How to prove God exists.

[just a believing guy]

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?

For me, as an environmentalist Christian, goes to show just how humans have to appreciate our surroundings, the animal kingdom, and rule over them...

 

[just a believing guy]

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


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.


-_- 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.

Galaxies are integral part of the universe.

As far as you're aware, yes.

Elephants too can be said to mourn their dead.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Dude..... I didn't understand the point you were trying to make. I chose to go with honesty and just tell you that I didn't understand what point you were trying to make.

You can either whine about it, or you could actually try and clarify whatever point you were making... But what you can't do, is complain that I didn't understand your point.

Perhaps I'm just dumb. Or perhaps you weren't actually clear enough.
Either way, there is no need to go on the defensive when all I said was that I did not understand your point!!!

What it all means is that you can't believe there was ever just absolutely nothing

I'm not even sure what it is exactly that you mean by "absolutely nothing".
And assuming I do understand, just claiming it doesn't make it so... if you are going to claim that such a state was at some point a reality, then I'm just going to ask you how you know that to be true...

And it doesn't sound as if that is a question that you would be able to answer properly. Right?

So there was something, and there always was that something. So that existence is necessary, it could not be not existing.

Let me stop you right there for a second.
This might sound like language games, and maybe it is - I don't actually know...

But the statement "there always was something" is actually rather correct, considering everything we currently know about physics.

"always" is a period of time. All of time, to be exact.
Time, in turn, is an inherent part of the universe. It is the space-time continuum, after all.
The universe is something. I'll go ahead and assume that you'll agree with that.

So, let's reformulate the statement then:
"For as long as there was time, there was something".

So, indeed... "there was always something".

It would be eternal then,

What is "eternal"? I understand what the word means in day-to-day conversation, but there it reflects more a concept then anything else.

But what does this word mean in actual physical reality?

and being necessary existence it would be infinite.

Same question... what does that mean? And, more importantly perhaps, how do you know?

So the issue is that we have a different understanding of what that is

Indeed... and that difference seems to be that I am not willing to pretend to understand / know any of this.

, but it is there because there could never be absolute nothing to explain everything.

Who says there has to be?

It certainly is relevant in discussion about showing that there is God.

Why?

Can that really be missed? Really?

I'm still not even sure what it means. All you gave me were mere statements.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Yes.
As I said, we really aren't THAT different.

Psychology wise, we are actually really similar, just a tiny bit smarter.

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.

Humans ARE great apes.
Just like humans ARE mammals.

Regardless of how "baffled" you are by the facts.

 

[just a believing guy]

just a tiny bit smarter

You are ridiculous.

 

[Radrook]

For me, as an environmentalist Christian, goes to show just how humans have to appreciate our surroundings, the animal kingdom, and rule over them...

To them it is a matter of one animal-us-ruling over other types of animals.

Of course this goes completely contrary to what we are told in Genesis. But for them Genesis doesn't have the authority that it has for us. So essentially this results in talking past each other with no end in sight.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are ridiculous.

Don't blame me for your ignorance on how chimp and human psychology is remarkably similar.

 

[PsychoSarah]

To them it is a matter of one animal-us-ruling over other types of animals.

Are you joking? Bacteria clearly run this planet far more than we could ever hope to. Ha, the first thing that came to my mind was me trying to order around a bunch of dragonflies in vain. Most organisms don't ever directly benefit from our activities, and fewer have any need for it.

Of course this goes completely contrary to what we are told in Genesis. But for them Genesis doesn't have the authority that it has for us. So essentially this results in talking past each other with no end in sight.

-_- then don't use Genesis to argue your points. Most of the time, one can debate a position without bringing up religion at all. Protect the planet so that we don't accelerate the extinction of our own species rather than because a deity plenty of people don't believe in demands it.

 

[Radrook]

Are you joking? Bacteria clearly run this planet far more than we could ever hope to. Ha, the first thing that came to my mind was me trying to order around a bunch of dragonflies in vain. Most organisms don't ever directly benefit from our activities, and fewer have any need for it.


-_- then don't use Genesis to argue your points. Most of the time, one can debate a position without bringing up religion at all. Protect the planet so that we don't accelerate the extinction of our own species rather than because a deity plenty of people don't believe in demands it.

No Joke intended Psycho Sarah.
It is the accepted opinion that we are the dominant species on planet Earth. We aren't restricted to one ecological niche and have the obliteration of all life on Earth within out power. Any intelligent creature from another worlds visiting us will not be officially greeted by a bacterial ambassador or by an envoy chimp. They will be greeted by us.

About bringing up the Bible, I usually do so whenever someone else introduces it into the discussion in a direct or roundabout way. I definitely don't use it with atheists because I am well aware that they usually find it to be totally irrelevant. So I am sure that if I did introduce it wasn't with the purpose of convincing atheists concerning the validity of its viewpoint.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is the accepted opinion that we are the dominant species on planet Earth. We aren't restricted to one ecological niche and have the obliteration of all life on Earth within out power.

Certainly dominant in destructive capacity, and the exercise of that capacity.

Any intelligent creature from another worlds visiting us will not be officially greeted by a bacterial ambassador or by an envoy chimp. They will be greeted by us.

At this rate of environmental degradation and destruction, they're more likely to be welcomed by cockroaches or bacteria than by us - no doubt we'll leave some interesting ruins for them.

 

[Radrook]

Certainly dominant in destructive capacity, and the exercise of that capacity.

At this rate of environmental degradation and destruction, they're more likely to be welcomed by cockroaches or bacteria than by us - no doubt we'll leave some interesting ruins for them.

In the meantime we do dominate and are rightfully described as the dominant species.

 

[Athée]

Dear readers of this thread, first I want to thank you for coming over.

Next I want to thank the founders, owners, operators of these forums, because I have never been in any way curtailed in my exposition of my thoughts here; otherwise everywhere I went I got eventually sooner than later banned, for writing on my thinking and they did not like it.

Now, the present thread is an experiment, and dear readers you will get to know the objective of this thread, as you read my thinking on my exposition on how to prove God exists.

Here goes.

First and before anything else, people who care to prove God exists, or for people who care to disprove or to deny God exists even without proving, because they just want to insist that God does not exist, or they want to maintain their right to not admit that God exists...

First and before anything else, all peoples have got to harbor in their mind or brain the information of the concept of God, otherwise they are not acting rationally and in fact they are acting un-intelligently.

So, dear posters here, and dear readers here who don't post: please, do speak out instead of being all the time passively reading, and not contributing your own thoughts on the issue God exists (or not).

At this point, I will invite posters here to give their comments, on my statement that first and foremost, peoples who want to prove or disprove or deny God exists even without proving anything at all, please give your comments in reaction to my statement about people not having at all any information on the concept of God Which God is to be proven to exist or to not exist, that they are conducting themselves irrationally and even un-intelligently.


So dear readers of this thread, let us sit back and await posters here to present their comments, on my statement that:

First and foremost you have got to have information on the concept of God, in order to be relevant to the proof or disproof of God existing, otherwise you are conducting yourselves irrationally or in particular un-intelligently.​

Again, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await posters here to present their comments or words, to the effect of reacting to my statement immediately preceding this ending paragraph of my post here.



[ A similar thread from me is started in another internet forum. ]

Did anyone else read this in the voice of the narrator from "Wizard People Dear Reader "?

Worth a YouTube search for Harry Potter fans who don't mind some tough humor.

 

[dmmesdale]

Are you joking? Bacteria clearly run this planet far more than we could ever hope to.

So what is the first cause of bacteria? Living or exclusively nonliving? Since there are no known ancestors to bacteria and any proposed are imagined absent empirical evidence. Imagined just like God.

-_- then don't use Genesis to argue your points.

Why not? It is indicative of what they believed about the first cause of life and the universe. Why should we believe you over say, Moses or Jesus?

Most of the time, one can debate a position without bringing up religion at all.

You got something against ancient writings or religion? Are they assumed to be wrong about everything they write?

Protect the planet so that we don't accelerate the extinction of our own species rather than because a deity plenty of people don't believe in demands it.

There is no objective or rational basis to protect the planet or stop extinction which is going to happen anyway. It is all your subjective opinion alien to objective reality. It is subjective fiction incompatible with objective reality to assert we somehow are obligated to protect the planet or slow down extinction. If you insist on imposing your subjective fictions on the rest of us then you really have no basis to demand others do not reference Genesis even if you assert it is fiction since they are not doing anything you don't do. All you demonstrate is double standards.

 

[Skreeper]

Why should we believe you over say, Moses or Jesus?

Well the big difference between PsychoSarah and Moses is that we actually have empirical evidence that PsychoSarah exists. The same cannot be said for Moses.

There is no objective or rational basis to protect the planet or stop extinction which is going to happen anyway. It is all your subjective opinion alien to objective reality.

Sure there is a rational basis to protect the planet. I am a human and share this planet with other humans and lifeforms. Therefore it is in my best interest to protect the planet so me and others can continue to live on it.

This really isn't that hard to understand.

 

[quatona]

This really isn't that hard to understand.

Without God there wouldn´t be a good reason not to pee in the pool I´m swimming in.

 

[Radrook]

Well the big difference between PsychoSarah and Moses is that we actually have empirical evidence that PsychoSarah exists. The same cannot be said for Moses.
.

What empirical evidence do you have that Julius Caesar existed?

BTW
Moses is dead.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In the meantime we do dominate and are rightfully described as the dominant species.

Perhaps dominant in ways you think are most important, but not dominant in many others - e.g. numbers, biomass, physical attributes, etc.

Humans seem to have a predilection for judging by personal, cultural, or generally anthropocentric standards. This is understandable, but can be problematic.

 

[Radrook]

Perhaps dominant in ways you think are most important, but not dominant in many others - e.g. numbers, biomass, physical attributes, etc.

Humans seem to have a predilection for judging by personal, cultural, or generally anthropocentric standards. This is understandable, but can be problematic.

I don't believe that ruthless domination based on might makes right principle is morally justifiable.

Neither do Christians imagine that mankind was assigned to behave in that way
in reference to the Earth and its creatures.

BTW
Biomass, physical attributes, numbers don't negate the fact that we are the dominant species. A bull might have strength but we can obliterate it with one shot between the eyes. A bird might fly but we can fly higher and faster. Some animas have telescopic vision but nothing compares with our telescopes. Some animals such as whales can communicate at great distances but we can communicate quicker and even when on the moon. A cheetah runs fast but we can zoom right past it in car or motorcycle. Ants might beat us in biomass but they are mere machines tethered to instinct while we have freedom to choose. So I would say that we pretty much are justified in feeling like the dominant species.

 

[dmmesdale]

Well the big difference between PsychoSarah and Moses is that we actually have empirical evidence that PsychoSarah exists. The same cannot be said for Moses.

Yes it can. There is plenty of objective evidence for the existence of Moses.

Sure there is a rational basis to protect the planet.

A rational objective basis?

I am a human and share this planet with other humans and lifeforms. Therefore it is in my best interest to protect the planet so me and others can continue to live on it.

That is subjective, not objective. There is no objective basis to protect the planet and any assigned is individual or group fiction relative to objective reality. This really isn't that hard to understand.

This really isn't that hard to understand.

If it is not that hard to understand then why is it so difficult to draw the distinction between subjective and objective?

 

[Skreeper]

That is subjective, not objective. There is no objective basis to protect the planet and any assigned is individual or group fiction relative to objective reality. This really isn't that hard to understand.

The only thing that is subjective is the foundation which is well-being but let me explain this whole concept to you: We live in a physical universe that has physical rules that dictate the consequences of our actions and these consequences determine our well-being. So with this in mind we have now established that there are non subjective facts about reality that determine whether or not something is contributing or contracting from our well-being.

Independent from anybody's opinion it is objectively bad if our planet cannot sustain life any longer.