Proofs of the existence of God

"Assuming" is not "proving". Are you sure that we give exactly the same "weight of evidence" to the existences' proofs about us than the proofs of the existence of God? It seems to me that we often take for granted our existences but we claim a disproportionate demands about His existence. Why? Only because we aren't able to see him? If this is the case, we claim the same demands about the existence's proofs of the quarks? Everyone of you have seen (smelled, touched, tasted, heard) a single quark? So, maybe analogical proofs can be presented for the existence of God.

...Pressing the logic further (please pardon grammatical errors),1) QUARKS: Science merely "speculates" is the smallest entity around. Science "cops out" here.
2) The MEGA-UNIVERSE: Science merely speculates is the largest entity around, e.g., with supposed finite borders, no "hidden" knowledge, etc.
3) Science does not adequately define nor explain light, time, matter, energy, faith, love, etc.
4) Science (at present) yields a miniscule fraction of 0.0001% of cosmic empirical knowledge and will never exceed 0.0001%, not in a billion years.Conclusions:A) Mega-Empiricists, Mega-Naturalists, and Mega-Evolutionists are terribly flawed, psychotic, and ignorant. They know not what they’re doing.B) Having no grasp on the big picture, Science is extremely clueless of cosmic empirical events. Truly it can not begin to adequately distinguish between empirical and/or metaphysical entities and events.C) With so much awesome cosmic excellence abounding (e.g., harmonies, symmetries, and proportions) Everything seems fearfully and wonderfully made.D) For theists: God's ways are past finding out. A billion years is not enough.E) Man (myself included) is fearfully "cursed" into believing "No God", "No beauty", "No wonders", "No hidden knowledge", No afterlife, etc.G) The atheism-curse:
1) Afflicts and torments men, their beliefs, and scientific reason,
2) Is intolerable speculative chicanery (at its best)
3) Has no place on any EvC forum or scientific forum.
4) Is a freak of nature, a persistent demonic attack, and a stubborn snare to us all.

lol.

Sidelined, it's the IDEA of God that has presented itself to be denied, not God.

And you know this how? From the scientific authority of last months 'Creation' magazine? Sorry for sounding pissy but I resent such comments that imply we are just out there making it up as we go. Science and the scientific method is a painful, grueling, exacting task. To have someone who is obviously completely ignorant of the entire process speculating on the intelligence and integrity of the scientific community is despicable in my opinion. I would bet all I have that somewhere someone as we speak is stressed to the point of illness as they re-read a manuscript they are submitting on quarks because they know the smallest mathematical error can be jumped on by their peers. They would be agonizing because years of work was about to be criticized NOT by creationist idiots but by others in their field whose models might be revised by the new findings. I will take this statement as a 'get out of jail free card' to call you a freaking moran with less intelligence than a box of hammers (us flawed ignorant psychotics cannot be held responsible for our statements). I take it you believe flawed, psychotic, and ignorant to be in contrast to the good Christians that brought us the Nazi death camps, the Crusades, the KKK, the Inquisition, and Billy Ray Cyrus. My point is that, despite CC claims to the opposite, Christians had over a millenium where they ran the Western world and it was NOT the paradise they seem to think. Brought along an era of unprecedented development of the sciences and arts. Our own American revolutionaries were considered atheist (although most were not) because the concept of democracy was considered anti-Christian.Edited to change "almost a millenium" to "over a millenium"This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 05-24-2005 02:38 AM

Timeout Lithodid! Thank you for your feedback.Regarding quark-scientists, STOP invoking the violin, another STRAWMAN rabbit-trail.Notwithstanding, I'm proto-science, but against any presumptive science-authority in a
world of sub-quarkian metaphysical events and delicately designed IC, at least from a legal view. For example...I pay far higher malpractice premiums than quark scientists, because untamed "podiatric science authority" has truly "messed up" feet. More and more I refrain from foot surgery because most pathological feet (let alone healthy feet) are essentially ICs. Podiatry simply cannot fix flat feet: not with surgery, genetics, implants, orthotics, nor stem-cell research. More and more I’m inclined to refrain from surgical procedures, or I’ll forfeit my science-art. (Doctor Professional | Pure & Natural Supplements)Lithodid-Man (or anyone else here), do you really scientifically hypothesize that Quarks are ICs?1) If you hypothesize that quarks are ICs then you (like Behe) might hypothesize ICs exist on more macroscopic levels, no? Otherwise...
2) If you hypothesize that quarks are indeed divisible-reducible entities, would you agree (with me) that science must "cop-out" here?

Good work, 'Mr. Intelligent'.You didn't disprove anything Phillip said, you just brought rash and arrogant talk to a good discussion. If your going to reply to a carefully considered and truly intelligent answer, please use some common sense.Your comment about the quarks is just a biased comment which is more like an feeble attempt at a guilt trip to make your 'intelligence' rating a few notches higher.You second comment about a 'get out of jail free card' was a get out of jail free card in itself. Phillip was not saying the persons behind the theories are flawed, he is saying the theories they hold as true are flawed. If you can find flaws in Christian teachings, and not Christians themselves, then make an intelligent comment instead of throwning rocks from your corner and screaming like a 3 year old.And your final comment, i believe has no relevancy to the topic. He mentions atheist and their ideas as illogical and you say that the American founding fathers were thought to be atheists? Which they weren't?! Honestly i don't see how that applies.Please if you claim to have intelligence, please use it. For as one such as myself, (who honestly has little intelligence in my own perspective), to find major flaws in your comment should be unheard of. Please, think about this before you make another rash comment.Dan

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

I hate to throw a spanner into this discussion but I just found the following material on the web via an ethics discussion forum:A new Christian religious teaching has been published on the web.
It is a single Torah and moral proof, one in which the reality of God confirms and responds to an act of perfect faith, with a direct intervention into the natural world, providing a correction to human nature [natural law] and human ethical perception.If this material demonstrates itself to be authentic, the implications defy the imagination!Check this link: http://www.energon.uklinux.netNo joke, no hoax, not spam. The download is all too real!

You have made a claim that you just found something when infact, it is your own homepage.If you do this one more time you wil be banned. Spamming your own site under such terms is not acceptable.

---

You are wrong, the site I have mentioned in the post is not mine site!You may not like it, but it does not go agianst anything in your forum rules and however improbable it may sound, I'm reading the download right now and it is for real?

It is listed in your profile as your home page.If you wish to discuss the contents of that site then create a PNT.If you wish to discuss the topic of this thread, " Proofs of the existence of God", then do so in your own words.

---

I set this site on my profile only because I thought it was of important interest to this form. I have no site of my own.Yet the most important religious development in history may be circulating on the web. I have found it on a number of other discussion forum and it deserves being discussed.And if your too much of religious hypocrite or bigot to take an honest interest in something so important, than please have my account removed from your forum.

quote:

---

Yet the most important religious development in history may be circulating on the web. I have found it on a number of other discussion forum and it deserves being discussed.

---

It's crackpot drivel. I downloaded and had a look at the PDF, I suggest other members don't bother unless they have trouble sleeping.

quote:

---

Yet the most important religious development in history may be circulating on the web. I have found it on a number of other discussion forum and it deserves being discussed.

---

Point me toward one forum where anyone besides you is not thinking this is a load of crackpot rubbish.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Jun-2005 07:07 AM

people say give me a proof that God exists and I will believe. If you want the proof that God exists just seek Him, seek righteousness, reject the inclinations of the evil heart and God will reveal Himself to you.