|
|
|
|
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/18/2008 4:06:13 PM | | Actually Descartes took one too many steps as well. He assumed something to be true which was not necessary...anyone guess what it is? It's reasonably well known! | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/18/2008 6:34:11 PM | Actually, I would offer a perspective which indicates that Descartes was actually perfectly correct:
In that a) We define the concept of "I think"
and
b) We define the concept of "I am",
Then our concept of existence is utterly dependant upon our concept of thought - as we define thought, it IS our thoughts which give definition to our existence. Thus the former determines the latter.
Where got is concerned however, it's just logical fallacy, since there is no actual rational link between "I think" and "God is". | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/18/2008 10:49:20 PM | | a person can pick anything and nit pick out the differences till it sounds like complete lies. hell the united states has made a career of it. point i was trying to make is that the bible isnt just a sci fi book made up out of thin air. it was written by real people about many real events( i cant prove that it is all truth nobody can they werent there, archeologists can make an educated guess but thats about it). does it prove that god exists IDK that wasnt my point. nobody can prove god exists except to themselves. if god does exist(in my mind he does) i highly doubt wether he cares what people think of him. if he truely exists, he exists wether we believe in him or not. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/19/2008 1:45:12 AM | No there's a basic logical error in Descartes 'cogito' argument, for want of a better term. In his various epoche/bracketing, Descartes finds that he can "doubt" the existence of everything on the basis of the unreliability of sensory perception. However, the only thing that cannot be doubted for Descartes is the fact that 'doubting' is taking place, as in I can doubt everything in existence, even the existence of my own body, what I cannot doubt is the fact that there is 'doubting'. But Descrates makes one major false move here, he attributes his own identity to the 'res cogitans' - the thinking thing, when all he has established, by his own argument's extension, is that there is cogitation.
His other arguments that go to fill out this picture that lead him to declare that the mind( as in "I") must exist all ultimately fail as do his attempts to justify his substance dualism. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/19/2008 9:03:30 AM | | Those who believe in god don't need proof. Those of us who do not believe in god do not accept any "proof" as conclusive. This makes the whole argument moot. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/19/2008 9:33:46 AM |
Those of us who do not believe in god do not accept any "proof" as conclusive. This makes the whole argument moot.
I disagree with this. I'm sure that people who do not believe in God would accept his existence if he chose to be seen. What I would argue is that those who do not believe in God have not accepted any proof presented such far. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/20/2008 12:53:50 PM | firstly I can think of other ways to 'prove' god. secondly god cannot 'exist' as existance is a term used on earth. as god is beyond the earth he cannot exist.
anyway, I thought Descarte was proving existance in itself? He couldnt prove anything else but he/his mind existed because he relied on his senses to see if other stuff existed which might not be telling the truth. in the same way that we cannot prove a colour to look the same to us as it does to another person. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/20/2008 1:11:26 PM |
Those who believe in god don't need proof. Those of us who do not believe in god do not accept any "proof" as conclusive. This makes the whole argument moot.
The problem with this, is that there is no proof beyond faith and I don't except faith as proof of anything. So while yes, it's pretty much a moot point, there has yet to be any scientific proof of any gods...or Superman for that matter, darn it, so it's not the non-accepting of proof it's the lack of any solid evidence of proof.
Think about how easy life could be if there was a God who ruled the world and gave out a book of rules and all you had to do was follow it and be thankful for it. That's it, that's all one has to do in a religion (and yet 99% of them make it seem like a trick that's not attainable) and they would reap all the rewards. So why wouldn't people really want to believe in this stuff if they really really, in their hearts and minds, thought any of it was true??? Nope, the religious themselves prove there is no god(s) by their own lack of following what they say they believe in. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/20/2008 4:45:18 PM |
Those who believe in god don't need proof
This = your flawed mental construct to support your delusions. Just because you 'believe' it buddy does not make it true. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/20/2008 4:54:03 PM | Again, there is no way to "prove" the existence of God. However, there are ways of deciding that his existence is rather unlikely. A simple argument from the ancients is enough:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
(Epicurus)
And may I add that when I go to the local hospital to have a wisdom tooth removed and pass the Children’s Hospice, I find it impossible to even contemplate the ridiculous twisted and knotted logic required to believe in the Devine, knowing as I do what is going on inside. If God exists, he is a complete and utter**** | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/20/2008 4:56:38 PM | If you come up with an idea, the burden of proof lies on you to prove it. In this case God.
For example, I'll quote an extract from a blog I wrote about opinions (edited slightly), but this can be applied directly to the topic at hand (with with a notion of god):
"I could say that I believe there is a pink elephant is on mars. Is the statement inherently correct/not wrong because it cannot be disproven? NO. Yes there could be a minute chance of a pink elephant is on mars, but without any proof of any kind at all you should disregard the statement entirely.
Why should you disregard my statement?
Because if you go with the argument that there is a minute chance of a pink elephant on mars, then you inadvertently subscribe to the argument that there is a chance of everything happening.
Saying that anything can happen is just pure BS. Theoretically, yes there is a stupidly small chance that anything could happen. But to say that because this chance exists validates your argument is nonsensical; as the exact opposite event will also occur in a universe of infinite possibilities, thus cancelling out your event’s significance.
i.e there is x probability that the pink elephant exists, but also the exact same x probability that it doesn’t exist in a universe where everything can happen (as everything has happened in an infinite environment).
Therefore we are left with the outcome of the elephant half existing and not existing at the same time. What does this tell us? Well it tells you that you cannot rely on the view of non-proof to support an argument.
Why not?
Look around, does the monitor you are reading this note on exist? Yes it does, don’t try to be a smartarse and give the “but is it really there” answer. It is there for all intents and purposes. However according to your little theory it should also not be there at the same time, but it clearly is?
How can this be?
I’ll tell you how, we do NOT live in a universe where everything can happen. The very fact that the monitor exists proves the opposite argument that it does not exist wrong.
As you can see, the ‘everything’ argument is a reversal of the above scenario – and it doesn’t work! You cannot reverse this argument to say: “because a paperclip does not exist on my desk, this is proof that it does exist on my desk” – Does that sound logical to you!?
No amount of belief in your opinion will make that paperclip magically materialise. It doesn’t exist. Therefore to say it does exist by virtue of its non existence is WRONG and utterly idiotic.
Therefore one can say that tangible observable things (on a macroscopic level) have far more persuasive weight than intangible faith objects.
A scenario to demonstrate the above in action:
There are two brothers, A owns a digital camera and the other B does not.
A goes to the pawn shop to sell his digital camera, he hands it over to the pawnbroker and receives £50.
B goes to the pawn shop and claims to the pawnbroker that in his opinion he has a digital camera in his hands and wants £50 for it.
B states that he believes it exists.
The pawnbroker looks at B’s hands and sees that they are empty.
Would you buy B’s supposed faith camera?"
- Lastly I'd just like to ask the God believers, how is your God different to my notion of a flying spaghetti monster who has all the same mystical rule breaking powers of your God? | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/21/2008 5:39:11 AM | | Sorry Glass Fairy but if you've read Descartes' "Meditations of First Philosophy" you'll find that what a couple of us have dealt with briefly are the earlier meditations. However, Descartes ultimately looks to prove that there must be a supreme being. The point was to show that even the earlier meditations upon which the last one is built don't stand up to scrutiny. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/21/2008 10:31:37 PM | Please allow me to correct an error on your part.
God claims to be all that is; whatever is (ie. has being), that is God
First off, "God" isn't the name of the god in the OT. If you'd read the preface to an NIV, you will find his name to be YHWH. Or Yahweh.
Nor does that god claim to be all that is. He does however ask, "Do not I fill the heavens and the earth?"
One cannot fill it while "being" it.
And finally, Satan "is", therefore Satan is God.
Such a futile argument. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/22/2008 2:48:15 AM | | Not sure what you're talking about ghostwalker or who you are trying to "correct". In any case, I don't know that religious stories, theogony etc is the best place to look for "arguments". There have been some notable philosophical attempts to find "proofs" for the existence of a supreme being down through the Western canon by some rather clever people. They all ultimately fail, but they are often interesting nonetheless. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/22/2008 8:27:24 AM | From the moment we come screaming from the womb, we are programmed and conditioned to believe certain things. Including religion or lack of.
When folks start thinking for themselves and step out of the programmed box, reality finds it's way in.
"All that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him."
~Buddha
Whatever we "think" is what we do and say.
Does a god exist? Dunno.
I'm just trying to find ways to avoid glowing in the dark in case somebody starts WW3. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/22/2008 10:31:05 AM | Difficult to contemplate the existance of an almighty when there is no definition of what god is that more than a handful of people can agree with.
It might be a more interesting question to ask if a deity is an outmoded concept entirely. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/22/2008 10:33:33 AM | | Again...either there are good arguments, or there are not good arguments. I have suggested that no argument has been successful. No interest in any of the other speculations tbh | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/22/2008 11:38:19 AM | I can't believe people put so much faith in a book that was written sooooo long ago by unknown people, and are even willing to die for it. And what really cracks me up, is that they're proud of it!?!
What a waste of an existence.
I mean, it wouldn't take a whole lot to convince everyone on the planet. Just show up once in the sky. That's it. I may not bow, but at least I would believe. (and mourn because the day of our enslavement would be here.) 
If god exists then so does Satan. If he cared so much, he would kill the devil, and leave us the frig alone. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/23/2008 1:39:29 AM |
This = your flawed mental construct to support your delusions. Just because you 'believe' it buddy does not make it true.
The most sensible definition of delusion is -- that which something someone holds to be true which is known to be false. Do you have logical proof G-d doesn't exist? No. So it's not a delusion.
As for you're argument, yes, the burden of proof rests on believers to non-believers, if the believer is asserting to the non-believer why he should believe, because it is not the non-believers duty to believe any claim. Likewise, it is not the believer's duty to accept any claim of the non-believer, the burden would lay on the non-believer.
"I could say that I believe there is a pink elephant is on mars. Is the statement inherently correct/not wrong because it cannot be disproven? NO. Yes there could be a minute chance of a pink elephant is on mars, but without any proof of any kind at all you should disregard the statement entirely.
Pink elephant =/= G-d. The rest of the argument is non-sequitur.
It seems like you've spent a lot of time disproving you're own straw men arguments.
There are two brothers, A owns a digital camera and the other B does not.
A goes to the pawn shop to sell his digital camera, he hands it over to the pawnbroker and receives £50.
B goes to the pawn shop and claims to the pawnbroker that in his opinion he has a digital camera in his hands and wants £50 for it.
B states that he believes it exists.
The pawnbroker looks at B’s hands and sees that they are empty.
Would you buy B’s supposed faith camera?"
You're conflating faith, which the Bible says is "Evidence of the unseen" with the "accepted" definition of faith, which is belief without evidence.
There is obviously no evidence of the camera being there. So under you're definition of faith, perhaps there is. Under the Bible's definition, well, there would still be no evidence of the invisible camera. As faith is experienced, and therefore proof in-itself. Given that someone else can't experience what a believer experiences, well, there can be no adequate proof for that other person, at least, the kind of proof it seems like you're looking for.
Faith is awesome. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/23/2008 2:46:47 AM | No, your faith seems to be a trump card of some sort, an illogical undercut to any rational line of thinking. Even if one were to conclusively DISPROVE god, you would still pull the faith card out of your ass to make your DELUSIONS correct.
Are you saying that a mad person who hears voices and sees things which he believes are true, does not experience delusions? My forensic physciatrist father would disagree with you (I would say he is fairly more qualified to qive an answer in this area than yourself). I fail to see how the nutter's delusions are any different to a christians' (nor does my father). Look up "cult" in the dictionary while you are at it.
I agree that the believer does not NEED to accept the non-believers viewpoint, did I say otherwise? My original point was that the title of this thread says "Proof for the existence of God" - I want proof, convice me using logic, ration and reason. Not "faith" = supsend all forms of empirical logic and accept any answer I so chose to give you, because I say so as I've used the word "faith" you have to believe me.
My argument still remains strong for the sake of deducing something logically the pink elephant or flying spaghetti monster hold all of the same status/power as your god in my eyes, or in my "faith", therefore the argument can be applied. If you really want to have something to sink your teeth into, what then of other religious deities?
The notion of God =/= automatic exclusion from any analysis because you say so. Sorry bud, god is a man made idea, with no proof of existance, no more valid than the flying spaghetti monster or the lock ness monster/ insert any fabled creature/ spirit. What, you think because more people identify with the supposed idea of god that makes it more valid? Thus more real? What then if an equal number of people beleived in the allmighy, omnipotent, better than God Flying Spaghetti Monster as I have described above? | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/23/2008 2:54:31 AM |
The most sensible definition of delusion is -- that which something someone holds to be true which is known to be false. Do you have logical proof G-d doesn't exist? No. So it's not a delusion.
There's a non-sequitur of rather "numbing grossness" in its own right in the two clauses you conjoin above. The easiest way to demonstrate the problem is by way of a counter example. If someone were to insist that the tooth fairy exists, would we consider that person delusional, that is, they hold something to be true which is known to be false? Yes, of course.
Have we any logical proof that the toothfairy doesn't exist? No.
So, is the person who still believes in the tootfairy without any logical proof not delusional then?
It's next to impossible to logically prove the non-existence of any fantastical notion/entity, what have you. You should be looking at different criteria! | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/23/2008 2:59:49 AM | | It never ceases to amaze me how many theists insist that their beliefs are rational, evidence beased beliefs. The whole point of "faith" is the suspension of reason, it involves a "leap" of faith. In the absence of evidence, one still resolves to believe. Faith is, by definition, unquestioning confidence. If there were solid evidence and faith was not needed, if we could show that there is very good, rational, sound reasons for believing in the existence of a supreme being, then we would all believe. The whole point of religious faith is that one is committed to the belief in something in the absence of any evidence. If there were good reasons for the belief, there would be no need of faith. That's why there was a Faith versus reason debate in the first place. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/23/2008 3:05:22 AM | While I agree with you on what you have said kirk, a line has to be drawn somewhere on the issue of faith. It may enrich ones life, which I am cool with, however it is quite a powerful and dangerous concept if misused. I fail to see how christianity or any religion for that matter differs from the notion of a cult.
Some aspects of christianity are good, but in todays society they are simply not needed - as they exist and can be learned without the bible (and some of it's ridiculous rules). Christianity and the notion of God may help certain people get through their lives without fear of death, keep them on the straight and narrow e.t.c - but I think that any form of behaviour control/brain washing is not good, despite it's motives. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/23/2008 4:03:34 AM | | I'm not sure that your points relate to what I said. Again, those kinds of speculations are merely that to me: speculations. I am only interested really in how people reason when it comes to issues such as this, and as we continually see, people often reason quite poorly. | |
|
| Proof for the existence of God
Posted: 6/23/2008 8:54:37 AM |
I agree that the believer does not NEED to accept the non-believers viewpoint, did I say otherwise? My original point was that the title of this thread says "Proof for the existence of God" - I want proof, convice me using logic, ration and reason. Not "faith" = supsend all forms of empirical logic and accept any answer I so chose to give you, because I say so as I've used the word "faith" you have to believe me.
I was not giving you a rational argument. You want one of those? Read some of the theologians, St. Aquinas had 4 or 5 or so.
My argument still remains strong for the sake of deducing something logically the pink elephant or flying spaghetti monster hold all of the same status/power as your god in my eyes, or in my "faith", therefore the argument can be applied. If you really want to have something to sink your teeth into, what then of other religious deities?
All that really is doing is ascribing an absurd title and image to G-d. And saying "Wow! Isn't that silly? I can't take Him seriously now! Look what I've done!" That's not much of an argument. I don't look at the Sunday comics and read about Bush and assume the lampooning is true. That a caricature of Bush is the real thing. Do you? | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 19
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 |
|
Home
login 
