The Only Way God is Real.

a reply to: sensibleSenseless

It is a living monument with it's ability to steal our future reactions to God's ordinances and how that turns out for us. It transcends time, and it's proof is a work in progress.

How's that to prove that there is something greater than us out there that cares about us?

Are you talking about prophecies?

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

I agree an omnipotent omipresent god cannot be tested for..... Yet. However , you can check the bibles creation tale and other historical markers in the book.... Guess what ? It doesn't match up with reality. So you can't disprove the concept, but you can prove it's no infallible or a history book.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm not a protestant nor religious and I consider the Bible (or at least the OT) as anything but an accurate literal account. I also find young-earth creationism stupid as it is disproved by facts and a modern, American invention from an offshoot of Christianity.


It's really, really tiring when people make assumptions about you like that, especially when I made specifically a long and detailed post to explain my views and positions about "god" and the false dichotomy between science and religion that were once a single compilation of knowledge, as priests and scholars were the same, and studying the stars or mathematics was not different as studying "god" through creation.

But eh, not the first time atheists or fundies attack anything on sight that doesn't wear the same name as them.



It's really sad that for so many people, the fact that a few anglo-saxon protestants claimed to know how to read the Bible the correct way (literally) now means you are either religious and fundamentalist, either science-inclined and thus closed to old spiritual texts.

I only encounter that problem with anglo-saxons though, as in the rest of the world believing in "god" doesn't mean believing in creationism or refusing evolution (it's much more complex) and you can still be a nuclear physicist and exploring the concepts of divinity, of evil, grace or transcendence.


I'm really sick of that polarization that is forced on people (you have to choose! science or god! you can't explore both!) on places like here and everyone partaking in it is part of the problem.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

I think the reception would be a wee bit warmer if the results of mixing god and science were more encouraging. In the end, God isn't making medicine, we are. God isn't making better smoke detectors, we are. God isn't designing more effective security systems or formulating solutions to economic disasters, we are. And for every prayer God answers, dozens more die or suffer because he didn't answer theirs. God always falls short in some regard, while we at least have a reason to fall short. We're only human, and we're still getting it done. And I think that makes a huge difference to some people. Measurable results versus biased speculation.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

Then your an agnostic. I don't consider that a religion. If your just some one who believes the bible is still morally right and not historically.



Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."


I don't find it divinely moral either.

a reply to: GetHyped


Time have always existed and always will. There is no way time can be taken away. Even if finite time did not exist, there would still be time. That time would be absolut constant. PERIOD. That means before the Big BAng time was absolute constant. Because finite was formed after the Big Bang.

This may sound really harsh, but I generally don't really care if God heals people or not. Honestly. The doctrine of "divine healing" is messed up in our understanding. For those who believe in the eternal soul, healing should take a very different perspective. If you are a "Christian" or whatever (religious person, insert label here), then you believe you already have eternal life. What is 80 or so years trapped in a skin cage in comparison to eternity? Blah! Nonsense! I'm not going to get bent out of shape at God because my wife is dying of an inoperable brain tumor (that is actually happening, by the way), because why does she need healed? So that she can live longer? She already has eternal life, how much longer can we ask? Healing happens in order to accomplish a purpose in the divine will or for the divine will. Not so we can live longer in a skin suit.

I feel similar about human suffering. "God" did not create human suffering, nor is it His/Her/Its problem to solve. It does not make god less omnipotent because His/Her/Its timeframe for solving problems does not fit into our neat little linear view of spacetime. Many religious texts speak about how God's day is like a thousand of our years and such like that. So how can we sit around and judge an omnipotent God because He/She/It doesnt fix all of our problems on our schedule? Perhaps there is something to be said for human suffering. I think of it like this old drama I saw once, where this guy asked God why there were so many hungry, so many homeless, suffering, etc, when God is supposedly a good God, and God told the guy "yeah, why is there? I put you all here for a purpose, you shouldn't come running to me and blaming me for being incompetant when you demand free will and then ignore all the teachings I gave you to alleviate the suffering you now claim proves I don't exist".

It's all convoluted. Science demands proof. The religious rely on experience. Science can't quantify experience. That creates a problem. But science cannot deal with the unquantifiable on any level anyway, so there is a big understanding gap. Scicen cannot create an appreciation for a glorious sunset in a blind person because they cannot break the glorious beauty down to a set of relatable data that makes the blind person suddenly realise how beautiful the thing they cannot see is.

I'm rambling. I'll stop here. I'm just frustrated at both sides because there is such a gap of undersanding and neither seems to be able to bridge it.

a reply to: Everlastingknowitall
Beautiful, wonderful post! I could not have said it better if I tried! Thank you.

Man there are many arguments about various topics going on here. Science, religion, ideas. The funny thing is they all end with the same question, "What came before that?" All ideas are spawned from the collective knowledge of the past, we add our own flavor to it and pass it along to influence future generations. Science might attempt to explain how ideas are generated but you are still left with how the first idea came to be? How god came to be? How the universe came to be? Was there a big bang in the brain, like a light bulb turning on all of a sudden. Life itself might be the greatest irony of all, attempting to find an answer where only unlimited questions exist. This doesn't mean to stop, for meaning is in the process. Should someone all of a sudden have an answer to everything I wouldn't be able to enjoy reading all these theories on this forum.

a reply to: Everlastingknowitall

It is so true.

Why do we blame God for all the evil we do?

Why do we blame Our politicans for all we do for them?

Why are we so naive and think that Our actions are someone elses fault?

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

SGF, you are aware that modern science, or even word science is fairly new word and discipline?

Sure people in ancient times were making observations and started documenting what they saw or concluded, but I would not necessarily call it all science. Same way I would not call today YEC scientist, even they obeserved Bible and made prediction that world is only 6 thousands year old according to bible.

In my opinion, so called holy books all belong on the same shelf, with ancient mythology and other folklore tales. Sure, you can get some questionable moral out of them, but nothing I would really use in life...

Danger of denial of science is best described by Dr. Tyson with example of Islam. In beginning thrived with advancement in astronomy, mathematics, algebra (Arabic word), until someone questioned problem that new discoveries are against teachings in Qur'an. Since that time Islam is in constant decline. We in USA are at the point where this can happen - thus we have politicians changing wording of simple request into something that would not go against their belief - parade of stupidity...

As for you belief in Universe being god, really does not bothers me at all... You can believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster as well.

For end, one simple quote by late Dr. Sagan: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

originally posted by: g0dhims3lf
Man there are many arguments about various topics going on here. Science, religion, ideas. The funny thing is they all end with the same question, "What came before that?" All ideas are spawned from the collective knowledge of the past, we add our own flavor to it and pass it along to influence future generations. Science might attempt to explain how ideas are generated but you are still left with how the first idea came to be? How god came to be? How the universe came to be? Was there a big bang in the brain, like a light bulb turning on all of a sudden. Life itself might be the greatest irony of all, attempting to find an answer where only unlimited questions exist. This doesn't mean to stop, for meaning is in the process. Should someone all of a sudden have an answer to everything I wouldn't be able to enjoy reading all these theories on this forum.

Hey. I know exactly what was before finite. The problem is science havent catched up yet, so i have to wait until they do so People will understand what i am talking about.

Peopel these days dont have a mind of their own to think With so Things are moving very slow.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: g0dhims3lf
Man there are many arguments about various topics going on here. Science, religion, ideas. The funny thing is they all end with the same question, "What came before that?" All ideas are spawned from the collective knowledge of the past, we add our own flavor to it and pass it along to influence future generations. Science might attempt to explain how ideas are generated but you are still left with how the first idea came to be? How god came to be? How the universe came to be? Was there a big bang in the brain, like a light bulb turning on all of a sudden. Life itself might be the greatest irony of all, attempting to find an answer where only unlimited questions exist. This doesn't mean to stop, for meaning is in the process. Should someone all of a sudden have an answer to everything I wouldn't be able to enjoy reading all these theories on this forum.

Hey. I know exactly what was before finite. The problem is science havent catched up yet, so i have to wait until they do so People will understand what i am talking about.

Peopel these days dont have a mind of their own to think With so Things are moving very slow.

What I call "having a mind of my own" is crafting a meaning for my own life with my own two hands instead of taking it by spoon with the Ye Olde Bible diet.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: g0dhims3lf
Man there are many arguments about various topics going on here. Science, religion, ideas. The funny thing is they all end with the same question, "What came before that?" All ideas are spawned from the collective knowledge of the past, we add our own flavor to it and pass it along to influence future generations. Science might attempt to explain how ideas are generated but you are still left with how the first idea came to be? How god came to be? How the universe came to be? Was there a big bang in the brain, like a light bulb turning on all of a sudden. Life itself might be the greatest irony of all, attempting to find an answer where only unlimited questions exist. This doesn't mean to stop, for meaning is in the process. Should someone all of a sudden have an answer to everything I wouldn't be able to enjoy reading all these theories on this forum.

Hey. I know exactly what was before finite. The problem is science havent catched up yet, so i have to wait until they do so People will understand what i am talking about.

Peopel these days dont have a mind of their own to think With so Things are moving very slow.

What I call "having a mind of my own" is crafting a meaning for my own life with my own two hands instead of taking it by spoon with the Ye Olde Bible diet.

That is a Choice you have a full right to make. And you have done so based on you current knowledge. And that is fine.

Both sides are arguing based on their own faith. Because, neither side can prove the existance of God.

I can prove the existence of God With Logic, but that is not enough when People lack knowledge and the ability to think on their own.

I posted his on like page three.
Think it bears stating again.

Y'all are just going around in circles.
 Have you ever heard that *the truth is in the eye of the beholder*? 
Apply this to the "Is God real Debate. Also keep in mind the findings of the Double Slit Electrons Experiment.
 If you look for God you will find Him. Once you do you will need no more proof. 
If you're not looking you're not going to find him. The proof or evidence you have is your experience. You can not use that to prove it to anyone else but it is all the proof you need.
 It's basically the same with the double slit experiment. If you're looking the electrons react. If you're not, they don't. 
K.I.S.S. 
Quad

originally posted by: SuperFrog
You can call it anything you like, it does not change facts that not only it is not intelligent (look at our body), but it is quite against life - we can survive only on this planet, and even on this planet we can use only small % of its cover due to harsh environment and ~71% of earth being covered with water.

Whilst I am well aware of the imperfection of our human bodies - I can't think for one second how this disproved design. I think you're too hung up on the word Intelligent. ID is the common term. During the big bang, it might not have made a BANG noise, but, we call it the "big bang" because it's what everyone knows.

Would you rather we called ID... concious design? If you hate the fact that nothing is perfect enough to allow the word intelligent to be used.

There is no need for any kinds of design or designer, science knows how we evolved and there is NO question if evolution did happen and its happening.

We also know from historical evidence that humans created many gods, there were supposed 'messages' from God, but today we have different opinion about people who hear voices, especially one claiming that voices tells them to kill their own children.

Yes, science has changed the way we see many things. You've picked up on a strange topic to disprove God. Hearing voices once meant a message from God(s) now it means you may have a mental illness. Was this the best option to take? Hearing voices has been proven not to be God ergo, God isn't real?

In my opinion, it is not question if there is a God or not, or if there was ID or not - but just a question - when education will improve in USA as well in many other countries that show problems with education or have regime that prefer fairy tales over education.

I don't know about you but during my time as a catholic school student I learnt a LOT abut good morals, and how to be a good person - Not all of it came from the Bible either - SHOCK AND AWE. I'm sure this teaching of moral values spreads beyond the Catholic education system though.

I went to a non-religious, multi-cultural "high school" and I was once again taught religious studies in which it didn't do me or anyone any harm.

However, I do agree that what is taught in schools, particularly in history, is very flawed. But religious studies, I feel, does no harm. If anything, it makes people less ignorant (well, that was the hope ) because whether you like it or not, belief in God is going to exist. And if you don't agree with it, tough, but learn to accept others do.

a reply to: spy66

Both sides are arguing based on their own faith. Because, neither side can prove the existance of God.

What we can give you is a strong probability. What you can give us is a weak possibility. What you then give us is a philosophical base by which that weak possibility holds just as much weight as our strong probability. Which we can then debunk with a simple demonstration of how easily a strong probability overcomes a weak possibility, but if it were that simple to deflate the adherents of faith, it would have been accomplished by now.

So yes, perhaps we cannot prove it. But I would hesitate to declare that it has anything to do with lack of evidence.

I can prove the existence of God With Logic, but that is not enough when People lack knowledge and the ability to think on their own.

I believe I have seen your attempts - and if I recall correctly, they were distinctly underwhelming. Particularly when I stumble across this phrase:

I believe in God based on my feelings and my imagination.

Yes. That strikes me as distinctly logical. In fact, I was just reading an article the other day on how science relies solely on emotion and intuition rather than a series of established steps revolving around observations and repeatable tests...

Also, as a generic side note. People who say they don't believe in God - It's fine by me.

Also, those who say they don't want to spend their life worrying about heaven and hell - Well, in all honesty I don't see it being that clear cut. And I personally believe that you need to be evil in your reasoning, not just in your actions to "go to hell" who even knows what hell is? But it makes sense that you can't just get through life murdering people and get away with it right? I mean, even if the law didn't catch you you're telling me they could live a full life and end the same way as a person who tried their best to do no wrong?

Whatever is on the other side of this thing we call life, it's going to be interesting.

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Also, as a generic side note. People who say they don't believe in God - It's fine by me.

Also, those who say they don't want to spend their life worrying about heaven and hell - Well, in all honesty I don't see it being that clear cut. And I personally believe that you need to be evil in your reasoning, not just in your actions to "go to hell" who even knows what hell is? But it makes sense that you can't just get through life murdering people and get away with it right? I mean, even if the law didn't catch you you're telling me they could live a full life and end the same way as a person who tried their best to do no wrong?

Whatever is on the other side of this thing we call life, it's going to be interesting.

The difference between life and death, the difference that kept each evolutionary stage alive and healthy long enough to start the next, the difference that contributed to maintain the momentum in every bloodline still existing today, could easily have been that difference. Morals are about 500k years old. That's how long we've been regularly using our higher cognitive abilities. Before that, murder was an every day thing because survival was an every day thing. Imagine how prevalent crimes were in the 15th century, before all of today's rights and advantages were even thought of. Now imagine that happening in, say, 2 million BC. The creatures that gave birth to our species relied on methods like murder and thievery to survive. To take the higher moral ground was to take the lower battle ground. And that meant...well, oops. You're dead. Bon appetite.

So I'm not entirely certain the hell is anything more than an expression contrived by the naturally questionable imagination of people exploring these higher ideas much the same way you would explore a cave.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

I really dislike how you "science" aficionados talk about "but we have no evidence of God" Well, there's a lot we don't have evidence for but people still believe in. And that goes for everything that has no evidence YET - As you are aware, science is merely man's endeavour to advance. Who knows what all mighty "evidence" it will bring up next. It's forever proving itself wrong-right-wrong-right etc etc - It's a constant loop of not knowing, theories, proof and then further evidence to suggest the "proof" was wrong and a new theory arises. It can't be trusted as much as some people like to think.

You also say in another post

"What I call "having a mind of my own" is crafting a meaning for my own life with my own two hands instead of taking it by spoon with the Ye Olde Bible diet."

What about those who don't hold their beliefs in ID solely on the Bible and religion? Why must belief in God = 100% belief in the Bible? Can't you seemingly "more logical tinkers" make that differentiation between how much you hate the Bible and how someone's belief in something other than atheism might not be 100% bible based?

Oh and just a heads up, I think Science is fantastic and it is forever blowing me away with what we find.

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Whilst I am well aware of the imperfection of our human bodies - I can't think for one second how this disproved design. I think you're too hung up on the word Intelligent. ID is the common term. During the big bang, it might not have made a BANG noise, but, we call it the "big bang" because it's what everyone knows.

Would you rather we called ID... concious design? If you hate the fact that nothing is perfect enough to allow the word intelligent to be used.

There is no design nor designer... there is no evidence for either one... It does not matter what you call it, there is no evidence for it.

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Yes, science has changed the way we see many things. You've picked up on a strange topic to disprove God. Hearing voices once meant a message from God(s) now it means you may have a mental illness. Was this the best option to take? Hearing voices has been proven not to be God ergo, God isn't real?

No, you got it wrong. While we can't disprove something that does not exist and we have no evidence for, tho, we can disprove accounts like for example mental illness signs in the story. Sure, many stories like that do question rest of the book?

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
I don't know about you but during my time as a catholic school student I learnt a LOT abut good morals, and how to be a good person - Not all of it came from the Bible either - SHOCK AND AWE. I'm sure this teaching of moral values spreads beyond the Catholic education system though.

I went to a non-religious, multi-cultural "high school" and I was once again taught religious studies in which it didn't do me or anyone any harm.

However, I do agree that what is taught in schools, particularly in history, is very flawed. But religious studies, I feel, does no harm. If anything, it makes people less ignorant (well, that was the hope

) because whether you like it or not, belief in God is going to exist. And if you don't agree with it, tough, but learn to accept others do.

I find it quite amusing that you found moral stories form bible being good and no harm coming from them, while science is again 'flawed'. I have no problem with people believing what they want, but claiming science being flawed because does not goes well with their belief, like in your example - that is not anymore your belief, but just science ignorance - exactly how belief system is danger to civilization today.

Believe all your like, but don't claim something you don't understand is flawed just because you had a feeling...