Post any empirical proof of God here

[JBeukema]

God is not about proving he exists. That would remove free will

Then Adam and Eve had no free will (since they had physical proof of god's existence- they'd seen him) and therefore they could not sin of their own accord. You just debunked your entire religion the moment your moronic assertion is accepted.

Care to try again?


This is kinda like you attributing words to jesus and then running away when I ask you for book, chapter, and verse

Moron. Gee no wonder you are so stupid about religion. Adam and Eve sinned because they were ordered not to eat from the one tree of Knowledge.

Did they have the free will to do so? They had proof god existed.

God is not about proving he exists. That would remove free will

Without free will, actions are meaningless and there can be no 'sin' in any meaningful sense as one cannot disobey if one does not have free will.

But then no one that I know of has accused you of being very bright.

Freewill applies to everyone even those few that actually saw God.

+

God is not about proving he exists. That would remove free will

=

self contradiction. If free will applies to those who've seen god, then clearly god proving his existence doesn't 'remove free will'. You're refuting yourself for me and I don't have to do anything but watch
.

And the fact Adam and Eve ate from the tree is ACTUALLY evidence that supports free will dumb ass. God ordered them not to eat from it, yet they did. Go figure Einstein.

So you recant your moronic assertion that

God is not about proving he exists. That would remove free will

?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are an idiot. Keep proving it , I will keep laughing my ass off. You have no capability to understand yet you attack concepts your pee brain can not handle. Once again you anti religious zealot, grow up.

By the way dumb fuck have you ever converted anyone into not believing?

 

[N4mddissent]

According to chaos theory and physics, anything is possible ... that being so, with the number of religions, the number of myths about more powerful beings than us, the chances are high that something is above us. However, even with all that, if you can't believe in it yourself, then there is nothing that will convince you. It works with everything really, you have to believe what you want and let everyone else believe what they want, or no matter what god myth is most accurate, you will not have good standing.

I agree that everyone is allowed to come to their own personal conclusions and would never advocate compulsory adherence to one position or another. It is also important, I believe, to express one's reservations and criticisms of other positions. I know for myself, it serves to both help clarify misconceptions about my own view and promotes critical reflection among others. So I would allow others to believe what they want, but I do not think it is beneficial to then leave beliefs unexamined. And if they are examined, some will naturally prove to better supported by logic and evidence. This does not mean less rational beliefs must be abandoned, only that they are perhaps less worthy of consideration by those who hold other views.

And by the way, if you did not realize it, your statement about the commonplace nature of myths about "higher beings" constituting support for your statement that "chances are high that something is above us" is a logical fallacy- appeal to belief (which is a subset of appeal to popularity).

After all, most of the people in the world believed slavery was morally acceptable at one time. Most believed that women should submit to male authority. Most believed that the best explanation for the day/nigh cycle was the revolution of the sun around the earth.

Most people believing something, or a belief being common, does not logically influence the validity of the claim. Many argue that the exclusive nature and irreconcilable differences between these claims actually support the idea that none are true.

 

[JBeukema]

You are an idiot. Keep proving it , I will keep laughing my ass off. You have no capability to understand yet you attack concepts your pee brain can not handle. Once again you anti religious zealot, grow up.

By the way dumb fuck have you ever converted anyone into not believing?

Stop evading and learn how to flame properly. If you're going to try.

Do you recant or do you stand by your assertion that Man never sinned in the garden of eden, there is no original sin, and there is no need to a 'savior'?

 

[JBeukema]

Stop evading, retardedsgt

Do you recant your idiotic assertion that knowing god exists 'removes free will' or stand by your assertion that (by your reasoning) there is no such thing as 'sin' in the garden of eden and your entire religion is without any basis whatsoever?

 

[Smartt33]

So you got none. So why you posting here anyways?

The proof is in the simple things, and people who want proof are not looking for the simple things. Thinking themselves to be wise, proof seekers have become fools. I have all the proof I need, you are still looking for your proof. Go for it. I'll not cause you to become more foolish for rejecting my simple proofs.

You are obviously too stoopid to understand the word "empirical". Please stfu.

With your statement here, I believe Intellegent Design (ID) can stand strong. There is plenty of evidence that there must be a designer, considering how well made all creation is. That cannot really intellectually be denied.

 

[Smartt33]

One thing is for sure, if there is a God, you will know in the final hour, and then you can say there is indeed proof.

So you're not sure? You're worshipping a Maybe?

No, that "if" was there for the skeptics. I know whom I worship, and what is even better, He knows me.

 

[Diuretic]

The proof is in the simple things, and people who want proof are not looking for the simple things. Thinking themselves to be wise, proof seekers have become fools. I have all the proof I need, you are still looking for your proof. Go for it. I'll not cause you to become more foolish for rejecting my simple proofs.

You are obviously too stoopid to understand the word "empirical". Please stfu.

With your statement here, I believe Intellegent Design (ID) can stand strong. There is plenty of evidence that there must be a designer, considering how well made all creation is. That cannot really intellectually be denied.

There isn't plenty of evidence at all. And it's easy to deny it.

You know, if people want to believe that there is a God and that He created everything, that's fine. Belief doesn't need evidence. So why the stretch by the IDiots to try and prove God exists by finding "evidence" that He created everything. Every claim is debunked but still they go on. Why? What is it that drives them to try and find evidence? Is their faith so weak? Or is their hatred for non-believers so strong?

 

[Smartt33]

Stand up. Now jump.

Back on the floor now?

There ya go.

If that is scientific proof, and enough for you, then you are indeed a fool for not believing in God.

M-Theory answers that question....

Gravity doesn't emerge from our uiniverse/ the dimensions we're familiar with. It eminates from another and 'bleeds' into this world, causing it to be by far the weakest of the fundamental forces.

The only problem yet found with M-Theory is that there is no known way to detect the branes or strings and noone's yet been able to construct an experiment to test the hypotheses. However, M-Theory recently proved the first model capable of explaining the quantum state of electrons.

So, are you saying that if there is a God, He emerged from our universe? You must be if you are asking for more proog of Him than of gravity. Yet you accept jumping as proof. Hmmm. Our universe emerged from God. So, your theory must allow for no proof of God even though He is absolutely real. Thanks.

I never asked for 'proog'

Yours is perhaps the most idiotic response I've ever heard. Do you also believe the banana is proof of god?

No, they may be proof of monkeys. If there is no God, I suppose bananas are why you are here.

 

[KittenKoder]

Proof that there is a higher intelligence watching us: We have not witnessed a true global catastrophe (the flood in the christian bible has yet to be proven) yet, and according to probability, chaos theory, and physics, this is impossible. Our species has been around long enough that one should have happened about 1,000 years ago, so either we are past due and could be wiped out tomorrow, or something is watching over us.

 

[Diuretic]

Proof that there is a higher intelligence watching us: We have not witnessed a true global catastrophe (the flood in the christian bible has yet to be proven) yet, and according to probability, chaos theory, and physics, this is impossible. Our species has been around long enough that one should have happened about 1,000 years ago, so either we are past due and could be wiped out tomorrow, or something is watching over us.

That's not proof Kitten. And there are more than two options to explain the lack of global catastrophe so far.

 

[KittenKoder]

Proof that there is a higher intelligence watching us: We have not witnessed a true global catastrophe (the flood in the christian bible has yet to be proven) yet, and according to probability, chaos theory, and physics, this is impossible. Our species has been around long enough that one should have happened about 1,000 years ago, so either we are past due and could be wiped out tomorrow, or something is watching over us.

That's not proof Kitten. And there are more than two options to explain the lack of global catastrophe so far.

Really? Then explain without using philosophy.

 

[Diuretic]

Proof that there is a higher intelligence watching us: We have not witnessed a true global catastrophe (the flood in the christian bible has yet to be proven) yet, and according to probability, chaos theory, and physics, this is impossible. Our species has been around long enough that one should have happened about 1,000 years ago, so either we are past due and could be wiped out tomorrow, or something is watching over us.

That's not proof Kitten. And there are more than two options to explain the lack of global catastrophe so far.

Really? Then explain without using philosophy.

Me use philosophy? I struggled through Logic 101, really

It's entirely possible God exists and that He is watching over us. That's a supposition. It can't be proven and it can't be inferred from what we see happening or not happening. That's all. Not can it be disproven. It's simply beyond proof either way. And we can't know the cause of nothing happening. We can know the causes of various catastrophes of weather and geology (or we can hypothesise and apply knowledge) but we can't prove either way that a creator is the force behind the cause of the event or is not causing an event.

 

[KittenKoder]

That's not proof Kitten. And there are more than two options to explain the lack of global catastrophe so far.

Really? Then explain without using philosophy.

Me use philosophy? I struggled through Logic 101, really

It's entirely possible God exists and that He is watching over us. That's a supposition. It can't be proven and it can't be inferred from what we see happening or not happening. That's all. Not can it be disproven. It's simply beyond proof either way. And we can't know the cause of nothing happening. We can know the causes of various catastrophes of weather and geology (or we can hypothesise and apply knowledge) but we can't prove either way that a creator is the force behind the cause of the event or is not causing an event.

Well, what is not provable is what form of higher intelligence, I didn't specify that. Just that something bigger than us is watching over us, using the same logic that others use to say that there is nothing above us. Not all religions pretend to know all the answers, many just theorize and offer possibilities with the goal of giving people a reason to be good. However, depending on how you look at the science, there are many facts that do support the existence of some superior intelligence while nothing can disprove it.

 

[JBeukema]

i believe intellegent design (id) can stand strong. There is plenty of evidence that there must be a designer, considering how well made all creation is. That cannot really intellectually be denied.

I'm tempted to call Poe's Law at this point; nobody can be this stupid...

proof that there is a higher intelligence watching us: We have not witnessed a true global catastrophe (the flood in the christian bible has yet to be proven) yet, and according to probability, chaos theory, and physics, this is impossible. Our species has been around long enough that one should have happened about 1,000 years ago, so either we are past due and could be wiped out tomorrow, or something is watching over us.

ignore logic, ignore facts, ignore science...

that explains so many of your posts....

qed

 

[Diuretic]

Really? Then explain without using philosophy.

Me use philosophy? I struggled through Logic 101, really

It's entirely possible God exists and that He is watching over us. That's a supposition. It can't be proven and it can't be inferred from what we see happening or not happening. That's all. Not can it be disproven. It's simply beyond proof either way. And we can't know the cause of nothing happening. We can know the causes of various catastrophes of weather and geology (or we can hypothesise and apply knowledge) but we can't prove either way that a creator is the force behind the cause of the event or is not causing an event.

Well, what is not provable is what form of higher intelligence, I didn't specify that. Just that something bigger than us is watching over us, using the same logic that others use to say that there is nothing above us. Not all religions pretend to know all the answers, many just theorize and offer possibilities with the goal of giving people a reason to be good. However, depending on how you look at the science, there are many facts that do support the existence of some superior intelligence while nothing can disprove it.

Science is the wrong process. Metaphysics is required I think. I think that's why some fundies are scared of science, they think it exists to disprove God. It doesn't. It just beetles along doing its thing.

I can't think of any facts that prove the existence of a creator or some sort of First Cause.

 

[KittenKoder]

Me use philosophy? I struggled through Logic 101, really

It's entirely possible God exists and that He is watching over us. That's a supposition. It can't be proven and it can't be inferred from what we see happening or not happening. That's all. Not can it be disproven. It's simply beyond proof either way. And we can't know the cause of nothing happening. We can know the causes of various catastrophes of weather and geology (or we can hypothesise and apply knowledge) but we can't prove either way that a creator is the force behind the cause of the event or is not causing an event.

Well, what is not provable is what form of higher intelligence, I didn't specify that. Just that something bigger than us is watching over us, using the same logic that others use to say that there is nothing above us. Not all religions pretend to know all the answers, many just theorize and offer possibilities with the goal of giving people a reason to be good. However, depending on how you look at the science, there are many facts that do support the existence of some superior intelligence while nothing can disprove it.

Science is the wrong process. Metaphysics is required I think. I think that's why some fundies are scared of science, they think it exists to disprove God. It doesn't. It just beetles along doing its thing.

I can't think of any facts that prove the existence of a creator or some sort of First Cause.

There's the thing though, metaphysics and physics are becoming more alike with each decade. Chaos theory and other sciences keep driving them closer together. The truly fantastic thing is the more we study chaos, the more we understand what physics cannot explain, thus changing some metaphysics into physics. Other sciences, such as neurology, have increased the speed in which this happens. We have, in the pursuit of understanding intelligence (applying to artificial intelligence) learned how the brain works, but it has also made us realize that there is something in life we still haven't found a way to quantify, thus the barriers in AI design. While we can simulate thought, it never achieves realization. So, there is still a great many possibilities within our "hard" sciences that have yet to be discovered, the existence of a higher intelligence being one that is extremely likely, just not yet understood.

 

[JBeukema]

KK's like a child who's learned a new word but not what it really means or how to use it.

 

[KittenKoder]

KK's like a child who's learned a new word but not what it really means or how to use it.

You should post explanations of your false accusations, or do you fear being wrong so much you cannot offer a chance to counter?

 

[Diuretic]

Well, what is not provable is what form of higher intelligence, I didn't specify that. Just that something bigger than us is watching over us, using the same logic that others use to say that there is nothing above us. Not all religions pretend to know all the answers, many just theorize and offer possibilities with the goal of giving people a reason to be good. However, depending on how you look at the science, there are many facts that do support the existence of some superior intelligence while nothing can disprove it.

Science is the wrong process. Metaphysics is required I think. I think that's why some fundies are scared of science, they think it exists to disprove God. It doesn't. It just beetles along doing its thing.

I can't think of any facts that prove the existence of a creator or some sort of First Cause.

There's the thing though, metaphysics and physics are becoming more alike with each decade. Chaos theory and other sciences keep driving them closer together. The truly fantastic thing is the more we study chaos, the more we understand what physics cannot explain, thus changing some metaphysics into physics. Other sciences, such as neurology, have increased the speed in which this happens. We have, in the pursuit of understanding intelligence (applying to artificial intelligence) learned how the brain works, but it has also made us realize that there is something in life we still haven't found a way to quantify, thus the barriers in AI design. While we can simulate thought, it never achieves realization. So, there is still a great many possibilities within our "hard" sciences that have yet to be discovered, the existence of a higher intelligence being one that is extremely likely, just not yet understood.

The gods did not reveal from the beginning,
All things to us, but in the course of time
Through seeking we may learn and know things better,
But as for certain truth, no man has known it,
Nor shall he know it, neither of the gods
Nor yet of all the things of which I speak.
For even if by chance he were to utter
The final truth, he would himself not know it;
For all is but a woven web of guesses.

Xenophanes trans. Popper

We'll never know, but it's exciting finding out.