Proof of the Existance of God

[Conceivia]

Are you aware of the theory called Intelligent Design? That doesn't quite prove that God exists, but it does give interesting evidence.

Another thing that is interesting, is how so called scientists totally dismiss it as "bad science", because it is not proven. Those sames scientists will swear by the fantasy land stuff the top physicists are saying, which is not only not proven but has no basis whatsoever.

It is a purely emotional argument. They don't want to believe in God, they don't want God to be a topic of scientific debate. So much do they hate the idea, that they'll not consider any evidence, no matter how solid it is.

On the other side of the coin, preachers give no evidence either. Even those claiming to have proof of the existence of God, offer nothing but emotional evidence. This banana is to perfect to be created by accident, and other bull crap like that.

God does exist, and there is solid proof. When the 3 wisemen came to see Jesus, they knew he'd be there. The people of Jesus' time believed in him, because they knew the predictions of his coming, yet today, almost nobody knows of these predictions.

The first page of the Bible tells of Jesus, and gives us the time of his birth (4 days of the Lord or 4,000 years after 4004 BC which is the date printed on the first page). The people who did the references in the center of many KJV Bibles knew of the predictions of Jesus long before his birth, yet none of that is offered as proof now days. I can only assume that preachers and people don't know it now days.

Jesus tells us about nuclear war, saying stars (hydrogen fusion fireballs) will fall from the sky and the sky will be rolled away like a script and the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give her light (nuclear winter), and the people will hide under rocks and in caves (or in fallout shelters).

Do you think something as important as nuclear war would not be in the Bible? Do you think God would simply forgot to mention that? Or that God didn't know about nuclear weapons 2000 years ago? God knows.

That is more proof of the existence of God.

Now, you can continue to follow your leaders, who don't seem to know these things, and make excuses for things. That is your choice.

For those of you who'd like to join me, I'm going to be creating a new church. A church who's purpose is to learn God's plan, and follow it, and save mankind.

The churches teach us to love God, as a man loves a rich friend who can give you the rewards. Only, it is reward in heaven, not reward with cash. That form of love is the same though, it really is not love is it. When a rich man looses his money, all his friends abandon him, proving they never did love him.

God is not stupid. God knows what is in your hearts, much better than you do. You must love God without thinking of your own personal reward. Thinking of reward in heaven does nothing but cloud the love.

My church will offer no reward in Heaven, nor fear of Hell. The only reward we can offer is peace and tranquility and purpose and real joy in life. Love. That is all I can offer. Isn't love enough?

Tony

 

[The_Evelyonian]

This is really the wrong place for this thread. Someone might consider moving this to the religious debates section.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Are you aware of the theory called Intelligent Design?

Yes. Pure pseudoscientific nonsense that is nowhere near reaching the qualifications for a Scientific Theory.

That doesn't quite prove that God exists, but it does give interesting evidence.

Really? I would like to see this evidence.

Another thing that is interesting, is how so called scientists totally dismiss it as "bad science", because it is not proven.

No. It is dismissed because it not falsifiable, predictable or testable.

Those sames scientists will swear by the fantasy land stuff the top physicists are saying, which is not only not proven but has no basis whatsoever.

Actually, Scientific Theories in Physics are falsifiable, testable, predictable, and backed by empirical evidence.

It is a purely emotional argument. They don't want to believe in God, they don't want God to be a topic of scientific debate. So much do they hate the idea, that they'll not consider any evidence, no matter how solid it is.

First, God, being a supernatural concept, is neither proven nor disproven by science.
Second, I would love to see this evidence you keep talking about.

On the other side of the coin, preachers give no evidence either. Even those claiming to have proof of the existence of God, offer nothing but emotional evidence. This banana is to perfect to be created by accident, and other bull crap like that.

Agreed. But why should a preacher have to give evidence as long as he does not insist on dismissing the natural for the supernatural.
God is about faith. Not evidence.

God does exist, and there is solid proof. When the 3 wisemen came to see Jesus, they knew he'd be there. The people of Jesus' time believed in him, because they knew the predictions of his coming, yet today, almost nobody knows of these predictions.

I'm sorry, but that is a circular argument.

1. God is real because the Bible says so.
2. The Bible is true because God said so, in the Bible.

The first page of the Bible tells of Jesus, and gives us the time of his birth (4 days of the Lord or 4,000 years after 4004 BC which is the date printed on the first page). The people who did the references in the center of many KJV Bibles knew of the predictions of Jesus long before his birth, yet none of that is offered as proof now days. I can only assume that preachers and people don't know it now days.

Jesus tells us about nuclear war, saying stars (hydrogen fusion fireballs) will fall from the sky and the sky will be rolled away like a script and the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give her light (nuclear winter), and the people will hide under rocks and in caves (or in fallout shelters).

Do you think something as important as nuclear war would not be in the Bible? Do you think God would simply forgot to mention that? Or that God didn't know about nuclear weapons 2000 years ago? God knows.

That is more proof of the existence of God.

No, it is proof of how one can read the Bible to make self-fulfilling predictions and prophesies.

Now, you can continue to follow your leaders, who don't seem to know these things, and make excuses for things. That is your choice.

Most of us here tend to think for ourselves.
But not all.

For those of you who'd like to join me, I'm going to be creating a new church. A church who's purpose is to learn God's plan, and follow it, and save mankind.

What a novel idea!
Good luck.

The churches teach us to love God, as a man loves a rich friend who can give you the rewards. Only, it is reward in heaven, not reward with cash. That form of love is the same though, it really is not love is it. When a rich man looses his money, all his friends abandon him, proving they never did love him.

Agreed.

God is not stupid. God knows what is in your hearts, much better than you do. You must love God without thinking of your own personal reward. Thinking of reward in heaven does nothing but cloud the love.

Personally, I do not presume to know the mind of God. Seems a bit presumptuous.

My church will offer no reward in Heaven, nor fear of Hell. The only reward we can offer is peace and tranquility and purpose and real joy in life. Love. That is all I can offer. Isn't love enough?

Your church decides the rewards? I though you were doing something new?

Tony

Welcome to RF Tony.

 

[tumbleweed41]

This is really the wrong place for this thread. Someone might consider moving this to the religious debates section.

Agreed, perhaps the Evolution v Creationism section.

 

[Wandered Off]

* * * * * * * * * * STAFF ADVISORY * * * * * * * * * *

Moved to Evolution Vs. Creationism forum​

 

[Conceivia]

If we see something that doesn't make sense, we make a theory to explain it. That is very common in science, but we don't call it a self fulfilling prophecy when we do. One theory seems to explain how the test results are, so we go with that theory.

In my example, nuclear war perfectly describes what Jesus was saying, far better than any other explanation anyone has ever given. How is that a self fulfilling prophecy?

Actually, that is not the right definition of a self fulfilling prophecy, but I'm not going to dispute definitions. I think I know what you mean, and that's good enough.

There is nothing supernatural about God. God is explainable in science.

Tony

 

[Gunfingers]

Well stars were generally a biblical euphemism for angels, Lucifer was even called "The Morning Star" which we now know is Venus. That's why the bible talks about the red dragon casting 1/3rd of the stars from the sky.

But yeah, there was a lot of interesting imagery in revelations that could be imagined as similar to modern things. Some people have hypothesized that the locusts John saw were actually helicopters, for example.

But that's just fanciful musings, i'm more interested in what evidence you think you have for ID.

 

[tumbleweed41]

If we see something that doesn't make sense, we make a theory to explain it. That is very common in science, but we don't call it a self fulfilling prophecy when we do. One theory seems to explain how the test results are, so we go with that theory.

I see you have no idea how the scientific process works. Or the Proper definitions of a Scientific Theory, Scientific Hypothesis, Scientific Laws, and Scientific Facts.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.



Scientific Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.



Scientific Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works,what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.


Scientific Fact A Scientific Fact is an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final). Both Scientific Laws and Scientific Theories are considered to be Scientific Facts.

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method
What does scientific fact mean? definition, meaning and pronunciation (Free English Language Dictionary)
scientific fact, scientific facts- WordWeb dictionary definition

There is nothing supernatural about God.

I agree.

God is explainable in science.

Not so far.

 

[The Enlightened One]

Jesus tells us about nuclear war, saying stars (hydrogen fusion fireballs) will fall from the sky and the sky will be rolled away like a script and the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give her light (nuclear winter), and the people will hide under rocks and in caves (or in fallout shelters).

This to me sounds like it can be open to interpretation by whomever reads it...
When I see it I think more of a supervolcano or an insane meteor shower rather than nuclear war

 

[newhope101]

You know Concievia, I feel that it is as it is meant to be. If anythng was adequately proven for God, creation or evolution it would not be a matter of faith. The bible authors had the advantage of seeing miracles before their eyes. Although I class myself as a Christian, if some bloke resurrected a couple of my dead relatives and said he was the son of God, I would believe him and change some of my behaviours or at least try to.
We only have faith for now. Subtle messages of higher intelligence is not seen by everyone and this is as it should be at this time. Many cannot see the intricacy of designs for life must have a creator it's just chance, they don't see the bible talking about the circle of earth pre-history, the words that speak of the blueprint of man indicating a knowledge of DNA, not the commandments to the Isrealites as being the hygiene rules that assisted the nation to multiply, nor the humbleness of the bible authors that took no glory for themselves (a human miracle I think) but truly modelled Jesus, nor do they see that bible writers correctly stated the earth was once void and then animals then mankind appeared as supported by modern science. It is much easier to side with the hypothesis of scientists that say they know we had to come from somewhere and it was not from God. If ever evolution was dispoved scientists would be scurrying around trying to prove we came from alien DNA. There is actually an article about some scientist that asserts he has proved we come from aliens. Honestly.. all is as it should be. We need to stay strong, love our neighbour and wait for the time where "every eye will see".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you aware of the theory called Intelligent Design? That doesn't quite prove that God exists, but it does give interesting evidence.

I'm aware of the movement called "Intelligent Design", but they have yet to formulate any kind of theory. I also am unaware as to whether or not they have found any evidence of of existence of God.

Another thing that is interesting, is how so called scientists totally dismiss it as "bad science", because it is not proven. Those sames scientists will swear by the fantasy land stuff the top physicists are saying, which is not only not proven but has no basis whatsoever.

Firstly, Intelligent Design is not "bad science". It's not science, period. Secondly, they do not dismiss it because it is "not proven", they dismiss it because to date the Intelligent Design movement have never produced a single piece of evidence in support of their supposition which was not completely refuted or based on ignorance of science. The Intelligent Design movement is not based on science - it is a movement attempting to force God into science through misinformation, ignorance and outright lies.

It is a purely emotional argument. They don't want to believe in God, they don't want God to be a topic of scientific debate. So much do they hate the idea, that they'll not consider any evidence, no matter how solid it is.

Many scientists do believe in a God, and still reject Intelligent Design.

On the other side of the coin, preachers give no evidence either. Even those claiming to have proof of the existence of God, offer nothing but emotional evidence. This banana is to perfect to be created by accident, and other bull crap like that.

God does exist, and there is solid proof. When the 3 wisemen came to see Jesus, they knew he'd be there. The people of Jesus' time believed in him, because they knew the predictions of his coming, yet today, almost nobody knows of these predictions.

Except that you're basing all of this on the words of a fallible book of unknown authorship written and collected by a group of equally unknown individuals some twenty or thirty years after Jesus' supposed death.

The first page of the Bible tells of Jesus, and gives us the time of his birth (4 days of the Lord or 4,000 years after 4004 BC which is the date printed on the first page). The people who did the references in the center of many KJV Bibles knew of the predictions of Jesus long before his birth, yet none of that is offered as proof now days. I can only assume that preachers and people don't know it now days.

Can you present one piece of evidence that this prediction was actually written before Jesus was born?

Jesus tells us about nuclear war, saying stars (hydrogen fusion fireballs) will fall from the sky and the sky will be rolled away like a script and the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give her light (nuclear winter), and the people will hide under rocks and in caves (or in fallout shelters).

Sounds like a lot of wild interpretation.

Do you think something as important as nuclear war would not be in the Bible? Do you think God would simply forgot to mention that? Or that God didn't know about nuclear weapons 2000 years ago? God knows.

The question is whether or not such a God exists and whether or not such a God was involved in the Bible to begin with.

That is more proof of the existence of God.

Now, you can continue to follow your leaders, who don't seem to know these things, and make excuses for things. That is your choice.

For those of you who'd like to join me, I'm going to be creating a new church. A church who's purpose is to learn God's plan, and follow it, and save mankind.

The churches teach us to love God, as a man loves a rich friend who can give you the rewards. Only, it is reward in heaven, not reward with cash. That form of love is the same though, it really is not love is it. When a rich man looses his money, all his friends abandon him, proving they never did love him.

God is not stupid. God knows what is in your hearts, much better than you do. You must love God without thinking of your own personal reward. Thinking of reward in heaven does nothing but cloud the love.

My church will offer no reward in Heaven, nor fear of Hell. The only reward we can offer is peace and tranquility and purpose and real joy in life. Love. That is all I can offer. Isn't love enough?

Tony

And here you descend into mindless preaching.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If we see something that doesn't make sense, we make a theory to explain it. That is very common in science, but we don't call it a self fulfilling prophecy when we do. One theory seems to explain how the test results are, so we go with that theory.

In my example, nuclear war perfectly describes what Jesus was saying, far better than any other explanation anyone has ever given. How is that a self fulfilling prophecy?

Because Jesus clearly isn't describing a nuclear holocaust, you just assert that he is based on wildly interpreting various words and phrases. There were hundreds of people who believed that what Jesus was describing was actually the first world war - they were wrong. Then the second world war - they were wrong. Then the cold war - they were wrong.

Actually, that is not the right definition of a self fulfilling prophecy, but I'm not going to dispute definitions. I think I know what you mean, and that's good enough.

There is nothing supernatural about God. God is explainable in science.

Then please do try.

 

[camanintx]

Are you aware of the theory called Intelligent Design?
Tony

Maybe you could summarize the theory here because last time I looked, they hadn't actually come up with a theory, just a collection of poorly reasoned arguements against evolution.

 

[Conceivia]

First of all, I must object to this thread being moved to Evolution vs. Creation, 'cause it has nothing to do with evolution nor creation. I am not a creationist, I only mentioned Intelligent Design, which has absolutely nothing to do creationism.

I know exactly what science is. It is, just like we have here, a bunch of people with irrational arguments on both sides. Both sides are wrong. Creationist are wrong, and those arguing against Intelligent Design are wrong, and are equally irrational.

Intelligent Design does not oppose Evolution, rather the two enhance each other. The two theories fit together like a glove, each solving problems that the other can't answer, and not contradicting each other in the slightest.

I've been told time and time again, that ants do everything by instinct, with no thinking at all. Ants are stupid, no where near enough intelligence to do the things they do. Either they have a collective mind, in which case God is also a collective mind, or Ants work souly by instinct.

So how can evolution explain ants building bridges across rivers? How could a thousand ants, purely by accident, assemble themselves in the right positions at the right time, to build a bridge?

Any partial attempts would have resulted in a bunch of dead ants. Sure, they could have made very small crossings at first, but remember that ants do not have much memory. They can not store trillions bridge building configurations, one for each situation that might come up. In fact, it is even questionable that an ant could store enough information for a single bridge configuration in its limited brain. Can you store enough information in your brain to make a virtually identical copy of a bridge with 10000 ants, complete with each individual ants path to get to its destination, timing information, each ants limb positions at every instant in time accurate to the millionth of an inch.

Face it, it is not possible for that to be a purely instinctive, evolved process. It requires thinking, and much more thinking ability than individual ants have. That proves that ants have collective intelligence, which proves that collective intelligence exists.

If collective intelligence exists on a small scale, it also must exist on a God scale.

Tony

 

[RedOne77]

First of all, I must object to this thread being moved to Evolution vs. Creation, 'cause it has nothing to do with evolution nor creation. I am not a creationist, I only mentioned Intelligent Design, which has absolutely nothing to do creationism.

Do you know what a "cintelligent designism" is? If not, I suggest you watch this video, or look up the Dover Trial and the textbook Of Pandas and People, and its role in the trial.

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial | NOVA | PBS Video

I know exactly what science is. It is, just like we have here, a bunch of people with irrational arguments on both sides. Both sides are wrong. Creationist are wrong, and those arguing against Intelligent Design are wrong, and are equally irrational.

Intelligent Design does not oppose Evolution, rather the two enhance each other. The two theories fit together like a glove, each solving problems that the other can't answer, and not contradicting each other in the slightest.

Afraid not. Intelligent Design is not science, nor a scientific theory. And ignorance should never be a precursor to throw in a completely unsupported scientific theory to explain what a credible theory has yet to produce. One of the main hallmarks of a scientific theory is its ability to predict. So, if ID is a legitimate scientific theory, what can it predict that is correct?

I've been told time and time again, that ants do everything by instinct, with no thinking at all. Ants are stupid, no where near enough intelligence to do the things they do. Either they have a collective mind, in which case God is also a collective mind, or Ants work souly by instinct.

Ants act on chemicals that it picks up from other ants. The only problem is that ants have a very short memory, about 15 seconds. But apparently, that's all they need to realize what needs to be done and either get the right signal out or go out and do what needs to be done. It is not that they have a collective mind, but that they can make a myriad of chemical signals that tell other ants exactly what needs to be done, get food, follow this trail for food, attack this thing, dig a tunnel here etc. No "collective mind" nor solely instinctual drives needed, just a little bit of knowledge.

So how can evolution explain ants building bridges across rivers? How could a thousand ants, purely by accident, assemble themselves in the right positions at the right time, to build a bridge?

Ants communicate with each other via chemical signals. It's not by accident, send out the right chemical signals and you can get a whole army of ants to follow you and do whatever it is you command them to do with these signals. In fact, you don't even need ants to tell them what to do, in the lab just expose a single ant to a certain chemical and they will try to do what they would do in the wild with that same exact chemical recognition.

Any partial attempts would have resulted in a bunch of dead ants. Sure, they could have made very small crossings at first, but remember that ants do not have much memory. They can not store trillions bridge building configurations, one for each situation that might come up. In fact, it is even questionable that an ant could store enough information for a single bridge configuration in its limited brain. Can you store enough information in your brain to make a virtually identical copy of a bridge with 10000 ants, complete with each individual ants path to get to its destination, timing information, each ants limb positions at every instant in time accurate to the millionth of an inch.

With constant chemical signaling (which is what they do) the ants will stay in place even though their memory is short. It all has to do with chemicals, nothing meta-physical is needed.

Face it, it is not possible for that to be a purely instinctive, evolved process. It requires thinking, and much more thinking ability than individual ants have. That proves that ants have collective intelligence, which proves that collective intelligence exists.

You simply do not understand science. No collective intelligence is needed. But lets say this could be a competing theory for sake of argument. How would you explain this "collective intelligence"? After all, theories explain facts, they explain why things are the way they are. So how does ID explain "collective intelligence"? How is this collective intelligence propagated through out a colony of ants?

 

[Conceivia]

The Dover Trial has absolutely no relevance in Intelligent Design. Rational debate does not involve throwing out a whole field of science due to the actions on one small group of people.

You don't like frank, so everything frank believes in is heresy. You call that a rational argument??? Real science is not black and white. The game you play is politics, not science.

Rational science doesn't seem to exist in the USA at all, strangely enough. Everything is either one side or the other. One theory is considered acceptable, and the other is laughed at, and anyone following the other theories are unable to get jobs in science in the USA and probably some other countries as well.

I can't really tell, but I've heard that in some countries real science is allowed.

Tony

 

[Conceivia]

Science also tells us there is no such thing as heaven or hell. There is no way of justifying heaven and hell in science, nor in logic. Do you really think it is logical to torture people till infinity for doing something bad? And yet, Jesus came to save mankind. Not to save us from going to hell, obviously, 'cause the hell you imagine doesn't exist. Jesus came to save us from nuclear war and global warming and to end poverty.

Just because all other theories are false, does not mean there is not a truth.

Tony

 

[Conceivia]

A volcano would have been written in the language of the time as "the earth shaked and spit fire" or something like that. A meteor shower is remotely possible, however no meteor shower of that magnitude is known to have occurred in the entire history of the planet, so that is extremely unlikely. A single meteor, yes, but not a meteor shower. A single meteor would be described as a single star. Angles or people falling from the sky would just go splat, and not darken the sky nor would there be so many that there'd be a need to hide in caves, nor are angles known to exist. There was nothing that would come close to fitting the discription in WW1 or WW2.

All those things are grasping at straws. Only nuclear war fits the description perfectly.

Tony

 

[tumbleweed41]

Science also tells us there is no such thing as heaven or hell.

No, it does not. However if you were to attempt to find evidence for or against heaven or hell using the scientific method you would fail. As science deals only with the natural world.

There is no way of justifying heaven and hell in science, nor in logic. Do you really think it is logical to torture people till infinity for doing something bad? And yet, Jesus came to save mankind. Not to save us from going to hell, obviously, 'cause the hell you imagine doesn't exist. Jesus came to save us from nuclear war and global warming and to end poverty.

This is by your own reading of reveled revelations combined with your own reasoning. It has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Just because all other theories are false, does not mean there is not a truth.

Please pay close attention. You are not positing scientific theories. You are positing scientifically unsupportable hypothesis.

 

[tumbleweed41]

A volcano would have been written in the language of the time as "the earth shaked and spit fire" or something like that. A meteor shower is remotely possible, however no meteor shower of that magnitude is known to have occurred in the entire history of the planet, so that is extremely unlikely. A single meteor, yes, but not a meteor shower. A single meteor would be described as a single star. Angles or people falling from the sky would just go splat, and not darken the sky nor would there be so many that there'd be a need to hide in caves, nor are angles known to exist. There was nothing that would come close to fitting the discription in WW1 or WW2.

All those things are grasping at straws. Only nuclear war fits the description perfectly.

Tony

Even your nuclear war interpretation is unsupportable hypothesis.
Look at it this way. You claim the writers knew nothing of nuclear war, and so had to describe it in their own terms. You yourself have no idea what destructive methods may be developed even 50 years from now. One could say some future development could be what the writers may have been talking about.
Or, more likely, that they simply imagined some catastrophe that their God would save them from.