Proof of God.

DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
edited August 2010 in Spurious Generalities
People often say theres no proof god exists they say science hasnt proven it that there religion is science. Well Ill tell you prove of providence is everywhere. Prove of Providence is the stars the trees the planets. Prove of providence is a person doing good or an act of charity. Prove of providence is the incredible power and complexity of the mind. Prove is all around you if not only you look but SEE. The proof is in our soul's which is what seperates us from mere beasts. You reject god when you do evil but prove him when you do good.

Comments

  • woodwood Regular
    edited August 2010
    That's fine for some who believes, (or knows, if you prefer) but for sceptics that just isn't going to cut it. The nature of scientific proof requires a bit more than your OP, not to say that I don't agree with you to an extent, but if you're relying entirely on science for metaphysics... I don't know, I don't put much stock in most people's opinions - my own included.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited August 2010
    wood wrote: »
    That's fine for some who believes, (or knows, if you prefer) but for sceptics that just isn't going to cut it. The nature of scientific proof requires a bit more than your OP, not to say that I don't agree with you to an extent, but if you're relying entirely on science for metaphysics... I don't know, I don't put much stock in most people's opinions - my own included.

    Im just saying what Ive been revealed through various methods and research. Do with it what you like. I see prove of providence everywhere where some see soil I see something profound.
  • ObbeObbe Regular
    edited August 2010
    Proof isn't so important. What's important is being able to communicate, and understand, a certain perspective about the world/life/reality that the speaker enjoys or has experienced. His inability to communicate it, or the listeners inability to understand it or expereince it for themselves, has been the root problem of this classic debate since it began thousands of years ago. And why? Basically, it is because the person trying to talk about God is attempting to describe the indescribable. It cannot be put into words and retain the same meaning. Words ruin it.

    Language is a code, language marginalizes reality. Forget about words. Share the love.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited August 2010
    Obbe wrote: »
    Proof isn't so important. What's important is being able to communicate, and understand, a certain perspective about the world/life/reality that the speaker enjoys or has experienced. His inability to communicate it, or the listeners inability to understand it or expereince it for themselves, has been the root problem of this classic debate since it began thousands of years ago. And why? Basically, it is because the person trying to talk about God is attempting to describe the indescribable. It cannot be put into words and retain the same meaning. Words ruin it.

    Language is a code, language marginalizes reality. Forget about words. Share the love.

    I cant really argue with that right there. Words arent important as you said just share the love.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited August 2010

    I probably have that to an extent like everyone does but Ive read and retained plenty of evidence on both sides of the god no god debate and I feel the creationist theory as more weight to it. Im sure confirmation bias works in your direction to. Ive also been atheist before I was for years. I see the idea of there not being any kind of being out there of any kind or nature to be more crazy then this was all a mistake.
  • woodwood Regular
    edited August 2010
    Your own confirmation bias is the reason you see confirmation bias as legitimate :o
  • VickyVicky Regular
    edited August 2010
    I'm not saying I believe that god made the universe and all that, but I'm not convinced by evolution either. Darwin said if an organism was found that was irreducible then his whole theory fell apart, and the flagellum is an example of this organism. All the parts need to be present or the organism can't survive, so it couldn't have evolved step by step. I also have a problem with symbiotic relationships. All these creatures rely on each other for survival but how they are theorised to have evolved doesn't fit in at all. Not proof that God exists, but I think it shows we need better explanations than what we have now or there wouldn't be a debate...
  • jaconjacon Acolyte
    edited August 2010
    Well Ill tell you prove of providence is everywhere. Prove of Providence is the stars the trees the planets. Prove of providence is a person doing good or an act of charity. Prove of providence is the incredible power and complexity of the mind. Prove is all around you if not only you look but SEE. The proof is in our soul's which is what seperates us from mere beasts. You reject god when you do evil but prove him when you do good.


    Really dude?
    Ethics, morals, or whatever you call have nothing to do with the existence or non existence of god, I'm an atheist and I donate to charities, does that mean that god is fooling me into believing that he does not exist (please dont say it does)?. Saying that Prove of providence is a person doing good or an act of charity basically says that doing nothing is the only way to show that he does not exist, which is not exactly true.
    And actually what separates us from "mere beasts" is the human capacity of producing culture, and religion is not the only form of culture.


    And about the flagelum, Dawkins made a pretty thorough explanation of the way it functions and the evolution of it in God Delusion, and the explanaton is pretty valid.


    Oh, almost forgot, which god are you talking about? Which god does all of this prove? The christian God? Allah? Odin? Grand Bois? Eshu?
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited August 2010
    jacon wrote: »
    Really dude?
    Ethics, morals, or whatever you call have nothing to do with the existence or non existence of god, I'm an atheist and I donate to charities, does that mean that god is fooling me into believing that he does not exist (please dont say it does)?. Saying that Prove of providence is a person doing good or an act of charity basically says that doing nothing is the only way to show that he does not exist, which is not exactly true.
    And actually what separates us from "mere beasts" is the human capacity of producing culture, and religion is not the only form of culture.


    And about the flagelum, Dawkins made a pretty thorough explanation of the way it functions and the evolution of it in God Delusion, and the explanaton is pretty valid.


    Oh, almost forgot, which god are you talking about? Which god does all of this prove? The christian God? Allah? Odin? Grand Bois? Eshu?

    There is no god but god. The Christian god and Allah are he same. There is only one universal supreme force and hes gone by many names through history. Just because hes had many names doesn't change the fact that its the same god. And in a sense yes it is god who gets yout o donate. Would you even exist to do that if not for him? No you wouldnt.
  • The GeneralThe General Regular
    edited August 2010
    There is no god but god. The Christian god and Allah are he same. There is only one universal supreme force and hes gone by many names through history. Just because hes had many names doesn't change the fact that its the same god. And in a sense yes it is god who gets yout o donate. Would you even exist to do that if not for him? No you wouldnt.

    nononononononono there are differences. The jewish and christian are the same.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited August 2010
    nononononononono there are differences. The jewish and christian are the same.

    So is the Muslim god Ive read the Qu'ran it IS the same god it even references many of the same story's as the bible.
  • StephenPBarrettStephenPBarrett Adviser
    edited August 2010
    ^ Yeah it was the same main character in all three books. My least favorite character in all three books btw. Books are hard to read when you don't like the main character.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited August 2010
    Remember these books were all written by man and translated by man so theres bound to be some flaws in them thats why I say there's truth and theres falsehoods in almost all major religions.
  • StephenPBarrettStephenPBarrett Adviser
    edited August 2010
    ^ I'd say any organized religion. IMO no two people believe the exact same thing so what would be the point?
  • woodwood Regular
    edited August 2010
    ^ I'd say any organized religion. IMO no two people believe the exact same thing so what would be the point?
    Community values, trust.net, shared narrative.
Sign In or Register to comment.