prove to me that god is real

[Yorda]

it's not possible to understand death, what's to understand, you die your dead.

if i really could die...
why am I still alive?
why are you still alive?
why is everybody always alive?
after so many years...
still...
here i am.
alive.
like always.

yorda will die.
the person will die.
but the impersonal self remains.
it exists in the future humans.
and in the future, it seems that "I" (the self) still exist.
like always.

[(Q)]

and in the future, it seems that "I" (the self) still exist.
like always.

That is what theists want to believe, that they will exist forever.

Silly theists.

[Prisme]

prisme

objective Creation is an oxymoron..

Ok genius... prove it to me. I heard guys like you life by proof. Without proof its just an opinion.

why do you think people cant accept the end of life?.

Many do by just accepting the arrival of death. It doesn't have much to do with with belief systems.
You accept to get a ticket, to have rain on your parade just like you can accept death; they are all things you cannot control.

If the pope found out that no God existed, while he was alive obivously, he could only conclude he'd wasted his life.

Well no audible. Being a Pope in a meanningless life is the same as doing any other meanningless activites.

however life has meaning regardless, theres certainly no need for a sky daddy.

You mean you found the meanning of life!?!?!? Please share with us all!!!!

"Death is the only certainty in life, and yet the greatest unknown" why whats to know, your dead.
it's not possible to understand death, what's to understand, you die your dead.

Um, thats precisely what I warned you about but fell into anyways. You are explaining to me what death looks like to the living... not the dead!

Prisme

[Prisme]

and in the future, it seems that "I" (the self) still exist.
like always.

That is what theists want to believe, that they will exist forever.

Silly theists.

Gee Q, you seem well connected with the laws of the universe. Care to expand on your knowledge which you flaunt impllicitly?

[Crunchy Cat]

Interesting... not a single 'believer' has been able to produce a proof...

[Prisme]

Fascinating... how 'non-believers' cannot rationaly grasp that the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.... oh and can't manage an argument for ****.

Proof is on another thread, heres the link
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modu...t=1&itemid=269

[alteredperception]

Prisme-
We don't understand how the universe works yet, so how can you assume the existence of god (a supernatural entity). Rational people don't claim they understand things that currently transcend them. Instead we methodically build upon what we do know and test the truth of new theories. This is the only effective way to learn the truth.

[tex walker]

How about proving that god is not real?

[spuriousmonkey]

proof: god didn't create humans as stated in the bible, but evolution did.

[tex walker]

but who created evolution?

[alteredperception]

Prisme - I read the link you provided. It really gives some good information about many different philosophies. But the author is clearly wrong, and relies on insufficient information to conclude the existence of God.

The author uses Sir John Eccle's explanation of consciousness, which is not fact. Consciousness isn't fully understood, but it is becoming more understood as purely materialistic.

The author also tries to disprove an eternal existence theory. Read my earlier post where I quote Dr. Branden. He explains how the totality of existence requires no cause because causality presupposes existence.

[duendy]

"consciousness isn't fully understood, but it is becoming more understood as purely materialistic"

focus on the first part of that sentence. isn't fully understood. then understand that that non-understanding is still keeping that limited understanding in its mechanical mode.

It is really only materialistic scientists clinging to this mode. Many other scientists, etc are now not trying to materialize consciousness.
Also checkout Christian de Quincey www.deepspirit.com --a professor of philosophy--who explaines how consciousness and matter-energy are ALWAYs togther, but unlike matter-energy which has 'extension' and thus can in principle be 'measured', consciousness has no extension--is 'not-located'--so cant be. it is more like inner FEELING of matter-energy

if you do check him out, look for where he talks about 'energy-talk' and 'consciousness-talk' and how not to confuse them

[audible]

Without proof its just an opinion.

no it's an oxymoron, objectivism means, One of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events.
An emphasis on objects rather than feelings or thoughts in literature or art.
creation however means The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence.
An original product of human invention or artistic imagination.
so we can gaver from this that creation in the biblical sense( without any solid base or evidence) is not objective. so putting the two together is an oxymoron.
reference

Well no audible. Being a Pope in a meanningless life is the same as doing any other meanningless activites.

the question was'nt doing/being in a meaningless life the question was If the pope found out that no God existed.
then he could only conclude he'd wasted his life, but he could have pride in anything he may of accomplished for humanity.

You mean you found the meanning of life Please share with us all

to propagate the species, to strive to be the best you can be, to endeavour to make all the lives you come in contact better in someway, also the ones you dont, and above all to enjoy your short time here, and to have pride in anything you may of accomplished.

Um, thats precisely what I warned you about but fell into anyways. You are explaining to me what death looks like to the living... not the dead!

please done be a moron, how can you explain what it's like to be dead to a dead person. WOW!!!!!

[water]

proof: god didn't create humans as stated in the bible, but evolution did.

God and evolution don't necessarily oppose.
They oppose only if by "God" you mean that strawman sky-daddy.

[Crunchy Cat]

Fascinating... how 'non-believers' cannot rationaly grasp that the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.... oh and can't manage an argument for ****.

Proof is on another thread, heres the link
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modu...t=1&itemid=269

I looked at the proof. To my surprise, it asked two very good questions:

“Why is there something rather than nothing?”
“What caused the Universe?”

The conclusion was that 'God' did it based on the notion that no explanation
currently exists that is adequate. In other words, "I don't know; therefore,
'God' did it". At this point the notion that 'God' exists has automatically been
assumed and used as a substitute for truth in the absence of knowledge.

While reading, I found this gem of an assertion:

The Steady State Theory is true even though it has been contradicted
by physical observations...

Which essentially says "I accept it's true and don't require supportive or
contradictory evidence for my acceptance". In other words, this is a 'belief'.

Next, I noted this gem of a questions:

"Did the Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing?"

This question by today's standards is lacking... to demonstrate this, I would
challenge anyone to:

* Show me an example where 'nothing' exists.
* Show me an example of anything that created itself.

Lastly, I came across this question:

"Why was the Universe Created?"

It makes the assumption that 'purpose' must exist.

Regardless of all the above, the article did not show any evidence to support
the notion that 'God' exists.

Oh and Prisme, you are correct... absence of proof does not mean that
something isn't true. I claim the 'easter bunny' exists and I have no proof that
it exists then it doesn't mean the claim is not true. So, how is it that we
both 'know' the 'easter bunny' doesn't exist?

[Sarkus]

So, how is it that we
both 'know' the 'easter bunny' doesn't exist?

Say it isn't so!!!

Fascinating... how 'non-believers' cannot rationaly grasp that the absence of proof is not the proof of absence....

This isn't restricted to "non-believers" but to people who don't grasp logic.
One of the classic "believer's" arguments is along similar lines: "you can't prove it isn't therefore it's reasonable to have faith that it is."

[alteredperception]

Building upon what Sarkus said, saying you believe in God is not a reasonable assertion. We can rationally deduce theories, about what we do not have sufficient knowledge of, that are within the scope of possibility using probabibalistiic thinking.

The link Prisme provided made a big point about how absurd it is to think life on Earth formed just buy mere chance. It said so many things need to happen that the probability of life forming is extremely small and it is better explained by saying God did it. This is a cop out answer. The truth is, in an eternal (or if you don't believe in an eternal universe, a very large universe still does the job) universe anything that has a chance of happening will happen.

[Godless]

If Sartre critics believers as being 'frail' without God, I say that people like Sartre would be equally 'frail' if they discovered God existed for they would be obliged to recognize something bigger than themselves and their petty free will... this would cause them "distress"

Well that's an assumption; no one can predict what would thousands of non-believers, atheists, muslims, jews, hira-chrishnas, and a boat load of non-christian faiths would do if the "christian god suddenly appeared to be real".

What would you do?.

If the pope found out that no God existed.. how could he then juge that he 'wasted' his life as you put it? With no God (creator), life HAD no meanning from the get-go, so he might as well as been pope than a mechanic or insurance salesman.. it wouldn't of changed anything according to you. Right?

At least he would have known that if he had lived as a mechanic or a salesman he would have not wasted his life on living a "LIE". and has led millions to believe on this "LIE" and assumption that a god existed. And I don't know about you, BUT I CERTAINLY DON'T NEED A GOD! for my life to have meaning just as millions of other's life have meaning without the "christian god" or Zues, Allah, Chrishna, and a variety of other gods here

Of course, when people usually see "the light" they are usually clinically dead... so he wouldn't "then die". And it you're dead, you couldn't conclude whether your going to heaven or hell now could you?

Not true! many individuals with near death experience have seen "the light" and lived to tell about it. I'M ONE OF THEM!!!. For me there's no such place as heaven or hell, I truly ACCEPT death, because I don't look forward to "reward" or Punishment according to some accient literature laws.

-What do you define as accepting death?

Read above. Furthermore by accepting death is knowing that one will no longer exist. Not here, not in heaven, nor in hell.

I'm afraind I have no idea of what to make with your heaven and hell segment.

Ignorance is bliss.

Godless.

[Hapsburg]

show me a photograph of your "god" and your "heaven" and your "hell" and i will go along with your blissfully ignorant and meaningless existance.
seriously. present photographic proof that christianity is the right religion and i will go along with it.
if you cannot, then..you are SOL. you're not getting this one, conversion-forcers.

[Lord_Phoenix]

Lol, another debate on the existence of god.