Winter Driving Best Books of the Month Men's Leather Watches Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon $5 Albums All-New Amazon Fire TV Subscribe & Save Valentine's Day Cards Bring a little greenery into your home Amazon Gift Card Offer jstfd6 jstfd6 jstfd6  Amazon Echo All-New Fire Kindle Paperwhite Lisa Loeb AMO Shop Now Sale
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Prove the Existence of God(s)


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1626-1650 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 7:24:31 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"Did you ever see the birth of a baby? "

Seen it and done it, Danny dear... more than once. Do you have a point?

Posted on Jun 30, 2012 7:32:09 PM PDT
1Danny says:
I haven't done it, but was my pleasure.

Posted on Jun 30, 2012 7:59:42 PM PDT
Charles says:
I had it proved to me, but i can't prove it to you. You have to look or there is always the chance you just aren't meant to know.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 8:29:47 PM PDT
Re charles, above: A "proof" that cannot be demonstrated to others is NOT a proof.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 8:46:31 PM PDT
doulos says:
If you want to be spoon fed, which I cannot do for you. ie, I cannot read for you> nothing will ever be proved to you. You must study to show yourself approved, see, 2 Timothy 2:15

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 8:49:04 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 7, 2012 4:55:38 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 11:08:50 PM PDT
Jack Vix: We can't be certain. Maybe he was thrown out with the afterbirth.

Rachel: They don't do that anymore. The placenta, blood, and umbilicus are saved in case the baby runs into trouble. Stem cells, you know.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 1:41:51 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 7, 2012 4:55:50 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 3:51:33 AM PDT
"Signed"? Eh? Is that a failed attempt at humor, TC?"

No - it's post modern irony sunbeam. & Du is the Welsh for Duh!

What's up? you running low on adversaries?

T Crown

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 5:06:09 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 1, 2012 8:51:57 AM PDT
Charles says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 5:11:35 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 1, 2012 5:14:09 AM PDT
Charles says:
Jack Vix says:
"What would be God's purpose for people "not meant to know"?"

There are experiences in the world, that takes not knowing and not recognizing your part in a creative source, to experience.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 5:40:21 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 1, 2012 5:42:32 AM PDT
B. Josephson says:
I looked back on your conversation with Jack to see if I could make sense of this response, but I still can't. Perhaps if you fix the grammar it will make more sense. I might be able to rewrite it to make sense, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I sometimes write in haste and notice what I write is unclear, so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have done the same.

Best Wishes,
Shaamba Kaambwaat

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 6:03:36 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
I think I'll give that a try.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 7:32:50 AM PDT
mark says:
Robert,

Acceptable to the participants in the argument. "Universal", in this application, is limited to the ideas represented by the premises of the argument alone, and does not imply universality of actual occurrence.

Within the context of the OP, the primary logical axiom (a definitive starting point of reason), which would be a universal statement (true for all relevant objects), is, a god must be an entity whose existence must not be impossible. If a god was impossible, there could be no argument as to whether or not it exists, which makes its experiential proof irrelevant.

An aside: I'm not so sure about your first premise. To say the world, taken to be the perceivable, works according to a set of physical constants is one thing. But to say predicate logic, a purely a priori conceptual configuration used for valid reasoning, follows the same laws, seems incongruous.

I would rather think logic follows its own recursive schematic structure, much as mathematics follows its own rigorous axiomatic system, neither of which are predicated on perception, although the symbols representing either, most certainly are.

No one can see you think.

Peace.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 9:10:48 AM PDT
Re mark, above: Interesting. "But to say predicate logic, a purely a priori conceptual configuration used for valid reasoning, follows the same laws, seems incongruous." By itself, this is tautological. As applied to the real world, it is of course an assumption, but it would seem to be a necessary one: if we could not apply deductive logic to the actions of the universe, how could we influence outcomes in any useful way?

By itself, my thesis is an assumption that miracles do not occur, so it obviously cannot be any part of a proof that they don't. It is a separate thesis as to whether a miracle could be recognized as such if one DID occur, and I claim that it cannot. (See below.)

As for the OP, if one could demonstrate some phenomenon which necessarily entailed the action(s) of some god, and which could not have occurred without such, that would be an existence proof. (A claim that no god exists is a universal statement, and these are generally not provable.) However, there appears to be no way to assure that any particular phenomenon cannot be a natural effect, possibly of actions arising from natural law(s) that we do not know.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 9:20:33 AM PDT
Charles says:
mark says:
Robert,

Acceptable to the participants ----------- although the symbols representing either, most certainly are.

True, but the proof is not in the soup since bouillon is not boolean.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 9:31:06 AM PDT
Charles says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 9:45:42 AM PDT
Charles says:
Robert A. Saunders says:
"Re mark, above: Interesting. "But to say predicate logic, a purely a priori conceptual configuration used for valid reasoning, follows"

There is no experience that could be shared, that could not be credited to either observer or a god if it could have been created by a god. I can light a match but clearly it is me doing it. But if rain is made to fall from a clear sky then the question is, was it me , you , or a god that created it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 10:57:39 AM PDT
Re charles, above: "There is no experience that could be shared, that could not be credited to either observer or a god if it could have been created by a god." Correct -- which is exactly why any thesis involving a god can tell us nothing: if a god can do anything, there is no way to tell what it actually did -- or might have done. The relevant theorem is: The information content of any thesis derives exclusively from its refutability [1]. No thesis involving the potential or actual involvement of a deity is refutable, so no information can be derived from any such thesis.

1. Proof has been posted elsewhere in these forums.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 1:00:11 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 7, 2012 4:56:07 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 1:41:10 PM PDT
zoltan, why do you ask? Do you want to believe in God and just need some evidence to do so, or are you asking for something that you don't believe exists?

I would also think that most theists have already determined that their god exists? Why do they need to convince you that they have determined that their god exists?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 2:12:29 PM PDT
B. Josephson says:
Sorry charles still don't get your point.

Best Wishes,
Shaamba Kaambwaat

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 2:40:38 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 1, 2012 3:18:14 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
As to who's saying dumb things, you've put the shoe on the wrong foot.

C wrote: "Proof that can only be shown by one source and no other is still proof."

You're simply wrong about that.

In science, the term "proof" is an empirical one, that is, it refers to observed, quantifiable physical evidence that can be confirmed by ANY observer.

Do you understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity? Proof is OBJECTIVE in nature. It is not the same as belief, which can be subjective.

C wrote: "If one person is shown proof and that proof is real, it is proof."

If a person says he is Napoleon and insists that he has "proof that is real," do you take that as proof that he is actually Napoleon?

You may believe with all your heart that there's a ghost living in your attic. That belief may even been proven to YOUR satisfaction, but you may be deceiving yourself. People do that all the time. So one person's belief about something doesn't mean it's been proved.

To call such an observation "proof" is WAY premature.

There is a lot of information about the nature of proof. You ought to inform yourself about a subject before you falsely accuse others of saying dumb things - and end up saying things that are REALLY dumb, like you did in your post.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 2:44:43 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
I can't seem to follow what you are trying to say. Is English your native language?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 3:11:58 PM PDT
Severin says:
It has to be verifiable proof as well. If an illusionist seems to make the Statue of Liberty disappear and hundreds or thousands of people attest to it that does not make it true. It has to be objectively verified.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  222
Total posts:  9879
Initial post:  Dec 28, 2011
Latest post:  Sep 8, 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions