Prove to me that God exists.

[aquatus1]

And why must an all-knowing God allow people to die pointlessly when he can easily prevent it? Why does he allow those who truly do not deserve to die... die?

Religion, again, is so silly.

Alienated Being, it is not at all logical to claim that something has a property that it is not documented to have ever shown. Similarly, there is no logic in accusing others of using redundant arguments when you are doing the exact same thing (Demanding that people acknowledge one definition of God sounds the same from whichever side of the argument you are on). And finally, there is no logic in declaring that because you see a particular point as being reasonable (as opposed to logical), God must see it as logical as well. Heck, you can't even make the claim that any other human would necessarily see your claim as valid, so I have no idea why you think a god would automatically agree with you.

[Lion6969]

Thats easy to prove.... do you have a bank account? Check those numbers on your ATM, do they correspond to your cash at hand? Yes they do. I see that I have ten bucks.... I go to the bank and say prove to me I have ten bucks by showing me the money and they give you ten bucks. Or how about this... you get a water bill.... it says you owe 10 bucks... numbers dont exsist so why worry ignore it .... you go pay your bill... ten is not real so you hand them a dollar and say its the same as 10... because numbers are not real. They take your money, turn off your water and hand you a bill for 9 bucks. hmmmmm. maybe there is something to this number thing.

Now I pray to god and ask it for peace... the next day my dog dies.... I pray again .... next day my fish dies.... I pray again.... next day my house burns down.... I pray again.... and my girlfriend dumps me.... I pray once more.....and I have a peaceful day. Thats a one in four chance. I would have had the same results if I had prayed to micheal jackson.

Lmao!!!!

Ok let me put you to the test. Bring me the number 1. Where do you find it, can I see it, smell it, touch it, feel it, and test it. Do you understand empirical? This means I need hard evidence the number 1 has a physical empirical existence. You clearly don't understand what numbers are....lol

[Lion6969]

It is a word. Prove that luck exists. Pffft. Do you think it is something supernatural?

Lucky, opportunistic - Quibble.

You have an "angel turnup" to?

Lol. You claim luck others opportunistic. I dont believe in luck, Many atheists do, very superstitious bunch, who touch wood, hope for second magpie etc lol. Walking under ladders breaking mirrors etc. Not for me!

[Lion6969]

Numbers, as in numeral symbols?

This isn't even remotely similar, I can give you a number but you can't give us god.

Lol!!! Give me empirical physical proof that numbers exist, physical proof your own standard of knowledge, empirical. Prove the existence of any number. It's similar which I will

Show you later, when you realise what numbers really are.

[Pintho]

God wich god?

[aquatus1]

Lion, if you intend to keep posting, knock out the Lol! and Lmao!!!. Either post like a civil and reasonable person, or don't post.

[Cybele]

Lol!!! Give me empirical physical proof that numbers exist, physical proof your own standard of knowledge, empirical. Prove the existence of any number. It's similar which I will

Show you later, when you realise what numbers really are.

Well, it's pretty obvious (I should hope) that numbers themselves, being symbols, don't really have an existence outside the human (or animal) mind. They're just ways to list and keep track of real world objects; ways to conceptualize and explore the physical universe through science and mathematics.

What's your point in asking this? By asking people to prove that numbers and luck exist in a thread asking people to do same thing with God, you seem to be implying that they are similar phenomena. That is, God, like numbers and luck, is not objectively real, but merely a way for humans to make sense of the world. That seems so unlike you , unless you are inadvertently making posts which serve to help undermine your professed beliefs.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Cybele

[Lion6969]

Before I reply to you Cybele I just need to clarify that my questions do not undermine anything I believe. My line of questioning is initially to illustrate existence of what we perceive to be logical truths, ie maths, numbers etc. Thus truths can be reached via other standards of knowledge besides the ever emphasised empiricist methodology and verificationism. How ever band wagon atheists tend to solely rely on empiricism, while in reality they adhere to other non empirical truths logical truths, but only when it suits them.

[Cybele]

Before I reply to you Cybele I just need to clarify that my questions do not undermine anything I believe.

Which is why I asked. I think God, luck and numbers are most logically compared as I have done briefly above.

My line of questioning is initially to illustrate existence of what we perceive to be logical truths, ie maths, numbers etc. Thus truths can be reached via other standards of knowledge besides the ever emphasised empiricist methodology and verificationism. How ever band wagon atheists tend to solely rely on empiricism, while in reality they adhere to other non empirical truths logical truths, but only when it suits them.

Numbers can be used to predict objective events that can be verified empirically. Most don't believe that numbers themselves have an objective existence, but they don't need to in order to be incredibly useful.

Non-empirical truths are personal "truths",if my understanding is correct, and are therefore non-transferable. There's really no point in trying to convince people of the truth of the latter because it's impossible.

[+Paranoid Android]

And why must an all-knowing God allow people to die pointlessly when he can easily prevent it? Why does he allow those who truly do not deserve to die... die?

One obvious reason that comes to mind is overpopulation. If people didn't die, our planet could no longer sustain us. Which would then require God to miraculously intervene to provide resources for trillions of people. Until such point as there is literally no room for people to move on this planet. Which would require God to miraculously make our planet bigger to simply allow trillions of people to move and not be packed in like sardines.

It's not the only reason, but it's the most "empirical" reason.

Religion, again, is so silly.

You are free to that opinion, but it makes sense to me so obviously your view is not without detractors.

~ PA

Edited February 14, 2012 by Paranoid Android

[Rlyeh]

Lol!!! Give me empirical physical proof that numbers exist, physical proof your own standard of knowledge, empirical. Prove the existence of any number. It's similar which I will

Show you later, when you realise what numbers really are.

They exist on your keyboard. Is this really the level of reasoning you've stooped down to?

[+Paranoid Android]

They exist on your keyboard. Is this really the level of reasoning you've stooped down to?

I think he's pointing out that numbers as we know them are just pictographic representations of mathematical concepts. A number such as "3" is just a random squiggle that society has agreed upon to represent that mathematical idea. The ancient Romans chose letters to represent it - I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X and so on. If you wrote "3" and showed it to an ancient Roman they'd stare blankly at you and wonder if you were perhaps mentally unstable.

In essence, you're being asked to show empirical evidence for a concept (something that exists in our minds but has no physical characteristics to measure except socially agreed representations).

That's how I interpret his question at least.

[eight bits]

Lion

OK, I'll play.

Once upon a time, for the ancestors of living mathematicians, the Greek geometers, numbers corresponded with counts and lengths (and other physical measures that could be defined based on lengths). These numbers were as "real" as any count and any distance between actual objects are real. There are four letters in the word four. There are about four inches in the gap between my thumbtip and index-fingertip when they are comfortably extended.

The Greeks were also aware that the lengths aren't entirely physical, but abstractions or idealizations of the physical. Counts didn't necessarily have to be idealized (although tell that to somebody trying to figure out who got the most votes in Florida's 2000 Presidential election), but all lengths do. Moreover, only in the mind is the four that describes the count of its letters connected with the four that is the area of a square whose sides are each 2 units.

And of course, the four that describes the number of cattle I have when I combine two bulls and two cows is, with luck, not the final count. "Oh, I didn't mean to apply counting to that situation." No problem, but the calves are as real as their parents, the four versus the six soon-to-be reflects my decision about what I want to talk about, not some difference in reality.

So, there you are. Numbers, even the core numbers (finite naturals and positive-valued arithmetic combinations of lengths) "exist" only as abstractions of one kind or another. Our actual modern complement of numbers includes purely imaginative extensions of the concept, like zero as a kind of "count" (the kind you don't count, and by which count you cannot divide, unlike every other count), "negative" numbers (a way of talking about our reflection in a mirror counting and doing geometry), and the "numbers" that are called imaginary (if the man in the mirror builds a square whose side is the mirror image of the square I'm drawing, his side-length is the "negative" of mine, but the areas of our two squares are identical... this gets interesting when he builds a square on the diagonal of another square).

There is usually no mirror, and even when there is a mirror, there is no man living there. But if I create a counterfactual hypothetical, for example, that there is a man in the mirror doing geometry when I do geometry, then I can, with care, derive a coherent set of consequences. I can look in the mirror and see that my derivations are "correct."

But there isn't really any man over there. Best not to get carried away with how elaborate and irrebuttable my spinning of the counterfactual hypothetical can be. There will never be a man in there. That wouldn't stop someone from writing a book about him though.

[Alienated Being]

One obvious reason that comes to mind is overpopulation. If people didn't die, our planet could no longer sustain us. Which would then require God to miraculously intervene to provide resources for trillions of people. Until such point as there is literally no room for people to move on this planet. Which would require God to miraculously make our planet bigger to simply allow trillions of people to move and not be packed in like sardines.

In case you haven't noticed, our population is already beginning to become overpopulated, and is continuing to grow exponentially. That theory makes no sense whatsoever. I also don't see why he allows others who truly have no point in living to have the gift of life, while others who have a promising future, who have the ability to create change... die.

He works in mysterious ways.

You are free to that opinion, but it makes sense to me so obviously your view is not without detractors.

~ PA

Religion is of little worth, to me, so I treat it as such.

[Habitat]

In case you haven't noticed, our population is already beginning to become overpopulated, and is continuing to grow exponentially. That theory makes no sense whatsoever. I also don't see why he allows others who truly have no point in living to have the gift of life, while others who have a promising future, who have the ability to create change... die.

He works in mysterious ways.

Religion is of little worth, to me, so I treat it as such.

Hmmm.....methinks it is a matter of considerable interest to you, I don't know your age, but it can be a very slow incubation from the point of realising it is a matter of importance, to a crystallization in your mind of what the real importance is. Decades in fact.

[Alienated Being]

Hmmm.....methinks it is a matter of considerable interest to you, I don't know your age, but it can be a very slow incubation from the point of realising it is a matter of importance, to a crystallization in your mind of what the real importance is. Decades in fact.

I'm 21, and was brought up in a household where its importance was consistently relayed on a daily basis.

From what I have found, there is no evidence available to even remotely suggest the existence of such a being. BASED on that fact, I have concluded that it is rather illogical to invest beliefs in such a topic.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Alienated Being

[J. K.]

Well, it's pretty obvious (I should hope) that numbers themselves, being symbols, don't really have an existence outside the human (or animal) mind. They're just ways to list and keep track of real world objects; ways to conceptualize and explore the physical universe through science and mathematics.

Nature does recognize the Golden Ratio, as it is found in the construction of both plants and animals.

[Habitat]

I'm 21, and was brought up in a household where its importance was consistently relayed on a daily basis.

From what I have found, there is no evidence available to even remotely suggest the existence of such a being.

I don't think anyone should be force-fed religion at any age, in its real form it is only something you bring out of yourself over time, and at 21, it is not time, imo. But I do think you have a sense there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere, hidden under a lot of layers. I do not believe I have ever met a person in their twenties who had any clear sense of what that kernel might be, even though many are vaguely aware there is something significant, not to be ignored completely. At 21 you are looking forward, not back, and rightly so, in my view it is deep reflection on life events that kindles the flame of the inner quest. In other words, experience has not accumulated enough material to work on to be fruitfully involved in reflective contemplation.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Habitat

[Alienated Being]

I don't think anyone should be force-fed religion at any age, in its real form it is only something you bring out of yourself over time, and at 21, it is not time, imo. But I do think you have a sense there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere, hidden under a lot of layers. I do not believe I have ever met a person in their twenties who had any clear sense of what that kernel might be, even though many are vaguely aware there is something significant, not to be ignored completely. At 21 you are looking forward, not back, and rightly so, in my view it is deep reflection on life events that kindles the flame of the inner quest. In other words, experience has not accumulated enough material to work on to be fruitfully involved in reflective contemplation.

Oh, believe me... I have had my fair share of experience in life, especially when I have been in the hospital 400+ times. I still do not believe in a god. Do I believe in luck, chance? Yes. Do I believe that some divine being took part in my recovery? Absolutely not. Is it possible? Sure. Anything is possible. Is it scientifically feasible, reasonable, and probable? No. Unfortunately for me, I didn't have a childhood, and I never fit in with any group because I was always wise well beyond my years. I have been to hell and back. I know experience, I have experienced deaths of people close to me, I have experienced the death of friends, I saw a person die in hospital. Not only that, but I lost 68% of my lung function (I am left with 32%) as a result of illnesses wreaking havoc on my weak immune system. That's just the tip of the ice berg, as well. According to leading respirology experts, I shouldn't be even able to walk, much less RUN AROUND MY BLOCK TWO TIMES with my sickness. I am in the clinically disabled category (in the SEVERELY DISABLED/VERY SEVERELY DISABLED category). I don't chalk that up to any fairy tale miracle, I merely see that as evidence of the will to live, and personal strength...

I don't believe in a god, because I have not seen any evidence to reinforce such a belief.

Don't criticize me regarding "experience". You haven't walked a mile in my shoes.

If anybody should have a reason to believe in god, it should be me; but I don't, as there is no evidence, in my opinion.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Alienated Being

[+Paranoid Android]

In case you haven't noticed, our population is already beginning to become overpopulated, and is continuing to grow exponentially. That theory makes no sense whatsoever. I also don't see why he allows others who truly have no point in living to have the gift of life, while others who have a promising future, who have the ability to create change... die.

He works in mysterious ways.

Exactly. So your question is completely illogical! You were the one asking that if God exists then he should make life perfect for us. But by your own admission, if that were to happen our world would be severely overpopulated. Why some live and others die is not a matter of "mysterious ways". It's a matter of humanity. To be absolutely frank, your entire argument is based on the assumption that if God exists then perfection should exist for our lives. At the same time you are unwilling to entertain that your view might be based on false assumptions. What if God's intended purpose for our existence is NOT pure perfection? Then your entire argument falls apart.

You have put up certain expectations of what God SHOULD do, and since he has not met those expectations you therefore conclude that believing this God exists is silly. The same can be said for me - I have also put up certain expectations of how God should act. The difference is that I am able to accept this, you cannot (or will not - you cling to your assumptions and refuse to acknowledge that they may be flawed assumptions.

Religion is of little worth, to me, so I treat it as such.

So now we are getting somewhere. Your added words here are that religion is of little worth "to me" (to you). That's a completely different statement than the one you have been making. This shows your own personal opinion, and you are free to that opinion. If you had said this several posts ago I would not even have taken the time to respond. But you simply made a blanket statement that religion is silly (not "silly to me", "silly to some" - just plain out silly, period). I cannot disagree with you that for you religion is silly or of little worth. I would never stop you from holding your opinions. Best wishes

~ PA

[Alienated Being]

Exactly. So your question is completely illogical! You were the one asking that if God exists then he should make life perfect for us. But by your own admission, if that were to happen our world would be severely overpopulated. Why some live and others die is not a matter of "mysterious ways". It's a matter of humanity. To be absolutely frank, your entire argument is based on the assumption that if God exists then perfection should exist for our lives. At the same time you are unwilling to entertain that your view might be based on false assumptions. What if God's intended purpose for our existence is NOT pure perfection? Then your entire argument falls apart.

You have put up certain expectations of what God SHOULD do, and since he has not met those expectations you therefore conclude that believing this God exists is silly. The same can be said for me - I have also put up certain expectations of how God should act. The difference is that I am able to accept this, you cannot (or will not - you cling to your assumptions and refuse to acknowledge that they may be flawed assumptions.

I am just curious... what makes YOU believe in God? Miracles? "Fate"? If you can't explain something using science, do you automatically pull out the god card and place it on the table?

So now we are getting somewhere. Your added words here are that religion is of little worth "to me" (to you). That's a completely different statement than the one you have been making. This shows your own personal opinion, and you are free to that opinion. If you had said this several posts ago I would not even have taken the time to respond. But you simply made a blanket statement that religion is silly (not "silly to me", "silly to some" - just plain out silly, period). I cannot disagree with you that for you religion is silly or of little worth. I would never stop you from holding your opinions. Best wishes

~ PA

I'd also agree that religion is silly in general. It provides no benefit to society. It is pointless, and has no evidential foundation whatsoever (except for anecdotes and personal "encounters", which, like I've reiterated a great many times, can be pragmatically and mundanely explained).

Edited February 14, 2012 by Alienated Being

[+Paranoid Android]

I am just curious... what makes YOU believe in God? Miracles? "Fate"? If you can't explain something using science, do you automatically pull out the god card and place it on the table?

From a very early age I came to believe that God existed. Throughout my early years and teenage years I never attributed any particular aspects to this deity. Most of the time I would have been what would be considered "deist" (though I would not have known the term at that stage). During my weak phases I was probably agnostic, and remember during these times making a statement along the lines of "I acknowledge the possibility that a god (lower-case g) may exist). But most of the time I believe God existed. It wasn't a response to anything - as if I couldn't explain something then therefore God must be responsible. It was just a case of what was.

Other than that, you seem to have sidestepped the point I made - what if your assumptions are wrong?

I'd also agree that religion is silly in general. It provides no benefit to society. It is pointless, and has no evidential foundation whatsoever (except for anecdotes and personal "encounters", which, like I've reiterated a great many times, can be pragmatically and mundanely explained).

Nevertheless this remains your opinion, and as I have said several times I, I respect your Right to the opinion you hold

~ PA

[Alienated Being]

From a very early age I came to believe that God existed. Throughout my early years and teenage years I never attributed any particular aspects to this deity. Most of the time I would have been what would be considered "deist" (though I would not have known the term at that stage). During my weak phases I was probably agnostic, and remember during these times making a statement along the lines of "I acknowledge the possibility that a god (lower-case g) may exist). But most of the time I believe God existed. It wasn't a response to anything - as if I couldn't explain something then therefore God must be responsible. It was just a case of what was.

Other than that, you seem to have sidestepped the point I made - what if your assumptions are wrong?

My assumptions could be wrong, sure. But I have yet to see any evidence that contradicts my assumptions.

Nevertheless this remains your opinion, and as I have said several times I, I respect your Right to the opinion you hold

~ PA

It does indeed.

[Habitat]

Seeing as God can safely be deemed non-existent, according to AB, the next question is why involve yourself in such to-ing and fro-ing about the very subject you declare void ! I am not saying you don't have life experience, every one has their unique history, but very few people of 50 would not look back at what they were at 20 and not cringe a little at what they then were, in terms of how much they really knew, as to opposed to what they thought they knew !

[+Paranoid Android]

My assumptions could be wrong, sure. But I have yet to see any evidence that contradicts my assumptions.

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about the assumption that God does or does not exist. I'm talking about the assumption that if God exists then he must adhere to a strict set of ideals that you want him to (make life perfect for everyone, no winners or losers). Thus when you point out that if God existed perfection would exist you are drawing upon the assumption that if God existed then his intention would be for us to live in perfection. All I'm pointing out is that you are basing this comment off your assumption of what you think God should be like. You have yet to show that you can consider an alternative assumption - if God exists, then what if his purpose for us is something different than earthly peace/joy/goodwill for all/etc?

Do you see my meaning here?

~ PA