Proof of God

no worries Grey, just havin a little fun with Mr. Enlightenment here :)
 
greymare said:
AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH

You mob are just banging your heads against a brick wall.

Its obvious to me that the people here who dont believe in God, will not believe in God no matter who says what to them. Or what is written in any book, because they dont believe that the book/s come from God. (ie, because He doesnt exist) (to them). We can go round and round but this isnt going to change.

Its also obvious to me that those who have faith in God wont stop believeing in God no matter what is said to them or what "facts" are pointed out...

In other words, you mob are chasing your tails... spending a lot of energy getting nowhere.

Having a relationship with God or not having a relationship with God is personal. We all have our reasons.


whispers( i hate it when my kids fight...)
Click to expand...

Very true, fella.

However, I am sure you agree that if I claimed I had proof that fairies were real, you would be within your rights to ask me to show you this proof, correct?

:)
 
Gee whiz. Four pages of posts and still no proof for the gods. I was hoping Creationists would finally propose their General Creation theory... but after these pages of posts, not a single one has (and no, I don't mean Genesis). In that sense, how disappointing this thread turned out to be.

But then again, no one can refute Amon Ra.
 
Resigned said:
Gee whiz. Four pages of posts and still no proof for the gods..
Click to expand...

Lol.

So I am not the only one who fails to see any proof?

Good show.

Hey, don't get me wrong, there maybe was a time when religion had an imporant role to play, in the creation of socities, I will perhaps give it that.

But I just find it incredible that otherwise rational people do not think rationally about the claims in the Bible and Koran, for example.

They don't like to.

It makes them question their own beliefs, which in turn makes them feel uneasy.

And no one likes to feel uneasy.

To many, removing religion would be like taking away their comfort blanket.
 
Since both of you are clearly not capable of having a real discussion
as is evidenced by your complete inability to come up with an actual
rebuttal... You leave me no choice, but to stoop down to your level,
and post utter irrelevant BS.... So let the flame wars begin :)



Resigned said:
...Gee whiz....
Click to expand...


enlightenment said:
...Good show....
Click to expand...

... lol

So tell me, do you both live in a place called "Pleasentville"??
Is everything like black and white where you come from???
Do people still wear suspenders and those big black specs
and walk around with oily hair, smokin pipes and stuff???
 
c0de said:
Since both of you are clearly not capable of having a real discussion
as is evidenced by your complete inability to come up with an actual
rebuttal... You leave me no choice, but to stoop down to your level,
and post utter irrelevant BS.... So let the flame wars begin :)








... lol

So tell me, do you both live in a place called "Pleasentville"??
Is everything like black and white where you come from???
Do people still wear suspenders and those big black specs
and walk around with oily hair, smokin pipes and stuff???
Click to expand...
I think someone needs to take some responsibility for falsely entitling this thread as "Proof of God". The fact is, there is no proof. What I read were a lot of bad analogies, false representations and huge stretches of bent and mangled "reasoning" in a hoped-for attempt to reach a predefined conclusion. That's intellectually dishonest.

First, let me make the frighteningly obvious point that most of alleged "proof" is not about evidence, (as it should be), but rather one of chosen Theistic interpretation. We are drawn to one analytical framework or another. I will attempt to explain why it is that I prefer the abio/evolutionary framework over the spiritual.

Also, I have slightly different approaches in how I regard abiogenesis as opposed to evolution that I may go into in another (hopefully shorter) post. What both views have in common can be encapsulated in what I find preferable about naturalism as an explanation for physical.

The first reason is tired and old, but one that became so precisely because it bears repeating; naturalistic explanations that have passed through the filter of the scientific method or that are at least founded upon reasonable inductive hypotheses based on the available evidence have proven again and again to be far superior to any other method in bringing us to a better understanding of the universe, life, and even our place in it.

Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of the philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the extensive assistance of both philosopher and theologian in this task) and carried much of this lofty battle to a less friendly scientific arena where rude physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation tales and fables.

It does us well to remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bible.

Assuming a natural explanation for phenomena has been validated again and again. Even the work of great intellects who sought to use their scientific discoveries as proofs of the glories of God, men like Copernicus and Newton, has been pressed into the service of naturalism. Their methods and the evidence thereby derived were completely sound; their motivations noble. Nevertheless, the naturalist has encompassed their learning and driven on, pushing back the limitations of naturalism further and further into the past, surging up even to the gates of the Original Origin itself.

The second reason is to some extent predicated on the first – as naturalism has had such coruscating success, why place limits on what it might achieve? Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of this creator is itself speculative. Some would argue that this is a contradictory position to take; that locking out the divine from the picture is blinkered thinking. But I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile.

Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.

Is this approach hubris? Is it misplaced pride? I don’t believe so, if we understand that human knowledge is still paltry and unsure, especially when compared to the vast spans of energy, matter, and time that encompass us. We have made some astounding discoveries and gained some amazing insights into the fundamentals of nature, but there is so much left to be discovered and it may never be possible to answer the most significant questions with any certainty. Even the purest realms of deductive reasoning are bounded by the rules of their own systems. Knowledge, evidence, inductive or deductive reasoning aren’t absolute.

 
Resigned said:
I think someone needs to take some responsibility for falsely entitling this thread as "Proof of God".
Click to expand...

*snip*

Good post.

Well said.

Title says proof of god.

I doubt anyone on here, save for the member, could come close to saying that any has been given, can you?

The member seems to overlook one vital thing, about disproving a negative.

I could assert anything I chose, and the member could not DISprove it, yet that does not make it true, by default.
 
Resigned said:
First, let me make the frighteningly obvious point that most of alleged "proof" is not about evidence, (as it should be), but rather one of chosen Theistic interpretation. We are drawn to one analytical framework or another. I will attempt to explain why it is that I prefer the abio/evolutionary framework over the spiritual.

Also, I have slightly different approaches in how I regard abiogenesis as opposed to evolution that I may go into in another (hopefully shorter) post. What both views have in common can be encapsulated in what I find preferable about naturalism as an explanation for physical.

The first reason is tired and old, but one that became so precisely because it bears repeating; naturalistic explanations that have passed through the filter of the scientific method or that are at least founded upon reasonable inductive hypotheses based on the available evidence have proven again and again to be far superior to any other method in bringing us to a better understanding of the universe, life, and even our place in it.

Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of the philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the extensive assistance of both philosopher and theologian in this task) and carried much of this lofty battle to a less friendly scientific arena where rude physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation tales and fables.

It does us well to remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bible.

Assuming a natural explanation for phenomena has been validated again and again. Even the work of great intellects who sought to use their scientific discoveries as proofs of the glories of God, men like Copernicus and Newton, has been pressed into the service of naturalism. Their methods and the evidence thereby derived were completely sound; their motivations noble. Nevertheless, the naturalist has encompassed their learning and driven on, pushing back the limitations of naturalism further and further into the past, surging up even to the gates of the Original Origin itself.

The second reason is to some extent predicated on the first – as naturalism has had such coruscating success, why place limits on what it might achieve? Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of this creator is itself speculative. Some would argue that this is a contradictory position to take; that locking out the divine from the picture is blinkered thinking. But I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile.

Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.

Is this approach hubris? Is it misplaced pride? I don’t believe so, if we understand that human knowledge is still paltry and unsure, especially when compared to the vast spans of energy, matter, and time that encompass us. We have made some astounding discoveries and gained some amazing insights into the fundamentals of nature, but there is so much left to be discovered and it may never be possible to answer the most significant questions with any certainty. Even the purest realms of deductive reasoning are bounded by the rules of their own systems. Knowledge, evidence, inductive or deductive reasoning aren’t absolute.
Click to expand...



wow... all those words, yet still no actual rebuttal...




I think someone needs to take some responsibility for falsely entitling this thread as "Proof of God". The fact is, there is no proof. What I read were a lot of bad analogies, false representations and huge stretches of bent and mangled "reasoning" in a hoped-for attempt to reach a predefined conclusion. That's intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...
I guess this is the best you could manage then eh...

(shakes head disappointingly)
 
c0de said:
wow... all those words, yet still no actual rebuttal...

sigh.... what a waste.






rite... I take it this is the best you could manage...
Click to expand...
I can't rebut what you have failed to produce. I provided an explanation as to why these bellicose claims of proof always, inevitably fail to provide as claimed

It's a simple matter. The thread title makes a claim. Either provide the proof of god(s) or acknowledge that you are gratuitously promoting one, partisan religious perspective that fails muster.
 
Resigned said:
I can't rebut what you have failed to produce.
Click to expand...


No actually... you can't rebut period.
The only thing you have done so far
is to say that my argument is full of:


bad analogies, false representations and huge stretches of bent and mangled "reasoning"
Click to expand...

.... why not be more specific there chief?
Go ahead... point out all the "bad analogies"
... and "false representations"...

If my reasoning is so weak, then you should have no trouble in
quickly refuting it right??? So why not actually give it a try???

Please... be my guest :)
 
c0de said:
No actually... you can't rebut period.
The only thing you have done so far
is to say that my argument is full of:




.... why not be more specific there chief?
Go ahead... point out all the "bad analogies"
... and "false representations"...

If my reasoning is so weak, then you should have no trouble in
quickly refuting it right??? So why not actually give it a try???

Please... be my guest :)
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting to see your "proof". Present it. The thread claims the proof is available. "False representations"are demonstrated by those making claims that are not substantiated.

Proof - the title says proof. I'm waiting.
 
Code.

Just so I get a handle on this, do you mind telling us what religion you happen to subsribe to, in as few words as possible, please?

Thanks

:)
 
Resigned said:
I'm still waiting to see your "proof". Present it. The thread claims the proof is available. "False representations"are demonstrated by those making claims that are not substantiated.

Proof - the title says proof. I'm waiting.
Click to expand...


Me too. I didn't need a shave at the outset of this thread! :D

See, we can go around all day here, reason the fella cannot bring any real proof is that there is no proof.

Let us take the so called power of prayer, for example.

If you took 100 people, and 50 prayed for a coin to land heads, and 50 didn't pray, then, on average, the same number of people that didn't pray would call it right. This can be applied to all things.
 
Resigned said:
"False representations"are demonstrated by those making claims that are not substantiated.
Click to expand...


LOL... why don't you show me how my claims are "unsubstantiated".
Go back to the first post and show me which claim in it you find lacking
exactly.



enlightenment said:
Just so I get a handle on this, do you mind telling us what religion you happen to subsribe to, in as few words as possible, please?
Click to expand...

I am a Muslim.
 
A Muslim.

Okay.

Tell me, and this is from memory, so excuse me, is it so that in the Koran it explains how Mohammed was illiterate, and how god came down from the heavens, and literally picked him up, squeezed him, and from that day on, he was able to read and write, and go educate his people.

Is that a fairish gist?
 
Resigned said:
But then again, no one can refute Amon Ra.
Click to expand...
'God' is a much more elusive concept to disprove than Ra, because Amon Ra makes human claims. Certainly conflict of interest in a believer of Amon Ra would prevent them from accepting any such refutation, but we must assume no conflict of interest in each other -- for the sake of discussion. We are speaking in the abstract about God, the inhuman conception of God which is said to be apparent from nature, not Amon Ra. In fact, there are even multiple conceptions of an inhuman God, and I think c0de is focused upon those. I may be assuming too much. To me, at least, a human one would not be arguable at all, although it would be more discoverable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top