Is there proof God exists?

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
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

What "evidence" are you talking about that converges?

"Who is on first?"

The proof that love exists is present, and intuitive. The evidence is the symptoms and signs have continuity, and converge on a singularity: Love.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

The proof that love exists is present, and intuitive. The evidence is the symptoms and signs have continuity, and converge on a singularity: Love.

T
K
O

Wrong. You're dancing. You're trying to explain that 'love' exists w/o exposing that the very same evidence would reveal that God exists. Thus the dance.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
The proof that love exists is present, and intuitive. The evidence is the symptoms and signs have continuity, and converge on a singularity: Love.

T
K
O

Wrong. You're dancing. You're trying to explain that 'love' exists w/o exposing that the very same evidence would reveal that God exists. Thus the dance.

Incorrect. Even if I allowed the type of evidence you wish for the proof of God, you'd still find that the evidence does not converge. No dance.

no predefined symptoms of God. No continuity.

These just aren't the same no matter what.

Shaking the stage doesn't mean I'm dancing.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
The proof that love exists is present, and intuitive. The evidence is the symptoms and signs have continuity, and converge on a singularity: Love.

T
K
O

Wrong. You're dancing. You're trying to explain that 'love' exists w/o exposing that the very same evidence would reveal that God exists. Thus the dance.

Incorrect. Even if I allowed the type of evidence you wish for the proof of God, you'd still find that the evidence does not converge. No dance.

no predefined symptoms of God. No continuity.

These just aren't the same no matter what.

Shaking the stage doesn't mean I'm dancing.

T
K
O

"No predefined symptoms of God"? You're kidding - right? Look up 'symptom' in Merriam Websters. (Here, I'll save you the trouble: Def: something that indicates the existence of something else.) The Bible is clearly a symptom of God and is also clearly predefined.

As to continuity: How about millions of people in 'uninterrupted connection, succession or union' about the existence of God.

Definitely dancing! :wink:

0 Replies

The bible is evidence of liturature. Then I suppose that the writings of Elron Hubbard are then acceptable symptom of God AND aliens. Come to think about it, I'm not sure that Scientologists believe in God... So perhaps only evidence of aliens.

A rock can fall from the sky. This is either evidence of gravity, or that their are angels that push things downward. You're attempt to make legit your kind of evidence only opens up the gate for every absud claim in the universe.

A bible is not evidence. Lot's of religions have a book. Lot's of topics for that matter have books.

Quote:

As to continuity: How about millions of people in 'uninterrupted connection, succession or union' about the existence of God.

When you look at the grand total, the 6.6billion people on the planet, you will quickly see that even if the majority believe in god, given 6.6billion pencils, and 6.6billion pieces of paper, you'd get 6.6billion different pictures, poems, and prose on what god is.

T
K
O

Quit shaking the stage. :wink:

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

...When you look at the grand total, the 6.6billion people on the planet, you will quickly see that even if the majority believe in god, given 6.6billion pencils, and 6.6billion pieces of paper, you'd get 6.6billion different pictures, poems, and prose on what god is.

T
K
O

Quit shaking the stage. :wink:

You've gotten way off topic except for that last paragraph - which proves my point about love vs. God. In your assertion above - exchange the word "god" with the word "love" and the answer is the same.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
...When you look at the grand total, the 6.6billion people on the planet, you will quickly see that even if the majority believe in god, given 6.6billion pencils, and 6.6billion pieces of paper, you'd get 6.6billion different pictures, poems, and prose on what god is.

T
K
O

Quit shaking the stage. :wink:

You've gotten way off topic except for that last paragraph - which proves my point about love vs. God. In your assertion above - exchange the word "god" with the word "love" and the answer is the same.

Oversimplistic idealism. So you are saying that both the evidence of love and the evidence you claim for god converge to singularities? you are too easily confused about the difference between immaterial and imaginary.

Take the 6.6billion and you will find some reoccuring themes, but with "god" you're more likely to see a divergence between those who believe in Yahweh and those who believe Zeus. For that matter, for those who even believe in the same god just under different names, you'll find plenty of divergence.

Still no comment on Elron Hubbard? Do you see the problem with your extra definition of evidence?

Comic books and graphic novels would hold the same degree of validity as the bible and they would both be on par with a math or biology book. This is simply upside down.

However, for sake of fun, I'll, for a limited amount of time, allow for you to fantacize about having the licence to redefine "proof," and redefine the boundries of what is natural.

So, given that. Now prove god exists. But keep in mind that while you prove god, you'll have to be careful to not be proving anything else exists... like for instance a flying spegetti monster.

Have fun, I'm waiting in anticipation.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Oversimplistic idealism...

Similar to: "The proof that my Mom loves me - is because she told me so"?

Diest TKO wrote:

Still no comment on Elron Hubbard? Do you see the problem with your extra definition of evidence?

You included Hubbard as a diversion. He and/or his beliefs have nothing to do with the point I made and you responded to.

Diest TKO wrote:

Comic books and graphic novels would hold the same degree of validity as the bible and they would both be on par with a math or biology book. This is simply upside down.

Another diversionary tactic.

Diest TKO wrote:

However, for sake of fun, I'll, for a limited amount of time, allow for you to fantacize about having the licence to redefine "proof," and redefine the boundries of what is natural.

And yet another.

Diest TKO wrote:

So, given that. Now prove god exists...
T
K
O

Despite repeated attempts by you of diverting the subject - I have already proven that God exists - given your parameters. Now back to the subject: Prove that love exists, using the same criteria that you need for proof that God exists.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Oversimplistic idealism...

Similar to: "The proof that my Mom loves me - is because she told me so"?

That's never been my proof. I've never held out a tire and asked if you wanted to ride my bike. I've said that because my mother's testimony is verified by my own, her testimony gains value. The testimony of people who theorize contrary to that must obtain a greater level of credibility than both me and my mother combined. Quit oversimplifying things.

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Still no comment on Elron Hubbard? Do you see the problem with your extra definition of evidence?

You included Hubbard as a diversion. He and/or his beliefs have nothing to do with the point I made and you responded to.

On the contrary. The point you aim to validate directly grants credibility to many arguements you aren't willing to defend. Hubbard being one of them. Diversion nothing, this speaks directly to your line of questioning. If you are allowed to follow one of my posts with "replace 'god' with 'love'" then I can retort with replace "love" with "Xenu."

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Comic books and graphic novels would hold the same degree of validity as the bible and they would both be on par with a math or biology book. This is simply upside down.

Another diversionary tactic.

If you don't like the outcome of your standard of evidence, perhaps it's not as good as you think it is. Comic books and graphic novels along with several other forms of liturature are nothing more than modern day mythology. They reflect our cultures, our governments, our lives. If in 1000 years people believe superman was real, it will be by following your line of logic, not mine.

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
However, for sake of fun, I'll, for a limited amount of time, allow for you to fantacize about having the licence to redefine "proof," and redefine the boundries of what is natural.

And yet another.

This is what you wanted, a chance to let your evidence be heard. So do it.

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
So, given that. Now prove god exists...
T
K
O

Despite repeated attempts by you of diverting the subject - I have already proven that God exists - given your parameters. Now back to the subject: Prove that love exists, using the same criteria that you need for proof that God exists.

You've proven no such thing. BTW, saying back to the subject to me in a thread about proving god exists, when I'm giving you the stage is outstandingly odd.

For god to exist as love exists? Nice try but the question is flawed. The question is actually prove that God exists as I or for that matter anyone else exists.

You want to prove a concious life form exists, you compare it to another concious life form.

You want to prove a concept is sound, you compare it to another concept.

Prove god to the standard that any other creature is proven to exist. You just can't.

Don't forget the flying spegetti monster, a fairy, a wizzard, a unicorn, zeus, and our friend Xenu.

Face it, your standard of evidence doesn't prove god exists anymore than it proves all gods, all supernatural events exist, ergo non-convergence.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Face it, your standard of evidence doesn't prove god exists anymore than it proves all gods, all supernatural events exist, ergo non-convergence.

T
K
O

If one believes in the M/W definition - that love is a supernatural event, then you are correct. We agree - Case closed!

0 Replies

Love a supernatural event? When does Merriam-Webster give that definition?

0 Replies

hi Wolf,

Is love scientifically provable? I think that is baddog's point.

We don't even have a good definition for love, much less a way to 'prove' it actually exists, (unless you simply take someone's word for it. I think that's called faith.)

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Face it, your standard of evidence doesn't prove god exists anymore than it proves all gods, all supernatural events exist, ergo non-convergence.

T
K
O

If one believes in the M/W definition - that love is a supernatural event, then you are correct. We agree - Case closed!

Love is not a supernatural event. You've established no such ground.

T
K
O

0 Replies

M-W.com wrote:

You'll notice it never says it's a supernatural event.

0 Replies

Hokie,

Can love be scientifically proven?

Or proven by any other standard?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Hokie,

Can love be scientifically proven?

Or proven by any other standard?

Love can be proven to exist.

Psychology is a science.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Love a supernatural event? When does Merriam-Webster give that definition?

There are many supernatural events. Love is only one.

MW def of supernatural (as applicable): "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe".

Let's break this down.

"of or relating to an order of existence" (Q) Is 'love' an order of existence? (A) Of course it is.

"beyond the visible observable universe" (Q) Has anyone ever seen love? (A) Of course not.

Hence: Love is a supernatural event - by definition!

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Hokie,

Can love be scientifically proven?

Or proven by any other standard?

How about anger, happiness, right or wrong?

Your god is a physical being with a will and wrath and many other things attributed to him. Love is none of these things. So comparing them is really kinda silly.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:
Hokie,

Can love be scientifically proven?

Or proven by any other standard?

How about anger, happiness, right or wrong?

Your god is a physical being with a will and wrath and many other things attributed to him. Love is none of these things. So comparing them is really kinda silly.

Hokie:

You cannot have it both ways. ("You" is figurative, please bear with me.) As evolutionists, atheists, etc. claim that God is supernatural - then by definition, God could not be a physical being.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
Love a supernatural event? When does Merriam-Webster give that definition?

There are many supernatural events. Love is only one.

MW def of supernatural (as applicable): "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe".

Let's break this down.

"of or relating to an order of existence" (Q) Is 'love' an order of existence? (A) Of course it is.

"beyond the visible observable universe" (Q) Has anyone ever seen love? (A) Of course not.

Hence: Love is a supernatural event - by definition!

then i suppose magnetism and gravity and acceleration are all supernatural too.

0 Replies

Is there proof God exists?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know