Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 331. (Read 845809 times)

So let's get this straight, you saying people must believe in god or they are automatically labeled as evil?

So someone that believes in god yet still kills people is better than a non-believer that lives a peaceful loving life?

Mmmmmmmmm.....

Galatians 3

Geneva⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹ O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the trueth, to whome Iesus Christ before was described in your sight, and among you crucified?. . . ²³ But before faith came, we were kept vnder the Law, as vnder a garison, and shut vp vnto that faith, which should afterward be reueiled. ²⁴ Wherefore the Lawe was our scholemaster to bring vs to Christ, that we might be made righteous by faith. ²⁵ But after that faith is come, we are no longer vnder a scholemaster. ²⁶ For ye are al the sonnes of God by faith, in Christ Iesus. ²⁷ For all ye that are baptized into Christ, haue put on Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Iewe nor Grecian: there is neither bonde nor free: there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Iesus. ²⁹ And if ye be Christes, then are ye Abrahams seede, and heires by promise.

So let's get this straight, you saying people must believe in god or they are automatically labeled as evil?

So someone that believes in god yet still kills people is better than a non-believer that lives a peaceful loving life?

Mmmmmmmmm.....

[…]

Is there even [a] way to [scientifically] pro[ve] God's existence?

Science is often thought to proceed by our logically deducing the laws that govern the world.  But it's not that simple; there are limits to what we can deduce, especially about things in which we cannot directly participate.  Radioactive decay is a good example of this.  We can't use a microscope to watch the events that make an element decay.  The process is quite mysterious.  But what we can do is make a simple theory of how decay might work, and then use that theory to make a prediction of what measurements we can expect.  That's the way science proceeds: by making theories that lead to predictions.  Sometimes these predictions turn out to be wrong.  That's fine: it means we must tinker with the theory, perhaps discard it outright, or maybe realise that it's completely okay under certain limited circumstances.  The hallmark of a good scientific theory is not what it seems to explain, but rather what it predicts.  After all, a theory that says the universe just appeared yesterday, complete with life on earth, fossils and so on, in a sense "explains" everything beautifully by simply defining it to be so; but it predicts absolutely nothing.  So from a scientific point of view it is not a very useful theory, because it contains nothing that allows its truth to be tested.  On the other hand, while it's arguable that the theory of quantum mechanics explains anything at all, it certainly does predict a huge number of different phenomena that have been observed; and that's what makes it a very useful theory.

[…]

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true.  The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result.  Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly.  Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question.  But no experiment ever has.  If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics.  Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally.  Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics.  The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!).  That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place.  So this way of conducting science works very well.

Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

I personally dislike term "God" simply because it's connected with religion(s) so I prefer "Creator" or "Designer".. Is it even possible for us to talk about something beyond space and time without any personification? The Signs of God's Existence documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS1x-6al2pE

Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

Right on!

However, nobody is required to believe that the evidence is ever enough. People simply are built so they can make their own choice about accepting the evidence or not. Great pain and great pleasure make it more difficult to deny the evidence, whatever it may be, about anything. Without great pain or great pleasure one can talk himself/herself into believing almost anything... right in the face of abundant evidence to the opposite.

People who deny the great abundance of evidences for God all around us, have the ability to do so. In some cases, they know down deep that they are lying to themselves. In other cases, they are simply using a section of their mentality in a forceful way. Yet, in times of great pleasure or great pain, the evidence for God becomes more of a reality to them. "There are no atheists in the foxholes."

The truth is, the atheist is a person of great faith. Why? There are abundant evidences for God in nature all around us... including within ourselves... just the fact that something as marvelous as the human machine can exist. In the face of these great evidences, the atheist still believes (at least on the outside) that God doesn't exist. Such faith as that, especially when found in the high I.Q. atheists, is great faith. God would really like such people on His side.

People of great faith, even atheists, often do great things.

3. Existential Nihilism

While nihilism is often discussed in terms of extreme skepticism and relativism, for most of [180‒219 EA] it has been associated with the belief that life is meaningless. Existential nihilism begins with the notion that the world is without meaning or purpose. Given this circumstance, existence itself--all action, suffering, and feeling--is ultimately senseless and empty.

In The Dark Side: Thoughts on the Futility of Life (1994), Alan Pratt demonstrates that existential nihilism, in one form or another, has been a part of the Western intellectual tradition from the beginning. The Skeptic Empedocles' observation that "the life of mortals is so mean a thing as to be virtually un-life," for instance, embodies the same kind of extreme pessimism associated with existential nihilism. In antiquity, such profound pessimism may have reached its apex with Hegesis. Because miseries vastly outnumber pleasures, happiness is impossible, the philosopher argues, and subsequently advocates suicide. Centuries later during the Renaissance, William Shakespeare eloquently summarized the existential nihilist's perspective when, in this famous passage near the end of Macbeth, he has Macbeth pour out his disgust for life:


In the twentieth century, it's the atheistic existentialist movement, popularized in France in the [160 EA]s and [170 EA]s, that is responsible for the currency of existential nihilism in the popular consciousness. Jean-Paul Sartre's ([125‒200 EA]) defining preposition for the movement, "existence precedes essence," rules out any ground or foundation for establishing an essential self or a human nature. When we abandon illusions, life is revealed as nothing; and for the existentialists, nothingness is the source of not only absolute freedom but also existential horror and emotional anguish. Nothingness reveals each individual as an isolated being "thrown" into an alien and unresponsive universe, barred forever from knowing why yet required to invent meaning. It's a situation that's nothing short of absurd. Writing from the enlightened perspective of the absurd, Albert Camus ([133‒180 EA]) observed that Sisyphus' plight, condemned to eternal, useless struggle, was a superb metaphor for human existence (The Myth of Sisyphus, 1942).

[…]

The purpose of XinXan's questions and the answers are there to illustrate that: God either doesn't exist, isn't "god"(Can't do all things), or he's not a good "god".

There's 3 answers and XinXan described it perfectly.

P.S. None of BADecker's statements made sense, at all.


And with that, so long. There's no further point in discussing this.

God, in the offer of freedom, has allowed people to do evil as well as good. - That means god is not good

God doesn't like the evil because it harms the people who do it. - He obviously does like evil(And he tolerates it, if he didn't there would be no evil), because he continues to let evil room. Did he save any of those 6 million+ jews from getting slaughtered like barn animals by Hitler? No. + many more examples.

God is doing away with the evil, and He is doing away with the ability to do evil any longer. - No he is not, hundreds of thousands of people are murdered yearly.

Because of the tremendous greatness with which He set this universe up, the way He is doing away with evil is to destroy this universe. - So he's going to "destroy" this universe to do away with evil, really, that's your answer?

God is offering the people who want to get out of the evil, the chance to join Him in the new universe He is setting up. - Makes no sense, see XinXan's post, and the very chapter of Revealations itself is regarded as Symolic, not to be taken literally, just like Genesis. I advise you to take theology...

God, in the offer of freedom, is allowing people the opportunity to remain in the evil, by not believing in and accepting Him, so they essentially are destroyed right along with the rest of the evil when He completely dissolves this universe. - Again, see XinXan's post, by God allowing evil, that means he himself is not good.

Where do you want to be? destroyed with the evil? or saved with the good? If you want to be saved with the good, you better start believing in God the right way. Otherwise you are being evil, and will be destroyed with the rest of the evil, as you have asked, by remaining in unbelief regarding God. - Again, see XinXan's post.

God doesn't like the evil because it harms the people who do it.

If you want to be saved with the good, you better start believing in God the right way. Otherwise you are being evil, and will be destroyed with the rest of the evil, as you have asked, by remaining in unbelief regarding God.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

God is above science.

"There are no atheists in the foxholes."

There is no scientific proof that God doesn't exist. Being an atheist and wanting to force everyone to be one is the same as believing in a religion and wanting to force people to believe in it.