Does God exist? (16 Viewers)

[Wassup?]

didnt know that =O

made me feel kinda empty

Go to sleep you fucking insomniac. :rofl:

 

[Emily 777]

While I'm preparing my anti-thesis to moonlights anithesis, i thought I'd respond to what's going on here already.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the person is idiotic. Ignorant is more what i'm thinking.

Is it fair to say that because I've never been to China and experienced being there that China does not exist? It certainly doesnt exist for me. But if i were to meet some Chinese people or even people who had been to China, could i still ignore the fact that China might just be there?

In the same way, your argument that God does not exist for you seems a bit silly. Would God cease to exist because you have never seen him or experienced his presence before? What if God were to send someone to you, like an angel... or even just someone who he has revealed himself to and can testify to his presence? Could you still ignore the the fact that God might just be real?


Say I went to China one day, and then i was put on trial for rebelling against the authority of the country. Would my defence hold up if i were to say "I shouldnt be blamed for rebelling against the Chinese authority because i didn't believe that China even existed let alone had any power!" I sincerely doubt it. And what if the Judge were to say "How can you not have know China existed?! You have seen Chinese people before! You have met people who have BEEN to China. China will exist whether you like it or not!" What excuse can I have?

Likewise... What if one day you were to stand before God in judgement because you are guilty of rebelling against him? Could you argue that you shouldnt be held accountable because you didn't know God existed and that you were rebelling against him? And what if he were to reply "How can you not know that I exist?! Have I not sent people to you who come from me, who know me and have experienced my presence, to warn you that I do exist. How can you claim that I did not make myself known to you?!" What excuse will there be?


So i guess what i will try to argue in the future is that it is not up to me to prove to you wether or not God exists. Because if God exists, which i am convinced that he does, he will not cease to exist just because you do not believe that he exists. But I stand before you as a child of God, through the redemption of Christ Jesus, to say God has revealed himself to me and I have felt his presence and I am absolutely convinced of his existance. Whether you believe that or not does not change a thing.

My only hope is that through the words that I say and through the life that I live you may see me and say "There is a man who has been changed by the presence of God!" And through this I pray that God may reveal his existance to you.

I think you make a really strong point, and I agree with you.

Sometimes I think, "why all this fuss?" in making such a fuss over whether God exists, and the creationism/atheistic debate, why do people feel the need to deny he is there? Is it because they are insecure, and believe that if God doesn't exist they won't go to hell? In my opinion, people make too many excuses for why they think God doesn't exist to ease their conscience and justify the way they live and the things they do that the "accepted God" would disdain.

It is important to humble ourselves when considering the concept of God, no human can fully understand him, no amount of scholarly learning, intellect or science, he is a spirit.

An argument I read preciously claimed that religion and superstition has been used throughout all time and by all cultures to an extent. Have we ever paused and wondered why? Why humanity has somehow always known there was more than this? More than what we could see, more than what we could touch? Why countless values, morals and ethics are congruent across all time and cultures (e.g don't murder, don't steal) - why we even have a conscience?

It all comes down to how do you prove it.

However, how can you prove something you cannot see? God requires that we have FAITH, that we believe what we cannot see, the ultimate test.

We know he is there however, as many Christians will testify "feeling" his presence, be that hearing God speak to us through our conscience or heart, witnessing miracles (such as people previously blind seeing, etc) or sensing his presence (like when you know someone is in the room though you can't see them for example).

There is so much to argue, so much to say, I can not explain God, I just know he is there. I know it is not rational, and you are probably thinking, "yeah and I thought Santa Claus is real", but I urge anyone reading this to know there is so much more that we cannot see, there is another realm in which spiritual bodies exist, there is more than this life on Earth! There are good and evil spirits, prophesy does exist- I am desperate to tell people this! THERE IS MORE!!!! Ask God if he is there, honestly seek after Him and he will reveal himself to you.

 

[KFunk]

why do people feel the need to deny he is there? Is it because they are insecure, and believe that if God doesn't exist they won't go to hell?

Incorrect.

An argument I read previously claimed that religion and superstition has been used throughout all time and by all cultures to an extent. Have we ever paused and wondered why? Why humanity has somehow always known there was more than this? More than what we could see, more than what we could touch? Why countless values, morals and ethics are congruent across all time and cultures (e.g don't murder, don't steal) - why we even have a conscience?

Anthropological studies actually suggest that values aren't as congruent as you might think. Almost all cultures allow some killing and some theft, but the fine details vary greatly. In some societies unprovoked killing is abhorrent, while in other it is perfectly acceptable to whimsically kill individuals from nearby villages or to fight to the death over a female.

Also, there are simple linguistic/logical reasons why 'murder' is always wrong. In particular, note the vacuous nature of the statement wrongful killing is wrong. Well of course, but wrongful anything is also wrong. It's a subtle, but dangerous, trap to fall into when translating the values of other cultures.

 

[Kwayera]

I think you make a really strong point, and I agree with you.

Sometimes I think, "why all this fuss?" in making such a fuss over whether God exists, and the creationism/atheistic debate, why do people feel the need to deny he is there? Is it because they are insecure, and believe that if God doesn't exist they won't go to hell? In my opinion, people make too many excuses for why they think God doesn't exist to ease their conscience and justify the way they live and the things they do that the "accepted God" would disdain.

I get this a lot, and I think that you either don't understand or don't respect our "choices". We don't use atheism as an excuse for behaving badly (and I'd like to throw a statistic out of my arse and say that most criminals are religious, given that most of the world is religious in one form or another); atheism (or agnosticism, really) is not a choice. You can't just choose to believe something you know is not true; I could no more ask you to believe in the existence of a magical teapot orbiting the moon than you could ask me to believe in a God. It's not that we believe the "if I can't see you you can't see me" argument - we won't go to hell because hell does not exist.

It's not like we're denying that the sky is above us or that it looks blue; we're denying you trying to tell us it's red.

It is important to humble ourselves when considering the concept of God, no human can fully understand him, no amount of scholarly learning, intellect or science, he is a spirit.

And by that you mean we should not blaspheme him by trying to discover the secrets of the world and the universe, right?

An argument I read preciously claimed that religion and superstition has been used throughout all time and by all cultures to an extent. Have we ever paused and wondered why? Why humanity has somehow always known there was more than this? More than what we could see, more than what we could touch? Why countless values, morals and ethics are congruent across all time and cultures (e.g don't murder, don't steal) - why we even have a conscience?

I'd ask you to read some Jared Diamond, but as you probably won't here's a summary: yes, most (if not all) civilisations in the world and through time have had some 'spiritual' aspect. But this isn't because there is a God (or a Christian God, as I believe you are touting; if this were true, wouldn't all the world be Christian? And there'd be no such thing as animistic or pantheistic religions?), and indeed the apparent congruency of our modern morals and values aren't due to a god. Altruism, the basis of it all, predate yours, certainly, and is well documented in the animal world. Instead that spirituality and the development of our moral codes is a function of our intelligence, and thus a function of the progression of modern civilisation which itself is a function of natural selection.

It all comes down to how do you prove it.

However, how can you prove something you cannot see? God requires that we have FAITH, that we believe what we cannot see, the ultimate test.

We know he is there however, as many Christians will testify "feeling" his presence, be that hearing God speak to us through our conscience or heart, witnessing miracles (such as people previously blind seeing, etc) or sensing his presence (like when you know someone is in the room though you can't see them for example).

That's right. The existence of god can never be proved or disproved, because it lies in the lala land of faith. Those "testimonies"? Humans have an extraordinarily ability to see patterns where there are none, and to see what we want to see. There has been no documented case of a true miracle, medical or otherwise, anywhere. In fact some skeptic societies offer a lot of money in prizes for people who can conclusively prove a miracle occured, and it hasn't happened yet.

There is so much to argue, so much to say, I can not explain God, I just know he is there. I know it is not rational, and you are probably thinking, "yeah and I thought Santa Claus is real", but I urge anyone reading this to know there is so much more that we cannot see, there is another realm in which spiritual bodies exist, there is more than this life on Earth! There are good and evil spirits, prophesy does exist- I am desperate to tell people this! THERE IS MORE!!!! Ask God if he is there, honestly seek after Him and he will reveal himself to you.

There is more to life than believing in a sky fairy, in believing in demons and angels, in believing in prophecy and fate (which by physical laws cannot be).

 

[katie tully]

Seriously, ITT: Far too many long responses

Keep it down to dot point guise.

 

[Riet]

Holy shit, Emily hit the nail on the head. I'm insecure because I don't feel the need to believe in something I can't prove the existance of!

 

[dolbinau]

In my opinion, people make too many excuses for why they think God doesn't exist to ease their conscience and justify the way they live and the things they do that the "accepted God" would disdain.

It is important to humble ourselves when considering the concept of God, no human can fully understand him, no amount of scholarly learning, intellect or science, he is a spirit.

I feel the exact opposite. God is a way for insecure Christians to feel good about dying. Thank god (pun intended) for the very old book that is the bible!

 

[sam04u]

Holy shit, Emily hit the nail on the head. I'm insecure because I don't feel the need to believe in something I can't prove the existance of!

You believe many things you can't prove the existance of.
What you don't believe, are things which nobody can conclusively prove the existance of.

Which are two very different things. Ofcourse, there will never be conclusive proof one way or another for the creation of the universe, considering everything we observe or believe to exist must be made from energy, and the inventor of energy can not be made from energy.

 

[Riet]

What do I believe that can't be proven?

 

[sam04u]

What do I believe that can't be proven?

I didn't say you believe things that can not be proven, I was following on from what you said. Things that "you" could not prove. There are many things which "you" can not prove, yet still believe. Because they can be proven, albeit, not by "you".

 

[Slidey]

I didn't say you believe things that can not be proven, I was following on from what you said. Things that "you" could not prove. There are many things which "you" can not prove, yet still believe. Because they can be proven, albeit, not by "you".

Did you have a point in there somewhere?

Far stretch to claim believing in a sky fairy is like believing the sun will still exist tomorrow.

 

[Graney]

I didn't say you believe things that can not be proven, I was following on from what you said. Things that "you" could not prove. There are many things which "you" can not prove, yet still believe. Because they can be proven, albeit, not by "you".

I can't think of anything I believe which I couldn't prove if I wanted to, and studied the field. Or at least read and understand someone elses proof.

 

[CharlieB]

That's right. The existence of god can never be proved or disproved, because it lies in the lala land of faith. Those "testimonies"? Humans have an extraordinarily ability to see patterns where there are none, and to see what we want to see. There has been no documented case of a true miracle, medical or otherwise, anywhere. In fact some skeptic societies offer a lot of money in prizes for people who can conclusively prove a miracle occured, and it hasn't happened yet.

?

 

[jb_nc]

?

Critical evaluation of the event

No scientific accounts exist of any unusual solar or astronomic activity during the time the sun was reported to have "danced", and there are no witness reports of any unusual solar phenomenon further than forty miles out from Cova da Iria.[25]

De Marchi claims that the prediction of an unspecified "miracle", the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied religious backgrounds of the observers, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any known scientific causative factor make a mass hallucination unlikely.[26] That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometers away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria.[26]

Pio Scatizzi, S.J. describes events of Fátima and concludes

The ... solar phenomena were not observed in any observatory. Impossible that they should escape notice of so many astronomers and indeed the other inhabitants of the hemisphere… there is no question of an astronomical or meteorological event phenomenon …Either all the observers in Fátima were collectively deceived and erred in their testimony, or we must suppose an extra-natural intervention.[27]

Steuart Campbell, writing for the 1989 edition of Journal of Meteorology, postulated that a cloud of stratospheric dust changed the appearance of the sun on 13 October, making it easy to look at, and causing it to appear yellow, blue, and violet and to spin. In support of his hypothesis, Mr. Campbell reports that a blue and reddened sun was reported in China as documented in 1983.[28]
A parhelion in rainbow colors, photographed in 2005.
A parhelion in rainbow colors, photographed in 2005.

Joe Nickell, a skeptic and investigator of paranormal phenomena, claims that the position of the phenomenon, as described by the various witnesses, is at the wrong azimuth and elevation to have been the sun.[29] He suggests the cause may have been a sundog. Sometimes referred to as a parhelion or "mock sun", a sundog is a relatively common atmospheric optical phenomenon associated with the reflection/refraction of sunlight by the numerous small ice crystals that make up cirrus or cirrostratus clouds. A sundog is, however, a stationary phenomenon, and would not explain the reported appearance of the "dancing sun". Nickell suggests an explanation for this and other similar phenomena may lie in temporary retinal distortion, caused by staring at the intense light and/or by the effect of darting the eyes to and fro so as to avoid completely fixed gazing (thus combining image, afterimage and movement). Nickell concludes that there was

likely a combination of factors, including optical and meteorological phenomena (the sun being seen through thin clouds, causing it to appear as a silver disc; an alteration in the density of the passing clouds, so that the sun would alternatively brighten and dim, thus appearing to advance and recede; dust or moisture droplets in the atmosphere, imparting a variety of colors to sunlight; and/or other phenomena).

However, there are marked problems with the sundog theory because the meteorological conditions at the time of the Miracle of the Sun were not conducive to such an occurrence.[citation needed] Sundogs occur in the presence of cirrus clouds, which are made out of ice, not water droplets. A sundog could have occurred prior to the rainstorm but not trailing the rainstorm, which is when the phenomenon occurred. A sundog would have to have occurred, at very least, hours prior to the storm, since cirrus clouds can precede a rainstorm by a few hours. The short and brief rain experienced before the sun event, on the other hand, indicates cumulonimbus clouds.[citation needed]

Not everyone reported seeing the sun "dance, including the children, who reported seeing Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and Saint Joseph blessing the people. Some people only saw the radiant colors. Others saw nothing at all.[30]

Paul Simons, in an article entitled "Weather Secrets of Miracle at Fátima", states that he believes it possible that some of the optical effects at Fatima may have been caused by a cloud of dust from the Sahara.[31]

Kevin McClure claims that the crowd at Cova da Iria may have been expecting to see signs in the sun, as similar phenomena had been reported in the weeks leading up to the miracle. On this basis he believes that the crowd saw what it wanted to see. But it has been objected that McClure's account fails to explain similar reports of people miles away, who by their own testimony were not even thinking of the event at the time, or the sudden drying of people's sodden, rain-soaked clothes. Kevin McClure stated that he had never seen such a collection of contradictory accounts of a case in any of the research he had done in the previous ten years. [32]

Leo Madigan believes that the various witness reports of a miracle are accurate, however he alleges inconsistency of witnesses, and suggests that astonishment, fear, exaltation and imagination must have played roles in both the observing and the retelling. Madigan likens the experiences to prayer, and considers that the spiritual nature of the phenomenon explains what he describes as the inconsistency of the witnesses.[33]

Author Lisa Schwebel claims that the event was a supernatural extra-sensory phenomenon. Schwebel notes that the solar phenomenon reported at Fátima is not unique - there have been several reported cases of high pitched religious gatherings culminating in the sudden and mysterious appearance of lights in the sky.[34]

It has been argued that the Fátima phenomenon and many UFO sights share a common cause,[35] or even that the phenomenon was an alien craft.[36]

Many years after the events in question, Stanley L. Jaki, a professor of physics at Seton Hall University, New Jersey, Benedictine priest and author of a number of books reconciling science and Catholicism, proposed a unique theory about the supposed miracle. Jaki believes that the event was natural and meteorological in nature, but that the fact the event occurred at the exact time predicted was a miracle.[37]

The event was officially accepted as a miracle by the Roman Catholic Church on 13 October 1930. On 13 October 1951, papal legate Cardinal Tedeschini told the million gathered at Fátima that on 30 October, 31 October, 1 November, and 8 November 1950, Pope Pius XII himself witnessed the miracle of the sun from the Vatican gardens.[38]

 

[katie tully]

?

Critical evaluation of the event

No scientific accounts exist of any unusual solar or astronomic activity during the time the sun was reported to have "danced", and there are no witness reports of any unusual solar phenomenon further than forty miles out from Cova da Iria.[25]

De Marchi claims that the prediction of an unspecified "miracle", the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied religious backgrounds of the observers, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any known scientific causative factor make a mass hallucination unlikely.[26] That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometers away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria.[26]

Pio Scatizzi, S.J. describes events of Fátima and concludes

The ... solar phenomena were not observed in any observatory. Impossible that they should escape notice of so many astronomers and indeed the other inhabitants of the hemisphere… there is no question of an astronomical or meteorological event phenomenon …Either all the observers in Fátima were collectively deceived and erred in their testimony, or we must suppose an extra-natural intervention.[27]

Steuart Campbell, writing for the 1989 edition of Journal of Meteorology, postulated that a cloud of stratospheric dust changed the appearance of the sun on 13 October, making it easy to look at, and causing it to appear yellow, blue, and violet and to spin. In support of his hypothesis, Mr. Campbell reports that a blue and reddened sun was reported in China as documented in 1983.[28]
A parhelion in rainbow colors, photographed in 2005.
A parhelion in rainbow colors, photographed in 2005.

Joe Nickell, a skeptic and investigator of paranormal phenomena, claims that the position of the phenomenon, as described by the various witnesses, is at the wrong azimuth and elevation to have been the sun.[29] He suggests the cause may have been a sundog. Sometimes referred to as a parhelion or "mock sun", a sundog is a relatively common atmospheric optical phenomenon associated with the reflection/refraction of sunlight by the numerous small ice crystals that make up cirrus or cirrostratus clouds. A sundog is, however, a stationary phenomenon, and would not explain the reported appearance of the "dancing sun". Nickell suggests an explanation for this and other similar phenomena may lie in temporary retinal distortion, caused by staring at the intense light and/or by the effect of darting the eyes to and fro so as to avoid completely fixed gazing (thus combining image, afterimage and movement). Nickell concludes that there was

likely a combination of factors, including optical and meteorological phenomena (the sun being seen through thin clouds, causing it to appear as a silver disc; an alteration in the density of the passing clouds, so that the sun would alternatively brighten and dim, thus appearing to advance and recede; dust or moisture droplets in the atmosphere, imparting a variety of colors to sunlight; and/or other phenomena).

However, there are marked problems with the sundog theory because the meteorological conditions at the time of the Miracle of the Sun were not conducive to such an occurrence.[citation needed] Sundogs occur in the presence of cirrus clouds, which are made out of ice, not water droplets. A sundog could have occurred prior to the rainstorm but not trailing the rainstorm, which is when the phenomenon occurred. A sundog would have to have occurred, at very least, hours prior to the storm, since cirrus clouds can precede a rainstorm by a few hours. The short and brief rain experienced before the sun event, on the other hand, indicates cumulonimbus clouds.[citation needed]

Not everyone reported seeing the sun "dance, including the children, who reported seeing Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and Saint Joseph blessing the people. Some people only saw the radiant colors. Others saw nothing at all.[30]

Paul Simons, in an article entitled "Weather Secrets of Miracle at Fátima", states that he believes it possible that some of the optical effects at Fatima may have been caused by a cloud of dust from the Sahara.[31]

Kevin McClure claims that the crowd at Cova da Iria may have been expecting to see signs in the sun, as similar phenomena had been reported in the weeks leading up to the miracle. On this basis he believes that the crowd saw what it wanted to see. But it has been objected that McClure's account fails to explain similar reports of people miles away, who by their own testimony were not even thinking of the event at the time, or the sudden drying of people's sodden, rain-soaked clothes. Kevin McClure stated that he had never seen such a collection of contradictory accounts of a case in any of the research he had done in the previous ten years. [32]

Leo Madigan believes that the various witness reports of a miracle are accurate, however he alleges inconsistency of witnesses, and suggests that astonishment, fear, exaltation and imagination must have played roles in both the observing and the retelling. Madigan likens the experiences to prayer, and considers that the spiritual nature of the phenomenon explains what he describes as the inconsistency of the witnesses.[33]

Author Lisa Schwebel claims that the event was a supernatural extra-sensory phenomenon. Schwebel notes that the solar phenomenon reported at Fátima is not unique - there have been several reported cases of high pitched religious gatherings culminating in the sudden and mysterious appearance of lights in the sky.[34]

It has been argued that the Fátima phenomenon and many UFO sights share a common cause,[35] or even that the phenomenon was an alien craft.[36]

Many years after the events in question, Stanley L. Jaki, a professor of physics at Seton Hall University, New Jersey, Benedictine priest and author of a number of books reconciling science and Catholicism, proposed a unique theory about the supposed miracle. Jaki believes that the event was natural and meteorological in nature, but that the fact the event occurred at the exact time predicted was a miracle.[37]

The event was officially accepted as a miracle by the Roman Catholic Church on 13 October 1930. On 13 October 1951, papal legate Cardinal Tedeschini told the million gathered at Fátima that on 30 October, 31 October, 1 November, and 8 November 1950, Pope Pius XII himself witnessed the miracle of the sun from the Vatican gardens.[38]

Ok.

 

[katie tully]

Oh man, b10

 

[jb_nc]

No, you see Jesus gave the sun magical powers to dance.

 

[katie tully]

I can't believe dude posted that and actually thought we'd be amazed at the miracle of optical illusions and cosmic events.

EYES DOTH DECEIVE ME?

 

[CharlieB]

ok.

 

[katie tully]

mixture of cheese and various other ingredients

Like snot?

I don't usually like my sauces to be secret squirrel suprise sauces.