Looking for arguments for the existence of God

[farfignewton]

I suppose for you, your epistemology is based on some kind of mystical religious personal experience as opposed to a controlled experience like a science experiment or philosophical model.

*good word... have to use that one sometime*

I like how you threw the "mystical religious" phrase in there. Makes it hard to answer with out sounding like a fanatic.

To be honest, there is a method to finding out if your religion is true. There are measurable means by which to follow it. Problem is, they could be coincidence, or luck, based on what your perspective is.

Example: Try *forbidden word* Praying to some deity for something. Something tangible, like finical stability. Record when your prayed for it, then monitor your finances for a while. Keep track of if they improve or diminish.
Now, it could be argued that the mere act of keeping an eye on them is what makes them improve, or the reasoning that your expect an answer, so subconsciously you try to make it come true. Weather it be that, or faith working, does it matter? If your finances get better, the prayer worked, right? Whose to say the means you did it isn’t how god intended it to happen?

Really that’s where faith comes in. Faith that regardless of why it happened, or how, there might be some being out there making sure it DOES happen.

You can measure it, but the problem comes in sharing it. Everyone, regardless of faith, (this includes evolutionists and atheists by the way) has a slightly different perspective on what "it" means.

 

[Willamena]

No, it isn't.

Sure it is. It asks for opinion.

 

[Rioku]

To be honest, there is a method to finding out if your religion is true. There are measurable means by which to follow it. Problem is, they could be coincidence, or luck, based on what your perspective is.
.

Perspective is insignificant when it comes to evidence. There is either evidence or there is not evidence, there is no in between.

 

[Random]

Perspective is insignificant when it comes to evidence. There is either evidence or there is not evidence, there is no in between.

Nonsense. Scientists use the perspectives of their learned disciplines and their wits to estimate probabilities and choose the best inference from available evidence as to what it is actually evidence of. The in-between part is the relative intellect of the scientist himself and how best he judges the content or meaning of the evidence he possesses.

 

[farfignewton]

Perspective is insignificant when it comes to evidence. There is either evidence or there is not evidence, there is no in between.

The only way of viewing any evidence is via your own perspective on it. We all view the world through our own eyes, with our own preconceived notions. To a colorblind person, there are no colors. Period. That’s the "evidence" they have. Even if everyone around tells them about colors, they will still have no evidence that it exists, but to you and me, there as real as can be because we perceive them to be there. In reality, there are no colors, just the way our eyes refract the reflecting of light off a surface. Colors are, in reality, our minds way of interpreting light into meaningful designs. Based on the evidence at hand though, the seem real to us, and a figment to a color blind person. With out eyes to perceive it, we wouldn’t even have a theory about colors. To say that perspective is insignificant is the pattern of somebody used to criticizing with out forethought. Perspective is all we have to go on, regardless of evidence.

 

[tomspug]

Good call, farfig.

I think that's why 'truth' is so desireable, because it is so difficult to determine from only one perspective. That is why it is important to pursue more experiences for yourself so you can have a broader mind and a better perspective and also to pursue conversations like this.

In that respect, I suppose this forum topic is kind of limiting. If you focus on only a solitary argument for the existence of God, it's not going to be very convincing. You're much more likely to be satisfied by searching for answers on your own.

 

[farfignewton]

Good call, farfig.

I think that's why 'truth' is so desireable, because it is so difficult to determine from only one perspective. That is why it is important to pursue more experiences for yourself so you can have a broader mind and a better perspective and also to pursue conversations like this.

In that respect, I suppose this forum topic is kind of limiting. If you focus on only a solitary argument for the existence of God, it's not going to be very convincing. You're much more likely to be satisfied by searching for answers on your own.

Thats why it gets so hard to "prove" the existance of any god, or any science for that matter. We are all limmited by our relitive perspectives. Those who belive in a God have a natural predelictation to have their beliefs the defualt they fall back on. Those who have no religion, have the perspective that sceince is the only way.

To prove anything, you would have to have everyones perspective lined up behind you, and even then, would you have found truth? Or merely a consensus? Thats definitly a fun thing about this site, is trying to help others broaden their perspective, and get your own broadened in return. I doubt this has changed anyones mind on anything, but perhaps we might all see the world in a little diffrent light afterwards.

*stops before going too off topic*

**wait... did we just agree on something....? hold me... Im scared**

 

[Rioku]

Nonsense. Scientists use the perspectives of their learned disciplines and their wits to estimate probabilities and choose the best inference from available evidence as to what it is actually evidence of. The in-between part is the relative intellect of the scientist himself and how best he judges the content or meaning of the evidence he possesses.

You say it yourself in your own sentences. The way you perceive evidence is far different than saying evidence is perspective based.

The only way of viewing any evidence is via your own perspective on it. We all view the world through our own eyes, with our own preconceived notions. To a colorblind person, there are no colors. Period. That’s the "evidence" they have. Even if everyone around tells them about colors, they will still have no evidence that it exists, but to you and me, there as real as can be because we perceive them to be there. In reality, there are no colors, just the way our eyes refract the reflecting of light off a surface. Colors are, in reality, our minds way of interpreting light into meaningful designs. Based on the evidence at hand though, the seem real to us, and a figment to a color blind person. With out eyes to perceive it, we wouldn’t even have a theory about colors. To say that perspective is insignificant is the pattern of somebody used to criticizing with out forethought. Perspective is all we have to go on, regardless of evidence.

On the surface your point seems legitimate. However when you put more thought into it you realize that there is a huge spectrum of light that we can not see that we know about. So the assumption that we would not know about colors is like trying to say we would not know about infrared, x-ray, gamma rays or radio waves because we can not see them.

So sorry to say you are both incorrect. Evidence is not perspective based it is evidence. What you are all doing is taking evidence and confusing it with how it is perceived. The way you interpret evidence is based on perspective but the evidence itself is evidence.

To say that perspective is insignificant is the pattern of somebody used to criticizing with out forethought.

Farf, if you are wondering it is truculent sentences like this one that you should not say. It serves nothing to the argument other then a underhanded insult. In future attempts leave sentence like this out if you want to retain your magnanimity.

To a colorblind person, there are no colors. Period.

Just so you know colorblind does not mean they do not see colors. It means they can not differentiate between certain colors. Here is a link to help you.

 

[Rioku]

The only way of viewing any evidence is via your own perspective on it. We all view the world through our own eyes, with our own preconceived notions. To a colorblind person, there are no colors. Period. That’s the "evidence" they have. Even if everyone around tells them about colors, they will still have no evidence that it exists, but to you and me, there as real as can be because we perceive them to be there. In reality, there are no colors, just the way our eyes refract the reflecting of light off a surface. Colors are, in reality, our minds way of interpreting light into meaningful designs. Based on the evidence at hand though, the seem real to us, and a figment to a color blind person. With out eyes to perceive it, we wouldn’t even have a theory about colors. To say that perspective is insignificant is the pattern of somebody used to criticizing with out forethought. Perspective is all we have to go on, regardless of evidence.

I would also like to note how you did not attempt to prove god exists by saying something to the effect of, " that is the beauty of God, he gave us the ability to see colors where as if he did not we would never know about them". The fact that you did not try to twist the point is good on your part.

 

[farfignewton]

Farf, if you are wondering it is truculent sentences like this one that you should not say. It serves nothing to the argument other then a underhanded insult. In future attempts leave sentence like this out if you want to retain your magnanimity.

Pardon me. I am in the military, and as hard as I try, I cant get away from the "nener nener nener" Mentality. I have a good argument for your point, but I need to get a couple more cups of coffee in me first. *sticking my tongue out online might not be a good argument* Just thought an appology was needed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The only way of viewing any evidence is via your own perspective on it.

Do a search on "intersubjective verifiability".

 

[Rioku]

Do a search on "intersubjective verifiability".

You went one step faster then I planned, but oh well.

 

[farfignewton]

Do a search on "intersubjective verifiability".

Well, that was kinda the point I was getting to.
A sharing of knowlage. Wikipedia said it much better than I ever could though.

Realy lkke the quote they have.

There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle . . . Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind . . . The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which is based on experience, which refuses dogmatism . . . There remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. (Albert Einstein)

I do, however, stand with my point of nothing is absolutly provable, as the only perspective we have is our own, even when shared with others. That is where faith comes in. Wether it be in sceince or God, or both.

To continue to milk the light thing...
How would we know light ever existed with out our eyes to see it with?

 

[Rioku]

How would we know light ever existed with out our eyes to see it with?

The what if game is not worth playing, it is meaningless and a waist of time. My previous argument still stands we can not see radio waves etc, but we know they are there. As a useless answer to your question with out eyes we would have never evolved to be the most intelligent beings on the planet, but again I am speculating so this sentence is insignificant.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do a search on "intersubjective verifiability".

Well, that was kinda the point I was getting to.
A sharing of knowlage. Wikipedia said it much better than I ever could though.

Do it again. To equate intersubjective verifiability with the "sharing of knowledge" suggests zero comprehension.

 

[farfignewton]

The what if game is not worth playing, it is meaningless and a waist of time. My previous argument still stands we can not see radio waves etc, but we know they are there. As a useless answer to your question with out eyes we would have never evolved to be the most intelligent beings on the planet, but again I am speculating so this sentence is insignificant.

What if humans and monkeys decended from the same creature?
What if the world isnt realy flat?
What if we are not realy the center of the universe, but rather a single planet amongst many, in an everchanging universe?

Your right. The what if game is a complete waste of time...

How dare I think outside the box.

Do it again. To equate intersubjective verifiability with the "sharing of knowledge" suggests zero comprehension.

No, it suggests a paraphrase.

Intersubjective verifiability is the capacity of a concept to be readily and accurately communicated between different individuals ("intersubjectively"), and to be reproduced under varying circumstances for the purposes of verification. It is a core principle of empirical, scientific investigation.[1][2][3]


If many people see something as true, it has a high potental of being true; therefore, in the quest for truth, getting the ideas of others is required in order truly understand the subject matter at hand. Ergo, a sharing of knowledge.

A further breakdown: You have a theory about something. You have tested it, tried it, and found it to be true. *as true as anything can be* You then get other people to try the same experiment you did, and talk to them to see if they came to the same conclution that you did. You have shared your perspective on the given knowlage, and if you all find it to be a true statment/experiment/theory, it has a much higher chance of being so.

The sharing of knowlage is what makes work.

Please dont assume that your smarter or better educated than someone else, or that your conclutions based on someone elses words are the only logical, well reasoned ones. You give yourself too much credit.

 

[Willamena]

Do it again. To equate intersubjective verifiability with the "sharing of knowledge" suggests zero comprehension.

Such prompting promotes zero comprehension. Why don't you just tell people what's on your mind, Jay? (Or did you do that and it didn't work?)

 

[Rioku]

What if humans and monkeys decended from the same creature?
What if the world isnt realy flat?
What if we are not realy the center of the universe, but rather a single planet amongst many, in an everchanging universe?

Your right. The what if game is a complete waste of time...

How dare I think outside the box.

I appreciate the sarcasm and annoyingly I will clarify my meaning. The "what if game" as previously mentioned by myself as useless; is and will always be useless. My meaning of "what if game" is a meaning where someone proves a point then the other person responds with a what if sentence with little to no time or thought placed into the questions. Also there is a difference between a question used to get and answer, and a question used in an attempt to prove someone wrong.

For even further clarification in hopes of removing any chance of further misinterpretation I will provide you with a example you can relate with. The example is the one above, you made a point that if we could only see in black and white then we would not have discovered color. I bet Jay would know what the name of this type of phrase is but I do not. The basic premise is that you state a fact then draw a non fact based conclusion from it. i.e. If we can only see black and white we do not see colors. That is the fact, then the phrase we will never discover colors is the assumption presented as fact when it is not a fact at all.
Next part, I prove your statement incorrect.
Next, you respond with a what if we did not have eyes we would never discover light. Now this is the what if game, rather than accepting your original point was erroneous you continue on the same line of questioning showing lack of comprehension on the original point.
Then I respond with how your "what if" question is also incorrect, which is easily proven by the fact that radio waves were not discovered to be a form of light wave until after they were being used. So radio waves were discovered without the use of sight ( assuming you do not take into account that eyes were used in all aspects relating to the discovery)
Next, You respond with another what if question which again shows lack of understanding.

Basically I am being forward because I felt obligated to explain this to you. To your benefit I can see how it can be misunderstood but to the extend you misunderstood it is onerous. Not to mention your eruditely sarcasm caused me to waist my time responding to your "what if question".

If many people see something as true, it has a high potental of being true

This is False, This is false, this is false. Sorry I just had to repeat this three times to get it into your head. In the risk of acting perfunctory I will make the following statement for the first time, your point is false, it is not worth proving that it is false.

A further breakdown: You have a theory about something. You have tested it, tried it, and found it to be true. *as true as anything can be* You then get other people to try the same experiment you did, and talk to them to see if they came to the same conclution that you did. You have shared your perspective on the given knowlage, and if you all find it to be a true statment/experiment/theory, it has a much higher chance of being so.

This explanation is far from what you were stating a number of posts ago.
Here is what you said before,

To be honest, there is a method to finding out if your religion is true. There are measurable means by which to follow it. Problem is, they could be coincidence, or luck, based on what your perspective is.

Now your new post and your old post are clearly different. In the old post you are attempting to say that there are measurable ways to finding if a religion is true, but those means may be " coincidence, or luck, based on what your perspective is." Where as your new post contradicts what your old post stated. In the sentance " You then get other people to try the same experiment you did..." You are stating that findings are no longer perspective based there are measurements reproduced and the results compared. in summary, your old post claims you can have evidence but it is perspective based. And your new post is demonstrating understanding for the fact that perspective does not matter when methods of intersubjective verifiability are used.

So Jay was correct is asking you to read it again because you did not and may still not understand the difference between talking to someone else about your day at work, and the practice of intersubjective verifiability.

 

[Hit_me_up024]

GOD the failed hypthesis- Great book funny too

 

[Rolling_Stone]

GOD the failed hypthesis- Great book funny too

Sure, it's a great book if you're a "flatlander." After all, it was written by a "flatlander" for "flatlanders."