Proof Of God Thread.

[heavenlyboy34]

[Emphasis mine]

It's ironic that you would make such a claim without providing any proof to warrant the truth of your assertion.

Fear not- you're still the king of unverifiable claims in my book. lolz

 

[LATruth]

Man made god, man killed god. Understanding evolves. Ideas change. Nothing is certain but uncertainty. I'm sure it's quite comfortable in a padded, god protected, fragile eggshell of an existence. It is also quite liberating to come to terms of a Darwinian existence, free yourself from the shackles of religious oppression, and truly be able to express oneself as intended by nature.

 

[Arnack]

Zeitgeist and contradictions within the book are enough proof to me to dismiss it.

 

[LATruth]

Zeitgeist and contradictions within the book are enough proof to me to dismiss it.

Zeitgeist also had more of a profound impact on my way of thinking than the bible.

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Sandman33]

Zeitgeist also had more of a profound impact on my way of thinking than the bible.

Zeitgiest was thoroughly debunked in relation to it's religious aspects. The rest is a damn good movie.

Proof God exists? You're here. And you're self aware.

 

[LATruth]

Zeitgiest was thoroughly debunked in relation to it's religious aspects. The rest is a damn good movie.

Proof God exists? You're here. And you're self aware.

How can you debunk similarities? Coincidences on disciples vs constellations, plagiarism from one religion to the next? You can't debunk fiction! But I can prove the constellations exist, I can prove most religions are by-products of sun worship.

And being here and self aware doesn't prove anything. I guess life only exists on earth too, not in the BILLIONS of other galaxies we can only verify via the light spectrum and primitive technology. Religion is too earth centric to be taken seriously.

 

[Sandman33]

How can you debunk similarities? Coincidences on disciples vs constellations, plagiarism from one religion to the next? You can't debunk fiction! But I can prove the constellations exist, I can prove most religions are by-products of sun worship.

And being here and self aware doesn't prove anything. I guess life only exists on earth too, not in the BILLIONS of other galaxies we can only verify via the light spectrum and primitive technology. Religion is too earth centric to be taken seriously.

I was referring to Zietgeists claim that Jesus never existed. That was debunked.

And about other civilizations...there very well may be, that still has nothing to do with my point about proof of Gods existance.

You're here. Thats it. Whether evolution is true (to a point) or not has to reflection on whether or not a creator exists.

All we see and all we are did not come from NOTHING.

Instinct and knowledge known upon birth must come from somewhere.

 

[torchbearer]

I was referring to Zietgeists claim that Jesus never existed. That was debunked.

That was my major complaint with Zeitgeist- the evidence shows the gospel stories were taken from pagan stories. But that doesn't prove Jesus didn't exist- just that the stories aren't of him.
It was an nonfactual leap to say Jesus didn't exist.

 

[Theocrat]

To Be Like Objectivist

How can you debunk similarities? Coincidences on disciples vs constellations, plagiarism from one religion to the next? You can't debunk fiction! But I can prove the constellations exist, I can prove most religions are by-products of sun worship.

And being here and self aware doesn't prove anything. I guess life only exists on earth too, not in the BILLIONS of other galaxies we can only verify via the light spectrum and primitive technology. Religion is too earth centric to be taken seriously.

[Emphasis mine]

Let me see you prove constellations exist, but you can't use outer space nor the writings and drawings of men to prove it.

 

[torchbearer]

[Emphasis mine]

Let me see you prove constellations exist, but you can't use outer space nor the writings and drawings of men to prove it.

Either you can use what you see with your eyes, or nothing is provable.
Does your keyboard exist? Or is it just a dream?
Such a path only leads to nothing is known- thus everything is a fairy tale.
Might as well pull the plug and put a bullet through your brain.

We know we are in a giant cosmos of stars, planets, galaxies, etc.
We can see it.
I have yet to see god.

 

[Arnack]

[Emphasis mine]

Let me see you prove constellations exist, but you can't use outer space nor the writings and drawings of men to prove it.

You can see constellations. What more is there to say? Kind of an obvious comment, to say the least.
(here comes the counter logic....)

 

[Liberty Star]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2165492&postcount=48

 

[Theocrat]

Seeing is Not the Only Way to Believe

Either you can use what you see with your eyes, or nothing is provable.
Does your keyboard exist? Or is it just a dream?
Such a path only leads to nothing is known- thus everything is a fairy tale.
Might as well pull the plug and put a bullet through your brain.

We know we are in a giant cosmos of stars, planets, galaxies, etc.
We can see it.
I have yet to see god.

You can see constellations. What more is there to say? Kind of an obvious comment, to say the least.
(here comes the counter logic....)

I said you can't use outer space to prove constellations exist, but you're telling me to look out at space to see constellations. By Objectivist's reasoning, that would not prove constellations exist.

Also, material entities such as the sky and keyboards are not the only things which are real and true. Just because you can't see something does not conclude it doesn't exist. The wind is an immediate example of that.

In fact, there are immaterial realities in the universe which are very near to our human perception and important to our existence. No one can see logic, love, liberty, or life because they are conceptual in nature. Nonetheless, they do exist and are very real. The same applies to God. He is by nature immaterial or spiritual, but He is very real to human perception and existence, just not in an empirical way.

 

[LATruth]

I was referring to Zietgeists claim that Jesus never existed. That was debunked.

There is no proof Jesus existed. This also has been drug through the mud. And no, the bible is not proof of his existence.

 

[LATruth]

No one can see logic, love, liberty, or life because they are conceptual in nature. Nonetheless, they do exist and are very real. The same applies to God. He is by nature immaterial or spiritual, but He is very real to human perception and existence, just not in an empirical way.

You can not equate god to emotions and states of being. And god has never been very real in my human perception.

 

[Objectivist]

So you have hard proof that a God does not exist? The intent of your post may be to remove God from political discussions - but why do you need to start a thread to throw around all the "god is a fantasy" crap?

People of all cultures, from the most primitive to the most advanced, believe in God. There's more than just a fantasy here; there's a reason. They don't have to work themselves into belief. Quite the contrary, it's a natural conclusion based on the observed order of the world, more like an effortless response than a contrivance.

Most people, when left to their own wits, see beyond the visible to what's behind it and what explains it. Even atheistic naturalists posit "Mother Nature." Why would they use this particular phrase? They use it because it seems like someone is there--assembling, building, organizing, designing.

Atheism, not belief in God, is the real anomaly--the response that's unnatural, forced, and artificial. Disbelief, not belief, takes the real effort. It's almost as if man has to talk himself out of believing in God; he has to engage in mental gymnastics to dissuade himself.

So please--is atheism a reality, or is atheism just an idea, a fantasy, an emotional crutch, wishful thinking?

It's not for me to prove a negative. So whenever you're ready post your evidence.

 

[Theocrat]

What God Is

You can not equate god to emotions and states of being.

I never said God is an emotion. I said, like the nature of emotions and concepts, He is not a Being Which takes up space.

And god has never been very real in my human perception.

Well, He's been very real in my perception, like the very air I breathe.

 

[Objectivist]

You are not an objectivist. To say that one cannot use the Bible to prove God's existence is one of the most dishonest and ignorant proposals in today's postmodern era. It's like asking someone to prove cells exist but forbidding them to use a microscope to see them (because they have a personal problem with microscopes). Yet, that is exactly what you're doing when excluding the Bible as proof for God's existence. You don't like the Bible, and you believe it's a work of fiction, so therefore, it can't be used as proof for God's existence. That is not in any way a philosophically cogent argument.

As someone who claims to be an advocate of logic and reason, you have failed to see the logical fallacy of your challenge. In effect, you have "poisoned the well" on this account:

• Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about Person or Thing A is presented.
• Therefore, any claims Person or Thing A makes will be false.

Your argument goes like this:

• The Bible is a work of fiction, not fact, used by stupid people.
• Therefore, the Bible cannot prove God's existence because its claims about God are not real.

For starters, you have failed to show objectively how the Bible is a work of fiction. You have simply taken that claim for granted as an unargued assumption in your challenge. Also, you have completely dismissed any evidences in prophecy, history, archeology, natural sciences, textual criticism, civics and law, and other disciplines which have confirmed that what the Bible claims to be true about God is indeed true. Once again, you are not being objective.

There have been many proofs for God's existence provided to you, Objectivist. The problem is you aren't persuaded of those proofs, but that does not mean the proofs fall just because you haven't assented to what they show to be true about God. You're making a categorical mistake between proof and persuasion. A person can be given hundreds of proofs for something, and he can still reject them all, based on his guiding presuppositions as to what the nature of proof should be to convince him. You need to understand that.

From a transcendental perspective, it is not your job as an "atheist" to show that the proofs for God fail. Even if you could, that doesn't prove that "atheism" is correct. Your belief in the nonexistence of God has to be proven true, as well. If you stick to purely scientific or empirical methods, those will not prove God's nonexistence, and thus, it does not validate your assertion that there is no God. So then how do you prove your belief that there is no God? What evidence backs up that belief?

Reality is I liked the bible, it was a fun read. Then so is reading Stan Lee's Spiderman. What part of the bible is fiction statement do you have a problem with? It's hearsay and nothing more. You want to prove god exists from a work of fiction? Then Spiderman is real too.

 

[sevin]

For starters, you have failed to show objectively how the Bible is a work of fiction.

Once again you have it all backwards. I have a book called Green Eggs and Ham. Now prove to me objectively that this is a work of fiction. Until you do, I will believe in and worship the almighty green eggs and ham.