Top 10 Scientific Proofs of God’s Existence

[FA_Q2]

FA_Q2 JoeBlow there's a reason you guys don't believe God exists, you have an imbecile's perception of what God is.

I wouldn't believe in your perception of God either.

You like to say that but you don't even bother to articulate what fuzzy, useless bullshit you call a god. Just vague allusions and statements that clear lies and bullshit contained within the Cristian bible are 'allegory' without any further insight as to what they are or mean.

IOW, I doubt you even have a clue what you actually believe either, just that you do.

But continue on making vapid claims without ever actually saying anything that has meaning. It is not others in this thread that have an imbeciles perception, it is you.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's hilarious whenever someone makes the argument that God can't exist because he's a meanie.

No one has made that argument.

That you have no understanding on what the philosophy is over the argument from evil is a failing on your part alone.

 

[JoeBlow]

No. Interpreting it like a fundie did.

I don't know what that is. But if the bible says that god flooded the whole earth, then he did. What does that mean to you?

 

[JoeBlow]

FA_Q2 JoeBlow there's a reason you guys don't believe God exists, you have an imbecile's perception of what God is.

I wouldn't believe in your perception of God either.

I go by what the bible says. Obviously, you don't.

 

[ding]

I don't know what that is. But if the bible says that god flooded the whole earth, then he did. What does that mean to you?

It an allegorical account of a historical flood that occurred and had been passed down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years because that's how man recorded history back then... through stories. Your brain must be the size of a pea to arrive at the conclusion you have reached. It literally requires no thinking on your part whatsoever. It is the position that requires the least amount of intellectual capability. It's literally the argument a child would make.

How exactly do you see yourself 6,000 years ago? Because people 6,000 years ago were physiologically the same as you are today. They had the exact same intellectual thinking capability as you do today. Are you telling me that you believe the literal account wouldn't have been questioned before now? So it obviously had to have been something more. Your problem is that you have never tried to figure out what the something more is.

 

[ding]

I go by what the bible says. Obviously, you don't.

Like a fundie. You are a fundie.

 

[ding]

You like to say that but you don't even bother to articulate what fuzzy, useless bullshit you call a god. Just vague allusions and statements that clear lies and bullshit contained within the Cristian bible are 'allegory' without any further insight as to what they are or mean.

IOW, I doubt you even have a clue what you actually believe either, just that you do.

But continue on making vapid claims without ever actually saying anything that has meaning. It is not others in this thread that have an imbeciles perception, it is you.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

 

[ding]

So I will say again... FA_Q2 JoeBlow there's a reason you guys don't believe God exists, you have an imbecile's perception of what God is.

I wouldn't believe in your perception of God either.

 

[ding]

No one has made that argument.

That you have no understanding on what the philosophy is over the argument from evil is a failing on your part alone.

Are you kidding? They make it every day when they argue God is immoral. It's the stupidest argument ever. My dog could make a better argument than that.

 

[JoeBlow]

It an allegorical account of a historical flood that occurred and had been passed down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years because that's how man recorded history back then... through stories. Your brain must be the size of a pea to arrive at the conclusion you have reached. It literally requires no thinking on your part whatsoever. It is the position that requires the least amount of intellectual capability. It's literally the argument a child would make.

How exactly do you see yourself 6,000 years ago? Because people 6,000 years ago were physiologically the same as you are today. They had the exact same intellectual thinking capability as you do today. Are you telling me that you believe the literal account wouldn't have been questioned before now? So it obviously had to have been something more. Your problem is that you have never tried to figure out what the something more is.

People 6000 years ago were smaller, so not physiologically the same. Where does it say that it's an allegorical account? It doesn't, so fuck off.

 

[JoeBlow]

Like a fundie. You are a fundie.

And you're an asswipe.

 

[JoeBlow]

So I will say again... FA_Q2 JoeBlow there's a reason you guys don't believe God exists, you have an imbecile's perception of what God is.

I wouldn't believe in your perception of God either.

You seem to think I care about what you believe. I don't. So fuck off.

 

[fncceo]

Now, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful as an eyeball could have evolved purely by chance that some have chosen to see it as the final proof of the NON-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the eyeball is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man.

-- Oolan Calluphid, "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

 

[ding]

People 6000 years ago were smaller, so not physiologically the same. Where does it say that it's an allegorical account? It doesn't, so fuck off.

Yes, ON AVERAGE people were shorter 6,000 years ago than today. No, that does not mean they were physiologically different.

That you read allegorical accounts literally that are so obviously allegorical that they might as well be the nose on your face is truly astonishing.

What is your level of education anyway?

 

[ding]

And you're an asswipe.

If you keep reading allegorical accounts literally then you are no different from a fundie.

 

[ding]

You seem to think I care about what you believe. I don't. So fuck off.

You're upset. Have a snickers.

 

[JoeBlow]

If you keep reading allegorical accounts literally then you are no different from a fundie.

Plenty of Christians read the bible as it's written. You need to make shit up because you don't believe the bible is true, it must mean something else. Very weak.

 

[JoeBlow]

You're upset. Have a snickers.

I don't eat things that look like an actual piece of shit, but you do, lol.

 

[FA_Q2]

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

IOW, amorphous nothing.

There is a lot of words there but no actual meaning whatsoever. Not one solid trait mentioned. Not one reason that this 'god' you are talking about confers any meaning, any control, any causal relationship that can be shown and certainly no reasons to worship, deify or otherwise care about this 'god' in any shape or form. IOW, if this is your perception of god then it is no more or less important than Carl Sagan's Dragon.

Basically, you assert that there is a spirit underlying reality and such is 'unknowable.' And you have the monumental arrogance to declare others view of god as an imbecile's perception.

The reason you reject the argument from evil is that you are whining about an argument that is not geared to your amorphous, meaningless deist god. It is a DIRECT contention against monotheistic moral religions - chiefly Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Sure, it looks like a silly argument when you apply it to your god because your god does not have any attributes so far. It would be just as silly if it were to be presented against the Greek pantheon of gods as it does not apply to that religious thought.

The real problem with your god is that it is irrelevant. You can SAY that is what god is but it has no impact or meaning on us in any shape or form. For that, you would need to outline further attributes you think this deity may or may not have.

Attributes like what the Christians continually put out: all loving, maximally good, all powerful, all knowing etc. It is within those that arguments become meaningful as now you have actual attributes to discuss.

To claim the bible has any real meaning and to allude to the accounts within as allegory as though there is something deeper there really speaks to the open dishonesty of presenting a deist version of god. Under that version of god, the bible is no different than the Koran, The Book of Mormon or Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. All just stories meant to to convey something meaningful.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't eat things that look like an actual piece of shit, but you do, lol.

You are missing out, snickers are fucking awesome!