OBVIOUS EXISTANCE OF GOD - Page 4

.

Wrong
Sciens disproves the existence of god.
as for the website, its BS. its just a bunch of Baptist christians angry that there could be ANYONE who would dare beleive anything that they don't beleive.
Be your own person
Not theirs.
And remember, the minute you start listening to them, is the minute you turn off your brain.
Choose to think.

.

^^^only the self can prove existence....nothing is all you can prove...

Science disproves the existence of God because science is a map developed my the human mind...


ledfoot...(i forgot your sn)-but to whom i was debating with.


..there is no obvious evidence of Gods existence, you and i both agree on this. Does this mean he doesnt exist? evidentally,

but if he were to exist, we wouldnt have evidence.


i think this is the conclusion. You can refute my posts with your logic and reasoning..but all im saying is that does not disprove Gods existence.

i feel no need to carry on with this argument/debate.

Science proves the whole book by the first statement.

"In the beginning..."

There at one time was a point where everything was all together at one so focused point it was unseeable through any lens or multi-lenses. Smaller than a string just a pool of everything to make nothing.

This is like saying that someone had to create somewhere.

science doesnt prove the existence of anything (not necceasilry from an extreme skeptic view).. but on a common sense level it gives reason to evolution i guess(i only pick up info like you do out of books or bibles etc...) you saying "science proves god" is just you wanting it to prove god.. how does it prove god? proves the whole book by the first statement? if your getting at it proven the christian god i mwean give me a break you can go anywhere you want with that.. everyone hass the concept of the begginging and i read athiest novels books articles with "in the beinning" (ill try to post them... so then i can say "science disproves god" (beacsue they refer to beginig without god) give me a break... again how does science prove (just to common sense) or then gove reason for god (sate how'he' is defined to you).. if things need a creator casue its exitence on its own is too mind boggling for you or a "coincidence" or and "accident" then why dont you ask about gods need for a creator as 'his' existence which is a lot more impressive to me! are you going to find a way to tell me that he doesnt need one? just curious (not that this is reliable as the absolute truth) but does the bible say that god doesnt need a creator or refer to that? ill google it try to to..

.

funny my right or left ear just went deaf and numb whe started reading your post. and felt or the thoguht croosed my mind that 'god' might be punishing me or being to invloed in that side (just to get these weird thoughts off my chest ill d it here)

religions are simply fantasies created by insecure people who have a fear of nothing after death. With no proof or reality, believing in a religion is just as weird and un-thinkable to me, as for isntance, believeing that fantasy worlds created by playing the mind game dungeons and dragons is. You bleieve you exist in a word ruled by a ruler youve neever seen or heard, merely based on age old stories, which you have so called "faith" in. What happens when you die and there is nothing? and if only you had the ability to realize how your life was wasted worshiping something that isnt real. i find it sad to tell you the truth, especially since millions upon millions have died in wars over religions throughout the years.

quote:

---

What happens when you die and there is nothing?

---

Not something which I can personally say I believe in but nonetheless has serious implications:

What happens when you die and there is something?

quote:

---

Science disproves the existence of God because science is a map developed my the human mind...

---

Science does no such thing. You just love to make baseless claims don't you.

quote:

---

ledfoot...(i forgot your sn)-but to whom i was debating with.

---

Ah, for this I can gladly reiterate that you are acting the ass.

quote:

---

..there is no obvious evidence of Gods existence, you and i both agree on this. Does this mean he doesnt exist? evidentally,

---

I don't see it as quite so evident, but thats just me.

quote:

---

but if he were to exist, we wouldnt have evidence.

---

Huh? One's existance does not affect what evidence exists of one's existance. You are just making shit up now.

quote:

---

i think this is the conclusion. You can refute my posts with your logic and reasoning..but all im saying is that does not disprove Gods existence.

---

Did anyone claim it did? I could have sworn the point was determining whether Gods existance was obvious or not.

quote:

---

i feel no need to carry on with this argument/debate.

---

For being the second time you said that, it sounds just as cheap and meaningless of a cop out as the first time, good job.

"From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God." Romans 1:20 (New Living Translation).

Need I say more?

Yes.

I will try to put this simply. If the existance we see indicates an intelligent creator, then by that logic, an intelligent creator indicates an intelligent creator of that creator.

This does not mean there can not be a type of God, but it does completely destroy the no deviation allowed, blasphemy if you question it, biblically claimed concept of God.

At the emergence of the theroy of evolution there was a clamor of scientists, (paleontologists) anxious to submit "evidence" supporting the theory.

Much of this "evidence" has since been found to be erroneous. What was thought to be the skull of a new catagory of earlyman was used to develop his suppoosed history, lifestyle and existence based on where it was found. This fragment of bone has been shown to be the kneecap of an ancient pig!

A huaunched over skeleton was used to establish the existence of another stage of the "evolution" of modern homo-sapiens. Years later it is now known that the skeleton suffered from extreme arthritis, and the being represented by it would normally have walked fully erect.

Even though much of this psuedo-science was debunked by the 1950's, none of this "science" has been removed from the history books, consequently we all can conjur up the image drilled into us of man emerging from a quadra-ped club carrying cromagnum, to homo-erectus modern man, without his club.

You can review the details of these and other scientific errors in a book called "5/5/2000" by Richard Noone.

There is not just one missing link.

In order for there to be a God He would have to satisfy all that people, who deny his existence, say in detraction from this possibility. That's not a far fetched being for one already leaning in that direction.

I don't believe His existence is obvious at all, however.

However our current level of Science is ill-equipped to describe the earliest moments of our universe with any degree of certainty, let alone describe any "beginning" to reality as we know it. Scientists cannot agree on the shape of the universe much less define its limits.

The bible has been a tool of governments from Rome, ( the Council of Nice), to England (King James & Martin Luther), governments which have sanctioned the intentional altering of the scriptures for political gain and control of the masses.

If we rely solely upon Scientific Method and tools like Akham's Razor to arrive at our conclusions too much about God is unquantifiable for us to arrive at a logical conclusion about existence or not.

Once while at a youth church camp I witnessed one of the regular members of our congregation recieve instant correction of blindness. She was well known in our church to be completely blind. She was in the thralls of intense worship and prayer when she began to convulse. I looked up into her face and saw her eyes spasm and move in opposite directions like some lizard's. She began to scream excitedly and once all the commotion was over she revealed she had regained her sight.

Miraculous? Yes. A miracle from God? Who knows. The psychological impact of her association with her religon and its practices has been reported all over the world to produce physiological changes. But this cannot be measured by modern science, and the "experiment" isn't easily duplicated.

Should we dismiss God solely because our developed science is not equipped at present to measure such a possible reality? Obviously not. We should continue to advance our Science.

Remember, there are pockets of humanity so under-developed that our computers, telephones and other common-place technology would make us appear God-like by their standards.

We can't be blinded by arrogance and believe there couldn't be anyone or thing equally advanced by comparison to our civilization.

Life is not a destination, it's a journey. I personally hope science one day advances to a point that anyone's current concept of God will be represented by every day life. Is this sacriligous or the only logical goal for a being created with freedom of choice at their foundation? If God is a good master, he will welcome our bid for the ultimate freedom, equality with Him/Her.

As for the existence of God mandating there be the existence of the Creator of God: Have you considered that he is "Self-created"? Don't balk at this. It's just as enigmatic as the concept of a "beginning" of everything. Science simply cannot explain a self-contained event which is its own catalyst.

Again the shortcomings of Science are not sufficient evidence to refute the existence of a Supreme Being or "Higher Power".