The Existence of God

Are there any pictures of god? No
Is there any written proof of god? No
There might be written proof but is it from an un-biased source? NO

There is no proof of god. You can say it exists but I won't argue with you. I'll just state that facts and my beliefs.

 

Lol, Wikipedia is a bunch of bullshit, Of course - you think that.

At least I backed up what I said. I asked you could you back up if god was real or not, and you ignored the question.

Imbecile.

You can argue in here... That's kinda the point of a debate.

 

I completely didn't see you ask for proof with mine, jay. Wiki is bull shit, it is complete shit, and complete bogus. People write what they want to hear. There is proof, the bible. If thats not good enough then alright, theres really nothing else, but you cant come up in here with wiki, thats garbage

 

Picture the universe as a four dimensional structure. Its position is fixed, eternal, immutable. It has no cause, because it is simply an object outside of time. It is eternal.

In any case, my lack of knowledge does not necessarily mean that you are correct.

If an Uncaused Cause is possible, why couldn't it be something simpler than God?

This is the intelligent debate forum. The entire point of this place is to debate others.

How do you know that the Bible is accurate?

 

That's me asking for proof on the previous page

 

The thing is that it wouldn't have been created. It would have existed, timeless, just like God.

I'm not talking about Wikipedia. I wish to know how you know that the Bible is accurate.

 

How do you know that the Bible is accurate?

 

Because the bible isn't 1 part. Im jewish, and there are a TON of other books that has things based off of the bible. The Talmud for instance, consists of laws - which are based off of the bible. There are many more also..

 

The Talmud, if based on a flawed document, is flawed itself.

How do you know that the root of your scriptures, be they the Bible, assorted documents, or anything, are accurate?

 

I can't answer that. Me being Jewish, I believe they are. But if asking it non religiously, I cant answer that. I believe it is because I myself am a Jew.

 

Just for this second I am going to take shedderbeam's side. There is no real way to prove the bible is based off fact, for all we know it could be the work of some of the greatest literary geniuses of all time. Lets just say the bible is complete and utter B/S, every belief, every article, and every story based off of it is just as flawed. We can't assume something is correct simply because it is old or because it is well written. For example look at Harry Potter, we know that it is fiction, in 2000 years it will still be just as false.

Take a look at the book, The Da Vinci Code, I know that it is fiction, but such a story is not outside of the realm of possibility now is it?

 

Well, hopefully you are a rational person, and base your beliefs upon evidence and reason. If so, you should take a look at why you believe that the scriptures are accurate, and whether that belief is justified.

 

As for the first human, it didn't just pop out of nowhere...the apes that could walk more erect, had larger brains, sharper eyes, and more advanced vocal and oral senses reproduced more abundantly, eventually evening out all these characteristics into the animal we call human today. There were many, many variations (Neanderthal, etc) in between, but eventually the sharp-minded, straight-walking, hairless, ape emerged and this ape we call "human". Now this human is way more abundant because it lives longer, is more able to find food and medicine, et cetera. This is why humans exist, and God is not the reason. What makes more sense, the natural selection I described, or an old man in the sky that just happens to be able to control the entire universe? I'd like you to think about that. As for the first life forms, they did not need to reproduce with a mate, for single-cell life forms can reproduce asexually. So even if at first there was only one (derived from the biotic elements, Carbon and Hydrogen), it would still be able to create more of itself. Eventually, of course, this single-cell organism needed to become multi-cell, for survival, and more efficient natural function (reproduction, consumption, etc). And on and on it goes, until my example above with the apes and the humans. It all takes time. But God is not behind it. God is man's creation back in the time where they did not know of such ideas as evolution and natural selection, but even then there were skeptics. I hope you have found this essay-ish thing I've written informative and enlightening, and I now hope you understand how God is simply a very old fallacy.

 

When I look at the theory of natural selection, it seems a tad far fetched, albeit more plausible than a god, but still there are holes in the theory. The fittest will survive is one thing, but genetic mutation is another. When a mutation occurs at the cellular level usually it dies out, it is very rare that is manifests into something noticeable.

Also if you want to play the we-evolved-from-apes card then it might be worth mentioning how they have 24 pairs of chromosomes and we have 23, which is still incredibly hard to explain.

 

Ah, but we also have a very similar DNA structure, and our bodies are very similar. Unfortunately, contradicting evidence is one thing you may come across commonly in Science, so one must either weed through the contradictions or accept one of either argument and try to prove it as fact.

 

One of my science teachers told me nothing can be proved with an experiment. You can only disprove.

 

Be careful of using reducto ad absurdum.

Genetic mutations are constantly occurring in billions of different life forms. It's not linear (try one, then try another, etc.).

Also, mutations are not the sole basis for change - there's also natural variation (deer born with slightly stronger muscles).

Humans actually have 23 chromosome pairs.

The extra chromosome of the apes is actually rather strong evidence that we are related. If you examine the 23rd chromosome of humans, you can see that it looks remarkably similar to chromosomes 23/24 of the apes - exactly as if they had fused.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html

 

Dang, Shredderbeam smashes me again.
I guess I better recheck some of my logic & recheck my bio book lol.

But if you couldn't tell from my previous post I was supporting natural variation. I was saying if one organism is more fit than another, then it has a higher chance of survival and therefore a higher chance to pass on this characteristic to its offspring.