Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11
Alienated Being

Prove to me that God exists.

858 posts in this topic

You dont know Ireland. They would stick the cat in the witnesses box and ask it!

(and it would probably reply too lol) :w00t:

Haha, I thought that was the English - fast-forward to 16:10, the scene goes until approximate 17:30 in the time-code:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTGjv8kXzK8

Or is it the entire United Kingdom that likes to put animals on the witness stand :P

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, I thought that was the English - fast-forward to 16:10, the scene goes until approximate 17:30 in the time-code:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTGjv8kXzK8

Or is it the entire United Kingdom that likes to put animals on the witness stand :P

It was a nay my sir, but I don't believe a word of it. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, you can't prove that. If you sent a tomcat over to someone all it would prove is that a tomcat exists. It would not prove it was YOUR tomcat (you might have stolen it from your neighbour or caught a stray). Neither would it prove that its name was Wallie, you might be lying to us. If the cat was registered with whatever agency registers cats in Ireland then a microchip implant might lend credence to your statement but it would still not be proof (maybe the cat was stolen and the vet was paid to chip a cat that you did not own). You could probably prove in a court of law that the cat was named Wallie and that it is indeed your cat, beyond reasonable doubt. But scientifically you could only prove that a tomcat exists.

My point - there are some things that simply can't be scientifically proven. Such as the existence of a supernatural deity (yay, I related this to the OP). I can't scientifically prove God. But then again, I never claimed I could do such a thing. Which kind of makes the challenge made by the thread starter to be rather redundant. I'm certain he already knew this hence the reason he made a $10k offer in the first place. He could have made it a million dollars and had no fear of losing the wager.

~ Regards,

I second PA, Written assurances prove nothing. Storybooks (you are free to call it Bible or Vedas or something else) written long ago do neither.

I've met GOD based people asking me to prove otherwise all my life, was not able to provide a single tangable proof. Now I say can we converse hypothetical ? They don't reply.

Spock the Future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then what's the point in in investing belief in a God if you can't gather evidence of its existence? Using that logic, you may as well just invest believe in unicorns, dragons, leprechauns, faeries, etc.

Are you a blind believer?

This is a rather ironic post from someone who has spent as much time as you requesting readings in the psychic forum.

Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So have the types of proof that would be deemed acceptable already been listed? I'm always curious what a person would accept as proof of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, you can't prove that. If you sent a tomcat over to someone all it would prove is that a tomcat exists.(SNIP )

I'd still get rid of the bugger w00t.gif

My point - there are some things that simply can't be scientifically proven

What can science prove PA? Since you think science would not be able to prove a cat can exist........ then why don't you explain to me what you know about science and what they can actually prove? ... Thanks

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will your cat take $10 500 if it can prove anyone exists?

Never mind my joke about my useless cat... Can you explain why you feel science cannot prove living things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a rather ironic post from someone who has spent as much time as you requesting readings in the psychic forum.

Just saying.

The difference between a belief in the psychic phenomenon and a belief in an omniscient, all-powerful deity is that the belief in the deity has NO evidential premises on which claims are based (other than a silly book), while psychic phenomenon has been deemed as a possibility by scientists. Telepathic experiments have been conducted by the military, as well, and have produced some intriguing results.

Humans are also known to be highly intuitive.

Conclusively, I think the psychic phenomenon is an interesting concept to ponder; at least it has more of an evidential foundation than what God does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between a belief in the psychic phenomenon and a belief in an omniscient, all-powerful deity is that the belief in the deity has NO evidential premises on which claims are based

So what specifically would you consider to be evidence? I've personally experienced many things in my life attributable to spiritual activity, far too many to be considered coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You dont know Ireland. They would stick the cat in the witnesses box and ask it!

(and it would probably reply too lol) :w00t:

Is this supposed to be some sort of mockery of the Irish? ..... In case it isn't I am just curious..Why would you say this?

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind my joke about my useless cat... Can you explain why you feel science cannot prove living things?

:w00t: You really don't like that cat do you? :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:w00t: You really don't like that cat do you? :w00t:

Ehhhhhhhhh ...sigh....... no ...I only keep him for his sisters sake ph34r.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only in death you will have all the answers and proof you need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehhhhhhhhh ...sigh....... no ...I only keep him for his sisters sake ph34r.gif

Get her new brother. One she can beat up & be in command of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get her new brother. One she can beat up & be in command of.

She does, she pins him down, and he surrenders all the time..but only when she has had enough of his bullying ..She just unleashes kitty hell on his furry hide each time trying to get up, she goes for his throat and pins him down again and he runs away lol ..... He is never hurt...but I think she is saying - Bog off , you are not the boss of me ..Typical brother and sister..Later they are friends and play together..

Anyhoo this is off topic and I apologise to those reading tongue.gif

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then what's the point in in investing belief in a God if you can't gather evidence of its existence?

Not that it has anything to do with your challenge, but I imagine that the point to believing in God is the same as the point of electing government officials. It simply gives you a sense of comfort knowing that there is someone above you taking care of the things you don't worry about on a regular basis.

Using that logic, you may as well just invest believe in unicorns, dragons, leprechauns, faeries, etc.

I disagree. I find that using formal logic and critical thinking, as well as a skeptical approach at the very outset, gives one many, many, more options than simply declaring that if one believes in one, one must believe in all. The world is not black and white.

Are you a blind believer?

:unsure:

How fleeting fame...

Edited by aquatus1
Kant spel gud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful point aquatus1. I have not understood the way atheists will try to pretend Christians are stupid. Because we believe in X then we must believe in Y. It is as if the atheist doesn't understand critical thinking. I believe in God because I have evidence to do so. If I had evidence to believe in fairies I might. I wish there were fairies. So adorable. But then not real. We know what is real and what is not real. I don't believe in Dragons. I don't believe in monsters. I don't believe in ghosts. I do believe in God. Why? Because it has been proven to me. I can't prove my proof to you. If you don't have proof. I feel for you. But I understand why you don't believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between a belief in the psychic phenomenon and a belief in an omniscient, all-powerful deity is that the belief in the deity has NO evidential premises on which claims are based (other than a silly book),

Please respect the beliefs of other members - bashing and baiting is a no-no

while psychic phenomenon has been deemed as a possibility by scientists. Telepathic experiments have been conducted by the military, as well, and have produced some intriguing results.

Humans are also known to be highly intuitive.

Conclusively, I think the psychic phenomenon is an interesting concept to ponder; at least it has more of an evidential foundation than what God does.

"intriguing results" are not empirical evidence either. To my knowledge, no psychic ability has ever been experimentally demonstrated to work reliably in test conditions. Much like God, yet people continue to believe in both. Funny huh?

It's a shame you don't see your double standard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"intriguing results" are not empirical evidence either. To my knowledge, no psychic ability has ever been experimentally demonstrated to work reliably in test conditions. Much like God, yet people continue to believe in both. Funny huh?

It's a shame you don't see your double standard

My point was not so much regarding the intriguing results that have been recorded, but rather the fact that there is more evidence available to support the existence of psychical ability (however miniscule it may be) than what there is to support the existence of a God, which is null.

Edited by Alienated Being

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the dictionary:

Definition of EMPIRICAL

1 originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>

2 relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>

3 capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>

4 of or relating to empiricism

------

Experience is a valid way of gathering evidence.

But the real question is: in the Christian belief, God exists in a dimension higher than our three-d world. How could we gather evidence for something we can't fully observe?

This thread should have ended with this post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this supposed to be some sort of mockery of the Irish? ..... In case it isn't I am just curious..Why would you say this?

BM. Sorry if you were offended by what I said. As you know, us English have made jokes about the Irish for centuries and I am sure the Irish have made similar jokes about the English. Just as we have a dig at the Welsh and the Scots and they do the same to us. It is called humour, but obviously some people dont see it that way. If you are one of those people who cannot see the humour, then like i said, I apologise.

Haha, I thought that was the English - fast-forward to 16:10, the scene goes until approximate 17:30 in the time-code:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=tTGjv8kXzK8

Or is it the entire United Kingdom that likes to put animals on the witness stand :P

Had to watch it all. I love Blackadder lol :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd still get rid of the bugger w00t.gif

Touche ;)

What can science prove PA? Since you think science would not be able to prove a cat can exist.....

Science can prove a cat exists. I never said it couldn't. What I said was that science cannot prove the cats name, nor can it prove who it belongs to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Touche ;)

Science can prove a cat exists. I never said it couldn't. What I said was that science cannot prove the cats name, nor can it prove who it belongs to.

Science may be able to prove who the cat belongs to. Science might just have to look a little harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science can prove a cat exists. I never said it couldn't. What I said was that science cannot prove the cats name, nor can it prove who it belongs to.

However science can prove what a cats name is, what a cats medical history is, what it's regestered address is and the owners name. Science can even provide what has been done to that cat in the past, was it adopted was it a breeder was it part of a litter in a family's basement. If science wanted it could also tell what it's blood type is and what eye color fur color temperment blah blah blah.

It's called micro chipping. Hell we could even say science can tell if the cat likes wet or dry food or if has allergies or even if it likes to wear funny outfits. What was the point again, oh ya science knowing more then we give it credit and a god that can't come close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.