mixednuts's tags:
mixednuts reads (2):

The page you were looking for no longer exists

How do you prove there's a God? I need to know if there realy is God in the world.
I don't hear "him". I don't see "him". I just look into space and know that nothing comes from nothing. Did "God" create  everything? Why have we been left here on this planet? The whole thing makes one wonder if there is life after death...or life after life.


del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • Hegemone said on Feb 27, 2009....
    You can't prove there is a God, as so far there has not been any one entity to ascend and say that they were/are God, there is no known being that is 100% agreed upon or confirmed, there would be no way if any future possibilities could be believed in full.  There is potential to prove there isn't one, but that takes a LOT of scientific research, going all the way back until the first spec of dust started to form into the Earth and so on.  It would go back for eons.  It would take lots of money, which is most likely why it hasn't been done.  Either way, its all in where you want to lay your faith I think ... do you want there to be a god?  Find ways to prove it.  Little miracles in your life that happened.  Times you ask and receive.  Times when you thought all was lost and suddenly were pleasantly surprised out of the blue.  If you don't really want there to be a god, if you just want it to be scientific, well ... think about the chain of actions each little thing (action, movement, sound, sight, etc.) sets in motion and figure out how this one thing caused those other twenty and so forth.  Its in the eye of the beholder for now I think.  Good post!
  • mixednuts said on Feb 27, 2009....

    HEGE:

    Faith? Blind faith?

    Was the story of Jesus Christ just a story written by bored men? Was it a quest fo money, power and controll throughout the ages?

    You cannot see the air, but you know that there is air.

  • uniquely-ironic said on Feb 27, 2009....
    God has to be taken on faith.  Once you are buried and the earth has reclaimed you it would be equally as hard to prove you existed.  I mean, sure there might be papers and pictures that seem to prove you existed, but like you said, it could also be a story made up by bored men.  Same with God.
  • GODwaterwalker said on Feb 27, 2009....
    God backwards is DOG. You will see me when your time comes.
  • mixednuts said on Feb 27, 2009....
    Alright. I don't wantto talk about Jesus....I just want to see his  face.
  • fragglesrock said on Feb 27, 2009....
    i recently had a really indepth conversation about this with a friend...i never reached any conclusions...it was just discussion
  • mongol said on Feb 27, 2009....
    pray to your god, but call a Mongol!
  • mixednuts said on Feb 27, 2009....
    Hells Angels don't like the Mongols.
  • BRITTANY_SPEARS said on Feb 27, 2009....
    Where is this god when I need him?
  • satanx said on Feb 27, 2009....
    Hmm. I am the only god you will ever desire. Bow and worship me. I will harvest souls soon.

    SHUT UP AND OBEY ME!
  • superbozo said on Feb 27, 2009....

     Most of the time I find people believe in god deep down but their thoughts are blinded by those in the religious community. I.E. priests raping/abusing children. Me myself, I hated nuns with a vengence because of the violence they were capable of.   I think sometimes you have to ask yourself weather it's God (what do you feel in your gut) that your questioning or those religious people of all denominations, that seem to do the exact opposite of what their religon teaches or seems to teach.

    It's probably the people you are doubting. Me myself. I feel that there is something some energy some sence of something. I cant qualify or explain this but I know what I feel. On the other hand religons can go and get stuffed as far as I'm concerned. People read these books (yes I have read them) and take what they need from it and most of the time will deride any one with a differing veiw point. The main source or angst between Christians and Muslims is weather Jesus was the son of god(christian) or just a prophet(muslim). As far as muslims are concerned Jesus was a prophet(hope I'm speling right) as to call any one the son or a direct decendant of gods is blasphamey. Also looking at the roots of the catholic church tells you alot.....What did they first pope (who converted to christianity on his death bed) and the last roman emperor have in common.....they were the same person. Is religon all about controling the people.

    I tend to think it is men. Men like me and you who read a book....other men tell them this book is the word of god.....they draw a veiw point which is led by who ever else they confer to on the subject. Then lock themselves into a way of thinking. It is men then that act on God's behalf and in his name. If you disagree you are held up to riddicle. Maybe even convicted of crimes against god. Look through history and you'll see examples of it everywhere across all religions. People killed for blaspahemy. Priests excommunicated for disagreeing with their church. It still happens today. There seem to be alot of double standards between what you think and feel after reading one of these books and what you see some people do because of these books and teachings.

    I think I commented somewhere else that most religions started or are influenced by some one who walked to their own tune. Jesus, Budda being examples of this. The reason they stood out was because they were so different. Read the books but do not let others decide for you what is right and what is wrong. Draw your own conclusions. Be true to yourself because if God does exsist all the teachings seem to suggest he is already with-in you and all you have to do is be still and listen (sounds like a meditation mantra to me). Good Luck.

  • curmudgeon said on Feb 27, 2009....
    Essentially "belief" refers to that which you cannot ultimately prove. You don't have to believe in gravity. The pen you drop will land on the ground ten thousand out of ten thousand times. But with belief you may or may not see the results you desire. In fact, to have faith, especially where God is concerned, is to believe even in spite of the fact that the results are completely opposite of what you desire. People who are in seemingly hopeless straits hold on to their hope because without hope what hope do they have?

    So it is with God. If you want "proof" chances are you will not find it. What would constitute proof in your mind, anyway? Some supernatural miracle? Something out of the ordinary that you cannot explain? Why? Or some other definition?

    If you wish to engage with God, you can engage on your own personal terms. Play with that. If the "traditional" symbols or language don't resonate with you, invent your own. Religion, or humanity's corporate relationship with God, is something else altogether. In order to speak of God with one another, we must develop a shared vocabulary. The reasons why we fight and kill each other is because we so often misunderstand each other over a matter that is both extremely personal and most highly valued.

    After all, what point is there in having a relationship with God if it means no more to you than your relationship with some person you don't care about?
  • blueyes said on Feb 27, 2009....
    What if we were all Gods. I mean 6 billion different little facets of the almighty creator? Each one of us a facet / looking glass for God? And that is how he sees all we do....because we see all we do? I think this is a neat way to look at or think of God. It gives me comfort not proof that there is a GOD. I do not need proof...I just know, and not because anyone told me or read a bible to me. Infact I have no religion. All I have to do everyday is wake up every morning and take a deep breath, and feel my heart beating, and see the sun shinning. That is not to say I don't have bad days or anything....I am just saying you have to come to a point  and want a different perspective on life/God...seek and you shall find.
  • dyingman said on Feb 28, 2009....
    Use Pascal's wager.

    Live life as if there's a God you must please and find out if your life improves.

    Under the first covenant with the same God, Jews followed Yahweh with no promise of everlasting life..

    I tend to see the "new covenant" as having supplemental the first, not canceling it.

    It's been my experience that God rewards those that love him in THIS life, not just the hereafter.

    Jesus of Nazareth, prophet of the Christians as well as Mohammad of the Muslims both entreaties their followers to show their love of God's children as key to loving God.  What does God need of us?  What could we give him?

    We please our parents when we play nice with our brothers and sisters.  As creator, God is the father of our friends and enemies alike and he loves us all despite what WE may think makes one worthy thus the call to love thy enemy.

    This is tough to stomach.  Love the person that hates you?  Not so much.  Treat the "enemy" as if you loved them because you love your enemy's father.

    Doing THIS is an act of faith.  It pays off handsomely in my experience.

    Cast your bread upon the water and it will come back a thousand-fold.
    If you throw a slice in to "test" God and it just gets wet and nasty, do you walk away?

    If you tossed 50 loaves worth into teh pond and the 137th slice came back a thousand fold, this would be a sign of a truly generous God that rewards faith.

    Watch for opportunities to love others and allow yourself to be used and taken advantage of, knowing that the rewards you seek far outweigh the minor insults of those foolish enough to reject kindness.  Those that are of like mind (and there are MANY) will return your love and more often than not, provide far more benefit than you offered. 

    It's spooky really.

    Rewards come in the form of support, concern, friendship, favors, and affection.

    No dollar signs are attached to this agreement.  Promises of wealth are covered by other deities.  Seek them out instead if that's your goal, but I don't recommend it, personally.

    *DM

    blueyes just above sounds as though she's giving the plot synopsis of "God's Debris" by Scott Adams.  It's a free download if anyone wants to check it out.

  • travelr712 said on Feb 28, 2009....
    john 10:34, jesus quotes psalm 82:6, saying we are all gods in answer to the pharasees accusation of blasphemy.
     
    belief requires doubt. you don't have to 'believe' in trees, you can see them, touch them, prove with very rudimentary methods that they exist. it cannot be proven that there is a being or beings that live in another plain of existence unacceptable to us who created this reality and everything and everyone in it, and is continually active in manipulating this reality. because of that, it is just as possible that there is no such being, and all religions that have ever existed are propogating lies that oppress the mind, body and spirit of all those who are in their path.
     
    let me lay out a little scenario for you, taking just the christian religion, because it is the one i have researched the most. this religion says that there is a benevolent being concerned with the well being of every human ever born. however, if you do not 'believe the right things', you will not go to a paradise when you die, you will go to a place of ultimate suffering for eternity. but this being gives us humans no way to actually prove, to truely know what 'the right things to believe' actually are. if your culture and society teaches you all your life to believe something different, you will believe that, you have no choice, it is what's 'right' to you. so through no fault of your own, you are consigned to ultimate suffering for all eternity. these are not characteristics of a benevolent being, they are characteristics of a small, petty mind that likes to play games with people's lives. even different sects of religions cannot agree on what 'the right things to believe' are. that's why there are so many denominations. so how can a human possibly know what these 'right things' are?
     
    let me ask you another question. what would be so bad about humans living with the belief system that there is not now, and has never been, a being such as 'god', but have learned that the morality of not murdering, stealing, etc. is good for society and follow those tenets because of that? suppose all societies did not have to live in fear of a 'judgement day', but rather could live in hope of humanity solving its own problems? wouldn't that take away the ability of people to put the blame of their actions on satan, i.e. 'the devil made me do it', and instead had to take responsibility solely for themselves? why is that so much worse a way to live, so much worse a thing to believe in than this 'benevolent being' scenario?
  • ALIENated said on Feb 28, 2009....
    
    There was a time of God the Father (the old testament times in which the Jews
    are still stuck), then there was the time of Jesus the Son (the times of Mathew,
    Mark, Luke, and John in which most of the Christian churches are stuck), and
    there is the time of the Holy Spirit (the times we are in now, which are more
    penecostal). You are now the temple of God (the Holy Spirit). Most people are
    more interested in what is happening right now instead of what may or may
    not happen after death. Jesus told us to love God (the Father) and our 
    neighbors. That pretty much sums up all the Ten Commandments, which were
    laid out a little more in depth (like everything else) for the Jews. God put us
    here with free will in hopes we would choose to follow Him and love Him. That
    is the hope of every father -- to be loved unconditionally by his children. Like
    any headstrong child, some choose not to follow God. Some do not even
    believe He exists and rebel against Him (often a reenactment of their relationship
    with their biological father). No one can prove God exists or does not exist. It
    is a personal choice by faith. However, most feel compelled to persuade others 
    to think as they do about the subject. That kind of proves to me there is a 
    God and that there is a devil. There is definitely a struggle on this planet between
    good and evil. And half the battle is defining what really is good and what really
    is evil. Even trying to use the Holy Bible as a guideline can get us in trouble
    because Man's covenant with God in the Old Testament days is not the same
    covenant we have with God now. It would be OK for Jews to follow The Law,
    but in many cases they do not even believe in the basics anymore. Otherwise,
    they would not have voted for Borax or any of the other baby-murdering,
    homosexual-loving Democrats.
    
    
  • HollyGoLightly said on Mar 02, 2009....
    free will~
     
    free will can be both the question & the answer here...
    free will seems to be the crux of what you are struggling with here...
     
    free will comes "built-in" when it comes to the question of faith.
    God, in His wisdom, included/insisted upon free will in his creation
    of our souls. He does not have to "prove" himself, or be proven. He
    does not require that we believe or not believe. free will allows us to
    contract or not contract our lives with God.
     
    faith, by pure definition, is belief in something that cannot be proven.
    this is why it is valuable. faith is valuable in our relationships with other
    human beings, just as it is valuable to God. going on faith, means "blindly"
    trusting, following, believing, whether it is in another human being, or whether
    it is in God.
     
    through the graces of faith and free will, a scientific proof of existence in God
    will never happen. if it did, it would abolish free will. free will is the only available
    avenue in which we as humans "choose" God. choose to believe or not believe,
    to follow or not to follow, to obey or not to obey. just as in our intimate human
    relationships; what value would our love for someone else have if it was not
    freely chosen?  it is the same with God. our love, our faith, our commitment to
    him, holds no meaning (either to Him, or to ourselves), unless we have freely
    chosen it. 
     
    ~*~Holly~*~
  • mixednuts said on Mar 08, 2009....
    I freely want God. FREELY!
  • mongol said on Mar 09, 2009....
    How can God be proven in a way that pleases anyone?
  • curmudgeon said on Mar 15, 2009....
    It cannot be proven conclusively - which is why belief in God requires a measure of faith - the belief in things unseen.
  • travelr712 said on Mar 15, 2009....
    there is no proof whatsoever that any god does or ever has existed. there are only writings in books and stories told by people. this is not proof. that is why these are called 'faith based'. you either believe the stories or you don't. but that is not proof.
  • HollyGoLightly said on Mar 16, 2009....
    After re-reading this post & all the comments above; I was just thinking how *travlr* talked about, imagining a scenario where there is no God, yet people exist within a structured moral code anyway.
     
    Of course, we all know that many, many people do not  believe in any sort of creator, or benevolent being. But, I was just thinking how over the centuries, and over a broad spectrum of cultures, there have always been people who believed in a God or many Gods.
     
    Greek mythology is full of them, of course there is a God for just about everything, from emotions to weather. Chinese culture, especially traditionally (very much so with the older generations ), have many Gods. These Gods must be worshipped and appeased to win their favor, much like East Indian cultures, and even when you think about it, similar to Christianity, where doing good, doing right, will be to your advantage in the end.
     
    My point is, of all the different cultures and factions, all over the world, and all through the ages, they have all held a belief in something/someone/many who are unseen, who are believed in just because, and who are worshipped, and who are looked upon as the great benevolence, responsible for the earth, nature, animals and people.
     
    Christianity is, (in the total history of the world) actually still fairly "new". Many Gods, Buddha, dieties (sp?), and spirits (such as in the Native American culture), were prayed to and worshipped long before belief in one God, and later, Jesus Christ came along.
     
    So, if you can consider that "proof" of a sort, you may have your answer. How is it that people, cultures, basically secular, isolated at times, and over centuries and centuries of time, have all come to believe in this way?  There's gotta be something to it...
     
    *~*Holly*~*
  • curmudgeon said on Mar 16, 2009....
    Of course this goes to the question as to what constitutes proof. I haven't gotten a response from unbelievers.

    Proof, in order to be meaningful can only be offered in ways that people can understand - basically though language and demonstrations that symbolize proof of what we're talking about.

    If people talk of supernatural events, that's put down as superstition and hocus pocus.

    If people talk about life-transforming experiences, that's put down as mere anecdote and subjectivity.

    If people bring up the language of tradition and historical religious experience passed down over milennia, that's put down as myth and primitive mumbo jumbo.

    In other words, any way we attempt to discuss God can be put down because what we're ultimately trying to describe is beyond our limited frame of understanding. It's because of our own limitations that people come to the conclusion that God does not exist, not that God does not, in fact, exist.

    Here's a question - prove to me, you unbelievers, that you in fact exist and are not just some digital figment of Soulcast's imagination.
  • travelr712 said on Mar 16, 2009....
    well holy, for centuries everyone believed that the universe revolved around the earth. there was even church supported biblical 'proof' of that fact. but we now no longer believe that. belief in a sentient being who directs events incomprehensible to human understanding goes back to the dawn of sentient man when he looked up at the sun and said 'that's a god'.
     
    proof has two important elements curmudgeon, it is tangible, or able to be comprehended by our natural senses, and it is repeatable. there is no example of any god that can be comprehended in any other way than pure thought. pure thought is not proof, nor is belief, no matter how widespread, because millions of humans can believe a thing (the earth is flat) and it not be true. the proof of the shape of the earth came finally from pictures taken by man from the moon. something tangible and repeatable. i do not doubt that belief in these dieties have dramatic, life changing effects on people, i've seen it myself. but that is not proof that what they believe in is true either. people believe that running will change their lives, and they start with a mile, and end with a marathon, and their lives are changed. no god there.
     
    i could very easily prove to you that i exist. i could start up a web cam session with you. i could call you on the phone. i could stand in front of you, and you could see the proof of my existence. i can do this over and over, and give you tangible, repeatable proof of my existance. by the book the christians follow 'no one has ever seen god'. well, except for moses as he walked by. oh, and maybe adam and eve, it's not clear whether they actually saw a god or not. some say they hear god. maybe, maybe not. no way to prove whether what someone heard was true or not. people hear dogs telling them to murder. people hear their dead mother's voice in the wind. still no proof there.
     
    i have no problem whatsoever with people believing what they want as far as faith goes. i do, however, have a problem when they use guilt, fear, economics and yes, death, to coerce others to believe what they do. i also have a problem when people try to convince me or anyone, that their beliefs are 'ultimate truth', because we as humans have no way whatsoever to comprehend what 'ultimate truth' is, if it even exists. and we certainly have no way to prove it. 
  • mixednuts said on Mar 16, 2009....
    The only thing I can think to say is that nothing comes from nothing, perhaps even God.
  • travelr712 said on Mar 16, 2009....
    well, either that means that god is nothing, which proves there is no god, or that there was a beginning to god, which means the bible is wrong about the most fundamental concept it is based on.
     
    my whole point here is, sure, maybe there is this timeless sentient being who created everything, that's one possibility. but it is only a possibility, not a fact, and it is a possibility that has no way of being proven. now, if any religion is presented as a 'possible alternative', then i'll stay silent about it. it is when it is presented as 'the truth, the whole truth, and the only truth' that i start to take issue.
  • travelr712 said on Mar 17, 2009....
    there is one more proof for you curmudgeon, and this will undoubtably sound harsh and will anger you.
     
    in order for me to be 'just some digital figment of Soulcast's imagination', that would mean somewhere, someone would be concerned enough about your opinions, your beliefs, that they would write some super intelligent program that would scan the pages of a backwater website, and have the intelligence to comprehend your question and the wisdom to concoct a reply to it. as yet, has soulcast, the human personality behind this site, even noticed your existence?
     
    the very fact that i am responding tonight directly to your personal question in a format that everyone in the world can see at any time they wish to come and read this, should be enough proof for you. but if it is your habit to invent some conspiracy that somewhere, some human has developed the technology to simulate these actions, and would apply that undoubtably expensive technology to answering your questions about 'unbelievers', well, that only shows the lengths of delusion that are required to support your beliefs.
     
    since i am, indeed, responding to you, why would i want to delude myself to that level to follow your beliefs?
  • curmudgeon said on Mar 21, 2009....
    traveler - your definition of proof isn't necessarily THE end all be all definition of proof. Your definition is still a contractual matter between multiple parties agreeing that this is proof.

    Repeatability isn't, for example, a criterion of proof of anything in a court of law.Two juries may hear the exact same evidence and come to different conclusions about whether the facts presented constitute guilt or innocence. "Proof," then is still that which we collectively agree upon in order to interpret what we see. That in and of itself is not proof of anything.

    How can you support your argument by referring to scripture if you believe that scripture doesn't constitute proof of anything? Are you not relying on source material you've already impugned? What kind of case building is that??

    As for your existence - my experiencing your response does not prove to me that you exist. However many times I may experience your flawed logic - via email, internet, telephone, even in person - does not prove that you in fact exist.

    Why is this? Because, travlr - you're using an anonymous psuedonum to craft your ill-thought responses. You know your real name. I don't. If you introduce yourself to me, it will be with your "real" name, not your handle. Who are you, then? And does trvlr really exist?

    Finally - your elaborate response dodges the main question - what "proof" do you demand in order to believe in God, and why? What repeatable, observable phenomena would prove to you that God exists? If there is no possible proof for you, you are indeed not being scientific or open minded, but simply making statements based on faith and little else, In this case your position is no more tenable, authoritative or convincing than the one who believes without seeing.


  • travelr712 said on Mar 21, 2009....
    well curmudgeon, the definition of proof that i used is the one established by the scientific and mathematics community. as to a court of law, juries don't decide proof, they use proofs presented to come to a conclusion. those proofs are subject to the same definition. it is the relevance of the factual evidence that is agreed upon, and if a piece of evidence, such as a dna scan, can be shown to not be repeatable, then it is rejected as not being proof. the reason for repeatability is to eliminate random occurances. this is why more than one sample must be tested more than once and produce the same results or it is not submitted as evidence.
     
    i was not using those texts as a proof themselves, rather i was using the conclusion drawn by the church from those texts to show that the church will use them as proof of their assertions, and later retract these assertions when actual proof is provided. this shows that either the texts themselves are flawed, or that the interpretation by the church of these texts is flawed. this is the same method clarance darow used in the scopes monkey trial, resulting in evolution being taught in public schools.
     
    my responses are not ill thought curmudgeon, and your reaction to my statements only shows how little you understand about electronic medium. anonymity does not disprove my existance. in fact, it proves i exist, because in order to have an anonymous name, i must first exist. you were not talking about what my real name is, you were talking about the fact that i might not exist at all, and rather be a figment of some type of electronic imagination. but i often find that people who engage in delusional beliefs must reframe their statements when they are shown to be falacious, rather than accept the facts presented to them. travelr712 exists because you and everyone else in the world can see that name on posts and comments. try applying at least a little logic and consistancy to your statements curmudgeon.
     
    i am not asking for proof of a diety, that was mixednuts. my assertion is that there is no proof, and no way to gain any proof. that statement precludes any necessity to frame what this proof would be, because any irrefutable proof would be accepted. and again, as with the shape of the earth, or whether it is the center of the galaxy, mere agreement does not constitute proof, as i have already shown.
     
    so, rather than trying to redefine the word 'proof', all you need to do is produce one piece of irrefutable evidence that a diety indeed exists, and you will be shown to be right. your problem is, in the history of humanity, no one has ever been able to produce this type of evidence, so you have your work cut out for you.
  • curmudgeon said on Mar 22, 2009....
    but trvlr - you could actually be two or three people writing under that moniker. How do I know who I'm actually talking to? Still not proof that you, whomever or whatever you may be, exist.

    as for repeatability, again, is the scientific community the end all be all of deciding what is real, what exists and what does not? Even they understand that the "Proofs" they offer are according to standards agreed upon within the community. If you're appealing to authority, that's not proof of anything.

    the geocentric model for the universe was repeatable, using agreed upon assumptions by scientists of the day, described in mathematical formulas. That model worked for many years and quite frankly from the standpoint of a human being not involved in rocketry or astrophysics, would probably still work just fine. A flat Earth model would work for the vast majority of people, too. Again, repeatability is proof of absolutely nothing.

    you're arguing in circles! first you assert that there is no irrefutable proof of the existence of god and then demand that I produce it, without actually telling me what constitutes irrefutable proof in your mind!

    Let's break it down:

    Which among these (or all of them) would constitute irrefutable proof in your mind of the existence of God?

    Authoritative statements?
    Observed phenomena?
    If yes, which observed phenomena?
    Repeated observations of said phenomena?
    Anecdotal Evidence?
    Anecdotal Evidence from four billion witnesses?
    Mathematical probability?

    Any combination of the above? If there is no criteria you will accept as irrefutable proof of God's existence, then there's no point in discussing this. You are coming to a conclusion not based on lack of evidence but your own positive faith position.

    Just admit it. Nobody cares since we're all digital creations anyway.

  • travelr712 said on Mar 22, 2009....
    no matter how many people might be writing under this label, they would still be people, thus proving by your own assertion that i exist. here is your original statement:
     
    Here's a question - prove to me, you unbelievers, that you in fact exist and are not just some digital figment of Soulcast's imagination.
     
    i have shown abundant proof, and many ways of providing tangible, repeatable proof that i in fact exist. i have done so to the point that you have had to change your original statement to even stay in the debate about it. by whatever label i use for the situation, dad, son, employee, my legal name, i would still exist. your question now is asking me to prove my identity. but since i have never given my legal name, proof of my identity is not in question, and is irrelevant to the question of my existence. i have been unaquivicably able to prove to you that i do, in fact, exist, and am not a digital figment.
     
    the scientists and mathematicians of the time knew their models were flawed. they were also controlled by the church, which legally controlled all published information. this is why galileo was placed under house arrest for providing proof that they were wrong, and his writings sequestered. they started with the theology, and attempted to prove it scientifically and mathematically, and were not able to do so. but the point is, the church asserted that geocentricity was 'ultimate truth', and they were proven to be wrong, at which point, all of their 'ultimate truth' assertions became questionable, including the assertion of a diety. this also shows that authoritative statements cannot be used as proof, because they are statements of conclusions drawn from evidence presented, and are often refuted by other authorities at the same time. and no, a flat earth would serve no one today, because it would be a false statement. people would believe in something that is just not true. but i can see how you would think that appropriate, given your belief system. and yes, repeatibility is very important, it is the foundation of reliability. if you cannot repeat the example, it is not a reliable example and therefore not proof. but as always, this shows that you must change the fundimental nature and definitions of words in order to be able to support your belief system. this is a favorite method of religions and politicians.
     
    we've covered authoritative statements, they're not proof.
    the definition of phenomina is any observable fact or event. a rare or significant fact or event. an exceptional, unusual or abnormal person, thing, or occurence. phenomena can be used to support a proof, but is not a proof in itself, because it is not repeatable. however, if you could show me a phenomena that a diety exists, i might be inclined to accept it. do you have any?
     
    the definition of anecdotal is hearsay with doubtful veracity: the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy or untrue. so no, this would not be proof unless you changed the definition of the word anecdotal.
     
    mathematical probability is not proof, it is a probability. probability, or chance is an expression of the likelyhood of something, not in any way a proof of that thing. just out of curiousity, do you have a mathematical probability that a diety exists?
     
    i have very clearly stated the criteria i will accept, it is the same criteria any scientist, mathematician or school child accepts as the proof of a thing. your problem is that you have not, and cannot, provide such proof. therefore, the conclusion i come to is completely from lack of evidence until such time as you can provide me with such proof. the debat put forward in this post is to prove a diety exists. i do not need to prove that no diety exists, which is not possible either. you can very easily win this argument the moment you provide positive proof that a diety does exist.
     
    if nobody cares, why are you still so fervantly debating the subject?
  • mixednuts said on Mar 23, 2009....
    Nothing bad that happens to us is because of God I'm told. Everyting good that happens to us is because of "God". God is not our 'cosmic" bell boy, but I would like to see God in my life when I pray. "Ask and you shall recieve"...but when? What's the catch?
  • curmudgeon said on Mar 23, 2009....
    T: Fact - I type, therefore I exist
    C: I see letters, I don't see you.
    T: Someone typed, therefore I exist.
    C: Someone typed - not proof it's you that typed it, nor that you exist.
    T: I keep engaging with you, therefore I exist.
    C: Again, letters on a screen. This is all I observe. I repeatedly observe letters on a screen. To read any more into this could lead to false assumptions on my part.
    T: If you believe Soulcast is some huge digital conspiracy, you're deluded.
    C: Insult does not constitute proof of existence.

    Your argument in an nutshell:

    There is no irrefutable proof of the existence of God.
    Any irrefutable proof of the existence of God would be acceptable.

    It just seems to me that when you start from a conclusion the discussion leads nowhere. What I'm proposing is the possibility that there may indeed be irrefutable proof of the existence of God - I don't claim to know what it is. What might that irrefutable proof look like? I don't need this irrefutable proof to believe myself, because I accept my own experience and the testimony of others.  That works for me.

    But if you begin with the assertion that there is no irrefutable proof, what proof can anyone offer? About as much "proof" as you can digitally offer me that you exist, which really isn't much. All you can offer is letters on a screen, which prove exactly nothing.

    I think we've beaten this horse to death. Yes, to you I'm irrational and to me you're starting from a conclusion, a logical brick wall. What else is new.
  • travelr712 said on Mar 23, 2009....

    again, curmudgeon, you missed the point. i can offer irrefutible proof that i exist. i can start up a web cam and show you. i can travel to where you are and stand before you. it is entirely possible to provide positive proof that i exist, if you cannot fathom the simple reasoning i've provided with the words on the screen. in fact, you do see the reason in my example, because you switched your argument from existance to identity.

    all religions start with a conclusion, a diety exists, and then use anecdotal evidence to support their conclusions, so at the very least, i have followed their model in some of my statements.

    someone can offer proof of the existence of a diety in the same manor that i gave proof of my existence. they can offer proof in many different ways. so far, nothing but anecdotal evidence has ever been offered as to the proof of the existence of a diety.

    is it possible that there is irrefutable proof that a diety exists? certainly. is it possible that such a diety exists? certainly. however, reason dictates that extrordinary claims require extrordinary proof. your argument has gone from stating 'ultimate truth' that a diety exists to a possibility that there is proof that a diety exists. this supports my argument far more than it does yours.

    let me put it this way. it is possible that there is proof that the great pink unicorn exists, so does that mean we should erect great structures, fight wars, collect offerings, sing praises and pin hope of an eternal existance telling people that unless they believe, they will suffer eternity in horrible torture, all in the name of the great pink unicorn? i daresay you would think that is ludacris.

  • curmudgeon said on Mar 27, 2009....
    Uh please do go back and find where I positively stated that a deity exists. I didn't. I believe. I don't care whether anyone else believes or not.

    Also I do not attempt to prove God's existence by first assuming that God exists. Perhaps you've confused me with someone else. I simply assume God's existence and then set about contemplating the nature of that God. God exists to me out of my personal experience (which you cannot refute, by the way - you can doubt it, but you cannot positively conclude that what I have experienced is not God).

    What I do accept as proof (because proof and standards of proof are as I have said contractual matters between parties) - so far as humans can actually prove anything - is that the over tens of thousands of years, the preponderance of humanity has believed and still believes that God/s do exist and desire to pursue knowledge of and express some relationship with this God/s in some way. There are those who don't believe and so inject that little doubt. This is where belief becomes individual choice and I choose to believe.

    It seems to me that people fight wars over resources both material and social and use religion as justification. They have also used nationalism, race and political-economic philosophy as justifications for war. Humanity has its negative traits as well as positive. To single out religion for what is a condition of the human species is just plain silly.

    Again - a webcam is nothing more than a digital representation of what you say is you. Is that really irrefutable proof? Irrefutable means I cannot under any circumstance doubt my conclusion. Am I right about this? An irrefutable proof would be based entirely on facts, not assumptions. The most credible of assumptions might ultimately be proven false. Even if we were to meet face to face, I'd have to assume that the person I'm introduced to is in fact the same person I've been trading posts with. How can I irrefutably make that assumption? I cannot. It's not that you do not exist, it's that you cannot irrefutably prove to someone else that you do. This is what I was driving at when I started down the identity path.

    In order to prove your existence, you have to rely on someone else to mediate: A webcam, a photo, some kind of documentation. Finally you need the person across from you to acknowledge your existence. All of these things are subject to uncertainty, and therefore are not irrefutable. Irrefutable, in my mind, means there can be no doubt. The problem is, I can doubt everything, even my own existence. Not even my doubting irrefutably proves my existence.

    However, if we want to shift the debate to acceptable assumptions - let us assume God exists...
  • travelr712 said on Mar 27, 2009....
    i have noticed in the last decade or so that the conciousness seems to be turning from zealous adherence to the existance of this or that god, to the acceptance that this diety may in fact not exist at all. the absolute certainty of the masses seems to now be relagated to factions that participate in terrorist acts, whether in the middle east or oklahoma. the rest of us, and from your last comment i'm including you curmudgeon, realize that there is no absolute proof of anything, and in the realm of dieties, just as you have said, the assumption must start with their existence before any forward motion can be achieved.
     
    but here is another of my problems curmudgeon. with these religions, it is often the case that this diety will intercede in some cosmic balance to allow any act of a believer that may be contrary to the rules of said diety to go unpunished. this is no more evident than in the catholic practice of indulgences. you pay the priest, and he gives you a signed document allowing you to commit adultry with your neighbor's wife. your sin is covered before you commit that sin. you are not accountable. but morality is as shifting sand. what is considered adultry in our culture was not in solomon's. what is considered murder in ours was not in abraham's. we find it absolutely incomprehensible that a man would murder his own son on a sacrificial alter because he was convinced a diety told him to.
     
    my point is, we understand morality, and the reasons for that morality. we also understand that there are consequences for our actions. without some diety to protect us from our own folly, the responsibility for our actions lie squarely on our own shoulders, not that of the 'sacrificial lamb'. so why do we even need a concept of a diety? why can't we rely on our own human understanding to chart our future course? when this concept has for so long represented guilt, fear, torture, authoritarianism and death to those who do not believe, is that the better choice? i think not. 
  • curmudgeon said on Mar 27, 2009....
    Ah - the problem of reconciling social mores with the existence of God. Yes, I have this problem too. We have indeed conflated God's will with particular social mores, only to find that those who do so are trying to protect their vested interests, usually having to do with power.

    Though the texts in question can pose problems for us (just because God tells Abraham to kill Isaac, from Sarah's standpoint does it make it any less wrong? Sarah is not mentioned after this story - did she leave Abraham, or die of grief?), we are free to interpret them in our own particular context. They are fixed, we are not, and so we have something against which we can always compare ourselves and re-interpret our lives in relation to the texts.

    Of course, the texts weren't always fixed. In Christianity's case, they only became fixed some three hundred years after Christ supposedly lived. Had the Councils not petrified the Gospels, we'd probably still be re-writing them in light of our own history and social context.

    So do we need the texts at all? Do we need religion as it is currently conceived? Might we need to construct a new mythology (or re-tell the old) based on what we now know of the world? Yeah, I'm asking these questions too.

    But the big question I'm asking is - what does any of all this human religion stuff have to do with God, anyway?

    Looks like we have a  lot more in common than I thought...
  • travelr712 said on Mar 27, 2009....
    ahh, now we're getting somewhere!
     
    do we need the texts at all? well, there needs to be some view of historical thought in order to give us a lense, a mirror to show where we came from. as i said before, aesop's fables are just as important, just as inspired, hold the same significance, the same power, the same place, as 'the bible'. you are right in saying that this book is petrified. that was done for the express reason of ending the ongoing debate. but it also had the effect of trapping our moral advancement in a time 2000 years ago, and being held there by the yolk of religious tyrany. but just look in that book itself. the central character of the new testament showed many examples of how morality changes throughout social history, saying it was good. 'you have heard an eye for an eye, but i say to you, turn the other cheek'. moral advancement. but this type of tyrany is only possible if the book in question has some supernatural quality attributed to it. aesop was never seen as a prophet of a diety, thus the writings are seen as strictly human. but convince the masses that a book is 'inspired by a diety, every word breathed to the ear of the writer by that diety', distroy the originals, and then the masses have nothing to compare with, they either accept it as truth or they don't.
     
    i say, put that book in its proper place, as a moral tale, and let morality progress once again.
  • HollyGoLightly said on Mar 31, 2009....

    Yikes!  this has cetainly gotten interesting since I've been gone!!

    How about both of you guys go "web-cam" and we can watch your debate in real time!!   LOL  ;)

    seriously though...this has really gotten deep and I appreciate that 2 people can have an intelligent discussion/debate without becoming like pigs wallowing in a gutter. *kudos* to you both, because this is thought provoking, intelligent banter, encouraging all of us who read it to think for ourselves, and to take points under consideration that we may previously, had not. always an educational experience.  ~thanks~

    *mixed nuts*~ you've barely gotten a word edgewise...but I know you sometimes prefer to just throw the meat out there and let everyone go at it while you watch!!  ;)  LOL

    *~*Holly*~*

     

     

  • travelr712 said on Mar 31, 2009....
    thanks holly, that's how i see it too.
  • curmudgeon said on Apr 02, 2009....
    travelr,

    your point is well taken.

    These days I'm thinking that for even those folks who take the Bible to be the inerrant, literal word of God, they still have not only a choice in how to interpret the Bible (even in literal fashion), but in how to obey it. We need to admit to ourselves that there is so much in the New Testament that we just don't follow because it doesn't make sense to do so today. Are divorced and remarried literalists then out of God's Kingdom? This is a crucial question!

    Moreover, if Paul says one thing, but Jesus appears to have opposite opinion, who should we afford the higher authority? It gets even knottier when we consider that many scholars today believe that some of the epistles were written not by Paul, but by disciples writing in Paul's name. Now what of God's word to we emphasize?

    Even if it is all God's inspired word, we need to carefully consider how we go about implementing God's word in our time and our culture and our place in history.

Comment on "PROVE THERE IS A GOD"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Comment Anonymously

It's okay if you disagree ... but when leaving a comment, please dont be a childish douche and resort to namecalling and insults....
As we read through the Bible and obey it, God's Word becomes our spiritual food and our source of strength and spiritual insight to accomplish His will....
As Christian's we learn that the just shall live by faith alone, so what is faith and how do we get it....
You do not have to live in bondage to things that you have done in the past nor things that others have done to you. Set yourself free through none other than through the Lord, Jesus Christ....
My awakening...