Firm,

There are lots of examples of the christian religion trying to keep knowledge away from the people. From Galileo being jailed for claim the earth obits the sun, to the modern era where religious zealots are trying to force the teaching of creation in our public schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Firm,

There are lots of examples of the christian religion trying to keep knowledge away from the people. From Galileo being jailed for claim the earth obits the sun, to the modern era where religious zealots are trying to force the teaching of creation in our public schools.

---

By Christian religion, do you mean the Catholic Church?

If so, I believe you are mistaken. Galileo for instance, did not discover that the earth orbited the sun. A Jesuit, Copernicus, did so. The Catholic Church was studying the question before making any premature announcements such as Galileo made.

In addition, Galileo was not jailed for revealing that the earth orbitted the sun but for claiming that the Word of God was in error. If he had stuck to science and left theology out of his commentary, the Church would have had no problem with his announcement.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

so why is there an argument on so many boards to PROVE God exists?

---

Um, because there are so many claims on these boards that God DOES exist. I'm not sure why you can't understand this. If I assert there is an invisible gremlin living in my closet, you have no reason to believe me until I offer some sort of evidence this is true. Many feel the same way about your god. What's so hard to understand about that?

I can understand it. I don't know why you can't understand why I am trying to get both sides to understand that it is useless to debate by hashing it out here so MAYBE Christians AND atheists will get it off their chest here instead of arguing on others posts.

Will airing it out here stop those christians from going door to door trying to convert me to their religion?

Can any one describe precisely what love is and can the listener understand exactly what it was just said?
Can any one know how a new kind of food tastes like by listening and not try to put that food in his mouth?
Human language and the material on this earth are not the right tools to describe all about what GOD is. And worse than that, the human mind is way too incapable to understand GOD, let alone language or science. MEDITATE ! Get out of the human mind and depends on how high your level of consciousness, you will understand GOD, or define GOD at your level.

nt45kcl, that's what I've been saying. Apparently there are many who will not admit to their mental limitations. Refuse to see the truth of who and what they are, indefinable beings. These individuals feel it is necessary to show that their opinion is the correct one by making other opinions look wrong.

Winning a debate means that you are good at picking apart ideas and being "more" right. If one is not feeding his ego and feeling superior to someone else, wouldn't they be looking for similarities not differences?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simoneaugie

nt45kcl, that's what I've been saying. Apparently there are many who will not admit to their mental limitations. Refuse to see the truth of who and what they are, indefinable beings. These individuals feel it is neccessary to show that their opinion is the correct one by making other opinions look wrong.

Winning a debate means that you are good at picking apart ideas and being "more" right. If one is not feeding his ego and feeling superior to someone else, wouldn't they be looking for similarities not differences?

---

Exactly what I mean people are going to believe what they are going to believe SO WHY argue over belief, subjective, objective, etc...

Lets stop here and go find out for our own answers about GOD and pleasure to know GOD and our unlimited potentials...

I am still down to earth where the true gravity is so high that my soul is so dwelled strongly. I need GOD where all the happiness are there. This life is fun just a little bit but the suffering is way too much.

Simonaeugie and N0help4u, Thank you for your answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

By Christian religion, do you mean the Catholic Church?

If so, I believe you are mistaken. Galileo for instance, did not discover that the earth orbited the sun. A Jesuit, Copernicus, did so. The Catholic Church was studying the question before making any premature announcements such as Galileo made.

In addition, Galileo was not jailed for revealing that the earth orbitted the sun but for claiming that the Word of God was in error. If he had stuck to science and left theology out of his commentary, the Church would have had no problem with his announcement.

Sincerely,

De Maria

---

I didn't say Gaileo discovered the heliocentric model I said "claimed" different to discover I can claim the earth revolves around the sun without discovering it. He was jailed because he went against the current teachings of the church and that means he was jailed for his ideas a big no-no. Also how can you stick to just science when part of the churches teaching what it considers science from god and that science is wrong? How can you make a premature announcement when you are right and all the evidence supports you are right? Unless of course religion is weapon of control.

Of course I know this is meaningless to you as someone who would probably burn Darwin at the stake as a heretic with glee in his heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

I didn't say Gaileo discovered the heliocentric model I said "claimed" different to discover I can claim the earth revolves around the sun without discovering it. He was jailed because he went against the current teachings of the church and that means he was jailed for his ideas a big no-no. Also how can you stick to just science when part of the churches teaching what it considers science from god and that science is wrong? How can you make a premature announcement when you are right and all the evidence supports you are right? Unless of course religion is weapon of control.

Of course I know this is meaningless to you as someone who would probably burn Darwin at the stake as a heretic with glee in his heart.

---

Just a couple of comments:

* While Galileo didn't discover the heliocentric model, he eagerly supported Copernicus and was very instrumental in popularizing the theory.

* You have to realize that many people who peruse these forums aren't merely religious, but refuse to even accept modern science. It's why I scan these forums from time to time. It's so incredibly sad that this many grown adults do not grasp the reality of evolution. Especially, when those who argue against it will eventually be proven just as wrong as those who argued against Galileo and Copernicus. Anyone interested in learning about evolution will quickly see it is as much common knowledge as planetary orbits are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

Original Board Question : where/what is the objective proof that God was not the power/force behind the creation of the universe even with all the scientific facts?
You can use all the scientific fact and theory on the earths existence but how does it objectively prove God was not the *author and creator* of the scientific facts?

---

There is no objective supporting proof for God to exist and be the Creator. So why should there be any "objective proof that God was not the power/force behind the creation of the universe"?

What you actually ask here is equal to : where/what is the objective proof that the Flying Pink Unicorn was not the power/force behind the creation of the universe even with all the scientific facts?

:D

·

As I stated in my post on this we covered that there already.
BTW there are no flying pink unicorns...
Flying pink elephants and/or one eyed, one horned flying purple people eaters BUT NO flying pink unicorns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

As I stated in my post on this we covered that there already.
BTW there are no flying pink unicorns.......

---

OK : just the Pink Unicorn than , or a flying Spaghetti Monster. All these suggested-to-exist entities - all of them - fail any objective supported evidence towards their existence, and my point is that it is not up to anyone to prove that they do not exist, but to those who claim so to prove that they do exist.

If that was the conclusion of the discussion, than I agree with that.

:D

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

the point is that it is not up to anyone to prove that they do not exist, but to those who claim so to prove that they do exist.
·

---

This is where we differ because I do not think either 'side' has to PROVE anything.

You have your belief, I have mine, De Maria has their belief, Allheart has her belief,
Lobroster has his belief,
NO proving even if somebody insists they are right it isn't going to change any of our minds.
I even believe that if someone could some how actually PROVE the truth that others would not believe it any way unless it happened to ALREADY be what they believed anyway.

Would you basically tend to agree with that??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

This is where we differ because I do not think either 'side' has to PROVE anything.

---

I have always stated that everyone should be allowed to believe whatever suits the person.

Where the problem with many theists is, is that they insist to use their influence to force their religious ideas and force it onto others.
If you believe in God : fine ! If you want to go to church : fine ! If you state here that you believe that God wants you to this or that : fine !
But the moment that you try to force your religion and your religious views onto someone else I say : first you have to prove that what you say is correct.

Therefore as to the topic question : "objective/subjective how does it disprove God?" : it is not a fair question.
You ask for ways to DISPROVE God. Not to PROVE God. Why should anyone want to try to disprove something that so far has never before with objective supported evidence been proved to be correct?

:rolleyes:

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

I even believe that if someone could some how actually PROVE the truth that others would not believe it any way unless it happened to ALREADY be what they believed anyway.

---

Well, that's not true of me nor do I think it's true of most atheists. I will immediately become a believer upon sufficient evidence. And that's the thing...

I care about whether my beliefs are true. I am open to being shown that I am wrong. But I tend to agree with you when it comes to most theists. I don't think there is any amount of evidence that will persuade them that heir belief in god could be wrong. Nothing whatsoever. I think that's a sad way to go through life clinging to a belief no matter what.

Think of it this way say you own acres of land and you want to put a house on it. However a bunch of protesters are saying you can't put a house on it because bigfoot lives on it and this group of protesters are large enough that many of the members of this group are part of the local government that grants building permits. Would it be fair that you have to prove that bigfoot doesn't exist which means having every sq inch of every forrest looked at 24 hours a day or should the people that say bigfoot exists have to at least give some evidence that bigfoot exists other than that Billy Bob something in the woods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Would it be fair that you have to prove that bigfoot doesn't exist which means having every sq inch of every forrest looked at 24 hours a day.

---

Don't be silly. Examining every sq inch STILL doesn't prove bigfoot doesn't exist. Maybe he has super natural camouflage abilities and works in mysterious ways. You can't prove he doesn't! Go back to where you came from. We don't want no a-bigfootists moving in corrupting our children. We're Yeti lovin' folk in these parts.

Another reason why you can't prove something that doesn't exist. The moment you think you have a fool proof way of proving something doesn't exist someone attaches another characteristic to it so that your original idea doesn't work any more.