"*bangs head on keyboard*"

Yeah, I know how you feel. I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure you know what I'm saying, so forget it.

I don't get what you are saying either, spree. Science cannot be "debunked" as religion perhaps can be. Science and scientific laws have backing, proof, and experimental evidence. Religion has basically word-of-mouth credibility and an investment in faith. It's easy enough to debunk something based primarily on personal faith- but no so much with something that CAN be proven true.

I'm afraid I can't argue a point as to his existance, because not only do I often question the very being/entity that God (supposedly) is, but I also find that those who preach constantly about his existance are fooling themselves because not once have they ever given solid proof of his existance/once existance. All they ever say (to me anyway) is "The Bible"... right.. how do you know that the Bible isn't another historical fairy tale?

That's my schpeel for the day ^^

Okay.... I'll try this one more time...

Hundreds of years ago, religion was the truth, and there was no denying that. It got debunked. Sorry, but it did. Now science is the truth, WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THAT MAYBE ONE DAY SCIENCE WILL BE DEBUNKED TOO??

Science is not this all-present entity of correctness, its just a thing invented by humans to try and explain the world around them, just like religion.

because I know it in my heart.

and I know that I'm not going to be able to 'prove' it to your complete satisfaction, but neither can you with evolution.

---

KITTY KITTY DANCE GO

**KNC Member**
**B-Unit Minister of Warm Fuzzy Kawaii Things**

DeviantArt site

The Kitlings!

Valid point

No, it really isn't.

First of all, why the swipe at evolution?  What does evolution actually do that violates creation?  Are you binding God's hands and saying that he can't do evolution?  Who's to say that?

Second, the idea of science is not to prove things.  The whole purpose is to provide theoretical explanations of observable phenomena based on known principles.  The confusion of most theists is they think that the theory of evolution must be based on the observation of evolution, which is wrong.  It is the observation of diversity and relation in biological life forms both living today and found in the fossil record that has brought about the theory of evolution.
It started with the finches on the Galapagos and it continues today with genetics. These relationships are evident.

Pardon me if I start to trail off into an ad hominem, but it has become my personal opinion that this misunderstanding of science in general is due largely because theists, particularly of the apologetic variety, apparently don't know the difference between "evidence" and "proof".  Or if they do, they deliberately switch them to gain a childish upper hand in debates.
They pull this switch-a-roo on the evolutionist by going "Where is the evidence of intermediate fossils?"  And then you kindly refer them to the work of someone like Mark Norell, who has been involved with finding many, many links between dinosaurs and birds.  Then the theist goes, "Where's your proof that they evolved?"

Well, you win automatically then, because there is no "proof", but that's not the point.  If we had imperical proof that everything is an evolved derivative of everything else, then there wouldn't be a point to doing the science to discover that evolution even happens.

And one other thing.  You don't know that the Bible isn't a historical fairy tale. You think you do, but you really don't. You suspect and believe that it's true, but that's called idealism, and idealism has nothing to do with reality.  Again, here we have two more principles that theists generally don't seem to know the difference between.

Being secular-minded, I fully admit to suspecting a lot of things.  I suspect that the Bible is a mishmosh of historical events and made-up fantasy, much in the same way that I suspect that the Illiad and the Odyssey are as well.  I suspect that evolution is the process by which all life has diversified.  I suspect that the dinosaurs lived millions of years before the first man.  I suspect that T-rex was a scavenger (for you Horner fans out there).  Finally, I suspect that there may have never been a historical figure named Jesus, and even if there was, he didn't do any of the miracles that were claimed.

But the difference between my suspicions and someone who just thinks that the Bible is true is that I use evidence to sway my opinions.  I listen to various sources and I look at the evidence for myself.  I make educated decisions.  I find out when the Gospels were written, and I compare that to when Jesus actually was said to have lived, and I find that they demand a desperate amount of special pleading to even be taken seriously.
Do you realize that the virgin birth prophecy doesn't even mean what you think it means? Read Matthew's quote of Isaiah 7:14, then go read Isaiah 7 and 8, and I defy you to tell me that Isaiah was talking about events that take place seven hundred years in the future.
Do you know that Isaiah wasn't even talking about a virgin? Almah, the hebrew word for "pure woman", which Isaiah used in that passage, does not immediately infer that the woman was a virgin. In fact, if you're talking about a pregnant woman, then you're obviously not talking about a virgin. Besides, the Hebrew word for "virgin" is "bethula", so if Isaiah meant that a child would be born of a virgin, he would have said so.
Did you know that Jesus' genealogy eliminates him from being the Jewish Messiah, anyway? In order to be the Messiah in the first place, he would have had to have had a priesthood passed down to him through male family members. And Matthew sloppily stumbles over by first mistranslating, then inserting the Isaiah virgin birth prophecy. If you think Jesus had a covenant that was established through Mary, then I suggest you take another look at Torah law and the role of women at that time.

And finally, I have some new humdinger arguments against God that I'm sure will annoy the theists around here.
The whole idea behind the God concept is that the theist believes that there must have been a God that established order to the universe and created everything. In other words, "everything is just too complex". Obviously, the answer to this is that God is also complex, thus discrediting the argument of complexity.
But wait... It gets better!

Some creationists, such as Jason Gastrich and Eric Lounsbery, have suggested that God exists outside of space and time, thus he does not have an origin, because he is eternal.  And somehow, being eternal means that they are exempt from the creationist complexity argument.
The problem is that if you're going to argue that God exists outside of space and time, you're basically saying that God can't do work. Because that's the very principle of time. In order to do work, you have to have a period at which no work was done, a period of work, and then a period of completion. These are temporal ideals, which means that they require time. In order to do things, make decisions, and make a universe, God needs to exist in time.  Without time, God is inert.
So, in order to make God a creator, they have to bring him into time and space, and if he exists in time and space, then they have a contradiction in their complexity arguments, which defeats concept of God's creative hand as a universal necessity.

Speaking of inert, the very concept that God must be all-knowing also creates a very real problem for our fundamentalist friends, because if God thinks... if God makes a decision... if God does anything that involves weighing concequences, then God did not know something, or else he would not have had to think about it.
Thus, if God is to be taken as an entity that is all-knowing, then God is inert. And an inert being is not a personal being, which the fundamentalists also want us to believe.

You fundamentalist Christians are faced with a conundrum.  Your definition of a God is incoherent.  There are too many contradictory attributes.  Something has to give.  Until you can make a more coherent definition of a God and explain the necessity of his being in a tenable way, then I'm afraid that the rest of us are not only justified in rejecting the God concept, but feeling genuinely confident that no such being exists.

---

Comic · Community · DeviantArt

It think PK said it all .

Just to shine my own light on the subject, *whips out flashlight * I would like to say something. Not about difficult theories, or hardcore religion. I just would like to say that it is impossible to prove that God exists or does not exist. I dont think science can ever prove that there is not such a presence or being like God. Neither do I think that religion must rule out everything that science has come up with, like the evolution theorie.

Both have really good explanations to how the world has been created. Science can prove this through evidence that supports the evolution theorie, Relgion can prove this through religious books, scripts and such. Wich you choose to believe is up to you.

When you view this subject from a religious view, one might think that God purposefully chose to not make himself open to the public so to speak. To hide himself from every day life, to test humans if they will still believe in him, even when they dont see him or get prove. (Im leaving out Angelic presences and statues crying..cause they tend to make critics freak out...) In the Bible or Thorah this has also been mentioned. Just think about the time that Mozes went up the mountain for the ten commandments. Did his followers not build a golden statue of uhmm something a dear or such? Didnt Mozes and God get mad about this? That could also have been a test. To see if they would still believe in him, even with no prove or presence. One could say the same thing about science. A way to explain things, or worship. Wich is in essence the same as someone already stated in this thread. Some really religious people that I know, both Muslim and Christian tell me that this life is a test. To see if you will be true to God/Allah and his laws, even when you are tempted to believe in other things (religions/science). If you do you apperantly get send to paradise. If you dont you...Burn, baby!

ha..ha..well I always laugh when they tell me. But then again Science is much more logical. It can be proven and it does not expect you to believe in all kinds of spirital mumbo jumbo. But keep in mind that Science has yet to proven a lot of things. And most things, like Big bang theorie, the size of the universe, and much more only have unstable theories made by mathematical calculations behind them.

Take your pick..Science/religion....Or combine both, its quite possible. Believe in God or not....its up to you. But dont ask for scientific prove. Its called "blind" faith. If you could prove it exactaly there would not be a lot of "blind" faith required now would it? And according to religion would not be much of a test...

*Runs of for Zen meditation...*

 

---

*fujin that would be to you, sir*
^_^ Rock on

If it can't be proven, its called 'blind faith'.

Thanks Spree...my english is still crap

---

*fujin that would be to you, sir*
^_^ Rock on

I wouldn't say that all unproven concepts are accepted with "blind" faith.  Some things we accept without proof are done so because we have information to suggest their validity.  This is not blind.  This sort of belief is based on the concept of making an assessment from some sort of knowledge.  There is such a thing as an informed belief.

For example, we accept the historical existence of Julius Ceasar, although none of us have ever met him and don't have any hard proof of his existence.  However, we do have evidence of his existence.  We can feel reasonably sure that such a figure actually existed based contingently upon what we happen to know and what artifacts we've found, and if we found evidence that suggested that Ceasar did not exist, then we would have to take that into consideration that maybe he didn't.
That's much different than religious fundamentalism, in which 100% accuracy must be maintained, and if any contradictions are to be found, they are to be dismantled and explained immediately in order to hold onto the principle of inerrancy.

I would also disagree that there is no way to disprove God.  I would ammend that to say that there's no way to prove that a god doesn't exist or that supernaturalism doesn't exist.  The problem with supernaturalism is that it is undefined, and that is why we can't disprove it.
However, we can disprove concepts that are contradictory, and the Christian God has plenty of these attributes. The Christian God can not exist if all of the attributes attributed to him within the Bible are to be taken literally.

Now, I admit that the Bible itself is fairly self-evident that people wrote it and mistakes were made and incoherencies exist, which I detailed above.  There could be a god, and it could even be the God that the character in the Bible is based on, and I would willingly grant that.

One final note about science.  Science is not in the business of attempting to prove anything.  Science is in the business of collecting evidence and making a hypothesis of how the world works.  Science can be wrong, and it corrects itself.
But the key difference of science is that the beliefs and assertions made by scientists in their theories are based on things that are observable, which is the precise opposite of "blind faith".
Truly, nothing in science is every proven beyond all possible doubt, but it does provide the necessary evidence to support a hypothesis within reason.
And furthermore, I find it increasingly annoying the way evolution gets dragged into these debates, as if the validity of scientific principles is relevant to the existence or nonexistence of a supreme entity.

And I would conclude that for those who thumb their noses at the theory that evolution is not designed to contradict the Bible.  The fact that it does is not done with intent.
In fact, I really think that in terms of science, evolution is really the least of your problems. You should take a look at what astronomers and cosmologists are saying.

---

Comic · Community · DeviantArt

ok the most often used word i've heard in thsi discussion next to "god" was faith.
well i am a christian, a methodist, and i would liek to ask this instead.

how can u ask a man/woman of FAITH to prove god when teh very definition of faith is that u believe in something where teh proof isn't there, or only connects and makes sense after u have been given the answer. well the proof of god is there, but i can't tell u anything cause u will find a scientific theory or something to blow holes in my argument and restore your security as an atheist.

if u want to find god u need to be lookign for him, asking people to get in debates with your faith that he doesn't exist. if u look fo rgod u will find him, if u look for god in an attempt to prove he doesn't exist then u will prove just that in yoru head.

all in all no one can show u to god if u immediatly block the idea and any attenpt to convince u. so thsi whoel thing is a pointless argument, if someone had been albe to prove to all the hard core atheists who never look with fair judgement, then it would have been done a looooooooooooong time ago. and one of teh major theme's of teh bible is "to believe and put your trust in god and his power" if u had absolute proof of his existance, then teh whole "trust in jesus and he will save your from death and give u eternal life. kinda looses it's point.



in response to mr.neil's last post:

ever heard of notre damus? there are millions who belive he prophosised teh event of teh world up until around i think 3000 somethin. but there's one catch:
no one , no matter how big of a studier of his works, ever figures out what a prophesy is until it has occured.

the clues that suggest that god exists can be seen by everyone however the real proof is found after u have accepted jesus, just as the connection between Notre Damus's prophesies and teh real world only occurs after teh action takes place, if u really and truely decide without a doubt that jesus came and saved you on teh cross, then the feeling that u get is more proof than anyone should ever need, however it doesn't really do u anygood, cause u have alrdy accepted christ u don't need any more proof, and secondly it's a feeling, and unless u can fin out soem way to give that feeling to others w/o them hoining u in christ, it doesnt' serve as evidence to anyone but your fellow christians.

again i'm christian so i think a good metaphore for our little debate is that i feel like i have a puzzle, but b/c i'm christian and a firm believer of god, i have teh top of teh box with the finished picture. people who haven't found any god or religion are trying ot solve this puzzle completely by themselves,no box top, no guide, nothing but them and teh peopel they trust and people who have other religions,judeism, islam, buddism, hinduism, i believe have their own different puzzle box top, maybe it solves the puzzle, i don't know and i don't think it's my business like most christians who think there's only one way to heaven, it's not my business to decide who get's in, i just know and believe that my boxtop is right.

I'm a christian, my faith sometimes are up and down, but mostly I believed in Jesus and that bible said the truth.

But as Jesus said, anyone who looking for will find, who ask will get, etc. (I'm not speak in English so I just translate it in a freeform).

So my point is, if a theist have a honest heart and with all his heart he try to find the truth sincerely, he will find that truth. In my faith he will find God.

If a scientist looking for the truth, with a pure heart and sincere, he will find the truth, in my faith he will find God.

But things will be different if someone said he look for the truth while inside his heart, he's not sincerely looking for the truth, but a prove to prove that God is not exist. And ignore the possibility that perhaps God is exist and can be proved. He won't find anything because he's nothing but a liar, a hypocrite.

If someone trully looking for the turth he will open himself toward all the possibilities, try to find the truth without having any prejudice.

Well that make a believer, atheist and agnostic out of the question since all already have their own prejudice. They can't said that they looking for the truth since in their heart they believe they know the truth.

It's a two-way road, though.

To say that God exists and ignore all possibility that he doesn't exist, which is predominantly a theistic mindset, is, by your own standards, hypocrisy.  It's a close-minded view of the universe.
As a non-theist, that is not the logic I use. I admit that there are things in the universe that I don't know. There may or may not be a god, I can't prove it either way.
That is the principle of positive proof. You can't prove a negative.

However, I will keep stressing that any idealistic concept that contradicts itself in any way cannot be wholy true.  While the theist has a point in saying that God might exist, they step on their own feet by attributing qualities to God that cannot cohere, such as omnicience and omnipotence.  God can't change the future and know the future at the same time, because if he can change the future, then the future was not knowable to begin with. That is my point.
And it is the Christian idealist attitude that those two contradictory qualities can exist in the same being, and that just doesn't work. It's like having a cylindrical triangle.

And on the note that a god might exist... My mind does not operate in the realm of maybes.  If there's a God, then I don't know it.  If there isn't, then I don't know that either.  I just don't believe in God.  God exists or doesn't exist whether we believe in him or not.
You're right. There might be a God. There might also be men that live in the center of the moon. There might be life on other planets.  There might be invisible pink unicorns.  There might be universes in which matter as we know it is impossible.  My brain might be in a jar with some super computer pumping in all of my experiences.

You see, just because something might exist, that doesn't mean that it does exist or deserve our prolonged attention.

---

Comic · Community · DeviantArt

Before I say anything I would like to apologize for my morbid curiousity that caused me to peer into this thoughtless void.

Now I will say that I wholly agree with Mr. Neil. The question if God exists is in fact either yes or no. Unless you are weird and believe in the possibility for something to exist and not exist at the same time... In which case you are weird.

Neil, you think out your posts and I will applaud you for it. You put a lot into it and constantly stress the points you feel are important. This is good, a lot about you is good. But(and you knew it was coming) just like in previous discussions I've had with you, you still lack the ability to read the posts of others. Knowing this, this post is pointless in a way since you won't read it, but maybe others who may be stressed with you can soothe their egos with this knowledge.

Now that wasn't meant to be an insult to you Mr. Neil, it is just a comment on your style of post. Don't get me wrong I prefer it to Squidi's crotch-pummel style(Let us enjoy the fact that he's clinically mentally defective).

Another apology for taking so long to get to the topic.

Here we go. This thread asks for proof of the existence of God. Any proof for or agaisnt God is personal so even if proof is given it is pointless. Anyone with half a sense to their witless corpse should understand that this thread is stupid, it isn't about hard proof it is about trashing beliefs of others. The question is on an individual level "does God exist for you".

Han1977 said that if you look to find God with a sincere desire to find him then you will. If you aren't sincere then you won't. The whole Seek and You shall find thing. I find it insteresting because many people believe that this whole existence isn't about us finding God but its about God finding us.

To the theists: If you want to continue to receive the snide comments go ahead, but do not expect anything but snide comments. The Bible refers to atheists as blind, no matter how valid you feel the proof is they will not see it until they decide to uncover their eyes.

To the Atheists: Quit it.

---

http://www.ele-mentalfury.com/ - The way comics used to be.