Proof of God

[LostLocke]

You know how it is Stimbo.... if A then B, A is therefore it must come from B. No need to bridge the two, right?

P1 In the past 20 years the murder rate has gone up in Chicago.
P2 In the past 20 the internet speeds have gone up in Chicago.
C Therefore, raising internet speeds causes murder.

[TheRealJoeFish]

Ok. How does a stone in my shoe prove anything other than there's a stone in my shoe? Please pretend I'm more than six years old.

Wait... Are you implying that you're only six?!?!?!

Holy crap... 120+ reps by age 6. You're a prodigy.

[Esquilax]

Have you ever considered that the stone in your shoe is proof of God? Seriously. The bare fact that sensible bodies persist in their being while also being subject to change, the intelligibility of reality, and the human capacity to reason allows us to identify necessary truths. 

All you ever do is assert that those things require god. "Because I said so" is not good argumentation, and it's literally all you've ever used.

[ignoramus]

You know how it is Stimbo.... if A then B, A is therefore it must come from B. No need to bridge the two, right?

P1 In the past 20 years the murder rate has gone up in Chicago.
P2 In the past 20 the internet speeds have gone up in Chicago.
C Therefore, raising internet speeds causes murder.

There's that dastardly logic triangle again...
We've proven using this tried method that Stimbo is Jesus, so he'll no doubt give us the core truth on this.

[Cyberman]

Wait... Are you implying that you're only six?!?!?!

Holy crap... 120+ reps by age 6. You're a prodigy.

It'll come as quite the shock to Chad, who only pitches his arguments at that level because nobody over that age can read them with a straight face.

[Harris]

Harris Wrote:
Most of the time you guys tried to give meaning to the universe by the use of following terms:

Multiverse,
Strings in 11 dimensions,
Quantum Foam,
Loop Quantum Gravity,
Causal Sets,
Holographic universe,
Inflationary Universe,
Universe among Brane (membrane),
Universe in Black Hole, and
Big Bouncing Universe and Bumpy Space

These ideas have no clues for their support.

IATIA Wrote:
There is a plethora of evidence and solid theory for these. Do we know the absolute yet? No. But science keeps discovering. You obviously have absolutely no concept of science and never will as long as you are deluded by bronze age myths.

These Theories lack Correspondence and Coherence. In attempting to elucidate meaning to these expressions in terms of truth-conditions, induce a plethora of further problems. Many are a matter of detail concerning the kinds of properties we should associate with these terms to produce truth theories for them. Lack of Correspondence and Coherence are the sources for general difficulties concerning whether or not truth is central at all in the analysis or elucidation of meaning of these expressions.

Oh wow. Yes.
Natural selection does have a scientific description.
Thanks for playing science. Here's your parting gift....

Concerning the Scientific Description of “Natural Selection,” the only thing I have ever received is the phrase “Natural selection does have a scientific description.” However, none of you guys ever dared to present a REAL Scientific Description of “Natural Selection” that may define the mechanics and orderly methods which clearly demonstrate on what principles “Natural Selection” works and how it chooses the fittest.

Harris Wrote: Do elders need guidance of God? Yes, indeed.

Bennyboy Wrote: "As above, so below" only works if the entity above is a real thing, and not a fairy tale.

For a child fire is brilliant, vibrant, and pleasing. Intuitively, any child can easily get attracted and in his/her curiosity try to catch it. When an elder try to protect child from the evil hidden in that fire, the child usually take an offence and protest against the act of adult.

Scriptures (so called fairy tales) are exactly acting like experienced and knowledgeable adults.

For example, almost all scriptures condemn Adultery, Homosexuality, and Incest and prohibit these actions in sternest manners. Most people (like children) do not apprehend the hidden evil in unnatural sexual activities at first glance. They only look at the immediate pleasures. They normally do not think about the socio-psychological after effects and medical issues veiled in such actions.

In short, Scripture normally forbid those acts the consequences of which are not immediately apparent but slowly poison everyone and cause harm to the coming generations.


I will not discuss all those after effects as it involves a lengthy text to express those issues efficiently. Rather I quote Kant to demonstrate what great thinker thinks about unnatural sexual activities.

“Onanism…is abuse of the sexual faculty…. By it man sets aside his person and degrades himself below the level of animals…. Intercourse between sexus homogenii…too is contrary to the ends of humanity; for the end of humanity in respect of sexuality is to preserve the species without debasing the person.”  

Page 170
(1780-81) Lectures on Ethics, trans. L. Infield, New York: Harper & Row, 1963.
Emanuel Kant

http://www.worldcat.org/title/lectures-o...clc/295987

Be careful. We're not arguing the social value of the God idea. I myself see much value in it. We are arguing about whether God is real, and whether we have proof that God is real-- he seems not to be, and we certainly do not.

The idea of God is not the idea of anything that is really no more than the idea of our own human essence. Knowledge of God is not empty or cold speculation that merely flits in the brain, but rather knowledge that takes root in the heart and includes the honouring of God.

Descartes, Leibniz, Calvin, and many other eminent thinkers insisted that all humans have, by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity. Religion was not invented by the subtlety and craft of a few to hold the simple folk in thrall.

God has engraved unmistakable marks of his glory upon the universe. The skilful ordering of the universe is for us a sort of mirror reflecting the invisible God.

Consider, for example, Descartes’ defence of the claim that our concept of God, as an infinitely perfect being, is innate. This concept is not directly gained in experience, as a particular sensation of pain might be. Its content is far beyond any we could ever construct by applying available mental operations to what experience provides. Our empirical concepts include the concept of a finitely knowledgeable, powerful and good being; we can even construct the concept of a finitely but very knowledgeable, powerful and good being, but we cannot move on to the concept of an infinite one. We cannot, for example, gain the idea of infinite perfection by simply negating our concept of finite perfection.

“I must not think that, just as my conceptions of rest and darkness are arrived at by negating movement and light, so my perception of the infinite is arrived at not by means of a true idea but merely by negating the finite”

Page 65
Third Meditation

Meditations on First Philosophy
With Selections from the Objections and Replies
A Latin-English Edition
Cambridge University Press

Edited and translated by
John Cottingham

Moreover, we must possess the concept of infinite perfection in order to employ the concept of finite perfection gained from experience.

“For how could I understand that… I was not wholly perfect, unless there were in me some idea of a more perfect being which enabled me to recognize my own defects by comparison”

Page 65
Third Meditation

Unbelievers are puffed up and swollen with all the more pride because they see nature rather than God as the source of all good gifts that they exploit hardheartedly for their pleasures and satisfactions.

Harris Wrote:
Honest observations and clear thoughts reveal that the world is full of injustice. Without having Divine Justice, one cannot differentiate between the death of a human and death of a dog and that exactly was the case in Stalin’s USSR.

Bennyboy Wrote:
The problem with you is you say shit without actually asking yourself if it's true before you post it. I can easily differentiate between the death of a human and of a dog, because humans walk upright, speak language, and have culture.

People are more powerfully motivated by self-interest than the sentiments of concern for each other. If they are not controlled by dispassionate objective laws then each person is his/her own judge of what is best. In such environment, there would be no assurance that one’s safety and one’s possessions will not be at the mercy of other people. People would be indifferent to each other and intellectually bright and educated people would become selfishly cold to the fate of the suffering masses. The general condition of uncertainty is the condition where people can do anything (by the use of power and intellect) they like to pursue their wellbeing and secure their safety.

Ethically, the worst act is to treat people as if some second-hand truth. Such people have no regard for the others’ feelings, especially for their pride and dignity.

Stalin’s USSR was a great example of such merciless indifference.

Untouched Divine Law (Quran) is based on the principles of Nature, provides the standard by which all other laws should be judged. Quran is objective, dispassionate, and free from subjective tendencies. The practical consequence of this Divine Law is instrumental in leading the public away from relativism, selfishness, and indifferent attitude to each other and guide them in the right direction to ensure the safety of each person’s possession and dignity.  

Harris Wrote:
I am still waiting your response to my question:

Do you agree with the following statement of Dawkins?

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any JUSTICE. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, NO DESIGN, NO PURPOSE, NO EVIL AND NO GOOD. NOTHING BUT BLIND PITILESS INDIFFERENCE. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”

Bennyboy Wrote:
I do not know whether this statement represents reality. There may be a God, or another context which defines right or wrong. But your constant efforts to change the subject are pointless. We are trying in this thread to decide whether there is proof of God-- and no amount of philosophical speculation represents proof.

The question I posed was very much relevant to the proof of God and it seems you have a good idea about what your “yes” and “no” means. That is the reason you have carefully chosen your agnostic path to escape from a firm “yes” or “no”. However, having your own conscious being in the intelligible universe if you say “I do not know whether there is God” because you cannot perceive Him like you perceive matter that simply means “I do not believe in God” and that is rather a hypocritical way to rebel against God.

To which you are referring, as “philosophical speculation” are in fact logical truths. One of the realities is hidden inside your own conscious being. Your conscious experiences, which you appreciate the most, cannot be shown by any material mean and thus cannot be perceived by ordinary human senses. Yet they are the most vibrant and most plausible than anything around you. They are so real that your whole life flows around your (unproven) conscious experiences.

Interesting thing is that you are unable to prove your own reality and in this realm, you are trying to disprove the reality of God who is your DESIGNER and CREATOR.

Read what you quote. I didn't say "scientific observations," I said, "real observations," by which I meant using one's eyes, ears, and knowledge to determine whether things are real or false. None of these things add up to Sky Daddy watching teens masturbate and clearing out a place in hell, or to a woman getting beaten because she refuses to wear a fucking towel over her head.

You should live in a Muslim community in order to see how a real Muslim woman, who believe in the existence of God and obeys His commandments, may respond to your lustful ideas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3708444.stm

And that's one more thing-- do you not see that if God is real, your religion's fucking insane cultural conventions are an insult to that real God?

Yes, I agree that Muslims are insulting God by doing all prohibited activities. Such Muslims would get in double trouble because they are aware of the Divine Law yet they follow their lustful desires. In fact, by not following Sharia Law, Muslims are not insulting God but they insult their own beings.

Do you not see that God, if real, made hair to cover a woman's head, and that the arrogance of thinking a man-made scarf is a better head cover is a sin against that God's purpose?

If you think that covering beautiful hairs by man-made scarf is a sin against God’s purpose then covering female sexual organs are even a bigger sin because the look of those private parts provide far better pleasure to man compared to the simple look of beautiful hairs. Beautiful hairs have the power to provoke sexual desires in man and for the safety and dignity; women are commanded to cover their hairs.

“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
1Cor 11:6 (KJV)

You are arguing out of your lustful desires and nothing more. Uncontrollable lustful desires (for sex, wealth, power, possession, and freedom from any social restriction) are the exact reason why a person rebel against God because for the fulfilment of lustful desires one should first reject God in order to reject His commandments.

Do you not see that God must have given us the enjoyment of taste to determine what is good to eat, and pigs and shellfish taste good and are therefore good to eat?

Do you not see that God, if real, gave people the strong desire to engage in sex so they would engage in sex?

I tell you, if God is a real entity, the back-asswards cultural conventions of middle-ages desert people is going to make him pissed-- imagine the arrogance of a bunch of uneducated misogynists thinking they are qualified to speak for a perfect Creator!

If you are a selfish and mean person who spend your life only for the sake of your own selfish pleasures then in that perspective all of your above complaints are fair.

At different occasions I emphasised that selfishness and meanness are like disease to a culture which if spread would cause insecurity to people’s possessions and dignity.

Yes, God is the creator of everything. If God has prohibited certain things or actions, (which apparently pleasing for us) then in those restrictions are hidden benefits for us that are not apprehensible through physical senses.

Wine is the creation of God and you know what happens to cultures where people are drunkards.

Pork was prohibited long before the appearance of Islam.

And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
Lev 11:7 (KJV)

And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.
Deut 14:8
(KJV)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/per...-dangerous

If the purpose of your life is enjoyment, pleasure, and satisfaction then that is a delusion because human pleasure cannot be perfect in his/her infinitesimal life.

When a student enters the Examination hall, he knows:

1. He is there for a short time
2. He is not there for seeking pleasure and enjoyment because if he will relax then he would have a bad result.
3. The purpose of his being there is only to show his best performance by putting all his good efforts

Life is an infinitesimal moment in the unfathomable time. However, this life is enough to understand the world, good, and evil as well as there is sufficient time for every person in which he/she can easily make his/her performance. Every person has intellect and free choice as well as concrete instructions in form of scriptures. If a person rejects the Divine Laws and lives a sinful life then it is purely his/her personal choice.

“They will cry out in Hell and say: “Our Lord, let us out so that we may act righteously, different from what we did before.” (They will be told): “DID WE NOT GRANT YOU AN AGE LONG ENOUGH FOR ANYONE TO TAKE HEED IF HE HAD WANTED TO TAKE HEED? BESIDES, THERE CAME A WARNER TO YOU. So have a taste of the torment now. None may come to the help of the wrong-doers.”
Faathir (35)
-Verse 37-

“And indeed there has come to them news (in this Quran) wherein there is (enough warning) to check (them from evil),”
Al-Qamar (54)
-Verse 4-

[pocaracas]

These Theories lack Correspondence and Coherence. In attempting to elucidate meaning to these expressions in terms of truth-conditions, induce a plethora of further problems. Many are a matter of detail concerning the kinds of properties we should associate with these terms to produce truth theories for them. Lack of Correspondence and Coherence are the sources for general difficulties concerning whether or not truth is central at all in the analysis or elucidation of meaning of these expressions.

Well, the god hypothesis introduces its own nice set of difficulties which you just happen to choose to ignore with a flick of a finger.
We can dismiss any non-proven hypothesis, while betting on one of them to be the winning horse. I guess that's what believers do.
I prefer not to gamble.

Oh wow. Yes.
Natural selection does have a scientific description.
Thanks for playing science. Here's your parting gift....

Concerning the Scientific Description of “Natural Selection,” the only thing I have ever received is the phrase “Natural selection does have a scientific description.” However, none of you guys ever dared to present a REAL Scientific Description of “Natural Selection” that may define the mechanics and orderly methods which clearly demonstrate on what principles “Natural Selection” works and how it chooses the fittest.

Yeah.... there's this entity called "Natural Selection" that consciously "chooses" the fittest... why do you word things in such a fallacious fashion?

Anyway, had you not skipped high-school, you'd have been presented with the evidence you want.

Here's a collection of resources that seem fit for the job at hand:
http://sciencenetlinks.com/lessons/intro...selection/

http://www.ngsslifescience.com/biology_l...ction.html

http://www.nhm.org/site/for-teachers/les...igh-school

Good luck.

[Whateverist]

@ Harris: tl;dr

[bennyboy]

Scriptures (so called fairy tales) are exactly acting like experienced and knowledgeable adults.

For example, almost all scriptures condemn Adultery, Homosexuality, and Incest and prohibit these actions in sternest manners. Most people (like children) do not apprehend the hidden evil in unnatural sexual activities at first glance. They only look at the immediate pleasures. They normally do not think about the socio-psychological after effects and medical issues veiled in such actions.

In short, Scripture normally forbid those acts the consequences of which are not immediately apparent but slowly poison everyone and cause harm to the coming generations.

Yes, because the Islamic community is so psychologically healthy and well-balanced. . . much better than those corrupted, suffering Canadians, Swiss, Finns, Australians, New Zealanders. Dude, do you not have access to the outside world at all? What you say and observable reality are so far apart that your religion is now bordering on psychosis.

The idea of God is not the idea of anything that is really no more than the idea of our own human essence. Knowledge of God is not empty or cold speculation that merely flits in the brain, but rather knowledge that takes root in the heart and includes the honouring of God.

Sure sure. Knowledge of the balance of my Four Psychic Winds, and of the Pooh Cycles of the Magic Space monkey, also take root in the heart. Stop talking as though your fairy tale were real, and start getting down to the part where you prove God exists without 100-line word salad.

People are more powerfully motivated by self-interest than the sentiments of concern for each other. If they are not controlled by dispassionate objective laws then each person is his/her own judge of what is best. In such environment, there would be no assurance that one’s safety and one’s possessions will not be at the mercy of other people. People would be indifferent to each other and intellectually bright and educated people would become selfishly cold to the fate of the suffering masses. The general condition of uncertainty is the condition where people can do anything (by the use of power and intellect) they like to pursue their wellbeing and secure their safety.

Stop making shit up. The best countries in the world right now are non-islamic, and largely non-religious. You don't see Canadians cannibalizing each other in the streets more and more as religion becomes gradually obsolete there, do you? You keep saying "would" and then following it with demonstrably false assertions.

The question I posed was very much relevant to the proof of God and it seems you have a good idea about what your “yes” and “no” means. That is the reason you have carefully chosen your agnostic path to escape from a firm “yes” or “no”. However, having your own conscious being in the intelligible universe if you say “I do not know whether there is God” because you cannot perceive Him like you perceive matter that simply means “I do not believe in God” and that is rather a hypocritical way to rebel against God.

The reason I've chosen an agnostic path is that I don't know for sure if there is some kind of Creator who might be called god. But I'm not agnostic about YOUR vision of God: it's nonsense.

To which you are referring, as “philosophical speculation” are in fact logical truths.

That you think so is obvious. But you need to learn how logic works if you think anything about your religion or its texts is logical.

You should live in a Muslim community in order to see how a real Muslim woman, who believe in the existence of God and obeys His commandments, may respond to your lustful ideas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3708444.stm

Do you want me to quote the literally hundreds of stories showing women being beaten, having acid poured in their faces, been shot, been raped and then blamed for adultury? Just because one crazy muslim chick wants to wear a towel on her head doesn't mean that Islam is a champion of the rights of women.

And that's one more thing-- do you not see that if God is real, your religion's fucking insane cultural conventions are an insult to that real God?

Yes, I agree that Muslims are insulting God by doing all prohibited activities. Such Muslims would get in double trouble because they are aware of the Divine Law yet they follow their lustful desires. In fact, by not following Sharia Law, Muslims are not insulting God but they insult their own beings.

No. Sharia law IS the insult to God. The entire body of Sharia law is a violation of the concepts of freewill, of love and compassion. It is a law which implies a complete lack of faith-- you do not believe God can guide, can judge, or can punish on His own, but needs a bunch of oppressive misogynists to carry out his will.

If you think that covering beautiful hairs by man-made scarf is a sin against God’s purpose then covering female sexual organs are even a bigger sin because the look of those private parts provide far better pleasure to man compared to the simple look of beautiful hairs. Beautiful hairs have the power to provoke sexual desires in man and for the safety and dignity; women are commanded to cover their hairs.

There's nothing wrong with nudity, either. Well-adjusted people can go to a nude beach, appreciate the freedom of wearing the clothes nature gave them, and do it without raping a woman, blaming her, and stoning her for death for not covering up.

The desire is not in the woman-- it's in the sexually repressed brains of dysfunctional men. And increasing the taboo only increases the dysfunction.

Again, you are making shit up, and do not have actual facts. I can play the bullshit speculation game, too. Don't you know that homosexuals are encouraged by non-homosexuals revealing their dirty faces and their glistening muscles? Don't you know that every man who goes shirtless or even bare-armed is provoking the desires in the homosexuals and that they must therefore also wear full-body-bathtowels in order to prevent others from losing moral self-control?

[Whateverist]

Stop making shit up.  

Try this.

*bitch slap*

If he wants to get better, he'll thanks us later.