• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Proof of God

Individual said:
That's where religion comes to the aid of such belief, forgiveness for all sins except disbelief in God, life after death, 72 virgins (male and female virgins?) after death, etc.

Without religion, religious beliefs, what actual NEED is there for a belief in God(s) EVEN if God(s) were to exist?
Click to expand...

None at all, that I can see. Except for some sort of philosophical satisfaction that you feel like you figured something out. But then what?
 
Individual said:
I have no problem accepting there are two or more beliefs of how the Universe came into existence. I simply cannot accept as this thread claims that one is provable. None of the beliefs has, or likely can ever be proven to include or exclude God(s).
Click to expand...

Well in a sense I agree but only if you concede that no other claim about the world is provable either, if you claim there are provable propositions about the world and that proofs of "God" are not among them then I disagree.

Singling out purported proofs for God as being unprovable while allowing other proofs to stand is something I take issue with, not that you are doing that but you might be so I'm asking.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand how possibility necessitates existence. Could you elaborate?
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Well in a sense I agree but only if you concede that no other claim about the world is provable either, if you claim there are provable propositions about the world and that proofs of "God" are not among them then I disagree. Singling out purported proofs for God as being unprovable while allowing other proofs to stand is something I take issue with, not that you are doing that but you might be so I'm asking.
Click to expand...
Then we may just have to agree to disagree. A great many things have, IMO, been proven, while a great many things have been hypothesized or theorized. I would accept the existence of God(s) to be a hypothetical proposition, or an opinion/belief lacking any means of testing to validate it.
 
Angel said:
Do you really believe your thousand dismissals are worth something? Get real. man!
Click to expand...

Do you really believe your worthless "arguments" are worth something?
Get5 a clue child
 
Quag said:
Do you really believe your worthless "arguments" are worth something?
Get5 a clue child
Click to expand...
Yes, not only are my arguments worth something as arguments, but they've caused you to exemplify the worst traits of Internet Skepticism in your posts. Your thousand empty dismissals scattered through this thread and others have done more to discredit Internet Skepticism than any argument I could post. You don't stop talking the talk, but you can't walk the walk. Keep posting your dismissals. They justify two threads cf mine deploring Internet Skepticism. Keep posting your empty dismissals. I look forward to them.
 
Angel said:
Yes, not only are my arguments worth something as arguments, but they've caused you to exemplify the worst traits of Internet Skepticism in your posts. Your thousand empty dismissals scattered through this thread and others have done more to discredit Internet Skepticism than any argument I could post. You don't stop talking the talk, but you can't walk the walk. Keep posting your dismissals. They justify two threads cf mine deploring Internet Skepticism. Keep posting your empty dismissals. I look forward to them.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah
Still no proof of God from you
 
zyzygy said:
Prove that it is certain. If you don't know who or what it is then how do you know that is is there? Why does it have to be there?
Click to expand...

It's because I am able to recognize the limitations of natural selection. The insane complexities and intricacies in design that make up the world of living things, IN MY OPINION, require thought and careful consideration, as well as the ability to reason and problem-solve. Something that I am able to clearly see and accept that 1000 eternities of natural selection (or the throwing of dice) could never achieve.

The idea that unguided natural selection is responsible for the profound feats of engineering that are evident is, to me, the erroneous product of ridiculous human arrogance. I agree that natural selection plays a role in tiny increments of development over long periods of time, but for the above reasons cannot be responsible for the origins. I started a thread recently about this and learned that evolutionists agree with this. They told me that evolution did not claim to be the origin of all things.
 
sKiTzo said:


It's because I am able to recognize the limitations of natural selection. The insane complexities and intricacies in design that make up the world of living things, IN MY OPINION, require thought and careful consideration, as well as the ability to reason and problem-solve. Something that I am able to clearly see and accept that 1000 eternities of natural selection (or the throwing of dice) could never achieve.

The idea that unguided natural selection is responsible for the profound feats of engineering that are evident is, to me, the erroneous product of ridiculous human arrogance. I agree that natural selection plays a role in tiny increments of development over long periods of time, but for the above reasons cannot be responsible for the origins. I started a thread recently about this and learned that evolutionists agree with this. They told me that evolution did not claim to be the origin of all things.
Click to expand...

The only limits to natural selection are possible mutations combined with possible environments. It has been demonstrated to have occurred and it continues to occur. It is how various forms of life came to be, whether or not you think it impossible. Your opinion of this fact means nothing.
 
Individual said:
Then we may just have to agree to disagree. A great many things have, IMO, been proven, while a great many things have been hypothesized or theorized. I would accept the existence of God(s) to be a hypothetical proposition, or an opinion/belief lacking any means of testing to validate it.
Click to expand...

To which I respond that IMHO God too has been proven, several proofs have been presented in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
What he gave was worthless "arguments" that fail to prove anything
Click to expand...

That's not true, these are sound proofs for the existence of God, it is your own prejudices that prevent you admitting this.
 
devildavid said:
The only limits to natural selection are possible mutations combined with possible environments. It has been demonstrated to have occurred and it continues to occur. It is how various forms of life came to be, whether or not you think it impossible. Your opinion of this fact means nothing.
Click to expand...

It has not been demonstrated, that you actually believe it has goes to show the very limited knowledge you have of this subject.

Your faithful belief and advocacy for evolution is never going to make the problems go away.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
That's not true, these are sound proofs for the existence of God, it is your own prejudices that prevent you admitting this.
Click to expand...

No he gave failed arguments as "proof". Your prejudices refuse to allow you to discern the difference between a failed proof and a weak, strong or true proof.
 
devildavid said:
God has not been observed in any way. Evolution has been observed, explained, and tested.
Click to expand...

How do you know God has not been observed? There are accounts in the New Testament about seeing Christ (he is therein described as "being God") and so on, you did not exist 2,000 years ago so cannot say this is a lie or fabrication.

Evolution has been tested yes and it fails the tests, you seem unconcerned because you don't care, you don't care because you have convinced yourself that evolution is a fact, unquestionable.
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
No he gave failed arguments as "proof". Your prejudices refuse to allow you to discern the difference between a failed proof and a weak, strong or true proof.
Click to expand...

Just because you are not accepting any of these proofs does not mean that they are failed at all, you don't seem to understand that for some proposition to be proved does not require you to personally accept it.

Nobody here cares what you believe but when you or others post irrational claims about what's proven and what's not I will challenge you.
 
No proof of the existence of a god has been presented in this thread. Sherlock does not know that I have sent these proofs to the Vatican but received no reply. They were not impressed.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
How do you know God has not been observed? There are accounts in the New Testament about seeing Christ (he is therein described as "being God") and so on, you did not exist 2,000 years ago so cannot say this is a lie or fabrication.
Click to expand...

People have claimed to be abducted by aliens and we cannot say that their claims are a lie or a fabrication with any certainty, but people are understandably sceptical owing to the extraordinary nature of their claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and theist claims simply lack sound evidence. All the so-called classical philosophical arguments are fallacious, despite the many failed attempts to demonstrate otherwise and anecdotal evidence has little merit.

Evolution has been tested yes and it fails the tests, you seem unconcerned because you don't care, you don't care because you have convinced yourself that evolution is a fact, unquestionable.
Click to expand...

No, evolution hasn't failed any 'tests'.
 
NWO_Spook said:
People have claimed to be abducted by aliens and we cannot say that their claims are a lie or a fabrication with any certainty, but people are understandably sceptical owing to the extraordinary nature of their claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and theist claims simply lack sound evidence. All the so-called classical philosophical arguments are fallacious, despite the many failed attempts to demonstrate otherwise and anecdotal evidence has little merit.



No, evolution hasn't failed any 'tests'.
Click to expand...

wrong/
 
zyzygy said:
No proof of the existence of a god has been presented in this thread. Sherlock does not know that I have sent these proofs to the Vatican but received no reply. They were not impressed.
Click to expand...
there has been plenty of proof zyzgy
 
TypicalRussian said:
wrong/
Click to expand...

So you always assert without a scrap of evidence, and that is why I do not take your simplistic rebuttals seriously. You always adopt a contrarian position without explanation, therefore your posts add no value to the discussion. Your programming doesn't appear to allow for actual debate on a topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom