1
   

I will prove god's existence if....

 
 
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 02:05 pm
you tell me what kind of proof you require, and why it is proof at all.
So post away and we will see if we prove or disprove anything by the end of it. :shifty:
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 16,808 • Replies: 389
No top replies

 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 02:52 pm
@avatar6v7,
I don't know if it would convince me, exactly, but any arguement that defined what God was and explained without resort to fiat, analogy or browbeating why that particular definition of God was better than all the alternatives then I would certainly respect it.

The argument would have to (for me personally) stay away from chestnuts such as how morality can't exist without God; why there must be a first cause and why that first cause must be God; and wouldn't everything just be a lot nicer if we were part of a divine plan incorporating such things as heaven and eternal life.

The proposer of the arguement would then be able to defend his points against any objections raised.

This would not be "proof" exactly, but it would greatly impress me.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 02:57 pm
@Dave Allen,
Well you know my request just go for it?
Holiday20310401
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 03:04 pm
@xris,
Avatar, God is a conundrum; this is enforced through the fact that we cannot prove or disprove its existence.

One thing we can be certain of is that transcendence just doesn't matter physically, or objectively. Spiritually sure, subjectively... I'm not going to mention what I think anymore.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 03:09 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
Avatar, God is a conundrum; this is enforced through the fact that we cannot prove or disprove its existence.

One thing we can be certain of is that transcendence just doesn't matter physically, or objectively. Spiritually sure, subjectively... I'm not going to mention what I think anymore.
you cant start an answer with im not going to answer...proving a negative is not a necessity but proving your belief is ....otherwise its a negative..
avatar6v7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 03:48 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen wrote:
I don't know if it would convince me, exactly, but any arguement that defined what God was and explained without resort to fiat, analogy or browbeating why that particular definition of God was better than all the alternatives then I would certainly respect it.

The argument would have to (for me personally) stay away from chestnuts such as how morality can't exist without God; why there must be a first cause and why that first cause must be God; and wouldn't everything just be a lot nicer if we were part of a divine plan incorporating such things as heaven and eternal life.

The proposer of the arguement would then be able to defend his points against any objections raised.

This would not be "proof" exactly, but it would greatly impress me.


fair point so I will answer it. This is not a proof, but I hope it impresses you.

The universe is made up of that which cannot be seen. In a material sense this means tiny organisms, atoms and invisbile proccesses. However the most significant things are beyond any physical observation- they must be discovered using the mind, using reason. The things that we hold most important, most dear are ideas. Love, Hope, Kindness, Charity, Justice- invisible. Yet they are not touchable, not within our grasp, not physically there. Do you think that Love isn't real? No. Infact in terms of importance love is held to be more important than the material. The realm of thoughts, of ideaologies, of ideas, of dreams is more important than the material. It is founded on and requires the material, as it's framework, but all the most significant of human interactions and events are mostly invisible existing in our hearts, minds and souls. That we live in a world of invisible non-physical entities is more true than saying we live in the material world. In this argument God is not a proven fact, but he is as justifiable a belief as a belief in love, or in a politcal system or any other belief. The conceptual world is based in the physical world, and god is the highest possible, greatest possible thing that the human mind can conceive- he is that which justifies the world of the conceptual and the material.
I have alot more justifications to make, but as you haven't really answered the premise of the thread, I can only really offer a prelimianry explanation.
Not being evasive here, but I need some basis for the kind of proof that would satisfy you before I can give it you.
avatar6v7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 03:49 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
Avatar, God is a conundrum; this is enforced through the fact that we cannot prove or disprove its existence.

One thing we can be certain of is that transcendence just doesn't matter physically, or objectively. Spiritually sure, subjectively... I'm not going to mention what I think anymore.

you say that god cannot be proven/disproven. what nature of proof do you accept?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 03:56 pm
@avatar6v7,
You cant prove anything by starting with assumptions...as i said all these theological debates are based on the preconception we are talking about a valid theory of gods existance..
0 Replies
 
Holiday20310401
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 03:58 pm
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7 wrote:
you say that god cannot be proven/disproven. what nature of proof do you accept?


Empirical and rational. I mean ok... what is transcendence... does this fit God... and can we therefore prove God's existence?

I guess you're right though... it depends on what we view as valid proofs. Emotional frenzies work in this situation, sure.

And Xris, I just did answer. If you can invalidate my answer then go ahead, empirically (relevantly) speaking.
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 04:00 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
you cant start an answer with im not going to answer...proving a negative is not a necessity but proving your belief is ....otherwise its a negative..


This makes no sense whatsoever. I don't have to prove a negative, but I do have to prove my belief, otherwise it's a negative... but I don't have to prove a negative...? What are you trying to say here?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 04:04 pm
@Solace,
All you ever do is give me your belief system not proof not evidence ..theoretical adventures.
0 Replies
 
avatar6v7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 04:07 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
Empirical and rational. I mean ok... what is transcendence... does this fit God... and can we therefore prove God's existence?

I guess you're right though... it depends on what we view as valid proofs. Emotional frenzies work in this situation, sure.

And Xris, I just did answer. If you can invalidate my answer then go ahead, empirically (relevantly) speaking.

trancendance- god created the universe and all the laws -gravity, physics, biolgy whatever- but also logic, cause/effect etc... however having existed before these laws, having created them, he is not subject to them, thus he can trancend these laws.
For a start the empircal approach. What is your reason for this approach? Why is it the best one? Do you believe in love? or in nations? or societies? if so can they be proven empirically?
Each approach must be justified before it can be used either to offer a proof or a disproof.
Holiday20310401
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 05:51 pm
@avatar6v7,
:poke-eye::shocked::poke-eye::Not-Impressed:

Why does it matter to you if God created the laws? Is that going to help us? No. As for the rest,

transcendence definition | Dictionary.com
empirical definition | Dictionary.com
rationality definition | Dictionary.com

Love, societies, and nations are terms used to describe that which already exists. Love is complicated yes, but we have it as a human quality.

And why do you think a transcendent being is important? If it is not within our own laws then what potential does it have on our being?
avatar6v7
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 03:38 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
:poke-eye::shocked::poke-eye::Not-Impressed:

Why does it matter to you if God created the laws? Is that going to help us? No. As for the rest,

transcendence definition | Dictionary.com
empirical definition | Dictionary.com
rationality definition | Dictionary.com

Love, societies, and nations are terms used to describe that which already exists. Love is complicated yes, but we have it as a human quality.

And why do you think a transcendent being is important? If it is not within our own laws then what potential does it have on our being?

'love is a human quality'- not good enough. nations and society do not exist outside of our heads. find me proof the the US is a nation- physical proof.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 05:07 am
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7 wrote:
trancendance- god created the universe and all the laws -gravity, physics, biolgy whatever- but also logic, cause/effect etc... however having existed before these laws, having created them, he is not subject to them, thus he can trancend these laws.
For a start the empircal approach. What is your reason for this approach? Why is it the best one? Do you believe in love? or in nations? or societies? if so can they be proven empirically?
Each approach must be justified before it can be used either to offer a proof or a disproof.
You start the sentence with an assumption..god created the universe..cant you see that this is proposing not proving you have to look for evidence of god before you can even describe him..
avatar6v7
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 06:20 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
You start the sentence with an assumption..god created the universe..cant you see that this is proposing not proving you have to look for evidence of god before you can even describe him..

you wanted to know what trancendance was- I told you my take on it. As side topic.
You still haven't answered me.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 06:31 am
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7 wrote:
you wanted to know what trancendance was- I told you my take on it. As side topic.
You still haven't answered me.
I never asked you about trancedance and the question you asked about what proof i would accept...anything you care to think is valid as empirically proven...
0 Replies
 
jknilinux
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 07:25 am
@avatar6v7,
Alright, avatar, I've got one-

Prove God deductively, with no assumptions- it cannot be tainted at all by inductive reasoning.
ariciunervos
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 07:32 am
@jknilinux,
jknilinux wrote:
Alright, avatar, I've got one-

Prove God deductively, with no assumptions- it cannot be tainted at all by inductive reasoning.


Everything exists the way it exists therefore goddidit.

I demand a cookie for my awesome ability to summarize. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Holiday20310401
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 09:19 am
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7 wrote:
'love is a human quality'- not good enough. nations and society do not exist outside of our heads. find me proof the the US is a nation- physical proof.


Well I never said that the US is one nation. And again, a nation is a word to describe our structure/who we are, as it already is.

And why isn't love is a human quality enough?
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » I will prove god's existence if....
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 12:58:13