Can anyone prove the existence of God?

[Cris]

lg,

What specifically have you ploughed through to come to that conclusion?

I only ask because I have never encountered a claim that runs along the lines of "we are baffled in the pursuit of of knowledge of x so god must have done it and this is the final last word in our analysis/direct perception of god/god's nature."

Then you have become so lost in the mire of scripture and religious indoctrination that you are unable to see the big picture. There are only two issues and all religious scripture/texts are directly or indirectly related to these two items -

1. There is a spiritual componet to our lives and that a god is a component/integral/controlling part of that.
2. That a god is responsible for everything there is.

Science has not yet identified the nature of consciousness - the theists say a god is responsible.
Science has not yet determined any ultimate cause of the universe if there was one - the theists say a god is responsible.

There are no other issues and all of scripture circles around these two points.

 

[Emil]

You ask how god can be proven

You lie, I have not asked that.

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,

Then you have become so lost in the mire of scripture and religious indoctrination that you are unable to see the big picture. There are only two issues and all religious scripture/texts are directly or indirectly related to these two items -

1. There is a spiritual componet to our lives and that a god is a component/integral/controlling part of that.
2. That a god is responsible for everything there is.

Science has not yet identified the nature of consciousness - the theists say a god is responsible.
Science has not yet determined any ultimate cause of the universe if there was one - the theists say a god is responsible.

There are no other issues and all of scripture circles around these two points.

I'm not sure what all this has to do with the direct perception of god

I mean one could also lay on he table that the president has the power to initiate a nuclear strike, and as yet, the president hasn't displayed that potency, so his identity is in question.
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

You lie, I have not asked that.

huh?
You ask for an argument of proof and you expect the answer not to incorporate issues of "how"?
Is this another half-assed joke?

 

[Cris]

lg,

So assuming you have the right qualitative model for who\what the president is, what other criteria do you think there might be.

For instance why do you suppose that you can't have the same experience in your dining room? Why do you suppose the same opportunity is not available to, say, Bin Laden?

I do not understand your question.

“ In the case of gods there is no such option but people claim he is real, how can they prove it?
”
That all depends on whether there are parallel stipulations for god's direct perception much as there is for the president

I do not understand what you have just said.

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,

I do not understand your question.

You said you could go to a public rally
I queried why Bin Laden can't apply himself in the same manner and I also queried, why its you that has to go to the rally, as opposed to bringing the ingredients of the rally to some other location (like say, your dining room)

I do not understand what you have just said.

Its unpacking the issues behind the "I" in "I can visit one of the live presentations "

 

[Cris]

lg,

I'm not sure what all this has to do with the direct perception of god

I mean one could also lay on he table that the president has the power to initiate a nuclear strike, and as yet, the president hasn't displayed that potency, so his identity is in question.

You've become confused. This was in answer to your question -

I only ask because I have never encountered a claim that runs along the lines of "we are baffled in the pursuit of of knowledge of x so god must have done it and this is the final last word in our analysis/direct perception of god/god's nature."

 

[Emil]

huh?
You ask for an argument of proof and you expect the answer not to incorporate issues of "how"?
Is this another half-assed joke?

I say you're lying because you do not use quote and distort what I ask.
I use words very precisely.

 

[Enmos]

Then I think you have to explain why absolutely no one gets proven who\what the president is in that fashion

Because it's not the point. Perhaps you should reread the thread.

If you don't have a qualitative model (ie know the qualities that distinguish it) for the object of inquiry, you can't determine it.
In the absence of this, you could just as easily place 4 green grocers in the queue

And so?
Again, determining which one is the president is not the point. The point is to determine the presidents existence.
These are two separate things, in case you didn't work that out already..

IOW if you don't begin the inquiry with some understandings of the qualities of the president, any attempt to further investigate it results in nil at worst or accepting something on faith totally bereft of any philosophical framework (ie without the means to work out whether it is true or not) at best
:shrug:

Babble..

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,

You've become confused. This was in answer to your question -

you were talking about god's nature being verifiable in lieu of certain qualities (being the pivotal point of existence, including consciousness)

I gave an example of the president also being identified along similar lines and also drawing a zero in a certain light.

Once again, .... I have never encountered a claim that runs along the lines of "we are baffled in the pursuit of of knowledge of x so god must have done it and this is the final last word in our analysis/direct perception of god/god's nature."

It amounts to nothing to say that fundamental issues of existence stand head and shoulders outside of our current grasp of empiricism, because such issues are, in toto, standing head and shoulders outside of the grasp of empiricism

 

[scifes]

Yosef,

A god is no longer necessary as an explanation for anything. The god concept was devised by ancient peoples in ignorant times who did not have the advantages of scientific reasoning. It is now a redundant concept and can be safely discarded. Time to move on.

you wish.
scientific reasoning will paddle in the puddle of "how" and never reach the shore of "why".

spirituality is needed for human beings.

and science is void of spirituality.

when science starts getting some spirituality,

it's no longer science

 

[lightgigantic]

Because it's not the point. Perhaps you should reread the thread.

then proving god is very easy
Just go to your local green grocer
:shrug:

And so?
Again, determining which one is the president is not the point. The point is to determine the presidents existence.
These are two separate things, in case you didn't work that out already..

so if I bring 4 green grocers to the line up and say "there's your proof", what then?

Or do we have to work off the assumption that whoever you bring forward for inspection is the president?
(mind you, anyone who has an inkling of an understanding of the qualitative model of the president would be highly dubious of someone who says "sure I can show him to you - Just step through this door and take a look at him with three other people")

Babble..

Actually its babble to talk about proving anything without this ... since its the very essence of proof to measure it against a model of what it is/isn't

 

[lightgigantic]

I say you're lying because you do not use quote and distort what I ask.
I use words very precisely.

If you think one can touch on issues of "proof" without touching on issues of "how", "precise" is hardly descriptive of your word usage.

 

[Enmos]

then proving god is very easy
Just go to your local green grocer
:shrug:


so if I bring 4 green grocers to the line up and say "there's your proof", what then?

Or do we have to work off the assumption that whoever you bring forward for inspection is the president?
(mind you, anyone who has an inkling of an understanding of the qualitative model of the president would be highly dubious of someone who says "sure I can show him to you - Just step through this door and take a look at him with three other people")

Alright, I'll tell you what.
You provide me with the characteristics of God so that I can recognize him.
Then you show him to me and see whether or not I recognize him as God.

Actually its babble to talk about proving anything without this ... since its the very essence of proof to measure it against a model of what it is/isn't

Actually, if you paid attention, I said that it's not possible to prove God's existence.

 

[Emil]

If you think one can touch on issues of "proof" without touching on issues of "how", "precise" is hardly descriptive of your word usage.

Expect from me to determine by what method I accept your demonstration?
Any method you use is your choice.
But once you do.
Until now you spoke of "president" and criticized testimonials.
Tell your position and if you can demonstrate it.

 

[Lori_7]

I am new to forum but I'm not stupid.





So what do we do?
Who must first demonstrate?

I can only tell you what I did. I made the assumption that if god was in fact god, and knowledge of him was meaningful, then he should have the capability and desire to prove his existence to me.

I also placed absolutely no conditions or qualifiers on this knowledge, like "I only want to know if...". I sincerely did not care what the consequences of the knowledge were. Honestly at the time, I associated the knowledge with religion and I was not thrilled about it. The thought of dressing up in my sunday best and going to church and playing nice nice with all the goodie goodies made me sad. But even so, if that was the result, I still wanted to know.

So I prayed, and I conveyed these thoughts and desire to god. I told him I wasn't willing to take anyone elses word for it, I knew it couldn't be accomplished through study and intellect, so he was going to have to find a way to prove it to me personally and leaving no doubt.

And that worked for me.

 

[Enmos]

I can only tell you what I did. I made the assumption that if god was in fact god, and knowledge of him was meaningful, then he should have the capability and desire to prove his existence to me.

I also placed absolutely no conditions or qualifiers on this knowledge, like "I only want to know if...". I sincerely did not care what the consequences of the knowledge were. Honestly at the time, I associated the knowledge with religion and I was not thrilled about it. The thought of dressing up in my sunday best and going to church and playing nice nice with all the goodie goodies made me sad. But even so, if that was the result, I still wanted to know.

So I prayed, and I conveyed these thoughts and desire to god. I told him I wasn't willing to take anyone elses word for it, I knew it couldn't be accomplished through study and intellect, so he was going to have to find a way to prove it to me personally and leaving no doubt.

And that worked for me.

Can you tell again how he proved his existence to you?

 

[(Q)]

I made the assumption that if god was in fact god, and knowledge of him was meaningful, then he should have the capability and desire to prove his existence to me.

We all make that assumption, yet there is nothing.

So I prayed, and I conveyed these thoughts and desire to god. I told him I wasn't willing to take anyone elses word for it, I knew it couldn't be accomplished through study and intellect, so he was going to have to find a way to prove it to me personally and leaving no doubt.

And that worked for me.

So, prayer is your proof. LOL!

 

[Lori_7]

Lori,
We have met on other threads.I remember your opinion and I have nothing against.
But I suggest, in good faith, to talk about your revelation with friends, or restricted community.
If you say in public,chances are high to compromise your revelation.

I haven't experienced any difference in reactions among people that depends on proximity or intimacy. They vary in the same ways.

I also don't believe that honesty compromises anything good.

 

[Dywyddyr]

So I prayed, and I conveyed these thoughts and desire to god. I told him I wasn't willing to take anyone elses word for it

I'm intrigued.
How did he prove to you that he was god?
Since you state that you weren't prepared to take anyone else's word for it then this, um, "presence" must have shown, conclusively, that it wasn't, for example, an alien, the devil, an evil spirit, Elvis in disguise or Santa Claus perpetrating an early April Fool's on you.
How did he prove he was actually god?