Proof-existence of an intelligent Creator+His Purpose

[Tunizcha]

The Creator also must be created, or else we have the same steady state theory for the universe to disprove yours. And then explain why it took over 14 trillion years for humans to develop if the Creator was supposedly omnipotent.

The universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. No trillions.

Woops. Did not see that.

[Buffett and Colbert]

You're only demonstrated that you cannot think for yourself nor do you have a basic understanding of physics.

[Maurepas]

You're only demonstrated that you cannot think for yourself nor do you have a basic understanding of physics.

You've only demonstrated that you do not have a basic understanding of English grammar.

[Buffett and Colbert]

You're only demonstrated that you cannot think for yourself nor do you have a basic understanding of physics.

You've only demonstrated that you do not have a basic understanding of English grammar.

I must make a sacrifice to the grammar guru!

Hey, cut me some slack. I just got back from doing five hours of hard manual labour.

[Dzvasdvsdv]

Bananas prove that we were created by God as we are now.

[Dolbri]

The argument here is that since there is no measurable indication for Gods existence or involvement in our life, God, if He exists, has chosen for all practical purposes as far as we are concerned to act like He does not - and therefor it is most logical to act as if He does not either.

True - not scientific, but philosophically not entirely unsound.

On the contrary, it is very scientific (perhaps more scientific than philosophical). "Science" merely means "observing and describing the world (in the hope of understanding it better)".

Though perhaps this is just a question of vocabulary.

[Tekania]

So, are you saying that the existence of anything which is unfalsifiable we must remain unsure about? That we should withold judgement on the existence of a giant purple fairy called Gerald who exists outside of space/time? In fact, we can be more sure of God's non-existence, as He/She/It has supposedly influenced our universe, and therefore God's effects must be observable. In the absence of any evidence for God, it is wholly scientific to dismiss the notion of a deity, as it is for the Gerald Hypothesis (by the way, if it turns out that the universe was created by Gerald, remember that you heard it from me first).

Scientifically, yes... By strict criteria something which is unfalsifiable cannot even be proposed as an hypothesis... Because something MUST be falsifiable to be proposed (which the untestable, unobservable "God(s)" falls under)... Someone proposing that should be defeated upon their logic at asserting a God hypothesis in the first place... Because technically you're affirming their unscientific approach as valid at its face...

A belief in "influence" does not necessarily conclude to an observation. One could defeat a persons viewpoint of God based on a particular type/form of influence... But merely asserting that as a way to totally disprove all types of "God(s)" belief produces no conclusion... and most likely would get your argument pegged as a straw-man... Which it could be, assuming an active influence and its consequence, if the person holds a passive-initial influence.. Since it would propose an fake idea of what the other believes, and then tear down that "fake" (straw man) invention you made to falsely represent the point of the other.

[Maurepas]

Bananas prove that we were created by God as we are now.

If we disregard the fact that the modern Banana was bred by Man, then sure,

[The Alma Mater]

The argument here is that since there is no measurable indication for Gods existence or involvement in our life, God, if He exists, has chosen for all practical purposes as far as we are concerned to act like He does not - and therefor it is most logical to act as if He does not either.

True - not scientific, but philosophically not entirely unsound.

On the contrary, it is very scientific (perhaps more scientific than philosophical). "Science" merely means "observing and describing the world (in the hope of understanding it better)".

Though perhaps this is just a question of vocabulary.

Science requires the possibility of falsification, as Tekania posted. As such, anything to do with God cannot be scientific due to the aforementioned "magic wand" aspect.
This also is the reason ID and creationism cannot be considered science (well ok, that and other things).

[Dzvasdvsdv]

If we disregard the fact that the modern Banana was bred by Man, then sure,

It's true, look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3L359yKjs

[Exilia and Colonies]

If we disregard the fact that the modern Banana was bred by Man, then sure,

It's true, look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3L359yKjs

This picture of a banana I found debunks the entire video's argument

[Dolbri]

Science requires the possibility of falsification, as Tekania posted. As such, anything to do with God cannot be scientific due to the aforementioned "magic wand" aspect.

If you look at it like that, there is no such thing as science. The magic wand might be everywhere. If you see an apple, maybe you are actually looking at a chicken! However, should you decide to eat it, you will most likely find that it tastes like apple.

Observation is the only thing that matters, because it is the only thing we have, in every possible sense. It is the only thing we can rely on. If it can not be observed, it does not exist. After all, how do you define "existance"? If an entity can in no way (not even in principle) be observed, in what sense could it then possibly be real? This is what I meant earlier with the phrase "for all practical purposes". If a thing is not observed, you can still imagine it and think about it, but that does not make it real.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

An hypothesis is something which must be testable, to be scientific. God is an hypothesis, yet... an untestable one.

To a degree. We can test for Gods actions. Like testing if earth and the fruit bearing trees on it are older than the sun like genesis claims, if that huge global flood the Bible mentions left any sediments or if praying leads to a desired outcome more often than random chance would suggest.

Of course, since people can always say "but God used his magic wand and therefor the tests find the wrong results" you are quite right it is not science. But not wholly untestable.

Depends on the god your thinking about.

[Bitchkitten]

I want my five minutes back. Silly, silly pseudoscience.

[Ashmoria]

If we disregard the fact that the modern Banana was bred by Man, then sure,

It's true, look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3L359yKjs

that IS a hoot but im pretty sure the makers repudiated that video once someone finally explained to them that the modern banana is completely man made.

oops "their bad" eh?

[Heronfield]

You're only demonstrated that you cannot think for yourself nor do you have a basic understanding of physics.

You've only demonstrated that you do not have a basic understanding of English grammar.

very clever, I see what you've done there.

[South Lorenya]

Look on the ethereal plane outside of the vatican; you will see indisputable proof that your claims are false.

What's the Vatican got to do with Judaism?

Might want to actually read what you're being witty towards before shoving your foot down your throat.

In case you haven't noticed, christianity and judaism worship the same fraud (and so does islam, for that matter).

Might want to stop shoving your foot down your own throat before accusing others of doing that.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

I want my five minutes back. Silly, silly pseudoscience.

i thought it was pseudophilosophy?

[Deus Malum]

I want my five minutes back. Silly, silly pseudoscience.

i thought it was pseudophilosophy?

Either way it was realbullshit.

[Unterzagersdorf]

Religions that contradict Torah, therefore, are the antithesis of the Creator.

Religion is the antithesis of mankind. Period.

[RightWingChristians]

Jews.

[Muravyets]

Religions that contradict Torah, therefore, are the antithesis of the Creator.

Religion is the antithesis of mankind. Period.

How can it possibly be the antithesis of mankind when mankind produces it?

[Baldwin for Christ]

How can it possibly be the antithesis of mankind when mankind produces it?

Mankind does not produce religion (except all the wrong ones like Hinduism, Islam, or Amway), God produces religion.

It is the antithesis of mankind because it is perfect, of God, holy...unlike Man, who is fallen, flawed, and sinful. But we need it to be saved.

If you had a husband, he could explain it to you. Want to shoot pool in Vegas with me tonight?

[Unterzagersdorf]

How can it possibly be the antithesis of mankind when mankind produces it?

Mankind does not produce religion (except all the wrong ones like Hinduism, Islam, or Amway), God produces religion.

It is the antithesis of mankind because it is perfect, of God, holy...unlike Man, who is fallen, flawed, and sinful. But we need it to be saved.

If you had a husband, he could explain it to you. Want to shoot pool in Vegas with me tonight?

God is as flawed as man. He is subject to the same emotions that humans are. Anger, jealousy, sadness, ect. And that is not any coincidence, it is because we, man, made god in our own image. A guy that gets angry... so he creates floods and plagues. You get the idea.

[Baldwin for Christ]

God is as flawed as man. He is subject to the same emotions that humans are. Anger, jealousy, sadness, ect. And that is not any coincidence, it is because we, man, made god in our own image. A guy that gets angry... so he creates floods and plagues. You get the idea.

God's anger is not the same as human anger. Ours relates to a parasympathetic nervous system response that developed as a survival trait...um, I mean it comes from our sinfulness. God's anger is holy, righteous, and always justified.

Similarly, God is only jealous of other God's, but that's because all glory is due to him, and to glory to others would be a lie. So, his jealousy is just a universal form of truthfulness.

As for his sadness, he has sadness for us because he loves us.

We did not make God in our image, God made us in his image, but we corrupted the image. So, we're sort of like a funhouse mirror image of God. We make him all fat and messed up.