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

You can only beat a dead horse so long before your arm gets tired.

No but there have been about three actual responses meeting the terms of the thread, and only one that did it in any depth, and none of my objections to any of them were answered.

Yeah alot of the twelve pages were filled with people *****ing about the terms. I do genuinlly want to discuss this.

Which is why I thought a suitable resolution to this thread would be to say the proof I require is the proof that avatar6v7 has. If avatar6v7 wont accept that the proof I require is proof, then avatar6v7 accepts that avatar6v7 has no proof.

YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO OBJECT! You asked for OUR requirements for proof. Who are you to tell anyone else what their criteria are??

I told you that I require empirical demonstrability. You objected that empirical demonstration isn't really proof. I responded that the things we KNOW in this world are demonstrated empirically, and this constitutes sufficient proof. And that's what I require for belief in god -- sufficient proof. Find a way for the existence of the creator of the universe to be even 1/10 as believable as the existence of my toenails.

You have yet to explain to me why it is sufficent proof. I know, it's frustrating for you put this was, if anybody could actually be bothered to read it, the premise for this thread. You have to justify proof itself, whatever you may think it to be. I am using over two millenia old methods of reasoning here- before we can prove God exists we must define proof. and God too, but I would like to look at proof first. If I was muddying up somebody elses thread with all this I would indeed be being annoying, but since I made the fact that I would require certain things before I would answer very clear in my post, I would apprecitate it if you didn't act like I was being intentionally obstructive simply because I require rigourous defenitions of what you mean by proof.

There was a reason Socrates was made to drink Hemlock. I'm just saying. This is an avoidance tactic because we both know where this is going to go. You are going to use an existential argument to prove that there is no such thing as proof, send us into a frenzy through circumlocution and end up in a similar place as the Meno where no definition can be provided. This is a terrible tactic to use and it would be much simpler to admit that you have no proof because no proof exists.

1.Is not belief the opposite of proof?

2.The above post is not a proof.
3. It redefines terms in an attempt to construct a proof,
4. yet falls way short.

Well it is not going to be as elegant as I would have wished and I will have to deconstruct your belief systems after the event as opposed to before it but since you are going to be bores I will come out with it.
If you apply logic to any belief-scince, religion, even logic itself, and ask the question why? enough times you will eventually come to the conclusion that people believe in it because it is what it is. So for instance a scientist who believes in a logical empirical materialistic system, believes in it because it is a logical empirical materialistic system, and the nature of this belief is emotional. At root we believe in things we like, and we like them at root because they are and we cannot justify this belief except by defining what the belief is. If all beliefs are based on simple emotional preferance, then all beliefs are on an equal basis- all beliefs are equally proven. Thus everything is prooven or nothing is proven.
This being so we must judge belief systems on what they are not if they make sense in comparison to our pet belief system. For instance scince is a system for discovering things about the physical universe- it has acheived a great deal of things and so seems to work, thusly we can say it is an excellent and reliable system for explaining the physical world in purely material terms. However it can make not statements about morality, politics or anything nonphysical. It is simply not within it's scope. So it cannot be used to make statements about these things. Fundamentalist christianity is in disputation with scince on many issues- it claims that the universe is younger, and created differently, than what scince would lead us to believe. Fundamentalist christianity seems to have some value as a moral guide, though many criticism could be made there, but when making statements about the physical that are in direct contradiction to what a system of judging the physical says. It makes more sense to trust the former system- scince- on a material view of the physical- that of age- than that of a system that has no basis for understanding the workings of the physical at a material level. However a less literal belief- that the the universe was at source created by God, does not impinge upon the realm os the other system. However this same belief might claim that miracles occur- however they are not at odds on somthing observed- the age of the universe- but rather claims about somthing that cannot be systematically proven and observed , and cannot be proven or disproven by science. Where two functioning systems do not meet at odds, neither need be in conflict with the other and both can be believed.
Each system is it's own proof, and one need not seek to proove or disprove the other based on it's own criteria, except where the two conflict. Consequantly, empiracal, rational or any other kind of proof need only be demanded if the two systems are at odds. T
This is my justification of faith and my understanding of proof.
Now argue with it afterwards rather than befor you damned heel draggers!:listening:
And no petty attacks upon my person or any snide insinuations. They hurt me.:perplexed:

Quote:

Originally Posted by validity
1.Is not belief the opposite of proof?
2.The above post is not a proof.
3. It redefines terms in an attempt to construct a proof,
4. yet falls way short.

1,2 and 4 are not worth posting without justification.

3 would need to be backed up with an explanation as opposed to a vaugely worded statement.
Now that was a logical deconstruction. Learn by example.
Next:whistling:

Opinion. Not a sufficent to deconstruct my argument.
1- I think you are wrong
2- I think you are wrong
3- It seems superficial to me
4- I think you are wrong

Next:whistling:

Are you saying it is improper to ask for, or indeed speak of, proving the existence of God, in any scientific sense, because God is "outside" of science (and, perhaps, that his existence is somehow established in accordance with some other non-scientific system but equally valid system in its own realm, e.g. faith)? I assume not, as I can't understand why you would not simply have said so earlier. Enlighten this jaded old altar boy.

1.Is not belief the opposite of proof?

Proof - any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it"

Belief - any cognitive content held as true

Notice that the differnece here is that proof is able to be demonstrated externally from the mind and belief is restricted to the mind.

2.The above post is not a proof.

Is is not proof since you have changed the definition of proof to include belief.

3. It redefines terms in an attempt to construct a proof,

If it seems superficial, consider this. I can redefine your definitions to prove you wrong. Do you consider that proof?

Then why give me opinions, you must hold some value in them if you give them out.

4. yet falls way short.

I still dont have belief in a god. I have not been given any proof by either your defintion nor mine.

My proof is not of the kind you will like. But it is proof established by a rational logic. Answer my questions and we will see.

Great, so your definition of deconstruct includes arrogance.

Ah, I see the problem. You see proof as merely an external empircal proof. Whereas I was presenting a phisolophical, logical proof. The empircal proof has no merit outside of the physical.

I have shown logically that beliefs are self prooving. This should be a cause to question proof perhaps?

No they are standard definitions of proof and belief. You need to start with definitions and work form there.

There is no need to question the standard definition of proof. There are many reasons to question your definition of proof. The belief that the earth is round is not self proving. Is the belief that god does not exist self proving?

PS I have to go out for a bit. Discuss this further, later yes

Okay I'm back...

avatar6v7, you can believe what you want. I do not agree with all that you say.

Enjoy your life.