there is no god?

[abdyer2001]

he may be a joke, but brings up a lot of valid points .  mainly that there is no proof of existence..

[Abrupt]

he may be a joke, but brings up a lot of valid points .  mainly that there is no proof of existence..

There is no proof of anything if you want to get down to the details of it all.  I could never prove what you see when you see when you read the quote of yours above, nor could you prove what I see.  We can agree that we see the same words or at least interpret them in the same ways most likely but everything is simply an interpretation of senses, in this case physical senses.  For the sake of argument, assume there is a sense that Mr. Maher doesn't posses and that some others might posses (let us classify it as a spiritual sense for this purpose), who would be the best to comment on such an existence of spiritual beings?  The one lacking the senses to detect such things or the one possessing them?

A lot of valid points?  A lot of sleight of hand if you ask me, but then again he is a comedic entertainer and that is his job but personally I find more engaging intellectual discussion on Tosh.0.

[abdyer2001]

i would welcome the one with the senses to detect to create a show that would prove anything.. the existence of the ark.  woman being created from the rib of the first man..  i would love to see that persons perspective.. but dont look for that to happen anytime soon...

[Abrupt]

i would welcome the one with the senses to detect to create a show that would prove anything.. the existence of the ark.  woman being created from the rib of the first man..  i would love to see that persons perspective.. but dont look for that to happen anytime soon...

Your words betray your intentions.  What you would love, is to mock such a show or to make fun of it...but you cannot even explain why that is can you?  You should pay attention when the spot on the latter reads "this is not a step".

[ashleyxatrocity]

Infants teach themselves to cry when they are hungry or hurt.

How about the sugar thermostat in the pancreas?
It maintains a level of sugar in blood sufficient for energy.
Without it, all of us would fall into coma and die.

A kidney will filter poison from the blood, and leave good thing alone. How does it know one from the other?

Who gave the human tongue flexibility to form words, and a brain to understand them, but denied it to all other animals?

Its called evolution. All life has gone through it.

[dguernsey1]

What does the Bible say about Creation vs. evolution?"

Answer: It is not the purpose of this answer to present a scientific argument in the creation vs. evolution debate. For scientific arguments for creation and/or against evolution, we highly recommend Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. The purpose of this article is to explain why, according to the Bible, the creation vs. evolution debate even exists. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”

A key factor in the debate is that the majority of scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. There are some who hold to some form of theistic evolution and others who take a deistic view of God (God exists but is not involved in the world, and everything proceeds along a natural course). There are some who genuinely and honestly look at the data and arrive at the conclusion that evolution better fits with the data. However, these represent an insignificant percentage of the scientists who advocate evolution. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without any intervention of a higher being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic science.

For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence. Although belief in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, he was the first to develop a plausible model for the process of evolution—natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist. Darwin's goal was not to disprove God's existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism, but according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.

The Bible tells us, “The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God. “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why, then, are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept that evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific data? According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”

Evolutionary scientists mock creation and/or intelligent design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a “science,” they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested; it must be “naturalistic.” Creation is by definition “supernatural.” God and the supernatural cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes); therefore, creation and/or intelligent design cannot be considered science. Of course, neither can evolution be observed or tested, but that does not seem to be an issue with evolutionists. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.

However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both creation and evolution are faith-based systems in regards to origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regard to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered “scientific.” This is foolishness! Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of “science.”

If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.

[queenofnines]

dguernsey1: Copy and pasting without citing your sources is called plagiarism.  Even if said plagiarism is coming from a laughable source like gotquestions.org

[ashleyxatrocity]

dguernsey1: Copy and pasting without citing your sources is called plagiarism.  Even if said plagiarism is coming from a laughable source like gotquestions.org

She also posted it in a topic she created. I asked for a source, but she didn't respond.

[falcon9]

For those that do not believe at all, I propose to you an experiment - of sorts.  Make a request either in your head or vocal, it doesn't matter.  Call it a prayer, or not, again it doesn't matter.  You need to be sincere in this request, but you don't have to prostrate yourself or utter biblical passages.  Ask something along the lines of "If there is a God, would you reveal yourself to me?".

The "experiment" does not contain verifiably conclusive parameters.  That is, no ambiguous results can be attributed any specific cause, (let alone a supernatural one).

I can't tell you what results you will get, but I can tell you that something will occur that will make you think back upon your request with some wonder.  It may not be today or tomorrow, but it will happen.  Those firm in their disbelief will immediately wish to qualify the event as pure coincidence ...

It would seem that those who are firm in their 'belief', (constituting a lack of evidence or, evidence which cannot conclusively be attributed to a supernatural cause), arbitrarily attribute effects to such supernatural causes.  As far as "coincidence" goes, there are those who dismiss coincidental events out of hand, attribute sychronistic events to some arbitrary cause(s) or, don't even consciously register coincidences.

There isn't any conclusive way to attribute coincidences to a supernatural deity.  Belief in such attributions isn't conclusive evidence.  

I don't consider this an unreasonable thing for me to ask you to do, and again along the lines of scientific study I wouldn't consider performing the request to be unreasonable either.

The suggested "experiment" doesn't qualify as a 'scirntific study' or experiment under the definitions of those terms.  Since the parameters are unreasonably vague, not much reason would be involved in drawing any conclusions from it.

[x_angel_313]

Not sure what to even say to this stuff. Everyone has their own opinions. Good luck with trying to change those. 

[Abrupt]

For those that do not believe at all, I propose to you an experiment - of sorts.  Make a request either in your head or vocal, it doesn't matter.  Call it a prayer, or not, again it doesn't matter.  You need to be sincere in this request, but you don't have to prostrate yourself or utter biblical passages.  Ask something along the lines of "If there is a God, would you reveal yourself to me?". 

The "experiment" does not contain verifiably conclusive parameters.  That is, no ambiguous results can be attributed any specific cause, (let alone a supernatural one).

I can't tell you what results you will get, but I can tell you that something will occur that will make you think back upon your request with some wonder.  It may not be today or tomorrow, but it will happen.  Those firm in their disbelief will immediately wish to qualify the event as pure coincidence ...

It would seem that those who are firm in their 'belief', (constituting a lack of evidence or, evidence which cannot conclusively be attributed to a supernatural cause), arbitrarily attribute effects to such supernatural causes.  As far as "coincidence" goes, there are those who dismiss coincidental events out of hand, attribute sychronistic events to some arbitrary cause(s) or, don't even consciously register coincidences.

There isn't any conclusive way to attribute coincidences to a supernatural deity.  Belief in such attributions isn't conclusive evidence. 

I don't consider this an unreasonable thing for me to ask you to do, and again along the lines of scientific study I wouldn't consider performing the request to be unreasonable either.

[/quote]

If you do what I suggested, you will have "evidence" and it will be in the form of whatever definition is necessary for YOU.  As strange as it might seem to you, this is what I absolutely believe.  I will leave it to you to determine the source of this "evidence" -- whether it is God or your mind responding in a genetically coded manner to the question and filtered through your current memory model.

[falcon9]

There is no proof of anything if you want to get down to the details of it all.
I could never prove what you see when you see when you read the quote of yours above, nor could you prove what I see.  We can agree that we see the same words or at least interpret them in the same ways most likely but everything is simply an interpretation of senses, in this case physical senses.

Indeed, most 'proofs' rely upon either the accurate interpretation of physical sense data or, upon accurate reasoning.  Some would say that 'proof' is what remains after 'belief' is removed from the equation.  As far as physical proofs go, those interpretations rely upon consensus, (e.g., a general tacit agreement as to the meanings of assigned definitions of terms). If however, some people choose to arbitrarily reinterpret meanings and attributions at variance with what is 'sensed', or at odds with consensual meanings, (as in reinpreting visual evidence of an "apple" as visual evidence of a "towtruck"), then inherent inconsistancies become readily apparent.

For the sake of argument, assume there is a sense that Mr. Maher doesn't posses and that some others might posses (let us classify it as a spiritual sense for this purpose), who would be the best to comment on such an existence of spiritual beings?  The one lacking the senses to detect such things or the one possessing them?

If you're positing a "spiritual sense", (even for the sake of argument), why not posit an "intuitive sense", a "magical sense", a "synesthetic sense"? If one claims to possess one of these posited senses and further claims that others do not, that one would be required to substantiate such claims, (not by claiming a result of the hypothetical "sense" but, by demonstrating the evidential veracity which would support such claims).

For instance, were I to claim to be able to see pink unicorns which no one else could see, I might suggest that these unicorns were only visible in an electromagnetic spectrum which is available to me and not others, (as a physical sensory input).  Then, others could wheel in some spectroanalysis devices to scan different wavelengths of the nonvisual spectrum to determine whether the invisible unicorns or there or, that I had one too many at the party last night.

[falcon9]

If you do what I suggested, you will have "evidence" and it will be in the form of whatever definition is necessary for YOU.  As strange as it might seem to you, this is what I absolutely believe.  I will leave it to you to determine the source of this "evidence" -- whether it is God or your mind responding in a genetically coded manner to the question and filtered through your current memory model.

The "experiment" suggested was performed by me over 40 years ago and the results were/are that things happen which cannot be attributed to any supernatural deities, (even inconclusive results would be arbitrary if attributed to supernatual causes).  The conclusion was/is that there is insufficient data to make a conclusive determination and therefore, the experimental question is moot.

[swaggerjackerash]

depends...

[Abrupt]

There is no proof of anything if you want to get down to the details of it all. 
I could never prove what you see when you see when you read the quote of yours above, nor could you prove what I see.  We can agree that we see the same words or at least interpret them in the same ways most likely but everything is simply an interpretation of senses, in this case physical senses. 

Indeed, most 'proofs' rely upon either the accurate interpretation of physical sense data or, upon accurate reasoning.  Some would say that 'proof' is what remains after 'belief' is removed from the equation.  As far as physical proofs go, those interpretations rely upon consensus, (e.g., a general tacit agreement as to the meanings of assigned definitions of terms). If however, some people choose to arbitrarily reinterpret meanings and attributions at variance with what is 'sensed', or at odds with consensual meanings, (as in reinpreting visual evidence of an "apple" as visual evidence of a "towtruck"), then inherent inconsistancies become readily apparent.

For the sake of argument, assume there is a sense that Mr. Maher doesn't posses and that some others might posses (let us classify it as a spiritual sense for this purpose), who would be the best to comment on such an existence of spiritual beings?  The one lacking the senses to detect such things or the one possessing them?

If you're positing a "spiritual sense", (even for the sake of argument), why not posit an "intuitive sense", a "magical sense", a "synesthetic sense"? If one claims to possess one of these posited senses and further claims that others do not, that one would be required to substantiate such claims, (not by claiming a result of the hypothetical "sense" but, by demonstrating the evidential veracity which would support such claims).

For instance, were I to claim to be able to see pink unicorns which no one else could see, I might suggest that these unicorns were only visible in an electromagnetic spectrum which is available to me and not others, (as a physical sensory input).  Then, others could wheel in come spectroanalysis devices to scan different wavelengths of the nonvisual spectrum to determine whether the invisible unicorns or there or, that I had one too many at the party last night.

I never claimed to possess any "spiritual sense", leastwise not anything that is unique to me -- and by that I mean that I believe there is a spiritual attribute of being human in as much as there is the physical and psychological.  Yes I could have chosen other senses but the one I chose was the only one fitting to the discussion.  Mr Maher should not be considered as authoritative on things dealing with God or spirituality, regardless of what amount of wisdom people wish to attribute to him.  The reasonable person would immediately detect that he is extremely biased against religion to such a degree that any statements he puts forth on the matter should be considered as suspect by default.