If you want absolute proof that God Exists, you have to read and understand this:

And some of those absolute proofs are impossible to do because they'll take all of time to work out. Maths seems to work on its own definition of proof than the rest of the world.

But the idiotic example given in the OP wouldn't even meet the vaguest of definitions of proof.

 

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"


This kind of claim is really irritates me.
1. it has been observed
2. It need not be observed to be a fact

Evolution denail is a serious problem among the faithful

 

Ya your right about that. I just wanted to point that out (I have a BS in math so I like to give the subject some credit!)

 

So is that anti-evolution rhetoric "serious inquiry"?

 

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."


It get better the more I re-read it. So this is what a convincing argument looks like?

Only a person beated with a stick until he/she begged for God's saving grace their entire childhood could find this to be assured "proof".

Unfortunatly, strict believers are not interested in facts so your cycle of stupidity will continue until you die. One can only hope you have no children to brainwash and continue this pathetic cycle of non-thinking.

 

If you understood the meaning of the word brainwash, you wouldn't be trying to brainwash me with your nonsense.

Clearly, the argument you cite is not convincing, but what the hell do you expect from a mere student?

 

If you keep chasing your tail, you'll get hairs in your teeth.

The being that has a mind is not God. Or is it that the mind that can be known is not the mind of God? Which sounds more Tao like?

I consider myself to be a self-creator, so therefore, the Creator-I must be more cognizant of what is "really happening" than the Created-I. Who created you?

Exactly!

I don't know, so then you can explain who you are to make a judgment of who is worthy of God's love. I suppose you might say Jesus, but I would disagree.

I readily admit that I have never read anything that is sacred.

I would say that the will of God is readily apparent to those with their eyes open. Reading the scribbling of long dead men (and living ones, particularly L. Ron Hubbard, except for Battlefield Earth, which was epic if overly long) will only confuse you when you take them too seriously.

It is a word used to describe condition of there being some amount of illumination that is less than what might be described as "lighted" or "bright." It is a subjective term.

I would opine that in the OP's story, the student points to two things which are physical and measurable, light and heat, and compares their existence or absence to two things which are not real nor measurable, good and evil. The comparison is an equivocation fallacy.

 

I think it's a fictional story.

 

No, it looks to me like you are trying to destroy it. You are trying to make theology science.

Prove God exists and he is no longer a supernatural entity, he becomes a laboratory rat.

 

Why is good not the absence of evil?

 

Someone says that he has an obligation to act on his faith and another one asks why he has such an obligation. How is that an attack??

Now, here's a rhetorical question: Directly stating that a particular poster here is without a standardized set of morals or code of ethics, does that not constitute a personal attack?

 

Then why give the "student" in your quoted story any credibility? The word "student" is not a pejorative term. Ideally we are all students and never stop searching and learning, just like you are trying to do. But you are well to do your studying with a skeptical eye, rather than an accepting one to things that seem to support what you wish to be true.
If you are serious about your inquiry about this story, go back to the other thread that completely eviscerates it. The faux logic used in it is easily debunked, and the other thread goes over the flaws in some detail.
The point of the story is to give confidence to those that aren't actually able to parse the fallacies within it. It was also given apocrophyl authorship to Einstein, which is also untrue, and would have humiliated him.
There is no "proof" of God, and God would have it just that way, according to the Bible. Faith is the evidence of things unseen, not facts.
Enjoy your faith and honor it, but the absurd pursuit of "proof" of Him will always be fruitless, as He will always remain the "Man behind the curtain".

 

Most facts are in fact "unseen".

Even faith, which is "unseen" has a definite origin.

God clearly exists, and it is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of humility.

The ultimate arrrogance is to suggest that there is no "creator" and even if you call the creator "evolution" that does not necessarily mean that God does not exist.

In God We Trust --that's America.

 

Not so clearly. If it were, there would be no atheists and everyone would belong to the same religion.

First, evolution has nothing to do with creation. Second, believing that some infinitely powerful being created an entire universe just for us, is incredibly more arrogant than rejecting said belief due to a complete lack of evidence (which I don't see how could be considered arrogant at all).

 

"Facts", to be considered such, have to be verifiable, not unseen.
Faith is not unseen, what it is directed toward is.
According to the Bible, belief in God will always require faith.
As someone who sees herself as a student, you are not being very careful in your thought process. Your post doesn't really address mine at all, and you confuse the few references to my post you do make, like the ones pointed out here.
Your faith is clouding your thinking. They can coexist, if you don't fear the latter, and can allow the former to mature.

 

Now, you have nothing to doubt:


http://ahabit.com/joy


Satisfied?

 

every year around this time I have faith in Santa coming down my chimney but for some reason he never shows up..I mean, he is real isn't he??

 

Yes...If you believe so.

 

Science needs to progress significantly before we understand the workings of the universe. Until then, belief in a Creator or Supreme Being is just as valid.

 

Don't care enough either way.

I truly don't know.

Both evil and darkness are subjective. What constitutes an evil person? Is it someone who breaks one of the Ten Commandments? Does that mean that someone stealing food to feed their family is evil? Is someone who steals millions of dollars from investors in a Ponzi Scheme evil? Is killing in the name of God evil?

Most people who are considered evil do not view themselves as evil. Hitler didn't see himself as evil, he thought he was protecting the German people.

Finally, one person's definition of evil may be different than someone else's. In the west, we view cannibalism evil, but there have been many cultures that view cannibalism as a religious experience. Heck, some Christian churches still have a form of ritualized cannibalism ("Take this bread and eat it for it is my body...").

So what about darkness? Ok, while it is true that darkness is the absence of light, again, it is all relative. Here's a question, what is darker, a black cat standing under the mid-day sun, or snow on a moonless night? It is the snow. The black cat seems darker because it is darker when compared to what else is around it (grass, trees, sidewalk, sky etc...). The snow seems brighter because it is brighter than what is around it.

Technically if darkness is the absence of light, then darkness could only exist if there was no light at all, for even a single photon would mean there was light.

Hmm... could a similar argument be made for evil?

 

That chain letter has been around for a very long time and quite frankly it's just very silly.

I mean really... "if we can't see your brain how do we know you have one???"

Umm I dunno, maybe because it's a proven FACT that every living, breathing, thinking human being has a brain inside their skulls and without one they would in fact be dead?

And if you're really not sure you can always use some neuroimaging technology just to make sure!

And don't get me started on how many religious people, a.k.a people who have "God in their hearts" who are abusive, cruel, evil people. (I can't wait for the No True Scotsman fallacy on this one though)...

But tell me, is every single non-theist an 'evil' person because God is absent from their hearts? Give me a break.

 

You cant "prove" your imaginary friend is real...he is just a imaginary friend...a crutch for those weak enough in the mind to believe in it.

 

What it says is that god is a matter of faith. It seemed pretty clear to me. Where is the proof of existence?

 

Isn't intelligence the absense of ignorance?

 

If light is the fastest thing there can be, how does darkness always manage to be there waiting when light arrives?