What proof do you have of God?

[1robin]

But dude. Do you feel honest giving that kind of arguments? You can not test I'm unable to do miracles either :/

It is as impossible to prove that God did miracles as it is to prove that he didn't or at least comparable. That is why I do not claim I know he did. I believe it. That is based on far more evidence (textual, etc...) than there is, he didn't. Proving a negative as every debater knows is virtually impossible and so to make the claim you know that negative is actually the case is not worth typing.

 

[otokage007]

It is as impossible to prove that God did miracles as it is to prove that he didn't or at least comparable. That is why I do not claim I know he did. I believe it. That is based on far more evidence (textual, etc...) than there is, he didn't. Proving a negative as every debater knows is virtually impossible and so to make the claim you know that negative is actually the case is not worth typing.

But u can actually prove that water can not turn into wine and people can not resurrect. That would be evidence against miracles.

 

[1robin]

But u can actually prove that water can not turn into wine and people can not resurrect. That would be evidence against miracles.

I see you are not familiar with debates concerning proving negatives. Even if and that is a big if that you could show that it can't happen here and now. You can't show it could not occer then and there. Get it. You can't assume from this microscopic amount of data about this microscopic place to apply equally every where and every when. That requires faith and so you are operating on faith already when it suites you but deny it when it does not. Get it. It is crazy I know but absolute fact. That is why I say all of science is faith. It is based primarily on an assumed rational intellegability over time and space that is consistent with here and now. Virtually no anti-biblical debator even bothers with the issue but just admits it and moves on.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No you do not. There is no way possible for you to conclude God does not do miracles (magic). You simply decided that was the case and have no way what so ever to prove it.

You haven't learned a thing about what it means to 'prove' a thing, have you. All my hard efforts have bounced off of a hardened heart without leaving the slightest impression. You still think that a thing can be proven, yes?

Listen: No true God would do magic tricks. No true God would send actual human words down to mankind. No true God would torture his creations for disbelieving in Him. No true God would plant fake fossils in the geologic column in order to test our creationism faith.

I know plenty of the features of a false God. They are ridiculously easy to know and prove. Since I am a prophet of God and since I declare it to be so, therefore it is proven. Ipso facto. Wrap the thing up and mail it.

You did not exist 1000 years ago or on a planet 1 billion light years away. You can't test what you claim.

Can you prove that I did not exist 1000 years ago or on a planet one billion light years away? Or is that just something you decided to be the case, with no way whatsoever to prove it?

All evidence in the Bible refutes you claim.

Then it's fortunate that the Bible is a false book. Otherwise, I might be wrong about my God knowledge!

For goodness sake that is why I put if in front of every claim I made. You didn't.

Ah. I should have known. You believe that if you call your claims 'conclusions', then they are legitimate and true, but if my claims are 'premises', that means they 'are not proven'.

Yikes and doubleyikes. You know, if you would like a little guidance on the rudimentary workings of human logic, I'll be glad to do that with you. It is never too late, but you'll have to ask convincingly.

No it is a logically consistent deduction if the premise is assumed. It is a logical conclusion from a hypothetical premise and stated as such. See the difference?

Sure. If all animals can fly, and elephants are animals, then elephants can fly.

So it's a logically-consistent deduction that elephants can fly. But have you tested it in real life? I'm thinking that in real life, elephants can't actually fly and you may be disappointed if you try to mount one in NYC, expecting a quick trip to LA.

Same with God doing supernatural stuff. God can't really do magic, no matter how you work your logic. I'm sorry.

You can act like an occasional grammatical error is causing you all this trouble if you wish but as can be seen by others comments it isn't that hard to know what I mean.

If it were an occasional grammatical error, I would have nothing to say about it. Everyone makes simple grammatical errors now and again without substantial interference with the meaning.

As for the other commentators, I am virtually certain that they're mistaken in their claims to understand you. People tend to assume that they understand the meaning of anything they hear. It's just human nature to do that. They also assume that they have heard every syllable in a statement, even though they could not recite those syllables back to you. They haven't really heard every syllable. The human mind just fills in blanks and makes us believe that we've heard the whole thing. I can explain more about these phenomena if you'd like.

But this is all testable. The next time you send me one of your convoluted, ungrammatical, perplexing paragraphs, I'll ask Otokage to translate it and discuss it with me. You'll see. He'll not recite the meaning as you sent it. That's unlikely.

As every other grammar critic that I see. You might want to move out of the glass house.

OK. If you won't listen, you won't listen. I was only trying to help. From now on I'll simply ignore the word salad stuff as best I can.

You said you wanted to know how many acres you have in a watershed. I do not know why that would be important to build a pond.

Umm... so you can get an idea of how to plumb your pond. If you have 200 acres flowing into your pond, you'll plumb it much differently than if you only have 10 acres flowing into it. That's really not obvious to you? How can you size your overflow pipes and spillway(s) if you have no idea how much drainage may come into your pond?

It's the same with culverts. They have to be sized based on the watershed and expected drainage... yes?

Then why did you ask. I couldn't and can't think of a reason why you would want to know what you seem to be asking and so I was examining other more meaningful issues.

Ah. So you won't answer a simple engineering question without first determining the reason you are being asked?

OK.

I asked you about pond engineering because I know a pretty good bit about it and I wanted to hear how you spoke about it. Frankly, I find your thought/language to be disjointed and confused and I wondered if you would express the same disjointedness about physical engineering matters as you do about theological and rational matters.

I was just curious, mostly. You don't get graded on it. Not out loud.

Whatever you need to do to maintain the illusion.

Actually it's a great disappointment to me that some folks flee my questions. If it were an illusion, I'd be the first to toss it aside.

No they were not. I continuously complained that the question was incomplete specifically because you did not include those terms which was what I knew you were driving at but wanted to see if you would ever get there.

Whenever the physical world appears to contradict my beliefs, I adjust my beliefs. If I saw an elephant fly tomorrow, I would change my mind about elephants. I would sure stop insisting that elephants cannot fly.

How about you? Do you adjust your beliefs to physical evidence?

If so, see Msg #1004 in our first thread -- in which you backquoted the included terms and discussed them.

It's very hard for me to dialogue with someone who insists upon his own truth even in the face of hard physical evidence which proves him mistaken. I hope you'll study the evidence and change your stance. Maybe even apologize?

Why is it so important to be right? What if the important thing was to learn -- to continually adjust one's view of life, rather than to stand around loudly insisting upon the truth of one's current view?

Imagine.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But dude. Do you feel honest giving that kind of arguments? You can not test I'm unable to do miracles either :/

In my next life, I plan to stand and watch God's every move from his (non)beginning to his (non)end.

If He ever does a miracle, then I can change my mind about His ability to do miracles. Of course, this will have to be a Certified Miracle, not some cheap Houdini-variety parlor trick. God's Boss will have to stamp it as an actual miracle.

If I never observe God doing a miracle, then I will have to taunt Him into doing one for me.

If he refuses, I will have my proof that God cannot do miracles.

Unless... well, unless God has the ability to ignore taunts. In that case, God could still be capable of doing miracles, I guess.

Man. This proving business is harder than it looks.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It is as impossible to prove that God did miracles as it is to prove that he didn't or at least comparable. That is why I do not claim I know he did. I believe it.

There is of course no difference between a human knowing a thing vs. believing that thing. Just a bit more psychological certainty in that specific human brain.

To think otherwise -- that our known things are true while our believed things are less true in some transcendent sense -- that is to believe that we humans are capable of magic.

 

[otokage007]

I see you are not familiar with debates concerning proving negatives. Even if and that is a big if that you could show that it can't happen here and now. You can't show it could not occer then and there. Get it. You can't assume from this microscopic amount of data about this microscopic place to apply equally every where and every when. That requires faith and so you are operating on faith already when it suites you but deny it when it does not. Get it. It is crazy I know but absolute fact. That is why I say all of science is faith. It is based primarily on an assumed rational intellegability over time and space that is consistent with here and now. Virtually no anti-biblical debator even bothers with the issue but just admits it and moves on.

Don't be dishonest. You know it is not possible to turn water into wine and to resurrect people. You are an intelligent person.

 

[ninco]

Not sure if its okay to answer the question with a question but...Do you believe in love?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Don't be dishonest. You know it is not possible to turn water into wine and to resurrect people. You are an intelligent person.

For the record, I don't think 1robin is being dishonest about that. I think he believes that it was possible for Jesus to turn water to wine and to resurrect people. I think he's mistaken about it, but I think he honestly believes it.

He also seems to believe that a conscious, all-knowing God can inform special men (prophets) about future events.

 

[otokage007]

For the record, I don't think 1robin is being dishonest about that. I think he believes that it was possible for Jesus to turn water to wine and to resurrect people. I think he's mistaken about it, but I think he honestly believes it.

He also seems to believe that a conscious, all-knowing God can inform special men (prophets) about future events.

Oh so it's not that he believes that it is possible to do miracles, but he believes that somehow Jesus can do even impossible things. I see, I would remain skeptic as the Jesus from the Bible is a fictious character and I bet has little to do with the real Jesus.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Oh so it's not that he believes that it is possible to do miracles, but he believes that somehow Jesus can do even impossible things.

In my opinion, he believes that Jesus could do supernatural stuff (miracles) which regular people could not do.

I see, I would remain skeptic as the Jesus from the Bible is a fictious character and I bet has little to do with the real Jesus.

I feel the same way. I'm not even sure there was a 'real' Jesus -- no moreso than there was a real Paul Bunyon or a James Bond.

 

[1robin]

You haven't learned a thing about what it means to 'prove' a thing, have you. All my hard efforts have bounced off of a hardened heart without leaving the slightest impression. You still think that a thing can be proven, yes?

We including you act as if countless things are proven every day. I know it is possible to establish a degree of reliabilty for an event or action. That is the standard that is used in courtrooms around the globe every day. Your meaningless word games and silly equivocations have no bearing on the issue. You have made claims to knowledge (and that requires proof) many times so far, so you are not even obeying your own standards.

Listen: No true God would do magic tricks. No true God would send actual human words down to mankind. No true God would torture his creations for disbelieving in Him. No true God would plant fake fossils in the geologic column in order to test our creationism faith.

You are remarkable. I have never seen a person that can so effectively destroy their own arguments and many times do so within a single sentence. You claim there is no proof. Then in the next sentence make claims that require it.

I know plenty of the features of a false God. They are ridiculously easy to know and prove. Since I am a prophet of God and since I declare it to be so, therefore it is proven. Ipso facto. Wrap the thing up and mail it.

Wow. I do not even need to counter you you destroy you. Here you claim point blank that something is proven.

Can you prove that I did not exist 1000 years ago or on a planet one billion light years away? Or is that just something you decided to be the case, with no way whatsoever to prove it?

It is a fact that you do not exist on all planets at all times. I am not even sure you exist on this one. That is it my rediculous meter just pegged out.

 

[1robin]

Don't be dishonest. You know it is not possible to turn water into wine and to resurrect people. You are an intelligent person.

I do not think you get it. The professionals do and do not even contend the issue. We know that we can not do it at will here as mere humans. Every single other claim beyond this is faith. We do not see any alien life here but yet almost no one would rule out the possability it may exist. We spend billions looking for it. The supernatural has been defined as simply a division of the natural we do not have access to. It can easily be seen that a God may have abilities that we do not have. The only thing you can claim is that turning water into wine has not been demonstrated empirically. However what do you call what grapes do? Actually I think we can turn water into wine but through natural methods. Why do you think what is true about 1 trillionth of a trillionth of a percent of the total reality that we can check is exactly the same over the entire spectrum. Scientists claim multi verses, strings, and oscillating universes exist even though there is not a single solitary scrap of data to confirm it. In the quantum atoms cause other atoms to oscillate in other locations, Things pop out of reality and back in. However if it concerns the Bible then no data is enough, no claim is allowed to even be possible. Miracles are miracles because we can't do them. There is more textual evidence that miracles exist than that Ceaser existed. Yet one is taught as fact and the other fought like the plague.

 

[1robin]

Oh so it's not that he believes that it is possible to do miracles, but he believes that somehow Jesus can do even impossible things. I see, I would remain skeptic as the Jesus from the Bible is a fictious character and I bet has little to do with the real Jesus.

You can only demostrate the we have not done it here and recently. The rest is faith. We could not produce carbon nanno tubes 50 years ago yet now we can. A natural test however has no access to miracles. That is why they are miracles. The point is not that I can prove they did happen but that you can't prove they didn't.

 

[1robin]

I feel the same way. I'm not even sure there was a 'real' Jesus -- no moreso than there was a real Paul Bunyon or a James Bond.

Quit claim you know things if you say things can't be known (or proven). Drop one or the other. Having both is contradictory (wait a minute that is what you do best).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Quit claim you know things if you say things can't be known (or proven). Drop one or the other. Having both is contradictory (wait a minute that is what you do best).

If you would like me to help you understand the way language works, only ask.

By necessity we use words every day. The trick and the wisdom is to use them while understanding that they are not sacred things. Words don't mean things all by themselves. They're just inadequate little tools with which we attempt to point and explain.

Anything can be known, by the way. All a person has to do is know the thing. He doesn't even have to click his heels together or anything.

But of course, humans cannot really know things. Only God, if God, could do a thing like that.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You have made claims to knowledge (and that requires proof) many times so far, so you are not even obeying your own standards.

All of my knowledge is proven. If only you could prove your own claims as elegantly as I have proven mine. What a wonderful world it would be!

You are remarkable. I have never seen a person that can so effectively destroy their own arguments and many times do so within a single sentence. You claim there is no proof. Then in the next sentence make claims that require it.

We argue about the nature of reality using language. In my humble opinion, you will need to increase your understanding of language before you can effectively argue about reality. I'm not talking about grammar so much as about trying to understand what language actually is. I know it's hard. We've all used it since babyhood and therefore most of us consider ourselves to be experts with it.

But in my opinion, most humans are deceived by words to some degree or another. They look at the map and believe it to be the territory.

Just my opinion.

Wow. I do not even need to counter you you destroy you. Here you claim point blank that something is proven.

Sure. You have destroyed the pro baseballer with your softball lobs. As you please to believe, so should you believe, I guess.

Anyway, of course all of my claims are proven. How could they not be? Why would I claim them if I couldn't prove them? That would be silly.

But here's the real question: Why is 1robin unable to see that AmbigGuy has proven all of his points?

Now there's a curious thing. How do you explain it?

It is a fact that you do not exist on all planets at all times. I am not even sure you exist on this one. That is it my rediculous meter just pegged out.

While there is no such thing as a fact, it is obviously a fact that no true God would send words down to mankind.

 

[1robin]

All of my knowledge is proven. If only you could prove your own claims as elegantly as I have proven mine. What a wonderful world it would be!

Prove it is proven.

We argue about the nature of reality using language.

No we argue about the nature of reality using concepts. Language is only a description of the concepts that exist in every culture.

In my humble opinion, you will need to increase your understanding of language before you can effectively argue about reality

You gravely over estimate the value and role of language and greatly undervalue the role of logic and reason.

I'm not talking about grammar so much as about trying to understand what language actually is.

I went to Peru a while back and could not understand a single word or make a single word understood yet I was able to function and get what I needed because concepts are universal. Water is water no matter what you call it. The concepts are where the meaning is not the arbitrary sounds used to describe them.

I know it's hard. We've all used it since babyhood and therefore most of us consider ourselves to be experts with it.

BABYHOOD!!!! Is that even a word? It is a funny one if it is. You have failed every test even my grammer challenged brain asked. Why would I believe you are a language expert. Here is an easy one. Please define without looking:
Procedural language:
Logical language:
and Object oriented language:

or name all the Language families:
I have a method to know if you look it up so use only your own vast storehouse of knowledge.

But in my opinion, most humans are deceived by words to some degree or another. They look at the map and believe it to be the territory.

I am weary with these meta-discussions. They only complicate and distract and never contribute or clarify.

Sure. You have destroyed the pro baseballer with your softball lobs. As you please to believe, so should you believe, I guess.

It is all the more amazing that they were softballs.

Anyway, of course all of my claims are proven. How could they not be? Why would I claim them if I couldn't prove them? That would be silly.

If each instance they were unjustifiably claimed to be proven added to the probability they were, then maybe.

But here's the real question: Why is 1robin unable to see that AmbigGuy has proven all of his points?

I have a better one. Why has ambig not realised he has disproven most of his own points? Many times in the same sentence.

Now there's a curious thing. How do you explain it?

Ambig has lost it. Technically speaking.

While there is no such thing as a fact, it is obviously a fact that no true God would send words down to mankind.

Man these simplistic and incomplete thoughts are tired. There are an infinate amount of facts. Perception is the issue not their existance. Would you please quit trying to attempt to be meaningfull by the use of false, trivial, and misstated enigmas, riddles, and conundrums that aren't.

 

[javajo]

I don't think its possible to prove or disprove God. One could go the route of Pascal and consider the consequences:

If I believe God is real and I'm wrong, I die like everyone else, I lose.
If I believe and he is real, I've gained eternal happiness.

If I don't believe God is real and I'm right, my loss is the same as the believer.
If I don't believe and he is real, I lose eternal happiness.

So, believe and get loss or great gain, or don't believe and get loss or great loss. Its lose/gain vs. lose/lose. So, its wiser to believe, in that regard.

Flawed human logic at its best/worst :cigar(

 

[McBell]

I don't think its possible to prove or disprove God. One could go the route of Pascal and consider the consequences:

If I believe God is real and I'm wrong, I die like everyone else, I lose.
If I believe and he is real, I've gained eternal happiness.

If I don't believe God is real and I'm right, my loss is the same as the believer.
If I don't believe and he is real, I lose eternal happiness.

So, believe and get loss or great gain, or don't believe and get loss or great loss. Its lose/gain vs. lose/lose. So, its wiser to believe, in that regard.

Flawed human logic at its best/worst :cigar(

Do you really think that your god is as gullible as that?
If your god can be so easily fooled with Pascals wager, can you really honestly call him god?