Ontologically speaking, how can GOD be proven

[sez]

I will ask the next question once again
Who was the first person to be in contact with your god, where and how and witnesses present?

How about who was the first person to be in contact with your mollusc ancestors and were there any witnesses when you changed from nothing to some chemical soup to fish and finally to the super complex being that you are today.Do you really believe that you are relatives with fish or the fish of today for that matter are the human beings of tomorrow?
Do you know how mathematically harmonious your DNA double helix is to just have been as a result of randomness?
Either you are blaming God for something that happened to you or you are just ignorant(regardless of the level of your education).Be an atheist fine! just don't be attacking other people's beliefs like that.
Numbers don't lie and you clearly are in the minority,the majority of the world believes in the existence of a higher power and am glad am on the winning side.
Just out of curiosity,whats your take on homosexuality?

[Recursacro]

I will ask the next question once again
Who was the first person to be in contact with your god, where and how and witnesses present?

How about who was the first person to be in contact with your mollusc(mollusk, Ive founde u cant right verrie good) ancestors and were there any witnesses when you changed from nothing to some chemical soup to fish and finally to the super complex being that you are today.Do you really believe that you are relatives with fish or the fish of today for that matter are the human beings of tomorrow?
Do you know how mathematically harmonious your DNA double helix is to just have been as a result of randomness?
Either you are blaming God for something that happened to you or you are just ignorant(regardless of the level of your education).Be an atheist fine! just don't be attacking other people's beliefs like that.
Numbers don't lie and you clearly are in the minority,the majority of the world believes in the existence of a higher power and am glad am on the winning side.
Just out of curiosity,whats your take on homosexuality?

To answer someone's question from the previous page as to how a Christian talks: Like a narrow-minded and ignorant moron. See the post above me, and all other posts from Sez.

Sez,
You did the same damn thing with my question. Why don't you just try to answer the questions we ask you? I asked who created God. You asked who created soil and dirt. That's not the point!

Here,
BigBoab asks a question, and you steer away from providing an answer. Do you not like to think that your mind-control group has flawed their story? Is there something in there that doesn't make sense? Oh, just revert to Faith, everything'll be just fine if we just let someone else run our lives. Hell, why not be Communist. We don't need to pick our jobs either.

Another point:
You bring up DNA quite often. Yup, ok, God's a great mathematician, and he worked out all of it. Praise the Lord! That's crap. We evolved. We are complex beings and some things have yet to be explained, but no one being created us and all of our world. Which, by the way, why would God create other solar systems if he only care about us? He just got bored? The DNA isn't a result of haphazard evolution, it's a result of our bodies making a code from a very primitive one, to a complex one that can support ourselves over time.

Moving on...
Do I believe the fish of today are the people of tomorrow? No...
We are the people of tomorrow, I'm sure. Well, as long as there is land to walk on. Fish wouldn't need to evolve because they still have food in the water. Why would they change to come on land if it's over populated with people like you?

Now, as for your second to last statement. Wow. Does that not seem like a group of people trying to take control of others? The winning side? Is this a war? Is it a game? So God favors your side to anyone else's, right? I was watching a movie the other day, and some vampire was going to die. He asked if God would let him in. (Godric, his name was, I think) She said God was forgiving, and would let anyone in.... What's the point in Hell then?

Oh, and Sez, the majority of people may be religious, but the majority of religious people don't know the square root of 144. Do you?

My views on homosexuality:
Anyone has the right to have the sexuality they prefer. As long as it abides by the laws of the state (not having sex with kids and such). I also support same-sex marriage 100%.

[bigboab]

[QUOTE=sez;3275480]

I will ask the next question once again
Who was the first person to be in contact with your god, where and how and witnesses present?

How about who was the first person to be in contact with your mollusc ancestors and were there any witnesses when you changed from nothing to some chemical soup to fish and finally to the super complex being that you are today.Do you really believe that you are relatives with fish or the fish of today for that matter are the human beings of tomorrow?
Do you know how mathematically harmonious your DNA double helix is to just have been as a result of randomness?
Either you are blaming God for something that happened to you or you are just ignorant(regardless of the level of your education).Be an atheist fine! just don't be attacking other people's beliefs like that.
Numbers don't lie and you clearly are in the minority,the majority of the world believes in the existence of a higher power and am glad am on the winning side.
Just out of curiosity,whats your take on homosexuality?[/QUOTE]

What the hell has that to do with this thread. I believe in live and let live within the moral and social structure of the country. I definitely don't go round doors or stand in the street peddling religion. Does the majority of the world attend church? I don't think so.

[QPD]

Show me a single piece of non-circumstantial evidence disprove the existence of God, and then I will make my decision on this.

The theory of evolution is just that.. you know just a theory. Scientists themselves have argued against this theory, that it violates natural laws, such as the second law on thermodynamics and so on.

God is a spiritual being, not a physical one.You obviously can't use natural laws to prove a spiritual being.You use natural laws to prove physical objects and God is above these laws.Since He created everything, He can bend natural laws at His will..which account for events, situations, miracles, etc. which science cannot explain.

We see God's creation all around us. His creation is a manifestation and proof that there must be someone responsible for all these things. In science class, we studied about the universal physical constants like gravitational constant. These constants are so perfect that if it's a little lower or higher, our world will be in chaos. What's the probability that accident and randomity has brought about our orderly world? I won't leave all the explanation to "chance". The perfect explanation for everything is the existence of God.

if you are the type that believes your computer would have self upgraded its OS from windows 98 to windows 7 then my bad but otherwise go read on the DNA double helix then come and explain as to how chaos could have come up with such order.

The truth is God has put a God-shaped hole in the heart of every human being.His plan is for man to find and worship Him. History shows that mankind has acknowledged an all-powerful supernatural being since time immemorial. You can find ancient people worshipping the moon, sun, stars, calf, snakes, their ancestors, or any other thing. Nobody taught them about God. Their natural instinct told them there is someone great out there...and that someone is God. Now, it's up to the individual to acknowledge or reject the existence of God,its a faith thing you aren't supposed to be swayed by evidence.

Also did you know that blackholes, as accepted as they are by scientists as being fact are yet to be proven by solid evidence?just goes to show how naive you are to put your trust in such people.

If you didn't know,in essence you are saying you are just meat as you have no soul.

Plus i think it should tell you something that everything on this planet has an opposite(all explained in less than 1000 words in genesis).
Like how do you explain evil and good.(your sushi and mollusc ancestors know something?)I mean these two forces ought to have come from somewhere,right?and please don't tell me you think that evil and good are also a myth

I want to call you an idiot,but i'll wait and see if you have any strong evidence to disprove the existence of God.
imo i think people like you are just guys who have a problem with religious folks.

Hey, you stole my ideeas

[sez]

To the quasi-intellect,this is not spelling bee i advise you to go back to school instead of blowing the horn on how uncultivated you are with your redundant grammar corrections.Those of us who went through conventional education will tell you that mollusc and mollusk is one and the same thing.So unless you have autism i'd suggest you go easy on these retarded posts.

I keep bringing up DNA coz anybody who's objective will tell you that it clearly attests of an intelligent designer and does so in a way that is in line with science.
Assuming you are familiar with coding,you should know that for there to be a code there MUST be somebody to write it up.You should also understand that code tends to be unique and that's why you hear people getting sued for stealing somebody else's code,so here we see that code is unique and that it doesn't just appear,somebody has to somehow write it up.

Now,unlike pattern(which easily results from randomness)code happens to carry information.Its the reason why the smart fellow wrote it in the first place(Bill gates and windows).

Now this is where it gets interesting.Your DNA so happens to be so fucking unique to you that it can easily get you to prison if you find yourself on the wrong side of the law.Now that's that.
Another thing about DNA is the fact that it carries information.Genetic information to be specific.Something that a snowflake doesn't(a product of randomness).

So basically DNA is a code and a snowflake is a pattern and as we've seen(according to the science) patterns happen but codes are created.Now put all your ignorance aside and pretend that you still have some brain function left.Doesn't it make more sense to believe that an intelligent designer ought to have written this code that we call DNA than to go against the science and say because we are afraid of the unknown and how this intelligent designer came into being we are going to ignore the science and say for this one,the code just happened(mind you not once but 1 billion+ times)..

Am guessing that duke was the last place you thought of applying when you were deciding on college(assuming you've even been as far).

Its people like you who attend some liberal arts college and somehow think that they know it all coz they are a philosophy major.
I've seen alot assholes like you and to tell you the truth you really disgust me.
You can't keep to your own pagan ways that you just have to insult and make fun of those who are trying to live by what they believe in.

[j2k4]

I keep bringing up DNA coz anybody who's objective will tell you that it clearly attests of an intelligent designer and does so in a way that is in line with science.

Oh, we believers aren't noted for our objectivity.


Anyway, I think you've tumbled to the way I prefer to view the issues of Intelligent design (which any sincerely objective person ought also to tell you is not the same thing as Creationism) and science proper; that is to say purely nothing in either of them positively precludes any aspect of the other, especially given the relative natures of objectivism, faith, or science.

You can drive trucks through certain aspects of religious argument, I suppose.

The case for Intelligent design makes very nice use of logic, without being overly, uh...creative, and is almost unassailable from any point of reason.

Science....well...science is supposed to be science, and hence unassailable.

In this case, however, I think perhaps too much of the science of our origins has been left to Mr. Darwin, whose theory(s) are a target-rich environment for reasonable people driving trucks while they debate.

To those of us who've gotten beyond the stage of argument, it seems the two could peacefully co-exist if the sides were not so compelled purely by ideology.

That's what I think.

[clocker]

I keep bringing up DNA coz anybody who's objective will tell you that it clearly attests of an intelligent designer and does so in a way that is in line with science.

So, anyone who disagrees with this leap of faith is by definition, "not objective" and therefore, wrong.
Why don't you take off the kid gloves and simply say that anyone who fails to grasp your belief is an idiot since in your own quasi-intellectual way, that's exactly what you imply.

It also seems to me that your comparison of the snowflake to DNA is oddly fallacious.
What exactly is the difference between a snowflake and a strand of DNA that leads you to qualify the former as a random event and the latter as divinely written code?
Doesn't the snowflake- each completely unique as far as we know- contain all the information of its origins and the physical forces that shaped its form, just like DNA?
In other words, isn't it as full of information as DNA?
Why is the information encoded into a snowflake of less import than the other example?
For that matter, why is such a trivial object- the lone snowflake- completely unique?

I don't see how you can present yourself as "objective" when every experiment you'd perform and every conclusion you'd reach is colored by the expectation that the hand of your god is behind all observable fact and science is merely a tool you use to expose the ineffable.
You ride the science horse to the point where an explanation isn't obvious and then dismount to begin worshiping the being you've already decided must exist.

This entire thread could be boiled down to two posts.
The first would posit the question "How do you prove the existence of god"?
Your response- your onlyresponse- would be, "You can't, but I believe anyway".
End of discussion and the rest is nonsense.

[bigboab]

To the quasi-intellect,this is not spelling bee i advise you to go back to school instead of blowing the horn on how uncultivated you are with your redundant grammar corrections.Those of us who went through conventional education will tell you that mollusc and mollusk is one and the same thing.So unless you have autism i'd suggest you go easy on these retarded posts.

I keep bringing up DNA coz anybody who's objective will tell you that it clearly attests of an intelligent designer and does so in a way that is in line with science.
Assuming you are familiar with coding,you should know that for there to be a code there MUST be somebody to write it up.You should also understand that code tends to be unique and that's why you hear people getting sued for stealing somebody else's code,so here we see that code is unique and that it doesn't just appear,somebody has to somehow write it up.

Now,unlike pattern(which easily results from randomness)code happens to carry information.Its the reason why the smart fellow wrote it in the first place(Bill gates and windows).

Now this is where it gets interesting.Your DNA so happens to be so fucking unique to you that it can easily get you to prison if you find yourself on the wrong side of the law.Now that's that.
Another thing about DNA is the fact that it carries information.Genetic information to be specific.Something that a snowflake doesn't(a product of randomness).

So basically DNA is a code and a snowflake is a pattern and as we've seen(according to the science) patterns happen but codes are created.Now put all your ignorance aside and pretend that you still have some brain function left.Doesn't it make more sense to believe that an intelligent designer ought to have written this code that we call DNA than to go against the science and say because we are afraid of the unknown and how this intelligent designer came into being we are going to ignore the science and say for this one,the code just happened(mind you not once but 1 billion+ times)..

Am guessing that duke was the last place you thought of applying when you were deciding on college(assuming you've even been as far).

Its people like you who attend some liberal arts college and somehow think that they know it all coz they are a philosophy major.
I've seen alot assholes like you and to tell you the truth you really disgust me.
You can't keep to your own pagan ways that you just have to insult and make fun of those who are trying to live by what they believe in.

You should be a politician. You evade questions by answering with a question. Don't think because you are in the majority that you are correct. The Nazis were in the majority. The gas chambers in Germany were operated so called Christians trying to eradicate the people who 'invented' their God.

Religion would be fantastic if the followers stick to the moral guidelines of their particular religion.

[sez]

What exactly is the difference between a snowflake and a strand of DNA that leads you to qualify the former as a random event and the latter as divinely written code?
Doesn't the snowflake- each completely unique as far as we know- contain all the information of its origins and the physical forces that shaped its form, just like DNA?

A snowflake doesn't have any coded information,it symbolically represents nothing(no plan, no idea and no instructions) other than itself, and because there is no encoding/decoding mechanism and no system of symbols like in DNA it doesn't qualify as code.Its that simple.

You sound like you are attacking me but i don't think am suprised,you lay the burden of proof on us,you think we are idiots coz of our faith and when we try to assert the possibility of the existence of this intelligent designer through acceptable science,your ignorance takes the best of you and you resort to shit talk.That to me implies that indeed you know its possible that this ID exists only that you are not contented with such an arrangement.

If your faith tells you to believe in darwin then fine,that I have no problem with coz you obviously have your own reasons as to why you think he has all the answers.Just that as you practice your darwinism avoid slandering other faiths thinking that you know better.

Even with his smarts,Einstein chose to refrain from these silly attacks and simply had it that "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

[clocker]

A snowflake doesn't have any coded information,it symbolically represents nothing(no plan, no idea and no instructions) other than itself, and because there is no encoding/decoding mechanism and no system of symbols like in DNA it doesn't qualify as code.Its that simple.

For someone who accepts the existence of a higher power, a power which by definition, is unknowable, you certainly are sure about what the ID considers to be important and what is not. This sense of smugness and entitlement is one of the things I dislike most in advocates such as yourself.

You sound like you are attacking me but i don't think am suprised,you lay the burden of proof on us,you think we are idiots coz of our faith and when we try to assert the possibility of the existence of this intelligent designer through acceptable science,your ignorance takes the best of you and you resort to shit talk.That to me implies that indeed you know its possible that this ID exists only that you are not contented with such an arrangement.

I hardly think of my post as an "attack", more of a prod and I don't recall asking for proof of anything. In fact, I recall offering you the out of claiming that a true believer didn't require proof of anything, the belief itself being all that was necessary or possible.
Of course, being an ignorant, shit-talking malcontent, I could have gotten that mixed up.

If your faith tells you to believe in darwin then fine,that I have no problem with coz you obviously have your own reasons as to why you think he has all the answers.Just that as you practice your darwinism avoid slandering other faiths thinking that you know better.

OK, now you're just getting silly.
Science doesn't require, nor does it rely, on faith and "darwinism" (whatever the hell that is) is not a religion.
Darwin himself never claimed to have "all the answers", that remains the province of the more enlightened, such as yourself.
After all, you know that snowflakes are random, unimportant things.

Even with his smarts,Einstein chose to refrain from these silly attacks and simply had it that "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

Good for Albert.
You know, he also said, "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former".

I have an idea...let's frame this whole debate in Albert Einstein quotes...