What proof do you have of God?

[jasonwill2]

opcorn:

Don't have much to say. Not interested in beating dead horses that are dead. Instead a suggestion.

Discern what in this realm you find sacred and worthy of giving thanks to. Offer what you feel is appropriate celebration and gratitude. Religion is sometimes much less about belief than it is about action. It is not necessarily belief in or proof of the gods that matters. It is pausing before the morning sunrise, seeing it's beauty, and saying "it's great to be alive!"

Satan.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

I'm looking for scientific arguments/evidence, not 'he's in my heart'.

Then why pose a thread looking for scientific evidence? That is a foolish endeavor.

Have you seen the movie "Sphere?"

In the movie actors Sharon Stone (Biochemist) Samuel L. Jackson (Mathmetician) Dustin Hoffman (Psychologist) all run into a golden ball in an Crashed alien spaceship in the ocean. One of the quotes that stood out was

"Has anyone notice that its reflecting everything except us?"

Meaning when they shined the light on this ball, this living thing it reflected everything (the lights in the room, the surrounding area etc) except the people standing in front.

If God exist, and is the creator and designer of all that you see, I doubt someone who design something as complex as the human brain would pop out and say "Here I am!" If I were God and I gave you 3 billion nerve cells I would remain hidden and let you figure it out yourself.

As an agnostic I believe something beyond my own mental capacity exist. Call it God or whatever I believe something metaphysical exist but I doubt at least in this plane of existence we can't explain nor prove it

 

[Curious George]

lol wut

I thought what I said was clear enough. Perhaps not. Ad hominem arguments are an attack on the person instead of addressing what that person says. For me to pose a question, and after receiving an answer, tell that person what they say is invalid because they can lie, have lied or are lying is attacking the character of the person not their argument. Hence, they have applied an ad hominem argument. This is precisely what you did to Jasonwill2. Had you instead asked questions such as I suggested in my previous post then you would not have been launching an attack you would have been starting a different Argument. That line of reasoning, however, was already worked through by Sir Doom when he presented another extremely valid conceptual argument. Whether we can or cannot know another persons experience could still be up for debate. But you are not debating this. You instead using ad hominem attacks that are as valid as the argument "I am right, because I say so!" Ironically, these are the types of responses you implied you wanted others to avoid.

And BTW post 12... still waiting.

 

[Ashir]

Then what did you mean

I think you're just trolling me with this one. You know damn well what I meant

Say only what you mean, and make sure that you're conveying what you mean. Be detailed.
How more specific can 'All faith is blind' be?

That faith is not necessarily blind is common knowledge among those whom I've talked to. You're only one of a few I've interacted with who have said that all faith is blind.
And how does this make it unspecific?

Different regions can have slightly different definitions of words. I'm in California, you in London. The type of English you're speaking is slightly different than the one I am. That's all.
Sorry for any grammatical errors, I've only had about a year and a half to learn the language

And what does it mean to "place a tick"?
to confirm

Well, you made one:

"That's trust, blind trust even."

You felt the need to mention trust, and then go into a further specification that it's "blind" trust, as if not all trust was blind. Then why did you just say that you believe all trust to be blind?
how did that imply not all trust is blind? I'll tell the truth and say that it did, because you asked if all trust was blind, and I hadn't been asked that before so my answer that all trust is blind but just on different scales is one that your question provoked.

........

 

[Tristesse]

So...if you saw and felt the demons would that not tell you that since demons are real, so is God and his angels? That's kinda what happened to me when I was exploring some other religions way back in my early twenties. Turned me back to fully trusting the Lord.

Not necessarily. Lets say "demons" do exist, that does not mean that a god exists. But how do we know that what you felt were demons? What does that feeling feel like and how do you know there isn't another explanation?

 

[Ashir]

Then why pose a thread looking for scientific evidence? That is a foolish endeavor.

Have you seen the movie "Sphere?"

In the movie actors Sharon Stone (Biochemist) Samuel L. Jackson (Mathmetician) Dustin Hoffman (Psychologist) all run into a golden ball in an Crashed alien spaceship in the ocean. One of the quotes that stood out was

"Has anyone notice that its reflecting everything except us?"

Meaning when they shined the light on this ball, this living thing it reflected everything (the lights in the room, the surrounding area etc) except the people standing in front.

If God exist, and is the creator and designer of all that you see, I doubt someone who design something as complex as the human brain would pop out and say "Here I am!" If I were God and I gave you 3 billion nerve cells I would remain hidden and let you figure it out yourself.

As an agnostic I believe something beyond my own mental capacity exist. Call it God or whatever I believe something metaphysical exist but I doubt at least in this plane of existence we can't explain nor prove it

I knew there was no scientific evidence. I just thought someone would be unwise enough to answer it so I could respond to show others how illogical the belief is. But here the only thing I received was some trolls nitpicking and people owning up to believing something without having evidence for it.

I thought what I said was clear enough. Perhaps not. Ad hominem arguments are an attack on the person instead of addressing what that person says. For me to pose a question, and after receiving an answer, tell that person what they say is invalid because they can lie, have lied or are lying is attacking the character of the person not their argument. Hence, they have applied an ad hominem argument. This is precisely what you did to Jasonwill2. Had you instead asked questions such as I suggested in my previous post then you would not have been launching an attack you would have been starting a different Argument. That line of reasoning, however, was already worked through by Sir Doom when he presented another extremely valid conceptual argument. Whether we can or cannot know another persons experience could still be up for debate. But you are not debating this. You instead using ad hominem attacks that are as valid as the argument "I am right, because I say so!" Ironically, these are the types of responses you implied you wanted others to avoid.

And BTW post 12... still waiting.

Post 12 how many times do I have to admit that I phrased it wrong? And again, nit picking. Yes he exists in people's imaginations and such, I'm talking about whether he exists outside of that realm.
It is invalid if they can lie. To believe what they say you would have to rely on trust. If I said that Jesus came and beat up my little brother that would be invalid unless I could provide evidence for it, because I could be lying.
I think it could be just the same otherwise or as both. I don't see how that is an attack on his character. it could be, but it could also be the genuine truth, I highly doubt you would believe me if I said that the Buddha came to my house for a cup of tea would you?

 

[Riverwolf]

I think you're just trolling me with this one. You know damn well what I meant

No, I don't. NEVER assume that someone knows exactly what you're talking about if he or she gets it wrong.

I said that meaninglessness is the same as gibberish. You responded with "not by definition." I responded with the fact that a word without meaning has no definition (i.e., is gibberish.)

If when you said "not by definition", you were not referring to when I said that meaninglessness = gibberish, then what were you responding to?

How more specific can 'All faith is blind' be?

In English, we specify blind faith, because not all faith is necessarily blind. To claim that all faith is blind is to misuse the word, like using "alligator" to describe a crocodile.

And how does this make it unspecific?

Blind faith is a specification, necessary because not all faith is blind.

Sorry for any grammatical errors, I've only had about a year and a half to learn the language

Actually, your grammar isn't the problem. (For only a year and a half of learning, it's actually quite good.) It's your choice of words and phrasing that's the problem.

to confirm

Huh. Never heard that one before.

how did that imply not all trust is blind? I'll tell the truth and say that it did, because you asked if all trust was blind, and I hadn't been asked that before so my answer that all trust is blind but just on different scales is one that your question provoked.

You felt the need to specify a blind trust after mentioning regular trust, presumably of the not blind variety. That's how supposition works.

I'm afraid a year and a half of learning it isn't going to cut it when discussing and debating these lofty and extremely abstract topics. There's just too many variations on definitions that will, more often than not, differ from the common definitions in subtle but important ways.

Your English is quite good for your time of study (if you don't mind me asking, what's your native language?) But trust me when I say this: most native speakers of English can't speak it properly. Some of the most well-spoken debates I've had on these forums have been with Scandinavians.

.......

01010011
01110101
01100011
01101000

01100001

01100110
01110101
01101110
01101110
01111001

01110111
01101111
01110010
01100100

(btw, to put a quote box around some text, do this without the quotation marks: ["quote"]stuff and more stuff["/quote"])

 

[Ashir]

No, I don't. NEVER assume that someone knows exactly what you're talking about if he or she gets it wrong.

I said that meaninglessness is the same as gibberish. You responded with "not by definition." I responded with the fact that a word without meaning has no definition (i.e., is gibberish.) a word can have a definition and be meaningless just like a body part can do something but has no use

If when you said "not by definition", you were not referring to when I said that meaninglessness = gibberish, then what were you responding to?
that...?

In English, we specify blind faith, because not all faith is necessarily blind. To claim that all faith is blind is to misuse the word, like using "alligator" to describe a crocodile.

Blind faith is a specification, necessary because not all faith is blind.
This is a matter of opinion.

Actually, your grammar isn't the problem. (For only a year and a half of learning, it's actually quite good.) It's your choice of words and phrasing that's the problem. Right

Huh. Never heard that one before. We have a lot of weird phrases

You felt the need to specify a blind trust after mentioning regular trust, presumably of the not blind variety. That's how supposition works.

I'm afraid a year and a half of learning it isn't going to cut it when discussing and debating these lofty and extremely abstract topics. There's just too many variations on definitions that will, more often than not, differ from the common definitions in subtle but important ways.

Your English is quite good for your time of study (if you don't mind me asking, what's your native language?) But trust me when I say this: most native speakers of English can't speak it properly. Some of the most well-spoken debates I've had on these forums have been with Scandinavians.
It's a Persian language, I forgot the name of it but I remember it starts with an Ne- I think. I google searched it but didn't find a result. I obviously forgot most of it though since it's not a famous language like Mandarin Chinese or English so there was no need for it most of the time

01010011
01110101
01100011
01101000

01100001

01100110
01110101
01101110
01101110
01111001

01110111
01101111
01110010
01100100
Point of this is?

(btw, to put a quote box around some text, do this without the quotation marks: ["quote"]stuff and more stuff["/quote"])

......

 

[Ashir]

and I took a lot of time reading English books and stuff so I know the basics, quit surprising that even native English speakers sometimes don't know the difference between then and than, your and you're, and their and there

 

[Riverwolf]

a word can have a definition and be meaningless just like a body part can do something but has no use

Definitions are meanings. Therefore, to lack a meaning is to lack a definition.

This is a matter of opinion.

It's a matter of definition.

Right

Believe me, dude, poor word choice and phrasing is nearly always the cause of miscommunication. As a person who has legitimate trouble with such things, I know. (I have asperger's syndrome.)

We have a lot of weird phrases

Indeed.

It's a Persian language, I forgot the name of it but I remember it starts with an Ne- I think. I google searched it but didn't find a result. I obviously forgot most of it though since it's not a famous language like Mandarin Chinese or English so there was no need for it most of the time

Ah.

01010011
01110101
01100011
01101000

01100001

01100110
01110101
01101110
01101110
01111001

01110111
01101111
01110010
01100100
Point of this is?

it says 'you must type in at least 5 characters', and it's a fun word

Least we agree on something.

The point was just for fun.

 

[Riverwolf]

and I took a lot of time reading English books and stuff so I know the basics, quit surprising that even native English speakers sometimes don't know the difference between then and than, your and you're, and their and there

Considering the current state of education in the States, I'm not surprised at all.

 

[waitasec]

Please, if you know you can't debate well or have not looked into philosophy much, I ask that you do not post, no offense.

considering post #2 and #3 maybe you can't debate well or looked into philosophy much either...no offense

 

[Ashir]

I can debate arguments and supposed proofs such as miracles. Answering nitpickers is not my thing and not phrasing correctly does not render me a bad debater or uninitiated in philosophy.

 

[Ashir]

Definitions are meanings. Therefore, to lack a meaning is to lack a definition.

But the word 'Unnatural' is meaningless but has a definition. Or at least that's a matter of opinion. Either way, I'll go further into this and ask what's wrong with speaking gibberish? Also, your argument is that if everything is something the word is virtually meaningless, how can you explain this?

 

[Quagmire]

“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.”
---Albert Einstein.

To paraphrase that: (IMO) Either everything is proof of the existence of God, or nothing is.

 

[Ashir]

Are you bordering on the teleological argument?

 

[Quagmire]

Are you bordering on the teleological argument?

No, it's simpler than that: I'm not claiming that the order and design of the Universe stands as proof of God, I'm proposing that the existence of the Universe does.

 

[Ashir]

So, the cosmological argument, or just a brief 'who made the universe but God'?

 

[jasonwill2]

Not necessarily. Lets say "demons" do exist, that does not mean that a god exists. But how do we know that what you felt were demons? What does that feeling feel like and how do you know there isn't another explanation?

Like being electrocuted without pain, also like heat... kind of a mix of that with pressure.

“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.”
---Albert Einstein.

To paraphrase that: (IMO) Either everything is proof of the existence of God, or nothing is.

This speaks to my pantheistic tendencies.

So, the cosmological argument, or just a brief 'who made the universe but God'?

No, not that he "made" it, but that anything exists at all. Who said he "made it"? Perhaps reality itself is God.

 

[Quagmire]

So, the cosmological argument, or just a brief 'who made the universe but God'?

You keep trying to fit what I'm saying into something you already understand, rather than trying to understand what I'm saying.

Here's what I'm trying to to say: existence itself goes against logic. Logically, IMO, nothing should exist. Something exists. We don't understand how, why, where it all came from, or even what any of it really is.

Therefore, IMO, existence itself is a miracle. Nature is itself supernatural, in that the natural order of reality should be non-existence. Whatever it is/was that found a way around all that, regardless of what characteristics you want to apply or deny to that Whatever, is my definition of God.

I personally attribute specific characteristics to this Whatever, but my convictions about those characteristics are almost exclusively personal and would therefore be anecdotal, ie., not anything I could expect anyone else to accept as proof or evidence for anything.