-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Good "god" arguments!
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
That's the "new religion" of our time. I can't tell you the answer to what's out there, that's what mathematicians and physicists are working on figuring out. But if you're believing that and old man, or whatever, is sitting outthere watching you, it is because you do not discard what you have been taught, which you must do, and remember what you _know_ to get the full picture. And the are talking about several dimensions, which is the alternative i'm leaning towards.
[Edited so i don't sound like a non-english person, or whatever]
Then it's because you "need" to believe (which is basically what i was trying to get at before), nothing much anyone can do about that. I belive that defines you as a Zealot (not offensive from me). But i must say, i admire your lust to debate with me. But i'm going now. Goodt evening!
Jesus Christ! :beer: > debating religion on the internet. Go away! 😉
If I need to believe it is because I see something that is proof enough. I'm not a zealot, IMO. The only reason I started posting is because of the crappy attitude you presented towards theists. I don't care if you believe in a god or not. I don't think it matters. 🙂
First of all, how do you know humans don't have a specific purpose and you just don't know what it is?
Secondly can you name something complex that you can prove just came to be on its own? Have you seen a watch spontaneously appear on earth before humans made one? Why not? It's simpler than human life why didn't the metals just form together to make something, anything? Why is all life on earth biological? Biological life is more complex than simple machines, surely there would be a greater probability for it to have occured than biological life, right?
AreaCode707
Lifer
I'm going to post once and you can feel free to consider or disregard my thoughts. I won't be checking back in on my post because I have neither the time nor inclination for debate tonight.
If the events of the Acts of the Apostles occurred today, I think that they could, in some measure, be used as a proof. Chronic illness healed, death undone, prison doors opened, and so on. (If you haven't the vaguest idea of what I'm talking about, feel free to read the first portions of Acts.) Naturally, this doesn't make up a good argument today because there's no way of fully judging the accuracy or truthfulness of the written accounts. Nor, even so, would that allow scientific experimentation on the subjects.
In like manner, one of my own personal arguments for the existance of God, and I speak now of an argument I use with myself, with no intention of convincing others, is that I have seen and encountered some similar things. This isn't much of an argument for others because, as with the written account, it is a testimonial that cannot be scientifically examined in a way to satisfy the scientific method. However, when you have had the chance to see, touch, examine and apply an informal scientific method, it becomes convincing for the single observer. My own arguments for God, when I argue within myself, include the evidence that I have seen by way of cause and effect that mimics the stories in Acts, and in the gospels.
I don't think it's a particularly good way of collecting information to ask a lot of unschooled people to provide scientific evidence; a forum of scientists would be the better place for that. As for logical evidence, your own link dooms this discussion from the beginning. "... based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises." The particular groups that involve themselves in this discussion will never see logic in each others' statements because they will not, and perhaps cannot, agree on a shared set of premises.
If the events of the Acts of the Apostles occurred today, I think that they could, in some measure, be used as a proof. Chronic illness healed, death undone, prison doors opened, and so on. (If you haven't the vaguest idea of what I'm talking about, feel free to read the first portions of Acts.) Naturally, this doesn't make up a good argument today because there's no way of fully judging the accuracy or truthfulness of the written accounts. Nor, even so, would that allow scientific experimentation on the subjects.
In like manner, one of my own personal arguments for the existance of God, and I speak now of an argument I use with myself, with no intention of convincing others, is that I have seen and encountered some similar things. This isn't much of an argument for others because, as with the written account, it is a testimonial that cannot be scientifically examined in a way to satisfy the scientific method. However, when you have had the chance to see, touch, examine and apply an informal scientific method, it becomes convincing for the single observer. My own arguments for God, when I argue within myself, include the evidence that I have seen by way of cause and effect that mimics the stories in Acts, and in the gospels.
I don't think it's a particularly good way of collecting information to ask a lot of unschooled people to provide scientific evidence; a forum of scientists would be the better place for that. As for logical evidence, your own link dooms this discussion from the beginning. "... based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises." The particular groups that involve themselves in this discussion will never see logic in each others' statements because they will not, and perhaps cannot, agree on a shared set of premises.
flawlssdistortn
Senior member
You have to realize the limitations of our knowledge and our brain... a few hundred years ago, we thought the earth was flat. Then we thought it was the center of the universe. About a half century ago, Einstein proved that time is not universal. In more recent years, it has been discovered that there are 10 dimensions. With all of these unbelieveable things being revealed, imagine how much more we do not know. You have to keep an open mind.
flawlssdistortn
Senior member
Another thing - if you want scientific proof of God's existence, you're asking the wrong question and you're not gonna get the answer. You dont find God, he finds you. The more important question is "how does becoming a christian affect my outlook and actions in the world, and does that make sense?"
imported_Papi
Platinum Member
good luck with that!
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
Were you trying to make a point in there somewhere?
AyashiKaibutsu
Diamond Member
Every single one of those is false... I'll take this one for example. You make the assumption G. then you say G->R then you say R therefore G
a table for G->R goes tftt. Assuming your assumptions are true and knowing G you could say R. Knowing R you could say either G or not G and it would still be true. if you reverse it and had R->G you'd have a logicly correct statement, but you'd still need to proove your assumptions.
The burden of proof is for existance. Asking people to proove nonexistance is stupid. If your faith gives you all the proof you need then fine, but your word doesn't cut it for a lot of people. I could say there is no proof that aliens aren't aiming world destorying weapons at us right now therefore there are aliens doing so. How well does that go down with you proove nonexistance people?
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
Therefore God exists?
JustAnAverageGuy
Diamond Member
If anybody quotes that, they deserve a ban or something.
DataLink7
Could you please edit your post with a link to the text file instead? That's a lot of scrolling!
I even took the liberty of uploading it.
http://s94015114.onlinehome.us/Downloads/godproof.txt
I think he is! But first of all, it's 11 dimensions, highly complicated maths that i hopefully one day will be able to understand. But basically i think he's promoting a religious "hidden agenda" 😛 Saying that perhaps one day we will find god, through logics! What he's basically saying about the existence of a higher being is, to quote my favorite book, that "it's not impossible, it's just very very unlikely!" (Douglas Adams - Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, adams himself was a through and through atheist actually).
However, what you say here is absolutely correct! And per say i have no problem with religious people, if they thnik it benefits them to be religious, i'm ok with that. That's why i disagree with many atheit's decision that religion is "all bad" !
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
