Does God exist?

[Sandwich]

6 hours ago, talalrulez said:

The primordia of the internal ears appear before the beginning of the eyes, and the brain (the site of understanding) differentiates last.

I think most textbooks would say that the beginnings of eyes and ears both occur around week 3, and neurogenesis (of the peripheral nervous system, which I think you could legitimately argue could be 'feeling') before either. Indeed if you're going to say that just the beginnings of formation count as your tick box, the neural tissue that will eventually lead to the brain differentiates before either. 

The actual details of this and whether it matches up (although I have to say, I don't think it even does that) are of course irrelevant because even if these three senses had been named in an order which actually does also happen to be the order of organogenesis, that proves about as much as my above example! Using the order of three random words from a book to prove that the writers of the book possessed detailed understanding of embryogenesis is definitely on the weak end of arguments. If they'd documented that from the notochord sprung the pharyngeal arches and so forth, that would be different, but all they've done is what many many writers in many others books will have done. Name the human senses. 

[talalrulez]

okay, this draws on my concept i tried to draw on before. if you didn't study for a test, but got a good mark, you would say that that this is a reflection of your knowledge, but if a holy book randomly list in order which senses you develop first, its just a coincidence. okay, you're right. i believe you

[Sandwich]

11 hours ago, talalrulez said:

okay, this draws on my concept i tried to draw on before. if you didn't study for a test, but got a good mark, you would say that that this is a reflection of your knowledge, but if a holy book randomly list in order which senses you develop first, its just a coincidence. okay, you're right. i believe you

Well that's a ridiculous comparison because the scenarios are completely different. If you are taking a test then the intent is completely clear. I know that you intend to show me your knowledge about embryology. There is zero evidence of any intent in your second scenario, what you are saying is no different from me seeing the first three digits of my phone number in the shapes of clouds on a sunny day and deciding that the sky is an expert on telecommunication... x___X

[nametaken]

My opinion is to live and let live.  I don't know if God exists.

 

The best way to prove Gods existence is through physical evidence that is accepted by everyone.   From the rich man to the poor man to the educated man and non educated man.    Universal truth.  In the past, everything was told through word of mouth.   Stories, tales, etc.    The human mind is flawed and so is memory.   No one can remember everything.  Regardless of how much you train your physical self.  Or however many times you go to the gym or run the marathon.   I'm not equating religion ideology with stories or tales here.  I'm just saying that there has to be a way of looking beyond religion as a collectivised mindset towards that one goal of whether or not god exists.   By looking and examining the question as a stand alone thing.  'Does god exist'?   Not using mediums to theorise.   Not evaluating religious belief to identify which religion is better than the other.   Religion divides people.   That much is clear.    What I believe in is different to what you believe in.   So, does god exist?   Well...empiricism is the best way of approaching the question in my opinion. You have to look at a scale of thinking that we human beings look at and widely accept as the truth. Numbers.   Mathematics.   That's what we use in our day to day lives.  Paying the rent, buying food, clothes.  Saving up for a rainy day. Is there a proof of God's existence through  numbers?   Through plain mathematics?      The best system to use is the one that is the most sound.    The one that is the most sound is the one which is used in the most harshest of conditions.   Engineering for example relies not just on scientific knowledge, but mathematics to model changes in the environment and see the outcome of the failure or strength of a material.     The number of a bricks in a wall and the positioning of each brick, the space and volume that it occupies is key in determining its strength. The p     

An interesting thing to note, is that even if we hadn't known through other people's theories of the stars and the universe beyond us, we could have worked it out through old fashioned mathematics. A line for example, has no inherent thickness.   Just a set of points occupying a space- abstract maths.

So my question is- and sorry if my chain of thinking is a little lame (I haven't done any research at all and and have been out of education for a while now), could we prove gods existence through mathematics?  Or is mathematics not as empirical as it claims to be, but again based on how we categorise the world and thinking.  If we look for something long enough, we see patterns, eg (John Taylor first proposed the idea that the number pi might have been intentionally incorporated into the design of the Great Pyramid of Khufu at Giza. He discovered that if an individual divides the perimeter of the Pyramid by its height, one obtains a close approximation to 2pi. He compared this to the fact that if one divides the circumference of a circle by its radius, one obtains 2pi. He suggested that perhaps the Great Pyramid was intended to be a representation of the spherical Earth, the height corresponding to the radius joining the center of the Earth to the North Pole and the perimeter corresponding to the Earth's circumference at the Equator.)

Edited April 19, 2016 by nametaken

[azara]

What I question is, if there is a god, why doesn't he show himself? So much warfare and bloodshed has occurred over millennia over who has the right god, and who is wrong.  If this god is compassionate, and cares for his people, why wouldn't he present some undeniable proof of his existence in whatever form he takes to shut up the arguments and stop people killing each other?

[Emilia1320]

On April 18, 2016 at 3:53 AM, talalrulez said:

The primordia of the internal ears appear before the beginning of the eyes, and the brain (the site of understanding) differentiates last.

 

You can twist and turn things around as much as you want, and make your scripture align with what we know today. I would be surprised if each story of beginning didnt share some vague similarities with scientific knowledge. But guess what? 

That Quran states life was created from water and sky and Earth were one unit doesn't prove existance of your allah. Whats the point of not translating the word god anyway from arabic? Quran also states Adam and Eve were two first humans, provenly false. Quran implies Earth was there from the beginning once stuff had been created from this one mass, which isnt the case, it took almost ten billion years for Earth to appear. And after that it took few billions of years for human to appear. 

You can't just take parts of your book that happen to align with scientific knowledge, and ignore those that are proven wrong by science.

And even if your Quran happened to describe big Bang more believable way rather than these very vague statements that isnt a proof of gods existance. What if was a fantasy book left behind by aliens? Yeah, not believabile at all but you cannot disprove it. Big Bang part has evidence behind it, god part none expect what ancient goatherders wrote to one book. And as we know more sources you can find, more likely we are dealing with somewhat credible knowledge. Here we have exactly one source, and extremely unreliable at that.

[talalrulez]

as ive said before, im just going to ask you to provide evidence. not that i dont know my religion and yes we do believe in the adam and eve story, not evolution. yh, probably the quran might have been left by aliens, and u never know. before you insult me or my religion any more, im going to ask you again tht if u want to disclaim stuff, you need to provide evidence. i know its a bit of a hard thing for you to do, since its the book of god, but happy searching

[Emilia1320]

1 hour ago, talalrulez said:

as ive said before, im just going to ask you to provide evidence. not that i dont know my religion and yes we do believe in the adam and eve story, not evolution. yh, probably the quran might have been left by aliens, and u never know. before you insult me or my religion any more, im going to ask you again tht if u want to disclaim stuff, you need to provide evidence. i know its a bit of a hard thing for you to do, since its the book of god, but happy searching

What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You never provided evidence to your hypothesis about god, so one doesn't need any counterevidence to dismiss your hypothesis

I have hypothesis the universe is feces of a flying pink transcedent cube. Good luck disproving that! Thing is, my "hypothesis of pink cube" doesn't hold any credibility until I provide evidence for it. Neither does your "hypothesis of god". You can dismiss hypothesis of pink cube by demanding proof, and so can I dismiss your hypothesis of god.

Thing is, proving negative is pretty much impossible. And also unnecessary. Burden of proof lies on whoever makes a claim, period. If you make a claim that there is god you better provide evidence. Default position must be disbelief, because if not, then we should also believe in all things we have ever imagined because they haven't been disproven. Do you believe in dragons? Because they haven't been disproven. What about elves? Fairies? Each of these has as much evidence behind them as your god, zero. I'm just going to assume you also believe in them, that's only logical.

[talalrulez]

when i entered this debate, i provided evidence with scientific miracles of the quran. i think ive provided a lot of evidence for myself. just go look and disprove me

:):):)

[King112]

1 minute ago, talalrulez said:

when i entered this debate, i provided evidence with scientific miracles of the quran. i think ive provided a lot of evidence for myself. just go look and disprove me

:):):)

I'm sorry its not scientific evidence. 

Very honestly, your evidence is weak imo.

I'm not saying God doesn't exist, but I won't regard Holy books to be valid sources. Also, there may be scientific basis for statements in texts, not denying it, but, that kind of disproves God. 

 

[Emilia1320]

1 hour ago, talalrulez said:

when i entered this debate, i provided evidence with scientific miracles of the quran. i think ive provided a lot of evidence for myself. just go look and disprove me

:):):)

And I provided explanation why that actually isn't evidence.

Your whole reasoning builds on circular logic: Quran says god exists. Well, what makes Quran true? Because its gods word. The gods that Quran talks about. 

Your Quran is for most part contradicted by science. Its like saying that textbook X is good because 20% of it aligns with current scientific knowlegde, despite 80% of it being contradicteed by science. Few parts that can be interpretated to agree with science don't make that book considerably less non-credible. 

Edited April 22, 2016 by Emilia1320
A mod edited it so that my original point disappeared.

[talalrulez]

13 hours ago, Emilia1320 said:

And I provided explanation why that actually isn't evidence.

Your whole reasoning builds on circular logic: Quran says god exists. Well, what makes Quran true? Because its gods word. The gods that Quran talks about. 

Your Quran is for most part contradicted by science. Its like saying that textbook X is good because 20% of it aligns with current scientific knowlegde, despite 80% of it being contradicteed by science. Few parts that can be interpretated to agree with science don't make that book considerably less non-credible. 

and im saying for you to provide me evidence where science contradicts quran.

[King112]

7 minutes ago, talalrulez said:

and im saying for you to provide me evidence where science contradicts quran.

The Quran states the universe is geo centric, for one.

To be honest, do you expect us to read through the entire quran for the sake of this argument?

[talalrulez]

10 minutes ago, King112 said:

The Quran states the universe is geo centric, for one.

To be honest, do you expect us to read through the entire quran for the sake of this argument?

im just saying if youre going top state something, provide evidence from quran. for example, you said quran states that universe is geo-centric, provide evidence of ayat and other stuff.

[King112]

5 minutes ago, talalrulez said:

im just saying if youre going top state something, provide evidence from quran. for example, you said quran states that universe is geo-centric, provide evidence of ayat and other stuff.

What is ayat?

And I just prove it to you. Also, the Quran states that the earth is like a carpet, buts its a circle. There is plenty more evidence that I can't be bothered to type.

[talalrulez]

ayat is like verses, sorry. and im saying for you to provide evidence. its not that hard, you know.

[azara]

Evidence for the things we're referencing is either easy to find or common knowledge.  Besides, I've been explaining why your "proof" doesn't actually constitute proof, as have others.  That simply requires an understanding of logic, not proof. 

As for the phenomena we've been talking about, proof is widely available for

1. The Big Bang

2. Evolution

3. The existence of earthquakes

4. How humans form

Most of which you've already accepted as fact.  

Let's make this easier: what statements do you think we've left unproven that require proof?

[Rosalina]

1 hour ago, King112 said:

What is ayat?

And I just prove it to you. Also, the Quran states that the earth is like a carpet, buts its a circle. There is plenty more evidence that I can't be bothered to type.

I'm not applying this to you personally but the debate is slowly turning into the validity of the Qur'an instead of the discussion earlier around God. I do not wish to partake in this debate.

However, King, I am curious as to where you got that statement. I believe that the Qur'an describes the Earth to be something that can be translated to "egg-shaped"

I'm only trying to prevent misinformation. Sorry if I have offended you in some manner. That was/is never my intention.

[King112]

4 minutes ago, Rosalina said:

I'm not applying this to you personally but the debate is slowly turning into the validity of the Qur'an instead of the discussion earlier around God. I do not wish to partake in this debate.

However, King, I am curious as to where you got that statement. I believe that the Qur'an describes the Earth to be something that can be translated to "egg-shaped"

I'm only trying to prevent misinformation. Sorry if I have offended you in some manner. That was/is never my intention.

No you didnt.

Thats actually a fair point you make. i saw this on a website called Rational Wiki or something. A basic google search showed it up.

But you're right, we should get back to the original debate.

[Rosalina]

Just now, King112 said:

No you didnt.

Thats actually a fair point you make. i saw this on a website called Rational Wiki or something. A basic google search showed it up.

But you're right, we should get back to the original debate.

Oh, I see. With religions, wikis or blogs aren't the best source to get information on religions. When I had to study world religions a while back, I found that much of these sites are anti or pro religion. I think I spent a day or two researching and could only come up with one site that just presented the facts on what all religions believed.