Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What kind of evidence would prove god ?

Options
12357…18

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him
    King Mob wrote: »
    Unfortunately, since it's central to your point, it is.
    If you can determine which person is right when they claim it's god, you must have a method for doing this.
    If you cannot demonstrate this method or it relies on subjective experience, then you cannot actually determine the difference between it being god and it not being go. And if you cannot do this, you point is invalid as then your god is no more real than the thousands of others you don't believe.


    I'm afraid it's back to the start for you .. or nowt.


  • Options
    #123
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?
    You're still making very little sense. Could you start again, maybe? Perhaps this time taking other peoples' points on board?


  • Options
    #124
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm afraid it's back to the start for you .. or nowt.

    No, as my point is simply relevant.
    Unfortunately, declaring it is not, refusing to address it and just telling me to go away is not a valid tactic of discussion as much as it is a childish way of announcing you cannot address it.

    You cannot explain how one could subjectively tell whether it was truly god or not, therefore you cannot say that your method is in anyway useful.
    And since your method can and is used to reach conclusion about god and the supernatural that you don't agree with, it's completely counter productive.

    Other methods of evaluating knowledge however do not run into this issue and can produce meaningful results.
    Therefore one method is clearly superior.

    You just want to pretend otherwise as that method shows you have no more basis for your supernatural beliefs then for the supernatural beliefs you reject.


  • Options
    #125
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him
    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    A large part of me feels that if God does exist, then he would give those who genuinely seek a helping hand in whatever form thats required to change a persons beliefs, be it a spiritual experience or whatever. Its my idea of what a loving and compassionate God would be more likely to do.

    That's both the biblical testimony and the testimony of people o'er the ages. But God is dealing with an enormously delicate situation at the centre of which is our will. And cry out for him as folk might (such as those in foxholes), it's not as simple as that.

    Does the heart want him for who he is and what he represents? Only he can seek that out - not even we can draw that conclusion about ourselves, such is our being congealed in sin.


    Im not sure what you question is exactly? Do you mean faith in God is a rational response and so too is the subsequent belief in ones reliance in him?

    It takes a certain amount of faith in God (if he exists) to lead you to himself when you're at a loss as to how you might find your way to him. It would be an act of faith to ask him (an as yet unbelieved in God (for want of sure indication of his existence) )to lead you to him. It would be an act of faith on your part to trust that you might have to be brought on a path and that the timing of God's revelation of himself could very well be at the point of your last breath. It's an act of faith to throw yourself, and acknowledge before him that you are so throwing yourself, at his mercy.

    All things that can be done whilst as yet an unbeliever of sorts.

    I remember a prayer I came across when I wasn't quite there but things where (in retrospect) brewing up in that direction.

    Lord, I don't love you
    I don't even want to love you
    But I want to want to love you.


    I speaks of the distance we can be, yet the distance isn't the infinite distance expressed by the ardent atheist. God understands we've a way to come since the distance caused by sin is very great. But he's got fantastic hearing..


  • Options
    #126
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him
    King Mob wrote: »
    No, as my point is simply relevant.
    Unfortunately, declaring it is not, refusing to address it and just telling me to go away is not a valid tactic of discussion as much as it is a childish way of announcing you cannot address it.

    You cannot explain how one could subjectively tell whether it was truly god or not, therefore you cannot say that your method is in anyway useful.
    And since your method can and is used to reach conclusion about god and the supernatural that you don't agree with, it's completely counter productive.

    Other methods of evaluating knowledge however do not run into this issue and can produce meaningful results.
    Therefore one method is clearly superior.

    You just want to pretend otherwise as that method shows you have no more basis for your supernatural beliefs then for the supernatural beliefs you reject.

    Nowt it is so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him
    Sarky wrote: »
    You're still making very little sense. Could you start again, maybe? Perhaps this time taking other peoples' points on board?


    Go back to my first post in this thread (#19). There's a couple of lines of argument there. By all means take it up and run with it.


  • Options
    #128
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Nowt it is so.
    Yup, that totally addresses my point. :rolleyes:

    Just keep pretending it's irrelevent and maybe someone will be dumb enough to believe it's not just because you can't and don't want to admit it....


  • Options
    #129
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You're conflating those who would be coming up with a god under own steam with those exposed to God under God's steam. It doesn't matter now many zeros you add on, the latter don't fall under your attempt at an umbrella.

    You are missing the point. Why do all these billions of other people not know they are not following the right god (ie why do they not know they are wrong, made a mistake).

    Its because this is an area humans are very poor at judging. Knowing that something is wrong/not true is as important as knowing something is correct/true.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    But this you know.

    I could say the same, since we have been over this and over this before. Despite the vast amount of times the flaw in your reasoning has been pointed out you continue to assert otherwise and/or simply ignore the points being put to you.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm not suggesting sameness since it is man coming up with god under own steam vs. God revealing himself to man.

    Man is man. Man gets a notion in his head. The assessment of the methodology used to assess this notion is important, whether that notion was man coming up with god under his own steam, or God insert the notion in his head (see the magic suggestion analogy)

    You are saying that if the source of this notion is God himself then man does not need to examine the methodology he uses to assess for himself the validity of this notion. That is patently false.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    There need be no guesswork involved in God revealing.

    That would be true if you had a solid methodology to determining God's existence. You don't. You have a notion, that you choose to believe is divinely inspired, but which you have no way of examining. That is a guess, even if the information is supernaturally implanted in your head (again see magic suggestion analogy)
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Point is: the demand for method (or the claim that method lies above revelation) is a bridge too far since method itself relies, at the end of the day, on the confidence quotient God happens to assign to it. Whatever that happens to be

    God has already done this. Either God exists and humans are poor at personal assessment and good at empirical assessment or God doesn't exist and humans are poor at personal assessment and good at empirical assessment.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    It could be that revelation trumps method.
    Its not, as has already been shown. One theory of electromagnetism, 40,000 religions.

    All these billions of people who have followed the wrong religion, believed in the wrong god, do not know they are wrong because we are very bad at discerning if we have actually had a revelation from a deity or have simply been mistaken.

    Remember knowing that you are wrong is as important as knowing you are right. Let me ask you, how would you tell the difference between a false revelation and a real revelation, what methodology would you use?

    Or do you simply choose to believe that everything that you believe has been a revelation actually was a revelation and thus there is no need for assessment?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Interesting choice of analogy given the bibles contention of "blind now I can see". All that revelation is, is a widening of the bandwidth of sight.

    Again, one theory of electro-magnatism, 40,000 religions. If you contrast the history of science, which has slowly whittled down competing theories to a smaller and smaller grouping, with religion which expands and contracts and expands and contracts, with new religions starting up every year, you can see how patiently nonsensical your claim is.

    If God is actually revealing himself to us in this manner he is choosing to do so in the murky darkness of human assessment, like choosing to shout out someone's name in a hurricane.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Again, you'd be aware of Christian orthodoxy about rebirth. Or God putting the fallen creation back together again. Our not being able to detect God is a flaw he's working to rectify in us.

    Well he is doing a bad job at it, given how easy we quickly whittle down bad scientific theories using empirical study compared to how difficult we find it to do the same with supernatural claims.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Sorry to cut this off but it falls to me to remind you that all the confidence giving arising from the methodology you describ only exists because God assigned it to be so.

    So you keep pointing out as if that some how supports your case. It doesn't, it weakens it since if God exists he made us good at empirical study and bad at other types of study such as personal assessment, but then your religion asserts that despite this God decided to reveal himself in a wholly non-empirical fashion, negating completely the way he designed us.

    antiskeptic wrote: »
    "God assigns" is what matters ultimately. Routes taken (eg: method) might well be a reflection of him (order, logic, etc) rather than being a willy nilly thing. But he is not limited to method anymore than he needs method himself to work out what the square root of 3241 is.

    He is not limited to anything. We are. We are limited in how we assess fact from fiction. (a point you continue to ignore)

    Given God (if he exists) made us that way, the idea that he wouldn't care about that seems nonsensical. The idea we wouldn't care is even more nonsensical.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    What if the answer is the square root of 199695883.114566. Would one be so sure that method was the only way to know things? And know that you know things.

    What is a better way to know things, and know why you know them?


  • Options
    #130
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him
    I've presents to wrap so will cut to the chase on this one.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    God has already done this. Either God exists and humans are poor at personal assessment and good at empirical assessment or God doesn't exist and humans are poor at personal assessment and good at empirical assessment.

    You're back to that misdirection which places reliance on mans ability to assess correctly.

    The issue isn't man's ability to correctly assess but God's ability to instill confidence. How he does so isn't relevant (unless he decides so). Your normal rigour tends to go a little weak at the knees on this point:

    You do it again here...
    So you keep pointing out as if that some how supports your case. It doesn't, it weakens it since if God exists he made us good at empirical study and bad at other types of study such as personal assessment, but then your religion asserts that despite this God decided to reveal himself in a wholly non-empirical fashion, negating completely the way he designed us.

    To repeat: we're not concerned with mans ability to correctly ascertain God but on God's ability to raise confidence levels in man.

    You do it again here:
    Given God (if he exists) made us that way, the idea that he wouldn't care about that seems nonsensical. The idea we wouldn't care is even more nonsensical.

    He doesn't have to care given he's in control of confidence raising by whatever means he likes. If direct and without method then what of it?




    What is a better way to know things, and know why you know them?

    To know because you have the mind of God at your disposal? If God doesn't require method then why need I?


  • Options
    #131
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?
    Because you're not god?

    Why so scared of raising your standards? Is it because god fails to raise them alongside you?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    catallus wrote: »
    ^^^^^^
    This is a semantic argument....

    No, its not. I don't think that "semantic argument" means what you think it means.
    catallus wrote: »
    When you observe the world and analyse what you see do you not question what brought it about. I'm not being silly with you. I'm asking do you have some sense or idea or suspicion or inkling or doubt or inspiration of........... something more?

    No.


  • Options
    #133
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Let's agree to differ.

    NEXT!!

    No. Go back and respond to my post with an actual counter or explanation.


  • Options
    #134
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Because he's been talking shyte for days now????


  • Options
    #135
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    pauldla wrote: »
    Your wife met the Lord? Really? She met Jesus?


    antiskeptic, did your wife meet the Lord? Sorry to be like a dog with a bone, but I really would like you to say more on this; especially given our topic for this thread. What happened? Was it a vision? Or a physical encounter? What did he look like? What did he say?


  • Options
    #136
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,869 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?
    Galvasean wrote: »
    Because he's been talking shyte for days now????

    Antiskeptic is definitely John Waters in this case. :pac:


  • Options
    #137
    sephir0th
    Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    Why do I get the impression that this conversation is going to end up down the lines of "you can't know anything for certain, therefore my knowledge of my God's existence is as good as anything else" - as we all scratch our heads and wonder how someone can say this and fail to realize how it puts belief in an invisible flying yogurt monkey at the same confidence level.


  • Options
    #138
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Smart ass responses to smart ass responses doesn't add much, I suppose.
    Fair enough, nobody is expected to :)
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'll ignore folk posting what I consider off-the-point comments from now on.
    And that's fine too. Just do try and be specific when you're posting a reply as your prose is desperately difficult to follow -- try re-reading it a few times before clicking on the 'submit reply' button.

    have a good christmas!


  • Options
    #139
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    To repeat: we're not concerned with mans ability to correctly ascertain God but on God's ability to raise confidence levels in man.

    Yes we are, for all the reasons I've already explained and which you have choose to ignore (again see magic trick suggestion)

    Man must examine why they are confident in something.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    He doesn't have to care given he's in control of confidence raising by whatever means he likes. If direct and without method then what of it?

    Two "what of it".

    Firstly it leaves humans confident of things they cannot explain or justify (I'm sure the answer is 79, I just don't know why).

    Secondly, this puts such "knowledge" (if it can even be called that) squarely into the realm of things we know humans are poor at judging, thus the confidence in this knowledge is tentative at best.

    You seem to not care, which I appreciate. You have a belief that you feel works, you feel confident in it. Why would you want to examine it further.

    But then, again 1 theory of electro-magnetism, 40,000 religions. The world is full of people who believe they are confident in something but unable to rationalise or justify this. Saying if God exists then they might be right is true, but then also utterly missing the point.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    To know because you have the mind of God at your disposal? If God doesn't require method then why need I?

    Because you are not God, and thus are fallible and prone to mistakes/errors.


  • Options
    #140
    Sertus
    Site Banned Posts: 180 ✭✭Sertus


    Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?
    In response to the poll question :

    For you, what would be evidence that God exists ?

    Most people, including me, have selected "Scientific physical evidence validated by scientific experts"

    Just wondering if any science experts out there that could give us a few examples or ideas about any scientific evidence that, if it existed, and was discovered, could prove "God" ?


  • Options
    #141
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?
    Juggling suns, making people able to fly, a competent Irish government. You know. Anything generally considered impossible.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,930 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    Sertus wrote: »
    In response to the poll question :

    For you, what would be evidence that God exists ?

    Most people, including me, have selected "Scientific physical evidence validated by scientific experts"

    Just wondering if any science experts out there that could give us a few examples or ideas about any scientific evidence that, if it existed, and was discovered, could prove "God" ?
    They normally establish where exactly science is at present in relation to where we come from, and then just say "god" is one step beyond that!


  • Options
    #143
    Lelantos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Lelantos


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    They normally establish where exactly science is at present in relation to where we come from, and then just say "god" is one step beyond that!
    Substitute "discovery" for "god" & you are closer to the truth


  • Options
    #144
    Sertus
    Site Banned Posts: 180 ✭✭Sertus


    Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?
    Sarky wrote: »
    Juggling suns, making people able to fly, a competent Irish government. You know. Anything generally considered impossible.

    Hmm, that still wouldn't work for me at all.

    You've described the actions of a very impressive super alien/being to be sure, but it would not be scientific evidence that the being is infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent ''God'' .


  • Options
    #145
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?
    They'd help.

    Humans cannot fly without machines. They don't have wings, they're not lighter than air, they can't manipulate gravity. So a human flying without any help is impossible.


  • Options
    #146
    ulyssescohen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 47 ✭ulyssescohen


    God is a black swan. The lack of evidence does not prove he/she does not exist. Simple.


  • Options
    #147
    Daftendirekt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    ulyssescohen wrote: »
    God is a black swan. The lack of evidence does not prove he/she does not exist. Simple.

    Actually, God is an orange swan. The lack of evidence doesn't prove its non-existence, but that doesn't make it reasonable to assert that it exists.


  • Options
    #148
    Lelantos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Lelantos


    ulyssescohen wrote: »
    God is a black swan. The lack of evidence does not prove he/she does not exist. Simple.
    Same argument applies for Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, Godzilla & leprechauns


  • Options
    #149
    Sertus
    Site Banned Posts: 180 ✭✭Sertus


    Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?
    Any scientists out there that can enlighten us with a rational scientific response ?


  • Options
    #150
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sertus wrote: »
    Any scientists out there that can enlighten us with a rational scientific response ?
    First-off, the religious need to define exactly what they mean by "god" as well as the range of attributes, activities and so on that their chosen deity is alleged to have, do, etc. Once that's done, then one can go checking to see which are testable, and if any are, go ahead and test where possible.

    Unfortunately, the defining characteristic of most modern deities -- for reasons that are entirely predictable -- is an almost total non-interaction with the real world. Making it, even in theory, bascially impossible to design any tests, and therefore, produce any evidence, that could ever establish the deity's existence.

    At this stage, frankly, the deity needs to do something more convincing than remaining entirely invisible and entirely silent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    robindch wrote: »
    First-off, the religious need to define exactly what they mean by "god" as well as the range of attributes, activities and so on that their chosen deity is alleged to have, do, etc. Once that's done, then one can go checking to see which are testable, and if any are, go ahead and test where possible.

    Unfortunately, the defining characteristic of most modern deities -- for reasons that are entirely predictable -- is an almost total non-interaction with the real world. Making it, even in theory, bascially impossible to design any tests, and therefore, produce any evidence, that could ever establish the deity's existence.

    At this stage, frankly, the deity needs to do something more convincing than remaining entirely invisible and entirely silent.

    Well, He does show Himself on pieces of toast from time to time. And in clouds. And He makes fluids drip out of statues. And He talks to hermits wandering out in the desert. So He's not completely silent, just fond of a jape.


Advertisement