++++++++++++++++++++++++ 06-29-02, 04:46 PM Minnesota That is going to depend on what you consider acceptable proof. Some people accept the Bible's say-so, and nothing more. Others demand a personal revelation. And others, yet,require proof rooted in the precepts of science.
06-29-02, 09:15 PM falstaff Im talking about proof that leads us to know. Logical dependable realistic sensed proof. Im talking about reality. For the love of life has any body been to reality? Where the level of your decision, how much is wrapped up in it and so forth is determined by what is going on. What kind of a god would use obscure puzzles to decide a persons "eternal fate"? If god does exist he sure hasnt proven himself very well, he should know this.
07-01-02, 10:04 AM Mike121 The answer to your question depends on how you define “know” and define “reality.”
Is love real? What is love? Can you see it? Measure it in lab? Test it? Quantify it? Can we assume love exists because everyone experiences it? No, not everyone does.
We call love an emotion. A chemically induced phenomenon of the brain. Same stuff that dreams are made of when you boil it all down. Are dreams real? What are we talking about here? Grey matter, hormones (chemicals), synapses, receptor sites, neuro-transmitters, that kind of stuff.
Who do you love most in the world? Can you prove to me that you love that person? No. You can point to certain behaviors, but you can’t prove to me conclusively that the behaviors are not based on selfishness or some hidden fluke of evolution or some other thing.
If I have never experienced love and challenged you to prove to me that it exists, how would you prove it? If you couldn’t prove it to me, could I say that you are deluded? Or, lying? Or, that because I cannot know through sense logic what you are trying to prove to me that you are living in a false reality?
Or, can we “know” the existence or “reality” of a thing some other way? Until you are ready to explore the answer(s) to that question, I think you will continue to be frustrated with most of the answers you receive on this question.
07-01-02, 01:13 PM Wulfravyn The simple fact that you have asked the question will tell you that there is no proof that will satisfy you inquiry conclusively. If there was, you would never need ask in the first place. God is a tough concept to argue over, philisophically. The worst part about a God conversation, it will never end to anyones satisfaction. The search for God is the search for the divine in all of us, and some people are willing to take a few things on faith while others are not. I recommend that you form your own ideals about the existence of a god and the nature of that existence. Take ideas and concepts that feel right to you and incorporate them into your personal ideals. (Even if those ideals are that there is no god)
07-01-02, 07:09 PM Matiqua I can't exactly give you 'proof' but I believe that I may have some explanations. Most scientists believe that the Earth was created by meteors slamming together, the friction sending the liquid iron etc. down the center of the Earth due to the force of gravity. Eventually the gravitational pull brought more meteors and asteroids toward the Earth with the same effects. Eventually thwere was no more asteroid to be collected and the Earth stayed about the same size and shape it is today. But what caused life? Some scientists think that life came from another planet, but they would have to be created wouldn't they? That I believe is where God comes into play. He probably created life, and ended it where he saw fitting. After the dinosaurs long reign he probably saw fit to end there world so he did. He probably than made sure to keep some creatures alive, which he did. These later (much later) evolved into us, humans. But wouldn't God have had to be created to? I mean he can't just be 'there' he had to have been created as a super-human being.
Life is a real mystery...
07-02-02, 11:33 AM Elexina
quote:Originally posted by Mike121: The answer to your question depends on how you define “know” and define “reality.” Is love real? What is love? Can you see it? Measure it in lab? Test it? Quantify it? Can we assume love exists because everyone experiences it? No, not everyone does...
Yes, love is real. Yes, you can see it (in the eyes of the person who loves you). You can hear it (in the voice of that same person). You can feel it. You can depend on it. You can put it to the test. You can quantify it. I love you thiiiiiiiiiis much! Not everyone experiences it, but I have and I know it exists because I see it and feel it.
07-02-02, 01:35 PM Mike121
quote:Originally posted by Elexina: Yes, love is real. Yes, you can see it (in the eyes of the person who loves you). You can hear it (in the voice of that same person). You can feel it. You can depend on it. You can put it to the test. You can quantify it. I love you thiiiiiiiiiis much! Not everyone experiences it, but I have and I know it exists because I see it and feel it.
Yikes!! That sounds an awful lot like the flimsy evidence people offer when they say they know God is real! They say they can “see”, “feel”, and “hear” God in all sorts of ways. They say God never fails them. They say they can point to clear, identifiable ways in which God influences and/or intervenes in their lives. They say that God is not any less real because some people don’t experience him. They say they “know” God exists.
winkYour proof sounds like the same old lame fodder of the religious. Completely subjective. You don’t really expect me to buy that, do you? wink
07-02-02, 02:26 PM mahal I myself set a high expectation for proof. If you take Minnesota's three categories, all three apply to me.
I look for personal revelation (I have to see/touch/feel for myself), I look for confirmation from other sources (meaning, in order to prove that I'm not insane, I would like to see that others have had the same experiences independantly of me), and I expect that "truth" from God's point of view equates to "facts" put forth by science.
God first proved his existance for me by speaking to me directly in dreams, visions, an audible voice (on one occassion), and what Isaiah and Elijah called "a voice from behind you" and "a still small voice". I can easily differentiate between the voice and my own conscience because it knows things that I don't.
When I look for confimation that others have experienced the same thing, I look in my own time (my friends and neighbors), in other places in the world (other cultures), and in other times (in the past). The best confirmation comes when I find that a person from thousands of years ago in a culture on the other side of the world shared my experience. That tells me that this voice transcends both time and space.
As for confirmation from "facts" discovered in scientific disciplines, this is my "devil's advocate". It's clear that science will approach life from a completely different point of view, and where science arrives at the same conclusions as I do with all my religious biases, I know that I've got something worth believing.
I'll add two caveats:
Science is not always credible. It's not enough to just take the word of an expert, it helps if you try to understand the disciplines yourself, otherwise, you have no power to alleviate doubts. There are also exact sciences and theoretical sciences. Theoretical sciences include history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc. These change every decade and are unreliable for "proof" but great for "suggestion".
Religion is also theoretical science. There's no such thing as an expert when you're looking for personal experience and "proof" on a personal leve. Don't take my word for it or Jerry Falwell's or any creationist or prophet or minister. You really need to go to God yourself and say "What's up?"
07-03-02, 06:36 AM Elexina
quote:Originally posted by Mike121: Yikes!! That sounds an awful lot like the flimsy evidence people offer when they say they know God is real! (...)Your proof sounds like the same old lame fodder of the religious. Completely subjective. You don’t really expect me to buy that, do you? wink
I don't expect you to agree with what I say anymore than you should expect me to buy your fodder. Yes, I realize that people say much the same things about their experiences with god. The difference is, you can look into my fiancé’s eyes and tell that he loves me. You can hear it and see it and know that it is real. With god, I have never felt or heard or seen or had any of these sensations others might claim to have. A person might claim to know God, might feel His love and sense the meaning behind Him, but I look into his eyes and try to understand, and I see nothing.
07-03-02, 09:29 AM Mike121 Elexina,
My comments to you were in jest – tongue in cheek – and I’m not sure from the tone of your post that it was received as intended. I’m sorry I didn’t make myself clear. Of course I believe you and I agree with you completely. Most of us have experienced love. My point in using love as an example was to point out to the questioner that there are things that we treat as “real” even though they don’t meet the same criteria as things physical and tangible. We can’t see gravity either, but we have ideas about it and we see the effects of it. The fact that you haven’t seen or felt God to this point in your life does not mean you never will for the same reason that someone who has not experienced love is not necessarily destined never to experience it.
Mike
07-03-02, 11:01 AM Elexina
quote:Originally posted by Mike121: My comments to you were in jest – tongue in cheek – and I’m not sure from the tone of your post that it was received as intended...
Sorry, I'm a bit testy today. It's been a long week. I know there was humor in your post, I just wanted to make clear that I disagree about love being intangible. It's not just about site. I can feel love. I can feel gravity, too. I can see its effects.
07-03-02, 11:58 AM mozart56 Falstaff, originally posted,"What proofs is there for god's existence?"I think that we have slighly drited away from the subject .
My answer would be.God and religions will always be around,because the solution to the question is:What proofs do we have that god DOES NOT exist.Until we can prove THAT, without the shadow of a doubt the world is wasting it's time in trying to proove it's existence.
07-04-02, 01:12 AM Strider0
quote:Originally posted by Elexina: ...but I look into his eyes and try to understand, and I see nothing.
When you look into his eyes, are you really open to seeing him?
07-04-02, 01:58 AM sassyfox39649 I can sum it up into one word: "Faith..." but I can understand why people have doubt... I hear question around me... Does god love me??? Why do so many things go on in this world if god could take it away with the blink of an eye??? Personally (I'm, of course, not trying to get offensive) But I believe that all of the evil was put here on earth to test our faith in our heavenly father...
07-05-02, 01:26 PM Wulfravyn I heard a parable once that I quote on almost every God discussion. Three blind men who have never even heard of an elephant are put in front of one and asked to describe it. The first blind man walks up to the elephant and finds the trunk. The second walks to theelephant and finds the ear, and the third finds the tail. The first blind man describes and elephant as long and nimble and slight wet, with two small appendages at the end. The second disagrees and says an elephant is actually thin and waxy and very spread out. The third scoffs at the first two and describes and elephant as short, thin, hairy, and smelling like poop. Were any of these men wrong? No, they were all right, but they also only had a small piece of the picture. I think religion and God is a lot like this. Most of mankind recognizes that there absolutely has to be something greater than itself (whether this is because we need to believe in something or whether something is really there, I don't know), but no one can agree on the nature of what is greater than us. I propose that the human mind cannot comprehend unimaginable vastness of a higher power, so seeks to define it through the only terms available, human terms. This is a self defeating rationale, though, as mankind is fallible and to give a higher power attributes common in man makes that presence fallible by our definition.
07-05-02, 02:48 PM Elexina
quote:Originally posted by Strider0: When you look into his eyes, are you really open to seeing him?
Should it be that hard? Shouldn't god just exist for everyone? Why is it so impossible to find proof? Human beings have free will and choice, by nature, and so we obviously have the choice to disbelieve in god. If god does exist, why doesn't he just come out and say so? And yes, when I was questioning the existence of god, I was open to all options. And there was only one way for me.
07-05-02, 04:41 PM Strider0
quote:Originally posted by Elexina:
Should it be that hard? Shouldn't god just exist for everyone? Why is it so impossible to find proof? Human beings have free will and choice, by nature, and so we obviously have the choice to disbelieve in god. If god does exist, why doesn't he just come out and say so?
For some it's hard, and for others it doesn't seem to be so. For a significant part of my life, It was hard. I think God maybe doesn't want us to have to have "proof" to know he's out there somewhere. Some might also say that he DOES come out and say so...that with our free will we simply choose not to listen to what he's telling us.
Here is what I think is a very relevant site to this question Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God.
I won't go into it here, but in this two page lecture by Nobel Prize (Chemistry) nominee, Dr. Fritz Schaefer, he refers to five arguments for God that scientists frequently encounter and debate:
1. The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe's existence must have a suitable cause.
2. The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.
3. The rational argument: the operation of the universe, according to order and natural law, implies a mind behind it.
4. The ontological argument: man's ideas of God (his God-consciousness) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
5. The moral argument: man's built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law--an awareness implanted by a higher being.
Elexina, I think it's cool that you're looking into his eyes. smile
07-08-02, 05:49 AM Elexina
quote:
Originally posted by Elexina:
Should it be that hard? Shouldn't god just exist for everyone? Why is it so impossible to find proof? Human beings have free will and choice, by nature, and so we obviously have the choice to disbelieve in god. If god does exist, why doesn't he just come out and say so?
For some it's hard, and for others it doesn't seem to be so. For a significant part of my life, It was hard. I think God maybe doesn't want us to have to have "proof" to know he's out there somewhere. Some might also say that he DOES come out and say so...that with our free will we simply choose not to listen to what he's telling us.
I won't go into it here, but in this two page lecture by Nobel Prize (Chemistry) nominee, Dr. Fritz Schaefer, he refers to five arguments for God that scientists frequently encounter and debate:
1. The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe's existence must have a suitable cause.
2. The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.
3. The rational argument: the operation of the universe, according to order and natural law, implies a mind behind it.
4. The ontological argument: man's ideas of God (his God-consciousness) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
5. The moral argument: man's built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law--an awareness implanted by a higher being.
Elexina, I think it's cool that you're looking into his eyes.
07-08-02 06:49 AM Elexina
quote:
Originally posted by Strider0: ...I think God maybe doesn't want us to have to have "proof" to know he's out there somewhere.
I have actually read "A Brief History of Time" and found it interesting, brilliant and witty. The critique you have linked is interesting, as well. Thank you. I understand the reasoning behind the concept that God doesn't just want to come out and say "poof! look at me!" because he would want people to find out for themselves that he does or does not exist. But I cannot accept the existence of god without proof and I have none. While the lectures of Dr. Schaefer no doubt contain very plausible arguments for belief in god, many of those arguments are above me, as I am not a scientist. I was looking for some modern-day tangible layman proof. But all I've ever found is proof of the NON-existence of god.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
I thought lack of proof was the whole point. The thing is that you must have FAITH that God exists based on the teachings handed down via the Bible (...assuming you are Christian, or Quran if Muslim or Torah if Jewish, etc..). Faith in his existence excludes a requirement of proof. If you require proof then you have insufficient faith in Him and therefore are not a true believer, but perhaps still what I might call a 'searcher'. A requirement of God to provide proof of his existence could be considered blasphemous.
quote:Originally posted by Elexina: I was looking for some modern-day tangible layman proof. But all I've ever found is proof of the NON-existence of god.
That's a very reasonable desire, and a VERY tall order indeed. I'm not sure anyone can offer "proof" still...
But you know what is interesting, and maybe even worthy of a topic question, is something like "Why are you willing, based only upon faith, to believe in God? In other words, why do you believe in a God when there is no 'hard' evidence to that fact? What is the basis of your faith? Do you dislike the idea of everything you know ending with your time here on Earth? Or is there something deeper that causes you to believe what you do?"
I think I'm going to post the question, but save my own answer after (if) the thread develops. smile
PS - Just curious. What is the "proof" of his non-existence that you mentioned?
07-09-02, 02:07 AM chanceygardner Minnesota....what does this mean?
"And. . . . . your question?"
07-09-02, 12:16 PM Minnesota Chancey
Excuse my mistake. Through one of the access functions at the top of the page I was brought to page two here, which I mistakenly thought was page one. So I mistook your answer above as the lead-off "question," which, of course, is not a question at all. My mistaken intent then was to ask (stupidly enough) "What's your question?"
08-03-02, 02:28 AM babthrower There is no proof that there is a god, or gods, outside of human imagination. There is no proof that there is not a god or gods. Most people pick a stance that is comfortable for them. They are theists or atheists. Some people keep looking for proof, or at least a feeling of certainty, one way or another. They are called agnostics.
08-06-02, 10:07 PM cattywampus God is a mystery, and we are not meant to understand all there is to understand about Him. And of course our faith is subjective - He's personal to each of us. I think it was Blaise Pascal who said, "I'd rather believe and be wrong, than not believe and be wrong." And Matiqua - if that is what scientists believe, that the earth started with meteors, where did the meteors come from? Just keep going backward and asking this and you will eventually run into the First Cause, big as life and twice as frisky. Catty(PGFWABF) wink big grin eek
08-13-02, 10:55 AM BlueJewel06 You dont need to have proof of god, just knowing that there is something out there greater than you is enough. We need god to keep our lives together. If you are not going to believe in god as an actually being, think of god as more of a concept and a symbol. God stands for good and right and the proper way to go about our lives. You dont need proof to prove a concept, it just is smile. So if this is a question from you looking for something to believe in, believe in god as a concept instead of an actually being, that puts it into a new perspective. hope i helped! big grin
09-11-02, 09:34 PM mostly harmless I'm sorry , isn't that the whole predicament to begin with? That nobody really honestly knows and that there is always a sand of doubt in the oyster of their faith. Consider this: If anyone had actually found concrete proof of the existence of a Supreme Being I'm sure we would have heard about it by now.Rather, all the world's religions talk about the "mystery" of God and the need for faith and if Science had found proof, it would have been written about in the best journals and CNN would have told the lay population by now.Proof does not seem forthcomeing any time soon.Voltaire would say hang it all and cultivate our garden instead!(i.e. don't waste time with this one...there have been a lot of smarter people than you and I around for thousands of years and even they never had the answer to this one.Some became agnostics and said the human mind is incapable of knowing whether or not such a being exists and left it at that.That seems an intelligent thing to do.Of course,I might change my mind in thirty years, when the grave approaches, as is so often the case.It is my perogative to do so.And I suspect the reasons will be emotional rather than logical and factual.)
09-12-02, 09:48 AM methos Scientifically, there is no proof of a god. Scientifically, there is no proof that there isn't a god. Due to the nature of what many believe god to be, science can never disprove the existence of a god. It is possible that science could one day prove the existence of god, but chances are science will never do this so it will be left to you to decide what you believe or don't believe.
09-13-02, 06:13 PM cattywampus Matiqua: Where did those meteors come from that slammed together to create earth? There's the absolute proof of God's existence as far as I am concerned. Once you trace the meteors back to their source, where did that source come from? And the source for that? There is a certain place beyond which scientists cannot and do not go. They start with the Big Bang theory and move forward. But who created all those Bangers? God is often called "The First Cause," for that reason. And it's also a matter of faith: the Bible teaches me about God. I believe because I choose to believe. As my mother often said, "I'd rather believe and be wrong than not believe and be wrong."
Catty (who is in contact with the Father nearly every minute of the day, and has her prayers answered regularly) wink smile cool
09-13-02, 09:57 PM displacedNYer ...which of course you knew already.
BUT...there doesn't have to be. Perhaps God (or in my case, Gods) doesn't exist. Perhaps He does. Does it matter?
Like a placebo, just the idea that there is a higher power is enough to make it real. I neither need to nor want to see God for myself. It would ruin the 'faith' aspect, which is the greatest part. It isn't the existance of God that sustains people, its the faith of knowing "yes he does, and I know this because...". Its looking at your own personal scripture and dogma and whatever, and knowing that you as a human figured this stuff out and you as a human comprehend a tiny little aspect of some omnipotent and omnipresent force.
If God were to actually come to Earth and show himself, we would find a new idol. That's just how humans are -- like the episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation when Data and an alien race have to erase the memories of everyone on board of the xenophobic race or that race will destroy the ship. There were tiny little clues left the first time, and as Capt Picard says "Humans have an inexhaustible need to solve mysteries." Take away the mystery of God, and what is left to look for?
09-14-02, 12:47 PM cattywampus Matiqua: No, God did not have to be created, He is and always was and always will be. To say that some other force created him would be to say that another force greater than He exists, and there is no other.
The basis for my faith is this: the universe is so incredibly big and complex and beautiful, not to mention humorous, that I can't help but see a personality behind it. All this was not created by man, so that leaves God. Otherwise, why rainbows? Why the Aurora Borealis? Why shooting stars and limpid streams and eclipses? I believe all those things were arranged for our pleasure by our Father who loves us and wants us to be happy.
Catty (PGFWABF) big grin big grin big grin
11-14-02, 07:19 PM Yelena There is no proof of God. Most people just fallow whats in their hearts or believe because of some personal experience or revelation they had. Or because they were born into a certain religion and believe whatever they are told. For the rest of us, there is pure common sense.
11-18-02, 12:21 PM cattywampus Yes, Elexina, where is your proof of a non-God? You mentioned it, you should lay it out.
There is no "proof" as we understand it either way.
I got a chuckle out of the question, "If there is a God, why doesn't He just come out and say so?" Ever heard of the Bible? That's where you'll find God, if you're interested.
As to why I choose to believe, it is because God has promised eternal life, and no one else has, to my knowledge. Also because by following His commandments, I believe I am living the best life possible on this planet. The Bible is full of information on how to live freely, peacefully and happily. I feel better as a Christian than I felt before. I act better. I love more. I enjoy nature more. I enjoy my life more. Why would I want to live without Him?
Catty (PGFWABF!)
razz
11-19-02, 07:03 AM Elexina
quote:Originally posted by cattywampus: ...where is your proof of a non-God? You mentioned it, you should lay it out. There is no "proof" as we understand it either way. I got a chuckle out of the question, "If there is a God, why doesn't He just come out and say so?" Ever heard of the Bible? That's where you'll find God, if you're interested.
Wow, this post is a blast from the past... Where to begin..?
Hey, more power to you for believing in god, being a Christian, being a happier and better person and all that. Good for you. I never said religion couldn't be a good thing or that it wasn't right for some people. It's just not right for me. I'm a happy and good person without believing in a god or a religion. I respect your religion, I just ask that you respect my unbelief.
My "proof" is the lack of proof, but I think that's been hashed just about to death. I haven't posted to this question in months but all of the answers are pretty much the same.
Yes, Catty, I have heard of the Bible. I have read the Bible. Nothing in that book leads me to believe that it is anything more than a collection of contradictory and egotistical stories written down by a group of men several thousand years ago. Nothing indicates that it is the word of God. If you can see it that way, if that's what you need to see, that's fine, but it doesn't come across that way to me.
Finally, what on earth does "PGFWABF" mean? Is it something like "WWSD"? I'm sure I should know but, like I said, I've been away from this post for a looooong time.
11-19-02, 08:45 PM cattywampus Well, I guess we all believe what we choose to believe. And I don't believe "proof of the NON-existence of God" is the same as "no proof of the existence of God." If you have proof of the NON-existence of God as you said you found, I think you ought to display it, or retract that statement.
Oh - PGFWABF means "Praise God From Whom All Blessings Flow." Wouldn't it be nice to thank whoever put that warm sun in the sky and those beautiful waves on the beach? Who do you thank, I wonder?
Catty ('Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do') roll eyes roll eyes roll eyes
11-20-02, 06:55 AM Elexina
quote:Originally posted by cattywampus: Well, I guess we all believe what we choose to believe...
Like I said, I respect your belief in your religion. It would be nice if you could offer me the same basic level of respect instead of merely rolling your eyes.
You are right, though. We have choices. Human nature is about choices and free will. I made the choice not to go along the common path, to question and come to terms on my own time. I have been from one side of this world to the other an' I seen a lot of strange things, but I never seen anything to make me believe there is one all-powerful god controlling everything.
I will say again, my proof (which is probably not enough for you) is that I have found NO proof.
quote:Wouldn't it be nice to thank whoever put that warm sun in the sky and those beautiful waves on the beach? Who do you thank, I wonder?
And whom would you have me thank? A god I don't believe in? A dead godman who has risen and fallen under more names than I can count? A mother who conceived under very suspicious circumstances? The various saints and saviours throughout history? But they are all part of your beliefs, not mine. I believe in nature and evolution and the Big Bang (though I wish they'd named it something better...). The warm sun has a lot to do with the fact that everything on it is a gas. Scientists have found that the sun is a huge atom-smashing machine. It is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace. It's about science. And the waves are there because of the gravitational pull of the moon. Whom do I thank? I thank Susan B. Anthony and Rosa Parks, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Nathaniel Hawthorne, Marie Curie, Thomas Edison and Stephen J. Gould, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and of course Anton Szandor LaVey.
11-20-02, 08:49 AM Pin~Jinx has created this Universe, the phenomenal ways in which (so many of His) creations function. and as yet no Science etc has come up how to devise even half of them!
Well, I agree that it really depends on what proof it is YOU are actually looking for:
if it is something tangible; which can be seen, felt or smelt
then, I beg to differ.
Such things are HIS CREATIONS
How can you want HIM to create an image of His just like what He created
I mean, if you see a map, it does NOT mean that you have to see the one who drew the map in similar form too in order to Believe that it is a map!
Pin~Jinx / anarchist
11-21-02, 06:07 AM Elexina
quote:Originally posted by Pin~Jinx: God has created this Universe, the phenomenal ways in which (so many of His) creations function.
I understand that this is what YOU believe, and that is all fine and good for you. It just does not work, nor does it make sense to me.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Elixena: I haven't joined the forum to impose my views onto anyone, but share them, most certainly! I pretty much agree to Wulfravyn as far as such public forums go.
Actually, I am not really in the mood to make explanations nor have the time to do so. However, won't mind elaborating anything to you if you really want it so.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 11-22-02, 05:54 AM Elexina ...Just reminding you that your views may not be shared by everyone. When you make a statement about God and his creations, I just don't want you mistakenly taking it for granted that those statements are the truth for everyone.
01-03-03, 11:49 PM SeattleRon Whether god is real or not is up to you. God could simply be something you worship whether that be a higher power, a statue, or a jelly sandwich. It's called having faith. LIke the excistence of the human soul. We can't see it but we believe it's there.
03-19-06, 12:35 AM sheanima
quote: Originally posted by Elexina:
quote: Originally posted by Mike121: The answer to your question depends on how you define “know” and define “reality.” Is love real? What is love? Can you see it? Measure it in lab? Test it? Quantify it? Can we assume love exists because everyone experiences it? No, not everyone does...
Yes, love is real. Yes, you can see it (in the eyes of the person who loves you). You can hear it (in the voice of that same person). You can feel it. You can depend on it. You can put it to the test. You can quantify it. I love you thiiiiiiiiiis much! Not everyone experiences it, but I have and I know it exists because I see it and feel it.
Elexina, you have also just described Source, or God (apart from any man-made religion):
I know how to see it in the eyes of someone who loves. I know how to hear it the voice of someone who loves. I know how to feel it. I know how to depend on it. I know how to put it to the test. I know how to quantify it. (infinite) Not everyone experiences this Source, but I have, and I know it exists because I see it and feel it.
03-19-06, 07:25 AM frankvan Just so you also know: You are answering a post that is over three years old! Wink
03-19-06, 12:12 PM GarColga The "Source" is outside of time!
03-19-06, 01:53 PM FredPuli So we can enter judgment for being time-barred or for want of prosecution.
Hmm. How do we serve any documents? I think He may be outside the jurisdiction Wink.Let's go ex parte and tell the court that we don't need service as He is all-knowing, if (which is not admitted) He exists, and so must know of the proceedings. Smile
03-19-06, 02:28 PM sheanima
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: Just so you also know: You are answering a post that is over three years old! Wink
Age doesn't matter, as long as the thread has potential..
03-19-06, 02:46 PM sheanima
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli:
quote: Originally posted by GarColga: The "Source" is outside of time!
So we can enter judgment for being time-barred or for want of prosecution.
Hmm. How do we serve any documents? I think He may be outside the jurisdiction Wink.Let's go ex parte and tell the court that we don't need service as He is all-knowing, if (which is not admitted) He exists, and so must know of the proceedings. Smile
...and one to whom is omnipresent, in all jurisdictions? I request to not go with ex parte, in response to this enlightenment. Yes, let's procede. All who must be here are here.Cool
03-30-06, 09:41 PM revpo There is no proof, just man's speculation, no one's else. God if there is one, has never shown proof, in fact is HE here, there or everywhere..who knows, lets move on
revpo
12-21-06, 01:24 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by falstaff: What proof is there for gods existence?
Your existence for one. God is the quintessence of existence.
12-22-06, 08:25 AM Elexina Zik, welcome to Answerpool. Just so you know, these posts you're responding to are somewhat outdated and you might not get responses from the original questioners because of that.
Also, many people (particularly in the Agnosticism forum) would not consider their own existence to be proof of God or any deity, but rather proof of evolution.
12-22-06, 10:06 AM newnickname Elexina is right - our existence is not proof of God's existence. We could just as easily say that our existence is proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence. "God is the quintessence of existence" is just an (ambiguous) assertion, not an argument, still less a proof.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the ground of all being! See? Anyone can do it.
12-22-06, 10:43 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by Elexina: Zik, welcome to Answerpool. Just so you know, these posts you're responding to are somewhat outdated and you might not get responses from the original questioners because of that.
Also, many people (particularly in the Agnosticism forum) would not consider their own existence to be proof of God or any deity, but rather proof of evolution.
I'm not really interested in arbitrary, individual opinions. Just the truth.
12-22-06, 10:45 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Elexina is right - our existence is not proof of God's existence. We could just as easily say that our existence is proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence. "God is the quintessence of existence" is just an (ambiguous) assertion, not an argument, still less a proof.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the ground of all being! See? Anyone can do it. Smile
Is the existence of a glass bottle proof of the existence of glass? Or what do you think the word "quintessence" means? Perhaps Xmas is making some people talk before they think, eh?
12-22-06, 10:46 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by revpo: There is no proof, just man's speculation, no one's else. God if there is one, has never shown proof, in fact is HE here, there or everywhere..who knows, lets move on
revpo
What is your definition of "God"? Do you even have one?
12-22-06, 11:25 AM FredPuli Zik, how do you define 'quintessence' ? Do you mean that God is a part of all things and is everywhere, in the same way as medieval 'philosophers' thought of what they termed ether, an element which they considered was a constituent of all the heavenly bodies and latent in all things ? In that it was higher than the other elements, earth ,fire, water and air, which were present only in some things.
12-22-06, 11:45 AM ZIK Here is the definition I'm using - from a good English dictionary:
quintessence One entry found for quintessence.
Main Entry: quin·tes·sence Pronunciation: kwin-'te-s&n(t)s Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French quinte essence, from Medieval Latin quinta essentia, literally, fifth essence 1 : the fifth and highest element in ancient and medieval philosophy that permeates all nature and is the substance composing the celestial bodies 2 : the essence of a thing in its purest and most concentrated form 3 : the most typical example or representative - quin·tes·sen·tial /"kwin-t&-'sen(t)-sh&l/ adjective - quin·tes·sen·tial·ly adverb
And certainly you are entitled to your beliefs, and entitled to express them. That is the beauty of these forums. I do wonder at the reasoning behind your belief, however.
+++++++++++++++++++++ 12-22-06, 02:58 PM ZIK My views are based WHOLLY and EXCLUSIVELY on facts and logic. 12- 22-06, 06:47 PM GarColga mahal? bunkboy? Is that you?
12-22-06, 07:02 PM Karrow
quote: Originally posted by GarColga: mahal? bunkboy? Is that you?
No, not unless he's emigrated.
This seems a good time to remind (some) members of a relevant part of the AnswerPool rules.
We hope that ideas will be expressed, exchanged, debated and discussed in depth; diversity of opinion is a good thing and we encourage it. However, disagreements must remain courteous. Personal attacks, 'Flame Wars', and/or name-calling have no place here and are not acceptable as a means of expression.
By the same token, "hate speech" is not acceptable. This would include, but is not limited to, racism, sexism, and other attacks on groups based on religion, sexuality, disability, or nationality. We especially ask that debates about religious issues be kept respectful.
Now back to the topic please. Big Grin
12-22-06, 11:22 PM juanruiz
quote: No, not unless he's emigrated.
In that case I guess we shouldn't hold our breath for expert commentary on Babylonian cuneiform texts and tax advice.
12-23-06, 05:48 AM ZIK Are impersonal attacks on the philosophical foundations, or lack thereof, of atheism permissible, or is that classed as "hate speech" here also?
12-23-06, 07:06 AM clarebear I would say that this topic would fall under Argument ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance)
Let us see what we are really debating here. Is there or isn't there a God?
An argument from ignorance says that something is simply true because it hasn't been proven false or it is false because it hasn't been proven true.
1. There is a God because it hasn't been proven false.
2. There is no God because it hasn't been proven true.
Since the truth can not be established, the argument one way or another is invalid. Some have called this debate God of the Gaps. God is usually responsible for all natural causes of the world before we discover the true cause. At one time people believed that God was responsible for rain, hurricanes, lightening, diseases, the sun rising, reproduction etc... Before we knew the dynamics of these events, it was God. It couldn't be proven that it wasn't God so that was the truth. There really is no right or wrong answer to whether God exists. God exists for some and doesn't for others. Even those who believe in God fight over who has the better God. People need God for various reasons. God gives people hope that there is more to life than this. God keeps people from committing crimes and generally helps keep society in check. God promises an afterlife for those who treat others well. God helps a society remain civilized. God makes people feel good and gives them a sense of self. For those who don't believe in God, they are in control and take responsibility for what happens to them. They get the same feelings as someone who believes. It comes from within. They conduct themselves based on their own personal standards and what bring them inner peace. For those who believe in God, they leave it in God's hands and accept the outcome as fate. Whatever one believes is their own personal truth. That isn't wrong or right. It is who you are at that moment in your life.
12-23-06, 08:02 AM Karrow
quote: Originally posted by ZIK: Are impersonal attacks on the philosophical foundations, or lack thereof, of atheism permissible, or is that classed as "hate speech" here also?
As stated in the rules, we encourage debate providing it is polite and respectful. In other words, it is within the rules to say that you disagree with someone else's point of view, but calling them or their belief names isn't.
So if a member replies to your post saying "Zik, I disagree because....", that's fine. If they say "Zik, you must be stupid to believe that" or "All people who are (whichever belief/non-belief being discussed) are morons/idiots/etc. etc., then that is being inpolite and not acceptable.
I know a large number of Belief forums get very personal and impolite about individuals and/or their beliefs; some descend to all out war. We do not allow this at AnswerPool as we are proud of our SurfSafely listing and well moderated forums, and I have no intention of allowing standards to fall.
I'll now get off my soapbox and let you all return to your debate. Big Grin
12-23-06, 09:58 AM ZIK Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. However, may I point out that I've noticed impolite remarks, as you describe them, about theists here. And I shall point them out to you in future to you whenever and wherever I see them.
12-23-06, 10:02 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by clarebear: I would say that this topic would fall under Argument ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance)
Actually, I believe the ignorance goes far deeper. Many, if not most, of those who say there is no God seem to have no idea what they're actually referring to with the word "God". I would have thought that was the very first thing that needed to be settled.
12-23-06, 11:21 AM Insaf
quote: Originally posted by ZIK: Many, if not most, of those who say there is no God seem to have no idea what they're actually referring to with the word "God". I would have thought that was the very first thing that needed to be settled.
Zik,
What is your definition of God?
Here is what I found on the net:
To the question, “Do you believe in God?” a reasonable response is, “What do you mean by God?” Without defining a god in any way, a stated belief in a god is no different than a belief in “@#$%^.” It is also no more worthy of the energy expended to speak it than the statement, “Your car won’t start because of @#$%^.” Defining terms is essential to making claims of knowledge; without clear definitions, claims cannot be adequately understood, evaluated, and verified. Misunderstanding follows on the heels of sloppy language.
Most definitions of the purportedly singular “True God” can be placed into two categories: theistic and deistic. While a theistic god actively intervenes in the universe, the deistic god has simply set things in motion.
12-23-06, 11:39 AM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by Karrow:
quote: Originally posted by GarColga: mahal? bunkboy? Is that you?
No, not unless he's emigrated.
Oh, I do hope he has. Otherwise there is someone like him in the UK who posts in the same way and to no reason. I had chauvinistically thought that we did not have such Christian ( he or she seems to be Christian) people in Britain who blindly asserted their perfect knowledge and denied, decried or insulted anyone and everyone else.This Briton (?)even claims knowledge of physics to a level where he or she can assert that someone who disagrees is not a physicist. Big Grin
12-23-06, 12:20 PM clarebear
quote: Originally posted by ZIK: ... Actually, I believe the ignorance goes far deeper. Many, if not most, of those who say there is no God seem to have no idea what they're actually referring to with the word "God". I would have thought that was the very first thing that needed to be settled.
God can mean different things to different people. There are some common threads among people who use the word "God". When people say there is no God it simply means there is not a supreme being who created the world who is responsible for anything we encounter. The word "God" implies some force outside of our own which is the maker of the universe who is the decider of our destiny and fate. He is all knowing. Those who do not believe in a "God" (ruler of us) believe that life is what it is. People are born and they die. Thats about it. Any thing or being that is greater than ourselves, who created the world, who controls our destiny, who gives us rules to live by is called "God". Many people also call "God" - "Our Father who in Heaven". Think of a Father. He makes us and he makes the rules. If you are good then he rewards you. He loves you no matter what. He will punish you if you are not good. Father is the one to fear, you want his love and acceptance. Father is the one we try to please. People who believe in "God" use the bible as the rule book. If you break the rules then you have made your Father mad and sends you to "hell". Many believe that hell is the absense of God's love. If the rules don't fit then people use their own interpretations to MAKE it fit. This prevents them from going to hell. Some believe that God is female. This is called Goddess which is more nature based. It is all perspective. If you ask a dozen people then you will get a dozen different answers. Believing or not believing is a personal choice. This is why religion is considered a topic never to be discussed in mixed company. Ever notice how many convicts find God in prison only to later dot the bar graph of recidivism? God gets people through rough times.
Most who don't believe in God do not believe in fate, karma, luck, divine intervention or anything mystical. They do not believe there is a God/Father figure who created us for the sole purpose of worshiping him. If you do anything wrong, then he punishes you. If you are good then he rewards you. For some, that is just a hard pill to swallow.
I don't think it is any more ignorant to think there is a God then it is to think there isn't. Once again, this is a matter of personal truth. I hope this clarifies the definition of "God" and what people refer to when they say the word.
Remember, you are unique and so is everyone else. Smile
12-23-06, 12:37 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by Insaf:
quote: Originally posted by ZIK: Many, if not most, of those who say there is no God seem to have no idea what they're actually referring to with the word "God". I would have thought that was the very first thing that needed to be settled.
Zik,
What is your definition of God?
Here is what I found on the net:
To the question, “Do you believe in God?” a reasonable response is, “What do you mean by God?” Without defining a god in any way, a stated belief in a god is no different than a belief in “@#$%^.” It is also no more worthy of the energy expended to speak it than the statement, “Your car won’t start because of @#$%^.” Defining terms is essential to making claims of knowledge; without clear definitions, claims cannot be adequately understood, evaluated, and verified. Misunderstanding follows on the heels of sloppy language.
Most definitions of the purportedly singular “True God” can be placed into two categories: theistic and deistic. While a theistic god actively intervenes in the universe, the deistic god has simply set things in motion.
The issue is, when YOU use the word, what do YOU mean by it? Do YOU know? Never mind what you think others mean by it.
12-23-06, 12:38 PM ZIK "God can mean different things to different people. There are some common threads among people who use the word "God". When people say there is no God it simply means there is not a supreme being who created the world who is responsible for anything we encounter. The word "God" implies some force outside of our own which is the maker of the universe who is the decider of our destiny and fate. He is all knowing. Those who do not believe in a "God" (ruler of us) believe that life is what it is. People are born and they die. Thats about it. Any thing or being that is greater than ourselves, who created the world, who controls our destiny, who gives us rules to live by is called "God". Many people also call "God" - "Our Father who in Heaven". Think of a Father. He makes us and he makes the rules. If you are good then he rewards you. He loves you no matter what. He will punish you if you are not good. Father is the one to fear, you want his love and acceptance. Father is the one we try to please. People who believe in "God" use the bible as the rule book. If you break the rules then you have made your Father mad and sends you to "hell". Many believe that hell is the absense of God's love. If the rules don't fit then people use their own interpretations to MAKE it fit. This prevents them from going to hell. Some believe that God is female. This is called Goddess which is more nature based. It is all perspective. If you ask a dozen people then you will get a dozen different answers. Believing or not believing is a personal choice. This is why religion is considered a topic never to be discussed in mixed company. Ever notice how many convicts find God in prison only to later dot the bar graph of recidivism? God gets people through rough times.
Most who don't believe in God do not believe in fate, karma, luck, divine intervention or anything mystical. They do not believe there is a God/Father figure who created us for the sole purpose of worshiping him. If you do anything wrong, then he punishes you. If you are good then he rewards you. For some, that is just a hard pill to swallow.
I don't think it is any more ignorant to think there is a God then it is to think there isn't. Once again, this is a matter of personal truth. I hope this clarifies the definition of "God" and what people refer to when they say the word.
Remember, you are unique and so is everyone else. Smile" - Clare
But what do YOU mean by it? Do YOU know?
12-23-06, 12:48 PM clarebear You keep asking the same questions yet you aren't satisfied with any of the answers. I said before that it is a matter of personal choice and interpretation. I do not want to be called ignorant as you have called others in this thread. I will leave my own personal belief between me and my Bob. (sic)
It seems as if you are willing to have a rational discussion as long as everyone agrees with you. This isn't going to happen.
12-23-06, 12:50 PM ZIK So you don't know what YOU mean by the word "God" when you use it?
12-23-06, 12:51 PM Insaf
quote: Originally posted by ZIK: The issue is, when YOU use the word, what do YOU mean by it?
Here you go:
"He is one. He is eternal and absolute. He begets not, nor he is begotten. And there is none like him."
Now how do you define it?
12-23-06, 01:31 PM ZIK Apart from the implied gender of God, I agree with that. To me, God is the quintessence of existence - or the universe. How is it possible for the universe to exist without its quintessence existing FIRST?
12-23-06, 02:05 PM Insaf Good to know that we have the same definition. (I also do not imagine God in gender terms, I used the word "he" as a common way of speaking).
Although I, being a theist, am not really the person you seek the definition from.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 4494 | Location: Rochester, NY, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by ZIK: Apart from the implied gender of God, I agree with that.
Good to know that we have the same definition. (I also do not imagine God in gender terms, I used the word "he" as a common way of speaking).
Although I, being a theist, am not really the person you seek the definition from.
Quite so. I have not yet been able to obtain a definition from a single atheist! And I know why. I'll keep asking them for one though. ++++++++++++++++++ 12-23-06, 03:18 PM frankvan
quote: Quite so. I have not yet been able to obtain a definition from a single atheist! And I know why. I'll keep asking them for one though.
How fiendishly clever! And, I predict that when and if you succeed in baiting the poor misguided ignoramus into providing one, you already have a devastating riposte ready to shoot him/her down in flames! I further predict that before you have reached your 100th post you wil find your welcome mat has been jerked back inside. Wink
12-23-06, 03:21 PM ZIK Why so? Is this not a place where open and free discussions about these matters can be had?
And why would one be an ignoramus for providing a definition for a word one uses?
12-23-06, 04:05 PM frankvan You keep answering questions with questions of your own. Why do you ask atheists to define the word in an agnostics forum? Why do you lurk in the underbrush trying to lay traps for all despicable unbelievers ?? Who sent you on this mission? Is Bunkboy in the UK now? I just tried to remind you that a "free and open discussion" means that one can sometimes find that his audience has left.
12-23-06, 04:07 PM ZIK So this is not a place for free and open discussions about religion/beliefs? And how is asking someone to define a word he/she uses "setting traps"? I don't follow you.
12-23-06, 05:54 PM GarColga I don't get this at all, this insisting that atheists define 'god'. How can you describe something if you don't believe it exists?
Let's try this, ZIK. I accept your definition of god.
Now can we move on? What else do you have for us?
12-23-06, 05:57 PM Karrow
quote: Originally posted by ZIK: Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. However, may I point out that I've noticed impolite remarks, as you describe them, about theists here. And I shall point them out to you in future to you whenever and wherever I see them.
Thank you for the offer Zik, but the Site Administrators decide what is, and isn't, allowed on AnswerPool.
12-23-06, 06:53 PM newnickname
quote: I have not yet been able to obtain a definition from a single atheist!
God, (or gods) is (or are) the (imaginary) figure/s that some believe created, or run/s, or play/s some supernatural function in the universe and human affairs.
Thank you, thank you. I'll take a cigar. Smile
12-24-06, 02:23 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by GarColga: I don't get this at all, this insisting that atheists define 'god'. How can you describe something if you don't believe it exists?
Let's try this, ZIK. I accept your definition of god.
Now can we move on? What else do you have for us?
Well, if you accept my definition, then you have to concede that God exists unconditionally - as I have described.
12-24-06, 02:28 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by Karrow:
quote: Originally posted by ZIK: Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. However, may I point out that I've noticed impolite remarks, as you describe them, about theists here. And I shall point them out to you in future to you whenever and wherever I see them.
Thank you for the offer Zik, but the Site Administrators decide what is, and isn't, allowed on AnswerPool.
Well, I suppose it is your site - so you're free to do whatever you wish with it. I just thought you were so committed to the guidelines for your site that you would welcome any help in enforcing them.
My offer remains open. And I shall catalogue the infringements I mentioned just in case you decide you'd like to have them reported to you afterall.
12-24-06, 02:31 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
quote: I have not yet been able to obtain a definition from a single atheist!
God, (or gods) is (or are) the (imaginary) figure/s that some believe created, or run/s, or play/s some supernatural function in the universe and human affairs.
Thank you, thank you. I'll take a cigar. Smile
Ok. If that's your definition of God and gods then I agree with that they deserve no serious attention. But what about the quintessence of existence? The funddamental stuff of existence, if you wish. Does that deserve serious attention?
12-24-06, 07:19 AM Karrow
quote: Originally posted by ZIK: Well, I suppose it is your site - so you're free to do whatever you wish with it. I just thought you were so committed to the guidelines for your site that you would welcome any help in enforcing them.
My offer remains open. And I shall catalogue the infringements I mentioned just in case you decide you'd like to have them reported to you afterall.
Don't misunderstand me Zik, we do encourage reporting of any rule contravention. That is why there is the "Report This Post" facility for use by all members. (It's the triangle at the bottom right of every post.) I meant that you didn't need to post every time you thought that a rule contravention had occurred. I was also warning you that the Site Admnistrators are the ones who decide the content of the site, so we may not always agree with you. Smile 12-24-06, 07:28 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by Karrow:
Don't misunderstand me Zik, we do encourage reporting of any rule contravention. That is why there is the "Report This Post" facility for use by all members. (It's the triangle at the bottom right of every post.) I meant that you didn't need to post every time you thought that a rule contravention had occurred. I was also warning you that the Site Admnistrators are the ones who decide the content of the site, so we may not always agree with you. Smile
Thanks. I appreciate your clarification.
12-24-06, 08:32 AM GarColga
quote: Originally posted by ZIK:
quote: Originally posted by GarColga: I don't get this at all, this insisting that atheists define 'god'. How can you describe something if you don't believe it exists?
Let's try this, ZIK. I accept your definition of god.
Now can we move on? What else do you have for us?
Well, if you accept my definition, then you have to concede that God exists unconditionally - as I have described.
ZIK - I accept your definition, I now am a theist. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.
12-24-06, 08:36 AM ZIK You're welcome. My pleasure.
12-24-06, 11:15 AM newnickname
quote: But what about the quintessence of existence? The funddamental stuff of existence, if you wish. Does that deserve serious attention?
We could consider it seriously, just out of politeness, I guess.
Your 'glass bottle/existence' analogy is not logical.
Firstly, there's no logical connection between your 'existence of a glass bottle proves existence of glass' and 'existence proves the existence of the essence of existence' ideas.
We could say that a mug of coffee proves the existence of coffee beans, and similarly a rock proves the existence of rock beans. Or a plane proves the existence of wings and similarly a rocket proves the existence of wings. The lack of logical connection is more obvious in those examples, but they are exactly the same, logically, as your argument. A rock is a different kind of thing from a mug of coffee, and has diffferent antecedents.
Existence is not the same kind of thing as a glass bottle. It may not need antecedents.
Secondly, your analogy isn't even very good in itself. 'A glass bottle proves the existence of glass' is simply saying that things made of glass are made of glass. It's only about glass - there's nothing about 'fundamental stuff' of glass there. The second half of your analogy therefore ought to be 'existence in one shape proves the existence of existence in another shape'.
You need to go back to the drawing board, I think.
12-24-06, 12:06 PM Scotty
quote: ZIK - I accept your definition, I now am a theist. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.
That's one down. Juan will be the next one to "see the light". Big Grin
12-24-06, 03:14 PM juanruiz Happy Holidays, Scotty. Big Grin
12-24-06, 03:22 PM Scotty Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and yours, Juan.
12-24-06, 03:23 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
quote: But what about the quintessence of existence? The funddamental stuff of existence, if you wish. Does that deserve serious attention?
We could consider it seriously, just out of politeness, I guess.
Your 'glass bottle/existence' analogy is not logical.
Firstly, there's no logical connection between your 'existence of a glass bottle proves existence of glass' and 'existence proves the existence of the essence of existence' ideas.
We could say that a mug of coffee proves the existence of coffee beans, and similarly a rock proves the existence of rock beans. Or a plane proves the existence of wings and similarly a rocket proves the existence of wings. The lack of logical connection is more obvious in those examples, but they are exactly the same, logically, as your argument. A rock is a different kind of thing from a mug of coffee, and has diffferent antecedents.
Existence is not the same kind of thing as a glass bottle. It may not need antecedents.
Secondly, your analogy isn't even very good in itself. 'A glass bottle proves the existence of glass' is simply saying that things made of glass are made of glass. It's only about glass - there's nothing about 'fundamental stuff' of glass there. The second half of your analogy therefore ought to be 'existence in one shape proves the existence of existence in another shape'.
You need to go back to the drawing board, I think.
Let me make this more direct: How do you prove YOUR existence?
12-24-06, 04:38 PM newnickname
quote: How do you prove YOUR existence?
I don't. (Maybe I'm trapped in the Matrix. Smile)
12-24-06, 04:40 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
quote: How do you prove YOUR existence?
I don't. (Maybe I'm trapped in the Matrix. Smile)
Hahahahahahahah! This is my very point!
12-24-06, 04:43 PM newnickname What is?
12-24-06, 04:49 PM ZIK Well, if you can't even prove that, you're in no position to make ANY categorical statements about ANYTHING, are you?
12-24-06, 05:10 PM newnickname Yup. So? Have you noticed which forum this is?
12-24-06, 05:12 PM ZIK Therefore you cannot categorically say there is no God either, can you?
12-24-06, 05:16 PM newnickname Nope. But, as an atheist, I can live my life as if there were no God. I can't be sure there aren't unicorns, tooth fairies and whole Greek pantheons either - but that needn't affect how I choose to live. As an agnostic, I would of course hold that it isn't possible to know either way.
You as a theist (I guess) seem to be a bit stuck, the wheels having fallen off your 'essence of existence' idea.
12-24-06, 05:21 PM ZIK I'm content as long as you've conceded a categorical claim that there's no God is unfounded. Chimps also live as though there were no God. I don't worry about their unbelief. I don't expect belief of such a high order from them.
12-24-06, 05:34 PM newnickname The 'concession' is nothing new. It's impossible to categorically prove the non-existence of something as nebulous as 'God'. We can only do it to our own reasonable, everyday satisfaction.
'Logicians note that it is easier to prove that there are such beings than to prove there aren't simply because we only need to find one of them to accomplish our proof, and thus will not have to look everywhere--unless we are so unlucky that where the one Martian is just happens to be the last place we look. But in the final analysis, it is not being "negative" that makes a proposition difficult to prove, but the breadth of the assertion. For instance, "there is gravity on every planet in every universe" could be disproven by searching just one planet and finding no gravity, but if we kept finding gravity we could never decisively prove it true, any more than if we kept failing to find Martians in the universe would we be able to decisively prove that "there are no Martians in the universe." Thus, what people call the "you can't prove a negative" axiom is actually nothing more than the eternal problem of induction: since we can't test a proposition in every place and at every time, we can never be absolutely certain that the proposition remains true in all times and places. We can only infer it...' www.infidels.org
I'm not sure why you're content. As a theist, wouldn't you want to be proving the existence of God?
12-24-06, 05:37 PM ZIK And, with respect, you can't speak for others - especially if you say you can't even speak for yourself.
12-24-06, 06:00 PM newnickname You don't want to prove the existence of God? What was all that stuff about quintessence and glass bottles, then?
12-24-06, 06:03 PM ZIK Well, if you have difficulties grasping YOUR existence, how could you grasp ANYTHING ELSE? How could you hope to grasp the concept of Infinity and God?
12-24-06, 06:11 PM clarebear
quote: So how could you know what's possible or impossible?
Nothing in life is certain except death, taxes and rechecking threads just because you like the abuse. It is possible that it is impossible to make any sense of this thread. I have a strange suspicion that ZIK is really just a figment of my imagination. I don't believe he exists and he hasn't proven to me that he does. Therefore:. I do not believe it is possible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who can't prove he is even there. he is the one not sure of anything. I believe he is looking for the right answer to prove his existence. I think he is plotting against us to prove that WE exist when in reality, HE can't even speak for himself. He must continue to question everyone else for fear we will find out that he doesn't exist. (notice how he ends every sentence with a question) Pretty slick there! I may not exist. Maybe nothing exists. Maybe, just maybe, this is all a bad dream. If I don't exist then I have nothing to fear except fear itself. I can not say if its possible or not possible. I can not prove the existence of God, myself, matter or time. I still do not kick small animals for fear that I may be wrong. Basically I'm just screwed. If I exist then I can't prove it. If I don't exist then I can't prove that either. Dang. This epiphany is Spooky. If I existed or could prove my existence then it would be possible that dementia is getting the better of me. Since I can't prove it one way or another I say this. I will go with the flow. Since Jesus died for my sins (as I have been told), I might as well get my money's worth! Baaaahhh....
12-24-06, 06:15 PM ZIK Can you prove to YOURSELF that YOU exist? If not, do ANY of your views have ANY validity?
12-24-06, 06:22 PM clarebear . 12-24-06, 06:25 PM ZIK Can you prove it to YOURSELF at least that you do exist?
12-24-06, 06:29 PM clarebear ZIK,
It is Christmas Eve and I know you are having fun with all of this but I'm done in this thread.
Have yourself a Merry Christmas. Smile
12-24-06, 06:30 PM ZIK Same to you.
12-24-06, 06:32 PM DorianGreyed I just checked my mirror. I'm there; I exist. However, sorry to say, ZIK, but you aren't in the picture. You don't exist. See ya, хорошая ночь, AMF, guten tag, close the door on your way out, watch the doorknob.
12-24-06, 06:36 PM ZIK Of-course you exist. We ALL exist. That's my point: We all need to firmly acknowledge that - and accept ALL ALLthe corollaries.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
In this thread, you say "accept ALL ALLthe corollaries", but in another, only your interpretation is correct, despite ample evidence to the contrary? Why don't you get back to us when you get your shinola straight. Until then, I'm with Frank, and I'm voting with my feet. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 12-24-06, 06:45 PM ZIK I'm not sure I follow you at all. But, of-course, I'm in favour of free expression. I've always said so.
12-24-06, 07:06 PM newnickname
quote: We all need to firmly acknowledge that - and accept ALL ALLthe corollaries.
Says who? You've lowered your sights a little, haven't you - going from logical proof of God's existence to simply demanding that we need to acknowledge existence.
Maybe you need to accept that some people are capable of acknowledging that we can't actually be certain about anything, even our own existence, and then taking things from there.
12-24-06, 07:29 PM ZIK Since YOU're not sure of ANYTHING, you can't be sure of the logic of what you're saying here, can you? So perhaps it's best ignored?
12-25-06, 08:27 AM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by ZIK:
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
quote: How do you prove YOUR existence?
I don't. (Maybe I'm trapped in the Matrix. Smile)
Hahahahahahahah! This is my very point!
Not so fast, Stranger! Cogito ergo sum. (I think, therefore I am / je pense donc je suis } Zik you seemed unfamiliar with Plato and now you seem unfamilar with Descartes. I can't wait for you to catch up and be unfamiliar with yet more recent philosophers.
12-25-06, 09:21 AM ZIK I'm not sure what you're on about. But I do know that what Descartes meant was that you can't think, unless you exist FIRST! Did YOU know this?
12-25-06, 06:13 PM FredPuli Are you trying to give me lessons on Latin or French, Zik ? Do try again (Your knowledge, if any, of these languages is failing you). The statement is plain enough in both languages. It cannot possibly mean what you propose. Now please read it again in English. Does he say, as translated, " I am therefore I think" which is what you claim or " I think therefore I am" ? The latter is that the fact of his thinking shows he exists. Your version is the former.
12-25-06, 07:11 PM babthrower Yeah. Yeah. If we were to accept "I exist therefore I think", then that would mean that anything that exists, thinks.
That is probably false, and besides, the Frenchman what's-his-name gave evidence for his statement he made, and none for the statement he did not make. Which makes a lot of sense when you think about it.
We can think of many things which likely exist (though we can't prove it) and which, if they exist, probably don't think. Let's see:
- rocks - burritos - Zik.
12-26-06, 02:37 AM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by babthrower:
- Zik.
Are you sure, babs? Think of something that we cannot be sure exists but if he does exist is all-knowing and who, therefore, brooks no argument.He also seems to be everywhere. He may be the quintessence of everything, including Answerpool. Does anyone have faith that such a Thing exists? Sounds vaguely familiar Smile
12-26-06, 02:58 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli: Are you trying to give me lessons on Latin or French, Zik ? Do try again (Your knowledge, if any, of these languages is failing you). The statement is plain enough in both languages. It cannot possibly mean what you propose. Now please read it again in English. Does he say, as translated, " I am therefore I think" which is what you claim or " I think therefore I am" ? The latter is that the fact of his thinking shows he exists. Your version is the former.
Listen: For it to be a proof of the existence of self, then he has to be saying what I've said, namely: He can only think - OR INDEED DO ANYTHING ELSE - if he ALREADY exists.
How many languages you actually speak is not really relevant, is it?
12-26-06, 03:00 AM ZIK
From Babs - We can think of many things which likely exist (though we can't prove it) and which, if they exist, probably don't think. Let's see:
- rocks - burritos - Zik.
Try to keep up: What Descartes said is: "I think therefore I (MUST) exist.
12-26-06, 03:04 AM ZIK There can be NO QUESTION of the existence of a thing BEFORE its quintessence - just as you'll NEVER be able to eat Xmas turkey even before you exist, no matter what you might think.
12-26-06, 03:20 AM FredPuli It's all right Zik. I personally prefer to imagine you don't exist even quintessentially. That way I can think to myself that I am talking to an imaginary Friend, just as those of various faiths have done for hundreds of years. Big Grin
Where do you find all these fancy words like 'quintessence' to throw about, in the manner of a man who wishes to obscure their own paucity of reason? I'm sure God speaks in language that everyone understands. His son certainly did.
Incidentally, I can't see why understanding the language of a French philosopher should be a hindrance. I have both some Latin, and for my sins (?) some French, and tend to find that useful when dealing with those who prefer to write or speak in them. Perhaps you prefer not to know.
12-26-06, 03:25 AM ZIK Listen: How could you possibly eat Xmas turkey without existing FIRST? Answer me that.
12-26-06, 08:13 AM Karrow Some posts in this thread are pushing the line on the part of the rules that state "We hope that ideas will be expressed, exchanged, debated and discussed in depth; diversity of opinion is a good thing and we encourage it. However, disagreements must remain courteous. Personal attacks, 'Flame Wars', and/or name-calling have no place here and are not acceptable as a means of expression."
How ironic that during the season of "...on earth peace, good will toward men" (Luke 2:10-14), it is the Religions/Beliefs forums that have required close watching for rule contraventions. Roll Eyes
12-26-06, 09:39 AM ZIK If I've made any of those posts, I'd like to be advised as all I want is a well-ordered debate. The matter is too serious for me to be trivialised.
12-26-06, 09:46 AM newnickname There are actually several senses in which it would be possible for someone to think before they exist. Buddhists would say that 'self' is an illusion; the 'I' in the statement does not really exist. The thought might be true, however.
In traditional Western thought 'self' is also problematic. Most people, asked who 'they' really are, at first often intuitively picture some kind of little 'self' in the head. Others might reach for superstition and talk of a mystical 'soul' which is difficult to define. Thinking more deeply, it becomes clear that 'I' is almost impossible to satisfactorily describe. Could it just be a collection of (more or less accurate) memories of experiences and actions?
In any case, we can't be sure that the 'self' that exists at one moment is the same 'self' that exists at the next. (More philosophy 101. Smile) In that sense also 'I' (in one moment) might think before 'I' (in the next moment) exists. The thoughts of I(#1) might in fact be necessary to the (shaky) existence of 'I'(#2).
As others have pointed out, there're are problem with the idea of 'exist', too. What does it mean for a human to 'exist'? Possibly we're biased, but people often seem to think there's more to our existence than that of a rock, for example. What could the difference be? Thinking? In that case, thinking comes before and is necessary to a human existence, whatever that is.
There's existentialism. 'Existentialism emphasizes action, freedom, and decision as fundamental to human existence...' From an existentialist point of view, making a decision about eating turkey is adding meaning to your existence. Without such an action or decision you may 'exist' (something like a rock) but you don't really exist in the sense we'd think a person existing.
So, yes, you may need to (decide to) eat turkey before you really 'exist'.
Of course, it's possible that this is all hooey, but just laughing off the idea of thinking before existing shows a reluctance to take some mental effort, and wrestle with big ideas, in the way that someone like, say... Douglas Adams would. Smile
12-26-06, 09:49 AM ZIK The have to exist FIRST before they can create the illusion of a self in their minds, don't they?
12-26-06, 09:50 AM newnickname
quote: There can be NO QUESTION of the existence of a thing BEFORE its quintessence...
Of course there can be a question. You haven't even shown yet that everything (including existence) needs or has a 'quintessence'.
12-26-06, 09:51 AM newnickname
quote: The have to exist FIRST before they can create the illusion of a sel
