What proof do you have of God?

[1robin]

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

This is true. I would however add that God does not require absolute knowledge of a fact but faith. I do believe there is far more than enough evidence to justify faith.

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(

Correct. I hate Pascal's wager. However if tweeked it can be logical. I say that you should spend your life giving religion every chance possible. I came to understand this because I noticed that critics will normally do anything possible to show the Bible wrong. I saw many times that they were wrong or at the very least giving Satan the benefit of the doubt. I still don't get that philosophy. There is merit in erring on the side of hope. As I said though, no saving faith will ever come from some default position on the issue of Christ.

 

[McBell]

Correct. I hate Pascal's wager. However if tweeked it can be logical. I say that you should spend your life giving religion every chance possible. I came to understand this because I noticed that critics will normally do anything possible to show the Bible wrong. I saw many times that they were wrong or at the very least giving Satan the benefit of the doubt. I still don't get that philosophy. There is merit in erring on the side of hope. As I said though, no saving faith will ever come from some default position on the issue of Christ.

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?

 

[1robin]

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?

Mestemia you never fail to frustrate. I said I hate Pascal's wager for this very reason, and then you ask me to defend it. Please read slower or I will type slower or something

 

[McBell]

Mestemia you never fail to frustrate. I said I hate Pascal's wager for this very reason, and then you ask me to defend it. Please read slower or I will type slower or something

My apologies.
After careful review I find that I have indeed responded before understanding what it was you were saying.
Again, I apologize.

 

[1robin]

My apologies.
After careful review I find that I have indeed responded before understanding what it was you were saying.
Again, I apologize.

I truly appeciate the honesty and withdraw the complaint. Thanks your stock with me went up. I would not try selling it though.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Prove it is proven.

I've already proven that it is proven. Several times now. Why do you ask me to do a thing which I have already done?

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

If you'd like to deepen your understanding of language and how it works, you should consider asking around. There are people right here in this place who could help you. Once you begin to master language, only then can you begin to do good logic.

What is so bizarre to me is that you admit your ignorance of language (grammer, literature, etc.) but lecture me on the nature of language. It's as if I (a math illiterate) walked up to Mr. Einstein and began to lecture him that his fixation on mathematics is a silly waste of time since physics does not depend in any way on mathematics.

Strange behavior, I think. Mr. Einstein might not take me very seriously, even if I threaten to stop lobbing softballs at him and start turning up the heat.

By the way, you are confused about the nature of 'concepts' vs. 'words.' I'm pretty sure of that. I don't think you have any idea what a 'concept' might be, but you are welcome to show me otherwise.

BABYHOOD!!!! Is that even a word?

Umm, of course it is a word. Didn't you see me write it in my message?

By the way, are you serious? Do you seriously believe that some strings of human sounds are words, while other strings are not words? I certainly hope not. I don't like to think of you as a bibliolater.

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.

You are so funny. It's why I've fallen so hopelessly in love with you.

A method to know if I look something up. My goodness gracious. If I didn't consider it offensive, I might ask for your age right about now.

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

Otokage!! I need an interpreter over here! What the heck did 1robin just say to me?

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

AmbigGuy is way too wise to think seriously about claims of 'proving points.' Such thinking is for those who have not spent much time investigating truth.

By the way, to whom must a thing be proven in order for it to be proven?

Can you answer that simple question for me? If so, I think you will begin to see that only a confused person will exclaim that the other guy has disproven his own points.

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.

Says the man who admits knowing nothing at all about language.

Really, Mr. Einstein, would you please quit trying to attempt to figure out all your fancypants 'theories' by the use of false enigmas, math riddles and 'conundrums that aren't.'

(I cringed when I mimicked "trying to attempt." It is truly awful writing. The clear-minded writer avoids, shuns, eschews and stays away from redundancy. Not so much because he thinks it right. His years of writing have just put him into the habit of clear thought.)

 

[otokage007]

Otokage!! I need an interpreter over here! What the heck did 1robin just say to me?

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

Translation: “Hahaha! AmbiguousGuy... You have proven CRAP!!”

Hope it helped.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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

Translation: “Hahaha! AmbiguousGuy... You have proven CRAP!!”

Hope it helped.

Thanks. I feel better. If he admits that I have proven crap, then it can't be long until he confesses that I have proven God.

 

[javajo]

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?

No and no. I think he's just saying of the two choices, the first could have a good outcome whereas the second doesn't either way. So its wiser to take a chance and step out in faith and trust God. Who knows? Perhaps if one takes a step of faith toward God, he will take a step toward them? It may be a child-like faith and for child-like reasons, but once we become God's children, he doesn't leave us that way, I believe.

God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up. From James 4

Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. Jer. 29:12-13

This is true. I would however add that God does not require absolute knowledge of a fact but faith. I do believe there is far more than enough evidence to justify faith.

Copy that. Me, too.

Correct. I hate Pascal's wager. However if tweeked it can be logical. I say that you should spend your life giving religion every chance possible. I came to understand this because I noticed that critics will normally do anything possible to show the Bible wrong. I saw many times that they were wrong or at the very least giving Satan the benefit of the doubt. I still don't get that philosophy. There is merit in erring on the side of hope. As I said though, no saving faith will ever come from some default position on the issue of Christ.

Roger that!

I see it as erring on the side of hope. Like if people were put in a room with some maze-like passages and told there might be a way out, but if they stay in the room a poisonous gas would slowly kill them...One could be resigned and think there's probably no way out, or one could at least try...the one who tries just might find the way out and live, the other has no hope.

 

[McBell]

No and no. I think he's just saying of the two choices, the first could have a good outcome whereas the second doesn't either way. So its wiser to take a chance and step out in faith and trust God. Who knows? Perhaps if one takes a step of faith toward God, he will take a step toward them? It may be a child-like faith and for child-like reasons, but once we become God's children, he doesn't leave us that way, I believe.

I see it as erring on the side of hope. Like if people were put in a room with some maze-like passages and told there might be a way out, but if they stay in the room a poisonous gas would slowly kill them...One could be resigned and think there's probably no way out, or one could at least try...the one who tries just might find the way out and live, the other has no hope.

Does this hold true for every proposed deity?
I mean, if you are going to believe simply to be on the safe side, you should believe in all the proposed deities, right?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I see it as erring on the side of hope. Like if people were put in a room with some maze-like passages and told there might be a way out, but if they stay in the room a poisonous gas would slowly kill them...One could be resigned and think there's probably no way out, or one could at least try...the one who tries just might find the way out and live, the other has no hope.

Some of us don't consider ourselves to be trapped in a desperate maze. Instead, we see a startling and curious place which begs investigation. Some of our fellows make up fantastic stories about Magical-Palaces-in-the-Sky and declare that we should believe them or else risk not going there when we die, but we're too busy adventuring and investigating the maze and see no reason to swallow such stories told to us by people who are no smarter or holier than ourselves.

The best we can do is stay true to our nature -- and investigate. What happens after we die is unknowable and unmanageable. No true God would base such a reward on whether or not we believed the fantastic stories told to us by other men.

 

[javajo]

Does this hold true for every proposed deity?
I mean, if you are going to believe simply to be on the safe side, you should believe in all the proposed deities, right?

That's what Mike Warnke did when he was first in Vietnam. He later trusted Christ alone. I think that while there are similarities in deities, there are also opposing statements. So I can investigate them to see which has the best evidence of being true. Like did Jesus die on the cross or, as Islam says did he not? Examining the evidence I have I may conclude by the eye-witness accounts available and the fact they died proclaiming his death and resurrection, that those who say he did not over half a century later were probably less believable.

Some of us don't consider ourselves to be trapped in a desperate maze. Instead, we see a startling and curious place which begs investigation. Some of our fellows make up fantastic stories about Magical-Palaces-in-the-Sky and declare that we should believe them or else risk not going there when we die, but we're too busy adventuring and investigating the maze and see no reason to swallow such stories told to us by people who are no smarter or holier than ourselves.

The best we can do is stay true to our nature -- and investigate. What happens after we die is unknowable and unmanageable. No true God would base such a reward on whether or not we believed the fantastic stories told to us by other men.

I do not claim to be smart or holy and I like to investigate as well. From my investigations, I've come to believe certain things, that's all.

 

[1robin]

I've already proven that it is proven. Several times now. Why do you ask me to do a thing which I have already done?

No you didn't, you have even said that proving anything was impossible. I think that Descartes was wrong. He said the only thing that can be known absolutely is that we think therefore we are. I think in addition to that that Ambiguous Guy will contradict himself is the second absolute truth in the universe.

If you'd like to deepen your understanding of language and how it works, you should consider asking around. There are people right here in this place who could help you. Once you begin to master language, only then can you begin to do good logic.

I have no seen to reason to take your word as authoritative on language, religion, philosophy, or science.

What is so bizarre to me is that you admit your ignorance of language (grammar, literature, etc.) but lecture me on the nature of language. It's as if I (a math illiterate) walked up to Mr. Einstein and began to lecture him that his fixation on mathematics is a silly waste of time since physics does not depend in any way on mathematics.

Einstein has an advantage over you in that he demonstrated mastery over physics. You have not done so with language or anything else. In fact you have violated most of the few language principles I do know.

By the way, you are confused about the nature of 'concepts' vs. 'words.' I'm pretty sure of that. I don't think you have any idea what a 'concept' might be, but you are welcome to show me otherwise.

Already did and it didn’t help you.

Umm, of course it is a word. Didn't you see me write it in my message?

That is not the standard by which strings of letters are determined to be actual recognized words.

By the way, are you serious? Do you seriously believe that some strings of human sounds are words, while other strings are not words? I certainly hope not. I don't like to think of you as a bibliolater.

Your mastery of linguistic philosophy is truly underwhelming. Words like many things are codes. Codes are specified order. Pay attention to this: Codes require both a code maker and a code resolver. Both the code maker and receiver must have a predetermined code identifier and decoding standard. Sounds even if they make sense to the coder if not able to be decoded by the receiver are useless as words. When a baby says "dhuilwehc7ieghdgcjhdcguiwjk" there is no way to decode that so in effect it is not a word.

You are so funny. It's why I've fallen so hopelessly in love with you.

Some of your comments are disturbing. It would not be so bad if you were a female but with your Ambiguous GUY handle then they are simply disturbing.

A method to know if I look something up. My goodness gracious. If I didn't consider it offensive, I might ask for your age right about now.

Actually that was simply a bluff. There are some ways to see if you looked up certain things but nothing that would let me know for sure you did. However I did notice, you this time, did not even attempt to address this latest test to establish any competency in language. You are approx. O - 10 so far. Instead you diverted the conversation and went on a linguistic odyssey.

Otokage!! I need an interpreter over here! What the heck did 1robin just say to me?

I think Otokage was pretty close. Apparently it wasn't that hard after all.

AmbigGuy is way too wise to think seriously about claims of 'proving points.' Such thinking is for those who have not spent much time investigating truth.

Is that why a few statements ago you claimed to have done this specific thing. I have never seen anything like your ability to destroy your own claims. It must be intentional.

By the way, to whom must a thing be proven in order for it to be proven?
Can you answer that simple question for me? If so, I think you will begin to see that only a confused person will exclaim that the other guy has disproven his own points.

Have you just completely run out of things to say? I have answered it tat least twice. It wasn't meaningful then and isn't now either. I think it some king of a linguistic security blanket for you. It is like an if then statement in a computer. If you have no actual replies then execute this same meaningless question routine. You need a loop counter that eventually gets you out of the cycle.

 

[1robin]

Does this hold true for every proposed deity?
I mean, if you are going to believe simply to be on the safe side, you should believe in all the proposed deities, right?

Let me add something to this Mestemia. Your logic regarding that if a God is believed in then all should is slightly flawed. Take the Biblical God for example. Belief in him is exclusive. He claims to be the only God period. If you adopt another God then you have have to relinquish belief in the Biblical one. The same is true in Islam. Baha'i is out because they try and reconcile many exclusive Gods. Now Hinuism and every other oriental religion is a different story. There are millions of God's floating around in India. So other methods like exclusive claims can be compared. If they conflict they can't possibly both be true. Anyway what I am driving at is, while I reject pascals wager, I also reject the theory that if any God is adopted then all must be. It is a logical impossability. I can't believe that the moon is composed 100% of carbon as well as believe that it is composed 100% of argon. I have to establish which is the most likely.

 

[Silvercoat]

My proof is intuitive insight, in pretty much the same way scientists
had the intuitive insight that one can remove 2 coins from a purse which
contains only 1 coin, and consequently they ended up believing that -1 exists.
Nowadays these mathematical insights are used heavily throughout most disciplines
of so-called science, and also despite of how anti-rational the reasoning
for e.g. the existence of the negative numbers actually is.
So as long as scientists (e.g. mathematicians) can invent 'truths' which are
justified by nothing else but so-called intuitive insight, religious people
should be equally free to believe God exists due to intuitive insight,
because this is certainly in no way more anti-rational than the belief that one
can remove 2 coins from a purse, which contains only 1 coin.

Generally speaking you can summon everything into existence by
carefully thinking up a set of arbitrary definitions and axioms (dogmas),
which you can then use for the purpose of proving that something exists.

Good luck, scientists, with photographing -1 wolves somewhere in nature.
I thought you guys can back up all of your beliefs with 'hard', empirical evidence?

Checkmate!

 

[tumbleweed41]

My proof is intuitive insight, in pretty much the same way scientists
had the intuitive insight that one can remove 2 coins from a purse which
contains only 1 coin, and consequently they ended up believing that -1 exists.
Nowadays these mathematical insights are used heavily throughout most disciplines
of so-called science, and also despite of how anti-rational the reasoning
for e.g. the existence of the negative numbers actually is.
So as long as scientists (e.g. mathematicians) can invent 'truths' which are
justified by nothing else but so-called intuitive insight, religious people
should be equally free to believe God exists due to intuitive insight,
because this is certainly in no way more anti-rational than the belief that one
can remove 2 coins from a purse, which contains only 1 coin.

Generally speaking you can summon everything into existence by
carefully thinking up a set of arbitrary definitions and axioms (dogmas),
which you can then use for the purpose of proving that something exists.

Good luck, scientists, with photographing -1 wolves somewhere in nature.
I thought you guys can back up all of your beliefs with 'hard', empirical evidence?

Checkmate!

Confusing mathematical concepts with scientific inquiry.

 

[dynavert2012]

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.

really Ashir i can't debate a lot so i'm posting a debate for antony flew who converted from atheism to theism, may it could answer your question

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf

 

[Silvercoat]

Confusing mathematical concepts with scientific inquiry.

Ok, you're right. Maybe -1 is really only a mathematical concept, and has
nothing to do with science.
What about 1.602176565 * 10^-19, is this also nothing else but a
mathematical concept, which has nothing to do with science?
You really wanna tell me that the elementary charge of an electron is nothing else
but a mathematical concept, which has nothing to with science?
You're right! Numbers are nothing else but mathematical concepts!
Hence the elementary charge of an electron is also nothing else but a mathematical
concept. It's an idea.
Finally a guy who understood that also the results of science (which are typically
expressed as numbers) are nothing else but ideas which only exist inside
of the minds of humans, but not independently from a human mind.
lg

 

[McBell]

Your logic regarding that if a God is believed in then all should is slightly flawed.

Actually, if you read what i wrote in context of the tangent, you will see that my logic is not flawed.
I said if you are going to believe SIMPLY TO BE ON THE SAFE SIDE...

Take the Biblical God for example. Belief in him is exclusive. He claims to be the only God period. If you adopt another God then you have have to relinquish belief in the Biblical one.

Really?
Please be so kind as to present the verse(s) that state you are not allowed to believe any other god exists.

Hells bells, your ten commandments even disagree with you:

Thou shalt have no other gods BEFORE ME.
​

If they conflict they can't possibly both be true.

Yet the only thing you have to go on as to which one (if any) is true is nothing more than what you want to believe...

Anyway what I am driving at is, while I reject pascals wager, I also reject the theory that if any God is adopted then all must be.

Then you are not looking at Pascals Wager for what it really is, a safety net.

It is a logical impossability.

please be so kind as to explain how someone cannot believe that all the proposed gods exist.

I can't believe that the moon is composed 100% of carbon as well as believe that it is composed 100% of argon. I have to establish which is the most likely.

People believe in contradicting things all the time.
Take the Trinity for example.

 

[1robin]

Actually, if you read what i wrote in context of the tangent, you will see that my logic is not flawed.
I said if you are going to believe SIMPLY TO BE ON THE SAFE SIDE...

In the spirit of recent adoption of a few seconds of clarity and humility I will do so in return. You might have a point but will state it again and let you decide. How can I actually believe in a God that claims there are no other God's and others as well. If I believe in others there is logical way to retain belief in the one that claims to be exclusive. If I believe in all then the exclusive one is no longer exclusive and is therefore not that God any longer. Another example would be that a certain God claimed that he was 100% made of stone and that there are no other God that is made of anything but 100% stone. If I believe in a God made of wood how is it logically possible to also believe in one that says that any God must be made of 100% stone. It logically is impossible for two contradictory claims to absolute truth to both be correct. It foolows that it is logically impossible therefore to believe in both claims as they are specifically stated.

Really?
Please be so kind as to present the verse(s) that state you are not allowed to believe any other god exists.

Hells bells, your ten commandments even disagree with you:

Thou shalt have no other gods BEFORE ME.
​

Ok let's take a closer look at this verse. The English words "before me" are translated from the original Hebrew word: paniym

It Means:
f) as adv of loc/temp
1) before and behind, toward, in front of, forward, formerly, from beforetime, before
g) with prep
1) in front of, before, to the front of, in the presence of, in the face of, at the face or front of, from the presence of, from before, from before the face of
As can be seen the Hebrew is a lot more comprehensive in it's restrictions than the English. It basically means do not have another any other God where he should be. His role can be occupied by no other.

Also the English word God is from the Hebrew: 'elohiym
It means:
1) (plural)
a) rulers, judges
b) divine ones
c) angels
d) gods
2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
a) god, goddess
b) godlike one
c) works or special possessions of God
d) the (true) God
e) God

Also very comprehensive. So This verse actual says do not put a ruler, authority, God, Godlike being, Godlike attributes, his servants, angles (Basically anything) in any role he is to occupy alone. However non believers are never satasfied with anything so let me add on to this:

1. "Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him." Deuteronomy 4:35
2. "See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me" Deuteronomy 32:39
3. "Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me." Isaiah 43:10
4. "Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God." Isaiah 45:14
5. "I am Yahweh, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18

That is five you can dismiss and here is a link to an additional 39 you can ignore.
Passages that say there is only one God

Yet the only thing you have to go on as to which one (if any) is true is nothing more than what you want to believe...

What a bunch of garbage. I do not mind debates with Agnostics or atheists but would prefer changing ones. I would actually prefer several other kinds or God's or religions. I wish salvation were universal as in some religions. I chose the Biblical God because there is far and away more evidence for him and the Bible than any other by light years. There are many things in the Bible that I accept but like Jefferson would cut out if they would actually go away when I did it. If your statement had any merit instead of a simple punt then we would all believe in Santa Clause and and a religion where each of us was God. In fact Mormons do believe in a form of that. Why would anyone make up the concept of Hell and say they deserved to go there and emberassing explain in details the most horrible actions they commited if they were inventing a story up as wish fulllfilmet. Peter allowed it to be written that he denied Christ three times. Paul said of sinners he was chief. The Bible bears every single thing looked for experts in evidence, witness testimony, and historical documents that indicate reliability.

Then you are not looking at Pascals Wager for what it really is, a safety net.

Yes I am and that is why I reject it as stated. A safety net does not make logically impossible and contradictory claims, possible to all be believed and at the same time and still retain the details in the claims. It is like a round square, or an honest politician. Logical impossabilities.

please be so kind as to explain how someone cannot believe that all the proposed gods exist.

Wait a minute let me restate something. It is impossible to believe in all of them and what they claim to reveal about themselves. I guess it might be possible to believe in them and consider them all liers. Yet belief in a lying God would not meet the intent of Pascal's wager. There is no known potential gain in believing in a liar.

People believe in contradicting things all the time.
Take the Trinity for example.

It is impossible to believe two contradictory claims as they are can even possibly be true. It is however possible to say you do. Actualluy believing in something is far more meningful than simply claiming to. For example is it possible for you to actually believe that 2 + 2 =4 and at the same time actually believe 2 + 2 = excomunication + pizza x 3 unicycles. By the way the Trinity is not contradictory it is just dang hard to explain. There is no contradiction of three persons who comprise one being. There are coutless examples of three individuals comprising a single whole. I did not say hoever that I believe it is true. I do not know and what more I do not think it matters. I need to do the same thing to be saved regardless.