What do you consider proof of God, if anything?

[MindOverMatter]

Now that’s an opening I can drive a truck through…

I must say dear sir, that this assertion does wonders in expressing the illusion that you know better, and it does it very effectively without even a hint of logical arguement.

Well done sir!!!

 

[Leela]

I don’t see that I have a misconception here at all. I did not say anything about how the sun acted but rather that the sun exists. The rest of what your post below relates to the activities of the heavenly bodies and to perceptions

Yet in all of this the existance of the sun was a given and that is what I stated in my post.

Actually what you relate above is incorrect. The research that resulted in the new view of how the solar system works was not about the sun but rather an effort to explain the retrograde movements of certain planets at certain times. This led to the Sun centered theory. However, while not disupting this theory of the Solar system, one could still make the argument that everything revolves around the earth simply because this is where we view everything from.
My personal observation continues to be the same as the ancients. The Sun rises and sets while I stand still. The only way that I personally can accept the “Sun Centered” theory is to accept the “evidences” and “proofs” of someone else who says that we do NOT stand still.
Finally, while I can accept the logic of the arguments and it does make for a “neater” model of the Solar system, this new theory changes nothing about my existance under the sun which has been continually “Accepted” as existing and is, virturally alone, responsible for Charging the Earth with Life.

Perhaps, but I dare say there have been many new theories down through the centuries that have been scoffed at and ridiculed just within the scientific community that were later became a “standard”. Therefore it can be said that, once a perticular theory has achieved a widespread acceptance over a long period of time, it becomes accepted with “faith” that it is correct. Any change to such a generally accepted and long held theory is almost always met with widespread scepticism.

Of course in all of this the “Sun” remains - and is scientifically accepted without proof.

Now finally - None of this gets us any closer to a mutually agreed upon “God” around which this discussion needs to revolve. Is there anyone out there who is willing to discuss a “definition” of God by which we can judge the “evidence”???

Peace
James

The existence of the sun is an observation rather than a hypothesis. Hypotheses must be faslifiable. observations are just the facts that hypotheses are supposed to explain.

You keep saying that defining God is important. Can you gives us a definition?

 

[JRKH]

I think you took my example of the sun too literally. It was just an example of a scientific theory that was adjusted with new evidence.

Probably - But then I don’t really understand a lot of what is tossed about here in this discussion.

Why does the discussion need to revolve around defining God? Surely everyone would not agree.

The fact that you feel the need to ask this question is perhaps the most disappointing thing I’ve seen here.
The OP asks for what we would consider “Proof” of “God”.
Since then the I have been involved with posts that question whether the terms "proof’ or “evidence” is better, and whether “faith” or “belief” is better. And that only camne up after 20 some pages of posts.
So are you saying that it is OK to discuss the validity and definitions of the terms “prrof, evidence, faith and belief” but it is NOT necessary to discuss the validity of the definition of “God” that is being discussed here???

Even if not everyone agrees, it would be a more productive conversation than one in which we try to prove or disprove something that we haven’t even defined.

Personally -
I believe in God, The Father, The Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, of that is seen and unseen. (from the Nicene creed)
What this means is that I believe in a Single Source that is the Creator of All things both Visible and Invisible, Knowable and Unknowable.
Liquidpele defined God (correct me if I’m wrong) as a concept like Love.

How do others defineGod?

Seems like a simple, logical, legitimate and necessary question to ask in this discussion to me.

Peace
James

 

[liquidpele]

The fact that you feel the need to ask this question is perhaps the most disappointing thing I’ve seen here.
The OP asks for what we would consider “Proof” of “God”.

You do realize that I *am *the OP, right?

 

[JRKH]

The existence of the sun is an observation rather than a hypothesis. Hypotheses must be faslifiable. observations are just the facts that hypotheses are supposed to explain.

Granted. So let me rephrase my original question.
Is there anything that Science generally accepts as “existing” that it cannot “observe” directly?

You keep saying that defining God is important. Can you gives us a definition?

I did give something of a definition in my previous post, and I would be most interested in how you define God. Certainly you must have such a definition if you are going to try and disprove it.

Naturally any definition of God that might be agreed upon will be both very general and less than what a Universal and Almighty God actually is for it is completely impossible to “define” the “undefinable”.
However, for the sake of fruitful discussion there really needs to be some consensus on what is being discussed.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

You do realize that I *am *the OP, right?

Actually I didn’t when I was writing the post. -
Too early for me I guess.
Yet the point remains valid. If we are going to have a discussion about “God” doesn’t it make sense to have a common parameter???

Peace
James

 

[liquidpele]

Actually I didn’t when I was writing the post. -
Too early for me I guess.
Yet the point remains valid. If we are going to have a discussion about “God” doesn’t it make sense to have a common parameter???

Peace
James

Well, although that direction wasn’t my original intent, you’re welcome to go there if you like. I don’t like restricting conversation, and I already had more than enough answers that suited my intended inquery

 

[MindOverMatter]

Well, although that direction wasn’t my original intent, you’re welcome to go there if you like. I don’t like restricting conversation, and I already had more than enough answers that suited my intended inquery

Before this thread gets shut down, i would be interested to know what you did gain from reading this thread?

 

[liquidpele]

Before this thread gets shut down, i would be interested to know what you did gain from reading this thread?

I saw different interpretations and ways of seeing the world around us mostly. I was expecting some rather ridiculous answers, such as things involving ghosts, miracles, God talking to you, etc. Perhaps those people just didn’t want to bother with posting something others would not believe though? Anyway, Instead of that I (mostly) got very clear and concise explanations about what people saw in the world, the universe, and/or human nature, and how they simply saw that these things were too wonderful to *not *have been created by God. In short, I learned that you (Catholics on this forum at least) typically have understandable reasons for believing what you do, even if I do not personally agree with your line of reasoning.

The discussion mostly involving DavidHume and others I must admit I did not read entirely, although I probably will if I get some time this week.

 

[DavidHume]

The discussion mostly involving DavidHume and others I must admit I did not read entirely, although I probably will if I get some time this week.

You probably won’t be any worse off if you never get around to it, unless you are a serious philosophy geek…

 

[bobzills]

The existence of the sun is an observation rather than a hypothesis. Hypotheses must be faslifiable. observations are just the facts that hypotheses are supposed to explain.

I am lagging behind in the understanding of this. For example, suppose I hypothesize that I exist and that I have a mother and a father. How would I falsify that?

 

[Leela]

I am lagging behind in the understanding of this. For example, suppose I hypothesize that I exist and that I have a mother and a father. How would I falsify that?

That would not be a scientific hypothesis or an interesting question from a scientific point of view. Scientists want to create general rules that can be used to predict specific instances whereas you are just talking about a specific instance. If I say, “I had a mother and father,” it is not a hypothesis. But If I say, “all humans have a father and mother,” then this is a hypothesis than can be falsified if someone can produce one example of a human not born wit a mother and father.

 

[bobzills]

That would not be a scientific hypothesis or an interesting question from a scientific point of view. Scientists want to create general rules that can be used to predict specific instances whereas you are just talking about a specific instance. If I say, “I had a mother and father,” it is not a hypothesis. But If I say, “all humans have a father and mother,” then this is a hypothesis than can be falsified if someone can produce one example of a human not born wit a mother and father.

How about if I say human beings exist. How would that be falsified?

 

[atassina]

Mr. Hume: Try praying this prayer to God.

Dear non-existent God. I know you do not exist and are a mere fantasy that people have made up for many psychological and cultural reasons. However, if you do actually exist, let me know.

 

[Leela]

How about if I say human beings exist. How would that be falsified?

That humans exist is a fact not a hypothesis.

 

[Thales]

I was expecting some rather ridiculous answers, such as things involving ghosts, miracles, God talking to you, etc.

I categorize these types of occurrences as “personal experiences”. They are not restricted to few fringe people, with questionable reputations or unstable minds, but are quite prevalent. Throughout class, history, education level, and location on the map those three experiences you mention have been a feature of mankind rather than an exception.

I don’t mind that one might discount personal experiences from being a scientific proof, but that you say “ridiculous” makes me think you value personal experience even less. A personal experience cannot be verified and tested, by virtue of it being a unique instance associated with an individual. However, personal experiences are usually the defining moments of a person’s life, and some of history’s turning points have been credited to an individual’s personal experience. To outright deny personal experience, for lack of proof, is to deny and ridicule a valuable aspect of our humanity.

For some, who hold to science as a god, finding in it validation and explanation of everything, all that is outside its bounds is laughable. Unfortunately that is a great part of what makes man, human. Atheists rail against the authority of God, as a being which restricts and puts limits to the will of man with Truths, dogmas and moral laws. Science strips man of value and personal experience. It’s really a choice about which god(s) we choose to be obedient to.

 

[liquidpele]

I categorize these types of occurrences as “personal experiences”. They are not restricted to few fringe people, with questionable reputations or unstable minds, but are quite prevalent. Throughout class, history, education level, and location on the map those three experiences you mention have been a feature of mankind rather than an exception.

I don’t mind that one might discount personal experiences from being a scientific proof, but that you say “ridiculous” makes me think you value personal experience even less. A personal experience cannot be verified and tested, by virtue of it being a unique instance associated with an individual. However, personal experiences are usually the defining moments of a person’s life, and some of history’s turning points have been credited to an individual’s personal experience. To outright deny personal experience, for lack of proof, is to deny and ridicule a valuable aspect of our humanity.

For some, who hold to science as a god, finding in it validation and explanation of everything, all that is outside its bounds is laughable. Unfortunately that is a great part of what makes man, human. Atheists rail against the authority of God, as a being which restricts and puts limits to the will of man with Truths, dogmas and moral laws. Science strips man of value and personal experience. It’s really a choice about which god(s) we choose to be obedient to.

My apologies… “ridiculous” was a very poor choice of words. I simply meant that I expected more answers that I would have personally not believed.

Atheists have far less a problem with “God” than they do with “religion” in my experience. I view both religious people and atheists as the same honestly. We are all searching for Truth, just in our own ways. The big difference is that your search is limited by your religion, while an atheists is limited by whatever methods they use (science for instance).

 

[MindOverMatter]

However, if you do actually exist, let me know.

I couldn’t help but notice your signature. Its a rather attractive looking cake. Its dimensions inspire in me a sense of interest. Attractiveness, beauty, taste. Do you perceive these things as at least suggestive of the existence of transcendent realities?

 

[Tezza]

My apologies… “ridiculous” was a very poor choice of words. I simply meant that I expected more answers that I would have personally not believed.

Thank you for your apologies. It takes a certain level of humility to admit something very personal and “unbelievable” in the face of persecution, especially since your only motive for sharing is to glorify a God in which you believe, love and trust.

May God bless you on your journey.

Teri

 

[bobzills]

That humans exist is a fact not a hypothesis.

That God exists is a fact, not a hypothesis.