Is there proof God exists?

As for evidence of god...

empirically...none.
circumstancial...plenty, but dubious at best.
eyewitness...plenty of testimony, but most of the testimonies contradict each other.

As for standards of of proof. The standard of proof you seem to want us to adopt, is the no standard. The standard in which everything is admissible.

This should be a big hint as to the foundation on which you stand.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

...Regaurdless of what type of evidence you use: scientific, legal or pretend such as RL, you still have to collaborate your evidence. If their is supernatural evidence, it isn't coverging on your thesis. It's not even converging, ergo it isn't really evidence at all.

T
K
O

Not intending to speak for RL - but what do you mean by "collaborate your evidence"?

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

...Regaurdless of what type of evidence you use: scientific, legal or pretend such as RL, you still have to collaborate your evidence. If their is supernatural evidence, it isn't coverging on your thesis. It's not even converging, ergo it isn't really evidence at all.

T
K
O

Not intending to speak for RL - but what do you mean by "collaborate your evidence"?

I mean that if you are to make a testimony about anything, it's meaningless if it isn't validated by something else. It's also meaningless if other testimony contradicts it.

T
K
O

So if I say that your Mom does not love you - then my assertion becomes fact?

Diest TKO wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

...Regaurdless of what type of evidence you use: scientific, legal or pretend such as RL, you still have to collaborate your evidence. If their is supernatural evidence, it isn't coverging on your thesis. It's not even converging, ergo it isn't really evidence at all.

T
K
O

Not intending to speak for RL - but what do you mean by "collaborate your evidence"?

I mean that if you are to make a testimony about anything, it's meaningless if it isn't validated by something else. It's also meaningless if other testimony contradicts it.

T
K
O

So if I say that your Mom does not love you - then my assertion becomes fact?

Not at all. That's my point. Reread my post. You'd need to find other testimony that has continuity with your claim, that my mom does not love me, and then you'd still have to deal with my mother and my testimony that we do in fact love each other. Further, you'd at one point need to establish some sort of credentials as to how you made your conclusion, and even then when compared to the credentials of my mother and self, you'd be trumped.

Why do you keep returning to the example of a individual and their mother? This hasn't gained you any ground in the past.

The truth is that you don't have any credible evidence of a God's existance. Instead of looking for evidence, you seem hell bent on redefining what evidence is. Ironically, you seem to want the benefit of empirical evidence if you think you have some, yet you say at the same time that their won't be any scientific evidence of the supernatural.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

So here's your chance to clarify your stance. You either believe that...

1) There is scientific evidence of God yet to be found.

or

2) That evidence of God would not be scientific.

You can't have both.

T
K
O

Extropy is wrong. There is no proof whatsoever that there is any god.

Give me some other standard of proof to use, and I'll prove using your own standard that god doesn't exist. TKO

Cyracuz wrote:

Extropy is wrong. There is no proof whatsoever that there is any god.

I found a penny on the street yesterday. I noted that it included the phrase: "In God We Trust." Can you please notify the appropriate authorities that they are mistaken!

Diest TKO wrote:

As for evidence of god...

empirically...none.
circumstancial...plenty, but dubious at best.
eyewitness...plenty of testimony, but most of the testimonies contradict each other.

As for standards of of proof. The standard of proof you seem to want us to adopt, is the no standard. The standard in which everything is admissible.

This should be a big hint as to the foundation on which you stand.

T
K
O

To many - God is 'love' (among other things). However for the sake of this conversation - let's use the example of love and plug it in to your assertion:

As for evidence of love...
Empirically - none.
Circumstantial - plenty, but dubious at best.
Eyewitness - plenty of testimony, but most of the testimonies contradict each other.

See what I'm talking about? Why is there such resistance to believing in God when there is so little proof of his existence, when these same people offer no such resistance to believing in love? (Also with so little proof of existence.)

hankarin wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

Extropy is wrong. There is no proof whatsoever that there is any god.

I found a penny on the street yesterday. I noted that it included the phrase: "In God We Trust." Can you please notify the appropriate authorities that they are mistaken!

But can you prove that you found a penny on the street yesterday?

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

As for evidence of god...

empirically...none.
circumstancial...plenty, but dubious at best.
eyewitness...plenty of testimony, but most of the testimonies contradict each other.

As for standards of of proof. The standard of proof you seem to want us to adopt, is the no standard. The standard in which everything is admissible.

This should be a big hint as to the foundation on which you stand.

T
K
O

To many - God is 'love' (among other things). However for the sake of this conversation - let's use the example of love and plug it in to your assertion:

As for evidence of love...
Empirically - none.
Circumstantial - plenty, but dubious at best.
Eyewitness - plenty of testimony, but most of the testimonies contradict each other.

See what I'm talking about? Why is there such resistance to believing in God when there is so little proof of his existence, when these same people offer no such resistance to believing in love? (Also with so little proof of existence.)

the problem with your arguement about love is that you no open up the gates for many intangeable things to be supernatural. This is a problem because it dramatically changes the domain of the idea.

Love for an individual is a emotion. When used in reference to multiple individuals, it is the nature of a relationship. Love in general, as a concept, is a positive attraction to something either material or immaterial...

"I love Tom." (material)
"I love thinking about the future" (immaterial)

The notion of things being supernatural is to assert that some things are beyond what is natural; the idea that they exceed natural law. What is "natural" is certainly difficult to define. The domain of what is natural certainly contains our physical sciences, but it also includes our social sciences: psychology, sociology, political science, economics, etc.

The idea of God directly finds itself outside of the domain of natural, and thus "supernatural." Moreover, God is never clearly defined as either material or immaterial, an almost distinct quality of its concept. the idea that God could be both is in fact one of the reasons it exists outside of the domain of what is natural.

Love, while immaterial certainly falls within the domain of natural. Love as a concept has continuity, and thus its nature can be predicted. Love as a relationship can be evaluated against other relationships, and thus it can be measured.

Love certainly is immaterial, but you still need to make a case that it is outside of what is natural.

T
K
O

Love is not observable?

Since when?

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

Love is not observable?

Since when?

T
K
O

The beginning of mankind.

Symptoms and/or signs of love are observable, but 'love' is not.

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Love is not observable?

Since when?

T
K
O

The beginning of mankind.

Symptoms and/or signs of love are observable, but 'love' is not.

If the symptoms and signs are observable, then your case that you can't prove love just evaporated.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Love is not observable?

Since when?

T
K
O

The beginning of mankind.

Symptoms and/or signs of love are observable, but 'love' is not.

If the symptoms and signs are observable, then your case that you can't prove love just evaporated.

T
K
O

So by your own belief, the proof of love is: "The symptoms and signs are observable". Is this true?

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Love is not observable?

Since when?

T
K
O

The beginning of mankind.

Symptoms and/or signs of love are observable, but 'love' is not.

If the symptoms and signs are observable, then your case that you can't prove love just evaporated.

T
K
O

So by your own belief, the proof of love is: "The symptoms and signs are observable". Is this true?

That and the evidence converges.
K
O