Religions > Atheism > You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"RS" |
| Date: |
24 Jan 2005 11:23:42 PM |
| Object: |
You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
You don't have to read all of the links in detail, but make sure to read my
concluding paragraph before you respond completely.
I am Roman Catholic. Your crack at Roman Catholic faith, however, only
serves to display your continued ignorance of cultures not your own.
Here is a detailed, albeit a somewhat farfetched proof for the existence of
God using logic and observed data:
http://www.you-god-loves.org/proof_for_god.htm
Also another objective and perfectly logical proof offered by Descartes:
http://csunx4.bsc.edu/bmyers/3MEDPRF.htm
Here is a collection of over 300 simple-logic arguments for the existence of
God:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Note, this source offers arguments, rather than proofs. If you are offended
or even confused about the logic behind these arguments, do not look at the
2, 3, or 4 conditions. Instead, read those conditions and compare them to
the title of the argument. Look at moral argument II (10). Some might say
"That is overreaching" but in evidence of the fact that the writer is
offering a moral argument, it is true for said moral argument.
Below is a sermon by Pastor Matthew Henderson on the existence of God:
http://www.gerrardstreet.free-online.co.uk/sermons/s19990926pm.htm
It offers some sound logic and cultural comparisons to show the validity in
people believing God does exist and how it isn't incorrect of them to
believe so.
My favorite source, however, is an article which details around 12 proofs
which summon the most common arguments atheists bring forth and compare them
in light of simple logic in comparison to scriptural and theological
standpoints.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html
Another branch off of this same website offers an explaination of certain
scientists in light of the existence of God (and their personal beliefs):
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
This includes Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Boyle,
Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck, and Einsteisn. The most astounding part is
Einstein who recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe.
Einstein believed in God. Do you still call theists insane?
The following is some examples of the individuals with such strong faith
that caused true evil from being manifested or hindered in the world:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/spiritual.html
Following is logical proof against the argument "Since we can't see God, God
doesn't exist."
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notseegod.html
This includes a personal witness of the author.
Evidence on the power of prayer for physical healing (data included):
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html
Scientific studies showing a positive effect of religion on health:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html
Hmm... religion can make you healthier... sounds to me like I'm insane for
that :p
And finally, a summary page of all of the articles outside of those I
provided:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html#Supernatural
This included Common criticisms, common objections to Christianity, common
atheist's myths, and articles detailing the evidence of the Divine.
One last thing you may snap back concerning Einstein:
"Einstein didn't believe in a personal god!" or something along those
lines... here is an article describing it in words better than I can:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html
Lastly, if you still deam all of this evidence I have provided non-objective
and illogical, I am glad that you disagree with some of the greatest
scientists and philosophers of our time. Copernicus, Galileo, Kelvin,
Einstein, etc... they must have all been insane fools for believing in the
existence of some form of the Divine. You claim I am insane for believing
in God and I offer no "objective" proof. I do not need to, since those who
came before me such as these great minds have already offered enough sound
evidence. I believe in God because God is the order behind creation.
Regardless of how silly it may sound to you, I have a developed a personal
relationship with the God I have come to know. I wouldn't be so quick to
dismiss that if I were you. To do so would display that you believe
yourselves to be more intelligent than some of the greatest scientific
thinkers and philosophers throughout history.
-RS
.
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 12:28:54 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:bg4ev0l21otmu4ri0dof8fnakq9pnmmjff@4ax.com...
But nothing more than words put on paper by men. Certainly not
evidence of any kind that what's in it is true.
You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I wasn't addressing the beliefs
that were written down, but the legitimacy of these beliefs as being
directly from teh source (the first-generation disciples of Jesus of
Nazareth). I wrote "the legitimacy of those texts" because many atheists
tend to think that there is none, though the historical/religious academic
world would think otherwise.
Sorry, it works the other way. If you wish to claim that they're
legitimate, please offer evidence to back up the claim.
I will offer sources. I am quite tired of this and modern religious
scholars whom I am familiar with are all I can keep my eyes open to write
down. See my posts above for their names.
-RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 03:31:59 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:28:54 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> said in
alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:bg4ev0l21otmu4ri0dof8fnakq9pnmmjff@4ax.com...
But nothing more than words put on paper by men. Certainly not
evidence of any kind that what's in it is true.
You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I wasn't addressing the beliefs
that were written down, but the legitimacy of these beliefs as being
directly from teh source (the first-generation disciples of Jesus of
Nazareth).
1) There was no city, town or village named "Nazareth" in the area
2,000 years ago. The place on which the town of Nazareth now stands
was a cemetery back then.
2) It's not "Jesus of Nazareth", it's "Jesus the Nazarene".
"Nazarene" is English for "Netzorim", who were a sect of the Essenes.
All "Jesus the Nazarene" means is that he was an Essene Jew, which no
one disputes.
3) The EARLIEST SCRAP of manuscript of the NT we have is dated around
125 AD - not early enough that anyone alive in 33 AD could have
written it. And that's just a part of one sentence. To see anything
more than that, we have to look at another scrap dated no earlier than
150 AD. So there's no manuscript written by disciples of Jesus that
we know of.
And neither scrap one is evidence of anything other than the fact that
someone wrote something. A written work IS NOT evidence that what's
written is true. Especially when the author is totally unknown -
which most Christian scholars will tell you is the case with the NT.
(ALL non-Christian scholars will tell you the same thing.)
I wrote "the legitimacy of those texts" because many atheists
tend to think that there is none, though the historical/religious academic
world would think otherwise.
See above. The religious world, other than historical scholars who
happen to be religious, isn't a valid source for the validity of
religious historical documents, any more than a plumber who has a
heart transplant is a valid source of information on cardiac surgery.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 05:02:17 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:09:09 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-78DC5E.16024625012005@news.east.earthlink.net...
The bible is just a book. What it says or doesn't say is proof of
nothing, therefore any argument that relies on what it says as objective
proof is equally invalid.
To call the bible "Just a book" is to do it a great injustice. The New
Except that that is all it is in the real world outside your religion.
Testement is a collection of gospel accounts and letters introduced to the
world during hte beginning of the Christian movement. The Old Testement,
including the Jewish Torah, contain religious doctrines which have supported
the Jewish faith for over 3000 years. Hardly just a book if you ask me. It
is more of a collection of chronicals.
If you wish to justify the Christian Bible in that way, please offer
historical evidence to undoubtedly negate the legitimacy of these texts.
Dishonestly shifting the burden of proof.
AND WHAT FORKING "LEGITIMACY"?
It is up to YOU to demonstrate that it is legitimate while all the
equivalents from all the other religions aren't.
-RS
I could write a book that makes spectacular and unprovable claims also.
The fact that I write those claims down and put them in a book doesn't
make them de facto true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 12:22:25 AM |
|
|
Read my post right above this one. I am not going to provide word for word
support anymore, but direct you to scholars whom I have worked under. It is
up to you to research them.
-RS
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:6rjdv0d62n6ot32rdv9mickcbcf56t0hka@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:09:09 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-78DC5E.16024625012005@news.east.earthlink.net...
The bible is just a book. What it says or doesn't say is proof of
nothing, therefore any argument that relies on what it says as objective
proof is equally invalid.
To call the bible "Just a book" is to do it a great injustice. The New
Except that that is all it is in the real world outside your religion.
Testement is a collection of gospel accounts and letters introduced to the
world during hte beginning of the Christian movement. The Old Testement,
including the Jewish Torah, contain religious doctrines which have
supported
the Jewish faith for over 3000 years. Hardly just a book if you ask me.
It
is more of a collection of chronicals.
If you wish to justify the Christian Bible in that way, please offer
historical evidence to undoubtedly negate the legitimacy of these texts.
Dishonestly shifting the burden of proof.
AND WHAT FORKING "LEGITIMACY"?
It is up to YOU to demonstrate that it is legitimate while all the
equivalents from all the other religions aren't.
-RS
I could write a book that makes spectacular and unprovable claims also.
The fact that I write those claims down and put them in a book doesn't
make them de facto true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 05:22:02 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:22:25 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
Read my post right above this one. I am not going to provide word for word
support anymore, but direct you to scholars whom I have worked under. It is
up to you to research them.
Ah ha, cut and run time yet again. He cannot answer our debunking
of our counterarguments so he resorts to the same old stuff.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 03:02:06 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:22:25 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
Read my post right above this one. I am not going to provide word for word
support anymore, but direct you to scholars whom I have worked under. It is
up to you to research them.
More shifting the burden. Just what we expect from the dishonest
theist.
-RS
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:6rjdv0d62n6ot32rdv9mickcbcf56t0hka@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:09:09 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-78DC5E.16024625012005@news.east.earthlink.net...
The bible is just a book. What it says or doesn't say is proof of
nothing, therefore any argument that relies on what it says as objective
proof is equally invalid.
To call the bible "Just a book" is to do it a great injustice. The New
Except that that is all it is in the real world outside your religion.
Testement is a collection of gospel accounts and letters introduced to the
world during hte beginning of the Christian movement. The Old Testement,
including the Jewish Torah, contain religious doctrines which have
supported
the Jewish faith for over 3000 years. Hardly just a book if you ask me.
It
is more of a collection of chronicals.
If you wish to justify the Christian Bible in that way, please offer
historical evidence to undoubtedly negate the legitimacy of these texts.
Dishonestly shifting the burden of proof.
AND WHAT FORKING "LEGITIMACY"?
It is up to YOU to demonstrate that it is legitimate while all the
equivalents from all the other religions aren't.
-RS
I could write a book that makes spectacular and unprovable claims also.
The fact that I write those claims down and put them in a book doesn't
make them de facto true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William T. Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 04:34:22 PM |
|
|
RS wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-78DC5E.16024625012005@news.east.earthlink.net...
The bible is just a book. What it says or doesn't say is proof of
nothing, therefore any argument that relies on what it says as
objective
proof is equally invalid.
To call the bible "Just a book" is to do it a great injustice. The
New
Testement is a collection of gospel accounts and letters introduced
to the
world during hte beginning of the Christian movement. The Old
Testement,
including the Jewish Torah, contain religious doctrines which have
supported
the Jewish faith for over 3000 years. Hardly just a book if you ask
me. It
is more of a collection of chronicals.
If you wish to justify the Christian Bible in that way, please offer
historical evidence to undoubtedly negate the legitimacy of these
texts.
You're missing the point. What does it mean to say that a book contains
the truth? It means the book describes reality correctly.
So the only way to determine if the Bible is true, is to study reality,
compare it with what the Bible says, and see if they match.
They don't.
--Billy
"And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the
bulls..."
--Isaiah 34:7
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 04:52:53 PM |
|
|
on 25 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, RS dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-78DC5E.16024625012005@news.east.earthlink.net...
The bible is just a book. What it says or doesn't say is proof of
nothing, therefore any argument that relies on what it says as
objective proof is equally invalid.
To call the bible "Just a book" is to do it a great injustice. The
New Testement is a collection of gospel accounts and letters
introduced to the world during hte beginning of the Christian
movement. The Old Testement, including the Jewish Torah, contain
religious doctrines which have supported the Jewish faith for over
3000 years. Hardly just a book if you ask me. It is more of a
collection of chronicals.
This is what you believe. Believing something, no matter how hard you
believe it, does not make it true.
If you wish to justify the Christian Bible in that way, please offer
historical evidence to undoubtedly negate the legitimacy of these
texts.
This fallacy is known as shifting the burden of proof. You've made the
claim (above) that the bible is a collection of chronicles (historical
events). It is your responsibility to back thes claims up.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 12:21:22 AM |
|
|
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E99798784B8vicman@127.0.0.1...
This is what you believe. Believing something, no matter how hard you
believe it, does not make it true.
On the contrary. Just by believing in it, I make it true. I am sure that
it is true. I cannot be sure about anything else. This goes along the same
idea as Descartes proof. You believe that God doesn't exist. No matter how
hard you believe it, that doesn't make it true.
This fallacy is known as shifting the burden of proof. You've made the
claim (above) that the bible is a collection of chronicles (historical
events). It is your responsibility to back thes claims up.
I have had many who have gone before me who have supported these claims. I
can direct you to some of their works: Erhman, Fredriksen, Sanders,
Josephus, and dozens more credible non-Christian religious scholars who have
dedicated their studies to the field of the historical origins of Christ.
They have found, after countless years of research, that the Pauline letters
are written by Paul (for the most part) around 50CE, the gospel of John
around 70CE, the gospel of Mark around the same time, and the other two
synoptic gospels around 100CE. They concluded that through multiple
attestation, Paul knew the original disciples of Jesus of Nazareth and that
there was a man, Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified by Pilot. Through in
depth literary analysis of thousands of duplications of these texts, they
have been able to use literary tools to filter out the closest to the
original document and extrapolate a very plausible series of historical
events. There is little argument against these scholars in the academic
world, and an abundance of fuzzy noise from the world of uneducated atheists
whose wild claims and assumptions relay true ignorance.
-RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 10:39:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:21:22 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> said in
alt.atheism:
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E99798784B8vicman@127.0.0.1...
This is what you believe. Believing something, no matter how hard you
believe it, does not make it true.
On the contrary. Just by believing in it, I make it true. I am sure that
it is true. I cannot be sure about anything else.
That still doesn't make it objectively true, even if it IS true.
You believe that God doesn't exist.
That's not what atheism is.
No matter how hard you believe it, that doesn't make it true.
By the same token believing that there is a god doesn't make a god
exist.
They have found, after countless years of research, that the Pauline letters
are written by Paul (for the most part) around 50CE, the gospel of John
around 70CE, the gospel of Mark around the same time, and the other two
synoptic gospels around 100CE.
The oldest proof we have is dated ca 125 AD, and that's only part of
one sentence. All earlier dates are conjecture.
Jesus of Nazareth
That's a mistranslation of "Jesus the Nazarene (Netzorim)", and has
nothing to do with the later city of the name.
Your "scholarship" leaves MUCH to be desired.
--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise
as false, and by the rulers as useful."
- Seneca the Younger
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 05:19:33 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:21:22 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E99798784B8vicman@127.0.0.1...
This is what you believe. Believing something, no matter how hard you
believe it, does not make it true.
On the contrary. Just by believing in it, I make it true. I am sure that
it is true. I cannot be sure about anything else. This goes along the same
idea as Descartes proof. You believe that God doesn't exist. No matter how
hard you believe it, that doesn't make it true.
Believing something certainly can makes it seem true but that is a
self-delusion surely? The god would exist only in your mind. In the
real 'world' it changes nothing. You would surely not wish to waste
you time worshipping and praying to a delusion? Don't you owe
it to yourself to at least consider the possibility that this god idea
is just that, an invention all built on straw?
I cannot speak for Vic but I have no beliefs concerning gods. I
neither believe a god exists as I think that would be irrational for
the reason stated by Vic and I do not believe a god does not exist
either as that would be equally irrational. I just have no reason to
think a god may exists and from what you have told us thus far you
have no reason either except your admitted self delusion. You have
in effect told us you believe because you believe and have no
other reason. You have described a fictional and invented god
without any evidence whatsover but this circular self delusional
belief.
Beats my why people delude themselves with this except of course
some strange notion that there must be a god or a god is
somehow desirable. Hmm it certainly puzzles me which is partially,
I think why a newsgroup was formed to discuss it.
What is it about this baleful trinity that fascinates people so
and draws people to it?
This fallacy is known as shifting the burden of proof. You've made the
claim (above) that the bible is a collection of chronicles (historical
events). It is your responsibility to back thes claims up.
I have had many who have gone before me who have supported these claims. I
can direct you to some of their works: Erhman, Fredriksen, Sanders,
Josephus, and dozens more credible non-Christian religious scholars who have
dedicated their studies to the field of the historical origins of Christ.
They have found, after countless years of research, that the Pauline letters
are written by Paul (for the most part) around 50CE, the gospel of John
around 70CE, the gospel of Mark around the same time, and the other two
synoptic gospels around 100CE. They concluded that through multiple
attestation, Paul knew the original disciples of Jesus of Nazareth and that
there was a man, Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified by Pilot. Through in
depth literary analysis of thousands of duplications of these texts, they
have been able to use literary tools to filter out the closest to the
original document and extrapolate a very plausible series of historical
events. There is little argument against these scholars in the academic
world, and an abundance of fuzzy noise from the world of uneducated atheists
whose wild claims and assumptions relay true ignorance.
All based on false premises and assumptions, circular arguments and
self=delusion plus poor critical examination of what should be
considered historical documents. The worst assumption made
is that something written down must have been written by a god or
somehow god inspired when it is all human thought, human error
and possibly lies and distortion. We know from examining historical
documents how prevalent distortion can be. Uncomfortable truths are
omitted and supporting evidence is emphasised and elaborated.
Assumptions are made to fill in gaps. This makes the writings of
the Bible a very dubious document indeed particularly as there is
very little corroboration. Of course, like the story of King Arthur
this very lack of provenance is what gives it its air of mysticism and
fascination. Back in the 19th Century the stories of King Arthur was
almost regarded as true but modern historiography has demonstrated
just how mythological it is and how mythology builds from simple
beginnings. The same is now being done of the Bible as its
shaky foundations are increasingly undermined. I note how much
theologians now fall back on stating "well its the essential" truth
or that some of wasn't actual after but parable.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanguinevikings" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 03:09:15 AM |
|
|
RS wrote:
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E99798784B8vicman@127.0.0.1...
This is what you believe. Believing something, no matter how hard you
believe it, does not make it true.
On the contrary. Just by believing in it, I make it true. I am sure that
it is true. I cannot be sure about anything else. This goes along the same
idea as Descartes proof.
I'm pink, therefore I'm Spam?
You believe that God doesn't exist. No matter how
hard you believe it, that doesn't make it true.
Irony-o-meter clocked at 1.12 TH.
So what you are saying is that, because you are entitled to your
beliefs, nobody else is entitled to theirs. Evidence tantamount almost
to proof that religion *is* intolerance.
This fallacy is known as shifting the burden of proof. You've made the
claim (above) that the bible is a collection of chronicles (historical
events). It is your responsibility to back thes claims up.
<appeals to authority (a logical fallacy) snipped>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 09:15:34 AM |
|
|
on 26 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Sanguinevikings dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
RS wrote:
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E99798784B8vicman@127.0.0.1...
This is what you believe. Believing something, no matter how hard
you believe it, does not make it true.
On the contrary. Just by believing in it, I make it true. I am sure
that it is true. I cannot be sure about anything else. This goes
along the same idea as Descartes proof.
I'm pink, therefore I'm Spam?
You believe that God doesn't exist. No matter how
hard you believe it, that doesn't make it true.
Irony-o-meter clocked at 1.12 TH.
Hey, where'd you get one that reads over 1.0?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 03:59:27 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:47:22 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"William" <tielige@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
"RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
My favorite source, however, is an article which details
around 12 proofs which summon the most common arguments
atheists bring forth and compare them in light of simple logic
in comparison to scriptural and theological standpoints.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html
Because you say it is your favorite I looked it up. The guy uses
pretty well every failed argument there is. If that is the best that
Christians can do then there isn't a lot of hope left.
Perhaps you'd like to pick out your favorite argument - maybe I missed
the one rational one he made.
How about instead of saying "the guy uses pretty well every failed argument
there is", why don't you rationalize your claim logically and substantially?
Take some time instead of snipping it without commenting on it in detail.
What I did was perfectly reasonable. I looked up site you said was
your favorite source. There were loads of arguments there. All the
ones I saw were well troddden and failed. Since it would be a waste of
time to go through them all I asked you to pick your favorite one (ie
it's your favorite source) or discussion.
This source addresses 15 proofs atheists commonly use to disprove the
existence of God and addresses them using logic and reason.
The theodice problem:
If evil in the world is intended by God, he is not good. If it violates his
intentions, he is not almighty. God can't be both almighty and good. If
God created humans, he must have created evil.
I have heard this argument about ten times in the last four weeks on this
newsgroup (alt.religion)
The source I provided addresses this atheist proof in light of theology,
philosophy, logic, and reason. If God is restricted to our level, he cannot
be both almighty and good. Instad, however, God exists beyond hte universe
because the universe cannot contain him.
Addressing the aspect of evil, God didn't create the universe to be good.
God created the universe as a temporary placement of the creatures he
created to choose to love Him or reject Him. God is good, but He has given
us free will to choose to love Him.
If we didn't have free will, we wouldn't know evil. Without knowing evil,
one cannot know love. Without free will, therefore, one cannot love. Think
of borg drones, for example. I know I am going all trekkie on you. Borg
drones cannot love or hate... they are mindless and only exist to serve and
nothing else. God doesn't want a bunch of drones. If God wanted drones, he
would have done what we have done: created computers. Computers lack free
will (though to an extent it can be recreated). Computers can never truly
love. We might get to a stage where artificial intelligence can display
love in response to external stimuli, but computers cannot love. They
cannot know good or evil, though with behavioral and moral subroutines, they
can distinguish good and bad.
The argument fails before it starts. Did love exist before evil
existed (before Satan rebelled)? Can love exist in heaven where there
is no evil. Did Adam love God before he and Eve had eaten of the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil - before he had any knowledge of
evil? Can a child love its parents when it has never encountered evil?
If someone chooses to love someone the choice is between loving them
and not loving them; not between loving them and torturing them, or
being tortured.
And the 'free will' argument does NOT explain the presence of evil and
pain and suffering. Free will can be exercised without one of the
option being to inflict suffering on others. Does the fact that
society does it's best to prevent evil intentions being carried out
kill off free will? Of course not. It enhances it by allowing more
realizable choices.
Do you want more? The argument from evil/free will raises far more
problems than it solves.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 04:16:53 PM |
|
|
"William" <tielige@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
news:41f6bbb3.14065239@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
The argument fails before it starts. Did love exist before evil
existed (before Satan rebelled)? Can love exist in heaven where there
is no evil. Did Adam love God before he and Eve had eaten of the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil - before he had any knowledge of
evil? Can a child love its parents when it has never encountered evil?
Again, God created humanity and bestowed upon us free-will (some may say the
Garden of Eden and the forbidden fruit allegorically refer to humanity (the
spirit) being present in the divine realm and being sent to this realm for a
short period of time. Love, as well as evil, is manifested through freel
will. A child can love his or her parent because by being of this world,
the child has encountered evil and always has the potential to grow knowing
evil (remember, evil is a manifestation of something done against God or
against his creatures).
And the 'free will' argument does NOT explain the presence of evil and
pain and suffering. Free will can be exercised without one of the
option being to inflict suffering on others. Does the fact that
society does it's best to prevent evil intentions being carried out
kill off free will? Of course not. It enhances it by allowing more
realizable choices.
The free will argument does explain the presence of good and evil. If there
is no free will, there is no choice. When there is no choice, we would be a
bunch of mindless drones walking around, unable to understand pain or
suffering. If we get burned, we pull away. It is free-will to pull away.
We understand that if we do not pull away, we will be damaged. We can
choose the pain or choose to pull away.. God has given us that ability.
Free will comes down to the choice: When we choose something, we choose good
or evil. We choose to do something for God or for His creatures (ourselves
included) or we choose something against God or His creatures (including
ourselves). This, of course, is outside of the realm of sacrifice.
Society does its best to prevent evil intentions from being carried out,
true. That doesn't negate free will because we choose to make the world a
better place.
The argument of evil arising out of free will is quite simple. Without the
freedom of choice, we would be mindless drones, unable to love or hate.
Just look at the borg :p
-RS
Do you want more? The argument from evil/free will raises far more
problems than it solves.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 09:47:29 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:16:53 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> said in
alt.atheism:
The argument of evil arising out of free will is quite simple. Without the
freedom of choice, we would be mindless drones, unable to love or hate.
Same argument for the freedom to choose to fly. Or to choose to read
minds.
Either we must be free to choose to do anything we can think of, or we
don't need to be able to sin to have 'free will'.
You can't have it both ways.
And you can't even have free will if your god is the omniscient
creator of the universe.
--
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus
was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine,[1615, during the trial of Galileo]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 12:36:48 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:nj4ev01cvn27a1d5d4pfa6mneqa0uflg8q@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:16:53 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> said in
alt.atheism:
The argument of evil arising out of free will is quite simple. Without
the
freedom of choice, we would be mindless drones, unable to love or hate.
Same argument for the freedom to choose to fly. Or to choose to read
minds.
Either we must be free to choose to do anything we can think of, or we
don't need to be able to sin to have 'free will'.
You can't have it both ways.
And you can't even have free will if your god is the omniscient
creator of the universe.
On the contrary, the concept of an omniscient God doesn't violate free will.
Even though God knows what choices we are going to make, it doesn't hinder
our ability to make them because God doesn't influence our decisions. You
are providing the most basic and illogical argument atheists can apply to
the omniscience of God. If a monkey is hungry and sees a bannana, we know
that he will eat the bannana. That doesn't mean we are interfering in the
free will of the monkey.
-RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 03:35:24 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:36:48 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> said in
alt.atheism:
On the contrary, the concept of an omniscient God doesn't violate free will.
If your god knows what I'll have for breakfast tomorrow and, indeed,
has known since before he created the universe, I have no free will to
eat something else.
If he doesn't he's not all-knowing, so that's not the god we're
talking about.
If a monkey is hungry and sees a bannana, we know
that he will eat the bannana.
Does that include the monkey that was holding the unpeeled banana just
before the tsunami carried him away and killed him?
We're pretty sure - that's not knowing. And that's not knowing long
before there WERE monkeys and bananas.
Sorry, but your attempt at analogy is so bad it doesn't even fail.
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 06:13:57 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:36:48 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
And you can't even have free will if your god is the omniscient
creator of the universe.
On the contrary, the concept of an omniscient God doesn't violate free will.
Even though God knows what choices we are going to make, it doesn't hinder
our ability to make them because God doesn't influence our decisions. You
are providing the most basic and illogical argument atheists can apply to
the omniscience of God.
It's a basic argument for ANYONE. It doesn't work. If any future
choice of yours is known today with certainty then you do not have the
option to make a different choice. If you still had that option
tomorrow then your future choice not be known for certainty today.
But since you have run away from the rebuttal to your 'favorite'
argument I don't expect a sensible rebuttal to this one.
If a monkey is hungry and sees a bannana, we know
that he will eat the bannana. That doesn't mean we are interfering in the
free will of the monkey.
No-one says that knowledge of what future choice someone makes
interferes with that choice. It simply means that if that knowledge
cannot be wrong then that future choice cannot be anything else. The
idea of freedom to choose other options is an illusion.
And please don't try the "God is outside time" argument. That doesn't
work either.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 03:36:32 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:13:57 GMT, (William)
said in alt.atheism:
And please don't try the "God is outside time" argument. That doesn't
work either.
The Christian claim that its god is outside of time just makes its god
impossible.
--
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 04:22:11 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:16:53 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"William" <tielige@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
news:41f6bbb3.14065239@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
The argument fails before it starts. Did love exist before evil
existed (before Satan rebelled)? Can love exist in heaven where there
is no evil. Did Adam love God before he and Eve had eaten of the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil - before he had any knowledge of
evil? Can a child love its parents when it has never encountered evil?
Again, God created humanity and bestowed upon us free-will (some may say the
Garden of Eden and the forbidden fruit allegorically refer to humanity (the
spirit) being present in the divine realm and being sent to this realm for a
short period of time. Love, as well as evil, is manifested through freel
will. A child can love his or her parent because by being of this world,
the child has encountered evil and always has the potential to grow knowing
evil (remember, evil is a manifestation of something done against God or
against his creatures).
And the 'free will' argument does NOT explain the presence of evil and
pain and suffering. Free will can be exercised without one of the
option being to inflict suffering on others. Does the fact that
society does it's best to prevent evil intentions being carried out
kill off free will? Of course not. It enhances it by allowing more
realizable choices.
The free will argument does explain the presence of good and evil. If there
is no free will, there is no choice. When there is no choice, we would be a
bunch of mindless drones walking around, unable to understand pain or
suffering. If we get burned, we pull away. It is free-will to pull away.
We understand that if we do not pull away, we will be damaged. We can
choose the pain or choose to pull away.. God has given us that ability.
Free will comes down to the choice: When we choose something, we choose good
or evil. We choose to do something for God or for His creatures (ourselves
included) or we choose something against God or His creatures (including
ourselves). This, of course, is outside of the realm of sacrifice.
Society does its best to prevent evil intentions from being carried out,
true. That doesn't negate free will because we choose to make the world a
better place.
The argument of evil arising out of free will is quite simple. Without the
freedom of choice, we would be mindless drones, unable to love or hate.
Just look at the borg :p
Thanks for not answering the questions
William
Do you want more? The argument from evil/free will raises far more
problems than it solves.
William
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 06:06:34 PM |
|
|
RS wrote:
"William" <tielige@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
news:41f6bbb3.14065239@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
The argument fails before it starts. Did love exist before evil
existed (before Satan rebelled)? Can love exist in heaven where
there
is no evil. Did Adam love God before he and Eve had eaten of the
tree
of the knowledge of good and evil - before he had any knowledge of
evil? Can a child love its parents when it has never encountered
evil?
Again, God created humanity...
This is an unsupported assertion... how do you support it?
and bestowed upon us free-will (some may say the
Garden of Eden and the forbidden fruit allegorically refer to
humanity (the
spirit) being present in the divine realm and being sent to this
realm for a
short period of time.
This is an unsupported assertion... how do you support it?
<snip!>
Before you can begin to prove the existence of God, you must answer
this question: What are the characteristics of God? A great many
different Deities have been are are worshiped by humans. Are you trying
to prove the existence of Vishnu, Quetzlcoatl, Odin, Zeus, or
someone/thing else? For that matter, are you trying to prove that one
and only one Deity exists? If so, what of all the others?
I took a look at some of your proofs, and they, without exception,
consisted of unsupported assertions and badly flawed logic.
To say that "I believe that Deity X exists, and that He/She/It/They has
such-and-such characteristics." It is a far different thing to say you
can _prove_ that said Deity exists. Thus far, you have not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 12:34:23 AM |
|
|
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106695791.741778.37490@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Before you can begin to prove the existence of God, you must answer
this question: What are the characteristics of God? A great many
different Deities have been are are worshiped by humans. Are you trying
to prove the existence of Vishnu, Quetzlcoatl, Odin, Zeus, or
someone/thing else? For that matter, are you trying to prove that one
and only one Deity exists? If so, what of all the others?
I provided a post a few dozen spots above this one, explaining in list
format the characteristics of the Divine (God = the Divine for the sake of
my argument). For a more detailed explaination of the characteristics of
the Divine, see Sallustius as well as synonymous definitions for
"perfection". I am not discussing one specific god or system of dieties,
but the concept of the Divine. I have stated that quite openly dozens of
times yet the vast majority of you keep missing that.
I took a look at some of your proofs, and they, without exception,
consisted of unsupported assertions and badly flawed logic.
On the contrary, the proofs you examined were EXAMPLES of the style of proof
the sources I provided were using. You claim to understand the basis of
logic. Where is your academic authority for this claim?
To say that "I believe that Deity X exists, and that He/She/It/They has
such-and-such characteristics." It is a far different thing to say you
can _prove_ that said Deity exists. Thus far, you have not.
I did not say that at all. You are irrational in claiming I said something
along those lines. The following flaws exist in your example:
I am not referring to one diety, but the concept of the Divine
I am referring to the nature of the divine, not the characeristics of a
specific diety
My example pointed out the idea that the nature of the divine correlates
with perfection.
Since perfection exists (the Descaretes proof) then there is a good chance
the Divine exists.
I have directed many to Sallustius for further and more detailed analysis.
Examine this ancient philosopher for a more complete understanding of what I
am getting at.
-RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 05:31:01 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:34:23 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106695791.741778.37490@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Before you can begin to prove the existence of God, you must answer
this question: What are the characteristics of God? A great many
different Deities have been are are worshiped by humans. Are you trying
to prove the existence of Vishnu, Quetzlcoatl, Odin, Zeus, or
someone/thing else? For that matter, are you trying to prove that one
and only one Deity exists? If so, what of all the others?
I provided a post a few dozen spots above this one, explaining in list
format the characteristics of the Divine (God = the Divine for the sake of
my argument). For a more detailed explaination of the characteristics of
the Divine, see Sallustius as well as synonymous definitions for
"perfection". I am not discussing one specific god or system of dieties,
but the concept of the Divine. I have stated that quite openly dozens of
times yet the vast majority of you keep missing that.
You seem to have forgotten already the title of your thread:
"You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some."
Now you are telling us it is only a concept. Good, yes you are right,
we agree with you. God is only a concept not a reality. This
concept exists for you because you believe it is so. So you
admit you are deluding yourself. Guess what? You are an atheist
but cannot admit it to yourself :-)
I am not referring to one diety, but the concept of the Divine
I am referring to the nature of the divine, not the characeristics of a
specific diety
My example pointed out the idea that the nature of the divine correlates
with perfection.
Since perfection exists (the Descaretes proof) then there is a good chance
the Divine exists.
Good chance and nor proof? Good excellent. We make progress.
I have directed many to Sallustius for further and more detailed analysis.
Examine this ancient philosopher for a more complete understanding of what I
am getting at.
We were expecting proof as per your thread title. Philosophy does not
provide proof so is of no interest.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stbenn" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 02:56:09 PM |
|
|
RS wrote:
The Big Bang, for example... one
can theorize what happened the moment after the big bang, but why not
the
exact moment of or the moment before? Was there nothing? If there was
nothing, how can matter arise from that? Nothing can not give rise to
something.
I love when I see this argument. You're contradicting your own belief
system! Your whole faith is based on the notion that some guy floating
in the sky waved a magic wand and poof! the universe was created.
Something out of nothing!
By the way, who waved their magic wand and created god?
Or did he always exist. If you believe he always existed, then why
is it so difficult to believe the universe or some part of it always
existed. And why all the empty planets? I don't think I've ever heard
a good religious explanation for this except for "we can't understand
the
mind of god"
.
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 12:08:59 AM |
|
|
"stbenn" <sbennetch@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1106686569.156954.135500@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
RS wrote:
The Big Bang, for example... one
can theorize what happened the moment after the big bang, but why not
the
exact moment of or the moment before? Was there nothing? If there was
nothing, how can matter arise from that? Nothing can not give rise to
something.
I love when I see this argument. You're contradicting your own belief
system! Your whole faith is based on the notion that some guy floating
in the sky waved a magic wand and poof! the universe was created.
Something out of nothing!
By the way, who waved their magic wand and created god?
Or did he always exist. If you believe he always existed, then why
is it so difficult to believe the universe or some part of it always
existed. And why all the empty planets? I don't think I've ever heard
a good religious explanation for this except for "we can't understand
the
mind of god"
Your ignorance and broad generalization amazes me...
God wasn't floating in the sky waving a magic wand and creating the universe
out of nothing. There was no sky at the time. "In the beginning when God
created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and
darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the
face of the waters."
This doesn't state that God created the heavens and the earth from nothing.
Nothing can not create something. I am a strong adherere to the theological
argument that the universe has always existed in some shape or form. I know
the earth to be 4.6 billion years old. This doesn't violate bereshith
creationism either. The universe cannot be created or destroyed. For a
more logical proof, I suggest you read up on Sallustius. As for all the
"empty planets" I would hardly call them empty.. Look at the moon, it shows
many signs of geological activity. Mars shows signs that it had an active
water cycle. The gas giants are beyond our comprehension but their
atmospheres are made of thick clouds of gas. We are just beginning to
understand the surface conditions of many of the planets around us. They
aren't empty. They certainly aren't capable of harboring human life, but
that doesn't mean they are "empty". For a planet to harbor life as we know
it, it must have similar atmospheric conditions to our own. You ask "why
all the empty planets?" Surely science explains why certain planets have
specific attributes which govern their environmental conditions (proximity
to the sun, axis tilt, revolution speed, rotation speed, proximity to
asteroid collision paths, location in teh solar system, etc.) I have only a
rudementary education in geology and astronomy yet I understand these
concepts... We have science for a reason. That reason isn't to disprove
God, but to be able to satisfy our curiosity for exploration, a gift from
God that the whole of humanity holds dear.
-RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Long" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
26 Jan 2005 12:27:54 AM |
|
|
"RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote in message news:ct7c6l$1m5$1@news3.bu.edu...
"stbenn" <sbennetch@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1106686569.156954.135500@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
RS wrote:
The Big Bang, for example... one
can theorize what happened the moment after the big bang, but why not
the
exact moment of or the moment before? Was there nothing? If there was
nothing, how can matter arise from that? Nothing can not give rise to
something.
I love when I see this argument. You're contradicting your own belief
system! Your whole faith is based on the notion that some guy floating
in the sky waved a magic wand and poof! the universe was created.
Something out of nothing!
By the way, who waved their magic wand and created god?
Or did he always exist. If you believe he always existed, then why
is it so difficult to believe the universe or some part of it always
existed. And why all the empty planets? I don't think I've ever heard
a good religious explanation for this except for "we can't understand
the
mind of god"
Your ignorance and broad generalization amazes me...
God wasn't floating in the sky waving a magic wand and creating the
universe out of nothing. There was no sky at the time. "In the beginning
when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void
and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept
over the face of the waters."
You say there was no sky at the time, and Earth was a formless void, but
there was a "face of the waters" (oceans)? How can there be oceans on a
formless void where there would be no gravity to hold the oceans together?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JPG" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 06:36:14 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:23:42 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
You don't have to read all of the links in detail, but make sure to read my
concluding paragraph before you respond completely.
I am Roman Catholic.
I can only hope that your priests didn't rape, sodomize, bugger you or touch
you inappropriately when you were a kid and you haven't been psychologically
damaged.
Lastly, if you still deam all of this evidence I have provided non-objective
and illogical, I am glad that you disagree with some of the greatest
scientists and philosophers of our time. Copernicus, Galileo, Kelvin,
Einstein, etc... they must have all been insane fools for believing in the
existence of some form of the Divine. You claim I am insane for believing
in God and I offer no "objective" proof.
Not insane (unless childhood interference by priests has left you damaged -see
above), just deluded.
I do not need to, since those who
came before me such as these great minds have already offered enough sound
evidence. I believe in God because God is the order behind creation.
Regardless of how silly it may sound to you, I have a developed a personal
relationship with the God I have come to know. I wouldn't be so quick to
dismiss that if I were you. To do so would display that you believe
yourselves to be more intelligent than some of the greatest scientific
thinkers and philosophers throughout history.
Having a good brain does not exclude one from being delusional.
-RS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 12:00:17 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:23:42 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
You don't have to read all of the links in detail, but make sure to read my
concluding paragraph before you respond completely.
I am Roman Catholic. Your crack at Roman Catholic faith, however, only
serves to display your continued ignorance of cultures not your own.
Here is a detailed, albeit a somewhat farfetched proof for the existence of
God using logic and observed data:
http://www.you-god-loves.org/proof_for_god.htm
Most of this wrong right from the statement that "Science proves..."
Science proves nothing
Order can come from chaos
The assertion that life cannot come from non life. There was a time
there was non life. Even if there was a creator it must have created
life out of non life.
Information cannot come from non-information. But it can. We have
gods and Christianity.
Law cannot come from non law? What kind of a stupid statement is
that?
"The study indicates that fundamental arenas exist in the universe."
What study, and what are "fundamental arenas"? Rest of discussion
makes no sense without an explanation of this mystical term. None
of the 'musts' are indeed musts.
God MUST be PRESENT both in the universe and beyond and outside the
arenas SIMULTANEOUSLY while EVER-SUSTAINING them so they work properly
together on a daily basis.
Hmm it would be a poor design if the mechanism need constant
maintenance and attention. The first even functioning steam engine
built by Newcomen required the operator to control each of the
machines actions. After a while they invented machines that could
operate themselves and regulate their own speed using a governor.
Also another objective and perfectly logical proof offered by Descartes:
http://csunx4.bsc.edu/bmyers/3MEDPRF.htm
Here is a collection of over 300 simple-logic arguments for the existence of
God:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Note, this source offers arguments, rather than proofs. If you are offended
or even confused about the logic behind these arguments, do not look at the
2, 3, or 4 conditions. Instead, read those conditions and compare them to
the title of the argument. Look at moral argument II (10). Some might say
"That is overreaching" but in evidence of the fact that the writer is
offering a moral argument, it is true for said moral argument.
Below is a sermon by Pastor Matthew Henderson on the existence of God:
http://www.gerrardstreet.free-online.co.uk/sermons/s19990926pm.htm
It offers some sound logic and cultural comparisons to show the validity in
people believing God does exist and how it isn't incorrect of them to
believe so.
My favorite source, however, is an article which details around 12 proofs
which summon the most common arguments atheists bring forth and compare them
in light of simple logic in comparison to scriptural and theological
standpoints.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html
Another branch off of this same website offers an explaination of certain
scientists in light of the existence of God (and their personal beliefs):
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
This includes Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Boyle,
Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck, and Einsteisn. The most astounding part is
Einstein who recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe.
Einstein believed in God. Do you still call theists insane?
The following is some examples of the individuals with such strong faith
that caused true evil from being manifested or hindered in the world:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/spiritual.html
Following is logical proof against the argument "Since we can't see God, God
doesn't exist."
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notseegod.html
This includes a personal witness of the author.
Evidence on the power of prayer for physical healing (data included):
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html
Scientific studies showing a positive effect of religion on health:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html
Hmm... religion can make you healthier... sounds to me like I'm insane for
that :p
And finally, a summary page of all of the articles outside of those I
provided:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html#Supernatural
This included Common criticisms, common objections to Christianity, common
atheist's myths, and articles detailing the evidence of the Divine.
One last thing you may snap back concerning Einstein:
"Einstein didn't believe in a personal god!" or something along those
lines... here is an article describing it in words better than I can:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html
Lastly, if you still deam all of this evidence I have provided non-objective
and illogical, I am glad that you disagree with some of the greatest
scientists and philosophers of our time. Copernicus, Galileo, Kelvin,
Einstein, etc... they must have all been insane fools for believing in the
existence of some form of the Divine. You claim I am insane for believing
in God and I offer no "objective" proof. I do not need to, since those who
came before me such as these great minds have already offered enough sound
evidence. I believe in God because God is the order behind creation.
Regardless of how silly it may sound to you, I have a developed a personal
relationship with the God I have come to know. I wouldn't be so quick to
dismiss that if I were you. To do so would display that you believe
yourselves to be more intelligent than some of the greatest scientific
thinkers and philosophers throughout history.
Well I haven't read all these so called proofs but I am sure that if
they were indeed proofs (and logical proofs are undisputable) then
we would all know and be belivers. As it happens all these so called
have logical flaws.
-RS
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "TCS" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 12:26:08 PM |
|
|
Piggybacking:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:23:42 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
Here is a collection of over 300 simple-logic arguments for the existence of
God:
300 erronious claims do not add up to a proof. The collection is
no more valid than trying prove that vampires are real by collecting
300 vampire stories.
You should be ashamed at yourself for even dragging that crapload
out as an argument.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 11:58:42 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:23:42 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
You don't have to read all of the links in detail, but make sure to read my
concluding paragraph before you respond completely.
I am Roman Catholic. Your crack at Roman Catholic faith, however, only
serves to display your continued ignorance of cultures not your own.
***** off oh dickheaded felcher. It's past time for you to give your
priest his blowjobs and rimjob. Make sure you get him nice and clean
since he's got a bad case of the shits.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "sanguinevikings" |
|
| Title: Re: You have asked for proof for the existence of God: here is some. |
25 Jan 2005 05:15:55 AM |
|
|
RS <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote in message news:ct4l5p$b65$1@news3.bu.edu...
Here is a collection of over 300 simple-logic arguments for the
existence of
God:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
1. Read the above document carefully.
2. Some interesting further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody
.
|
|
|
|
