Prove there's a god.

[Pat]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
You accept the existence of god without any observations.
Correct?
If you have made observations, are they testable?
If so, how?

It is secret privileged information, sorry. You have to be very very special to get access...

[RiversideRedneck]

Black Thunder 42 wrote:

<quoted text>Start'n ta remind me of gatekreeper.

Them's fightin words....

[Black Thunder 42]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Them's fightin words....

Just a thought...

[scaritual]

Mylan wrote:

<quoted text>Well said. The bible is FILLED with nonsense like this. Over the years they've been "editing" it out to serve their purpose, but the original version (the one supposedly handed down from god) still exist. What pleasant writings to base a religion on eh?

Yeah, and when you look up the "disputed" word meanings in Hebrew etc.., I've found that it usually gets worse, because then you are generally compelled to look at the entire sentence, verse and more.

I think if Christians did that more often, they'd find that the book they embrace is full of contradictions and nonsense at best, and at its absolute worst, hideous.

[Pat]

God Himself wrote:

<quoted text>
Intelligent design cannot be debunked; it is the intelligent that designs.

Then clearly a being so complex as to be able to create the universe would itself require a designer and that designer would need a designer and on and on for infinity so is that the foolishness you cling to, an infinite number of gods, each creating the next?

You see, this ID nonsense you fell for leaves you right were you started, not knowing how life began.

[God Himself]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
That wasn't the message you sent. Here's what you wrote:
"There are ways to question the reality of the very soil that people walk on, so there is no shortage of ways to question the reality of God."

So you are saying that you utterly fail to see the idea of making "...reference to questioning the reality of the soil beneath..." in the expression "There are ways to question the reality of the very soil that people walk on, so there is no shortage of ways to question the reality of God"?

Oh fack!

You need help bad.

Or maybe by "message sent" you mean the impression that was formed on/in your mind?

You would still need help either way.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

...The message is that all kinds of thinking are equally valid or invalid.

And they have good reason for saying that.

The nature the human structure and his capacities of perception are such that the mind NEVER experiences the full or objective reality directly or 'intimately'.

Go ask any 7th grade biology student and they will tell you that the mind interprets what the body feeds into it; the mind itself does not experience the reality directly.

Thats why philosophy is crucial!

We need people who are philosophically inclined to examine " knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language" (wikipedia.com ), to make sure people like you dont get away with the crap you cultivate in those twisted minds of yours.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

And no, when rational minds question the soil, it is about its qualities and history, not its existence.

So if one cannot be certain of the reality of a thing, how can one proceed to conclude that the history is real?

What is the difference between the image formed when you imagine and the image formed when you observe an object in the outer world? THEY ARE BOTH FORMED IN THE MIND.

The only difference is with the persistence of the images; the image that is formed from an external object tends to remain longer than the ones you imagine.

The body can hardly distinguish between what is concrete and what is imaginary. If you imagine that "Pat" is standing naked before your eyes, you will get an erection just the same way you would if she was standing before you naked in reality.

Well, your sexual orientation may cause you to not get erected when you see a naked woman so might be an exception.

So it is CRUCIAL that one studies the nature of the real and the nature of the apparent.

[Pat]

God Himself wrote:

<quoted text>
BUT WHERE HAVE YOU OBSERVED A MINDLESS, UNDIRECTED ENTITY CREATING AN INTELLIGENT ONE?

So who created your god then, SUPER GOD? Who created super god, SUPER DUPER GOD? Does it hurt when you think?

[Pat]

question wrote:

We are going down hill and backwards socially, first the atheists are increasing in numbers, then the worlds most primitive and violent religion Islam gets help to expand in the west by secular atheist governments,who welcome them as immigrants, and the armanent industry gets bigger and more technical ie drones, whats next?

Rather we are progressing you morally challnged fool.

If this often-touted religious theory were correct-that a turning away from God is at the root of all societal ills-then we would expect to find the least religious nations on earth to be bastions of crime, poverty, and disease and the most religious nations to be models of societal health. A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs. In reality, the most secular countries-those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics-are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations-wherein worship of God is in abundance-are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php...

[RiversideRedneck]

Black Thunder 42 wrote:

<quoted text>Just a thought...

Why? Most 25 year olds don't have much common sense or a grasp on anything, especially something like scientific hypothesis/theory/law.....

Sorry if that offends to 25-ish year old out there, but it's the truth.

(keep in mind I said most, not all)

[RiversideRedneck]

Pat wrote:

<quoted text>
Then clearly a being so complex as to be able to create the universe would itself require a designer and that designer would need a designer and on and on for infinity so is that the foolishness you cling to, an infinite number of gods, each creating the next?
You see, this ID nonsense you fell for leaves you right were you started, not knowing how life began.

"How life began" is referring to physical, mortal life. "Life as we know it".

God is not a life as we know it.

[RiversideRedneck]

Pat wrote:

So who created your god then, SUPER GOD? Who created super god, SUPER DUPER GOD? Does it hurt when you think?

God was not created, He always has existed and always will exist.

It must hurt your brain to think about something as magnificent as God, something that has no creator.

I know you're probably stuck on "gods" like Zeus & Thor, Isis & Horus - all which were "created".

God was not created.

Try to think before you type.

[Pat]

God Himself wrote:

<quoted text>

You dont agree that my evidence of God is valid; but I dont agree that common genes are proof of common ancestry either.*shrug*

But we can both agree that common genes exist for they are there for all to see, unlike your god, which until now is nothing more than a silly superstition and god will remain a superstition until such time as evidence presents itself.

[God Himself]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
And here is the "proof" canard, a classic case of special pleading. Regarding reality, you demand it. Regarding biblical myth, you don't.

I am sure that meant something... to YOU.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

Although no theory can be proved...

No further questions on the matter of proof of theories, your honour.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

... It can't be upturned without discovering something...

So even though the theory cannot be proven, it cannot be upturned?

GTFO!!!!

It aint necessarily so wrote:

... Of course sometimes evidence proves...

Let me guess: when you want it to, or when you decide that it does, right? LOL!

It aint necessarily so wrote:

You can't think of a single example of evidence serving as proof?

No.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

How about this post serving as proof that somebody is posting on Topix today using the name "It aint necessarily so"?

I could be in a dream which entails me refuting arguments advanced by a thing that is manifested as "It aint necessarily so".

Dreams can be quite vivid; ever had a wet dream?

Daaaaamn!

I mean you can almost feel the grooves inside the vagina then... the fun ends :(

It aint necessarily so wrote:

As I've said before, you've let your church teach you how to think, and they did a number on you. They praised faith and cursed doubt, calling it the devil speaking. And for a lifetime, you've systematically rejected whatever contradicts the idol of your faith, and uncritically embraced any idea that seemed to support it.

Is that your objective observation? LOL!

It aint necessarily so wrote:

And look at the result. Something about doubting the soil beneath your feet, and now this about evidence never being sufficient to prove anything.

Questioning the the reality of the soil beneath my feet does not prevent me from walking.

Questioning the reality of the soil beneath my feet helps me to understand the nature of that which is concrete.

Evidence is never sufficient to prove anything; which is why faith/belief is crucial in the knowledge process.

There is a point where you must decide which you find more acceptable,.

[Pat]

God Himself wrote:

<quoted text>
So you are saying that you utterly fail to see the idea of making "...reference to questioning the reality of the soil beneath..." in the expression "There are ways to question the reality of the very soil that people walk on, so there is no shortage of ways to question the reality of God"?
Oh fack!
You need help bad.
Or maybe by "message sent" you mean the impression that was formed on/in your mind?
You would still need help either way.
<quoted text>
And they have good reason for saying that.
The nature the human structure and his capacities of perception are such that the mind NEVER experiences the full or objective reality directly or 'intimately'.
Go ask any 7th grade biology student and they will tell you that the mind interprets what the body feeds into it; the mind itself does not experience the reality directly.
Thats why philosophy is crucial!
We need people who are philosophically inclined to examine " knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language" (wikipedia.com ), to make sure people like you dont get away with the crap you cultivate in those twisted minds of yours.
<quoted text>
So if one cannot be certain of the reality of a thing, how can one proceed to conclude that the history is real?
What is the difference between the image formed when you imagine and the image formed when you observe an object in the outer world? THEY ARE BOTH FORMED IN THE MIND.
The only difference is with the persistence of the images; the image that is formed from an external object tends to remain longer than the ones you imagine.
The body can hardly distinguish between what is concrete and what is imaginary. If you imagine that "Pat" is standing naked before your eyes, you will get an erection just the same way you would if she was standing before you naked in reality.
Well, your sexual orientation may cause you to not get erected when you see a naked woman so might be an exception.
So it is CRUCIAL that one studies the nature of the real and the nature of the apparent.

"The body can hardly distinguish between what is concrete and what is imaginary."

This is why we have lunatic asylums, for people like you. This is why it should be considered child abuse to take a young forming mind and blurr the line between fantasy and reality with religious indoctrination.

[God Himself]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
That was too long to listen to - 75 minutes.

Is that sufficient to refute the claims made on the video?

It aint necessarily so wrote:

Have you got anything in print form, like a transcript, or an alternate source?

It takes time to examine both print and imagery. Either you are interested to examine it or you are not.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

Incidentally, how could science ever prove more than that the universe was designed and created? How could it prove that the god that you call "God" was the designer? That evidence is as good for the claim that Odin or Marduk is that god as it is for claim that it is Jehovah.

That is superfluous to the discussion.

The fundamental issue is whether or not the universe was created (by an intelligent agent of sorts).

The nature and identity of the agent responsible for the creation is irrelevant.

[macumazahn]

Mylan wrote:

<quoted text>Oh so now you're allowed to put lipstick on a pig and call it something that it's not? A tweak here, a word changed there. Very convenient. What about the passage that says that a woman needs to be a virgin when she is married or she can be killed, how does that fit into your "sleeping together out of marriage" hogwash? I take it women were second class citizens back then to you guys.

"Back then"?

[Pat]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
"How life began" is referring to physical, mortal life. "Life as we know it".
God is not a life as we know it.

To claim god is or is not anything is a lie for you have no knowledge of what god is or is not or it it even exists.

[Black Thunder 42]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Why? Most 25 year olds don't have much common sense or a grasp on anything, especially something like scientific hypothesis/theory/law.....
Sorry if that offends to 25-ish year old out there, but it's the truth.
(keep in mind I said most, not all)

I realize what you are saying. I don't think you made the connection.

[RiversideRedneck]

macumazahn wrote:

<quoted text>"Back then"?

Yes, back then.

She was talking about the rapist marries the rapee story.

Which was a law written for the Levites, which lived "back then".

[Pat]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
God was not created, He always has existed and always will exist.
It must hurt your brain to think about something as magnificent as God, something that has no creator.
I know you're probably stuck on "gods" like Zeus & Thor, Isis & Horus - all which were "created".
God was not created.
Try to think before you type.

"God was not created, He always has existed and always will exist."

Thank you for proving the IDers hypocritical idiots and yourself a liar in one nice neat compact little sentence.

"Try to think before you type."

Is that what you think you were doing when you just fed us your line of bs on god? LOL