Proof there is a God

Sarkus said:
Jan has me on ignore, so none of my posts will show to him, now will anything of mine that you quote - presumably unless you remove the name from inside the "quote" and perhaps put it in the body of the quote, like I've done to yours above.
He therefore quite possibly has no idea what you're referring to as a textbook example.
But then he should also be sensible enough to know that if he puts people on ignore that there will be some posts he might not understand, or follow, because he has made himself not privy to that part of the conversation.
Click to expand...

Ah I see, thanks. Actually I keep him on ignore too, and only occasionally glance at the whole thread when I am not logged in, as I'm far more interested in contributions from people who are capable of taking part in a proper discussion, like you, Yazata and Write4U.

But it makes no difference anyway, since all I was doing was to have a bit of a chuckle at his expense, in which you are welcome to participate.:biggrin:
 
exchemist said:
Ah I see, thanks. Actually I keep him on ignore too, and only occasionally glance at the whole thread when I am not logged in, as I'm far more interested in contributions from people who are capable of taking part in a proper discussion, like you, Yazata and Write4U.

But it makes no difference anyway, since all I was doing was to have a bit of a chuckle at his expense, in which you are welcome to participate.:biggrin:
Click to expand...

That's not very nice is it exchemist.
Oh well!

Jan.
 
Well Jan, I just lost my draft of responses, and I am not going to waste my time doing it all over again, it seems a useless enterprise anyway. I'm not even going to waste my time answering your incessant questions, to which the answers are abundant on the internet. If you want to prove God to me, you are going to have to do the research to come up with valid arguments. So far you have failed in that.
 
Sarkus said:
Jan has me on ignore, so none of my posts will show to him, now will anything of mine that you quote - presumably unless you remove the name from inside the "quote" and perhaps put it in the body of the quote, like I've done to yours above.
He therefore quite possibly has no idea what you're referring to as a textbook example.
But then he should also be sensible enough to know that if he puts people on ignore that there will be some posts he might not understand, or follow, because he has made himself not privy to that part of the conversation.
Click to expand...
He would rather rely on his scriptural God which according to his understanding was written by minds more advanced than those of modern man.
 
BdS said:
Hi Santa
Because I haven't been good this year. If you can look past that though, this is what I want for Christmas.
Click to expand...
Yes of course and because you are honest I will throw in an invisibility cloak. Don't forget to tell your parents.

Santa
 
If there were proof or cut and dry evidence, of any gods, then faith wouldn't be necessary.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Sorry I get you now.
At a glance it looked like number 1.

Yes let's have a trade off if you like.
Click to expand...
All right.

If (as you say in post 1136) you look to the scriptures for an argument in favor of God's existence , yet do you not (as you say in posts #1147, #1220) consider them to be - or offer them as - evidence of God's existence, what alternative is there but faith? Is not faith pretty much definable as belief without evidence?
 
DaveC426913 said:
All right.

If (as you say in post 1136) you look to the scriptures for an argument in favor of God's existence , yet do you not (as you say in posts #1147, #1220) consider them to be - or offer them as - evidence of God's existence, what alternative is there but faith? Is not faith pretty much definable as belief without evidence?
Click to expand...

In post 1136 I said I was arguing in favor of God's existence, and in order to do that, we needed a definition of God, and that definition was to be found in scriptures. Not that I was attempting to prove God's existence via scriptures.

In post 1147 I reiterate what I said in post 1136, and in post 1220 I just stated that I'm not using the scriptures as evidence of God's existence.

To sum up, I've only used the scripture to get a definition of God.

Do you think that no one can have a definition of God, without believing that God exists?

jan.
 
Write4U said:
He would rather rely on his scriptural God which according to his understanding was written by minds more advanced than those of modern man.
Click to expand...

You are misrepresenting what I said.

Write4U said:
But the very fact that they were passed on orally is the very reason why scripture derived from such oral traditions are all different, whereas science uses the single language of mathematics to accurately and consistently describe actual universal functions.
Click to expand...
Jan said:
That's one way of looking at it.
Another is to consider the possibility that humans were more advanced in those days, and we're were capable of remembering anything they chose to, in perfect detail, over the course of their very long lives.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Why do you have to be so dishonest?

jan.
 
Write4U said:
If you want to prove God to me, you are going to have to do the research to come up with valid arguments. So far you have failed in that.
Click to expand...

I don't have to prove God to you, I only have to show that what you believe in, is God.

jan.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
All right.

If (as you say in post 1136) you look to the scriptures for an argument in favor of God's existence , yet do you not (as you say in posts #1147, #1220) consider them to be - or offer them as - evidence of God's existence, what alternative is there but faith? Is not faith pretty much definable as belief without evidence?
Click to expand...

I think I would rather say it is belief beyond the extent of any evidence. For example, some people have personal religious experiences of various sorts that, to them, are a kind of evidence, albeit entirely subjective and unreproducible.
 
wegs said:
where did I say that it is that? :?
Click to expand...

Well I suppose you didn't actually say that, but you implied that faith only occurs when one doesn't have evidence or proofs of gods.
It is as though you think people have faith purely in the existence aspect of gods, and once evidence arises they have no need of faith because the gods do exist.
Why would that be the case?

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Well I suppose you didn't actually say that, but you implied that faith only occurs when one doesn't have evidence or proofs of gods.
It is as though you think people have faith purely in the existence aspect of gods, and once evidence arises they have no need of faith because the gods do exist.
Why would that be the case?

jan.
Click to expand...
No, maybe my point wasn’t articulated well enough, but what I mean to say is that faith doesn’t require evidence. Faith believes in the absence of absolute evidence. But to someone of faith, their idea of evidence will be different than someone who is a non-believer, taking it a step further.
 
wegs said:
No, maybe my point wasn’t articulated well enough, but what I mean to say is that faith doesn’t require evidence. Faith believes in the absence of absolute evidence.
Click to expand...

I kind of agree with the first point, but disagree with the second one.
Faith occurs in the absence of evidence.

But to someone of faith, their idea of evidence will be different than someone who is a non-believer, taking it a step further.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, it depends on what the evidence is supposed to produce.
A scientist who believes in God will still employ the scientific method when doing science.

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
To sum up, I've only used the scripture to get a definition of God.
Click to expand...
OK, but that's an arbitrary definition, right? I mean, inasmuch as there are as many definitions of God as there are people.

Jan Ardena said:
Do you think that no one can have a definition of God, without believing that God exists?
Click to expand...
I'm having trouble parsing the double negative.

It is definitely possible to have a definition of God without believing it exists. (Since, as I just stated, anyone can have their own definition.)

The reason why anyone can have their own defnition is because there is no objective phenomena by which to verify or falsify any given definition.
 
wegs said:
True, but he won't employ that method in an attempt to 'prove God.'
Click to expand...

But there would be nothing wrong in him having faith that one day that method will be able to 'prove God'.
Note that there is no evidence that the scientific method can prove God, but his faith isn't based on no evidence. It is based on hope.

Hebrews 11:1,
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

jan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top