Conquer Club

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

The following is Evidence for God:




The End

Sorry there's no such thing as proof, you must make your own decision to accept or reject God.

Luke 17:20 (New American Standard Bible) wrote:
Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed;

bedub1 wrote:

Yes! It's a giant EYEBALL! Looking down from Heaven! It must be God! Thanks for posting

CreepersWiener wrote: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.

2dimes wrote:Sorry there's no such thing as proof, you must make your own decision to accept or reject God.

Luke 17:20 (New American Standard Bible) wrote:
Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed;

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.

Philosophers throughout the ages have given many arguments for God's existence... take your pick.

Any proof is a steaming pile of shit. Any priest who says otherwise is a liar. If someone happens to believe, I do not hold it against them, but I hate it when people bring up "Irreducible Complexity of Evolution" or other pseudo science that makes their religion seem to be more accurate then science.

edocsil wrote:Any proof is a steaming pile of shit. Any priest who says otherwise is a liar. If someone happens to believe, I do not hold it against them, but I hate it when people bring up "Irreducible Complexity of Evolution" or other pseudo science that makes their religion seem to be more accurate then science.

uuh.. PLEASE don't go down that path...

Or, if you wish, here is the link:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29535&hilit=Creationism+versus+Evolution%2C+the+Big+thread
You can start around page 80 or so, if you wish.

Good point, i have been in that debate before and it goes nowhere.


young earth *shudders*

PLAYER57832 wrote:

CreepersWiener wrote: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.

There's got to be a God-particle or something that proves God is real?

I know there is evidence for Santa Claus and he was a real person, there must be some type of evidence to show us that God is more than just a belief. Many scientists believed the Earth was the center of the Universe, but they were proved wrong through experiment and observation. Even the Theory of Relativity had its naysayers, who believed purely in Newtonian Physics.

Can we sit idly by and let the opportunity of such belief to be finally proven once and for all?

Why must the burden of proof be upon the non-believers? It should and always will rest upon the believers to bring forth evidence of the existence of God. And I am willing to listen. So please, can we keep the posts limited to the evidence only.

Neoteny wrote:[img].jpg[/img]

Do we have to get into the picture debate again (thank you for keeping to one of the more "subtle" choices)

The real truth is that belief comes from inside us. There is something in each of us to which we listen. This shades how we see everything.. good, bad, indifferent.

If you want to talk about why people believe... or why people don't, there are already several threads, but it is the kind of topic that never really ends. As long as people are actually "listening", it is interesting.

However, to talk of proof... it just does not exist. There is evidence that I might see or evidence that someone else might see, but no 100% indisputable empiracle proof.

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

CreepersWiener wrote:Why must the burden of proof be upon the non-believers? It should and always will rest upon the believers to bring forth evidence of the existence of God. And I am willing to listen. So please, can we keep the posts limited to the evidence only.

Belief comes from internal proof. I can say that I have seen what I call "proof", within myself. However, it is not something that I can show or even necessarily easily disguss with someone (because of the internal level at which it all occurs). Belief can be utterly illogical or completely logical. However, it is not something you can just prove to someone else, not really.

Scientifically speaking, I would never say I can prove God exists. Yet, in many ways faith in religion is actually stronger than mere empiracle evidence (and mind you, this is a scientist speaking).

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.

CreepersWiener wrote: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.

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Scientifically speaking, I would never say I can prove God exists. Yet, in many ways faith in religion is actually stronger than mere empiracle evidence (and mind you, this is a scientist speaking).

So, then, your belief is that in believing in God, it allows you to look "beyond" the box and come into new insights and discoveries about nature and the universe?

Could the same thing come from believing in Dungeon and Dragons or Harry Potter?

Neoteny wrote: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.

CreepersWiener wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Scientifically speaking, I would never say I can prove God exists. Yet, in many ways faith in religion is actually stronger than mere empiracle evidence (and mind you, this is a scientist speaking).

So, then, your belief is that in believing in God, it allows you to look "beyond" the box and come into new insights and discoveries about the nature and the universe?

About humanity, myself, but nature and the universe.. not so much.

CreepersWiener wrote:Could the same thing come from believing in Dungeon and Dragons or Harry Potter?

I suppose you can learn from anything, but here I thought you were being serious. My mistake.

Not evidence but a good read..and not long winded

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Insights/professor_and_christian.htm

PLAYER57832 wrote:

CreepersWiener wrote: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.

Okay, I don't mind the posting of pictures as long as they aren't overly graphic. And what you mentioned seems pretty bad, but what Neoteny posted seemed okay, and I got the message from it, as well from Bedubs first post.

CreepersWiener wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

CreepersWiener wrote: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.

Okay, I don't mind the posting of pictures as long as they aren't overly graphic. And what you mentioned seems pretty bad, but what Neotony posted seemed okay, and I got the message from it, as well from Bedubs first post.

Yes, which is why I thanked Neoteny for his restraint. Again, it was about not wanting to repeat history. They were, still are in an old God thread, though I cannot recall which one.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Neoteny wrote: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...

PLAYER57832 wrote:

CreepersWiener wrote: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.

Anyhow, I'm off topic. I just like how effective the picture is. It's an epic win/epic fail all in one.