Proof there is a God

I had suggested earlier that you were using faith as a rationale.

Jan Ardena said:
but his faith isn't based on no evidence. It is based on hope.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

jan.
Click to expand...
This is fallacious use of the word evidence.

Evidence is "an available body of facts" used to verify or falsify something.

You can't make someone else's faith/belief available as a body for verification.

("I have no facts, your honour, except that I really believe the defendant is a serial killer.")
 
Last edited:
Jan Ardena said:
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.
Click to expand...
Since I’ve been on hiatus from the forums here, I’ve been on my own faith exploration and have resumed faith in a higher power, again. Everyone arrives at or departs from faith, for their own personal reasons. There can be tangible evidence to support the existence of a deity, but not the type of evidence that can be proven through a scientific method. That’s where the great divide comes into play between skeptics and those who have faith.
 
DaveC426913 said:
OK, but that's an arbitrary definition, right?
Click to expand...

Why? They are ancient scriptures.

DaveC426913 said:
I mean, inasmuch as there are as many definitions of God as there are people.
Click to expand...

Name some let's see how much they differ.

DaveC426913 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course there's no objective phenomena to verify God's existence.
If there was, it would be questionable as to whether it was God.

You just have to find another way to gain knowledge.

jan.
 
DaveC426913 said:
I had suggested earlier that you were using faith as a rationale.


This is fallacious use of the word evidence.

Evidence is "an available body of facts" used to verify or falsify something.

You can't make someone else's faith/belief available as a body for verification.

("I have no facts, your honour, except that I really believe the defendant is a serial killer.")
Click to expand...

Would the scientists faith that science will one day prove God, based on current evidence (body of facts)

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
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.
Click to expand...
One can hope for "proof" without believing.
I am sure many atheists hope that one day the existence of non-existence of God can be proven... it would be another great debate answered.
So I don't see that how it is the hope that gives rise to the faith.
There must be something else that causes the person to go from hope to having faith/belief.
Most likely up an underlying desire/need to believe, with the "faith that one day the method will prove God" simply being part of the post-event rationale.
I.e. That faith comes after the belief, to help support the belief psychologically.
 
Jan Ardena said:
I suppose it doesn't from your perspective, but I think the information is amazing to say it's from thousands of years ago.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a simple case of argument from personal incredulity to me.
"Oh, it's so old and amazing that it just has to be true!"
 
DaveC426913 said:
If it's tangible, then it can be examined.
Click to expand...
Can the Bible or the Torah or Qur’an be examined using the scientific process? Probably so, but if it were probable, then everyone would naturally believe, and faith would be unnecessary. But, for people of varying faiths, they feel their sacred texts are tangible proof of God. (or a god) People who don't believe, will deny those sacred texts as tangible or evidence of any kind.
 
wegs said:
Can the Bible or the Torah or Qur’an be examined using the scientific process? Probably so, but if it were probable, then everyone would naturally believe,
Click to expand...
Wait, how does it follow that people would "naturally believe"?

There are elements of those texts that are examinable and verifiable/falsifiable (within a degree of confidence). There is certainly room to examine these elements and find them uncompelling, if not entierely falsified.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
Wait, how does it follow that people would "naturally believe"?
Click to expand...
Math equations can be tested and proven, therefore people ''believe'' the evidence to be true. It doesn't require hope or faith to make it so.

There are elements of those texts that are examinable and verifiable/falsifiable (within a degree of confidence). There is certainly room to examine these elements and find them uncompelling, if not entierely falsified.
Click to expand...
To a chronic skeptic, yes.
 
wegs said:
Math equations can be tested and proven, therefore people ''believe'' the evidence to be true. It doesn't require hope or faith to make it so.
Click to expand...
What do math equations have to do with the Bible? How about things like Noah's Ark? Adam and Eve?

wegs said:
To a chronic skeptic, yes.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Is it ever appropropriate not to be skeptical when it comes to extraordinary claims?
If yes, I have a huge plot of land in Florida to sell you, cheap.
 
wegs said:
Can the Bible or the Torah or Qur’an be examined using the scientific process? Probably so, but if it were probable, then everyone would naturally believe, and faith would be unnecessary. But, for people of varying faiths, they feel their sacred texts are tangible proof of God. (or a god) People who don't believe, will deny those sacred texts as tangible or evidence of any kind.
Click to expand...

Wegs I think you are talking about what I would term subjective evidence, as opposed to the objective (independently reproducible) evidence that is relied on in science. It is subjective because it touches something in some individuals that gives it appeal. I suspect that "tangible" to most people rather tends to imply the latter rather than the former.

Personally I see very little value in examining religious writings using the methods of science. One might as well try to apply science to Bleak House or Hamlet. It seems to me that discovering what they have to offer humanity is best discovered by applying the methods of literature and theology.
 
Religious people are simply delusional in my opinion.

There is no shred of proof that any God exists and even if a God existed (somehow) then it is pretty obvious that he doesn't care about us.

Many people who are in trouble ask for God's help many times but the fact is that God simply doesn't answer and he doesn't provide them with any help.

This is called the disappointment argument. The disappointment argument claims that if, when asked for, there is no visible help from God then there is no reason to believe that there is a God.
 
Jan Ardena said:
No. Why do you ask?

Jan.
Click to expand...

Jan: I've only used the scripture to get a definition of God.
Dave: OK, but that's an arbitrary definition, right?
Jan: Why? They are ancient scriptures.

Now you've acknowledged that "ancient" doesn't contribute to veracity, so what would make them any more authoritative than any other rationale?
It's merely one of a billion equally possible definitions of God, based on criteria of the person's choosing.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Now you've acknowledged that "ancient" doesn't contribute to veracity, so what would make them any more authoritative than any other rationale?
It's merely one of a billion equally possible definitions of God, based on criteria of the person's choosing.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that ancient doesn't contribute to veracity. I said amazing doesn't equal true.
I mentioned nothing about authority.
Plus you still haven't shown different definitions of God.

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