Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

How do we KNOW there is a God?


pellinore

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

But the presumption that something is false is rejecting the possibility of its being true.  

Seem rather irrelevant does it not?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The onus isn't on one to prove something false. The onus is on one proclaiming something they believe as truth to be true. If one relies solely on faith, then one has no proof. Faith is a closed circle, relying only on itself. 

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 029b10 said:

But the presumption that something is false is rejecting the possibility of its being true.  

Something being possible does not automatically make it probable nor likely. The above is akin to special pleading which is just as meaningless. 
 

cormac

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Technically we we're created in the ancient oceans of earth. Microscopic then changing to what we are now. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38800987.amp

Look into the face of your true god. 

 

The human body contains many salts, of which sodium chloride (AKA common table salt) is the major one, making up around 0.4 per cent of the body's weight at a concentration pretty well equivalent to that in seawater. So a 50kg person would contain around 200g of sodium chloride - around 40 teaspoons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, 029b10 said:

But the presumption that something is false is rejecting the possibility of its being true.  

pre·sump·tion
/prēˈzəm(p)SH(ə)n/
 
noun
1. 
an idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas, although it is not known for certain.
"underlying presumptions about human nature"
 
2.  behavior perceived as arrogant, disrespectful, and transgressing the limits of what is permitted or appropriate.
  • "he lifted her off the ground, and she was enraged at his presumption"
         

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Dejarma said:

name calling?? nope you've lost me there.. but no worries, carry on & have fun

       “these cultures got these ideas because they didn't have science in their lives at the time..all due respect but in 2023 that should be bleeding obvious to you by now- kind of a stupid question to ask IMO”

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  …I see fear of the unknown is as strong as ever.  ?    :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lightly said:

  …I see fear of the unknown is as strong as ever.  ?    :)

… I mean fear of not knowing.   ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lightly said:
pre·sump·tion
/prēˈzəm(p)SH(ə)n/
 
 
noun
1. 
an idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas, although it is not known for certain.
"underlying presumptions about human nature"
 

A presumption is a belief derived from a known or observed fact.  Since Dejarma hasn't responded with the reason why he believing that a person has to have a reason in order to believe something,  then I could presume that the reason for his lack of a response is because he can't articulate a reason for his belief.  While he hasn't responded is a fact, it is a very subjective fact since he hasn't had a reasonable amount of time to respond to the question.  Thus, while that presumption would be a belief, the presumption wouldn't be a reasonable basis for believing that he hasn't responded because he can't articulate a reason why he believes everyone has a reason for what they believe.  

Just like in criminal proceeding, the presumption is that a person is innocent until proven guilty doesn't doesn't make the presumption a fact, which is why it doesn't prevent a prosecutor from trying a person for a crime that they do not believe the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt .  The prosecutor has no ethical obligation to presume a person is innocent unless the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of the offense charged with but it doesn't mean that they can prosecute a person because the simply believe the person is guilty, that a privilege that the judge is allowed to exercise thanks to the beliefs of people like Dejarma who think there must be a reason why someone believes what they believe.  If they did then they wouldn't have a problem with an inquiry regarding the reason why they believe what they believe.  .  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say that again.. slower?   :P    I had to read it twice, slowly, but I think I understand.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2023 at 12:03 PM, XenoFish said:

Technically we we're created in the ancient oceans of earth. Microscopic then changing to what we are now. 

YHWH

The fossil record doesn't support that fantasy!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, larryp said:

YHWH

The fossil record doesn't support that fantasy!!

well it's an opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2023 at 5:48 PM, cormac mac airt said:

Since the Jews believed that NOBODY would see anything remotely like Heaven until the end times one’s soul just remains with their body until then so they’ll have to endure that time of “gloom and misery” until then. Now THAT’S Hell IMO. 
 

cormac

YHWH's word, the Bible, doesn't support this garbage!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, larryp said:

YHWH's word, the Bible, doesn't support this garbage!!

The Bible is a work of pseudo historical and religious fiction. Nothing more. It suffers greatly from internal inconsistencies and contradictions. 
 

cormac

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can’t help but miss the days when I felt and thought there actually was some GOODNESS and truth and  light ,or at least some inspiration?) shining thru the myriad of religious/spiritual writings of man  and in mankind ourselves.    Guess not huh? :P  Call me a fool, but,   I still can’t entirely give up on us..and everything.    :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, larryp said:

YHWH

The fossil record doesn't support that fantasy!!

This find does. ?     https://www.science.org/content/article/377-billion-year-old-fossils-stake-new-claim-oldest-evidence-life                                 Link is supposed to read…3.77 billion 

Edited by lightly
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2023 at 1:42 PM, 029b10 said:

A presumption is a belief derived from a known or observed fact.  Since Dejarma hasn't responded with the reason why he believing that a person has to have a reason in order to believe something,  then I could presume that the reason for his lack of a response is because he can't articulate a reason for his belief.  While he hasn't responded is a fact, it is a very subjective fact since he hasn't had a reasonable amount of time to respond to the question.  Thus, while that presumption would be a belief, the presumption wouldn't be a reasonable basis for believing that he hasn't responded because he can't articulate a reason why he believes everyone has a reason for what they believe.  

Just like in criminal proceeding, the presumption is that a person is innocent until proven guilty doesn't doesn't make the presumption a fact, which is why it doesn't prevent a prosecutor from trying a person for a crime that they do not believe the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt .  The prosecutor has no ethical obligation to presume a person is innocent unless the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of the offense charged with but it doesn't mean that they can prosecute a person because the simply believe the person is guilty, that a privilege that the judge is allowed to exercise thanks to the beliefs of people like Dejarma who think there must be a reason why someone believes what they believe.  If they did then they wouldn't have a problem with an inquiry regarding the reason why they believe what they believe.  .  

Hi 029

 Can’t really compare law with religious constructs. With legal process there is evidence that can be examined and contested. Religious constructs do not have evidence that can be examined and rely on word of mouth which is subjective. Forming beliefs is relative to experience so if one is not put in the position of having to choose to believe then one neither has a reason to believe or disbelieve. I don’t see how one can form a belief without having a reason to make a choice so think Dejarma posed a reasonable question. What reason does one have to believe?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2023 at 3:42 PM, 029b10 said:

Just like in criminal proceeding, the presumption is that a person is innocent until proven guilty doesn't doesn't make the presumption a fact, which is why it doesn't prevent a prosecutor from trying a person for a crime that they do not believe the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt .  The prosecutor has no ethical obligation to presume a person is innocent unless the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of the offense charged with but it doesn't mean that they can prosecute a person because the simply believe the person is guilty, that a privilege that the judge is allowed to exercise thanks to the beliefs of people like Dejarma who think there must be a reason why someone believes what they believe.  If they did then they wouldn't have a problem with an inquiry regarding the reason why they believe what they believe.  .  

You didn't mention which legal system this is supposed to describe. Surely not the American one.

The constraint on American prosecutors for pursuing defendants accused of major crimes is the grand jury system. If the prosecutor can persuade the grand jury to indict, then the case may proceed to trial. There is no defense presented to the grand jury; they are not there to decide the guilt or innocence of the defendant. They are there to verify that the prosecutor has a plausible case. The grand jurors need not believe that the defendant is guilty, nor need the prosecutor believe that.

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is not a belief, but a procedural principle. It is not a feature of all legal systems, but rather something Americans picked up from their one-time masters, the British. It explains why the prosecution presents its case first in an American criminal trial, and why the defense is not required to say even one word at trial. (It does not explain why the defendant is often incarcerated before trial - illustrating that the presumption is not a belief, but a way to organize a fair trial, something that society wants for both the truly guilty and the wrongly accused.)

I am unable to fathom how any of this makes the OP's question ill-posed.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, eight bits said:

The constraint on American prosecutors for pursuing defendants accused of major crimes is the grand jury system. If the prosecutor can persuade the grand jury to indict, then the case may proceed to trial. 

A state prosecutor in numerous can prosecute a person for major crimes without a grand jury indictment.  For example, a prosecutor in MN can prosecute a person for 2nd or 3rd degree murder without a indictment.  

9 hours ago, eight bits said:

There is no defense presented to the grand jury; they are not there to decide the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

Well, they are there to determine a criminal offense has occurred so there is no need for a defense be presented, whether the person committed the act is a question of fact to be determined, the grand jury is there to determine whether the act was a criminal offense.  A defendant has the right to appear before the grand jury, or at least in the state where I reside.  

Art. 20A.104. PERSONS WHO MAY ADDRESS GRAND JURY. No person may address the grand jury about a matter before the grand jury other than the attorney representing the state, a witness, or the accused or suspected person or the attorney for the accused or suspected person if approved by the attorney representing the state.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.20A.htm

10 hours ago, eight bits said:

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is not a belief, but a procedural principle.

The principle requires the trier of fact believe that the person is innocent.  If a person needed a reason to believe that the person was guilty then there would be no need for requiring that the person be presumed innocent.  Just because a person is charged with an offense does not constitute a reason for believing the person is guilty.  

 

10 hours ago, eight bits said:

I am unable to fathom how any of this makes the OP's question ill-posed.

I never stated or implied that the OP's question was ill-posed.  I simply stated that there is a reason to believe in God, being the simple fact that they don't know there isn't a God.  While believing doesn't mean that God exists,t neither does believing there is no God prove that God doesn't exist yet there is no need to seek what one believes doesn't exist.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, 029b10 said:

A state prosecutor in numerous can prosecute a person for major crimes without a grand jury indictment.  For example, a prosecutor in MN can prosecute a person for 2nd or 3rd degree murder without a indictment.  

Some states skip the step altogether.

Regardless, my claim wasn't that the grand jury constrains everywhere, but rather that in the American system, the grand jury apparatus is as much specific institutionalized constraint on prosecution as there is pre-trial. With or without a grand jury, the prosecutor's personal beliefs have no special role in criminal prosecution. My apologies if that was not clear.

14 hours ago, 029b10 said:

The principle requires the trier of fact believe that the person is innocent.  If a person needed a reason to believe that the person was guilty then there would be no need for requiring that the person be presumed innocent.  Just because a person is charged with an offense does not constitute a reason for believing the person is guilty.  

We simply disagree what the principle requires. We agree on the last bit, of course being accused does not warrant being considered guilty. However, recognizing that allows for having no opinion whatsoever about guilt or innocence prior to trial.

If a venireman (potential juror = trier of fact) volunteered during pre-trial jury selection that they had already formed an opinion about the case - an opinion either way - then the adverse party would probably move that that person not be selected as a juror. Both sides are entitled to impartial jurors, insofar as that ideal can be reasonably achieved. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not require the prosecution to convince a jury of avowed skeptics about its case.

Quote

I never stated or implied that the OP's question was ill-posed.

It seemed to me you were objecting to the OP's question based upon its assuming that there ought to be a reason to believe things, based on remarks like:

Quote

people like Dejarma who think there must be a reason why someone believes what they believe.

Questions based on faulty assumptions are ill-posed. If you meant something different, then so be it.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, 029b10 said:

I never stated or implied that the OP's question was ill-posed.  I simply stated that there is a reason to believe in God, being the simple fact that they don't know there isn't a God.

As worded above you’re essentially making a belief in God the default position and it isn’t, or at least to be honest it shouldn’t be. The default position should be the question “Is there or is there not a God?”. As one can’t prove a negative the onus is on the one making a claim of God’s existence to provide verifiable evidence supporting that contention. 
 

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2023 at 6:01 PM, cormac mac airt said:

. . . compounded with an afterlife that also can’t be proven and further compounded with a Heaven or Hell that suffers the same problem. It’s a snowball effect of unprovable claims. 
 

cormac

YHWH

Wrong:

Hundreds of people witnessed a few resurrections during the Roman Empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, larryp said:

YHWH

Wrong:

Hundreds of people witnessed a few resurrections during the Roman Empire.

Using the Bible to verify the Bible is neither science nor history, it’s pseudo historical fiction. 
 

cormac

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.