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

Proof for me would be something direct and personal, that I could experience with my own senses. No amount of other people's arguments for or against the existance of god can sway me in either direction, but if I were to have a personal experience of, or direct communication with god, then that would be sufficient proof for me.

Not that I trust only my senses - but I trust them a lot more than I trust other people's words.

Trouble is, people who have direct communication with god are often described as insane... How would I know I'm not insane? I wouldn't. But that same question could be asked of any person who is religious.

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:

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 things that we hold most important, most dear are ideas. Love, Hope, Kindness, Charity, Justice- invisible.The things that we hold most important, most dear are ideas. Love, Hope, Kindness, Charity, Justice- invisible. 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.

For a start the empircal approach. What is your reason for this approach? Why is it the best one?

Do you believe in love?

nations? or societies? if so can they be proven empirically?

This strikes me as just an effort to shift part, at least, of the burden of proof to others, when it clearly is yours. You are a present/former Jesuit, perhaps? If not, a lawyer (it takes one to know one, they say)?

Proof for me would be something direct and personal, that I could experience with my own senses. No amount of other people's arguments for or against the existance of god can sway me in either direction, but if I were to have a personal experience of, or direct communication with god, then that would be sufficient proof for me.

Not that I trust only my senses - but I trust them a lot more than I trust other people's words.

Trouble is, people who have direct communication with god are often described as insane... How would I know I'm not insane? I wouldn't. But that same question could be asked of any person who is religious.

Alright, avatar, I've got one-

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

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?

Because the best way of gaining knowledge about any thing is to observe it and/or its effect.

I'm afraid it doesn't satisfy my request for an argument that doesn't resort to fiat - to be honest. You seem to be just stating things as if they are apparent facts, without saying why really. You seem to be making a number of very arbitrary and subjective statements without any proofing of your own.

Is belief in god as justifiable as belief in a political system? Why? Without resorting to some hardcore phenomenology - I think the impact and existance of political systems is far more apparrent than that of a God.

And just who is this God? What are his characteristics? What did he do? What's his story? How did he arise? What's his plan? Why is he so much better than any other particular religious or secular "God"?

You say "The things that we hold most important, most dear are ideas. Love, Hope, Kindness, Charity, Justice - invisible." Well, no more than Hate, Despair, Cruelty, Selfishness, Injustice, etc. Why does the fact that there are "Nice Things" lead one to believe in God and, if they do, why doesn't the fact that there are "Bad Things" not call him into question?

You say the realm of ideas is more important than the realm of the material. I'm not sure they are even seperate realms and, if they are, I think that they need each other in equal measure in order to find relevance.

As others have suggested - proof for me would be simply to become aware of a God, or a need for God.

(Incidently, I think there is actually a very strong argument for the existence of deities that I am supremely fond of -and convinced by - it's in From Hell by Alan Moore - but that's all I will say on the subject for now as I wonder if anyone knows what I mean...).

Because the best way of gaining knowledge about any thing is to observe it and/or its effect.
----------------------------------------------------
why?

Biochemical reaction. The feeling of "love" can be induced artificially by, say, intake of MDMA. In fact, MDMA was used in couples therapy before being declared illegal (link). This biochemical reaction also makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, as an offspring benefits more if there are two parents raising it during its first years, instead of just one. It could also explain why the feeling "fades" after a few years, meaning it's time to spread the genes again.
------------------------------------------------------------------
if that is what you think love is then I have serious trouble understanding you

What about the number 37 ?
Conventions.
---------------------------------------------
then so is everything- what makes your view superior to my own then?

Because knowledge of any thing in existence (and its properties) doesn't crop up in one's brain on its own, without the owner of said brain observing said existing thing, its effects or properties.

Because knowledge of any thing in existence (and its properties) doesn't crop up in one's brain on its own, without the owner of said brain observing said existing thing, its effects or properties.
-------------------------------------------------------------
And yet I have observed and heard things that have led me to the conclusion that God exists

Some people claim there's an invisible magician ruling the world, I don't understand them either.
----------------------------------------------
neither do I

I can't hit you over the head with the number 37 or the color red. But when one makes a claim that there exists an entity that CAN interfere with the real world, it cannot be abstract. Abstract things like the concept of "society", or the number 37, can not interact with the real, material, physical world by definition. They're abstract.
--------------------------------------------------
and yet these abstract concepts have led to the deaths of millions, the healing of the sick, created fortunes, caused disasters and inspired or revuleseed innumerable people. I would call somthing that can do these things more real than an apple.

What can I say, nobody's perfect.


"Your Honor we'd like to call our next witness to the stand, Number 37, accused of crimes of war".

But the burden was already yours. You demand proof from me to justify my faith so why is it unfair for me to ask that you justify the demand for proof?

now you're just being silly.

Ah, but I don't. You started this post. "I will prove god's existence, if...."

I think it is silly to try to prove the existence of God, and therefore don't go about asking people to prove God's existence. When someone tells me he will do so, however, then I expect him to come up with a proof. If, instead, he says he will provide a proof if only I tell him what that proof should be, then I think he has no proof to provide.

Now you are being evasive. You are argueing against the premise I have set. I don't care. Tell me what kind of proof you want me to give, essentially the same kind of proof with which you justify your other beliefs, and if you can justify the proof as proof, I will either prove God by those terms or I will concede the point.