Proofs of the existence of God

Catholic Scientist LOL!Really? Let us test this idea. Let us take 2 suicide bombers A and B each with a equal amount of faith. I will take A who has no bomb into a fortified bunker. You, take B, who is packing 40 pounds of C-4 into a seperate fortified bunker.Then we take turns insulting their faith and at the end of 5 minutes we will see who is still how much damage mere faith does compared with dfaith plus C-4 Love is an emotion,physical is basis,why would it not affect the world? Hope or stubborness? Number one is a poor definition since,in order to disbelieve one must first acknowledge an existence.Denial can only be implemented for something that presents itself to be denied.Since god does not present evidence of itself then this is also a poor definition.Godlessness is close.Immorality is just plain wrong and insulting. Lack of belief is good,lack of belief in god is not. It does not say OR belief in no god it says DENIAL of god and both are inaccurate. Since god does not exist in any way that can be shown it therefore rules itself out.A universe that obeys laws naturally without a guiding entity is obviously less complex than one that does.That the universe is mysterious and hard to comprehend has never meant that it need be operated from a invisible immaterial unknowable ? does it? Really? Just what are they detected by?

Catholic Scientist But faith is not a prerequisite in the way a bomb is.The faith has no effect whatever unless a physical action is instigated.A suicide bombing does not require faith but it does require a bomb. What is internal evidence? But what makes Jesus an authority? Again how is this reliable as a means of determining such a thing? I cannot deny that which you cannot present to me sir. I simply cannot give it any weight. Why can they not be touched by science sir? What do you feel in the situation you are describing? Since our feelings are a result of our nervous system and obey physical laws does this not seem to indicate that the feelings you descibe are dealing with a physical event?This message has been edited by sidelined, 28 February 2005 19:28 AM

Catholic ScientistLove is a name we give to many variations of an emotional response. This too is governed by the chemistry and the biology of the brain.have you heard of Capgras syndrome? Take a read at this site here and learn about the oddities of the human mind. BBC - Radio 4 - Reith Lectures 2003 - The Emerging Mind Are you implying that an emotion forged the universe and formed the structures like quanta and the rules such as relativity or implemented things such as the fine-structure constant? We might as well ask the same of hate or fear and arrive absolutely nowhere.What would the relationship pertain to exactly? How can something internally defined be considered evidence? The flat earthers have internal evidence that the earth is not spherical.Does this make their viewpoint valid?This is the point of evidence being available for examination.It is otherwise mere opinion and incapable of scrutiny which therefore renders it useless as a source of knowledge. What do you mean touched by science? Do you mean those things that cannot be investigated? What things do you suppose are beyond investigation sir?And what about Jesus? The evidence is weak in the literature outside of the bible and is second hand at best.We cannot simply take the bible as evidence since it is a narrative account established to support itself and it does a poor job of that. But your feelings are not seperate from your physical being sir.If they were then they could not be altered by chemicals or physical injury.Feelings are notoriously inaccurate as a means of determining the actuality of the world around us,as they are subject to alteration by so many factors.Eyewitness testimony is very unreliable for this very reason.We can "feel" very certain of the sequence of events we remember yet be completely in error.

---

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Douglas Adams