Post Any Evidence For God Here

[AndyDufresne]

WOW! I am such a fan of your work Andy, I think I am going to start doing this too. Maybe some other people will join me.

From now on, every response will be a picture of spam, a troll, or star wars...not sure yet. I guess it depends on the thread topic.

Logic can show there is a God.

--Andy

[chang50]

btw, I would like to raise a question in this discussion. Are we as human beings even able to recognize divine power if it exists? Because I don't think we are.

The whole idea we can remotely understand and worse give answers to the big questions relating to existence is both arrogant and fatuous in the extreme.Theists regularly present themselves as humble,yet how can claiming to know how everything came about be humble?I have far more respect for a simple don't know.This does not impede attempts to pursue lines of inquiry that might advance this quest a tad,indeed a realisation of our total insignificance in the grand scheme of things can only help.I reckon most theists are sincere and do not recognise the arrogance that is central to their beliefs,but nevertheless that is my view,and is not a personal attack.

[Haggis_McMutton]

btw, I would like to raise a question in this discussion. Are we as human beings even able to recognize divine power if it exists? Because I don't think we are.

The whole idea we can remotely understand and worse give answers to the big questions relating to existence is both arrogant and fatuous in the extreme.Theists regularly present themselves as humble,yet how can claiming to know how everything came about be humble?I have far more respect for a simple don't know.This does not impede attempts to pursue lines of inquiry that might advance this quest a tad,indeed a realisation of our total insignificance in the grand scheme of things can only help.I reckon most theists are sincere and do not recognise the arrogance that is central to their beliefs,but nevertheless that is my view,and is not a personal attack.

Yep, I think that's a central point. Saying "I don't know" is hard, especially when it comes to emotional matters such as regarding our death and our purpose.
However, I'll go further than your claim. I'd say that "I don't know" is the prerequisite of knowledge. As long as you "know" that the way to stop the floods from ruining the crops is to sacrifice a kid at the full moon, you will not progress past that junk explanation. Admittance of ignorance is a fundamental aspect of any real inquiry.

Oh, and just to counter all of Andy's TOS:

[waauw]

Logic can show there is a God.

Here's a what I heard was said in the video and I added some remarks:

• Thomas aquinas said there has to be a god because there is movement and there has to be something to start the movement.
  ==> This is not true. His theory is completely outdated as in his time people had no knowledge of atoms and subatomic particles. Physics dictates that every object holds some form adhesive, cohesive or repulsive force(however small or however big). Here is an exampl. If you place 2 magnets near each other completely still, these magnets will either attract each other or repel each other depending on polarizations. In other words without there being an original movement or a god-entity knocking down the dominos of causality, movement is created. The mere existence of the 2 magnets is enough to create movement.
  
• His second argument was that nothing can come from nothing. In other words how can there be matter without a creator. How can there be a big bang without a creator?
  ==> The problem with this assumption is that you assume that everything has to come from somewhere but the creator doesn't. It is just assumed that he has always existed. So why not skip a step and just say there has always been some matter or some other universe? Or why not just say "I don't know"? It would seem to me that between these 3 options, religious people just seem to want to pick the option which sounds nicest according to their own perception. This is however but an assumption. In my opinion the best option in these 3 is just to say "I don't know", as that is our actual situation.
  
• His third argument was that atheists are closed minded because there have been scientists like Sir Isaac Newton who were theists.
  ==> This argument is completely ridiculous. Scientific break-throughs have been made by both theists and atheists.

[comic boy]

Viceroy
What you seem unable to grasp is the fact your God and my Spag Monster are both unfalsifiable , but also just 2 of many millions of similarly unfalsifiable possibilities. The probability of discovering and recognising the ' creator ' , if indeed one ever existed , is so small as to be utterly insignificant.
Your position is simply one of blind faith , do you conduct all your business in a similar fashion , I certainly dont.

Again the proof is in the prophecies. No spaghetti monster ever foretold future events or even stated such a thing as "test me in this or Prove me in this."

Malachi 3:10
Isaiah 46:10
Deuteronomy 18:22

The prophecies are all the proof and evidence that any objective and unbiased mind needs to reason and figure this out. But to the unreasonable mind there is no such thing. Even though it all happened as foretold and no spaghetti monster ever cause words like those to be written in advanced of their happenstances.

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:..."
Isaiah 1:18

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you actually too dim to understand the point I am making. Those prophesies were written by men , you will say inspired by God, I say dictated by The Spag monster, our claims are equal. In terms of probability though we are both almost certainly wrong because there are millions of other potential candidates.

[john9blue]

"flying spaghetti monster god" is a subset of "god", how is that so fucking hard to understand

[chang50]

"flying spaghetti monster god" is a subset of "god", how is that so fucking hard to understand

It isn't,did anyone say it was?

[john9blue]

so when you say that the FSM is ridiculous, why do you think that implies that all possible gods are ridiculous?

[crispybits]

I must have missed the bit where he said FSM was ridiculous, unless ridiculous now means "very very unlikely"

[chang50]

so when you say that the FSM is ridiculous, why do you think that implies that all possible gods are ridiculous?

I wasn't aware I ever said that.However some atheists do illustrate the unlikeliness of the existence of gods by analogy to the existence of such things such as the FSM which is almost universally considered ridiculous.You would hardly expect atheists not to consider the existence of gods unlikely to ridiculously unlikely.

[BigBallinStalin]

btw, I would like to raise a question in this discussion. Are we as human beings even able to recognize divine power if it exists? Because I don't think we are.

Sure, we can. Isn't that divine power the American armed forces who flew in the Silver Ships of Divine Light and Sound? Manna dropped from the heavens.

[Viceroy63]

Viceroy
What you seem unable to grasp is the fact your God and my Spag Monster are both unfalsifiable , but also just 2 of many millions of similarly unfalsifiable possibilities. The probability of discovering and recognising the ' creator ' , if indeed one ever existed , is so small as to be utterly insignificant.
Your position is simply one of blind faith , do you conduct all your business in a similar fashion , I certainly dont.

Again the proof is in the prophecies. No spaghetti monster ever foretold future events or even stated such a thing as "test me in this or Prove me in this."

Malachi 3:10
Isaiah 46:10
Deuteronomy 18:22

The prophecies are all the proof and evidence that any objective and unbiased mind needs to reason and figure this out. But to the unreasonable mind there is no such thing. Even though it all happened as foretold and no spaghetti monster ever cause words like those to be written in advanced of their happenstances.

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:..."
Isaiah 1:18

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you actually too dim to understand the point I am making. Those prophesies were written by men , you will say inspired by God, I say dictated by The Spag monster, our claims are equal. In terms of probability though we are both almost certainly wrong because there are millions of other potential candidates.

There is no need for insults. You mentioned proof and I am stating that the proof is in the prophecies. Any reasonable and logical study of the Holy Scriptures would come to the same logical conclusion. The "spaghetti monster" is your creation, we are God's and that is the most logical conclusion available for the evidence presented.

[comic boy]

Viceroy
The flying Spag Monster is not my creation , your ignorance does you no credit. Anyhow why are you still not addressing my point about probability , you have a consistent record of avoiding straight forward questions , what are you afraid of ?

[comic boy]

so when you say that the FSM is ridiculous, why do you think that implies that all possible gods are ridiculous?

I also do not recall anybody using the term ridiculous, have you the quote in question . What I said was that all ' Gods ' be they past,present or future , have an equal basis of probability.
Given that there are an infinite number of possibilities , the probability factor of each is minute.

[chang50]

Viceroy
What you seem unable to grasp is the fact your God and my Spag Monster are both unfalsifiable , but also just 2 of many millions of similarly unfalsifiable possibilities. The probability of discovering and recognising the ' creator ' , if indeed one ever existed , is so small as to be utterly insignificant.
Your position is simply one of blind faith , do you conduct all your business in a similar fashion , I certainly dont.

Again the proof is in the prophecies. No spaghetti monster ever foretold future events or even stated such a thing as "test me in this or Prove me in this."

Malachi 3:10
Isaiah 46:10
Deuteronomy 18:22

The prophecies are all the proof and evidence that any objective and unbiased mind needs to reason and figure this out. But to the unreasonable mind there is no such thing. Even though it all happened as foretold and no spaghetti monster ever cause words like those to be written in advanced of their happenstances.

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:..."
Isaiah 1:18

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you actually too dim to understand the point I am making. Those prophesies were written by men , you will say inspired by God, I say dictated by The Spag monster, our claims are equal. In terms of probability though we are both almost certainly wrong because there are millions of other potential candidates.

There is no need for insults. You mentioned proof and I am stating that the proof is in the prophecies. Any reasonable and logical study of the Holy Scriptures would come to the same logical conclusion. The "spaghetti monster" is your creation, we are God's and that is the most logical conclusion available for the evidence presented.

Where is the insult in comparing two scenarios that have such vanishingly low probabilities of being true?

[john9blue]

I wasn't aware I ever said that.However some atheists do illustrate the unlikeliness of the existence of gods by analogy to the existence of such things such as the FSM which is almost universally considered ridiculous.You would hardly expect atheists not to consider the existence of gods unlikely to ridiculously unlikely.

I also do not recall anybody using the term ridiculous, have you the quote in question . What I said was that all ' Gods ' be they past,present or future , have an equal basis of probability.
Given that there are an infinite number of possibilities , the probability factor of each is minute.

all aliens have an equal basis of probability.

therefore your belief in the probable existence of aliens is just as ridiculous as my belief in the existence of purple polka-dotted slime aliens that speak swedish and eat truffles.

sounds like a retarded argument, doesn't it? surely i can't be stupid enough to think those two things are similar, right?

welcome to my world when i try to debate with a modern atheist.

[BigBallinStalin]

J9B, let's run with your analogy:


Is there a difference between saying, (1) "there are aliens of a particular kind out there. They have X characteristics, and do Y sorts of things," and (2) "there are aliens out there, but I'm not really sure what they are like"?

(I can think we can agree that there is a difference).


Most religions (theistic) seem to go with the (1) approach. Pantheists or "there's some higher power thingabob out there" go with the (2) approach.

Now, do atheists reject both (1) and (2)?

And, if probability is deemed good enough for determining truth, then is (1) more probable to be true, or is (2) more probable?*

*

It seems that most atheists are definitely atheist regarding claims similar to (1) and (2), but some atheists (perhaps, "agnostic atheists") reject (1) but not quite (2).

[Haggis_McMutton]

I wasn't aware I ever said that.However some atheists do illustrate the unlikeliness of the existence of gods by analogy to the existence of such things such as the FSM which is almost universally considered ridiculous.You would hardly expect atheists not to consider the existence of gods unlikely to ridiculously unlikely.

I also do not recall anybody using the term ridiculous, have you the quote in question . What I said was that all ' Gods ' be they past,present or future , have an equal basis of probability.
Given that there are an infinite number of possibilities , the probability factor of each is minute.

all aliens have an equal basis of probability.

therefore your belief in the probable existence of aliens is just as ridiculous as my belief in the existence of purple polka-dotted slime aliens that speak swedish and eat truffles.

sounds like a retarded argument, doesn't it? surely i can't be stupid enough to think those two things are similar, right?

welcome to my world when i try to debate with a modern atheist.

Guys, guys, I got this (I've learned the misdirection tactics john likes by now).

FSM isn't used to discredit the general idea of "a god". FSM is used (in this scenario) to discredit the idea of the vengeful yet somehow omnibenevolent, showing very little foresight yet somehow omniscient, and blaming everyone else for his fuck-ups yet somehow omnipotent abrahamic god of the bible. (which is probably why comic brought up the FSM when responding to viceroy, who believes in such a specific god).

That specific god is about as unlikely as the FSM, so the analogy works.

Discussing the probability of "a god" is a different game, and begins with the question. "Define your god". Cuase otherwise the question is meaningless (the word "god" means too many different things to too many different people).

So, you wanna show how the full-o-inconsitencies abrahamic god is so much more likely than zeus, thor and the FSM?

[smegal69]

If Mary gave birth to Jesus, And Jesus is the Lamb of God............. did Mary have a Little Lamb???

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Anyone find it a bit odd that, considering ol' phatsco is religious, or at least a religious apologist, yet is sportin' a Penn Jillete avy? Just me?

[Haggis_McMutton]

Anyone find it a bit odd that, considering ol' phatsco is religious, or at least a religious apologist, yet is sportin' a Penn Jillete avy? Just me?

sshhh, don't tell him.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Be vwewy vwewy quiet.

[chang50]

I wasn't aware I ever said that.However some atheists do illustrate the unlikeliness of the existence of gods by analogy to the existence of such things such as the FSM which is almost universally considered ridiculous.You would hardly expect atheists not to consider the existence of gods unlikely to ridiculously unlikely.

I also do not recall anybody using the term ridiculous, have you the quote in question . What I said was that all ' Gods ' be they past,present or future , have an equal basis of probability.
Given that there are an infinite number of possibilities , the probability factor of each is minute.

all aliens have an equal basis of probability.

therefore your belief in the probable existence of aliens is just as ridiculous as my belief in the existence of purple polka-dotted slime aliens that speak swedish and eat truffles.

sounds like a retarded argument, doesn't it? surely i can't be stupid enough to think those two things are similar, right?

welcome to my world when i try to debate with a modern atheist.

You really need some fresh air pal, each successive post is making less sense than its predecessor,the point is we just don't have sufficient evidence or knowledge about 'aliens' or alleged 'gods' to believe that any of them exist.We can speculate till the cows come home,which is harmless enough (until people start to actually believe shit.)

[2dimes]

He is suggesting a difference between something like, alien greys from Roswell versus the one eyed one horned flying purple people eater.

They both might be fictional, but even if one is a known mockery of the other. The silly one does not discredit the other even if that was the intended purpose.

[2dimes]

Anyone find it a bit odd that, considering ol' phatsco is religious, or at least a religious apologist, yet is sportin' a Penn Jillete avy? Just me?

sshhh, don't tell him.

A bit, thing is maybe he's a fan like me. I've met Penn, though briefly after a show with Teller. I love those guys and even though many including myself continue to confuse him with some who believe in Magic. He's just a really great guy.