The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

Religion & Spirituality

Proofs of God

Whether you believe in a higher power or not, this forum is dedicated to the topic of religion and spirituality. We live in a diverse world with different morals and ideas when it comes to our beliefs, so come in and share your thoughts.

Postby greeney2 » Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:41 pm

Yet every scientist is not an Atheist! Nor is every Mathmatics expert who deals with finding or doing absolute proofs mathmatically. Those kinds of minds tend to be black or white, right or wrong, yes or no thinkers. They precieve things in a more different way than people like artists who precieve things more abstractly forinstance. Some people think is terms of many posibilities, outside of the box, not just one ultimate answer, and its either proven or not proven. Some conclusions in science are also not absolute but a concencous, or agreement which theory may be more likely. All science is not a absolute DNA test, which they allow for even a slight error. Science is not exact either, and as you say subject to change according to new knowledge, either way. Even science makes some judgements based on history and artifacts that have been found in those fields.

I think the basis of the months of arguing is really over one thing. Only accepting some absolute proof as proof, and considing that only convincing proof is no proof at all. We can only offer convincing proof that may only be convincing to ourselves, on both sides. The vast concencous of the population is convinced some God exists, and are associated with some religion accordingly. None of those 6 billion have absolute proof that I know of, to the highest level of any religion, but they have convincing proof, enough to have believers. Thats a far higher mathmatical certainty than a DNA test we all seem to think is flawless, and they only use the term "to a certainty of" expressing it.

Bottom line is just like the chess we talked about, this discussion has to be called a "Stalemate", because neither side can make a move anymore. Most times in chess the loser knows it, and forces the game into a stalemate strategically to save face and not loose. He places himself into becoming trapped so he can not move, and the game becomes a stalemate.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9466
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby event_horizon » Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:20 pm

In an ideal world, you'd begin with just questions and no answers. You'd allow the pursuit of knowledge to gradually bring you the answers, eventually leading to a hypothesis of why things are.

"God" beliefs and religions bring us "all the answers" on a silver platter, prior to anything being known. It's junk science. Many cultures thought they knew everything before they knew anything. It's backwards "knowledge". It begins with the final answer (such as "In the beginning..."), then tells a buncha tales to fill in the rest.

Notice how "God" is very active with ancient humans...talking to people; telling them what to write down; telling them to build big boats; opening seas for people to walk across; an invisible man writing on stone tablets for just one person to witness, hiding behind a mountain; talking to people via burning bushes; talking snakes. But nowadays?...nothing. Not a peep. With all the camera phones people are carrying around these days, not one filming or snapshot of a miracle in progress. The occasional UFO but that's about it.

Finding out the ultimate cause of existence is the summit of all knowledge. To believe that ancient men with no knowledge of physics/astronomy/cosmology/evolution had the final true answer, without doing any real work to get it, is extremely foolish.
I don't believe what I believe because it's what I desire to believe. I believe what I believe because it's what logic and reason cause me to believe. All I want is to live with the truth -- nothing more, nothing less.
User avatar
event_horizon
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:51 am
Location: Colorado

Postby event_horizon » Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:38 pm

greeney2 wrote:I think our conversations are referring to Bibllical times forward, the birth of religions we talk about, and not cro-magnon eras or cavemen.


Cro-Magnons were the very first modern humans 35,000 years ago. Why don't they get any credibility? Because they existed before "Adam and Eve"? :lol:

greeney2 wrote:The Americas knew nothing of Europe and Asia, who thought the world was flat only 500 yrs ago. The building examples are byproducts of the science of the time, and were remarkably advanced, and had advanced remarkably in totally opposite sides of the globe indepentant from each other.


Again, intelligence in humans hit its peak during the Cro-Magnon era. This era was worldwide of course. After trial and error, over millenniums, they all eventually built structures with similar amazement. But again, construction skills are not relative to the scientific method (nor does it have anything to do with "God" or religion). It's simply an advanced stage of human progress. This is to be expected of an intelligent species. The longer they remain intelligent -- the more advanced they get -- the better structures they can build. This is common sense.

Of course, the Americas took a little while longer to catch up in the temple building department. Who knows why. I'd guess that if the first humans came from the Eastern Continents (mainly Africa), then that's where there would be the most advancement. This is probably the reason why their religions or deity beliefs were more intricate than those in the Americas.

greeney2 wrote:Cultures had remarkable knowledge of the stars adn universe, position of the sun, etc.


Astrology is not science.

greeney2 wrote:Even with today level of science, you still have no proof God does not exist.


There it is again. Third person to use it since the "big debate". :whistle:
I don't believe what I believe because it's what I desire to believe. I believe what I believe because it's what logic and reason cause me to believe. All I want is to live with the truth -- nothing more, nothing less.
User avatar
event_horizon
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:51 am
Location: Colorado

Postby Guest » Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:47 pm

While I appreciate the analogy, greeney, I think that is known as "check mate". I'm not an avid chess player but if you're trapped in a corner and cannot move without losing your king, you've lost. :P
Guest
 

Postby at1with0 » Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:56 pm

event_horizon wrote:
greeney2 wrote:Even with today level of science, you still have no proof God does not exist.


There it is again. Third person to use it since the "big debate". :whistle:



I must admit I was wrong. I didn't realize any believers were using this "argument."
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9176
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby humphreys » Wed Feb 01, 2012 4:46 am

at1with0 wrote:
event_horizon wrote:
greeney2 wrote:Even with today level of science, you still have no proof God does not exist.


There it is again. Third person to use it since the "big debate". :whistle:


I must admit I was wrong. I didn't realize any believers were using this "argument."


You couldn't prove that they aren't :shock:
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby at1with0 » Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:09 am

humphreys wrote:You couldn't prove that they aren't :shock:


dammit Jim, GTFO my head!!!!!!! :lol:
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9176
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby greeney2 » Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:39 am

No Rykuss that is not what it means, a stalemate is not checkmate when what you discribed happens. The king is not allowed to move into check, so the game is declared a stalemate where nobody wins, and nobody lost. If its your turn and you are not in check, and the only move puts you into check, its a stalemate. This is a manuver players try when the game is los,t so you outsmart the other player by moving where he
traps you into this situation. When you are down to only you king left, you have 10 moves to be captured or its a stalemate.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9466
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Guest » Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:27 pm

greeney2 wrote:No Rykuss that is not what it means, a stalemate is not checkmate when what you discribed happens. The king is not allowed to move into check, so the game is declared a stalemate where nobody wins, and nobody lost. If its your turn and you are not in check, and the only move puts you into check, its a stalemate. This is a manuver players try when the game is los,t so you outsmart the other player by moving where he
traps you into this situation. When you are down to only you king left, you have 10 moves to be captured or its a stalemate.


That's when you throw the board at them, call them a dirty, conniving, so and so and tell them to get the hell out of your house! Tell them they suck too.
Guest
 

Postby greeney2 » Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:49 pm

Thats Checkers, Chess is a gentlemans game. Instead of moonshine you play with champaign. :lol:

In actuality, stalemates like that probably only occur at the level I can play at, because good players beat opponents long before your army dwindles down to only the King remaining. It is a moral victory only because nobody can claim winner, but you lost completly. Shows the art of military honor and chivilry, not to slay the King, but thats only on the chess board. In real life the Kings do kill the kings. the vry interesting thing about chess, is if you are both down to only kings left, neither piece can defeat the other, because for a king to take someone they must be next to them, and that places you in check. So a King can never capture a King. The king can become a stratigic warrior, but can not actually take down another King. Whoever thought up the rules of chess, was sure a genius.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9466
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion & Spirituality

  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest