Convince me that God exists

[Kulindahr]

Correction to above: I discovered I hadn't watched the last ten minutes. In that stretch, they do throw in some religious stuff.

 

[FirmaFan]

That's got to be o0ne of the more slanted pieces of prose I've seen in this forum.

The first film looked at the data we actually have and asked questions. The questions were raised not by anyone with an axe to grind, but by many serious scientists -- remember that statement signed by some six hundred scientists from universities across the world? There was no religious argument, no lobbying, just a reasonable presentation.

My guess is you didn't bother watching it at all, but just decided it was "creationism", and trotted out the usual responses.

I am not even going to get into the topic of the validity of the religious claims the videos made, we've been discussing most in this thread for some time now. The problem I have with the videos linked is that the scientific claims they make are demonstrably wrong. Note that I am talking specifically about the first video, the evidence for a creator.

Example - At minute 40 into the first video, they talk extensively about irreducible complexity, specifically about the bacterial flagellum, it being the staple of the IR argument. This was very publicly demonstrated to be completely flawed in every facet in the Dover v. Pennsylvania School Board trial. The IR argument is specifically targeted to attack the validity of the theory of evolution. Evolution is the single most complete scientific theory we have. The amount of evidence for the theory of gravity is dwarfed by the evidence for evolution. And one of those pieces of evidence shows the irreducible complexity argument to be wrong.

If I may quote the video:

"Darwin acknowledged that if someone could identify a biological system that could not have been constructed in incremental steps over long periods of time, then his theory would be invalid. And what Michael Behe and others have discovered is the existence of biological machinery that can not be explained away by Darwinian processes. Darwin's failed predictions have in fact falsified his own theory."

I am not going to go into details about all the reasons why this statement is just plain wrong because I believe, based upon previous discussions with you, that you already know why that statement is invalid.

And as for that statement that was signed by 600 scientists, the one that states:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Scientists will never admit to an absolute knowing...NEVER!

I am willing to bet that those same 600 scientists would also sign a statement reading:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of gravity and electromagnetism to account for the complexity of the universe. Careful examination of the evidence for Newtonian and quantum theory should be encouraged."

Despite the fact that the list has been time and time again shown to be misleading and used only as a tool of manipulation by creationists, it does not take one long to see that the "skepticism" expressed in the statement is not (or at least was not interpreted by the people signing it) skepticism in evolutionary theory (which is what the list proposes to be) but skepticism in the claim that everything is known about the theory of evolution. Again, no scientist would admit to an absolute knowing, and when asked about evolution, they would respond as such. That does not admit that they doubt the theory, they are just admitting that further study is needed. The same can be said (and should be said) about every other scientific theory.

The list of 600 scientists who are skeptical of evolution has almost exclusively been used to push a creationist religious agenda. To say that the list invokes no religious argument and no lobbying is ridiculous. That list was designed explicitly FOR religious argument and lobbying, specifically for the purpose of attempting to denounce the theory of evolution in favor of creationism.

Correction to above: I discovered I hadn't watched the last ten minutes. In that stretch, they do throw in some religious stuff.

I just saw your correction right after I posted my response. To be honest, the religious implications of the video is not what prompted my response to it. It was the shear number of scientific inaccuracies portrayed as truth that I have a problem with.

 

[Spensed]

This falls under the category of "making shit up": you quite sanctimoniously decree that he said something he didn't.


Convicted by your own words..

Q.E.D. LOL.

 

[bankside]

Q.E.D. LOL.

You're LOLing at what I've noticed before: the shopping list approach to theology, the "charitable approach to the text," the entreaties to Take It All In Context™ and to Respect What It Really Means™ are only allowed if those inferences support the validity argued by the believer. Any similar inference or contextual analysis are ruled as a cynical and willful departure from the Plain Meaning™ of it all, on the part of someone with an ax to grind, if it doesn't support the majesty of it all.

If the Bible, or any so-called revealed or inspired text, is to be understood at all, then surely skeptics are entitled to the same leeway as believers. People are entitled to decline to grant the benefit of the doubt, and not find themselves excluded from the debate.

 

[Spensed]

^ Obviously, I agree with you.

The curious thing to me is that, if, driven by faith or whatever, one wants to believe and see the Bible or the given text as divinely inspired, it doesn't follows that it has to be be free from error and has to be defended by every apologia one can come up with or that everyone else has to be convinced to believe the same thing.

So, for me, the subject of this thread is misconceived. No one can convince any one else on this subject.

The other curious thing is that, with one or two exceptions, the believers in this forum just as quick to display as much bad attitude as many of the non-believers. For some reason, they don't get it, that if one chooses to believe or, in theological terms, has the the gift of faith, one really can be a bit more gracious and robust about it.

Finally, there's the underlying issue that subjective belief does not necessarily equate with objective reality. Faith and belief can motivate people and change reality, but they can turn out to be wrong or misplaced. Hence, if one has a conviction that God exists, it needs to go hand in hand with a healthy skepticism that it might just be wishful thinking. IMHO.

 

[Spensed]

Found the quote: From Matthew 18:21-22

Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, How many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy times seven."

But the quote doesn't tell the whole story. Jesus is not saying that one is permitted to accept or support unrepentant and continuing wrong doing.

If one chooses a path of belief, I can see some merit to staying with the Church because of its non-human purportedly eternal component and to resist the usurpers, distorting its message.

But supporting the Roman Catholic Church at the present means supporting a lot of nasty things and that should not be portrayed in a comfortable or satisfying way as some gay Catholics seem inclined to do. IMHO obviously.

 

[BigChicken]

I was raised in a very religious family-- Southern Baptist-- with all the fire and brimstone theology of hell and damnation for gays and let me tell you... it screwed me up big time for years. Looking back now, I can clearly see that I was born gay, and all the way through middle school and junior high I struggled and struggled with it, desperately trying to fight against being gay. It wasn't until high school that I started to accept the fact that I was truly gay. And I was a virgin until college! Religion robbed me of a HUGE part of my childhood and adolescence. College was my wake up call. I majored in biology and I started to see that there really was no God. The bible was a collection of myths and fairytales and there was no heaven waiting for us when we die, and no hell, either. This one life is all we have and all we're ever going to get. If you waste your time worrying about some made up God and some make believe afterlife, you won't get that time back. The lesson is to try to enjoy every day as much as you can and to live as though each day might be your last day of existence, because eventually it will be. And my advice to all the gay kids out there is this-- carpe the fuck diem! While you can!

 

[bankside]

So, for me, the subject of this thread is misconceived. No one can convince any one else on this subject.

Well I certainly don't agree with you on this point. I think people can be convinced. However when a believer becomes frustrated that I have not converted, I often hear that my mind is closed. Well, no, I'm just not convinced...

 

[Kulindahr]

Now in that you are definitely correct.

True, but be careful where you say it.

 

[Spensed]

Well I certainly don't agree with you on this point. I think people can be convinced. However when a believer becomes frustrated that I have not converted, I often hear that my mind is closed. Well, no, I'm just not convinced...

Conviction of God's existence, or not, isn't, to my mind, something that one can reason or argue anyone else into in any real sense. Hence, the endless "debate".

In Catholic terms, faith is a gift from God. Some people, who do not especially care one way or the other, have a very strong and natural belief in God's existence. Others, who want to believe, struggle to do so.

Sure, one can "win" the argument one way or the other, but ultimately the conviction that God does exist, at least, has to come in metaphysical terms. That makes sense to me.

I would be curious to know if anyone has actually been convinced by anyone else on this subject one way or the other.

 

[Spensed]

You can forgive them, but it isn't for us to determine if they are to suffer, and yet they will have to answer for what they have done even after forgiveness. I can forgive and still not accept or support the unrepentant and continuing wrong doings. God is the Ultimate Judge of those who are unrepentant. It is God who has the last say about what happens to those who are unrepentant. Because of the special spiritual Marks of the Priesthood, and especially the Bishops; they will be judged most severily by God the very split second they draw their last breath. My job is only to forgive as Christ has recommended, and he will take care of the rest, and yes, he can and will influence the Courts independantly of anyone on earth, to the appropriate punishment in our judicial system

You are focusing on suffering and punishment as though I had asserted that they were anyone's business but God's, if one wants to think in those terms. That is not my point. I am happy to leave suffering and punishment for him to mete out, although by his own logic, presumably there should be none because he will just forgive everyone himself. LOL.

My point is that forgiveness of evil on "auto-pilot" seems no different from acceptance and condonation of that evil.

If there is a differnce, let's hear it.

 

[BigChicken]

Alzheimer's disease is a good example of why we should not believe in God or an afterlife of any kind.

My great uncle Bill was perhaps the funniest, friendliest, wittiest, and kindest man I have ever known in my life. Then he came down with Alzheimer's disease. Slowly but surely, he forgot everyone he ever knew, and the witty comments he would have normally made disappeared. He stopped being funny, stopped being friendly, and withdrew into a shell where he would not speak to anyone and even the glimmer of recognition in his eyes when we came into his room went away. In short, everything that made him who he was as a person went away, before he died.

It proved to me that we are just a collection of cells, and when those cells get damaged and die, everything that makes us who we are as a person ceases to exist. When our brains die, we're gone forever.

 

[vidarr]

It proved to me that we are just a collection of cells, and when those cells get damaged and die, everything that makes us who we are as a person ceases to exist. When our brains die, we're gone forever.

You don't know that for sure. Who's to say in the future we might discover a way for a person's consciousness to exist outside their body? Then the idea of a 'soul' doesn't seem so silly after all.

I find it very sad when people feel compelled to give rational explanations for everything. Come on, wouldn't you like to believe that theres somebody looking out for you? Even if it's only false hope. It does some good.

 

[Kulindahr]

I would be curious to know if anyone has actually been convinced by anyone else on this subject one way or the other.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

There are hundreds of books by people have been convinced, though usually by their own research. Many have been convinced after setting out to disprove.

The few I know who have been convinced by others have been through the sort of argument an attorney would present to a court, arguing the preponderance of evidence.

 

[Kulindahr]

Alzheimer's disease is a good example of why we should not believe in God or an afterlife of any kind.

My great uncle Bill was perhaps the funniest, friendliest, wittiest, and kindest man I have ever known in my life. Then he came down with Alzheimer's disease. Slowly but surely, he forgot everyone he ever knew, and the witty comments he would have normally made disappeared. He stopped being funny, stopped being friendly, and withdrew into a shell where he would not speak to anyone and even the glimmer of recognition in his eyes when we came into his room went away. In short, everything that made him who he was as a person went away, before he died.

It proved to me that we are just a collection of cells, and when those cells get damaged and die, everything that makes us who we are as a person ceases to exist. When our brains die, we're gone forever.

So if while you were listening to, say, the London Philharmonic Orchestra on radio BBC America, and circuits in your radio began to fizzle and pop and finally die, it would prove to you that the London Philharmonic was nothing more than the circuits and capacitors and all in the radio?


Hm.

 

[FirmaFan]

So if while you were listening to, say, the London Philharmonic Orchestra on radio BBC America, and circuits in your radio began to fizzle and pop and finally die, it would prove to you that the London Philharmonic was nothing more than the circuits and capacitors and all in the radio?


Hm.

So, your analogy is implying that what makes a person who they are is something more than the pattern of nerves and impulses in the brain. One could easily provide evidence that the music from the London Philharmonic Orchestra is derived from something other than radio circuits and capacitors. Can you provide evidence that a person's identity originates from somewhere other than the neurons of the brain?

The point of the post you responded to was a simple thought experiment....does the construct of a specific individual involve more than the function of the brain. By removing the functions of the brain (like in the case of Alzheimer's patients), does a person retain the characteristics seen with normal brain function? Let's say for the sake of argument that there is an afterlife (even though no evidence or reason has been demonstrated to signify that there is), when transferring to the afterlife, what part of a person is retained beyond the physical body? Does an Alzheimer's patient demonstrate the properties of how they are moments before death (no coherent memories) or is the afterlife persona pre-Alzheimer's? If so, at what point in a person's life is their mental status exhibited in the afterlife? Just before the onset of disease? What about the onset of puberty? Our minds are very different in adolescence than now, is our adolescent minds the afterlife persona? Mentally, we are in constant transition, and unfortunately, some transition into a state of non-function. Which state in our constantly evolving consciousness is what makes us who we are in the afterlife?

Again, these questions are only for the sake of argument. I do not believe in an afterlife. It is interesting to note that in various studies, it is the religious who most fear death, despite beliefs in the afterlife, and atheists who are most accepting of it. It must be hard to die comfortably when the last moments are essentially like waiting for a professor to post the scores of the final exam that will determine where you spend the rest of eternity.

"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. " --Mark Twain

 

[SuperNatural]

I had a question ; do all homo sexual really go to hell; I mean ppl be cussing and killing but when it comes to gay guys like my self I'm going burn and die badly things like that; This is my theory God loves all his children but he make us different to see how his children reactions I mean if God is all knowing how does he not know about the homo- sexuals but like the bible said you must have fate