The Only Way God is Real.

a reply to: Toadmund

Yet, that is exactly what our science requires of us - faith. But the bible requires the same thing.... all of those people verified by other people, and the agendas have to follow a principle of equality in some way shape or form.

Try a society without rules.... It doesn't work.

We believe in what we can verify.... Jesus' explanation to the woman at the watering well: We believe in what we know - the reason to call him "wise".

He says "concentrate on the kingdom of heaven first, and everything else will fall in place".

a reply to: sensibleSenseless

There are a hell of a lot of people who try to disintegrate science from the bible - and that is not really all that possible - because that is part and parcel of what the bible is.

Wisdom - a body of knowledge from which you derive information that is relevant to where you wish to go.

The bible is described as a book of wisdom - and that is both right and wrong. A book of agricultural studies is a book of wisdom too - but it expounds on the wisdom of cherishing plants and animals so that one can obtain what is relevant to human beings from plants and animals.

The bible is a book that both describes history and analogy of situations and the future... sourced from different places.

It puts the best of human historical examination as to why people can work together in harmony for better ends in a book - it is not divorced from scientific examination in this effort. It describes the history of a group of people who follow/don't follow their god with explanations as to why or why things didn't work for them.

But it also contains one thing that people continue to discount - evidence of our present disposition with increasing proof - a live ongoing interpretation of the scripture such as to expose the formerly hidden meaning - as the evidence arrives that the prophecies that are in it were specifically meant for us.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: spy66

Because we dont know what is Perfect or not.

You wouldn't know perfect if you saw it, and yet you know undeniably that not only is there a god, but that this god gives a flying rat's furry hindquarters what you want from him or why.

There is another fallacy in this, in that the book called the bible which documents how some people (open ended choice there) will choose what God wanted for the people, and other people (another open ended choice) will choose to go against what our God given abilities have proven (hence what god wanted for the people) consistently to work for societal peace and harmony. 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?

a reply to: SuperFrog

I don't have time to reply to this right now. But I think it's necessary I do.

I'll reply tomorrow.

a reply to: ArtemisE

I always thought that it's possible that there were "gods" here before, however they were not immortal godlike beings like in movies or books. They were extra terrestrials with advanced technology or abilities.

I prefer to keep it simple when I say "God", but "Gods" works too.

In a sense we are the eyes and ears and mouths of the God we worship - we are a pluralistic society, yet if too much of that occurs then the sense in working together has been lost - the human experiment is one in which we are trying to discover what behaviours should be encouraged to improve the human condition.

Believing that there exists the possibility of something beyond our understanding (of the God flavour), might explain the elaborate balances that we discover existed prior to our abilities to research these things so much.

But what is the value of research, if it offers a net detriment to the human condition as opposed to a net gain - is this what we are then supposed to call "progress"?

We are 7 billion people on the planet trying to live the modern lifestyle - sharing wise - that is an absolutely great thing to have.... just that we don't count that such resource sharing in our lifestyles won't work for 7 billion people, even though it would seem that the medical sciences have found ways to cause that many people to survive, if only to have many marginalized by the "system", and the growing "system" marginalizing the people from a health/environment perspective.

Maybe when we've acheived a pseudo-impossible dream of trying to include 7 billion equal people in a certain lifestyle, we will have reached the point of true understanding of our position vis-a-vis "reality". Certainly, that reality that we have now is predicate on illusion, as it seems that most of mankind is not interested in hearing anything different. If we hadn't been aware of how much cheating goes on - we might not have been afraid of "Agendas", when we were told that "sharing" costs us - the inconvenience avoiding the use of non-throw away plastics for instance is such a bother to us and our ideas of "entitlement", for instance.

You know what I find helps atheists reconcile with the concept of God really well is if they consider the following:

God is simply the closest "being" to reality personified.

If you replace the word God/Gods anywhere you see it in scriptures with "Reality personified", you begin to realize that it is the same as the atheist view of the world. Except that "Reality personified", implies that this is a god of the people - and because of our superior intelligence to many animals we see on the planet, we have the greater "God".

In a sense "Reality personified" is asking us for more intelligent stewardship of both human and world affairs, and the scriptures provides examples of how we have repeatable experiments in equality/inequality to guide our understanding of how best to reach the maximum potential of a society that is happy to do what "reality personified", would have us do for the greater good.

The other thing that comes of "reality personified", is the idea that the planet was made in such a way that humans could co-exist in peaceful harmony with the rest of nature, in spite of the checks and balances nature provides us. OR given our current knowledge, we can enact a human reality that actually allows us to avoid the negative consequences of being "out of control".

One of the good things that arises out of our having breached the limits, is a means of proving that such a thing exists.... scripture of course is a testament to the human ability to predict what is going to happen to mankind courtesy of the extreme behaviours we have chosen to adopt.

It reminds me of the engineering required for bridges. Budgets being finite for such things, many of the limits have been experimented with and even stretched till they broke - but we credit the human race for having reached where we currently are, in spite of all the setbacks that we've had along the way. I personally predict that part of the greater picture that ATS in recent times has been pointing at is a catastrophic collapse of the ways in which we partake in this world... and that is exactly what scriptures points to as well - the reasons are in agreement - but some of you have already heard the interpretation of scriptures at night.

It isn't that we haven't got plenty to celebrate though... just that our fatal flaws are just that.

Reality personified also presents a reason for our existence - that can equate to whatever science can reach - but it is understood that it will really always remain beyond our reach. The other nice thing about "reality personified", is that it provides us a spitting image of ourselves in the mirror to explain the existence of our intelligence - which is really beyond explanation - ie an intelligent being explanation as opposed to a mathematically prove-able theory for the finite ways in which human existence can be shoehorned.

If you take the premise of the atom and the things smaller than that - we inevitably see an arrangement akin to the bigger arrangement - the planets.

If you ask where colour comes from and look at the physical characteristics of the things that are smaller than the human eye can see - now we only have theories for our observations, but no absolute explanation for which any portion of colour doesn't exist somehow in the smallest element of the atom we could possibly find.... otherwise we have to reason, that at some point in time, one of the properties of colour (we attempt to subdivide the property called colour), mysteriously appeared or disappeared from human experimental view.

Guess what? You have the quark.

But one thing seems to be clear - the universe's interest in not having easy alteration of it's "patterns". I say interest because all of these changes that we see in the world, we try dividing till we reach an "unchanging" position - we may in fact be trying to remove time from the equation - because without it there is no change.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: spy66

Because we dont know what is Perfect or not.

You wouldn't know perfect if you saw it, and yet you know undeniably that not only is there a god, but that this god gives a flying rat's furry hindquarters what you want from him or why.

I know what Perfect is. The problem is that you dont. Therefor what i say is mute. Because you dont understand.
I know that i have tried talking sense to you before. But you dont grasp, not even if it is absolute Logic.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: SuperFrog

Man was created in Gods image. But God does not have a face or a bodyshape. Because if God is infinite God can not have a shape or form, because God take up all Space possible. But there is soemthing else about us humans that are very much alike. And that is our awareness.

How life was first formed on Earth is still a mysteri for science. There are no solid facts. There are theories that most likely will change many times in the future as science learn more.

So we are created in image of something that does not have shape... interesting concept, don't you think? This really does not make sense...

Now, not sure if you aware, but some animals show signs of awareness as well emotions. Not sure if you have ever heard about gorilla called Koko. Not only it has emotions, but it is able to communicate with sign language as well. It is one of rare non-humans that has pets as well, and it showed emotions for her kitten that was killed by car. If you like to read more about Koko - use wiki as start page - en.wikipedia.org...

There is no mystery about how earth was formed, nor what followed. Do you know scientific meaning of word 'theory'?

It dosent matter if it dosent make sense to you. It dosent make it less right. It just means that you have a way to og before you have the right knowledge.

Keep trying.

Pray for conversions, God's grace will touch hard headed atheists.


C.S. Lewis on atheist thinking

Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.

In this thread people debating unprovable things.



For me, atheists and religious people both acknowledge the existence of a natural order of things, they only disagree regarding how it should be named and what are its characteristics.

The universe is organized according to rules and constants that happen to make life possible.

Whether you call that chance or fate or the will of god doesn't matter since it's still the same thing. Science itself recognize that true randomness doesn't exist, it's only a way to name our ignorance regarding the parameters and mechanisms at play.

With perfect information science can always predict every outcome. If we had perfect information, we could thus not say the universe is how it is due to randomness. The universe is how it is because of the laws of nature and the initial parameters. With perfect information we could tell the whole story of the universe and even predict the future. We just don't have perfect information so we have the illusion that the universe is not a deterministic system. But it is.

What we normally call “random” is not truly random, but only appears so. The randomness is a reflection of our ignorance about the thing being observed, rather than something inherent to it.

For example: If you know everything about a craps table, and everything about the dice being thrown, and everything about the air around the table, then you will be able to predict the outcome.

Knowing that, the only remaining question is "who set the initial rules and parameters?"

That question denotes a penchant for anthropomorphism inherent to our species. That is the reason religious people personified these rules and parameters that allowed for the creation and unraveling of the universe and called it god.

Atheists then get all offended that these religious people are guilty of anthropomorphism, calling the laws of nature "the creator". Likewise, religious people get all offended when atheists tell them it's ridiculous to give human characteristics to something that is inherently unknowable while for religions "the creator" is clearly the only possible explanation for the universe.

Then they fight endlessly over words and definition, but in the end, they acknowledge the same reality:

The universe is how it is because "something" is determining it that way, and no other way.

A deterministic system with perfect information is "omniscient";"eternal";"omnipotent". A deterministic system with perfect information is god. Anyone having a glimpse at this eternal and infinite reality is having a glimpse at god.



You can keep debating for pages, like people before during centuries. In the end none of you will be right as long as you deny others their own vision of the universe, because all of you are right.

There is no winner unless everyone wins.

Until you can stop for a second and make the effort of trying to understand what the others are talking about without your own preconceptions and cliches, you'll be stuck forever debating with people you think are "wrong" when in fact they say the same as you with different words.

Atheists and religious people are both guilty of reducing something as infinite and unknowable for a finite mind with mere words and definitions.

Words and definition will never be able to contain the infinite. Your definitions and arguments will always be flawed.

originally posted by: spy66
It dosent matter if it dosent make sense to you. It dosent make it less right. It just means that you have a way to og before you have the right knowledge.

Keep trying.

This is exactly mindset you should follow with Theory of Evolution and question of who created whom. You not knowing evolution being true and proven over and over does not make it less right.

There is a danger in religion, Dr. Tyson as well many others including Richard Dawkins and late Christopher Hitchens tried to warn everyone over it. From denial of science and scientific facts to people using prayers to 'heal' and opting to have kids without vaccination. Didn't we just have epidemic around one of Churches late last year?

originally posted by: colbe
Pray for conversions, God's grace will touch hard headed atheists.


C.S. Lewis on atheist thinking

Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.

Millions of years of evolution, that is how your brain got where it is. Otherwise you just end up with never ending question, if some (intelligent) force created you, what created that intelligent force.

Religion is just our ancestors try to have answers to all questions. We know that they were wrong on many things, but I believe that tradition and absence of knowledge keeps religion still afloat... Just not sure how long it will survive...

a reply to: SuperFrog

I am not denying science or evolution. And i am not denying that how we practice religions is right either. I think its a shame how religion is being preached. Because it is being preached by People who use it to gather mindless sheep.

The Bible is very much like the Big Bang theory if you read it without the gosip you have been told by friends and Preachers.

Genesis Chapter one verse 3. And God said: let there be light.
Genesis Chapter one verse 6. Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters.

These two Chapter are directly related. You can not have light unless you have a Source to give light. Verse 4 and five just describes Howe the light devided the darkness. The firmament is mentioned in verse 6 because og the light is blooking the view to observe the firmament.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Otherwise you just end up with never ending question, if some (intelligent) force created you, what created that intelligent force.

Not taking position for or against the existence of an intelligent deity (refer to my post above for more details) but that classic argument from atheists is pretty stupid given the fact that god is said to be eternal.

You are mortal and thus have a beginning and an end, and thus causes leading to your creation can be inferred (the encounter of two sexual cells). You could call that creation but consequence or transformation is probably more correct.

On the other hand, god (if existing) being eternal, it needs no cause nor "creator", making your question irrelevant.




Also your views about religion are a bit reductive.

In the past, there was no difference between religion and science as the universe was divine, thus studying the universe was studying god.

That's why I'm really sad when Americans keep perpetuating that false dichotomy between religion and science, as both were born to explore and explain the universe.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Otherwise you just end up with never ending question, if some (intelligent) force created you, what created that intelligent force.

Not taking position for or against the existence of an intelligent deity (refer to my post above for more details) but that classic argument from atheists is pretty stupid given the fact that god is said to be eternal.

"Something can't come from nothing, therefore god made it"

"Who made god, then?"

"He's eternal, stupid!!"

There is no way you can make this logic work. The singularity existed before spacetime, therefore even if the fallacious argument above was logically consistent (it's not, there's a whole slew of logical fallacies wrapped up in it) then there is still no need to invoke some magic agent.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Otherwise you just end up with never ending question, if some (intelligent) force created you, what created that intelligent force.

Not taking position for or against the existence of an intelligent deity (refer to my post above for more details) but that classic argument from atheists is pretty stupid given the fact that god is said to be eternal.

"Something can't come from nothing, therefore god made it"

"Who made god, then?"

"He's eternal, stupid!!"

There is no way you can make this logic work. The singularity existed before spacetime, therefore even if the fallacious argument above was logically consistent (it's not, there's a whole slew of logical fallacies wrapped up in it) then there is still no need to invoke some magic agent.

There is no need to invoke it, but asking who created the creator doesn't disprove it neither.

My position on god is very different from the classical protestant one in the US so if you want to know what I talk about when I say god don't hesitate to read my previous post.


Also the singularity only concerns our current local and observable universe. It says nothing about what was going on around it.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Otherwise you just end up with never ending question, if some (intelligent) force created you, what created that intelligent force.

Not taking position for or against the existence of an intelligent deity (refer to my post above for more details) but that classic argument from atheists is pretty stupid given the fact that god is said to be eternal.

"Something can't come from nothing, therefore god made it"

"Who made god, then?"

"He's eternal, stupid!!"

There is no way you can make this logic work. The singularity existed before spacetime, therefore even if the fallacious argument above was logically consistent (it's not, there's a whole slew of logical fallacies wrapped up in it) then there is still no need to invoke some magic agent.

There is no need to invoke it, but asking who created the creator doesn't disprove it neither.

It's not about disproving. How can you disprove something that can't even be tested, like the invisible demon in my sockdraw? The point is to show the fallacious logic in that line of reasoning.

originally posted by: GetHyped
It's not about disproving. How can you disprove something that can't even be tested, like the invisible demon in my sockdraw? The point is to show the fallacious logic in that line of reasoning.

There's nothing fallacious about an unverifiable hypothesis, it's just it's not very convenient to have a logical reasoning.

That's why I'm saying all this debate is useless, you are just the most recent to partake in it, but if you take the time to look back to those who came here before us, you'll see that such an enterprise is sterile.

People trying to prove or disprove god are just wasting their time.

Have you read the post I talked about? Because if you did you'll see that to me you are all right and you are all wrong and that there is nothing new under the sun.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

"Something can't come from nothing"

1) False premise: no definition of "something", no definition of "nothing". No evidence to support this premise.

2) Major unstated premise: the universe came from nothing. Absolutely no evidence to suggest this, considering time didn't even exist at the point of the singularity.

"Therefore good made the universe"

3) False dichotomy: artificially limiting options to "something came from nothing" and "god exists"

4) Argument of ignorance/god of the gaps: we don't know all the answers, therefore god must exist

5) General non-sequitur: none of the premises above logically support the existence of god

6) Special pleading: "something can't come nothing, but god can"

So yeah, 6 logical fallacies off the top of my head. I'm sure if I cracked open some logic resources I could reel off some more.

Without logic, you don't even have an argument. Calling people "stupid" for pointing out the blatant logical holes is.. stupid.