By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Prove that God exists

Player1x3 on 06 September 2011
Runa216 said:
Player1x3 said:

than please enlighten me with the truth, but dont forget to provide evidence for that first :) and i didn't make anything up at all

The key difference being that I'm not making a high claim.  I'm not saying "there is no god" or "God does NOT feel this way", I'm just seeing an inconsistency and requesting supporting evidence.  


God would never allow living people to have an observable evidence on him, that would seriously damage his plan. And i based my claim on logic and some basic theological studies regarding omnipotent deity.



Around the Network
Player1x3 on 06 September 2011
forest-spirit said:
How can we think of something that doesn't exist?

I believe that God exists but he's nothing but a thought created by mankind. He exists, just like Athena or Horus or Odin or Morgoth exists.

I don't believe he exists outside of our minds and texts though, and if he does he's one selfish, sick, evil bastard.
Just think about it, the only way for you to be accepted into heaven is to live by his rules, and before we were able to spread information around the globe those rules were only known by a small portion of the world's population.

Basically:
God to a European: "Hey, you were born in Europe! Congratulations, the priests there will tell you about Christ and how to be a good Christian so that you may walk with me in heaven once you're dead and buried. Yay!"
God to an Aborigine: "I don't know how to say this but, you were born in the wrong part of the world. You'll never get the chance to become a Christian since, well, I was too lazy to send you that note. Not that I cared anyway. You'll end up in hell. Sucks to be you I guess, but there's only so many seats in heaven anyway, so..."

If God is some kind of omnipotent thingy that cares about his creations then w godhy didn't he give everyone on earth a fair chance? It's like giving all 1st graders a trip to Disneyland if they go to school wearing this particular hat but you only tell the children of one school about it and all the other 1st graders will have to be mindreaders (and being a mindreader is bloody unorthodox and will get you raped) or they'll miss out. Heck, they'll miss out on Disneyland, they'll get told that they didn't get to go and they'll get beaten up by the principal as punishment for their lack of psychic powers (which, they shouldn't have unless they want to die a horrible death).


God doesnt divide people by their skin colour and ethnicity, how can you even say that, you dont know single thing about god



zarx on 06 September 2011
Player1x3 said:
Runa216 said:
Player1x3 said:

than please enlighten me with the truth, but dont forget to provide evidence for that first :) and i didn't make anything up at all

The key difference being that I'm not making a high claim.  I'm not saying "there is no god" or "God does NOT feel this way", I'm just seeing an inconsistency and requesting supporting evidence.  


God would never allow living people to have an observable evidence on him, that would seriously damage his plan. And i based my claim on logic and some basic theological studies regarding omnipotent deity.

Most christians would claim that the Bible is "observable evidence", others claim this world and humans are both "observable evidence" and some even claim to have seen him, there are also many other peices of "observable evidence" of god (or at least that is what many people of faith and religious orgs claim) does that mean you think that god mustn't exist? I mean if you beileve that he is perfect and that "observable evidence"..."would seriously damage his plan" that must mean that you don't think god is real...



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

realsubzero on 06 September 2011

Each to their own. I am an athiest, but I have to agree, this is a stupid thread to start. You will never ever get a fair debate on this subject over a forum. Its hard enough to have this conversation with a person in the same room let alone faceless people who can say what they like, including the original poster.

Look, either 2 things will happen with a thread like this, you either offend the religious people on this site by clearly attempting to belittle their beliefs, or a flame war will start. there are very few other outcomes to this.

Look, i dont believe in god, i dont believe in his existence, or any gods existence. And i am sorry if that offends people who are devoted to one religion or another. I dont try to cause offense. There is no proof of his existence, but their is also no proof he doesnt exist either. I would quite happy to be wrong and if god was proven to be real, then great.

Dont try and bait people into an argument about it though. Unless the original poster can claim to offer proof, then i find it cheeky and rude that he demand other people prove it. It a post was started asking athiests to prove there was no god, their would be uproar. And please, fellow athiests, dont come back and say that science proves this, it doesnt. no where close. Science will continue to investigate the universe etc but there are things we dont know and cannot prove. Sure the big bang theory ( the actual theory, not the show :P ) is simply a theory. hense the name. Scientiest know they cannot 100 prove this theory yet, hense the title.

Let people believe what they want, everyone has that right. I certainly dont think religion is a bad idea, i just feel the people running these religions are the idiots out to make as much money as possible.

IE: the irish catholic church have actually had the cheek to ask the government to impose a catholic household tax. The irish catholic church is on the verge of bankrupcy due to the payouts of child abuse and want the irish catholics taxed to cover these costs. This is the kind of thing that makes me sick.



DélioPT on 06 September 2011
forest-spirit said:
How can we think of something that doesn't exist?

I believe that God exists but he's nothing but a thought created by mankind. He exists, just like Athena or Horus or Odin or Morgoth exists.

I don't believe he exists outside of our minds and texts though, and if he does he's one selfish, sick, evil bastard.
Just think about it, the only way for you to be accepted into heaven is to live by his rules, and before we were able to spread information around the globe those rules were only known by a small portion of the world's population.

Basically:
God to a European: "Hey, you were born in Europe! Congratulations, the priests there will tell you about Christ and how to be a good Christian so that you may walk with me in heaven once you're dead and buried. Yay!"
God to an Aborigine: "I don't know how to say this but, you were born in the wrong part of the world. You'll never get the chance to become a Christian since, well, I was too lazy to send you that note. Not that I cared anyway. You'll end up in hell. Sucks to be you I guess, but there's only so many seats in heaven anyway, so..."

If God is some kind of omnipotent thingy that cares about his creations then why didn't he give everyone on earth a fair chance? It's like giving all 1st graders a trip to Disneyland if they go to school wearing this particular hat but you only tell the children of one school about it and all the other 1st graders will have to be mindreaders (and being a mindreader is bloody unorthodox and will get you raped) or they'll miss out. Heck, they'll miss out on Disneyland, they'll get told that they didn't get to go and they'll get beaten up by the principal as punishment for their lack of psychic powers (which, they shouldn't have unless they want to die a horrible death).

But He did.
Before Jesus, people were judge by the goodness of their heart. Luke 16:19-28
That`s why the Bible says those who died either went to Hades to a place of torment or the Bosom of Abraham. And when Jesus went there, after dying, judgment was obtained for everyone.



Around the Network
GameOver22 on 06 September 2011
zarx said:
GameOver22 said:
zarx said:
GameOver22 said:

It seems like everybody ignored your post, but I think you raise a number of good points. The one thing I always found ironic about the scientific method is that it actually utilizes an invalid argument form (affirming the consequent). The way the scientific method is structured, it says,

1. If hypothesis A is true, B will be observed.

2. B is observed.

3. Therefore, hypothesis A is true. 

This is an invalid argument form. As a counterexample:

1. If there is fire, then there is oxygen.

2. There is oxygen

3. Therefore, there is fire.

Obviously, this is false because the presence of oxygen does not mean there is fire. In the same way, the first argument is false because the presence of B does not mean hypothesis A is true. This is why there is such an emphasis on repeatability in science, and scientists are always quick to point out they don't prove theories. The best they can do is repeatably confirm them, and they argue that repeated confirmation allows theories to become knowledge.

Overall, I agree with you that the scientific method is the best system we have for gaining knowledge about the empirical world, but it is still a flawed system.


That is nothing like the scientific method, the scientific method requires testing all known controlable variables to insure a hypothisis is correct.

1. If there is fire, then there is oxygen.

2. There is oxygen

3. Therefore, there is fire.

 

4. Test whether there is fire.

would be the scientific method which is at it's most basic:

 

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.

2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.

3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?

4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

What you proposed would have failed the 4th step let alone the more complete method:

 

 

1. Define a question

2. Gather information and resources (observe)

3. Form an explanatory hypothesis

4. Perform an experiment and collect data, testing the hypothesis

5. Analyze the data

6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

7. Publish results

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

 

 

I think you missed my point. I'm not maintaining that what I just stated is the scientific method. It is simply the hypothesis testing steps of the scientific method in any given experiment (steps 3 and 4 in your list). You form the hypothesis and then test it. Through the test, the hypothesis is then confirmed or falsified. If falsified, a new hypothesis is investigated. If confirmed, then scientists repeat the experiments to confirm the accuracy of the hypothesis.

Also, my fire and oxygen example was a counterexample to show why affirming the consequent is an invalid argument form  (not an example of the scientific method at work).

You clearly suggest you were using an example of the scientific method in your post. And then in your example you left off the most important step, actually verifying that your counclusions bassed on your hypothisis are correct. Without that step it's not sciance but philosophy. 

Which is why String Theory is considered by a large part of the scientific comunity to be bad science and closer to philosophy as there is no way of verifying any of the conclusions that people derive from the theory yet. 

Sorry about the confusion.....bad wording on my part in my original post now that I look back at it. Hope I cleared up some of the ambiguity.



Final-Fan on 06 September 2011
zarx said:
Player1x3 said:
Runa216 said:
Player1x3 said:

than please enlighten me with the truth, but dont forget to provide evidence for that first :) and i didn't make anything up at all

The key difference being that I'm not making a high claim.  I'm not saying "there is no god" or "God does NOT feel this way", I'm just seeing an inconsistency and requesting supporting evidence. 

God would never allow living people to have an observable evidence on him, that would seriously damage his plan. And i based my claim on logic and some basic theological studies regarding omnipotent deity.

Most christians would claim that the Bible is "observable evidence", others claim this world and humans are both "observable evidence" and some even claim to have seen him, there are also many other peices of "observable evidence" of god (or at least that is what many people of faith and religious orgs claim) does that mean you think that god mustn't exist? I mean if you beileve that he is perfect and that "observable evidence"..."would seriously damage his plan" that must mean that you don't think god is real...

No no, it just means all that stuff is false evidence.  The REAL god remains undetected and undetectable, hanging out in space or whatever.  Everyone basing their religious belief on any sort of personal experience or holy text involving ANY interaction between us and God or God's agents is wrong. 

Right, Player? 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Final-Fan on 06 September 2011

Also this means his "theological studies" are actually sheer speculation, handed down from other speculators. Because with no evidence, guessing is all you can do.



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

sorsha113 on 06 September 2011

All of us who have FAITH in God do question it from time to time.  I know I do.  But for you to ask someone to "prove there is without question" is RIDICULOUS! 

Whether there is or is not a God isn't the question.  It's whether or not YOU believe!  Seeing isn't always believing!  Believing is just that Believing!



Flattery will get you nowhere - but don't stop trying.

Miss Moneypenny

DélioPT on 06 September 2011

Padib, strangest thing is, the world accepted Socrates without a single word written by him. All that is known is what Plato said that he said. Yet, the world believes that what he sais is true.
To the prophecies you pointed out,ì`ll add that there are actually prophecies to this day made in the context of Christianity (God, Jesus, Mary) that did happen, and not to long ago.