Can you prove that God exists?

What ever god you believe in, pray for us.

Second Hurricane in 3 1/2 weeks is coming.
Hard to see how that fits in to some divine plan.
Mysterious ways, indeed!

See ya- I hope!

 

Hammer,

well like i said. you don't know if universals are entirely true. you assume so. i already agreed with you on that. why did you mention it again? well the last time i checked sqaures had straight sides and 90 degree angles. if you have a different definitionof a square then yes its possible that by your definition. you do know the definition of a the word square dont you? the specific rules that i know about shapes dont predict that but the general rules i have say that there is a chance. its like you dont know the word unknown.

well not just knowledge of particulars but also the possibilities they bring of course. well you cant say its cold with absolute certainty but with a higher amount because you know that ice cubes are cold. and as i thought , you place god with everything that is unknown. it seems to specific. anything to define the unknown is too specific. its inconsistant. you already agreed with me by differentiating between absolute certainty and what is not known. but now you have just disagreed again despite our agreement earlier. by defining the unknown as god. please make up your mind. if the definition of god to you is the same as unknown then we agree and you have been using the word god when you should have been using (the) unknown.

having no knowledge is the only true knowledge not all knowledge necessarily. guessing answers may bring you the right answer the are of course an infinite amount of answers possible. so that would give you a chance of one out of the infinite? in other words... if for example there is a lottery on tv and they draw the same number every show, you would not look at the pattern and deliberately do something else for no reason.well you have provided a reason and that is no reason. because none of -the arguments you have used/-reasons you have mentioned, to indicate this have made any sense. despite your efforts to deny this.

i think its time for you to face the music. less of a man? this is a flame. are you heaving trouble keeping hold of all those glorious emotions? dont just say things. show them also. i never talked about any of my emotions. in other words you are saying that those that do not believe in "god" dont have emotions.

you arent making sense Hammer and as you can see, im not just saying this.

 

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.

 

I mentioned it again because I wasn't convinced that you realised what you were saying by denying that we can ever know if a universal is true with certainty. Because you admit that there's a chance that a round square may exist, you have shown me that you do realise the force of such a conviction. I was just making sure.

I don't understand. I'm the one saying that we can never know if a universal is true. So I definately understand what the word "unkown" means.

I can certainly say, "To me, this ice cube feels cold" with certainty. The statement is not a universal. The question is whether or not the ice cube is objectively cold. The answer is no because words have no objective meaning to begin with.

Yes! Good, you're catching on. But you're wrong that I'm defining God as the unknown. Certainly part of God is unknown, but He is not necessarily all of the unknown. And then there's the part of God which is known. God's very hard to pin down like that.

Oh, I see what you're saying. I am not claiming to have absolute certainty of God's existence. It's ultimately a leap of faith. However, with that said, belief in God gives rise to a world-view more coherent than a belief in universals, because universals can be proven false. Faith is the ultimate coherent belief system because it can be used to overcome any logical inconsistency.

Well, I already said that that's not my definition of God.

Well, since the odds are one out of infinity, I think that provides a good reason not to gamble. But don't get me wrong, universals have been working great for science and mathematics. No one can deny that. But that doesn't mean that they work for philosophy and theology. The disciplines answer completely different questions, and so it is necessary that they have different methodologies.

It's not a flame. You're trying to pass it off as offensive so you can avoid answering it. There was no offense intended. So how do you define a man? I believe that men are defined by their experiences. So, it follows that if you have had less experiences than another, you are less of a man than that other.

Emotions are fleeting. That's the way they work. The point isn't to hold on to them, just to experience them.

No, I'm saying that those who do not believe in God don't experience as wide a variety of emotions as those who do.

 

Hammer.

now you have change from is cold to feels cold . and absolute certainty to certainty.retreating? if we are now talking about the touch then you are referring to the sensation. complete lack of heat is -273 degrees celsius which is objective. there is not really alot of point argueing about what is cold and what is not, as cold is lack of heat. ice cubes are generally colder than the body temperature. more heat can always be added to any temperature, in theory. the only certain cold is complete lack of heat. so if the ice cube is -273 degrees celsius then its objectively cold. the rest is open to interpretation.

yes god is part of the unknown like any other possibility. so instead you should have said "where i see the unknown i see a possibility for god (or anything else)" if that is what you truely believe. instead of saying "where i see the unknown i see god" .

despite you saying you understand the word unknown, its clear to me that you do not understand what it means. because you think you are in the right turning it into what you want it to be. your main argument is basicly " because i say so" .we cant talk with like .

yes it is a flame because you attacked me on a personal level without any reason. you can't just say that those who believe in god experience more emotions than those who dont. who decided that? you cant just say anything you want and ship it off as "philosophy" . i may not be the best at philosophy but im pretty sure thats not how it works. it is what you have constantly been doing. you say what you want and then when people are onto you you quickly show them to a few pages (or try to intimidate them? with how they have been educated, which is not even appropriate to the discussion). you are just talking. literally.

 

I haven't changed a thing. You can go through all my past posts in the discussion and I always say that the ice cube feels cold to me. That's all I can say with absolute certainty and I've never claimed anything more.

Cold is also a figure of speech, as in "to give the cold shoulder." I could probably find a lot of other meanings if I gave it some more thought. So it's not quite as clear cut as -273 degrees celsius. Are you telling me that -272 degrees celcius is not cold? If you ask me, that's pretty cold. A word's meaning is dependent upon it's context. Therefore, there is no objective definition of a word.

It's all open to interpretation. That's my point.

No, I see God in the unknown, not just the possibility of God. I can see Him there because I appreciate the complexity of the universe.

I could say the same to you. It's all about context.

It was not a flame because it wasn't even directed at you personally. It was directed at atheists as a whole. And I gave my reason already in my last post. I am basing that accusation on personal experience. I was an atheist. Now I'm a Christian. My life as a Christian involves far richer thoughts and feelings than it did as an atheist.

I'm not just saying what I want. Most of what I've been saying isn't even original. It's based off the work of previous philosophers. And for the last time, my comment on your level of education was not derogatory. I just wanted to get an idea of what you know about philosophy. Don't be so touchy.

 

Hammer,

everythings is of course open to interpretation but, i have already mentioned that as one of my main rules. its not an absolute. its a conclusion and a expectation. the way i see it is that we are throwing around different conclusions and. but you seem to want to do more (dictate?).

"Are you telling me that -272 degrees celcius is not cold?" lack means not enough so it could be left to decide wether its cold or not.which i have said. i think your body get burns from extremely low temperature. im not sure about the sensation. -273 i think is cold but if you leave it open to interpretation a mad man could say its yellow. i dont see anything interesting about that. i have looked at the meaning of words and drawn conclusions. we could argue about what you interpret those words to be or change their meaning for some reason. but we do want to understand eachother dont we? i already know that its open for interpretation but i expect you to use the words the same way as me. dont forget to interpret/predict expectations of communication.

being an atheist does not qualify as any other group of people that do not believe in god. did you not know that? so its still a bad reason to say that.

complexity is relative. but relative to what is the complexity of the universe?

venom_zx

 

*that* god is an asshole. but probably does exist, just because i think that if so many people believe in one thing, that belief energy will actually create said thing. This god you refer to has a name, jehovah, but they call him "god", just cause they want to make sure everyone is well aware that he is (allegedly) the *only* god. i think he's just the same as zeus, athena, pan, isis, and any other god or goddess from any other religion. he's one of MANY, that, like i said before, i do think exist simply because so many people put that energy out there. But Jehovah seems to be a much bigger asshole than the other ones. Some of the other ones are actually,*gasp*, nice! so there's my stupid theory. as for proof... good luck. i go with my intuition most of the time anyway.

 

*that* god is an asshole. but probably does exist, just because i think that if so many people believe in one thing, that belief energy will actually create said thing. This god you refer to has a name, jehovah, but they call him "god", just cause they want to make sure everyone is well aware that he is (allegedly) the *only* god. i think he's just the same as zeus, athena, pan, isis, and any other god or goddess from any other religion. he's one of MANY, that, like i said before, i do think exist simply because so many people put that energy out there. But Jehovah seems to be a much bigger asshole than the other ones. Some of the other ones are actually,*gasp*, nice! so there's my stupid theory. as for proof... good luck. i go with my intuition most of the time anyway.

 

Well actually, the statement "all things are open to interpretation" is an absolute. But it seems like you're changing your mind now. You said that -273 degrees celcius is objectively cold. But if everything is open to interpretation, then how can that be?

Yes, we are certainly throwing around different conclusions. But I'm not dictating anything. My conclusions follow from the starting point and methodology I have adopted. I'm sure the same can be said for yours.

That's not what I meant. I'm just trying to show you that the word "cold" has no objective meaning. And that the word means something at least slightly different to every human being on this earth.

No, you have looked at a meaning of the word. More specifically, you have looked at your meaning of the word.

That's not what I'm getting at. What I'm driving at is that you could look at, say, the moon and see the law of gravity and the effects of light at work. I look at it and see God, not to say that God is the moon, but rather that God has a very real presence in the moon.

I don't understand that first sentence. Please be more careful with grammar and spelling simply for the sake of clarity. But let me turn the question to you then: What makes a man? What makes you an individual?

It's relative to each human being's understanding of the word "complexity," but that's not the point either. I was alluding to the fact that universals simplify the universe, thus making us unable to appreciate it's complexity.

 

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!

 

geckopelli,


consider it done.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Okay, how is that relevant? What's your point?

It's a simple question, no hidden agenda involved.

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

hear hear

well spoken

 

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"