Is there a god


ktf52
 Share

Recommended Posts

So you're saying you made up a random definition of Deity and then proceeded to find a lack of evidence on said made-up definition to prove yourself "correct"? Very scientific of you.

I just wanted to say that before this thread is closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A United States Marine was taking some college courses between assignments. He had completed 20 missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the courses had a professor who was an avowed atheist, and a member of the ACLU. One day the professor shocked the class when he came in. He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, GOD if you are real then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you exactly 15 min. The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pindrop.

Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, 'Here I am GOD, I'm still waiting. It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him; knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold.

The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned, and sat there looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, 'What in the world is the matter with you? 'Why did you do that?'

The Marine calmly replied, 'GOD was too busy today protecting America's soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid stuff and act like an idiot.

So He sent me.'

Alma 22:18

18 O God, Aaron hath told me that there is a God; and if there is a God, and if thou art God, wilt thou make thyself known unto me, and I will give away all my sins to know thee, and that I may be raised from the dead, and be saved at the last day. And now when the king had said these words, he was struck as if he were dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I admit, I cant speak to the peculiarities of any religion, I do believe there is a God. Some sort of divine creator.

I see a beautiful complex world working in perfect harmony. Think of the complexity of anything, such as the physical and chemical act of breathing. Fresh air goes in, bad air comes out, and it keeps us alive. God has a lot to answer for over 2000 years? But thats 2000 years of sunrises, rainbows, and the innumerable miracles that make up daily life. Its a privilege just to be alive. And I thank whoever made the world for that every day. Amen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its been my experience that those that say there is no evidence of God.. can do so only by ignoring or otherwise dismissing out of hand an entire sub-category of evidence. That sub-category is the eye-witness testimony.

An eye witness testimony is given by a person who experienced an event first hand and then are willing to go on record as saying what they experienced. Our court system allows such to be entered into evidence for a trial. Where it can then be challenged based on its quality.

We have records of hundred and thousands of testimonies about the existence of God. These testimonies come from a wide variety of people, in a wide variety of religious groups and even those with no organizational affiliation. These records are also found throughout time and recorded history.

Those who wish to claim there is no God have a huge burden of proving a negative, which means that they must prove it in every case (not just the ones that are easy for them to do). It also means that they can not ignore or dismiss the evidence of testimony. (as much as they might like to)

To that end I will add my testimony to the huge list. I know that God exist. I have felt his power and influence in my life and I say that every good thing that I have in my life is from God.

Edited by estradling75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the increasing advancements in science the balance is shifting away from Darwinism and back to where science first began, discovering the laws and rules that our Heavenly Father uses to design and govern the universe and his creations. (see Intelligent Design). In light of these discoveries a greater faith will be required by those professing atheism.

If you get a chance you might consider some of the books on Intelligent Design by former geophysicist and college professor Dr. Stephen C. Meyer.

Or works coming out of previous bastions of secular humanism and atheism such as New York Universities Professor of Philosophy Thomas Nagel and his book "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False".

It's not surprising to see successful authors like Stephen King and Dean Koontz without apology profess their belief in God and Intelligent Design. Authors who create worlds all the time, look around them and can't help but see how silly a notion that this all came about by throwing some elements into a bottle and shaking it up.

Alma when responding to Korihor who asked for a sign in order to be convinced that there is a god responded like this.

But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

Alma 30:44

The evidence is without us and within us. The fact a man has the means and capacity to even think there may not be a God, in and of itself testifies that there is a God.

Edited by Windseeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple answer no because if there was, he would have a lot to answer for over the last 2000 years The bible is nothing but a old book full stories, if there is a god then some body show me some good he has ever done?

You

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple answer no because if there was, he would have a lot to answer for over the last 2000 years The bible is nothing but a old book full stories, if there is a god then some body show me some good he has ever done?

Are you saying that the fact that bad things happen in the world is somehow proof that there is no God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who wish to claim there is no God have a huge burden of proving a negative, which means that they must prove it in every case (not just the ones that are easy for them to do). It also means that they can not ignore or dismiss the evidence of testimony. (as much as they might like to)

Respectfully, this is a bit of a classic fallacy. The "Teapot" ploy.

If I were to claim that there exists, orbiting the sun within the asteroid belt, a perfectly constructed, small china teapot, floating in space but that is invisible to telescopes and can shield itself from sight...could you prove me wrong?

The idea is that I could make any number of claims that cannot be proven...but because you cannot DISprove them they somehow have merit as legit thoughts. You see the issue, then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Respectfully, this is a bit of a classic fallacy. The "Teapot" ploy.

If I were to claim that there exists, orbiting the sun within the asteroid belt, a perfectly constructed, small china teapot, floating in space but that is invisible to telescopes and can shield itself from sight...could you prove me wrong?

The idea is that I could make any number of claims that cannot be proven...but because you cannot DISprove them they somehow have merit as legit thoughts. You see the issue, then.

Not sure if this fits. The "Teapot" is a man made item, created by man, which you say, is somehow orbiting the sun at a degree which a man made china teapot would easily burn.

Nope, I don't see the issue. Do you have a better analogy to prove your classic fallacy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this fits. The "Teapot" is a man made item, created by man, which you say, is somehow orbiting the sun at a degree which a man made china teapot would easily burn.

Nope, I don't see the issue. Do you have a better analogy to prove your classic fallacy?

I think you are arguing semantics (though why is the assumption that the teapot is man-made? Can you prove that it is? Can you prove that it isn't, for that matter?).

I could as easily claim, as Douglas Adams once did, that at the bottom of a well in an English garden there exist a group of invisible, super-natural fairies.

Can you prove to me that the fairies don't exist?

Does your ability to not DIS-prove them make you believe that they actually do exist?

Though I was hesitant to use the following, I might as well: Can you similarly prove to me that Odin does not exist? Or Thor? Can you prove that the "spiritual feelings' some claim they receive from their god are not, in fact, given to them by another?

The idea here is that it is easy to make claims that are impossible to falsify, and being able to state one of them is not a truly compelling argument.

Edited by TheMusicTheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Respectfully, this is a bit of a classic fallacy. The "Teapot" ploy.

If I were to claim that there exists, orbiting the sun within the asteroid belt, a perfectly constructed, small china teapot, floating in space but that is invisible to telescopes and can shield itself from sight...could you prove me wrong?

The idea is that I could make any number of claims that cannot be proven...but because you cannot DISprove them they somehow have merit as legit thoughts. You see the issue, then.

Unless I'm mistaken your teapot ploy falls under an argument from ignorance. What I always found interesting about that particular fallacy is that claiming, "I can't observe the teapot, therefore it does not exist" and, "You don't have proof the teapot doesn't exist, therefore it does." are flip sides of the same coin. If there is an undetectable teapot in orbit, logically speaking, I can't make a determination on if it exists or not. Though often in those cases people will anyway based on some other metric (be it testimony and faith, or perceived probability and parsimony).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Respectfully, this is a bit of a classic fallacy. The "Teapot" ploy.

If I were to claim that there exists, orbiting the sun within the asteroid belt, a perfectly constructed, small china teapot, floating in space but that is invisible to telescopes and can shield itself from sight...could you prove me wrong?

The idea is that I could make any number of claims that cannot be proven...but because you cannot DISprove them they somehow have merit as legit thoughts. You see the issue, then.

It would be true if only one or a few people claimed the 'teapot' existed. But we are not talking about one or a few... We are talking about hundreds and thousands and millions of people from all over the world and from all walks of life that are more then willing to talk about their personal experience with the 'teapot.' That is supposedly being countered by those that say 'Well I didn't find it with my telescope so the teapot must not exist and therefore all the witness for the 'teapot' must be wrong or delusional.' It is simply insufficient to the task at hand.

Its even worse when they then make up qualities and then try to disprove it based on those. 'Oh your encounter with the 'teapot' left you with a full cup of tea? Well then everyone should be able to have a full cup. Here is my cup and it is empty... So clearly the 'teapot' does not exist.'

It simply boils down to the evidence for God is in the hundred and thousands of personal testimonies that people have gained and are still gaining.

The counter is... Well we haven't found any physical traces (but we can't have looked everywhere yet), and we haven't had the personal experience ourselves... Until/unless we do all the witness must be totally wrong. Which is the case the OP is making... and the case I was addressing.

Now if the OP was making the case that they were unsure that God exists... Or that they had no personal experience with God and therefore doubted, this would have been a different thread.

Instead the OP presented it as an open and shut case that everyone with any kind of logic and reason should just innately agree with. And that simply is not supported with what we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless I'm mistaken your teapot ploy falls under an argument from ignorance. What I always found interesting about that particular fallacy is that claiming, "I can't observe the teapot, therefore it does not exist" and, "You don't have proof the teapot doesn't exist, therefore it does." are flip sides of the same coin. If there is an undetectable teapot in orbit, logically speaking, I can't make a determination on if it exists or not. Though often in those cases people will anyway based on some other metric (be it testimony and faith, or perceived probability and parsimony).

Yes, exactly!

And so it is with faith in deities. As has been pointed out, proving a negative is nigh impossible, but because one can come up with limitless non-provable statements it is nearly useless as a argumentative basis. One's ideas are formed by what one accepts as evidence, and we all have different ideas about what we believe "evidence" to be.

My initial point was that claiming those who don't believe in a god have a greater responsibility on their shoulders is in error. If anything its a total wash one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understand, I am not actually defending the OP. I believe his post left little open to discussion and I never like that.

Right...

I am aware of the room to doubt (I believe it is on purpose). I know my argument isn't enough to lock it down in the other direction either, but I think it is more then enough to keep it open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are arguing semantics (though why is the assumption that the teapot is man-made? Can you prove that it is? Can you prove that it isn't, for that matter?).

No, I was arguing a bad analogy, because a "teapot" is a man made creation that you say orbited around the sun. Let's stand on fair ground shall we? When you used the word "Teapot" you were using the term in correlation with a man made object, not some other object unknown.

I could as easily claim, as Douglas Adams once did, that at the bottom of a well in an English garden there exist a group of invisible, super-natural fairies.

These examples, create a dilemma. First, how did Douglas Adams know "invisible" fairies exist at the bottom of the well?

The declaration of there being a God is given by individuals who have actually seen, touched, and spoke with him (i.e. Adam, Moses, Nephi, Jacob, Mormon, Peter, James, John, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and others).

The declaration there are "invisible" fairies at the bottom of the well would dictate Douglas Adams saw "invisible" fairies. What other evidence does Douglas Adams bring to the table?

These are two different declarations. In Douglas's analogy of fairies, does he say he saw these invisible fairies, and by what means did they show themselves. It should be replicable?

Impossible to prove "invisible" fairies exist unless they show themselves unto you, which means they are no longer "invisible" to you.

Nope. A person's inability to prove or disprove something doesn't "make" anyone believe any more than they already do. However, I am not seeing this correlation with Estradling's post. I didn't see him tell the OP that he "must" believe because he can not DISprove the existence of a God. He pointed out that his evidence is lacking, and that in order to DISprove God, you must prove a negative. He didn't specify the OP was "made to believe" anything. He simply pointed out he couldn't DISprove God existed, nothing more, nothing less.

Though I was hesitant to use the following, I might as well: Can you similarly prove to me that Odin does not exist? Or Thor? Can you prove that the "spiritual feelings' some claim they receive from their god are not, in fact, given to them by another?

The idea here is that it is easy to make claims that are impossible to falsify, and being able to state one of them is not a truly compelling argument.

I think these are better examples, but that is just me. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also would you clarify for me why you capitalized "DIS"? I am not sure I appropriately understood this meaning.

I was simply emphasizing as one might do in speech. Apologies. That is something I tend to do (type as though I'm speaking, with capital letters to indicate where my voice might offer emphasis), there was no special or additional meaning intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was simply emphasizing as one might do in speech. Apologies. That is something I tend to do (type as though I'm speaking, with capital letters to indicate where my voice might offer emphasis), there was no special or additional meaning intended.

Nothing to apologize for, my understanding was correct, I just didn't want to assume I was understanding you correctly.

Some individuals capitalize words for other uses, thus I was hoping for clarification. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was simply emphasizing as one might do in speech. Apologies. That is something I tend to do (type as though I'm speaking, with capital letters to indicate where my voice might offer emphasis), there was no special or additional meaning intended.

Using bolded or italicized letters comes off better for emphasise. Many will see caps as yelling or anger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I could walk into McDonald's and say to the employees that there is no hamburger, which is the same thing as saying there is no God on a faith based forum.

It isn't, though, which is more or less the point. If I walk into a McDonald's and claim there "is no hamburger", an employee would merely need to turn around, grab a hamburger patty, and present it to me. That is empirical evidence of the existence of the hamburger, and continued denial of its existence would be foolish.

Claiming there is no god on a faith-based forum (no matter how rudely it was done) is not the same, as there is no empirical proof of it either way. The two scenarios are very, very different. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Please understand that I am not attempting to be snippy or snide in any way. I am merely positing and debating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share