Prove God Exists - Act Three

[onejayhawk]

600th post in the thread. Have we decided anything yet?

J

 

[Birdjaguar]

But how about that other guy in the corner who claims to hear the elephant talking to him? No one else hears it and it can't be recorded. Should that "observation" be accorded the same status as those of the legs, trunk and tail? Answer "yes" and any chance of us testing our ideas just evaporated.

Wenger first postulated continental drift 100 years ago. He was ignored for 50 years until we had the tools to investigate. You cannot test everything at once. Test what you can, figure out ways to get at what seems strange and out of place, and leave somethings for others. There is no single straight path to discovery.

What on earth do you mean by "more proof"?

It was a poke at those who keep demanding proof for what cannot be proven at the moment.

Science is all about explainng and understanding what we observe, that may or may not involve "breaking down orthodoxy and redefining the rules we use to view the universe" but it is not the raison detre of science.

All disciplines have those practitioners who work at the cutting edges of their fields and those who provide routine delivery of societal needs. I was speaking of the former.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@FredLC: My response to your fine post will have to wait until until after work.

 

[FredLC]

No hurry.

 

[Perfection]

600th post in the thread. Have we decided anything yet?

J

Nope, I've yet to see any proof! there's been lots of babbling though, maybe some proof will come in. Keep your fingers crossed.

 

[onejayhawk]

Well, as I said to BJ, your logic is backwards. We have no way of knowing but our senses - that's exactly why the discussions of our senses and their limits is such a clever one - hence assuming "a priori" that something out of the ordinary is there, waiting to our senses to catch up, is an affirmation of the consequence, and a failed argument, as for exactly because the senses "can't reach it", you could not know it's there.

Posh. Of course there are thens which we perceive without our senses, or the defiinition of sense becomes so broad as to be useless. A stone deaf person can "hear" the beat of loud music. A blind man can feel sunlight. Balance is a sense, in a sense. In any event our senses are only electro/chemical interactions with our environment, which we have a consistent, and persistant pattern of interpretation. There are interactions more subtle than mere stimulous.

The limits of our capacity to conclude are well within our capacity to presrcrute; whatever we can't excrutinize, we can't conclude about. Hence, assuming that God, or an elephant, is there, is plain assumption, not method nor honest seeking.

A critical mind is one in which data can enter, and that is prepared to let go any old concepts in the light of evidence - not one that imagine concepts and expects that data will eventually confirm it.

While it's true that a mind shall remain open, it should not be so open that the gray mass oozes from it.

You will not win me over with appeals to pure reason. If nothing else, we have had demonstrations in the last century that our reason is incomplete, and inevitably doubles back on itself. If knowledge is a tree of observation and inferences, then there is much to be known in the spaces between the branches, where the tree never reaches. Shakespeare famously said "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Persistancy is no evidence of anything. If it were, any popular claim would be true, what is hardly a fact.

Your claim of consistency holds no water as well. One think that religious ideas have not is consistency. Quite the contrary, they disagree and contradict each other all the time and offer no tool to select which idea is correct.

It's so obvious, in fact, that you have noticed it yourself in your claim. because see, many of us doubt God, but no actual blind man doubts elephants. Ever stoped to think why?

You lead into the point of the elephant analogy very well here. Elephants are easy. They are defined, not boundless, tangible, not spiritual, as well as being gross and unsubtle. Yet even on such an easy subject there is no agreement. Only a person who had better knowledge, say from sight, could make sense of the jumble. Only God himself has better knowledge than we do, and he has chosen to be subtle and allow us to feel our own way, make our own mistakes and learn our own lessons, with only his presense and a few words for guidance.

Any one that can discuss in religious threads and remain civil should really be commended, even you and me while at that.

Regards .

 

[Plotinus]

I must say that, given that I have never seen a good proof that any external world exists apart from my own febrile imaginings, I can't imagine that we're going to see a proof of anything to do with God, either for or against. The best anyone's going to come up with are inductive arguments, like those of John Mackie (against) and Richard Swinburne (for).

 

[CurtSibling]

600th post in the thread. Have we decided anything yet?

J

Indeed we have!

That we all love to debate religion...(or lack of!)

 

[Phydeaux]

God can not be proven nothing can, even science can not prove any thing. The only thing we can do is look at the evidence's and reason in our minds what is true and what is not true.

So lets see, now we have a place here on earth, can I prove that? No, but you have your self reasoned in your mind, and most of you believe that there is. Now what we think next, how did we get this place here? Did some "big bang" cause this? Did some God cause this? Now lets reason in our mind, we think wait, if the big bang caused this what caused the big bang? Also we think wait, if God caused this what caused God? So some man of science says it didn't come from any where. Also some man of God says He didn't come from any where. Look at how they closely resimble one another. So the man who knows science says it came from nowhere, and the man who knows God says He came from nowhere. So we ask, how can this be? The man of science says, we don't know yet but maybe some day we will. The man of God says, it's real simple God is not subject to the laws of science, God is only subject to Him self.

So lets reason, is it God or science? Well to me God explains a lot more than science, but it really comes to you, and what you believe.

It is not fare to ask any one to prove any thing. What is proven is only in your mind. Don't expect any thing to ever be proven, and do not expect any one to know the start of this place.

 

[King Alexander]

God can not be proven nothing can, even science can not prove any thing.

Science cannot prove anything? apart the quest to find God's home?

So lets see, now we have a place here on earth, can I prove that? No, but you have your self reasoned in your mind, and most of you believe that there is.

Maybe you're right, maybe we all "are" "on something" and all we have is dillusions and see green creatures from mars.

Now what we think next, how did we get this place here? Did some "big bang" cause this? Did some God cause this? Now lets reason in our mind, we think wait, if the big bang caused this what caused the big bang? Also we think wait, if God caused this what caused God? So some man of science says it didn't come from any where. Also some man of God says He didn't come from any where. Look at how they closely resimble one another. So the man who knows science says it came from nowhere, and the man who knows God says He came from nowhere.

You're wrong here: Religionists don't dare to challenge God's existence before the creation of the universe: According to them, God existed always. How naive...

So lets reason, is it God or science? Well to me God explains a lot more than science, but it really comes to you, and what you believe. Don't expect any thing to ever be proven, and do not expect any one to know the start of of this place.

All we know until our current age is based on science: all you religionists who accuse science, I have something to propose for you: go back to the caves and away from civilization, away from shots against diseases, away from electricity, from hospitals, away from everything. After all, all the previous are in collision with faith(maybe God invented telephone too, so he could spek with his girlfriend?)

This discussion reminds me this: after the fall of the USSR, many soviets and people of eastern countries came to Greece: they had no television in their homes(in USSR), they eat meat once a month, they lived 8-10 people inside 3 rooms, etc.. They got jobs here, they were happy that for the first time in their life they could have all the modern comforts, they could BUY a home to live, etc...
When they gained enough money and had everything, they started to accuse Greece's political system(who ever said that other goverments than Communism haven't flaws, also?) and they recalled the good old days of Communism. How hypocritical!!! They'd never actually wish to live again under Communism, but they accused our Democracy: you could call them ungratefull, if you want, but, that is the human nature. Humans quickly forget and accuse anything, they're greed.

 

[Blasphemous]

God can not be proven nothing can, even science can not prove any thing.

I'm not gonna even bother with the rest.
Just this one sentance.
Perhaps nothing can be "truly" proven. But science can prove things in a way that consists of proof according to logical criteria. God does not fall into this area, but gravity, evolution, quantom mechanics, and many many other things do.
So science can prove logical, reasonable theories. It cannot prove illogical, unreasonable imaginations.

 

[thestonesfan]

Surely, if God existed, he would have taken pity on his children and ended this thread no later than page 15.

 

[Perfection]

God can not be proven nothing can, even science can not prove any thing. The only thing we can do is look at the evidence's and reason in our minds what is true and what is not true.

That's proof enough for me. Now if you can look at the evidence and tell how it leads to the conclusion that there is a god then I'll be satisfied. Of course all illogical or presumptive ones will not be considered valid answers.

 

[Mrogreturns]

Wenger first postulated continental drift 100 years ago. He was ignored for 50 years until we had the tools to investigate. You cannot test everything at once. Test what you can, figure out ways to get at what seems strange and out of place, and leave somethings for others. There is no single straight path to discovery.

It isn't simply a matter of having the tools to investigate, that in itself does not make a theory testable. A testable theory must be clearly consistent with some imaginable observations and clearly inconsistent with others. If continental drift is correct then certain things will be observed and others will not- its testable. So what possible observations are clearly inconsistent with the existence of a god or gods? You have, yourself, in a number of posts responded to some suggested inconsistencies with words to the effect that we don't know god and consequently can't say what is evidence against god.

 

[Jugulator]

What was the first thing? a cell? a rock? what created that? then what created that? God is not limited to our understanding and is believed to be an eleven dimensional being, not bound by time. Evolution, natural selection and all the other ideas need a base on what created them.
We know that to our understanding something can not create it self, yet we know that something exists, so something did create it self, right, at least that how it seems. A limitless God beyond our comprihinsion was not created. If a rock inventes it self, that is something i want to see, but a unmeasurable God, not bound by time is.. well... not bound by time, there for he had not bigining and will have no end. He is the alpha and omega. There, hope your happy.

PS: Your question wasn't well thought out, at all. How can you critize us for a question you can't answer with your theories.

Look what is the difference between the Bible and the Lord of the Rings novels. Both fantasy books. Look the book was written and Jesus was found to be a fraud and the people he healed were fraud’s also, and they crucified the lot. That’s what they done back then with that type. Look, if the Silmarillion (J.R.R Tolkien) was out (at all available book hut’s) before the bible then we would be all going along to pray to Illuvatar who is Eru the one in Arda. I do have to say though where is your proof, this is all about you proving to the non believers that there is a god.

Don’t worry though If ever I find anyone saying they have FOUND GOD, I will tell them to come and give you a shout because then they might have the evidence for you….lol

Regards,

Jugulator

 

[Jugulator]

EDIT: If god pre-existed WHAT made him send his son at that time and NOT before? Maybe he was ignorant for the past generations?

I think if he existed then it was probably a Sunday and thought…hmm I’ll send the lad down instead I’m going to watch the Universal Gods contest on cloud 9....LOL

Rgds,

Jugulator

 

[anarchywrksbest]

God doesn't exist simply because other non-Judaic religons exist. I refuse to believe they are all going to hell.

 

[Jugulator]

Who's all? All other religious people or just all people..?

 

[anarchywrksbest]

All non-Christian people. If Hell exists then is it just full of Christians? What about all the other prefectly good non-religous or non-Christian people?

Maybe there's more than one God? Or maybe there is none. But if there is only one then that's just crap.

 

[Jugulator]

Are you saying that all people in effect should go to hell then? What about heaven? Not that I'm saying there is one.

Regards,

Jugulator