How do you convince people god exists?

Parsnips

Come on. Im using the Word "Mother Nature" purely to encompasse everything that goes on around us and within us.
Millions of years of evolution and people just dismiss it to a story created by Monks. Its embarrasssing really.

As someone said above... The Life of Brian was probably closer to what actually happened than what is taught in Catholic churches.

Some lad got on a soap box and gained followers. the legend grew etc etc.


"spare some sheckles for an old ex Leper"

AllForIt

Parsnips wrote: »

Come on. Im using the Word "Mother Nature" purely to encompasse everything that goes on around us and within us.
Millions of years of evolution and people just dismiss it to a story created by Monks. Its embarrasssing really.

As someone said above... The Life of Brian was probably closer to what actually happened than what is taught in Catholic churches.

Some lad got on a soap box and gained followers. the legend grew etc etc.


"spare some sheckles for an old ex Leper"

I agree with you. But then in some ppl's minds some human behaviour is not 'natural', like homosexuality for example - it's not what 'mother nature' intended.

Mellor

Parsnips wrote: »

Come on. Im using the Word "Mother Nature" purely to encompasse everything that goes on around us and within us.
Millions of years of evolution and people just dismiss it to a story created by Monks. Its embarrasssing really.

You mean basic science and nature then.

No paganism or mother nature cults involved.

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no proof that you need a proof to know something.

Grand so we agree then, with no proof what so ever you believe in the lord god Thor. Glad we agree on that.

Cabaal

nthclare wrote: »

Leave the gheyes alone lol

Yes I'm a pagan and we're quite harmless we don't practice burning people in the wickerman or sarcrificial ceremonies in the solstice because our apple's failed.

Nah you are wrong, thats not what the catholic church has been telling people for decades. pagan's are a strange folk we should fear them

smacl

nthclare wrote: »

I've no fear of death, but I suppose I fear dying before I get to do a lot of things on my list, such as travelling to Iran because I love Persia, and I am still unsure how safe it is for westerners.
But one of the Tennant's of Shia Muslims is to welcome people of all cultures and religions with open arms, which got lost somewhere over the last 20 year's.

Best of luck getting there. Haven't been to Iran yet, though have a couple of Iranian friends that also talk warmly about Persia. While I haven't been there, I have worked in various parts of the UAE and traveled in Morocco and Tunisia. My experience to date is that Muslim and Arabic hospitality is excellent and very deeply ingrained in their culture. While a bit dated now, if you haven't seen Persepolis it is highly entertaining a gives some insight into the turmoil going on in that part of the world in recent times. As a life long code monkey, I'm fascinated by the works of al-Khwarizmi and would also be interested in visiting Iran (Persia) at some point for that reason. Incredibly rich history in that part of the world of which I admittedly know very little.

antiskeptic

AllForIt wrote: »

I agree with you. But then in some ppl's minds some human behaviour is not 'natural', like homosexuality for example - it's not what 'mother nature' intended.

What makes a behaviour natural? The fact that folk engage in it? Or the mood of the times? Or something else

antiskeptic

Cabaal wrote: »

Grand so we agree then, with no proof what so ever you believe in the lord god Thor. Glad we agree on that.

You cite lack of proof as something significant but haven't established a proof as having significance.

Abandoning your position that quickly? Oh ye of little faith

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Phew

Thing is the Abhramaic cults are about sin and guilt (the popular joke is that guilt is a catholic thing, nope.) and controlling natural harmless urges. George Orwell in 1984 described the "Anti-Sex League", his book was mostly anti-Stalinist but that bit seemed to me a query on catholicism - if you can make people control the sexual urge you can control anything.

The catholic church's veneration of virginity is a perversion of nature. But with the exception of priestly 'celibacy' it's female virginity which is venerated. There is no claim that Joseph was a virgin or that his father was conceived without sin. Actually afaik a non-virgin unmarried male can still be ordained as a priest, as long as he lets on he's sufficiently sorry about it. Not sure if that appiles to nuns. The whole shebang is so ridiculous it's a wonder that anyone in this day and age is willing to entertain it. But they still control 90% of our primary schools and try to infiltrate kids' brains with this harmful nonsense, for their own ends, at the expense of our taxes.

Christianity is about the fall of man and Gods plan to rectify that. Sin feature since that is the root of the problem.

Guilt is a natural phenomenon. You neither have to teach a child to do wrong nor do you have to teach a child to lie nor teach them to be guilty when they are confronted with their wrong and lies. They will blush and be ashamed all by their little selfs.

Christianity frames guilt according to its paradigm. You frame guilt according to yours - frequently by rendering as acceptable that which would otherwise raise guilt.

Effectively, you make yourself the Judge and, not unsurprisingly, declare yourself innocent. Not hard when you are the law writer!

Whatever problems you think Christianity has, a system of self certification has to rank lower order

PHG

Plode wrote: »

Oh, I used to think that.

But then I actually read the Bible properly, and discovered some spooky things that I'd been thinking about for a very long time.

If you're searching for meaning to this life, you should read it carefully. Don't wait as long as I did.

By the way, a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, was the first to pose the idea of the Big Bang.

Spooky like what?

I assume you have read all 12 gospels too, not just Matthew, Mark, Lake and John?

PHG

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no proof that you need a proof to know something.

How does that fly or any different from me saying.

I am a banana! You have no proof but I...AM...A...BANANA, even the God of Bananas. Again, you have no proof but I know it, so it must be true.

If I ran around Grafton Street yelling that, then I would be hospitalised sharpish. Considering the Word or God was written a few hundreds years after Jesus' death, all stories are highly likely to be exaggerated or made of pure fiction. Chinese whispers are proof of that.

Akesh

Until we get to a point where we can ascertain how the universe came about there will always be questions of a God or creator.

We will never answer all of the questions and therefore cannot rule out the possibility of a god or creator. There is no evidence there is no god and there is no evidence there is a god.

I'm not sure what these protracted debates set to achieve as atheism is as much of a belief system as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc. are.

We simply don't, and won't ever, have the answers.

nthclare

PHG wrote: »

Spooky like what?

I assume you have read all 12 gospels too, not just Matthew, Mark, Lake and John?

I think the Abrahamic faith shouldn't have crossed the Mediterranean and stayed where it was.

I find Christianity very Spooky and scary.
In the name of their God millions of people's lives were lost in battle's willed by lunatics and power hungry people.

Islam probably would have over taken the middle East eventually and more than likely the Europeans would have cut them off from penetrating if we hadn't such a strong connection with the Holy City and the Sepulchre and minded our own business and created trade agreements with the Islamic world.
They probably would have progressed better if they were left alone.

We were very similar with death penalties, war's end greed but we never learn do we ?

That place is still very much divided Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims at loggerheads for 1300 years or more.

Obviously we cannot rewrite history and culture what's done is done.
But interference with other cultures and traditions is a no no in my book.
All it does is create resentment and hate that spills over and harms innocence.

Maybe if we were invaded by aliens or something like that we'd be more United, although there's a lot of people suggesting that's the next suprise...

Imagine that in 2020 we have sinister visitors from outer space, jayzus I'm going too far now

nthclare

PHG wrote: »

How does that fly or any different from me saying.

I am a banana! You have no proof but I...AM...A...BANANA, even the God of Bananas. Again, you have no proof but I know it, so it must be true.

If I ran around Grafton Street yelling that, then I would be hospitalised sharpish. Considering the Word or God was written a few hundreds years after Jesus' death, all stories are highly likely to be exaggerated or made of pure fiction. Chinese whispers are proof of that.

What's the difference between saying you're a banana and people who say they're not the gender that's on their birth certificate ?
Or one guy holding a lead and the other lad dressed as a dog and a dog's masks on his head, crawling on all fours in a fetish club ???

Should they be hospitalised sharply ?

karlitob

Akesh wrote: »

Until we get to a point where we can ascertain how the universe came about there will always be questions of a God or creator.

We will never answer all of the questions and therefore cannot rule out the possibility of a god or creator. There is no evidence there is no god and there is no evidence there is a god.

I'm not sure what these protracted debates set to achieve as atheism is as much of a belief system as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc. are.

We simply don't, and won't ever, have the answers.

We do have answers. We have lots of answers and learning all the more. This argument is an infinitely evolving tautology as Christopher Hitchens puts it.

When humans learn something new - earth around the sun, earth is round, DNA, Big Bang - well, all that proves is that god is more powerful and ingenious that we even knew.

Believers often challenge atheists to explain what was before the Big Bang. How can something come from nothing? Yet never apply that same argument to their god. If there is a god - which there isn’t - who made him or when, why, by what process and who made that person, thing etc.

There is no evidence to support the existence of the judeochristian god. There is same absence of evidence to support the existence of Thor, or pink unicorns. Humans have stopped believing in other gods, they’ll stop believing in this one I’m sure.

So in the absence of extraordinary evidence for extra ordinary claims. I am happy to ‘rule out’ the existence of pink unicorns, or whatever made up creature people believe in.

Akesh

karlitob wrote: »

We do have answers. We have lots of answers and learning all the more. This argument is an infinitely evolving tautology as Christopher Hitchens puts it.

When humans learn something new - earth around the sun, earth is round, DNA, Big Bang - well, all that proves is that god is more powerful and ingenious that we even knew.

Believers often challenge atheists to explain what was before the Big Bang. How can something come from nothing? Yet never apply that same argument to their god. If there is a god - which there isn’t - who made him or when, why, by what process and who made that person, thing etc.

There is no evidence to support the existence of the judeochristian god. There is same absence of evidence to support the existence of Thor, or pink unicorns. Humans have stopped believing in other gods, they’ll stop believing in this one I’m sure.

So in the absence of extraordinary evidence for extra ordinary claims. I am happy to ‘rule out’ the existence of pink unicorns, or whatever made up creature people believe in.

You can rule out pink unicorns all you want but that doesn't mean that at some point they didn't exist. Your beliefs aren't facts and that what you have done.

You're wrong when you suggest we do have answers. The Big Bang Theory isn't a fact, it's a scientific theory. Obviously the argument of creationism has logical problems e.g. what created the 'creator', but until we know what happened, we can only speculate.

What is extraordinary is trying to claim you have answers to questions that you don't understand. You ruling out something doesn't make it a fact.

karlitob

Akesh wrote: »

You can rule out pink unicorns all you want but that doesn't mean that at some point they didn't exist. Your beliefs aren't facts and that what you have done.

You're wrong when you suggest we do have answers. The Big Bang Theory isn't a fact, it's a scientific theory. Obviously the argument of creationism has logical problems e.g. what created the 'creator', but until we know what happened, we can only speculate.

What is extraordinary is trying to claim you have answers to questions that you don't understand. You ruling out something doesn't make it a fact.

It’s just impossible to argue and reason with. You are literally suggesting that there is, or was, a possibility that pink unicorns exist or existed.

I didn’t put forward any beliefs. I don’t believe that there is a god, any god, and pink unicorns or that pigs can fly. Absence of belief is not belief.

I didn’t claim that we had all the answers to the Big Bang. I said that we do have answers, and we’re always learning more. Nothing wrong with that point.

It’s nice that you’ve pointed out that there are ‘obvious’ problems with creationism but this, again, is a circular and flawed argument that really can’t be Reasoned with. Yes gravity is only a theory - yet you wouldn’t jump out of a window.

However, unlike those who believe words that men wrote in a book in a part the world 1500-2000 years ago based on alleged utterings of the uneducated and illiterate who quite frankly believe that they interlocute with a divine power, I don’t think I know it all and I will change my mind when the evidence says so. So if the theory of gravity was surpassed by another theory, then of course I would change my mind. Why would I continue to support a position with no evidence (this now false theory of gravity) rather than a new one which is proven to be right.

Akesh

karlitob wrote: »

It’s just impossible to argue and reason with. You are literally suggesting that there is, or was, a possibility that pink unicorns exist or existed.

You suggested Pink Unicorns never existed. I said that you couldn't possibly state that as a fact, which is completely true. Let's at least get the basics right here...

I didn’t put forward any beliefs. I don’t believe that there is a god, any god, and pink unicorns or that pigs can fly. Absence of belief is not belief.

Sorry, what? That is a belief. You may want to consult a dictionary.

I didn’t claim that we had all the answers to the Big Bang. I said that we do have answers, and we’re always learning more. Nothing wrong with that point.

It’s nice that you’ve pointed out that there are ‘obvious’ problems with creationism but this, again, is a circular and flawed argument that really can’t be Reasoned with. Yes gravity is only a theory - yet you wouldn’t jump out of a window.

You said we "do have answers", we don't. You can test the theory of gravity.

However, unlike those who believe words that men wrote in a book in a part the world 1500-2000 years ago based on alleged utterings of the uneducated and illiterate who quite frankly believe that they interlocute with a divine power, I don’t think I know it all and I will change my mind when the evidence says so. So if the theory of gravity was surpassed by another theory, then of course I would change my mind. Why would I continue to support a position with no evidence (this now false theory of gravity) rather than a new one which is proven to be right.

What evidence is this?

What is about as silly as those men believing warlords and the illiterate are those who dislike religious culture and then decide that because they can't prove their god exists that you believe there is no god at all. A leap of faith if I ever saw one.

antiskeptic

PHG wrote: »

How does that fly or any different from me saying.

I am a banana! You have no proof but I...AM...A...BANANA, even the God of Bananas. Again, you have no proof but I know it, so it must be true.

If I ran around Grafton Street yelling that, then I would be hospitalised sharpish. Considering the Word or God was written a few hundreds years after Jesus' death, all stories are highly likely to be exaggerated or made of pure fiction. Chinese whispers are proof of that.

None of that solves the original posters problem. Saying "there is no proof" says nothing about whether God exists or not. Not about likelyhood, not about reasonableness, not about fact of..

Nothing.

Yet it is posited as saying something.

karlitob

antiskeptic wrote: »

None of that solves the original posters problem. Saying "there is no proof" says nothing about whether God exists or not. Not about likelyhood, not about reasonableness, not about fact of..

Nothing.

Yet it is posited as saying something.

And this ‘proves’ my point about circular arguments that expand infinitum and can’t be based on reason of logic.

You can’t prove a negative, you can’t prove something doesn’t exist - it’s impossible. You can only ever say whether there is evidence for something or the evidence of absence of something (as opposed to absence of evidence). It’s how nearly everything you consume is based - the car you drive, the satnav you use, the building you’re in, the electronic device you are using, the health of water you drink. Everything based on science.

It’s the same for justice. You can’t prove a negative. That’s why there is only a verdict of guilty or not guilt, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s why - if charged with an alleged crime - a person doEs not have to prove why they are not a murderer or rapist. The accuser has to provide the burden of proof. They can’t salt and up and say - prove to me why you’re not a rapist.



Except for your belief. You’re happy to live in a society where the products you use are based on science, where your health and safety are based on science and where you access to justice is based on the same logical reasoning. Except your god. The burden is on you to provide the evidence (extraordinarily claims require extraordinary evidence) - You can’t provide Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that your god exists, therefore - just like all the other gods all other people have or did believe in (it’s still not clear to my why you don’t worship Zeus) - your god does not exist.

PHG

nthclare wrote: »

What's the difference between saying you're a banana and people who say they're not the gender that's on their birth certificate ?
Or one guy holding a lead and the other lad dressed as a dog and a dog's masks on his head, crawling on all fours in a fetish club ???

Should they be hospitalised sharply ?

Not at all. There is quite a difference. People who recognise as a specific gender, say gay, straight or binary can argue that it is part of their genetic makeup and can show it through physical means should they choose. E.g. having a partner of the same sex, dress or act in any manner they want to portray themselves or not portray themselves. We all do it, for example many of us act different in work and in real life as we choose to do so.

As for the fetish I would assume (though I am no expert ) is showing forms of submission, dominance or sexual desires, which if done in a safe, consenting and trustworthy manner should not raise any eyebrows and fair play to them for doing what they want.

As a gay friend once said he was born gay and it is part of who he is.

All of which is big difference from claiming being the God of the Bananas.

Hotblack Desiato

Mellor wrote: »

Except that's not really true is it.

Scientist didn't discover fission and let engineers do with it what ever they liked. More than discovered, Scientists designed the atomic bomb.

Oppenheimer was a physicist, who became death, the destroyer of worlds.

True, but he didn't make the decision to build a bomb or to drop it.

The engineering problems were far more difficult to overcome than the design problems. An undergraduate student can design a bomb - and did (OK he had the advantage of knowing it was possible...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Aristotle_Phillips

Anyway this is all an aside. I find it somewhat annoying when people blame "science" (as if it is some sort of an organism) for what in reality are political and social issues.

Genesis as as much in common with the big bang, as a bunk bed instructions from Ikea.

:pac:

Mellor wrote: »

I don't believe in God, but a child getting cancer is not really evidence that God does or doesn't exist.

It's an argument that the 'all-loving' quality we keep hearing about of this supposed god does not exist - so what else are his supporters wrong about?

If you are going to ask "why would a good god do...ansything". First you should probably ask "Are humans good in the first place".

But surely a deity is better than humans? What's the point otherwise?

Hotblack Desiato

Akesh wrote: »

Until we get to a point where we can ascertain how the universe came about there will always be questions of a God or creator.

Sure it is possible that a deistic entity created the universe. We have precisely zero evidence that said entity ever interfered at any moment since, and since the possibility of such an entity cannot be proven or disproven, and it is outside of our universe and does not interfere with it, I regard it as an interesting but ultimately completely irrelevant question.

We will never answer all of the questions and therefore cannot rule out the possibility of a god or creator.

Atheists may or may not assert that there is/are no god/gods. But what they all have in common is that they do not believe in any gods.

I'm not sure what these protracted debates set to achieve as atheism is as much of a belief system as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc. are.

Not this fallacy again. Atheism is a belief system in the same sense that not playing tennis is a sport.

Akesh wrote: »

You can rule out pink unicorns all you want but that doesn't mean that at some point they didn't exist.

In the absence of any evidence, asserting that they exist or existed is ridiculous.

eurozonelady

if i came home to a clean house once in my life ....

whatever gets you through the tough times - for some god is spiritual strength for others netflix is their alter of worship... whatever gets you through...

I would say if you´re going round trying to convince ppl of stuff you should tell them you´re a discipile, you had a vision, you saw the holy mother after having a few too many, you had a near death experience and spoke to god, you saw a documentary on youtube, god posts in boards.ie, you are a subcriber to god´s vlog blog or channel, god has new insta account they should check out, get Trump to tweet about a press conference with god, tell them spacex next mission is to god´s place, if a beardy guy in a white robe found the cure or vaccine for covid before all the schools go back, if you explain how believing supports you in life

karlitob

Akesh wrote: »

You suggested Pink Unicorns never existed. I said that you couldn't possibly state that as a fact, which is completely true. Let's at least get the basics right here...



Sorry, what? That is a belief. You may want to consult a dictionary.



You said we "do have answers", we don't. You can test the theory of gravity.



What evidence is this?

What is about as silly as those men believing warlords and the illiterate are those who dislike religious culture and then decide that because they can't prove their god exists that you believe there is no god at all. A leap of faith if I ever saw one.

This is just silly now.

How can not believing in something make me a believer.

I presume you believe in some form of magic man in the sky. How much contempt you must have in your own faith that you can equate your leap of faith with my absence of faith?

As another poster said here - this reasoning is the same as saying not playing tennis is the same as playing sport.

I know you believers love to be told what to think but you can stop telling me what I do and don’t believe in.


Not sure what point you’re making about warlords.

You’re going back on your points regarding theories. I know we can test the theory of gravity. You had made reference to theories which don’t have any answers or questions that can’t be answered. I stated that we do have answers, and learning more all the time. The difference between religion and science is that science doesn’t state from self declared moral authority of what is right or wrong. It provides evidence and changes depending on the evidence. Science doesn’t stop learning. Religion says it already knows the answers.

I can possibly state that there is no such thing as pink unicorns as a fact.

Parsnips

Well this thread has gone to the dogs...UNFOLLOWED

AllForIt

antiskeptic wrote: »

What makes a behaviour natural? The fact that folk engage in it? Or the mood of the times? Or something else

By virtue of the fact they exhibit it in the first place I suppose. And by other ppl exhibiting that same behaviour as well. If one person and only one person was noted for behaving in a specific way that no one else ever did, that would be unusual and unique. But I can't think of any human behaviour that is is practised by only one person and noone else, ever.

Mellor

Akesh wrote: »

The Big Bang Theory isn't a fact, it's a scientific theory.

Gravity is also a theory.
I don’t think there’s any question over the existence of gravity. Being a theory doesn’t mean there is any doubt.

You said we "do have answers", we don't. You can test the theory of gravity.

Most scientific theorys are based on test results. Including the big bang.

Needhome

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

How do you in history?


And how do you do it now?

With all the evidence etc.

Proof is needed,how can anyone believe if no proof🀔
Things that has been written is not proof.and none of us were around back then to prove anything.

Mellor

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

True, but he didn't make the decision to build a bomb or to drop it.

Well the decision to drop it would have came from the military or commander in chief, obviously.
The start work on the bomb was Roosevelt's, as he was president at the time. But it wasn't his idea, he knew nothing of the possibilities. He did it because a letter from Einstein said atomic bombs are possible and America should start a nuclear program.

So, it really all goes back to scientists.

The engineering problems were far more difficult to overcome than the design problems. An undergraduate student can design a bomb - and did (OK he had the advantage of knowing it was possible...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Aristotle_Phillips

He didn't just know it was possible, he had access to some of the required information on how a a-bomb works.

It's an argument that the 'all-loving' quality we keep hearing about of this supposed god does not exist - so what else are his supporters wrong about?

The personality of god is made up my man. If they are wrong, it has no bearing on the existence of a god.

But surely a deity is better than humans? What's the point otherwise?

Sure. But it's humans collective arrogance to thing we are important to a deity over all other species and places in the universe.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Not this fallacy again. Atheism is a belief system in the same sense that not playing tennis is a sport.

You can not play a sport, but you can't play a not-sport.

However, you can believe the is no-God.