News1 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.
I've only just read it (and to try and save Naomi cross threading).
Tell your family that your relationship with and to them is based purely on chemical reactions in your head, you'll be having a chippy tea tonight!
Love to my mind is the greatest power on Earth (can change an enemy into a friend) it's an energy that cannot be rated in volts, amps or ohms.
In something that is philosphy as unknowable as creation, one interprets the evidence and makes a decision.
If one has had an experience that adds to or creates that opinion, then that is proof enough to them. How they then apply that "knowledge" in their life determines whether they're sane or not.
If they have had no such experience then the same is true.
In such cases both sides are "right" as there is no unequivical answer, unless your incredibly arrogant.
The main point in all our lives is that we should try and live it towards a good end.
There is no finer epitaph than to have it said "that you tried to love someone" or in Waldo's case "you tried to form an osmotic chemical reaction to someone" but you'd never get that into a sonnet! Or into music Whitney Houston ##Oh I want to dance with somebody! With somebody who has the same chemical imbalance as me## Quick ring Simon Cowell it's a hit!
Tell your family that your relationship with and to them is based purely on chemical reactions in your head, you'll be having a chippy tea tonight!
Love to my mind is the greatest power on Earth (can change an enemy into a friend) it's an energy that cannot be rated in volts, amps or ohms.
In something that is philosphy as unknowable as creation, one interprets the evidence and makes a decision.
If one has had an experience that adds to or creates that opinion, then that is proof enough to them. How they then apply that "knowledge" in their life determines whether they're sane or not.
If they have had no such experience then the same is true.
In such cases both sides are "right" as there is no unequivical answer, unless your incredibly arrogant.
The main point in all our lives is that we should try and live it towards a good end.
There is no finer epitaph than to have it said "that you tried to love someone" or in Waldo's case "you tried to form an osmotic chemical reaction to someone" but you'd never get that into a sonnet! Or into music Whitney Houston ##Oh I want to dance with somebody! With somebody who has the same chemical imbalance as me## Quick ring Simon Cowell it's a hit!
I know exactly what you're talking about.
Love to my mind is proof of God, it serves no biological purpose, people (women especially) fall in love with men who are wholly unsuited for the raising of their children, homosexuals fall in love (I don't even want to get in the gay and God debate) it's a blessing to us all and the world when it's uncovered.
I'm a Christian, future Mrs. Ev is a Buddhist, who's right? Both of us? Neither of us? Who knows? Do you? No of course you don't, you would'nt be squabbling with K90 if you did. All I know is that if we're blessed with kids we'll observe both faiths equally, and I'll let them watch the science shows, and they can decide for themselves what they want. With our blessing.
Waldo you call it love but you recognise it as a chemical infusion, I call it love and recognise as an entity in itself a force that can consume and compel you to great heights.
Atheism is just another religion to me, the end is nigh! Global warming. Noah's ark, the ice caps are melting. Repent repent! Recycle, recycle! Save me Lord! The scientists will solve it! The 10 commandments, your carbon footprint. The puritans, the eco warriors. Churches, universities. Popes, P.H.Ds, Archbishops, scientists.
I'd have more time for dyed in the wool atheists, if only they had a sense of irony, and a sense of humour...
Love to my mind is proof of God, it serves no biological purpose, people (women especially) fall in love with men who are wholly unsuited for the raising of their children, homosexuals fall in love (I don't even want to get in the gay and God debate) it's a blessing to us all and the world when it's uncovered.
I'm a Christian, future Mrs. Ev is a Buddhist, who's right? Both of us? Neither of us? Who knows? Do you? No of course you don't, you would'nt be squabbling with K90 if you did. All I know is that if we're blessed with kids we'll observe both faiths equally, and I'll let them watch the science shows, and they can decide for themselves what they want. With our blessing.
Waldo you call it love but you recognise it as a chemical infusion, I call it love and recognise as an entity in itself a force that can consume and compel you to great heights.
Atheism is just another religion to me, the end is nigh! Global warming. Noah's ark, the ice caps are melting. Repent repent! Recycle, recycle! Save me Lord! The scientists will solve it! The 10 commandments, your carbon footprint. The puritans, the eco warriors. Churches, universities. Popes, P.H.Ds, Archbishops, scientists.
I'd have more time for dyed in the wool atheists, if only they had a sense of irony, and a sense of humour...
The truth is what you deem it to be.
A 7 stone boy fell under a 12 tonne bus, fact, the Fire Brigade had to jack the vehicle up off of him, fact, he'd torn the skin off his ar5e nothing more, fact
Miracle?
Or just angles and telemetrity(sic?)?
It's all how you interpret it, faith would say the former, mathematics would demonstrate the theory so that science could say the latter. But could they scientifically reproduce the event to demonstrate that theory? Would you volunteer to be the guinea pig?
Anyone who pretends to know the absolute truth about creation is deluded, especially if they're on here! ;-)
A 7 stone boy fell under a 12 tonne bus, fact, the Fire Brigade had to jack the vehicle up off of him, fact, he'd torn the skin off his ar5e nothing more, fact
Miracle?
Or just angles and telemetrity(sic?)?
It's all how you interpret it, faith would say the former, mathematics would demonstrate the theory so that science could say the latter. But could they scientifically reproduce the event to demonstrate that theory? Would you volunteer to be the guinea pig?
Anyone who pretends to know the absolute truth about creation is deluded, especially if they're on here! ;-)
123 We're not talking about creation, religion, or anything else in particular. The whole point is if you believe something to be true without proof, then you can't say with absolute certainty that it's true.
Let's take it right away from religion and make it ridiculously simple. Let's say human beings need sustenance otherwise they die. Is that true or false? It's true - and we know without doubt that it's true. How do we know? Because we have proof. Got it?
Let's take it right away from religion and make it ridiculously simple. Let's say human beings need sustenance otherwise they die. Is that true or false? It's true - and we know without doubt that it's true. How do we know? Because we have proof. Got it?
The question (as I understood it) was how do you prove God exists in a court of law.
And I've told you, how I'd attempt to.
It's impossible to prove (ultimately) something that is'nt elemantal.
Food is physical, God is ephemeral.
You can't discuss God without reference to religion.
I've answered your question succintly, I've even added an example (bus versus child) I view that boys survival as miraculous, you may disagree mathematics could place your answer into the physical realm you relate to, scientists would replicate the angles of entry, the velocity, the road conditions and the atmosphere but would you put that theory to the test? Would you be the guinea pig, your son even?
Please answer that question.
And I've told you, how I'd attempt to.
It's impossible to prove (ultimately) something that is'nt elemantal.
Food is physical, God is ephemeral.
You can't discuss God without reference to religion.
I've answered your question succintly, I've even added an example (bus versus child) I view that boys survival as miraculous, you may disagree mathematics could place your answer into the physical realm you relate to, scientists would replicate the angles of entry, the velocity, the road conditions and the atmosphere but would you put that theory to the test? Would you be the guinea pig, your son even?
Please answer that question.
123 Ah.... I see. You, Waldo and I have been talking about 'truth' which seems to have trickled in from the other thread, and now we're back to this question.
I'm not trying to prove anything, so why would I want to put that theory to the test? You're the one saying that you know your God exists, and as I said, if someone makes extraordinary claims, and expects others to believe him, then the onus is on him to prove the validity of those claims.
Let me ask you the same question with a bit added. Would you put that theory to the test? Would you trust your God to save you?
I'm not trying to prove anything, so why would I want to put that theory to the test? You're the one saying that you know your God exists, and as I said, if someone makes extraordinary claims, and expects others to believe him, then the onus is on him to prove the validity of those claims.
Let me ask you the same question with a bit added. Would you put that theory to the test? Would you trust your God to save you?
The case of bus versus child, the case of love between 2 people, the case of experiences of the "supernatural", the case of the beauty and the wonder of everything around you.
Naomi I tire of asking you questions almost as quickly as you tire of not answering them, I told you, you should enter politics.
I don't dare to define the rationales of God's grace and favours, I lay no claim to be a theologian, but I can try!
I've stated a case for the defence, does the prosecution now rest were I began in stating "it's not their place to prove God does'nt exist"?
You talk of "only 1 truth" I'm a Christian that's my truth, future Mrs. Ev is a Buddhist that's her truth, Waldo's an atheist that's his truth, Keyplus is a Muslim that's his truth. Who are we to doubt them? What business is it of ours? Who appointed us as the moral arbiters of truth in another person's life?
So that's 2 questions from the preceding post and 4 from this one.
Got it?
That's a horible way to end a question is'nt it?
Naomi I tire of asking you questions almost as quickly as you tire of not answering them, I told you, you should enter politics.
I don't dare to define the rationales of God's grace and favours, I lay no claim to be a theologian, but I can try!
I've stated a case for the defence, does the prosecution now rest were I began in stating "it's not their place to prove God does'nt exist"?
You talk of "only 1 truth" I'm a Christian that's my truth, future Mrs. Ev is a Buddhist that's her truth, Waldo's an atheist that's his truth, Keyplus is a Muslim that's his truth. Who are we to doubt them? What business is it of ours? Who appointed us as the moral arbiters of truth in another person's life?
So that's 2 questions from the preceding post and 4 from this one.
Got it?
That's a horible way to end a question is'nt it?
123 The question was how would you go about proving beyond doubt that your God exists? I'm not trying to prove whether your God exists or not. The problem here is that this question has crossed between you, Waldo and I with the debate we were having about 'truth' on the other thread, so you are in fact still thinking of that.
'Got it' wasn't intended to be a horrible way to end the question - it simply meant 'do you understand what I mean?'. My apologies if it came across the wrong way.
If you're marrying a Buddhist, then I would say you're a very lucky man. Good luck to you, and I wish you well.
'Got it' wasn't intended to be a horrible way to end the question - it simply meant 'do you understand what I mean?'. My apologies if it came across the wrong way.
If you're marrying a Buddhist, then I would say you're a very lucky man. Good luck to you, and I wish you well.
I have just made a connection. As I read Keyplus posts' I can hear his voice in my head (or what I imagine his voice to be by his formation of sentences) and it reminds me very much of ...Mohammed Al Fayed!! He doesn't answer questions with real answers but with the 'wrong' answer like he has completely misunderstood everything that has be written, re written and then explained again for the millionth time!!! He chooses not to listen and yet to strongly wave his unstable opinion as if it were fact. He's 100% not open to anything that isn't written in the Qu'ran, even if it's scientifically not true.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Will Starmer - If He Wins - Be A Part...
News6 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
