Post Any Evidence For God Here

[crispybits]

So it's petty to point out that you have claimed to be a man of faith when you said you hadn't?

I wonder what that makes it to point out that science is faith and not based on evidence?

[chang50]

So it's petty to point out that you have claimed to be a man of faith when you said you hadn't?

I wonder what that makes it to point out that science is faith and not based on evidence?

Crispy I think Warmonger has simply got in over his head and doesn't know how to extricate himself so he continues to dig himself a bigger hole..

[crispybits]

No, if that was the case I'd be more sympathetic.

What he's done is deliberately try and misrepresent himself in order to appear less religious than he is, more neutral, however you want to phrase it, and that's just plain dishonest.

I'd much rather talk to Lionz (who I actually believe is far more deluded than warmonger, but that's just personal opinion) because at least he's honest about his beliefs and isn't trying to sneak under the radar by pretending to be something he's not.

Warmonger ask yourself, if you feel you have to lie to make your point how strong is your point to start with?

[crispybits]

When you go to open a door, you don't doubt the existence of the doorknob by pondering that there may be no doorknob, or no door for that matter. If you sincerely doubt reality, you'll attempt to walk through..

Slightly pedantic, but if you sincerely doubt reality you won't do anything, you'll lay down somewhere and close you eyes and just not bother with it at all. Which is why the solipisistic argument always goes nowhere

[chang50]

[quote="crispybits"]No, if that was the case I'd be more sympathetic.

What he's done is deliberately try and misrepresent himself in order to appear less religious than he is, more neutral, however you want to phrase it, and that's just plain dishonest.

I'd much rather talk to Lionz (who I actually believe is far more deluded than warmonger, but that's just personal opinion) because at least he's honest about his beliefs and isn't trying to sneak under the radar by pretending to be something he's not.

Warmonger ask yourself, if you feel you have to lie to make your point how strong is your point to start with?[/quote

You could well be right,I also agree with you about Lionz,at least he isn't devious.

[warmonger1981]

...Crispy in this forum I made no reference to being a believer in a God. You would have to search my posts from past to get that... my religious beliefe has no relevance in this conversation so why bring it up? Lets stick to the subject please. And yes chang I am trying to be more neutral on this subject not misrepresent myself. You just took it that way. How do we know this is not some kind of matrix style world? Not saying I believe this but what if? Its onlly as real as our senses will let us feel. Some people claim out of body experiences or life after death experiences. I'm just asking crazy questions here. And my Webster dictionary has faith as: unquestioning beliefe or loyalty.

[crispybits]

I didn't search your posts, I just remembered a conversation we had in another thread on this forum and went back to that thread for a skim-through to find it.

Your religious faith has everything to do with a discussion about the existence of God. You have bias coming into the conversation, and the honest thing to do is to declare that bias, not deny it. Just like I've declared (either in this thread or the other one, can't remember which) what my beliefs are, openly and honestly. For reference, I believe in "something", but not God as described in the bible.

As for the what if question. Lets say you're right and we are all people in tubes in some futuristic machine "dreaming" reality. Science than becomes not the study of the rules of nature but the study of the rules of the program we perceive as reality. But don't you see that unless we can find a way to break out of this reality into the other one (and I have never seen or heard any evidence that anyone has ever done this) then "the rules of nature" and "the rules of the program" are the same thing anyway. The question is meaningless unless you also bring either evidence for or the means to escape the matrix. It also has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

[tzor]

God is not bound by laws of physics. God is outside of time.space and material.

While I agree with the second point I have to wonder about the first point. If God has made the laws of Physics how can God then violate the laws that He has made? Would that mean that God has gone against His own nature?

[PLAYER57832]

...Crispy in this forum I made no reference to being a believer in a God. You would have to search my posts from past to get that... my religious beliefe has no relevance in this conversation so why bring it up? Lets stick to the subject please. And yes chang I am trying to be more neutral on this subject not misrepresent myself. You just took it that way. How do we know this is not some kind of matrix style world? Not saying I believe this but what if? Its onlly as real as our senses will let us feel. Some people claim out of body experiences or life after death experiences. I'm just asking crazy questions here. And my Webster dictionary has faith as: unquestioning beliefe or loyalty.

These things are just unprovable.

Some people have the inherent belief that what they can prove, what they can see, hear, touch, feel and deduce based on those analysis is somehow more valid than things which inherently cannot be proven. A lot of people basically just say "meh... its not worth my time to worry about it, I am just going to pretend that I know the world actually exists.

What is worrisome is not that folks have different ideas, its when one or the other group begins to claim that they have definitive proof that can be shown to every other human being who is just "willing to listen", as long as the other person is intelligent and actually willing to listen. In this forum, those with even strong religious beliefs are often more willing to accept that atheism has validity -- not that they accept it to be true, but that logical and intelligent people can think it is "the truth", than atheists are willing to admit that folks with religious beliefs are being logical/thoughtful, etc. In many cases, they are even willing to subvert logic to make those "proofs".

For myself, I take the stance that we have already seen science, human knowledge and understanding not just evolve, but flip on its head so many, many, many times that I am not willing to limit myself to that which I "know" to be true, even with firm evidence, because I understand that all proofs are based on the belief that what I know, see, hear and feel is "real" in some sense, that things can be "logically" proven. I will never say that I have proof of God that I can show anyone else. I DO say that my belief in God is based on evidence that, for me, is just as firm as all the scientific knowledge I have. AND, understand (because you are relatively new here, and because some who are newer might read this), that I make that statement as a scientist, as someone who is currently basically dedicating most of my life to trying to get schools to do a far better job of teaching real science, facts as facts and not just opinion. (but with the greater understanding also of what he limits of science facts are.. and that is the VERY important piece that is too, too often just missing).

[crispybits]

Well said Player

I've said it to believers on here before, I'm not out to destroy anyone's faith. All I want is for the misinformation and downright dishonesty to be squished wherever it pops up, like the educational debate in some parts of the US where literal creationism is trying to gain a platform alongside evolution, or the situation in some parts of the middle east where education (amongst other basic human rights) is being denied to women in the name of religion.

There is nothing wrong with having mainstream faith, and to those that do more power to you and in some ways I envy you for being made in such a way that you believe the same thing as a lot of other people and have a kind of community around you on these terms, whereas my faith is individual and while others will have beliefs like mine about these things we can never prove we often have no desire to form churches because of the nature of our subjective viewpoints about what we find the most plausible answers are (it's hard to worship an impersonal universal energy field that pervades all matter and energy because of it's impersonality)

If religious people want to attack scientific theories, then by all means go ahead and do so. You're participating in the biggest debate with the most influence to shape our society that's been ongoing for thousands of years alongside religions of all shapes and sizes. But find positions of strength to attack from, prove the science wrong with solid facts and arguments, not with a lot of the ridiculous and discredited rubbish that has appeared on this thread and others on this forum from time to time.

[PLAYER57832]

God is not bound by laws of physics. God is outside of time.space and material.

While I agree with the second point I have to wonder about the first point. If God has made the laws of Physics how can God then violate the laws that He has made? Would that mean that God has gone against His own nature?

God did not "make" the "laws of physics". The laws are not actually laws in that frame.. they are not "does and do not's". They are explanations that human beings have found and that, so far, we have found to be unbreakable within the systems we can access to date.

Scientists would acknowledge they may not apply in other universes at all.. never mind to God, in whatever form God might exist.

[tzor]

God did not "make" the "laws of physics". The laws are not actually laws in that frame.. they are not "does and do not's". They are explanations that human beings have found and that, so far, we have found to be unbreakable within the systems we can access to date.

I think we have different ideas on what the "laws of physics" are. There are fundamental "laws" (perhaps relationships that can be summarized as equations might be more appropriate) that govern the complexity of interactions that take place in the space time universe. We have only a faint grasp of what those laws are, but they are there never the less.

Mind you, whether or not God "made" these laws, set those parameters, fine tuned the major and minor dimensions is a whole other issue that is transfinitely beyond us at the moment.

[crispybits]

Also worth remembering is that we cannot know if this is the only universe. There could conceivaly be as many different universes as there are atoms in this universe, all with different parameters and rules and relationships between different bits and pieces.

There could be many where life cannot exist because those rules are set such a way that complex structures cannot form, there may be other universes where just one constant is different (say, the gravitational force) and that could lead to very different conditions but where forms of life are still possible, but that would look very different to those we have in this universe.

It's all totally unknowable, and without that knowledge it's foolhardy to declare firm beliefs on anything other than those things which we can directly or indirectly witness. We can all have opinions based on what our best guesses are, but to try and impose those opinions on others or to claim any sort of priveleged knowledge based on them is what gets met with resistance.

Even from a scientific standpoint, to say we understand the universe would be a bit like standing ankle deep in the surf on the north east coast of Australia with a telescope and a sonar machine and whatever other equipment you can imagine, and declaring that we understand the entire Pacific Ocean based on the measurements we can take from that beach in under a minute. Which is why science always says "our best understanding with the information we have is....." (often unspoken but the subtext is always there)

[Lionz]

How about address moon stuff if you want, but what in general isn't based on circular reasoning and suggests that a) there is universal common descent as opposed to a creation of separate kinds of creatures that were created to bring forth variety after their kinds and b) the earth came to be created from natural processes slowly over billions of years without any intelligent influence as opposed to being the result of an intelligent Being creating it out of nothing?

[tzor]

Also worth remembering is that we cannot know if this is the only universe. There could conceivaly be as many different universes as there are atoms in this universe, all with different parameters and rules and relationships between different bits and pieces.

Actually, we might be able. Interactions between universes in the multiverse had been posulated at one point (and I haven't kept up with astrphysics in the last few years) for the variations in the acceleration of the universe over time from the original big bang models. The only thing we definitely cannot know is what we definitely cannot observe.

[tzor]

How about address moon stuff if you want, but what in general isn't based on circular reasoning and suggests that a) there is universal common descent as opposed to a creation of separate kinds of creatures that were created to bring forth variety after their kinds and b) the earth came to be created from natural processes slowly over billions of years without any intelligent influence as opposed to being the result of an intelligent Being creating it out of nothing?

Not that I want to nit pick, but you do realize that option b isn't Biblical.

Seriously, there is nothing in the first chapter of Genesis that suggests Ex Nilho.

In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters

* [1:2] This verse is parenthetical, describing in three phases the pre-creation state symbolized by the chaos out of which God brings order: “earth,” hidden beneath the encompassing cosmic waters, could not be seen, and thus had no “form”; there was only darkness; turbulent wind swept over the waters. Commencing with the last-named elements (darkness and water), vv. 3–10 describe the rearrangement of this chaos: light is made (first day) and the water is divided into water above and water below the earth so that the earth appears and is no longer “without outline.” The abyss: the primordial ocean according to the ancient Semitic cosmogony. After God’s creative activity, part of this vast body forms the salt-water seas (vv. 9–10); part of it is the fresh water under the earth (Ps 33:7; Ez 31:4), which wells forth on the earth as springs and fountains (Gn 7:11; 8:2; Prv 3:20). Part of it, “the upper water” (Ps 148:4; Dn 3:60), is held up by the dome of the sky (vv. 6–7), from which rain descends on the earth (Gn 7:11; 2 Kgs 7:2, 19; Ps 104:13). A mighty wind: literally, “spirit or breath [ruah] of God”; cf. Gn 8:1.

[oVo]

I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

Every breath you take.

[Symmetry]

I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

Every breath you take.

Are you quoting Sting?

[warmonger1981]

ill be watching you.

[Symmetry]

ill be watching you.

You're not the Police.

[rdsrds2120]

BMO

[CreepersWiener]

BMO

[crispybits]

How about address moon stuff if you want, but what in general isn't based on circular reasoning and suggests that a) there is universal common descent as opposed to a creation of separate kinds of creatures that were created to bring forth variety after their kinds and b) the earth came to be created from natural processes slowly over billions of years without any intelligent influence as opposed to being the result of an intelligent Being creating it out of nothing?

Right....

So you agree that we can deal with 1 argument at a time, and then on the very first argument I pick (and remember I gave you the chance to take your pick instead) you fail to engage at all and go back to vague stuff about circular reasoning.

Have fun with your fairy tales - I can't be bothered trying to hold a discussion with you any more.

[crispybits]

Also worth remembering is that we cannot know if this is the only universe. There could conceivaly be as many different universes as there are atoms in this universe, all with different parameters and rules and relationships between different bits and pieces.

Actually, we might be able. Interactions between universes in the multiverse had been posulated at one point (and I haven't kept up with astrphysics in the last few years) for the variations in the acceleration of the universe over time from the original big bang models. The only thing we definitely cannot know is what we definitely cannot observe.

I'm similarly out of date with the cutting edge stuff but I remember something about gravity leaking between universes. In our lifetimes I don't think we're going to find anything out about this extended multiverse though.

[oss spy]

The universe is all that exists, and the multiverse theory only covers four possible...well, I'll let you do your own research. I'm not explaining it. Hint: Family Guy got it wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_theory