Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 345. (Read 845654 times)

What is your standard for truth,  BADecker?

Your response to the evidence for rebirth (silence)
is a lie (Concealment) told in bad faith
because just like others in this thread
You did not provide a simple and plausible explanation for this evidence.

Accordingly, i discern that the survival hypothesis is the simplest and most valid and rebirth is likely to be fact; in my opinion this is so unless you provide a simpler explanation as I have requested.

Be sure to take a close look at evidence (Eisenbeiss and AECES); once you have seen all the evidence, then you can make judgment, but not before.
It really helps to have an open mind in any intellectual inquiry, so I hope you will engage this evidence instead of writing it off.

Responding in order:

1) Logic fail.  You're shooting yourself in the foot again.  Let me get this straight - you think that the way to determine whether a religion is true or false is to first assume Christianity is true and then look to it for a method of distinguishing true religions from false ones?  What the heck kind of logic is that?  You're putting the cart way, way, WAY before the horse. 

The point here is that you can't just assume Christianity is true before you've subjected it to a method to determine whether it is true or false.  The result is that you are self-evidently using an illogical approach to determine whether Christianity is true rather than a logical one.

2) Stop contorting what science is.  When you say things like, "...A lot of what we call science (I'm not talking about pure science, or the scientific method, here)..." you are just talking out your rear.  The word 'science' has several concrete, established definitions.  When you start making up new definitions on the fly, you are simply demonstrating an inability to effectively communicate with others.

Type in "science definition" into Google and check the result.  The definitions that pop up are the only definitions applicable to 'science.'  When you use the word 'science,' it must be used according to those definitions.  If you don't, then you're simply not talking about science.  Period.

And, when you say "...the things we call science don't always match all the scientific ideas that should be applied to them..." I would remind you that you continue to demonstrate that you have no idea what science is (because you continually invent definitions for it).  It's pretty hard for the "things we call science" to match the "scientific ideas that should be applied to them" when you change the definition of what 'science' is but not the definition of 'pure science' or 'the scientific method.'  Your reasoning here is shockingly terrible.

3)  Talking about prophecies is irrelevant if you can't subject Christianity to the same method used to determine whether a religion is true or false. 

Lol.  A fall that lasted 1900 years?  Haha what the hell?  Are you joking?  Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds?

Are you joking? Those "prophecies" are general and anyone with an IQ over 83 can make them. The roman empire fell, the byzantine empire fell, etc and etc, all of which were far, far more powerful than Israel could ever dreamed of being back then. All empires eventually fall, so that prophecy about Israel falling is laughable(I actually made a smirk when I was reading what you typed).


Now everyone reading this can fully conclude that everything you've said has been bullshit with this statement: "One of the greatest prophesies of the Bible that has been fulfilled is that of the fall of Israel as a nation because they disobeyed God. The fall lasted around 1,900 years"

Thank you for typing that.

The direct instructions for such would probably be similar to the instructions Moses gave the people of Israel for determining if a prophet was a prophet of the Lord, or a false prophet. This would be to match the things that he said with what happened. You could say similar about matching a religion with the way things work.

In fact, in this and other threads, I have been pointing out that the things we call science don't always match all the scientific ideas that should be applied to them. A lot of what we call science (I'm not talking about pure science, or the scientific method, here) simply doesn't have enough information behind it to say that it is absolute truth, or often very near the truth.

The Bible is full of prophecies that were fulfilled. There are others that have not been fulfilled yet. Other religions have few prophecy listings, and few that are fulfilled. One of the greatest prophesies of the Bible that has been fulfilled is that of the fall of Israel as a nation because they disobeyed God. The fall lasted around 1,900 years. They have only come back according to other prophesy, and not with the glory that they held in the past.

I would be particularly interested to hear you respond *directly* to his question about how you are able to recognize a false religion.

No, I probably couldn't. I would probably miss at least a few. Besides, I don't have the time that it would take to investigate and compile. You could probably search Wikipedia for a list of main ones.

Well, with Christianity all around you, and with all the talk about the Bible I have been doing in this thread, start there, the Bible, and ask God to direct you on your journey into this kind of religious seeking.

But you have to be sincere in your testing for God. Ask Him to prove Himself to you if He really exists. But do it from the standpoint of really asking sincerely. He doesn't cater to people who are simply playing around or attempting to mock Him.

Can you compile a list for us all of all these false religions?
How do you recognise a false religion?

What's the problem with moving away from empirical science?  The point I made is that empirical science carries assumptions that cannot be empirically falsified via its own methods.  To reconcile or discredit these assumptions necessarily requires a purely logical approach.  Phrased another way, empiricism relies upon non-empirical assumptions, and so it, too, moves away from empirical science in order to establish its own assumptions (e.g. there is absolutely zero evidence for a Positivistic Universe, etc.).

I agree, the paper I linked is dense, and I've likely spent several hundred hours analyzing it and researching claims counter to it.  However, the structure of the model is self-referential such that any attempt to disprove the model actually reaffirms it (because the model not only explains everything else, but also itself).

Edit:  Descartes was wrong about dualism.  Also, the Evil Demon scenario would be accounted for by the model I linked.

It's not because they don't understand, especially when it is explained to them. It is because they desire other things, making the truth of God in the universe unimportant to them.

Unfortunately, people who have steeped themselves in a particular religion, mostly find it difficult to set it aside when they find out it is a false religion. In the case of God and atheism, this will probably mean eternal death for the believing, practicing atheist.

Obviously your "great evidences" aren't that great to some people or the world would have no atheists.

In the face of the great evidences for God that exist in the universe all around us, the only way an atheist can truly be an atheist is to be a vegetable. Atheism is a religion that some people would rather maintain than succumb to the evidence for God all around them.

He/she hasn't turned their back on god, because they simply don't believe a god exists to turn their back on.
If you turn your back on something your acknowledging it exists, which atheists don't in the case of a god.

What in the world kind of description of sin did you give to your children? Basically, sin is the breaking of the law. In the case of people who don't have formal religion or formal law, sin is the breaking of the natural laws of doing what is just and right... laws written in our hearts. Sinning also includes making mistakes.

Sin is simply the result of imperfection. Even death is a sin on our part even though it was perpetrated on us by our first parents. We follow in their footsteps by dying as well as sinning in other ways.



EDIT: From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sin?s=t:

It's not generally that simple. Consider the life of a priest. While there are a few of them that live in luxury, it's very few. Odds are that a priest/missionary to the Eskimos has real faith in what he believes. Why? He might get his meals on a regular basis. He might be supplied by the Church with enough furs to make it through the cold lands. He might even have a roof over his head at all times that he wants. But other than the basics, odds are he is living in poverty. Why move to the cold lands to start a church? Odds are he believes what he is teaching.

If a priest believes what he is teaching to be true, does that make it the truth? Not necessarily. A lie is a lie even if it is told in good faith. So, we are back to square one.

The fact that the universe and nature operate with machine-like properties that are way beyond our understanding in some cases, and the fact that machines have makers, suggests that the Maker of the universe is God, simply by the dictionary definition of the word God.

The fact that everything in the universe that we have seen operates by cause and effect shows that, whatever It was that was great enough to cause things of such complexity as life, and the human mind and understanding, especially after thousands of years of causes that have effects which are the causes of other effects, and so on, right down to this day, must be the Absolute King of billiards.

Couple the above with the fact that peoples of most nations feel sin and God in their hearts enough that they invent all kinds of religions worldwide, shows us that there is definitely a God, and that He is definitely extremely powerful.

The fact that there are proclaimed atheists who seem to believe their own atheism proclamation, shows that God is way beyond our understanding, except that He reveals Himself to us. The atheist realizes that he can't recognize anything about God on his own, so, because he doesn't like the discipline required by the religions, he just gives up on God.

When an atheist gives up on God, he is turning his back on the one thing that can save him from death. And since nobody really understands the depth of human consciousness, nobody really realizes the depth and fury of the destruction that will happen to him if he allows Himself to die. But God knows all about this, and that is why He sent the Savior, Jesus, to give mankind the chance to be saved.

Often a priest knows about some of this. He may not understand the machine-like quality of the universe. He may not understand the ultra-complex cause-and-effect workings God set up in the universe. But he DOES feel God in his heart. And he knows about death. And that is often his reason for becoming a missionary in the hard life, because he empathizes and sympathizes with those who have not had a chance to hear that there is hope in the Savior, Jesus.

I am not defending evil actions; see below my post. I ask you to address the theory that we are souls. I have a source that atheists are humanists Since what else could they be? See chapter one linked below.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8962914

I wish only to make you aware of that material that fits my opinion.
The truth is that man lacks knowledge and believes in lies. When presented with truth, what will you do? I would present an apathetic person with the truth that I have found. Man's condition is temporary, as evidenced by Eisenbeiss.

Without hearing the priests' response I don't think we can know.
If the priest was honest he would of replied "I told you that because it's a fear ploy we use to encourage new members to join up. Our main agenda is to maintain the power and wealth of the church, and we will stop at nothing to achieve that."
A much more likely scenario however is he would of lied, "Join us this Sunday and be saved or burn forever in eternal flames. Oh, and remember to bring your wallet."

Bullshit. This is just more of the same arbitrary declaration of a 'fact' you like to pull out of your arse.

I had to explain to my children the meaning of the word 'sin'. They were appalled. They know the difference between what is right and wrong, just and unjust and they are kind and compassionate human beings. But they do not believe in any of the theist nonsense you spout because there is no way to justify a belief in it in the first place. So I would be reduced to indoctrinating them through lies and delusions, instead of educating them and encouraging them to question every 'normalised' social construct.

To teach them that there are actions which would otherwise be benign that are considered as 'sinful' by one group of , "We're more special than you" people, whilst also explaining to them that there also exists a whole range of other 'sinful' acts which are declared thusly by a different group of, "We're more special than you" people, results in them, rightly, considering that much of the world is quite insane and mentally unstable.

Everyone instinctively knows about God and sin. The suggestion by a person who has just heard defining details about God and sin, that he now has learned something new, is simply his automatic method to attempt to talk his way out of something... to make excuses for what he knows deep down anyway.

There are many, and have always been those, who receive and received the message of their salvation with gladness. The message about God and sin is a thing that needs to be brought to our awareness so that we can receive the message of God our Savior properly.

Perhaps you know about the later life of the Eskimo in the picture. Did he turn and repent and believe the good news of his salvation through Jesus? Or did he wander off remaining in his natural unsaved state?

all atheists are not humanists ,some are selfish , rotten, cruel, derranged and destructive as are many believers in a God.

There are many sub sections on belief and generalisations placing all non believers in the atheism "box"  is too simplistic.

Many non believers, non Christians , non practising Christians and Christians in name  by default due to their parents or community are actually practising large elements of this lifestyle in this day and age.

Apathetic agnosticism

Apathetic agnosticism claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence ( or absence of it) has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.[6]

To further the debate on the theory that religion is a comfort for the poor and the disempowered here are some links. I would suggest that the weight of evidence suggests that mainstream religions and believing in God has a positive influence in many/most of the poorest Nations and communities. Radicalisation and fanatisism has the opposite and severely negative effect

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116449/religion-provides-emotional-boost-world-poor.aspx

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/do-countries-lose-religion-as-they-gain-wealth-1.1310451