Re: LOGICAL PROOFS THAT GOD EXISTS
rosborne979 wrote:baddog1 wrote:Unless this is a 'bait thread'
, I assume that you're asking: 'What proofs
of God's existence have you encountered in your life'?
Too many to include or even remember. A few quick ones would be: Witnessing the births of my children, realizing that anyone survived the destruction of the twin towers, realizing that my Mom loves me - even when I don't deserve it...
You're kidding, right?
About what?
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand proofs.
cjhsa wrote:Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand proofs.
Marvel at god's creation...then shoot it!
Re: LOGICAL PROOFS THAT GOD EXISTS
baddog1 wrote:rosborne979 wrote:baddog1 wrote:Unless this is a 'bait thread'
, I assume that you're asking: 'What proofs
of God's existence have you encountered in your life'?
Too many to include or even remember. A few quick ones would be: Witnessing the births of my children, realizing that anyone survived the destruction of the twin towers, realizing that my Mom loves me - even when I don't deserve it...
You're kidding, right?
About what?
I'm trying to decide if you're being serious or not.
This is one of those brick walls that rationalists keep banging our heads into when we argue this point with "believers". Theists abuse the word "proof" as to be unrecognizable in the context they put it.
The occurance of circumstances that you find favorable is no proof
at all of a supreme being. To say that it is gives me fuel to "prove" the following:
"If there is a god, he couldn't care less about us because:
1. He allows stillbirths and crib death.
2. He allowed thousands of perfectly faithful individuals to perish in flame on 9/11.
3. My mom hates me because I'm gay. (She doesn't, btw.)"
Re: LOGICAL PROOFS THAT GOD EXISTS
stlstrike3 wrote: "If there is a god, he couldn't care less about us because:
1. He allows stillbirths and crib death.
2. He allowed thousands of perfectly faithful individuals to perish in flame on 9/11.
3. My mom hates me because I'm gay. (She doesn't, btw.)"
If you would fault God because of war and crime and sickness and death, who would you thank for life?
The bible explains why we have human misery and what God intends to do about it.
Know all about gods "works" and what he intends to do about it... same old same old... as in the old testament
I'd momentarily forgotten about this thread and decided to check out what the latest kumquat express was doing... not to be insulting, it's just my way,
and, lo an behold, i recognize the thread and posts.
Tis a perplexity. I've no interest in answering all this stuff for the thousandth time.. I see no argument for pabulum.
Mumbles, moves off, works back to what Set meant in th first place..
Re: LOGICAL PROOFS THAT GOD EXISTS
neologist wrote:stlstrike3 wrote: "If there is a god, he couldn't care less about us because:
1. He allows stillbirths and crib death.
2. He allowed thousands of perfectly faithful individuals to perish in flame on 9/11.
3. My mom hates me because I'm gay. (She doesn't, btw.)"
If you would fault God because of war and crime and sickness and death, who would you thank for life?
The bible explains why we have human misery and what God intends to do about it.
Every now and then, I like to play with the animals on this one, then I realize I need more intellectually stimluating activities. But for now.. I will play.
There IS nobody to "thank" or hold responsible for "life" or "unfortuante events". But as pattern seeking animals, we prefer a bad explanation to none at all. Unless you allow your intelligence to override such impulses.
The bible's explanation for good and bad in the world is grossly insufficient to a rational mind.
Re: LOGICAL PROOFS THAT GOD EXISTS
stlstrike3 wrote:neologist wrote:stlstrike3 wrote: "If there is a god, he couldn't care less about us because:
1. He allows stillbirths and crib death.
2. He allowed thousands of perfectly faithful individuals to perish in flame on 9/11.
3. My mom hates me because I'm gay. (She doesn't, btw.)"
If you would fault God because of war and crime and sickness and death, who would you thank for life?
The bible explains why we have human misery and what God intends to do about it.
Every now and then, I like to play with the animals on this one, then I realize I need more intellectually stimluating activities. But for now.. I will play.
There IS nobody to "thank" or hold responsible for "life" or "unfortuante events". But as pattern seeking animals, we prefer a bad explanation to none at all. Unless you allow your intelligence to override such impulses.
The bible's explanation for good and bad in the world is grossly insufficient to a rational mind.
The effort most folks have committed to discovering the bible's explanation is grossly insufficient for rational understanding.
Re: LOGICAL PROOFS THAT GOD EXISTS
neologist wrote:stlstrike3 wrote:neologist wrote:stlstrike3 wrote: "If there is a god, he couldn't care less about us because:
1. He allows stillbirths and crib death.
2. He allowed thousands of perfectly faithful individuals to perish in flame on 9/11.
3. My mom hates me because I'm gay. (She doesn't, btw.)"
If you would fault God because of war and crime and sickness and death, who would you thank for life?
The bible explains why we have human misery and what God intends to do about it.
Every now and then, I like to play with the animals on this one, then I realize I need more intellectually stimluating activities. But for now.. I will play.
There IS nobody to "thank" or hold responsible for "life" or "unfortuante events". But as pattern seeking animals, we prefer a bad explanation to none at all. Unless you allow your intelligence to override such impulses.
The bible's explanation for good and bad in the world is grossly insufficient to a rational mind.
The effort most folks have committed to discovering the bible's explanation is grossly insufficient for rational understanding.
Aw c'mon Neo . Don't sugarcoat it.
Most folks who criticize the Bible haven't read it. Maybe they skimmed it, or parts of it. They couldn't find their way through it to save their life.
Their understanding of the content and the context is poor to very poor.
I've read that piece of poorly written fiction from cover to cover twice--and several other passages on more than two occasions, as well as enduring the unwelcome experience of having had it shoved down my throat in sermons and church-sponsored religion classes.
It's really pathetic to see something like that last venting of spleen trotted out. That's beneath even your already low, low standard, "real life."
Consider how it appears from the point of view of those who are not slaves to superstitious fear. You cling desperately to a poorly written, implausible account of a low-life deity because you fear to face the fact that you are the random product of a vast cosmos in which you are supremely insignificant. But rather than face that fact, and deal with, and get on with your life, you either dream up, or buy into a "philosophy" (my apologies to all serious students of philosophy) which makes you the special creation of a deity who has created this vast and intricate cosmos so that you may be the center of attention, and the object of said deity's puerile mind games.
Insert the biggest rolly-eyed emoticon you can dream of here.
For those like Baddog who just don't get it (which is to say, those who take their superstitions so seriously that they can't imagine that others don't)--this thread has no point, it is an exercise in childish hilarity. Those who posted here first "got it," and it's a sad comment on the theists that they didn't get it. What is really pathetic is that Baddog has had sufficient experience of my response to organized religion in general, and christian stupidity in particular, and still failed to see the implications of me claiming to have a proof for the existence of god.
Everyone here attempting to seriously argue whether or not there is a god, and/or whether or not the proposition is subject to "proof" badly needs to get a sense of humor, and to look up the word irony.
hi Setanta,
Your alternative, if you don't think that the Bible represents God's word, is to hold that it is a manmade book.
If you were going to write an authoritative religious work, would you prohibit behaviors that you might want to engage in?
Lots of no-no's listed in the Bible that go cross-wise to man's natural tendency to want to do them.
These range from sexual prohibitions, to what can and can't be eaten, to what one may or may not do on certain days (Sabbaths, feasts, etc), prohibitions from engaging in lucrative business (usury) , commandments NOT to utilize the full harvest of one's field, etc.
If you were going to write an authoritative religious work that established you as 'God's representative' (i.e. a priest or prophet, etc) , would you tie yourself down to requirements to perform hundreds of petty regulations concerning washings, specific types of garments, foods you can or cannot eat, time consuming butchering and offering of animals?
In other words , wouldn't you make it easy and fun for you?
If you were going to write an authoritative religious work that established you as 'God's representative' , would you consistently portray God's representatives as backsliding, slimy characters of low morality, two faced, weak willed, unbelieving, etc ?
Wouldn't you whitewash the priesthood and portray all the virtues and none of the vices?
Leaving aside the truly wack-job types like Abraham with his knife to his son's throat, claiming to speak to a god off in the sky that only he can see, hear and speak to, and Lot shoving his daughters into the street for the crowd to do with as they please so he can entertain his angel friends in peace; leaving aside Lot screwing his two daughters, and the text claiming he didn't know it because he slept through it--there is more than sufficient sexual depravity in that document to discount your claims.
Your argument is based upon several assumptions--that all those who wrote any portion of what is now called the bible were engaged in some vast conspiracy, rather than being merely literate members of a backward and superstition collection of tribes; that people so hidebound by superstition would have conscientiously worked to remove contradictions and glaring, embarrassing evidence of the venality of their "god" from texts which they held in superstitious awe as "divinely inspired"; that this set of confused and contradictory fairly tales based on a mixture of poorly remembered oral "history," the conflicting claims within the tribes of the adherents of more than one god, and laughable conceits about righteousness and military superiority in any way differs from the silly tales which passed for history and evidence of divine favor which appear in any other culture. As well make a sacred text of Roman legendary history, or the Anglo-Saxon chronicles.
Nothing more and nothing less than ordinary, everyday ignorance and superstition explain the silliness you claim is divinely inspired writ, as is the case with all the other folk-tale histories of insignificant peoples throughout history and across the globe.
You know, once the Romans got their act together, and started to consistently conquer and rule their neighbors, they stopped making up stories about the gods coming to their aid in the face of the depredations of their enemies. They no longer needed to make up silly stories, because the reality of the effectiveness of their society obviated the need. In the case of the Jews, they just never got it together and kept it together long enough to dispense with the silly folk tales.
By the way, that was one of the most pathetic apologias which i have ever read.
Re: LOGICAL PROOFS THAT GOD EXISTS
real life wrote:neologist wrote:stlstrike3 wrote:neologist wrote:stlstrike3 wrote: "If there is a god, he couldn't care less about us because:
1. He allows stillbirths and crib death.
2. He allowed thousands of perfectly faithful individuals to perish in flame on 9/11.
3. My mom hates me because I'm gay. (She doesn't, btw.)"
If you would fault God because of war and crime and sickness and death, who would you thank for life?
The bible explains why we have human misery and what God intends to do about it.
Every now and then, I like to play with the animals on this one, then I realize I need more intellectually stimluating activities. But for now.. I will play.
There IS nobody to "thank" or hold responsible for "life" or "unfortuante events". But as pattern seeking animals, we prefer a bad explanation to none at all. Unless you allow your intelligence to override such impulses.
The bible's explanation for good and bad in the world is grossly insufficient to a rational mind.
The effort most folks have committed to discovering the bible's explanation is grossly insufficient for rational understanding.
Aw c'mon Neo . Don't sugarcoat it.
Most folks who criticize the Bible haven't read it. Maybe they skimmed it, or parts of it. They couldn't find their way through it to save their life.
Their understanding of the content and the context is poor to very poor.
A couple more tidbits:
1. One would think that if the creator of the universe felt it necessary to pen a book, that it would be the most exquisitely understandable piece of literature in the world. It is absolutely illogical to think that it would contain gross inconsistencies (with the new "trumping" the old as the only fallback position of the faithful) or be in some form of "code" for us to decipher. That would make its understanding dependent on the intelligence of its reader. And, as one should be able to ascertain from societal observations, in that case the vast majority of the populace would be hosed.
2. I've also read that miserable volume (once cover to cover, and several times in six-too-many literature classes). So I know what I'm criticizing. Those who tell me "you haven't spend enough time in the word" are relying on tired knee-jerk rhetoric of the faithful.
Another logical proof of the existence of god: only a horse's @ss such as the god described in the Bobble could have been responsible for an "intellect" such as "real life" apparently possesses.
You know, Stlstrike, you're as pathetically obsessed as those against whom you predictably rail.
Roger and the few others at the beginning of the thread were apparently the only ones who "got it."
Setanta wrote:It's really pathetic to see something like that last venting of spleen trotted out.
Really funny to see YOU say this.
