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

My proof is not of the kind you will like. But it is proof established by a rational logic.

Will somebody actually answer me as I have asked and tell me the nature and reason of proof as you see it. If nobody can justify that then how can you justify anything?

... and why it is proof at all.

what if our desire to express a supreme being or ultimate energy is actually rooted in a sub-concious knowledge of something which we don't have the necessary understanding to express in a conscious state?

Would be awesome to be super man, eh ? :bigsmile:

Well, I've furnished a criteria for truth (see above) and am anxiously waiting. I'm dressed, got my stuff packed and ready to go. Where are we meeting? :listening: Of course I'm kidding....

... I think what the replies you've received thus far are trying to communicate, is that you can't. But that's ok, I'd like to play along here and see what you're trying to get to. So anyway, as to the second part of your question:



This is a good one. Of course, I can only answer for myself, but I suspect that this would probably hold true for a great many people. If you want to prove anything to me (and I'm certainly open to new info), here's how you'd have to go about it, you have two choices, pick either one you want:

RATIONALLY[INDENT]Formulate an argument that is correct - wherein the support you use directly supports what is is you're trying to prove. If you can provide to me an argument that directly supports, and is coherent without large assumptions or postulations, I'm happy to accept that. In this area, you'll need to be wary of large "leaps of faith" and "doesn't follow"-type assertions. I'd think references to collectively-experienced common phenomena can also be fine to use.
WHY IS THIS PROOF?: Because it follows conclusions that we see in causality - insomuch as we're able to understand it. Rationally-formed arguments help us to reasonably know those "things" that can't be experienced. It relies on the mind to use, as the knowledge's foundation - what we can know to deduce - what we want to know. It's limited, to be sure, but can sometimes fill the bill.
[/INDENT]EMPIRICALLY[INDENT]What I can derive from my five senses and what can be physically demonstrated is very preferable. If I can, through one or more of my sense, ascertain that something "is", I'm more likely to believe "it is". Further, if I can "experience" this <whatever it is you want to prove>, I'm more likely to accept it.
WHY IS THIS PROOF: Because for whatever we can know, we need a reason - we need input! I know of no better way of accepting, into my mind, a concept than having a sense-based foundation for that knowledge. Experience is even better: Beyond sensory input, experience weaves the senses with perceptions of the mind. When they "paint a picture" of X, I can accept this entire experience as "proof".
[/INDENT]So there ya go. I've furnished and answered both parts of your initial post-questions. What say ye?

Thanks

Ok well for a start no one is ever going to get the answer right because the answer to does god exist or not is both yes and no.
God does not exist because nothing exists. Absolutly nothing.
God is an illusion created by (and ive said it before) spliting nothing into - infinity and + infinity. God is an infinite number of - infinitys and + infinitys in an infinite tree or an infinite number of 0's and 1's yet is also the nothing beyond them.
But like I said all these 0's and 1's that make up god and the universe are an illusion! Nothing is real.
BUT if reality is an illusion then illusion is a reality.
So nothings real. But so what? If it looks real and sounds real does it really matter if it is real?
I can say that nothing exists and you are not sat in your chair reading this right now..But what good is that if it feels like you are sat down reading this.

As for proof. Nothing can be proven by humans only god.
Only god can say for 100% that something is correct.
Is it proven that 1+1 = 2 ? No!!!!!
Its just a theory thats 99.9999999% likley
You cannot prove it. You can never know anything.
I remember when I took LSD I was obsessed with wanting to know things for 100% but I could never find anything in this universe that was 100%
What a blow to my ego that wants to say yes or no to everything!!!!
Everything you believe is just a theory.
Some theorys are stronger than others but thats all.

Finally putting aside the fact that god isnt real and lets just assume god is real, what can I say to make you believe?

Well the only thing I can say is this...
Our reality is based on cause and effect.
I see god as the cause and the universe as the effect.
People who dont believe in god think the universe just magicly appeared without anything creating it. Doesn't it make more sense to believe that there was a mind behind the universe? That all things have a purpose and that this reality isnt just one big accident that might never of happened?

I feel sorry for people who dont believe in god because you will never know what is to be immortal and know of gods love for you which yes you guessed it is infinite. God loves every entity in this universe with never ending unconditional love. To not realise this is one of lifes bigest tragedys.

So there are 2 paths. One without a god, mortality and an out of control universe or one with a god, immortality and someone in the drivers seat.
If your in a car and its going somewhere doesnt it make sense that there is a driver in the seat? Or is the car as athiests believe driving on magic pixie dust? Ill let you decide which answer is more logically feasable.

Rationally- All rational proof is based on an assumption- a hypotheses. There have beem a number of different rational arguments for the existance of God- for instance the cosmological argument is that there must be a creator- as somthing must have caused the universe. This thing would have to be beyond the unviverse and not of it or it would be part of an infintite chain of causality as opposed to a first cause. This is of course proof, evena assuming you accept it, of a first cause beyond existance. However if this being, this cause, was beyond the universe and caused the universe, it would be trancendent- that is what trancendant means- and so it would not be subject to the assumptions and restrictions that are readily available in our universe. Reason in this case leads us to a space marked 'somthing beyond reason is here.' That is the limitation of reason. It is beholden to the logic that came into being at the beggining of time, but anything before it is beyond it. It indicates its own area of limitation.

Empirically- I have beheld things with my senses that have convinced me that God exists. By your own description of empircal proof, that which we experiance with our senses is proof. I have not, for instance, seen God among all his angels, but then again you haven't had the pleasre of meeting napolean. Do you doubt his existance? Or do you accept that we can experiance confirmation of a things existance without experiancing the thing itself. If that is so you have not explained the nature of that confirmation.
Thank you for the response.

Can I have the cookie now ?

The chances of us being right on the first try (religion) with the creation of the universe is not only slim but darn near impossible.


I have seen things beyond my understanding but nothing which has been so amazing that it could not be rationalized without the use of magic.

a grossly insufficent answer

a grossly insufficent answer

Will somebody actually answer me as I have asked and tell me the nature and reason of proof as you see it. If nobody can justify that then how can you justify anything?

Rationally- All rational proof is based on an assumption- a hypotheses. There have beem a number of different rational arguments for the existance of God- for instance the cosmological argument is that there must be a creator- as somthing must have caused the universe. This thing would have to be beyond the unviverse and not of it or it would be part of an infintite chain of causality as opposed to a first cause. This is of course proof, evena assuming you accept it, of a first cause beyond existance. However if this being, this cause, was beyond the universe and caused the universe, it would be trancendent- that is what trancendant means- and so it would not be subject to the assumptions and restrictions that are readily available in our universe. Reason in this case leads us to a space marked 'somthing beyond reason is here.' That is the limitation of reason. It is beholden to the logic that came into being at the beggining of time, but anything before it is beyond it. It indicates its own area of limitation.
Empirically- I have beheld things with my senses that have convinced me that God exists. By your own description of empircal proof, that which we experiance with our senses is proof. I have not, for instance, seen God among all his angels, but then again you haven't had the pleasre of meeting napolean. Do you doubt his existance? Or do you accept that we can experiance confirmation of a things existance without experiancing the thing itself. If that is so you have not explained the nature of that confirmation.
Thank you for the response.