When we look at the greatness and perfection of nature it seems that all has been created with intended purpose, gravitational laws, physic laws, natural laws, this goes for all natural bodies present in our universe.
However natural bodies are unintelligent, they are incapable of deciding of these laws by themselves, however they all act towards a defined end, for example, a planet will orbit around the sun.
The complex array of cells of the human body all have specific functions, acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
Now that this has been said it is obvious that there exists an intelligent being that guides all that exists and dictates these laws.
Are you confabulating? This thread is about the existence of God, not finite details of which religion. I think it is an inherent problem with most atheists. They take a bigger bite than they can chew out of everything and still come out the fools..
I think you'd feel more at home on the atheist forum, they scrutinize topics at dumbo's pace and congratulate each other for points ill made!
Look at yourself and Gossamer Skye, it's obvious to each of you that the other is wrong when it comes to the 'evidence'.
That being the case, why is it any less than obvious that both of you are wrong?
That would turn my mother into a Satanist.
Lol these atheists are all the same, believe me I have experience with them...
knowing a few all they say is where is the evidence? all they want is evidence that can be brought to there level, physical evidence. it doesn’t work like that.
The joke is on them.
some even try to portrait themselves as so rational that the idea of a god is so absurd to them that they have not even given it a single thought. and they will start thinking about it when the real evidence comes forth... talking of head in the sand behaviour.
some will portrait the various inconsistencies in various religious texts. no real proof really.
and to give you the extent of their way of thinking I read somewhere in a message board that if atheists had proof of god they would still not believe in him, calling god mean and so on, so it really gives an idea of the head in the sand bigoted atheist way of thinking. And yes narrow minded, everything has to revolve around them, everything has to be brought to their personal scrutiny, talk of pride...
You're saying that the Bible is evidence of God's existence.
If we're talking about evidence in terms of something which can be used to prove or disprove it (to the extent that we can prove a thing beyond reasonable doubt), then it fails miserably.
Here I am, giving primary testimony to the existence of my pet dragon, and there's no way in Hell you would ever believe me.
How does that fair against a copy of a copy of a rearrangement of a translation of a writing based on the testimony of someone who may or may not have witnessed the event described?
You're saying that the Bible is evidence of God's existence.
If we're talking about evidence in terms of something which can be used to prove or disprove it (to the extent that we can prove a thing beyond reasonable doubt), then it fails miserably.
Here I am, giving primary testimony to the existence of my pet dragon, and there's no way in Hell you would ever believe me.
How does that fair against a copy of a copy of a rearrangement of a translation of a writing based on the testimony of someone who may or may not have witnessed the event described?
But if you read and understand our religion the islam believe me you will find it true and logic and real nowdays not like any other religion believe me the christianty and jews are fake
You're saying that the Bible is evidence of God's existence.
If we're talking about evidence in terms of something which can be used to prove or disprove it (to the extent that we can prove a thing beyond reasonable doubt), then it fails miserably.
Here I am, giving primary testimony to the existence of my pet dragon, and there's no way in Hell you would ever believe me.
How does that fair against a copy of a copy of a rearrangement of a translation of a writing based on the testimony of someone who may or may not have witnessed the event described?
So you were banned, were you?
I was simply answering your assertion. You asserted that there was no evidence. I gave yout evidence. Whether you believed that evidence was whole or untrue is a matter of personal opinion. However, I did provide you with evidence, and yet it is evidence you have dismissed out of hand. Let us turn it round. What evidence have you for God not existing? To me, our very existence is proof of God.
Also, interesting quote I read today from CS Lewis:
"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..."
Muslims believe that the Qur'an is a miracle and so this provides proof of the existence of Allah as well as proof that Prophet Muhammad () was a prophet of Allah. But how is the Qur'an miraculous? That is explained in this video:
Media Tags are no longer supported
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
But now I want to get back to lightening bolts, here we go:
1.) Everything which begins to exist requires a cause.
2.) Lightening bolts began to exist.
3.) Therefore, lightening bolts requires a cause.”
Now let us talk about causal chains:
1.An actual infinite cannot exist
2.A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
3.Therefore, lightening bolts cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.
from the Evidence from not seeing lightening bolts then seeing lightening bolts and then not seeing lightening bolts we know that that lightening bolts are not infinite in the past, but had a finite beginning which necessitates a cause for its existence.
If lightening bolts have a cause to their existence then that cause is Thor.
Therefore:Thor exists. Voila!
But now I want to get back to lightening bolts, here we go:
1.) Everything which begins to exist requires a cause.
2.) Lightening bolts began to exist.
3.) Therefore, lightening bolts requires a cause.”
Now let us talk about causal chains:
1.An actual infinite cannot exist
2.A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
3.Therefore, lightening bolts cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.
from the Evidence from not seeing lightening bolts then seeing lightening bolts and then not seeing lightening bolts we know that that lightening bolts are not infinite in the past, but had a finite beginning which necessitates a cause for its existence.
If lightening bolts have a cause to their existence then that cause is Thor.
Therefore:Thor exists. Voila!
Ligntning bolts can be explained by science, god cannot, thus your analogy is false.
I sugest you read on about this phenomenon(lightning bolts) before assuming they come from thor's ass.
.An actual infinite cannot exist
Rong, it can when you understand the definition of god.
2.A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
the cosmos has a begining and will have an end, see your big bang theorie and the life span of atoms.
3.Therefore, lightening bolts cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.
they have existed as long as existence itself and the laws of physics, wich derives from god.
Well, I think we're looking here for a logical proof of the existence of God, No ?
Ok, lets begin with a simple logical evidence : if something exists then there is a cause of its existence. I'm sure you all agree with that (whether you are a believer, an atheist or a philosopher).
Now this universe exists (if we look at the universe as a whole coherent entity).
So there must be a cause of its existence, let's say it's just a cause.
But if we look at the design of the universe : e.g: the structure of atoms; the evolution of the embryo to become a human being; the rotation of the earth around the sun following a precise trajectory; the accurate regulation of the atmosphere of the earth that we can't find in any other planet; ... etc.
All these observations show that the "cause" which triggered the existence of the universe has enough intelligence and power to engendrate such a universe. Do you really think it was a chaotic creation of all this universe ?!
I don't think so. It I tell you I will put a heap of bricks and then I will put a bomb under that heap of bricks, and when the bomb explodes, all the brick will fly away and when they fall down they will form a well constructed house. No ! This is not the way we construct houses. And a chaotic event will not lead to a well organised construction. And when we look at the complexity of the universe, we understand that the chaotic factor in its creation is logically excluded. We cannot admit that every part in this whole universe is generated by chance.
The universe is created by a "powerful" and "intelligent" cause, a cause which is conscious of what it is doing, and which is maintaining the control of the universe. And this cause already exists before the existence of everything ( before the universe). All these caracteristics are those of a God.
That cause wihch is responsible of the creation of the world is no other than God.
Quote: [ 1.An actual infinite cannot exist ] :
Please, can some one explain what does that mean : actual infinite. And why it cannot exist (is there a proof of that). I just didn't understand
To paraphrase Dawkins..., the existence of God is as much a scientific proposition as anything else; if he existed and wanted to make himself known he could do that and give us observable evidence in the process. It's either true or false.
Sounds to me like you are saying that the absence of evidence is the same as the evidence of absence. But the second simply doesn't follow from the first.
Last edited by Grace Seeker; 11-16-2009 at 11:49 PM.
Ligntning bolts can be explained by science, god cannot, thus your analogy is false.
I sugest you read on about this phenomenon(lightning bolts) before assuming they come from thor's ass..
Your so-called "science" only offers a theory and hardly proof of where lightening bolts come from.
format_quote Originally Posted by Justufy
Rong, it can when you understand the definition of god.
Just because there are different people presenting different evidence, then both are wrong?
what kind of logic are you using??
And atheists are so proud of their logic and reasons?
I LOL'd
I haven't personally presented the Quran as an argument to the 'proof of God'
I don't think any of the messengers had a book in advance before arriving to the logical conclusion that there is a God. Abraham (p), Mohammed (p), Hence we are meant to reflect on creation as they have, to reach similar conclusions and that is why reflection in and of itself is considered an act of worship.
The fellow is simply inept at distinguishing 'proof of God' from why Christianity and not Jainism, that is a complete other category.. you can't discuss the ornithine cycle, if you don't believe in biochemistry.. we are not discussing why stryer is a better biochem choice than Lehninger, we haven't even established that biochem governs out life all together.. ..
Perhaps that is all the other guy gave him to work with.. but I personally don't make habit to discuss religion with folks who can't elevate their views beyond tooth fairies. It is a waste of my time and a frank display to the puerile nature with which they choose to engage and express their views and where the thread is headed!..
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
If that was the logical conclusion there would be no need for discussion would there?
1- Aren't you banned? This is so funny. I actually laughed quite a bit, thinking of you your face as you are ousted and how pathetic you must be to enter back into a forum, that obviously doesn't want you ..At least you have enough good sense to keep the same SN.
2-I have in fact offered no evidence logical or otherwise on this thread.. I have however stated, that you don't need to cement your evidence from a book, since none of those we consider messengers of God, had a book to rely upon prior to their conclusions!
all the best, and here is to hoping you are banned again!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Should we consider that an argument from authority or an ad populum?
Neither, I have offered no argument.. I am not sure why you are so keen on baiting me on a dialogue.. I find you incredibly un-interesting!
I'm sure you'll arrange that, though I don't see the point, it takes less than 2 minutes to open new mail and forum accounts. I suppose you have to get your jollies somehow.
I did in fact just report you, it is a wonder you are still here.. perhaps the mods are looking for a good chuckle along with other members.. it is interesting to note, though I'd love to take credit for your first ban, I in fact had nothing to do with it..
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Should we consider that an argument from authority or an ad populum?
I'm sure you'll arrange that, though I don't see the point, it takes less than 2 minutes to open new mail and forum accounts. I suppose you have to get your jollies somehow.
For once, I agree with Gosamer. Your tired atheistic arguments are nothing that any theist hasn't encountered before, and the fact you made a second account is quite sad. Isn't there an atheist forum on the web? I wouldn't be interested in joining, but you may be...
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
) was a prophet of Allah. But how is the Qur'an miraculous? That is explained in this video:
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks