Can you prove that God exists?

[Jatom]

TheHammerSpeaks,


It's good to see that you're exercising your liberties while remaining within the 'restraints' of Christianity. Protestantism has it's fair share of liberties as well, but perhaps not as much Catholicism.

I knew I spoted Hume in your post, and I thought I spied a bit of Kant's dualism but I guess I was mistaken; ah well, I still have much to research... anyway look forward to reading more of your post, and no, I actually hadn't read any of Hamann.

Until next time,

God Bless!

[Jatom]

geckopelli,


consider it done.

[Jatom]

If the first two propostions (premises) are true, then the third propsition (conclussion) must be true.
you come to a conclusion, yes. but how that conclusion is interpretted is upto you. maybe you expect it to be the absolute truth maybe you dont. i only expect from conclusions. the word must is only relative to the method of analysis.Venom, I drew no conclusion in that quote. Was this in regard to the categorical syllogism? :

All men are mortal
Socrates is a Man
Therefore Socrates is Mortal

I suppose you could deny that this argument is valid, but to do so, I think, would require one to be unreasonable since Socrates is within the catogory men, and men is within the catogory mortal--to deny that the conclusion follows would be to deny the Law of contradiction (which of course is self-defeating). As far as the conclusion being "absolute truth," I suppose if the argument is sound, then the conclusion can be considered "absolute". But this is beside the point, because science doesn't opperated this way. In science the process goes backwards, from particular to universal.

[venom_zx]

Hammer.

the statement "everything is open to interpretation" defines an uncertainty. because what defines this absolute is uncertainty, it comes down to the same thing from a more universal level. and i have not changed my mind. objectivity is also one of those interpretations. i was again referring my expectations of the way objectivity gets interpreted.

on the most ultimate plain i know, the word cold doesnt have any meaning necessarily. but you also use alot of words and i don't deny you of what you are saying. slightly different interpretations of words are not new. which i knew already. i never denied that humans don't see things in the same way. there never was a conflict there. if people look at the moon i don't have any knowledge of how to predict what they think. and yes i agree with you that the moon for example, can be interpreted in different ways. but the my main point is that i never disagreed.

i dont think that sentence about atheists has grammar and spelling mistakes.

"being an atheist does not qualify as any other group of people that do not believe in god."

...maybe you should reread it a couple of times. punctuation mistakes maybe, but not grammar and spelling. i was referring to you saying about yourself having been an atheist and christian and what emotions you experienced. i was saying that atheists and christians are not the only groups of people. and don't turn the question about what a man is on me . its about what your intention was. i can't tell you what your intention was/is.

how could you talk about appreciation in such an absolute way after everything you have said. appreciation is different for different people just like the example of the moon you mentioned. others might appreciate that universals can exist. not everyone necessarily appreciates complexity.



Jatom.

i was not referring to that statement about socrates being mortal. i was just talking about the statement you made about conclusions having to be true. it sounded completely absolute. but i see now that this was probably also relative to your method. right? in that case its my mistake.




venom_zx

[Jatom]

was not referring to that statement about socrates being mortal. i was just talking about the statement you made about conclusions having to be true. it sounded completely absolute. but i see now that this was probably also relative to your method. right? in that case its my mistake.
Like I said venom, to deny that the conclusion "must" follow from the premises is to deny the law of contradiction, which is self-defeating. The only "method" here is one being rational. The alternative is to be irrational. Now with this in mind, if the premises are true, than the conclusion must be true, and argument is sound.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

the statement "everything is open to interpretation" defines an uncertainty. because what defines this absolute is uncertainty,
Depends on how you look at it. The statement is a positive assertion. So, if the statement is true, you can know that "everything is open to interpretation" with certainty.

objectivity is also one of those interpretations.
How can objectivity be an interpretation? If everything is open to interpretation, then you can only conclude that everything is subjective. If everything is subjective, then you can do no less than conclude that there is no objectivity.

if people look at the moon i don't have any knowledge of how to predict what they think. and yes i agree with you that the moon for example, can be interpreted in different ways.
But I do have knowledge of the moon. I'm not denying that forces such as gravity and light exist. I'm arguing that my experiences differ from yours and so our interpretation also differs.

i dont think that sentence about atheists has grammar and spelling mistakes.

"being an atheist does not qualify as any other group of people that do not believe in god."
Well then let me explain what I don't understand. Are you saying that atheists are the only group of people who do not believe in God, or that there are other groups of people besides atheists who do not believe in God? I'm not sure which you mean.

i was referring to you saying about yourself having been an atheist and christian and what emotions you experienced. i was saying that atheists and christians are not the only groups of people.
Okay, how is that relevant? What's your point?

and don't turn the question about what a man is on me . its about what your intention was. i can't tell you what your intention was/is.
It's a simple question, no hidden agenda involved.

how could you talk about appreciation in such an absolute way after everything you have said. appreciation is different for different people just like the example of the moon you mentioned. others might appreciate that universals can exist. not everyone necessarily appreciates complexity.
True, not everyone appreciates the complexity of the universe, and those people are kidding themselves. If the problem of induction is open to interpretation, it still comes back to one thing, universals cannot be known. If someone interprets the problem of induction differently, then they are thinking in a scientific context, not a theological/philosophical one, and probably have no business doing philosophy, and certainly no business doing theology. I'm sure that person would make a great scientist though.

[venom_zx]

Jatom.

agreed Jatom.


Hammer.

i dont know how many times i have to tell that i agree saying, that you can look at it from different angles. i don't understand why you keep providing arguments. wasn't that your goal. i never said that anything like for example objectivity is an absolute.

TheHammerSpeaks: "How can objectivity be an interpretation?"
you said it yourself and i agreed(i never disagreed). everything is open to interpretation.

about the moon: i was talking about my knowledge of predicting what people think of it when they look at it.i dont have alot of this. it was not about knowledge of the moon. i agreed with you about interpretation not being universal, and once again i never disagreed.

venom_zx:"i was referring to you saying about yourself having been an atheist and christian and what emotions you experienced. i was saying that atheists and christians are not the only groups of people."

this was concerning your flame. this was in response to what you experienced. you experienced two groups.(this experience i find questionable but thats beside the point). when you flamed me, you responded with what you experienced. you dont know what group i belong to. the point is you did not know. which means that you had no reason to flame me. thats how i find it relevant. and i won't define a man for you because i will not create an opening for you. this was a flame.

i don't see why you find that, complexity of the universe has to be appreciated or else you are not honest. why don't you apply what you said here yourself and say that the complexity is open for interpretation:
TheHammerSpeaks:"True, not everyone appreciates the complexity of the universe, and those people are kidding themselves."

because of... ?what? how is appreciation the same for each person? are you saying you know exactly how appreciation comes about? the point is you do not know. its different with different people. how people interpret something can lead to appreciation possibly. and no it does not bring us back anywhere obviously. also, i will decide for myself as all other people if i have business participating. and once again i agreed with you already that there are no absolute certainties. again i dont know why you give me arguments here. saying that there are no absolute certainties is very scientific/logical of you but god doesnt fit into that necessarily.

venom_zx

[phybre]

God- A supreme being (one only), to whom we ordinary beings owe our existence, but whose own existence depends upon nothing else. Supreme in goodness, knowledge (omniscience), and power (omnipotent).

Can anyone offer proof that God, as described above, exists?
I am not asking for someone's belief in God, I am asking for an arguement or example that proves his/her existence.David Lewis' 1970 paper "Anselm and Actuality" proposes that all ontological arguments (arguments that attempt to prove the existence of God through reason alone) are either invalid or question-begging; moreover, in many cases, they have two closely related readings, one of which falls into each of the above categories.

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/philosophy/0195032047/acprof-0195032047-chapter-2.html

As to proofs that rely on a posteriori knowledge, they cannot be used to prove the existence of God, since observations that contradict nature lead to a proof of a contradictory god, and observations that do not contradict nature lead to natural explanations for the observations.

Or, if you prefer another angle on why experience cannot lead to a proof of God, human memory is inherently untrustworthy. People in stress can invent scenes which never existed, and forget scenes which did exist. Memory retains best that which is already familiar to a person, and that which is unfamiliar is remembered through metaphors of familiarity. Those metaphors eventually become the memory, when it's recalled often enough. This phenomenon is known as confabulation, and everyone does it. This is one way investigators can intuit when a group of people are lying when they are questioned separately. If the stories are wildly different, they're generally lying. If the stories are too similar, they're also generally lying. This might at first seem paradoxical, but it's not.

"God" is a concept so ill-defined that it's nearly impossible to discuss the topic without exhaustively listing all the properties your version of God must exhibit. The word itself is used in so many different and mutually exclusive contexts that it's been desensitized into meaninglessness. I try to avoid the word. And the Word, too, since I can decide for myself what is moral and what is right.

[venom_zx]

hear hear

well spoken

[littleskinny]

The whole premise of the universe is based on the linear equation of cause and effect. The main argument for the existence of God is that the universe is so complex that a supreme being must have created it. Ask yourself then which is more complex? The universe or a being with the capacity to create it? And then what environment could give rise to such a being? The principle of Occam's razor is that all things being equal the simplest explanation is the most likely. This is not a conclusive argument but goes a long way to undermine the necessity of the existence of God when it comes to a "creator"

[isness]

Conceptualizing the unknown and then clinging to the idea of it being true or false. This is what we have become as thinkers in a world full of suffering. We think ourselves into a mess, arguing our beliefs we "know" are right, but our minds know are a belief. We give excuses for all that we do or say so that we will not be proved wrong, but we are not aware that we are backing a completely self-manufactured notion, and that we could not possibly know if it is true or not. We say "true" but we are lying when we use the word, for truth is not an interpretation. Truth transends all interpretation, truth is the isness, the essence of the entire universe. Truth cannot be seen, smelled, or touched in its entirety, for we cannot percieve all that is. We can only percieve from our perspective in the universe. If we really knew all that is, we could not be content, we would have no reason to live. We "know" what we think we know, and we cannot be content with this either. Happiness is to see all exactly how it is, to know that you do not know, and go from there. Do not desire to know, because then you will distort your perceptions to try and fulfill your desire. Do not desire to not know, because then your perceptions will float in a void of uncertainty. You think you know God when you believe you know everything. You really know God when you know you know nothing.

[littleskinny]

That is dogmatic agnosticism

[isness]

label all you want. no labels, no confusion.

[littleskinny]

no discussion either. how convenient

[isness]

Zutino!!!!!

[littleskinny]

pardon my labelling but that's a deflection

[isness]

i see you god, you are my mind, you are the trees, you are the fire, you are this fly buzzing in my ear, you are right, you are wrong, you are, you, I, God, Zutino!

[Liberation]

pardon me while i burst into flamessssssssssssssssssssssss heh
well i can prove it
but can you?
peace

[underground04]

ahh, prove that god dosent exist you should. prove anyones personal idea of who and what god is you cannot.

[chicken neck]

stinking god!
thats just a word that means everything that exists.
you goofballs are asking whether theres stuff that exists that you aint sure about and calling that god. either way he dont care.

[isness]

True, how could the vastness of the universe possibly care about the tiny spec of human existance. God sees through our eyes, the oneness that is without time.

[TheChaosFactor]

God is supposed to be infallable, yes? In the Bible there are stories of God exhibiting wrath and pride. God is simply the face of hope and desperation for immortality in the hearts of people, and because people don't like what they don't know 'He' is used as a way to justify what is sometimes unexplainable.

[maryjaneguitargurl]

Yes I can. Go to a chicken coop in south Texas. God lives there.


peace
chickens