Atheistic evidence or criteria for proof of God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-12-2013, 12:48 AM
RE: Atheistic evidence or criteria for proof of God
(22-12-2013 05:23 PM)Alla Wrote:  I am not an atheist any more but when I was for me it would be great evidence if I saw God or an angel with my own eyes and He would speak to me.
But then I saw an angel. So what?
I can tell myself that it was hallucination. Or may be day dream?

The best evidence for me is influence of Holy Ghost.

I appreciate your input...

ghost (gst)
n.
1. The spirit of a dead person, especially one believed to appear in bodily likeness to living persons or to haunt former habitats.
2. The center of spiritual life; the soul.
3. A demon or spirit.
4. A returning or haunting memory or image.


part of number 1 says it can be believed to appear as Casper the friendly Ghost.

but surely does not encompass the entire definition... a ghost can be a returning memory, shell-shock say?

so Ghosts are real = God is real

Solved?

[Image: ec25156e-63b1-4c54-98cc-e0325deeaf3b_zps3f7864d1.jpg]
Hands Of Dust
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 01:01 AM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2013 01:05 AM by λάθε βιώσας.)
RE: Atheistic evidence or criteria for proof of God
(23-12-2013 12:34 AM)kim Wrote:  I wouldn't know, I don't believe there is a god and wouldn't care if there was one. It is irrelevant to my life.

no friend... it was a question mark.

so let me get this straight, you believe in God but do not believe in others interpretation of it?

or you believe in God but do not want to obey God?

you have to recognize something others (and a majority I might add) believe in, in order to not believe in it.

Maybe you should watch this... all parts! instead of stuff like Zeitgeist?





after you understand the language you speak, where it came from, and that it is the most advanced language and efficient spoken language globally...

you'll then come to understand that unless you stopped speaking altogether that there is no escaping the Word... for it comes off your very tongue!

in every thought you speak and action you make.

Linguistics much?

[Image: ec25156e-63b1-4c54-98cc-e0325deeaf3b_zps3f7864d1.jpg]
Hands Of Dust
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 01:17 AM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2013 01:22 AM by kim.)
RE: Atheistic evidence or criteria for proof of God
(23-12-2013 01:01 AM)λάθε βιώσας Wrote:  
(23-12-2013 12:34 AM)kim Wrote:  I wouldn't know, I don't believe there is a god and wouldn't care if there was one. It is irrelevant to my life.
so let me get this straight, you believe in God but do not believe in others interpretation of it?

Read what I originally wrote. There is a difference between what I wrote and what you wrote.

(23-12-2013 01:01 AM)λάθε βιώσας Wrote:  or you believe in God but do not want to obey God?

Read what I originally wrote.

(23-12-2013 01:01 AM)λάθε βιώσας Wrote:  you have to recognize something others (and a majority I might add) believe in, in order to not believe in it.

No, I do not have to recognize anything others believe in. I understand that there are thousands of very different beliefs. It does not effect the fact that I have no faith. It's that simple.

(23-12-2013 01:01 AM)λάθε βιώσας Wrote:  Maybe you should watch... all parts!

No thank you - I didn't watch the video.

(23-12-2013 01:01 AM)λάθε βιώσας Wrote:  after you understand the language you speak, where it came from, and that it is the most advanced language and efficient spoken language globally...

you'll then come to understand that unless you stopped speaking altogether that there is no escaping the Word... for it comes of your very tongue!

in every thought you speak and action you make.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Your words are irrelevant to my life.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 01:22 AM
RE: Atheistic evidence or criteria for proof of God
(22-12-2013 12:02 AM)λάθε βιώσας Wrote:  
(21-12-2013 11:42 PM)natachan Wrote:  God could clench the issue noisily in his favor. Either he can't, in which case he is not omnipotent and does not fit our definition of god, or he won't. If he won't then there is no evidence and his existence becomes hard to argue.

in favor of the Theists in general, my search for knowledge or truth and fact has discovered that the existence of God can be determined mathematically, and with an equation which is considered by many the "crown jewel" of physics.

Richard Feynman is one of the top ten theoretical physicist to have ever lived, in 1999 there was a poll of 130 of the worlds leading scientists and Richard made the top ten.

the theorem...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_formula#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integration...7s_formula

e^(iπ) + 1 = 0

"A statement attributed to Pierre-Simon Laplace expresses Euler's influence on mathematics: "Read Euler, he is the master of us all." (-1999)


this has roots in sacred geometry dating back to before Pythagoras I am sure, but our western philosophy basically stops at the Greek.

this theory is used in application.

so if this theory proves God and the answer is yes, and it is the basis and the root of our mathematics, then does that mean God is a number?

I love Euler's identity. It's not particularly useful. It's more some gorgeously beautiful phenomenon that someone pointed out rather than anything one would find an application for. It's a particular instance of Euler's Formula, which is:

e^(ix) = cos x + i sin x

Euler's Formula is used quite extensively and forms the basis of complex calculus. It does not have its root in Pythagorean mathematics, at least not beyond the way that anything invoking trigonometric functions have their roots in Pythagorean math. Both Euler's number (e) and the imaginary unit (i) are Renaissance innovations, and the proof is based in calculus and functions. The Pythagorean mathematicians would not have known what to make of any of these.

Both of these are beautiful and one is extremely useful to physicists (though both were authored by mathematicians, not physicists), but there's no way to tie them into any conventional notion of a god. I'd file this under the "toaster" category. It exists, and it's beautiful, but ce n'est pas Dieu. Pretty much anyone you ran this by would say, "what the hell, dude? That's not God!" (Also, if it WERE to show that God was a number, would that make God imaginary? I'm sorry, that was just too good for me to pass up.)

That a statue exists does not make the statue a god. If you want a less clear-cut example, consider the ancient pharaohs. An entire culture worshiped them as deities. Did they exist? There is very strong evidence for it. Historical records spanning thousands of years, including contemporary accounts from multiple cultures as well as from their own. We have those, plus the monuments, plus the mummies themselves. Yet the only evidence suggests that they were nothing more than human rulers who were worshiped as gods. Does that alone make them gods? To a cultural anthropologist, yes. To a theologian, no.

This is why a definition is important. Before you can ask, "does BLAH exist", you need to know what BLAH is. Otherwise, the question you are asking is literally incoherent. No one can tell what you're actually asking, least of all yourself. That's putting the cart before the horse. First get a clear notion of what would or wouldn't count as a god, and then proceed from there. If what you're saying doesn't have a meaning, then what you're saying is meaningless. (This is why I get frustrated with philosophers first agreeing that God exists, and then arguing about the nature of God. That's ass-backwards, IMO. If you don't agree on what it means, you're actually talking about two different things, and just using the same name for them.) Otherwise, just get dyslexia and a puppy. The puppy is now a god. Lo! God exists, and needs to be housebroken!

(Yes, I know that dyslexia isn't actually spelling things backwards. It's a joke, dammit!)

(22-12-2013 01:22 AM)λάθε βιώσας Wrote:  In eastern philosophy, which is a different way of understanding things, matter itself has life and existence as we would call it.

objects have spirits and even a stone has a soul.

Also, please provide me with your own working definition of "spirit" and "soul". I know several contradictory definitions. Which ones are you using?

.... okay, to sum up my response to the OP regarding all 9 pages of that. Often when we've got an immensely huge class of things that we're trying to disprove, it helps to divide them up and go through them either one at a time or by several broad subclasses. This is especially true when the superclass is broadly and vaguely defined (making it difficult to prove or disprove), but the subclasses are more specific and more easily handled. This is exactly the case with asking about evidence for or against the existence of gods. What evidence would qualify depends entirely on the class of god being discussed, and the question cannot be answered generally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
23-12-2013, 01:24 AM
RE: Atheistic evidence or criteria for proof of God
yes... what we have here folks is Theistic Entrapment via Spoken Language (Globally)

Language reflects a cultures understanding and expression of the natural world around them...

The English language has more words in their current dictionary than any other language in the world...

The words even bleed into our expression of the mathematical language of equations...

no escape... theistic entrapment via the spoken word!

[Image: ec25156e-63b1-4c54-98cc-e0325deeaf3b_zps3f7864d1.jpg]
Hands Of Dust
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 01:30 AM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2013 01:35 AM by λάθε βιώσας.)
RE: Atheistic evidence or criteria for proof of God
(23-12-2013 01:17 AM)kim Wrote:  Your words are irrelevant to my life.

no matter which way you play this chess game... you lose!

it's too far in... the spoken word is Life, it is reality! it exists, it creates!

there's no going back now...

[Image: ec25156e-63b1-4c54-98cc-e0325deeaf3b_zps3f7864d1.jpg]
Hands Of Dust
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 01:35 AM
RE: Atheistic evidence or criteria for proof of God
Rolleyes

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 01:49 AM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2013 01:54 AM by λάθε βιώσας.)
RE: Atheistic evidence or criteria for proof of God
I can read your mind...





[Image: psychic.gif]

soon... spoken words may not be necessary Smile

[Image: ec25156e-63b1-4c54-98cc-e0325deeaf3b_zps3f7864d1.jpg]
Hands Of Dust
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 03:18 AM
RE: Atheistic evidence or criteria for proof of God
For everything that we know to exist, we have evidence of existence.
There are somethings in which we theorize may exist and we conduct experiments to see if we can find evidence to support our ideas.

Imagine someone proposing the idea that another moon, even larger than the one we currently have is also orbiting the earth.
This new moon is the most powerful object in the universe, but yet there is no evidence that it effects anything.
It's orbit can't be calculated nor can it's position be located.

What are we to do with this idea and a million other crazy ideas that have no evidence to support them.
We evaluate the claim and move on with our lives.

It's a rather easy claim to evaluate and reject, but if at some point in the future, someone does provide some evidence to back this up, then we can evaluate that evidence, until then, there is really no need to give this idea any further consideration.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 03:21 AM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2013 04:02 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Atheistic evidence or criteria for proof of God
Well, well. This is all too strange.

A late forties / early fifties male.
Probably from the UK (James Burke & Melvin Bragg references)
Not at first base regarding agnosticism vs. atheism (knowledge vs. belief).
Looking for guidance, something or someone (NdGT, praise be his name) to follow. Like a theist.
Willing to seek a majority view... like an apostle or acolyte.

All too unreal.

Dom / Mod is god... we knew that.

This is satire, parody but not quite crazy enough for a Poe and not hairy enough to be a troll.

What are we to make of it all.

Meh!

For the record, since it was asked... I believe 100% in theism.
I have no doubt that it exists.

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: