How to prove God exists.

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not so, according to recent science, humans are primates, yet zillions of times more different than other primates.

Chimps, gorilla's, bonobo's, orang utangs, humans.
All primates.

Genetically, humans and chimps are more similar then chimps and gorilla's.

You can ignore or deny the facts if you want.
But the facts are the facts are the facts. No matter what you say.

 

[just a believing guy]

Chimps, gorilla's, bonobo's, orang utangs, humans.
All primates.

Genetically, humans and chimps are more similar then chimps and gorilla's.

You can ignore or deny the facts if you want.
But the facts are the facts are the facts. No matter what you say.

The gene percentage has nothing to do with the similarity of the species.

 

[Radrook]

Who are these atheists?
Are there any of them on this board?



No. It is extremely easy to define: it is the position of not believing the claims of theism.
That's it. There's no need or reason to complicate matters with all kinds of irrelevant qualifiers.



Clearly, not always. Look above. I just defined it without appealing to any belief whatsoever. .



No. Not believing X, is not a belief.
Just not like playing soccer, is not a hobby.

A belief is to accept something as true.
I don't accept the claims of theism as true. That, and that alone, defines me as an atheist.

But obviously it is not the definition that all atheists choose.

 

[Radrook]

It is so obvious that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists (BBHHH) that I'm not even going to explain why.

Do you see why this argument doesn't work?

Using false analogies only serves to weaken an argument.

 

[Kylie]

Using false analogies only serves to weaken an argument.

How is it a false analogy? It is the exact same argument that you used.

"Proving that <<deity of choice>> exists shouldn't be even necessary since it is described as being so obvious that anyone denying it has absolutely no valid excuse to be doing so."

Do you have a problem with that reasoning? Yes or no?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The gene percentage has nothing to do with the similarity of the species.

The exact opposite is true.

This is why your DNA will be more similar to that of your 1st cousin as opposed to your random neighbour.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But obviously it is not the definition that all atheists choose.

Whatever other claims people make or whatever other beliefs people have, is irrelevant to their atheism.

What defines them as an atheist, is not accepting theism as true.

Surely there are atheists who also make the truth claim that no gods exist.
Surely there are atheists who claim that religions are based on true entities, but that these entities are really advanced aliens and not supernatural gods or angels.
Surely there are atheists who just don't agree with theistic claims and make no further claims about it themselves.

There is one thing all these people have in common:
they all answer "no" to the question "do you believe god(s) exists?".

It should be rather clear what the common denominator is here...
It is not whatever any atheists does claim or believe, that defines them as an atheist.

What defines all three groups mentioend above as atheists, is simply answering "no" to that question.

 

[just a believing guy]

The exact opposite is true.

This is why your DNA will be more similar to that of your 1st cousin as opposed to your random neighbour.

What I thought was ''with similirarity to other species''.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What I thought was ''with similirarity to other species''.

It's the exact same thing.
"Species" is just a human label, based on the snapshot of the current state of life on this planet at this particular time.

DNA is DNA, wheter we are talking about DNA among family members, ethnic groups, racial groups, species, genus, etc.

The more similar the DNA, the closer related the organisms the DNA belongs to.
It's just the way it is. Reality, it's a neat thing...

 

[just a believing guy]

It's the exact same thing.
"Species" is just a human label, based on the snapshot of the current state of life on this planet at this particular time.

DNA is DNA, wheter we are talking about DNA among family members, ethnic groups, racial groups, species, genus, etc.

The more similar the DNA, the closer related the organisms the DNA belongs to.
It's just the way it is. Reality, it's a neat thing...

Do you know just how much chimpanzees differ from humans? Regardless of the DNA pecentage.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you know just how much chimpanzees differ from humans? Regardless of the DNA pecentage.

Actually not as much as you would like to believe.
Both psychologically as well as biologically, we are actually remarkably similar.

Most of the things that people used to assume were "human only" traits and which were actually investigated, turned out to exist in chimps in some form or another as well.

Humans really aren't as special as they like to assume.

 

[FredVB]

Can you demonstrate that absolutely nothing has ever existed?

Easy! By giving the idea of "nothing" a brand new meaning as atheist scientists do.

To be fair - it seems to me that this is a problem of language rather than a conceptual problem. (And no, I am not saying that it makes much sense to assume that there was ever such a state.)

Perhaps; when people talk of 'absolutely nothing' (not Krauss's 'empty spacetime'), I think of the paradox of a box containing 'absolutely nothing'; it would be squashed flat so there is absolutely nothing between the walls, i.e. they are touching.

Way for a strawman to be set up, to argue against, and atheists in the discussion would run with that, and all disregarding the actual point. I never said there was absolutely nothing, or that there ever could have been just absolutely nothing.

"How would I give proof? How do any give proof that anything can come from absolute nothing?"

How is that relevant to the OP question?

"This being illogical is why I am certain of the necessary existence that is explanatory of further existence being made."

Not sure what you are saying here.

This, claiming that what was said couldn't be understood, is the one other response I find from atheists in this sort of discussion.

What it all means is that you can't believe there was ever just absolutely nothing. So there was something, and there always was that something. So that existence is necessary, it could not be not existing. It would be eternal then, and being necessary existence it would be infinite. So the issue is that we have a different understanding of what that is, but it is there because there could never be absolute nothing to explain everything.

It certainly is relevant in discussion about showing that there is God. Can that really be missed? Really?

 

[Radrook]

Way for a strawman to be set up, to argue against, and atheists in the discussion would run with that, and all disregarding the actual point. I never said there was absolutely nothing, or that there ever could have been just absolutely nothing.

I am not accusing you personally of saying it. I am merely stating the fact that they have redefined what the term "nothing" is in order to explain what happened.

BTW
I don't see atheists picking up on what I wrote and running with it. I see you doing it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The gene percentage has nothing to do with the similarity of the species.

-_- that literally has everything to do with the similarity of species physiologically, since genes dictate physiology. This is also why you are more similar physically to the people you are genetically related to, such as a sibling, than a random person, and why siblings are considered first in matters of kidney transplants.

 

[morse86]

There are plenty of evidence of God:
- The earth is the only place that has life (regardless of what NA$A and their public payer funded scam says)
- You must answer origin. Mankind either came from nothing or God created mankind. If that thing came from nothing (evolution), it magically mated and had offspring. On the other hand, God created Adam and Eve and they had Abel and Cain and Seth and we all descend from Noah. Which is more believable?
- There are mountain of evidence for the great flood. Seashells on top of mount Everest. Petrified trees etc.

Romans 9:20:
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

 

[just a believing guy]

-_- that literally has everything to do with the similarity of species physiologically, since genes dictate physiology. This is also why you are more similar physically to the people you are genetically related to, such as a sibling, than a random person, and why siblings are considered first in matters of kidney transplants.

To my knowledge, there is a fly we share more gene percentage than with the primates.

 

[just a believing guy]

Humans really aren't as special as they like to assume.

What defines the physiology of the humans is their brain. It is the most compicated thing in the known universe.

So, are you really, really suggesting that we could really compare ourselves with chimps?

I know that the Earth is in danger, many ecosystems are to be destroyed, etc. etc. so it should be objectively more than popular to raise the awareness of the human connection with the overall nature. But sinking so low as to compare humans with great apes in ways that aren't remotely appropriate just buffles me.

 

[PsychoSarah]

To my knowledge, there is a fly we share more gene percentage than with the primates.

-_- where did you even get that idea from? The closest thing I can think of that you might be referring to is the fact that we used fruit flies to study HOX genes, which are genes consistently shared by most animals.

There is no such thing as a fly more genetically similar to humans than any given mammal is to humans, let alone primates.

Seriously, I can't even find creationist sites that make claims that there is a species of fly more genetically similar to humans than other primates are to humans, so I have no idea where you got that idea.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What defines the physiology of the humans is their brain. It is the most compicated thing in the known universe.

Define complexity. I could easily argue that galaxies are more complicated than human brains are.

So, are you really, really suggesting that we could really compare ourselves with chimps?

Attempt to avoid the hubris our species is prone to. Chimps do have comparable brains to ours. Heck, they consistently beat us at memory tasks. Not to say that human brains aren't fascinating, since they are, but a lot of how we understand our own brains comes from comparative studies using the brains of other animals. Human brains don't have any structures unique to humans as far as I am aware; our cognitive abilities are a matter of how developed and sizable the structures are.

I know that the Earth is in danger, many ecosystems are to be destroyed, etc. etc. so it should be objectively more than popular to raise the awareness of the human connection with the overall nature. But sinking so low as to compare humans with great apes in ways that aren't remotely appropriate just buffles me.

-_- comparing humans to other animals is an odd way to try to promote preserving ecosystems. I think you misunderstand the purpose behind comparing the brains and capabilities of other animals to humans.

As we have come to understand various apes better, we have found that we share more similarities with them than previously thought. They mourn the dead, for example.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you know just how much chimpanzees differ from humans? Regardless of the DNA pecentage.

Did you know that chimpanzee youngsters have their own youth culture and play with 'dolls'? They 'adopt' small rocks or chunky sticks and carry them around, put them on their backs, make little sleeping nests for them, just as the adults do with actual babies. These practices spread through the young of one troop and across into other troops by observation and imitation - and the females do it far more than the males. Cute, eh?