ChatterBank61 mins ago
Give Me Just One
191 Answers
piece of evidence that God exists...just one!
Have just been reading through the posts here on R&S and all I see are (tortuous) apologetics for ones own belief system. We have Theland who pleads with us to find salvation and then disappears. We have goodlife who appears incapable of thinking for himself and just copies and pastes. (typical JW from my experience) and keyplus who views the world through 'koran glasses' and cant even begin to see the world in any other way than that in which he has been brought up in.
All God believers, in my experience, seem to view unbelievers as been willfull sinners. They seem incapable of understanding that others have their own understanding of the world and that God plays no part in it because there is no EVIDENCE.
For the time being, I HAVE to be an honest atheist (or at best agnostic) because I value truth and evidence over faith (and there are so many faiths that I couldnt possibly choose one out of thousands even if I had to.)
SO...... Just one piece of evidence will suffice and then maybe I could take it from there and see if YOUR God might be the way forward.
I thank you.
Have just been reading through the posts here on R&S and all I see are (tortuous) apologetics for ones own belief system. We have Theland who pleads with us to find salvation and then disappears. We have goodlife who appears incapable of thinking for himself and just copies and pastes. (typical JW from my experience) and keyplus who views the world through 'koran glasses' and cant even begin to see the world in any other way than that in which he has been brought up in.
All God believers, in my experience, seem to view unbelievers as been willfull sinners. They seem incapable of understanding that others have their own understanding of the world and that God plays no part in it because there is no EVIDENCE.
For the time being, I HAVE to be an honest atheist (or at best agnostic) because I value truth and evidence over faith (and there are so many faiths that I couldnt possibly choose one out of thousands even if I had to.)
SO...... Just one piece of evidence will suffice and then maybe I could take it from there and see if YOUR God might be the way forward.
I thank you.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Any time, naomi. Pity about the typos but I seldom read back when I'm in full flow.
It's not that you needed helping, either, just that the nit-picking was getting on my wick. The thread is no closer to providing naillit with what he asked for.
I keep referring to Khandro as "he" but the last time a Hare-Krishna speaker was allowed onto Nick Campbell's "The Big Questions", it was a woman, with Khandro as a surname. After the inevitable double-take, it turned out that they all change their names after joining, so it's a pre-fab surname, if you get my drift.
Search engine tells me (you knew this already, I date say) it is Tibetan for dakini and googles boilerplate for that says
-----
A dakini (Sanskrit: "sky dancer") is a Tantric priestess
of ancient India who "carried the souls of the dead to
the sky". This Buddhist figure is particularly upheld in
Tibetan Buddhism. The dakini is a female being of
generally volatile temperament, who acts as a muse
for spiritual practice.
----
Hence my karma reference. :o)
It's not that you needed helping, either, just that the nit-picking was getting on my wick. The thread is no closer to providing naillit with what he asked for.
I keep referring to Khandro as "he" but the last time a Hare-Krishna speaker was allowed onto Nick Campbell's "The Big Questions", it was a woman, with Khandro as a surname. After the inevitable double-take, it turned out that they all change their names after joining, so it's a pre-fab surname, if you get my drift.
Search engine tells me (you knew this already, I date say) it is Tibetan for dakini and googles boilerplate for that says
-----
A dakini (Sanskrit: "sky dancer") is a Tantric priestess
of ancient India who "carried the souls of the dead to
the sky". This Buddhist figure is particularly upheld in
Tibetan Buddhism. The dakini is a female being of
generally volatile temperament, who acts as a muse
for spiritual practice.
----
Hence my karma reference. :o)
Hypo; //Oh, I get it. Khandro was laying the trap//
Well, really? You seem to know more about me than I know of myself!
Atheists come in all shapes and sizes; as I have posted earlier, even Christians were at one time considered to be atheists.
There has been an atheist church established for Sunday morning meetings which can read all about here;
http://
It's interesting that as soon as they met a schism quickly appeared viz. those who didn't believe in God and those who believed God didn't exist.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!
Well, really? You seem to know more about me than I know of myself!
Atheists come in all shapes and sizes; as I have posted earlier, even Christians were at one time considered to be atheists.
There has been an atheist church established for Sunday morning meetings which can read all about here;
http://
It's interesting that as soon as they met a schism quickly appeared viz. those who didn't believe in God and those who believed God didn't exist.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!
You are accusing me of saying what were actually your words, so I cannot let this go without pointing that out.
Grasscarp, //I have not said that you lie.//
Oh yes you have!
//That isn't true and you know it isn't true.//
That isn't true and you know it isn't true was a line from your posts. It wasn't me speaking! it was me quoting you!
Full context:
Khandro, //We've had one contributor claiming to speak for all atheists//
How utterly disingenuous you are! That isn’t true and you know it isn’t true. If you are determined to enter into discussion it would be wise to remember that everyone present is capable of reading what has been said. Don’t take people here for fools because in the main they are not. Making it up as you go along to suit your own agenda makes you the fool.
22:28 Mon 10th Aug 2015
Grasscarp, //I have not said that you lie.//
Oh yes you have!
//That isn't true and you know it isn't true.//
That isn't true and you know it isn't true was a line from your posts. It wasn't me speaking! it was me quoting you!
Full context:
Khandro, //We've had one contributor claiming to speak for all atheists//
How utterly disingenuous you are! That isn’t true and you know it isn’t true. If you are determined to enter into discussion it would be wise to remember that everyone present is capable of reading what has been said. Don’t take people here for fools because in the main they are not. Making it up as you go along to suit your own agenda makes you the fool.
22:28 Mon 10th Aug 2015
Grasscarp, Ah I see – my apologies – although I don’t ‘see’ why you listed my responses to Khandro at all. Best not attempt to explain. We’ll only start going around the houses again.
Hypognosis, ‘volatile temperament’ – not the best for a muse for spiritual practice. ;o)
Khandro, //Christians were at one time considered to be atheists.//
I responded to your previous post on that subject, but you ignored me so I’ll repeat it here:.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Hypognosis, ‘volatile temperament’ – not the best for a muse for spiritual practice. ;o)
Khandro, //Christians were at one time considered to be atheists.//
I responded to your previous post on that subject, but you ignored me so I’ll repeat it here:.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
@Khandro
//Well, really? You seem to know more about me than I know of myself! //
I know little of you. I only know that "arrogance"/"presumptiousness" are your usual responses to anyone who posts anything resembling a categorical statement about a deity, in an R&S thread.
Although, like share prices, past performance is no indicator of future behaviour.
:-)
//Well, really? You seem to know more about me than I know of myself! //
I know little of you. I only know that "arrogance"/"presumptiousness" are your usual responses to anyone who posts anything resembling a categorical statement about a deity, in an R&S thread.
Although, like share prices, past performance is no indicator of future behaviour.
:-)
Hypo; // "arrogance"/"presumptiousness" [sic] are your usual responses to anyone who posts anything resembling a categorical statement about a deity,
Which responses to whom, about which statement, about which deity?
// past performance is no indicator of future behaviour.//
I'm afraid in my case it is, no hope of me mellowing with age! :0)
Which responses to whom, about which statement, about which deity?
// past performance is no indicator of future behaviour.//
I'm afraid in my case it is, no hope of me mellowing with age! :0)
@Khandro
//Which responses to whom, about which statement, about which deity? //
Slightly unfair of me to pin this on you. Basically, every religion vs science debate I have seen in the internet, from bulletin board to Facebook, the theist side always resorts to calling the science side arrogant.
It may be that the "general impression" of theist debaters is what has been impressed upon me. If they weren't all 16 page behemoths, I'd step back through the quagmire of R&S 2014/15 and re-read them to trawl up one or more occasions where it *was* you who said it. But that would mean I miss three or four days of current AB action!
It's far easier to wait until you do it again, so I only have to point and go "ahem".
//Which responses to whom, about which statement, about which deity? //
Slightly unfair of me to pin this on you. Basically, every religion vs science debate I have seen in the internet, from bulletin board to Facebook, the theist side always resorts to calling the science side arrogant.
It may be that the "general impression" of theist debaters is what has been impressed upon me. If they weren't all 16 page behemoths, I'd step back through the quagmire of R&S 2014/15 and re-read them to trawl up one or more occasions where it *was* you who said it. But that would mean I miss three or four days of current AB action!
It's far easier to wait until you do it again, so I only have to point and go "ahem".
@Khandro
Okay, I'm not quite quite sure where I was going to take that line of reasoning next, even after having slept on it. Twice.
Billions of years of the existence of the universe, plus evolution on planet earth failed to produce either wire fences, or a set of wire cutters. Even finding a nugget of iron in a non-oxidised state would have been remarkable on a planet so rich in oxygen.
Fair evidence of design and artifice, in the production of wire, wire fences and devices to cut them.
Even God failed to produce these items.
They are not mentioned in the bible. I doubt they are in the Koran and have no immediate plans to check but I guess that makes them "not of the book" and haram or some such.
But I digress. The objective was to state the very obvious first premise: that there is no point in wirecutters existing unless there is a need to cut wire.
Oddly, I see no reason that the tool should not exist and just sit in the toolbox, for as long as it can avoid rusting into uselessness, waiting to be deployed.
The philosophical point is therefore: what if humanity is like that? No current purpose, just sitting around waiting for their time to be useful?
Okay, I'm not quite quite sure where I was going to take that line of reasoning next, even after having slept on it. Twice.
Billions of years of the existence of the universe, plus evolution on planet earth failed to produce either wire fences, or a set of wire cutters. Even finding a nugget of iron in a non-oxidised state would have been remarkable on a planet so rich in oxygen.
Fair evidence of design and artifice, in the production of wire, wire fences and devices to cut them.
Even God failed to produce these items.
They are not mentioned in the bible. I doubt they are in the Koran and have no immediate plans to check but I guess that makes them "not of the book" and haram or some such.
But I digress. The objective was to state the very obvious first premise: that there is no point in wirecutters existing unless there is a need to cut wire.
Oddly, I see no reason that the tool should not exist and just sit in the toolbox, for as long as it can avoid rusting into uselessness, waiting to be deployed.
The philosophical point is therefore: what if humanity is like that? No current purpose, just sitting around waiting for their time to be useful?
@Khandro
The Lock and key part is almost a red herring. An oblique reference to the "lock and key" hypothesis.
When I first learned of it, this was probably before "The Blind Watchmaker" was published. The latter has possibly changed the way neophytes would take their first impression of what lock and key hypothesis is about. Goodness knows what intelligent design types did with it, once they'd picked up on it.
Its original purpose (I think) was to get the idea across to students the sense of snugness of fit between substrate molecules and the active site of an enzyme which does things to that substrate.
It also tries to convey the variability in the possible shapes of and thus the specificity of function of active sites and how, whilst they all look like blobby shapes, they are all very varied in terms of amino acid sequences.
It was never intended to imply conscious molecular engineering by some grand designer with an unlimited lifespan in which to arrive at functional designs by trial and error (which is how nature does it).
The Lock and key part is almost a red herring. An oblique reference to the "lock and key" hypothesis.
When I first learned of it, this was probably before "The Blind Watchmaker" was published. The latter has possibly changed the way neophytes would take their first impression of what lock and key hypothesis is about. Goodness knows what intelligent design types did with it, once they'd picked up on it.
Its original purpose (I think) was to get the idea across to students the sense of snugness of fit between substrate molecules and the active site of an enzyme which does things to that substrate.
It also tries to convey the variability in the possible shapes of and thus the specificity of function of active sites and how, whilst they all look like blobby shapes, they are all very varied in terms of amino acid sequences.
It was never intended to imply conscious molecular engineering by some grand designer with an unlimited lifespan in which to arrive at functional designs by trial and error (which is how nature does it).
@Khandro
c)
Vast clouds of ethanol and methanol have been detected, by spectroscopy, in outer space. Carbon, oxygen and leftover hydrogen, spat out by a supernova *somehow* manage to collide with one another in the emptiness of space and form these simple organic compounds.
There is energy stored in those chemical bonds. If they get incorporated into a planet where they cannot catch fire, due to lack of oxygen, they will last for as long as it takes for more complex molecules to arise and 'feed' on them.
Energy gradients drive all the chemistry in living things. It had to start somewhere. It is challenging to conceptualise the Ford Model T or Benz's first petrol engine by looking at a Ferrari F40.
It is facile to look at the F40 and say "oh it is so superb and complex that only a God could have designed it."
c)
Vast clouds of ethanol and methanol have been detected, by spectroscopy, in outer space. Carbon, oxygen and leftover hydrogen, spat out by a supernova *somehow* manage to collide with one another in the emptiness of space and form these simple organic compounds.
There is energy stored in those chemical bonds. If they get incorporated into a planet where they cannot catch fire, due to lack of oxygen, they will last for as long as it takes for more complex molecules to arise and 'feed' on them.
Energy gradients drive all the chemistry in living things. It had to start somewhere. It is challenging to conceptualise the Ford Model T or Benz's first petrol engine by looking at a Ferrari F40.
It is facile to look at the F40 and say "oh it is so superb and complex that only a God could have designed it."
Hypo; //It is facile to look at the F40 and say "oh it is so superb and complex that only a God could have designed it."//
Indeed it is, and that would be 'top-down' thinking (if thinking at all!) but intelligent design doesn't view phenomena like that, it looks to the bottom-up approach of saying that certain components of life are so irreducible complex that they could not have been arrived at incrementally.
Returning to the OP; the questioner asks for 'evidence', - top-down again. In the physical everyday world I can describe the position of my teapot in two ways; 'here' or 'not there', but the superposition principle of the quantum world allows for an infinite range of intermediate possibilities where the electron can be 'here' and 'elsewhere', therefore we need to apply a quite different form of logic to grasp this.
It is to my way of thinking not surprising that in a similar manner, theology calls for its own form of rational discourse. The manner in which we may know God, is not the same as knowing where my teapot is positioned.
Ahh! a good idea, time for another cup!
PS
Though B. (in which God has no necessary place) is astonishingly unfazed by quantum mechanics, what do you think of this?
http://
Indeed it is, and that would be 'top-down' thinking (if thinking at all!) but intelligent design doesn't view phenomena like that, it looks to the bottom-up approach of saying that certain components of life are so irreducible complex that they could not have been arrived at incrementally.
Returning to the OP; the questioner asks for 'evidence', - top-down again. In the physical everyday world I can describe the position of my teapot in two ways; 'here' or 'not there', but the superposition principle of the quantum world allows for an infinite range of intermediate possibilities where the electron can be 'here' and 'elsewhere', therefore we need to apply a quite different form of logic to grasp this.
It is to my way of thinking not surprising that in a similar manner, theology calls for its own form of rational discourse. The manner in which we may know God, is not the same as knowing where my teapot is positioned.
Ahh! a good idea, time for another cup!
PS
Though B. (in which God has no necessary place) is astonishingly unfazed by quantum mechanics, what do you think of this?
http://
@Khandro
//Indeed it is, and that would be 'top-down' thinking (if thinking at all!) but intelligent design doesn't view phenomena like that, it looks to the bottom-up approach of saying that certain components of life are so irreducible complex that they could not have been arrived at incrementally. //
No, the ID proponents I'm used to behave like someone for whom the F40 is the only car they've ever seen and they lack the imagination *and* the detailed engineering knowledge to conceive of the design increments. No drum brakes in the F40.
The incremental stages for the development of the eye have probably been described better than I can in thousands of reruns of the ID debate. I need not bore you with them.
I'm going to saw some logs for six or seven hours then address the coopting of quantum stuff by Buddhism. Sheesh, can't reliogionists leave their mitts off science for one moment or is bamboozling people with googleable valid terminology the only way they can colour themselves credible, these days?
//Indeed it is, and that would be 'top-down' thinking (if thinking at all!) but intelligent design doesn't view phenomena like that, it looks to the bottom-up approach of saying that certain components of life are so irreducible complex that they could not have been arrived at incrementally. //
No, the ID proponents I'm used to behave like someone for whom the F40 is the only car they've ever seen and they lack the imagination *and* the detailed engineering knowledge to conceive of the design increments. No drum brakes in the F40.
The incremental stages for the development of the eye have probably been described better than I can in thousands of reruns of the ID debate. I need not bore you with them.
I'm going to saw some logs for six or seven hours then address the coopting of quantum stuff by Buddhism. Sheesh, can't reliogionists leave their mitts off science for one moment or is bamboozling people with googleable valid terminology the only way they can colour themselves credible, these days?
Hypo; //No, the ID proponents I'm used to behave like someone for whom the F40 is the only car they've ever seen and they lack the imagination *and* the detailed engineering knowledge to conceive of the design increments. No drum brakes in the F40.//
The Ferrari analogy is a stupid one in this context, the development of the automobile bears no relationship to irreducible complexity. When karl Benz invented his car (just a few miles from where I live actually) he had all the tools necessary, plus lots of engineering and known metal working know-how at his disposal culled from centuries of other peoples ingenuity.
What you are suggesting is that as if by magic he discovered a fully formed and equipped self-existing workshop in which to start from.
If anyone is lacking in imagination it is those who cannot conceive that there could be any other answer to the origin of life on this planet than it began here, and 'top-down' again, sweep aside any suggestion that there may be other explanations.
The Ferrari analogy is a stupid one in this context, the development of the automobile bears no relationship to irreducible complexity. When karl Benz invented his car (just a few miles from where I live actually) he had all the tools necessary, plus lots of engineering and known metal working know-how at his disposal culled from centuries of other peoples ingenuity.
What you are suggesting is that as if by magic he discovered a fully formed and equipped self-existing workshop in which to start from.
If anyone is lacking in imagination it is those who cannot conceive that there could be any other answer to the origin of life on this planet than it began here, and 'top-down' again, sweep aside any suggestion that there may be other explanations.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles102 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles123 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles172 mins ago
Christmas In The Good Old Days
ChatterBank178 mins ago
Elementary Particle In First Half Of...
Crosswords235 mins ago
