T Nation

A Different Proof of God

I am at work and have not read the whole article. I have read some of it, and seems interesting. So, I wanted to post this here and see what opinions come from it.

http://www.ubm1.org/?page=science


From the article

Why does there need to be any proof that God exists? It seems to me that proof doesn’t ever enter the conversation one way or another when it comes to faith. Faith, by definition, operates independent of proof. You don’t need proof that God exists; you have FAITH that He does and you follow His teachings based on this faith.

When religious people start talking about proof and God, they invariably end up trying to refute long-established truths that fly in the face of some of the stories and parables that their faith is based upon. It’s a pointless exercise.

When atheists find “proof” that God does not exist, all they are finding is proof that refutes some archaic statement in the Bible. They are not disproving anything regarding God’s actual existence. It’s an endless cycle that can only end with atheists who understand that science does not disprove anything regarding God’s existence, and with believers who understand that their faith can and should depend on far larger and more important things than the words of someone written in a book.

Is this a joke? I didn’t read the whole thing, but got the gist of the lunacy early on.

Uhmm, seriously lmao.

One must come to the conclusion that President Regan is the anti-christ because the bible mentions 666 as the anti-christ. He’s also a good talker…like…uhmm, the Devil!

Ronald= 6
Wilson= 6
Reagan= 6

One can ignore them and turn his eyes from them, but the astounding numeric facts continue to be there. Our own opinions, likes or dislikes, do not alter the facts in the least. Welcome or unwelcome, acknowledged or unacknowledged, the facts continue to be there. Their presence is one truth which every person must accept.

I don’t see how anyone is coming to the logical conclusion that Reagan is not the anti-christ. He probably isn’t even dead. That’s one truth you must accept. I have provided the astounding numeric facts.

If this wasn’t posted as a joke thread I have no idea where it will head, but the article is pure hilarity from what I’ve read.

Herp derp, Reagan’s the anti-Christ. Herp derp, Obama is the devil. Herp derp, this sounds exactly like Revelations. Herp derp, how are people this fucking dumb? Not trying to be cruel, but HOW?!?! How does a brain work in this convoluted and nonsensical manner?

No idea.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
No idea.[/quote]

What don’t you have an idea about? I would like your opinion on this if you read it all.

I have always found it interesting when words are given a numeric value in certain situations and a trend or theme emerges. For instance 9/11. I am sure I have some of the facts wrong, but there was some literature that showed a relationship between the terrorist, the planes, the date, the time, the master mind all related in numbers.

Hopefully someone will read the whole thing or least most of it with an open mind. Then give an opinion on it

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Why does there need to be any proof that God exists? It seems to me that proof doesn’t ever enter the conversation one way or another when it comes to faith. Faith, by definition, operates independent of proof. You don’t need proof that God exists; you have FAITH that He does and you follow His teachings based on this faith.

When religious people start talking about proof and God, they invariably end up trying to refute long-established truths that fly in the face of some of the stories and parables that their faith is based upon. It’s a pointless exercise.

When atheists find “proof” that God does not exist, all they are finding is proof that refutes some archaic statement in the Bible. They are not disproving anything regarding God’s actual existence. It’s an endless cycle that can only end with atheists who understand that science does not disprove anything regarding God’s existence, and with believers who understand that their faith can and should depend on far larger and more important things than the words of someone written in a book.[/quote]

Well said.

The reason I shared this was because I found it interesting. Did you read it?

Relationships exist in everything. Read about the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Simply because relationships exist doesn’t mean a grand plan exists for those relationships.

Most of these mistakes are mere psychological or logical fallacies.

Here’s a funnier way to look at this dumb as hell shit:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Why does there need to be any proof that God exists? It seems to me that proof doesn’t ever enter the conversation one way or another when it comes to faith. Faith, by definition, operates independent of proof. You don’t need proof that God exists; you have FAITH that He does and you follow His teachings based on this faith.

When religious people start talking about proof and God, they invariably end up trying to refute long-established truths that fly in the face of some of the stories and parables that their faith is based upon. It’s a pointless exercise.

When atheists find “proof” that God does not exist, all they are finding is proof that refutes some archaic statement in the Bible. They are not disproving anything regarding God’s actual existence. It’s an endless cycle that can only end with atheists who understand that science does not disprove anything regarding God’s existence, and with believers who understand that their faith can and should depend on far larger and more important things than the words of someone written in a book.[/quote]

Well said.

The reason I shared this was because I found it interesting. Did you read it?
[/quote]

Do you think it scientifically proves God? That was the point of the article. And it fell laughably, laughably, laughably, short. Do you disagree? Hell Sloth is a believer.

I’m sorry I can’t help but laugh at this “proof.” It is definitely a different proof of God in the sense that a lot of proofs of God that come from rational thinkers like Sloth and Pat make sense on some levels.

This is different in the holy shit did you see what this guy came up with to “prove” God sense. Although like DB says, why do you have to PROVE something you believe in anyways? I don’t necessarily think this is something believers must do. It’s simply what they must do to get me to come to their conclusion.

Smh lays my type of thinking out WAY more clearly than I can or even care to in the other thread.

I will leave this alone for a while though in case people really want to examine the article and I apologize for my derailment. I just rationally can’t understand things like this even a little bit. My brain does not work like that.

Haha. That $100 bill with Glen Beck is an asshole was funny

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Why does there need to be any proof that God exists? It seems to me that proof doesn’t ever enter the conversation one way or another when it comes to faith. Faith, by definition, operates independent of proof. You don’t need proof that God exists; you have FAITH that He does and you follow His teachings based on this faith.

When religious people start talking about proof and God, they invariably end up trying to refute long-established truths that fly in the face of some of the stories and parables that their faith is based upon. It’s a pointless exercise.

When atheists find “proof” that God does not exist, all they are finding is proof that refutes some archaic statement in the Bible. They are not disproving anything regarding God’s actual existence. It’s an endless cycle that can only end with atheists who understand that science does not disprove anything regarding God’s existence, and with believers who understand that their faith can and should depend on far larger and more important things than the words of someone written in a book.[/quote]

Well said.

The reason I shared this was because I found it interesting. Did you read it?
[/quote]

Do you think it scientifically proves God? That was the point of the article. And it fell laughably, laughably, laughably, short. Do you disagree? Hell Sloth is a believer.

I’m sorry I can’t help but laugh at this “proof.” It is definitely a different proof of God in the sense that a lot of proofs of God that come from rational thinkers like Sloth and Pat make sense on some levels.

This is different in the holy shit did you see what this guy came up with to “prove” God sense. Although like DB says, why do you have to PROVE something you believe in anyways? I don’t necessarily think this is something believers must do. It’s simply what they must do to get me to come to their conclusion.

Smh lays my type of thinking out WAY more clearly than I can or even care to in the other thread. [/quote]

I believe in GOD and did prior to even knowing this was out there. I am not posting this to try and change what a person believes.

[quote]H factor wrote:
Relationships exist in everything. [/quote]

Are you saying that he is pulling the relationships he describes out of the air, or falsely creating them? Or are you saying that the relationships he describes are common in all types of writings?

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
No idea.[/quote]

What don’t you have an idea about? I would like your opinion on this if you read it all.[/quote]

No idea about this numerology stuff, ok.

This counting words until division by 7?

Or, just picking out 7 worded verses?

I mean, come on now, get real.

It’s late night “buy my book” stuff.

Like, “Decoding Crop Circles,” can’t you see?

Basically a conspiracy in patterns type stuff.

Post #7

[quote]mbdix wrote:
I have always found it interesting when words are given a numeric value in certain situations and a trend or theme emerges. For instance 9/11. I am sure I have some of the facts wrong, but there was some literature that showed a relationship between the terrorist, the planes, the date, the time, the master mind all related in numbers.

Hopefully someone will read the whole thing or least most of it with an open mind. Then give an opinion on it [/quote]

No way. Like, now waaay. The seventh post in is yours, the originator of this thread…Not only that, you connect the mystery of the 7’s to the numerical 9/11 pattern, in a 7th post.

Just messin.’ Sorry, take care.

[quote]H factor wrote:

I still find the similarities between Lincoln and Kennedy interesting.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Just messin.’ Sorry, take care. [/quote]

No worries man. I laughed at that.

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Why does there need to be any proof that God exists? It seems to me that proof doesn’t ever enter the conversation one way or another when it comes to faith. Faith, by definition, operates independent of proof. You don’t need proof that God exists; you have FAITH that He does and you follow His teachings based on this faith.

When religious people start talking about proof and God, they invariably end up trying to refute long-established truths that fly in the face of some of the stories and parables that their faith is based upon. It’s a pointless exercise.

When atheists find “proof” that God does not exist, all they are finding is proof that refutes some archaic statement in the Bible. They are not disproving anything regarding God’s actual existence. It’s an endless cycle that can only end with atheists who understand that science does not disprove anything regarding God’s existence, and with believers who understand that their faith can and should depend on far larger and more important things than the words of someone written in a book.[/quote]

Well said.

The reason I shared this was because I found it interesting. Did you read it?
[/quote]

I admit, I did not read the article. I clicked on the link then stopped. I stopped because my thinking on this matter always comes down to the same point when it comes to questions of proof and God.

To me, there is no difference between “good proof” and “bad proof”. No matter how valid/invalid the proof may seem, the existence of God is simply an unprovable thing. How do you prove He exists? How do you disprove Him?

Again, faith exists independent of proof. It’s like arguing about why Babe Ruth didn’t score more touchdowns on the basketball court. “Evidence” can be interpreted either way; as evidence of God or evidence of certain absolute scientific principles.

The fact that certain scientific principles are absolute under given circumstances leads me to believe that science is actually the key to coming closer to understanding the mystery that is God.

The Truth is not found in the Bible. Those words were written by people who had a FAR smaller ability to understand the mysteries of the world around us. If God is all around us and is innate in all entities, then our understanding of the world around us, even if it is inaccurate in many ways, is still FAR more accurate than the understanding people thousands of years ago had.

I think what Christians believe in is an antiquated interpretation of God’s true nature. I think science is probably the closest language that we can use to put Him into understandable terms. Some scientists think this disproves God’s existence. This is wrong.

Some Christians think that the SCIENCE must be wrong when it is simply their UNDERSTANDING of God that is off. The science does not threaten the possibility of God’s existence, only that the previous terms under which we understood Him are off-base.

I think if Christians of all persuasions were to embrace science as the strongest evidence yet of God’s existence, rather than treat it as a threat to their beliefs, the Christian faith in general would appeal to many, many more people.

I had a lot of friends in college who were biology and chemistry majors. I’m not sure exactly what their religious views were prior to studying things like organic chemistry and microbiology shit and all that, but I suspect that they were peripheral believers at best. At most, they believed in SOME sort of higher power, perhaps not the basic Christian version of it, but some version of a power bigger than themselves.

I know from extended conversations with them that their belief in a higher power was only further solidified by their studies. To them, the way things worked on such a tiny, miniscule level, and with such perfection and mind-boggling complexity (along with equally mind-boggling simplicity in other areas) was simply too perfect and absolute to be an accident, or random.

Their studies simply provided a better explanation of how this higher power operates than the Bible does. I can’t argue with that.

Perhaps it’s time for a massive paradigm shift in the way Christians view the world. Perhaps it’s time for a new branch of religion to start, something like a combination of Christian morality and scientific principles. We can use the same scientific method that scientists use to arrive at conclusions to further solidify certain moral aspects of Christian beliefs. If we need “proof”, perhaps we simply need to understand that God is absolute, but our interpretation of EVIDENCE, and not proof, of his existence is not absolute. So we should seek new ways to understand His nature, and adjust our beliefs accordingly. Otherwise, we simply keep trying to shove a square peg into a round hole, when science and religion find themselves at odds with each other. It doesn’t have to be that way. It only turns people against both science AND religion, when the two should work in conjunction with one another to further strengthen our collective spirituality.