baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2007 05:35 am
Diest TKO wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
My proof is that we can both testify to that claim because we are real. This evidence can be recreated, reproduced, qualified and validated.

The burden of proof to prove god's exisitance is still waiting to be satisfied.

T
K
O


OK, I think I've got it. (But I'm asking to be sure!) Because you and your Mom are "real" whatever you say to each other is undeniably true?


Undeniably true, not nessisarily. However even if challenged, we are real, our behaivors can be observed and recorded.

T
K
O


Again - I am not challenging the notion that you & your Mom are real. That is a non-issue to the question at hand.

Most on here claim that the only way they will consider the existence of God is to have scientific proof. "The concept of God is supernatural..." is commonly used among other colorful thoughts.

I contend that those same people are clearly guilty of believing in the 'supernatural' and provide the example of loving someone. Hence my question: Please provide undeniable, scientific evidence that your Mom loves you and you love your Mom.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2007 10:03 am
That notion hinges on the assumption that love is a supernatural entity. I don't think this assumption is well founded. For those trying to give credibility to claims of the supernatural, the idea of love being supernatural would be a great gateway. Many people if not all have experienced love in some capacity and if you were able to sell the notion that love is supernatural to the masses, it would certainly be a first step in proving that a supernatural being could exist such as a god.

However, like I said earlier, love is not supernatural, so in this case not a real good meter for supernatural or metaphysical.

The evidence that I love my mother is in my testimony. My testimony has credibility because it is first hand (as opposed to hearsay), it can be verified by the other party by their own testimony. Their testimony being equally valid for the same reasons.

I'm not sure what you are looking for, but I think it would be a waste of time telling you about the birthday cake my mom made for me when I was 8, the halloween costume she helped decorate when I was 10, the tears she cried when I graduated, or anything else for that matter. Those senarios by themselves aren't the evidence, they are the experiment. Prior to these events, one can anticipate a certain emotional responce (a theory) and test that prediction to the actual emotional responce given. If we are testing for love, we can anticipate that if a mother loves her child certain events, words, and emotions will occur. This can be tested, and verified.

It's not as hard to prove as you are making it sound.

Proof of god doesn't exist. There is no way to clearly anticipate events, and verify that any events that are given divine status a re indeed acts of god. People's testimony cannot be given credibility because it can't be verified by god. Literary works such as the Torah, Bible or Quran are accounts at hearsay at best, and hold no credibility either.

The two examples you are trying to relate are too different I'm affraid.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2007 12:28 am
Diest TKO wrote:
My proof is that we can both testify to that claim because we are real. This evidence can be recreated, reproduced, qualified and validated.

The burden of proof to prove god's exisitance is still waiting to be satisfied.

T
K
O


Why should your testimony and your mother's be regarded as greater than another's?

How would you recreate, reproduce, qualify and validate the love between you and your mother?

If you wrote down about the love you and your mother shared and things you experienced together....would that qualify as a sound testimony (testament)?

I think so. Yet, I could not really know since I am neither you nor your mother nor have witnessed your interactions. I'm only able to either believe in what you say....or not. It could be a work of literary fantasy...but,

I believe what you say. Your testimony(testament).

The more testimonies given regarding you and your mother....the weightier the credibility I suppose.

Does this make sense to you?

No one here would know if you were real without your testimonies and writings unless we seen you face to face. Nor would anyone here know of your experiences, observations, trials.....the love you share with your mother....etc.

I bet others could testify to these things as well. Your testimony is no waste of time. I very much enjoyed reading it. Took me back to some good times in my life as well. My mother has passed on.

Just remember,

Your testimony is not the only one.

Don't be too quick to discount others.

Take care.

Sometimes testimonies fall on deaf ears.

I would like to give a testimony right now.

My kidneys were functioning at only 60 percent 6 months ago.
My blood from polycythemia vera had a red blood cell count of 20+ (dangerous)

I have taken no medication or treatments. Not much available.

My kidney function is now normal and my blood count is high but normal too.

This can be verified by my doctors (not hearsay) who....have no comprehension of this (scientifically under the natural order of things). lol

Love is the reason. Jesus is the great physician!

Since my kidneys are working well...little or no gout...less stones..etc.

If you only knew how many illnesses and diseases have piled up against me over the years....and the severity! Cases where doctors have only heard or read about...testimonies. Man in his mid 30's going to offices filled with senior citizens and none my age.

Even more amazing is the fact that......I'm not much of a good person alot of times. I struggle constantly. I'm not that good at all but, he still extends mercy to me which is too much for me to put into words.

He is not just good he is great beyond words.

He is healing the inner me as well I believe. May God bless you all.

This is my testimony and may it fall on ears that hear. Amen

Love may or may not be supernatural....but what love can do may be another story entirely!

*cue* the Huey Lewis song.......lol

Baddog...your avatar is hilarious. TKO what does that writing mean on yours?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2007 01:22 pm
Bartikus wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

My proof is that we can both testify to that claim because we are real. This evidence can be recreated, reproduced, qualified and validated.

The burden of proof to prove god's exisitance is still waiting to be satisfied.

T
K
O


Why should your testimony and your mother's be regarded as greater than another's?

As to the question about if we love each other, we are first hand sources, hense, we have a greater license to speak on such matters. Plus our testimony can collaborate the others.
Bartikus wrote:

How would you recreate, reproduce, qualify and validate the love between you and your mother?

We simply continue to do what we are doing now. Our behaivors will show continuity and common theme separate from those who we do not love.
Bartikus wrote:

If you wrote down about the love you and your mother shared and things you experienced together....would that qualify as a sound testimony (testament)?

Nice try. The answer is not unless what we wrote had some sort of unreproduceable signature unique to us. This means that after we die nobody could forge a illegit document giving us fase testimony.
Bartikus wrote:

I think so. Yet, I could not really know since I am neither you nor your mother nor have witnessed your interactions. I'm only able to either believe in what you say....or not. It could be a work of literary fantasy...but,

That's fine, I don't need to prove I loved my mother after we are both dead and can't testify. A God almighty, infinite and immortal fails to show it's face and voice. It's lack of presence is the only evidence needed.

Bartikus wrote:

I believe what you say. Your testimony(testament).

The more testimonies given regarding you and your mother....the weightier the credibility I suppose.

Not nessisarily. The sheer volume of texts in the Torah, Bible, and Quran show this isn't true. The bible has so many incontinuities because of multiple authors, that it destroys itself from the inside out.

Bartikus wrote:

Does this make sense to you?

No.

Bartikus wrote:

No one here would know if you were real without your testimonies and writings unless we seen you face to face. Nor would anyone here know of your experiences, observations, trials.....the love you share with your mother....etc.

I bet others could testify to these things as well. Your testimony is no waste of time. I very much enjoyed reading it. Took me back to some good times in my life as well. My mother has passed on.

Sorry to hear about your mother. How would you feel if people can along and made false testimonies about her?

Bartikus wrote:

Just remember,

Your testimony is not the only one.

Don't be too quick to discount others.

Take care.

Neither is yours. There are a seemingly endless amount of stories from people about times when things go for a negitive turn in their life and it seems to defy science or statistic. I assume these are evidence of god too? Just not a rightious god. You can't pick and choose.
Bartikus wrote:

Sometimes testimonies fall on deaf ears.

I would like to give a testimony right now.

My kidneys were functioning at only 60 percent 6 months ago.
My blood from polycythemia vera had a red blood cell count of 20+ (dangerous)

I have taken no medication or treatments. Not much available.

My kidney function is now normal and my blood count is high but normal too.

Yikes! Glad to hear you're okay.
Bartikus wrote:

This can be verified by my doctors (not hearsay) who....have no comprehension of this (scientifically under the natural order of things). lol

Love is the reason. Jesus is the great physician!

Jesus was a carpenter. Like I said before, there are plenty of accounts where science SEEMS to be defied but in a negitive result for the person. I'm glad for you, but too many others don't seem to be as fortunate regaurdless of thei spiritual choices.

Bartikus wrote:

Since my kidneys are working well...little or no gout...less stones..etc.

If you only knew how many illnesses and diseases have piled up against me over the years....and the severity! Cases where doctors have only heard or read about...testimonies. Man in his mid 30's going to offices filled with senior citizens and none my age.

Your testimony seems to lack the moral of the story. What was the purpose of your illness?

Bartikus wrote:

Even more amazing is the fact that......I'm not much of a good person alot of times. I struggle constantly. I'm not that good at all but, he still extends mercy to me which is too much for me to put into words.

He is not just good he is great beyond words.

Again, I'm happy for your good fortune, but you aren't the first person to be ridden with illness. what about the millions who are, and why when you admit that you're not that good of a person do you think this is evidence of god, when people who are good (and with disease) are not "miraculously" recovering? where is the moral of your story. There seems to be a great issue of continuity in it.

Bartikus wrote:

He is healing the inner me as well I believe. May God bless you all.

This is my testimony and may it fall on ears that hear. Amen

I hear your testimony, I'm happy for you. Unfortunately, I hear all the testimonies of the unfortunate too. Yours has a happy ending, but doesn't stand out, ultimately.

Bartikus wrote:

Love may or may not be supernatural....but what love can do may be another story entirely!

*cue* the Huey Lewis song.......lol

Baddog...your avatar is hilarious. TKO what does that writing mean on yours?

Love that Huey Lewis. Don't know why... but I do. Only in moderation though. My avatar says in Japanese "Now taking applications for Japanese Girlfriends." My Girlfriend of 3 years doesn't think much of it. LOL. I need to find a new one, but I haven't seen anything that really gets my attention. Speaking of the avatar ofcourse.

Baddog1 - I have to know about your avatar. I've now heard two people on this board refer to it. I'm not aware of the reference. The custodial staff of my building have a picture of it up on their door too. Wht is it from? I don't get the joke. I'm stragely intrigued now.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2007 08:33 pm
Taking applications for Japanese girlfriend! lol

You sound like a buddy of mine who thinks Japanese women are it.

although...they do seem a bit exotic.

Jesus was a carpenter...but that is not all he was or is anymore than you are just a guy after Japanese girls or just a guy who does'nt believe.

There is more....much more I'm sure.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2007 09:51 pm
I do not fully know the purposes of my illnesses. I do know that when i see the suffering of others I am far more compassionate then ever.

I can barely recall any time in my life when I did not suffer and feel physical pain or sickness.

I am therefore....blessed. My body made weak allowing the inner me to grow strong.

Praise be to God!
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 07:48 am
Quote:
Baddog1 - I have to know about your avatar. I've now heard two people on this board refer to it. I'm not aware of the reference. The custodial staff of my building have a picture of it up on their door too. Wht is it from? I don't get the joke. I'm stragely intrigued now.


I wish I could tell you a great story about the origin of the avatar. Bottom line: Some close, fun-loving friends sent it to me. It seems they consider me to be a 'morning-person' and as I do not drink coffee - it was their way of poking fun. I have no idea where they got it.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 10:45 am
baddog1 wrote:

OK, I think I've got it. (But I'm asking to be sure!) Because you and your Mom are "real" whatever you say to each other is undeniably true?


Laughing Laughing Laughing

oooooo my sides are hurting. that is toooo funny.

hope you're having a good day, baddog
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 01:47 pm
real life wrote:
baddog1 wrote:

OK, I think I've got it. (But I'm asking to be sure!) Because you and your Mom are "real" whatever you say to each other is undeniably true?


Laughing Laughing Laughing

oooooo my sides are hurting. that is toooo funny.

hope you're having a good day, baddog


Yep - and you RL? I think you & I are the only ones who found the statement to be funny/ironic/etc. I was getting a bit of a complex about that! :wink:

Have a good one.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 02:27 pm
real life wrote:
baddog1 wrote:

OK, I think I've got it. (But I'm asking to be sure!) Because you and your Mom are "real" whatever you say to each other is undeniably true?


Laughing Laughing Laughing

oooooo my sides are hurting. that is toooo funny.

hope you're having a good day, baddog

RL - I've already answered this. Still funny? You're "real" too, which means I'm closer to proving your an idiot than you are to proving god exists.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 04:16 pm
Apparently the "rules of evidence" dont stand for anything in the original title of this thread..
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 08:51 am
farmerman wrote:
Apparently the "rules of evidence" dont stand for anything in the original title of this thread..


It stands on the testimony of ....real people. You can either accept or reject such testimony.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 09:08 am
Bartikus,

Nice clip !

I believe Hitler used to get similar audience reponses with a different repertoire. :wink:
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 10:16 am
In materialist theory, as I understand it, a thought is a physical object.

So if a person thinks of God as real then God exists as a physical object in that person's "brain".

If another person thinks of God as non-existent then God doesn't exist in that person's brain and it is hard to think why that person would ever think such a thought unless the effect on him of the other person's thought of God bothers him in some way which it could hardly do if the number having the thought that God exists is one and the number having the thought that God does not exist is 299,999,999 out of a hypothetical population of 300 million unless he happened to be shacked up with that one person and she was awkward about some of the practices that a person who had the thought that God does not exist might as well have a try at, if only for novelty's sake, due to her perception of what the God in her thoughts disapproved of in strenuous terms.

If the situation is reversed and the one was the person who thinks God does not exist and the 299,999,999 think God does exist which causes God to be a physical object in all their brains then, in a democratic country, God can be said to exist and the one, if he made a fuss about his thought that God doesn't exist, might become subject to being taken away and placed in a safe place where he could do himself no further harm.

Therefore, and I will stand to be corrected, the question is a numbers game and from what I have read the "Ayes" have it by a considerable margin and that alone is sufficient proof for the existence of God.

The past experiences which have resulted in these opposite ways of thinking, assuming we dismiss personal revelation as unsatisfactory from a scientific point of view, could probably be elucidated by psychoanalysis but one might speculate that a minority view has arisen as a means of drawing attention to the self and a desire to outrage the sensibilities of the majority.

The Noes thus need to persuade the Ayes that they should not have the thought that God exists and eradicate it from their mental structures and if they succeed in doing so then, obviously, God ceases to exist in the hypothetical society of 300,000,000 people and only a Great Leader or a cabal of senior scientists could then provide a source of moral authority assuming a source of moral authority is necessary which it isn't in the animal world Darwin studied or even, sometimes, in human societies, as Flaubert attempted to picture in Salammbo.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 11:59 am
Spendius !......material "thoughts" indeed !....show me one ! Smile

However I agree with you (from the point of view of reality as a social construction) that "existence of God" is a matter of consensus but so is "existence of evidence".

I'll not go into my spiel about "existence" being "relationship" or "selves" being (as opposed to having) "beliefs"....I'll sort you out some other time. :wink:
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 12:42 pm
The materialists would ask to be shown an immaterial thought. They arrive at a thought being a physical object by logic don't they? How could it not be?

Russell's "percepts" I suppose. Events in the brain. He gives the example of a physiologist looking at another person's brain and says that what he knows about that other brain is an event in his own brain. Something like that.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 01:21 pm
Spendius,

Consider the two word phrase

T /-\ E C /-\ T

and see if you work out why as far as I am concerned reductionsm/materialism is bankrupt as an explanatory mode for dynamic cognitive processes. The fact that marks on a page might be correlated with a linguistic processes says nothing about the contextual nature of"social reality" involved in such a correlation.

Furthermore, following Piaget "traditional logic" is highly suspect in matters of cognition, since logic is merely one end product of the maturational process for cognition.

But we digress.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 03:14 pm
How your hieroglyphics cause my consciousness to think of a cat is a quite elaborate process. Were an arrangment of distant galazies to stand out in the sky in a form similar to that, like Orion's Belt say, it might cause my consciousness a similar event but it might cause another one. It might well continue.

For example The Catwomen leapt upon me as I....

In which case I wouldn't be thinking of cats.

I have to go to the pub now but I'll think about it.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2007 06:37 am
fresco-

Piaget always seemed to me to be a parent flatterer who bamboozled the silly sods by dressing up banalities in long winded prose containing large numbers of words which many of the goofballs find pleasant to their hearing and sense of self importance as it implies that they understand these fanciful word weavings and thus they must be, logically and empirically, higher up the scale of intellectuality than your ordinary average sort of person although unaware that a real intellectual does not cognize such a scale as a result of observing others rather than himself.

The problem arises, it seems to me, when the parents happen to be Education Ministers and their senior minions and the members of provincial education committees. (Inchoate Blair Babes). That's when the **** hits the fan.

In the old days when Education Ministers were celibate Archbishops, and whatnot, the Jesuit Order of celibates was created to deal with the little monsters and their idiotic progenitors when they couldn't be easily avoided.

One thing I do know is that I never felt myself to be in one of Piaget's four stages. It was one long rolling aggravation protecting oneself from adults, apart from some brief orgies infrequently spaced which they often contrived to ruin as well with their interfering fussings.

And the guy came from Jung country I gather. A bit iffy is that area of the world I'm inclined to think.

And stuff like that makes money which always makes me suspicious. Money making should be about muck rather than fissiparous, ghostly spellbindings. Archbishops have no money. They only have the use of some.

So I'm probably not properly qualified to work out why, as far as you are concerned, reductionsm/materialism is bankrupt as an explanatory mode for dynamic cognitive processes. Materialism is the only non-spiritual possibility and irreducibility is anathema to a scientific mind.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2007 08:31 am
Spendius,

The central issue is that perception is active not passive. "Data" (aka "evidence") is always gathered relative to some perceptual need.There is no "world of facts" out there independent of an observer. The starving man may classify a corpse as "food". The frog will starve to death surrounded by dead insects because its perceptual apparatus can only deal with movement. "Materiality" is naive realism. Non-naive "reality" is relationship.

Such issues are behind Piagets constructivist (aka genetic) epistemology, where internal and external states are mutually existent and in constant dynamic flux like river water and river bed. The "reality of the river" (cognition/thought) consists of the interaction of both. Within such dynamic flux, traditional logic based on static set theory has limited applicability. Classifications and reclassifications flow with context.

Croc Dundee's girlfriend: Watch out, that muggers got a knife !
Dundee: That's not a knife ! (pulling out his own)..Now that's a knife !

/-\ =H or /-\ = A ???

Set membership is context dependent and that context resists reductionism.

Compris ?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evidence of God!
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/26/2019 at 01:50:42