Can you prove that God exists?

DM,
You just don't get it.
I can't find evidence of god, only allowances- and in that I'm much closer to god than you. You have nothing but blind faith. You should back me up by continuing your empirical education.

Mights as well start at the very begining...

Statisical Anayalses and Short Term Unpredictability.
Keep an eye out for the "Gamblers Cluster" thread.

PS. Those were wise words-
It's for those moments that I bother with all this-

 

no one can prove it, thats why most religions are considered faith or beliefs

 

see http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24281

 

Just look around. Look at a tree, you new born baby, or your cat...and tell me there is not god. Thats all I can say. Look at the most beautiful thing in your life, touch it, hold it. and your touching god.

 

i cannot prove that anything exists
i cannot prove that it does not
what i can observe is that there is no natural requirement
for anything not to

=^^=
.../\...

 

Could you please define what you would have to see to say, now I know and in me other can trust and believe my testimony?

How many ppl have to know? So that other will trust and believe
Because the Revelation could not be for everyone at once, or maybe it is?

Write here some example of what the best Proof could be , how you imagine it ... and you part of, hum maybe...

Miracles (if it exist) are caused by God (or whatever the name(s) you give Him, i mean superior energy and vibration maybe), but thru men

I underlined to make it more confortable

Who do you think He or It choose to manifest the Will?
Do you think you create it by Yourself?


I thought you were not seeing the problem on the right side, maybe since the beginning



My personnal proof is to see it just cannot be fitted like this in my day to day life, I pretty much see every moments as kinda "magic in the air", without something/body arranging things like this.


The way we have to see the problem, is that we have to hope and make it real. I am definitly sure lot of us can do miracles. Does one who make a miracles prove the existance of God? I don't think so

Make a proof is an hard job, one should also work on the transmission of that proof, but the truth is that maybe even with divine powers, It must be still pretty hard to do.

Wanna show the unseenable? Wanna make the air glow to reveal essence of the world, which may in a way not exist at all?

Hum.

Just answer the first question




Take care

 

we don't HAVE to anything.

but we DO at every instant participate in the creation of
what we will experience in the next

and this applies to every timescale from microseconds
to lifetime after lifetime and what we experience between them.

as for defining an absolute and irrifutable proof
of anything
i would define that as a thing that does not exist

there is only a preponderance of evidence
or a lack thereof

a preponderance means there's more of it for one thing
then for another

and oh yes, nontangable forces and beings, great and small,
might well, should they choose to,
also participate in the proccess
along with our own peers, spiritual and otherwise,
tangable and nontangable alike

i'm not claiming that infallability CAN'T exist
only that it doesn't HAVE to
in order for anything and everything else to do so as well

=^^=
.../\...

 

once again i see more touchy feely evidence. i don't see emotions as evidence. the problem i see is that religious people defy logic. aren't discussions suppose to be logical? well i think the first obvious question that needs to be answered is: is it suppose to be a logical discussion? if its not then we could shout out nonsense and swing from lamps. what would the point?

been a while since ive been here
hi all

 

So what you're saying is, empirical evidence is out. Do you want everyone to rely solely on deductive arguments?

 

of course we can't prove a thing.


then again...you can't prove you exist either.


WHAT CHAIR?!?!?!

 

Welcome back, venom_zx!

 

hey thanks geckopelli
very good to see you're still around also . school has kept me busy mainly. i see alot of new people

TheHammerSpeaks- what? you are confused by what i said? emperical evidence is exactly what is useful. are you saying that arguments that are not logical are useful, by asking that question(in my opinion its then just an argument and a bad one too)?do you have a problem with deductive arguments?

Genesis- well i think i am indicating/proving to you that i exist by speaking to you . people know that message boards and the internet are used by humans. could i be artificial intelligence ? yes of course but there isnt alot of direct indication to think that . i could come to your house potentially and tap you on the shoulder to indicate that im real. you would be able to see me with your eyes hear me talk, and see me move around objects. interact like existing things/life do/does(this is of course only an example). all from previous experiences of things that do exist, it would indicate to you that i am alike. even if my existence cannot be proven nor disproven it does not make it real or not real . it leaves me in the unknown and the more detail that is added to my description at that point(without indication of it), the more the chances become that it is not true. the more farefetched(may i say propaganda) it is. one of the reasons i don't have a preference for religion if not the main reason.

 

Empirical evidence is not logical. The problem of induction prevents it from being so. But since you're saying that empirical evidence is useful, we don't have to argue that point at all because I agree with you. Empirical evidence is useful. I just misunderstood what you were saying.

Now, are irrational arguments useful? Yes. Feelings are irrational. Much of the sense data we receive is irrational. But at least it's concrete. It avoids generalisations and universals.

Which brings us to your last question. Yes, I do have a problem with many deductive arguments. Not all of them, mainly only the ones with universal quantifiers ("all" or "no"). The reason for this brings us back to where I started, the problem of induction. So now we've come full circle, haven't we? Surely, we have not, but it's a good place to wrap up this post, nonetheless.

 

you can not prove and know whether there is a god or not. And things beyond our knowledge are a matter of belief.So: You believe whether there's a god or not. You can not know.

 

i dont know why you see observation or experimentation (the empirical) as not logical. i have been talking in an absolute way but im am here by indicating that when i do so i do it because i dont find it necessary to mention that there is no absolute certainty every time i am in a discussion. do you think it is appropriate for me to do so? (not a thetorical question). when i say people this and people that then it is something that i expect this because of previous experiences. it just seems silly repeating the same thing again and again like it is all i base my arguments on. so i hereby say that i only imply, for all clearity.

 

wow

LMAO


i was of course taking the utter piss hence the "what chair" reference. y'know that whole philosophy thingy?

i think this is a nevermind moment.



ill try lower next time

 

There's a difference between observation and experimentation. Experimentation (the scientific method) does use a kind of logic, inductive logic. The problem of induction applies here because the scientific method always uses patterns in particulars to create a universal (i.e. Socrates, Newton, and Einstein are all men. Socrates, Newton, and Einstein all died. Therefore, all men are mortal). But there is no logical process involved in touching an ice cube and feeling that it is cold because the statement "The (but not necessarily all) ice cube is cold," is not a universal statement.

But what does all of this have to do with your posts? I think that you are too quick to dismiss, as you called it, "touchy feely" evidence. If logic and rationality lead to unverifiable universals, then what else do we have to on?

 

i disagree with this. but why are you telling me this? are you referring to my comment on PeaceBabe's post? it does not seem necessary to go there otherwise. the touching is part of a how you interpret what you felt and would so be logical. it alone of course is not logical. but its done for a logical reason and its part of more than just touching (obviously). i have previous no experiences of touching god that i know of. i do on the other hand of touching cold ice cubes and not of not cold ice cubes. of course there is a possibility that an ice cube is not cold, as anything is possible. but there is no reason to assume so if you have not experienced this.

you're not making sense. logic does not lead to unverifiable universals. that its verifiable is what makes it logical/rational of course. it also looks to me like you have already accepted this idea. you must have a reason for saying that i dismissed it to quickly. you should have mentioned it. i dont see the relevance of this:

venom_zx

 

I think you're a little confused as to what logic actually is. A few logical operations are as follows:

2 + 2 = 4

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Either I am sitting or I am standing.
I am not standing.
Therefore, I am sitting.

Logic is a process that does not require much (arguably no) sensory experience. They're basic rules that are based on the laws, which, as we understand it, govern the universe. The problem with these laws is that they reduce to universals. "Two" is a universal. The statement, "All men are mortal" is a universal. The logical process involved in solving the final problem is the Law of Non-contradiction, a universal. There is no logical process involved when feeling a cold ice cube. This is fundamental difference that separated the approaches of the rationalist and empiricist schools at the beginning of the Enlightenment.

I already assumed that. But that doesn't mean He's not there.

No, of course that's no reason to assume, but can you really then have knowledge that all ice cubes are cold. The same applies to God. I'm not trying to present an argument for the existence of God at this point. I'm just trying to open your mind to the possibility of the existence of God.

Then give me an example where it doesn't. I've already given you three that show that it does.

I have not accepted this idea. Logic cannot be verified. If it could, then it would be empirical evidence. When was the last time you saw a "two," not two chairs, or two ants, or two people - just "two?" When was the last time you saw all men? When was the last time you saw the Law of Non-contradiction?

Just waiting for you to ask. Your touchy-feely evidence is still a kind of empirical evidence. And it's a kind of evidence that I feel is more reliable than logic, at least in matters of theology.

 

TheHammerSpeaks, I must say, your knowledge of philosophy probable far exceeds any current posters in this board, and your position seems to be well developed. I hope to see something published by you in the near future At any rate, I'm curious; do you hold to a form of fideism?