Body & Soul1 min ago
Proving the existence of God
161 Answers
I've been having a very interesting discussion with 123everton on another thread about ultimate 'truth', as opposed to faith or belief, and this question stems from that.
Can you imagine trying to 'prove', beyond doubt, in a court of law, the existence of your God? How would you go about it?
Can you imagine trying to 'prove', beyond doubt, in a court of law, the existence of your God? How would you go about it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What do you mean? What is complicated about correctly describing which area of the body sperm is created in? Are you seriously suggesting that these people from 1,400 years ago didn't know the difference between their groins and their chests? These people who you claim are scientific genuises?
And now you're trying to weasel out of it. First you claimed the Koran was 100% scientifically accurate, now, when someone has challenged that view, you're forced to dismiss science as inaccurate and also claim that any time science disagrees with the Koran, it's because science hasn't caught up with the Koran!!!
Of course you can't be proved wrong, but to say it's intellectually mendacious is an understatement!
Moreover, you're now retreating behind the Koran being a book of signs not science. When any religious text makes a straight forward claim about something, why should that claim not be evaluated on the basis of facts, and where found wanting, rejected?
And now you're trying to weasel out of it. First you claimed the Koran was 100% scientifically accurate, now, when someone has challenged that view, you're forced to dismiss science as inaccurate and also claim that any time science disagrees with the Koran, it's because science hasn't caught up with the Koran!!!
Of course you can't be proved wrong, but to say it's intellectually mendacious is an understatement!
Moreover, you're now retreating behind the Koran being a book of signs not science. When any religious text makes a straight forward claim about something, why should that claim not be evaluated on the basis of facts, and where found wanting, rejected?
�One� wasn�t twisting �ones� words Waldo, merely presenting them from a different viewpoint. �One� could only presume therefore that this is a difficult concept when �one� gives the appearance of being close-minded.
I sense the entire thread is full of ad hominem Waldo, like R&S generally I suppose, especially if �one� dares to be a religionist. Good day.
I sense the entire thread is full of ad hominem Waldo, like R&S generally I suppose, especially if �one� dares to be a religionist. Good day.
Re: your flight analogy, it depends how its stated.
That someone could imagine people flying fast is hardly remarkable or unlikely. Similar notions appear in other civilisations too. The Hindu Vedas contain not just predictions but what are claimed by followers of that relgion as detailed descriptions of flying machines.
If the Haddith made an explicit statement, then possibly it might be up for dispute, but if it is merely a vague description, no, I wouldn't worry.
I'm quite sure - I know - there are instances in which the Koran gets science right. There are in the Bible too. The ones where it gets it right are, however, of much less interest than the ones where it gets it palpably wrong, because this destroys the notion that the text can be be from an infallible deity, and if that's not the case, the entire edifice is suspect.
That someone could imagine people flying fast is hardly remarkable or unlikely. Similar notions appear in other civilisations too. The Hindu Vedas contain not just predictions but what are claimed by followers of that relgion as detailed descriptions of flying machines.
If the Haddith made an explicit statement, then possibly it might be up for dispute, but if it is merely a vague description, no, I wouldn't worry.
I'm quite sure - I know - there are instances in which the Koran gets science right. There are in the Bible too. The ones where it gets it right are, however, of much less interest than the ones where it gets it palpably wrong, because this destroys the notion that the text can be be from an infallible deity, and if that's not the case, the entire edifice is suspect.
If Science so far has proved only 80% of what is in the Quran (about Scientific Factors). And that 80% is 100% correct. Then remaining 20% when science will find about, InshaAllah that would be correct as well.
However if you think there are mistakes in Quran and once again you do not agree with all the prominent scientists who proved Quran right, But according to you their Qualification, Their Knowledge, Their Credibility, Their Experience, Their name, Their, Expertise, Their Commitment, and finally their research is irrelevant according to you, then yes IN CAPITAL LETTERS, I DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE AS WELL AS TIME TO TRY TO MAKE YOU BELIEVE. AND I WOULD SAY WHAT I SAID OTHER DAY.
LIVE AND LET DIE.
YOU MAY CALL IT INTELLECTUAL SURRENDER AGAIN, BUT IF THESE PEOPLE'S INTELLECT IS IRRELEVANT FOR YOU THEN YES I AM BETTE OFF SURRENDERING TO YOU.
Because what you call knowledge here I think it is just like saying " I do not agree do what you want to do" and nothing else.
However if you think there are mistakes in Quran and once again you do not agree with all the prominent scientists who proved Quran right, But according to you their Qualification, Their Knowledge, Their Credibility, Their Experience, Their name, Their, Expertise, Their Commitment, and finally their research is irrelevant according to you, then yes IN CAPITAL LETTERS, I DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE AS WELL AS TIME TO TRY TO MAKE YOU BELIEVE. AND I WOULD SAY WHAT I SAID OTHER DAY.
LIVE AND LET DIE.
YOU MAY CALL IT INTELLECTUAL SURRENDER AGAIN, BUT IF THESE PEOPLE'S INTELLECT IS IRRELEVANT FOR YOU THEN YES I AM BETTE OFF SURRENDERING TO YOU.
Because what you call knowledge here I think it is just like saying " I do not agree do what you want to do" and nothing else.
I prefer to live and let live meself.
I don�t think there is any mileage in trying to convert or discourage belief in anyone on Answerbank, even if you really really wanted to.
I agree with you though, an intelligent debate does kinda falter when it turns into a �I am right you are wrong� mud slinging contest, no matter how many quotes and references and intellectual prose you use. I always accept that someone else�s views are not always shared by me, but they are generally welcome to have them.
I don�t think there is any mileage in trying to convert or discourage belief in anyone on Answerbank, even if you really really wanted to.
I agree with you though, an intelligent debate does kinda falter when it turns into a �I am right you are wrong� mud slinging contest, no matter how many quotes and references and intellectual prose you use. I always accept that someone else�s views are not always shared by me, but they are generally welcome to have them.
Well, good for you. Do you want a prize?
Are you suggesting that it is somehow unworthy to attempt to establish the truth of simple facts?
Why wouldn't Keyplus attempt to provide his evidence to back his ascertation that sperm wasn't produced in the testicles? He says there's research, then let's see it (or even just evidence that such research exists). Why should that be problematic or contentious?
It's like the continual repetition of the accademic qualifications of certain people. It's an appeal to authority, a well known logical fallacy. It's surely not hard to understand that one can have qualifications yet still be wrong on something? Yet apparently the qualifications trump whether they're talking rubbish or not. The fact that these people were saying something that I was able to offer evidence to show was incorrect was apparently irrelevant.
No one gets to be right because they've got letters after their name, they get to be right by providing evidence that supports their contentions. To claim anything else simply ends up in a situation where the one with the longest string of letters after their name wins by default. Who would argue that is a sane way of proceeding? All any religion has to do is prove it has the most highly qualified scientists and suddenly it's correct? If so, then Christianity probably wins as there are more Christian scientists than Muslim scientists. Who would argue it's a numbers game?
The fact that Keyplus keeps reiterating the qualifications as though they somehow prove 1+1=7 is not an argument, it's a failure to engage with an argument.
Are you suggesting that it is somehow unworthy to attempt to establish the truth of simple facts?
Why wouldn't Keyplus attempt to provide his evidence to back his ascertation that sperm wasn't produced in the testicles? He says there's research, then let's see it (or even just evidence that such research exists). Why should that be problematic or contentious?
It's like the continual repetition of the accademic qualifications of certain people. It's an appeal to authority, a well known logical fallacy. It's surely not hard to understand that one can have qualifications yet still be wrong on something? Yet apparently the qualifications trump whether they're talking rubbish or not. The fact that these people were saying something that I was able to offer evidence to show was incorrect was apparently irrelevant.
No one gets to be right because they've got letters after their name, they get to be right by providing evidence that supports their contentions. To claim anything else simply ends up in a situation where the one with the longest string of letters after their name wins by default. Who would argue that is a sane way of proceeding? All any religion has to do is prove it has the most highly qualified scientists and suddenly it's correct? If so, then Christianity probably wins as there are more Christian scientists than Muslim scientists. Who would argue it's a numbers game?
The fact that Keyplus keeps reiterating the qualifications as though they somehow prove 1+1=7 is not an argument, it's a failure to engage with an argument.
Keyplus You're truly unbelievable! You're lying yet again! You can't resist it where I'm concerned, can you? Is putting words into my mouth the only way you can compete with me? There's no honour in lying, Keyplus, and your lies catch you out continually. You see, what you don't appear to realise, other people here know me, and they are far from idiots, so you're never going to pull the wool over their eyes no matter how much you try. Now you're aware of that, let us hope you'll think twice before making a complete fool of yourself again.
Right, let me clarify this. I didn't say 'it is common on AB for people not to take the research of the qualified people into consideration.' I said 'You'll find some very intelligent and well informed people here, and they will challenge your beliefs, like it or not. You have to know your stuff if you want to argue here - and your so called 'experts' can't do it for you because the people here have looked at this subject not from one aspect - but from EVERY aspect.'
And I don't argue for argument's sake either - I simply disagree with you, and that's what you don't like. Perhaps you'd prefer me not to contribute at all, eh Keyplus? Well, sorry to disappoint you, but that isn't going to happen - and make no mistake, I will expose you every single time you lie about me - or anyone else on AB. You really do have a problem dealing with strong, intelligent, educated women don't you?
Thanks very much, but I don't need you to post your ideas for my sake. If you have no doubt that what the Koran says is true, then believe it - no one's stopping you - but don't tell everyone else they have to believe it too, because they don't.
Right, let me clarify this. I didn't say 'it is common on AB for people not to take the research of the qualified people into consideration.' I said 'You'll find some very intelligent and well informed people here, and they will challenge your beliefs, like it or not. You have to know your stuff if you want to argue here - and your so called 'experts' can't do it for you because the people here have looked at this subject not from one aspect - but from EVERY aspect.'
And I don't argue for argument's sake either - I simply disagree with you, and that's what you don't like. Perhaps you'd prefer me not to contribute at all, eh Keyplus? Well, sorry to disappoint you, but that isn't going to happen - and make no mistake, I will expose you every single time you lie about me - or anyone else on AB. You really do have a problem dealing with strong, intelligent, educated women don't you?
Thanks very much, but I don't need you to post your ideas for my sake. If you have no doubt that what the Koran says is true, then believe it - no one's stopping you - but don't tell everyone else they have to believe it too, because they don't.
You don't know me at all Naomi, the truth is what I believe it to be, just like everybody else.
On that which is of the self, pertaining to and concerning only the self (which philosophy is) then the truth is in your experiences and how you interpret them.
You've experienced the supernatural and found it to be unexplainable and unprovable to others, but how vould your husband prove to me he loves you? Why should I believe him?
The truth is atheism leaves me cold, I've looked at it thought about it, it's not for me. If it's for you, then best of British to you. When I read that love is a chemical reaction in the brain, I shudder, ask yourself when you look at your children tonight, "if it was'nt for endorphines and osmosis, I would'nt care about you" is it so?
Of course not!
Where's the proof of God?
In your heart and soul.
On that which is of the self, pertaining to and concerning only the self (which philosophy is) then the truth is in your experiences and how you interpret them.
You've experienced the supernatural and found it to be unexplainable and unprovable to others, but how vould your husband prove to me he loves you? Why should I believe him?
The truth is atheism leaves me cold, I've looked at it thought about it, it's not for me. If it's for you, then best of British to you. When I read that love is a chemical reaction in the brain, I shudder, ask yourself when you look at your children tonight, "if it was'nt for endorphines and osmosis, I would'nt care about you" is it so?
Of course not!
Where's the proof of God?
In your heart and soul.
I reiterate what I said on the other thread.
Is music less affecting because we know it is comprised of vibrations in the air?
Is a sunset less beautiful because we understand how light is converted to electrical impulses in the cornea?
It seems strange to me to regard understanding as cold or empty or whatever. When I learn about such things I experience a sense of awe at how remarkable our universe is.
However, whether one feels awe or dispair, our feelings about a subject have nothing to do with the truth of it.
Is music less affecting because we know it is comprised of vibrations in the air?
Is a sunset less beautiful because we understand how light is converted to electrical impulses in the cornea?
It seems strange to me to regard understanding as cold or empty or whatever. When I learn about such things I experience a sense of awe at how remarkable our universe is.
However, whether one feels awe or dispair, our feelings about a subject have nothing to do with the truth of it.
