Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 428. (Read 845654 times)

Ok, I am starting to think I was mistaken about your willingness to consider you may be wrong, judging by your, badly misinformed, statements regarding geology, you are simply regurgitating the garbage and lies from "Answers in Genesis" types of 'sources', because now you are just spouting theological assertions that are based on, well, theological beliefs, you know, made-up-stuff(tm).


BitChick, if you are a bad person and you commit harm against other people, actual people not imaginary deities, then taking responsibility for your dysfunctional behaviour and addressing it, is important. 'Sin', however, is simply defined by human beings as an act which an omnipotent deity disapproves of, to various degrees. It isn't a real thing, it is a made-up 'crime against god'.

If you do not believe that mythical deities are real, yet you live your life as a decent human being, flawed as we all are to differing degrees, but the choices you make are generally not intended to harm anyone and you spend your life basically being as fair and reasonable to all as you can, why would your God condemn such a person for not believing when intellectual honesty demonstrates that the theist assertion cannot be maintained as a belief without losing ones intellectual integrity.

Why would a God require the loss of intellectual integrity in order to maintain, instead, theist 'faith'?


Soul? Pics or it didn't happen.

Seriously, there is as much proof to support the existence of a 'soul' as there is an omnipotent deity.


Proof?

Or are you inciting the 'special pleading' fallacy? In that, not only do you *know* this to be true, well, simply because you say it is, but also that your precious deity must not be held up to the same standards of enquiry and analysis as, well, all that we know actually does exist in reality.

The flaw in your thinking is that you missed the part about, while God exists within this universe (for His own pleasure), He also exists entirely without the universe. God, neither entropy or non-entropy.

Yes.  And we do.

On every continent are found layers of sedimentary rocks over vast areas. Many of these sediment layers can be traced all the way across continents, and even between continents. Furthermore, when geologists look closely at these rocks, they find evidence that the sediments were deposited rapidly.

Consider the sedimentary rock layers exposed in the walls of the Grand Canyon in northern Arizona  This sequence of layers is not unique to that region of the USA. For more than 50 years geologists have recognized that these strata belong to six megasequences (very thick, distinctive sequences of sedimentary rock layers) that can be traced right across North America.

The lowermost sedimentary layers in Grand Canyon are the Tapeats Sandstone, belonging to the Sauk Megasequence. It and its equivalents (those layers comprised of the same materials) cover much of the USA . We can hardly imagine what forces were necessary to deposit such a vast, continent- wide series of deposits. Yet at the base of this sequence are huge boulders  and sand beds deposited by storms. Both are evidence that massive forces deposited these sediment layers rapidly and violently right across the entire USA. Slow-and-gradual (present-day uniformitarian) processes cannot account for this evidence, but the global catastrophic Genesis Flood surely can.

Another layer in Grand Canyon is the Lower Carboniferous (Mississippian) Redwall Limestone. This belongs to the Kaskaskia Megasequence of North America. So the same limestones appear in many places across North America, as far as Tennessee and Pennsylvania. These limestones also appear in the exact same position in the strata sequences, and they have the exact same fossils and other features in them.

Unfortunately, these limestones have been given different names in other locations because the geologists saw only what they were working on locally and didn’t realize that other geologists were studying essentially the same limestone beds in other places. Even more remarkable, the same Carboniferous limestone beds also appear thousands of miles east in England, containing the same fossils and other features.

Also, a 1/40 scale of the Grand Canyon was made after Mt. St. Helen's erupted in 3 days.  It did not take millions of years.  We can observe this.  In fact, now we know this was how the Grand Canyon was made. 

(Emphasis mine.)

Your being does not contain within it entropy sufficient for "free[dom]." (And, indeed, it is for "His Spirit" that you have so known deprivation.)

(Lattermost emphasis mine.)

Shouldn't we find a singular, global layer of sedimentary deposits correspondent to flooding?

The "deity" gave me free will but His Spirit helps me make the right choices all of the time.

And I very much NEED a "diety!"  I need God to pay the price for the sinful choices I have made or the price I will pay is an eternal one.

But you have said that you believe that you have the power in yourself.  That is the risk you are willing to take with your soul.  I would just question if that risk is a good one and if it will work for you if you happen to be wrong.   Will believing in ourselves be enough to pay the price for our sins?

The dating of trees gives a close estimate but not an exact date.  The fact that the oldest tree we can find on earth is said to be 5000 years old, when the earth is considered billions of years old, should make a person pause for a moment and question what happened about that time.  Shouldn't we find thousands of trees older than that otherwise?

Since everything (that is, that exact opposite of nothing) exists, the only "craz[y]" proposition is one which contains negative assertions.

You must've missed it:

Methuselah is literally 5,000 years old. The water pressure would've killed it or tore it's roots away by erosion of the dirt. Not to mention, when he created the world, I was disappointed to not see any dinosaurs mentioned.

There's no validity if there's a ton of stories. There's something called FOLKLORE and it's a part of every culture. Should we believe that, too?

And, the population of Earth is estimated and always will be. Using this in that context is highly inaccurate.

Not necessarily 'crazy', you are, after all, only the result of your theist conditioning. Your delusions are real to you, yet the reason they feel so real is because you have been trained to only perceive that which supports the theist perspective and to readily accept any article or prose that also serves to support your conditioning or those that attempt to rubbish objectively-reasoned arguments that run counter to it. It is an insidious state of mind, indeed.

Like most middle-aged atheists I, too, was once afflicted with theist conditioning and I spent decades trying to figure out why none of it ever seemed to fit properly or make sense. I even once roundly declared that, surely, no atheist could ever truly believe that there was literally nothing waiting for us when we die, I felt that it would drive a person insane to live without the belief that their sentience would continue on after their physical form expired.

I sat on the fence of agnosticism for many a year until, eventually, I could no longer ignore the fact that, like deities and demons, there was no evidence for the existence of what we call the human 'soul' either.

Then everything made sense.

I didn't exist before I existed in this life and that doesn't appear to have been a problem, so there's little reason to believe that not existing anymore after I die will be a bother either. At least I got to exist. That's pretty damn cool.

After you die? Nothing will matter, whether you were a decent person or a monster, nothing will matter to you anymore, only those who are left behind in the ripples of your actions.

How about, instead, the person to thank for making the right choices and keeping you safe, was you all along?

How about, instead, the cause of misery and suffering in this world isn't a mythical force we call 'Evil' but, rather, simply the toxic dysfunction we reap and sow through our delusional and disordered psychologies resulting from the normalisation of harmful sociofamilial environments we are raised in?
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/key_concepts/toxic_stress_response/

The brains of adults who have experienced sustained periods of toxic stress during childhood nurture are physically different from those who have been raised in an emotionally healthy and positive sociofamilial environment. Put simply, messed-up children tend to become messed-up adults, many of whom like to cite, "It didn't do me any harm" as they fail to be able to see the harm it actually did do while they go about repeating it and inflicting it on their children.

Come on, you're smart enough to be clearly considering both of our words, why go ruining it now by ignoring the reality of life living amongst 7 billion other individuals on this planet: "Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but for a good person to do bad things, that takes religion."

Do you genuinely believe that atheists cannot live a decent and constructive life?

Do you genuinely believe that, if you did not have your God you would choose to live a dysfunctional and destructive life? If so, don't let me change your mind.


Don't fall into the trap of 'Scientists say . . .' Understand the the Scientific Method is there for all to employ. Don't accept a fact because of the authority of someone, accept it because it is a well-reasoned position with objectively supporting evidence that can be tested by anybody.

Example:
You know I am right about lightning being electricity, but you know that because you understand the testing that can be done to prove it to be so. You don't have to test it yourself but you could if you wanted to. That's science.

Theism tells you to believe because theism tells you to believe. The Bible is holy because God says it is Holy and God is real because The Bible says so. That is called circular-logic.

Who do you want your reality to be shaped by, the guy who explains to you not to go walking out on the hill in the lightning storm because of the risk that your body may cause a lightning charge to go to ground through it, or the man in the silly hat who tells you it'll be fine because he's mumbling magic words to an invisible deity while holding his hands in a special symbol to keep you safe?

You don't need a deity to make the right choices in life, you've already proved that to yourself.

Ok.  I can see that my beliefs are considered "crazy."

So let's say for the sake of argument that you are right and I am crazy.  I live my entire life believing the Bible is true and then I die.  Well if atheism is true then what will it matter?  When I die I will cease to exist anyways.  I won't even know I was wrong.  I suppose the fact that I lived my life under the "strict" or "stifling" rules of the Bible could be perceived as a negative thing if this is the case but I feel like God has spared me from many horrible choices and kept me from hurting myself along the way.  But even so, let's say that I missed some "good times" that is the worst thing that will happen if the Bible isn't true then, isn't it?

But let's say that a person who believed in what the evolutionary scientists said was true and that they evolved from "primordial soup."  This person would then live their life doing whatever they felt was right to them and perhaps enjoy the perceived freedom this brings.  But what would happen when they die if they were wrong?"  The Bible warns of incredible suffering where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth" for all of eternity. 

It seems like people are putting a great amount of "faith" in evolutionary science and in what scientists have theorized.  Will the scientists be able to help the people after death if they misled them?  Will these people be able to barter with God and say, "Oh sorry.  My bad.  I just believed in what the scientists taught me?"

I would just keep that in mind. 

Religion and schizophrenia

"The relationship between religion and schizophrenia is of particular interest to psychologists because of the similarities between religious experiences and psychotic episodes; religious experiences often involve auditory and/or visual hallucinations, and those with schizophrenia commonly report similar hallucinations, along with a variety of delusions and faulty beliefs."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_schizophrenia

No. There isn't. When real scientists perform real scientific experiments they have to be peer reviewed to check the veracity of what is being claimed. No theist claim towards "I can haz Jesus exsperiment!" has ever survived critical analysis or peer review.

Theism-based 'science' isn't science. It's a mix of error, delusion and, often, outright lies painted to convince those desperate to have their fragile 'spirit' soothed that your 'science' is just as good as real science. It isn't, otherwise it could survive the Scientific Method of enquiry.


Listen to yourself, "If [X] isn't true, why are people willing to kill and die for what it means?"

So, again, I ask you, on what basis does a multitude of people believing something is true actually serve to prove anything about whether it is true?

Answer: It doesn't

That is called, "Argumentum ad populum"

Example:
Up until very recently in human history, pretty much EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET, believed that lightning was some sort of supernatural force. Having actually studied it properly, by way of objective experiment, testing and measurement, we know that lightning is electricity.

So, just because billions of people for thousands and thousands of years all believed the same thing, did it convey any validity to what they believed? No.

The reason why people are willing to kill and die over their religious belief is because of the nature of the belief, namely, their entire identity, their sense-of-self, is rooted in the premise that they are playing a part in some cosmic narrative playing out beneath the gaze of a deity who will reward/punish them as they progress. So, depending on how desperate they are to please this deity and, thus, validate themselves as not being just an individual within a biological species, you will witness them being all-too-eager to commit atrocity and horrors upon other members of our species for not being 'like them', for not thinking 'like them' and for not believing 'like them'.

You can cite Communism all you want, but Communism is about power and control over the people, Dictatorships are about power and control over the people, Theocracies are about power and control over the people.

Atheism is not. Atheism is the rejection of theist assertion of the existence of a God because the assertion is baseless and lacks any evidence whatsoever to support it.



You think I haven't? I have read it and countless other 'Holy' books and stories in considerably more detail and with much greater thought than most who slavishly worship them.

There is archeological evidence and there is scientific evidence that supports the Bible.  The problem is no matter how great the evidence is it is automatically discredited by many in the "scientific" community.   Why?  Man is wise in his own eyes.  To admit the Bible is true and that God is real takes humility.  Pride is considered the worst sin and it is understandable why that is.  It keeps us from even seeking God to begin with.  There is a belief that we do not even need Him or He doesn't even exist.  

If the Bible wasn't true, why would people be willing to die for what it stands for?  Why are people killed in some places just for having it?  It is obviously such a threat that it cannot even be owned in communist countries.  Why is that?   You can say that everyone that believes it is just crazy and brainwashed or you can actually read it for yourself and decide why this book is so important and life changing to begin with.  

Riiiiiight, so objective research supported by multiple sources of evidence derived from observation, experimentation and measurement can't be trusted, but "The word of God", which is derived from arbitrary declarations by various human beings over the years as to what 'He' is and wants of us and, more importantly, what he disapproves of like an uptight Christian Conservative, is solid evidential referencing?

Wow.

Just.Wow.

:head-desk:
:head-desk:
:head-floor:

AAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHH

How do I get this silly post off my update feed?

I have considered the other side.  Trust me, growing up in the US I was bombarded with evolutionary teaching from grade school on.  I even believed it for a long time.  I only recently found that it was all lies and realize that the word of God is really the one thing I should trust above all.  Really, is it logical to believe that the beautiful and intricately designed life we see around us just happened by random chance?  We live in a world that wants desperately to discredit God and His word.  You can call me a fanatic. You can say I am the one that is "brainwashed."  But there will come a day when every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.  The question is will people do it now, on their own and receive the gift of eternal life or will they do it when they are forced to and suffer the consequences of rejecting God?  But everyone has that choice.

I cannot do justice to what I found by Dr. Kent Hovind for this subject so here it is:

It is true that there are a wide variety of dogs on earth today but please consider the following list of facts.

1.  All the evidence that mankind has ever been able to observe shows us that dogs produce dogs.
2. While there are small dogs and large dogs, there seems to be a limit. I would be willing to bet no one will ever get a dog as small as a flea or as big as Texas.
3.  Dogs also seem able to “adapt” to various climates. Some can survive at -30F in Alaska and others have “adapted” to ±120 in deserts. Again however, there are limits. They will never adapt to ±300F! Or 10,000F!!!
4.  I have had several people who raise dogs for a living tell me that they can take fifty generic “mutts” from the dog pound and, with selective breeding, re-create nearly every breed of dog today in less than 100 years.
5.  Richard Dawkins, famous English atheist who hates creationists (See the movie, “Expelled”), wrote a book in 2005 called The Ancestor’s Tale. On pages 29-31, he tells of a Russian science team that took captive silver foxes and bred them for “tameness.” In twenty years, they watched them change into dogs! They looked like border collies, sought human company, wagged their tails when approached, had black and white coats, had dog-like muzzles and “lovable” floppy ears, developed hormone changes to breed year round, and displayed less aggression. I think you will find that nearly everyone (creationist or evolutionist) agrees that all dogs could have descended from foxes or wolves with no problems.
6. To look at the really big picture, I think it is funny to listen to an evolutionists ask a creationist, “How could all the dogs in the world come from just two dogs on Noah’s ark?” and then turn around and teach that all the dogs in the world came from a rock! Over billions of years of course!  On page 31 of The Ancestor’s Tale, Dawkins says, “It is entirely probable that cattle, pigs horses, sheep, goats, chickens, geese, ducks, and camels followed a course which was just as fast and just as rich in unexpected side-effects.”

Keep in mind that the changes needed to turn a wolf, fox, or jackal into a dog are minor compared to turning a rock into a dog or even an amoeba into a dog. I’m even willing to let them have the huge head start of not dealing with the major problem of the origin of life issue and letting them start with a hamster (already a mammal, air-breathing, and land-dwelling) and see if they can turn it into a dog.

I'm having trouble reconciling your appeal to ignorance (amongst the many other logical fallacies you employ) with this post of yours:

Do you understand that the Scientific Method of enquiry means that anybody can recreate the experiments and check the results for themselves? That is the whole point of Scientific Theory, which is NOT the same as "Hey I have a theory as to why  . . ."

So in this thread you close your eyes and block your ears to rational argument and plead for your case on the basis that you can't wrap your head around the scientific facts, so you choose 'facts' which have been asserted by authority, namely, religion. But in the other thread you, quite rightly, point out that it is not possible to prove a fact by general consensus and that, just because billions of people believe in something it does not make it true, you know, like your God.

Your lack of ability to understand evolution is hindered by your unwillingness to practice critical thinking outside the narrow confines of your appeal-to-authority (where what/who you consider to be an authority (The Bible/Preachers) says so) mythology.

Double-standards much?

There were two of each kind of animal, not all species and they would have been young and not fully grown.  Sea life would not have been included either.

What is more shocking than the idea of two of each kind of animals being on a ark?  How about all animals evolving from some primordial soup (which is essentially what evolution teaches)  That is even crazier!