Is there proof God exists?

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.

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.

baddog1 wrote:

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.

Semantics. That's all you've got here. The bible says that god is a being in that he has a will, wrath, intentions, emotions and an image (body).

USAFHokie80 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

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.

Semantics. That's all you've got here. The bible says that god is a being in that he has a will, wrath, intentions, emotions and an image (body).

Speaking of semantics - where does it say that 'God is a "physical' being"?

baddog1 wrote:

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.

Excellent point , baddog.

God is not generally postulated to be a physical being.

And Hokie reinforces the point by bringing up anger, happiness, etc.

Hokie,

Is anger scientifically provable?

Or provable by any standard?

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

real life wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

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.

Excellent point , baddog.

God is not generally postulated to be a physical being.

And Hokie reinforces the point by bringing up anger, happiness, etc.

Hokie,

Is anger scientifically provable?

Or provable by any standard?

i didn't reinforce anything except how silly your comparison is.

and i guess i would (and it's a stretch) say that anger and emotions in general is provable. we can design experiments that will elicit these things. i can slap someone in the face and his response will most likely be anger.

i can see where you're going, and by that standard we can't even prove gravity exists. prove to me "speed" exists. it's ridiculous.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

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.

Excellent point , baddog.

God is not generally postulated to be a physical being.

And Hokie reinforces the point by bringing up anger, happiness, etc.

Hokie,

Is anger scientifically provable?

Or provable by any standard?

i didn't reinforce anything except how silly your comparison is.

and i guess i would (and it's a stretch) say that anger and emotions in general is provable. we can design experiments that will elicit these things. i can slap someone in the face and his response will most likely be anger.

i can see where you're going, and by that standard we can't even prove gravity exists. prove to me "speed" exists. it's ridiculous.

Actually gravity can be quantified.

Can anger?

Love?

Emotions are not 'provable' in any scientific sense.

If you tell me you are happy, is that scientific 'proof' that you are?

Or to use baddog's example, if your mother says she loves you, is that 'proof' that she does?

Many things are not 'scientifically provable'.

Can you 'prove' what you ate for lunch on the 15th of last month? Can you even 'prove' that you ate lunch at all on that day?

Watch this carefully. I'm going to demonstrate somethign very vital to understanding why love is not super natural.

Love is an emotion. If love is super natural for your reasons you've listed, it must follow that all other emotions are additionally super natural as well.

Emotions are immaterial. Emotions such as "love" describe a collection of feelings and thoughts, while another emotion such as "fear" describes a different collection of feelings and emotions.

If I were to take a random sample of feelings and thoughts and band them together I have created a new emotion. We will call this emotion "EmotionX."

Here's the kicker, even if no person ever experiences emotionx, emotionx is still real. I create it, thus it is real. With all of the same dimentions that any emotion has. What goes for one, must go for the flock.

Next, I will talk about geometery.

In a 3-dimentional coordinate frame, we think of things as being of some volume.
In a 2-dimentional coordinate frame, we think of things as being of some area.
In a 1-dimentional coordinate frame, we think of things as a point.

We do work in 4 dimentions quite frequently, most of the time, we assign the 4th dimention to be time or some other function=F(x,y,z).

By your standard of what is super natural, you no have defined several things as being super natural, namely...

a) a point
b) time

At one ponit you are going to have to accept that love is observable and measurable; provable via science.

There's no proof of God, none.
K
O

You've 'proven' nothing new about this matter.

It is NOT my "standard of supernatural" - it is Merriam Websters, so please contact them and explain how they are wrong. I utilized their definition.

You say that love is an emotion. Then you say emotions are immaterial. So if you thanked your Mom for loving you - then told her that her love is immaterial; I wonder how she would feel. (Remember - we can't have it both ways.)

When it comes to God and love - I could care less about geometry, multi-dimensions, etc. so all of that is moot for me in this regard.

You've 'proven' nothing new about this matter.

supernatural

• adjective 1 attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. 2 exceptionally or extraordinarily great.

• noun (the supernatural) supernatural manifestations or events.

2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

supernatural (adj.)
c.1450 (implied in supernaturally), "above nature, transcending nature, belonging to a higher realm," from M.L. supernaturalis "above or beyond nature," from L. super "above" (see super-) + natura "nature" (see nature). Originally with more of a religious sense; association with ghosts, etc., has predominated since c.1799. The noun is attested from 1587.

If that's their definition fine, I still don't find love to be qualified under that definition. Go to dictionary.com and see the multitude of definitions. It seems that you chose the definition to fit your needs.

You say that love is an emotion. Then you say emotions are immaterial. So if you thanked your Mom for loving you - then told her that her love is immaterial; I wonder how she would feel. (Remember - we can't have it both ways.)

Have I made a claim that love is material at some point? I remember saying quite the opposite? Do you claim that love IS material? How exactly am I trying to have it both ways?

When it comes to God and love - I could care less about geometry, multi-dimensions, etc. so all of that is moot for me in this regard.

Translation: You aren't going to address my challenge because it blows a giant hole in your arguement.

supernatural

• adjective 1 attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. 2 exceptionally or extraordinarily great.

• noun (the supernatural) supernatural manifestations or events.

you also left this out of your MW definition...
["Merriam Webster"]
2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

And if you want the horse's mouth...
[etyomology online"]
supernatural (adj.)
c.1450 (implied in supernaturally), "above nature, transcending nature, belonging to a higher realm," from M.L. supernaturalis "above or beyond nature," from L. super "above" (see super-) + natura "nature" (see nature). Originally with more of a religious sense; association with ghosts, etc., has predominated since c.1799. The noun is attested from 1587.

So unless you are about to make the claim that love is not natural or normal...

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!

Rubbish. Love is clearly observable, otherwise you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a couple that's in love, a couple that hates each other and a couple that's indifferent to each other

Nonsense.

If love is "clearly observable", post a photo of love.

You might be able to post a photo of a couple who are hugging, kissing, etc. but that does not prove they are in love. You might be able to post a picture of a couple who are arguing, fighting, screaming, etc. - but again, that does not prove they are not in love.

baddog1 wrote:

Nonsense.

If love is "clearly observable", post a photo of love.

You might be able to post a photo of a couple who are hugging, kissing, etc. but that does not prove they are in love. You might be able to post a picture of a couple who are arguing, fighting, screaming, etc. - but again, that does not prove they are not in love.

If we use that argument, then nothing is what it seems.

God could merely have been lying to us. He could have been some really advanced alien pulling a prank on us.

When Jesus was healing the sick, he actually hated every minute of it and wished the sick person was dead. When a Christian gives money to the poor, he's not actually being charitable.

If the evidence suggests one thing, there is no reason to believe that the opposite is true, unless there is evidence to support the opposite.

Now with the Bible, there's evidence to suggest it is true and evidence to suggest it is not true. Secular accounts of Jesus would be an example of the former; no evidence to support Noah's Flood, would be an example of the latter.

All I can say, at the very least, is that you can't be sure that God exists or not given the evidence available.

BD - You confuse immaterial with imaginary.

Post a photo of time.

T
K
O