Surefire ways to prove God exists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-10-2013, 10:54 AM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2013 11:15 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(28-10-2013 02:34 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I can give the Christian perspective on this thread if it helps:

*God hides Himself from the unwilling/unwanting and both testaments say so

Hinges on belief of the Bible's accuracy, which is hard to justify if you don't already believe in the existence of God. Either you believe already or you don't. If you do, you don't need the explanation, and if you don't, the explanation is also suspect, and quite reasonably so. But yes, it's part of the self-reinforcing element of Christian belief.

(28-10-2013 02:34 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *God offers miraculous and metaphysic proof as well as empirical proof to review, upon reasonable request

For it to be empirical proof, it needs to be measurable, repeatable, and subject to peer-review even by peers who are skeptical or outright hostile to the idea. If it is hidden from unbelievers then they have no ability to review it. The claim being proven also needs to be the best explanation for the evidence to be considered proof of it... the existence of toast, for example, is not evidence of a Toast God. Finally, there needs to be an element of prediction and falsifiability to the claim for it to even have empirical proof. If the claim is never subject to some scenario in which it might be disproved, given certain outcomes of certain experiments, then it hasn't been through the proving grounds and is not proof from criticism. (Yes, all these have the same conceptual and linguistic root.) The God-concept is notoriously NOT falsifiable, and any claim about the nature of the universe advanced by Christians which is later proven empirical false has ultimately been jettisoned by Christians from the God-concept to protect the God-concept (aka moving the goalposts), but only after much heel-digging, tantrums, teaching of controversy, and the occasional inquisition. Unless the existence of God is presented in a falsifiable manner, there can be no empirical proof for it.

With this in mind as to what would constitute empirical proof, could you please list examples of the empirical proof you're describing, and the methodology by which non-believers might obtain it? Unless you're just relating the Christian view that these exist, without maintaining that the view is correct, in which case I'll agree that this is the Christian view. ... well, one Christian view, at least.

(28-10-2013 02:34 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *Atheists are skeptics, but there are reasonable skeptics and over-the-top skeptics in this world

Totally true. (EDIT: Er, most atheists are skeptics. Some atheists are skeptical of particular claims of religion, but not skeptics in general.) I once tried explaining the Monty Hall problem to my dad. I proved the value of the strategy of switching doors in five different ways, including two empirical methods, and that wasn't counting a reasonable (but not logically sound) request for him to respect the authority, not just of all the online sources supporting the strategy, but of the two people in the family who actually had a decent mathematical background. Finally, I asked him what HE would consider proof... and he admitted that there was nothing that he would consider proof. This is an example of an unreasonable skeptic. And it is true that there are atheists for whom no amount evidence will lead them to believe, even in part, even the falsifiable claims of Christianity, and I would call that fairly unreasonable.

That said, Christians are skeptical regarding the notion that God doesn't exist (among other things), and it would be strange if we could not turn that criticism of unreasonable skepticism upon them as well. So, where would you place the boundary between reasonable and unreasonable skepticism amongst Christians, and is this similar to how you distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable skepticism among atheists?

(28-10-2013 02:34 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *Everytime you ask for God to strike you dead with lightning I'm praying He doesn't, so there...!

.... so, wait, it somehow goes in the win column for God no matter what happens, or even if nothing happens? All I'm seeing here is a big raspberry in the direction of intercessory prayer.

((All said, trying to explain Monty Hall to my dad was easier than trying to explain it to my ex, who kept insisting she'd rather have the goat.))
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
29-10-2013, 05:23 PM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2013 06:10 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(27-10-2013 09:01 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Point out the shit that needs to be done to make this world a better place and the stuff you point out actually gets taken care of.
No more rapes, no more murders, no more starving kids, no more disease or cancer or any illness at all.
The entire way that many animals have to kill other animals in order to survive. Let's bring that to an end.

Killing 250,000 in a typhoon and saving 1 kid as your miracle ain't gonna cut it.
Save all 250,000 by stopping the fricken typhoon.

The easiest way to prove god exists is IF he actually existed, you could point right to him. You could detect him as easily as detecting the sun.

To prove a god exists, you would have to create the god and then point to it.

On a purely humanitarian standpoint - I agree. However, can you imagine the ramifications if this was actually achieved? People, animals, plants, etc., need to die in order to make room for new life. If no one died early, and everyone lived to ripe old ages of 90, we would populate ourselves into extinction. Not just us - deer, rabbits, plants - everything. There is a purpose for massive wildfires that destroy everything in its path - rebirth.

I'm sure there is a better system to live than the brutality of death, I just can't imagine one.

Further, there would be no economy as you know it. Money would be useless, and no one would work. Infrastructure would collapse not only under the added weight of addition people, but from the lack of maintenance .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 05:30 PM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(27-10-2013 11:01 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(27-10-2013 08:41 PM)sporehux Wrote:  Please help me create a list for my Born again m8:
only thing Ive got so far:

1. Put an amputee in the center of a stadium and have the whole world pray for him.
(also a genuinely blind person, deaf. )

Further to my previous reply, there is no way that I can think of for either you or your born-again friend to identify God. Assume that the narrative in the Book of Revelation plays out. How could your friend confirm that it is in fact the work of God and not the mischief of technologically superior aliens that are just messing with Christians? In Contact the aliens could read human thoughts and construct for them a virtual(?) world that appeared real. How could you be certain that you were encountering God and not aliens like these?

As far as I can determine there is no way to confirm the idenity of an immaterial person. Every notion that relates to identity that we have is tied to material reality. The problem appears to me to be that once you surrender metaphysical naturalism you have deprived yourself of fundamental concepts that enable you to make sense of the world and be competent in it.

Using that round about logic - how do you know you aren't in the matrix right now? What's the point of having any conversation because at the heart of it, how can we be sure we are actually having a conversation? I mean, Jesus, can anyone present an argument without the philosophical dribble you are so fond of?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 08:32 PM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
Fucking PJ. Dude, seriously? Hiding?

No he's not buddy. Not hiding from you or me. He isn't there. This is some fucking bronze age moron's way to explain the problem of why no one saw god, ever, ever ever, but all of the fathers did. They were dealing with the same problem we are: why does god reveal himself to Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jacob - but no one else, ever?

And definitely not me, in the slightest way, despite years of prayer and request?

When my father and I got to brass tacks, I said to him why he believed it was true, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, and he said something I will never forget.... "I guess.... I guess I just want it to be true...." That was a moment of honesty, in a lifetime of keeping a stiff upper lip.

You know its not true. You know it. But you want it to be true SO BAD....

Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're an incredible slouch.

Martin Luther was the "father" of two movements - The Reformation and Nazism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Skippy538's post
29-10-2013, 11:34 PM (This post was last modified: 30-10-2013 06:31 AM by Chippy.)
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(29-10-2013 05:30 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Using that round about logic

What is "round about logic"?

Quote: - how do you know you aren't in the matrix right now?

You haven't understood what I have posted.

The philosophical idea behind The Matrix is termed global scepticism and it is a very old idea that has its earliest attestation in Plato's allegory of the cave. That idea was developed in Descarte's Meditations on First Philosophy in the form of a "malignant demon". In the 20th century the idea was redeveloped into the notion of a "brain in a vat" by Unger in 1975. The idea was further developed and analysed by Pollock and Putnam. Further, entire books have been written on the the philosophical ideas that The Matrix is based on. The plot of The Matrix is just an elaboration of the brain in a vat idea.

The argument that I posted is not predicated on global scpeticism and there are good arguments why we aren't brains in vats but since that is irrelevant to my point I won't enter into that. Also, I think trying to explain Putnam's argument to you would be like trying to teach a monkey with Down Syndrome to play the violin.

Quote:What's the point of having any conversation because at the heart of it, how can we be sure we are actually having a conversation?

You can be sure of your own existence as at least a mind. Any experience is confirmation that you exist (as at least a mind) because existence is a prerequisite to any subjective experience.

Quote:I mean, Jesus, can anyone present an argument without the philosophical dribble you are so fond of?

So you are on a forum that is devoted to an essentially philosophical matter--namely atheism--that even has a sub-forum named Philosophy, and you are complaining about philosophical content?

What--specifically--is the alternative? Dawkin's isn't a philosopher and his The God Delusion is a lay philosophical text, so even he found it necessary to engage in philosophy.

You seem to be demanding that the level of discussion be brought down to your level of ignorance in order to accomodate your ignorance as if it is something valuable that is to be preserved and respected. Why?

Your mind is like a decrepit slum that smells of excrement and is populated by leprous beggars and mangey, emaciated dogs and you want to preserve the ill-founded idea that it is a great place to live by trying to prevent any knowledge of life beyond the slum. I seriously doubt that anyone on this forum wants to share in your paltry and pathetic knowledge, wants to inhabit your fetid intellectual slum.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chippy's post
29-10-2013, 11:39 PM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(29-10-2013 05:23 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  There is a purpose for massive wildfires that destroy everything in its path - rebirth.

There is no such purpose. A wildfire has no teleology. There is no mind orchestrating fires and other natural disasters so there can be no purpose. Whether mass deaths are "good" is independent of their having a purpose.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 12:33 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(29-10-2013 05:23 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  On a purely humanitarian standpoint - I agree. However, can you imagine the ramifications if this was actually achieved? People, animals, plants, etc., need to die in order to make room for new life. If no one died early, and everyone lived to ripe old ages of 90, we would populate ourselves into extinction. Not just us - deer, rabbits, plants - everything. There is a purpose for massive wildfires that destroy everything in its path - rebirth.

You can't form that conclusion in the absence of any reference to birth rate. Even if the human lifespan averaged 90-years it would only be a problem if we were constantly reproducing above the replacement rate. Those same factors apply to all animals.

Regarding plant life you are entirely wrong. The eucalypt trees in Australia's old-growth forrests are as old as 1000-years and the forrests in which they reside are hosts to stable populations of (diverse) flora and fauna. The old-growth forrests haven't experienced any disaster and they are fine.

Quote:I'm sure there is a better system to live than the brutality of death, I just can't imagine one.

There is no evidence that all ecological systems require periodic mass death.

Quote:Further, there would be no economy as you know it.

Yes there would. Aggregate supply would grow to meet aggregate demand as much as the production-possibility frontier permits. Then when supply shortages start prices will rise proportionally.

Quote:Money would be useless,

No it wouldn't, it would serve the same purpose that it does today.

Quote:and no one would work.

Yes they would. They would be working towards satisfying aggregate demand. The economy will be at full capacity so there would be full employment.

Quote:Infrastructure would collapse not only under the added weight of addition people, but from the lack of maintenance .

No it wouldn't. Public works would be funded by the taxation revenue generated by the full employment of the at capapcity economy.

A society/economy will only collapse due to overpopulation if its means of production are destroyed by the overpopulation (e.g. all arable land is destroyed by pollution) and if it can't import to satisfy its aggregate demand at at least subsistence level.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 06:06 AM (This post was last modified: 30-10-2013 06:09 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(29-10-2013 11:34 PM)Chippy Wrote:  So you are on a forum that is devoted to an essentially philosophical matter--namely atheism--that even has a sub-forum named Philosophy, and you are complaining about philosophical content?

Really? Because the Heavy Stuff - atheisma and Theism, is a completely different thread from Philosophy. But thats not even my point, Chippy. My point is that no one can have a friggin conversation with you because you are "talking down your nose" at everyone you meet. You seem to think I'm stupid. Nay Nay. I just know how to talk to people.

(29-10-2013 11:34 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Your mind is like a decrepid slum that smells of excrement and is populated by leprous beggars and mangey, emaciated dogs and you want to preserve the ill-founded idea that it is a great place to live by trying to prevent any knowledge of life beyond the slum. I seriously doubt that anyone on this forum wants to share in your paltry and pathetic knowledge, wants to inhabit your fetid intellectual slum.

case in point. All because I told you to stop attacking everyone else's arguments using philosophy in the abstract. People make assumptions in conversations about things without defining every parameter of metaphysics and preambling with every assumption. Otherwise the conversation doesn't go anywhere.

Just as a side note, I did not, point out all your spelling and grammatical errors contained in your insulting paragraph due to the inherent rudeness of doing so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 06:30 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 06:06 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Really? Because the Heavy Stuff - atheisma and Theism, is a completely different thread from Philosophy.

Atheism vs. theism is largely (but not entirely) an issue of philosophy.

Quote:But thats not even my point, Chippy. My point is that no one can have a friggin conversation with you because you are "talking down your nose" at everyone you meet.

Boo-hoo. Wash the sand out of your vagina and learn to pick your fights.

Quote:You seem to think I'm stupid. Nay Nay.

You are stupid and you are trying to elevate stupidity and ignorance into virtues.

Quote: I just know how to talk to people.

No you don't.

Quote:case in point. All because I told you to stop attacking everyone else's arguments

The purpose of a discussion forum on a philosophical topic is to attack arguments.

Quote: using philosophy in the abstract.

What's "philosophy in the abstract"? Is there a "philosophy in the concrete"?

Quote:People make assumptions in conversations about things without defining every parameter of metaphysics and preambling with every assumption.

No, you are on a forum that is devoted largely to philosophical matters. Not defining key terms clearly and not stating premises and assumptions explicitly and unambiguously is a recipe for misunderstanding and wasted time.

Quote:Otherwise the conversation doesn't go anywhere.

Conversations based on ambiguities and silly ideas won't go anywhere anyway.

Quote:Just as a side note, I did not, point out all your spelling and grammatical errors contained in your insulting paragraph due to the inherent rudeness of doing so.

It has one spelling error. So what? Relative to my output that is forgivable. Contrast: your post has two spelling errrors, one grammatical error and a semantic error. Also, as a point of general comparison my posts are conceptually dense and informative; yours are conceptually flat, juvenile and based in ignorance.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 06:56 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 06:30 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 06:06 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Really? Because the Heavy Stuff - atheisma and Theism, is a completely different thread from Philosophy.

Atheism vs. theism is largely (but not entirely) an issue of philosophy.

Quote:But thats not even my point, Chippy. My point is that no one can have a friggin conversation with you because you are "talking down your nose" at everyone you meet.

Boo-hoo. Wash the sand out of your vagina and learn to pick your fights.

Quote:You seem to think I'm stupid. Nay Nay.

You are stupid and you are trying to elevate stupidity and ignorance into virtues.

Quote: I just know how to talk to people.

No you don't.

Quote:case in point. All because I told you to stop attacking everyone else's arguments

The purpose of a discussion forum on a philosophical topic is to attack arguments.

Quote: using philosophy in the abstract.

What's "philosophy in the abstract"? Is there a "philosophy in the concrete"?

Quote:People make assumptions in conversations about things without defining every parameter of metaphysics and preambling with every assumption.

No, you are on a forum that is devoted largely to philosophical matters. Not defining key terms clearly and not stating premises and assumptions explicitly and unambiguously is a recipe for misunderstanding and wasted time.

Quote:Otherwise the conversation doesn't go anywhere.

Conversations based on ambiguities and silly ideas won't go anywhere anyway.

Quote:Just as a side note, I did not, point out all your spelling and grammatical errors contained in your insulting paragraph due to the inherent rudeness of doing so.

It has one spelling error. So what? Relative to my output that is forgivable. Contrast: your post has two spelling errrors, one grammatical error and a semantic error. Also, as a point of general comparison my posts are conceptually dense and informative; yours are conceptually flat, juvenile and based in ignorance.

Maybe you could work on not being an arrogant dickhead. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: