Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[JimBowie1958]

Not if God made the trees with rings. You don't know the Creationist theory well enough to anticipate such a simple response? Then you don't really know much about Creationism.

So, you know with certainty that one or more gods made trees with rings?

Super!

Apparently you did not read all of my post.

I was stating the obvious response a fundamentalist Creationist would make as evidence that NP did not grasp the idea of what Creationism is.

Maybe your malady goes deeper than that to actual reading comprehension issues?

Which god(s) made the trees with rings and give us the data you used to make that conclusion.

That questions has so many bad assumptions and misguided notions in it that there is simply no way to answer it.

When will you stop beating you wife?

Note, it is sadly all too predictable that though you have made such an ignorant and misguided response, that a couple of your fellows applaud you. It is pathetic that so many people have such insufficient regard for Truth that they would rather thank someone they regard as 'on their side' than to take a moment to actually THINK about what is being said.

It is disgusting, and the epitome of our cultural confusion that is manifest in so many disciplines and fields of knowledge from economics to moral justice to international relations. It will not improve as long as the current idiocratic oligarchy remains.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So yes, you have confirmed that nowhere did you offer science to support your specious claims to supernaturalism. That should be obvious as science has no mechanisms to test that which is unavailable to the natural, rational world.

And yes, your claim that I must first believe in your spirit world in order to accept the existence of your spirit world is beyond ridiculous.

No, I have repeatedly used science to prove that humans do have a spiritual (not supernatural) connection.

You have never provided a single shred of scientific evidence to support your babbling nonsense.

There is no "specious claim" being made, we have over 70k years of evidence that humans have connected spiritually. Physical science has no current mechanisms to measure spiritual existence, that is true, and I pointed this out in the OP... never have refuted that. However, spiritualism is perfectly natural and rational human behavior, and has been for all of our existence.

Spiritualism (like ALL religions) is a response to the fear of death. The fear gene exists in both humans and other mammals. Your "70k years of evidence" are nothing more than an attempt to dispel fear of the unknown.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So yes, you have confirmed that nowhere did you offer science to support your specious claims to supernaturalism. That should be obvious as science has no mechanisms to test that which is unavailable to the natural, rational world.

And yes, your claim that I must first believe in your spirit world in order to accept the existence of your spirit world is beyond ridiculous.

No, I have repeatedly used science to prove that humans do have a spiritual (not supernatural) connection.

You have never provided a single shred of scientific evidence to support your babbling nonsense.

Why does the 'evidence' have to be 'scientific'? (I know the original assertion is that science can prove a theological contention, but I would like to address a wider set of questions.)

Also, do you believe that human memory 'exists'? Does pi exist?

People throw these phrases around a lot, but I get the impression that few really give them much thought.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No, I have repeatedly used science to prove that humans do have a spiritual (not supernatural) connection.

You have never provided a single shred of scientific evidence to support your babbling nonsense.

Why does the 'evidence' have to be 'scientific'? (I know the original assertion is that science can prove a theological contention, but I would like to address a wider set of questions.)

The OP made the claim of "using science to prove" so it only reasonable to hold him to his own standard.

Also, do you believe that human memory 'exists'? Does pi exist?

Interesting questions. If the definition of a memory is the storage of a specific piece of knowledge then we have to distinguish between human knowledge storage and other forms of knowledge storage. What is printed in a book (clay tablet, cave wall, parchment scroll, magnetic tape, hard drive, solid state memory) remains static until it is altered by something. Human memory is less stable. It has less accurate recall and alters over time. So to answer your first question, yes it does but it is fallible which is probably why we have supplemental means of storing knowledge.

As for pi it is a mathematical constant. Under the current laws of physics as they pertain to the universe we inhabit the laws of mathematics apply across the board. Pi would be true on a planet orbiting Sirius or anywhere else.

People throw these phrases around a lot, but I get the impression that few really give them much thought.

If you are referring the OP you are probably correct although there does seem to be an agenda behind this thread.

 

[JimBowie1958]

DT, thank yo for being a reasonable person, at least so far, lol, and giving a fair response. That is ever so more rare these days.

You have never provided a single shred of scientific evidence to support your babbling nonsense.

Why does the 'evidence' have to be 'scientific'? (I know the original assertion is that science can prove a theological contention, but I would like to address a wider set of questions.)

The OP made the claim of "using science to prove" so it only reasonable to hold him to his own standard.

Yeah, I referenced that in the parenthetical part, but I may have added this after you started your response as I edited it in after rereading my initial post.

I am wanting to consider, however briefly, what are the vectors by which we consider something 'proved' or given more certitude and how are these two types of conclusions different and is one or both illegitimate for whatever reason.

Most of the data we use to make decisions each day in our daily lives seems to not come from either science or mathematics, but from trusted sources of information. How we each come to trust those sources seems inextricably entwined with what our conclusions on a great many questions are.

Also, do you believe that human memory 'exists'? Does pi exist?

Interesting questions. If the definition of a memory is the storage of a specific piece of knowledge then we have to distinguish between human knowledge storage and other forms of knowledge storage. What is printed in a book (clay tablet, cave wall, parchment scroll, magnetic tape, hard drive, solid state memory) remains static until it is altered by something. Human memory is less stable. It has less accurate recall and alters over time. So to answer your first question, yes it does but it is fallible which is probably why we have supplemental means of storing knowledge.

As for pi it is a mathematical constant. Under the current laws of physics as they pertain to the universe we inhabit the laws of mathematics apply across the board. Pi would be true on a planet orbiting Sirius or anywhere else.

So we seem to agree that something can exist without being material, and existence seems in part tied to the idea of stability and universality?

People throw these phrases around a lot, but I get the impression that few really give them much thought.

If you are referring the OP you are probably correct although there does seem to be an agenda behind this thread.

I think the OP to some degree is using terms that have a different meaning to many who are responding and he sometimes seems to not be cognizant of this when he responds.

But this is also true of almost all of those who respond critically also.

 

[Derideo_Te]

DT, thank yo for being a reasonable person, at least so far, lol, and giving a fair response. That is ever so more rare these days.

Why does the 'evidence' have to be 'scientific'? (I know the original assertion is that science can prove a theological contention, but I would like to address a wider set of questions.)

The OP made the claim of "using science to prove" so it only reasonable to hold him to his own standard.

Yeah, I referenced that in the parenthetical part, but I may have added this after you started your response as I edited it in after rereading my initial post.

I am wanting to consider, however briefly, what are the vectors by which we consider something 'proved' or given more certitude and how are these two types of conclusions different and is one or both illegitimate for whatever reason.

Most of the data we use to make decisions each day in our daily lives seems to not come from either science or mathematics, but from trusted sources of information. How we each come to trust those sources seems inextricably entwined with what our conclusions on a great many questions are.

Wikipedia is derided by many and yet it requires citations and references and is constantly peer reviewed. Given that sources like encyclopedias have always been subject to that scrutiny it seems as good as any to trust as a reputable source of information. Any source that is open to correction and willing to acknowledge mistakes does have credibility. Applying that same criteria to news sources provides a means to determine how much is hype versus factual. To be fair news is notorious for inaccuracy (by it's very nature) and requires independent verification. The more credible news outlets know this and strive for accuracy and will publish retractions when appropriate.

Yes, we do have personal biases because having our own opinions shared and reinforced is comforting in reassuring ourselves that we are "right". However an open mind reads from a broad spectrum of sources rather than just a few.

So we seem to agree that something can exist without being material, and existence seems in part tied to the idea of stability and universality?

Yes.

People throw these phrases around a lot, but I get the impression that few really give them much thought.

If you are referring the OP you are probably correct although there does seem to be an agenda behind this thread.

I think the OP to some degree is using terms that have a different meaning to many who are responding and he sometimes seems to not be cognizant of this when he responds.

But this is also true of almost all of those who respond critically also.

That terms have more than one meaning is generally known although not apparent to all. If the OP is trying to make a point then using the appropriate context for the term would be useful. Instead what is apparent is a "fast and loose" approach so as not to be "pinned down" to specifics. Conflating religion and science is a bad idea and all attempts to use science to "prove" religion have been dismal failures. This thread is a case in point.

 

[Hollie]

Not if God made the trees with rings. You don't know the Creationist theory well enough to anticipate such a simple response? Then you don't really know much about Creationism.

So, you know with certainty that one or more gods made trees with rings?

Super!

Apparently you did not read all of my post.

I was stating the obvious response a fundamentalist Creationist would make as evidence that NP did not grasp the idea of what Creationism is.

Maybe your malady goes deeper than that to actual reading comprehension issues?

Which god(s) made the trees with rings and give us the data you used to make that conclusion.

That questions has so many bad assumptions and misguided notions in it that there is simply no way to answer it.

When will you stop beating you wife?

Note, it is sadly all too predictable that though you have made such an ignorant and misguided response, that a couple of your fellows applaud you. It is pathetic that so many people have such insufficient regard for Truth that they would rather thank someone they regard as 'on their side' than to take a moment to actually THINK about what is being said.

It is disgusting, and the epitome of our cultural confusion that is manifest in so many disciplines and fields of knowledge from economics to moral justice to international relations. It will not improve as long as the current idiocratic oligarchy remains.

That was an entirely unnecessary and pointless excuse for defending the claim that tree rings have been "designed" by the gods.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you don't believe that the earth is 500million years old.
that in and of it's self refutes your bullshit.

No what it shows evolutionist refuting their own theory by applying such dates and theory. You're correct I don't believe the earth is as old as claimed by your side.

Dendrochronology (tree-ring counting) refutes a young earth, the old measurement being 11,000, which is higher than the 6,000 to 10,000 years posited by young earthers. How do you deal with this?

Tree-ring counting can be interpreted in several different ways with different factors being considered. I don't know how old the earth is and it's not that important to me.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So, you know with certainty that one or more gods made trees with rings?

Super!

Apparently you did not read all of my post.

I was stating the obvious response a fundamentalist Creationist would make as evidence that NP did not grasp the idea of what Creationism is.

Maybe your malady goes deeper than that to actual reading comprehension issues?

Which god(s) made the trees with rings and give us the data you used to make that conclusion.

That questions has so many bad assumptions and misguided notions in it that there is simply no way to answer it.

When will you stop beating you wife?

Note, it is sadly all too predictable that though you have made such an ignorant and misguided response, that a couple of your fellows applaud you. It is pathetic that so many people have such insufficient regard for Truth that they would rather thank someone they regard as 'on their side' than to take a moment to actually THINK about what is being said.

It is disgusting, and the epitome of our cultural confusion that is manifest in so many disciplines and fields of knowledge from economics to moral justice to international relations. It will not improve as long as the current idiocratic oligarchy remains.

That was an entirely unnecessary and pointless excuse for defending the claim that tree rings have been "designed" by the gods.

Lol, I am NOT defending it, dude. I don't believe that God made everything in a mature state but used an evolutionary process.

You just cant get it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No what it shows evolutionist refuting their own theory by applying such dates and theory. You're correct I don't believe the earth is as old as claimed by your side.

Dendrochronology (tree-ring counting) refutes a young earth, the old measurement being 11,000, which is higher than the 6,000 to 10,000 years posited by young earthers. How do you deal with this?

Tree-ring counting can be interpreted in several different ways with different factors being considered. I don't know how old the earth is and it's not that important to me.

Also it means nothing to anyone who subscribes to Old Earth Creationism anyway, so it begs the question, unless someone here is defending Young Earth Creationism.

Youwerecreated, do you believe our Earth was created from absolutely nothing less than 100k years ago?

 

[Derideo_Te]

No what it shows evolutionist refuting their own theory by applying such dates and theory. You're correct I don't believe the earth is as old as claimed by your side.

Dendrochronology (tree-ring counting) refutes a young earth, the old measurement being 11,000, which is higher than the 6,000 to 10,000 years posited by young earthers. How do you deal with this?

Tree-ring counting can be interpreted in several different ways with different factors being considered. I don't know how old the earth is and it's not that important to me.

Cognitive dissonance on display.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Dendrochronology (tree-ring counting) refutes a young earth, the old measurement being 11,000, which is higher than the 6,000 to 10,000 years posited by young earthers. How do you deal with this?

Tree-ring counting can be interpreted in several different ways with different factors being considered. I don't know how old the earth is and it's not that important to me.

Cognitive dissonance on display.

You are assuming anxiety on YWC's part, which is a necessary component to cognitive dissonance.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Tree-ring counting can be interpreted in several different ways with different factors being considered. I don't know how old the earth is and it's not that important to me.

Cognitive dissonance on display.

You are assuming anxiety on YWC's part, which is a necessary component to cognitive dissonance.

Anxiety is not a requirement for CD. This is merely conflict between his set of beliefs and the existing evidence causing him to claim that it is "unimportant" which is belied by his posting on the topic.

 

[JimBowie1958]

DT, thank yo for being a reasonable person, at least so far, lol, and giving a fair response. That is ever so more rare these days.

The OP made the claim of "using science to prove" so it only reasonable to hold him to his own standard.

Yeah, I referenced that in the parenthetical part, but I may have added this after you started your response as I edited it in after rereading my initial post.

I am wanting to consider, however briefly, what are the vectors by which we consider something 'proved' or given more certitude and how are these two types of conclusions different and is one or both illegitimate for whatever reason.

Most of the data we use to make decisions each day in our daily lives seems to not come from either science or mathematics, but from trusted sources of information. How we each come to trust those sources seems inextricably entwined with what our conclusions on a great many questions are.

Wikipedia is derided by many and yet it requires citations and references and is constantly peer reviewed. Given that sources like encyclopedias have always been subject to that scrutiny it seems as good as any to trust as a reputable source of information. Any source that is open to correction and willing to acknowledge mistakes does have credibility.

'Peer reviewed' is a loaded phrase. LENR researchers claim that their papers have been peer reviewed, and yet most scientists dismiss that claim, asserting that the peers were not objective or reputable, the proof of which is that they were willing to peer review a paper on LENR! lol I have read that other disruptive technologies have faced the same presumptive dismissal by the scientific establishments of their time. The peer review process is only as good as the people involved in it, and all of them )us) have biases that can get in the way of proper peer review, especially if a cientific community suffers Lysenkoism to any significant degree.

Wikipedia's editors are all thoroughly politically correct and they have volunteer editors monitoring designated subjects 24/7 to prevent dissenting views from remaining on their site, no matter how thoroughly debunked the PC assertion may be.

Wikipedia is good for reference to facts that are not controversial and of the public domain, not much more, IMO.

Applying that same criteria to news sources provides a means to determine how much is hype versus factual. To be fair news is notorious for inaccuracy (by it's very nature) and requires independent verification. The more credible news outlets know this and strive for accuracy and will publish retractions when appropriate.

News sources are the same song second verse.

Yes, we do have personal biases because having our own opinions shared and reinforced is comforting in reassuring ourselves that we are "right". However an open mind reads from a broad spectrum of sources rather than just a few.

Yes.

Agreed, and such broad readings of contentious 'facts' or dissenting opinion of various sorts is openly attacked and ridiculed by fanatics of all stripes today.

Those who make a commitment to rational discussion I think should shun radicalism of all variations and look for rational discourse, and denounce those who make ad hominem attacks to bully opponents into silence.

I have no patience any more for proven liars, bullies and trolls. Maybe its because I feel like I don't have enough years left to waste time even reading such bilge, I don't know.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Cognitive dissonance on display.

You are assuming anxiety on YWC's part, which is a necessary component to cognitive dissonance.

Anxiety is not a requirement for CD. This is merely conflict between his set of beliefs and the existing evidence causing him to claim that it is "unimportant" which is belied by his posting on the topic.

From your 'reliable' Wikipedia:
Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In modern psychology, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel "disequilibrium": frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc.[1] The phrase was coined by Leon Festinger in his 1956 book When Prophecy Fails, which chronicled the followers of a UFO cult as reality clashed with their fervent belief in an impending apocalypse.[2][3] Festinger subsequently (1957) published a book called A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance in which he outlines the theory. Cognitive dissonance is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.[1] It is the distressing mental state that people feel when they "find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold."[4] A key assumption is that people want their expectations to meet reality, creating a sense of equilibrium.[5] Likewise, another assumption is that a person will avoid situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of uneasiness, or dissonance.[1]

Cognitive dissonance theory explains human behavior by positing that people have a bias to seek consonance between their expectations and reality. According to Festinger, people engage in a process he termed "dissonance reduction", which can be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors.[6] This bias sheds light on otherwise puzzling, irrational, and even destructive behavior

I am referring to anxiety in a common sense to mean discomfort of a mental sort.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dendrochronology (tree-ring counting) refutes a young earth, the old measurement being 11,000, which is higher than the 6,000 to 10,000 years posited by young earthers. How do you deal with this?

Tree-ring counting can be interpreted in several different ways with different factors being considered. I don't know how old the earth is and it's not that important to me.

Also it means nothing to anyone who subscribes to Old Earth Creationism anyway, so it begs the question, unless someone here is defending Young Earth Creationism.

Youwerecreated, do you believe our Earth was created from absolutely nothing less than 100k years ago?

Yes, I find it Hard to believe the Big Bang created all we see on this planet and in the universe.

I have no reason to doubt the scriptures and the bible say's God created the heavens and the earth.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You are assuming anxiety on YWC's part, which is a necessary component to cognitive dissonance.

Anxiety is not a requirement for CD. This is merely conflict between his set of beliefs and the existing evidence causing him to claim that it is "unimportant" which is belied by his posting on the topic.

From your 'reliable' Wikipedia:
Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In modern psychology, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel "disequilibrium": frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc.[1] The phrase was coined by Leon Festinger in his 1956 book When Prophecy Fails, which chronicled the followers of a UFO cult as reality clashed with their fervent belief in an impending apocalypse.[2][3] Festinger subsequently (1957) published a book called A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance in which he outlines the theory. Cognitive dissonance is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.[1] It is the distressing mental state that people feel when they "find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold."[4] A key assumption is that people want their expectations to meet reality, creating a sense of equilibrium.[5] Likewise, another assumption is that a person will avoid situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of uneasiness, or dissonance.[1]

Cognitive dissonance theory explains human behavior by positing that people have a bias to seek consonance between their expectations and reality. According to Festinger, people engage in a process he termed "dissonance reduction", which can be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors.[6] This bias sheds light on otherwise puzzling, irrational, and even destructive behavior

I am referring to anxiety in a common sense to mean discomfort of a mental sort.

Thank you for the clarification. The poster concerned is definitely "lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors" in this instance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Anxiety is not a requirement for CD. This is merely conflict between his set of beliefs and the existing evidence causing him to claim that it is "unimportant" which is belied by his posting on the topic.

From your 'reliable' Wikipedia:
Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In modern psychology, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel "disequilibrium": frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc.[1] The phrase was coined by Leon Festinger in his 1956 book When Prophecy Fails, which chronicled the followers of a UFO cult as reality clashed with their fervent belief in an impending apocalypse.[2][3] Festinger subsequently (1957) published a book called A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance in which he outlines the theory. Cognitive dissonance is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.[1] It is the distressing mental state that people feel when they "find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold."[4] A key assumption is that people want their expectations to meet reality, creating a sense of equilibrium.[5] Likewise, another assumption is that a person will avoid situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of uneasiness, or dissonance.[1]

Cognitive dissonance theory explains human behavior by positing that people have a bias to seek consonance between their expectations and reality. According to Festinger, people engage in a process he termed "dissonance reduction", which can be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors.[6] This bias sheds light on otherwise puzzling, irrational, and even destructive behavior

I am referring to anxiety in a common sense to mean discomfort of a mental sort.

Thank you for the clarification. The poster concerned is definitely "lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors" in this instance.

No one can accurately say how old the universe and earth is so I do not place importance on the issue.

 

[Derideo_Te]

From your 'reliable' Wikipedia:
Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I am referring to anxiety in a common sense to mean discomfort of a mental sort.

Thank you for the clarification. The poster concerned is definitely "lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors" in this instance.

No one can accurately say how old the universe and earth is so I do not place importance on the issue.

So unless they can it pin it down to exactly 3:17 pm on 11/23/13769850238 BC it doesn't count for you?

 

[JimBowie1958]

From your 'reliable' Wikipedia:
Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I am referring to anxiety in a common sense to mean discomfort of a mental sort.

Thank you for the clarification. The poster concerned is definitely "lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors" in this instance.

No one can accurately say how old the universe and earth is so I do not place importance on the issue.

True, but unless God is playing a huge and cruel trick on mankind by leaving misleading evidence in His creation that suggests it is extremely old, we can be sure that the Earth and the Universe are extremely old; billions of years old, though no specific number can be 100% certain.