KoloOyinbo:


The validity of the Agnostic position is that they refuse to go beyond rationality (a valid viewpoint). Therefore they cannot make a choice in the fact of insufficient evidence.

The other two diametrically opposed points of view are based solely on a belief or faith.

I am not sure what you are getting at when introducing the topic of the validity and the truth of Gods existence. If we do not wish to waste time on semantics then we can take them as synonymous.

We are in a deadlock. Because we arrive at different conclusions.

The only common ground we have is that the theist relies on faith for a metaphysical fact.

To me, the atheist merely points out that metaphysical facts are beyond our reality and therefore any claim in respect to it, is inherently false. They (metaphysical facts) are unknown to men.

To you, the atheist is expected to somehow prove in an empirical fashion, despite the volatility of metaphysics, a negative fact about metaphysics!. While the agnostic rightly suspends his judgement regarding all metaphysical facts

Kay17:


We are in a deadlock. Because we arrive at different conclusions.

The only common ground we have is that the theist relies on faith for a metaphysical fact.

To me, the atheist merely points out that metaphysical facts are beyond our reality and therefore any claim in respect to it, is inherently false. They (metaphysical facts) are unknown to men.

To you, the atheist is expected to somehow prove in an empirical fashion, despite the volatility of metaphysics, a negative fact about metaphysics!. While the agnostic rightly suspends his judgement regarding all metaphysical facts

You cannot justify the statement "inherently false"!

The atheist is NOT expected to prove anything (don't know why you say according to me? - please read my statements more carefully before misquoting me) I have repeatedly stated that NEITHER the atheist of theist CAN prove their points of view.

You always believe you are above-while many are below-little knowledge or not, still more then you. God is proven, Like a child-Atheists need the right sources to help them find their faith, and like a child one must find within themselves "love" before making that final leap to Glory. Praise the Lord.

KoloOyinbo:


You have a point here?

If God could be PROVEN there would be no Atheists and no Agnostics. Nor would be be saved by FAITH.

Like I said, you know little of Christianity.

KoloOyinbo:


You cannot justify the statement "inherently false"!

The atheist is NOT expected to prove anything (don't know why you say according to me? - please read my statements more carefully before misquoting me) I have repeatedly stated that NEITHER the atheist of theist CAN prove their points of view.

By proof, you mean empirical proofs, right?

Kay17:


By proof, you mean empirical proofs, right?

Well I'm not sure why you ask this but my initial response (without much analysis) is yes. After all empirical proofs cannot be applied to metaphysical concepts so if you are defining it as empirical you actually make my case quite unassailable!

What others proof or disproofs did were you considering if any?

brocab:
You always believe you are above-while many are below-little knowledge or not, still more then you. God is proven, Like a child-Atheists need the right sources to help them find their faith, and like a child one must find within themselves "love" before making that final leap to Glory. Praise the Lord.

See my previous post - just because someone ignorant in logic, rationality, theology and Christianity CLAIMS God is proven does not make it so. Thankfully so or the basis of FAITH would be meaningless and the Bible thus contradicted.

Your Faith is laudable (so far the ONLY thing I have found laudable about you) but is just that - FAITH.

KoloOyinbo:
I have repeatedly stated that NEITHER the atheist of theist CAN prove their points of view.

Are you familiar with the Black Box Theory?

DProDG:

Are you familiar with the Black Box Theory?

If we know what goes in and what comes out we may deduce (in whole or in part) the functions effected within the box. Is this what you are referring to?

If we apply this to the existence of God through the creating of the universe we get all sorts of problems. It has been taken as an INDICATOR of the existence of God but generally rejected (quite rightly) as a proof.

Won't go into the details unless you wish in case you are referring to a different idea.

All these ideas to prove and indeed disprove Gods existence have been examined in detail and at length (over a very long time and by humanities greatest minds) and have failed.

KoloOyinbo:


If we know what goes in and what comes out we may deduce (in whole or in part) the functions effected within the box. Is this what you are referring to?

If we apply this to the existence of God through the creating of the universe we get all sorts of problems. It has been taken as an INDICATOR of the existence of God but generally rejected (quite rightly) as a proof.

Won't go into the details unless you wish in case you are referring to a different idea.

All these ideas to prove and indeed disprove Gods existence have been examined in detail and at length (over a very long time and by humanities greatest minds) and have failed.

Basically it is deriving information from what's available and eliminating the implausible. It borders on the burden of proof. As with you, everything serves as an 'indicator'.

In regards to you last sentence, you've repeated such several times ignoring the fact that religious belief is based on almost solely on faith. There's nothing like peer-reviewed work on God's existence. Evolution and big bang theories where enough to dismiss the Abrahamic deity but as we both know, they have either been rejected or ridiculously reconciled.

---

In regards to the cosmic fine-tuning argument mentioned previously. I never got or missed the response to the statement --

it is based on the assumption that the universe and law of physics can only exist in one form

DProDG:


Basically it is deriving information from what's available and eliminating the implausible. It borders on the burden of proof. As with you, everything serves as an 'indicator'.

In regards to you last sentence, you've repeated such several times ignoring the fact that religious belief is based on almost solely on faith. There's nothing like peer-reviewed work on God's existence. Evolution and big bang theories where enough to dismiss the Abrahamic deity but as we both know, they have either been rejected or ridiculously reconciled.

---

In regards to the cosmic fine-tuning argument mentioned previously. I never got or missed the response to the statement --

As I keep saying religious belief IS based on FAITH! Yes. You understand me there. So I am not sure why you say I ignore that fact? It is what I have been clearly stating from the beginning!

As for the quite separate issues of Big Bang and Evolution they neither prove or disprove God.

If God created the Universe then is free to do so by the Big Bang and if he created life he is free to do so by using evolution. While the Theist FUNDAMENTALIST does not accept this the majority of Theists accept their respective 'Holy Books' as allegorical rather than literal and so see absolutely NO conflict between believing in a God AND Evolution and the Big Bang.

PLEASE, FUNDAMENTALISTS - I know you don't accept this and never will. But please realise that as someone who has had 20 years as an scientist (astronomer) and who believes firmly in God it is a very valid point of view.

Today I was actually watching a documentary about how the Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Church had made a peace treaty between each other, they were saying both religions have joined forces believing in the same faith. The documentary also said, Pope Francis wanted the rest of the world religions to join together under one religion. As they stated the Christian's started back from the Catholic Church, and we are all originally Catholic's. Just asking because you say you were either Catholic or Presbyterian yourself, is this true. I always thought the Presbyterian's were against their faith? True Christians don't live by faith alone.

But you know after reading your quotes, there is a closeness between your faith's, and none of it makes any sense about Christ, you say you have faith but you never seem to prove your faith with works, James 2:17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works its dead.

You even say you are a Christian and yet you seem to have a form of godliness but you deny its power. 2 Timothy 3:5.
You profess to know God, but in works you deny Him, Titus 1:16.

I have read your fruit and every time I have mention God, you proudly say in your own worldly knowledge, I don't know Christ, and yet not only by faith I have showing you works, and see the Body without the Spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

There is so much evidence God exist, but if you still believe otherwise, then the Spirit of God could never live in you, and the faith in you couldn't be active to even function to exist. Think about it.

KoloOyinbo:


See my previous post - just because someone ignorant in logic, rationality, theology and Christianity CLAIMS God is proven does not make it so. Thankfully so or the basis of FAITH would be meaningless and the Bible thus contradicted.

Your Faith is laudable (so far the ONLY thing I have found laudable about you) but is just that - FAITH.

brocab:
Today I was actually watching a documentary about how the Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Church had made a peace treaty between each other, they were saying both religions have joined forces believing in the same faith. The documentary also said, Pope Francis wanted the rest of the world religions to join together under one religion. As they stated the Christian's started back from the Catholic Church, and we are all originally Catholic's. Just asking because you say you were either Catholic or Presbyterian yourself, is this true. I always thought the Presbyterian's were against their faith? True Christians don't live by faith alone.

But you know when I read your quotes, none of it makes any sense about Christ, you say you have faith but you never seem to prove your faith with works, James 2:17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works its dead.

You even say you are a Christian and yet you seem to have a form of godliness but you deny its power. 2 Timothy 3:5.
You profess to know God, but in works you deny Him, Titus 1:16.

I have read your fruit and every time I have mention God, you proudly say in your own worldly knowledge, I don't know Christ, and yet not only by faith I have showing you works, and see the Body without the Spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

There is so much evidence God exist, but if you still believe otherwise, then the Spirit of God could never live in you, and the faith in you couldn't be active to even function to exist. Think about it.

Anyone who thinks (WRONGLY) that they can prove God has dispensed with FAITH in their life.

After your numerous hate filled and bigoted anti Catholic rants I simply skip any paragraph you mention the work Catholic in. I will not facilitate your errors or bigotry.

I am not asking you to do anything, I hear the truth and I write it down. You should read what's under the good news about the Catholic's and the Presbyterian's Churches coming together to join ones faith.
You need to stop running from the truth, one day you will need to front up to your fears, and front the boogie man you have always been frighten off as a child.
The truth is Mr KoloOyinbo news is travelling fast, and it's word of mouth delivering the truth to every household, apartment, or the streets, every body who has a TV, radio or a computer is hearing the truth. "Accept for you.

KoloOyinbo:


Anyone who thinks (WRONGLY) that they can prove God has dispensed with FAITH in their life.

After your numerous hate filled and bigoted anti Catholic rants I simply skip any paragraph you mention the work Catholic in. I will not facilitate your errors or bigotry.

brocab:
I am not asking you to do anything, I hear the truth and I write it down. You should read what's under the good news about the Catholic's and the Presbyterian's Churches coming together to join ones faith.
You need to stop running from the truth, one day you will need to front up to your fears, and front the boogie man you have always been frighten off as a child.
The truth is Mr KoloOyinbo news is travelling fast, and it's word of mouth delivering the truth to every household, apartment, or the streets, every body who has a TV, radio or a computer is hearing the truth. "Accept for you.

You would not know the Truth if it hit you in the face your thinking is so poor and bigoted!

KoloOyinbo:


Well I'm not sure why you ask this but my initial response (without much analysis) is yes. After all empirical proofs cannot be applied to metaphysical concepts so if you are defining it as empirical you actually make my case quite unassailable!

What others proof or disproofs did were you considering if any?

BUt wHat conclusion do you drAW for a metaphysical God being inherently inaccessible to us?

KoloOyinbo:
As I keep saying religious belief IS based on FAITH! Yes. You understand me there. So I am not sure why you say I ignore that fact? It is what I have been clearly stating from the beginning!

I used to words 'almost solely on faith' to indicate that no matter what contradiction or despite the overwhelming lack of empirical evidence supporting the existence of their deity, they still hold on to it and some will insist atheism is less rational.

As for the quite separate issues of Big Bang and Evolution they neither prove or disprove God.

If God created the Universe then is free to do so by the Big Bang and if he created life he is free to do so by using evolution. While the Theist FUNDAMENTALIST does not accept this the majority of Theists accept their respective 'Holy Books' as allegorical rather than literal and so see absolutely NO conflict between believing in a God AND Evolution and the Big Bang.

PLEASE, FUNDAMENTALISTS - I know you don't accept this and never will. But please realise that as someone who has had 20 years as an scientist (astronomer) and who believes firmly in God it is a very valid point of view.

I was referring to the Abrahamic religions which of course depend on their 'holy books'. Both theories mentioned clearly contradict what their respective books propose. If that is not disproving the existence of Yahweh/Allah, I do not know what is. Of course there are desperate reconciliations like you mentioned above and there are people who outright reject scientific evidence.

---

First time I mentioned you it was in order to clarify why you think believing in God(although you admit requires faith) is more rational than atheism. You then mentioned 'indications' like the cosmological fine-tuning(which I am still waiting for an elaboration). I am curious to know how a stance which requires faith(and of course a few 'indications') can be more logical than that which is based on objectivity and empirical evidence.

(I lost track of your posts in this thread and another, in case you've already answered/addressed these, kindly link them)

DProDG:

I used to words 'almost solely on faith' to indicate that no matter what contradiction or despite the overwhelming lack of empirical evidence supporting the existence of their deity, they still hold on to it and some will insist atheism is less rational.

I was referring to the Abrahamic religions which of course depend on their 'holy books'. Both theories mentioned clearly contradict what their respective books propose. If that is not disproving the existence of Yahweh/Allah, I do not know what is. Of course there are desperate reconciliations like you mentioned above and there are people who outright reject scientific evidence.

---

First time I mentioned you it was in order to clarify why you think believing in God(although you admit requires faith) is more rational than atheism. You then mentioned 'indications' like the cosmological fine-tuning(which I am still waiting for an elaboration). I am curious to know how a stance which requires faith(and of course a few 'indications') can be more logical than that which is based on objectivity and empirical evidence.

(I lost track of your posts in this thread and another, in case you've already answered/addressed these, kindly link them)

I just believe on a PERSONAL level that Atheism is less rational because it does not realise it has as little basis as Theism.

Neither Big Bang NOR Evolution contradict Abrahamic religions in any way! I have already explained this in my previous post. Only the rabid and unintelligent fundamentalist try's to take literally something that is clearly allegorical. So it disturbs me that you speak of 'desperate reconciliations', I don't know of any?

I have rejected the Cosmological Fine Turning as a proof but personally accept it as an INDICATOR.

I end up making too many posts every day to keep repeat things so hopefully you can track back. Or if you have a specific question about it I will try my best to answer.

Your first statement on FAITH is correct and those who refuse the POSSIBILIY of God are being equally (I think slightly more) irrational. As I have said in multiple posts ONLY the Agnostic can claim rationality.

I'm not sure how to link posts and as so many people jump in, I cant keep track myself (so do sympathise with you). If they used Personal Message then I could address someone's issue directly without being side-tracked onto other arguments.

Kay17:


BUt wHat conclusion do you drAW for a metaphysical God being inherently inaccessible to us?

I draw that he exists! (OF COURSE) The Theist actually believes that God IS accessible through Prayer. I am sure you knew that but simply tried to 'beg the question'.

Suppose I had asked What conclusion do you draw for a God that does not exist? Silly question!

If you are trying to prove Atheism 'superior' in any manner, shape or form then you are not making any progress whatsoever (nor would it be possible to as only Agnosticism has a basis in rationality).

KoloOyinbo:
I just believe on a PERSONAL level that Atheism is less rational because it does not realise it has as little basis as Theism.

Unless you're referring specifically to gnostic atheism(which is a fallacious stance), how exactly do you continuously overlook the the burden of proof? This tends towards the argument from ignorance.

Neither Big Bang NOR Evolution contradict Abrahamic religions in any way! I have already explained this in my previous post. Only the rabid and unintelligent fundamentalist try's to take literally something that is clearly allegorical. So it disturbs me that you speak of 'desperate reconciliations', I don't know of any?

Before there was conclusive scientific evidence supporting either the BBT or ET, no one considered the creation stories as allegories. I understand assuming a deity created the universe through the BB and life's diversity through evolution although there's no evidence to support such. It does not make such any less a desperate attempt to reconcile reality with the old testament/koran.

I have rejected the Cosmological Fine Turning as a proof but personally accept it as an INDICATOR.

Your use of the word 'indicator' is synonymous with (inconclusive) evidence. I might open a new thread on how fallacious the CFT argument is sometime in the future.

I end up making too many posts every day to keep repeat things so hopefully you can track back. Or if you have a specific question about it I will try my best to answer.

Your first statement on FAITH is correct and those who refuse the POSSIBILIY of God are being equally (I think slightly more) irrational. As I have said in multiple posts ONLY the Agnostic can claim rationality.

I'm not sure how to link posts and as so many people jump in, I cant keep track myself (so do sympathise with you). If they used Personal Message then I could address someone's issue directly without being side-tracked onto other arguments.

Okay, halfway into responding to you I read the emboldened and I think we have found common ground. I won't edit my write-ups above though.

DProDG:

Unless you're referring specifically to gnostic atheism(which is a fallacious stance), how exactly do you continuously overlook the the burden of proof? This tends towards the argument from ignorance.

Before there was conclusive scientific evidence supporting either the BBT or ET, no one considered the creation stories as allegories. I understand assuming a deity created the universe through the BB and life's diversity through evolution although there's no evidence to support such. It does not make such any less a desperate attempt to reconcile reality with the old testament/koran.

Your use of the word 'indicator' is synonymous with (inconclusive) evidence. I might open a new thread on how fallacious the CFT argument is sometime in the future.

Okay, halfway into responding to you I read the emboldened and I think we have found common ground. I won't edit my write-ups above though.

Where something IS able to be proven in order to accept it the burden of proof (as you correctly imply) rests with those making the statement.

God/a Creator etc inherently exists (IF God does exist) outside and beyond and before our Universe. God CANNOT be proven so can not be disproven either.

Also in the 'burden of proof' you allude to, NOT being able to prove it does NOT necessarily disprove it. So again we come back to FAITH.

Allegory has always been part of literature etc and so was used in the Holy Books from the beginning. It is your unsupported idea that they were always literal that allows you to make the frankly disingenuous (and slightly offensive) statement that any recognition of this is a 'desperate attempt'. I am far from desperate and have ALWAYS (even from a child) accepted much of these works as they were intended i.e. allegorical.

KoloOyinbo:


Suppose I had asked What conclusion do you draw for a God that does not exist? Silly question!

If you are trying to prove Atheism 'superior' in any manner, shape or form then you are not making any progress whatsoever (nor would it be possible to as only Agnosticism has a basis in rationality).

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record.

KoloOyinbo:


Where something IS able to be proven in order to accept it the burden of proof (as you correctly imply) rests with those making the statement.

God/a Creator etc inherently exists (IF God does exist) outside and beyond and before our Universe. God CANNOT be proven so can not be disproven either.

Also in the 'burden of proof' you allude to, NOT being able to prove it does NOT necessarily disprove it. So again we come back to FAITH.

Atheists have successfully argued that God as the West conceives it, is a contradictory entity and therefore cannot exist.

Other Gods which are not essentially metaphysical have been proven to be psychological constructs.

And finally, how does anyone disprove a God with an unclear picture?

KoloOyinbo:
Where something IS able to be proven in order to accept it the burden of proof (as you correctly imply) rests with those making the statement.

God/a Creator etc inherently exists (IF God does exist) outside and beyond and before our Universe. God CANNOT be proven so can not be disproven either.

Also in the 'burden of proof' you allude to, NOT being able to prove it does NOT necessarily disprove it. So again we come back to FAITH.

We both agree on this ^^, but this sound closer to the deistic god than the Christian god I assume you believe in(excuse me if I am wrong). On that, I will like to point out the definition attached to such a god makes its existence insignificant and impractical.

Allegory has always been part of literature etc and so was used in the Holy Books from the beginning. It is your unsupported idea that they were always literal that allows you to make the frankly disingenuous (and slightly offensive) statement that any recognition of this is a 'desperate attempt'. I am far from desperate and have ALWAYS (even from a child) accepted much of these works as they were intended i.e. allegorical.

I did not mean to be offensive nor do I necessarily want to bring the bible into this. I have pretty much gotten the clarification I wanted. I will open different threads later to discuss specific arguments in detail.

I read what you write to others on this page, Sad. You say your are Christian, but in one sense, Quote>you say god can not be proven so not be dis-proven either. If you don't want to show any evidence, so others may see your a believer, then its best to call yourself an atheist
and go with the flow of unbelievers and disbelieve.
Your Christian beliefs are very low, and it's not helping people to even want to believe in any truth that God exist.
Your not helping to help save a soul, matter of fact you are attacking into their minds, defusing the Idea we even have a God.
How can you even make any claim to say you believe by faith-without showing any works.
James 2:17. Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead, V's 24 the Lord say's You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
So you see, your faith alone does not cover any thing you claim to be.

I have written the truth, not my own thinking, not my own word's, but the word of the Lord, and you still don't recognise what is truth. "Sad" You need to ask the Lord into your life, now while you still have the time Mr KoloOyinbo, before it's to late.

This prayer is not just for you but anybody who fills they need Christ into their own life's.

Salvation prayer, read it and believe.
Even if you believed you have said this prayer before, say it again to assure yourself you are ready to face up to anything the enemy throws at you.
Lord I repent of my sins, Lord forgive me.
Forgive me Lord I had walked away from you from the beginning, Lord I truly believe in you.
I believe you had died for me on the cross.
I believe God the Father had raise you up from the dead.
I believe you had shed your own blood, to wash away my sins.
I believe in the body of Christ and I have chosen to walk, as you walk O'Lord.
I thank you for Loving me, and accepting me as a child of God.
I accept you as my Lord and savour, I am proud to say I am now a born again Christian in Christ.
And I am ready to live my new Life, and walk without the fears I have carried from a child, I now stand fern wearing my full armour of God, along with my Spiritual wisdom and knowledge, I will retrieve as I stand strong growing everyday in the word of the Lord.
I now ask the Holy Spirit to come into my life, to teach me all His wisdom and knowledge-instead of my own.
I thank you Lord from the bottom of my heart.
Amen..
Even if you have said this prayer before hand, it's always good to keep it mind "why" because we believe.

KoloOyinbo:


You would not know the Truth if it hit you in the face your thinking is so poor and bigoted!

brocab:
I read what you write to others on this page, Sad. You say your are Christian, but in one sense, Quote>you say god can not be proven so not be dis-proven either. If you don't want to show any evidence, so others may see your a believer, then its best to call yourself an atheist
and go with the flow of unbelievers and disbelieve.
Your Christian beliefs are very low, and it's not helping people to even want to believe in any truth that God exist.
Your not helping to help save a soul, matter of fact you are attacking into their minds, defusing the Idea we even have a God.
How can you even make any claim to say you believe by faith-without showing any works.
James 2:17. Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead, V's 24 the Lord say's You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
So you see, your faith alone does not cover any thing you claim to be.

I have written the truth, not my own thinking, not my own word's, but the word of the Lord, and you still don't recognise what is truth. "Sad" You need to ask the Lord into your life, now while you still have the time Mr KoloOyinbo, before it's to late.

This prayer is not just for you but anybody who fills they need Christ into their own life's.

Salvation prayer, read it and believe.
Even if you believed you have said this prayer before, say it again to assure yourself you are ready to face up to anything the enemy throws at you.
Lord I repent of my sins, Lord forgive me.
Forgive me Lord I had walked away from you from the beginning, Lord I truly believe in you.
I believe you had died for me on the cross.
I believe God the Father had raise you up from the dead.
I believe you had shed your own blood, to wash away my sins.
I believe in the body of Christ and I have chosen to walk, as you walk O'Lord.
I thank you for Loving me, and accepting me as a child of God.
I accept you as my Lord and savour, I am proud to say I am now a born again Christian in Christ.
And I am ready to live my new Life, and walk without the fears I have carried from a child, I now stand fern wearing my full armour of God, along with my Spiritual wisdom and knowledge, I will retrieve as I stand strong growing everyday in the word of the Lord.
I now ask the Holy Spirit to come into my life, to teach me all His wisdom and knowledge-instead of my own.
I thank you Lord from the bottom of my heart.
Amen..
Even if you have said this prayer before hand, it's always good to keep it mind "why" because we believe.

What foolish and inconsistent rubbish (at least the little I read of it).

How can one who believes in God be an Atheist.

We KNOW God cannot be proven for if so then there would be no atheists and FAITH would be useless. It would render Christianity irrelevant.

Quote one proof that does not rest on you already believing?? IMPOSSIBLE.

You are a most ignorant and unpleasant fellow who find it impossible to understand even the simplest of concepts (Christian or otherwise).

Please try to keep you nonsense shorter so I can respond without wasting too much on a case like you.

DProDG:


We both agree on this ^^, but this sound closer to the deistic god than the Christian god I assume you believe in(excuse me if I am wrong). On that, I will like to point out the definition attached to such a god makes its existence insignificant and impractical.



I did not mean to be offensive nor do I necessarily want to bring the bible into this. I have pretty much gotten the clarification I wanted. I will open different threads later to discuss specific arguments in detail.

OK. I accept all you say and would point out YES on the Deistic God issue you mention. For the sake of simplicity I wanted to keep the discuss to that otherwise we end up branching out to far too many concepts and would argue forever about that without contributing anything to the premise.

Kay17:


Atheists have successfully argued that God as the West conceives it, is a contradictory entity and therefore cannot exist.

Other Gods which are not essentially metaphysical have been proven to be psychological constructs.

And finally, how does anyone disprove a God with an unclear picture?

Meaningless sophistry. You make a FOOLISH STATEMENT - "Atheists have successfully argued that God as the West conceives it, is a contradictory entity and therefore cannot exist" IF this was as you claim then there would be NO Deists! The fact that they exist means the argument was NOT successful. In fact only someone so foolish to believe that you CAN prove God exists is as silly as someone who believes you can prove he does not.

You basic and fundamental error in your very first statement is compounded by further begging of the question in the second statement.

Where have these things been disproven? Nowhere in fact. You really need to begin your study all over again! You are coming out with more and more errors of even greater magnitude the more you say.

Kay17:


I'm beginning to sound like a broken record.

Don't worry. You ARE making many fundamental errors AND it is clear WHY! BUT that is no reason not too keep trying. The concepts ARE difficult but understandable.

I strongly suspect that you are colouring all your reading by what you WANT to believe yourself.

Now consider the scientific method (which has served man well for centuries) and lets see if we can apply the logic and method here. YES, don't be surprise I try to apply it to God's existence or otherwise. So please bear with me. I will describe the method and then see how and IF it works here.

1) We make an observation.

2) We construct a THEORY to possibly explain the observation.
NOTE: The theory MAY be 'true' or 'false'.

3) We construct a test of our theory. This involves a PREDICTION. IF my theory is correct then THIS should follow!
EXAMPLE: We look at star positions AT NIGHT when the SUN is in the opposite part of the sky and record them.
IF Light IS bent by gravity and we look at these stars again but during a SOLAR ECLIPSE when the sun is close to our line of sight to those Stars then we should notice a small deviation from recorded position.

4) We carry out EXPERIMENT (test) to see if the prediction holds
This was done in 1919 (I think - going on memory for the dates) and not only was the deviation observed but it agreed with what had been calculated!

5) We conclude that out THEORY is 'true'

That is the simplest explanation in essence (it is a little more complicated as we may not have the entire 'truth' or our experiment may be flawed - and don't forget that Newtonian mechanics was accepted as true for centuries until Relativity was discovered and it was realised that Newtonian Mechanics was only true in non relativistic conditions)

As an addenda to 5 above we usually ASSUME that a theory contradicting our above idea is FALSE.

This again does not follow.

Theory A: Light itself is made up of WAVES OF ENERGY
Theory B: Light itself is made up of discrete and INDIVIDUAL packets of energy (PHOTONS) {A single particle could not therefore display WAVE properties.

In fact light does both!

Interference patterns support the Wave nature while photoelectric effect etc support the PHOTON nature.

BOTH are correct.

Apply to God.

1) We see a Universe and wonder how it got here
2) One THEORY is a God

3) Now try to devise a TEST?
IMPOSSIBLE. So we can make no inference on the validity OR invalidity of our theory. Insufficient evidence/date.

Thus my grudging respect for the Agnostic and mild amusement at the Deist and Atheist who do not realise they are more alike than either would care to admit.

As a final aside (and I apologise for the length of this post so far) may I (rather tongue in cheek) refer to queries on the NATURE of God, may I offer THREE very PERSONAL ideas:
1) God exists
2) If he exists he is the ultimate scientist
3) He has a wonderful sense of humour and must find the Deist and Atheist alike a great source of amusement!

So you disapprove, you won't read between the lines, so I have to give you another scripture, because you still cant accept God is proven either way.

This is why you need Jesus> John 14:8-10, Philip said to Jesus, "Lord, show us the Father. V's 9, Jesus said to Him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me Philip? Jesus said he who has seen Me has seen the Father;

{So Mr KoloOyinbo how is it you say no-one can prove God exist, and lie at the same time calling yourself a Christian?}

John 14:10, "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?
The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works..

Remember the Lord has told you, God is Love Mr KoloOyinbo

KoloOyinbo:


What foolish and inconsistent rubbish (at least the little I read of it).

How can one who believes in God be an Atheist.

We KNOW God cannot be proven for if so then there would be no atheists and FAITH would be useless. It would render Christianity irrelevant.

Quote one proof that does not rest on you already believing?? IMPOSSIBLE.

You are a most ignorant and unpleasant fellow who find it impossible to understand even the simplest of concepts (Christian or otherwise).

Please try to keep you nonsense shorter so I can respond without wasting too much on a case like you.

KoloOyinbo:


Don't worry. You ARE making many fundamental errors AND it is clear WHY! BUT that is no reason not too keep trying. The concepts ARE difficult but understandable.

I strongly suspect that you are colouring all your reading by what you WANT to believe yourself.

Now consider the scientific method (which has served man well for centuries) and lets see if we can apply the logic and method here. YES, don't be surprise I try to apply it to God's existence or otherwise. So please bear with me. I will describe the method and then see how and IF it works here.

1) We make an observation.

2) We construct a THEORY to possibly explain the observation.
NOTE: The theory MAY be 'true' or 'false'.

3) We construct a test of our theory. This involves a PREDICTION. IF my theory is correct then THIS should follow!
EXAMPLE: We look at star positions AT NIGHT when the SUN is in the opposite part of the sky and record them.
IF Light IS bent by gravity and we look at these stars again but during a SOLAR ECLIPSE when the sun is close to our line of sight to those Stars then we should notice a small deviation from recorded position.

4) We carry out EXPERIMENT (test) to see if the prediction holds
This was done in 1919 (I think - going on memory for the dates) and not only was the deviation observed but it agreed with what had been calculated!

5) We conclude that out THEORY is 'true'

That is the simplest explanation in essence (it is a little more complicated as we may not have the entire 'truth' or our experiment may be flawed - and don't forget that Newtonian mechanics was accepted as true for centuries until Relativity was discovered and it was realised that Newtonian Mechanics was only true in non relativistic conditions)

As an addenda to 5 above we usually ASSUME that a theory contradicting our above idea is FALSE.

This again does not follow.

Theory A: Light itself is made up of WAVES OF ENERGY
Theory B: Light itself is made up of discrete and INDIVIDUAL packets of energy (PHOTONS) {A single particle could not therefore display WAVE properties.

In fact light does both!

Interference patterns support the Wave nature while photoelectric effect etc support the PHOTON nature.

BOTH are correct.

Apply to God.

1) We see a Universe and wonder how it got here
2) One THEORY is a God

3) Now try to devise a TEST?
IMPOSSIBLE. So we can make no inference on the validity OR invalidity of our theory. Insufficient evidence/date.

Thus my grudging respect for the Agnostic and mild amusement at the Deist and Atheist who do not realise they are more alike than either would care to admit.

As a final aside (and I apologise for the length of this post so far) may I (rather tongue in cheek) refer to queries on the NATURE of God, may I offer THREE very PERSONAL ideas:
1) God exists
2) If he exists he is the ultimate scientist
3) He has a wonderful sense of humour and must find the Deist and Atheist alike a great source of amusement!

BUT if,

God is a contradictory being wouldn't that automatically mean he cannot exist?!

You told me you travel and give lectures around the world about Health and safety.
Now you are telling people your an ex-scientist, didn't you make it to NASA. Mr KoloOyinbo. It sounds you have been reading to many comic books.
Come on bro, wake up to yourself.

Most scientist they either search for truth, and most know the evidence on the scientific discovery Darwin and Einstein made this statement that science and religion work together, as they found together the truth's about the universe, the stars and the planets, both men found evidence that the universe, was formed so perfect, they believed and realized it could only be a God, who could make such a masterpiece.

Darwin realized his own theory about evolutions was the biggest mistake he had ever made.
And the Big bang theory, could only be the voice of God echoing through the universe, let there be light..

Darwin and Einstein found it was to late for them to change the world.
The world had already printed millions of books about Darwin's theory on evolution. "Sorry as Darwin was, the world had already accepted the facts, God don't exist.
Both scientist had stepped down from their discovery, only because of their own fears, and the fears from the world..
These men were true scientist, Einstein and Darwin had believed in God, but as Atheist the world knows there own.

Mr KoloOyinbp who are you' and what have you done with science? Besides teaching about health and safety.

KoloOyinbo:


Don't worry. You ARE making many fundamental errors AND it is clear WHY! BUT that is no reason not too keep trying. The concepts ARE difficult but understandable.

I strongly suspect that you are colouring all your reading by what you WANT to believe yourself.

Now consider the scientific method (which has served man well for centuries) and lets see if we can apply the logic and method here. YES, don't be surprise I try to apply it to God's existence or otherwise. So please bear with me. I will describe the method and then see how and IF it works here.

1) We make an observation.

2) We construct a THEORY to possibly explain the observation.
NOTE: The theory MAY be 'true' or 'false'.

3) We construct a test of our theory. This involves a PREDICTION. IF my theory is correct then THIS should follow!
EXAMPLE: We look at star positions AT NIGHT when the SUN is in the opposite part of the sky and record them.
IF Light IS bent by gravity and we look at these stars again but during a SOLAR ECLIPSE when the sun is close to our line of sight to those Stars then we should notice a small deviation from recorded position.

4) We carry out EXPERIMENT (test) to see if the prediction holds
This was done in 1919 (I think - going on memory for the dates) and not only was the deviation observed but it agreed with what had been calculated!

5) We conclude that out THEORY is 'true'

That is the simplest explanation in essence (it is a little more complicated as we may not have the entire 'truth' or our experiment may be flawed - and don't forget that Newtonian mechanics was accepted as true for centuries until Relativity was discovered and it was realised that Newtonian Mechanics was only true in non relativistic conditions)

As an addenda to 5 above we usually ASSUME that a theory contradicting our above idea is FALSE.

This again does not follow.

Theory A: Light itself is made up of WAVES OF ENERGY
Theory B: Light itself is made up of discrete and INDIVIDUAL packets of energy (PHOTONS) {A single particle could not therefore display WAVE properties.

In fact light does both!

Interference patterns support the Wave nature while photoelectric effect etc support the PHOTON nature.

BOTH are correct.

Apply to God.

1) We see a Universe and wonder how it got here
2) One THEORY is a God

3) Now try to devise a TEST?
IMPOSSIBLE. So we can make no inference on the validity OR invalidity of our theory. Insufficient evidence/date.

Thus my grudging respect for the Agnostic and mild amusement at the Deist and Atheist who do not realise they are more alike than either would care to admit.

As a final aside (and I apologise for the length of this post so far) may I (rather tongue in cheek) refer to queries on the NATURE of God, may I offer THREE very PERSONAL ideas:
1) God exists
2) If he exists he is the ultimate scientist
3) He has a wonderful sense of humour and must find the Deist and Atheist alike a great source of amusement!

texanomaly:


It is just funny that believers use the exact same words, except they say they do believe there is a God. Hmmm

Haha, you got me. I have nothing but reason to offer you, though.