what if God could be proven?

**jpappl** · 12-03-09, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by 786

You missed the point... I was expressing the stupidity of the request. You are asking for 'proof' which has to be natural (for you to even have the ability to examine it) for something which is supernatural (God)-

Peace be unto you

No I understand the point very well. As do you, which you are admitting you have no proof.

I don't have a problem with those that are accepting it on faith, that is all it is anyway. But, we people claim they know god exists then we can ask for proof.

That is legitimate is it not ?

**786** · 12-03-09, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by jpappl

That is legitimate is it not ?

The request is dishonest.... You are asking for a unexaminable proof, in other words nothing can be a proof as it can not be examined.... First you must define what consists of 'proof' for something supernatural- when you do that then ask for proof.

Peace be unto you

**jpappl** · 12-03-09, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by 786

The request is dishonest.... You are asking for a unexaminable proof, in other words nothing can be a proof as it can not be examined.... First you must define what consists of 'proof' for something supernatural- when you do that then ask for proof.

Peace be unto you

There is no proof for something supernatural. Otherwise it wouldn't be supernatural.

The only thing that is dishonest is to keep claiming that the person who claims to know god exists doesn't have to provide proof.

If one wants to believe it himself and keep it to himself no problem. But when you state to others you KNOW, then proof please. That is the way it works.

**786** · 12-03-09, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by jpappl

There is no proof for something supernatural. Otherwise it wouldn't be supernatural.

What is dishonest is you are asking for proof- knowing full well that whatever is presented you will reject- and then using mockery to state that it doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it.

The only thing that is dishonest is to keep claiming that the person who claims to know god exists doesn't have to provide proof.

No, to 'know' something does not require proof.... although you are asking for something you know you won't accept any proof for.

If one wants to believe it himself and keep it to himself no problem. But when you state to others you KNOW, then proof please. That is the way it works.

Did you come up with the 'way it works'? Please provide proof that this is how it works.

Peace be unto you

**jpappl** · 12-03-09, 04:13 PM

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
There is no proof for something supernatural. Otherwise it wouldn't be supernatural. ”

What is dishonest is you are asking for proof- knowing full well that whatever is presented you will reject- and then using mockery to state that it doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it.

How is asking for proof dishonest. If I said I know bigfoot exists would you believe me or want proof.

The problem is there is no proof or at least there is no proof yet. The other problem is that you want everyone to except as proof that which is not. So it's not a matter of mockery, it's a matter of getting those who believe to understand that reciting passages from your religious text does not suffice as evidence for others. If I wanted to believe and asked for evidence so that I could believe in it, that it was justified by your evidence, what you could offer would be completely inadequate.

So stop blaming the skeptics for the lack of evidence. It's not our claim nor is it our responsibility to come up with the proof for you.

“ The only thing that is dishonest is to keep claiming that the person who claims to know god exists doesn't have to provide proof. ”

No, to 'know' something does not require proof.... although you are asking for something you know you won't accept any proof for.

Yes you can know things that evidence would be impossible to provide however circumstances could easily change that. With a subject like god, you could have had an experience that tells YOU that you know but if there is no evidence for the experience how do you relay that to others.

“ If one wants to believe it himself and keep it to himself no problem. But when you state to others you KNOW, then proof please. That is the way it works. ”

Did you come up with the 'way it works'? Please provide proof that this is how it works.

Sure:

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently-derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established

**NMSquirrel** · 12-03-09, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by jpappl

There is no proof for something supernatural. Otherwise it wouldn't be supernatural. The only thing that is dishonest is to keep claiming that the person who claims to know god exists doesn't have to provide proof.

If one wants to believe it himself and keep it to himself no problem. But when you state to others you KNOW, then proof please. That is the way it works.

by your own words...
you are trying to make god non-supernatural..
you say there is no proof for supernatural,then ask for proof of god...
god is supernatural so how would we be able to prove him?
isn't that called circular reasoning?

there are ppl who believe in ghosts the only 'evidence' is the amount of ppl coming forth and claiming they have witnessed a ghost..
yet atheist would sooner believe in ghosts than god..

maybe we should start a new tv show for fox..

god hunters..
hosts will utilize an assortment of questionable scientific instruments to search for god.
hosts will also capitalize on any noise or feeling to justify gods presence..
(yea i know..this is something an atheist would say just to tease..but i never said i believe like other believers believe..i have my own understanding)

anyway i digress..

But when you state to others you KNOW, then proof please. That is the way it works.

i know i believe in god..i don't have to prove that to you..
also see your own comments on supernatural

**jpappl** · 12-03-09, 04:42 PM

by your own words...
you are trying to make god non-supernatural..
you say there is no proof for supernatural,then ask for proof of god...
god is supernatural so how would we be able to prove him?
isn't that called circular reasoning?

This is what the believer has created not the skeptic.

The believer created this by getting around the evidence issue by saying god is supernatural. IOW, I don't have proof and don't need proof, faith.

there are ppl who believe in ghosts the only 'evidence' is the amount of ppl coming forth and claiming they have witnessed a ghost..
yet atheist would sooner believe in ghosts than god..

I don't believe in ghosts. No evidence for them, yet. Maybe one day there will be. I think the same people who believe in god tend to believe in ghosts.

maybe we should start a new tv show for fox..

god hunters..
hosts will utilize an assortment of questionable scientific instruments to search for god.
hosts will also capitalize on any noise or feeling to justify gods presence..
(yea i know..this is something an atheist would say just to tease..but i never said i believe like other believers believe..i have my own understanding)

LOL, just might happen.

Yes, well I have respect for others beliefs as long as they don't take them too seriously without evidence. I have friends that believe some nutty things IMO but they are still great people, just haven't scrutinized the belief enough IMO to see the flaws.

I have no problem with theists, I have problems with theists who quote scripture and the like as evidence for god and how things were, are and will be.

“ But when you state to others you KNOW, then proof please. That is the way it works. ”

i know i believe in god..i don't have to prove that to you..
also see your own comments on supernatural

You don't. But if you want to try, then provide the evidence.

That's why they call it faith NM.

**NMSquirrel** · 12-03-09, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by jpappl

Yes, well I have respect for others beliefs as long as they don't take them too seriously without evidence. I have friends that believe some nutty things IMO but they are still great people, just haven't scrutinized the belief enough IMO to see the flaws.

good! so you are saying it is not ALL believers that are causing the problems.
there is hope for you..lol

I have no problem with theists, I have problems with theists who quote scripture and the like as evidence for god and how things were, are and will be.

i have never quoted for evidence..(i am really bad with names and numbers and the bible is chock full of them)
as i have come to realize that it is a personal thing and one persons perspective is not the same as anothers..IOW what works for me does not mean it will work for you..

That's why they call it faith NM.

this is true..

**Sarkus** · 12-03-09, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by 786

The request is dishonest.... You are asking for a unexaminable proof, in other words nothing can be a proof as it can not be examined.... First you must define what consists of 'proof' for something supernatural- when you do that then ask for proof.

Surely first you must define what you mean by "god".
Then one can assess what will be deemed "proof".

You just bandy around words like "supernatural" as though it absolves you from all requirement to follow sense or to use intellect.
You make claims of this god of yours yet fail to follow through the ramifications of those claims.

So - what is this "god" of yours? Please define it.

How do you "know" this god? If you know it, you must surely be able to define it?

Does this god of yours interact with you? If it does not interact with you, how can you possibly know it?

If this god of yours interacts with you, how does it influence the natural, and why is this interference with the natural not observable - i.e. it remains utterly indistinguishable from nature itself.
If, on the other hand, you think it is observable - please detail these observations so that we might all have the same evidence?

**parmalee** · 12-03-09, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Sarkus

Surely first you must define what you mean by "god".
Then one can assess what will be deemed "proof".

You just bandy around words like "supernatural" as though it absolves you from all requirement to follow sense or to use intellect.
You make claims of this god of yours yet fail to follow through the ramifications of those claims.

So - what is this "god" of yours? Please define it.

How do you "know" this god? If you know it, you must surely be able to define it?

Does this god of yours interact with you? If it does not interact with you, how can you possibly know it?

If this god of yours interacts with you, how does it influence the natural, and why is this interference with the natural not observable - i.e. it remains utterly indistinguishable from nature itself.
If, on the other hand, you think it is observable - please detail these observations so that we might all have the same evidence?

i can't even count how many times i've asked the same people over and over again to define these terms: god, supernatural, theism, etc.

still awaiting a response. from anyone.

**jpappl** · 12-03-09, 05:29 PM

NM,

good! so you are saying it is not ALL believers that are causing the problems.
there is hope for you..lol

We can always hope LOL. Not all believers or atheists for that matter are so confrontational because they realize it's folly to take such a hard stance about such unknowns. But what percentage of the earth is filled with believer at this point and what percentage of them are like yourself. That ends up being a lot of freaking people LOL.

I have read enough from you to know that you are very reasonable and it appears humble. Which I very much appreciate.

If only it would remain a personal and individual belief then the world would be a different place. But alas it has been organized and with that organization comes standards, ones that I have the most problem with. These organizations of god belief are not interested in scrutiny.

“ I have no problem with theists, I have problems with theists who quote scripture and the like as evidence for god and how things were, are and will be. ”

i have never quoted for evidence..(i am really bad with names and numbers and the bible is chock full of them)
as i have come to realize that it is a personal thing and one persons perspective is not the same as anothers..IOW what works for me does not mean it will work for you..

Agreed. The reason I questioned you as I have before is to inquire about how or if you have scrutinzed your belief. This I believe is very important, if we go through life believing things that we ourselves can't justify then we are just fooling ourselves.

To do this we need to consider all of the information and see if it fits with our beliefs or contradicts it.

“ That's why they call it faith NM. ”

this is true..

Once again I need to complement you, it's rare that a theist here will admit it. But there is no getting around it. It's simply a lack of maturity and being honest with oneself. Something you are not lacking.

**NMSquirrel** · 12-03-09, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by jpappl

We can always hope LOL. Not all believers or atheists for that matter are so confrontational because they realize it's folly to take such a hard stance about such unknowns. But what percentage of the earth is filled with believer at this point and what percentage of them are like yourself. That ends up being a lot of freaking people LOL.

actually one of the other threads says 90% believers..earth found the data..here is his post
of course that doesn't take into account the amount of ppl who believe like I do..

I have read enough from you to know that you are very reasonable and it appears humble. Which I very much appreciate.

thank you i appreciate that!

If only it would remain a personal and individual belief then the world would be a different place.

believing in god IS a very personal experiance,every believer has a different reason for believing.

i understand there are the extremes that give the whole a bad reputation..
this is one thing i argue about..would there still be such a thing as athiest if there weren't so many nut cases in religion?

But alas it has been organized and with that organization comes standards, ones that I have the most problem with. These organizations of god belief are not interested in scrutiny.

see religion vs godthread jan makes some interesting points about religion..
but i am still a believer that religion has been corrupted by mans own self interest..

Agreed. The reason I questioned you as I have before is to inquire about how or if you have scrutinzed your belief. This I believe is very important, if we go through life believing things that we ourselves can't justify then we are just fooling ourselves.

i can justify them to myself..i cannot justify it to others..

To do this we need to consider all of the information and see if it fits with our beliefs or contradicts it.

sometimes its not a matter of one or the other..
sometimes it creates a whole new concept/idea/opinion..

Once again I need to complement you, it's rare that a theist here will admit it. But there is no getting around it. It's simply a lack of maturity and being honest with oneself. Something you are not lacking.

i love to argue..it doesn't do any good to argue if you cannot be honest..
its no fun and leads to frustration and anger..
and fyi..this honesty you speak of, is why i believe in god,it starts with asking yourself why did i just do that? and ends with not being satisfied with any answer one can give oneself..

**thinking** · 12-03-09, 11:10 PM

why does it matter if god can be proven ?

in the end

**786** · 12-04-09, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by Sarkus

Surely first you must define what you mean by "god".

I used the word 'supernatural' for a reason.... that being my argument transcends the discussion of 'god' alone... as such I am asking for your standard of 'proof' for ANYTHING that is supernatural... point being that the request is in even the most general terms dishonest.

Peace be unto you

**786** · 12-04-09, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by parmalee

i can't even count how many times i've asked the same people over and over again to define these terms: god, supernatural, theism, etc.

still awaiting a response. from anyone.

Supernatural is something that defies natural laws.

Peace be unto you

**786** · 12-04-09, 01:05 AM

Originally Posted by thinking

why does it matter if god can be proven ?

in the end

Maybe some atheists will commit suicide if it happened

Peace be unto you

**thinking** · 12-04-09, 01:09 AM

“ Originally Posted by thinking
why does it matter if god can be proven ?

in the end

Originally Posted by 786

Maybe some atheists will commit suicide if it happened

Peace be unto you

a terrible thing to say

**786** · 12-04-09, 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by thinking

a terrible thing to say

That was sarcasm, of course kind of sadistic

If God were proven I think it would become part of science and then be taught in schools and then we wouldn't be having that fight

Peace be unto you

**thinking** · 12-04-09, 01:29 AM

“ Originally Posted by thinking
a terrible thing to say

Originally Posted by 786

That was sarcasm, of course kind of sadistic

dam straight

If God were proven I think it would become part of science and then be taught in schools and then we wouldn't be having that fight

god has never been or ever will be about science

god is about emotional conduct , nothing more , nothing less

Peace be unto you

BS

the thing is that , there are many more people committing suicide in the name of their god and killing thousands of people and innocent people

day after day

**786** · 12-04-09, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by thinking

god has never been or ever will be about science
god is about emotional conduct , nothing more , nothing less

Okay, now are you having fun in your little dark corner that you found on a tangent....

God is proven = scientific as I'm sure the only 'proof' accepted would be 'scientific' in nature. So saying other crap is like going back and scratching the assumption 'god is proven'....

Peace be unto you