1
- Status
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
You mean that some atheists are ignorant of Gods nature. But not all of them are.Ok.
A
agangbern
Guest
You alone formulated that definition of the word “proof”? Proof is defined by the dictionary as follows:
Main Entry:
1proof Listen to the pronunciation of 1proof
Pronunciation:
\ˈprüf\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English prof, prove, alteration of preve, from Anglo-French preove, from Late Latin proba, from Latin probare to prove — more at prove
Date:
13th century
1 a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning2obsolete : experience3: something that induces certainty or establishes validity4archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried ; especially : unyielding hardness5: evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal6 aplural proofs or proof : a copy (as of typeset text) made for examination or correction b: a test impression of an engraving, etching, or lithograph c: a coin that is struck from a highly polished die on a polished planchet, is not intended for circulation, and sometimes differs in metallic content from coins of identical design struck for circulation d: a test photographic print made from a negative7: a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality8 a: the minimum alcoholic strength of proof spirit b: strength with reference to the standard for proof spirit ; specifically : alcoholic strength indicated by a number that is twice the percent by volume of alcohol present <whiskey of 90 proof is 45 percent alcohol>
Using the above definition, then it could be said that “there is proof of God’s existence”.
But if we stick to your given definition, then there is no proof that God exists.
Therefore, I’d rather choose dictionary definition.
J
JimTheTim
Guest
What I usually do when asked if God exists is find out if the person asking is genuine or not. I mean by genuine, that they are not taking me for a fool. Dawkins and his “Brights” like to think of themselves as superior to those who have a belief in God, regardless of what,who this God is.
If I find that they are, I tell them I have a computer
There is no other computer like this in the world, NONE!
I put all the components that were needed to build a computer into a black bin bag one night. I went to bed as usual, and when I awoke the next morning, to my surprise there was a brand new computer sitting in my front room. It was already up and running, I never touched a thing, I dont know how to either, I am a Plasterer to trade and not that good with computers to be honest. So when I told everyone about this, they called me a liar.
“You must have done it, it couldn’t build itself” they say.
“Oh yes it did” I reply.
“If it wasn’t you, then it was someone else”
“Prove it I say, prove that someone built it”
The point is, they cannot prove it, they either have to believe that someone built it or it did indeed build itself. But everyone knows that that is illogical.
The moral of the story is this, the “Brights” are not so bright. They would have me believe that the universe created itself from nothing and yet, when I tell them of a little thing (my computer) created itself with all the components there to do it, they dont believe me, I am insane they say
YEAH OK. If this is what they consider to bright then I suppose by there standards I am not bright, thank God
If I find that they are, I tell them I have a computer
There is no other computer like this in the world, NONE!I put all the components that were needed to build a computer into a black bin bag one night. I went to bed as usual, and when I awoke the next morning, to my surprise there was a brand new computer sitting in my front room. It was already up and running, I never touched a thing, I dont know how to either, I am a Plasterer to trade and not that good with computers to be honest. So when I told everyone about this, they called me a liar.
“You must have done it, it couldn’t build itself” they say.
“Oh yes it did” I reply.
“If it wasn’t you, then it was someone else”
“Prove it I say, prove that someone built it”
The point is, they cannot prove it, they either have to believe that someone built it or it did indeed build itself. But everyone knows that that is illogical.
The moral of the story is this, the “Brights” are not so bright. They would have me believe that the universe created itself from nothing and yet, when I tell them of a little thing (my computer) created itself with all the components there to do it, they dont believe me, I am insane they say
YEAH OK. If this is what they consider to bright then I suppose by there standards I am not bright, thank God
R
ready
Guest
This is an apology for my having said that it was Church teaching that God’s existence can be both proven and disproven. Clearly I was wrong. Such a claim contradicts and the Church does not contradict Herself. The Church provides us with nothing but proof for God’s existence. Sorry, my error.
M
MegaTherion
Guest
I said that there’s just as much evidence for the Hindu gods and leprechauns as there is for your god. And, since you didn’t grasp what I meant, I specified: there’s none. Just as much evidence – the evidence being of the same amount (namely, none) in each case.
There is no contradiction there.
Are you kidding me? You think a web page that mentions the way Christians interpreted Vergil’s poetry is evidence that Christ existed as depicted in the Bible?
In the first place, the web site isn’t talking about Jesus at all – it’s talking about the Age of Augustus and Roman literature. The only reason it mentions Jesus is to explain why medieval Christians interpret the works of one poet in a certain way.
The web site isn’t presenting evidence for Jesus being a historical individual. It’s using “the birth of Christ” to express what the medieval Christians believed. Whether Jesus really existed or not is tangential to the focus of that page, so it would be silly to fully explore that question there. It certainly says nothing about whether the Jesus character from the Bible was real.
But the bigger point here is that “history” isn’t just one webpage from Washington State University. If you’re going to claim that it’s historical that somebody rose from the dead, you’re going to need a lot more evidence than a bunch of myths written down anonymously 40-100 years after the supposed event.
Sure. People also inferred the sun circles the earth.
Logical inference can be wrong. There was no good justification to believe that atoms existed until we could demonstrate that they existed. (Incidentally, democritus believed that atoms could not be divided – he was wrong about his logical inference)
Wrong. The scientific method provides us with evidence for the things we believe.
That logic needs to be rooted in evidence, though: Independently verifiable, repeatedly confirmable data.
You can’t just use logic that’s not based on facts we can demonstrate. If you start from premises that are untrue (or uncertain), you can obtain a logically valid answer that is wrong.
For example:
- All squares have three sides.
- A triangle has three sides.
- A triangle is a square.
I have no idea what you’re saying here.
I don’t assume that. My observation of the universe tells me that there are examples of complexity and “design” that form without intelligence (snowflakes are my favorite example – wonderfully complex patterns formed by dumb forces of nature).
If you’re claiming that there is intelligence behind nature, you need evidence to back up that claim. If you don’t have evidence (other than the non-evidence of “Gee, everything’s complex!”), then I can dismiss your claim.
Well, no, it would not be reasonable. Just because you judge some things to be “greater” than other things doesn’t mean that there’s an infinite ladder of greater and greater things.
Shiva is a Hindu god.
I’m saying that “I am, therefore [insert god here] exists” is a stupid argument.
What if a Hindu said, “I am, therefore Shiva exists”? Or what if a Cthulhu worshipper said, “I am, therefore Cthulhu exists”?
Do you think those two statements would demonstrate that Hindus are right? That Cthulhu cultists are right? If so, will you be converting tomorrow?
We can understand the universe – and we actually do understand a surprising amount about the universe (much, much more than we did 100 years ago). However, it might not be possible for us to know everything about the universe. We’re certainly going to try, though.
A
agangbern
Guest
You can never refute the fact that even a topic in history which does not concern Jesus, Jesus was mentioned as having born to this earth. You wanted to say that the Jesus Christ mentioned in world history is not the Jesus of the Christians? Then who do you think is that Christ mentioned there?
A
agangbern
Guest
Not 100% logical.
Reason: Undistributed middle.
A
agangbern
Guest
Yes you said that, but not only that. You said you “might as well pray to the hindu gods”, etc.
Anyway, it is not necessary to me that you do not admit the contradiction.
White is white no matter how you tell me it is black.
S
Snerticus
Guest
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
And I’m sure we would have to believe in certain logical truths that cannot be proven by science, before we could interpret such data.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
The scientific method presupposes an orderly and rational universe. These presuppositions of the scientific method are not provable by the scientific method.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
You just used logic to show me why this logical premise is in fact flawed. Which contradicts your claim. But since empiricism is more important to you, and is according to you, the only means to truth, then your argument is void and meaningless. Your problem is that, not only are you two-faced in your arguments and your logic, you are assuming that I’d be dumb enough to believe that since you can count 3 sides on a square, that therefore a square only has 3 sides. But of course, once one knows what a square is, and what a triangle is, one can reasonably believe that a square is not a triangle, even though you can count three sides on both, ignoring the forth side on the square. I did not need empirical verification to know this. All i needed was an understanding of what a square and a triangle is conceptually speaking. All of this i have understood using logic. Your premise is flawed. You are hiding from the truth.
You have a poor respect for logic, and yet you use it to support your own position. Hypocrisy.
Logic is quite capable of bringing us to a degree of understanding that can provide good foundations for believing something is true.
Undermine logic and you undermine the very premise we use to interpret science.
Please get an education.
When i look at nature, i do not merely look at the immediate cause; but rather i ask what is the ultimate root cause of all being that such a thing ought to emerge or become actual. It doesn’t make sense to me that the root cause of physical reality would be less then the qualities that emerge as a result of it. Physical reality doesn’t and cannot explain why the universe has the nature that it does, or why the laws of nature exist. It can only say that the physical law of reality does seem to exist, and that various qualities alongside the principles of causality add up to the actuality of different qualities. If i want to explain physical reality as a qualitative whole, i must posit a cause that transcends physical nature.
It all boils down to whether i care to explain physical reality. You might argue that my search for God is not scientific. But nobody ever claimed that it was, so far as empiricism is concerned. If an objective purpose, value and meaning is important to you, then you will seek it; and the search for objective purpose is a legitimate exercise in logic; since it cannot be acquired by scientific investigation. In fact it is the most valuable and worthy thing a human being could do with his or her life. There is nothing rational about people who wish to resign them selves to the belief that life is without purpose meaning and value and want to convince everybody else of that belief. Even more irrational if one wants it to be true. In reality; what you are really saying is that you don’t care about objective purpose, moral truths, and meaning; and if i want you to believe, i must show you empirical evidence. A smart tactic if you wish to remain blind of God, but not so smart if your deep enough to desire purpose and value. It really amazes me why you come to this site at all if you do not care for the logical evidence put forward…
For me. The fact that there are people with personal feelings and freewill in existence, strongly suggests to me, that there is more to reality then random events and physical law; since how is it logically possible that a person can have “choice” if his will and everything he says or does is chosen for him by a process of chemical reactions in the brain. By your standards i cannot presume to be anything more then the inert preceding cause in time. So why do you presume that you can do science and know science free from what is dictated to you by your brain. Why do you have faith in the so called truths inferred to you by your brain when it is something that arose purely by natural events and chance?
You have faith that your mind is telling you the truth, and you use inferences and leaps of faith to justify that belief. This is the foundation of science. So please don’t tell me about what we can use and not use in the search for truth.
To be continued…
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Well…everything is ordered, intelligible and appears to work towards meaningful ends. The fact that a mother is compelled to love ones child, doesn’t look like to me as if the root cause of all events is chance. Nature functions in a meaningful manner, however imperfect it may seem; it appears to me as if nature is set up to bring about meaningful events. Evolution is merely a natural process through which these qualities are actualized.
It doesn’t tell me why i love, why i fear, and why i have emotions, and why there is meaning and logic in nature. If you wish to ignore those kinds of questions based on the popular philosophical presumption of naturalism, then that is up to you. But don’t expect me to take you seriously.
Well the idea that physical reality exists ultimately for no reason, is not only destroying reason, but is just a sinners dream. No purpose, no moral truth, no divine responsibility.
Things appear to me, so far as i can logically deduce, to be greater in quality, then others. I cannot ignore this, because i am honest. The only reason i have to doubt this, is because of a naturalistic propaganda that has nothing to do with science, and is ignorant of our experiences. I choose to use my reason in respect of my experiences. Science only explains “processes”. It doesn’t and cannot logically explain nature. You are simply ignoring the evidence.
I doubt that the person was seriously making an argument for the existence of God; but rather was stating what they believed to be a fact.
And all this is only made possible through logic as a foundation of interpretation. Without logic, empiricism is useless.
Everything to you would be the fulfillment of naturalism; and nothing more. The fact is, you do not want to know God. Therefore logical evidence, no matter how logical or convincing, will never convince you. Because you are simply prejudice from the out-set; and your attitude toward knowledge shows that you do not study the history of science and its relationship to logic. You simply parrot your favorite atheist. You are not searching for God. You are at war with God.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Yes. This is what is meant to say.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
They’re Christian precepts too.Yes. This is what is meant to say.
R
ready
Guest
Here’s why I believe in God and His existence:
All my life I had a profound love and belief in God. Everything pointed to His existence for me. This past Oct., however, I went through a sort of horrific torture and was deprived of sleep for an entire week - thus changing my perceptions of God, as sleep deprivation and horror can do. Other terribly bad things immediately followed that drastically effected my beliefs. My faith was definitely put to the test. I then saw Jesus to be quite possibly opposite of what I always understood Him to be and questioned whether a benevolent God really existed. The world seemed a cruel place governed by many bad people in power with laws of naturalism operating efficiently keeping the status quo - without a good God operating behind it all. I could still believe in Jesus, but only as a cult follower chanting prayers to Him out of obedience without the same kind of trust I had in Him before.
I still sought God though as is natural to those of us of good will, and was able to understand that something had to be the first cause of creation. And so I believed there was a God of some sort. Then a priest told me to at least believe that Jesus died for me. I chose to believe this. I just made the decision out of love. I had no actual proof Jesus died for me at the time, as the Bible no longer gave me any proofs.
After still searching futher, as is our duty to our souls and to our Trinitarian God, I thought of St. Padre Pio, a stigmatist and levitator while he was alive on this earth in modern times. How could St. Padre Pio do these things without the good, Trinitarian God existent and behind his life? Also…
Someone in a store was mean to me. I tried being mean back, but immediately felt in my heart that such behavior from me was contrary to who I am at the core of my being and went against who I am. I know I am good inside, I feel it distinctly, and know I could never be on a team of demons - unless I chose to continuously make bad choices against God to corrupt the very core of who I am.
I believe in Love, objective Truth, Goodness, Beauty, and that there exists a First Cause to creation. (St. Aquinas shows us this in his Proofs.) I believe Jesus died for me and that St. Padre Pio’s life gives witness to Him as a Trinitarian God of sacrificial Love.
I believe in God because I still choose to trust and believe in Love and Goodness - even though the world seems to be run by a dominance of badness (evil).
All my life I had a profound love and belief in God. Everything pointed to His existence for me. This past Oct., however, I went through a sort of horrific torture and was deprived of sleep for an entire week - thus changing my perceptions of God, as sleep deprivation and horror can do. Other terribly bad things immediately followed that drastically effected my beliefs. My faith was definitely put to the test. I then saw Jesus to be quite possibly opposite of what I always understood Him to be and questioned whether a benevolent God really existed. The world seemed a cruel place governed by many bad people in power with laws of naturalism operating efficiently keeping the status quo - without a good God operating behind it all. I could still believe in Jesus, but only as a cult follower chanting prayers to Him out of obedience without the same kind of trust I had in Him before.
I still sought God though as is natural to those of us of good will, and was able to understand that something had to be the first cause of creation. And so I believed there was a God of some sort. Then a priest told me to at least believe that Jesus died for me. I chose to believe this. I just made the decision out of love. I had no actual proof Jesus died for me at the time, as the Bible no longer gave me any proofs.
After still searching futher, as is our duty to our souls and to our Trinitarian God, I thought of St. Padre Pio, a stigmatist and levitator while he was alive on this earth in modern times. How could St. Padre Pio do these things without the good, Trinitarian God existent and behind his life? Also…
Someone in a store was mean to me. I tried being mean back, but immediately felt in my heart that such behavior from me was contrary to who I am at the core of my being and went against who I am. I know I am good inside, I feel it distinctly, and know I could never be on a team of demons - unless I chose to continuously make bad choices against God to corrupt the very core of who I am.
I believe in Love, objective Truth, Goodness, Beauty, and that there exists a First Cause to creation. (St. Aquinas shows us this in his Proofs.) I believe Jesus died for me and that St. Padre Pio’s life gives witness to Him as a Trinitarian God of sacrificial Love.
I believe in God because I still choose to trust and believe in Love and Goodness - even though the world seems to be run by a dominance of badness (evil).
C
cerad
Guest
So you believe in God because you believe in God. Not very convincing.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
While much of what the poster said was a chronicling of a subjective journey toward faith, the events surrounding Padre Pio’s stigmata are not so easy to pass of as delusion. Much of the miracles that occurred was witnessed by many people. The stigmata in particular was witnessed by everybody around him, atheist and believer alike. Even a hardcore communist was converted as a result of visiting Padre Pio. How do you explain these things if it was not in fact a miracle of God?
If you are truly interested in Gods existence, and if you are looking for modern signs of Gods work in the world, then you should research Pardre. Read about the eye-witnesses.
- Status