This thread is for the purpose of addressing some of the questions typically raised by atheists: Who or what is God? What demonstrable evidence can be presented for the existence of God? If God exists, why doesn't he prove it?
The Bible is a very good place to provide a good answer. In fact, one Bible verse covers it very well. In 21st century English, the passage reads...
"...what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them.  For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship,..." (Romans 1:19, 20).
Thus perception plays a very important part in trying to offer an explanation concerning the Creator.
"You can't prove that there is a God."
This kind of statement ignores that there are different kinds of 'proof'.
"Can you prove that there is a God?" asked Prof Lennox. "In the mathematical sense no, but proving anything is very difficult. The word proof has two meanings. There's the rigorous meaning in maths that is very difficult to do and rare. But then there's the other meaning â€" beyond reasonable doubt".
That's the kind of 'proof' we can present: arguments to bring someone beyond reasonable doubt.
Many, perhaps most, atheists would accept as proof of the existence of God only evidence they can see, feel, touch and take apart and reassemble in a laboratory setting. And, of course, that lab would have to be only where they would have unfettered access.
So, let us reason a bit.
How would I liken the Creator? Perhaps by looking at the problem in reverse. Let's look at the problem from God's point of view.
In Isaiah is a fitting description of the problem and with an element of reason comes understanding.
"There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers...." Isaiah 40:22
Could you rightly expect a grasshopper to fully explain a human being or human accomplishments like the Hubble space telescope? Or would you be humble enough to learn grasshopper speech and befriend them? Sounds foolish, correct? That is the dilemma.
Further on this line of thought is the difference between humans and chimpanzees is about one percent of DNA. On that scale what would a creature be like who was one percent greater than humans in their DNA? If their intellect would follow the same scale, could we ever hope to understand them? Much less be on par with them? And yet God is orders of magnitude greater than chimpanzees or grasshopper-like humans.
And here is one item we all see without any understanding. Something so basic it has no record anywhere in the Bible as having been created. And that even though many think it is listed among the creations attributed to God. And what is that? LIFE.
The Bible tells us this at Psalm 36:9 simply that the 'source of life is God'. Much has been hypothesized about life. Some have speculated about life having a chemical nature. Some have claimed that by assembling certain molecules together they have created life. But when pressed, they admit they can not and did not create life. It cannot be disassembled and reassembled. Some have speculated that life is a form of energy as yet not understood.
And there is God. If we go back to Romans 1:20 we see it speaks about the creation as giving us insight into God. So look at the creation. Focus on Isaiah 40:25, 26. "To whom can you liken me to make me his equal?†says the Holy One.
26 “Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things?
It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name.
Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing."
Science today admit every star fulfills a purpose. Did you know we ourselves are star stuff? And even the super heavy elements seem to come from the collision of neutron stars. So not even a single star is missing.
Science also tells us eventually the universe itself will run down. Over 3000 years ago the Psalmist spoke of an immense maintenance project needed to fix the universe itself. Read for yourself Psalm 102:25-27. Makes for very interesting reading.
Oh. And DNA; Look at Psalm 139:16. "Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; All its parts were written in your book Regarding the days when they were formed, Before any of them existed.' Written more than 3,000 years before we had amassed enough knowledge on our own to understand, how would you explain that passage?
So, for a lowly human to define in human terms a being vastly more complex with knowledge and the ability to make and use forces beyond our comprehension, is at best an exercise in futility.
But a few things I do know. The Bible provides compelling evidence that God exists. It encourages us to build faith in God, not by blindly believing religious assertions, but by using our “power of reason†and “mental perception.â€
The existence of an orderly universe containing life points to a Creator.
The Bible says: “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.†(Hebrews 3:4)
Although this logic is simple, many well-educated people find it to be powerful. For example, the late astronomer Allan Sandage once said regarding the universe: “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.â€
Bible writers had scientific knowledge that was beyond the understanding of their contemporaries. For example, in ancient times many peoples believed that the earth was supported by an animal, such as an elephant, a boar, or an ox. In contrast, the Bible says that God is “suspending the earth upon nothing.†(Job 26:7) Similarly, the Bible correctly describes the shape of the earth as a “sphere,†or “globe. or circle (Isaiah 40:22) Many people feel that the most reasonable explanation for such advanced understanding is that Bible writers received their information from God.
The Bible answers many difficult questions, the type of questions that when not satisfactorily answered can lead a person to atheism. For example: If God is loving and all-powerful, why is there suffering and evil in the world? Why is Religion so often an influence for bad rather than for good? See Titus 1:6 Could it be the unsatisfactory answers to questions has caused you to be where you are?
So have I completely answered the questions posed? Probably not. However, at the same time, I hope I have made a good start and raised questions that honest, open-minded individuals will seek answers to.
You can ask me and I promise to try and answer your questions using reason, logic and the Bible. I like a good challenge.
I have a question!
Question: would you mind making an intro thread first?
(Its kind of The polite thing to do.)
PS; we have a 'present evidence here' thread.
Pascal's wager.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKzqQ-IVxGs&t=315s
The reality is, that if god was real, he would have presented himself as proof that he exists. You as a faith follower have nothing at all that can prove he exists, besides a sea of ramblings about a cult that claims he exists, but otherwise can't prove this thing does exist.
And even if he does exist, he's a cunt, I've no interest in following the ideals of rambling buffoons who would tell me to worship a giant asshole.
Same copy+paste bullshit on a number of atheist forums.
Typical theist.
QuoteThe word proof has two meanings. There's the rigorous meaning in maths that is very difficult to do and rare. But then there's the other meaning â€" beyond reasonable doubt".
Beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof. At best, it suggests that enough evidence has been presented that it surpasses the threshold of reasonable doubt. This measurement is used in a court of law, and evidence has shown over and over again that "beyond reasonable doubt" is highly subjective, morally flawed, and renders verdicts that terrorize the innocent.
Reasonable doubt has no meaning as proof. It was never intended to be proof, and that should be self evident in the phrase itself. What is beyond reasonable doubt for a skeptic is a much higher threshold than that set by theists and cult members who consider thought experiments about hypothetical talking grasshoppers as evidence. From your nonsense above:
Quote"There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers...." Isaiah 40:22
Could you rightly expect a grasshopper to fully explain a human being or human accomplishments like the Hubble space telescope? Or would you be humble enough to learn grasshopper speech and befriend them? Sounds foolish, correct? That is the dilemma.
Start with Isaiah's poetic sounding gibberish and suggest some mysterious but thought provoking metaphor lies at the heart of it. "Heaven is filled with things like grasshoppers." And that's not even the dumbest claim made by the Bible. As if we should humble ourselves to understand the clicking noises of grasshoppers actually explain the truths of the universe. I've got news for you. Grasshoppers aren't that smart.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I don't understand. The greater truth of the grasshopper gibberish is lost on the atheist. But if you want to make a plea for beyond reasonable doubt, don't fucking start with talking grasshoppers. Absurd blather is not evidence. It's theist nonsense, and it does not meet any reasonable criteria for being beyond doubt.
The Bible is the claim, not the evidence.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 01, 2017, 07:48:44 AM
The Bible is the claim, not the evidence.
To the Christian, it is the premise and the conclusion. A Holy circularity inspired by God.
I read a little bit of that. First of all, kudos for being polite. I do like it when Christian apologists get to know me before they attack me.
Second, there is nothing new to this forum there. There is nothing new to any atheist site there. Your first argument is essentially, "Well, God created everything. And everything clearly exists. So doesn't that prove God exists?" No, it doesn't. You CLAIM God created everything. A claim cannot be evidence for a second claim, which itself must be true before the first claim is true.
Third, we're not going to let you screw with definitions. You don't need to give us a definition for "proof". We know what it is and it's not what you said it is. Mathematical proof is irrelevant to the conversation. So why did you bring it up? So that you could introduce a false dichotomy to claim that you had absolute, unquestionable mathematical proof on one hand and everything else on the other hand. It was a way of insisting that only mathematical proofs could actually "prove" anything and, since God is not a mathematical problem, whatever you offered as evidence was "proof". No, it isn't.
Arguments are not proof, as any lawyer or debate team lead can demonstrate. Arguments are weapons to force a point, not evidence of that point. There are college classes on winning arguments, and each teams position is often assigned to them arbitrarily. A lawyer doesn't get to pick which side of the law he is on. The defense attorney always defends, the prosecutor always prosecutes. Sometimes they lose when they believe they are right, sometimes they win when they believe they are wrong, If arguments were proof then the person with the winning argument would never believe his argument was wrong. That's just not the case.
Quote from: widdershins on February 01, 2017, 09:54:58 AM
Third, we're not going to let you screw with definitions. You don't need to give us a definition for "proof". We know what it is and it's not what you said it is. Mathematical proof is irrelevant to the conversation. So why did you bring it up? So that you could introduce a false dichotomy to claim that you had absolute, unquestionable mathematical proof on one hand and everything else on the other hand. It was a way of insisting that only mathematical proofs could actually "prove" anything and, since God is not a mathematical problem, whatever you offered as evidence was "proof". No, it isn't.
Another great Christian deception. Randy used a seductive variation.
1. He first conceded that one piece of evidence for God's existed might not be enough to prove existence beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Then he suggested (via a quote from some apologist), "However, several pieces
MIGHT."
(At this point he's got readers in an agreement with two issues, and hopes that they are now conditioned to agree with further claims).
3. He introduces evidence X,Y,Z, A, B, C, all of which on their own amount to zip.
4. Now he recalls step 2, "Several pieces
MIGHT," but switches the interpretation to "Several pieces
DO."
5. Having introduced 6 pieces of evidence, all of which prove nothing, he claims victory on the basis that he had already established that several pieces of substandard evidence
DO prove God's existence beyond doubt.
This is presented in a convoluted wordy thesis to conveniently obscure implications from established agreement. To someone reading it while watching a sitcom on TV, it might seem somewhat logical, although many readers would have acquiesced at this point due to fatigue.
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
This thread is for the purpose of addressing some of the questions typically raised by atheists: Who or what is God? What demonstrable evidence can be presented for the existence of God? If God exists, why doesn't he prove it?
Hey look! It's a man made of straw!
Atheists have one, and only one thing in common. They don't have any belief in any gods.
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
You can ask me and I promise to try and answer your questions using reason, logic and the Bible. I like a good challenge.
Hello, TJ--welcome. Okay, let's play a little bit. Tell me, what is your opinion of why there are two creation stories? Gen. 1 gives one version and Gen. 2 another; and most seem to forget Gen. 1 altogether.
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
So, let us reason a bit.
Maybe you should go first.
Just another Christian meme junkie spreading manure in the hope it'll grow something. Or merely a troll of the Christian persuasion. I don't have time to read all that, so I won't bother to feed this one.
(https://magdalenatarotinc.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/sad-jesus.jpg)
(https://brucegerencser.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/christian-troll.png)
Quote from: widdershins on February 01, 2017, 09:54:58 AM
Second, there is nothing new to this forum there. There is nothing new to any atheist site there. Your first argument is essentially, "Well, God created everything. And everything clearly exists. So doesn't that prove God exists?" No, it doesn't. You CLAIM God created everything. A claim cannot be evidence for a second claim, which itself must be true before the first claim is true.
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldozhcpCk21qexh5s.jpg)
(https://stancarey.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/dilbert-circular-reasoning-cartoon.jpg)
Mathematics is circular reasoning otherwise no QED. Physics is partly based on mathematics. Therefore Physics is partly based on circular reasoning.
Physics isn't the results, if it is science. Science is a technique. The physics results says that masses attract each other at a distance (though a disturbance in that attraction can't propagate faster than a light beam). The physics results also says that space-time are co-dependent, and that this continuum is warped by the presence of mass. So is Newton right or Einstein right? They have equations that are useful under some circumstances. For ordinary stuff Newton is easier, so we use Newton. For very special stuff Newton has a less useful equation, so we use Einstein's stuff. And we don't worry which is true, Newton or Einstein. As long as you have a good enough equation for what you are trying to do, it doesn't matter where it comes from. This is how you discard Plato in favor of pragmatism.
Quote from: Baruch on February 01, 2017, 07:34:05 PM
Mathematics is circular reasoning otherwise no QED. Physics is partly based on mathematics. Therefore Physics is partly based on circular reasoning.
Physics isn't the results, if it is science. Science is a technique. The physics results says that masses attract each other at a distance (though a disturbance in that attraction can't propagate faster than a light beam). The physics results also says that space-time are co-dependent, and that this continuum is warped by the presence of mass. So is Newton right or Einstein right? They have equations that are useful under some circumstances. For ordinary stuff Newton is easier, so we use Newton. For very special stuff Newton has a less useful equation, so we use Einstein's stuff. And we don't worry which is true, Newton or Einstein. As long as you have a good enough equation for what you are trying to do, it doesn't matter where it comes from. This is how you discard Plato in favor of pragmatism.
It's called "
effective theories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_theory)."
2017 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC TERM OR CONCEPT OUGHT TO BE MORE WIDELY KNOWN?: Effective Theory (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27044)
Engineers use what works .. you non-engineers can use whatever term you want. Is a psychosomatic cure ... effective?
Newtons inverse square law of gravity works for objects moving no faster than ten per cent of light speed. Beyond this
and General Relativity has to be used instead. The notion of time and space as eternal and absolute was disproved by
Einstein who showed that they were not separate dimensions but interconnected and also that mass affected gravity
Ok, I'll bite.
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
This thread is for the purpose of addressing some of the questions typically raised by atheists: Who or what is God? What demonstrable evidence can be presented for the existence of God? If God exists, why doesn't he prove it?
The Bible is a very good place to provide a good answer. In fact, one Bible verse covers it very well. In 21st century English, the passage reads...
"...what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them.  For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship,..." (Romans 1:19, 20).
Oh, good, then the proof should be quickly forthcoming since it is clearly evident among us.
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
Thus perception plays a very important part in trying to offer an explanation concerning the Creator.
Good so far
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
"You can't prove that there is a God."
This kind of statement ignores that there are different kinds of 'proof'.
"Can you prove that there is a God?" asked Prof Lennox. "In the mathematical sense no, but proving anything is very difficult. The word proof has two meanings. There's the rigorous meaning in maths that is very difficult to do and rare. But then there's the other meaning â€" beyond reasonable doubt".
uh-oh
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
That's the kind of 'proof' we can present: arguments to bring someone beyond reasonable doubt.
we seem to have taken a hard turn
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
Many, perhaps most, atheists would accept as proof of the existence of God only evidence they can see, feel, touch and take apart and reassemble in a laboratory setting. And, of course, that lab would have to be only where they would have unfettered access.
which should be no problem since "perception plays a very important part" in seeing what is "clearly evident around" us
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
So, let us reason a bit.
How would I liken the Creator? Perhaps by looking at the problem in reverse. Let's look at the problem from God's point of view.
In Isaiah is a fitting description of the problem and with an element of reason comes understanding.
"There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers...." Isaiah 40:22
flat earth noted
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
Could you rightly expect a grasshopper to fully explain a human being or human accomplishments like the Hubble space telescope? Or would you be humble enough to learn grasshopper speech and befriend them? Sounds foolish, correct? That is the dilemma.
Further on this line of thought is the difference between humans and chimpanzees is about one percent of DNA. On that scale what would a creature be like who was one percent greater than humans in their DNA?
"one percent greater than humans in their DNA?" WTF does that mean? Has 1% more DNA? (http://aplus.com/a/dnews-humans-less-dna-flower?no_monetization=true) No, that can't be it.
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
If their intellect would follow the same scale, could we ever hope to understand them? Much less be on par with them? And yet God is orders of magnitude greater than chimpanzees or grasshopper-like humans.
I don't think you understand DNA
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
And here is one item we all see without any understanding. Something so basic it has no record anywhere in the Bible as having been created. And that even though many think it is listed among the creations attributed to God. And what is that? LIFE.
another strange turn
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
The Bible tells us this at Psalm 36:9 simply that the 'source of life is God'. Much has been hypothesized about life. Some have speculated about life having a chemical nature. Some have claimed that by assembling certain molecules together they have created life. But when pressed, they admit they can not and did not create life. It cannot be disassembled and reassembled. Some have speculated that life is a form of energy as yet not understood.
And there is God. If we go back to Romans 1:20 we see it speaks about the creation as giving us insight into God. So look at the creation.
Here come the proof?(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/f0/80/d4/f080d44684437be3af3893178f96aee1.jpg)
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
Focus on Isaiah 40:25, 26. "To whom can you liken me to make me his equal?†says the Holy One.
26 “Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things?
It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name.
Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing."
What translation are you using? Never mind
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
Science today admit every star fulfills a purpose.
Really? News to me.
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
Did you know we ourselves are star stuff? And even the super heavy elements seem to come from the collision of neutron stars. So not even a single star is missing.
That's an interesting interpretation. Where's the proof? (https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/0nZlxt7954nQokY3cjGwoQ--/aD0zOTM7dz03MDA7c209MTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/blogs/tv-news/06437933-782b-4fb0-9a73-8fb6c50c3ee5_f_faec872c89.jpg)
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
Science also tells us eventually the universe itself will run down. Over 3000 years ago the Psalmist spoke of an immense maintenance project needed to fix the universe itself. Read for yourself Psalm 102:25-27. Makes for very interesting reading.
The earth has foundations? It's been around since the beginning? The heavens ware out like old clothing and get replaced? (http://www.nevernotnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/artejohnson.jpeg) Or maybe it's poetry not an attempt at scientific foresight
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
Oh. And DNA; Look at Psalm 139:16. "Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; All its parts were written in your book Regarding the days when they were formed, Before any of them existed.' Written more than 3,000 years before we had amassed enough knowledge on our own to understand, how would you explain that passage?
How would I explain what? That ancient people had a basic understanding of human reproduction? How stupid do you think they were?
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
So, for a lowly human to define in human terms a being vastly more complex with knowledge and the ability to make and use forces beyond our comprehension, is at best an exercise in futility.
Oh, sorry to hear you are giving up.
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
But
never mind
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AMa few things I do know. The Bible provides compelling evidence that God exists.
Now comes the evidence? Finally!
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
It encourages us to build faith in God, not by blindly believing religious assertions, but by using our “power of reason†and “mental perception.â€
Good
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
The existence of an orderly universe containing life points to a Creator.
assertion. Next comes the proof?
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
The Bible says: “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.†(Hebrews 3:4)
assertion repeated; now comes the proof?
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
Although this logic is simple, many well-educated people find it to be powerful. For example, the late astronomer Allan Sandage once said regarding the universe: “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.â€
guess not
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
Bible writers had scientific knowledge that was beyond the understanding of their contemporaries. For example, in ancient times many peoples believed that the earth was supported by an animal, such as an elephant, a boar, or an ox. In contrast, the Bible says that God is “suspending the earth upon nothing.†(Job 26:7)
I could have sworn you said the bible gives the earth a foundation and pillars?
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AMSimilarly, the Bible correctly describes the shape of the earth as a “sphere,†or “globe. or circle (Isaiah 40:22)
A circle is flat
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
Many people feel that the most reasonable explanation for such advanced understanding is that Bible writers received their information from God.
People who think the earth is a flat circle on pillars?
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
The Bible answers many difficult questions, the type of questions that when not satisfactorily answered can lead a person to atheism. For example: If God is loving and all-powerful, why is there suffering and evil in the world? Why is Religion so often an influence for bad rather than for good? See Titus 1:6
What does bishop having only one wife and well behaved children have to do with anything?
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
Could it be the unsatisfactory answers to questions has caused you to be where you are?
No. Evidence now?
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
So have I completely answered the questions posed? Probably not. However, at the same time, I hope I have made a good start and raised questions that honest, open-minded individuals will seek answers to.
You can ask me and I promise to try and answer your questions using reason, logic and the Bible. I like a good challenge.
Where the fuck is the clearly evident evidence I was promised?
Quote from: surreptitious57 on February 04, 2017, 01:20:07 AM
Newtons inverse square law of gravity works for objects moving no faster than ten per cent of light speed. Beyond this
and General Relativity has to be used instead. The notion of time and space as eternal and absolute was disproved by
Einstein who showed that they were not separate dimensions but interconnected and also that mass affected gravity
That is the conventional view of philosophy of science .. in practice engineers stick with Newton, because in less than 1% of practical situations (GPS satellites being one exception) relativity theory doesn't matter. The two views, Newton and Einstein ... are radically different from the POV of Plato's Forms (aka so called objective reality) and is much harder to work with. In that POV, only one can be right, and people keep investigating to find a better technical version. Similarly quantum mechanics is incompatible with General Relativity, and therefore since General Relativity is necessary to make Special Relativity consistent ... people keep trying to find something (like superstrings) beyond conventional Quantum Field Theory, but are unsuccessful so far. Pragmatic quantum mechanics do what engineers do, they simply ignore gravity for almost all calculations. The idea that Quantum Field Theory is internally inconsistent, isn't of practical concern (just as Relativity in general isn't of practical concern to engineers). The question in philosophy of science, whether reality is rational or even objective ... is an open question, not a closed question, or there would be no philosophy involved. Only philosophers, and ambitious "theory of everything" thinkers care.
If one defines reality as all that exists then it has to be objective by definition because it is not dependent upon subjective interpretation
Only if reality could be significantly manipulated by our interaction with it could it be said not to be objective. But even were that true as
far as is known the majority of the observable universe has been devoid of life for all time. And so it is truly objective in the purest sense
Quote from: surreptitious57 on February 04, 2017, 08:41:14 AM
If one defines reality as all that exists then it has to be objective by definition because it is not dependent upon subjective interpretation
Only if reality could be significantly manipulated by our interaction with it could it be said not to be objective. But even were that true as
far as is known the majority of the observable universe has been devoid of life for all time. And so it is truly objective in the purest sense
Perhaps ... though the idea of objective reality starts with the philosophy of Thales and Pythagoras and extends to Plato and beyond ... these are simply ancient Greek ideas, that are currently popular. Naturalism and rationalism are originally Greek, though many non-Greeks have adopted them since. And in part, this was driven by early mathematics and astronomy. Physics and chemistry didn't exist in early Greek times. And biology only got started under Aristotle. Pretty much all non-humanistic thought was limited to an elite until modern times.
Quote from: SGOS on February 01, 2017, 07:27:42 AM
Beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof. At best, it suggests that enough evidence has been presented that it surpasses the threshold of reasonable doubt. This measurement is used in a court of law, and evidence has shown over and over again that "beyond reasonable doubt" is highly subjective, morally flawed, and renders verdicts that terrorize the innocent.
Reasonable doubt has no meaning as proof. It was never intended to be proof, and that should be self evident in the phrase itself. What is beyond reasonable doubt for a skeptic is a much higher threshold than that set by theists and cult members who consider thought experiments about hypothetical talking grasshoppers as evidence. From your nonsense above:
Start with Isaiah's poetic sounding gibberish and suggest some mysterious but thought provoking metaphor lies at the heart of it. "Heaven is filled with things like grasshoppers." And that's not even the dumbest claim made by the Bible. As if we should humble ourselves to understand the clicking noises of grasshoppers actually explain the truths of the universe. I've got news for you. Grasshoppers aren't that smart.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I don't understand. The greater truth of the grasshopper gibberish is lost on the atheist. But if you want to make a plea for beyond reasonable doubt, don't fucking start with talking grasshoppers. Absurd blather is not evidence. It's theist nonsense, and it does not meet any reasonable criteria for being beyond doubt.
That quote mentioned the term "circle of the earth". Hmmm... the circle of the earth, sounds like:
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/commons/images/6/63/Flatearthlogo.png
Every con-artist has an excuse to coveniently get the missing person out of the room. Looks like this is one of the excuses used by Bible practitioners:
" for a lowly human being to describe in human terms a being vastly more complex with knowledge and the ability to make and use forces beyond our comprehension, is at best an exercize in futility"
This same statement shows the OP contradicting his opening statement that he is going to tell us who god is.
"The Bible provides compelling evidence that God is real" a statement that might mean something, but only if the OP can provide compelling evidence of the truth of the Bible
Quote from: fencerider on February 05, 2017, 02:41:32 AM
Every con-artist has an excuse to coveniently get the missing person out of the room. Looks like this is one of the excuses used by Bible practitioners:
" for a lowly human being to describe in human terms a being vastly more complex with knowledge and the ability to make and use forces beyond our comprehension, is at best an exercize in futility"
This same statement shows the OP contradicting his opening statement that he is going to tell us who god is.
"The Bible provides compelling evidence that God is real" a statement that might mean something, but only if the OP can provide compelling evidence of the truth of the Bible
That is funny, isn't it? How Christians are all experts on what God is like, what's important to him, what his attributes are. But as soon as someone criticizes their god, he suddenly becomes unknowable.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 05, 2017, 10:46:46 AM
That is funny, isn't it? How Christians are all experts on what God is like, what's important to him, what his attributes are. But as soon as someone criticizes their god, he suddenly becomes unknowable.
like the hidden 4th step in the Kalam Cosmological argument:
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2) The universe began to exist;
3) The universe has a cause.
4) ???
5) It's a sin to eat bacon or be gay or . . .
Quote from: Baruch on February 01, 2017, 07:34:05 PM
Mathematics is circular reasoning otherwise no QED. Physics is partly based on mathematics. Therefore Physics is partly based on circular reasoning.
Physics isn't the results, if it is science. Science is a technique. The physics results says that masses attract each other at a distance (though a disturbance in that attraction can't propagate faster than a light beam). The physics results also says that space-time are co-dependent, and that this continuum is warped by the presence of mass. So is Newton right or Einstein right? They have equations that are useful under some circumstances. For ordinary stuff Newton is easier, so we use Newton. For very special stuff Newton has a less useful equation, so we use Einstein's stuff. And we don't worry which is true, Newton or Einstein. As long as you have a good enough equation for what you are trying to do, it doesn't matter where it comes from. This is how you discard Plato in favor of pragmatism.
So you are saying nothing can travel faster than light?
No matter how fast light travells, it always finds that darkness made it there first.
Terry pratchett wrote something Like that, I believe.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 11:30:40 AM
So you are saying nothing can travel faster than light?
That is for the science section, and the question as phrased is unclear. What do you mean by nothing, by travel, by fast, by light? All of those are highly technical, unfortunately.
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 11:41:52 AM
That is for the science section, and the question as phrased is unclear. What do you mean by nothing, by travel, by fast, by light? All of those are highly technical, unfortunately.
Its a simple straightforward question. Do you think anything can travel faster than a photon?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 01:58:41 PM
Its a simple straightforward question. Do you think anything can travel faster than a photon?
Yes and no ... creating a post for this in the physics section, if you care to continue ;-)
Quote from: TJ on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 AM
babble/snip
and yet god is befuddled by the menses and foiled by iron chariots...shit man..find your self a REAL god. At least Odin killed off the ice giants.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 05, 2017, 10:46:46 AMThat is funny, isn't it? How Christians are all experts on what God is like, what's important to him, what his attributes are. But as soon as someone criticizes their god, he suddenly becomes unknowable.
My favorite one is that God is crystal clear that homosexuality is an abomination, but the age of the Earth? Just don't know. Could be 6,000. Could be 4.5 billion.
Experts in where you can stick your dick, but don't science so good. Coincidentally, the second statement is the one that can be objectively disproven. So if you don't know what you're talking about and you're just making stuff up as you go along, it's way safer to stick to the sex stuff.
Quote from: aitm on February 05, 2017, 04:13:51 PM
and yet god is befuddled by the menses and foiled by iron chariots...shit man..find your self a REAL god. At least Odin killed off the ice giants.
That meme used to be my phone background.
Yaknow, if you're going to assert your bible as an authority, we need to see the independent support for it. It isn't a text book or reference library. And if just existing as a large book is enough to make it authoritative, then there's just as much evidence for the existence of a school for wizards and witches in the UK.
As for the rest of the argument, it's just the "But... but... but... rainbows! Sunsets! Puppies! Therefore god!" argument writ large, and it's still not compelling.
Stars don't have a 'purpose' beyond fusing hydrogen (and if large enough, heavier elements), and perhaps exploding. What they have is an explanation. We know, to the limits of current observation and theory, how they work and how they come about. And that knowledge is subject to change as further information and better theories come in.
This is why science is better than faith: it has both the humility and the wisdom to say, "I don't know everything, so let's independently check my result -- which is provisional anyway pending better observations and a more complete theory." They don't say (except for a couple rare exceptions, physical limitation things like not having fractional atomic numbers) that something is definitely the case, period, end of statement.
The god hypothesis offers nothing of value in comparison to that. No awe, no wonder, no drive to look further.
I offer a new deity; the God Of Static. That exists. Ouch!
Quote from: Cavebear on February 11, 2017, 06:52:59 AM
I offer a new deity; the God Of Static. That exists. Ouch!
The enemy of the goddess, Electronica!
Quote from: trdsf on February 07, 2017, 01:13:35 PM
The god hypothesis offers nothing of value
oh but it does, it does laughed the priest all the way to the bank.
Quote from: fencerider on February 11, 2017, 12:12:30 PM
oh but it does, it does laughed the priest all the way to the bank.
There is a story about this somewhere ... ah, in 1 Samuel, about the sons of Eli. Nothing new under the Biblical sun.
The only god whose existence you need to worry about is our Lord and Lizard.
(http://orig09.deviantart.net/e7fc/f/2014/140/2/e/godzilla_by_vhm_alex-d7j0koz.jpg)
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Good thing ... if you pull off Godzilla's tail, he can grow a new one ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 04:34:39 PM
Good thing ... if you pull off Godzilla's tail, he can grow a new one ;-)
The real question is if the tail will grow a new Godzilla
If god was real and theists had actual evidence for his existence, wouldn't faith be null and void?
Therefore, what is the point of having faith if there is actual evidence of god's existence?
What is the point of having faith period!
Faith in god is another word for stupidity. Believe what I tell you. I can't prove it so you have to have faith that what I am saying is true.
Does that sound like fraud to you? It does to me.
Granted, though I would rather approach the subject rather less antagonistically.
Well I'm probably becoming a little aggressive in my old age.
I just never understood the point of faith. It always sounded like a fear tactic to me. Believe what I say! I don't have to prove it but you have to believe it.
That's basically how christians operate.
True, no reason to disagree.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 12:13:32 AM
Granted, though I would rather approach the subject rather less antagonistically.
People burned by lies and fraud ... are more sensitive than the unvictimized. There are multiple meanings for most English words, but the sense of "faith" being used ... can easily be seen to be easily abused. Another meaning isn't "blind faith" but "trust" ... but that meaning has its own problems.
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 02:20:26 AM
but the sense of "faith" being used ... can easily be seen to be easily abused.
I doubt it, unless you are willing to provide that alternate, "easily" abused allusive meaning.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 02:37:38 AM
I doubt it, unless you are willing to provide that alternate, "easily" abused allusive meaning.
Rhetoric, used by Sophists. Abuse of language is a universal occurrence. Example: trust as "faith" ... I don't trust you, I am from Missouri, the Show Me state. If you don't Show Me, then you are a used car salesman. And if I do show me, I look under the hood ;-)
Obviously, if one means "blind faith" then there is a problem, that the blind one, is blind to. Power of positive thinking is real however, just not how people think. The Muslim armies had faith ... aka confidence ... that they could defeat their enemies. This was often true. Their superior morale was crucial in many cases. But it couldn't make up for the "facts on the ground".
Quote from: doorknob on February 12, 2017, 12:39:19 AM
Well I'm probably becoming a little aggressive in my old age.
I just never understood the point of faith. It always sounded like a fear tactic to me. Believe what I say! I don't have to prove it but you have to believe it.
That's basically how christians operate.
I agree. And to add to that point, the 'faithful' use the fact they have faith as proof that they are one of the faithful (those who are not swayed by reason) as a badge of honor.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 12, 2017, 10:47:55 AM
I agree. And to add to that point, the 'faithful' use the fact they have faith as proof that they are one of the faithful (those who are not swayed by reason) as a badge of honor.
Most people are ignorant fools ... sometimes we are too. Have a little empathy, then anger is unnecessary.
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 10:51:23 AM
Most people are ignorant fools ... sometimes we are too. Have a little empathy, then anger is unnecessary.
Of what value is empathy when dealing with a person's willful ignorance? I can have empathy when dealing with a person who is (pops, for example) willfully ignorant, but have displayed anger at their willfully ignorant (or just stupid) ideas. Because I display anger toward an ideal does not mean I am angry at the person.
Quote from: doorknob on February 12, 2017, 12:39:19 AM
I just never understood the point of faith.
Me neder. I asked a few people to explain faith. They say something that doesn't make sense. I ask another question. It keeps going while they get more frustrated. Then finally they explain it by saying "You just have to have faith". Hello?? Isn't that the word you were trying to define???
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 08:43:31 AM
Power of positive thinking is real
Does this mean that by thinking about god, they are creating god in their heads?
Quote from: fencerider on February 12, 2017, 06:21:28 PM
Does this mean that by thinking about god, they are creating god in their heads?
I personally do not adhere to the positive thinking spiel, yet from a psychological standpoint it does make sense that the comfort theists receive as a result of the positive thoughts they have in regards to god's existence does strengthen their faith no matter how misguided or lost from reason it is.
"Does this mean that by thinking about god, they are creating god in their heads?" ... though it might not meet your definition of a god, let alone G-d. Demi-gods do that.
Quote from: fencerider on February 12, 2017, 06:21:28 PM
Me neder. I asked a few people to explain faith. They say something that doesn't make sense. I ask another question. It keeps going while they get more frustrated. Then finally they explain it by saying "You just have to have faith". Hello?? Isn't that the word you were trying to define???
Does this mean that by thinking about god, they are creating god in their heads?
Actually, that's a pretty good way to define faith. Belief in something that doesn't make sense.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 12, 2017, 07:10:04 PM
Actually, that's a pretty good way to define faith. Belief in something that doesn't make sense.
Definition of blind faith, not in justifiable trust. Of course even justifiable trust isn't perfect.
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 07:43:27 PM
Definition of blind faith, not in justifiable trust. Of course even justifiable trust isn't perfect.
What do you consider justifiable trust? In something all can experience on the plane of evidence?
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 07:45:40 PM
What do you consider justifiable trust? In something all can experience on the plane of evidence?
Most certainly ... but even if your knowledge of someone (not something) is consistently (more or less) gives your confidence in them, then your trust (but not anyone else's) is justifiable, is it not?
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 07:50:15 PM
Most certainly ... but even if your knowledge of someone (not something) is consistently (more or less) gives your confidence in them, then your trust (but not anyone else's) is justifiable, is it not?
If I meet a celebrity, and people don't believe that I did, it's because my experience does not match theirs. Next time you meet god, take his photograph and have him sign it for us. Then we will know you're telling the truth.
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 07:50:15 PM
Most certainly ... but even if your knowledge of someone (not something) is consistently (more or less) gives your confidence in them, then your trust (but not anyone else's) is justifiable, is it not?
Certainly, so long as the person is physically available in order for me to interact with him/her.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 12, 2017, 07:52:22 PM
If I meet a celebrity, and people don't believe that I did, it's because my experience does not match theirs. Next time you meet god, take his photograph and have him sign it for us. Then we will know you're telling the truth.
We meet G-d all the time, in our fellow humans, and in any other living thing, and even nonliving thing. But you don't recognize Her.
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 08:02:30 PM
We meet G-d all the time, in our fellow humans, and in any other living thing, and even nonliving thing. But you don't recognize Her.
*Queues Joan of Arcadia*
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 08:04:02 PM
*Queues Joan of Arcadia*
Art is how we articulate our understanding of reality. Hamlet really isn't about Denmark in the Middle Ages ... it is much more profound than that.
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 08:06:06 PM
Art is how we articulate our understanding of reality. Hamlet really isn't about Denmark in the Middle Ages ... it is much more profound than that.
You are correct, it is more psychological in nature.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 08:09:19 PM
You are correct, it is more psychological in nature.
All human existence is performance art, psycho-drama. Que the stage at Theater of Dionysus, Athens, 420 BCE.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 12:02:27 AM
If god was real and theists had actual evidence for his existence, wouldn't faith be null and void?
Therefore, what is the point of having faith if there is actual evidence of god's existence?
But there isn't. And good for us, because a deity could pull the plug on us anytime. And as dumb as we can be, I'll trust our survival on ourselves more than some deity's whim...
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 12:02:27 AM
what is the point of having faith if there is actual evidence of god's existence?
yes, well some of these Christian people have been doing this faith thing for so long they couldn't function without it. Others have been so programmed to the ethereal that they wouldn't believe your evidence is real. So find the real evidence for the atheists, but keep faith around to keep the natives happy...
Quote from: fencerider on February 14, 2017, 12:12:09 AM
yes, well some of these Christian people have been doing this faith thing for so long they couldn't function without it. Others have been so programmed to the ethereal that they wouldn't believe your evidence is real. So find the real evidence for the atheists, but keep faith around to keep the natives happy...
i can keep one foot in each camp. That is what defines a shaman. Never go full retard, either direction.
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 04:34:39 PM
Good thing ... if you pull off Godzilla's tail, he can grow a new one ;-)
Ah, that's nothing -
some lizards can expel their skin and grow new skin (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170207092733.htm)!
And can he grow six tails at once? (http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/lizard-grows-six-tails-once-setting-new-world-record/)
I think not...
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 12, 2017, 07:10:04 PM
Actually, that's a pretty good way to define faith. Belief in something that doesn't make sense.
Yep, the word "God" is just another way of saying "I don't understand!"
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 14, 2017, 07:20:13 PM
Yep, the word "God" is just another way of saying "I don't understand!"
Precisely, god is used as a means for intellectually lazy individuals to fill in the gaps.
Quote from: Baruch on February 14, 2017, 06:34:29 AM
i can keep one foot in each camp. That is what defines a shaman. Never go full retard, either direction.
The perfect definition of any successful religious leader... No actual belief, just happy to have a scam job involving no real work.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 15, 2017, 02:32:51 AM
The perfect definition of any successful religious leader... No actual belief, just happy to have a scam job involving no real work.
Perhaps. All real religious leaders are heretics, but they are rare. The rest are "management" which is the same everywhere. So do you oppose the idle rich?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 15, 2017, 02:32:51 AM
The perfect definition of any successful religious leader... No actual belief, just happy to have a scam job involving no real work.
That's a sweeping generalization I can't really support. It may be true of some religious leaders, but there are some I still admire today because of their sincerity and the work they put into benefiting the community. My youth pastor, in particular.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 14, 2017, 07:20:13 PM
Yep, the word "God" is just another way of saying "I don't understand!"
(https://evolutionspace.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/thencallitgod1.jpg?w=460)
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 15, 2017, 10:07:12 AM
That's a sweeping generalization I can't really support. It may be true of some religious leaders, but there are some I still admire today because of their sincerity and the work they put into benefiting the community. My youth pastor, in particular.
He's just there to bed the young innocents.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 15, 2017, 10:07:12 AM
That's a sweeping generalization I can't really support. It may be true of some religious leaders, but there are some I still admire today because of their sincerity and the work they put into benefiting the community. My youth pastor, in particular.
I will allow that some even fool themselves.