Proof of God

[wil]

In three words. There we have it.

Ok, can you prove there isn't a G!d? I'm guessing you feel you require no proof...

there we have it

 

[Dream]

Um.

Thanks for the rant.

Are you done?

It may seem like a rant, but give me a chance to explain. This thread and this entire forum is much more than a place to discuss ideas, because it is one of the proving grounds of individualism and freedom. Think about it: you were given a Liberal education, and you are saying that it is not enough for c0de to think for himself. He has to think like you! This undermines the rationale that gave you your education. Instead, you have publicly agreed on the interfaith.org website that freedom of thought is of no value. Do you believe in freedom of thought or not? Does c0de stand alone?

Individualism and freedom are the real hot item, not this or that religion. You personally represent the products of liberal education, and the West to some degree. Most of the world -- China, the Catholic Church, many Muslim Countries, the Third World, and even many countries in Europe -- these do not really believe that individualism and freedom are conducive to harmony in the world! They love us very much (too much), are concerned that our freedoms and individuality are bringing us harm. Yes, they are very concerned for us.! Freedom of the press is being ravaged everywhere, and the world is thinking that maybe the English speaking people like you want to harm their religions and take away their traditions. They are concerned.

 

[enlightenment]

Ok, can you prove there isn't a G!d?

Come on.

You know it doesn't work like that.

Hey, do you believe in Zeus?

If not, are you perhaps not dismissive of the existance of Zeus?

 

[enlightenment]

It may seem like a rant, but give me a chance to explain. This thread and this entire forum is much more than a place to discuss ideas, because it is one of the proving grounds of individualism and freedom. Think about it: you were given a Liberal education, and you are saying that it is not enough for c0de to think for himself. He has to think like you! This undermines the rationale that gave you your education. Instead, you have publicly agreed on the interfaith.org website that freedom of thought is of no value. Do you believe in freedom of thought or not? Does c0de stand alone?

Individualism and freedom are the real hot item, not this or that religion. You personally represent the products of liberal education, and the West to some degree. Most of the world -- China, the Catholic Church, many Muslim Countries, the Third World, and even many countries in Europe -- these do not really believe that individualism and freedom are conducive to harmony in the world! They love us very much (too much), are concerned that our freedoms and individuality are bringing us harm. Yes, they are very concerned for us.! Freedom of the press is being ravaged everywhere, and the world is thinking that maybe the English speaking people like you want to harm their religions and take away their traditions. They are concerned.

....except that I did not actually say those things.

 

[Paladin]

Ok, can you prove there isn't a G!d? I'm guessing you feel you require no proof...

there we have it

Wow has it really come down to this?
Maybe us old guys should just let the kids fight it out, no?

But since I'm here and Matlock isn't on yet... Where is that nurse with my meds?

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, fallacy on top of fallacy won't work , and neither will trying to explain the trans rational in rational language. So much damage is done in the name of religion, and it seems more damage can be done by not seeing what good there is.
Now, take these kids arguing for example each is hardwired and emotionally invested in their point of view, nothing wrong per se, but the spirit of inquiry is hopelessly lost.
Even Tao admits to there being certain parts of the human experience that standard syllogism can't begin to explain. Even without religion there would be a certain something that drives poets and mystics to involve themselves in the deep hearts core.
But, conflict is part of the drama, so carry on!

 

[wil]

Come on.

You know it doesn't work like that.

Hey, do you believe in Zeus?

If not, are you perhaps not dismissive of the existance of Zeus?

Yup, Zeus is alright with me, so is Santa Clause and the tooth fairy....why.

And anyone who worships at the temples of Zeus or Thor, I've got no issues with them, no inherent need to piss on their cookies, how about you? Matter o' fact I'd be interested in hearing more about their beliefs.

Might be a reason one would participate in an interfaith forum.

Oh, so you can't prove there isn't a G!d, it doesn't work like that, unfair eh?

 

[Dream]

....except that I did not actually say those things.

oops! sorry about that!

 

[enlightenment]

Yup, Zeus is alright with me, so is Santa Clause and the tooth fairy....why.

And anyone who worships at the temples of Zeus or Thor, I've got no issues with them, no inherent need to piss on their cookies, how about you? Matter o' fact I'd be interested in hearing more about their beliefs.

Might be a reason one would participate in an interfaith forum.

Oh, so you can't prove there isn't a G!d, it doesn't work like that, unfair eh?

Anyone will tell you that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

This applies to our daily lives. You want to shift the goalposts? You're not the first. Hey, if I asserted that I knew Medusa to exist, you might humour me by listening, but if I went on about it, you would be within your right to ask for proof, physical evidence to support my belief.

The burden of proof would lie with ME, not you, in that case.

Do you understand the principle of that?

As for Zeus, I notice you mock that god, by making light, which is fine by me personally, but notice how you might get offended when one writes off the Abrahamic faiths, yet it is okay for you to mock another historical god.

 

[enlightenment]

oops! sorry about that!

No worries.

 

[wil]

Anyone will tell you that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

The burden of proof would lie with ME, not you, in that case.

So you don't claim there isn't a G!d. I'm ok with that. Now if you were to claim there isn't a G!d, by your contention I could demand proof and the burden of proof would lie with you. So as long as you don't claim there isn't a G!d, I'll agree and not demand proof.

Wow has it really come down to this?
Maybe us old guys should just let the kids fight it out, no?

But, conflict is part of the drama, so carry on!

But I'm having such fun. And I must believe (even though I have no proof) that they are too, as they spend so much time here.

 

[enlightenment]

Even someone such as Prof R Dawkins would only go as far as to say that there probably is no god. I would go with that. Does not make me agnostic by the way, for when I use that word, having heard a lot of religous claims, on the scale of probability, it is about as impossible as anyone could fairly get to.

 

[wil]

Even someone such as Prof R Dawkins would only go as far as to say that there probably is no god. I would go with that. Does not make me agnostic by the way, for when I use that word, having heard a lot of religous claims, on the scale of probability, it is about as impossible as anyone could fairly get to.

Quite interesting. Seems we are getting somewhere. Which religious claims do you feel are improbable...if you'll stick to Christian claims I think it will be quite interesting to see how many we agree on. (my post here is 6,666 that's a good one)

 

[enlightenment]

Quite interesting. Seems we are getting somewhere. Which religious claims do you feel are improbable...if you'll stick to Christian claims I think it will be quite interesting to see how many we agree on.

Any which perpetuate the myth of a higher being who created all life.

Any that perpetuate the idea of life after death, and the soul and spirit.

Any which convince the masses that upon death, you will move on to a new place, either a version of heaven or hell.

Any which discriminates, in the way that discrimination can be found in the three Abrahamic faiths, against homosexuals to those who work on Sunday's!

And so on...

 

[Resigned]

The OP stated his proof. It appears instead of rebutting his proof you told him what you required as proof.

Not at all. One of the key elements I attempted to convey was that: 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?

In other words, How does one test the god environment?



I think arguments are cheapened when we negligently toss around claims of possessing “proof of god(s)” and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet.

What’s truly disturbing in the copy and pasted article offered by the OP is that we are met with comments requiring that we “drop this narrow minded classification for the word “scientific” and/or reality”. Drop them in favor of what – rumor and superstition? Nothing contained in the OP provides us with proof of any god(s) let alone the OP’ers sectarian version of god(s).

Let’s look at it another way. I make no claims about existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this claim relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The theist, in this case, you, asserts that "logic and reason are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality" of the "man behind the curtain" paradigm, i.e., the supernatural realms of gods.

Now I already conclude I have made my claim logically-- that reality is logical, and reasonably -- that reality is rational. But what do you claim?

That logic is flawed and reason is flawed and limits our perception. Well, if you are right, you are admitting that the very tools you use to make your perception/assertion -- is flawed and not to be trusted!

If you are wrong -- then you are simply wrong, or illogical and irrational. And why should we listen to the assertions of someone who admits they are making irrational and illogical statements? What discerns any difference between the assertions of the theist, assertions made without reason or logic, and a man in a padded room who thinks himself Napoleon (to use the cliché)

So here we have the Theist, admitting the nature of that which he worships is beyond his ability to understand, he nevertheless assigns attributes and characteristics that, when challenged, he must back-pedal from and watch as they crumble before him.

This is again a paradox you volunteer for. I do not place you there. Asserting bibles and korans only establishes yet more mythology, and in my opinion, I have to ask if you rely on such, are you truly touched by this entity you assert or have you learned of it through this book and this book alone (whatever “this book” happens to be). Empirically / objectively / externally speaking, you believe in god because you read it in a book. If you had never come across the book, you would not have these beliefs.

I am “assuming” this empirically because countless culture after culture has done this same thing. Would you say the gods of Greece and Rome and Babylon and the Norsemen are all “real” or were they made up to explain things that couldn’t readily be explained? Assuming you admit these other cultures did do precisely that, why does the god of the desert you believe in not adhere to your own admission that men create gods for any number of reasons? Why does yours exist and theirs do not?


The “proof” of god(s) offered by the OP could be used to prove any god(s). There’s no reason to believe it proves one particular conception of god(s).

I require no proof. I can use a cell phone, I don't know its mechanisms, can't build one, couldn't tell anyone how it works or how it is made...but I can push the buttons and get the desired result. The same exists for my religion. Now I am a Christian that Atheists hate, because my definition of G!d doesn't fit their definition of G!d and I believe the bible to be full of stories, myth, allegory, violence, parables, illicit sex and good and bad examples...and not all written by the finger of G!d as I don't believe in G!d's finger...

Are you forgetting that your phone is a mechanical device, not a metaphysical one?

 

[c0de]

Resigned + "Enlightenment"



@ Resigned

That’s not true at all. You were requested by me and others to provide
evidence for your claims. You refused to do so. I then spent the time
back on page 4 to lay out (in excruciating detail), the problems
inherent in your claims. You hand–waived that off with a snide comment
that was actually designed to shield you from taking the time to
actually account for your claims.

Six pages now. Still no proof.

The reason I ignored your post was because you ignored mine on Page #1

But now that you are under the impression that I ignored it because I
am afraid of your great intellectual prowess, let me bring you back
down to earth:

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.

First of all:

The Scientific Method is based on deductive, not "inductive" reasoning

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.

Second of all, do you know how much of science is still
based on metaphysical concepts? Karl Popper who popularized
this idea of the "scientific method", (a term which is used more
by untrained non scientists like Karl Popper) is mostly criticized by
REAL SCIENTISTS for this very reason. Because induction and
metaphysics can never fully be removed from the proccess.

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.

Nice rhetoric.... but totally ineffective considering that centuries
after Copernicus and Newton, the founders of MODERN science
were NOT atheists (like them). How about Einstein and Neils Bohr???
You think your precious Richard Dawkins knows more about modern
scientific concepts then these two? Why then, were they NOT atheists?

This destroys your entire argument right there....

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.

LOL... I wish you actually knew how completely
fallacious this statement really is... But since you
actually think Science is free of metaphysics and
the only level of valid reasoning is "deduction"...
you really have no idea, do you?

Do you realize that the first person to criticize
inductive reasoning was the philosopher David Hume?
The fact that he was a philosopher, should itself tell
you how stupid the whole idea really is. But consider
the fact: that even David Hume had to admit that man
has no choice but to fall back on induction sooner or later,
because ultimately, man really has no clue about anything
and following deduction to its source would mean that
human knowledge is literally: NOTHING.

So your claim that only deductive logic has given mankind
real "knowledge" is, at best, a misunderstanding.

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.

And now, your GRAND FINALE... Read the parts in red again...

How ironic then, that according to your own criteria, (deduction)
we really know nothing to begin with??? !!! And according to Kant, who
followed Hume, all of human "knowledge" is basically a joke! All of
your critical reasoning skills are basically useless. Especially if you approach
the issue thinking you can get away without using induction, or that
science today is separate from its original metaphysical foundation.

But why even refer to Kant and Hume? You yourself cited the scientific
method right? Why do you think that the >Muslim< who created the
scientific method did not leave his religion??? Think about THAT.


Now... was that it? Or do you want another go at it?

I wonder if you will return the favor and actually try and post
a real rebuttal to the first post of the thread now.





@ "Enlightenment"


... wait... you didn't say anything worth replying to... so... (lol)

(btw, keep reading Dream's posts... you might learn something.
HINT: He is actually talking about things which you have implied,
more then the things that you actually said. Thought you might
have figured that out yourself, being as your all enlightened and stuff...)

 

[enlightenment]

Still waiting on this proof, mate.

Are you going to provide it, or content yourself with juvenille ad hom attacks, aimed at me, and one or two others?

Please let me know if it is the former, and I will remain tuned, while if it is the latter, I will stop reading, as it gets boring.

Thanks

 

[nativeastral]

hi was gonna say proof what proof, theory what theory whose belief? so science is true? or all these dusty historical books taken literally or symbolically or whatever- take a leaf out of a mystical branch; read spinoza godnaturecosmosisall .cant wait for comergence intersubjectively speaking! thanks nick A #25 for Basarab Nicolescu : Gdelian Aspects of Nature and Knowledge an extremely coherent intuitively precise take on how understanding should be progressing encompassing east/west esotericism [including islam sufism]. nothing can beat the reality of personal experience as infinitely varied as the divine delight in seeing a sea anenome on the sea shore

 

[Resigned]

Resigned + "Enlightenment"



@ Resigned


The reason I ignored your post was because you ignored mine on Page #1

It wasn’t your post. It was copying and pasting. Why would I attempt to debate concepts offered by an author who is not here to defend them.

But now that you are under the impression that I ignored it because I
am afraid of your great intellectual prowess, let me bring you back
down to earth:

Or instead, stop side-stepping and waffling. Care to offer your proofs of the gods? Or maybe after 7 pages now, you’ve abandoned that futility.

First of all:

The Scientific Method is based on deductive, not "inductive" reasoning

Second of all, read what I wrote out. You’re not paying attention.

“…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…”

In your hysterical flailing around, did you happen to notice the qualifier “or”?

Did you notice that I used the term "hypotheses"?

Try spending less time adding text color and bold text and more time reading what people actually write out.

Second of all, do you know how much of science is still
based on metaphysical concepts? Karl Popper who popularized
this idea of the "scientific method", (a term which is used more
by untrained non scientists like Karl Popper) is mostly criticized by
REAL SCIENTISTS for this very reason. Because induction and
metaphysics can never fully be removed from the proccess.

Please pay attention to the context of my post. I was clearly describing the transition away from metaphysics which began with Physiology and psychology. Did you happen to see that I actually wrote out: “Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysicsas the province of the philosophy and theology…”

Surprisingly, you tagged my comments with bold text but never bothered to read it.

Still no "proof of god" but plenty of hysterical backpeddling.

Nice rhetoric.... but totally ineffective considering that centuries
after Copernicus and Newton, the founders of MODERN science
were NOT atheists (like them). How about Einstein and Neils Bohr???
You think your precious Richard Dawkins knows more about modern
scientific concepts then these two? Why then, were they NOT atheists?

This destroys your entire argument right there....

You’re not paying attention. I never wrote out that Copernicus or Newton were Atheists.

What argument was “destroyed”? You’re not paying attention and/or understanding what I wrote.


No "proof of god", yet.

LOL... I wish you actually knew how completely
fallacious this statement really is... But since you
actually think Science is free of metaphysics and
the only level of valid reasoning is "deduction"...
you really have no idea, do you?

Do you realize that the first person to criticize
inductive reasoning was the philosopher David Hume?
The fact that he was a philosopher, should itself tell
you how stupid the whole idea really is. But consider
the fact: that even David Hume had to admit that man
has no choice but to fall back on induction sooner or later,
because ultimately, man really has no clue about anything
and following deduction to its source would mean that
human knowledge is literally: NOTHING.

So your claim that only deductive logic has given mankind
real "knowledge" is, at best, a misunderstanding.

Please pay attention. My comments dealt with supernaturalism.

Did you somehow miss my writing out that word? You bolded the term and added bright colors so it’s hard to imagine that you’re doing anything but back-peddling from your falsified claim: proof of god.

And now, your GRAND FINALE... Read the parts in red again...

How ironic then, that according to your own criteria, (deduction)
we really know nothing to begin with??? !!! And according to Kant, who
followed Hume, all of human "knowledge" is basically a joke! All of
your critical reasoning skills are basically useless. Especially if you approach
the issue thinking you can get away without using induction, or that
science today is separate from its original metaphysical foundation.

But why even refer to Kant and Hume? You yourself cited the scientific
method right? Why do you think that the >Muslim< who created the
scientific method did not leave his religion??? Think about THAT.

How Ironic that after 7 pages, we’re still waiting for you to come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, or, perhaps something more than “because the book I read says so”.

You’re really an angry guy. All this flailing about has caused you to bluster about with misrepresentations, false assumptions, bad analogies and stuttering and mumbling.

I suppose next, you’re going to enlighten us as to the >Muslim< who gave us canned tuna and sliced bread, too.

Will you be supplying your "proof of god" anytime soon?

Now... was that it? Or do you want another go at it?

Unfortunately, there are those limited souls who obsess exclusively on a haphazard compilation of writings arbitrarily edited and dubiously translated by flawed human beings as if it were an excusive and infallible literal message from a god to the exclusion of ongoing revelation through scientific inquiry. Such a fixation upon a single imperfect literary work is, of course, a common form of idolatry.

I wonder if you will return the favor and actually try and post
a real rebuttal to the first post of the thread now.

If you can contact the author who wrote what you copied and pasted in the first post, I'll be available to debate it. Why would I debate something with you that you don't understand and can't hope to defend?

 

[c0de]

Resigned + Enlightenment

It wasn’t your post. It was copying and pasting. Why would I attempt to debate concepts offered by an author who is not here to defend them.

If you can contact the author who wrote the first post, I'll be available to debate it. Why would I debate something you don't understand and can't hope to defend?

Excuse me?

Are you accusing me of plagiarism? !

how... DARE YOU! I hope you can prove that,
because this is a VERY serious accusation, and
makes you look like a total buffoon if/when you
are proven wrong. Now, provide your proof that
I plagiarized that post!!!

If you can contact the author who wrote the first post, I'll be available to debate it. Why would I debate something you don't understand and can't hope to defend?

I wrote that post! (is this guy for real???!!)

You’re not paying attention. I never wrote out that Copernicus or Newton were Atheists.

What argument was “destroyed”? You’re not paying attention and/or understanding what I wrote.

Thats funny.. I am not paying attention to what YOU wrote eh?
Tell me Mr. Attention, where in my post did I say that YOU said
that Copernicus and Newton were atheists??? EXACTLY???

Now go back and read my response to you again with more attention
and maybe you will realize how it nullifies your point.

Second of all, read what I wrote out. You’re not paying attention.

“…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…”

In your hysterical flailing around, did you happen to notice the qualifier “or”? Try spending less time adding text color and bold text and more time reading what people actually write out.

LOL, yea nice try there bud.
Why did you end the quote there?
The finished sentence is this:

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.

You actually think that you can prove that you weren't
suggesting that scientific method is based upon induction?
"reasonable inductive hypothesis" eh? (lol)

My comments dealt with supernaturalism.

And my comments to you dealt with the necessary induction
of metaphysics into science. So while you are rejecting the
supernatural, you fail to see how science, isn't scientific at all...
so your claims against the supernatural, hold no water because
you have no solid foundation of knowledge to reject it in the
first place... if that was too complicated for you, I can spell
it out more clearly... let me know



In the mean time, now that you know that first post was not an act of plagerism,
you have no choice but to actually tackle the issue and post a rebuttal.
.. I am waiting.







@ Enlightenment


... nope still nothing new on that front...

 

[Resigned]

Resigned + Enlightenment


In the mean time, now that you know that first post was not an act of plagerism,
you have no choice but to actually tackle the issue and post a rebuttal.
.. I am waiting.

Yeah - we're still waiting. Where's that "proof" thing?