|
|
|
|
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/27/2008 6:43:56 AM | Hi Apologist D.A. Thanks for the response. I must say that I find it unfortunate and quite disturbing that you assumed that I never considered asking "god(s)" to give proof of his/her/it's existence as if you knew me personally. So w/ that in mind I fail to see the "irony" you mentioned, but I am all too aware of the irony in your statements about my alleged lack of trying to contact "god(s)" w/o you even KNOWING whether I have or not. That to me is FUNNY. Again, no disrespect intended. I just hope you've considered this and if you haven't yet, I hope you will.
I actually don't question the existence of anyones "god(s)". I also don't question the existence of unicorns or trolls or any concept of a being that has the physical and suspiciously CONVENIENT attribute of "INVISIBILITY" especially whenever the desire is there for one to SEE them. I just can't take these concepts seriously. Thats why the topic of the thread says what it does, and why I DID NOT start the thread saying "I'm searching for "god(s)" and I need help trying to locate him..who can help me?" Because this would imply that I believe "god(s)" exists, when in actuality I have no reason to think they do.
I merely wanted to see who could actually do what seems to be the ever increasingly impossible task of proving their "god(s)" exist w/o using faith. I could have easily asked who can prove specifically that unicorns or the greek "god" Zeus exists. I pretty much left it open for anyone who believes in any "supernatural" being that they consider to be their "god(s)" to prove their "god(s)" exist. So if someone actually worshipped Zeus or unicorns they could also chime in and give their "non-faith" proof.
I think its interesting that if someone posted on here stating sincerely that they believed that unicorns are the real "god(s)" , and thats who they worship and attribute the creation of the universe to, that most people would dismiss their assertions as laughable and immature. Which highlights the sad reality that ususally "faith" is considered a virtue ONLY when its used to believe in the "god(s)" of a particular group or individuals preference.
Also I don't believe that you actually read my other responses to a few others b/c I'm sure you would have noticed that I've mentioned how I was a "christian" for the majority of my life. I'll will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didnt read those other posts.
Believe it or not, but the function of "faith" allows anyone (me included) to believe anything. "Faith" in itself, is NOT a religious word, although it can be used in order to believe in things religous or supernatural. Faith also can be used to believe in things that have nothing at all to do w/ religion or the supernatural. Because of this it is only sensible that we must be skeptical when it comes to the "OBJECT" of ones "faith".
Especially when it comes to matters of "faith" that have serious consequences.
Please keep in mind that "faith" IS NOT a synonym for truth or fact. This is because of what faith IS by way of it's function. Whether certain information is true or not, one can STILL choose to have faith in it for whatever reason THEY decide.
I have already posted the definition of faith as shown in the American Heritage College dictionary in response to another post. Remember faith isnt an involuntary action. Its always an individuals choice.
On a personal note I would like to say that I do have "faith" or believe that there are other intelligent beings in the universe besides us. Do I have proof of this? No I don't. However, my reasoning behind this belief or "faith" is based on the FACT that WE ARE HERE. This DOES NOT mean however that I think these other beings are more or less intelligent or advanced than us. They could be either. I also don't believe that there are "supernatural" beings out there that I would have to worship. Whether or not there are other natural beings out there makes no difference I'm happy either way. It also doesnt make me want to treat people any better or any worse . Its merely a belief and it doesnt guide me in my day to day life at all. Though I do think its entertaining to think about or discuss this topic.
Again as I said to some one else on this thread, I don't see THE NEED to believe in the concept of "god(s)" or unicorns or fairies or the like in order to have self worth and live a MEANINGFUL and HAPPY life. "Faith" in these supernatural and magical concepts just don't aid me and are not needed when it comes to happiness and self-worth. I know there are those who feel like life would be insignificant and meaningless unless they believe in these sort of things. I just wonder have they robbed themselves of the opportunity to realize these things, WE ALL WANT, outside of a religious or supernatural context.
I havent encountered anyone who was sincerely wanting to know if a "god(s)" exists yet too afraid to "ask", whether in their mind or out loud, for FEAR of their question being answered by that "god(s)". That doesnt make sense. For example, I didn't think about starting this thread with ALL INTENTIONS of getting a response, only to decide not to do it, for FEAR of getting exactly what I intended and hoped to get, which is a response.
Thats not to say that it hasnt happened but the logic behind this seems non-existent.
Either you want to know something or you don't. Someone could definitely change their mind or position on wanting to know something quite frequently.
Well I hope you get the chance check out my other responses to others on in this thread to get a clearer view of my position.
Thanks again :) | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/27/2008 7:23:45 AM | Draw on a piece of paper a crooked line.
How would you know what a crooked line was unless you knew of a perfectly straight line was!!
How do we know what evil or wrong is unless there was something absolutely perfect to judge by. The fact that we know right from wrong proves something perfectly moral is our standard.
The fact that nothing in one hand and nothing in another hand cannot be put together to make something also proves it.
Sinee the universe is always expanding you have to reverse that thought. It all had to start at some point. Logically only something that always existed..and perfectly moral could have created the 1st 'thing' Or else nothing from nothing = something.
My vote if Jesus in Lord
Keith | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/27/2008 7:38:44 AM | | When anyone asks for "proof of the existence of God" ask them first to define their terms and their system of "proof". If they mean "scientific proof" or "empirical proof" then politely tell them that "God" by definition is beyond such a system. "God" by definition is a "metaphysical" and "supernatural" being. As such, "God" cannot be proven by a system that limits itself to the physical and natural. And that's fine because anyone who believes that all that is is limited to all that can be proven through the scientific method is someone who is poorer for it. | |
|
| |
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/27/2008 9:28:46 AM | Hey romanticoptimist . Thanks for another response. I did notice a problem w/ your last post concerning "god(s)" not being able to be defined by systems such as "scientific or empircal proof". I must say that this was an arrogant and misleading statement b/c first you have assumed that your version or concept of "god" is the only one worth consideration in the challenge I put forth, and secondly you misrepresented the word "god", which I have stated in my previous posts, is a title for, but never the name of, anyones "god(s)", and so trying to apply attributes to a concept of "god(s)" like all good or all bad or all powerful or all loving or being invisible or all knowining or whatever it is specifically that makes one feel good about their "god(s)" is a matter of what your religous intruction has informed you on about your "god", and not actually what the word "god" means.
Theres no definition of the word "god" that implys invisiblity or an inability to be detected by the 5 senses. The word "god" can actually be applied to whatever one wants to apply it to. I can call the sun my "god" if I want to and this would be using the word correctly whether or not others would apply that word to the sun. "God" truly is a word or term that is in the eye of the beholder. I have a suspicion that some of those who believe in "supernatural" deity's and claim awesome and often contradictory attributes for their "god(s)" are merely attempting to take their concept of "god(s)" out of the realm of objective analysis and, if need be, criticism. Which ultimately means their concept of "god" can necessarily get away w/ anything, and is accountable to no one.
This is also why I previously stated that knowing the definition of the word "god" is important and that the individual name of ones "god(s)" would be helpful in this challenge.
I also have NEVER once mentioned the word "SCIENCE" before this post.
I will continue to keep to this pattern after this post. My challenge wasnt presented to a group of scientists for them to conduct experiments to prove that the concept of "god(s)" is not merely a concept but rather a provable reality that anyone can test. Though, if there are any scientists out there that happen upon this thread they are free to take the challenge as well.
Lastly I will say that maybe YOUR concept of "god" can't be, as you said, "limited by the physical and natural", but what about other peoples concept of "god(s)"?
The word "god" DOES NOT imply "supernatural" or beyond the physical and natural in its definition. Lets be honest, OUTSIDE OF USING "FAITH" everyone who believes in "god(s)" would be hard pressed to DISPROVE the existence of a different supernatural being someone else belives exist. Why is this? Because the "supernatural" trumps the physical and natural whenever an objective analysis of someones concept of "god(s)" is performed. Everyone who uses this tactic wants their concept of "god(s)" to be beyond reproach and will make sure they keep it out of reach of those who try to use there pitiful human minds to understand their "unique" and "superior" concept of "god(s)".
Just a few things you may want to consider.
Thanks again. :) | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/27/2008 2:20:50 PM |
Hey romanticoptimist . Thanks for another response. I did notice a problem w/ your last post concerning "god(s)" not being able to be defined by systems such as "scientific or empircal proof". I must say that this was an arrogant and misleading statement
It's neither arrogant or misleading. It is a fact that "God", by definition, is outside the realm of science and therefore not subject to your specific "proof" demands.
You show that you really don't understand the words you are using. For example, you state the supernatural trumps the natural. This shows that you view this as some sort of a way of finding out whose system is "better", but in fact it's a way of finding out whose system is appropriate. "God" concepts belong in the realm of the Metaphysical (Religion, Theology, Philosophy) not in the realm of "Science" and "Empiricism". If you want "proof" look to the appropriate discipline. As for the motives of those who point this out to you, it's irrelevant. What you "suspect" is irrelevant. Why? Because the Truth or Falsehood of the statements is not based on what you suspect are the motives of the presenter, or the actual motives of the presenter. The statement stands or falls on its own merits. That is simple Logic. You claim to know and understand Logic, and yet this obvious fact eludes you.
Look up "God", "Science", "Empiricism", "Natural", "Physical", "Metaphysical", and "Supernatural" in a good dictionary and you might have a better understanding of the words being used. As it is, you want to use words and meaning in contexts for which they are inappropriate.
Just a few thoughts you might want to consider.
Graci. :-) | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/27/2008 2:22:28 PM |
How is it possible that first there was light, but only then the sun was created. This proves that it was written by man, because in those days I think that maybe they didn't know that light came from the sun.
You're kidding, right? "In those days"? Which days were those? I mean, stop and think for just a few seconds, and decide -- based on whatever you believe about the history and development of human beings -- when "those days" were that humans didn't know that light came from the sun. You can even think back before anyone could write down this "basic fallacy" -- and while you're at it, look up "fallacy" in a dictionary!
Think about when there wasn't a big yellow disc in the sky for most of the day on most of the planet (yeah, I'm taking far North and South out of the equation because it's irrelevant).
Now repeat what you said again. Do you really believe it makes any sense? I didn't think so. 
So that leaves your "therefore that proves" as an unproven conclusion. Which, ironically, is actually a real "Fallacy". | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/27/2008 4:10:26 PM |
When anyone asks for "proof of the existence of God" ask them first to define their terms and their system of "proof". If they mean "scientific proof" or "empirical proof" then politely tell them that "God" by definition is beyond such a system. "God" by definition is a "metaphysical" and "supernatural" being. As such, "God" cannot be proven by a system that limits itself to the physical and natural. And that's fine because anyone who believes that all that is is limited to all that can be proven through the scientific method is someone who is poorer for it.
Humans are limited to empirical evidence for truth. Anything else is simply a theory. All that is may not be limited by scientific experimentation, but all that we can prove is indeed so restricted.
If God exists, then it would be impossible to prove his existence. We can provide theories as why he logically should exist (as St. Thomas Aquinas has done), but we can't make them scientific truth. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/28/2008 6:18:02 AM | Hey romanticoptimist. As usual thanks for your response. With all due respect I must disagree w/ your conclusions about MY usage of the term "god". I'm a little disappointed in your response b/c it seems that again you have missed the point of the challenge and that you don't seem to take my observations seriously how SPECIFICALLY a "SUPERNATURAL" deity or "god(s)" would be near impossible to prove.
You seem to be eluding to the idea that I am basing my observations on the "S" word, which is also known as SCIENCE. And so b/c of this my observations hold no weight w/ you. Again, I say to you and anyone else who happens to read this that I havent EVER brought the "S" word up until my last post, and this was ONLY b/c YOU brought it up. Nevertheless, I am not trying to trick anyone by this challenge nor am I
purposely not using the "S" word as a way to covertly affirm "MY" scientific point of view about religion or concepts of "god(s)".
The main reason I haven't used the "S" word which is SCIENCE is b/c most people I've encountered online or in person have no clue of what the word SCIENCE means.
Infact, most people religious or non-religious have a MISUNDERSTANDING of this word. Ironically, most people don't realize that they use science all the time everday. However, as a P.S.A. I will post the definition of the word SCIENCE here. I know it shouldnt be capitalized but maybe this will encourage others to look this word up
beyond this discussion. Science is our friend but don't take my word for it look up what the word means. Every human thats ever lived has used SCIENCE. The proof is in the definition. The definition below is from the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary Online:
Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: \ˈsī-ən(t)s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split — more at shed
Date: 14th century
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
5capitalized : christian science
Next I would like to address my, by your estimation, "faulty logic" or mere misuse of the word. Again as a rebuttal to your claim I will simply post for everyone to see the definition of the word LOGIC. I feel this will put your assertions at rest.
Here is the definition of LOGIC below:
Main Entry: log·ic
Pronunciation: \ˈlä-jik\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin logica, from Greek logikē, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason — more at legend
Date: 12th century
1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic (3): a branch of semiotic; especially : syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2): relevance, propriety c: interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
2: something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason
— lo·gi·cian \lō-ˈji-shən\ noun
As you can NO DOUBT see, LOGIC and SCIENCE are hopelessly intertwined.
I would also have to point out that though you would like to take your concept of "god" out of the realm of SCIENCE and LOGIC, you are trying to do the humanly and dare I say "godly" impossible. As anyone can now observe from the above definitions religion or the concept of "god(s)" are necessarily DEPENDENT on LOGIC and SCIENCE. While LOGIC and SCIENCE are NOT dependent on religion or concepts of "god(S)". To OVERLOOK this simple obeservation would be, in my opinion, a dishonest approach to this challnege. Hey I didnt make those words up. My only fault may be bringing the definition of these words to light.
I did want to take you up on YOUR challenge about my use of words. This is something that I do take seriously b/c I've been reading the dictionaries since I was sixteen or so and I saw then how important the proper use of words are in communicating an idea. By know means do I claim super-human abilitys of memorization and also I do know that I am capable of the very thing you alleged but I make it a point to use words correctly as much as possible. But I welcome anyone who notices my improper use of a word to feel free to correct me. I have absolutely no problem w/ that. Infact, I like being right so much I can accept when I'm wrong in order to be right. :)
My alleged misuse of the words you mentioned seemed to me as if you hadn't studied those words an their uses yourself. Well how about I give you a few more definitions that I got off of Merriam-Websters Online Dictionary and everyone reading this thread can make their on mind up about how they continue to use these words. This also applies to the definitions of LOGIC and SCIENCE that I have liisted in this post.
Here we go!!!  
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: \ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe bChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler
I also used the Merriam Websters "Thesaurus" and got this entry:
god[noun]
Entry Word: god
Function: noun
Text:
1 a being having superhuman powers and control over a particular part of life or the world — see deity 1
2 capitalized the being worshipped as the creator and ruler of the universe — see deity 2
I also looked up the word "deity" on this same site
and this was the entry as follows:
deity[noun]
Entry Word: deity
Function: noun
Text:
1 a being having superhuman powers and control over a particular part of life or the world
Synonymsdivinity, god
Related Wordsangel, demigod, demon (or daemon), devil, spirit, supernatural
2 capitalized the being worshipped as the creator and ruler of the universe
SynonymsAllah, Almighty, Creator, Divinity, Father, God, Godhead, Jehovah, Lord, Maker, Providence, Supreme Being
3 the quality or state of being divine — see divinity
Next I looked up the word "divinity" on this site as well
and this is what I found:
divinity[noun]
Entry Word: divinity
Function: noun
Text:
1 the quality or state of being divine
Synonymsdeity, godhead, godhood
2 a being having superhuman powers and control over a particular part of life or the world — see deity 1
3 capitalized the being worshipped as the creator and ruler of the universe — see deity 2
And as my GRAND FINALE the last definition is as follows:
Heres an interesting word that I found the definition to
on this same site..By the way the word is "SUPERSTITION"
Main Entry: su·per·sti·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌsü-pər-ˈsti-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English supersticion, from Anglo-French, from Latin superstition-, superstitio, from superstit-, superstes standing over (as witness or survivor), from super- + stare to stand — more at stand
Date: 13th century
1 a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
So RESPECTFULLY I now say LET US REASON TOGETHER , AND BY WAY OF LOGIC AND SCIENCE WE CAN DISCUSS ANY TOPIC and do so in a PEACEFUL manner.
Thanks again :) | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/28/2008 7:45:41 AM |
Hey romanticoptimist. As usual thanks for your response. With all due respect I must disagree w/ your conclusions about MY usage of the term "god". I'm a little disappointed in your response b/c it seems that again you have missed the point of the challenge and that you don't seem to take my observations seriously how SPECIFICALLY a "SUPERNATURAL" deity or "god(s)" would be near impossible to prove.
Actually, a SUPERNATURAL deity or god is impossible (not near impossible) to prove. That's my point. As for "science" you introduced it the moment you started using the the word "prove" and "proof". And that's also my point. You use words out of context, switch meanings, and want the best of all possible choices. When you have decided what you mean when you use the words "prove" and "proof" we can talk. until then.
And you need to read with a view to comprehending what someone writes. For example, you make all sorts of assumptions about how I view "science", driven (it appears) by your belief that your view is more "scientific" than another's. Yet you appeal to the fact that we all benefit form science in out daily lives, which has nothing at all to do wit the issue.
Anyway, try to come up with your own personal definition for "prove' and "proof", one that you feel you can stay with, and we can discuss. | |
|
| |
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/28/2008 3:13:23 PM | When anyone asks for "proof of the existence of God" ask them first to define their terms and their system of "proof". If they mean "scientific proof" or "empirical proof" then politely tell them that "God" by definition is beyond such a system. "God" by definition is a "metaphysical" and "supernatural" being. As such, "God" cannot be proven by a system that limits itself to the physical and natural. And that's fine because anyone who believes that all that is is limited to all that can be proven through the scientific method is someone who is poorer for it.
Are you saying that god cannot interact with the natural world? | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/28/2008 4:15:26 PM |
Who can prove god(s) do not exists using faith?
Faith by its very nature, cannot disprove the existence of god(s). Faith can only make claims as to the existence or non existence of gods. Faith is the belief or disbelief in something without substantiating evidence, or even contrary to the evidence available.
Faith usually requires the suspension of disbelief as a condition for gaining the benefit of that which is believed. In some cases, faith requires the suspension of the need to seek or provide proof for the basis of the belief, other than to appeal to some religious authority....whether it be sacred texts, a guru, or some tribal tradition or cultural practice.
here is a link to a web page that discusses the issue of proving a negative in a theistic / atheistic context.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/28/2008 6:49:28 PM |
I said: When anyone asks for "proof of the existence of God" ask them first to define their terms and their system of "proof". If they mean "scientific proof" or "empirical proof" then politely tell them that "God" by definition is beyond such a system. "God" by definition is a "metaphysical" and "supernatural" being. As such, "God" cannot be proven by a system that limits itself to the physical and natural. And that's fine because anyone who believes that all that is is limited to all that can be proven through the scientific method is someone who is poorer for it.
Count Ibil asked: Are you saying that god cannot interact with the natural world?
Nope. What I said was:
When anyone asks for "proof of the existence of God" ask them first to define their terms and their system of "proof". If they mean "scientific proof" or "empirical proof" then politely tell them that "God" by definition is beyond such a system. "God" by definition is a "metaphysical" and "supernatural" being. As such, "God" cannot be proven by a system that limits itself to the physical and natural.
If you're having problems with such clear and simple words, I really can't help you. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/29/2008 6:30:36 AM | Hey guy named ray . Thanks for the response. I'm not really sure if you are being serious about your question or if you posted it just for a few giggles. Nevertheless, since I "dished" out my challenge I think its only fair that I take on yours :).
Here goes something
First what is "faith"? Well the Merriam-Websters Online Dictionary says:
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonyms see belief
— on faith : without question
Next I looked up "faith" in the thesaurus on this site and saw this:
faith[noun]
Entry Word: faith
Function: noun
Text:
1 belief and trust in and loyalty to God
Synonymsdevotion, piety, religion
Related Wordsdevoutness, piousness, religiousness; adoration, reverence, veneration, worship
Near Antonymsdisbelief, doubt, unbelief
Antonymsatheism, godlessness
2 a body of beliefs and practices regarding the supernatural and the worship of one or more deities — see religion 1
3 adherence to something to which one is bound by a pledge or duty — see fidelity
4 firm belief in the integrity, ability, effectiveness, or genuineness of someone or something — see trust 1
5 mental conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon — see belief 1
Now lets see what the definition of the word "prove" on this site,
because I must know if your challenge is even possible before I start:
Main Entry: prove
Pronunciation: \ˈprüv\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): proved; proved or prov·en \ˈprü-vən, British also ˈprō-\; prov·ing \ˈprü-viŋ\
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French prover, pruver, from Latin probare to test, prove, from probus good, honest, from pro- for, in favor + -bus (akin to Old English bēon to be) — more at pro-, be
Date: 13th century
transitive verb
1archaic : to learn or find out by experience
2 a: to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of b: to test the worth or quality of; specifically : to compare against a standard —sometimes used with up or out c: to check the correctness of (as an arithmetic result)
3 a: to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic) b: to demonstrate as having a particular quality or worth
4: to show (oneself) to be worthy or capable
intransitive verb
: to turn out especially after trial or test
— prov·able \ˈprü-və-bəl\ adjective
— prov·able·ness noun
— prov·ably \-blē\ adverb
— prov·er \ˈprü-vər\ noun
usage The past participle proven, originally the past participle of preve, a Middle English variant of prove that survived in Scotland, has gradually worked its way into standard English over the past three and a half centuries. It seems to have first become established in legal use and to have come only slowly into literary use. Tennyson was one of its earliest frequent users, probably for metrical reasons. It was disapproved by 19th century grammarians, one of whom included it in a list of “words that are not words.” Surveys made some 50 or 60 years ago indicated that proved was about four times as frequent as proven. But our evidence from the last 30 or 35 years shows this no longer to be the case. As a past participle proven is now about as frequent as proved in all contexts. As an attributive adjective proven is much more common than proved.
Here's what I found for the word "prove" in the thesaurus on this site:
prove[verb]
Entry Word: prove
Function: verb
Text:
1 to show the existence or truth of by evidence
Synonymsdemonstrate, document, establish, substantiate, validate
Related Wordsback (up), buttress, corroborate; evidence, evince, record, support, witness; adduce, attest, authenticate, certify, identify; confirm, sustain, verify; clinch, nail, settle; depose, testify
Near Antonymschallenge, dispute, object; allege, assume, conjecture, guess, presume, surmise, suspect
Antonymsdisprove, rebut, refute
2 to come to be — see come out 1
3 to gain full recognition or acceptance of — see establish 1
Lastly, I thought I might as well look up the word "prove" also:
Main Entry: 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 reasoning
2obsolete : experience
3: something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness
5: evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal
6 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 negative
7: a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality
8 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
Now assuming you have read thee above definitions let me NOW respond to your question based of my findings.
Though it might not be noticeable to you at first glance MY question is QUITE different from the one you posed. Heres why. If someones concept of "god(s)" IS NOT "supernatural" then they WOULD be able to "PROVE" their "god(s)" existence. For example, if someone considered NATURE as their "god" then they will have proven their "god" exists. That doesnt mean that I must now bow down to their concept of "god", it just merely means that they met the challenge I made by way of PROVING or DEMONSTRATING that their "god" exists WITHOUT appealing to "faith". My question WAS NOT a trick question! Though it seems some may have taken it that way.
Your question SEEMS to be a trick question. Based on the definitions above you are asking the impossible to happen. So I will admit that I can't PROVE that concepts of "god(s)" don't exist USING "FAITH" due to the very meaning of the words in the question. One can't "PROVE" anything w/ "FAITH". As I have said in other posts this is due to the "FUNCTION of FAITH". Actually if you have "PROOF" of your "god(s)","faith" wouldn't be needed in the first place. If you beleive in a "god" that you will one day stand before and give an account of your life to, are you going to use faith to believe it is actually happening or will the event itself be your "PROOF"?
Well there you have it. I hope you've had a chance to read all my posts in this thread.
Thanks again :) | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/29/2008 6:38:49 AM | Count Ibil [sic] asked: Are you saying that god cannot interact with the natural world?
Nope.
So if god can interact with the natural world then certainly his existence can be tested. In fact I'll point you to 1 Kings 18:17-40 where Elijah proposes a test between Baal and YHWH. Not only does he propose the test, but he carries it out and succeeds in showing that YHWH exists.
I think you know that if such a test was performed today Christians would look as foolish as the prophets of Baal and Atheists will be saying "Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened." | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/30/2008 9:05:53 AM | Hi Apologist D.A. Thanks for the response. I must say that I find it unfortunate and quite disturbing that you assumed that I never considered asking "god(s)" to give proof of his/her/it's existence as if you knew me personally. So w/ that in mind I fail to see the "irony" you mentioned, but I am all too aware of the irony in your statements about my alleged lack of trying to contact "god(s)" w/o you even KNOWING whether I have or not. That to me is FUNNY. Please do not be offended. My intentions were not of malice. However, it appears as though I assumed correctly, considering you wrote
I actually don't question the existence of anyones "god(s)".
If you have not questioned the existence of any god, why would you try to contact said nonexistent god?
*please do not be disturbed at my assumption, in my personal experience, I have found that those who sincerly seek God, find Him, or rather He shows Himself to them.
On a personal note I would like to say that I do have "faith" or believe that there are other intelligent beings in the universe besides us. Do I have proof of this? No I don't. However, my reasoning behind this belief or "faith" is based on the FACT that WE ARE HERE. This DOES NOT mean however that I think these other beings are more or less intelligent or advanced than us. They could be either. I also don't believe that there are "supernatural" beings out there that I would have to worship. You wrote that you did not believe in a god because this god
includes the concept of a being that has the physical and suspiciously CONVENIENT attribute of "INVISIBILITY" and
in actuality I have no reason to think they do. (exist) What visual or physical attributes have you observed of these "other intelligent beings", that withstands the demands you require for faith in a god ? I dare say none? You wrote that you believe in these beings because of reason and the fact that "WE ARE HERE". I do not see any reason in this theory..
It could just as likely that a god created us.
I don't see THE NEED to believe in the concept of "god(s)" or unicorns or fairies or the like in order to have self worth and live a MEANINGFUL and HAPPY life. "Faith" in these supernatural and magical concepts just don't aid me and are not needed when it comes to happiness and self-worth. You assume that those who have faith do? I did not believe in order to find meaning or to obtain happiness. Such faith would be selfish and would expose probable insincere conversion. (although after conversion, I did infact experience joy and meaningfulness, these things were not my motivation)
I havent encountered anyone who was sincerely wanting to know if a "god(s)" exists yet too afraid to "ask", whether in their mind or out loud, for FEAR of their question being answered by that "god(s)". That doesnt make sense.
Now you have. At one time, I was terrified at the possibility of God. I do not believe that I am the only person in history to have felt that way. Infact, I know for sure that many others have once felt the same fear.
What if there is a Creator?
That means that I am not in control. I cant be the god of my life if there is a Being that has authority over me.
How will the knowledge/belief in the existence of this god effect my life?
I will surely be required to submit to this Being, this One Who determines my fate..
What if this Being ask me to obey It? What of my own desires? I do not enjoy "obeying" anything but my own conscience..
What if I dont like this Being, or Its commands? What if It is an evil or "bad" Being?
If I deem It "bad" and if I choose not to submit to this Creator, will It "smite" me?
If such a Being is infact in control of our world, why has It left so many of us to suffer? Or even allow suffering at all?
Thanks again :) The pleasure is all mine, doll.
| |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/30/2008 11:43:14 AM |
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html
For instance, God is theoretically omnipresent, and granted us the ability to know him (to feel his loving presence, etc.), yet I have absolutely no sensation of any God or anything that would be entailed by a God, even though by definition he is within me and around me wherever I go. Likewise, God is theoretically the epitome of compassion, and also all-knowing and all-powerful and beyond all injury, yet I know that what demonstrates someone as compassionate is the alleviation of all suffering known to them and safely within their power to alleviate. All suffering in the world must be known and safely within the power of God to alleviate, yet it is still there, and since the Christian 'theory' entails the opposite observation, Christianity is false.
This is probably the most ignorant comment I have ever read. The writer prooves that they have no knowledge of God being a reality that is all.
No big mystery here, Jesus is the way to the Father..the writer has never entered in by the narrow gate, so how are they able to see God if they have not come to God the way He has ordained for us to come to Him? Instead of trying to proove that God doesn't exist, which they have not proven, they should try and understand why God works the way He does and why He reveals Himself through Christ.
Just because God has vieled His glory among us doesn't mean that His glory is not a reality. Of course God doesn't reveal His glory at all times and because God's glory is not being experienced by the writer as they consider they should have full knowledge of, doesn't prove God is not there.
Jesus allowed His intrisic glory to shine for a moment and the entire mountainside was illuminated. If Christ had not veiled His glory then humankind would not have been able to relate to Him...So God can hide His glory from us and still be omnipresent.
The logic of the writer is flawed and in error and hasn't proven the negative that they set out to proove...well maybe in thier own minds they have...but that is called delusion and not proving the negative. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/30/2008 1:46:16 PM | Just because God has vieled His glory among us doesn't mean that His glory is not a reality. Of course God doesn't reveal His glory at all times and because God's glory is not being experienced by the writer as they consider they should have full knowledge of, doesn't prove God is not there.
That's what I keep saying about the Flying Spaghetti Monster but people think I'm either mocking them or insane. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/30/2008 1:52:53 PM |
Just because God has vieled His glory among us doesn't mean that His glory is not a reality. Of course God doesn't reveal His glory at all times and because God's glory is not being experienced by the writer as they consider they should have full knowledge of, doesn't prove God is not there.
That's what I keep saying about the Flying Spaghetti Monster but people think I'm either mocking them or insane.
Not that I believe you, but I am not doubting your honesty, and that is all that matters. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/30/2008 1:58:37 PM | | It is more loving to allow a child to stumble but eventually learn walk on their own then it is to walk for them their entire lives. The suffering present on Earth presents each of us with a great opportunity to learn how to transcend it on our own. However, many prefer to choose the lazy 'save me saviour for I am weak' method which is never going to be fruitful. If it is the 'job' of a 'saviour' (religious or otherwise) to spend eternity walking for us because we refuse to learn to walk on our own, then what exactly are we here for? All suffering on this planet could be easily overcome if we so desired... but we seem dead set on experiencing this victim mentality for a few more years. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/30/2008 3:42:09 PM | | We know God exists experentially. Because God created us to know Him and is always calling to us and if we let go of our egotistism we can hear him. On the other hand atheism is also a religion. A false one ,but you can't prove that God doen't exist. An atheist must make a statement of faith and then close his mind to other possiblities. See my thread on matirealism | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/30/2008 5:32:23 PM | I'm an agnostic, but if I had to choose between atheism and belief in something supernatural, I would choose belief.
I look at it this way. Everything that exists came from something before it. That implies something eternal. It's an infinite series unless something, at some point, came from nothing, and no one has ever witnessed that nor can anyone explain how that might happen. | |
|
| |
| |
|
|
Home
login 
