A test for the faithful -- you can not prove that "God" exists, can you?

Well, Neutral... one of the members on this forum proves the link you provided to be in error (at least in one part) ... that one part is:
"Nowhere in atheism is there a text that must be obeyed, or a preacher that knows the "one true way." " That one member is Bishadi with his unceasing chant about EM.

 

....

 

Nothing can be proven to be true - except the own existance as a psychological or thinking being if I take Descartes serios: I'm able to doubt (to think) about everything but I'm not able to doubt that I doubt => So I am existing. Je pense, donc je suis. Cogito ergo sum.

We are just simple defining "Everyhting is right - except it is wrong". This paradigma we are using in natural science, we are using it in laws ("Everything is allowed what is not forbidden") - we are using it as programmers "Everything is true except it is false") and so on and so on. Seems to me you hear the first time of this paradigma although it is stabalizing the whole human world all around you.

Neverthelless ideas are always able to be wrong - or falsifiable. It's for example not very easy to say what's the color of the sun - specially if we are also thinking about infrared and ultraviolet colors. But it is very easy to say "The son is not blue" - although "blue" is 'only' a psychological quality. Some people for example are even saying a quality like the color "blue" is without any reality. It becomes very fast very sophisticated and very confusing if we would now continue. But if it is so unbelievable difficult to find out wether the color "blue" is a reality and not an illusion only - so I'm not perplexed that it is difficult to find a way to god via thoughts, ideas and verbal or mathematical constructions.

Perhaps you can find anywhere in the world an old lady, a grandma - who never heard something about theology, philosophy and/or god - but knows more than you and me or more than all people in whole Europe and the whole USA together about god, because she just simple speaks with him like he would be her best friend since eternities. If so then I'm sure she knows: god loves her - and she would also know god loves you although she don't has any idea about you.

http://youtu.be/ihZClVGxjf8

 

Maths can prove things true.

 

Feel free to prove me wrong.

I am easily moved from the null hypothesis by evidence, and the evidence for those is abundant. Evidence for a god is not.

I suppose it is - although the only fundamental of atheism is "Not believing in a god".

The evidence you cited was an argument from apparent design, which is fallacious - I'm sorry. I explained reasons why in a previous post.

 

No. Mathematics are "only" thoughts. It's a kind of metaphysics itselve - a kind of intersubjective truth. Even the phycicist Feynman (an atheist) said: Mathematics is not a science.

Do you like to know that 4+4=5? This is wrong? No - you are wrong, because: Take two ropes with two nodes each. Now make a node to connect this two ropes. Count the nodes and you will see: 2+2=5 q.e.d.

http://youtu.be/rzpL_5CI0WQ

 

So thats 2 nodes for each rope, plus one node connecting them.

2+2+1=5

Whats the problem?

 

Are you protesting the names of the teams?

Angels?

Padres?

 

You mean like this one:
http://jeffpearlman.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/6a00d83451c45669e20120a616dca1970b-500wi.jpg

 

Gods are true for the same reason that the number 4 is true; for no other reason that they need to be true.

So when you make such a sweeping statement about truth destroying ignorance, those are the truths you are including. They don't destroy ignorance. Without the context, i.e. the proper information and understanding of their respective nature and application, they can cause everything from a mild crackdown of the rational mind to mass-ignorance.

 

I agree with this. However, I hope you know that you just said that gods are allegorical.

 

Exactly. one of the nodes is the represention of an action ("+") so (a+b)->(a+b+1). And now explain this what you call "no problem" to your dog.

http://youtu.be/68bL02Ogrt0

 

What? No it isnt.

And my dog is dead.

 

What's EM?

 

Ask Bishadi... he is the one who introduced that subject into the religion forum.

 

Hopefully I'm right - then you will meet your dog again one day.

http://youtu.be/k1Etruh7Ch8

 

Incorporeal, do you not know what EM means or do you just don't want to tell me?

 

Thanks as you then answer the thread.

ie..... you cant prove a god


but i can prove that mother nature is your everything (whether you like it or not)

stability is a reason to think

the ignorant do want to use their mind as they think someone else will do it for them

kind of like you not realizing you are on this internet because of people comprehending how to use math

i agree until the 'last word' is rendered

that is a quack comment

blue is an identity not a psychology

it is like me calling you an idiot versus alive

see the difference?

because your delusions are that you talk to god rather than putting your feet on the ground to realize nature is your god (provides you with everything, including your life)

she wouldnt know your god either


if you want to speak to many of 'her' or 'him' go to the hopi reservation

 

I don't operate on faith. It is just my nature. But I accept god given my definition of it. For me God isn't an old man in a white robe with a white beard. God is nature, the laws of physics, the big bang. I can accept that without faith. Just alter the definition a little and things come into focus.

The god that religions have defined is designed to produce social control. It is very effective and very important. Society would be even harder to manage if it weren't for religious beliefs.

 

Why is nature existing? Would it not be much more easy and senseful if there would be no nature at all?

http://youtu.be/IPMnMmnZ2Zc

 

ask your dog that in reverse?

without words you could not even comprehend what nature is.


without math, people would not be reading your words.


without you, this forum would not have another liar breeding other lies.


Nature was here before YOU and mankind created the words to describe both.

God didnt do it, unless he (it) IS nature itself.

ie.... mankind can describe within the processes of nature but no one knows the beginning or ending without comprehending the processes between them points in time.

 

Again, your strawman rules.

Of course it exists. It's simply that we can choose to do what we want to do, whether it's what God wants or not. It's a very simple concept. The thing is, anything that humans do is flawed. That includes religion.

 

Of course, but words can be taken differently by different people. There are no absolute definitions that aren't interpreted differently by different people.

Again with the strawman of literalism. Of course you can defeat that strawman.

 

Well, I agree for the most part. Religion should be out of schools, the courts and government. Religious people should be in all of those places. However, religion should be in public, albeit my choice would be to do so in a quiet way, I think for example, street preachers do more harm to religion than help.

So you're in a tizzy partly because your FB friends post things about God? Well, just unfriend them or ignore them. They have their right to communicate how they wish. If you don't like it, stay away from them.

 

I don't really care about religion in public. But then I live in a country without much religion going on. However, I do believe that religion must be part of the curiculum in schools. It's part of culture and history and should be taught as such. In fact, if people go around and annoy each other with their religions, then there is no better remedy than teaching comparative religion in school. Nothing gets rid of cultural quirks faster than to teach how people use different ways to deal with the same things.

Imagine if Iranian kids were given the opportunity to see that the ways of, say, Israeli kids were no different than their own ways. And vice versa. Bingo, no more conflict in the Middleeast.