Do you believe in God?

[bikefreek]

Ok for the record if you believe in god...define it... what is god? If you believe in it you must have some idea what you believe it to be.

C'mon now, we're still proving science. I genuinely was interested in that discussion. You see I too have questioned, like I said, the answers have always been there.

I take the Bible at what it is, honestly, I believe in God, I believe the bible. I believe he is the all knowing, all seeing, omni-present God.

Question... and I'm not being smart, and honestly, if you want to reply in P.M., because I'd rather have complete honesty rather than another sharp edged debate.

Why don't you believe in God?

I'm interested to hear what you have to say.

I dont believe in god because there is not one shred of evidence that a god exists... that makes it pretty easy for me to decide.
The question is why do you believe, in spite of a total lack of evidence, that there is one?

HA!! I own pages 3 & 4!

[Selectedmarksman]

I dont believe in god because there is not one shred of evidence that a god exists... that makes it pretty easy for me to decide.
The question is why do you believe, in spite of a total lack of evidence, that there is one?

HA!! I own pages 3 & 4!

While I would say this is dangerously close to the "That's just the way it is" sort of thinking, bikefreek has a point here.

When one makes a claim, one has the burden of proof to support that claim. If I posit that there is a sentient being that no one can see who created everything (and revise my story of that creation as Science learns more about how our Universe got its start) then the burden is on me to provide positive proof.

It is not rational to make a claim then demand of someone why they don't believe it.

But to get back on track and keep things civil, I'm still not clear on which God we're talking about here.

[doubloon]

I'm not trying to have anything "both ways". ...

... that which is super-natural is beyond the natural, and nature is by definition the scope of scientific inquiry with today's technology. ...

Fixed it for you.

Throughout the ages many things have been beyond the scope of scientific inquiry but advances in science have continued to open new avenues for observation. When the bible was originally pieced together nobody perceived or even imagined a world beyond what they could see, much less an entire bible printed in an area smaller than the head of a pin. Today not only can we observe atoms we can manipulate them.
http://www.daylife.com/photo/0gcs65KciG548

Want evidence god is an alien?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRruj5HGXSY

Or evidence he doesn't exist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oSbctkw6Dk

[doubloon]

...
It is not rational to make a claim then demand of someone why they don't believe it.
...

Correct! And neither is it reasonable to expect someone to prove something does not exist. Prove I don't have a quarter in my pocket.

[bikefreek]

...
It is not rational to make a claim then demand of someone why they don't believe it.
...

Correct! And neither is it reasonable to expect someone to prove something does not exist. Prove I don't have a quarter in my pocket.

are you arguing my point for me now?

It is possible to prove whether a quarter is in your pocket by simply looking in your pocket................

[Selectedmarksman]

I'm sorry, I'm tired so I'm probably not being very clear.

What I mean by all this supernatural business is that science operates in the scope of nature. That which is outside of nature is by definition outside the reach of science. However, it does not follow that that which is [/i]presently[/i] outside the reach of science is supernatural.

Things like molecules, atoms, quarks, etc. have never been 'supernatural', then, but are fully natural and have only recently been studied by science. Most characterizations of the Christian God portray Him/Them/It as supernatural. Then, by definition, God cannot be the subject of scientific inquiry. This does not mean God does not exist, merely that such a conclusion is outside the domain of science.

As to the quarter in your pocket, I have no more reason to believe it exists than for a quarter to exist in anyone else's pocket. I am also agnostic of the existence of multiple quarters in said pockets, or of any combination of pennies, dimes, or nickels along with them. I am open to any evidence of the quarter's existence you care to provide, however.

EDIT: Bikefreak, it is possible that looking in his pocket will impact the presence or state of the quarter. It is more likely that if a quarter does exist there we may either know its position with a calculable degree of certainty, or its velocity, but not both with any accuracy.

[doubloon]

...
It is not rational to make a claim then demand of someone why they don't believe it.
...

Correct! And neither is it reasonable to expect someone to prove something does not exist. Prove I don't have a quarter in my pocket.

are you arguing my point for me now?

It is possible to prove whether a quarter is in your pocket by simply looking in your pocket................

I'm not arguing your point, I don't see where you even have a point. You appear to be arguing it is proof enough that something does not exist if someone cannot prove it does exist.

...
I dont believe in god because there is not one shred of evidence that a god exists... that makes it pretty easy for me to decide.
...

*You* can't prove the quarter exists by looking in my pocket so, no, it is not possible for *you* to prove the quarter exists. But just because *you* cannot prove the quarter exists it does not mean there is no quarter.

Besides, I didn't ask you to prove there was a quarter in my pocket, I asked you to prove I *don't* have a quarter in my pocket. And until you can grasp these subtle distinctions it will be impossible to have an intelligent discourse with you.

...
EDIT: Bikefreak, it is possible that looking in his pocket will impact the presence or state of the quarter. It is more likely that if a quarter does exist there we may either know its position with a calculable degree of certainty, or its velocity, but not both with any accuracy.

Actually, it is more likely he will lose consciousness if he tries to look in my pocket. The alleged quarter will go unobserved, existent or not.

[bikefreek]

...[/quote]
Correct! And neither is it reasonable to expect someone to prove something does not exist. Prove I don't have a quarter in my pocket.[/quote]

are you arguing my point for me now?

It is possible to prove whether a quarter is in your pocket by simply looking in your pocket................[/quote]

I'm not arguing your point, I don't see where you even have a point. You appear to be arguing it is proof enough that something does not exist if someone cannot prove it does exist.

...
I dont believe in god because there is not one shred of evidence that a god exists... that makes it pretty easy for me to decide.
...

*You* can't prove the quarter exists by looking in my pocket so, no, it is not possible for *you* to prove the quarter exists. But just because *you* cannot prove the quarter exists it does not mean there is no quarter.

Besides, I didn't ask you to prove there was a quarter in my pocket, I asked you to prove I *don't* have a quarter in my pocket. And until you can grasp these subtle distinctions it will be impossible to have an intelligent discourse with you.

...
EDIT: Bikefreak, it is possible that looking in his pocket will impact the presence or state of the quarter. It is more likely that if a quarter does exist there we may either know its position with a calculable degree of certainty, or its velocity, but not both with any accuracy.

Actually, it is more likely he will lose consciousness if he tries to look in my pocket. The alleged quarter will go unobserved, existent or not.[/quote]
I dont have to look in your pocket...data could be collected by other means...its outline in your pocket...its detection by xray...detection by metal detector........many other ways to "observe" the quarter. The point being that IT IS POSSIBLE TO PROVE, it doesnt matter if I myself am able to prove it.

[doubloon]

... by man's definition, ...

fixed it for you again ...

In 1491, by definition, anyone who sailed beyond the view of the shore fell off the earth.

[bikefreek]

... by man's definition, ...

fixed it for you again ...

In 1491, by definition, anyone who sailed beyond the view of the shore fell off the earth.

wasnt that right around the time that religion claimed earth was the center of the universe? how did that pan out?....oh yeah religion was proven wrong

[doubloon]

...... I dont have to look in your pocket...data could be collected by other means...its outline in your pocket...its detection by xray...detection by metal detector........many other ways to "observe" the quarter. The point being that IT IS POSSIBLE TO PROVE, it doesnt matter if I myself am able to prove it.

You're still too dense to get it.

Neither you or anyone else will get close enough to my pocket to use xray or metal detection or any other means to "observe" the quarter. And even if you did there are ways to hide the quarter from outlines, xrays, metal detectors or any other means you might devise.

Plus, I own at least a couple hundred pockets ... you probably wouldn't even be looking at the right one.

It is not possible to prove.

[Selectedmarksman]

... by man's definition, ...

fixed it for you again ...

In 1491, by definition, anyone who sailed beyond the view of the shore fell off the earth.

in 1492 anyone who sailed beyond view of the shore sailed beyond view of the shore. Navigators and scientists contemporary to Columbus did not believe the Earth was flat. Rather, they disagreed with Columbus' estimate of the diameter of the Earth. If he hadn't stumbled onto an unknown Continent his crew would have starved long before reaching India. Columbus was wrong.

But because of the quoted text, I quit. If you have an invisible buddy who can redefine words at will, there is no way for any discussion to be held.

[doubloon]

...
wasnt that right around the time that religion claimed earth was the center of the universe? how did that pan out?....oh yeah religion was proven wrong

Still playing the same one string banjo.

[doubloon]

... by man's definition, ...

fixed it for you again ...

In 1491, by definition, anyone who sailed beyond the view of the shore fell off the earth.

in 1492 anyone who sailed beyond view of the shore sailed beyond view of the shore. Navigators and scientists contemporary to Columbus did not believe the Earth was flat. Rather, they disagreed with Columbus' estimate of the diameter of the Earth. If he hadn't stumbled onto an unknown Continent his crew would have starved long before reaching India. Columbus was wrong.

But because of the quoted text, I quit. If you have an invisible buddy who can redefine words at will, there is no way for any discussion to be held.

Not redefining words just identifying the origin of the words.

"Man" defines god a supernatural. "Man" has defined many things incorrectly in the past and will continue to do so. Just because someone scribbled on a piece of paper that god is "supernatural" doesn't make it true. Only man would presume to define something he can't see, touch or prove exists.

[bikefreek]

...... I dont have to look in your pocket...data could be collected by other means...its outline in your pocket...its detection by xray...detection by metal detector........many other ways to "observe" the quarter. The point being that IT IS POSSIBLE TO PROVE, it doesnt matter if I myself am able to prove it.

You're still too dense to get it.

Neither you or anyone else will get close enough to my pocket to use xray or metal detection or any other means to "observe" the quarter. And even if you did there are ways to hide the quarter from outlines, xrays, metal detectors or any other means you might devise.

Plus, I own at least a couple hundred pockets ... you probably wouldn't even be looking at the right one.

It is not possible to prove.

are you claiming that you have magic pockets now too?

[bikefreek]

...
wasnt that right around the time that religion claimed earth was the center of the universe? how did that pan out?....oh yeah religion was proven wrong

Still playing the same one string banjo.

yup a banjo with one single consistant real string... unlike you who trys to prove god exists with idiotic banter about the easter bunny, santa claus, and magic pockets.

[bakerjw]

I must say. I am an insomniac dyslexic agnostic. I lay awake every night wondering if there is a dog.

[Libertarian_Geek]

I must say. I am an insomniac dyslexic agnostic. I lay awake every night wondering if there is a dog.

Y'all stop this futile bickering right now. Just look what you're doing to bakerjw!

You can't prove the existence of God. If you did, then faith would serve no purpose.
You can't disprove the existence of God.
You can go around in circles of stalemate though, and that's just not fun for me.

However, (the point I was arguing when last I visited...)people can't blame a belief as an excuse to do something evil, because once you boil it all down, it's only conscious thought that causes men to do things (aka free-will) and a system of beliefs making them do it is not even a good excuse. (The hidden part that I was speaking to in my earlier post is all of the interconnections of causality behind a belief "inspiring" people in our history to do bad things. Ultimately, it's a person's decision to do the bad things. Can't blame it on inspiration. Especially if you don't believe in divine inspiration. )

Sorry bikefreek, but to use weak inductive reasoning combined with a flawed premise from the above is like saying that a violent video game "inspired" the murderers to kill xyz so therefore MarioCart is bad.

[libertyman777]

I've never been offended by a deity or religion that I didn't believe in. Truth is either accepted or rationalized away.

[BWT]

You can't prove the existence of God. If you did, then faith would serve no purpose.
You can't disprove the existence of God.
You can go around in circles of stalemate though, and that's just not fun for me.

This is pretty much it.

Again, for Selectedmarksman, I believe in God, I mean, I believe Jesus was his son, the holy spirit, etc. You've obviously read the bible.

As for why I believe? I've experienced things in my life, that at certain points, I thought were miracles, I believe I've heard from God a handful of times, honestly at critical junctures in my life. Am I going to share it infront of a thread of atheists and be told I'm hallucinating? Or be told that's not a miracle, while they refuse to answer simple questions about something they whole heartedly believe?

You know what's hysterical to me, and I mean hysterical. People claim there is no God, and absolutely abhor the idea that there is one, they believe in Science, what we can touch, taste, feel, hear, see, observe, they don't believe in what they can't explain (so they claim) or what they can't see, right?

And then say. "Well, they somehow made the jump from single cell to multi cell, it had to have happened." Isn't that Faith to a practical realist, to the same man that damns faith? Isn't that some kind of Fairy Tale, where they don't know, but hope and claim that happened?

Let's discuss the Big Bang theory and how anything could've survived that blast.

I had the recent experience of going into the hospital after blacking out and hitting the floor from dehydration from fever (Mono), I went in, and was billed $2200 (Because my insurance at the time didn't cover it) to get an I.V. drip of Water, be improperly diagnosed with para influenza (The flu without the congestion sides of it), then two weeks later I went in to the Doctor I was still sick and told them I thought I had mono, swollen glands, etc, guess what, for $8 I found out I had Mono, which they said they could do nothing for.

I've watched family members be blasted with radiation to try to eradicate cancer, and it seeming like a race to see which killed them faster, the Radiation or the Cancer.

It strikes me as funny, honestly, I predict, Medical practices that we're conducting today because of what we know, Right? In 30-40 years (and this has repeated throughout history) will be enough to get you sued for Mal practice.

A large amount of medical discoveries are simply that, discoveries, accidents, where we can hypothesize.

We finished mapping the Human Genome in 2003, and we are beginning to actually have ideas about DNA.

So, let's continue the discussion.

What I'd like is to see if we can get anymore traction on the single-cell to multi-cell conversation, if at all possible.

or We can continue the back and forth of "Why do you believe in God?" "Why don't you?".

[ick]

If evolution is true, why do I still need to buy shoes?

[bikefreek]

You can't prove the existence of God. If you did, then faith would serve no purpose.
You can't disprove the existence of God.
You can go around in circles of stalemate though, and that's just not fun for me.

This is pretty much it.

Again, for Selectedmarksman, I believe in God, I mean, I believe Jesus was his son, the holy spirit, etc. You've obviously read the bible.

As for why I believe? I've experienced things in my life, that at certain points, I thought were miracles, I believe I've heard from God a handful of times, honestly at critical junctures in my life. Am I going to share it infront of a thread of atheists and be told I'm hallucinating? Or be told that's not a miracle, while they refuse to answer simple questions about something they whole heartedly believe?

You know what's hysterical to me, and I mean hysterical. People claim there is no God, and absolutely abhor the idea that there is one, they believe in Science, what we can touch, taste, feel, hear, see, observe, they don't believe in what they can't explain (so they claim) or what they can't see, right?

And then say. "Well, they somehow made the jump from single cell to multi cell, it had to have happened." Isn't that Faith to a practical realist, to the same man that damns faith? Isn't that some kind of Fairy Tale, where they don't know, but hope and claim that happened?

Let's discuss the Big Bang theory and how anything could've survived that blast.
I had the recent experience of going into the hospital after blacking out and hitting the floor from dehydration from fever (Mono), I went in, and was billed $2200 (Because my insurance at the time didn't cover it) to get an I.V. drip of Water, be improperly diagnosed with para influenza (The flu without the congestion sides of it), then two weeks later I went in to the Doctor I was still sick and told them I thought I had mono, swollen glands, etc, guess what, for $8 I found out I had Mono, which they said they could do nothing for.

I've watched family members be blasted with radiation to try to eradicate cancer, and it seeming like a race to see which killed them faster, the Radiation or the Cancer.

It strikes me as funny, honestly, I predict, Medical practices that we're conducting today because of what we know, Right? In 30-40 years (and this has repeated throughout history) will be enough to get you sued for Mal practice.

A large amount of medical discoveries are simply that, discoveries, accidents, where we can hypothesize.

We finished mapping the Human Genome in 2003, and we are beginning to actually have ideas about DNA.

So, let's continue the discussion.

What I'd like is to see if we can get anymore traction on the single-cell to multi-cell conversation, if at all possible.

or We can continue the back and forth of "Why do you believe in God?" "Why don't you?".

Now i know you have NO clue what you are talking about and that having a discussion with you is like talking to a child

[BWT]

You can't prove the existence of God. If you did, then faith would serve no purpose.
You can't disprove the existence of God.
You can go around in circles of stalemate though, and that's just not fun for me.

This is pretty much it.

Again, for Selectedmarksman, I believe in God, I mean, I believe Jesus was his son, the holy spirit, etc. You've obviously read the bible.

As for why I believe? I've experienced things in my life, that at certain points, I thought were miracles, I believe I've heard from God a handful of times, honestly at critical junctures in my life. Am I going to share it infront of a thread of atheists and be told I'm hallucinating? Or be told that's not a miracle, while they refuse to answer simple questions about something they whole heartedly believe?

You know what's hysterical to me, and I mean hysterical. People claim there is no God, and absolutely abhor the idea that there is one, they believe in Science, what we can touch, taste, feel, hear, see, observe, they don't believe in what they can't explain (so they claim) or what they can't see, right?

And then say. "Well, they somehow made the jump from single cell to multi cell, it had to have happened." Isn't that Faith to a practical realist, to the same man that damns faith? Isn't that some kind of Fairy Tale, where they don't know, but hope and claim that happened?

Let's discuss the Big Bang theory and how anything could've survived that blast.
I had the recent experience of going into the hospital after blacking out and hitting the floor from dehydration from fever (Mono), I went in, and was billed $2200 (Because my insurance at the time didn't cover it) to get an I.V. drip of Water, be improperly diagnosed with para influenza (The flu without the congestion sides of it), then two weeks later I went in to the Doctor I was still sick and told them I thought I had mono, swollen glands, etc, guess what, for $8 I found out I had Mono, which they said they could do nothing for.

I've watched family members be blasted with radiation to try to eradicate cancer, and it seeming like a race to see which killed them faster, the Radiation or the Cancer.

It strikes me as funny, honestly, I predict, Medical practices that we're conducting today because of what we know, Right? In 30-40 years (and this has repeated throughout history) will be enough to get you sued for Mal practice.

A large amount of medical discoveries are simply that, discoveries, accidents, where we can hypothesize.

We finished mapping the Human Genome in 2003, and we are beginning to actually have ideas about DNA.

So, let's continue the discussion.

What I'd like is to see if we can get anymore traction on the single-cell to multi-cell conversation, if at all possible.

or We can continue the back and forth of "Why do you believe in God?" "Why don't you?".

Now i know you have NO clue what you are talking about and that having a discussion with you is like talking to a child

You select ONE sentence out of all of that and reply to it, and it's not a reply, it's an insult.

This is why I didn't take your replies seriously.

What a waste of time.

[bikefreek]

You can't prove the existence of God. If you did, then faith would serve no purpose.
You can't disprove the existence of God.
You can go around in circles of stalemate though, and that's just not fun for me.

This is pretty much it.

Again, for Selectedmarksman, I believe in God, I mean, I believe Jesus was his son, the holy spirit, etc. You've obviously read the bible.

As for why I believe? I've experienced things in my life, that at certain points, I thought were miracles, I believe I've heard from God a handful of times, honestly at critical junctures in my life. Am I going to share it infront of a thread of atheists and be told I'm hallucinating? Or be told that's not a miracle, while they refuse to answer simple questions about something they whole heartedly believe?

so now you talk to god?

You know what's hysterical to me, and I mean hysterical. People claim there is no God, and absolutely abhor the idea that there is one, they believe in Science, what we can touch, taste, feel, hear, see, observe, they don't believe in what they can't explain (so they claim) or what they can't see, right?

And then say. "Well, they somehow made the jump from single cell to multi cell, it had to have happened." Isn't that Faith to a practical realist, to the same man that damns faith? Isn't that some kind of Fairy Tale, where they don't know, but hope and claim that happened?

isnt the presence of multicelled organisms now proof that it happened? its not faith there is evidence to support it

Let's discuss the Big Bang theory and how anything could've survived that blast.

what is it you think should be destroyed in this blast? life?

I had the recent experience of going into the hospital after blacking out and hitting the floor from dehydration from fever (Mono), I went in, and was billed $2200 (Because my insurance at the time didn't cover it) to get an I.V. drip of Water, be improperly diagnosed with para influenza (The flu without the congestion sides of it), then two weeks later I went in to the Doctor I was still sick and told them I thought I had mono, swollen glands, etc, guess what, for $8 I found out I had Mono, which they said they could do nothing for.

WTF does this have to do with the god theory?

I've watched family members be blasted with radiation to try to eradicate cancer, and it seeming like a race to see which killed them faster, the Radiation or the Cancer.

It strikes me as funny, honestly, I predict, Medical practices that we're conducting today because of what we know, Right? In 30-40 years (and this has repeated throughout history) will be enough to get you sued for Mal practice.

A large amount of medical discoveries are simply that, discoveries, accidents, where we can hypothesize.

We finished mapping the Human Genome in 2003, and we are beginning to actually have ideas about DNA.

So, let's continue the discussion.

What I'd like is to see if we can get anymore traction on the single-cell to multi-cell conversation, if at all possible.

or We can continue the back and forth of "Why do you believe in God?" "Why don't you?".

[ick]

Here, perhaps this will get us back on track.

Proof. Yes. Any sentient logical well-thinking man should require it.

I was raised in a passive hands-off, well, what you probably would consider a “Christian” household. No real daily focus much beyond Sunday attendance. I realized in my early teen years that there was quite a difference between those that were “religious” and those that actually had a relationship with God. Being analytical in nature I challenged God and searched for answers. I found my personal answer of God’s existence. Now, so many years later, I have observed quite a bit of reinforcement and confirmation of that belief.

God wants us to seek proof of him, he welcomes the challenge.

First off, the Bible never ceases to amaze me. Its divine nature provides evidence upon evidence of the fact that it could not have been written by man. Men can’t even get a cogent story line in a 120 minute movie… let alone a consistent document written over the course of ±4,000 years written by ~40 different men many of which didn’t even speak the same language. So there is some evidence right there by the very document in the original languages that God has provided to us but, if that is not enough….

There something like 600+ different prophecies in the Bible…. some small, some very significant…. Including many relative to the life and crucifixion of Jesus Christ which can be verified through documented witnesses in the Bible and other sources. Man can’t predict accurately the weather this afternoon let alone get ONE prophecy right… yet God has provided us with a Book with a long history of verifiable information. So the chance of getting one prophecy right is what, one in a million? Getting two right… on in 14 trillion? Getting three right…. One in 500 E99… and so on. Here we find another bit of evidence that adds to the confirmation of the divine nature.

With a thorough study of the Bible it is clear that it contains all manner of sage advice, clear thinking principles… and shows the “process” man has gone through. Much of the Old Testament provides historicity of men that are both good and bad examples, some of which are men that are BOTH broken and redeemed. I can’t speak for you personally… but I know I am struck quite often about how the Bible and Biblical principles apply to my life and no, not just my spiritual life. That is something you can only discover on your own, not vicariously from another.

People that have not studied seem to love to cite “favorite” contradictions as “proof” of mistakes that God has made in the Bible… so if you want to discuss something specific have at it.

The broad over-reaching sense of the Bible is sound. It is striking to me to see how man has habit of wrenching it for his own purpose… Jewish false prophets since Genesis, bad Biblical kings and leaders through the Old Testament.. all the way to misguided empty hearted Pharisees and Sadducees as well as a myriad of compromising self-serving “victims of their own sin” over the past 2,000 years since Christ was with us… from the then new form of African slavery introduced in the colonial era to present day child abuse controversy. If that doesn’t illustrate clearly the inadequate nature of man…. even the most recent events of our political discourse reveals that if you put your trust in man: expect to be sorely disappointed.

In my personal experience I have observed the hand of God in a myriad of ways. What others might call “coincidence” or “luck” has simply been too frequent to just be the result of “chance”. Alas, a public forum doesn’t allow me to elaborate much on that. Even so this is something a person MUST experience for themselves. Any amount of description I can give will not adequately describe it. It is sort of like when you father a child of your own… it cannot adequately be described, true understanding only comes from experiencing that sort of thing first hand for yourself. You can see it happen for others, but that isn’t the same.

I have gone on in this post too long as it is, perhaps more later.

You are correct, seek proof. Nothing wrong with that.