Proof of God

[C1ay]

And what if I demonstrate there is no geological or meteorological phenomena that can explain a particular event that is claimed to be the action of the gods?

 

It would still be something simply claimed to be the action of the gods, not proof of the gods themselves.

 

Think, just because a photon strikes your eye is not proof that a star or a flashlight exists or that any other particular source exists, only that a photon has struck your eye. To prove the existence of a source of the photons would require proof of the source itself, not the alleged results of that source.

[Reaper]

Psychic functioning is a necessity for monopantheism which is my proof requirements for this thread; Consciousness being a fundamental property of reality makes a causal mechanism for mind matter interactions a necessity.

 

Further psychic functioning is not admissible to and is mutually exclusive to materialistic (philosophic atheism) theories on reality.

 

So, if you want to deny my proof in this thread for not having verifiable observable and model exclusive evidence you need to deny psychic functioning.

 

So are you going to answer my questions or not?

 

And, psychic functioning is not usually taken seriously because it is not verifiable, and any experiments that were attempted to study it are sketchy at best, as the links you've provided clearly show. In fact, they show that under controlled conditions it simply doesn't hold up.

[MySiddhi]

It would still be something simply claimed to be the action of the gods, not proof of the gods themselves.

 

Think, just because a photon strikes your eye is not proof that a star or a flashlight exists or that any other particular source exists, only that a photon has struck your eye. To prove the existence of a source of the photons would require proof of the source itself, not the alleged results of that source.

 

Have we been able to prove the existence of stars? And how was that done (generally) to make it sufficient as a proof for you?

[Reaper]

Oh, this just keeps getting better. :)

 

 

As someone who has formally studied neuroscience for years, I can tell you that your little philosophical semantics do not prove god as anything more than a delusion, or a "psychic malfunction."

 

Please sir, try again.

 

I think the phrase "psychic malfunction" is an understatement :)

[Reaper]

Have we been able to prove the existence of stars? And how was that done (generally) to make it sufficient as a proof for you?

 

Yes, because we can actually see them and detect them. We can't see or detect gods. So, are you going to answer my questions or not?

[MySiddhi]

So are you going to answer my questions or not?

 

And, psychic functioning is not usually taken seriously because it is not verifiable, and any experiments that were attempted to study it are sketchy at best, as the links you've provided clearly show. In fact, they show that under controlled conditions it simply doesn't hold up.

 

I doubt you have actually read those peer reviewed papers... but thanks for your (uniformed?) opinion on them. You make a claim that under controlled conditions psychic functioning does not hold up? That is not what these papers say or even imply.

 

You question seems to have been answered several times. Maybe restate your question in a new way and if it is an argument present it as formally as possible.

[MySiddhi]

Yes, because we can actually see them and detect them. We can't see or detect gods. So, are you going to answer my questions or not?

 

This question was not addressed to you... as you will see C1ay's argument will fall apart according to the Socratic method.

 

Or else he will give me a method to prove my case on the theistic notions of God.

[InfiniteNow]

I notice you cited the Sense of Being Stared at. Are you seriously calling Rupert Sheldrake's ideas of morphic fields "peer reviewed," and somehow positing that these support your "proof of god?"

 

 

Proof must have a completely different meaning in your world than everyone elses.

[C1ay]

Have we been able to prove the existence of stars? And how was that done (generally) to make it sufficient as a proof for you?

 

Still dodging the requirement huh? The rules here are clear. I'll expect to see your rigorous, irrefutable proof of the Christian god on your next post. Got it?

[MySiddhi]

Still dodging the requirement huh? The rules here are clear. I'll expect to see your rigorous, irrefutable proof of the Christian god on your next post. Got it?

 

And every time I pin your logic you threaten me and give me negative point for not proving my claims.

 

If you can't comprehend that your own argument negates the possibility of even proving the existence of a star how the hell can you comprehend that you won't allow me to prove the existence of the Christian God?

 

For the sake of your comprehension I will modify my claim on being able to prove the existence of the Christian God and will include; That;

 

I cannot prove the existence of the Christian God if one cannot prove the existence of a star.

[Reaper]

I doubt you have actually read those peer reviewed papers... but thanks for your (uniformed?) opinion on them. You make a claim that under controlled conditions psychic functioning does not hold up? That is not what these papers say or even imply.

 

Not all of them were peer-reviewed actually. And one of them was about human consciousness. What most of them show is that some people have scored better than others, not actually confirm the existence of psychic phenomenon. Of course, since I have studied statistical sciences formally, I can tell just by looking at the numbers and the methods whether or not they do hold up.

 

Regardless of the authenticity of this phenomenon, you still have to show how this would help your case, because the links you provided are trying to test whether or not people can affect others using extrasensory perceptions (or whether or not they even exist), not about supernatural deities affecting people.

 

You question seems to have been answered several times. Maybe restate your question in a new way and if it is an argument present it as formally as possible.

 

No you haven't. You have so far ducked the first question I posed to you: what makes you think that your belief in God is more valid than other religious beliefs. And let me tell you where you stand in this regard:

 

Throughout the entire thread, you have not provided one compelling reason for why God exists, or why your belief is more valid than belief in Brahma, Zeus, the Great Spirit, etc. The methods used in your "proofs" are also used to make a case for the existence of those other deities as well. Your best shot at it, psychic phenomenon, is something that is unverifiable at best and all accounts of it are really sketchy, even under experimental settings. You haven't even begun to address the fact that all this might be ascribed to something else entirely.

 

How do you know that this really is God, and not just some fluke of the human brain, or if you really do accept the notion of psychic phenomenon (puke!), just some random person's thoughts? What makes you think that belief in God is more valid than belief in Brahma, especially since you agreed that the same exact reasoning can be used to argue for either deity.

 

There are 4 billion people on this planet who do not believe in, or accept the very notion of a monotheistic, all powerful, single God for the sole reason that there is no physical evidence whatsoever for his existence. What makes you think that their religious accounts are less valid than the Christian account of the supernatural?

 

And so I ask you, are you going to confront the question directly, or are you going to engage in your ridiculous rhetoric and preaching?

[InfiniteNow]

I cannot prove the existence of the Christian God if one cannot prove the existence of a star.

 

Since the sun comes up over the horizon in the east every morning, we're pretty much left with the first part of your sentence, in that you cannot prove the existence of the christian god. Oddly, you cannot prove the existence of any other either.

[MySiddhi]

Not all of them were peer-reviewed actually. And one of them was about human consciousness. What most of them show is that some people have scored better than others, not actually confirm the existence of psychic phenomenon. Of course, since I have studied statistical sciences formally, I can tell just by looking at the numbers and the methods whether or not they do hold up.

 

Regardless of the authenticity of this phenomenon, you still have to show how this would help your case, because the links you provided are trying to test whether or not people can affect others using extrasensory perceptions (or whether or not they even exist), not about supernatural deities affecting people.

 

 

 

No you haven't. You have so far ducked the first question I posed to you: what makes you think that your belief in God is more valid than other religious beliefs. And let me tell you where you stand in this regard:

 

Throughout the entire thread, you have not provided one compelling reason for why God exists, or why your belief is more valid than belief in Brahma, Zeus, the Great Spirit, etc. The methods used in your "proofs" are also used to make a case for the existence of those other deities as well. Your best shot at it, psychic phenomenon, is something that is unverifiable at best and all accounts of it are really sketchy, even under experimental settings. You haven't even begun to address the fact that all this might be ascribed to something else entirely.

 

How do you know that this really is God, and not just some fluke of the human brain, or if you really do accept the notion of psychic phenomenon (puke!), just some random person's thoughts? What makes you think that belief in God is more valid than belief in Brahma, especially since you agreed that the same exact reasoning can be used to argue for either.

 

There are 4 billion people on this planet who do not believe in, or accept the very notion of a monotheistic, all powerful, single God. What makes you think that their religious accounts are less valid than the Christian account of the supernatural?

 

And so I ask you, are you going to confront the question directly, or are you going to engage in your ridiculous rhetoric and preaching?

 

If you pay attention you may notice this thread was not created to prove the existence of the Christian God!

 

It was designed specifically to prove Monopantheism.

 

Do you understand this? Do you need me to speak in another language for you?

[InfiniteNow]

If you pay attention you may notice this thread was not created to prove the existence of the Christian God!

 

Uhmmm... Is anybody beside me looking at the thread title at this point?

[Reaper]

If you pay attention you may notice this thread was not created to prove the existence of the Christian God!

 

It was designed specifically to prove Monopantheism?

 

Do you understand this? Do you need me to speak in another language for you?

 

What a spectacular shift in goalposts. This thread is titled "Proof of God"? And throughout most of the thread, that's what you have been trying to do, without success. Are you seriously telling me that there is none, that you admit that your belief is unsubstantiated?

[MySiddhi]

This thread is titled "Proof of God"? Are you seriously telling me that there is none, that you admit that your belief is unsubstantiated?

 

Just to inform you... a monopantheistic deity is a God.

 

I know that may come as a surprise for you. Shocking huh?

[Reaper]

Oh, ok. It is a god.

 

So how then did we go from

 

Since I am a Christian, and the only way I can personally perceive proving such a thing is to prove the stories of mythological proportion found in the bible.

 

To

 

Just to inform you... a monopantheistic deity is a God.

 

I know that may come as a surprise for you. Shocking huh?

 

Are there any other gods you should tell us about that you so desperately want to prove?

 

This still does not relieve you of the original question posed to you.