View Full Version : What would be proof of god(s)?
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-23-08, 07:29 AM
Creationists think there's evidence consciousness is nonmaterial & this is proof of their god.
Some theists say NDEs are proof of god.
Supposedly someone did an experiment which showed a soul leaving a dying person.
If NDEs are reliable or if consciousness is nonmaterial or if we have souls, I say that's no proof of gods.
If evolution & the big bang are wrong, that's no evidence of gods.
A "prophecy" in an early book or scripture of the bible being said to be fulfilled in a later book or scripture means nothing.
Finding some evidence that some human events described in the bible probably happened doesn't mean they happened the way they're described in the bible.
If someone "magicly" appeared before me saying I am god, I wouldn't take their word or it.
If we land on another planet inhabited by intelligent yet primitive beings, would they think we're gods?
I can't think of anything, at this time, that a being could do that wouldn't have me thinking this is simply another being but more powerful than humans.
What would be proof of a god?
Mr. Hamtastic
10-23-08, 07:49 AM
What you say is proof is all the proof you need.
Jan Ardena
10-23-08, 08:17 AM
Creationists think there's evidence consciousness is nonmaterial & this is proof of their god.
Some theists say NDEs are proof of god.
Supposedly someone did an experiment which showed a soul leaving a dying person.
If NDEs are reliable or if consciousness is nonmaterial or if we have souls, I say that's no proof of gods.
If evolution & the big bang are wrong, that's no evidence of gods.
A "prophecy" in an early book or scripture of the bible being said to be fulfilled in a later book or scripture means nothing.
Finding some evidence that some human events described in the bible probably happened doesn't mean they happened the way they're described in the bible.
If someone "magicly" appeared before me saying I am god, I wouldn't take their word or it.
If we land on another planet inhabited by intelligent yet primitive beings, would they think we're gods?
I can't think of anything, at this time, that a being could do that wouldn't have me thinking this is simply another being but more powerful than humans.
What would be proof of a god?
A person who is brought up in an environment where they have never expierenced the love of another human being, could ask the same question with regard to love.
There is simply no proof of evidence of such a phenomenon outside of experiencing it, making it a weak position to one who has no understanding of it.
The thing about love, is that it is something we don't really think about or question, it just occurrs naturally to us. No evidence is ever required to prove that we love, and if we don't love, we do not question the reasons why.
There can never be any proof of evidence that God does or does not exist, because that would imply that there are regions of perception where God is non-existent, which contradict the common, scriptoral, definition of God.
If God does exist, then the notion of freewill becomes apparent, because we have to ability to reject him, to act as though he doesn't exist.
So we are left with 2 alternatives, to believe or not believe.
jan.
cosmictraveler
10-23-08, 08:20 AM
A God only exists when you want to believe it does.
Jan Ardena
10-23-08, 08:32 AM
A God only exists when you want to believe it does.
As that statement stands (on its own), I think that is correct.
But it works both ways.
jan.
jayleew
10-23-08, 08:42 AM
Proof of the supernatural is proof that entities can exist beyond the physical realm. If there is proof that entities can exist beyond the physical, then it would be possible that some of these entities could be very potent, even to the extent of a god. Ghost Hunters have some interesting footage sometimes. Unfortunately, they are biased half the time even though they claim they are trying not to be. Their evidence also needs to be put through the ringer....especially how it is collected. They need an objective thrid party's help. No solid evidence yet...just interesting footage.
Proof? I'd like to see some evidence before I even considered that proof is possible.
If you're talking proof, then why settle? God coming down on a chariot of fire and telling us all to quit screwing up would be proof. He could cause an earthquake, then make the sun dance, just to prove that he is who he says he is.
If you want evidence, however...I'm not sure it's possible. Maybe if we found a wheel to that chariot? I mean, I'd assume the damn thing would be the size of the Sears Tower...
greenberg
10-23-08, 12:22 PM
What would be proof of a god?
To me, such proof would be meeting a being who is beautifuller, wiser, more famous, more rich, harder to make sad, upset or angry, and more powerful than anyone else I know or could imagine.
I don't care much for chariots, but if I found a really attractive one, I would want to know who drives in it.
It would be cool if Hubble pointed at some far away sattelite or meteorite, and found the verse John 3:16 written on it
A person who is brought up in an environment where they have never expierenced the love of another human being, could ask the same question with regard to love.
There is simply no proof of evidence of such a phenomenon outside of experiencing it, making it a weak position to one who has no understanding of it.
The thing about love, is that it is something we don't really think about or question, it just occurrs naturally to us. No evidence is ever required to prove that we love, and if we don't love, we do not question the reasons why.
There can never be any proof of evidence that God does or does not exist, because that would imply that there are regions of perception where God is non-existent, which contradict the common, scriptoral, definition of God.
If God does exist, then the notion of freewill becomes apparent, because we have to ability to reject him, to act as though he doesn't exist.
So we are left with 2 alternatives, to believe or not believe.
jan.
love is chemically induced
Mr. Hamtastic
10-23-08, 12:33 PM
Wait-doesn't evidence and proof make faith invalid? I thought faith was the whole point.
Wait-doesn't evidence and proof make faith invalid? I thought faith was the whole point.
That's a good point. But then again, didn't God make himself apparent to certain people? They required no faith, did they?
Mr. Hamtastic
10-23-08, 12:43 PM
This is true, JDawg. I think he did that sort of thing only if they had evidenced faith previously, though. Besides, the complete lack of evidence for God existing is pretty suspicious, if you ask me.
This is true, JDawg. I think he did that sort of thing only if they had evidenced faith previously, though. Besides, the complete lack of evidence for God existing is pretty suspicious, if you ask me.
I agree. I would think that a god that wanted us to worship it would make itself known.
it because back then he needed to sell his product
nowadays it sells itself
Mr. Hamtastic
10-23-08, 12:56 PM
Oh, I dunno, I think he evidenced himself, then decided that was enough, we'd just have to have faith after the guy he stuffed into the rock. Then there's JC, but the trinity gives me needling pains in my head.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-23-08, 12:57 PM
Varda-pretty much, you must be a believer.
jayleew
10-23-08, 01:24 PM
Proof? I'd like to see some evidence before I even considered that proof is possible.
If you're talking proof, then why settle? God coming down on a chariot of fire and telling us all to quit screwing up would be proof. He could cause an earthquake, then make the sun dance, just to prove that he is who he says he is.
If you want evidence, however...I'm not sure it's possible. Maybe if we found a wheel to that chariot? I mean, I'd assume the damn thing would be the size of the Sears Tower...
You know what is stupid. In Revelations it says he is going to put on a show similar to this, but by then it's too late to be allowed into heaven.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-23-08, 01:27 PM
wait-when is it too late? I'm confused.
jayleew
10-23-08, 01:32 PM
wait-when is it too late? I'm confused.
lol me too!
After God has revealed himself, supposedly is too late to get on his side. At least that is the dominant interpretation of the book of Revelations in the Christian Bible.
Jan Ardena
10-23-08, 02:09 PM
love is chemically induced
How do you know?
jan.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-23-08, 02:14 PM
lol me too!
After God has revealed himself, supposedly is too late to get on his side. At least that is the dominant interpretation of the book of Revelations in the Christian Bible.
Really? Revelations can mean so many things though. We'd have been better off if John and scrawled a note that said,"We'll see." and gone on. Bad stuff will happen. If fundy revelations stuff start coming true, or there's a mass disappearance of christians, might want to go ahead and start praying then.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for everyone being a christian, we do true communism fairly well. But, if it ain't your thing, it ain't your thing. :)
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-23-08, 11:11 PM
If you're talking proof, then why settle? God coming down on a chariot of fire and telling us all to quit screwing up would be proof. He could cause an earthquake, then make the sun dance, just to prove that he is who he says he is.
If that happens, are there any possible explanations other than God?
It would be cool if Hubble pointed at some far away sattelite or meteorite, and found the verse John 3:16 written on it
If that happens, are there any possible explanations other than God?
Oh, I dunno, I think he evidenced himself, then decided that was enough, we'd just have to have faith after the guy he stuffed into the rock. Then there's JC, but the trinity gives me needling pains in my head.
If God exists, then that could very well be true. I don't pretend, like some here to know the thought process of a being that is powerful enough to create the existence that I was born into. But, considering the stakes...heaven, hell, purgatory...you'd think he wouldn't wager our eternities on faith, especially when our brains operate the way they do. If it were true, it wouldn't be fair, and honestly not something I would want any part in.
If that happens, are there any possible explanations other than God?
At that point, would it matter? Who would I be to second-guess a being that could make the sun move? God or no, it might as well be, at that point.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-24-08, 01:56 PM
At that point, would it matter? Who would I be to second-guess a being that could make the sun move? God or no, it might as well be, at that point.
It would matter to me. Specially if it's done by some machine which I could operate if only I could get to it. Or if it's done thru some knowledge that being just happens to have that I don't yet.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-24-08, 01:57 PM
JDawg-If God exists, you don't get to decide if you have any part in it. If he doesn't, you can say,"What, me, worry?" :D
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-24-08, 02:00 PM
Whether gods exist is off topic. Faith is off topic. Whether humans get to decide anything or it's all up to the whims of apathetic gods is off topic.
It would matter to me. Specially if it's done by some machine which I could operate if only I could get to it. Or if it's done thru some knowledge that being just happens to have that I don't yet.
What are you, Indiana Jones? I would assume (and I can, since this was my idea) that if a being is big and smart enough to do what it did, then chances are none of us would be able to even comprehend the technology, let alone use it.
JDawg-If God exists, you don't get to decide if you have any part in it. If he doesn't, you can say,"What, me, worry?"
There's no way to opt-out of the contract?! Man, I just signed with Scott Boras and everything!
Mr. Hamtastic
10-24-08, 02:05 PM
Okeedokee. Proof of God is not currently possible. Given your examples of things that would not be proof, I can't imagine anything being an acceptable proof to you, stranger. Then again, proof is pretty relative. I accept the letters on my screen as proof of you, so I guess I'm easy. :D
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-24-08, 02:10 PM
What are you, Indiana Jones? I would assume (and I can, since this was my idea) that if a being is big and smart enough to do what it did, then chances are none of us would be able to even comprehend the technology, let alone use it.
Yes, I'm Indiana Jones. Certainly nothing wrong with that.
Of course you can assume that & I can not assume that.
I asked for opinions & I got yours, I appreciate it & didn't even criticize it. I simply responded with mine.
Yes, I'm Indiana Jones. Certainly nothing wrong with that.
Of course you can assume that & I can not assume that.
I asked for opinions & I got yours, I appreciate it & didn't even criticize it. I simply responded with mine.
...wanna hug it out?
God is the only possible proof of god.
scorpius
10-25-08, 07:24 PM
Creationists think there's evidence consciousness is nonmaterial & this is proof of their god.
if its non material,what the f is it made of,,,how would they know it exists?
Some theists say NDEs are proof of god.
how could being near death be proof of god?
Supposedly someone did an experiment which showed a soul leaving a dying person.
and yet with all the cameras everywhere no one took a picture of it!
What would be proof of a god?
xian bible says that WHATEVER one (the believer) asks for in prayer shall be given to them,
IF that worked 100% of the time,would be pretty damn good proof imo..
so..does it?
SkinWalker
10-26-08, 12:31 AM
Evidence for a god would be where someone prays to have an amputated leg regrown and it does before his eyes.
Evidence for a god would be a scriptural passage that reveals ohms law; Avogadro's number; Planck's Constant; or how to synthesize a vaccine for any disease.
Evidence for a god would also be evidence that an immaterial soul actually exists since various religious cult doctrines both extant and extinct invoke this grand hope of humanity (that we somehow continue our awareness post-death).
Mod Note: Off-topic & preaching post(s) deleted. If you have concerns, PM me.
Cellar_Door
10-26-08, 07:26 AM
If NDEs are reliable or if consciousness is nonmaterial or if we have souls, I say that's no proof of gods.
If evolution & the big bang are wrong, that's no evidence of gods.
:bravo:
On an interesting side note, I have asked theists several times in threads like this one what it would take to convince them that their religion was wrong, and they almost always say that there is no evidence that could ever possibly convince them, no matter what. I've even asked Christians what they would think if followers of some other religion were able to miraculously heal the sick etc, and they usually respond that they would assume it was a trick of the devil :rolleyes:
A person who is brought up in an environment where they have never expierenced the love of another human being, could ask the same question with regard to love.
There is simply no proof of evidence of such a phenomenon outside of experiencing it, making it a weak position to one who has no understanding of it.
This is just stupid. Of course there is evidence of love. The fact that parents often risk their life for their children, or that husbands and wives are monogamous with each other is evidence that some special relationship exists between them.
I could explain that love was a special relationship that causes people to be devoted to each other and put the needs and happiness of someone else before their own (or some other definition that approximately described love) and then provide COUNTLESS examples of real-life behavior to serve as evidence that this "love" thing does in fact exist. It would be enough to convince any reasonable person that love exists, even if they didn't actually understand the nature of love themselves and had never experienced it first-hand.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-26-08, 11:17 AM
Nasor-that's the way faith works. If you have faith that no God exists, there is no convincing you. If you have faith that God exists, no convincing you otherwise.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-26-08, 11:18 AM
reasonable is relative.
Nasor-that's the way faith works. If you have faith that no God exists, there is no convincing you. If you have faith that God exists, no convincing you otherwise.
Only if you define "faith" to mean "a blind belief that's impervious to logic and reason." I would say that I have faith that my parents love me, but if tomorrow they decided to try to kill me I would be willing to reevaluate that position.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-26-08, 11:32 AM
logically we could reach the conclusion that all humans should commit suicide. Reason is very relative.
Jan Ardena
10-26-08, 11:41 AM
Nasor,
This is just stupid. Of course there is evidence of love. The fact that parents often risk their life for their children, or that husbands and wives are monogamous with each other is evidence that some special relationship exists between them.
This could be out of loyalty, to some cause or belief.
What makes you know that it is love?
jan.
Nasor,
This could be out of loyalty, to some cause or belief.
What makes you know that it is love?
It's not iron-clad proof of love, but it would be strong empirical evidence for love that could be shown to someone who was skeptical that love existed.
And in any case, love is a subjective internal experience. If you want to say that god is merely a subjective internal experience, I might be inclined to agree with you.
Jan Ardena
10-26-08, 12:35 PM
Nasor,
And in any case, love is a subjective internal experience. If you want to say that god is merely a subjective internal experience, I might be inclined to agree with you.
I like the switch. In one breath you say of there is evidence of love, proceed to give examples. Then when love is used as a metaphor for God, all of a sudden it is purely a subjective internal experience.
An atheist technique?
jan.
I like the switch. In one breath you say of there is evidence of love, proceed to give examples. Then when love is used as a metaphor for God, all of a sudden it is purely a subjective internal experience.
Love is and always has been a subjective internal experience. There is nothing "all of a sudden" about that. There is, however, empirical evidence that people do in fact have this particular experience. Subjective internal experiences are hard to gather empirical evidence for, because your possible evidence is limited to the person's own account of their experience and any behavior that the person might display that would be consistent with the experience that is being described.
Never the less, it is indeed possible to gather empirical evidence that love is a real phenomenon, and so your claim that there is no evidence for love is bullshit.
Edit: Suppose a random strange approached you on the street and told you he loved you. Would you just take his word for it? Of course not. You would wait until you had some evidence that he loved you.
Jan Ardena
10-26-08, 02:14 PM
Nasor,
Love is and always has been a subjective internal experience. There is nothing "all of a sudden" about that.
Your switch was sudden though.
There is, however, empirical evidence that people do in fact have this particular experience.
Unless you can show otherwise, no one has ever seen love, no one knows what it actually is, but most people understand what it is due to experience.
There doesn't need to be any explanation, scientific or otherwise, for anyone to understand what love is. This sounds like experience with God.
How is it evidence when it comes to love, but not evidence when it comes to God?
Subjective internal experiences are hard to gather empirical evidence for, because your possible evidence is limited to the person's own account of their experience and any behavior that the person might display that would be consistent with the experience that is being described.
But you are prepared to accept evidence based on the purely subjective nature of love. Why not God?
Never the less, it is indeed possible to gather empirical evidence that love is a real phenomenon, and so your claim that there is no evidence for love is bullshit.
You keep spouting, I keep hearing, but you've yet to back up this claim.#
Please present love to us, here and now.
Edit: Suppose a random strange approached you on the street and told you he loved you. Would you just take his word for it? Of course not. You would wait until you had some evidence that he loved you.
For obvious reasons, especially if I have some experience of serious relationships. But that does not explain what love actually is.
jan.
Your switch was sudden though.
I did not "switch" anything. My point has not changed. I was merely pointing out how sad it is that in your attempt to come up with another example of something that people believe in even though it can't be supported with evidence you had to resort to a subjective internal experience. I find this sad because we're supposed to be discussing the omnipotent master of the universe, which I would not expect to be as nebulous and subjective as an emotional experience.
Unless you can show otherwise, no one has ever seen love, no one knows what it actually is, but most people understand what it is due to experience.
There doesn't need to be any explanation, scientific or otherwise, for anyone to understand what love is.
In your initial post you argued that one couldn't provide evidence that love exists to someone who had never experienced it. I was pointing out that this wasn't true; if you described the experience of love to someone who was skeptical that such an experience really occurred, you could easily provide evidence that some people did indeed have such an experience.
But you are prepared to accept evidence based on the purely subjective nature of love. Why not God?
Because I would expect the omniscient, omnipotent master of the universe to be capable of more interaction than causing people to have subjective internal experiences. I would expect him to be able to do things like cause people to regrow lost limbs when they pray for it. I would not, on the other hand, expect people's internal experiences to cause lost limbs to grow back.You keep spouting, I keep hearing, but you've yet to back up this claim.#
Please present love to us, here and now.
What, you want a definition of love? Okay, I can give you a definition off the top of my head. "Love" is a phenomenon that causes the experiencer's happiness to become tied to the welfare and happiness of another person, even at the voluntary expense of the experiencer's own welfare and happiness. It also causes the experiencer to want to spend time around the subject of their love so that they can interact with them. Typically someone in love wants for the subject of their love to experience reciprocal feelings toward them.
If I gave that loose definition of love to someone who had never experienced it and they were skeptical that people really had such experiences, I could show him evidence in the form of documented human behavior to support my assertion that some people do indeed have such experiences.
Jan Ardena
10-26-08, 03:11 PM
Nasor,
I find this sad because we're supposed to be discussing the omnipotent master of the universe, which I would not expect to be as nebulous and subjective as an emotional experience.
Would you not expect such a being to create a whole scenario such as the universe. Wouldn't his action be absolute, complete, and instantaneous, from his own perspective.
I was pointing out that this wasn't true; if you described the experience of love to someone who was skeptical that such an experience really occurred, you could easily provide evidence that some people did indeed have such an experience.
The same can be said of God, which is probably why millions of people believe in him.
Because I would expect the omniscient, omnipotent master of the universe to be capable of more interaction than causing people to have subjective internal experiences.
Have you thought from his perspective (based on scriptoral definitions)?
Maybe there is no point to such impromtu appearances, outside of his scheduled appearances (scriptoral based), and the appearances of his close devotees to spread understanding in each millenium, according to time, place and circumstance?
I would expect him to be able to do things like cause people to regrow lost limbs when they pray for it.
Read the gospels, there are plenty of miracles to suit your curiosity. If you don't believe they existed, that is your choice. There were non believers who witnessed those events, I imagine not all of them believed it was divine by its nature. So what makes you think you will believe such events, and not seek a naturalistic explanation.
Also, there are no scriptures where the character God tries to prove his existence. If he exists then it doesn't whether we believe he exists or not, in order to validate his existence. It simply just is. To come to that realisation to full effect must be the greatest miracle of all.
What, you want a definition of love? Okay, I can give you a definition off the top of my head. "Love" is a phenomenon that causes the experiencer's happiness to become tied to the welfare and happiness of another person, even at the voluntary expense of the experiencer's own welfare and happiness. It also causes the experiencer to want to spend time around the subject of their love so that they can interact with them. Typically someone in love wants for the subject of their love to experience reciprocal feelings toward them.
I understand what you mean, and I agree with you, but it doesn't explain what love actually is. Someone who has never recieved love, only the opposite, would still be in the dark about what love actually is. Untill they experience it for themself. They would interpret your explanation by their own experience, and would probably see it as an opportunity to exploit you, or the person who was showing them love.
jan.
The same can be said of God, which is probably why millions of people believe in him.
If you want to argue that there is evidence for god, fine - since you apparently believe in god I would expect you to. I was just getting annoyed because you seemed to be taking a "some things can't be supported by evidence, maybe god is one of them" approach.
Have you thought from his perspective (based on scriptoral definitions)?
Maybe there is no point to such impromtu appearances, outside of his scheduled appearances (scriptoral based), and the appearances of his close devotees to spread understanding in each millenium, according to time, place and circumstance?
Well, convincing 4 billion out of 6.6 billion people in the world who aren't christians that christianity is correct would be the point. Whether or not god cares about that enough to make his presence unambiguously apparent to everyone is of course up to god, but I had the impression that he wanted people to worship him and believe in him.
Read the gospels, there are plenty of miracles to suit your curiosity. If you don't believe they existed, that is your choice. There were non believers who witnessed those events, I imagine not all of them believed it was divine by its nature. So what makes you think you will believe such events, and not seek a naturalistic explanation.
I doubt that the miraculous events described in the bible ever occurred, just like I doubt the magical stories in all 2000+ year old texts. If I ever actually witnessed anything as miraculous as what's described in the bible I would probably become a christian immediately.
Also, there are no scriptures where the character God tries to prove his existence. If he exists then it doesn't whether we believe he exists or not, in order to validate his existence. It simply just is. To come to that realisation to full effect must be the greatest miracle of all.
If god really doesn't care if we believe in him or not, like I said that's up to him.
I understand what you mean, and I agree with you, but it doesn't explain what love actually is.
I disagree. I contend that the set of experiences and feelings I described is love. When people talk about "love" they are talking about the set of feelings that I described.
greenberg
10-26-08, 03:54 PM
If I gave that loose definition of love to someone who had never experienced it and they were skeptical that people really had such experiences, I could show him evidence in the form of documented human behavior to support my assertion that some people do indeed have such experiences.
So what? This would not convince the person that love is possible for them.
In effect, that person would still be in a state of unbelief about the existence of love, despite all the evidence.
That is because if something is purported to be relevant to one, then one will be skeptical about its existence unless one experiences it oneself, no matter how much evidence from other people they are provided.
If belief in God would be as relevant to oneself as the existence of, say, polar bears or electrons, one would not have much trouble accepting the existence of God as true, just like one does not have much trouble accepting the existence of polar bears or electrons as true. For things that aren't all that relevant to us personally, even hearsay can suffice for us to believe it exists.
For things that aren't all that relevant to us personally, we question very little how the evidence for them was gathered.
But with things that are relevant to us personally, we have much higher standards of what qualifies as evidence. When we seek medical treatment, we like to get a second opinion, we discuss things with our doctor, we don't just accept what we're told. When someone claims to love us, we don't just believe it, no, we want some evidence, and we are willing to reevaluate our position should evidence to the contrary come in.
This is one of the reasons some people don't believe in God: they have no personal experience of God. And all the evidence in the world that other people can provide is nothing against that lack of firsthand, personal experience.
And this can be extremely frustrating.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-26-08, 04:01 PM
On an interesting side note, I have asked theists several times in threads like this one what it would take to convince them that their religion was wrong, and they almost always say that there is no evidence that could ever possibly convince them, no matter what. I've even asked Christians what they would think if followers of some other religion were able to miraculously heal the sick etc, and they usually respond that they would assume it was a trick of the devil :rolleyes:
Good point! I've experienced that many times in life but hadn't yet thought to ask it in this forum.
reasonable is relative.
No. It's not.
Jan Ardena
10-26-08, 04:07 PM
Nasor,
I was just getting annoyed because you seemed to be taking a "some things can't be supported by evidence, maybe god is one of them" approach.
You asociated the terms, omnipotent, and omniscient, with God, yet I don't think you fully apreciate what those terms signify.
I doubt that the miraculous events described in the bible ever occurred,
That is your perogative.
If I ever actually witnessed anything as miraculous as what's described in the bible I would probably become a christian immediately.
Where is the unconditional love in that?
You want God on your own terms. If you wanted your husband or wife, on your own terms, the relationship most probably wouldn't last. And if it did, it would be miserable.
As you don't believe Jesus was the person portrayed in the text, the actual love of God, by Jesus, probably went straight over your head.
But in all scriptures, unconditional love is the catalyst.
If god really doesn't care if we believe in him or not, like I said that's up to him.
Nobody said God doesn't care. As far as God is concerned, every human on the planet has the opportunity to become his devotee. As some level of religion is available to everyone, and the free will to choose or not.
If God is God, then everybody is provided for through nature, not some, but all.
Of course if you don't believe in God (your free will) then that means nothing to you. You will have different explanations for everything.
I disagree. I contend that the set of experiences and feelings I described is love. When people talk about "love" they are talking about the set of feelings that I described.
Then we'll have to agree to dis-agree. I believe that try to explain love to the loveless, is like trying to explain green to the blind.
jan.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-26-08, 04:10 PM
Nasor has logicly supported claims of love. Claims of gods haven't been supported.
Regardless, some discussion of it may be good for comparision/contrast but now it's gone off topic.
So what? This would not convince the person that love is possible for them.
The question wasn't whether or not it would be possible to convince someone that love was possible for them, it was whether or not you could provide evidence that love existed at all.
In effect, that person would still be in a state of unbelief about the existence of love, despite all the evidence.
That is because if something is purported to be relevant to one, then one will be skeptical about its existence unless one experiences it oneself, no matter how much evidence from other people they are provided.
Don't be stupid. As a male it is 100% certain that I will never be able to experience giving birth, but I have zero skepticism about whether or not some people give birth - and it's pretty damn relevant for me when I'm considering whether or not to wear a condom. It's ridiculous to say that someone can't believe something when presented with evidence of it just because they haven't experienced it personally.
If belief in God would be as relevant to oneself as the existence of, say, polar bears or electrons, one would not have much trouble accepting the existence of God as true, just like one does not have much trouble accepting the existence of polar bears or electrons as true. For things that aren't all that relevant to us personally, even hearsay can suffice for us to believe it exists.
For things that aren't all that relevant to us personally, we question very little how the evidence for them was gathered.
But with things that are relevant to us personally, we have much higher standards of what qualifies as evidence. When we seek medical treatment, we like to get a second opinion, we discuss things with our doctor, we don't just accept what we're told. When someone claims to love us, we don't just believe it, no, we want some evidence, and we are willing to reevaluate our position should evidence to the contrary come in.
Replace "relevant to us" with "implausible" or "fantastical". It would be of no relevance to me whatsoever if there was s teapot in orbit around Jupiter - but I still probably wouldn't believe it unless I had some pretty strong evidence, because such a thing seems so implausible to me.
We are willing to believe things based on little evidence if the claim in question fits in well with everything else we have observed about the world and if it generally makes sense and seems plausible to us.
Electrons, by the way, are fairly fantastical - which is why people didn't believe in them until so much evidence had been accumulated about them. Since I already have experience with large furry animals existing, it probably wouldn't take much to make me believe in polar bears (although I would probably wonder why I hadn't heard of them before).
This is one of the reasons some people don't believe in God: they have no personal experience of God. And all the evidence in the world that other people can provide is nothing against that lack of firsthand, personal experience.
And this can be extremely frustrating.
This seems to assume that "all the evidence in the world" amounts to much more than an ancient book full of magic stories. Theists love to say "Oh well, those atheists will just ignore whatever evidence we show them" because it allows them to avoid having to confront the fact that they don't actually have any empirical evidence.
greenberg
10-26-08, 04:31 PM
The question wasn't whether or not it would be possible to convince someone that love was possible for them, it was whether or not you could provide evidence that love existed at all.
To a loveless person, the evidence would not matter.
You seem to think that evidence can stand on its own, objectively, separate from the people who are in the position to reflect on it, to accept it or reject it.
You want God on your own terms.
If you mean that there is a minimum standard of evidence that will cause me to believe in a god, then yes.
If you wanted your husband or wife, on your own terms, the relationship most probably wouldn't last. And if it did, it would be miserable.
It's not even clear to me that you are able to follow this discussion any more, because this has no apparent logical connection to anything. I have minimum standards for what would cause me to believe in god, just like I have minimum standards for what would cause me to believe in anything. Everyone has minimum standards for belief. You appear to be confusing the fact that I need evidence before I believe things with relationships or something.
As you don't believe Jesus was the person portrayed in the text, the actual love of God, by Jesus, probably went straight over your head.
But in all scriptures, unconditional love is the catalyst.
I would argue that I do understand the concept, I just don't believe it to be real.
Nobody said God doesn't care.
So he cares, but not enough to actually provide convincing evidence that he exists. Got it.
As far as God is concerned, every human on the planet has the opportunity to become his devotee. As some level of religion is available to everyone, and the free will to choose or not.
If God is God, then everybody is provided for through nature, not some, but all.
Of course if you don't believe in God (your free will) then that means nothing to you. You will have different explanations for everything.
I do not "choose" what to believe. My beliefs are forced on me by reason and evidence. I couldn't simply choose to start believing that there is a teapot in orbit around Jupiter, even if I liked the idea. Although I've noticed that the idea of being able to believe something simply because they have decided to believe it (rather than because they have evidence that it is correct) seems to be pretty common among theists.
To a loveless person, the evidence would not matter.
Oh, right. Just like it's impossible for me to believe in giving birth, since I will never actually be able to do it myself. The fact that I've read about it in medical textbooks and seen hospital delivery wards where people allegedly give birth means nothing to me.
Face it, your premise that it's impossible to use evidence to convince someone of something that they haven't personally experienced is absurd.
greenberg
10-26-08, 04:41 PM
Face it, your premise that it's impossible to use evidence to convince someone of something that they haven't personally experienced is absurd.
I am proof that it is not. I am a loveless person. Nobody and nothing has so far convinced me that love exists, much less that love exists for me.
logically we could reach the conclusion that all humans should commit suicide. Reason is very relative.
In an orderly fashion of course :D
I am proof that it is not. I am a loveless person. Nobody and nothing has so far convinced me that love exists, much less that love exists for me.
For goodness sake, try to keep up with the conversation. The fact that some people can't be convinced of some things doesn't mean that it's always impossible to use evidence to convince people of things that they haven't experienced. You were trying to argue the absurd position that people will always be skeptical about things that are relevant to them unless they have experienced them first hand. It only takes a single counter-example to prove that wrong. You personally might operate that way, but most of us aren't so unreasonable.
Even if you have never experienced love, if you are a rational person who has paid any attention to human society and interaction then you will have observed a great deal of evidence that some people experience what I defined as love earlier in the thread, even if you do not.
greenberg
10-26-08, 04:51 PM
It only takes a single counter-example to prove that wrong.
Riiight. Your counter-examples are relevant, but mine are not.
Riiight. Your counter-examples are relevant, but mine are not.
Correct. Because you made a claim, and I provided a counter-example to dispute that claim. You, on the other hand, are apparently trying to provide a counter-example to the claim that people will always be willing to believe something that they haven't experienced if they are provided with evidence - which is a claim that no one has made. But since you're clearly not even able to keep up with the conversation, I think I'll head off for the night.
Look, its really, really, really easy.
All this babble and bible doesn't proove squat.
Just produce a god and you are done. No atheist worth his salt will deny an actual god if you produce it.
Anything else is just worthless bible...I mean babble.
Jan Ardena
10-27-08, 07:00 AM
Nasor has logicly supported claims of love. Claims of gods haven't been supported.
Regardless, some discussion of it may be good for comparision/contrast but now it's gone off topic.
Sorry about that.
I cannot see how proof of God could be acomplished to the satisfaction of some atheists, because God would be invisible to their methods, and to their naturalistic minds. What would they be looking for?
They have rendered the literature which explains God, as imaginary, therefore not worth using. So what's left?
What do you hope to find?
Asking for proof of God within the realm of a naturalistic worldview, seems to be a ploy to put a rapid end to the discussion, and claim victory. I see no other use for it.
jan.
greenberg
10-27-08, 11:00 AM
Correct. Because you made a claim, and I provided a counter-example to dispute that claim. You, on the other hand, are apparently trying to provide a counter-example to the claim that people will always be willing to believe something that they haven't experienced if they are provided with evidence - which is a claim that no one has made.
You are twisting things up.
This is how it started:
If I gave that loose definition of love to someone who had never experienced it and they were skeptical that people really had such experiences, I could show him evidence in the form of documented human behavior to support my assertion that some people do indeed have such experiences.
So what? This would not convince the person that love is possible for them.
In effect, that person would still be in a state of unbelief about the existence of love, despite all the evidence.
That is because if something is purported to be relevant to one, then one will be skeptical about its existence unless one experiences it oneself, no matter how much evidence from other people they are provided.
We are talking abut different things, you are omitting my point about personal relevance.
But since you're clearly not even able to keep up with the conversation, I think I'll head off for the night.
True, I am not able to keep up with you, and I am glad it is so.
Jan Ardena
10-27-08, 12:32 PM
Nasor,
If you mean that there is a minimum standard of evidence that will cause me to believe in a god, then yes.
Actually I meant what I said, but never mind.
It's not even clear to me that you are able to follow this discussion any more, because this has no apparent logical connection to anything.
It's quite simple, you will accept that God exists on your own terms, on what you view as viable evidence. Yet there would still be no proof that God existed no matter how many biblical miracles took place, as everything could be explained via natural means, whether viable or not.
So whether God exists or not, is not determined by what you regard as evidence. And love is not guarenteed by observing the symptoms you described, even though it may seem that way. This is the experience of couples, who upon the end of the honeymoon period of their relationship, realise that they actually have nothing in common.
Everyone has minimum standards for belief. You appear to be confusing the fact that I need evidence before I believe things with relationships or something.
I am using love as a metaphor for God.
I would argue that I do understand the concept, I just don't believe it to be real.
That's fair enough, as I said it your perogative.
So he cares, but not enough to actually provide convincing evidence that he exists. Got it.
Again, you are choosing to look at it purely from your own point of view.
I do not "choose" what to believe. My beliefs are forced on me by reason and evidence.
You will only accept God on your terms, what YOU regard as viable evidence. And the evidence you accept contradicts the nature of God, as described. At first this could seem reasnable, but as soon as you decline to look at it any other way, on account of non belief, then you have chosen what to believe.
I couldn't simply choose to start believing that there is a teapot in orbit around Jupiter, even if I liked the idea.
Neither could I.
Although I've noticed that the idea of being able to believe something simply because they have decided to believe it (rather than because they have evidence that it is correct) seems to be pretty common among theists.
And where are you any different?
You've decided to believe God doesn't exist, because what you have decided is evidence, isn't forthcoming.
jan.
Billy T
10-27-08, 03:57 PM
In answer to thread's question (and within the presumed power of the Christian version of God) would be a modern miracle. (Miracle defined to be a clear macro-scale violation of physics.)
Now if only I, or a few more experience this "miracle" it could be just some sort of mass halucination, so God if you are reading, and want all to believe you exists, why not transport all fish etc from the great lakes into the ocean (adapting them in mid-flight to salt water) and then transform the water of the great lakes into wine. (Port wine would seem appropriate and I like that.) - I.e. a somewhat bigger "party trick" than the Bible claims you have already done. That would persuade me you are real.
While you are at it, make the rivers that currently flow into the Great Lakes, and any rain or snow falling in, turn upwards with increasing velocity to become clouds, at least until we get the Great lakes wine all bottled. Don't forget to transform the wine back to water as it goes over Niagra Falls so long as there is any flow over them. Thanks, God.
PS This would also clearly show the Moslims that you approve of drinking wine. Then instead of killing them and them killing Christians, both acting in your name, we could live in peace with each other and celibrate the end to this strife. - You are in favor of that, are you not?
What are you waiting for, if you exist, are loving, all powerful etc.? :shrug:
greenberg
10-27-08, 05:26 PM
In answer to thread's question (and within the presumed power of the Christian version of God) would be a modern miracle. (Miracle defined to be a clear macro-scale violation of physics.)
Now if only I, or a few more experience this "miracle" it could be just some sort of mass halucination, so God if you are reading, and want all to believe you exists, why not transport all fish etc from the great lakes into the ocean (adapting them in mid-flight to salt water) and then transform the water of the great lakes into wine. (Port wine would seem appropriate and I like that.) - I.e. a somewhat bigger "party trick" than the Bible claims you have already done. That would persuade me you are real.
While you are at it, make the rivers that currently flow into the Great Lakes, and any rain or snow falling in, turn upwards with increasing velocity to become clouds, at least until we get the Great lakes wine all bottled. Don't forget to transform the wine back to water as it goes over Niagra Falls so long as there is any flow over them. Thanks, God.
PS This would also clearly show the Moslims that you approve of drinking wine. Then instead of killing them and them killing Christians, both acting in your name, we could live in peace with each other and celibrate the end to this strife. - You are in favor of that, are you not?
What are you waiting for, if you exist, are loving, all powerful etc.? :shrug:
Would you ever talk in such an idle way to a friend of yours?
Would you ever talk in such an idle way to a judge of the Supreme Court?
Would you ever talk in such an idle way to the British Queen?
My assumption is that you would not. But you do to God, who is so much more than a friend, a judge of the Supreme Court or the British Queen ...
Billy T
10-27-08, 06:12 PM
To Greenberg:
If I shocked you, good. You obviously needed it. For you, no proof is needed as "God exists." You know that, I assume, because your father told you so, etc. As they say:
"Apples seldom fall far from the tree."
Mr. Hamtastic
10-27-08, 08:12 PM
Bah, I'll come in this thread every time I see it alive, just to say this: God requires faith... proof negates need for faith, thus God has made sure there is no proof besides that in the far-flung past. If I tell you that right now something is happening in my house, you have no reason to believe it, besides what I say. It's much the same.
Billy T
10-27-08, 08:20 PM
Bah, I'll come in this thread every time I see it alive, just to say this: God requires faith... proof negates need for faith, thus God has made sure there is no proof besides that in the far-flung past. ...What changed that converted a past necessity or desirability of God providing proof long ago to no need for it now?
Nothing to do with the advance of scientific understanding of what caused earthquakes, lightening, disease etc. I suppose.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-27-08, 08:43 PM
spelling either.
Ask God what his intentions were, I can only guess. He's supposed to pop up sometime soon, ask him then. He won't be real friendly, I gather, but it's worth a shot. :D
SnakeLord
10-27-08, 08:55 PM
God requires faith... proof negates need for faith, thus God has made sure there is no proof besides that in the far-flung past.
So wait... In the "far flung past" people didn't need faith, 'proof' was available. So why then was proof available and acceptable for people from the far flung past but it's unacceptable and unavailable for people not from the far flung past?
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-27-08, 10:35 PM
Are the Q gods?
Is Trelayne a god?
greenberg
10-28-08, 02:48 AM
To Greenberg:
If I shocked you, good. You obviously needed it. For you, no proof is needed as "God exists." You know that, I assume, because your father told you so, etc. As they say:
"Apples seldom fall far from the tree."
What?? :eek:
You have no sense of decency, this is what I am pointing out.
madanthonywayne
10-29-08, 12:56 AM
The best proof would be to die, wake up in heaven, and find yourself standing before God.
Jan Ardena
I cannot see how proof of God could be acomplished to the satisfaction of some atheists, because God would be invisible to their methods, and to their naturalistic minds. What would they be looking for?
Simple, an actual god. Not invisible fantasy gods. Produce an actual god and 99.99% of all atheists will immediately convert.
They have rendered the literature which explains God
Why do you settle so cheaply? I like books but I don't worship them and they aren't gods nor could they ever contain a god. They are just idle chatter.
What do you hope to find?
Actual god. You say you have one, pony up! Nothing less is acceptible and nothing less should ever, EVER be accepted.
Shoot I'm easy. Pull out a couple angels and I'll at least listen to your theories.
I am using love as a metaphor for God.
How can you make a metaphor for what you do not understand and have no direct knowledge of?
You've decided to believe God doesn't exist
Bah! Believing is irrelevant. I don't have to "believe" in rocks. Is your god less than a rock?
greenberg
My assumption is that you would not.
Your assumption would be incorrect.
do to God, who is so much more than a friend, a judge of the Supreme Court or the British Queen ...
Who is so much less that unlike any of them we can't even show her existence. Less even than a clump of dirt.
Mr. Hamtastic
God requires faith
Why would a god require anything?
He won't be real friendly
Then he is not good and I have no use for him.
Billy T
10-29-08, 08:46 AM
So wait... In the "far flung past" people didn't need faith, 'proof' was available. So why then was proof available and acceptable for people from the far flung past but it's unacceptable and unavailable for people not from the far flung past?Thanks for re-stating first sentence of post 71 more clearly.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-29-08, 09:44 AM
It's said that faith doesn't need proof but is it actually that faith is accepted as proof? If so, why is 1 person's faith more acceptable proof than another's?
1111
spidergoat
10-29-08, 02:17 PM
"pure spirit" is an imaginary concept with no basis in observable reality.
Jan Ardena
10-29-08, 03:32 PM
"pure spirit" is an imaginary concept with no basis in observable reality.
I cannot see God, therefore he does not exist.
God does not exist, because he cannot be seen.
What I can see is the sum total of all there is.
To see is to know, to know is to see....
jan.
Billy T
10-29-08, 04:06 PM
I am in Brazil so must ask: Have the Great Lakes turned to wine yet?
See:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2066981&postcount=67
to know how this relates to the existance or not of God.
Billy T
10-29-08, 06:52 PM
I'd much prefer they turn into whiskey. 1111"They" - are you a polytheist? Most humans are and all have been in the past. I sort of like the idea of specialized Gods. - If you need rain, ask the rain God would seem to be more efficient than expecting one girl God to handle all requests. - More personalized service etc.
Specialization is the key to high productivity and good performance on Earth anyway. As for whisky I think that is not in Bachaus's area of responsibility - not sure there is a God of whisky. I think distilation is relative recent development for boosting the proof. Multiple Gods probably were dying out as science progressed to level of making a still.
11parcal
10-29-08, 06:57 PM
"They" - are you a polytheist? Most humans are and all have been in the past. I sort of like the idea of specialized Gods. - If you need rain, ask the rain God would seem to be more efficient than expecting one girl God to handle all requests. - More personalized service etc.
Specialization is the key to high productivity and good performance on Earth anyway. As for whisky I think that is not in Bachaus's area of responsibility - not sure there is a God of whisky. I think distilation is relative recent development for boosting the proof. Multiple Gods probably were dying out as science progressed to level of making a still.
He's referring to the Great Lakes with "they" :D
Billy T
10-29-08, 06:59 PM
He's referring to the Great Lakes with "they" :DYes you are correct. My dyslexica got me to see "turn it into whisky." Probably into was the source of extra "it" I read.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.