Can anyone prove the existence of God?
- Thread starter Emil
- Start date
.
hehehehe, just a question, what does a hypocrite means? i always see you people using it, but don't know what it is, but what i know that it's not a good thing,
does it mean a fanatic?
hehehehe, just a question, what does a hypocrite means? i always see you people using it, but don't know what it is, but what i know that it's not a good thing,
does it mean a fanatic?
In this case it means that he doesn't behave any better than the religious people he's complaing about.
He treats people the same way. He's just pointing fingers from the other side of the fence.
Yes,for this I say:at Doomsday I was asking God and I'll pull the beard.
Then he can send me to hell.
.
ah, yeah,
anywya, i hate relegious peopel too, but not the good relegious people, because their are 3 kinds, the good relegious people, that don't are not fanatic and peacefull, the second is the relegious people, that some times get some craizy ideas, that have no relation with that relegion, and the third kind, is the totally fanatic groops, that you call them, terrorists, and they are very few, and they don't exist in my country, or in the maghreb in general, besides lebanon and sirya, the rest i don't know, those terrorists, say that they are doing it for god, but what they are doing, have no relation with what the relegion says, they use relegion as a cover, a dirty cover, and those are the fanatics, the sick people, that i hate alooot, the second kind, i just don't kare for their relegion side, i know one, and he's just peacefull as everyone one else, and the first kind, got nothing against them, they are peacefull. that's just about the relegious people. and those two first kinds are that you can talk to them and chat with them about any anything, normally, and no relegion stuff, but the other kind, the third, is the terrorist groups in middle east like al-qaeda (don't say middle eastern love them, or even saudi arabians(even that they are, well, closed, and, you know, but not terrorists,i mean the normal people, citizents)
ah, yeah,
anywya, i hate relegious peopel too, but not the good relegious people, because their are 3 kinds, the good relegious people, that don't are not fanatic and peacefull, the second is the relegious people, that some times get some craizy ideas, that have no relation with that relegion, and the third kind, is the totally fanatic groops, that you call them, terrorists, and they are very few, and they don't exist in my country, or in the maghreb in general, besides lebanon and sirya, the rest i don't know, those terrorists, say that they are doing it for god, but what they are doing, have no relation with what the relegion says, they use relegion as a cover, a dirty cover, and those are the fanatics, the sick people, that i hate alooot, the second kind, i just don't kare for their relegion side, i know one, and he's just peacefull as everyone one else, and the first kind, got nothing against them, they are peacefull. that's just about the relegious people. and those two first kinds are that you can talk to them and chat with them about any anything, normally, and no relegion stuff, but the other kind, the third, is the terrorist groups in middle east like al-qaeda (don't say middle eastern love them, or even saudi arabians(even that they are, well, closed, and, you know, but not terrorists,i mean the normal people, citizents)
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Make this concrete (i.e. about God) ?
well if we are talking about god, the same general principles apply - namely one perceives him strictly on his terms (the terms tend to encompass an understanding of the nature of - or qualitative models of - god, the living entity and this phenomenal world). So in that sense, the best a practitioner can do (at least initially anyway) is establish those qualitative models. If one doesn't have them to work out of, all attempts are fruitless ... regardless whether it lands one as an atheist due to a (apparent) lack of proof or something at the other end of the spectrum.
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
So what you're saying is a god can't be proven to exist.
One must experience god personally and this experience can't be shared with others.
the experience, much like an experience of the direct perception of the president, involves the co-operation of a third party who enjoys a greater status than the seer ... which effectively makes the seer the co-operator
It only fails to be proven to exist to a person who neglects to co-operate with the said personality (like, for instance, insisting that the president make an appearance in one's dining room .... and deeming that a physical law prevents him from making an appearance, that he doesn't exist or that his existence can not be proven upon being stood up)
All in all, you are saying that either God can not bend the rules of universe that he created in order to reveal himself to his own creation; or you are saying that he is playing hide and seek (or "guess and wait") game.
The ability or chance of seeing a president might depend on many condition due to the social and/or political status of the person. How can a superpower can be compared to or even presented as an example for God's existence and/or God's problems for revealing itself?
well there is a chance that Barrack Obama could appear in your dining room .... I mean there is no physical law that prevents him .... but it measures up quite slim ... especially in contrast to a person who takes the initiative and attends one of his public forums (without sniper rifles or something else that sets off the 10 000 secretarial and security staff that surround him 24\7)
And that said, the act of one's status having a bearing on the odds would be an act of sharing his values and interests .... which again come s under the banner of co-operation on the seer's behalf
Spreading biblical hatred does not make any place better. It divides people and causes conflict. The last 2000 years of Christian atrocities makes that clearly evident.
So what? I don't need bronze age superstitions to encourage me to help people. Why do you? Can't think for yourself?
Therefore humans don't share any value and interest with God. I suspected so.
I didn't call you an asshole.
Poor Lori. Are you feeling victimized because your hate speech is being criticized?
Its not clear what reasoning makes you think that ... much less how the whole analogy of "god as president" shares a parallel to it
If there was no common interest there would be no platform of co-operation ... or even any category of acts or deeds that one could deem as greater or lesser
IOW to say that there are no shared interests is just a fancy way to say there is no god
You are absolutely right in there.
Remember, you asked this question in your very first post to this thread:
However, OP doesn’t ask “the direct” prove. Asks for arguments, anything. And your argument happens to be giving president as an example. You example does not suit the main quest, because:
President is a real person, and for that some people have direct contact and first hand experience about his existence. There are some people who see him directly. His not-so-easily-reachable position can only be initial challenge to what we call ordinary people. Yet again, if a person insist upon not believing the existence of the president, and his/her claim was taken seriously, it is eventually provable the very existence of the President even to this suspicious ordinary person.
This is not true for God. Because there is no single person who has any clue about his existence, let alone seeing him directly. And we could even ignore this direct experience. Proving existence does not necessarily be “directly” in many occasions. That is to say “directness” is something arguable. No one can directly see or pinpoint many physical elements, yet we can use mediums, measurements and other methods to prove ourselves the existence of these phenomenon.
The existence of your President can be provable at many levels: Politically (in terms of the power he occupies), physically (because he also consist of atoms and molecules), logically (for instance, we don’t expect US president openly declaring war against US; anyone who does that can not be president); culturally (even not being able to stand next to the president could be a prove to his existence). This last point “even not being able to see him whenever we want” could has the only possible relevance to your example. However, when it comes to abundance of material exemplification for the President (photos, videos, audio), and lack of a single material evidence for God’s existence, your President vs God comparison makes no sense. In other way of saying, the existence and or even none-existence of President is not an analogy for God’s existence, especially if you are saying that God does not perform physical conditions as we do.
If only one millionth of people who has been questioning the existence of God had questioned the existence of the President, I bet he would personally show himself as soon as possible and make his utmost effort to prove his existence. However, same is not true for God. No matter how many people would try to prove or get a glimpse of his existence, only some imaginative people will confidently claim on God’s existence without bothering to provide any evidence whatsoever. My point is this: Your analogy is not suitable, you can twist words, sentences, meaning, representation, but you will never be able to achieve to establish a real correlation between God and the President. No one will be convinced, including the believers.
And you must either the only person who seriously believe in such a similarities between the existence of God (the main issue of this thread) and the President or even you don’t buy this, yet enjoying your game. I don’t know. Do you?
imo, i made the association that you have to be an asshole to want to troll as much as you do. it's valid. arbitrarily calling me a liar and making references to the KKK is trolling, and is hateful.
imo, you don't appear to be any more loving towards people who's opinion or beliefs or lifestyles differ from yours than a baptist sporting an i hate fags sign.
hate and intolerance is hate and intolerance, and i don't hate you, even though you're an asshole.
Its the nature of atheism to establish values that prohibit the existence of god from the onset.
Don't be naive.
How many atheist refutations here boil down to a steadfast refusal to accept second hand accounts?
You're begging the question.
The very topic of discussion is whether or how god is real.
another direct issue that you're begging
ditto
or more specifically, his reachable position is in accordance with those who meet him on his terms (which was the point of the whole analogy)
only because the social parameters that place a person outside the purview are marginal in comparison to god ... but even then, a person could steadfastly remain in their trailer park or whatever and remain blissfully ignorant (or adamantly stubborn in their reluctance to accept) of the existence of the president ... and I don't think we would personally hold it against the president if he never got around to making a guest appearance in the trailer park just to rain on the parade of such losers ... even if they were citizens under his jurisdiction (although they might have quite a few social interactions with the president's sub branches dealing with welfare, psychiatric treatment and law enforcement)
so say the equivalent of the trailer park dwellers .....
or alternatively, we can dismiss them in accordance with one's reserves of stubbornness (especially if they are fueled by diametrically opposed values)
sure - one could infer that someone somewhere is in the position of the president in light of observing a functioning community/nation ... and funnily enough, there is a similar argument for the general existence god on a similar basis of a functioning universe that has all the trappings of a well engineered and orchestrated phenomena. Atheists reject such an argument as weak, and point to an absence of direct perception from their trailer park vantage point ... which in turn brings us back to the analogy of the president
if the president doesn't rock up in your trailer park, you can't examine his atoms, even if your trailer is decked out with the latest microscopes
more than one sci fi thriller has played out that scenario, whether it be a nuke on LA to cull a zombie outbreak or a misinterpreted security threat leaked through the CIA
culturally requires the language of qualitative models in order to be valid - something atheists don't tend to score too well on in their ruminations on theism
Its not so much that we can't see the president when ever we want to - factually there are some persons who can see him whenever they want to (like his wife or senior advisers for example). Actually you see that there is a whole sliding scale with kooky trailer park dwellers at one end and intimate associates at another - and all of them occupying a particular point on the continuum according to one constant criteria : the degree that they share the values/act in accordance with the desire of the president.
As for the photos etc, they are all second hand accounts, or "just stuff in some old book" as an atheist would put it.
The major difference between god and the president are their fields of action. If you were working with an accurate qualitative model for god, you would see that your call for photos of god is just as absurd as a call for him to appear on the UN council or something.
What makes you say that?
The fact that you are relegating the claim to imagination at the onset and remaining (blissfully) unaware of the contexts that the claim are lodged in, clearly indicate that you are twisting words.
Basically all you have said is "God is not real. Its imagination. See I just proved he is not real by saying its imagination".
If you want to present a coherent argument or a (serious) rebuttal of one, you have a bit of work ahead of you.
lol
so even the believers aren't convinced now?
You certainly live in a world deeply dyed by atheism, huh?
If you want to talk of difficult things to believe, try that of me having offered you the first instance of hearing how god's position is analogous to that of an esteemed ruler.
Last edited: