Athiest's are wrong, God Exists, Science proves it

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
But your argument is still very weak and needs more evidence IMO
Click to expand...
Numerous posters have provided a variety of sources for additional information about evolution but none seem to have caught your attention. So let's turn this discussion upside down: What evidence are you looking for? What study/analysis/etc. would you find persuasive ... or even interesting? Interesting to the point that you would actually read/look it over since, up to this point I have zero confidence you have given any of the supplied references even a casual perusal.

If you can't speak to this, then we can wrap this up and go have some suds.
 
tsig said:
If science proved god then there's no need for faith.
Click to expand...

Which we all know has always been a lie. I've never known a "faithful" person to pass up, down play, or otherwise ignore evidence when it (or they think it) supports their mythology.

If tomorrow some tangible strong evidence for a popular religious myth was found the Faithful® would be coming out of the wood works to embrace it and we all know it.

Evidence is only not important when you don't have it.
 
I challenge the OP to provide a single proof, or a single shred of evidence that God exists. After all, the claim is that science proves God exists, therefore there should be some positive evidence for it. Negating evolution does not prove God.
 
Beerina said:
Why would atheists weep? We would find this a fascinating development. And we'd still be atheists because whatever it is would still not be considered a god in the religious sense, which has no meaning and can have no meaning.

I submit it is the religious that would be weeping silently...if not wailing loudly, pooping their pants, as the vast majority of religions, if not all, would in fact have just turned out to be wrong.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If it ever turns out to be the case that there IS a god, the really hardcore religious people better hope that this god never comes back to punish the non-believers, because since most religions contradict each other, either all or most of them would turn out to be wrong and their believers would face the same fate as all the atheists, or maybe even a worse one :-)
 
Dinwar said:
That is a curiousity in the argument. Why would a lack of life elsewhere be proof of a god? It's historically ignorant; previously religious thinkers thought that all celestial bodies had life, because on God worth the name would create so much useless, empty space. The discovery of uninhabited rocks in space was rather devistating. For another, I've read enough science fiction to be familiar with the fact that extraterrestrial life--even complex life--wouldn't be considered incompatable with Christianity, not by Christians. Read the books after Ender's Game if you want to see an example of such a thing.

Any argument about a deity--for or against--must necessarily start with a discussion of the nature of that deity. This thread has none, and therefore we cannot know what counts as evidence for or against it. In my less-charitable moments I'm inclined to believe it's intentional on the part of many theists in these debates; leave your god open enough to interpretatoin and literally nothing can disprove it. Theologians do better, in my experience, but few that look into theology in any depth bother to debate on forums like this.

Anyway, my point is twofold. First, if we assume a traditional Judo/Christian/Islamic view of God (not unlikely in the USA and Europe) we can dismiss the argument as nonsense. If we DON'T make that assumption, but instead leave the definition to the arguer, in a very real sense no argument has been made, as the criteria for evidence for or against has not been established.
Click to expand...

Can I recommend James Blish 'A case of conscience', for an interesting discussion of christian theology and ETI.
 
Biscuit said:
This planet isn't even fine tuned for life. Places we could not live are now habitable and places harmounous with life become inhospitable. Eventually the whole space meatball we ride upon will disappear into the sun and all that fine tuning goes out the window.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that this world is quite toxic to life due the large amount of oxygen. I believe that current theories suggest that life appeared in an anoxic environment, and when oxygen subsequently appeared serious adaptions had to be made.

I have visions of global prokaryote discussions about the selfishness of algae and the threat to all life of oxygen pollution and how something had to be done.
 
Brian-M said:
If his budget is zero, we can send him to TalkOrigins instead.

[respectful snip]

And Darwin's Origin Of Species is out of copyright, so we can download it for free: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2009
Click to expand...

True, but TalkOrigins doesn't include photos and drawings of the actual fossils the way some of my books do, along with references for where to find the original papers. It's much harder to argue against physical evidence than arguments.

JoeBentley said:
Which we all know has always been a lie. I've never known a "faithful" person to pass up, down play, or otherwise ignore evidence when it (or they think it) supports their mythology.
Click to expand...
The thing we non-believers have to understand about religious folks is that to them, God is every bit as real as their car. Science can prove the existence of their car, and any experiment that doesn't show the car to exist is self-evidently flawed. I think we can all agree on that point--if an experiment indicates the non-existence of a car we can see, feel, touch, and have driven to work every day for ten years, the experiment is obviously flawed. Well, to them God is equally self-evident--God exists, so any experiment that seems to disprove God's existence is obviously flawed. They have all the evidence they need to convince themselves God exists--the Bible/Koran/whatever, plus personal experiences.

It may not be good enough for US, but it is for them.

Planigale said:
My understanding is that this world is quite toxic to life due the large amount of oxygen. I believe that current theories suggest that life appeared in an anoxic environment, and when oxygen subsequently appeared serious adaptions had to be made.
Click to expand...
Yep. Oxygen is a very dangerous chemical. It's useful for certain chemical reactions, but it takes a lot of safety mechanisms to keep it from destroying the chemicals life relies upon.
 
Dinwar said:
True, but TalkOrigins doesn't include photos and drawings of the actual fossils the way some of my books do, along with references for where to find the original papers. It's much harder to argue against physical evidence than arguments.

The thing we non-believers have to understand about religious folks is that to them, God is every bit as real as their car. Science can prove the existence of their car, and any experiment that doesn't show the car to exist is self-evidently flawed. I think we can all agree on that point--if an experiment indicates the non-existence of a car we can see, feel, touch, and have driven to work every day for ten years, the experiment is obviously flawed. Well, to them God is equally self-evident--God exists, so any experiment that seems to disprove God's existence is obviously flawed. They have all the evidence they need to convince themselves God exists--the Bible/Koran/whatever, plus personal experiences.

It may not be good enough for US, but it is for them.

Yep. Oxygen is a very dangerous chemical. It's useful for certain chemical reactions, but it takes a lot of safety mechanisms to keep it from destroying the chemicals life relies upon.
Click to expand...

It's always been my sense that, as you say, most Christians just take god for granted; it's when they begin to think about it that they start in with the resorts to illogic and bad "science" to support it.
 
turingtest said:
It's always been my sense that, as you say, most Christians just take god for granted; it's when they begin to think about it that they start in with the resorts to illogic and bad "science" to support it.
Click to expand...
Most Christians don't ask these questions at all, in my experience. Those that do (again, in my experience) view God in the same way they view the ground--it's so obviously there that you don't NEED to prove it, and anything that proports to disprove it is so self-evidently wrong that it's not worth considering. I mean, think about it--when was the last time you asked yourself "is the ground really there?" It is. We know it is. It's not taking the concept for granted; the concept is proven, so there's no point in thinking about it further.

The very, very, VERY small number that are willing to engage in debates on this subject are not representative of the whole. They are a self-select group. The even smaller number willing to engage in debates on the subject on skeptical forums is so heavily biased and non-representative that they are useless in formulating any generalizations about Christians as a whole.
 
Dinwar said:
Most Christians don't ask these questions at all, in my experience. Those that do (again, in my experience) view God in the same way they view the ground--it's so obviously there that you don't NEED to prove it, and anything that proports to disprove it is so self-evidently wrong that it's not worth considering. I mean, think about it--when was the last time you asked yourself "is the ground really there?" It is. We know it is. It's not taking the concept for granted; the concept is proven, so there's no point in thinking about it further.
Click to expand...

It's not quite so dire as all that.
The reason is because Christians (and I suppose other faiths) believe they could, if needed, fully justify their beliefs. So, when they are explaining "the ropes" to another, it's quite easy to ask for more depth in a gentle manner, but one which elicits reflection on basic issues.

Simple, honest questions are quite effective at showing just how "not there" the ground may be. This is especially so when they dip into amateur exegesis and apologetics. The very fact that the ground is taken as a given makes it vulnerable to the most obvious of questions.
 
marplots said:
It's not quite so dire as all that.
Click to expand...
I don't believe it's dire at all. Theists quite obviously operate under a very different paradigm than atheists. It would be impossible for them not to--the question of the existence of gods is too fundamental for the answer to not have fundamental implications on worldviews. All I'm doing is describing (admitedly poorly) their paradigm. TO THEM, God exists, His existence is supported by sufficient evidence, and therefore theories that seem to argue that He doesn't exist are wrong.

Simple, honest questions are quite effective at showing just how "not there" the ground may be.
Click to expand...
This is one of the most frustrating aspects of this forum: folks here appear genuinely incapable of understanding other viewpoints. TO US these are simple, honest questions. TO THEM those questions are often the equivalent of the questions Creationists ask evolutionary biologists.
 
Dinwar said:
This is one of the most frustrating aspects of this forum: folks here appear genuinely incapable of understanding other viewpoints. TO US these are simple, honest questions. TO THEM those questions are often the equivalent of the questions Creationists ask evolutionary biologists.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you are thinking of "challenge" or "gotcha" questions. That's not what I had in mind at all.
 
"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious." - Einstein
Click to expand...

"Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true." -Einstein
Click to expand...

To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man." - Einstein
Click to expand...

He was a deist and did not peddle woo.

link
 
@ Elf Grinder 3000

Please listen to the arguments that are counter to your beliefs that are presented in this thread. Not all that long ago, I was you. A fundamentalist, born again, young earth creationist. I used to argue with scientists on forums (not this one) about how they were wrong. I knew my god spoke the universe into being in just six days roughly six thousand years ago. I knew I was right, and the godless scientist were all wrong.

Then I actually tried to answer a question that a godless scientist proposed to me. I was disputing the age of the earth. He said the scientific evidence supports the view that the earth is billions of years old, and pointed out that radioactive decay was just one piece of scientific evidence that supports it (among others).

My rejoinder was along the lines of "well God created the earth with the decay built in" as well as "the distance between stars was set when God created them, and he created them so their light would already be able to be seen on earth". (goddidit)

The fellow then asked me a question that changed my life (though slowly, it has taken 15 years to get to this point). He asked "If god were so powerful and good, why did he have to make the earth and stars look like a lie? Why does he make them look like they are billions of years old if they are only six thousand? What is god hiding?"

He was right. If god was real, if the biblical creation claim is true, why is god hiding it? If he created the universe, why can we not scientifically see it? Why does not all of creation point to god, instead of away from him? He is god, he supposedly wrote an infallible book. Why does what we can test and observe scientifically not match what he wrote in his book? If science is wrong about all of this, why is it right about so much other stuff? How can scientist get us to the moon and back, but can't figure out the actual age of the earth?

The only way I could still believe in a creator is by ignoring all the scientific evidence that contradicts him. If one is right, then the other is wrong. Either the bible got it all wrong, or all the scientist are getting it wrong. There is no middle ground. You can't pick and choose. This is something that is black and white. Either the bible is true, or it isn't. Either the science is right, or it is all wrong.

I offer this advice humbly, as a former fellow traveler. Science has not yet answered all the questions, but there is nothing else even close to answering those same questions.

Son of Inigo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom