Prove there's a god.

Since: Mar 13

Anaheim, California

#635696 Jul 2, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, but I am ignoring your posts from this point on.
I like to have GROWN UP, honest debates...and I can't have that with someone willing to distort facts, edit posts, and outright LIE to sooth their own ego.
I let it slip the first time you lied and twisted what I said.
I even let it slip when I called you out for lying, and your reply was to LIE again.
I have to draw the line when I have PROVEN you lied, you edited, and omitted facts (And anyone with a 3rd grade education can see you did that)...even after I gave you a chance to own up to what you did.
I am content to end this with you, on the basis I have WON the debate, because >I< used TRUTH, and you felt cornered...then resorted to lying. You really are not worthy of my time, to have a gown up debate...so don't waste your time posting to me anymore, because I will not read it :)
Liar
Oh good you're going to ignore my posts? Thats good news!:)

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#635697 Jul 2, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> no its left coast liberal for DORK
LOL!
waaaz up

London, KY

#635698 Jul 2, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>Correct..I wrote that :)
<quoted text>I am 35 years old. I did "seek" it in my life. I even studied theology. I agree, ONLY God can give me proof...so why hasn't he?
GOD is the ONLY one who can give irrefutable proof...so why doesn't he?
I would much rather believe, and be easier to believe in God, and heaven, etc... What a wonderful thought that is! I WANT it to be true.
Well, sounds like maybe your motive could be the roadblock, so to speak. I mean, are you seeking God for only the purpose of "proving he exist", or our you wanting to know God as your "personal" Heavenly Father?

Many people are confused about the way to God. Some think they should make things right in their lives before they try to come to God. Some even think they can "work" there way to heaven..

Jesus Christ is the way and truth and life, HE is the way to God, of course you may disagree, along with many others, but if one wants to know God or come to him, they must do it on Gods terms. Others find it hard to understand how Jesus could love them when other people don't seem to. God DOES love you! More than you can ever imagine! And there's nothing you can do to make Him stop! According to the Bible, "we" anybody just cant come to know God, or choose to become a Christian whenever they choose.

The Bible says we are begotten by the "word" of God, God has to invite (draw) you to him, and Jesus is the only way to God.For you to come to God you have to get rid of your sin problem. But, in our own strength, not one of us can do this! You can't make yourself right with God by being a better person. Only God can rescue us from our sins. He is willing to do this not because of anything you can offer Him, but because he Loves you.

It's God's grace that allows you to come to Him - not your efforts to "clean up your life" or work your way to Heaven. You can't earn it. It's a free gift.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

For you to come to God, the penalty for your sin must be paid. God's gift to you is His son, Jesus, who paid the debt for you when He died on the Cross.


But common sense, logic, critical thinking, rational thought, and the mere fact that GOD itself doesn't care enough to make its agenda CLEAR to humanity proves otherwise.
<quoted text>That is NOT prof at ALL! NOt even close
Huh?

Ummm, you lost me there. The scripture was meant to let you know, that you " must first believe " HE is REAL, and HE is God.. Wasnt giving you proof, as you say....
Myth Buster

Scottsdale, AZ

#635699 Jul 2, 2013
scambuster wrote:
Funny thing is, that I chose this username when I was agnostic.
You choose scambuster as a username then got scammed. Religious indoctrination requires both ignorance and cowardice, which is why religious cults prey on young children and troubled adults. No rational person would mindlessly accept such complete and utter bullshit. Shame on you!

Since: Mar 13

Anaheim, California

#635700 Jul 2, 2013
waaaz up wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, sounds like maybe your motive could be the roadblock, so to speak. I mean, are you seeking God for only the purpose of "proving he exist", or our you wanting to know God as your "personal" Heavenly Father?
Many people are confused about the way to God. Some think they should make things right in their lives before they try to come to God. Some even think they can "work" there way to heaven..
Jesus Christ is the way and truth and life, HE is the way to God, of course you may disagree, along with many others, but if one wants to know God or come to him, they must do it on Gods terms. Others find it hard to understand how Jesus could love them when other people don't seem to. God DOES love you! More than you can ever imagine! And there's nothing you can do to make Him stop! According to the Bible, "we" anybody just cant come to know God, or choose to become a Christian whenever they choose.
The Bible says we are begotten by the "word" of God, God has to invite (draw) you to him, and Jesus is the only way to God.For you to come to God you have to get rid of your sin problem. But, in our own strength, not one of us can do this! You can't make yourself right with God by being a better person. Only God can rescue us from our sins. He is willing to do this not because of anything you can offer Him, but because he Loves you.
It's God's grace that allows you to come to Him - not your efforts to "clean up your life" or work your way to Heaven. You can't earn it. It's a free gift.
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9
For you to come to God, the penalty for your sin must be paid. God's gift to you is His son, Jesus, who paid the debt for you when He died on the Cross.
<quoted text>
Huh?
Ummm, you lost me there. The scripture was meant to let you know, that you " must first believe " HE is REAL, and HE is God.. Wasnt giving you proof, as you say....
She's just claiming to believe in the possibility of "God" so she wont go to "Hell". That's why she doesn't get my " agnostic are atheists with fire insurance" jokes. XD

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#635701 Jul 2, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>You question the validity of the scientific method because of apologist websites which search for things to support their very narrow hypothesis and discard all confounding evidence? There isn't some vast conspiracy to turn us all to the devil - if real, actual scientists began to find that the world is secretly 10k years and and that evolution is a lie, there would be real, actual scientific work being done to confirm it. Such a paradigm shift would be difficult, but you can bet the scientist who "discovered" these things would win a nobel and go down in history. In short - there is no danger in getting your science from actual scientists. There is plenty of danger in getting your science from people who have one goal - to "prove" the existence of god and discredit "anti-god science."
So, you posted an article that you didn't agree with? We've already been over all this early man nonsense, a few months ago. The fact that dates change occasionally is not an indictment of the scientific method, it is a good thing. It is self correcting. There are no scientists who swear by the original date of a find because "god says so." If evidence shows the original idea to be wrong, it is changed. That's a good thing, don't you think?
The cambrian explosion is in no way indicative of "design" 500 mya. This is an example of creationists latching onto something they don't quite understand to use as "proof." First of all, it doesn't even make any sense. So god started the world, and then sat around for billions of years, only to then "seed" the earth with many lifeforms 500 mya? Furthermore, not all life is descended from creatures present after the cambrian explosion. Flowering plants evolved long after, as did many groups of animals, including mammals. If this was god's big bout of designing, why did he leave these things out? Also, the term "explosion" is meant relatively. It's not like one day we had nothing and then the next the earth was full of life. It took millions of years, and some say 50 million.
And there are many potential explanations for this event that do not evolve invoking a deity. An increase of predatory behavior could have spurred many creatures to evolve hard bodies, thereby leading to an over representation in the fossil record. More fossils, not necessarily more creatures. Or we might just be missing the evidence of complex life that led up to the cambrian because it were so tiny and therefore didn't leave behind any fossil evidence. Etc.
First, I don't question the validity of scientific methods because of apologists websites. to be honest, I rarely read them. Contrary to what you apparently believe, I actually have a mind of my own. As I stated earlier, I question everything...even what apologists sites say.
Next, I don't get my science from one side or the other. I try to be objective and look at both sides. That's really the most intelligent thing to do, in my opinion, because if you aren't willing to do that...you're simply biased and closed-minded.
Last, and again, I posted the article simply to show that there is good reason to question the validity of science...clearly, theories that have been thrown around and depicted as etched in stone truth, are being disproven by scientists who are pro-evolution...not creationists.
Myth Buster

Scottsdale, AZ

#635702 Jul 2, 2013
Pokay wrote:
So you'd rather believe that an unconscious thing (a molecule or group of them) was able to become "aware" then to believe that awareness was always in existence?
Rational adults don't have beliefs. We study science based in reality on observations and experiments. We understand the differences between hypotheses, theories and laws. I'd describe any proposed hypothesis involving eternal awareness as pseudoscience not based on an observation or experiment.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#635703 Jul 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Sure it has sweety, it just hasn't been accepted by the religious who feel it conflicts with religious doctrine.
But it doesn't conflict with the idea of god.
What is does is conflict with the Jewish legend of mythical deity's and brainwash the sheeple, with one ring to rule them all.. fantasy book of jewish hogwash. The know how Jews get your money and wrote a book so they can have another book book.
How can you say it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that we evolved from something when we have no idea what the heck it was we supposedly evolved from....LOL...that's just beyond hilarious to me.
RedHorseRevelati on

AOL

#635704 Jul 2, 2013
.

Bible PROOF 1.5 BIL MUSLIMS to die --

http://youtu.be/n7ok0g8iwJI

.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#635705 Jul 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Absolutely not, the 13+ billion years before it, attest to there not being any before there was. But saying you were right what would you base the presumption on, and it has to be a presumption therefore conjecture. We do not see molecules behave as if conscious, only life carries this attribute.
We also see the level of this consciousness rise to new levels as life evolved. As life developed new ways to gather information the level of creatures consciousness rose.
But if consciousness was inherit to the universe from the beginning , then it tends to reason it would be teeming with other life everywhere. We also see no apparent consciousness in galaxies or stars etc. But it does tend to reason that consciousness is inherit to life and that it evolved the same as life, I'm sorry I just don't see it any different. DNA is what caused consciousness in life, from a very low and rudimentary level, such as in plants right up to it's ability to interact via optical cables on the internet.
It's not that hard to understand what I'm saying if you try a little. We don't know what exactly consciousness is, and therefore have no clue whether a molecule possesses some small aspect of it or whether consciousness/awareness was always in existence or not. If you can argue that there is no such thing as free will then I can say that chemical attraction and repulsion are examples or products of consciousness and that molecules are therefore conscious in some way that is not apparent to us. I don't really believe they are conscious but how could I know?

*How* do the "13+ billion years before it attest to there not being any" consciousness in existence? That's an idiotic statement. We have no clue whether consciousness/awareness was in existence.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#635706 Jul 2, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>If you won't apply the 100% standard to your god, you have no right to apply it to science.
Anyways, it is not possible to prove anything 100%. That is not the goal of science anyway. Science works on the idea that things must be falsifiable, and that the more ways we devise to potentially falsify something while at the same time confirming our predictions via observation, the more of a chance it has to be true. But no, we will never get to 100%. Find a pre cambrian rabbit, and there goes evolution.
I have every right to apply it to science because science requires proof...faith does not.

My problem with observation, is you can only assume what occurred thousands of years ago. Anyhing you observe today may or may not have the same properties today as it had thousands of years ago. Science has to assume the conditions of the earth, assume the original condition of the fossil and assume to know what conditions the fossils may or may not have undergone while living. There is so much assumption it's unreal. Take radiometric dating for example, there are major assumptions that are made in order for carbon dating to work. A significant assumption is that all living things absorb 14C at the same rate as everything else. Plants don't. Also, there is no way to know the original ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere when the organism was living. This ratio has not been constant. And, there is no way to know how much 14C was being produced in the upper atmosphere when the organism was living and died....it's all assumed...yet we seem to be perfectly okay with that because science tells us their assumptions are right because the tests they do ate doing today...well...they seem accurate based on their assumptions I guess.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#635707 Jul 2, 2013
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
Rational adults don't have beliefs. We study science based in reality on observations and experiments. We understand the differences between hypotheses, theories and laws. I'd describe any proposed hypothesis involving eternal awareness as pseudoscience not based on an observation or experiment.
Well then I better never hear you say that science knows what consciousness is, or that they have any clue whether it came into being or 'always was'.

If you have no beliefs then you are equally willing to accept the idea that consciousness/awareness always was in existence as you are willing to accept the idea that it came into being (life from nonlife or awareness from unawareness).

So quit acting like science has demonstrated that life came from nonlife or that awareness came from a state of unawareness. It cannot approach those topics. You are not acting completely neutral so you are not being a rational adult.

I would describe any hypothesis of 'consciousness that came into being from a state of unconsciousness' as pseudoscience as well, because there is no way to approach it scientifically.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#635708 Jul 2, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, it totally has. Man evolved. The only other explanation is some trickster deity up in the sky running rampant - planting fossils everywhere, and seeding our dna with the dna of apes, wolves, and bananas, among other things. You either have to believe that your god is willfully deceiving us as a test or we evolved.
I don't have to believe anything. Certainly not that any kind of deceit is going on. Why wouldn't living organisms...of all shape and kind have similar DNA? we're living organisms...I mean a desktop computer and a cell phone have very similar make-up yet they are distinctly two different items. what's hard to comprehend about that? where's the trickery?

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#635709 Jul 2, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes
So you're telling me in radiometric dating there are no assumptions whatsoever at all made?

Since: Mar 13

Anaheim, California

#635710 Jul 2, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>Well then I better never hear you say that science knows what consciousness is, or that they have any clue whether it came into being or 'always was'.
If you have no beliefs then you are equally willing to accept the idea that consciousness/awareness always was in existence as you are willing to accept the idea that it came into being (life from nonlife or awareness from unawareness).
So quit acting like science has demonstrated that life came from nonlife or that awareness came from a state of unawareness. It cannot approach those topics. You are not acting completely neutral so you are not being a rational adult.
I would describe any hypothesis of 'consciousness that came into being from a state of unconsciousness' as pseudoscience as well, because there is no way to approach it scientifically.
In this round Pokay uppercuts Myth Buster with a full blow of pure philosophical reasoning!

Atheists still at 0 points!!

Myth Buster at low health..he's about to be...K.O.

In Mortal Kombat fight-narrator's voice: finish him!!
waaaz up

London, KY

#635711 Jul 2, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>That's not true...an ASENCE of something is NOT the proof of nothing, lol.
We need to prove "nothing" by being able to research, and measure it. How can we measure or research the ABSENCE of something?
<quoted text>Although something >could< have always existed, it in NO WAY means "something always existed"! Where did you get this stuff? lol
<quoted text>Nope! Wrong!
We are talking about NOTHING as though it is SOMETHING....and the absence of something is not measurable...so how can you think that?
That is NOT an example of nothing...nice try though.
At this point, according to ALL science, it is impossible to give an example of nothing, because we do not know what nothing is.
<quoted text>That's not true! We do NOT know that.
How do we know something can't come from nothing?
PROVE something can not come from nothing?????
HOw can you prove something cant come from nothing, when we have never been able to say what nothing is? Therefore we can not say for SURE something cant come from nothing?
<quoted text>I do not know. I guess if he was REAL, he would want us to know this very important info...right?
So either he doesn't care enough about us to let us know, or he isn't real....which do you think?
<quoted text>Yes, he would be still be a GOD, He would have MORE believers...no?
More people would trust his sup[posed word..eh?
He would be MORE of a God!
I would worship him!
How can you say showing PROOF of him being real "God" would make him less of a God? That makes absolutely NO sense.
Heck i dont know,, it sounded good to me...lol

All i know is, neither of us was around back then, and it is safe to say "no human" made or created this universe,(depends on your view), so all we have left is our on intrepretation of how it happened.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#635712 Jul 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently it did pokay , we can't answer exactly how.
But even if it's because a bearded sky fairy waved a magic wand and said "start thinking" ,
those neural networks started forming.
Science works on answering the question, even if it's hard.
But sees nothing but evolution to explain it.
Including the evolution of complex chains of organic carbon compounds
that became the building blocks of life that became DNA and life.
Otherwise known as abiogenesis.
There is no apparency here. Why is it apparent that it did? We don't know that there was no life in existence somewhere accessible to this existence/universe at all times. We don't know whether there was consciousness/awareness in existence at all times. So what do you mean "apparently it did"?
Then you know the difference between nothing, and absolute nothing.
Us having this conversation is evidence that absolute nothing never existed else we would not be.
Another genius statement. What *is* the difference between "nothing and absolute nothing"? Nothing is nothing isn't it? "Absolute nothing" is redundant isn't it?

OK then you can't be implying that something can come from nothing. At least we got that straight.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#635713 Jul 2, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
To understand radiometric dating, you need to understand measurement first. Any scientific measurement is expressed as a number of units, plus a tolerance. For instance, a spindle rod with a diameter of 26mm with 0.5mm tolerance. This means that the actual measurement, when measured by a more precise tool, would be 25.5-26.5 mm.
Now, radiometric dating also have such tolerances. On early Homo Sapiens, this tolerance would be maybe a thousand years. So if the test gives a result of 153,610 years old, their maybe a swing of 800 to a thousand years. Not very much, compared to 150,000 years, right?
Now, the farther back we look ,the rougher our tools become. When dating the oldest rocks on earth (using uranium) we would have a possible swing of a few million years. That sounds like a lot, but compared to 4.6 billion, it is a drop in the bucket.
Radiometric dating measures the decay of the Element, based upon that element's "half-life" Think of it this way. Let's say you leave your kids at home for a week, with food in the cupboards. If I go in on day 2, I would find most of the food still there. But I go in at day 6, and most of the food might be gone. I can thus determine roughly, how long you have been away, by examining only the food in the cupboard. If I know the smaller variables, like their weight, exercise routine, usual diet, favourite meals, I would be able to scientifically determine the time you were away, by measuring the kilojoule value of the food taken from the cupboard.
That is how radiometric dating works. Elements decay away, and we measure that decay. Some elements decay rate goes quick, like Carbon (about 5000 years) and others, like Uranium, are more than a billion years.
By all means, google this information, do not just take my word. Decay rates have never ever ever been proven not to be constant, despite a great many experiments.
Now. How about a small verification? Africa and South America were once joined, we know this due to the fact that the geologies align. Now, both move real slowly, at about 2 inches per year. If we take the vectors they are on now, at the rate they are moving, we find that they split roughly 97 million years ago.
Now, plantlife aan animal life began to diversify on both continents, after 97 million years, according to radiometric dating techniques of fossils. Tgis implies that before 97 million years, the continets were one. And at 97 million years, they split.
This evidence makes an extremely strong case for the accuracy of radiometric dating, since two sources corroborate each other
This is all excellent data and I truly commend and respect the scientists who figured all of this out. it's truly amazing. However, they still are basing this all on the assumption that the conditions of the atmosphere were the same thousands of years ago as they are today. How can we assume to know this if we don't even know what truly happened in the beginning?

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#635714 Jul 2, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
The Cambrian Period was earmarked by a cbemical compound in the soil that worked detramental to fossil formation. Currently, one in every million specimens gets fossilised. Why? Because fossilisation is very rare. Now, during the Cambrian, this figure may have been one in a hundred million. This gives very incomplete evidence.
To be completely honest, I don't know a heck of a lot about the Cambrian period....I only posted this article to show that scientists today are realizing that things they once thought true...probably aren't. This article brings about a lot of unanswered questions...and that's my whole point. To say science has it all figured out beyond a shadow of doubt is truly to kid yourself.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#635715 Jul 2, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, not rue. The evolution from mammal to humanoid has been proven above any reasonable doubt. Not one other theory can explain the fossil evidence. Not one.
No there is definitely reasonable doubt....And a lot of people doubt

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 8 min Skin Head Water Park 24,995
Anyone know any good deals from NoKeys? 48 min NOKEYS 2
News Gov. Abbott suggests 'bathroom bill' is likely ... 2 hr Laredo 4
Got any good jokes?? (Mar '07) 3 hr juliakk 1,831
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 hr Michael 685,540
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 5 hr RiccardoFire 46,286
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 6 hr DENG 39,257
More from around the web