Religion – "How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist", by Victor J. Stenger. Well folks, I guess this settles it...
Not a member? Sign-up today!
suzanemichel
rylandl831968
altnrg
fyuuuuut
rhettdejesus1975
elliotthicks1965
MaryLynn_
dokkyou08
pericles
daviannewton651975
mekhifranks1975
daviant701973
pyuuuke
hyooo25
romeohoover1968
StoneSpirit
adamhowe1980
nickjones321
hatukabu
2jojoyo
happycat462
soulkeeper009
klausolg
marksflou
zgirl1974
maneetion
rhed06car
Emmanuel70
JonRhodesUK
andieaw
kaylith310
mariopazi
healthyvideo
rightfromwrong
alamala
DiffeeOnline
CRYMTYPHON
deathray
geniusbeauty
2sidestoeverything
bushiesRbonkers
PainGoddess
sheryllyon
tcnt
puffin
LudoTony
V.O.R.
frenmorow
jjayaann
thinkingserious
425)
It is empirical fact that unnecessary suffering exists in the world.
An omniscient God would be aware of this unnecessary suffering.
An omnipotent God would have the power to eliminate or alleviate at least some of the unnecessary suffering.
An benevolent God would have the desire to eliminate or alleviate at least some of the unnecessary suffering.
It follows that a God with the attributes of the omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God does not exist.
----
The laws of physics look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God.
----
God does not deliberately hide from any human being who is open to finding evidence for his presence.
----
If God exists, then he is perfect.
If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
But the universe is not perfect.
Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.
Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.
I understand your argument but disagree. Two sexes with the complexities couldn't come naturally,
Birds with their method of flying and the complexity of the aerodynamics couldn't come naturally.
God helped in the design but allowed for flaws. It's a hard concept to believe, but there are so many things which could have not occurred with out help. A supreme being of some sort if you don't want to say God.
I don't understand what you mean when you say "couldn't come naturally". Science tells us that the earth formed billions of years ago, from star dust. Mind-boggling complexity is readily achievable through evolution and selection (and time), this is a proven fact.
I find it impossible (as you do?) to believe that everything we see just came from "nothing".
I don't mind discussing the concept of God (obviously), however I just don't see any reason to buy into a random tale.
Did He just come from nowhere?
Isn't this something you need to at least consider?
I would love to hear your answer (dodge) to this question:
Who/What created your hypothetical Supreme Being?
Please explore this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-bi...
Ricky: The incontrovertible empirical fact, which would hold up under honest court examination, is that Jesus Christ arose from the dead. He said that He was one with God the Father. He takes precedence to your false science.
Evolution starts with a false premise that evolutionists want to believe so strongly, that they "see" evidence that isn't there.
You postulate that the concept of God is "a random tale," but you know better. There is a long record, which you may reject it's truth, but you know it's not random.
Then your practice is to ask many crafted leading questions, but they have different answers than you would accept, unless you had your eyes opened to the truth:
" Did He just come from nowhere? Isn't this something you need to at least consider? I would love to hear your answer (dodge) to this question: Who/What created your hypothetical Supreme Being?
First you poison the well, expecting a "dodge." Cont'd>>
"The incontrovertible empirical fact, which would hold up under honest court examination, is that Jesus Christ arose from the dead."
Uh, when did hearsay become incontrovertible empirical fact?
AIR: You show your ignorance. What else do you not believe about established history? -Rev. S
When we said there were WMD in Iraq.
Wasn't talking 2U, but I was referring to established history. You wish to bring in something that is inappropriate to the issue, thinking that makes a point. -Rev. S
Established history?
Another swing.
Another miss.
No real content to your reply, I reckon! -Rev. S
Calling you a liar wasn't enough?
ROTFLMHO! -Rev. S
ROFLMAO, maybe you missed it, you're posting on a PUBLIC board which makes anything you post open for anyone to comment on, especially when its way off base. Maybe you can indulge us all and explain how my comment was inappropriate to the tissue when it illustrated the point very clearly. But then again when all you can post are strawman arguments I wont expect too much.
No problem, but you came into a reply giving a contribution that didn't apply.
I have no problem interacting with others, but it helps to be on the same page. Not even those with whom we initially give reply are always on the same page. So, no big thing.
WMD's being in Iraq are not established history, but current events that are in controversy. So, not too good in making a point, but seems more like a political statement, that has missed the target. -Rev. S
ROFLMAO, of course it didnt apply since it used YOUR HERO to illustrate exactly what you claimed wasnt happening.
No, although I think that the war was inevitable, since Saddam admitted to plans to develop WMD's, I consider GWB was a bit hasty in the conflict. We should have had better understanding of the age old conflicts of the area & had strategy to avoid the pitfalls in which we found.
BTW, a Commander of troops from our neighborhood has recently brief the Pentagon that we are kicking the insurgent's butts & great progress is being made in Iraq. The troops are ready to stand down as soon as they have notice.
HooRah! -Rev. S
ROFLMAO, I believe the justification for the war was he HAD WMD and was planning on using them not he was thinking about making them. If that is the case we should turn our atttention alittle SouthEast and plan for the invaion of Israel since they seem to not only be planning but not fessing up to having them either.
"BTW, a Commander of troops from our neighborhood has recently brief the Pentagon that we are kicking the insurgent's butts & great progress is being made in Iraq. The troops are ready to stand down as soon as they have notice"
ROFLMAO, and pixie fairie dust has been found to cure cancer.
Do you want me to cut & paste the transcript? Pixie fairy dust indeed! You make me LOL. -Rev. S
When did court examination become scientific method?
Another hearsay become incontrovertible empirical fact most often touted is that he was born of a Virgin.
Actually virgin is a mistranslation. The term is really something closer to "maiden", basically a young unmarried woman.
Another translation MDIAR is "pure of heart>"
Ahhh, its probably the same translation, just that mine puts a twist or something on it? I don't know, Hebrew is an odd language.
Actually to even to begin understanding the Bible we'd have to uunderstand ancient Hebrew and Greek.
Heck, I got 4 different modern versions and they say things differently.
(ת') ש×; ×;ר×;×;-× ×;ש×;×;×;×;, ×;ת×;×;×;
(ש"×¢) × ×¢×¨×;; ×;ת×;×;×;; ×¢×;×;×;; ×;ש×; ×;×; × ×©×;×;×;
I see you've never been on a jury. Remember the adage about a ham sandwich?
Rev. Silverghost, thank you for your input. (i apologize for poisoning the well, btw)
So, what of those billions of us who have never been informed of Christ's existence?
When i say random, i mean in other words... why is your idea of God any more real than my idea of God (a flying hamburger, since flying pasta may offend you)?
To me, its just a random fairy tale, like that of Mohammed, or Tom Thumb. Sure you can say its "true" all you like, but its still just ideas, nothing concrete.
"What else do you not believe about established history?"
The part when the sun stoped his movement arround the earth. =P
Come on, I know that you are Christian, but do you really thing that there is "incontrovertible empirical" evidence that Jesus indeed arose from the dead? I know that you believe is true, and I wouldn't want you to think otherwise. But as far as I know there is more evidence for the divine origin of the image of the virgin of Guadalupe than for the resurection of Jesus.
established history?
Hahahahahahahaha. Next you'll be saying it is established history that the world was created by the body of Ymir the frost-giant slain by his sons.....
Thanx, Ricky, for that. I was a little slow getting my continuation before your reply.
"What of those billions of us who have never been informed of Christ's existence?" The answer is in my continuation below, given by King David. Also Paul gave answer to that in Romans 1. The testimony of God is in each individual, but we corrupt it, worshiping the creation, rather than the creator.
Maybe "random" is not an appropriate term. To you, it is an idle tale. But archaeological finds, coupled with historical discoveries, show that the record is true, not an idle or made up story.
It goes beyond "just ideas." -Rev. S
Hey Rev:
Maybe "random" is not an appropriate term. To you, it is an idle tale. But archaeological finds, coupled with historical discoveries, show that the record is true, not an idle or made up story.....
Would the Bible be one of these proofs??I am serious here?
Of course, HB, it is a part of history & archaeological data, just the same as hieroglyphic tablets, graphics on cave walls, etc.
Two British archaeologists, towards the beginning of the 20th C., set out separately in attempts to discover finds that would disprove the Bible. As they searched, they only discovered confirming material. When these colleagues met, they were astonished at the similar results of confirmation. One became a preacher.
Other finds have confirmed Biblical accuracy, but I know of no valid claims to disproof. -Rev. S
But archaeological finds, coupled with historical discoveries, show that the record is true, not an idle or made up story.
archaeological finds?? I don't think so.
A Jesus story that has been verified by eyewitnesses & handed down through the centuries-
When Jesus walked on water John rushed up to him & said Lord tis a true miracle what you just did.
Jesus looked at him & replied " Miracle?? Step on the stones, John!"
Ricky, I respect your opinion but you haven't poisoned this well. As I have said before. Many things about this discussion require faith and faith defines itself.
I have no problem with faith but I do have a problem when people try to enforce their faith by pretending it's 'established history'. I think we agree, from different sides of the proverbial aisle, that the establishment part, sort of defeats the whole purpose of faith in the first place.
I'm concerned that "faith" is just a word that is an attempt to justify the reality of believing in scientifically unproven--and unlikely--stories passed down as part of cultural heritage because of fear of what might happen if one questions it.
Most religions build in an intimidation tactic that people internalize, such as fear of burning in agony in a bottomless pit, or fear of being tortured by a devil.
Some religions ostracize through excommunication or other social punishments as well.
Samuel Clemens nailed it -
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
You kind of defined what I believe faith is meme which is the believe in something that which can't be proven by scientific methods.I also agree about the intimidation factor in some organized "religions" but my "faith" believes it's ultimately between me and God.:). So once again faith comes into play because I can't prove my belief.
The biggest toughie for me is(not you) is not responding to non peaceful attacks on my beliefs because "judge not lest ye be judged" is an impossible task yet a worthy goal.
Not judging others is a toughie for me, too, and I also think it's a worthy goal and impossible.
I sometimes write exactly what I think (and feel) and then edit it before I hit submit! And occasionally I just hit submit!
RickyDawkins-When i say random, i mean in other words... why is your idea of God any more real than my idea of God (a flying hamburger, since flying pasta may offend you)?
this is for you ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL7FcvEydqg
Cont'd>> Secondly, the answer to your only true question here, Biblically, is that God is Eternal, He wasn't created.
I know that doesn't fit under your "science" microscope, but you aren't able to fit many other questions there either. Yet there is sufficient evidence to believe in Jesus Christ as the one who paid for our sins.
You admit that there is imperfection in man & the universe, but you wish to set yourself up as judge to how that happened.
Your not that old to have been there! LOL
God did create a perfect world & you know enough Scripture to realize that He said that. Yet you purposely leave out the decision of man to disobey God, thus causing the degeneration that you see in the world & universe.
But King David said: "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament (atmospheric earth)." He goes on to say that God's creation declares this truth to all people on the earth. Evidence. -Rev. S
But how can a man wrestle with the creator of the universe all night and the only way the creator won was by pulling a trick hip miracle of some sort.
Ahh, good, Hannibal! I'm glad you know the story about Jacob.
My Question for you: Did you ever wrestle with your child or someone else's? Although you could completely overcome the child, did you smash it? It there was some purpose in the struggle to teach something, would that be necessarily strange?
Because there is an unexpected outcome, doesn't say the teacher was wrong. There were other factors with the incident with Jacob. -Rev. S
as you said a story...and yes I still wrestle with my kids, and no I so not need a tick to beat them
Semantics, HB. You've undoubtedly heard of true stories, but you strain to critique beyond obvious meaning.
There were other things God wished to teach the feisty Jacob. -Rev. S
SG, do you believe this is a metaphor or other tool of comparison, or do believe it literally? If literally, what evidence do you have?
Jacob's thigh, a persistent literal problem. -Rev. S
"God did create a perfect world & you know enough Scripture to realize that He said that. Yet you purposely leave out the decision of man to disobey God..."
Yet in this perfect world roamed another of God creations, Lucifer, who tried to be as high as God himself and was cast down and became Satan, who was the one who convinced Eve to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life and on an on....
So my question is how was it a perfect world if this snake oil salesman was allow to roam free?
I wasn't addressing you, saying, "you know enough Scripture," but Ricky.
However, you do know a little about Scripture it seems, but I don't have experience knowing how much you know.
God had created Lucifer, the Chief of the angels, as a perfect being, but he chose to rebel. The Scripture shows that God puts limits on Satan, but also uses his antics to effect his purposes in man.
There was a free choice for Adam, whether to obey God in Eden or not. Satan was an instrument that allowed the test, in which Adam failed.
But God provided the way to forgiveness & reconciliation, through Christ. -Rev. S
Thank you for your answer. I've studies the creation myths of several religions other than the one I was brought up in, which btw was Christianity, and I feel that not one explains how we got here and I reject them all.