This issue is about all religious, believers, creationists psyche. You ask them a simple question: How can we see a proof of God’s existence? I personally expect one of these two answers: a) There is no proof. We just believe in it. b) There is a proof, and it is this or that. Somehow, an amazing thing happens and they don’t say any of these. They don’t say that there is no proof, yet they don’t show us what the proof is? You get various other comparisons but an answer to the original question: -“Can you measure love, no, so God exist” (Comparing God with emotions); -“What would happen if we remove the idea of creation; we would be doomed, rape, stealing and everything else would roar” (Threatening society with possible increase in crime); -“Since you don’t believe in God, why do you ask this question and bothering those who believe in him?” (Trying to present this “believing in God” issue as if it was a harmless hobby). -“Do you see universe, humans, complexity of everything, yes, they prove God exists…” (Using existent things as a reference for non-existent concept); -“Science didn’t disprove that God doesn’t exist” (Expecting a scientific proof for non-existence). Normally, when I get these sorts of answers I try to rephrase the question, in case if other party did not understand me as I expected. But other party does not help me. Because my question is not a simple question for them: I must be sounding like I am attacking to their religion when I ask for a proof of any kind. They will call me an “Atheist” and easily ignore the initial question. So what should I do? What is the correct way of asking the proof of God’s existence? Is there any way on agreeing upon at least certain terminology such as what do we understand when we say “existence” or “proof”. Because one of us is in great delusion and I find this as a serious matter: Either I can not see the existence of God, or these people are under the grave illusion of their beliefs. Can someone also illuminate me about what these people specifically understand when we say “proof” or “existence”? If they are understanding something different, I may try to find different words instead of them.
greed is blinding them.They want super love,super life even after death,they want it all. Thats why no matter whats the proof or no proof they won't see beyond.
it sounds like you are looking for a specific answer.. i tend to see god in circumstances, and through other ppl.. any communication from me about the situations where i can see god, tends to lose something in the translation as each incident can be explained away as something else.. the best answer i can give you is; god is where you find him.. god is what you make him to be... to ask me to prove he exists is almost impossible as the answer is conditional on whether you WANT to believe or not..if you don't then any explaination i can give will be dissmissed by you as other stuff..
i can say that god has most definitely shown itself to me, but i can't show that to you. it's that way on purpose i think. it's supposed to be a personal thing.
so it doesn't exist other than as a product of human imagination. In this case God only exist if one belives in it/him/she. Thank you for being helpful, I appreciate it. However, this only answers half of the OP. I also want to know if it is possible to come into a common agreement on the meanings of "proof" and "existence" in terms of God.
Or, what you've been indoctrinated to believe. Fear is a powerful motivator for "wanting" to believe in gods.
What's even more ridiculous are the theists who demand proof of evolution or some other theory. They're happy to believe in magic without proof, but when it comes to reality, they demand proof. And, when you provide them with the evidence, they claim it came there by magic; ie. their god.
i don't think so.. god can still utilize you whether you believe in him or not.. proof tends to be anything that can be seen,heard,felt(tactile) or measured.. god tends to fall into the feel(emotional), and experience(subjective) catagories and as such are subjective to ones own feelings and beliefs.. existence...well that can easily turn into a philosophical thread all by itself.. also not related.. theist= one who believes in god atheist= one who does not believe in god (atheist can become theist) theiophobic?= one who refuses to believe in god.not quite the right word, as phobic means fear, which actually would translate to one who fears god..so what word would best be for those who refuse to believe in god?(this one would never become a theist)
Don't think so? How? How can we make sure that we are utilized by God, but not from something else such as subconsciousness, natural or social insticts/background, personal experience, learned things, etc. How can we differentiate God among other utilizers? In this case, "proof" is subjective: What looks like a proof to me, can not be a proof for you, or vice versa. Of course any proof which is obtained by measurement, and repeated time after time, will be more agreeable proof (such as boiling and freezing points of water, or length of a distance, etc). However, "proof" ,which are obtained by other experiences (seeing, hearing, or "feeling"), will get more subjective since individual senses and feelings differ. My question is, when we eliminate the measured proof (objective one), how can we group the rest (subjective ones). Because you might believe in God, and someone else could believe in God, and someone else could also believe in God, it goes like that. What is the common factor, power, concept that you all believe in. In other words, how can you be sure that you are all believing in same God? My guess is, if you all imagine the same model (could be Christian God, could be Muslim Allah, could be ancient Greek Zeus), it is more likely that the members of the same group (in this case "same religion") will imagine the same model of God. So religion becomes the common measurement of different subjectives (followers). Is that so? And moreover, for a believer, there is no qualitative difference between objective (measured) proof and subjective (emotional) proof. They have same importance and value in a believer's eyes. Is that the case? Does this statement contradict your above "god can still utilize you whether you believe in him or not.."? If it doesn't, how? It does not, if you keep your criteria of proof within the limits of measured observations. It does, if you open your criteria of proof to subjective areas. I will try to rephrase what was I asking when I said the formulation or definition of proof: In logic, let's say logical relations between electronic doors, we depend on certain basic rules, such as 1 AND 1 results in 1; 1 AND 0, 0 AND 1, 0 AND 0 produces 0... This is only one of many logical rules. They are not natural, you can not find them in universe, they are human made binary systems, yet works on computers. Because their electrical systems are built upon certain logic. When I say "I need a proof for your electronic logic", you have to put your logical equations into the test of original manmade logical assumptions. If there is no problem or flow, your system is proven. You see, we can establish a proof mechanism without using anything measured or observed. It's just a thought game, yet still we can come up with proofs and make gadgets according to this logical proof. What I am asking is this: What are the elementary rules, minimum requirements, the logic of "proof" in order to come to a conclusion that God exists? You might have guessed that I wouldn't be satisfied with the argument of "everything is so complex, therefore God exists". The reason that I will not buy this is that there are many systems (natural -life, atoms- or manmade -internet-) out there working without a specific controller or particular creator. Or at least I can see that they are working without a supreme controller. Randomness, interdependencies, environmental effects, time, heredity and evolution can handle any of these system without a regulator. So what type of proof mechanism can tell me that I am wrong? Because as you mentioned above, "God can (by the way; "can" or "does?") still utilize me whether I believe in him or not..", so I would like to run a sort of proving mechanism into my thinking (or my emotions if you like), so I can detect or realize God's existence. So what is it? What is the logical mechanism behind this proof?
Luckily LG claims to have the answers. Unfortunately he won't actually share them with me. Perhaps you'll have better luck.
Then how is god to be distinguished from a delusion? Perhaps you could ask since it would resolve a lot of unnecessary hardship in the world.
How is that relevant? Wouldn't that be unethical? and why would he need to any way? Always with the fear card. Try this: Apatheism (a portmanteau of apathy and theism/atheism), also known as pragmatic or critically as practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief, or lack of belief in a deity. Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity; so applies to both theism and atheism. An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
Isn't it unethical to think about human beings as pieces of computer visual elements for the almighty? Plus, no human being with a minimum sense of logic would not seriously expect to be worshiped by computer game characters...
baftan; i would like to answer you, if you did exist, but since i have no proof for your existence, then you don't exist, and there's no need to answer you. don't reply unless you're ready for a beating. O'nonexistent one..
1) 'creationist' is not synonymous with 'religious believer' 2) I think the options you present are off. Some people base their beliefs on their experience. The religion is working for them in some way and fits their experiences. Proof is only an issue if they are trying to convince someone else they TOO should believe. A religious person making the claim that you ALSO should believe then should provide reasons. But even there I see most proselytisers advocating that the potential convert or believer PARTICIPATE in some practice or another - come to church, join a ceremony, begin meditating, meet the trained representative, etc. - rather than engaging in efforts to prove the existence of God. That depends on your goal. But if the issue is to understand or explore the liklihood that some participation is necessary seems very high to me. 'Prove to me one can lucid dream?' Well, that's very hard to do. I can suggest some ways for you to see if you can lucid dream. 'No, I want you to prove to me that you can lucid dream.' Oh.
because it's real. perhaps you should. perhaps that's the whole point. and don't be too sure about that resolution.
