Post Any Evidence For God Here

[PLAYER57832]

That's just how I roll.

I'm just saying. The argument from suffering is really one of the more convincing arguments I've seen to demonstrate that even if there is a god, there isn't much reason to worship him.

It is a compelling argument. But the answer is simply that the alternative would be worse. We may not see it, understand it, but most who believe pretty much accepts some version of that.

Surely for an all-powerful being there isn't one alternative. And surely there are as many better ones than there are worse ones. If you want to concede that a god could be so despicable and yet still deserve praise, that's on you. But...

You are painting a box where all that is possible is only what you see.

Look at it this way. If I could travel back in time and elminate Hitler when he was still a boy... I probably would.

YET, in so doing, I would perhaps save 6,000,000 people and perhaps not, because maybe it was not the person, it was the combination of events of that time.

Maybe by eliminating Hitler, that crisis would not happen, but say another, even worse despot arose. Or, maybe someone just as bad, but then Germany had the atomic weapon, or Japan did or another nation. Maybe instead of 6,000,000 it was half the world that was devastated.

I know for sure that while millions would have lived, many wonderful people alive today would not be alive, because their parents would not have come to the US or migrated wherever they did, after. The effect on Judaism would be profound. Perhaps a good "profound" or, perhaps there was something there that needed to be "corrected" and tamed.

Without Hitler, there would not be Death Camps, but we would also not have Anne Frank, Corrie Taunbaum, or the many heroes and heroines who came about.

These are just a few short things that would have changed fundamentally. I cannot even begin to envision all the ramificaitons of all.

I do know that without pain, there is no real and true understanding of joy. I do know that sadness and suffering are very much a part of who we are. We would not be who we are, we effectively would not be human without them.

So, while I cannot say why or how, I cannot say what could be worse than the terrible things I know exist, that I see, that I read about and even just imagine, I believe God knows best and that the alternatives are worse for us.

I make my children endure shots, not because I enjoy the pain, but because I understand it will help them in the long run. I say that not because I deny the risk that they might be seriously injured by the vaccine or medicine, I do it because I know the alternatives are just much, much worse.

I really don't mind people posting images as evidence for God.

The problem is in an old thread. Someone posts all these wonderful pictures that they see as "proof of God".

But then, along come the synics with some pretty disturbing pictures.

We all know those things exist. We discuss them. But, this site is visited by kids, etc...and few people wants to face pictures of a disembowled baby while cruising a thread, drinking their coffee in the morning.

The picture is kinda iconic. Also, I used it to spur an argument with CrazyAnglican for pages and pages awhile back. I wish I could say I was sorry to ruin your coffee, but I frankly don't give a shit. Pictures like that should ruin everyone's day all the time.[/quote]

That would be valid if I were denying the existance of those things. Some people might need a picture to tell them. I don't.
But the big thing is not me, its that we have kids who come here and while they do need to know such things exist, to see them then, in that manner is not the way. My 9 year old son was looking over my shoulder. That particular picture was OK, in fact lead to a conversation. However, those other pictures... at the time, I had much younger kids here and it just was not something they needed to see.

I understand the point. You made it.

[SultanOfSurreal]

that's the exact image i came here to post neoteny

::brohugs::

the existence of evil is completely irreconcilable with a god that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. either he doesn't know enough information to stop evil, is not powerful enough to stop evil, or just doesn't give a shit. and if any of those propositions is true, the christian god is therefore a fiction.

i'm sure none of you are very keen on becoming brahmins, so having disproved your own personal skyman, i feel i've done enough

[Army of GOD]

First piece:



Second piece:



Third piece:








I think I win.

[rockfist]

Quantum theory is evidence of the existence of God.

[Army of GOD]

It's ok rockfist, I think I already PROVED God's existence, and then there was enough left over that I also proved Captain Planet's existence.

[2dimes]

This comes fairly close to what I believe in, but I do have to bait a little and ask you when you consciously rejected Budhha, Krishna, et al?

Rejection is not always a decision, and neither is faith. To call disbelief in monotheistic religions a rejection of God is kind of a cheapening of faith to me. Most don't make that decision. I doubt that you think you're particularly more thoughtful about belief than most others who inherited their religion. My guess (and I invite correction, as I'm putting words into your mouth), would be that you follow the religion of your parents, and what is socially acceptable in the area where you live.

Acception or rejection seem like the wrong way to look at the issue of faith- it suggests a free market of belief. It's as wrong a way of explaining someone's spiritual character as it is for me to suggest that your beliefs are purely the result of where you were born.

I'll respond honestly even though I don't believe in the intenet. My mom taught me to be a Christian, read the bible to me, told me about the God of the old testament, all the cool bible stories like Noah, Moses, Samson, Lot, Cain & Able and obviously Jesus. I though yeah that's fine. She used to ask, "You accept Jesus as your saviour right?" Uh, yeah, I guess. What are you going to say to your mom? we never went to church because my dad doesn't know if God is real or not.

So when I was around 20 a good buddy of mine said, "I've really been thinking about Jesus lately. You know was he who he claimed or just a really good teacher." He was being raised catholic same deal as me with better statues. I think he was 18 and just finishing high school. I didn't really know what to think, I wasn't really sure what he wanted me to say.

He was taking Tiger Claw. It was a mixed martial arts system that started in Winipeg. They taught wing chun, Tai chi and Pakua with some other things mixed in. I was from the part of town where the taekwan do guys would get beat up by guys that could fight. I used to tease my buddy about his martial arts. One time we were discussing it and a few of the things he had learned impressed me. Also the concept of chi is interesting. I planned on taking some Tiger Claw but it didn't fit my schedule. Then I started hanging out with a Budist influenced cult. They claimed to teach Shaolin Kung fu. They mostly worshiped the top guy of their system. I never bought into the guy so I didn't make it to the inner circle. A while after I left the system had a huge ugly schism and came apart because they tried to remove an instructor they were using as a tax sheild and it didn't go as usual. I still think budism is pretty cool but those guys are not a good reflexion.

I also didn't get too caught up in the cult because I was a Christian and to me Taoism was a much better fit for the martial arts. Well as I aged and looked into things more and more I started to notice religion is a great idea that doesn't seem to work because of people. I think if I were to be religious I would be Taoist. Of all the earth religions it's the one that fits me best.

When I was around 23 I was working with a painter that was wearing an Amy Grant t-shirt. I knew who she was because another buddy of mine who's foster mom was a hardcore, speaking in tounges, laying hands, bible wielding lady, had lamented to us how unfourtunate it was that Amy wasn't a christian any more. I asked the painter, "Where'd you get the shirt." he said, "I can't tell you." I thought ok whatever, "Why?" I asked, he rebutted, "Are you a christian?" I stoped to think for a second, something I would not have done 5 years before then. "Yeah, I'm a christian, sure." He asked, "What makes you a christian?" I told him, (because I had took a moment to think about it before I answered) "Because of all the teaching I've read Jesus' is the best in my opinion and allways right." Even though as Gahndi points out usually miss taught. Well there was a little more conversation and eventually me and the painter parted ways after he prophisiesed about me getting married and having kids. I scoffed and told him, "You're way off dude, I don't like red heads and I'm not having any kids." (I now have two kids my wife's not a natural red head so the jury's still out on that.)

One of the things I gleaned off my catholic Tiger Claw bud was the way I read the bible. I just open it to anywhere and let it speak to you. I've never found another book religious text or otherwise that can do that the same way. Typically the subject will have relavence to my life at the time. The other cool thing is I can read a part that I've read hundreds of times and get something almost new and fresh each time even though I remember that part.

So eventually I started to consider that question, "Who is Jesus really?" Good teacher, prophet, street magician, son of God or just a white guy in a robe that hung around with the jews for some reason until they had the romans kill him 2000 years ago.

I always felt his teaching to be above any other. I allways had a conection to something I thought of as God and he was allways the old testament dude. I've never feared him in the catholic way. I allways had a respect of infinate power fear of him. A quote from a song I like is, "Not fear like from a gun but the heat of the sun." Then I had to figure out where Jesus fit in with that.

I was 27 and at the peak of my life. I was semi active in that cult learning kempo and what ever else they were passing off as shaolin kung fu budist monkery. I was bassist in an ok band. I was finishing an electrician's appreticeship. I had just got a private pilot's license and finally had an adult girl friend. The back story on the girl friend is long and off subject. I don't know if she ever took over a ship and stole it's cargo murdering the crew or not but in every other way she was a pirate's wench. I had never kissed a girl. Lots of strange and wonderfull things happened, some of it I treasure some of it I regret. I have a pretty out there sense of humour and made a joke that hurt her feelings. I didn't know where things were going but I did love her and knew I shouldn't have hurt her like that. She told me to leave and I knew I had to. On the way home I thought a lot about what had happened. I thought about how it was everyone else's fault. Everyone had allways known me as "the nice guy" and I was, mostly. I thought about how her ex boy friend and father of her child messed her up, her first boyfriend and her step mom. Obviously it was one of them and not me, I was "the nice guy".

When I got home it was christmas eve, my parents were there with my brother and his fiancee. They were happy to see me and wanted to open presents. I said I wasn't really feeling up to it and went to my lair in the basement. I went to bed and tought about what I'd done. Finally admited to myself I was the one that should never have hurt her that night. I then decided I couldn't be the nice guy because it's too easy to be a jerk and there must be something causing me to do that because I knew being "the nice guy" was allways the right move.

I decided I was scum like any human, I am susuptible to corruption and I need Jesus to pay for my sin and help me make the right decisions and be "the nice guy." I offerend my life to God through Yeshua as I decided to believe his statement, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." I ceased to be a "christian" traded religion for a relationship and rejected all my other gods.

After that day I started seeing more evidence than I ever did before. Funny thing about God's evidence it's allways subjective, could have been luck, co-incidental or how ever you want to look at it. The thing is I've seen some really spectacular lucky things I've asked for through prayer. So here I am, I always thought about it like "Occam's razor" if I spend my life making the choice to do the right thing and make it a better life for me and everyone I interact with and then die and was just a random clump of cells that happened by accident. Me and those I interact with still had a better life.

[john9blue]

It's been a while since we had a good religion thread. Usually the arguments are discussed one by one, not a free for all religion debate...

Anyway about the 3 omnis thing... there's some problems with that. You could argue that African kids starving is part of nature's course. Looks horrible to us (because we can kind of relate) but maybe the kid's loss in the race for survival of the fittest (and the losses of many others over a long period of time) brings about greater good through natural selection. It's hard for humans to say for sure that God isn't omnipotent (guiding us without our knowledge?) or omniscient (doesn't the universe follows set laws?) or omnibenevolent (who are we to say what is ultimately good?).

So if you pull a Leibniz/Pangloss and say that this actually IS the best possible universe (or set of universes) (or ONLY possible set) then it's not really a problem.

Also, everyone who has heard about God must make at least a slight judgment call about whether He exists or not, so it's not really possible to "not have belief".

[Phatscotty]

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

You can't prove it, you can't disprove it. You are asking all the wrong questions in all the wrong places (CC?).

[CreepersWiener]

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

You can't prove it, you can't disprove it. You are asking all the wrong questions in all the wrong places (CC?).

All you naysayers...they said the same thing about the atom.

[HapSmo19]

Are you pointing out the image of a child-like bust with his head in his hands, leaning to the left(n.p.i.), looking down at the dying child at the top/center of the photo? It is eerie.
Although, how do you know that kid wasn't Hitler or Timothy Leary in his past life and was just then getting his just reward?
Or maybe, his parents were high on khat and out fighting off the americans that were trying to deliver some food to him?...hmmm....

Without Hitler, there would not be Death Camps,...

Which planet do you live on?

http://www.novamov.com/video/gzpvi86ym82iv

[PLAYER57832]

Without Hitler, there would not be Death Camps,...

Which planet do you live on?

Its called reading in context, HapSmo. I was making a specific statement, not a general one.

And picking things out of context is pretty much a trolling tactic.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Looks horrible to us (because we can kind of relate) but maybe the kid's loss in the race for survival of the fittest (and the losses of many others over a long period of time) brings about greater good through natural selection.

holy shit.

it must be time for your weekly reminder that you are trash!

(you are rancid gutter trash)

[Frigidus]

holy shit.

it must be time for your weekly reminder that you are trash!

(you are rancid gutter trash)

Something about the cheery way he said this made me spit my drink all over the keyboard. Damn it.

[MeDeFe]

It's been a while since we had a good religion thread. Usually the arguments are discussed one by one, not a free for all religion debate...

Anyway about the 3 omnis thing... there's some problems with that. You could argue that African kids starving is part of nature's course. Looks horrible to us (because we can kind of relate) but maybe the kid's loss in the race for survival of the fittest (and the losses of many others over a long period of time) brings about greater good through natural selection. It's hard for humans to say for sure that God isn't omnipotent (guiding us without our knowledge?) or omniscient (doesn't the universe follows set laws?) or omnibenevolent (who are we to say what is ultimately good?).

Please write an essay of at least 300 words in which you explain what natural selection has to do with what's morally good and bad.

So if you pull a Leibniz/Pangloss and say that this actually IS the best possible universe (or set of universes) (or ONLY possible set) then it's not really a problem.

Then you have made a claim, an unsubstantiated claim that you cannot prove but which can easily be disproven by someone imagining a world better than this one. I just did, in my head, and your argument is void.

[AAFitz]

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

God is ultimately a matter of belief.

But then, you cannot prove there is NO God, either.

The proof for either comes within.

Sure you can. You just cant prove it to anyone else. It will also be the last thing you ever do.

[thegreekdog]

Meh, I got nothing to say. Either you believe or you don't.

[PLAYER57832]

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

God is ultimately a matter of belief.

But then, you cannot prove there is NO God, either.

The proof for either comes within.

Sure you can. You just cant prove it to anyone else. It will also be the last thing you ever do.

True.. lol.

But seriously, when I say "you cannot prove it", I mean only that you cannot prove it to other people, particularly in a 'scientific" sense (the sense that all other possibilities are eliminated for a particular set of parameters or circumstance). I feel I have seen proof of God in my own life, or I would not be believing.

[john9blue]

I was wondering what reaction I would get from that. Some things are hard to accept.

Think about it though. If the world was "perfect" by most human standards, nobody would die, and we might be overpopulated and living in miserable conditions.

Well what if we had a bigger planet, or more resources? Who says such a planet would even be able to support life up to this point?

My point is that natural selection will tend to lead, over a long period of time, towards a "higher existence" for organisms. Obviously there are setbacks (bad things happen to good people) but that's part of the consistency of the law. Besides, we can't have "good" without the "bad". That's why I think it's ridiculous for humans to judge whether the world is good or bad by our short-sighted reasoning. People tend towards progress and enlightenment, and that's all that matters.

I actually love natural selection and think it explains a LOT, more than most people are aware of. For example, one of the reasons I'm a Christian is because Christianity has been the world's dominant religion, and America's dominant religion, for the majority of the time it's been around. This seems to indicate that it is well suited for the good of society, since a bad religion (or no religion at all) which was detrimental on a society would tend to cause that society to die out. So even the religious moral codes that crop up over time are subject to natural selection.

Many Darwin supporters support his theories only so far as the theories suit their personal beliefs. That or they're not smart enough to see what they haven't been told (these are my own thoughts btw). A true proponent of natural selection would be utterly heartless about any sort of killing or suffering, because it was brought about ultimately by nature to weed out the ones who couldn't take it.

IDK if that was 300 words but whatever...

[Neoteny]

I was wondering what reaction I would get from that. Some things are hard to accept.

Think about it though. If the world was "perfect" by most human standards, nobody would die, and we might be overpopulated and living in miserable conditions.

Well what if we had a bigger planet, or more resources? Who says such a planet would even be able to support life up to this point?

My point is that natural selection will tend to lead, over a long period of time, towards a "higher existence" for organisms. Obviously there are setbacks (bad things happen to good people) but that's part of the consistency of the law. Besides, we can't have "good" without the "bad". That's why I think it's ridiculous for humans to judge whether the world is good or bad by our short-sighted reasoning. People tend towards progress and enlightenment, and that's all that matters.

I actually love natural selection and think it explains a LOT, more than most people are aware of. For example, one of the reasons I'm a Christian is because Christianity has been the world's dominant religion, and America's dominant religion, for the majority of the time it's been around. This seems to indicate that it is well suited for the good of society, since a bad religion (or no religion at all) which was detrimental on a society would tend to cause that society to die out. So even the religious moral codes that crop up over time are subject to natural selection.

Many Darwin supporters support his theories only so far as the theories suit their personal beliefs. That or they're not smart enough to see what they haven't been told (these are my own thoughts btw). A true proponent of natural selection would be utterly heartless about any sort of killing or suffering, because it was brought about ultimately by nature to weed out the ones who couldn't take it.

IDK if that was 300 words but whatever...

Not my place to go into details (I'll leave that to MeDeFe), but I'd like to point out that the middle paragraph (of your three on natural selection) is the only one with any real logic to it (regardless of whether the logic accurately represents the state of the world). The first paragraph is just absurd and the third is utter bullshit. I'd say one out of three ain't too bad.

[Imaweasel]

I guess we will all find out when we die eh?

It will kinda suck for alot of us if God is real...


anyways one thing that i have always wondered about.

People sy how awesome and amazing and what a wonderful teacher Jesus was and how moral and good and man he was....Well if he WASNT Gods son then in reality all he was was the biggest liar ever to walk the planet. The was nothing good or moral about him because he just deceived everyone.

[thegreekdog]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the bravest people in the world are atheists. If they are right, they're just dead. If they are wrong, they're in bad shape.

[Imaweasel]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the bravest people in the world are atheists. If they are right, they're just dead. If they are wrong, they're in bad shape.

ugh that is not something i want to think about....

[Neoteny]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the bravest people in the world are atheists. If they are right, they're just dead. If they are wrong, they're in bad shape.

I'm not scurred.

We're all on our moral high horse, and we feel that there is enough to back us up to the point that even if there were a god, he'd probably agree with us (of course, nobody thinks god disagrees with them), and, if nothing else, we were acting on the best information available to us, and did so in an ethical and moral manner, which is all we really care about. I suppose he could technically take my memory away from me (being all-powerful and all), but while I'm burning in the depths of hell, I'll get solace from that fact.

And if we're right, my only fear is not being able to rub it in everyone's face. Man that sucks.

[MeDeFe]

I was wondering what reaction I would get from that. Some things are hard to accept.

Think about it though. If the world was "perfect" by most human standards, nobody would die, and we might be overpopulated and living in miserable conditions.

Well what if we had a bigger planet, or more resources? Who says such a planet would even be able to support life up to this point?

My point is that natural selection will tend to lead, over a long period of time, towards a "higher existence" for organisms. Obviously there are setbacks (bad things happen to good people) but that's part of the consistency of the law. Besides, we can't have "good" without the "bad". That's why I think it's ridiculous for humans to judge whether the world is good or bad by our short-sighted reasoning. People tend towards progress and enlightenment, and that's all that matters.

I actually love natural selection and think it explains a LOT, more than most people are aware of. For example, one of the reasons I'm a Christian is because Christianity has been the world's dominant religion, and America's dominant religion, for the majority of the time it's been around. This seems to indicate that it is well suited for the good of society, since a bad religion (or no religion at all) which was detrimental on a society would tend to cause that society to die out. So even the religious moral codes that crop up over time are subject to natural selection.

Many Darwin supporters support his theories only so far as the theories suit their personal beliefs. That or they're not smart enough to see what they haven't been told (these are my own thoughts btw). A true proponent of natural selection would be utterly heartless about any sort of killing or suffering, because it was brought about ultimately by nature to weed out the ones who couldn't take it.

IDK if that was 300 words but whatever...

It's 306 words, without the first and the last line that are obviously not part of the main text. The quantity is there, but the quality is so lacking that I hardly know where to begin.

I'll make a list of the main points and then go into the details as necessary.

Firstly, you do not understand the meaning of "possible", particularly "logically possible". A concept is logically possible if it contains no internal contradictions. Just for the sake of completeness: The other important category is "naturally possible", a concept is naturally possible if it does not contradict the natural laws of our world.

Secondly, you claim that natural selection is a process with a direction, that it will lead to a particular goal. This is bullshit of the highest degree, with one ounce of this dung you could fertilize enough land to bring an end to starvation all over the world.

Thirdly, you fail to understand that even if it is in any way possible to apply natural selection to things like religion, you cannot deduce that religion must be good for society in order to perpetuate itself.

Fourthly, you seem to think that natural selection is a philosophical or moral position, in this regard you're simply wrong. Natural selection is a concept that originated in biology strictly to explain biological phenomena through a natural process, while it may be possible to describe phenomena outside of biology with this process, it has no moral, ethical or philosophical contents whatsoever.

1. Possibility
"A world better than the one in which we live." I see no contradictions in such a sentence but, admittedly, it lacks contents and the question "Better how?" is reasonable to ask, so let's say "a world in which noone starves". Arguably starvation is a bad thing and a world in which noone starves would be better than the current world in which some people starve. I can easily imagine a world in which noone starves that is otherwise identical to ours in all relevant aspects. I see no contradictions in the term "a world with no starvation". Unless you can show me how the term itself if meaningless we must conclude that such a world is logically possible.
If a better world is logically possible, Leibniz and Pangloss can suck my dick.

2. The non-directedness of natural selection
Natural selection posits that the fittest individuals of a given population are more likely to pass on their traits to a larger number of offspring than the average. "Fittest" can be defined as "best adapted to the given environment". This means, however, that "fitness" is not something absolute but relative to an overall situation, if the environment changes, the traits that used to be contributive to fitness may turn out to be a disadvantage.
Traits that are advantageous may be linked to other traits that are disadvantageous and will appear together in a significant amount of individuals, thus leading to no overall increase in fitness. E.g. Vipera berus, the dark individual tend to be somewhat larger and stronger and they need less time to get warm in the sun, however, predators that prey on them also have an easier time spotting them.

Nowhere in the definition is there any such thing as a "direction" of natural selection, it is a mindless process that will work in any way depending on any number of details.

3. Natural selection, memes and benefit to other entities
Applying the same reasoning as you did, virtually all viruses ought to be beneficial for us since those that somehow make us (their carriers) better should have an edge over those that make us sick. I think empirical evidence will disagree with this. Likewise, if you want to apply natural selection to cultural memes like religion, you need to ask yourself "How do tubgirl and meatspin benefit society?", or maybe lolcats if you want a more innocent example. Yes, from the standpoint of natural selection there's no difference between religions and pictures of cats with captions.
This is because your basic understanding of natural selection is flawed, you argue that religion (especially Christianity) must be beneficial to society because it has been around and dominant for so long. But then you're putting the cart before the horse because what you're really doing is applying natural selection to societies and concluding that their religions play a role in their dominance
If you apply natural selection to memes, the memes need only be beneficial to themselves in order to be perpetuated, they may be beneficial to society, but they may equally be detrimental, there is no way to tell since society is the environment in which they thrive or perish.
On the other hand, if you apply natural selection to societies religion becomes merely one factor among thousands, under those circumstances it is simply foolish to conclude that religion must be the one contributing factor to a society's dominance.

4. The lack of moral, ethical and philosophical contents in the process of natural selection
Let's go back to my earlier definition of natural selection. "Natural selection posits that the fittest individuals of a given population are more likely to pass on their traits to a larger number of offspring than the average. "Fittest" can be defined as "best adapted to the given environment"."
Please demonstrate where in this definition there is anything regarding morality, because I don't see it. I don't even see why you could possibly think there is. While you're at it, please explain where you got the harebrained idea that killing people is beneficial towards spreading ones genes around.

[thegreekdog]

A Catholic on evolution if anyone cares:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

EDIT - another one - http://www.nd.edu/~lumen/2005_08/Darwin ... cism.shtml