Post Any Evidence For God Here

[john9blue]

What do you mean by "non-belief"?

That's non-existent. People will always believe in something... e.g. the belief that "god does not exist" or "the Abrahamic God is as equally believable as the FSM, Zeus, and Ra." These are still beliefs...

What are you hinting at/referring to with your reference about "non-beliefs" in relation to the video?

i'm making a point against people who think that atheism is simple and natural.

[rishaed]

[2dimes]

What do you mean by "non-belief"?

That's non-existent. People will always believe in something... e.g. the belief that "god does not exist" or "the Abrahamic God is as equally believable as the FSM, Zeus, and Ra." These are still beliefs...

What are you hinting at/referring to with your reference about "non-beliefs" in relation to the video?

i'm making a point against people who think that atheism is simple and natural.

I have to side with john9blue. If I were atheist I would hope my part in such a coversation would be, "I don't believe in God. Well, gotta go have protected sex with someone before ED sets in."

[Gillipig]

Johnny, watch the video before you comment on it. Also, if you watched it you wouldn't need to ask that question.

[crispybits]

The conversation between 4 atheists about atheism would be very quick. "Do any of us believe in God? No. Great lets go have lunch..."

The conversation between those 4 was about religion and how it operates, why scientific facts taken on "faith" by the majority of people when reputable science sources report them is a different thing to religious "faith", what they would like to think they could accomplish in the atheism vs theism debate (Hitchens actually admits he wouldn't like to see a world without religion because he'd have nobody left to argue with, the original atheist troll that he is ), how they see the debate progressing in the future, whether they believe in anything spiritual and the way that religion has taken a hold of the parts of the human experience that science cannot explain (as in just because it's numinous doesn't necessarily mean it's supernatural), the way religious faith is a self-reaffirming structure that often gets weaker the more hard evidence you attempt to provide, the list could go on and on as they touched on a great many things in 2 hours.

I found it interesting to listen to in the car this morning in the fact of how much they disagree amongst themselves. Obviously there is agreement on certain core issues, but the fuzzy bits around the edges sometimes surprised me with who was standing for which subtle differences in opinion. I never expected Sam Harris to admit to dualist leanings in his intuitive thinking and I certainly never expected Hitchens to not want religion eradicated, just for two examples.

[john9blue]

Johnny, watch the video before you comment on it. Also, if you watched it you wouldn't need to ask that question.

is "johnny" supposed to be derogatory lol? my family calls me that, because my dad is also named john. so i honestly don't care.

@crispy: i assumed that hitchens' comment was facetious... i'm sure he could have found other things to argue about. lol

[Gillipig]

Johnny, watch the video before you comment on it. Also, if you watched it you wouldn't need to ask that question.

is "johnny" supposed to be derogatory lol? my family calls me that, because my dad is also named john. so i honestly don't care.

@crispy: i assumed that hitchens' comment was facetious... i'm sure he could have found other things to argue about. lol

Yes, it's supposed to be a derogatory lol. I love to lol in a derogatory way. Do I get so much under your skin that you see insults in everything I say? I'm flattered.

About Hitch, he loves himself a good argument and he's sensible enough to know that eradicating his main antagonists would be somewhat of a conversation killer. So he'd like there to be at least some religious people left to argue with.

[rishaed]

no one? Really? The proof i have for god is the change the has wrought in my heart, and is observable over time in the things i practice, do and allow in my life. It is found in the fact that I am no longer who I was, nor desire to be. That I no longer desire to do evil to any man, neither desire that they should perish without knowing the saving power of Jesus Christ. The fact that I know that i am unique, created in the Image of God, and designed for a purpose is all the evidence I need.

You want evidence? The changed lives are proof, the fact that China cannot get rid of the Underground Church is proof. The fact that we are willing to suffer, and be persecuted to be wronged and turn and do good is proof. The reason that you hate us, because your deeds are evil is proof. The fact that not a single one of you who actually thinks through the garbage they try to shove down your throat in school, and is presented as a fact when even as a theory we cannot even be scientific is mind-boggling. And do you know why? You are searching for a way to avoid the righteous judgement of God. We are inherently selfish, cruel, and evil beings who are willing to lie, steal, and sometimes kill to do what is convenient for us. And if you say you've never lied or stolen, then you are lying right now.
"And this is love, that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us, and became the propitiation for our sins."

[PLAYER57832]

no one? Really? The proof i have for god is the change the has wrought in my heart, and is observable over time in the things i practice, do and allow in my life. It is found in the fact that I am no longer who I was, nor desire to be. That I no longer desire to do evil to any man, neither desire that they should perish without knowing the saving power of Jesus Christ. The fact that I know that i am unique, created in the Image of God, and designed for a purpose is all the evidence I need.

Are you saying this is proof of God or proof against evolution? It is a statement of your belief in God, but since no one else can see or feel what you so, it is not considered irrefutable proof by those who do not believe. I don't disagree with that part, but it is just not "proof", not to those who don't wish to believe.

However, the piece above seems to indicate you think evolution is itself an attack on Christianity. In fact, most scientists are believing Christians. Many are even fundamentalist (or Charismatic or Missionary, whatever term they wish to apply). Evolution just talks about a process, not why or whether God is behind it or not.

You want evidence? The changed lives are proof, the fact that China cannot get rid of the Underground Church is proof. The fact that we are willing to suffer, and be persecuted to be wronged and turn and do good is proof. The reason that you hate us, because your deeds are evil is proof.

hmmm... the lie is pretending that Evolution is an attack on Christianity. While some Christians (only some) don't agree with the theory, that hardly means it is an attack on the faith. Christ said "he who believes in ME shall be saved", not "he who rejects Evolution" will be saves... and, in fact, he did not address the topic of Creation except as fits fine within Evolutionary theory.

The fact that not a single one of you who actually thinks through the garbage they try to shove down your throat in school, and is presented as a fact when even as a theory we cannot even be scientific is mind-boggling.

You are welcome to challenge us on any point.

BUT, if you will claim truth, then SAY only truth. Claiming that anyone accepting the theory of evolution is, by nature accepting lies and denying Christ is hogwash. Christ does not support liars. No matter your claim to faith, if you must lie, then you are not Christian.

And do you know why? You are searching for a way to avoid the righteous judgement of God. We are inherently selfish, cruel, and evil beings who are willing to lie, steal, and sometimes kill to do what is convenient for us. And if you say you've never lied or stolen, then you are lying right now.
"And this is love, that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us, and became the propitiation for our sins."

hmm.. how about this.. you see the speck in another's eye, and yet ignore the log in your own.

To claim people you don't even know, in a thread you have quite obviously not read, based on your back-handed perception of what is being said. THAT is not Christ-like, claiming you do not in Christ's name is blasphemy.

[Woodruff]

no one? Really? The proof i have for god is the change the has wrought in my heart, and is observable over time in the things i practice, do and allow in my life. It is found in the fact that I am no longer who I was, nor desire to be. That I no longer desire to do evil to any man, neither desire that they should perish without knowing the saving power of Jesus Christ. The fact that I know that i am unique, created in the Image of God, and designed for a purpose is all the evidence I need.

You want evidence? The changed lives are proof, the fact that China cannot get rid of the Underground Church is proof. The fact that we are willing to suffer, and be persecuted to be wronged and turn and do good is proof. The reason that you hate us, because your deeds are evil is proof. The fact that not a single one of you who actually thinks through the garbage they try to shove down your throat in school, and is presented as a fact when even as a theory we cannot even be scientific is mind-boggling. And do you know why? You are searching for a way to avoid the righteous judgement of God. We are inherently selfish, cruel, and evil beings who are willing to lie, steal, and sometimes kill to do what is convenient for us. And if you say you've never lied or stolen, then you are lying right now.
"And this is love, that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us, and became the propitiation for our sins."

Scientology.

[crispybits]

no one? Really? The proof i have for god is the change the has wrought in my heart, and is observable over time in the things i practice, do and allow in my life. It is found in the fact that I am no longer who I was, nor desire to be. That I no longer desire to do evil to any man, neither desire that they should perish without knowing the saving power of Jesus Christ. The fact that I know that i am unique, created in the Image of God, and designed for a purpose is all the evidence I need.

You want evidence? The changed lives are proof, the fact that China cannot get rid of the Underground Church is proof. The fact that we are willing to suffer, and be persecuted to be wronged and turn and do good is proof. The reason that you hate us, because your deeds are evil is proof. The fact that not a single one of you who actually thinks through the garbage they try to shove down your throat in school, and is presented as a fact when even as a theory we cannot even be scientific is mind-boggling. And do you know why? You are searching for a way to avoid the righteous judgement of God. We are inherently selfish, cruel, and evil beings who are willing to lie, steal, and sometimes kill to do what is convenient for us. And if you say you've never lied or stolen, then you are lying right now.
"And this is love, that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us, and became the propitiation for our sins."

Yes, because posting a 38+ minute video with no comment or explanation and expecting people to watch it and comment on it in a thread that's now run over 200 pages is... ermm... effective? Oh wait no I mean the opposite - totally pointless - yep that's what I meant. I get so mixed up sometimes...

Once you're done with your combination of self-righteousness aggrandising and insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you maybe you can read a book about good forms of argument and how to put a case across and then come back with something more sensible...

PS gotta love Ray Comfort's style - show me evidence for something you say only happens over billions of years, and I want to see it happen in front of my eyes today! That's like saying "prove to me that you're ageing right now". Go on rishaed - show me before tomorrow conclusive proof that you're ageing and you didn't become ageless and immortal through a miracle of your faith the second you started reading this post. I will only accept evidence I can observe directly by the way, the same standard Ray Comfort is asking for on a process that happens millions of times slower than ageing...

[rishaed]

Sure Entropy- the law of thermodynamics that states that everything tends to disorder.
Well at which point is the highest point of disorder? Gases are the most disordered where the particles are free and have no structure, then liquids with solids being the most ordered. So if you had a Cosmos filled with just gas and dust (extremely small solid particles.) Why would they change on explosion (assuming said explosion is possible, but I'm not sure how you would start said explosion without outside said force/energy) to planets which are extremely complex, each in their perfect alignments and orbits at the perfect distances. It is said that if the moon were closer that tidal waves would be destructive. Or that if our planet were closer to the sun it would become too hot and kill plant life or that if it was further away that we would not receive enough heat (energy) for sustainability? But I digress. How then do planets which are LARGE SOLID objects, remember (solids are more ordered than gases) come out of an explosion and defy the law of entropy.
The fact that in Chemistry if you have an equation you must energy is either required or lost, and if it is required to start the process then you must indeed have an outside force ie. a match to burn paper for instance, to take the form out of its natural state. And what do I get at most if i burn wood? Ash or coals at best. Otherwise known as SMALLER solid and gas particles.
The fact that DNA is so complex that if a single strand is wrong (or even a pairing), it causes diseases/altercations if the person or animal even lives. The fact that DNA does not GAIN information only loses, i read in a well know science magazine that the someone found that the absence of mRNA (microRNA) is a leading factor in cancer. The fact that to be even probable some scientists evolution would require BILLIONS of years. Now if I did my calculus correctly if I took the limit of that probability (which is 1 over some huge number in its billions) I am approaching ZERO?

[crispybits]

maybe you can read a book about good forms of argument and how to put a case across and then come back with something more sensible...

What does any of what you just wrote have to do with proving that you're ageing?

Oh right I get it, you come in and post a near 40 minute video with no comment about why you think it's relevant or what it's most salient points are, and people should respond to you or you'll have a hissy fit, but when someone does respond with a criticism of the video you'll ignore it and just post a bunch of badly thought out psuedo-scientific nonsense that, if you'd bothered to check (maybe a forum search for "entropy" or "thermodynamics" limited to this thread, hardly difficult) you would have seen that that "argument" has been debunked and shown to be meaningless at least 2-3 times now...

[universalchiro]

WOW! AWESOME VIDEO. There is a reason the atheist have not responded, A. They didn't watch it. Or B. They are embarrassed, or C. They are processing the information.
Thank you for sharing this. I can't wait to share with others.

[Frigidus]

WOW! AWESOME VIDEO. There is a reason the atheist have not responded, A. They didn't watch it. Or B. They are embarrassed, or C. They are processing the information.
Thank you for sharing this. I can't wait to share with others.

It's A. I don't want to spend an hour watching the video and then another hour responding to everything I think was wrong in it. If you feel the arguments in the video are strong then summarize them in your own words so that I can get the gist of it in under five minutes. Anything else is just an attempt to win an argument by attrition.

[crispybits]

If only UC hadn't got me on ignore he'd know that an atheist HAD responded to it. Ah well it's not like I don't expect religious nuts to just filter out anything that could possibly prove too difficult for them to argue against...

[Woodruff]

WOW! AWESOME VIDEO. There is a reason the atheist have not responded, A. They didn't watch it. Or B. They are embarrassed, or C. They are processing the information.
Thank you for sharing this. I can't wait to share with others.

Except atheists have responded, so (as usual), your primary thesis statement is inaccurate.

[universalchiro]

I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/my ... .html?vp=1


When angels appear & perform the miraculous, they must of evolved to do so... right? Evolution is hokem.

The scientific method alone, is the best tool to debunk evolution. How? Scientific method says that a hypothesis must be observable & repeatably testable... Ask any evolutionist to list ONE observable, testable evidence of Macro-Evolution where there is a change of Kind. (all dogs are a kind, all cats are a kind, etc). What the top leaders of the faith based movement will tell you is the Darwinian Finches. That there beaks changed. When you clarify to them that that is not a evolutionary process, that that is adaptation or specialization. Then they'll say well there is proof of bacteria evolving to a different kind... Then ask them what did the bacteria evolve to? They'll say bacteria. So the best evidence of observable testable evolution is bacteria becoming.... BACTERIA.... This is laughable science.

There is no evidence today, nor yesterday of observable macro-evolution. All the so-called billions of years needed to observe there evidence is purely faith based...

[AndyDufresne]

There is no evidence today, nor yesterday of observable macro-evolution. All the so-called billions of years needed to observe there evidence is purely faith based...

I had forgotten about universalchiro.





--Andy

[Frigidus]

I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/my ... .html?vp=1


When angels appear & perform the miraculous, they must of evolved to do so... right? Evolution is hokem.

The scientific method alone, is the best tool to debunk evolution. How? Scientific method says that a hypothesis must be observable & repeatably testable... Ask any evolutionist to list ONE observable, testable evidence of Macro-Evolution where there is a change of Kind. (all dogs are a kind, all cats are a kind, etc). What the top leaders of the faith based movement will tell you is the Darwinian Finches. That there beaks changed. When you clarify to them that that is not a evolutionary process, that that is adaptation or specialization. Then they'll say well there is proof of bacteria evolving to a different kind... Then ask them what did the bacteria evolve to? They'll say bacteria. So the best evidence of observable testable evolution is bacteria becoming.... BACTERIA.... This is laughable science.

There is no evidence today, nor yesterday of observable macro-evolution. All the so-called billions of years needed to observe there evidence is purely faith based...

Are you saying you want a dog to give birth to a cat or something? That isn't how evolution works. The truth is that you've gone out of your way to set up criteria that is impossible to meet, and even if we were so extraordinarily lucky to find a perfect, unbroken fossil chain from dinosaur to bird or something along those lines you would move the goalposts again or call it a hoax or change the subject.

How about this. Define the word "kind" and we'll talk about the scientific validity of the term.

[universalchiro]

I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

Note to Christians: ya'll face a dilemma when you say you believe in Evolution as the means for which God created everything. Why? Jesus, the Son of God, God in the flesh, for which the crux of the matters lies with, quoted genesis 1 & 2 when referring to the original Adam & Eve. So if the Christ believes in a literal Genesis account, then you are faced with a real problem: Either Jesus didn't know that Genesis had errors, Then He could be God in the Flesh. Then how do we explain Jesus knows all things or Jesus did know that Genesis had errors & covered them up, then Jesus was the Devil. but then how do we explain that He died sacrificially for us & rose from the grave 3 days later. The only option for believers is that Jesus quoted Genesis 1 & 2 because He authenticates that the scriptures of God the Father are Holy, perfect & without error.

Since how someone responds to the Word of God determines Heaven or Hell, to join the side of undermining the scriptures and say they are filled with error, merely written by mankind & just a good book, then you are missing the point of the scriptures. For all the writers of the Bible authenticate that it's the Word of God and God can't lie. And Jesus Himself authenticated a literal Genesis account of creation.

Exodus 20 & Exodus 31 both clearly say, by God Himself that He created everything in 6 days. Written in stone twice with the 10 commandments for Moses.

So be careful siding with atheist that Evolution is the truth. For they are saying God is a liar. And if you join them, you too are calling God a liar.

[PLAYER57832]

Sure Entropy- the law of thermodynamics that states that everything tends to disorder.

You forgot the most important part.. "in a closed system". Input energy and that changes. There are other more advanced refutations, but I leave that to others. I seem to remember Neoteny offering a pretty full explanation on this in the past.

Well at which point is the highest point of disorder? Gases are the most disordered where the particles are free and have no structure, then liquids with solids being the most ordered. So if you had a Cosmos filled with just gas and dust (extremely small solid particles.) Why would they change on explosion (assuming said explosion is possible, but I'm not sure how you would start said explosion without outside said force/energy) to planets which are extremely complex, each in their perfect alignments and orbits at the perfect distances.

OK, a couple of problems with the above. First, the "cosmos" is filled with a good deal more than just dust and gas. Second, if you are referring to the Big Bang, then you just have the theory wrong, and yes -- it IS a theory, not stated to be fact, though some scientific pretenders and even a few over-eager scientists might give the impression it is fact. The idea is that it was a large mass that exploded, not a bunch of tiny particles that came together.

Per the orbits -- that is a factor of physics. objects of a certain size coming within specific ranges of stars will form orbits and become planets. Again, there are many here who can give you as much detail as you wish.

BUT, the biggest question is what does that have to do with either God OR the theory of Evolution?

It is said that if the moon were closer that tidal waves would be destructive. Or that if our planet were closer to the sun it would become too hot and kill plant life or that if it was further away that we would not receive enough heat (energy) for sustainability? But I digress. How then do planets which are LARGE SOLID objects, remember (solids are more ordered than gases) come out of an explosion and defy the law of entropy.

You utterly distort the "law of entropy". Also, you ignore plain physics, which offers a pretty direct and rather simple explanation. The mere fact of an explosion is itself a "defiance" of the "law of entropy" -- even fourth of July fireworks, if your understanding were correct. It is not the law that is wrong, but the way you are attempting to understand and apply it that is incorrect.

The fact that in Chemistry if you have an equation you must energy is either required or lost, and if it is required to start the process then you must indeed have an outside force ie. a match to burn paper for instance, to take the form out of its natural state. And what do I get at most if i burn wood? Ash or coals at best. Otherwise known as SMALLER solid and gas particles.

Except, we have around us factories that take those small particles, put them to fire and create the parts that make cars, all kinds of machinery run. A builder can take some wood and nails and BUILD. Again, if your ideas were correct, then none of that would occur.

The fact that DNA is so complex that if a single strand is wrong (or even a pairing), it causes diseases/altercations if the person or animal even lives. The fact that DNA does not GAIN information only loses, i read in a well know science magazine that the someone found that the absence of mRNA (microRNA) is a leading factor in cancer. The fact that to be even probable some scientists evolution would require BILLIONS of years. Now if I did my calculus correctly if I took the limit of that probability (which is 1 over some huge number in its billions) I am approaching ZERO?

I have no idea where this idea that "DNA only losees information" got started, but it is just incorrect. Think of this.. a dictionary, nay the dictionaries of every language on Earth that uses our style of letters is formed from a mere 30 or so characters (yes, I did go beyond the English 26, to account for a couple of letters used in other languages). The DNA protein chain has the potential for far more combinations than that.

ALSO, probabilities mean nothing when faced with reality. Sometimes extremely improbable events actually happen. In statistics, this would be the "tails" of the curve. In biology, it is sometimes not the "norm" or the top of the curve that is significant, in some conditions it is those tails.

AND... none of this really shows why you are so convinced evolution is wrong. You have yet to address anything real, except some distorted references to DNA.

[Woodruff]

I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

Note to Christians: ya'll face a dilemma

Christians have a greater dilemma than that. Their primary dilemma is explaining how a matter of faith can be proven, which appears to be something which you believe you can do but haven't yet bothered to really attempt.

In fact, your efforts in this thread have really come down to trying to debunk evolution, as if that somehow proves that God exists.

Well...when you're not simply outright ignoring the rational responses that you've gotten. I guess having to think is painful or something.

[PLAYER57832]

I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

Note to Christians: ya'll face a dilemma when you say you believe in Evolution as the means for which God created everything.

you can try...

Why? Jesus, the Son of God, God in the flesh, for which the crux of the matters lies with, quoted genesis 1 & 2 when referring to the original Adam & Eve.

No dice. You will have to give details on what you think this actually means, because the Bible really doesn't dispute evolution.

So if the Christ believes in a literal Genesis account, then you are faced with a real problem: Either Jesus didn't know that Genesis had errors, Then He could be God in the Flesh.

Nope, its just that some modern individuals have found it pretty convenient to heavily distort what the literal Bible actually says and means.

For example, Genesis refers to 7 "days", but it does not say 7 revolutions of the Earth. The Earth did not even exist. Pretending that God had to adhere to our time frame is ludicrous. There are other issues, but the truth is that most of what you and your ilk claim (largely based on what Dr Morris asserted, beginning about 50 years ago, though he did not gain prominence until decades later) utterly disagrees with what Biblical scholars and scholars of the Torah each have asserted for generations.

Your assertions are like those in the Middle Ages who insisted that the Sun "must" revolve around the Earth because God put us on Earth and therefore we have to be the center of all! A nice, plausible thought.. up until the data shows it to be wrong.

Then how do we explain Jesus knows all things or Jesus did know that Genesis had errors & covered them up, then Jesus was the Devil. but then how do we explain that He died sacrificially for us & rose from the grave 3 days later. The only option for believers is that Jesus quoted Genesis 1 & 2 because He authenticates that the scriptures of God the Father are Holy, perfect & without error.

No, its just your understanding that is in question, not Jesus'

Since how someone responds to the Word of God determines Heaven or Hell, to join the side of undermining the scriptures and say they are filled with error, merely written by mankind & just a good book, then you are missing the point of the scriptures. For all the writers of the Bible authenticate that it's the Word of God and God can't lie. And Jesus Himself authenticated a literal Genesis account of creation.

I don't believe the scripture is "filled with error", though, of course many others do say so.

Exodus 20 & Exodus 31 both clearly say, by God Himself that He created everything in 6 days. Written in stone twice with the 10 commandments for Moses.

Let's see, when someone says they see "millions" or, more recently, "billions" , eve "billions and billions" of grains of sand on the beach, it is understood to mean " a very huge number, too many to count", NOT an exact, counted "million" or "billion". In Biblical times, they used the term "thousands" much the same way. The term "7 days" and "three days". often repeated in the Bible, have similar meanings.

So be careful siding with atheist that Evolution is the truth. For they are saying God is a liar. And if you join them, you too are calling God a liar.

Hmm... well, see, except its funny trying to call people "liars" when you cannot even be bothered to get your facts straight about what others are actually saying.. never mind the background of what you are saying.

I, sadly, accept that you do believe what you say... unfortunately, it just has nothing to do with real debates over evolution and has little to do with any truth, Biblical or scientific.

[crispybits]

Frigidus might be worth repeating this question to UC as he has me on ignore (poor little baby,, I hurt his feelings, awww) - regardless of his inability to hold his own I'd quiite like to see how he'd deal with this proof that ageing is faith based and not demonstrable reality....

Show me before tomorrow conclusive proof that you're ageing and you didn't become ageless and immortal through a miracle of your faith the second you started reading this post. I will only accept evidence I can observe directly by the way, the same standard you are asking for on a process that happens millions of times slower than ageing...