A Proof That God Exists

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#203 Apr 5, 2013
Mary Magdalena wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple but dead on.
Thank you for sharing it.
Proof that you cannot think-- if you thought that was "dead on"...

... sad.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#204 Apr 5, 2013
Mary Magdalena wrote:
<quoted text>
With all you typing you do daily spelling out the word Bible to tough for you?
We use the word BuyBull as both a pun, and as an explaination of what your bible actually is: bull, that you have to buy into.

Buy Bull

BuyBull.

The bible is 100% bullsh7t, you see.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#205 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
Forget Aristotle by now.
But the point is YOU haven't.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#206 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
To "The Dude"
The Dude: If you only had evidence to discard.
Shibolet: You discard my evidence because of your preconceived notions but you can't refute it. Typical of atheists.
The Dude: You presume a "who" is necessary. It could simply be a "what".
Shibolet: Okay, let it be "what". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Refute my evidence of an outside Cause if the universe could not have caused itself.
I do not have to refute non-falsifiable concept. Just as I would not expect you to refute the Cosmic Sheep of dimension Zog. However your claim that the universe could not have caused itself is baseless. Also it is possible that the universe may not require a cause, as Poly has discussed. Or it could have been an infinite series of causes. Or an infinite series of causes in finite time, which have also been discussed.
Shibolet wrote:
The Dude: No need for me to claim the universe caused itself for I have not made that claim. All I observe is that the universe is here.
Shibolet: Does one have to have a PhD in Atheism to know that the universe is here? Aren't we part of it? Embarrassing isn't it?
Not really. And what does atheism have to do with anything? I have not made any positive claims for atheism. In fact I find the subject quite superfluous. Merely pointing out the pitfalls of claiming theism is scientifically relevant is not the same as making a positive claim for atheism. Like reality, the wonderful subtleties of language are oft unappreciated by fundies.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#207 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
For you yes because you do not understand metaphorical language.
The problem being is when the Bible is being metaphorical is subjective. You have your opinion. Other fundies disagree. However if it is metaphorical then that refutes the claim that it is scientifically relevant.
Shibolet wrote:
No, the God I am speaking of is the same of the Bible. The problem is that the concept of God you convey to yourself is of a man-like god. Hence anthropomorphism. The same foolishness of common theists.
You have not shown yours is any different.
Shibolet wrote:
See what I mean? Putting words in my mouth that were never in my mind. To grant man with free will and let them fend for themselves is rather a sign of unlimited power.
Limitless power to place limits on itself? Can God create a rock it can't lift? QED.
Shibolet wrote:
How about the god-myth of the atheists aka the BB? Carl Sagan referred to it as "Our morder myth of the big bang." From
"Cosmos" page 285.
Yet the BB is irrelevant in this instance as we are debating the initial cause(s)(or non-cause).
Shibolet wrote:
And I would like to know how atheists claim that the quasi-god BB gave origin to the universe when a famous Cosmologist
recognized it as a myth.
Take it to the atheists.
Shibolet wrote:
I will prove that if you prove the BB. Can't you see what
we are doing? Playing a childish game and wasting our time.
Not at all. You claimed evidence, refused to provide it then demand we prove BB instead first. Doesn't matter since even if we provide evidence all you need do is say "Well what caused THAT?" Hence BB is actually only a distraction.
Shibolet wrote:
Wow! So you believe that Jesus could have done that?
Maybe so.(shrug) But since it's around 4 billion years after the actual point we are debating it makes little difference.
Shibolet wrote:
Open the Bible and test me on the issue of an
anthropomorphic-free God. You will be surprised.
You have already conceded that point in requiring cause and effect - then hypocritically claiming your cause requires no cause.
Shibolet wrote:
Poetry and prophecies, are never written to be interpreted in a literal manner. One must have some expertise to understand metaphorical language. If this rules out the Bible as being a reliable document we would not have reliable history books.
History is written according to the power that be.
Fact is you don't know that the original writers did not intend for their descriptions to be literal. Ultimately your opinions of how to translate the Bible are nothing more than that. They are no more valid than the literalist's interpretation. You don't have access to the original documents and I doubt you could read the original languages anyway. You're not the world's best Biblical scholar. And claiming that when the Bible says "the Earth is a flat square circle at the center of a geocentric universe" ACTUALLY means "the Earth is an oblate spheroid which orbits the sun in a non-geocentric universe" is a perfect demonstration of why it makes a crapppy science book.

Therefore you are required to provide evidence other than the Bible is true cuz the Bible sez so, but so far all we've had is a philosophical apologetics argument designed to get around and totally avoid empiricism.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#208 Apr 5, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
The Primal Mover is not subject to the law of cause and effect. That was established for things created. And a law that does not pertain to someone cannot be violated by him. Behold, I got around it, didn't I?
Nope. As you have failed to address the possibilities which Poly has expounded upon.
Shibolet wrote:
And how could the universe have been caused by a non-intelligent cause? Now you are juggling far away from Logic.
How how could the universe have been caused by an intelligent cause?(shrug)

The universe is here. It MAY or may not have required a cause. IF a cause was required it MAY or may not have been intelligent. And IF it was intelligent that entity MAY or may not have required a previous cause.

However if your intelligence requires no cause it is equally plausible the universe itself required none either. The reason fundies strenuously object to this is merely for the desire to have their philosophical arguments justify their favourite religious book.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#210 Apr 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not have to refute non-falsifiable concept. Just as I would not expect you to refute the Cosmic Sheep of dimension Zog. However your claim that the universe could not have caused itself is baseless. Also it is possible that the universe may not require a cause, as Poly has discussed. Or it could have been an infinite series of causes. Or an infinite series of causes in finite time, which have also been discussed.
<quoted text>
Not really. And what does atheism have to do with anything? I have not made any positive claims for atheism. In fact I find the subject quite superfluous. Merely pointing out the pitfalls of claiming theism is scientifically relevant is not the same as making a positive claim for atheism. Like reality, the wonderful subtleties of language are oft unappreciated by fundies.
Well, subtle is not in their playbook.

They just don't do subtle. In any form.
IRYW

Allentown, PA

#211 Apr 6, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
And what have you proved? This is childish alright. "Prove it" "I
will prove it if you prove first" "No, you go first." That's not even funny anymore. This happens only with atheists.
The only thing I've 'proved' is that you have failed to offer a logical argument or defend the errors pointed out in your arguments. The burden of proving your claim is on you. Again, you have yet to do anything other than claim your beliefs are true.

“Can't help being fabulous”

Since: Dec 10

Sparkle <3

#212 Apr 6, 2013
There is no proof. You can't prove it either way.
Thinking

Bolton, UK

#213 Apr 6, 2013
There is no evidence for god, so I live on the assumption that is the case.
Kesla15 wrote:
There is no proof. You can't prove it either way.

“Can't help being fabulous”

Since: Dec 10

Sparkle <3

#214 Apr 6, 2013
Thinking wrote:
There is no evidence for god, so I live on the assumption that is the case.
<quoted text>
There is no substatial evidence for an after life. We also cannot conclude that there is nothing afterwards.

We are in a schroeder's cat scenario, with death being a door that we can only open and go through once, and once we have done that we can't tell others about what we have experienced.

Therefore I choose to live my life not wondering about what is for dessert but instead enjoying my starter course.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#215 Apr 6, 2013
Kesla15 wrote:
There is no proof. You can't prove it either way.
False.

As soon as any given "god" is defined in any way?

It then becomes possible to test said "god" against the definition(s).

To date?

All such tests have proven negative: conclusion-- the gods in question are therefore false.

This is especially true for the bible's god.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#216 Apr 6, 2013
Kesla15 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no substatial evidence for an after life. We also cannot conclude that there is nothing afterwards.
By your same "logic" you cannot prove there is NOT a dragon in my attic-- an invisible, untouchable dragon that only comes out when nobody is looking.

Ludicrous, you say? You would be correct....

... give it a second ...
KJV

United States

#217 Apr 6, 2013
Kesla15 wrote:
There is no proof. You can't prove it either way.
I have to agree with the first post on this thread.

Because our universe has a start time and we can calculate an end time this means that there really has to be a God that did in deed start it all. Nothing in nature (the universe as we know it) can come into existence from nothingness with out a God. That is fact and therefore proof.
Thinking

Bolton, UK

#218 Apr 6, 2013
I've got the middle one.

http://www.redmolotov.com/search/schrodinger....
Kesla15 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no substatial evidence for an after life. We also cannot conclude that there is nothing afterwards.
We are in a schroeder's cat scenario, with death being a door that we can only open and go through once, and once we have done that we can't tell others about what we have experienced.
Therefore I choose to live my life not wondering about what is for dessert but instead enjoying my starter course.
KJV

United States

#219 Apr 6, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>There is no evidence for god, so I live on the assumption that is the case.
Blinders are on nice and tight.
Good job tinkling.
That's a good little atheist.
KJV

United States

#222 Apr 6, 2013
Kesla15 wrote:
<quoted text>There is no substatial evidence for an after life. We also cannot conclude that there is nothing afterwards.

We are in a schroeder's cat scenario, with death being a door that we can only open and go through once, and once we have done that we can't tell others about what we have experienced.

Therefore I choose to live my life not wondering about what is for dessert but instead enjoying my starter course.
The starter course was intended to be fully enjoyed. And this can be done while preparing for dessert.

Many Doctors have stated that dying patients have awoke screaming that the doctor can't let them die because they are in hell. And when the doctor failed to save their life's they the Doctors were haunted by the true terror in these patients. It was like nothing they had ever experienced before or at any other place. The people were not afraid of death as to the after life held for them.
Of course we've all read about the light that others have seen and the feeling of pure peace. Doctors have seen both sides of the coin that the Bible tells us about, long before medicine was able to bring people back from the dead.

Some survivor have written books of their experience try reading them.
Imhotep

Winter Garden, FL

#223 Apr 6, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
By your same "logic" you cannot prove there is NOT a dragon in my attic-- an invisible, untouchable dragon that only comes out when nobody is looking.
Ludicrous, you say? You would be correct....
... give it a second ...
Speaking of dragons Sir Robert

Bertrand Russell
"Religion prevents our children from having a rational education; religion prevents us from removing the fundamental causes of war; religion prevents us from teaching the ethic of scientific cooperation in place of the old fierce doctrines of sin and punishment. It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion."

Robert Ingersoll
"The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith'."
"If a man would follow today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly, the teachings of the new, he would be insane."

And something new from Andy. We have to laugh laugh you know;)

SHANGHAI (The Borowitz Report)—In a rare announcement from a notoriously publicity-shy group, Chinese hackers revealed today that they were dropping the United States government from their official list of high-value targets.

“We have to allocate our time and energy to hacking powerful organizations,” a spokesman for the hackers said.“Right now, calling the United States government an ‘organization’ would be a reach.”

He added that the hackers’ ultimate goal had been to hurl the U.S. government into a state of abject paralysis,“and they seem to have already taken care of that on their own.”

The spokesman acknowledged that despite years of compromising U.S. government computers, the hackers had obtained little of value, especially on the hard drives of congressional offices.

“Those computers did not appear to be used for anything work-related,” the spokesman said.“Basically all we found were restaurant reservations and porn.”

U.S. stock markets plummeted on the news of the hackers’ downgrade, which was widely denounced by American politicians as a hostile act designed to cripple the economy.“This is an insult to the American people,” said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia).“We demand that the Chinese resume hacking us at once.”

But according to the hackers’ spokesman, any chance that they might put the U.S. government back on their list of targets was remote at best.

“We need to focus on higher-functioning governments,” he said.“We’re taking a close look at Venezuela.”

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#224 Apr 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the universe has all of the things in it. I am pointing out the distinction between the universe as a whole being caused and each, individual, thing in it being caused. They are different concepts. Causality applies to the second, but not to the universe as a whole.
--------

Okay, in that case I will respect your opinion and you will respect
mine. For you the universe was uncaused; fair enough. For me it was
caused since it could not have caused itself. Let us call the quits
because we have been wasting our time for too long.
Thinking

Bolton, UK

#225 Apr 6, 2013
But I will respect Polymath's opinion more.
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
Okay, in that case I will respect your opinion and you will respect
mine. For you the universe was uncaused; fair enough. For me it was
caused since it could not have caused itself. Let us call the quits
because we have been wasting our time for too long.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 10 min Parrot Killer 27,697
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr u196533dm 58,705
News Distrust of the non-religious runs deep in Amer... 1 hr Eagle 12 124
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 2 hr Dogen 2,083
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 5 hr Hedonist Heretic 213
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 11 hr Hedonist Heretic 1,970
News Washington court rules against florist in gay w... 12 hr Amused 65
More from around the web