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

@avatar6v7,

Unless you want to keep going around in circles here, we should just change the subject. Science and philosophy both are interested in expanding human understanding. That's it. That's all they have in common. Science is not a kind of philosophy and philosophy is not a kind of science. But honestly, who cares anyway?

1 Reply

@Aedes,

If we are going to be so atavistic that we conclude that science is philosophy, we might as well say that philosophy is religion, thereby making science religion as well. Doesn't sit well with me. Probably better to use the terms in light of modern usage.

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

Completely agree. Let's keep terms like philosophy, science, and religion meaningful, which means that we need to be splitters and not lumpers.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Completely agree. Let's keep terms like philosophy, science, and religion meaningful, which means that we need to be splitters and not lumpers.

philosophy has always been vague.

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

Another generalization Wink

Your friend Kant wasn't vague. He more or less invented his own words so as to be specific.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Another generalization

Your friend Kant wasn't vague. He more or less invented his own words so as to be specific.

'my freind kant' is it? For a start Kant has a rather naive and uninteresting view of the universe which makes little sense, I merely brought him up as an example of philosophys variety. Secondly I mean't that Philosophy is general was vague as it includes so many categories within it, which run the gammut of utter generalisation with no foundation, to exactness taken to the point where it is self-defeating.

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

Ok, and the gamut can be run from the technicalities of rational God proofs all the way to assertions that such a thing is impossible. Which brings us back to the beginning, now 367 posts later...

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

Funnily enough, this week's New Scientist carries a story about the Big Bounce - the theory that our universe keeps recycling itself - all the pieces seem to fit, apart from the repellent qualities of dark matter (itself a subject of much theory).

Good read if you're curious.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Just read it Dave..interesting and it should help if they can discover any background microwave activity next year..Its this vital missing activity that has ruined all other theories except the BB or the torus universe...relativity i think can explain the torus universe...My moneys still on the BIG BANG but lets see..

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

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:

Well, um, I developed an argument that said since every religion has an idea of God, therefore God exists (not that it was very strong). So I think if you can control out the superstition element, there could possibly be an inductive argument for the existence of God.

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

Would you say that everyone who watches Peter Pan has an idea of what a fairy is, therefore fairies exist?

Though it does strike me as similar to my earlier reference to From Hell - that gods irrefutably exist in the mind.

2 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

Would you say that everyone who watches Peter Pan has an idea of what a fairy is, therefore fairies exist?

Though it does strike me as similar to my earlier reference to From Hell - that gods irrefutably exist in the mind.

I can fly..i can fly..dont say it..a fairy might die..

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

Would you say that everyone who watches Peter Pan has an idea of what a fairy is, therefore fairies exist?

Though it does strike me as similar to my earlier reference to From Hell - that gods irrefutably exist in the mind.

I said it was a weak argument. Its usefulness is limited, like you just pointed out. But it could be a good butressing argument for a stronger argument in favor of God's existence.

1 Reply

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier;38160 wrote:

I saidBut it could be a good butressing argument for a stronger argument in favor of God's existence.

such as? :rolleyes:

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Perhaps it is worth pointing out that the premise, that all religions have an idea of God, is false.

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

And also that even if true, one cannot say that "all religions" represents "all people" since many people believe what they're told to believe.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Right, and even if it were all people, popularity is no argument.

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

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:

This is the proof that I require:

I need to speak with God face to face for an hour by tommorow afternoon.

It is the most simplistic and direct form of proving whether or not God exists.

So get that set up.

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know