To start off on a debate since it is allowed, I am going to go with one of the main subjects that appear in most people's discussions. Is God real?
RULES
-No flaming or trolling. Emphasis on flaming. Keep the argument down to a mild level.
-Back up what you say. I know it's hard for this, but don't just say something like "God is fake". Tell WHY you think God is fake, and use science to back it up if you have to. If you want to say "God is real", then the same goes for you. If you are going to use sources, then make sure they are credible, not just from someones blog (unless they source on that, and THAT source is credible).
-Keep this as mature as possible. This is basically like repeating the first rule, but don't let your emotions/beliefs get in the way of your argument. It makes you and your whole case look childish.
STARTING ARGUMENT:
God is not real because there is no scientific proof that he ever existed and did what he did (create people, make the world, etc.).
Please, make the tiniest effort to understand that what you're asking is like asking how economics can explain the taste of oranges. Evolution has never pretended to have anything to do with the question of choice. It makes no statements about it. That's the domain of philosophy.
http://www.truthseeker.com/truth-seeker/1993archive/120_5/ts205f.html
The evidence for evolution goes beyond the scope of philosophy (and beyond your comprehension as well).
(FYI, >>221 ain't the same Anonymous Scientist as me. I'm not sure why he/she directed that post to >>220 instead of >>218.)
> Um, evolution IS philosophy.
This is why people keep telling you to go back to school before trying to make an argument. This is a ridiculous statement, and just shows that you are either a) a complete fool or b) blindly parroting fundamentalist dogma with no basis in reality.
Possibly "and" instead of "or".
I typed "proof of macroevolution" into Google, and the first hit was http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/. You know how to use Google, don't you? You could have done it yourself, if you had actually wanted to learn anything.
Somehow, I'm thinking you're not really interested in learning.
>>224
c) a troll
Here's a summary of a proof stated by Ian Johnston at http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm
1) All living things come from living parents. (Evidence: Spontaneous generation was disproven centuries ago. Apart from that, lack of opposing evidence or alternate theories.)
2) There are many species alive today that are very different from each other. (Self-evident, I would hope.)
3) Very long ago, fewer and simpler organisms existed than exist now. (Evidence: Fossil record.)
Conclusion: Unless God is constantly creating new species out of nothing, "macroevolution" has to have occurred. Darwin's theory is the best naturalistic explanation of how that has happened.
Addendum in Ian Johnson's words: "To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation."
> timeline is spurious
Your post is a little hard to understand, but I'm guessing this is your main counterargument.
Why do you say the timeline of the fossil record is spurious? For the most part it's based on a very simple principle of geology, the law of superposition - in layman's terms, this law states "new dirt is deposited on top of older dirt." Extrapolated, the meaning is "new dirt containing new fossils is deposited on top of old dirt containing older fossils." Do you disagree with this?
There's a bit of radiometric dating involved, but carbon-14 decays to undetectable levels at around 60,000 years, and there are few other isotopes suitable for dating fossils and sediments. Geological evidence is the primary tool for constructing the timeline of the fossil record.
> Which new species are you talking about?
Those species that are present today, but are not present in the fossil record. Where did they come from?
Evidence:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6548719.stm
Will you say that god just happened to have recycled a protein from his protein database?
Oh, did that site have too much proof for you, so you had to ignore it? Ok, just pretend I copy-pasted all the contents on that site, and start refuting.
It is more reliable than the belief of a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as youy master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
> the god of atheism
Strawman. Atheism rejects all gods. This is the very definition of the atheism. Whether it's logical or scientific is up for debate. But we're not debating the validity of Atheism, we're debate the existence of God. (Yes, there is a large difference)
The comparison is invalid because time is not a god in any scientific sense. It's finite, limited in 'power', has no worshippers, and likely will one day cease to exist. We can also see it's effects, so we know it's real or 'real enough'.
You may be confusing atheism with science. They are not mutually exclusive, but are not the same.
> a dinosaur became a chicken?
Strawman. This is the same argument as monkeys 'becoming' humans. Not even creationists use this long-dead fallacious argument.
> Your proof relies on the assumption that God DID NOT create the different species. This is 'question begging.'
False. We also make the assumption that:
All these are reasonable assumptions. If any of these were true, we'd have to prove it was true. The same goes for any god(s) and/or goddess(es).
By making these assumptions, we have a foundation to base our beliefs on (all of science, religion, and philosophy). If you wish to reject these assumptions and invalidate all human knowledge, then we can further discuss our collective course of action here:
http://4-ch.net/general/kareha.pl/1165280951/
In other words, the hypothesis that God is constantly creating new species without anyone noticing - like the other assumptions that >>237 listed - is (as far as I'm aware) completely devoid of factual evidence for and factual evidence against it, and thus beyond the domain of science altogether. It is not inherently false, but it's plain silly to try to disprove a scientific law by proposing it as an alternative.
Even if it were assumed to be true, I think it would be awfully curious how God created the various species in such a way that the fossil record shows us a clear evolutionary path of descent for nearly every one of them. Either that or He fabricated the fossil record completely. Is it all a divine joke, or some sort of test of our faith?
Once again, "proofthatgodexists.org" ignores arguments he can't answer. That's pretty immature.
You were given a list of proofs of macroevolution. Start refuting, or admit that you can't.
>>239
If you mean http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/, actually, it is a summary of evidence supporting macroevolution - not proofs of macroevolution. Many of the evidences are conveniently packaged with criticisms and alternate explanations, so proofthatgodexists.org wouldn't even have to do any extra research arguing against them; he can just parrot those which appeal to him most.
Not quite what we were looking for, I think. It's nice to see a fair, balanced and well-referenced webpage on the subject, though.
>Your proof relies on the assumption that God DID NOT create the different species. This is 'question begging
your proof relies on the assumption that the bible is completely true...yet you cant prove that either
I think ptgeorg has given up, let's not all pile-on and invite further recycled debate.
more importantly why is god constantly proofing new species into existence only to kill them off a short time later
i can only think of 3 explanations
god doesn't exist
god does exist but doesn't actively maintain the universe and most of the scientific view of the universes origin is correct
the creationist view is correct and the Christian god is just one sick fuck
I vote for permasage
what i believe is god only exist in your heart not any kind of physical form. i've read somewhere, that the power of thought of many people if they think as one, eventually can make it come true... so maybe thats the thing with god, he came true because many people believe he's exist.
Heart is a muscle. If you have something living in there then it is an infection. See a doctor.
We created God, he didn't create us. He is the sum of all unknowns.
>>245
Whenever people have no Idea how something happened, like how universe was created, or how something which seems impossible becomes possible for no apparent reason, it is called God.
People and societies are flat out assholes who never admit that they are clueless of the workings of the universe and cling to God to give them meaning to what they can find no meaning in.
Religion is like this set of instruction on top of millions of people's minds. Of course this will have uncontrolled effects which looks like have been a miracle or someshit, but are actually are done by the people as a whole. Only because they are a mass that believe the same thing.
/245
Another thing: why is it that we believe that logic can explain everything. Logic can be inherently flawed. Its just a system of thought that we regard as perfect and follow it. In other words, you can prove god exists with logic, and you can prove that it doesn't exist, hell, you can probably prove anyshit to anyone using logic , but either side of the argument you wont know you are right or wrong.
God did not create humans, humans created god.
If it's a belief then it is a thought. The organ you use for that is the brain. Therefore, not the heart. The heart pumps blood.
>The organ you use for that is the brain.
Some people use instead their gonads for that. :)
>>250
dude, you're not going to say to your girlfriend "i love you with all my brain". you're gonna say "i love you with all my heart", i want to see you said option no.1 to a girl, i want to see what she thinks about you.
the same with belief, if you "think" that you want to believe something then. you gonna say that "im gonna believe you with all my heart" not "im gonna belief you with all my brain"....
my friend just ask a similar question: which came first, chicken or egg?
Egg of course, evolutionarily chicken was not the first egg-laying animal.
In the sentence "which came first, chicken or egg?", the word "chicken" comes first. :)
>>252
That is a phrase left over from older times. It is obviously not correct in a biological sense, but it is so commonly used to convey a message that it is still being used.
Back on the topic though, I do not know whether God is real or not. I do not know what religion is the "proper" one to follow. No matter if God is real or not, I try to live my life in a morally positive way.
The whole thread "Is God real?" is flawed, because the OP has not defined "God".
>will you still gonna ask a girl "i love you with all my brain" ??
It's none of your business but I'll reply anyway. I've never told anyone "love you". And if were to say it I'd say just "I love you" without any cliché attached to it.
Let this thread die already.
Language is but a collection of clichés,... So if you wand to express your love without clichés, keep your mouth shut and do things ;-)
Sounds good to me, I'll do it as soon as I find the object of my love.
I said "I love you" to a few girls but I never felt the need to append anything to it. YMMV.
So that's the answer to whose question?
How is that related to the main to topic?
Let this thread die already.
Bump.
Is some sort of divine being real or not? I think it's safe to say that the existance of such a being cannot be proven in anything even resembling a scientificaly acceptable way.
I also think that it's pointless to try to convince another person of it's existance/non-existance. When has anyone who's ever really made up their mind about it changed their mind because f points raised in a debate over it? I think maybe never. So I say this debate = completely pointless.
Yeah it's pointless, but as I said several times already in this thread that's because "God" is undefined.
For example if we define "God" as Nature and/or the Universe, then "God" is real, yes.
If we define "God" as a money-making scheme created by some fat priests since immemorial times to exploit the superstitious mortal man, then yes it's real.
If we define "God" as 42 ID:Heaven, then lol no, it's completely unreal.
omg another stupid debate on a stupid subject. why bother arguing? all youpeople are doing is trying to force your beliefs onto others. cant we all just live together and forget about who follows what religion and who believes in god?
Its called faith for a reason. that reason is that there is no proof for or against a god.
/thread
I haven't been here in a long time (think a year or more) and this was on the top so I'll respond to it. I'll be simple so I can be understood.
I know God exists, I've proven that he exists. It's simple and it's an experiment others can perform as well, meaning it's repeatable. Millions of people have done the experiment and found it valid and I've met literally hundreds of people in my lifetime that have proven the existence of God themselves. They are witnesses, as I am, of the existence of God.
We prove the existence of God by first asking if he's there. Then we have faith enough to do as he asks and we receive answers in the form of his intervention in our behalf.
It always works.
For example. Let me imagine that I'm testing whether tithing is a real principle given by God. I need to have faith enough to pay tithing. As I pay tithing I'm rewarded for my efforts. As I continue through a cycle of paying my tithing and receiving blessings I have then proven that tithing is real and came from God.
I don't have faith. Faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven. I have proven the existence of God. I pray, I read scripture, I feel his spirit in my life, I obey his commandments, I receive blessings and I understand them as miracles in my life which bring me closer to God, the cycle continues.
I no many others that have done the same and they too can tell you this. If you don't yet have faith enough to believe in God, perhaps you can have faith enough to believe in me and others like me who have proven the existence of God. I can show you how you can find out for yourself and prove his existence as well.
Simple.
So in other words, you say "God, my main deity, you up there?" and drop a dime in the box, the next time something good happens in your life, God must have done it for you as a way of saying "Yep. Here I'm is"?
In principle it could work. Not I obey and something good happens, but some thing much much more specific. For example, if a Diety says "Don't eat Lobster, or you'll break out in blue polkadots", then what you do is eat lobster and look for blue polkadots.
However there are other plausible tests. For one, if a deity created the universe, all statements that that diety makes about the universe must be true. So if you checked the Book, and found false statements of physical fact -- that diety isn't real.
Or if the diety is said to be outside of time, he should be able to predict the future -- very very specifically. Not "There will be a disease outbreak" but "There will be an outbreak of a diease that strikes the immune system. This disease will kill 40% of the population of Earth." Not "Wars and Rumours of Wars" but "The Germans will take over half of Europe and throw Jews in ovens". In other words, specifics, names, dates, locations, events. And not in the poetic symbolic form either. Symbols can be interpreted after the fact to mean anything.
There is no evidence for a god, other than people thinking there is one because they like the idea of it and re-affirming this to each other. Let's drop this.
Hey, this is the Science board... how about some Science?
Intercessory prayer and cardiovascular disease progression in a coronary care unit population: a randomized controlled trial.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of intercessory prayer, a widely practiced complementary therapy, on cardiovascular disease progression after hospital discharge.
CONCLUSIONS: As delivered in this study, intercessory prayer had no significant effect on medical outcomes after hospitalization in a coronary care unit.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11761499
>>273
Proof that God hates people with cardiovascular disease.
The simple answer is yes that is correct. However it seems that you're not understanding or at least not accepting it.
I'll give you an experiment that you can try yourself and you'll receive the proof you're looking for. Tithing is a good one and it's been mentioned already. Tithing, simply enough, is a tenth. In this case a tenth of your income.
For the next year each paycheck you get I'd like you to pay 1/10th of your income to a church. Choose a good one, I don't want you donating to the Church of Satan because you think it's funny. A decent, good church that teaches good principles. Whether it be Shinto or Muslim or Christian donate 1/10th of your income to that church for 1 year. Pray while you do this to know if God is real with a desire to know. After a year you will see the change in your life paying tithing will bring. Prove God, he will show you he's there.
Let's assume for a second that god does exist, how do you know he relies on church to mediate his/her/its will? What makes you think he/she/it even listens?
Here is a good experiment to validate yours, get a good sample population and have part of them donating to cheesus and another part to donate to the church of satan (assuming it exists) and another part wont donate at all. After rone year evaluate the the rate of "success" in you sample population even if it's on an arbitrary value (let's say 0-10) then do some stats and make an analysis of variance. If your god relies on some human institution to mediate his/her/its will then one of the sample populations will be significantly more "successful" than the others.
Now, this is a good experiment because you have controls. Now, go back to high school and learn how to develop a good hypothesis and a good experiment.
Also, be aware that my experiment does not test the existance of a god but goes on the assumption that a exists and thus tests that deity's acceptance of people through an institution.
>>275 This experiment will only prove that giving money to some perceived-to-be-worthwhile cause may give someone a better feeling than hoarding money for oneself, not prove the existence of some invisible being. There is no causality in this experiment.
>I've met literally hundreds of people in my lifetime that have proven the existence of God themselves. They are witnesses, as I am, of the existence of God.
Look, seriously, DO the experiment. I'll tell you it works. Hundreds of others can tell you it works. Just because you THINK it doesn't work doesn't mean you know anything. If you choose not to try and find God you won't ever find him and you're the one that has chosen to live in ignorance.
Don't foget to do the other half of the experiment. Stop tithing for a year and see if you see no sign of God around. After both years, compare your results.
Sex scandal hits Atlanta-area megachurch
"At its peak in the early 1990s, it claimed about 10,000 members and 24 pastors and was a media powerhouse. By soliciting tithes of 10 percent from each member's income, the church was able to build a Bible college, two schools, a worldwide TV ministry and a $12 million sanctuary the size of a fortress.
Today, though, membership is down to about 1,500, the church has 18 pastors, most of them volunteers, and the Bible college and TV ministry have shuttered — a downturn blamed largely on complaints about the alleged sexual transgressions of the elder Paulks."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_re_us/preacher_paternity_8
>Look, seriously, DO the experiment. I'll tell you it works. Hundreds of others can tell you it works. Just because you THINK it doesn't work doesn't mean you know anything. If you choose not to try and find God you won't ever find him and you're the one that has chosen to live in ignorance.
SERIOUSLY, learn how to make an experiment. You have to take into account all possibilities before you can assume the cause of an event. Also, I don't live in ignorance but I live in logic.
Anyway, I promise I will perform your experiment as soon as you finish/repeat high school.
>try and find God
And once again, the variable "God" is undefined.
Compilation cannot proceed. Program aborted.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
cut thread here
But you have another problem. You haven't really defined what a blessing is. This makes the experiment worthless even if you do the control.
What you need is something specific, something that an outside observer will agree is a "blessing". For example, if we had identical twins, inject both with a disease of our choosing (nonfatal of course), we could have one tithe and the other not. If tithing works, tithing twin should heal faster than nontithing twin. Then we have something.
But just having a vague "something good will happen" means nothing. It's too subjective. I like sushi, my brother hates it. So if we both get sushi, I record it as positive, my brother records it as negative. That won't work in an experiment. You need something objective and publicly observable.
You might as well spend 10% of your income at the casino.
But in >>276 the success isn't specific. You can't do statistics on people rating whether or not they feel blessed or not. You'd need something specific, because the observers are biased. Someone who believes in God will feel "blessed" by something an athiest would call "lucky". So the same feeling gets a different result based on the bias of the observer.
Check cure rates on a disease and at least you've got something that isn't going to be a hit for believers and a miss for unbelievers. Bias in this case is going to piss all over any results you get if you're going to allow participants to self-rate.
Then let me define success (like it matters for an experiment I won't perform):
-Health
-Good income
-No problems
-Happiness
-Satisfaction with their own lives in whichever terms means for each single participant
Happy? let this thread die now.
>>288. that's a miserable definition of success.
Nope, not happy. How about you die now, and we keep the thread alive?
'SUPERSTITION' IN THE PIGEON
B. F. Skinner
A pigeon...is put into an experimental cage for a few minutes each day. A food hopper attached to the cage may be swung into place so that the pigeon can eat from it. A solenoid and a timing relay hold the hopper in place for five sec. at each reinforcement.
If a clock is now arranged to present the food hopper at regular intervals with no reference whatsoever to the bird's behavior, operant conditioning usually takes place. In six out of eight cases the resulting responses were so clearly defined that two observers could agree perfectly in counting instances. One bird was conditioned to turn counter-clockwise about the cage, making two or three turns between reinforcements. Another repeatedly thrust its head into one of the upper corners of the cage. A third developed a 'tossing' response, as if placing its head beneath an invisible bar and lifting it repeatedly. Two birds developed a pendulum motion of the head and body, in which the head was extended forward and swung from right to left with a sharp movement followed by a somewhat slower return... None of these responses appeared in any noticeable strength during adaptation to the cage or until the food hopper was periodically presented...
The conditioning process is usually obvious. The bird happens to be executing some response as the hopper appears; as a result it tends to repeat this response.
Why is a thread about god in science anyway. Don't we have a place for religious dweebery yet? Pfft.
My experiment:
1)I walked into my kitchen grabbed a plate and placed it on the table.
2)I ask in a clear and loud voice "Attention god if you are omnieverything make a ham and cheese sandwich appear on this here plate!".
3)I wait 5 minutes.
4)I go into the fridge make a sandwich.
Conclusion:God couldn't make a sandwich but I could so that means if I can make a samidge and god can't that I am vastly superior to god and therefore he isn't omnifantastic or that I am in fact god but if I am god then why did I do the experiment?If I was god shouldn't I have known then if I am god yet I didn't know that would mean i'm not omnispectacular but if god isn't omniamazing..............
> "Attention god if you are omnieverything make a ham and cheese sandwich appear on this here plate!".
I just felt I had to get a post in here before the inevitable equally ham-fisted anti-evolution counter argument showed up.
Gentlemen!
I am proud to announce that I have not very recently stumbled upon indefatigable proof that god, or really cool aliens, who would be roughly equivalent for all pratical means and purposes; do, does, did, and may have in fact existed at one point in the future!
Such proof MUST be observed first hand at http://www.timecube.com/ in a most rigorously and professionally scienctiferiffical fashion.
Apparently there is no way something of this magnitude could have come into existence naturally, without presupposing a form of ribonucleic base bonded with four-helix single-sided simultaneously rotational cubes; obviously we have every expectction to reproducibly prooved this as soon as we come down.
Thusly as such &c, the erudite MUST entertain the notion that there is something, Ergot Gratis: supranatural, afeet!
>>293
Silly atheist, you didn't say what kind of bread you wanted the sandwich made with! God can't read your mind!
This thread brings the lulz.
Let's start from first principles. What is a "god?" What do we mean when we say the word? How do we define it? What attributes does a "god" have?
| ＼
|Д｀) No one is here.
|⊂ I can dance now !
|
♪ ☆
♪ ／ ＼ RANTA TAN
ヽ(´Д｀;)ﾉ RANTA TAN
( へ) RANTA RANTA
く TAN
♪ ☆
♪ ／ ＼ RANTA RANTA
ヽ（;´Д｀）ﾉ RANTA TAN
(へ ) RANTA TANTA
> TAN
>>294 "Thou shalt not test the Lord your God."
is which god real?
the christian one? Alah? Zeus? Quetzalcoatl?
any/all of them?
the existence of a divine being cannot be scientificaly proven, or disproven.
>>302
winner
>>302
Actually it can be proven; we just don't know how or if or whatever but God or the aliens who created us could well just appear in Earth tomorrow and thus it's scientifically proven. It just cannot be disproven.
>>304
The question is: How can you be convinced that the being has divine power and not highly advanced technology?
>>305
No, the question is: what does "divine being" even mean in a human context?
this thread has been going around in circles with people rising the same arguments over and over again, why don't you all read the whole thing before even thinking that you have something worth to say?
this thread has been going around in circles with people rising the same arguments over and over again, why don't you all read the whole thing before even thinking that you have something worth to say?
it all only boils down to one thing: belief or unbelief.
Everyone who posts in threads like these deserves a long and painful death, including me.
And especially >>300 for bumping it.
God may be real but it is not in the way the bible says.
I notice that after 312 posts, still nobody has come up with a single definition for that "God" thingie.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipotent
it seems narcissistic of us humans to try to fully understand something like the concept of an all powerful being with the amount that we learned in our meager exisitance
You know... any good discussion about God should start with a list of definitions.
So, the question "Does God exist?" has to come up and narrow it down to the following definitions:
Starting the argument without actually defining the parameters is stupid. In the end all you get is a dozen idiots beating off their meats ideologically, to no benefit.
God is not a single concept, but has multiple incompatible meanings for different cultures. A god of rain would not at all be considered a god by certain cultures, if humans can also induce rain. Some people would consider an immortal a god, others not.
As for god being almighty, omniscient, etc,... There is a logical flaw there. An entity so complete can only be the full universe/reality. And if so, why not just call it reality, universe? And if it's not, then it can't be almighty.
Also, I can't imagine that there can be something which has a will, but is still infinite. Having a will implies a limit on which to exercise this will.
All in all, I find the concept of infinite almighty god the most broken there is. But hey, if it makes people happy to feel they have a strong father looking for them, why not?...