Proofs and evidences of the existence of God

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by dumaurier, Jun 28, 1999.

  1. MaTTo Registered Senior Member

    Think of it this way:

    Religion is like a parasite, and Science is it's host. Religion is dependent on science, but, science can do without Religion anytime.

    This, no one can deny. If it were not for science, religion would have already been dead ages ago.

    Gentlement, your arguments have become somewhat rediculas, especially yours, Dumarrier.

    How can Boris prove or disprove there is a God when you yourself have failed to prove to us there is one, so why should he be capable of disproving?

    The answer is simple: Every man can prove or disprove God for himself, but influencing it on the individuals around you is something far more difficult. If you want to believe, you will. And if you are not as gullible as the millions around you, you won't

    "Some foolish men claim that a creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected.
    If God created the world, where was he before creation?...
    How could God have made the world without any raw material? If you say he made this first, then the world, you are faced with an endless regression...
    Know that the world was uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning and end.
    And it is based on the principles..."

    - The Mahapurana (The Great Legend)
    Jinasena (India, ninth century.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. god Registered Senior Member


    If a blind man walked outdoors on a sunny day he would feel the heat of
    the sun and may declare that the sun does, indeed, radiate heat
    this blind man DIRECTLY feels the heat from the sun (however he has no way of knowing what the heat comes from unless he is told)
    Color is dependent on light and this is another indication of the sun's effects
    for without the sun light is not possible. Now, you might argue that man has developed
    artificial light which is independent of the sun. But this is not so because the elements
    required to build the instrument which provides that artificial light came into being due
    to the effects of the sun.
    by this argument there would be nothing if not for the sun. It could be said that the sun created everything , but I don't beleive it to be an almighty creator . would you?
    One of our
    own planets was discovered through mathematical calculations years before it could
    actually be observed with a telescope.
    the planet was PREDICTED to exist through mathmatical calculations. It was considered to be DISCOVERED only after direct observation by telescope
    What is the origin of all virtues?
    Without virtues there would be chaos and civilization would be impossible. Therefore you could say that virtues are a method of natures/evolutions/humans to continue the species.
    The knowledge of the existence of God comes to us from the Manifestations of God
    Knowledge of god comes from people who BELIEVE they are manifestations of god and convince others of their greatness. (on a personal note i believe you are headed in that direction

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Christ, upon whom the Christian civilization was founded, said that His
    Word came from the "Father."
    Christ also said he , the fater & the spirit were one in the same person.
    Please give me some examples of the same effects as evidence for evolution and other
    scientific theories.
    You say that the effects of natural laws prove that god exists. Others say that the effects of natural laws prove that nature is quite capable of creating itself. ( I won't go any farter because that is the essence of this thread)
    Why do you reject that there is a God?
    I do not reject that there is a god I'm just not convinced of it , the same is true of the big bang. You obviously believe what you say is proof of god , I can not make that same ' leap of faith' I need more empirical proof. Until I get that I will continue to read , listen , observe & contemplate everything I can. This may be slow but I don't believe that it is in anyway limiting. if the awnser to these questions are indeed possible of obtaining . Observation , theorizing and of course testing the theories will arrive at them.

    I would love to continue this , but I barely have the time to read these monster posts . it would be impossible to respond regularly.

    thank you for you thoughts
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Plato Registered Senior Member

    Again I must denounce this discussion as pointless !
    I am sorry but the very subject : Proofs and evidences of the existence of God
    is something that for a long time has been seen as impossible.
    The contrary is also impossible one can not proof or disproof the existence of something outside the known premisses ! This should be obvious I would think after 5 pages of discussion. One can discuss this till infinity and still not resolve anything.

    It is simply a question of faith, or you believe in god or you don't. One point hasn't got more to it then the other.
    Believing one thing or an other won't make you understand the universe any better, you are still left with the basic questions of why are we here, where do we come from and/or where do we go to.

    Myself I like to keep the questions open because I like it that way. Other people will want some more 'substance' and believe in a god or afterlife, still others are convinced there is nothing and there is no ultimate purpose of it all. This is a way of filling the questions but ultimatly we are all aware on one level or another that we are just kidding ourselves and death is the ultimate riddle that awaits us all...

    we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    I don't know...

    When I face 2 things to arbitrarily choose from, I usually try to choose the more reasonable one. I basically share Plato's position, as I have expressed many times. But, I don't believe that both choices are equally good; I really do think that the materialistic interpretation is more reasonable, being more conservative, concise and self-consistent as an explanation. That's the main reason I went through all this trouble...

    But another important point I've been trying to argue is that religion in itself is generally a bad idea, and that as a civilization we should divorce ourselves from it, or be forever bogged down in all sorts of ideological mires.

    I am; therefore I think.

    [This message has been edited by Boris (edited August 04, 1999).]
  8. bedlanam Guest

    in fact, the posts have become the debate rather than the principals behind them. it is, in essence a singular act of braised indulgence.
  9. Plato Registered Senior Member

    Let my clarify my position a bit. I stand next to Carl Popper when he says a theory about anything becomes science when it is falsifiable. Meaning there must be a way in which one can undermine the theory, it must be vulnarable to attack.
    If I say that next week there will be a solar eclips over Europe, this is a scientific, falsifiable theory. Everybody along the moonshadow path will witness the celestial event (with me in the middle of it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    On the other hand if I say that an invisible and undetectable alien is following everymove I make and he is in telepathic contact with only me then this is not scientific because nobody can proof me wrong.

    The question wether god exists or not is along the same lines of the second claim. So it is not scientific to say that god exists or god doesn't exist. As long as we keep this in mind all discussion about proof supporting one or the other view must stop.
    I agree with bedlanam, it has become something more then just debating the principles but more a matter of honor...

    What about the basic questions though because they are the reason why we bother thinking unscientific thoughts, I have a feeling they will forever stay out of the reach of science. Their very nature puts them outside the realm of logical thinking so we can philosofise about them as long as we like they will never reveil their mystery.
    Maybe if we could accept this, we could also learn to respect everyones believes because they are all ways of how we cope with the questions. We don't need to overturn each others point of view on these fundamental questions because they are all illogical so right or wrong are not applicable here.

    Some people choose not to think about the questions and in doing this they get a feeling of security and certainty, they accept what other say about them and lead their lives untill they are confronted with them head on. Nobody can escape the ultimate confrontation because death puts us with our nose on it, no escape !
    This is the fundamental reason why religion serves its purpose I think. It connects us with the unthinkable, with the illogical, ultimatly it makes no sense but there lies it strength because death makes no sense either. And I don't mean death in its context of an exponent of the second law of thermodynamics but in it eradication of the individual. So I don't think we, as a species shout disconnect us from religion because our sanity is involved but we do must make a clear distinction of scientific fact and religious dogma. One musn't interfere with the other, else we become trapped in our own illusions. We need the illusions but we must always be aware that they are just that, it is a delicate balance.

    we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,

Share This Page