Ontologically speaking, how can GOD be proven

[pentomato]

It is stupid to believe that god exists, when so many people believe in so many things.
Those that believe in god, anyone, please make your case, just don't come up with random stuff, remember we don't believe, you do, and if you believe in god, just prove your point, saying that the world was created is not enough, I think you need more than that.
I know I have blood in my veins, but do you know that god exists, why?

[Snee]

Explain how light can be a particle and a wave at the same time.

Explain how the universe came from nothing.

Science doesn't have all the answers.

Science doesn't have all the answers, percisley. But to fall back on a divine power to prove these questions is VERY unoriginal in terms of history. Science needs time.

That's not what he's doing, he's saying that everything isn't neatly laid out for us to know, and that modern science does not, as of yet, have the means to quantify every facet of reality. That's all.

We cannot prove or disprove the existance of any god with what facts we currently have, therefore your arguments are pointless.

There's really no difference between "you can't prove there is a God, so there is none", and "you can't prove there isn't a God, so there is one", from a purely objective standpoint. It's just beliefs.

The former, when aggressively argued in favour of, is generally subscribed to by a bunch of smug twats who think they're using moar logic, though, whereas the latter generally features complete loons. And there's enough morons on each side. See above.

Trolling about religion is always a few easy laughs for the unimaginative, though. Bit desperate, but there you go.

[sez]

Calling somebody an idiot for not believing in God, that makes you a religious intolerant and we have lots of those in this world, not more needed. It is about respecting everybodies believes.

Oh k..i see your point!

It is stupid to believe that god exists, when so many people believe in so many things.

Oops,now i don't see it at all..

[pentomato]

Oh k..i see your point!

It is stupid to believe that god exists, when so many people believe in so many things.

Oops,now i don't see it at all..

You still didn't convince me or anyone else, that god exists.

[tmac]

Science doesn't have all the answers, percisley. But to fall back on a divine power to prove these questions is VERY unoriginal in terms of history. Science needs time.

That's not what he's doing, he's saying that everything isn't neatly laid out for us to know, and that modern science does not, as of yet, have the means to quantify every facet of reality. That's all.

We cannot prove or disprove the existance of any god with what facts we currently have, therefore your arguments are pointless.

There's really no difference between "you can't prove there is a God, so there is none", and "you can't prove there isn't a God, so there is one", from a purely objective standpoint. It's just beliefs.

The former, when aggressively argued in favour of, is generally subscribed to by a bunch of smug twats who think they're using moar logic, though, whereas the latter generally features complete loons. And there's enough morons on each side. See above.

Trolling about religion is always a few easy laughs for the unimaginative, though. Bit desperate, but there you go.

You should read through my posts again, never did I say I believe that there is no God, I'm preaching doubt where the other side tends to say "I know what happened and here is how it went".

And I really don't think there's anything wrong talking about God as long as it is kept ontological and not hey your religion sucks mine better. Clearly, you haven't been exposed to the array to arguments that can be constructive for both sides.

[Snee]

Yes, because claiming that the burden of proof leans heavily towards one side based on a fairly flimsy argument about some scripture or other, which most certainly does not apply to all religious people, everywhere, does in no way show a bias

Other than that, you clearly didn't read my post, since I didn't state anywhere that you believe one thing or another.

You do, however, make blanket statements about the religious.

Clearly, you haven't been exposed to the array to arguments that can be constructive for both sides.

When you do find some, feel free to share, btw.

[tmac]

Yes, because claiming that the burden of proof leans heavily towards one side based on a fairly flimsy argument about some scripture or other, which most certainly does not apply to all religious people, everywhere, does in no way show a bias

Other than that, you clearly didn't read my post, since I didn't state anywhere that you believe one thing or another.

You do, however, make blanket statements about the religious.

Clearly, you haven't been exposed to the array to arguments that can be constructive for both sides.

When you do find some, feel free to share, btw.

On the issue of morality...

Can you think, or name a moral action or statement a believer can do that a non-believer cannot?

I dare say you cannot.

Now name a wicked action that only a believer would undertake?

Suicide bombing, circumcision, etc.

I find it insulting that many people who believe in God to question another person's morality or claim they cannot be moral without a supernatural.

[tmac]

Explain how light can be a particle and a wave at the same time.

Explain how the universe came from nothing.

Science doesn't have all the answers.

Light is not a particle and a wave at the same time, however it has properties of particles AND waves.

[lamuller]

Explain how light can be a particle and a wave at the same time.

Explain how the universe came from nothing.

Science doesn't have all the answers.

I think it was Zeus or medusa, they made it.

[Snee]

Yes, because claiming that the burden of proof leans heavily towards one side based on a fairly flimsy argument about some scripture or other, which most certainly does not apply to all religious people, everywhere, does in no way show a bias

Other than that, you clearly didn't read my post, since I didn't state anywhere that you believe one thing or another.

You do, however, make blanket statements about the religious.



When you do find some, feel free to share, btw.

On the issue of morality...

Can you think, or name a moral action or statement a believer can do that a non-believer cannot?

I dare say you cannot.

Now name a wicked action that only a believer would undertake?

Suicide bombing, circumcision, etc.

Circumcision is a fairly common practice even outside religion, but. It's sometimes considered to be more hygienic, for one thing. Female circumcision is generally a bad thing, though. It's, however, not limited to the religious. It can be due to a really bad turn of spousal abuse, among other things, and it's generally about power, religion is just one excuse.

Suicide bombings are less usual than circumcisions, outside of religion, but have been known to happen. Plenty of mentally ill people to go around, don't need religion to blow yourself up, really.

Religion is just a popular excuse to commit atrocities, other known reasons include ethnicity, hay-those-guys-have-more-stuff-than-us, money, mental illness, nationalism, jealousy, fighting terrorism, and so on, and so forth.

People don't need religion to be bad. And anything someone religious can do, can be done by someone who isn't. And you don't need to believe to use religion as an excuse, either.

Religion can also be a reason to not hurt people. Turn the other cheek and all of that. There's plenty of people who behave better, because they have religion.

One has to wonder what any of that has to do with your original argument, though. Or indeed why you think that's an answer to my post.

I find it insulting that many people who believe in God to question another person's morality or claim they cannot be moral without a supernatural.

How very, very interesting. Is that why you made a thread attacking religion?