If God existed would there be proof?

[CG Didymus]

We have free-will to either ignore what G-d teaches, or take it with a pinch of salt, or take it seriously.

And which teachings from God are we going to take seriously? Are the Jews right about believing that God gave them laws that were meant to be kept forever?

Exodus 31:16
Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
Exodus 12:24
And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons forever.
Exodus 31:17
It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
​

Then with Christianity... Are we saved through grace and only through Jesus?

John 14:6 ESV
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Galatians 2:16 ESV
Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Romans 10:9-10 ESV
Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
​

Then you know what the Quran says. And since you're not a Baha'i, I'd imagine there must be some reason why you don't believe what they say is the "truth" from God.
How about Zoroastrianism? And Hinduism? And Buddhism? What do they teach about God? Lots of differing beliefs and teachings.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We have free-will to either ignore what G-d teaches, or take it with a pinch of salt, or take it seriously.
It is our responsibility to deal with these issues.
It is better to give charity than do nothing, but it is even better to reform the financial system
If not, we cannot make any progress with climate-change and disease.

It is not just a technological issue.
It is fundamental and occurring due to ecological imbalance driven by usury.

Unfortunately, human nature being as it is, countries like China and Russia have decided to fight by employing "a tooth for a tooth" [economically], and are getting carried away with the evil.
It's spiraling out of control.

So where's the part where you explain how religion solves the climate crisis?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So where's the part where you explain how religion solves the climate crisis?

Do you not understand the sentence in red?
It is usury that is mainly responsible for climate-change.

It is only by faith that the financial system can change.
A nation won't change unless it's people change.

 

[Sheldon]

Errr, no.
Almost half of the increase in absolute global emissions has been caused by the richest 10% of the population.

Moving the goal posts now, from 5% to 10%.

Fueled by the consumptive lifestyle of wealthy people, the wealthiest 5% of the global population has been responsible for 37% of the absolute increase in greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.

You are funny, now one more time then, what is the solution to climate change that only religion has the answer to, as you claimed? You seem to have become very reticent and started throwing around irrelevant stats since you were challenged for an answer.

Sheldon ↑
However lets assume some fantasy scenario where this wealth was eradicated, how would that help exactly?
Eradicated?

muhammad_isa
I should hope not. Some people don't have food to eat or shelter, while others jet all around the world.

You want to ban aviation? How is that a religious solution to climate change?

Sheldon ↑
Climate change is just one problem we face. If we fail to address the population growth, then anything we do is nothing but a temporary solution.


muhammad_isa
That's always the scapegoat of the rich. "there's too many people".
If everybody lived like the rich did, there wouldn't be any!

What on earth? Do you grasp that an exponentially increasing human population, on a planet with finite resources can only end in disaster? Regardless of your straw man non sequitur about wealth.

It's the financial system that is primarily causing climate-change,
and NOT population, as you claim.

I never claimed that, it would help if you could read a simple sentence. lets dumb it down with an analogy then.

You're starving to death on the beach, and there is a tsunami heading your way. Now which one of those is most likely to kill you? Lets assume you can escape the tsunami, does that mean you no longer have to worry about food?

1. So yes climate change is a massive problem, and yes it will take more and more lives if unaddressed.
2. Wealth is irrelevant to this, as the population is increasing exponentially.
3. The rate at which individual cultures and demographics cause carbon emissions won't matter if the human population explosion continues exponentially, since our resources are finite.
4. Again individual wealth has no bearing on this simple mathematical fact.

I would agree wth you that if everybody adopts a western lifestyle that it is not sustainable, but that is a different thing.
The fact is, that most people are not prepared to give up their privileged way of life.
They support a corrupted financial system based on usury, which ensures their status.

"Most people" Another of these handy unevidenced stats theists love to pluck from thin air. Also pretty ironic given your previous red herring no sequitur was targeting a minority of the population.

 

[Sheldon]

So where's the part where you explain how religion solves the climate crisis?

Oh that claim is a dot in the rear view mirror now, while he reels off stats and rants against red herring straw men. That's his MO.

 

[Sheldon]

Do you not understand the sentence in red?
It is usury that is mainly responsible for climate-change.

It is only by faith that the financial system can change.
A nation won't change unless it's people change.

So the claim was total bs you made up, well well quelle surprise.

 

[Sheldon]

It is usury that is mainly responsible for climate-change.

That is facile nonsense....carbon emissions are causing climate change, and we can solve this by reducing carbon emissions. However one feels about usury, reducing carbon emission requires new technologies and it is science and not superstition that will drive this. Beyond that the ticking time bomb of the exponentially increasing human population will have to be addressed whatever we achieve in tackling climate change.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you not understand the sentence in red?
It is usury that is mainly responsible for climate-change.

It is only by faith that the financial system can change.
A nation won't change unless it's people change.

I think I do. What does it have to do with religion solving the climate crisis?

 

[muhammad_isa]

That is facile nonsense....carbon emissions are causing climate change, and we can solve this by reducing carbon emissions. However one feels about usury, reducing carbon emission requires new technologies and it is science and not superstition that will drive this. Beyond that the ticking time bomb of the exponentially increasing human population will have to be addressed whatever we achieve in tackling climate change.

I expect this from you.
You have absolutely no idea, as you are spiritually blind.

You simply want to wave away the truth about usury, as you like your privileged status in the world, and as most people, consider that more important than the "stink" that is destroying us all.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I think I do. What does it have to do with religion solving the climate crisis?

If people realised that usury was a major sin, they might vote to change things?

 

[Kfox]

The Correspondence Theory of Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
"...
Narrowly speaking, the correspondence theory of truth is the view that truth is correspondence to, or with, a fact—a view that was advocated by Russell and Moore early in the 20th century. But the label is usually applied much more broadly to any view explicitly embracing the idea that truth consists in a relation to reality, i.e., that truth is a relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified) ..."

Truth is a statement verified by empirical observation of reality. That is what you are saying, i.e. the idea that truth consists in a relation to reality. And you specified the relationship - empirical observation.

So you agree my claim is true?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you agree my claim is true?

No, we still disagree.

 

[Kfox]

No, we still disagree.

I said there is a large rock on my front lawn, and the statement is an empirically verified fact. What part do you disagree with?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I said there is a large rock on my front lawn, and the statement is an empirically verified fact. What part do you disagree with?

Yes and that is in philosophy the correspondence theory of truth.
As long as you claim that your worldview is not a form of philosophy, we are stuck here.

 

[night912]

We have free-will to either ignore what G-d teaches, or take it with a pinch of salt, or take it seriously.
It is our responsibility to deal with these issues.
It is better to give charity than do nothing, but it is even better to reform the financial system
If not, we cannot make any progress with climate-change and disease.

It is not just a technological issue.
It is fundamental and occurring due to ecological imbalance driven by usury.

Unfortunately, human nature being as it is, countries like China and Russia have decided to fight by employing "a tooth for a tooth" [economically], and are getting carried away with the evil.
It's spiraling out of control.

If we follow your line of reasoning from your argument, then "religion" will make climate change and disease even worse. It will actually speed up climate change. Why, you may ask? I'll gladly explain, again if we us your reasoning.

The Result of using "Religion" to solve climate change:

1. We use religion to solve it.
2. That leads to fixing the global financial problem that we face today.
3. With the global financial problem is fixed, progress so follows.
4. We eliminate poverty resulting in a significant increase of society financially.
5. Every single person in the world increases their financial wealth significantly.
6. That means that now, 100% of the world's population is now rapidly increasing the amount of air pollution since now 100% of the population is fueled with the consumptive lifestyle of the wealthy.


Conclusion:
Using your reasoning, by using "religion" as the tool to solve climate change, it resulted in a progressive increase in the change of the climate to the point where the atmosphere of the planet is no longer safe for humans and other living organisms. And since evolution does not work like how the majority of creationists believe, living organisms does not have enough time to evolve the population of living organisms to adapt and survive the the current environment.

If only the creator had designed evolution with having the purpose to rapidly evolve one kind into another kind, then the creation of have kept on thriving. All that was needed was for all the members of the oxygen breathing human kind that's capable of giving birth, give birth to a different kind, the highly concentrated CO2 breathing kind.

And before anyone start blaming the creator, it wasn't fault. Only humans are to blame because every human being has the freewill to evolve into a different kind that's capable of surviving the new environment.

I'm so glad that I don't actually have this way of reasoning. What's even better is that actual truth and reality is not determined on someone's own feelings of reality.

 

[muhammad_isa]

3. With the global financial problem is fixed, progress so follows.
4. We eliminate poverty resulting in a significant increase of society financially.
5. Every single person in the world increases their financial wealth significantly.
6. That means that now, 100% of the world's population is now rapidly increasing the amount of air pollution since now 100% of the population is fueled with the consumptive lifestyle of the wealthy..

No, no, no.
Ever heard of recession?
Your economic theory is deeply flawed.
Why do nations try to "shore up" their economic growth, at all costs?
It is not difficult to understand. They want to maintain a life style and income.

A level playing field economically does not increase industrialisation.
History shows us how the world changed during the industrial revolution, and what is fueling it.
There are limits to growth. The planet is finite. It is impossible for us all to live a typical western lifestyle.
Either we submit to truth, or we kill each other from greed and enmity.

 

[Sheldon]

I expect this from you.
You have absolutely no idea, as you are spiritually blind.

Oh dear, again you completely wave away and ignore what is said, and offer just vapid irrational ad hominem. Try again, and see if you can address what I actually said, with anything cogent or of any real value:

Sheldon said: ↑
That is facile nonsense....carbon emissions are causing climate change, and we can solve this by reducing carbon emissions. However one feels about usury, reducing carbon emission requires new technologies and it is science and not superstition that will drive this. Beyond that the ticking time bomb of the exponentially increasing human population will have to be addressed whatever we achieve in tackling climate change.

You simply want to wave away the truth about usury, as you like your privileged status in the world, and as most people, consider that more important than the "stink" that is destroying us all.

You offered no truth, about usury or anything else, just an absurd bare claim that makes absolutely no sense. The idea one could simply eradicate usury in the 21st century is asinine, even for you, the idea this would solve climate change is spectacularly stupid, and of course completely unevidenced.

Privileged position indeed, spare me your faux working class hero routine, posting on the internet, you do love to make up bs fair play. Even in your fantasy world where wealth and usury could be eradicated without destroying the global economy, and climate change can mysteriously be solved by superstition, none of that will change the fact we have an exponentially increasing human population, on a planet with finite resources, no matter how many times you ignore this fact, for one of your disjointed rants about wealth.

Now since you keep ignoring it...

1. How is religion going to solve climate change?
2. How is solving climate change going to stop the human population increasing to the point where the earth's finite resources are insufficient to support it?

 

[Sheldon]

If people realised that usury was a major sin, they might vote to change things?

I suppose it makes sense for you to believe this fantasy, that superstition can change global economics for the better, after all you have made the spectacularly stupid claim that religion, and not science, will solve climate change. Sadly the details of how this will happen seem to be a secret, or did you you think you can eradicate usury and not plunge the world's economy into chaos? Also how would destroying the global economy, sure climate change exactly? One assumes you want to move back to some sort of archaic barter scheme, instead of monetary credit?

 

[Sheldon]

A level playing field economically does not increase industrialisation.

You want to reverse the industrial revolution? This is getting funnier and funnier, You will cure global climate change by sending everyone back to the dark ages. It's a cunning plan, I think you should lead by example, and turn off your computer.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If people realised that usury was a major sin, they might vote to change things?

Is that the entirety of your argument that religion is the only thing that can solve the climate crisis?
Seriously?