Evidence God Exists: Part II

[Samson]

And that's what I am attempting to point out; these lessons recorded in the Bible, these natural 'Laws of Human Nature' are observable and learnable in the real world, so that lots of religions predating Christianity had already observed them, as well. I find the Christian Bible and beliefs to be the most inclusive and knowledgeable when it comes to those lessons on the 'Laws of Human Nature', as I called them above.

I’m glad to know that you see the long line of moral teachings throughout human history, but that only shows that it was not a “Christian” teaching, but a human one. Again, my question of labeling yourself a “Christian” still applies…. And the reason I state this, is merely for the fact that there is no difference in the immoral acts from the Torah, Xtian Bible, and Qur’an etc.
In other words, it should already be obvious that our own instinct and secular surroundings is the most inclusive and knowledgeable aspects of human nature and what we have advanced from.

Thank you for believing me to be smart; I believe I am, too. xP

The experiences I am referring to, however, are not simply 'Goddidit' answers at all; they are honest observations of phenomena that I have experiened and found to be compatable with the exstence of God, if not, indicative of such a conclusion.

Just by stating that it’s an indicative conclusion of such phenomena, is still stating that; since you/we don’t have the answers, then goddidit…
As I stated earlier to Angel, if humanity would have concluded this type of thinking, then we would still be living in the dark ages of our history.

As I said, my approach is to observe humanity and honestly look at it in comparison to God and my understanding of Him; it something doesn't fit or make sense, I attempt to find a better conclusion than the one I have come to before.

I’m at a loss at what to respond to this…It’s too circular in every response. You are putting a “God/HIM” in the equation. Any research of observation you do, will still have a bottom line conclusion.

The world I observe is what is true and honest and perceivable; it is the same one you live in. I believe in that world without any subjective proof that it exists, only trusting my senses and their ability to give me an accurate depiction of the world around me.(Although, ironically, I'm color blind.)
God, as I understand Him, matches the observations I have made about the real world.

Since you have already concluded a supernatural entity, then it’s by far not the same world I observe. I don’t mean this statement to be depicting of you, but simply observations of our differences in observations.

And I do. I am a son of God, just like every single man on Earth is a son of God, just like Jesus was a son of God. The difference between Jesus and I is that Jesus was gifted with bein completely in-tune with God, which made him God's protege; the progidal son of God.

The only evidence you have for stating that “Jesus” was in tune with “God” is the Bible from which you put your “Faith” in. Does this make it factual?

Confucius was simply a man who taught of life the way he thought it needed to be lived. He, like me, made observations about the world and taught about them to the best of his ability. He was not, however, gifted by God with the same closeness that Jesus was. No, he was not God's protege; he was just another son of God.

How do you know this? The typical sarcastic response would be, “Because the Bible says so”, but I will reframe from saying this to you and simply ask an outlandish question of; have you ever thought that maybe “Jesus” was trying to teach more of an Eastern philosophy to his fellow men?

Buddha is debatable; Buddhism's beliefs are an observation of the world, just like Christianity's beliefs are an observation of the world. I believe the teachings of Jesus Christ match up with God's far more than the teachings of the Buddha.

Buddha simply continued the teachings of Confucius, as stated by Buddha on many levels. However, since both were 500 and 600+ years before a Christian book/Jesus, it should at least be an eye opener. That “Human Kind” was not so oblivious to morality before the book you claim is Godly.

I am a theist; Christianity is a branch of theism, one I find to be more precisely in-tune with God's truth and the observations I have made about the world.

Ok, I’ll buy that, but then the question of “God’s Hell” comes into place with what conclusions you have about it and the Bible’s definition of such a place.

Keep in mind, just as “Tack” on our forums; he has his own opinion of what a place would be. I’ve read the King James Bible and New American Standard from Genesis to Revelation. Both extremes state very bluntly of what “Hell” is and how it will be, and of course a Jesus concurs.

If you believe that “Christianity” is so finely in-tune with “God’s Truth”, then please tell me how a “Hell” comes into play, with your observations of an afterlife? Again, just keep in mind that your book “BLUNTLY” states how and what hell is……

[chatpilot]

I have always thought that hell is inconsistent with a so called loving creator god. He claims in the book to love us so much that if we don't believe in him we are going to be cast into hell to endure eternal punishment. At the same time this being requires that we believe in him by faith and at the same time hides his existence from mankind. There is nothing logical about the bible, and a belief in its god in my opinion is completely reliant on blind trust. I think that makes sense lol if not forgive me, it's early and I haven't had my coffee yet.

[Thor]

I have always thought that hell is inconsistent with a so called loving creator god. He claims in the book to love us so much that if we don't believe in him we are going to be cast into hell to endure eternal punishment.

I've often used this when arguing with believers. Your god loves us so much we can't comprehend it, but he'll toss you into a firepit for all eternity merely because you didn't believe he exists? It makes no sense! Of course, believers will rationalize this away, usually with some malarkey about how, since we are mortals, we can't comprehend "God".

Yeah, right...

[tavarish]

Jesus tittyfucking Christ, here we go.

I've got a better idea. Instead of me spending a lot of time that I don't have right now typing all of the ones I've learned out, why don't you go read the Bible and look for some of them there. I'm sure some of them will match up with lessons that you, too, have learned throughout your life. Unless you haven't learned anything at all, yet, and only think you have.

I've got a better idea. How about you tell me what laws you're talking about instead of me engaging in a wild goosechase trying to find the shit you've cherry picked into a belief system?

How so?

You wrote:

The experiences I am refering to, however, are not simply 'Goddidit' answers at all; they are honest observations of phenomena that I have experiened and found to be compatable with the exstence of God, if not, indicative of such a conclusion.

When you find experiences to be indicative of the conclusion "Goddidit", then you are necessarily referring to answers in which, *drumroll* Goddidit!

It's not hard to understand. Words have meaning.

---

As I said, my approach is to observe humanity and honestly look at it in comparison to God and my understanding of Him; it something doesn't fit or make sense, I attempt to find a better conclusion than the one I have come to before.

That would be great if it wasn't riddled with rationalization.

---

I'm confused as to where rationalization is wrong...please explain.

Look up the definition to rationalization and come back to me. I'm tired of spoonfeeding.

Which are?

What did I say about the Bible?

What the hell does the Bible have to do with the observations YOU'VE made in the real world? Are you paying attention?

A part of himself; like amputating a limb to save the greater whole.

So it was God himself that needed saving since he sacrificed part of himself to save the greater whole.

'and went up to heaven to become whole again.' would be more accurate.

1. Limbs don't grow back.
2. It's not much of a sacrifice if you get the thing you're sacrificing right back again.

True. I have no contention with that. What is your point? lol

Buddha's teachings wouldn't have to match up with a God.

One in which you can cherry pick what you'd like to believe. Makes sense.

No, one in which I choose whether or not to believe in this, that, or the other thing. Man is not innerrant. Man wrote the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is not innerrant. I'm not cherry-picking if I'm believing only in the lessons I've learned and observed in the real world about humanity and God.

1. If you're making the distinction that there are errors in the Bible, and still contend that you believe in it, this is cherry picking to fit your personal set of beliefs. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

I can say i believe in the constitution, but the second amendment needs to go and was written in error. This is cherry picking what I would like to believe in and support - it reinforces my ideology. Do you understand now?

Well that's a stupid counter argument. Belief is something wholly different from a nipple. Belief can only be subjectively proven. A nipple could potentially be objectively proven.

That's not the fucking point. If you had bother to read, you would see that it was about choice and your phrasing. I made an analogy to a physical entity so you could see the error in your phrasing, but I guess it takes a second or third try to get the brain cells rubbing together properly.

---

This is where we differ on opinions; I believe that God is a part of you, so to claim thatyou do not believe in God is a lie to you and I; from MY point of view, at least.

This is 1 step away from dictating moral code and pushing for theistic legislation - after all, God is in everyone, and we should all obey his rules.

---

We should, but we don't all have to. That's why it's a choice.

It's not a choice when you don't believe a God exists. Is this that hard of a concept to grasp? This is the same as me telling you that you have a choice to obey the underpants gnomes in my sock drawer or not. It makes no fucking sense.

A rejection of belief, if belief truly does exist, is a denial of that belief.

Not necessarily.

A rejection in this context means to refuse to accept or acknowledge.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/web...o3=&h=0000

A denial is the act of asserting that something alleged is not true.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/web...h=00000000

One is an assertion, the other is not. Words have meanings.

I am proposing that the belief exists,

The belief exists - whether or not the belief lies on information that is true is the issue.

and that I can use my understanding of that to predict what he may or may not do for denying what is truly there.

1. Saying "what is truly there" is begging the question and making a false assumption as to the truth of your belief.

2. Rejection is not necessarily denial.

Just like I can predict that a man who denies that a speeding truck is coming toward him, when it very definitely is, will not move out of the way.

Horrible analogy, as you're assuming the truth of your argument when you haven't presented evidence to support such a conclusion.

[chatpilot]

Watson, no offense but you are one hard nut to crack. This god you worship if he exists (and that's a big if) does not give us a choice in the matter at all. Believe in him although there is not sufficient objective evidence in his favor and he purposely refuses to provide any, or burn in hell eternally. This god of your is a bully and a tyrant, as a matter of fact if you look at it from another perspective, he is like a slave owner. He wants your complete obedience and submission of your will to his or else! It is like the slave owner killing poor Toby for not wanting to pick bales of cotton on a given day. There is a reason that the bible refers to believers as "servants of god" because you are his willful slaves.

[downbeatplumb]

Watson, no offense but you are one hard nut to crack. This god you worship if he exists (and that's a big if) does not give us a choice in the matter at all. Believe in him although there is not sufficient objective evidence in his favor and he purposely refuses to provide any, or burn in hell eternally. This god of your is a bully and a tyrant, as a matter of fact if you look at it from another perspective, he is like a slave owner. He wants your complete obedience and submission of your will to his or else! It is like the slave owner killing poor Toby for not wanting to pick bales of cotton on a given day. There is a reason that the bible refers to believers as "servants of god" because you are his willful slaves.

For further evidence look at evil bible quotes.

A chuckle a minute look at gods rants.

http://www.evilbible.com/Evil%20Bible%20Quotes.htm

[Scented Nectar]

Did you completely ignore that I said my observations and measurements were subjective? Are you just blanking out certain words so you can demand empirical evidence for non-empirically provable of me? No wonder you're Atheist.

Subjective is no good, since you are the only one who can use that as evidence. Both subjective and empirical evidence are no good for this. Objective evidence is the only thing that must be used for the purposes of expecting to convince others. Also, you compared it to Einstein and black holes. Einstein used objective evidence to form any ideas regarding the existence of black holes. What objective evidence do you have to demonstrate to others about your god's existence?

Oh, and stop saying 'invisible universe creator.' It makes you sound incredibly ignorant, because it's a misunderstanding of what God is and what He appears to be.

Do you not believe that your god created the universe? Also, he is invisible. Can you see the fairies that live in my garden? All you have to do to see them is to see the plants and soil. Garden is a garden is a fairy. You can see that, can't you? Are you an afairyist, or a fairy believer?

The world's existence only becomes the default once it is perceived in some way.

Which in my book is through belief.

You don't believe something until you either perceive it yourself through physical senses and evidence, trust another person's beliefs, or come up with the idea in your own head and trust it to be true.

When does your god make itself known to us humans?

All the time, every time, throughout the world and throughout life. It is up to us to perceive and recognize it as such.

You can't recognize something as being a god until you perceive it first. If you recognize something (you think there is a god) that you didn't actually perceive (you perceived the world), that is delusion or trust gullibility.

Yes, we all agree the world is perceivable; I am simply stating that, based on what I understand of God's nature, 'the world' and 'God' are synonymous words.

No they are not. You do not get to redefine words at whim. At http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/world, gods appear nowhere in the definition. In fact, one definition specifically says "12. Secular life and its concerns: a man of the world."

I know the definition of the word faith; I have faith, of course I know its definition. I simply find its real definition and nature to be, more than likely, contradictory to the dictionary one. I find the dictionary definitions of real life things are usually inaccurate.

When talking to other people, you should preface everything that has your personal definition with what that definition is. Otherwise no one will know that you mean something different than the word's real definition.

And again, screw dictionary definitions. They aren't always accurate.

Then state your personal redefinitions before each time you use them. Do you expect people to read your mind?

There is no way of seperating the subjective perception from the objective reality.

You can at least separate it to the clear point of stuff that convinces everyone versus stuff that only convinces yourself (plus people who believe what you believe on trust).

You say you don't believe me, which is a denial of belief; you are denying that you believe, I am proposing that you do.

Being 'in denial' about something you really do believe, and denying something because you really don't beieve it are two different things.

[AngelThMan]

The lack of evidence for abiogenesis is my evidence...

This was meant to be more of an expression, semi-slogan, if you will, for my OP. But a lot of you took it too literally, as a lot of replies were built around the premise that "lack of evidence is not evidence." I just wanted to point out that it is not lack of evidence that I am presenting as evidence, but the results of 500 years of failed experiments. That's what my evidence is for God's existence. 500 years of scientific experiments have demonstrated that life cannot be created from inanimate matter.

[Ace Otana]

500 years of scientific experiments have demonstrated that life cannot be created from inanimate matter.

Wrong yet again. 500 years of experiments have demonstrated that we don't yet know how to create life from inanimate matter.
Lack of evidence of something doesn't mean it can't happen or it doesn't exist, because if that was the case then your god was disproved years ago.

Abiogenesis has not been disproved.

I think it's safe for me to conclude that you are insane.

[tavarish]

The lack of evidence for abiogenesis is my evidence...

This was meant to be more of an expression, semi-slogan, if you will, for my OP. But a lot of you took it too literally, as a lot of replies were built around the premise that "lack of evidence is not evidence." I just wanted to point out that it is not lack of evidence that I am presenting as evidence, but the results of 500 years of failed experiments. That's what my evidence is for God's existence. 500 years of scientific experiments have demonstrated that life cannot be created from inanimate matter.

100 pages of posts and you've learned nothing.

Based on your reasoning, I can safely conclude that you don't possess a working brain.

Good luck in life. Remember, dragons are real if you believe they are.