Infallible proof of god

....and they all lived happily ever after.

 

I'm just saying it was a weak argument. "Why should I believe something?" "Because it's true." ... I don't know what the point of it was.

The last bit made me laugh though. You made your comment in the hope of sparking discussion. Not to be right or make sense, just to spark, right?

 

What I meant by smart apes was our similarity to them. Also, the concept of dawn of civilization is relative. If you could turn back time and watch as humanity took over the surface of the earth i'm sure I must have taken a very, very long time. I have a feeling I didn't get my question across.

 

Once again it wasn't an argument weak or other wise!

Next you misquote me, probably one of the reasons you continue to misunderstand.

I suggest that you please reread what you say is a weak argument:
"Why should I believe something?" "Because it's true."
As it stands it is probably one of the best arguments around, even if it does misquote me.

Shouldn't you believe what is true! I mean are you really arguing that people should believe something because it's false?

Next I'm glad I made you laugh, because I believe people take themselves way too seriously.

I would like to ask you a couple of questions, like:
When you say "right" do you mean right in the sense of:
Correct, as in, you got the question right on your test.
Or morally proper, as in, you did the right thing?
Makes a difference!

Next question; Why do you hold me to a higher standard than any one else on the forums. I mean, honestly, if you were to go though the forums and remove every thing that wasn't right (fill in your own definition) or that didn't make sense (if you could find someone who could actually know those things)
about 95% of all hippie forums would disappear!

 

Thanx for the elucidation! I was just addressing one of the possible meanings of what you said.

As for Humanity taking over the surface of the earth, I've seen a couple of scenarios and depending on what you mean by a long time. Some of those scenarios show that just starting with two people, Mankind could have overpopulated the earth in less than 5000 years.

 

Links or more information?

By a long time I mean 15,000+ years, but this is a guess. How do religions account for racial differences?

 

Sorry, it's been a while I'll see if I can look it up.


As for races of people, there is little evidence for races, to science there doesn't appear to be different races but only one.

The Bible says that all mankind comes from two people. So it would seem that the Genetic code for all mankind was imbedded in those two people. Just like my brother and me, he had black hair and dark brown eyes and skin, myself I have blue eyes, light skin and I use to have light brown hair but yet he is my brother even though it would appear we might be two different races.

 

No, it's not, it's feeble and something you'd fob off a child with.

As for misquotation, please, just don't go on about it. It's not substantially any different from what you said and I understand what you meant. I can't be bothered to argue with someone who'll insist that anyone who doesn't quote him exactly can't possibly understand what he means. If you're worried about being misunderstood, maybe make the effort to be understood.

Not because it's false.

You certainly do.

As in correct. Does it actually make a difference? As in, were you doing it to be moral rather than correct, correct rather than moral...

I don't really understand what you're asking here. You're not being victimised. Are you saying that you weren't trying to make sense or be right?

 

K, I have to ask: does the Bible actually say that all mankind came from two people? The logistics of Adam and Eve's children (Cain, Abel, Seth... notice no daughters are mentioned?) fathering the entire human race is so ridiculous, I can only assume God made more people and it's just not mentioned. No other explanation makes sense within the context of the faith, unless God is pro-incest, which if you look at his followers might well be the case.

 

At least a child would understand it. You on the other hand continue to read into it things that are not there! This, once again is what you said:
"Why should I believe something?" "Because it's true."
Quite simply someone is asking why they should believe something. Correct?
How would you answer? I still contend that best answer is the one given: "Because it's true." But still I would like to know what you consider to be a better answer!

 

The better answer is to explain why the thing is true, especially if - as in this case - the inquisitor has no reason to bow to your experience (since you cannot know absolutely that something is true if you had no experience of it). If the person is asking why they should believe something, you provide them with reasons to believe something. Merely stating that it should be believed does not constitute a reason.

It's hardly surprising to me that this thread has gone so far off the rails.

Also: I went back and checked, and the exchange went:

"Why should I believe it?"
"Because it's true?"

In what sense have you been "misquoted"? Because I omitted the question mark?

 

The question is why to believe the answer is to believe what is true. If you wish you can get long winded and go into why you think it's true or they can go prove it for themselves but in the end the best reason to believe something is that it is true!

And yes I was misquoted because you omitted the question mark!
Go ask that child you mentioned if: "Because it's true?" and "Because it's true." mean the same thing. I believe he will tell you the meanings are quite different!

 

Thing is, pet, we've already gotten long winded, and in the original context of the question - the point at which I personally took issue - you couldn't know or explain how the thing in question was true. Neither could "the child". So it would have been an unsatisfactory answer. You were being asked why a person should believe a specific thing, and you offered an answer which you were unqualified to give. That's all.

It's you that's being obstructive here. Your lovely glib little non-answers don't make you look smart or sophisticated; you just come off aloof and arrogant.

Still, now we're past that rather tedious tangential avenue of dialogue you felt we needed to explore, maybe you could answer the obvious follow-up question:

"How will I know it's true?"


I also question your assertion that it is best to believe something that is true. Logically, a true thing will remain true whether you believe it or not. So it makes more sense to believe in "the virtual" - that with the potential to be true - in order to allow it to be true. Again, the old standards: justice, mercy, order, common sense... none of these things are "true", there is no evidence for them; they exist because we believe in them.

Will do. Maybe while I'm gone you could grow up a bit.

 

You are not making any sence, and are ruining this thread by going on with a rediculous debate. Selfcontrol wins. Now back to the question. Nothing like a real physical record of one of gods acts (that can not be attributed to something else) exists?

 

The original question was "All the proof around has been altered and changed so much by human hands over the years that i dont trust it. Does anyone have real, hard, physical proof of this?" The short answer is obviously "NO". If there were such proof, there would be no atheists and no one would have to rely on faith. Life doesn't work that way. You're expecting others to do the work for you by furnishing "proof" concerning god. Or what? You won't believe? It's your choice.

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure most religions do tell you that you shouldn't just wait around for miracles.

 

You seem to need Him more than anyone else here, mate! What would you do all day if everyone suddenly stopped believing in God?

 

Um... probably have some tea? I don't particularly believe in God, as I stated earlier, so I doubt it would affect my life much. I've only defended people's right to believe without incessant harassment, despite your assertions.

 

Some people have faith god exists, some have faith god doesn't exist. Neither can be proven, hence it is called faith.

 

Take it easy I'm just trying to have a simple intellectual conversation, but people are obiously too emotionally charged over this. I was simply asking if there is any real reason to believe in a religion, which there doesn't seem to be.