I’m a Christian, but have no interest in convincing anyone to believe in God. Now that “love your neighbor” thing on the other hand…
Right, the old “God’s mysterious plan” tactic to hand wave away any serious discussion.
…snip…
Proof of the existence of a god should be held to the same basic standards of proof that science uses: the technique should be repeatable by anyone, anywhere, anytime, and should lead to the same result. And that result should be a face-to-face encounter with the deity, while we are still alive.
Until that happens, there can be no meaningful discussion of gods or religion. You might as well be arguing the gospel according to Daffy Duck; it will have the same validity.
What does it matter what god the OP is referring to? It doesn’t. The argument does not work in any ‘proof’ of any god.
Bringing logic into it does not work. Or only works against the theist.
It’s interesting that theists want to prove that god exists. I think they want to prove it to themselves. To justify their belief and actions.
As an agnostic leaning atheist, it does not matter one way or another for my life and how I live it.
There’s a couple of retirees from New Jersey that bought a house along the North Carolina coast. They’re suing in NC courts for the right to control the beach in front of their house in a manner that flies in the face of over a century of NC tradition. If they succeed, it’ll drastically and permanently change the character of our coastline. But they’re not even doing it out of some sort of misguided libertarian property-rights zealotry: they insist that they think the court ruling (which absolutely would be far-reaching) should only apply to them.
Anyway. There’s also a storm brewing off the coast of Florida. It’s not predicted to hit the North Carolina coast.
If it changed directions, shrank and concentrated, and bulldozed straight through that couple’s house while leaving the houses to either side untouched–THAT would be a proof of God that I would accept.
I am because I say I am and no further proof is necessary.
Bob
Many widely-help scientific principles have never been literally proven, but become accepted on the basis of the body of evidence. Einstein’s Relativities have no been proven per se, but every time we apply the math, it works within the framework of the theories. “Proof” of a deity is nonsensical in the language of science, but the more important point is that there is no single piece of substantive evidence for its existence. The OP has not changed that in the least.
That is called “Apatheism”.
But also, there are gobs and heaps and tons of actual evidence. Particle accelerators wouldn’t work, nor would the GPS system, without taking Relativity into account. This isn’t just an abstract idea, but something with real concrete observational support.
(Now, yeah, there are also people who have “observed” God – but their experiences are never duplicated upon challenge.)
You’re right in another way: certain of the very foundational bases of science aren’t proven: that reality exists, that other people exist, that this isn’t just a Cartesian deceit; that “cause and effect” actually work. Those, we pretty much must accept on faith.
Um, sorry? What is this supposed to mean?
No. We run countless experiments on all these things, and these hypotheses never get falsified. That doesn’t mean they are proven (just talk to an extreme skeptic) but they have been demonstrated with p < 0.0000…001
That ain’t faith in my book - just a very good working hypothesis.
Well, look: it’s possible that (per Alexei Panshin) in the lifetime of the doorbell, it rings occasionally at random times, and that people push the button at random times, but there isn’t any actual cause and effect between these events. It’s just a coincidence (like the neighbor slams his door and my lawn sprinkler turns on. That’s happened.)
We can’t prove that there are such things as causes and effects. We have to assume this for reason to make a damn bit of sense, but it is, ultimately, an assumption.
Same for the existence of reality, or the existence of other minds. You might be trapped in a holodeck sim all alone, and we’re just artificial constructs. At some point, you have to make a couple of initial assumptions.
And if you run it backwards, you prove dogs exist. Much more useful in my book.
I don’t know what you are talking about. There is lots of empirical evidence that Einstein’s theories work. Many of the predictions have been shown to be true. Does that mean that his theories are correct? Almost certainly not. Every theory is subject to being supplanted by a better theory at some point. That’s how science works.
This is taking much longer that I thought.
I have been working on my rebuttal for the last four hours, and I’m unfortunately still not done. I have been away from home most of the day, and haven’t had adequate time to focus into this. If some of you think I’ve left this to the wind, I assure you I have not. I’m going to bed shortly, but I will try my best to finish it tomorrow morning.
At the heart of the new testament and christianity is a belief that Jesus was the son of god and born of a virgin through impregnation by a deity, lived a miraculous life, died and was taken bodily into heaven.
If you believe that Jesus was a real person then surely he and his life and work represented multiple manifestations of power that were amenable to testing.
Or do you not believe that part of the bible?
Every single person on the planet believes in gravity.
Gravity can be tested by anyone at any time.
Gravity is always present and entirely consistent.
There are many religions and each religion is subdivided into sects (some of which try to kill each other.)
If any God existed, it would be trivial to prove it (just like gravity above.)
But there is no physical evidence for any God (and their holy books have discrepancies and contradictions.)
Therefore no God exists.
I am what I am and that’s all that I am.
Popeye
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rome wasn’t built in a day. But the temple was rebuilt in three.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Which God? If a god exists who doesn’t want us to know that he exists, then he would be hard to prove or disprove. If a god exists who never interfered, ditto.
If one’s God was defined as causing the flood, simple to disprove. If one’s God whispered into the ears of various writers of holy books, and because he somehow didn’t think anyone would understand the truth told them stupid legends, also hard to disprove.
What we do know is that if God cared that we know he exists he could do something about it. Since he obviously doesn’t - so Hasa Diga Eebowai.
You’ve come to the right place.