I will prove god's existence if....

Well I do apologise if I have offended you in some manner, but that is besides the point. Are all religous beliefs aimed at the same thing? Perhaps. In that they all seek to understand the universe through the existance of a divine being/beings that is true. On the other hand I would hold that my view of God is the best one, and the truest. Even if all religions are reaching towards the same thing, then that thing is still a specific thing, not all of them can be right about everything though all may approach the truth. I believe my vision of God to be the true one, but I could of course be wrong.

I know, pages ago, but I had to respond...

Your God is the best God? Does that mean that your God can beat up my God? I've got twenty bucks on my deity. Do you have a PayPall account? I'm serious about this. We can webcam the fight.

If any one else wants some action, let me know. Ten to one for my God in the third round.

At this stage of the argument, a valid conclusion can be that life originated on an alternate planet.

However, we are not yet at the starting point in the hierarchy of this. While we progress to the highest level, we will see this disproven, and again be left with he inescapable conclusion that there MUST be divine intervention.

Let's now move to the next level up on the hierarchy. The conditions for life to exist are very narrow in spectrum relative to the conditions of the universe. Additionally, the conditions to allow matter itself to exist, with the exact balance of the 4 forces, is extremely narrow. Even the slightest differential in balance could be the cause of matter to not be able to form.

So, ... the question to ask is, why is our universe so specifically balanced to allow such a narrow range of possibility of occurrence to exist to support life? And, not only exist, but exist in mass quantity throughout the universe. The answer becomes clear if you reverse the suppositions, and conclude that the universe exists for the very purpose of life. Life is the meaning and the cause for the existence of the universe as it is, and is not a coincidental outcome.

If I claim I have the Tooth Fairy locked up in a jar, and I show you an empty jar you'll call me silly, at least.

If I call you silly for claiming an invisible unprovable entity exists up in the heaven then I am `attacking your faith` -- you feel entitled to be offended and the blame is on me for not acting `politically correct` and `not respecting your faith`. LOL what a crock of ****.

Grow up. If you don't want your beliefs to be 'attacked' then stop having such silly beliefs.
-

Right, to someone who distrusts the sense organs that were informing his brain before he was born, let alone before he developed the rudiments of language or logic. But to everyone else, who can all come and take a look, that is how we come to understand what exists and what doesn't.

Really... amazing how Spinoza in the early 17th century made some of the most profound cases for the lack of his existence, and certainly the limitation of scripture as a source of any knowledge. Amazing all the medieval God proofs that were central to philosophy at the time -- if it wasn't controversial, then why did Duns Scotus and Abelard and Anselm and everyone feel the need to create a proof??

And there are other things fundamental to the universe that are not controversial. Time is not controversial. Matter is not controversial. Energy is not controversial. Forces of nature are not controversial. Sure, there are different scientific understandings of them and controversies within those fields, but no one denies the existence of matter.

Yeah, but it's amazing how a good number of smart people cannot be convinced by any form of demonstration that god's existence can be proved. Leads one to think that it's what's in your heart and not in your head that proves the existence of god. As Augustine asserted, belief is the product of God gracing you with it -- sort of deterministic theism, and an act of faith itself, but certainly NOT a claim that you can arrive at God just by thinking hard enough.

Don't be patronizing. I am calm. I've been forced to put things in bold and caps so that you stop ignoring them.

Funny, but I did very specifically say my view of god.
Oh and Jesus Christ? He could kick your lame gods ass anyday. The bet is on.

Let's stay focused.

You all asked for there to be a presentation of a logical argument to prove the existence of God. The argument was to be based on logical and verifiable premises, and needed to come to a definitive conclusion.

I am presenting such argument, and will complete it. But, please, I need the flow to continue logically and not keep darting off to subjects pages past that don't relate. Granted you all have been discussing the topic for much time now, and have many debates running through it. But, ... the focus and objective is a proof, and that is what is being presented; a proof that will supersede all other discussions because it draws a closing conclusion that can be confirmed.

If you are willing to accept that during 4 billion years, the same factors which accomplished the successful production of Right Handed life would also be in existence to create the formation of life as Left Handed.

And, yes, a level playing field for the production of both forms, as the earth was in form 4.5 billion years ago and during much of its state for the next 3 billion years or so. Not until about 1.3 billion years ago did the earth start taking on its current and more familiar form.

Then, the bigger question to ask is not, "DID life originate on earth?" That's not probable... At this stage of the argument, a valid conclusion can be that life originated on an alternate planet.

and can be proven false by more than just the spiral direction of DNA

the inescapable conclusion that there MUST be divine intervention.

I do agree that we look too much to the physical. Even Dawkins admits that scince is not applicable to the non-physical.

Spinoza wasn't even taken seriously by his own fellow enlightenment thinkers.

I gave a proof, but not the kind that could lead one to be certain of the existance or nonexistance of anything. But it does show how proof in limited in this context. I agree that faith is somthing we come to at a non-logical level, infact I argue this quite centrally. However this extends to every belief and not just religion.

Do you feel underappreciated:flowers:

Didn't he say that if you were struck in the cheek you should respond by turning the other one?

Or that if an occupying soldier ordered you to carry his pack for a kilometre you should shoulder it for two?

I'm not saying these aren't admirable statements in context - but they don't paint a picture of someone who's much cop in a street rumble.

Now Vishnu - with his six burly arms and ability to bestride the universe in a single step - strikes me as a safer bet. Six quid on Vishnu for me please!

Fair enough. But prove to me why we should regard the non-physical as real.

Because they were paralyzed with fear of the counter-reformation and the church, and because they were half brainwashed by medieval philosophers and half brainwashed by Descartes. Just because he wasn't taken seriously by his contemporaries does not condemn his ideas, especially now that most scholars regard him as one of the greatest and most revolutionary of all European philosophers.

That's fair. As I intimated before, proof can mean different things. And sufficient proof can come about in different ways -- by faith for some, but not for others.

And whether or not our thinking processes are similar, and whether or not your argument appeals to my sense of logic, I indeed respect the sincerity of your beliefs. Authenticity to self is what matters the most, and this world wouldn't be nearly so fun if we all believed the same thing.

Not anymore after your nice emoticon

Ok fair enough on Jesus. But if he comes home with a black eye, his dad would tottally go after Vishnu and beat the crap out of him. The father has quite the temper on him. Your god is going to be served some serious punishment, old testament style!:letme-at-em:

Not that I'm wanting to take all this too seriously - but doesn't this view make something of a mockery of the "forgive and forget" "blessed be the meek" message that seems (to me at least) to be so central to what Christians tend to focus on as being noble and worthy about Christ's testament?

Do you personally see the gentle (if sometimes rather bewildering) example of Christ as very much secondary to the fire and brimstone of the old testament?

I wouldn't say Vishnu is "my God" - I'm not a Hindu (nor can I become an orthodox Hindu I think - not being born one) but the stories of their deities do describe mighty feats and miracles that can make the stories of the Old testament look very tame in comparison. The God of the old testament threatened the world with destruction once - Shiva has done so dozens of times.

I can prove God.

Who wants to hear this?

You ever read revelations?

Well I'd prefer it if you answered my two questions before putting your own to me. But I will reply:

I've read the first few pages. It didn't grab me. It doesn't strike me as anything uplifting or worthy. It didn't surprise me to learn that the island that it's authors are supposed to have lived on was home to a particular type of poisonous mushroom renowned for it's nightmarish hallucinations.

Again, I feel it makes a mockery of what I feel to be precious about the New Testament message - that forgiveness can be emancipating - that humilty could save us all. I think this is actually true (though I also think it is niave to believe that humans could be capable of gestalt meekness).

I got more out of Will Self's introduction to the edition of the Book of Revelation I bought:

"I found it a sick text. Perhaps it's the occulusion of judgmental types, and the congruent occlusion of psyches, but there's something not quite right about Revelation. I feel it as an insemination of older, more primal verities into an as yet fresh dough of syncretism - the NeoPlatonists still kneading at the stuff of the Messiah. The riot of violent, imagistic occurrences; the cabalistic emphasis on numbers; the visceral repulsion expressed towards the bodily, the sensual and the sexual ... the text is a guingnol of tedium, a portentuous horror film."

From my experience I can only agree, that this text should form the epilogue to the tale of Jesus, gentle and magnaminous, strikes me as perplexing - it makes a mockery of what it purports to eulogise.

I can prove God.

Who wants to hear this?