http://www.uri-geller.com/faith/proof-of-god.htm

What do you think?

i dont believe in god

i dont believe in love

i may not be able to see air, but i can feel it, smell it, breath it

he spelled "big bang" "beg bang"

a baby is the product of billions of years of evolution, thats why it works perfectly. and even now, it does not work perfectly

you cannot create a living creature out of thin air

an animal is only alive because it is whole, all the parts put together make it alive. once the animal is vivisected, you cannot restore the parts to working order. we can for the most part, with reattaching hands, but reattaching heads may come in the future.

i dont believe in god, i cannot feel him

prayer is just a false sense of security, which brings about self-confidence, which helps you complete the job, the way you prayed to.

we cannot explain the workings of the human mind, but does that mean that the only answer is god?

just because it has not been discovered or explained, does not mean it cannot be discovered or explained. that does not mean god is the answer

this man's "proof" is simply his personal opinion.

However, it is very well written

SenorJesucristo

[This message has been edited by SenorJesucristo (edited 12-18-2002).]

[This message has been edited by SenorJesucristo (edited 12-20-2002).]

this was an excellent topic that went down the drain, i figured i should bring it back

MY friend mitch once said that there is enough information to back up the idea of god as there is evolution. I didn't believe him until I researched it; why don't you?

Does he mean love as in between a Man and a Woman? or the love of a fine cuban cigar?

In my opinion, his opinion is cute, but not any bit more significant to something a pseudo intellectual 15 year old would say.

"We can't see microbes" - With the help of mighty strong microscopes, we SURE can!

And of course we must question the word, Love.
How is it used? As an emotion? Or an Object?! You can't see emotion, because its a FUCKING emotion. God, is not an emotion, he is a BEING. And of course, if he means Love as an object, or being, I can definitely smell, hear, feel my love.

I can smell the woman I love (if I had one), hear her calling, and feel her touch me, and I touch her.

What this man is saying is that there are enough chances of there being a god, as there are of a ghost.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iscariot:
In my opinion, his opinion is cute, but not any bit more significant to something a pseudo intellectual 15 year old would say.

---

Agreed. Its not about what can be seen. Its about what can be known. Love is experienced, if not understood, on an individual level. A personality is an abstract concept also, but one given definition witin experience. God is by definition metaphysical. God will never be seen, felt, or understood, or conceptually related to in an "accurate" manner. God may be "intuited", but never known. Ie, God may exist as some pre-experiential force, but God can never be known to exist as an object of religion. So you can say you believe in god, but you can never say what god is, or know any characteristics of God. So becasue people can ony relate to god in religous ways, thos ways are always ultimately unjustaified, regardless of the hunch we may have that God exists.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 12-22-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bluntman457:
MY friend mitch once said that there is enough information to back up the idea of god as there is evolution.

---

Which one? Odin?

The general concensus is that all the Gods of the past prior to the God of Israel were false and all the ones thereafter are false as well. This means that the first God that people ever created was a fake.

From that we know that the concept of Gods are a human construct. If all of those Gods were manmade ideas, what's to stop the God of Israel being manmade idea as well?

To quote Einstein:

"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events, the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress."

As for the valid evidence for a God and evolution being equal, that is a gross logical fallacy. God just happening to arbitrarily exist being the biggest and most frequently used logical circumnavigaion I have heard thus far.

The evidence for evolution ursurps that of any religion's God en masse. There is so far 0 evidence for any one specific God, if any at all for that matter. All of the alleged "evidence" theists have presented have been exposed as logical fallacies, retroactive shoehorning, and confirmation bias amongst other things.

There has yet to be 1 compelling piece of evidence for a God to this day. If you think their is, I would be more than happy to see it. I also highly reccommend checking out the following evidences for evolution. Pay close inspection to the endogenous retroviruses and atavisms such as humans with tails in particular.

Obviously, evolution is the source of the current biological makeup of the Earth. That much is clear. But it is interesting to note that most mathematical models show that humans would need dozens of millions of generations to evolve from their primate ancestors, while in reality, they took a mere ten million years. God's hand, or great luck? You be the judge.

And something that science has never explained is why the whole universe was able to defy the second law of thermodynamics in its infancy. In theory, all things just spread out and slowly grow colder - this is called entropy. However, for some reason, after the Big Bang, the gases of the universe actually got hotter and more dense for a while. Also, when matter forms, it is formed into matter and antimatter, which both immediately annhialate each other. For some reason, at the very beginning, they didn't. God, or a strange fluke? Got me.

Ok I only read half this thread and I had to reply,......

IM RIGHT HERE!!!!!

What more proof do you need that I live? Yes I am relatively mortal but I will never die of health failure, only by that of a variable. My health will be a constant after I reach 60 years of age and continue to think white. I am black yet my skin is peachy. I am the messiah and the antichrist. It is me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
Obviously, evolution is the source of the current biological makeup of the Earth. That much is clear. But it is interesting to note that most mathematical models show that humans would need dozens of millions of generations to evolve from their primate ancestors, while in reality, they took a mere ten million years.

---

Where did you get that figure from and which mathematical models indicate that evolution takes dozens of millions of years?

quote:

---

God's hand, or great luck? You be the judge.

---

Are those the only 2 possibilities?

quote:

---

And something that science has never explained is why the whole universe was able to defy the second law of thermodynamics in its infancy. In theory, all things just spread out and slowly grow colder - this is called entropy. However, for some reason, after the Big Bang, the gases of the universe actually got hotter and more dense for a while.

---

Are you saying that things cannot heat up in the universe from a previously cooler state due to entropy?

quote:

---

Also, when matter forms, it is formed into matter and antimatter, which both immediately annhialate each other.

---

If they come in contact with each other. Your also forgetting about dark matter. There is more than just matter and antimatter. Physicists have identified 12 fundamental constituents that make up all matter. Our world is made up of just 3 of these.

quote:

---

For some reason, at the very beginning, they didn't. God, or a strange fluke? Got me.

---

I'm sure you're aware of what a God of the Gaps style argument is - An argument that takes an event that is poorly understood by science, a gap, and posits a deity as the (only) explanation.

God of the Gaps arguments, rather than offering any real insights into the workings of the universe, only reveal a certain amount of pessimism about the future of scientific progress on behalf of the person making the argument.

Can you convince me that your God of the Universe won't end up as redundant as, say, Borghild, goddess of the evening mist, who supposedly slays the resurrecting phoenix sun each evening causing it to set?

I also mentioned Einstein's classic quote in my previous post:

"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress...."

Which speaks on the God of the gaps. It maintains their God's existence not because of any evidence, capable of the clearest proof, that it exists, but because of the fact that it can't be disproved and there will be things that happen that can be shoehorned as God/Allah/Ganesha/ what have you's doing.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 12-25-2002).]

- That figure is derived from the book "The Science of God," by physicist and theological scholar Gerald Shroeder. An excellent book, pick it up sometime. The mathematical models in question simply measured the length of time it would take for mutations that added up to the current human genome to spread through the population via natural selection. Dr. Schroeder was EXTREMELY forgiving in favor of unguided natural selection in his model, but nonetheless, he couldn't come up with any length of time below several million generations.

- "Are those the only 2 possibilities?"
I would assume so. If I'm just forgetting another option, do feel free to alert me.

- I'm not saying that things cannot heat up from a previously cooler state. I'm saying that things cannot do so without being acted on by independent forces - say, a human with a lighter.

- I'm familiar with style of argument you speak of. If you'll go back and read my first post, you'll see that I'm not using this argument in any way. I'm pointing out scientific oddities that we have virtually no answer for, and stating that the existence of an omnipotent being is one POSSIBLE explanation. You'll notice that I didn't say "so obviously, God exists." To quote one part of my post, "God's hand, or a strange fluke? Got me." Please explain to me how that is not eminently reasonable and open-minded.

It could be Borghild's hand as well, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn's (IPU), et al.

I just got frustrated with all the God's, many of which have equal merit, and said "Will the real God/Gods/Godesses/Deii please stand up?" and recieved a resounding nothingness. The universe seems to operate exactly as it would if it was created through unknown naturalistic means, like there is no big sky daddy running the show (which explains just about everything).

So I have suspended judgement until further evidence comes along, be it for Borghild or Buddah, to villify a claim.

Your familiar with the "hypothesis" I assume. A hypothesis that is unfalsifiable and can't be tested is an invalid one. Supernatural deities are an untestable unfalsifiable hypothesis, and are thusly invalid until evidence comes along for the existence of supernatural deities that can be tested or falsified.

So if you think about it, you really have nothing to work with when trying to prove that some kind of deity exists. You can point out inconsistencies in science and try to open up some holes to jam them in, but it still fails to achieve anything but cast doubt and inconspicuously slip the deity in the newly-punched hole, either by proxy, unintentionally, or deliberately.

Hey dark magneto this is kinda off topic but how do I quote and use italics like you do?

love is bullshit, it's all chemicals in the brain to make us reproduce and raise offspring. It has been proven that cocaine stimulates the same parts of the brian as love...so do a big bag of cocaine instead, and cut out all this god crap.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kia Kordestani:
Hey dark magneto this is kinda off topic but how do I quote and use italics like you do?

---

You use the italics UBB tags [ i ] and [ /i ] without the extra spaces.

Quote is [ quote ] insertthingtoquotehere [ /quote ], minus the extra spaces.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 12-26-2002).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:
[B] You use the italics UBB tags [ i ] and [ /i ] without the extra spaces.[QUOTE]

Thanks, just a test,...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:
You use the italics UBB tags [ i ] and [ /i ] without the extra spaces.

Quote is [ quote ] insertthingtoquotehere [ /quote ], minus the extra spaces.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 12-26-2002).]

---

blah blah blah

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kia Kordestani:
[B] blah blah blah

---

does this work

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagnabitt:
Love is experienced, if not understood, on an individual level. A personality is an abstract concept also, but one given definition witin experience. God is by definition metaphysical.

---

Maybe God can be experienced the same as love. Why would you say that He couldn't?

Who's actually EXPERIENCED God?
Honestly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iscariot:
Who's actually EXPERIENCED God?
Honestly.

---

A Sioux Creation Story

The Creator gathered all of Creation and said, "I want to hide something from the humans until they are ready for it. It is the realization that they create their own reality."

The eagle said, "Give it to me, I will take it to the moon."

The Creator said, "No. One day they will go there and find it."

The salmon said, "I will bury it on the bottom of the ocean."

"No. They will go there too."

The buffalo said, "I will bury it on the Great Plains."

The Creator said, "They will cut into the skin of the Earth and find it even there."

Grandmother Mole, who lives in the breast of Mother Earth, and who has no physical eyes but sees with spiritual eyes, said, "Put it inside of them."

And the Creator said, "It is done."

{Author & Source Unknown}


"find that Light within yourselves, for when you have found it, you will enter into it, and you will know that your Source is within you"

(Saga of Sophia and Christ)


[This message has been edited by redzed (edited 12-27-2002).]

the whole idea of religion is based on faith. thats all we ever hear about is faith, because they know that you cant prove god exists. the religious rely on faith because thats as far as you can take your knowledge of "god". i dont pretend to know shit one way or another, but you cant go around blaming people for being religious. if it helps them cope or be a better person then good for them. Whether god exists or not is an argument that we shouldnt even waste our breath on. Nobody knows and theres no way we could ever prove it. Scientific theories about such things are called theories for a reason: they are just theories; a person or groups proposed explanation. Likewise, its called a belief system because thats all it is, somebodies beliefs. nothing more. no scientific argument here. Whose to say evolution isnt just gods own little assembly line that does his creating and adjusting for him so he can relax and watch us ruin what he made? And whose to say that its all a coincidence and we die and thats it, its over from there? Nobody can profess to know the answer to this kind of shit, so there will forever be a gap between the religious who profess the truth and the scientific who demand proof for a truth.

People who follow a religion needs an ornganized system to impose morals on them. Why? why do you need a religion in the first place. YOu are born intuitivly knowing that there is a higher power. Yes scientist go after truths wanting proofs. Its alot better than having faith that something might be true. I rather be the person out look for answers trying to prove them correct. Instead of just blindly following dogmatic gibberish.

It may take a scientist 2 decades to admit that they were wrong. How long does it take a religious person to admit that they are wrong? it's been thousands of years and so far not a peep from these so called "truth" speakers.

Just a couple of things I noticed in this so called 'proof of god' that I find interesting:

quote:

---

Do you not then find it even more astounding that some scientists and a small group of people spend their time trying to convince others as well as themselves that there is no God?

---

Kinda like how he's trying to prove God exists against the numerous amounts of arguments that said God does not exist? Hmmmm.

quote:

---

These same scientists are those who take a flower apart, and teach us the names of each section � petals, calyx, stamen, stem, roots, cells, and sap � but when asked to put the flower back together again � find they cannot do so. On their list, they forgot to mention the most important item � the life force that kept the flower together as a living, growing multiplying entity; and yet they would have us believe that the whole, ordered, expanding universe is self made.

---

They can put the flower back together. Unfortunatly it will not work. A flower, much like a human, or an animal, consists of multipul small pieces that each depend on eachother to survive. When you take appart all these pieces, each piece is then disconnected from the other pieces it depends on to survive, so it no longer can. There is no 'unseen force' that makes these thigns live when together. These things together, can operate as a whole, but individually, are useless.

quote:

---

When you look at a baby � breathing, growing, functioning perfectly, with every organ knowing its function � with its breathing, digestive and circulatory systems in perfect working order � can you really believe that there is no intelligent Creator who created this being?

---

And what about the babies who die at birth because their organs stop workign with eachother? What about the babies that are born unable to ever be self reliant? [ie: retarded] What about the fact that no single person on earth is 'perfect'? Nobody is perfect, be it in the thigns they do or the way their body functions. Sure when you look at me, I may be working in order now, but for no reason one day, something may just go outta whack and I could be dead

Is all this the doing of this God? If so, he's a serious fuck up!

quote:

---

How many scientists do you know, after vivisecting an animal to discover its parts and what makes it work, have been able to put that poor little animal together again to make it live? No scientist, as yet, has been able to create even a mosquito. They can muck around with genes and call it �genetic engineering� but no scientist has ever produced a living creature out of thin air.

---

Much like the FLOWER one, organs are co-dependant on eachother. Appart they cannot survive. As well, doctors can now re attach limbs, or even attach dead body parts and have them function on a living human being. Just because we're not yet able to make a complete human from scratch, or even put one back together after being broken appart, doesn't mean we won't be able to. I'm sure in the far off future we will be able to re attach anything but a head without a problem, and we may even find a way around that as even when your head is severed your brain is still alive for several minutes. Im sure one day we will be able to stimulate the brain of a severed head, as well as the body, in order to keep both pieces alive long enough to put them back together.

quote:

---

Does life exist? Can a scientist convince anyone that life does not exist? They never mention it in their lists, because it cannot be seen, cannot be measured, cannot be weighed � cannot be touched. They don�t teach people that Life doesn�t exist. Why do they insist that the Creator doesn�t exist?

---

No. Life does not exist. Life cannot exist. Life is the result of living. And all life is, is living. Life truly means nothing. It is like asking if HAPPINESS exists, or SADNESS exists. No, they do not. They are simply perceptions, of how we react to situations, based on what emotional attachment we take to things. It is nothing more then a mental perception of soemthing that has no substance. I cannot say this in exact certainty, as I am not a cat, but I would have to say a cat will never 'feel' sadness or happiness. This is because you cannot teach a cat what sadness or happiness is. So they simply see everything they do, simply as something they do. This shows that emotions truly do not exist. They're something humans have taken on, as perceptions towards an abundance of different combinations of things. [ie: I feel happy because I got the game I wanted. I wanted the game so I could have fun. I feel happy because I can have fun. I want to have fun because being bored sucks.....] And seeing as how emotions 'exist' as much as life, this is why life does not exist. However, existance is life. [hehe, I'll go no further, I think you get the point by now]

quote:

---

What is life? Who made life? Who made love? Who or what makes it possible for you to have life or experience love?

---

I've already explained what life is. As for who made life/love: Humans. The human brain is seemingly able to understand more then 100% of animals out there. Its most likely that we have evolved longer, and this would be why. Because we are able to understand more, we're also able to create things. [no I dont mean BUILD thigns like cars, and houses] I can create an emotion for anything that happens. I may find a beautiful girl, who I enjoy spending time with, and am around a lot, and like very much. So in my mind I create an emotion for what this girl means to me. Emotions are more or less tags we put on how we feel about poeple/animals/thingsoccurances. LOVE is seen as something great to humans. It is obvious when you say you love somebody that you enjoy spending time with them, like their personality, etc... simply because this is our definition for that word. And that word, or emotion, exists, simply because its easier to sum up your perception of this person in one word, rather then in a 30 minute speech. So we have created this 'love' [or any other emotion for that matter] so that others know how we 'feel'. So who made love? We made love. However nothing/nobody create what is required to feel 'love' and thats proven, by the fact that what is required to define something/somebody as soemthing/somebody you 'love' varies from person to person. Each individual wants soemthign different, and when they get what they seek, they label it. And emotions are our labels.

As for what/who makes it possible to eperience life/love... Seeing as how I've already explained what both are, this will be quick. Having all of my vital organs working is what makes it possible for me to experience life. And having a person/thing meet whatever my mental definition of 'love' is, is what makes me able to experience 'love'. [which really isnt me experiencing anything. But I wont get into that.]

quote:

---

even plants thrive when treated with love � and wilt when love is absent � animals demonstrate unconditional love towards each other and human beings.

---

Plants do not wilt due to the absence of love. There are plants out there that will never meet something able to understand what love is. [I say understand rather than feel, because Ive made it clear that emotions dont exist, so the way I see it, understand is a better word] And these plants will live a healthy life, until of course, their time runs out, due to nature, or soemthign else. [ie: flood, drought, cold, heat, etc...]

Once again, because I'm not an animal [well, I am, but when humans say 'animal' they mean all animals except for humans, unless they specify otherwise] I can't say for sure, but I highly doubt animals understand [theres that word again!] love. For them its more likely them getting what they want. And when they find somebody/something who gives them what they want, they will react accordingly. Actually this can be considered love, as its the same way with humans. All love is, is our label for obtaining a set list of things we want. But seeing as how the animals cannot udnerstand this, they cannot udnerstand love, as a label, and therfore cannot 'feel' love.

quote:

---

how many of us can give an answer even if we are asked �what is life � what is love?� Can you tell me � what is life? What is love? You cannot

---

Yes I can. And I did.

quote:

---

Do you expect to see music? No, you accept that music cannot be seen with physical eyes, but it can be heard and felt. Do you throw a tantrum because you can�t smell a rose with your eyes?
No � you accept that perfume is experienced with the nose and the pleasure felt �inside� (like love). So it is with God � we feel Him � inside. He is our intelligence. He is our love, our life, our pleasure, our joy.

---

Of course I don't expect to see music. Music is a combination of soundwaves, put together in a fasion that meets whatever tastes one has. And soundwaves can only be intercepted by the ears. A def person cannot hear. [duh!] Yet sound still exsists. This proves that sound/site/smell is dependant on the receptor for whichever one you choose, to be in working order. As well, for each of these they can only be intercepted in one way, and that is why music can exist without me being able to see it.

The real question is, how do I intercept 'God'? Everything that exsists we are able to intercept in one way or another. Who here can intercept 'God'? Nobody. One would imagine that if 'God' did exist, he would have been smart enough to have given human beings the recources to intercept him, in whatever form he exists.

quote:

---

At a scientific conference at the University of California one atheistic scientist concluded his speech by saying, �and I can honestly say, Ladies and Gentlemen, that in all my years as a surgeon, I have looked into every muscle and every tendon and tissue and cell, but I have never found what you call the soul.�
Whereupon another scientist rose in his seat and responded by saying, �Ladies and Gentlemen, in all the years I�ve spent as a neurosurgeon performing operations on every single part of the human brain, I have never encountered the mind. Does it then follow that the mind does not exist?quote]

The mind is defined as [by dictionary.com] basically knowledge and perception. So no, the mind does not exist. A perception, nor can a thought exist.

[qute]Or if we hear a sudden noise at night and imagine an unseen danger approaching: the immediate effect this has on our physical body is that the heart accelerates its beat � we perspire � our breathing becomes short and quick � the blood drains from our face and we turn pale � our muscles tremble, the facial muscles twitch � we lose our voice. In extreme cases we could throw up or lose consciousness. But would the neurosurgeon be capable of finding the cause of all these symptoms?

---

Yes, they can find the cause:

-Our heart beats faster to circulate our blood quicker. Its called fight or flight. In either instance, we will be doing thigns quickly, and so our body gets ready for this

-Our breathing gets short and quick, as if Im correct, this gets oxygen to the lungs faster. And for the same reason as our heart rate increasing.

-I think the reason the blood drains from our skin is because our skin doesnt NEED the blood there, so our body prepares to put it to better use. Like if while in fight or flight mode, we choose FIGHT, we may get wunded and need that blood to compensate for the blood we lose.

-Im really not sure about this, but a likely reason we twitch may be because our body begins pumping adrenaline into us. Adrenaline, though nothing like Speed [Im talking speed, as in the drug, as in crystal meth] does speed us up. I have seen people on speed, twitching and moving fast and such, so for the same reasons one will twitch on speed, may be why one will twitch when their body is pumping them full of adrenaline.

-The reason we will perspire, vomit, or even shit or piss ourselves, is because these thigns smell. And when we're afraid our minds may force us to do things that could help the situation. Like if somethign wants to eat me, and i shit myself, I will smell, and it will not want to eat me anymore. Its imnply somethign we havent evolved out of.

-Ad we go unconcious, I believe as a last resort, or due to exhaustion. Like our brains way of saying, 'guess what, Im forcing you to play dead!'.

SO THERE!

quote:

---

Almost six billion people cannot all be wrong!

---

Though I didn't copy the whole sentence he was talking about people who pray. Las I knew, the world didn't consist of like 5 billion, 900 million believers of god, and a few hundred million non believers. Whos to say how many people out there have never even heard of god, and wouldnt know what you where talking about if you mentioned religion. [ie: cases of extreme poverty. the parents MAY have believed in god, but eventually gave up hope {aka learned the truth} and didnt teach their children this. and when we have places where those in poverty, only ever come in contact with other povs [ala southpark ] eventually the notition of god may have disappeared, so they no longer even know about it. though this is mere speculation]

I will not go on. Though I could, as so does he, and I could keep on telling you how hes wrong, and how hes an idiot until he shuts up. But I wont cuz this is already just under 5 pages long. [I pasted it into word to see]