How to prove God exists.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Learning, observing and reasoning have nothing against religion.

It's surprising how many Christians here think otherwise - claiming that science is positively anti-religious.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm an atheist because I reject the existance of metaphysics.

Are you sure you mean 'metaphysics' rather than, say, supernatural or paranormal?

 

[just a believing guy]

However, if you define being 'civilized' as adopting the mores and morality of your particular culture and religion, you'll find other cultures and religions will have their own definitions of 'civilized', involving their own mores and morality. 'Civilization' already has a well-accepted meaning that is not culturally relative, so I would suggest that defining it to accord with your personal cultural preferences is a backward step. YMMV.

Indian, Chinese, Japanese etc. common people all wear European originated wardrobe, it's part of their overall ''code'' and ''code'' means civilization.

 

[just a believing guy]

It's surprising how many Christians here think otherwise - claiming that science is positively anti-religious.

I didn't know VirOptimus was a scientist.

 

[Freodin]

Indian, Chinese, Japanese etc. common people all wear European originated wardrobe, it's part of their overall ''code'' and ''code'' means civilization.

I always thought that meant "fashion".

But I wonder... considering the shifts in "code" and, yes, "fashion"... how does "European originated wardrobe" relate to civilization? Shouldn't we all wear togas, if it rested on that?

 

[VirOptimus]

You strongly implied it, however.

Nope, that is all you.

 

[VirOptimus]

Are you sure you mean 'metaphysics' rather than, say, supernatural or paranormal?

Yes I'm sure. I'm a value-nihilist.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Indian, Chinese, Japanese etc. common people all wear European originated wardrobe, it's part of their overall ''code'' and ''code'' means civilization.

Wait, civilization now means shirt & trousers? what happened to mores and morals?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I didn't know VirOptimus was a scientist.

Is he?

Or is it simply that he and science have 'learning, observing and reasoning' in common when trying to understand reality?

 

[just a believing guy]

Wait, civilization now means shirt & trousers? what happened to mores and morals?

The meaning of the dress code cannot be underestimated. And yes, Indians have accepted many, too many western mores and morals in order to become a compatible economy and a member of BRIX, for example.

 

[just a believing guy]

Is he?

Or is it simply that he and science have 'learning, observing and reasoning' in common when trying to understand reality?

I don't like science sneaking in when talking about these things.

 

[Radrook]

"Overwhelming evidence" is what I would call "proof". And that is quite lacking. Anyone who simply claims that there is overwhelming evidence and that it is obvious without being able to show it... explicitly denying to have to "prove it" while in the same breath with different words claiming to have proven it... is just setting himself up for a mirror argument.

See, it is totally obvious that there is no supreme "creator", the evidence for that is overwhelming, anyone who still believes in such a concept has no valid excuse for his belief. Statements confiring the existence of such a creator are exceedingly stupid statements in my view.

Some might challenge atheists to "prove that there is no God"... but that shouldn't even be necessary. It's obvious... and if you disagree, you are... blind, deluded, rebellious, evil... take your pick.

Is that an unsatisfactory line of reasoning? Well, yes, I think so. And it doesn't get any better or more satisfactor if prefaced with "The Bible tells us..."

The Bible tells us it's overwhelming, Jesus agrees that it's overwhelming, the Apostles agreed that it's overwhelming-but YOU say it's not! Whom will I pick to believe. Yow Wow! Tough choice!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes I'm sure. I'm a value-nihilist.

Oh; what does that involve?

 

[VirOptimus]

The Bible tells us it's overwhelming, Jesus agrees that it's overwhelming, the Apostles agreed that it's overwhelming-but YOU say it's not! Whom will I pick to believe. Yow Wow! Tough choice!

Science and reality does not need belief, religion does.

 

[VirOptimus]

Oh; what does that involve?

That physical reality is all there is. Metaphysics does not exist. The philosopher Axel Hägerström is a big thinker in this.

 

[Radrook]

Science and reality does not need belief, religion does.

Science without belief in anything at all is lobotomized. Weird concept you just postulated amigo.

 

[Freodin]

The Bible tells us it's overwhelming, Jesus agrees that it's overwhelming, the Apostles agreed that it's overwhelming-but YOU say it's not! Whom will I pick to believe. Yow Wow! Tough choice!

You know... something overwhelming should be, well, overwhelming. Not be said to be overwhelming.

I know that most religions - and Christianity especially - are authoritarian systems. But for some things that are deliberately spelled out to not be based on authority, but on personal impact... relying on authority instead of impact rather negates the concept, wouldn't you agree?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't like science sneaking in when talking about these things.

I can't help you with that. Whether you like it or not, science is a methodology for gaining knowledge based on learning by observing and reasoning.

 

[just a believing guy]

I can't help you with that. Whether you like it or not, science is a methodology for gaining knowledge based on learning by observing and reasoning.

What you have done in this post of yours is setting monopoly of science on knowledge, learning, observing and reasoning.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You know... something overwhelming should be, well, overwhelming. Not be said to be overwhelming.

I know that most religions - and Christianity especially - are authoritarian systems. But for some things that are deliberately spelled out to not be based on authority, but on personal impact... relying on authority instead of impact rather negates the concept, wouldn't you agree?

Indeed - if it was overwhelming, one would expect to be overwhelmed...