Can anyone prove the existence of God?

[Lori_7]

For some of them anyway. I can't remember Elvis getting a mention in the bible.
Regardless how do you know it's god and not Satan? (Or Elvis).

I do love elvis. I saw him in concert when I was 7 yrs old.

But to answer, you can tell by the fruit of the experience. If the fruit is good the source is good. If the fruit is bad the source is bad.

Wouldn't that be the best way to mislead someone? It works the same way for intelligence agents: when you want to "turn" someone you give them actual real intelligence, and then one day, when they're utterly convinced and it's too late for them back out... Whammo. You've got them where you want them. Classic technique.

I'm not afraid of anything because of gods love, power, and my own intentions.

 

[Lori_7]

Can you explain a little more detailed?

Everything accomplishes gods will, whether they like it, or are aware of it, or not. (imo)

 

[Dywyddyr]

If the fruit is good the source is good. If the fruit is bad the source is bad.

Until it's too late to back out.
Classic technique....

 

[Lori_7]

Until it's too late to back out.
Classic technique....

I'll let you know how it goes.

 

[Enmos]

And you think a real president of a real country would comply with such a request?

Beside the point.

 

[scifes]

scifes,

Sure it will, if there is a reason for anything. Discovering how things work always results in a cause and effect relationship being revealed. The "why" simply becomes apparent when the causes are known.

means are different to motives.
how do i live is different from why do i live, everyone can see that.

Pure fantasy speculation.

very convincing rebuttal.

is curiosity in humans pure fantasy speculation?
is the ever thirst to that which cannot be reached, cannot be understood[in other words beyond science], pure fantasy speculation?

or is it because you're the atheist, and i'm the theist, that you can reply with such hollow assertions and think you'll have it just accepted?

curiosity is a trait that generates needs.
humans have always been lacking and incomplete one way or another, including their mental capacity.
that's where spirituality comes in, that's where the pure fantasy speculation comes in.

But then science isn't a human.

If spirituality ever became real and hence measurable then spirituality would become part of science.

yeah, and cease being spirituality.

and if one age's spirituality became another age's science, there will always be new voids for spirituality to fill in.

there will always be a void for god to fill in.

whether you like it or not.
whether you admit it or not.

Science in its basic sense simply means - knowledge. There is nothing anti-religious or anti-spiritual about science.

a- science means tangible{i.e directly through senses} knowledge, very limited.
hunch and (pure fantasy) speculation play a more major role in humans' daily lives. in othr simpler words, most people don't give a damn about(nor need) the knowledge collected through the scientific method, knowledge through instinct for example keeps races alive, knowledge through science does not.

b-spirituality in its basic concept means interacting with that which is not known.
that which is not known always exist.
humans will always long for it.
science doesn't have anything to do with it.
science is missing.
more like, humans relying only on science are..incomplete.

there isn't a question you can't answer with "god did it".
you wanna keep that question unanswered, no problem, just don't tell me you're having the same peace of mind as that who does.

 

[Emil]

Everything accomplishes gods will, whether they like it, or are aware of it, or not. (imo)

That is something completely new and I can not believe.
Maybe I did not understand well and that you ask.
You spoke of Gods,plural?
You spoke of unconscious actions of Gods?

 

[lightgigantic]

Alright, I'll tell you what.
You provide me with the characteristics of God so that I can recognize him.

This list can of course be further broken down, but here is a good introduction to determine to what extent the living entity, demigods and god share and have distinguished qualities.

Then you show him to me and see whether or not I recognize him as God.

hold on there.
we are talking about direct perception, yes?
I mean if you can't show me the president for my inspection, why expect me to deliver to your dining room?

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

I am paying attention
What I am pointing out is how your establishing the impossibility of proving god also renders the president equally so.

 

[lightgigantic]

Beside the point.

if your method of proof is only valid in imaginary and totally unrealistic scenarios (with not a single person having being proven the subject in the said manner), its hard to understand how it functions as a method of proof

 

[lightgigantic]

Expect from me to determine by what method I accept your demonstration?
Any method you use is your choice.
But once you do.

You might have thrown in a few typo/punctuation errors here.
This doesn't make sense

Until now you spoke of "president" and criticized testimonials.
Tell your position and if you can demonstrate it.

I spoke of the president because it shares a remarkable parallel to proving god. (I'm not sure that I have criticized testimonials ... except to say that an investigation that begins without a qualittative model doesn't really begin ... which I would have thought is hardly controversial ... I mean do you think one could set out to prove water without knowing what water is)

At the moment, I am trying to demonstrate the position, through the analogy of the president

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,

Science is about acquiring knowledge. Its approach is fundamentally simple - if something can be detected then it offers the potential of proof of its existence.

This might serve as a general overview, but when we get into details, you are actually talking about empiricism (or a knowledge base that begins with the senses ... particularly as it pertains to controlled environments, etc)

The theist claims a god has been detected through direct perception. To claim this the theist is revealling such details in a conscious state, i.e. the brain contains this information, and the brain is physical. Science currently is only aware of the physical, but it is not closed to any other possibilities if any were to become apparent. The point at which the information entered the brain must clearly be a physical event and hence within the realm of science to detect and measure.

only if there is some controllable environment or constant element to bring issues of measurement against.
As mentioned previously, the prospect of doing this against something that contextualizes not only the senses and consciousness but the objects of our perception is necessarily absurd.

At this time science does not have the required granularity to observe the brain at that level so we do not know that the concept of direct perception is viable or real.

hence empiricism is a poor tool for the task ... much like it is a poor tool fro the task of gaining direct perception of the president

The obvious alternatives to the theist claim of direct perception is simple delusion encouraged by massive religious indoctrination and emotional desire.

The obvious rebuttal of this claim is that the attempt to bring the claim to bear via empiricism is nutso from the onset

Without some form of proof that direct perception can occur the theist claims for such must remain questionable and given the fantastic nature of the claim, must be considered highly unlikely.

when you relegate the instances of such proof to controlled environments or constant elements you prohibit yourself from investigating the subject

 

[Emil]

I spoke of the president because it shares a remarkable parallel to proving god. (I'm not sure that I have criticized testimonials ... except to say that an investigation that begins without a qualittative model doesn't really begin ... which I would have thought is hardly controversial ... I mean do you think one could set out to prove water without knowing what water is)

At the moment, I am trying to demonstrate the position, through the analogy of the president

In this case there is no analogy between "president" and God.
Existence or not,of the "president" does not lead to the conclusion the existence or not of God

But if you want I help you.

 

[Cris]

scifes,

means are different to motives.
how do i live is different from why do i live, everyone can see that.

I believe you are missing the very essence of science. Agreed that much of science does deal with attempting to understand how things work, but the overriding original questions from scientists is - why does it occur.

is the ever thirst to that which cannot be reached, cannot be understood[in other words beyond science], pure fantasy speculation?

Until you show evidence for something, especially if it is beyond anything in human experience, e.g. gods, then yes, it will remain in the field of fantasy.

humans have always been lacking and incomplete one way or another, including their mental capacity.

That you feel incomplete doesn't necessarily mean that you are incomplete.

that's where spirituality comes in, that's where the pure fantasy speculation comes in.

Yup, you said it.

and if one age's spirituality became another age's science, there will always be new voids for spirituality to fill in.

there will always be a void for god to fill in.

whether you like it or not.
whether you admit it or not.

There's nothing wrong with speculating, the problem comes when religious folks assert that speculations are reality and are unable to tell the difference.

a- science means tangible{i.e directly through senses} knowledge, very limited.
hunch and (pure fantasy) speculation play a more major role in humans' daily lives. in othr simpler words, most people don't give a damn about(nor need) the knowledge collected through the scientific method, knowledge through instinct for example keeps races alive, knowledge through science does not.

LOL - without the knowledge and methodologies provided by science your speculations wouldn't go anywhere. Science provides the building blocks on which we can ask the next questions and shows us how to pursue any given speculation.

b-spirituality in its basic concept means interacting with that which is not known.
that which is not known always exist.
humans will always long for it.
science doesn't have anything to do with it.
science is missing.
more like, humans relying only on science are..incomplete.

Hmm, spirituality means a bit more than that. What's missing is that there are many things we don't know or understand, and that means we really need a lot more science to help us understand what's missing.

 

[Lori_7]

That is something completely new and I can not believe.
Maybe I did not understand well and that you ask.
You spoke of Gods,plural?
You spoke of unconscious actions of Gods?

Sorry, I left out an apostrophy.

A part of god is law. Because of this his will is accomplished even given our free will to do righteousness or evil, because the consequence of righteousness is good, and the consequence of evil is bad.

 

[Emil]

Sorry, I left out an apostrophy.

A part of god is law. Because of this his will is accomplished even given our free will to do righteousness or evil, because the consequence of righteousness is good, and the consequence of evil is bad.

Please read carefully my post No. 79 and tell your opinion.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2577411&postcount=79

 

[Lori_7]

Please read carefully my post No. 79 and tell your opinion.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2577411&postcount=79

Firstly its a bit confusing that you say you are an atheist or agnostic and then go on to speak of satan.

Secondly god is not religion, and religion can be used for good or evil.

Thirdly the knowledge of god through christ is a personal transformation that begets love for others, not hate.

 

[Emil]

Firstly its a bit confusing that you say you are an atheist or agnostic and then go on to speak of satan.

Secondly god is not religion, and religion can be used for good or evil.

Thirdly the knowledge of god through christ is a personal transformation that begets love for others, not hate.

I realize how little you understand of what I meant.
But maybe it's my fault. :scratchin:

 

[Lori_7]

I realize how little you understand of what I meant.
But maybe it's my fault. :scratchin:

I'm sorry, I tried.

I was listening to the book of john on audio tonight and there is scripture that addresses what I think you're saying. That is, that if any man says he loves god and hates his brother, he is a liar.

 

[Enmos]

hold on there.
we are talking about direct perception, yes?
I mean if you can't show me the president for my inspection, why expect me to deliver to your dining room?




I am paying attention
What I am pointing out is how your establishing the impossibility of proving god also renders the president equally so.

This is not about me, is it?
Isn't there anything the Christian community (for example) can do to persuade God to 'show himself' to the world?

 

[wynn]

And perhaps you should. That's your call not mine.

Actually, an even better idea occured to me: I shall stop defending atheists against Christians and militant theists.

Although my jumping in those conversations sometimes produces interesting exchanges and leads to people more openly express their frustrations, all in all, it does not really seem to help, neither them nor myself.