circumstantial evidence to Gods existence

[Furball]

There are some well publicized events that fall just short of that. Mary Johnson had a use-less withered arm when she went to see the Mormon prophet. Joseph Smith commanded that her arm be made whole. Who has that kind of confidence? Apparently he did, and the arm was made whole. She eventually joined the church with her minister friend who accompanied her to the meeting and also saw the miracle.
A young man had his leg shot off at the Hawn's Mill Massacre. His mother exercised faith in God, and God told her what to do to save the leg. He was able to walk again.
I don't know of any cases involving amputation, but there are cases where people have seen others resurrected.

Uhm.. do you have any proof of this? It never happened. The first Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, was arrested and convicted in New York and was found guilty of being a con-artist, an impostor -- he was a necromancer and a charlatan. This conviction was four years before he published the Book of Mormon! Court documents prove he was a convicted criminal.

Also - Joseph Smith said that the moon was inhabited by people six feet tall who dressed like Quakers and lived to be 1,000 years old (Source: Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, a devout Mormon contemporary of Joseph Smith; copy at Utah State Historical Society, Vol. 2, p. 166). Smith said the "gulf stream" was the result of the city of Enoch's being taken out from the place where the gulf of Mexico is. My Lord always spoke where of He knew -- before Abraham was, He was -- He was in the beginning with God (John 1:1).

You should really educate yourself on your own religion. If you do, you will see that it is as false as all the others. Here are some links to help you see the false prophesies of joseph smith. Enjoy!

Mormonism | Joseph Smith: Liar, Fraud and Con-Artist

Joseph Smith's False Prophecies | carm

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The lack of such communication is the main reason I don't believe in religion. The evidence is very simple. The people who claim to know more about god than I do cannot agree on much of anything important, despite prayers and prophets and all that stuff. The one thing I know about god is that He doesn't much care what I believe.
Tom

I think he does care what you believe. And that's exactly why faith is personal, and not a subjective proof you can measure. It doesn't mean anything if it's forced on you

just as you cannot force someone to love you, as you would actually destroy any chance of real love, you understand in principle at least?

 

[Sapiens]

Not so. A study done in California found that Mormons live 8 to 10 years longer than the average population.

Rather a bad study. Residents of Hawaii live longer than Mormons ... conclusion?

The problem with the study is the failure to pull out the block effects such as tobacco, alcohol, coffee, and tea. I saw a reanalysis of the initial study that showed that the block effect due to tobacco use alone accounted for more than 1.5 years of the difference. It would be great if someone would reanalyze the data with a robust ANOVA and perhaps a backward jack[knife analysis to determine what the actual important variables are.

Most Mormons I know (I am in Logan, UT right now) eat poorly (e.g., white bread and flour, sugared cereal, jello, diet sodas, canned vegetables, etc.) when compared to the "food conscious." I suspect this is what adds yeas on to those of us who live in Hawaii, where fresh food is plentiful, meat is all grass fed and packaged foods are more expensive.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not if all you've got is the circumstantial evidence.

yes, a jury can come to their decision based entirely on circumstantial evidence - it is the perogative of the judge to overturn their decision in that case but hardly ever happens.

exactly, otherwise you are forced to rule that the husband accidentally fell of the cliff, the day after his wife took out the insurance policy, and the day before she tried to leave for South America.

Likewise this is a who-dunnit, it may be an accident, or it may be intentional- we cannot disallow either possibility, we have no precedent for how universes are 'usually' created, there is no 'default' explanation.

Some 'expert lawyers' defend an accident, but I'm with the public jury on this one, it was no accident!

 

[Thumper]

exactly, otherwise you are forced to rule that the husband accidentally fell of the cliff, the day after his wife took out the insurance policy, and the day before she tried to leave for South America.

Likewise this is a who-dunnit, it may be an accident, or it may be intentional- we cannot disallow either possibility, we have no precedent for how universes are 'usually' created, there is no 'default' explanation.

Some 'expert lawyers' defend an accident, but I'm with the public jury on this one, it was no accident!

Then you also have motive, which is more than just circumstantial evidence.

 

[Furball]

I think he does care what you believe. And that's exactly why faith is personal, and not a subjective proof you can measure. It doesn't mean anything if it's forced on you

just as you cannot force someone to love you, as you would actually destroy any chance of real love, you understand in principle at least?

But if a person's personal faith can be shown to be in a blatant lie, a myth, what does that say about their personal beliefs? All religion is forced upon people. Nobody is born into this world believing in god or scriptures on their own. They are either preached to in a violent way (open air preaching) or in a loving way (from a family member). Without the aid of indoctrination (brainwashing), people wouldn't believe in any of these things on their own.

 

[Sapiens]

There are some well publicized events that fall just short of that. Mary Johnson had a use-less withered arm when she went to see the Mormon prophet. Joseph Smith commanded that her arm be made whole. Who has that kind of confidence? Apparently he did, and the arm was made whole. She eventually joined the church with her minister friend who accompanied her to the meeting and also saw the miracle.
A young man had his leg shot off at the Hawn's Mill Massacre. His mother exercised faith in God, and God told her what to do to save the leg. He was able to walk again.
I don't know of any cases involving amputation, but there are cases where people have seen others resurrected.

Frankly neither of these tales rise above being LDS folk tales. Let's stick with well defined and clear cases ... amputations.

 

[Sapiens]

As is yours. But I only have my own senses with which to experience the world.

Yup ... and I have all of science.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But if a person's personal faith can be shown to be in a blatant lie, a myth, what does that say about their personal beliefs? All religion is forced upon people. Nobody is born into this world believing in god or scriptures on their own. They are either preached to in a violent way (open air preaching) or in a loving way (from a family member). Without the aid of indoctrination (brainwashing), people wouldn't believe in any of these things on their own.

I was born and raised a staunch atheist, in an atmosphere of similar contempt and disdain for people of faith. And I remained so for decades. I eventually began to question my own beliefs, after I recognized them as such.. and stopped believing that the majority of humanity was 'brainwashed'

Belief in a creator is the conclusion of the vast majority of free thinking humanity, atheism in contrast has only reached such levels with oppression of faith- e.g. USSR, North Korea, Communist China
And where this oppression has subsided, faith is returning naturally

 

[Sapiens]

do you then deny your willingness to believe in something that you or anyone else has never experienced - Please explain what gives you confidence in what you believe - about the dog, I think it did just hunt you down and bite you're arse, which is why you scream foul so loud

Absolutely, I believe in nothing, I endeavor to operate solely on the basis probabbility and what can be demonstrated as being most likely.

Do you, or do you not, admit to attempting a straw-man logical fallacy?

 

[Thumper]

I was born and raised a staunch atheist, in an atmosphere of similar contempt and disdain for people of faith. And I remained so for decades. I eventually began to question my own beliefs, after I recognized them as such.. and stopped believing that the majority of humanity was 'brainwashed'

Belief in a creator is the conclusion of the vast majority of free thinking humanity, atheism in contrast has only reached such levels with oppression of faith- e.g. USSR, North Korea, Communist China
And where this oppression has subsided, faith is returning naturally

You just love making stuff up without any regard for available data that counters your claims.

 

[rrosskopf]

Uhm.. do you have any proof of this? It never happened. The first Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, was arrested and convicted in New York and was found guilty of being a con-artist, an impostor -- he was a necromancer and a charlatan. This conviction was four years before he published the Book of Mormon! Court documents prove he was a convicted criminal.

Also - Joseph Smith said that the moon was inhabited by people six feet tall who dressed like Quakers and lived to be 1,000 years old (Source: Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, a devout Mormon contemporary of Joseph Smith; copy at Utah State Historical Society, Vol. 2, p. 166). Smith said the "gulf stream" was the result of the city of Enoch's being taken out from the place where the gulf of Mexico is. My Lord always spoke where of He knew -- before Abraham was, He was -- He was in the beginning with God (John 1:1).

You should really educate yourself on your own religion. If you do, you will see that it is as false as all the others. Here are some links to help you see the false prophesies of joseph smith. Enjoy!

Total nonsense. You should try getting your information from a non-biased source. In 1826 he was arrested on charges of "glass looking". He was given a hearing before a judge. Witnesses were called. The witnesses testified that he could actually do the things that he claimed to do. The charges were dropped, and it never went to trial. There is no evidence he was ever convicted of fraud.

The quote about the moon being inhabited comes from a late third hand source. Oliver Huntington was quoting Philo Dibble, who supposedly heard it from the prophet. It is just hearsay.

 

[Sapiens]

I was born and raised a staunch atheist, in an atmosphere of similar contempt and disdain for people of faith. And I remained so for decades. I eventually began to question my own beliefs, after I recognized them as such.. and stopped believing that the majority of humanity was 'brainwashed'

Belief in a creator is the conclusion of the vast majority of free thinking humanity, atheism in contrast has only reached such levels with oppression of faith- e.g. USSR, North Korea, Communist China
And where this oppression has subsided, faith is returning naturally

Actually, some of the most free countries on Earth are the least religious. The USSR, North Korea, Communist China, etc. were (are) not atheistic, they simply tried to deify the state and/or the leader.

 

[Laughing Coyote]

Consider the following: A scientist claimed to be able to create life as the elements pertaining to the creation of a human can all be found in dirt. So, to begin his demonstration he grabbed a handful of dirt from the ground. A voice boomed down from the sky saying. 'GET YOUR OWN DIRT'.

It's evidence of something, but you still need some kind of further evidence for asserting it is something called "God," and even more so that it is what one a priori assumes to be the nature of God. Without that you are prematurely jumping to conclusion.

 

[Laughing Coyote]

Total nonsense. You should try getting your information from a non-biased source. In 1826 he was arrested on charges of "glass looking". He was given a hearing before a judge. Witnesses were called. The witnesses testified that he could actually do the things that he claimed to do. The charges were dropped, and it never went to trial. There is no evidence he was ever convicted of fraud.

The quote about the moon being inhabited comes from a late third hand source. Oliver Huntington was quoting Philo Dibble, who supposedly heard it from the prophet. It is just hearsay.

Courts don't ascertain truth, they rather provide a means to make decisions over how convincing an argument seems to be, consistent with the ability of the judge to appraise the consistency and ability of the jury (or judge, depending on whether court or jury is making the decision) to appraise the argument. Social sanction is obtained, but nothing is proved or disproved, whatever the topic.

Even scientific "proof" is contingent upon evidence, ability of the scientist, the limitations of the tools and method used to obtain the evidence, the premises underlying the argument, and the imperfections of the language used to describe the argument. That's how an Einstein theories came to eclipse Newton's, and yet Einstein's too are good only to a certain place beyond the decimal point and beyond that everything before that place is contingent. This will always be. Its why Alfred Whitehead said there is always necessity of a God, but, in my words, the nature of what God depends upon what comes before that place ... and whether the premises are valid.

 

[Sapiens]

Total nonsense. You should try getting your information from a non-biased source. In 1826 he was arrested on charges of "glass looking". He was given a hearing before a judge. Witnesses were called. The witnesses testified that he could actually do the things that he claimed to do. The charges were dropped, and it never went to trial. There is no evidence he was ever convicted of fraud.

The quote about the moon being inhabited comes from a late third hand source. Oliver Huntington was quoting Philo Dibble, who supposedly heard it from the prophet. It is just hearsay.

No the nonsense is all yours.

Like many Mormon apologists you are pretending that the accounts area fictional, that there was no 1826 trial, that if the Pearsall and Purple accounts had any basis in fact it was blow by from Smith’s 1830 trial for vagrancy.

In 1971 the original bills for the fees charged by the judge and constable in the trial in question were found, proving the date and the subject of the trial. There are now available from: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/the-papers#/L2L/JSPPL1-SUB02

You can find the Pearsall and Purple accounts in Russell Anderson’s FairMormon article. https://www.fairmormon.org/fair-conferences/2002-fair-conference/2002-the-1826-trial-of-joseph-smith

There is no question: Smith was charged with defrauding Josiah Stowell by charging him money for “glass looking.”

 

[Laughing Coyote]

"Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight?

"If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so. Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!'

"All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know." ~ Isaac Asimov

He's content with it because Descartes dispensed with metaphysics, which questions what we mean by knowable.

 

[Laughing Coyote]

"No they don't" Dave Smith 2017 All any claim requires is the willingness to accept it. if you believe that something comes from nothing and life starts from lifelessness despite all physical evidence to the contrary then all that was required to validate that hypothesis was your willingness to accept it. Have you ever seen something, anything, just a grain of sand, come from nothing (let alone a whole universe) Have you ever seen a rock or a mix of chemicals come to life, just a single cell would do - No! but you are willing to believe that it could and did happen, why, because you refuse to believe that it could happen any other way and that is the only other option. "Two miracles and time - Allow me two miracles and time which brings all things to fruition and I'll give you the answers to the universe and everything" - Athiests everywhere

What you are saying is that what is required is accepting vera causa. But if not, what basis do you give? How can you know a miracle, or something we call chaos theory, is actually miracle or chaos and not simply something beyond our capability to understand it? I think the ecologist Wes Jackson made this point about chaos theory in one of his pieces. The grain of sand can be explained in terms of vera causa, but unless we can step out of time, not the universe ... and that seems to me to make everything contingent.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Now we're getting to your real issue - you are arguing from incredulity and trying to rationalize creationism.

I'm arguing in the affirmative, by inference to the best explanation

 

[notexceling]

Please everyone bigotry aside I have an equation that might answer it all and beyond. It's the theory of absolute infinity and all shown without surpassing any of our governing laws.

The beauty of it is in its simplicity.

This is not infinitesimal or infinities within our existing boundaries. This also doesn't go against Cantors work.

Starting with the basics and to understand the limitations of our mathematical structure

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12....

Our numerical system has potentially a never ending amount of numbers. The more you count, the more we can plus another one.

Potentially an infinite amount...

But in truth....

Only one number does exist

The number "1"

E.g 1 + 1 + 1 = 3

That is because "1" explains itself and every other number.

In fact, every number is a repetition (more precisely a reproduction) of the number "1".

Not only does it explain every whole number but it also explains every type of number.

For example a fraction or a decimal point is a "part of "1"".

50% =

1/2 =

0.5 OF 1

What's so special about "1" is it is also complete

1 = 100%

In maths, when something is complete It MUST have a bound and an end.

In maths this is signified with brackets ( )

( <------bound, beginning

) <------end, finish

*****(We do not use the brackets because we consider it common knowledge.)

In maths we rarely use it but Brackets explain grouping pairs or completion in maths. That is why brackets are done first in arithmetical equation

e.g

(3+2) x (3+1) = 20

or

(5) x (4) = (20)

5 x 4 = 20

One is 100% completely bounded and ended to itself.

(1) or (100%)

Hence this instantly means "(1)", the number "1" is the finite because of is finite restriction.

ANYTHING that can be calculated is.

Instantly our universe becomes finite (1) even if it has potentially infinite possibilities (∞).

∞ = infinity.

A concept not a number meaning boundless/endless

Unrestricted (beyond brackets)

This is what has come to be known as potential infinite, even though it's just studying the ∞ possibilities within (1).

If we accept (∞) as anything more it would be the greatest oxymoron in the history of mankind.

There is also another restriction of the number (1)

That is because by itself can not do much.

It needs a medium or a language to communicate.

multiple, divide, square root Etc are all fancy and group methods of doing the core symbols of maths.

Addition and subtraction

+ -

Just like (1),

(+|-) addition and subtraction can explain themselves and every other type of calculations.

Example

(1+1+1) + (1+1+1) = (1+1+1+1+1+1)

So inside every (1) we have (+|-).

E.g

Man = (1)

And he has (+|-) within himself.

Think of anything Positive and negative, Addition subtraction, Time space, Proton electron, Good Bad, Right Wrong, Light Dark

We can even say

Yin Yang for good measure

All we have is equal and opposites and one can not exist without the other. Black exists because of white and vice versa.

Think of anything, chemistry, biology, physics even non scientific subjects like morale; you can even say from a materialistic morale point of view, water is our greatest asset, the reason for life yet, our greatest restriction.

Anything from a positive and a negative within a finite position can be explained quite easily.

(+ -) within (1)

Now to make it interesting..........

Scientifically we know we are living in 1 x (E=mc2), we are restricted.

My question is say we calculated everything that exists in our (1) universe.

Hypothetically lets say

everything = (100)

What would be

1 + (100) = ?

It can not be 101

Reason

Everything has already been calculated and it equalled (100)

Let me rephrase the question

from my brief explanation above what would be

1 + (finite)

1 + (maths)

1 + (1)

1 + (universe)

1 + (everything)

1 + (100%)

1 + (E=mc2)

1 + (+|-)

????

It must be something outside of the bound and end (brackets)

Our concept of this is called

Absolute (meaning 100%)

Infinity

∞

A CONCEPT (NOT A NUMBER) beyond all bounds "(" and ends ")"

So in an equation

1 + (1) = ∞

Or as explained before the core language of (1) is maths (+|-)

The theory of Absolute Infinity

1 + (+|-) = ∞

Even though I have not surpassed our laws of mathematics, it displays something beyond mathematics.

What so special about this equation?

LETS GET INTO SCIENCE:

__________________

Quote: "If an object tries to travel 186,000 miles per second, its mass becomes infinite, and so does the energy required to move it. For this reason, no normal object can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light."

So if something exceeds this limit (1) its mass becomes infinite.

1 + (1) = ∞

__________________

Mathematics studies the (+ | - ) laws to understand the (1) value.

Science studies the (1) value to understand the ( + | - ) laws.

__________________

Quantum Mechanics states for nothing to create something, laws must be in place for nothing to produce something.

The equation covers this aspect quite easily.

A law is something that governs its subjects. It is not an actual physical entity and can not be expressed as the value 1.

It is however an addition which must preexist our mathematical restrictions, as quantum mechanics states.

+ ( + | - ) This is the equation of Quantum mechanics,

And this (+|-) is what governing physics studies

__________________

RELIGION

It explain outside of our brackets

God is complete 1

100%

Yet he is incomprehensible

∞

It explains that we have the option of either choosing a + path or - negative

If on the day of judgment "=" (The day of TOTALLING/Tallying/equal sign)

our good deeds out way our bad

1 + ( + > - ) = + ∞

You will end up in eternal positive or heaven

Respectively

1 + ( + < -) = - ∞

Hell

God 1 = ∞

Created +

Everything (+ - )

and he only gives + "good" to all creation

and everything (1) was made in pairs (+ - )

__________________

Prisca Theologia

+(+|-) Atheist, understand natural law exist and Quanta

(∞)=∞ Pantheist, the universe is God

(1)=∞ Buddha said, look within yourself (1) and find your personal (∞) nirvana.

( 1 + (+|-) = ∞) Christianity,

father 1=∞

holy spirit +

son (+|-)

Exterior brackets trinity

(holy spirit is the deliverer of the law, the son is earthly bound (+-) son)

Even though Jesus can have potentially have an (∞) possibilities within him, he can never be God. That is why he always said the father ∞ is greater than I (1)

Islam

Surah 112

Say he is one

1

on all whom depend +

he begets not, (+)

nor is begotten (-)

(+|-)

and none is like him ∞

within the ayat he mentions his name as l-Samadu meaning the Eternal the Absolute

---->It is everywhere (on every page in every Surah) in the Quran .<--------

Cantor actually coined the word “transfinite” in an attempt to distinguish the various levels of infinite numbers from an Absolute Infinity 100% ∞ , an incomprehensible concept beyond mathematics itself, which then Cantor effectively equated with God (he saw no contradiction between his mathematics and the traditional concept of God)

I'm merely saying the same thing. It doesn't matter if you call this concept Allah, God, Absolute Infinite. Whats important to understand is that a concept beyond anything calculable (including all the potential infinities) does exist, as Cantor proclaimed.

IN RESPONSE TO Pi or other pardoxes

For all those who are going to give the response what about irrational numbers like Pi or other infinity paradoxes, well.....

This equation is explaining the Absolute Infinite beyond any restricting and governing laws.

Pi is restricted to and only potentially infinite.

To explain, Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter and is restricted to the circle's circumference. It is within a 100% complete and enclosing "circle".

Same goes for every type and size of infinite we know.

For example take the hilbert hotel paradox, It is still within a hotel.

This infinite is bounded and ended by the governing laws of its confinements. When Time/Space ends, the numbers within it must end with it.

Absolute Infinity can not be governed or restricted by numerical properties

Also 3.1415926535... is basically (1)+(1)+(1)

We have "3" individual 100% complete (1)s and we are 0.85840734641021...

away from the next complete (1), or the 4th (1)

And for anyone who wants to argue for zero

Then I ask what is 0?

Cause if we mean something was there and then wasn't then it never can be 0 and if it never existed we wouldn't know the 0 of it exists

Something that exist can not "not" exist because it has existed.

If the entity is removed it is the absence of an existence, not uncreated.

Nothing can only exist because it was something.

Something can never become nothing because it was once something and nothing can not be subtracted unless it becomes an additional something.

As soon as we label it nothing, it becomes something even if there is nothing there. The reason is when we identify its nothing, we give a no value (even if its nothing) within mathematical laws.

This doesn't only apply to physical or tangible entities.

For example we can create (or add on) using our imagination. The unique imaginative something that we created exists at a certain time within your space so even if forgotten and never remembered again, it can never become nothing, only the addition it supplied is removed.

However even this imaginative something is still restricted and can only be created because of our experiences.

We can not imagine what someone else imagines nor can we conjure up something unimaginable because everything you imagine is subject to your experiences or, your moment in time within the space of your life.

E.g

Say I dreamt of monster in my childhood.

Did that monster ever exist?

Actually yes, even though I just imagined it subconsciously it existed and was definable at that present time, even if none of the details can be remembered or is totally forgotten.

I.e it must be recorded for that particular time of my space

More so, for me just to give the above example I am creating something.

I've defined a nonexistent for example purposes so even if I never had any dreams of a monster in my life, it still exists because of my example.

Hence we can never identify "Absolute Zero" for as soon as we label "it" , "it" becomes the absence of something rather than becoming from nothing.