Does God Exist? (2 Viewers)

[dre]

yes i believe so

 

[MoonlightSonata]

And most religions have some form of proof, albeit not widely accepted as "proper" proof. With the bible and other religious texts; on what basis is there to dismiss some of the observations taken that supports the case of god? On what basis do you call something a "material fact?"

It is convenient to set straight what is not a material fact, ie. the content of the Bible.

Notwithstanding extreme epistemological questions, this is a fact:

A water molecule is comprised of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.

 

[acmilan]

Its funny how pictures are often taken that can be thought of as signs from God, especially after disasters. These are some other photos that are unedited:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/graphics/charley.jpg (occurred after a hurricane in USA)

http://www.snopes.com/photos/patriotic/graphics/azflag_small.jpg (cross on the flag)

http://www.snopes.com/photos/images/eyeofgod.jpg (doesnt really relate but one of my fav. pics of the universe which has been named the "eye of God)

 

[breaking]

how? What do you mean?

Oh, and did you finally realise that the waves did spell out Allah in arabic? I almost forgot to say this

so allah caused this?
well if that's the case. "allah" is nothing but scum.

 

[Kulazzi]

I believe Allah caused this. Many people believe it was just the tectonics plates. Some Christians believe it was their God. We all have our different views. And I think it would be wise if you refrain from insulting other religions. You know it's not nice.

 

[soha]

so allah caused this?
well if that's the case. "allah" is nothing but scum.

dude
Allah is just the arabic word for god
neways..everything good and bad that happens on earth is by the will god
so yeah 'Allah'...caused this
just like he causes everything else..like your life and existence
when you breathe
etc etc

 

[Pace Setter]

It is convenient to set straight what is not a material fact, ie. the content of the Bible.

Notwithstanding extreme epistemological questions, this is a fact:

A water molecule is comprised of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.

Thus, any observations by anyone outside of the bible can also be dismissed as "not material fact?" And past observations can, thus also, (keeping in mind "this" line of debate) be dismissed as "not proof?"

So, again, by what criteria do you have for what is valid proof, and what isn't. And why would that criteria, or any of it's requirements, be the "correct" one. i.e. Who decides this?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Thus, any observations by anyone outside of the bible can also be dismissed as "not material fact?" And past observations can, thus also, (keeping in mind "this" line of debate) be dismissed as "not proof?"

So, again, by what criteria do you have for what is valid proof, and what isn't. And why would that criteria, or any of it's requirements, be the "correct" one. i.e. Who decides this?

Humanity has found answers more accurate and more detailed through the application of reason than by any other means. We can prove that 1+1 = 2. We can prove the Earth is so many metres away from the sun. We can prove that Agassi beat Dent tonight. We can prove things through the process of reason, scientific method, observable phenomenon, cause and effect, etc.

We cannot prove the words of the Bible. Additionally the Bible ought not be used in argument for the existence of God because it is a fallacy of argument: you cannot use a controversial premise in order to reach a conclusion, making most arguments that involve the Bible unsound. This is a basic convention of argument. Let me give you an example:

P1. Aliens are green
P2. Bill is an alien
C. Therefore Bill is green.

(One) problem with this is that you cannot use "Bill is an alien" to prove that Bill is green, because it is a controversial premise (so is P1).

Logic and reasoning are some of humankind's most powerful tools that we use in order to make decisions. You need to be able to show people, justify what you say, demonstrate the truth of your claims, and use the best of our mental faculities (reason).

 

[snapperhead]

Other than those who ascribe to the fundamental school of thought, who here (or in the real world) uses/has used the bible to prove the existence of God?

To pick up on some of your points from before.

No, the analogy is relevant. Your example is about taste, something subjective. We are talking about a FACT, something true or false.

You used an analogy about alien abduction then you say its fact? My example whilst being about taste (as the example) was based upon proven fact and you respond with this! Given that your preoccupation with physical evidence and proof, this is again just contradictory...

It is very clear that I was not defining faith as pure foolishness, I was simply saying that it is an act of pure foolishness to have said faith (believe without proof).

no, thats not what you said as was quoted. You cannot define faith as being without proof then pass judgement to say that belief without proof (ie faith) is foolish...again, this is arrogance. Cant be done as its contradictory to your argument (plus your eg of 'rap' again doesnt make sense in the context of what you are trying to say)

Firstly, you're going against the very definition of faith, as I said before. What is faith? The belief in something without proof. The faith of someone (ie. their lack of proof) is their proof? That does not make any sense.

no, you have missed the point of what faith is. Yes, faith is belief without proof but by saying that I have faith .: I have no proof makes no sense (refer to your bill is an alien premise...same logic). I have have faith, I have proof..it my belief. Other than all of the assorted religious phenomena in the world, there is a lot of proof (yes, even outside of religious texts) that occur everyday (for eg, one for me is that the motivation of good acts that occur all the time in the name of God-you may not see that as physical proof but I do.: that is some of my proof). One could also argue (as I do believe in the existence of God- to bring it back to the original thread question) that you and I are 'physical' proof of the existence of God..who is to say that is wrong? (NB to all: I havenot argued against DNA, conception etc so please dont go there as that is just sooo ignorant and wrong)

Moreover, by saying "my faith is my proof," what you're really saying is "I dont have any proof, but I believe anyway."

ummm...isnt that the idea behind faith...plus see above

As I said, arguing semantics (ie giving secular definitions) isnt going to work as it discounts two very important facts to one who believes....faith and belief. Just cause you dont get it doesnt mean that it isnt correct for those who accept it as correct (again to argue against this would make you a hypocrite)

I stand by my original point that my faith is my proof and my proof is in my faith..note the stress on My..you cant say Im wrong as its my belief..again, hypocrisy is a bitch

 

[Raiks]

with regards to the face of the devil..

umm.. do we even know what the devil looks like?.. the images caught were based on wordly beliefs of what the devil looks like .. such as images found in cartoons... Im sure many people that pointed out those pictures have never actually seen the devil face to face, and neither do they know the exact characteristics of the devil....

with regards to Allah, we know what the word looks like, and living in an area were the surround road map has the shape of the wave is different, because they were man made and would have purpously been placed in the certain area with certain design and construction for all we know it.. the road builders could have been arab....

Writing was developed by humans, so was the road map that 'mysteriously' looked like that wave. So isn't that wave just as important to the road map as it to your religious beliefs due to what that symbol represents. You symbol which represents Allah may be important to you, my symbol of the road map location may be just as important to me.

Think of it this way. You just finish eating alphabet soup, the soup with all those little letters. At the bottom in a semijumbled order, you find the letters 'GODSSHALLKILL'... Is it a message from god saying that God Shall Kill, or is just a message about where I needed to train my dog that afternoon with the letters spelling out 'Dog Skills Hall'... It's what you want to read into it, and you're beliefs can cloud the other possibilities.

 

[Pace Setter]

Humanity has found answers more accurate and more detailed through the application of reason than by any other means. We can prove that 1+1 = 2. We can prove the Earth is so many metres away from the sun. We can prove that Agassi beat Dent tonight. We can prove things through the process of reason, scientific method, observable phenomenon, cause and effect, etc.

We cannot prove the words of the Bible. Additionally the Bible ought not be used in argument for the existence of God because it is a fallacy of argument: you cannot use a controversial premise in order to reach a conclusion, making most arguments that involve the Bible unsound.

Sport and mathematics are entirely human constructs. They're not "proofs," as they were completely invented by humans themselves, and the various "facts" within them are not independant of humans. We decide the rules, we apply the rules to what happens. It's like language; it's not really infallible, but it also doesn't prove anything outside of us, it is at best an identification system (based on the rules we've made).

Back on topic, and back to the question I was asking in my previous posts. Most of the alleged evidence in the bible are of past observations, as in, they were perhaps observable phenomenon in the past. You've dismissed it as sound proof because it is "controversial," i.e. There are people who disagree with the information presented. But there is not one single piece of "fact" (independant of such human constructs as language, maths, sport, etc) in the universe that everyone agrees upon.

What distinguishes alleged past observation with more accepted forms of "proof?" More "potential" for accuracy? If I say to you "I saw a dog and a cat today," would you call that "controversial" evidence.

What makes any other more "accepted" types of proof more acceptable? 1. Is it because they're not controversial? No. Less controversial perhaps, but where there is a fact on anything independant of humans, there are those who have an argument against the truth of that fact; in most cases. 2. Is it because the more accepted types of proof are more likely to stand the test of time-i.e still be accepted with similar "trust" in the future. It's difficult to accurately predict the future, but with the yawning gaps in much of our knowledge of the world and universe(s), I'd definitely put my money on most, if not all accepted facts and laws in the present to be discarded in a couple of centuries (assuming a constant state of scientific advance from now till then). So what makes this form of proof different?

Logic and reasoning are some of humankind's most powerful tools that we use in order to make decisions. You need to be able to show people, justify what you say, demonstrate the truth of your claims, and use the best of our mental faculities (reason).

Unfortunately, science and logic always seem to be confused with each other. A scientific proof, which is accepted as "truth" in today's society, is not necessarily the same as a logical proof. Conventional scientific proofs have an emphasis on recognising occurences through the five senses. Furthermore, it requires conformation to a set of rules designed for continuity of the theories, rather than any "search for absolute truth." Logical proofs however, are a whole different kettle of fish...

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Sport and mathematics are entirely human constructs. They're not "proofs," as they were completely invented by humans themselves, and the various "facts" within them are not independant of humans. We decide the rules, we apply the rules to what happens. It's like language; it's not really infallible, but it also doesn't prove anything outside of us, it is at best an identification system (based on the rules we've made).

Logic and reasoning are underlying what I am getting at. 1+1=2 is always going to mean the same thing to us, or to aliens. The label may be different, but it is indepedant of humans. Even if these methods are human constructs, they are the absolute best methods we have. Like I said, humanity has found more accuracy through the process of logic and reasoning than through any other method. Ergo these "constructs" have immense authority to adhere to.

Back on topic, and back to the question I was asking in my previous posts. Most of the alleged evidence in the bible are of past observations, as in, they were perhaps observable phenomenon in the past. You've dismissed it as sound proof because it is "controversial," i.e. There are people who disagree with the information presented. But there is not one single piece of "fact" (independant of such human constructs as language, maths, sport, etc) in the universe that everyone agrees upon.

No, I have dismissed using controversial premises in a logical argument. As I said, it is a basic convention of argument (study reason/logic and you'll find out). There are important reasons for rejecting controversial premises: they do not guarantee the soundness of a logical proof because while the validity of the premises and conclusion might flow logically, we do not know if the premises are true or not. Thus we only use facts we know in the premises in order to prove something.

What distinguishes alleged past observation with more accepted forms of "proof?" More "potential" for accuracy? If I say to you "I saw a dog and a cat today," would you call that "controversial" evidence.

It depends on the past observation. If we can be sure of the accuracy of the observation, then it would hold up as more weighty. However the whole point of evidence is to prove to someone that something is true. We have no way of knowing that the bible is true. It is circular reasoning to assert that the Bible is true.

What makes any other more "accepted" types of proof more acceptable? 1. Is it because they're not controversial? No. Less controversial perhaps, but where there is a fact on anything independant of humans, there are those who have an argument against the truth of that fact; in most cases. 2. Is it because the more accepted types of proof are more likely to stand the test of time-i.e still be accepted with similar "trust" in the future. It's difficult to accurately predict the future, but with the yawning gaps in much of our knowledge of the world and universe(s), I'd definitely put my money on most, if not all accepted facts and laws in the present to be discarded in a couple of centuries (assuming a constant state of scientific advance from now till then). So what makes this form of proof different?

Once again, I am not saying as a form of proof per se that controversiality is the test. Merely as a convention of argument, you cannot use a controversial premise in a logical proof.

Unfortunately, science and logic always seem to be confused with each other. A scientific proof, which is accepted as "truth" in today's society, is not necessarily the same as a logical proof. Conventional scientific proofs have an emphasis on recognising occurences through the five senses. Furthermore, it requires conformation to a set of rules designed for continuity of the theories, rather than any "search for absolute truth." Logical proofs however, are a whole different kettle of fish...

I never said they were the same, but both are better than nothing.

 

[Pace Setter]

No, I have dismissed using controversial premises in a logical argument. As I said, it is a basic convention of argument (study reason/logic and you'll find out). There are important reasons for rejecting controversial premises: they do not guarantee the soundness of a logical proof because while the validity of the premises and conclusion might flow logically, we do not know if the premises are true or not. Thus we only use facts we know in the premises in order to prove something.

Once again, I am not saying as a form of proof per se that controversiality is the test. Merely as a convention of argument, you cannot use a controversial premise in a logical proof.

There are no such thing as numbers in the real world. The fact that it doesn't exist outside of the human brain makes it completely subjective and not independant of humans, as opposed to something that's objective-like a table.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to be repetitive here. Just about every single "scientific fact" has some form of opposition, both in terms of theory and personnel. The definition of controversial is that it isn't agreed upon by everyone, which is the case for just about every single "fact" known to mankind. So far it hasn't been refuted why EVERY single other "fact" that's independant of humans is also, like the bible, controversial. So to restate, it's fair enough to dismiss an argument based on controversial premises, but when EVERY single other premise within the same field (i.e. "facts" independant of humans) can also be deemed as controversial, the argument cannot be dismissed purely because it is controversial.

It depends on the past observation. If we can be sure of the accuracy of the observation, then it would hold up as more weighty. However the whole point of evidence is to prove to someone that something is true. We have no way of knowing that the bible is true. It is circular reasoning to assert that the Bible is true.

I never said they were the same, but both are better than nothing.

It all depends on the criteria used to determine the validity of the proof. Science and logic in this case, are at odds. Conventional science deems past observation, etc as an invalid form of proof (mainly because, as I said, conventional scientific "rules were designed for continuity of theorem rather than any "search for truth"). Strict logic, however, questions why conventional science draws the line between it's "acceptable" proofs and those that aren't acceptable.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

There are no such thing as numbers in the real world. The fact that it doesn't exist outside of the human brain makes it completely subjective and not independant of humans, as opposed to something that's objective-like a table.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to be repetitive here. Just about every single "scientific fact" has some form of opposition, both in terms of theory and personnel. The definition of controversial is that it isn't agreed upon by everyone, which is the case for just about every single "fact" known to mankind. So far it hasn't been refuted why EVERY single other "fact" that's independant of humans is also, like the bible, controversial. So to restate, it's fair enough to dismiss an argument based on controversial premises, but when EVERY single other premise within the same field (i.e. "facts" independant of humans) can also be deemed as controversial, the argument cannot be dismissed purely because it is controversial.

I already said "notwithstanding extreme epistemological questions." You're taking it way too far there. Are you really going to disagree that a water molecule is made up of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom? That is what we mean by a fact. Look, it really is a basic convention of argument that you don't use controversial premises in producing a conclusion. There is a very clear distinction between extremely, epistemologically controversial and scientifically, or normally controversial. As I discussed in my previous post, there are good reasons for this.

It all depends on the criteria used to determine the validity of the proof. Science and logic in this case, are at odds. Conventional science deems past observation, etc as an invalid form of proof (mainly because, as I said, conventional scientific "rules were designed for continuity of theorem rather than any "search for truth"). Strict logic, however, questions why conventional science draws the line between it's "acceptable" proofs and those that aren't acceptable.

Like I said, both are better than nothing, which is what the Bible amounts to.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

To pick up on some of your points from before.
You used an analogy about alien abduction then you say its fact? My example whilst being about taste (as the example) was based upon proven fact and you respond with this! Given that your preoccupation with physical evidence and proof, this is again just contradictory...

The example was simply to prove a point: you do not believe something unless you have proof/reason to. If faith is lack of proof, then you do not have (propositionally) a reason to believe it.

no, thats not what you said as was quoted. You cannot define faith as being without proof then pass judgement to say that belief without proof (ie faith) is foolish...again, this is arrogance.

I would say it is more arrogant to believe something you have no proof of, believing it to be right (and subsequently just). I'll tell you what I think. I think if there is a God, and I am entirely open to that possibility, then God would dislike people asserting beliefs about him/her/it without the slightest idea of what they're talking about. God could very well be sitting up there thinking... why have these silly people caused so much bloodshed, hatred and ignorance in my name?

[Sideshow Bob voice:] I also realise the irony of speculating on God's thoughts to argue against the act of doing so, so don't bother pointing that out.[end voice]

It cannot be done any other way

no, you have missed the point of what faith is. Yes, faith is belief without proof but by saying that I have faith .: I have no proof makes no sense (refer to your bill is an alien premise...same logic). I have have faith, I have proof..it my belief. Other than all of the assorted religious phenomena in the world, there is a lot of proof (yes, even outside of religious texts) that occur everyday (for eg, one for me is that the motivation of good acts that occur all the time in the name of God-you may not see that as physical proof but I do.: that is some of my proof). One could also argue (as I do believe in the existence of God- to bring it back to the original thread question) that you and I are 'physical' proof of the existence of God..who is to say that is wrong? (NB to all: I havenot argued against DNA, conception etc so please dont go there as that is just sooo ignorant and wrong)

Ok, finally we come to the crunch. When I asked the question, "Does God exist," I asked for reasons why.

You DO have reasons why. Time to put aside this "faith" talk and actually explain what those reasons are, for example, your mention of good acts occuring all the time. THAT may be considered a reason. So lets get on with the discussion please.

I stand by my original point that my faith is my proof and my proof is in my faith..note the stress on My..you cant say Im wrong as its my belief..again, hypocrisy is a bitch

Let us move the discussion on with this very simple question.

Why do you believe in God?

It is very simple. "Faith" is not a reason, if you insist on with that, then let me ask you further,

Why do you have faith that there is a God?

 

[ur_inner_child]

Jesus honey!

This thread still exists?

Moonlight, i rep you for your persistance

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Jesus honey!

This thread still exists?

Moonlight, i rep you for your persistance

thanks, but I only pop back in again every 500 posts or so, just to keep the monster I created in order

 

[Pace Setter]

I already said "notwithstanding extreme epistemological questions." You're taking it way too far there. Are you really going to disagree that a water molecule is made up of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom? That is what we mean by a fact.


Like I said, both are better than nothing, which is what the Bible amounts to.

That first paragraph sounds like it came straight out of a year 8 science textbook. I've repeated this too many times: give the criteria which you use to decide what is fact, and what isn't; paying special attention to WHY some criteria have been included; i.e. WHY certain pieces of criteria are more important than others.

Look, it really is a basic convention of argument that you don't use controversial premises in producing a conclusion.

This line itself has yet to be disagreed upon.

Look, it really is a basic convention of argument that you don't use controversial premises in producing a conclusion. There is a very clear distinction between extremely, epistemologically controversial and scientifically, or normally controversial. As I discussed in my previous post, there are good reasons for this.

What I understand is that every piece of information that has some form of opposition in personnel and theory is said to be "controversial." And in this society, scientifically controversial (only talking about conventional science here) almost automatically renders it "normally controversial." What I've seen so far is that you've based your whole argument and premises on conventional scientific validity, rather than conventional logical validity. Considering that conventional science bases itself on the Five Senses hypothesis, trying to prove or disprove the existence of god using THIS form of validation is bordering on the ridiculous. If I'm correct in my assumption, this is a dead-end argument, as another argument is altogether required to debate the merits of conventional logic V conventional science V other validations, etc. If I'm incorrect in the assumption, state why.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

What I understand is that every piece of information that has some form of opposition in personnel and theory is said to be "controversial." And in this society, scientifically controversial (only talking about conventional science here) almost automatically renders it "normally controversial." What I've seen so far is that you've based your whole argument and premises on conventional scientific validity, rather than conventional logical validity. Considering that conventional science bases itself on the Five Senses hypothesis, trying to prove or disprove the existence of god using THIS form of validation is bordering on the ridiculous. If I'm correct in my assumption, this is a dead-end argument, as another argument is altogether required to debate the merits of conventional logic V conventional science V other validations, etc. If I'm incorrect in the assumption, state why.

I will attempt to clean this up:

1. Suppressed premises in any argument which are controversial, or not likely to be believed by the whole audience of the argument, makes the argument fallacious.

2. Your point is that everything is controversial, making that rule impossible.

3. That rule is accepted as a fallacy of argument by philosophers worldwide. It is quite similar to begging the question.

4. Everything is not controversial, unless you take it at an extremist epistemological viewpoint, like I demonstrated with the simple fact I gave you.

Now, let us cease talking about the conventions for argument and actually hear some arguments. If you have any reasons for the existence of God, let's hear it. If not, forever hold your peace, because we are avoiding the real issue here. I for one am not afraid to talk about the real issue, so let's get some reasons/proof out of you.

 

[Pace Setter]

I will attempt to clean this up:

1. Suppressed premises in any argument which are controversial, or not likely to be believed by the whole audience of the argument, makes the argument fallacious.

2. Your point is that everything is controversial, making that rule impossible.

3. That rule is accepted as a fallacy of argument by philosophers worldwide. It is quite similar to begging the question.

Yes, those points are fair enough.

1. Suppressed premises in any argument which are controversial, or not likely to be believed by the whole audience of the argument, makes the argument fallacious.

4. Everything is not controversial, unless you take it at an extremist epistemological viewpoint, like I demonstrated with the simple fact I gave you.

By "the whole audience," you mean the whole world, as this debate extends across to everyone. Unless you have some other definition of "controversial," you might like to consider what I've said about conventional science and it's ability to prove/disprove the existence of god. Conventional science is neither designed, or is in any way capable of proving it. So limiting accepted "facts" and validation of "facts" through conventional science (which includes the opinion of what is "controversial/arguable and/or impossible) will get absolutely nowhere. As I said, an attempt to prove/disprove god using THAT method reaches a dead-end...FAST.

Now, let us cease talking about the conventions for argument and actually hear some arguments. If you have any reasons for the existence of God, let's hear it. If not, forever hold your peace, because we are avoiding the real issue here. I for one am not afraid to talk about the real issue, so let's get some reasons/proof out of you.

I just noticed you actually started this thread. Instead of saying something along the lines of "can god be proven/disproven at all," a better inquiry into what you really wanted out of this debate could've been "can god be proven/disproven, whilst adhering strictly to both; conventional scientific method and the Five Senses hypothesis which it assumes to be true." My answer to the second question which is the one I think you really wanted to ask is: NO. My answer to the first question is PROBABLY- I've outlined a significant part of my reasoning to that in this thread 30 odd pages ago towards the end of my first string of replies.


Late edit: This'll be my last word on this matter:

Arguments/debates are in essence, the same as sport. A sport devoid of rules is a sport devoid of winners and losers. Similarly, an argument without rules for what is accepted as premise, and what isn't; is an inagreeable, never-concluding affair. Various sets of rules exist, one being conventional scientific thought (i.e. the kind that most publicised scientists subscribe to). Other sets of rules exist, and it'd be useful to name and administer one of these sets of rules to any argument that is started.

Whilst most of us in today's society may subscribe to one particular set of rules as "infallible fact" for an argument, the fact that it IS a set of rules deems it necessary to name and agree upon the usage of THIS (or any other) set of rules before an argument is started on ANY topic. Failure to do so is also failure to establish the premise(s) for the premises themselves. Fallacies of logic (or rather, the identification of them) within the argument itself, belong exactly there-i.e within the argument itself. However, they should only be mentioned AFTER a set of rules have been agreed upon and decided for the argument, not BEFORE.

When a topic named "Does god exist" is started, the initiator of the argument carries the unenviable responsibility of; deciding upon a set of rules and categorically explaining why this set of rules, above ALL other sets of rules, is the most appropriate for a debate of this FORM of topic, as well as this SPECIFIC topic. In such a topic as "Does god exist," a proper argument cannot be begun until the initiator has carried through his/her responsibility.

Because until this responsibility is carried through in SUCH a topic, any debate on the topic has an almost 100% probability of finishing on a highly inconclusive note.