Does God Exist? [Arguments & Proofs]

[tech/a]

So you are telling me that your faith should be taught to our children?
I was taught to believe in evolution through to my University years because this was a so called 'theory' that some lecturer believed in.

Evolution is a proven fact.
It is not a faith.
To believe in a god one needs faith.
Stark reality is an impossible pill to swallow for those who desperately need a reason for existing.
To be a fluke in nature just as all living organisms are is in comprehensible to most.
Enjoy this existance B and B it will pass you buy faster than you think!

 

[wayneL]

Evolution is a proven fact.

It is??

I think it's pretty evident that there has been a progression of organisms (IMO), call it evolution if you will. In this sense evolution is fact; but the exact mechanism is hotly disputed, even amongst evolutionists.

For instance, faced with the above, religionistas may claim that God caused evolution to happen. This cannot be disproven. In this sense, the exact mechanism of evolution, remains in the realms of hypothesis.

IOW there is much about the theory of evolution that is not testable and ergo, speculative.

 

[tech/a]

It is??

I think it's pretty evident that there has been a progression of organisms (IMO), call it evolution if you will. In this sense evolution is fact; but the exact mechanism is hotly disputed, even amongst evolutionists.

For instance, faced with the above, religionistas may claim that God caused evolution to happen. This cannot be disproven. In this sense, the exact mechanism of evolution, remains in the realms of hypothesis.

IOW there is much about the theory of evolution that is not testable and ergo, speculative.

As this could be discussed infinitum I will stand corrected on the stone cold fact issue.

 

[Sean K]

I was taught to believe in evolution through to my University years because this was a so called 'theory' that some lecturer believed in.

Your science teaching should have been teaching the truth from Genesis Ch2:


19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
26 And man and wife played hide the sausage, to create mankind.
27 And God said that it was a bloody good show.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Kennas have you read Michael Tellinger's book Slave Species or other writings?

 

[Ruby]

Well according to this philosophy we can also reasonably deduce that the events of the bible were real and therefore God is real.

No, that is not a reasonable deduction. I could write a book about the fairies at the bottom of my garden, but that does not make them real. Biblical scholars now have a lot of evidence which suggests the bible was written by many disparate people, and the first written recordings date from around 1,000BC - at the time of the book of Kings. This is about 2,000 years after the purported events of the early part of the old testament. An oral tradition handed down for that length of time bears little resemblance to the truth. If you don't believe me, do some reading on the cargo cults of the 1940's and 1950's, and on a person called John Frum who is revered as a god in some parts of the south Pacific. (This is documented fact and there are people alive today who belong to this cult.) You will see how easily truth becomes distorted -and this is less than 100 years ago.

So you are telling me that your faith should be taught to our children?
I was taught to believe in evolution through to my University years because this was a so called 'theory' that some lecturer believed in.

Evolution is not just a "so called theory that some lecturer believed in", it is supported by a massive weight of evidence which is being added to daily, and is believed in by most reputable scientists. Furthermore, a "theory" is not just an "idea", it is a proposition which is put forward only after a large body of evidence has led to its formulation. (Not well expressed - perhaps someone in the scientific commumity can do better.)

 

[Julia]

How about we take a couple of steps back, bullsvs bears, and you share with us (I love that caring, sharing stuff) what your biblical beliefs actually do for your daily life?

Because isn't this what it really all comes down to? Don't we choose our beliefs for the happiness or comfort they confer on our tedious daily existence?
Or perhaps our future if we believe in life after death in order to make dying less frightening?

How about dropping the adversarial approach, and engaging in a genuine explanation of how your religion benefits your existence.

To do so would be to present yourself as someone genuinely engaged with their religious beliefs, as distinct from an internet troll looking for an argument.

 

[spooly74]

It is??

Yes.
Btw, anyone got a good definition of what 'life' is?

I think it's pretty evident that there has been a progression of organisms (IMO), call it evolution if you will. In this sense evolution is fact; but the exact mechanism is hotly disputed, even amongst evolutionists.

That mechanism is called abiogenisis, like it or not.
For me, it's QED. We're here.
Some Billions of years ago, if we could travel back to a stereotypical 'pond scum' and test it's properties, we could categorically say, that is not 'life'.
Then, some millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of years later on a return trip, we could test it and categorically say, that is 'life'.
Is there any better hypothesis out there?

But, anyway, why stop at an ordinary rock from an ordinary sun? What's to ground us here?
Every cell in our bodies (bar hydrogen?) was manufactured inside a star.
That takes time.
The fact that we exist requires the Universe to be old, and it is.

IOW there is much about the theory of evolution that is not testable and ergo, speculative.

Evolution says nothing on the origin of life.
There is no evidence against the evolution of life.

So you are telling me that your faith should be taught to our children?
I was taught to believe in evolution through to my University years because this was a so called 'theory' that some lecturer believed in

You have no idea what a theory is.
You're just a village IDiot.

 

[brty]

There is a little something here about the 'theory' of evolution..

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

I particularly like the opening comments...

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

It is usually very hard to get religious nuts to comment on, or for that matter to mention evolution, after they see there is science behind it.

brty

 

[sails]

How about we take a couple of steps back, bullsvs bears, and you share with us (I love that caring, sharing stuff) what your biblical beliefs actually do for your daily life?

Because isn't this what it really all comes down to? Don't we choose our beliefs for the happiness or comfort they confer on our tedious daily existence?
Or perhaps our future if we believe in life after death in order to make dying less frightening?...

I think your comments are spot on, Julia.

I also get a little tired of people (most likely well meaning) that try to force their religious ideas on to other people. Theological discussions rarely do more than further evolve into arguments. Perhaps that's what the good book means when it tells us that "the letter of the law kills but the spirit gives life".

Although I had a strict religious upbringing, I have since questioned many of the values I was taught and have listened with an open mind to those with opposing views. As a result, I have dropped off a lot of tradition but kept what I believe is valuable. This does not mean I am perfect and am not protected from my fair share of the roller coasters of life. However, faith in God does help through the rough times and I have been humbled on several occasions where I have felt that God was no where to be found in times of despair only to find that, when the time was right, unexpected relief would come often above and beyond for that which had been hoped.

"Religion" without the fruit of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control) usually becomes nothing but an empty organisation and often a controlling and negative force on other people's lives.

The popularity of these types of threads is always interesting. Is it because we have a God consciousness within us that is somehow looking for fulfilment?

The good book also tells us that if we seek we shall find. I think those that sincerely want to find God will do so and will experience an overwhelming sense of peace that has nothing to do with arguments and proof.

Not sure if that makes any sense - it's just my FWIW...

 

[wayneL]

Yes.
Btw, anyone got a good definition of what 'life' is?

That mechanism is called abiogenisis, like it or not.
For me, it's QED. We're here.
Some Billions of years ago, if we could travel back to a stereotypical 'pond scum' and test it's properties, we could categorically say, that is not 'life'.
Then, some millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of years later on a return trip, we could test it and categorically say, that is 'life'.
Is there any better hypothesis out there?

I don't know if there is a better one or not, but it remains a hypothesis. Hypothesis is not proof, it's educated speculation.

It is a tremendous leap to claim proof, no matter how convinced you are

But, anyway, why stop at an ordinary rock from an ordinary sun? What's to ground us here?
Every cell in our bodies (bar hydrogen?) was manufactured inside a star.
That takes time.
The fact that we exist requires the Universe to be old, and it is.


Evolution says nothing on the origin of life.
There is no evidence against the evolution of life.

I am not arguing against evolution at, just that their are enormous gaps. We know for certain, certain things, but the gaps must be filled via hypothesis. Some people hypothesize things that others find ridiculous, c'est la vie.

 

[Twiddle]

Just a reminder, in scientific parlance "Theory" means; an explanatory framework for a collection of factual observations.

A theory carries the highest form of credibility available to science. It is very different to how we use the term "theory" in day to day life.

That life evolves is an observed fact.
That natural selection is a mechanism for change is an observed fact.

Whether or not natural selection is the "only" cause of evolutionary change is debated somewhat. However it is a gross misrepresentation to claim there is any real controversy over natural selection in the biological sciences.

 

[spooly74]

I don't know if there is a better one or not, but it remains a hypothesis. Hypothesis is not proof, it's educated speculation.

It is a tremendous leap to claim proof, no matter how convinced you are

IMO the direct proof of abigenesis is that we are here today. We know that life occured at least once.
It's the mechanism that remains out of reach, but the absence of proof is not proof of absence.

There are only two proposed alternatives.
1. Steady State Universe - Life has always existed. Observation proves this to be false.
2. A supernatural power created life around the same time the Universe was creating the elements in our bodies today.

Anything else is abiogenesis.

I am not arguing against evolution at, just that their are enormous gaps. We know for certain, certain things, but the gaps must be filled via hypothesis. Some people hypothesize things that others find ridiculous, c'est la vie.

'Enormous gaps' like the dino to bird myth No, seriously?

 

[Boognish]

Where are all the crocoducks?

 

[wayneL]

'Enormous gaps' like the dino to bird myth No, seriously?

Is that a straw man argument?

If not, what is the relevance of the dino to bird myth?

If so, why immediately resort to argumentative fallacy?

 

[derty]

It's not really clear what gaps you are referring to wayneL, which is probably why assumptions are being made.

Are you talking of gaps in the understanding of the mechanisms that drive evolution or are you talking of gaps in the fossil record?

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

What about Atlantis and the underwater man made constructions near Okinawa at Yonoguni? Were they made by the evolution humans or the creationist humans?

 

[explod]

What about Atlantis and the underwater man made constructions near Okinawa at Yonoguni? Were they made by the evolution humans or the creationist humans?

Not sure if you are trying us on here SP, but either way, their belief system and what they may have made/created has no bearing on existence, or how we evolved. At most the artifacts attributed to Atlantis are not more that 5 to 6,000 years old (just off the cuff from memory). If it took a billion years from the first two cells to get together to make the first bug that could wriggle then that is a very short time.

In fact our conscious presence at this time on this earth has little to do with who is God, and is or is he not, a pre-existing immortal who can just think his way around the universe.

Of course if there is such a God then the argumant would be entirely different, so perhaps by this deduction you are with him SP.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Not sure if you are trying us on here SP, but either way, their belief system and what they may have made/created has no bearing on existence, or how we evolved. At most the artifacts attributed to Atlantis are not more that 5 to 6,000 years old (just off the cuff from memory). If it took a billion years from the first two cells to get together to make the first bug that could wriggle then that is a very short time.

In fact our conscious presence at this time on this earth has little to do with who is God, and is or is he not, a pre-existing immortal who can just think his way around the universe.

Of course if there is such a God then the argumant would be entirely different, so perhaps by this deduction you are with him SP.

Explod,

My questions are genuine. I recently watch Hitchens talking about the topic which has piqued my interest.

Your comments above on consciousness are interesting, though I cannot accept a human descriptiveness as a descriptiveness for the topic.

Cheers..

 

[bullsvsbears]

No, that is not a reasonable deduction. I could write a book about the fairies at the bottom of my garden, but that does not make them real. Biblical scholars now have a lot of evidence which suggests the bible was written by many disparate people, and the first written recordings date from around 1,000BC - at the time of the book of Kings. This is about 2,000 years after the purported events of the early part of the old testament. An oral tradition handed down for that length of time bears little resemblance to the truth. If you don't believe me, do some reading on the cargo cults of the 1940's and 1950's, and on a person called John Frum who is revered as a god in some parts of the south Pacific. (This is documented fact and there are people alive today who belong to this cult.) You will see how easily truth becomes distorted -and this is less than 100 years ago.

Back up what you say with facts here!

Evolution is not just a "so called theory that some lecturer believed in", it is supported by a massive weight of evidence which is being added to daily, and is believed in by most reputable scientists. Furthermore, a "theory" is not just an "idea", it is a proposition which is put forward only after a large body of evidence has led to its formulation. (Not well expressed - perhaps someone in the scientific commumity can do better.)

Massive weight of evidence???? or was it force fed down your throat at school when you were young and impressionable only to become fact?? There is no massive evidence supporting evolution but massive gap filling theories. Science has gone too far down the evolution track to admit it is wrong and many so called learned people make good money preaching such theories.