answer to your statement.

  Would it not be more important to discover if there is in reality a 'you'? Find out who/what you are before any ideas/concepts arise about your identity, then see if your statement about god needs to be addressed. Most people overlook the essential truth of what they really are in favor of continued reliance on mental constructs, and therein lies the root of all suffering and confusion.

  See through the mental desire/compulsion to prove/know anything whatsoever about anything whatsoever, and then discover how life is experienced directly and nakedly in the ever present moment. See how there will never be a definitive response to your statement because all statements of proof lie within the provence of the mind and whatever 'god' is must be beyond the mind.
• 

  Daunt

  That's a very good point poppers. There are very few definites, and the definites that we do have still have the possibility of not existing in another universes. Like gravity, sure it's an "absolute" here but in another universe gravity could be non-existent or in the next minute gravity could disappear from this universe collasping everything into nothing. That is not to say that we should kill ourselves believing that there are other universes with no gravity because frankly we just do not have any proof. We have a few observations that suggest such theories as m theory, or we have an abundance of evidence for the big bang theory, but there could still be a possibility of some vengeful God purposely putting the evidence there to trick us to "prove our faith" or whatever.
  
  The point is, sure these things could be possible but it's ignorant to even barely think about them out of fantasy books. There's no evidence, we're wasting our time proclaiming the existence of it when it's really just our imagination. Until there is evidence there is nothing.
  
  This seems to hold true to everybody to day to day life, however, when a person is trying to prove their irrational point that has no evidence they try to break down possibilities. Most of the time the best arguement is, "There is a possibility isn't there?". This constant fixation on absolutes is just ignorant. There are no definite DEFINITE absolutes, and the few socially and environmentally acceptable absolutes are minute like the statement "There is the phenomenon that we call gravity on the planet earth,". However, that isn't even in the same ballpark as claiming that God is an absolute or such things like that.
  
  I'm here because there isn't much to suggest there isn't. Until there is I'm going to enjoy my existence.
• 

  Abaddon

  I personally think a 10-ton truck is a good benchmark in determining reality.

  Most people will agree stepping in front of it whilst it moves at high speed will probably kill you.

  With such a simple rule-of-thumb one can leave the philosophers and theists mumbling into their real ale in a dark corner of the pub.

  Yes, they might be right.

  But on an everyday level, even if I am not real I think I am. There are things within that reality that are determinable as real, and there are lots of things that are not determinable as real.

  Like god.

  Within my reality he cannot be proved; if I am not real it is besides the point. I think I am, and I don't think god is, at least in anything remotely resembling conventional ideas of god.

  Thou art god?
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Abbadon and tetra

  Seriously, as you are a presuppostionalist you will think this is a persuasive argument. Anyone who is not a presuppostionalist will think you have selected a non-optimal orifice for communication.

  That was your first statement to me Abbadon, you set the tone of the discussion.

  sorry, after that bio, i am not going to download the debate just to listen to it.

  
  This was the first statement from tetrapod. After this, you two guys had the nerve to cry to me about not reading your posts. I have read all your posts several times, they don't change a thing. If you had listened to the debate, you could have learned something about presuppositionalist. Its clear to me, neither of you know much about the subject. Both of you act as if the only reason someone would believe in God is because they're dumb or they just don't have enough facts. You suggest that you are smarter than believers. What a couple of big babies! Let me tell ya, your shit stinks too!

  You are obviously ignorant of the maxim 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'.

  Now this is the funniest thing you have said yet. My whole point is that you are making the extraordinary claims. You two say that babies (not just some, but all) are born atheist,and because you think you know something about their brain you imply that you know a newborns first thoughts. You see, this gets right to the issue. I believe it is impossible for God not to exist, Yet you don't think that it is extraordinary, for the complex order in the universe, like life, social order (even in lower forms of life), the sciences, communication and much much more, to just happen at random. Hence my question, How do you account for these things in a random universe consisting of mater, energy, and motion? From my prospective this is the most extraordinary of all claims made by atheists. I think that this is what really ticks you guys off, because it puts the burden of proof on you.

  But as your beliefs are based on the presumption of you being right, you obviously don't need to learn anything about a subject as you already know your opinion is right.

  No, my beliefs are base on a presupposition, that "God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary", and so are yours, that "this was all whipped together by chance", but you can't admit it.

  You also say you are a cop. Please list the reasons why a court investigating claims that god existed would find that god existed, i.e., the evidence that would be presented and used to back the claim. This evidence would have to fit in with standard rules of evidence. Go on...

  What's wrong with you? Didn't you see the winky face with that statement, I was poking fun at myself. Now stop your crying just because the tables just got turned, you're just getting back what you have been dumping on theists.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  OMG,

  I have read all your posts several times, they don't change a thing.

  i would say that's your problem in a nutshell.

  Let me tell ya, your shit stinks too!

  if there was a loving god, it would smell better no doubt. i vote for glacier fresh.

  How do you account for these things in a random universe

  not sure what you are talking about. if you mean evolution or natural selection, it's not random. homework time!

  I think that this is what really ticks you guys off, because it puts the burden of proof on you.

  i have made a good case for why the burden of proof lies on you, the theist. that's why i said you obviously have not had the ability to think about my posts. you keep saying the opposite. all you have done to show that the burden of proof lies on atheists, is to simply turn around and say "is not so!". now that is not mature debate, is it?

  "this was all whipped together by chance"

  this shows your lack of understanding about what you are debating. homework time!

  my beliefs are base on a presupposition, that "God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary"

  you keep calling this an epistemological argument, but it really is ontological. and the fallacy should be clear. you can't just wish something into existence. it's circular! therefore it is logically invalid, and proves nothing! homework time!
• 

  EvilForce

  Abaddon you really do not exist...you are simply a figment of my delusional mind. All your actions are already predetermined and you are playing your role.....you better hope I don't wake up.
  
  LOL
  
  Goes to the dark corner of the refridge to find a pint of ale