If God doesn't exist...

[the_human_being]

 

[sealybobo]

View attachment 68513

Science I'm sure would refute your creation science argument.

If you want to know the answer to your question you'll have to ask a scientist. The problem with that is you won't believe a word they say.

You would have to show this to a scientist so they can explain to us why your argument is bad. I'm not smart enough to know the answer and neither are you.

And it is funny you reject evidence that proves evolution but this "evidence" you've just submitted you accept? And lets be honest, you don't understand the picture you just posted. You aren't smart enough to answer your own question.

I don't understand why the complexity of one cell debunks evolution. In fact I don't think it does. Has this been peer reviewed? Care to show us the groups conclusion to this?

DNA Proves Evolution

Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution Is Wrong, False, and Impossible.

 

[zaangalewa]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

God doesn't exist.

And what's your reason why you chose this belief?

And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?

Specially the third law - because the big bang is not a reaction.

Government schooling.

I don't know what you like to say with this very short sentence. I prefer schools for everyone - not schools for elites.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

God doesn't exist.

And what's your reason why you chose this belief?

And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?

Specially the third law - because the big bang is not a reaction.

Government schooling.

I don't know what you like to say with this very short sentence. I prefer schools for everyone - not schools for elites.

I prefer objective and informative schooling, not indoctrination, i.e., government schooling.

 

[zaangalewa]

View attachment 68513

Maybe here's the answer you are ¿not? looking for: Symbiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[HUGGY]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Obviously something happened. Defining that "something" as a miracle is childish.

Look at it this way. If a balloon is steadily given a flow of air eventually it will burst. Is it a miracle that the balloon explodes?

It is my best guess that the matter in the form of the electrons etc with all the spaces removed reached a point of tipping past equilibrium it exploded and formed our universe. I believe that in the distant past before our universe was formed the universe was gobbled up by a giant black hole resulting in a ball consisting of matter minus the distances between it's building materials. Eventually the hole ran out of material to gobble and the former universe ceased to exist. Then something tipped the balance. I suspect the black hole is what triggered the new universe when it in it's last snack ate it's self leaving nothing to hold the ball of matter. No miracle..just bad digestion.

 

[zaangalewa]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

God doesn't exist.

And what's your reason why you chose this belief?

And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?

Specially the third law - because the big bang is not a reaction.

Government schooling.

I don't know what you like to say with this very short sentence. I prefer schools for everyone - not schools for elites.

I prefer objective and informative schooling, not indoctrination, i.e., government schooling.

I'm not sure what you are thinking about in this context. But indeed this is a real danger how Commies and others showed to everyone. On the other side I don't see how to avoid such problems with private schools [¿for elites [only]?]. I'm for example still amused about a phycisist whose child was in a school with the name of a famous Saint of the catholic church: Albertus Magnus. After two years he found out that they are praying every morning in this school. He was an atheist and became angry. I had to laugh a lot because he needed two years to find out what everyone knows. But I never understood why he became angry, because he was not ashamed to get a job from people who believed in god.

 

[defcon4]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Obviously something happened. Defining that "something" as a miracle is childish.

Look at it this way. If a balloon is steadily given a flow of air eventually it will burst. Is it a miracle that the balloon explodes?

It is my best guess that the matter in the form of the electrons etc with all the spaces removed reached a point of tipping past equilibrium it exploded and formed our universe. I believe that in the distant past before our universe was formed the universe was gobbled up by a giant black hole resulting in a ball consisting of matter minus the distances between it's building materials. Eventually the hole ran out of material to gobble and the former universe ceased to exist. Then something tipped the balance. I suspect the black hole is what triggered the new universe when it in it's last snack ate it's self leaving nothing to hold the ball of matter. No miracle..just bad digestion.

Yesterday's miracles are today's science

 

[HUGGY]

God doesn't exist.

And what's your reason why you chose this belief?

And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.

Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?

Specially the third law - because the big bang is not a reaction.

Government schooling.

I don't know what you like to say with this very short sentence. I prefer schools for everyone - not schools for elites.

I prefer objective and informative schooling, not indoctrination, i.e., government schooling.

I'm not sure what you are thinking about in this context. But indeed this is a real danger how Commies and others showed to everyone. But I don't see how to avoid such problems with private schools [¿for elites?]. I'm for example still amused about a phycisist whose child was in a school with the name of a famous Saint of the catholic church, who was very important in a time when the first universities started to become important. After two years he found out that they are praying every morning in this school. He was an atheist and became angry. I never understood why, because he was not ashamed to get a job from people who believed in god too.

You are a nit wit. Why would it take 2 years to discover that the school forces prayer? A confined learning environment is not the same as working for a paycheck. Unless the employer insists that the workers are all believers what difference does it make?

 

[zaangalewa]

... You are a nit wit.

"nit wit" - "Schwachkopf" - got it.

Why would it take 2 years to discover that the school forces prayer?

We don't force anyone to pray. We are just simple praying in our schools as we always did since schools are existing. If someone doesn't like to pray we'll find other ways to start the day with a meditation. Everyone knows this here - so I would say this phycicist was not communicating with his son very much.

A confined learning environment is not the same as working for a paycheck. Unless the employer insists that the workers are all believers what difference does it make?

Lots of people have lots of opinions about what to do with the money of other people. Hitler for example used the money of the Jews in Germany to organice the massmurder on Jews. And sometimes the most rich persons the universe and god knew died very poor.

 

[the_human_being]

View attachment 68513

Science I'm sure would refute your creation science argument.

If you want to know the answer to your question you'll have to ask a scientist. The problem with that is you won't believe a word they say.

You would have to show this to a scientist so they can explain to us why your argument is bad. I'm not smart enough to know the answer and neither are you.

And it is funny you reject evidence that proves evolution but this "evidence" you've just submitted you accept? And lets be honest, you don't understand the picture you just posted. You aren't smart enough to answer your own question.

I don't understand why the complexity of one cell debunks evolution. In fact I don't think it does. Has this been peer reviewed? Care to show us the groups conclusion to this?

DNA Proves Evolution

Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution Is Wrong, False, and Impossible.

I do understand mathematics quite well though. Well enough to know that the odds for a Big Bang causing the earth to become positioned exactly where it is positioned is an improbability. The odds that he earth would just happen to contain all the ingredients necessary to support life is an added improbability. The odds that a single cell formed within some slime pool is an additional improbability. The odds that a single cell evolved into a four cell lifeform is an absolute impossibility. Put all of these improbabilities together and you have a mathematically impossible situation.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[sealybobo]

View attachment 68513

Science I'm sure would refute your creation science argument.

If you want to know the answer to your question you'll have to ask a scientist. The problem with that is you won't believe a word they say.

You would have to show this to a scientist so they can explain to us why your argument is bad. I'm not smart enough to know the answer and neither are you.

And it is funny you reject evidence that proves evolution but this "evidence" you've just submitted you accept? And lets be honest, you don't understand the picture you just posted. You aren't smart enough to answer your own question.

I don't understand why the complexity of one cell debunks evolution. In fact I don't think it does. Has this been peer reviewed? Care to show us the groups conclusion to this?

DNA Proves Evolution

Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution Is Wrong, False, and Impossible.

I do understand mathematics quite well though. Well enough to know that the odds for a Big Bang causing the earth to become positioned exactly where it is positioned is an improbability. The odds that he earth would just happen to contain all the ingredients necessary to support life is an added improbability. The odds that a single cell formed within some slime pool is an additional improbability. The odds that a single cell evolved into a four cell lifeform is an absolute impossibility. Put all of these improbabilities together and you have a mathematically impossible situation.

That is such utter ignorant nonsense I don't even know where to begin. The fucking big bang blew up and flung stars all over the universe and they died and exploded and rock flew out all over the universe and gravity pulled those rocks into or around each sun/star and eventually one of those rocks became a planet that could harbor life. Mars might be too close to the sun and venus might be too far away or pluto or jupiter. The point is, over billions of years eventually Mars might have been in the sweet spot and then eventually us. You don't know.

This process probably happens around every star. The closest star to us might not have any life in its solar system now but maybe it did 5 billion years ago. Or maybe it will 5 billion years from now.

No, you don't understand math very well. You understand it like a monkey understands sign language. You think you are smart but really humans are not that intelligent. ESPECIALLY the ones who argue with science.

Even if the big bang and the earth were a million to one, we are that 1. No miracle.

The earth didn't always have the ingredients for life.

Listen, there are so many holes in your argument I don't even know where to begin.



Watch this. 12 minutes.

 

[the_human_being]

View attachment 68513

Science I'm sure would refute your creation science argument.

If you want to know the answer to your question you'll have to ask a scientist. The problem with that is you won't believe a word they say.

You would have to show this to a scientist so they can explain to us why your argument is bad. I'm not smart enough to know the answer and neither are you.

And it is funny you reject evidence that proves evolution but this "evidence" you've just submitted you accept? And lets be honest, you don't understand the picture you just posted. You aren't smart enough to answer your own question.

I don't understand why the complexity of one cell debunks evolution. In fact I don't think it does. Has this been peer reviewed? Care to show us the groups conclusion to this?

DNA Proves Evolution

Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution Is Wrong, False, and Impossible.

I do understand mathematics quite well though. Well enough to know that the odds for a Big Bang causing the earth to become positioned exactly where it is positioned is an improbability. The odds that he earth would just happen to contain all the ingredients necessary to support life is an added improbability. The odds that a single cell formed within some slime pool is an additional improbability. The odds that a single cell evolved into a four cell lifeform is an absolute impossibility. Put all of these improbabilities together and you have a mathematically impossible situation.

That is such utter ignorant nonsense I don't even know where to begin. The fucking big bang blew up and flung stars all over the universe and they died and exploded and rock flew out all over the universe and gravity pulled those rocks into or around each sun/star and eventually one of those rocks became a planet that could harbor life. Mars might be too close to the sun and venus might be too far away or pluto or jupiter. The point is, over billions of years eventually Mars might have been in the sweet spot and then eventually us. You don't know.

This process probably happens around every star. The closest star to us might not have any life in its solar system now but maybe it did 5 billion years ago. Or maybe it will 5 billion years from now.

No, you don't understand math very well. You understand it like a monkey understands sign language. You think you are smart but really humans are not that intelligent. ESPECIALLY the ones who argue with science.

Even if the big bang and the earth were a million to one, we are that 1. No miracle.

The earth didn't always have the ingredients for life.

Listen, there are so many holes in your argument I don't even know where to begin.



Watch this. 12 minutes.

The reason you don't know where to begin is simply because you have no argument of merit. Do a search on the mathematical impossibility for evolution and you will get about 100 or so hits. Science is not set in stone my Friend. What was considered science fifty years ago is not necessarily the science accepted today. Mathematics on the other hand, is set in stone. Mathematics never changes.

 

[sealybobo]

View attachment 68513

Science I'm sure would refute your creation science argument.

If you want to know the answer to your question you'll have to ask a scientist. The problem with that is you won't believe a word they say.

You would have to show this to a scientist so they can explain to us why your argument is bad. I'm not smart enough to know the answer and neither are you.

And it is funny you reject evidence that proves evolution but this "evidence" you've just submitted you accept? And lets be honest, you don't understand the picture you just posted. You aren't smart enough to answer your own question.

I don't understand why the complexity of one cell debunks evolution. In fact I don't think it does. Has this been peer reviewed? Care to show us the groups conclusion to this?

DNA Proves Evolution

Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution Is Wrong, False, and Impossible.

I do understand mathematics quite well though. Well enough to know that the odds for a Big Bang causing the earth to become positioned exactly where it is positioned is an improbability. The odds that he earth would just happen to contain all the ingredients necessary to support life is an added improbability. The odds that a single cell formed within some slime pool is an additional improbability. The odds that a single cell evolved into a four cell lifeform is an absolute impossibility. Put all of these improbabilities together and you have a mathematically impossible situation.

That is such utter ignorant nonsense I don't even know where to begin. The fucking big bang blew up and flung stars all over the universe and they died and exploded and rock flew out all over the universe and gravity pulled those rocks into or around each sun/star and eventually one of those rocks became a planet that could harbor life. Mars might be too close to the sun and venus might be too far away or pluto or jupiter. The point is, over billions of years eventually Mars might have been in the sweet spot and then eventually us. You don't know.

This process probably happens around every star. The closest star to us might not have any life in its solar system now but maybe it did 5 billion years ago. Or maybe it will 5 billion years from now.

No, you don't understand math very well. You understand it like a monkey understands sign language. You think you are smart but really humans are not that intelligent. ESPECIALLY the ones who argue with science.

Even if the big bang and the earth were a million to one, we are that 1. No miracle.

The earth didn't always have the ingredients for life.

Listen, there are so many holes in your argument I don't even know where to begin.



Watch this. 12 minutes.

The reason you don't know where to begin is simply because you have no argument of merit. Do a search on the mathematical impossibility for evolution and you will get about 100 or so hits. Science is not set in stone my Friend. What was considered science fifty years ago is not necessarily the science accepted today. Mathematics on the other hand, is set in stone. Mathematics never changes.

I suppose you think math proves God?

 

[james bond]

The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists. We know the latter is not the case in our universe. So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong. Only one can be right. Can we agree on that?

There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists. We know the latter is not the case in our universe. So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong. Only one can be right. Can we agree on that?

There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it? I don't know. If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists. He would be understood. In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God). That's just the way it is.

As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did. Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins. He performed miracles while he was here. He was supposedly perfect and a role model. They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.

Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes. I think, therefore I am. In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix. If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence. However, things happen that disprove my doubt.

So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
2. I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God. He does not make mistakes. He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away. He does what he is supposed to do. We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty. We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
3. So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
4. Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives. I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them. There is perfection.

The second proof of God goes as follows:
1. Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence? If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
2. Sadly, I am still not perfect.
3. My parents, are not perfect either. They have their faults, too. They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
4. Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.

On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection. While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.

This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.

How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."

How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".

You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.

When you are programmed to assume God is real it's hard to even consider it's not.

And OK so what maybe there is a creator. Is that all? Or are they gonna now say he visited their ancestors thousands of years ago and brought a message.

This is how primitive we still are.

This morning the professor on Gilligans island said it best. The more primitive the tribe the more superstitious. Yes the professor was a scientist and atheist.

What do you mean is that all? And he brought a message? You act like this all happened in the past. It's still happening now.

Maybe you are right. Some humans are still primitive who do not see God and His work..

 

[sealybobo]

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it? I don't know. If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists. He would be understood. In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God). That's just the way it is.

As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did. Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins. He performed miracles while he was here. He was supposedly perfect and a role model. They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.

Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes. I think, therefore I am. In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix. If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence. However, things happen that disprove my doubt.

So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
2. I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God. He does not make mistakes. He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away. He does what he is supposed to do. We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty. We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
3. So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
4. Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives. I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them. There is perfection.

The second proof of God goes as follows:
1. Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence? If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
2. Sadly, I am still not perfect.
3. My parents, are not perfect either. They have their faults, too. They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
4. Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.

On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection. While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.

This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.

How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."

How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".

You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.

When you are programmed to assume God is real it's hard to even consider it's not.

And OK so what maybe there is a creator. Is that all? Or are they gonna now say he visited their ancestors thousands of years ago and brought a message.

This is how primitive we still are.

This morning the professor on Gilligans island said it best. The more primitive the tribe the more superstitious. Yes the professor was a scientist and atheist.

What do you mean is that all? And he brought a message? You act like this all happened in the past. It's still happening now.

Maybe you are right. Some humans are still primitive who do not see God and His work..

What is still happening now and who brought a message?

 

[james bond]

You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?

The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists. We know the latter is not the case in our universe. So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong. Only one can be right. Can we agree on that?

There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?

The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists. We know the latter is not the case in our universe. So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong. Only one can be right. Can we agree on that?

There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it? I don't know. If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists. He would be understood. In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God). That's just the way it is.

As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did. Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins. He performed miracles while he was here. He was supposedly perfect and a role model. They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.

Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes. I think, therefore I am. In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix. If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence. However, things happen that disprove my doubt.

So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
2. I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God. He does not make mistakes. He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away. He does what he is supposed to do. We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty. We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
3. So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
4. Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives. I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them. There is perfection.

The second proof of God goes as follows:
1. Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence? If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
2. Sadly, I am still not perfect.
3. My parents, are not perfect either. They have their faults, too. They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
4. Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.

On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection. While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.

This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.

How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."

How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".

You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.

It's logical proof or rationalism.

Descartes based it on how humans admire perfection.

It's not I that do not have a clue. You'll understand one day.

To me, it's more who gets the last laugh.

 

[sealybobo]

The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists. We know the latter is not the case in our universe. So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong. Only one can be right. Can we agree on that?

There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists. We know the latter is not the case in our universe. So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong. Only one can be right. Can we agree on that?

There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it? I don't know. If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists. He would be understood. In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God). That's just the way it is.

As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did. Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins. He performed miracles while he was here. He was supposedly perfect and a role model. They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.

Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes. I think, therefore I am. In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix. If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence. However, things happen that disprove my doubt.

So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
2. I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God. He does not make mistakes. He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away. He does what he is supposed to do. We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty. We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
3. So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
4. Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives. I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them. There is perfection.

The second proof of God goes as follows:
1. Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence? If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
2. Sadly, I am still not perfect.
3. My parents, are not perfect either. They have their faults, too. They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
4. Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.

On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection. While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.

This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.

How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."

How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".

You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.

It's logical proof or rationalism.

Descartes based it on how humans admire perfection.

It's not I that do not have a clue. You'll understand one day.

To me, it's more who gets the last laugh.

If you take a step back and look at all the facts, it seems that God is just the ignorant answer to how we got here. We didn't know shit when we came to that conclusion. The fact is we don't know. I don't have a problem with people who believe God exists but admit they don't know. I just don't like being lied to.

You don't believe all the other religions are real, do you?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

God doesn't exist. And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?

If science doesn't hold the answer to all questions then how do you know God doesn't exist?

As for your question... I'm waiting on a response from some all knowledgeable scientific minded atheist to provide me with an input on that prior to providing a response of my own.

*****CHUCKLE*****