Proof of God

[Myles]

Hey Myles, does that not appear in the bible

It only appears in the Wiffenpoofer translation which has now been discredited by scholars

 

[Red Devil]

It only appears in the Wiffenpoofer translation which has now been discredited by scholars

Ah that would explain, as an born again athiest, I thought it would be something like that

 

[glaucon]

Unfortunately you were in such a hurry top correct me that you failed to grasp my meaning. I was told I could not prove god's existence and my response was my way of making the same point as you have done. I was asking for a methodology which I know doesn't exist.

I was in no hurry to correct you, as I don't believe that there can be a correct
position here. I'm just a stickler on logic and meaning.

Nevertheless, I did indeed fail to grasp your intention.
You are correct in your critique of a methodological approach to either prove, or disprove. This in itself is revelatory: in the face of an entity that defies proof, what can we then fall back upon?

 

[jayleew]

...what can we then fall back upon?

Blind faith...and that is not fair for a God to ask in an age of selfish lies.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

I think to read this thread in its entirety is proof that mankind is still suffering from the scars caused to ourselfs (as humans) and directorial influence of our history in the name of a one God (being able to effect total metaphysicality).

The enforcement of "the one god concept" centuries ago literaly washed out all base beliefs on the known world, we are only now looking at ourselfs as our own creators (historical not biological) and searching lost heritage or postitioning as to where we went wrong.
The only thing we can rely on now, and in the future > is ourselves and the direction history points > is down to us and us alone.
If we are to learn by our mistakes then it is that the "one God concept" was no different from any other deity worshiping form and just a capitalist form of it, if you want to believe in something which pre-dates Odin then be by guest.

For me "one god / any GOD" has had there chance and blew it, prove to me intervention of God.

Anything that approaches me with claims of Godship, I will martyr them to the beast's like the animals, that they have proven to be.

My brother always saves me never my God.............:jason:

 

[glaucon]

Blind faith...and that is not fair for a God to ask in an age of selfish lies.

Pass.

I'll take my faith with a large dose of probability...

 

[flameofanor5]

I guess you could say it proves that there is a god. We may consider ourselves god, therefore, there is a god. It still does not prove the existance of God, the creator of the universe. I think He exists though

 

[TW Scott]

Ah, ad hominem, the last resort of the floundering...

Regardless...

It's only an ad hominem if i do not provide any other argument. Since you fail to realize this i will demonstrate.


Ad hominem: You are a twit!

Not an Ad hominem: Obvously you were drooling in your textbook on the day this was covered. An ad hominem attack is an arguemnt that consists solely of a personal attack on the personage that is is espousing the view you wish to counter. The ad hominem rely on throwing the rival into a defensive mode and force them to defend themselves rather than make their point. It is widely considered a cowardly way of debate.

Incorrect.
Not that it's relevant here, but a proof, is specifically, and uniquely applied only to purely logical systems.

Excuse me, but you are grossly negligent in your argument here. Lack of material evidence in either regard does indeed mean that the Anecdoctal evidence has merit. In fact until some manner of hard evidence comes about then the anecdoctal eviodence stands. It's a basic rule of society, science, logic and law.

Agreed. Only insofar as it applies to any valid hypothetico-deductive analysis, which this subject is obviously not.

How is it not? And be careful here.

Quibbling with semantics. Although, the semantical point is relevant, if one is prepared to give at least a working definition of 'god'.

There is no semantics here. I ma merely stating part of reasonable logic. If we can trace the exact root of a modern myth and I do mean to tbe person who created it, then it is easily falsifiable. Hiow silly would we look if we had discounted the stories of Kangaroos and Koala bears as pure fancy becuase in our limited scope we had not seen them?

Not that I made mention of the Bible, but.... the same could be said of any other work of fiction, and yet, I don't question the veracity of the existence of Moby Dick, for example.

There very well could have been a murderous whale that sunk a whaling ship or two and garnered such a fearsome reputation that the story was blown out of proportion and eventually made into a novel. However Moby Dick share naught in common with the Bible, one is purely a fictional piece the other is an entire peoples history. And while history can be embellished, there is always a grain of truth.

Not at all.

Prove it> See that is the beauty of this. Untill you prove it you cannot make a claim it is unreal. All science is is the passing of knowledge and if you read the Bible there were more than enough people to test Jehovah.

Interesting point.
But wholly aside the point.

I love how dismissive you are. And they says theists have closed minds.

Moreover, I believe Ockham's Razor would apply here.

And Occam would without a doubt in my mind say simply until you can prove Jehovah does not exist you must believe he does.

 

[TW Scott]

The difference between things that exist and things that are real is vast.
I can't ride a unicorn because it's not real, but it still exist's.

Actually I could probably find you one to ride. One of the cattle ranches near here has a few every year. Some minor mutation in the cattle the meat is tastier but one out every tenthousand cattle have one horn out there forehead. Riding a cow is not fun, but doable.

 

[Tnerb]

TW Scott I read over these forums sometimes, and you have just made a fool of yourself hehe.

 

[glaucon]

It's only an ad hominem if i do not provide any other argument.

True enough there.

... Lack of material evidence in either regard does indeed mean that the Anecdoctal evidence has merit. In fact until some manner of hard evidence comes about then the anecdoctal eviodence stands. It's a basic rule of society, science, logic and law.

You are correct.
However, you miss my point: I was critiquing whether or not proof obtains, which it does not.

How is it not? And be careful here.

I can do quite fine without your caveats thanks..

The subject is exempt from a hypothetico-deductive because the very concept of 'god' itself is non-verifiable and non-falsifiable.

There is no semantics here. I ma merely stating part of reasonable logic. If we can trace the exact root of a modern myth and I do mean to tbe person who created it, then it is easily falsifiable. Hiow silly would we look if we had discounted the stories of Kangaroos and Koala bears as pure fancy becuase in our limited scope we had not seen them?

I agree with your line of thought, but semantics is always applicable. Tracing the myth back to its origin exactly would require almost unsurmountable interpretations of meaning, across a number of languages. Is the task possible? Yes. But undoubtedly bound to be fraught with dangers of misinterpretation.

There very well could have been a murderous whale that sunk a whaling ship or two and garnered such a fearsome reputation that the story was blown out of proportion and eventually made into a novel. However Moby Dick share naught in common with the Bible, one is purely a fictional piece the other is an entire peoples history. And while history can be embellished, there is always a grain of truth.

I agree. Nevertheless, that grain of truth is hidden beneath layers of confusion. It is the unquestioning acceptance of the totality of the Bible that I call into question.

Prove it> See that is the beauty of this. Untill you prove it you cannot make a claim it is unreal. All science is is the passing of knowledge and if you read the Bible there were more than enough people to test Jehovah.

I made no claim to is irreality, that would be unreasonable. Regardless, I find the existing anecdotal and historical evidence unconvincing.

I love how dismissive you are. And they says theists have closed minds.
...
And Occam would without a doubt in my mind say simply until you can prove Jehovah does not exist you must believe he does.

I disagree with your belief concerning the mind of Ockham. Whilst the possibility you mention is entirely possible, even rational (once one accepts the notion of a Creator), it seems to me too be not only too complex a solution, but too convenient as well.