Does God Exist?
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
Lix,
"This is incorrect. For starteres, there can only be 2 possibilities in any matter."
True or false once it is known. Is it known Lix ? Can you prove there is a god Lix ?
Still haven't answered my question, do you believe A, B or C. ?
Still waiting.
"Believe X is true or don't know"
Either way it is still a belief, so are you suggesting that there should only be agnostics because nobody can at this point prove there is a or isn't a god ?
"This is incorrect. For starteres, there can only be 2 possibilities in any matter."
True or false once it is known. Is it known Lix ? Can you prove there is a god Lix ?
Still haven't answered my question, do you believe A, B or C. ?
Still waiting.
"Believe X is true or don't know"
Either way it is still a belief, so are you suggesting that there should only be agnostics because nobody can at this point prove there is a or isn't a god ?
Last edited:
You do not seem to get arriving at conclusion vs not arriving at conclusion. Do you not get that this applies to every case in every matter. Regardless of your conclusion. Regardless of whether or not your conclusion is correct. You have either arrived at a conclusion that something is true or you haven't. Do you disagree with that?
Yes I do simply because you want to equate the arrival of a conclusion with knowledge as long as that turns out to be true.
Otherwise, if you only maintain that it is belief until the belief is justified (evidence of), and therefore knowledge I would be ok with it.
The difference has been shown by many people here including myself.
With the subject of God, if you have come to a CONCLUSION that God exists then you are saying you KNOW and you can prove this how ? I would like to see the proof.
If you are confusing the conclusion of a belief with the conclusion that something is true (knowledge) that is different. You can believe it without any evidence, but knowledge requires justification. Until then you are just guessing. Period.
So please answer, A,B or C please , third request.
*************
M*W: If a god existed, no one would ever need to ask.
*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote (FAQ) of the Day:
"In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners." ~ Jonathan Miller
*************
M*W's Anti-Bitterness Comments (ABCs) of the Day:
"Only in growth, reform, and change, paradoxically enough, is true security to be found." ~ Anne Morrow Lindbergh, b. 1906, American Writer
*************
M*W's Letters And Utterances God Hears (LAUGH) of the Day:
"Dear God:
Maybe Cain and Abel would not kill each other so much if they had their own rooms. It works with my brother." ~ Peter
M*W: If a god existed, no one would ever need to ask.
*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote (FAQ) of the Day:
"In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners." ~ Jonathan Miller
*************
M*W's Anti-Bitterness Comments (ABCs) of the Day:
"Only in growth, reform, and change, paradoxically enough, is true security to be found." ~ Anne Morrow Lindbergh, b. 1906, American Writer
*************
M*W's Letters And Utterances God Hears (LAUGH) of the Day:
"Dear God:
Maybe Cain and Abel would not kill each other so much if they had their own rooms. It works with my brother." ~ Peter
Just as psychologists gather around the mentally ill with probes, while left on their own the sick are content to drool on themselves.
actually the common experience in dealing with the mentally infirm is their insistence that they are perfectly ok .....
You're wrong a lot, aren't you? Is that why you make such elaborate defenses to your wrongness? I'm just curious.
I never said anything about turning out. All justification does is allow an individual to arrive at a conclusion. The individual concludes X is true or X is false.
What you consider proof is not necessarily what others consider proof. You need proof/justification to arrive at a conclusion. Until you see the justification that is strong enough to compell YOU to arrive at a conclusion, you will consider the matter as inconclusive.
You cannot ask somebody else to prove something to you. It doesn't matter what the subject at hand is. Each person has their own idea of what it takes to arrive to a conclusion. That is all justification/proof/evidence is.
"Show me proof X is true" = "Provide me with material that I consider valid/strong enough to compel me to conclude that X is true."
Show me justification/evidence/proof. Show me verification that X is true. It all means the same thing. "Provide me with material that I consider valid/strong enough to compel me to conclude that X is true."
This goes for any subject matter whether existence of God, apple in your hand, shape of earth, mathematical equation or whatever.
No matter what the subject matter, the only thing in question is if the individual concluded something to be true.
-Did you conclude that God exists? Good for you. No need to provide proof of your conclusion.
-Did you conclude that God does not exist? Good for you. No need to provide proof of your conclusion.
-Did you arrive at a conclusion. Good for you.
No matter what the subject matter, you can use any proof or evidece you want to conclude X is true. It does not mean X is true.
This is all you are claiming: "I consider the material valid/strong enough to compel me to conclude that X is true. Therefore, I have knowledge that X ist rue." <-all this means is -> "I have concluded X is true." = "I have belief that X is true." = "I claim knowledge that X is true."
You are also stating that if a person provides you with material valid/strong enough to compel you to conclude that X is true. Then it is necessary that X is objectively true, and it is impossible for you to come to a realization that X is false. This is fallacy.
All you are doing is saying that somethig can only be knowledge if it is true using justification is that acceptable to you and only you. That is not how knowledge works.
Last edited:
before you ask such questions you need to DEFINE what is GOD
What for? I don't think anybody in this entire website is caviling the definition of God.before you ask such questions you need to DEFINE what is GOD
So you are saying that if one does not provide you with with material that I consider valid/strong enough to compel me to conclude that X is true, that person has not concluded "X is true"? IOW, If I have not provided you with "evidence/proof" to your approval that there is an apple in my hand, it means I have not concluded that there is an apple in my hand?
The evidence required to prove there is an apple in your hand is far different from the evidence to prove there is a God.
If you don't understand the difference then you are delusional.
First of all, there is ample evidence for the existence of apples, therefore to say you have an apple in your hand is very believable and I would not doubt you since I KNOW apples exist.
Extrodinary claims REQUIRE extrodinary proof/evidence/justification.
You can believe what you like but if you claim you KNOW then you have to prove it.
Still waiting A, B or C ? 4th time now.
don't overlook that extraordinary proof/evidence/justification requires extraordinary qualifications .....
Wrong again. The statement "Extrodinary claims REQUIRE extrodinary proof/evidence/justification." means nothing to anybody except for the person making the statement. You are beasically saying that "Claims that are extraordinary according to my standards require material that I consider extraordinarily valid/strong enough to compel me to conclude that X is true."
Either way, you are claiming that somebdoy claiming to know X has to provide X. IOW, because the person has not provided you with what you require, that person has not arrived at a conclusion that X is true, and therefore cannot claim to have arrived at the conclusion that X is true.
Sure, so what's your point other than the evidence has to be real evidence.
No you are WRONG Lix,
You don't just have to prove it to me, you have to prove it to enough of us that a consensus can be formed, it can be tested and re-created. Without that you have nothing.
There are a lot of people who convince a few idiots that something is real or true by showing them something they claim is evidence that can't pass the muster of scientific inquiry. That is not adequate. Proving it to me and me alone is not adequate when considering such an extrodinary claim.
It would be like saying I found bigfoot, see Lix here is a mold of his track and then you say by George you really did find him.
If you came to me and said I have proof God exists and I believed it based on your word and I ran off believing it without wanting it tested and re-created I would be a fool.
Nonsense. Either you know what I am saying and are dodging or worse you don't understand what I am saying, there is no lack of intent in my words and there can be no misinterpretation of my words.
I am still waiting for your answer, A.B or C. 5TH TIME NOW.
You have not answered the question. Again:
If somebody states "X is true", it is safe to assume that the person has concluded that X is true. This does not mean X is true. It only means that the person, for whatever reason, has arrived at the conclusion that X is true.
[You don't just have to prove it to me, you have to prove it to enough of us that a consensus can be formed, it can be tested and re-created. Without that you have nothing.] - is YOUR personal material valid/strong enough to compel YOU to conclude that X is true.
Again, you are claiming that if the person has not abided by what YOU consider to be acceptable, does that meant the person has not concluded that X is true?
In other words:
PERSON A: My position is that X is true. (I have arrived at the conclusion that X is true.)
YOU: You have no proof, therefore, you are not of the position that X is true. (You have not arrived at the conclusion that X is true.)
If somebody states "X is true", it is safe to assume that the person has concluded that X is true. This does not mean X is true. It only means that the person, for whatever reason, has arrived at the conclusion that X is true.
[You don't just have to prove it to me, you have to prove it to enough of us that a consensus can be formed, it can be tested and re-created. Without that you have nothing.] - is YOUR personal material valid/strong enough to compel YOU to conclude that X is true.
Again, you are claiming that if the person has not abided by what YOU consider to be acceptable, does that meant the person has not concluded that X is true?
In other words:
PERSON A: My position is that X is true. (I have arrived at the conclusion that X is true.)
YOU: You have no proof, therefore, you are not of the position that X is true. (You have not arrived at the conclusion that X is true.)
No. Person A needs to provide acceptable proof, to the other person -YOU above. Otherwise anyone could run around making whatever spurious claims they can imagine.
And also to themselves, Person A, otherwise they are delusional. As in, I believe in X, even though I have no idea why.