Can you prove God exists???

[Coach Williams]

here's a good qestion.... how many types of animals made it on the ark and just decided they didn't wanna f*ck? my guess would be at least 30%.

Read my post a few back about the ark and pm me when your done......

there shall be a quiz......

[Coach Williams]

Oh come on, this is absolute drivel.

Like I said....Subconscious :bow: The conscious says otherwise.....

[TradeTheBeal!]

I found some compelling evidence of a Supreme Being!!

[Coach Williams]

I win

[AllAboutSkins08]

the absense of evidence is not the evidence of absense.

just because we can't prove God exists doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

PLUS, science is not the definitive answer to everything. at one point in time scientists thought the earth was flat and could "prove" it. we all know how that ended.

but like so many have already said, you can't prove either side, no matter how hard you try. so let's just let the people who believe in God believe and the people who don't believe can keep on not believing.

[drums and skins]

Like I said....Subconscious :bow: The conscious says otherwise.....

wtf are you talking about?

[Coach Williams]

wtf are you talking about?

:laugh: nothing bro.....nothing at all.....

let's get back to the women eh?....

[Jumbo]

Times have changed a bit.

Here's how it went here once before ...

Proving God.

Several things go through my mind. I'll exercise kindness and discretion. Thanks for popping the cork on some fine vintage, my friend.

[Major Harris]

Several things go through my mind. I'll exercise kindness and discretion. Thanks for popping the cork on some fine vintage, my friend.

i'd actually love to hear it jumbo.

i've grown to love hearing about how we suck compared to the "good ol' days." :laugh:

[Thiebear]

Can you prove which direction the earth is moving through the Universe?

Can you prove there is such a thing as two galaxies colliding creating a super black hole?

You take fuzzy pictures as in big foot and then color them and enhance them and then tell everyone else what it is... "Not a bad job"....

Sometimes I even get to see: These pictures were taken in a spectrum the human eye can't see... from 20000 light years away from a defective sattelite. No really it was.....

:notworthy

[Jumbo]

i'd actually love to hear it jumbo.

i've grown to love hearing about how we suck compared to the "good ol' days." :laugh:

I don't think my thoughts were quite the theme you seem to be expecting although we could just jam some riffs on that :laugh:

That convo took place before my joining the site, and my tenure here doesn't qualify me as being part of the "good old days" so I could harly tell anyone about it.

Also, I know a few (very few) people here suck, but I didn't think you were in that group.

[Major Harris]

I don't think my thoughts were quite the theme you seem to be expecting although we could just jam some riffs on that :laugh:

That convo took place before my joining the site, and my tenure here doesn't qualify me as being part of the "good old days" so I could harly tell anyone about it.

Also, I know a few (very few) people here suck, but I didn't think you were in that group.

i know you know, but i was kidding.

there have been a lot of references to the "good ol' days" lately. i find it funny, really. i mean, with 50k+ members, you're going to have some riff-raff. price of the merger, i guess.

but i've read several threads from the good ol' days. big words don't impress me.

[Jumbo]

BTW, I can prove God exists. I hate to show off, though.

However, for fellow extremeskinners, just send $5 and a self-addressed stamped envelope, along with a picture of you or someone who looks just like you, to: Answers--Appendix A--The Book of Jumbo--Hoppensquat WA. 33336

[Major Harris]

this does it for me.

[pez]

this does it for me.

Nice post Major! :applause:

[techboy]

BTW, I can prove God exists. I hate to show off, though.

However, for fellow extremeskinners, just send $5 and a self-addressed stamped envelope, along with a picture of you or someone who looks just like you, to: Answers--Appendix A--The Book of Jumbo--Hoppensquat WA. 33336

Don't trust this! Last year, I bought a book from Jumbo entitled How to Get Rich Quick. After spending my hard earned $5, I waited impatiently for my package to arrive. When I finally got it, I ripped it open excitedly, only to discover that the "book" had just one sentence. I'm ticked off, so I'm going to undercut his business by sharing his secret with you for free. It said:

"Sell books like this to suckers like you."

[Om]

Several things go through my mind. I'll exercise kindness and discretion. Thanks for popping the cork on some fine vintage, my friend.

Different times, brother. Smaller group, different standards, more considered pace. For me at least, it invited taking time to really craft thoughts and develop themes over a period of time. Things are different now. Not better, not worse. Just different.

Where many thrive in today's quicker, more lighthearted atmosphere, I find it harder to really dive into a serious subject. I love the increased banter and opportunity for quick-reaction stuff, and there are some seriously creative and smart people around today I wish had been around "then," but I admit that at this point in my life if I'm going to really invest the time and energy to debate a serious matter, it's likely going to be in a room where people ain't sailing paper airplanes around in the back row, or scantily clad works of female art aren't suddently parading through the room and succeeding utterly in distracting me and taking my train of thought with them when they leave.

And besides, I've also found that every time a subject we've really explored resurfaces, I get less and less patient with the idea of having to go through it all again. So I link. Easy way out, perhaps, but there it is.

Sorry for the tangent.

[gchwood]

Dan Brown does a pretty good job of proving that God does indeed exist in Angels and Demons, even though the book is fiction the science is real

(sorry if someone posted that already, I don't feel well enough to read through 200 posts)

[techboy]

For those who like "big words" and the philosophical approach to this question, I recommend Articles: Existence of God which is a section of the virtual office of Dr. William Lane Craig.

To give people a bit of the flavor, here's the abstract for his article Creation and Big Bang Cosmology:

Recent discussions have raised the issue of the metaphysical implications of standard Big Bang cosmology. Grünbaum's argument that the causal principle cannot be applied to the origin of the universe rests on a pseudo-dilemma, since the cause could act neither before nor after t=0, but at t=0. Lévy-Leblond's advocacy of a remetrication of cosmic time to push the singularity to - involves various conceptual difficulties and is in any case unavailing, since the universe's beginning is not eliminated. Maddox's aversion to the possible metaphysical implications of the standard model evinces a narrow scientism. Standard Big Bang cosmogeny does therefore seem to have those metaphysical implications which some have found so discomfiting.

And there's plenty more where that came from!

Personally, I tend to stick more to the concrete, by arguing that the Ressurection of Jesus is an historical event (that's from the "Do you believe in Satan?" thread), and that therefore faith in God is rational, not blind, but I know there are some of you out there that might enjoy the more philosophical approach.

Have fun, smarty-pantses (what is the proper plural of "smarty-pants"?)

[skinsdude]

I apollogize for posting what I did, but Im still curious to why its so important to disprove someone elses God beliefs.

I don't think that anyone is necessarily trying to disprove anyones beliefs. It appears to me that the majority of people who have posted that they are non-believers would classify themselves as agnostics rather than atheists. I readily admit that I don't know whether there is a god (I certainly don't see anything is this current world to make me think that there is) however most of the believers (especially Brice) feel as though it's a no brainer. If it's a no brainer, show some tangible evidence. I can't prove that he doesn't exist because I don't know. I would never criticize someone for there beliefs. If you go down to the end of your driveway and pray to your mailbox every morning and that gives you strength, I encourage you to pray away.

[ashburnskinsfan]

I have no problem with any of what you said. What I dont understand is why its so important to some people to proselytize people into believing theres no God.

I have no religion but I have no problem with people believing in one or many. For some reason people feel a need to actively oppose anyone who believes in a God. They belittle their intelliegence, and attempt to catch them in fallacies. Why? Why would they care so much, what is driving them?

It is true that some people will try to take pleasure in attacking another person, for whatever reason ... their faith, taste in music etc. But those people are just jackasses who should be ignored.

But if you are arguing that religion should be immune from criticism and inquiry then I think this is wrong. There is often a presumption by believers that because of their religious beliefs, there should be certain impacts on our society and laws. Religious devotion also leads to trivialization of American law and politics. This is why honest intellectual debates about religion is important.

Take the whole Intelligent Design argument as an example. This is an attempt by fundamentalist Christians to replace generally accepted scientific knowledge with their faith. People can make the argument that it is appropriate to have their faith taught in public school, but if they do, it certainly doesn't belong in a science class.

The ruling from the Dover PA court case where the school board tried to enforce the teaching of intelligent design is very instructive. The judge accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion. He said that the six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,”. And it's worth noting that the judge is a Republican and a churchgoer. The full ruling is here:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf

Too often, intellectually honest attempts to explain science and the body of evidence that supports it are met with dishonest characterizations of the scientific method and knowledge, and when that fails the fall back position of "the Bible says so" is adopted. Even in this thread, posters have bundled and confused evolution with the big bang and with abiogenesis - all of which are unrelated and all of which could have been supervised by a supreme deity ... just not the one described by a strict and literal reading of the Christian Bible. Thus it is common for the religious to attack science and misrepresent it as atheistic in nature, when all science is doing is increasing our understanding of the natural world. If natural explanations from science conflict with religious doctrine on the age of the Earth, the structure of the solar sytem, the origin of species, etc etc., this is not a flaw in science, but a flaw in religions that state a conflicting view.

[skinthemboys]

God is sitting in heaven when a scientist says to Him, "God, we don't need you anymore.

Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing - in other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell Me," replies God.

"Well," says the scientist, "we can take plain dirt and form it into the likeness of you, and breathe life into it, thus creating man."

"Well, that's very interesting ... Show Me, " says God.

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil into the shape of a man.

"No, no, no ..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt."

[oriolesfan93p]

It is true that some people will try to take pleasure in attacking another person, for whatever reason ... their faith, taste in music etc. But those people are just jackasses who should be ignored.

But if you are arguing that religion should be immune from criticism and inquiry then I think this is wrong. There is often a presumption by believers that because of their religious beliefs, there should be certain impacts on our society and laws. Religious devotion also leads to trivialization of American law and politics. This is why honest intellectual debates about religion is important.

Take the whole Intelligent Design argument as an example. This is an attempt by fundamentalist Christians to replace generally accepted scientific knowledge with their faith. People can make the argument that it is appropriate to have their faith taught in public school, but if they do, it certainly doesn't belong in a science class.

The ruling from the Dover PA court case where the school board tried to enforce the teaching of intelligent design is very instructive. The judge accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion. He said that the six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,”. And it's worth noting that the judge is a Republican and a churchgoer. The full ruling is here:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf

Too often, intellectually honest attempts to explain science and the body of evidence that supports it are met with dishonest characterizations of the scientific method and knowledge, and when that fails the fall back position of "the Bible says so" is adopted. Even in this thread, posters have bundled and confused evolution with the big bang and with abiogenesis - all of which are unrelated and all of which could have been supervised by a supreme deity ... just not the one described by a strict and literal reading of the Christian Bible. Thus it is common for the religious to attack science and misrepresent it as atheistic in nature, when all science is doing is increasing our understanding of the natural world. If natural explanations from science conflict with religious doctrine on the age of the Earth, the structure of the solar sytem, the origin of species, etc etc., this is not a flaw in science, but a flaw in religions that state a conflicting view.

Well the problem with the "theory of evolution"(and the only reason that it is labeled a theory is because it hasn't been proven beyond a doubt yet) is that it is not being taught in sience class, it is being taught in HISTORY class, therefore the school system is teaching this theory as fact and are thus dismissing any other version of history as wrong.

The theory of evolution to me is nothing more than a belief system of those that don't believe in a god. If their belief system is being taught then why isn't mine. Teach it as a THEORY, the scientific community hasn't deemed it fact yet so why is it being taught as such.

I don't think that Creationism should be taught in science class, but evolutionisnm shouldn't be being taught in history.....

but in any event..

I have only defended my own beliefs here, I haven't demeaned anyone for not believing in God, maybe their arguments against him, but not for their beliefs....

I don't know why ppl do this other than it seems it is human nature for ppl to want to be right and the only way that you can prove yourself right is to convince as many ppl as you can to think that everything you think is right. This takes place with every topic....

[ashburnskinsfan]

The theory of evolution to me is nothing more than a belief system of those that don't believe in a god.

Your understanding of the theory of evolution is completely wrong. It is unfortunate an aspect of scientific knowledge threatens your belief system, but evolution accurately describes the origin of species.

The Catholic Church and many Christian scientists recognize evolution as fact. Biology doesn't make sense with out it.

[Zguy28]

When I first started reading this thread, it really spurred me to research more on this topic.

1 thing I have come across, and Techboy and Jumbo probably already know this and possibly have mentioned it in the previous 6 pages, so please forgive me if I'm repetitive.

"The Cosmological Argument" for God's existence.

1.) Everything which begins to exist requires a cause.

2.) The universe began to exist.

3.) Therefore, the universe requires a cause.

That cause is God, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient entity who exists eternally outside of creation and is capable of making decisions such as creating a universe.