Prove there's a god.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#627972 Jun 4, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Hey! I'm back!
Hay! Me two!

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#627973 Jun 4, 2013
ChristineM wrote:

First based on no evidence whatsoever you assume that your god created this universe
Based on no evidence, you think E=MC2 proves God isn't omnipotent.

Shut up.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#627974 Jun 4, 2013
ChristineM wrote:

Second based on similar lack of evidence and against all mathematical and physical principals you assume that should he enter this universe then he would not be subject to the laws of the universe
Please. I beg you.

Tell me where I've stated that I believe God entered the universe.

Go.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#627975 Jun 4, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have any evidence that there is anything above the universe? No, I thought not… Or perhaps I have you wrong here, maybe you have such evidence. May I suggest you offer it to the perimeter institute for theoretical physics, it would make your name not only in the world of advanced physics but you would be top dog in the religious streets too.
Of course it makes sense and is complimentary to the known evolution of the universe, the maths of the atomic domain have never been disproved. The maths of the quantum domain were until recently at odds with the maths of the atomic domain but work by Dr Param Singh and others has put paid to that barrier.
Once again, finite universe with finite energy, there is no infinite about it. One of the basic laws of this universe is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed. You are here, you are composed of a tiny fraction of that finite amount of energy.
I ask again, do you know of anything above/greater than this universe? Not your faith or your religion, but something scientifically known to be above this universe. There is of course scientific speculation of various forms of multiverse however as yet it’s speculation.
Your dreams of an entity with unlimited power are simply your dreams
Please give a documented example of a physicality where power reaches infinity? Theoretical mathematics are wonderful for theoretical applications, theoretical applications are not reality. And you are omitting additional dimensions, singularities etc… that can now be explained using the mathematics mentioned above.
Do you have evidence that the universe is finite? Do you have evidence that the energy in the universe is finite?

Your dreams of limiting God's power is only your dreams.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#627976 Jun 4, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to make it darker, the dark is already there, got it?
However if at some later stage light is introduced then it will become lighter
If further light is added then it will become lighter still
As I said dark is the default state. This is a basic junior school scientific principle so it’s not surprising that you don’t understand it.
Gee... How have you come by this "basic" knowledge, since darkness is not perceptible in the presence of light?

Since: May 11

London, UK

#627977 Jun 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have evidence that the universe is finite? Do you have evidence that the energy in the universe is finite?
Your dreams of limiting God's power is only your dreams.
...but your god is only in your dreams.

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

#627978 Jun 4, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have any evidence that there is anything above the universe? No, I thought not… Or perhaps I have you wrong here, maybe you have such evidence. May I suggest you offer it to the perimeter institute for theoretical physics, it would make your name not only in the world of advanced physics but you would be top dog in the religious streets too.
Of course it makes sense and is complimentary to the known evolution of the universe, the maths of the atomic domain have never been disproved. The maths of the quantum domain were until recently at odds with the maths of the atomic domain but work by Dr Param Singh and others has put paid to that barrier.
Once again, finite universe with finite energy, there is no infinite about it. One of the basic laws of this universe is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed. You are here, you are composed of a tiny fraction of that finite amount of energy.
I ask again, do you know of anything above/greater than this universe? Not your faith or your religion, but something scientifically known to be above this universe. There is of course scientific speculation of various forms of multiverse however as yet it’s speculation.
Your dreams of an entity with unlimited power are simply your dreams
Please give a documented example of a physicality where power reaches infinity? Theoretical mathematics are wonderful for theoretical applications, theoretical applications are not reality. And you are omitting additional dimensions, singularities etc… that can now be explained using the mathematics mentioned above.
Your argument was never about whether an omnipotent God does exist. It was whether an omnipotent God could exist. That was my discussion. You were asserting that omnipotent God couldn't exist. That is what I was debating. Whether He does exist, that's another issue.

And even after all our discussion of omnipotence, as the ability to do anything, even break all scientific laws, you still expect me and others to present proof that is testable under scientific law by the perimeter institute for theoretical physics. That doesn't make any sense.

If I present something to the perimeter institute for theoretical physics, any kind of phenomenon currently unexplained, why in the world will they attribute it to God? I work in a chemical engineering laboratory. Thermodynamics research unit. We get some whacky stuff coming in from industry, from other labs. We marvel at some stuff, observe in amazement at the diversity in chemistry of compounds, especially new compounds that you wouldn't hear off in schools for decades to come. We don't ever say this is a miracle. Even though we all believe in God, we don't say that. We conduct some tests, draw conclusions, and plan for further investigation. At the most, we will postulate another property, publish a journal, and other labs will investigate as well.

Many of you here are just nothing but science fanatics, just gobbling up whatever crumbs fall from the table of the real scientists who are in the thick of it, at the frontier of scientific investigation, following the scientific method originally laid down by a Muslim optician in the year 1030, and modified by a 17th century Roman Catholic astronomer. You guys aren't scientists. You know nothing about question, hypothesis and analysis.

Einstein himself, the discover of E=MC^2, did not come to any conclusion regarding an omnipotent God. He was an agnostic. If you ever hope to be a scientist, a true scientist, you need to conduct research with full objectivity, not some silly agenda. Politically driven science is just as idiotic as Christian fundamentalism, if not worse.

Since: May 11

London, UK

#627979 Jun 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee... How have you come by this "basic" knowledge, since darkness is not perceptible in the presence of light?
...if a tree falls down in a forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?

LMAO

Since: May 11

London, UK

#627980 Jun 4, 2013
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument was never about whether an omnipotent God does exist. It was whether an omnipotent God could exist. That was my discussion. You were asserting that omnipotent God couldn't exist. That is what I was debating. Whether He does exist, that's another issue.
And even after all our discussion of omnipotence, as the ability to do anything, even break all scientific laws, you still expect me and others to present proof that is testable under scientific law by the perimeter institute for theoretical physics. That doesn't make any sense.
If I present something to the perimeter institute for theoretical physics, any kind of phenomenon currently unexplained, why in the world will they attribute it to God? I work in a chemical engineering laboratory. Thermodynamics research unit. We get some whacky stuff coming in from industry, from other labs. We marvel at some stuff, observe in amazement at the diversity in chemistry of compounds, especially new compounds that you wouldn't hear off in schools for decades to come. We don't ever say this is a miracle. Even though we all believe in God, we don't say that. We conduct some tests, draw conclusions, and plan for further investigation. At the most, we will postulate another property, publish a journal, and other labs will investigate as well.
Many of you here are just nothing but science fanatics, just gobbling up whatever crumbs fall from the table of the real scientists who are in the thick of it, at the frontier of scientific investigation, following the scientific method originally laid down by a Muslim optician in the year 1030, and modified by a 17th century Roman Catholic astronomer. You guys aren't scientists. You know nothing about question, hypothesis and analysis.
Einstein himself, the discover of E=MC^2, did not come to any conclusion regarding an omnipotent God. He was an agnostic. If you ever hope to be a scientist, a true scientist, you need to conduct research with full objectivity, not some silly agenda. Politically driven science is just as idiotic as Christian fundamentalism, if not worse.
could an omnipotent god create an immovable object?

could he move the object?

If he could, the object is not immovable and he failed in his creation therefore he is not omnipotent.

If he could not he is not omnipotent.

if he is not omnipotent then he is not god.

there now, that was easy.
Forum

Carlsbad, NM

#627981 Jun 4, 2013
Free Movie Tuesday at the mall.

Take your kids.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#627982 Jun 4, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
...but your god is only in your dreams.
You have no evidence of that.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#627983 Jun 4, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
...if a tree falls down in a forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?
LMAO
You Brits have a strange sense of humor.

I mean, humour...

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#627984 Jun 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on no evidence, you think E=MC2 proves God isn't omnipotent.
Shut up.
What no evidence? do the maths.

Just because you are too ignorant to comprehend basic multiplication does not make you right, it just makes you ignorant.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#627985 Jun 4, 2013
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey booooots :)
I hope you are well.
There is ongoing ethical and moral debate on these drones. I read a lot about it in the news. The immediate problem is the lack of exposure to the pity of war, that these videogame soldiers receive. They sit safe somewhere controlling that joystick, completely out of view to the reality of war, the terror, the burning screaming bodies, the stench of war, the blood and dust.
But ultimately the American populace doesn't really care about the atrocities of their army. They didn't care when the U.S. invaded Iraq, resulting in the death of over 100000 Iraqi civilians. They only started caring when the deaths of their own soldiers began to amount in the thousands and the wounded in the tens of thousands. And now here comes Obama, the great hero. He's not as evil as Bush. Bush put American lives at risk. Obama is a great guy, he uses drones and only puts Iraqi civilian lives at risk. That's as great as any American president of today needs to be. Who cares about non-American lives anyway?
I am quite well, TT, thank you, and I wish the same for you.:)

Yes, you state the truth. I even read a headline a couple weeks ago, that the drone operators are suffering burn-out, because the poor guys have to sit watching a screen for 12 hour shifts, and 99% of the time there is no action, so they are bored, and now having mental problems. I didn't get too deeply into the article, but I don't think it mentioned that they were mentally upset about the people they were killing with their computer mouse or keys.

On the other side, though, because the terrorism, the IEDs, and other such things, are still killing people too, there has to be some sort of an understanding that everyone will cease what they are doing, which is wrong from all sides, and seek a peaceful settlement to whatever it is their goals are anyway, and likely 99% of the actors don't even know the ultimate reasons for these situations.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#627986 Jun 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Please. I beg you.
Tell me where I've stated that I believe God entered the universe.
Go.
So how do you assume your belief gave your god access to the universe? Unexplainable god magic?

Entered, or poofed into existence or pre-existed it does not matter. How ever your belief assumes he/she/it got here then you believe he/she/it is here and he/she/it must be subject to the laws of the universe. Because people like you deny this basic fact simply means you are a little light on scientific understanding and so make up excuses to bypass the immutable laws of the universe.

And you seem to have omitted first?

Since: May 11

London, UK

#627987 Jun 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You Brits have a strange sense of humor.
I mean, humour...
thats the argument you were making,

darkness is imperceptible in the presence of light...presumably you asked someone to "prove darkness exists"?

...an environment which is purged of the electromagnetic spectrum is "dark", you may feel that you cannot produce proof for darkness however we know what light is, when light is gone it is dark.

Please entertain us by telling us how this is not the case.

Since: May 11

London, UK

#627988 Jun 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no evidence of that.
..about the same amount you have, and I'm not positively asserting that god is real, so ...'your move' as they say.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#627989 Jun 4, 2013
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument was never about whether an omnipotent God does exist. It was whether an omnipotent God could exist. That was my discussion. You were asserting that omnipotent God couldn't exist. That is what I was debating. Whether He does exist, that's another issue.
And even after all our discussion of omnipotence, as the ability to do anything, even break all scientific laws, you still expect me and others to present proof that is testable under scientific law by the perimeter institute for theoretical physics. That doesn't make any sense.
If I present something to the perimeter institute for theoretical physics, any kind of phenomenon currently unexplained, why in the world will they attribute it to God? I work in a chemical engineering laboratory. Thermodynamics research unit. We get some whacky stuff coming in from industry, from other labs. We marvel at some stuff, observe in amazement at the diversity in chemistry of compounds, especially new compounds that you wouldn't hear off in schools for decades to come. We don't ever say this is a miracle. Even though we all believe in God, we don't say that. We conduct some tests, draw conclusions, and plan for further investigation. At the most, we will postulate another property, publish a journal, and other labs will investigate as well.
Many of you here are just nothing but science fanatics, just gobbling up whatever crumbs fall from the table of the real scientists who are in the thick of it, at the frontier of scientific investigation, following the scientific method originally laid down by a Muslim optician in the year 1030, and modified by a 17th century Roman Catholic astronomer. You guys aren't scientists. You know nothing about question, hypothesis and analysis.
Einstein himself, the discover of E=MC^2, did not come to any conclusion regarding an omnipotent God. He was an agnostic. If you ever hope to be a scientist, a true scientist, you need to conduct research with full objectivity, not some silly agenda. Politically driven science is just as idiotic as Christian fundamentalism, if not worse.
Very good points, again. I know that we cannot prove that no God, or gods, exist, simply by the impossibility of finding proof of nothing. However, I think that an unbiased study of all of the major religions today, and the basis for these religions, in the case of Christians, the Bible, and the Muslims, the Quran (and some of the Bible), God as described in those books, could not possibly exist, at least by any understanding that man has, other than absolute magic. There are just too many arguments in those books that go against what those who follow the Books believe about God.

Yes, a super being could theoretically do "anything", but the kinds of "everything" that this super being would do, or what believers 'think' their super-being does, do not, in any way, give any logical reason that any sane human being would want to worship or honor that being.

Another point, about that is that a God with all the characteristics, demands, commands, etc., that are written about in the Bible and Quran, would not just be showing itself for a very brief period some 2000 years ago, and again some 1400 years ago, and then crawling back into a cave somewhere.

With the sophistication that man has developed today to observe and test things, surely we would see God acting many times, and many would see that, yet there is not yet one single documented and verified by reputable specialists of anything that would indicate a supernatural happened in rents history of man, since 1400 years ago.

The handwriting of simple men is obvious all through the "Holy Books"

Since: May 11

London, UK

#627990 Jun 4, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
I am quite well, TT, thank you, and I wish the same for you.:)
Yes, you state the truth. I even read a headline a couple weeks ago, that the drone operators are suffering burn-out, because the poor guys have to sit watching a screen for 12 hour shifts, and 99% of the time there is no action, so they are bored, and now having mental problems. I didn't get too deeply into the article, but I don't think it mentioned that they were mentally upset about the people they were killing with their computer mouse or keys.
On the other side, though, because the terrorism, the IEDs, and other such things, are still killing people too, there has to be some sort of an understanding that everyone will cease what they are doing, which is wrong from all sides, and seek a peaceful settlement to whatever it is their goals are anyway, and likely 99% of the actors don't even know the ultimate reasons for these situations.
I've asked fighter pilots about their disconnection from the events on the ground, and they all say that firing a 'smart' munition from a distance can not possibly provoke the same feelings as those experienced by troops engaged on the ground.

However I do know of one case where a UAV pilot had no ordinance left on board and he was tasked with observing a patrol who had been sent out to recover bodies and vehicles from the site of an IED attack. They came under fire and he was unable to do anything but watch from above. He was diagnosed with PTSD and was unable to continue.

I suppose it becomes real when it's your guys. This is not meant as any slight to those in blue, it's just the nature of warfare.

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

#627991 Jun 4, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
could an omnipotent god create an immovable object?
could he move the object?
If he could, the object is not immovable and he failed in his creation therefore he is not omnipotent.
If he could not he is not omnipotent.
if he is not omnipotent then he is not god.
there now, that was easy.
The immovable object, the big rock, the square circle, blaahdy blaahdy blah.

That is an old argument, not even originally thought off by an atheist, but rather by a 12th century Moorish Muslim named Ibn Rushd, which was also interestingly one of the fathers of secular thought in Europe. Westerners know him more popularly as Averroes.

An omnipotent being would have the power to place limitations upon Himself as he will, and remove limitations accordingly. An omnipotent being can do whatever he wants. Why should He care if it makes sense to you.

It is a consequence of infinity that there will be contradictions that our logic will not be able to grasp. Another argument is that of omniscience, where one may wonder - If God knows everything, then He knows whatever we are going to do before we even exist, and so how can choice truly exist for us? Why would God want to reward or punish us for deeds He knows we are going to commit from even before we are born?

It is contradictory, it is not logical. But why would one expect it to be logical? It is a matter of infinity, there is bound to be paradox and breakdowns of logic. Infinity will not be bound by anything, not even logic.

There has to be a way in which God created choice, probably through purposefully placing limitations on Himself. Those guys at the creationist museum have the ability to close their eyes, block their ears and go "lalalalalalah", so why can't an omniscient entity shelve knowledge?

If one believes in an omnipotent and omniscient God, one ultimately has to cross the boundary and proceed into the illogical. It sounds crazy, but we made it this far in technological advances because of people willing to cross over into the illogical. In many cases, what was illogical yesterday, is obvious truth today.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 3 min River Tam 79,701
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 15 min Devil number 666 448,388
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 16 min AnthonyMN 701,478
News Sarah Palin going on 'Oprah' (Oct '09) 1 hr Johnny 718
Will Meghan Markle Bring Down the Royals? 1 hr Johnny 4
Bill Cosby guilty on all 3 charges. 1 hr Johnny 43
Judas Iscariot and Mark Fuhrman 1 hr BILLION HEIR 39