What’s your proof that your God exists?

[moobu2]

Go ahead, make your case and convince us.

[Warpy]

1. Theists just know there is a god

Atheists have never seen any evidence of it.

And never the twain shall meet.

It's hard wired.

[paulsby]

6. you don't have to KNOW a god exists to be a theist

being a theist means you have faithit (and it doesn't require unquestioned faith) that there is a god(s). it doesn't follow that one has to KNOW god exists to be a theist.

people have written entire theses on this very point

[Warpy]

24. What part of "haven't seen any evidence" didn't you get?

That isn't faith, it's a lack of faith. That's not a belief, it's lack of belief.

Atheists have faith like not playing soccer is a sport.

[paulsby]

26. i wasn't referring to atheists at all

what the hell are you talking about?

fwiw, strong atheists are distinguishable from weak ones.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

54. Then that would make you an agnostic theist

You have no direct knowledge of god, but have faith that he might exist.

[Beartracks]

136. Published as a collected volume...

... called "These Theist Theses" and a companion reference, "The Theist Theses Thesaurus".

:silly:

[JerseygirlCT]

69. Concisely put, Warpy

Although I'm not sure about never meeting - certainly people have been pretty passionately of one or the other camp and have changed their minds.

But yes. I don't feel any compulsion to "prove" something I simply know to be so, and always have.

Then again, I also don't feel any compulsion to persuade someone who doesn't share my conviction that they're wrong.

[stopbush]

90. Two words that Xians need to retire ASAP are "just" and "know,"

especially when used in combination...as in, "I just know."

"I believe" or "I think" are fine. Knowing is something again.

And "just?" Crickey! They use that fucking word in every other sentence!

[benld74]

2. r u saying one doesn't?

[bkkyosemite]

3. Everyone has their own perception of whether or not God exists and they have a right to their views

just so they don't force their views on someone else. I just had this discussion with my republican right wing religious nut of a brother and sister in law.

[GirlAfire]

167. That Sums It Up

/thread
Thank you.

Seriously, why should one have to defend his/her faith to anyone else? I believe in God. I don't feel compelled to defend that to other people. If you believe, fine. If you don't, fine. I mean you no disrespect, but I'm not sure why one would need to defend their faith to you or anyone else. As long as that faith does not intrude on anyone's rights, and as long as that faith does not dictate that it is shoved down the throats of disbelievers, I'm not really sure what the problem is.

[Nihil]

168. Would that more people had the attitude shared by you and bkkyosemite.

> If you believe, fine. If you don't, fine.

BTW, welcome to DU! :hi:

[GirlAfire]

169. I love it here!

Thanks for understanding what I was saying! I also wish more people weren't convinced that their religion is superior to others' religion or non-religion, and vice-versa.

And, also, thanks for ze welcome. I love it here!

[Amerigo Vespucci]

4. I don't need to convince anyone, and I don't care who believes

It's my choice, and I could give a flying fuck if anyone agrees with me.

Sorry to shatter another myth about "believers," but I really, really, really don;t care about what anyone else believes...but I do respect their ability to have those beliefs.

Sorry I couldn't go all crazy and fundie on you, because it seems that's what you were soliciting.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

5. "... us"?

Count me out on this one, my friend.

People are free to believe whatever they want to believe, without having to satisfy anyone else's curiosity or requirements.

I'd rather know why you posted this..................

[bitchkitty]

7. If God = love and I feel love, then I am God.

I exist, therefore so does God.

It doesn't matter what anyone believes really. Most religions are an attempt to keep people in line with the promise of a greater reward after they spend a lifetime slogging along, chasing money or whatever dream.

[armyowalgreens]

81. I don't understand why people take such liberal definitions of words...

There is a definition for God.

[pscot]

8. The late John Templeton

billionaire stock jobber, had a standing offer of a $1,000,000 prize for anyone who could prove the existence of god. He was a devout, but pparently nervous, christian. I don't think anyone ever claimed the prize.

[Critters2]

9. Why should I try to convince you, or anyone? nt

[Evoman]

78. Why not?

In a discussion thread about proving god's existence, there doesn't seem like there is much else to do. I mean, don't do it in your real life if you don't want, but you might as well do it if someone asks you to.

Or you could not participate in the thread. It's hard, but people have avoided posting in thread which don't interest them or ask them to do something they aren't comfortable with.

[tinrobot]

132. I'm fascinated with atheists who insist others prove the existence of god.

Might as well ask a Mets fan to prove why the Yankees are so great.

[martymar64]

165. Theists state that a god exists, the burden of proof is upon them to back up their assertion

The Yankees are an great team based on empirical evidence. They win a shitload of games and frequently are in the World Series. Even a Mets fan could recognize that. They may not like that fact, but it is a fact.

[ComposMentis]

139. Why not? Because it just stirs up the haters

Go ahead, but there's already enough hate in the world - why do you have to keep poking at believers?

[Xipe Totec]

10. Gödel's incompleteness theorems

Not only does She exist, She has a sense of humor.

[onehandle]

11. Prove there is no God.

You can't. Nobody can prove either.

However, DU is highly adept at proving it's intolerance.

[ZombieHorde]

40. I know what you mean, just check out any cat killer thread and you will see lots of intolerance. nt

[Deep13]

146. So why would anyone believe it then?

And the simple fact is, science has proved there is no god. One can often prove a negative. We've looked everywhere evidence of god should be and have either found nothing or counter-indications. There are a number of books out that explain this far better than I can. Granted you can always rely on the fallacy of equivocation to define "god" as something other than what that word has always meant.

As far as intolerance goes, I have no duty to accept that religious beliefs are reasonable or supported by the evidence. See my previous thread on that subject.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=196408#196412

[54anickel]

166. Brings forth an interesting question...What has that word "god" always meant?

[PVnRT]

181. Asking for evidence of God is intolerant?

I don't think you know what "intolerant" means. Nor logic, since you can't prove a negative. That would be like asking a defendant to prove they did not commit the crime.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Is that a dare?

[texastoast]

13. ...

[Tace]

14. Logic

I think the best case for the existence of a creator is one of the key arguments to support the theory of evolution: that life doesn't come from nowhere. Scientists have found that the universe we know is 12 billion-18 billion years old, which seems brief in the context of infinite time, also brief for an intelligent species like man, or any lifeform really, to occur randomly.

Proof? To me the conversation boils down to semantics: What do we mean by the word "God?"; and epistemology: How do we know what we know? One of the riddles of epistemology is: How can I be sure that I exist?, and it explores the subtle, but profound, difference between an object and our "sense data," or perceptions, about the object.

I share the Hermetic belief that the universe is a giant, intelligent mind, and we're part of it.

You asked. : )

[immoderate]

177. Darwin's theory is "The Origin of Species by Natural Selection"

It is not the origin of species by random occurrence. I think you need to read up on evolution. You don't understand it.

--imm

[moobu2]

15. Still waiting……

[Xipe Totec]

16. So am I, since you did not reply to #10

You sound like the halting problem.

[SidneyCarton]

18. Then come over to my thread and prove the contrary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=214735&mesg_id=214735

[moobu2]

20. Tell us what your proof is that your god exists first

If your evidence raises to the level of the required definition of “proof” then I will come over and resend to it.

[SidneyCarton]

21. I don't have any, and neither do you, so let's end this charade.

[rd_kent]

91. What charade?

One who asserts that something "is" has the burden of proof. The only charade is the one you are playing.

[rd_kent]

79. Youre thread is disingenous and lame

You seem to rail against "the tired argument that the one making the claim has the responsibility of proving that claim." Well, yes, thats how it works. Try taking that (lack of) logic into a real debate or a courtroom and watch how fast you are tossed out on your ass. Those on the non-believer side are making NO CLAIM AT ALL (as most atheist will say "I dont believe in a god because no evidence exists to prove a god exists"). Why are you being so obtuse about this?

[laconicsax]

22. You only waited 20 minutes before posting this comment.

Were you really expecting theists to jump on this thread with whatever anecdote they call evidence within 20 minutes on a weekday?

[Xipe Totec]

30. Next time, don't ask for a proof, if you don't know what one looks like

If you don't understand Gödel's incompleteness theorems, you don't understand proofs and have no business asking for them.

[Uncle Joe]

17. Evolution is proof.

There is an unrelenting, undeniable, single minded goal; behind evolution survival of life; any life, that in turn implies purpose.

Purpose implies intention or design and that doesn't come by accident.

Thanks for the thread, moobu.

[edhopper]

32. Read Dawkins'

"The Blind Watchmaker" before you go further with this line of thought.
Your tautology is unsubstantiated.

[Uncle Joe]

53. Dawkins seems to fall in to the same egotistical trap as the creationists,

although he argues against a creator, his argument is based on either a human-centric version or one driven toward higher complexity.

I believe this is a quote of his from a excerpt.

" ...however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead." and yet after billions of years life strives on certainly here and probably throughout the universe, it might be like some musician dude once said, "It's not the notes which make the music but the space between the notes," or something to that affect.

While a "Blind Watchmaker" may have not any motivation or realistic capability to build a watch, a blind pianist can create wonders.

Full disclosure, I haven't read his entire book yet just excerpts on Bookrag and such, but thanks for the reference, I will check it out.

[Taitertots]

62. You don't see anything wrong with claiming to know something about Dawkin's work

When you admit you haven't read the book.

"While a "Blind Watchmaker" may have not any motivation or realistic capability to build a watch, a blind pianist can create wonders." This leads me to believe that you have no idea what the book is about.

[Uncle Joe]

64. Just from the excerpts as I stated.

The Blind Watchmaker was his response to a pre-Darwinian book The Watchmaker; wherein the author claims there is a creator because the complexity of life leaves no other alternative, Dawkins refutes that by proposing that complexity; of life within the time constraints of the age of the universe can only come about by natural Evolutionary means without a creator.

That's what I took from the excerpts.

My contention is that complexity doesn't need to be a goal of a creator; if there is one.

[Taitertots]

65. OK, please read the book

Here is my opinion from when I read it. Sorry Dawkins for butchering your ideas.


The complexity and appearance of purpose are not goals. They are simply the result of genetic evolution.

Dawkins refutes the idea of complexity requiring a creator by showing that the complexity of life can be explained by genetic evolution.

[onager]

105. But if an omnipotent god really existed, there wouldn't be any blind pianists

n/t

[Uncle Joe]

124. Why do you believe that? n/t

[Deep13]

148. He would not have fucked-up by making him or her blind. nt

[Uncle Joe]

150. 1. That may not have been a mistake but a necessity to reach the required result.

2. Even if the universe has an underlying intelligence, it may not play in to every determination, no more than you play in to every determination of the cells in your body.

[Deep13]

147. That's nonsense. There is nothing egotistical about his argument.

In fact you are accusing him of what religious apologists are guilty of--assuming the universe and its creator are here for our benefit and that said creator cares about us.

[Uncle Joe]

151. To the contrary I don't view us a pinnacle or proof of a creator or denial of such.

I view the system as intelligent because of it's randomness.

If Dawkin's computer program shows that randomness would more likely increase complexity, instead of a deliberate goal or attempt at trying to achieve complexity why would he assume what we view as randomness couldn't be pre-programmed in to a system to achieve such a goal. To use that as a reason to absolutely discount the possibility of universal intelligence is the ego I speak of.

[Odin2005]

56. Wrong, Evolution has no goal. Purpose only exists in the minds of sapient entities

Evolution is the result of Natural Selection, a blind, goalles, purposeless interaction between survival and genetics. The notion that Evolution has a goal is one of the first misconceptions dispelled in an college biology class.

[Uncle Joe]

57. I would view survival as a goal, no matter how primitive.

The purpose of the living is to live.

[Odin2005]

58. Only sentient individuals with minds can have goals.

[Uncle Joe]

59. Would your definition of sentient individuals include dogs, chimpanzees, dolphins

and elephants?

I remember a time when sentient human beings said those species didn't have feelings; because they weren't observed as exhibiting behavioral traits we construe with emotion. I remember when they said humans were separate because no other animal could A. Use tools or B. Communicate by language, I believe science has since retracted it's position regarding those beliefs.

The point I'm trying to make is that as "sentient" beings we're extremely limited in making our judgments regarding "non-sentient" life forms without prejudice. We may not be capable of determining what a tree wants or thinks more because of our own limitations; than those of the tree.

I'm convinced that all life desires; in one way or another to live whether we can measure that or not.

[Odin2005]

60. Yes. Sentience is not a yes-no dichotomy.

I would put some fish, amphibians, reptiles, and the social insects as the creatures with the simplest nervous systems that could be said to have some sentience, and thus have internal mental states outside of instinct. All organisms have objective needs and adaptations to fulfill those needs, but only organisms with nervous systems complex enough to have MINDS, internal SUBJECTIVE mental states, can have goals and make purposeful actions. IMO the distinction between a non-sentient nervous system (like that of a worm) and a simple sentient nervous system (like a turtle, or a bee) is that of a simple calculator (which is what the first computers were) and today's AIs. The difference is that only in the latter do you have an intermediate step between stimulus and response, perception and cognition, that regulates the response.

[Uncle Joe]

63. Maybe someone should try a Pavlov's Dog experiment on a tree,

ring a bell every time before it's watered to see if there is biological reaction to the sound of the bell?

[Uncle Joe]

71. Of course they can't hear but I imagine trees and plants are sensitive to light and temperature.

So that could be used as a trigger. I felt the need to add this to my Pavlov's Dog post above.

[piratefish08]

72. exactly - we are not moving toward any type of evolution endgame.

in fact, in many cases a species will "devolve" or become a simpler organism if that is more suited to their current environment.

evolution is nothing more than millions of genetic mutations occurring by accident, a few of which prove valuable and get passed on.........

[Uncle Joe]

75. That could still be purpose. n/t

[armyowalgreens]

82. So you believe in intelligent design?

Seriously?

[Uncle Joe]

88. Yes, seriously. Life; no matter how primitive signifies will, will signifies purpose,

purpose signifies intent and intent signifies intelligence.

However my idea of intelligent design doesn't necessarily mean a human centric version, we may be just another link in the long multi-chain of universal evolutionary development.

I believe the system is intelligent whether the individual surviving species increase in complexity or not, although I would wager more often than not there is an increase in complexity; but I divorce that dynamic as being necessary to imply intelligence behind the workings of the universe.

The mere fact of life; surviving based on error and mistake seems like a brilliant plan as it could adapt to most any contingency.

[armyowalgreens]

94. A. Stop making up definitions for words...

You can't just take "intelligent design" and make it your own fucking word. It has an already established definition.

It's the same thing when people call God love. How the hell does that make any sense?


B. Evolution implies that there is no intelligent designer. Evolution means that things become more complex. Which means that they were less complex at the beginning. Which proves your entire theory false.



You believe in the existence of God. Let's not try to make it out to be something different. It is not a scientific stance.

[Uncle Joe]

95. No evolution implies that life proceeds, changes, thrives and progresses based on errors and mistake

in the reproduction process. That in my book is an intelligent design whether it fits the standard traditional humanistic definition/model or not.

Life; doesn't just move forward to more complexity, sometimes it retreats to more base models under extreme environmental or catastrophic conditions, as during the great extinctions.

That great flexibility of being able to move both forward and backward in order for life; any life to survive is an ingenious system whether you wish to recognize it or not.

[armyowalgreens]

205. You don't know what "intelligent design" means. That is very clear here.

Which kind of makes it absurd to debate with you since you don't even understand basic definitions.

[Uncle Joe]

208. I believe, should you check out the dictionary, you will find.

A. Most all words or phrases have different definitions.

B. Language evolves as do ideas and concepts.

You asked me if I believed in intelligent design and I answered to the affirmative, but my belief of intelligent design is different than the standard model if you can't debate my ideas or beliefs on those terms, you will be frustrated, but I wish you well.

[Deep13]

145. Darwinism excludes purpose.

1. random changes (note random = no purpose)

2. selection based on environmental conditions (no divine intervention is necessary)

What ID proponents fail to realize is that for every living success, there is a mountain of failures that we do not see.

[Uncle Joe]

152. In regards to evolution, I view the system of randomness as intelligent.

Yes, there are mountains of failures for every living success but if there weren't randomness there would be even more failures with the very real probability of no life.

I view life's striving to live as purpose and randomness insures the continuation of that purpose.

[immoderate]

178. So what is the purpose of life?

--imm

[Uncle Joe]

182. To survive and evolve. n/t

[immoderate]

187. That's a process, not a purpose.

--imm

[Uncle Joe]

189. I believe the process is purpose.

--UJ

[immoderate]

192. I believe the vessel with the pestle...

The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle;

The chalice from the palace has the brew that is true!

--imm

[Uncle Joe]

196. The ironic thing about the real Court Jesters, is that they were the only ones

that dared speak the truth to the royalty so long as they couched it in humor, everyone else was too whipped.

[darkstar3]

194. As the journey is more important than the destination. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

197. That's what they say, but furthermore a journey is evidence of a destination. n/t

[darkstar3]

198. A Buddhist would disagree with you,

and so do I.

[Uncle Joe]

199. I partially agree with the Buddhist circular concept of reality but the circles continue to multiply

and that can only be circular to a point; at least, I believe in regards to this universe.

When I speak of destination, it would be outside of known reality, that's not to say there wouldn't another universe of circles and just because you've reached your destination doesn't mean another journey can't begin.

[immoderate]

179. What nonsense!

Survival implies purpose? What is the purpose? How will things be different if this purpose is fulfilled?

--imm

[Uncle Joe]

183. I don't know how things will be different.

Did you question how things would be different as a fetus in your mother's womb? Maybe you never did and maybe you did and don't remember such thoughts now.

[immoderate]

188. I was busy with sudoku...

:)

--imm

[Uncle Joe]

190. That was a wise way to pass your time, I read sudoku can hinder the progression of Alzheimer's

and it's never too early to start preventative measures.

:)

--UJ

[moobu2]

19. Ok, since this is such a tough question, just tell us where your God lives then

[laconicsax]

25. Wait at least a few hours before changing the question.

[moobu2]

27. The original question is still there.

I was just attempting to be a little specific but any proof will do really as long as it meets the definition of the word.

[laconicsax]

28. Good luck.

For some people, an aesthetically pleasing sunset is proof of God's existence. When you're that far gone, words cease to have meaning.

[RandomThoughts]

23. In another thread this picture was posted. In my view, I think this picture says alot.

[onager]

106. It was stolen from a Fundie billboard campaign and is just dumb.

And AGAIN, couldn't an omnipotent, omniscient being go anywhere it wanted?

Another one from the same Fundie billboard campaign said: "Tell the kids about me."

You're supposed to be omnipotent. Tell 'em your damn self.

[stray cat]

29. No proof for or against as far a I can see. So you have an equal burden of proof that he doesn't

but most posters on DU couldn't prove air existed either. Not much scientific method or critical thought by DUers. We need more physics and science and critical method in our education system along with basic civics.

[ironbark]

31. Have none, expect none, want none

a proven god eliminates your/my opportunity/free will to choose.

The absence of proof does not mean or imply the absence of evidence nor the experiential/logical capacity to calculate the probability of there being a god.

[edhopper]

33. If God is willing to prevent evil,

but is not able to
Then he is not omnipotent.



If he is able, but not willing

Then he is malevolent.



If he is both able and willing

Then whence cometh evil?



If he is neither able nor willing

Then why call him God?

Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)

[Sal316]

34. Epicurius was a simpleton.

Looking at the world in black and white assuming that humans have no responsibility for their actions.

It's like asking God to clean up our mess without taking away our ability to make a mess in the first place.

[moobu2]

36. Or either god doesn’t exist

Which would account for there being no proof of it's existence.

[Sal316]

37. Or option c....

...that we were created to have free will, to freely choose to love, to hate, to comfort, to destroy.... all with the responsibility and consequences that comes with the choices we make.

Epicurius' view was one where all the blame and responsibility goes elsewhere when mankind hoses things up.

[ZombieHorde]

44. Evil things don't necessarily have to come from people.

People did not create malaria.

People did not create cancer.

People did not design animals which can only support themselves by killing and eating other animals.

People did not choose to make themselves dependent upon food to survive and then cause droughts. Even if we could feed everyone today, we could not for most of known human history.

[ironbark]

46. Oh pleeeeeeeeease guys, grow up and grow an argument!

You want a world with no malaria, cancer or carnivores….from the very beginning or god remove these evils now…either way…what next?

Cos if you grew up in a world without those you’d still be complaining about the suffering induced by the evils of chronic hay fever, splinters, pubic lice, hangovers, hang nails, hemriods, period pain, teenagers, modern art, sand in your bathers, tinea, mumps, warm beer and cold women.

The list of freaking painful, troublesome, crappy things to endure is endless…..so too is the human capacity to do so. Nothing that has been put in our way has stopped us yet…not even Bubonic Plague…we just had to tidy up our act.

Get on with it ...a high school student in the US has already come up with a solar powered device that zaps mosquito lave in the water (and hurts nothing else)….has the potential to kick the shit out of malaria.

He did this as a school science project.

I’m working on vegetarian lions and sharks.

What are you doing?

[ZombieHorde]

66. No need to make it personal.

"Cos if you grew up in a world without those you’d still be complaining about the suffering induced by the evils of chronic hay fever, splinters, pubic lice, hangovers, hang nails, hemriods, period pain, teenagers, modern art, sand in your bathers, tinea, mumps, warm beer and cold women."

I don't think most of those things compare to malaria.

* Forty-one percent of the world's population live in areas where malaria is transmitted (e.g., parts of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America, Hispaniola, and Oceania).
* Each year 350–500 million cases of malaria occur worldwide, and over one million people die, most of them young children in sub-Saharan Africa.
* In areas of Africa with high malaria transmission, an estimated 990,000 people died of malaria in 1995 – over 2700 deaths per day, or 2 deaths per minute.
* In 2002, malaria was the fourth cause of death in children in developing countries, after perinatal conditions (conditions occurring around the time of birth), lower respiratory infections (pneumonias), and diarrheal diseases. Malaria caused 10.7% of all children's deaths in developing countries.
* In Malawi in 2001, malaria accounted for 22% of all hospital admissions, 26% of all outpatient visits, and 28% of all hospital deaths. Not all people go to hospitals when sick or having a baby, and many die at home. Thus the true numbers of death and disease caused by malaria are likely much higher.

http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/facts.htm

"Get on with it ...a high school student in the US has already come up with a solar powered device that zaps mosquito lave in the water (and hurts nothing else)….has the potential to kick the shit out of malaria."

That just means this high school student is better than most people's version of god and therefor more worthy of worship, but worshiping high school students seems silly.

"I’m working on vegetarian lions and sharks."

OK, several things here.

First, if there is a creator god, then you are fixing his violent design. Your point just speaks poorly for god.

The rest of the veggie shark and tiger questions are out of curiosity and have little to do with our current debate.

Second, which sharks and tigers? All of them?

Third, how are you doing this? Simple explanation will do, for example, messing with their genetics, or creating veggie food which they like and is healthy for them.

"Oh pleeeeeeeeease guys, grow up"

Perhaps someday I can mature enough to insult people on message boards.

"What are you doing?"

To better the world? How am I fixing gods terrible designs or helping god's victims?

I have worked with developmentally disabled people for years and I have fostered a son who has sever cognitive delay and autism.

I am currently a student hoping to become a teacher.

But this debate is not really about me, this debate is about the nature of god.

[ironbark]

70. Nothing “personal” about the generic ‘guys’

designating the point is meant for all those putting forward such a pov.

“I don't think most of those things compare to malaria.”

They aren’t meant to, they reflect the kinds of “evil things” humanity would be confronted with
if even if cancer/malaria had never existed. It’s a sliding scale, those things listed represent what would be bemoaned if cancer/malaria had never been. Remove those and there would be another layer of things to moan about and wish god had never burdened humanity with.

“That just means this high school student is better than most people's version of god…”

Could be. It could also be that the god thing is so dam clever that it left the perfect balance of things to struggle to overcome without us ever being overwhelmed/defeated. The god thing could also have left a fossil record that shouts out- “Hey! You could have been up against a T Rex that you couldn’t have beaten, but you weren’t, so stop bitching and moaning about the solvable hurdles before you…some of them a schoolboy could resolve”.

“ but worshiping high school students seems silly.”

Not to the young girl struggling to overcome the “evil thing” of acne and attract his attention.

When I say-
"I’m working on vegetarian lions and sharks."
And you respond-
“if there is a creator god, then you are fixing his violent design..”

I can only assume your Humorectomy went well.

“Perhaps someday I can mature enough to insult people on message boards.”

Perhaps a plea for “grow up guys” mature debate is not a “personal“ insult.

“I have worked with developmentally disabled people for years…”

Great, good place to start.
Assuming this “creator god” is responsible how would you view developmental disability?
Is it one of the “evil things” that ought never have existed?
Would the world (and you) have been better off had there never been developmental disability
to deal with?

I ask because I come from a similar background working with dual disability, psych/intellectual.
There is no doubt many of the clients suffer and some people may feel them cursed by an evil and unnecessary thing.
I find myself feeling blessed and privileged to be in the company of the disabled. I laugh harder and longer when I am with them and have far more satisfying, real and honest exchanges.
I confess I find the clients company generally far preferable to that of ‘normal’ people in management.

Perhaps I’m a selfish bastard but I have gained so much and been so forced to grow by the company and example of the disabled that I feel the world would be much much worse off without them.

Would I wish blindness, deafness, deformity, disability on anyone?....hell no.
But I also wouldn’t wish them to have never been in the world.

“sever cognitive delay and autism” is a dam hard hand to be dealt.
Can I ask how old he is?

Small token of reconciliation for any perceived personal attack-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2d5JeO7vSM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bawDFY8G-o4

[ZombieHorde]

73. Oops, I forgot to add a subject line, so here is my subject line.

"those things listed represent what would be bemoaned if cancer/malaria had never been. Remove those and there would be another layer of things to moan about and wish god had never burdened humanity with"

OK, let us say this is true. Those things never existed and I was bitching about hay fever. "Why oh why would an all loving god pain us with hay fever?!" This still would not remove my point that malaria exists and kills many children every year. Even if I am the pettiest person in the world, my point still stands.

"It could also be that the god thing is so dam clever that it left the perfect balance of things to struggle to overcome without us ever being overwhelmed/defeated. The god thing could also have left a fossil record that shouts out- “Hey! You could have been up against a T Rex that you couldn’t have beaten, but you weren’t, so stop bitching and moaning about the solvable hurdles before you…some of them a schoolboy could resolve”."

I would use a word other than "clever" for causing the deaths of millions of children via disease. Humans may not have been defeated as a whole, but diseases still cause great individual suffering, especially to those who are too young to use this hardship as a spring board for personal growth.

"Assuming this “creator god” is responsible how would you view developmental disability?"

If I believed in god I don't know how many of my views would change. I don't have an honest answer for this one.

"Is it one of the “evil things” that ought never have existed?
Would the world (and you) have been better off had there never been developmental disability
to deal with?"

I think the would be better off with mental illness. There could be some people who are exceptions, but on a whole, I don't believe mental illness is a good thing.

"Perhaps I’m a selfish bastard but I have gained so much and been so forced to grow by the company and example of the disabled that I feel the world would be much much worse off without them."

I admit that I have benefited from working with these people, but they still suffer from their disease. Especially those who suffer from paranoia, depression, severe autism, and intense anger issues. If we had the power to cure schizophrenia, not curing it would be unethical in my opinion.

"Would I wish blindness, deafness, deformity, disability on anyone?....hell no.
But I also wouldn’t wish them to have never been in the world."

I agree this completely.

"Can I ask how old he is?"

He is 20 years old.

Thanks for the videos. The first one is really really pretty.

[ironbark]

76. That's a lame subject line compared to mine

“This still would not remove my point that malaria exists and kills many children every year”.

>IF< there is no god this is a random shitty event in nature.
> IF< there is a god and no afterlife then god is a bastard.
> IF< there is a god and an eternal afterlife then all the pain suffering grief loss and death an individual experiences is no more than a skun knee.

Think of or remember the screaming pains of childhood or the crushing anguishes of adolescence…the only reason as adults that we do not totally empathise and share these all consuming sufferings is that we place them in the context of the passage of time. We know it hurts, we do not deny the pain, but we do not experience the pains of childhood or adolescence as they do because we are aware that in the great scheme of things they are trifles that will pass and cease to matter. When the toddler falls and skins its bare knees and palms on cement the pain is all consuming and the grief is amplified to totally irreconcilable because the ice cream is lost. We make placating noise, tut tut, there there…but we don’t care as much as they do because we have an expanded conception of time. Are we bastards because we could foresee such events and did not wrap them in cotton wool and bubble wrap and make all pavements of rubber?

Then there is destructibility. We can take any material thing, tear it apart and attempt to utterly destroy it. But when we reach the atomic level we are in the realms of transference and the smallest material thing unleashes the most phenomenal energy. The smallest invisible to the eye particle of insignificant matter unleashes that much power…but a life snuffs out with……. nothing?

I don’t believe it.
I have no science to back my disbelief.
I just find it improbable, even in a random godless universe, that a destroyed atom can flatten a mountain and the light in the eyes of those I love blinks powerless into absolute nothingness.
It doesn't fit in with what I see in nature.

“I think the (world) would be better off with(out) mental illness. There could be some people who are exceptions, but on a whole, I don't believe mental illness is a good thing”.

I honestly don’t know. Malaria seems to tell us don’t live near still water that is a breading ground for mosquitos or take precautions if you do. While I have no doubt there are hereditary and chemical imbalance causes for mental illness I am also convinced it tells us something about the way we live.
In particular Schizophrenia. Working in a group home with adolescents suffering this condition it was apparent that so many were above average intelligence, extremely sensitive and had real problems finding acceptance among peers or society at large. I would not be surprised if many mental illnesses turned out to be indications that people are not living or being treated right. Off the top of my head I cannot recall the statistics of those hearing voices for whom the ‘voice’ is that of a childhood abuser.

“I admit that I have benefited from working with these people, but they still suffer from their disease.”
No argument.


“Especially those who suffer from paranoia, depression, severe autism, and intense anger issues. If we had the power to cure schizophrenia, not curing it would be unethical in my opinion.”

I agree…but remain uncertain as to what ‘cure’ might sometimes mean or entail. It might entail a less sexualised culture and the diminution of child abuse. It might also entail in part the consideration of what other and prior cultures have done with their mentally ill-
The Indian Contraire, rides his horse backwards, wears summer clothes in winter, is accepted and honoured by the tribe as one touched by god.
Or the hospice built for the mentally ill by the architect Sinan for Suleman the Magnificent.
Can you imagine a facility for the mentally ill right next to the seat of power?
(Next to the White House? ;-)
Madmen sharing the same food, physicians and flowers from the imperial garden as the greatest and most powerful in the land.

Glad you enjoyed the link.
Thanks for the considered reply.

[ZombieHorde]

77. Are we bastards because we could foresee such events...

We foresee and try to prevent many of the serious things which can befall children, such as not allowing them to smoke and providing mosquito nets to people in places with a high number of malaria cases. The fact that we do not do more to prevent hunger through out the world does kinda make us bastards in my view.

"I agree…but remain uncertain as to what ‘cure’ might sometimes mean or entail. It might entail a less sexualised culture and the diminution of child abuse."

I agree the cure's side effects need to be weighed against the positive effects.

[Deep13]

138. bing! bing! bing! bing!

We have a winnah!

[ZombieHorde]

43. What about God's mess. Shouldn't he clean that up? nt

[Sal316]

48. What, exactly, is his mess?

Humanity?

Giving people the ability to love or hate? to create or destroy?

[ironbark]

49. That untidy bit on the left of the crab nebula

[Sal316]

50. haha..thanks for the laugh. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

74. Diseases, such as malaria, are pretty messy. nt

[Odin2005]

55. Or maybe he (as Voltaire did) saw through the "Dr. Pangloss" rationalizations.

IMO no Theist has never truly answered Epicurus's question, they have put up edifices of rationalization that impress simple minds by unloading metaphysical verbiage on them, or engaging in "blame the victim" (Karma, Original Sin), causing those simple minds to not criticize the suffering caused by the elites of society.

[Deep13]

137. So, what sin did this kid commit?

Blaming the victim is not only morally reprehensible, but intellectual cowardice. You would rather say humans deserve the horrible suffering we are prone to than admit that if your god were real, he would have to be a monster.

If god made us, he is still ultimately responsible for what we do. Don't confuse the evasiveness and doubletalk of religious explanation with sophistication. Epicurus cut through all the excuses and vagueness and grasped the essence of the issue.

[laconicsax]

140. The unforgivable sin of not being born a white American to good Christian parents.

[tama]

153. Simpleton?

Actually, perhaps he was. In the best possible way. It's the overly complexed ones I worry about, not simpletons. :)

[MineralMan]

180. Well, according to the Bible, it was God who created evil.

Indeed, if God created all things, then it must, perforce, have created evil. And there it is, right in the Bible, itself.

Isaiah 45

5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things.

[Sal316]

35. What's your proof for..

Abiogenesis?

I'm talking undeniable empirical proof.

Has anyone synthesized a protocell?

No?

Interesting.

[sakabatou]

41. It's more plausible than any supernatural being.

[Sal316]

42. How so?

There isn't any empirical evidence for abiogenesis.

So, it's more plausible, why?

Because you believe it is?

[sakabatou]

67. We know that proteins can form themselves.

We don't know what exactly the process is, but to say it was Goddidit is just using the "God of the Gaps."

[laconicsax]

45. Ah, the 'God of the gaps.'

There's no working theory of Abiogenesis, so it must be God. Never mind ongoing research in the field, St. Francis Collins has declared it to be God, so everyone might as well give up. After all, we never discovered what makes some chemicals interact with others--it must be God making the bright yellow precipitate magically appear in the beaker. We never discovered why the planets move in predictable orbits--it must be God moving everything around.

Never mind Miller-Urey showed that it was possible for organic compounds to spontaneously form. Never mind that phopholipids can spontaneously create lipid bilayers. Never mind that DNA replication is little more than applied chemistry. We'll never uncover an answer to this question, God did it.

Keep in mind this is specifically the Abrahamic god--it's not possible for it to be any of the other hundreds if not thousands of gods that humanity has ever worshiped.

[Sal316]

47. Whatever you say Mr. Mills.

I guess your theory of “The origin of life required only organic molecules, water and, most importantly, millions of years to develop.” is much more plausible.

Like I said before... you know what us scientists call that? TAMO - Then A Miracle Occurs.

The point is that the demand for empirical evidence for the existence of God is rather hypocritical considering there is NO empirical evidence that proves out abiogenesis or big bang or many of the universe's other great mysteries. Regardless of any ongoing research.

Theories... I got lots of theories... many of the experts in propulsion, ballistics, propellant and explosive design I know do too. In fact, I've proven 3 of mine.... and I have the US Patents to prove it.

Never mind Miller-Urey showed that it was possible for organic compounds to spontaneously form. Never mind that phopholipids can spontaneously create lipid bilayers. Never mind that DNA replication is little more than applied chemistry. We'll never uncover an answer to this question, God did it.

So, have we synthesized a protocell from simple amino acids? No? Then, please, spare the pseudo-intellectualism.

Keep in mind this is specifically the Abrahamic god--it's not possible for it to be any of the other hundreds if not thousands of gods that humanity has ever worshiped.

You obviously haven't paid attention to anything I've said about that, have you?

Why don't you get back to me when you have a protocell in a petri dish. Only then will your faux incredulistic BS hold any water.

[sakabatou]

68. Sal, do you even know what you're talking abut here?

You ARE imposing a "God of the Gaps." We do have empitacal evidence for the Big Bang (CMBR, expansion of the universe, redshift, etc.). Just to say, we don't know doesn't mean we'll never know.

"So, have we synthesized a protocell from simple amino acids? No? Then, please, spare the pseudo-intellectualism."

We can't form it in a test tube. We can't form it in a week. However, over thousands and millions of years with the vast expanse of the ocean, it is very, VERY possible.

It must be so hard to get on and off that high horse of yours.

[armyowalgreens]

83. I am by no means a scientist. But you are making a fool of yourself...

You are doing exactly what you were accused of. You are taking gaps in evidence and claiming that it can only be explained by God.

You do realize that it's okay to say that you simply do not have an answer, right? There was a point in the history of man when no one had an understanding of precipitation. That doesn't mean that anyone was justified in claiming that rain is a gift from God.

Even if we never find the answer to some discreet scientific question, that does not imply that God can fill in the gaps. It never does.

"Only then will your faux incredulistic BS hold any water."


Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

[sakabatou]

170. Just because we don't have it now

Doesn't mean it won't ever come to fruition.

[Interloper]

38. Sentients

My ability to think, percieve, show judgement, create and innovate must have a source in nature: GOD. I am that I am is the origin of species as a spiritually active being.

[Meshuga]

39. I wish I had a banana with me

But I don't so I will leave it for a later date.

[struggle4progress]

51. And they will forge their swords into plowblades, and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will

not raise arms against nation, nor will they study war again

[onager]

107. Yeah, that whole "swords into plowshares" thing has worked out really well.

:eyes:

You shoulda gone around spouting that quote in the most Xian nation in Africa - Rwanda, circa 1994. I'm sure everyone would have dropped their machetes and bowed down to your awesome spiritual leadership.

[struggle4progress]

113. The cry of Isaiah is not a magic incantation but a call to make an existential choice

[rug]

52. Where's your proof you can discern nonmaterial existence?

[Taitertots]

61. What evidence could they have?

They already pushed "god" into being something that is by definition unprovable. It would be like asking me to prove my invisible friend is real. Since it by definition isn't going to cause demonstrable reactions with physical matter, there is no physical test to prove it. You just have to take my word. I've seen way too many people do way too many stupid things to take their word for it.

[RagAss]

80. Refer to my sig line.

[and-justice-for-all]

84. They can not...that is why it is called FAITH..

there is NO empirical evidence to support their claim that there is such a being.

However, we also can not say that it does not exist. But, since there is clearly NO evidence, we can then conclude that it does not exist.

If they were to bring us some empirical proof to review and test, then that could change. We are most likely to find a "Earth" like planet around a distant star then they are to bring us any evidence.

[darkstar3]

85. Belief in something when you have zero evidence isn't just faith,

it's BLIND faith.

Now what I want to know is, what's the difference between blind faith and false hope?

[and-justice-for-all]

86. religion encourages both, blind faith and false hope...

as well as wish-thinking.

[ironbark]

87. There is a distinction between ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’.

The OP calls for ‘proof’…and there is none.

That is not to say there is no ‘evidence’.

There is the evidence of the historical record, the application of reason and the calculation of probability (the 'odds' of particular events occuring).

The assessment of such evidence is a lengthy process and more akin to the processes of a court room than a lab.

In the end the assessment of the abundant evidence remains subjective…for there is no conclusive/objective proof.

Nor would any rational being desiring the retention of free will/choice/ self determination desire any conclusive proof.

[kwassa]

89. Why do I need to prove anything to you? Why should I care what you think?

My belief is not contingent on yours.

[geistvomeinzelganger]

92. God exists

The war brand pubs had proof that Iraq had an active WMD program immediately prior to their invasion, occupation and murder of tens of thousands of Iraqi's. Yet, there was no WMD, nor any WMD program. So much for "proof"? I don't need proof to show you as He has made Himself very much a reality to me and I KNOW He exists. If you don't, that's a real problem for you, and only you. If you need convincing, convince yourself. Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you.

[rd_kent]

118. "He has made Himself very much a reality to me and I KNOW He exists"

How has he made himself a reality to you?

[geistvomeinzelganger]

201. Seek and ye shall find

In much the same way He will make Himself a reality to you if you REALLY want to find Him.

[sakabatou]

171. Apples to idiotic military planning.

[geistvomeinzelganger]

202. Tumbleweeds

Much like tumbleweeds there are people who have no roots. These are the non-believers. Until they find their roots these human appearing tumbleweeds can do nothing but tumble along in the wind, going wherever the wind takes them with no control whatsoever regarding where their final destination will be.

While these tumbleweeds fool themselves into believing that they are in control and making their own choices they are completely wrong. However, these tumbleweeds, due to their own illusion of "necessity", have learned how to hide themselves from the fact that they are nothing but slaves to the "trade" winds of this earth.

Eventually these tumbleweeds dry up and rot away with no trace of them left anywhere to be found, but before that happens they usually get stuck in, on, or under something and can do nothing but whistle in a gentle breeze and howl during a storm.

This is the biography of the tumbleweed. Not much of a legacy, is it?

[ffellini7080]

93. There isn't any

Look at the s*it going on in the world today.

[Azooz]

96. The Quran

Purely as a book, it is the best written book on Earth - and it claims in writing that even if all humans united to write a single page like it they would fail - a very bold claim that it makes more than once, but I know, for a fact that no one has ever produced a single page like it.

That part above only requires knowledge of Arabic for proof, it is not proof of the existence of God, just that humans can not write anything like it. Also, the challenge is for Muslims - for example, if I ever think of leaving Islam I am required to write or find a page like it first - there is no such page, the Quran states that I need never doubt that such a page will ever be written.

"convince us" ?

I do not know enough to convince anyone, in English I could not convince anyone here but in Arabic the Quran does the convincing better than I ever could. I just have to convince myself, and the more Arabic I learn the more convinced I get. I know many poets and writers, some write of many gods and some write that there is no god at all - but no human has ever stated the case more eloquently than the Quran does, the Quran states for a fact that no one ever will.

The proof of the existance of my God is in the verses of the Quran, once you learn how to read it you will wonder constantly why God has to try so hard - but even with out anything "holy", it is the best written book I have ever read.

[rd_kent]

97. WTF?

All of what you posted is your opinion, nothing more. Thanks for playing.

[Azooz]

98. It's a bit more than my opinion

This is from the Quran itself, the challenge is repeated there a few times if you would like to look it up in the English version. To date no one has been able to write even one single page like it, that is fact and not my opinion.

[The Magistrate]

99. The Joke Is Appreciated, Sir, But That Is All It Can Possibly Be

This is a level of cultural arrogance and a pretention of supremacy so high that it would make a European of the High Victorian period blush....

[Azooz]

103. Yes, but how else can it get the point across?

Any writer or poet can say that he or she is the best of all writers or poets, and readers enjoy most of them - but only one can actually be the best.

The Quran states its case not as a claim but a challenge, if you think that it is a false claim then just find one single page of like quality and the matter is over but until then the Quran is right in it's claim.

"If all humans united to write a single page like it they will fail" - no such page exists really, and learning Arabic is the only thing you'll needed to prove or disprove this yourself.

Please understand that this is from the Quran itself and not me making this claim.

[The Magistrate]

125. Whether It Originates With You or In A Book, Sir

It remains as described, either a joke, or an expression of cultural and religious arrogance of sufficient scale to bring a blush to the the cheek of a European of the High Victorian period.

The idea that a claim made in a matter of artistic taste must be treated as fact if not 'disproved' is nonesense. One might as well argue the excellence of Homeric verse demonstrates the existence and power of Zeus; certainly no one manage to equal it, in the opinion of the ancients, while it was curent writ....

Put bluntly, Sir, the evident fact you regard something like this as a serious argument is vaguely depressing....

[Azooz]

126. That is easy to say without knowing Arabic

The one and only thing that is needed for proof of this is learning Arabic. The Quran does in fact make that challenge, a fact that can be checked easily just by reading it, and the other fact is that no one has ever met that challenge, not even with 1,000s of years of Arabic writing and poetry to pick and chose from.

Artistic taste is for comparing like writers and poets but the Quran goes way beyond what can be written by humans, it leaves no doubt at all of this so that even a young child can appreciate it as easily as a grand old poet.

I learned Arabic when I was 12, so I know very well how this sounds to someone who does not know Arabic, but learning Arabic really is the only thing you will need to check it out for yourself.

[The Magistrate]

127. Son, You Need To Stop, take A Deep Breath, And Listen To The Fatuous Nonesense You Are Spouting

It is the only hope for a cure.

That some book or other contains words claiming it is the revealed word of the omnipotent creator of the universe, and these are true in every particular, is meaningless as a proof of fact: no matter what language it is couched in, an assertion cannot prove itself, any more than a man can be his own father or mother.

[rd_kent]

100. Again, WTF are you spewing about?

To date no one has been able to write even one single page like it

Write a page like what? And FYI, the quran was written by men, just like every other "holy" book out there. It's ok for you to BELIEVE otherwise, but if you insist that your opinion is true, I will require proof, and more than "because I said so" is needed here.

[Azooz]

102. There is no such page

If it was written by men then it would be a simple matter for men to write a page like it today - or find something of it's quality in thousands of years of writing and poetry etc.

For proof beyond any doubt at all, learn Arabic, nothing else is needed.

It is not me saying this nor is it "because I said so", this really is from the Quran itself and to date has been true.

[rd_kent]

104. For proof, learn arabic?

What page are you talking about? I have to learn arabic to know what you are talking about? You make ZERO sense, dude. Help me out here.

[Azooz]

110. Learning Arabic helps

The Quran says that no one will ever write even a single page like it - this sounds like just another arrogant or false claim in English but in Arabic it can be accepted as fact.

It is too well written to be considered a normal book, and there is nothing even close to it. The page I am talking about is the one that the Quran asks for, it says that not one single page of human writing will ever be written that is it's equal, and to date no human or group of humans has written such a page.

[rd_kent]

115. SO, I should just "accept it as fact"?

Friend, nothing can be accepted as fact when it comes to religion, no matter what it says. Proof, testable, verifiable. Thats proof. Everything else is opinion. Sorry.

[Azooz]

119. Testable and verifiable proof, would be that one page

It is very simple, the Quran has a level of writing that is way beyond what humans can write.

Learning Arabic is all you need to know that as fact, without knowing Arabic you have only your opinion and have no means of testing or verification.

[moggie]

121. What objective standard could be used to judge that?

If person A says that a particular text is better than the Quran, while person B says that the Quran is better, what reliable standard could a neutral third party use to decide which of these two claims is correct?

[Azooz]

123. That's the easy part

The Quran itself states that it leaves no doubt at all that it is the best written book, and you will not find anything written that comes close enough to confuse you by any standard you yourself might use to judge and compare it.

The hard part is trying to write something like it, and to get to that part you only have to learn enough Arabic to be able to read the Quran and once you know that much Arabic you'll be able to judge for yourself what person A or B says about the matter.

The most reliable standard is the level of "Expression" called (Fasaha), it is typically used to measure poetry and writing - for example, the top ten list of Arabic poetry predates Islam and Fasaha is used as a measuring stick for poetry and writing and there are other standards to, but the Quran really does go way beyond what the best of human writing can achieve by any measure one can use and leaves no room for doubt.

[rd_kent]

122. You keep stating your opinion as fact.

It is very simple, the Quran has a level of writing that is way beyond what humans can write

Again, that is YOUR opinion. To say "nothing has ever been written like it" has about as much merit as me saying "nothing has ever been written that is as good as the pamphlet the Mormons gave me at my door yesterday." Sorry, bud, but your opinion is not fact.

Unless you have something tangible, lets not continue this.

[onager]

108. Magnoon!

That's the only Arabic word I need to describe your rantings.

(It means "crazy.")

You DO realize that every claim you're making for the Koran is made by Xians about the Bible?

And of course, if the Koran were so "perfect," you wouldn't need the hadiths and 36 different Islamic schools to constantly interpret it. You also wouldn't have the major theological splits between Sunni, Shi'ite, Alawite, Sufis, etc. etc.

Gotta hand it to you, though. I've spent 6 years living in two Islamic countries (Saudi Arabia and Egypt). And your Koranic proselytizing is some of the lamest I ever heard.

[Azooz]

109. That's what the Quran said you would say :)

Magnoon (Majnoon, from the root word Jin) does mean crazy, but more in the "possessed" kind of way - like a great writer possessed or has sold his soul or something to write a master piece - the Quran says that some would claim it was the rantings of a Magnoon and the pre-Islamic people of Mecca actually did say but failed to write or find a single page like it.

The hadith and the sects do not enter into this, that is a matter of faith, theology and religion for Imams and theologians to argue over - I am talking purely language and writing here. If you think it is false, a lie or madness then just find a single page like it and consider the matter over - you will find that there is no such page.

I am really not into proselytizing, this claim is from the Quran itself.


>>You DO realize that every claim you're making for the Koran is made by Xians about the Bible?
Does any Christian you know make the claim that you find just one page of the same quality of writing as in the Bible and Christianity, as a religion, is over for him or her?

[ironbark]

114. Assalaamu alaykum Azooz

An off topic question.

Just wondering if you have been following the story of the reconstruction of THE MINBAR OF SALADIN?
http://www.thamesandhudsonusa.com/new/fall08/523843.htm

Some things are difficult to recreate or duplicate…
and other things impossible.

;-)

[Azooz]

120. Wa-alaykom alsalaam

I am sorry to say that I missed the whole thing until it was shown on the news channels as it was being installed - I never knew it was anywhere near that complex a design in the first place and was delighted to see it being set up - thanks for the reminder :)

[ironbark]

128. I find it interesting

that with all our contemporary knowledge and craftsmanship, or records, tools and technology the Minbar required the establishment of a new school to rediscover old crafts and a global search for skilled craftsmen.

All this to reproduce a wooden construction.

And here you are repeating the invitation to construct a single page akin to the Quran!

;-)

I hope they let us know when they have completed the task.

;-)

[rd_kent]

116. "I am really not into proselytizing, this claim is from the Quran itself" - Which proves nothing.

Just because it is in a book does not mean it is fact. And IMO, every one of your posts makes you sound more and more loony.

[Deep13]

149. The Koran proves Muslims exist, not God.

And most of it is lifted from earlier works.

[sakabatou]

172. That just begs the question: "How do you know it's true?"

Because it says so? That's just circular logic. If it's because you believe it's true, then it's not objectively true.

[Azooz]

191. Same way you could

Just learn Arabic.

In English I can not avoid the circular logic but in Arabic you will find no page like any in the Koran because it just does not exist.


believing in the existence of God requires faith, learning Arabic will not change that but there is no faith required in believing that there is no such page because there simply is no such page.

[rd_kent]

101. You will not get an answer because there is no proof. Period.

[emdistortion]

111. There is no argument for the existence of a God.

Yet, we choose to believe. Believing is a matter of faith, and faith is the ability to convince yourself of something without explanation or reason.

Why can't we all just get along?

[rd_kent]

117. "faith is the ability to convince yourself of something without explanation or reason"

Sounds more like lunacy to me.

[Duke Newcombe]

112. Having a "dance, monkey...DANCE" moment, eh?

[tinrobot]

129. God is experienced, not proven.

[rd_kent]

130. Experienced?

So, you are saying that if I "experience" god, it exists? How does one determine the difference between an experience and a hallucination, or a mental breakdown, or a psychotic episode?

[tinrobot]

131. The experience itself exists, beyond that, who knows.

For me, it's a profound experience, a deep feeling of connectedness and love.

Not psychotic at all.

[rd_kent]

133. But thats the point

We all "experience" things. I am not disparaging your "experience", but it is something only you know about. Some might see it as a disconnect from reality.
I guess the point is, that if one wants to believe in god because of an "experience" to them, thats ok. The problem lies where one takes that "experience" and says that is WAS god and that everyone else should take note.

[tinrobot]

134. A lot of problems arise when people push their beliefs on others.

Not only in religion, but in politics and many other places.

[tama]

154. Incorrect

"We all "experience" things."

Fair enough to certain point, but too limiting, because experience is not limited to things and thingness (though English syntax tries to fool us into such thought patterns ;)). We also can and do experience being as such, not limited to being as things which is dictated by linguistic subject-object division - subject things and object things.

What is essential in experience of being as such, is that it is not limited to "something only you know about", because it is not essentially a subjective (or objective) experience but rather "asubjective" - meaning that the whole question of subject and object can be absent. Of course all experiences can be given all kinds of interpretations, including subjective and objective - and asubjective. But then again, interpreting is just one aspect of experiencing, linguistically shared.

And this question of interpreting is where you speak to the point, I think we can all here agree to at least some degree that the steps of interpreting experience in ways that give rise to formal religions and clerical hierarchies with their dogmatic interpretations are mostly harmfull.

[ironbark]

135. It’s a good question…

“How does one determine the difference between an experience and a hallucination, or a mental breakdown, or a psychotic episode?”

And deserves consideration.

Working in the mental health field clients were confronted with this dilemma every day and the repeated advise was “reality check”…to relate the ‘experience’ to one or more trusted others to see if the experience was confirmable/affirmable or an aberration of illness.

The same principle that applies to those with mental illness applies to the general community…to reality check the experience with others and the historical record.

Are there others who have had similar/parallel experience?
Are they all in a psych ward or are the majority functioning ok in the world?
Is there an historical record of similar experiences…and did all those having such experiences prove to be mad?
And finally Cross Cultural and Inter Religious Comparison…to determine wether such ‘experiences’ are culturally bound or universal.

“ So, you are saying that if I "experience" god, it exists?”

To the individual having the experience (wether sane or psychotic) the answer is yes…god exists often as an unwavering certainty.
To the collective conducting a reality check on all these experiences the conclusion is based on purely subjective calculation of the statistics….leaning from ‘They are probably all mad…to…they have probably had an experience of an existing being’.

[tinrobot]

141. The experience is fairly consistent

It's the classic 'spiritual' experience that creates feelings of love, compassion, bliss, etc... A feeling that everything is connected, eternal, and "one."

I'm sure you can find thousands of books explaining it and millions of examples of people having the experience. People can experience it regardless of religion or spiritual beliefs. Even people who simply meditate with no spiritual affiliation can summon up the experience.

So, is the experience God itself, talking to God, or just a feeling of bliss? Who knows, because the experience is really the only thing you have. But it's a powerful experience that has transformed many people and spurred many religions to come into being. Once people have the experience, I do find they are more prone to belief in something greater than themselves. They may not call it God, but then again, 'God' is just a word.

[arKansasJHawk]

142. But is an "experience" GOD?

That's the key question here. Whatever the nature of this experience you describe, does it have ANY qualities which would qualify it as "God?"

In other words, does it answer prayers? Does it intervene in the physical world? Is it meaningful in ANY sense beyond some vague "experience?"

And if not, then what, exactly, makes it "God?"

[tinrobot]

143. Is that your definition of God?

Something that can answer prayers and intervene in the physical world? (not sure what that means, but I assume it means violating the laws of physics.) It's a rather materialistic view of God, but it's certainly one that some people believe.

Not all people are so materialistic, however. Some define God a lot more subtly, if at all.

I like the first lines of the Tao Te Ching : "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao / The name that can be named is not the eternal Name."

There's also a Buddhist metaphor : "The finger that points to the Moon is not the Moon."

Both of these make similar points -- any description of God cannot be God, because God is the superset of all things, including all descriptions of God.

So when people ask to prove God, I see it as rather pointless because you have to ask which definition are you proving, and is that one definition more appropriate than any other? Furthermore, does the definition even properly describe that which some call God?

Personally, I think the only thing that is really tangible is an individual's experiential connection to that which some call God. That rather common experience can be attained through prayer, meditation, chanting, and other similar practices. Even if you're not religious, I'd highly recommend it, simply because the experience itself is meaningful.

Plus, it makes you feel great.

[arKansasJHawk]

144. Defining God

I think that, historically, the word "god" has been pretty much universally understood to refer to a deity with fairly specific powers and a clearly defined role in the universe. When gods or goddesses appear in the Taoist tradition, for example, they're not vague, experiential "feelings." They're perceived as real beings with real goals and roles in the pantheon of heaven.

More philosophical renderings of god seem to me to not be god-like at all. Whatever the universal spirit or feeling that some people sometimes experience is, it doesn't appear to qualify for god-hood. Certainly, people may CALL it God. They may call it nirvana. They may call it Charlie. People are free to use words however they see fit. But by defining away all the things that have traditionally been understood to accompany the concept of a "god," (answering prayers, etc.), then we're left with something that's not really a "god" at all.

That doesn't mean that the experiences are any less meaningful for the people who have them, by the way. If the force or spirit or whatever it is these experiences tap into actually exists, it would certainly be a pretty profound and amazing thing. I just don't think it should be called "God."

[tama]

156. Great Spirit

In my language the word (usually) translated as "god" means (usually) pantheistic universal spirit, which means inclusive being, not something objectified and external (and/or personal).

So there is little point in praying such a "god", we might as well as pray ourselves.

Praying or asking and other forms of influencing of course was a usual and usefull practice in the old pantheistic days, but the "objects" of praying where nature spirits and such, for example: "Spirits of the Forest, give this asker shrooms and berries, please".

[tama]

155. The good question

“How does one determine the difference between a <"real"> experience and a hallucination, or a mental breakdown, or a psychotic episode?”

Or shamanistic experience etc.? ;)

Who holds the patent and copyright to "objective reality"? Not certainly science, since scientists are most diverse and disagreeing bunch offering many kinds of world views and philosophies and metaphysics. The globalized imperial (eurocentric) culture and it's world view? As a mere non- or semi-European, I humbly disagree.

Formation of a world view (if one cannot do without, which is the usual case) is, as I feel, profoundly ethical process, because logically thinking and starting from strict skepticism the possibility that each of us are also participants in participatory Creation (Being, God, you name it) at least cannot be excluded.

[sakabatou]

157. For now, there is no objective evidence for God

[tama]

158. Well

There sure is ample evidence of objectified, externalized god. ;)

[sakabatou]

159. Excuse me, but I'm not following

[tama]

161. How was All divided?

Into culture and nature, inside and outside, subject and object? This division is what is often meant by "original sin".

Hence, if God is not objectified externalized Person-thing (that could be measured by measurer) but synonyme to All and All happens as dynamic participatory holistic process, what meaning could "objective proof of God" have?

[sakabatou]

173. O.o

In laymen's terms...

[geistvomeinzelganger]

203. There is PLENTY of evidence that GOD exists

You haven't found proof of God's existance because you aren't truly looking for it. That subtle little fact is what makes you incapable of finding GOD or any proof of HIS existance. However, you WILL have your "proof" shown to you some day, and I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

[jonnyblitz]

160. they can't prove it and that is why they are so NASTY to you

in this thread.

[geistvomeinzelganger]

204. Proving God's existance...

Proving God's existance to some people is like trying to describe the color blue to somone who had been totally blind since birth..., or like trying to describe "harmony" to someone who has been totally deaf since birth. It's very frustrating and more often than not a pointless waste of time that would be better spent elsewhere on somebody else.

I'm betting that you have some kind of "dig" concerning my Christianity and it's relation to what I just said about some people being a waste of time, eh? My response to that is a question and by answering the question you will find your answer. As it's been said before, "Seek and ye shall find".

Who said, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead."?

hint: the answer to that question is the answer to ALL questions.

[edhopper]

206. You are under the impression

that some of us have not spent as much or more time than you in looking at the question of God's existence and come up with a completely different answer.
Why do you think we should accept your conclusions?

[cynatnite]

162. When I was in the medical field, I helped care for a little girl with a brain tumor...

For weeks, she lay in bed and was nothing more than a vegetable. Her family suffered greatly during this and I was unfortunate to witness this. She finally passed away.

This is why no god exists.

[tinrobot]

164. So your definition of God...

...is some sort of being or force that prevents all forms of suffering?

Not everyone defines God that way.

Very sad about the girl and her family, btw.

[cynatnite]

174. That's not my definition since I don't believe a god exists..

my point is that if god existed and was as christians claim he is, then this young girl and her family would not have suffered the way they did. If god existed, then either god is good and can help relieve suffering, or god is evil and cares nothing about relieving suffering, or god is just unable to relieve suffering and then god wouldn't be god.

Either way, this girl languished and her family suffered as they watched her slowly slip away day by day. What happened to them is a tragic part of life and there is no god.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

175. Suffering is sometimes necessary.

Whose to say that that girl's struggle and suffering didn't have a life-changing impact on another person? Whose to say that her suffering wasn't necessary to satisfy a much grander plan? Just because an individual cannot wrap their mind around all the variables of a plan that may (or may not) exist is not proof that there is (or isn't) a God. The foolhardiness & presumption of that logic is just as ludicrous as the bible-thumper beliefs they are denouncing themselves.

Let people believe what they want to believe.
Share your opinion if you feel the need but recognize that it is merely an opinion regarding a subject that has no objective evidence.

[cynatnite]

176. It is insane to think this suffering had any kind of benefit to anyone...

gods plan...what utter bullshit. That's what I call religious nuttery.

[frogmarch]

185. Mother Teresa was big on suffering.

I've always known this, but I googled her anyway. Here's an example of what I found:

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/teresa/general.htm (snip)

The problem was her Roman Catholic belief that personal suffering helps to earn one's salvation. She thought suffering was good, and she didn't use pain relievers in her clinics. She had said that the suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering. Many Catholic priests and nuns, to this day, wear hair undergarments, put stones in their shoes, flagellate themselves and otherwise try to merit heaven by suffering. Poverty and suffering are not simply endured, but are sought and even created. Just as she hoped to earn her way to heaven through her own deprivation and suffering, so "Mother" Teresa hoped to help her patients as well to reach heaven through the suffering she imposed upon them.

Holy shit. :eyes:

[laconicsax]

186. That's sadistic.

Are you honestly saying that it's ok to inflict suffering on someone as long as someone else learns a lesson?

By your reasoning, torturing a prisoner's family in front of them is an acceptable means of obtaining a confession; executing someone's child is an acceptable means of getting them to start wearing a seat-belt.

That's sadistic and vile.

[Deep13]

195. Why is it that girl's responsibility to suffer for someone else?

Magic tricks and other impossible claims aside, the real reason I hate, hate, hate Chrisitanity is because it makes suffering a virtue. How much better would the world be today if believers over the years did not simply accept suffering as divine judgment and actually did something about it.

[Odin2005]

200. What a sick, disgusting, reactionary post.

"Bad thing X is a part of a greater plan" is a usual way reactionaries excuse the suffering of us "little people".

Fuck that!

[piratefish08]

207. Mmmm - makes perfect sense. God forces one person to suffer so another can benefit.

Remember that next time life deals you a shit hand.

Take comfort that somebody, somewhere, in some way is benefitting from your suffering........


:wtf:

[gk88850]

163. nothing

[Sam1]

184. Step 2

Came to believe that a power greater then ourselves could restore us to sanity .

[immoderate]

193. .

:rofl:

--imm