What would it take to prove the existence of a God?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Dustycanvas

I believe what I believe despite science.

 

Then whay are you wasting all of our time here?

 

This is a SCEINCE discussion site.

 

IF you want to discuss fairytales based on ignorant antiquated superstitions, there are plenty of sites for mindless platitudes.

[Freethinker]

I don't know why I bother. Dusty is probably just another typical ignroant Christian who thinks they actually provide some value by dumping their illogical mind numbing rhetoric on people that ARE capable of independant reasoning. He will probably never come back after having "blessed" us with yet another example of how intentionally stupid one must keep themselves to remain a believer.

 

Originally posted by: Dustycanvas

But, lets look at this from a simple standpoint...

A spot you seem very familiar with.

would you rather think that our existance is just a chaotic "oops" in the heavenlys millions of years ago...that everything was an accident. That we evolved from monkeys? Than to believe that all of this was planned and created by an omnipotent,omniscient,omnipresent God.

If that god was the monster god of the bible, YOU BET! I would not want that hideous hate monger as a neighbor much less a god I would have to worship!

 

Everything in the Bible has physical "proof". They have found the artifacts and places spoken of in the Bible.

Ya well we can find old red "riding hood" capes and grandmas. That does not prove the "Little Red RidingHood" was factual.

 

1)PROVE that the moon GENERATES light. The bible says it does.

2)PROVE that snakes live off of eating dirt, the bible says they do

3)PROVE that pi=3.0 the bible requires it to

4)Show us how people that LIVE to the EAST and follow a star that is EAST of them, wind up going WEST.

5)There is not the first bit of proof that the Semites (Jews) were ever slaves or even lived in great numbers in Egypt for there to be an Exodus

6)NEITHER of the biblical "Slaughter of the Innocents" has ANY historical evidence

7)Jericho fell in 2300BCE which means Joshua didn't destroy it;

8)Mesha was victorious against the Moabites, but 2 Kings says the opposite

9)The Bible claims there was a King David but there is no evidence of such a king, even though history records most of the kings that preceeded and followed David's aledged rulership (such as the kings Omri, Ahab, Jehu, and Zedakiah)

10)Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer

11)Biblical archaeologists now believe that the village of Nazareth did not exist at the time of the biblical birth and early life of Jesus. There is simply no evidence for it.

13) The bible claims that the devil took Jesus up on a mountain that was so tall they could see the entire earth. The earth would have have to be FLAT.

 

Should I keep going?

 

The bible is the one of the most inaccurate books published.

The garden of Eden is an actual place in the Middle east.

Great give us PROOF, Lat and Long with specific FACTS proving it IS the GoE should be very easy to provide then.

And the tomb of Jesus is still there...empty.

You can't even PROVE thart the biblical Jesus EXISTED with outside contemporary eyewitness reports, much less that some cave is his empty tomb!

I know I am sounding like a "typical" christian trying to prove that God is real.

Yep, you STATE that you do not base your "belief" on FACT. and you want everyone to accept what ever garbage you toss oout as if it has some value.

 

You are a typical selfrighteous and deluded Christian alright.

 

You guys show up here and spew your nonsense then disappear. If you bother to show up a 2nd time, you quickly find that we here REQUIRE FACTS, and when you learn you don;t have ANY, you go away.

But, I tell you this...if it's proof you want...proof you'll get.

Ya we hear this all the time. We NEVER SEE ANY, but yo

[Dustycanvas]

Yes, I returned but, no I'm not going to let you guys get me riled up over this. Freethinker...the whole reason I came to this site was because it was about Science. I was not seeking out atheists to preach to. I just happen to notice the forum topic and it peaked my interest. Not all people who love science are atheist or agnostic. I am very Bible literate. My first love is the Bible and then it's Science. You speak like your life goal is to find some air-tight reason for life. You no doubt blindly believe the theory of Evolution. It has so many holes in it it is barely a theory. It is a concoction of guesses from people who refuse to believe in God and His authority.

I do not mean to sound "self righteous". That is the farthest from my attitude while writing this. I do not look "down" on any of you with contrary view points. Your entitled to them. Like I said the ONLY reason I have addressed any of this is because the forum was entitled, "what would it take to prove the existance of a god". And to me that question is in itself contrary and redundant. God does not need nor have to "prove" himself to his creation. The whole reason for the Bible was for that purpose, to prove His existance because He knew man would doubt. It is natural to doubt. Where would we be as a human race if we blindly believed everything we were told.

The book of Revelation is prophetic. I teach this book. I am very, very studied in this matter. So, feel free to ask anything. I will answer and thorough as you require.

I do not wish to make enemies here. I would like to make some collegues in the field of Science. Have a great day.

[Freethinker]

I LOVE dogs.

 

Well except for the barking, yelping, whining and howling.

 

Ok, I also don't like how they slobber all over you.

 

And I also do not like the hair that gets all over.

 

And I don;t like it when they jump all over you.

 

Nor do I like way they always have to sniff someone's crotch.

 

And I don't like how they tend to hump your leg.

 

I also don't like their breath

 

or having to walk them and clean up after them

 

Or the way they tend to chew everything up.

 

Other than that, I LOVE dogs!

Originally posted by: Dustycanvas

Freethinker...the whole reason I came to this site was because it was about Science.... Not all people who love science are atheist or agnostic. I am very Bible literate. My first love is the Bible and then it's Science.

 

Ya, except for...

 

How science approachs research.

 

How it requires valid evidence

 

the knowledge gained from it

 

The theories it establishes.

 

And how it rejects ANY beleif that does not have VALID proof behind it.

 

Ya other than that, you LOVE Science!

You no doubt blindly believe the theory of Evolution. It has so many holes in it it is barely a theory. It is a concoction of guesses from people who refuse to believe in God and His authority.

Ya you LOVE science!

 

The only person that may be fooled by your absurd statement is yourself.

 

You OBVIOUSLY have no respect, much less LOVE for Science. Evolution is one of the most proven, most firmly established Theories in Science. It perfectly exemplifies HOW Science works and what science can do for the human race. It offers the greatest level of predictablity of virtually ANY scientific field. Modern Medicine would not exist if Evolution was not correct. There would not be a single person that could understand Biology without grasping the details of Evolutuion.

 

Further the vast majority of people that accept Evolution are Christians. Including many of the scientists involved in Evolutionary Biology. In fact the largest single Christian Sect, Catholicism, has put in writing that they accept Evolution.

You speak like your life goal is to find some air-tight reason for life.

As opposed to someone that admits they blindly accept antiquated superstitions that fail to have ANY scientific support? Only a god beleiver would claim to have found "some air-tight reason for life". Anyone grounded in SCIENCE would never even think such a thing is possible.

 

I do not mean to sound "self righteous". That is the farthest from my attitude while writing this... God does not need nor have to "prove" himself to his creation.

Nope, nothing selfrighteous there!

 

Once more we are attacked by another Christian with PERFECT KNOWLEDGE of their god while admitting they lack even the first bit of factual support for it.

The whole reason for the Bible was for that purpose, to prove His existance

And thus your god fails miserably as the MAJORITY of people in the world REJECT the bibles claims.

Where would we be as a human race if we blindly believed everything we were told.

A race of Christians.

The book of Revelation is prophetic. I teach this book. I am very, very studied in this matter. So, feel free to ask anything. I will answer and thorough as you require.

 

I see, so when you claimed the ENTIRE bible was completely supported by scientific fact, you were lying. You only know about Revelations.

 

That must be why you failed to even attempt to explain the major failings I posted for the rest of it. Now I understand.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Originally posted by: Dustycanvas

...if it's proof you want...proof you'll get.

Now we're talking. YES!!!! This IS what I've been looking for. PROOF!! So show me this proof. I sincerely hope your idea of proof is not similar to your above post, as that would be truly anti-climactic. Actually I would not bother to try and refute "proof" of that nature.

Well his 2nd post doesn't offer much promise of any actual PROOF. Seems to be just another typical Christian CLAIMING to be able to PROVE things, but failing to even understand what PROOF means.

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Originally posted by: Dustycanvas

And when it does remember this will be your proof.

NOPE. That's not how it works. Proof either exists or it doesn't, none of this "it will"!!!

It is always so obvious isn't it Unc?

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

 

It is always so obvious isn't it Unc?

 

Sadly, Once again we are faced with the all too common question: how do we reason with unreasonable people? They want proof of evolution, I say look in a mirror; you are going the way of Neanderthal. The homo Sapiens family tree may be forming a new branch and what the heck?,.... let the "believers" go right ahead and believe. They may feel compelled to convert us but I say let them go extinct as natural selection dictates. I'll not attempt to convert any of them. In a million years archaeologists will find fossilized remains of christians with bible in hand and declare triumphantly; I'VE FOUND THE MISSING LINK!!!

[TINNY]

Come on guys. This is IT. the proof of god's existence. You people postulate about all those stuff and implications on quantum theory, uncertainty principle, evolution etc... what about this? sotty tormod for posting this again

[Dustycanvas]

Qoutes from the evolutionists themselves explaining there own doubt in the theory...

 

"It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms."

(Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230)

 

 

"Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still

not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)

 

 

"There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life. There is no question about that. That's a real phenomenon." (Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Book Publishers, Santee, California, 1988, p. 45)

 

 

"Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing." (Quoted in W. R. Bird, _The Origin of Species Revisited_ [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)

 

 

"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms." (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)

 

 

"It should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position."

(Cracraft, J., "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism," 1983, p. 180)

 

 

"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors." (Eldredge, N., 1989, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22)

 

 

"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)

 

"Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny."

(Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)

 

 

"Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations."

(Gould, Stephen J. and Eldredge, Niles, "Species Selection: Its Range and Power," 1988, p. 19)

 

 

"The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 Ma. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then." ("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376)

 

 

"Many 'trends' singled out by evolutionary biologists are ex post facto rendering of phylogenetic history: biologists may simply pick out species at different points in geological time that seem to fit on some line of directional modification through time. Many trends, in other words, may exist more in the minds of the analysts than in p

[Dustycanvas]

You want more? I have much, much more....

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Dustycanvas

I'm not going to try to tear anyone apart on this or anything of the sort.

 

Now does this contradict the above post or does the above post contradict this statement? Oh, it just came to me, religion contradicts everything. Even it's own tenets.

 

LIVE AND LET LIVE MY ***

[Dustycanvas]

my intentions were not to tear anyone apart. But, you guys intend on trying to tear me apart. I'm merely giving you a dose of your own medicine. And now that I have something you guys are gonna get teary eyed and tell me to leave you alone???? That says alot.

[Uncle Martin]

Do you think that a thousand quotes from 20-30 year old books by religious evolutionary biologists qualifies as proof? Argumentum ad populum. Provide 5.99 billion quotes if you like, unless you offer an alternative explanation that is supported by objective evidence your claims are meaningless. I am not trying to do anything to you personally, it is the utter lack of scientific process that the creationists use to promote their superstitious nonsense that I try to demystify. Why is it so difficult for so many to just admit that some of our deepest questions are at present unanswered? They may never be answered, but science is our best hope. Making the stuff up to satisfy some basic human need to know is an antiquated practice.

[Dustycanvas]

The laws of conservation are basic laws in physics that state which processes can or cannot occur in nature. Each law maintains that the total value of the quantity governed by that law (e.g. matter and energy) remains unchanged during physical processes. Conservation laws have the broadest possible application of all laws in physics and are considered to be the most fundamental laws in nature. In 1905, the theory of relativity showed that mass was a form of energy and the two laws governing these quantities were combined into a single law conserving the total amount of mass and energy.

This law says that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. This fact leads to an inescapable question.

 

 

 

If matter and energy cannot be created, how did they originate?

Where did the entire physical universe come from?

 

 

 

 

Again, it is impossible to create matter and energy through natural methods. However, they do exist, so we find ourselves in a quandary. It would seem to the unbiased that either matter and energy made themselves from nothing or a supernatural creator made them. If you have any other suggestions, please let me know what they are. Both answers violate the law of conservation. The fact that matter and energy cannot be created is consistent with the claim in Genesis which says God rested from his work and all he created. This law of science contradicts the notion that matter came from nothing through natural means. Bible believing theists understand that the universe was framed by the Word of God and that what is seen did not come from things that are visible. God is the one that calls those things that do not exist as though they did.

 

 

 

 

Why couldn't the universe have always existed?

Because nothing that has a beginning and an end could have always existed.

 

 

 

Today, virtually all scientists accept the Big Bang theory which says the entire universe came into existence at a particular point in time when all of the galaxies, stars and planets were formed. The Law of Entropy says that closed systems go from a state of high energy to low energy and from order to disorder. All closed systems, including our universe, disintegrate over time as they decay to a lower order of available energy and organization. Entropy always increases and never decreases in a closed system. All scientific observations confirm that everything continues to move towards a greater state of decay and disorder. Because the energy that is available is being used up and there is no source of new energy, the universe could not have always existed. If the universe has always existed, it would now be uniform in temperature, suffering what is known as heat death. Heat Death occurs when the universe has reached a state of maximum entropy. It is a fact that one day our sun and all stars in the universe will burn out. Electromagnetic radiation will disappear and all matter will lose its vibrational energy. Because the stars cannot burn forever and because they are still currently burning, they could not have always existed because they would have already burned out by now.

 

 

Some believe that the law of entropy cannot be applied to the universe because they feel the universe is an open system and not a closed one. A closed system is defined as a system in which neither matter nor energy can be exchanged with its surroundings. Matter and energy cannot enter or escape from a closed system. It has boundaries that cannot be crossed. The definition of the word universe is ALL matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

 

 

 

 

If the universe is "all matter and energy", how could it be an open system?

If the universe is "everything", how can there be something else out there to provide more matter and energy?

 

 

 

 

The skeptic asks, "If God created the universe, then who created God?" God is the uncreated creator of the universe,

so the question, "Who created God?" is illogical. A better ques

[Uncle Martin]

Well, that is impressive!!! I can't find the exact website but the above is very familiar. Almost verbatum, or was it cut and paste? No matter, please throw in an occasional line break, for ease of reading.

 

I'm impressed with your enthusiasm, you must be freshly indoctrinated. Everything you've posted so far is the standard internet rhetoric and if you'd take the time to read some of these forums you will find that every one of "your" xeroxed claims has been asserted and refuted here many, many times. Sorry to disappoint you but your extraordinary revelation is just boring old humdrum ramblings.

 

Others that have not read the standard creationist teachings may wish to continue with this discourse, I however have grown weary of debating the existence of mythical things. Until someone can provide evidence that is more substantial than that which proves Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real, or at least try an original approach, I believe I'll opt out of this foolishness.

 

One final word, to answer the question originally posed "What would it take to prove the existence of God?", my answer will no doubt be disappointing to many of evolution's long winded adversaries, but it is simply; GOD!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TINNY

Come on guys. This is IT. the proof of god's existence. You people postulate about all those stuff and implications on quantum theory, uncertainty principle, evolution etc... what about this? sotty tormod for posting this again]

 

Tinny, I'm not sure if this is to be funny or not. From my stance, I am sure it is hilarious.

 

But please don;t just throw out a URL with nothing quoted from it for discussion. There are literally millions of sites, many of them as absurd as I am sure this one is.

 

The question is WHY you find this one of value to us.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Dustycanvas

Qoutes from the evolutionists themselves explaining there own doubt in the theory...

Yada, yada, yada...

 

Ya I've seen all the Creationist web sites that scour thru every source thay can finding any sentice they can pull oout of context, mix it with some of their own psudeo-scince sites, to try and disprove Evolution.

 

All you are doing is showing your ignorance of the Science you lied about "loving".

 

NONE of this DISPROVES Evolution. At worst, those that are from CREDIBLE sources and not TOTALLY out of context are merely indicating how science works.

 

Unlike religion that claims to have PERFECT KNOWLEDGE (usually in some antiquated book filled with errors and contradictions) , Science is an ever EVOLVING knowledge base. It's errors are usually well publisized and get corrected along the way. Details are filled in. Corrections made.

 

But at no point does ANY of this serve to PROVE Evolution is FALSE.

 

If you had any concept of how to evaluate things based on FACTS (instead of "I believe regardless of lack of any facts, which you ADMIT is your TRUE love) and EVIDENCE you would understand this.

 

You want more? I have much, much more...

Yes, I would like to see you show why the OBVIOUS errors of the bible are not.

 

Ops, seems you are trying to post so much Creationist nonsense, you missed that eh?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Dustycanvas

The laws of conservation are basic laws in physics that state which processes can or cannot occur in nature.

Actually NO they don't.

 

But if you actually UNDERSTOOD science, instead of mindlessly parrotting Creationist drivel you might KNOW that.

 

e.g. In 1900 Planck established that Boltzmann's equations for the statistical interpretation of thermodynamics - entropy- could not be held with absolute certainty. But that info is less than 1,600 years old and you have not caught up to with-in a few centuries of data yet.

 

Again, it is impossible to create matter and energy through natural methods.

 

This runs counter to EVERYTHING we know. Not to mention how it totally violates Okham's Razor.

 

You really are lost in this discussion aren't you?

 

Today, virtually all scientists accept the Big Bang theory which says the entire universe came into existence at a particular point in time when all of the galaxies, stars and planets were formed.

And THIS has to be the MOST IGNORANT statement yet!

 

There is not a SINGLE credible SCIENTIST that claims that the BB was the "particular point in time when all of the galaxies, stars and planets were formed". In fact they are STILL being FORMED.

The Law of Entropy says that closed systems go from a state of high energy to low energy and from order to disorder. All closed systems, including our universe,

OK Mr. "I LOVE SCIENCE", PROVE that the universe is a CLOSED system.

 

Once more, a Noble Prize is in the wings waiting.

If the universe is "all matter and energy", how could it be an open system?

There are MANY theories that even REQUIRE multi-universe systems.

 

But that would be SCIENCE and we know how little you deal with such things.

The skeptic asks, "If God created the universe, then who created God?"

and those that lack the ability to handle logical thinking answer:

God is the uncreated creator of the universe,

There is not even one generally accepted scientific theory on the origin of matter and energy.

Yes there is, it's called the Big Bang. While not UNIVERSALLY accepted, it IS "generally" accepted.

 

As is always the case. You Creationist anti-science puppets are easily convinced by these psudeoscientific ramblings and post them as if there is some validity to them. Try actually getting an education about things before spewing religious superstitions as if fact.